Assembly Budget Subcommittee No 4 Climate Crisis Resources Energy And Transportation

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. Good morning. Nice to see a full room here. Welcome to Assembly Budget Sub-4. This will likely be our last hearing of the year. Today we hear from the Department of Finance and the LAO, who will provide an overview of the May proposals. We'll also dig into the proposed regulations for Cap and Invest, the program, and their impacts on the subcommittee. If the hearing is still underway at noon, we'll need to break and resume at 1.30 p.m. At the end of all the items, we'll take public comments. As always, members are welcome to ask questions and make comments on any item in the May revision. We have representatives from many, if not all, of the departments in the audience, and we appreciate that. For each of the items on presentation, I'll ask each of the witnesses to introduce themselves before they begin their testimony. Before we begin, I want to thank the Department of Finance and the State Departments for crafting a thoughtful and balanced budget. I especially want to thank the LAO for working over the. weekend to provide us with detailed analysis on the many proposals included in the May revision. I also want to thank the members of the public and the stakeholders for coming to this hearing so that we can truly hear the impacts of these proposals. I also appreciate my colleague, Assemblymember Rogers, being here promptly this morning, and I look forward to working collaboratively with the administration and the Senate over the next few weeks as we try to land this budget on time. And with that, since it's our last, potentially our last hearing, I want to thank two incredible staff people who also worked long hours over the weekend to prepare for this with the May revise coming out on Thursday and over the course of the year do a great job for us in terms of budget. So with that, our first is the overview of the governor's May revision and proposals on transportation, climate change, natural resources, environmental protection, and energy. And I also want to recognize that we have Secretary Crowfoot here, and immediately after their presentation, before we get into questions, we will then go to Secretary Crowfoot for the questions that we might have on areas under his purview. And so with that, if you'll introduce yourself, and we'll go in whatever order the Department of Finance would like to go in.

Good morning, Eamon Albin. I'll be going over the transportation proposals of the budget. And you'll need to be a lot closer with that microphone.

Yes, better. The May revision proposes investments that will enhance California's transportation system, including additional funding to continue the administration's work.

The May revision proposes investments to Oahanks, California's transportation system, including additional funding to continue the administration's work in homeless encampment and litter abatement, as well as investments in the generative artificial intelligence that will result in a safer and smarter transportation network. The May revision also proposes statutory changes to support planning and preparation for the 2028 Games in Los Angeles. Specifically for the Department of Transportation, the May revision proposes $6.2 million general fund for two years to continue the homeless encampment coordinator workload. Those coordinators help connect homeless individuals with state and local services during encampment cleanups on the state right of way. $27.5 million one time from the public transportation account to continue maintaining and restoring state-owned passenger rail equipment. $40 million general fund one time to continue the special program people litter abatement workload in the Clean California program. This funding will support low barrier to entry workforce development jobs. and million one time from the state highway account to fund the Vulnerable Road Users Gen AI Project and Traffic Mobility insights Gen AI projects These projects enable Caltrans to automate and synthesize traffic data to make evidence decisions that will improve traffic flow and road user safety. The main revision also includes two pieces of trailer bill for Caltrans. The first proposed proposal authorizes the use of an automated enforcement system on the state highway system portion of the 2028 games route network. This will help keep the transportation system clear and efficient during the games and will reduce enforcement workload for the California Highway Patrol. The second proposal increases the cap on the state route 710 rehabilitation account from $1.2 million to $15 million. The increase in the cap will allow Caltrans to repair and sell more homes. On the motor vehicle account side of the budget, similar to the governor's budget, the May revision projects that the MVA, the operating account supporting the CHP and DMV, will be insolvent as soon as 2028-29, with a projected fund balance of $196 million and $2627. The May revision reflects approximately a $50 million revenue increase over the governor's budget estimate. This is largely attributable to higher than anticipated driver license fees, vehicle registration renewals, and vehicle sales. Given the ongoing fiscal constraints in the MVA, the May revision limits new spending to necessary augmentations for the CHP and the DMV that will enhance safety and continue the modernization efforts in resource departments for operational cost increases. For the MVA-funded departments, the May revision includes a one-time augmentation for the California Highway Patrol of $40 million in 2627 for equipment and operating costs. This is in addition to the governor's budget proposal for $44.4 million, resulting in total funding of $84 million in 2627. It also includes one-time increase of $3.1 million to upgrade their wireless mobile video audio recording system and body-worn camera system to 5G. For the Department of Motor Vehicles, for their MVA proposals, the May revision includes a one-time augmentation of $24.5 million from the MVA for operational cost increases regarding facilities and attorney general fees. For the mobile driver's license program, the May revision includes a one-time augmentation of $5 million to expand the MDL project that allows California residents to obtain a digital mobile driver's license or identification card that can be accessed through their smartphone. The May revision also includes trailer bill to remove the cap on the mobile driver license pilot participants. Given the condition of the MVA, the DMV is also proposing trailer bill language for various efficiencies to modernize its department and to reduce costs. DMV has identified various departmental functions that may be streamlined or eliminated, which require statutory changes to effectuate. The proposed efficiencies include eliminating driver license courtesy renewal notices and other notices, eliminating the required printing of driver handbooks, and modernizing customer communications and specified renewals, and updating title definitions and requirements. Lastly, for the DMV, the budget includes $4.1 million to relocate at San Clemente Field Office. Additionally, there are some myriad other requests that are non-MVA and other smaller departments. I have colleagues and department representatives here to talk about those. And so with that, I'll hand it over to my colleague, Andrew March.

Thank you very much. We'll go to the LAO.

Excuse me, I'm going to interrupt you.

Let's just go back to that one because I didn't want to lose that.

What's the difference between setting aside $10 billion in the surplus fund versus putting it into the reserve?

And does the governor have restrictions on how that money in the surplus account can be used relative to how the money in the reserve account can be used?

Okay. Go ahead.

Just stay on your microphone there.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

And our understanding is that when this account was set up, it was really to reflect the uncertainty and volatility in our revenues. If maybe revenues may come in higher, we might think they may come in higher. They may be lower. So let's have this. And that's why it's called the temporary surplus holding account. It's this idea that if funding comes in higher, we will have it available. I think in our view, the use of this where it's already dedicated for existing commitments is a little different than that. And then, as I mentioned, there's about a billion in new discretionary funding in the mayor vision. So now turning to the resources and transportation proposals. Overall, the framework is really the same that we presented to you in January, those guiding principles and advice. I'll just give you a few examples of how you could apply it and how we would view recommending applying it to some of the mayor vision proposals. So as you recall, we recommended rejecting new discretionary spending proposals, especially from the general fund, unless they meet very pressing health and safety concerns or immediate needs, even if they have a lot of merits just given the budget condition. So some of those discretionary proposals in May that we don't view as meeting that high bar include $40 million for Clean California in the transportation space, $25 million for the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program, $12 million for Museum of Tolerance. Again, a lot of merits to some of these activities, but in the case of a budget deficit, any new spending comes at the expense of existing spending, and we don't view these as meeting that high bar. There are some in here that we do think would, for example, the Department of Food and Agriculture plant health and pest prevention. That's $10 million ongoing. Even though it's ongoing general fund, we think that that really does meet a pressing health and safety need. You may recall we also talked about options for downsizing or looking at options for downsizing or seeking alternative fund sources. Again, there's some proposals here where you could think about doing that. Raising fees, for example, for some of the parks proposals. looking at using state transportation funding for the homeless encampment coordinator proposal on the transportation side. Always trade with these types of activities and actions but we do think it worth considering On the Proposition 4 side we continue to recommend that you ensure that those expenditures meet your highest legislative priorities. This was a legislative bond. So as was mentioned, the biggest new proposal is $125 million for the Golden Gate Fields project. We recommend acquisition. We recommend you think about whether that is a high priority. That's quite a lot of funding, but it is a project with a lot of merits. And then as you think about specific proposals, we just would recommend that you think about not only in the specific proposal before you, but how they might affect future years given what we see as the deficit. So as we talked about at great length last week, the motor vehicle count has a structural imbalance. There's now new spending proposals for you before you, another 73 million from the motor vehicle count just in May. And similar to what we talked about last week, most of that is for ongoing activities, even though it's being presented before you as a one-time activity. So it's important that CHP and DMV are able to meet their operational needs, but thinking carefully about what that means about the future. We would give that same caution on the parks front, that there are some proposals before you that, again, have merit for the budget proposal specifically. but thinking about the ongoing deferred maintenance, the ongoing operations and just basic maintenance at parks, thinking about as you're expanding, acquiring different parks, how will the state be able to sustain those moving forward? Those types of kind of long-term questions we think would be important to have in front of mind. And I know you're going to be talking about GGRF later in the agenda, so we'll have additional comments then. But just at a high level, there's so much uncertainty right now about the GGRF, both because of auction revenues influx, but also because of the proposed regulations before CARB. So I think our overarching recommendation there is that you start planning for multiple different scenarios, revenue scenarios. What would you do if the state had $2 billion? What would be your highest priorities? What would you do if the state had, you know, an additional $500 million coming in above that? How would you spend that? That maybe the SB 840 framework that was adopted last year with a different set of assumptions about revenues may still be reflect your priorities, but may not. So starting to think about alternatives at this point. That happy to answer questions. And my team is here from the LAO as well.

You're congratulating the silver lining.

I'm going to ask both of you. Right. OK. Yeah. Go ahead. Glad to answer that question directly. And huge thanks for your leadership on everything from Proposition 4, which is providing so much important funding across the state, to your oversight of our budget. So let me just explain what is a very complicated process at the highest level. So the way I see it, we are on borrowed time to build water reliability for our communities and our economy and to improve environmental conditions in our rivers. An important component of that is the Water Board updating what's called the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan, essentially standards for the Sacramento River system, the San Joaquin River system coming through the Delta to protect beneficial uses. And that includes conditions for fish and wildlife and water for communities and agriculture. The Water Board is essentially overdue on adopting this plan, and it's been working diligently to do so. The draft plan that the Water Board has put out calls for a program to implement this standard update. It's called Healthy Rivers and Landscapes. What it involves is water agencies leaving water in the river and funding habitat improvements, and then the state in the form of Department of Water Resources, our agency, as well as the federal government, also making investments in restoring flows and restoring habitat. This is a really important approach from my point of view. I've been working on it for eight years for a couple of important reasons. One, the traditional regulatory approach that the water board would have has essentially one variable, and that is the flow in the river. Flow is important for environmental conditions and for fish and wildlife, but it's not the only variable that impacts our environment. Important is habitat restoration, for example, and science and monitoring and adaptive management. This Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program that's before you now, this $25 million appropriation, represents a more holistic approach to implement that regulatory update. So specifically to your question, the Department of Water Resources is essentially an implementer of that program of implementation. The Water Board retains a completely separate regulatory oversight. So on many things, whether it's the Salton Sea or different projects across the state, Actually, we are subject to the Water Board as our regulator. So the Water Board has a regulation that it's working to finalize. One pathway is this Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program for water agencies that subscribe to that program and make enforceable commitments for water flow habitat. The other is the more traditional regulatory pathway for water agencies that are not part of that program called Unimpaired Flow, specifically reducing diversions for flow. So from our perspective, this Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program is really important as a new approach to meet that environmental regulatory standard. But certainly we are very separate and remain under the clear regulatory oversight of the Water Board in implementing that program.

regulations? Absolutely not. So being part of the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program requires that those water agencies specifically sign up to enforceable diversion reductions, as well as investments in habitat. So at one point, this Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program was called the Voluntary Agreements because water agencies, the state and federal government came together voluntarily to propose this new way. There is nothing voluntary about the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program. It is an enforceable program of implementation.

Sonia Pettig with the Legislative Analyst's Office. And our office actually recently released a report going over this very program. And we would agree that there are definitely some potential benefits of this program in that the water board on its own does not have the ability to require habitat projects. So from that perspective, this program could offer that benefit that it would increase flows to some degree, and it would also provide habitat projects. We have some other comments about the proposal before you specifically, but if you wanted to, I don't know when you want us to make comments about that.

Okay. So first, I would say that in the context of the general fund condition and the comments that my colleague Ms. Ehlers just made, we do not find that this proposal meets the high bar for meeting health and safety needs. The second point that we would make is that the Water Board has not yet adopted the updated Bay Delta plan. So in some ways, this proposal might be a bit premature. The board has indicated it might adopt the plan sometime this fall, but we're still not sure about that. They've been trying to update this plan since this part of the plan since 2012. So the fact that, you know, we don't know exactly when it's going to be adopted. And then the third point that we would make is that in the funding plan put forward by the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program participants, it implies that the state had fulfilled its funding commitments already, close to $1.5 billion. Some of this depends on how funding and habitat acreage is counted So for example you might have a multi plan that provides flood benefits but then some of the acreage associated with that plan might also be able to be counted toward this program. So there's a little bit of, I think, confusion, at least for our office, about what specific funding and what specific acreage is sort of being counted as the state's commitment to this program. So our recommendation is that before agreeing to commit additional funding to the program, the legislature would really benefit from some clarity on what has the state already provided. And then what is the magnitude of what the state will be expected to provide over the eight year term of this program? We certainly understand that the administration can't say, well, we're going to be requesting X number of dollars this year, X number next year. But I think the legislature at least deserves to know, is it going to be roughly $25 million every year that they're requesting for eight years? Or is next year going to be $100 million? Like, what's the sort of magnitude of what will be expected of the state going forward?

Yeah, no, I appreciate that. I would start by reminding us that just over three years ago, six million Californians were underwater rationing. And had we not had big storms six weeks later, we were actively preparing for over half of Californians to be underwater rationing. That was at the same time that our salmon populations plummeted from already unhealthy levels. So we are on borrowed time. We have made investments, and the legislature has supported hundreds of millions of dollars of investments in early implementation, in expanding habitat, restoring habitat, and getting flows back in the river. We have to continue that. I completely recognize and appreciate the fiscal challenges that we have. I would argue that our water reliability and environmental balance is not a nice-to-have, it's a have-to-have. So from our perspective, this funding continues early implementation that is already on the ground. This program is complicated but not unclear. We have specific legally enforceable commitments for specific numbers of acre feet that get put back in the river or allowed to flow through our tributaries and our main stems of the river. and specifically the number of acres of habitat restoration, both by watershed but also by type, spawning habitat, rearing habitat, et cetera. So we would be glad to sit down with the LAO. And, of course, you all deal with so many issues and complexity. It's understandable that clarification could be beneficial. But I'm very clear. We can explain down to an acre foot of water and an acre of habitat restoration what we've accomplished as a result of early implementation. and what we can accomplish with this $25 million.

Yeah. So it's a good question that we have made investments based on estimates that we had many years in the past around how much funding it would take to secure a certain amount of environmental flows and habitat. Like everything, those costs have escalated. So we have Thankfully we have Secured the majority Of environmental Flows that are required Under the Healthy Rivers and Landscape Program and we well on our way with habitat We can break down with specifics how much more funding is needed, but we believe that easily the majority of funding that is required for the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes has already been secured. Can you identify how much money has come from non-state sources to complement this? Yeah. I don't have that number off the top of my head,

payer revenue to invest in habitat improvements. I believe they are required to invest over $500 million in this Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program, but we can get you the specific number.

I just don't have those with you available at this point in time.

So specifically to what the state's provided is that the state has provided, through with the support from the legislature, $560 million directly for healthy rivers and landscapes. The Department of Water Resources has been able to leverage additional funding to help meet the state's goal. But I think one thing that I would encourage the legislature to think about is this isn't a funding commitment.

At the end of the day, this is not a funding commitment. It's a defined scope requirement for the state and the other parties in the Healthy Rivers and Lansky.

Defined scope requirement. So it's a requirement that we provide a certain number of acre feet of water and that we provide a certain number of acres of habitat. The MOU that was signed back in 2022 outlines assumptions about costs or estimates, but as Secretary Crowfoot noted, those costs have escalated exponentially. So if we were to think about it of that we've met our funding commitment, that would not meet the spirit or the actual goals of the program where we're putting water back in the rivers and also providing new habitat.

I might just make one comment that I haven't made yet, which is it could seem like the path of least resistance is to abandon this healthy rivers and landscapes approach and just leave it to the regulator to do what the regulator has done. The challenge with that is that approach, when advanced eight years ago, very clearly identified draconian water cuts to water agencies across the state. the Sacramento Valley, the San Joaquin Valley, the Bay Area, the greater Los Angeles and Southern California. So this third way that we have identified, again, an enforceable program under the oversight of the Water Board, is critically important because it can restore the environment. It's based on robust science and it can build water security. So I just want to be clear that our failure to implement healthy rivers and landscapes and diverting to a traditional regulatory approach would have major impacts on the water reliability across the state for water agencies. And this $25 million gets us started, but only started. Well, yes. And I'll say, again, we have been involved in early implementation because these are no regrets investments. More environmental flows into the river, more habitat just makes sense. We need to do it to restore our environment. This helps us get started in the first year of implementation The draft plan that the Water Board has put out has Healthy Rivers and Landscapes as a program of implementation We anticipate that we will be in a position come 2027 to be implementing this An important part of this funding is to stand up the science program. Scientific monitoring, transparently shared, that shapes adaptive management. It's something we haven't done in water management in California, but we need to do given the dynamic changes driven by climate change.

I was just, Sonia Peddick again with the LAO. I was just going to add that this particular proposal, the whole program doesn't ride on this particular proposal. So the legislature could consider waiting to approve additional funding until it has a bit more information about what the funding commitments might be over the course of the eight-year program, and in particular because the water board hasn't actually officially adopted the updated Bay Delta plan.

Yeah, it's an important question, and it's one that has a very clear answer. The state water board retains its absolute authority as the regulator under the Porter Cologne state law. It is required to enforce certain standards that it updates through this plan update. The Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program is a program of implementation. It will be monitored throughout its eight-year span. There is a very clear process for identifying whether this specific required investment of acre fleet back into the river and acres of habitat has a biological outcome towards the recovery of immoral species. If it does not, there is a very clear regulatory backstop. So we don't start again in a big, long, multi-year process. The water board can then implement that traditional regulatory approach. And in fact, before the end of the eight years, there's an assessment period, which we call sort of a red light, yellow light, green light, where we understand if these investments of flow and habitat are having their intended outcomes, great, green light, we look at expanding or extending it. If it's a yellow light, it's a little unclear, then it's in a holding pattern. And if it's a red light, meaning it's not moving in the right direction fast enough, then it's a faster pathway to the regulatory approach. As I said, the easiest approach as government would be to continue to do what we've done for the last several decades. The challenge is it hasn't Our fish and wildlife need help and our communities and economy need water security. So that is this approach. But rest assured, and like I said, on the Salton Sea and the Department of Water Resources operating the state water project, it is very clearly subject to state law and the regulatory constructs that the Water Board enforces.

Well, I'll share and then I'll turn it to Andrew. This funding, I think it's $3 million of the 25, is really important to set up the scientific program. So that is certain fixed costs or essentially initial costs. So from our perspective, year one of the eight-year program is really important. We have certain flow commitments that we have to achieve in year one, and we have to get going on the scientific monitoring. So, yes, there will be monitoring resources needed later, but from our perspective, this is an important initial investment.

What would be the consequences if we followed the LAO's recommendation and just waited until more information was pulled together, et cetera?

This is $25 million. dollars, you have much larger issues. But I can tell you, I have spent more time on this program than I have on any single project over the last year, last eight years, because I have watched water conflict between environmental advocates and water agencies destroy our water sustainability. And this is a third path And I feel with all the integrity I can muster in this job this is the path forward So this million is really important It's a small amount of money, but it gives us the momentum moving into this program that we desperately need. I appreciate that, and I appreciate your patience for the program. $25 million is a lot of money, but a small percentage of this huge budget that we have. But because we have such clear recommendations here from LAO, I think it was very appropriate for us to spend the time on these questions. I want to give LAO any final thing that you would like to say about this, everything you've heard.

Any members have— Assemblymember, welcome to Assemblymember Elias.

in my county. Thank you. We didn't specifically say it that way, but it certainly has been alluded to in terms of the conflict. And that really brings us to at least, well, I just saw I'm going to let these folks before I summarize here.

The question that I have might really help get to the point, and I think some of the points that the LAO is talking about. What if this fall that they don't come up with the plan and we stay locked in political gridlock like we have been locked in? What happens then?

So tell me what happens if gridlock continues, though, and the plan and the standards in the plan are not adopted. Well, I would say if I mean, I'm a little little I appreciate your question.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Assemblymember.

And go ahead. Yeah, I'll just highlight and underscore and clarify. The state has already committed one point five billion dollars. So that's not on the future. That's what the state is already in on. So we're down the road on this. And I think if you read our report, you know, we do see a lot of benefits of this approach. I think what we're highlighting in this context is, you know, given your overall budget framework and some of the new information is coming out, I think we have some fundamental questions about, well, what are the expectations for additional state commitment? And what is the state role as compared to the local role as this moves forward? And those are some kind of big questions from a fiscal perspective, as well as a program outcome perspective. If the state's in a fiscal position where it can't meet that commitment, then what? So trying to have some greater clarity around where are we going from here as we have already started down this road and the state has already put in quite a bit of money from the state budget.

I'll just be super brief. We have gained real momentum on a pathway that promises to build water security for our communities and improve the environment. And I've been working on California water for 20 years, and I can tell you that there hasn't been an opportunity like this. That's why the governor and legislature have made those big investments to date in early implementation of the program. There's no regrets to getting more flows in the river, habitat built, all towards these shared goals. From my perspective, we need to demonstrate to the water board that we continue to maintain momentum on funding our commitments. and then we fully anticipate our commitments coming due on January 1st. So this is an important down payment.

This is one I'm passionate about, too, so I'm glad to answer the question.

Cost per acre? It would be $175 million divided by 161. That's what I've been doing.

The BCP states the expected total cost of the acquisition would be $175 million. Trust for Public Lands anticipates securing $50 million.

Well, I can tell you this, and just to give a little context on the project, a paragraph, big projects are clearly possible in California. Klamatham removal, the world's largest wildlife crossing in Southern California, the LA Historic Park, which was a huge investment in open space in the middle of Los Angeles. This 161-acre opportunity is another one of those big transformational investments, which is why the administration is really supporting the work of the community in Trust for Public Land. Trust for Public Land is really focused on raising as much philanthropic support as it can for the park. It doesn't have a clear committed number at this point. We anticipate that it can raise upwards of $5 million or more. So our focus is, as the Newsom administration, through this revised budget, is proposing an amount of money that we believe essentially gets us, puts us in a position to succeed. I think we, although it remains to be seen really through the fall, what amount of money will be raised by philanthropy.

Yeah, great. So the appraised value is $175 million. An appraisal was completed a month or so ago, and we have completed an independent review of the appraisal. And the appraisal package is now at Department of General Services.

$175 million.

Well, I would almost turn to my colleagues who lead the Wildlife Conservation Board and the Coastal Conservancy. There's no scientific formula for exactly when and where. Part of it is opportunity based. So we clearly have our shared priorities, expanding outdoor access for communities and expanding conservation through 30 by 30. Those are both well established through the legislature and the governor And then we as agencies are always looking for opportunities to actually make progress on those So has this gone through the wildlife board prioritization ranking

reviewing the, good morning, Jennifer Norris, executive director of the wildlife conservation board. We are looking at the application and reviewing this. Of course, we support the governor's priorities, and we're bringing this through our process, but we're still in the middle of that process as we speak. Right, Amy? Yes, we've received grant applications from the Trust for

you know, the Crissy Field of the East Bay shoreline. So in summary, you're saying that this would rank very high in a competitive process. It didn't necessarily go through a competitive process, but in your estimation, it would rank very high. It is ranking very high, and they did submit a grant application a month or two ago. Great. Thank you. Any other similar?

Yeah, we have been Trust for Public Land, East Bay Regional Park District, the state agencies. We have been in discussions with the landowners for a while. But really, it took getting to a completed appraisal that made it through the independent review and Trust for Public Land entering into an option agreement with the landowners with timeframes for close of escrow and transfer of the property to East Bay Park. So in January, we were not quite there.

Yeah I think the million of Prop 4 funding demonstrates the commitment of the state and gets the funding gap down to an amount that is reasonable for Trust for Public Land and East Bay Parks to raise from philanthropic dollars private dollars East Bay Parks also has funding in a previous measure they did that designated for Golden Gate Fields and their other local and regional public funding sources.

Yeah, I think there is a section of Bay Trail that goes alongside the racetrack now. East Bay Parks built that many years ago. But this provides an opportunity for a really community-driven park planning process. That was a lot of Ps. with the engagement of the cities of Albany and Berkeley. I mean, even the cities of Richmond and Oakland that are at either end of East Shore State Park, the involvement of tribes and going through a planning process. About 20 years ago, there was a master plan for East Shore State Park that included looking at Golden Gate Fields. So going back to that master plan involving many of the people involved with that and refreshing it based on the community interest today. But I could imagine some wetlands restoration, open space, active recreation, trails, you know, 161 acres in a very urban setting. There's a lot of opportunities.

That was a military base that had hardscape up to the shore. And now it's obviously built sort of natural integration with the bay, but a lot of access and recreation as well. I think we're committed to it being a community-driven process. but also because WCB and the Coastal Conservancy are involved, I have confidence it would have those sort of nature-based solution features that are going to help us address storm surge and sea level rise and restore coastal habitat, which is one of the most imperiled ecosystems that we're working to restore.

Yes. When the state, WCB or the Coastal Conservancy or another state agency puts funds into an acquisition, we have a deed restriction that lists the purposes of the acquisition. And, you know, we will negotiate with Trust for Public Land and East Bay Parks on those exact purposes. But it is going to be a set of things like park uses, public access. Habitat restoration will be a requirement. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, I'll just share that we agree. We need to identify and expand open space where there's a lack of it. And so certainly that's our approach, and it's kind of a portfolio approach. You may have heard that the governor or know that the governor on Earth Day announced the creation of three new parks in the Central Valley, specifically because we don't we don't have that many parks in the Central Valley state parks. That is as well as as an initiative to add 30,000 acres of land into existing state parks, including many in rural areas. The really interesting portion of this, interesting aspect of this is low cost or very low, very low cost or no cost acquisition because we have conservation partners that have preserved this. So we're very focused and it's very much of a portfolio approach. So it's it's open space in urban areas that have high populations as well as in more rural areas.

So it went through, they submitted a grant application. We don't rank projects against each other. It's a rolling grant application process. So we identified it as a priority. We do not have sufficient funds in our FY2526 appropriation of Prop 4 or in the amount that was in the January governor's budget. There was just over $30 million of coastal resilience funds for the conservancy in the January budget. So we could say it's high ranking, but we would not have the funding at this level to put into it without this appropriation.

Well, I would just say on WCB's perspective, we recognize this is an important project. We have been tracking it and following as they've been developing their purchase agreement and recognizing we're going to want to put money toward this project at some point in time. The timing was uncertain. We've sort of gotten past that at this stage. I think we're in less of a position where we need this allocation. We could find the funding for this project, but I do recognize there's a broader need. But in either case, it's from the same pot.

I think I just would add that part of it is a timing thing. So there's a window by when the option has to be exercised. And I think given the magnitude and the potential benefit of the project, there's an interest in prioritizing it high, making sure that the state's sort of maximum possible contribution is available for the project so that this opportunity to exercise the purchase option and to close escrow doesn't slip away because we didn't have it budgeted correctly. And I do want to just emphasize as well that it is a maximum contribution, the language in there. We've heard there's a lot of interest from a lot of different parties in this property, and we truly do hope that folks will go and talk to people. If you've got relationships, you've got interest, if you're trying to minimize Prop 4 impact, go talk to people. Drum up the interest. Get the support out there. We can reduce the amount of Prop 4 that's necessary.

I would just say two things. One is the Coastal Conservancy needs an additional appropriation and it the combined funding of WCB and the Coastal Conservancy So there actually a material need for the change But then I also share that big transformational projects that you know we take for granted now huge state parks or things like our kids will take for granted, like Klamath Dam removal, required legislative and governor intervention at certain times to actually activate funding very quickly, given time-limited horizons. So I mentioned the L.A. Historic Park in downtown L.A. or the Wildlife Crossing. Those were instances where those and Klamath, those projects would not have gotten done had they relied on navigating the usual processes. Sometimes leaders have to come together and move quickly to get big things done.

Great. Thank you. Assemblymember Wilson.

Great. I appreciate that. And certainly this is a great project and nobody's disparaging whether it's a great project or not. But I think what you're partially sensing is that Prop 4 was very much a creature of the assembly. It was not supported by the administration in terms of going forward with it. And so there's a real, I feel a real responsibility to the people in the assembly who have been sitting there anxiously trying to get some part of Prop 4 and having so much demand. It's almost unlimited. So great project. Not just demand, but opposition from the administration on how we want to use it. Well, I was trying to be, yes. Not just demand, but some resistance. Yeah, so now basically the administration comes and says, hey, this is a good project, and we have to think about it. And this is money that can be used for other things, and it doesn't mean this project doesn't go forward. Because if we didn't do this, you could still have some combination coming from the Coastal Conservancy and WCB to help, and it may not be $125 million. It may not be officially designated, but there's some things. So, again, we're only raising all those things to sort of highlight that. It's a good proposal. It's a good use of money. I think we have partners that say that. But is it the best use of the money? What's the opportunity cost of doing this versus not doing something else? So it takes me – there's one important question I have. Who owns the land now? The Stronach Group, I think they own other horse tracks in the United States. Okay. Well, that has all kinds of complications when you raise that. But okay, so I think we've expressed our concerns there. LAO, I think rightly asked, is this our priority use in terms of going forward? But I want to let a LAO, do you have any comments about this?

Great. So this is one of those projects we will just keep going back and forth trying to get information, letting you continue to make the case for the project and us continuing to try to evaluate this relative to the other requests that are out there. And some of those requests are going to come in another year And I would point out that one other complication just like on the first item that we just heard getting it done while you here has some value in that the continuity of going forward with the voluntary agreements This one will have the complication of you won't be here and the administration won't be. We'll have a new administration in terms of moving this forward and stuff as we go forward. But because you said this is one that's really important to you, I always love to give you the opportunity to close.

Thank you very much. Really appreciate that. We're going to move on to the Salton. So we're going to move on. The Salton Sea item, we are going to move over. We're going to go to transportation, and we're going to pick the pace up here. Those were two bigger items that had significant need for us to have these questions. But the Games Route Network, Caltrans, and the Clean California Litter Abatement Program are the two items we'd like to discuss right now. I don't know if we have anybody from the administration here, but I'm going to start with, well, is he coming? There we go. Here they come. We don't need a long listing of the details. We need your rationale because we want to get right into our questions if we can. Right. Okay. So go ahead. Introduce yourself and give us the rationale for your proposals here.

We have a few questions about that.

And LAO has a reject recommendation, and can you give us your rationale for that?

Over what period of time? I believe Clean California has been around since 22-23, so it's over a four or five-year period. Great. Thank you. So, LAO has had a very clear standard for us that we've asked them, they've suggested and we have agreed from here to apply, which is, does this really, is this a need or a very nice to have? So certainly when we say, hey, something is something we question, it doesn't mean that it's not very good for California who wants to say you're opposed to litter abatement, right? We want to do litter abatement. But does this meet that high bar? And LAO says it doesn't meet the high bar. We're going to give you an opportunity to explain to us why does it meet the high bar.

So is this a one-time investment?

So just like we spent $1.2 billion and that was sort of not ongoing, now we have another $40 million. Do we need an ongoing budget program for litter abatement?

Yes. Right. Okay. Assemblymember, do you look like you're getting ready to say something?

All right. All right. I want to just very quickly ask these questions. What's the total funding needed to complete the network, including already appropriated funds?

So you need $200 million more. It's $370 million total.

What transportation funding sources do you think will absorb these costs?

We don't know yet. Okay, great. We're going to move to the homeless encampment coordinators with Caltrans. I'm going to jump right to the LAO report. And go ahead, give us your quick version.

So where's the report?

You need to be closer to the microphone, please.

Any members have comments about this program? All right. But yeah I think it hard to deal with this when we have a report that was supposed to be due in January and here we are in May and we still don have that report I think that that makes it more difficult to do this evaluation so it would be helpful to get that information. But I do think the case being made by LAO, that this is an ongoing part of the cost. It's not like we're going to do this one time and then it'd be over with. It's going to continue to be a problem, and we should investigate trying to do that. We're going to jump down to the DMV MBA proposal that is out there. And this is a significant, this is another significant hit on the MBA after we already talked about a big significant hit of 60 million. So you've got an uphill advocacy in front of you here. So I'm going to let you give us your two-minute version as to why you should get $73 million more in one-time expenditures.

Is that what you like? Sure.

Sure. Take your time.

Any questions we can ask for you? Sure. we had these efficiency cuts being made. And now with these programs, we're turning around and asking for money to make up for the efficiency cuts. I mean, that's what the efficiency cuts were supposed to be to sort of say, hey, find ways to squeeze down and do it better. And then we're doing it with a program that we know has a structural deficit in it and going to be a problem. So we're draining all the surplus out of the MVA account to backfill the efficiency cuts. I'm having a lot of trouble with this as being a good long-term move for us. We've not had the willingness to take on the challenge of the MVA structural deficit. and we fortunately have because of some recent revenue increases that were not expected have built up some reserve there And we're using all the reserve right now this year, $60 million and now $73 million. This is one that we're going to have to look at, I think, really hard going forward. LAO, do you want to have comments about this?

Stay on that microphone. You don't have to look at me. All right.

So the LAO's evaluation is that these are essential needs that need to be funded?

All right. Members, any questions or comments?

But what's being asked for here are operational costs, right?

I don't think that there's a suggestion that we shouldn't fund essential I think it does. When we do do this and we drain a count almost down to zero and we know we have a structural deficit next year, I think it is important for us to say we have a problem and we need to find a way to get this fixed.

So then how do we fix it? That's the question. The question is, how do we fix this? So you're saying we created this problem.

And nobody here has suggested doing that.

Thank you. So does anybody else have anything on this? All right. We're going to move on. and LAO has done a great job of identifying a number of things about all of these various proposals. If we had more time, we'd go through each one of those, but it's important for us to get on to the cap and invest regulations that are out there. So we're going to move over to... Sure, yeah. And so it's important that we move on. So let's go ahead and get board member comments about this as we're in this transition. So I have Assemblymember Wilson, Assemblymember Rogers, Assemblymember—everybody needs to make their comments about these board items.

We're doing cap and invest next. Right now we're doing member closing comments on the budget proposals that we just were through.

Okay. Okay.

to our next budget year and trying to address that in cooperation with the administration Those are the only comments I have Thank you to the chair Thank you I appreciate that I going to make a comment here We have lots of challenges in front of us It hard to overestimate how big these challenges are in terms of the structural deficit we have. And we can sort of make hay with any one of these issues, but we will have tremendous political difficult decisions to make ahead of us. And we can all sit there and talk about this favorite program or that favorite program, and we're the great defenders of that program. I would offer our responsibility is to point out where these challenges are and where our most difficult political decisions are. I certainly don't want to have the implication that any of us are saying cut the highway patrol account. And that, I think, just because we're pointing out we have a structural deficit in the MVA and we need to fix it doesn't mean we're saying we want to cut that. And nobody, no one person gets to say they're the defender who stops a cut in the highway patrol. Nobody up here has suggested cutting the highway patrol. But we are suggesting we have a problem and we can keep just kicking it down the road and not making hard decisions or we need to start making hard decisions. And so with that, I'm going to turn to my other colleagues for their general comments about this, and then I'm going to close with my general comments about the budget overall. So this is budget may revise comments overall that you'd like to make.

Okay, great. Assemblymember Rogers.

for getting that on the record. I'm going to go ahead and make these comments and I'll turn over to my colleagues. And we've had lots of careful deliberation this spring about these budget items that are in front of us. There are a few that I think really stand out in my mind. Clean trucks and buses, the HVIT program needs to be funded in addition to the light duty EV program that is out there. I think that the truck industry is right at a tipping point in terms of electric vehicles moving forward and trying to jumpstart. That's important. Home hardening, we've had many conversations about. My colleague, Assemblymember Rogers and I, and Connelly in particular, have been very focused on the home hardening. Helping low-income Californians have access to fruits and vegetables at the farmers markets and with the California Nutrition Incentive Program. It's been a very, very valuable program. Heat pumps and incentives to reduce emissions and indoor air pollutants in homes with heat pumps is something that I think we should have some funding for. Local food assistant purchasing program, connecting farmers to food banks, maintaining positions and proposals for the elimination of the departments in CNRA and Cal EPA. I think we should reject those and keep those positions. Restoring funding for transit, fulfilling our commitments on SB 125. The transit agencies planned for that money. They made those plans, and for us not to follow through puts them in a real bind. Electric landscaping equipment, I think has been a very productive and successful program statewide. I had a chance to look and make sure that the dollars were being spread around the state, and they are. And then finally, helping small businesses comply with state goals to the California Green Business Program. Those are all things that I think we should have some significant conversation about in terms of trying to move forward. Do my colleagues over here have any comments on budget? May revise.

Assemblymember Gallagher.

Is that right? Correct.

Thank you. And really appreciate recognition of how difficult these decisions are. All of these things, all these priorities end up competing with one another. And we do need to do a better job in terms of the structural deficit that is out there. I will end with this, and that is, unfortunately, at the national level, my perception is we've given up in terms of trying to balance the budget. We have given up in terms of being responsible in terms of spending. We haven't balanced the budget at the national level since 1995. Both parties have not been able to pull that off. The last time we were able to do that was in 1995. We now have a national debt that exceeds our GDP for the year. That's always a signal of a great power starting to lose its economic bearings and foundation and always a sign of decline that comes in after that. We haven't been responsible there. It's difficult, but it's the sooner we end structural deficit issues here in California, the better off Californians will be in the long run, even though there will be short-term pain. And with that, we're going to move over to the overview of the California Air Resources Board cap and invest regulations and possible impacts. So if we'll have people approach. And I going to start with our introductory comments mine and then those from the other members right Thank you very much I'm going to start off. This is, I think, really important and something that's one of the major issues that I've been focused on since I've arrived here. And I view the whole GGRF funding, the whole cap and invest program that we call it now, as its major goal has been to reduce admissions, to protect disadvantaged communities in particular that have the most impacts, the most serious impacts. But for us to do our job in terms of meeting and playing our role in terms of the whole global climate change effort. So we should be focused on decreasing emissions. And yes, there are impacts as we move forward. But I've been asked over and over again to sign on to various areas to try to increase GGRF revenues moving forward. And I haven't done that because in this role, I think we really have to focus on the primary responsibility is to decrease admissions. The secondary goal is to take the revenue from that and use that revenue to help us decrease admissions. We've gotten far afield from that particular area now. And I'm particularly this year with what's happened between January and now, I'm really disheartened with CARB's rhetoric about this. CARB is actually using the language of saying we're providing $4 billion in the industry through the MDI, the Manufacturer's Decarbonization Incentive. We're providing the climate credit. We're taking it from $8 billion to $10 billion. As if these programs were designed to try to raise revenue to help these industries. These were communicated with almost a complete disregard, I think, for the primary role, which is admissions. And it's, I think, concerning because it's the legislators' role to appropriate money. It's not CARB's role to appropriate money. And we do that through the Budget Act. We did this with statute SB 840. And I think I feel like CARB's sort of gone around that process with this. So CARB could have proposed a budget process to us, and we could have had a healthy discussion about whether we wanted to fund SB 840 like it was. appropriated. But these proposals do two things, I think. They duplicate the tax credits and incentives that we already have out there for the industry, right? And at the same time, they take away our ability to vet what's the best move. Should we have $2 billion over five years? should we give that to climate credit? Or should Californians say, hey we want million to spend on wildfire prevention or some other program But with CARB the way CARB allocated resources CARB actually took that away from the legislature And I am objecting to that and think CARB should think twice about that before the CARB board actually tries to, before the CARB board actually votes on whether to accept this proposal or not. We need to lower utility bills in California, but investing in wildfire prevention is one of the ways to lower utility bills because we decrease the liability and the amount of money that the electric companies have to spend. A 10 cent a year discount per person is cutting out $200 million of wildfire prevention funding. The legislature last year, through the transmission financing investment, we said that the best way for us to lower electricity bills is to reduce cost and lower the drivers of those costs so we can get a better return. We said that cost of living is really an important issue. We look at the highest cost in California and its housing. And yet, because of the CARB proposals, we're going to defund the affordable housing program part of GGRF. The high price of gasoline in the country, we're going to face that for the next few months because of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. Now's the time to invest in transit. Now's the time to invest in zero-admission vehicles to lower those costs. Yet we're cutting our investments in transit. We're cutting our investments in ZEV vehicles, again, when we have these rising prices for gasoline. So I hope those CARB members will consider the programs that they're defunding if they adopt the allowance and the structures that they have recently proposed. And with that, I'll turn it over to my colleagues for any initial comments about GGRF as we go forward. All right.

All right. Yep.

I appreciate your passion on this issue. I will offer a caution in terms of the language being used up here needs to be professional and needs to respect the decorum of this place. I'll call that out more strongly if it happens again. At the same time, I would point out, while we have an agreement about some frustration with CARB's decisions, if we politically want to do something, we have to have 41 votes in the Assembly to do it. So we have to pull it together if we want to do something different. That's That's what the process is. So it's not these people's fault that we may or may not have exerted ourselves. It's our fault. So we are not attacking you folks at all personally in any way. We have some frustration with the recent CARB changes, particularly the changes from January. In January, we were at one spot, felt like we were implementing sort of much of the legislators. And then I think as a result of a lot of interactions with industry, CARB took a different proposal, took a different tact in terms of doing this. And it dramatically cuts the funding available. And that's sort of a decision that we ought to be making. We could easily we could take the same two billion dollars, which I'm estimating the same two billion dollars that we're losing in revenue. And you could have given it to us. We could have said, hey, do we want to use that two billion dollars to buy down electricity rates? Or do we want to do this and do wildfire prevention or any of these other things? Um, that's the option that I think we're frustrated with. And the question is whether we will organize ourselves, whether there are 41 votes in the assembly to organize ourselves to do something different. That's not at all certain. All right. That, that there are 41 votes to do that. Assembly member Rogers.

a number of questions as we go forward. Is there anything you want to say at the, all right, you got a question, but no introductory comments outside of what you've already said. Yeah. Got it. Okay, great. Um, and, and, um,

I sent it to your chief of staff.

Yeah, the week after, a couple days after.

Unfortunately, I'm not a program expert, so I can't be super detailed.

I'm not a program expert.

That's the better thing.

I'm not a program expert. I'm our legislative director, so I apologize for being a little light on details. But what I can tell you is that there are holding limits. You're only allowed to have so many allowances on your books at a time. Once you hit that limit, you have to use them. And they're also time constrained. You can't buy them a decade ago and then hold on to them for forever for compliance 20 years later. So they're both limits on holding for the total number of allowances as well as how long you can hold on to them. For specifics, I'm going to have to get back to you in writing. I'll go back and pull it out and send your office another email with those limits.

So I'm Courtney Smith. I'm from CARB. I was planning to attend to answer your questions around our budget items in May revise. Unfortunately, my colleague who is the program expert had a personal emergency this morning, so she is unable to be here. But David and I are prepared to answer as much as we are able to, and we appreciate your grace. Of course, we can also, any questions that you guys have that we're unable to answer, we're very happy to go back and provide those to you in writing.

So, are there any legal requirements that dictate when CARB must adopt these regulations by?

This is a question for CARB and for LAO also, and that is, you know, we have figures here that show that the goal of the state is to reduce emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. The 2022 scoping plan estimated a 48% reduction, right? But by the 2025 admissions inventory, it shows that only roughly 16.4% reduction. So these are numbers that came from before the federal attacks on our whole climate policies. So given these figures, does CARB and LAO have an opinion as to whether the state will meet its 2030 climate reduction goals with these regulations being adopted that are pretty generous in terms of allowances?

L.A.L.?

the MDI when we know this is a backstop program, as LAO talked about? We know all of these other things are not going to move as fast as we anticipated because of what the federal government is doing. So why take this chance at this point in time when there are other ways we could? I mean, it feels like we've gone way overboard in terms of dealing with cost pressures and cost of living issues and putting emissions goals much more at risk. Well, I hearken back to your opening remarks where you rightfully underscored that the

So who qualifies and how do we ensure that we're going to get cost-effective projects from them?

Thank you. Assemblymember Conley, you said you had many questions.

So the allowances themselves won't, but it's the use of them. So when someone applies for the program, they invest in a project that will be permanent emissions reductions. The example principal, deputy executive officer gave of converting a natural gas boiler to an electric boiler, that's not like changing a light bulb where someone could change it back. That's a permanent emission reduction of both greenhouse gases and criteria in toxic air pollutants. So not only do we get those permanent GHG emission reductions, but we also get air quality benefits for the frontline communities that are next to these facilities. Going to the chair's questioning, how can CARB ensure that recipients of the MDI

an important part of the proposed regulatory requirements are to ensure that there is rigorous and regular reporting, both in terms of what they plan to use it for, what the reductions are, and then also, too, just important to remind everyone that undergirding this program is a central tenet, which is ensuring that reductions are verified. And so we have a third-party verification system that has always been part of this program and will continue because it's so important to ensure that the reductions we think we're getting, we are in fact getting.

Well, if there isn't a demonstration of emission reductions, they have to give the value of it back and those allowances are retired. Going to a question Assemblymember Rogers raised,

So anyone who would take it, I mean, there's no way we can 100% guarantee, but logic would tell you that if someone is going to invest millions and millions of dollars into a facility, that they're not going to turn around and then walk away from it. That long-term investment in California, particularly to upgrade aging facilities with brand new technology, would indicate that they're sticking around. But can we force them 100%? No. And also, just to add to that, of course, as Chair Bennett alluded to earlier, there's much larger complex factors that influence what refineries decide to do or do not do. And many of those are outside of our control.

How will adding 118.3 million new free allowances create, and this is a CARB quote, a steady and sustained carbon price signal to prompt industry action to reduce GHG emissions and

Uh, just that, that what, what I repeat what I said earlier, MDI pulls forward. Um, well, actually what Courtney said earlier, MDI pulls forward emissions reductions that either wouldn't have happened for 10 or 20 years, or maybe not even at all. So it is a separate mechanism by which we can ensure permanent, um, direct emissions reductions at facilities, particularly for the benefit of the frontline communities, because we do get both the GHG benefit as well

putting downward pressure on allowance prices. How would you respond to that assessment? about the pricing. I think on that question, if you don't mind, we will have to take that back and provide a follow-up. Yeah, it's obviously of interest to us, for sure. This may also be

if you have an opinion on that? I'm sorry, I can't comment on that.

Well, I feel like it's important to really clarify that as the administrating entity, we do not estimate anticipated revenue from the auction. It's a market. I'm sure lots of folks would love a crystal ball on how that market will play. But also, too, there's limitations from federal law in terms of our ability to do that. That being said, we completely recognize that folks need context for understanding how these proposed program tweaks may impact. And so we have put out some numbers. We basically take the amount of allowances that we intend to distribute and pick a round basic number of $30 and multiply it together. And so that is how we derive those estimates.

Certainly through our scoping plan we go through our robust planning exercise to ensure that the state is planning for and tracking towards our goals We believe that the amendments to this program will help us get to those goals. I will offer, because I know there, and of course, you guys, we've received a ton of input around our proposed changes, appreciate the concerns around impacts to GGRF, and I wanted to elevate something Assemblymember Gallagher said earlier, which is that CARB does not determine how GGRF is funded. And we appreciate that the legislature last year did make decisions around how to prioritize and can also appreciate that program decisions that we have proposed may influence what is received at auction. And that may be an invitation for the legislature to continue those conversations around how to prioritize. So we are, you know, ready to support any technical assistance needed if you all decide to do that.

Yeah. Oh, excuse me. Helen Kirstein again from the legislative analyst office. I think, you know, on your question about whether we could reach our goals without funding any of tier three, I think one thing to note is that, you know, I think, again, part of the goal of this program is to use market signals through the cap to try to get to our goals. And so I think really making sure that that cap, excuse me, I'm sorry. I want to look at you, but also I want to be in there. So I apologize if I'm not looking at you. But I think trying to make sure there's integrity to that cap is really critical and probably the most key aspect. I think one of the things that can be helpful in terms of these funding, these programs, is trying to do things, especially that are outside of the cap. And we've talked about that as being a goal because then you can get some additional reductions that are in excess of what we would have gotten potentially otherwise with just the cap. I think that's one of the challenges with the MDI incentive, the MDI allocation. That's going to capped industries. Those folks already have to comply with the cap. So they're getting, there's now additional allowances. But again, are those really, are those admission reductions really additive to what we would have gotten from the program otherwise? So I think, you know, I don't know if I had a super clear answer to your question, but I think clearly, like, there are lots of really tough choices about what's going to be funded and I'm trying to make sure that we, again, elevate the purpose of this program to try to ensure that we're meeting our state's goals. I think it's critical.

And we know the state has consistently identified transit investments as essential to reducing GHG emissions. How does CARB reconcile advancing amendments that could substantially reduce funding for transit? Yeah, I appreciate it. It's a shame.

Sorry, Andrew. Andrew March with the Department of Finance. And so I also want to take a step back because there were some comments made that sort of that the governor's May revision is proposing sort of changes to GGRF. What you see in the agenda is merely a reflection of estimates for auction revenues based on the existing SB 840 structure So that doesn anticipate any impacts from any potential regulations because they have not been finalized So the fact that safe and affordable drinking water is estimated to receive $68 million is not a choice that the administration has made. We're merely reflecting existing law. So that's one thing I want to clarify. So, and then as far as it goes for transit, it's the same thing. It would just be a reflection of what the priorities are in SB 840. We've heard that the legislature may have other thoughts about how to reprioritize funding if there's less funding than was originally anticipated in SB 840. But as the LAO noted, the primary goal of the program is to cap emissions. The program will will reach its emissions goals if the cap is maintained. The investments from the funding are not necessary to meet the emissions goals. So how we utilize that funding is a joint thing that the legislature and the administration have been doing for the past decade or more to be able to prioritize various activities. And some of them have varying levels of GHG reductions that CARB reports on in their CCI reports.

Yeah, I appreciate the question. And one thing to just sort of illuminate for you is in the proposed regulatory amendments, the shift in the allowance allocations, the vast majority of the reduction that you see in the allowances that are to go to auction are because they are being shifted to support the California climate credit. So the MDI itself is actually a very small part of that pie. And just to clarify, so that if the MDI was not part of the proposal, it wouldn't mean that those allowances would be going to auction to be used for GGRF. I think what the LAO has noted is a sort of a supply and demand economic argument that if we have more allowances, it could decrease the demand price. So it's not necessarily that if you take the $118.3 million allowances, that you would then be having those all go to auction and receive that funding at auction. So it's not, I don't think, it's not a one-for-one tradeoff between, you know, we would be getting that money in GGRF to be able to be used for Tier 3 appropriations.

Certainly. I mean, I think those are different priorities. And I think sort of clarifications, what our understanding was of how GGRF has been structured. We don't view those as material, substantive changes, but appreciate if the legislature does. I think one thing that comes to light here is that if you do have a scenario where we do only have $2 billion, the way that SB 840 was structured is we would have to lay off staff. We would have to lay off hundreds, if not thousands of staff across the state because we wouldn't be able to fund tier three and we wouldn't be able to fund the state operations. So I think if anything, this conversation really brings light. to that we do need to make a decision about state operations and making sure that it does maintain funded so that we can avoid laying off state staff.

For interest, we've seen it decline. So around $600 million, maybe around 550, but it depends on how much is used, how much cash is in the fund. So as programs start spending down their cash, then the interest would be lower.

We can provide that more detail to you, but we did do a detailed accounting that we provided to staff of all the state operations funding and what departments use it for. A large portion of it is for various chapter legislation that the legislature has passed over the last few years.

Great. We appreciate that if you could do that. So, LAO, we're going to let you give your report, and if you'll –

Sure.

Yeah, I don't know that I have knowledge of that.

I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?

So I can't speak to negotiations or sort of what the agreements were made between the legislature, the administration and industry. Frankly, I wasn't in those in the room. So there's no knowledge. That's OK. Yeah. And then so. So then why did you guys do the MDI? Why did you do the allowances? Previously, you've been pretty ideologically committed to not allowing allowances and these are the caps, you got to meet them. So why did you decide to do that? Yeah, I think as I mentioned earlier, I think a growing recognition of the need to be thoughtful around how we get to those hard to abate sectors. So being able to pull forward those investments now so you can get not only the greenhouse gas benefits, but also the co-pollutant benefits as well. Thoughtful also thinking about cost and what that would do to consumers on the cost of energy. Is that part of it? Certainly. The authorizing legislation that allows us to establish and administer the now Cap and Invest program makes clear that we have to be thoughtful around cost and affordability of the program. Now, we've lost two refineries in this state. They both identified one of those issues as the cap and trade system. Chevron came out with a very public letter stating that, hey, if we don't have allowances, it's going to be very hard for us to continue to operate. And basically said, and if we have to leave, we won't be coming back. Was that part of the consideration allowing for the allowances as well? Well I just say again generally certainly being thoughtful around affordability and cost is one of the things we are directed to consider as we move forward Okay well it doesn totally I mean let me ask you this way I mean did the governor weigh in with you guys about hey we need to allow more allowances in order to not lose any more refined gas capacity in the state? Yeah, I can't say that I'm privy to any of those conversations. Do you know who might be? or maybe department, do you know that like, was there any way in and with front by the administration to allow for more allowances or to create a program as such to avoid the cost increase that would be associated there with? I don't have any additional information to share on that. Okay. So probably not going to get an answer to that question. That's all right. But I think it's important. Um, the emissions and you talked about, like we've met our goals 2020 was met six years early, right? You're on track to meet carbon reduction goals, which by the way, our California emissions, I think we could probably admit it, are less than 1% of the world's emissions. Is that correct? That's correct. Yeah. So we're talking about a pretty small amount of global emissions, but we're meeting our goals. When you say that, are you taking into account the carbon emitted by wildfires in this state in the last 10 years? And then a follow-up, if you are including that, have we met our goals if you include the amount of emissions we've had from wildfires? That's a very good question. So AB 32 defines the inventory for the 2020 and 2030 goals, and those are anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gas emissions. When the legislature codified carbon neutrality by 2045, that brought in the natural and working land sector. And so in our last update to the scoping plan, we did include wildfire emissions and emissions from all sources in the natural and working land space and sources that were outside the AB 32 inventory. So we have to track them separately because the legislature told us to do so. 2030 is different than 2045. Is there anything you want to add there? Well, just that my comment earlier around confidence was, I think, in direct response to a question around confidence for meeting the 2030 target. Right. And what you were saying is, hey, we're on track even with the allowances, right? But what I'm asking is, are we on track if you consider the emissions from wildfires? Yeah, as David mentioned, that gets pulled in when you start looking at 2045. So lots of lots of time to continue to adjust. and uh right but i mean you guys track this stuff yeah we what would you say i mean are we on track if you consider the emissions from wildfires yes or no for well they don't count towards 2030 so for 2030 we feel very confident 2045 is so far away um i i don't know that we have a man they occurred right they they have happened so they go into the calculation of whether or not you're getting to your emission goals in 2030. I'm just saying, based on what we know, are we on track if you actually accounted for wildfire emissions? Well, I think your point is well taken and want to acknowledge that wildfire emissions are of significant concern. Being able to think about how we invest in and address natural and working lands is something that we are very much focused on as we think about the things we need to do to achieve our 2045 targets. Okay And this I mean you can get where I going here This is why I think our wildfire prevention funds are so important to our climate goals to actually meeting those emissions you know because we need to stop the smoke that we blowing out the back you know, by not doing that work. And it's why I think it should be number one priority. And you're right. You know, you guys did not set that priority. This legislature did. I think it was the wrong priority. That's why I voted no on the bill. But the governor and working with the legislature set that as a priority. I think we should now change that with all these considered, and I think that could maybe be something part of this committee I would suggest we try to do as a trailer bill. We could change that allocation. We could change that and direct that these programs be spent in a different way, considering the fact that we may not have the funds, and this should be a higher priority. One last quick question to DOF. you guys did put in your May revise, you made no change to the discretionary funding for zero emission vehicles incentive funding. You kept it at $115 million and then you proportionally reduced the tier three amounts. Why did you guys make that decision? Why did you decide to fully fund the zero emission vehicles funding, but then make reductions in the tier three based on, isn't that a priority decision that you're making there? So no, because the $150 million for ZEB funding is coming out of discretionary funding. So it's discretionary, right? We could do it or we could not, right? Yeah, but the proportional reductions for Tier 3 are based on revenue, so auction revenues that come in. So there certainly could be a decision by the legislature or the administration jointly to, I guess, fully fund some of these programs that are in Tier 3. Just a reminder, so for budget year for 26-27, that funding is collected in 26-27. So we don't actually know how much we would collect in 26-27 until early June of 27. So it is quite a delay. Just like right now, we don't know how much funding we've actually collected for current year for 2526 because the May auction is happening tomorrow. And then we'll know the results of that in early June. So again, these are just estimates of what we would expect to collect. Again, we'll have another check-in in January and then at the May revise next year, we'll be able to see are the auctions performing how we expected and do we need to make any decisions or changes or are there any prioritizations that we need to change for this? So basically your guess, we could reprioritize and make sure that all those things in tier three are funded if we reprioritize, correct? Certainly. There are other ways to structure GGRF. There's a billion dollars of discretionary funding in tier two. That could be changed. The previous structure didn't have sort of caps. It was percentage basis on auction revenues. There are many different ways to structure it. Obviously, SB 840 is the agreement that the legislature and the administration came to last year on how to structure this. I announced that we were going to take a break at noon and come back at 1.30. I'm trying to push and see if we can finish instead. So if we can, with the indulgence of the members, I'd like to very quickly get the LAO report and very quickly get a final if that okay So that fine So people making public comments don have to wait all the way till 1 So if LAO could Helen Kirstein again with the Legislative Analyst's Office. Thank you again for your indulgence. This has been a great conversation. We prepared a handout, which I think the members have. It's also on our website, and I believe it might be on the committee's website as well. I'm going to try to not go through the whole thing, given that we're short on time. And I'm just going to try to hit a few high points. I'm going to start on page seven of the handout. And really, on page seven, we want to highlight that we think these are really significant proposed amendments. And I know that's been a big topic of conversation already. But we think they're significant, not just relative to current regulations, but also relative to what was proposed in January. And there are some big potential implications for some of the key priorities we've heard from you all, our bosses in the legislature. I'm not going to go through them in any depth, but just wanted to highlight them quickly. Environmental ambition, as we talked about, adding those MDI allowances outside of the cap could affect the state's environmental ambition in important ways. And that's a crux of the program. Second, industry and leakage. One of the big things these proposed regulations do is increase support for industry to try to retain jobs in California. Yeah. That includes both providing a greater number of allowances and share of allowances, that sort of traditional pie, as well as creating these new MDI allowances. Utilities and climate credit. I want to spend just a minute on this because I think there has been some confusion on this point. So our understanding of the regulations is that they actually provide fewer allowances for utilities, excuse me, in the climate credit relative to current regulations. So more relative to January, that's where you get the going from 8 billion to 10 billion, but actually less than under current regulation, slightly. So I think that's a really important point. The big gator of allowances relative to current law is manufacturing and industry, not utilities. And then GDRF, I think, again, a key topic for this committee. we think that these proposed regulations could significantly reduce the amount of funding going to GGRF. Two reasons. I'll briefly summarize them. I think they came up briefly before. One is by providing a smaller number of allowances to support GGRF. The second is through that price effect. Adding these MDI allowances, basically a new source of allowances, essentially increases supply, could put downward pressure on allowance prices, therefore reducing total revenues to the DGRF. We think there's a ton of uncertainty about what your revenues are going to be with DGRF. There's always uncertainty, but given this rulemaking, we think there's even additional uncertainty. But if that $2 billion a year number materialized, that would, as you heard, be about half of what we've seen in recent years, would not fully fund tier two and would not provide any funding for tier three programs. So on page eight, we highlight some key questions that we think are important in thinking about these proposed regulations. The first, we haven't really touched on this issue, but is related to certainty versus flexibility. One of the other notable changes to these regulations is that they provide those allowance allocations only through 2030. So there's a lot of uncertainty about what allowance allocations after 2030 would look like. There's some advantages and disadvantages to that, less certainty for those receiving allowances, but also more time for CARB to adjust its approach, taking new data for the legislature to weigh in. Two, do they strike your preferred balance between environmental ambition and other priorities against, Programs like the MDI program, we think that could have some potential reductions in our climate ambition. But, you know, to the extent it reduces allowance prices that could affect, that could help consumers because a lot of those costs get passed on to them. The third one, this is key, does this allowance allocation reflect legislative priorities? And partly the legislature didn't explicitly weigh in in AB 1207 about how allowances were to be distributed. So CARB was sort of delegated that authority. They're making this choice in terms of how to do it. But is that consistent with what the legislature's vision was in passing that legislation? Again, one of the big things is industry getting more, GGRF getting less. Next, the IMDI program. Again, this is a potentially big program. We're talking about $4 billion potentially if it's fully utilized. And that's kind of outside of what the legislature, it was never discussed at least explicitly in AB 1207. So are you confident that this is going to give you the bang for the buck, what you want to get from the program? And then finally, how should GGRF be prioritized? I mean, we've talked about this before, but, you know, I think SB 840 may not have envisioned this level of revenues. And to the extent that's the case and the legislature wanted to go back and revisit that structure and see if it's still consistent with your priorities, we think that would be, you know, a reasonable thing to consider at least. And then in terms of the May revision, just I know we, again, we've sort of touched on some of this before, but DOF's estimates don't envision, don't really reflect yet this proposed regulation because it hasn't yet been adopted. But we think it could affect 2627 revenues because it would take effect in the 27 year, which is sort of partway through the 2627 budget. So really thinking about what your game plan will be under different revenue scenarios we think could be a really important step. Great. I want to point out a few things. Number one, on page seven, you folks pointed out that it's possible because the chair of the Independent Admissions Market Advisory Committee suggested some of the admitters could actually receive free allowances in excess of their admissions. So that would be a real concern, and I hope that that's something that CARB is paying careful attention to. I think that the idea that the legislature, at a minimum, would need to identify verifiable cost-effective admissions reductions, as you've referred to in terms of your transparency in terms of doing that. but having the designs on the program may be very important for us in terms of doing that. And with regard to the final point that LEO was just making, which is when people were anticipating that it was going to be $4 million and we knew there could be some fluctuations, I think on some of those programs people said, well, we'll have this program be in Tier 3. It may not get full funding, but it will get some funding, right? Now, if it looks like it's going to get no funding, there may be some things we're saying, hey, we wanted to get $250 million for this program, but we knew we needed to get at least $50 million or some minimum amount that would be important to keep the program going. Now, we may not get any funding in the Tier 3 program. Then I think we do need to look and say, hey, do we need to reevaluate that? But that won be easy because SB 840 and that whole ranking process was a whole year long process that everybody went through with the Senate et cetera So it not going to be easy to be able to make that change as we go forward But we do have that I going to give CARB I like you to quickly just summarize what it is that you guys are doing so we publicly have it on the record with what the April changes are that you guys propose Sure, I can take a stab at that. First, I'll go back and address a comment from the chair of the IEMAC. Electric utilities have always gotten 100% of what they need for compliance so that that cost would not be passed through to electric end users. No other industry has that treatment, nor is that even possible. So I'm not exactly sure what he meant to say, but that would be inaccurate to suggest that some industry could potentially get 100% of free allowances. So in terms of changes, I'm going to have to wing this again because I'm not the program expert. We did increase the number of free allowances given to utilities in order to reduce cost pass-throughs and to make the program more affordable per direction from AB 1207. We expanded the MDI and who was allowed to use it and the types of industries that were allowed to use it. And I think those are the two big ones. Otherwise, the proposal for the 15-day change is largely similar to the original 45-day proposal. Thank you. Appreciate that. We have a lot of people who have been waiting a long time. Violating my own rule here. We have a lot of people who have been waiting a long time to make comments. Yeah, I see they already rushed. But I will, yes, go ahead. Assembly Member Conley and Assembly Member Gallagher. Make your final comments. the discussion just um all in by urging carb to reconsider these amendments and eliminate the proposed MDI program. In my view, this is a disastrous decision that would put both our 2030 targets and the stability of the greenhouse gas reduction fund at risk. In direct conflict with carbs own initial statement of reasons about what was required for California to reach our 2030 emissions target, the MDI will prolong our reliance on fossil fuels and their disproportionate impacts on public health in environmental justice communities. Cementing reliance on fossil fuels through costly, inefficient subsidies is not an affordability strategy and will not prevent the gas price spikes, as we've seen clearly with recent international turmoil. Giving handouts to multinational corporate polluters at the expense of eliminating funding for transit projects, wildfire prevention, affordable housing, zero emission vehicles, and more is not acceptable. Thank you. Before I go to Assemblymember Gallagher, I just want, for the benefit of everybody standing, you see how many people we have here. We're way late on the other things we're supposed to do. I'm going to ask you all to cut 15 seconds off and make it a 45 second presentation instead of a 60 second presentation, please. It'll help us a little bit to get out of here. Assemblymember Gallagher, your final comments. Yeah, just I'll try to be very quick here. This is where maybe we disagree a bit I actually think we do need to allow for some allowances and I think that a good move by CARB because the cost of capping let call it what it really is capping tax gets passed on to consumers And we pay more on electricity and gas bills as a result of it. And so in order to avoid the continual cost increase, I mean, we've been through it, six rate increases in one year by PG&E, gas prices that have gone through the roof. In order to stop that from happening, we do have to make some adjustments. And so we need to police that and make sure that it's being done in the right way and that people are held accountable under those credits and those allowances. But I think that's actually a good move. And even if it's only $2 billion at the end of the day, may be, may not be, maybe more. Even if it's only $2 billion, that's a lot of money. And the real question is, how do we make sure we allocate and prioritize that funding to the right things? And here's what I would say is a real easy way to do it. Number one, CAL FIRE should be 100% funded by a general fund. And if we're not making room in the general fund for a Cal Fire, then that's a serious problem. There's a whole lot of other stuff we could cut out, and we'd know all the waste, fraud, and abuse that's already been identified. And make sure the general fund is 100% covering Cal Fire. That would save some money in GGRF. And then we'd make sure their funding is stable, too, by the way. Then let's make wildfire funding number one. It should be the number one priority. It stops emissions. It creates healthy forests. It protects our lives. So that should be number one. We could cut out $1 billion for high-speed rail, either eliminate it or drastically reduce it. The project's not anywhere close, right? But meanwhile, we have some much more pressing priorities like safe drinking water, for example. So there's a lot of stuff that I think we could reprioritize here and make sure that we're getting the most out of that $2 billion or whatever it is, and also make sure that we have an affordable California that people can live in. So I think it's actually easy to do if we have the will to do it and to make those kind of decisions, and that's what I would be trying to push for. Thank you. Thank you very much. And for everybody that's getting ready to make comments, my staff strongly emphasizes, send them an email also. Your comments will have much more impact if they come in writing as well as what you say verbally here. And with that, we're going to move at a rapid pace here, 45 seconds, and you get a gold star if you go shorter than 45 seconds. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Katie Valenzuela, on behalf of Communities for a Better Environment, as well as the Center on Raised Poverty and the Environment, I want to underline and underscore the frustration that was expressed today because the Department of Finance and CARB work for the same person. So the fact that we have two agencies moving forward simultaneously with significant changes that don't align with each other is incredibly frustrating and it almost feels intentional to make it hard for the public and hard for you to decide how to allocate these revenues less than a year after you made a deal with that same governor on how this money was going to be spent. CARB is choosing to reduce the climate credit on people's bill. CARB is choosing to eliminate the funding for these programs, to give it to people who already get sometimes two, three levels of incentives already from the state who are making literally millions of dollars an hour right now. So that is it. Sorry. You gave me an extra 15 second, so I had to use it. Mariela Racho with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. We urge CARB to eliminate the MDI program, a giveaway to polluting industries that allow them to avoid meeting the cap and actually reduce emissions We ask that the climate credits target low communities or residents and people living in extreme heat zones We urge CARB to abandon the recent changes that opened more market and facilities, subsidies to biogas and other polluting fuels. And we have major concerns with the May revise and the cuts to Tier 3, especially when it comes to safer AB617 programs, public transportation, affordable housing. So again, we urge you to reconsider. Thank you. Thank you very much. Gold Star. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Rico Mastradonato with the Trust for Public Land. We also have concerns about CARB's proposal. We think that's going to hollowing out the GGRF by half is going to have impact on all of the nature-based solutions that are 100% invested into low-income, frontline communities, urban greening, urban forestry, transformational climate communities program, the sustainable ag program. Those are not going to get funding from the Cap and Invest program because we're going to have half of the money to do it. So I'll leave it there, And thank you very much. Thank you very much. Gold star. David Madsen, Albany, David Madsen, Albany, California. I want the gold star. I am supporting, urging you to support the acquisition of a gold gate fields. I'm a supporter of citizens for East shore parks. And it's a once in a lifetime transformational opportunity. Thank you. Thank you. Real gold star. Next. Good afternoon. Julia 11 with the bioenergy association of California. We do support the use of the manufacturing decarbonization incentive, but only for fuels that are actually produced and used in California. The way that it is currently written, biomethane generated across the country or in other countries and never delivered to California could still get allowances. That means we don't get the wildfire mitigation, the landfill reduction, the methane reduction, or the fossil fuel displacement, or the job creation in California. Allowances should be used in-state to reduce emissions in-state and build jobs in-state. Thank you. Good point. Thank you. Gold Star. Next. Mr. Chair, Michael Pimtel here with the California Transit Association, representing the voices of 70 partner organizations, voicing concerns about the proposed amendments. A lot of conversation today about affordability and jobs. And we just question, how can we deliver on affordability? How can we deliver on jobs when we're cutting $2 billion in investment in affordable housing, public transit, community air grants, and all of the items on wildfires and clean water. And so we're asking for a pause in the amendments that there is an opportunity to review, re-evaluate, and come back with another set that protects the GGRF, keeps these critical investments online. Thank you. Thank you. Gold Star. Hi. I'm Marge Atkinson, Albany, California, former mayor of Albany. I was elected over 20 years ago to protect the shoreline of Golden Gate Field so that we could have a park. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and I really support the amount of money in the budget for a park that would be accessible by an urban area. It would be a jewel that we could never give up unless it's now. Thank you. Thank you. Gold Star. Good afternoon. Anya Lawler here today on behalf of Housing California, Enterprise Community Partners, the California Housing Partnership, the California Coalition for Rural Housing, and the Sacramento Housing Alliance, all deeply concerned with CARB's proposal, which would essentially trade off some very short-term affordability gains instead of funding programs like transit, affordable housing, clean drinking water, wildfire mitigation that actually deliver both climate benefits and long-term affordability for California. And so we strongly urge reconsideration of the proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Another gold star. Hi, Marie. Lou, on behalf of CEHA, the Central California Environmental Justice Network, Climate Plant and Transform, ARB's efforts to protect affordability through the MDI proposal really relies on fictitious trickle-down economics. We are looking for the proposal gives billions of dollars of subsidies to the oil and gas industry, who's making a lot of money right now in the Iran war. We're looking for a program that actually meets our climate goals and prioritizes protecting communities, particularly through the climate credit and the tier three programs rather than subsidized industry. Thank you. Thank you. You guys are doing great. Thank you. Good afternoon. Steve Wallach on behalf of the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District, the Golden Gate Bridge District, the Napa Valley Transportation Authority, Foothill Transit and the California Association for Coordinated Transportation. We share the concerns expressed by the California Transit Association. We can't go down the pathway the car wants to do and still maintain progress towards zero emission fleets and maintaining bus service. Thank you. Good afternoon, committee. My name is Vlad Carrasco. I'm with the DINA Rise Up Coalition, representing Eaton Fire Survivors and over 200 organizations coming together to say, don't forget about Altadena. As you're considering climate investments, we want to remind you that 75% of rental housing in the Eden Fire Zone has not even filed for a permit to rebuild. 60% of family homes have been sold to corporations. The scale of recovery is staggering, and two in three survivors are still displaced today. So we want to ask you and urge you to invest in this vehicle led by Senator Perez called the Community Aid for Rebuilding and Equity, the CARE Fund that would focus on homeowner stabilization and affordable housing preservation. This was formulated by community for community. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Robinson. First, on behalf of the Monterey Salinas Transit District, on behalf of the San Mateo City County Association of Governments, San Mateo County Transit District, as well as Sunline Transit, I just want to echo the comments that were made by Mr. Pibbentel with the California Transit Association. I really encourage the legislature to do what it can to hopefully buy us some more time to understand the impacts of the CARB's proposed amendments. The other thing I would note is transit is still owed $230 million this year for money that was committed as part of SB 125. There's another $430 million that was due last year. We've had to come in here and ask for this funding year over year. Agencies have planned for this. There have been distributions of this funding. And so our expectation is that the legislature will work with the governor to make sure that that commitment is honored. And then finally, switching hats very quickly, on behalf of Humane World for Animals, formerly the Humane Society of the United States, I would ask that you all work with the administration to increase the wildlife coexistence funding. Thank you. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Patricia Jones. I'm a resident of West Contra Costa County and representing Together We Will Albany-Berkeley. I have been working to protect our shorelines and to address sea level rise for more than 20 years. I'm here to ask that you please support the governor's allocation for Golden Gate Fields to serve the greater Bay Area. Thank you very much. Thank you. Nice job. Robert Lieber, former mayor and council member in Albany, California, representing CESP. And I would ditto the last speaker and point out that this is a one-time opportunity, a beautiful piece of land that would really serve all of California if we could get it We should be bold We should do this when we can There will not be another opportunity Thank you very much Thank you very much. Appreciate everybody being fast. Mr. Chair, Brendan Herpicki, on behalf of a number of transit clients, County Connection, Via Transportation, Solano Transportation Authority, Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, SF Bay Ferry, and Caltrain, want to acknowledge and echo your comments about restoring SB 125 funding that was promised and that transit agencies are relying on, and also concur with previous speakers about the CAR proposal impact to transit and other GGRF Tier 3 programs. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Chloe Ames with NextGen California. I'm here to express our significant concerns with the cap and invest proposal, specifically the manufacturing decarbonization incentive, request sustained funding for the California Nutrition Incentive Program and requests not backfilling general fund obligations from the climate bond. Specifically on Cap and Invest, we submitted a letter earlier this month with 45 environmental, environmental justice, and public health organizations, all expressing our significant concerns that this proposal, one, undermines the integrity of the cap, the core function of the program, and two, slashes affordability benefits at the expense of Californians to provide more subsidies to regulated industries. We request that the legislature request CARB to swiftly amend the program and remove the MDI. Thank you very much. Thank you. Wendy Mitchell on behalf of LA Metro, again, we're echoing the California Transit Association's comments and raise concerns about what this CARB proposal will do for the LCTOP and the TIRCP. These are funds that we rely upon for building trains that are just coming online now and federal matching funds. We have a transit, a huge transit dependent community. And if we don't have these, these funds, we can't build transit for, and their affordability is at risk. So thank you. Thank you very much. Do I get a gold star? Yes. Juanita Miranda with the Trust of Public Land. We at the Trust of Public Land, our core mission is to provide access to the outdoors for people. And Golden Gate Fields is one of those projects that will connect many people to the outdoors. We are supportive, obviously, of the governor's allocation to Golden Gate Fields. I know there's many questions that were given in this committee. We're happy to come to your office and provide more detail to all of that. Great. Thank you very much. You guys are doing great. Good afternoon. Robert Chase, Executive Director of Citizens for East Shore Parks, which is an umbrella group created by all the major environmental groups to get park along the shoreline. This is a once in a lifetime. If we don't move forward with the governor's allocation on Golden Gate Fields, it'll be gone. We won't have this opportunity again. I think the governor put it best. California is a land that's not afraid of big ideas. This is a big idea. It's important. And we hope that you'll help you support the governor's proposal. Thank you. Good afternoon. Norman LaForce on behalf of Regional Parks Association, Friends of the Estuary, and I'm a former mayor of the city of El Cerrito. I would echo the comments of Robert Chastey. I've been working on this campaign for 40 years, so it is figuratively and literally a life in a lifetime opportunity. Please support the governor's allocation. Thank you. Thank you. Gold stars going out like crazy. Good afternoon. I'm Caroline Jones with Environmental Defense Fund, echoing significant concerns that others have raised with the MDI. The MDI as proposed would be funded by the creation of an additional 118 million allowances created outside of the allowance budget and is a novel mechanism with few guardrails or guarantees Hoping that this mechanism isn fully utilized and hoping that the investments made actually reduce emissions despite lacking guardrails is not a credible strategy to ensure we meet our climate targets. CARB should remove the MDI immediately and retire 118 million allowances permanently so that regulations can be swiftly adopted to secure program outcomes this fall without harming the integrity of the emissions cap or jeopardizing critical GGRF funding. Thank you. Thank you. And if our panelists want to leave, feel free. You don't have to stay for public comment. Hi, Arthur Feinstein. I'm representing the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge. We worked hard and were successful in establishing the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge in South San Francisco Bay. I'm here to support Golden Gate Fields and the acquisition and the funding for it because it's not just a local park. It's not just a local opportunity. This is something that affects the entire Bay, our entire region, and even the entire state since the health of San Francisco Bay affects our state. Thank you very much. Thank you. Nicole Rice, president of the California Renewable Transportation Alliance. And while the significance of today's discussion on the GGRF revenue is not lost on us, we are here to reiterate our request for $100 million from the GGRF to accelerate the deployment of heavy-duty low-nox trucks. The state has already secured funding for the long-term zero-emission truck strategy through the $1 billion invested through 2030 through low-carbon fuel standard revenues. But there still isn't a plan for near-term emission reductions and funding to support that. We believe that our funding requests meet the requirements of protecting public health and safety because we know the detrimental harm prolonged pollution exposure can cause. Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you. Good afternoon. Kirk Blackburn here on behalf of the San Diego Association of Governments, or SANDAG, here to express concerns with CARB's proposed amendments to its cap and invest regulation, which would significantly cut GDRF revenue available for Tier 3 programs. These programs have been successfully utilized by SANDAG on affordable housing projects, major transit and rail corridor improvements, climate resilience projects, and expanded transit service, amongst others. MPOs like SANDAG are well positioned to continue using this funding to help the state deliver on its ambitious climate, housing, and transportation infrastructure goals. As such, we urge the legislature to protect long-term funding for these Tier 3 GGR programs. Thank you. Thank you very much. Could the sergeants please tell me how many people are outside the room that still want to come in? Good afternoon, Chair Bennett. Megan Cleveland with the Nature Conservancy. First, we appreciate the inclusion of the $23.5 million to CNRA in the May revise for projects to improve conditions on wildlife refuges and wetland habitat areas and respectfully request the legislature support for this appropriation. appropriation. Second, we respectfully urge the legislature to ensure that the remaining $35 million in Prop 4 funding for islands, climate-ready fisheries, and kelp restoration is implemented in accordance with legislative and voter intent. We request $10 million to WCB for island restoration and resilience and $25 million to OPC for climate-ready marine fisheries. This funding is critical as our marine fisheries and islands. Thank you very much. Thank you. 15. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dan Seaman, on behalf of California Environmental Voters, we echo prior speakers and urging the elimination of the MDI We also urge CARB to correct allowance oversupply by revising the allocation levels and lowering the cap adjustment factor And finally, we urge you to protect GGRF revenues, rejecting any changes that would reduce funding that help Californians address the climate crisis. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to ask the indulgence of everybody in line to give me 45 seconds to go to the restroom, and I'll be right back. It's just four hours. Thank you. Four and a half. Thank you. Yeah, no, I don't think that was it. They only wanted to talk about those ones that they talked about. So if they had, like, everyone was here just in case they wanted to ask questions about those ones, but there was no, like, presentation on, like, so they don't care about acrobatics. I'm so sorry. Versus the last one, like, wait, Courtney and I are going to be here. What the fuck? Um, okay. Okay. Were they coming back at 1.30? They're not. Oh, they're not. They were avoiding coming back at 1.30, because otherwise it was like weird how to stop at noon, and then everyone would have been doing like Republic Common at 1.30. Okay, yeah, no, no, no, okay, I get it. Yeah, that'd be kind of messed up for the people who came all the way here and had to burn another 90 minutes. Yeah. That would help spur the downtown economy, though. So I'm going to help the liquor store across the street from Carb on the way back to my office. Okay. All right. Go ahead. Begin. Good afternoon. Erica via from the South Coast air quality management district. South coast recognizes the importance of affordability and economic challenges facing Californians. We also believe however, the state can maintain its relationship and reducing pollution and protecting public health from harmful air pollution and climate impacts. We're concerned that CARB's proposed amendments to cap and invest may not deliver the proposed emission reductions from the MDI while negatively impacting critical air pollution and quality of life programs for communities most impacted by poor air quality and climate change. We believe additional time is warranted to work with CARB and the legislature to develop sound policies that achieve our state's climate goals without shifting the burden onto the most vulnerable communities. Thank you. You just won the Hubert Humphrey Speed speaking award. Chair, thank you. Kathy Mossberg on behalf of Public Health Institute and their program, Roots of Change, I want to thank you for your call out and kind comments about the California Nutrition Incentive Program Market Match. We look forward to working to maintain the funding for this much-needed program for hungry Californians as well as our small farmers. Thank you. Thank you. That woman wins. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Jasmine Valle on behalf of Northern California Water Association. I'm going to make this very quick and just follow up with an email. But we're in support of the governor's proposal on enhancing river ecosystems and promoting healthy landscapes. We'll follow up via email. Thank you. Thank you. Brendan Tuig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. We're disappointed that the May revision doesn't include any funding for the farmer program. I hope you'll prioritize that. We also wanted to mention we're deeply concerned about the impact the proposed regulation will have on already diminished GGRF funding. and what that means for communities that have realized significant public health benefits because of both the AB 617 Community Air Protection Program and the Farmer Program. So as California works towards its climate goals, must also find a way to address funding needs to maintain continuity for these important cost-effective programs that improve public health in disadvantaged communities. Thank you very much. Alan Abs with the Bay Area Air Quality Air District. Just echoing the comments from my colleague from CAPCOA And just noting that when the legislature passed the AB 617 program, the purpose was to spend a long time in these communities and make sure there are reductions that were commensurate with the level of impacts that have occurred over the years. And so we took a cut to the program last year. We have a cut proposed in the May revise for this year and potentially no funding for next year. And so we just encourage the legislature to reassess the funding for the program in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mark Fenstermaker on behalf of Earth Justice, echoing many of the comments and concerns about the MDI and the cap and invest proposal. We believe that it's an 11th hour proposal that benefits industry at the expense of the public. It should be removed. CARB's already indicated they're going to look at industry assistance at a future rulemaking. That's the place to look at the MDI, not now. And then lastly, would echo your call for more investment in HVIP. Thank you. Thank you. Dr. John Dykeman speaking on behalf of citizens from Albany Shoreline, urging you to support this rare opportunity of funding for acquisition of Goldgate Fields. We in Albany have worked for 40 years to try to get shoreline access, and this is really a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, not only for the entire Bay Area, but also for future generations. Thank you. Thank you very much. Afternoon, Chair Noam Elroy, on behalf of Rethink Waste, the California Compost Coalition, People, Food, and Land Foundation, California State Parks Foundation, Mid-Poninsular Regional Open Space District, California Habitat Conservation Planning Coalition, the California Association of Local Conservation Corps, Save the Redwoods Leaks, Semper Virens Fund, Industrious Labs, CalSTART, Electric Vehicle Charging Association, Valley Can, and Ceres. You just used your 45 minutes. But I didn't. We want to underscore that GGRF is one of the only stable and flexible sources of funding for emissions reduction programs and want to respectfully urge the administration and the legislature to maintain the long-term stability of the Cap-and-Invest program necessary to fulfill the commitments of SB 840 and ensure this important work continues. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Anthony Wright, representing Albany-Berkeley Soccer League, representing Richmond, Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Emeryville, and Oakland. We're asking you to support the Golden Gate Field. It's a really big idea for us and provide opportunity for over 1,700 families in our program. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Hi, I'm Sally Douglas and I'm here representing citizens for Albany Shoreline. I support the governor's proposal to fund the acquisition of Golden Gate Fields, some 160 acres This is an incredible opportunity to serve the greater San Francisco Bay Area The project will allow access to the shoreline and California is not afraid of big ideas Thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is Amaya Williams-Hagovia. I'm speaking on behalf of Citizens to Rite Shore Parks. I wanted to express my support for the acquisition of Golden Gate Fields. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for a very deserving group of people, and the time to make it happen is now. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, I'm Peter Moss, former Albany mayor here in support of the Golden Gate Field Funding. This is a unique opportunity because of its location, size, and accessibility to support an open space that will serve all of Northern California, not just the East Bay. Thank you. For all the speakers, you can adjust that microphone right to your level. Good afternoon. Sophia Africo, Coalition for Clean Air. We supported AB 1207 last year because it made modest improvements, but CARB's latest proposal undermines both the emission cap and the ability to make those investments. Extending the MDI to a broad array of industrial polluters poses a fundamental threat to the integrity of a cap on emissions. Emission allowances are a valuable public asset. that CARB's proposal would redistribute that value to corporate emitters and away from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Those dollars should be used on clean, affordable transportation and energy to low and moderate income Californians. Additionally, we urge the legislature to redirect additional funding towards HVIP, Clean Cars for All, Active Transportation Program. Thank you. Hi there. I'm Alexandra Levy on behalf of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, just expressing support for the funding proposal for the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program. Thank you. Thank you. Well, that's 10 seconds. That's the award. Good afternoon. Megan Hinchliffe-Garig, Eaton Fire Survivor, here with the Dena Rise Up Coalition. And I'm asking that you remember wildfire survivors as you consider budget revisions. We are still in great need of help. The CARE Act, which is being put forward by Senator Sasha Renee Perez, was created by our community to serve our community and to serve all of California. There are fires burning right now. Please help us. Thank you. Hello, Inez Caro with N-Child Poverty California. We'd like to emphasize that nearly 100 survivors from Altadena who were impacted by the Eaton Fire are here today in the Capitol urging for a care fund. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Allison Hilliard with the Climate Center. We are deeply concerned that CARB's latest proposal undermines the last year's reauthorization by weakening the emissions cap, threatening California's 2030 climate goals and diverting billions away from affordable and climate investments. The proposed MDI would add that 118 million allowances, effectively cutting GGRF in half and shifting resources away from household climate credits and community investments towards more subsidies for polluting industries. The Climate Center found, we have a report that I can share, that $8.6 billion has already been transferred to oil companies through cap and trade since 2013 with no evidence of lower gas prices or prevented refinery closures. We should not make that mistake again, and we urge the legislature to direct CARB to remove MDI and retire those $118 million allowances to protect affordable funding. Thank you. Sarah Brennan with the Weidemann Group on behalf of Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California representing affordable developers across nine counties at the San Francisco Bay Area We are deeply concerned that CARB proposed amendments would gut the GGRF and with it the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program ASIC has delivered over 20 units of affordable housing removing 41 car trips from the road daily avoiding 5.7 million metric tons of GHG admissions over the life of funded developments. Under this proposal, that funding would be zeroed out, traded away for modest reduction in utility bills. We urge the legislature to maintain a robust GGRF investment in ASIC. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Danielle Lynch on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps and the 14 state-certified local conservation corps representing communities throughout California. I'd like to offer our strong support for item 3340, issue 5, the appropriation of the $229,000 in Prop 68 funds as grants to the local corps. These funds will enable the expansion of eight of our existing Prop 68 projects from right here in Sacramento down to San Diego, providing more ecological benefits and job training opportunities for the young adults employed through our programs. We hope you can support this when it is appropriate. Thank you. Thank you. Mandy Estrella here on behalf of East Bay Regional Park District Board of Directors in support of the $125 million Prop 4 allocation for Golden Gate Fields acquisition by the Trust for Public Lands, and on behalf of CRNR Environmental Services, the current CAR proposal could send money to undelivered out-of-state biomethane. Instead, we need to invest, cap and invest resources into the development of in-state biomethane to help meet SB 1383 goals. Thank you. Thank you. Charles Watson, on behalf of BART, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, echoing the comments of our transit partners, expressing our strong support for the state's commitments to transit through SB 125 and our significant concerns with CARB's proposal and potential impacts on Tier 3 programs that support transit and affordable housing. Thank you. Thank you. Dennis Albionni on behalf of the PET Recycling Corporation of California. We support the May revise on the PMDP, the market development payments. However, we would encourage that to be increased from $20 million a year to $35 million a year for three years, total of $45 million increase, which could be removed from the grant side of that side of the program. So we move that. And we also, on behalf of Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency and San Gabriel, both state water contractors. We support the healthy landscapes of the $25 million general fund for healthy landscapes and rivers. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good afternoon. Sylvia Solis-Shaw here on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. We share the concerns about the proposed amendments to the cap and invest plan as these changes could reduce or eliminate revenues for Tier 2 and Tier 3 commitments, including the Community Air Protection Program, as well as other programs such as FARMER. On behalf of the city and county of San Francisco, Mayor Daniel Lurie and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, I wanted to voice opposition to the proposed changes to the cap and invest plan as they would lead to reduced funding to ASIC, TIRCP, and LCTOP. These programs have financed more than 2,100 new affordable housing units, and SFMTA has received more than $400 million from TIRCP. Thank you very much. And lastly, thank you. Thank you, please. On behalf of American Heart Association, just echo comments regarding Market Match. Thank you. Mr. Chair and members, Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates here on behalf of two clients on two separate issues. On behalf of the Federated Indians of Great Rancheria we would prefer to see the TBL language for the California Indian Heritage Support Center not move forward AB 1592 covers the same issue It going through the legislative process and this expedited negotiation process won work We have too many issues to work out. Number two, on behalf of the professional engineers in California government, this is the third year in a row we haven't seen a BCP for capital outlay support. We're curious as to the reason why. and Caltrans has traditionally had a 90-10 PYPYE staffing ratio when it comes to engineering work. The only way for us to know if that's still going forward is to have a capital outlay support PCP. Thank you. Good afternoon. Mateo Kushner, Community Water Center. Much of the work Community Water Center does for ensuring safe, clean, and affordable drinking water for disadvantaged Californians is through the SAFER program, which is a Tier 3 funding priority. And there are several other tier three funding priorities that just overwhelmingly support California's most disadvantaged communities and those that are on the forefront of facing climate change right now. So we urge CARB to reject these new regulations and fix them with the legislature's oversight to continue protecting and supporting the communities that most need it. Thank you. Good afternoon. You and Elisa are City of Kona with Townsend Public Affairs. I want to voice opposition to CARB's proposal from the cities of Berkeley and Oakland, as well as the North County Transit San Diego Railroad. I also want to note some significant concerns from NCTD related to the May revision's omission of a scheduled appropriation of $230 million for SB 125. We would love to see that brought back into the fold. Thank you so much. Thank you. Mr. Chair, members, for the Office of Cat Taylor and Comcat Ranch, LLC, we thank the administration for the $1 million for the Coexisting Wildlife Initiative. More and sustained general fund support is needed. For Metrolink, we agree with the comments of the California Transit Association and also call for $35 million in operating assistance in the coming fiscal year. And we support the goals of reductions from TIRCP and LCTOP and VMT reductions. We think the transit service that's been funded by the source of JGRF achieves those state goals. And we echo the chair's remarks regarding SB 125 and honoring those commitments. And for the Heart Association, we thank the chair for his remarks regarding the Nutrition Incentive Program and Market Match. Thank you. Thank you. Mitch Weiss with Corey Consulting. We represent many of the MPOs and RTPAs in the Central Coast, the Central Valley, and the Commuter Rail, Smart, and Valley Link. Just want to echo the comments of my predecessors regarding public transit and those that the chair made himself We oppose the rulemaking by carbon the disastrous effect. It'll have on public transit across California. Thank you Good luck with your bike riding McKinley Thompson really here today on behalf of VTA and VCTC echoing the comments of our transit partners and concerns about carbs proposed amendments and in the impact on on GGRF. We would urge the protection of long-term funding for those tier three GGRF programs, including TIRCIP and LCTOP, and the approval of the appropriation for SB 125 and zero emission transit capital program. Thank you. Thank you. Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation, Oxnall Arts and Ecology Center, and the California Wildlife Officers Foundation, we too are happy to see the governor identify wildlife coexistence as a priority, but a million dollars of existing dollars, million existing dollars, will not sufficiently prevent conflict across California, so we urge the legislature to continue negotiating for more ongoing funds and for one-time funds to support wolf livestock compensation and coexistence. And second, I want to just thank you, Mr. Chair, for the conversations and your express support today in defending the environmental positions from being swept by the administration at CNRA agencies and Cali-PA. Thank you. Kim Delfino, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and the Power of Nature, what she said regarding wildlife coexistence and the open PY cuts. Thank you so much. For Defenders of Wildlife and the Resource Renewal Institute, we utter a rejection of the $25 million for the voluntary agreements. That money could go elsewhere, such as a safer program for clean drinking water. And we, on behalf of the Salmon and Steelhead Coalition, we support the Prop 1 BCP for salmon restoration. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Mark Murray with the environmental group Californians Against Waste in the rare position of opposing an authorization for CalRecycle. Specifically, love the concept of PMD in the budget, but opposing the specific language. Your house's AB 1149 has better language. Secondly, we support allocations for rural recycling, but not in the form of grants, in the form of payments for recycling centers. Thanks for listening. Thank you. Good afternoon, well morning. Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies want to provide comments on two separate items. The first, I'm actually providing support both from ACWA and from the state water contractors in support of the $25 million for the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program. Since 2018, there have been more than 33 restoration projects that have accelerated improvements for fish and wildlife. These actions have already aided in the recovery of salmon. So this is a really critical program and this funding is badly needed. The next thing I want to provide support for is that there's two tier three programs in GGRF, wildfire and the safe and affordable drinking water program. These are both critical for communities that really need the support of the state. And so we would really urge the legislature to find a way to backfill that. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Richard Filges with California Farm Bureau. I wanted to briefly convey our serious concerns with CARB's proposed amendments, particularly the potential impacts on GGRF revenues and the long-term stability of programs that depend on those investments. GGRF has become an essential funding source for a broad range of climate-smart ag initiatives that deliver meaningful benefits to California farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. These programs support on-the-ground practices that reduce GHGs, improve soil health, conserve water, improve air quality, and increase energy efficiency while also strengthening the long-term productivity and competitiveness of our state's ag industry. Given CARB's own estimates that the proposed modifications to the program could reduce GGRF revenues by roughly half compared to recent years, we're deeply concerned that securing funding for these critical agricultural and climate programs will become even more challenging. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chelsea Gazzillo on behalf of American Farmland Trust. We ask you to oppose the proposed carved amendments as GGRF is the only funding source for the Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Program, or SALC. SALC is a critical lifeline for farmers right now as the price of agricultural production continues to rise. SALC is also responsible for 15% of GGRF's emission reductions, despite only receiving 2% of the funding. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon Chair Chris Lee here on behalf of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments the Sonoma County Transportation and Climate Authorities and the Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority all in alignment with the concerns expressed by the California Transit Association related to the cap and invest regulations and the implications for those Tier 3 programs including TERSIP LCTOP and AHSC These investments in transit services and infrastructure are vital to meeting our state and regional greenhouse gas reduction goals, and we appreciate the concerns expressed by you and other members of the subcommittee today. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Jerome and Sina, on behalf of the United Auburn Indian Community, on an issue that you're going to be hearing on the California Indian Heritage Center. We are opposed to this being moving through as trailblaze language and like it to go back into AB52 and continue the normal process. I also would like to thank your staff for being very helpful and responsive during this very busy time. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Melissa Sparks-Crans with the League of California Cities, as well as on behalf of the California State Association of Counties. We're here today to express opposition to the proposed amendments for CARB's draft regulations. This will impact Tier 3 funding, which includes welfare funding, affordable housing funding, as well as Tier 2, which is the legislature's discretionary pot, Where, for example, we've come in with a budget request this year for $100 million for clean fleet for public agencies and organic waste emission reductions in landfills. That's what that discretionary pot should be used for. We've requested CARB, removed the allowances for industrial, and we ask that the legislature intervene if that continues to move forward. So thank you. Thank you. Hello. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members. Valerie Torella of LaHos with Pacific Gas and Electric Company here to testify. to support the passage of CARB's 15-day changes. Overall, the electric distribution utilities, the electric utilities, we are getting 11% less than the regulation today. And the adjustments that we saw from January ensure that our customers are protected from the costs of complying with the Cap and Invest program. The climate credit is an effective ratepayer protection. It's the most direct, visible, and immediate way that the Cap and Invest program reaches households. In fact, this summer, electric customers will be receiving the credit. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chair members, I'm Tom Knox of Alley Clean Air Now. We still believe there is sufficient funding for a win-win-win on ZEVs. There should be sufficient funding to fund the governor's proposed new ZEV incentive, as well as medium and heavy duty, as well as preserving the proven successful clean cars for all. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, Chair. My name is Brian Shove, and I'm with the California Climate and Agriculture Network. We were one of a handful of ag organizations that actually supported Cap and Invest in both 2017 and 2025. We share the concerns raised about CARV's amendments and want to note that while it's It's true that CARB is not responsible for deciding how GGRF revenue is spent. They are responsible for developing a plan to achieve carbon neutrality. And so it asks CARB how they plan to reduce the agriculture sector 8 of statewide emissions without incentive funding available So I urge the board and the legislature to do what they can to revisit that proposal Thank you Thank you Good afternoon Marina Espinosa with the California Housing Consortium. I'd like to echo the concerns raised regarding the impact of CARB's proposed regs on Tier 3 programs, including the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program. Strongly encourage the legislature to continue to engage on this issue. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Kyle Jones. First, on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Water Collaborative Action Program, urge the legislature to consider more Prop 4 funding for groundwater recharge this year and to ask DWR to move faster on it. They're currently not planning to get funding out until late 27 and 28. We think that there's a need now. Also to get regional conveyance funding out as part of Prop 4 this year. And then finally to support the full funding for the SAFER program. And then on behalf of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers, just wanted to thank the shout out for the LFPA. Recognize there's a $45 million gap there. And then thank the committee for its championship for land access in Prop 4 and continuing to work with the Senate and the governor's office on that. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Bennett. Mark Fukcevich on behalf of Streets for All. Align our comments with the California Transit Association and specifically regarding LCTOP and TERSIP and opposing what CARB is suggesting and hope transit can be protected. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Staff. Connor Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California and the Amalgamated Transit Union. We want to echo the comments of the Transit Association with our concerns around Tier 3 funding and the GGRF due to CARB's proposed amendments, all of the great programs that have already been listed today. We need to protect those. Those help keep good union jobs, and they also help keep people safe while meeting our climate goals. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Oscar Sandoval. I'm with the Center for Healthy Communities. I'm just here to express gratitude for your support for CNIP and MarketMatch and look forward to including those in the final budget as well as other CalFresh-related asks. Thank you. Thank you. Asha Sharma, on behalf of Sierra Club California, we strongly oppose CARB's proposed weakening of the Cap and Invest program and the continued general fund backfill from GGRF. In line with the LAO's recommendation, We oppose the proposed $25 million for the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program, which would allow state agencies to avoid strong enforceable science-based water flow standards in the Bay Delta region. Lastly, we oppose the gutting of vacant positions at so many environmental agencies. We do support the acquisition of the Golden Gate Fields and would like to see similar robust investments in disadvantaged communities. And we support increased investments in active and clean transportation and building decarbonization. Thank you. Thank you.

California Chamber of Commerce. Here to express support for the MDI in the cap and invest package, you're literally trading a one-time right to emit one metric ton of emissions in exchange for investments in year-after-year emissions reductions that keep businesses in California. That's a phenomenal deal, regardless of how you look at it, recognizing this as a budget committee. Any program that needs a durable source of funding should not be funded through GGRF, which is a declining pot of money over time as the cap goes downwards. I would also like to just point out the LAO, I believe, testified earlier that SB 840 may need to be reexamined at this point in time. The revenue projections in SB 840 do not line up with the historical revenues of the program. Thank you for your time.

I'm here in support of a budget request that Patrick Aaron submitted. My name is Kristen, and I'm an early career fellow and leadership facilitator for the Consortium for Developing Leadership in Science. This organization has been essential to my growth as both a scientist and a leader and has supported me during the most difficult time as I recover from surgery while also being a graduate student. Programs like this matter because they invest in people, scientists, and leadership, and in the future of science. They have supported me through my work and through the hardships that life bring and helped me continue as I emerge in my field as a scientist and thrive in my community. Thank you.