June 17, 2026 · EQ · 25,467 words · 11 speakers · 44 segments
Okay, the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality is now coming to order. Good morning, everyone. It's nice to see a packed house here. We have our first author, which is also great. So we're going to start as a subcommittee because we do not yet have a quorum. But when we have a quorum, we'll pause in the middle and establish one. So we are going to begin with file item number three, which is AB 839 from Assemblymember Blanca Rubio. So we'll invite her to come forward with her witnesses. And you are welcome to begin when ready.
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. I am presenting AB 839, which would add up to three sustainable aviation fuels, or SAF, projects to the list of infrastructure projects eligible for expedited judicial review under CEQA. California has reduced greenhouse gas emissions over the past two decades through cleaner transportation technologies and renewable fuels. While electrification is an important strategy for reducing emissions, aviation remains a sector that currently relies on liquid fuels. Commercial aviation accounts for approximately 2% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. SAF is one approach being developed to reduce emissions associated with air travel. According to industry estimates, SAF can reduce life cycle carbon emission compared to conventional jet fuel and may also reduce particulate matter emissions. SAF production in California remains limited. Supporters of the bill have cited regulatory uncertainty and concerns about project delays as factors affecting investment decisions. AB 839 would provide an expedited judicial review process for a limited number of qualifying staff projects while maintaining environmental review requirements under CEQA. With me today are Kathy Van Austin on behalf of Airlines for America and Don Alberto Tirico. Sorry.
No problem. Alberto Tirico is with me. Thank you. You each have two minutes, and you're welcome to begin when ready.
I could go for hours. Thank you, Madam Chair. Kathy Van Austin on behalf of United Airlines. The SAF story in California has been a really interesting one. As much as seven years ago, we were the global leader in the production of SAF. We had the first facility in the world to consistently produce SAF. That facility, World Energy, which is known as the World Energy Project down in Paramount, interestingly enough, when we were able to get SAF into the LCFS as an opt-in fuel, that sent signals to investors, which gave the company the tools they needed to work to expand. ironically when they did get their permitting everything went through they ended up in litigation under the sequel and that litigation dragged on it broke the bank in the company and that project is now up for auction so it's sort of a very sad full circle here for the airlines this is the only means we have to significantly reduce emissions. There is ground equipment. We can do our best. It going to be a fraction not even one or two percent of what we need to do to reduce emissions This bill would invite three projects whether it is a fuel production facility converting to biofuels whether it is ground floor up, whether it is a holding tank or a pipeline infrastructure. We need this infrastructure. we need signals to go to investors and to those who are looking to build in California that you can do it here. So this is a bill. It's one that we have worked on for three years now, and we've worked very closely with the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. They've been very generous with their time. We've worked out amendments with them and redoing amendments with them, and all we can do now is we ask for your aye vote. We really need this bill. Thank you.
Good morning, Madam Chair. Alberto Torrico on behalf of Airlines for America. I want to thank the author for dogged advocacy on behalf of this measure. The airlines, as my colleague mentioned, we've been advocating on behalf of creating situations where we produce more SAF because airlines will buy up every drop of SAF because it's a plug-and-play situation where we don't have to retrofit the planes. We can use the existing jets, use the SAF, and we can reduce emissions by 80%. It's the best way and literally the only technologically available way to reduce emissions. That's why we've worked on this issue for several years. We're also supporting the tax credit and the governor's budget proposal, and we're supporting this bill and very proud to sponsor it. We're also working with the administration over the last several years. Ms. Van Osten mentioned we have a voluntary agreement with CARB, which resulted in the LCFS allowing for the use of SAF. So all of these pieces are working together, and this is an important piece as well, again, to signal the marketplace that SAF production is welcome and needed in California, and an expedited review process will only incentivize that production. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.
Okay, great. Thank you so much. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support, please come forward to the microphone. State your name, the organization you represent, and your position on the bill.
Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Kate Bell on behalf of American Airlines here in strong support.
Thank you. Thank you.
John Kennedy, rural county representatives of California in support.
Thank you.
Marjali Samson Advisors here on behalf of Alaska Air Group in support.
Thank you.
Audra Hartman on behalf of Southwest Airlines in support.
Good morning, Lizzie Guansona here on behalf of Boeing in support.
Thank you.
Anybody opposed to this bill? Lead witnesses in opposition? Not seeing anyone come forward. Is there anybody wishing to express opposition? Please come forward to the microphone. Oh, there is? Okay. Are you a lead witness or expressing opposition just? Oh, support. Okay, go ahead and state your name for the record.
Monica Salas on behalf of Bay Area Council in support.
Okay, great.
And I am here in opposition.
Okay, are you a lead witness in opposition? Okay, let's make room at the table so she could sit down, please. Thank you. Okay, so you're welcome to begin when ready. You have two minutes.
Good morning Chair and Committee members My name is Ada Welder Senior Legislative Representative for Earth Justice here in a respectable opposition to AB 839 Our coalition of environmental and environmental justice organizations oppose this bill because it undermines the public's right to challenge polluting SAF projects throughout the state and is an unnecessary handout to the industry at public health expense. The production and transport of SAF and its feedstocks causes wide-ranging health harms, including emissions of toxic and carcinogenic air pollutants. producing SAF requires more refinery processing, hydrogen, electricity, and water than, for example, renewable diesel, all while still emitting harmful pollutants like NOx and particulate matter. As the analysis highlights, all existing SAF refineries are in communities that have lived with industrial pollution for decades and rank near the top of CalEnviroScreen metrics for pollution and air toxics. As the support witnesses pointed out, the Paramount Project was scrutinized by Judicial Review and this highlights the importance of CEQA because it was found in that project that the local community proved the original environmental impact report used faulty baseline environmental assumptions which is why it was quote unquote bogged down in judicial review. The use of judicial review under current law did not stop the project but it played a key role in keeping industry honest when constructing a refinery across the street from two schools and an economically disadvantaged community. These projects require careful judicial scrutiny to ensure they are properly analyzed and mitigated. Independent judicial review of these projects is not useless red tape. It is the core means by which people who breathe dirty air can get the relief they need to live full and healthy lives. The SAF industry already enjoys strong market signals through subsidies at the LCFS and federal tax credit, and the governor even has a substantial proposed tax credit to support the industry further. There is no reason that Californians need to subsidize this industry even further with their lungs and livelihoods. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you very much.
Anybody else in the room wishing to come forward and express opposition? On behalf of Sierra Cliff, California Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability and San Francisco Baykeeper in opposition. Thank you. Okay, thank you. We'll bring it back to the committee. Any comments? Okay. Well, I will turn it back to the author if you'd like to say anything in response to the
opposition witness and the things that were brought up. Thank you. I appreciate I do come from disadvantaged communities. However, I do also understand that, you know, are the number one polluter is jet fuel. If we don't transition, the goal has always been to transition. If we don't transition into an alternative fuel, the lungs that, you know, we're talking about are still going to be impacted, however, with no viable solution. And I think SAF is an alternative that we can look forward to because I'll tell you I'm not flying in an electric plane. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Okay, great. Is there somebody in the back who would like to express support or opposition? Yes, and apologies to the author for being a little tardy. Don Gilbert on behalf of SFO and strong support. Okay, thanks so much. Great. Well, thank you. I do support this bill, and I believe that it's a measured approach to support the industry. By accelerating judicial review for just three projects, and these are projects that are held to a high bar, I think this sends the industry in the right direction without unreasonable costs. So when we have a quorum, we'll come back to the vote. But with that, if you would like – that was an official close. If you wanted to close Thank you and I respectfully ask for an aye vote Okay great Thanks so much All right and next we will go to item number two on the agenda which is AB 762 from Assemblymember Irwin Unless she wants to yield her time to somebody else in the room. Sorry about that.
Well, good morning, Chair and members. I'd like to begin by accepting the committee amendments to clarify the definition of tobacco product. I would also like the chair to ask for permission to use props. I am pleased to present AB 762, which would ban the sale of disposable nicotine vapes in California. Unfortunately, these disposable devices are incredibly popular and have become an accessory for several age groups. You see them in bars, restaurants, workplaces, and in our children's backpacks. They are often made to resemble mundane objects like pens, but a new trend is emerging to include elaborate screens and buttons to play classic games like Pac-Man or Tetris. As distressing as it is to see these disposable devices in the hands of our children or thrown on the sidewalk, The scariest place to find one is in the place that manufacturer designs them for, the trash can. With designs that prevent the refilling of vape liquid and the recharging of lithium-ion batteries, these devices have an intended lifespan of approximately one week. You may be thinking, why is this so bad? Plenty of consumer items are meant to be thrown away. The answer is simple. Lithium-ion batteries and vapes are highly flammable. They cannot easily be removed, so they pose costly and hazardous safety issues at every point in the waste stream. Marketed as disposable and with an out-of-robust EPR program for these devices, they are thrown in the trash, sent to material recovery centers and landfills where they ignite and catch entire garbage trucks and recycling facilities on fire, putting facility operators at risk. Local governments and our constituents end up shouldering the cost of extinguishing and cleaning up dangerous battery fires, and imperiling our firefighters and first responders. We must be clear that by allowing these devices to be sold and thrown away, we are putting our first responders directly in danger. This is not a problem without a readily accessible, available solution on the market. There are reusable options that are refillable and rechargeable. Despite the fact that disposable vapes carry a battery that is capable of 700 recharges, they are thrown away after one battery cycle because the manufacturer has omitted a charging port. We do not throw away our phones or our laptops after one week of use, and we should not treat other lithium-ion devices any differently. AB 762 has strong enforcement mechanisms to deter the sale of disposable devices before consumers have the chance to purchase them in the store. I'd also like to talk a moment to talk about the illicit market and the argument that this bill will expand it. When consumers have a clear preference for a substance, they will look at the illicit market for that product. This is the case with flavored vapes, which remain a problem in illicit market. with single versus rechargeable vapes, there is a clear and accessible substitute. And we don't see consumers choosing to seek out illicit dealers to a obtain a disposable vape when they can walk into a retailer and get a refill for a rechargeable vape, making it very unlikely to expand the illicit market. The study in the UK shows that prior to the disposable vape ban being enacted, consumers shifted to reusable models, reducing the use of disposables from 63% to 35%. This past summer, UK banned disposable vapes. Since then, LBAR, one of the largest manufacturers, has put out data that 85% of consumers easily pivoted to reusable devices. This bill keeps the devices out of the trash can and out of the hands of our kids. With me here to testify in support of the bill are Joe LaMarianna from Rethink Waste and John Kennedy representing rural counties.
Welcome. You each have two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Joe LaMariana, and welcome other senators. For the last 10 years, I've had the privilege of serving as the executive director of Rethink Waste. We are a public agency in San Mateo County representing 11 local jurisdictions. We're a JPA. We own, on behalf of the 430,000 rate payers, we own and operate a solid waste facility in San Carlos, known as the Sherway Environmental Center. We receive all recyclables, green waste, and garbage that are collected in our 100-square-mile-plus service area. And, again, it represents 430,000-plus residents and 11,000 businesses. We are a proud co-sponsor of this bill because we've seen firsthand how fires impact our facilities and all the ancillary feeds that the senator just referred to, including the trucks, not only the facility, but the trucks, the landfills, et cetera. Embedded lithium-ion batteries cause fires that are hard to put out, and they harm factory workers and damaged equipment and the facilities at risk. And in our case, they're repair-owned, so we have a higher level there. They require repairs and can and do increase rates for our constituents. constituencies, constituents, excuse me. In 2016, a battery car started a four-larm fire that shut down our facility for over three months and resulted in eight and a half million dollars of damages. As a result, we saw about 75 employees that were furloughed. We had significant damages to the equipment and the facility. that would have been recycled went to the landfill. And a lasting little gift from this situation was our insurance rates went from $180,000 per year before the fire to over $3 million to provide the same level of coverage. And instead of having one insurer, we now have 17. So it's gotten a lot more complex. We have fires on a regular basis. and between 2017 and 2025, we've had over 130 fires. I can increase that number because in the last couple of weeks, we've had three. I'm sorry, your time is up, so you'll need to conclude. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. The legislator has already passed two bills to create a responsible collection of other batteries. This material falls outside that realm. So we're asking for your strong support of AB 762 on behalf of our 11 jurisdictions, our ratepayers, and our hundreds of thousands of workers in our industry in California. Thank you Thank you Go ahead You have two minutes Good morning I try to be brief John Kennedy with Rural Counties We represent 40 counties in the state but counties collectively in some cities operate
just shy of 200 household hazardous waste collection facilities. We're pleased to support AB 762 because it will significantly reduce costs and management challenges for our facilities, particularly with respect to single-use vapes. So in doing so, we can actually increase collection and disposal opportunities for residents to safely manage vapes. So management challenges. Fires are a huge risk. Fires are an even more acute risk in rural areas where we have forests and are susceptible to catastrophic wildfires. We're seeing more and more vapes. They are extremely expensive to manage. Your typical five-gallon bucket will cost our facilities $350 to manage to properly dispose of. That's about 150 to 250 vapes. That's not sustainable. So the challenge and the main cost driver is these vapes contain nicotine cartridges. Some are embedded in the single-use device. Some are detachable. If we can separate the two commodities, we can manage the cartridges in the five-gallon bucket, manage many more of those for that same $350 and offer more convenient and cost-effective disposal opportunities. This is incredibly important when we're trying to offer free disposal opportunities to all of our residents. So we're not banning the products. We're just banning one form of the delivery device. We're shifting to a much more sustainable device, one where we're actually able to separate and recycle the lithium-ion battery that's inside. That's incredibly important. There are other valuable materials in the circuitry, whereas the entire single-use vape will just go in the poison bucket and go out of state for incineration at disposal. So the same manufacturers as you can see produce both devices. It's not really that big of a shift and they will still be readily available for consumers. We're probably going to hear some concerns about the illicit market. We are very concerned about the illicit market. If the opponents are interested in addressing illegal sales, the illicit market, we are extremely happy to partner with them and try and find solutions. These are problems in our communities and problems we want to solve. And then I guess I'll share a little internal board politics, if you'll give me just a second. We're a late supporter of the bill, far later than many of the other initial supporters of the bill, particularly because I wasn't quite sure where our board would be on this. We have a lot of very conservative board members who are very concerned about costs and liability and enforcement for businesses. I was shocked and pleasantly surprised when they strongly recommended, resoundingly recommended, that we support this bill. And it was the most conservative members on our board who were the biggest advocates on behalf of the children in our communities, on behalf of recycling, on behalf of trying to recover the lithium-ion batteries and reduce costs for our facilities. So that's what I have to say this morning. Appreciate the indulgence. Thank you for bringing the bill. We're happy to support it in any way we can.
Okay, thank you so much. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support, please come forward to the microphone. State your name, the organization you represent, and your position on the bill. Tony Hackett, on behalf of Californians Against Waste, Waste Management, American Nurses Association, the city and county of San Francisco, the city and county of Sacramento, the city of Long Beach, Pacoima Beautiful, Tobacco Education and Research Oversight Committee, Rural County Environmental Services Joint Powers Authority, California State PTA Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles Los Angeles City and County Departments of Sanitation in the Environment Placer County Board of Supervisors and Republic Services Noel Melroy on behalf of Zero Waste Sonoma Joint Powers Authority Zero Waste Marin Joint Powers Authority Environmental Action Committee of West Marin California Public Interest Research Group Clean Water Action CRNR Environmental Services Parents Against Vaping Plastic Pollution Coalition The Last Plastic Straw FACTS Families Advocating for Chemicals and Toxic Safety Breathe Southern California and Americans for non rights Thank you Jake Schultz on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Division of Resource Recovery and Waste Management Environmental Protection Information Center, Green Science Policy Institute, Oceanic Preservation Society, Save Our Shores, Zero Waste San Diego, Pacific Beach Coalition, Sunrise Movement California, Save the Bay, Cal Poly Center for Health Research, Alliances of Nurses for a Healthy Environment, Bay Area Student Activists, and Oakland Recycles. Thank you and support. Asha Sharma on behalf of Sierra Club California in support. Thank you good morning Jack worsen with Nassim in on behalf of the county of Monterey in support good morning Keely Morris on behalf of the Los Angeles County sanitation districts and support Ethan Agler I'm have the cities of Foster City and Thousand Oaks in support thank you dr. Ruth McDonald on behalf of Climate Action California and support. Thank you. Julia Au, Northern California, on behalf of Northern California Recycling Association, Mojave Desert and Mountain Recycling JPA, National Association of Environmental Medicine, Non-Toxic Neighborhoods, San Luis Obispo County Tobacco Control Coalition, Santa Cruz County Tobacco Education Coalition, Southern California Public Health Association, Tobacco Prevention Coalition of Contra Costa County, Del Norte Waste Management Authority Castro Valley Sanitation District Yuba Sutter Recycles and Southern California Public Health Association in support thank you good morning Jim Lindbergh on behalf of the Friends Committee on legislation of California in support thank you Mandy Stella on behalf of action on smoking and health Alameda County tobacco control coalition Algalita marine research and education America's sustainable business network Association of California Health Care Districts Azul Bay Area Pollution Prevention Group California Health Coalition advocacy California nurses for environmental health and justice children now courage California defender health and seventh generation advisors and support I'm Jenny very on behalf of breast cancer prevention partners and support Nancy Buremeyer on behalf of Yuba County Sutter County you this you were Sutter integrated waste management Authority, Beyond Plastics, Community Environmental Council, National Stewardship Action Council, Clean Earth for Kids, Sustainable Works, Montgomery Waterkeeper, Active San Gabriel Valley, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Resource Recovery Coalition for California, and hopefully the last list you have to listen to. Hi, Vanessa Flores on behalf of Alameda County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you. Good morning. Reid Addis on behalf of a host of supporters, Heal the Bay, Central Contra Costa County Solid Waste Authority, Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority, the Central Contra Costa Sanitation District, Tehama County Solid Waste Management Agency, Western Placer Waste Management Authority, Region Monterey, Merced County Regional Waste Authority, City of Arcata, and Smoke-Free Air for everyone. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council, a proud co-sponsor, as well as the Solid Waste Association of North America legislative task force and Alameda County Stop Waste all in support Thank you KENDELL JACKWARDSHIPERY KENDELL JACKWARDSHIPERY Good morning Kendall Ray with the Weidman group on behalf of breed Southern California and support thank you good morning Melissa sparks Kranz with the League of California cities and strong support thank you Jordan Wells I have the California State Association of counties in support also registers registering support on behalf of Yosemite Rivers Alliance 350 Bay Area action 350 Contra Costa action 350 Ventura County Climate Hub Los Angeles City Department of Sanitation San Luis Obispo integrated Waste Management Authority California Communities Against Toxics Napa Waste and Recycling Services Just Zero San Francisco Baykeeper the story of stuff project LA Waterkeeper and Endangered Habitats League thank you Nicole Wardleman on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors and support okay thank you We're going to pause for a moment here while we transition to the opposition witnesses and have our committee assistant call for a quorum, calling the roll to establish a quorum. Senators Blakespeare? Present. Blakespeare, present. Valderas? Here. Valderas, here. Allen? Daly? Here. Daly, here. Gonzalez? Hurtado? Menjivar? Here. Menjivar, here. Okay, we've established a quorum, so now we'll turn it back. Are you an opposition witness? Okay, you have two minutes. Thank you. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Perfect. Thank you. Chair and members, thank you. Alessandra Burketto on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance. Let me start with where we agree. The goal behind AB762 is a good one. Single-use batteries and vape litter are real environmental problems, and we support addressing them. But I'd ask you to look closely at what this bill would actually do, because California's disposable vape market is already overwhelmingly illegal. Responsible retailers following current law don't stock these products. The disposables driving the litter and the fires come through the illicit market and they will keep coming regardless of what compliance stores are allowed to sell. Today only one disposable vape carries full FDA authorization and there's only a handful permitted under the Attorney General's unflavored tobacco list. That is the entire universe of disposables that can be legally sold in California. The one FDA authorized device was reviewed in full, battery included, and cleared as appropriate for public health. AB 762 would ban that legal regulated tax product while the illegal market that's already the majority of this category continues to grow. This has been tried elsewhere and the results are not promising. A year ago the UK banned disposables to stop battery fires, yet fires hit a record high after the ban because manufacturers simply shipped large refillable pods that consumers threw away just the same. The throwaway behavior didn't change, only the legal product disappeared. Belgium and Australia saw the same illicit surge. Banning a legal regulated nicotine product doesn't put less of it on the street. It trades a taxed regulated product for an unregulated one. So we support the environmental goal. Let's reach it through real enforcement against illegal imports, not by handing the market to the very products no one is regulating. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in the room wishing to express opposition? Please come forward to the microphone. Good morning, Chris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce in opposition. Thank you. Thank you Megan Loper on behalf of the California Distributors Association in opposition. Horacio Gonzalez on behalf of California's Business Roundtable in opposition. Jacob Brent with the California Retailers Association in respectful opposition. Okay thank you. Well, we'll bring it back to the committee. And I'll just start by saying I think the author did a great job of describing the problem, and you're Witnesses as well, very effectively supporting what we're trying to address here. It's clear that vapes are a hazard for both our youth and our waste management facilities. Are you? Yes? California Asian Chamber of Commerce in opposition. Thank you. Okay, great. Any late-breaking opponents can come forward at any time. But I also just want to recognize the reality that we clearly have an illicit market problem as well, and I appreciate that this is something we need to continue working on in the state of California. And this bill is banning single-use vapes that contain nicotine. And the estimates are that nicotine vapes make up only 10% of all single-use vapes sold in California. So this ban in this bill is a really good start, and I think it could set a precedent and something that we could follow to look at the other products, particularly cannabis products and other non-tobacco products. I understand that amendments taken on the floor were what exempted vapes containing cannabis from being part of this bill, but we know that we have really a massive problem, and we should be addressing both the illicit and the non-illicit, the legal market in California. So I appreciate the author taking it on and the sponsors and to the opponent. I do think we need to work on the illicit market. There's no question. So with that, I'll turn it to my colleagues if anyone wants to make any comments. Senator Menjivar. Thank you, Madam Chair, for acknowledging that. And I was wondering if the author could just respond a couple to how we're grappling and what your thoughts are moving forward in the safe disposal for the illicit market, the examples opposition gave of the other locations that saw this ban and the increase in that. How are you going to, moving forward, balance that?
We look at what happened in the UK. I've read some of the statistics. We think it is successful in showing how easily users switched over to the reusable vapes. And again, with nicotine, there are plenty of reusable devices on the market. this does just address a small percent of the illicit devices. And yes, it is a small percent, but I think in the capital here, we work in incremental changes. And the reality is the less lithium batteries are in the waste stream, the less likely we are to have fire. So this will definitely start to make a difference. but we do need to look at how many people in the cannabis market are moving over to reusable vapes. And then I would also like you to address the potential EPR for cannabis. So I think cannabis vapes are a little different. We've been in a lot of discussions with DTSC over another bill that I'll talk to you about shortly. And I think there are other promising pathways for managing cannabis vapes. nicotine is an acutely hazardous waste but this legislature has passed some laws saying that cannabis waste is not considered hazardous and so with that I think there are more opportunities to potentially manage cannabis vapes as e waste as universal waste those opportunities don't exist for nicotine vapes so we're trying to partner with some of the other players out there on on cannabis vapes to see if there are other avenues for managing those vapes outside of the statutory framework, because we may not need legislation on that And if those retailers are interested in partnering on some of these programs I think we be happy to embrace them and try to work forward on that and if those retailers are interested in partnering on some of these programs I think we be happy to embrace them and try to work forward on that
So opposition, I think some of the retailers or manufacturers are interested in like an EPR program for them and that would actually bring in the illicit market as well. You would capture people to come in, turn in, submit their batteries, and you're both balancing the Alyssa market and the FDA approved. I think there's some products that are FDA approved. My question is, I think one of the FDA approved products helps people wean off and helps them quit. Is there two questions in here? If the end game is to get rid of batteries at the wasteland, EPR, we've been focusing a lot on that.
Why not do that route?
Because that will bring in the Alyssa market. The second question to that, if there's a product that's helping people wean off of nicotine, it helps them get to completely quit, is this bill going to ban that product from existing and not provide ability for people to get to quitting?
There are already many reusable devices that could be used for tobacco cessation programs. So those are devices. We're only talking about a small percent that are single-use and would be banned. And as you see, many of the devices even look similar, whether they have a way to recharge or they don't. So those devices are available for nicotine. Right now, we are looking if there would be a way to have an EPR program. But as was mentioned, nicotine is considered a hazardous waste. So we don't have a solution for EPR for tobacco yet. And that's why there is more promise for an EPR program with cannabis, which is not considered a hazardous waste. So it would be recycled more easily.
If I can add on to that, we've been struggling with how we could do an EPR program for this. I think some of the manufacturers approached ETSC with that very question years ago. It's not easy, particularly because of the nicotine and the acutely hazardous waste in those devices. Those typically will have to be managed by local governments if it's HHW. I'm trying to apologize, but the EPR would just be on the batteries itself, right? They can just submit the batteries. that would have to turn in the entire product? Right, if you can't separate the device. You can't separate. Right, and that's a big challenge. And, you know, trying to figure out how we could get to the illicit market for all of these other things, you know, it cost us probably about $4 to manage each vape that comes into our doors as HHW collection facilities. And I'm not sure how we would be able to approach the manufacturers of those to recover those costs with the illicit marketplace unless we just bill manufacturers for everything that comes into our doors regardless of whether they made it or not I'm not sure that's a viable solution either so we're this is a preferred alternative to significantly reduce the the scope of the problem that we have to deal with we've got other legislation that will try and deal with some of the illicit market as well we're just doing what we can my last question here is then I hear you on that I would say this legislature has created their brand new EPRs on everything we can imagine I wouldn't close the door on that but there's an existing embedded battery
program as well yeah what we yes but you can mean the whole difference between the disposable and the reusable is that you can remove the battery So it very difficult to get the battery out of a disposable vape
Okay, so that, you would say, is the barrier to incorporating it into the current embedded battery program?
because right I I don't think the PRO for that program has any interest or it may have legal challenges managing the nicotine that's in those states that would come in through that program and cannabis isn't considered hazardous waste right cannabis separate and distinct right and not what we're dealing with happy to have those conversations whether it's EPR or something that we may not need to get to an EPR program for cannabis to be completely honest there are opportunities there.
Thank you. I'll just add the perspective that EPR at the highest level makes a lot of sense and seems simple, but it's actually enormously complex to get off the ground, and there are lots of different proposals for EPR that don't get off the ground. So it's great to be working on that, but we shouldn't think that that's somehow simple. Yes, Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. So to the author and to the sponsor, can you just, is there any actual quantitative data on the lithium batteries from these disposable vapes that show that they're creating these fires one? Well, yes. Thank you, Madam Senator. I don't have hard data and stats, but I know they exist, but I can tell you from real world experience this is escalating at a very rapid rate. So is it escalating because of these vapes or is it toys? Is it other products that have lithium? It's everything, but this is a big sub... Excuse me. Sorry. Go ahead. We're seeing a dramatic increase in these incidents. just had three fires in the last two weeks which is way ahead of where we've been in the last three years so we're very concerned. But there's no you don't actually know if they're being created by the batteries from lithium vapes versus other products. We at the when you put the fire out in a plant of our size you're dealing with probably 300 tons of material a day coming in it It is the proverbial needle in the haystack. So at the end of it, when you put the fire out and you've cut away and you've identified where the source is, there's a charred remain. There's very little to identify what it is. In some cases, you can identify it, but in many cases, you can't. So then it's an assumption, anecdotally at least. We do find them. I'm sure there is data on that. But I think really what we're talking about is the bigger the volume of batteries that are in the waste stream, the more likely it is that they are causing fires. And if you're talking about somebody throwing away a toy, that might be once a year. These are disposable vapes. You are throwing hundreds per year per person into the waste stream, so the odds that one of these is causing a fire are relatively high. So, yes, we can say, you know, right now, if we don't have the data, that it's anecdotal, but it is a huge volume of lithium batteries that are being thrown in specifically with this use And that is another difference between cannabis and tobacco With the cannabis products, you're taking one or two puffs. With the tobacco products, you have people that can go through vape a week or even more. And all those batteries are being thrown into the waste stream. So I'm a mom of a nine-year-old. I am well aware of how many toys get thrown away and I have one so I can only imagine for multiples. I just have concerns that we are blaming this project for this product for a majority of these fires and we really don't know that at this point. So my other question is really for some understanding maybe from the opposition on what can you kind of just clarify what types of vapes usable reusable are approved by the FDA and how many? Yeah so as of right now there's only one that's been approved by the FDA and there's only one reusable or sorry for a single use there's only one and then there's a handful that are on the California unflavored tobacco list that our compliant retailers are only able to sell products on the unflavored tobacco list so that obviously limits the scope of what can be sold but it's very finite a lot of the vapes that you see like single-use vapes that you see in California are actually not being sold by compliant retailers being brought in the state through the illicit market my major concern here is that especially in my district we've seen this proliferation of the illicit market and the cannabis market in particular and what history has shown us is that prohibition does not work I mean let's talk about the 20s in alcohol and what the United States did to address prohibition and whether it's cannabis whether it's nicotine whether it's alcohol. I don't think that this is going to empower the legal market. If anything, it's going to make our illicit market grow even more. And it's not just the cannabis market that is concerned about this. It is public safety. It is law enforcement, who I understand are in opposition to this right now, because they've seen what happens when you don't more thoughtfully, I know you're trying to solve a very complex issue, but try and balance a legal market and an illicit market. And for those reasons, I'm not going to be able to support this. I need to see more balance. I understand what you're trying to accomplish. We know fires are a huge threat across California. My district, I've just seen multiple fires in my district, including just this past week. My in-laws were actually supposed to evacuate from their home because of a fire that was just mile away. So I understand that what we're facing here, but I think we need to take a little more time to balance our approach just to not make the illicit market even larger. And frankly, too, we're losing significant revenue in this state because of the illicit market and that's my major concern here and why I'm not going to be able to get to support. Thank you. Okay, thanks. Seeing no more comments, we'll turn it back to you to close. And I'll just thank you for the robust discussion I will just say the concerns with the illicit market we find it it's difficult to swallow because people are addicted to the nicotine they are not addicted to the device that is delivering the nicotine so we think this will make a big impact on the number of fires this will remove a large number of of lithium batteries from the waste stream, but it's not going to solve the entire problem. But we take things one step at a time, and we think this is a good first step, and with that, I respect. We ask for your aye vote. Okay, thank you. I'll entertain a motion. Okay, we have a motion on, let's see, the motion is, the motion is do pass as amended to revenue and taxation. Please call the roll. Senators Blakespear? Aye. Blakespear, aye. Valderas? No. Valderis, no. Allen, Daly. No. Daly, no. Gonzalez, Artado, Menjivar. Aye. Menjivar, aye. Okay, that's 2-2. We'll keep it on call. Thank you. Okay, next we'll go to item number 4, AB907, from Assemblymember Solache. all right well you're welcome to begin when ready thank you madam chair and committee members good to see you all this morning I'm happy to present a B 907 I'm grateful to the committee and for your hard work and thoughtful analysis bill AB 907 six to correct a long-standing inequity by ensuring that six local air districts representatives that serve on the California Air Research Board receive the same compensation as their voting board members. The CARB governing board consists of 14 members plus two ex-official non-voting members who are members of the legislature. While most of the CARB members receive an annual salary, six representatives on the local districts who perform the same duties are currently uncompensated. As a former South Coast AQMD board member, I can attest their local district representatives on the front lines of California's air quality efforts. To highlight Gideon, my seatmate on AQMD, was a CARB representative and a true representative of community to currently, current mayor of Riverside, Mayor Luck Doxon, who are the current representatives from the south coast to CARB. I can tell you firsthand, sitting next to Gideon, that they are really good representatives of community. They provide firsthand knowledge to the regional challenges and play a vital role in shaping effective policies. Compensation on the CARB board ensures that local voices are heard. It supports regional representation and recognizes the value of their expertise. Uncompensated service limits participation in those with financial means, excluding many qualified voices, from underrepresented communities. AB 907 eliminates financial barriers to better ensure CARB's board reflects California's diverse population and prioritizes needs of communities vertebrate by pollution. My guest today, I wanted a special acknowledgement. He and I were student-ready presidents in college 20 plus years ago, and now we get to serve in local office at Sacramento City Council, and I get to serve in the legislature. And if you could talk about a public servant that truly cares for his community is Eric Guerra, who is a proud member of the City Council here in Sacramento, but also the representative locally to the Cardboard. So with that, Madam Chair, with your permission. Welcome. You have two minutes. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilman Eric Guetta for the City of Sacramento and also board member of the California Air Resources Board representing Sutter, Yuba, Placer, El Dorado, Yolo, and Sacramento County. This bill makes significant steps to ensure critical local representation on the California Air Resources Board The board makes decisions that have significant impacts on the everyday life of California residents And at a time when stability for working families are more important than ever, the board is often criticized for not having consistent and enough local representation from their local elected officials. They are the ones who are responsive to the daily needs of not only local businesses, but the families and everyone that's impacted in their air basin. These officials are on the ground with those families, those local businesses every day, and are suited to amplify those voices. In many cases, such as here, we represent urban, suburban, and rural communities that require us to make sure we're meeting with them daily. The board's regulations are most effective when diverse and local voices from across the state are adequately represented, and with that, I urge your aye vote on this bill. Okay, thank you. Anyone else in the room wishing to express support? Please come forward. David Quintana with the sponsor, South Coast Air Quality Management District, in support. Brendan Tug, on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, in support. Thank you. Okay. Any opposition to this bill wishing to come forward? Not seeing anybody. Anybody wishing to express opposition? Not seeing anybody. Okay. We'll bring it back to the committee. Any comments? No? Okay. Well, I'll just say I support this bill. People deserve compensation for their work, and the rest of the board gets paid for the work that they do. So it makes sense that those representing area districts get the same amount. So when we have a quorum back again, we'll proceed to a vote. But I'd like to hand it to you to Close. Thank you, Madam Chair. And if I may just highlight one thing. I know firsthand, especially seeing these amazing senators that's there on this committee, and obviously the legislature, there's concerns about CARB. There's no secret about that. There's no, I've, you know, I've been to our senator's districts. I understand the needs of local communities. I served on local South Coast Air Creamery Board, and I understand the concerns that community members at times have of the work that one, CARB does, or even our Air Quality Resource Board. But I can tell you firsthand that representation matters, and you know we all do this work very honorly and we get elected by community. I think that the six board members that come from local air districts and serve on the CAR board should be compensated, right? I think I wanted to separate the fact that there are concerns about CAR. I admit the concerns that people have, but the people like Eric Guerra who has been a champion state one since we served as student body presidents. I was actually taller, you know, skinnier. Eric still looks the same but true public service right and why should these board members that serve on carb which again separating the the carb work that they do they serve community and they deserve to have the same compensation that the other cardboard members have so I just bring in the equity from the 14 people that get paid these six board members do not get compensated Eric was telling me that he has to buy his own lunch at the carb meeting which I think I would have complained about that first of all because I'm a foodie guy and you want to a board meeting, you need to make sure that you serve at least food and water to board members. But the compensation level is definitely an equity issue. So I would hope that we can separate the CARB situation versus the fact that these members should have the same equity of service and get compensated for the work. So I just wanted to uplift that concern, and if you maybe plan to vote no, maybe you could just lay off and show the inequity and support these board members. Thank you. And I ask for an I vote once you have a quorum Okay Yeah and I will note that this identical bill passed out of this committee 7 in 2023 Assemblymember Calderon AB 2958 and it was held on suspense in Senate Appropriations. And working with some of my Assemblymembers that are, you know, for bipartisan support as well. Yeah. Okay, great. Well, when we get to that point, we'll have a vote. Thank you. Thank you. See you guys. Thank you, members. Good idea. Okay, we have a motion to move the consent calendar from the vice chair, so let's go ahead and call the roll. File items on the consent calendar are 1, AB 643, 8, AB 1153, 10, AB 1617, and 14, AB 2559. No, I have 13. Okay. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Valadares? Aye. Valadares, aye. Allen? Dali? Aye. Dali, aye. Gonzalez? Hurtado? Menjabar? Okay. So that on the consent calendar we will keep that on call and it was three to zero and so now we'll move to file item number three and The vice chair moves file item number three which is a B 839 and the motion is do pass to judiciary Please call the roll Senators Blake spear I like spear I Valderis Valderis I Allen Dally Dally I Gonzales Hurtado, Menjivar. Okay, that's 3-0. We'll keep that on call. Okay, we are going to go into a brief recess, and when we have our next author, we'll reconvene. Assemblywoman, you're welcome to come to the desk when you're ready. We're now going to be taking up file item number 5, AB 1148, from Assemblywoman Sharp Collins. Assemblywoman, you are recognized when you're ready. Thank you. All righty. Good morning, Chair and members. Thank you to the committee staff. I had to rush over here, y'all. I'd like to thank the committee staff for all of for help with getting this bill right, and I will be accepting committee amendments. Everyday Californians are exposed to a growing number of chemicals, pollutants that increase the risk of cancer and other serious illnesses, but those risks are not shared equally. The burden falls disproportionately on working families, low-income communities, and communities of color, people who are more likely to live near pollution sources, more likely to face environmental hazards and less likely to have the resources to avoid them For far too long the cost of doing business has been measured in profits while the cost of public health has been measured in lives And when cancer touches your family, as it has touched so many of ours, these risks stop being abstract. They stop being stats, and they become personal. That is why I am proud to bring forward Assembly Bill 1148, the Safer Food Packaging Act. This bill prohibits two classes of harmful chemicals commonly used in food packaging materials, phthalates and bisphenols. In fact, California has already acknowledged the dangers these chemicals pose. Phthalates have been banned from children's toys since 2007, from cosmetics since 2020, and from IV bags since 2024. BPA was banned from baby bottles more than a decade ago, and last year we expanded those protections to prohibit all bisphenols in children's drinkware. So if these chemicals are too dangerous for a child's toy, too dangerous for a baby's bottle, and too dangerous for medical equipment used in health care settings, then we must ask ourselves, why are we still allowing this particular product to be in the materials that come into contact with our food? Why should Californians be forced to accept the level of exposure that we have already determined is unacceptable elsewhere and internationally? Assembly Bill 1148 closes this particular loophole because public health policies should not stop at the edge of our food package. And because preventing cancer is always better than treating cancer, this bill is about making sure that families are not unknowingly exposed to chemicals every single time they sit down for a meal. Now, what I want to be clear about is that this bill is not about attacking the industry. It is about challenging industries to innovate. California has always led the nation by proving that economic growth and public health protections can go hand in hand. We do not have to choose between protecting consumers and supporting businesses. We can actually do both. That is why I have worked closely with stakeholders throughout this entire process. We have adopted amendments to clarify the definition of food packaging, address concerns regarding the internal and external services of cans, improve transparency, and maintain the exemptions for TMBPF as a safer alternative. Those amendments reflect my true commitment to getting this policy right, and what is no longer acceptable is pretending that uncertainty exists where evidence already does. And what is no longer acceptable is allowing known hazardous chemicals to remain in food packaging simply because change requires effort. Assembly Bill 1148 says that California should not have to choose between feeding their families and protecting their health. And it says that when science tells us that there is a problem, once again, I'm going to say it again, when science tells us that there is a problem, then we have a responsibility to act. So with that, I do respectfully ask for your aye vote. But here to testify, and in regards to this particular bill, testifying in support today is Dr. Rainbow Rubin, the Director of Science of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, and Nancy Berman, the Director of Programs and Policy of breast cancer prevention partners. Thank you so much for your time. I'll turn it over to my witnesses. You'll each be recognized for two minutes. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and thank you, Assemblymember Sharp Collins, for your leadership on AB 1148. I'm Rainbow Rubin. I have a PhD in nutritional biology from UC Davis and MPH in environmental health from UC Berkeley, and I'm the science director at Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, a science-based org, working to prevent breast cancer by reducing exposures linked to breast cancer. 1148 focuses on bisphenols and phthalates. Why? Because we are all exposed to these chemicals. More than 90% of people in the U.S. carry bisphenol A in their bodies, and other bisphenols are widely detected in our population. For orthophthalates, the percentage is near 100%. The science clearly shows these chemicals are harmful to our health. Specifically, these chemicals are linked to cancer. Bisphenols are hormone disruptors. Over 1,000 studies show links to obesity and diabetes, cardiovascular disease, behavioral effects, aggression, impaired learning and memory, altered sperm count and sperm quality, reduced testosterone, uterine fibroids, polycystic ovarian syndrome, breast cancer, and risk of miscarriage. Studies have found that BPA increased the growth of mammary tumors in lab animals and reduces the effectiveness of common chemotherapy medications from blocking the growth of breast cancer cells. Orthophthalates are also hormone disruptors. Exposure has been linked to breast cancer, developmental issues, infertility, obesity and asthma, and problems of children's neurological development, including learning and behavioral outcomes. Some phthalates have been shown in lab studies to increase growth of human breast cancer cells and decrease the efficacy of tamoxifen, a drug commonly used to treat breast cancer. Exposures to higher levels of... Yes. Finally, we know that if we remove these chemicals from food packaging, the levels of these harmful chemicals in our bodies go down. So for all of these reasons, I urge your aye vote to eliminate these chemicals from our food packaging. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, Nancy Buremeyer Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. I also want to thank the Assemblywoman for her leadership on this bill, and I want to thank the committee staff for their hard work on this legislation. One in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in her lifetime, and women are getting the disease younger and younger. AB 1148 can make an important contribution to reducing the public's exposure to chemicals linked to cancer and other negative health impacts. You've just heard how hazardous these chemicals are and why they don't belong in food packaging, and you heard from the Assemblywoman that this body has already banned these same chemicals in other product categories, including toys, personal care and beauty products, IV bags and tubing. Despite that, they are still legal and used in food packaging. Maine and Vermont have banned phthalates in food packaging and the European Union recently banned BPA and other hazardous bisphenols in food packaging. In fact, the EU will ban BPA on the external surface of food cans as of January 2028. Californians deserve the same protection. Last session, the legislature unanimously passed SB 1266, which banned the entire class of bisphenols in juvenile feeding and teething products. in AB 1148 is modeled after that bill. This bill gives the Department of Toxic Substances Control the ability to enforce as well as the flexibility to adjust the bans, if appropriate, based on new science. But let me reiterate what my colleague explained. The scientific evidence of harm from these chemicals is clear. Where we know there's harm and safer alternatives already exist, consumers should not have to wait for a lengthy regulatory process to be protected. 1148 will give Californians the certainty and protection they need and deserve I urge your aye vote Phenomenal timing I worked on it We now move to anyone else in the room that would like to express their support Please come forward with your name, your organization, and your position only. Asha Sharma on behalf of Sierra Club California in support. Thank you. Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support. Good morning, Kai Klassen on behalf of a few organizations, so please bear with me. Clean Water Action, Campaign for Black Health Equity, Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety, Recolate Energy, 350 South Glen Legislative Alliance, 350 South Bay Los Angeles, Green Science Policy Institute, and CalPIRG. Thank you. Mandy Estrella here on behalf of San Diego 350 California nurses for environmental health and justice Brent's breast cancer over time San Francisco Baykeeper the Center for environmental health seventh generation advisors the story of stuff and indivisible Marin in support hi April Robinson with a voice for choice advocacy and support Tony Hackett on behalf of Californians waste and support I don't Hoffman on behalf of Alameda stop waste and support Susan little on behalf of the environmental working group and support and we're one of the co-sponsors so thank you the assembly member seeing no others will now move to any key witnesses here in opposition if you would make some room at the desk thank you Good morning, Madam Chair. You're recognized for two minutes. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Randy Pollack on behalf of the American Chemistry Council. Currently, we are opposed to this bill unless amended, but with the amendments from last night that we saw in the analysis and working with both the sponsors and the Assembly member, we believe that we're moving much closer to a resolution of these issues. We look forward to seeing the amendments. Hopefully, they will be adopted by this committee today, and then we look forward to finishing off the discussions and hopefully having a positive result. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Don Kepke, on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. I want to align my comments with a representative from American Chemistry Council. We are reviewing the amendments. Certainly appreciate the author, the proponents, and committee staff for working with us to address many of our concerns. We do continue to have just an overarching principled position of relying on our safer consumer products program at DTSC for product chemical issues. That notwithstanding, I really appreciate the considerable progress we've made continuing to review those amendments and we'll follow up. Thank you. Madam Chair, members, Ila Garcia for the International Bottled Water Association. Similarly, similar position we have been in a post position, but very much appreciate the author and the sponsors and the committee's work. We do want to continue to work with you on further refining the definition of a durable materials, but very much appreciate the movement. Thank you very much. Good morning. Nicole Quinones on behalf of the California Chamber. Just want to align my comments with the previous speakers. We really appreciate the progress and look forward to reevaluating our position. Thank you. Greg Herner on behalf of the Can Manufacturers Institute. Similar to ACC, we look forward to seeing the amendments in print. We believe that we will be moving to neutral. And for the record, we do not use bisphenols on the internals of any food contact service, except for TMBF BPF which is what the sponsors have indicated is safe And I just remind everyone your name your organization and your position please Kevin Barrett on behalf of PPG Industries Thanks to the work of the committee, the sponsor, and the staff. If the expected amendments we'd likely move, we withdraw our opposition to the bill. Good morning. Meg Snyder, substituting for Ferrari Capital Advisors on behalf of the Vinyl Institute in opposition. Thank you. Marjorie Lee Samson advisors here on behalf of the California League of Food Producers reviewing the amendments. Thank you. Edwin Borbon on behalf of AmeriPen, the American Institute for Packaging in the Environment, as well as the Flexible Packaging Association. Opposed, unless amended. Thank you. Dylan Finley on behalf of the Western Plastics Association. Align our comments with American Chemistry Council. Thank you. Dennis Albiani on behalf of the Consumer Brands Association and working with them and we'll continue to work with them and align our comments with the American Chemical Council as well. Thank you. Seeing no others, we'll now move to the committee. So, one, it's very great to see that you've been working so diligently with stakeholders. I haven't read the recent amendments. I know there were some concerns about the timeline for implementation. Can you just walk me through your openness to modifying implementation date and some conversations that you may have had around the complexity of that? Thank you. Ms. We have worked extensively with the manufacturers, packaging companies, and other stakeholders, and the amendments have been adopted to clarify the definition of food packaging to address the reusable use, but also provide until 2037 for the external bisphenol use, which is going to obviously improve transparency and maintain the exemptions for TMBPF. And we remain committed to that continued collaboration as the bill moves forward. I'll also ask for my witness to also explain the timeline extension from 20 to 2037. Thank you. Yeah, so as you heard from the can manufacturers, they mostly are out of BP on the internal lines of cans. So the timeline for the overall implementation of 2028 seems we have not heard is a problem. The external cans was one that we asked for a long extension. We have agreed to a 2037 timeline, which we think is incredibly reasonable, given that in the EU they need to be out of this material on the outside of cans by 2028. So they have an additional nine years in the U.S. to get out of this chemical, which we know is hazardous and is on the outside of these cans. And to the opposition that was here for manufacturers, can you just clarify that the timeline is workable? Thank you, Senator. for the question. Yes, we are continuing just to evaluate that timeline with our manufacturers, recognizing that the EU has kind of moved forward on that kind of more expedited timeline. We do believe that that is likely workable, but again, still consulting with our manufacturers and happy to follow up. Great. So I'm going to see this bill again in health. So I'm going to lay off until we can work out some additional details. I can read amendments. And then I think we're going wait for some additional key members to join us to take up the bill. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. We now going to be moving to file item number nine Assemblywoman Stefani Again, file item number 9, AB 1604. Assemblywoman, you are recognized when you're ready. We're here. Great. Suzanne says hi. Yeah. Are we at morning? Yes, we're still morning. Good morning. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and colleagues. Today I'm presenting AB-1604. And AB-1604 would prohibit the use of bisphenol A, BPA, in paper receipts by January 1st, 2028, and all bisphenol chemicals, BPS, in paper receipts by January 1st, 2029. Additionally, this bill would allow the Department of Toxic Substances and Control to develop regulations and enforce violations. Violations would be punishable of 5,000 or less for the first violation and 10,000 or less for each subsequent violation in the department, the attorney general or other local attorneys may enforce this section or this action. Receipts are known to generate millions of pounds of waste and billions of pounds of carbon dioxide per year. These receipts that can't be recycled contaminate paper and are extremely harmful to human health. Handling Receiving receipts on a day-to-day basis is known to pose high exposure to BPA and BPS, and people who handle receipts every day, especially cashiers, are exposed to these chemicals over and over again. Studies have linked this exposure to breast cancer and other serious health risks. By removing BISMOs from receipts, this bill will cut daily exposure to harmful chemicals, protect workers and consumers, and keep our recycling systems clean. With me today are Nancy Buhmeyer with Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and Tony Hackett with Californians Against Waste. Good morning again, Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and thank you, Assemblymember Stephanie, for your leadership on AB 1604 to ban bisphenols from thermal receipt paper. I'm here on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, a science-based organization working to prevent breast cancer by reducing exposure to chemicals linked to the disease. Bisphenol A, or BPA, is one of the best-known toxic chemicals, and many products are now labeled BPA-free. However, BPA is often replaced with similar chemicals, like BPS or BPF, that have similar structures and raise many of the same health concerns. This is exactly what happened with receipt paper. A 2023 study showed that while BPA was found in only 1% of receipts, nearly 80% contained BPS. an example of regrettable substitution. Growing evidence shows that the entire class of bisphenols can disrupt hormones and harm health, with links to conditions including asthma, reproductive harm, metabolic disease, and cancer, including breast cancer. These chemicals are absorbed through the skin when handling receipts. This affects all consumers. It is the greatest risk for cashiers, who have significantly higher levels of exposure. cashiers are disproportionately women of childbearing age making this exposure especially concerning during critical developmental windows like pregnancy the good news is that safer alternatives already exist about 20% of receipts are already bisphenol free it's time to eliminate this entire class of chemicals from receipt paper. I also want to note that the co-sponsors have worked with the author to clarify that any enforcement action takes into account the severity and intent of the violation to ensure companies acting in good faith will not be hit with unfair penalties. We respectfully urge your aye vote. Your timing impeccable today. You're recognized for two. Thank you, Chair and members. My name is Tony Hackett with Californians Against Waste, and we are proud to co-sponsor AB 1604. This bill at its core really does one simple thing, which is takes a toxic chemical out of something that millions of Californians touch every single day, which is the paper receipt. Californians handle about 98 million thermal receipts every single day, four out of five of which are coated with bisphenols, which Nancy has already elucidated, being extremely health harmful. They rub off onto skin with a single touch, and that means that nearly 80 million toxic receipts are changing hands in the state every day. And people aren't just shoppers. They're cashiers, disproportionately working-class women of color, that handle them for hours a day. And it doesn't stop with people. The chemicals don't disappear when a receipt is thrown away or wish-cycled. They've been found in recycled paper products, like tissues and napkins, that ultimately contaminate the recycled paper pulp stream that California has spent decades building. Safer receipt paper already exists, and it's scaling fast. businesses are moving in the direction on their own, and this bill just makes that transition more uniform, predictable, and fair. AB 1604 has cleared the assembly nearly unanimously and with bipartisan support, in large part because protecting workers and our recycling system shouldn't be a partisan issue. And we think that the timeline is reasonable here, the science is clear, and we respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you. We'll now move to anyone else in the room that would like to express their support. please come forward, state your name, your organization, and your position only. Good morning, Madam Vice Chair, members, Assemblymember. I'm Scott Cox, here on behalf of Learning Disabilities Association of America, Courage California, EarthDay.org, Ecology Center, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, the California Public Interest Research Group, Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety, Pacific Environment, Save the Bay, 350 Bay Area Action, and Just Zero, here in strong support. Thank you. Jim Lindberg Friends Committee on Legislation at California in support. Good morning again. Kai Klassen on behalf of a few organizations, so please bear with me. San Francisco Baykeeper, all in support. The Story of Stuff Project, Beyond Plastics, Community Environmental Council, Clean Water Action, Endangered Habitats League, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, California Health Coalition Advocacy, and CleanEarthForKids.org. Thank you. Mandy Stella here on behalf of the American Sustainable Business Network, Plastic Pollution Coalition, The Last Plastic Straw, the California Black Health Network, Physician and Scientist Network addressing plastics and health, Active San Gabriel Valley, Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles, and the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives in support. Lauren Kubiak with the Natural Resources Defense Council in support. Good morning. on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council in support. Good morning, I'm Julia Au on behalf of the Northern California Recycling Association in support. Thank you. I'm seeing no others here in support. We'll now move to any key witnesses in opposition that would like to come forward Thank you Madam Chair and members Matt Sutton with the California Restaurant Association We are opposed unless amended. The author has been fantastic at working with us on a number of things. And I'll just say shortly, we're not here to defend any chemical. We're not here to defend any paper. We're the end users of receipts. The bill references a Washington State receipt law. And in that law, the implementing regulations did not hold the end users, brick and mortar businesses responsible. Holding manufacturers responsible for the paper seems appropriate. But we just can't have five and ten thousand dollar fines for receipt paper that we think is compliant. And so I know it's an unintended consequence. It's certainly not what's intended by the author of the sponsors as far as I know. And we appreciate it and hope we can continue to have this discussion. So thank you. Thank you. Are you a key witness? in opposition? No, I just, they said I could add in. I'm here for support. I just couldn't get in the room. So I'm April Robinson with the Voice for Choice Advocacy in support of this bill. Thank you. And this is, I'm also in support, but wasn't able to get in the room. Susan Little with Environmental Working Group, also in support. Thank you. Thank you. So if there are no other key witnesses in opposition, we'll move to any other opposition that would like to state your name, your organization, and your position. Hi, Jennifer Aguilar on behalf of the Cinema Association of California in Opposition and we echo the comments of the Restaurant Association. Thank you. We'll now move to the committee. Do we have any questions? Seeing no questions, I'll just ask the author if the comments or the concerns of the opposition are still in negotiations, or if there is an existing bill that would show that we're creating more liabilities for restaurants or for local businesses, is there room? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, of course. We continue to work with the Restaurant Association to make sure that our intent is known, that we are trying basically just to remove these chemicals from receipts so they are no longer injuring people. We are not, our intent is not to find good actors, so we will work through that and continue to work with them. As Matt stated, we have been working very well together and we will continue to have those discussions. Thank you. So we have a motion. Secretary, would you call the roll? Senators, oh, the motion is due pass to judiciary. Senators Blakespeare? Valadaris? Aye. Valadaris, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Daly? Aye. Daly, aye. Gonzalez? Artado? Menjabar? That is on call. We'll now move to file item number 11 Assemblymember Gonzalez with AB 1704 Assemblyman you are recognized when you're ready All right Thank you madam chair members for the opportunity to speak with you today I am pleased to present AB 1704 which creates a cost assessment for conventional building materials and lower embodied carbon materials I want to begin by expressing my sincere appreciation to the chair and the committee staff for their work on this bill I will be accepting the committee amendments And I want to thank the stakeholders in opposition who have been involved in this thoughtful discussion and on the journey of this bill To give context for my bill, AB 2446, the Holden from 2022, and AB 43, Holden 2023, established an embodied carbon program that would require manufacturers and developers to measure and reduce the embodied carbon footprint of building materials at the production and project level only. As a result, the state's building sector, including housing developers, would have to switch out building materials currently in use, and we still do not know if the housing market is ready for the immense change. In our current housing reality, every cost impact can have resounding ripple effects. Down the line, these costs will eventually impact renters and homebuyers and those having to rebuild from the massive fires that we've experienced in Los Angeles. California is facing severe housing affordability challenges with 55% of renters struggling to pay rent and one-third of homeowners paying more than 30% of their income on housing alone. Additionally estimates from the state and housing experts believe California has a housing shortage ranging from 800,000 to 3.5 million units. To ensure the embodied carbon program does not adversely impact the market, AB 1704 would direct the California Air Resources Board to study the cost effectiveness of the lower embodied carbon materials building materials if carb determines cost-effectiveness it's not achieved the program will be paused for five years I want to stress that AB 1704 is not ending the efforts to reduce embodied carbon and building materials this bill merely presses pause until the market is ready the bill ensures that if the process of pursuing our important sustainability goals we avoid any unintended consequences affecting our most vulnerable and low-income communities we need a data-driven responsibility policy implementation we We often talk about affordability here. Now we must deliver on it in every effective decision that we make. Here to testify this morning in support of the bill are two fantastic leaders, Allie Saperman, the advocacy and policy manager of the Housing Action Coalition, and Margie Lai, a legislative advocate for Samson Advisors. Take it away. Thank you. You're each recognized for two minutes. Thank you. Allie Saperman, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, a member-based organization dedicated to supporting affordable housing production, here to speak in support of AB1704. HAC is a statewide nonprofit and member organization that advocates for more housing at all levels of affordability. Our members span 20-plus industries, including developers, architects, attorneys, labor partners, and construction professionals across California. The state faces a severe housing shortage that has driven up costs for both renters and homebuyers. The state is also trying to reduce emissions from the building sector. Both of these goals are essential, but we must ensure climate policies are implemented in ways that do not unintentionally make housing more expensive or harder to build. HACC has seen this tension firsthand. We work with builders across California who are trying to deliver homes that working families can actually afford and who are already operating on razor-thin margins. Construction costs are skyrocketing across the board. Insurance premiums, market instability, the press of oil, transporting materials, everything associated with building a home is going up. If materials are not cost effective, it can kill a project's financing or force a developer to cut affordable units. Market rate projects can absorb cost shocks in ways affordable developers simply cannot. Implementing lower embodied carbon standards before the market is ready will undermine our goal of getting homes built for Californians who need them most. The reality is when we don't build enough housing, more people compete for the same limited number of homes. That competition drives up rents and home prices But by supporting housing development supply can better meet demand helping stabilize housing costs over time That is why building enough housing is one of the most important steps we can take to address affordability For those reasons, I respectfully ask your I vote. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and members. Marjorie with Samson Advisors here on behalf of the American Wood Council and several other clients in the building materials space, all in support of AB 1704. The data is clear. Our housing affordability crisis is severe and worsening. According to recent LAO numbers, the mid-tier California home price stands at about $755,000, which is more than twice the comparable homes across the U.S. For first-time buyers, this picture is more dire, with bottom-tier homes running about 30% above the average national mid-tier home. Some of the opponents may note that the current program already contemplates cost impact, that only triggers when materials costs rise to about 5% or more. While that may sound modest, on a mid-tier home that amounts to roughly $37,000 price increase, and according to the National Association of Home Builders, every $1,000 increase in a home's price prices out over 11,300 households. So a 5% jump would price out thousands of Californians. EB-1704 does not suspend the Embodied Carbon Program. It simply asks CARB to determine whether the requirements are cost-effective And if they are not, they would then apply a temporary pause. We think that is a reasonable step. And for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. We're not going to move to anyone else in the room that would like to express their support. Please come forward. State your name, your organization, and your position only. Hi. Good morning. Sonia Eschenberg on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies in support. Elizabeth Esquivel with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also in support. Good morning. John Kendrick with the California Chamber of Commerce, also in support. Thank you. Monica Salas on behalf of California Council for Affordable Housing in support. Thank you. Julie Malinowski on behalf of the American Chemistry Council in support. Thank you. Hi, Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors on behalf of the California Building Industry Association in support. Nico Molina on behalf of the Gypsum Association in support. Thank you. Chris Bollinger on behalf of the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association, the Poly ISO Manufacturers Association, the California Asian Chamber of Commerce in support. Thank you. Eric Turner on behalf of the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association in support. Thank you. We're now going to move to any key witnesses in opposition. If you could make room for the witnesses in opposition, thank you. You're each recognized for two minutes. Good morning, chair and committee members. My name is Lauren Kubiak. I'm a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council speaking in opposition unless amended to AB 1704 NRDC works to protect the climate and environment while supporting economic growth and public health California is not only facing a housing crisis but a climate crisis as well that is increasing electricity costs and insurance premiums California's embodied carbon program can drive solutions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions without impeding or raising the cost of housing development it's possible to reduce the embodied emissions of many types of building materials at no added cost and some even generate real cost savings. The programs enacting legislation included cost protections, which were designed with the support of many of the same constituents now working to undermine it. AB 1704 would put that progress at risk. It could delay the program for at least five years before it's even begun. While the committee amendments are an improvement and we greatly appreciate our dialogue with Heather Walters and Doris Kim and their efforts to address our concerns, the bill still creates critical ambiguity whether cost-effectiveness must be demonstrated at the individual material level or at the project level this matters because a single more expensive material could trigger a five-year delay for the entire program clarifying that cost-effectiveness is assessed at the project level ensures that cost-effective strategy is ready to go now like optimizing building design and using lower carbon concrete can move forward in addition a pause of five years is excessive and arbitrary there's There's no merit to a pause of this duration. This would delay common sense, market ready, and cost effective strategies that must be deployed at scale to reach our climate goals. I want to emphasize that no requirements have even kicked in yet. All that's happened is the release of a draft data collection framework. The federal government has already taken away California's tools to address transportation emissions, so why are we considering adding ambiguity to a program that hasn't even begun yet? We urge a no vote on AB 1704 unless further amended. Thank you. You're also recognized for two minutes. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and committee members. My name is Keith Krug. I am the Chief Manufacturing Officer at Forterra. We are an innovative, low-carbon cement company. It's headquartered in San Jose with a commercial plant north of here in Shasta County. We directly employ more than 70 workers across the clean manufacturing value chain, from scientists and engineers to the plant operators on my team. Forterra cement generates about 70% fewer carbon emissions than traditional cement and at lower cost. When making traditional cement, you burn nearly two tons of limestone to create one ton of product. And that's due to losing about 44% of your initial input as CO2 emissions. To make Forterra cement, we use only one ton of limestone to create one ton of product. This fundamental efficiency difference allows Forterra to produce at commercial scale without the need to ask our customers for a green premium. Our cement's performance is functionally unchanged from traditional cements, and in some designs it's even an improvement in both strength and workability. The Shasta Commercial Facility has a production capacity of about 15,000 tons of cement per year. That's directly mineralizing about 7,000 tons of CO2. You can find our California-made product in real-world construction projects across the U.S. and more locally, just a few miles west of here at UC Davis. We maintain strong partnerships with local and statewide cement users, especially including concrete producers, driven by the fact that our product does not compromise on performance or cost. California has long been a leader in environmental stewardship, protecting the health of my family and my neighbors, while encouraging innovative, novel technologies. For Terra chose to build and invest in this state because of that leadership and because of policies like your involvement. You can close just five seconds. For those reasons, for Terra is opposed to AB 1704 unless amended. Thank you. Thank you. We now going to move to any other individuals in the room that would like to express their opposition Please come forward State your name your organization and your position only Good morning Scott Cox on behalf of Industrious Labs here to reiterate our position, opposed unless amended, and looking forward to seeing the amendments in print. Thank you. Good morning, Kristen Shereyagachi, representing the US Green Building Council, and we are here to be opposed unless amended. Asha Sharma on behalf of Sierra Club California, respectful opposition thank you Ruth McDonald with climate action California respectful opposition thank you well now bring it back to the committee can you clarify Assemblyman that you you have accepted the amendments thank you would you like to close sure thank you Madam Chair look by by setting impacts on the housing market AB 1704 ensures we are building smarter not just faster aligning housing development with our climate goals and environmental stewardship and of course the conversation about cost effectiveness will continue to be ongoing with our folks who are here in opposition today of course your environmental partners and advocates your concerns are heard and reflected in our amendments that we have accepted and shared commitment to protecting our natural resources while meeting California's housing needs this is certainly something that is an urgency and we do want to work with folks to get this done build that housing get it done effectively while at the same time making sure we were obviously respect the environment but making sure we're getting it done costly effectively and with those all involved so we can get done so I know we'll work together on that and I commit to that thank you madam chair and I ask for your aye vote thank you and I do have a motion from senator dolly secretary would you please call the role the motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Senators Blakespeare, Valderas, Valderas aye, Allen, Dali, Dali aye, Gonzalez, Artado, Menjivar. That is two and on call. Thank you. I'd like to ask any authors from the assembly. Oh, we have that was and so be it. We're going to move to file item number 12, AB 1901 by Assemblyman Berman. Assemblyman, you're recognized when you're ready. Thank you, Senator or Vice Chair. Thank you, Vice Vice Chair. Gotta be respectful. AB 1901 would require manufacturers of children's diapers to clearly label all ingredients on both the products package and online. I'll be accepting the committee amendments to create a six-month sell-through provision to give manufacturers time to sell existing stock through July 1st, 2029. As a new dad, I have a greater appreciation for how important it is for parents to make informed decisions when it comes to the health and wellness of their child. Recent testing shows many diapers are made with ingredients linked to health and environmental concerns. Given this, the lack of industry-wide transparency around diaper ingredients prevents Californians from making the best decision for their families when buying the one thing that is touching their baby's skin literally every minute of their lives for their first few years. Some manufacturers already voluntarily disclosed their ingredients, showing that this requirement is feasible for businesses to comply with To ensure transparency across the board AB 1901 would require all children diaper manufacturers to disclose ingredients online and on the outermost packaging Showing parents the list of ingredients allows them to make an informed decision that is right for their family, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And I'm pleased to be joined today by Stephanie Davis-Michaelman, president of Healthy Baby, and Susan Little, California legislative director at Environmental Working Group. Thank you. You are each recognized for two minutes. Chair Blakespeare and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Stephanie Davis. I'm the president of Healthy Baby. I am a mother of two, and Healthy Baby is the pioneer of the first-ever environmental working group, Verified Diaper. We were founded on a very simple mission. It's to powerfully protect and enrich the full potential of every child. We believe that mission begins with transparency. Since 2020, long before AB 1901 was introduced, Healthy Baby committed to fully disclosing every material used to make our diapers because we believe parents have the right to know what touches their baby's skin every day. We built our business on the principle that transparency and innovation can coexist and that families should never be in the dark about information that can impact their children's health. We strongly support AB 1901 because we believe parents deserve clear and consistent information about the products that they use on their children daily. The first years of a baby's life matter profoundly. It is estimated that 80% of a baby's lifetime brain development takes place within the first three years. During this critical window, our children are wearing diapers 24-7. We also know that a newborn's skin is significantly thinner and more permeable than that of an adult and can readily absorb certain chemicals. Yet despite this extraordinary exposure, most brands, parents can't access any of the information about ingredients and materials in their child's diapers. AB 1901 is not a ban. That's why this matters. It doesn't prohibit ingredients. ingredients it doesn't tell parents what diapers to choose it doesn't tell manufacturers what materials they can use it simply ensures that parents have access to information so they can choose what's best for their child's health if you would wrap up your comments okay today parents are often left relying on marketing claims internet searches to understand what's actually in their diaper and we believe families deserve better than that we understand that some stakeholders have raised concerns about confidential business information. However, confidential business information should not be a loophole that allows intentionally added ingredients to remain hidden from parents. Parents aren't asking for proprietary formulas. They're not asking for supplier contracts. They're not asking for manufacturing processes or ingredient percentages. They just want to know what is being intentionally added to their child's diapers. We believe the requirement for companies to disclose raw materials, chemical names, and CAS numbers serves an important purpose. This information helps clinicians, researchers, regulators, and parents identify accurately and consistently the ingredients that are included. So at its core, this bill is about transparency and informed choice. The answer to confusion is not less information, it's better information. transparency and innovation are not mutually exclusive our company healthy baby proves that we haven been limited in our growth We haven been limited in our innovation And in fact we are a stronger company because we have the trust of our parents. And we know that we're doing the right thing. California has long led the nation in advancing consumer transparency and public health. And we believe diapers, one of the most frequently used products in early childhood, should be no exception. Parents know what's in their baby they should know what's in their child's diaper. For these reasons Healthy Baby respectfully urges your support of AB 1901. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. We'll now move to anyone else in the room that would like to express their support. Please come forward and state your name, your organization, and your position only. Morning, Dylan Hoffman on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council in support. Hi, April Robinson with a voice for choice advocacy and support Nora Angelus with children now proud co-sponsor Jim Lindberg friends committee on legislation California and support Kai Clausen on behalf of breast cancer prevention partners and strong support as a parent thank you author there's a mayor of policy and soon with Miss Abel of the group here on behalf of Consumer Federation California and support cloche on behalf of California Environmental Voters in strong support. Thank you. Center for Environmental Health and Children Now who just spoke and also Consumer Reports, all co-sponsors. Thank you in support. Thank you. We'll now move to any key witnesses in opposition. If you could make room for the opposition witnesses please thank you no we're gonna have rules to have a seat back and we can bring you back up for questions And you're each recognized for two minutes. Yes. Thank you so much to the committee for the opportunity to provide testimony today. My name is Edwin Bourbon. I'm here on behalf of the Center for Baby and Adult Hygiene Products, known as BAHP, with an opposed unless amended position on Assembly Bill 1901. BHP represents manufacturers of absorbent hygiene products in North America, such as menstrual products and diapers, as well as companies that supply materials for those products, representing over 85% of the market in North America. We do want to be clear that BHP members take the safety of consumers as our utmost priority and don't disagree with the intent of the bill. This commitment does go down to the level of ingredients that are present in our products, but to ensure that manufacturers can comply with the letter of this law, we are requesting amendments to align AB 1901 with California's menstrual product right to know Act which was passed in 2020. The menstrual product right to know Act contains provisions that allow sufficient lead time to change labels when there's an ingredient update, an ingredient hierarchy that lists ingredients using standardized nomenclature that's broadly understood by consumers, administrative penalties for non-compliance, and protections for confidential business information. Many people are likely consumers of both menstrual products and and children's diapers in often simultaneously. So given that both our absorbent hygiene products comprise of similar materials, we do recommend having a similar compliance framework for both products. Menstrual product framework aside, there are still some compliance challenges in 1901. While we do appreciate the Committee amendment to provide a six-month sell-through when there is an ingredient update. Any labeling law should reflect that those packaging changes will require appropriate lead time to enable a path to continued compliance, which is why we're requesting an ongoing 18-month window for packaging changes due to an ingredient update and a six-month window to update those ingredients online. Additionally, AB 1901 does require manufacturers to display intentionally added ingredients on the product details page on a website where children's diapers are sold, which may include retailer websites. And for these reasons, we are opposed unless amended. Thank you. Good morning, Chair members. Nicole Quinone is here on behalf of the Fragrance Creators Association, and I just want to echo that we, of course, share the author's goal, and we're not here to oppose transparency, but we do believe there is a balance to be had between transparency and intellectual property protections. and we believe those frameworks exist in existing law under the bills mentioned by my colleague, the cleaning product right to no act, the cosmetic fragrance and flavor ingredient right to no act, and the menstrual products right to no act. These frameworks ensure that any ingredient on any of 22 designated hazard lists and any fragrance allergen that is present in a product must be disclosed while also providing a pathway to protect intellectual property for manufacturers through trade secret protection provisions that are included in this bill. The designated list framework does create a clear and enforceable floor that a general mandate like is in 1901 today may not. It also encourages companies to reformulate in order to remove any ingredients that are on those hazard lists, which I think we can all agree would be the ultimate goal. And just to clarify from some of the comments made by supporters, I want to be clear. Confidential business information is less about transparency to consumers, and it is more about protecting that intellectual property from competitors. So, again, that is why that balance is so important to us and respectfully oppose 1901 today. Thank you. Thank you. We'll now move to anyone else in the room that would like to express their opposition. Please come forward, state your name, your organization, and your position only. Hello, Dennis Albiani on Consumer Brands Association. We agree and oppose at this point. Thank you. Elizabeth Esquivel with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, and also the opposing less amended positions for the reasons that were stated. Thank you. Thank you. We'll now move to the committee. So we will have a motion by Senator Dolly. First, I'd just like to thank the author for bringing this forward. I do not miss the diaper years by any means, but I can completely understand from a parent's perspective that whether it's wanting to make the healthy choice or option for your child or just trying to understand potential allergens and as we know as parents, you don't necessarily know what allergy your child is going to have and often it's a guessing game of trial and error so when you can identify that having the information on ingredients whether it's diapers whether it's food is so is so vital so I want to thank you for bringing this forward um I will be supporting your bill would you like to close I'll defer to your close for me um you know I appreciate the conversation we've been having lots of conversations with with the opposition and we'll continue to have those conversations um you know the bill they don't have to comply until July 1st 2029 It not even July 1st 2026 So I think that a good stretch of time to give the industry time to comply with the bill I respectfully ask for your aye vote Thank you Thank you. And we have a motion by Senator Dali. Secretary, would you please call the roll? The motion is do pass as amended to judiciary. Senators Blakespeare. Valideris. Aye. Valideris, aye. Allen. Dali. Dali, aye. Gonzalez. or Tato, Mungavar, 2-0 and that bill is on call. Thank you, Senators. Thank you. Okay, awesome. What file item is that? 6-7-7. We're now going to move back up to the file order item number six, Assemblyman Jackson. Assemblyman, you are recognized when you're ready. I have show and tell. Oh, boy. Should I hand these up here? No, you can keep them right here. All right. We're going to start with AB 1149, Madam Chair. Yes. First, I'd like to start by saying how grateful I am to the time and attention to the chair and committee staff who have put into understanding and updating our collective vision for market development incentives in response to California's conservation and circular economy objectives. We will be accepting the committee's amendments today. While Californians returned a record number of PET beverage containers in 2025, a 74% recycling rate, and the program invested more than $130 million to collect those containers, incentives for processing those containers in California have failed to keep pace. In the last 24 months, market conditions have demonstrated that current policy has not adequately supported the processing of those same materials to be made into new products for a true circular economy. I have with me today representatives of two of the state's remaining PET reclaimers, both of whom have facilities in my district, Mr. Paul Bahu of Global Recycling and Hannah Martinez Indorama. You're welcome to begin when ready. You have two minutes each. Before my time starts, this is the show-and-tell. So just so you guys understand what we're talking about here, I have a PET bottle and a PET clamshell package and this is the material after it's been ground up and washed. So here's your visual. You also turn around and show it to the audience so they can see it. after we grind it up and wash it. This is the bottle and package, so this is what we're talking about. All right. Thank you, Vanna. Thank you. All right. Hey, everyone. My name is Paul Bahu, and I am president of Global Plastics Recycling, a family-owned business that has been in operation for 30 years. We are a PET wash line reclaimer based in Paris, California, which is an assembly member of Jackson's district. I really appreciate that he came and visited my facility and that he is trying to save us all from closing our doors with AB 1149 For the uninitiated wash line reclaimers are the middle part of the closed loop of the bottle recycling process We buy CRV PET bales pop them open sort through the material ground up the good stuff wash it, and create an FDA-compliant food contact-grade flake material that can be used as a replacement for virgin resin made out of oil. The flake can be made into packages, fiber, and new bottles for a closed-loop system. While my industry is necessary for California's recycling goals to be met, we have been struggling to compete with cheap plastic imports coming in from overseas. Last year, two of the six wash line companies in California closed their doors, and I fear more may follow if immediate assistance is not given. The good news is that AB 1149 would give us this lifeline that we need and will help to save California's remaining infrastructure by closing the gap between import and domestic RPED prices. Not only have imports pushed sale prices down, but feedstock prices are artificially higher. PET bail demand in Mexico is very strong, which often means companies from across the border who pay a fraction of our labor costs, poach our bale supply, driving up prices for feedstock, and squeezing California reclaimers in the middle. It's like we're Indiana Jones, right? And we just got trapped in a room where the ceiling is coming down and the floor is rising up. And at the same time, we're getting squished and time is running out. AB 1149 is the secret off switch in the wall. By giving California reclaimers a part of the CRV fund to process CRV PET bails, we can offset those higher input costs and lower sale values and protect the remaining infrastructure in the state. Without it, California's programs like SB54, the landmark packaging law, and AB793, the plastic minimum content law, would be imperiled, as there wouldn't be anybody left in the state to process these clamshells or make the pellets for the bottlers to meet their minimum content requirements. I love my state and I love my industry, and if this bill passes at the full funding amount requested, both will be better off for it and will both have a more sustainable future. Thanks for listening, and I hope you will support this bill. Well, thank you for your enthusiasm. We appreciate that. I love what I do. Yes, good. Okay, and you also have two minutes. Thank you. That's going to be a tough act to follow. I'm definitely not as enthusiastic, but definitely proud of my company as well. So good morning, and thank you, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Hannah Martinez, and I'm the head of sustainability advocacy for Indorama Ventures in the Americas region. We are the largest producer and mechanical recycler of PET in the world, and we're here today in support of AB 1149 to increase and extend PMDP for PET recyclers in California, and we thank Assemblymember Corey Jackson for his leadership in this issue. Sustainability is core to our business model. we grew our recycling businesses because our customers demanded packaging that was economic, sustainable, and environmentally friendly. With more than 20 recycling facilities across 11 countries, we proudly recycle 789 bottles every second. And as of August 2025, we have recycled 150 billion PET bottles, avoiding an estimated 3.8 million tons of CO2 emissions and diverted 2.8 million tons of plastic waste from landfills and the environment. While California is one of the few states with a bottle bill that recycles nearly 75% of PET, it is also the state that is losing the most PET recycling capacity. The global overproduction of PET has forced domestic prices below what is sustainable, thus reducing domestic recycling capacity and jobs. Nearly 30% of U.S. PET recycling capacity has been shuttered in the last year, and investments to optimize or expand PET recycling have stalled or been canceled Our pet overcapacity is driven by policy incentives without commensurate domestic demand Policies promote recycling without enacting corresponding domestic recycled content mandates or broad food packaging approvals Recycling works, but it does not work when policies are not aligned. We have incentives that encourage collection, but not enough support to ensure that the material is actually processed here and turned back into new products. That's why AB 1149 is so important. Increasing and extending PMDP in California is critical to support and maintain the PET recycles that still remain, especially our Fontana, California facility, which recycles 5 billion bottles per year and employs approximately 135 people. And we want to remain in the state to effectively achieve the state's goal of having a circular economy. So we respectfully urge support for AB 1149. Thank you. Okay, well, thank you very much. So if there are others in the room wishing to express support, please come forward to the microphone, state your name, the organization you represent, and your position on the bill. Good morning, Madam Chair. Chris McKaylee here on behalf of Niagara Bodley and Our Planet Earth in strong support of 1149. Thank you. Madam Chair, Madam Vice Chair, members of the committee, Paula Treat on behalf of the alliance of which Paul and Hannah belong to, along with RPET and Peninsula Packaging. And I won't read the other 25 companies in support, but ask for yours. Thank you. Madam Chair, members, Mark Murray with the Environmental Group California's Against Waste in support. And also on behalf of my new best friend, Dennis Albiani, support from the PET Recycling Corporation of California. Thanks. Noam Elroy on behalf of CRNR Environmental Services in support. Thank you. Chad Mays on behalf of Republic Services in support. David Krieger for Waste Connections in support good morning I read out of the town we have international bottled water association in support Dylan Finley on behalf of the Association of plastic recyclers and the recycling partnership and support okay thank you do we have any lead witnesses in opposition in the room who wish to come forward okay I don't see any anybody wishing to express Opposition to this bill please come forward to the microphone any opposition no okay well we'll turn this back to the committee and I'll just start with a couple of comments thank you for this bill this is I've had the opportunity in my role as the as as the EQ chair to do some tours of various recycling facilities including ones that create those little plastic pellets and then blow blow it back into water bottles so that it can be used again. And I think we have a goal of having all parts of the supply chain stand on their own. So ideally, a functioning market doesn't require a subsidy, right? But we recognize that for our recyclers to stay in business in California, it's not quite functioning at that state yet. So we need to have a subsidy. And that's what you are doing here with the PMDP, which stands for Plastic Market Development Program, to help California recyclers stay in business and stay afloat and be successful. So there's a lot of discussion about what's the right amount and over what amount of time and that. But I appreciate your bill bringing forward a proposal, and I'm happy to be supporting it today. So I'll look to my colleagues to see if anyone else has comments they'd like to make. Okay, well then we'll turn it back to you to close. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Now that we are all fully aware due to my witnesses. As you can see, this issue brings together a broad and diverse coalition, including recyclers, environmental advocates, beverage producers, and continued manufacturers with bipartisan support for this bill. California has led the nation in collection, but collection alone isn't enough. If we are serious about a closed-loop economy, we have to invest in processing and remanufacturing here at home. Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Okay, thank you. I'll entertain a motion. Okay, the vice chair moves. Please call the roll. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Valderas? Aye. Valderas, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Daly? Daly, aye. Gonzalez? Hurtado? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Okay, it's 5-0. We'll keep that on call for the remaining members. Thank you. And now we have a second bill from the same author. You're all done. Thank you so much. Next, we have AB 1584 from Assemblymember Jackson. This is file item number 7. I think we're nearing completion. Maybe we have three bills left after this bill. yeah so we will you can invite any witnesses you have or not and you're welcome to begin when ready madam chair no more witnesses I don't think you could bear any more of my witnesses no you can stay there just stay there this bill madam chair I would establish and specify duties for the office of civil rights at the California Air Resources Board. This bill would require that board staff, grantees, and contractors are provided training on their civil rights obligations, as well as developing an evaluation tool to assist staff in understanding their civil rights requirements. Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Okay, thank you. Anybody in the room wishing to express support for this bill, please come forward. All right, anybody in opposition? Lead witnesses opposition? No, not seeing any. Anyone in the room wishing to express opposition? Okay, not seeing any. We can bring it back to the committee. Any comments on this bill? Oh, yes. Hi, Jenny Aguilar on behalf of the California Business Properties Association and NAOP in opposition. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any comments from committee members? Okay, not seeing any. We'll turn it back to the author to Close. I expect to ask for an aye vote. Okay, great. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion. Senator Menjivar moves the bill. Please call the roll. The motion is do pass to Judiciary. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Validaris? No. Validaris, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Daly? No. Daly, no. Gonzalez? Hurtado? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Okay, that's 3-2. We'll keep that on call. Thank you. Excellent. We do have an author in the room. Thank you. Assemblymember Hadwick is here File item number 15 This is AB 2667 And you are welcome to proceed when ready Thank you Madam Chair and members I would like to first thank the chair and the committee staff for working with me on this critical issue. Teenagers and adults in America are buying roughly 12 million disposable vapes per month, and four and a half vapes are thrown away every second. Nicotine is a highly addictive substance, and early exposure increases the likelihood of long-term addiction and adverse health outcomes. As a mom of teenagers, I fought the vaping crisis with my own children. We don't yet have the research to know the full damage of vaping with our youth, and rural areas are seeing higher statistics of use. In my schools, almost every kid has tried it, and half of them are addicted. When we asked kids what percentage of their school was vaping, they almost always said 80%. When I asked parents that same question, they say 10 to 20 percent. An even more troubling trend, kids are using vapes at schools disguised as everyday items like pens, key fobs, chargers, highlighters, and hoodie strings. Some have features intentionally designed to increase dependency and addiction, like built-in video games. These hidden devices make it even harder to train teachers and staff on what to look for to stop students from vaping in class. Even if a school can detect and confiscate these disguised vapes, the school has no way to dispose of it. As a tobacco use prevention Education Program Director, I had a drawer full of vapes that I could not do anything with because they are considered hazardous waste. While a parent can take a vape to a household hazardous waste facility, a school cannot since it is not considered to be created by a household. When these vapes do make their way to a facility, they are unable to process them cost effectively. A special permit is required to separate the nicotine or cannabis cartridge from the battery and other electronic components. Because some vapes are disguised, some waste facilities never catch them, leading to battery fires and the release of hazardous waste. Disguised vapes are poisoning our kids, causing fires at small, underfunded waste facilities and wasting precious taxpayer dollars on additional processing costs. AB 2667 bans deceptively marketed and disguised vapes targeting children that look like a handheld video game, food, candy, school supplies, or clothes. This bill also reduces vape processing costs by allowing household hazardous waste facilities to safely disassemble vapes. And finally, this bill requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control to address the management and disposal of vapes confiscated by students via school. AB 2667 will protect kids, support schools, and ensure hazardous materials are handled responsibly. I respectfully ask for your aye vote and I'm joined today by the bill sponsor John kidney Kennedy with rural county representatives of California and I would like to request the use of a prop if possible absolutely thank you good morning again John Kennedy with our CRC if I can pass these around so we're
pleased to sponsor this bill as a three-part solution to deal with vapes I I don't make the rules. So the first compelling issue is schools and how schools manage vapes that are confiscated from students. We've been trying to work with DTSC to figure out if there are easier pathways for schools to manage vapes, working with our HHW collection facilities to see if maybe we can go and pick up vapes from those school sites and establish clear parameters for how many vapes we can take from those very small quantity generator school sites. this provides us with the tools that we need to be part of the solution for school sites
excuse me I like to interrupt so Senator Allen is struggling with how you would inhale that vave It a challenge right It a pen right Very small hole in the back end You can write with it as well
They're very well designed. The back end of the Sharpie, you would inhale through there. Right. There are highlighters that have ports in the back that you inhale from, or you can charge as well. There's key fobs. There's hoodie strings. Right. There are lots of different creative approaches for how to market these and deceive schools and others about them. For some of the previous hearings, we had a principal from MODOK who was testifying. She mentioned that she has 200 students at her high school and brought in three giant Ziploc baggies, gallon baggies full of vapes that had been confiscated from their school. For high schools with about a thousand students, we're seeing a few hundred collected over the course of half a school year or full school year. And as I mentioned earlier, these are expensive for schools to manage, expensive for us to manage. Which takes me to the second part of the bill, which is the author mentioned would allow us to safely disassemble vape so we can separately manage the cartridge from the rest of the vape. To the extent we can more cheaply manage these, we can take more of them and still provide free collection opportunities. We are focused on safety working with the cupas working with the fire folks and making sure staff are trained And then the third part of the bill is what you are seeing now We're seeking to ban disguised vapes not only for the safety issues Associated with that going through a Murph or going into a landfill being crushed on the the tipping floor And then starting a fire Or also just deceiving teachers and and parents as to what that really is and the second thing we are trying to ban our video game vapes they are a lot more challenging for us to figure out they are heavier they are bigger so we can get far fewer of those into our five gallon bucket that cost three hundred and fifty dollars to manage which is why we need the other tools in this bill but also the video display device increases your dependency on the device and your level of interaction with the vape so I I think we feel pretty strongly there's no real place for those in our system.
I just want to ask a question about the Sharpie vape. So Sharpie is not in business with the vape company, right?
They've just purchased a lot of Sharpies and then are doing something with the back to make it into a vape. And this is a single-use vape, right? That would be my understanding. Because you couldn't stuff it in. Correct. Wow. Right. So it raises a lot of questions about, you know, trademark infringement, all those other things. Right. So with that, ask for your support on this. If there are other stakeholders that have ideas for how we can better manage these, especially from schools, we're all ears. We were trying to solve problems with this bill.
Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support? Please come forward to the microphone, state your name, organization you represent, and your position on the bill. Good morning, Chair and members. Sasha Horwitz with the Los Angeles Unified School District in support. Good morning, Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities in support. Good morning, April Robinson with the Voice for Choice Advocacy in support. Noel Melroy with Rethink Waste in support. Tony Hackett with Californians Against Waste and Support. You heard our disposable vape bill earlier today, and there's a reason John was testifying for both. We see these as super complimentary and we're very proud to support. Thank you very much Anybody in opposition to this bill wishing to come forward No opposition witnesses Anyone wishing to express opposition Not seeing any? Okay, we'll bring it back to the committee. Anybody wish to make comments about this bill from the committee? I'll just say thank you to you for bringing this. Oh, yes? Okay, Vice Chair, go ahead. Well, this is kind of insane, and younger me is like apples and vodka and water bottle. If my dad was, he wasn't me, dad. My have times changed, and what's amazing is this isn't just what we're seeing with tangible risks and harms for children. We're seeing it digitally on other issues as well. So I want to thank you for bringing this forward. I'm trying to figure out how to keep my daughter in grammar school for the next 10 years at least. Can we bypass these high school years? But this is a serious issue, and there's nothing like seeing this in person. I don't even know how this works. It's not a Sharpie. But I want to thank you for bringing this forward. Would love to be added as a co-author if possible, because our kids' health matters. And I just want to thank you. Okay, thank you. Any other comments? All right, well, this is the second vape bill that we've had in this committee today, and I appreciate the efforts that we're taking here in the legislature to get on top of this problem. So thank you for bringing this bill and taking this approach, making it easier for schools and facilities that accept this type of hazardous waste to provide guidance to schools and also to reduce the frequency and the number of these that we have in schools. So with that, I'll turn it back to you to close. I just want to thank you. It's very scary. And my youngest just graduated high school, and I was hoping to have it fixed by the time he graduated, and it's not. But our average age, I taught the diversion class if kids got caught at school and tried to keep the teachers trained. And every time I would get the teachers trained, there would be some new deceptive thing out there. And so we aren't keeping up with the market, unfortunately. and the average age of a kid trying it was 10. And I was doing diversion classes at the elementary school, which is crazy. And it's marijuana and nicotine, but it's highly addictive, and I just think the legislature needs to do better with that to protect our kids. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and thank you for hearing today. Okay, thank you. The vice chair moves the bill, and the motion is... The motion is due pass to business professions and economic development committee senators Blake Spear I fall Daris fall Daris I Alan Alan I Daly Daly I Gonzales or Tato or Tato I Menjivar? Menjivar, aye. Okay, that's 6-0. We'll keep it on call. Thanks very much. And we have our next author, Assemblymember Ransom, here. This is number 13, file order AB2046. And then this is our last bill, except for we have a committee bill that will be presented after this. but this is our last bill from an author. So you're welcome to proceed when ready. Awesome, thank you. Madam Chair and members, Assembly Bill 2046 is about affordability and consumer choice. It gives California access to cleaner, more affordable fuel. Californians, as we know, consistently pay more at the pump than drivers in other states, and gas prices are also climbing across the state as we are dealing with an international crisis. This puts additional pressure on working families and commuters. E85 is a blend of ethanol and gasoline. It is a lower carbon fuel option that typically costs less per gallon than regular gasoline. For commuters and working families, it is a practical way to save money. Yet, California remains the only state in the nation that prohibits the use of a proven EPA-approved E85 conversion kit, limiting access to this affordable fuel option. AB 2046 will allow the approved conversion kits to operate in California, giving families greater flexibility and more affordable choices at the pump. At a time when we see people struggling with affordability, AB 2046 provides an option for families across our state. This is a consumer choice bill that has enjoyed bipartisan support. It's been a support-support bill with no opposition up until this point. It gives families more flexibility at the pump instead of being locked into higher fuel options. With me today, I have Alessandra Manasco with the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance and Austin Hayworth representing Pearson Fuels. Now I'm going to turn it over to my witnesses. You're welcome to proceed when ready. You each have two minutes. Thank you. Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Alessandra Brichetto on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, proud sponsors of AB 2046. At its core, this bill is about three things Californians care deeply about. lowering costs, reducing emissions, and strengthening our state's fuel supply. California drivers face some of the highest and most volatile fuel prices in the nation. Ethanol blends, particularly E85, offer immediate and meaningful relief. E85 is typically priced $1.50 to $2 per gallon lower than conventional gasoline. At a time when families and small businesses are feeling the strain of high fuel costs, that difference matters. AB 2046 helps ensure consumers are aware of and able to access this lower cost option. Additionally, E85 can deliver life cycle greenhouse gas reductions approaching 80% compared to traditional gasoline. That's a significant emissions reduction available today using existing vehicles and infrastructure. Expanding the use of lower carbon fuels like ethanol is a practical and immediate way to support California's climate goals without requiring costly transitions for consumers. Finally, California's fuel system is uniquely constrained, with limited in-state refining capacity and heavy reliance on imports that are vulnerable to global disruptions. Ethanol helps diversify that system. It is produced from domestic feedstocks, moves through a separate and more flexible supply chain, and is largely insulated from the global oil shocks that drive sudden price spikes. Increasing the use of ethanol blends adds stability to California's fuel market and helps reduce pressure on our constrained gasoline supply. Simply put, AB 2046 is a smart, consumer-focused policy. It expands access to lower-cost fuel, reduces emissions, and strengthens reliability of our fuel supply, all without requiring new technology or new vehicles. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. You have two minutes. Morning, Chair and members. Austin Hayworth on behalf of Pearson Fuels, California's largest E85 supplier. Pearson fuels distributes 85 through nearly 500 real estate real real retail gas stations across the state. We strongly support AB 2046 as a tangible immediate way to reduce costs for California drivers As mentioned it traditionally used in flex fuel vehicles or FFVs in which the driver has the option to choose gasoline or 85 depending on the price and availability AB 2046 would help Californians by allowing to turn their normal internal combustion engines into one of these FFVs. A conversion kit doesn't lock anyone into that type of fuel. Drivers can still use gasoline, 85 or any blend of the two and pick whatever is cheaper at the pump that day. Use of E85 in California has increased by more than 600% over the last decade, largely driven by station expansion and availability in every legislative district, and of course, today's higher gas prices. E85 is usually around $2 cheaper per gallon. However, when gas prices spike, as it becomes frequent in California, the savings are more dramatic. As the state's average gas price rose at over $6 a gallon in May, fuel stations on average offered E85 at around $3 a gallon, less than gasoline. We estimate this led to savings of at least $25 million in May, and this month will be even larger. This bill would let more of your constituents take advantage of that. There's no other solution available that can both decarbonize a vehicle already on our roads and offer the significantly cheaper fuel option. Also, as refineries close and our fuel market grows, more isolated and volatile than anywhere else in the nation, 85 offers drivers a hedge. It's already displaced over 100 million gallons of gasoline in California in 2024, and allowing conversion kits would let more consumers protect themselves from outages and price spikes without having to buy a new car. Absent passage of 2046, drivers will continue to be forced to pay whatever it costs to commute to work, school, family engagements. We urge your aye vote today and help bring needed relief to the pump. Thank you. Thanks very much. Anyone else in the room wishing to express support, please come forward. Thank you Madam Chair. Now I will see you in the Office of Specialty Equipment Market Association, SEMA, in support. Good morning Chair Blakespear, John Kendrick, and members. John Kendrick from the California Chamber of Commerce, in support. Hello, Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors on behalf of Growth Energy, in support. Nico Molina on behalf of the CalAsian Chamber, in support. Thank you. Margie Lee Sampson, Advisor Sear on behalf of the California New Car Dealers Association, Association in support madam chair and senators and okay going on behalf of California LULAC in support okay thank you any lead witnesses in opposition in the room no okay anybody wishing to express opposition no not seeing any okay then we'll bring it back to the committee senator menjivar yeah this army member knows that I had a lot of questions on this on this bill and And I apologize that we couldn't connect yesterday just to get some of those answered. But I need some clarity because the analysis says not one kit has sought out the CARB approval. And we spoke, you said that there have been. So I just wonder, is the analysis wrong of the committee that it's incorrect that no kit has sought approval by CARB? So that was the senator speaking in regards to a conversation with myself where we did reach out to CARB in regards to the concern that the application process takes a very long time. It's my understanding that they had not been able to approve any applications. After our conversation, I did check back with my staff, and I may have misspoke in regards to how many applications have been submitted. But we did confirm that it is a lengthy, cumbersome application process. process. And so that speaks to the reason why we don't see that many applications. But I will allow the analysis says no application has been submitted. So if the problem is CARB, but no application has been submitted how is the problem CARB Well I let my witness speak a little more in depth but when you have a lengthy expensive process in the state of California that no other state has there a lot of costs that are incurred. And it's one of those, just because we can doesn't mean we should do something, is what we're experiencing here. But I'm going to let my witness speak a little bit more into the application dilemma that that the senator is speaking about? I would just add, we know of at least one, I believe it's two now, that have applied. I know of at least five kit manufacturers that have been in touch with CARB over the last few years trying to understand their process. This is currently treated by CARB as going through the alternative fuels rulemaking, which is effectively like ripping out your whole engine and replacing it with a new fuel system. Very, very onerous for something that has been approved for 15 years at the federal level, that all 49 states comply with that standard. Also, it's just very cost prohibitive. The testing is effectively putting a vehicle that has this new part on a test wheel for 150,000 miles. They're effectively checking for the durability. One, does it reduce emissions and does it hold up over the course of that 150,000 miles? That testing process, it's incumbent upon the applicant, costs around a million dollars estimated. And for an entity that is a small company selling these parts for $500 to $700 to the general public, that cost basis is just simply prohibitive. I understand that 49 other states do this already, but California, if I'm not mistaken, is one of the highest states with the highest pollution compared to other states. Is that correct? Maybe Madam Chair can help me with this. We have one of the worst, a history of worst pollution of other states. Yeah, so you can imagine why we have higher stringent considerations because no other state has the kind of air pollution that we have. If the problem is the lengthy process, why not address the lengthy process instead of completely wiping our ability to continue to move forward cleaning and protecting our air? So I'll start speaking to that. So first of all, this is a cleaner burning fuel. This is a renewable fuel. So it definitely fits into California's goals when it comes to climate and to addressing carbon emissions just on its own. And so this is not us giving anyone a pass or an opportunity. I represent a district who has high amounts of asthma, and so that is very important to me, that we are not giving anyone an opportunity to pollute. This is not a polluter project. This is a way to ensure that the fact that we have the rules that, like I said, just because we can doesn't mean that we should. when we have tools that can actually help super commuter districts that are idling and cars that are, you know, completely, you know, fuel based that are adding to our pollution. This is actually addressing that issue. And so the fact that our rules do not align this. This is the solution. This is exactly why we're doing this bill. Your question of why don't we just change it? This is exactly what we're doing because it's not necessary to do when we have we have all of the data and we've seen that this conversion kit will allow cars to use flex fuel. California already has flex fuel. There's over 600 flex fuel gas stations. 22 in your district. Uh huh. And we can give you all the list. So there's already we already have flex fuel in California. So this is nothing new. This is one of those things where unfortunately this came after our rules were established and we have met a roadblock that needs to be removed And quite honestly CARB is quite busy with much more important things than having to go through applications for something that is already meeting our climate goals My concern, you know, the analysis does a great job to talk about even though they're going to have to go to the pump more often because of the density, they're still going to at the end still save some. So my problem isn't with that. It exists. That's great. My problem is with a couple of things. There's a couple of conversion kits on the market now. Those were approved by U.S. EAPA. Perhaps those were approved in a way that they are similar to California's stricter standards, but this opens the door not just for those that are currently approved, any future conversion kits to be approved regardless of what administration approves them in the federal government. So say after this bill, in the next two years, more conversion kits are approved. This current USPA is not going to approve, can lower the threshold and approve kits that are even further away from California standards. And we will never be able to address those because your bill in perpetuity approves any conversion kit moving forward, regardless of how close or not to our standards it is. Is that correct? Yes. And I'm sure, no, that is not correct. But I'm sure we're both chopping at the bits to respond to that. I'll let my witness respond. I was just asking. that the standard itself at the federal level has been in place since 2011. It has not changed. There's no reason that it would change because it still includes the durability testing and it needs to prove that it's lowering emissions. That's been through multiple federal administrations. Again, these are still parts that would still need to get approved at the EPA level. It's just less onerous to get through that process. Part of what I said is incorrect. Will this approve any conversion kit moving forward? Not any. No. If they get approved by the USPA, any conversion kit as long as they get approved by USPA will be allowed to operate here in California. Yeah, it will be allowed for sale in California. And again, back to the source of whether or not this is adding or reducing emissions, depending, there's decades of research on ethanol, depending on where it's sourced, it reduces emissions by up to 70%. A lot of what CARB has claimed for carbon reduction over the last 15 years under LCFS is attributable to low-carbon biofuels like ethanol. So this is contributing towards our climate goals. The current U.S. EPA has had a target on our CARB for the past year. I think I wouldn't be so sure in saying that this wouldn't be changed, seeing as they're coming to attack us, specifically in California, on any kind of standard that we have. I think they would be inclined to approve any kind of conversion kits that may not meet the threshold that we need. And we wouldn't know, because it's private information, I believe. CARB wouldn't have any information on this because it gets privately approved and none of that gets submitted to California. So I would also like to address the fact that the conversion kits only work on certain cars and they have to meet the emissions and durability for the emissions. And so the cars that qualify for these emissions, these kits, already meet the emission standards that we would want to see. So I'm saying that to say that you're not able to put this on a car that it won't even work on the cars that are like the polluter cars. And in regards to, you know, the kind of the target that's on California, I think we're all aware. And I want to just kind of say that I believe that a bill like this actually removes a target because it shows that we are being reasonable, that we're not just being arbitrary and trying to have roadblocks to innovation and to addressing problems. the emissions crisis. This is us saying we understand that there is a cleaner burning fuel, a cheaper fuel, something that works well with certain cars. It does not work on all cars. And I think that evidence is very clear. And so that's why when you said, well, what part is wrong? It's the cars that qualify for these conversion kits that actually matters. and so it's the it's the the years yes I want to say was it 2010 and above our cars that would fit this the conversion kits and is there wanted to add all approved kits would have to be posted on the US EPA's website so we would actually have oversight over what's been approved approved yes but not we can't control this we wouldn't have the details of it right just as this is approved let me circle back with you on that but I do believe you'd have additional details on the bill on the testing kit the USPA certification process is confidential so meaning carb would ultimately have less information about the state's vehicle fleet so we wouldn't have the full information of it you mean like the the kind of it's like impact on the car yeah we wouldn't have that information it's part of the certification process is that it's reducing emissions. I mean we can circle back on that's certainly not the intent. So this is a transparent process. As long as it reduces emissions it gets certified by US. This is emissions and holds up in durability, yes, and it needs to be re-approved and recertified for every substantially similar engine system. So there are ones that have been in place for vehicles say in the mid-teens, 2000-teens, but as new vehicle systems come out these need to be recertified. It's not a blanket authorization. And to reiterate it has to match the cars. It cannot change the standard of the car. So unless there's a car in the U.S. that we say doesn't qualify here in California, they're not going to be able to change the car's emissions that it was originally certified under. So it gets added. I'm just very curious about this process. This is why I wanted to. So it gets added to the vehicle. It's certified. Does it have to get recertified? Like, you know how cars get their smog check. Is that when the process gets recertified to say it's still? Yes. Still has to pass smog. Yes. This alternative would factor into that reassessment every time. Okay. Okay. Helpful. Thank you. We need three microphones. Okay. Thank you. Vice Chair? You finally got to the point that I was going to make. That is, essentially, every car, regardless of this bill in California, has to go through a smog check. Not every car, but vast majority of cars. This is a key priority bill for the California Problem Solvers Caucus. We worked on legislation as a caucus to move forward E15, which is still waiting with the fire marshal, to be approved. This is an important bill, I think, for California in terms of reducing the cost of gasoline and using cleaner gasoline for consumers. And it's one of those common sense bills that moves our climate goals closer while also taking into consideration affordability, which we don't see many of these bills. So I want to thank the author for bringing it forward. And then again, clarify for Senator Menjivar's purpose, the state still has control over monitoring cars emissions because the smog checks are required. So if for some reason one of these systems were to fail, would that register on a smog check? to Yes it would also that the modern conversion kit systems plug into your dashboard system So you would get sort of a check engine light system so it ties into the on monitoring system. So you would get signal for that, and it also would show up in any emissions testing. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. And I'll just add a couple of thoughts about this. So, you know, the main point of this bill is to jumpstart the E85 conversion kit market in California by deregulating the kit certification. And it is important to recognize how much cheaper and less expensive the E85 is compared to traditional fuels. So this really, it is an affordability bill. And recognizing that California remains the only state that prohibits the use of E85 conversion kits. And this is a proven technology that allows cars to switch from gas to this other fuel E85. So although there are parts of this that I don't love, like basically some of what Menjivar was getting at, is that we're giving away some of CARB's regulatory authority and ceding it to the U.S. EPA. But CARB can always reestablish authority. I think that's important to recognize. If we run into a problem, we can always reestablish our authority over this, and there's nothing that would stop us from doing it. So the fact that we're such an outlier with being the only state that doesn't allow this and that this would save drivers money. And it is to the point of it depends on how the ethanol is created. Is it growing corn, creating other problems? You know, you can end up in a really fractured picture of what is the best climate solution when it comes to gasoline. But the reality is that it's not a it's not a fossil fuel. So, you know, you're not digging it out of the ground in that same way. So anyway, I am supportive of this bill today. today and I think it's a reasoned approach and way to move forward given also how infrequently this currently is used in California. So with that, I will entertain a motion on this bill. Did the vice chair want to move? Okay, thank you. Vice chair? Oh, yes, you have to close. I'm sorry. Yes, go ahead. Yes. Thank you, senators. I want to start by thanking Senator Minjabar for the thoughtful questions and thanking you all for, you know, allowing us to present this bill. California is facing an affordability crisis, as we know. We also have very lofty climate goals that we deserve to reach for our community, representing not only a district that has, you know, kids with asthma and adults with asthma, but also a super commuter district. It's super important to me that we are addressing all of those things and that we're not, you know, creating a bigger problem on one end while trying to solve one. And I think AB 2046 achieves that. It champions affordable fuel options and gives us the same opportunities to have a real solution to address our carbon emissions goals at the same time. So with that, I thank you for your time and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Okay, thank you. We have a motion from the vice chair, so please call the roll. The motion is due pass to transportation. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Valderas? Aye. Valderas, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Daly? Aye. Daly, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Rattato? Aye. Rattato, aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, 7-0, and that's out. Yes. So now we have our last bill, and this is being presented by Assemblymember Connolly. It AB 2777 So you welcome to proceed when ready Good morning, Chair and members. Happy to be here. AB 2777 is a committee bill that provides the State Water Board with flexibility when administering the Clean Water Revolving Fund at no additional cost to water agencies, with the goal of stabilizing and potentially increasing the resources available within the fund. Additionally, the bill makes technical changes to SB 31 that was signed last year. This bill is supported by water agencies and has no opposition. Here with me today is Jessica Gauger with the California Association of Sanitary Agencies and Beth Ohasso with Water Reviews. You're welcome to proceed when ready. You each have two minutes. Madam Chair and members, I'm Jessica Gauger with California Association of Sanitation Agencies. Here today as a co-sponsor, strongly supporting this bill, happy to answer any questions about sort of the intended benefits to the program. But with that, we'll just ask for your eye vote. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Beth Alasso with Water Reuse California, pleased to be co-sponsor. We're facing really challenges with federal funding, and we're trying to get creative. That's where we're at here, so happy to answer questions. Okay, great. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express support in the room? Please come forward. Good morning. Jamie Miner on behalf of Eastern Municipal Water District, as well as West Basin Municipal Water District, pleased to support. Thank you. Good morning, Claire Sullivan on behalf of the City of Roseville in strong support. Thank you. David Quintana on behalf of the Irvine Ranch Water District in support. Good morning, Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies in strong support. Thank you. Nico Molina on behalf of the Rancho California Water District in support. Thank you. Andrea Abrezel with the California Municipal Utilities Association in support. Thanks very much. Anybody in opposition? Lead witnesses? Not seeing anybody? Anybody wishing to express opposition? Okay, not seeing any. We'll turn it back to the committee. No comments, so we'll turn it back to you to close. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Okay, great. Thank you. I'd entertain a motion on this. Okay, if Senator Menjivar moves the bill, please call the roll. The motion is due pass to appropriations. Senators Blake Spear? Aye. Blake Spear, aye. Valadaris, aye. Allen, aye. Dali, aye. Gonzalez, aye. Rattato, aye. Menjabar, aye. Okay, that's 7-0. That bill's out. So several of us have to get back to budget, but we will run through the roll and get everybody's vote, and then we'll head to budget for those who need to. Thank you. Let's just go in order through them. Okay, so we'll start with the consent calendar. Okay. On the consent calendar is file item 1, AB 643, file item 8, AB 1153, file item 10, AB 1617, and file item 14, AB 2559. Current vote is 3-0. Senators Allen? Allen, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Rittado Aye Rittado aye Menjivar Aye Menjivar aye That 7 The consent calendar is out Next, we'll go to item number 2, AB 762. Motion is due pass as amended to revenue and taxation. Current vote 2-2 with chair voting aye and vice chair voting no. Senators Allen. Allen, aye. Gonzalez. Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Artado, aye. The vote is 5-2, and the bill is out. Okay, next we have item number 3, AB 839. The motion is due pass to judiciary. Excuse me. Current vote 3-0 with chair and vice chair voting aye. Senators Allen? Allen aye. Gonzalez? Ortato? Aye. Ortato aye. Menjivar? Menjivar no. the vote is 5 to 1 and it is out and on item number 4 AB 907 we need a motion so I would entertain a motion senator manager of our moves AB 907 okay the motion is due pass to appropriations Senators Blake Spear aye Lake Spear aye Valderas Valderas no Allen Allen I Dolly Dolly no Gonzales Gonzales I or Toto or Toto I and Javar and Javar I the vote is 5-2 and that bill is out the next bill is item number five a B 1148 and we need a motion on that bill to senator Allen moved the bill motion is due pass as amended to health senators blake spear I like spirit I Valderas Allen Allen I Daly Gonzales, Gonzales, I, Hurtado, Hurtado, I, Menjabar, Menjabar, I. Okay, it's 5-0. That bill is out. Okay, next we have item AB 1149. Item number six. The motion is due. Pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote 5-0 with chair and vice chair voting aye. Senators Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Rittado? Aye. Rittado, aye. That's 7-0 and the bill is out. Next we have item AB 1484 number 7. AB 1584 item number 7. The motion is due pass to judiciary current vote 3-2 with chair voting aye and vice chair voting no. Senators Gonzales? Gonzales aye. Ritato? Ritato aye. It's 5-2 and that bill is out. Next we have item number 9, AB 1604. The motion is due passed to Judiciary, current vote 3-0 with Vice Chair voting aye. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Rattato? Aye. Rattato, aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Okay, that bill is 7-0 and it's out. Now we have AB 1704, which is item number 11. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote 2-0 with vice chair voting aye. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Allen? Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Rittado? Aye. Rittado, aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Okay it 6 That bill is out Next is AB 1901 item number 12 The motion is due pass as amended to judiciary Current vote 2 with vice chair voting aye Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Okay, that's 7-0 and it's out. And this might be the last bill. AB 2667, item number 15. The motion is due pass to business, professions, and economic development. Current vote 6-0 with chair and vice chair voting aye. Senator Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. 7-0. That's 7-0, so that bill is out. Okay, thank you very much. EQ is adjourned.