Assembly Natural Resources Committee

to present. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Chair and members. Today, I'm presenting SB 958, which ensures that housing development throughout this state is not hindered by an unprecedented ruling while still upholding the state's environmental standards. This bill clarifies CEQA law so that certain impacts related to increased building heights are properly accounted for within the project's environmental impact report. Under CEQA, lead agencies must identify potential environmental impacts, determine its level of impact, and provide ways to prevent, minimize, or mitigate those impacts. Once it is determined that a project is subject to CEQA and will have significant impact on environment, an environmental impact report is drafted, circulated, and finalized by the lead agency. The lead agency, several state agencies, and the public are deeply involved in that process. Once an EIR is certified, the project can go underway. However, there has been a growing trend of CEQA being used as legal defense to slow development of several types of projects, including housing projects. For example, the Midway Rising project in San Diego, which would add at least 2,000 affordable units in the area, has faced several years of delays due to litigation. Despite years of analysis and multiple EIRs, the most recent ruling from the California's fourth District Court of Appeal determined that environmental review, when related to building height, needed to include aspects that were not typically analyzed, including impacts on airflow, atmospheric conditions, lunar cycles, and wildlife attraction. This judicial ruling can set bad precedent and inhibit future development throughout the state, as requiring speculative and hypothetical analysis is not reasonably feasible or practical for lead agencies In recent years the legislature has passed legislation to minimize the unduly burden required by certain aspects of CEQA on related rulings while upholding environmental protection and thorough environmental review SB 598 provides that for purposes of CEQA, environmental impacts solely with increased building height, including but not limited to air circulation, noise impacts, light refraction or reflection, attraction of wildlife shall not be considered significant environmental impacts if specified conditions are met. This bill provides prospective guidance to the courts by clarifying how secret should be interpreted and will ensure that projects up and down the state that have already completed extensive environmental review do not face costly barriers and challenges. Here with me today is Moira Topp representing the office of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria's office. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good evening, Chair and members. I am Moira Topp here on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria. as a sponsor of the measure. As the Senator mentioned, this bill was the, what precipitated this bill was our work on a project we call Midway Rising in San Diego. It's a once in a generation opportunity to really transform nearly 50 acres in San Diego of blacktop, just kind of decrepit parking space land into 4,250 homes, 2,000 of which will be affordable, well above what the Surplus Land Act requires of us. The project has been approved twice before the voters of San Diego and has gone through comprehensive EIR and environmental mitigation and reviews. Yet here we are seven years later and we haven't gotten shovels in the ground. And SB 958, as the senator mentioned, provides clarity and certainty for not just the Midway Rising project, but others seeking CEQA compliance. So, you know, we think this is exactly the type of project the state has promoted and wanted cities to engage in. This bill helps that project along as well as others. And so on behalf of Mayor Gloria and the future residents of the Midway Rising Project, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 958. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm here to present Senate Bill 1230. Illegal dumping is not happening in Beverly Hills or Brentwood. It's happening in communities that don't have the resources, the political clout to fight back. In the Antelope Valley, Lake Los Angeles, Phelan, and Pinyon Hills, in my community, families are living next to open landfills. Not by choice, but because bad actors know that there are no real consequences. Illegal dumping poses a serious environmental, public health, and fiscal challenges across California. Local governments spend tens of millions of dollars annually on cleanup, diverting resources from essential services. It contaminates soil and groundwater, attracts vermin, increases wildfire risk, and leaves taxpayers footing the bill. In my district alone, residents have documented over 100 unauthorized dump sites. We've seen 70-plus trash-related fires costing over $1.6 million. And in 2024, the Apollo fire, sparked by illegally dumped material, burned 800 acres and destroyed a home. Our enforcement tools haven't kept up. Fines haven't been meaningful updated since 2004. SB 1230 takes a targeted, balanced approach focusing on illegal dumping of commercial quantities with the higher fines being levied on businesses of 10 employees or more. The increases only apply to repeat offenders. First offense fines remain untouched. The bill also creates a centralized resource through CalRecycle so local governments have the tools they need to enforce the law and clean up illegal dumping, particularly in rural communities like mine. Unfortunately, the gentleman that was here to testify previously, John Kennedy from rural county representation, had to take a flight since the legislature was dealing with our finances.

Good evening. I'm Heidi Sanborn with the National Stewardship Action Council in support. It's good to see you.

Are there any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? I'll turn it back to the dais. Any questions, comments from committee members?

We have a motion by Ms. Macedo, a second by Mr. Ellis. This bill has a do-pass recommendation from the Chair and Madam Secretary. Can we call the roll? Motion is due pass to appropriations. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Ellis? Aye. Ellis, aye. Alanis? Connelly? Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Haney? Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye. Kalra? Not voting. Kalra, not voting. Macedo Aye Macedo aye Ratsuchi Pellerin Aye Pellerin Aye Schultz Wicks Zipper Aye Zipper Aye We'll leave it open for absent members. Senator Cabaldon. Welcome back.

Thank you, Senator. That was so good. I don't know what to add, practically. So Tim Schmelzer with Wine Institute. When you come to work for the wine industry, you don't anticipate the odyssey of learning about the bottle bill and recycling that I've had to and the ins and outs of the processing fee and how it's calculated. The reason that we kind of landed where we're at presently was learning how much the weight actually is driving that cost. And at the same time, with this bag-and-box product, we have been teaching customers who use bag-and-box products throughout the country and world that you take the bag out, squeeze that last bit of wine out, and then that's the product that you can... get redeemed and the cardboard goes in your curbside. And with that change, we think it helps everybody, makes it less burdensome for the customer to take their product for redemption, less for recyclers to have to deal with, and it lands us in a better place for a processing fee. And as the senator spoke eloquently about, this is the segment of the industry that is most at risk, and any cost savings here is a big deal. we had almost a 5,000% increase in our processing fee starting January 1st, and this will help that get more right-sized. So please encourage your support today. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members, Mark Murray with the environmental group Californians Against Waste. We are super sensitive and really, frankly, supportive of the intent of this measure. I don't think this language does it. We think there is a solution here that can right-size the amount of the processing fee. As was noted, the amount of money we have is not a problem here. It's just right-sizing that fee. I appreciate both of your analyses of this bill. I'd like to the first analysis better, but I think we can work something out here, so I'm not asking that this bill be held. I had a constructive conversation with the staff and the sponsors earlier today, and I'm really confident we can fix this.

Simply to acknowledge and express gratitude to Mr. Murray, California's Against Weights. We have been working closely together trying to find a solution that does both things, make sure that the industry is not put at risk or consumers, but also to assure the integrity of our recycling program in California. And we've been through a couple of iterations on this and absolutely welcome the opportunity the opportunity and commit to take him up on his continued promise to work this through. And then also just to correct my witness, if you are squeezing out wine at the end before you go to recycling, you're doing it wrong. We want to encourage folks to drink all of the wine first and then recycle. Well, into your glass. I thought that was... All right. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members, we know both this administration and our previous administration have been incredible leaders on climate change abroad and establishing memorandums of understanding with, I think, 20 other nations, subnational jurisdictions, including Canada, China, Chile, Denmark, India, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, among many others. This bill is an attempt to give a little more permanence to these agreements and establish more of a legislative role and an ongoing basis on exactly how these MOUs are informing our public policy, but also in a way to put us in a position when we're engaging at either the subnational or the national level ourselves to have some support. We recently, actually today, just a few minutes ago, passed SB 111, which established the UC Climate Change Institute. This bill was somewhat anticipating that budget action. So the current structure of the bill before you here doesn't quite conform to exactly how we just passed that. That sets up a UC Climate Change Institute where it contemplates doing some of that engagement on behalf of the legislature. This gives the Natural Resources Agency the authority to establish this climate secretariat at one or more University of California centers. The word in the law now is institute. So that's one flag for you all going forward is if we may be looking for how to sort of make these two talk to each other so we don't try to start something entirely new here, but you've got the gist of it. We want to have more consistent presence that doesn't just rely on who the governor is at the time, but it has a more sort of ongoing consistent presence. We think the University of California can provide that important legislative support. Appreciate all the work from the committee. Do I have amends to accept from you, Mr. Chair? I don't think so. No? Okay.

So I'll just ask for your aye vote.

Yes, I was wondering if you can sort of respond to some of the concerns that have been raised about the bill allowing sort of a broad range of activities that the state government protection plan is. Next one.

Yep. Okay. But I'll reserve that one. Yep. I thought it had to be good at the single crown, so we're good.

Secretariat. Secretariat.

I think if they were smart, they would come to you for advice.

This bill has a do-pass recommendation from the chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll? Motion is due pass to appropriations. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Ellis? No. Ellis, no. Alanis? Connolly? Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Haney? Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye. Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Macedo? No. Macedo, no. Mertzuchi? Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Schultz? Wicks? Zbarr? Aye. Zbarr, aye. we'll leave it open for absent members now going to sb 1370 and before you start senator i just want to be very clear we're amending the bill today to add a lot of safeguards to the projects covered in the bill by establishing geographic limitations project size limits based on ecosystems and importantly expressly stating that all applicable laws and regulations governing pesticide applications shall continue and be complied with under the bill's fast-tracked process For wildfire reduction permitting, laws and regulations are streamlined into a single review process, but not for pesticide application. They need to continue to comply with all applicable laws and regulations, and we require that the resource agency report to the legislature before the bill sunsets on, among other things, how many projects use herbicide treatment, where, and what type. With that, Senator, please begin.

So I think the amends do that. Ask for your aye vote and we'll get into questions, I'm sure, as we go along. So should I turn it turn it over? I guess go to Michael Jarrett first, TNC. And we'll go to you're not Brady. You're Brandon. You're not Edison. You're PG&E. I know. I know. So we'll go to Brandon PG&E next. OK, thank you, chair members. I really appreciate the time. I'm Michael Jare, Associate Director with the Nature Conservancy. We are proud to support SB 1370, which would place into law the governor's process to fast-track critical wildfire fuel reduction projects. We would like to thank the committee and the author for their work on the bill. Committee amendments improve the bill and move us to a support position. TNC conducts with its partners projects that apply beneficial fire and ecological restoration to keep California's forests healthy and resilient. TNC believes in regionally appropriate wildfire solutions. TNC supports placing the emergency proclamation process into law so that they can continue to advance important regionally appropriate wildfire resilience projects that achieve the state's goals. Both the California Earthquake Authority's SB 254 Wildfire Study and the new draft of the California Wildfire and Landscape Resilience Action Plan recommend the continuation of the fast-track process because it's essential to meet the state's goals. SB 1370 supports that effort with important environmental protections and transparency that are not in the emergency proclamation, including better enforcement of the associated state environmental protection plan. For all these reasons, we ask for your aye vote on SB 1370. Thank you. Good evening. Brandon Ebeck here on behalf of Pacific Gas and Electric. There's not much else to add beyond what the senator mentioned and the Nature Conservancy. We are in strong support of this bill, very much appreciate the work of the committee and the author and some of our else for a companion-related measure on wildfire risk reduction. From the utility perspective, we are very focused on reducing the likelihood of any catastrophic wildfires. This bill is unique in that it touches both utility ignitions and everybody else. We can do what we can to control our rights-of-way ignitions, but obviously we are all one California, so we need to control what can happen when sparks get outside of our rights-of-way. additionally the California Natural Resources Agency has a very transparent public dashboard about all the projects that have been submitted that have been reviewed that are either underway or completed we think that's very helpful for the public to understand where state dollars are going where repair dollars are going so we ask for a we ask for an iVote to continue this process we've made a Good progress in the last 18 months. We don't want to stop now. Thank you so much. Are there persons in the room in support of this measure? Good evening. John Kendrick from the California Chamber of Commerce in support. Thanks, John. Chair and members, Alex Torres here on behalf of Vibrant Planet. Apologies, we were late, but we're in a supportive amended position around a statewide methodology for return on investment assessment. But other than that, very supportive. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Members, Brady Van England here on behalf of Southern California Edison in support. Thank you. There's Brady. Henry. They're not interchangeable. Good evening. Martin Radosevich on behalf of Megafire Action in support. Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties. We're still evaluating the amendments, but I look forward to continued conversations in support today. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Chris Schmode on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance. Apologies for the late letter, but we are in support. Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition to this measure? This is going to be fun. Two minutes each. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Jacob Evans with Sierra Club California. Here on behalf of over half a million members in California in opposition to SB 1370, we appreciate the author and his staff for working with us to better understand and address our concerns with the bill, and we appreciate the committee for the direction the amendments taken today move the bill. However, Sierra Club California remains opposed to the bill as amended as the bill exams wildfire mitigation projects from nearly all laws under CNRA and CalIPA's purview and would allow action with broad impacts on the environment to be carried out without oversight from regulations that prevent ecological and public health harms. This approach is overbroad given that there has been no analysis on which of these laws, ranging from water quality laws, stream protections, to habitat protections, are specifically limitations or barriers for implementing these projects. It remains unclear what delay that a specific regulation or law has had on wildfire mitigation projects that justify as codifying and expanding the timeline of the governor's emergency proclamation. Environmental protections for qualifying projects are reliant on compliance with the governor's state environmental protection plan, but the guidelines in the plan are weak and largely optional. For example, known sensitive habitat must be avoided, but there's no survey requirements to identify the habitat. And riparian logging and heavy equipment operations on steep slopes must be avoided, and this is not feasible to do so, leaving little protection for the race these operations can create. The bill also lacks protections for native species. As amended, the bill allows for expedited review of projects that would convert land to bare ground, remote vegetation, even if that includes the removal of native chaparral and coastal stage shrub. Additionally, the bill does not actually require these projects to be cost-effective or ineffective at wildfire mitigation. The bill's broad project scope and likely sunset date at the end of 2030 would mean four years of expedited wildfire mitigation projects executed without regard for native species, project costs, the protections provided by environmental regulation that protect our clean water and healthy ecosystems. For these reasons, we urge no vote. Thank you. Thank you so much. Hey, hello. Tara Thornton of Freedom Angels. I live rural in the northern Sierras, very much in support of wildfire mitigation. Know the issue well, and like most Californians, want to see healthy forest regen and wildfire mitigation. But like most Californians also want to see less conventional herbicide use not more And SB 1370 will not only fast track but it incentivize the use of conventional herbicides and cuts the public out of transparency and due process and recourse So SB 1370 will essentially function as wildfire, like literally textbook wildfire maladaptation. And I'm going to talk specifically about the pesticides, conventional pesticides and herbicides. I'm going to use the term herbicides. So the chair or the ledge analysis clarified that there are still pesticide and herbicide regulations. That is correct. There is still in the bill, there is still local, state and federal regulations. Those are around the use, the labeling, and the reporting. They are not—this is very different. This doesn't address the concerns of CEQA. CEQA does very different things. CEQA does three main things. I mean, it does do, well, the three main things. One, it requires the project to go through a alternative analysis process. This is so that you have to decide, look through and say, okay, maybe the grazing, like Henry Stearns talked about, or cultural burning, or mechanical or manual, that those processes might be better than just jumping to conventional herbicide use. Without CEQA, there is no incentive to have to go through the alternatives analysis process, and then you end up just incentivizing conventional herbicide use. That's going to like 10x the use that's already happening on the lands in California. Second thing that it does is it cuts the public out of the process. It's CEQA that allows the public to know about a project in the spraying of conventional herbicides before they happen on the project and allows them to be involved in the process so that they can determine that the best prescription happens on that project. And then lastly, it does lock out the public from any legal recourse on it. So I think this is not the direction California wants to go. CEQA is very different than maintaining existing labeling use and reporting on pesticides. So that is what has to really be considered. I think we want to look at also how to make not only if we exempt. So if you want to have a project, fast track. So I'd let you go 40 seconds over because it's your first time before my committee. But thank you. Thank you. Are there any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Kelly Ryerson, Glyphosate Facts and Protect Tahoe, and I oppose. Good evening. Katie Valenzuela on behalf of the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment, San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, 350 Humboldt, as well as GMO Science, and respectful opposition. Thank you. David Bullock, constituent of Senator Stern, also of the SFV Alliance. We align our position with that of Freedom Angels. Thank you. Kim Delfino, representing California Native Plant Society in opposition. Hi, Michael Chen on behalf of Audubon California. Opposed unless amended. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. And I'll turn it back to committee members. Questions, comments? Mr. Ellis. Analysis through paralysis. CEQA is like, again, I'll say it again. Aspirin. Like aspirin. 2 would help you, 12 would hurt you. I wanted to address amounts of herbicides. First of all they very costly Nobody really wants to go out there and put these herbicides and spend money let alone worried about future environmental impacts Everybody knows in this world that we live in today about this. I'm supporting this bill, and I commend the author because this is well needed, and I want to thank you for bringing it forward. Thank you. Mr. Sabur, did you have a question? Yes. So it sounded like there were some amendments taken that address some of the issues related to the herbicide use. I'm wondering if you can sort of cover those. Yeah, if I may. Or would you? The chair actually did a good job, I thought, summarizing it up front. But the amendments clarify that these projects can't just end around the review process of this project review committee that is established in this framework. So there is some process. We recognize it's not a full CEQA analysis that the opposition is looking for. So I think there are still some outstanding concerns, even though we have another layer of review and also a clarification that any herbicide treatment is going to have to conform with the state's environmental protection plan. And if you look at how that plan is put together and the policies that are contained there, and I can find you a direct quote from it, but it's essentially there is an order of preference. It is not to go straight to the most toxic first. Right. There's a sort of a tiering in it that says you should first exhaust sort of other alternatives. However, it's not the same structure of an alternatives analysis that the again, the opposition is looking through through the formal SQL process. So we recognize that it's sort of it's, you know, maybe got the trappings of that review process, but not with the sort of, you know, the litigation opportunity and the time length that a traditional SQL review would go through. But we're open to other ideas for how to further tighten up that state policy. I think there's very encouraging stuff going on in the marketplace, too, in terms of new synthetics and use of bioherbicides, things like that. So we'd like to see that be sort of the herbicides be the last resort and then the kind that are toxic to really be the last, last resort. There's also aspects of the EPP, they call it, that have to do with load. So, in other words, you have to only apply a certain amount that you know won't have an impact, say, on water quality. And the water board actually sits in on that process. But, again, we recognize it's not quite sufficient for those who have concerns. And just to be clear, we actually struck the exemption and turned this into a one-stop permitting process so that it's faster and it's cleaner. and expressly stating that all pesticide and herbicide laws, local, state, and federal, have to be followed and abided by and then still have reporting to the Natural Resource Agency. So our goal here in helping the senator continue to refine this was to expedite the process so we can codify the best actions in the governor's executive order, but not endanger communities in the way that maybe the order did. So the streamlined process I guess can you cover what the public participation is and some of the concerns that were raised were related to sort of how short the time limits were the 60 limit And did you just sort of uncover Yes. Do you want to take a shot at that? Or no, am I going to stump you? I know that the authorization rendered by the agencies has to be within the 60 calendar days after the receipt. That's sort of how it's structured. and then there is an opportunity to extend that timeline. I believe the language and the statutes, if the parties deem that more information is required. So it's not a sort of locked in 60-day, if you will, but that's the initial sort of expectation period, and then they can extend that out. In terms of the public notice and the public participation part, the website, which I don't have right off the top of my head, but there is a public website where public notice of the project is given. But again, it's not the same intervention opportunity that a full CEQA EIR would be, but it is still a pre-notice. It's not like you just find out after the fact, after the reporting. Local governments will be clued in. I think there was a concern that these projects, before you even realize it, they're done and you never even had a chance to say anything and suddenly by the roadside right out in front of your house or even in your backyard that they're spraying something and you don't know what it is and they don't tell you. So we want to be really clear that that's not going to be the case. And if there's anything further we have to do to make that public notice process more clear, I think we're ready to do it. But, yeah, the idea is just to consolidate the review process, but not to end around any of the review. Okay, I, you know, I'm concerned about the shortness of the time and, you know, it sounds though that you're open to continuing to work with the environmental opposition. You know, I did a streamlining bill that was related to infrastructure and it took us a long time, you know, transmission infrastructure. And we stuck more closely to the CEQA process and didn't, and tried to make sure that we didn't, that public participation was still there and that there were still remedies at the end of that process. So I know that, you know, that I just want to thank the committee staff and the chair for the changes, which sounds like they're moving in the right direction. And I would say, yes, still we're going to keep working with the opposition and with this committee. I'm prepared to support this today, but, you know, it really, I'm going to be looking at whether or not we're able to sort of consolidate more environmental support because I do think there's that some of the concerns they're raising about moving too far away from you know you can you can streamline things and still keep the basic public participation and remedies of the secret process in line and it to me this seems like it's moved too far a little bit too far away from that so I'll support it today but with the pledge that you're going to continue working on some of the environmental opposition. Yeah, my word. Another question? Your comment. Thank you. Thank you to the author and the committee for the work, and I apologize for coming in a little bit late. May have missed some of the answers to these questions, but it sounds like similar concerns, and it even appears with committee amendments, the bill still seeks to exempt eligible projects from complying with almost all statutes, regulations, and permit requirements at administered by agencies within CNRA and Cal EPA. Can you identify what substantive environmental protections would still be legally enforceable and why such broad exemptions are necessary rather than the more targeted permitting reforms? I think it's in section – sorry, let me get you there. In the amendments, there is a, I believe it is an H of section, subsection H of 4240. I think I got it. Sorry, 4241H. Um, uh, nothing in this section precludes compliance with applicable local and federal statutes, rules and regulations. So that, that out the gate says, you know, if you have certain, um, say a pesticide regulation locally, nothing's waived there. We have that. I used to represent Malibu. We have pesticide free Malibu. So the, the local doesn't get under rounded. Um, And then federal, likewise. I think on the state front, it's not so much that you're exempting, it's that you're consolidating review at a single agency with what they call the project review team. And that you are, that this state environmental protection plan is supposed to be that sort of one-stop shop, if you will, where regional water quality, state water resource control, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Geological Survey, Coastal Commission, and CAL FIRE are all sort of looking at what their various permits are before them. And not all these projects would on the natural require CEQA. This isn't supposed to be a straight CEQA exemption or a CEQA streamlining bill, right? In a lot of these cases, maybe the witness can comment, but they're projects that wouldn't otherwise require CEQA. So we just want to make sure that we're not sort of imposing that and an extra layer on the process, but this shouldn't cut those agencies out of that process. But I'm... I would just add that the relevant state agencies still review the project and they still have to sign off on the project. And there's an environmental protection plan that highlights the most likely impacts and basically ask them to avoid them all. And that if they don't, they need to mitigate and work with the state agencies to address the impact. And so at the end of the day, the people who we put into place for our EPA and for the resources agencies sign off and believe the project doesn't have any concerns. And over 400 projects have started this process. I think 47 have completed it. And I haven't heard any concern. Most of these projects, I mean, utilities do a lot of them and they're, yeah, the Senator's right, they're partially exempt already. But then also like land trusts, fire safe councils, the UC system has all taken advantage of this to do really good projects. And I think that there's a balance, obviously, right? Like there's impacts from doing the project. There's also impacts from not doing the project and having the area burn, you know? And we should also think about that the next significant and serious wildfire we have, which will happen this year, the governor could just declare the emergency proclamation again. It ended in May after over a year. And so this, this law puts in serious safeguards, environmental safeguards that wouldn't be present in the prior emergency proclamation, especially with the committee's amendments. Yeah I appreciate that I not going to repeat the 60 day time period concern which I share I guess particularly we are talking about fairly large projects here They may be as large as 3000 acres That a significant bump in terms of what been addressed in prior streamlining efforts Finally, does the bill require that projects be demonstrated to be effective or cost effective? I see that information is requested, but it's not a requirement. What safeguards prevent expedited approval of projects that may provide little wildfire benefit or could even increase fire risk or environmental damage under certain conditions? I share that skepticism. If you look to, there's a new amendment. It is very last, 4241K, very, very last page of the mock-up. For all publicly funded projects, Cal Fire shall conduct a risk reduction cost per unit. Anything that is in this bill that has any public money attached to it whatsoever, I want to see Cal Fire putting some rigor around these projects. And I don't know if that's strong enough. please invite your scrutiny and hard look at the new K. Because I think that we have limited public dollars to do mitigation. And I think we have burned a lot of money. And those of you who've been in this space, we've been very critical on the Senate side about just chasing acreage with these projects and not actually chasing risk reduction. And that can't be our metric, right? It has to actually be on are you hardening the community, not just chasing. And I've got a lot of forestry goals, and there's great to have biodiversity goals. And Michael and TNC and those folks have heard me say this, but we want to see bang for a buck from a taxpayer perspective. The one other thing I'd give you, Assemblymember, is look at the new I, which is just in the page preceding. We did strike the 3,000-acre project size piece, and we did do some tiering around that. So we're dropping below that 3,000 to 500 for anything that is a project in a forest or a project to improve ecosystem health on chaparral, shrubland, grassland, and coastal sage scrublands. So those have to be less than 500. And then you drop it down further. Any projects in chaparral, shrubland, grassland, and coastal sage scrublands other than those in the previous section shall be less than 50. So we didn't – I live in Chaparral country. We didn't want to sort of have these giant open-ended things. We need to be very tailored in the application and be tailored to community risk reduction. So please take another look at that. But all I'd say to you is the skepticism and the concern is welcome. I'm happy to keep working with you and the opposition on refining that piece. But, yeah, we – even the chair of your committee here does have wildfire risk in his district. But rarely is that valued under the current metrics, right? We chase big, big projects, but the small ones are actually would tend to burn our houses down. And so we really want to see it get tailored, smaller, and sort of more acute. So, yeah, that's my quick feedback. I appreciate that. And I'm going to take you up on that offer. I'm not sure I'm there today. It's okay. But you are it sounds like you have teed up the correct issues You working on it I committed to continue to working with you and the committee at all All right Thank you Senator Pellerin. Thank you. No, I appreciate this discussion. I had some of the same concerns and whether the bill strikes the right balance between the speed and environmental protections. So it's heartening to hear your commitment to continue to work on the bill. And I trust that you'll do a good job with that. And with that, I'll support the bill today. Thanks. A lot of pressure. We have a motion. Mr. Ellis in a second. I'll second. By Ms. Pellerin. Senator, would you like to close? Sure. Hopefully I haven't been too long-winded here. This is all tricky stuff for me, too, to get into. And I have fought for the chaparral. I have gone crazy on people when I find glyphosate spraying along horse trails and Thousand Oaks and have had my tussles with both local, state, government, private contractors, agriculture. I'm deeply sensitive to all this at a very personal level and also with the urgency of the wildfire risk. So I hope I live up to my commitments here and try to land something for you all before you see this again. but I appreciate your consideration today. And seriously, thanks to the committee and the staff, especially both now and into the future as we lean on your wisdom. We respect the F.R.I.B.O. We look forward to continue working this out with you. And I think we're very close. Yeah, I think we're getting there. Also, I can say, Senator, I have seen some things today that I thought I would never see. PG&E, Natural Resource Agency, Sierra Club, Freedom Angels, Vice Chair Ellis and Ms. Pellerin. I don't know what kind of coalition building school you went to. But this is something special. You have a due pass recommendation from me, Madam Secretary. Can we call the roll? Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Ellis? Aye. Ellis, aye. Alanis? Connolly? Not voting. Connolly, not voting. Garcia? Garcia, aye. Haney? Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye. Calra? Macedo? Aye. Macedo, aye. Mertzuchi? Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Schultz? Wicks? Zipper? Aye. Zipper, aye. We'll leave it open for absent members. Senator Gonzalez? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I am very sick. I know. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. I know, just dragging myself over here to committee. My apologies. I'm not feeling too well. Whenever you're ready. All right, Mr. Chair, thank you, members. I'm here to present SB 1260. It basically codifies outdoors for all. It was launched, the initiative was launched in 2021 to increase access to the outdoors, prioritize equity, think of your state parks programs. I happen to represent in Southeast LA some of the lowest park access per capita. and we just want to be able to ensure that we are expanding these services, free pass programs and culturally competent programs built by this initiative. And also this bill, SB 1268, excuse me, will codify the position of Deputy Secretary for access within the California Natural Resources Agency and require regular updates in public engagement. With me to testify in support, I have Pedro Hernandez from Green Latinos, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. two minutes whenever you're ready um thank you and good evening I would like to say um also happy uh EDM month I was on the gallery floor when that was happening And Dairy Month yes I from Fresno But yeah, I want to talk about a simple but hopefully significant bill and intent to codify one of the most successful initiatives that at least I've come to know in my engagement with the state government. The Outdoors for All strategy has ushered in a new chapter of outdoor access for California. We're not there yet, but this is going to lay the foundation for us to get to where we need to go. For the first time in history, we have the 27 departments at the Natural Resource Agency leveraging their data, their funding, their staff, all towards the same mission, which is outdoor equity. And I can say, at least from my experience working statewide, it has been successful. And just in the last three months, there has been three new state parks created in the San Joaquin Valley. Now every Californian can access a free historian park pass, which allows all of us to enter the state historic parks for free. So get it before July 6th. And also, yeah, it's really cool. But then also, you know, we're partnering with the Natural Resource Agency to update the Outdoors for All strategy this coming fall as well, too, because we know that a couple of years ago when the plan was created, it was a good start. But there's so much different environmental risks. There's so many new political dynamics. And we have new funding streams available as well, too. So we want to, you know, turn this up to 11 and make sure that this can be even more successful. So, yeah, I want to, again, just echo Senator Gonzalez's enthusiasm as well. I'm also a bit banged up. I sprained my ankle falling from a two-step flight over the weekend. But I think, you know, the fact that we're still showing up shows that we care so much about this bill. So I want to respectfully ask for your support today. Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you for your dedication. Are there persons in the hearing room in support? Hi, good evening. Michael Chen on behalf of Audubon California, the co-sponsors of the bill. Also here to voice support for Los Patres, Forest Watch, Resource Renewal Institute, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Latino Outdoors, and Sabre Redwoods League. Thank you so much. Good evening. I'm Kendra Begley on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts in support. Thank you. Jake Schultz on behalf of the Mid-Peninsular Regional Open Space District, East Bay Regional Park District, Semper Virens Fund, and the California Association of Local Conservation Corps in support. Thank you. Good evening. Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in strong support. Thank you. Good evening. Kim Delfino in support on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and California Native Plant Society. Thanks. Catalina Gonzalez, Center for Progressive Reform in support. Mr. Chair, members, Doug Houston representing the California Outdoor Recreation Partnership. It's the Outdoor Chamber of Commerce here in California, the California Park and Recreation Society, Save Mount Diablo, and the County of Los Angeles, all in support. Thank you so much. Is there anybody here in the hearing room who does not believe the outdoors should be for all? Seeing none, we'll now turn it back to committee members. Assemblymember Pellerin. I love this bill. I think it is so critically important that we have outdoor spaces for everyone and have them be accessible. And especially with it's so good for our physical health, our mental health. And my assembly district is just loaded with amazing. outdoor spaces for people to get out there to enjoy. And as an ex officio of the state park and rec commission as well, I would be honored to be added as a coauthor. Thank you. Absolutely. Senator McCullough. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I think it's obligatory as the author of AB 3030. And someone who is even, you know, when I authored AB 30, which created the Equitable Outdoor Access Act. It led to this Outdoors for All initiative. So I'm incredibly grateful to the Senator for recognizing the need to codify it, to make this permanent. Earlier on in a previous bill, there was a conversation about how California should be leading. Well, 30 by 30 is an example of that. The Senator and I, and I know others here as well, as well as others that are not on the committee, have had the opportunity to go to international forums and conferences where California is the leader and so many others are following our path in regards to 30 by 30. However, protecting our land and water and making it accessible is not good enough if the access is only for the select few. And that's why this legislation is so important. We want to make sure the more access we give to the general public, the more buy-in they give to the work we're doing to protect and preserve our land in the most beautiful place on earth, our great state of California. And so just want to express my gratitude to you, Senator, and would love to be out as co-author as well. Thank you. Any other questions or comments, colleagues? Seeing none, Senator, would you like to close? I respectfully ask for an aye vote, and I thank my colleagues for their comments. Do we have a motion? Move the bill. We have a motion and a second. I also come from a relatively park-poor district, although we do have Kennehan State Park, which sits in the immediate footprint of the largest urban oil field in the state, something the senator and I have also spent years trying to reconcile these two realities. This is a really important bill, and I want to thank you for doing this work. I'm also happy to join as a co-author if you will have me. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll? Motion is due pass to appropriations. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Ellis? Not voting. Ellis not voting. Alanis? Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Haney? Haney? Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Macedo? Not voting. Macedo, not voting. Mertzuchi? Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Schultz? Wicks? Zuber? Aye. Zuber, aye. We'll leave it open for absent members. Senator Reyes, my forever majority leader. Sure good to be here. It's great to have you here. Would you like to start with 1075? If I may, I'd like to start with 1213. Absolutely. We're on our toes. Whenever you're ready. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1213, the Clean Truck Transparency Act. First, I would like to begin by accepting the amendments proposed in the committee analysis. A second I am pleased to announce that we have reached a deal with the opposition on further amendments that once amended into SB 1213 will bring them into a support position I want to thank everyone including staff and stakeholders who have worked diligently on this bill These efforts show that manufacturers environmentalists public health professionals and community members can all come together around the same goal to address air pollution in our most impacted communities SB 1213 will ensure California maintains its leadership in the deployment of clean, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles by doing a number of things. One, looking at alternative financing opportunities for vehicles, asking CARB to increase the scale of vehicles being deployed, and most of all, improving transparency to ensure the funds used to support this market lead to a decrease in truck prices. Earlier this year, CARB announced that HVIP had delivered more than $1 billion in funding for fleets statewide, equating to more than 2,000 fleets, enabling the deployment of 11,600 clean vehicles. Although heavy-duty vehicles make up a small share of vehicles, they are disproportionately responsible for transportation-related pollution. However, it is important that as we provide funding to this sector, we also ensure meaningful price transparency. Unlike the passenger vehicle market, medium and heavy-duty trucks lack publicly available pricing information. And it can be difficult to understand how much each vehicle costs and the impact that subsidies are having on price long-term. This results in several policy impacts, which include weakening competition in the marketplace, limiting our ability to ensure that the cost gap between zero emission and diesel is truly closing, and not allowing policymakers the necessary tools to provide proper oversight. SB 1213 addresses this while also providing direction to multiple departments to provide more options to support this growing market. Here to testify in support of SB 1213 are Guillermo Ortiz with the Natural Resources Defense Council and Melanie Law with E2. Thank you. Good evening, Chair Brian, members of the committee. My name is Guillermo Ortiz, and I'm the senior clean vehicles advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council. NRDC strongly supports SB 1213 because it is a common sense measure to ensure that California's transition to clean transportation is rooted in market certainty, scalability, and affordability. Right now, as diesel prices rise across our state, California's fleets, especially our small businesses and independent owner-operators, are looking for predictable long-term alternatives. They want to transition to cleaner, more cost-effective electric trucks, but they're navigating a nascent commercial market that currently lacks the standardized visibility required to make major capital investments with confidence. When you buy a passenger car, you can look at the window sticker and shop around. Unfortunately, that's not the case in the medium and heavy-duty zero-emission truck market. There really is no standard pricing information. And so without this clear market signal, it is difficult for fleets to benchmark their costs, for financial institutions to underwrite loans, and for the broader ecosystem to scale efficiently. This information gap is holding the entire market back. SB 1213 offers a targeted market-enabling solution. It simply requires basic data reporting for vehicles that use state incentive money, looks into innovative financing options to help fleets make the switch and also make improvement to existing incentive programs This bill provides the basic market data that fleets banks and manufacturers need to invest safely and it brings structural transparency to the market empowering fleets to make smart business decisions and ensure California's taxpayer-funded incentives go as far as possible. To build a clean commercial vehicle market that functions efficiently, predictably, and fairly for everyone. We must ensure our market transparency tools develop alongside zero emission technologies. NRDC respectfully urges an aye vote on SB 1213. Thank you. That was two minutes exactly. Well done. Thank you. Top that. Okay. Good evening, chair and members. My name is Melanie Law, and I'm here on behalf of E2 in support of SB 1213. E2 is a national nonpartisan organization of business leaders who advocate for smart policies that are good for the economy and good for the environment. California's transition to zero-emission trucks is essential to improving the state's air quality and meeting its climate goals, but the framework supporting this transition must be fair and transparent. SB 1213 would require OEMs of medium and heavy-duty trucks to disclose baseline pricing in order to qualify for state incentives such as HVIP. This is a common-sense action that will protect small business fleet operators, improve market transparency, and help ensure that state dollars are being spent efficiently. Traditional grant-heavy incentive structures, while foundational, face natural scaling limits. Section 5 of this bill aims to address this issue by requiring CARB, in coordination with GOBiz and iBank, to report back to the legislature on alternative financial tools that can help advance the medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicle market and mobilize private sector investment. This shift is critical to ensuring that independent owner, operators, and small fleets who lack large capital reserves are not left behind or priced out of this transition. For these reasons, E2 supports SB 1213 and respectfully asks for your aye vote. Thank you. That was a minute 30. Well done. Are there any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure? Jake Schultz on behalf of Ceres in support. Thank you. Jenna Roper on behalf of Central California Asthma Collaborative in support. Craig Schultz on behalf of the Port of Long Beach in support. Chloe Shea representing California Environmental Voters in support. in support. Anvi Chobal on behalf of the American Lung Association in support, also here to voice support for the Regional Asthma Management and Prevention, San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Coalition for Clean Air, the Greenlining Institute, Los Angeles Business Council, Los Angeles Clean Tech Incubator, Earth Justice, Union of Concerned Scientists, Federation of American Scientists, Green Latinos, and APEN action. Thank you. Good evening. Lisa Tanaka from South Coast Air Quality Management District in interim support. Thank you so much. Good evening, Victoria Rome, NRDC, but I was asked to voice support for WRI, the World Resources Institute. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Chris Shimoda on behalf of the California Trucking Association. Just want to give the author a huge thank you for working with the manufacturers. Look forward to going neutral upon seeing the immense in print. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? So Mr Chair members I have good news We were opposed. We are now neutral. Just a quick statement. I want to thank the senator and the committee staff and the sponsors for all the work and the constructive dialogue over the last few weeks. The amendments substantially improved the bill. And as was mentioned, the medium and heavy-duty emission truck market remains nascent and low volume. So it was critical. We got the language right. especially around the aggregation of manufacturer and dealer data. And the success of these provisions will ultimately depend on implementation by CARB. So we look forward to working with CARB sponsors as we move forward. And with that, we are neutral. Thank you. Oh, I didn't do that. I'm sorry. I'm new at this. Shane Levine with Volvo North America. Thank you. Thank you, Shane. We'll now turn it back to committee members. Questions, comments, concerns? No. Thank you. We have a motion by Ms. Macedo, a second by Mr. Hoover. Senator Reyes, would you like to close? Yes, as we move, and I think going along with what was just discussed, as we move this bill through the legislative process, I do look forward to working with CARB to ensure that the aggregation methodology will be applied in a manner that protects confidentiality, given the unique production and characteristics of medium and heavy-duty vehicles. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. We fully trust you in that process. You have a motion, a second, and a do pass recommendation from me, Madam Secretary. Can we call the roll? Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Ellis? Not voting. Not voting. Alanis? Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Haney? Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye. Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Macedo? Aye. Macedo, aye. Maritsuchi? Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Schultz, Wicks, Zipper. We'll leave it open for absent members. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Shane. All right. Whenever you're ready. Mr. Chair and members, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1075, the Clean Air Promise. First, I would like to accept the committee's amendments and thank the chair and staff for their work to make this bill's implementation stronger. Committee amendments and my most recent author amendments have removed opposition from CSAC and the League of Cities. They also address key concerns from the air districts and the Chamber of Commerce. I remain committed to working with South Coast AQMD and the air districts, as well as CARB, on technical feedback on the bill's implementation. SB 1075 bills on the state's promise of clean air for all, improving implementation of SERPs and LSERPs, expanding community voice, and clarifying eligible uses of funding to result in improved air quality outcomes. It has been nearly a decade since the passage of AB 617, which, as a part of the cap-and-trade negotiations that took place that year, offered the promise of local emissions reductions in our most polluted communities. Despite the importance of this program, there has consistently been a fundamental disconnect between program goals and efforts to maximize emissions reductions, especially in our impacted communities. communities. SB 1075 fulfills the promise of SB of AB, 617 by ensuring more effective implementation of the statewide strategy to reduce emissions. Here to testify and support are Katie Valenzuela on behalf of the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, and Joaquin Castillejos, Organizing Coordinator with the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. Good evening, Chair and members. and urge your support. I will say due to the very late referral of our bill to your committee, we did not get to cross all of the amendments that we've been working on with CARB and the air districts, but we are very certain that with all of that language in print, we'll address their concerns and this will be in fighting shape by the time it comes back to the floor. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Joaquin Castillos and I'm the organizing coordinator with the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Representing frontline and fenced-line communities across the Inland Empire, we are also members of the San Bernardino-Moscoy AB 617 committee. I am here today in support of SB 1075 because it recognizes an important reality. Meaningful community engagement and lasting pollution reductions cannot happen on an arbitrary timeline. Through AB 617, residents in communities like San Bernardino and Moskoy have spent years identifying pollution sources, sharing lived experiences, and working alongside agencies to develop community emission reduction plans. And these plans are more than just documents. They represent countless hours of community participation and trust building. However, many of the solutions our communities identify involve agencies beyond the air districts, including transportation, rail, and other sources that require long-term coordination. Those changes often take years to implement, and their impacts cannot be measured immediately after a SERP is completed. Environmental justice is not achieved by completing a plan. It is achieved when residents can see and feel real improvements all around them, in the air they breathe, and the health of their communities. That requires long-term investment and continued partnership with the communities that have dedicated years to this work. SB 1075 acknowledges that reality by allowing AB 617 communities the time and support necessary to complete meaningful implementation and continue advancing the goals established through their SERPs. It strengthens, not replaces the investment California has already made in community-driven air quality planning. The minimum the state can do is follow through on its investments and commitments to the most polluted communities in California and make sure our efforts do not go overlooked. For these reasons, I respectfully urge an aye vote on SB 1075. Thank you so much. Other persons in this hearing room in support of this measure? Mariela Ratchel, Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability in support and the California Environmental Justice Alliance. Thank you. Jennifer, Central California Asthma Collaborative, in support. Jacob Evans, Sierra California, in support. Thank you. Chloe Shea, on behalf of California Environmental Voters, in strong support. Thank you. Victoria Roam with NRDC in support Anvi Chobal on behalf of the American Lung Association and support learning persons in this hearing room in opposition to this measure Two minutes each. Good evening, Chair Bryan and members of the committee. My name is Alan Abs, and I'm the legislative officer for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. and with respect to the author, we remain opposed unless amended to SB 1075. Acknowledging that the Senator has been a really big supporter of the AB 617 program, and I think we can all agree that supporters in any opposition that's here, we all have an interest in making the AB 617 program a success. The Air District has significant concerns with parts of SB 1075, including the process for completing work in SERP communities and the enforcement requirements for the new LSERP communities. The new amendments regarding LSERP communities require provisions of the plan to be enforced by the local air district, by CARB, or both entities, and yet LSERP grantees are not required to work with an air district in developing their plans. So a grantee could include local land use requirements, or they could require something of the air district that would then be required to be enforced either by the Air District voluntarily, I suppose, or by an enforcement requirement from CARB. And so there's a problem with that. The second area of concern has to do with the process of ending CERC commitments. So recent amendments allow the commitment to end when the emissions objectives are achieved as determined by the Air District or upon a majority vote of the steering committee. And this sounds reasonable on its face, but this provision actually prevents the Air District and CARB from being able to redeploy scarce state funding, which may end in the next couple years, to other communities that deserve similar AB 617 support and also takes away budget authority from the Air District Board. So I could get more into depth into these two issues. I know I'm running low on time if the committee members want to talk about that more, but I respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Two minutes, Sean. Good evening, Chair Bryan and members. John Kendrick from Cal Chamber. We remain opposed to SB 1075 as a cost driver. Now, I'd like to start with praising the committee analysis, which highlights the bill's core problem. The analysis essentially asks, why should informal non-governmental plans be enforceable by CARB and local air districts? That's the right question. As the analysis notes, LSERP is not defined in law, and it is not clear what compliance means in this context. While SB 1075 treats SERPs and LSERPs the same, they are fundamentally different tools. A SERP is a formal air quality planning document developed for CARB-selected communities in conjunction with the Air District and stakeholders, adopted by the local Air District, submitted to CARB for review and approval, and implemented by air regulators. A SERP is an enforceable air quality program. An LSERP, on the other hand, is a community engagement tool funded through a grant from CARB. It is developed by a community organization to identify local concerns and develop recommendations. It is about building capacity to engage with regulators, not establishing enforceable obligations. The structure of SB 1075 and the committee analysis raise a fundamental policy question Why should a community organization be able to dictate enforceable air district policy SB 1075 collapses the distinction between community input and regulatory policy by taking a community engagement tool and making it an enforceable obligation even where the air district may not agree with the approach or have the authority over the measures it contains. That raises a real underground regulation concern with major policy being developed outside of the normal rulemaking process. This backfires on disadvantaged communities by making continued operations and new investments in those communities more uncertain, more expensive. This risks lost jobs, reduced prosperity, and a weaker local tax base for funding essential services. Ultimately, we believe enforceable air district policy should be developed, adopted, and implemented by accountable public agencies through clear legal standards. For those reasons, we still strongly oppose SB 1075 as a cost driver. Thank you. I'll let you go over the time, John, because I missed you. Any other persons in this hearing room in opposition? Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. Skylar Wanakot on behalf of the California Business Properties Association, the California Business Roundtable in NAOP, California in opposition. Thank you. Keith Conley with Weidemann Group on behalf of the Supply Chain Federation in opposition. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Adam Regley on behalf of NAOP, SoCal in opposition. Thank you. Good evening. Martin Rudosevich on behalf of the City of Fresno in opposition. Dylan Finley on behalf of the Cement Industry in opposition. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the Kern and Fresno County Board of Supervisors, respectfully opposed. Cindy Hillary, BNSF Railway, in opposition. Thank you. Elizabeth Esquivel, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also in opposition. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf of the California Cotton Growers and Generous Association, Western Tree Nut Association, and the California Grocers Association in opposition. Mr. Chair and members, Dominic Tamari here on behalf of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District here in opposition. Good evening. Sylvia Solis-Shaw here on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. We remain opposed to the bill. Thank you. Hi. Leticia Garcia with the California Retailers Association, also in opposition. Thank you. Good evening, Chair and members. Naomi Padron on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association, respectfully opposed. Mr. Chair, members, Brian White, on behalf of Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, respectfully in opposition. Mr. Chair, Chris Schmode, on behalf of the California Trucking Association, in opposition. Lisa Tanaka, South Coast Air Quality Management District. First, I want to say thank you in greatest respects to the committee and to Senator Reyes. We deeply appreciate that we've had a dialogue. Unfortunately, we've moved to an opposed unless amended. but I heard this earlier that there's some room for discussion and we look forward to it. Thank you. Good evening. Kevin Shive on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in opposition. We'll now turn it back to the dais. Colleagues, any questions, comments, concerns? Mr. Zabur. so can you explain the difference between the Elser what in in an L and what in a SERP All right. Thank you for that question. Local community emission reduction programs were created by CARB to help communities that were overburdened with pollution but not yet in the program start the planning process. So these are still public meetings that are funded by the California Air Resources Board, but it is a different process. And to that point, I have to say, in addition to the committee's amendments, we have been working on language to substantially change the role of LSERPs in this bill. The concern of communities has been making them enforceable eventually. So we've landed on language with the Air Resources Board to give them priority when new communities are selected and to remove the other references from LSERPs into the bill. So that's what I referenced when I said, gosh, we got referred on Thursday and we just hadn't put everything in print yet. I was wondering if I could ask a question for the person from the Air District. So what could be, and then I'd like your response as well, what could be in an LSERP that would be problematic for the Air District to have to enforce? And what are you reading the enforcement? I guess I'm sort of having trouble understanding sort of what would be in the LSERP if they're a community planning document, and I'm not even sure if that's a fair characterization of what those are. So I just wonder if you could. No, I think that's a great question. So as an example, we have one LSERP community in the Bay Area. That's the San Leandro. And so there's a community group that received a grant from CARB, which eventually would lead to the development of this LSERP. And apparently they've completed the LSERP. You can go online and look at it. There's four major areas that the CELSERP has aspirational goals to do over the next five years. One of them, as an example, would be a target of 30% of the heavy-duty vehicles in serving San Leandro to be zero emission. And then also having all the electric vehicle infrastructure in the city to support that transition. And so, again, that sounds like a great idea. But, you know, if all of a sudden we have a requirement where air districts are required to enforce provisions of an LSERP, then you get to the question of, well, is that something that's enforceable by the air district? Do we have to use our own incentive funding at the expense of all the other communities in the Bay Area specifically to meet the requirements of San Leandro or in terms of their heavy-duty vehicles, their electric vehicle infrastructure? Or does CARB have to require us to do that? Or does CARB have to make state funding available to do that? And so that's one example. Another example in San Leandro is that they have an aspirational goal to increase the tree canopy and require, you know, or have the city, you know, plant more trees, create, you know, less of a heat island effect. And again, that's a great idea, but does it create an enforceable requirement for either CARB or the Air District to then tell the city, you need to start planting trees because this LSERP says that that's what you need to do by 2030. And so this is just an example of an LSERP, which was created in a vacuum prior to the introduction of SB 1075. So if you think about it, if the bill with that language became law, then an LSERP community would know, well, we could do an LSERP and we could put certain things in that LSERP that CARB would have to enforce or an air district would have to enforce that. And so all of a sudden you would have potential LSERP documents that would really up the game in terms of what air districts were required to do or what CARB was required to make land use authorities do or required to make the air district do. And so I think that's a problem going forward. And so I think what we would like to see is just that whole LSERP enforceability requirement stricken from the bill. and if an L-SERP community really wants to make progress, then they have the ability to work with CARB, work with the Air District, find out what's reasonable, what's possible, and do it through that method. So is it sort of fair to say that the concern that's been raising with respect to the L-SERPs is really that you've got these community plans that are setting these goals. They haven't gone through an Air District or a CARB regulatory process to understand whether they meet all those kinds of standards. and then you're worried that you would have to then enforce. And just to be clear, the committee amendments do say that only provisions of the LSERP that are adopted by, that are adopted are the ones that can be enforced, correct? By the Air District. By the Air District. Or CARB. So it's only adopted. They have to be adopted by the Air Resource Board or by CARB. Well, I'm going to support the bill today because I understand the goals of the bill are ones that, and I trust the author, but I want to make sure that you're continuing to work with the air districts on this set of issues related to enforceability of something that's not adopted. And I want to thank the chair for that. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Ellis. We've got only two bills left. I better hear at least a question on each of them. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I I'm really confused. Um, what specifically does this bill do that CARB doesn't already do? You slide over one, the wand right here. It's the enforcement. There's several provisions in this bill that are addressing questions at CARB. The biggest one is when communities, quote unquote, end the program. So there's an open question right now. There's sort of a default at five years, you're sort of done point, but to Joaquin's testimony, communities aren't always done. And so we're working on language with CARB to make that clearer so they can establish a clear process that the air districts and communities decide when they're done. How funding can be used has been an open question where we've had community strategies like vegetative barriers in Kern County and in other places that there's been some question over whether that's eligible funding under AB 617. So this bill will clarify that as well. This bill also takes a few other clerical changes around how long you can take to preserve the plans and other things that we've learned just in the course of implementing the program. How do you address that, sir, from the Air Quality Management District? Yes. So thanks for that question. So as an example, the so the new amendments allow a SERP to be wound down when the emissions objectives are achieved as determined by the Air District or upon majority vote of the steering committee. So the first thing I would say is that, you know, AB 617 SERPs, the Community Emission Reduction Plans, there's a mixture of things. You know, we spend years working with communities to come up with that SERP document. And so there's a lot of, like, monitoring information in there. There information that we provide to the community about types of pollutants in their area what producing those pollutants what the health risks are opportunities that we have to reduce those emissions reduce that exposure And in the end, you get a lot of actions that the community and the Air District agree to that have, you know, we have a work product we can do. We can work on rules. We can work on incentive programs. We can talk with cities and counties about doing certain things. But there are some things in that in that emission reduction plan that are purely, that are really aspirational. And they may never be completed to the satisfaction of the community. And so to say that an air district can't wind those down unless everything's been achieved kind of misses the point that there's some aspirational stuff in there that we may never achieve. And at the same time, the Bay Area Air District, we have four communities in this program. We serve seven and a half million people. And there's communities in the Bay Area region that really deserve some of the similar services that we've been providing to these four communities. And so at some point, I think the Air District should be able to look at providing some of that support to other communities and winding down some of the services that we provide to the existing communities. Thank you for that. I have two acknowledgments I want to make is to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution District and to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. I served under you for about 30 years, and you guys have done an amazing, amazing job. So thank you. I want to come back to the question on economics, because every time we pass legislation, there's this effect that could lead to more to the end consumer or more cost. Can you address that again? Yeah. I mean, I think there's a couple things going on here, right? So the form this bill will have after the amendments it's taken, it becomes almost impossible for anybody that has ongoing operations or planning to develop a new project in a jurisdiction that has a SERP or an LSERP to know whether or not that document's going to evolve in a way that their business is going to be. Maybe, you know, just as an example, if you have a Title V facility that has a Title V air permit, there could potentially be an LSERP that says no more granting of permits to Title V facilities. We saw that issue in this committee a couple weeks ago. That's an incredibly problematic thing. There's no real constraint on that other than, as you said, the approval by the Air Board. But still, there's all of these things that make it much harder for a business to plan to continue to operate or develop a new project in these communities. Thank you very much. Thank you. In all fairness, I think that the amendments that were taken, initially the bill had to do with land use decisions. That has been taken out completely out of the bill before. That was an author's amendment coming in. As was noted, getting out of the requirement that you have completed a SERP, we had two-thirds vote. There was an objection by the Bay Area Air Quality District, and that was reduced to a majority vote. So working on those things, that's extremely important. But making sure we did make a promise to the communities that we were going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions And this is one way to try to make sure that we do keep that promise Thank you. Any other questions or comments, colleagues? Ms. Wicks. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and apologies for missing the presentation. And I know you reached out this evening, so I'm sorry we weren't able to connect before. I just want to, you know, share some of the concerns raised by the opposition today. Ask that you keep working with them. Their opinion matters a lot to me in particular, given that it's in my district. I'll support the bill today, but with the caveat that you'll continue to work with them. And I believe the bill is going to do appropriations next. So I'm happy to also be part of those conversations as a bill enters my committee. Maybe we can figure out some additional solutions to hopefully work with the opposition on this. So I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no other questions, do we have a motion? Mr. Schultz in a second by Mr. Zabur. Senator Reyes, would you like to close? Thank you. This has been a lever of love, trying to make sure that if we tell our communities we're going to help reduce their gas house or their emissions, we're going to keep that promise. It is important to make sure that our air quality districts are important stakeholders, all of them, especially those who do have AB 617 communities within them. And so we will absolutely continue to work with them. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you so much. I know this was a late referral from the Rules Committee, and we didn't have quite as much time as we wanted to have to also work with you on this. But I think there are a few people that I trust in this entire legislature to work both in good faith and towards righteous goals, especially for frontline communities. And this committee stands in service of the Appropriations Committee to try to help you land this in a way that feels most authentic to the goals that you're trying to achieve. With that, you have my support absolutely today. Do pass recommendation. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll? Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Ellis? No. Ellis, no. Alanis? No. Alanis, no. Connelly? Aye. Connelly, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Hoover? No. Hoover, no. Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Macedo? No. Macedo, no. Maritsuchi? Pellerin? Aye. I Schultz, Schultz, I wicks, I super super. I. That bill is out. Our final bill of the year. The great senator from Santa Monica has joined us. Senator, whenever you're ready. Thank you, Matt. Mr. Chair, please present this bill, SB 501, which seeks to expand our state's extended producer responsibility system for batteries to include medium format batteries, such as those found in e-bikes and outdoor lawn equipment, portable power systems, etc. We know that batteries are a significant source of household hazardous waste. They pose significant safety risks when improperly managed, including potential fires and explosions. And in fact it didn turn out to be the case but it looked for a while that they thought that terrible fire we just had down in Southern California was caused by batteries because they so common now in waste facilities And we know that consumers are often facing really inadequate access to convenient collection options which then, of course, just increases the chances of folks just tossing them out into the trash, or some form of dangerous disposal, which then, of course, oftentimes extends costs onto local jurisdictions, which then have to manage collection and disposal of these products. So your colleague, Jack Irwin, ran a bill a couple of years ago to create an extended producer responsibility system to promote the safe and proper collection and management of small loose batteries. Josh Newman did a bill that same year in 22 to extend the consumer facing fee of the e-waste program to additional battery embedded products to pay for disposal costs. But there's a loophole that exists for medium format batteries, which are those that are included in the e-waste program if they're embedded in the product, but not in the EPR program if they're easily removable by the consumer, which many are. Now, so this bill basically expands the EPR program under the Erwin bill to batteries up to 25 pounds in order to include batteries that are typically considered medium format and add specific collection site metrics for medium format batteries. Producers could choose to comply individually as allowed under the current program or create one or more stewardship organizations. And here with me to testify in support of the bill, we have Heidi Sanborn from National Stewardship Action Council. Thank you, Senator and Chair Bryan, members and staff. Thank you for having us tonight. Happy to wrap this up for you this year. I'm Heidi Sanborn, the CEO of the National Stewardship Action Council, a nonprofit that advocates for a circular economy. economy. We are proud to co-sponsor SB 501 along with the rural county representatives of California and the Resource Recovery Coalition of California, which is the small waste haulers. AB 2440 by Assemblymember Irwin from 2022 does allow one more battery stewardship programs to exist, but they, as other states like Nebraska have done, they merged those programs with small medium format batteries together. We did not do that. That was an oversight. And that bill right now. The regulations are in process in an informal way. They're going into the formal process. If this bill passes this year, we can dovetail into that regulations package so that we don't have to do two regulations packages. So it's much more efficient and cost effective. In 2020, I was appointed to the California Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling and was voted chair by my fellow commissioners. We had 16 commissioners and it was all different stakeholders from the waste industry and we came up with 34 policy recommendations but the very first policy recommendation we could agree on 16 to 0 was that we needed household hazardous waste to get under producer responsibility programs because it's so dangerous and costing so much damage to our system the commission's report draft and final said that swift legislative action is needed to clearly extend producer responsibilities for end-of-life management for products that are hazardous or have been implicated in causing fires. It's been more than five years since that recommendation was made to the legislature. And so we hope to pass the bill this year. In February of 2024, we participated in a tour that included a visit to the Cal Waste. In fact, somebody member Hoover was there on that tour in the city of Galt, where we went to Cal Waste, and they were only processing blue bin curbside recycling. But I noticed in the back of the lot, they had a hazardous waste facility. And I asked them, why would you have that here? You don't have public coming in. And they said, it's because we're literally pulling 183,000 pounds of household hazardous waste off a blue bin sort. line every year just at this one facility. That's a lot. And that's why we end up with all these fires and the garbage trucks and all the way through the system, because a lot of these now are batteries. And these are large batteries. These are like hoverboards, e-bikes, and they can do a lot of damage. And our trucks are now a quarter of a million plus dollars. So SB501 will ensure that the most dangerous products for our workers and our infrastructure, the 300 watt and 11 to 25 pound batteries are included in the loose battery bill program and will be incorporated into those regulations that are starting their formal process soon. The costs are going up. The efficiencies of this bill cannot be underestimated. We're really worried about insurance costs and keeping the batteries out of the waste stream will be very helpful in stopping the fire. So thank you very much. And we're happy to take questions. Hey, do we have anyone else with support? Jake Schultz on behalf of Rethink Waste in support. Thank you. Good evening, Kendra Bagley on behalf of the City of Glendale and the City of Roseville in support. Good evening, Vanessa Flores on behalf of Alameda County in support. Victoria Rome with NRDC in support. Jacob Evans with Sierra California in support. Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities in strong support. Thank you. Good evening. Sylvia Solishaw here on behalf of the Board of Supervisors for the counties of Mendocino and Humboldt and also on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco. Travis Legault with the Rural County Representatives of California, a co-sponsor on this measure in support. Dylan Finley on behalf of the Recycling Partnership and the County of Los Angeles in support. David Krieger for Waste Connections in support. Okay. Do we have anyone in opposition? Okay. No one in opposition. We'll bring it back. Committee? Anyone? So can we go to the battery sizes again? And what's like the largest battery that's part of this? We go up to 25 pounds in this bill. Something bigger than a car battery? Yeah, I mean, it wouldn't be like a truck battery or something like that, yeah. Or a car battery. I mean, we're talking about e-bikes. So are we talking like motorcycles? It would include motorcycles, yeah. That's about as big as it would get. If it's removable, yeah. If it's removable, yeah. Okay. And not let us. And not what? Lead acid. That's excluded. Okay. But car batteries would be a different thing. So motorcycle would probably be the biggest one. Yeah, I think so. Yeah, I think so. But it's mostly the smaller motorbikes. I'm trying to think I had a motorcycle in the day, but I think it was bigger than what we're talking about. I see the motorcycle group is against this, and I wanted to ask them why they are. Oh, yeah, they're off-road, and there are some that are small enough to be included in the off-road vehicles. They are removable from those vehicles. So that's why they are included in this bill. And they wanted, as far as I understand, an exemption. But that leaves the problem because they're not getting recycled, all of them. And they are showing up in hazardous waste facilities or we're pulling them out of the waste stream in audits, which we have to do regularly when they come and do tipping on the tipping floor. We check occasionally and we find them. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Assemblymember Macedo. I just wanted to acknowledge that this is your last bill with us on the Natural Resources Committee and I want to thank you for all that you contributed I sure you have something to say about this bill so I leave that for the end but just want you to know how much we all respect and admire the expertise that you brought to this committee and we're going to miss you. So thank you. Appreciate all of you. Thank you very much. What an honor. I'd like to address the senator. Are you not going to be vice chair next year? Is this what's... He's no longer. He's not going to be leaving us. I'm out of here. Why are you leaving us, man? I have work, Ben. Work? This is so sad. All right. All right. You just, you're sick of this already? Is it you just kind of, oh my God. I don't know that I ever liked it to begin with. All right. But no, it's been an honor. It's just a way cool, but not my thing. Okay. All right. All right. Tell us more. Tell us more. So then I'm the Senator. Will you follow me through? Bear with me, you guys. I just have a fundamental follow me through someone buys a battery at a retail store and they put it in their motorcycle and then it dies on them. And then what are you proposing from there? Yeah. So we just, it's a, it's about, it's in the same way when you go and get your battery replaced at the, at a, at a car shop, um, they will immediately, they will, they will, take your old battery out and they'll put it into a responsible waste stream. We want to make sure that the folks that are the battery manufacturers are going to play a role in setting up a system where these batteries would be collected. So there's an easy process that the battery manufacturers are going to drive that would inform you about a place to drop off that battery and it would then be taken care of responsibly, ultimately recycled, et cetera. It's all about making sure we have, this is the whole concept of extended producer responsibility. My question is you take the battery out and you go drop it off at some. At a designated. At a designated. But what if this designated, let's say, I don't know, a parts store does not have, never sold those batteries to begin with. Are they therefore responsible for collecting? How does this work? Well, producer responsibility leaves it up to the producers to design the program that's most cost effective for them. So it could be that they partner with retail stores if they so choose. They are not mandated in this bill to collect them back. If they don't want to or if that's not going to be workable, then it could be that they help pay the hazardous waste facilities for those batteries. Right now, the public facilities are paying for those batteries and a lot for those batteries. So and we're lucky if we get them separated, because as I said, because when people have to go out of their way, sometimes they don't do it. And we can't keep the facilities open enough because they cost so much and we don't have enough financial support. So this will help us keep them open longer. For example, L.A. County only has two facilities that are open one weekend a month. That is not enough for 14 million people. And that's why things end up in the trash and why our trucks are burning down. OK, thank you. I guess we'll bring it back for. I have one more now that you brought that up. So talking like a core charge, when you buy your battery, you're going to pay a core charge. You're going to get that back when you recycle it, in a sense. Is that the same thing that goes on with this program? How does that work? Well, that's a deposit system that was set up by the auto industry because they really wanted the lead back. They didn't have enough lead. So they set it up so that they would get the lead acid batteries back so they could recycle it. This is a little different in that we telling the producers that weren voluntarily doing that please do that and accept it We don need a deposit If you choose to use a deposit to get them back, fine. You can choose to do that, but we're not mandating a deposit. People generally want to do the right thing. If we make it convenient and easy for them, and we tell them clearly where to go, most people will do that. But right now, they have no clue, and so they end up in the wrong place. So this will be an option then by the producers to come up with a program if they want that would encourage people to probably recycle it so I get my monies back and then I just put it towards my new battery. That's right. It could be a deposit. It could be that they just make it really convenient. So it could be that they do partner with retail stores. It's a choice. Again, retailers are not forced to do that. But for example, specialized bikes, I know are already talking to Redwood and they're working on a deal so that they can collect the e-bike batteries at their stores and get them back to Redwood for recycling. And those kinds of private sector deals can work, but we don't want to force one way on them, so we let them decide how to do it and negotiate amongst themselves. I like it. There's some wiggle room. Thank you. Okay. I guess we'll call. We need a motion in a second. Let's call the roll. I just would say, remember, extended producer responsibility is not a government-mandated and directed program. It puts the producers in the driver's seat to figure out the best plan that works for them. They know their product best. They know their consumer base best. They know their market best. And it gives them, it puts, obviously we want to make sure this stuff is collected and properly disposed of, but it puts the people with the most tools at their disposal, who've got the most deep connection to the product, the producers, in charge of figuring out a system for best collection. And we see this work successfully all over, all over. I mean, Canada, Europe, and places here. And there's extended producer responsibility systems that we have here, including our plastics bill that's being implemented. So, um, anyhow, that's that it's in that spirit that I asked for, I vote. Okay. Call roll. Motion is due pass to appropriations. Brian. Brian. I Ellis. No, Ellis. No. Alanis. It didn't work. Alanis not voting. Connelly. Connelly. Aye. Garcia. Aye. Garcia. Aye. One day we'll take you on a tour. Haney, aye. Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Macedo? No. Macedo, no. Meritsuchi? Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Wix? Aye. Wix, aye. Zabar? Aye. Zabar, aye. Thank you, members. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. I want to say something. You've done really a super job chairing this committee, and it's been an honor working for you. Thank you, Assemblymember. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll on the consent calendar and then also go through the bills for absent members? We have a motion on the consent calendar from Mr. Alnees and a second by Mr. Schultz. SB295, McNerney. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Alice. Alice, I. Alanis. I. Alanis, I. Connelly. I. Connelly, I. Garcia. I. Garcia, I. Haney. I. Haney I Hoover I Hoover I Calra I Calra I Macedo I Macedo aye Ratsuchi Pellerin Aye Pellerin aye Schultz Aye Schultz aye Wicks Aye Wicks, aye. Sperr. Okay. Did I vote on? I think you did, yeah. Lifting the call on item 3, SB 958, Weber Pearson. Motion is due passed to appropriations. Chair voting aye. Opposite members, Alanis. Aye. Alanis, aye. Connolly. Not voting. Connolly, not voting. Haney. Aye. Haney, aye. Macedo. SB 958, Weber Pearson. Shoot, that would make sense. I'm on the wrong one. I. Macedo, I. Because you said so. Schultz? I. Schultz, I. Wix. I. Wix, I. That bell is out. Oh, it's weird. Ali's voting I. Lifting the call on item six, SB 1213 Reyes. Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Chair voting aye. Absent members. Alanis. Alanis aye. Haney. Aye. Haney aye. Schultz. Aye. Schultz aye. Wicks. Aye. Wicks aye. Zabur. This was 1075. 1213. That was aye. 1213. Zabur aye. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That bill is out. SB 1230, Valladares. Motion is due pass to appropriations. Chair voting aye. Absent members. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Connolly? Which member? 1230, Valladares? Aye. Connolly, aye. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye. That bill is out. item 8 SB 1268 Gonzalez motion is due pass to appropriations absent members Alanis Alanis not voting Haney Haney aye Schultz 1268 Gonzalez aye Schultz aye Wicks Wicks aye That bill is out. 1268. Alanis from not voting to aye. That bill is out. SB 1300, Stern motion is due pass to appropriations. Chair voting aye. Absent members Alanis? Aye. Alanis not voting. Connolly? Aye. Connolly aye. Haney? Aye. Haney aye. Schultz? Aye. Schultz aye. Wicks? Aye. Wicks aye. That bill is out. SB 1341, Cabaldon, motion is due passed to appropriations. Chair voting aye. Absent members, Alanise. Alanise, aye. Connolly. Connolly, aye. Haney, aye. Shultz, aye. Wicks, aye. That bill is out. SB 1370, Stern, motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Chair voting aye. Absent members, Alanise. Aye. Alanis, aye. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Kalra? Left. Schultz? Schultz not voting. Wix. Wix, aye. That bill is out. I have you not voting on 958 Pearson. I it's on consent. I have you. I on 1213. That was pulled. 1230. I have you as an eye. 1268. I also have you. I so we're okay. Before we conclude the Natural Resources Committee hearing, I just want to thank the incredible consulting staff of this committee who worked tirelessly to protect California and Californians and navigate some of the most complex problems here in the legislature and do it with so much professionalism and brilliance And I want to thank you for your service to California and to this committee And with that, we conclude the Natural Resources Committee. Thank you. Thank you.