Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

Proceed when ready. Thank you.

Thank you so much. If it's okay with you, we'll start with AB 2085.

Thank you. Good afternoon Mister. Good morning. I feel like it's afternoon because I was just in this hearing room less than 12 hours ago. Good morning Mister chair and Senators. I want to start by thanking the Committee staff for their hard work on this Bill and accepting Committee amendments. zero, is everything okay?

No problem.

Oh, our Vice Chair would prefer if you start with 1042. Is that okay? Is there a particular reason?

No, I think. Is that okay? Okay.

Because I have two committees going and I have other bills up there.

Yeah.

Seed guy. This is about seed.

I knew something was wrong up there. Yeah.

As he will tell you, he works in this industry.

Oh, I served with him before he came to your house. I know. We sat on ESTM together. Okay, so change of plans. AB 1042 at the discretion of the Vice Chair. Thank you Mister Chair and Committee. I want to start by accepting these Committee amendments and thank the staff for their hard work on this Bill.

I know that there's been incredible work to try to get this to a good place and I want to thank the Committee for that. I'm proud today to present AB 1042. It's a simple Bill that requires treated seed labels to include the amount of each treatment used currently in the state.

Treated seed labels must identify the treatments used. However, they don't include the concentration amount of those treatments. With increasing level of treatments on seeds, it's important to understand the impact of the pesticides, and I want to be clear this Bill, nor do I think we shouldn't be treating seeds.

I understand the import of treated seeds as opposed to spray pesticides, but this information is critically important. The treatments used on seeds are often systemic, meaning they stay in the plants through their life cycle.

Research has shown that when applied directly to a seed, 95% or more of the active ingredients typically stay in the soil, affecting our water supply and our food source. Exposure from pesticides on seeds has been linked to bee population decline and negative health impact for humans. Let me be clear.

Certain pesticides, not all making the concentration information of seed treatments more transparent, will make progress towards protecting pollinators, water and human health as well as empower our farmers to compare the efficacy of different treatment options and help them make informed decisions when choosing treatments. The Bill is not a prohibition of treated seeds.

It simply provides that additional information to farmers and researchers to assess the utility and impact of different seed treatments on the environment. We have worked on significant amendments to address the concerns of the opposition.

You'll hear we're not 100% there yet, but we, we have done a lot to try to make sure we're addressing their concerns and we'll continue to do so. Here with me today to testify and support is Darryl Little from NRDC and Steve Blackledge, Senior Director of Conservation America Campaign, Environment America.

May I proceed? Good morning, Mister Chair Members of the Committee. I'm Steve Blackledge. I'm the Senior Director of Conservation for Environment California. We're pleased to sponsor AB 1042, which is a Bill about pesticides, a Bill about transparency, and a Bill that's important for pollinators and wildlife in California.

As I think you know, California a couple years ago passed legislation to restrict the sale of pesticides to ordinary consumers, those without a license to apply pesticides. The intent of this Bill then is to start to provide transparency for another way in which pesticides and some very harmful bee killing pesticides are getting into the environment.

So the treated or coated seeds or the treatment of seeds, that's what this Bill does. It's important because we've seen major bee die offs of our native bees in California and across the country. As the community analysis says, pesticides don't stay put. They don't stay on the seed.

They get into the environment, into the soil, into the water. And this is an idea that's centered on the idea that farmers are the original conservationists. Farmers can use this information. This provides the amount of pesticides that are on the seeds of helpful for farming and farmers as well. And we respectfully request an aye vote.

Good morning Chair and Members, I'm Darryl Little Jr. with the Natural Resources Defense Council. We are proud supporters are sponsors of AB 1042, which will provide greater clarity to growers regarding the pesticides used to coat crop seeds or seed treatments.

Currently, labels for treated seeds are required to identify the pesticides used in the seed treatments, but not the amounts. AB 1042 would simply require the amounts to be listed as well. This is important because the use of seed treatments is widespread in California.

With accurate, easily accessible quantity information for seed treatments, farmers will be able to compare seed treatment products and reduce use of unnecessary, harmful and often costly chemical inputs. Seed treatment quantity information is particularly important for seeds treated with neonic pesticides. Neonics are extremely toxic to pollinators and research links neonics to neurological, developmental and reproductive harms in humans.

With the transparency around seed treatment quantities that AB 1042 will offer, it will be easier for farmers to track their needs, costs and the actual value they receive as well as take necessary safety precautions when handling and using these dangerous chemicals.

AB 1042 is a light lift that will significantly improve transparency in California and protect public health and the environment. We respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, folks who want to come to the mic and express support for the Bill, they be 1042.

Good morning. Abigail Smith, on behalf of Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District in support.

Good morning. Rebecca Marcus representing CALPIRG in support.

Great, Dennis. Support. You want to support it? No, come on. Support it. Come on, we do something. All right, all right, all right. Come on up. I know, I know. All right. We're looking forward to hearing from you.

Dennis Albiani here, on behalf of the California Seed Association, I want to thank you. Thank the Committee staff have been outstanding. This Bill came late in the process, and so we had to all kind of work CDFA, the Senate committees, both committees and that. And we're getting there on the amendment. So we appreciate that.

I do want to start with a very quick little story. When I first, well, when Senator Dahle, who happens to be in the seed business, came up his very first year, I brought him a Bill, simple Bill on seeds. Just going to change five words.

That's all we were going to do is change five words, put it in. Everything was great. First Committee, the Farm Bureau opposed. So our resident farmer gets opposed by the own Farm Bureau. We work it out. The five words turned into 15, maybe 20 words. We get through clarity. But why do I tell you this story?

Not only to honor Mister Dali, who this may be your last EQ community hearing, but that this is very, very complex stuff. When you start talking about what goes on the label, what's in how we handle treated seeds.

This is subject of a lawsuit that is currently actually pending negotiations right now and will likely be settled before you all come back, or it's supposed to be by August 7, I believe, is the date that will be the next hearing. So there was a lot of activity in this. It's very sensitive. Seed labels are legal documents.

They're obviously informative and intended to inform and the reference documents. So we need to get it right. And that's one of the challenges that we're working through. And then additional unnecessary language can clutter, confuse, and actually even contradict one each other when you talk about what's required for different applications.

So the amendments, we appreciate the amendments that work through them, although, and we have provided some clarity on the amendments and that. But it was after the publishing of the analysis so a couple of things we just need to bring through.

The easy ones are we need a sell through for product that is packaged and stored before the enactment date. Transshipment. Transshipment is an issue that California, we're obviously a very large agricultural state, but we also ship and serve other countries, other states.

So the seeds go through the way it was written is it basically applies this to everything we need. The exact opposite, we need to apply it to seeds planted in California. And so that's an issue. We need to further refine the focus on pesticides and then just how the application rate language is structured.

So we've provided the author and Committee with amended language and look forward to working these as they go through the next committees.

Thank you, Dennis. Thank you. Why don't you stay up? Okay. Sure. Other folks you want to weigh in in opposition or voice concerns?

Taylor Roshan, on behalf of a variety of agricultural associations, we thank the author for the amendments thus far and look forward to working more.

On behalf of who? Sorry?

Thanks Mister Chair. Senators Dean Grafilo with Capital Advocacy here on behalf of Bio, aligned with the testimony, Mister Albiano in opposition. Thank you.

Behalf of bio. Bio. Okay. All right. Can I ask the author why such a late gut named on this topic?

To be clear, it wasn't a gut demand, it was a Bill that was a two year Bill on seeds, focused on whether or not the Department had the authority to regulate seeds. That was opposed by the folks that are sitting at the table.

And this was actually a narrowing of that to say, fine, we're not gonna say they can regulate seeds, we're gonna label it. So I think gut demand's little bit of a stretch because we tried to find a compromise on a seed Bill and it took a different form.

Brandon, new language. It's a brand new language.

Right. Because we were trying to find something that everybody could get around and we thought this was the direction. I think to be fair, and Mister Albiani can disagree with me, this is much more amenable than the prior language. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. Okay. So. Okay. So it's a matter. You're all right. I know Senator Dahle is going to want to ask some questions.

Well, first I want to thank the author for working to get to a point where I think we're really close. I think we're not that far off. So I want to thank you for that. I just wanted for the record to know I'm an organic farmer. I don't have any, I don't use. He's a real hippie actually.

At this point. I mean I have in the past but the issue is I may have to, if I have the fungus is actually in the field not on the seed that I'm trying to prevent getting on my seed. So I just wanted for the record to know that in the future I may need that.

If I have a fungus it comes in through spores or other things. Anyway, so I just wanted for the author I'm going to lay off the Bill because I know there's, we're close and I want. Can we get there is the point I have to label though.

And what I put on my label is it's a huge liability for me. So if it's not what I say is in there and so I get tested, then I'm on the hook for somebody to come after me. That's, that's the trick here. That's what I think. I'll just say it out loud.

I don't want to get sued because I'm off by you know, we have, we have to have the, we have to have. What we say is in the. If it's wheat, it has to be wheat, it can't be oats. And there can be very. And so what's on that label is what I'm liable for.

And so that's what I'm concerned about is if there's treatment, which is if it's treated, it's labeled as treated, it's got the, you know, crossbones and all the things that you got to have to let people know that there's something in here that could harm you. Prop 65, all those things. Anyway.

So I just want to make sure we're on the right path. I think we're there. I think we're really close. If I have something in storage already, I want an opportunity to get that through. I think the opposition brought that up and then the labeling stuff. So for there.

So hopefully between now and appropriations those few three or four items can be worked out and we can get there. And I think this will be a Bill I can support on the floor and maybe would like to present it for you if we can get there. So.

Well I look for. I had Mister Mathis say that early in the year and he's now a co author on my Bill. I would like to get there as well. And I, you know, I thank you and I want to thank Mister Albiani for, you know, his feedback.

And like I said, this was really an effort to try to get to a place where we could have both farmers as consumers. Right. Because you grow seeds, but they're also farmers that buy these things. And one of the things that I think this also helps with is consumer protection.

If you're buying a seed because you do need it to be treated to deal with the fungus, you also don't want it to be De minimis. Right. You want to know you're getting something that actually will deal with the problem at hand. Right. So I think there are protections for farmers in here as well.

And so I'm glad we thought 2027 would allow for the sell through. It sounds like it's not there, but you see that we did that in order to address the concern. So we'll continue to have that conversation.

I want to say that this is an actual seed that has a coat on it planted in. I mean for the ability for the movement of that pesticide is I think a stretch in my mind when I go out to my field and look at it's very minute amount for really to get in the water system.

I think there's a lot of other areas that we could focus on a lot better where we're putting, where there's people putting, spraying chemicals on that are covering the whole landscape. This is a seed with a very small film on it that gets planted in very small amounts.

I commend you on your work. I know you'll be engaging with them as well over the course of the summer. We don't have a quorum yet, but if you want to close and give.

Yeah. Thank you Mister chair. And I'll just say in response to the water question, what started this was actually the bee decline, which is a problem for California's farmers. Without bees, our food doesn't get pollinated and so they're trucking in bees right now where they're losing bees, which is costly. It is causing rise in food costs.

And so one of the things that really is a concern, to be Frank, more than the water is the neonictinoids and the get into the flowers that are in the plants. Studies have shown when they're on the seeds that it can affect the bees.

And so again, farmers, to be clear, are the Californians that have been most responsible about neonictinoids. I want to be clear about that because they understand that if they lose their bees, they lose their livelihood, but they need this to be responsible. So I just wanted to clarify that was one of the concerns that led to this.

So with that I respect class regular.

Okay, we'll take that up when we have a quorum. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Dennis. Thank you. All right now we'll.

Okay, well now we had another person who asked for a different one to go next. So do you mind if we take up 20214?

Sure, as long as there's no objection from the.

No, of course. Thank you Mister. Thank you Senator. You were going to do 2085 1st? Yes. And Miss Fearing needed to go to another hearing.

Very colorful butterflies. Oh, there you go. Okay.

On brand today.

That's right. Okay.

So, thank you Mister chair and Senators proud to present AB 20214. This is a joint effort with my colleague Assemblymember McKinner. Following the bill's hearing in previous Committee, we made amendments to address the main concerns of the stakeholders and we appreciate their engagement on the issue.

This Bill focuses on the urgent and pervasive threat to both our environment and our health that is coming in the way of microplastics. The tiny particles stubbornly resist decompensation have been found in our natural environment and in our bodies. They've been detected in everything from breast milk and baby feces to recently the articles on human testicles.

A global study by WWF International found that on average people could be ingesting the equivalent of a credit card every week. Recognizing the severity of the situation, the Ocean Protection Council developed a state microplastic strategy. The comprehensive plan published in early 2022 outlines 22 recommendations aimed at reducing and managing microplastic pollutions across California.

This Bill builds on the initiative by mandating the OPC to lead an interagency coordination group identify and recommend necessary statutory changes to implement the recommendations by 2025. And this Bill really started because I decided to take on a piece of the microplastics problem last year.

And what became clear to me in that effort was that because microplastics are in so many different products in so many different places, there are so many agencies that have a little piece of this puzzle that nobody is actually charged with solving this problem.

And so this Bill really is trying to get at that problem of government not being focused in the right place and coordinating in the way that they should be. And so this is really a good government effort. With me in support is Jennifer Fearing with the Ocean Conservancy and Monterey Bay Aquarium.

Good morning, Mister chair and Members. Indeed, I am Jennifer Fearing on behalf of the OSHA Conservancy and Monterey Bay Aquarium. But we're pleased to be among nearly two dozen other organizations urging you to vote I to leverage the diverse expertise of state agency staff to collaboratively address the urgent issue of microplastic pollution.

Absent urgent interventions, microplastics will continue to pose a threat to our environment, wildlife and public health. Many of you supported well, many of you supported Assemblywoman McKinner's Bill last year to implement a key microplastics prevention recommendation that was included in the administration's statewide microplastic strategy.

AB 1628 would have required washing machine manufacturers to include filters to reduce up to 90% of the microfibers released into wastewater and then to the environment. Unfortunately, Governor Newsom vetoed that Bill, noting ongoing Water Board assessments and asking the author to develop incentives.

We support AB 2200 and 14 as a way to enroll the state's agency's experts in the development of workable and practical options to address the cross sectoral issue of microplastic pollution comprehensively, we need teamwork. Microplastic pollution poses a multifaceted challenge that demands coordinated action across sectors and jurisdictions.

By bringing the state government experts together to identify explicit ways to address the proliferation of microplastics in our environment, AB 2214 ensures California's leadership at a global level in effectively managing and mitigating the adverse impacts of microplastic pollution. We urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. So, others want to voice support for the Bill. This is AB 2214.

Isabela Gonzalez Parr with the Nature Conservancy in support, Chris Morenas with California against waste. In support, Priscilla Quitos here. On behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council in support.

Thank you. All right, opposition folks who want to raise concerns about the Bill. Anyone here? All right, seeing none. We'll bring it to the Committee. Any questions from the numbers? I'm a big fan of this Bill. We will make sure if either.

Yeah, we don't have a quorum yet, so we can't entertain a vote, but we'll certainly take it up for a motion. And I'll be encouraging, enthusiastically encouraging folks to pass it on. I'm sure we'll be good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we'll move on.

Let's go on to item number two.

It's anticlimactic when you can't take a motion.

I know. Hey, you should have found a way to get microplastic seeds in there and we would have gotten more questions from Dahle.

Okay, we'll take up AB 2236 if that's okay, so Miss Marion can take off. You're all out of order. I love it. Just keeping you on your toes, Mister chair. All right, all right.

Good.

All right.

We're on item four now. This is item 2236.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good morning, Mister chair. And Senators, again, I want to start by thanking the Committee staff on this thoughtful and thorough analysis and accepting Committee amendments. With that, I'm proud to present AB 2236 a Bill in conjunction with Senator Blakespeare's SB 1053.

A decade ago, we tried to and promised Californians we would eliminate plastic bags, and we failed. We know that because we show up every day to grocery stores where thicker plastic bags that are marketed as reusable and recyclable are given to Californians. And we know that isn't happening.

You know, my 14-year-old, when he had his bar mitzvah, one of the things that happens is you pick a mitzvah project, you pick something you're going to do to change the world for the better. And our Safeway happens to be on a creek.

And he had noticed in his nature exploration of our community that our creeks were full of plastic bags because people would leave the grocery store, the bags would end up in the creek by the grocery store and move down the creek. And he did a creek cleanup for his mitzvah project to remove those plastic bags.

And he continues to do that work today. But we decided to take it a step further. And that's what this Bill is, because our kids see it. Our kids need us to do better plastic is proliferating an environment. It is causing the microplastic problem we just talked about, and it is polluting our landfills.

And Californians are ready to just take paper, which is what this Bill does. It removes the plastic bags at the point of sale and says paper only people will have access to bags. They can bring their own reusable bag, which for anyone watching is obviously primary and most important thing we should do.

But if not, they have access to the paper bags just like they do at Trader Joe's today. And it'll make an incredible difference for our climate, our environment. And with me today is Jennifer Fearing, representing the Ocean Conservatory, Oceana and Monterey Bay Aquarium, and Louis Brown with the California grocers.

Good morning Mister chair and Members. Jennifer Fearing for Ocean Conservancy, Oceana and Monterey Bay Aquarium. And we are among over 75 environmental protection organizations and dozens of local government leaders across the state urging you to vote I on AB 2236.

Thank you to the Committee for the proposed amendments that make the Bill stronger and the intent even clearer. We must get rid of single use plastic bags. Our fight against sunglass plastic carryout bags at grocery and convenience stores is now more than 10 years old.

SB 20070's FS 2000 allowed thicker plastic bag films to be used under the guise that they were reusable. This Bill clearly ends this ruse and makes clear that only paper bags may be offered by grocers at the point of sale.

The thicker, problematic plastic bags resulted from a race to the bottom based on the reusable bag standard included in SB 270.

Having now made clear that paper is the only authorized bag, the bill's provisions setting standards for reusable bag now risk muddying the primary intent of the Bill and expand the scope to start defining what can and can't be sold as a reusable bag anywhere in the store.

SB 270 has always been about what bags are allowed at point of sale, and we're pleased. The Bill now defines point of sale to cover all transactions where purchased goods may be transferred to a customer, which is why we're supportive of the proposed Committee amendments to remove the reusable bag standard.

Thanks to all of you who voted for Senator Blakespeare's SB 1053 earlier this year. That companion Bill passed the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on Monday in the same form proposed here. We would urge your support for this strengthened version of AB 2236.

Thank you, Mister Brown, Mister Chairman, Members of the Committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf of the California Grocers Association in support of the Bill actually, this effort with plastic bags started more than a decade ago. Assembly Member Lloyd Levine actually passed the first Bill dealing with plastic bags.

And at that point, what that Bill created was an opportunity for the manufacturers of plastic bags to partner with the grocery industry and provide in store take back. They were to pay for the advertising, they were to pay for the receptacles.

They were to create a system where grocers would take those bags back and then they would be put back into the recycling system. That law sunsetted, frankly, because it was never used. The manufacturers never came through with their commitment to make that happen.

And so when SB 270 came around, we then jumped onto SB 270 because that started to clarify the issue. And so here we are today. We're here today supporting the Bill that's now going to transition, take the next step to just paper at the point of sale.

One of the reasons we're here today is we're being sued for these bags. We've got grocers throughout Southern California that are facing lawsuits because they are providing bags that state bring back to your store, state that they are recyclable. And in fact, the manufacturers cannot prove they are recyclable. So we are taking the brunt of that.

And so while this is going to make a significant change in our stores, likely increase our costs, we also see that the public perception, the cost of litigation and everything else combined would be significantly more than us making this change. So who continues to benefit? The customers on WIC and Snap continue to benefit.

They're going to continue to get these bags for free. And of the customers that come through our stores statewide, average 30% of our customers are on WIC and Snap. So the manufacturers are going to tell you that the changes in this Bill are going to drastically increase plastic. I think that's illogical.

And they obviously don't understand the grocery business. Probably 10% of our customers come through the store, probably like you, Senator Allen, with your reusable bag ready to go. 30% of our customers get their bags for free. So they're not even thinking about bringing reusable bags in.

The remainder, forget their bags in their trunk, don't bring them in, and don't even think about a bag until they get to the checkout. When they get to the checkout with this Bill, the only thing that will be available will be paper.

So what we'll see is an increase in the paper consumpt or the consumption of paper bags. They will not have the choice to use plastic. So with no plastic as a choice, how is the plastic use going to go up? We have stores right now that provide only plastic. They're going to transition to paper.

Most of our stores have, significant majority of their bags are plastic. Going to transition to paper. So the argument that we're going to see plastic consumption result or increase as a result of us providing only paper at the checkout stand makes no sense at all. With that, we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. All right, other folks who want to voice their support for the Bill, just come to the microphone and state your name and affiliation.

Steve Blackledge, Environment California, in support.

Good morning. Dylan Stapleton, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Alyssa Stinson, on behalf of the City of Carlsbad in support. Thanks.

Good morning. Lindsey Goldhorn with Capital Advocacy. On behalf of the resource recovery Coalition of California and support. Good morning. Kayla Robinson, on behalf of breast cancer. Prevention partners and support.

Thanks [Inaudible]. On behalf of several clients, stop waste California Products Stewardship Council, Western Plaster Waste Management Authority, Solid Waste Association of North America, American Legislative Task Force, the cities of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills and Goleta in support. Thank you.

Gavin Mchugh, on behalf of International Paper, we are in support.

Good morning. Chair Members Roman Vogelsang with the Pray and Company on behalf of Republic services and support. Thank you.

Good afternoon or good morning, Mister chair. And Senators Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the City of Alameda, in support.

Good morning. Jacob Evans with Sierra California and support. Thank you.

Rebecca Marcus representing CalPerg in support. Sherry Pemberton representing the California State Lands Commission, in support. Mark Esidra on behalf of the County of Los Angeles and support. Thank you.

Okay, folks, who want to raise concerns about the Bill or opposition.

Dennis fixed the mic.

The Bolivian phenom Alberto Torrico and I will say Bolivia did its part in the Copa.

Told you. I told you. It was full hearted today on Bolivia's soccer team, Mister Chairman, but thank you nonetheless. Good morning.

Alberto Toriqua on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council, I want to begin by saying that UFCW shares the laudable objectives of the Bill, as you do, Senator Allen, to reduce the amount of plastic in the environment.

Of course, last year, Senator Allen, you carried SB 777, which UFCW sponsored, because we believe then and believe now that there are some significant problems with the way the statute is constituted and implemented and enforced and those problems are being brought over to this Bill.

I think that this Bill begins to deal with the challenges, but we think a holistic approach is necessary. And so, regrettably, we oppose.

The current statute has three different allowed purposes for the money that's acquired through the use to the selling of paper plastic bags at the register, compliance with the statute to cover the costs of the bags themselves and to educate the public on the needs and the ability and the availability of recycling.

We don't think those things are happening, and we don't think those things are going to happen when we transition over to paper bags. The other thing that we're concerned about, and the reason we brought the Bill last year was we've had an ongoing dispute with the grocers regarding the profitability of the plastic bags.

We think there's a lot of money that's being made. We think the bags are being sold to them for two or three cents, and then they're being sold at a minimum of $0.10. Some jurisdiction, $0.25.

So because of those things, we introduced a Bill to bring transparency and accountability and reporting of the number of bags purchased by the stores and the number of bags sold.

We found a subsequent to your Bill, we found a study in New Jersey that one single store in New Jersey can profit up to $200,000 a year, and that the entire industry is getting $42 million just from the sale of bags. So we have urged the authors to include some of the provisions from your Bill.

And we've also, if those were not acceptable, we think that local jurisdictions have the ability to collect this information and track it. They're preempted from doing that now because those are the provisions that are being brought over. The last thing that I would say is that the $0.10 is a minimum.

We think it's inevitable that the price of bags will go up, that people will pay more than 10 cents per bag for paper bags, and that that has a really disparate impact on people from underserved communities.

You know, for those of us that are old enough, we remember we used to, maybe we worked in a grocery store, we bagged or we bagged, we carried groceries for our parents. A lot of times you need double bags when it's paper. So there's an increased cost.

And we think that's unfair to have that population bear that burden. The last thing I will say was mentioned earlier by Mister Brown, which is the WIC customers. Under the current statute, the cashier is not allowed to ask if a person is paying with WIC.

So you can get through the whole transaction and they can build, they can be billed for the paper bags. Maybe the state's paying for that. To the WIC cards. The customer oftentimes is reticent to say they're a WIC customer. So there's all. I think there's all sorts.

So there are things that need to be improved upon, and we wish, we would hope, that they would be done in this Bill. So with that, we respectfully ask for a no vote.

Oh, okay. With your indulgence, I'd just like to establish a quorum secretary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

She's been here. Yeah. Thank you. Appreciate your patience. No problem, sir.

Chair and esteemed Members of the environmental quality Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Phil Rozinski and I am a Member. I'm representing a Member company of the American Recyclable Plastic Bag alliance. And we are here today regarding Assembly Bill 2236.

The ARPBA represents manufacturers and recyclers of plastic retail bags, including Members with operations here in California. We share the bill's stated goal of protecting the environment, but this Bill will not reduce plastic. I know it's been said that I would say that, but the reality is we've seen this developed in other states.

It actually tends to create increased use of plastic. The current law requires plastic bags used, reusable bags used today to contain 40% certified post consumer recycled content. This Bill encourages other types of plastic, reusable bags that don't have recycled content and are not recyclable in the State of California.

With that, as these bags have become more prolific, they've dropped in price. So we see them sold cheaper and cheaper and more frequently, and used less and less. And that's what we're seeing in studies across the country in jurisdictions that have done this.

In Canada, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, this bag basically substitutes one plastic with another that isn't recyclable. I understand the recent amendment sought to mitigate that by moving the bags away from the checkout counter and saying that only paper can be offered. But when you read the Bill, they just can't be at the checkout counter.

Basically, if these desks were checkout counters, you would no longer have them on the backside, you would move them 2ft away to the other so they can still sell them. It just restricts them from containing at the checkout counter. It doesn't mandate the stores use paper bags. It's an option.

And so by not offering paper, which most stores do, they'll force people to buy these bags which are not recyclable. According to media reports in 2010, many reusable bags used to have high levels of toxic heavy metals in them.

This led California to include provisions that require the testing and registration under the current law, and that is being deleted. We would ask and ask why.

Instead, are we just asking for them to have an honor system for these other bags which are made overseas, primarily in China, and have a history of a bad track record with toxins? Why is that provision being removed from the Bill? If there were no plastic bags, why is it being or plastic bags?

Why would you even need to remove it? Every legislation, make no mistake, the Bill will still allow for the use of plastic bags. They will be cheaper and they will increase in sales and they will decrease in reuse.

This amendment led its authors and the grocers and other proponents to say it ban the use of plastic bag to the point of sale. But in reality, it simply moves them 2ft away, makes them of a different material, and sacrifices consumer safety in the process. We are opposed to this Bill. We would like to see other solutions.

We do understand producer responsibility is a great opportunity for us to improve recyclability and build a system. We would like to see other alternatives to solve these problems. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Other folks who want to raise concerns about the Bill or express opposition can come to the mic.

Hi, Ryan. Elaine, on behalf of the California Retailers Association, we're officially opposed on the analysis, but with the recent amends, we're encouraged and we're going to reconsider our position. Thank you.

I like that. New. That's a new thing. Encouraged.

Encouraged. As amended. All right. Dylan Finley, on behalf of the Western Plastics Association, the Association of Plastic Recyclers. And the recycling partnership, opposed unless amended. To place the bags under the regulations of SB 54. Thank you.

Good morning. John Moffitt, on behalf of Mettler Packaging with the we have an opposing, less amended position. With the Committee amendments going into the Bill, we'll be removing our opposition. Thank you.

My name is Mike Kopulski. I'm President of Procore Products International. I am an importer and seller of all bags, cotton polypropylene plastic. I supported the Bill. I am now opposed unless amended. And I guess if one would ask why am I changing my position? The answer is guilt. I won't make a lot.

I sell more paper than any other product. I make more money on paper. But we talk about our children we are moving away from reduce, reuse, recycle. When I go shopping, my eight bags are on my body. Now. I'm going to have to carry eight bags if I choose to do that.

So I also open the first post consumer plastic recycling company.

Yeah, this is like, I understand it. I'm available. Thank you. I appreciate it. Sometimes it's a challenge on the opposition side because you have a lot of different voices. So I appreciate your perspective and thank you for being here. Okay, let's bring it to the Committee for questions and comments.

But before we do that, I wanted to just, we did want to have you verbally assert that you're accepting the amendments.

Oh, yes. Mister chair.

Great. Vice Chair Daly.

So I'm so glad I got to get to this Bill. Who's still here in spite of the seed Bill. Wicks is on her first Bill over there and I got her second. This is awesome because I did want to comment on this Bill.

So I'm going to give you my perspective of the history of the bag since I've been here. You know, they tried to ban it. They took it to, they gathered signatures. The whole story of the bags has been going on for the 12 years I've been here.

But the last iteration of the bag was we're going to charge for the bag.

And so if we charge for the bag at the point, at the point of sale, it was really frustrating to me that the environmental community stood up and said, yeah, it didn't do anything to reduce the use of the bag, which we talk about.

All it did was charge the customer the bag and who profited was the retailer got to keep. The bags are two cent. They got the who paid for it. We didn't take that money and do anything for the environment. We didn't clean any bags up. And so that was really frustrating.

I voted against that Bill because actually if we're going to do something and we're going to charge and we're going to fix the environment, we need to get the bags off the street, which we all care about. So fast forward to where we are today and here we are once again.

We're going to say we're going to redo away with the plastic bag at the point of sale and we're going to exactly what the opposition said. They're going to move it. It's still going to be cheaper. It may be cheaper than the paper bag. And I shop at Trader Joe's.

It's three blocks from my house and I only have the option of paper there, which is great, but I go home with four bags. If I get 22 bags full because they double line every one of them at Trader Joe's. At least they did yesterday when I was there.

So what are we really doing at the end of the day? I just want to say we're just moving it around and we're really not going to solve our problem because the customer, that is the Low income person that can't afford is going to try to take the cheaper option. That's what's going to happen.

They're going to use the plastic bag in front if it's cheaper. And that's right. So for me it's like, what are we doing here? Are we really saving the environment or are we just playing games with the manufacturers of two different products? I love paper.

I have a forest full of Wood I need to get rid of because it's burning down every day. I love paper. I always choose paper when I can, but occasionally I use the plastic one because I use those to line the little cans that are in my bathroom.

So I just can wad that stuff up and throw it in the recycle Bin. So for me, I'm going to be opposed to your Bill. I just want to lay that out. I have to go to another Committee. And so I would love to hear your response to some of my questions if I have time here.

First of all, you wad your cans with plastic bags. Yeah, I lied. So the little plastic bag that you get in the store, I put it inside of the. You line the trash can in the bathroom? Yes. And I throw it in there and then I don't have to like, clean. My can I do that, too? Okay.

All right. Let's. Recycle it. All right.

Good, good, good.

Well, I, for Christmas and Hanukkah, respectively, I will get you both compostable bathroom bags, which is what I use. But no. I appreciate your comments, Mister Senator Dahle

You've known me for many years and I'm the first to admit that I don't know if I'm getting it right, but I'm doing my best. And I do know that right now when I show up at the not Trader Joe's but the other market I shop at, often there isn't paper at the point of sale.

You probably have that experience, too. There's some grocery stores where the only option is plastic right now. And for me, I do bring in my recycled bags or my reusable bags. But I notice that.

And I think that we've increased the recycled content in this to make those more recyclable, not 100%, so your trees will still be utilized. You know, I do think we're trying our best to get this right.

And if you have better solutions to try to reduce the amount of plastic in our waterways, I invite that, and I would happily support it. And I just will point out that I don't think the people who make the plastic bags would be here in opposition if this were going to create more plastic.

Any more questions? Okay.

Yeah, sure.

Any questions?

China. Those Chinese manufacturers, the alternate bags, are not here. We are representing the bags that would be replaced and are made here in California, America. So I just would like a point of order about characterization of what we represent.

Okay. Appreciate that. Thank you. Okay. Obviously, we heard this Bill in the Blakespear form earlier, and I think you came and testified there, too. Okay. All right. You know, anyhow, any interest in a motion from. Yeah. Okay. So we've got a motion from Senator Hurtado. Looking forward to further discussions.

I know that you'll be discussing the issues that have been raised during the recess. Obviously, we tried, you know, last year with our Bill, unsuccessfully. But a lot. There's much in this Bill which relates to the issues we were trying to address there, though not all. Love to give the author the opportunity to close.

I just want to close, really, by thanking the chair for his leadership in this space. I think a lot of his work has been highlighted today, whether it was his comprehensive look at plastics or the Bill that UFCW brought forward. And I think that that work has really laid the groundwork for continuing to move forward.

And I don't know if this will be the perfect solution. And I trust that the people who come after us may have to continue this effort. But with that, I respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Thank you. All right, secretary, please call the roll.

Senator. zero. The motion on this Bill is do pass as amended to appropriations. Senators Allen, aye. Allen, aye. Dahle, no. Dahle? No. Gonzalez? Hurtado? Hurtado, aye. Minjavar? Win. Skinner.

All right, thank you. We'll keep that roll up. And thank you. And thank you, everyone, for participating on both sides and looking forward to further discussions. All right, finally, savings. Yeah.

Okay, now we're gonna go to AB 2085. Bye, Senator.

You sure you don't want to stay for this one, Brian? No.

Maybe I should say good afternoon. Is it afternoon yet?

Good afternoon.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Senators all again accept the Committee amendments on AB 2085. And this is a really simple Bill.

About a year ago, I was sitting with one of the folks that works at our Planned Parenthoods, listening to what she did every day and listening to the fights she was waging across California to try to open health clinics in communities that were hostile to abortion access.

And one of the things that, you know, we all know in this room is when Planned Parenthood opens in communities where there is not enough healthcare, they provide critical frontline health care to those communities in the form of prenatal care and STD treatments and other critical, critical health care needs in addition to abortion care, which is an important aspect of what our clinics do across California.

And so we started to realize that really the next thing we needed to do as a state that guarantees access to comprehensive health care, including abortion, was make sure that local communities were not blocking this access to healthcare. And that's what this Bill does.

It is a simple streamlining Bill that will ensure that where cities and counties have zoned appropriately for healthcare clinics, that they cannot block the construction of the clinics through bad faith requirements and unnecessary regulatory hurdles.

It requires ministerial approval of clinics that meet all of the locality standards, ending these arbitrary instructions of life saving care with me today is Molly Robeson from Planned Parenthood of California.

Much anticipated.

I know. Thank you. Good morning. Molly Robeson, Vice President, Human Affairs with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, where we represent the seven affiliates in the state who operate over 110 health centers and provide asexual and reproductive health care to almost a million patients annually.

Since the Dobbs decision two years ago, we've seen attacks on abortion and reproductive health care and gender affirming care all intensify, turning access to healthcare into political battlegrounds, which has dangerous consequences.

Some of what we've seen play out in the kind of political battle is using land use and planning tools as a way to weaponize access to health care.

For example, in the City of Fontana, the local Planned Parenthood received verbal approval to construct a new clinic on a vacant site already zoned for healthcare, after following standard procedure, abiding by local guidelines, and adjusting as needed to ensure compliance.

It was a surprise when there was a moratorium placed on any new buildings in the area where the prospective health center was planned for. That moratorium has been determined to only impact this health center.

In a post Dobbs era, when millions have lost access to abortion and other reproductive healthcare in their home states, it's critical that California access is not impeded. The Fontana Health center, for example, would have provided an estimated 2,000 medical visits per month and positively impacted the community.

AB 2085 ensures that local jurisdictions can't unjustly interfere with the construction delivery of healthcare and delivers on California's commitment as a reproductive freedom state. I respectfully urge your aye vote thanks.

Thank you. All right, other folks who want to voice support for the Bill, come to the mic.

Good morning Chair, Committee Members Jonathan Clay, on behalf of the County of San Diego, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Dylan Stapleton on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Aleni Kunalakis, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Martin Radosevich, on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for all California proud co-sponsor. As well as ACOG District 9 as a support for the Bill. Thank you.

Good morning Mister Chair and Members Dennis Cuevas Romero with the California Primary Care Association Advocates in strong support of the Bill.

Thank you very much.

Ellen Brittingham on behalf of both the Northern and Southern California Chapters of the International Interior Design Association in support.

Folks, you want to. So we have opposition here. Great. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you honorable Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Cecilia Iglesias, former school board Member and Council Member in Santana and currently Director of the Pastores Latinos, representing over 120 bipartisan Latino pastors and faith leaders from the Central Valley in Southern California, we stand united in defending life, family and liberty under the First Amendment.

Today, I speak in strong opposition to AB 2085. AB 2085 mandates that cities must permit community clinics, specifically abortion facilities, and allows lawsuits against municipalities that do not comply. Cities should have the autonomy to regulate businesses based on their communities values and needs, just as they do with casinos, tobaccos and liquor stores.

Our coalition is committed to protecting all life and upholding the principle of local governance. Abortion is not just another health care service. It is a profound moral issue requiring local discretion. Forcing municipalities to accept abortion facilities imposes a specific moral view and discriminates against other forms of reproductive care that are critically needed.

In California, one in four women receives inadequate prenatal care. 46 maternity wards have closed since 2012 and maternal mortality rates have doubled. It is inconceivable to prioritize expanding abortion facilities while neglecting essential maternity and prenatal care services.

AB 2085 could be seen as reproductive coercion, especially in Latino communities where access to quality maternal care is already a challenge. Abortion is widely accessible in California with over 400 facilities availability on college campuses and through Telehealth.

Instead of expanding abortion access, we urge you to focus on ensuring comprehensive prenatal and postnatal care for all women, especially Latino women. AB 2085 undermines local control, discriminates against comprehensive reproductive care infringes upon religious liberty and promotes a harmful agenda.

Spanish Speaking

I urge you to reject this Bill and work with us to support all aspects of women's health, particularly those related to pregnancy and motherhood. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Honorable Members of the Committee. Alejandra represents Abivamiento Nasolabos and the Coalition De Pastores Latinos, a network of more than 100 pastors and leaders of faith in Southern California. She firmly opposes to AB 2085, which allows lawsuits against cities that do not comply with the mandate to open clinics such as Planned Parenthood in our communities.

Spanish Speaking

She's a mother, a woman, and a defender of life, family, education and human rights, deeply concerned about the physical, emotional and spiritual well being of individuals in our communities.

Although Planned Parenthood provides prenatal and maternity care in the name of comprehensive reproductive health, its emphasis and focus on abortion, which is an act of violence and discrimination against the development of life, nullifies any positive effort they can make.

Spanish Speaking

She supports legislation that promotes clinics truly dedicated to the integral well being of life from conception to any stage of the human being. The focus should be in supporting centers that really value and protect the life and dignity of every human being, including the unborn.

As a woman of faith and mother, I oppose this type of clinics in our communities.

Spanish Speaking

Let me quote a truth from the Bible in psalms 139. You made my whole being my feelings like my body. You made me take shape in my mother's womb. I know very well that your works are wonderful. You saw my bones grow while my body formed in my mother's womb. You saw forming every part of my body.

As wonderfully formed individuals, we have the right to live long, live life in the belly, know to plan parenthood in our communities and cities. Thank you very much. God bless you all.

Thank you. Thank you, Michelle. Gracia. Let's, let's have folks who want to raise concerns about the Bill come to the microphone.

Express your opposition. Greg Burt, Vice President of the California Family Council, in opposition. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, anyone else wants to raise concerns? Yes.

Okay, thank you. Gracias. All right, back to the Committee. Questions, comments, thoughts? Motion for the bill? Do you want to, do either of you want to respond to some of the concerns that were raised by the opposition?

I can. Thank you, Mister Chair. I just want to say, I mean, I agree wholeheartedly with the opposition that we have communities across California, and many are communities of color, low-income communities, who don't have access to prenatal care. And it's part of the mission of this bill.

This bill does not dictate that a clinic has to provide comprehensive reproductive health care. It merely has to provide reproductive healthcare to be allowed in.

And I'll be honest, one of the supporters in my local community was someone who asked us to expand out the bill because we couldn't get a facility built that would have dealt with addiction care, because there were people who just thought that shouldn't be in their community.

And so, there's a lot of reasons why people deny facilities that our communities need for their health and well-being. And we're seeing that in the reproductive healthcare space. And so, it is critical that we allow these facilities to be built. I have two planned parenthoods in my community. One doesn't provide abortion care. One does.

But both are equally important in providing comprehensive care to my community. So, I really think this is an important step in the right direction in providing some of what we heard from the opposition, which is that prenatal care, that's so critical. Thank you.

And I mean, the central premise here is that, you know, the politics end up getting so intense that the normal discretionary permitting processes should, ought to be bypassed.

Yes. I mean, the decisions that are being made in certain parts of the state are, that are discriminatory against reproductive health care. Again, as I mentioned, those can be on the basis of the politics around abortion care. They can be based on other reasons.

You know, I'm sure all of us have people in our communities who don't want businesses in their community for lots of reasons. I'll be honest, we hear that every day up here on the housing fights and things like that.

So, I think that the thing is, California has said that this area is a priority for us, and we need to make sure that there are not artificial barriers put up to providing reproductive health care to Californians.

All right, we'll take that as your close.

Yes, thank you, Mister Chair.

I know this discussion is going to continue. Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 2085. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Okay. Thank you. Okay, we have some other members here. I think Assembly Member Grayson's next. Oh, no. Oh, okay. Oh. Oh. In the second row. What are you doing hiding back there? All right, come on up, Assembly Member Bains. Excellent. All right. Harbor craft. Less controversial than.

Sure, hope so.

Reproductive politics. All right. Yeah, a little bit. Yeah. What do you think, Eric? Okay. All right. Here we go. Though not without controversy, let's be honest. Okay. You may proceed when ready.

Awesome. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. First, let me thank the Committee staff for their work on the bill. There are a lot of stakeholders who care deeply about our ports, our marine environment, and the safety of our maritime workforce.

The proposed committee amendments that I am accepting strike an important balance in protecting the safety and income of workers while putting in place important guardrails that ensure bad actors cannot abuse the system. California leads a nation in environmental progress, and our ports are a vital part of our economy.

But we must ensure that our progress does not come at the expense of safety or the well-being of our maritime workforce. New CARB regulations will reduce air pollution at our ports by requiring more efficient and cleaner engine technologies on commercial harbor craft like tugboats.

Improving our air quality in frontline port communities is an important goal that I do support.

A lot of people do not realize that cleaning up the air of the ports of LA and Long Beach will also improve the air quality in my district of Kern County because so much of that pollution blows over the grapevine and settles in the southern San Joaquin Valley.

As a family physician, I see far too many kids and seniors with asthma and other potentially life-threatening respiratory conditions. So, this is important work that I want to see come to fruition.

One of the challenges in achieving these air quality improvements is that the engine technology to meet CARB's requirements simply does not exist, and it will require the use of special filters that reach temperatures of over 1500 degrees.

These high temperatures and unproven technologies pose unique dangers on boats where a fire or a loss of propulsion is deadly and potentially disastrous, as we saw just this year in Baltimore, where lives were lost, and repairs are estimated at more than 4 billion.

In recognition of these concerns, the U.S. Coast Guard, the maritime industry, and the unions representing vessel workers had asked that CARB's regulations include a bypass system that would allow the captain to maintain full power in the event of an emergency.

CARB rejected these requests, and the regulations disallow any bypass system to be used, even in the event of an emergency. AB 1122 will ensure that these safety concerns are not ignored by permitting a bypass system to be used during an emergency.

To ensure these systems are not abused, the bill requires robust reporting requirements that detail when, why and how they are used. While CARB has seen, has since revisited its position and has now indicated to the Coast Guard that they will issue an executive order to override the ban on bypass systems. They haven't done so yet.

Since executive orders are issued outside the public process and can be unilaterally rescinded, AB 1122 provides a certainty that should have been included in the original regulations. In addition, the bill includes a provision that will minimize lost income for workers when their vessel is in dry dock, being updated with cleaner engine components.

While vessels are in dry dock, crews are not paid, and the unions have estimated that their members could lose anywhere from 25% to 30% of their income for vessels to comply with the new CARB rules. AB 1122 addresses this problem by allowing vessels to align to their coast guard inspection schedule with the requirement to install new engines.

Since crews already operate around these inspections, alignment will significantly reduce the impact on worker incomes. Committee amendments taken today both clarify and cap these alignment extensions so that they truly are for the benefit of the workers and not simply an excuse to extend noncompliance.

We have drafted AB 1122 with the intent to be narrow and tailored in addressing the legitimate safety and economic concerns raised by stakeholders. This bill is supported by the unions representing workers, including the California Labor Federation, among many others. And with me today, I have two key witnesses.

Who are these two key witnesses?

My name is Kyle Burleson with the American Waterways Operators.

Captain Sly Hunter, regional representative for Masters, Mates, and Pilots.

Okay, great, we may proceed.

Good morning, Committee Members. My name is Kyle Burleson. I'm the Director of State Advocacy for the American Waterways Operators, which is the advocate, resource, and united voice for the tugboat, towboat, and barge industry. Our industry appreciates Chair Allen for hearing this bill and Assembly Member Bains for championing workplace safety for mariners.

As I shared at Assembly Chair Mike Gipson's hearing at the Port of San Francisco in November, the barge and towing industry is the most sustainable mode of freight transportation, with rail producing 43% more greenhouse gas emissions than barge transportation and trucks producing over 800% more.

California should be very proud of its maritime importance, raking third across the country in waterborne commerce by ton. 239 million tons of freight moved by vessels in California each year, creating more than $12 billion in economic activity.

Our members' footprint in California stretches from San Diego to Northern California and the inland ports system as well, like here in Sacramento. So, with this backdrop, we ask you to pass AB 1122 in the name of workplace safety.

With the recent changes to the commercial harbor craft rule, our industry has spoken up all along the way that there is an odd and potentially dangerous provision that needs correcting. Unfortunately, CARB has ignored our pleas, so we're turning our voice to you.

We're also joined by the three most prominent labor unions that work within the towing industry, including the Masters, Mates, and Pilots, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, and the Inland Boatman's Union of the Pacific. It also bears mentioning the California Labor Federation has pledged its support to this bill.

We're asking that before diesel particulate filters are required to be installed, the standard safety process is followed. Whenever new equipment is installed on a vessel, a third-party auditor, known as a vessel class society, vets the product to ensure that it's safe and it will not catch fire under duress.

For whatever reason, CARB has bypassed these safety experts, which also include the United States Coast Guard. If DPFs sound familiar to you, it's because of the fires they've started on school buses and semi-trucks. These DPFs need careful consideration because of their infamous history and the size and stability concerns they create on towing vessels.

If you imagine trying to put two VW bugs on a tugboat, that's what we're talking about, and putting them up relatively high above the engine. So, the stability concerns are very real. In our 80-year history, our trade Association has never had to ask a Legislature to intervene to protect lives on board a vessel.

But that's what's needed here, because CARB did not act before. We do not expect them to prioritize mariner and workplace safety in the future. Thank you for your time. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Good morning, Chair Allen and members of the Committee. My name is Captain Sly Hunter. I'm a 30-year San Francisco Bay captain, retired, and currently the regional representative for Masters, Mates, and Pilots. As a regional representative, I represent the men and women in the entire state from the Golden Gate to the Vincent Thomas Bridge.

I personally oversee all of all of our collective bargain agreements. I negotiate all our contracts and deal with all our member issues. As a regional rep, I can tell you that before we do anything in a collective bargain agreement in regards to economics or anything else, the first item on the agenda is safety.

You can have the best contract in the world. If your men and women aren't coming home safely, then that contract is is useless.

Just to give you a little tidbit about who we are, if you ever saw the movie Captain Phillips, that's a master, not Tom the actor, but the actual Richard Phillips is a member of Masters, Mates, and Pilots. And so that's part of our blue water.

Is that the movie where the pirates take over the ship?

Yes.

Does that ever happen in San Francisco?

It's happening now. Yes. Our ships are under fire currently. Now.

Not in San Francisco.

No. But I'm saying, yeah, that movie was about him being taken hostage. Yes. Tom Hanks. Tom Hanks is not a member, although we would we would welcome him. So, yeah, that's actually one of our guys. But I deal with the inland side, and we actually have contracts here in Sacramento and in Stockton.

So, I have men and women who work on the boats water here. As I was saying, I oversee all the contracts, and our first priority is safety. And the priority is to ensure that our members have the opportunity to work.

And that's the other part of the bill, is if these boats are laid up, you know, every two and a half years, any boat that's on salt water is going to go into dry dock anyway.

And if those dry dockings, if we have extra dry dockings, that's a 20 or 30% reduction in workforce, and that's everything for us. That's huge. And so, this is why we are partnered with MIBA and the IBU in support of this.

None of our unions will crew a vessel unless the companies ensure that everything on board is conducted according to the United States Coast Guard standards and independently inspected. It is only then we can have some peace of mind that our members will return home safe from one of the most dangerous professions there is.

I won't go into a lot. I did a gut and amend, I borrowed that term, on my statement because of everything that was brought up. But if you looked at the news recently, I think we see the importance of the tugboats in the tugboat industry. They're not going to decrease. They're going to increase. On a vessel.

Engines are not just the gas pedal, engines are also the brakes, steering. And simply put, anything that can get in the way of properly and fully functioning engines creates a serious safety issue that endangers the crew, infrastructure, and environment.

And if you want personal information from me on some elisions that I have personally been a part of, I can tell you, you know, in detail afterwards. The other portion of the bill ensures there's no unnecessary disruptions, and our members only earn income when they're on the vessel.

And so, most of our contracts, the boats are considered what we call double crew. I don't know if you're aware of that, where we actually have a dayside and nightside crew. So, the boat's available 24 hours.

So, when one boat goes out of commission, that's just not one crew, that's two crews that are sitting on the beach, not earning. Chair Allen and members, this bill is about safety and income of the men and women that work in extreme conditions to keep our infrastructure and beautiful coast protected.

MMP, IBU, and MEBA appreciate your support of our members. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, other folks who want to weigh in support, just express your support.

Good morning. My name is Kevin Hartley. I'm a graduate of California Maritime Academy, a maritime professional. I work for Crowley Maritime. We actually own and operate the first all-electric tugboat. With that being said, we are here in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Greg Hurner and I was asked to convey support on behalf of the Dredging Contractors of America who got in their late letter of support.

Good morning. Jennifer Cohen with PMSA in support.

Good morning, Chair and members. Elmer Lizardi, on behalf of the California Labor Federation, in support.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. All right. Opposition. Anyone who wants to raise concerns about the bill, come on up. You can come up to the front here if you want.

Good morning. My name is Theresa Bui with the environmental nonprofit Pacific Environment. We have a consultative status with the International Maritime Organization and helped led the coalition in support of the commercial harbor craft rule back in 2022.

We're really thankful for all the work working with the authors and sponsor's office, but we regretfully must oppose this bill. In terms of the DPF safety, and we concur with the staff's recommendation in terms of, you know, CARB has already required DPF manufacturers to demonstrate safe and durable field performance.

CARB has already conducted approximately 9,000 hours of operation, and they have not found any documented safety. And there's already been back and forth with the U.S. Coast Guard in terms of collaboration there. Harborcraft are the major driver of air pollution at seaports, and tugboats represent 20% of the emissions.

Our understanding is like with DPFs, if a tugboat were to go to zero-emission, they could bypass the DPF. And just last week, we saw the first all-electric tugboat launch at the port of San Diego. So, we're already seeing zero-emission technologies now.

Why are we going to tier four, which is still diesel emission, cleaner, but diesel emission with a DPF? And then on the second piece, we support staff's recommendation. We think that the amendments goes a long ways in terms of addressing our concerns and really appreciate the author's office for working with us on that.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else who wants to voice concern or opposition to the bill, come to the mic.

Good morning. Sophia Aficoa with the Coalition for Clean Air. We have an opposed position, but we do support the amendments recommended in the Committee analysis. Thank you.

Thank you.

Rebecca Marcus, representing the Union of Concerned Scientists, aligning our comments with Pacific Environment. Thank you.

Mister Chair, Mark Fenstermaker for Earth Justice, opposed for the reasons stated by Pacific Environment. Thank you.

All right. We're bringing it to the committee for discussion. You know, I mean, I hear and I'm sympathetic to a lot of the opposition concerns. I do think that, you know, in the end of the day, we've crafted some amendments that I think really go substantially move us substantially toward some of the broad environmental goals.

But I know there's going to continue to be some tension over providing more flexibility, which I really understand. These are folks who are very devoted to doing everything we can to reduce pollution, and, and that's what this is ultimately all about.

So, I'm happy to support the bill today with the amendments, but I do want to encourage the author to continue working with the opposition. I know that some of the arguments are coming in relatively late, but I didn't feel comfortable stalling the bill with that in mind, especially since we're right up against the recess.

But I really do. I'd like to ask you to commit to sitting down with the opponents and spend some time working with them on some of their core concerns.

No, I mean, absolutely. Look, I'm a physician. I care about air pollution. That's obvious. And it's offensive if people think that I don't care about air pollution. I see patients that suffer from it daily. But at the same time, does that mean we sacrifice the life of people that are working as maritime workforce right now? There are true emergency.

Sacrifice the life? What do you mean by that?

Yes, so literally, if we don't have a bypass system. A tugboat is not a vehicle. They can't just pull over to the side. If there's an emergency, you turn off power, you lose power, that thing sinks. We saw this happen. There's been lives that have been taken. That is nothing that is not, like, up for discussion.

There is a safety concern here. Look, I have been working with the opposition. That's not, you cannot say that we have not been doing that, but trying to put all of our eggs in one basket. I applaud the fact that there's the first zero-emission electronic tugboat, but that's one of so many that we have out there.

The transition's happening. No one's fighting that. Let's save the lives today. Let's save the lives in 30 years. Let's save the lives in 100 years. But let's not sacrifice the lives that are here today. As a physician, I care about the lives today. I care about the lives tomorrow. I care about the lives in 100 years as well.

It seems like a lot of the concerns come down to the delaying of compliance dates for retrofit and replacement, that kind of thing. So, that's not a question of emergency preparedness.

As of right now, if we don't offer a bypass system, it could cost lives. Which we saw happen already.

What happened before? What are you referring to?

In Baltimore, there was loss of propulsion.

Okay, well, all right. Let's have some further discussion. I'll support the bill with the amendments having been taken, but I'd love to have some further discussion. All right. Yes, Senator.

The topic of life. Happy belated birthday to the assemblywoman. And with that, I move the Bill.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1122. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]

All right, we'll leave that on call for other folks to add on. Thank you. Okay, let's go to Senator Grayson. The alarm goes off the second you step up, Tim. All right, future Senator Grayson, you may proceed.

Appreciate your optimism. And good, is it morning still? Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 1296 prohibits state regulations from requiring or compelling the San Francisco Bar Pilots to replace three specified pilot station boats unless the regulation authorizes the replacement of a pilot station boat once it reaches the end of its useful service life.

San Francisco Bar Pilots, or SFBP, provide an essential service by safely navigating commercial vessels to and from nine Northern California ports. Now, under the California code, SFBP is mandated to maintain a minimum of two pilot boats in service, with one boat on station in the open ocean at all times.

To meet these requirements, SFBP maintains a fleet of five. Five pilot boats. California Air Resources Board's commercial harbor craft regulations, which were effective or will be effective December 31, 2024 will render SFP's services nearly impossible.

With a total construction cost of 68 million, not including financing, replacing these three vessels within the specified deadlines is neither financially nor logistically feasible. AB 1296 proposes a viable pathway to achieve CARB compliance by extending carbs deadlines to match the service life the station boats.

This approach allows sufficient time to collect the necessary funds to build new CARB-compliant boats one at a time, without financing the construction cost and saving tens of millions of dollars. Ultimately though, AB 1296 will ensure the economic health and stability of the pilotage system while aligning with California's environmental goals.

And I do have witnesses with us here today. I'll have self introduced.

Okay.

Good morning Mr. Chairman. My name is Kevin Baldwin. I'm General Counsel for the San Francisco Bar Pilots, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of this Bill.

This Bill provides the San Francisco Bar Pilots with a viable path to compliance with the CARB regulations. Under current regulations, as Assemblymember Grayson mentioned, it's neither financially nor practically feasible to comply with the regulations on the existing deadlines.

San Francisco Bar Pilot station boats cannot be repowered in order to comply due to space restrictions and the size of the diesel particulate filters needed to bring the boats into compliance. Instead, we need to build brand-new custom boats at a cost of $22 million apiece.

If we had to build all three of those boats under the existing deadlines today, we would have to finance that project, and the cost of paying back that financing would be over $86 million. SFBP, as an entity, is simply unable to guarantee that amount of debt, and in addition, it's not practically possible to do so.

The lead times on the equipment needed to build those boats currently would not allow us to complete them within the existing deadlines.

The engines themselves have a lead time of over a year, and there's also extremely limited space in shipyards that are capable of building these types of boats, particularly on the West Coast, in part due to competition from other entities that are attempting to comply with the CARB regulations.

It simply wouldn't be possible to build three of these boats in the next year. This Bill will allow SFBP to collect the funding in advance. Build the station boats one at a time.

We would be able to build one boat approximately every three years utilizing the pilot boat surcharge, which is a surcharge added to the pilot pilotage fee that every ship calling in San Francisco Bay ports pays. That surcharge collects approximately $6 million a year.

So approximately every three years we would have enough money to build a new boat without financing it. This would save the industry approximately $20 million or more in finance charges. It's industry that ultimately pays for these vessels.

This Bill would also allow the industry to receive the benefit of their previous investment in the existing vessels by allowing the existing vessels to serve out their useful service life. The Bill is very narrowly tailored.

We specifically named the vessels in the Bill so that there can't be any kind of bleed-over allowing unintended beneficiaries of this Bill to delay their own CARB compliance. San Francisco Bar Pilots, as Assemblymember Grayson mentioned, are statutorily mandated to provide this service.

Statutorily mandated to maintain a boat on station outside of the Golden Gate at all times, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In order to do this, we need these three boats operational. It's simply not feasible to take them offline while we build new boats.

So this Bill will allow us to maintain that critical service that is required to keep trade coming in and out of ports, the nine Bay Area ports. CARB does have extensions within its framework. Those extensions aren't sufficient to allow San Francisco Bar Pilots to undertake a build project of this size.

The extensions are one or two years in length only, and CARB won't exceed those amounts. And with a build project that exceeds $66 million, it's just not feasible to operate that project, to undertake that project with the uncertainty of whether or not we'll be able to get another extension each and every year.

And so in some, this Bill allows San Francisco Bar Pilots to attain compliance with CARB regulations. It just does so on a timeline that's feasible. And so thank you very much and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Mike Jacob with Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. And we represent ocean carriers, so we represent the customers of the pilots. And we want to thank Assemblymember Grayson for the work on this.

Going back to last session, we worked on trying to get everything put together so we could go through this process in a prospective manner and begin to build those funds necessary to replace the vessels, which is, Mr. Baldwin pointed out, are part of our compulsory pilotage system.

So that's a two way street as the customers, basically, we're representing ocean carriers that are coming to the port of Oakland, port of San Francisco, port of Redwood City, Stockton, Sacramento. We cannot access those ports lawfully without access to a pilot.

And the only way to access a pilot at the pilot station is with one of these vessels. The vessels will not be completed on January 1, 2025. They won't even be ordered yet. And if they are ordered, the engines won't be ready. So what we're asking for is a way to actually plan for compliance.

We think as stated in the Committee analysis, it was very, very clear that there's already a process that CARB has put together for managing that type of compliance on an ad hoc, one-off basis, on a year to two-year schedule.

As Mr. Baldwin pointed out, what we're asking for is something a little more comprehensive, a glide path for compliance that's planned, that goes forward and matches with our financing that we already have authorized under the Bill that Mr. Grayson authored for us and was supported by the Legislature two years ago. So thank you very much. We appreciate your consideration. Happy to answer questions.

Okay. All right, let's, let's ask other folks who want to support the Bill to come to the microphone phone. Express support. Yes.

Baltazar Cornejo with Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support.

Thank you. All right, opposition folks who want to raise concerns about the Bill.

Sorry, it's me again, Teresa Bui with Pacific Environment. While we are sympathetic to the sponsors of the Bill, the Assembly already. The Legislature already killed one Bill this year that was proposing to exempt just one vessel for 15 years, AB-3153.

We're very concerned with how this would set a terrible precedent and that other industries would also seek exemptions or extensions and delays that would undermine the commercial Harbor Craft Rule. My understanding is that the two biggest concerns with the sponsors is the cost as well as the shipyards.

In terms of the cost, we are supporting SB-295 by Senator Dodd. That would allow the sponsors to raise the pilotage rate. And then where, you know, CARB already allows for two year extensions that are renewable so they can renew it every two years while they're fixing the, addressing the shipyard.

And as I mentioned earlier, we saw the first electric tugboat in San Diego last week. Next week, we're gonna see the first hydrogen fuel cell ferry launching at the Port of San Francisco. So, you know, the technology is already coming into place thanks to the Harbor Craft Rule.

And we wanna make sure that these bills are not gonna undermine CARB's ability to regulate and implement the Harbor Craft Rule and all the emissions benefits thanks to this rule. As I mentioned before, Harbor Craft is one of the top three cancer causing emissions at the ports themselves. So, again, we hope that you would hold this Bill. Thank you so much for your attention.

Yeah, but we're talking about three votes here, right?

Yes, but it will go till 2030 and 2040. And again, we think that there are CARB already.

Is that really. I'm sorry, is that really the case? That 20.

No, no. I think, respectfully, that Miss Bui is confused about what we're asking for. What we're asking for is the ability to use these boats until their useful service life has ended. Two of these boats were built in 2020. Their useful. Or in 2000, sorry.

Their useful service life is expected to be 30 years. So those boats have about six years left on their useful service life, and we anticipate that they would be retired both of those boats within six years. We anticipate being able to build one boat every three years.

So within six years, we ought to have two boats built and operating that are CARB compliant, and the third one within an additional three years. So at most, what we're looking at is probably nine years of extension on one of the boats. 3 years extension on one, 6 years on the other.

It's not guaranteed, right? That's your essential point, yeah.

Under no circumstances are we looking at 2040. The third boat was built in 2010, so it's useful service life is maybe 20 years.

I don't know, with a good enough mechanic.

We get a good mechanic, we can stretch it out.

We're trying to reduce waste and recycle here. Okay. All right. I'm going to support the Bill. I mean, I. But I, you know, I understand there's a slippery slope argument here.

I think that you're essentially making, and I think it's ultimately up to us to ensure that while we're providing a very narrow flexibility here, this doesn't mean that there's any interest on the part of this Committee to open the floodgates on this issue more broadly.

So I recognize how narrow this is and I'm willing to support it when we have a motion, but I think you're right to come in and raise these concerns Teresa. Yeah. Okay. All right. Other opposition? Yeah.

Sofia Rafikova, with the Coalition for Clean Air. In opposition.

Rebecca Marcus, representing the Union of Concerned Scientists. Opposed. Thank you.

And Mark Fenstermaker, for Earth Justice. Opposed.

And Mark? I mean, essentially the opposition is all related to what Miss Bui was bringing up. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. I'll let you close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do want to express my appreciation and gratitude toward the Committee and their analysis, as well as your lens and perspective as well.

And I do appreciate the voice of opposition, which is very, very important to make sure that we reach our goals and we follow regulations as handed down by CARB, which is one reason why the Bill is incredibly prescriptive, even to the naming of the boats, as well as the fact that we're not asking for an exemption, but an extension just for the life of the boats, with the ultimate goal of three years each as far as a build out.

These are not boats you can order from Amazon, nor can you go to the nearest sports store and pull off the lot with a trailer. These are boats that require extensive design and work and take years to be able to build and put into place.

So with that, we greatly appreciate the work of the Committee and I will respectfully ask for and aye vote at the appropriate time.

Great. Thank you. All right.

Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember, come on up. Okay, you may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. I'm here to present Assembly Bill 2958, which would compensate local air district representatives on the Governing Board of the California Air Resources Board. Existing law unfairly prohibits the compensation of six air district representatives. This prohibition does not apply to other voting board members who have similar duties and receive an annual salary.

Limiting these board members' compensation discredits the unique local perspective they bring to CARB's programs. AB 2958 would ensure pay parity by compensating local air district representatives in the same manner as other voting representatives. With me in support of AB 2958 is Alan Abbs on behalf of the Bay Area Quality Management District and Derrick Alatorre on behalf of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

Good morning, Chair. My name is Derrick Alatorre. I'm Deputy Executive Officer for Legislative, Public Affairs, and Media at South Coast AQMD. We are in strong support of AB 2958 and serve as the bill's sponsor. As the Assembly Member stated, the bill would allow CARB board members representing air districts to start receiving the same compensation as other voting CARB board members. Parity. Currently, there is an extreme and unfair imbalance regarding compensation for CARB board members. The air district board members get, at the maximum, 20% of what the other voting CARB members get.

Excluding the Chair, voting board members who do not represent local air districts receive up to over $50,000 a year. In contrast, the board members that represent air districts receive just the per diem for the meetings that they attend. Since there is no difference in the job performed, there should be pay equity and amongst the voting all of the voting members. At the local level, air district board members throughout the state receive a nominal compensation for the hard work cleaning the air and protecting the public health.

These dedicated public servants have essential duties to perform as elected officials or are private citizens with existing careers. Minimal compensation at the local level already makes it harder and more difficult to balance existing professional and personal obligations with duties required to serve their communities. These burdens are compounded by the lack of compensation for those who answer the call to serve on CARB. AB 2958 could facilitate more diverse participation on the board. Thus, we respectfully request an aye vote for this important bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Allen. My name is Alan Abbs. I'm the Legislative Officer with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. My counterpart pretty much covered everything that needs to be said. I'll just give a very brief local perspective from the Bay Area AQMD.

We have 24 board members on our board, about equally split between county supervisors and city council members. Many of those city council members represent very small cities in the Bay Area. They get little to no compensation for serving as a city council member, then get little to no compensation for serving on the Bay Area AQMD. And then one lucky member gets to also have almost a, you know, a pretty full job representing the air district on the CARB board.

And so in some cases, you know, we have people doing a significant amount of work supporting their local community as an elected official and then supporting local air quality policies and then statewide air quality policies. And so we think it's important to recognize the work that they do and compensate them equally with other CARB board members. And so I'd respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Yep. Okay. Thank you. Folks who want to raise voice support for the bill?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Hello, Chair and Members. Kevin Scheive on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, let's hear from... Yeah. Yes, sir.

Sorry about that. Jared Maas will be up to the Sacramento Air Quality in support.

Okay. All right. Opposition, concerns about the bill? Is that you? No? Okay. You're going out. You've had enough? Okay. All right. Yeah. It's been a long day already. Okay. No opposition. I support the bill. I am aware of this issue. We'll take a motion when we have more Members. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay, let's hear from Assembly Member Papan, who's got, presenting two bills to the committee. Okay, you may proceed when ready.

Mr. Chair, how are you?

Yes, yes. You know, all alone. Well, with some wonderful people. With some wonderful people.

Which one would you like me to...

Let's start with 1359.

Got it.

So this one is about geothermal energy, and it presents a tremendous opportunity for green energy. AB 1359 is a really simple Bill that will jumpstart geothermal energy production in California. It focuses on making the CEQA permitting process of exploratory wells local. Local exploratory wells.

It repeals the requirement that CalGEM be the lead agency to do a CEQA review of exploratory wells. By way of background, before development of a geothermal field can be in earnest, the developer needs to drill exploratory wells to gather data and confirm project feasibility.

Under CEQA, the exploration phase and the building geothermal field are treated as two separate projects. So now we're only dealing with the exploration phase.

Unfortunately, an old misguided provision of the law designates the state Geological Energy Management division, or CalGEM, as the lead agency for CEQA for exploratory wells, rather than a local agency acting as the lead. This provision was intended to streamline the process and get geothermal plants online faster.

But what's ended up happening is with projects languishing in CalGEM purgatory before they can even begin. Counties already typically serve as the lead agency on the geothermal field and are well equipped to serve as the lead on the exploratory wells. It's important this Bill will not weaken CEQA in any way.

In fact, this may be the only CEQA Bill in which the sponsors want to be treated just like every other CEQA project, by having the exploratory CEQA submissions reviewed locally. Here to testify with me today is Kate Brandenburg on behalf of Sonoma Clean Power.

Good morning. Thank you Chairman. Thank you, Assemblymember Papan, for carrying this Bill. My name is Kate Brandenburg and I represent Sonoma Clean Power. Sonoma Clean Power is a community-owned power provider for both Sonoma and Mendocino counties. Sonoma is really proud that we are ahead of the curve on clean energy.

We actually procure about 90% clean energy as our portfolio at this time. But what's happening with energy is that during the evening, so nighttime and also in the winter, we do not have sun or wind at times.

And so we're having to rely on natural gas just like the rest of the state, and we're paying for natural gas when we're not using it. And the costs are going, are extremely high. And so our analysts looked at the issue as how do we solve this?

And what they came up with is that next-generation geothermal is one of the solutions. It's not the solution, but it's one of them. And as we started looking into it, Sonoma Clean Power has a geo zone initiative that our plan is to build 600 geothermal new generation, or next generation is what they're calling it.

And this, we have found, is very affordable. It is reliable, it's clean, firm energy resources, and it is also resilient to natural disasters. It's one that, as with geothermal right now, you can turn it, you know, with next-generation geothermal, you'll be able to turn it on or off when needed.

And so there's a variety of different aspects to next-generation geothermal. And the US Department of Energy came up with a report recently that said on affordability.

The report highlighted the study that found that the aggressive deployment of next-generation geothermal power could lower the cost of decarbonizing the western grid as much as 25% compared with the status quo. And so, you know, unfortunately, as Assemblymember Papan mentioned, that there is an issue with existing statute where CalGEM is a lead agency.

And this was something that was brought about in the seventies. Now we're looking at it, and we would like to just be recognized as everyone else, sun, you know, for solar, for wind projects, for oil and gas projects. We would like to have the lead agency be the local agency, be the lead agency on this.

And the one thing I would like to point out is since the state adopted the 100% Clean Energy goal in 2018, CalGEM has issued zero approvals for new geothermal exploration and Imperial County, though, because of the way the statute is drafted, they have it in their general plan to be able to site and be the lead agency for geothermal plants.

And so they have throughout approved many exploration projects for geothermal, unlike anywhere else in the state because they have the ability to be the lead agency. So just straightforward AB 1359 just makes it the same. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Other folks want to voice support for the Bill.

Good morning. Kendra Harris with the Climate Center in support.

Mr. Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for Peninsula Clean Energy in strong support.

Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of Mendocino County in support.

Great. All right. Opposition. Anyone wants to raise concerns? All right, seeing none, we'll entertain a motion when we have more Members, but thank you. Thank you so much. All right, let's move to your next Bill, which is 1921, AB 1921.

Thank you Mr. Chair. AB 1921 is a simple bill that will include linear generators in RPS. Specifically, the bill updates and clarifies the definition of a renewable electrical generation facility to include linear generators using RPS eligible fuels.

Linear generators are a cutting edge technology that offers a tremendous opportunity to have renewable power at the flip of a switch. They can run on a number of different fuels, just like fuel cells, which are already included in RPS.

If linear generators remain excluded from RPS, the state will have a sorely lacking portfolio of on demand power as we approach our 2045 deadline. AB 1921 will establish technological parity and help meet the state's renewable energy goals. Here to testify with me today is Kent Leacock with Mainspring Energy.

Thank you Mister chair. Kent Leacock on behalf of Mainspring and I'd like to thank the staff for their comprehensive and thorough analysis, and I'm glad to be here to answer any technical questions you may have. Thank you.

Folks who want to voice support for the bill.

Morning. Matt Kloppenstein, on behalf of the Bioenergy Association of California in support.

Good morning. Megan Murray on behalf of ProLogis in support.

Thank you. Good morning. Alfredo Redondo, on behalf of the Green Hydrogen Coalition in support.

Good morning. Alison Hilliard with the Microgrid Resources Coalition here in support. Thank you.

All right. Opposition folks want to raise concern about the bill. All right. Seeing none, thank you. We'll. Once again, obviously, I'm going to support the bill. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Senator Allen.

Thank you. All right. Assembly Member Berman, item 11, this is AB 2083.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. How are you, sir?

Well, I'm, you know, hanging in.

Oh, good.

It's been a wild couple days.

Beat the heat. Nothing going on. Yeah, nothing going on. Slow time in Sacramento. Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by thanking the committee staff for their work on this bill. I will be accepting the committee's amendments described in the analysis. Industrial emissions make up 23% of California's greenhouse gas emissions, which is the second largest source behind transportation.

While the state continues to be a leader in transitioning from combustion to zero emission technologies in the electricity and transportation sectors, industrial emissions have largely remained unaddressed. AB 2083 is a key first step for California to modernize industrial manufacturing and plan for how the industrial sector will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

This bill would task the California Air Resources Board, as a part of the next update of their Scoping Plan, to assess the key strategies the industrial manufacturing sector can undertake to cut its emissions in line with California's existing carbon neutrality requirements. Additionally, it would require the California Energy Commission to evaluate the potential to electrify certain industrial heat processes and require CARB to incorporate that evaluation into its assessment.

Amendments taken in Senate Energy Utilities and Communications Committee removed all opposition from the bill. I'm always a little nervous when there's no opposition. I feel like a little opposition is good for you, but here we are. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And with me today are Mark Fenstermaker, on behalf of Earthjustice, and Kayla Robinson on behalf of Industrious Labs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for Earthjustice, proud co-sponsor of the bill. As Mr. Berman laid out, industrial sources are a significant proportion of our greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, they are a source of toxic air contaminants driving our, you know, poor air quality in certain parts of the state. So we really appreciate the committee staff for their amendment and their work on ensuring there is some scope on air quality as this plan gets put together.

We really want to make sure that our industrial sector, our manufacturing, stays here in California, but has the plan, has the tools in place to transition towards zero emission technologies. Really want to appreciate Mr. Berman's work over the last 18 months on this issue and sticking with trying to find the right solution and get all sides of this equation figured out. So thank you so much. We ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mark. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Kayla Robinson on behalf of Industrious Labs. I'll keep it short and echo what my colleague Mark said. But just want to thank the committee for all their work on this bill as well as Assembly Member Berman for championing this issue and just close with saying that this bill will ultimately strengthen California's economy and really set up the industrial sector for decarbonizing towards 2045. So thank you so much. Ask for your aye vote.

Great. All right, other folks who want to come to the mic and voice support for the bill?

Darryl Little with NRDC in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Aaron Coons with California Advisors on behalf of Antora in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jakob Evans with Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.

Great. Congratulations on the strike getting resolved at Sierra Club. They resolved the strike, right? Yeah. Okay. All right. Exciting. Okay.

We'll add it into the bill.

Yeah, yeah, I know. So he's here, you know? Okay. Thank you. We will entertain a motion. When... Oh, I'm so sorry. No proposition. I don't think there is, but anyone?

We took it all off. There used to be. Now we're here in peace, just like Sierra Club.

Now you're here in peace, right.

Yeah.

Great. Any final thoughts? But otherwise we'll...

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yeah. All right, so we'll entertain a motion when we have more Members. I'm going to say we're going to take a brief recess and hopefully Assembly Member Hart is on his way.

Alex Lee, come on down. Oh.

Morning, Mister Chair.

Good morning. All right, you're here to present two bills, AB 2346 and AB 2454.

Would you mind if we start with 2346?

I don't mind.

All right. Very good. Thank you, Mister Chair and senators. First, I would like to the suggested amendments described throughout the Committee analysis and thank you to the Committee staff for their continued work on this bill.

As you're aware, SB 1383 was signed into law in 2016 and sets the target to reduce organic waste disposal in landfills by 75% by 2025. The target is ambitious but critical to slow the impact of landfills on pushing climate change. Methane emissions from organic waste represent approximately 20% of the state's methane.

Over the past two years, local jurisdictions have been required to begin their organic waste collection programs. Different communities have different levels of preparedness and many challenges to meet the targets required by law. The bill is intended to create greater flexibility for jurisdictions to meet their mandated targets without undermining the diversion mandates.

In broad concept, the bill focuses on flexibility in using direct service providers defining organic waste to establish targets encouraging the construction of organic processing infrastructure. Implementation of the SB 1383 program is complicated and presents an important but significant challenge for jurisdictions all over the state. The changes proposed by this bill are intended to make the program work better.

With me today are Timothy Burroughs, Executive Director of Stop Waste, and Michelle Young, senior management analyst of the County of Santa Clara.

Okay, you may proceed.

Thank you and good morning. Thank you, Member Lee, for your leadership. Thank you, Chair and members of the Committee, and also thank you for committee staff, for all your collaboration with us on the amendments. Stop Waste is the Alameda County Waste Management Authority.

We're a joint powers agency representing 17 local jurisdictions in Alameda County, and we have a 30-year history of leading policies and programs to keep organic waste out of the landfill and also to promote and advance the use of compost, including developing markets for compost.

So, we're strong advocates for compost, and we support efforts for jurisdictions to use more and more of it. That said, the requirements in SB 1383 for local jurisdictions to procure a minimum amount of compost and mulch each year need to be amended to more effectively achieve the goals of SB 1383.

As currently structured, the targets are one-size-fits-all, and they're a blunt tool that does not incentivize the long-term sustained investment in compost use. The one-size-fits-all nature of the requirements are not serving jurisdictions or the state well.

In regions like ours in the Bay Area, the requirements disrupt existing markets for compost and in other regions where compost use is at an earlier stage, there's simply not enough compost to go around for jurisdictions to meet the requirements.

And so, for these reasons, Stop Waste is partnering with other counties and composters to advocate for adjustments to the target so that they're achievable and they better serve the interest of SB 1383's climate goals. We're a proud sponsor of this bill, and it's benefited from input and technical assistance from CalRecycle and many additional stakeholders.

The bill provides increased flexibility for jurisdictions to meet the targets and also incentives to use compost locally in communities. The bill would also give partial procurement credit for a limited time for investments that stimulate sustained local demand for use of compost.

And the bill would also provide an avenue for jurisdictions to adjust their local target based on progress they make in diverting organic waste from the landfill. So, thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you so much. Good morning, Mister Chair and senators. Michelle Young from the County of Santa Clara and today representing the 16 cities in Santa Clara County who are in support of the bill. I'm going to echo some of the sentiments we've heard already.

Our cities are supporting the goals of 1383 but having multiple challenges in meeting even the lower rate targets. As a result, they're supporting the bill as an opportunity to collaborate these on the targets based on decades of ratepayer, investment in diversion infrastructure, and market development.

They're also interested in and concerned about the impact of our nearly 90,000 tons of county jurisdiction, which would create a demand on an already mature market that sells material to our current agriculture and landscape users.

Our county cities similar to Alameda have over 25 years of experience with diversion and composting programs and appreciate the opportunity to continue working with the author, CalRecycle, and key stakeholders to ensure that final bill provisions meet both the intent of the law and the interests of diverse stakeholders.

Santa Clara County cities urge support of AB 2346. Thank you.

So much. All right, folks, who want to voice support for the bill.

Chair, staff, Dean Grafilo on behalf of LA County with Capital advocacy, here in support of AB 2346. Thank you.

Thank you.

John Kennedy with the Rural County Representatives of California in strong support.

Mister Chair, Victora Rodriguez with Nielsen Merksamer, on behalf of the City of Visalia, in support.

Sharon Gonsalvez with the City of Santa Rosa in support.

Mister Chair, Roman Vogelsang with the Pray and Company on behalf of Republic Services in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Leticia Reyes on behalf of the City of San Jose in support.

Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the city and County of San Francisco and the Solid Waste Association of North America Legislative Task Force, the California chapters, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Zach Cefalu with the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jared Mass on behalf the City of Long Beach in support.

Krystal Raynes with Californians Against Waste. We supported submitted a supportive amended position on the bill and we largely share the goals of the authors and sponsors. The committee amendments addressed many of the concerns that we had about unintended consequences and the sponsors have committed to continue working with us over the summer.

Based on this, we're confident that the final product will offer local governments useful new tools to divert organic waste from landfills and we'll end up in support of the final legislation. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair. Kayla Robinson on behalf of the California Compost Coalition, mostly align our comments with Californians Against Waste and just look forward to working with the author and sponsors to get this in a good place. Thank you so much.

All right, anyone who wants to come up, in formal opposition or raise opposition at the mic, I know we don't have anyone registered, but okay. Thank you. I know you're going to be doing some more work on this. I mean, I really do appreciate you accepting the amendments because I think as written, we were very concerned.

But with the amendments, I'm certainly happy to recommend a do pass to appropriations when we have more colleagues here. So, thank you. And why don't you present your next bill?

Okay. Absolutely. Well, thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So when the time comes, hopefully earn your colleagues' aye vote. I'm going to move on to AB 2454, the next item. So thank you, Chair and Senators. I'd like to thank the committee and the sponsors for their hard work on this bill. This bill follows up on my work related domestic wells and ensuring safe drinking water for all. Despite the existence of free domestic well testing programs, in many regions of the state, domestic well participation remains far too low, putting well drinkers at risk of exposure to dangerous contaminants.

As noted in the committee analysis, neither the US EPA nor State Water Board regulate domestic wells, although both recommend annual testing of wells used for drinking water. Because state and federal do not require domestic wells to be tested for drinking water contaminants, those who are drinking from these wells may not know whether contaminants are present in their drinking water.

The bill requires an owner of a domestic well that is not owner occupied and is not notified of a free domestic well testing program to participate in the program. If the test result demonstrates that there are dangerous contaminants in the water, then the domestic well owner must ensure that those living on the property have access to an adequate supply of safe drinking water. The bill will ensure that those living in areas serviced by domestic wells are not drinking toxic tap water.

This is consistent with California's Human Right to Water Law, which states that it is the right of every human being to have access to safe drinking water. And I'd like to introduce my two witnesses in support. Michael Claiborne, directing attorney of the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, and Abraham Mendoza from the Community Water Project Center.

Yeah. You may proceed.

Good morning to the Chair and the committee. My name is Michael Claiborne. I'm a directing attorney with Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability. 10 years after this state recognized the human right to safe and affordable drinking water, approximately 1 million people still lack access to safe water in their homes.

A significant portion of this crisis involves households served by domestic wells, which provide drinking water to nearly 2 million Californians. There's no legal requirement in most of the state for well owners to ever test their water quality of their wells, meaning residents may drink contaminated water for years or decades without knowing it.

In an attempt to address this problem, state and regional agencies have established free well testing programs offered to well owners. These programs target high risk areas, and we've seen in some areas, over 50% of tested wells have exceeded standards for arsenic, 1,2,3- TCP, nitrates, uranium, and other contaminants. Yet participation in these programs remains dangerously low. We're seeing about 10 to 20% participation in these free, again free, domestic well testing programs.

This is especially troubling with domestic well owners failure to when failure to participate puts others health at risk. AB 2454 is a common sense measure that would require domestic well owners with units that are not occupied by the owner to participate in free well testing programs when they are offered, provide notice to the residents about the results, and then provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water if there's an issue. And we urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Abraham Mendoza on behalf of the Community Water Center. Here, once again, thanking the Member for his support and his work on this bill and also just elevating the comments that our colleagues with Leadership Counsel have expressed.

As Michael mentioned, there are more than 1 million Californians who lack access to safe, clean, and affordable drinking water. And in some areas of the Central Valley, nitrate and other pesticides have accumulated to the point that tap water for rural households and small water systems do not meet safe standards.

Over 1700 households rely on bottled water deliveries for their primary source of drinking water. And since 2022, over 1800 domestic wells have gone dry from drought and over pumping. This year alone, there's already been 30. I'd like to elevate the story of a community member that myself and our team has worked directly with in Tulare County.

She was outreached to by Self-Help Enterprises and ourselves about well testing, hauled replacement, and bottled water services offered for free as part of a local public private partnership with growers, nonprofits, and local governments to ensure safe drinking water access.

She let us know that her well had went dry and she was forced to purchase replacement water services out of her own pocket. We contacted her home about the services available in her area and she agreed to apply for assistance for the program. But unfortunately, she was unable to receive aid without a written authorization from the owner of the domestic well that serviced her property.

And as a result, she was left without water for more than five months for her household having to forward that cost out of pocket. This bill, once again, builds on existing law to ensure that farmworker communities and other tenants in these high risk areas are able to access vital services like well testing, hauled water, and bottled water delivery, and further moves the state closer to delivering on the human right to water for all Californians. We're proud to co-sponsor this bill, and we respectfully urge an aye vote.

Okay. Other folks who want to voice support for the bill?

Hi, MJ Kushner with Community Water Center on behalf of Self-Help Enterprises, a Rural Community Assistance Corporation, Clean Water Action, and Human Impact Partners in support.

Okay. Opposition? Concerns? No? Okay. Again, appreciate the bill. You know, I do know, of course, yeah. I mean, there's, I think going to be some additional challenges for the bill moving forward. I know you're well aware of, but I'm certainly happy to support out of committee today. So I see the Vice Chair's here now. That's great.

I'm back. I came back just for this bill. No, I'm kidding. So I did, this is an area where I focused on early when I was in the Assembly because a big part of my district is actually on wells. And also we were working on Porterville and all the things that were happening in the Valley that you recognize.

And I actually ran a bill that would let you, at the point of where the water comes into your house, to actually put a filter. We can filter. And the bill, I couldn't get it done. I was so frustrated because these folks don't, first of all, have the, some of them don't have the resources, number one.

Number two, they're drinking, and they have to, our system is set up to where they want them to have them put in a whole system when we can actually filter the water right at the house and take care of the problem. And my bill, I couldn't get it done. I couldn't get it out of here.

So my question to you is, I think there's some liability issues here. So let's say they do the free testing, and you come up with all the things that are in the well, and now you have the owner of the house who doesn't have the resources to fix the problem, doesn't have the ability to be able to... And what happens then? Who's liable? What's going to, what do you think is going to happen?

Yeah, I'll turn over to my sponsors in a second, talk about some of the programs that exist out there and some of the remediation. But I do think that it's important, the work you're talking about, to make sure that, if there was contaminants, that they have some way to address it. But that's why this program is important.

Right. Because people could be without even not without acknowledging or knowing they could be drinking contaminated water. And that's why testing is the first. We agree there. But what happens to make sure people, now that they know it's bad water, what is the next step? And I'll turn over to my sponsor to talk about some of those programs and stuff.

Yeah, absolutely. So I think part of the answer is that the bill doesn't require that the domestic well owner address the contamination issue in the well. In a lot of cases, you're right. Point of entry filtration, point of use filtration under the sink can work and address a problem. That's not always the case.

There's some contaminants that don't even have an approved filter at this point. So what we wanted to do is make sure that there's flexibility in the bill. It requires an adequate supply of replacement water. Often that means bottled water if there's not a filtration option.

I guess another point to make is that this is kind of only applies where there's a free domestic well testing program like the CV-SALTS Program in the Central Valley. That program actually includes replacement water as part of it, as a free service, as part of the program. So for domestic well owners in the Central Valley that are in high risk areas where this bill would apply, they would be able to take advantage of that free program to get that replacement water delivered for free.

Who pays for it though? Nothing's free. Somebody has to pay for it.

In the Central Valley, the CV-SALTS Program is paid for by dischargers of nitrates. So that's generally agriculture, dairies. It's actually a program that agriculture came together and developed and proposed to the Regional Board in Central Valley. Regional Water Board then approved that and then the state board approved it. They're in early stages of implementation and have reached a lot of households so far.

So what if you're not in the Central Valley, and this is a statewide bill?

Correct. So this bill only applies where there's an offer of free domestic well testing That's available in the Valley, the Central Valley in particular. There's a program in development on the Central Coast that's similar to the Central Valley program. It's not an implementation yet, but would be similar. Where there are not free domestic well programs, this bill would not apply.

So I just, I'm conflicted on this bill. I tried to do what you... Look, we don't want anybody drinking bad water, but we talk about low income disadvantaged folks and that's who this is going to impact straight up. We know that. We already know that, number one. Number two, I don't want, the part that's difficult is, say we do have an issue where you can't get the contaminant out and then the owner is on the hook. They're like, hey, you can't rent this place. That's the next bill that comes.

You can't rent it to somebody if you can't provide them with, you know, supposedly it's a right now to have clean water. But anyway, so that's my worry is that, not that I want anybody to drink bad water, but in those cases the person ends up not being able to live there again.

And now here we are not helping that person in the low income area because we're going to catch 22. So those are my concerns. I'm going to lay off your bill. Is it, where's it goes to just Approps after this? Yeah. All right. I'll be watching it and maybe dig in a little more. But somebody needs to get a bill through here that can allow point of house filtration. And I don't know why. I had all kinds of bad labor against it, had to have certified this and certified that, and different filtration companies.