Assembly Natural Resources Committee

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Welcome to the assembly natural resource committee hearing. Assembly member Berner is not here yet, but she's subbing in for assembly member Al Marisucci and the following measures are proposed for consent That item number six AB 2234 Pappen And item 11 AB 2517 Calderon That leaves 11 bills to be presented. A quorum is here. Can we establish that quorum?

Brian?

Brian present. Ellis?

Ellis present. Alanis? Berner? Connelly? Garcia? Haney? Haney? Hoover?

Hoover present. Calra?

Calra present. Macedo?

Here.

Pellerin?

Pellerin present. Schultz? Wicks?

Wicks present. Zabur?

Zabur present. We have a quorum. Thank you. And I see Assemblymember Ward is here. Come on down. Whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, members. My name is Mia Kong, Council of Infill Builders. I'm an affordable housing developer with over two decades of experience developing infill housing projects across California, and we are here in support of AB 2559. AB 2559 addresses a narrow but important issue in how construction and demolition diversion programs are administered at the local level. Under Cal Green, projects are required to divert at least 65% of the construction waste to ensure compliance. Many jurisdictions require refundable deposits that are returned once the applicant demonstrates that diversion requirements have been met This framework is sound and we support it However in practice as Assemblymember Ward talked about there is a mismanagement between when compliance documentation is finalized and when jurisdictions require applicants to request a refund In many cases, the refund deadline is tied to a final inspection, but the documentation as the recycling reports and the haul reports are often compiled and submitted after that point as projects close out and materials are fully accounted for. As a result, a project may fully comply with all the diversion requirements, but still unfortunately have to forfeit their deposit if the application is not submitted within the prescribed local timelines. So this is not an issue of non-compliance. It's just an issue of timing and administrative process. AB 2529 provides a reasonable and measured solution by requiring that deposits be returned when the compliance is demonstrated within three years of final inspection. The bill preserves local authority and maintains the integrity of the diversion program. It simply ensures that applicants who meet the standards are not penalized due to a procedural timing. And for these reasons, we respectfully urge your support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY in support. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

I just really proud. This came from a constituent in my district. I think it's a common sense solution that ensures that, again, the program is not violated, but that homeowners and those trying to build more housing are not forfeiting their deposits prematurely. Respectfully request your aye vote.

That's correct.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you. Absolutely.

Aye.

Ellis?

Ellis, aye.

Aye.

Garcia?

Garcia, aye.

Fired up. Like a 2008.

All right move the bell okay there we go we done Thank you Mr Chair and members for the opportunity to speak with you today I'm pleased to present AB 1704, which creates a cost assessment for conventional building materials and lower embodied carbon materials. I want to begin by expressing my sincere appreciation to Mr. Chair, to the committee staff for their work on this bill. I will be accepting the committee's amendments. And I also want to thank the stakeholders who have offered thoughtful and thorough feedback. I remain committed to continuing those conversations so we can address the implementation concerns. To give context to this bill, AB 2446 from Holden from 2022 and AB 43 from Holden 2023 established an embodied carbon program that would require manufacturers and developers to measure and reduce the embodied carbon footprint of building materials at production and project level. As a result, the state's building sector, including housing developers, would have to switch out building materials currently in use, and we still do not know if the housing market is ready for that immense change. In our current housing landscape, every cost impact can have resounding ripple effects. Down the line, these costs will eventually impact renters and homebuyers. California is facing several affordability challenges, with 55% of renters struggling to pay rent, and one-third of homeowners paying more than 30% of their income on housing alone. Additionally, estimates from the state and housing experts believe California has a housing shortage ranging from 800,000 to 3.5 million units. To ensure the embodied carbon program does not adversely impact the housing market, AB 1704 would direct the California Air Resources Board to perform a cost assessment comparing lower embodied carbon building and materials with conventional building materials. If CARB determines that the cost parity between materials is not achieved, the program will be paused for five years. I want to stress that AB 1704 is not halting the effort to reduce embodied carbon in building materials. It's an important environmental standard that the state should continue to pursue. The bill simply ensures that in the process of doing so, we avoid the unintended consequences affecting our most vulnerable and low-income communities. We talk about affordability in the Capitol, and we as a legislature try everything within our power to address it. California cannot just say affordability. We must execute it on every front line to that finish line. Today, to testify in support of the bill are Brooke Pritchard, a legislative advocate representing California YIMBY, Stephen Stenzler, representing the California Council for Affordable Housing and Housing Action Coalition, and I believe Margie Lee is here with us today, a legislative advocate from Samson Advisors, will be testifying as a technical witness and happy to answer any technical questions. I'll turn it over to you two.

Good job. Thank you, Chair and members. My name is Stephen Stenzler with Brownstein here on behalf of the California Council for Affordable Housing and the Housing Action Coalition, statewide organizations representing the gamut of housing production, including affordable, mixed income, mixed use, workforce, student, and market rate housing developers. I'm here to speak in support of AB 1704, a bill which we believe effectively balances the state's efforts to reduce carbon emissions with the urgent need to protect housing affordability. The data is clear. California's housing affordability crisis is severe, and it's only getting worse. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, the median mid-tier home price in California is now $755,000, more than twice the price of comparable homes nationwide. For first-time homebuyers, the situation is even more troubling. Entry-level homes in California cost 30% more than homes elsewhere in the country. That imbalance is pushing homeownership further out of reach for working Californians every year. Opponents may argue that the current program already accounts for cost increases, but under existing law, that protection only applies if material costs rise by 5% or more. On a $755,000 home, a 5% increase equals nearly $38,000. That is not a modest impact. That amount alone can and often does disqualify families from qualifying for a mortgage. The National Association of Home Builders tells us that for every $1,000 increase in the price of a home, more than 11,000 households are priced out of the market. In affordable and workforce housing where margins are razor thin and financing is highly sensitive to per unit costs, even small increases can stall or kill a project entirely. AB 1704 takes a reasonable data-driven approach and ensures that embodied carbon reduction requirements move forward when lower carbon materials are price competitive, protecting housing production while still advancing our climate goals. This is a balanced solution that keeps the door open to homeownership for working families. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Marjorie Samson Advisors here on behalf of the American Wood Council, the Spray Foam Coalition, and the Resilient Floor Covering Institute in strong support. I've also been asked to give a me too for the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association, Polyiso Insulation Manufacturers Association, and the California Asian Chamber of Commerce. Good afternoon, Chair Bryan and members. John Kendrick on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in support. Good afternoon, Silvio Farrar on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, in strong support. Good afternoon, Tim Shestick with the American Chemistry Council, also in support. Thank you. I'm Elizabeth Esquivel of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in strong support. Thank you. Anthony Molina on behalf of the Gypsum Association, in support. Thank you.

All right. I'm going to go first. Good afternoon, Chair Bryan and members of the committee. My name is Marquise King Mason with Natural Resources Defense Council. We will be respectfully opposing AB 1704 We respect the committee amendments We think that that moving in a better direction although we have some concerns that Jacob will lay on a second AB 1704 adds a cost parity provision to California AB 2446 a law passed by the legislature in 2022 AB 2446 enacted a nation-leading law aimed at reducing 40% of greenhouse gas emissions in new construction by 2035. AB 1704, as written would interfere with the implementation of the existing law. While we share the desire to build affordable housing in California, that is why we believe that the existing law is critical to deploying cost-effective green building strategies. As currently written, the cost parity requirement will pause the implementation of the entire program if one lower carbon material, say cement or concrete, is not at cost parity with a conventional counterpart. We believe this inhibits the implementation of a full suite of cost-effective and even cost-producing strategies that can achieve the emissions reductions laid out, like using less materials. Therefore, we believe the bill may not address the housing affordable crisis in its current state and could prematurely pause an important law going into effect. We are open to working with the author and the committee to ensure housing and climate targets reinforce one another as intended in the original law. However, at this time, we respectfully urge the committee to reject AB 1704 in its current form. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Jacob Evans with Sierra California, here today in respectful opposition to AB 1704 on behalf of over half a million members and supporters in California. AB 1704 introduces a blunt cost parity requirement to AB 2446, California's landmark law passed in 2022, requiring a 40% reduction in embodied carbon emissions under building materials. This standard would guarantee the delay of the implementation of this law by the 10-year timeline outlined in the amended bill. The emissions reduction goals in AB 2446 aims to build a strong market for lower carbon intensity building materials by inducing the necessary demand for them. The approach on AB 1704 would flip this, requiring demand before the markets reach scale and hosting in the program that would drive the scaling. Like we've seen with the solar industry and the electric vehicle market, clean materials markets will not reach cost parity in advance of demand. Demand drives scale and scale brings costs down. Also, the implementation of this program would dampen this rapidly evolving markets. We'd also be leaving cost-efficient emission reduction strategies on the table. There are various existing cost-effective strategies available to drive down emissions in the built environment, ranging from altering cement mixes used in a project or designing projects to use less of emissions intense materials like concrete. It shows that these meaningful mission motions and building construction are already achievable today, often with little to no added cost. AB 1704 put this entirety of AB 2446 on pause, preventing California from implementing these practical and cheap emission reduction strategies available today. Most importantly, AB 1704 conflicts with the existing nuanced cost impact and feasibility provisions in AB 2446 mentioned earlier. Law evaluates cost impact at the project level and allows developers to receive exemptions from the law if their budgets are affected by more than 5% because of the law's requirements. AB 1704 fails to build off this existing cost impact protection and simply halts the entirety of this nation-leading law. Please, reasons, respectfully urge your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon. Yeah, just trying to better understand some of the underlying assumptions of this bill. So a couple questions. Is there a current requirement that developers use more expensive carbon-friendly materials when building housing? No. They always try to make sure it can be as affordable as possible. At the end of the day, they need to figure out ways to pencil out. There are other costs that are occurring in California right now like high fees so it in their interest to make sure that not the case So even under existing law including the Holden bill there is not a current requirement for use of a more expensive carbon material Second question, can we identify how the embodied carbon program has increased the cost of building housing, or is this merely speculation that this program could impact housing development in the future. So the bill does require this, and so it's going to be up to the California Air Resource Board to be able to determine that. So, and in fact, they do have to do a cost and impact feasibility analysis. Is that right? Correct. And the bill by its own current law, by its own terms, would not go into effect even until sometime after that cost feasibility analysis is undertaken. Is that right? Yes. Yeah. So I'm concerned that we're being asked to kind of engage in speculation at this point would be my concern at this time about it.

Yes, sir. By studying impacts on the housing market, AB 1704 ensures we are building smarter, not just faster, aligning housing development with our climate goals and environmental stewardship. This bill helps reduce sprawl, supports more sustainable land use, and advances housing solutions that are both affordable and environmentally responsible. It also recognizes the urgent need to rebuild and provide housing in areas impacted by wildfires, while addressing the growing demand in densely populated communities that need more housing, close to jobs, transit, and resources. To our environmental partners and advocates, your concerns are heard and reflected in the approach grounded in data, accountability, and shared commitment to protecting our natural resources while meeting California's housing needs. I look forward to continuing to work with you on that. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I think there are only three of us, I think Mr. Haney as well, who voted for the original landmark bill back in 2022 by Mr. Holden. And I think the opposition's concerns are well-founded, and I trust that the author will get there. And I hope those conversations continue. Also, just a personal pet peeve. I didn't see any tenants' rights organizations in support of this measure, and it really bothers me when we speak about renters, although the author is a renter, and so you get a pass today. 85% of my district are renters, so I get it. Yep, and the intersection between what they demand and ask of us and the need for us to bill and increase supply seem to run into conflicting intersections in this building that are staggering. And so nothing about them without them, but I want to thank the author for bringing this forward.

Aye.

Ellis?

Ellis, aye.

Aye.

Connelly.

Garcia.

Garcia, aye.

Aye.

Hoover.

Hoover, aye.

Macedo.

Macedo, aye.

Aye.

Wicks.

Wicks, aye.

Zabir, not voting. The bill is out.

You got both. Can we get Lakewood finest please Whenever you're ready, Mr. Salache.

Okay.

Absolutely. Two minutes. Any questions? Technical. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Any persons in the hearing room in support?

You get me? California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in support.

Thank you, sir. Any persons here in opposition to this measure? Any persons in the hearing room who are afraid to stand up because it's Ms. Susan's birthday? We'll now turn it to committee members. Mr. Zaburn.

We have a motion by Mr. Zabur, a second by Mr. Haney. Mr. Salace, would you like to close?

Salache in his role as a board member for AQMD, and so it's full circle for a lot of us. I was I've been going there for two years, Mr. Chair, but I feel like 10 years. You did 10 years of good work in those two years. This bill has a due pass recommendation. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll? Motion is due pass to appropriations. Brian?

Brian, aye.

Aye.

Alanis?

Connolly?

Connolly, aye.

Aye.

Haney?

Haney, aye.

Aye.

Kalra?

Kalra, aye.

Aye.

Pellerin?

Thank you.

Schultz?

Aye.

Zabir? Aye.

I have the ACR, and I think Assemblymember Bennett is trying to get here, but I can do it as well.

Okay.

Pleasure. Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I'm very pleased to present ACR 149 commemorating the 50th anniversary of the passage of the California Coastal Act and the creation of the state coastal conservancy. The Coastal Act stands as one of the most important environmental protections in our state's history. It reflects our passion and determination of the people of California that our coast should be protected as a public resource for generations to come. Since 1972, the California Coastal Commission and the Coastal Conservancy have been responsible for conserving nearly half a million acres of natural lands and restoring 50,000 acres of critical coastal habitats The Coastal Commission and the Coastal Conservancy also play a key role in ensuring that coastal development prioritizes public access environmental health and conservation As a result, the Coastal Commission and the Coastal Conservancy have helped create 2,500 public access ways and protect 875 miles of coastal trail, helping guarantee that the public can continue to enjoy California's beautiful coastline. As a former Coastal Commissioner myself and a longtime local government elected official in Santa Barbara County, I've seen firsthand how deeply our community values and benefit from coastal protection. Our coastline is central to our environment, economy, and way of life. The work of the Commission and Conservancy has helped preserve these extraordinary resources for local families, visitors, and future generations. Joining me in support are Kate Huckelbridge, Executive Director of the Coastal Commission, and Amy Hutzel, Executive Officer of the Coastal Conservancy.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee. Thank you, Assemblymember Hart. I'm thrilled today to be here in support of this resolution that marks the 50th anniversary of the California Coastal Act and the Conservation Act or Conservancy Act. 50 years ago today, during a time of indiscriminate development and increasing industrialization and privatization of our coast and beaches, Californians decided that they had a different vision for our coastline. In passing the Coastal Act and the Conservancy Act, your predecessors agreed with the public that California's coast is a distinct and valuable resource of vital and enduring interest to all people. And to ensure that the public could continue to enjoy the coast into the future, these two acts enshrined the public's right to access a healthy and functional coastline, created a land acquisition and conservation program to support that goal, and established a framework and public process for making decisions on how to balance competing uses and priorities on our coastline. Critically, that framework had to be strong yet flexible enough to address challenges that were not yet on the horizon when the law was passed. It is this approach and legal construct that has supported the evolution of the law itself to address changing needs of our state. For example, how to address and adapt to climate change, specifically sea level rise, coastal hazards, also supporting the shift towards clean energy and reduced greenhouse gases. how to address environmental justice to ensure that all people, including those that have been historically excluded, can enjoy our coastline. The Act has also provided additional tools to enforce the provisions of the Act, to address complex transportation projects, and to expand public education efforts. The Commission's Whale Tail Grant Program has provided over 1,000 grants supporting coastal access and education to organizations in every county in our state, Underscoring the premise that our coastline is for everyone, not just those who have the good fortune to live there. And it is working. I won't repeat the successes that were mentioned by Assemblymember Hart, but I would like to underscore that all of this was achieved while supporting what is now an enviable $51 billion coastal economy. Proof that California's unique approach to balancing economic growth and coastal protection works. But that work is not done. Protecting our coast for future generations requires continued vigilance and dedication to the vision and goals of the acts we celebrate today. And so I would like to thank the countless advocates, community members, NGOs who have worked tirelessly to realize the vision of the Coastal Act and the Coastal Conservancy Act I would also like to thank our many local state and tribal partners as well as the dedicated staff of our two organizations And finally I like to thank you Chair and the members of the Senate Natural Resources Committee for taking the time today to consider, sorry, Assembly Natural Resources, taking the time to consider this resolution and for hearing our comments today. We would not be here today celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act if it wasn't for the broad support of the legislature and the public. In closing, I urge you to vote in support of this resolution, an important acknowledgement of the importance of these acts in shaping coastal stewardship and access for all over the last 50 years and into the future. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm Amy Hutzel with the State Coastal Conservancy. And our agency was created as the non-regulatory partner agency 50 years ago to the Coastal Commission and to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. And over the last 50 years, we've partnered with over a thousand different nonprofits, public agencies and tribes to conduct all the projects that Assemblymember Hart discussed. Looking towards the next 50 years, climate change and equitable access to the coast are our highest priorities. I want to thank the legislature for your support for our agencies over the years, most recently with the placement of Proposition 4, the climate bond on the November 2024 ballot. Those bond funds have started to be appropriated to the Coastal Conservancy and to other agencies, and we are already putting them to work on the ground, enhancing coastal flood risk management, supporting coastal access and habitat restoration, and mitigating wildfire risk. We're facing major challenges to protect our coastal resources and public access to the coast in the face of sea level rise and extreme storms. Proposition four provides the resources necessary to carry out our mission over the next decade. I want to thank our staff and our board at our relatively small agency who manage hundreds of projects from Del Norte to San Diego. And I want to thank them and their predecessors over the past 50 years. And just, you mentioned the Whale Tail Grant. Our Whale Tail and Explore the Coast grant programs have brought hundreds of thousands of people to the California coast, many for the very first time. So, you know, this is what we want to continue to do moving forward. And thanks to all of you. Thank you so much.

Hi, good afternoon. Michael Chan with Audubon California in support. Jacob Evans with Sierra California in support. Hello, Natalie Brown voicing support on behalf of the California Coastal Protection Network, Center for Environmental Health, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Environmental Defense Center, Monterey Bay Aquarium, Planning and Conservation League, Research Renewal Institute, Surfrider Foundation, and the Surfrider Foundation San Francisco chapter. Thank you. Good afternoon Christina Scrodinger at the Center for Biological Diversity in support Good afternoon Tomas Valadez with Azul in support Thank you so much Any persons in opposition to this resolution

Thank you, Chair. And as someone who represents a coastal district, and this resolution is especially meaningful to me, And thanks to the Coastal Act, families can walk down to the beach, access points are protected, wetlands and habitats are preserved, and development is done thoughtfully. And I know many of you enjoy the coast during spring break, and it's a beautiful place to be and to shop and to experience nature. And I hate to think of what we would look like without the Coastal Act. And our coast would look very, very different. You can imagine stretches of coastline lined with private development and fewer natural spaces. So as we continue to see the sea level rise, coastal erosion, and climate impacts, it's more important now than ever to protect our coastline. So I want to thank the author for this very thoughtful resolution. I'm proud to be a co-author, and I move the resolution.

Yeah, I'd just like to say that the combination of the California Coastal Commission and the Coastal Conservancy is really a unique approach around the globe. It's the most successful program of its kind in the planet. People around the world look to California for our leadership in coastal management and resource protection. And it's really appropriate, I think, to celebrate the 50 years of accomplishments that have been made in this last period of time and to look forward to the challenges and the opportunities that the next 50 years will bring. So I respectfully request an aye vote.

Aye.

Oh.

I'm just a me too for support.

Kasha Hunt with Political Solutions on behalf of Matador Fire in support.

Thank you, and thank you for pinch hitting. Understanding you may not have the answer to these questions. and I will be supporting it today, but I have a couple questions I wanted to flag and then a quick comment. I've had some really good conversations with the author today as well. I will be, so question, but also statement, we'll be very interested to see where the funding for this bill will be coming from. Will it be from Prop 4? Will that supersede funding for current programs like Cal Fire's wildfire mitigation program that includes home hardening? And we kind of specifically fought to get a large chunk of money for home hardening into Proposition 4 that heretofore has been implemented through the wildfire mitigation program. And again, to the author, have your conversations with departments like CAL FIRE indicate how long it will take to do the work required in this bill. So I don't know if you know any of those details.

And then again, a quick comment, wanted to express my support for the concept. I think I'm even a co-author. while, again, kind of just flagging an overarching concern, and I think we're headed in the right direction on this, but creating added layers of government or bureaucracy, so to speak, that might prevent individual homeowners and communities from actually receiving the money. That's what this is really all about, is getting home-hardening funding into homeowners' hands. That being said, the concept of the bill seems to align well with work that is being done, for example, in my own district with the Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority, an agency that is doing really good work. It's funded in part with a local tax measure, but also state funding and incentivizes local residents to harden their homes by actually providing financial assistance among other efforts that they're doing. So, again, with kind of those comments and caveats, supporting the bill today.

I wanted to align my comments with Assemblymember Conley's. In particular, we'll be supporting the bill as well. And obviously, we've got a very thoughtful author that wanted to convey that I thought that some of the suggestions made in the Sierra Club letter were important ones to be considered. And I'm hoping that he'll be working with them on that, as well as some of the issues that the fire chiefs raised related to equitability and funding. So I'm hoping that he will continue working with both of those entities. And with that, I guess I'll move the bill.

Yeah, we just respectfully request an aye vote on behalf of Assemblymember Bennett.

Aye.

Aye.

Move the bill.

I appreciate the opportunity to present AB 1757 to the committee. And I want to just start by making clear this does not exempt from CEQA or from local control any small modular reactor nuclear facility. It simply creates a very limited carve-out from the moratorium, the current moratorium on any nuclear power for the modular nuclear reactor units. And so I want to make that clear at the outset so that people fully understand that these would-be projects that would still need to go through local controls, CEQA review, before they were approved. But the reason why I really think this is important is as we are thinking about meeting our climate goals and also affordability goals of energy, I do believe that nuclear has to play a pretty key role in that. And this technology has been developed over many years, decades. There's been a lot of research, as you are going to hear from my witnesses. and this technology is very ready to deploy and can be part of that mission of, one, ensuring capacity. We going to need a lot of capacity for the electrical demands when it comes to the goal for EVs when it comes for the goal for increased use at ports et cetera there going to be a huge demand on the system and we simply need more power generation. And one of the key ways we can do that in an affordable way that's not in the same old mold, that's another thing I want to point out. We've been doing things within the same old mold. I believe the committee analysis talked like, well, this maybe needs to be more like France, more centrally planned, more of a monopolistic view. Well, that's who we have. We have a monopoly right now, right? In many of our areas where you don't have a choice over what utility you're going to use. You're going to get whatever the rates are. And right now it's high, right? And we all know that. But one of the key things we can do is develop new technology, new generation that's local, more localized, and doesn't need large-scale transmission that's very costly and also that's getting old. And that's where I really think that this technology comes into play. So when it comes to next generation nuclear technology, California needs to be a leader. And right now we're kind of behind the curve because we've had this moratorium. Now, we've had this moratorium for a good reason. There were real concerns about nuclear power, but I would say that's antiquated power. And, you know, older systems, you know, very large-scale silos that people are kind of used to, technology has changed a lot. These can basically be delivered on a trailer. They're very small. They're self-contained. And as you'll hear, many are already moving forward. The states like Texas, Wyoming, Idaho, and Tennessee are actively moving forward with advanced nuclear and microreactor deployment. And these states are attracting federal funding, private investment, and high-skilled jobs in next-generation energy. California should be right there with them. And that's the pitch I really want to make to the committee. I don't know nearly enough, and that's why I've brought some folks here from Radiant Technology who are going to present some of what they've found and their history of working with nuclear technology so you can hear firsthand from them. And what I'm hoping is we really open up a conversation. We learn a little bit more today, and I'm hopeful that we can maybe start moving this forward in a new direction, again, to meet those twin goals of clean power and affordable power. So with that, I would ask for your aye vote, and I'll turn it over to my first witness with us today.

Good afternoon, Chair Bryan and members of the committee. It is my absolute privilege to be able to share with you a little bit about our background and what Radiant is doing in the state of California. My name is Rita Barronwall, and I am the chief nuclear officer at Radiant Nuclear. Radiant is a clean energy company headquartered in El Segundo, California. We are developing the Kaleidos Reactor, which is a portable zero emissions power source. I have nearly 30 years of leadership in the nuclear sector, including as Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy in the U.S. Department of Energy. I started my career at Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory. I'm a materials engineer by degrees, but my first job out of grad school was to develop new nuclear fuel for the U.S. Navy's aircraft carriers and submarines that are powered by nuclear. One summer I thought I had drawn a short straw but it ended up being the privilege of a lifetime I had to drive a van full of interns to Newport News Shipyard and I got to stand inside where the reactor was going to go and the USS Ronald Reagan as it was being constructed And that was a monumental turning point for me, where I realized that nuclear power was going to power this behemoth of a ship and defend my country. And I've never looked back. I now have two children who are grown and out of the house, and I stay in this industry because of the clean energy that it can provide to this country and to the rest of the world. I'm pleased to provide testimony today on AB 1757. It would allow California to consider deploying nuclear microreactors. Microrreactors, by definition, are traditionally 20 megawatts electric or smaller. At Radiant, we're developing the Kaleidos microreactor, which is one megawatt electric. So for context and comparison to Diablo Canyon, which is 2,200 megawatts, a microreactor is less than one-tenth of a percent the size of the Diablo Canyon facility. This bill would modernize California's energy policy without compromising safety or environmental standards. It is a targeted, practical update to an outdated policy. California faces unprecedented energy challenges. We must meet ambitious climate goals, strengthen the grid, and plan for rising electricity demand from data centers and from electrification. Nuclear energy is safe, reliable, and clean. Starting with microreactors would position California to harness advanced nuclear technology for energy resilience, climate progress, and grid reliability. Microreactors offer dispatchable zero-carbon options that complement renewables.

They provide constant baseload power for critical infrastructures like data centers, manufacturing facilities, military bases, and hospitals. and they help stabilize the grid during peak demand or extreme weather. So as a replacement for diesel generators, micro-reactors provide backup power without particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, or other emissions, supporting air quality goals and improving health outcomes for Californians.

I'll continue where Rita left off. My name is Phoebe Lind. I've been a part of Team Radiant. but as a replacement for diesel generators, microreactors provide backup power without that particular matter, but they're ready for deployment now. Unlike large-scale nuclear power plants, microreactors are built in factories. They're shipped to a site and installed in days instead of years. There's no on-site construction required. Then when these reactors reach the end of their life cycle, they are removed from the site and shipped back to the factory, and the site returns to a greenfield. No spent fuel is stored on site either. Fuel remains contained within that sealed, transportable unit to be returned to the factory and stored there. Microrreactor deployment builds on a strong foundation of safety. The commercial nuclear industry has an exemplary safety track record under the oversight of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. From startup to operation and eventual decommissioning, all nuclear facilities require exhaustive safety reviews and ongoing compliance with NRC regulations. In addition, microreactors incorporate enhanced safety features. At Radiant, Rita mentioned we're developing the Klydoros microreactor. It is designed with passive safety systems, meaning the reactor can safely shut down on its own without operator intervention and without external power. It can withstand extreme conditions, including severe weather and seismic events. And it also uses Triso fuel. This is an advanced fuel form that cannot melt down in the reactor core. And then finally, Radiance technology, it's probably designed and prototyped here in California. We've long led in energy innovation and advanced manufacturing. As Assemblymember Gallagher referred to, AB 1757 would further support high-skill jobs, attract investment, and position the state as a leader in the advanced nuclear industry. In closing, California cannot reach its ambitious climate energy goals without nuclear energy, There is no net zero without nuclear. AB 1757 would enable California to integrate nuclear technology responsibly, charting a path to carbon neutrality by 2045 while bolstering energy security. This is a practical first step on the path to broader nuclear development in California, and it's a logical complement to AB 2645 or 47. Thank you so much. The seven is at the end to get them mixed up. But I know you're looking at that next week, and we're really excited to continue the conversations on nuclear deployment in California.

Heather Hoff, Mothers for Nuclear, in support. Thanks. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Erin Sanford on behalf of the Northern California Power Agency, in strong support. James Bayard Dillis, Californian since 1960, soundless visible resident, and I support this. Jeff Donovan, Californian since 1968, from GLOW Strategies, we support this strongly. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon again, Chair members. Jacob Evans with Sierra California here today in respectful opposition to AB 1757 on behalf of over half a million members and supporters in California. California's moratorium on new nuclear plans has protected ratepayers and communities for nearly 50 years. AB 1757 would dismantle that protection at precisely the wrong moment, as the Trump administration is getting national nuclear oversight and short-cutting environmental review for unproven reactor designs. Opponents argue that nuclear micro-reactors are different. The cost status is otherwise. The new scale small modular reactor project in Idaho was canceled after costs conceded $20,000 per kilowatt, 18 times the cost of utility solar. Plant Vogel, the most recent large rector to come online in the U.S., came in at $32 billion, tripled its original budget, and delivered 25% higher bills to ratepayers, the largest rate increase in Georgia history. Generic microrectors project even worse, $34,000 per kilowatt, with electricity costs around $470 per megawatt hour. These aren't outliers. Every small modular rector project built internationally has significantly exceeded cost estimates, in some cases by 300 to 700%. In addition to saddling Californians with increased utility bills, waste from the technology included in AB 1757 would jeopardize the safety of California's frontline communities. The bill's proponents claim that no nuclear waste would be stored on site, but have not received a federal permit to transport spent nuclear fuel, and construction has not started on a proposed waste facility in Tennessee. In other words breaking California nuclear moratorium for this new technology is premature and risky California should not rely on this expensive and dangerous power source to meet our climate goals while our nation build of renewables battery energy storage geothermal and great innovation is delivering abundant, reliable, and affordable electricity. AB 1757 asks Californians to take on safety risks, waste storage liability, and ratepayer exposure for technology that's never delivered on its cost promises. Please read your no vote. Thank you. Good afternoon chair and members. Michelle Kanellis with the Union of Concerned Scientists in respectful opposition to EB1757. Although micro reactors are only 20 megawatts, being smaller does not necessarily reduce their risks. UCS research has long indicated that micro reactors could pose greater risks of radiological exposure to surrounding communities than currently operating reactors and deregulation at the federal level makes this increasingly more likely. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already adopted rules that would allow certain micro reactors to be located in densely populated areas, yet would exempt their owners from any responsibility for off-site management, emergency planning, saddling state and local authorities with the entire burden of preparing for and responding to nuclear accidents. As directed by the president, the NRC is also pursuing major rollbacks of its licensing regulations to facilitate rapid deployment of untested designs with drastically shortened environmental reviews and little opportunity for public input. While we've heard claims that smaller reactors are less costly to build, small modular reactors and micro reactors in particular will actually produce more expensive electricity because of diseconomies of scale. You heard about new scale expenses at $20,000 per kilowatt before its cancellation. With micro reactors being of even smaller scale, they will remain unaffordably expensive no matter project design most likely, with projected electricity costs two to three times more than that of small modular reactors. California should continue investing in renewable energy sources such as solar wind and firm sources like geothermal and battery storage, not create pathways for nuclear micro reactor projects that are costly and riskier to residents in the state. We respectfully request your no vote. Thank you.

Hello Chair and members, Natalie Brown voicing opposition on behalf of Resource Renewal Institute, Mothers for Peace, Climate Resolve, Committee to Bridge the Gap, and Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles. Thank you for your time.

So, Assemblymember, thank you for bringing this forward. I've been in science for 50 years. I've dealt with fusion, quantum, AI, and I commend you for nuclear, micronuclear, because it is our future. I have a couple questions. What do you do with the spent fuel? Because everybody's perception is, oh, Chernobyl and wah, wah, wah. That's just 100 years ago. So we in a new world where we have with AI and we have quantum and we have supercomputers that are algorithms for safety that go on forever are so unbelievably good that I would expect that you using this in your process So I first want to ask about the fuel Sure So I going to address the spent fuel

What about the data centers that are moving out of California because they don't have the power to supply them and we're putting in – are you doing any of the micronuclear work there?

Okay. Thank you very much.

So why is it important for you to make the note that no spent fuel will be stored here in California? Because he just mentioned that the waste would be in California. Do you think it would be a problem if the waste was in California?

Okay. In terms of the clean energy conversation, I think we talk about this a lot in our oil conversations. The idea of trucking spent fuel all the way to Tennessee, does that offset any of the benefits that you would expect to gain from these modular reactors?

Would it be your recommendation that California should invest in storing nuclear waste here in California communities?

have nuclear waste is what you told me just a second ago. I didn't say communities. No, no, no. I said it could be here. California mountains or? Hang on, hang on. Let me explain. So just like

I think it's an important conversation when we're talking about, you know, lifting a moratorium that's been in place for quite some time. What kind of conditions for a place in California would make sense? Would it be like an urban center like Los Angeles or a rural community like Nicholas? Where would you expect something like this refueling station that you have in Tennessee? Where would be the ideal conditions in California for something like that?

right now. But this bill doesn't require or even open that up to doing more storage here in California. This company would be taking that back to Tennessee, where they, again, have safe storage approved by the NRC, has to go through all that regulatory review. So I just want to make that point. And yeah, I don't know if you wanted to add to that. Yeah.

I appreciate that. And it was, I think it's, all of these questions are relevant, which is why I think there was bipartisan interest in kind of seeing how does this all play out? Because I think this is an important conversation and has been a bipartisan conversation going back, I think, the last three or four legislative cycles. I think I would like to see the energy commission kind of look into this and report back to the legislature in a, in a meaningful way at some point. so we can have this conversation fully on our pathway to net zero.

Unfortunately, I'm going to close this one out, but I look forward to hearing you back, I think, in a couple weeks, I would imagine. I'm not ready to support this yet, but I do think this conversation is important. And I know that our colleague from Nicholas is sincere in his efforts to try to lower energy costs, and I think that's a priority of the legislature and a goal for all of us. I'm not sure if this is the way to do it. I'd like to see more data, more research, more information. I'd like to see the Energy Commission get involved in providing us the kind of foundational framework for us to make good legislative decisions. And so I cannot support this measure today. We have a motion by Mr. Hoover and a second by Ms. Macedo. Madam Secretary, this bill does not have a yes recommendation from the chair.

Would you like to close, Mr. Gallagher?

Okay.

Appreciate you With the Easter reference I thought you were going to say that this bill has risen from the dead for the fourth time That it Madam Secretary can we call the roll The motion is due past two appropriations. Brian? No. Brian, no. Ellis? Aye. Ellis, aye. Alanis? Yes. Alanis, aye. Berner? No. Berner, no. Connolly? No. Connolly, no. Garcia? No. Garcia, no. Haney? Hoover cholera cholera no Macedo Pellerin no Pellerin no Schultz wicks Zuber no is that an invitation to ask for reconsiderations that it could rise from the dead without objection reconsideration is granted thank you mr. Sure, man. Absolutely. Miss Addis. Miss Addis. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you committee members and staff and advocates that are here today. I'm here to present AB 2254, the Coastal Monarchs Protection Act, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. This bill requires local governments within the coastal zone that have monarch butterfly overwintering sites within their jurisdiction to develop and implement overwintering site protection policies, but only to do that when they are already going to update their local coastal plan or their LCP. So it would happen within a natural time cycle for the entities that would be updating. And just to give you the problem in a nutshell, Western monarchs are incredibly important, not just to the Central Coast, but much of coastal California. They bring ecotourism dollars to very small communities that need those dollars. And they're also a very important part of our ecosystem. But since the 1980s, we've had a 95 percent decrease in Western monarchs, which means that the population is on the brink of collapse and over 60 sites have been destroyed or severely damaged by human development. So AB 2254 is a very simple solution, as I mentioned, that when local government is updating their LCP or local coastal plan, they would include overwintering site protection policies. And with me today is Scott Black, Executive Director of the ZERI Society for Invertebrate Conservation and Robert Heim, Program Coordinator for the California State Parks Foundation. And I'll turn it over to them.

Persons in this hearing room in support of this measure.

Thank you.

Are there any persons here in this hearing room in opposition to this measure? Two minutes. Okay, thank you.

Any other persons in the hearing room in opposition?

Thank you so much.

to the dais. Mr. Sabur.

In fact, there's a separate regulatory structure under the Coastal Act to protect environmentally sensitive habitat areas, otherwise known as ESHA. Is that right? Yes. If I could say maybe in colloquial terms how long it would take, it would be a super long time. I think I wish I could give you a number. Actually, I wish that we could define here's exactly how long it would take to get through SESA, but it would be a very long time. And I think with the decline that we've seen, there is a worry that the population would be gone by the time we could get through the process. I would also say it's not standard. I would agree with you on that. it's not at all standard. And while monarchs may be protected, their sites aren't necessarily protected under the Coastal Act as it stands. So this would create more of a, to your point, more of a broad policy that could be used across the state. But also the Coastal Commission is working on this and willing to create model policies so that I used to be a council member. I was a council member in the city of Morro Bay. And one of the most helpful things when we were going through the LCP process was to be in constant contact with Coastal Commission, but also when they have model policies that you know are going to stand up to their scrutiny, that makes the process a lot easier. And so they've been willing to work with us to say that they would develop model policies. And there's no debate that monarch butterflies are endangered and threatened. I mean, it's I think from what I'm aware of, the Coastal Commission alone has been tracking this for at least two decades now and has been looking at monarch butterfly populations who understand go. I mean, don't they fly all the way down to Mexico and then they come back? And we know that the numbers are declining pretty rapidly. So it's not like we need to go through a state or federal Endangered Species Act process to know that these species are endangered and threatened. Is that accurate?

As an LCP is updated through the Coastal Act, this would be a new part of it. Is that right? That's correct, is that we want this to be part of the natural cycle of a city updating their LCP again, understanding what it's like as a former city council member, what it's like to go through the LCP process. And it is a very robust process. It's a purposeful process, but we're not adding an extra layer. We're just making this part of the natural update of the LCP.

Thank you. Other questions from colleagues? Seeing none, would you like to close?

We have a motion by Mrs. Burr and a second by Ms. Burr. this committee supports the monarch butterflies and your efforts has a do pass recommendation Madam Secretary can we call the roll motion is do pass as amended to water parks and wildlife committee Brian Brian I Ellis Ellis no Alanis Berner I Berner I Connolly Connolly I Garcia Haney Hoover Cholera Cholera aye Macedo Pellerin Aye Pellerin aye Schultz Aye Schultz aye Wicks Zabar Aye Zabar aye We'll leave it open for absent members Thank you so much Thank you Thank you We're going to have Ms. Berner go really quickly Assemblymember Petrie Norris and Assemblymember Wilson. If you can hear me, please come to the committee room. We would love to hear from you.

Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?

Thank you so much. Any persons here in opposition?

Any persons in the hearing room in opposition? Name, organization, position on the bill.

Thank you so much. We'll now turn it back to the dice. Questions? Mr. Zubur.

So we recognize this is it's very it's a confusing issue. Absolutely. Absolutely. And so one one clarification that I want to make is that the the bill does not say that you can't use any form of mass balance. It specifically says you can't use credit based mass balance and the and the form of mass balance that is explicitly allowed, especially now with the it was allowed before, but it's more explicit in with the committee amendments is that you can use rolling average mass balance. And so in that case, what it allows is say you have 75% of, or say you have like recycled feedstock and you have virgin feedstock. And on a given day, you might have 75% of recycled feedstock and 25% of virgin feedstock. So another day, you might have the opposite, 25% of, what did I say, of recycled feedstock and 75% of virgin. So it allows fluctuations. And what it says is that, you know, the number of the amount of recycled content in a bottle or whatever can vary. It can absolutely vary. It can vary dramatically. But on average, over a period of time, you know, one month, three months, you know, some defined period of time, on average, you have to be using whatever claim. So if you're saying you're claiming 50% recycled content, then on average, like over that time period, you have to use 50% recycled content. So it can actually vary really substantially. You could have 1% and it would still be in compliance. But as long as you're actually physically using that amount in making the products over time, that's a lot. What you can't do is say, you know what, instead of actually using like physical recycled content, we're going to, for example, there's a number of different ways that you can, there's a number of different forms of this. but you can't like buy a credit over here that is, you know, theoretically associated with some like other recycled content. And then to say like, okay, well, I'm not going to change with how I'm making my product. I'm just going to kind of like buy the certification over here and put that claim on my product. You can't do that kind of thing. Does that make sense?

It's not the intent of the sponsors to outlaw mass balance. It basically to make sure that there are some guidelines around it so that you not basically buying a credit that someone else used recycled content and then not using and sort of getting a free pass on your own product Is that sort of More or less So why so are the mechanisms that the I assume this is guidance that puts the mass balance protocols together

So there are ISO standards that kind of define different forms of, they're called like chain of custody models. And there's other ones in addition to mass balance that are also allowed. So they kind of define, you know, like, here's what they are. And here's kind of generally how they work. And what this bill does is say, okay, you can use these chain of custody models, which really are tied to physical content. But you can't use these other chain of custody models, which aren't tied to physical content and can allow companies to, you know, for example, buy a card over here. Or another example is to take plastic waste, turn it into fuel, which is not recycling, and essentially transfer recycling credits to essentially virgin plastic, call it recycled, mark it as recycled, and then companies are essentially incorporating what is essentially virgin plastic into their products and calling it recycled when actually that plastic waste was burned as fuel. So it's also restricting that practice, which is really against California law. So there's a number of different things that are happening that it's really trying to guard against and really support the actual incorporation of actual physical content in products, even though it allows fluctuation in a mass. Does that help clarify?

Correct.

I believe that's the amendment we took in this committee. Correct.

Yes.

And so the mass balance rolling average is something that we are comfortable with. There's other forms of mass balance defined by ISO that this bill is trying to create guardrails around.

Well, yeah, because as my members have read it, they're still concerned that it's a one-size-fits-all, and we still have concerns on how it's going to implement, how we are going to be able to implement SB 707. We need that technology in order to implement certain types of fabrics, polyester and nylon and those types of things. So, you know, we don't want to handcuff ourselves when we, no one's ever done this type of VPR project globally at all. California's first, we're leaning into it. But a sweeping bill like this, we're opening in so many different, I mean, I heard plastic, plastic, plastic. This incorporates carpet, all kinds of different programs, not just plastic. We're not concerned about plastic. I'm concerned really about textile. So I think that there's a, you know, that's really where our concerns are. So it really is something that I think more thought needs to be put into that. I don't know, Adam, if you had any comments. So if I can just, as the author, respond, this bill only affects marketing.

Thank you. Mr. Ellis. Yeah, one quick question. Can you point to a single certified mass balance claim that the EPA, Federal Trade Commission, or any regulatory agency is found to be deceptive?

But you don't know of any claims?

Well, then my question of the opposition then, do you know of any?

Mr. Sabur, you have a quick one?

I always am happy to work with the opposition. Thank you.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote. I want to thank the author for working with the committee and taking these amendments, which we crafted intentionally to clarify that this bill protects important and useful tools used to calculate real recycling while ensuring that deceptive accounting gimmicks cannot be used. And I know you had some concerns taking an amendment that speaks directly to the chief concerns of the opposition because you felt like they would come to committee and say that you had done nothing despite taking these amendments And I can imagine why you would feel that way But I want to thank you for taking that amendment nonetheless and for working with this committee in good faith

Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Ellis? No.

Macedo, Pellerin, Aye. Pellerin, Aye. Schultz, Aye. Schultz, Aye.

Zuber, Aye.

I just wrapped up Transportation Committee. So good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I'm pleased to present AB 2184, a bill that would appropriate $400 million from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to achieve nature-based targets on natural working and urban lands. In 2022, AB 1757 set numeric goals for California's land to contribute as much as possible to achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. 81 targets are set across agriculture lands, forests, wetlands, urban areas, and beyond, mobilizing millions of acres to absorb and store more carbon. The conservation and restoration of lands across the state will not only reduce climate pollution, but will also provide the increasingly necessary adaptation benefits to safeguard California's communities and ecosystems from climate extremes, such as wildfire risk reduction, increased water retention, enhanced soil health, flood protection, and more. Additionally, nature-based programs like the Healthy Soys Program helps farmers and ranchers adopt climate-smart practices that store more carbon, boost yields, and support local economies across the state. However, there is a significant gap in dedicated funding to achieve these targets. While nature-based climate solutions can help deliver climate resilience, they remain the only priority area included in the CAP and INVIS program that does not currently receive continuous appropriation, which creates tremendous uncertainty. AB 2184 is not a one-time investment. It is a long-term commitment to climate, community, and economic health. Sustained funding will allow California to scale up proven nature-based solutions, create green and agricultural jobs, and deliver real benefits to those who need them the most. Failing to invest in nature-based climate solutions now will worsen the crisis, driving costs for Californians. Fires, floods, sea level rise, extreme heat, all of which further strain housing and insurance systems. With that, I would like to introduce my two witnesses, Bill Eisenstein with River Partners,

Great. Thank you, Assemblymember Wilson. And hello, Assemblymembers.

Okay, thank you. Do we have anyone in support in the hearing room?

Do we have anyone here in opposition? Nobody in opposition? Okay. You want to bring it back to the members? Yes. Assemblymember Macedo.

Thank you. Anyone else? Would you like to close?

Okay. We have a motion in a second. Madam Secretary, do you call roll? Motion is due pass to appropriations.

Ellis? No. Ellis, no. Alanis, Berger, Connolly. Aye. Connolly, aye. Garcia, Haney, Hoover. Not voting.

Aye.

No.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the intro. I am pleased to join you all today to present AB 2513, which will modernize California's regional forest and fire capacity program As we all know California wildfire crisis is intensifying Over the last decade we have seen some of the most destructive fires in state history burn millions of acres and destroy homes and businesses in every corner of the state. And in the same way that the wildfire crisis is a statewide crisis, we also need to ensure that our wildfire mitigation strategy addresses the challenges confronting every corner of the state of California. In current law, wildfire mitigation activities that are defined in statute remain too narrow. They focus exclusively on forest health and forest management, even though shrubland and chaparral ecosystems also demonstrate large wildfire risk. The result is a misalignment between risk and resources. So without changes to this approach, California will continue to underinvest in protecting entire regions that are on the front lines of the wildfire crisis and the habitats that so many of us represent. So our approach with this bill and our goal with this bill is to update outdated definitions and supercharge existing wildfire prevention programs. So AB 2513 will modernize state definitions of wildfire prevention and forest health to explicitly include chaparral and shrubland ecosystems, which aligns policy with science and on-the-ground risk. The bill also builds on the success of the regional forest and fire capacity program by unlocking regional landscape-scale funding opportunities for the Department of Conservation, the Wildlife Conservation Board, and CAL FIRE. AB 2513 ensures that California's wildfire strategy is equitable, science-based, and responsive to all landscapes. Pleased to be joined today by Mark Fenstermaker, who is joining us on behalf of Irvine Ranch Conservancy, and Steve Frisch with the Sierra Business Council.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mark Fenstermaker here for the Irvine Ranch Conservancy, proud sponsor of AB 2513. Since 2018, the state's main approach to funding wildfire mitigation projects has really come through two greenhouse gas reduction funded programs, both of which rely on strategies improving forest health and reducing forest fuels. And this approach has worked pretty well in our northern forested parts of the state, but it does not account for the fact that a lot of areas of Southern California has wildfires but doesn't have forests. And our fire science has shown and our regional planning has made clear that reducing wildfires on our chaparral and shrubland landscapes require different approaches. But our statutes that direct CAL FIRE to implement these main funding streams have not kept up and in a lot of ways prohibits CAL FIRE from funding these types of projects. CAL FIRE has really been great to work with, but in a lot of ways, their hands are tied. So AB 2513 seeks to give CAL FIRE some more tools in their proverbial toolbox. It would incorporate chaparral and shrub lands into the landscapes that they can fund projects on. It would also allow them to fund ignition reduction projects. And when we talk about ignition reduction, we're not saying we're going to run around all of Southern California trying to stop every cigarette butt being flicked out of a car window or every chain hanging off a trailer. we're talking about trying to ensure that the vegetation along our roadsides is not flashy, it's not flammable, the way that a lot of our native vegetation, or in some cases, hardscapes would prevent that cigarette butt from igniting the landscape and really starting a wildfire And this has really been noticed by the U Forest Service recently They talked about the fact that in Southern California, the best fire is one that never starts. So for these reasons, we are really pleased to support AB 2513. Thank Assembly Member Petra Norris for leadership on on this bill and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Perfect. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Steve Frisch. I'm the president of the Sierra Business Council. We're based in the Sierra, Nevada, but we do work on wildfire resilience all across the state of California, and I'm proud to be here today to support my Southern California colleagues in their need for passage of AB 2513. So Sierra Business Council strongly supports the California Wildfire Resilience and Forest Management Task Force effort to develop an action plan, which establishes the statewide wildfire mitigation strategy and is a product of the best available science and very, very strong public participation from across the state. That strategy has been built on the foundation of the regional strategies developed by the Regional Forest and Fire Capacity Grant Program, administered by the Department of Conservation, and their collaborative processes that have been a ground-up, locally driven mitigation strategy for the state. The task force and DOC, which administer the RFFCP, have the capacity to track performance metrics and ensure accountability. This bill represents the best way to advance the strategies of the RFFCP collaboratives and to implement a broader range of activities in both forested and chaparral landscapes, including an appropriate mix of home and community protection, ignition reduction, landscape and community level vegetation management that fits the unique ecosystems of the state. The bill also represents an opportunity to increase the pace and scale of activities at the regional level by authorizing the Department of Conservation to directly award regional landscape grants to regional entities to implement the above nature-based solution strategies. In California, we've built a system for planning across multiple agencies and entities. For example, CAL FIRE, Caltrans, the Department of Conservation, tribal partners, public health officials, local fire districts, working together to develop these local strategies. We've developed strategies that we know will work and will work best based on the best available science and will work in both forested and chaparral landscapes. We know that we need to increase the pace and scale to achieve about 2.5 million acres per year of landscape and community treatment by 2045. What we need now is the tools to actually implement these strategies that have been developed by the regional collaboratives across the state. For that reason, we respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2513.

Good evening. Brandon Knapp on behalf of Permitter Solutions and Aurora Tech in strong support. Thank you. Nicole Wardleman on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors in support. John Moffitt on behalf of the Orange County Fire Authority in support. Jake Schultz on behalf of Save the Redwoods League in support. Thank you. Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you. Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities in support Thank you so much Any persons here in opposition to this measure Is there no one who dares speak in opposition to Assemblymember Petri Norris

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Haney?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Wicks, aye. Zipper?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. The Inglewood oil field covers more than 1,500 acres of active oil drilling in predominantly black and brown communities in Los Angeles. In fact, it is the largest urban oil field in the country. and it sits in my district. The harms of the residents living nearby are measurable. CalGym's public health rulemaking report finds that people living closer to upstream oil and gas operations face a greater risk of reduced lung function and adverse prenatal outcomes than those who live further away. People also have lower life expectancies and higher rates of heart conditions. That's why two years ago we passed legislation to close down this oil field by 2030. We also passed legislation to require that the oil company that has been extracting from our community for decades pay into an equitable community repair fund. It's hard to imagine all the kids who have played soccer in Kennehan Park just across from that field, slightly unable to breathe. This is something that many folks in the community never thought was possible. The equitable community repair and reinvestment account is going to hold approximately $20 million a year until that field is closed. What this bill does, AB 1661, is require that the first $5 million that gets deposited into that account go out as direct cash payments to families who have been impacted by the adverse impacts of neighborhood oil drilling. That is all this bill does and make sure that the communities that have been most impacted by the harms of this drilling in our neighborhoods for our entire lifetimes are the ones who benefit directly from the state's equitable community repair and reinvestment account. Joining me to testify are Tanya Borja, representing SCOPE, and Tiana Shaw-Wakeman, representing Black Women for Wellness.

Do we have any persons in the room in support?

Good afternoon, committee.

Okay. Do we have any persons in opposition? Hearing none, we'll come back to the members. Mr. Assembly of Zuber.

Thank you. Anyone else? Motion, second?

Okay. All right. Would you like to call roll? I do.

My bad. No, that's okay. Thank you, Mr. Former Vice Chair.

Okay. Madam Secretary, you want to call roll? Motion is due pass to appropriations.

Aye. Brian, aye.

Not voting. Ellis, not voting.

Not voting. Alanis, not voting. I still love you.

Berner, aye. Connelly?

Connelly, aye.

Aye. Garcia, aye. Haney?

Haney, aye.

Not voting. Hoover, not voting. Calra?

Calra, aye. Macedo?

Macedo, no. Pellerin.

Aye. Pellerin, aye. Schultz.

Schultz, aye. Wicks.

Wicks, aye. Zipper.

All right. Come on, Mr. Chair. Yeah, you do. And that bill is out? Oh, that is the only bill that had every member voting on it. Thank you all for that. We're now going to lift the call on the previous bills. I'm starting with item two, AB 1704. Assembly member Gonzalez, the motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Berner?

Berner, aye. Calra?

Aye.

That has 11 votes. It is out. AB 1757 Gallagher, motion is due pass to appropriations. Chair voting no. Haney? I'm not voting.

Aye.

No. Wait, sorry. Yes, aye. Masito, aye. Schultz?

Schultz, no. Wicks? No.

Feels good. That measure fails. AB 1960 Bennett motion is do pass as amended to emergency management committee chair voting aye Alanis Yes Alanis I burner 1960 yes, Bennett. Yes. I

Schultz

AB 2184 Wilson motion is do pass to appropriations chair voting. I Alanis Aye. Alanise, aye. Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Masito? No. Masito, no. Oh, yeah, you did vote no. And Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye. That bill is out. AB 2253, Berner, motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Chair voting Aye. Alanis? No. Alanis, no. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Hoover? No. Hoover, no. Masito? No. Masito, no. Wix? Yes. Aye. Wix, aye. That bill is out. AB 2254 Addis. Motion is due pass as amended to water parks and wildlife. Chair voting aye. Alanis? No. Alanis no. Garcia? Aye. Garcia aye. Haney? Aye. Haney aye. Hoover? Aye. Hoover not voting. Macedo? No. Macedo no. Wicks? Aye. Wicks aye. That bill is out. AB 2349, Solache. Motion is due. Passed to appropriations. Chair voting aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis aye. Berner? Which bill? AB 2349, Solache? Solache, aye. Berner, aye. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. That bill is out. AB 2513, Petrie Norris. Motion is due passed to Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee. Chair voting aye. Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. That bill is out. AB 2559, Ward. Motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Chair voting aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. That bill is out. ACR 149, Hart. The motion is that the measure be adopted. Chair voting aye. Alanis? Not voting. Not voting. Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Wix? Aye. Wix, aye. That bill is out. Consent calendar, AB 2234 and AB 2517. Alanis?

Alanis, aye. Berner?

Consent. Consent. All, aye. Berner, aye. Haney?

Haney, aye. Schultz?

Schultz, aye. That's it. That concludes today's Natural Resource Committee hearing. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Thank you. Thank you.