Eileen Tutt:

So, anyway, thank you so much for joining our panel today. And I really want to thank specifically The Climate Center for holding this important event. My name is Eileen Tutt and I am the Director at the California Electric Transportation Coalition and the Electric Transportation Community Development Corporation. I can tell you that my entire 30 year career has been spent trying to get us off our addiction to drilling, which I think is absolutely killing our economy as well as our climate and our public health.

Eileen Tutt:

And so, it’s one of those things and it’s been 30 years. So I will tell you that I feel like for the first time in my career, I think we might be able to do this. And I don’t care if we get 100% off or even 70% off., I just think we need a much more diverse transportation fuel sector in part, because of our economy, which suffers every time there’s a gasoline shortage, as we’re living through now. The worst recession since, I believe, the 1980s, because of a war in Ukraine and because of our addiction to oil and our inability to even step in and help is partly because we’re addicted to the oil that we need out of this part of the world.

Eileen Tutt:

So, I think this is a very timely discussion and I do want to say that California has been a tip of the spear in the United States in getting us off oil, and for the first time ever, due to many policies that the California Air Resources Board has adopted and our advocates on the panel have supported, we are going to get there. And we have a whole suite of policies in California, some of which I’m sure you’ll hear about today. And the other thing you’ll hear as we talk about at equity. So, as we all know, we currently live in a very inequitable society and our whole system is structured such that there are food islands, there are food deserts, if you look at every part of our society is structurally inequitable. And so I think what the Air Resources Board and what the advocacy community is trying to do, and hopefully with your help is really, as we transition off oil, do it in a way that benefits everyone and not just those that are already affluent or already have the means to make this transition.

Eileen Tutt:

So, I think it’s really important this discussion as we talk about equity, the only thing I would suggest to the panelists is when we talk about equity, because I will tell you it’s clearly prioritizing California, that we understand what we mean by that in the context that we’re talking about. So when you say the word equity, don’t just say it. Talk about what you mean in the context, for example, we talk about charging infrastructure and access to charging infrastructure in my little tiny narrow world, right? And access to charging infrastructure, we’ve demonstrated through analytics that the California Energy Commission has done, that predominantly black communities have the very least access to charging infrastructure, followed by communities of color, native American communities are about on the par on par with black communities.

Eileen Tutt:

And so, you see this sort of structural racism even built into our distribution of charging infrastructure. So, that’s what we’re trying to avoid as we shift from oil to electricity. So I’m going to introduce our panelists today, very briefly. Their bios are in your program, which hopefully you downloaded that nifty app and you can look on a paperless and touch free mechanism to see who these very esteemed panelists are. But our first panelist is Laura Deehan and she directs Environment California’s work to tackle global warming, protect the ocean and fight for clean air, clean water and open spaces in a livable planet. So, Laura, I’ll just start with you. And do you want me to push your slides or can you?

Laura Deehan:

[inaudible 00:03:50].

Eileen Tutt:

Okay. Oh, do you want to come up?

Laura Deehan:

Yeah. Thank you so much, Eileen, for that great context and this is me. So, let’s see. I just wanted to share… I’m going to basically walk through Environment California, what our top priorities are in our plan to get to this zero carbon destination. And then, I also want to share the priorities of the Charge Ahead California initiative with this year’s budget and that lays out and I’ll explain a little bit how we came up with that as well.

Laura Deehan:

So, background transportation. The transportation sector is the climate enemy, number one. Right now, it’s taken over as the single largest source of greenhouse gas pollutants in the whole country. And here in California, it’s now more than half of the greenhouse gases come from, from transportation. And so, it’s a really huge, huge source and in U.S., light duty vehicles are a really significant part of that. In fact, here in the United States, we release more… We have gas emissions just from light duty vehicles than many countries from their entire greenhouse gas emissions, which is pretty crazy. You can see on this little graph, little yellow is how much of our emissions come from light duty vehicles. And so, that’s more than the entire country of Mexico or Australia, which I think of as quite a heavy user or producer of greenhouse gases.

Laura Deehan:

And you can see this little map at the bottom breaks down how much per state. You can see California has got some of the highest numbers, over a 100 million metric tons of CO2 coming from transportation. In fact, here in California, it’s 260 million metric tons come from transportation, as of a couple years ago. And then, the reason that this is partly because we have a lot of cars, we have a lot of vehicles. Here in the United States, we have more vehicles per capita than other countries by far. You can see from this little bar graph, just over 800 vehicles per 1000 people is how many cars we have. And that compares with other countries that are so much smaller because they’re not as dependent on cars to get around from A to B. This is a really big part of the problem.

Laura Deehan:

The reason that we’re producing so much greenhouse gas is because we have such car-centric lives. We spend a lot of time in our cars and we have a lot of vehicles. California has fewer vehicles. I think we’re like 30th out of all states in terms of how many cars per capita, so we’re doing better than other states, which is kind of cool, right? And you think of California as such a car-centric state, but we’re actually doing better at getting rid of our cars because of our urban areas. And so, the reason that transportation emissions are so high is partly because the vehicles that we’re driving are inefficient and they’re running on dirty fuels still far too often. And the design of our communities really needs that car dependence. Oftentimes, the public transit options of pure quality are really expensive and not practical and walking or biking far too often. It’s just not safe. It feels unsafe for people.

Laura Deehan:

And then, driving is heavily subsidized here in America compared to other countries. I’m originally from Scotland, so still have a lingering wee bit of an accent, but I moved here when I was in high school. And I remember one of the first things that struck me when I moved here, coming off of the plane, driving out of the airport, I had never seen roads that were so big as the roads that we have, the freeways that crisscross over each other. So many lanes of traffic which, as we’ve learned, the more lanes you build, the quicker they fill up. And I also could not believe how difficult was just to run an errand from my form in suburb… We moved to suburban Pleasanton and getting to just walking to the shops to get a loaf of bread.

Laura Deehan:

It was not a very welcome activity. There was parts of the route, there wasn’t a sidewalk. And when I thought it was a good idea to write my bicycle to school, I was actually laughed at. It was such a funny, weird thing to do, because everyone drove to school, even though it was only like less than a mile a day. So, that’s a… For me from Scotland, that was a big cultural shift, and we’re still, although things have gotten better, we still have a society that’s been built around the automobile and we have a lot of change that we have to make there. So, here’s our top goals. The things that Environment California is focused on right now. Number one is to electrify the vehicles. So, we support getting to at least a hundred percent to your emission vehicles by 2035. We need to build the charging infrastructure that’s going to support that.

Laura Deehan:

That’s one of the reasons people don’t go electric, is because they don’t know how they’re going to charge their vehicles necessarily. So, we’ve got to build that charging infrastructure. We need to over a million, it’s 1.2 million charging stations by 2030, so let’s set that goal. We’re at just a 100,000 or so right now. We’ve got a long way to go there. Then the other thing was just working with cities, with communities to make sure that they’re doing what it takes to streamline the permitting process so we can get more charging stations built, et cetera. And then, in terms of… Our second big goal is to electrify all the buses and trains that we’re using to move people around. So, we need to make sure that the vehicles that are on the road are clean. And so, that’s working together to a hundred percent zero emission buses and trains by at least 2050.

Laura Deehan:

And that also includes school buses. So, we want to make sure that the 17,000 school buses that are being driven around in California are clean. That they’re not spewing out diesel on the school children as they’re getting to school from each day. And then, the third big goal is we want to shift our society to make sure we drive less and live more. Spending time in our cars is actually not a great way to live our lives either, much better quality if we can find ways to get out of the cars. So, our goal is to double a number of trips on foot, on bike and using public transit by 2030, which is a massive shift in how people are getting around. And so, we have to support the policies that will actually allow us to get there from the investments in a better robust public transit system and bike system. Pedestrian safe programs, making sure that there aren’t as many accidents-fatalities on the roads from walking to school or from riding your bike. So, there’s a lot more to do there.

Laura Deehan:

And then, I wanted to share the Charge Ahead California big budget investment priorities. So, back in 2013, Environment California teamed up with a few other organizations to start a big campaign called the Charge Ahead California Initiative. And we worked with then Senator Kevin de Leon to get a bill passed that would direct the state of California to accelerate a transition to a clean electric-powered car future, and then did in a way that was equity-centered. So, Environment California, we think of ourselves as a pretty environmental GROUP. We think about clean air, clean water, a livable planet overall for all of us. And so, we partnered up with some environmental justice organizations who can actually help crack policies, understanding what the needs are in communities that are most burdened with pollution to make sure that we created policies that would help us accelerate to those clean electric feature goals, that destination zero carbon and do it an equity-centric way.

Laura Deehan:

So, the steering committee still works today to help make sure that those investments are happening each year, that the money is spent where it’s needed most, and that includes the coalition for clean air. We’re going to do press in a minute. The Communities for a Better Environment and the Greenlining Institute and the NRDC as well as Environment California. And so, I’m just going to walk through quickly what we’re pushing for with this year’s budget campaign. And basically, the message is, “Enough is enough.” So, the equity programs that really make pollution-free travel an option for all Californians are chronically underfunded. In fact, every year, programs like Clean Cars 4 All… Like the Clean Vehicle Program, a lot of these really good programs are out of money too fast, and they’re only available to limited parts of the state. And so, this year presents an enormous opportunity for big investments in action on climate as you’ve heard about already today.

Laura Deehan:

And so, we want to make sure that we take advantage of this opportunity from the federal infrastructure money coming down to the state, to the [inaudible 00:13:43] huge surplus that is going to be here again to make sure that we take bold steps to invest in clean air, invest in the solutions that we need. So, we want to, in particular, double down on the clean to our equity programs to increase the investments to 8.3 billion. So, this is doubling the amount that went to those programs last year and pushing for the amount to increase from the governor’s proposal, 6.1 billion to 8.3 billion. Sorry, that’s the overall package, I misspoke. Within that though, 1.5 billion is for the clean car equity programs. So, this would include allowing us to be able to expand Clean Cars 4 All in California, which is this incredible program that takes some of the dirtiest cars off the roads and places them with clean cars in communities with the most pollution.

Laura Deehan:

And we want to see that fully funded at 200 million a year, so that for the next three years, so that we can actually expand that program to be statewide and not just limited to a few air districts. And then, also supporting the governor’s proposal of 419 million for sustainable community-based transportation equity projects based on what communities actually need working in partnership with the local government. And then, there’s 4.8 billion in there for trucks, buses and off-road equipment. So, we know that we need huge investments to get those. They have 17,000 electric school buses to be electric. This would support at least a 1,000 electric school buses and more. So, getting the trucks… In my review, I highlighted what Environment California’s focused on. I didn’t talk about the heavy duty space with the trucks and shipping. And that’s always a huge source of growing pollution, that a lot of other partners within our coalition are more focused on. But we definitely want to support getting those investments, so that we can transition away from the polluting trucks to clean electric trucks.

Laura Deehan:

And then, infrastructure is the other big line item in the budget we’re pushing for. Getting closer to that million electric charging stations working to get really big investments. This would be enough to fund a 100,000 charging stations in the budget for the next year. And then, the equity piece, and speaking to what you said, Eileen, about what we mean by that. One of the things that we’re really pushing for is ensuring that as these investments come down, that they’re really going where they’re needed the most. We’re all going to have to chip in to help make this transition to this zero carbon in future. And we just know that a lot of people in the state don’t have the extra resources needed to be able to help make that transition. And so, it just makes sense that public dollars be focused in those parts of the state where there might not be as much private investment going automatically.

Laura Deehan:

And so, we want to see that at least 50% of the CEC’s clean transportation program budget go into the communities, the disadvantaged or low income communities that are not currently seeing that charging infrastructure. We want at least 50% of the projects and the charging stations to be located in the disadvantaged communities and no less than 30% of the project supporting zero emission medium and heavy duty vehicles as well. So, those are the big things that we’re calling for, and we actually have a big Charge Ahead lobby day tomorrow. So, we’re going to be meeting with a lot of the top legislators with this agenda tomorrow. We’ve got a big ad in the LA Times coming out, look for that tomorrow, and we’re doing a lot of visibility. So, there’ll be an opportunity if you want to support this ask to supporting the Investing Cleaner Campaign, that’s the website you want to be [inaudible 00:17:34]. And if you’d like to sign on your organization or any groups that you know of, we would love your support.

Eileen Tutt:

Thank you. Chris Chavez is the deputy director at the Coalition for Clean Air. I’ve worked with him for many, many years. He’s totally awesome and committed to electrification and equity, and read his bio.

Chris Chavez:

Well, thank you very much, Eileen. I appreciate that. So again, Chris Chavez deputy policy director at Coalition for Clean Air, previously used to work with the state capital for U.S. Senator Alex Padilla as well as State Senator Fran Pavley for four years, and I’m now basically in the L.A. area. So, why do we need to focus on equity? Simply put, low-income residents and residents of disadvantaged companies have the greatest barriers to clean transportation. We know about vehicle price, but also access to charge is a significant challenge, lack of access to convenient and reliable mobile options, public transit. Other forms of mobility is also challenging. They’re disproportionately impacted by the media and heavy duty sector in terms of emission. And then, they also have other challenges. Market preferences, obviously have an impact. Unfamiliarity with EV technologies and incentives and experience with people. I know for at least some of those, I can certainly speak for myself.

Chris Chavez:

I live in West Long Beach, which is in a disadvantaged community census trap. I live very close to the refineries down by the 710 freeway. And I also live in an area which is predominantly rentals, low income rentals. I could walk literally a couple blocks and the difference between how many EVs are in one part of town versus my part of town is pretty stark. I was really excited actually to see when one of my neighbors drove out the garage with the EV; I was like, “That’s awesome.” It goes to show that we do have some equity challenges, many equity challenges when it comes to clean transportation. In addition to those challenges, low income and disadvantaged community residents actually could benefit the most from clean transportation. Fuel and maintenance costs is the enormous burden on people’s budgets. Gasoline and fuel cost maintenance… Actually before 2022 comprised about 10% of people’s take home salary, which is a massive, massive impact when you try to make [inaudible 00:20:07].

Chris Chavez:

You also have air quality climate impact. As we know, the California has persistently smoggy air, and it has been mentioned before. Transportation is the largest source of emissions in California. Diesel particular is the largest or the biggest air cost contaminant in our air and it’s concentrated in communities near Goodfood headquarters. In fact, if you look at the South Coast AQMD, South Coast Air Quality Management Districts, multiple air toxins exposure, study their names, you actually see a strong correlation with cancer risk along [inaudible 00:20:43]. So, clearly there’s a massive need for clean air and clean transportation in these areas, because then the massive benefit associated with that. Equity programs don’t just reduce pollution. They also reduce barriers.

Chris Chavez:

So, there are a number of different programs that California has, in terms of equity programs. You have a Clean Cars 4 All program, which you’ve heard mentioned. You also have financing assistance, the Sustainable Transportation Equity Project, clean mobility options, Clean Mobility in Schools, outreach and technical support and so on. You also have within the California Vehicle Rebate Project, or CBRP aid, a part of the funding geared towards low to moderate income. So, increased rebates for low to moderate income individuals and then, medium and heavy duty programs like HUF, I forget the exact acronym off the top of my head, but you have got… Even though they’re not necessarily equity programs per se, they have equity benefits because the impacts are most acutely felt in low income and disadvantaged communities. And you also see an increasing amount of media and heavy duty rebates going to the 86-17 process. Simply built 86-17, which was a environmental justice process that we don’t necessarily need to get into today. That is the very major reports in California Climate Policy.

Chris Chavez:

However, incentive design can also be a barrier in itself. There are multiple federal state and local and private incentives, multiple applications. So, you have to one, know what incentives are out there. You also need to know how to apply for each one, and each one has their own application process. Additionally, and Laura mentioned this earlier, and Eileen, I think you referenced it as well, a lot of our incentives are focused on cars rather than mobility. And in fact, if you look at the funding plan for clean transportation incentives, the car puts up, they have a break of how many districts or how many Clean Cars 4 All Program, how much they put out in terms of mobility options. It was very, very low. In some cases, it’s like 1% of participants choose these mobility options. So, cars are still prioritized over everything else.

Chris Chavez:

Initially, almost all incentives kick in long after the purchase. So, in processing times, so when you actually apply and submit your paperwork, takes between 90 to 130 days to get the rebate in cases. And then, cash on the hood programs have either faced challenges like the Rebate Now program, which is in pilot in San Diego [inaudible 00:23:31], it faced some significant challenges. [inaudible 00:23:35] Program is [inaudible 00:23:37] still developed around for about a year and half. So, it’s still a relatively new program. Additionally, the demand far outstrips available funding. So, for example, the [inaudible 00:23:52] program, which is really, some heavy duty vehicles, it ran out of funding. Not in days, not hours, in minutes. Literally minutes. These are going to be the incentives for heavy duty vehicles. And it’s very much a challenge when we have this massive need for clean technology, but only so much funds to allocate to that. And the programs, light duty programs, like CBRP, Clean Cars 4 All have also experienced funding shortfall and they have frequently in the past, had to rely on Weightless and that has its own difficulty associated it.

Chris Chavez:

And ultimately, when we look at it in terms of the need for upfront money in the needs to how some of these programs are structured and just some of the challenges that state has in implementing these programs, it’s not really surprising that it’s predominantly wealthier people and people who come for wealthier, less disadvantaged communities are the ones that are primarily absorbing many of these… Participating in many of these incentive programs. I mean, it’s great that we have people taking and participating in these programs, but in terms of those who have the greatest barrier to clean transportation, those are the ones that aren’t really familiar with. They’re the ones that are participating in the leading needs programs.

Chris Chavez:

I touched a little bit on this earlier, but the funding challenges are certainly significant. So, historically, the greenhouse gas reduction fund has been the primary source of revenue for many of these clean transportation programs. Because of the weird budget situation, the weirdly good budget situation that we’re in, it’s a pretty broad mix that includes TTRF as well as federal funding, A significant amount of federal funding, as well as other state funds and particularly, the general fund. The general fund is basically the state’s main game account, and it’s not… These funds aren’t restricted for a specific purpose. So, it’s very possible in the future that that funding can go away depending on the budget situations we’re facing at that time. Another challenge is that many of the equity programs, the equity programs are lumped together. And I will note comparing CBRP to the equity programs is not an apples to apples comparison.

Chris Chavez:

CBRP is a much older, much more well-established program, whereas like some of the equity programs are newer or smaller or regional. But I think this goes to show that a difference between how the two are funded. So, CBRP received its last budget cycle, 525 million for a three year allocate. So, it has that amount of money for three years. So, like a one lump sum. The equity programs got 150 million for one year with a commitment to multi-year funding. But within that, if you break it down, the Clean Cars 4 All program got 75 million financing assistance, 23.5 million clean mobility options, 10 million clean mobility in schools, 10 million the Sustainable Transportation Equity Project, 25 million and then outreach in tech and job training rounded that out with five and 1.5 million respectively. So, it shows that many of these programs… And they are newer, they are more limited, but they’re also competing, in a way, amongst each other in that mass funding pod.

Chris Chavez:

So, in terms of this year’s budget and advocacy efforts, Governor Newsom has proposed 2022 [inaudible 00:27:30]. Proposes large clean transportation and equity investments on top of last year’s multiyear funding commitments, including that as a 256 million for equity programs. However, Clean Cars 4 All and all the equity programs are still lumped together. So, there’s an opportunity to go above and beyond the governor’s proposal, which Laura was mentioning in having just Clean Cars 4 All given at least 200 or 200 million, and then including funding for the other equity programs in addition to that. The governor’s also proposed 900 million for infrastructure towards the equity communities. And the governor’s also, very recently, within the last month or so… The last couple… Yeah, last month has proposed to accelerate funding as part of the effort to provide relief regarding gasoline prices, in particularly targeting that towards lower income drivers.

Chris Chavez:

So, some additional thoughts as we move forward, the sync budget process is only one part. It’s only, really, the beginning part. You have a separate document that I mentioned earlier, the funding plan for clean transportation in centers, and that is usually… That really kicks off around on August to October/November in that timeframe. There’s some work groups before that, but really making sure that car… Because that this funding plan is what provides the guidelines for these programs. And so, being able to center and prioritize equity in that document is very important. That plan of Charge Ahead has worked on every year for the last several years and being able to help shape how these programs are ran. Other car policies are also important. You have the three year investment plan, you have the AB 32 Scoping Plan. You have rules and regulations like the advanced clean car standard that’s coming up.

Chris Chavez:

All those things have made your impacts on how these programs are administered growth. There are also some notable local actions happening as well. So, in terms of Clean Cars 4 All, you have the drive clean and the San Joaquin program, which is ran with partnership between the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District Valley Clean Air and Now, and other organizations, which is actually one of the very first things I did with Coalition For Clean Air was visiting one of their events. And they would bring out the Kern county fairgrounds or Fresno county fairgrounds and view on the spot mob testing and if somebody failed, regardless of what this is [inaudible 00:30:05], regardless of their vehicle registration, they would actually say, “You can either repair or replace your vehicle,” and provide them the help in doing that.

Chris Chavez:

Another notable program is the Empower Program in Los Angeles, in the Los Angeles area, which is even larger partnership spearheaded by the Liberty Health Foundation. In which they contract different portions of the program out to different community based organizations that connect them with the different services out there. So Clean Cars 4 All, Rooftop Solar, or Weatherization, all these things try and make it easier for participants to be connected to these multiple services. And then also San Diego County is in the process of starting its Clean Cars 4 All program. For a long time their air pollution control district was very hesitant to start this program. They’ve committed to it and are now starting… Should be able to start the program within the next year or so. And then lastly, [inaudible 00:31:07] proposed to do a statewide expansion of the Clean Cars 4 All program to serve the areas that are not currently included within Clean Cars 4 All.

Chris Chavez:

So, currently there are five area districts that have at south coast, San Joaquin, Bay Area, Sacramento, and San Diego. And they have a requirement to only serve disadvantaged communities. CARB is proposing to serve the rest of the state, that’s a non disadvantaged community census or disadvantaged communities. There’s a lot of questions as to how that statewide expansion will impact the current programs. CARB has mentioned believe that they are interested in being complementary to the current programs, but given that many of these they’re going to be serving low income zip codes or low income families regardless of zip code, there may be some conflicts. How this will play out in budgeting it needs to be resolved what community outreach will look like. So, all these things need to be addressed, but with that said, getting more people, more folks who don’t have access to clean transportation into clean transportation at the end of the day is an admirable and worthwhile goal. And with that, finishes up my presentation. Thank you.

Eileen Tutt:

And now we have Craig Segall, who is the Deputy Executive Officer at the Air Resources Board. And he has played a key role in creating zero emission transportation sector policies and addressing longstanding transportation and equities to achieve our clean air climate change and equity goals.

Craig Segall:

Hello. So, I’m keenly aware I’m at the end of the day in this small windowless room. I don’t have slides, so if someone has control of the lights, that might help a little bit, and I’ll try to be brief and to the point. [inaudible 00:32:53]. So first thing to say is to say, thanks to Eileen and Laura and Chris, and all of you that [inaudible 00:33:09] community for creating a context in which it is possible to be for the end era. Eileen mentioned 30 years of doing this work, which is pretty extraordinary [inaudible 00:33:19].

Craig Segall:

And as well as the campaign work that goes on every day, both the statewide organizations and communities impacted by fossil fuel extraction, processing, and use. So, there’s a lot of work behind what state is doing, trying to do, trying to get done and I’m going to start, and probably therefore on the fourth of fourth and I’m in Central Scotland, where a while ago, I walked down to see this [inaudible 00:33:43] state, which has what looks a large garbage can painted black on it by a ditch, which is actually the first steam engine that James Watt put it together, crashing with the friend to drain coal mines and sort of the beginning of the industrial era. And it’s pretty remarkable that in the last couple hundred years we’ve seen the whole arc, I hope, of the fossil fuel era. And I guess what I want to speak to is CARBs current work, and obviously speaking for me rather than for the board as a whole, as how it relates to some of that work on the transportation space from that crumpled garbage can to a car that could be in that entire section of industrial economy.

Craig Segall:

So, I’m going to talk about regulations, incentives, and overall systemic programs in the transportation space, as they relate to reducing demand for fossil fuels and cutting air pollution, especially air pollution, that’s so acutely exposes your roadway and freight communities among others. I’ll just give you a quick overview again, eye to the clock and the existence of that reception, which I’m told is really good.

Craig Segall:

So regulations, first of all, what’s happening this year? Well, there are several really big ones moving through. We’ve already, over the last year or so, begun rolling out the first year emission regulations, for transportation refrigeration units, not perhaps overly sexy and cool, but huge dieseling emitting sources on trucks. For small off-road engines, so think about things like damn leaf blowers, which actually emit more pollution than all the cars in LA. And beginning to set electrification pathways for things like commercial aircraft, which are also [inaudible 00:35:22].

Craig Segall:

Going forward, the big action in town though for the rest of the year, takes us back to the more traditional vehicle classes, advanced clean cars too. Rolls off the tongue twice as good as the original [crosstalk 00:35:39]. Includes what will be, I think, the most stringent and only legal plea binding mandate [inaudible 00:35:47] vehicles certainly in the U.S., I think, likely in the world by 2035. Other targets, there’s a lot of great complimentary policy but in terms of just flat moving out of combustion, one of the most important policies globally on its own. Building on huge amounts of work at CARB over the years and nationally, whether it’s things like auto companies choosing to [inaudible 00:36:13], or the long, long tradition of this nexus between trying to improve local air quality in LA and Silicon Valley and Fresno through technological innovation. Car creating things, the catalytic converter [inaudible 00:36:34] vehicle era.

Craig Segall:

So, that regulation is two major pieces. In addition to supporting and building upon the federal work we’ve done over the last few years to defend greenhouse gas reductions and carry money regulation sets a course 100% emission vehicles plus a small trench of plug-in hybrids that are not today’s plug-in hybrids, [inaudible 00:36:54]. It also has two other, I think, genuinely innovative [inaudible 00:37:01], the first of these will be CARBS first foray into legally required [inaudible 00:37:09] vehicle durability. So making sure these cars actually last, especially in these vehicle market [inaudible 00:37:15] parts. We see that to the question Eileen mentioned [inaudible 00:37:19]. We are shackled to this car based transportation system in California. It’s bad enough if you have to use a bit of your income far too big of it to buy asset that declines in value, it’s worse if it doesn’t work.

Craig Segall:

So, ensuring that those batteries are durable, that you know how much charges in them, that they’re repairable, there’s another [inaudible 00:37:40]. And also things like making sure you can charge them. So requiring the auto makers include like long charging ports, especially for folks who might need to plug in at their apartment building and the other places that are harder to access. Finally, it includes a large trash of environmental justice credits, which companies are incentive to use to drive vehicle [inaudible 00:38:00] cost vehicles or other options into communities that otherwise see these first. [inaudible 00:38:05], and while other states can adopt this regulation wholesale, which we really want to see happen. So this needs to be a national program. We’ve seen already states adopt this in parallel with us move forward from New York and Massachusetts to States of Minnesota and Colorado and Virginia that have begun to move into the space as well.

Craig Segall:

So, the hope is to see California not only lead this within our state, but support a nationwide change in states voluntarily choose to join this program. And the last bit, I always note for the engineering nerds,, is a bunch of other license regulation that make sure that the remaining gas cars are as clean as possible. So, for instance, hybrids and different sorts of pollution characteristics better make sure that they don’t net large puffs of pollution in the start going to go back to gas. So, that regulatory work there, huge thing in [inaudible 00:39:02]. The board will vote on that in August. Would be genuinely world changing and mark an end to ultimately combustion vehicle sales. On the heavy duty side, I will just note, we’re also working on an end heavy duty combustion. The current proposed end date 2040 along with, in addition to our existing heavy duty vehicle rules, both for public buses and for trucks.

Craig Segall:

And so the sales purchase side fleet rules, to begin turning over the heavy duty trucks that really burden communities [inaudible 00:39:32] including notably a proposal to include the U.S. Postal Services fleet and obvious similar delivery fleets because they have, for some reason, thought that they’ll want to do that by contract, fire enough or regularly. On the incentive side, my fellow panels have largely covered what’s in this really quite extra ordinary climate budget. And I guess what I want to note is that it’s part of an evolution both within the state and at CARB. So, CARBS last year’s funding planned about 60% of those funds went to priority populations, to disadvantaged communities [inaudible 00:40:12] Californians, that’s above a statutory target of about 35%. It includes an increasing number of card outs for small fleets for low ranking folks, shifting those programs away.

Craig Segall:

The thinking here really has been as we go from EVs being a niche technology where we just once developed them at beachheads, we want to take them from those beachheads to make them available, especially to those who may not otherwise be able to purchase them, whether it’s businesses or communities. And it includes a growing share of funds, which replaces with, but which means to Chris and Laura’s points to be much more in mobility and community options. This it is absolute case that we don’t just want to sort of swap out California’s current car culture with another car culture, that’s not a good long term plan. And so, it’s working directly with communities through it’s opposing the budget about $490 million [inaudible 00:41:00] much more and other programs, including transportation commission and council staff that are community driven, that barely try to suss out, “Where do we need change bus routes?

Craig Segall:

Where do we need bike plans? Where do we need sidewalks? How can we support through things like paycheck and COVID. How relief monies going into what’s called regional early after program. That supported 600 million in combined regional planning, denser affordable housing for changes in the transportation system. So, everywhere we can. I was trying to think about this, and this is my last point, as a system. Understanding that what we’re going for here is yes, a world altering technological achievement, but also something that’s a lot, perhaps less shiny flashy, but is more durable and better which is a California where your kids absolutely can walk to school. Where [inaudible 00:41:51] not the only person biking to school. We can have the things that folks in good cities and communities, whether urban or rural or suburban, have the world [inaudible 00:42:02]. Which is to say, world in which we aren’t shackled to vehicles and which we can walk and meet our neighbors and be part of our communities in which we have both clean air and a more stable climate and better places to enjoy it.

Craig Segall:

And so, I think that’s really the arc. And of course both from the advocacy and government is always plenty to debate, to sort out, to figure out to decry, to push forward. But I do think it’s remarkable you know, on some of the days when I’m totally zoomed out many, many, many conference calls after, and it’s just an endless set of process that we’re here. That this is actually happening and that we’re debating the how and the why, all which are important questions, but that is in fact, the direction of travel.

Craig Segall:

And so, I think I’ll leave you just with another sort of… Craig visits some interesting historical area and looks at plaques, which is… I was at the River Rouge a few weeks ago, which was Henry Ford’s assembly line. And they have torn down the buildings that were where the early model As and model Ts were built and that’s now the factory that’s making their electric F-150. And although I will say, in some ways I was much a fan of the public bus as an electrified pickup truck, I am a fan of an electrified pickup truck and it is pretty remarkable to see that this future is literally rising on the foundations of our past. It’s an encouraging time. And I think it’s really due to a lot of people in the room and down to your efforts and that we are where we are just now. So thanks for what you’re doing. And I’m looking forward to a few questions before, again, I can’t overemphasize this, but I close a really good reception.

Eileen Tutt:

All right, anybody have any questions? Because I do have a question I can start with if we need to warm up the group, but if there are any questions I’ll let… Okay. Yes.

Pam:

Pam Schneider, I’m a former mayor council in the city of Millbrae right next to SFO with sadly car [inaudible 00:44:05] the micro particulates and the noise from it. And I thought they said noise and it was nose. I’m actually putting all of you on the [inaudible 00:44:16], emphasis on equity. I get it, I’ve worked in the environmental field almost 40 years, my city is a middle income city. It is between two freeways, [inaudible 00:44:24], but we’re not considered an equity committee. I’m the chair or will be the chair of our bike pedestrian committee. We can’t get grants from my city. South San Francisco, $37 million budget surplus has three priority equity communities. They get to count that in their grant programs, my city cannot. And the state gave them an extra 5 million for BPE programs last summer.

Pam:

The funding is not equitable. I hear you saying equitable, but the middle of the road cities, small cities that don’t get block grants under 50,000, we are being left out of all of the formulas, whether it’s the federal infrastructure or the state programs. I would just like all of you working on this to consider that equity, a term we’re using now in our county, is geographical equity. So, Cal gets more lower income stuff than Nor Cal does because of our property values. The equity model needs to be dived into. Sorry for the lecture. Would love CARB to come to Millbrae because my city gets hammered with noise 24/7, 365 days a year, but we don’t count.

Craig Segall:

SFOs is a huge challenge as is aviation, both in North Cal and South Cal. And you’re right, it’s a real burden. And you know that far better than, just to sort of acknowledge that point. CARBs done a fair amount of aviation fuels and pollution reduction, the noise issue is one in which I wish we had authority. On the broader points of what about the midsize, right? What about cities that are basically funding basic services and lack the ability to transform and are often impacted by infrastructure beyond their direct control? I think it’s a valid point and I think one thing I point out…

Craig Segall:

We just came out along with the transportation commission and OPR, with a series of reports on the very considerable discretion available under [inaudible 00:46:15] happy to share it with you, available to transportation commission, which directs so much of this money toward roads, toward freeway, but doesn’t have to. There’s a lot of money out there including in [inaudible 00:46:27] that in my view really needs a fresh look on where and how we spend it, including for the reasons.

Eileen Tutt:

And I just want to add that I live in Oakland and I resemble the remark. I often feel like the Bay Area gets left out of the equity basket. And that’s why I asked for equity to be defined because I do feel like the way that the… When we set up a program that prioritizes equity, what it means is that a bunch of communities get together and race to the bottom, and that is really not a good paradigm to set up. I feel like environment like Charge Ahead has really tried to address that straight on. So, they’re saying 50 plus percent, so at least half of the money ought to go to what the state has defined as equity communities, but let’s be real, transportation is transportation because it moves. I may not live in a disadvantaged community, but I can guarantee that I will drive through one on a regular basis going to work or wherever I go.

Eileen Tutt:

That’s true for almost everyone, whether you live in a disadvantaged community or not, you are going to impact the air quality in these communities that are vulnerable. So, I really respect this idea that what we want to prioritize equity and prioritize these communities that we have somewhat arbitrarily defined, we have to use different metrics and come up with different ways that people are more or less disadvantaged but at the end of the day, you’re always going to miss quite a few people.

Eileen Tutt:

In fact, CARB and Charge Ahead really brought up the rural community issue, which is an other huge issues, especially for the Native Americans. So, I’m going to say, I think what you’ve raised is a really important point. And one of the ways that we have all addressed it in the advocacy and policy world is to say, “We want to prioritize a minimum of half.” Recognizing that investments in all California’s communities are important and that the middle income, middle class communities also need investments because we’re asking 100%, every single Californian, we’re saying every single Californian has to choose an electric truck or an electric car over their diesel or gasoline car or choose an electric mobility option.

Eileen Tutt:

And one thing I just want ask you is, and all three of you brought this up, but this idea of mobility versus car ownership, I think that is the key. And living in the Bay Area, we all know that, it’s a bigger issue in LA, but I will tell you that the LA transit system has really, before COVID, really got its own legs. So, I guess what I would ask the panelists is when you think about mobility, beyond single occupancy vehicle ownership, what are you thinking of from an equity perspective? And even for middle class people that what we really want to do is get everyone out of their cars and into buses or into shared mobility. So, what are your organizations and what is part of this budget that really focuses on mobility and shared mobility and increasing mobility perhaps for people who either don’t have a driver’s license or who don’t drive for a variety of reasons.

Chris Chavez:

Yeah. So, I think that’s a very good question. In terms of some of the other programs, so I know there’s a lot… [inaudible 00:50:00] separate funding stream for transit operations, things like that through a budget process that was settled through 83, 98 and all that. So we don’t get into. That funding stream does exist. One thing I would say in terms of some of the things that we seen funded out of this program is like, for example, ride share program or car sharing program. So you have things like Blue LA, which is an electric car, basically a car sharing system where you can go up, you don’t have to own it,. You just have to say, “Hey…” reserve it on an app. You can borrow the car for as you need it.

Chris Chavez:

I know Sacramento has a similar program, smaller program. There’s all like, for example, the [inaudible 00:50:49] program, which is focused on the farming community. I’m not as familiar with the ins and outs of things like the Step Program and what is exactly in those, what’s funded through it, who’s participating in it, but I hate to use the car programs as an example, but I think really it’s trying to get away from the idea that to participate in this you have to own a car that you have to drive somewhere. It’s being able to create whether it’s active transportation or what my boss one time said, “Used to be called walking and biking,” where you have something where you can have micro transit. That’s another thing that’s come up, where you have instead of like a fixed bus route, you may be able to reserve space from a transit agency to smaller vehicle, micro transits options, things like that. So I think those are some of the concepts, some of the ideas and getting away from the idea of benefiting from these programs, is you have to be [inaudible 00:51:50].

Laura Deehan:

And then I would just, in addition to those great examples, which we definitely support funding those and expanding funding for those, a lot of those programs, they exist right now in a small scale. And we really, we want to have those types of ride sharing programs be in far more communities. And so, that’s going to require a much bigger investment in taking these pilots that have been tested and that work in certain communities and really expanding them and also trying new things. We need e-bikes are a tremendous solution for a lot of people and we have the tip of iceberg of actually seeing how those can transform communities so people aren’t so reliant on the single vehicle car. And so that’s partly why we’re asking for bigger investments overall in these equity programs that will help create more innovative solutions, as well as finding the ones that are working.

Eileen Tutt:

So we have one question right here in front. Can you do it in 30 seconds?

Speaker 6:

Yes. And actually it’s two points and [inaudible 00:53:02] question. First, with the equity lens, I come from Richmond and the Bay Area, we have a very poor community in that area, they’re all walking and biking. The only reason why they take cars for most of the time, because they don’t have any kind of busing system or transportation system. I mean, Oakland, you know how AC camp runs, if no one’s available, that bus doesn’t run and now you’re late to work and people can’t afford to ride share or whatever. So, I want to give a little perspective on what this idea of walking and biking. I mean, before I owned my car, I was walking and busing everywhere. So, that’s something to take into consideration when we talk about getting more people out. There are a lot of people out, it’s who you want out and how we’re going to help with the system of creating and a system where people can rely on that transportation.

Speaker 6:

Because I’m all for let’s get more EVs, I’m you willing to give up my car for a good EV right? I’m willing. But then the other… That leads me to question like when we have these different incentives, now they go to local government and we’re supposed to trust that local government is thinking about us? Our community, my community, the communities that are overlooked and I’m in between lower, middle and middle, middle income places. So, if I’m trusting the government or whomever’s in charge of money, we wouldn’t be talking about it today if they had our interest at… If it was really important to them, we wouldn’t be here today. So that we know doesn’t work.

Speaker 6:

So the question is, how do we, and I say we because it’s all encompassing, how do we have those who own homes to be willing to do the EV upgrades for the renters? Not now have to find new homes because now it’s a EV home and the rent now went up and we already have a housing issue now. So these are some of the equitable questions that I have where it’s the everyday kind of stuff. I already walk, take the bus. That’s unreliable. I have to drive. I don’t have EVs available to me because if my, if the home on renting, now my rent is going to go up. I’m not going to ask for them to do that for me. Right. And then the other question in some of the neighborhoods we have, I’m not, we have SL board leave. You know, we have SL board, so they’re not even trying to upkeep the heat, let alone, put it in. Those are just some of the questions I have related to equity. So.