Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Good afternoon and Happy Earth Day, Mr. Kalra. Noticing a quorum. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call]. We have a quorum.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you. We've got 24 measures on the agenda today. Assembly Member Joe Patterson is going to be subbing in for Assembly Member Mathis. Lucky us. The following eight measures are proposed for consent: Item Number Four: AB 2278 or 2276: Wood, Item Seven: AB 2401: Ting, Item Ten: 2572: Muratsuchi, Item 12: AB 2760: Muratsuchi, Item 15: AB 2815: Petrie-Norris, Item 18: 2968: Connolly, Item 20: AB 3023: Papan, Item 21: AB 3057: Wilson.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
Move the consent calendar.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Second.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Madam Secretary, you can call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call].
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Great. The consent calendar has been dispensed with. Mr. Muratsuchi, you were granted reconsideration on AB 3192 with amendments. We'll take up that measure now.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee for the reconsideration. I am resubmitting for your consideration--reconsideration--Assembly Bill 3192, which I believe we have taken three amendments to further clarify that this will not impact major golf tournaments. This is, as you may recall, the bill to strengthen environmental protections for major coastal resorts that operate golf courses.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
We want to make sure that we have the necessary protections for these sensitive ecosystems surrounding these coastal resorts, especially in terms of their use of fertilizers and pesticides. We did allow--we are allowing golf courses on the covered resorts to use non-organic pesticides with this amendment. The Golf Course Superintendent's Association, the California Alliance for Golf, and the Southern California Golf Association have officially removed their opposition to the bill.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
We also took amendments to clarify that it's only impacting resorts with 300 or more rooms within the same contiguous resort complex to clarify that the Pebble Beach Resorts would not be impacted. Here again, would you like witnesses to testify or just be here for any questions?
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
I'm open to either one. Would you like your witnesses to testify?
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Please.
- Jordan Fein
Person
Sure. Good afternoon, Honorable Chair Bryan and Committee Members. My name is Jordan Fein. I'm a lead research analyst with Unite Here Local 11, which represents over 32,000 hotel and food service workers in Southern California and is the sponsor of 3192. I would like to recognize Committee staff for their hard work preparing the Committee analysis for 3192 and working with us on amendments. The bill improves the enforcement rules that major coastal resorts are already supposed to follow by moving enforcement from a solely complaint-based system to an audit-based system.
- Jordan Fein
Person
The bill also reduces the use of synthetic pesticides and single-use plastics in close proximity to sensitive coastal habitats. One of the properties that would be covered by the bill is the Terranea Resort in Rancho Palos Verdes. We've provided you with a report issued by Sunrise Movement Los Angeles, California Environmental Voters, and Local 11 issued last year on Earth Day titled, 'How Green is the Terranea?'
- Jordan Fein
Person
As reviewed in the report, data indicates that between 2017 and 2021, the Terranea, which features a nine-hole golf course, used 43 different types of pesticides, herbicides, or plant growth regulators, including one whose safety data sheet states the chemical is very toxic to aquatic life with long-lasting effects.
- Jordan Fein
Person
We've taken amendments that clarified that rooms for individual properties cannot be aggregated to reach the 300-room threshold for this bill, and to also make it clear that any costs associated with the administration of the list for independent auditors or receiving audit reports can be assessed as a fee by the Coastal Commission to the regulated resorts. This bill will result in no costs to the Coastal Commission. We are proud to stand with Assembly Member Muratsuchi as the author of this bill, and respectfully request an aye vote.
- Andy Seymour
Person
Hi. Good afternoon, Honorable Chair and Members. My name is Andy Seymour. I'm reading this statement on behalf of Nico Gardner Serna with Sunrise Movement in Los Angeles who couldn't make it today. So our organization chaired an April 15th--sorry--joined an April 15th letter to Honorable Chair Bryan, signed by 11 environmental groups and allied organizations urging an aye vote on 3192. This letter and the findings in this report--already mentioned--titled 'How Green is the Terranea?' show the deep need for AB 3192 authored by Assembly Member Muratsuchi.
- Andy Seymour
Person
California's coast is the site of some of the world's most treasured and sensitive habitats, yet portions of the coast are occupied by large golf resorts like the Terranea Resort, located along an environmentally sensitive stretch of the Pacific Ocean. Terranea prominently markets itself as eco-friendly, but the report suggests Terranea's public claims of environmental benefits and priorities may be overstated. According to the report, Terranea has a quote, 'disturbing record of raccoons and other mammals being trapped at the resort by commercial trappers.'
- Andy Seymour
Person
'The resort and golf courses operation has also coincided with a drop in the estimated local population of a sensitive bird species dependent on coastal sage scrub, the Coastal Cactus Wren.' End quote. Also in contrast to the Terranea's claim implying that it recycles and composts, workers have previously reported that plastic bottles used by guests in banquet events and other recyclable items such as food waste, have been discarded with the resort's ordinary garbage--sorry--as well as food waste.
- Andy Seymour
Person
So the sponsors have taken an amendment from the Southern California Golf Association to remove their opposition to the bill. This amendment will allow the use of non-organic pesticides on golf courses only when applied in a manner consistent with established integrated pest management principles and where no organic alternative fit for intended use and proven effectiveness is available. So for these reasons and many more, we respectfully request your aye vote on AB 3192.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Usually on reconsideration, we kind of waive some of the normal presentation stuff, but I think when hard working people come up to the Capitol to be seen and to be heard, we should give them that opportunity. So if there are any people in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure, feel free to come up and give your name, organization, and position on the bill.
- Andy Seymour
Person
I think we're okay.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
We'll take your standing as consent. Is there any opposition that wants to be heard on this bill?
- Julee Malinowski-Ball
Person
Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Yes. Good. It's a Groundhog Day, I think, here today. Julee Malinowski-Ball, on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association. For those who weren't here the last time, you know, as it was discussed previously in the Committee, we believe it's inappropriate to weaponize the Coastal Commission in a labor dispute. Plain and simple. It sets a terrible precedent. Who's the next group waiting to distract an agency from its core mission?
- Julee Malinowski-Ball
Person
Or are you ready for this to quickly expand to apply to more hotels or businesses in your district? So we remain opposed as amended. Who's in, who's out? Frankly, I wish I could be here today to tell you that certain coastal resorts were carved out of this. We have not heard from a single member who have said we believe now we're carved out of this.
- Julee Malinowski-Ball
Person
I think they are still scratching our head. So though this measure is for focused on one hotel, one coastal resort, we have not heard that anyone feels that they are carved out of it with the amendments. So we also think that even as amended, lots of amendments were taken to reduce the burden on the Coastal Commission. The fact of the matter is still have a burden.
- Julee Malinowski-Ball
Person
I don't think it is the intent of this bill to deliver audits and reports to the Commission and just have them sit on a desk. It is going to take effort on their part and take them away from their core mission. So we do believe that this continues to provide duplicative regulatory oversight and will still impede meaningful and effective coastal protection programs. We continue to oppose.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Robert Moutrie
Person
Thank you. I'll endeavor to be brief, Mr. Chair, and respect. Robert Moutrie for the California Chamber of Commerce. We are also opposed to AB 3192, filling in for my colleague Adam Regele, so I will be forced to punt the more detailed questions if you have them. Apologies.
- Robert Moutrie
Person
The core issue here is that we see this bill as duplicative and potentially in conflict with existing recycling law, particularly policies coming out of SB 54, and the recycling rate for plastic bottles already have a relatively high recycling rate at 76 percent of PET bottles sold in 2023, and we expect that to continue to increase coming with the SB 54 funding. So we don't see this bill's action in that space as necessary or helpful that way. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Okay. Persons of the Committee room who would like to register their opposition?
- Audra Hartmann
Person
Audra Hartmann, on behalf of the American Chemistry Council, in opposition.
- Beverly Yu
Person
Mr. Chair and Members, Beverly Yu, on behalf of the International Bottled Water Association, in opposition. Thank you.
- Nicole Quinonez
Person
Hello. Nicole Quinonez, on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association, in opposition.
- Natalie Boust
Person
Hi. Natalie Boust, on behalf of the California Business Roundtable, in opposition.
- Taylor Roschen
Person
Taylor Roschen, on behalf of Western Plant Health Association, in opposition.
- Chris Micheli
Person
Mr. Chairman, Chris Micheli, on behalf of Niagara Bottling, in respectful opposition.
- Max Perry
Person
Max Perry, on behalf of the Pest Control Operators of California, also in opposition.
- Robert Spiegel
Person
And Rob Spiegel, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in opposition.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you all so much. We'll turn it back to Committee Members. Seeing no--oh. Ms. Pellerin.
- Gail Pellerin
Legislator
Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you to the author for answering all my questions over the last few days. I do feel like this bill is trying to regulate things that are already being regulated as far as AG regulates the use of chemicals, the State Water regulates stormwater. I completely support the establishing the whistleblower protections. I think that's a really key component of this bill, but I think it goes so much further.
- Gail Pellerin
Legislator
And I have great concerns about the impact on the Coastal Commission to oversee issues that are outside their jurisdiction. They currently have a backlog of more than 3,000 violations, and I'm just wondering if you've thought about another appropriate enforcement agency. Have you given any thought to it being a different agency than the Coastal Commission?
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
I have not, but I think the concerns about overloading the Coastal Commission goes to one of the main points of this bill, which is to require major coastal resorts to pay for the audit to self-audit themselves so that the Coastal Commission doesn't have to, you know, go out, send their investigators out to make sure that they're complying.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
I think we all know that, you know, when we pass policies here, we often don't have enough resources to enforce, you know, the laws and the policies that we're passing here, and that's part of the point of this bill, that major coastal resorts will be required to self-audit themselves so that we can further ensure that they are, in fact, complying with existing laws and regulations. I don't know if any of you here want to add anything to that?
- Jordan Fein
Person
No, I think you said it very well. We've clarified by taking amendments that this will result in no cost to the Coastal Commission, and instead of placing the onus on workers who are not experts in environmental law to serve as whistleblowers, right, we want the resorts to do these audits and demonstrate that they're complying with the law.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thanks so much. Any other questions from Committee Members? Ms. Bauer-Kahan?
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Muratsuchi. And I have to say, you know, I've done fertilizer bills myself. I think it's really critical that we look at our fertilizers and what's in it and protect the ecosystem, and I appreciate your amendments because I do think it's really critical that we do so in a data-driven way, and I think that the amendments go a long way.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
My one question is that the ban on straws, water bottles, styrofoam, plastic bags, I'm doing the plastic bag ban this year. So clearly, I believe in these things, and I've supported every plastic bottle bill, but the way that it's restricted to this population, I want to make sure that that's logical. So I just am wondering why this ban on those products would only apply to the folks in this bill.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Well, I mean, I see it as just another step toward, you know, trying to eliminate the single-use plastics right on the coast. You know, I think, you know, while the opposition is correct that, you know, this Legislature did pass, for example, SB 54, that, you know, is set out the, you know, long-term plan for phasing out single-use plastics, you know, we don't have time to waste.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
I mean, I just, for Earth Day this past weekend, I just did a coastal cleanup where you know, after all the rains, we continue to see all the plastic that continues to wash up in my district. And so, you know, when Terranea in my district is, you know, is continuing to use these single-use plastics, notwithstanding, you know, the measures that we passed and that you're working on, I think this is, you know--another good example is Mr. Kalra's ban on the little plastic bottles. I mean, you know, it's--we need to push on all fronts because the damage to our beaches and our coast continues.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Yeah. So, I mean, I'll be supporting this today, but you know, Mr. Kalra's bill didn't limit which hotels that applied to, and I think that it is really important that we do this across the board because I'll tell you right now that we were doing an Earth Day cleanup in my community on a creek this weekend and all of those things were there, and guess where they were going to wash up? In the coastal district because that's where our creeks lead.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
So I think this--I think it is important as we look at this, we do things that really protect the environment writ large, but I'm happy to support it today. But let's think bigger.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Do we have a motion?
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
Move the bill.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Moved by Mr. Kalra. Second by Ms. Bauer-Kahan. Madam Secretary can call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is 'do pass to Judiciary Committee.' [Roll Call].
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
We'll leave the call open.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Ms. Soria. 2661. You may begin.
- Esmeralda Soria
Legislator
Thank you, Chair and Members. I would like to start by reaffirming the commitment I made in the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee to accept the amendments outlined in the analysis. AB 2661 as proposed to be amended, will help achieve California's renewable goals by focusing the efforts of the CPUC and leveraging the existing capabilities of Westlands Water District, which is in my district, to deliver new solar generation and transmission lines.
- Esmeralda Soria
Legislator
To combat the impacts of climate change, California has set ambitious goals to increase the use of clean energy, aiming to achieve 60% of eligible renewable energy by 2030 and 100% zero carbon energy by 2045. To meet these goals, new renewable generation facilities and thousands of miles of new transmissions lines are needed. The CAISO has already identified an opportunity to develop 30,000 megawatts of solar in the San Joaquin Valley, Cal ISO's identification of these potential resources is especially timely given changes occurring in the Central Valley due to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
- Esmeralda Soria
Legislator
As groundwater basins adopt to SGMA plants, many regions of the state are expected to experience as much as 20% decline in available water supply by 2030. Due to this massive change, it is estimated between 500,000 and 900,000 acres of farmland may need to be fallowed in the San Joaquin Valley alone. This fallow farmland can be the key to expanding our solar generation.
- Esmeralda Soria
Legislator
Westlands Water District, who is in the best position to identify suitable fallowed farmland in their service territory for conversion to solar generation, can help contribute to the state's renewable portfolio while making up for the lost water supply revenues needed to continue serving the remaining water customers. Unfortunately, there's not enough transmission currently planned for the Central Valley to capitalize on this opportunity.
- Esmeralda Soria
Legislator
Thus, AB 2661 will require the CPUC to evaluate this potential new solar generation and gives Westlands Water District the authority to build, own, and operate transmission lines to connect this new generation to the grid. This will help us achieve our climate goals while simultaneously providing an incredible opportunity for the disadvantaged communities that are in places like West Fresno County, where the need for skilled and well paying jobs are critical.
- Esmeralda Soria
Legislator
The projects that could be undertaken through the provisions of this bill will help these workers upskill and enter into the trades which will uplift these communities that are so often left out of the conversation when it comes to different climate investments. With me here today to testify in support of AB 2616 is Scott Wetch, on behalf of the California Coalition for Utility Workers and the State Association of Electrical Workers, as well as Jeff Payne, on behalf of Westlands Water District.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. You may begin.
- Scott Wetch
Person
Mr. Chairman and Members. Scott Wetch, on behalf of the California Coalition of Utility Employees and the State Association of Electrical Workers. Very proud to be here with the assemblywoman in co-sponsorship of this bill. This bill does two things. It authorizes the Westlands Water District to own electric generation, storage, and transmission. Currently, water districts are authorized to own generation and transmission if they have hydroelectric power, so this would be an expansion of that.
- Scott Wetch
Person
And secondly, it directs the CPUC in the next IRP to evaluate the potential for developing 10 to 30,000 megawatts of solar energy within the San Joaquin Valley, and if it meets the Commission's current standards for establishing if it's cost effective or not, then they would forward that on to the Cal ISO so it could be integrated into the Cal ISO plan.
- Scott Wetch
Person
It just for the Committee whose Members who may not be familiar, with the major bottleneck in the state's electricity transmission system is known as path 15, right within the San Joaquin Valley that runs contiguous to the Westlands Water District. That is where many times of the year we cannot get mostly renewable power north, and at other times of the year we can't get it to the south.
- Scott Wetch
Person
Westlands is uniquely positioned to be able to finish and do this project, and they can do it at a much lower cost because their credit rating using municipal financing is much lower than that of the investor owned utilities at this time, and because they've already done so much work upfront and are the lead agency for CEQA purposes. This is really a very unique situation where we can create tens of thousands of jobs, literally, and help the state meet its carbon goals. And so we would urge, an aye vote and happy to answer any questions.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Jeff Payne
Person
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jeff Payne, assistant general manager for Westlands. Thank you for having us today. This bill, as amended, would apply, would provide authorities to us that are crucial for allowing us to effectively plan and provide strategic oversight of land being transitioned out of agriculture for solar within our district. We began a CEQA EIR process mentioned by Scott for this change.
- Jeff Payne
Person
Much like much of the San Joaquin Valley, relatively 35% of our district has remained fallow over the past decade due to water supply reliability problems. The scale of this has varied year to year, but approximately 140 to 220,000 acres of land is being fallowed annually over the past decade. Our current plans are to convert up to 130,000 acres to solar generation. This is less than the 140 to 220,000 that we've seen fallowed.
- Jeff Payne
Person
And importantly, the VSIP developments would be bonded such that they would have facilities removed and converted back to irrigable land or another purpose at the end of their useless life, which is about 30 years. At that time, different decisions could be made for the land based on relevant conditions at that time. Our oversight provided through this bill would allow Westlands to favor transition of these lands that are marginal, drainage impaired, or which are ideal for dual uses such as floodwater recharge, agrivoltaics and the like.
- Jeff Payne
Person
This also allows us to manage the lands consistent with the surrounding uses the community needs and to better preserve the agricultural heritage of the district as it makes a significant transition for the next 30 years. Thank you for your time.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Are there any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support?
- Bob Giroux
Person
Mr. Chairman and Members, Bob Giroux, on behalf of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, supporting our brethren and the Utility Workers Unions, also on behalf of the California Dairy Institute and a small district business in Assembly Member Soria's district, the Ian J. Gallo Winery family in support of the bill.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Giroux.
- Michael Boccadoro
Person
Michael Boccadoro, on behalf of the Ag Energy Consumers Association and other agricultural groups in strong support.
- Robert Spiegel
Person
Rob Spiegel, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in support.
- Taylor Roschen
Person
Taylor Roshan on behalf of California Citrus Mutual, California Cotton Growers, and other agricultural associations in support.
- Tricia Geringer
Person
Mr. Chair and Members, Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California, in support.
- Dennis Albiani
Person
Dennis Albiani, on behalf of Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, California Seed Association, California Grain of Feed, and a few others in support. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you. Is there any registered opposition who would like to be heard on this bill? Any folks in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this bill? Well now turn it to Committee Members. Mr. Wood.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the Assembly Member for bringing this bill forward. We saw this in Utilities and Energy last week. I'm happy to support this again. We heard in that Committee hearing that this is an elegant solution to a challenge, and I would agree with that for those who didn't get to hear that. And I would say that our transmission challenges, while they are really prominent in the Central Valley, they exist statewide and it is a huge challenge for us.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
My understanding from the previous testimony is that this will reduce the amount of time it takes for the permitting and building process for transmission by several years. And I think that's really, really important. If we are going to achieve our climate goals, we must move forward as quickly as possible to shorten the seven to 12 year time period where transmission is site is permitted, sited and built. So happy to support the bill today. Thank you.
- Esmeralda Soria
Legislator
Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Wood. Miss Pellerin.
- Gail Pellerin
Legislator
Just a quick question and thanks for the author for this bill. Is this includes like the building of solar farms? And are you looking at doing it over the canals as well or is it going to just be on the fallow farmland?
- Esmeralda Soria
Legislator
Do you want to address this?
- Jeff Payne
Person
This is just for farm land.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Any other Committee Members? Mr. Patterson.
- Joe Patterson
Legislator
Thank you. Just like Mr. Wood, I also sat on the Utilities Committee and I was supportive of the bill before the amendments and in that Committee because I think a lot of water districts have the expertise and can do something like this to help expedite transmission, which we're desperately really going to need to do soon. But I think taking a first swing at it is great. And so happy to support this bill today. Thank you.
- Esmeralda Soria
Legislator
Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Seeing no other comments, would you like to close and also confirm that you'll take the amendments from Utilities?
- Esmeralda Soria
Legislator
Yes. I will be confirming that I have accepted those amendments, and I would just respectfully ask for an aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you. This bill enjoys a do pass record from the Chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
That bill's out.
- Esmeralda Soria
Legislator
Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Mr. Alvarez, you want to start with 2560?
- David Alvarez
Legislator
No, we could please start with 3227?
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Sure.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
Appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
Mister Chair and Committee Members, thank you again for the opportunity to address stormwater channel maintenance Streamlining Act Assembly Bill 3227. I'd like to begin by thanking staff working with our office and for the analysis that they've prepared on this issue. AB 3227 eliminates administrative delays for routine maintenance for stormwater channels that are fully concrete or that have a conveyance capacity of less than a 100 year storm event, which is the FEMA state standard for establishing flood insurance requirements.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
Specifically, this Bill provides certainty to local agencies by providing specific exemptions under the California Environmental Quality Act for routine maintenance of stormwater channels to prevent flooding. Stormwater infrastructure has been historically underfunded across the state, and many channels are not built to withstand major weather events and often also are not maintained to make sure that they can withstand those events.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
As we saw in January of this year in my hometown of San Diego, which was hit with an atmospheric river that brought nearly three inches of rain within just 3 hours. To put into perspective, three inches in San Diego is about one third of the total amount of rain that we usually get on an annual basis.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
As you can imagine, that caused unprecedented flooding, which you probably saw the images of what was happening, the destruction that happened in the public streets as a result of this flooding, over 800 households, excuse me, with water levels that rose about 5ft and beyond 5ft in some cases, which caused widespread damage to communities.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
As we see more frequent and more intense rain events, we need to allow our local governments to take proactive measures by clearing out stormwater channels without any administrative delays, lawsuits or other complex bureaucratic processes. AB 3227 responds to that by creating a five year exemption under CEQA to cut the red tape and pave the way for timely upkeep of these essential facilities.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
Due to the immediate need to complete maintenance to prevent future flooding, we have proposed to add an urgency clause so this Bill may take effect before the rainy season begins again this year in October. With that, I'd like to introduce Miss Moira Topp, who who will speak on behalf of the City of San Diego, sponsor of this legislation.
- Moira Topp
Person
Thank you, Mister Chair and Members, I am Moira Topp. Here on behalf of the City of San Diego. We are a sponsor of AB 3227. What this Bill does is it provides us opportunities to clear the storm channels before the rain events occur. Currently, CEQA will trigger mitigation, and that mitigation is required to be done before the clearing work begins. Obviously, that's particularly challenging when we're facing an immediate threat of a storm coming soon.
- Moira Topp
Person
Essentially, this Bill provides certainty to local agencies, allowing them to move forward quickly with critical maintenance within stormwater facilities to prevent catastrophic flooding. AB 3227 makes it clear that local agencies may rely on the emergency exemption within CEQA for routine channel maintenance to prevent flooding and eliminating time consuming administrative delays. Moreover, disadvantaged communities have historically suffered underbuilt infrastructure improvements. AB 3227 will help local agencies expedite flood control measures ahead of storm events to ensure those communities are not disproportionately impacted by the negative effects of flooding.
- Moira Topp
Person
On behalf of Mayor Todd, Gloria, and the full City of San Diego, respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Anybody in the hearing room would like to register their support for this measure? Seeing none, is there any formal opposition to this measure? Seeing none. Anybody in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this measure? To this measure? Seeing none, we will now return it to Committee Members. Motion by Mister Muratsuchi second by Mister Wood Third by Miss Bauer-Kahan. Mister Alvarez, would you like to close?
- David Alvarez
Legislator
Thank you, Miss Bauer-Kahan, for the second to the motion and to the motion. Mister Muratsuchi, appreciate the support on this as was stated, hoping to get ahead of what potentially could be a more common scenario of significant rain events, storm events, and again, appreciate your support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
I just want to thank you for bringing this measure forward. And I want to thank the City of San Diego for putting all the work in over the last several days to make sure that we got this right. And I think it's, it's wildly appropriate to put the urgency clause on it. This Bill has a do pass recommendation. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?
- Committee Secretary
Person
Roll Call
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you. That measures out.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
Thank you Mister Chair.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
Yes sir. 2560.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
Yes, thank you. Appreciate the opportunity to present my second Bill before the Committee today. This is Assembly Bill 2560. I want to take particular, take the moment to thank the Chair of the Committee who has been really supportive of this process, which has been a process of review where we started in terms of what this Bill aims to do and where we stand today. So this Bill is really about the ability to create affordable housing in all of California.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
I can get into statistics about why housing is needed. You don't need to hear that. What I do think we want to place specific attention on is to the coastal metro areas, where a 2015 LAO report on housing prices in California identified that the typical us metro area cost grew by 54% in terms of housing units that were built while in California's coastal metros that only increased by 32%.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
But less simple to quantify are the countless units that go undeveloped that do never get built because the majority of developers have completely abandoned trying to build in places like our coast. At its core, AB 2560 is a rejection of the status quo, which says that the current process for building and developing affordable housing in our wealthy coastal areas is sufficient. It isn't. We need to do more.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
This is a recognition of the fact that we lack the objective standards for housing projects in the coastal zone that developers must rely on in order to just like the rest of the state in the rest of the state, in order to take on the risky investment of building housing, which is something that's no longer acceptable.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
I believe I fully appreciate the importance of the coast as a valuable resource for our state and the need for it to have a layer of protection to stymie development in areas that nowhere we should never be building on, such as wetlands near cliffs or near cliffs that are subject to sea level rise. This appreciation is why we have added environmental car routes negotiated and agreed upon during last year's discussion of SB 423.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
Additionally, unlike other housing laws, state density bonus is perfectly tailored to implement in the coast. If a developer can only utilize incentives and concessions in the state density bonus law in areas previously determined to be fit for housing through their zone residential designation, what does this mean? You can only use this program if the parcel is zoned for multifamily housing. You cannot build anywhere else, only where housing is currently allowed by local governments.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
Finally, I'd like to point out that what is often lost in these conversations is the lack of housing is more than a housing issue. It's also an equity and environmental matter. For the coastal economy to function. It requires significant amount of service workers to serve as a backbone of that economy. However, being unable to afford housing near their job site necessitates these workers to expand the resources and emit further CO2 into the air to travel for work.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
Compounding the climate crisis and threatening the very coastline the Coastal Commission is entrusted to protect. By ensuring that we increase housing density in all areas of California, including areas determined fit for housing on the coast, we can make a real impact on the housing crisis. I want to now turn my attention to the Assembly Committee's analysis, which is suggesting some amendments to my Bill.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
I would like to specifically, call your attention to page eight of the analysis, the Committee amendment, Section nine, in which M one adds some exemptions to where this Bill could be applied. In particular, I call your attention to M 13, which is a subdivision a of Section 30603 of the Public Resource Code. The Public resource Code states these, and I certainly would be interested in this Committee's feedback on why we should exempt housing in these areas as this amendment seeks to do.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
A sensitive coastal area which could be special marine and land habitat areas, wetlands, lagoons and estuaries as mapped and designated in part four of the coastal plan. No one disagrees with that. No one wants to touch those areas. B. Areas possessing significant recreational value. What are those areas? I don't know. I pose that as a question because I don't know what that speaks to. Highly scenic areas is another area that would be exempted. What is considered highly scenic in California.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
You could argue all of California's coast is highly scenic. This would again prohibit density bonus from being used in those areas. There are others, but the other one I'd call your attention to is areas that provide existing coastal housing or recreational opportunities for low and moderate income persons. I remind you that density bonus law is about creating affordable housing opportunities within the development itself. Why would we prohibit from building in areas where low income and moderate income persons recreate or live?
- David Alvarez
Legislator
I don't know what the reasoning is behind that. I raise that because it is a genuine question that I have. I will take the amendments today, but I will let you know that I'm trying to figure out what this means, because if this just creates more loopholes for where housing cannot be built, I don't think that's the right approach. Finally, I'll mention something that was eliminated from our language that's not in your analysis is areas that are local use plans.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
These are in some instances, full cities that have been eliminated, and there's 31, according to Coastal Commission's website. And I am not clear as to why we eliminated those from places where we could build density bonus affordable housing. Those are questions that remain with me today. But in order to be able to move forward and maybe get answers to those questions as this goes through the process is the best case scenario is to take the amendments and try to figure out what that is.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
So with that, I'll turn it over to the witnesses who are here to speak in support.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
Thank you. Mister Alvarez, two minutes.
- Nevada Merriman
Person
Good afternoon. I'm Nevada Merriman, Vice President of policy and advocacy for Midpenn Housing. We're one of the largest nonprofit developers, owners, managers of housing with over 8,800 homes. These are for low income families, seniors, homeless families and individuals with special needs. We have 331 homes and six properties in the coastal zone, with another 173 underdevelopment in Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Mateo counties, and we appreciate the Committee's dedication to balancing the state's coastal environment, resources and sustainable development practices.
- Nevada Merriman
Person
The density bonus is a critical tool for building affordable housing. Virtually all 4,500 units in our development pipeline and 10,000 unit portfolio of operational homes have or have used the density bonus. Without this tool, we would roughly have 3,500 fewer homes. Building affordable housing at a higher density is a best practice, and the regional housing needs assessment planning process sets targets across the state to meet the scale of the housing crisis.
- Nevada Merriman
Person
In our two most recent examples in developing in the coastal zone, we faced enormous headwinds. Jessie Street, a project 50 unit homes, four story project for veterans, formerly homeless individuals and folks with special needs in Santa Cruz County, the City of Santa Cruz. In 2019, the city asked us to use AB 1763 and AB 2162. These bills that were previously passed allow for more density and streamlined entitlements.
- Nevada Merriman
Person
When these bills were passed, there was no clear path for how to implement them in the coastal zone. City staff and Coastal Commission staff worked collaboratively together, and that piece of the story is one of success. However, they needed over a year to confirm the path for obtaining a local coastal permit and CEQA exemption.
- Nevada Merriman
Person
This is not the definition of ministerial processing as was defined in AB 2162 and each entity did their job what they believed they were tasked to do and did it with professionalism, with grace. However, staff at the Coastal Commission lack authority, in their view, to rely upon and tear off local review. Clear exemption exclusions and other applications of state law are necessary in this climate. Uncertainty.
- Nevada Merriman
Person
I can say without hesitation this project would not have made sense to pursue had we not already owned a building that was operational for 30 years.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much.
- Louis Mirante
Person
Good afternoon, Mister Chair Members. My name is Louis Mirante. I represent the Bay Area Council on Housing Policy and I'm proud to support AB 2560 today for, I believe, the second year. One of the reasons I am so passionate about this Bill is that the Coastal Act in particular is an area of state law that desperately needs modernization. No one here is proposing that we throw out coastal protection or that we allow some of the projects that the Coastal Act was designed to prevent.
- Louis Mirante
Person
What we're trying to propose here is itself an environmental protection infill housing, especially in high rent neighborhoods, as this Bill would allow is the best defense the state has against those projects that sprawl into our working and natural lands. And it is the best way for the state to accelerate, not just on its housing goals, but on its goals of getting more people access.
- Louis Mirante
Person
The coast infill housing such as this Bill would propose, thoughtfully designated, thoughtfully designed, in coordination with all of the local coastal plans that the Coastal Commission will review. This is the type of housing that promotes access to the the coast, that defends the coast environment, and that helps us house Californians in the coast.
- Louis Mirante
Person
This Bill has been immensely important to me because in talking with our Members about development in the coast, it has become extremely clear that for many developers, developing in the coast is regarded as professionally irresponsible because of the subjective nature of the process and because so few of the processes have timelines or ways to hold the government accountable for what the policy actually says. That's a shame because it encourages the sprawl that we in this Committee are purported to be against.
- Louis Mirante
Person
This Bill will increase development certainty. It'll increase housing development in the coastal zone and that together will increase coastal access along with affordable housing options and the state's ability to protect the coast. I urge your support for it. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Any persons in this hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure?
- Moira Topp
Person
Thank you. Chairman, Members Moira Topp, on behalf of the City of San Diego, in support.
- Sosin Maddenat
Person
Good afternoon. Chair Members Sosin Maddenat W strategies here on behalf of California YIMBY and support.
- Lauren De Valencia Y Sanchez
Person
Mister Chair Members Lauren De Valencia, representing the American Planning Association, in support.
- Alex Torres
Person
Alex Torres, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, in support.
- Rebecca Marcus
Person
Rebecca Marcus, representing Leading Age California, in support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Absolutely. Any witnesses in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this Bill? We got enough seats?
- Sean Drake
Person
Mister Chair and Members, I'm Sean Drake, legislative manager for the California Coastal Commission. While the Commission supports the goal of providing more dense housing in the coastal zone, we are opposed to AB 2560 because the Coastal Act exemptions are not necessary to achieve that goal. This Bill would repeal the Coastal Act savings clause from density bonus law, which was codified to ensure that density bonus projects in the coastal zone provide additional density without harming coastal resources.
- Sean Drake
Person
For the last 20 years, multifamily projects in the coastal zone have successfully incorporated the many incentives afforded by density bonus law while also avoiding unnecessary impacts to sensitive habitats, public coastal access, or climate adaptation efforts. This Bill would instead establish that density bonus law entirely supersedes the Coastal Act and invalidates local government's LCP policies. This would give developers of density bonus projects on the coast carte blanche to selectively ignore coastal erosion setbacks, wetland buffers, or public coastal access ways.
- Sean Drake
Person
This exemption also punishes local governments that have proactively updated their LCP's to include density bonus provisions, cities like Santa Cruz and Long Beach that have been awarded the governor's pro housing designation. These cities are proof that dense infill housing and coastal resource protection are not mutually exclusive. We do appreciate the Committee's efforts to try to limit the damage of this Bill by using the model established last year by SB 423.
- Sean Drake
Person
Unfortunately, in the context of this Bill, the suggested amendments still allow parcels to be entirely exempt from the Coastal Act. In many parts of the coastal zone, this goes farther than SB 423. 423 was not an exemption Bill. Thanks to this Committee, SB 423 projects are streamlined but are still required to comply with the policies of the LCP. This Bill exempt a class of projects from having to comply with the Coastal Act at all. Members, there is a demonstrated better way to do this.
- Sean Drake
Person
We continue to suggest that the author and the Committee amend the Bill to require coastal local governments who haven't done so to amend their lcps to include density bonus policies. Before I respectfully request a no vote, I do want to clarify one factual inaccuracy that was stated previously regarding the number of jurisdictions that only have a land use plan. It is not 31, it is nine. And the majority of them, it is only a portion of the jurisdiction.
- Sean Drake
Person
And in most of these, most of these, it is the portion that contains, for example, a wetland complex like the Bolsa Chica wetlands portion of Orange County. These are small areas. We respect the Committee's intention and including them in the amendments, but I think it's important to be clear about the extent to which these areas apply.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you. Two minutes.
- Christopher Mouawad
Person
Thank you. Happy Earth Day, Chair Bryan and honorable Committee Members.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Happy Earth Day.
- Christopher Mouawad
Person
My name is Christopher Mouawad and I am a legislative fellow with the Environmental Action Committee, or EAC, and I'm speaking today on behalf of the groups that submitted an opposed unless amended letter on April 16. We submit an opposed unless amended letter rather than holding a straight opposed position because we firmly and genuinely believe there exists a path where the density bonus law coexists with public access and coastal resource protections. I'm going straight to the point.
- Christopher Mouawad
Person
I am here today to defend public access guarantees and coastal resource protections that the coastal act provides for all Californians. Current applicable law requires the harmonization of the Coastal Act and the density bonus law. This is evidence in statutory language within the Coastal Act and the legislative intent of the density bonus law. The question is, why upend this existing harmony? The author's assertions are unsupported by his own materials.
- Christopher Mouawad
Person
Most compelling is that the author's own fact sheet cited a paper on Massachusetts affordable housing law known as 40 b. That paper describes the Coastal Act as the following the Coastal Act provides a strong analogous basis for California 40 b legislation because it incorporates statutory features highly aligned to those proposed for California 40b, including a statewide policy initiative, local land use permitting system prescribed by state law, and state level appellate review system. So what's the significance of that?
- Christopher Mouawad
Person
Well, this paper urges the author to do the complete opposite of what this Bill proposes, simply utilize the Coastal Act to implement housing policy rather than exempt housing policy from the Coastal Act. Further, the author cites a PPIC report which discusses unaffordable housing in coastal areas. Three of those coastal areas don't even have a coastal zone. Further, the author's Bill has a multitude of unintended consequences.
- Christopher Mouawad
Person
Simply because an area has been zoned for residential areas, or just because a development currently exists on a site does not mean that site is devoid of natural resources or public access opportunities. Rather, it means the development which exists has had its impacts mitigated. The removal of mitigation requirements for additional development on that same site is illogical. Now, most important is that public access guarantees are not frivolous. There's no reason to remove review to ensure that the public can access our shared coast.
- Christopher Mouawad
Person
Public access is not always an eight foot wide cement walkway with hand railings. Ultimately, this Bill takes aim at the wrong target, and I encourage questions from the author and Committee. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you. Any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this Bill? Bill.
- Alex Loomer
Person
Good afternoon. Alex Loomer, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and the California Native Plant Society, we appreciate the Committee's amendments. We're still in opposition, but appreciate future conversations with the author's office.
- Jakob Evans
Person
Hello. Jacob Evans with Seattle, California. In opposition, unless amended. Thank you.
- Natalie Brown
Person
Natalie Brown with the Planning Conservation League also in opposition,
- Tomas Valadez
Person
Tomas Valadez with Azul and on behalf of California Coast Keeper Alliance, California Coastal Protection Network, California River Watch, Canyon Back Alliance, Clean Earth for Kids, Environmental Center of San Diego, Green Foothills, Forest Unlimited, North Coast Rivers Alliance, Orange County Coast Keeper, San Francisco Bay, Physicians for Social Responsibility, watershed Alliance of Marin in opposition, unless ammended. Thank you.
- Daniel Jacobson
Person
Good afternoon, Mister Chair. My name is Dan Jacobson, representing Surfrider. I've got a couple of groups also in opposition unless amended. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Smith River Alliance, Center for Biological Diversity, West Sonoma County Alliance, Endanger Habitats League, Save the Sonoma Coast and Environmental Defense Center.
- Ethan Nagler
Person
Thank you Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and respectful opposition. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. We'll turn it to Committee Members. Mister Patterson, thank you.
- Joe Patterson
Legislator
My comments change based on this hearing, but I just want to say the absolute gall of a regulatory agency to come in here and lecture policymakers and rationally correct the author on legislation is offensive. It's not right. And I just think that just goes to show how the regulatory and bureaucracy are getting out of hand in this state. The Coastal Commission recently prepared a 129 page report for an ADU that blocks about a half an inch of a coastal line from like 300 yards away.
- Joe Patterson
Legislator
And if with that kind of behavior is why we can't have houses on the coast, it's why people of lower income have to live inland in order to be. And then they work on the coast, it's totally inappropriate. And the Coastal Commission is not participating in our policymaking to help us build housing on the coast. So I got to say, first of all, Mister Alvarez, you're a better man than me.
- Joe Patterson
Legislator
I am a co-author on this piece of legislation as written, and I do have some concerns about the proposed amendments. I think a lot of the legislation coming out of this body. I think if all we did in California, by the way, I'm the Vice Chair of the Housing Committee. I love this policy area, but if all we did in California was allow housing where housing is intended to be built, we would solve the housing crisis.
- Joe Patterson
Legislator
But instead we have piecemeal, piecemeal, piecemeal here, piecemeal there, to try to create more sites for houses, when the, the overall issue still continues to exist, which is we aren't building housing because you put up a housing proposal and it's like years and years, even if it's meant for that purpose. In my own city, there was an EIR addendum, because an apartment complex was going from 22 units an acre to 26 units an acre. It slowed down the project by six months.
- Joe Patterson
Legislator
During that time, interest rates practically doubled. And the projects, and that's 100% affordable unit, by the way, affordable project in my neighborhood. As a side note, so if we gotta, we gotta get serious about building housing on the coast, because I think a lot more people than just the elite deserve to live on the coast. And with that, if this Bill has not been moved, I will move it.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
And I won't speak to whether Mister Alvarez is a better man than you or not, but I will pass it to Miss Pellerin.
- Gail Pellerin
Legislator
Thank you, and I appreciate the discussion here today. It's, my understanding of the Bill is it's based off the premise that the Coastal Act is blocking housing development. But my understanding is that the Commission has never denied a single affordable housing project in history. Do you have examples of housing that have been denied?
- David Alvarez
Legislator
We do. I don't have them with me. I'll make sure to get the report to you. There's going to be something published in the next couple of weeks. I will tell you, as someone who voted on a lot of local eight years on the City Council, in a coastal region, developers don't want to take the risk of going through a process that is completely subjective. That is the last thing you want to do when you're engaging in building housing.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
And so what happens is, because of all these areas where the Coastal Commission could just say no, someone can appeal, holds up the project. No one wants to go into with that uncertainty. And so we're trying to create certainty. When you talk to folks who build and you analyze how building happens, certainty is the number one thing that is required. And so the uncertainty at the coastal region is what we're trying to address with one thing that I'd like to correct from the opposition.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
This only allows housing to be built where housing is currently allowed to be built by cities, not on wetlands, not on bluffs, only where it's zoned for housing. And it's got to be multifamily. You can't even take a single family home and do that. And so I believe that we should build affordable housing on the coast. That's what this Bill is trying to do. It's trying to create certainty for the process.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I would even go a little bit further to say that not only does this Bill only apply to places where local governments have determined they want multifamily housing, it also only applies to where the Coastal Commission has allowed coastal jurisdictions, local governments, to designate for multifamily housing. So this is sort of an infill infill perspective here.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
And I don't know if anybody has any examples of direct projects, but I will be providing you with some examples.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
One of the reasons that the denial rates are so low in the coastal zone is that denial can come at the end of a many year process. I'm going to invite Nevada to speak next on the 10 years she spent. Well, eight years trying to title an affordable housing project. Denial could have come at any point or at the 8th year. And for many of my Members, they will pull projects well before they actually get to the denial.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
If you'll accept the term, overturn approval as commensurate with the denial. I can give you the example of a project in Venice which has an LIP that this Committee would be removing from eligibility for this Bill. This project is about 30 units. The Coastal Commission overturned the approval of that project by the City of Los Angeles on the sole basis that it was inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
If any other local government in the state had chosen to do that, that would probably be a violation of the state's Housing Accountability Act. And. But for the existence of the coastal zone or the Coastal Act would also likely be illegal in that particular case.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
That's a shame, because the three individual low income families that are going to live in the building that may or may not be built now because of an uncertain and years long process to continue, wrote in to support that project because they were going to get for sale home ownership options as a result of other state legislation, namely SB 330 by Senator Skinner. This is a problem.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you. I think the question has been answered.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
This question of denial is a problem more actually revelatory of the fact that the process is so challenging for developers, they simply choose not to do it. That really is the Bill, I think, in front of you today. And the problem that the Legislature should be trying to solve for and again to modernize in other areas of law is not just here.
- Gail Pellerin
Legislator
I think I'm just spoiled living in Santa Cruz.
- Gail Pellerin
Legislator
I'm absolutely pro affordable housing on the coast, and we're doing it. The City of Santa Cruz is building the housing we need, and they're doing it under the existing relationship with their local coastal plan and their building developers. So I'm really concerned about just the chipping away at the Coastal Act because I think it is such an imperative document to protect our coastline, which is really only 1% of our land here in California.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, Miss Pellerin and Mister Flora.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Thank you, Mister Chair and Mister Alvarez, thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I share with my colleague the frustration of this piece of legislation. And I think we both know whether we want to be honest right now what the intent of the amendments are. It's basically to kill the Bill. To make it relatively just is what is, and I say this because in section B of the Committee amendments, it says on prime ag land.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
All right, guess whose district has a lot of prime ag land? Mine. And so if we're not using the entire state to build where people live, which is what we talk about a lot, and in this amendment, we don't want to pave over prime ag land. My cities have to sprawl. We're not going up, we're going out, which is also an issue, but we're paving over ag land that will never get back. And so I just, I get so incredibly frustrated.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Like my colleague, I do not have a coastal district, and I'm just going to hold my comments. It's remarkably frustrating. But that one sentence in prime ag land irritates the heck out of me because we are forced to grow, and every time we expand, every time we sprawl, we're paving over dirt that feeds people, and eventually we're going to run out of dirt to pave over.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Miss Friedman.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you for the question. I think a couple points on that front.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
Thank you. I'm wondering if the representative from the Coastal Commission could talk about that Venice development a little bit and maybe expand on that. I thought that the Coastal Commission's jurisdiction was about environmental protection. Is the Coastal Commission also weighing in on design standards in these areas? Because I had always assumed that that was something that the local governments had the authority over.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
First, I want to clarify that in this instance, the phrase overturn approval, I think is being misused and misconstrued. In this instance, this was a local project that was appealed to the Coastal Commission, and the Coastal Commission had to review the appeal. And in choosing to review the appeal, that is what is being described as being tantamount to a denial. And in reality, the Commission is looking at the project more closely.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
In this instance, with the Venice project, the coastal act does contain policies which protect and they look out for environmental justice and through that lens, they look at the affordability of neighborhoods and as it relates to a naturally affordable community like Venice, that historical character of affordability. And so in an instance where a project would replace existing naturally affordable housing with predominantly high end market rate housing, which, to be clear in the Commission's lived experience, is what we see with density bonus projects.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
So wait, I want to just be clear. So you're saying that because the way that it was described by the proponents of the legislation was that the consideration of the appeal, I don't know where it is in the process right now, was about neighborhood character, which to me, in my mind, is different than affordability. Are you saying that it's strictly on the basis of affordability and not on any type of fit, in terms of number of units or design or anything like that?
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
The Commission is considering the product that's being proposed and its broader effect on that community. Who can afford to live there?
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
I don't feel like I'm getting much clarity in your answer.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
Wait. It's a really clear question. Is the consideration only about the affordability of the units or something beyond that, in terms of the design of the structure itself?
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
The Commission considers the structure as it's being proposed and the relationship of that with the impacts on the community and who can live there.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
There's a difference in terms of who can live in a building or whether you're looking at the design of the building itself. So are you looking, is the Coastal Commission looking at the design of the building in Venice?
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
Is the City of Los Angeles doing design review at the planning process as well on that project?
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
The Commission is looking at the design and interpreting that design through its environmental justice policy to consider the accessibility of that neighborhood to folks who have historically lived there.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I don't want to speak for our commissioners, but I can say that the Coastal Act does include these policies which allow the Commission to interpret this project and opine on it through a lens of environmental justice. Yes.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
And then so you. So the Coastal Commission believes that it can have a different opinion about the design of the project than the local government itself?
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I imagine they are, yes.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
And so environmental justice goes beyond then the question of affordability and also to the actual physical design of the building?
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
How does that become? How does that become, I mean, I'm genuinely curious. How does that become an environmental justice issue?
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Yes, it may.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Assemblymember, depending on how a project is designed, can vastly impact, in terms of the size and other features of it, the affordability of that project, and as a result, its impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and who can live in that neighborhood.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I can't speak to the particulars of this project that was raised by the proponents.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
So you're saying that even if it had deed restricted, if it was 100% deed restricted, 100% affordable, you would still look at the design of the building?
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
But I thought that we were just asking about whether the affordability was a separate question from the design. You're saying that if it was designed differently. So does this particular project have affordable units? Does it have deed restricted units?
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
So the Coastal Commission, then, has designed standards for each of these neighborhoods. Because I know the planning. I know that the City of Los Angeles Planning Commission probably has design standards that they're reviewing when they review their applications.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
In terms of the project's consistency with a local coastal program, if it's relevant, or the Coastal Act.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
If the Commission, if the project was appealed to the Coastal Commission, the Commission would be required to consider the design of the building.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
In terms of the impact on nature?
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
On the basis of the project's consistency with the Coastal Act, or if a local government has it, it's certified local coastal program.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
Then on what basis would you be evaluating the design if you don't have a design standard?
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
You have your own design standards that are separate from the city.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
The Coastal Act does not espouse specific design standards.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
So you're reviewing the design of a project based on. On design standards that sort of. On what basis would you look at that?
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
If a local government has a certified local coastal program, the function of that local coastal program is to take the policies of the Coastal Act and apply them more concretely and in the vein of a design standard to projects that are within that local jurisdiction.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
Okay, when you say design, what I mean, are you talking about the finishes of a building, the massing of a building? What are you actually evaluating? In other words, would you send the applicant back and say that you want the building redesigned to match your standard?
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
When a project comes to the Coastal Commission on Appeal, it is interpreting or it's analyzing that project against the policies of that local coastal program, which I said are more specific, and also the policies of the Coastal Act, which are inherently more General because they're intended to have a statewide application.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Again, I can't speak to our Commission. I don't want to speak for them. But the Commission, when the project comes, before, it considers the aspects of what is being proposed, and that could include its physical dimensions, it could include other aspects of the building, but in this case, the finish, I think that's a different story altogether.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
Okay, well, look, you know, I respect the work of the Coastal Commission, and I understand, you know, my understanding was always to maintain access to the coast, make sure that development, you know, has some sort of.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
And the Commission is looking at, through the lens of environmental justice, what the impacts of that product will be on the character of that community.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
I mean, I'm assuming that what you're trying to say is, well, I thought originally that it was sort of that the mass was appropriate to, I don't know, you know, making sure that people can see the coast, that they could access the coast. But if you're telling me that the building's too fancy for the area and that that's the Coastal Commission's determination and not the local government, the neighborhood council that weighs in with the local government, I do have an issue with that.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
I don't understand what criteria you would be using to make those determinations. And I say that as a former local government official, a former Council Member, and a former official on a design review board in my city as well. You know, if you don't have a set standard, how do you expect any developer to be able to design within the standard? You know, I struggle a bit with this because I certainly think there's an important role for the Coastal Commission.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
But I do worry that when it comes to housing, that saying that a building is sort of too fancy for. I know Venice very well. Venice. I would never describe Venice as being naturally affordable at this point. I think there's probably some parts that are, and, you know, hopefully there's people who are still living there who, you know, who can. Who've been there a long time.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
And I know the struggle of the community to maintain its traditional identity as a funky beach town, given the price of housing. And that's exactly why they're trying to add more housing so that more people can live there, so that it's not. So that housing is less commodified to where only the most elite people can actually afford to rent. I don't know whether this building is deed restricted or not.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
Well, regardless, there's a lot of, really, of people I respect who are opposed to this legislation.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
But if it's a deed restricted, 100% affordable building, and, I don't know, is it affordable units, but not 100% affordable?
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Again, I can't speak to the specifics of the project that's being brought up.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
I want to make sure that whatever is being given over, whatever new streamlining is being granted to the Bill doesn't interfere with the Coastal Commission's role of being able to provide access to coastal resources, certainly they're protecting the environment. You know, that's really important to me. And I would take issue with the proponents of the Bill and say that just because something zoned for housing doesn't mean that it actually is something that today should have housing on it.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
There are neighborhood plans that are 1520 years old out there, zoning that hasn't been changed in many years. Conditions change, areas might become a lot more intense than they had expected 2030 years ago. And there might be a real compelling need to preserve existing green fields that maybe zone multifamily, but maybe have never been developed on, or were developed on, and a structure was removed and now native habitats come back.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
And I think that just saying that that should never be evaluated for preservation, I think that that's a bridge too far for me. I'm going to support this today, but I have real concerns over a lot of what's in this Bill. And I think there does need to be some discretion for areas that are currently open space, whether or not they've been zoned multifamily. So that's something that I'll be looking for in further incarnations of this.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
And I do agree that removing naturally affordable housing and replacing it without anything that those same people can move back into is a problem. I am concerned about this, you know, this sort of definition of the Coastal Commission doing design review in buildings that goes beyond massing and scale, or going on looking at, beyond what's, looking at what's actually affordable, and putting other stipulations on a project that maybe is deed restricted or replacing units with deed restricted units.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, Miss Friedman, Mister Wood.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
Thank you, Mister chair. I've been planning to support your Bill today.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
I'd like to learn more about this as move forward, but I'm going to support this today, so you can continue the conversation. But I would like to understand more about what happens, what the impacts are on some of these open spaces, etcetera, and on naturally occurring housing that's, you know, market rate, affordable older housing as well.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
You know, I sat on a planning Commission for four years. I sat on City Council Member for eight years. I would imagine that this project, considering its sensitivity, would have gone through a CEQA analysis. It did. So we have all of the planning process plus a CEQA analysis.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
Mister Alvarez, I do have a question for your witness, because I think, as I heard you said in that Venice development, there were affordable units in that Venice development. Did I hear that correctly?
- David Alvarez
Legislator
You did.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
And at the very end, we can, someone can appeal to the Coastal Commission that was the Coastal Commission, did not weigh in during the CEQA analysis or was not considered during the CEQA analysis. I'm really puzzled by this because as a former local elected, my blood pressure is going through the roof here right now, quite frankly, because it feels like you've just taken local control and a local control process and thrown it out the window.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
And I represent, like in the north coast, and I respect that there are people, organizations that I have a tremendous amount of respect for in opposition to this Bill. But I look at like the City of Eureka, for example, which has a local coastal plant that extends very far inland, quite frankly.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
And so what I'm hearing today is that local agencies could approve something that might be half a mile or more without any visual impact to the coast, could appeal a project to the Coastal Commission, and the Coastal Commission could say, nah, we don't like it, for whatever reason. And I take offense to that, too. And I'm very, very concerned about that incursion when you've already gone through a whole litany of things and you add the overlay of the fact that we desperately need housing.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
We are not building housing in the state at a rate that is commensurate with the need. So I am, yeah, I would love to get some more clarification on this because this is really a problem. Thank you.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Mister Alvarez, may I say, I mean, thank you very much. I've been listening to all the comments and always want to be respectful, the author and, you know, and respond to his thoughtful approaches by trying to be thoughtful in return.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you. Mister Wood,
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
I guess what I'm hearing, well, first of all, I want to dispel the notion that, you know, coastal communities are not building housing. I, whenever I've always told Senator Wiener, you know, come on down to Redonda beach, you know, it's my understanding that Redonda beach in my district is, has some of the highest housing density of any coastal community in the state. And so I think there are communities that are trying to build more housing.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
And so, but the question here is, as I understand it, you're trying to, I mean, the case law that's cited in the Committee Analysis, the balloon Bill that was passed in 2018, it all seems to require that developers need to comply not only with the density bonus law, but also with the Coastal Act. I wasn't clear as to whether the amendments were going to be removing all the opposition.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
It sounds like there still are concerns in terms of your Bill attempting to just override the Coastal Act in too many parts of the state. And that's my concern that, you know, whenever we have these one size fits all statewide, you know, bills that this doesn't acknowledge that there are sensitive coastal resources that need protection from all of those developers that are just salivating to build all the expensive housing on the coast.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
And so that's why I think there is a need for the Coastal Act to be able to defend and protect our most beautiful, our most sacred resource here in the State of California. What makes the State of California so unique and so, yeah, I wanted to see where the amendments were, how it was going to be responded to by many of the organizations that I also hold in high regard.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
And it sounds to me like it's still, the essence of the Bill is still trying to override the Coastal Act rather than trying to harmonize the Coastal Act. And that's why I can't support your Bill. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Mister Alvarez, would you like to close?
- David Alvarez
Legislator
Yeah. And in closing, just some response, Mister Chair, if that's okay. Thank you.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
First, wanted to start by thanking you for allowing this conversation to happen, because I think it's really important that we hear those perspectives as opposed to not engaging conversation, to understand what all our perspectives are from the different parts of California. So thank you all for participating. I truly appreciate that.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
If I can try to start on my way backwards with our colleague who spoke at the end here, we are trying to be very clear in harmonizing the act and calling out specifically the sensitive resources and the important resources that we believe are part of the act. This Bill does not allow you to build in those sensitive areas. Very, very specific to that. It is only allowed where housing is allowed to be built. That's very, very clear.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
So nobody wants to touch any of those sensitive areas. There's wetlands or bluffs or where sea level rise is a concern. That's all we talk about all that in the Bill. We don't want to touch that. So that's first and foremost. Second, this would not be allowed for those, you said the word, I think, salivating developers. You have to build affordable housing with this density bonus law. Otherwise you cannot get any of these benefits that are described in this law.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
And so if you don't build the affordable housing, guess what? Maybe they will continue to build their high income condominiums as opposed to building some affordable. Our goal is that we should get some affordable housing on the coast. As developers choose to develop, they should also build affordable housing.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
So that's as it relates to protections, the protections remain and if we want to have further protections, let's talk about what those are to our colleague from Glendale who talked about that was I think one of the most important conversations or pieces of this conversation that was had because that is my concern, Assembly Members, with this.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
What's added in terms of sensitive coastal resource areas which would also allow these, the Coastal Commission for there to be an appeal based on, you know, we need to define what a highly scenic area is. What a highly scenic area is to one of us is probably different to somebody else. And yet with this authority, if they feel that a project impacts a highly scenic area, they can pull that.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
That can be appealed and the project then will get stalled and it'll go on through the process, perhaps delayed and maybe not even built. So I'm for protecting, but let's define what that is. Let's not give some arbitrary authority to a body that chooses with no real direct guidance, as you heard in this exchange earlier about something related to whether the character of the community gets changed because housing, affordable housing, gets built. That should never be something that is within the authority.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
So all I'm saying is I thank you for the conversation. I welcome. And also to Miss Friedman. I think we need to make, be careful to make sure that green fields, to the extent our Bill currently isn't protected, we're going to go back and look at that and make sure that that is protected.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
But as it relates to the amendments today, which we will take again, we need to be very specific about this authority and power we're giving to this body, which already has a lot of authority and power and how they can pull and potentially prevent projects from ever being built in areas that they consider highly scenic, that they consider that are special communities with visitor destination areas, neighborhoods, entire neighborhoods is what the language says that are significant visitors.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
That's like every beautiful beach town in all of San Diego. That's probably every beach town in the State of California. So we give them that authority, they could pull a project. Who's looking to build affordable housing in those areas because of this section that is being drafted today. So again, I really sincerely appreciate, I believe that this is how policy making should happen. I know a lot of people talk about like going, going and working and working it out and then bring a cooked product.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you Mister Alvarez, and Committee Members. I mean, this has been an important and lively and necessary conversation. One that I don't know that this Committee has had as robustly in a very long time. I heard many, many things that I have many feelings about.
- David Alvarez
Legislator
This was very helpful to me. I appreciate the questions and with the amendments that we'll take, I would appreciate an aye vote on this Bill. Thank you Mister Chair.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
When I think of design and I hear the phrase character of the community, that's very triggering for me as a renter. When I hear the coast is our most valuable asset, I think of all the people and the people who can no longer live here or live near where they work because we don't have the housing stock and housing infrastructure to match the needs of our state. This is a complicated conversation. It's a complicated policy issue.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
And I want to thank the author for recognizing those complications and working with the Committee to continue to navigate these conversations so that we can find that space that's in the interest of all Californians, both protecting our natural resources, but making sure that we're ever cognizant of the growing need for housing everywhere, and the role that everybody has to play in participating in that. So thank you Mister Alvarez, for bringing this Bill before the Committee. It has a do pass recommendation. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Roll Call
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Needs one more. We'll leave it on call. Thank you. Next, we're going to go to Miss Bonta and then we are going to turn to two Committee Members. We're going to jump the line. I'm giving you a heads up.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
I'm going to jump the line with Mr. Muratsuchi and Ms. Friedman, but want to respect Ms. Bonta's time. She's been waiting a long time. You may begin when ready.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to start by thanking the Chair and Committee staff for working with me with my office on this bill. AB 2851 is an important bill for my community and it's personal. My district is home to a metal shredding facility.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
Shredder waste from vehicles and large appliances contains heavy metals like lead, copper, zinc, cadmium, and other hazardous chemicals. For decades, such operations have resulted in many toxic fires polluting our communities. Even though prior legislation called on DTSC to place strong regulatory standards on metal shredders, numerous incidents have jeopardized the health and safety of Californians and their environments. Since 2018, the local Air District has issued 13 notices of violation to the metal shredder in my district.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
This metal shredder facility has also been the subject of lawsuits for violating emissions rules. Located within a mile from this metal shredding facility are 18 daycare centers, ten parks, eight schools, four senior centers, and two hospitals. While motivated to work on this issue from the experiences in my backyard, this isn't just a problem in my district. Similar to refineries, metal shredding facilities are disproportionately located in our most vulnerable and underserved communities already suffering from higher amounts of pollution exposure known to cause negative health impacts.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
AB 2851 is an essential first step in accountability. It requires DTSC and the local Air Management District to develop and implement facility-wide fence line air monitoring at metal shredding facilities. And if the monitoring indicates a potential adverse impact on air quality or public health, the local Public Health Department will issue a crucial community notification. AB 2851 will push forward the state's commitment to advancing environmental justice and equity for those who are impacted the most by toxic emissions.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
With me today to speak more on this bill are Ms. Margaret Gordon from the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project and Alan Abbs from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Ms. Gordon, how you doing today?
- Margaret Gordon
Person
Fine, thank you. As she said, this may be in her backyard, but it's in my face every day. Three freeways: 8, 89, 80, the Port of Oakland, the truck distribution centers and warehouses. A BART running 20 hours a day. That's all in our face, and also a post office distribution center across the street from affordable housing.
- Margaret Gordon
Person
So this is--to have Schnitzer, this 19th century operation, still in a community, and having a history of fires and a history of not following their own permits over my time living in West Oakland, they need to be removed. Fence line monitored? Cool. Good. But that don't really solve the problem of them being in an urban area where this industry needed to be someplace else, very much remote.
- Margaret Gordon
Person
There's no need for this type of a business to be in our communities. I don't care where people live at. It's no more--it's not a necessity. They want to make money, let them make money someplace else, whereas they are not causing health issues to our community, such as West Oakland. Thank you very much.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much.
- Alan Abbs
Person
Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Alan Abbs, and I'm the Legislative Officer for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and it's always a pleasure to follow Ms. Margaret in testimony.
- Alan Abbs
Person
Our staff has been working with the Member--our staff has been working with the Member from the beginning to get to a bill that accomplishes what we really all want, and that is to have metal shredders in California operate better, to not allow light fibrous material and associated toxic particulate past the facility boundary, and to not have those facilities catch on fire, and to have a notification procedure that informs the community when those standards aren't being met.
- Alan Abbs
Person
As the Committee analysis notes, there's legislative history associated with trying to improve metal shredder operations, but despite making progress, there's still recent instances demonstrating that there's more to be done, specifically with ensuring that particulate matter and toxic emissions are stopped at the facility boundary and don't harm the public. If no one knows when emissions cross the boundary, then the public can't be appropriately informed and the facility has no incentive to operate better.
- Alan Abbs
Person
As the analysis also notes, DTSC, with the assistance of the Bay Area AQMD, conducted an air monitoring study and collected light fibrous material outside the Schnitzer Facility boundary for a multiyear period ending in 2023, and there was also a facility in Redwood City near several hospitals, parks, and schools that received an abatement order to clean up off-site toxic pollution.
- Alan Abbs
Person
AB 2851 attempts to protect people living, working, and going to school near metal shredding facilities and, if needed, inform them of any adverse health impacts and is consistent with actions taken in the past only after elevated concerns from the public. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this topic, and we look forward to continuing to partner with Assembly Member Bonta and community members and hopefully DTSC to further this bill. And I'm here to answer any questions.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Are there any persons in this hearing room who would like to register their support for this bill?
- Kris Rosa
Person
Hi. Good morning, Chair and Members. Kris Rosa, on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund. NRDC is proud to support. Thank you.
- Gracyna Mohabir
Person
Good afternoon. Gracyna Mohabir with California Environmental Voters, in support. Thank you.
- Scott Andrews
Person
Scott Andrews with the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, in support of the bill.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Two minutes each, whenever you're ready.
- Ryan Flanigan
Person
Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Ryan Flanigan, here on behalf of the West Coast Chapter of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, and we have an opposed unless amended position. I'd first like to thank the author and her staff for working with us thus far. We're not opposed to fence line monitoring or community notifications. We do have concerns with the specifics of the implementation of those programs which we detail in our letter.
- Ryan Flanigan
Person
In short, we believe the primary responsibility for the development and oversight of these programs should be placed with the local Air Pollution Control and Air Quality Management Districts in consultation with DTSC. Air Districts have the necessary expertise and experience relating to these monitoring systems, allowing for more timely, accurate, and efficient achievement of the bill's objectives.
- Ryan Flanigan
Person
We believe the information should be collected according to accepted scientific protocols and methodologies and that the monitoring results be accurately interpreted according to officially promulgated ambient air quality standards and accepted thresholds pertaining to human health risk. Community notifications made on the basis of speculative, inaccurate, incomplete, or misinterpreted information do not serve the public interest. We look forward to continuing to work with the author and her staff as we move forward. Thank you.
- Tony Cuevas
Person
Good afternoon, Chairman Bryan and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on AB 2851. My name is Tony Cuevas, and I'm speaking in opposition of AB 2851 unless it is amended to address Izri's concerns. I'm an employee at SA Recycling. I'm a manager at the shredder in the Port of Los Angeles. I have read the letter submitted by LWU Local 26 in opposition of the bill, and I support ILWU 26's position.
- Tony Cuevas
Person
While I am not a member of the ILWU Local 26, I oversee ILWU 26 members working at SA Recycling. I have been employed by SA Recycling since the year of 2000. I started as a member of the ILWU Local 26 myself, doing routine maintenance at the shredder before working my way up to becoming the shredder manager. I led the team to build the new shredder in the facility in 2006. My grandfather started working at SA Recycling in the sixties, so he retired in the late eighties.
- Tony Cuevas
Person
My father is currently working at the facility. He's been working at SA for 46 years now. He's also a member of the Local 26. My father is a crane operator and has been feeding the shredder for over 30 years now. Many of my extended family members, friends, have worked at the shredder at TI. SA Recycling provides good pay, benefits, provides very safe work environment. SA Recycling workers are healthy. I have no issues working in the environment at the shredder.
- Tony Cuevas
Person
My family is very health-oriented and we would not want family members working there if it was an unhealthy environment. We at SA Recycling consider ourselves environmentalists. We provide a service of recycling end-of-life products that otherwise would litter the streets and fill up our landfills. The new metal products we use today cannot be made unless we recycle the old products.
- Tony Cuevas
Person
With all due respect to the comments made that the California metal shredders are located in disparate neighborhoods, SA Recycling operates three in California and are all located in industrial areas.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Just two minutes.
- Tony Cuevas
Person
Okay. While I'm not concerned about the results from the testing the air around the facilities, I am concerned that the testing will not act accurately and will cause false test results, giving the communities false impressions of the operations at our facility. After all, we are located in the middle of the largest port, surrounded by oil refineries. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Any witnesses in the room who would like to register their opposition? Seeing none, we'll now turn it to Committee Members. Questions, comments, concerns? Ms. Bonta, would you like to close?
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
Thank you so much, and I appreciate the, you know, all parties coming to the table to really be able to work on this bill. I think the Wednesday, first week of school in Oakland where there were children headed to preschool, kindergarten, high school, what they woke up to in West Oakland was red skies and air that wouldn't allow them to breathe. That air, we know, filled with particulate matter and toxic chemicals is a carcinogen that causes those beautiful children and families and elders to die from cancer when exposed for too long.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
It is not an unreasonable thing within the State of California to be able to hold accountable our facilities that produce potentially and knowingly dangerous chemical material for our communities. With that, I respectfully request your aye vote.
- Margaret Gordon
Person
Can I ask something?
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
You know, we don't usually do that, but I'm down for it, Ms. Margaret. What you gotta say?
- Margaret Gordon
Person
CARB and Bay Area Air Quality, West Oakland Environmental Indicators is an AB 617 site. We are in a--we've been in a plan going on five years to reduce emissions. Reduce emissions. This fire added emissions.
- Margaret Gordon
Person
All right. So let's talk about the conversation about the fire.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
I hear you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Yes, ma'am.
- Margaret Gordon
Person
I understand wholeheartedly your need to work, your family need for you to provide for your work, but we're talking about a fire, a major fire that happened in this community because of Schnitzer Steel, okay?
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, Ms. Margaret. So we hear from a lot of Capitol folks and a lot of lobbyists often. We don't often hear from people who have been directly impacted, who made time out of the day to come up here, so y'all just get used to it in this Committee. We're grateful for the testimony.
- Margaret Gordon
Person
I will be back.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
I look forward to seeing you. One of the things I heard from the opposition, it seemed to indicate that we're not necessarily against frontline monitoring, we're against the monitoring because we think it'll show positive, but it's not all our fault.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
And that's a complicated position to be in because I think the community is paying the price nonetheless. This bill enjoys a do pass recommendation. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll? Oh, do we have any motions? Motion by Bauer-Kahan and seconded by Friedman.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is 'do pass to Appropriations.' [Roll Call].
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
That bill is out. We're going to jump to Mr. Muratsuchi: AB 2870.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Whenever you're ready, Mister Muratsuchi.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Thank you very much Mister Chair. Members of the Committee, thank you for this accommodation. I am here to present AB 2870 a Bill that seeks to protect frontline environmental justice communities by directing CARB to strike a better balance by eliminating avoided methane emissions from the carbon intensity calculation for fuels derived from livestock manure. These massive dairy methane farms are the biggest polluters in the San Joaquin Valley which already has the worst air quality in the nation.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Aside from methane, these industrial dairy farms produce nitrous oxide, ammonia in particular pollution. As well as, poisoning the water and land for low income and immigrant valley residents. AB 2870 will end the state's practice of incentivizing dairy farms to increase their methane pollution. Here to speak on the importance of this measure is David Rodriguez. Mister Chair, you talked about, you know, not hearing enough from those that are directly impacted.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
We have Mister Rodriguez, a resident from Planada, California who will share his personal experience and to be followed with Phoebe Seaton, co-director of the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Absolutely. Two minutes each.
- David Rodriguez
Person
Thank you for your time. My name is David Rodriguez. I am a founding Member of Central Valley Defenders through Clean Air and Water. I reside in Planada, California, population 4,164 residents. It's in Merced County and has been designated as a severely disadvantaged community, even before last year's floods. I have lived in Planada since 1960. For years we have endured putrid odors from local dairy that's less than a mile away from our town. Hillcrest Dairy arrived in 2002 with over 3,000 cows.
- David Rodriguez
Person
They now have over 8,000 cows and they are trying to expand again. And this time they are in talks with dairy digester developers. In 2012, a group of Planada residents complained to the Merced County Board of Supervisors to no avail. I have called the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control district and they told me they don't respond to dairy odors.
- David Rodriguez
Person
I've had the opportunity to go to Washington DC and I spoke with the staff of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the staff of Senator Feinstein, the staff of Representative Costa and the staff of Senator Padilla. I have been on numerous calls with CARB representing pertaining to environmental issues caused by dairies and the production of gas from digesters. And I have testified at several CARB workshops and hearings about the problems with low carbon fuel standards.
- David Rodriguez
Person
I have joined other Members of Central Valley Defenders in a meeting with the chair, Leanne Randolph from CARBS in August 24, 2023 in Pixley, California. That's another small town that's been affected by dairies surrounding their community along with the proliferation of dairy digesters. We raised time and time again that the conditions in our communities are getting worse as dairies are getting bigger and dairy digesters are installed. I've learned from my friends in Tulare and other areas that dairy digesters don't help. They only make things worse.
- David Rodriguez
Person
I know that Planada does not want Hillcrest to get any bigger and I know I don't want a digester there, and it would encourage Hillcrest to grow more and more. Despite our ongoing advocacy from local to the federal level. But more than anywhere at CARBS, our legitimate concerns are being ignored. Is it because the industry is so powerful? Is it apathy towards people of color who live in rural areas, or is it both?
- David Rodriguez
Person
CARB continues to ignore our concerns about the impact of dairies-
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
-passing that two minutes-
- David Rodriguez
Person
-and digesters. The state has encouraged production of and failed to regulate excessive dairy mover pollution and expense air, water in local communities. The goal of LCFS was to reduce carbon intensity of fuse in California. So why are we seeing it cause more pollution?
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, sir.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Phoebe Seaton
Person
Thank you, David. The low carbon fuel standards accounting tactic of avoided methane crediting for gas derived from livestock manure is bad policy. It's bad transportation policy, it's bad agricultural policy, and it's very, very bad environmental justice policy, as you've heard. Avoided methane crediting makes factory farm gas appear much, much, much cleaner than zero emission electricity. That alone should be enough to call this policy into question. There's nothing clean about the fuel itself. It burns just like conventional fuel.
- Phoebe Seaton
Person
And even if it were clean burning, which it is not, factory farm gas in the LCFS displaces little, if any, fossil fuel. It serves primarily as a credit generator so that fossil fuel companies can purchase credits to offset their ongoing pollution. Factory farm gas accounts for only about 1% of fuels in the LCFS, but 15% to 20% of credits generated. In short, the LCFS exports agricultural pollution to the transportation sector in the form of polluting trade, pollution trading credits.
- Phoebe Seaton
Person
The role of avoided methane crediting in undermining the Clean Transportation Aims of this state is enough of a reason for the Legislature to reform this program. Avoided methane crediting ignores that managing liquefied manure in massive manure pits that maximize methane methane emissions is a choice, not an inevitability, and even encourages that practice. Dairies that handle their manure in dry handling systems can reduce manure methane emissions by more than 90%.
- Phoebe Seaton
Person
A Missouri farmer describes the damage California's LCFS program is causing in the Midwest by creating a lucrative market for factory farm gas. Rewarding the biggest and most polluting operations while further stacking the cards against family farm livestock producers, like me, that are doing things differently. The perverse incentives that avoided methane emissions creates in the agricultural sector is enough to warrant reform of this policy.
- Phoebe Seaton
Person
Avoided methane emissions crediting encourage and incentivizes the concentration of cows and liquefied manure in the San Joaquin Valley near lower income communities of color. Since CARB signaled that it would change its LCFS rules to include avoided methane crediting, the number of cows in the San Joaquin Valley has increased, especially at the largest facilities. This means more pollution and more putrid odors. The harm created by avoided methane crediting and lower income communities of color is reason enough to rethink and reform this policy.
- Phoebe Seaton
Person
Avoided methane crediting is not just bad policy, it's as a union of concerned scientists put it bluntly in a recent blog, a disaster. AB 2870 puts us back on the right track toward climate, transportation and environmental justice. We ask for your aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Are there any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure?
- Tasha Newman
Person
Is that on?
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Yes.
- Tasha Newman
Person
Tasha Newman on behalf of Earthjustice in support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much.
- Kayla Karimi
Person
Kayla Karimi with the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment in support.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Fred, Fresno County for support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you sir.
- Leslie Martinez
Person
Leslie Martinez, organizer in the San Joaquin Valley in support please.
- Maria Gomez
Person
Soy Maria Gomez represento el condado de Fresno pido su apoyo. *I am Maria Gomez, representing Fresno County. I ask for your support.*
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Alicia Rivera
Person
My name is Alicia Rivera, I'm from Merced and I'm asking for your support.
- Jennifer Fearing
Person
Good afternoon. Jennifer Fearing, proud to represent Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability in support and also asked to do a #MeToo of support from Climate Action California, 350 Sacramento, 350 Humboldt and Elders Climate Action.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Sosan Madanat
Person
Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Sosan Madanat, W Strategies here on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund and strong support. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Grisheena Mohabir
Person
Good afternoon. Grisheena Mohabir with California Environmental Borders and support thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Alexis Romero
Person
Alexis Romero from Sanger, California in support.
- Christina Velazquez
Person
Hi, I'm Christina Velazquez from Pixley, California and I really would appreciate your guys support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Beverly Woodfill
Person
My name is Beverly Woodfill and I'm from Pixley, California and I would appreciate a aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Rodolfo Romero
Person
Mi nombre es Rodolfo Romero, yo represento la comunidad Sanger, California. *My name is Rodolfo Romero, I represent the community of Sanger, California.*
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
thank you sir.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Mi nombre es , y apoyo a la union de todos. *My name is , and I support the union of all.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you sir.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Berta del Valle Central pidiendo su apoyo. *Berta of Central Valley asking for your support.*
- Maria Sotelo
Person
Soy la senora Maria Sotelo estoy aqui para decir estoy en la sala. Senora Maria Sotelo estoy pidiendo su apoyo soy vengo de freno. Gracias. *I am Mrs. Maria Sotelo, I am here to say I am in the room. Mrs. Maria Sotelo, I am asking for your support, I am coming from brakes. Thank you.*
- Veronica Garibay
Person
good afternoon. Veronica Garibayo on behalf of Fresno Building Healthy Communities and support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Katie Valenzuela
Person
Good afternoon. Katie Valenzuela on behalf of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, as well as Valley Improvement Project in support.
- Raquel Mason
Person
Good afternoon. Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance also asked to register support for strategic concepts in organizing and policy education, physicians for social responsibility, Los Angeles, and the Center for Biological Diversity. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Ari Eisenstadt
Person
Good afternoon. I'm Ari Eisenstadt, also with CEJA, and I was asked to register support for Communities for a Better Environment, Asian Pacific Environmental Network and Central Coast alliance, united for a sustainable Economy. Thank you.
- Natalie Brown
Person
Natalie Brown with the Planning Conservation League also in support. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Rebecca Marcus
Person
Rebecca Marcus, representing the Center for Food Safety and Support.
- Michele Canales
Person
Michele Canales, Union of Concerned Scientists and support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Jonathan White
Person
John White with the Clean Power Campaign in support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, Chuck. Any formal opposition?
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm sure.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Two minutes each. Whenever you're ready.
- Michael Boccadoro
Person
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Michael Boccadoro, on behalf of Ag Energy. Been working in this space for about 15 years and trying to find incentives to get dairy digesters built so dairy industry can reduce methane. It's one of the lead negotiators on 1383 when it passed the Legislature in 2016. Reducing methane is the most important thing we can do in the short-term to address climate change.
- Michael Boccadoro
Person
So we have to be asking ourselves the question, why are we going to eliminate dairy digesters, which are the most effective tool this state and this country are implementing to reduce methane in the livestock sector? Dairy digesters are recognized as one of the most cost-effective programs that we operate here in California. They are recognized also not only cost effectively, but as the most productive greenhouse gas reduction tool we have. Why are we proposing to eliminate it?
- Michael Boccadoro
Person
Dairy digesters unequivocally improve environmental performance in the San Joaquin Valley. You heard some testimony a few moments ago that would suggest otherwise. Nothing could be further from the truth. We know this. They reduce methane in massive amounts, they improve of odor and nuisance, reduce hydrogen sulfide and other pollutants in the San Joaquin Valley. They're creating renewable natural gas, which is a clean burning--a low-emission, clean burning transportation fuel that is replacing diesel and heavy-duty trucks, providing significant criteria pollutant reductions in the valley.
- Michael Boccadoro
Person
Many of our fleets that deliver feed, deliver milk to the processor, are converting from diesel to run on cleaner burning, renewable natural gas that provides tremendous air quality benefits. And then finally, the dairy sector is well on its way to achieving the 40 percent reduction sought by 1383.
- Michael Boccadoro
Person
We have to ask ourselves seven years in, halfway to the 2030 date to achieve a 40 percent reduction, we're throwing out a very successful program that is going to lead to not only no additional digesters being developed, but the likely outcome that many of the existing operating digesters in this state will cease to operate.
- Michael Boccadoro
Person
So we're not only losing additional methane reduction, we're losing maybe as much as 2.2 million metric tons of CO2e equivalent, reduction from the digesters that are currently operating. This bill is fundamentally flawed. There's been a three-year process going on at CARB to look at the LCFS. This bill just discounts, throws that out, and comes up with an entirely different solution.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Appreciate you.
- Sam Wade
Person
Thanks very much, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Sam Wade with the Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas. We're the national trade association for the RNG industry, headquartered here in California. We have over 400 member companies across the RNG supply chain. We oppose AB 2870 because it directly contradicts California's well-functioning, existing methane emissions reduction strategy. A lot of important prior work would simply be thrown out of the window by this bill.
- Sam Wade
Person
Developing a framework for dairy digesters in the state required more than ten years of input from academic experts, extensive public process at CARB and CDFA, and smart legislation in the form of Senate Bill 1383, which currently guarantees Low Carbon Fuel Standard crediting to dairy projects. California's LCFS is the first in the nation's strategy to fight climate change, and it's working. Thanks to the LCFS, our air is cleaner, we are reducing greenhouse gas emissions, breaking our dependence on foreign oil, and lowering costs through market competition.
- Sam Wade
Person
The LCFS has been successful in driving deployment of RNG projects at dairies, and methane emission levels from manure management in California are going down as intended. The US EPA has supported dairy digesters for more than 20 years in the AgSTAR Program and highlights the California LCFS as a success story on their website. AB 2870 hurts rather than helps the state's efforts to reduce methane.
- Sam Wade
Person
It tells clean tech investors, dairy owners, and project developers who have committed private capital to these long-lived assets that the state's framework can't be trusted and that decade-long work to develop this current strategy was meaningless. This matters because these voices have previously promoted the LCFS nationwide as a model for other states to follow. Just this year, New Mexico, another major dairy state, adopted the policy based on the successful example they've seen from California so far.
- Sam Wade
Person
LCFS proponents have also been able to get legislation introduced in states that produce 40 percent of U.S. milk product. Following California's existing successful example in other large dairy states would be the fastest way to deal with dairy methane manure emissions nationwide. California's leadership on practical climate solutions is important. We must not waver at this critical juncture just as we're beginning to see results. Over two billion dollars of public and private capital have been committed to these projects.
- Sam Wade
Person
All that progress would be put in jeopardy should AB 2870 be enacted as currently written. On Earth Day, let's continue to go forward rather than backward on cutting greenhouse gases in this state. Please don't upend this important and well-functioning effort to control dairy manure methane. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thanks so much. Any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this measure?
- Jennifer Hamilton
Person
Good afternoon. Jennifer Hamilton with the California Hydrogen Business Council, opposed.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- McKinley Thompson-Morley
Person
McKinley Thompson-Morley, on behalf of the Bioenergy Association of California, in respectful opposition.
- Chris Micheli
Person
Mr. Chair, Chris Micheli, on behalf of the California Renewable Transportation Alliance, in respectful opposition. Thank you.
- Matt Roman
Person
Matt Roman with Niemela, Pappas and Associates, here on behalf of Land O'Lakes, in opposition.
- Steven Fenaroli
Person
Chair and Members, Steven Fenaroli with the California Farm Bureau, in opposition.
- Chris Zgraggen
Person
Chris Zgraggen, on behalf of Republic Services, in opposition.
- Dennis Albiani
Person
Dennis Albiani, on behalf of California Grain and Feed and Pacific Egg and Poultry Association, in opposition.
- Jason Bryant
Person
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Jason Bryant, on behalf of Western United Dairies and California Cattlemen's Association. We're in opposition.
- Kristin Olsen-Cate
Person
Hello, Mr. Chair. Kristin Olsen-Cate representing Monarch Bioenergy, in opposition.
- Priscilla Quiroz
Person
Priscilla Quiroz, here on behalf of the Western Propane Gas Association, in respectful opposition.
- John Moffatt
Person
John Moffatt, on behalf of Milk Producers Council and Waste Management, in opposition.
- Steve Carlton
Person
Steve Carlton for Athens Services. We're a Los Angeles-based recycling and waste selling company, in opposition.
- Ryan Kenny
Person
Hi. Good afternoon. Ryan Kenny, on behalf of Clean Energy, in opposition. Thank you.
- Tricia Geringer
Person
Mr. Chair and Members, Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California, respectfully opposed.
- Taylor Roschen
Person
Good afternoon. Taylor Roschen, on behalf of California Dairies, Inc, in opposition.
- Katie Davey
Person
Good afternoon. Katie Davey with the Dairy Institute of California, opposed.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. We'll now turn to Committee Members. Mr. Hoover.
- Josh Hoover
Legislator
Thank you. Wanted to just ask a couple questions here. You know, I think the first is, you know, what I'm struggling with with this bill is that we probably handle dairy in the cleanest way possible of any state. And so I guess is it a bit counterproductive for this legislation or try to explain to me why it's not counterproductive when we are potentially pushing these animals out of the state to continue producing dairy in a less clean way and also obviously hurting our own dairy industry, but just help me kind of understand that a little bit, if you could, how this helps us meet our climate goals.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Certainly, Mr. Hoover. This is not an anti-dairy bill. This is a bill that's calling on CARB to recognize that, you know, one of the signatures programs in fighting climate change should not be incentivizing the production of methane. Obviously, this is a complicated situation to say the least. We want to incentivize dairy farmers to capture the methane being emitted from the manure that comes from the cows at our dairies.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Unfortunately, carbon intensity score, you know, the point of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program was to incentivize clean fuels, but as Ms. Seaton testified earlier, I mean, right now, an electric car that's charged with solar panels gets a LCFS carbon intensity score of zero. That should be, you know, what we're all aspiring to, but today the average carbon intensity score for fuels derived from dairy digester projects is -270.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Why is a program that was supposed to incentivize clean fuels, incentivizing the production of methane, that is not only, you know, screwing up the basic intent of the LCFS program to incentivize clean fuels, but more importantly, for all the people that you heard in this community, you know, it's not just about fighting climate change. It's about the air and water pollution of the people that live in these communities.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
And so CARB needs to recognize that it's not just about incentivizing our dairy farms to capture that methane. We don't want that methane to just be released. We know that that methane is one of the worst greenhouse gases, and so this proposal to eliminate the--the avoided methane emissions from the carbon intensity calculation, it will place the carbon intensity of these fuels more in line with the methane captured from landfills. Why should methane from dairy digesters be more valuable than the methane released from landfills?
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
We want parity, or we want something that doesn't incentivize the production of this methane, especially in a way that recognizes that it's not just about the carbon intensity, but it's about the suffering that's being suffered by people living in these frontline communities. I wanted to see if Ms. Seaton had anything to add to that.
- Phoebe Seaton
Person
I'll just say briefly that I think there's a jump to kind of what this bill does. This bill--all this bill does is return us to our kind of 2017 reality before CARB changed its rule on the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which, at which point gas from livestock manure was treated similarly to landfill gas. So all we're doing is saying that is the crediting scheme that makes sense in this context of trying to get to cleaner fuels, et cetera.
- Phoebe Seaton
Person
It does not push the dairy industry anywhere. And I think there's--this is--I think we kind of are hoping for a broader discussion on how to address the dairy industry more broadly. The LCFS is not that.
- Josh Hoover
Legislator
Okay. Well, if these, you know, if we get rid of these incentives, though, right, CARB is going to have to fund alternative programs, I presume, to continue to meet our targets. This is helping us meet our targets now. I mean, that could be in the billions of dollars in costs in obviously, a very bad budget year. So what is the plan for replacing the goals to meet these targets if it's not going to be dairy digesters?
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
So, again, to clarify what Ms. Seaton just said, I mean, we're not talking about eliminating any financial incentives for the capture of methane from these dairy farms. If we remove the assumption from CARB's calculations for the avoided methane, this bill would place the carbon intensity of these fuels in the range of 35 to 50, which is more in line with the methane capture from landfill. So the bottom line is there will still be incentives for the dairy farms to capture methane.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
It's just not going to be this cash cow that currently exists right now. I mean, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, biogas is captured in digesters, receive millions of dollars in LCFS funding under the current scoring system. Since the program's inception, factory farm gas has pulled in more than 1.26 billion dollars from the LCFS program. We need to take away that financial incentive to produce methane to consolidate these bigger farms, to engage in practices like these wet manure pools that's producing more rather than less methane.
- Josh Hoover
Legislator
Just one more, Mr. Chair, if I may. Appreciate that. Just for the opposition, I think we'd love to hear your response to those comments, but also, how do you think we're going to meet our climate goals in California without this technology?
- Michael Boccadoro
Person
I'm happy to try and answer that. So, first of all, let's make a really important point for this Committee. Dairy digesters on California dairies are not producing methane, they're capturing it. Methane's already being produced on dairies because all dairies in California, in the San Joaquin Valley, are required to have some liquid manure handling capacity.
- Michael Boccadoro
Person
Dairies in California are the only ones that I'm aware of in the country that are not allowed to discharge water off our property, which means we have to have containment solutions even in the pasture-based area operations in Mr. Wood's district, where they also have digesters on some of these operations. We have to have these liquid holding facilities so we can best utilize our nutrients and to make sure there's no stormwater runoff. They produce methane.
- Michael Boccadoro
Person
We're now covering those and capturing that methane and putting it to productive use, which can't happen and won't happen unless there are markets for the utilization of that captured methane. The LCFS is that market right now, and it is providing the incentives to the industry to build these projects. If it were to change in the manner proposed by this legislation, the incentives would not come even close to providing the revenues necessary to pay for the capital investments.
- Michael Boccadoro
Person
These are tens of millions of dollars on each dairy and tens of millions of dollars for the cleaning and conditioning capacity, and millions more for the interconnections to get the gas into a renewable natural gas pipeline. The other thing I would say, as I said earlier, dairy digesters do not worsen environmental circumstances, they dramatically improve it. That's well-documented. Renewable natural gas is much cleaner than diesel in a heavy-duty truck. We're not going to convert all heavy-duty trucks to electricity tomorrow or hydrogen tomorrow.
- Michael Boccadoro
Person
We're going to have fleets that are going to need to run on something. Running on something other than diesel is a dramatic improvement in air quality, not just in the San Joaquin Valley, but in the South Coast Air Basin. All those trucks.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Ms. Bauer-Kahan.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Chair. One thing that was pointed out in the analysis that I thought was really striking to me that I didn't know was that 86 percent of these LCFS credits are being purchased from out of state. So I have to say that I've supported many bills to help with these digesters because I agree the methane is here, and until we all become like Mr. Kalra and stop eating meat and dairy, then it's not going anywhere.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
And so that methane is being produced and capturing it is beneficial. But when I look at this and I see that actually what is being credited isn't helping these communities--the vast majority of it, 16 percent; so a very small minority is helping these communities and the vast majority of it is not--then I look at that and I think something's wrong with the system.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
In addition to what our colleague from Los Angeles--probably somewhere more specific, but you're all from Los Angeles--
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Manhattan Beach?
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Said, which is, you know, we've got to get these incentives right, right? We should have digesters, but right now there's serious incentives to increase the amount of methane you're capturing, which is what I think I'm hearing, and so as long as we are getting these incentives right, so we are incentivizing the capture in our local communities and ensuring that we're driving down those pollutants.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Although methane is one of our largest greenhouse gas emissions, and it has a much larger climate change impact beyond California, so I see the benefit of incentivizing people outside of California, but we're California legislators, so I'm going to focus on our own communities, the ones sitting here today, I think a lot needs to be fixed. Do I think this bill is where it needs to be by the end of the legislative session? No.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Do I think it has a long way to go before it ends up on the Governor's desk? Yes. And so I'll be supporting it here today, but I think that there really is a way for us to strike that balance, to incentivize the dairy farmers to do the right thing, to help our communities, and also ensure that we're bringing more of those dollars home. I just think that's something we should all share a desire to do, and I hope the opposition shares that as well.
- Sam Wade
Person
Yeah. Can I start with just saying the import production share of the RNG is actually sort of better than fossil gas. We import over 90 percent of our fossil gas, and the reason that we've been able to create more in-state projects recently is this avoided methane crediting. Essentially, prior to the institution of the avoided methane crediting at the direction of the Legislature under SB 1383, the out-of-state production share for RNG was even greater.
- Sam Wade
Person
So we've been able to build more in-state projects because we are the largest dairy state in the country and we've had a good opportunity to capture that methane and create RNG because of this treatment. If you were to remove this treatment, we would not be able to build more projects and that percentage would actually fall down again.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you. Ms. Friedman.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
Thank you. So, you know, it is really impossible to hear the stories of the community and not be very moved by the impact that they are having from the dairy industry. I've been to these areas. There's no doubt that we're talking about very large operations with a lot of impacts on the people who live around them. And I think it's also undeniable that having the digesters and the methane capture is really important. I mean, it's primarily going into vehicles that are very hard to decarbonize.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
It's better to capture. When you have an impact like--you have manure from existing dairies and you have methane, you want to capture that, you want to use it. So there's no question that the digesters are really, really important in this area as well.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
And it seems to me that really the issue is, is the incentive correct enough to create more digesters, to capture more methane, to use it as a fuel, not just to spell it into the atmosphere without being so heavily lucrative that you're creating more? Too much consolidation within the industry, having dairies being created beyond what just sort of the milk and dairy market would bear, are you creating a new industry just to create methane? And I think that's where this disconnect is.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
And what I'm struggling with actually in the middle of all this is CARB working on this issue. And that's the struggle I'm having because there's a problem. There's something we need to do. Maybe it's out of whack. CARB has now stepped in, has been going through this long process, and they're doing their rules to maybe straighten out some of this so that you don't continue to have consolidation and maybe overproduction of, you know, in the dairy industry or bringing this problem in from out of state even, because you're not just creating dairy now, you're also getting a methane credit that's highly lucrative.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
And so I wanted to know where CARB is on this and why have they not dealt with this? Are they operating within a timeframe that was put on them through legislation? Where are they going with this? They tend to be pretty good at regulating stuff, but it seems like they haven't here.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
So I'm curious from you or from anybody here, why have they not acted and are they about to do something? And if so, where does your bill fit in with their own rulemaking process?
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Sure. I mean, I'm sure the opposition will--
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
And I don't need--I mean, maybe I'll--I don't need everyone to answer me, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Yes. So, you know, I'm holding here a Low Carbon Fuel Standard FAC from CARB, and they do address the issue of avoided methanes. I mean, like this discussion has been correctly identifying, this is a balancing act. You know, it's a balancing act between how do we incentivize them to capture that methane being produced by the cows while at the same time, like you just said, not making it--I don't know if it was your words or mine--a cash cow, you know, to operate these, have these operations.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
As the Committee analysis points out, they are in the process of working on a plan to try to address and to eventually phase out these dairy digesters, but I think the fundamental problem with CARB's approach to this is that they're just focusing on the greenhouse gas part of this equation, of this picture, as they are charged to do.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
They are the lead agency to address the greenhouse gas emissions that the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program originated out of the AB 32. It was one of the flagship programs to address climate change issues, but what they are failing to address are these attendant air and water pollution impacts on these frontline communities. That's where CARB has been woefully, woefully inadequate in recognizing and addressing these environmental justice concerns.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
But if I may, it seems like they're undergoing a corrective process now. That's--they're going through a process. So I understand that they haven't acted, but why do you feel--or why do your sponsors feel that it's necessary to intervene?
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Maybe I'll turn it over to--
- Phoebe Seaton
Person
Yeah, I'll start. Although I'm gonna curb a little bit of what David shared is, so CARB has been in the midst of rulemaking now, officially, since the beginning of this year. Unofficially, longer than that. They've heard time and time and time again from residents in the San Joaquin Valley and beyond, from the state about the perverse incentives embedded into this program to promote the creation of methane and wet manure.
- Phoebe Seaton
Person
There was a CARB hearing in September where board members kind of echoed and elevated those concerns, saying, we really need to see a change in this policy. I'm concerned about the perverse incentives in this program. Staff came back with a proposal that completely ignored that direction, completely ignored the direction from its constituents like David, and kind of papered over all of the environmental justice concerns and actually went in deeper on avoided methane crediting.
- Phoebe Seaton
Person
It called for kind of ongoing up to 30 years of avoided methane crediting for any project that breaks ground between now and 2030. And kind of an ongoing avoided methane crediting for projects that produce electricity, including through internal combustion engines that pollute through the burning of biogas.
- Phoebe Seaton
Person
And so to date, despite the many, many years and hours of travel and testimony from people impacted, like severely impacted by this program, CARB staff to date has shown no concern and no consideration and no intention of correcting this accounting problem.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. We're going to go to Mr. Wood, but also wanted to just put it out there, we did invite ARB to join us today in this hearing, and they graciously--
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Declined.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
Let me before you go there, I'm not going to ask another question. I'm just going to quickly say I mean I feel a little. I think this is your first policy hearing on this. Correct or have you?
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
That is correct.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
So I feel a little you know, torn because clearly there's a problem and you have a regulator who's working on rulemaking, and I understand that the residents don't feel they're going where they want to. That happens sometimes. It's a little bit hard for me without hearing sort of ARB's rationale as to what they're balancing and why they came to where they did. And I don't. It's very. It's hard for me to feel equipped to overrule them which is what you're asking us to do.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
And they haven't even come out with their regs as far as I can tell. There's you know, you've seen a report, you don't like the report. Now let's introduce legislation before the rules have been made. I'm going to support this today. But I really feel like I want to hear ARB's side of this before I, you know, commit to voting yes in the next Committee or on the Floor. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, Mister Wood.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
Thank you, Mister Chair. And thank you Mister Muratsuchi. I'm going to piggyback on comments by Assembly Member Friedman. I guess I'm troubled by the fact that I don't always agree with CARB. I really don't. Sometimes I think some of their policies are so overarching, so rigid that small communities and districts that have really good air quality often suffer from that, from that lack of flexibility in my opinion. And it's interesting that CARB is in the middle of a rulemaking process.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
And it sounds like that the proponents of the Bill don't like that. And so I find myself in an awkward position in support of a regulator that I don't always support, but I support their mission. And I think that's really, that's a really important distinction here. This feels a little like a sweater with a string. And the more you pull, the more you unravel. The ramifications of this more industry-wide I think are really really significant.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
I never thought I'd talk about consolidation in this Committee. I usually do that related to healthcare. But there's been a lot of consolidation in the dairy industry because smaller dairies have struggled to survive. We have lost hundreds and hundreds of dairies in California and I fear more consolidation down the line which doesn't help the folks in my district. Unlike the conclusion that Miss Friedman has gone to, I can't support this Bill today. And there's some things that trouble me.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
I didn't hear anybody dispute that dairy digesters reduce methane. Part of this is an, and why would we want to eliminate incentives for building those diary digesters if we agree that they actually do reduce methane? It was interesting that one of the opponents to the Bill is Republic Services and they operate landfills. So I'm puzzled by that. Maybe I'll ask them about that later.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
If this were to pass and they're, and knowing that the dairies are using some of this money to help build dairy digesters and they don't have that incentive to, to do that any longer, what do you propose as a replacement? Because the fear that I have is that we now have these dairies moving out of state. So we just pass our problem onto another state and we don't really do anything for the greater climate goals that we all want to support.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
So what do you propose as a replacement? Knowing that these actually work, but we don't want, we don't want any more of them, essentially, is what I, what it sounds like to me.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Yeah, so I was trying to. I think you're raising a similar point to what Mister Hoover was raising and perhaps I need to do a better job of explaining it. But the proposed elimination of the avoided methane emissions that this Bill is proposing, it will not take away all incentives. It's just trying to rebalance the economics of the LCFS carbon intensity score here.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
By removing the avoided methane emissions from CARB's calculation, this Bill will place the carbon intensity of the dairy digester operations in the range of 35 to 50, which is, you know, it is more than the zero for the electric car fueled by, charged by solar panels, but it's less than what conventional gas gets in a score of around 100. So, there is still the incentive to capture the methane produced by cows.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
We just don't want it to be so lucrative that it may, you know, the evidence is, you know, is unclear in terms of to what extent this current treatment of avoiding methane, whether that may be contributing, reinforcing the consolidations of these dairy farms. I think they would disagree. But, you know, as I've been learning and doing a deep dive in all this, there, there appears to be a UC Davis Professor of Agricultural Economics, Doctor Aaron Smith, that seems to get a lot of recognition.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
You know, currently, according to Professor Smith's calculations, it costs a farm about dollar 294 to run and maintain a digester. Whereas the value of the LCFS credits generated by the digester is in the neighborhood of $1,935, more than six times the cost of operating this digester. And this is calculation for a 2,000-cattle dairy farm in February of 2021, whereas the value of the milk produced by the cow would be $3,800.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
So, I mean, the point of these numbers is that the number one driver of the profitability of these dairy farms is the value of the milk. But, you know, where we have the LCFS credits being more than six times the cost of operating these dairy digesters, that's where that rebalancing needs to be taking place. We don't want to stop the dairy digesters from operating, to your point, because we do want them to capture that methane.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
We don't want it to just be released and contribute to climate change. But this is out of whack here. Six times out of whack.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
And I would, I guess this is such a larger issue than just this. And that's why I go back to the sweater analogy, because it costs more to produce milk in this state than anywhere else in the country. It does. There's no question about it. So what's happening is we're importing more and more milk.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
And as we make it harder and harder for dairies to exist in California, we're going to lose more and more dairies, and we're going to import more milk, releasing more greenhouse gases for transportation. We're shifting, we're shifting the problem, from my perspective, and there's been a lot of pressures on why dairies have closed. We had a huge problem with drought and the ability for dairies to buy food for their cattle. I experienced that in my district. We lost several dairies just for that.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
And we lost some that were right on the very edge because of that. I guess my point is, it's really, really complicated. And I go back to this, and I wish CARB was here, because I'd asked this, if we have more and more dairy digesters out there and they are reducing methane, are we measuring this? And is it possible that there are other contributing factors that are having an influence on the communities that you're talking about? And it's not all just dairies.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
There are other factors as well. And so I'd like to ask. I'd like to ask the opposition about that. Are we measuring that piece of the puzzle?
- Michael Boccadoro
Person
Of course. And the Air Resources Board and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District are regularly looking at all issues that affect air quality. And dairies are not the leading cause of air quality in the San Joaquin Valley. It's transportation. We know that. It's trucks and cars going up highway 99 and I-5 that are causing pollution that impacts the San Joaquin Valley, not dairies. And we're talking about digesters, and we know these digesters improve that air quality from those heavy-duty trucks in particular.
- Michael Boccadoro
Person
So, there's no question these projects are reducing air quality impacts in a non-attainment area. Dairies in California are regulated far more heavily than anywhere else in the country, large part because they operate in a non-attainment area. Water quality concerns are not the purview of CARB, but they are being appropriately addressed by the State Water Resources Control Board. And the environmental justice community has been part of those discussions.
- Michael Boccadoro
Person
And there will be new, significantly more extensive water quality regulations for dairies in California in the not too distant future. In the next few months, they're going to be proposed. So these issues are real, they are being appropriately addressed. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the digesters that are achieving the significant methane reductions goes directly to the point that led to the way 1383 was written, which is the concern, very legitimate concern, about leakage and having cows simply move out of California.
- Michael Boccadoro
Person
And that's occurring. We're not building new dairies here. We haven't built a new dairy here in 10 years. California dairy families are building new dairies. They're just not building them here in California. They're building them in Kansas, Texas, South Dakota, and Idaho. And as those cows leave and those dairies operate, we lose control of the emissions. And it's not just shifting our burden to another state. Greenhouse gases and methane are global pollutants.
- Michael Boccadoro
Person
So, we're actually worsening the situation when we lose control of the methane emissions by having cows move out of state. And cows move very easily. And this is one of the significant differences, why the dairy sector is treated differently than the landfill sector is. You know, landfills don't move out of state very well, and we discourage people from shipping waste out of state. That's a big problem on the East Coast, a smaller problem here, still a problem.
- Michael Boccadoro
Person
And then, you know, I do want to address one other point is these projects are not designed to increase methane. Just the opposite. They're designed to decrease it here in California because of how we operate. Every digester that goes in in California is a simple covered lagoon digester. They're not being heated, which is what produces more methane. They're at ambient temperature, which means they're producing the same.
- Michael Boccadoro
Person
They're actually producing a lot less because we install a solid separator on the front end that probably reduces the methane being produced on that dairy by 20% before we capture it and then turn it into renewable natural gas. So just the opposite is occurring from these projects. I just wanted to make that point clear as well.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
Thank you. And just two, and I will not a question, just a couple brief statements.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Sure.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
Is that okay? Thank you. I'm trying to think. I don't know who else was. Maybe you. But I know I was here when we negotiated, when negotiated, 1383 was negotiated. And I don't know if you were or not. Heath, were you?
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Almost there, almost
- Jim Wood
Legislator
Almost here. Okay, then maybe I'm the only one who was sitting on this Committee during that process. And it was really contentious. And the whole bio, the dairy, the dairy digester was a big piece of this conversation. And CARB, and asking CARB to regulate this was a big part of this conversation. And I find it frustrating that now we're moving, CARB is moving towards a regulatory process and yet before it's even in place, this Bill wants to make that null and void.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
And I just have a problem with that. I think that's beyond fair at this point. CARB is our air quality regulator and we should let them do what they plan to do and then see if we need to do something down the line. And I know about the study that Mister Bocadero was talking about from another UC Davis Professor, Mitt Lomer. You might read, if I got that name right, might read that.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
Because transportation is a huge proportion of what is causing air quality problems in the central valley as well. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you Mister Wood. Miss Pellerin.
- Gail Pellerin
Legislator
Well, thanks to the author, I have learned more about cow manure than I ever could have ever imagined. And just so I understand in my head that the intent of this Bill is to push CARB to reevaluate the carbon intensity scores of dairy digesters and not to eliminate the dairy digesters, right?
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Not to eliminate incentives to capture methane emissions from cows.
- Gail Pellerin
Legislator
Okay. Because we want to make sure we're continuing to encourage dairies to capture that methane. But the negative carbon intensity score for dairy gas seems really inaccurate to me. So certainly we all would have appreciated CARB being here today to explain that negative CI score. But working off the information we have today, I will be supporting the Bill, but I encourage CARB to re-evaluate that value of the LCFS credit because it does seem out of whack so thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Mister Kalra.
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
Thank you, Mister Chair. And I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I know it's tough to bring this kind of legislation forward. As one of the opposition witnesses said, reducing bad things, one of the most important things we can, can do to address climate change. And I couldn't agree more. And I think that right-sizing this score, if we don't do it, it's a subsidy that gives a market advantage to an industry that is dramatically increasing greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
For generations, we've actually given subsidies to this industry at her own peril. And in fact, there's a lot of reasons why farms are closing. I had legislation to help incentivize small family-owned dairy farms from transitioning to other types of farming that could be more potentially lucrative and couldn't even get a hearing in Agriculture Committee for it. And the reality is that over the last about 50 years, approximately the per capita demand for dairy has dropped about 50%.
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
People are making market choices and they're deciding to move away from dairy. And that's what the numbers are showing on a per capita basis. It's not a surprise when you look at about two thirds of the global population is lactose intolerant or has some form of lactose intolerance. I mention all that because the market's the market. And when we do things that give advantages, we're not actually reflecting the market. We're giving a subsidy and we're making a choice that in this case increases greenhouse gas emissions.
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
And so, I fully support this Bill. I'd like to be added on as a co-author. And I believe that, yes, it is under CARB's jurisdiction. We delve into the jurisdiction of so many of either administration or commissions that are doing work. We've been waiting for years on the heat standards for workers for four or five years now. And the reality is that there are real people that are being impacted by this. We all collectively are being impacted by this.
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
And I think that we should move towards solutions that have the best and most effective outcomes. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, not putting lipstick on a cow or putting lipstick on cow manure, as it were.
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
Because the reality is that we know that there are things that we need to be doing that are far more effective with our money, rather than subsidizing an industry in particular, as pointed out by my colleague, out-of-state industry in a manner that I believe is not balanced with other methods that are being scored through this program. And yes, as my colleague pointed out, today's Earth Day. And I'm very proud to be a vegan and the environment is a big reason for it.
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
But that's not the reason for my co-authoring or supporting this Bill. I think it's an equity issue in terms of how the program is being operated. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, Mister Kalra, Mister Flora, bring us home.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Thank you, Mister chair, Mister Muratsuchi. I've always had a lot of respect for you. We've always worked well. And I do have major issues with this Bill. And it was last year you sat on this dais and got super frustrated with a fellow colleague because they ran a piece of legislation that affected your district. But they never talked to you about it. Right? And so here we are, Groundhog's Day, doing exactly that.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
And so I want to ask you a couple questions and Assemblywoman, Friedman, asked you about CARB and their input on this. And there was a letter that you, Senator Allen, sent to the Chairwoman of CARB and then she responded back to you. And I guess I would just ask you, do you disagree with her conclusion that eliminating dairy biomethane from LCFS would jeopardize the state's climate goals? Do you disagree with that?
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
I disagree that that should be the sole consideration. I think that we need to strike a better balance.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
So you disagree with CARB on that?
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
I disagree that CARB doesn't have the full picture in mind.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Okay. With all due respect, how many dairies are in your district?
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Zero to my knowledge.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
So let's talk about full picture. Okay. Because I grew up with dairies all around me. Okay. I used to play in the feed stalls on their silage mounds and how those look now. Silage is feed not manure.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you for that clarification.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
I'll educate you more on dairy when you want so we can talk about that too. Okay. My point is like these are, this is my hometown. This is us. Right? And so out of all of us electeds in the Central Valley, did you reach out to any of us before this Bill was put forward?
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
I did reach out to the Chair of the Ag Committee a few days ago.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
And what was her response? I think I probably know.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
We'll hear a full hearing if this Bill gets out of this Committee and her Agriculture Committee.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Okay. It's been said a few different times as well, that if we reduce this or take this incentive away, and I want to address the incentive, that number a little bit as well. But in 13, make sure I get that right in Senator Lawrence 1383 that Assembly Member Wood brought up there was a mandated 40% reduction in that. Do you know the percentage of GGRF funds that go to that. That have created a 20% reduction?
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Do you know what that percentage of GGRF funds that we've used to get to 20%? It's 2% of total GGRF funds to get to 50% of a mandated reduction that we did in 2016. Okay. So when we talk about just risk versus reward, like this is a pretty good return on our investment, major return on our investment.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
And I think one of the frustrations that so many of us have is we continue to set policy climate goals that we're not even arguing the goals, but if we continue to take away every ability for industry to meet those goals just because it doesn't fit a political narrative, we're not ever going to meet those goals. And the chair of CARB said that in a response back to you, that if we take that away, it puts in jeopardy our climate goals.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
So, I really, really am concerned that as we continue this process and we move this thing forward, that if we're not open and honest about this. Right? And there is a lot of things that the dairy industry has done in the last 20 years, I mean, even to the point of figuring out how we feed cows differently, because there's methane on both ends of that cow. Right? So, it's something that we really need to discuss.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
And I would just implore you and I have a couple questions for the opposition as well. But let's don't just let a political ideology be the enemy of good, be the enemy of perfect. And I will end on this before I get to my questions. That there are eight counties in the Central Valley. All of them.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Check. Check. Was it something I said?
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
That's enough.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
I was on a good one there. He's so polite when he cut you off. Out of the eight counties in the Central Valley that are all on record supporting the climate smart agricultural processes, okay? Including dairy digesters. When the local electeds are on record supporting this, what makes us smarter than them? What gives us the ability from areas that are not, that don't have dairies? You know what, we're the authority on the subject. You.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
You don't know what you're talking about, even though you're a duly elected local person. I'm the authority. So I really do wish that some of our environmental friends, which there are a lot of environmental groups that are opposed to this legislation as well, that we would have an honest conversation. And so it's more of a statement and if you can respond to that and you're close, that's perfectly fine. I lied because I did want to address the incentive part.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
When we talk about recalibrating that incentive right through the Chair. I'm sorry sir, I'm just losing.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
I've cut you off once already.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
If we reduce that incentive or reevaluate it and that dollar amount is less than what's needed to actually build these projects to make it viable for them to invest in the state, we've effectively killed the projects. It's just really that simple. And that's what we're talking about here is reducing that. We can say we're not wanting to kill dairy digesters, but if we reduce it to a value that doesn't make it worth their time, then it's exactly what's going to happen. To the opposition.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
I would just love your thoughts on in what world if we get rid of digesters can we meet these climate goals?
- Sam Wade
Person
No. Yeah, yeah I'll say first and foremost with respect to the total incentive, the LCFS dollar amount that we've received has fallen from the high 200s to in the fifties today. So, it's already been cut down, you know, essentially by 75%. So, the projects are already hurting. And if they were to also lose their avoided methane crediting, they would absolutely not be able to continue to move forward. We would get no new ones, we would have multiple existing ones go into bankruptcy.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Thank you. Then one final question, Mister chair, if I may. I'm sorry. And then just. Doctor Wood brought it up about the consolidation of dairy industry. What's causing that?
- Michael Boccadoro
Person
And I'll take that one. Consolidation has been occurring every year for 70 years in the California dairy sector. We've gone from, from close to 20,000 dairies in 1950 to just over 1,100 dairies in 2023. It's a combination of heavy regulation, high labor costs, high energy costs are adding to this problem. But water supply reliability and the implementation of SGMA is going to have a huge impact. So, we're not only consolidating, we're losing total number of cows in the state.
- Michael Boccadoro
Person
We've lost 200,000 cows since 2008 through 2022. And we know that trend is going to continue. And that's when the leakage concerns really come to roost. We're very close to having leakage. We've been able to maintain production because of efficiency. But as we start to see cow numbers or attrition continue to increase, leakage will start occurring and those emissions will simply be produced elsewhere and likely more significant emissions digesters aren't causing consolidation. These numbers that get thrown around.
- Michael Boccadoro
Person
The farmer sees about $65 per cow per year for having a digester on his property, not several thousand dollars of income. Getting rid of the LCFs avoided methane crediting will eliminate these projects. Period.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Mister Muratsuchi, would you like to close?
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Thank you. I just want to briefly try to wrap up, first of all, trying to address Miss Friedman as well as Doctor Wood's concerns of getting ahead of CARB. I mean, I think we can all agree that while we want to look to CARB for leadership in this space. Okay. We want to send a signal to CARB. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you. I just want to thank Vice Chair Flora for your passionate remarks. And I want to thank all of the people from impacted communities who came up here today to testify. I think what you're trying to do is incredibly righteous, Mister Marisuchi. I would hope that ARB could address some of this in their rulemaking process. The idea that we need a policy framework to help guide them, I don't think that's completely unfounded.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
At the same time, I think it's not completely fair to business who's made an incredible investment to have such an abrupt stop. But I don't think I'd like to see this legislation have that abrupt stop here today. So this Bill has a do pass recommendation. Madam, do we have a motion? And we have a second. Madam Secretary, call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass to Agriculture Committee. [Roll call]
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
That Bill is out. We're now going to go back to sign-in order. Miss Dawn Addis.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
2537. You can begin when you're ready.
- Dawn Addis
Legislator
Well, good afternoon, Chair and staff, and thank you to the advocates that are here. Today, I'm presenting - today I'm here to present AB 2537 The Community Engagement in Offshore Wind Energy Act. And I want to thank the numerous people who have been working on this Bill for months, I would say, in order to get this right. As you know, California has established critical clean energy goals.
- Dawn Addis
Legislator
Our progress towards these goals benefits not only human communities, but fragile ecosystems and vital biodiversity on land, in the air, and in the ocean. Among these goals is the requirement to transition to 100% renewable and zero carbon energy resources by 2045, with 25 gigawatts, or enough power for about 25 million homes, coming from offshore wind energy. Planning for offshore wind energy is well underway in California starting as far back as 2016.
- Dawn Addis
Legislator
In 2022, the Federal Government awarded five leases in federal waters off the coast of our state, two along the north coast and three along the central coast. In June 23, the offshore wind energy leases were executed, and in January 24, the CEC released California's Offshore Wind Strategic Plan. Leaseholders now are moving into the surveying, planning, and permitting stages of development.
- Dawn Addis
Legislator
And as offshore wind energy moves forward in waters along the north and central coasts, particularly along the coast of my district, extensive input and interaction from local tribes and communities is needed. I would say that historically, we all know communities that hosted large infrastructure projects have been burdened with harmful impacts, and today we definitely look to do better. For offshore wind energy projects placed along California's pristine and fragile coastline.
- Dawn Addis
Legislator
We all agree that uplifting tribal and community voices is critical, both during the planning and the community benefits agreements processes. But there's one kind of problem, and that's that I've heard loud and clear from local communities, such as small tribes and cities, that there's a gap in resources that prevents them from adequately participating in offshore wind energy planning and community benefits conversations. As we each know, true engagement often necessitates possessing in depth knowledge, information, and technical expertise.
- Dawn Addis
Legislator
And it's especially important when the projects themselves are new and complex, such as in the case of offshore wind energy development. So AB 2537 The Community Engagement and Offshore Wind Energy Act creates a solution by establishing an offshore wind energy community capacity building fund that will provide grants to local tribes and communities.
- Dawn Addis
Legislator
These grants will enhance the ability to actively participate in the planning and community benefits processes so that local tribes and communities are more secure in their ability to have their voices heard and come to fair agreements. I should also add that we will be amending this Bill in the Utilities and Energy Committee to better align with provisions of AB 209, which will then remove section two of this Bill. And both, I would say all parties have agreed to these coming amendments.
- Dawn Addis
Legislator
So I want to thank our sponsors, this Committee, and our stakeholder partners for their engagement. With me as witnesses are Peter Ton from Brightline Defense Project and Andres Ramirez from the City of Morro Bay. And I mixed up my arrows, but they're both here. So, Peter, if you want to go first.
- Peter Ton
Person
Thank you. Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Assembly Members. My name is Peter Ton. I represent the environmental justice nonprofit Brightline Defense, the sponsor of this Bill. I thank you for the opportunity to speak today. This Bill is very straightforward. Its singular purpose is to create important funding for impacted communities to prepare for offshore wind development. It would do so by creating a community capacity building fund administered by the California Energy Commission.
- Peter Ton
Person
Disadvantaged or rural communities, tribes and qualifying nonprofits can apply for the grants for technical assistance to access existing community knowledge, to grow its own leadership, or otherwise remove barriers for meaningful participation in the offshore wind development process. Now, capacity building is critically important in Brightline's work on the ground. It's been abundantly clear that communities are actually curious and excited and want to engage in offshore wind development processes.
- Peter Ton
Person
However, we've also been hearing that the biggest barrier, hands down, is the lack of resources, and this is the this prevents meaningful engagement. This Bill addresses this gap by creating an equitable, transparent fund that communities can access to actualize their own vision of what engagement is. The Bill also aligns with state policies such as the CEC's AB 25 Offshore Wind Strategic Plan, which specifically recommends that the state prioritize community capacity building. Many laws and regulations have been enacted to speed up the development of offshore wind.
- Peter Ton
Person
CEQA exemptions permit streamlining. Those are prime examples, but there hasn't been an equivalent investment in communities to replace potentially lost procedural safeguards. This Bill helps close the gap to assure that communities can keep pace and not be left behind as the state urgently reaches its clean energy goals.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Thank you so much. You're at two minutes.
- Peter Ton
Person
I thank you. Thank the community for this time and for that prompt, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Thank you very much. Next witness. Two minutes, please.
- Andres Ramirez
Person
Good afternoon, Members of the Committee. Andres Ramirez here on behalf of the City of Morro Bay, one of the communities on the front line of dealing with the future impacts of offshore wind development. Morro Bay, first of all, is very strongly supportive of the state's climate goals and is enthusiastic about the multifaceted approach to achieving such goals, I'd like to reference the Committee analysis which indicates offshore wind development can provide a variety of benefits to local communities, including tax revenues, supply chain, manufacturing activities and job creation.
- Andres Ramirez
Person
These are all things that we can certainly look forward to, but it also indicates that it can lead to concerning impacts such as changes in the local workforce, increased construction, traffic and changes the environment. So establishing a standardized process with funding to build capacity at local jurisdictions could complement the existing efforts. We couldn't agree more with that last point. A standardized process with funding to help local communities. That is absolutely critical if we want to get this right.
- Andres Ramirez
Person
Morro Bay has already come to the realization that, for example, the Morro Bay Harbor is not properly equipped to accommodate the heavy usage with the construction and constant maintenance of offshore wind infrastructure. Additionally, we're not still fully aware of the environmental impacts or community impacts. These are critical factors that we need to understand, be able to educate the constituency on, and address head on.
- Andres Ramirez
Person
So ultimately, what the city needs and other communities need are funding to bring on board the subject matter experts and engage in the process, as noted, to provide technical, legal, communications and environmental expertise. This Bill would provide just that. So supporting this Bill is supporting our climate, but also supporting local communities respectfully or drive vote.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 2537? Name and organization please. We'll turn the mic on. There you go.
- Michele Canales
Person
Michele Canales on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists in support.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Thank you.
- Gracyna Mohabir
Person
Hi, Gracyna Mohabir with California Environmental Voters in support. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thank you Mister Chairman, Environment California in support.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Thank you.
- Eduardo Martinez
Person
Thank you Mister Chair, Eduardo Martinez. I was asked to convey the support of the Monterey Bay Aquarium.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of.
- Kris Rosa
Person
Kris Rosa on behalf of NRDC Action Fund in support.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Thank you. Anyone else in opposition to AB 2537. You'll have two minutes per witness, please.
- Molly Croll
Person
Thank you very much Vice Chair and Assemblymembers, my name is Molly Croll. I'm with the American Clean Power Association. We very much agree with the author and support the capacity building as a goal that is very important that tribes and local communities have the resources that they need for the success of offshore wind in this state. We did have concerns with the Bill Language in print, and especially the tie between contributions to capacity building and the central procurement of AB 1373 eligible resources, including offshore wind. However, very much appreciate the collaboration with the author recently and look forward to seeing the amendments in print and with those. We are now neutral on the Bill and look forward to seeing language. Thank you.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition to AB 2537. Seeing none bring back to the Committee. Doctor Wood.
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
I move the Bill.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
I just want to say thank you to the author for bringing this forward. She and I share communities that are looking at offshore wind development and agree with her concerns. I think certainly in small communities, small rural communities, we lack the expertise to and a variety of different stakeholders that don't have the knowledge, expertise and need some technical assistance. So this is a real, this is a good Bill, and I know it's going to continue to evolve as time goes through, but I'm happy to support today. Thank you.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Thank you very much, Miss Pellerin.
- Gail Pellerin
Legislator
Just want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. Great Bill, and I'd like to be at it as a co author, if you got some room. Thanks.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Thank you. Any other questions from the Committee? Seeing none. Would you like to close?
- Dawn Addis
Legislator
Sure. I'll just say that AB 2537 recognizes that California is on a path towards clean energy goals that benefit human communities, fragile ecosystems and vital biodiversity on land, in the air and in the ocean. And I do believe that California's offshore wind energy development is a part of that. And this Bill also recognizes that along this path, we need to uplift the voices of local tribes and communities and to ensure that they're not just providing input, but that they can take an active role in what's happening. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass to Utilities and Energy Committee. [Roll Call].
- Dawn Addis
Legislator
Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
That Bill is out, but we'll leave the roll open. Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains come on down with 3019. What up, what up?
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
Running between all these meetings, getting - learning how this world works.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you for your patience.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
It's like residency all over again. I feel like I'm gonna get a trauma call any second. I have to run to the OR.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
You may begin when ready.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
Thank you so much. Happy birthday, honorable Chairman.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Say Earth Day or birthday?
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
Birthday.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
It's just Earth Day.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
It's just Earth day. They said birthday.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
I wish - if I was born on Earth Day, this would be so appropriate.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
I'm like did I miss something. Happy Earth Day.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
Thank you. Chairman and Members, let me first start by thanking the Committee for their work on this Bill and confirm that I will accept the Committee's amendments as proposed in the analysis. AB 3019 will empower counties to plug orphan oil wells when they can do the work more quickly than waiting for the state and CalGEM to do it for them. Oil and gas operators actually pay annual idle well fees into the Hazardous and Idle-Deserted Well Abatement Fund, which is maintained by the Department of Conservation.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
To plug and abandon orphan wells that have no identified responsible operator or that have been deserted by insolvent operators. CalGEM has identified more than 5,300 orphan or potentially orphaned wells that are primarily located in the counties of Kern, Ventura, Los Angeles, Fresno and Santa Barbara. In 2022 and again in 2023, CalGEM conducted inspections that revealed dozens of leaking oil wells near homes, schools and parks in the Kern County communities Arvin and Lamont.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
Residents living near these leaks reported headaches, nausea and other symptoms of exposure to methane. While many of the identified wells had a responsible operator that fixed the leaks, other wells were found to be orphaned and fell upon CalGEM to fix. Every day that goes by once a leak has been found is another day local families have to live worried about a leak, they have no power to seal themselves.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
Providing an opportunity for CalGEM to partner with local counties that can plug and seal leaks and help decommission the thousands of orphan wells in California in a more rapid manner than CalGEM can do on its own is a win-win. I fully acknowledge that this is not work that counties have traditionally engaged in, and there may be challenges in creating local partnerships even if we make funding available through AB 3019. Unfortunately, the status quo is not working.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
Families that I represent asked me why there always seems to be enough time for their city council and their county supervisors to hold meetings to discuss the leaks before anyone is sent out to actually fix the leak. They don't want government to just talk about the problem. They want us to go fix the problem and then we can talk about it after the kids stop getting headaches from methane exposure.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
As the epicenter of oil production in California, Kern County operators pay the vast majority of the fees that go into the hazardous well abatement Fund. Yet Kern and the other oil producing counties cannot access these state funds and must instead wait for CalGEM to plug wells.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
I am committed to work with Kern, CSAC, CalGEM and other stakeholders to find ways to expedite this process so that my constituents in all Californias living near orphaned oil wells have the peace of mind that hazardous wells will be plugged as quickly as possible. These are some complicated issues and this Bill will not solve every problem, but providing a path for CalGEM to build local partnerships with county governments and oil producing regions is a critical step in the right direction.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
I am joined today in support by Dylan Elliott on behalf of Kern County.
- Dylan Elliott
Person
Good afternoon, Mister chair. Committee Members as was shared by Assembly Member Baines. My name is Dylan Elliott here on behalf of Kern County and we appreciate the opportunity to address the Committee on AB 3019 which brings attention to the serious problem of deserted and orphan wells. Kern County shares with Los Angeles County the distinction of having over 1,000 orphan wells under the jurisdiction of CalGEM.
- Dylan Elliott
Person
These wells are either classified as deserted, owned by a company that refuses to respond to CalGEM directives, or have been effectively abandoned, have no ownership, and are now considered orphan. Contrary to idle wells which have known ownership and management, deserted and orphan wells impede property owners of using the land for important economic developments. For example, housing authority for managing and abandoning has been given to CalGEM under existing law and Kern County supports in concept the call for accountability in AB 3019.
- Dylan Elliott
Person
Counties and cities need to be able to assure our residents that CalGEM is proactively moving forward to investigate the title of deserted and orphaned wells, using multiple experienced contractors to complete the work and expending the monies in the Hazardous and Idle-Deserted Well Abatement Fund in the treasury in timely manners. A sizable percentage of those funds, as was shared by the author, come from Kern County oil companies.
- Dylan Elliott
Person
As such, Kern County continues to call for its wells to be prioritized and CalGEM to be responsive to questions and concerns in its communities. We believe this measure is a good start and look forward to continue working with the author on a Bill that will benefit all communities in California that face these issues. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you. Any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure? Is there any formal opposition to this measure? Persons in the hearing room who just want to be heard in opposition to this measure? We'll now turn it back to Committee Members. Got a motion by Mister Kalra. A second by Miss Pellerin. Would you like to close?
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
Respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
I have not asked to co-author a bill all day. You said Kern LA. Can we do this together? Can I join in?
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
I would appreciate that. Thank you so much. Happy Earth Day.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. Committee. [Roll call]
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
We'll leave the roll open.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
Thank you so much.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Absolutely. Eduardo Garcia. We're looking for you. Laura Friedman, we're looking for you. But in the meantime, I will present for Assembly Member Rodriguez.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Thank you, Mister Chair. Presenting AB 2776 for Senator Rodriguez. A lot of pressure there, bud.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Yeah, I was tempted to do a Phil Chen, but I want to do justice to this Bill right here. Thank you, Mister Chair. First, I want to thank the incredible, absolutely outstanding Committee staff and I will be taking the Committee amendments on behalf of Mister Rodriguez.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
As you know, this Bill would allow the California Office of Emergency Services, the Office of Planning and Research, and the Strategic Growth Council to prioritize infrastructure and housing recovery projects in communities that suffered losses of population and business due to a declared major federal disaster.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Specifically, this Bill encourages Cal OES, OPR and the Strategic Growth Council to help communities recover more quickly by leveraging resources in the following program the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities. and California Disaster Assistance Act. This Bill is the result of Mister Rodriguez's visits to disaster sites across California, including Pajaro in the town of Paradise.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Five years after the tragic Paradise fire, the town is still in need of a sewer system in order to fully replace housing and businesses that were lost. Unfortunately, communities impacted by wildfires and floods had near zero housing vacancies prior to disasters, which limits options for disaster survivors to access both temporary and long-term shelter. This Bill will ensure a whole of government responses to communities that suffer catastrophic losses. For all these reasons, I request an aye vote on behalf of Mister Rodriguez.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Thank you very much. Anyone else in support seeing none. Anyone in opposition to AB 2776? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Any question from Committee Members? Seeing none. Mister chair, would you like to close?
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
I just want to thank again the Chair and the Committee staff for their excellent work on this Bill and requestfully ask for your aye vote.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
You know, Vice Chair, he's expendable. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]
- Heath Flora
Legislator
The bill has got five votes. We'll leave it open for absent Members.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
We're looking for Friedman. We're looking for Mister Wood. We're looking for Mister Muratsuchi. We are looking for three Members of this Committee who are all presenting and Mister Garcia. We're looking for Miss Irwin.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Miss Jackie Irwin, AB 2320.
- Jacqui Irwin
Legislator
Yes, good afternoon. Hi. Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present AB 2320 today. In 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N8220, creating the 30 by 30 Initiative to conserve 30% of our lands in coastal waters by 2030. A key part of the 30 by 30 Initiative is the use of nature-based solutions to address climate change. AB 2320 would require the California Natural Resources Agency to identify wildlife corridors and fish passage restoration projects and include them in its annual report to the Legislature.
- Jacqui Irwin
Legislator
This Bill would further require the Wildlife Conservation Board to prioritize projects that create and protect new wildlife corridors. Wildlife connectivity is a critical step in protecting California's rich biodiversity. Last year, BB 12, the first bear known to live in the Santa Monica Mountains in nearly a decade, was fatally struck by a vehicle crossing Highway 101.
- Jacqui Irwin
Legislator
He had successfully crossed California freeways at least five times and was killed 16 miles from the ongoing construction of the largest wildlife crossing in the country, the Annenberg Wildlife Crossing in my district. Stories such as those of BB 12 and P 22, the mountain lion are a testament to the fact that we must increase habitat connectivity for California's wildlife. With me here to testify are the bill's sponsors, Josh Hug with the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space and Candice Meneghinn.
- Jacqui Irwin
Legislator
She'll pronounce her name correctly when she introduces herself on behalf of Friends of the Santa Clara River. I think I've gotten it wrong every time so far, so I do apologize.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Two minutes each.
- Candice Meneghin
Person
All right. Good afternoon, Chair Brian and Committee Members. My name is Candice Meneghin, and I'm a board member with Friends of the Santa Clara River. We protect cultural and natural resources across Ventura and Los Angeles counties. And while California has protected natural areas throughout the state, less work has been focused on protecting and restoring wildlife corridors and fish passage.
- Candice Meneghin
Person
And fragmentation of natural areas is the number one cause of species decline in California, and wildlife corridors and habitat connectivity are critically important for wildlife movement and species adaptation in times of climate change. Ventura County is home to a wildlife and wildlife corridor and habitat connectivity ordinance, which was precedent-setting throughout the state. And this really just is another step to protecting and promoting wildlife connectivity across the landscape.
- Candice Meneghin
Person
In 2010, the Department of Fish and Wildlife and Caltrans produced the state Essential Habitat Connectivity Report that identified key locations where wildlife corridors and crossings are needed. We have a essential wildlife crossing need on the I-5 in the upper Santa Clara for watershed, as well as on the Conejo Grade in Ventura County.
- Candice Meneghin
Person
And Assembly Member Irwin leadership on this is really helping to support these connectivity essential habitat needs across the state, and ultimately AB 2320, is a push to implement known priorities in these reports by adding wildlife connectivity actions into the 30 by 30 Initiative. Connectivity is essential to biodiversity resilience. It really underpins our biodiversity resilience and bolsters 30 by 30 objectives, as well as the Governor seven strategy for a hotter and drier future. I'm happy to answer any questions you have today and respectfully request your aye vote
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Two minutes exactly. Well done. Your turn.
- Joshua Hugg
Person
I'll aspire to that level of punctualness. Good afternoon. My name is Josh Hug, and I'd be remiss if I didn't wish you also happy Earth Day. My name is Josh Hugg. I'm the Governmental Affairs Program Manager for the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District. AB 2320 is necessary legislation designed to maximize the effectiveness of California's 30 by 30 Initiative and creates functional, resilient habitats to preserve California's unique biodiversity. Since its creation in 1972, Mid-Pen, our district is also known as Mid Pen.
- Joshua Hugg
Person
Mid Pen has pursued the goals of 30 by 30 with over 70,000 acres of open space protected and restored on the San Francisco Peninsula. Our resource management policy, which guides our land acquisition and conservation work, prioritizes the protection of large landscape blocks and wildlife corridors. Wildlife corridors may be extensive, contiguous natural areas suitable for wide ranging organisms, a stream with continuous wide buffer riparian vegetation, or even a tunnel or culvert beneath a highway that allows passage for animals.
- Joshua Hugg
Person
To that end, mid Pen has a wildlife crossing under Highway 17 above the town of Los Gatos, which has served as a significant barrier to wildlife movement on and off the San Francisco Peninsula and contributes to the genetic degradation of the mountain lion population. There's a species provisionally listed as threatened by CDFW. Preserving contiguous natural habitats is key to preserving biodiversity in a changing world.
- Joshua Hugg
Person
When a species is reduced to a few isolated populations due to fragmentation of its habitat, a natural stressor such as fire or drought can wipe out a significant portion of the population of the remnant population, bringing it closer to extinction. Connected habitats help species respond to changes in their environment.
- Joshua Hugg
Person
In summary, AB 2320 is crucial as it addresses the pressing need to identify and safeguard wildlife corridors in California to mitigate habitat fragmentation, preserve biodiversity, and adapt to the impacts of climate change on wildlife populations across the state. Thank you for your time, and I urge your support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, sir. Are there any persons in this hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure?
- Abigail Smet
Person
Good afternoon. Abigail Smet, on behalf of the California State Parks Foundation, the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, and the Sempervirens Fund, all in support.
- Gracyna Mohabir
Person
Hi. Gracyna Mohabir with California Environmental Voters in support. Thank you.
- Jakob Evans
Person
Hello, I'm Jakob Evans with Sierra Club California. Thank you.
- Tasha Newman
Person
Hello. Tasha Newman on behalf of Peninsula Open. Space Trust, in support.
- Alex Loomer
Person
Hi, Alex Loomer on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, Sonoma Land Trust, Audubon California, and Pacific Forest Trust in strong support. Thank you.
- Adam Harper
Person
Adam Harper of California Construction Industrial Materials Association in support with the amendments. Thank you.
- Natalie Brown
Person
Hi, Natalie Brown with the Planning and Conservation League in support. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition? Seeing none, we'll turn it back to Committee Members. Mister Kalra.
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
Thank you, Mister chair. I'd like to move the Bill. I really appreciate the author bringing this forward. I've done a number of bills in the 30 by 30 space, including kind of reporting and kind of follow up on kind of how we're progressing. And I think it's a great idea to have specificity regarding wildlife corridors.
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
I've over the years, worked with Mid-Pin and Open Space Authority and others in the Santa Clara County, San Mateo County area, in the Bay Area, just like you've done work in your area, Assembly Member Irwin. And I think not only in terms of protecting the wildlife and protecting biodiversity, but I think it's a critical aspect of us achieving our 30 by 30 goals.
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
And I think that as we identify these corridors and know in what manners to invest in them, I think that it'll also lead to more effective kind of use of our open spaces by the community.
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
The communities generally love that concept of wildlife quarters, but we need to put, I think, even more action behind what we can do in a more comprehensive way, as opposed to like one offs, whether it's 17 or Santa Clarita or we have Coyote Valley, I think to have a more comprehensive view of it will be really great for our long-term planning. So, I appreciate it and would love to be added as a co-author.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Miss Pellerin.
- Gail Pellerin
Legislator
Just want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. I've been very fortunate to join Josh and Mid-Pen on some of the tours around the wildlife corridors, and it's absolutely essential. And I, too would like to be added as a co-author.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
We have. Miss Irwin, would you like to close and just to confirm you are accepting the Committee amendments?
- Jacqui Irwin
Legislator
Yes, I am. And just respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Awesome. Can I also be added as a co-author?
- Jacqui Irwin
Legislator
Oh, wow.
- Jacqui Irwin
Legislator
Let's go ahead and make your day special. Happy Earth Day.
- Jacqui Irwin
Legislator
It's like a home run today.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
That has six votes. It's out. Miss Friedman, would you like to go? Absolutely. Yeah. We are ready for you. Did you want to start with 3155?
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
I'm going to start with 3155.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Perfect.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
I want to thank the Committee and the Committee staff for the excellent and thorough analysis. AB 3155 protects vulnerable communities located near oil and gas wells by holding oil companies accountable for the health ramifications of neighborhood drilling, while incentivizing oil companies to use the best available technology to reduce pollution and protect neighboring communities.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
Of the approximately five and a half million Californians who live within a mile or a mile of one or more oil and gas wells, one third live in areas that are the most burdened by environmental pollution. This proximity brings disastrous health implications, including increased risks of asthma and other respiratory illnesses, preterm births, and high risk pregnancies and cancer.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
In 2015, the California Council on Science and Technology reviewed existing scientific studies and determined that, from a public health perspective, the most significant exposure to toxic air contaminants occur within one half mile of a well. They recommended that the State of California develop science backed setback requirements for wells to limit these exposures. The Legislature followed that guidance with the passage of SB 1137 in 2022. For these reasons.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
So more than almost over 28,000 operation oil and gas wells are within 3200ft of a home, hospital, school, or other sensitive receptor. The number of existing wells and a potential new wells near these sensitive receptors is a serious health concern to the people who are living around them and for the rest of us in California.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
For these reasons, it's imperative the oil and gas industry, if they're going to locate these facilities in communities near sensitive receptors that they use the most, the best available technology to filter the air and the pollution to protect communities without having a real incentive, a carrot and a stick approach. They're just not going to do that.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
And we know that because we've seen what happens across California, and the oil and the gas industry should be held responsible if they're not using the best technology for any impacts on communities. AB 3155 creates a liability presumption to hold the oil and gas industry accountable for any harm that they've caused Californians that reside near their wellheads and production facilities.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
Specifically, AB 31 provides that after January 1, 2025 an owner or operator of these wells and facilities be jointly and severably liable for a respiratory ailment diagnosed after January 1, 2025 in a senior or child, a near term birth or a high risk pregnancy suffered by a pregnant person and a person's cancer diagnosis.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
The presumption applies jointly and severally to an operator or owner, but only applies, and this is important, first, if the facility or well is located in the same health protection zone where these vulnerable populations reside for more than 24 cumulative months. Two, if the respiratory ailments in seniors and children, preterm or high risk pregnancies and cancers and three, only if the oil and gas facility located in such a zone has failed to operationalize the best available control and remediation technology to protect its most vulnerable neighbors. So if they do that, they're off the hook from the provisions of this Bill. Testifying on behalf of our sponsors is Jamie Court with Consumer Watchdog and Kayla Karimi with The Center for Race, Poverty & The Environment. And with that, I respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.
- Kayla Karimi
Person
Good afternoon Chair and Members. My name is Kayla Karimi here representing The Center for Race, Poverty & The Environment. CRPE is committed to environmental justice and uplifting underrepresented communities in the San Joaquin Valley. I would like to thank Assemblymember Friedman for introducing AB 3155, a crucial Bill for holding oil corporations accountable for the devastating harms they are responsible for in local communities. At CRPE, we work closely with communities to advocate for their needs and public health.
- Kayla Karimi
Person
We have seen our community members who live near oil and gas wells develop asthma, cancer, adverse pregnancy outcomes, and more. An incredible body of scientific research shows that living near oil and gas wells, oil and gas extraction causes these harms. It is past time for these owners and operators to be held accountable. Nothing can ever make those who have suffered a miscarriage or cancer whole again.
- Kayla Karimi
Person
However, this Bill allows harmed people to obtain justice by creating a presumption of liability in favor of people who suffer certain related health harms and reside within 3200ft of a well. Oil companies can still overcome this presumption by employing the best available technologies to minimize potential harm. This affirmative defense is key because it incentivizes oil companies to do as much as possible to protect our communities and stop harms before they happen.
- Kayla Karimi
Person
Our communities deserve in an environment that does not - deserve to live in an environment that does not give them cancer, lose a pregnancy, or give them respiratory issues. As such, our organization supports AB 3155 to assist our vulnerable communities from further unjust harms. For these reasons, we urge the community to vote yes on AB 3155. Thank you.
- Jamie Court
Person
I'm Jamie Court. I'm President of the Consumer Watchdog. You know, 2.7 million people live within a half mile of an oil well, and these people are disproportionately exposed to illnesses related to the drilling. In 2021, CalGEM's Scientific Advisory Panel found a direct link between respiratory illnesses and prenatal defects and living within a half mile of an oil well. We know five of the 12 toxics that are used in oil wells are carcinogens. They cause cancer.
- Jamie Court
Person
And we know from studies that there is a direct link between oil production, living in proximity of an oil production well, and getting cancer across all types. So what do oil drillers have to do to get out of this Bill presumptive liability. They have to do one thing. They got to use the best pollution control technology that is commercially available. That is commercially available. All they've got to do is use the best technology.
- Jamie Court
Person
And the reason they don't do it today is because they believe the people who live in these communities are expendable. And the production in these oil wells are very small. We know on average, an oil well in a setback zone produces two barrels of oil a day. Two barrels of oil. And is it worth implementing the best pollution control technology it for what is the equivalent of $160 a day.
- Jamie Court
Person
This Bill says, well, if you're going to drill in communities, you can't do it without the best pollution control technology because we need to protect those communities. It is not unlike what we've done with the gun makers. Firearms makers have to follow the code of conduct in the state or they are presumptively liable when something goes wrong with a gun. And drilling is at least as dangerous as building a gun. So on earth day, I ask for your vote, and I appreciate your support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, Jamie. Are there any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure?
- Katie Valenzuela
Person
Good afternoon. Katie Valenzuela on behalf of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, also as a kid who grew up in Oildale Kern County, encouraging your support of this Bill. Thank you.
- Gracyna Mohabir
Person
Good afternoon. Gracyna Mohabir with California Environmental Voters in support. Thank you.
- Jakob Evans
Person
Hello. Jacob Evans with Sierra California in support. Thank you.
- Daniel Jacobson
Person
Good afternoon, Mister Chair. My name is Dan Jacobson with Environment California and ... in strong support. I was asked to read the other 64 names on here, but was told in light of the late hour, it might be wise just to reference the analysis. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
That is very much appreciated. Do we have any formal opposition to this Bill?
- Gema Gonzalez
Person
Gema Gonzalez on behalf of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce in opposition. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you. She bought you some time, Theo.
- Paul Deiro
Person
She did. Paul Deiro, Mister Chair and Members representing the Western States Petroleum Association. This is a big bill. The Bill would effectively establish an unprecedented presumption of liability on oil operators in the State of California. Without requiring any proof that a well caused any harm. The Bill would make the Legislature be the finder of fact when it comes to the critical issue of causation and certain damages. Guilt is not decided by the court or the preponderance of evidence.
- Paul Deiro
Person
It's going to be decided by you. There is no safe harbor in the Bill that the proponents have mentioned. It provides two methods of overcoming its presumption. One, an operator using best available technology that eliminates, reduces, or prevents air pollution, soil and water contamination and waste to the maximum degree of protection possible. That is extremely vague and not a safe harbor. So, we're still on the hook even if we're using the best available technology according to the definition in the Bill.
- Paul Deiro
Person
The definition is vague and broad. And it also is. You have to meet the standard to the maximum degree of protection possible. I don't know what that means and neither do our attorneys. The technology must be operated without interruption at full capacity for a two-year period. I don't know what full capacity means, nor does our attorney. The operator must demonstrate that an oil facility was not in whole or part the cause of the illness. The burden on the defendant is impossible to meet.
- Paul Deiro
Person
Impossible to meet. And I will tell you that the studies cited by the proponents, specifically the California Council for Science and Technology Study, admitted that there is no data to support a showing of adverse impacts from oil and gas facilities in California. The CCST 2015 study, Page 63. California impacts may be significantly different and may not have been that have not been measured. In addition to the science panel used by the Administration, there are multiple mistakes and overstatements.
- Paul Deiro
Person
And the reports utilized by the science panel, were those done by the panel itself. We have disagreements on the science on this and we would ask for your no vote. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
That was a generous 2:45.
- Paul Deiro
Person
Thank you very much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Mister Chairman and Members, I'll be very quick. We just had a healthy debate about methane emissions as it related to dairy operations and the possible leakage that that could cause. The same thing applies here.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
As we pass bills like this, I think the Committee should ultimately be mindful, as should the whole Assembly, that as we make it that difficult for oil operators to operate here, that they will have to take their operations in other states. We have spent the last decade or so, with the cooperation of sometimes with this industry on regulating exactly what we do and mitigating for the effect. So we have greenhouse gas regulations, we have cap and trade, we have air emission restrictions here.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
All of these that do not apply in other states. We also have an RPS for our electric service. And oftentimes these oil fields run on energy that's even cleaner than grid energy because they're trying to comply with LCFS. All that goes out the door when an operator leaves California and goes elsewhere to fill California's demand. So just like to remind the Committee of that fact. This is a leakage problem. We are opposed to the Bill for those reasons and the reasons previously discussed. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you. Are there any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this Bill?
- Robert Spiegel
Person
Thank you, Members. Rob Spiegel, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in strong opposition.
- Mike West
Person
Mister Chair and Members. Mike West, on behalf of the State Building Trades, also in opposition. Thank you.
- Courtney Jensen
Person
Courtney Jensen on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California, in opposition.
- Dylan Elliott
Person
Dylan Elliott, on behalf of Kern County, respectfully opposed.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Now turning to Committee Members.
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
Move the Bill.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Motion by Kalra. Second by Pellerin. Miss Friedman, would you like to close?
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
I would requestfully request an aye vote. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. An important effort. Part of a larger conversation that I think the Legislature is having this year and began a couple years ago, and I'm encouraged to see those conversations going. I also want to send a shout out to Nayeli Kobo, a good friend who's played an instrumental role in getting this Bill to this point and has a direct, lived experience that would be hard to turn away from if you heard it. This Bill has a do pass recommendation.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?
- Committee Secretary
Person
Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
We'll leave the roll open.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Would you like to continue, Miss Friedman?
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. I'm here to present AB 2762. Good afternoon again. I want to thank you, Mister Chair, and your excellent Committee staff, Elizabeth, for all of your hard work on this Bill over the past few weeks. I will be accepting the Committee amendments as discussed between our staff and outlined in the Committee analysis. Californians consume more than 30 billion beverages in single use containers, mostly plastic and aluminum, each year.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
And while the bottle Bill has been somewhat successful in collecting and ultimately managing single use bottles, we can utilize the existing infrastructure within the program to reduce and reuse as well. Unfortunately, our policies do not reflect the priorities of the three Rs, reduce, reuse, recycle, which taught us better to reduce and reuse rather than only focus on trying to recycle.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
AB 2762 requires by January 1, 2031 no less than 5%, and I repeat, this is only 5% of the volume of beverages that a beverage manufacturer sells in beverage containers in California be sold in reusable beverage containers, along with periodic increases to those percentages, and that the beverage manufacturers ensure reusable beverage containers are returned for reuse starting at 60% and increasing periodically. So we're talking 60% of the 5%.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
The data shows that a reusable glass bottle has 85% lower GHG emissions than single use glass, 75% lower GHG emissions than single use plastic, and 57% lower GHG emissions than aluminum cans. Meanwhile, 10 million barrels of oil is used annually to produce the plastic beverage containers consumed in the state, resulting in 426 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
According to recent studies, micro and nanoparticles in plastic bottles have been linked to increased risk of cardiac disease, including heart attack and stroke, and to neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's and autism, and many other negative health impacts. Reusable bottles, on the other hand, not only reduce beverage containers that can be littered and pollute the environment, but also eliminate plastic pollution right at their source.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
My office and I look forward to working with opposition to address their concerns, especially around SB 1013 compliance should the Bill move forward today. Testifying in support this afternoon is Miriam Gordon, Reuse Program Director for the Story of Stuff Project, and Adam Rack with Revino. I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this Bill and respectfully request your aye vote thank you.
- Miriam Gordon
Person
Thank you, Chair Bryan and esteemed Members of the Committee. My name is Miriam Gordon. I'm the Reuse Director for the Story of Stuff, a national NGO that focuses on changing how we produce, consumers consume and dispose of all the stuff in our lives. During my two minutes of testimony on this Earth Day, 2 million plastic beverage containers will be produced. Each year, 15 million tons of plastic enter the ocean. That's two garbage trucks per minute, and plastic bottles are the second largest source.
- Miriam Gordon
Person
The best approach to single - we can't recycle our way out of this problem. Recycling doesn't eliminate the need for virgin content, as containers can't be infinitely recycled. That means communities on the front lines of production, like those in Cancer Alley in Louisiana are still being harmed. The best approach to single use packaging is to make less of it. A reusable beverage container eliminates 15 to 25 single use containers.
- Miriam Gordon
Person
According to Oceana, a 10% switch to reusable beverages in coastal areas would mean 22% less plastic in the ocean, and reusable glass bottles significantly cut carbon emissions as well. 23% of global beverage sales are in reusable containers. This reusable coke bottle sold at restaurants in Texas came from Mexico, which sells 27% of its beverages in reusables. While 170 countries still have reusable beverage systems in place, European and Latin American countries are turning to mandating reuse targets to counter the increasing transition to single use plastic.
- Miriam Gordon
Person
In March, the EU finalized a policy requiring the beverage industry to achieve 10% reuse by 2030 and 40% by 2040. Reuse presents a great economic opportunity in California. It creates seven to nine times more jobs than recycling and saves bottlers money as they purchase fewer containers. As the plastic industry continues to expand production while the climate is reaching dangerous tipping points, we urge you to take immediate and meaningful action and respectfully urge your aye vote.
- Adam Rack
Person
Here we go. First off, hello everybody. Thank you for the opportunity to be here Chair Bryan. In California alone, I want to re highlight that 30 billion single use containers every year. This proposed Bill offers a critical opportunity to turn the tide on single use packaging and embrace a more sustainable future. My name is Adam Rack. I'm a co founder of Revino, a company dedicated to reviving the reusable glass bottle ecosystem, starting with the wine industry.
- Adam Rack
Person
With the goal of offering services to the broader beverage industry. I and my team have spent years researching and implementing reuse systems while collaborating with advisors and reuse leaders from around the world. We have incredible engagement from the industry. In our first year, over 60 wineries have signed on and over 75 helped us design this bottle right in front of you today that can be identified sorted out by from waste streams as we know them.
- Adam Rack
Person
We have clear directives and standards within this reuse Bill as outlined, are essential to scale quickly and expand reuse to additional market segments. They allow companies like Revino to leverage existing grants and private investments more effectively, leading to a significant increase in reusable bottle use and waste diversion from landfills while saving energy and finite resources. With fast growth and market saturation, encouraged by these policies, reuse systems become more efficient and cost effective. This lowers the barrier to entry for other beverage producers, regardless of size.
- Adam Rack
Person
By creating a robust container reuse market with economies of scale. Reusable bottles are proven successful globally, including our home State of Oregon, where a reusable beer bottle program has collected these aside alongside standard deposit return systems and within innovative bag drop programs operated by OBRC since 2018. The beer store in Canada reported 98% of all refillable beer bottles sold in Ontario were returned and reused last year. Tying reuse into existing deposit infrastructure like those systems greatly improves efficiencies and convenience of returns for consumers. Recent investments and policy changes by you and the State of California to expand and improve CRV infrastructure represents a golden opportunity. By enacting this Bill, California can become a national leader in the container reuse movement, setting example for other states. Thank you for your time.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Are there any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure?
- Dylan Elliott
Person
Thank you very much Mister Chair. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council in support. Thank you.
- Samantha Samuelsen
Person
Hi, good afternoon. Samantha Samuelson in support on behalf of Cup Zero, Clean Water Action, Northern California Recycling Association, Save Our Shores, Five Gyres, Surfrider Foundation and the Santa Cruz Climate Action Network.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much.
- Tony Hackett
Person
Good afternoon. Tony Hackett from Californians Against Waste in strong support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, Tony. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? What's up, Dennis.
- Dennis Albiani
Person
Good afternoon. Dennis Albiani on behalf of the Consumer Brands Association and American Beverage Association. So we have a very, very successful bottle Bill and we are innovating as discussed with return programs, bag drop programs and technology. We currently have a 76% return rate with, with plastic and aluminum is just slightly higher, just under 80% and we were close to 80% prior to COVID. So we're growing and that will continue to grow.
- Dennis Albiani
Person
We have invested billions of dollars in infrastructure and that does need to continue to invest in that infrastructure to be able to achieve the even higher rates. Then we've laid on the Legislature, SB 54, and that's an EPR model which will take billions of dollars of investment over time to be able to implement the EPR model for packaging as well. And then it also has reduction mandates which will require additional investment.
- Dennis Albiani
Person
And then this Bill requires a third policy direction with a third set of infrastructure and brings up a significant amount of issues that are available with all the other models and challenges everywhere and will continue to be a challenge here, such as collection. Are we going to do this at grocery stores? I can tell you that's one of the things that neither the grocery store nor the consumers want is used soda bottles being brought in to the facilities and staying there and how that collection goes.
- Dennis Albiani
Person
We have transportation. How do you pick these up. How do you get them out? Say it's easy to do. We do with trucks. Well, of course, but that requires twice as many trips. You got one delivering, one not. Oh well, they can mix them. Well, then you have clean sanitized food with dirty and non sanitary products. And so there's a whole host of issues why handling and washing. Handling and washing takes, as we already said, additional transportation. Additional fuel. It also takes hot water and detergents.
- Dennis Albiani
Person
And then you have refill infrastructure that needs to be addressed even to get them back into the facilities. So it's as costly, it'll have more transportation trips. I think there's other things. What happens to the deposit? Do we put the, is there no longer a deposit on these? Did the deposit go to the, to the consumers? Do they go to the gentleman who spoke that has a company that wants to do this? Those are all issues that are very significant and very costly to build out this third set of infrastructure. Thank you.
- Greg Hurner
Person
Thank you Mister Chair and Members Greg Hurner on behalf of The Can Manufacturers Institute. CMI's members are the makers of metal packaging for the food, beverage and household products industry. Aluminum has the highest recycling rate and highest value of any of the beverage container materials.
- Greg Hurner
Person
The high value of used beverage cans, currently in the $12 to $1,400 per ton range, supports the overall recycling system in California substantially. Aluminum is also lightweight and strong, which reduces carbon and particulate emissions from transportation. According to the Carbon Trust, carbon from transportation for the lifecycle of single use, aluminum is about 1% of the total. That's compared to transportation emissions for reusable glass containers being about five times higher.
- Greg Hurner
Person
Reusable glass containers must use additional resources and energy when manufactured to withstand the consumer storage return, transportation and washing process before they are reused. Just go buy a reusable returnable milk jug from the store. $3 to $5 deposit on those. I bought one the other day. Very heavy. You're talking an aluminum can which is less than half an ounce. This weight is a significant contributor to the additional carbon and particulate emissions from transportation.
- Greg Hurner
Person
The Carbon Trust also determined that with high recycling rates and lower emission power sources, that the total life cycle carbon footprint for single use aluminum and PET is equivalent to the lowest carbon footprint of reusable glass. And as the return and washing facility location is further away, the carbon intensity of reusable glass increases rapidly.
- Greg Hurner
Person
The carbon footprint of the aluminum beverage can has gone down more than 40% since the 1990s, and it's set to go down further as the industry seeks to increase US recycling rates and lowers the carbon footprint of processing recycled aluminum. 93% of recycled aluminum beverage cans returned come back as aluminum beverage cans in as little as 60 days. And cans nationwide contain over 73% recycled aluminum. CMI is supporting redemption centers nationwide to increase recycling rates and further lower carbon emissions.
- Greg Hurner
Person
Unfortunately, this Bill creates a mandatory shift to heavier and transportation emission sensitive glass containers. It's well intentioned, but so is eliminating single use plastic bags. So we - I see that you would like me to finish up here. We strongly - based on these issues with this and the ones that my colleague has mentioned and with this current CRV program and the robust curbside recycling program, we need to oppose this measure.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Are there any other persons here in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this measure?
- Robert Spiegel
Person
Thank you Mister Chair and Members. Rob Spiegel. California Manufacturers & Technology Association in opposition.
- Chris Micheli
Person
Mister Chair. Chris Micheli on behalf of Niagara Bottling we share the concerns of our Association, the American Beverage Association. Thank you.
- Katie Davey
Person
Good afternoon. Katie Davey with the Dairy Institute of California in opposition.
- Curtis Trellonidis
Person
Curtis Trellonidis on behalf of Anheuser-Busch in opposition.
- Luis Sanchez
Person
Chair and Members. Luis Sanchez with the California Family Beer Distributors in opposition. Thank you.
- Obed Franco
Person
Obed Franco on behalf of the American Chemistry Council in opposition.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
We'll now turn it to Committee Members. Mister Wood.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
Just briefly, thank you for the Bill. Miss Friedman, I'll be supporting your Bill today, but I see what looks like a potentially universal wine bottle. Wine bottles, alcohol beverage bottles and things are just now coming into the recycling stream and I would just urge if the Bill passes that there is some sort of a runway. I have 425 wineries alone in Sonoma County where I live. So while 60 is admirable, that's just one county that I represent.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
There's a lot to go out there and they all have very distinctive bottles and for all sorts of different reasons and so craft beer as well, all a lot of them while they were transitioning a lot to aluminum, we still see bottles and they are distinctive and it's part of the brand and so we just ask that there be, you know, as if this moves forward if there's implementation that we start have a stakeholder process and see how you can do this, you know well. I get half and half in a returnable bottle that goes back to the grocery store and there's a deposit on that. That's a lot of incentive for me to return it because it's significant and I buy it because it's a great product so it can, it can be done. So thank you.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
And I apologize. I forgot to say that we have agreed, in theory, to remove wine and spirits, to give them a different one way, or remove them from the Bill because they are new to the bottle Bill program.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
What about beer bottles?
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
Beer has been in bottle, in the bottle Bill for quite a while, so we're including beer. Interestingly, when I went to Oregon to see their reusable program, it's, I think, only beer and wine because the craft beer, and maybe there's others, but when I was there, I saw the craft beer places love the idea of people walking back in with the bottles and they give them a discount to fill it up with their beer in the pubs. So they have really embraced it. They use these sort of cruller sized bottles, so. And then they put their own labels on it, so you can tell. But the people there have really sort of embraced the idea that they're sustainable as well. Thanks.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Any other questions? Comments? We have a motion by Kalra, a second by Pellerin. Miss Friedman, would you like to close?
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
Just. We will continue to discuss all of the concerns with the opposition. We want to make sure that this works for everybody. I understand this is, you know, coming on top of the bottle Bill, and we, you know, we do fundamentally believe that it's time that we start reusing more things and - and making less new stuff, because dealing with it is certainly wasteful and not optimal. So with that, I request, an aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you for all your work on this. As you mentioned, beer was included in the previous bottle Bill, also 10 billion single uses. And so a major opportunity, but understandable why it's causing major concern for folks. So I trust conversations will continue. Of course. And this Bill has a do pass recommendation. Madam Secretary, can you call the roll?
- Committee Secretary
Person
Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call].
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Leave that Bill on call.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
You want to do Bauer-Kahan's real fast?
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
I am now going to present AB 2085.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Let's let Eduardo Garcia come in real quick.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
Oh, sure.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
This, I believe, is his fifth time peeking in.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
Six. I'm counting, I'm counting, but it's all good. This is important. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 3238, which would accelerate the build out of electrical transmission and meet California's ambitious climate goals. I'd like to thank the Committee staff for its work.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
I will be accepting the Committee amendments with the intent to still work on refining some of these amendments, specifically amendment A, number three, and suggested amendment D. As you all know, achieving the state's ambitious climate goals will require construction of electrical infrastructure to provide reliable renewable energy to electrify homes, commercial buildings and transportation. We will need some bold changes in order to achieve those goals within our transmission permitting. This Bill will modify existing process to accelerate that electrical infrastructure development.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
From the very beginning, our team and the proponents of the Bill have strived to foster an open, collaborative process to ensure that all voices are heard in crafting this meaningful piece of legislation. We've collaborated on a number of occasions. We've had some stakeholder meetings, but also ensured that we identified the concerns within the different committees. This is our third policy committee, the Wild Parks and Wildlife Committee.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee accepted some amendments that help address some concerns that were raised regarding the California Endangered Species Act and the Natural Community Conservation Planning agreements. In this Committee, we're looking at applying certain requirements that will modify the CPUC permitting process and limiting the width of the CEQA exemption for right of way of expansion for existing electrical infrastructure.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
In the UNE, we took on some issues related to CEQA exemptions for wildfire mitigation and incorporating a sunset into the Bill every step of the way, making every effort to address the opposition's concerns. And we remain committed as my goal is to, if given the opportunity, to move this Bill, to continue to foster a series of stakeholder meetings in order to get this right. With me today we have Erica Martin, Director of the Environmental Services at San Diego Gas and Electric Company, and V. John White with CEERT.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
I'm going to encourage you, Chair and Members of this Committee to please ask the questions. Ask me, ask our witness experts the questions that perhaps are raised by the opposition and the efforts that have been underway to try to get this Bill right. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Erica Martin
Person
Great. Members of the Committee, thank you. I'm happy to be here today as the Assembly Member introduced me. My name is Erica Martin. I am the Director of Environmental Services for San Diego Gas and Electric, here to speak in support of AB 3238 and the essential role that it will play in the clean energy transition.
- Erica Martin
Person
We're so encouraged by the growing acknowledgement around the state that in order to meet the state's climate policy goals, we need to build a lot more renewable generation, electric transmission, supporting electrical infrastructure, and we need to do it at an unprecedented rate and scale. And underscoring that, CAISO just issued its draft transmission report for 2024 on April 1.
- Erica Martin
Person
It's based on a forecast of 7,000 megawatts of additional generation capacity that needs to be added every year for the next 10 years in order to meet our goals, which underscores what we already knew. The existing process for approval and environmental review of electric infrastructure is duplicative. It's costly, it's lengthy, and we simply don't have time to preserve the status quo and take 10 to 15 years to develop an electric transmission line anymore.
- Erica Martin
Person
The significant challenge before you all before the state, is to take a hard look at the state's policies and decide where we can make some meaningful time savings in that process. And we recognize the challenge of weighing the dangers of a warming climate and the impact to the environment with the need to change existing environmental policy. That those are, those are tough questions and it will require the resolve to do things differently.
- Erica Martin
Person
AB 3238 is a measured proposal that aims to address the places where we have the most significant obstacles in timing in the permit process. It's become even more refined, even more targeted, as the Assembly Member listed as we've gone through two other policy committees and focuses predominantly on the CPUC's permitting and environmental review process because of their statutory and constitutional jurisdiction.
- Erica Martin
Person
There is also a targeted CEQA exemption for instances where a utility needs to widen their existing right of way in order to allow for updated infrastructure, co-location of infrastructure and other things that would help to streamline the location of the facilities. Importantly, and as you see in the analysis, that is an exemption for the acquisition of the land, right, and not an exemption for the project itself. Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much.
- V. White
Person
Mister Chairman, Members John White with the Clean Power Campaign. We are very concerned that California is simply not going to be able to meet our targets if we don't accelerate transmission development in a way that we have not yet imagined. This is a good start, but no one wants to give up their discretion, their authority. Every agency wants to preserve their authority. Every staff wants to preserve their authority.
- V. White
Person
And if we're going to be successful, we have to think about this differently. Okay. It there is no transmission transition to clean energy without transmission, and the benefits and the cost savings have to be balanced against both the environmental impacts and the time that we legitimately should take to review. And so we think we've got to do better than we're doing now. This Bill is a very modest step, but it's a good beginning and we'd ask for your aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Any persons here in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure.
- Dylan Elliott
Person
Thank you, Mister Chair. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of Advanced Energy United in support. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Any witnesses in opposition?
- Kim Delfino
Person
Good afternoon. My name is Kim Delfino, and I'm here representing Defenders of Wildlife, California Native Plant Society, and Audubon. All organizations, I would note, work very, very hard to try to figure out how we can accelerate clean energy and transmission while working at the local level, at the state agency level, and the federal level.
- Kim Delfino
Person
I say that we believe that we can accelerate our clean energy deployment by making sure that we cite them in the best places possible, because that way we can avoid cost and delay. Let me just start off by thanking the author and the sponsors and the Committee consultant for the amendments and the willingness to work with us on the concerns that have been raised.
- Kim Delfino
Person
We've shown up now in our third Committee raising our concerns and have to give credit that the Bill has improved as it's moved through the process. However, we are still opposed, mainly because there are still problems with respect to both. The Bill continues to contain a provision that would weaken the California Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act. This is not an issue that's in your jurisdiction. It just is an issue that continues to be a problem for us.
- Kim Delfino
Person
We believe the NCCP Act is one of our hallmark laws. This would weaken the conservation standard within the NCCP. There's so that. The next thing is that while the CEQA exemption for rights of way on state land, such as state parks, is improved with the proposed amendments by the Committee, it still creates an exemption that makes no sense.
- Kim Delfino
Person
We think that you should do CEQA analysis on the expansion of a right of way, because if you don't and you go ahead and you plan a project, and then you get to the CEQA part of the project and you haven't thought about what those impacts might be on important resources, you are essentially taking a head in the sand approach to planning projects and frankly ends up creating cost and delay.
- Kim Delfino
Person
We also continue to have concerns about the limitation on the review of electrical infrastructure projects by a resource agency. Under CEQA. The amendments do make some improvements, but it's still confusing. Why it's, why are we now saying that resource agencies have to somehow have constraints, but yet, like air district doesn't? I don't understand the difference.
- Kim Delfino
Person
It seems to me like this is a section that's a solution in search of a problem, and then there is still an issue with the reasonable range of alternatives in terms of what could be reviewed. We still have concerns about the language there.
- Kim Delfino
Person
CAISO only reviews transmission projects, and we think that the PUC should be able to look at non-wire alternatives when they're looking at a CEQA analysis for a project, because sometimes those tend to be cheaper and should be at least reviewed, and we don't think that that creates additional delay, frankly. So again, the Bill is a work in progress, and we appreciate all of the support given by the author in moving it forward and making improvements. However, at this time, it still has some significant issues.
- Kim Delfino
Person
Last but not least, our biggest concern, which was the in lieu permitting that was addressed. Thank you so much for addressing that issue. So, with that right now, we respectfully still urge a no vote based on the concerns with the Bill. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Any persons here in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this measure?
- Steven Fenaroli
Person
Chair, Steven Fenaroli from the California Farm Bureau. We're currently in opposed unless amended, but just want to say thank you to the Committee and to the author for working through things. And we're really hopeful and working towards getting a tour to a neutral position. So thank you.
- Natalie Brown
Person
Hi, Natalie Brown with the Planning Conservation League, also in opposition to the Bill.
- Jakob Evans
Person
Hello. Jakob Evans of Sierra California in opposition. Thank you.
- Alex Loomer
Person
Good afternoon. Alex Loomer with the Environmental Defense Fund. We're in an opposed unless amended position. We support giving the CPUC the authority to implement process improvements, to make sure electrical infrastructure is online when and where we need it, but not the expense of environmental laws, including the NCCP Act. So, we really appreciate the author's office. We are in continued conversations with them and hope we can find a solution. Thank you.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
I just want to thank the author for the Bill and the stakeholder meetings working to make this a better Bill. Mister White stole my line that actually it's an international line, that there is no transition without transmission.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Turn it back to Committee Members. Questions, comments, concerns? Mister Wood.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
I heard that when I was a cop this last year, and it is a critical piece of the puzzle that needs to be able to move forward in a more timely manner than it is now. I look at this as a lot of this as efficiencies and less than. I don't like the word streamlining when it comes to CEQA. I prefer efficiency.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
And what I really want to see is our state agencies show some urgency because we are not going to reach our climate goals without urgency. And I don't sense that happening with a lot of our state agencies. Seven to 12 years to permit potentially and build out transmission is completely outrageous at this point. Considering the challenges that we face going forward, I think we can do this more efficiently and address some of the concerns that we're hearing from the opposition.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
But we need our state agencies to show the same urgency that a lot of us feel around this issue. So, thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, Mister Wood. Other questions, Miss Friedman?
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
So, you know, we certainly have a problem with the speed that some of these projects are being deployed. I tried to do work in this area last year myself, and as you know, I also have a lot of heartburn over the harm that could be done if we don't have safeguards.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
You know, it's not going to be everywhere. But you're here because you're worried about those few spots where you might have a really negative impact in times where it could be avoided. But we have a vehicle here and we have an author that I trust. That's not always the case. When these bills come up, I think it's worth continuing the process.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
I know that this author is committed to continuing to talk to narrow the Bill, to hopefully narrowing it to those locations where we might really have a negative impact or where we have alternatives that should be looked at because they're worth evaluating. But I'm not willing to not support this today because, you know, on the flip side, if we don't move a whole lot faster, you know, we're all, everything's going to suffer. So I'm going to support the Bill today.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
But I do hope that the author continues to be in conversations with the opposition. You heard a lot of opposed, you know, unless amended. So, you know, it seems like there's, you know, you're moving to a, you're never going to have everybody, but you're moving to a place where you're addressing a lot of the major concerns. And I know that you'll keep working and I'm going to give you that. You know, I'm happy to give you the latitude to continue those conversations. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Assembly Member Pellerin.
- Gail Pellerin
Legislator
Thank you. And thank you to the author for bringing this Bill forward. Is it, did I hear that PUC does have the capability of streamlining projects right now or it's not efficient enough.
- Erica Martin
Person
Yeah, they could change their own permitting rules and environmental review processes and they have the, thus far, not taken that up. There's an open proceeding where many of these reforms were presented to them. It's been with them for six months. We're still waiting for a staff proposal from them.
- Erica Martin
Person
Maybe we'll have a decision by the end of the year. Meanwhile, utilities and other stakeholders are developing the transmission projects that were approved by CAISO, 45 last year, 25 more before them right now. And we just, we just don't see that we have the time to wait for that.
- Gail Pellerin
Legislator
Okay. And is it true that this Bill would exempt these projects from the Coastal Act?
- Erica Martin
Person
That we dealt with in the current amendments that were proposed by the Committee. That that provision has been struck.
- Gail Pellerin
Legislator
Great. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Any other questions, comments, concerns? Mister Garcia, would you like to close?
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
Yeah, just thank you for the audience. Thank you for the suggested amendments. I know we had some questions about specifically the 200 versus 200ft exemption, right of way. They were addressed. There's kind of a precedent that was pointed to as it relates to sponsors of the Bill and the work that they've done. There was also a question about going from a sunset of 10 years versus five. We were shooting for 10.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
Recognizing how long these projects take to process and ultimately build. Speaking to the Committee staff, we understand the rationale behind five. My hope is that in three years or four years, we are before you or not. We I, but one of you will need to be here advocating for a potential extension. But nonetheless, we again align and accept the amendments, understanding the Committee's concerns and the opposition.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
I'll say one last thing, and that is that we are operating under the notion and of that we can try to get everyone's opposition to the Bill either neutral or supporting the Bill. That's how we're operating in this process. I recognize, I'm not naive, I've been here long enough that there will be individuals, groups, organizations that, based on their principles, their ideological positions, philosophical mission, they won't be with us.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
But I just want you all to know that we're doing everything we can to address those concerns. This is the third policy committee. If someone said we had to go to a fourth, we would, and to try to have more time to address these issues. And again, I just appreciate your work on this. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you. Checking. Do we have the authority to refer to a fourth committee? No. Wouldn't do that to you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
I was in conversations at 11:00 last night with my team about this Bill. I was in conversations at 04:00 this morning with my team. I was in conversations just before floor session. And the reason those conversations were taking place is because they were taking place for you, because that is how hard you have been working on this issue. And so I have seen and felt that commitment and deeply respected. We have a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?
- Committee Secretary
Person
Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
That Bill is out. Miss Friedman for Miss Bauer Kahan.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
Good evening, Chair and Members. I want to start by thanking the Committee and staff for this work. In the Bill, I'm proud to present AB 2085, a Bill that creates an exemption to local zoning for reproductive health clinics in areas already zoned for healthcare and retail uses. AB 2085 requires ministerial approval of clinics that meet all of the locality standards, including the arbitrary obstructions of life-saving care.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
Unfortunately, women's reproductive health has become a political issue, and we see clinics that are desperately needed to save women's lives and to provide care being denied approvals in California, even when they meet all local zoning rules. I do want to have one amendment, which is to add Laura Friedman as a co-author to this bill. And with me today is Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood California Action. Thank you.
- Molly Robson
Person
Good afternoon, Assembly Members. It's a pleasure to spend Earth Day with you. I'm Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, where we represent the seven affiliates in California who operate over 100 health centers across the state. Planned Parenthood is sponsoring AB 2085 to streamline the permitting process for reproductive health clinics to ensure that there are not unjustified delays in reproductive health care or health center construction.
- Molly Robson
Person
Since the Dobbs decision two years ago, we have seen the attacks on abortion, reproductive health care, gender affirming care, and birth control intensify, transforming healthcare into political battlegrounds, which has dangerous consequences, even in California. For example, the City of Fontana. In the City of Fontana, the local Planned Parenthood received verbal approval to construct a new clinic on a vacant site zoned for healthcare. After following standard procedure, abiding by all local guidelines, and adjusting as needed to ensure compliance with local planning standards, it was a surprise when, after a year of planning, the City Council placed a moratorium on any new buildings in the area where the prospective health center was.
- Molly Robson
Person
The Council then placed another moratorium, this time for 10 months, which has been determined to only impact the prospective health center. In a post-Dobbs era, when millions of people have lost access to abortion and other reproductive health care in their home states, it's critical that access in California is not impeded.
- Molly Robson
Person
The Fontana Health Center, for example, would have provided an estimated 2000 medical visits per month and positively impacted care in the community. AB 2085 will ensure that all local jurisdictions cannot unjustly interfere with the delivery of health care and and delivers on California's commitment as a reproductive freedom state. And I respectfully urge your aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure?
- Seamus Garrity
Person
Hi. Seamus Garrity on behalf of Lighthouse Public Affairs and Reproductive Freedom for All, a co-sponsor of this legislation. Strong support.
- Daniel Sanchez
Person
Hello. Daniel Sanchez, California Advocacy, on behalf of California Primary Care Association in support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Fantastic. Anybody in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition? We'll now turn it back to Committee Members. Ms. Pellerin.
- Gail Pellerin
Legislator
Great bill. And I'd like to be at it as a co-author as well.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Mr. Kalra.
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I meant to do that in Local Gov, and I'm happy to do it now. I'd love to be also joined as a co-author. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Absolutely. Mr. Wood.
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
I am happy to add you as a co-author along with myself.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Would you like to close?
- Laura Friedman
Legislator
There's no registered opposition for this bill. We would request an aye vote. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
With that, can I also be added as a co-author? Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?
- Committee Secretary
Person
Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Perfect. That bill is out. Mr. Wood for Mr. Lowenthal, AB 2212.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
I've been told to go fast, so as fast as the wind will blow. Okay, I'll be brief. Try to anyway. At least the words are big. Mr. Chair and Members, I'm pleased to present on behalf of Assembly Member Lowenthal AB 2212, which enacts the Offshore Wind Workforce Safety Training Facility Development Act.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
Offshore wind development presents our state with a multi-benefit opportunity to help us meet our climate goals, support and improve our communities, create new jobs and stimulate economic growth. However, workforce needs of the industry are estimated to generate thousands of good paying, long-term jobs in our state. However, to meet these needs, we must ensure that workers receive the proper safety training certifications required by the industry to work on offshore wind projects, and on the turbines themselves.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
Fortunately, we can draw on the example of the Port of New Bedford on the East Coast--which I visited last year--home to our country's first offshore wind turbines, as well as the National Offshore Wind Institute. The Institute provides workforce safety training and certifications for the offshore wind workers so they can carry out their work in the unique environment and circumstances found on the turbines.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
The workforce safety training facilities established under this act will provide invaluable training to the offshore wind industry's workforce in order to ensure they can perform their job safely. I'm pleased to be joined by Dan Jacobson with Environment California, the Bill's sponsor, who is here to testify on in support of AB 2212.
- Daniel Jacobson
Person
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dan Jacobson with Environment California. Thank you very much to Assemblymember Wood for stepping in.
- Daniel Jacobson
Person
First of all, not only happy Earth Day, happy Passover as well. Let me just say that this Bill is very common sense. What we want to do is make sure that the workers have the training that they need. There's very specific trainings that you need when you do this kind of offshore wind. I'll just mention one that comes from the National Institute of Offshore Wind, which is how do you evacuate a helicopter if it's gone down in the ocean and flipped upside down?
- Daniel Jacobson
Person
Well, I wouldn't know how to do it. I don't know if you'd know how to do it. I don't know if anyone here would know how to do it. But we need to make sure that the workers have the training to do that. The offshore wind that we're talking about is over 20 miles off the coast of California. These helicopter rides are not going to be unusual to have happen. We never want that to happen.
- Daniel Jacobson
Person
But if anything should happen, we need people to be trained to be able to deal with it. It's the same if you're inside the nacelle and something happens. It's a very, very small exit to get out of there. We need a workforce that's trained to be able to do it. There's no opposition to the Bill and want to encourage an aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, sir. Any persons in the hearing room who'd like to register their support for this measure? Seeing none. Any opposition that just showed up? Seeing none. Return it to Committee Members. No questions, Comments? Mr. Wood, would you like to close?
- Jim Wood
Legislator
The nacelle is the power generating unit, in case you didn't know that.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
I just had a feeling I couldn't fit through it.
- Jim Wood
Legislator
You might. But you want to make sure you get out safely. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you. I could not be more supportive of the offshore wind efforts that we're putting into place here across California. And the safety requirements are, and training are incredibly important. Thank you for making that point so clear for us. Do we have a motion? Mr. Kalra. Second by Ms. Pellerin. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?
- Committee Secretary
Person
Motion is do pass to Utilities and Energy Committee. [Roll Call].
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
We're gonna do add ons while we wait for Al Muratsuchi to come to the Committee room. Al Muratsuchi.
- Committee Secretary
Person
AB 3192 Muratsuchi. Motion is do pass to Judiciary Committee. Chair voting aye. Absent Members Hoover. Wicks. Wicks aye. That has six votes. We'll leave it open for Assemblymember Hoover.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Let's pause that. AB 2329.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Thank you very much. I apologize for the delay Thank you, Mister Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm here to present AB 2329 which would create the California Affordable Decarbonization Authority, a nonprofit that would administer the Climate Equity Trust Fund to promote electricity affordability and incentivize electrification. We all know that we cannot meet our ambitious climate goals without electrifying our economy, and we cannot electrify our economy without addressing the issue of electricity affordability.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
That is the purpose of this Climate Equity Trust Fund. To testify to the importance of this policy, we have Matt Friedman, Staff Attorney with the Utility Reform Network, and if he makes it here, Scott Wetch, representing the Coalition of California Utility Employees and the California State Association of Electrical Workers.
- Matt Friedman
Person
Thank you, Mister Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is Matt Friedman. I'm a staff attorney with the Utility Reform Network.
- Matt Friedman
Person
We're here in strong support of AB 2329 which would establish a Climate Equity Trust Fund to address the challenge of rapidly rising electricity rates that threaten the affordability of basic service and undermine the economics of beneficial building and transportation electrification. As everyone here knows, retail electricity prices in California have been skyrocketing in recent years. In particular, the investor-owned utility rates have reached the breaking point. PG&E's rates have doubled since 2019, and they're up over 50% since 2022.
- Matt Friedman
Person
For Southern California Edison, rates are up 70% since 2019, and for San Diego Gas and Electric, more than a third since 2019. And for these utilities, unfortunately, rates are likely to continue to increase in the coming years at a pace that far exceeds inflation and will create massive affordability challenges for customers. So that's where AB 2329 comes in. It would establish a new durable structure for channeling funding from external sources to offset a variety of costs that would otherwise be collected in electricity rates.
- Matt Friedman
Person
And this approach is consistent with joint recommendations that were made to the Legislature by the California Energy Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, the Air Resources Board, and the Independent System Operator in a 2021 report. And it's also tracks with many of the recommendations that have been considered by agencies like the Public Utilities Commission. These recommendations recognize the importance of finding new approaches and new funding sources for covering an array of costs that are currently driving up electricity rates.
- Matt Friedman
Person
The trust would be administered by the California Affordable Decarbonization Authority, a new nonprofit public benefit corporation, and all of the disbursements from the trust would be regulated by the Energy Commission and by the Public Utilities Commission. The money could be used to provide direct credits on Ratepayer bills, to support rebates for customer services, or to reimburse costs that would otherwise be collected in rates. We think this is a really critical policy vehicle.
- Matt Friedman
Person
It's about establishing a long-term, durable commitment to looking at ways to find external sources of money to bring down rates, and we would ask for support for this Bill. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Any persons in this hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure? Thank you for your patience.
- Michele Canales
Person
Michelle Canales, Union of Concerned Scientists, in support.
- Gracyna Mohabir
Person
Gracyna Mohabir, California Environmental Voters, in support
- Keely Morris
Person
Keeley Morris with Edelstein, Gilbert, Robeson and Smith on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, in support.
- Kris Rosa
Person
Kris Rosa on behalf of NRDC, in support.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Environment California, support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Any registered opposition to this measure? Anybody in the hearing room who would like to voice their opposition to this measure? We will now turn it back to Committee Members. Questions, comments, concerns? Madam Secretary, do we have a motion and a second? Can we call? Mister Marisucci, would you like to close?
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
10. That's out.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
That is all the bills. We will now go through for. Yep. For missing Members.
- Committee Secretary
Person
AB 3192 Muratsuchi. Motion is due passed to Judiciary Committee. Chair voting aye. Absent Member Hoover. Hoover no. 6 to 2. AB 2085 Bauer-Kahan motion is do pass to Appropriations. Chair voting aye. Absent Members Hoover. Hoover aye. Muratsuchi. Muratsuchi aye. That has 8 votes. AB 2212 Lowenthal. Motion is due passed to Utilities and Energy. Chair voting aye. Absent Members Hoover. Hoover no. Muratsuchi. Muratsuchi Aye. Bill has nine votes. AB 2320 motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Chair voting aye.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Absent Members. [Roll Call]. It has 10 votes. That's out. AB 2537 motion is due passed to Utilities and Energy. Chair voting aye. Absent Members. [Roll Call]. It has 10 votes. That's out. AB 2560 motion is due passed as amended. Chair voting aye. Absent Members. [Roll Call].
- Committee Secretary
Person
Seven votes. AB 2661, motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. 10 votes. AB 2762, motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]
- Committee Secretary
Person
Seven to three. It's out. AB 2776, motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. Has 10 votes. AB 2851, motion is do pass to Appropriations. Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. That's seven to two.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Oh, and Wicks. 2851 Bonta. Wicks aye. Yes. AB 2870 motion is due passed to Agriculture Committee. Chair voting aye. Absent Members Patterson. Patterson no. Wicks. Wicks aye. That has seven votes. AB 3019 motion is due passed as amended to Appropriations. Chair voting aye. Absent Members. [Roll Call]. That has 10 votes. AB 3155 motion is due passed to Appropriations. Chair voting aye. Absent Members. [Roll Call].
- Committee Secretary
Person
Seven votes. AB 3227, motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. That has 11 votes. AB 3238, motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. That has 10 votes. Consent calendar. [Roll Call]. That has 11 votes. And a vote change?
- Josh Hoover
Legislator
Yes, I'm sorry. File item...
- Committee Secretary
Person
2085?
- Josh Hoover
Legislator
2085, I did not vote.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Hoover's changing vote AB 2085 aye to not voting. And that has seven votes.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
And this concludes today's Natural Resource Committee. Thank you.
Committee Action:Passed
Previous bill discussion:Â Â April 16, 2024
Speakers
Legislator