Senate EQ — 2026-07-01

So we will invite him forward to present. Good morning, and thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me the opportunity to present. And I want to start by thanking the Chair and staff of the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee for working to develop amendment language to this bill. And I want to thank you, Madam Chair, and your staff for allowing me to accept these amendments today. Since time immemorial, indigenous communities have lived and grown in the region we now call California. As the original stewards of the land, they had developed a deep and comprehensive understanding of its complex ecological systems, including its vital watersheds. However, Western colonization led to widespread land seizures that deprived tribes of their traditional water resources and watershed management practices. This will lay the groundwork for a water rights system that continues to exclude tribes to this day. Although state agencies have worked to engage tribes on water issues, their impact has been limited by a lack of statutory authority to respond to water-related inequities. This means that work being done now can easily be reversed in the future. In light of these limitations, AB 2218 establishes a state policy of recognizing and addressing water-related inequities perpetrated against tribes by state-sanctioned actions. This bill also requires a specific set of state agencies, including CNRA, the State Water Board, and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, to implement this policy when they revise, adopt, or establish policies, regulations, permits, or grant criteria to address inequities. By ensuring that agencies can respectfully and effectively address longstanding harms against Indigenous communities, AB 2218 will help the state and sovereign tribes work together to protect the water resources that give us all life. With me to provide supporting testimony are Scott Quinn, Councilmember of the Karuk Tribe, and Melissa Tayaba, Vice Chair of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Melissa Tyaba. I am the Vice Chair of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians. My tribe was displaced from our ancestral villages along the Sacramento River and Delta waterways, but we have not and will not abandon our role as guardians of the water. We are distressed by the degraded conditions in our rivers, which impact the ability of our people to maintain culture tradition and food sovereignty We also heard similar concerns from other tribes and determined that current state efforts to protect tribal beneficial water uses are insufficient which is why we are co-sponsoring AB-2218 with the Karuk tribe. I would like my children and their children and the generations that come after to maintain our cultural traditions. Those traditions require are healthy waterways that support fish, plants, and other organisms. I want them to live in a society where their voice and their knowledge as indigenous people is valued in governmental decisions about land and water management. I want our waterways of life to have equal protection as other water uses under the law. AB 2218 would codify the need for tribal water rights and practices to be incorporated into state policies. As this bill has moved forward, we have worked with the Assembly, Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, and the committee to develop amendments that ensure the bill requires specific actions from designated state agencies. We've also accepted reasonable requests from opposition to use terminology consistent with existing regulatory language. However, we have not agreed to changes that would undermine the intent of the bill, which is to give us a seat at the table and codify commitments made via executive and agency action into law. Writing past wrongs requires systemic change. This bill creates the foundation for that change in the water space. I respectfully ask for your A vote.

Hi, Yuki. My name is Scott Quinn. I'm with the Kuduk Tribal Council. The colonization, displacement, and genocide of our people in California contributed to the loss of water resources and watershed management practices that support our traditional food sources and ways of life. California's water rights system, based on the first-time, first-and-right principle, has historically overlooked the true first inhabitants of this land and original water users, California Native Americans. This complete oversight, coupled with state-sponsored actions that remove Native Americans from their lands and their waters, has systematically excluded tribal nations from crucial decision-making processes concerning our state waterways. AB 2218 provides legitimate statutory basis to advance policies that respond to historical harm. 2218 does not ask the state water board to do something foreign to its mission. The water board already has a tribal consultation policy. It already has racial equity resolution. California already has a government to government consultation act. What AB 2218 does is put those commitments on firmer legal ground and water rights context, where the exclusion of tribes has done enormous damage to our people, our fisheries, and our rivers. For too long, California water decisions have treated tribes as stakeholders after the fact, rather than sovereign governments with ancestral cultural, ecological, and legal interests for the waters at issue. AB2218 helps correct that by aligning state water law with the consultation and equity principles the state already has adopted. This bill is not about changing the trajectory of California agencies It about making sure the trajectory continues with clarity accountability and respect On behalf of the Kodak tribe I respectfully ask for your A vote on AB 53

Good morning. Alex Loomer on behalf of the Ramamucha Tribe of San Francisco Peninsula, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Environmental Law Foundation, the Environmental Protection Information Center, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Trust for Public Land, all in strong support. Thank you.

the Water Foundation, and Audubon California in strong support. Barry Nelson, Golden State Salmon Association, in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Katie Hawkins with Trout Unlimited and CalTrout, in strong support.

Good morning Matthew Baker with Planning Conservation League in strong support.

Scott Webb on behalf of Resource Mill Institute, Mona Lake Committee, Save the Bay, Save California Salmon, Mid-Clamath Watershed Council, and Friends of the River in strong support.

Okay, thank you. Now we are inviting up lead witnesses in opposition to this bill. You're welcome to come forward. And each of you have two minutes. Thank you. service in California. We are respectfully opposed to AB 2218 because the bill calls into question water supply reliability for millions of Californians. We recognize the bill is intended to give tribes a seat at the table, and we really agree with that notion. We want tribes to be part of the decision-making process. However, AB 2218 does more than gives tribes a seat at the table. If this were simply a consultation bill or a bill that codified existing practices into statute, we would not be opposed. The sponsors and authors have acknowledged to us an intention to upend existing and future water rights practices. The inclusion of the word permits in the bill and the testimony you just heard says as much. We are very concerned this bill does more than its stated purpose. The bill will likely impact a wide range of water projects. The vague and seemingly far reaching impact of the bill make it difficult to ascertain the nature and magnitude of its impact on water supply What is clear is that the uncertain impacts results in an uncertain supply for projects that can range from recycled water to potable reuse to the state water project In fact the policy will touch pretty much every decision made by the state water board or one of the natural resources agencies. That means that every bill considered in this committee requiring water board or CNRA action is going to have to be reinterpreted by a regulator through the lens of AB 2218. How will inequities be addressed when these projects receive approvals? which regulatory mechanism applicable to these projects will be used to compel state agencies to address those inequities. The bill answers neither question, and we believe the impact will fall across the spectrum. We don't know what that means for big or small project viability across the state. AB 2218 is too vague to adequately and fairly track implementation. Some certainty is needed to implement any state policy to avoid litigating every phrase and term. According to the sponsors and as stated in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee analysis, it would be up to the tribe to determine whether a state agency has probably addressed past inequities when revising, adopting, or establishing policies, regulations, permits, or grant criteria. The proposed amendments to include a mediation process do not change that outcome because if a tribe feels that a state agency has not properly implemented the bill, a tribe could still challenge that state agency action in court after the mediation process. State agencies acting in good faith to address inequities would depend on a subjective determination by the impacted tribe or tribes. Given the bill's vagueness and the unfettered access tribes will have to challenge every decision, we can only assume the bill will be bad for statewide and regional projects. Ma'am, you need to wrap up. We strongly urge your no vote. Thank you. Good morning, Chair. My name is Amber. I'm with the Association of California Water Agencies. We've had an opposed and less amended position on the bill since it was introduced. From the beginning, our amendments merit language that's already in existing law and from similar types of policies. For example, the governor's executive orders include guardrails that make clear they're not enforceable against the state or its agencies. Likewise, the human right to water law uses the word consider and explicitly says implementation can't infringe on the rights and responsibilities of public water systems. We believe the amendments to be reasonable because they reflected an approach that's already been taken in California state policy. Since then, the bill has changed, and with the amendments being taken in this committee, it appears that any disagreement would now be elevated to a mediator. by raising issues to the Office of Tribal Affairs. That raises even more questions for us about what implementation is expected to look like. As written, the bill directs 29 different entities to implement this policy, but it doesn't provide implementation guidelines or measurable outcomes. That includes agencies like CAL FIRE, the California Coastal Commission, the California Energy Commission, and even the California Science Center. The committee analysis says agencies would have discretion in identifying inequities, But that discretion isn't in the bill's text. So our question is, who ultimately decides whether those inequities have been adequately addressed, especially when agencies are balancing competing priorities during droughts, emergencies, or other critical situations? For example, the bill includes stored permits. During a severe drought or wildfire emergency, the State Water Resources Control Board may approve a temporary emergency change or emergency water diversion to provide drinking water or support firefighting. How would AB 2218 be implemented in that situation? If the California Energy Commission needs to issue a permit for a renewable energy facility, how does this bill align with the existing tribal engagement consultation processes? We want to be clear we support addressing inequities. Our concern is that AB 2218 does not acknowledge an existing framework that's in place to address these issues. For those reasons, we ask for your no vote today. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Anybody else in the room wishing to come forward and express your opposition to the bill? Please come to the microphone, state your name. the organization you represent, and your position. Thank you so much. Good morning, Chair. Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities, respectfully opposed. Thank you. Good morning, Chris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully opposed. Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, in respectful opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Alex Barron, California Farm Bureau, also in respectful opposition. Good morning, Beth Olasso on behalf of the Water Blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley Advocacy Fund, Western Municipal Water District, Mojave Water Agency, and Western Growers Association in respectful opposition. Thank you. Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Corona in respectful opposition. Taylor Trifo on behalf of a variety of agricultural associations in opposition. Chloe Shay on behalf of California Environmental Voters. We're actually in strong support. Thank you. Brittany Barsai on behalf of the California Special Districts Association. John Kennedy, Rural County Representatives of California in opposition. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Well, we'll bring it back to the Committee of One. And I'll just say thank you, Assemblymember Calra, for bringing this policy forward. It is important that we recognize our history in this state and the actions that have negatively impacted Native American tribes. This policy is a step toward recognizing where inequities still exist in the water policy space and then doing what we can to address them. The bill also issues a formal apology to California Native American tribes and declares it the policy of the state to recognize and address identified inequities regarding access to and control over water caused by harmful state-sanctioned acts. It requires a set of state agencies, which include the State Water Board and the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, to implement this policy in the policies that they adopt. The opposition, as was just expressed, is concerned that this policy creates uncertainty for the programs within the state agencies, but it does seem clear to me that the state agencies have discretion in how the policy is implemented, and there's always a balance between how prescriptive legislation is and how much we leave it to state agencies to determine the policies that they adopt. So I'm sure there is much more to come on this topic, but I just want to thank the author for bringing it forward and for the engagement. So with that, I'll turn it back to you to Close.

I vote at the appropriate time. Okay, well thank you. At the appropriate time, we will vote. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Assemblymember Gibson. This is AB 1795 as file item number one. Welcome. Thank you. You're welcome to begin when ready. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and staff. I want to start off by accepting the committee's amendments, and I want to thank the committee and the chair for their work on this bill. Assembly Bill 1795 established a uniform statewide standard for inspections, for testing and remediation of residential property damage by smoke exposure for wildfires. California has experienced record-breaking wildfires, including the devastation of the Eden and Palisades Fire, which destroyed thousands of homes and left many contaminated by smoke and other hazardous substances. Smoke damage is a crisis for thousands of wildfire survivors who are afraid to go home because of toxic contaminations. Right now, there are no consistent or enforceable standards for how smoke damage should be treated or cleaned. As a result, many survivors see their insurance claims delayed, reduced, or denied altogether. After wildfire, recoveries should not be dependent on homeowners' ability to navigate complex insurance disruptions while their lives is already turned upside down. Insurance companies are required to restore homes to their pre-loss conditions, but without clear rules, that process is inconsistent and often unfair. Today, there are no minimum requirements for how homes are inspected, how smoke contamination is tested, when a home is considered safe, or who is qualified to do the work. With the absence of these standards and inconsistent insurance practices, homeowners or tenants face these difficulties and have a hard time reentering their home. This bill would create a comprehensive statewide framework to ensure consistency, science-based handling of smoke damage claims by establishing a science-based health-driven standard for inspections, testing, and restoration of smoke damage homes, creating a uniform insurance claim handling practice and require restoration protocols, developing a health guidelines to determine when a home is safe for families to return back to their homes Designating the appropriate state and local agencies to implement and enforce these standards provide immediate relief by allowing survivors to reply on local public health agencies standards for smoke testing and restorations while statewide standards are being finalized. California would be the first state to create a standard base on public health and science, serving the nations as a model. Assembly Bill 1795 established clear standards and rules so homeowners are protected and survivors are safely able to move back home to a restored home that are safe from health risk. With me to provide supporting testimonies, an individual who self-introduces the Deputy Commissioner for Consumer Services with the Department of Insurance and the Deputy Insurance Commissioner in the Department of Insurance. Good morning, Chair Blake Spill, members of the committee. Josephine Figueroa, Deputy Commissioner and Legislative Director for the Department of Insurance, under the leadership of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. Commissioner Lara is a proud sponsor of AB 1795, a bill that finally brings statewide clarity, consistency, and accountability the way smoke damage claims are inspected, tested, and remediated after wildfire. On behalf of the Commissioner, I want to thank Assemblymember Gibson for authoring this important bill, which establishes enforceable standards to smoke damage claims, protecting families who have been left navigating inconsistent and often inadequate insurer practices. I'd also like to state that Department remains committed to continuing to work with all stakeholders as the bill moves forward. Department values the expertise and perspectives of survivors, insurers, environmental health professionals, and community organizations, and we will keep engaging closely with them to refine and strengthen this framework. California wildfire is now year-round. Fires are larger, faster, larger, faster, and more destructive than ever. The Eaton Fire in Altadena and the Palisades Fire in Pacific Palisades alone destroyed or damaged more than 16,000 homes. These two fires are fundamentally different from what California has historically experienced. They were not remote forest fires. They were two of the largest and most destructive urban interface fires in our state's history. They burned directly through dense neighborhoods, exposing thousands of homes to unprecedented levels of smoke, soot, ash, and toxic combustion byproducts. We have never seen smoke damage of this magnitude in an urban setting. The scale and proximity of these fires created indoor contamination that survivors, insurers, and even environmental health experts have struggled to assess because no statewide standard exists. Today, California has no enforceable statewide standards for testing or remediation smoke damage. As a result, survivors face inconsistent claims handling, denials, and disputes over what must be tested, what levels are safe, and when a home is habitable. To address this, Commissioner Lada convened a smoke claims remediation task force last summer, bringing together advocates, industrial hygienists, restoration experts, and public health. Thank you. And on behalf of Insurance Commissioner Gullada, I'd like to ask for your aye vote. Okay, thank you so much. Madam Chair Tony Signorelli Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Insurance I here to answer any technical questions that may come up Okay so no testimony Okay thank you Well now we go to those in the room who are wishing to express support for this bill Please come forward and state your name, the organization you represent, and your position. Nobody in the room? Okay. We will now go to the opposition, if you'd like to come forward. You each have two minutes. You're welcome to begin when ready. Good morning, Madam Chair, member of the committee. Allison Aidy on behalf of the Personal Insurance Federation of California. AB 1795 is an enormous bill, one that tackles a very challenging and complex issue. We're currently in an opposed and less amended position while we continue to iron out operational issues with the bill, particularly around the potential cost and the clarification on legal standards. The industry agrees that greater clarity around remediation standards and the expectations for them are needed in the smoke claims realm. It's an area that has ballooned in numerosity and severity over recent years. This is why both PIF and APCIA participated in CDI's smoke claims task force last year, understanding the importance of a thorough investigation of all aspects of this emerging problem. Based on those prior discussions and the continued collaboration around this bill, we believe there are real and achievable solutions to our continued concerns. We have not yet reached concrete solutions, but we are hopeful that we're near that point. Should these not be resolved, however, it is essential to know that this bill has the potential to drastically increase the cost of insurance across the state for all policyholders. It's for that reason that we're grateful to the author and CDI for their continued commitment to addressing this problem. As I said, smoke is a complicated and technical issue, one that is inherently emotionally charged given the catastrophic events of last year's LA fires. However, solutions based in emotion do not result in thoughtful long-term solutions. It's essential that the solution to this problem is not a response only unique to the situation of one fire, but consider the statewide impact and application in the future. The author has pulled together various stakeholders to engage a comprehensive conversation. This is the only way we'll reach a meaningful and lasting solution. Again, we appreciate the ongoing conversations with the author and the department and are hopeful that we can reach a resolution soon. Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee, thank you. My name is Jane Lawton Potel with Eaton Fire Residents United, representing more than 4,000 residents whose homes survived the Eaton and Palisades fires but were and continue to be contaminated by toxic debris. We all agree on what AB 1795 should do, set science-based, health-based standards for when a home is safe to reoccupy after a wildland urban interface fire. Smoke contamination is a public health and safety issue, not a matter of perception, and is documented by science and is covered under current California law. That is why this bill matters and why it must be written to deliver real protections for fire survivors. Insurers already have a legal duty to investigate covered losses and restore homes to pre-loss condition. That obligation isn't new. What's broken, though, is the enforcement. Carriers have delayed restricted testing and dodged responsibilities they already owe. This bill doesn't create new liability. In fact, it demands the existing liability finally be met. consistently, promptly, and with real confidence. Science. Three weeks ago on the assembly floor, the author agreed to take three critical amendments. We have seen no progress and these issues remain unresolved. Furthermore, AB 1795 still references trade and industry standards for determining when a home is safe to inhabit. The industry body behind those standards told the legislature in writing on March 7th that it does not yet have these standards for WUI disasters. Science-based protection cannot rest on standards that do not exist. Additionally, the bill's protections only switch on for policies issued, amended, or renewed after AB 1795 takes effect. A homeowner whose policy renews just before the law takes effect could be hit by the exact same fire as a neighbor whose renews just after and received no protection at all simply due to the timing. Let me be clear, this is not about retroactivity. It is about closing a gap so that a family's protection depends on the fire they survive, not the paperwork cycle of their policy. Finally, until 2028, insurers can send their own contracted vendors to clear a home with no disclosure requirement. Homeowners need transparency now. We have engaged at every stage in good faith. We ask this committee to hold AB 1795 until these critical deficiencies are addressed. Thank you. Okay, thank you for your testimony. Anybody else in the room wishing to come forward and express opposition, please state your name, the organization you represent, and your position on the bill. Denny Ritter with the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, aligning my comments with my colleague from the Personal Insurance Federation, urging opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Member. Kim Stone, on behalf of Consumer Watchdog and a group coalition all in a very respectful oppose unless amended position. 301 Organics, 350 Conejo, San Fernando Valley, 350 South Bay, Los Angeles, 350 Southland Legislative Alliance, AAM Eaton Fire Recovery Advocates, BAN, SUP, Civic Sundays, Clergy Community Coalition, DINA Rise Up, Eaton Fire Collaborative, Eaton Fire Renters Coalition, End Child Poverty, California, Green Faith, Hello Claire, Inc., Holly Wyman Design, Joan Collaborative, LA Voice, Leap of Faith, Family to Family Support, Little Tokyo Service Center, Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy, Maeve, Mount Washington, Glassville Park, McCain Consulting Services, My Tribe Rise, Pacific Film Foundation, Pasadenan's Organizing for Progress, Resilient Palisades, San Diego 350, Sonoma County, Climate Activist, Network and 484 individuals whose names I won't read, I promise. That's a long list, Ms. Stone. Thank you. Good morning. Sherry McHugh representing the Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies, Opposed and Less Amended, and look forward to continuing to work with the author. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Member Cleo Blutenthal on behalf of the California Community Foundation in a respectful Opposed and Less Amended position. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? No? Okay. Okay. Well, Assemblymember Gibson, I want to thank you for your work to address the many challenges that have arisen from the aftermath of the L.A. fires and beyond. It's really important that we address this with the right framework and protections for those who are impacted and also for industry. I appreciate the work you're doing to address many of the outstanding concerns coming from impacted communities, and I hope to see more done to ensure that we are being protective given the various experiences of wildfire survivors that have been shared with us As chair of the EQ committee I want to acknowledge that we are primarily focused on the health and safety aspects of this but we also recognize the broader implications of this work I'm aware that we will be hearing a very similar bill next. The author is in the room, and there may be some duplications under Cal EPA, which I'm concerned about. For very practical reasons, it seems there will need to be some reconciling of overlapping issues and work under the agency that we oversee. And I also understand that there are concerns with how the standards in both bills will apply in the context of insurance. Going forward, I hope to see a commitment from you and Assemblymember Harabitian about resolving the issues that remain to make sure that we are appropriately responding to the impacts of such fires and ensuring that we are using our state resources responsibly. So today I will be supporting this bill, and I look forward to seeing how this bill evolves and complements the other bill and addresses the very important issues that you're tackling here. So with that, I'll turn it over to my colleague, Senator Menjivar, to make any comments or questions. Thank you. Similar to the chair's point, and I appreciate that the other author is here too, so I don't have to repeat myself. I think both of these bills can't exist the way they are and get to the Senate floor. I would have hoped that before the last policy committee, we would have had an agreement on how to move forward with the bills that aren't duplicative. But I do know that this bill at least went through the insurance committee and had conversations with the trades. So I do appreciate at least this bill that is impacting the trades actually had them at the table. So I recognize at least with your bill, you were able to have those conversations there. But Assemblymember, in the previous insurance committee, I asked you a couple questions, and the opposition seems to have the exact same concerns that haven't been addressed yet. So I'd like for you to go over two particular things. The things that you committed to on the Assembly floor, you know, our word is very important, and it's been a while now since the Assembly floor that you've gone through policy committees, and I don't think saying I'm still committed to have conversations is good enough now. So I'd like to hear a little bit more about some of those commitments. I also asked an insurance committee regarding the concern that this is only going to impact or help those who change or alter their policies. After this goes into effect, you said that that's not the case, but opposition brought that up again today. So I think I need further clarity because last week I was told that that wasn't the case, but they're continuing to bring it up. So if you can address some of those things, again, because I said a lot, what you committed to on the assembly floor, my question regarding this only being, I guess, prospective in a way that only if you alter your policy once this goes into effect. And the last thing I'll throw at you is the analysis. You know, I'll go back to my third question. I'll start there. So thank you very much for the question. We're working with a big coalition, and we actually just even recently met. So we're working with a big coalition, and I still stand by what my commitment was to take in the issue about asbestos and also lead. And so we're working and working over the summer to bring, again, still with the coalition to make sure there are, and I want to also refer to the technical person that's here on behalf of the insurance commissioner. We have a huge coalition We trying to make sure we get this right As was mentioned this is a big bill that will set a national standard for how we deal with smoke damage And we want to make sure that we get it right. And there's a lot of complexities to this particular. I made a commitment, and I still stand by the commitment. But we want to make sure we get it right and make sure that, one, all the stakeholders, because it's a big coalition. It's a coalition with insurance carriers. It's with the EPA, with the fire marshal, and the whole nine yards. And we bring those individuals together, and we have scientists and science base that's part of it. We just can't just put the amendments that's in it and making sure that we do it right. And so I stand by that, and it's going to be added to it. But we want to make sure that when we do it, that we do it with the intense, very specifics, with the insurance commission, with the insurance industry. And we want to make sure that we add everything that we need to add into it all at once. Where are your current thoughts right now on the presumption? I know the analysis talked about the rebuttal presumption. Yes, I want to defer to the technical.

And then can we put on the record clarity for the opposition on who will be eligible for this?

MS. REGARDLESS IF IT'S RENEWED BEFORE OR AFTER THE BILL? MR.

I just want to, and I'll come back to you, I just want to make sure because this was brought up last week, and it just sounds like we're going to go back and look to confirm. I wish we would have looked to confirm in this past week to have a better answer. I just got the same exact response that I got last week. I just want clarity.

Through the chair, if I could go to the opposition. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for addressing this because it is important. We are looking at trying to create some protections until EPA creates those standards, right? So we've got a good year until that happens from yesterday. So we need to make sure that if there is a fire in the interim, that those people who have renewed their policies prior to the bill actually passing still have protections. because otherwise a homeowner who renews their policy now and then the bill passes and then a fire happens in October, we're concerned they will not get the same coverage as someone who renews their policy after the bill passes and then the fire happens, right? So there's a pocket of people that we are concerned about whether or not they're going to get adequate coverage, even if they have the same policy. So thank you for addressing this. I hope we can continue conversations. I just want to also address the fact that I appreciate these commitments that have been made. We are concerned whether or not the language in those commitments, and we haven't seen them yet, we're concerned whether or not they will meet what it is that we're trying to ask for having met, whether or not they will be effectual in the way that we are asking them to be. So that's why it's important for us to be able to see that language before time runs out on this bill. But I do appreciate there is a large committee behind this working with you, and I'm excited to hear that. The last thing I'll say about that is that – sorry, so many thoughts running through my head. The presumption is really important. It is really, really important. And so if people don't people are litigating with their insurance companies over every single contaminant that's being found in the wildfire debris And if we don't have that presumption in there, it's going to be considerably concerning for our community We did provide language for all three of these commitments to your office and to EQ To review so I just want to put that out there that, you know, we have language presented. So if you're having trouble finding language, I hope you will review that. Thank you. The other thing I would say on the other side is the industry concerns that I think are also very important. And most of those questions that I have are going to be for the next bill because the presumption isn't there. But I do recognize that there is cost and there's ability to abuse, if I'm not mistaken, that and the cost concerns. So it's a really wonderful ballet balance you're doing here, or not ballet, but you know what I mean, of trying to both provide relief to fire survivors, but the concern of the trades of landing this in a place that doesn't increase the cost dramatically. I see the willingness in this conversation to keep going. Again, I'll just reiterate, I wish these bills would have landed before. And I'll just say now that allowing the bills to go out to continue these conversations, we'll continue to do that. But on the floor, I'm really hoping that we don't have the same scenario that we're in right now, because I think that's going to be really hard for members to vote on both those bills. But hopefully in the next month, while we're on vacation, you're continuing to work to address these issues. Thank you. And I mean, I'll just ask you kind of the open-ended question of how do you see these two bills harmonizing? Do you see areas where that could happen? Well, like I said before, and I'll continue to say this, you know, I support Mr. Herbedian's bill. I support my bill. And I see both of these bills ending up on the governor's desk. I see both of these bills supporting and wrapping its arms around California, because California will continue to have wildfires. And I see both of these bills supporting and getting the maximum support for California's residents and having maximum support to making sure that no one falls through the cracks and they receive the maximum support. That's what I've always said and will continue to say moving forward. I honor Mr. Herbedian and his leadership supporting his residents. And for me, I'm being selfish. I also have relatives who have lost a great deal, who lost everything in this fire. So I'm championing my family who has lost everything. So I'm not immune to this. It has reached my family as well. So I am championing their loss, their dreams, and everything has been lost as well. I want to make sure that no one will ever suffer. I have visited not only my family's loss, but also walked into a home who have suffered smoke damage, who family cannot return back to their 100-year home because they can no longer go back and have dinners, Christmas. Their home is riddled with smoke. I had to wear, I felt like a Martian on the moon, walking with a space suit, you know, and my heart just bled because their family can no longer, you know, live and sleep in that house. So I'm not just carrying a bill, we're setting a standard. When the governor affix his signature on a piece of legislation hopefully it two pieces of legislation that the rest of the nation will follow what California does So we walking through this methodically strategically, because what we do, everyone will follow what California does, and we want to make sure we get it right. And so to the witness who spoke in opposition, yes, I'm taking my damn time. I'm taking my time to make sure we get it right. There's conversation taking place. And when I stood on the green carpet on the floor, I made a commitment and no one in this damn place can ever say that I have gone back on anything that I've ever said because I made it my business to making sure that I make promises that I can keep. And I want to make it very clear that I made a promise, and I made three very specific promises that I'm going to stand by because I am the author. I own this bill. No one else does. There's a sponsor, but I own this bill. And I want to make it very clear. So as we walk through this bill, as we walk through this bill, we're walking through it very carefully to making sure that residents of the state of California are in fact protected. And all the stakeholders that we will meet with and continue to meet with, that we want to make sure that we hear their voices, that's part of this process, because this will be the model moving forward. Okay, well, thank you. That was a rousing close, if that was your close. It was. Okay, thank you. Well, I appreciate your hard work on this. I do think that there is ongoing hard work to do, because the two bills do duplicate each other. So, of course, there are many different scenarios. If both bills do survive and make it through, ideally they would serve distinct purposes, so they wouldn't be having the overlap, and that would mean there would need to be some shedding of certain parts of the bills in order for that to happen. But both bills could also merge to create a workable compromise. So we'll all be waiting to see what happens. So with that, when we get a quorum, we will go ahead and vote. And thank you again. I respectfully ask when I vote. Okay, thank you. Okay, next we have Assemblymember Harabitian. This is filing number 2, AB 1642.

Okay, you're both welcome to come forward. You each have two minutes and you're welcome to begin when ready. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee members. My name is Theo Takay. I'm a geochemist at Caltech in the group of Professor François Tissot. Our research group uses specialized instruments to measure concentrations of elements in samples. Immediately after the Eton fire, we found very little information to assess the risk of returning to potentially contaminated houses. Our group, many of whom were displaced by the fire, therefore started working on this problem. I led a team that worked with local residents to collect and analyze more than 300 samples from 52 homes in the region and we studied the composition of dust found inside homes and structures and measured the concentrations of most metals including lead Our results revealed high levels of heavy metals and particularly lead in the dust collected in standing homes in Altadena but also much farther than expected including as far away as seven miles downwind of the burn area. Contamination was highest near entry points such as windows and doors and and even after cleaning about 10% of surfaces still tested above EPA limits. Another abundance of evidence from thousands of studies shows that lead exposure has dramatic health effects, especially for children. At high levels, lead exposure is lethal. At lower levels, it results in impaired cognitive development, skeletal issues, and cardiovascular issues. We also observed elevated levels of other heavy metals such as antimony, zinc, cadmium, chromium, and arsenic in the burn area but also downwind. Each of these metals has its own impact on the human body. Arsenic is a potent carcinogen. Cadmium causes damage to the kidneys, lungs, and bones, and so on. This research shows that we have a major gap in the risk assessment and remediation of smoke damage by urban fires and wildland urban interface fires, or WI fires. First, we lack established standards for clearance for many of the toxic contaminants released by the fire. And second, even for lead, which has clearly established clearance guidelines, the Eaton Fire has revealed a lack of clarity over when testing should be required. These issues have endangered the local community and highlight the need for a clear science-based response protocol following WI and urban fires, where the fire fuel contains such toxic materials. AB 1642 provides such a framework, and I respectfully urge an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. And you're welcome to begin when ready. Thank you. Good morning, Chair, member of the committee, and Assemblymember Herbedian. I am Audie Vasquez Ramirez, an Eaton Fire survivor from Altadena, and a member of the Eaton Fire Residence United. Before the fire, my health was completely different. Since returning to the affected area, my respiratory health has been compromised after repeated exposure to dust, ash, zoos, and environmental contaminants. contaminants. When I returned to inventory my belongings, I unknowingly exposed myself over and over again every time I lifted clothing, furniture, or personal items to photograph them. I was also breathing in contaminated dust and ash. I went to the emergency room more than seven times for respiratory problems, and I was hospitalized for five days as a result. In fact, I'm currently experiencing another flare-ups this week, which is why you may hear me coughing today. This is not only about me. My two and three-year-old grandchildren are exposed every day in this environment because many families like ours do not have another safe place to go. Since living in this environment, my grandchildren frequently cough and experience other symptoms from contamination. Those are only the short-term health impacts. Based on similar examples, we know. that there may be the long-term serious health consequences for children. Children should not have to live this way after a disaster. Even after all available remediation, the efforts were exhausted. My home continued testing positive for legs. That showed me that a home can look clean and is still not safe. As demolition, digging, hauling, and rebuilding continue, fine particles and contaminated dust is put into an air again and again. Ma'am, I'm so sorry. For families like mine, the disaster did not end with the flames. It went out when the flames went out. That's why I respectfully urge you to vote yes on AB 1642. Thank you. Thank you for sharing your story. Others in the room in support, please come forward to the microphone, and you can express your name, the organization you represent, and your position on the bill. Good morning. Cleo Bluthenthal on behalf of the California Community Foundation in strong support. Thank you Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities in support. John Kennedy, rural county representatives of California in support. Good morning Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in support. Good morning Kim Stone for Consumer Watchdog and a bunch of others. 350 Conejo San Fernando Valley, 350 South Bay Los Angeles, 350 Southland Legislative Alliance, 805 UndocuFund, AAM Eat and Fire Recovery Advocates, After the Fire, Altadena Act, Altadena CoLab, Altadena Community Land Trust, Altadena Earthseed Community Land Trust, Altadena NAACP, Altadena Recovery Team, Altadena Tenants Union, Altogether, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, Asian Pacific Environmental Network Action, Beautiful Altadena, Biomax Environmental, BLU Educational Foundation, BW Builder, California Black Power Network, California Green New Deal Coalition, California Integrative Therapy, California Interfaith Power and Light, Campfire Collaborative, Catalyst California, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Applied Ecological Remediation, Champion Cleaners, Civic Sundays, The Change Reaction, Chris Jefferson Builders, Clergy Community Coalition, Climate and Wildfire Institute, Coalition for a Safe Fire Recovery, Collaborate Pasadena, Community 3.0, Conservation Strategies, Courage California, Day One, Eat and Fire Collaborative, Eat and Fire Renters Coalition, End Child Poverty California, EnviroScience, ETA Lambda Omega Chapter, Fire Safe Palisades, First Unitarian Church of San Jose, Environmental Justice Ministry Team, Glendale Environmental Coalition, Green Faith, Holly Wyman Designed, HPP Cares, Huntington Asthma and Allergy Center, Idle Dot, Indivisible, Alta Pasadena, Drone Collaborative, Kids and Teens Medical Group, LZ Design Group, LA Region Community Recovery Organization, LA Voice, Lalo Vargas, Leap of Faith Family to Family Support, Lyft LA Little Tokyo Service Center Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy Los Angeles County Office of Violence and Prevention McLean Consulting Services Meteorite Real Estate Miramar HOA Miramar Homeowners Association NetFresh Neighborhood First Responders NRDC Pearls of Compassion Patient Equity Advocates Relationships Love and Support Pacific Film Foundation Pacific Palisades Community Council Pali Power Palisades Recovery Coalition Pasadena Community Job Center Pasadena Tenants Unit Pasadena Altadini Ivy Foundation Pasadena's Organizing Progress, Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles, Pediatric Firestorm Team, Plants Community LA, Public Council, Reclaim Our Power, Resilient Palisades, Rise Economy, Rogue Food Unites, Sander Architects, San Diego 350, Sonoma County Climate Activist Network, Sunita Jane Anti-Trafficking Initiative, Town of Superior United Policyholders, ARIU Architecture, Utility Wildfire Survivor Coalition, VITA Mobile Clinic, Extreme Athletic. Wow. Thank you. Okay, those who are lead witnesses in opposition are now welcome to come forward. Oh, yes. Okay, we are going to quickly establish a quorum because we have one. It's always useful to do that. So please call the roll. Senators Blake Spear? Present. Blake Spear, present. Valderas? Here. Valderas, here. Allen? Here. Allen, here. Daly? Gonzalez? Artado? Menjivar? Here. Menjivar, here. Okay, great. We have established a quorum. So now we'll turn it to you. You each have two minutes. You're welcome to begin when ready. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee now. I am Allison Ady on behalf of the Personal Insurance Federation of California. This bill has posed significant insurance concerns since the March 2nd amendments. Despite representations that this bill is not about insurance or does not impact insurance, this bill has significant insurance impacts. The testing requirements under this bill would primarily occur within the context of an insurance claim, where the testing remediation plan and remediation execution all take place. In spite of these facts, AB 1642 has received zero insurance analysis in either house. The presumptions added to this bill last week have made this bill fundamentally unworkable. The non-rebuttable presumption is, in effect, strict liability for insurers if leather asbestos are found in a home. It is a core tenant of insurance coverage that causation is key. By removing the requirement that causation be tied to a compensable loss, this bill opens up the ability for any homeowner downwind of a fire to submit a claim and an insurer must cover the remediation. This does not consider distance from the fire, meaning a home 100 miles from the fire could be entitled to the protections this bill creates. The combination of the strict liability and lack of any geographic limitation in its application have led some carriers to question whether they would be able to underwrite homes with pre-existing letter asbestos at all. For those that are willing to write those homes, the carriers would have to presume that a home could be entitled to a policy limits demand given the presumptions and causation. More and more companies are seeing policy limits claims without a single ember touching the home some have reported a 200 to 400 percent increase from the standard smoke claims cost only eight years ago we understand that the assembly mem is is seeking to provide greater protections for his constituents in the wake of a catastrophic event but the outcome of this bill would further limit access to insurance for all and potentially make it cost for those that insurers are willing to take We are told constantly that affordability is the highest priority of the legislature in the last couple years. Bills like AB 1642 directly undermine that goal. For these reasons, we remain respectfully opposed. Thank you. You're welcome to begin when ready. Good morning, Madam and Chair. Karen Collins, on behalf of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, I'm going to focus on the testing framework and how it interacts with the bill's geographic impact area. While our industry supports clear science-based standards, the bill establishes a highly prescriptive one-size-fits-all testing regime, requiring testing across numerous indoor locations, including attics, HVAC systems, and behind walls, and for a very broad list of contaminants, regardless of conditions. Now, this departs from current best practice, which is targeted and condition-based, guided by proximity, observable impacts, and professional judgment. The concern is compounded by the bill's impact area or downwind ash zone, which lacks clear boundaries. Together, these provisions create an open-ended impact map, triggering testing across a broad, undefined set of properties, including those potentially with only background-level exposure. The bill also conflates detection with damage. many listed substances do exist at low levels in everyday environments. So without baselines or clear causal link to wildfire, testing may identify presence without establishing whether remediation is even necessary. We are also seeing repeat testing and remediation cycles in practice where post-cleanup testing, in many cases often driven by solicitations or fear and conducted well after reoccupancy, may identify trace contaminants that may reflect background conditions or that recontamination leading to additional remediation requests. The bill just does not distinguish between these scenarios. Although before environmental quality, the combination of the broad geographic scope, mandatory testing, and presumptions has direct insurance implications as noted. It expands what is treated as wildfire-related damage without requiring that clear causal link noted that does drive up costs and can delay recovery. I underscore ensure support science-based standards, but they must be targeted, evidence-driven, and aligned with how contamination behaves in real-world conditions. So as drafted, this bill applies that unbounded testing framework to an unbounded geographic area, which is what makes it very difficult as that combination. So we respectfully oppose this bill as drafted. Okay, thank you. Anybody else in the room wishing to express opposition? Please come forward to the microphone. Good morning. Sherry McHugh, representing the Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies, opposed to the bill. Thank you. Good morning, Anna Buck, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors and respectful opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Annalie Augustine with the Civil Justice Association of California, respectfully adding on opposition due to last week's amendments. Thank you. Okay, great. We'll bring it back to the committee now. Um, Senator Manjavar, did you want to start it off? Um, my first question is going to be to the opposition. Can you clarify if the recommend or what the bill is asking to do is part of the CDI's working group recommendations? No, it is not. Is all of it outside of the recommendations? There are components that the working group had sought out, such as establishing clearance standards. that part of the bill we are supportive of this has a much broader application than 1795 but that piece we think is at least going in the right direction The testing standards are well outside of what the working group had come to To the author, given the working group was put in place by CDI to come up with some solutions on this, I'm wondering why the bill didn't stay within the framework of the stakeholders with expertise or just came together for these recommendations.

My next question is around the opposition's talking about the undefined or no definition on the boundaries. You can imagine for any kind of industry that's worrisome. We should have exact parameters and define it.

To the opposition through the trip, I can, given the amendments, won't that then define and create a boundary? It's not a concrete boundary because we don't know what the criteria that they're going to be looking at when they determine that zone is. The zip code, to clarify, is not an industry-requested amendment. Those were the Assembly Insurance Committee amendments that were made based on their experience and best judgment. That did not come from us, and that was in 1795. I would also like to clarify, if I may, there were scientists on the task force, the California Department of Public Health, the L.A. Department of Public Health, as well as multiple industrial hygienists who do this every single day. Okay, so while the amendments are going to create standards on what would be considered that boundary, there's no set requirements of what to be considered in setting that boundary? There is. And so with the amendments, the boundary will be defined within the fire perimeter. So you have the fire scar, and that is going to be determined by CAL FIRE. So those are the experts on determining that And then the adjacent downward ash zone would then be defined by Cal EPA and the experts within the rulemaking setting But it's impossible, and each fire is different, right? So technically speaking, the downward ash zone will be dependent on the actual fire. And what we will do and what the rulemaking process will do is we'll have actual maps and the science showing where did the fire go, where did the contamination go, and set it based on that, which will have to be backed up by presence of soup, char, ash, some sort of contaminants from the fire. And every fire is different, though. So the process and the rules would be the same. The map of the individual fires will obviously be different, but it will be a uniform process, a uniform set of rules that would depend on the fire. Okay. I have two more questions, Madam Chair. Is the testing. There's concern that testing happens post-occupancy, and now there's a direct assumption, even though testing happens post-occupancy, that it comes from W, U, U, I. Right. Yeah, so the wildland urban interface, which is not a very easy acronym to say. Yeah, WUI. So this is sort of the heart of, I think, the debate, which is this presumption, right?

the analysis pointed out and what could be done, I'm wondering if you could speak on any of them

I do. And I am committed to those suggestions. I'm working with Mr. Gibson on trying to marry the bills. Frankly, we are having now constant meetings between him, my staff, the Department of insurance is at the table. And we think that there is a clear path forward. And we think that we are going to get to that place. And I'd like to thank the assembly member for all his work and the department. And we do think that where this ends up in a real concrete way is our bill is establishing the testing and clearance standards and the presumption and the zone that is affected. And his bill actually incorporates that and continues to lay out the other elements of a smoke claim. And I think that when we do land at that spot, and again, I think we've been working in good faith to do that, I think everyone will be happy. And I'm hoping for that. Maybe that's Pollyannish. Maybe it's, you know, not going to be the case. But I think we need a little bit more time. I mean, we, I think a seminar, Gibson said, we're going to be meeting over the summer where everyone's gone. We are going to be working in earnest to get this right. And I would appreciate more time. But I think your question and your point is a good one, and I take it to heart. And we're hoping that an imperfect process, and it has been imperfect, actually gets perfected in the coming weeks. Okay, thank you for those great questions, Senator Menjivar, and also really insightful answers. Thank you. We'll go to Senator Allen.

Well, first of all, I want to recognize the intent of this bill. And having grown up in the San Fernando Valley and Santa Clarita, wildfires have been a part of life my entire life, as I can remember. My family has had to leave during a fire, and that question of when to return is always something that you're thinking about and wondering, is it safe to return? I also think back to the Northridge earthquake and remember living outside in our car for a week while we went through that safety assessment program, which is what we call now the tagging of homes. It just blows my mind that we don't have this process for wildfires. And that's the simple question for me, right, is why do we not have this process? I recognize, though, that this is a big bill. This is a it's needed, but there are going to be there is going to be a cost benefit analysis here. And so I'm going to be supporting this bill because I want to see it move forward. I think it's important, but I have some concerns, especially around affordability. And I and I but I do want to know from the opposition, you know, is there any other states that have this type of program? I don't know if that exists. Whether it's for wildfires or for hurricanes, flooding, you know, is there any other state that is doing this where they have a program that works? And is there another approach that should be considered when it comes to balancing, not only ensuring it's science-based, but that it's practical and it's affordable? Karen Collins with APCIA.

We absolutely will. And, you know, can debate the particulars of the Utah fire and that being a forest fire, not an urban fire. But the point is well taken. We will continue to deal with this issue and come on, come to an agreement with the experts. And that's, I'm not the expert. We ensure that the bill allows the experts to make those determinations. So, yes. Okay, thank you. Any other comments, questions? Well, I appreciate this robust discussion. Thank you to the witnesses. I appreciate that example of a full statewide or continent-wide smoke, because that is a reality that we see, unfortunately, increasingly. And I also just want to say thank you to the witness who came and shared your personal story about, I think, giving voice to the many people who feel unsafe in their home now, a year after the fire, and what that means in a daily way. You know, that really centering the victims who are still living with that is just such an important part of this picture. So I appreciate that you were willing to share that, and I think it's emblematic of many people's stories. So we will, of course, continue this conversation. The depth and the complexity is enormous. So thank you for diving into this. And I think since we do have a quorum, we will go ahead and take a vote if we have, after you close, if we have a motion. So with that, I'll turn it back to you to close. No, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you again to the committee and the senators for the great discussion and the questions respectfully ask for an aye vote Thank you Please call the roll Oh we need to have a motion Okay Thank you Senator Menjivar moves the bill The motion is due passed as amended to appropriations Senators Blakespeare Aye Blakespeare aye Valadares Aye Valadares aye Allen? Daly? Gonzalez? Artado? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. It's 3-0. We'll keep that on call. And I think you're presenting possibly for Assemblymember Wix. And as we transition, this is a file item AB 1976, number 17. But as we transition, we'll go ahead and call the roll on number one and also on the consent calendar. So file item number one was AB 1795 from Gibson. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Senators Blakespeare? I don't think we have a motion quite yet. So we can wait until we have a motion. Okay. Senator Menjabar moves the bill. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Falderas? Not voting. Allen? Daly? Not voting. Gonzalez? Artado? Menjabar? Menjabar, aye. I'll move the consent calendar. Oh, okay. Thanks. Okay, and we have the vice chair has moved the consent calendar, So let's call the roll on that. Anytime. Anytime. On the consent calendar, we have AB 1486, AB 2481, AB 2739, AB 2032, AB 2549, AB 2577, AB 2776, and SCR 180. Senators, Blake Spear? Aye. Blake Spear, aye. Fowler Darius? Aye. Fowler Darius, aye. Allen, Daly, aye. Daly, aye. Gonzalez, Artado, Menjivar, aye. Menjivar, aye. Okay, that's 4-0. We'll keep that on call. And just so that we have accurate expectations of time, right now we are hearing AB 1976 from Assemblymember Wicks that is being presented by Assemblymember Harabitian. And then after that, we are going to Assemblymember Aguilar Curry's three bills that she has filed, items 7, 8, and 9, in whatever order she prefers. So with that, we'll turn it to you to present.

Mark Fuchs, on behalf of Streets for All. I know that there's a number of members waiting, so I'll be brief. The premise of this bill, what this comes down to is what process should safety and livability and environmentally beneficial projects should have in terms of both public process, in terms of environmental process, in terms of just general procedural steps that happen in advance of construction and delivery of those things. And so, you know, with specific regard to this committee's jurisdiction and scope, the bill does a number of things. But with regards to pedestrian malls, and if you're not familiar with pedestrian malls, these are areas that have been pedestrianized, oftentimes roadway space. Probably most well-known in Sacramento is K Street right by Mayuela is a pedestrian mall under the Pedestrian Mall Act of 1960, as well as Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, Mariachi Plaza in Los Angeles and Murphy Street in Sunnyvale just as a number of a handful of examples and so the question before us is whether those pedestrianization efforts should have to go through a CEQA environmental process and what we're saying with this bill is that we don't think it should have to do so and that it should be easier to pedestrianize spaces to make spaces that are more livable, more walkable and to emphasize small business activation as well. So with with that in mind and with this the smaller scope of the bill after Senate local government committee when I just Acknowledge that we've removed a number of opposition included including the League of Cities off the bill And at the end of the day, we're just trying to deliver more safeable livable and better communities. Thank you Okay, thank you. I appreciate the testimony anyone else in the room wishing to express support now is the moment. Please come forward

Good morning. Nina Walau-Harwell, AARP California, in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On behalf of Assemblymember Wicks, please vote aye.

Thank you. has done its best to prioritize recharge and wet years, but somehow over the past decade, the process has become more complex. Our agency has participated in DWR and NAWQA's Sacramento Valley Flood Diversion and Recharge Enhancement Working Group, which has brainstormed ways to improve the state's permitting process and has vetted AB 2026. Our irrigation district is a conjunctive use district. We use surface water and groundwater to grow food. Surface water comes from our upstream reservoirs and Cache Creek during wet years, groundwater is our savings account for dry years. We are constantly trying to optimize our system to divert excess winter water in Cache Creek to replenish groundwater using our unlined earthen canals. We're considered to be the most successful applicant of the state's 180-day temporary permits, and we are not using the 90-20 water availability analysis. Of the 11 years that we've submitted 180-day temporary permit applications, we've diverted winter water in seven years, all while protecting downstream users and the environment. And the diversions have totaled greater than 42,000 acre-feet, again, utilizing a unique watershed water availability analysis. In 2015, the first time we submitted a 180-day permit, we spent two months in pre-consultation with the State Water Board, CDFW, DWR, and the Bureau, and we received an eight-page temporary permit six days later with nominal fees. This last year, the 11th time submitting a permit, we received the 30-page, 125 days after submitting it, 30-page permit, and the fees were about $35,000. AB 2026 will be very helpful to advance groundwater recharge protecting communities during dry and critical years in a way that protects downstream water right holders and the environment Thank you Thank you Good morning I Kristen Peer an attorney with BKS Law Firm representing the Regional Water Authority and the Northern California Water Association, who are the sponsors of AB 2026. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on this very important issue, which is California's ability to adapt to a changing climate and ensure water supply resiliency into the future. The bill is focused on one thing, ensuring that more diversions to groundwater recharge are occurring at times when it is wet, so that our systems are more resilient when it is dry. Groundwater recharge is a cost-effective, scalable solution to improve water supply reliability for communities, agriculture, and the environment alike. Increasing the pace and scale of groundwater recharge is essential to achieving sustainability in the face of climate change. Despite a decade of efforts, additional legislation is needed to remove barriers that currently exist to permitting water diversion for recharge and allowing for unpermitted diversions of flood flows for groundwater recharge. AB 2026 builds on previous legislation and incorporates many of the previously contained provisions and executive orders to help facilitate what we hope will be the next generation of groundwater recharge projects throughout California. The changes include refining the process for unpermitted diversion of flood flows by expanding access to divert water when a river is operating for flood control, while also ensuring protection for downstream users in the environment. And it also provides the State Water Board with the tools that it needs to improve permitted recharge by refining requirements for temporary permits and midterm permits, and also for creating a structure for obtaining a permanent permit that will account for and recognize previous work and investment in groundwater recharge through obtaining at least five years of temporary permits. Both approaches to capturing flood flows and permitted recharge in AB 2026 will protect existing water rights, including the state and federal projects and environmental needs. I appreciate the committee's consideration of the bill, and I am available to answer any questions that the committee members may have. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Member. Ryan O'Jackie, I'm with the Regional Water Authority. Proud co-sponsor. Thank you, Assembly Member.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Jeff Neal, representing the Board of Supervisors of Yolo County, also in support.

Good morning. Sam Bivens for Semi-Tropic Water Storage District. Just want to thank the member for her commitment to addressing her concerns and looking forward to the amendment process. Thank you.

My name is Mateo Kushner and I here on behalf of Community Water Center Clean Water Action and Leadership Council to respectfully oppose AB 2026 unless amended We work with communities across the Central Coast San Joaquin Valley and Coachella Valley that depend on groundwater for their drinking water Many have experienced both severe flooding and widespread well failures, so we understand the importance of groundwater recharge. We support expanding recharge where it is done responsibly and in a way that advances long-term groundwater sustainability. However, we are concerned about the approach this bill is taking to facilitate responsible and sustainable recharge. First, we have concerns about the process used to develop this bill. While there was some initial outreach when the concept was first introduced, many organizations representing groundwater-dependent communities and systems were not included in subsequent discussions as the language was drafted. Continued engagement with the organizations represented here in opposition today could have led to a more productive dialogue and potentially some degree of consensus on the bill's language. language. Second, we are also concerned that the bill could undermine groundwater sustainability by allowing recharge credits that overstate the amount of water actually available for future pumping. For overdrafted basins, the proposed approach taken in Water Code 1242.1 fails to account for natural loss during recharge, and more importantly, it increases reliance on an uncertain water supply. Rather than treating water-diverted pursuant Water Code 1242.1 as available for extraction, the majority of water recharge should be reserved for basin health and addressing groundwater overdraft. We also recommend caution in making significant changes to temporary water right permitting at this time. The state's water right system was largely developed under hydraulic conditions that are no longer valid due to reduced snowpack, earlier runoff, increased precipitation variability, and more frequent extreme weather events. Before pursuing such changes, California should first fully understand how its water right system needs to evolve to reflect climate change and increasingly variable hydrology. Last, streamlining permitting and environmental review for recharge runs the potential risk of contributing to further groundwater degradation if the appropriate oversight is not put in place to ensure no risk of further degradation. The Department of Water Resources is currently mapping safe recharge sites, and that work should be completed before pursuing large changes to recharge permitting. Proceeding ahead of DWR's assessment could undermine efforts to identify the most appropriate and protective locations for groundwater recharge. We look forward to working on amendments. Until then, we respectfully oppose AB 2026 unless amended. Thank you.

Chair Blackspear and members of the committee, Cynthia Cortez, Policy Program Manager with Restore the Delta, testifying in opposition of 2026. AB 2026 creates broad sweeping CEQA exemptions and weakens the State Water Board's ability to establish conditions when granting permits for groundwater recharge. By assuming that existing standards are sufficient to protect public trust resources, the bill overlooks the critical reality of California's water crisis. The Delta ecosystem is in critical ecological collapse.

Kim Delfino on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife. We have an opposed unless amended position.

Barry Nelson, Golden State Salmon Association in opposition. Thank you.

Scott Webb with the Resource Institute and Friends of the River in a pose position. Good morning.

Molly Colton, Sierra Club, California, in opposition.

Good morning. Katie Hawkins with Troughton Limited and CalTrial, opposed and less amended. it. Good morning. Jamie Miner on behalf of Turlock Irrigation District. We're a bit of a tweener

Buenos días, señor presidente y miembros del comité. Mi nombre es José Bobadilla. He sido residente de Valverde de 1982. Compré mi casa en el 1994, donde vivía muy cerca del veterinario en el 2002. Inicie mi negocio y era dueño de un restaurante y yo mismo era cocinero. Comencé a experimentar síntomas de salud en el 2016. and the My problems with my hands begin to feel so that I can't use the knife to cut food with pressure. My health problems made me lose my business because I couldn't cook or operate my restaurant. After I asked my house for the hard work that I bought, I thought I would retire a house where I lost everything I invested.

You don have to

No.

Now I'm living with my family and I'm asking for them because I'm so... I'm going to get back to bed and I can't keep myself with my own hands.

My name is Jose Bobadilla. I have been a resident of Valverde since 1982. I bought my house in 1994 where I lived very close to the landfill. I started my business in 2002. I owned a restaurant and I was the cook. I started experiencing health symptoms in 2016, tremors that have gotten worse. My symptoms worsened when the disaster at the Chiquita Canyon landfill started in 2023. I developed many other health symptoms as well. Headaches, nausea, dizziness, stress, tingling and numbness, very high blood sugar, difficulty breathing and cardiovascular issues. My hands started to shake so much that I could no longer use a knife to carefully cut my food. My health problems caused me to lose my business because I could no longer cook or operate my restaurant. Then I lost my home, a home I worked so hard to buy, a home I thought I would retire in, a home where I now lost everything I paid into. Now I am living with my family and depending on them because I'm so sick. I have become disabled and can no longer support myself. AB 28 will help prevent these landfill disasters from happening in our communities. I will help protest residents' health. It will create a community fund to hopefully help people like me to be able to move away and no longer have to live in a toxic landfill air. Nobody should have to suffer the way that I am suffering, the way our community is suffering. Please help us. Please vote yes on AB 28. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of AB28. My name is Valila Barajas, and I am a resident of the community of Avenal and a member of Avenal CARE, which stands for Community Action for Restorative Equity. I am here today in solidarity with the community surrounding Chiquita-Caña Landfill and all landfill communities around the state. I support AB 28 the Landfill Safety Act because the impacts of toxic landfill pollution does not stop at city limits or county lines This issue has no geographical boundaries What affects one community today can affect another tomorrow As someone who lives in a community that experiences these environmental burdens from toxic landfills firsthand, I know how important it is that we strengthen protection for the people who are most impacted. I have lived in Navidad most of my life. About 15 years ago, I started to develop neurological problems along with severe headaches. Recently, I have been diagnosed with cysts on my back and a tumor. I am constantly in pain and experience loss of balance and disorientation. And on many occasions, on the past six months, I have lost my balance, which has caused me to fall numerous times. Living with these health issues has been very difficult. I believe that most of my problems have been caused from living in Avenal next to the landfill. Communities across California are living with the consequences of toxic landfill pollution that threatens our health, our quality of life, and our future. Too often residents are left to carry those burdens, while polluters, landfill owners, and operators are not held to the level of accountability that the communities deserve. We need stronger protections that put people first.

Okay. And we need prevention and early action to prevent disaster like Chiquita Canyon landfill fire in Avonah from getting out of control. Thank you.

Well, quickly, these two jars are with compost, and one's clean compost, one's the other. It's got plastic in it, and unfortunately, we've sat these holding onto these for all these meetings, and it hasn't broken down at all, the plastic. So it's life right there in front of our eyes. You know, I'm a farmer, and dirt's important to our farms. So I just want to thank you for the thoughtful discussion. I do know that we will be working together trying to figure this all out. this bill is about making sure our compost system actually works the way California is expected to. When something is labeled compostable, we all think that it's going to be compostable, but guess what? We just got to make sure we can trust that it will break down and not harm the compost stream. I just want to thank you again for all your hard work. We'll make sure that AB 1812 will provide clarity, protect compost quality, and support the long-term success of our organic recycling system. and just to point out is Ms Pistone has worked in this field for years I been out to the vineyards in the past and just to see the incredible work that they do with composting There no one that can match what the family has done by having their farm and trying to figure out what to do with all the dirt and everything else And so I just want to just say there are people out there that are doing this, but it is costly to do that. So thank you. With that, I ask for your eye vote.

for performance standards. Since 2011 California consumers have paid a carpet recycling fee when purchasing carpet. This fee funds the Carpet America Recovery Effort or CARE, which carpet manufacturers manage under CalRecycles oversight. I started working on this issue back in 2022 when a carpet recycling company reached out to me about a plant in my district was ultimately closing down. That is why I introduced AB 863 in 2023 to increase transparency, accountability, and support of the California's consumer-funded carpet recycling program. The bill today before you takes the next step to ensure those reforms are implemented effectively. AB 904 improves governance by requiring more balanced representation on CARES' governing board. This bill also expands access to collection sites and strengthens product labeling and material disclosure standards so recyclers can better identify and sort the materials. AB 904 requires CalRecycle to adopt the regulations mandated by AB 863 by January 1, 2028 to keep implementation on track. Per committee feedback from last year, this bill also strengthens reporting requirements around funding for apprenticeship programs which are vital to ensuring effective carpet recycling. AB 904 is the product of multiple years of negotiations and represents a carefully negotiated agreement between care, labor, environmental organizations, retailers and manufacturers, recyclers, and CalRecycle. This bill provides needed cleanup to pass legislation and ensures effective implementation of our state's carpet recycling program. Key word here is implementation. With me to testify in support of this bill is Jason Schm... How do I say your name?

Oh yeah.

Oh okay. Just substituting, sorry. And Randy Pollack.

Wrong. Go ahead. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you very much, and thank you to all the people that have been working on this for years.

Good morning. I think it's morning. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. First, I want to thank the Chair and your amazing staff, committee staff, for working with me on this bill. I'll be accepting the committee's amendments, which clarify definitions for what accounting methods are allowed and that this does not apply to EPR programs and where these claims may be made. This is a truth in marketing bill. AB 2253 will protect consumers from deceptive recycling content claims by requiring companies that advertise recycled content in their products to be honest about the amount of recycled material used. This bill emerged from a simple premise. If a product has a voluntary claim on it that it's made from recycled content, it should actually be made from recycled content. Currently, companies can use accounting methods to falsely claim that their products contain recycled content, which oftentimes is lower than 1%. In our affordability crisis, California shouldn't be charged more for a product that claims to be green that isn't. Furthermore, this practice undercuts the California companies that have invested billions of dollars in real recycling and product manufacturers that pay a premium for more sustainable materials. We have a high-level agreement over several amendments that will remove some opposition, some of which we are taking as committee amendments and a few that we weren't able to get the final sign-off from stakeholders in time for this hearing. We will, as always, continue working in good faith with the opposition as this bill moves forward. I introduce this bill because California has always been ahead in consumer and environmental protections. We shouldn't be bamboozled by these companies false marketing claims on products that are not green. I respectfully ask for an aye vote and with me here today are Kayla Robinson with Californians Against Waste and Renee Sharp from NRDC Welcome You have two minutes each Thank you Good afternoon Chair and Member Kayla Robinson with Californians Against Waste, the proud sponsor of AB 2253.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today. And thank you, Assemblywoman Bonar, for your leadership in authoring this important bill. I'm here on behalf of NRDC to express our strong support for AB 2253, which would disallow the use of deceptive accounting and marketing schemes that allow companies to claim they're using recycled content in a product when it actually may contain none at all. There are many different forms of such deceptive accounting and marketing schemes, including booking claim and some types of mass balance, and they raise a wide range of concerns. Some of them allow companies to purchase credits associated with material from elsewhere in the gold supply chain that is dubiously labeled as recycled rather than using actual recycled material in their products. Some allow plastic to be turned into fuel and be counted as recycling, a practice which conflicts with California law. While others disadvantage proven mechanical recycling technologies while giving an unfair advantage to other highly polluting technologies that may not be actually doing any actual recycling at all. But all of them have one thing in common. They will undermine public trust in the recycling system. This is a problem because today public trust in recycling is at an all-time low, and we need public trust for recycling to work. The other thing we need for recycling to work is robust, fair markets for real recyclers and a system that doesn't disadvantage California recyclers. AB 2253 is so important because it addresses all these issues. It protects public trust, promotes fair markets, and helps California recyclers. I urge your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Others in the room wishing to express support Please come forward Jason Schmelzer on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council and Stop Waste in support Thank you Stacey Heaton, Rural County Representatives of California, representing 40 rural counties statewide and also for the League of California Cities in support. Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in support. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Oh, one more? Yep. Sorry, my apologies. I thought somebody else was going to do it with me too. Nick Lapp is with Californians Against Waste, but registering support for the Center for Environmental Health, Gaia, banned single-use products, and Clean Water Action. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, opposition witnesses, two of you are welcome to come forward. We have two minutes each. I'm sorry. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Blakespear and members of the committee. Sarah Polamoo on behalf of the California Retailers Association. CRA's members have been at the forefront of implementing the most ambitious, expensive, extended producer responsibility laws in the world. Our CEO, Rachel Michelin, volunteers her time serving on CalRecycle's SB54 Advisory Board and also serves on Circular Action Alliance's California Board. CAA is the producer responsibility organization charged with implementing SB54. We know firsthand how challenging and expensive EPR programs like SB54 and SB707 are to implement. Retailers in California are under 14 existing EPR and stewardship programs, not counting additional proposals working their way through the legislature right now. And SB 54 alone is projected by CalRecycle to cost a minimum of $21 billion, a likely underestimate, and success is still far from certain. A less talked about but just as wide-sweeping, expensive, and important is California's SB 707 textiles EPR, with rulemaking currently underway. The producer registration deadline for that program is actually today, July 1st. And CRA has been very engaged on this as well. It's with that experience we raise serious concerns with AB 2253, a bill that would fundamentally change how accounting methodologies are allowed under California law. As written, AB 2253 will result in more burdensome litigation, ignore the nuance of a genuinely complex issue, and injects more uncertainty into compliance efforts. There are already a ton of uncertainty around SB 54 with recent lawsuits having been filed. We already have strong federal guidelines against false advertising. This bill does not achieve its stated goal. It undermines existing laudable efforts to protect the environment and consumers. The bill's broad language and unclear definitions open the door to opportunistic lawsuits that will leave businesses confused and less willing to invest in PCR, post-consumer recycled content. The opposite of what sound policy should encourage. With all of California's environmental laws already on the books, we should be incentivizing recycled content, not enacting haphazard rules that undermine the creation of new recycling markets to achieve circularity. We urge the committee to set this bill aside so the legislature can engage more thoughtfully with industry experts, stakeholders, and consumer groups. CRA stands ready, as we always have, to help build that path forward. Thank you. You have two minutes, too. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Adam Regley on behalf of the California Chamber in opposition. I want to begin where we agree with the author and sponsors. which is if a business is making an environmental marketing claim about recycled content there should be recycled content in the production of that product We offered amends to make that clear They were not accepted. We remain opposed for these reasons. First, AB 2253 creates diverging California standards. It sets accounting rules for environmental claims that differ from the accounting rules companies can use to comply with EPR-mandated laws. Simply put, we don't understand why compliance with an extended producer responsibility law, like an SB54 or an SB707, is not adequate to then make the claim based on the very compliance of those regimes, those program regimes. California businesses are going to already see, as the California retailers noted, massive price increases across these EPR programs. To stand up, SB54, the program recently released, is a $17 billion program over five years. There are some estimates that that's actually an undercounting. These are extremely expensive under the existing accounting rules. They use international standards like ISEC Plus. These manage the costs and complexities across their supply chains. Effectively, California's EPR program compliance should be enough to substantiate an environmental marketing claim. That divergence of standards creates real liability exposure and a recipe for opportunistic litigation. I think the core question before this committee is why is California developing standards for environmental marketing claims that differ from the standards allowed or used for producer responsibility compliance under these other EPR programs. And as the testimony highlights from the sponsors, they're using already existing UCL business profession 7200 or 7500. There are existing remedies if someone is allegedly using false advertising. So we don't understand why disrupting all of these programs and making it more difficult for small businesses, large businesses, and all businesses to comply in California's emerging EPR markets. And for those reasons, we strongly oppose. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Others in opposition, please come forward. State your name, organization, and position on the bill. Faith Conley with Weideming Group on behalf of Carton Council in opposition. Dawn Koepke on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association also opposed. I apologize. I'm not in opposition. I'm actually in support, and I missed the support line. So Mandy Estrella on behalf of RayThink Waste, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Center for Environmental Health, GAIA, Ban Single-Use Plastic, and Clean Water Action. Thank you. Sarah Bridges on behalf of the Can Manufacturers Institute. Thank you. Margie Lee Sampson, advisor, is on behalf of the Toy Association and the California League of Food Producers in respectful opposition. Edwin Bourbon on behalf of Ameripen, the American Institute for the Environment and Packaging, as well as the Flexible Packaging Association and National Lubricant Container Recycling Coalition. Opposed. Thank you. Hello. Meg Snyder substituting for Ferrari Capital Advisors on behalf of the Vinyl Institute in opposition. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Jason Brine on behalf of the National Confectioners Association. We're also opposed. Thank you. Dennis Albiani on behalf of Consumer Brands Association and American Beverage Association, currently opposed. Thank you. Melissa Koslachuk with Western Growers in opposition. Thank you. Lauren De Valencia representing the International Sleep Products Association, currently opposed. Thanks. Nicole Quinones on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association. I just want to thank the author's office, the staff, and the sponsors for their engagement on this bill. on this bill. We are opposed unless amended today, but look forward to reviewing the amendments. Julie Malinowski-Ball on behalf of the American Chemistry Council in opposition. Ivy Britton with the Plastics Industry Association in opposition. Craig Schiller on behalf of the Personal Care Products Council in opposition. Marisol Ibarra-Buslama on behalf of American Impair and Footwear Association in opposition. Taylor Trifo on behalf of the California Grocers and the California Advanced Biofuels Alliance in opposition. Iria Repitian on behalf of the International Bottled Water Association and Plastic Pipe Institute in opposition. Okay, thank you. Now we'll bring it back to the committee. Any comments from my committee members' questions? Okay, well, I'll just thank the author for diving into this difficult topic. I think as you started your testimony with, this is a truth in labeling bill, and I think it really is true that when a consumer is buying something that says 100% recycled and they're picking up a plastic bottle, they're not expecting that there is zero recycled content in it, that it's just coming from a pelletized plastic, and then there's some place in the supply chain, maybe in the cardboard, that's actually recycled. You know, there really is – we do need to be honest about what we're doing, and we need consumers to have confidence in it, and we also need to drive toward actually recycling. So, you know, I understand the opposition's concerns, and, of course, we need to continue to work to make this better, but it really is important that we don't stay 100% recycled when there's no actual recycled content in there. So with that, I'll turn it back to you to close.

Okay, thanks very much. And let's move to the next bill that you're presenting. Oh, actually, we could have a motion on this because we do have a quorum. Okay, Senator Allen moves, and the motion is do pass as amended to Senate Appropriations. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Valderas? Allen? Allen, aye. Daly? No. Daly, no. Gonzalez? Artado? Benjavar? Okay, two to one. We'll keep that on call. And now we're moving on to file item 15, AB 1780, and you're welcome to begin when ready. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. On behalf of Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez, I wanted to first thank the committee and the department. for working with her staff, and she'll be accepting the committee-suggested amendments. AB 1780 makes a simple but important clarification to California's recycling law. It ensures that beverage distributors are not required to pay CRV redemption fees on bottled water or juice that is donated, not sold. Currently, CalRecycle has interpreted the law to require these payments even on charitable donations, including water provided during emergencies at the direction of state agencies. This creates an unnecessary cost and administrative burden that can discourage donations at the very moment Californians need them most during disasters and emergencies. AB 1780 clarifies that distributors are not required to make CRV redemption payments on bottled water or juice donated to California 501c3 nonprofit organizations, including food banks, relief organizations, and other charitable entities. Importantly, this bill also includes strong accountability measures. To qualify for the exemption, distributors must maintain detailed records of every donation, including charitable receipts shipment documentation container information and the amount of CRV that would have otherwise been paid and retain those records for at least five years making them available to CalRecycle upon request This bill does not weaken California recycling program Instead, it ensures that charitable donations intended to provide clean drinking water and juice to Californians, particularly during emergencies and natural disasters, are not treated the same as commercial sales. By removing this unintended barrier, AB 1780 helps encourage continued charitable giving while preserving transparency and oversight. With me today for testimony is Eloy Garcia representing Primo Brands, the sponsor of this bill, Chris McKaylee. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Okay, thank you. Two minutes each. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Eloy Garcia for Primo Brands and Arrowhead Water in support. Very appreciative of Assemblymember Rodriguez's efforts and Assemblymember Borner's efforts today. I'm also thankful to the committee and the regulators for working with us to clarify current law and to deal with the appropriate measures. These donations are an important part of what Primo Brands and Arrowhead and all of our bottlers do in terms of their partnership and the relationship with their communities. They are very proud of these donations, very happy, and look forward to continuing to be those community partners that they are today. So we thank you for your efforts. Thank you for this simple but important bill. Okay, thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Chris McKaylee here on behalf of Niagara Bottling. Also thank Assemblymember Berner for presenting this bill and Assemblymember Rodriguez, obviously your staff, and the folks at CalRecycle. This is very important. Niagara has called upon and gladly donates significant amounts, tens of thousands of bottles each and every year to distressed communities around the state, natural disasters, other needs. This is an important clarification of the law so that we can continue to do so. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Okay, others in support, please come forward. Name, organization, position. Good afternoon, Nick Lappas with Californians Against Waste in support. I read that on behalf of the International Bottled Water Association in support. Okay, thank you. Those in opposition to this bill, please come forward. Lead witness in opposition, you have two minutes. Thank you very much. We're kind of, Dennis Alvian on behalf of the American Beverage Association, we're kind It's a very awkward situation because we like the issue. We appreciate what they're doing for the bottled water and juice industry. And, again, we have the same great relationships with the communities and donate as well and donate lots of water from the members of the American Beverage Association. And we want to thank the author for carrying the bill. The challenge is this issue was created by a change of policy at CalRecycle. The bottle bill is 40 years old this year. And for 38 of those years, they followed the issue, and the analysis is excellent, and it says the requirement to remit the deposit is on the distributor. And that's well documented. It's been in the way for 38 years or whatever it was until they changed. Cal Recycle did an audit on one of the water companies and identified and said, hey, where's your donation? Where's the remittance for the donation? well by the way just because of the law it's on a sale and it on the distributor those are the requirements well this is a donation from a beverage manufacturer So they changed their requirements and put that and moved the remittance onto the beverage manufacturer for donations Probably not legally defensible So we here now trying to make that and put the requirement on to clear that up So this bill actually clears up an issue that was created by Cal Recycle With that, that was a process that had occurred for many, many years. And so what we would like to do is say let's restore the status quo back to how it was done forever and let's make the beverage manufacturers not responsible for the remittance on donations. And by far the most common donation is water. And when you have emergencies, you have that. But when we have first responders on scene of a multi-day fire, if you have any of those things, they don't want to just drink water. They have energy electrolytes, the aid-type drinks. They'll have other refreshments they want. Sometimes they may want sparkling water, a tea, a soda, any of those opportunities, as well as the families that might be sheltered. So we think that this should remove the barrier that this bill would actually create by bifurcating that and give the return to the status quo and give that donation opportunity, socialize the donation opportunity to the unredeemed fund. Thank you. That's over your time. So we appreciate it very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to come forward and express opposition? No? No? Okay. Great. Well, we will turn it back to the committee. I don't see any comments, so we'll turn it back to the author-in-residence. I respectfully, on behalf of Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez, respectfully ask for your aye vote. Okay. Great. Thank you. We could move this bill. Senator Allen, did you make a motion? Okay. So the motion is due pass as amended to Senate Appropriations. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. I. Valderas. Allen. Allen, aye. Dali. Dali, aye. Gonzalez. Artado. Menjavar. Okay, it's 3-0. We'll keep that on call. So next, we are going to go to Assemblymember Marisucci. Okay, he's taking the place. He's going in front of you guys to work that out. Okay. And then Bonta's next. Yeah. Okay. Did you get a separate indication from them, Senator? Senator? Did they contact you outside? I mean, at this very second. Okay, sorry. Go ahead. All right.

Thank you, Chair, and rest of the committee for the opportunity to speak. First it must be said that this bill is not seeking to hasten the closure of any refineries. We have been working these jobs with contracts in place for over 100 years, and we look forward to supplying California's needs for as long as they exist. That said, when business decisions have been made to close, the closure needs to happen in as safe a manner as possible. And that calls for us all to work towards finding a process that secures adequate staffing through a known closure. Unlike what we witnessed with the recent closure in the LA basin and earlier in Santa Maria, where people were worked beyond any reasonable limit, these levels of fatigues can't be sustained when trying to shut down a facility. The nurses have charts that link numbers of hours' work to a specific blood alcohol level, and that's not safe when you're trying to run a plant. It's not safe when you're trying to react to an unplanned event that takes place. To speak more to what actually happened on the ground, here's Laurie.

Okay, thank you. Others in the room wishing to express support, please come forward. Hello, Allison Hilliard with the Climate Center and Center for Biological Diversity and Support. Thank you. Catherine Vieira-Houston on behalf of United Steelworkers District 12, California Labor for Climate Jobs, and USW Local 5 in strong support. Jacob Evans with Sierra California in support. Thank you. Judy Sori with 350 Bay Area Action in support. Ben Eikenberg with San Francisco Bay Keeper in support. Okay, let's go to opposition, folks who want to raise concerns. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Zach Leary on behalf. That's Mr. Interim Chair. Mr. Interim Chair. Yeah, of course. Zach Leary with the Western States Petroleum. Association in respectful opposition to AB 605. I agree with my colleagues from USW that safety is paramount at our refinery operations. Unfortunately, we think this bill is the wrong solution to that. We have some of the most robust process safety management regulations probably in the world as it relates to refinery safety. But I wanted to start with the bill's findings, where it states that in paragraph A, there's a likelihood that more refineries will close in the foreseeable future in line with declining demand for refined products. I think it's important to note that declining demand is not happening. Jet fuel demand is on the rise. Gasoline demand is at about 13 billion gallons a year. We seen about a 1 decline in that But I think the notion that refineries are closing is not some unavoidable market fate They are the result of California policies that continue to drive investment production and energy security out of the state. As many of you know, last year we were directed by Governor Gavin Newsom to work with the CEC to stabilize the remaining refineries that were left in California. We identified numerous policies that make us some of the most competitively disadvantaged refineries in the world. And if the legislature is concerned about worker retention or employment, stabilizing those remaining refineries is going to be paramount. And it starts with doing no more harm. Unfortunately, we've seen numerous bills in the legislature that continue to add new regulations, new mandates that add to that harm, AB 605 included. In the analysis it cites, the need for the bill is worker retention. Unfortunately, 605 is the wrong solution for that issue. One way to retain workers is to retain the remaining refineries you have left to keep people employed. We believe that a lot of the issues outlined in AB 605 are potentially subject to the NLRA, the National Labor Relations Act, and could be preempted by federal law, as many of these issues remain in collective bargaining. And for those reasons, we remain respectfully opposed to AB 605. Thank you. Other folks who want to raise concerns about the bill or just express your affiliation name in opposition? Mr. Chairman, Horacio Gonzalez on behalf of California's Business Roundtable in opposition. Thank you. All right. Let's bring it back to the committee for questions, comments, concerns. I will let you close. We'll entertain a motion when there's more people. Yeah. All right. Thank you, Mr. Interim Chair. Yes.

Do you want to respond to some of the concerns raised by opposition in your close?

Thank you.

Okay, great. Thank you. And I will entertain a motion. Okay. Senator Allen moves and it's due pass as amended to Senate Appropriations. Just clarifying that. Yes. Okay. Please call the roll. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Valideras? No. Valideras, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Dali? No. Dali, no. Gonzalez? Artado? Menjivar? Okay. It's 2-2. We'll keep that on call. Thank you. Okay. So I'm not sure which of you is next, but I think it might be Bonta and then Pappin? But we're going to get I know, but he said it was okay if they jumped in front, right? There's a file order.

Well, good afternoon now because I've been here since this morning. I'm Ms. Margaret Gordon. I'm a resident founder of West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project. I came to a meeting in 1993. I didn't leave to 2024. I've also been from being just a volunteer all the way up to a co-director and I have been involved with no coal in Oakland since 2021. No, 2020, 2011, when the whole base conversion process started in West Oakland. People need to understand the land where they want to build this bulk terminal is on the city side of Oakland, not on the port of Oakland side, and that this coal terminal is adding a new impact to West Oakland. The state of California has spent over millions of dollars in AB617 to reduce emissions in West Oakland. And to have this coal terminal right next to where you have spent all this money to reduce emissions is a contradiction. We should not have coal as a commodity coming to a community like West Oakland, where we know you go to the local elementary school, the school nurse has boxes and baskets full of inhalers with the kids' names on it. The children have to use it before they go outside for recess. We should not have that increase based on the fact we've been working hard to have a decrease since AB 6 plus 7. That is a contradiction. Then on top of that Bay Area Air Quality gave this developer money for a real spurt, but they didn't tell them that they had planned on using coal for our communities. So at all times we don't have a mitigation plan. We don't have community benefits agreements. So this whole thing about coal, this coal terminal is an absolute disaster, and it's going to be a more cumulative impact to a community who has been fighting, And I have been part of that fight for 30-plus years. Thank you, ma'am.

I've been there all night if I had to.

Good morning, Chair and Committee members. My name is Colin O'Brien, and I'm a Deputy Managing Attorney with Earth Justice. I am here to support AB40, the Community First Coal Review Act. Earth Justice supports this bill because it will ensure that enormous, dusty, and dangerous coal facilities will be subject to robust environmental review and full public disclosure before they receive permits. We know from a recent study that coal terminal operations generate harmful particulate matter pollution, including PM2.5 and PM10. The movement of coal trains through a community generates fugitive coal dust. Rail cars parked at a facility also generate coal dust, and coal storage and handling activities at a terminal do the same. Coal dust emissions. are doubly harmful because small particles can cause or worsen lung and heart conditions, and coal dust contains contaminants that are known to cause cancer and other adverse health problems. This bill responds to the Trump administration's plan to fund a high-volume coal terminal in West Oakland, a community that is already overburdened. Alarmingly, the previous outdated reviews for the Oakland Terminal never even addressed the possibility of handling coal. And while one old report did consider a generic bulk goods terminal, it did not address fugitive dust emissions from the project's operations, which is a unique concern for coal facilities, and it contemplated a facility with roughly half the capacity that we're talking about now. Under these circumstances, common sense and good governance dictate that an updated, meaningful environmental review should be completed before any permits are issued. AB 40 would require such review, and we thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Appreciate that.

Alex Loomer on behalf of the Planning and Conservation League, Resources Renewal Institute, San Francisco Policy Action Team, Climate Reality Project, and Scientist Rebellion Turtle Island West, all in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. So today I'm here to present AB 2322, and it establishes a clear definition for commercial, industrial, and institutional sites within municipal stormwater permits. In California, the state water board and nine regional water boards issue what we call municipal separate storm sewer system permits. And I say that because I'm going to give you what they're known for for short, which is MS4. And they govern how cities and counties can reduce stormwater pollution. However, commercial and industrial facilities are referenced differently across these various 12 different municipal separate stormwater systems. And so it results in a patchwork of application enforcement that may not capture all wars polluters. So what this bill does is does three things in its attempt to standardize the definition of CII sites. First, the bill specifies that only privately owned parcels are included in MS-4. Second the bill bases the definition of commercial industrial and institutional on the county assessor land use codes And the third thing the bill does is it excludes all residential facilities including those that are located in parcels that are assigned to a mixed-use definition. With me to testify today is Sean Bothwell with the California Coast Keeper Alliance.

You're welcome to come forward and express support. Me Too's? Yes? No. Opposition? Okay. Anyone in opposition come forward. Good afternoon. Jamie Miner on behalf of the California Stormwater Quality Association. We submitted a concerns letter. We don't have an official position on the bill, but wanted to share a few things. We really appreciate the authors. Why don't you just come forward in a two-minute slot here? So, as I was saying, we appreciate the author's goal of creating consistency here. However, we share many of the concerns identified in the committee analysis. As drafted, the bill creates a statutory definition without an accompanying regulatory framework or policy governing how it will actually be used. This leaves significant uncertainty about implementation and raises questions about whether it could inadvertently constrain the state and regional water boards authority to make a case-by-case permitting decision based on site-specific conditions. Current stormwater permits are intentionally based on factors such as land disturbance, impervious surface area, and the potential of impact to water quality. It's not simply on a parcels tax assessor land use code like this bill is proposing. So as noted in our letter, tying requirements to actual disturbance thresholds is a more protective approach than what's outlined in this bill, in our opinion. So for these reasons, we wanted to share concerns with this bill moving forward. However, we do look forward to continuing discussions on how to best reach the shared goal, which is capturing more stormwater and protecting water quality. So thank you. Okay, please come forward, state your name, position on the bill. Yeah, Chris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce. We joined the letter of concern and echo the comments of CASCWA. And I'll just briefly state that, you know, I think the state water board said it best in the assembly appropriations analysis for this bill. MS-4 permits do not regulate CII discharges, and therefore there isn't anything to define or standardize or update. And the only thing I'll add there is that we would then consider this bill unnecessary. But just stepping back very briefly, this bill would mean something if the state or regional boards began permitting discharges from CII sites. There was a bill run last year that attempted to do that. It failed to pass the legislature. We oppose that because the cost of complying with that permit would have been crippling for businesses, hospitals, schools, churches, and many more. I think the committee analysis does a good job of outlining the complications and confusion that this bill would create Thank you Thank you Okay Everybody else name organization and position Yeah, Andrea Abregel with the California Municipal Utilities Association. We joined the concerns letter and just echo the comments made by Casco. Thanks. Thank you, Chair. Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities, also with concerns. Thank you. Taylor Trifo on behalf of the California Grocers. I line my comments with the colleagues. Thanks. Amber also at the Association of California Water Agencies also with concerns. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We'll bring it back to the committee. Anybody want to make any comments, questions? Senator Allen? Well, I'll move the bill on appropriate. I do want to talk to the author a little bit about some of these issues raised by the opposition, but we can talk offline. Okay. Great. We'll turn it back to you to close.

Of course, yes, thank you. Okay, we have a motion from Senator Allen, which is due pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Senators Blake-Spear? Aye. Blake-Spear, aye. Valderas? Valideris, no. Valideris, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Dali? No. Dali, no. Gonzalez? Hurtado? Benjavar? Okay, 2-2. We'll keep that on call. And we will run through the roll for all who are here to get on the record. Okay, and also, as an announcement, we will have no more bills presented in this room. So we will be moving to room 113 in the Capitol, starting essentially immediately after we finish in this room, 113 in the Capitol. And we'll go through the roll here. We will start with the consent calendar. Senators Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Gonzalez. Artado. Okay, that's 5-0 on call. 5-0, we'll keep that on call. Next we'll go to file item number 1, AB 1795. The motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Current vote 2-0 with chair voting aye. Senators Valderas. Aye. Valderas, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Dali? Not me. Gonzalez? Artado? That's 4-0. We'll keep that on call. Next, we're going to item number two, which is AB 1642. And the motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote 3-0 with chair and vice chair voting aye. Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Daly? No. Gonzalez? Hurtado? That's 4-0. That's 4-0. We'll keep that on call. Next we have item number 3, AB28, and the motion is pursuant to 2910B. The measure is referred to appropriations. Current vote 2 with chair voting aye Senators Valadares Aye Valadares aye Allen Aye Allen aye Daly Lady Gonzalez or Tato That's 4-0. We'll keep that on call. File item number 4, we have not heard yet, so we will go to file item number 5, which is AB 40. The motion is due, pass as amended to appropriations. Okay, everybody here has voted on that one. Okay, so we'll go to number seven, but we need a motion. Okay, the vice chair moves. This is AB 904. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Senators Blake Spear? Aye. Blake Spear, aye. Valderas? Aye. Valderas, aye. Allen? Dali? Aye. Dali, aye. Gonzalez Allen, aye Gonzalez, Artado Menjavar That's 4-0, we'll keep that on call Number 8, next, we still need a motion Okay, on number 8 we need a motion This is AB 1812 Okay, Senator Allen moves And the motion is do pass as amended to appropriations Senators Blakespeare Aye Valderas Allen Allen, aye. Daly, aye. Gonzalez, Artado, Menjavar. That's 3-0. We'll keep that on call. Okay. Next is number 9, AB 2026. Do we have a motion on that? Okay. So the motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote 2-0 with chair voting aye. Senators Valderas? Aye. Valderas, aye. Allen? Gonzalez? Urtato? Menjabar? Okay, that's 3-0 on call. Okay, that's 3-0. We're keeping that on call. Okay, next we're going to file item 15, AB 1780. And the motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Senators Valderas? Oh, sorry. Current vote 3-0 with chair voting aye. 17-80. 15-valid areas aye. Valid areas aye. Gonzalez. Artado. Menjabar. 4-0 on call. That's 4-0. We'll keep that on call. We do 17, but we need a motion. Next we have item 17, which is AB 1976 by Wix, but we need a motion. We have a motion by Allen, which is due pass to appropriations. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Valderas? No. Valderas, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Daly? No. Daly, no. Gonzalez? Artado? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. That's 3-2 on call. That's 3-2. We'll keep that on call. Number 20. We still need a motion on that as well. Okay. Item number 20 is AB-20218. from Assemblymember Calra, and we need a motion on that. Okay, Menjavar moves, and the motion is due. Pass as amended to appropriations. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Valderas? Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Daly? Gonzalez? Artado? Menjavar? Aye. Menjavar, aye. Okay, that's 3-0 on call. That's 3-0. We'll keep that on call. Next, number 21, and we did have a motion for just a second call. Okay, we're next on to item 21, AB 2253. Current vote 2-1 with chair voting aye. Senators Valadares? No. Valadares, no. Gonzalez, Hurtado, Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. That's 3-2 on call. That's 3-2 on call. That is 23. Okay, and our last item is item number 23AB2322. The motion is due pass to appropriations. Current vote 2-2 with chair voting aye and vice chair voting no. Senators Gonzalez, Hurtado, Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. That's 3-2 on call. That's 3-2 on call. and we are adjourning this committee and moving to a different conference room. So with that, recess. Okay, and what's the conference room number again? Okay, we are now in recess and we are moving to room 113 in the Capitol.

Excellent. So now we're going to move to any other me to use and support. seeing none do we have any key witnesses in opposition seeing none we'll bring it back to the committee no questions I just want to thank the author I know this has been a two-year bill and I know you've taken a lot of other one sorry oh this one's different okay so I know but I know you've taken a lot of amendments and worked with opposition to make this a better bill and I really appreciate that and I appreciate your work on behalf of our community. Would you like to close?

Thank you. The motion is due pass to appropriations. Secretary, please call the roll. Do we have a motion? Thank you. Good call. Senator Menjivar moves the bill. Secretary, please call the floor. Senators Blake Spear, Valderas, aye. Valderas, aye. Allen, Daly, Daly, aye. Gonzalez, Artado, Menjabar, aye. Thank you. 3-0, that bill is on call. I see we have an author. We're now going to move to file item number 10, AB 1436 by Avila Ferrias please join us and you may proceed when you're ready thank you Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I'm pleased to present AB 1436. The Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation is one of the several strategies developed by CARB to transition the state's transportation sector to zero-admission technologies. The ACF establishes a series of phased requirements across the fleet categories, including state and local government fleets. CARB has recently put forward changes to the ACF that would extend its requirements to private fleets that contract with public agencies. Under the federal law, states are explicitly pre-exempt from enforcing standards relating to vehicle and engine emissions. But California has been granted a unique privilege by doing so only if they are granted a federal pre-exemption waiver by the U.S. Federal Protection Agency. CARB applied for a pre-exemption waiver for the ACF in November 2023. Due to the unforeseen circumstances CARB withdrew its ACF waiver requirement in January of 2025 Consequently, CARB initiated amendments to ACF in July of 2025 to remove the private fleets that could no longer regulate without waiver. However, in April of this year, those same proposed amendments were updated to include a new provision where private fleets could be included in the compliance requirements for the state and local governments. CARB's authority over private fleets is determined by federal law. This limitation cannot be skirted by an attempt to extend regulatory requirements to private fleets indirectly through contractual relationships. These proposed regulations will damage how public agencies plan, procure, and deliver essential services, leading to increased costs to residents. And in the spirit of affordability, we must be very cautious in these moves. By clarifying that CARB does not have the authority to regulate private fleets through ACF without a federal pre-exemption waiver, AB 1436 provides urgently needed legal certainty to prevent implementation of a regulatory framework that is legally vulnerable and operationally unworkable. Testifying with me today is Nicole Rice, President of the California Renewable Transportation Alliance and the sponsors of the bill, and John Lang, the Director of Environmental Compliance. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, if possible. Thank you. You are each recognized for two minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Vice Chair and members. Nicole Rice, President of the California Renewable Transportation Alliance, and we are the sponsors of AB 1436. This is a simple, straightforward bill. It affirms what is already established under the Federal Clean Air Act, that California cannot regulate private sector fleet emissions without first obtaining a federal waiver. Otherwise, the law explicitly preempts states from regulating vehicle emissions. The bill's clarification is urgently needed because CARB is proposing amendments that would indirectly regulate private-operated contractors through their agreements with state and local government entities. This violates federal law. CARB will tell you that private contractors have always been included under this provision, but let me be clear. This concept was never presented to the CARB board. It was never discussed or voted on when the board first approved the amendments last September and never disclosed to stakeholders despite our repeated questions about the scope and applicability of the regulation. It simply appeared in late 15-day amendments that were released in this April. CARB has also stated that private fleets are no longer subject to the ACF, yet the proposed amendment language treats them as part of the public entity's fleet for compliance purposes. As drafted, their proposal is simply unworkable. We have been told by CARB senior staff that the proposed change will apply to all contracts, all services, and all fleet categories, even those where the operation of a vehicle is not material to the contract. This risks service disruption, increased costs, and essential services, which translates into higher costs for your constituents. It has been suggested that this bill has been rushed and that we've taken the moment of opportunity. But we did not bring this bill to the legislature lightly. We worked with CARB to no avail, and the legislature is our last avenue for oversight and correction. So with that we urge your aye vote for this bill Thank you You right next for two minutes Good morning Madam Vice Chair and members I John Lane I the Director of Environmental Compliance for Tyker Construction I'm here today on behalf of the Association of General Contractors and my company to express our strong support for AB 1436. Tyker Construction is a privately owned contractor and has been building California's infrastructure for more than 139 years. Teichert is California's oldest active contractor with state license number eight. Our 3,000-plus hardworking men and women and the heavy equipment that we bring to complete road, bridge, solar, gas, sewer, and water projects, essential to California's building infrastructure. When the advanced clean fleets, known as ACF, rules were amended by CARB in 2025, we understood that private fleets were no longer subject to the rule. It was after adoption that we learned that CARB staff interpreted that ACF could include mandates that pull our vehicles into the state and local government ACF compliance reporting, even without a federal waiver. This lack of clarity and potential impact to our company and to industry is why we're here today in support of this bill. Contractors perform work for public agencies across the state every single day. Unclear and uncertain mandates on private fleets will disrupt project schedules and increase project costs. Further, our equipment are not always used for one job or one location. We may use a vehicle on several job sites in different agency jurisdictions during the same time period. For example, we may share a specialized water truck on a job in the Long Beach Airport for one phase of a project and then move it into a waterline maintenance project in Burbank. In this realistic scenario, which public ACF fleet should our water truck be pulled into for the company and compliance reporting for each city that's relying on that truck? This creates compliance uncertainty for public agencies and for the contractors getting the work done for them. If private fleets can be pulled into public agency fleets simply because they're reporting to work under a contract, contractors face unclear, premature, and potentially enforceable regulations. So for that reason, passing AB 1436 keeps California building. We respectfully ask that you move and support AB 1436, and I'm available. Thank you. We'll now move to the me-toos in the room. Please come forward, state your name, your organization, and your position only. Good afternoon. Larissa Sennovich here on behalf of the calendar. We've got a strong support. Good afternoon. Jamie Meyer on behalf of Drew Lockyer. of the region district, and the Margarita Water District in Eastern Maine is a lot of sort of needs to support. Thank you. Good afternoon, let's also have the California Business Foundation and support. Hi, good afternoon, Ryan Kinney, the amount of clean energy and support. Madam Chair, Senator, is being on behalf of the range of California and the sort of issues. Dean on the floor, you know the amount of the water district and support. Japanese, the Indian Plains, and the Renewable Natural Gas Association. Good afternoon, Kirk Buckner here on behalf of the Western States Department Association and the California Church Department Association. This is Jack Wilson from Nassim here on behalf of the California Bus Association, the Padre Damage Municipal Water District, and the Leighman High Municipal Water District. Good afternoon, delighted to play on behalf of the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association. Notice what the top is on the top. CRM, our services. Claire Bridges on behalf of Emile Industries. We're going to be part of the Capital of the Conflict Special Districts Association and the World of Hygiene. And we're going to be part of the Association of California and the Association of California. Melissa Sparks, France, the League of California. I'm Abrecha with the California Municipal Utilities Association and support Caitlin Leventhal on behalf of the California State Association of counties and support. Thank you Jessica Gogger with the California Association of Sanitation agencies and support Isha Iyer on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, the City of Santa Rosa, City of Bakersfield, City of Roseville, and the City of Thousand Oaks in support. Thank you. David Krieger for Waste Connections in support. Kendra Dijogo with the Gualco Group on behalf of the Modesto Irrigation District in support. Chris Shimoda on behalf of the California Trucking Association and Waste Management WM in support. Lindsay Goldhorn with the Resource Recovery Coalition of California in support. Shane Levine, Northern California Power Agency in support. Thank you. Do we any more Me Too's? Please come forward in support. Okay. Okay. Seeing no other, we'll now invite any key witnesses in opposition. Assemblywoman, you may want to scoot over one more. You're each recognized for two minutes. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair and Senators. Michelle Kanalis on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists in respectful opposition to AB 1436, which yields state authority over to the federal government and prohibits CARB from enforcing numerous regulations including advanced clean fleets. While ACF has been narrowed since its adoption to only apply to state and local fleets, compliance is still expected to yield air quality improvements and reductions in GHG emissions. In spite of the clear authority the state has to enforce rules for public fleets, AB 1436 attempts to unnecessarily prohibit state enforcement of any rule that directly or indirectly compels compliance by private fleets without federal approval. However, any private fleets that may be required to comply with the ACF rule would only be in such a position because they have intentionally agreed to contract with a regulated public fleet. Contracted fleets were included in the ACF regulation as adopted in 2023, so this requirement is not a new development. This bill would needlessly reverse the progress of not only ACF but other rules that involve fleets like the Innovative Clean Transit Rule. This proposal is also being brought forward at a time when the current federal administration is openly hostile to California and actively hindering the state's ability to advance long stated goals. The exception that AB 1436 seeks is not only harmful but also not warranted given the flexible manner in which the rule was written. There are many exceptions and exemptions that were built into ACF to ensure feasible compliance, including exceptions for daily usage needs, emergency response, delays in infrastructure construction or a lack of vehicle configuration availability or vehicle delivery We would urge the proponents of the bill to address concerns related to ACF with CARB directly and respectfully request the committee not move this measure forward. Thank you. Good afternoon, Vice Chair and members of the committee. My name is Guillermo Ortiz, and I'm the Senior Clean Vehicles Advocate with the Natural Resources Defense Council. NRDC stands with a broad coalition of public health, environmental, and community groups in strong opposition to Assembly Bill 1436. At its core, this bill is a step backward for California's air quality and public health. Large trucks and buses represent a massive source of tailpipe pollution cutting through our communities. We have rules like the ACF in place to transition these fleets into cleaner options, which will save lives and save fleet operators billions in fueling costs over the long haul. AB 1436, as written, wants to strip California of its authority to enforce these rules on private companies that contract with public entities, forcing our state to ask the federal government for permission it doesn't legally need. When California spends taxpayer dollars to hire a contractor, we have every right to insist on clean vehicles. Tying our hands today is a dangerous mistake. We cannot afford to retreat at a moment when Washington is actively trying to kill our climate programs, litigate our rules, and claw back our clean energy funding. This bill uses vague phrasing that could unintentionally halt or reverse incredible progress we are seeing on the ground. Look at our public transit agencies. By 2025, nearly 70% of non-school buses registered in the state were zero emission, outpacing state targets nearly threefold. AB 1436 needlessly puts this momentum at risk. We know that transitioning to clean trucks takes real work, and that's exactly why the ACF rule was designed with flexibility and exemptions in mind. If this rule needs fine-tuning, the place to do it is at the Air Resources Board, not through a sweeping piece of legislation that permanently strips away California's authority. We do not need a permission slip from Washington to protect the air our communities breathe. For the health of our communities and the momentum of our clean energy economy, I respectfully urge a no vote on AB 1436. Thank you. Thank you. We'll now move to any other in opposition that would like to come forward, state your name, your organization, and your position only. Allison Hilliard with the Climate Center and Center for Biological Diversity in Opposition. Thank you. Respectfully. ASHA SHARMA ON BEHALF OF CERA CLUB CALIFORNIA IN STRONG OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. BENJAMIN LUE, AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION IN STRONG OPPOSITION, ALONG WITH THE COALITION OF MORE THAN 20 ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDING SAN FRANCISCO BAY PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, REGIONAL ASTHMA MANAGEMENT AND PREVENTION IN CLIMATE ACTION CALIFORNIA. SOFIA AFIKOA WITH THE COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR IN OPPOSITION. I'm Chloe Shea on behalf of California environmental voters expressing opposition for the Green Lightning Institute, Green Latinos, 350 Sacramento APEN Action and Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. Thank you. Madison Kiefer on behalf of NextGen California, families advocating for chemical and toxic safety in opposition. Thank you. Ada Welder with Earth Justice also representing opposition for Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator, Angeles Business Council and the National Charging Access Coalition. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no others, we'll now move to the committee. Any questions from the committee? Senator Gonzalez Thank you so much and I understand this is presentation only so and we actually going to be voting on this Oh okay it went back and forth My apologies This is how fresh it is Okay Um gotcha All right Well I just want to say um I understand where you coming from Um I you know I represent Port of Long Beach Um I represent um a lot of industry that absolutely needs to understand like you know how fast they can transition A lot of them cannot transition fast enough We certainly understand that I also have residents that are dealing with, we often call the corridor of, or cancer corridor and cancer alley, which is really hard for me to, you know, represent them and feel like, how do we not transition in a way and how do we not ask even the contracted private fleet to be able to transition and ask the same of them. So I cannot support the bill as it stands now, if I'm understanding with no other amendments being made. Just given that I haven't historically supported these exemptions at all, given that we have, you know, we've asked for waivers from the federal government. We're currently battling them now. We have a lot of folks back home in places like Long Beach and in West Long Beach and in Los Angeles, in my area, that are dealing with the harmful effects of pollution. I think we have every right to be able to do this. But also understanding, too, that there's got to be a transition, and we've got to give these industries time to do that. And we have in many cases. CARB has actually provided many extensions to be able to transition some of our tugboats in the ports and some of our major players in the industry. They have done above and beyond, in my opinion. Now, are they perfect? Absolutely not. We all have our issues with CARB. I think every single person in here can say and raise their hand, whether you're on the environmental side, industry side, whatever, and say maybe it's not moving fast enough or it's moving too fast. But I can tell you that we're in a very special place where I think this is not the right time to be able to move this when we have a very hostile federal government and when people are still dealing with the impacts of asthma and cancer, which is really hard. So I won't be supporting today. Senator Manjibar. As a member, I don't I've never seen an analysis where three times it said the committee may wish to hold this bill. It's three red flags mentioned throughout the analysis. I'd like to see if you could address, and I think your supporters talked a little bit about it, the regulation or proposed regulation came out in April, but this was introduced about three weeks ago and recently amended. Such a really big, heavy ask. I'd like to know why I waited a couple of months when this came out to introduce it. I do believe that this requires a lot more conversation to be had. And if you can respond, there's a part in here that talks about why you believe we should be giving or seeding. Give me a second. If one of the oppositions could. Can you start on my first question? sponsor as well we're gonna swap some seats here for a second you don't just one of you great so I think there's half of a question there yeah Jeremy I've dispersed over arching of why I would take you know do a bill and that short window I think overall and I you know we all have different environmental impacts I sit in a district with 60 of California refineries and I also home of John Muir and I feel that we can be both that we can be environmental stewards and we can also be about sustainability but then the undertone of all of this to us has to be about affordability and our constituents and how transitions are implemented and I also think the other undertone that's different outside of traditional policymaking is that we do have an aggressive administration at the moment, and California needs to lean into recalibrating, being independent in the absence of support of the federal government. And so I see this bill as an opportunity for us to be able to lean into a different space to address the affordability of California and also straddle both of being environmentalist and also being about sustainability and being a lot more realistic in our policies. and so carrying the spill is important on many fronts but in particular because we are an uncertain times and it requires recalibring in a different way and with that I will have I speak to the other points yes so Senator Mendevar I think you I believe you asked you know why why did we bring this bill now when it came out in April yes well so as I said in my testimony we We didn't bring this to the legislature lightly. We understand that there are two places to have this conversation, in the legislature and the regulatory arena. The stakeholders involved in this, the regulated community, we wanted to work with CARB. We tried to work through that process because when we originally saw the language for the amendments for the ACF, it included removing the private fleet provisions with CARB stating explicitly that they do not have a waiver, so they don't have the authority to regulate those fleets. So we were shocked when we saw in April that those fleets were now being brought in indirectly through our contractual relationships with the state and local governments and their provision, which is the provision that CARB, that is left in the ACF, that CARB can regulate. So we attempted to work. We are on our second 15-day amendment package. So we worked with CARB, talked with members and staff for the 15-day package that closed in mid-April. And we were expecting to see something that addressed our concerns when the second amendment package came out. That happened in June. When we didn't see anything that addressed our concerns, we as the stakeholders felt that we had to come to the legislature because you exercise oversight authority to that agency. Why was there a shock when CARB has a history of including contracted private fleets back as 2005? The analysis gave three specific examples how they have a history of including this for contracted services. So as it relates to those examples that were in the analysis, it's not analogous with what the ACF is doing. So under the State Contract Act, that is requiring contractors to be in compliance with those regulations that apply directly to them. Not all regulations, rules, ordinances, and such that exist in state law. As it relates to the fleet rules, that requires contractors to provide compliant vehicles for those activities. So if you're supplying transit buses those buses have to be compliant with the regulation that governs how the transit bus emissions should be as it relates to SB 1383 contractors perform a regulated service but they still remain independently regulated on their own on the laws that apply to them. So that's really a delegation of service under that regulation or statute. But ACF is pulling those privately operated vehicles and treating them like they are part of the public agency fleet. They are because they're contracted through a public agency. They're no longer under a private jurisdiction. It's a public entity, and the public entity, it would be like saying every public entity will now have no incentive to meet those requirements and can just contract out for every single thing. When we look at housing legislation, I mean, anything that we do with PLAs and so forth always go down to any subcontractors and so forth. And I think your explanation or answer about the three examples on the analysis, the analysis has a different perspective of how I may give it one example that they can meet their requirements by either utilizing private or themselves. So I would disagree that it's different. It seems very similar in that case. And to the assembly member, my other question I was asking, because you gave, you know, I felt like you were trying to say that we should be a little different than the federal government, but the analysis notes that this bill would put us at the mercy, I quote, mercy of the federal government. I would like to know if you think the federal government is taking us in the right direction, and if the analysis says that this would put us at the mercy of them, wouldn't we want not to be at the mercy of the federal government? I don't think we I think we as legislators having control of our own destiny and I think this legislation is us taking control of what we think is best in the interest of California and so I feel that we have the responsibility to address this problem that's very real as you saw the testimony of how it's going to have the impact throughout the state our municipalities most of us came from city council so we know it very real at the end of the day it's going to impact our constituents and so we have the responsibility as legislators to figure out how to mitigate this risk and again being both that we can be good environmental stewards and also solve a short-term and a long-term problem that we have I think I think it's the responsibility yes of CART to balance both those things but this bill implementing completely steps aside the balancing of the needs of the constituents because you no longer have flexibility CART has history of giving flexibility and I think right now we're only taking into account the needs of one side and what's impacting constituents right now is the ongoing traffic that these fleets cause in residential areas that will no longer be taken into consideration should there be a complete elimination of instilling or reaching our reduction in GHG emissions and so forth. I know that the chair and I wish he was here has committed, well I won't put words in her mouth but I've heard that there's going to be ongoing conversations to establish a community group to get to the bottom of this I know you're trying to balance it as much as possible I think there was no time in the legislature to really get to the technicality of it so I won't be supporting it today thank you so first of all I want to thank you for bringing this bill forward it is important from it came out of some conversations with our problem Solvers Caucus and for carrying this. And for me, this bill is really asked whether or not a state agency, in this case CARB, can bypass the law and impose mandates, essentially from my perspective, through coercion. CARB is effectively forcing companies that want state contracts to transition to zero emission vehicles even though those requirements haven been lawfully applied to private fleets And that means that contractors subcontractors must comply with costly premature mandates and really and or lose work. That's the ultimatum they're being given. And simple. That's from my perspective, coercion. And small businesses can't absorb these costs. They're being pushed into major investments before the technology or infrastructure really exists. And that's very concerning for me. And it's concerning for me when it comes to the cost, not just for for for business and private enterprise, but also the cost that will get passed on to taxpayers. And again, I come back to this over and over. This has not been a responsible transition. And I think this, again, is forcing a transition when we're not ready. On top of the fact that I think it is the responsibility of the legislature to give more direction to CARB on a numerous amount of issues. And that's essentially what I think the heart of this bill is. I can't move the bill because I'm cheering right now. But Senator Dolly will move the bill. would would you like to close thank you and I am thankful for the opportunity and I think this is important discussions that we need to have and you know lean into the space as legislators and so I respectfully ask for an aye vote to continue moving forward thank you the motion is do pass to appropriation. Secretary, please call the roll. Senators Blake-Spear? Valideris? Aye. Valideris, aye. Allen? Dali? Aye. Dali, aye. Gonzalez? No. Gonzalez, no. Hurtado? Menjabar? Two to one, that bill is on call. We are now going to move to file item number 16, AB 1808 by my assemblyman, Correa. Assemblyman, you are recognized when you're ready. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. Thank you for allowing me to present AB 1808. First, I would like to thank the committee chair and her staff for their work on this bill and accept the amendments. I would also like to thank the opposition, who is now neutral, for their willingness to work with me on this bill to come to a solution. Let me be clear, my intent with this bill is not to undo the hard work that went into the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act. In fact, I believe I'm the only member of the legislation in the Joshua Tree range that supported the trailer bill. And that is in part why I feel so much responsibility to make sure that it works well. The western Joshua tree is an iconic species in California that is both ecologically and culturally important. Western Joshua tree span across a large portion of California's desert. I believe it is critical that we conserve such a unique and beautiful part of my district. We need this conservation program to work, and to make it work, we need to make sure local residents who love the Joshua tree can admire and preserve the tree while also still having the ability to do work on their own property and have safe effective public infrastructure The current Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act allows the department to enter into an agreement with any county or city to delegate limited authority to permit the taking of a Western Joshua Tree associated with single-family residences, multifamily residences, and renewable energy projects. This bill adds commercial and industrial projects to the list of projects that can be permitted locally. Additionally, this bill will allow the department to waive fees for the removal of up to 10 trees for single-family homeowners to do work on their own property and up to 40 trees for maintaining existing public works. Public works put in before the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act are pieces of critical infrastructure often surrounded by the Joshua Tree because of how prominent the Joshua Tree is in my district. Currently any maintenance on this critical infrastructure has a high price tag leading to delays in necessary improvements and increased costs for locals who have already low incomes. Similarly, local homeowners who love the Joshua Tree are also unable to work on their own property without paying high fees. The protection of the Joshua Tree is a priority for me and my district. This bill works to make sure that we can protect the Joshua Tree and coexist with the tree. I respectfully ask for an eye vote at an appropriate time, and I do not have any witnesses with me. Thank you. Are there any other me to's in the room that would like to express your support? Please state your name, your organization and your position only. Good afternoon, Madam Vice Chair, members, Nathan Skadson on behalf of the California Association of Realtors in strong support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Horacio Gonzalez on behalf of the Community Water Systems Alliance and the California Association of Mutual Water Companies in support. Thank you. Seeing no others, we will now move to any key witnesses in opposition. Seeing none and no one that would like to register opposition, we will bring it to the committee. We have a motion by Senator Menjivar. I just want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. yes the Joshua Tree is a beautiful part of our community in the high desert I have a photo hanging of the Joshua Tree above my office here in the capital and it's kind of become both a blessing and a curse for so many in our community because of the cost of the permitting process for removing them and whether it's public works projects or private projects it's become very, very, very complicated And I think this is a great balance, and the intent of our committee here in environmental equality is to balance, one, the environment, but also impacts on human life and living in communities. So I want to thank you for that, and I have a motion by Senator Mandervar. Would you like to close? I respectfully ask for an ask. Thank you. Great close. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Secretary please call the roll. Senators Blake-Spear? Valderas? Aye. Valderas, aye. Allen? Daly? Aye. Daly, aye. Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Artado? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Four to zero. That bill is on call. Now we're going to go to file item number 19 AB 2059 by Assemblywoman Wilson. Assembly one, you are recognized when you're ready.

Thank you. You're right. Nice for two minutes. Good afternoon, Madam Vice Chair and members of the committee. Kiana Valentine representing Transportation California, which is a union management organization that is responsible for building the infrastructure the state relies on. I want to reiterate Ms. Wilson's thanks to the chair and the committee staff for working with us on the agreement that allows us hopefully to move this bill out of committee today. I want to start my comments by grounding the discussion in the original intent of SB 743, which Assemblymember Wilson touched on. It was meant to streamline CEQA to make infill development cheaper and to update how we analyze transportation impacts. It was not intended to stop critical transportation projects on the state highway system. And unfortunately, because of the rigid way it's being applied, it is, in fact, stopping and increasing the cost of projects. So we are doing less with our scarce taxpayer resources The VMT mitigation issues are especially acute in rural areas which Which has been recognized have travel patterns that are shaped by geography long distances and have limited alternatives Frankly you can't in many rural areas get to work school health care and basic services by walking bicycling or taking transit It is also important to recognize induced demand does not operate the same way in rural areas as it does in more urban contexts. A safety improvement, an evacuation route, a shoulder widening, an interchange improvement is not going to add demand to the system, generate land use development and growth in the same way it might in an urban context. I do want to mention of the 21 counties that would be subject to this bill 18 of those counties are in fact declining in population and so it's really about Allowing these rural jurisdictions to make sure they can serve their communities particularly in a safety in an emergency evacuation space Yeah, a B 29 offers a narrow practical solution and for these reasons we respectfully ask your I vote. Thank you We'll now move to any others in support. Please come forward state your name your organization and your position Chris Schmode on behalf of the California Trucking Association in support Delilah Clay on behalf of the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association in support Seeing no others will now move to any key witnesses in opposition Seeing none anyone else would like to express opposition Seeing none will bring it to the committee Do we have a motion? We have a motion by Senator Dolly. Would you like to close? Thank you.

appropriation. Secretary, would you please call the roll? Senators Blakespeare? Valideras? Aye. Valideras, aye. Allen? Dali? Aye. Dali, aye. Gonzalez? Hurtado? Menjivar? That's 2-0 and still on call. I will ask... Actually, this is going to get pulled, so it needs to be announced that that's been pulled. Got it. And I'd also like to announce that file item 22 AB 2302 by Assemblywoman Rodriguez will be pulled. from the file. I would also now ask any members that want to vote to lift calls to please report to room 113. And we're going to take a recess until we have the chair and members back. Senate Committee on Environmental Quality will reconvene in 30 seconds. Great. Okay, we're going to go through the roll, open the roll call. On file item 1, AB 1795, the motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Secretary, please call the roll. The current vote is 4-0 with Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Senators Daly, Gonzalez, Artado. We're going to place that item back on call with the current vote count of 4-0. Please call the absent members for fire item 2. AB 1642, the motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote 4-0 with chair and vice chair voting aye. Senators Daly, Gonzalez, Ortado. We're going to place that item back on call. Current vote count 4-0. Please call the absent members for file item 3. AB 28. Motion is pursuant to 2910B. Refer to appropriations. Current vote 4-0 with chair and vice chair voting aye. Senators Daly, Gonzalez, Ortado. Aye. Ortado, aye. We're going to place that item back on call with a current vote count of 5-0. We're going to take a little quick pause and other members on their way. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Okay, well, EQ is going to go into recess. We'll come out of recess when we have another person here to finish the vote. Okay, we are coming back from recess so that we can close out this committee. Are we ready? Yes. Okay. Okay. The first announcement is just as a repeat or reminder, file item number 22, AB 2302, from Assemblymember Rodriguez has been pulled, so we won't be voting on that. Okay. So we will begin at the beginning with the consent calendar. On the consent calendar we have AB 1486, AB 2481, AB 2739, AB 2032, AB 2549, AB 2577, AB 2776, and SCR 180. Current vote is 5-0 with Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Senators Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Rottado? Aye. Rottado, aye. Okay, 7-0, and the consent calendar is out. Next, we're on to file item number 1, AB 1795, and the motion is do pass as amended to appropriations Current vote 4 with chair and vice chair voting aye Senators Daly Gonzalez Gonzalez aye Hurtado. 5-0. That bill is out. Item number 2, AB 1642. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote 4-0 with chair and vice chair voting aye. Senators Daly, Gonzalez, Gonzalez, aye. Ortado, 5-0. That bill is out. Next, AB 28, file item 3. This bill has been referred to the committee pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10b. Current vote 5-0, Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Senators Daly, Gonzales, Gonzales aye. 6-0, that's out. File item number 4, AB 2674, the motion is due, pass to appropriations. Current vote 3-0 with Vice Chair voting aye. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Allen? Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Artado? Aye. Artado, aye. 6-0. That bill is out. File item number 5, AB 40. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote 2-2 with chair voting aye and vice chair voting now. Senators Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. 4-2. That bill is out. File item number 6, AB605. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote 2-2 with chair voting aye and vice chair voting no. Senators Gonzales. Gonzales aye. Ritato. Menjivar. Yes, 605. Menjivar aye. 4-2 that bills out. Item number 7 AB 904. Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote 4-0. Senators Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Ortado? Aye. Ortado, aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. 7-0. That bill is out. File item number 8, AB 1812. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote 3-0 with chair voting aye senators Valadares Gonzalez Gonzalez I or Toto or Toto I menge of our menge of our I six zero that bill is out item number nine a B two thousand and twenty six the motion is do pass as amended to appropriations current vote three zero with chair and vice chair voting aye senators Allen Gonzales Gonzales I Rattado Rattado I menjabar 5-0 that bill is out the next item is file number 10 AB 1436 motion is due Appropriations current vote two to one with vice chair voting aye chair Blake Spear no like spear no senator Allen or Tato or Tato I menjivar menjivar no So that bill is 3-3, and it fails. Okay, we're on to item number 14, AB 1600. The motion is due pass to appropriations. Current vote 4-0. Senators Gonzalez. Sorry, 14, AB 1600, Urambula. Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Rittado? Aye. Rittado, aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar aye 7 that bill is out Next is file item 15 AB 1780 The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations Current vote 4-0. Senators Gonzalez? Gonzalez, aye. Artado? Artado, aye. Menjabar? Menjabar, aye. 7-0, that bill is out. Next we have item 16, AB 1808. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote 4-0 with Vice Chair voting aye. Senator Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Allen? Rurtado? Aye. Rurtado, aye. 6-0, that bill's out. File item 17, AB 1976. The motion is due. Pass to appropriations. Current vote 3 to 2 with chair voting aye and vice chair voting no. Senators Gonzales? Gonzales aye. Ortado? Ortado aye. 5 to 2 That bill is out Next we have item number 19 AB 2059 The motion is do pass to appropriations Current vote is 2 with vice chair voting aye Senator Blakespeare Aye Blakespeare aye Allen? Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Ritato? Aye. Ritato, aye. Menjivar? That bill is 5-0 and it's out. Next we have AB 2218, file item 20, and the motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote 3-0 with chair voting aye. Senators Daly, Gonzalez, sorry, 20. Yeah, we did close the roll on 19. Senator Gonzalez for 2218? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Artado? Okay this is the last bill File item 21 AB 2253 The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations Actually it not the last There's one after that. Did you want to announce the final vote for AB 2218? Okay, yes. The final vote for AB 2218 is 4 to 0, and it's out. The next one is AB 2253. Do pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote 3-2 with chair voting aye and vice chair voting no. Senators Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Ritato. 4-2, that's out. And then this is our last one. File item 23, AB 2322 by PAPA. Do pass to appropriations. Current vote 3-2 with chair voting aye and vice chair voting no. Senator Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Rortado? Aye. Rortado, aye. Okay, 5-2. That bill is out. And I thank everybody for your participation. And we are adjourned.