Reminder: Per our bylaws, Leadership Group meetings are confidential  Working Council April 5, 2019 Symantec 350 Ellis St, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA  

AGENDA  

7:30 a.m. Coffee & Conversation       8:00 a.m. Call to Order & Meeting Confidentiality Reminder 

Welcome from our Host, Symantec (Jaime Barclay, Symantec) Introductions & Welcome to New Member Company Representatives 

 8:05 a.m.  Consent Item   March Working Council Minutes  8:10 a.m. President’s Report 

● Washington, D.C. Advocacy Trip (April 1-2) ● GameChangers (April 26) 

 8:20 a.m.  2019 Annual Silicon Valley Poll  8:45 a.m. SVO Summer Internship Program    8:50 a.m. Legislative Action Items 

● AB 56 (Garcia, E.), California Clean Electricity Authority ○ Energy Committee Recommendation: Oppose 

● AB 1100 (Kamlager-Dove), Electric Vehicle Charging Stations & Local Minimum Parking Standards 

○ Energy Committee Recommendation: Support ● S. 674 (Carper) Clean Corridors Act  

○ Energy Committee Recommendation: Support ● AB 784 (Mullin) Zero-Emission Heavy-Duty Vehicles  

○ Scheduled for April 3 Transportation Policy Committee ○ Staff Recommendation: Support  

Discussion Items ● Governor's Budget Trailer Bill Draft Language: "Housing Planning and 

Production Grants" (tying transportation funding with housing planning)  9:45 a.m. Guest Speaker 

Assemblymember Evan Low, 28th Assembly District  

10:10 a.m. Closing Remarks 

  

 10:15 a.m. Adjourn    Next Meeting:  May 3, 2019 @ Texas Instruments     2019 Working Council Meeting Schedule  

  January 10 

  February 7 

  March 7 

  April 5 // Location: Symantec 

  May 3 // Texas Instruments 

  June 7 // Texas Instruments 

  July 12 // Location: Blach Construction 

  August 2 // PwC 

  September 6 // Blach Construction 

  October 11 (Strategy Conference) 

  November 1 // Blach Construction 

  December 6 

Working Council Thursday, March 7, 2019 7.30am - 10.30am PwC 488 S Almaden Blvd #1800 San Jose, CA 95110 Member Present: Carl Guardino, Silicon Valley Leadership Group Jason Lundgaard, Apple, Chair Rich Coffin, ARUP Kevin Kang, Aura Debi Schechtman, Bank of the West Michael Turpin, Bay Area News Group Matthew Brown, BD Biosciences Martin Fatooh, BIRD Rides Inc. Irene Koulouris, Booster Fuels San Tropham, City National Bank Mona Tierney-Lloyd, Enel X NA Allie Detrio, ENGIE Sophie Martin, Genentech Victor Arrañaga, HP Inc. Steven Joesten, Infinera Hanh Mo, Kaiser Permanente Dennis Ralson, KLA Bernadette Wozniak, KPMG Rick Beatty, Lehigh Hanson Leslie Maslowski, NBC Bay Area / Telemundo Karl Danz, NetApp Traci Cornaglia, PayPal Jessy Borges, PG&E Ron Gonzales, Presencia LLC Joseph Palladino, PwC Jas Sajjan, San Francisco 49ers Jennifer Malutta, San Jose State University Craig Robinson, Silicon Valley Bank Tim Woodbury, Splunk Jon Cowan, Stanford Health Care Jean McCown, Stanford University Alicia Carlson, Stryker Blair Swezey, SunPower Corporation Brad Moulard, Synnex Corporation Janikke Klem, TechCU Quinn Annelin, United Airlines Megan Mix, Wells Fargo Bank David Chase, Western Digital

Courtney Lorenz, XL Construction Via call-in option Sean Gibson, Dragonfly Group Breanna Gilbert, KQED Megan Lehtonen, OSIsoft Erin Brennock, Synopsys Alex Leupp, Verizon Staff Present: Angelica Cortez Peter Leroe-Muñoz Nardin Sarkis Margaret Daoud-Gray Jamila McIntosh Heidi Sickler Nathan Ho Jason Baker Connie Vieaux Dan Kostenbauder Mike Mielke Megan White Kelli Kuykendall David Palter Kathleen Wortham Agenda Working Council Chair Jason Baker called the meeting to order at 8:03 am and reminded everyone about meeting confidentiality. Self-introductions followed. Consent Item:

A motion was made by Ron Gonzales of Presencia LLC and was seconded by Jessy Borges of PG&E. Motion to approve minutes was approved by voice vote, 0 opposed, 0 1 abstention.

Approval of February Working Council Minutes

President’s Report:

April 1-2 Washington, D.C. Advocacy Trip

For details contact Nardin Sarkis at nsarkis@svlg.org

Friday, April 26 8am-12:00pm at Villa Ragusa in Campbell Game Changers

For more info / sponsorship opportunities contact Shannon De Atley-Johnson sjohnson@svlg.org Big Audacious Goals (BAG) Presentations

Today Education and Workforce Development BAG

- Vote on goal

- Brainstorm partners and strategies

Next steps - Vote: March Board meeting - Bring partners together, draft interim targets and strategies

Goal: Within 10 years, build a STEM workforce that reflects Silicon Valley's diversity by doubling and diversifying the annual number of local STEM graduates prepared for innovation economy careers Why:

- 22+ percent of employment in San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara is in STEM - Public Policy Institute of California estimates shortage of 1.1 million highly

educated workers by 2030 - California-born Silicon Valley STEM Professionals: 19% in 2017 - Diversity of STEM graduates - 20% in engineering and CS, 36% overall STEM degrees conferred to women - 17.8 % STEM bachelor’s degrees conferred to under-represented minority

graduates (41% of K-12 students) - Local talent: - 49% of Silicon Valley students will not

- 66% of Latinx students and 70% of African American graduates cannot apply to UC/CSU

graduate with the minimum requirements to apply to a UC/CSU

Baseline & Goalposts Annual SV STEM graduates Baseline: 8,550 Goal: 17,100 annually Diversity of STEM Graduates Baseline:17.8% under-represented minorities Goal: 41%(parity with K-12) CSU/UC 6-year graduation rate Baseline: 61% CSU/84.4% UC Community College students achieving calculus readiness Baseline: 4% High School Graduates “college and career ready” Baseline: 51% 8th grade math Baseline: 56% met or exceeded standard 3rd grade reading

Baseline: 60% met or exceeded standard Strategies Brainstorm

- Efforts will need to focus on both expanding existing pathways and creating new pathways:

○ Community College to Career Initiative (CC2C) ○ P-Tech ○ Apprenticeships

- College success and completion funding and initiatives (wrap-around services, financial aid)

- K-12 quality - Access to early childhood education - Access to industry-relevant curriculum like computer science

Partners Brainstorm

- K-12, colleges, and universities - Foundations and Nonprofits

○ Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley: Latinos in Tech - Employers - Research institutions - Advocacy Groups - Policymakers & Elected Officials

Action: Within 10 years, build a STEM workforce that reflects Silicon Valley's diversity by doubling and diversifying the annual number of local STEM graduates prepared for innovation economy careers Questions:

- Are there important “interim measurements” that are missing? - Who are important partners in this work?

A motion to approve the Education and Workforce Development BAG was made by Ron Gonzales of Presencia LLC. The motion was seconded by Craig Robinson of Silicon Valley Bank. The motion passed by voice vote, 0 opposed, 1 abstention.

Environment Rising Waters Adaption BAG – Refinement and Adoption

Global average sea level has increased 8 inches since 1880. The rate of local sea level rise varies depending on both global and local factors, including currents, ocean floor topography, variations in ocean density, and land uplifts or subsidence due to geological reasons or human activities.

Artic sea loss from 1984 to 2016 is significant Old Environment BAG: within 11 years, ensure the region has a plan in place to address the effects of rising waters on our communities. Jan 2019 Environment Committee Meeting: Keep focus on rising waters

• Region will increasingly have to come to grips with rising waters (Bay-side, creek-side and water table).

• Add in “preamble” regarding all that staff has done and is doing on climate change mitigation

• Switch focus slightly New BAG Preamble: While continuing to support policies to reduce global warming pollution and to helping solve the climate crisis in various other ways, we will help protect our region and member companies from the rising waters (Bay-side, creek-side and water table) brought about by global warming by... BHAG: ensuring the SF Bay Area – its residents as well as its built and green infrastructure – is prepared for rising waters within 11 years. A motion was made by Jessy Borges of PG&E to approve the proposed Environment BAG and was seconded by Mona Tierney-Lloyd of Enel X. The motion passed by voice votes, 0 opposed, 1 abstention. Discussion / Legislative Action Items

- Every year since 1977 has seen above average global temperatures

HR 763 – Energy, Innovation, and Carbon Dividend Act – Environment Committee Recommends Support in Principle

- 9 of 10 hottest years ever recorded have now occurred since 2005 - Past 5 years have been the hottest 5 years on record

- Most serious federal climate legislation since 2009 Issue:

- Institutes national, revenue-neutral carbon fee-and-dividend system, which would place a predictable, steadily rising price on carbon pollution

- All fees collected, minus administrative costs, returned to households as a monthly dividend check.

- In line with Leadership Group work plan and past support.

Assessed on fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas). Fee starts low; grows over time. Carbon Fee

- Purpose: Corrects market distortions by reflecting externalities of pollution costs. Creates market-driven demand for clean energy technologies.

- Details: Assessed once, upstream. Starts at $15 per metric ton, increases $10 each year. Exemption for agricultural fuels and military uses. Rebate for carbon capture and storage (CCS).

- HFCs: Fee also assessed at 10% of GWP of fluorinated gases. Carbon Dividend Money collected is allocated equally every month to Americans. Program administrative costs are paid from the fees collected.

- Purpose: Protects consumers and the economy. Maintains revenue neutrality. Rebate offsets cost increases for most Americans.

- Details: Equal share to adults with SSN or TIN, half share to minors. Administered by Treasury. Admin costs not to exceed 2%. Border Adjustment To protect U.S. manufacturers and jobs, imported goods will pay a border adjustment; goods exported from US receive refund.

- Trade: Playing field is leveled for those areas that don’t have a price on carbon

- Carbon pricing regimes: Many jurisdictions, including top 5 US trading partners (China, Canada, EU, etc.) already have carbon pricing in place Regulatory Relief

- There are no active federal regs on global warming pollution currently, however:

- Bill prevents new regulations by the EPA on covered emissions, but if emission targets are not being met after 10 yrs, regulatory authority over these emissions would be restored. Additional Points:

- Meaningful bi-partisan proposal to address climate change. - Useful starting point for discussion on how to address the issue at federal level.

- In line with Leadership Group’s longstanding support for pricing global warming pollution for well over a decade.

A motion to support in principle passed by voice vote, 0 opposed, 2 abstentions.

- Recognizes all Californians have the right to generate and store their own renewable electricity without undue interference from their local electric utility.

SB 288 Solar Bill of Rights – Energy Committee Recommends Support

- Directs CPUC, CalISO and Public Utilities to update relevant tariffs to ensure fair compensation of solar and storage for services they provide to the grid.

- Updates interconnection policies to require increased transparency and reporting on delays, while requiring CPUC and CEC to establish best practices for interconnection.

A motion to support was approved by the Working Council by a hand vote: 25 yes, 2 opposed, 7 abstentions. Guest Speaker – Santa Clara County Supervisor Board President, Joe Simitian Supervisor Simitian spoke about Leadership Group top priorities such as housing and transportation. He fielded questions from member deputies. Adjourn 10:16am Next Working Council Meeting: April 5 @ Symantec

Date: April 5, 2019 To: Silicon Valley Leadership Group Working Council From: Energy Committee, and Heidi Sickler, Director, Energy & Environment RE: AB 56 (Eduardo Garcia): Statewide Central Electricity Procurement Entity __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Issue: Should SVLG oppose AB 56, legislation that would establish a CA Clean Electricity Authority to purchase energy on behalf of all load service entities? Energy Committee Recommendation: Oppose Summary: AB 56 would:

● Authorize the CPUC and CEC to establish a new CA Clean Electricity Authority, a nonprofit, public benefit corporation.

● Authorize the CA Clean Electricity Authority to undertake procurement of electricity on behalf of retail end-use customers of electrical corporations, CCAs, and electric service providers, collectively referred to as LSEs and POUs.

● Require the Authority to submit to the CEC for approval annual procurement plans proposing procurement commitments on behalf of customers of POUs, and to the CPUC for approval of annual procurement plans proposing procurement commitments on behalf of LSEs.

● Authorize the CA Clean Electricity Authority to solicit and negotiate for procurement contracts, upon the CPUC’s approval of the procurement plans.

● Require the Authority to develop and submit for review to either the CPUC or the CEC annual revenue requirements for costs incurred on behalf of customers of LSEs or POUs.

Background: On February 21, the CPUC voted 5-0 in favor of a Resource Adequacy program to prevent future supply shortages by ensuring that every part of California has instantaneous power to serve their customers every hour of the year. The Resource Adequacy program approved by the CPUC requires investor-owned utilities, community choice aggregators (CCAs), and electric service providers to procure 100% of the resources they need for local reliability each year for the next two years, and 50% of what they need three years from now. The CPUC’s 5-0 vote was in response to: (1) reports from several entities that they have been unsuccessful at procuring sufficient capacity; and (2) CPUC’s view that CCAs and electricity service providers are not prepared to meet statutory reliability and Resource Adequacy obligations. According to CPUC President Picker, the CPUC issued 11 waivers for Resource Adequacy last year to small electricity providers and to CCAs who could not meet legislative reliability requirements. As a result, the ISO made expensive last-minute energy purchases under federal reliability requirements. Commissioner Aceves’ position is that all Load Serving Entities (utilities, CCAs and electricity service providers) need to use gas-fired power plants to serve their load and meet Resource Adequacy requirements. She also encourages development of local renewable resources that can provide local Resource Adequacy. CPUC’s Energy Division put forward a proposal in 2018 for the implementation of a central procurement mechanism. According to the CPUC, parties critiqued the proposal without supplying alternatives that address Resource Adequacy. The CPUC’s decision directs parties to develop workable implementation solutions for central procurement via a series of workshops over the next six months. Each workshop is to be facilitated by a different market representative, including the CCAs, IOUs, and energy service providers.

There is currently a lack of consensus among utilities on the need for a central procurement entity. Pacific Gas and Electric supports a central procurement entity. San Diego Gas and Electric has indicated that it will be shifting predominantly to distribution and eliminating procurement. Southern California Edison has expressed an interest in only procuring least cost resources. Analysis: Staff believes this bill to be worthy of Leadership Group consideration in our process. Staff designated the following criteria for determining if the bill is worthy of a letter:

● AB 56 is a high priority in the context of the committee priorities we voted for in the three-year business plan.

Clean energy supply has been a top policy priority for SVLG members over the last two years. SVLG has taken a support position on SB 100, SB 700 and more recently on SB 288, Senator Weiner’s Solar Bill of Rights.

● AB 56 would have a significant impact on two or more Leadership Group companies who urge opposition. A

central procurement entity could potentially reduce or eliminate energy procurement competition that end-users value. Electricity service providers prefer to manage their own procurement and provide competitive market procurement options and may view central procurement as troublesome. Electricity service providers also view utilities as better suited to provide distribution instead of procurement. To that end, they view central procurement as an unnecessary backstop mechanism.

● AB 56 may significantly impact the innovation economy. If AB 56 passes, it could have a detrimental impact on

energy service providers and their customers, Community Choice Aggregators and other electricity service providers’ short and long-term financial viability if the bill limits or eliminates their ability to procure clean energy.

● SVLG does not have precedent on this issue. However, SVLG did support Senator Hertzberg’s 2018 Direct

Access bill, SB 237, and may do so again this year (SB 350, Hertzberg).

● AB 56 might be a high priority in the context of positions SVLG has taken this year. This bill is important because it potentially impacts all end-users of energy.

Status: Heard on April 3 by the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy. Also referred to the Committee on Natural Resources. Support: None on file. Opposed: None on file. Fiscal Impact: Not on file.

Date: April 5, 2019 To: Silicon Valley Leadership Group Working Council From: Energy Committee, and Heidi Sickler, Director, Energy and Environment RE: AB 1100 (Kamlager-Dove) | EV Charging Stations & Local Minimum Parking __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Issue: AB 1100 would reduce barriers to electric vehicle (EV) charger installation by defining a “charging space” as a “parking space.” This clarification would ensure that parking stalls served by EV charging stations can still count toward applicable local minimum parking requirements. Energy Committee Recommendation: Support Summary: The problem AB 1100 is trying to fix is as follows:

● When an EV charging station is installed at a parking space, the California Building Code defines it as a “charging space” and not a “parking space.”

● Because of this change in definition, some local governments have required EV charging companies to construct additional parking spaces to offset the “lost” parking space to fulfill locally-mandated minimum parking requirements.

● In reality, parking to charge an EV, which can take up to an hour for 30 miles of range, serves the same purpose as non-EV parking: it allows consumers to shop, eat, or run errands.

Background: This legislation would help reduce unnecessary and costly barriers to EV charging station deployment. It costs approximately $20,000 to provide a new parking spot versus $280-$760 cost per parking spot for EV wiring and a panel upgrade. Availability of charging infrastructure is key to increasing consumer confidence in EVs; consumers want access to infrastructure to reduce their range anxiety – the fear that they will run out of fuel in their vehicle before finding a charging station. This issue is especially prominent for drivers who live in multi-unit dwellings, as they are not able to charge at home. Some municipalities, including Los Angeles, Sonoma and Sacramento Counties, and the cities of Stockton, West Hollywood, Santa Barbara and Pleasanton, have passed ordinances to count EV charging spaces as one or more parking spaces, as it pertains to required parking. However, most other municipalities have not taken such measures. California has a goal to deploy 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles and 250,000 EV charging stations, including 10,000 DC fast chargers, by 2025. California also has a goal to deploy 5 million zero-emission vehicles by 2030, which will require even further scale-up of charging infrastructure. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, 40% of ZEV owners in California don’t have a place to charge and park their vehicles. To date, the state only has 18,000 public charging stations, including approximately 2,700 direct current fast chargers. Last year, CARB completed a gap analysis to determine the total number of Level 2 charging stations needed to accommodate the Energy Commission’s projected 120,000 EVs residing in multifamily housing by 2025. CARB’s analysis revealed a gap of 66,000-79,500 EV charging stations still needed to meet the demand for charging stations in multifamily housing by 2025. Given the state’s long-term greenhouse gas emission reduction, ZEV and EV infrastructure deployment goals, it will increasingly need to reduce barriers to charger installation – permitting, regulatory, financial, or otherwise. Bay Area EV-Readiness: In the Bay Area alone, 14 local governments have voluntarily exceeded the minimum requirements for parking spaces pre-wired for EV charging for new commercial and housing developments, including San Francisco City and County (100%), Palo Alto (100%), Sunnyvale (12.5%), Santa Cruz (12%), Oakland (10%), Berkeley (10%), Fremont (10%), San Mateo (10%), Contra Costa County (5%), Cupertino (5%), Menlo Park (5%), San Rafael (5%) and Santa Rosa (5%). In Southern California, Long Beach (100%), Lancaster (10%), Los Angeles (5%) and Santa Monica (5%) have voluntarily exceeded the 3% minimum requirement for EV readiness. Public Health and Air Quality: The American Lung Association estimates that ZEV adoption has the potential to save Californians $13 billion in annual health care savings in 2030.[1] This is especially important in California, which has the worst air quality in the nation. Three California counties -- Los Angeles-Long Beach, Bakersfield and Fresno-Madera -- have the worst smog levels in the entire country, and more than 90% of California residents live in counties with unhealthy air.[2]

Analysis: Staff believes this bill to be worthy of Leadership Group consideration in our process based on the following criteria for determining if the bill is worthy of a letter:

● The bill has widespread impact: It would be a significant boost to the EV charging providers and ZEV manufacturers we represent. This legislation would help reduce unnecessary and costly barriers to EV charging station deployment. An informal survey of 16 Leadership Group members revealed that ZEV charging infrastructure is having a positive impact on employee retention. Availability of charging infrastructure is key to increasing consumer confidence in ZEVs. The state needs to rapidly increase EV charging infrastructure deployment to meet its transportation electrification and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. AB 1100 bolsters the state’s efforts to that end. California climate and EV penetration goals will not be met unless the Legislature aligns all applicable policies underlying these goals at the local and state level.

● The bill would significantly impact multiple Leadership Group companies who urge our support: Several Leadership Group companies provide EV charging solutions to SVLG member companies, their employees and California consumers. An informal survey of 16 Leadership Group members revealed that ZEV charging infrastructure is having a positive impact on employee retention. Building an additional parking space is often costly or technically infeasible. Because of these factors, EV charging station providers needlessly lose countless charger installation projects across the state, undercutting the state’s transportation electrification efforts, to the detriment of its air quality improvement and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals.

● The bill is a high priority in terms of the committee priorities we voted for our business plan: Environment Priority #2 and Energy Priority #3 is the Accelerated Deployment of ZEVs and EV Charging Infrastructure. EV charging infrastructure and ZEVs can also bring more clean energy on to the grid (Energy Priority #2), and clean energy can reduce the operating cost of ZEVs.

● SVLG has taken positions consistent with staff’s “support” recommendation for this bill. Last year, SVLG supported increasing the number of EV-ready parking spaces from 3% to 10% as part of the CALGreen building code’s EV-parking standards for new multifamily buildings. The Leadership Group also supported AB 2127 (Ting), legislation which tasks the CEC with identifying the EV charging infrastructure needed to place 1.5 million ZEVs on the road by 2025. We also supported AB 1796 (Muratsuchi), legislation signed into law last year, which changed existing state law to require property owners to approve rent controlled renter’s request to install an EV charger, fully at the renter’s expense. The Leadership Group also supported AB 2145 (Reyes), the Charging infrastructure for CA Clean Truck Program, and SB 1016 (Allen), which increased homeowners access to EV charging stations. All four bills were signed into law last year. This year, the Leadership Group has supported AB 1424 (Berman), the EV Charging Stations Open Access Act, which supports greater interest in- and demand for EV charging stations by providing to the general public a minimum of two payment options.

● This is a high priority in the context of the bills we have taken positions on this year. This year, the Leadership Group has supported, AB 40 (Ting), the Clean Cars 2040 Strategy, and AB 1424 (Berman), the EV Charging Stations Open Access Act. AB 1100 would complement and support the mobility, environmental and economic benefits of ZEVs and EV charging infrastructure. California climate and EV penetration goals will not be met unless the Legislature aligns all applicable policies underlying these goals at the local and state level.

Status: Referred to Assembly Committee on Local Government. Support: Tesla, ChargePoint, Enel X, ENGIE, Environment California. Opposed: None on file. Fiscal Impact: Not on file. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ [1] American Lung Association, Clean Air Future Health and Climate Benefits of Zero Emission Vehicles (2016). [2] American Lung Association State of the Air 2017. http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/state-of-the-air/state-of-the-air-2017.pdf

Date: April 5, 2019 To: Silicon Valley Leadership Group Working Council From: Energy Committee, and Heidi Sickler, Director, Energy and Environment Re: S. 674, The Clean Corridors Act of 2019 (Carper) __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Issue: S. 674 would authorize $300 million annually over 10 years in General Fund dollars, subject to appropriation, to establish a new USDOT grant program for public private partnerships (80% public/20% private) applicants for the installation and operation of public charging and fueling infrastructure along designated alternative fuel corridors accessible to light, medium and heavy-duty zero emission vehicles. Energy Committee Recommendation: Support Summary: S. 674 would authorize $300 million annually over 10 years for USDOT grant funding to be used in public private partnerships (80% public/20% private) for installing and operating EV charging and hydrogen fueling infrastructure along designated corridors. The proposed grant program would help:

● Meet excess demand for charging and fueling infrastructure; ● Reduce congestion at existing charging and fueling infrastructure in high-traffic locations; ● Meet current or anticipated market demands for charging or fueling infrastructure; ● Enable or accelerate the construction of charging or fueling infrastructure that would be unlikely to be

completed without Federal assistance; and ● Support a long-term competitive market for electric vehicle charging and hydrogen fueling infrastructure.

Background: This legislation would help reduce costly barriers to EV charging and hydrogen fueling station deployment on Alternative Fuel Corridors, including California’s I-5, I-8, I-10, I-15, I-40, I-80, I-205, I-215, I-280, I-405, I-580, I-680, I-710, and I-880. There is a rolling designation process for eligible corridors at the Federal Highway Administration so this list is expected to expand over time as more California communities put their applications forward. Signage is eligible for funding, but not CNG stations. The number of chargers that could be installed with an annual appropriation of $300 million depends on the kWh of the charging infrastructure. A “corridor-ready” corridor has public DC Fast Charging, no greater than 50 miles between one station and the next on the corridor, and no greater than 5 miles off the highway, or public, hydrogen stations no greater than 100 miles between one station and the next on the corridor, and no greater than 5 miles off the highway. Availability of charging infrastructure is key to increasing consumer confidence in zero-emission vehicles; consumers want access to infrastructure to reduce their range anxiety – the fear that they will run out of fuel in their vehicle before finding a charging station. California has a goal to deploy 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles and 250,000 EV charging stations, including 10,000 DC fast chargers, by 2025. California also has a goal to deploy 5 million zero-emission vehicles by 2030, which will require even further scale-up of charging infrastructure. To date, the state only has 19,000 public charging stations, including approximately 2,700 direct current fast chargers. Last year, CARB completed a gap analysis to determine the total number of Level 2 charging stations needed to accommodate the Energy Commission’s projected 120,000 EVs residing in multifamily housing by 2025. CARB’s analysis revealed a gap of 66,000-79,500 EV charging stations still needed to meet the demand for charging stations in multifamily housing by 2025. Given the state’s long-term greenhouse gas emission reduction, ZEV and EV infrastructure deployment goals, it will increasingly need to reduce barriers to charger installation – permitting, regulatory, financial, or otherwise. Congressional Findings The Congressional findings include a statement that greater adoption of ZEVs will help reduce emissions and improve air quality, enhance energy security, fuel choice, and utilization of ZEV infrastructure, ensure that the transportation infrastructure of the United States is equipped to manage the demands of the modern economy, promote consumer and business adoption of ZEVs, and should be strategically deployed. Proposed Grant Program

Metropolitan planning organizations and units of local government entities are eligible to receive a grant. Eligible entities must coordinate with private entities to receive funds for the acquisition and installation of the fueling and charging infrastructure as well as for operating assistance. As part of the application process for grants under this program, the USDOT must consider a description of the plans of the eligible entity for public accessibility of charging or fueling infrastructure, engagement with stakeholders, and incorporating appropriate infrastructure for future build-out. Additional considerations that build off requirements that are part of the alternative fuel corridor designation process administered by USDOT include the extent to which the proposal would improve electric vehicle and hydrogen fueling corridor networks by filling in coverage gaps. An eligible entity receiving a grant must contract with private entities to install and operate publicly accessible charging or fueling infrastructure and describes other eligible allowances and restrictions of these grant funds. Analysis: Staff believes this bill to be worthy of Leadership Group consideration in our process based on the following criteria for determining if the bill is worthy of a letter:

● The bill has widespread impact: It would be a significant boost to the EV charging providers and ZEV manufacturers we represent. This legislation would help reduce unnecessary and costly barriers to EV charging station deployment. Availability of charging infrastructure is key to increasing consumer confidence in ZEVs. The state needs to rapidly increase EV charging infrastructure deployment to meet its transportation electrification and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. S. 674 bolsters the state’s efforts to that end. California climate and EV penetration goals will not be met unless the Legislature aligns all applicable policies underlying these goals at the local and state level.

● The bill would significantly impact multiple Leadership Group companies who urge our support: Several Leadership Group companies manufacture zero-emission vehicles and provide EV charging solutions.

● The bill is a high priority in terms of the committee priorities we voted for our business plan: Environment Priority #2 and Energy Priority #3 is the Accelerated Deployment of ZEVs and EV Charging Infrastructure. EV charging infrastructure and ZEVs can also bring more clean energy on to the grid (Energy Priority #2), and clean energy can reduce the operating cost of ZEVs.

● SVLG has taken positions of EV charging bills that are consistent with staff’s “support” recommendation for this bill. The Leadership Group supported AB 2127 (Ting), legislation which tasks the CEC with identifying the EV charging infrastructure needed to place 1.5 million ZEVs on the road by 2025. We also supported AB 1796 (Muratsuchi), legislation which changed existing state law to require property owners to approve rent controlled renter’s request to install an EV charger, fully at the renter’s expense. The Leadership Group also supported AB 2145 (Reyes), the Charging infrastructure for CA Clean Truck Program, and SB 1016 (Allen), which increased homeowners access to EV charging stations. All four bills were signed into law last year. Finally, SVLG has also supported increasing the number of EV-ready parking spaces from 3% to 10% as part of the CALGreen building code’s EV-parking standards for new multifamily buildings. This year, SVLG has supported AB 1424 (Berman), the EV Charging Stations Open Access Act, which supports greater interest in- and demand for EV charging stations by providing to the general public a minimum of two payment options.

● This is a high priority in the context of the bills we have taken positions on this year. This is a federal bill. Staff recommends a “support” position. SVLG does not have legislative criteria for federal bills. S. 674 would complement and support the mobility, environmental and economic benefits of ZEVs and EV charging infrastructure. California climate and EV penetration goals will not be met unless the Legislature aligns all applicable policies underlying these goals at the local and state level.

Status: Referred to the Senate Environment on Public Works Committee. Support: ChargePoint, Lyft, Greenlots/Shell, EV Box/ENGIE, Intelligent Transportation Society of America, NRDC, Earthjustice, Global Automakers, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, American Highway Users Alliance, Honda, Electric Drive Transportation Association, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Fuel Cell

and Hydrogen Energy Association, Edison Electric Institute, American Wind Energy Association, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Global Automakers, Auto Alliance, American Road and Transportation Builders Association, Air Liquide, Sierra Club, Coalition for America's Gateways and Trade Corridors. Opposed: None on file.

Date: April 3, 2019 To: Silicon Valley Leadership Group Working Council From: Jason Baker, VP, Transportation; Heidi Sickler, Director, Energy and Environment RE: AB 784 (Mullin) | State Sales Tax Exemption for Zero-Emission Buses __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Issue: AB 784 will save California’s transit agencies $17.4 million over four years by reducing the upfront capital cost of zero-emission electric buses (ZEBs) by exempting ZEBs from the state portion of the sales tax until January 1, 2024. This bill is critically needed to help transit agencies ramp up to California’s 100% ZEB mandate by 2040 -- a mandate that SVLG strongly supports because it strengthens in-state zero-emission vehicle and charging infrastructure manufacturing opportunities, local quality jobs, clean transit options, sustainable community development, and environmental benefits in our communities, including Disadvantaged Communities.

Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT Summary: AB 784 will save California’s transit agencies $17.4 million over four years by reducing the upfront capital cost of zero-emission electric buses by exempting zero-emission transit buses from the state portion of the sales tax until January 1, 2024. Background: Beyond the health and climate benefits, transit agencies around the country are investing in ZEBs to lower their fuel and maintenance costs: fuel and maintenance savings can reach nearly $30,000 per year.1 However, the upfront capital costs of ZEBs remain prohibitive for many transit agencies; an electric bus can cost $150,000 to $200,000 more than a polluting diesel bus. As a significant number of transit buses near the end of their useful lives, innovative financing tools -- such as a sales tax exemption -- can help offset the upfront capital cost of ZEBs, and help communities choose clean and efficient transit fleets. As battery performance improves and costs decline, ZEBs can be 17-23 percent lower than a comparable diesel bus to own and operate with current transit funding. A growing number of transit agencies are operating ZEBs. Ten percent of transit agencies already have ZEBs or have them on order. This is equivalent to 1.7 million light-duty ZEVs being purchased or ordered per year in the U.S. This means that the adoption in heavy-duty mass transit of ZEVs is well ahead of light-duty ZEV adoption. Combining a transit vehicle with a ZEV drivetrain results in the lowest carbon and operating cost to move people per passenger mile ($0.19 per mile for a ZEB vs. $0.76 per mile for a diesel bus).2 With a 12-year lifespan, each ZEB can eliminate 10 tons of nitrogen oxides and 350 pounds of diesel particulate matter, which contains over 40 toxic air contaminants. A known carcinogen, diesel causes respiratory diseases such as asthma. Those who use public transit most often, including children, the elderly, and those without access to a car, are at particular risk. The American Lung Association estimates that ZEV adoption has the potential to save Californians $13 billion in annual health care savings in 2030.3 AB 784 will help improve air quality by reducing the 39 percent in greenhouse gas (GHG) and smog-forming emissions from California’s transportation sector – the largest sector in terms of GHG emissions – by accelerating the deployment of ZEBs and ZEB charging infrastructure. By fueling heavy-duty vehicles with clean electric power instead of fossil fuels, we can help California meet its economic and clean air goals. On average, a diesel bus drives 40,000 miles per year and only gets four miles to the gallon. This is equivalent to burning a quarter gallon of diesel every mile. According to the California Air Resources Board, there are currently 153 zero-emission electric buses on California roads and about 1,000 zero-emission electric buses are expected to be in service by 2020. In California, there are 12,000 polluting buses on the roads. Nationwide, there are 70,000 polluting transit buses and 400,000 polluting school buses. California leads the nation in ZEB deployment and purchases and sets the standard for forward-thinking energy and environmental policies.4 California’s ZEB manufacturing industry is providing local jobs, cleaner air and technological

1

https://yesweekly.com/electric-buses-spark-new-era-for-greensboro-transit-beginning-jan-31/ 2

https://www.proterra.com/performance/fuel-economy/ 3

American Lung Association, Clean Air Future Health and Climate Benefits of Zero Emission Vehicles (2016). 4

https://arb.ca.gov/msprog/bus/faqactoverview_1.pdf

innovation. Zero-emission vehicles can also bring more clean energy on to the grid, and clean energy can reduce the operating cost of ZEVs. Electric bus battery packs can retain energy storage capability long after their first life in a transit bus and can provide storage requirements for renewable energy, grid services, demand management and emergency backup. Thus, ZEB technology is a catalyst for innovative partnerships between fleet operators and utilities to facilitate vehicle-to-grid technologies, provide energy storage, and enhance grid resiliency.

California’s Zero-Emission Transit Bus Mandate: Last year, SVLG strongly supported the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) zero-emission transit bus mandate that requires all transit agencies to transition to 100% zero-emission buses by January 1, 2029. This year, the Leadership Group submitted comments in strong support of CARB’s zero-emission airport shuttle bus mandate. These positions are aligned with:

● The Transportation Committee’s legacy positions on clean transit; ● The Energy and Environment Committees’ Work Plan item on advancing California ZEV goal of deploying 1.5

million by 2025 and five million ZEVs by 2030. California zero-emission transit bus mandate begins in 2020 with a requirement for large transit agencies (with 100 or more buses), such as VTA, to begin phasing-in ZEBs when new bus purchases are made, and transitioning to a 100% ZEB fleet by January 1, 2029. The full implementation schedule is as follows:

Date % of Bus Purchases that need to be ZEBs Fleet Size as of 2019

1/1/2020 25% >=100 buses (small & medium agencies don’t have a 25% requirement)

1/1/2023 50% >30+ buses ( small agencies don’t have a 50% requirement)

1/1/2026 75% All fleets (small, medium and large)

1/1/2029 100% All fleets (small, medium and large)

Local Support for Zero-Emission Buses: On January 29, 2018, San José Mayor Liccardo, and 15 additional California mayors, including the mayors of Berkeley, Burlingame, Chula Vista, Encinitas, Huron, Imperial Beach, Lancaster, Lemon Grove, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Stockton and Ventura, signed a letter urging CARB Chair Mary Nichols to adopt the zero-emission bus rule to encourage the deployment of ZEBs in California. Last year, the City of San Jose purchased ten zero-emission battery-electric transit buses and related charging infrastructure for use at San Jose International Airport. GHG Emissions Reductions from Zero-Emission Buses:

● Zero-emission buses produce 86% less in GHG emissions annually compared to diesel, hybrid and CNG buses. ● For SFMTA: 32,040 tons of GHGs would be averted annually by switching to electric buses, equivalent to taking

6,187 cars off the road

● For VTA: 20,420 tons of GHGs would be averted annually by switching to electric buses, equivalent to taking 3,942 cars off the road.

● For AC Transit: 32,040 tons of GHGs would be averted annually by switching to electric buses, equivalent to taking 6,187 cars off the road

Analysis: Staff believes this bill to be worthy of Leadership Group consideration in our process based on the following criteria for determining if the bill is worthy of a letter:

1. The bill has widespread impact: It would be a significant boost to the ZEB manufacturers, EV charging, storage and clean energy providers we represent. This legislation would help reduce costly barriers to ZEB acquisition and deployment. Availability of incentives, investments and policies is key to increasing consumer confidence in ZEVs. The state needs to rapidly increase ZEV deployment to meet its transportation electrification and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. AB 784 bolsters the state’s efforts to that end. California climate and

ZEV penetration goals will not be met unless the Legislature aligns all applicable policies underlying these goals at the local and state level.

2. The bill would significantly impact multiple Leadership Group companies who urge our support: Several Leadership Group companies would be positively impacted by AB 784, including SVLG member companies (zero-emission bus, EV charging, storage and clean energy companies), their employees and California consumers. The upfront capital costs of ZEBs remain prohibitive for many transit agencies; an electric bus can cost $150,000 to $200,000 more than a polluting diesel bus. As a significant number of transit buses near the end of their useful lives, innovative financing tools -- such as a sales tax exemption -- can help offset the upfront capital cost of ZEBs, and help communities choose clean and efficient transit fleets and help meet California’s transportation electrification and Greenhouse Gas reduction efforts.

3. The bill is a high priority in terms of the committee priorities we voted for our business plan: Environment Priority #2 and Energy Priority #3 is the Accelerated Deployment of ZEVs and EV Charging Infrastructure. ZEBs can also bring more clean energy on to the grid (Energy Priority #2), and clean energy can reduce the operating cost of ZEBs. ZEB battery packs can retain energy storage capability long after their first life in a vehicle and can provide storage requirements for renewable energy, grid services, demand management and emergency backup. ZEBs are a catalyst for innovative partnerships between fleet operators and utilities to facilitate vehicle-to-grid technologies, provide energy storage, and enhance grid resiliency (Energy Priority #1).

4. The Leadership Group does have strong precedent on this issue. The Leadership Group has a long-standing legacy of supporting investments, incentives and policies that advance the deployment of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) in California and nationwide. The Leadership Group strongly supports legislative and regulatory signals that bolster zero-emission bus (ZEB) production and lower the purchase price of ZEBs. In part, because Silicon Valley has the cutting-edge technology to address the significant environmental, economic and health impacts of diesel bus pollution. Last year, the Leadership Group submitted comments in support of CARB’s zero-emission bus mandate. This year, the Leadership Group submitted comments in support of CARB’s zero-emission airport shuttle bus mandate.

5. This is a high priority in the context of the bills we have taken positions on this year. This year, the Leadership Group has supported, AB 40 (Ting), the Clean Cars 2040 Strategy, and AB 1424 (Berman), the EV Charging Stations Open Access Act. AB 784 would complement and support the mobility, environmental and economic benefits of ZEVs and EV charging infrastructure. California climate and EV penetration goals will not be met unless the Legislature aligns all applicable policies underlying these goals at the local and state level.

Status: To be heard on April 8 by the Assembly Revenue and Tax Committee. Opposed: None on file. Support: Proterra. Fiscal Impact: $17.4 million over four years; sunsets in 2024.

DATE: April 5, 2019 TO: Working Council, Silicon Valley Leadership Group FROM: Jason Baker, Vice President - Transportation, Housing & Community Development

Matthew Quevedo, Director - Transportation, Housing, & Community Engagement Nathan Ho, Senior Director - Housing & Community Development

SUBJECT: Governor Newsom’s Housing Proposal - SB 1 and Housing SUMMARY Discuss Governor Gavin Newsom’s proposed trailer bill1 on housing planning and production, including

potentially conditioning SB1 transportation and infrastructure funds on housing goals. The Leadership

Group’s Transportation Policy Committee will be discussing the proposed trailer bill on Wednesday,

April 3 and staff will present any recommendations from that Committee meeting. The Leadership

Group’s Housing and Community Development Committee will be discussing the proposed trailer bill on

Tuesday, April 9. Any position will go to a future Working Council meeting or Operations Committee. Leadership Group Transportation and Housing staff sees these proposals as an important series of steps

towards real progress on helping, encouraging, and requiring cities to do more to address the housing

crisis. Such a package of proposals would ordinarily merit strong support. However, because of the

potential risk posed by tying SB1 funds to housing – a risk not posed by withholding other sources of

funds, including other state transportation funds – a deeper discussion necessary. BACKGROUND Housing goals as set by the state Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process have long been a

source of tension between the state and local governments. The state sets housing goals that require cities

to plan for a certain amount of housing at various income levels. Historically, RHNA goals have not

resulted in nearly enough housing being planned for, let alone built. As recently as January of 2018, a

report from the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) found that 97.6% of all

cities and counties in California are failing to meet their RHNA goals. Cities have had little or no

incentive to conduct this planning realistically, little help to do this planning, and no real penalty if they

failed to plan. As part of his January budget message, Governor Newsom called for an investment of $1.75 billion to

help address the state’s housing crisis. Earlier this month, the Governor announced more details of his

proposal, including in a draft Housing, Planning and Production Planning Grants “trailer bill” as part of

his solution to the housing crisis. DISCUSSION The proposals reflected in the recent trailer bill are an important, bold and appropriately holistic approach

to help, encourage, and require cities to do their part. While the governor’s proposal suggests setting new

and higher housing goals, it accompanies those new goals with assistance in planning and financial

1 Trailer bills are bills that “trail” the state budget and undergo a somewhat streamlined process.

incentives for jurisdictions who meet or exceed goals. Specifically, of the $750 million announced in this

proposal, $250 million would go to help local jurisdictions plan for new, higher short term housing goals

and $500 million would go towards incentive grants to cities beginning in 2021. In addition to these new incentives, the Governor proposes to penalize jurisdictions by withholding funds

from those that are not compliant. These penalties are expressed in two separate phases. First, the state

HCD will “propose opportunities” to link transportation and other non-housing funds with housing goals

by the end of 2022. Next, beginning July 2023, SB1 funds “may be” withheld from any jurisdiction that

does not have a compliant housing element and has not zoned and/or entitled for its updated annual

housing goals. POTENTIAL CONCERN While linking housing and transportation is sound policy, the possibility of withholding and redistributing

SB1 funds may be of concern for the Leadership Group, its members, and the local elected officials who

invested considerable time, effort and political capital to defend critical SB1 funds at the ballot box this

past November to defeat Proposition 6. A number of key members of the legislature including Senator Jim Beall (author of Senate Bill 1) have

expressed concern about tying SB1 funds to housing goals. Assemblymember Jim Cooper expressed the

concern of some legislators and local officials: “There were comments made to the voters and promises

made [in defeating Proposition 6] and that was a very heavy lift last year. I think the voters do have a

certain expectation that those funds be used for what’s promised, and now to change that mid-stream,

that’s going to rub a lot of folks wrong.”2 As early champions and sponsors of SB1 and the No on 6 campaign, the Leadership Group has

maintained that SB1 transportation funds are critical for California transportation infrastructure. The

Leadership Group has also been a strong advocate for housing, most recently cosponsoring SB 828

(Wiener) last year that made major reforms to how RHNA goals are created and co-leading every

statewide affordable housing bond including most recently Propositions 1 and 2 at the ballot box this last

November. Governor Newsom’s proposal overall is bold and even groundbreaking; the administration’s commitment

to real action on the housing crisis is clear. And there is a real case for focusing new transportation

dollars in areas that are willing and able to allow the density to support such regional

investment. However, tying SB1 funds after the fact and after a tough ballot fight bears real risk. Many

local and state officials took significant political risk in order to preserve critical infrastructure funding

provided by SB1. Some took this risk at the urging of the Leadership Group, its members and/or other

coalition partners; often with the explicit understanding that SB1 would help fix the roads in every city

and town throughout the state. Finally, it is possible that a threat to limit the use of SB1 funds to only some jurisdictions would see a

renewed and emboldened call to repeal SB1. The opposition to a potential repeal effort would be more

daunting as some local and state government partners would likely no longer join in the effort against

such a repeal and some, faced with the potential for no benefit from taking a stand, would likely support

repeal of the SB1 gas tax.

2 The Governor’s proposal does require the SB1 funds to continue to be used for transportation, but not

necessarily in all jurisdictions as was the original understanding.

GUEST BIO.

Evan Low

Assemblymember, District 28

California State Assembly About District 28: California’s 28th District is comprised of many vibrant and historic neighborhoods in Silicon Valley. The district is home to many tech corporations including the cities of Campbell, Saratoga, Cupertino, Monte Sereno, Willow Glen, West San Jose and Los Gatos.

@Evan_Low

a28.asmdc.org

About Evan –

●

●

Evan Low was elected to the California State Assembly in November 2014, and re-elected in 2016.

At the age of 31, Assemblymember Low became the youngest Asian American legislator to have been elected to the Assembly in State History. Assemblymember Low is a lifelong resident of Silicon Valley and has been a regional community leader. His work within the community and deep knowledge of issues local residents faces led him to run for Campbell City Council in

2006. He made history as the first Asian American elected to Campbell’s City Council.

In 2010, Assemblymember Low also made history by becoming the youngest openly LGBT mayor in the country at the age of 26. While serving on Campbell’s City Council, he helped balance the city budget without eliminating vital services and increase government transparency by streaming City Council meetings online. Assemblymember Low promoted small business and job growth by cutting red tape and streamlining the licensing process for business owners.

Assemblymember Low chairs the Business and Professions Committee. In 2015, together with Assemblymember Ian Calderon (D-Whittier), he launched the first in the state California Legislative Technology & Innovation Caucus. The caucus comprises of a bi-partisan group of Senators and Assemblymembers who view this as a statewide effort to ensure that California remains the global leader in technology and innovation. A Bay Area native, Low attended local public schools and earned degrees from De Anza Community College and San Jose State University. He went on to graduate from the Senior Executives in State and Local Government Program

at Harvard University.

Low has also served as a community college instructor teaching American Government and Political Science at De

Anza Community College

Community & Civic Leadership:

● Assemblymember Low has been named "Legislator of the Year" by the Internet Association, TechNet, The Computing Technology Industry Association, California Faculty Association, Cellular Telecommunications

Industry Association, California District Attorneys Association and Faculty Association of California Community Colleges.

●

●

●

●

●