Senate Environmental Quality Committee

Good morning everybody. This is the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, and we are now in order. We do not have a quorum, so we will begin as a subcommittee. And we also do have an author. So I am going to bring him forward, Senator McNerney, SB 925. And you are welcome to come to the microphone and bring your witnesses up if you'd like, and begin when ready. This is item number five on the agenda.

with this bill so Brian all right thank you senator good morning madam chair members Brian white with KP public affairs here on behalf of general atomics we're pleased to be co-sponsoring the bill SB 925 as you know California has taken several steps over the past several years to support the growing fusion ecosystem in 2024 California enacted AB 1172 which requires the California Energy Commission to evaluate fusions ability to serve as a source of clean energy in the 2027 IPER report. Last year under your leadership Chair Blakespear the legislature passed SCR25 going on record in support of hosting a fusion pilot plant by the 2040s At the same time GO added fusion to the jobs economic blueprint The governor and Governor Newsom enacted legislation through SB80 and SB86 to expand incentives for promoting fusion in research and development. The legislation that you're considering today simply continues this growing effort with the goal of fulfilling the missing piece of the puzzle. SB 925 requires the California Energy Commission to apply the findings of the AB 1172 report into an actionable strategic plan. This will cover every stage of development from research through commercialization, and this bill also begins the process of creating a streamlined permitting process, but simply fresh for manufacturing, as was noted in the committee analysis. As fusion companies evaluate locations to set down roots and bring this technology to California, We do need streamlined regulations and perceived state support that can be determining factors, as Senator McNary talked about Pacific fusion. The potential is real, and the impact is significant. Billions of dollars' worth of investments. California has the strongest fusion ecosystem already, but we can make it stronger. And so with that, we respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 925.

where it doesn't make sense to develop it here. Sure yeah this is the private sector speaking here. So the goal senator is to make sure that first we have to have a plan to figure out where we're going. We did this similar for offshore wind and now we're at a point where offshore wind is beginning to take off at least in California. So at some point, there will be some efforts to try and streamline regulations. We can't do that. We can't put the cart before the horse, so to speak. We tried to do that, but we know that we have to take baby steps. So at some point, we will need to have some streamlined regulations to deal with it.

I want to commend the author for his leadership on fusion. This is one of several efforts that he has made in this space, and I appreciate that commitment. California is a leader in fusion technology. One third of all US based fusion companies are in the state and I was also aware of the one that moved to New Mexico. That was actually as you may recall we passed a large CEQA exemption at the end of last year as part of the budget process and there were two projects that used that CEQA exemption applied for it One of them was the fusion project but then it ended up leaving the state even though it got the exemption So that is interesting to note SB 925 tasks the Energy Commission with creating a strategic roadmap for the future of the industry, which is really important to start the process, as your principal witness said. And I am a co-author on this bill and I'm proud to support it. And with that, I'll turn it back to you

I thank the chair for allowing me to move on this bill this morning. SB 1310, expanding green hydrogen. First, I want to notice that I'm accepting the committee amendments. I thank the chair and the staff for working with my staff, with me. California is committed to reaching 100% clean energy by 2045, which will improve our air quality and public health. But the development of clean energy industry in California is under a threat. The federal government has canceled tax credits for solar and wind projects and canceled $1.2 billion in funding for California's proposed hydrogen hub. Clean hydrogen is made from renewable sources and is a clean and safe fuel source that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Clean hydrogen can be used to transition existing power infrastructure into clean energy infrastructure. SB 1350 will help California utilize clean hydrogen to decarbonize the power system. SB 1350 stimulates investments in clean hydrogen projects by allowing power plants to get renewable portfolio standard credit when they use green hydrogen to power turbines. By incentivizing in-state clean hydrogen projects, we are also creating thousands of jobs.

So I just, you know, I think the authors got a good intention. And we've been talking to the Wine Institute. And we were prepared to just, you know, watch this bill because we thought there's some more discussions going on. And so we hope those discussions are better than what showed up in the analysis today. Thanks.

Good morning, Chair. Kayla Robinson with California Against Waste, respectfully opposed unless amended. We've had very productive conversations with the author and sponsor. We appreciate the intent of the bill, and we want to keep working with you all. No objections with the bill moving forward today. We want to continue the dialogue with the intention of what they're trying to achieve. Thank you.

And with that I turn it back to you to close Thank you so much Madam Chair and also thanks to the Californians Against Waste and your staff for both identifying but really working to try to figure out a solution Because what we really can't do is say to consumers the price and to the industry, most of which, the line in a box is mostly not my district, it's other parts of the state, But that because Calibre cycle is not great at forecasting or we haven't quite figured it out yet. Five thousand percent increase in two weeks. That's we can't ask the folks to bear that while we figure it out at the state level. And so very much appreciate the efforts here to try to figure out what the path should be. But where that where all paths must lead to to a viable recycling market that's both recyclable and recycled for real. and I'm 100% committed to that. I appreciate the committee's work and your support and ask for an iVote at the appropriate time.

I have file item one and file item three, I believe.

All right thank you very much. Good morning Madam Chair and members. STR 13 urges the United States to secure enforceable measurable commitments to eliminate trans-boundary sewage at the 2026 US Mexico Canada agreement joint review period. As you know for decades along the California Mexico border have faced ongoing flows of untreated sewage, industrial waste and stormwater from Mexico into the Tijuana River Valley and the New River. These transboundary flows have resulted in beach closers, environmental degradation, economic loss, and serious public health risks for residents in San Diego and Imperial counties. The rapid industrialization and population growth following the North American Free Tate Agreement, which was later modernized and replaced by USMCA, has placed enormous strain on wastewater infrastructure in northern Mexico, contributing to this crisis. Despite commitments made under USMCA, this agreement has failed to adequately address transboundary pollution, with more than 100 billion gallons of untreated sewage entering the United States over the past five years. This ongoing contamination disproportionately impacts working-class border communities and communities of color, raising significant environmental justice concerns. Federal efforts and binational agreements have not resolved the crisis or produced enforceable, lasting solutions, solutions, leaving California border communities exposed to continued environmental and public health risks. The USMCA provides a six-year joint review mechanism with the first review scheduled for July 1 of 2026 and creates a crucial opportunity to address these longstanding gaps in transboundary pollution. This review offers the United States a chance to secure measurable and enforceable commitments to eliminate sewage pollution in the Tijuana River and New River watersheds. Trade agreements must not ignore environmental harm, and the USMCA can provide a framework for real enforceable progress on a crisis that has affected California border communities for decades. By leveraging this review period, the federal government can establish clear benchmarks, enforceable timelines, and accountability measures that finally address a generations-long environmental injustice at our international border. We need to use every tool available to help us find relief in a community that lives under constant environmental and public health harm. We need our federal government to hold our neighbor accountable to work in productive partnership to secure a resolution Joining me today are Mercedes Macias with the Sierra Club and Alejandra Solis with La Corporativa Campesina

Ma'am, you're going to have to wrap up.

Okay, well, thank you very much. All right, do you have a second witness to speak? You have two minutes.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support? Please come forward. Any opposition witnesses opposed? Anybody in the room wishing to express opposition? Okay. Not seeing any. That's great. And we'll bring it back to the committee. And I'll just say a few words, which is I want to thank the Senator for bringing this resolution before the committee. I recognize that this pollution issue has significantly impacted the communities in your district, and you have spoken out and worked tirelessly for years on this, along with so many other people in the district, and basically throughout Southern California, and particularly South San Diego. This EQ committee, Environmental Quality Committee, held a hearing specifically about the pollution in the Tijuana River Valley and its effects in the district last fall, and as part of that, I was able to do a tour and see it firsthand. And it was truly appalling. And one of the most important things to recognize is that it's not just running along the ground, it's also aerosolizing and people are inhaling it and becoming sick. And there's no way to avoid, of course, breathing and air. It's not like you can avoid going into the ocean. And so when it was perceived to just be an ocean problem, it was horrifying. But now when we realize the full scope of it, it really just becomes worse and worse. So our ability to resolve this here in California, we know this goes beyond our borders. So I very much appreciate your efforts to hold the federal and Mexican governments accountable. This request is quite ambitious, but considering the severity of the issue and its relationship to trade, I understand why you're taking this approach, and I'm very glad to support it today. So thank you again for your leadership working on this.

your testimony. Thank you for coming up from San Diego. Thank you. Okay, now we'll move on to the second item from Senator Padilla which is 1033 which is number item 3 file item

Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

Okay, well thank you very much. You're welcome to begin when ready.

Anybody wishing to express support? Name, organization, and position. Lizzie

Okay, thank you. Opposition witnesses, you're welcome to come forward. Thank you. Maybe we could just make room at the front table. Yeah. There you go. Good morning. How are you? Wonderful. Thank you. You're recognized to begin when ready. Two minutes each. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

appreciative of them addressing our concerns thank you Okay thank you all right well we bring it back to the committee Senator Manjivar Thank you I apologize Senator if I missed this in your opening I just wanted to hear a little bit more The analysis spoke about the ability of larger manufacturers having the ability to do this versus the smaller ones Can you share a little bit more about considerations for the smaller ones

Okay, thank you. I was not aware of this as a problem until this bill, because I had not read the Consumer Report. from 2024. But it is really concerning because there's so much emphasis on getting more protein in your diet. It just comes up everywhere. The idea that you should be adding protein to your diet really almost no matter your age. And it seems like it's so current right now. And the idea that we might be getting a thousand times more than the recommended level of lead from a protein powder, that's really alarming. My hope would be that those products would not be on the market at all, not that they would just be disclosed. But I wanted to ask the author and maybe your sponsors, if you're aware of studies that show not just the product being tested, but then the humans who are eating the product, are they showing toxicity levels of the lead and other arsenic? Do we know if, has it gone to that next level?

No, okay.

Well, if you knew it, but it's okay. It seems like the opposition has some reasoned and very specific things, so I assume you're going to continue to work with them as it moves forward. Do you want to say any more about that, Mr. Author?

Well, I'll turn it back to you to close.

Okay. Well, thanks very much. We don't have a quorum, but we will vote when we get one. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Hello Senator Ashby, thank you for coming. This is item number 8, SB 1010, and you are recognized to begin when ready.

All right. Thanks for having me.

Jason Schmelzer here on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council in strong support of SB 1010. As you all know very well, at this point, EPR is simply a policy construct that requires producers of products with a significant end-of-life impact to design, fund, and operate a collection and recycling infrastructure designed to mitigate those impacts. Not all of those impacts, just some of them. We think it's generally a pretty fair construct. The case for EPR for refrigerated appliances is pretty clear. Refrigerated appliances are ripe for a few different reasons. One, as the senator mentioned, there is no consistent free and convenient collection for refrigerated appliances. Consumer options vary widely by jurisdiction. Where a collection is free and convenient, it's heavily subsidized by local governments. Where it's not subsidized by local governments, it can be quite expensive. In some cases, as high as $125 per item that you're dropping off at a facility. As a result, appliances continue to be one of the most frequently illegally dumped items. This burdens public agencies and also just diminishes the general quality of life. Third, hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants have a significant global warming impact, as the analysis mentions, anywhere from 124 to 14,000 times that of carbon dioxide. An EPR program would centralize the proper management of this refrigerant. and we feel that the current sort of federal state paradigm isn't enough. What you might hear from some of the opposition who we're going to work with very well is that refrigerants are being replaced with less harmful options. This is true, but the transition is not complete, and manufacturers are still using those refrigerants. There are many millions of appliances still in use that contain the hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants, and refrigerated appliances have other components that also need proper management. You might also hear that there are car-certified recyclers who would be crazy, right, to allow any of this refrigerant to escape because it has value. I think we agree with that point, generally speaking, but not everybody is always acting in their own interest, and we have seen federal enforcement of California present car-certified recyclers for failing to properly manage the refrigerant. So for all of those reasons, we think this is a strong bill and we're in strong support. Happy to answer any questions.

Good morning. Keila Robinson with Californians Against Waste, Supporting Concept. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Jacob Cassidy. I'm the Director of Government Relations for the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Our members manufacture major portable and floor care appliances, many that include the use of refrigerants. For several reasons, AHIM is opposed to SB 1010 as currently written, and I'm just going to list off a few of the reasons. I did submit a letter that goes into greater detail. So as mentioned, industry did transition to climate-friendly refrigerants with minimal global warming impact, or GWP. And as such, the legislation does not address a widespread environmental threat and is unwarranted. The evidence of a threat related to non-HFC refrigerants, there is no evidence that justifies a threat related to non-HFC refrigerants that would justify an EPR proposal such as this. This product is simply unwarranted in that regard as well. So the average lifespan of a refrigerator is about 15 years, considering this transition began occurring 10 to 15 years ago. Those refrigerators are already on the way out. So new manufacturers of new refrigerators would be required to participate and pay for this program. And as such, these products will decline yearly almost at an exponential rate and within our lifetime will be out of service. So the current system currently recycles about 80 percent of repliances almost at no cost. There may be some places where there's a fee, but be interested to see which are the places and what are these fees. There are, as mentioned, California and federal law that regulates disposable and recycling of refrigerants. The EPA responsible appliance has standards for reclamation. The Clean Air Act specifically prohibits the venting of refrigerants and actually exempts many of the refrigerants that are in current use today. Existing California law, as mentioned, and CARB as a program, DTSC has guidance. So ultimately this legislation is targeting manufacturers who products are already subject to federal and state laws. And most, if not all, have nearly eliminated GWP of the refrigerants. They've invested millions of dollars, and now they're being asked to create a program that's going to cost an additional million dollars with the cost going to consumers ultimately, as we know from EPR programs. It would be great to see the evidence that's referenced. I know we have all of anecdotes about we've seen this, we've seen that, but we need to have actual evidence as we form public policy such as this. I welcome any questions, and I really appreciate the time today.

Thank you, Chair and members. Ryan Flanagan here on behalf of the Recycled Materials Association, and we are opposition to this bill. Though well-intentioned, we feel this bill could potentially cripple the recycling market and drive up costs of appliances to many hardworking Californians who are already struggling with affordability in their everyday lives. Appliance refrigerant recovery is highly regulated by existing California and federal environmental law. The Federal Clean Air Act Section 608, CARB's Refrigerant Management Program, California Integrated Waste Management Act, and DTSC's Certified Appliance Recycler Program already mandate collection of refrigerant gases. If noncompliance or illegal dumping are the issue, then targeted enforcement is what is needed, not costly, wholesale changes to a widely effective recovery system. We've had productive conversations with the author and sponsor and would be happy to work on more targeted approaches. What makes the existing system work are economic incentives. Unlike mattresses or carpets household cooling appliances have real scrap metal value that motivates thousands of independent collectors to deliver appliances to certified facilities where refrigerant recovery is mandatory at no cost to taxpayers or government SB 1010's compliant costs will eat into the scrap metal value. When the economics disappear, collectors stop collecting, fewer appliances reach certified facilities, and refrigerant recovery rates fall. This bill may create the very problem it claims to solve. We respectfully urge the committee to oppose this bill. Thank you. And I've got Jeff Ferano with SA Recycling here if you have any technical questions.

Jeff Ferano, SA Recycling in opposition.

Thank you so much, and thank you for hearing us out. Yeah, we don't have any concerns about working with the opposition moving forward. I think we've already made some strides. We'll continue to work on that. It is not our goal to punish anyone here. In fact, you heard here today from the opposition that what's unique about refrigerators and partially why their recycle rate is better is they do have value at the end of life, which should reduce the upfront cost on making sure that people who put refrigerators into the chain of commerce are responsible through the end of life. We think we can get that number down to a very small number. However, the difference between 25% of plastics and 25% of refrigerators is really a lot. And when we talk about evidence, I think we have all the evidence that we need in terms of climate and looking at what's happening around us in our world. Unfortunately, a 15-year lifespan on a refrigerator is not what the average family deals with. We all know that. Think about your own families and how long your relatives and friends hold on to a refrigerator. affordability doesn't allow people to replace a large appliance like that as often as we would hope they could and as often as these guys are working really hard on the innovation this idea by the way was brought to me by a constituent who works in this industry in Sacramento and was worried not only about end-of-life on refrigerators but on the impact on workers who work in places where this isn't happening appropriately so there is a piece of this that is about enforcement as the opposition has rightfully outlined. We will continue to work with them to strike the right balance but this is an important component to California achieving its climate goals in the long term and we appreciate the support of the committee. I ask for an aye vote. Well thank you

And we have a motion from the Vice Chair, which is due pass as amended to appropriations.

The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. First, let me start off by saying that I'll be accepting the committee amendments, and thank you for your work on this. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1183. In the face of growing climate change impacts, California has ambitious renewable energy goals, including a 60 percent zero carbon energy goal by 2030 and a 100 percent zero carbon energy goal by 2045. The expansion of renewable energy, including solar, is a critical step to reach these goals. As a result, large-scale solar in California's Central Valley continues to grow and reshape the region's environment and the economy. According to the California Energy Commission, about half of the nearly 100,000 acres of industrial solar developed in California is located in the San Joaquin Valley, often on water-deprived farmland. As the presence of industrial solar in the Central Valley continues to increase, there is a need for careful planning by state and local governments to ensure that industrial solar projects directly benefit the residents and the environment of the valley without causing generational damage to viable agricultural lands, small communities, and the health and welfare of the residents and the personal assets of families that call the Central Valley home. I'm not talking just about farmland. I'm talking about whole communities that are agriculture dependent like Mendota fireball here on San Joaquin if you don recognize those names It because you never been through them and you never been through them because they not on 99 or more importantly they not on I And so these are communities made up mostly of farm workers and they have vibrant economies that are all related to and dependent on agriculture SB 1183 requires the California Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation to study the environmental, land use, and economic impacts of industrial solar in the Central Valley and make recommendations to ensure that the installation of industrial solar directly benefits its residents, businesses, and local government. With me to testify today is Peter Ansell from the California Farm Bureau.

will deliver exactly that thank you all right thank you very much anyone else in the room wishing to express support please come forward state your name organization and position

like to express support thank you thank you okay any opposition witnesses wishing to come forward welcome consider the front table here you each have two minutes and you're welcome to begin when ready. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. We'll now move to anyone else in the hearing room that would like to express their opposition. Please state your name, your organization, and your position.

Thank you. Thank you. seeing no others. We will bring this back to the committee room. Any questions? Would you like to close?

motion under your menjibar moves the bill thank you and the motion is a SB 1183 do pass as amended to the committee on appropriations secretary please call the roll senators billy Xpear Valadares Valadares I Alan Daly Gonzalez Gonzalez I or Toto Mungerbar Mungerbar I zero that bill is on call I'm gonna actually hand the gavel over one I'm gonna call for authors if there are you an author then let's go so then let's move to file item 19 SB 1291 senator Gonzales you are recognized when you're ready all right all right I got the okay that we are good to go thank you

You're recognized for two minutes.

quality reports bylaws annual budgets etc as one example in January where a residence we work with in Kern County is served by athole mutual requested basic information about their water system the sorts of things I just mentioned annual budgets bylaws etc they're still waiting to hear back and receive that information despite it being almost May this is information that residents should just have access to rather than have to ask for and wait months and months to get they did receive bylaws but the rest of the information they requested they haven't received and that was only after the water board kind of put some pressure on the system and this is a water system that has TCP above drinking water standards so it's the sort of system where questions should be answered and this is especially important and critical to ensuring positive outcomes with respect to water quality safe drinking water act compliance and safeguarding public funds you would wrap up your comments please thank you yeah so that's why we're in support of SB 1291 and urgent I vote thank you thank you we'll now move to anyone else in the room would that would like to express their support please state your name your organization and your position only seeing that oh there you are hi good morning Mateo Kushner Community Water Center in support. Morning, John Scoglin with the County of Los Angeles in support. Thank you. We'll now move to any key witnesses in opposition. Welcome Please take a seat and you are both recognized for two minutes each Okay, my name is Yvonne Green and I am here today as an Eaton fire victim because my home was incinerated. I am also a certified public accountant who's worked in the water industry, especially with mutual water companies for over two decades. I moved to Altadena. I had been an LADWP customer and had horrible service issues and had to go through my city council member to get them resolved. I moved to Altadena because my water company is accessible and helpful. I urge that SB 1291 be amended to apply to all types of water systems on a tiered basis according to size. As an illustration, a customer of County of Los Angeles struggling Water Works No. 40 in Lancaster has to drive to Alhambra, almost 80 miles away to dispute a billing, and 100 miles away to Los Angeles to complain before the Board of Supervisors during public comment, and they only get two minutes. As a fire victim, I can't imagine anyone having to deal with that. I love having a partner and a supporter as I try to rebuild my life. Nonprofit mutual water companies should really not be singled out. The state is in the process of consolidating the three Altadena mutuals. Under SB 1291, we would not be entitled to the same level of transparency the bill proposes to apply only to mutuals. If it were if the mutuals were taken over by a for-profit investor utility or by a city of Pasadena different rules would apply Before the fire our system was recognized as a high functioning water system and a reason I moved there After the fire that remains true the staff is working incredibly hard and under incredibly difficult difficult circumstances and always serves us with a smile. It is unfair that our company is being classified as failing because customers had to be served bottled water. Thank you. Good morning chair and members. My name is David Armstrong. I'm the general manager of South Mesa Water Company. We're a mutual water company proudly serving the cities of Yucaipa and Cala Mesa. Our system serves a severely disadvantaged community in Riverside and San I'm also the Vice President of the California Association of Mutual Water Companies. We oppose SB 1291 unless amended. We ask the author to amend SB 1291 to include all types of water systems to the scale requirements to tiers according to the size of the water systems. In our region, it's very interesting, I am the only water agency in the whole Yucaipa Valley not failing or at risk. I have water districts next to me that have been failing. I'm the only one. I'm a mutual water company. I've even had to give them water in times of need. So I have supported a water district, but nobody ever came to me and said, wow, this water district is failing. Can you take them over or anything like that? Because we are operating at a very high level. So this water company, water district in Yucaipa, they've recently been cited for water quality violations, again, failing to do their backflow prevention program correctly. I've done all these things correct. I'm a mutual water company, and I'm very proud of that fact. So I say all this, I share that to underscore a key point. Under the state's safer program, risk is not defined by governance structure, but by a system's ability to consistently provide safe, affordable drinking water. we're doing. For a mutual water company, success has been driven by targeted state investments, strong regional partnerships, and success to bridge financing from a nearby larger water system, which I have done with two state water contractors and Riverside County. I've worked hand in hand with them. State funding and bridge financing by a state water contractor agency in our area has allowed us to address critical infrastructure and extend service to nearby mobile home park with a long history of nitrate contamination, bringing them into compliance to all water quality standards. If you would wrap up your comments, please. Okay. Focusing on policy, one type of system risks diverting attention and resources away from the communities most indeed and away from the strategies that are already proving successful. For those reasons, I respectfully urge a no vote on SB 1291 and ask that the author work with us on amendments to help everyone. Thank you. We'll now move to anyone else in the room that would like to express opposition. Please come forward. state your name your organization and your position only good morning madam chair and members of this committee my name is Sandy McElhenney and I am a shareholder at Christian mutual water company which is a small mutual water company in the mountains of Kern County I drove here yesterday five and a half hours in the pouring down rain to share with you that SB 1291 is one their idea of one bill fits all is ma'am this is just your name your position and your organization oh I'm not testimony I didn't get that part sandy McElhenney president of Christian Mutual Water Company and shareholder in Kern County California thank you that's all good morning Karina Cervantes with the California Association of Mutual Water Companies and I just wanted to list off some of our members whose names were not included in the committee's analysis report. We do have El Dorado, Green Valley, Heart Creek Estates, Hartley, Lake Elizabeth, Lucerne Vista, Maywood No. 2, Oak Glen, Orangevale, Sleepy Valley, Starlight Pines, Stockdale Annex, Tierra Bonita, and Tract 180 all in opposition unless amended to SB 1291. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no others will bring this back to the committee. And having no other one no other on the dais I would like to give the author the opportunity to respond to some of the opposition's Concerns and I know Would love to hear about how you're working with them. Thank you madam chair, and I appreciate that and I'm grateful for the The opposition bringing light to the fact that we absolutely I think believe on the same thing which is transparency Especially being an accountant and I think absolutely every water system should be transparent That's what the intent of this bill is. The other water systems do have, as been mentioned by my witness in the support column, they are subject to the Brown Act, the Public Records Act. They're also, obviously, there's oversight through the Public Utilities Commission, but the mutual water companies are not. And so that's the problem. As you've been, I think we've been sharing with you the picture of the brown water that my community has been dealing with for decades. For decades. We're not asking a lot. In fact, we're asking for very minimal transparency opportunities. You know, how individuals would like to be communicated with. Is it an email, a text message? Where are they located? Where can we set? Some of them don even know who exists on the board And that a real problem And I think that in the fourth largest economy our residents whether you are a homeowner or a renter should know that I don know if there anything else my witness would like to add on that I think the only thing that I'd add is that we work alongside small mutuals in many cases. In fact, I even represent a small mutual in Tulare County. So we're also very interested in making sure that this measure is as easy to comply with as possible. So if there are good ideas to make it kind of more implementable and avoid issues in implementation, I think those are worth talking about. But the bottom line is that the information about water system operations, transparency, access to meetings, notice of meetings, things like that, need to be provided to residents served by these systems. so I urge an aye vote but I'm also interested in talking with the opposition so thank you we'll continue to work with them as we have been buttons flickering on and off well so I just want to say that I do believe that this is a straightforward transparency and access bill it simply makes it easier for residents to attend meetings to get information about their water systems and to stay informed about water quality without unnecessary barriers or fees no new bureaucracy just basic accountability and modern communication I will be supporting the bill I think we are operating in a subcommittee at this point we do need authors so would you like to close yes and I thank you for that and your support madam chair and I believe in the same thing I want to make this you know very low barriers to entry for our residents most importantly so they can access clean water but also of course continuing to work with the opposition to make this as seamless as possible and with that we respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you and we will come back to this bill when we have another there's no motion yeah thank you so what I'm gonna switch the gavel with you we're gonna move to file item number 20 okay because we're still working Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Okay we actually going to be moving to file item number 14 SB 1326 Senator Wahab, you are recognized when you are ready. Thank you. All right. Good morning. I first want to thank all of you guys for being here. When conducting a California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA project, environmental review, lead agencies are required to consult with California Native American tribes culturally affiliated with the project area to determine potential impacts and identify measures to avoid or mitigate significant impacts to tribal cultural resources. Unfortunately, the current tribal consultation process, in effect for over a decade, potentially overlooks critical tribal cultural resource information and has failed to effectively prioritize the avoidance and preservation of Native American culture. California Native American tribes are best positioned to identify their own TCRs and how to best protect them. Entrusting a lead agency to define and determine a TCR significance without appropriate consideration of California Native American tribal knowledge and tribal records can be insensitive and may disregard culturally significant TCRs. Project Lead Agency CEQA review may not prioritize tribal input, the preservation of Native American culture, and continuous consultation with tribes during the process. To ensure tribes can better protect their TCRs, SB 1326 updates the definition of a tribal cultural resource to include resources identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as a sacred place or on local tribal register. This bill also reprioritized avoidance and protection of TCRs by requiring lead agencies to document in detail when avoidance and protection is not feasible. It requires lead agencies to consider and incorporate avoidance and mitigation measures identified by consulting California Native American tribes. As you all know in history class, we have all heard, read, and understood the complete devastation of the Native American community, not only in the United States, but even here in California. This is an attempt to right the wrongs of the past in some small way to ensure that culture and sensitivity to this community and inclusion is prioritized in California. with me today testifying in support of this bill is Councilwoman Catalina Chacon and tribal preservation officer Buffy McQuillan thank you you're both recognized for two minutes thank you good morning madam chair and members of the committee me um my name is Catalina Chacon and I'm a tribal councilwoman of the Pechanga Band of Indians. At its core, this bill is about our past and our future. It is intended to preserve, protect the sacred sites, cultural resources, and tribal heritage of native people. As you know too well, so many of our tribal cultural resources and sacred sites have already been lost to development gone forever never to be experienced by future generations of tribal people This is why California tribes have fought so hard for stronger protections in historic legislation like SB 18 by the late Senator John Burton and AB 52 by Mike Gatto These were watershed policies in our ongoing struggle to protect what remains. Yet too often tribal voices are still marginalized. SB 1326 builds on this foundation. When impacts of tribal cultural resources are at stake, it ensures that traditional tribal knowledge is placed at the forefront of evaluating project mitigation. Tribal knowledge is not abstract. It is rooted in generations of cultural continuity, lived experiences, and a deep spiritual connection to the land. The bill affirms that tribes are the experts on what is sacred, what is culturally significant, and how tribal cultural resources should be protected and treated. Critically, SB 1326 expands the definition of tribal cultural resources to include tribal cemeteries and burial sites. This bill is not only for future generations, it is also for those who came before us. Our ancestors deserved to have their remains and burial goods respected and protected. They should not be desecrated simply because their resting places don't have headstones marking their graves. Finally, SB 1326 makes clear that avoidance and protection of tribal cultural resources is a policy priority, not an afterthought. Thank you. We respectfully ask for your support of SB 1326. Thank you. Thank you. You're recognized for two minutes. Thank you so much. Good morning, chair and committee members. My name is Buffy McQuillan. I'm a tribal citizen of Round Valley Indian tribes. I'm here in my capacity as a tribal historic preservation officer for the Federated Indians of Great Rancheria. The Federated Indians of Great Rancheria is a co-sponsor of SB 1326. SB 1326 is focused on two key sections that will support California Native American tribes' ability to identify TCRs, along with prioritizing proper avoidance and mitigation. More specifically, SB 1326 will add to the current Sequa Tribal Culture Resource definition of those terms, those key terms, which are sanctified cemeteries and burial grounds. This will eliminate confusion by some lead agencies that these places are in fact TCRs and eligible for avoidance and protection measures. The bill also recognizes California Native American tribes local tribal registers. The addition of the local tribal register is consistent with existing law AB 168 which was authorized by Assemblymember Aguirre-Curri in 2021 and more recently in AB 130 in 2025. SB 1326 ensures that California Native American tribes are the primary resource for identifying TCRs and protection measures. It upholds the intent of the 2014 AB 52 tribal consultation provisions by uplifting tribal knowledge and standards for the development of culturally appropriate avoidance and mitigation options. It does not require the use of specific measures, but lead agencies must consult in good faith with tribes to develop feasible mitigation, and it provides options to avoid and protect TCRs and mitigate project impacts. Bills to streamline development have made protection of TCRs extremely difficult, to say the least. SB 1326 supports California Native American tribes by uplifting tribal knowledge. and expertise to identify and avoid impacts to TCRs rather than eliminating and dismissing tribes from the entire CEQA process. You could wrap up your comments. We respectfully respond. request your support. Thank you. We'll now move to anyone else in the room that would like to express their support. Please state your name, your organization, and your position only. Morning. Rocky Rushing representing the Society for California Archaeology. On behalf of its 1,300 members, including those from federally recognized and non-recognized tribes, the SCA is offering a supportive amended position. Uncertain why that position isn't listed in the analysis, but I'd like to say the SEA overwhelmingly endorses the bill's objectives. It does see elements, however, that could lead to unintended consequences. Thank you, Senator Wahab, for the ongoing discussions. Greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Good morning. Jerome Encinas on the behalf the United Auburn Indian community also a sponsor of the bill and strong support thank you David Quintana on behalf of the Habematole Pomo of Upper Lake Picayune Ranchery of Chichanxi Indians both co-sponsors and the VEAS band of Kumeya Indians all in support Carolyn Veal Hunter on behalf of Yochidehi he went to nation also in support thank you we'll now move to any key witnesses in opposition if you could make well there's one right here yeah if the opposition oh perfect could I actually have you switch seats with the gentleman the back. Thank you. And to the opposition, you're each recognized for two minutes. Go ahead, John. All right. Good morning. John Kennedy with the rural county representatives of California on behalf of 40 rural counties. We're here today in respectful opposition to SB 1326. First, I want to thank the author and sponsors for the opportunity to have very long, very weedy discussions about tribal consultation to understand the gaps in the existing process and what's trying to what they're trying to accomplish with the bill we support many of the provisions in the bill today but we have concerns with others we think you've struck quite a nice balance recognizing the archaeologists may not always be best suited to identify tribal cultural resources and also appreciate your prioritizing avoidance and preservation So, that being said, we understand there are amendments that you all are working on. We look forward to reviewing those amends, trying to mark up those amends. We hope they address some of our concerns, but look forward to continuing conversations with you about that. Having said that, we must respectfully oppose the bill unless amended. We're here today both as a project proponent and also a lead agency who's often caught in the middle between project developers and the tribes in resolving any disputes. So we understand there may be some significant gaps in existing tribal consultation practices and support efforts to ensure that tribal consultation is a meaningful and mutually respectful process. As drafted, we do have concerns about the process for automatic inclusion of sites because of concerns about balancing confidentiality, precision, and substantial impacts on private property owners. And then we're also concerned about what we view may not be what's intended, but we review as mandatory requirements to adopt mitigation measures. WE WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT THAT MEANS ENSURE THAT WE HAVE FLEXIBILITY AS LEAD AGENCIES IN DETERMINING WHAT MITIGATION MEASURES ARE ADOPTED AND I THINK IMPORTANTLY EXPLAINING WHERE WE DECLINING TO ADOPT RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES SO ONE APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR BRINGING THIS MEASURE FORWARD TO REFRESH TRIBAL CONSULT explaining where we declining to adopt recommended mitigation measures So one appreciate the author bringing this measure forward to refresh tribal consultation I think it's a discussion we really need to have. We're committed to working with the author and with the sponsors to address our concerns. I could have you wrap up your comments. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. I'm Ben Turner with Axiom Advisors on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. Just like the representative from rural county said, we've been having extensive conversations with the sponsor and the author's office, and we appreciate those. We also anticipate language forthcoming in the coming days that will hopefully address issues we've flagged. And I'll just go through those really quickly here. The bill expands the definition of tribal cultural resources to include NAHC registered artifacts, and it adds sanctified cemeteries and burial areas. It broadens the definition to include local registers. And these resources may not be identified until after a project application is submitted. So we want to clarify that process if possible. The bill also requires, it says that lead agencies considering mitigations, they mandate they shall adopt measures, and we just want to ensure that feasibility from CEQA remains a key principle in that regard. So again, we look forward to working with the sponsors to hopefully address our concerns, and at this point, CBIA is opposed unless amended. Thank you. We will now move to anyone else in the room that would like to express their opposition. Please state your name, your organization, and your position only. Hi, good morning. Amber Rosso with the Association of California Water Agencies with an opposed and less amended position. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties, opposed and less amended. Leila Romero on behalf of League of California Cities. if we are respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you. Thank you. We'll now move to the committee. Senator Allen. I want to thank the author and thank our friends from the tribes who are here. You know, I just, I think this has been an issue that's, I mean, it's come up a number of times, including an energy committee yesterday. You know, we've made major changes to CEQA over the years, which is really important because trying to incorporate tribal perspectives. And I just think it's been an important trajectory. So I'd love to get your thoughts, Senator, about how to bridge some of these challenges that we're having with the local government folks. You know, I certainly support the bill, and I also really deeply support the spirit of the bill. and just want to get your read on how the negotiations are going. So I think that, you know, for the first part, we all want to ensure that we're preserving the cultural significance of whatever is potentially found. Number one, we are not interested in delaying any project, and I think that there needs to be better communication between the administrative agency that is doing the project and the tribal consultation. That is the main effort of it. I think that the conversation you know we been in engagement I think that the tribes their representatives have also been largely engaged We have an open door policy We very much interested in moving this bill along and continuing those conversations So I think that we all have the same goal. It's just a little bit about how we're threading the needle at this moment. Okay. All right. Well, I encourage the dialogue and we'll move the bill when appropriate. Thank you. Thank you. So I'll be supporting your bill because at a core this is really about respect for tribal communities, their history, and places that hold deep cultural meaning. If we're going to require consultation, it should be real, it should be thoughtful, and actually lead to better outcomes. I do share some of the concerns that the opposition raised, and I am hoping that you will continue to work with the opposition to make sure that we get this as right as possible. Would you like to close? Definitely. So I hear everything you guys are saying. I want to be very specific that by starting this off very early, it allows for projects to actually avoid delays. That is the ultimate goal of this bill. And it also gives the tribes an ability to tell them ahead of time, hey, what we understand that this was tribal land of one particular tribe years ago, and it may have a sacred site, whether it's a burial site or anything else. Right now, it's, you know, where a lot of people are digging and then they hit something. They may destroy something. They largely pretty much, you know, decimate some of the cultural historic sites or religious sites. And the tribes are just trying to preserve their culture and the sacred tradition of even years ago by highlighting that this is incredibly important. We believe that we're going to see either individuals buried here or a ceremonial type of platform here. and we're going to say that this part where you are going to dig needs to be a little bit more sensitive. If something is found, they place it somewhere else. Um, and you know, the tribes are also interested in building and developing and much more. So there is no interest in delaying any projects. There is no interest in causing more bureaucratic, um, red tape, if you will. The goal is to get ahead and help the projects move faster by also not decimating, um, the cultural sites. So I think with that I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Allen. The motion is due pass as a due pass to appropriations. Secretary please call the world. Senators Shakespeare, Valadares, Valadares, aye. Allen, aye. Daly, Gonzalez, Artado, Menjabar, aye. 3-0, that bill remains on call. We're now going to move to file item number 16, SB 1398, Senator Rubio. And Senator, you are recognized when you are ready good morning madam vice chair thank you to the members of this committee for the work that you've done I am proud to present SB 1398 green globe certification SB 1398 is a straightforward bill that will update California green building requirements to reflect the reality of today market Under current law state agencies are required to obtain green building certification for new constructions and major renovations starting in 2024. However, the statute effectively recognizes only one system, which is LEED, despite the existence of other nationally recognized, widely used alternatives. This creates a practical problem. By limiting agencies to a single certification pathway, the state reduces flexibility, may increase project costs, and excludes comparable frameworks that deliver similar environmental and performance outcomes. In effect, it narrows options without a clear policy justification. SB 1398 addresses this key issue. By explicitly recognizing green globes developed by the Green Building Initiative as an equivalent certification, this bill does not weaken the standards, as we know how important environmentally friendly policies are to the state and our goals, But it simply allows state agencies to choose between certification systems that meet comparable benchmarks for sustainability and building performance. With me, I have two witnesses to help testify, Don Kepke and Jan Mason, who will be speaking on behalf of the bill through the chair. Okay, you are recognized. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Dawn Koepke on behalf of the Green Building Initiative, a 501c3 nonprofit ANSI standards developer focused on improving the built environment's impact on climate and society. GBI appreciates the opportunity to work with Senator Rubio to update government code section 8316 as provided for in Senate Bill 416 by Senator Laird in 2023 to include an additional nationally recognized equivalent certification, Green Globes, to provide for greater flexibility, cost savings, and more tools in California's state infrastructure toolbox. In 2023, the legislature passed and the governor signed SB 416 that required any new building or major renovation project undertaken by a state agency on or after January 1, 2024, to obtain green building certification. However, as currently crafted, the law only explicitly recognizes one private sector building certification for state infrastructure projects, even though equivalent certifications exist and are in use in California and across the nation. Explicitly including green globes and California statute as on par with the single currently recognized green building certification and statute will provide for greater competition, flexibility, cost effectiveness for state infrastructure projects required to meet green building certifications and standards for sustainability, energy efficiency, decarbonization, and more in line with FB 416. Despite the opposition's assertions, the federal government as well as many other states and municipalities have long recognized and deemed Green Globes equivalent to the LEED certification for a variety of asset classes. While the approach between the two certifications has their differences as noted in the committee analysis, this is exactly what makes having multiple tools in the toolbox so beneficial. Green Globes is flexible without compromising the level of environmental, energy efficiency, decarbonization, overall rigorous standards required in California and is tailored to the specific project recognizing that state infrastructure projects may be different from one to the next. So for these reasons we're pleased the Green Building Initiative is pleased to be the sponsor of this bill and really urge I vote when the time is right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, thank you very much. You have two minutes. Thank you, Chair and members of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak. For the record, my name is Janice Mason. I am a California resident and Associate Principal and Sacramento lead for McKenzie, an architecture and engineering firm delivering complex projects throughout California and Western United States. I'm here in support of Senate Bill 1398, and I will frame my comments around a principle Californians know well. California doesn't follow the pack, it sets the pace. California has led the nation for decades by pairing ambition with accountability. We invest heavily in enforcement and continuous code updates. That leadership is structural, not symbolic, and Senate Bill 1398 continues that tradition. The bill does not relax performance expectations. It maintains them enabling flexibility while modernizing how they can be met by allowing three green globes as an alternative to lead gold and two green globes as an alternative to lead silver. At the federal level, green globes was reaffirmed by the U.S. General Services Administration in 2024 as equivalent to lead for high-performance public buildings. At the state and local level, jurisdictions are increasingly recognizing multiple certification systems side by side. Importantly, Senate Bill 1398 operates within California's existing framework. The January 2026 compliance interpretation makes clear that projects using green gloves must still comply with Title 24 and Cal Green, use CEC-approved energy modeling, and default to the most stringent standard when requirements differ. From our project delivery perspective, Green Globes emphasizes early engagement with a third-party assessor, supporting better coordination, fewer late-stage conflicts, and more efficient use of taxpayer dollars. This is not hypothetical. Over 1 billion square feet has been certified nationwide, including major projects in California. California has always led by setting clear expectations and allowing multiple paths to meet them. bill 1398 reflects that approach I respectfully urge your I vote on Senate bill 1398 thank you okay thanks very much anyone else wishing to express support please come forward madam chair members Silvio Ferrari here on behalf the California Building Industry Association as well as the California Business Properties Association in support thank you thank you anybody here in opposition lead opposition witnesses okay seeing none anybody in the room wishing to express opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any committee comments? I'll just thank the author for this really good bill. I didn't realize that this was even an option before, so I appreciate you highlighting this. LEED is the oldest and most widely respected green building certification standard, but it's certainly not the only one. And I appreciate the author recognizing that there are other well-respected certifying agencies for green building standards, and I welcome this addition to the law with the hope that allowing green globes to be used for state-level building could help it become more prevalent in California. So thank you for your bill, and I'm enthusiastic about supporting it. And you may go ahead and close when ready.

appropriations senators blake spear aye like spear aye Valderas Valderas I Allen? Allen, aye. Daly? Gonzalez? Artado? Menjivar? Menjivar, aye. Okay, it's four to zero. We'll keep that on call. Next we have Senator Archuleta, who braved the rain to get over here. No, it's just barely misting. But he did have an umbrella just in case. And do you have any lead witnesses that you'd like to invite to join you? I do. Okay, great. Well Senator, you are welcome to begin when

Well, thank you very much. You're welcome to Begin When Ready. Two minutes each.

Okay, great. Thank you. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support? Please come forward. Okay. Opposition witnesses to the bill? Anybody wishing to express opposition? No? Okay. Well, that was easy on your bill. No opposition. Okay. Any comments from committee? All right. I would entertain a motion. Okay. The vice chair moves. Wait. Okay. Sorry. That was premature. Do you want to withdraw? I will withdraw. He hasn't closed. Oh, right. He hasn't even closed. Yes. Okay. Go ahead. Thank you.

Ms. Cook, please.

Okay. Fair enough. You know, I would hope that there would be sort of an ability to allow there to be kind of a transitionary period. I think that's kind of akin to saying that we can't build new transmission lines unless we're certain that every electron that gets put on them is renewable today. I think we have to build the infrastructure that supports where we want to go. And so, you know, while I'm sorry that we still have a, you know, an amount of hydrogen that is produced from fossil gas, that is not forever. And again, you know, 2030 isn't too far away, and 80% is a heck of a mime. You know, I've come a long way since I got in here four years ago, where the first year I don't think I voted on any hydrogen bills. since then I voted on a lot of bills from this senator and other regarding an understanding that we need to move forward in hydrogen is a step forward.

I think what doesn't sit well with me is providing the tax exemption when it's still with fossil fuel. I think that's where it's for my concern is we should invest in this, yes, but the tax exemption part for fossil fuel is what doesn't sit well with me. So I think any bill that considers streamlining and creating this, I'm all on board. It's just this last piece, Senator, that doesn't get me to an aye vote today. Thank you.

Well, thank you. And I appreciate the comments and so on. But California is going to be part of the future of hydrogen, and hydrogen is going to be part of California's future. But here we have both electric and hydrogen coming together. What a great opportunity. Because of the fact that we lost that $1.5 billion from the federal government, we've got to keep California in the move towards hydrogen and its participation in our clean environment. So I think it's a good way to start. And so with that, I do ask for your aye vote. Okay, thank you.

Good morning again John Kennedy with RC RC on behalf of 40 of the state's rural counties. We're pleased to be here today to support SB 1230. SB 1230 seeks to increase coordination of local efforts to respond to and prevent illegal dumping. Illegal dumping is chronic and pervasive problem in our rural communities but also in urban areas as well. Importantly, the bill also increases the maximum penalty amounts maximum penalty amounts for second or subsequent violations of illegal dumping laws doesn't touch the fines for first violations and in our perspective it really roughly adjusts those penalties for inflation since 2004-2006 when they were last adjusted SB 1230 also designates Cal recycle is the state's lead agency to coordinate illegal dumping activities and tasks them with developing a website and additional resources this is consistent with an existing Cal recycle budget change proposal currently under consideration and helps formalize the state's role. The state is currently involved in a less formal, more informal role on coordinating an illegal dumping task force. This helps to elevate that task force's efforts, provide us with tools and solutions that we can use as local agencies, and hopefully deter more illegal dumping across the state. So for these reasons, we're pleased to support SB 1230 and urge your aye vote today.

Chair members, Yael Denton is on behalf of Alameda County in strong support. Cody Boyles on behalf of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen in support.

bring it back to the committee. Senator Benfar. Please add to me as a co-author if you'll have me. Love the bill. Absolutely. It is a great bill and I'm wondering why the penalty, why does it only kick in its second violation? It seems like anybody doing a first violation of dumping should have

Okay well it is a really good. We can work on that together next year. It is a really good bill and we I mean, just recognizing how illegal dumping is a scourge in every way. It an environmental disaster It really degrades our state It looks terrible It terrible for the communities around it It a wildfire It a fire risk It gets into the water I mean all of it is terrible. So I'm glad that we're doing more to address it. So with that, would

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My name is Senator Stern. We're going to present SB 1411. Now, so many of you serve on just fish. So let's start with what the bill is about. It's not about prioritizing or causing any delays to the Merced to Bakersfield segment of the high-speed rail project. It's about ensuring that the high-speed rail authority has all the tools it needs to meet its long-term goal of developing a statewide network that extends well beyond Merced to Bakersfield and that we start building concurrently. The bill makes a few but important changes to help the High Speed Rail Authority succeed its mission by giving it more flexibility to leverage private capital that's currently sitting on the sidelines waiting to hop on board local transit feeder lines that will ultimately connect to the bookends, bringing passengers in the north and the south to high-speed rail stations. The bill removes the $500 million project cap, sending a big market signal and giving flexibility to the authority to attract that capital from those P3 partners to seriously discuss and potentially invest in and develop transit projects that create jobs and advance our high-speed rail goals. The bill also clarifies the high-speed rail authority's ability to engage in additional activities that maximize the efficiency of delivering the project. The bill is supported by Associated General Contractors, California Conference of Carpenters, Streets for All, Climate Action, the LA Metro, Metrolink, Building Trades. It's a great group of folks. And here with me to speak in support, we have Wendy Mitchell from LA Metro and Keith Dunn from the State Building Trades. Yes you welcome to proceed when ready It on yeah Hi Wendy Mitchell on behalf of the LA Metro Board of Directors Thank you Senator Allen and Senator Stern for introducing this bill

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to express support? Please come forward. State your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Okay, great. Well, now, opposition witnesses. Do we have anybody in opposition? Not seeing any? We will, anybody else in the room wishing to express opposition? Okay. We'll bring it back to the committee. Vice Chair. Thank you. I have highly technical questions for Senator Allen. Since you're back, it's very rare that I can so easily support a high-speed rail bill. Let's be real. This is bipartisan. It's an important bill. Happy to move it when it's appropriate. Senator Dali, did you want to say anything? No? Okay. Anybody else on the committee? Okay, we'll turn it back to the author to close. Thank you to my co here and our supporters We do have to do a few things at the same time in our transportation infrastructure And you know when you look at Southern California and just the power of rail from even above my district up in the Camarillo and all the way to Santa Barbara down to San Diego there are a lot of people who want to get on a train ridership will provide the financing this project so desperately needs this is about saving taxpayers money and we know we need to bring in private capital and the only way we're going to retract that private capital is by allowing for advanced engineering design kind of site acquisition that we're talking about in this legislation getting those early works going now so that folks know that they're going to get a payback on their investment and we'll lift all boats in the process We know we have huge needs, for example, in the San Fernando Valley. We want to get our Sepulveda Pass built. We want to build out the Van Nuys East Valley line. We want to get the Purple Line finished and get all the way to – I want to ride that Expo Line too. And I love my surf liner, and we want that to be sustained. We've got to treat this high-speed rail not so much as a burden on taxpayers anymore, but hopefully as a financial opportunity. and by expanding the aperture and being more flexible about the funding, I think we have a shot at it. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Okay, thank you. I would entertain a motion on this bill. Senator Allen. Oh, you already moved it. It's true. Okay, the vice chair already moved it. Sorry, it's true. The motion is due pass to appropriations. This is SB 1411. Please call the roll. Senators Blakespear? Aye. Blakespear, aye. Valderas? Valderas, aye. Allen? Allen, aye. Daly? Daly, aye. Gonzalez, Artado? Menjabar? Menjabar, aye. Wait, Allen, are you sure you want to leave? Because we could go through and get your votes on the things you're missing on. Okay, good. Okay, that's 5-0. We'll keep that on call. Oh good, Gonzales is here too. Okay so we as we wait for Senator Hurtado we will go through the roll one more time so and we'll just start from the beginning. Okay file item 1 SB 981 motion is due pass to appropriations current vote 5-0. Senators Gonzales, file item 1, SB 981. Aye. Gonzales, aye. Hurtado? 6-0. We'll keep that on call. File item 2, SJR 13. Motion is B adopted. Current vote 4-0. Senators Daly. Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado. 5-0. We'll keep that on call. Okay. File item 3, SB 1033. Senator Valadares? Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez aye Or Tato That's four to one. We'll keep that on call. Okay. Moving on to the consent calendar, which is file item 4, SB 899, file item 6, SB 1313, file item 11, SB 1253, and file item 12 SB 1300 current vote is 5 to 0 Senators Gonzales Gonzales I or Tato that's 6-0 we'll keep that on call file item 5 SB 9 to 5 motion is due pass as amended to appropriation current vote 5-0. Senators Gonzales? I remember how he asked you to say it with the chair voting eye. Yeah. Because it was to indicate like where I am. Right. Yeah. Chair and vice chair voting eye. Senator Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Artado? Oh. Artado, aye. Aye. Okay. So that's... Yeah. 7-0. and that is our first out item. Okay, that's 7-0. That's the first item that's now out. So we're going to... Senator Allen, does it work for you if Hurtado starts? Yeah. This meeting just didn't have done these. I'll just start. Okay. Okay. Senator Hurtado, you are recognized. This is item SB-1289, which is item 18. And you are recognized. I think we need to get the microphone to go on. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm here to present on SB 1289, but I want to start by thanking the committee chair and your staff for the time and effort that they put into this bill. I know how much work it went into it, and I want to acknowledge that. I took on this bill in part because of our King's County, and in large part because of the community of Kettleman City, which has not been receiving its fair share of investments. And I want to specifically thank Supervisor Vaya for being a partner with me on this matter, and also the engagement that we've received from the community leader of Kettleman, Miguel Alatorre. Kettleman City, we're talking about a community that still lacks very much basic infrastructure, sidewalks, adequate public health resources, while at the same time it carries one of the heaviest burdens in a state, a community that has experienced health-related clusters as well. Kettleman City is one of only two communities handling hazardous waste for the state of California. The entire state benefits, but the burden is concentrated in two areas. Those places are not being made whole, and I also want to be clear about something else, is that in no way I'm trying to throw the facilities under the bus either. The facility has paid its required fees and has been part of the conversations with the community and local leadership and that's very important and I'm thankful and grateful for that. But I also again wanted to point the inequity here for the community of Kettleman. But fees alone do not equal fairness and they do not replace the kind of sustained investment that a community like Kettleman City deserves after decades of carrying this kind of responsibility. With the crisis looming as landfill capacity tightens, my hope with this bill was simple, to give the community a real seat at the table in shaping its present and its future. Not to have a plan rushed onto them later with no meaningful community benefit, no real input, and potential loss of revenue for both local business and the broader community. Because historically that's what happens in the Central Valley. Decisions get made elsewhere, impacts get felt there. and I'll just be kind of frank about that, is that I'm fed up with that kind of pattern for the Central Valley, and that we carry often the burden while others get opt-out entirely. We've seen it when waste is generated elsewhere but sent there, when projects are rejected in wealthier communities only to be redirected into places like Kettleman City. and that is not shared responsibility. It's displacement. So at its core, the bill was about to try to get ahead of that, to create space for a community, a county, and a business to come together to find a path forward on their terms before the state tries to find a solution for them or anywhere else under pressure. Because if we don't do that, we already know how this ends. At least we know how it ends in the Central Valley. It ends with the same communities being asked again to carry even more or with even less say. But I don't really like the reality here that made this bill necessary, but a reality where communities like Kettleman City carry statewide burdens without receiving their fair share in return. At minimum, if California is going to continue relying on places in the Central Valley, then we owe those communities this. a fair process, a fair share of investment, and a real voice in what happens next. That was my goal with bringing this bill forward, and that's the standard we should all be willing to stand behind. Thank you for hearing me today and for allowing me to bring all this to light. But today I'm not seeking a motion on SB 1289. At this moment I just want to bring awareness and set the stage for how we should be moving forward. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Dylan Elliott here today representing the Kings County Board of Supervisors, co-sponsors of SB 1289. I want to begin by stating our appreciation to Senator Hurtado for her leadership and partnership on this issue. It is not an easy topic, and we remain grateful to the senator and her team for their willingness to have this conversation. She is a staunch advocate for Kings County and its residents. At its core, Kings County's co-sponsorship of 1289 was built on the critical effort to retain a longstanding partner in waste management through the continued operation of their Kettleman Hills facility. The county is clear-eyed about what the loss of that facility could mean for the Kettleman and broader Kings County community. At present, the facility brings in roughly $1.5 million to the county, and those funds are used to provide critical services locally. While not related to this bill, counties are already bracing for even harder budget times as the most significant impacts of H 1 take shape Every dollar matters right now especially in rural communities like Kings County At the same time though this is not just about dollars and cents and the county appreciates the importance of being responsive to the perspective of its constituents The county has had ongoing good-faith meetings with community members to hear those, and should SB1289 have moved out of this committee today, we would have committed to have continued to doing so, and in fact, irrespective of this bill, that is our promise. We are grateful to the committee and their staff for the very hard work on this bill, if evidenced by nothing else other than the 26-page analysis put forth on this measure. We ask that the committee continue to see Kings County as a thoughtful partner in what we hope will be ongoing conversations to address this issue and those that concern keeping growth, commerce, and opportunity in our Central Valley communities. Doing so is of paramount importance. And I will just conclude again by thanking Senator Hurtado for her willingness to take this on for her district. Thank you. Thank you. And you also have two minutes. Thank you. Good morning, Madam. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. John Moffitt on behalf of Waste Management. Because the bill is not going to move forward or be put to a vote today, I just want to start off by stipulating we told our technical folks to stay home. And so if we get really technical on things, I might have to write down questions and circle back with with the members of the committee later. But with respect to the policy, absolutely agree. This is a challenging policy issue. It's a tough one. I think it's important to note that, you know, based on what Senator Hurtado said, California is down to two hazardous waste management facilities serving the entire state. And it's important to note this isn't our stuff. This is other people's stuff that we are giving a safe place for it to be disposed of. And, you know, in California, you know, federal law sets the minimum. We have chosen to go above that law for good reasons. And when we characterize waste in a certain way, it's because we want it handled and disposed of in a certain way. That policy is completely undermined when our disposal policies don't meet our waste characterization policies. And so we know that this issue, this conversation has economic impacts. This bill would have economic impacts. The fact that this bill is not moving forward will have economic impacts. At the end of the day, waste management has some very, very challenging decisions to make here in the coming months on this facility. Notwithstanding that, we look forward to continue working with the legislature, working with our regulators, and also working with our local community partners and local government partners in trying to figure out a way to ensure that this facility is maintained here in the state, continuing to serve the state. And again, we want to echo the county's comments that we appreciate Senator Hurtado's partnership and championship of this, and we look forward to the ongoing conversation on this issue. Thank you. Okay, thank you. You're welcome to come to the microphone if you would like to express support. Madam Chair and members, Chris Maurer, Ex-Advisors on behalf of Clean Harbors in support of the measure. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, anybody in the room wishing to express opposition? Come on forward, well just two of you We can maybe make room at the front table for them Welcome to the committee You each have two minutes for your testimony and you are welcome to begin when ready Thank you for your patience and waiting so long Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Caroline Farrell. I'm an attorney with the Environmental Law and Justice Clinic at Golden Gate University, and I also live in Bakersfield. I'm here on behalf of the National Diversity Coalition, the California Environmental Justice Coalition and Green Action for Health and Environmental Justice in opposition. We wanted to thank Senator Hurtado for not putting this bill up for a motion today. I think the issues that she raised about the disproportionate impacts Kettleman City and Buttonwillow have faced over the years is really important to a comprehensive solution. SB 1289 is written, would concentrate hazardous waste in just two communities, Kettleman City in Buttonwillow, predominantly low-income Latino farmworker communities that have already borne decades of pollution. Both Buttonwillow and Kettleman City are in the top 10% of the most impacted communities per CalEnviroScreen. That's not just bad policy, it's environmental racism. And to be honest about how we got here, the bill is widely understood to be sponsored by Waste Management, a corporation that owns one of only two federally permitted hazardous waste landfills in California. If enacted, this bill could increase cost to consumers by dramatically restricting disposal options and effectively steering waste volumes to facilities owned by just two companies. That's not public health-driven policy or science. It's policy based on corporate interest. At the same time, these facilities are not models of compliance. They're operating on expired permits. DTSC has classified the Buttonwillow facility as a significant noncomplier. complier. These sites were originally permitted through processes that included intimidation of residents in Spanish-speaking farmworker communities. SB 298, as written, did not fix those failures. It entrenched them while violating the goals of SB 673, a bill this committee supported to require cumulative impact criteria be adopted and considered in permitting decisions. These are serious legal and practical risks as well, including Commerce Clause implications that would alter or restrict interstate movement of hazardous waste. The bill risks slowing cleanup under CERCLA. The state must demonstrate sufficient disposal capacity to access federal funding for cleanup, creating bottlenecks by forcing waste to two facilities with limited capacity could delay cleanups and prolong exposure in communities across California. Ma'am, you're going to need to wrap up. The bill didn't address those issues and any future bill should. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning Madam Chair and members. My name is Adil. I am Chief Legal Officer and Advocacy Officer on behalf of National Diversity Coalition. Our members include various ethnic chambers and we serve a low-income community with a mission to empower and achieve financial equality. For many low-income communities that we represent, there is no margin left. Any modest increase on the cost, it just excabrate their affordability crisis. That is why we are concerned about SB 1289. The bill may sound technical, but the impacts are not. By limiting hazardous waste disposal to a very low number of facilities, it reduces competition and creates pricing pressure across the sector of economy The industries at first the most effective will be like utilities fuel and construction But what happens is that the cost does not stay there We all know the cost always passed to the low income communities and marginalized minorities And the small businesses that we represent, they don't have any margin left. And at this present, at this crucial juncture of affordability crisis across California, faced by many small business and low income communities, there is no cushion, there is no ability to absorb higher costs. SB 1289 also is creating bottlenecks and that also impacts many communities that are focused on lowering costs and reducing burdens and reducing the environmental burden that they affect. At this time, the California should be focused on lowering costs and reducing burdens and the bill moves in the opposite direction. We urge you to consider not just how this policy affects the system, but how it affects especially the low-income communities and the marginalized minorities that are facing the affordability crisis at this point of time. For this reason, we respectfully urge your position. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to come forward and express opposition? You can come to the microphone and just state your name, the organization you represent, if any, and your position on the bill. Hello senators. I was actually wondering if I could potentially comment so I'm actually from Kettleman City and I work directly in the community. I'm sorry you can't the way our system works is there are two witnesses. Just state your name and your opposition to the bill so we have it for the record. So my name is Giovanni Solorio and I directly represent the organization called El Pueblo para el Alegre y Agua Limpio de Kettleman City and we oppose the Senate bill. Okay thank you so much. My name is Matt Holmes. I'm with the California Environmental Justice Coalition. I'm authorized to issue opposition on behalf of the following waste-impact organizations. 1,000 Grandmothers for Future Generations, Avenal Cares, Bayview Hunters Point, Mothers and Fathers, Citizens for Chiquita Canyon Closure, Del Ammo Action Committee, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Good Neighbor Steering Committee of Benicia, Jesse Miranda Center for Hispanic Leadership, New Beginning CDC, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Valley Improvement Projects, West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs, and One Heart Cares of La Jolla San Diego. Okay, thank you. That's a lot. Christina Emphasis, on behalf of California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce, California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Coalition of Filipino American Chamber of Commerce, Filipino-American Chamber of Commerce Cerritos Filipino-American Chamber of Commerce San Diego Middle Eastern and North American Chamber of Commerce South Asian Business Alliance Network Apex Diesel Repair Blue Zone Health Solution Fix Auto Pauway Robin Hilton Land and Tree Company San Diego Business Solution Sweet Waters B&M LLC and Maple View B&M LLC in opposition. Thank you. Noam Elroy on behalf of CRNR Environmental. We apologize for not getting a letter in before the deadline, but in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Blakesphere, members of the committee. Michael Caprio with Republic Services here in opposition, but I do want to thank Senator Hurtado for not seeking a motion today, and we're very appreciative of the thoughtful move. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Well, we'll bring it back to the committee, and I'll just make a few comments and maybe ask a couple of questions. So, Senator Hurtado, I want to recognize that this is a really difficult situation within your district, and I want you to know that I recognize that there are various dynamics that are happening and it makes this a very difficult situation. It's clear to me that you want to support the communities in your districts that have been underinvested and disenfranchised for so long. And you also want to ensure that Kings County gets the support that they need and that we have systems in place within the state of California to manage the hazardous waste we generate. So these are all important goals. Finding the right approach here is key, and of course this is easier said than done. I do encourage the sponsors to see if there's another path forward that would not have such a profound impact on the state or the host communities. It seems like there are options out there, incentive-based approaches, that could be more balanced. And I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on incentive-based approaches, if there's anything that you've thought of, Or is this the proposal that was in this bill was really the only option in your mind? Or if there were are there other options? To me, Madam Chair, or to you? Yeah, to you. Yeah. Thank you for the question. I think we're open to all options. We have a facility that is very challenged right now, And I think we are open to any concept or idea out there that would help keep this facility open in the state. And so more than happy to consider alternative proposals, alternative ways of getting at this issue, should they be put before us. I know the committee analysis has a couple thoughts on things to try and strike some balance. and we appreciate that suggestion, and we'll look to explore that. And can you just clearly express what the implications are for hazardous waste disposal facilities if this issue goes unaddressed? I would say for our facility at Kettleman, certainly I can't speak for the Clean Harbors facility at Button Willow, So we have been very clear about the potential outcome if we are not able to, as part of our permit renewal process, address issues there, but then also address the continuing decline in volumes at this facility. We're operating right now well under our permitted level. And it's that sort of balance that keeps this facility economically viable. And if we can't maintain any balance there, then at some point the facility does become economically, you know, is not economically viable as a hazardous waste facility. Okay. Okay. Well, I appreciate those answers. I'm going to open it up to the other community members, Senator Menjivar. Yeah, thank you so much, Senator. I can imagine you know you're trying to fix a situation in your district but I think it's very I appreciate you taking a pause without any concerns but I'm wondering if you were the sponsors could speak about the expansion capacity and just the thought behind the impacts I was going to have to the communities and how do you offset that Yeah again I not the technical expert so happy to circle back with you You know the current permit renewal that we going through right now is on the existing footprint the existing cells in the facility Any expansion would have to go through a whole new process, permitting process at DTSC. So you wouldn't have had to expand should the other six closed? Not closed, if the other six would have not been an option and everything would have gone to the two facilities? I can't speak to the economics of all of those facilities that are closed. Let me rephrase my question. The intent was to redirect all the materials to the two in-state sites. The capacity for those two in-state to now absorb what six others were doing would have not required an expansion of the facilities, or did the facilities have? It would have. It's a matter of timing. It's a matter of timing. Obviously, as we look at our facilities, we try and plan out into the future. You know, again, federal law sets a minimum, even for out-of-state Class C facilities. California goes above that minimum. So even compared to other hazardous waste disposal facilities in other states, we have higher standards here. Because of those standards, you don't just take a piece of land, dig a big hole, and say, okay, we're going to put stuff in it. It's done in segments and in cells, and each one of those cells has to be permitted. And so we're working in one cell now. Once we, you know, get to capacity, then before we get to capacity in that cell, we would need to go back to DTSC and get permits to bring online a new cell. And, you know, I think the bill didn't require all California hazardous waste to just go to these two facilities. There are facilities out of state that this material could be disposed of that are not municipal solid waste facilities, which is where it's all presently going, or at least 50% of the hazardous waste is going to municipal solid waste facilities in Arizona and Utah. And so this material would, under the bill, either have to go to the two facilities in California or an out-of-state facility that also, again, doesn't meet California standards for these facilities, but at least meets federal standards for hazardous waste, which is higher than the standards for municipal solid waste. Thank you. Senator, if I may add, with permission of the chair and the author, from the perspective of the county, I certainly would defer to my colleague on what the expansion would look like. Those details are for the facility. From the perspective of the county, the first and foremost issue that we wanted to make sure we would try to address through this bill was the continued operation of the facility at start. In the event that there was increased capacity and there was increased deliveries of hazardous waste to the facility, what would be most important and the county has maintained is what that looks like in an increased community benefits perspective for the impacted communities. very open to what that could look like. There's an existing MOU in place between waste management and the county. There would be some appropriateness in revisiting that in the event that there was increased delivery. But, of course, with where we're at at the bill process, those conversations were still ongoing. But we very much want to be partners in finding that path. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Yes, Senator Gonzalez. Thanks to the author. I know this is a challenge, and your district has been mentioned, and I know you'll continue to work. But I think you hit it Dylan with the community benefits and really maximizing this opportunity for your community which I know a lot of us share It just you know this is very unique in some cases And so what you do here will be sort of representative of what could happen across the state and some other areas. So, you know, look forward to working with you on that and just seeing what other legislative solutions there are. And, you know, having, I had excited in my backyard so that, you know, no stranger to environmental justice concerns and looking at you know figuring out how DTSC funding can be maximized here which I'm sure you're doing it's not very easy sometimes to get DTSC to listen and to be there even though we try but I think it's something that you know think more colleagues would be willing to help you with to make sure we have a true solution all around but I don't know if there's anything you'd like to add there no I really appreciate the comments, Senator, and, you know, I'll say that my district's a very unique place, and in this particular community, Keene's County, you know, the county engaged the community of Kettleman City, the members, they had, you know, they had a town hall, they worked with, you know, the company as well. They were all part of the conversation. I don't think that's necessarily something that you see perhaps occurring in other parts of the state. It's very unique in that, and I think there's – I think they want to be part of the conversation and be at the table when the decisions are being made. And I know that this bill, there was a lot of work that was put into it. Once again, thank you to the chair and her team for all the work and the analysis that was done and working with us to incorporate language on community benefits. But, of course, this was just the first committee hearing that we're hoping to work on this bill. And, of course, there was an entire process that we were hoping to make changes along the way to make it work. But, however, we couldn't necessarily get there just yet. And I, you know, part of moving this bill forward for me was making sure that everyone had a seat at the table in my community, but also that everybody was in agreement of what was going to be moving forward. Because there's just no way moving forward without everybody being on the same team and on the same side. And so we weren't there yet. And but I did, you know, wanted to I wanted to make sure that we brought attention to this issue because I think it does have consequences for everybody. I think especially if we're expecting a big fire season, there's I mean, there's just there's going to be these these questions are going to be coming up and these concerns are going to be. you know, brought forward. So I wanted to raise the issue here and have a conversation about it. And hopefully down the road, we can all be on the same place and moving forward together. Okay, well, thank you. Since there's no requested motion, you're still welcome to close if you

we look forward to ongoing conversations. Okay. Thanks very much. All right. So now we'll go to the roll. We'll start with the votes that need Senator Allen, then we'll go to the votes that need Senator Gonzalez Okay Starting with file item 10 SB 1183 Motion is due passed as amended to appropriations Current vote 5-0 with chair and vice chair voting aye. Senators Allen?

Allen, aye. Artado?

Artado, aye. 7-0, pardon? Wait, that's 7-0, so that bill's out. Is that what you were just... Okay, next, file item 17, SB 1424. motion is do pass as amended to revenue and taxation with chair and vice chair voting aye current vote 3-0 senators Allen Allen I

that bill is 6-0 and it's out Okay. File item 19, SB 1291. Motion is due passed to appropriations. Current vote 3-0 with chair and vice chair voting aye. Senators Allen?

Allen, aye. Daly? Gonzalez?

Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado?

Hurtado, aye.

6-0 and that bill is out. Okay, file item 20 SB 1230 motion is due pass to appropriations current vote is 4-0 with chair and vice chair voting aye. Senators Allen? Allen aye. Gonzalez?

7-0 that bill is out. Okay. File item 7, SB 1350. Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations with current vote 5-0. Chair and vice chair voting aye. Senators Gonzalez?

Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado?

Hurtado, aye. 7-0, that bill is out. File item 8, SB 1010, motion is due passed to appropriations, current vote 3-2, with chair voting aye and vice chair voting no. Senators Gonzalez?

Gonzalez, aye. Ortado?

Ortado, aye. 5-2, that bill is out. File item 9, SB 1145, motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote 5-0, with chair and vice chair voting aye. Senators Gonzalez?

Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado?

Hurtado, aye.

7-0, that bill is out. File item 13, SB 1411, motion is due pass through appropriations with a current vote of 5-0. Chair invites chair voting aye. Senators Gonzalez?

Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado?

Hurtado, aye. 7-0, that bill is out. File item 14, SB 1326, motion is due passed to appropriations with a current vote of 5-0. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Senators Gonzalez?

Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado?

Hurtado, aye. 7-0, it's out. 7-0, that bill is out. File item 15 SB 1341 motion is do pass as amended to appropriations with current vote 5-0 chair and vice chair voting aye. Senators Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez aye. Hurtado? Aye.

your appropriations current vote 5-0 chair and vice chair voting aye senators

7-0, that bill is out. File line 1 SB981 motion is due pass to your appropriations with current vote 6 Senators Hurtado?

Hurtado, aye. 7-0, that bills out. File item 2, SJR 13, motion is be adopted. vote 5-0 chair and vice chair voting aye. Senators Daly, Senators Hurtado, sorry 2.

File item 3 SB 1033 motion is due pass to your appropriations. Current vote 4-1 with chair voting aye senators Val Daris senators for Toto for one that bills out in the consent calendar file items for which is SB 899 file item 6 SB 1313 file item 11 SB 1253 file item 12 SB 1300 current vote 6-0 Senator

concluded our agenda this EQ committee is adjourned