Nat Resources — 2026-07-01 (partial)

Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will come to order. Good morning. If all members of the committee can come to room 113, we can establish a quorum, which we almost have. We have 21 bills on today's agenda. AB 2215 Calderon has been pulled by the author from today's agenda. 10 bills are proposed for consent bills will be heard in file order if necessary we'll recess for lunch reconvene in the same room in the afternoon I'm gonna go present myself over on appropriations and come right back so I'm gonna turn the gavel over to our vice chair All right. Did you already go over this? Okay. So we're going to try to be in file order, but we're also going to take advantage of people that come in out of file order and are the only authors here, which we apparently have that situation right now. So, Mr. Hart, if you would like to come up. Thank you. That way you don't have to nervously look at the door and hope that your colleagues don't come strolling in. Mr. Hart, you are presenting AB 2461, correct?

All right. You may begin when you're ready.

Well, thank you both for being here this morning, and if you could limit your comments to two minutes each, that would be appreciated. We have a lot of bills on the agenda today.

Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, go ahead.

And thank you, both of you, for adhering to the two-minute rule. That's awesome. you're able to get all your testimony in under two minutes a good rule for others to follow at this time we'll take people that are it would like to support this measure come up to the microphone state your name yeah turn around mr. Hart you can see how what is how close it was to you not presenting first good morning

Thanks.

Thank you.

from EPIC Environmental Protection Information Center hi everyone Mercedes Macias Sierra Club California and Center for biological diversity support

morning vice chair members Marissa Hagerman Tratton price consulting registering support for California environmental voters thank you good

Environment California strong support Leo Dale on behalf of the Climate Center and strong support Graham Llewell 350.org strong support good morning Karen

once twice so all right at this time do we have any speakers in opposition to to this as lead opposition witness? I'm going to be neutral if I can testify on that regard, if you don't mind. Okay. Did you want to be lead neutral? Yeah, I'll be lead neutral. I can stand in standings fine. Thank you. My name is Ben Turner. I represent Signal Hill Petroleum. I work for Axiom Advisors. We are, to quote Daniel Barad from the Union of Concerned Scientists in the SB 237 dialogue last year. We are aggressively neutral to this bill When the governor signed AB 1167 he noted that there could be significant unintended consequences that could result in increased risk of desertion due to the bonding restrictions in this bill as reflected in the committee analysis. There have been a significant reduction in transfers that reflect a freeze in assets for oil and gas operators that have reduced the value of their business properties, reduced access to capital, and, in fact, increased the risk of desertion. This bill, however, consistent with, you know, actually a bunch of members from Santa Barbara, AB 1960 by NAVA, AB 2729 by Doss Williams, AB 1057 from Limon, and AB 1866 by Assemblymember Hart. It's a long chain of bills that have strengthened bonding and transfer requirements to reduce the risk of idle wells. So this bill in conjunction with AB 2716, which you'll hear later today, will tighten the bonding requirements for transfers. It will close the corporate loophole that was left by AB 1167. And combined with the two, AB 2716 will provide a feasible compliance pathway that will unfreeze the market and enable operators to consolidate in this difficult regulatory environment. and reduce the risk of desertion. So thank you. That almost sounded like the third person for the proponents. It did. I'm grateful. I got tricked. Anyway, all right. Is there anybody that is a lead opposition for this issue? If not, anybody who would like to come up and express their opposition for this bill? If not, we'll bring it back to the dais. Senator Laird.

I would pause if you want to call the roll for a quorum.

But can we establish a quorum? Thank you. Senators Becker? Here. Becker here. Sayerto? Here. Sayerto here. Alan, Cobaldon, Cobaldon here, Grove, Laird, Laird here, Stern. Quarham is present. And so at the appropriate time, I'm happy to move this bill. Thanks to the author for bringing it. I'm sorry, I was in a, I don't see anybody else here. I was in a 13 and a half hour hearing that ended, I got home after 11 last night and it started at 9.30, so I'm still trying to figure out where I am. You're in the right place at the right time. Thank you. Hopefully this won't go 13 and a half hours today. Well, the thing that happened that you just got around is when we started at 930, I said, I predict we have a quorum at 4 o'clock, and we got the quorum at 3.51. So thank God we're quorumed up here. I'll be ready to move the bill at the appropriate time. Okay. Vice Chair. All right. Thank you very much. So, you know, the cleanup of these orphan wells and wells that are not producing is a big deal. And I think our goal is and has been to how do we get these cleaned up so that we can move on to other uses for that land and do it in an efficient and effective way. and I think the speaker that came up that was semi-neutral pointed out one of the issues is when we pass legislation, we have these unintended consequences that wind up pushing us in a different direction than what we wanted to go in. In other words, slowing down the process. With this particular solution, how does that not slow it down even more? because if I'm one of these corporates that could take over the well and handle it appropriately, but we have these additional costs for the corporation, what's their incentive to do that? And so these wells wind up staying with the people that have no means to do that. They don't have a buyer, and they just wind up being abandoned wells. And when there's abandoned wells, we're the ones that get to be on the hook anyway. So how do we balance that out with trying to incentivize the market so it goes to the people that can actually remediate wells the correct way versus freezing that market out? Because I think the initial foray into this resulted in a slowdown of those transfers. And that's my concern about it is okay. Is this not going to do the same thing on a bigger scale? Are we gonna? Create more disincentive to take those over what's gonna happen here? Well, I'll start with the 40,000 foot answer and then perhaps Professor Madov you can answer more

Right Okay I would just concur with that assessment Mr Chair that you know it there are indeed fewer transfers the data does show that but it has not increased the number of orphaning of wells and I think applying these kinds of standards does prevent orphaning to begin with and ensures that the proper companies are getting these wells that can, in fact, pay for remediation and restoration, which is the other key piece to make that land more productive again. All right, thank you, and now there's two speakers that would have been ahead of you, so it's your lucky day, sir. Timing is everything. Senator Baldwin? Thank you. I am supportive of actually of both bills for some of the reasons that the neutral witness mentioned and also because I want this bill to become law. And so I'm intending to vote for it. I'm going to be contingent on making sure that we advance the other bill as well without a sunset in it. so that we're keeping faith with that agreement, mostly because I think we need both paths, but also because this path is the more important one to me, and I want to make sure that we're doing everything that we can to ensure that it is successful in both making it to the governor and getting signed. So thank you for sticking on this issue. I represent the Brentwood oil and gas field, which is the largest one, the farthest north substantial oil field in the state, And we've had all these problems in every way possible, including ownership issues and transfers and transfers that should have happened. And so we definitely need strong action and every pathway that we can to accomplish the transition and also to protect the taxpayers from footing the bill for irresponsible practices that have been part of our legacy. So thanks, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I'd like to thank the author for your leadership on this issue and making an effort to follow up to address known concerns with the existing law. The oil issue in our state, like other states, is a potential billion-dollar issue for state taxpayers. We have to ensure that we take every step to protect our state taxpayers from paying for the oil industry to clean up after itself when the industry should do so. I am an aye vote with today's amendments. And with that, please, do I have a you-likely close? I'll disrespectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Excellent. Okay. Please call the roll. Senator Specker. Wait, so do we have a motion? motion from Senator Laird okay the motion is do pass as amended to appropriation senators Becker aye Becker aye Sarato no Allen Cabalden Cabalden aye Grove Laird Laird I Stern 3-0 on call at 3-1 that bill's on call. Your others are on consent. Have a good rest of your day. Thank you. Okay, we're going to file an order. We do see Assemblymember Ramos. Mr. Chair, while Mr. Ramos is moving to the seat, I would move the ten items on the consent agenda. Excellent. We have a motion on the consent calendar. Let's please call the roll on the consent calendar. Senators Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Sarato? Aye. Sarato, aye. Allen? Cobaldin? Aye. Cobaldin, aye. Grove? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Stern? Forty-zero on the consent calendar. That will stay on call. Excellent. Senator Ramos, thank you for being here. Go ahead when I'm ready. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Senators. I want to begin by accepting the committee amendments and thank the committee for working with us through this important issue AB 53 authorizes the Wildlife Conservation Board to provide tribes with access to grants and loans through the California Riparian Habitat Conservation Program and the Inland Wetlands Conservation Program. The bill also declares the legislature's intent to create a process that would facilitate the return of ancestral lands to federally recognized tribes. California has made a clear commitment to rebuilding its relationship with tribal nations. When the governor issued a formal apology for the state's historic harms and launched the Truth and Healing Council, he emphasized that tribal partnerships must be central to how we protect and manage our natural resources. Tribes have been stewards of these lands for centuries from time immemorial, long before California was a state. yet administrative barriers have too often prevented tribes from participating fully in conservation projects. There are also those who question whether tribes have the capacity to share this responsibility and fully participate in such habitat restoration programs. Tribes already operate fishery programs, lead forest restoration efforts, and collaborate with the state through co-management and co-governance agreements to protect ecosystems across California. What tribes lack is not capacity, it is access. Access to the lands that have historically been cared for by California's first people. That is why AB 53 focuses on removing those barriers and creating a path for tribes to engage in the conservation work offered through these programs. Additionally, this bill will also be seeking to facilitate land return to tribes, an issue that has long been plagued by administrative barriers. In order for tribes to truly become partners in the state's efforts, we must ensure tribes have a direct pathway to restore and be stewards of the lands that they call their own. AB 53 is about letting tribes continue to care for the lands that they have protected for generations, leveraging traditional knowledge, traditional knowledge now that is being welcomed by the state of California. Although committee amendments strike out current language on the land return, we appreciate the willingness to continue to work together on these issues to continue moving forward. Joining me today to speak on the importance of this bill is Councilmember Scott Quinn from the Karuk tribal government and Melody Meyer, conservation attorney for the Environmental Protection Information Center. Welcome, both of you. You each have two minutes. Go ahead. All right, Council Member. Hi, I'm Scott Quinn, and I serve on the Kaduk Tribal Council, and we're proud to sponsor AB 53. The Kaduk tribe is one of the largest federally recognized tribes in California with ancestral homelands extending throughout the Klamath River Basin. Since time immemorial, the Kaduk people have stewarded the forests, rivers, fish, and wildlife of our Aboriginal territory through cultural practices and traditional ecological knowledge that sustain both ecological and cultural health. Stewardship is not a new concept for tribes. It is a responsibility we have carried for thousands of years. AB 53 recognizes the important roles that tribes continue to play in conservation and resource stewardship and provides meaningful opportunities for tribes to participate more fully in California conservation programs And I understand that there been some questions whether transferring conservation lands could somehow weaken the protections that already exist on those properties And I want to be clear that that not what we seeking here We support maintaining the conservation purposes of these lands if existing conservation easements, mitigation requirements, grant conditions, or other legal restrictions apply to a property. We are prepared to honor those obligations. Our goal is not to remove protections. It is to bring our knowledge and stewardship practices and our long-term commitment to caring for these landscapes. Research consistently reflects that we know to be true that indigenous people are the best stewards of biodiversity lands and waters. In fact, a recent systematic review by the University of British Columbia documented that indigenous managed lands equal to or outperformed government-designated protected areas in preserving forest cover, mitigating wildfire risks, and sustaining animal and plant populations. The Kuduk tribe has demonstrated what tribal stewardship can accomplish. The Kuduk tribe has long been a leader in advocating cultural fire and ecosystem restoration throughout the Klamath Basin and beyond. Traditional indigenous burning and other stewardship practices reduce hazardous fuel accumulations, promote habitat diversity, improve forest health, and increase resilience to climate change and severe wildfire. Those efforts benefit everyone, not just tribal communities, but all Californians. California faces enormous conservation challenges, catastrophic wildfire, biodiversity loss, and declining salmon populations. We need every capable partner at the table. Tribes have the experience, the commitment, and the deep connection to these lands to help meet those challenges. I know you're wrapping up. AB53 Partnership recognizes tribes as trusted conservation partners and provides additional tools to help us fulfill the shared responsibility to protect California's natural heritage. On behalf of the Kiddick Tribe, I respectfully ask for your A vote on AB53. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Melody Meyer. I'm the conservation attorney for the Environmental Protection Information Center. We're a North Coast environmental nonprofit engaged in conservation advocacy since 1977, and we are proud to support AB 53 and thank Assemblymember Ramos for his leadership. As an environmental nonprofit, EPIC fiercely advocates for the conservation benefits of tribal stewardship in all its forms. We need not relitigate those benefits here, as the California Natural Resources Agency has already recognized tribal stewardship as an official pathway to conserving 30% of California's lands and waters by 2030 and has set a goal of bringing 7.5 million acres of land under tribal stewardship. EPIC regularly seeks partnerships with tribes on conservation and land protection efforts, and we champion land-backed initiatives precisely because we understand the huge benefits that tribal stewardship has on conservation. The state of California perpetuated genocide against its indigenous peoples, carried out by formal policies and laws, including forced removal. The genocidal effort ultimately failed, but the harm in particular severed connection to land continues to reverberate across generations Tribal nations are sovereigns, but that sovereignty remains Unrealized because there are so many barriers that prevent California from returning what was taken Removing those barriers is the only meaningful way to account for that loss. I Ask you to sit with the humility that it takes for tribal nations to compromise at all to accept restrictions and caveats on their own sovereignty, and I ask you to acknowledge what an extraordinary insult it is to be told that you cannot be trusted to steward lands by organizations that have directly benefited from stolen land. This bill places tribes on equal footing with nonprofits and state and local agencies. For opposition to suggest that tribes not conserve lands acquired under this bill in perpetuity is both paternalistic and a fundamental misunderstanding of traditional ecological knowledge. Where federal trust land questions arise, the state has existing pathways set forth in federal law to work with the tribes and federal government to ensure that state conservation protection laws are carried over. EPIC is proud to support this bill as an environmental nonprofit, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Do you have others in support? who would like to register their support. Alex Lumer on behalf of the Rimmel Law Foundation in strong support. Thank you. Charles Wright on behalf of the Yahweh Tom of Sam and Will Nation and Santa Ynez of Chumash Indians in support. Christina Skirin for the Center for Biological Diversity in support. Cesar Gonzalez with the California Rewindian Health Board in support. Thank you. Buffy Campbell, Executive Director of the Intertribal St. Keele Wilderness Council in support okay anyone in opposition to have anyone in opposition please come forward is that okay good yeah Mike great good morning my name is Chris Howard I'm a Delano County supervisor also having worked with federally recognized tribes for throw for 30 years as both an employee and as a wildlife and fisheries biologist don't our county values the cultural historical and governmental relations that California Native American tribes maintain with their ancestral lands. The county has long-standing government to government relations with local tribal governments, including the Talo Adini Nation, Elk Valley Rancheria, and the Yurok tribe. I support the portions of AB 53 that expand tribal eligibility for grants and loans under the California Riparian Habitat Conservation Program. However, two provisions raise concern about long-term land management, public accountability, and the ability of local governments and the public to understand and weigh in on decisions affecting lands and their jurisdictions. Many of California's parks, wildlife areas, and other conservation lands were purchased through bond funds approved by voters who wanted these lands protected. They are held in trust for the public, including the taxpayers who funded them and the communities who rely on them to access nature. I greatly appreciate the committee's work to resolve the major concerns presented in Section 4 of the bill. Thank you for these changes. However, a few practical questions remain. What transaction costs and ongoing maintenance costs would transfer involve and who would bear them? What happens to the payment in lieu of taxes, including those currently owed to counties? The bill allows to sell, exchange, and transfer property in fee without requiring a record of easement to preserve the land as wildlife habitat and perpetuity because the tribal sovereignty and federal law a federally recognized tribe is not like other public or private entities the bill does not address how the state would retain jurisdiction over the land once it is taken into federal trust or how contracting with sovereign tribal governments would defer from contracting with other entities these important questions to start to wrap up I gave up yes a little extra time I respectfully ask the committee to consider amendments before moving the bill forward a limited waiver of sovereign immunity as a condition of receiving the public lands continued state environmental enforcement jurisdiction and resolution to contract disputes in state courts thank you good morning chair and committee members my name is Jake Schultz and I here on behalf of the endangered habitats League To begin I like to note that we an in While we are not formally opposed to AB 53 EHL would like to express concerns regarding the intent to allow California to transfer some state-owned lands to federally-organized tribes. The Endangered Habitats League is generally very supportive of land return programs and of efforts to include our tribal partners in grants and other conservation activities. In fact, when we initially saw the amendments to this bill, we found no immediate issues. It was during a very recent and more in-depth review of the technical process behind land transfer that we identified some potential points of hesitation. We appreciate the authors and the committee's work in compromising to remove the land transfer language from Section 4 for now, which may have led to unintended consequences for existing conservation protections, contractual obligations, and state oversight. California spent decades and billions of dollars in bond funds to build a network of protected conservation lands, and we believe the state has a continuing obligation as a public trustee of those resources. The remaining intent language outlined in the committee analysis signals that a formal transfer process is still in the works. Getting that process right warrants a full and transparent legislative review. We respectfully request that, to the extent Section 4 is revisited, the development of the land transfer framework to be taken up next year to allow for appropriate safeguards that honor both the state's conservation obligations and the legitimate interests of our tribal partners. Thank you. Thank you. Others in opposition? Good morning, Chair members. Peter Ancel, California Farm Bureau. Like the last witness, we are not formally opposed to the bill. We've submitted a letter of concern that primarily aligned with the comments of the previous two witnesses. We understand the importance of the bill. We appreciate the committee's analysis recognizing our concerns. We want to take a look and see what's being accepted and what's being proposed to turn into a two-year bill, and we'll continue to engage. We've reached out to the author's office, haven't connected with staff, but we'll make that effort again and hopefully continue that conversation as the bill moves. Okay. Great. Taking it back to the committee, Senator Laird. A few semi-connected comments. And the first one is that I want to salute the author. He is without peer in the legislature and in the public sector for trying to reverse the injustices that have existed for time immemorial. And bill after bill does that. And we have worked. I know that it was very interesting because when I negotiated with the North Coast tribes on marine protected areas, I was worried because if a tribe could demonstrate a historic take for subsistence or ceremonial purposes, they could actually go in the conservation zones of marine protected areas and have a take. and I was worried when that was negotiated because a key to it was you had to demonstrate the historic pattern of ceremonial purposes or subsistence and was very surprised by the tribes who basically said, we've been waiting for you to ask. We have this information and we have had it forever and we've been waiting to show it, to demonstrate what it is. And so for the 28 tribes that were recognized on the North Coast, they acquired those rights when it came to marine protected areas and there have been negotiations about co-management and taking it forward to the next step. And when I visited the Dixie Fire which was roughly a million acres in Northeast California we met with tribal people that showed that some of the pre they had done had significantly impacted or worked against the heat of the fire when it was at its top. So it's demonstrated that the historic practices that you mentioned work and need to be incorporated. We had a bill that was similar, and I've lost track. I would guess it was about three years ago, and it was Assemblymember Gallagher. And this committee actually put a requirement on his bill that if there was a conservation easement, the conservation easement transferred in a binding way along with the land transfer. And I think that's the intent of the amendments here, and it's not questioning the stewardship or the ability of stewardship, But if we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to protect land, then the protection they bought should transfer with the land. And I think the net effect of the amendments is to reinforce that. And while I get from one of the witnesses that maybe they don't think it's as strong as it should be, I think that's our question between now and when it gets to the governor is just making sure that we know that the protections are there that would transfer in an appropriate way that they would stick. And so I think the amendment that sort of moves in that direction gets us to a very good place. And I really appreciate it because it is just in the last few decades, there's developing capacity for the tribes. There's trying to increase assets. And everything isn't always unity. When the Klamath Dam removal was going on, a majority of tribes were in favor of that process. But there was one tribe that actually was opposed. And so I recognize that everything isn't a uniform in this. So I think this bill addresses a longstanding injustice. I think the amendments make it work. And at the appropriate time, I would be willing to move the bill. Well, thank you. I want to thank you, too, for bringing this bill forward and for all of your work. earlier in this session we moved forward a water rights bill that you had championed for many years and take very seriously all these issues that you're bringing forward to right the wrongs from the past. And yeah, so I think in particular this one, ensuring that federally recognized tribes are eligible for wildlife conservation board grants and Department of Fish and Wildlife contracts. is very important. We appreciate you taking the amendments and will allow us to continue to work on a faster public process. I think that's what everyone's interested in, a faster public process for land return. It's important that we get that right. I'll be an aye vote on the bill today. Would you like to close? Thank you so much, Chairman and Senators, for your comments. And it's true. We've reached a point here in the state of California with the current administration, the governor with a formal apology that set in place in motion opportunities for California first people to start to acquire land but have a stronger voice It wasn so long ago that those that were practicing traditional fire burns to maintain the plants and livelihood of that were arrested for arson and charged. Now that very practice that was frowned upon where criminal charges were put towards members that still carry that on their background background is now being accepted by natural resources as an adequate way to preserve the state of California. I believe that this bill puts in motion that respect for California's first people and also that knowledge that was overlooked that now should be in the policies in the state of California. I ask for your aye vote. Excellent. We have a motion from Senator Laird. Do you want to read the motion and come roll? File item 1, AB 53 Ramos. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Senators Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Sarato? Allen? Cobaldon? Grove? Laird? Laird, aye. Stern? Okay, it's 2 to 0. We'll keep it on call. Thank you for your work. All right, Assemblymember Rogers? We have Hadwick go first. Wow. Okay. And they say that they say bipartisanship is dead, but not here in the in the California legislature. It felt bad that I was here so long. Go ahead. You have AB 2679. Go ahead when ready. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I would first like to thank the chair and the committee staff for working collaboratively on this critical issue

Good morning, Chair and members. I represent South Lake Tahoe, the Highway 50 and 89 corridors through Emerald Bay and as far north as Tahoma. As Assemblymember Hadwick just stated, this is a very dangerous corridor. In 2024, 15 agencies and partners gathered around one table to tackle the Emerald Bay corridor issues. Caltrans was present, including law enforcement, transit providers, government officials, and several planning agencies. And the question was simple. Is there a problem at Emerald Bay? And the answer by 45 professionals in the room was yes. It took another 10 months of discussions and negotiations, but the result was a 2025 pilot shuttle program. Year one was a success. We took 1,000 cars off the road, and roughly 5,000 people took to shuttles. The Emerald Bay Shuttle is what this bill looks like in practice. AB 2679 gives Caltrans the authority to partner with local agencies to manage parking, implement traffic calming, and develop the transit connections and pedestrian pathways our recreation areas urgently need. Plus, it pays for itself by authorizing public parking fees be reinvested back into the project. I urge the committee's support of AB 2679. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Chair, committee members, and staff. My name is Devin Middlebrook with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, or TRPA. We were formed through a bi-state compact between California and Nevada in 1969, and TRPA is charged with protecting Lake Tahoe. We are happy to serve as the sponsor of this bill with Assemblymember Hadwick. AB 2679 was written to help us address the transportation, access, and environmental challenges at Tahoe. The intent is to create a framework to designate safety zones along our highway corridors and implement actions to reduce dangerous parking and develop better public parking, transit stops, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in the right-of-way to access Tahoe's public lands. AB 2679 also supports regional consistency. In 2025, Nevada adopted Nevada Senate Bill 426. This law created a similar framework on the Nevada side of the lake. We are asking California for legislation to provide consistency around the region. While aspects of this bill, what this bill proposes, are allowed under existing law, AB 2679 addresses the unique aspects of the Tahoe basin and focus specifically on recreation access to public land and environmental impacts to our lake clarity we are actively engaged with CalSTAC altrans California State Park staff on the support and legislation thank you for your support and protecting Lake Tahoe for all Californians to enjoy today and for generations to come okay thank you are there others in support good morning Steve Wallach on behalf of the California Tahoe Alliance in support. Good morning, Noah Bunyan on behalf of Keep Tahoe Blue. Good morning, Steve Frisch on behalf of Sierra Business Council in support. Great. Anyone in opposition? Seeing none, anyone on the Senate layer. Yes, inevitably. I want to salute you for bringing the bill and I I know after we successfully had the bi negotiations to update the general plan we had a working group on transportation from both sides And it was difficult because they're just different requirements on Nevada and California's side, and it was trying to figure out how to harmonize them and get people out of the cars. And we had some success, and it was with shuttles and other things that were going on. And as a former resident of Emerald Bay, I'm sorry, Senator Feinstein isn't still alive because she would be making sure this happened without a bill. And so I just want to salute you for being willing to weigh it in. And there was one issue that was constantly being grappled with, which is some of the transportation funding is based on the population. And yet there are a few places, Tahoe, Mammoth, Monterey Peninsula, where there's so many more residents at the time of tourism and the formulas, the federal formulas now appropriately recognize that, but the state formulas don't totally. So I think this is really a good direction. And if Senator Grove doesn't want to move this bill at the appropriate time, I will. I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank the former chair of Natural Resources for interrupting my first call when you went that way first. But anyways, I'd like to thank you for bringing the bill forward. It's a good district bill. And I was just in Tahoe a couple of weeks ago on that Emerald Bay corridor. And the problem is that you do see people walking down the middle of the streets, blocking traffic, cars in very dangerous situations. And so for you to bring this bill forward and the collaboration and the work you put together to bring all parties to the table and the discussions that were made show it's a very thoughtful bill, and I would move the bill if my good colleague, the former chair of Natural Resources, would allow me to. Okay. Well, yeah, I saw the note. There was 759 wrong-way drivers, including the 20,000-plus pedestrians crossing with no crosswalks. Very dangerous, as you mentioned. We have a motion from the great center from Bakersfield. Would you like to close?

Okay, I just want to confirm because we are taking amendments from the Transportation Committee. Those are the amendments that you are accepting.

Okay, so we have a motion from Senator Grove. Do you pass as amended to appropriations? Please call the roll. Senator Specker? Aye. Becker, aye. Sarato? Allen? Grove, Grove, aye, Laird, Laird, aye, Stern. 3-0, on call. All right, now we see Assemblymember Rogers proves that chivalry and bipartisanship is not dead. I need all the karma we can get, right? Okay. Hello there. are you two bills you can start with AB 1666 yes so appreciate it chair AB 1666 we will be accepting the committee's amendment as our state further adapts to a changing climate as well as the wildfires that we have seen we need to do something different with our forests and particularly with the byproduct of managing those forests. The Air Resources Board estimates that there 14 million dry tons that be produced of biomass if we are to achieve those goals That on top of the 10 million that currently exists in other types of industries such as vineyards and crops and orchards AB 1666 would create a biomass innovation hub to focus on non-combustible uses for that byproduct to both better steward our land as well as address some of these threats that we see. With me to talk about the bill are Sam Uden, who's the co-founder of Net Zero California, and Steve Frisch, who's the president of the Sierra Business Council. Welcome, both of you. Thank you, Chair and members. My name is Sam Uden. I'm with Net Zero California, and we're proud to sponsor AB 1666, which would establish one or more biomass innovation parks and support a sustainable wood waste bioeconomy in the state. California's facing a wood waste crisis where millions of tons of forest and agricultural biomass are being piled and burned or left to decay every year, causing significant carbon and air pollution. In response, the state has established a goal to expand a sustainable bio-economy that takes this wood waste and converts it via non-combustion technologies into low-carbon products such as mass timber, clean hydrogen, biomethane and carbon removal. This goal is clearly identified in multiple state plans, including the Airboard's 2022 Scoping Plan, the recent SB254 report on how to manage wildfire risk and cost, each of the Sierra Nevada, North Coast, Central Valley and Kern County Jobs First Plans and the recently published California Wildfire Task Force's Draft Action Plan. ABC 1666 simply aims to implement the state's existing goals on wood biomass with incentives and targeted reforms, including establishing biomass innovation parks with available Prop 4 funding, as well as addressing key barriers to project development, including related to fee stock contracting, demand-side incentives and others. The state has really struggled to make progress on wood biomass issues to the point where local governments have considered strategies such as exporting forest slash from the port of Stockton to burning coal-fired power plants in the UK. This points to the scale of the problem and the public safety threat that would push communities to even consider this as an option, underscoring the fact that we can't ignore this issue any longer. I want to thank the Assemblymember and this committee for their amendments, and we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Steve Frisch. I'm the president of the Sierra Business Council, and our organization also works as the Small Business Development Center for Northeastern California and the Economic Development District for the Central Sierra Nevada region. In addition to the environmental reasons to be supporting AB 1666, we wanted to highlight some of the economic rationale behind the bill. By investing in wood waste utilization and innovation parks, we create economic uses for wood waste and reduce the cost of forest and vegetation management treatments by moving waste management from a cost to a profit side of the ledger on individual projects. This stretches our very limited California wildfire resilience funding further and gives us the ability to treat more acreage. In addition, we can leverage federal and private matching funds to develop biomass innovation parks. As a matter of fact, the USDA just announced $115.2 million in wood utilization loans nationwide. $62 million of that came to California. We worked on two of those projects developing the loan applications. One, a $25 million loan for a non-combustion gasification facility in Calaveras County, and another an million loan for a small diameter timber mill and cross timber manufacturing facility in eastern Nevada County These projects unlocked more than million in private capital in order to advance the projects and this represents a great opportunity for California funding to match federal funding to achieve our forest management objectives and to unlock private capital to help achieve our state goals. Finally, we think this is a great example of how economic development and environmental improvement can work hand in hand in the rural regions of our state to create jobs, to create new industries, and to achieve our forest management goals. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Excellent. Right at two minutes. Others in support? Chair and members, John Winger here on behalf of the RNG Coalition in support. Mr. Chair and members, Paul Yoder in support on behalf of the Placer County Board of Supervisors. Thank you. Michael Jarrett with the Nature Conservancy in support. Thank you. Jake Schultz on behalf of East Bay Regional Park District in support. Thank you. Opposition. Do we have opposition? Opposition? No. See none. Take it back to the committee. Senator Laird. I wanted to address one thing because there was opposition listed in the analysis. and it framed it in a way that I don't think is the frame of the issue because it basically said it only promotes processes that don't offer climate benefits and then represented that it was an array of harms. And I think that's not the right way to look at it because the issue here is I know I never understood during the drought in the early part of the last decade, there were always these precise numbers of the number of trees that had died. At one point, it was something like 129 million trees. I kept thinking, who knows that? Who can figure that out? But when there are that many dead trees, they are going to deteriorate in place. So there will be bad climate benefits from that deterioration. So the question is, is if that's happening either way, Can it happen in a way that produces electricity and tries to have more efficient processes that can capture the electricity with less greenhouse gases going in the air? And so that's why I think this bill is a good direction. And this is never a standalone issue. I mentioned earlier visiting the Dixie Fire, and I can't remember who it was, the Sierra Institute or somebody had done biomass on the edge of Greenville or not far out of there. And they did it where they felt like the stuff that was given off was the equivalent of a few wood burning stoves as opposed to the traditional large industrial way of burning and releasing things in the atmosphere. And I know that that's the accompanying challenge, is always making sure we are looking for those more efficient processes to deal with biomass. But that's the choice. I look forward to supporting the bill. I want to thank you. Yeah, when I was chairing budget sub two, wildfires are always an issue there, and thought about all the solutions we were working on and developed my own eight-point plan, but one of them was biomass. You have to figure out how to deal with it, and I think you do so in an innovative way by supporting innovation in this area and anecdotally we hear about these innovations and coming up with a comprehensive way to support it things really important I vote I recommendation would you like to close yeah I think just echoing the comments I think anytime we talk about creating a circular economy that involves natural resources and this might be a primer for our next bill as a discussion point there's always going to be concerned about whether the tail wags the dog or the dog wags the tail and how do you put in sufficient safeguards to make sure that you are both creating that economic incentive to deal with what is a real problem without then making sure that that's driving the natural resources side of the equation and how we choose when and how to extract these resources. I think that this bill has sufficient safeguards and really strikes that balance, particularly to meet some of the other states goals like around wildfire resilience and vegetation management. With that, I just respectfully ask for an aye vote. Okay. A motion from Senator Grove is due pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll. Senators Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Sarato? Allen? Cobaldon? Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Stern? You have three zero, and we'll keep that on call. Thank you. Thank you, witnesses. And we'll have your next bill, AB 2494. Howdy, howdy. Good, doing well. Good morning. Good to see you. So first and foremost, I want to just start off by expressing gratitude to Edith for all of the work on the bill. in an incredibly thorough analysis. I was joking with my wife last night that the bill had to pass to conserve the trees that we killed in creating the analysis, but it was really well done, and I just really want to thank you for taking so much time with our team on the bill. You recycle here. Of course. There's a quote that I frequently heard when I was first running for office that is oftentimes attributed to our former congressman for the area, Doug Bosco, and that's that everybody on the north coast loves redwood trees, Some like them vertical some like them horizontal and certainly my region is not New to discussions about what the proper forest management practices should be of our forests This bill is very much narrower than some of those discussions that were had this bill focuses just on the demonstration state forest system There are 14 demonstration state forests in the state the largest by far about half of the system is the Jackson demonstration state force which is in Mendocino County and despite such robust discussions and at times violence in our community related to this discussion the forest laws have not really not caught up over the last 80 years since they were introduced to where California wants to go and specifically when we talk about what we know now related to climate change and biodiversity and wildfire and vegetation management it's time for us to update those practices it's so that's what this bill does it will update our forest practices to better reflect our climate resiliency goals governor Newsom's 30 by 30 goals and it also codifies some of the good work that CAL FIRE has been doing in tribal co management and moving in that direction that you had the discussion on your first bill or second bill with with Assemblymember Ramos about how do we make sure that we are including the folks who have stewarded the land for millennia in the discussions about forest management To be very clear this bill does not prevent timber harvest It just makes sure that the maximum sustained production piece which is the driving factor in current law, is not the focus, that we utilize our public lands for the other public benefits, recreation, research, carbon sequestration, biodiversity. and there's extraction and taking that happens in accordance with those principles and will still continue to happen but will help to rebuild that trust with the public and with the agencies as they do that work it's notable that in the analysis as you're working through the the support and opposition I kind of laughed when I saw it just lists over 1,700 people as individuals in support which I think tells you just how important this is to folks who care about these forests and want to see these forests not left alone entirely but actually actively managed in a way that makes our community safer that makes our climate better it can help and assist in things like stream restoration fish management as well with that I will turn it over to our witnesses we have Melody Meyer who you already met who is the conservation attorney for the Environmental Protection Information Center and Buffy Campbell who is the executive director for the intertribal Cinqueone Wilderness Council. Thank you so much. Would you like me to go first? The founder of the intertribal Cinqueone Wilderness Council, Priscilla Hunter, once said, our view of sustainable forests is a forest that sustains our culture, our values, and our way of life, not one that is managed in order to cut trees for profit. This bill is a step towards reparations for the removal of native people from our homelands. We know the trees and all the living souls in and around these trees. And by knowing who we care for and what they need, it's crucial and critical for restoring biodiversity. Successful stewardship means respecting what the land has given to us, and in gratitude, we take only what is gifted. We are ready to reconnect traditional ecological knowledge to the land using cultural fire, as well as bringing modern forest management to these areas, including regulated harvesting, habitat restoration, and our view of sustainable resource management. With tribal stewardship, the results are wildfire resilience and healthy ecosystems. Both preservation and conservation are essential for protection of the environment. Focusing on preservation at cultural sensitive sites and conservation in other areas will lead the way for healthy forests which benefits everyone. We also acknowledge that CAL FIRE has taken steps to include tribes at JDSF. However, there is no statewide framework that guides how sovereign relationships work at demonstration forests. This bill provides clarity and codifies the state's policies of tribal stewardship, which includes a goal set by the California NRA to tribally steward 7.5 million acres of California lands and waters. Modernizing state forests is overdue and is going to take time, but AB 2494 is a great start. Tribal people are already at the forefront of protecting our ancestral lands and waterways, and we are the perfect partners to guide this transition. Thank you all for your support. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. Melody Meyer, conservation attorney for the Environmental Protection Information Center, and we are proud to sponsor this bill. EPIC is a North Coast environmental nonprofit that has been engaged in protection advocacy of forests since 1977 The movement to change the commercial logging mandate for demonstration state forests has been underway for nearly 20 years With AB 2494 we are closer than ever to a path forward This bill will prioritize public trust values legislature has already adopted, including goals to conserve biodiversity, increase wildfire resilience, store carbon, increase tribal stewardship, and promote outdoor access. The bill will also rejuvenate rural economies by encouraging a shift towards restoration forestry and ecotourism. By allowing CAL FIRE to draw from the timber regulation and forest restoration fund as needed, rather than rely solely on timber sales, we are stabilizing CAL FIRE's capacity to steward these forests. Some opponents have mischaracterized demonstration forests as a shining example of climate-forward forestry that needs no improvement, but the history of public engagement with the largest demonstrations forest tells a different story. Lingering concerns include weakened forest management plans, inadequate tribal engagement, and delayed species recovery. Meanwhile, a 2023 USGS study documented widespread tree loss across California driven by wildfire and climate stress. Growing older, bigger trees and restoring ecosystems at a landscape scale is the most meaningful path to fighting climate change in our forests. However, this approach isn't achievable under the current commercial logging mandate. While we are aware that some want sustained yield logging to be included in the definition of management, including sustained yield as a management priority, would narrow the scope of what can be demonstrated on these forests. We have also taken many amendments to make sure it is clear that logging is not prohibited on these forests. In fact, active management is required under the bill for wildfire resilience and biodiversity conservation. EPIC is proud to support this legislation, and we are deeply grateful for the hard work that this committee has put into the bill. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. All right, others in support. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Karen Lang, on behalf of the Mendocino and Humboldt County Boards of Supervisors, in support.

Good morning, Christina Scaringe, with the Center for Biological Diversity, in strong support. Morning, Chair and members. Doug Houston, representing the California Outdoor Recreation Partnership, who are in support. Ben Friedman saved the Redwoods League in support

for AB 2494 thank you Alex Loomer on behalf of the following entities resource for new institute trout unlimited California trout the California plant society California environmental voters and the Mendocino fire protection district to own sport thank you this is an essential step that so well articulated by the three people here before you. I fully endorse this as an incredibly first step to make a change in mandate for Forest Forever. Thank you.

Thank you. Mercedes Macias, Sierra Club California in support.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. I want to thank the committee for the hard work on this bill, and we'll be taking committee amendments. It's evident to everyone that just how critical our wildfires are to the state, the issues are with wildfires, In January 25, California experienced some of the most destructive wildfires in the state history. Fires are now considered among the most costly natural disasters in U.S. history. Recognizing the urgent need to reduce wildfire risk, the governor issued an emergency proclamation in March 2025 that suspended CEQA, the Coastal Act, and other regulatory requirements for fuels reduction projects. Since then, over 400 wildfire safety projects have been approved statewide, with some projects being approved as little as in 30 days. While this proclamation has been highly effective in accelerating critical prevention work, it expired on May 1st. To continue reducing the risk of the next catastrophic wildfire, it's essential that we maintain certainty for these necessary fuels reduction projects. 2410 will exempt fuel reduction projects to remove non-native species 12 inches or less in diameter or common species 8 inches or less in diameter with very high fire hazard severity zones and higher fire threat districts from sequel requirements for three years this target exemption will help the state tackle extremely flammable species such as junipers in rural parts of the state and Eucalyptus in more urban areas that fuel major wildfires by removing these barriers a B 20 410 will accelerate critical wildfire prevention work, reduce costs and delays for local and state agencies, and better protect our most vulnerable communities from catastrophic wildfires. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. I don't have anyone. My witness could not testify today. So respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The bill that is in print sort of goes at some work that the chair has done and Senator Stern has done. And at some point I would love for you to speak to that, have you as the owner of something that this affects. I appreciate the amendments with regard to the Coastal Act because I think, speaking for myself, but I know that it gets reflected by the committee as well. We are not thrilled about exemptions to the Coastal Act, and I really appreciate the amendments taking that out. The one question I sort of had, and I don't know if anybody can answer it, is there were a number of environmental groups in opposition, and I had expected to hear that the amendments would move a few of them to neutral, but nobody stood up and said that. Does anybody know whether the amendments have moved some of the opposition to neutral? I think he's still opposed.

And are you still in conversations with the opposition?

Okay.

Okay. Yeah, I appreciate this effort. I know that it's been very important for the administration and our current chair of natural resources around these projects. Speaking to this, you know, Senator Stern is the lead on the other bill, And I know it's been having a lot of similar kinds of discussions around this because I know that our again our current National Resources Chair feels that or not Chair the current National Resources Agency head believes there a very positive story here around safeguards in place, but still streamlining. And so with that, with your, I appreciate your commitment here, the amendments, again, you know, do fill this regulatory gap for fuel reduction projects that are exclusively moving small diameter flammable species with a reporting requirement and a sunset. The legislature can evaluate the success of this exemption and make adjustments as necessary. So we appreciate you taking those investments, amendments, and having the discussions going forward. And I think, as I mentioned, Senator Stern is engaged in some similar discussions as well. So I know this is all relatively new and there have been some important discussions, I think, over the break. With that, I'm happy to support the bill.

Cobaldin moves the bill. Do pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll. Senators Becker. Aye. Becker, aye. Serato. Allen. Cobaldin. Aye. Cobaldin, aye. Grove. Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. Stern. 3-0. Let's move on to your second bill, AB 2711. Okay.

Go ahead. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Ted Cordova, and I'm here on behalf of E&B Natural Resources in strong support of AB 2711. First, I'd like to thank Assemblymember Stan Ellis for his leadership and for working with stakeholders to advance a bill that brings greater transparency and accountability to California's well-permitting process. As the author said, AB 2711 does not reduce environmental protections or limit CalGEM's authority to conduct thorough technical and safety reviews. Instead, it promotes a permitting process that is predictable and timely. We appreciate the bill's focus on providing an improved permitting process while maintaining California's rigorous environmental review standards. AB 2711 is a practical step toward a more efficient regulatory process, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Others in support. Do we have others in support? Sean Wallentine from the California Independent Petroleum Association in support of the bill. Thank you, sir. Paul Yoder on behalf of the Kern County Board of Supervisors in strong support. Thanks. Hello. Jacob Lopez here with Holmes Western Oil Corporation in support. How about opposition? Do we have opposition, lead opposition witness? Yeah. Please come forward, you can sit at the table or. Hello, Chair Baker and Senate Natural Resource Committee members. I'm Juan Flores, I'm the organizing director for the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment. For the past 15 years, I've had the honor to work alongside Kern County working families to help uplift their voices and concerns around the environmental and health impacts as a result of the oil and gas industry. For many of these families, these impacts are not abstract. They live next to active oil wells and continue to experience higher rates of asthma, respiratory illnesses, headaches, noseblades, and other health concerns associated with prolonged exposure to air pollution from oil and gas operations. Today I'm here to express my deep concern and opposition to AB 2711. This bill will expand an automatic approval of a notice of intent to drill if the Department of Conservation's Geologic Energy Management Division, the state oil and gas regulator, has not already approved or denied a notice of intent within 30 working days from the date of receipt. This bill is yet another giveaway to the oil industry, even as companies are making record profits and price gauching consumers at the pump. Our communities are at a further disadvantage after the state of California and eliminated future environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act for thousands of new wells in Kern County. What needs to be clarified is that the approvals of a notice of intent to drill are not merely administrative actions, but require consideration of issues such as compliance with setbacks from sensitive receptors, geologic safety, and other environmental impacts. Automatic approvals can improperly rush this important review process and limit CalGM's discretion over permit decisions, creating risks to public health, safety, and the environment. We oppose AB 2711 because its passage would mean that our disadvantage and pollution burden communities will continue to bear the financial and health costs of the oil and gas industry's record profits. In conclusion, it is important to protect Call Jim's ability to appropriately review notice of intents in line with its statutory directive to manage oil and gas development so as to prevent, as far as possible, damage to life and health. Thank you very much. Go ahead. Good morning, Marie Lu, on behalf of the Central California Environmental Justice Network. We're opposed to this bill, unfortunately, because we think it's inconsistent with CalGEM's mission, which is to regulate California's oil, gas, and geothermal industries with a focus on public health, safety, and environmental protection. comparison we believe this bill is emphasizing speed even if we believe that you know we're trying to focus on timeliness we're concerned that this bill actually doesn't achieve the doesn't fix the problem stated for example in Kern County where we have where we have had historically problems with delays on environmental review since the passage of 237 last year just this year there has been three hundred and thirty nine permits in a wise requested in in Kern County 95% of them are being approved within 30 days this is not Kern County is not unique as stated in the committee's analysis last year there were a mere 26 and a wise requested 25 of them were approved so we're concerned that this bill even if it's even if it if this bill passes it's not actually improving time for a vast majority of permits where it will have an impact is on the edge cases the cases where Cal Jim does need additional time and for example this is particularly important dealing with checking compliance with setback requirements you know especially in high growth areas like in in the city of Bakersfield, CalGEM does not necessarily have the most up-to-date maps and they are forced sometimes to rely on Google Maps to check compliance with setback requirements which can be up to two years old. And so we're in a situation we're concerned about this bill will force CalGEM either to speed their review or force or force a denial on a permit which leads to more litigation. So for these reasons we unfortunately are opposed to this bill thank you thank you very much others in opposition Katie

you Vanessa Flores on behalf of clean and healthy California in opposition

Mark Fenstermaker for Earth Justice opposed Good morning Christina Skaringa at the Center for Biological Diversity opposed Jason Feifel here voicing opposition from Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles

Thank you.

Mercedes Macias, Sierra Club, California, and Kern County native in opposition.

Well, Senator Laird then. First, your opening comments about other countries and their lesser environmental standards. You're channeling Senator Grove. She's not in the room. That was a speech she's given in this room many times. So if she walks in, tell her the speech has already been given. I think that there was this problem in Kern County, and then it got resolved with regard to sort of a CEQA suit. And in many ways, I suspect this bill was originally to get at that, but that does not exist in the same way. And if I were to socialize this bill, it sort of takes an oil-friendly process and makes it slightly more oil-friendly, even though there was an issue that has been resolved there. And so on some levels, I'm not sure what the need is for this bill at this point. And I would ask you that after that matter has been resolved, why do you think this bill is still needed?

Just remember you're arguing for your bill.

And, Mr. Chair, in a comment, I'm just genuinely torn on this bill, mostly because I don't think it does much at this point. So in a way, maybe I should be supporting it. But if it doesn't do much, why are we doing the bill? And I think that's the tough choice that is in front of the committee. so I appreciate that.

Thank you. Through the chair. Thanks for the question. I really appreciate the work that the legislature has done in regards to Kern County. And it's definitely a better permitting system, but it's limited to Kern County, and there's production all over the state of California and other regions. And so this bill isn't trying to speed up Kern County or really speed up the process. In fact, it actually gives CalGEM more time than it currently has. You still have to go through all your environmental and technical reviews. That hasn't changed. This isn't rubber stamping permits at all. It's just giving everybody some predictability on about if you're done with your checklist, CalGem needs to respond, provide you with criteria of what still needs to be done, and then you correct that. And so in other parts, we're not seeing predictable timelines outside of Kern County. And so I think this bill improves the permitting process throughout the state of California for the state.

And if I can ask one other question of the opposition. So I think part of the center line of the case that you've made is that you're worried that CalGEM would then feel pressured or feel no alternative other than to approve. And given CalGEM's mission and the statutory controls and the other things that are in the amendments, just to reinforce it one more time, is it possible that the bias would actually operate in the opposite direction and that we'd see more denials as CalGEM is like, well, we cannot fulfill our statutory mandate within 30 days, so we're just going to deny? Isn't that just as possible?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. When you say there's a lot of permits that are approved on a quick basis, I represent that area with it as the top three food-producing counties in the world, top energy producing county in the world, and you get nothing in a good timeline from the state government on a quick basis. And I appreciate the author bringing it forward, continuing to defend our oil industry, which does provide a California compliant product that we oversee the process, and it's way better than importing that from foreign countries that are hostile to us. And I appreciate my good colleague, the former chair from Natural Resources, saying that you were channeling me earlier. He brought that to my attention, and I'll move the bill if appropriate if it has not been moved yet.

Well, I want to thank you for working with the committee staff and myself to address some of the concerns raised by opposition. I continue to be concerned about some of the opposition points. I do tend to agree with Senator Laird that this bill probably won't move the needle too much either way. And at the end of the day, we feel that requiring a regulator to adhere to a timeline and making a decision whether to approve or deny a permit when the regulator has all the information they need to make the decision is reasonable. It's important to remember that the permit to drill a well is the last step in the process of approval or denial when all the other permits have been obtained. So I appreciate you taking the amendments. And do you agree to keep working with the opposition on a couple of these last points? Well, we appreciate that. With that, and I vote with the amendments, we have a motion. We'd like to close. No, I appreciate your aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning. Christina Scringe with the Center for Biological Diversity opposing AB 2716, which would circumvent and make AB 1167 and AB 2461 irrelevant. The legislature passed AB 1167 for one clear reason, to protect taxpayers by requiring that buyers of oil wells secure full financial assurance, so cleanup liabilities aren't offloaded to the public. Research shows that well transfers are increasingly high risk. Low-value wells are more likely to be transferred and less likely to be promptly plugged. Industries claim it can sell high-producing wells to pay for cleanup doesn't hold up to scrutiny. After four decades of production decline, there aren't enough left to pay the bill. When large companies buy many low-producing wells, it's a red flag, not a solution. Without full financial assurance, there's absolutely no guarantee they'll cover the billions in cleanup we face. Industry claims AB 1167 froze the market. That's just not true. And an unchecked market for dangerous, risky wells threatens our safety and our futures and our finances. The public has already borne hundreds of millions to clean up wells industry left behind. Current bonds cover less than 1% of actual costs. Using public funds to plug wells is unsustainable and unfair. Californians can afford it This is the industry responsibility but this bill makes it easier for companies to escape accountability The bill opens sweeping loopholes the industry will exploit Self corporate guarantees vague claims of solid finances won protect taxpayers when a company goes bust Cleanup costs are systemically underestimated, and financial reporting obscures those liabilities. AB 1167 purposefully excluded these mechanisms because they were worthless when the coal industry's biggest players went bankrupt and dumped billions in liabilities on taxpayers. It is inexcusable to repeat this mistake by weakening the law just as companies are exiting the market, exposing California's to an entirely foreseeable multi-billion dollar fiscal risk and ongoing health and climate harms. We urge your no vote.

Thank you. Thank you. Others in opposition? Zoe Johnick on behalf of 350 Bay Area Action, as well as Protect Monterey County, 350 South Bay, Los Angeles, 350 Humboldt County, San Diego 350, and Climate Health Now in opposition.

Leo Dale on behalf of the Climate Center and respectful opposition.

Kyla Point on behalf of Environment California in opposition.

Jim Lindbergh Friends Committee on Legislation of California opposed Thank you Jason Feifel here voicing opposition on behalf of Center on Race Poverty, Environment, California Environmental Justice Alliance, Food and Water Watch, Clean Water Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles, San Francisco Baykeeper, Stand LA, and Climate First Replacing Oil and Gas. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, members, Paul Yoder, I'm sorry I didn't get up here sooner. Kern County is a supportive amended position on this bill. I want to thank the author. We've been working with her office to try to limit what would otherwise be the local cost exposure from the bill and look forward to working with them more on that. Thank you. Okay. Okay. We're going to take it back to the committee. Senator Stern. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very tough, tough topic, and, yeah, it's a complicated puzzle. It was interesting to me. I wanted to appreciate in the opposition's testimony that the goal here around making sure that we don't get stuck with the bill on wells that get left out. behind and that we have the financial assurance to deal with this risk I think that's that's got to remain sort of our North Star in LA it's a it's easier said than done we can try to zone we've been working on zoning planning both countywide citywide amortization schedules the fact is that because of a flaw in the law from back in 94 when then I think it was Senator Jim Costa exempted all title and risk like all responsibility for wells owned before a certain date so in other words oil majors got out of their liabilities in this state and put it all on the independence forevermore. And that's why there is sort of this exposure in the title. And so, therefore, when we're looking at what the transition actually looks like, bankruptcy is a real risk, and it's not something – it's a very expensive solution. and so what I'm interested in in this bill is just the guts of the financials so the question was raised about self insurance and sort of the flaws or the criticisms that can you just can the author or witnesses whoever wants to talk about just get into that a little bit more what confidence should we have that that without this sort of double bonding requirement, if you will, not just for your own, but for the, what you're saying is that you start bond for the next one too. Given the criticism, just do you have a response on that? You know, just, yeah, if you may. So if you just look at how it works today, companies are responsible for their own assets. If they disappear, you go back in the chain of title. We've had operators receive multimillion-dollar bills from CalGEM for the plugging and abandoning of orphan wells. In addition to that, we have about $100 million orphan well funds from various sources. Most of the funds come from industry fees, and CalGEM has the power at any time to increase the assessment that we pay to cover any discrepancy, any hole in their plugging of orphan and idle wells. So that's how, when it comes to... It doesn't touch that discretion? Does not touch that discretion. That's routine. Right. So that's the paradigm that exists, is not affected by this bill. What this bill pertains to is inside that construct of people taking care of their own assets is you're going to have an influx of well-capitalized companies purchasing wells for the purpose of bringing them their production up, right, which is the goal of the state right now, and creating revenue that they are then obligated because they have to have an idle well management plan and they have to have additional assurance under 1057. they're going to utilize that increased revenue to P&A their own assets. And so there have been no transactions in the past two years. Are they required to do that by law or do you just think they will? They are required by law to have an idle well management plan. They're required to have bonding. And as you know, this bill is increasing the maximum bonding from $30 million to $80 million. That's another aspect of this bill that's happening that is changing. So they are required under law to have those compliance mechanisms. Last question, and then I'll – just coming back to the opposition, then, can you just – what are the central concerns about the Idlewell management plan being the sort of hook here? They're saying – you all agree that that's still the sort of precondition, but is it that you don't think that's going to be sufficient, that that doesn't have enough teeth? I'm just curious on that. Well, there's so much to respond to what he just said, but I'll stick with the Idaho management plan for now. They can cancel their Idaho management plan and just pay fees, right? And there is a, you know, a mixed result of compliance with that. However, the important thing is the market is not what they're describing. It is not well-resourced operators buying what we're seeing in the market. It's not well-resourced operators buying from... Avid equity, speculative... It's the flip of that. It's offloading of liabilities. These companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to clear their balance sheets. And that's what we saw with Occidental and CRC. They're offloading their liabilities. And that's what we're seeing. And that's why research shows that every transfer now increases the risk to California. And that risk is near term. So that's another thing in the bill. There's a five-year delay on these, and these are caps. CalGym can't go over those caps. Sure, the $30 million for the – Right, which aren't anywhere near the actual cost. But do you all disagree? Like her point about the out-of-will management piece, can you just pay your way out of this bill with the fees, or would that actually deny you access to this framework? So the bill does – it basically says if you don't have additional security under the Limon program that has a new cap of $80 million instead of $30 million and an idle well management plan, then you can't buy a well. And then if you cancel that plan, as they're saying, does that then... Amendments do require compliance with the idle well plan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that clarification. Sorry to cut you all off I don want to belabor the committee That was my main concern Are you accepting those amendments In the amendments yes Let's just say to be continued to further this conversation today. I'll be making an aye vote today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We had the first half of the discussion under the Hart Bill earlier in the hearing, and I mentioned floor managing the Carrillo bill, and the real goal was to cut off state exposure for the orphan wells, which really was rather broad and really was. The state did not have the resources to deal with it, and there were a couple of provisions here, and I think this might be what Senator Stern was starting to get at, But the Carrillo bill actually didn't allow self-insurance so that that liability didn't go to the state. And this bill seems to allow self-insurance in certain cases. And there was a Lamone bill that dealt with additional financial surety that was required. And it seems like that might be a little weakened by this. And so my question would be, how are the provisions of this bill not returning us to some of the liability that we had on abandoned orphan wells that we had before the Carrillo bill and the Lamone bill? So the provisions of this bill require, number one, to be compliant with AB 1057, the Lamone bill, on additional assurance. So that's not something that was in around when the CREO bill was passed. And it also requires obligations to have and be compliant with the Ida Well Management Plan. And so those are some provisions that exist now that didn't exist when the CREO bill was being considered. And the bottom line is since that bill passed, there have been no transactions for wells that are under the purview of the bill. That is less than 15 barrels a day and a transfer of the operator of record. So there hasn't been any additional assurance coverage to the state. All that has happened is assets have remained with whoever owned them two years ago when the CREO bill was passed. Nobody has entered the chain of title. No additional resources, assurance, bonding has come to fruition. And we feel that this bill will result in additional companies coming online, getting in the chain of title, becoming responsible, not relieving others. Because contrary to what was said earlier, you cannot get rid of your liability. If you sell an asset, you're still on the chain of title. You're contending that this will bring people in that aren't in. But in the course of that, is there some vulnerability of the state because these provisions are somewhat relaxing two of the other bills? That's what I'm trying to get at. This bill does not relax the prior, it relaxes AB 1167 by providing a feasible compliance pathway. Under AB 1057 by then Assemblymember Limon, that authorized Cal Jam to secure additional security from operators based on the risk of those operators So Cal Jam was like kind of ad hoc deciding who to require additional security of Under this bill you can buy a well unless you go to CalGEM and say hey look at my debt to equity ratio Hey, look at look at my my finances. Look at my liquidity. Look at my net profitability. And then here's my my idle well management plan. I'm good for this. So I'm going to buy I'm now able to buy wells off somebody else. And keep in mind that person that sells me the wells maintains liability. So if you're an oil gas operator, I'm an oil gas operator. If I sell you a well, you're liable and I'm liable. But before you can even buy it, you have to have an idle well management plan, and you have to have additional security approved by CalGem. And then you have to report every year on your finances to CalGem. And if you don't, then you can lose your ability to buy wells. We've had everything in the last couple of days where everybody explains in detail what it does, but I'm looking for the assurance that that level of detail doesn't open up the state to risk that it wouldn't have otherwise. This will increase, it will measurably increase the amount of financial assurances available to the state. Increase. Because people will go get the financial assurances under the PRC 3205.8 by Limon so that they can buy wells. If you don't go get that assurance, you can't buy wells. Well, and then the assumption is, is therefore there is more defense of the state by them coming on it. That's correct. It directs people to go get additional security. I am never thrilled about double linking bills. That is a recipe for jumping off of the top of the dome. but because I think when we passed the heart bill out, or at least it's still on call, there was strong support for that, but it's linked to this. And so that's just what it is. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. And you've confirmed you're taking the amendments. You know, it is important to remember the underlying issue is protecting the state's taxpayers from what may be multiple billions of dollars of liability for orphan wells. And collectively, the oil industry had to externalize costs to the state and ultimately the state taxpayers to pay for the cleanup. up. I do feel that in this bill, especially with the amendments on the self-insurance piece, for example, the division may only approve self-insurance in some criteria, including the risk associated with operators potential for desertion of its wells or wells are low. So there's a threshold in there for self-insurance for it's in. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So there's There's a number of pieces in there. We've already had a number of discussions. There is contingent enactment as discussed. And there are areas where the two bills do differ. So you ultimately are going to have to sit down and figure out some of those remaining pieces. And we had robust discussion too among the staff team. And ultimately, is there something we're missing here? And if so, you know, we're going to have to come back, and I think we will have authors who want to come back and fix these things. But for now, I'm supporting both bills moving forward. I have an eye recommendation. Do we have a motion? Senator Stern moves The motion I would like to close No I disrespectfully ask your eye vote and you have my commitment to continue working on this bill with the sponsors and community members Excellent That going to be important Thank you Do pass motion from Senator Stern Do pass as amended to appropriations Senator Specker? Aye. Becker, aye. Sarato? Aye. Sarato, aye. Allen? Cobaldon? Aye. Cobaldon, aye. Grove? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Stern? Stern, aye. All right, 5G are on call. All right, we're going to quickly go through. Can I, yeah, we need you here. I'm going to quickly go through the roll. I'd like to take this moment again to thank our can we have a round of applause for our committee staff here with the tremendous work that they've done this session on a lot of complicated topics, thank you alright consent calendars yes, ok alright, so let's move forward here start with file item 1 All right, Father in one, do you pass amended to appropriations? 4-0. 4-0, that is on call. File item 2, do pass as amended to appropriations. Senator Styrto? Aye. Styrto, aye. Allen? Cabaldon? Cabaldon, aye. Stern? Stern, aye. 6-0 on call. 6-0 on call. Next 5-3, do you pass to appropriations? Senator Sayarto? No. Sayarto, no. Allen? Kevaldin? Kevaldin, aye. Grove? Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. 4-1, on call. 4-1, that's on call. How about next up, the consent calendar? So moved. We have a motion to consent calendar. Let's call the absent members. Senators Allen? Allen, aye. Grove? Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Can we put the call out to Senator Grove as well? We're closing the roll. 5-1. That bill is on call. Winoko to 5-11. Wix do pass as amended to appropriations. Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Grove, 6-0 on call. 6-0 on call. Next up, file item 13. By Papen, do pass as amended to appropriations. Senator Syrto? Aye. Syrto, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Grove? Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. 6-0. 6-0. On call. Next up, Papen, do pass as amended to appropriations, following 14. Senator Syrto? Aye. Syrto, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Grove? Stern? Sorry, by the end of 13? This is 14. Yeah, it happens in the second bill. Stern, aye. 6-0 on call. 6-0 on call. Next up is Ellis, 5-15, due pass as amended to appropriations. Senator Siertov? Aye. Siertov, aye. Allen? No, this is 2410, the first Ellis bill. Allen, aye. Grove, Stern. Stern, aye. 6-0, on call. Now the second Ellis bill, 2711, due pass as amended to appropriations. Senators, who's called the absent members? Senators Allen No Five to one passes Five to one that bill is out Okay, next up, Hadwick, file in 18. Do you pass as amended to appropriations? Senator Sarato? Aye. Sarato, aye. Allen? 26-79. File in 18. Aye. Allen, aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Stern? Stern, aye. 7-0, that's out. 7-0, that's out. File item 19, 27-16, I'll go first. Do pass as amended to appropriations. Senators Allen? No. Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. 6-0, that's out. 6-0, that's out. All right, we're going to go one more time through the roll. So, starting with file item one, if he passes amended to appropriations, please call the absent members. Senators Allen. He accepted amendments. Allen, aye. Five, zero, that's out. Five, zero, that's out. I think you were not voting. File item one. You're an aye. You an aye So 6 That 6 Next up File Item 2 do pass as amended to appropriations Rogers Senators Allen Allen, file item 2, AB 1666? Aye. Allen, aye. 7-0. 7-0, that's out. File item 3, Rogers, AB 2494, do pass to appropriations. Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Grove? No. Grove, no. 4 to 2. 5 to 2. That bill is out. Consent calendar? Consent calendar. Please call the absent members. Senators Grove? Grove, I. 7 to 0. It's out. File item 11, AB 24. File item 6. Oh, I'm just going to skip 6. Okay. A heart, file item 6, AB 2461. Due passes amended to appropriations. Senators Grove. Can we take the amendment 6 from the sunset? Oh, that's another bill. Yeah, there's no sunset, but that's the other bill, yeah. Okay. I'm not going to go to that. Dr. Grove. just no. No, 5-1. Oh, 5-2. 5-2, that bill's out. Yes Okay Next up file item 11 11 Wix do you pass as amended to appropriations Senator Grove Aye Grove aye 7 Hadwick, file number 18. Do pass as amended to appropriations. File number 13. Oops, sorry. File number 13. File number 13, AB 2234, Pappen. Do pass as amended to appropriations. Senators Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. 7-0. Next up, file number 14, AB 2521, Pappen. do passes, manage your appropriations. Senator Grove? 6-0, that's out. File item 15, Ellis, do passes, manage your appropriations, AB 2410. Senators Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. 7-0, that's out. File item 16, AB 2711. Ellis? That was already out. out. That one's already out. We are done. All right. Thanks again to our wonderful committee staff. Thanks to everyone who participated. We are adjourned.