April 8, 2026 · EQ · 22,686 words · 19 speakers · 59 segments
. Are we ready? Yes? Yes? Okay. Okay. Good morning, everyone. Welcome. The Senate Committee on Environmental Quality is now in order. We do not have a quorum, but we will begin as a subcommittee. And I appreciate Senator Cobaldin coming. SB 1087 is number three in our file order. So you are welcome to begin when ready. And I encourage all members of the committee to come to room 112 in the
Capitol as soon as possible. Thank you. Madam Chair, thank you so much. I'm here to present SB 1087 today, which is an effort to try to modernize one of California's landmark climate and transportation planning laws, SB 375, to assure that it actually works at achieving our goals of combating climate change and also promoting sustainable transportation, land use, and housing. This is personal to me. As the chair of the Sacramento region's Council of Governments and Metropolitan Planning Organization, we launched the blueprint project in this region now 25 years ago, and the successful completion of that project was the inspiration for SB 375 in the first place and the promise of SB 375 to be able to advance many of the state's policy goals on transportation, land use, climate, and air quality. After that, RHNA was also connected to the Sustainable Community Strategies and SB 375 and the passage of SB 743 continued to advance its execution. It was visionary in 2008. SB 375 was a national model, won award after award after award, as did many of our regional blueprints from SANTAG and MTC in the Bay Area, SACOG and SCAG. and there was great hope that combating unfettered urban sprawl, that creating a more efficient transit system and the land use patterns that would support it would dramatically increase our success in our climate goals, but also promote more healthy communities, strengthen the possibility that transit would work in more communities and more efficiently. Since that time, a lot of things have happened. One is, and the most important, is that we have not achieved those regional goals. We have achieved some progress, and the Regents have worked very hard and diligently doing plan after plan after plan, sustainable communities plan after plan after plan, and they've worked hard with the California Resources Board in order to both set targets and then try to achieve them. Their tools have been somewhat limited. At the same time, I want to point out, though, that we have also enacted a lot of housing legislation since that time that has said basically, notwithstanding your plans, everyone should grow everywhere. And so we have this fundamental tension between SB 375, which was let's grow in the right places. Let's grow smartly. Let's make efficient use of the land and conserve. And then our housing policy simultaneously and for all the right reasons have said everyone needs to create and build more housing that is affordable and accessible in California. So I mentioned that only to point out that it not that the regional agencies or their environmental and local government partners failed It that conditions on the ground have changed as well That being said however SB 375 does need many fixes in order to maximize the likelihood that it will be successful Number one is to be clearer about the achievement of the goals themselves. When SB 375 was passed, the legislature had really involved itself almost not at all in land use decisions. We have obviously involved ourselves quite a bit since that time. And the important role that the Regents play in that work needs to be accelerated. But also, some of it is just the technical processing. I know that the chair of this committee was the chair of Sandag during the last Sustainable Communities update. I've been the chair of our regional agency for five sustainable updates or four. That is, they're each 25-year plan, so I've done 125 years of planning in my local region in only 20 years. And the process of figuring out what are the targets, what is achievable, has become a point of not just contention, not even mainly contention, But just opacity and the regulatory pace, particularly because CARB has so many substantial responsibilities in other areas of the climate world, that the challenges between the MPOs and CARB at figuring out how to, what the standards are, the time frames, and what constitutes achievement has been a challenge for all parties at the state and the regional level. There are increasing divisions around GHG, greenhouse gas emission reductions versus vehicle miles traveled issues, many, many others. And so what this bill is intended to do is to try to modernize in a comprehensive way that landmark law and some of the laws that followed since in terms of SB 375. The bill that's before you represents principally the priorities that have been proposed by the metropolitan planning organizations, SCAG, SandEgg, SACOG, MTC, the biggest of those organizations. But we've been working for months and will continue to do so with a much broader stakeholder group, including the environmental community, environmental justice, business, labor, housing and transportation interests, and local governments on what we hope will be even a more comprehensive approach that isn't radical. We're trying to undo SB 375 or triple its work, but instead try to get it right and resolve many of the outstanding issues that have emerged, partly because it's so old and partly because many other policy interventions have happened in between. So what you have before you is the current state of that work, but we have been having regular stakeholder meetings. And I want to also thank the chair and the chair of the housing committee, both of whom are also former chairs of MPOs, for their close collaboration in trying to advance this work. So what is before you is a substantive proposal around some of the key issues here. but I want to be very clear that we're working with folks, some of whom may today come and express support if amended or opposed positions or opposed unless amended, but we are all at a common table working these issues through and everyone around that table has expressed hope and some degree of optimism that we will get there and try to find a comprehensive solution that will assure that SB 375 delivers on the promise So with that I thank the chair I like to introduce our two witnesses if possible from Sandegg and from Skagg
You're welcome to Begin When Ready.
Thank you, Chair. I'm Darren Chitzi. I'm the Chief Operating Officer and Deputy Executive Director for the Southern California Association of Governments. Our board leadership and executive director would be here today. However, we do have an executive committee down in Los Angeles this afternoon. that they needed to attend to. But I appreciate the opportunity for allowing us to speak today in strong support of SB 1087. As a co-sponsor joined by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Association of Area Governments, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, and the San Diego Association of Governments. These are the state's four largest metropolitan planning organizations, representing about 80% of the population in the state of California. The work that SB 375 put forth in all of our agencies really changed the work that we do. For nearly 50 years, we've been doing long-range regional transportation plans. It wasn't until 18 years ago that there was a state requirement to really combine the work that we're doing and ensure that the land use work and the community work was really tied together in a meaningful manner. So we were very excited at that time when this bill came to fruition, and it's really enabled us to reach out to stakeholders in a new way to get better community input and to really have clear visions for what each of our regions are looking to accomplish, particularly around the important climate goals. However, 18 years is a long time. And when you think about what our world looked like 18 years ago, So certainly technology has changed so much. The way that we travel, the way that we get food delivered to us, all of that has changed. And so this opportunity, and we really appreciate Senator Bolton's leadership on this, to rethink some of these frameworks to ensure that it's meeting the needs of our agencies and our communities in this very different environment. And at the same time, as was mentioned, so much has changed in state policy for good reasons. We have had extra priority put on GHG reduction, looking at housing production affordability that we had not done so intently almost two decades ago. Equity in fair housing, air quality compliance continues to be complicated at the federal and at the state level. and mobility and congestion issues have changed a lot too, certainly with impacts that we saw during the pandemic on transit. And we're still recovering in many ways and ensuring that those robust transit systems are working as well as possible. And also on economic competitiveness. So all of these goals kind of play together into what has changed over that period of time. and we certainly view our plans as the real clear opportunity to bring forward important changes on all aspects that affect our communities. However, the current practice really emphasizes modeling assumptions more than implementation of real-world outcomes. And what this does is diverts our efforts and resources into challenges over specific assumptions, rather than really thinking about how do these policies implement the goals that are set forth in the plan. With the next target setting deadline of 2035 quickly approaching the big Four MPOs thought it was very important to have a stakeholder process to really think through how we might bring forward improvements to this project
I'm sorry, but we're going to need to wrap up your testimony.
Oh, sure. I will just finish by saying what I think has been critical to where we've gotten today is the stakeholder process that we brought forward. We have brought in the environmental community, the business community, certainly the MPOs, other stakeholders throughout the state to really rethink about how we can bring an update SB 375 through SB 1087 to modernize it. So I appreciate the opportunity and certainly urge an aye vote today on this critical bill.
Thank you so much. Madam Chair, before we go to Ms. Meyer, I neglected to do the one thing I absolutely needed to do to my open, which was to accept all of the amendments that are proposed in the committee analysis.
Okay, thank you for clarifying that. Go ahead.
All right, good morning, Chair Blakespear and members of the committee. My name is Antoinette Meyer, and I am the Senior Director of Regional Planning at SANDAG, and we're one of the proud co-sponsors of Senate Bill 1087. So SANDAG has been developing sustainable community strategies, or SESs, since 2008. In fact, we were the first MPO in the state to develop an SES, so we know this process intimately, and we've seen the progress that it's made towards achieving California's climate goals. But we also know where the process needs to be modernized to make it more efficient, to make it more effective, and to actually focus on delivering the transit, the housing, and the active transportation projects that our communities are demanding. Our most recent sustainable community strategy and regional transportation plan took four years to complete, and it cost $42 million. Much of that cost went towards back-and-forth meetings with CARB on technical methodology and modeling assumptions, debating things like the cost of operating an automobile in 2035. The CEQA process also adds significant time and expense, but it has not resulted in any project-level streamlining or a more robust community engagement process in our region. So, 1087 improves this process in several ways. It shifts to an eight-year cycle, freeing staff capacity and millions of dollars to focus on implementing GHG-reducing projects. It updates target-setting processes to reflect real-world conditions. It brings clarity and accountability to the SES review process by establishing clear timelines and outcomes and better coordination between the CTC and ARB. And last, the CEQA exemption allows us to move faster and reduce costs and really focus environmental review at the project level. So as you heard from the senator, we engaged in an extensive stakeholder outreach process, and what we heard was consistent across all spectrums of groups, and that's regions should spend less time on technical analysis and more time delivering the projects that reduce GHG emissions and improve the quality of life for our residents. So on behalf of the four co-sponsors, I urge you to support Senate Bill 1087. It strengthens our ability to achieve California's climate commitments by making the regional plans more effective delivery tools. Thank you very much.
Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the testimony. If there are others in the room wishing to express support, please come forward. And just state your name, organization, and position on the bill.
Good morning, Chair and members. Chris Chrisley here on behalf of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, a proud co-sponsor in support.
Thank you.
Chairman, Nick Romo today on behalf of MTCA back in support.
Thank you. A co-sponsor.
Mitch Weiss, Cory Consulting representing numerous MPOs, RDPAs, in the Central Coast and Central Valley. Support and appreciative of the author's work. Thank you.
Bill Higgins on behalf of the California Association of Council of Governments, which represents all 18 MPOs, taking a support position to my board on Friday.
Good morning, Chair and members. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance. We have a supportive amended position, but really appreciate the author's diligent work on this issue and look
forward to continuing the conversation in this session. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, do we have lead opposition witnesses in the room who would like to come forward? They can sit here in the front. That's okay. Welcome. And you may begin when ready.
Yes. Good morning, Chair Blakespear, committee members. My name is Sophia Avicola. I'm the policy advocate with the Coalition for clean air. Just this March, a record-breaking heat wave brought triple-digit temperatures to parts of the state, and just last year, California was affected by wildfires that destroyed over 16,000 homes and buildings. Yet in the middle of this climate crisis, SB 1087 would allow local agencies to face little to no consequences for failing to meet their original climate targets. SB 1087 will allow agencies to still access SB 1 funding even if they can no longer demonstrate how they will reach their climate targets and have to submit an APS. Despite state efforts, both the TSEP and SECP funding programs still generate a net increase in VMT through the projects they fund, and continued access to the funding sources would move regions further away from their climate targets. Though SB-1087 states that only GHG reducing projects may be funded, our own analysis shows the highway expansion projects are often flagged as reducing GHG emissions because environmental analysis fails to account for induced demand. Similarly, SB 1087 would require GHG targets to include all on-road transportation sectors, such as progress made on transitioning to zero-emission vehicles. Our state already has many regulations and funding programs that encourage the transition to zero-emission vehicles and CARB already tracks the progress made. SB 1087 would reward MPOs for decisions made outside of their jurisdictions. With SB 375 remaining as one of the few regulations focused on VMT reduction, Having targets also consider progress made on ZEVS would dilute its focus and will push us further out of alignment with our climate targets. Our organization is participating in the stakeholder process to modernize SB 375, and we are committed to working with the author to ensure SB 1087 strengthened the intent of SB 375. As such, we have submitted a letter to the committee with our recommendations. We appreciate the committee amendments to remove the CTC component, but urge you not to pass this bill without additional steps to ensure that Regents do the utmost to reduce climate emissions. Thank you.
Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Cassie Gilson with Axiom Advisors on behalf of the California Building Industry Association in an opposed and less amended position. I want to start by thanking the author and his staff and my colleagues in the stakeholder group for their early and vigorous outreach and acknowledge the Senator's comments that this is a work in progress and still work to be done. CBIA is an opposed unless amended position. It bears note that CBIA was part of the Coalition of the Impossible that came together to get 375 passed and signed. So we don object to the premise and we recognize that after two decades this conversation is warranted I just want to flag two of the reasons that inform our position today The one as you are all well aware CBIA has long opposed an increasing emphasis on vehicle miles traveled Statutorily, if the focus in these plans is supposed to be on greenhouse gas reduction, then we shouldn't move forward and further codify VMT and statute in a way that can distort the objective of GHG reduction. and create real and unintended consequences for housing production. The second thing that I'll note today is that in practice, we're seeing some of the COGS use their authority and their transportation funding authority to pressure local jurisdiction to adopt things like affordable housing requirements or other socioeconomic issues that stray far from the transportation. and land use focus of 375 so that as we work forward in this, it's going to be really important to us that if we're adding further monies to this process and making some other fundamental changes that expand their authority, that there's some clear statutory direction that the purpose of 375 needs to stay within its original bounds for transportation and land use and not involve things like affordable housing and other socioeconomic issues. We look forward to working with the author and the sponsors as the bill moves forward.
Okay, thank you very much. And if there's anybody else wishing to express opposition, and I understand there might be some tweeners in the room, if you would like to just say a few words about your tween position, you're welcome to. Thank you.
We really appreciate Senator Cobaldon for taking on this issue. This is a super complicated issue. And we've been engaging very productively with the sponsors as well over the last year on this. So we really look forward to more engagement on this. We appreciate the committee amendments. Those do address a couple of our biggest concerns and also the recommendation to extend the target year out to 2045. We haven't seen the language yet on the sort of CARB CTC authority, but we feel that will be positive. So we hope this bill will continue to move in a good direction in Senate transportation. Some of our concerns are more in the transportation jurisdiction, so we'll keep working there and hope this gets us to a good place that will advance progress on our climate goals. So thank you.
Good morning, Chair and members. Robbie Abinor on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council. NRDC greatly appreciates Senator Cabaldon's leadership on this really difficult We currently have a tweener position because we're concerned that the bill currently does not yet bring SB 375 to its full potential. But we really appreciate the senator's leadership on this issue, his continued stakeholder engagement. We've had a really productive conversation over the past year with the author and the co-sponsors. We're very supportive of the committee amendment and we look forward to continuing to work with the author and the sponsors and think that we can get this bill into a really great place. Thank you.
Good morning Senators Matthew Baker with Planning Conservation League also in the tweener position we signatories to the letter of concern While the bill isn quite where we want to see it go yet we appreciate the committee amendments and we are deeply committed to continuing to work with the author and the stakeholders to get this right. We very much appreciate the author's willingness to do so also. Thank you.
Okay, well, thank you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support or opposition? Okay, so we'll bring it back to the committee and I'll just start with a couple comments. So first I just wanna recognize how thorny this is and I really appreciate Senator Cabaldon for diving into this topic. Because it clearly is, it's something that needs to be addressed and we talk about the abundance agenda in Sacramento here a lot, which is government getting out of its own way so that we can deliver the things that we need to continue to build prosperity and opportunity in the state of California. And when I think about the reality that the number that was just thrown out, that the last SES from Sandag cost $42 million, you think of the things that are not a good use of money, that we're not delivering anything with that planning document, and the amount that it costs to hire consultants to go back and forth with CARB, to have hundreds of community outreach meetings, to go back and forth with the board, to have just the incredible amount of involvement at a level of planning that is then not being translated to deliverables. I think it really shows the problem. So I do come from having been the chair of Sandag, so I'm so grateful that the author brought two members of Sandag here to be your lead witnesses. and I just want to say that as you could hear from the testimony, you know, to be considering the realities of equity goals and climate goals and affordable housing and housing supply and VMT, you know, you're balancing all these things when you're trying to modernize a planning process. But I guess what I would just encourage the author to continue to do and think about and the stakeholders is to stay focused on the North Star, which is that this has to become simpler and it has to become less expensive to deliver and it has to lead to more projects being built. And so some of the things like, for example, the bill is doubling the length of time between the SESs, which is good, but just make sure the interim reports aren't essentially equivalent to doing a whole report in and of itself. So you end up kind of chasing your tail where you're saying, and the interim report has to have the following 150 million things in it. So it makes it so that that process is going to be as onerous as our existing process. And I recognize that this is all a balance that's going to have to be worked out. But I do really appreciate how complex it is, how many different interests there are, and I hope that we're able to get there. This is just the first committee, and I hope you're able to make it all the way through because this is an area that clearly needs reform. So continue to say this cost us $42 million to produce this plan, and it took eight years or a decade of time to do. I think that those types of stats really drive the need for these changes. So with that, I'll turn it to my colleagues. Senator Menjivar.
Thank you so much, Chair. I agree with a lot of the points that you mentioned. and I mean if something hasn't really, the intent of the previous bill hasn't produced the results that we've wanted, since I graduated high school I think we need to do something about that So I mean that good government and I thankful that you implementing that Along the lines of what the chair mentioned though I am a little interested in that four SCS report that you going to be doing There's not a lot of details. Now, I'm not asking, like, what the chair is asking for the same type of level of report of the eight-year, But I am wondering, Senator, your thoughts on what you're going to be putting into a request within your bill, especially given that the amendment streamlined or removed exemptions for CEQA, not contingent on increased public outreach. That part gives me a little bit of heartburn. So this is the opportunity for public engagement at that four-year. What do you anticipate moving forward in this process adding there?
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, if I may, through the Chair. So thank you for the question. It is an issue that we're grappling with both in the stakeholder group and even among the MPOs about what the, because they each have different visions about what they think a progress report could look like. So we had a draft that we were looking at, but it turned out that only made sense in a single region. So we are trying to figure those elements out. But both you and the Chair are absolutely correct. We need a compelling, profound, understandable, comprehensible, useful progress report to which we can be held accountable for those outcomes without it being a whole nother $42 million all over again. And there's a lot of room in between those two things. So we don't know at this point, but absolutely agree with you that the progress report is not a box to be checked. It is a moment to stop and to hold ourselves accountable, ourselves at the local level and the regional level as well. And we need to make sure in the statute that it accomplishes that. I will say on the enhanced public outreach, that was the language in our original bill. Because of my view, as the chair said, and once you've done 500 hearings and polls and focus groups and charrettes and sticky notes and everything else, that maybe that should be good enough and you shouldn't do that. You shouldn't have to do it again over again. And but what we were reminded was despite the fact that the original intent was that that document would then become the basis, the foundation for every other CEQA related analysis. My understanding is no one has ever tiered off of one of those environmental documents at the SCS level. And so it doesn't become a, that using enhanced public outreach on that in order to deal with CEQA later isn't really useful if nobody's tearing off of that document.
And Senator, can you respond to some of the concerns of the opposition regarding VMTs and including now heavy-duty vehicles, medium-duty vehicles, and the potential to then get to a goal that doesn't really address law and GHG?
Yeah, I think so. Thank you. I mean, you've identified what I think is likely to be the hardest single issue in this whole stakeholder work is that one. Because you heard the BIA court sort of say, we don't want to ever say VMT. And then you heard that said, we only want to say VMT. So that is, if you had to pick one area, there's a lot of disagreements about lots of things. But that already feels like one of the core pieces. But I think from my own view, and I'm hopeful we'll be able to find some way through that. But my own view is that the test has to be what is the goal that we're trying to achieve in SB 375 and other laws now that have been built around us. 375 and we and we should pick the right measure whether it's one of those or something different in the where it's appropriate. Like it's not a religious issue that we should you know VMT shall never be spoken again or GHG is the only thing or whatever. And we need to figure out what are the right what are the right metrics for the better built for that purpose. But that is going to be I think one of the toughest issues it already is in the stakeholder conversations. The biggest concern for me was addressing the amendment, going back from CTC, not accepting in the language and staying with ARB.
So I'm grateful for that amendment, the committee and you accepted. I am going to be seeing this bill again in transportation. Those two things that I previously mentioned are things that I'm going to keep an eye on, just to see how it continues to get flushed out. But recognize this is the first policy committee and with a really big bill like this, I appreciate the work so far. Thank you. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. Vice Chair.
Just a comment to the author. I'm going to be laying off of this bill today. I'm hoping to see some more work with some of the stakeholders, specifically with BIA, before it gets to transportation in hopes that some of that can be worked out so I can support it.
Okay, thank you. Well, we don't quite have a quorum, so when we get to that, we will vote. And with that, I'll hand it over to you to Close.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the committee. and I just appreciate the long leash that the committee is giving us on this work. It is, you know, I was in this building in 2008 during high school, but not for me, testifying for SB 375 over and over and over again about its potential and how well designed it was with NRDC and BI and everyone else. And so I'm deeply committed to making sure that all the things that I promised the Senate committee back in 2008 actually come true. And so these are challenging work. And I do want to emphasize we're not likely to have any resolution on any of these issues by transportation. We're hoping to have more progress, but they're big and naughty. But we are headed in that direction. And also want to, just to Senator Menjewart's point and to highlight this part of the analysis, what we've done in cooperation with the chair is removed the transfer from CARB to CTC. And all the other stuff that's related to sort of CARB, MPO, process, that's mostly removed for the purpose of continuing that conversation. So I don't want to imply today that we've decided that absolutely no changes will happen. That isn't the case, but we removed the notion that CTC is the answer. It was clear during the last stakeholder conversation that people had other ideas about potential agencies, but no one could agree on any one. So we didn't want to imply that the CTC decision is the right one or that that's final. I think it's likely that we'll end up in a different place, but very, very much appreciate the committee's work and looking forward to continuing to collaborate with each of you and the committee staff as this goes forward. because this is a big one. There are no other bills that attempt to try to modernize SB 375 or to accomplish any of the things that most of the supporters, opponents, and tweeners would like to see happen. That's part of the reason why this is necessary. Everyone knows and everyone has specific objectives that they like to achieve but they also know that many of them are impossible because the opponents would kill everything So our only chance to make anything substantial happen is to bring them all together and try to find areas of common agreement and have folks make some compromises, and SB 1087 is our best shot. So with that, I would respectfully ask for an I vote.
Okay, thank you very much, and good luck. Okay, next we have Senator Jones. I see him. Thank you for being here. It's SB 1239. We invite you to come forward, and you may begin when ready.
Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members. It looks like it's Economic Analysis Day in EQ this morning. and I think SB 1239 actually is a great companion piece of legislation to the prior bill and some of the other bills that you're going to be considering today. So Madam Chair, I'll be presenting SB 1239 dealing with the California Air Resources Board and the Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment. And basically what that is is when a major regulation is materially changed, we would like for the standardized regulatory impact assessment to be redone. Currently, state agencies must prepare an SRIA for major regulations with an estimated economic impact exceeding $50 million. The SRIA is intended to serve as the state's primary public-facing economic analysis, including impacts on jobs, businesses, and individuals and households. However, the SRIA is when it is completed at the beginning of the rulemaking process, while regulatory proposals can continue to change before adoption, sometimes significantly and with significant cost changes to consumers. When that happens, the analysis of the impacts to individuals and households may no longer reflect the version of the regulation that was ultimately adopted, particularly when changes are made later in the process. SB 1239 addresses this gap by requiring CARB to update SRIA when a major regulation is materially changed after the initial analysis is released. The supplemental SRIA must update consumer costs, impacts, and be made available for public review. This ensures that policymakers, stakeholders, and the public have access to current and accurate information when evaluating major regulations with significant economic impacts. It also improves transparency and supports more informed participation in the rulemaking process. SB 1239 is a targeted transparency measure that does not change CARB's regulatory authority or underlying policy decisions. It simply ensures that economic analysis keeps pace with the regulation as it evolves. With me this morning is Dawn Kopecky from the California Manufacturers and Technology Association.
Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Dawn Koeppke on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in support of SB 1239. As you know, CMTA represents over 45,000 manufacturers and their 1.2 million employees in California who operate in a very highly competitive, cost-sensitive environment such that accurate and transparent economic analysis is essential. The Shreya is intended to serve as the state primary public assessment of a regulation economic effects including impacts on jobs business creation competitiveness investment and innovation as well as costs ultimately borne by consumers However under current law the Shreya is completed at the outset of the rulemaking process and is not often updated, even when regulatory proposals change substantially. This shortcoming is particularly significant in the context of CARB. A 2024 RAND Corporation report found that CARB submitted 28 major regulations with Sharia's between 2014 and 2022, far more than any other state agency. These rulemakings often span multiple years and frequently include substantive revisions, including late-stage changes that can significantly alter compliance costs for manufacturers and the broader economy. As a result, policymakers and stakeholders are often asked to evaluate regulations based on outdated economic assumptions that no longer reflect the proposal under consideration. This undermines transparency, limits meaningful public participation, and increases the risk that major regulatory decisions are made without a clear understanding of their real-world economic consequences, including impacts on California's manufacturing competitiveness and the cost of living for Californians. SB 1239 provides a practical and narrowly tailored fix by requiring CARB to publish a supplemental Shria with updated consumer cost analysis when material changes occur. The bill ensures that decision makers and stakeholders have access to accurate current information before a regulation is finalized. Regulatory changes made late in the process can significantly affect compliance cost, capital investment decisions, and long-term operational planning for manufacturers. Ensuring that these impacts are transparently and accurately assessed is critical to maintaining strong manufacturing base in California. For these reasons, CMTA urges your aye vote on SB 1239. Thank you.
Okay, thanks very much. Anyone else in the room wishing to express support? Please come forward. State your name, organization, and position on the bill.
Good morning, Madam Chair. Chris Shimoda on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance. We have a support and concept position on this and the other SREA transparency bills. Look forward to working with the author. Thank you.
Okay. Thanks very much. And do we have opposition witnesses in the room wishing to come forward? No opposition witnesses? Wow. Made it easy for you. I know. All right. Going once, going twice. Opposition witnesses. Anyone else in the room wishing to express opposition? Wow. Okay. Well, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions, statements? All right. Yes, Vice Chair. It's a great bill. You're right. This is the theme as we're facing an affordability crisis in California. It's just time that we truly understand what regulations actually cost real-world people. So I want to thank you for bringing this forward. Happy to move the bill when appropriate as well, Madam Chair. Okay, thank you. Well, I'll just make a couple comments. So first I want to recognize that Senator Jones has worked tirelessly on transparency in government. It is something that you've worked on for many years and I appreciate that. Unfortunately, I'm not able to support this bill today. SB 1239 I don't think is the solution because it introduces inefficiencies into the rulemaking process without improving the overall process. The rulemaking is meant to encourage public participation to improve regulations before adoption and SB 1239 would disincentivize agencies from implementing public feedback by creating a new barrier in the form of an additional Syria So a Syria can already take months of back and forth between an agency and the Department of Finance to finalize and SB 1239 would then introduce months to an already long rulemaking process while penalizing agencies who make meaningful changes to the regulations in collaboration with the public. So unfortunately, I'm not able to support this bill today. Anybody else want to
make any comments? Okay, I'll turn it back to the author to close. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate your comments, and I understand the concern about that. This bill is purposefully narrow and tailored to, at this point in time, only deal with California Resources Board so that it doesn't affect other agencies, as mentioned. The point of the bill, and let me use kind of the last bill that was discussed in committee maybe as an example of what might enlighten the committee as to why this makes sense. Senator Combaldon started with an idea, brought the bill to the committee. The committee, through its analysis and members, have asked for several amendments to that bill, and that bill is going to move forward continuing to work on those amendments. As it moves from the Senate to the Assembly, to draw the comparison to what is currently happening with CARB, is they never update, CARB never updates their original analysis on their rulemaking policies and the regulations that they're trying to pass. It would be the same thing as the Assembly using the same analysis that the Senate started with on that previous bill without updating the analysis for any of the new amendments that have taken place over the course of discussion through the Senate and through the Assembly committees. So it's basically requiring the agency to do the same thing that we do here in the legislature is update our analysis as the regulation, in this case, moves to the process, so that when the regulation is finalized and then put into place, the analysis that's available for the public review is actually the analysis that applies to the final regulation. So I hope that that's a fair comparison, kind of enlightening what we're trying to accomplish here. I know you have a lot of other bills today that are doing similar items. I'm really thankful that the committee is taking that up. I think that this is a simple, narrowly tailored bill that we should put into process for all the reasons that we've used for the other transparency bills as well. And I don't know if Dawn has anything to add to that.
I would just offer that CARB currently has rulemakings in process where there have been some substantial interpretations that have been changed that would have very significant material effects on various stakeholders. So we are hopeful that they'll update, but currently there's no requirement that they do so. SB 1239 would ensure going forward that those additional costs, and even conversely, where there may be reduced costs, would be updated as part of the Sharia. So we would argue that could have benefits on either side of the coin, if you will.
That's a good point. Thank you. I didn't think about that. So with that, I would ask for an aye vote when the time comes for you to potentially change your mind and support the bill.
Okay. Well, thanks so much. Thank you. There it is. That's right. Translator. Yeah. Thank you. Welcome, Senator Medjavar, to the other side of this, the dais.
You're welcome to begin when you are ready. It's a good view from here, Madam Chair. Colleagues, approximately 1.6 million households, or about one in eight Californians, have household water debt, partly because water rates have increased faster than inflation over the past few years. In LA County alone, water rates rose 60% from 2015 to 2025, according to a recent UCLA Luskin Center report. Unlike in the energy space, though, there is no statewide assistance for families who are falling behind on their water bills.
IOUs provide some financial relief to their low-income rate payers, but public water systems are limited in their ability to offer any rate assistance to their customers, largely because of funding limitations imposed by Prop 218 back in 1996. SB 1125, however, now is attempting for the third time to establish, upon appropriation, of course, the foundation for the first ever statewide water rate assistance program for low-income residents in California, avoiding any Prop 218 barriers to assistance. This bill honors the commitment the state has made to Californians back in 2012 when it declared that access to clean, safe, and affordable drinking water is a human right. Specifically, SB 1125 is honoring that commitment by providing direct bill credits to eligible rate payers through a $20 off credit every month or up to 20% if it's more than $20 off a month. And it creates a mechanism to allow existing local assistance programs to continue operating. And while all of this is contingent on funding, we need to establish the infrastructure first before we can get some funding allocated. To that, Madam Chair, I'd like to turn it over to my witnesses. One of my witnesses is Spanish speakers, so I'll have a translator for them. as soon as they're done, but I'll start with Andrea first. Hi, good morning. My name is Andrea Abregel with the California Municipal Utilities Association. CMUA represents 86 public utilities that provide water, wastewater, gas, and electric service in California. Our members, both wholesale and retail water suppliers, provide over 75% of water to Californians. Water affordability is a priority for our members, and we are pleased to support SB 1125. The bill is a result of years of negotiations, learning and deeper understanding. CMUA has been working on low income water rate assistance since AB 401 in 2015 and the framework that SB 1125 proposes is envisioned as the AB 401 report. So CMUA main interest in ensuring how a statewide program would be one were one role divisions between the state water board third providers and water suppliers It was crucial that the program's implementation responsibilities were placed on the appropriate entities and that third-party providers took on the responsibility of automatically enrolling customers in this program. And number two, we wanted to retain the autonomy of existing and future local water rate assistance programs. In developing the program in SB 1125, it was necessary that the language acknowledged that these programs are separate and that nothing in the statewide program would preclude local water rate assistance programs. Those local programs provide benefits to our members' customers. So we are grateful that we were able to work on these concerns and many others on SB 350 last year and that the language has been retained in SB 1125 this year. Funding such an endeavor will be a challenge, and our members want to see a funding source that is sustainable and aimed at solving the broader water affordability problem in California. So another measure, AB 2739 by Assemblymember Soria, proposes a state trust to fund the statewide low-income water rate assistance program and also to fund regional infrastructure improvements. We are expected to support that effort as well. So together, SB 1125 and AB 2739 provide a solution towards water affordability in California. And for these reasons, we support SB 1125 and urge your aye vote today. Thank you. Buenos dias. Mi nombre es Marta Curiel. Yo vengo de la comunidad de Tulare. Y nosotros venimos a abogar, yo soy de la Asociación de la Gente Unida por el Agua y queremos que nos apoyen para, nos urge, que nos apoyen para la SB 1125, porque nosotros estamos pagando tres miles del agua, que es agua embotellada para tomar y agua para cocinar y la agua del drenaje. I'll be translating, but this is Martha Curiel. She's here from Tulare County, and she's a member of the Agua Coalition, which is the Association of People United for the Water. She's here to ask that the members vote yes on SB 1125 because folks in rural communities like hers are paying three water bills. They're paying the regular water bill, they're paying for bottled water, and they're paying for wastewater. water that's creating a really disproportionate burden on their communities. So respectfully ask for an aye vote. in veces para pagar el bill del agua. Yeah, folks in rural communities have to decide between their water bills, between food, and between medical bills because they're all, many of them are farm workers, and it creates a really undue financial strain. And it's really imperative for them that they have access to clean water and affordable water because that's necessary for their lives. Para nosotros es un trabajo porque venimos cansados de trabajar del fil y pues el agua el agua no es un derecho que deber de tener todo mundo es un derecho de tener agua limpia para nuestra comunidad Hay muchos ni mucha gente trabajadora ya ya gente mayor que ocupa de tomar agua limpia para and it urgent to support sb 1125 because there are people in the community that are children that are elderly that are still working in the fields, they get home tired and often don't have reliable access to water. So this is a very important bill for communities across California and we ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming to Sacramento today to testify. Do we have anyone else in the room wishing to come forward and express support? Good morning, Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance and strong I'm from Visalia and I am in strong support. I'm senior on a fixed income, $1,050 a month, and so this would really help me. Thank you. Good morning. Tevin Hamilton from Physicians for Soldier Responsible Los Angeles, and we are in support. Thank you. Good morning, committee and chair. Claire Sullivan on behalf of the city of Roseville in strong support. Thank you. Good morning. Michael Claiborne with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability in strong support. Thank you. Good morning. Soren Nelson, Association of California Water Agency, support if amended. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Ross Buckley on behalf of the City of Sacramento in support and also on behalf of my colleague Ryan O'Jackie with the Regional Water Authority. Thank you. Good morning. Danielle Coates, Rancho California Water District in strong support and thank the author and the sponsors for this bill. Good morning. Mercedes Macias, Sierra Club, California, in support. Hi, Jim Lindberg on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in strong support. Thank you. Good morning. Jennifer Clary with Clean Water Action, in strong support. Hello, Robert Porter, also in strong support. My name is Esteban Curiel, I also come from Tulare and I also support the same thing because we are very very poor about the money. Hello, Laura Placencia with Valley Improvement Projects in support. Good morning, Scott Sadler on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund in support. No. Okay, thank you very much. Anybody in the room wishing to express opposition, lead opposition witnesses? You're welcome to come forward. Okay, not seeing anybody. Anybody else in the room wishing to express opposition? Okay, going once, going twice, opposition witnesses, okay. With that, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions, comments on this bill? Okay, hold on. We don't quite have a quorum established, but we will in a second. So first, I just want to recognize the need for a program like this. So I very much appreciate the author for bringing this forward. It always a challenge as a legislator because you supposed to propose big policy that costs nothing So I know that the challenge here is going to be the cost of this type of a program that it could end up being very expensive. And I know that you're working with the Assembly and also the State Water Board to make sure we're taking the right approach to implementation and to be able to fund it. So I appreciate what was said in the testimony that you're having to pay for water, bottled water and wastewater. And we should not be having bottled water at all, actually. We shouldn't be paying for it or creating the plastic waste. We should just have clean water that's available for people as part of, as you said, a human right. So I do really appreciate this and I'm happy to support it today. So thank you for your testimony. And when she comes back up here, I think we can establish a quorum or maybe you can do it from there and we can vote on this bill. We can, yeah. Okay, so I would like to have you close this, so go ahead and close. Sure. Thank you, thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate it. You know, and you're right, it's difficult when we're trying to, at the same time, run bills and we're going through the budget process simultaneously. And one thing that we've adjusted, as the analysis points to, is the original cost of doing something like this was over $600 million. We've adjusted this bill, taking out some things to bring the cost to a little bit over $100 million. I think that was a big strategic move to ensure that it could be more digestible. There's no other opportunity for people to get assistance on their water bills, a necessity to thrive, to be successful in California. In fact, our legislature has had to even put in funding to give people $10 extra on their EBT cards for Central California to purchase water because those are areas that do not have access to clean water. We continue to invest in water, but are still falling short in providing assistance to low-income communities. I'm grateful for the committee to allow this bill to move forward so we can have the opportunity to hopefully solidify some funding stream for a program that addresses the affordability issue in California. With that, respectfully, asking for an aye vote when appropriate. Okay, thank you very much, and thank you again for your testimony today. All right, so now I'd like to pause for a moment and ask our committee assistant to please call the roll. Senators Blakespeare? Present. Blakespeare present. Valadares? Here. Valadares here. Allen? Here. Allen here. Dally? Gonzalez? Hardado? Menjivar? Here. Menjivar here. Okay, we've established a quorum, and I think Senator Allen moved the bill. Okay. So let's go ahead and vote on SB 1125, which was moved by Senator Allen. Please call the roll. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Valderas? No. Valderas, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Daly? Gonzalez? Dotto? Dotto? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Okay, that's three to one, we will keep it on call. So let's, Senator Allen, you can present your bill next, but Go through the roll first. So the first bill that we heard was SB 1087 from Senator Cabaldon. I'd entertain a motion on that bill. Okay, Senator Menjivar moves the bill. And the motion is do pass as amended to Senate Transportation. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Valadares? Sorry, Valadares? Allen? Allen, aye. Daly? Gonzalez? Artado? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Okay, that's three to zero. We will keep that on call. The next bill we have is SB 1239 from Senator Jones. Okay, we have a motion from the vice chair, which the motion from her is due passed to appropriations. Senators Blakespeare? No. Blakespeare, no. Valadares? Aye. Valadares, aye. Allen? Daly? Gonzalez? Hurtado? Menjivar? No. Menjivar, no. Allen, no. Allen, no. Okay, that bill is two to two, we will keep that on call. I'm sorry, that bill is one to three, we will keep that on call. Okay, and now we will move to Senator Allen, or actually, yeah, we have the consent calendar. Okay, the vice chair moves the consent calendar. Which has items one and two. So it's SB 1069 and SB 1081 are the two items on consent. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Valadares? Aye. Valadares, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Daly? Gonzalez? Martado? Menjabar? Aye. Menjabar, aye. That's four to zero, and the consent calendar is out. So now we will move to Senator Allen with SB 1180, or on item number six. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members. Let me start by accepting the committee's amendments, which will clarify the intentions for the expansion of grant-eligible entities for the fund. that's dealt with here in this bill, and also provide some additional direction for those entities. We know that plastic pollution is a massive environmental and public health challenge. It persists in our environment for decades or longer, causing widespread harm to all life. We now know that microplastics are commonly detected in air, drinking water, and food. They have negative impacts on human health, including links to illnesses like heart and lung disease, as well as reproductive harms. That's one of the reasons why we all worked so intensely together a few years back with SB 54 establishing the most comprehensive plastic pollution framework in the nation requiring producers of covered material to source reduce specific recycling rate targets and ensure that their materials are recyclable or compostable by 2032, and truly recyclable or compostable. And while we work toward a future with less plastic, the reality is that plastic is already ubiquitous in our environment. In 2024 alone, California discarded over 8 million tons of covered material, with 3 million tons of that being plastic. And That's why SB 54, among many things, established the Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund, which would consist of at least $5 billion from producers over the next 10 years to address the harms that plastic pollution is already causing in our communities and environment. We even heard about a little bit of them earlier in the last bill. So this bill builds upon that framework, the foundation of SB 54, by providing the kind of detailed operational framework that is necessary to administer the fund, ensuring that dollars are being spent effectively and equitably. It outlines requirements for the expenditures, including improvements of public or environmental health and engaging communities in project planning, development, implementation, and creates safeguards of reporting and transparency measures to ensure that funds are being used for their intended purposes. It also expands the eligible fund recipients beyond those originally listed in SB 54 to ensure the door to funding is open to the full range of organizations doing this work and to encourage the potential for collaborations in large-scale projects. One of the things we found is that there's this persistent barrier for grant programs with regards to accessibility. And by mandating that implementing agencies provide technical assistance, you standardize simplified grant applications and initiate projects in a timely manner. The bill ensures that groups such as tribes and smaller community organizations, especially smaller communities such as those we just heard in Central Valley and elsewhere, are provided with administrative pathways to meet them where they are, to provide support for them to be able to do the important work of this pollution mitigation. We are continuing to and very committed, as always, to working closely with stakeholders and relevant state departments to ensure that this money goes towards meaningful and transformative projects that will protect public health, restore our natural environment and deliver real tangible benefits to communities that have historically borne the greatest burden of plastic pollution. Here with me today, we have Amaro Kakusian with the Environmental Justice Communities Against Plastics and also Miho Ligare from Surfrider Foundation. Good morning, Chair Blakesphere and members of the committee. My name is Madoka Kusian and I'm speaking today on behalf of Environmental Justice Communities Against Plastics Coalition or EJCAP. We are in strong support of SB 1180 and we urge the members of the committee to vote in support of this bill as it is necessary to ensure that California's Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund or PPMF delivers on its intended purpose to address the environmental justice and public health harms caused by the full life cycle of plastics. Plastic pollution is not just a waste issue, it is a public health crisis. Plastics release toxic chemicals such as endocrine disruptors like BPA and phallids. Plastic materials and fragments known as microplastics enter the human body through ingestion and inhalation. Once inside, they can cause inflammation and act as Trojan horses that carry other harmful pollutants such as pathogens and heavy metals, thereby increasing overall exposure risks. Together these pathways make plastics uniquely complex and difficult to mitigate once exposure occurs These harms are not experienced equally Environmental justice communities disproportionately low communities and communities of color face cumulative exposure across the life cycle of plastics due to proximity to production, refining, and waste facilities. SB 1180 strengthens the original purpose of the PPMF established by SB 54 by ensuring expenditures actually reduce harm, improve public health, and prioritize communities, workers, and tribes most burdened by plastics. It maintains a clear nexus to plastic pollution by requiring funded projects to directly reduce pollution, mitigate health impacts, restore environments, and deliver measurable benefits while ensuring polluters pay for a just transition to local zero-waste economies. What this bill recognizes and what the science makes clear is that when harms occur across the full life cycle of plastics, true mitigation is not separate from prevention. With these guardrails, there is a risk that funding could be diverted toward ineffective or short-term solutions that fail to protect public health or advance environmental justice. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your support for SB 1180. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Blake-Spearren members. My name is Miha LaGuerre and I'm Sir Fighter Foundation Senior Plastic Pollution Initiative Manager. I'm honored to be here today in strong support of SB 1180. Californians residing in your respective districts, such as Oceanside, Lancaster, Mid-City, Cottonwood, Long Beach, Arvin, and Sun Valley are identified as plastic burden communities that face high to very high downstream plastic exposure risks every day, according to UCLA Luskin Center's research. With effective investments using the plastic pollution mitigation funds, these same communities can become healthier and more vibrant. First, to be clear, plastic production drives plastic pollution and creates harms across the entire life cycle of plastics. The chemicals associated with plastics have been linked to health problems, such as cancers, heart disease, and infertility. Unless we address production, there will always be plastic in our communities, in our bodies, and in our environment. The mitigation fund is groundbreaking, and we must get it right. SB 1180 ensures needed clarity, transparency, and accountability, and ensures that funding is directed to where it's needed most. It also strengthens coordination across agencies, streamlines grantmaking, resulting in time and resource savings and opens the door for environmental justice organizations, tribes, and other entities that have historically been left out. We appreciate the proactive collaboration from state agencies named in statute and their commitment to public input. Finally, Surfrider strongly believes that the funds should be guided by the community's most burdened by plastic pollution, not by the producers responsible for it. I hope we can count on your support to create healthier communities and environments across California. SB 1180 will be a catalyst to fund meaningful and measurable solutions. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Anyone else in the room? A lot in the room wishing to come forward and express support. Just state your name, the organization you represent, and your position on the bill. Thank you. Good morning, Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance in support. Good morning, Chair and members. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of Oceana and Ocean Conservancy in support Good morning Tevin Hamilton representing physicians for social responsibility Los Angeles and Hilda Bay and we are in support Good morning Michael Chen for Audubon California in support Good morning, Christina Scringe with the Center for Biological Diversity, in support. Good morning, Ross Buckley on behalf of the City of Sacramento, in support. Good morning, Dylan Hoffman on behalf of StopWaste, in support. Good morning, my name is Dr. Zoe Conleff. I'm giving Me Too's in support on behalf of Pacoima Beautiful and Just Transition Alliance, who are both also members of EJCAP, Environmental Justice Communities Against Plastic. Thank you. Hi, my name is Tiana Sho-Aikman. I'm giving a Me Too for Black Women for Wellness. Thank you. Hello, good morning. I'm with Valley Improvement Projects, and we are in support and also a part of California Environmental Justice Coalition, Also giving me twos for West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs, the Ecology Center, 1,000 Grandmothers for Future Generations, Green Action for Health and Environmental Justice, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Richmond Shoreline Alliance, Central California Environmental Justice Network, Sunflower Alliance, Access to Thrive, the Sacramento Environmental Justice Coalition, West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, Parents Against Santa Susana, Field Lab and Fresnance Against Fracking. Thank you. Good morning. Kayla Robinson with Californians Against Waste in support. Thank you. Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities in support. Ruth McDonald, retired pediatrician, on behalf of Climate Action California in support. Thank you. My name is Riley Grace and I support this bill. Good morning, Karen Amagon on behalf of Voice for Choice Advocacy, and we're in support of this bill. Carla Garbi Garcia with Monterey Bay Aquarium in support. Good morning, April Robinson with a Voice for Choice Advocacy in strong support. Mercedes Macias with Sierra Club California in support. Baraz Rizvi on behalf of APAN Action, we support. Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you. Good morning. Megan Cleveland with the Nature Conservancy in support. Noah Melra on behalf of Rethink Waste in support. Jim Lindberg on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation California in support. Jennifer Clare with Clean Water Action in support. John Kennedy with RCRC, a tweener we look forward to supporting, look forward to clarifying litter reduction projects and illegal dumping will continue to be eligible. I don't think there's an intent to exclude, but just want to make that clarification. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any lead opposition witnesses wishing to come forward? Good morning, Chair and members. Nicole Quinone is representing Cal Chamber and the Household and Commercial Products Association, who are both opposed unless amended on SB 1180. Both organizations were active participants in the negotiations that led to SB 54, and we certainly remain committed to its successful implementation. We are not here to renegotiate the fund. We fully support that implementation, and I think hearing the senator speak and meeting with his author's office, I think we actually are very much aligned in our goals with how the mitigation fund could be implemented. And so... We really appreciate those conversations and look forward to continue engaging with them. So I'll just highlight some of our key concerns with the bill currently in print. So first, the language that requires expenditures to help create or accelerate a transformative shift away from plastic production and use. We feel this language moves beyond the mitigating impacts and towards influencing manufacturing and consumption decisions that SB 54 already addresses through its producer responsibility requirements. SB 54 incentivizes and ultimately mandates shifts away from plastics and packaging and food service wear through the source reduction requirements, recyclability standards, and other design and system changes. Those provisions are designed to address the production and use of packaging materials, but the mitigation fund, in contrast, was broadly structured to address the environmental and public health impacts associated with plastic pollution, recognizing the need to continue driving down the impacts while advancing more sustainable material systems. We would also like to see the language reframed to support projects, delivery models, strategies, and other initiatives that result in measurable reductions in plastic waste or plastic pollution. Second, we'd like to ensure eligible projects under SB 1180 are clearly tied to measurable mitigation outcomes. We're just concerned that the language would include funding for broad public education and outreach activities that aren't directly tied to specific mitigation efforts. And third, we'd like to ensure the primary goals of eligible products are related to the covered products under SB 54, as those are the producers that are paying into this fund. We do appreciate some of the language in the recent amendments that speaks to this, but believe there are other areas where we can straighten that nexus between the products covered by SB 54. So again, we have a long history of working with the author and look forward to resolving these concerns. However, today we are opposed unless amended. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Tim Schestic with the American Chemistry Council. First off, I too would like to thank Senator Allen and his staff for their willingness to meet with us, discuss some of the issues that we have raised, and continue the constructive dialogue as this bill moves through the process. I just wanted to make one additional comment to those that Ms. Quinone has made. And this concern is ensuring that there is appropriate oversight of the monies that are expended from the fund. Given the substantial amount of funding that will be flowing to a variety of different entities, we have suggested that the bill include a requirement that midway through the process, a progress report be prepared by the state auditor to the legislature and to the governor on the effectiveness in implementing the various elements of the fund. And we think this level of oversight will help ensure the program is meeting its stated objectives. And again, I want to thank the committee for considering our views on this. And again, look forward to working with the senator and all stakeholders as this bill moves through the process. Thank you. Okay, thanks very much. Anyone in the room wishing to express opposition, please come forward. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Dawn Kepke on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association would align our comments with HCPA and ACC. We too have had a long history working with the author. I just look forward to working through these additional details, but are currently opposed unless amended. Thank you. Sarah Polamoo with the California Retailers Association aligned with Don and Nicole and Tim as well, opposed unless amended, but looking forward to continuing to work on it. Thank you. Ivy Britton with the Plastics Industry Association echoing the comments before respectfully opposed unless amended. Hello Edwin Bourbon on behalf of the Flexible Packaging Association also opposed unless amended Thank you Marisoy Ibarra opposed unless amended Consumer Brands Association Okay, anyone else in the room? All right, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any comments, questions from the committee members? Okay, well, I want to commend the author for working on this, trying to continue to reduce the toxics and plastic waste and all of the harms it causes. So it looks like we don't have any comments. I'll turn it back to you to close. Yeah, no, this is, we're going to do work together. Obviously, this has been a long and winding road, and I'm glad that I appreciate the fact that the opposition sees how close we are, I think, in intent on a lot of these things. I mean, ultimately, this is about making sure that this money is going to really assist the enormous impacts that the plastics have had on so many of our communities. And so with that, I look forward to all the work we're all going to do together and respect for your eyes for that vote. Okay, thank you. Do we have a motion? Senator Menjivar moves the bill and the motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. So please call the roll. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Valadares? Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Daly? Gonzalez? Hurtado? Menjivar? Menjabar, aye. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks very much. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, it's 3 to 0. We will keep that on call. And Senator Valendaris, if you are ready, it's SB 1161. And then after that, we just have two more bills in this committee. So I encourage all members of the committee to come here to EQ so that your vote can be registered. Thank you. Am I good, Madam Chair? You are welcome to begin when ready. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. I'm here this morning to present SB 1161. This bill actually derived out of several conversations that our California Problem Solvers Caucus has had. And at this core, this bill really does one thing. It is about honesty. It's not about whether we protect the environment. We all agree on that. It's not about taking away CARB's authority. This bill doesn't touch it. This bill is about being honest with Californians about what our policies actually cost them. Because right now, we are not. Today, CARB runs economic analysis, but they're buried in technical documents written for experts, not for the people who are actually paying the bill. And by the time a family realizes what a regulation costs them when their gas bill spikes when groceries go up when their electricity bill jump it already taken effect So let be real about who feels this the most It not Sacramento It's not policy experts. It's a single mom from my district commuting an hour to work. It's a small business owner trying to make payroll. It's seniors living on fixed incomes who don't have room for one more increase. We've all seen the headlines, record gas prices, rising energy costs, families paying thousands more a year just to live their daily lives. And yet the people most impacted are the last to be clearly informed. SB 1161 fixes that. It simply requires CARB to do what we should have been doing all along. Tell people in plain English what a regulation will cost their household before it takes effect. Not buried, not after the fact, not in a 300-page report. Upfront, clear, and understandable. Because the bottom line here is if a policy is worth doing, we should be able to explain what it costs. And if we can't, that's a problem. Here with me today in support of the bill is Paul D'Aro. Madam Chair and members, Paul D'Aro representing the Western States Petroleum Association. It's not often I find myself sitting in this chair supporting a very good bill, but I'm glad to be here. We believe the bill would help ensure that policy decisions that are led by comprehensive understanding of economic outcomes of the state's most vulnerable communities. California is one of the most expensive states to live, specifically referring to transportation fuel prices and electricity, Lower income disadvantaged communities often face the most burdensome cost as they spend a higher share of their income on transportation and utilities. And for those reasons, we support. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else in the room wishing to come forward and express support? Good morning again, Chair Blakespear. Chris Schmode on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, as mentioned on the previous bill. We're supporting concept on all the surreal transparency bills. Look forward to working with the senator as the bill moves forward. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of the Western Propane Gas Association in support. Thank you. Anyone in the room wishing to express opposition? Lead opposition witnesses? Don't see any. Anyone wishing to express opposition? Okay. Or yes? Okay. Thank you. Michelle Canales with Union of Concerned Scientists and respectful opposition. Thank you. Good morning. Scott Sadler on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund. We know the bill has changed with committee amendments but haven't been able to review them yet, so qualified opposition. Okay. Thanks very much. All right. We'll bring it back to the committee now. I'll just make a few comments here. So I am pleased to be able to support this bill today, authored by our Honorable Vice Chair. As amended, and I think you indicated you would accept your accepting committee amendments. I know we've had a couple of other bills this year that have tried to get at this same issue, and I believe this bill has the right approach. While we can acknowledge that climate mitigation has hugely progressive benefits to low- and middle-income families, we can also recognize that costs must be minimized on vulnerable and disadvantaged communities SB 1161 is a healthy middle ground requiring an economic analysis of the impact of regulations from the Air Resources Board across income levels. SB 1161 preserves the rulemaking process while also putting working class Californians first. So I'm happy to support it when we get to that stage. Any other comments? All right, not seeing any, we'll turn it back to you to close. Thank you, Madam Chair. And yes, I just want to clarify, I did accept the committee's amendments. I know that we did receive some late opposition last night on the bill and specific around the requirement for a legislative hearing, which has been amended out of the bill. Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Okay, and we actually do have Senator Allen. Madam Chair, do you feel as though, because when I first had news about the bill, there was no opposition. I understand it's coming late. Are you feeling, I'm sorry to call out order, but I wasn't aware of this opposition until just now. Are you feeling that there's a, you're moving? Yeah, I think it's still continuing to be worked on. Okay. Yeah. All right. I'll support the bill with that understanding. Okay. Anything more to close? We respectfully ask for an aye vote. Okay. Thank you. So do we have a motion on this bill? Okay. Senator Mench of our moves. on SB 1161 and the motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll. Senators Blake Spear? Aye. Blake Spear, aye. Valadares? Aye. Valadares, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Daly? Gonzalez? Ortato? Menjivar? Menjivar, aye. Okay, it's four to zero. We will keep that on call. And I think I'm gonna hand it to the vice chair if you're able to take over for the last two bills. This is just a reminder for all members of the EQ committee to come here to the state Capitol to vote and close out this hearing soon. So I'll hand that over. Thank you. We're now moving to file number, item number eight, SB 955 by Senator Blake Spear. Senator, you are recognized when you are ready. Okay. Thank you, Vice Chair and members, for the opportunity to present SB 955. First, I'd like to start by thanking the committee for their work on this bill, and I accept the committee amendments. This bill is an update to California's Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act to ensure that all major stores selling beverage containers are participating in the program. California's Deposit Refund Recycling System, established in 1986, is driven by the California Redemption Value, or CRV. This is a deposit that is paid at purchase and refunded to consumers when returning the containers. For the system to work as designed, all CRV container purchases must be able to be easily returned for their refunds. In recent years, California has experienced significant reductions in the number of certified recycling centers, with more than half closing. over the past decade. For many Californians, this means that redeeming CRV has become more difficult, more time-consuming, and in some areas is not possible at all. As a result, the amount of unclaimed consumer deposit has skyrocketed from $219 million in 2014 to $819 million in 2024. That data shows that the system is not working well, and more and more containers that could be returned for recycling are not being returned. SB 955 helps address this problem by modernizing the definition of for supermarkets to ensure that all major sellers of recyclable containers are part of the program and by requiring sellers to provide a place within close proximity for consumers to return the containers. This is even more important now that we have expanded the program to include wine and distilled spirits containers. SB 955 also does not eliminate or disadvantage reverse vending machines as a compliance pathway for dealers. It ensures that a served convenient zone is based on adequate collection capacity across all methods, allowing RVM operators to continue participating while preventing a single unit from fulfilling obligations zone-wide. SB 99 makes the changes necessary to keep California's beverage container recycling program effective and successful. With me today in support, I have Mr. Louis Brown with Circular CRV and the California Grocers Association, and Tony Gonzalez on behalf of Tomra. So with that, I'll turn it to both of you. Good morning, Madam Vice Chair, members of the committee. Louis Brown here today on behalf of Circular CRV Association and the California Grocers Association. SB 1013 a few years ago made some significant changes and improvements to the California Bottle Bill. One of those was the formation or the authorization for the formation of a dealer cooperative that actually allows retailers and grocers to come together to help solve some of the recycling issues that we have in unserved areas. I'm happy to say that Circular CRV is the dealer cooperative right now formed in the state of California for that purpose. and has successfully has membership throughout the state and is working to find solutions for recycling in those areas that are deemed unserved. SB 955 really addresses two technical issues that we've now found as we've gone through the implementation of the regulations from SB 1013. They're minor, but they make major differences in the program. And so with that, we are happy to support the bill and appreciate the leadership of the chair to take on this issue and help us see that recycling in California is successful. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Tony Gonzalez, on behalf of Tomra North America, a leading reverse vending machine technology company, we're here in strong support of SB 55 and thank the author for introducing the bill. I just would like to add a few comments to what Mr. Brown shared with you regarding the collaboration that stakeholders have had with CalRecycle over the last couple of years in implementing SB 1013 and AB 179, which was a budget trailer bill or a budget junior bill that provided funding for ultimately the expansion of convenience redemption centers across the state of California. It's been somewhat slow going, but the pace of the work has accelerated over the last 18 to 24 months, and we're delighted to see that pace of work increase. This bill provides some technical guidance and clarity to CalRecycle in order to ensure that not only are we serving zones but ultimately we serving consumers And what this bill is about is serving consumers, having access to redemption centers throughout the state. Thank you. We'll now move to anyone else in the room here to express their support. Name, organization, and position, please. Good morning, members. Jason Ackerd on behalf of the Glass Packaging Institute in support. Appreciate the chair and sponsors bringing this forward. Thank you. John Kennedy, rural county representative of California. Thank you. Good morning. April Robinson with a voice for choice advocacy and support. Good morning. My name is Riley and I support the bill. Good morning, chair and members. Karen Emigon on behalf of a voice for choice advocacy and we are in support of the bill. We'll now move to any key witnesses in opposition to the bill. Seeing none, would anyone else like to express opposition? No, we will now move to the committee. Questions, comments? I want to just thank the author for bringing this forward. I am somebody who supports carrots over sticks, and I think this does exactly that. And I would love to be added as a co-author if you'd have me. You may close. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Love it. Do we have a motion? We have a motion from Senator Menjivar. The motion is due, pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll. Senators Blake-Spear? Aye. Blake-Spear, aye. Valadares? Aye. Valadares, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Daly? Gonzalez? Artado? Menjivar? Menjivar, aye. Artado? Hartado, aye. 5-0, that is on call. We'll now move to file item number 9, our last bill of the committee today, SB 1259 by Senator Blakespear. Senator, you're recognized when you are ready. Okay, thank you. So my support witnesses are welcome to come up. Yes. Well, thank you, colleagues, for the opportunity to present SB 1259. 1259 is a transparency measure that requires refineries to proactively and collaboratively share information with the state to help us plan for the future of the land that refineries sit upon today. In California, as well as the rest of the world, the clean energy transition is underway. It is a fact that we are in the mid-stage transition, which means we are transitioning away from fossil fuels to a clean energy future, and we know that we are not all the way there yet. So right at this moment, we are very focused on gas prices and refinery health, as we should be. But it also remains true that in the big picture, petroleum refineries have been closing and consolidating across the U.S. for years. And that includes here in California, where several refineries have closed in recent years. And we expect more to eventually close in the decades to come. As policymakers, I believe that we can and we should responsibly plan for the future. Before I served in the state legislature I worked as an estate planning attorney and I drafted wills and trusts for clients And when I been working on this bill I think about this a lot because when people are drafting their will they are not planning to die immediately They still taking their vitamins and going on their runs and living their full life, but they are also thinking about the future. And so they are drafting their will, recognizing that someday, sooner or later, they will end up passing. And it's important to get your arms around everything that you have in your estate and to think about what are the obligations and what are the assets and what is going to happen with those things after one passes. So I don't see that refineries need to close any earlier based on a bill like this. It is just looking at how can we and communities be ready when it does happen. CEC Vice Chair Sivagunda has done tremendous work highlighting how important it is for California to concurrently pursue policies that stabilize in-state supply, maintain system-wide reliability, and execute a holistic transportation fuel transition strategy. So it needs to be all of the above all at the same time. We want a smooth and thoughtful transition to clean energy, and that means that we need to get our affairs in order, understanding what refinery site cleanup will cost, how long it will take, and how it will get done if and when a refinery might close. This is not because we want them to close, but because we have to face the uncomfortable truths of what may be coming or will be coming in the future. So this is what SB 1259 does. California's refineries are aging. Many were built long before modern environmental laws existed. Some are more than a century old, and they sit on sites contaminated by decades of toxic spills and buried waste. Communities live near these facilities, and they deserve clarity about what it will take to safely clean up these sites when they shut down so that they can plan for their eventual future without them. Refineries are unique among major energy infrastructure because they are not required to meaningfully disclose or plan for cleanup costs until closure is imminent. Unlike other sectors, refineries do not have sector-specific requirements. They do not have to provide advanced estimates for remediation. Plain and simple, SB 1259 is a good government bill because it requires information to be provided for thoughtful planning. This is not excessive regulation. It does not increase the costs of refining oil or doing business because we know that these sophisticated companies that are running refineries either already have this information or they will be needing it eventually. So this is about holding refineries to the same level of transparency that is required of comparable industries. For context, in response to the last Iran oil crisis in the late 70s, California passed the Petroleum Industry Information Report Act, which was called PI-RU, and the CEC has been collecting and protecting extensive, confidential market data about operations from refineries and others ever since. Going back even further, in response to the Great Depression, Congress passed the Securities Exchange Act in 1934, which established the SEC. and the SEC has been requiring annual financial reports from publicly traded companies for many decades since. These balance sheets show the assets and liabilities that companies carry, which often include reporting post-closure liabilities for decommissioning and remediation. But while many other sectors report their asset retirement obligations annually to the SEC, the rules let refineries avoid this until less than a year before they close. This means that the CEC understands the financial inner workings of refiners through Pura right up until the point that they close The first time anyone outside of the company itself sees a cost estimate for decommissioning is after the refinery announces its intent to close. This is less than a year before shuttering operations. As a result, communities are left in the dark and the state, it's not just communities, it's also workers, are left in the dark and the state lacks the information needed to plan for land reuse, environmental remediation, and economic transition. SB 1259 addresses this gap by requiring refineries to disclose to the state how they calculate their asset retirement obligations and other cleanup liabilities, and it asks them to provide rough estimates of both costs and timelines. These estimates will be reviewed by and informed by guidelines that are developed by the state water board, and they will all figure into the Energy Commission's ongoing efforts to navigate the mid-stage transition. We are also asking the CEC to report to the legislature what the total costs and potential risks to the state are based on the cleanup obligations and financial assurances that the refiners report. To go back to the estate planning example, preparing your will doesn't mean that you want to pass away any sooner. It just means that you want to help those who survive you to live well once you're gone. With SB 1259, we are saying we don't want refineries to pass any sooner, but we want the workers, communities, and the state who rely on them to live well once they're gone. It's not about creating onerous new obligations. It's about us getting our affairs in order before we're forced to make the same big decisions in an emergency. With me to testify in support of SB 1259, I have Carrie Birdseye, city council member in Benicia, and Faraz Rizvi of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network. And I'll turn it over to both of you. Thank you, Chair. And just a quick statement that I'll be sharing a bit of my time with Carrie. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Faraz Rizvi, and I'm here representing APEN Action in support of SB 1259. California is entering a new era of mid-transition. Californians are moving away from oil and gas for cleaner air, climate action, and costability. From Houston to Australia, aging refineries are closing, and the industry is consolidating globally. Whether a refinery will close in two years or 20 years, the question facing this body today is not if these refineries will close, but how. California is currently coming to terms with its oil industry orphan oil well problem. And now we're facing the same lack of end-of-life planning in the refinery industry. Other industries within the energy sector, including coal mining, nuclear plants, and wind and solar facilities, are generally required to prepare plans for decommissioning, usually including a cost estimate for it. Federal law also requires that publicly traded companies report an estimate of their asset retirement obligations to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Refineries, however, are an outlier in that they are not subject to an industry-specific decommissioning planning requirement. They have managed to evade the requirement to report their asset retirement obligations to the SEC through the use of an accounting loophole. SB 1259 is a common sense measure that provides transparency for communities facing refinery closure. Without such transparency, we risk stranding communities with decades of costly cleanup that will leave taxpayers not responsible for legacy pollution on the hook. The energy transition is happening now. The state must commit to advancing a truly holistic and robust transition strategy. I urge you to support the Refinery Transparency Act. Let's put a plan in place before the gates close. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and committee. My name is Carrie Birdseye. I am a member of the Benicia City Council, an office I've served in since 2022. I very much appreciate the opportunity today to testify in support of SB 1259. And as an elected official of a city in which a refinery is closing now in real time, I'm acutely aware of the problem that this legislation is addressing and eager for the solution it offers. The closure of the refinery will hit our economy hard in the near term, putting an estimated $10 million hole in our tax revenue. Our community does not have the luxury of decades to let the site's future play out in slow motion. while viable opportunities slip away. But the planning and the coordination we need to be doing right now is extremely difficult in the absence of hard information about the refinery site and what it will take to clean it up. We are pleased that many prospective business interests have been approaching Benicia to talk about the future use of the refinery site and its supporting infrastructure. We are not in a position to provide them with the kind of hard information about the site cleanup that will impact their decisions and whether or not they want to proceed further. The city of Benicia needs that information now, and this act would have provided it. but for other local governments in the future who will be in the same position as future refinery closes, the act will make sure that Richmond, Rodeo, Martinez, Torrance, Carson, Wilmington, and other refinery communities can start now to engage in their long-term planning. We commend the Regional Water Board for its work thus far in taking preliminary steps. to assess site contamination. Wrap up your comments. Thank you. Well, for all these reasons, I respectfully urge your aye vote on SB 1259. We'll now move to any others in the room in support. State your name, your organization, and your position. Good morning. and Christina Skaringe at the Center for Biological Diversity in support. Michelle Canales with Union of Concerned Scientists in support. Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance in strong support. Also asked to register support for Scope Action, the Environmental Health Coalition, and CRPE. Thank you. Good morning. Catherine Chu with APEN Action, also on behalf of CBE and Podera San Francisco. So really strongly ask to support and get your aye vote on SB 1259. Thank you. Hello, Ada Welder with Earth Justice here in support. Mercedes Macias, Sierra Club, California, in support. Sophia Afakoa with the Coalition for Clean Air in support. Ruth McDonald with Climate Action California in support. Thank you. Mara Kukusian on behalf of Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles in strong support. Good morning Marie Lu with permission to express support for the Climate Center and Biofuel Watch Jim Lindberg Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support Good morning. Michael Claiborne with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, in support. Thank you. Hello, Laura Placencia with Valley Improvement Projects based in Stanislaus County, in support. Thank you. Thank you. We'll now move to our key witnesses in opposition. If you please step forward. You each have two minutes and are recognized when you're ready. Thank you, Madam Chair and Chairs. Paul Diarro representing Western States Petroleum Association here in opposition to the bill. I think in the author's presentation, and I think it's mentioned in the committee analysis, that the premise, part of the premise of the bill is that California refineries are leaving the state because gasoline demand is significantly dropping. That's not true. Gasoline demand has dropped 1% annually over the last five years. So to be clear, 90% of the automobiles driving on California roads need gasoline. And on the second point, we are in the mid-transition. I don't know what that means because we're not in the middle of anything because, again, 90% of the cars on the road require gasoline. The only thing that has happened is refineries are leaving the state because it's too expensive to stay in the state and refine crude and gasoline to meet the demand of California drivers. That is the reason they're leaving. At a time when we have been working with the administration and others last year and this year on trying to convince the six remaining refineries to stay in the state of California, I don't think this is helpful and is a distraction in that effort. Um, so my, my, my, my point is that gasoline demand is there. Uh, so I guess the question is, if you don't get it from in-state refining capacity, you have to import it from foreign countries. There are a handful of refineries that make California-specific blend of gasoline. They are in Southeast Asia and India. They do not have any AB32 emission reduction requirements. They do not pay into the cap-and-trade program. So as refineries leave California, you have no GGRF fund. So that is the path of which we're going in now. And for those reasons, we oppose the vote. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council. As many of you have heard me say in the past, the State Building Construction Trades Council supports renewable energy. We work on those projects. We support those projects. Every expert I speak with, and I'm sure those that you do as well, tell us we're decades away from getting there. SB 1529 isn't preparing a will. SB 1529 establishes the parameters for which the obituary for our refineries is being written It a blueprint for a working class tax and it a preview of the pink slips that my workers hundreds of thousands of workers in the state of California will be receiving should we move forward without finding solutions to keep them operating effectively in the state of California. When refineries closed, as was mentioned, energy demand doesn't go down, doesn't disappear. It goes to places with weaker, if any, labor standards and weaker, if any, environmental enforcements. If and when this happens, fence line communities lose out on an active workforce that generates hundreds of millions of tax dollars that not only support my workforce that I represent, but also first responders, teachers and other services critical to those communities. Refiners in this state are subject to oversight from a myriad of agencies here in the state and federal regulators. Cleanup obligations exist. They're enforceable, triggered by multiple statutes and permits when operations change or cease. There is no enforcement vacuum here. SB 1529 doesn't close the gap. It manufactures one. Forcing refineries to generate state-directed estimates of decommissioning costs and timelines untethered to actual closures is not a neutral planning exercise. It's a deliberate signal to markets that California is a hostile environment. It's not ideology. That's just math. This committee continually talks about affordability. SB 1529 adds uncertainty and friction to a system that's already constrained that we need to be talking about how we retain. It's not a planning exercise. It's pressure. It's provocation. The people who will pay for it can afford it least. And I'll just close quickly here by saying this is a blueprint, again, for working class tax that each and every one of your constituents will pay for. Yeah. Thank you. I'll move to anyone else in the room here that would like to express opposition. please state your name, your organization, and your position. Thank you. Dawn Koepke on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, also in opposition. Good morning. John Kendrick on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, also in opposition. Thank you. Seeing no others, we'll now move to the committee. Senator Menjivar. A lot of thoughts on this bill. I recognize that since last year, this body, the legislature as a whole, has paid extra attention as it should to the situation of our refineries, where you even had environmental champions voting for things that they've never voted before. This committee itself has passed this year a couple of bills in this space. Last year, we passed bills to address the short and medium goals to address the instability of what is access through crude oil in the refineries. We've done that. In the report that we got from last year, the vice chair talked about three goals, and we only addressed the first two goals. While we have been supportive in those first two goals, I think it is unfair to not allow us to work on the third goal. And that third goal is the holistic transition, which is what the senator is working on. This isn't a bill to address the instability of refineries. This is apples and oranges of what we're arguing today. While I agree that we need to continue working on addressing the instability, the report that we got, what the chair led on the informational hearing on this, recommended throughout the entire hearing that we need to do something in this space And one of the policy fixes that were talked about were decommissioning and remediation and refineries. It's extraordinary, under-regulated compared to other hazardous industries. In the entire energy sector, everyone else has to do planning. Everyone else. Solar, wind, everyone else. This is the only entity in the energy sector that does not have to do any planning. Now, I recognize the opposition is talking about some duplicative work, and I would love to ensure that there isn't duplicative work. We don't want to add anything. If something already exists, I would like to make sure that this bill is not adding to it, that we are streamlining it. The analysis also talked about the cost to the state that has to incur when refineries close, and there's no adequate planning for it. What we've paid thus far, I think, is $1 billion of revenues that, outside of this year, are not sustainable and ongoing. I'd like to hear a little bit more, because I think one of the things, Senator, you mentioned is that they already have this information or will need it soon. I'm wondering how we know that they have this information accessible that they can distribute or put together. I think the answer to that question is just basically how businesses plan their financial futures. I mean, thinking about the liabilities that they would face if they were to close, if they were to sell, if they were to think about redevelopment. I mean, these are things that are taking place in responsible financial planning basically at every level. So we assume that these things are happening. And I think when you look at other refinery closures, there is information that goes back a decade. Like, for example, the one in Philadelphia where they were beginning to think about what should we do here. And a private equity firm bought the company and a number of things start to happen. And so the financial information is there. And to the opposition, I'd like to hear a little bit more like your thoughts on two things. What I shared regarding every other energy sector have to submit disclosures in preparation. Why should you be excluded from all the other energy sources? And the second part is the Water Board may not require investigation or cleanup and abatement prior to its closures. It's only if an incident has happened. How do you respond to if it's not a requirement, the need to not change that approach? Those are the two things I'd like to hear. So, Senator, through the chair, happy to answer your question. Currently, we have disclosure asset retirement obligations. It's outlined in the committee analysis. They're called AROs. And we do those asset obligations when a decision is made to close the facility. And a decision-making to close the facility doesn't happen overnight. These companies are looking at these kinds of things for a long time. Under the, like nationally, AROs, the requirements are quite comprehensive. the comprehensive regulation here in California and nationally on oversight of the closure of a Finery is quite substantial. I'm just suggesting what we use today and what we use nationally addresses what Senator Blakespear is trying to add to. So we believe it's a bit over the top, a step too far, and we have an existing system that we use both in California and nationally. And I'd like to add to that. Since the 1980s, we've had over 20 refineries close or leave the state. I have not heard of a problem with any of those departures. What problem are we solving? I think I would have the author answer that. I believe that was more rhetorical. Okay. And unless the author. Yeah. But before that, I still want my answers, my questions answered. I didn't get the second part about why other energy sectors have to do this and not this one should be excluded. You're saying the system exists but even the Vice Chair Gouda's letter talks about no system existing in this place. And I'm just wondering, WSPA, you want us to support the first and second goal of the letter from the vice chair, and we're supporting you on that, but why is it that only those two are important, and the third point is we should ignore? No, good question. Through the chair again. So a clear description of what happened last year in SB 237 was the stabilization attempt on crude supply from Kern County. There was nothing in that bill that proposed stability of gasoline supply. Nothing. So we did the crude part last year. We haven't done anything on the retention of the six remaining refineries. We are having conversations with the Energy Commission and Mr. Gunda about what we can do in that space. And I appreciate and look forward to those because, you know, I do believe we need to do something in that space. But that can live simultaneously while we also prepare for decommissioning. Because the fact is refineries are leaving. Regardless of how we land on why they're leaving, we can disagree on that. But we have to at least agree that they're leaving and we need a plan for that. While we can work on retaining the remaining ones, we might not be able to retain all of them. But I don't think this bill is talking about how we retain refineries, access, importing, anything of that. That's a whole other thing. I think regardless of what we do in that space, we still need a plan for these refineries. because it can take decades for when closes for contamination and so forth. I think there's a whole plan for Phillips 66 and the redevelopment of that. But we do need a plan in place both for the workers and also for the cleanup in the area. And if we don't have a plan in place, I think we're going to be disadvantaged in how we respond to that. That's the only thing I'm lucky I just wanted to bring up. So before are we going to move to Senator Allen do you have questions Well I did want to give the senator the opportunity to answer the perhaps rhetorical question Well I think also my witnesses if you don mind might be able to speak to the consequences of not having planning Thank you, Chair. To answer the question, what problem are we solving? There hasn't been a problem in the 20 communities in California that have survived refinery closures. Well, those communities were left in the dark. They suffered when they learned that the refineries were closing. They had to scramble to figure out how to balance their budgets. and pay their police and fire. So that's where the city of Benicia is right now, and this bill will give communities on the ground the information they need to plan ahead and look towards a sustainable future. Right now, we're left in the dark in the city of Benicia. We do not have any answers on how we're going to redevelop the 900 acres in our community. We are centrally located. We have businesses coming to want to relocate. But we do not have any of the hard, cold data to enable that transition. Thank you. So before I move to Senator Hurtado, Senator Blakesburg, can I just clarify that you did take the committee's amendments? Yes. Thank you. Senator Hurtado. Thank you. I'm not necessarily opposed to this measure. I like a lot of what you have in the bill. I think that there's got to be some accountability, especially when it comes to the communities, the workers, and there's got to be a plan. And there's no reason why refineries should be exempted from having something of that sort. I do you know feel it's my opinion that I don't I know we say we're in mid transition but I don't necessarily believe that we're in mid transition I don't know if there's going to be a transition I mean if we're ever going to stop needing you know oil I don't know when that's going to happen if it's ever going to happen so I just you know that's kind of where I stand I don't know if I'm right, if I'm wrong, maybe I am wrong, I don't know. I'm okay with being wrong. On the other end, I do feel as well that the accountability piece is important because we don't want to put ourselves in a situation of being leveraged, and we've got to make sure that we protect California consumers. I need a little bit more time to support this measure. So today I will not be supporting it, but I hope that I can get there because I do feel there is a need for accountability, and I want to make sure that I continue to have understanding and information coming from the author so that I can get myself there. Thank you. Could I maybe just address Senator Hurt? Absolutely. Yeah so I think the issue of whether we are or are not in a mid transition and going to the opposition first point which is demand isn dropping for gas in a way that it sort of a secondary point and it doesn require that you believe that because the reality is that refineries which is only one part of the oil landscape the whole ecosystem of digging it up, refining it, crude, refined gas stations, all the different parts of that ecosystem, refineries are still closing. They're closing in California, and they have closed. the prediction is that half of the oil refineries in the U.S. will close in the next 20 years. And then half of the remaining ones will close in the decade after that. So when you look at the landscape and see that that level is, because oil is a global commodity, and it is driven by market forces, which is, of course, why we see what's happening with the Strait of Hormuz affecting our prices so much, It's important to recognize that because they are closing, they will be affecting communities like Benicia, regardless of why or whether we are transitioning or in mid-stage or not. It's that that part is actually changing. And so this bill is getting at what types of information do communities and workers and those who care about the environment need to recognizing what is likely, what is coming. In the same way that I was speaking about doing estate planning, in the same way that you draft that will knowing that at some point you will die, even if you're not close to dying, you're still drafting the will to say, let me get my arms around everything and recognize what is it that I need to do to be prepared. And so it's just really that same framework. I don't disagree with you. I think there's got to be a will, right? And there's no way to know when you're going to die. But I also believe that you kind of got to make sure that you continue to be healthy, right? Because you got to go to the doctor. You got to do all these things because you want to remain alive. But in this case, I think there's just going to continue to be a need. So I feel that in being okay with – I'm struggling with being okay with just saying they're leaving for whatever reasons. knowing that when they're leaving, California consumers are being leveraged because there's still that demand here. I don't know for how long, but it's here, and in the process, Californians are paying the price. Could I just respond really quick? So, I mean, I completely agree with you that you still want to go to the doctor and take your vitamins and do all these things, and this bill is not about that part, right? It's not about the health of the refineries. That is bucket one and two. That is what the vice chair, Sivagunda, was talking about. We have these three buckets, but what about the third bucket? That's the one where you're drafting the will. You're still doing all the things to keep the refineries here, which is what we are doing in California. We want it to be a healthy market. We want it to be a short supply chain. There are a lot of different things that are happening in that first bucket especially, but this is that third bucket. And so this bill is only about that. It's not about anything to do with the health of them, keeping them alive, because that's happening in other policy work. This is only planning for what about the future when they do close. Thank you. So I'm going to be painfully redundant here. I'm going to also be just blatantly honest right now about where California is in this moment because it matters. We lost 20 of our refining capacity in just the past couple of months We importing roughly nearly 70 of our crude We have a problem with our pipeline infrastructure We have completely, through policy, exposed ourselves to global shocks. And the reality is that the families in my district and all of our districts and some of the poorest communities are paying for this. They're paying for the policy that we've implemented right here in this body. So the question, though, today, though, isn't simply about what this bill intends to do. It's about what it does in this moment. Because the timing of this matters significantly. And right now, this bill lands in the middle of a supply crisis. And I understand the intent. Transparency is important. Planning is important. Making sure taxpayers aren't stuck with the bill and cleanup cost is vitally important. But this bill does something else and something bigger. It requires operating refineries to model their shutdown timelines, to publicly disclose liabilities, and a plan for closure, even when they're still supposed to be producing fuel today. And that's not neutral. That's a significant signal. And we need to be honest about what that signal is. Because when government starts requiring you to plan your shutdown while layering on cost, exposure, and uncertainty, that does not stabilize the industry. And that's the conversation we should be having. What stabilizing efforts are we moving forward right now? What this does is it accelerates exits, further destabilizing a market where Californians are already paying nearly $1.70 more per gallon of gasoline. So my question to the author here, is there any part of this bill, given that we've already lost 20% of our refining capacity, that you can, is there any line in this bill that explains how this is going to keep refineries in California? I mean, I'd say that bills are, by their nature, limited in their goals, and this is focused on something that's not your question. So there are a lot of efforts taking place in the state to keep refineries open and to have a good relationship with them and to make sure that we're able to continue to have a supply chain here locally in California. But this bill is focused specifically on the macro, the reality of what it looks like to have closures and what communities and workers experience when that happens. But the macro is also that it further destabilizes the industry. So to our key witnesses in opposition here, would you agree that requiring refineries to submit detailed closure and cost plans while still operating signals that California expects these facilities to shut down? Again, I thank you. I'll take a first stab at that. Again, to stick with the metaphor, this isn't a will. It's an obituary. And in a time when, again, the State Building Construction Trades Council supports renewable energy, every expert, again, I'll repeat myself, says that it's decades away. We need to be doing everything we can to make sure that we're ensuring that we retain the supply here in California. So, again, we're going to be doing everything we can to make sure that we're ensuring that we retain the supply here in California. To your question, is it effective to plan your parameters of your obituary to a legal business that's deeply needed in the state? No, it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make sense for the workforce. It doesn't make sense for the communities. And again, I participated in the informational hearing. I said there, this is a blueprint for a working class tax that the least among us can afford. It will put my workforce out of work and will put great pressure on the economy of California. And, you know, as the fourth largest, I think we just came out as the fourth largest, therefore the rest of the United States and the world. And again, the State Building Construction Trades Council offers to every member of this legislature the opportunity to sit down with us and talk about how we can encourage the continued refining of oil and fuels and energy here in the state of California. It provides for our workforce. It provides for everyone in our state. And I'll shortly add to that. The reason state refineries in the state are closing are because of state policies that have been adopted over a decade, over the last five years, over two special sessions. That's the basis of their decision because it makes it too expensive to have a refinery in California and those are decisions that they will continue to look at and make. But to be clear, the demand is there, but the added state policies and regional and local policies have made it very difficult to stay. So if you could just answer yes or no on this next question. Is this bill combined with existing regulation increasing the overall cost and risk of operating a refinery in California? Well, can I go beyond yes or no? I have a follow-up question, but yes. Okay. The committee analysis does acknowledge the cost of having a refinery collect all of this information. It is costly, and it will add to the cost of operating a refinery in California, yes. So when costs and risks go up in a market like California, what typically happens to capacity? Well, the pattern is capacity. Gasoline supply is threatened because, again, we had 30 refineries in the 80s. We have six now. Two have left within the last two years. Because of state policies that are pending now, we have refineries that are the six remaining refineries that have to make a decision. relatively quickly. So it's a problem that goes beyond, I mean, gasoline supply in the fourth largest economy in the world is threatened for California consumers because we've become more reliant on the importation of that finished product, gasoline, from these refineries that are far away, guess what they're doing? They are holding on to their stock and product because of the uncertainty that's going on in the Middle East. So California is putting itself in a position of relying on the finished product coming from foreign governments Same thing with crude So I don think anyone is arguing against accountability or responsible cleanup That really does matter but we can ignore reality We've already lost 20% of our refining capacity. We're increasingly dependent on foreign oil and families are already paying some of the highest prices in the country. So the real question isn't just what this bill says on paper. It's the message that it sends. And that's what I am most concerned about, because right now the message to the last refinery standing is this. Start planning your shutdown. And when they do, it won't be Sacramento. It's paying. That's paying the price. It's our it's our families. So I'll end on that note. And if we have a motion or Senator Allen, I guess I'm you're you're you're making the point that refineries have been shutting down. and then you're upset about having reports associated with refinery shutting down. So I'm not understanding the – if this is about sending a signal that we need to plan for refinery shutting down and the concern is that that somehow could precipitate more refinery shutdowns, is that the general concern? So I don't know that we do common back and forth committee. Okay. But what- Or I can ask the witnesses if you- Yeah. Let's- Is that the kind of the, you think the reporting requirements are onerous,
you've already got some existing reporting requirements, and you're worried about the signal descends about refinery shutdowns, just as you keep talking about all these refinery shutdowns. Is that effectively, am I understanding the contours? So our opposition is based on, A, the necessity for the additional information, which we don't believe is needed at this point. Our opposition is based on the potential cost to refineries to collect that information and how it's done. You would have to ask individual companies if these provisions will guide their decision on whether they should stay or go. As an association, we don't make those. But I get your question.
You think that these report requirements will influence someone shutting down? Just reporting on the environmental impacts of a decommissioning?
I cannot speak to that because I'm not in individual company decision-making processes. I think the senator was making a point that it's going to send not a good signal, but those are company decisions.
Okay. Is there a less, are there particular reporting requirements that you're focused on as being particularly duplicative or onerous that you think there's some sort of scaled back version of this that you could see being reasonable?
That is a good question. coming out of the gate we thought a lot of it was repetitive a lot of it was unneeded as I said before the decision making process of these companies on whether to stay or go on the refining side is done through a long process One of the issues is that when we provide the notice when a company has made the decision to leave, we have to provide an advance notice. And within the regulatory framework of when that process starts, both federal EPA, water board, CARB, the DTSC, local governments, they go into gear and they get the information at that point. That's the existing process that we don't think is broken.
Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I hear you. I understand you don't want additional reporting requirements, which we're always trying to strike that balance between creating unnecessary work for people. I also understand the kind of optics issue that's been raised. Though I will say the two arguments being advanced at the same time, which is, oh, we have all these refineries closing. so but please let's not talk about the implications of refineries closing it seems counter um uh counterproductive well just just conflict internally conflicting but with that i i'm sure that you know in order for this bill to make any progress and potentially get to the governor's desk i'm sure that the author is going to have to do significant work to continue to convince people that this is a reasonable, non-duplicative, not overly onerous set of reporting requirements. And I will speak to that.
We did meet with the author and really appreciated that meeting. We'll continue to work with her on something that is less onerous and perhaps a better product.
Yeah, and ultimately focused on what we've just heard from our representative from local government, which is how do we make sure that local governments and communities have the tools they need to understand the implications? Because this isn't like shutting down a small business. I mean, this is a serious, you know, there's serious implications when a refinery shuts down on so many levels, including environmental. and oftentimes our local communities are left holding the bag. And while the author herself has said that she's not welcoming shutdowns, it's just, as you point out, Senator, there's 20% of shutdown. So we'd be kind of foolhardy not to be thinking about and planning for the possibility of additional shutdowns, even as we try to stabilize our market, push back on federal policy that are currently squeezing the oil supply and raising crisis and all those kinds of things, which I know that you care about too. So with that, I'll support the bill. But I know the author is going to have a lot of work to do because there's this complicated melange of optics and challenges associated with this very difficult energy market we face right now. Senator Gonzalez.
I too want to just say thank you to the author. I'm a proud co-author of this bill. And I also kind of came in here and was just really astounded by the different discussions that I thought, was this the same bill we're talking about? Because this is not the bill that is before us which requires refiners to report information concerning decommissioning and site remediation I have West Long Beach and of course share that with Carson and Wilmington who have a lot of refineries in that side of the district, which is just outside of my district. But nonetheless, a lot of the workers are there. A lot of my constituents are breathing that air. And there have been a multitude of violations to the Clean Water Act, as I'm sure has been mentioned, indictments by P66, six counts in fact in which refiners did not want to report that either to my community which I felt very offended by and then now you want to leave the community and leave us with the workers being lost jobs with sales tax revenue not being afforded to those cities, income taxes not being afforded to those communities and yet we're still fighting over the reporting which I find is just astounding. You know for someone that has not just represented this community, I grew up here. I always tell people my skyline was the refineries. It still is in some cases and so I would I would just urge the refiners, I get this, if you want to tell us why we are doing such a bad job I think this is your opportunity to do that in these reportings. Is to be able to say in California why you're leaving California. Why are the liabilities so great for you to be leaving this amazing state. What is it exactly? Can we have the truth? And I really appreciate Senator Blake's fear for calling for that. If you just took out the specific industry of this, if you just didn't say it was refineries, I have card clubs in my district. If you just took out the industry and just said, hey, there is an industry here, not saying what it is, leaving the city that has an enormous market share in terms of the sales tax and income tax revenue for that city, and they're leaving, I'd want to know what the plan is. In fact, I'd want to know that years beforehand so I can plan as a city manager, as a city council member, et cetera. So I don't think there's any problem in asking for this additional information. And yes, I hope, I know she will continue to work with you to fine tune so there isn't duplicative efforts and data. Fine, if that's the case, let's do that. But I think we owe it to our communities who've been pollution burdened for so long and who have not received reporting on so many other environmental impacts. This is one thing we could do. This is one thing I think the refiners, you all, and the workforce you could do to align with us to actually have a future where we can understand better what your economics are and how our economics for our cities and state, more importantly, can fare better. Respectfully ask for an aye vote on behalf of Senator Blakespear.
So I'll just, before you close, Senator, this bill tells our existing six refineries. It requires operating refineries to model their shutdowns. And that says that we're not asking them to stay. We're not giving them any certainty. We're saying you're closing. Give us the timeline. That is the message on paper. And when we should be talking about how do we get them to stay? We're not against transparency and reporting, but we're telling them you're closing, give us the plan.
So Senator, you may close.
Okay, thank you. Well, I really appreciate the robust discussion and engagement from the committee members and the witnesses on both sides here. You know, you can see that this is a bit of a live wire issue. And the bottom line is that what we're looking for is information that's both public and useful for local. to do planning. And recognizing what Senator Gonzalez was just saying about the importance of a local economy, I think that is such an important lens. And then you add into it the pollution lens, where refineries are inherently polluting. And what we don't want is to have a situation where there's a bankruptcy and they up and leave and the local community and the state are left holding the bag. And there are many examples of polluting industries that have left locations that remain blighted and unremediated for decades and decades. And so recognizing where we are with this industry at this moment, and also learning lessons that we've seen from other refineries closing. I think that's such an important piece here. And I'll just close by referring to this article, lessons learned from the Philadelphia refinery closure, which was an article that goes through the reality of what happened with this refinery, which is they received a lot of subsidies, both state and local, to stay in business. There was a transfer of ownership with private equity. There was a big disinvestment in refinery safety. There was an explosion. It blew up, and it went into bankruptcy. And so, you know, recognizing that things happen, as the opposition witnesses said, there are many years of planning that go into making the business decisions. And this article, I'm just going to read these sentences here at the very end that say, the sum up, looking to the future, the most important lesson from Philadelphia refinery is to start planning now. Urban planners looking at the future of southwestern Philadelphia in 2016 simply assumed that the site would remain in its present or similar use for decades into the future. Nonprofit advocacy groups in the city lacked resources and capacity to engage in a long-term process of building a shared vision to advocate for a better future after the refinery. And I think it goes to the point of we want to work together to make sure that every piece of this pie is protected, that refineries can stay open as long as are needed, that they are supported. But we are also being realistic and clear-eyed about what the future holds for these communities that host refineries and for the refineries themselves and the workers who work in them and the environmental situation that will be left after they leave And so this is I had many conversations with WSPA and building trades and I appreciate the open dialogue we have I understand that they are basically flat opposed to this bill And trying to work through, is there any solution, any type of information that's more robust than what's currently provided, that is not duplicative and not burdensome, but that would give communities going back to something that's public and useful for locals to do the planning. You know, that's really what we're looking for. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
We have a motion. I think Senator Gonzalez motioned. And the motion is do pass as amended to Energy Utilities and Communications. Secretary, would you please call the roll? Senators Blake-Spear? Aye. Blake-Spear, aye. Valadares? No. Valadares, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Daly? Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Artado? Menjabar? That is three to one and on call. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Okay, we're going to open the roll for various bills. Let's start with the consent calendar. Secretary, please call the roll. Senators Daly? Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Artado? Aye. Artado, aye. Okay, is Senator Daly coming? Okay, so we're going to close the roll on that. That's 6-0. All right, we'll now go to Cabal, then. That's item 3, SB1087. Senators Valadaris? I'm sorry. SB1087, the motion is amended, do pass as amended to transportation. Senators Valadaris? Daly? Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Artado? Aye. Artado, aye. Okay, that bill is out. We'll close the roll on that. Five to zero. Okay, next we'll go to item four, SB 1239 Jones. The motion is due pass to appropriations. Senators Daly. Gonzalez. Gonzalez, no. Artado. Artado, no. Okay, that motion fails. Without objection, we'll grant reconsideration. Next, we go to item 5, SB 1125 Menjivar. The motion is due pass to rules. Senators Daly. Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado. Aye. Hurtado, aye. That bill is out. Five to one. We'll next go to item 6, SB 1180. Allen do pass as amended to appropriations. Senators Valadares, Daly, Gonzalez, Gonzalez I Hurtado Hurtado I All right that five to zero that bill is out We go to item 7 1161 Valle Dades due pass as amended to appropriations Senators Daly? Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. 6-0. Yeah, exactly. So next we're going to, that's 6-0, that's out. We'll go to Blake Spear, SB 955, item 8, do pass as amended to appropriations. Senators Daly, Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez, aye. That is 6-0, that's out. Let's go finally to item 9, SB 1259. Blake Spear, do pass as amended to energy, utilities and communications. Secretary, please call the roll. Senators Daly, Hurtado, Menjavar. Oh. Okay, well, okay. All right, we're going to recess. All right. We have to figure out... Okay. So you're just adding on to the Blakeshier bill? Is that the phone? Okay. All right. So that's item nine? Okay. So we're going to reopen the roll on SB 1259, Blakeshier. The motion is due pass as amended to Energy Utilities and Communications. Secretary, please call the roll. Senators Daly, Hurtado, Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. And that's four to one. All right, that's four to one. That bill is out. We will close this hearing. We want to thank everybody so much and we'll be back in a couple weeks. One week. One week, one week. Okay, fantastic. Thanks, Senator. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.