Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Proceed when ready. Thank you.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Thank you so much. If it's okay with you, we'll start with AB 2085.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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?
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
No problem.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Oh, our Vice Chair would prefer if you start with 1042. Is that okay? Is there a particular reason?
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
No, I think. Is that okay? Okay.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
Because I have two committees going and I have other bills up there.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Yeah.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Seed guy. This is about seed.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
I knew something was wrong up there. Yeah.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
As he will tell you, he works in this industry.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Steve Blackledge
Person
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.
- Steve Blackledge
Person
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.
- Steve Blackledge
Person
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.
- Steve Blackledge
Person
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.
- Darryl Little
Person
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.
- Darryl Little
Person
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.
- Darryl Little
Person
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.
- Darryl Little
Person
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.
- Darryl Little
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you. All right, folks who want to come to the mic and express support for the Bill, they be 1042.
- Abigail Smet
Person
Good morning. Abigail Smith, on behalf of Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District in support.
- Rebecca Marcus
Person
Good morning. Rebecca Marcus representing CALPIRG in support.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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
Person
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.
- Dennis Albiani
Person
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.
- Dennis Albiani
Person
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?
- Dennis Albiani
Person
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.
- Dennis Albiani
Person
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.
- Dennis Albiani
Person
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.
- Dennis Albiani
Person
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.
- Dennis Albiani
Person
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.
- Dennis Albiani
Person
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.
- Dennis Albiani
Person
So we've provided the author and Committee with amended language and look forward to working these as they go through the next committees.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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 Roschen
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
On behalf of who? Sorry?
- Dean Grafilo
Person
Thanks Mister Chair. Senators Dean Grafilo with Capital Advocacy here on behalf of Bio, aligned with the testimony, Mister Albiano in opposition. Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Behalf of bio. Bio. Okay. All right. Can I ask the author why such a late gut named on this topic?
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Brandon, new language. It's a brand new language.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
So with that I respect class regular.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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?
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Sure, as long as there's no objection from the.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Very colorful butterflies. Oh, there you go. Okay.
- Jennifer Fearing
Person
On brand today.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
That's right. Okay.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Jennifer Fearing
Person
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.
- Jennifer Fearing
Person
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.
- Jennifer Fearing
Person
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.
- Jennifer Fearing
Person
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.
- Jennifer Fearing
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you. So, others want to voice support for the Bill. This is AB 2214.
- Isabela Gonzalez
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
All right, we'll move on.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Let's go on to item number two.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
It's anticlimactic when you can't take a motion.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I know. Hey, you should have found a way to get microplastic seeds in there and we would have gotten more questions from Dahle.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Good.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
All right.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
We're on item four now. This is item 2236.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Jennifer Fearing
Person
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.
- Jennifer Fearing
Person
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.
- Jennifer Fearing
Person
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.
- Jennifer Fearing
Person
The thicker, problematic plastic bags resulted from a race to the bottom based on the reusable bag standard included in SB 270.
- Jennifer Fearing
Person
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.
- Jennifer Fearing
Person
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.
- Jennifer Fearing
Person
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.
- Louis Brown Jr.
Person
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.
- Louis Brown Jr.
Person
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.
- Louis Brown Jr.
Person
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.
- Louis Brown Jr.
Person
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.
- Louis Brown Jr.
Person
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.
- Louis Brown Jr.
Person
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.
- Louis Brown Jr.
Person
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.
- Louis Brown Jr.
Person
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.
- Louis Brown Jr.
Person
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.
- Louis Brown Jr.
Person
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.
- Louis Brown Jr.
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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
Person
Steve Blackledge, Environment California, in support.
- Dylan Stapleton
Person
Good morning. Dylan Stapleton, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, in support. Thank you.
- Alyssa Stinson
Person
Good morning. Alyssa Stinson, on behalf of the City of Carlsbad in support. Thanks.
- Lindsey Golehorn
Person
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.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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
Person
Gavin Mchugh, on behalf of International Paper, we are in support.
- Roman Vogelsang
Person
Good morning. Chair Members Roman Vogelsang with the Pray and Company on behalf of Republic services and support. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good afternoon or good morning, Mister chair. And Senators Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the City of Alameda, in support.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good morning. Jacob Evans with Sierra California and support. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, folks, who want to raise concerns about the Bill or opposition.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Dennis fixed the mic.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
The Bolivian phenom Alberto Torrico and I will say Bolivia did its part in the Copa.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
Told you. I told you. It was full hearted today on Bolivia's soccer team, Mister Chairman, but thank you nonetheless. Good morning.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
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.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
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.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
I think that this Bill begins to deal with the challenges, but we think a holistic approach is necessary. And so, regrettably, we oppose.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
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.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
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.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
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.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
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.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
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.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
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.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
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.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
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.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
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.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
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.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Oh, okay. With your indulgence, I'd just like to establish a quorum secretary. Please call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
She's been here. Yeah. Thank you. Appreciate your patience. No problem, sir.
- Phil Rozenski
Person
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.
- Phil Rozenski
Person
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.
- Phil Rozenski
Person
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.
- Phil Rozenski
Person
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.
- Phil Rozenski
Person
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.
- Phil Rozenski
Person
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.
- Phil Rozenski
Person
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.
- Phil Rozenski
Person
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.
- Phil Rozenski
Person
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?
- Phil Rozenski
Person
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.
- Phil Rozenski
Person
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.
- Phil Rozenski
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you. All right. Other folks who want to raise concerns about the Bill or express opposition can come to the mic.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I like that. New. That's a new thing. Encouraged.
- Dylan Finley
Person
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.
- John Moffatt
Person
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.
- Mike Kopulsky
Person
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.
- Mike Kopulsky
Person
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.
- Mike Kopulsky
Person
So I also open the first post consumer plastic recycling company.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
But before we do that, I wanted to just, we did want to have you verbally assert that you're accepting the amendments.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Oh, yes. Mister chair.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Great. Vice Chair Daly.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
But the last iteration of the bag was we're going to charge for the bag.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
All right. Let's. Recycle it. All right.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Good, good, good.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Any more questions? Okay.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Yeah, sure.
- Phil Rozenski
Person
Any questions?
- Phil Rozenski
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you. All right, secretary, please call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Okay, now we're gonna go to AB 2085. Bye, Senator.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
You sure you don't want to stay for this one, Brian? No.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Maybe I should say good afternoon. Is it afternoon yet?
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Good afternoon.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Thank you, Mister Chair. Senators all again accept the Committee amendments on AB 2085. And this is a really simple Bill.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Much anticipated.
- Molly Robson
Person
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.
- Molly Robson
Person
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.
- Molly Robson
Person
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.
- Molly Robson
Person
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.
- Molly Robson
Person
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.
- Molly Robson
Person
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.
- Molly Robson
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you. All right, other folks who want to voice support for the Bill, come to the mic.
- Jonathan Clay
Person
Good morning Chair, Committee Members Jonathan Clay, on behalf of the County of San Diego, in support.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you.
- Dylan Stapleton
Person
Good morning. Dylan Stapleton on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Aleni Kunalakis, in support. Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you.
- Martin Radosevich
Person
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.
- Dennis Cuevas Romero
Person
Good morning Mister Chair and Members Dennis Cuevas Romero with the California Primary Care Association Advocates in strong support of the Bill.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you very much.
- Ellen Brittingham
Person
Ellen Brittingham on behalf of both the Northern and Southern California Chapters of the International Interior Design Association in support.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Folks, you want to. So we have opposition here. Great. You may proceed when ready.
- Cecilia Iglesias
Person
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.
- Cecilia Iglesias
Person
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.
- Cecilia Iglesias
Person
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.
- Cecilia Iglesias
Person
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.
- Cecilia Iglesias
Person
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.
- Cecilia Iglesias
Person
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.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Spanish Speaking
- Cecilia Iglesias
Person
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.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Spanish Speaking
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Spanish Speaking
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
As a woman of faith and mother, I oppose this type of clinics in our communities.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Spanish Speaking
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you. Thank you, Michelle. Gracia. Let's, let's have folks who want to raise concerns about the Bill come to the microphone.
- Greg Burt
Person
Express your opposition. Greg Burt, Vice President of the California Family Council, in opposition. Thank you. Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, anyone else wants to raise concerns? Yes.
- Claribel Rodriguez
Person
Buenos dia. Mi nombre es Claribel Rodriguez y mi opongola a la AB 2085
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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?
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
All right, we'll take that as your close.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Yes, thank you, Mister Chair.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I know this discussion is going to continue. Secretary, please call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
AB 2085. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
Sure, hope so.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
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.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
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.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
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.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
Improving our air quality in frontline port communities is an important goal that I do support.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
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.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
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.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
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.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
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.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
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.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
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.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
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.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
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.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
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.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
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.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Who are these two key witnesses?
- Kyle Burleson
Person
My name is Kyle Burleson with the American Waterways Operators.
- Sly Hunter
Person
Captain Sly Hunter, regional representative for Masters, Mates, and Pilots.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, great, we may proceed.
- Kyle Burleson
Person
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.
- Kyle Burleson
Person
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.
- Kyle Burleson
Person
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.
- Kyle Burleson
Person
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.
- Kyle Burleson
Person
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.
- Kyle Burleson
Person
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.
- Kyle Burleson
Person
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.
- Kyle Burleson
Person
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.
- Kyle Burleson
Person
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.
- Kyle Burleson
Person
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.
- Sly Hunter
Person
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.
- Sly Hunter
Person
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.
- Sly Hunter
Person
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.
- Sly Hunter
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Is that the movie where the pirates take over the ship?
- Sly Hunter
Person
Yes.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Does that ever happen in San Francisco?
- Sly Hunter
Person
It's happening now. Yes. Our ships are under fire currently. Now.
- Kyle Burleson
Person
Not in San Francisco.
- Sly Hunter
Person
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.
- Sly Hunter
Person
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.
- Sly Hunter
Person
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.
- Sly Hunter
Person
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.
- Sly Hunter
Person
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.
- Sly Hunter
Person
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.
- Sly Hunter
Person
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.
- Sly Hunter
Person
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.
- Sly Hunter
Person
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.
- Sly Hunter
Person
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.
- Sly Hunter
Person
MMP, IBU, and MEBA appreciate your support of our members. Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you. Okay, other folks who want to weigh in support, just express your support.
- Kevin Hartley
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you.
- Greg Hurner
Person
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.
- Jennifer Cohen
Person
Good morning. Jennifer Cohen with PMSA in support.
- Elmer Lizardi
Person
Good morning, Chair and members. Elmer Lizardi, on behalf of the California Labor Federation, in support.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Teresa Bui
Person
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.
- Teresa Bui
Person
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.
- Teresa Bui
Person
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.
- Teresa Bui
Person
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.
- Teresa Bui
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, thank you. Anyone else who wants to voice concern or opposition to the bill, come to the mic.
- Sophia Aficoa
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you.
- Rebecca Marcus
Person
Rebecca Marcus, representing the Union of Concerned Scientists, aligning our comments with Pacific Environment. Thank you.
- Mark Fenstermaker
Person
Mister Chair, Mark Fenstermaker for Earth Justice, opposed for the reasons stated by Pacific Environment. Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Sacrifice the life? What do you mean by that?
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
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.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
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.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
As of right now, if we don't offer a bypass system, it could cost lives. Which we saw happen already.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
What happened before? What are you referring to?
- Jasmeet Bains
Legislator
In Baltimore, there was loss of propulsion.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Melissa Hurtado
Legislator
The topic of life. Happy belated birthday to the assemblywoman. And with that, I move the Bill.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
AB 1122. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Timothy Grayson
Legislator
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.
- Timothy Grayson
Legislator
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.
- Timothy Grayson
Legislator
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.
- Timothy Grayson
Legislator
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.
- Timothy Grayson
Legislator
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.
- Timothy Grayson
Legislator
And I do have witnesses with us here today. I'll have self introduced.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay.
- Kevin Baldwin
Person
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.
- Kevin Baldwin
Person
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.
- Kevin Baldwin
Person
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.
- Kevin Baldwin
Person
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.
- Kevin Baldwin
Person
The lead times on the equipment needed to build those boats currently would not allow us to complete them within the existing deadlines.
- Kevin Baldwin
Person
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.
- Kevin Baldwin
Person
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.
- Kevin Baldwin
Person
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.
- Kevin Baldwin
Person
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.
- Kevin Baldwin
Person
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.
- Kevin Baldwin
Person
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.
- Kevin Baldwin
Person
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.
- Kevin Baldwin
Person
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.
- Kevin Baldwin
Person
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.
- Kevin Baldwin
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you.
- Mike Jacob
Person
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.
- Mike Jacob
Person
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.
- Mike Jacob
Person
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.
- Mike Jacob
Person
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.
- Mike Jacob
Person
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.
- Mike Jacob
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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
Person
Baltazar Cornejo with Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you. All right, opposition folks who want to raise concerns about the Bill.
- Teresa Bui
Person
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.
- Teresa Bui
Person
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.
- Teresa Bui
Person
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.
- Teresa Bui
Person
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.
- Teresa Bui
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Yeah, but we're talking about three votes here, right?
- Teresa Bui
Person
Yes, but it will go till 2030 and 2040. And again, we think that there are CARB already.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Is that really. I'm sorry, is that really the case? That 20.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
It's not guaranteed, right? That's your essential point, yeah.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I don't know, with a good enough mechanic.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
We get a good mechanic, we can stretch it out.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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
Person
Sofia Rafikova, with the Coalition for Clean Air. In opposition.
- Rebecca Marcus
Person
Rebecca Marcus, representing the Union of Concerned Scientists. Opposed. Thank you.
- Mark Fenstermaker
Person
And Mark Fenstermaker, for Earth Justice. Opposed.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Timothy Grayson
Legislator
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.
- Timothy Grayson
Legislator
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.
- Timothy Grayson
Legislator
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.
- Timothy Grayson
Legislator
So with that, we greatly appreciate the work of the Committee and I will respectfully ask for and aye vote at the appropriate time.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Great. Thank you. All right.
- Timothy Grayson
Legislator
Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you. Assemblymember, come on up. Okay, you may proceed.
- Lisa Calderon
Legislator
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.
- Lisa Calderon
Legislator
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.
- Derrick Alatorre
Person
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.
- Derrick Alatorre
Person
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.
- Derrick Alatorre
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you.
- Alan Abbs
Person
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.
- Alan Abbs
Person
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.
- Alan Abbs
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Yep. Okay. Thank you. Folks who want to raise voice support for the bill?
- Marcus Detwiler
Person
Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you. Yes, sir.
- Kevin Scheive
Person
Hello, Chair and Members. Kevin Scheive on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in support. Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you. All right, let's hear from... Yeah. Yes, sir.
- Jared Maas
Person
Sorry about that. Jared Maas will be up to the Sacramento Air Quality in support.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Lisa Calderon
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, let's hear from Assembly Member Papan, who's got, presenting two bills to the committee. Okay, you may proceed when ready.
- Diane Papan
Legislator
Mr. Chair, how are you?
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Yes, yes. You know, all alone. Well, with some wonderful people. With some wonderful people.
- Diane Papan
Legislator
Which one would you like me to...
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Let's start with 1359.
- Diane Papan
Legislator
Got it.
- Diane Papan
Legislator
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.
- Diane Papan
Legislator
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.
- Diane Papan
Legislator
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.
- Diane Papan
Legislator
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.
- Diane Papan
Legislator
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.
- Diane Papan
Legislator
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.
- Katherine Brandenburg
Person
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.
- Katherine Brandenburg
Person
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.
- Katherine Brandenburg
Person
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?
- Katherine Brandenburg
Person
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.
- Katherine Brandenburg
Person
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.
- Katherine Brandenburg
Person
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.
- Katherine Brandenburg
Person
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.
- Katherine Brandenburg
Person
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.
- Katherine Brandenburg
Person
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.
- Katherine Brandenburg
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you. Other folks want to voice support for the Bill.
- Kendra Harris
Person
Good morning. Kendra Harris with the Climate Center in support.
- Mark Fenstermaker
Person
Mr. Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for Peninsula Clean Energy in strong support.
- Priscilla Quiroz
Person
Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of Mendocino County in support.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Diane Papan
Legislator
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.
- Diane Papan
Legislator
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.
- Diane Papan
Legislator
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.
- Kent Leacock
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Folks who want to voice support for the bill.
- Matthew Klopfenstein
Person
Morning. Matt Kloppenstein, on behalf of the Bioenergy Association of California in support.
- Megan Murray
Person
Good morning. Megan Murray on behalf of ProLogis in support.
- Alfredo Redondo
Person
Thank you. Good morning. Alfredo Redondo, on behalf of the Green Hydrogen Coalition in support.
- Alison Hilliard
Person
Good morning. Alison Hilliard with the Microgrid Resources Coalition here in support. Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Diane Papan
Legislator
Thank you, Senator Allen.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you. All right. Assembly Member Berman, item 11, this is AB 2083.
- Marc Berman
Legislator
Good morning, Mr. Chair. How are you, sir?
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Well, I'm, you know, hanging in.
- Marc Berman
Legislator
Oh, good.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
It's been a wild couple days.
- Marc Berman
Legislator
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.
- Marc Berman
Legislator
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.
- Marc Berman
Legislator
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.
- Marc Berman
Legislator
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.
- Mark Fenstermaker
Person
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.
- Mark Fenstermaker
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you, Mark. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.
- Kayla Robinson
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Great. All right, other folks who want to come to the mic and voice support for the bill?
- Darryl Little
Person
Darryl Little with NRDC in support.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you.
- Aaron Coons
Person
Good morning. Aaron Coons with California Advisors on behalf of Antora in support. Thank you.
- Jakob Evans
Person
Good morning. Jakob Evans with Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Great. Congratulations on the strike getting resolved at Sierra Club. They resolved the strike, right? Yeah. Okay. All right. Exciting. Okay.
- Marc Berman
Legislator
We'll add it into the bill.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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?
- Marc Berman
Legislator
We took it all off. There used to be. Now we're here in peace, just like Sierra Club.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Now you're here in peace, right.
- Marc Berman
Legislator
Yeah.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Great. Any final thoughts? But otherwise we'll...
- Marc Berman
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Alex Lee, come on down. Oh.
- Alex Lee
Legislator
Morning, Mister Chair.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Good morning. All right, you're here to present two bills, AB 2346 and AB 2454.
- Alex Lee
Legislator
Would you mind if we start with 2346?
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I don't mind.
- Alex Lee
Legislator
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.
- Alex Lee
Legislator
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.
- Alex Lee
Legislator
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.
- Alex Lee
Legislator
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.
- Alex Lee
Legislator
With me today are Timothy Burroughs, Executive Director of Stop Waste, and Michelle Young, senior management analyst of the County of Santa Clara.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, you may proceed.
- Timothy Burroughs
Person
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.
- Timothy Burroughs
Person
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.
- Timothy Burroughs
Person
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.
- Timothy Burroughs
Person
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.
- Timothy Burroughs
Person
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.
- Timothy Burroughs
Person
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.
- Timothy Burroughs
Person
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.
- Timothy Burroughs
Person
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.
- Michelle Young
Person
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.
- Michelle Young
Person
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.
- Michelle Young
Person
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.
- Michelle Young
Person
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.
- Michelle Young
Person
Santa Clara County cities urge support of AB 2346. Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
So much. All right, folks, who want to voice support for the bill.
- Dean Grafilo
Person
Chair, staff, Dean Grafilo on behalf of LA County with Capital advocacy, here in support of AB 2346. Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you.
- John Kennedy
Person
John Kennedy with the Rural County Representatives of California in strong support.
- Victoria Rodriguez
Person
Mister Chair, Victora Rodriguez with Nielsen Merksamer, on behalf of the City of Visalia, in support.
- Sharon Gonsalves
Person
Sharon Gonsalvez with the City of Santa Rosa in support.
- Roman Vogelsang
Person
Mister Chair, Roman Vogelsang with the Pray and Company on behalf of Republic Services in support. Thank you.
- Leticia Reyes
Person
Good morning. Leticia Reyes on behalf of the City of San Jose in support.
- Priscilla Quiroz
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you.
- Zach Cefalu
Person
Good morning. Zach Cefalu with the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.
- Jared Maas
Person
Good morning. Jared Mass on behalf the City of Long Beach in support.
- Krystal Raynes
Person
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.
- Krystal Raynes
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you.
- Kayla Robinson
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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?
- Alex Lee
Legislator
Okay. Absolutely. Well, thank you. Thank you.
- Alex Lee
Legislator
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.
- Alex Lee
Legislator
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.
- Alex Lee
Legislator
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.
- Alex Lee
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Yeah. You may proceed.
- Michael Claiborne
Person
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.
- Michael Claiborne
Person
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.
- Michael Claiborne
Person
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.
- Michael Claiborne
Person
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.
- Abraham Mendoza
Person
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.
- Abraham Mendoza
Person
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.
- Abraham Mendoza
Person
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.
- Abraham Mendoza
Person
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.
- Abraham Mendoza
Person
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.
- Abraham Mendoza
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay. Other folks who want to voice support for the bill?
- Mj Kushner
Person
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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?
- Alex Lee
Legislator
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.
- Alex Lee
Legislator
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.
- Michael Claiborne
Person
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.
- Michael Claiborne
Person
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.
- Michael Claiborne
Person
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
Who pays for it though? Nothing's free. Somebody has to pay for it.
- Michael Claiborne
Person
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
So what if you're not in the Central Valley, and this is a statewide bill?
- Michael Claiborne
Person
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
I had municipalities opposing my bill. And it's like, hey, I just want clean water at the house and we can put a filter right as it goes into. So you're not even showering with it. You're getting your whole house done. And I couldn't get it done. So anyway, just throw it off our thoughts. Thank you for bringing the bill forward.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Do you want... Assembly Member, do you want to respond to some of the concerns that raised? Maybe...
- Alex Lee
Legislator
Sure. And I'll do that as my close. I'll take it as my close as well. It's just that, you know, I'm happy to collaborate more on this issue. I think the way we approach this bill and why there's been very little formal opposition is to try and do a thoughtful approach and not do that Catch 22.
- Alex Lee
Legislator
The same people who might not have the resources to do all those cost filters are also the same people, by default, drinking the toxic water. Right. So you're really stuck between not having enough money to do something or you're drinking, which are both bad, which are both terrible outcomes. And this is why this program is about encouraging people to take advantage of the free testing programs that exist out there, so at least you have the peace of mind to have knowledge and take action if necessary. Right. That's why this bill is crafted the way it is.
- Alex Lee
Legislator
We are still getting more input from the State Water Board about enforcement and other things like that as we move on through Appropriations. But I am happy to work with you about this because even though my district is mostly an urban district, I think this is a statewide issue where people, especially in rural regions, can't be left behind.
- Alex Lee
Legislator
And they can't be either, saying, well, either I got to fork over my savings or I just can drink nitrate water for the rest of my life. Both are unacceptable, and that's why we've crafted it this way. And I hope that we can work together on this topic in the future. I respectfully ask your aye vote and for you to continue watching this bill, too. Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, so we'll entertain a motion when... Oh, you'll move it. Okay. Okay, great. Secretary, please call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
AB 2454, the motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, thank you. Thanks very much. All right, I think we have Assembly Member Hart here or... Yeah. To present AB 2298 or I don't know. Did you guys figure it out, or who's doing first? Okay, Assembly Member Wilson. Okay, this is item 13, AB 2300.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
You may proceed.
- Lori Wilson
Legislator
All right, Mr. Chair and Senators, I'm pleased to present AB-2300, a Bill that prohibits the manufacturer, sale, or distribution of intravenous solution containers, and to be made with intentionally added DHP.
- Lori Wilson
Legislator
I'd like to note that DHP, and I'll say it regularly, stands for a very complex word, which I'm sure most of you are familiar with being in this Committee, and it's Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalates. I think I said that right.
- Lori Wilson
Legislator
DHP belongs to a family of hormonally active industrial chemicals called phthalates, which are used to make plastic soft and pliable and can be found in a myriad of, particularly those made from polyvinyl chloride plastic, which is PVC. We call it PVC. DHP impacts the thyroid and immune system.
- Lori Wilson
Legislator
Research indicates that DHP promotes drug resistance and inhibits the effectiveness of breast cancer drugs, interferes with the ability of chemotherapies to fight breast cancer, and that patients with higher level of DHP in their systems had higher rates of relapse and mortality. DHP is commonly used to impart flexibility to iv bags and iv tubing.
- Lori Wilson
Legislator
Some iv bags and tubing can contain up to 40% of DHP by weight. DHP has been shown to leech out of the iv bags and tubing and into the medication and other fluids being infused into the bloodstream of patients.
- Lori Wilson
Legislator
The good news is, is that safer alternatives exist and are already being used in FDA approved DEHP free IV bags. For example, some manufacturers are already exclusively manufacturing DHP free IV bags, and other manufacturers also have a large portfolio of FDA approved non-DHP IV bags.
- Lori Wilson
Legislator
I would like to thank all of the stakeholders for the robust conversations we've had over the past few weeks, and I'm happy to continue those conversations as AB-2300 moves forward. I think we've reached a great place of where we've removed almost all but one of the oppositions.
- Lori Wilson
Legislator
The Bill currently would ban IV solution containers made with intentionally added DHP beginning 2030 and IV tubing by 2035. The Committee amendments we took incentive health allow for flexibility to address concerns about possible supply chain shortages or administrative holdups, specifically as it relates to the FDA approval process. Once again, there was a lot of robust conversation since this Bill has been introduced.
- Lori Wilson
Legislator
I think we found a place to recognize how do we protect patients, and at the same time recognizing that also protecting patients involves protecting the supply chain.
- Lori Wilson
Legislator
With me today to testify and support is Reed Addis on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, sponsors of the Bill, and Ryan Spencer on behalf of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
- Reed Addis
Person
Thank you, Chair and Members. Reed Addis, on behalf of the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and the California Black Health Network, two of the sponsors for this measure, in strong support today. I was in the unenviable club of having to battle cancer in the last two and a half years. I had six months of chemotherapy.
- Reed Addis
Person
It is shocking how many IV bags and tubes are stuck in your body to administer medications. And I had no idea that DEHP could have been in those bags leaching into my body. I was lucky, however, after the fact, to find out that my health care network does not allow DEHP bags to be in their facilities.
- Reed Addis
Person
That was luck. That is unfair to many Californians where there's an alternative out there that they don't know about this, that hospitals may not know about this. We need a good, solid policy in place to say this should not be allowed anymore. That's what AB-2300 does.
- Reed Addis
Person
Yes, we've been frustrated that there would even be opposition to this measure, but as the Assemblymember mentioned, she has been navigating this dutifully with opposition. Worked with the Chair of the last Committee and the set of amendments we think was a good compromise.
- Reed Addis
Person
It makes it clear that these bags should not be used anymore, but also has allowed some of the opposition to go to neutral. So we hopefully hope this Committee will pass this measure so that we're not relying on luck to provide safety to patients. But we have a solid policy that says these bags should be no longer. Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you.
- Ryan Spencer
Person
Ryan Spencer, on behalf of the American College of OBGYNs District IX. We are also co-sponsors of the measure. And I think I couldn't say any better than my colleague right here to my left. And so we just urge your support. Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you. All right, folks, want to voice support for the Bill.
- Whitney Francis
Person
Hello. Whitney Francis, with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. In support.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you. All right, any opposition concerns folks want to raise? Okay, questions? Mr. Vice Chair?
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
Well, I just want to say thank you for the Bill. Good work. Obviously, the opposition came in early and you guys have worked through it. It's a beautiful thing when it comes together. So I'll be moving your Bill.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I'll give you the opportunity to close.
- Lori Wilson
Legislator
Just to say thank you so much. This has been a long road, and I'm so glad we were able to get to where the majority of the opposition was neutral, which was difficult, as, you know, I like Mr. Reid Addis is a cancer survivor, and when we're talking about the issues of cancer and what you go through, not just the toll on your body, but mentally.
- Lori Wilson
Legislator
It's hard when there's opposition to such a thing that saves lives. But we realize at the same time, part of patient care is having supply to be able to provide that care. And so we took the amendments and the spirit of that.
- Lori Wilson
Legislator
And so this Bill, AB-2300, is a small step towards reducing the risk of cancer with DEHP and the longstanding effects that happen to people that don't not allow them to have a successful outcome as it relates to treating cancer and really protecting some of our most vulnerable populations. I respectfully urge an aye vote.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Well, congratulations again on the deal. And it's a moved by Senator Dahle, and Secretary, please call the role.
- Committee Secretary
Person
AB-2300.The motion is do passed. [Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, we'll leave that on call. Thank you. All right, let's ask Senator Hart to come up and present AB 2298, item 12.
- Gregg Hart
Legislator
Thank you, Mister Chair. I'm pleased to present AB 2298 and I'm happy to accept the Committee's amendments. Increased sea traffic from shipping, industrial operations, and recreational boating adds to the complex marine environment whales must navigate. In addition to the threat of ship strikes, shipping noise can disrupt whale migration, navigation, feeding patterns, and social interactions.
- Gregg Hart
Legislator
Research points towards a straightforward but impactful solution, slowing down ships. AB 2298 will establish the California Protecting Blue Whales and Blue Skies, a statewide voluntary vessel speed reduction program. This bill builds upon the successes of the voluntary vessel speed reduction program started in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties in 2014.
- Gregg Hart
Legislator
Leading shipping companies, including NYK Line and Yang Ming Marine Transport, have expressed pride in receiving recognition and the prestigious whale tail trophies for helping prevent whale strikes.
- Gregg Hart
Legislator
AB 2298 will provide these shipping companies and many other participants with formal recognition and endorsement from the State of California for slowing their speed to less than 10 knots, reducing emissions, and safeguarding whales. AB 2298 will help prevent boat strikes, reduce disruptive noise that hampers whale communication, and lower carbon emissions along the coast.
- Gregg Hart
Legislator
Speaking in support today is Alan Abbs, who's representing the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
- Alan Abbs
Person
Good morning, Chair Allen and members of the Committee. My name is Alan Abbs. I'm the legislative officer for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, along with the Santa Barbara County and Ventura County air pollution control districts. We are the co-sponsors of AB 2298.
- Alan Abbs
Person
AB 2298 would establish a process to expand the existing voluntary vessel speed reduction program known as the Protecting Blue Whales and Blue Skies for ocean-going cargo ships along the entire California coast.
- Alan Abbs
Person
The bill would recognize the decade-long work initiated by the Santa Barbara County and Ventura County air pollution control districts and create a stakeholder process to expand the existing voluntary VSR program to cover the rest the state.
- Alan Abbs
Person
The program, as Assembly Member Hart mentioned, was created in 2014 in Santa Barbara and Ventura County, expanded to portions of the Bay Area in later years, and has resulted in increased slow-speed transits from 30% of ships in its inception to over 80% of ships in the year 2023.
- Alan Abbs
Person
These existing voluntary programs reduce air pollution in coastal communities, reduce underwater noise, and reduce threats of ship strikes to several species of whales, some of which are listed as endangered. Our existing programs have been embraced by international shipping companies who routinely tout their participation as the New York Times article from yesterday mentioned, that the Assembly Member was quoting from.
- Alan Abbs
Person
And expanding this voluntary program to other parts of the coast and recognizing participation by shipping companies would increase marine mammal and air quality benefits.
- Alan Abbs
Person
AB 2298 is supported by Coastal Air Districts, the Marine Sanctuary Foundation, ocean and mammal protection groups, and other environmental groups. I'd like to thank Assembly Member Hart for his leadership on this issue and I look forward to answering any questions you have, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you. All right, other folks who want to voice support.
- Ross Buckley
Person
Thank you, Chair and members. Ross Buckley on behalf of South Coast Air Quality Management District in support.
- Baltazar Cornejo
Person
Chair and members, Baltazar Cornejo with Brownstein on behalf of the California Marine Sanctuary Foundation, in support.
- Isabella Gonzalez Potter
Person
Isabella Gonzalez Potter with the Nature Conservancy, in support.
- Joshua Gauger
Person
Josh Gauger on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in support.
- Jakob Evans
Person
Jacob Evans with Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.
- Kevin Scheive
Person
Kevin Scheive on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in support. Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Great. Opposition. Folks who want to raise concerns come on up.
- Mike Jacob
Person
Thank you, Mister Chair, Senator Dahle. Mike Jacob with Pacific Merchant Shipping Association and we'd like to be in support of this bill. We were in support of this bill when it was introduced as a past Assembly Policy Committee, and we appreciate the Committee amendments moving in the right direction today and taken by the author.
- Mike Jacob
Person
We still would like to see a statewide program administered by a state agency instead of what's being proposed. Everything you heard from the author and the sponsors today about the participation by our members is correct. Our members really do like participating in voluntary vessel speed reduction programs.
- Mike Jacob
Person
They are very effective, not only the Blue Whale Blue Sky program, but also Green Flag programs and other programs both in California and around the country and the world. And so, we would really like to support this bill.
- Mike Jacob
Person
But unfortunately, with the amendments that were taken that took out the statewide character of the Administration of the Program, we are opposed.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. All right, you can stay up. If there's any questions. You can stay. Yeah please.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
Why did? Why did we change amendments? What was the reason for that?
- Alan Abbs
Person
I'll take the first stab at this. So, this is the second attempt at this bill. Last year's bill was held in Senate Appropriations for fiscal concerns related to the cost of OPC taking over this program. And so, we had talked with OPC earlier this year about ways to reduce that fiscal.
- Alan Abbs
Person
And what we came up with as amendments in Assembly Appropriations was to move the OPC's role to an advisory. They'll still be able to participate, provide their expertise, but they're not in charge of the overall expansion of the program.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
To the opposition. What's the difference?
- Mike Jacob
Person
That's a good question, and I think the answer is that in the short term, there is no difference, which means it belies the point of the bill.
- Mike Jacob
Person
The point of the bill should be to expand participation rates, have a unified program that's administered by the state that actually provides the ability for you to move this program forward beyond where it is right now. We're happy with the way the program works right now.
- Mike Jacob
Person
We have members, as you heard, that are very happy to participate in it. And we have a lot of successful MOU programs and other types of voluntary programs. If the state is going to move forward with a statewide program, we would like to support that.
- Mike Jacob
Person
So, as Mister Abbs pointed out last year, we supported the same bill that moved forward with the Ocean Protection Council and control. But I think just in general, if you're going to have a statewide program, it should be administered by a statewide agency, it should be supported by the state. And that's our position.
- Mike Jacob
Person
Certainly it goes to your point, which is, are you actually encouraging more people to do funding through the state actually being involved? And the way we see this right now, it doesn't achieve that purpose.
- Gregg Hart
Legislator
And I would only just add that I think the point of expanding the program statewide is to increase the recognition of the companies that voluntarily want to participate.
- Gregg Hart
Legislator
It's a great recognition program as it exists now, but having the imprint of the State of California and the Governor participating potentially in the award ceremonies and the recognition that comes from that is a significant advantage to having a statewide program. However, we have to get it to that place.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
Well, I just want to say, as somebody that's conservative and doesn't think we need more government, I like the opportunity that it's a voluntary program and it actually works. People abide by it. So, I'm going to be supporting it. I don't think that we need to have money spent to do something that's right.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
If you want to do what's right, then do what's right. And we can recognize that. And people tend to want to do what's right. I mean, who doesn't want blue skies and blue whales? I mean, come on. I'll move the bill.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Would you like to close?
- Gregg Hart
Legislator
I think that Senator Dahle made my close.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, great. All right. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Secretary, please call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
AB 2298. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, thank you. All right, I see Mia Bonta here. She's here to present item 17. That's AB 2851.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
You may proceed when ready.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
Hello, Chair and committee members. I want to thank the committee and their staff for working very closely with my team to provide amendments to this bill, which I accept at this moment. I decided to author AB 2851 to protect the community in the 18th district and across California with toxic air emissions from metal shredding facilities. Why?
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
My district is a home to a metal shredding facility. Shredder waste from vehicles and large appliances contain heavy metals like lead, copper, zinc, cadmium and hazardous chemicals. For decades, such operations have resulted in many toxic fires polluting our communities.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
Even though prior legislation called on DTSC to place strong regulatory standards on metal shredders, numerous incidents have jeopardized the health and safety of Californians and their environments. Since 2018, the local air district in our community has issued 13 notices of violation to the metal shredding facility.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
The metal shredder facility has also been the subject of lawsuits for violating emissions rules. Located within a mile of this metal shredder facility are 18 daycare centers, 10 parks, eight schools, four senior centers, and two hospitals. While motivated to work on this issue, from the experiences in my backyard, this isn't just a problem in my district.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
Similar to refineries, metal shredding facilities are disproportionately located in our most vulnerable communities, which are underserved and are already suffering from higher amounts of pollution exposure known to cause negative health impacts like cancer, asthma, and other respiratory and heart disease. AB 2851 is an essential first step in accountability.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
AB 2851 will bring together local air management districts, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and DTSC, to develop and implement facility wide fence line air monitoring at metal shredding facilities. Local air management districts will develop threshold levels for airborne contaminants at these facilities and determine the community notification process.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
AB 2851 will push forward the state's commitment to advancing environmental justice and equity for those who are impacted the most by toxic emissions. And I know, Chair, that this is also an issue that you are very passionate about and have done a lot of great work.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
And I believe that there is great synergy between legislation that you're moving forward this year and AB 2851, and I will be proud to continue to work with you on that.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
With me today to speak more on these bills, Alan Abbs from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and Darryl Little Jr, from the Natural Resources Defense Council. Thank you.
- Alan Abbs
Person
Good morning, Chair Allen, members of the committee again. Alan Abbs, with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. We've been working with Assemblymember Bonta from the introduction of this bill to get to what we all want, and that is to have metal shredders operate in California.
- Alan Abbs
Person
Better to not allow light fibrous material, an associated toxic particulate, past the facility boundary and to not have those facilities catch on fire and to have a notification procedure that informs the community when those standards aren't being met. As the analysis notes, there's a legislative history associated with trying to improve metal shredder operations.
- Alan Abbs
Person
But despite making progress, there's still recent instances demonstrating that there's more to be done. And if no one knows when emissions cross the boundary, then the public can't be appropriately informed, and the facility has no incentive to operate better.
- Alan Abbs
Person
As the analysis also notes, DTSC, with the assistance of the air district, conducted an air monitoring study and collected light fibrous material outside the Schnitzer facility boundary for a multi-year period ending in 2023.
- Alan Abbs
Person
The analysis also notes that a facility in Redwood City, near several hospitals, parks and schools, received an order to clean up off site toxic pollution over concerns of negative health impacts.
- Alan Abbs
Person
AB 2851 attempts to protect people living, working and going to school near metal shredding facilities and, if needed, inform them of any adverse health impacts and is consistent with actions taken in the past only after elevated concerns from the public. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this topic.
- Alan Abbs
Person
I'm here to answer any questions and respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Darryl Little
Person
Good morning, Chair and members. Darryl Little Jr. with NRDC here in support of AB 2851. Metal shredding facilities place an incredible burden on California communities, particularly low-income communities and communities of color.
- Darryl Little
Person
Metal shredders across the state, through their shredding process, release substantial amounts of dangerous air pollution to surrounding communities, including particulate matter, lead, cadmium, and light fibrous material. We know metal shredder facilities releases pollutants only because of ad hoc enforcement actions by the state and advocacy by community groups over the past decade.
- Darryl Little
Person
But these ad hoc actions are not sufficient to protect communities from metal shredder pollution in real time. AB 2851 is an important step in that direction.
- Darryl Little
Person
It will require fence line air quality monitoring at all metal shredding facilities across the state for the pollutants most closely associated with metal shredders, and it would ensure that nearby communities are alerted when pollution levels in the air they breathe exceed regulatory thresholds.
- Darryl Little
Person
It is critical that regulators and the public alike know what pollution is leaving these facilities and harming Californians in their homes, schools, parks and places of work. For that reason, we respectfully urge your aye vote on AB 2851. Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Great.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
All right, other folks who want to voice support for the bill.
- Ross Buckley
Person
Good morning, Chair Members, Ross Buckley, on behalf of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, we have a supportive amended position, but we've had a number of good conversations with authors office. Thanks.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you.
- Sophia Aficoa
Person
Sophia Aficoa with the Coalition for Clean Air and support.
- Jakob Evans
Person
Jacob Evans with Sierra Club California and support. Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Great. Folks who want to raise concerns or opposition to the bill. Seeing none, questions from the members?
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
So, I read up on the proposed and thus amended. So basically, the question I have is DTSC versus the local air pollution control. Why are you using DTSC as your instead of using the local air control officers?
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
The amendments that we accepted through committee actually addressed that. Throughout this process, there's been kind of a debate and discussion around what the kind of purview of DTSC versus the local air districts were going to be at this point.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
The local air districts are specifically going to be focused in on the air monitoring partnerships with the air districts, with the major piece of it. They will be focused on every other contaminant besides light fibrous materials which will be under the management of DTSC.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
So, we essentially kind of tried to strike a nice balance between what we knew DTSC already had purview over and ensuring that the local air districts had the ability to focus in on what they had already been focused on in partnership with OEHHA.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
So, is this a new precedent to use DTSC versus the local air agencies?
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
I can't speak to anything outside of metal shredding facilities. I don't know you can speak to.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
That because they're going to collect the fee. DTSC is going to collect the fee. Typically, the local air agency would be the person that would collect the fee.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
And then with the, with the amendments, actually the, the fees can either go to the local air district or to DTSE.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
Which will be paid for by the dismantling-
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
The fees associated from the metal sharding facilities.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
Then how do you deference between - if there's other manufacturing or something close by, they don't have to pay the fee so that the burden lays on the one facility or how do you determine where all the pollutants are coming from?
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
The focus of this spill is around creating offense line monitoring to be able to do that. So essentially the fence line is created around the metal sharding facility, which will create a high attribution level to that metal sharding facility.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
Okay.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Yeah. Well, I want to thank the author for your work on this, too. And we know, of course, your district has been particularly impacted by this challenge, and it's something that's been coming up in the context of our bill. So certainly, appreciate you working with us.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
We did some extensive amendments that I think put the bill in a good place, and I'm certainly looking forward to supporting the bill. I don't know if my colleagues want to move the bill or if we want to wait for. We may want to make. Okay. All right. If you want to close.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
Thank you.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
I first just want to recognize that every single time I've been able to testify, present this bill and committee, I have had the beauty of a force called Miss Margaret come forward, who is a resident in West Oakland who has made it her life's work to really defend the basic air of and health and safety of the community in West Oakland.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
Two weeks after school started in West Oakland, children and families woke up to orange skies from the fire that was created by the 13th violation from our local air, metal air shredding facility. And that's just unacceptable. We need to be able to provide parameters to be able to ensure that that doesn't happen.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
I'm thankful, Chair, that you're moving forward SB 1234.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
I think our bill, AB 2851, which I also just want to thank my district director, Rowena Brown, for really bringing the issue to our attention, working this bill and having this be representative of a true partnership between local, on the ground, in the field stakeholders who have a desire to protect their community and our state and county agencies to make sure that our lives are healthier for Californians.
- Mia Bonta
Legislator
With that, I respectfully request your aye vote.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Great. Thank you. Thank you, secretary, please call roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay. Leave that open for folks to add on. Thank you. Okay, why don't we first entertain a motion? Hopefully. Sorry? For consent: no, we haven't done consent yet. And is Aguiar Curry...we're calling her?
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, I will send a quick note. All right, so Senator Dahle has moved the consent calendar. Let's call the roll on that.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, why don't we go through, let's lift some calls, and then we may need to take some motions if they're around. Let's first. So, we've already done. All right, let's start with item one. That's Bauer-Kahan's seed labeling bill. Okay. All right. Okay. Moved. Secretary, please call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
AB 1042. The motion is to pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, we'll hold that open. Thank you, everybody. Bauer. Now, next we'll do Bauer-Kahan's AB 2085, which has been moved already.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Okay, the current vote on AB 2085 is two to zero. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, we'll hold that one open. Next item three. Motion for 2214?
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
You need a motion?
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Yeah. Okay, moved. Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
AB 20214. The motion is do pass to Appropriations, [Roll call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, we'll hold that open. AB 2236 that has a motion already.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Senators, the current vote on AB 2236 is two to one, with the Chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting no. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, next we'll do Jasmeet Bains' AB 1122.
- Committee Secretary
Person
AB 1122, the motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is two to zero. [Roll call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, we'll hold that open. Item six, AB 1296, we need a motion. Thanks, Mister Vice Chair.
- Committee Secretary
Person
AB 1296, the motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay. Let's go to Papan, AB 1359. We need a motion. Secretary, please call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
AB 1359. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, Papan's AB 1921. Need a motion. Secretary, please call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
AB 1921. The motion is do pass to Appropriations, [Roll call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, we'll next go to Berman's AB 2083. Need a motion.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
I'll move it.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay.
- Committee Secretary
Person
AB 2083. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay. AB 2298, Hart. We already have a motion.
- Committee Secretary
Person
AB 2298. The motion is to pass as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is two to zero. [Roll call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Assembly Member Wilson's AB 2300.
- Committee Secretary
Person
AB 2300. The motion is do pass. The current vote is two to zero. [Roll call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay. AB 2346. Need a motion.
- Committee Secretary
Person
AB 2346. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, let's let Assembly Member Garcia present his bill. We'll go to this is item 20, AB 3238.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
Thank you, Mister Chair and colleagues. I'm here to present AB 3238. First off, I want to thank you, Mister Chair, and your committee consultants for the time you've put into this particular conversation. This conversation has gone up until the wee hours of the morning, and that's not always the case. And so, I really appreciate.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
And this morning.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
And this morning, that you have allowed us that openness. But, Mister Chair, I want to just be very candid, as I always have been and those of you who are on the dais know me to be.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
When the analysis on Monday was rolled out, I was quite surprised at some of the inaccuracies that it contained. And we brought that to your attention, and we shared with you what those were.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
In our interpretation and perspective, it's a misinterpretation of a number of different things, including vote counts from prior committees to using opposing arguments that were introduced in prior versions of the bill that no longer are relevant due to amendments that we took to address the concerns over the course of four policy committees, including the appropriations, that also took a policy stab at the bill and one in the Senate.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
Yes. Yes, you did. You corrected two particular ones that I'll point out, the vote count and the outdated letter. But what wasn't really addressed was the substance. Right? And there are numerous other inaccuracies in the analysis that misstates the current operation of CEQA review at the CPUC.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
The Commission already has the ability to limit the range of alternatives in the EIR CEQA. The Commission. The CEQA does not require an agency to include all potential alternatives. It requires a reasonable range of alternatives that meet most project objectives.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
The analysis also completely ignores the robust public process that CAISO undergoes prior to approval of transmission projects. This is where the grid operator uses the expertise to determine whether the statewide system requires transmission project. It also misstates the way that an electrical infrastructure project moves through agency approval.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
Obtaining right of way is not the first step of a project. For the projects that are addressed by this bill, the first step is to file an application with CPUC which triggers their CEQA review. Unfortunately, the latest proposed committee amendments go too far, and I do not feel comfortable accepting those today.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
And you know, typically we come before a committee and we thank everyone for their work, and we say we respectfully and gratefully accept those amendments, but we just don't feel comfortable, given the inaccuracies of the analysis, that members of this Committee will have had a very accurate depiction of the bill that's before them.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
That's received a tremendous amount of scrutiny in a number of different policies, and we're happy to have that conversation and debate or deliberation with the experts that are here today to speak about it and the experts that are sitting on the dais. But let me just get to the core of the intention of the bill.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
It's a simple effort. It's to accelerate the build out of electric transmission infrastructure so we can meet the climate goals this Legislature and the Governor created while still ensuring projects still go through full environmental review. Let me be clear, members.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
If the current version of this bill goes into effect, not one shovel will go into the ground without a CEQA review of the project.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
The bill only aims to remove duplicative reviews at the CPUC and leverage work that CAISO, the state's transmission planning authority, already does, so that the significant time and delays are removed from transmission projects and its timelines. In our conversations over the past several weeks, I have heard concerns from you, Mister Chair, from the opposition.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
I'm hoping that we can have a robust discussion to ensure that one, one of the focuses of the bill has been the settlement agreement that's been in discussions for quite some time.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
Number two is we have taken this effort one step further to look at ways that CEQA can be reformed in the most pragmatic way, where right of ways exist, where land has been disturbed, and where we can be practical in nature, no pun intended, to both protect it, but also accelerate our build-out of our transmission to get power to where it needs to go so that we can continue to meet these goals, but also see an economic thriving state in specific regions of California that need this power.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
Our state has set these targets for a reason, right? We're not going to meet them if we don't take these types of bold actions.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
I respectfully ask that we have this open discussion and that we can leave from here with an understanding that we are committed to continuing to work on this matter and try to achieve the objectives I think that you've put forward in concept, but that really land at a place where it keeps us on track to meeting these energy goals for the State of California.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
With me is our key witness that will talk about the Details of the Bill and answer any questions that I've put on the table. Erica Martin, Director of Environmental Services, San Diego Gas and Electric Company
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Great. I'm looking forward to hearing from Erica. All I would say is that I think you pointed out a couple of inaccuracies that we both agreed were inaccuracies. Those were corrected in the analysis. I think the rest are issues where there's a certain point of discussion and debate and disagreement.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
But as you know, I'm happy to continue those discussions. But I think to some extent there's an agreement to disagree over several things that you mentioned Assembly Member. So, I'd love to hear from your witness.
- Erica Martin
Person
Good morning. I'm very happy to be with you today in support of AB 3238 and the essential role it will play in the clean energy transition. SDG&E is very encouraged at the growing acknowledgment that we will, as a state, need to build electric infrastructure, transmission infrastructure at an unprecedented rate and scale.
- Erica Martin
Person
However, we are very concerned that some stakeholders, including some of the opposition here today, state their understanding of these facts, but continue to cling to the status quo and oppose even modest changes to accelerate the process. The fact is, we can no longer simply pay lip service to this issue.
- Erica Martin
Person
If our planet is facing an existential crisis, then we need to take some action as if it is. The existing process for approval to construct electric infrastructure is duplicative. It is lengthy and costly.
- Erica Martin
Person
By the time a transmission project comes to the CPUC for authority to approve, it has already undergone years of regulatory planning and forecasting at the CPUC, at the CEC, and most importantly at the California Independent System Operator, our state transmission authority, we can no longer afford five to 10 years of permitting and review and years of construction before a process comes online.
- Erica Martin
Person
From the perspective of an entity that is being asked by CAISO to build these projects, I'm here to say that the status quo of process and procedure will not allow us to get there. We will not be able to move the clean energy transition forward and protect the environment from the risks of a warming climate.
- Erica Martin
Person
AB 3238 is a measured proposal that focuses on the places where there are the most obstacles to these projects. As we have fulfilled Assembly Member Garcia's commitment to work with all interested stakeholders, the bill has become even more measured and narrowly tailored with a sharp focus. The CPUC's rules for permitting electric infrastructure are of primary concern.
- Erica Martin
Person
The proposed reforms do not eliminate CPUC oversight and they do not eliminate CEQA review for the projects that go before them.
- Erica Martin
Person
Among other things, the bill would apply a nine-month time limit for the CPUC's review and would also leverage the important transmission planning of CAISO so that the CPUC does not have to redo the work that CAISO has already undertaken and for which they do not have the expertise.
- Erica Martin
Person
Taken together, these will result in meaningful reduction of permitting timeline. In addition, the bill contains a narrowly tailored CEQA exemption for the acquisition of the land right before any physical impact to the land. This would only occur when the utility has existing right of way.
- Erica Martin
Person
And to be clear, the project itself would not be exempt from CEQA, only the agency decision to provide the land right. This concludes my testimony. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the Committee.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, folks who want to voice support for the bill.
- V. White
Person
John White with the Clean Power Campaign. We strongly support this bill because the settlement agreement was developed at the PUC by 18 parties from across all the sectors. There is a failure on the PUC's part to recognize the urgency of making reforms and the time it takes to review these projects. We think that without major streamlining, of which this bill now still has important provisions, despite the amendments, that we're not going to meet our targets.
- V. White
Person
We're simply, we might as well just say we're not going to get there because there is no transition to clean energy without building 6, 8, 9 lines at a time instead of just one every 10 years. That's the sea change that we're in. And while we don't want to weaken our environmental protections, we do want to see what we can do to make things take less time without sacrificing environmental protection. So we'd ask for an aye vote.
- Melissa Cortez-Roth
Person
Thank you. Melissa Cortez on behalf of the California Wind Energy Association in support.
- Ellon Madill
Person
Ellon Brittingham on behalf of San Diego Community Power in support.
- John Moffatt
Person
John Moffatt on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies in support.
- John Kennedy
Person
John Kennedy with Rural County Representatives of California in support.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
All right, let's hear from opposition.
- Kim Delfino
Person
Is it morning still? No. Good afternoon. My name is Kim Delfino, and I'm here representing Defenders of Wildlife and the California Native Plant Society. Let me start out by saying that my clients support efficiencies to bring transmission on quickly, and they've been working very hard to have that happen in the desert and throughout California.
- Kim Delfino
Person
However, efficiency should not equal weakening core protections for cultural and natural resources. Today, I want to highlight two provisions in this bill that are not within the quote unquote settlement agreement, which is essentially a proposal being debated by the PUC right now. Last night, I reread all 138 pages of the settlement agreement, and I can tell you two things that are not in that agreement. The first thing is the CEQA exemption for an expansion of right of ways on state lands.
- Kim Delfino
Person
And the second is a rebuttable presumption that would negate any requirement to provide substantial evidence in the record to support a statement that overriding benefits of a transmission project outweigh significant effects on the environment. I wrote my testimony thinking we might be discussing the committee amendments a little bit more.
- Kim Delfino
Person
Let me just simply say that the right of way expansion honestly doesn't make any sense. You are allowing a right of way expansion to go without any CEQA analysis whatsoever, and you're deferring that analysis to the actual project. I do not know of many transmission projects that are moving forward blindly without doing surveys and figuring out if the right of ways they're expanding into are good places to go or not good places to go.
- Kim Delfino
Person
So by doing this exemption, we are opening up sensitive habitats, state parks, potentially cultural resources, CDFW wildlife areas, CDFW ecological reserves, and all State Lands Commission lands. As for the rebuttable presumption, a lot has been said that this is somehow in the settlement agreement. It is not. This is a significant issue.
- Kim Delfino
Person
If this bill goes into law, it essentially turns on its head the requirement that if you want to do a statement of override, and we're not saying you shouldn't do a statement of overriding considerations, we're simply saying provide substantial evidence that you are going to override significant effects on the environment.
- Kim Delfino
Person
And I don't have a problem if a project that is in a TPP takes the analysis that's in the TPP and puts it into the statement of override. But that should not be per se a rebuttable presumption. It may be enough to provide a rebuttable presumption. It may not. This bill simply says we're just going to De facto go straight to the fact that the statement of override is okay just because the project shows up in the TPP. We've never, ever done that in CEQA. And again, what I'm trying to, there's a lot of other things in this bill that will provide efficiencies.
- Kim Delfino
Person
We're not objecting to those. We're objecting to the parts in this bill that are not part of that settlement agreement. And for these reasons, if the amendments are not taken, and frankly, even if they are, because they still would have opened up sensitive ecological areas, we urge an aye vote, I mean, sorry, it's been a long week and it's only Wednesday. We urge a no vote on this bill. Thank you.
- Randy Widera
Person
All right. Good afternoon, Chairman Allen and Committee Members. My name is Randy Widera. I am the Director of Programs at the California State Parks Foundation. First of all, I'd like to thank Assembly Member Garcia, who's been a champion for state parks, and we appreciate working with him in all ways to support and help state parks. And also, I want to commend the committee on your hard work on this and the language and in working good faith with us to amend this bill so that it protects state parks as well as helps with our energy infrastructure.
- Randy Widera
Person
I really had hoped to be here to be neutral on this bill because it is important, and we know how important it is to everyone. But with the 280 state parks, they are the best of California, and they are on the forefront of fighting climate change right now, too. And we believe that without removing the CEQA exemption, removing the CEQA exemption and the rebuttable assumptions that we're going to continue to put them at risk and work backwards. So we really have to remain opposed unless those are omitted from the bill. Thank you very much.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay. While folks who want to voice opposition line up at the mic, I want to just get some clarity from the author because I'm hearing mixed things. Are you, on the CEQA exemption. I understand you came in and said you're not accepting the amendments. What about the CEQA? That includes the CEQA? Because I'm hearing from a Member that you agreed to drop, remove the CEQA provision.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
Let me share with you that we have always said that the portion of the bill that is extremely important, and it should be recognized, is that the 18 party settlement agreement, and although, you know, we can say it's not an agreement yet, it's still going through the process.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
But there was a lot of work that went into that by a diverse group of folks who seldomly will be on the same page. We have said that time and time again, and I think the opposition has also said that they were good if the bill focused specifically on that. We are there.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
We get to this committee, and some of the proposed amendments that come forward kind of regress us from some of the progress that we've made, not only in the five stakeholder conversations that we've had, but the five committees that we've had leading up to here.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
And so it almost seems like it kind of took us in a different direction. So if we can refocus and get the settlement agreement conversation recentered, I'm all in on that. And I think that our sponsors and those supporters of the bill are good with that. If it's going to require for us to compromise and say we're going to get the CEQA portion out of this bill out to move this bill and focus just on the sub agreement, I'm going to be good with that.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
But I also just want to state for the record that I think we're missing a unique opportunity because it requires us to roll up our sleeves. It requires us to move away from our ideological perspectives on that CEQA cannot be reformed, that we cannot do it this way or that way because that's not what we've done before and not acknowledge that the targets that we've set forward, that the antiquated rules that are in place that go back to 1995 on how the CPUC is reviewing and approving transmission projects.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
Cal ISO is doing things in a different way, that it just doesn't align with the accelerated targets that we have for renewable energy procurement. And so it would be, I think, just shooting ourselves in the foot, not wanting to give ourselves an opportunity to have that conversation.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
We had a meeting on Monday where we spent some time talking about the CEQA component. And as I mentioned, and I want to state this again, that if removing the CEQA component allows us to focus on the settlement agreement moving forward, we are in a position to do that.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
But we had a conversation on Monday with opposition, yourself, and your committee consultants where we put out concepts on how to narrow the CEQA piece even further to protect our state parks, to protect other lands where already the land has been disturbed, where already there are lines running through there. And we came up with some concepts, and the minute that it seemed like we could get some traction, all of a sudden it wasn't a good idea anymore.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
And it's those types of circumstances that I feel like get in our way of actually seeing progress from building out this infrastructure that we need for the procurement of this clean energy that we're not going to be able to achieve on the schedule that we're on. And if we're okay with that, then I will be okay with excluding the CEQA piece to this bill, and I'll support that piece of the conversation and an amendment that allows us to focus on the settlement agreement.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay. A lot there. I mean, we did offer to narrow the rebuttal presumption to what's in the settlement agreement. I know that that's where a lot of the point of contention is now. Obviously, we haven't been able to land language, and we want to take the rebuttal presumption out until we get it hammered out. I think that seems to be the crux of the issue, though. You said a lot of different things just now. I want to get to the details as we get into discussion, but let's hear from folks who want to weigh in in opposition.
- Bri Fordem
Person
Good afternoon. Bri Fordem from Anza-Borrego Foundation, partner with Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, opposed unless amended.
- Darryl Little
Person
Darryl Little with NRDC in respectful opposition. Thank you.
- Jakob Evans
Person
Jakob Evans with Sierra Club California in opposition. Thank you.
- Alexandra Leumer
Person
Alex Leumer on behalf of the California Coastal Protection Network and the Center for Biological Diversity in opposition. Thank you.
- Katelyn Sutter
Person
Good afternoon. Katelyn Roedner Sutter with Environmental Defense Fund, opposed unless amended. We are parties to that settlement agreement and would very much like to see this bill narrowed to just the terms of that agreement. Maybe someone above agrees with me. I think what Assembly Member Garcia was just offering is to consider that.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
That's where we are, too. But, you know, devil's clearly in the details on this. Yes.
- Natalie Brown
Person
Natalie Brown with the Planning Conservation League and Endangered Habitats League in respectful opposition. Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay. Thank you. All right. Sorry. Oh, we, long ago, long ago. We started at 9:00 AM this morning. All right, look, let me just, before we open up to everyone, and I think this is going to go on for some time because there's a lot of detail to work out here, and I don't want to leave this hearing without a great deal more clarity, especially given all the many, many things that have been said by the author.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Let me start by saying that there's no doubt in my mind that we, I mean, I agree with the core premise that you've stated in many ways, Assembly Member, that we need to accelerate our transmission infrastructure deployment in order to meet the very dire energy needs facing the state.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I think the bill takes several important steps to streamline the CEQA and environmental review processes in those targeted places in the process where that makes sense. It's my strong feeling that, as written, the bill in front of us today goes too far to restrict and cut out important environmental review and protections.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Now, we've had many conversations trying to land a deal. It seems to me there are two outstanding issues in the bill that need to be resolved in order to win my support. First of all, as written, the bill creates a CEQA exemption for utility rights of way. This applies to anywhere in the state, including state parks, coastal zones, wetlands, other sensitive habitats. We've heard from folks from Anza-Borrego. That's a special place.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I've spent a lot of time there as a kid, and I just, I'm personally not going to put my stamp on anything that's going to make it easier for folks to run big transmission lines in the middle of the state park. As written, the bill makes it easier for just that to happen, and I'm not going to support that.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I believe it's critical to protect some of these very special places. And by the way, we're just being consistent in our position in the Becker bill from last year with regards to that. So the other, now, that being said, you've expressed some flexibility on CEQA's entrance and you made some commitments to Menjivar.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
You know, I understand that they're pending the broader discussion, the broader negotiation. At least that's my understanding from your answer earlier. Now, the other big issue, I think, it seems to me, the biggest sticking point seems to be on this rebuttal presumption question.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
And this is the idea that the benefits of any transmission project that has Cal ISO's approval should outweigh any environmental costs associated with the project. And I think that's the challenge here. The author's office argues that this is codifying the existing settlement agreement proposal to the PUC. You know, of course it's not settled, right?
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I know that's the term of art, and it is the correct term of art, but nobody in the room should take from the word settlement that it has been settled. It's under review by the PUC. And by the way, the PUC has its own set of concerns with what's happening here. The concern I think you're hearing from the committee is that the rebuttal of presumption as written in the bill, you know, goes beyond what's actually in the settlement agreement. The piece of the bill in print.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I think the concern is that the piece in the bill in print could undermine CEQA by turning the statement of overriding consideration on its head. I understand there's a disagreement over that issue and part of what I've offered to you, Assembly Member, and to your sponsor, SDG&E, I was in touch with Kent earlier.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
It was a deep dive with him. Every Member of the Committee would be welcome to join on the Zoom next week. We could go spend an hour or two on this and really try to get engaged in trying to really grapple with this issue. But clearly there's some serious disagreements, and I think they're reflected in your criticism of the analysis. As you know, the statement of overriding consideration is the backstop to CEQA.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Projects can always move forward with significant unmitigated impacts, but they have to provide justification in the statement of overriding consideration that those projects are worth the impacts of the environment. And of course, creating a rebuttal presumption would replace the need to provide justification and evidence that the project is truly worth it. So that's the...
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I think that's the concern here. Now, I know that, you know, so there's a concern that, as written, we could be turning CEQA into just a rubber stamp process to proceed with projects that have significant impacts on the environment. I know that's not the author's stated intent here.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
That's why we've offered to work with the author's office on this. You know, what we've, what we've said kind of several times is that we want to work on it together because we clearly haven't been able to land this yet. We offered site exclusions. I know you've offered a broader exclusion exemption. Certainly if you want to narrow the CEQA exemption more, that's great. We're okay with narrowing the rebuttal presumption to what's actually in the settlement agreement.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I mean, so what the frustration here is, I think we're actually, well, the frustration and the light at the end of the tunnel here is that we're all saying the same thing, which is that we're okay with narrowing the rebuttal presumption to what's actually in the settlement agreement. But, of course, we haven't been able to land on what that looks like exactly.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
So, you know, it's my hope that, it was my hope, and I've expressed this to you, Assembly Member, that you would accept the amendments with the commitment from us that we would work hard with you to kind of get this rebuttable presumption issue truly adhering to the settlement agreement framework. They're just going to take some time. Right.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I mean, both of us have been really involved in other things, and we're both engaged in trying to get the bond passed today and among 20 other issues that we're partnering on. But clearly, we weren't able to land this language on our bubble presumption in time for today. And it is important to us that we do that.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
And again, I reiterate our commitment to you to really work in good faith to do just that. So that's what we're offering to you. I'd hope that would be enough, given the timeframe, but I'm sensing that you're still trying to figure out, given all these moving parts, where your position is on the negotiations.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
There isn't a lot to figure out. We are good with focusing on the settlement agreement language, and we would hope that you would not tie our hands down to a specific approach or an amendment. I've been chairing committees the entire time that I've been here, and I know that there are ways of going about, you know, working collaboratively and collegially with our colleagues here where, when the spirit of wanting to get to an end goal where there is far more in common than not, we allow folks to continue to work in that spirit.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
That's what we're offering.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
But we're not tying people down to a specific set of amendments and then working the other way back by laying a marker that may or may not be in line with the end goal that is kind of tilting...
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Is this literally just an issue of leverage? Is that...
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
No, it's an issue of kind of good faith effort conversations remaining open and transparent to be able to land at a place where the settlement agreement is reflective of what all these parties came to. I've put on the table the striking of the CEQA exemption, and I just kind of editorialized it. Said I think we're missing an opportunity by not wanting to roll up our sleeves and put a little more work into it and narrowing it down in a way where we can at least find a way to thread the needle.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
But that's what we're offering. That's exactly what we're offering.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
But it seems to me that, and we're going to be okay if we exclude the CEQA piece. I want to be very clear with that. I'm just giving my commentary on that. What I want to focus on is the settlement agreement and getting that language right, but not tying our hands down to amendments that we find difficult to kind of work back into. And I'm going to defer to our key witness here who may be able to kind of articulate things better in terms of what are some of the challenges in that particular area with settlement agreement amendments that you're putting forward.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
But our hope is that we could move the bill forward, narrow it down to the settlement agreement, and take your offer of continuing to work on this matter, and be very clear that we have eliminated the CEQA portion, that if that makes everyone feel more comfortable, then we have a bill that now is much narrower and focuses on what many people have already agreed to continue to work on.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay. All right. I want to give the Members opportunity, and then I think we're going to have to engage all four of you in aspects of this discussion. I see Senator Menjivar.
- Caroline Menjivar
Legislator
You're Vice Chair.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
Unfortunately.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
You led the Vice Chairman.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
Well, I don't even know where to start. This is, you all been in negotiations. I'm on the outside trying to figure out what the hell is going on, and it pisses me off. I want to do the right thing for the environment. I want to do the right thing to meet the goals. And I have a lot of frustrations on a lot of bills that, I mean, I could go off on wind and we're just going to the ocean and we're going to do.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
I mean, I could say how frustrated I am about that process, how frustrated I am at the process, allow the CEC to go site wind projects in my district without the locals control. And here we are today working on a bill that I have no idea. Is it the same as what I voted on when I was in Energy, or is it not? And so you all have your party, and you do all your things in your party. And those of us who are on the outside who are trying to do the right thing have no opportunity to weigh in.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
I have not been part of any of these conversations. And you're doing a deal right here in front of me, and I don't have no idea what I'm voting on or not voting on. So where are we at? That's what I want to know. We're fleshing that out right here. And what about the public that's not here, that doesn't have the opportunity to know what amendment that we're even voting on? So, yeah, I'm very frustrated.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Well, clearly, clearly, unlike every other bill that we've heard today, a deal has not been finalized. That's what happened. So this is an opportunity for you to weigh in. You weigh in on nearly every bill, and I always appreciate your feedback and engagement. And it's welcome here today. Clearly, a deal has not been finalized.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I will say that for you to know, and you have the analysis. You've had access to it for some time, for a couple, few days. The core sticking point seems to be coming down to, seems to be coming down to the amendment, the amendment on page 11 of the analysis relating to rebuttal presumption.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
That is the, if I could direct anyone to the most important section of the analysis to read for the purposes of where we have a sticking point. And it sounds like both of us are expressing the same principle, which is that we really, we're okay with... Really. And by the way, I can't speak for the opposition on this.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I think they may have a more strict position, but at least from my perspective, making sure that there's coherence between the settlement agreement and the rebuttal presumption, so that we don't... And our concern is that as written, the rebuttable presumption could go much further than the scope of the settlement agreement, and they don't agree. If I could crystallize the disagreement, I think that's the best I could say. Yes.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
Maybe hearing from key witness, hearing from the opposition on those perspectives could shed light to the Members and just through you, Mr. Chair, to the questions by the Vice Chair. The bill that's before you is what came out of the last committee that you voted on. So there should be no confusion on that. The confusion that maybe comes about is us saying, look, we don't agree with the analysis, and we don't agree with the amendments that are reflective of this analysis that we think is a bit inconsistent with the process that's taking place. And...
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
In particular, it's that one amendment. Right?
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
That's just our perspective that we're sharing. Right. And we in advance provided that feedback to the Chair and to the committee. Right. And that's maybe what's causing the confusion. But what we're saying is we would like to continue to work on the bill without being strapped down with some amendments that may put us in a different place to get to a settlement agreement piece of the bill that is reflective ultimately of the conversations that have brought these parties together. That could still be a good outcome for the State of California and for the acceleration of transmission development and to help us meet our goals.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
Yes. You know, me being, you know, ambitious, me being pragmatic in nature and my approach to dealing with environmental and economic issues sensitive to the environment, I'm not wanting to tear down and tear through, you know, our state parks and build major transmission lands through my district, Borrego National, you know, State Park.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
You know, that that's not the intention. We're talking about existing right of ways where there's already lines going through there. And I'm saying, could we utilize those right of ways? And if there's CEQA that, you know, wasn't done, an example was given because it was pre-CEQA when those transmission lines were built.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
Well, maybe we need to not give this type of right away and go through some kind of CEQA, right. But that's not good enough because that's just philosophically not in line with the CEQA policies and what we've signed onto forever, that we would never violate the CEQA Bible book. To me, what's important here is that we try to be as pragmatic as we can to try to achieve these objectives, but also make sure that people are part of the focal point.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
You know, I represent an area that I just presented a bill in another committee where we don't have power in an area that gets up to 120 degrees. And then I'm in this committee talking about how we might be able to build transmission to move power in the most pragmatic ways possible, and we're running into a wall because, you know, we're just not there.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
So there should be no confusion and apologize if my presentation of not accepting the amendments because I have concerns about the analysis creates that confusion. I'm just trying to get to a place where, and I think it's very clear now, focus on the settlement agreement.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
We're not pushing the envelope here on the CEQA thing because it's very clear that there isn't an appetite to move there. And I wish this Legislature luck after, you know, my tenure here is done, to continue to ambitiously and aggressively try to meet its goals and objectives in the best possible way. But I think it's very clear that we're not going to do that. And we should just be honest with California and the rest of the world when we're talking about how wonderful these policies and these goals are.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
Well, I'd just like to thank you, first of all.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
I hope that's clear.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
What's that?
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
I hope there's no confusion anymore.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
Okay. Well, it's simple. Yeah. I just want to say that as somebody who's advocate for don't let the perfect get in the way of the good. And I think that's been my new term. Because we always have to have the perfect, and there's a lot of good, and we have to have compromise. At the end of the day, if we're going to, if we are going to, if we are going to lead the world and they're watching us and they are.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
And we, I mean, a lot of people tout how great we are, but at the end of the day, there's conflicts, there's things that need to be worked out. And as somebody that is passionate about these issues, it's hard. It's hard to be where we're at on our side of the aisle to figure out what the heck's going on. That was my original statement, and I'll just wait to see what you guys settle on and then I guess I'll vote appropriately.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Great. Why don't we give, I think, your suggestion of having witnesses, maybe Ms. Delfino, you'd like to weigh in on?
- Kim Delfino
Person
Sure. I'm going to just go to the rebuttable presumption issue because I feel like there's been no argument that the right of way exemption is not part of the settlement agreement. It never was part of it. It isn't part of it. It sounds like the author is willing to take that part out.
- Kim Delfino
Person
So on the rebuttable presumption, what the settlement agreement does say, if you turn to page 97 of the agreement, which I read last night, that the PUC can include project purpose and benefits that are found in the relevant Cal ISO transmission portfolio plan for a project in the statement of override. I don't have a problem with that.
- Kim Delfino
Person
I think it's fine to take, and the PUC can do it now, to take the benefits analysis that's in the TPP for a project, and if they're doing a statement of override, they can put it into the statement of override. That's different than saying that that then becomes all of the substantial evidence De facto, we're mandating it in law. It may be substantial evidence, it may not.
- Kim Delfino
Person
You may need to add additional, the CPUC or the lead agency may need to add more information in there if they're going to be overriding significant effects on local communities or on 10, you know, 50,000 Joshua trees being taken out or whatever the effect may be. So I just want to be clear.
- Kim Delfino
Person
I did a word search of the agreement, and I, for both rebuttable presumption and override considerations, making sure I wasn't a making a mistake. The two rebuttable positions in the settlement agreement pertain to purpose and need and preferred resources. That's it.
- Kim Delfino
Person
There is no rebuttable presumption in the settlement agreement about creating a rebuttable presumption on a statement of overriding considerations. And so if the author is, you know, saying that he wants to confine the bill to the settlement agreement, great. We would be happy to rewrite section subsection C in that bill, which is, I think is, like, 284514 C, to reflect that. You can use that part of a TPP analysis and put it into a statement of override. Great. But that's not what the bill says right now.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
So why isn't that commitment good enough for you, Assembly Member? I mean, we're willing to narrow the rebuttal presumption to what's actually in the settlement agreement. That is exactly what you said that you want...
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
Ask our sponsor of the bill to kind of speak to some of that.
- Erica Martin
Person
Yeah, I'd be happy to. I think the amendment currently is to completely remove the provision. So that is what we're, that we were currently...
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I understand. And we've been, you know, you know, we've expressed our willingness to work on that.
- Erica Martin
Person
So the rebuttable presumption is entirely consistent with the settlement agreement. I don't, respectfully, as this bill has gone through the process, if you were doing a word search for many of the provisions that are currently in there, it wouldn't appear exactly that way because we have revised it.
- Erica Martin
Person
It has been become more narrowly tailored as it has gone through these other four policy committees. The purpose of the rebuttable presumption is to apply that the weight to the need of the project. When the system operator has determined that a project is necessary, it is not a De facto approval. It is something that may be rebutted by any other party as well as the agency itself.
- Erica Martin
Person
It is simply that, when the system operator has gone through years of forecasting and planning and studied the issue and determined that a transmission system project is necessary, that that, because it addresses the general state transmission system, could constitute substantial evidence that overrides a local environmental impact. And again, this only occurs where the CPUC is unable to find a location and a route that does not avoid or mitigate substantial impacts. It's not a rubber stamp.
- Erica Martin
Person
So we certainly respectfully disagree about the interpretation of the settlement agreement, but we are open to removing the words rebuttable presumption if that is something that causes concern that it would be a rubber stamp and instead establish that the system transmission... I'm sorry, the transmission system authorities determination should constitute substantial evidence.
- Erica Martin
Person
And that's a term of art in CEQA. It means that, if such evidence exists, someone can make a fair argument in support of those overriding considerations. It does not mean that additional information, analysis, and evidence could be added that would overcome that. And in which case, no agency is bound to issue a statement of overriding considerations. That is not what our proposal would do.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I see. Ms. Delfino?
- Kim Delfino
Person
Yeah. Can I just respond? Saying that something's a rebuttable presumption and then saying, well, no, we'll strike those words and then just say that the, you know, the information in the TPP, shall constitute substantial evidence. That's the same thing. It's the same thing. So all worse... And that is not what's in the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement simply says that they want the PUC to take what's in the transmission planning and put it into the statement of override. But it's not saying that it would constitute substantial evidence. It's not limiting that.
- Kim Delfino
Person
So it feels a little surreal, honestly, the conversation, because their proposal is essentially restating the thing that we're saying that we're objecting to. So that's why this has been a very somewhat frustrating conversation. Again, I'm fine with taking... They can literally lift the language out of their settlement proposal. And put it into the bill and we would be okay with that. But that's not what they're doing.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Right. I mean, that's the thing. I mean, you keep saying you want to conform it to the settlement agreement, but there's not a willing...
- Erica Martin
Person
The settlement agreement. I'm not sure, I'm happy to go into the details of the settlement agreement and talk through the way, the way that the, for example, AB 1373's rebuttable presumption of the need of the project was attempted to be carried throughout the CPUC's review and CEQA process.
- Erica Martin
Person
The entire goal is to leverage that forecasting and planning the approval of the system operator so that the CPUC doesn't redo or try to duplicate where they can't in tailored parts of the process, including the potential for a statement of overriding considerations.
- Erica Martin
Person
And the Legislature has already, obviously, passed AB 1373, and expressed that leadership, that the CPUC should do that when CaI ISO has approved a project. But as I said, we have proposed alternative language that we think does not operate as a rebuttable presumption but still affords that important weight to the Cal ISO determination. And that's really the goal.
- Erica Martin
Person
If there is language refinement that can avoid some of these concerns, for example, making sure that the agency still understands they must issue a statement, they must provide justification, they will provide transparency to the public and to stakeholders who are involved in the process. We want to make sure that happens. We're not interested in tying the agency's hands. So if there is language that makes it very clear that it is not a De facto rubber stamp, we're interested in doing that, but we want it to be a meaningful weight of the approval of Cal ISO in that process.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
So what do you think, Mr. Vice Chair? You having fun? Yeah. Well, look, I mean, my... Well, yeah, we... Yeah, what system? You mean debating and discussing it?
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
Decide what you're gonna do so I can vote? I'm waiting for... That's all I have.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Yeah. Okay. Look, I mean, if he's not accepting the amendments, I'm not gonna support it. Now, you know that I want to say, I want to say very clearly, again, as I do over and over again, that I am very, very willing to be open and negotiate over the recess so as to get these issues landed.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I just don't think we're going to get this figured out right now. I understand that you'd prefer not to. I get that. I'll tell you, that's where I am. It seems like this really comes down to you wanting to have as much leverage as you can in the negotiation. And the committee wanted to have as much leverage, too. So I'm not trying to fault you for that. I understand you've got a perspective. It's a valid one. It's different than some of the ones that have been expressed. And...
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
Mr. Chair, I'm not here to leverage anything, not here to play games, and not here to extend the conversation far more than it needs to go. The question is, you know, I've said we will strike the CEQA language and that no longer needs to be a conversation. We're done there.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
So that amendment that you have put forward is irrelevant if I'm saying we no longer need to deal with that. The question is focused around this issue of the settlement agreement. You know, I'm asking you, respectfully, that if you truly are wanting to see us work this through, we've got another committee coming forward. Give us the opportunity to work. Bring us together, have a workgroup for the 6th time with stakeholders, and let's work on refining this language as opposed to just tying us down to the language.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
That's exactly what I'm offering. That's exactly what I'm offering.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
And it sounds to me that the position is because that's what the opposition wants and not because that's what the Chair is wanting to do. We just heard it back and forth that I think merits additional discussion. And the option that you're giving us is take that or you don't have a bill. And I think everyone recognizes that this is an extremely important policy.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
Look, we didn't come in here with any other intention but to have this type of free flowing conversation with the willingness and readiness to compromise on the CEQA piece and hope that in the same spirit of trying to legislate via text messaging that we could have this conversation here and that you would be willing to have a next phase of this discussion. And not on the premise of just because the opposition said, but because there is still more work to be done and that you always have the discretion to pull this bill back.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
The premise, the premise is that the committee is concerned that the way it's framed right now undermines CEQA in a way that you don't believe. And again, it's something we're going to have to negotiate. And by the way, Senator Dahle, you're welcome in the negotiation, too.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
Now that's leverage.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Yeah. You know, so that's, you know, again, that's, that's all that's all. That's, that's all. It seems like we're close here, but...
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
Well, look, it seems like...
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
You're not taking the...
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
Oh, no. It seems like we don't have very much option. And so if we have no option, we're going to accept the welcoming of continuing the conversation with that because it doesn't seem like we have another alternative. Right.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
You know, as I mentioned before, in my 10 years of chairing committees and in the spirit of trying to land a good policy, we've always given our colleagues the courtesy of continuing to work on stuff without bogging them down on something that could not, at the end of the day, be reversible because you're not going to be able to get the opposition to agree with you if you move in a different position by us accepting this amendment.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Let me be really clear. The opposition dropping opposition is not a prerequisite for agreement with the committee. I mean, just earlier we've had a number of people in the house here from the environmental community who have opposed bill that we've approved. So this committee routinely passes bills that have opposition from the environmental community. This committee has passed all sorts of CEQA flexibility, much to the chagrin of many people in this room. So I don't think that one could claim that there's an ideological purity test here, certainly not in the last 5-6 years before this committee.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
And I will say, you know, Assembly Member, I mean, you know, literally an Assembly Member that you got to reach out to me on this topic had done, you know, exactly what, you know, we're doing right here, which is what he said, hey, accept the amendments, we'll have further negotiations. And I did exactly that. I didn't create a, you know, I did exactly that. And we're now engaging in negotiations. So maybe it's a matter of...
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
What you're basically saying is that you're willing to accept the amendment of the CEQA. You're willing to?
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
No, we're striking the CEQA piece out of the bill.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
Okay. It's out. So it's already out. So that's what you've changed.
- Eduardo Garcia
Legislator
Because the amendment that is being proposed in the spirit of trying to narrow it down actually doesn't work, and it creates a longer process and period of building out the transmission. So it doesn't work. So let's just cut that piece out of the bill.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay. So then it just says, then basically it means that we have to negotiate the rebuttal presumption portion. And it comes down to the extent to which this adheres to the settlement agreement or not. And there's just a difference of, you know, we heard it. There's a difference. Can it be bridged? I assume so. I mean, we've bridged tougher things. You know, you and I very recently on other topics, Assembly Member, have. So that's where we are, Mr. Vice Chair. I mean, you know.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
I'm ready to go eat something.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Yeah.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
I'm willing to make a motion and give it a shot and see if we can't continue the bill on and maybe we can work it out over the break or something and maybe we can get on a zoom and talk about these things. But if you're willing to entertain that, I'm available.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
What is your motion exactly?
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
We moved the bill. He already striked out, the CEQA piece is gone. That's out. Correct? And that we move the bill onto Appropriations.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay. So you're not moving the committee amendments? Right. Okay.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
We'll see what happens. He did take some... He struck out the CEQA part of it, which I think is healthy.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
If that's your motion we have to put it in writing for folks because it's different than the amendments. So we have to recess to do that. I will not be supporting that motion, but I'm certainly open to supporting another motion that is in line with the amendments with the understanding that we will work on trying to land the rebuttal presumption language with the proponents. Now do we actually have to recess or can we hear from Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry to present her bill while we draw up the...
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
I don't have my staff.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
We'll just take a brief recess.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Aguiar-Curry bill as the fun continues on the Garcia bill. So, Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry is here presenting AB 2514.
- Cecilia Aguiar-Curry
Legislator
Thank you, Senator Allen. I appreciate you moving up. I have things to do today like you do. Thank you, Mister Chair and senators. I will be accepting the Committee amendments today. Members, the issue of organic waste, including ag waste and forest biomass, is one I've been working on since I came to the Capitol in 2016.
- Cecilia Aguiar-Curry
Legislator
As I drive around my district, I see fruit and nut trees being pulled up, piled, and burned because there's nowhere for this waste to go. This issue is deeply personal because my family just made the gut-wrenching decision to cut down our walnut orchard.
- Cecilia Aguiar-Curry
Legislator
Figuring out a sustainable way to deal with the massive amount of wood waste is a logistical nightmare. Communities like the rural areas of my district have been struggling to find ways to divert their organic waste from landfills. We need to put that waste to beneficial, climate-friendly use.
- Cecilia Aguiar-Curry
Legislator
This bill takes several common-sense steps to help streamline the process of permitting a narrow set of bioenergy projects. First, it codifies Federal Government definition of pyrolysis. It does not change how pyrolysis is permitted or regulated, but helps people know what projects count as pyrolysis projects here.
- Cecilia Aguiar-Curry
Legislator
Second, this bill allows communities to get procurement credit for projects that use only organic waste to generate green energy. Finally, this bill asks CalRecycle to consider the lifecycle benefits and impacts of projects when it makes decisions on incentive funding. This is a technology-neutral way of making sure that our waste disposal processes are climate-friendly.
- Cecilia Aguiar-Curry
Legislator
I have already taken many amendments to narrow the bill and address opposition's concerns, and I will continue to work on it if the Bill makes it out of committee today.
- Cecilia Aguiar-Curry
Legislator
This bill will help reduce future emissions by helping divert organic waste from landfills, and it will help increase energy reliability and resiliencies to those communities that need it the most. With me to testify in support of the bills are Julia Levin, Executive Director of the Bioenergy Association of California, and Evan Edgar of Edgar and Associates.
- Julia Levin
Person
Good afternoon. Julia Levin with the Bioenergy Association of California. Climate Scientists agree that the most urgent thing we can do to address climate change is to reduce short-lived climate pollutants. And that's why California enacted SB 1383, the state's short-lived climate pollutant reduction law.
- Julia Levin
Person
That law requires a 40% reduction in methane and a 75% reduction in organic waste going to landfills. Unfortunately, California is many years behind in meeting that waste diversion requirement, and as a result, last year the Little Hoover Commission issued a report on what the state could do to accelerate landfill diversion to meet our methane reduction requirements.
- Julia Levin
Person
One of the chief recommendations of the Little Hoover Commission was to give local governments more market opportunities, more options for the diverted organic waste. And that's exactly what AB 2514 would do. It creates an additional pathway that local governments can choose. It doesn't put its fingers on the scales.
- Julia Levin
Person
It just says it gives local governments an additional option, which is converting organic waste to pipeline biomethane, pursuant to other state legislation, SB 1440. The Bill is focused exclusively on organic waste and non-burning technologies, pyrolysis, which is high-temperature thermal decomposition, and the creation of pipeline biomethane, which is done through anaerobic digestion.
- Julia Levin
Person
So, concerns that the bill would somehow promote trash burning are really misguided based on the wrong technologies, not technologies, at issue in this bill. And finally, one of the other requirements of SB 1383, the state's short-lived climate law.
- Julia Levin
Person
There is a specific requirement in that bill for state agencies to adopt policies and incentives to increase the in-state production of renewable gas from organic waste as a way to reduce short-lived climate pollutants.
- Julia Levin
Person
Several of the opponents to the bill have said that this bill, AB 20514 contradicts the goals of SB 1383, and nothing could be farther from the truth. It actually specifically implements one of the requirements of SB 1383 to increase renewable gas from organic waste as a way to reduce short lived climate pollutants.
- Julia Levin
Person
So, we respectfully request the committee's aye vote on this important legislation.
- Evan Edgar
Person
Committee Members, my name is Evan Edgar, Edgar Associates. I'm the permit engineer for anaerobic digestion facilities statewide and represent organic waste haulers. What we do right now, permit over six facilities. We make a carbon-negative biomethane. We put it right back into the truck. It's a beautiful world.
- Evan Edgar
Person
However, at the Air Board, they're forcing advanced clean fleet rule that will force us into battery electric. With that, we can't put our biomethane in the truck anymore. Carbon is committed as part of the advanced clean fleet rule in order to find a home for biomethane, for hard to decarbonize communities. So, we make the biomethane.
- Evan Edgar
Person
We got to put it somewhere. In order to deliver it, we need a PUC pipeline. So, we will continue to make biomethane fuel for the hard-to-decarbonized industry. And we need local government, as part of 1383 procurement to buy that biomethane. For those reasons, we urge your support. Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Other folks who want to voice support for the bill.
- Dean Grafilo
Person
Chair, senator, Dean Grafilo with Capital Advocacy. Here on behalf of the County of Los Angeles, in support of AB 2514. Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you.
- Alfredo Redondo
Person
Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Committee, Alfredo Redondo, on behalf of the Green Hydrogen Coalition and H Cycle. We support the bill in print, with the Committee amendments we'll, unfortunately, have to go neutral, but look forward to the continuing conversation on those provisions. Thank you.
- Priscilla Quiroz
Person
Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the Solid Waste Association North America Legislative Task Force, the California chapters, in support.
- Jennifer Hamilton
Person
Jennifer Hamilton with the California Hydrogen Business Council. We support the bill in print. We do not support the removal of hydrogen and do look forward to continuing those conversations. Thank you.
- Krystal Raynes
Person
Krystal with Californians Against Waste. With the committee amendments we are no longer opposed to the bill. Thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay. Opposition, folks who want to raise concerns about the bill.
- Avinash Kar
Person
Good afternoon. My name is Avi Kar and I'm a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council at NRDC. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. We understand that the author has agreed to take amendments along the lines of the Committee analysis.
- Avinash Kar
Person
We appreciate the author's and the Committee's attention to our concerns, and we will review the amended language as soon as it is available. NRDC does not support using organic waste, especially source-separated organic waste, as feedstocks to produce hydrogen, as the bill in print would encourage.
- Avinash Kar
Person
Hydrogen production is not the most ecologically preferred way to treat organic waste because true organics recycling returns nutrients and carbon to the soil by a composting or similar processes. Allowing hydrogen produced from organic waste to count as diversion undercuts 13803's stated intent to support the adoption of policies that improve organics recycling.
- Avinash Kar
Person
Recycling would not happen under that scenario. Hydrogen produced from organic waste should not count as a recovered organic waste product for purposes of meeting the procurement requirements under SB 1383.
- Avinash Kar
Person
NRDC is also concerned that the current version of AB 2514 would incentivize the use of pyrolysis, which is a type of incineration that requires high temperatures and pressures and is therefore very energy intensive. When plastic is used as a feedstock, pyrolysis generates toxic air pollutants and large quantities of hazardous waste.
- Avinash Kar
Person
This is relevant to AB 2514 and as in print, since the Committee, since as the Committee analysis notes, even source-separated components of municipal solid waste have significant contamination from other materials, including plastic, potentially as high as 10%. Thank you for considering our views.
- Jane Williams
Person
Thank you. I'm Jane Williams. I'm the Executive Director of California Communities Against Toxics. This will be the 15th time I've appeared in front of the state Legislature on this topic during my 30-year career.
- Jane Williams
Person
Senator Dahle, it's so great to see you here and the great repartee that you bring to all of these proceedings, I remember in Assembly. So, first of all, I'd like to thank the Committee staff and the Committee for doing a fantastic job on the amendments. Number two. And I want to.
- Jane Williams
Person
Hopefully, I'll get a chance to say this a number of time during my testimony here that we can't burn our way out of the climate crisis. We just can't. It's not going to work. So, I want to talk about how pyrolysis units are actually regulated under federal law and in the State of California. It's a simple concept.
- Jane Williams
Person
They're not. So currently, the existing paralysis facilities in the United States do not have to meet a Clean Air Act standard. And so, though we have standards in our state for municipal waste incinerators, we do not have our own standards for pyrolysis units or any other kind of incinerators. We follow the federal Clean Air Act.
- Jane Williams
Person
And though we have been having a huge fight about the regulation of pyrolysis at the federal level, currently every existing pyrolysis facility is being operated with an exemption that's been granted by either EPA region or the Office of Air and Radiation. So that's hugely problematic, especially when we know where these facilities are going to go.
- Jane Williams
Person
They're going to go in the top 10% CalEnviroScreen, our absolutely most vulnerable and highly impacted communities, just like the metal shredders that you heard about later, earlier this earlier.
- Jane Williams
Person
So, I want to talk about, one of the other serious problems is that despite AB 939, which has now been in place since 1989, we really do not have clean organics. It is very difficult to get organic waste. It has not been contaminated with other different types of trash.
- Jane Williams
Person
I think Senator Scheer would be rolling in his grave to know that AB 939 really has not done a good job of actually getting actual recycling happening in the United States, in California, rather.
- Jane Williams
Person
So, I also want to point out that the IRA grants huge incentives for hydrogen, and these incentives, up to $1.25 a gallon, are skewing environmental policy here in California and nationally already.
- Jane Williams
Person
And so, we are seeing proposals to just burn everything to make hydrogen by burning things, which is really just a fig leaf for essentially fossil fuels, to hydrogen, which is what the existing H Cycle proposal is in Pittsburgh, which Pittsburgh, California, is one of our most highly impacted communities. Top 10% CalEnviroScreen.
- Jane Williams
Person
Their feedstock is with the process flow diagrams that we recently received from CalRecycle. It's planned to be MSW, not organic waste. So, I also want to point out to the Committee that those of you who know me well know I live in the Mojave Desert, and it's going to be 117 degrees on Friday.
- Jane Williams
Person
So, we have been working, my organization and my partners across the state have been working on climate policy now since the early 2000s, we have opposed false solutions, combustions, giving subsidies for false solutions. And we see that those same forces are still well endowed and very much alive.
- Jane Williams
Person
So, it has been fascinating for me to see many of the issues I've worked on over my career rollout in the Committee today. And I would just say in a closing statement to say that this Legislature and the State of California and this Governor have made promises to our environmental justice communities.
- Jane Williams
Person
And we need to do everything we can to make sure that those promises are animated and alive, and one of those cannot be to put new combustion units in those communities. Thank you so much.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay. Other folks who want to raise concerns about the bill or opposition. All right, back to the Committee.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Let me just start by, it seems like we, yeah, let me thank the Chair for working really closely with the Committee and making the bill more tailored to address a lot of the concerns that we've heard addressed by the folks in opposition today.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I know that the amendments don't fully remove opposition, but I certainly, I know that they go a long way toward addressing a lot of the key concerns from the environmental community.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
You know, we heard an earlier bill from Assembly Lee AB 2346 and the idea here in both cases is that we're, that there are attempts to give local jurisdictions more flexibility to reach the 1383 procurement targets, which we hear about all the time from folks in local government.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
You know, I know local governments have been working incredibly hard to, to reach their 1383 goals. We know we're falling short of those targets, especially in the effort of procuring recycled organic material to keep that material out of landfills.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Under 1383, as we've been talking about, biomethane is eligible for procurement credit, but only if it's used on-site. And there's been some tension here over different objectives of the state. We want to some advancing biomethane production under 1383 while transitioning to zero-emission vehicles.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
And many of us have been involved in that discussion for a long time. So, while expanding procurement credit to go to pipeline, biomethane is certainly a big expansion, I do think that it's a smart way to resolve that conflict between objectives and reaching 1383 procurement targets and also reaching our ZEV goals.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
One of the main concerns on this bill has been that organic material streams are polluted. So that when we're thinking of converting organic waste into energy, we also have to think about what else is in that waste stream.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
If organic waste stream is contaminated with plastic, which we know it is, then high-temperature technologies that can gasify or pyrolyze or combust plastic could then lead to producing energy from plastic or other contaminants. And there's pollution associated. I mean, of course, the state's taken steps to move away from incentivizing waste to energy.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
So, we have to be really careful about where this fits into that. Also, of course, because the organic stream has contamination, we don't really know what toxic or criteria air pollutants could be emitted from those facilities if we're converting mixed plastics and organics into energy. So, I know there's more to figure out here.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Part of this is that hydrogen production from organics via pyrolysis is pretty new technology. So, as we figure out the right path forward to reach our 1383 goals and protect communities from air pollution, I think that's why that was the idea behind taking hydrogen out of the bill.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
As we figure out as a state how to best move forward with hydrogen in a way that's truly green and advances the zero-emissions future. The hydrogen conversation continues. We have had many discussions on several bills before this Committee. I think, once again, we're very interested in being part of that discussion and very open-minded.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I mean, there are a lot of people who are, you know, don't want any hydrogen under any circumstances, and there's those that want it under every circumstance, and we're obviously not in either of those camps.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
So, I am thankful to the author for agreeing to take this amendment as we continue to figure out how best to support locals in reaching the goals advancing clean energy, protecting historically disadvantaged communities. But I know that this conversation is going to continue. And so, with that, I'd love to open up the floor to members with questions.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Moved by, Senator. And any other discussion or thoughts? No? Okay. Moved by, Senator. Sorry for being long-winded and let's call the roll. I'll give you the opportunity to close. I'm sorry.
- Cecilia Aguiar-Curry
Legislator
I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, great. Secretary, please call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
AB 2514. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, so we'll leave that open for folks to, for folks to add on. Sorry? Yes. But I do think we should. I mean, we've got. Well, okay. Yeah. Let's do item 15. Let's do item 15. We lifted calls and we want to give you the opportunity. And then Eddie showed up.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call]
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
The motion would be do pass to appropriations, as amended in the Committee to remove CEQA provision of the Bill and a commitment from the author to continue to work and resolve the differences of opinion on whether the language accurately reflects the settlement agreement provisions.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
You have to have that in writing for that. Okay. Okay. Apparently we have to have that in writing to pass out to everyone.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
Unless otherwise I can make a counter motion. Yeah. Okay, well, we'll have to get somebody to print it for me, then. Okay, call recess.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Well, we can lift calls on everything else, right? Yeah. So someone's got to work on that, I guess. Okay, and then we'll lift the calls on everything else so that Senator Skinner can add on. We'll start from the top. Item one. AB 1042. Bauer Kahan
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
We're now at item 15, AB 2454. Lee.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass to Appropriations, the current vote is two to zero, with the Chair voting aye, [Roll Call].
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Skinner. Skinner's already in aye, so that's three to two. We're gonna leave that open. Aguiar-Curry, item 16 2514.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass, as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is four to zero. With the Chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, that's five to zero. We'll leave that open. Item 17, Bonta, AB 2851.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass, as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is two to zero. With the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, that's three to zero. We'll leave that open. Item 18, 2958 Calderon.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion. 2851. Yeah, you're an aye. Yes, we got you already. 2958.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass to Appropriations. The current vote is two to zero. With the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call].
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, so that leaves us with Garcia. And the Vice Chair has made a motion that, because it's a different motion than accepting the amendments or a clean pass, we have to go print it up. That's now underway.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Copies of the motion in writing will be provided to the Members, and then we will entertain that motion that, unfortunately, I will not be supporting. But. But we're going to have to take a recess until then. Figure on the Garcia Bill. I understand. So. But it's being print it up.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I think in the meantime, since Senator mentioned here, we might as well lift calls and let her add on. So we'll. So while that document is being prepared, it's going to be run over here so folks can have an opportunity to see it. We'll let Senator mention of our add on. So let's start with AB 1042, Bauer-Kahan
- Committee Secretary
Person
AB 1042, the motion is do pass, as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is two to zero. With the Chair voting aye [Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, so that's three to two. We'll leave that open for three to zero. Okay. Okay, great. Next we'll go to AB 2085 Bauer-Kahan
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass, as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is four to two. With the Chair voting aye, the Vice Chair voting no. [Roll Call] you know what? You already voted on this one.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Ph, I'm sorry. Yeah, the manager's already there. All right, let's go to AB 2214 Bauer-Kahan
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass to Appropriations. The current vote is three to one. With the Chair voting aye, the Vice Chair voting no. [Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, we'll next go to Bauer-Kahan 2236.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is three to two. With the Chair voting aye, the Vice Chair voting no. [Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, next we go to AB 1122. Baines.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. The current vote is five to zero. With the Chair voting aye, and the Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
All right, Grayson AB 1296, item six.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass to Appropriations. The current vote is five to zero. With the Chair voting aye, the Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
All right, that is six to zero. Let's now go to Papan 1359.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass to Appropriations. The current vote is five to zero. With the Chair voting aye, the Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Papan, leave that open. Papan, AB 1921.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Motion is do pass to appropriation. The current vote is four to zero. With the Ahair voting aye, the Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
All right, consent calendar. We should do as well.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Okay, file item number nine starts the consent calendar. [Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, six to zero. Berman, AB 2083.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass, as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is three to two. With the Chair voting aye, the Vice Chair voting no. [Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, Assemblymember Hart AB 20-. Yeah, we're gonna leave that open. That's four to two. Assemblymember Hart's 2298.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass, as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is five to zero. With the ahair voting aye, the Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
All right, six to zero. We'll leave that open for Senator Gonzalez, AB 2300. Wilson.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass. The current vote is five to zero. With the Chair voting aye, the Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
All right, six to zero. We'll leave that open. AB 2346 Lee.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass, as amended to appropriations. The current vote is five to zero. Chair voting aye, the Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, that is six to zero. We'll leave that open for Lena. Let's see. 2454 Lee.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass to appropriations. The current vote is three to zero. With the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Four to zero. Leave that open. 2514 Aguiar-Curry.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass, as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is five to zero. With the Chair voting aye, the Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay. Bonta's 2851.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass, as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is three to zero. With the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
All right, that's four to zero. Calderon's 2958.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass to Appropriations. The current vote is three to zero. With the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Four to zero. All right, we'll leave those open. Brief recess.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
All right, so we are going to entertain a motion from the Vice Chair.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
Well, I'm so glad that I could bring so many parties together all at once. The motion is do pass is amended to Appropriations, and the amendments would be. Strike the CEQA exemption for right of ways language in the Bill as Section one.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
Public Resources Code, section 21080.60, as proposed, page two, lines one through five, and page three, lines one through 26, strike the language in the Bill regarding the rebuttal presumption in Section 2845.14 and replace it with the following text.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
Recognizing the California ISO transmission planning findings inconsistent with law under CEQA, the Commission may include Caiso factual findings regarding a project objectives and benefits in the Commission statement of objectives and any statement of overriding consideration. Doing in doing so is consistent with CEQA guidelines 15124 B and 15,093 B. Nothing in CEQA requires the Commission to ignore such findings and is reasonable for the Commission to recognize them.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, that's the motion. I almost feel like it's a wedding.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
I do, right?
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Yeah. Secretary please call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, let me. Of course. Yeah.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
I believe this is my last EQ meeting as being in the Senate. I just want to take this opportunity to, first of all, thank the Chair who has been my Chair all along. I served on ESTM and the Assembly love this Committee. Hate it at times, too.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
But I just want to say thank you to the staff, both sides. Scott's not here today. I know that he's. I don't know what he's doing. Hopefully enjoying himself somewhere, but.
- Brian Dahle
Legislator
And just all the Committee Members that have indulged me on this staff, and I appreciate all the staff, and it's been a pleasure to serve with you over the last four years. So thank you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Well, thank you, miss. Thank you, Mister Vice Chair. And we're.
- Nancy Skinner
Legislator
Yeah, and Mister Chair, since I'm in the same situation as my friend, the Senator from Tehama. I get that. No, Red Bluff. Beaver. Beaver. Beaver. Anyway, from the far north. I also want to express my appreciation and would love to be able to stay on the Committee, but don't get to. But I really do appreciate him. We have done great work.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Thank you. We've had such great Members and such great staff, and we're. Obviously, there are going to be many well deserved accolades given to our colleagues Senator Dahle and Senator Skinner through the course in the final month. But I just want to say what a pleasure it's been to serve with you.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
You both brought such great insight and wisdom to the process from your varying perspectives. And it's. It's really sad to lose this expertise, quite frankly, from both of you. And even in the context of this contentious Bill that we just worked on, both of you played an important role in helping us get there.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
And so I want to thank you. I want to thank the staff, of course, as well. What a great team we have. Very diligent, good camaraderie, flexibility and creativity just on display, literally just now from Gab, Eric, Brynn, Holly, Patricia, as well, of course, and Scott, who's really, really, really great. Renee, just a wonderful, wonderful team.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
And it's part of what makes the work really fun is having such a great team to work with. And let me just take a moment to just mention Holly kind of in a. You know, Holly has been our science fellow, and I just love the science fellowship, I've got to say.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
I mean, it just provides consistently high quality, high caliber folks, including some alums that are now serving on the permanent staff. But it's just such an extraordinary program. And, you know, at this moment in time, where we need science in government decision making more than ever.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Having this pipeline for really sharp, talented PhDs coming up the system to find their way onto the dais with us helping to inform our decisions is just wonderful. Many of you don't know the credible caliber and talent that we have here on the dais.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
But Holly earned her PhD from Yale for her work in green chemistry and water quality. Last fall, she came out to California because of the science fellowship. Right. And wanted to do this work with us.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Really got the chance to apply her skills and her knowledge to some really consequential legislation that had a lot to do with the things you worked on as a doctoral student. So we've had a real expert in green chemistry on our team through the course of the year, which has really been helpful.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
She analyzed some of the biggest PFAS bills. Water quality, solid waste, green chemistry really played an important role in helping shape those bills. She's also just a great person and someone who's cheerful, she's amenable, she's friendly. I know everyone on the team has really enjoyed having her.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Sometimes there's people who are really talented, but they don't always make life fun to live with and be with and work with. And Holly is just the opposite. I mean, she's just got a great smile and a great, great attitude. And by the way, a really, really good negotiator.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
And I know that she was personally involved with a whole slew of difficult bills. And, of course, negotiations is a really important part of this process. But she worked on bills related to household product safety, bisphenols, pesticides, anticoagulants, and paraquiet, which we just heard last time, neonics, plastic bags, microplastics, rare earth materials.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
You were involved with helping to shepherd the negotiations. These negotiations are not easy. You're dealing with massive egos from the Members, well paid spin artists from the advocacy community. And to be able to sort, sort through and find the right path is really important. And Holly's been great with that.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
So, anyway, anyone who's listening, Holly's transitioning and looking for her next career move. First of all, I'm going to ask Eric. I'd love to expand the slots on this Committee so we can keep her, but that's above my pay grade. But really, this young lady, I'm sure is going to land somewhere really great.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Want to help her do that. So thanks again, Holly. And of course, just thanks again to this wonderful staff. I mean, I just really appreciate this wonderful EQ staff. Holly, Eric, Brynn, Scott, Renee Gab, of course, our fearless leader. This has just been a pleasure to work with you. So with that, congratulations to all the authors. Congratulations. We're going to let everyone go, but we're just going to. I'm going to sit around waiting for our majority leader. So thank you. Thank you, everyone.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I know. Here everything is an aye recommendation from the Chair, now that we've worked out some tricky things. So let's reopen the roll. Let's reopen the roll. Item one. AB 1042, Bauer-Kahan.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Sorry, I don't need to read the motions for you. The current vote is three to zero. With the Chair voting aye, [Roll Call] That's four to zero.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Four to zero. We will close the roll on that. That passes out, let's say. Nasca. Item two. AB 2085. Bauer-Kahan.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The current vote is four to two. With the chair voting aye, the Vice Chair voting no, Senators Gonzalez aye. Gonzalez aye. Five to two.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Five to two. Okay, item three. That's out. Bauer-Kahan AB 20214.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The current vote is four to one. The Chair voting aye, Vice Chair voting no, [Roll Call]
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
All right, that is a five to one vote. And that is out. Next we go to AB 2236. Bauer-Kahan.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The current vote is four to two. With the chair voting aye, the Vice Chair voting no, Senators Gonzalez? Gonzalez aye. Five to two. Yes.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Okay, that is five to two. So we'll close the roll on that. That's out. AB 1122 Baines.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Okay, the current vote is six to zero. Senators Gonzalez yes. Do you pass, as amended to Appropriations. Chair voting aye. And the Vice Chair voting aye. Yes. Gonzalez aye.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Seven to zero. Item six, AB 1296. Grayson
- Committee Secretary
Person
Motion is do pass to Appropriations. The current vote is six to zero. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting aye, Senators Gonzalez? Gonzalez aye.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
That's seven to zero. That is out. Let's go to item seven now. This is papen's. AB 1359.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Okay, motion do pass to Appropriations. The current vote is six to zero. The Chair voting aye, the Vice Chair voting aye. Senator is Gonzalez. Gonzalez aye.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
All right, seven to zero. All right. AB 1921 Papan.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Motion do pass to Appropriations. The current vote is five to zero. The Chair voting aye. And the Vice Chair voting aye, [Roll Call] six to zero.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Six to zero. All right. Let's go to item 11. That's AB 2083.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Berman, you wouldn't do.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
You can do consent. zero, we do consent. Let's do consent.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Why not file item number nine starts consent calendar, Senators Gonzalez. Gonzalez aye. Seven to zero.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
At seven to zero, we'll close the consent calendar. Let's now go to Berman's item 11 AB 2083.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. The current vote is four to two. With the chair voting aye. The Vice Chair voting no, Senator Gonzalez? Gonzalez aye.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Five to two. Two to five. Let's go to item 12. Hart's AB 2298.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Motion is do pass, as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is six to zero. Senator, with the Chair voting aye, Vice Chair voting aye, Senator Gonzalez? Gonzalez Aye. 7-0.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
All right, 7-0. We'll close the roll on that item 13. Weber's AB 2300. Sorry, Wilson Wilson's.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass. The current vote is six to zero. With the Chair voting aye, the Vice Chair voting aye, Senator Gonzalez? Gonzalez aye.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
All right, 7-0. We'll close the roll on that. Item 14. Lee's 2346
- Committee Secretary
Person
Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is six to zero. With the Chair voting aye, the Vice Chair voting aye, Senator Gonzalez? Gonzalez Aye. Seven to zero.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
7-0. Will close a roll on that.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Lee's 2454 motion do pass to appropriations. The current vote is four to zero. With the chair voting aye, [Roll Call] five to zero.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Five to zero. Okay. Aguiar-Curry 2514.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass, as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is six to zero. The chair voting aye, the Vice Chair voting aye, Senator Gonzalez? Gonzalez Aye.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
7-0. Close the roll on that. Bonta's AB 2851.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass, as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is four to zero. With the Chair voting aye, [Roll Call] five to zero.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
All right, five to zero. We'll close the roll on that. Calderon's AB 2958.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Motion is do pass to Appropriations. The current vote is four to zero. With the Chair voting aye, [Roll Call], five to zero.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
All right, five to zero. Let's now go to item number 20. This is the Garcia Bill with the substitute amendment. She does have the copy, so, yes, we'll call her on that.
- Committee Secretary
Person
AB 3238. The motion do pass, as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is five to zero. Five to zero, Senators Gonzalez? Gonzalez aye. Six to 6 to zero.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
We'll close the roll. All right, well, that does it. Thank you, everyone. This hearing is adjourned.
Committee Action:Passed
Next bill discussion:Â Â August 5, 2024
Previous bill discussion:Â Â May 23, 2024
Speakers
Legislator