Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

For Members to come down, but let me just--let me text. We will be continuing our practice of welcoming the public in person and via the teleconference service, so if you'd like to provide public comment, today's participant number is 877-226-8163. That's 877-226-8163. The access code is 7362834. We're here in our Committee room in the O Street Building. This is Room 1200, and I ask all Members of our Committee to be present here so we can get going with our hearing.

We've got 12--sorry--we have 17 bills on today's agenda, only three of which are in consent. Those are Item One: SB 15, Item Three: SB 420, Item Seven: SB 613. And we will obviously take here a motion for the content calendar when we have our quorum. I know that Senator Dodd has very graciously accepted Senator Niello's request for Senator Niello to present before him. So when we get started with our next Senator, Senator Niello can begin Item Ten: SB 794. Yes. Quite a gracious guy and humble, too.

All right, my trusty Vice Chair.

Got a lot going on today.

I know. I know. It's a madhouse. We do. All right. Thank you so much for being here, Brian. All right, without further ado, let's start as a Subcommittee, and we'll ask Roger Niello, Senator Niello to come forward to present Item Ten in the agenda. That's SB 794. You're very welcome to start when you're ready.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

And great thanks to Senator Dodd for allowing me to go before him in order to make another obligation that I have this morning. I appreciate the opportunity to present to you SB 794, which would do two things to improve the California Environmental Quality Act. First, it would limit the timeline for challenges and appellate review to 365 days for all major housing, commercial, and public works projects over $25 million.

Second, it would require identity disclosure of individuals and groups that contribute $100 or more to a CEQA lawsuit. That means, effectively, anybody, in order to disclose the economic interests of those seeking to stop or slow down a project. As the law currently stands and unrelated to its original intent, CEQA is being used as a tool of obstruction to stop projects of any size when someone doesn't like it, even, and especially for non-environmental reasons.

Even our Governor acknowledged that CEQA is flawed, stating in a recent press release, our CEQA process is clearly broken. When a few wealthy Berkeley homeowners can block desperately needed student housing for years and even decades. California can't afford to be held hostage by NIMBY's who weaponize CEQA to block student and affordable housing. This selfish mindset is driving up housing costs and making our state less affordable.

The law needs to change, and I'm committed to working with lawmakers this year to making more changes so our state can build housing we desperately need. So, Governor, if you're watching, here I am. Change is needed, so worthy projects of all kinds can be improved with real environmental mitigation to address long-standing needs instead of occasional individual exemptions. By limiting timelines, the process will be streamlined and good projects will actually be built.

This Bill would prevent those with ulterior or non-environmental interests from hiding behind CEQA to block projects with frivolous lawsuits. All too often, those using CEQA do so for labor union interests, competitive advantages, or those seeking to prevent diverse communities from entering their neighborhood or any other reason that many times is non-environmentally related. By removing anonymity from those who file namelessly, transparency will be ensured for all.

Right now, appeals of project approvals are surprisingly easy and affordable to file, especially since it can be done anonymously, essentially giving every neighbor or any interest group a veto power over any new project. CEQA is known to be California's most important environmental law, but when a favored project has to be done, it is exempted from CEQA, for example, sports stadiums, sustainable groundwater management plans, project Roomkey let's reform this for everything and return the process to true environmental review and mitigation.

One local example, by the way, of CEQA being abused and very frustrating locally for non-environmental reasons that I found particularly troubling was the Sutter Medical Center in midtown Sacramento that was delayed for probably at least four years due to lawsuits filed by SEIU. Litigation or the threat of it, creates delays, uncertainty and leads to increased project timelines and costs, or abandoning the project altogether.

Without limits on timelines for these changes to be litigated, the challenge will essentially run until one party runs out of money or gives up. With that, I'd like to invite Jordan Panana Carbajal, excuse me, with California YIMBY and P. Anthony Thomas with the California Building Association to testify on behalf of the Bill.

Thank you, Senator. Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Jordan Panana Carbajal, legislative advocate for California YIMBY, and we are here to speak in support of SB 794. California YIMBY is a statewide organization of over 80,000 neighbors dedicated to making our state an affordable place to live, work, and raise a family for all Californians. California's housing crisis is due in large part to the unproduction of housing.

In many instances, the abuse of CEQA lawsuits contribute to unnecessary delays in development, exacerbating the problem. Under current law, CEQA lawsuits can be filed anonymously, meaning parties are not required to disclose identities, financial donors, or conflicting interests. In some cases, NIMBY parties file lawsuits projects under CEQA without regard to environmental effects, but only to stall the projects. These anonymous CEQA lawsuits also impact our democracy, reducing transparency in a complex and opaque process.

Without transparency in CEQA lawsuits, California is destined for never-ending litigation, increased costs, and ongoing delays if we do not make meaningful reforms. With high litigation costs and uncertainty comes increased project costs that are either passed on to the future consumer of the development or leave developers to abandon the project altogether.

SB 794 will require parties filing secret lawsuits to identify individuals or groups providing $100 or in-kind contributions of $100 value or more to the lawsuit and to disclose economic interests of those opposing or seeking to modify an approved project. We believe this Bill will provide critically needed transparency to address CEQA litigation abuses, removing a barrier to increase California's housing supply. It's for these reasons, California YIMBY respectfully requests your support for SB 794. Thank you.

Morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. P. Anthony Thomas, Senior Vice President, Legislative Affairs, California Building Industry Association, CBIA. I'm liking my new gig. How you doing, Chairman?

I miss talking oil with you.

Yes, sir. Well, so do I. Rear view mirror now. Good to see you. Projects which come under the California Environmental Quality Act have the right to be opposed by those who see or see a different purpose insofar as filling a suit is concerned.

But SB 794 is very specific in its request that if you are willing to file a suit on a project of at least $25 million which has been invested, contributors must be revealed acknowledging their presence. The Bill is clear in its intent to cut down on lawsuits which are not pertaining to environmental concerns. The debate from both sides of the aisle in reference to CEQA's abuse does have merit.

Fact, in 2015, a study by the firm Holland and Knight of all CEQA lawsuits filed statewide found that only 13% 13% were filed by activist organizations which existed prior to filing their CEQA lawsuits. One of the challenges of CEQA suits is that it only considers the possible negative effects of a project without giving equal consideration to its benefits or consequences if the project is not built. Exemptions can be narrow, piecemeal, and not always enough to insulate important projects from being stopped by CEQA suits.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, CEQA abuse is one of the leading challenges to our failing of our goal of 2.5 million homes built homes in the State of California. Transparency of who is filing the suits is needed because it is relatively easy for anyone to file a suit, if only for a few $100. Mr. Chairman, the Bill is good public policy. I would request that you allow the Bill to move on to a broader discussion. CBI stand. CBI stands in support of SB 794 and urge your Aye vote. Good to see you Mr. Chairman.

Likewise. Okay, now we get the opportunity for folks to weigh in, in support. So the me-toos, if you have an organizational support position on this Bill, you can come to the microphone. Otherwise, we'll hear from opposition on this Bill. No. Okay, we can go to the phone lines. Let's go to the phone lines. Folks who want to weigh in, either in support or opposition.

And thank you. Please press one zero at this time and give us just a moment. And we can first go to line 25. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, Members and staff, Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation, in opposition.

Again, it's one zero. Give me just a moment. We had a couple others here. Going next to 23. 23, your line is open.

Okay. My name is Hilda Gaytan. I am Executive Director for Puente Latino Association and I support the bill. Thank you.

And next we have line 21.

Good morning. Chair and Members of the Committee. Joe Shakarnik with the State Building Trades. We are in opposition of SB 794. Thank you for your time.

And currently none further at this time.

Okay. The item is before the Committee for discussion. I know the author knows we just a week or two ago passed SB 393. And I think you are a co-author.

Senator Glazer's Bill?

Senator Glazer's Bill that addresses the disclosure requirements. So the anonymity issue that you raise, obviously, it's a higher threshold. That's in their Bill, but it's in his Bill.

But nevertheless, it's still a very meaningful action along those lines that this Committee has taken. So I think you're a co-author to that Bill. Otherwise, there's kind of a broad discussion about CEQA. Everyone knows that Senator Wiener has put forward a Bill. I think he's making a two-year Bill. He's working on it. I encourage you to engage in that conversation with him.

I'm certainly not prepared to support this Bill in its form today, but that doesn't mean that there's not work to be done on ensuring that CEQA really does stick to its core goals of environmental protection. So that's my position, but I'm certainly happy to hear from other Members or others. I know we don't have a quorum yet.

Right. Well, I would just say that thing is fascinating that we see so many CEQA bills and we don't really talk about the whole of CEQA. So everybody's trying to nibble around the edge and do something because our constituents.

Well, I don't think Wiener's nibbling with his.

Well, depends on what side of the Bill. You're right. So anyway, but the point is that we really do need to tackle some of these issues. Obviously, the opposition that called in is an opposition unless it has a lot of amendments to make sure that they get what they want. And on the other side of it, everybody's weighing in for their side.

That's the problem with CEQA, was that it gets used for a lot of things that it wasn't intended to do. It was intended to make sure that if you impacted somebody next door or in the neighborhood, you mitigated. And it's for letting people know what's happening. And it's turned into an opportunity for everybody to extract from the people who are actually trying to do something. And on all sides, business uses it against business. Labor uses it for labor. Environmentalists use it for their goals.

And that's why we can't get anything done in California. And it takes 25 years to get a shovel in the ground on a project. At the same time, these projects and the bonds that are issued for them, the inflation goes up, and you can't afford to build a project by the time you get it done. So I'll move the Bill when we get a quorum.

Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you, Senator. We don't have quorum yet, unfortunately, we're still trying to get other folks to come on down. But if you'd like to have the opportunity to close.

Thank you. And perhaps the rest of the Committee might be listening in. To the point of Senator Glazer's Bill. I have in the past, when I was in the Assembly, voted against the single exception to CEQA requirements, primarily sports stadiums, because I think that CEQA has to be reformed for everything, but still analyzed based upon environmental impacts, environmental impact report suggesting mitigation.

So to be fair, those sports stadiums have to meet very high, typically have to meet very high environmental standards in order to meet the requirements of the streamlining that's been given in the past, whereas your Bill just is streamlining for all projects, regardless of them meeting any particular environmental standard. Now, that being said, I totally understand it's streamlining. It's not an exemption.

It is not an exemption. It does not change. The Environmental Quality Act details at all.

One could even suggest that this is nibbling at the edges, but it's nibbling at the edges on behalf of all projects that might be proposed. All it does is require quick litigation. Justice delayed is justice denied. And the clear objective of interest groups or individuals that file CEQA lawsuits that are not fundamentally based on the environmental impacts of the project are done with the objective to delay or defeat the project, either delay it so significantly so that the project proponent walks away.

That was never the intent of CEQA. The intent of CEQA was to analyze the environmental impacts of projects and suggest mitigation measures where there are negative impacts on the environment. That's pretty simple. The execution of CEQA has become, in too many cases, something entirely different. And so while I did co-author Senator Glazer's Bill, I decided that that was worth it for those particular projects.

But I still believe that the process, the legal process, should be streamlined in a reasonable manner so that the litigation can be handled quickly and the project is not significantly delayed and therefore significantly adding to the cost of the project or abandoned altogether. So I requestfully ask for your Aye vote both those of you that are here as well as those that will be coming here.

I appreciate it, Senator, as you know, the judges have real issues with streamlining. We've passed streamlining bills out before.

I guess one of the things for us to think about as this whole conversation moves forward, and obviously, we would certainly grant this Bill reconsideration. And in the broader context of some of the debates and discussions that are happening on this topic, I do think that from this Committee's perspective, meeting certain environmental standards might merit more flexibility on CEQA streamlining if we're able to thinking about that issue. So anyhow, I appreciate you bringing this forward.

We're certainly aware of many of the challenges and debates on this, and we'll take it up for a vote when.

Thank you. And again, I appreciate your accommodating me on the timing request and very much appreciate my friend Senator Dodd.

He really is an angel.

To go ahead of him.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Senator. All right, Senator Dodd. Thank you, Senator Niello.

You ready to rock and roll?

Sing to us from on high.

Walk like an angel. Mr. Chairman and Members, I'm presenting SB 353, also known as the Bottle Bill 2023.

I'm happy to accept, Committee, the Committee's two amendments on. What's that, like a bad sequel? There you go. On page five of the analysis, I want to note that negotiations are ongoing with stakeholders in Cal recycling could result in slight changes to the implementation timeline and discretion. We will continue to engage with this Committee on these issues going forward. Recycling has decreased dramatically in recent years. Part of the reason for this decline is the closure of approximately half of all recycling centers since 2013.

Another reason is confusion about what can be redeemed. Currently, 64 ounce cranberry juice cocktail bottles are included in the program, but 64 ounce, 100% cranberry juice bottles are not. Continuing my strong effort to boost recycling in California, SB 353 will add 100% fruit juice bottles over 46oz to the mix of recyclables included in the CRV program. This will increase the number of items recycled, as many as 200 million more per year.

Additionally, SB 353 will authorize Cal recycle to set processing payments based upon the preceding three month average scrap value instead of the current 12 month scrap value. This change will allow for payments to be more responsive to the changes in the market for recyclable materials. Ultimately, we expect this change to the program to result in more money going to small businesses who make up the vast majority of recycling centers in our state.

With me today is Mark Murray, Executive Director of California's Against Waste, to speak in support of the Bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members Mark Murray with the environmental group California's against waste, supporting the measure. Two important provisions. One is the closure of the fruit juice loophole. I was channeling Evan Goldberg with that.

And this is important not just in terms of the increasing the recycling of these containers, but as the Senator pointed out, you go to a recycling center, you've got a 64 ounce pet container, and the recycler has to know whether or not it has 100% fruit juice, then it's not included in the program. But if it's a fruit juice cocktail, then it is in the program. So this is closing a loophole.

It will mean increase in recycling, but it'll also reduce confusion for the public and for consumers. It's also going to have a positive financial benefit on the program in that a lot of those non redeemable, 100% fruit juice containers have been redeemed. They're drawing from the Fund, but they're not paying into the Fund. So it's going to be a positive financially on the program.

The other very important provision in this Bill is a modest update to the processing payment provisions, and I hope that this is a down payment on an update of the processing payment provisions. I think your team did an excellent job of describing what the processing payment does and the importance of the processing payment in terms of funding recycling centers, funding the recycling infrastructure. This is going to make a modest change in that.

As pointed out in the analysis, the scrap value can fluctuate significantly from month to month. There were times last year when the scrap value for pet was greater than the cost of recycling pet. So it was valuable to recyclers beyond just the processing payment, but for most of the year it was well below that. The 12 month average is not compensating recyclers in real time for what their costs are. And right now, for the last six months, since September.

Hey, please wrap it up.

The scrap value.

He's on his way out.

Scrap value has been below $100 a ton. So we need this ability of Cal recycle to make these adjustments in real time. Appreciate your support.

Thank you. Dennis Albiani on behalf of the Plastic Recycling Corporation of California, we are the stewardship organization made up of beverage manufacturers, also bottle manufacturers, and have been doing this since 1986 when the bottle Bill was passed. We support AB three. Sorry, SB 353. Whoops, Freudian slip. The Bill will make some processing payments, track the market much better. Mark did an excellent job describing that.

But to make it more adjust to the markets that occur under a three month level versus the 12 month, we also support the 46oz and we'll continue to work on that. As far as the amendments we appreciate and the discussions that are ongoing and the consultants identification of those we may suggest to discuss as it goes on. Actually focusing on the post consumer recycled content requirements out of AB 793 and the reporting requirements.

So even actually narrowing that, don't exempt them from everything, just exempt them from the requirements of those for the next year or two as we move those products into the program and then maybe a sale through as well, since that's a time that will occur. But we appreciate those and saw that the consultant identified those issues and look forward to working with you guys as it goes throughout the next level of the process.

Thank you Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Louis Brown, on behalf of California Grocers Association in support of SB 353 today and look forward to working with the author on additional changes. Thank you. Thank you.

Priscilla Quiroz on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council and California Product Stewardship Council in support.

Ryan Flanigan, on behalf of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, in support. Thank you.

Morning. Mike Caprio with Republic services here in support of the measure. Thank you.

Those in opposition of the Bill that are here in room 1200, seeing no opposition, we will go to our phone lines and take both opposition and support.

Thank you. Please press 10 at this time. Again, 10. Give us just a moment here. We've got a few in queue, and we'll go first to line 24.

Hi, my name is Curtis, and I'm a certified recycler in California. There's like a lot of noise in the background. Hello. You're on. Go ahead. Can you guys hear me? Yes. Okay, so in regards to this Bill, I don't support this Bill for one big reason. There are no amendments to this Bill that gives the recyclers themselves the ability to chime in to voice their concern. Right now, we've already lost a lot of recycling centers because of how...

If you're in opposition to the Bill, you just let us know you're in opposition, and then we will move on to the next. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Next, we'll go to line 31.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members Dawn Koepke, McHugh, Koepke, and Padron on behalf of strategic materials. Pleased to be in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we can go to line 16.

Yes, this is John Monroe with Metals Recycling. I am opposed unless amended. Thank you.

And none further in queue at this time.

Thank you. We will close public comment and bring it back to the dais. I guess it's me. Hey, it's all you. I do have one question. So how is it going to impact the actual recycling facilities? I know that we've had difficulties in. Is there going to be an impact to them or is it going to be addressed?

Mr. Chairman, Members Mark Murray, with California's against waste, to be absolutely clear, this is going to increase. If this was the law right now, this would increase processing payments to recyclers. It would have increased them effective April 1. It will increase. If this is an urgency Bill, if we can get this passed before July 1, it will increase processing payments, effective July 1. We already know what the scrap value is, and it's well below the cost of recycling. So this will be an increase in payments for recycling centers.

Okay. I guess at the appropriate time, when we have enough people here, we'll get your Bill moving. Thank you very much. Thank you. zero, would you like to close? Sorry.

Yeah. For the whole Committee, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Are you going to do Stearns Bill while you're here? Because he's going to need the whole Committee I think.

No comment, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I'm presenting SBS 781 on behalf of Senator Stern today.

The Bill would require California to prioritize reductions of methane emissions, including imported natural gas. I'd also like to thank the chair and consultant for their work on this Bill and accept the Committee's amendments outlined on page seven of the analysis. As you know, methane is a super pollutant with more than 80 times the climate forcing impact of carbon dioxide.

At least 25% of today's global warming is a result of methane from human activity, and one of the largest sources of methane emissions from human activity comes from oil and natural gas production. Nearly all of California's natural gas is imported and not subject to California's oil and gas methane rules.

While the state has taken important steps to reduce methane from a wide array of sources in state, it is important that we consider 781 will provide solutions by requiring CARB, PUC and other relevant agencies to consider further methane reduction methods, including certifying Low methane natural gas imported from out of state. This will help California achieve its GHG and short lived climate pollutant emissions reduction goals, leading to healthier California.

With me testifying in support today are Michelle Applegate, senior Director of policy for Project Canary, and T. J. Conway, principal with the Rocky Mountain Institute Climate Intelligence Program.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is TJ Conway, principal at RMI. I am testifying in support of SB 781, an important Bill that will help drive reduction of methane emissions from gas that California imports during this decisive decade for the climate, methane has over 80 times the warming impact of carbon dioxide in the near term. Last year, methane atmospheric concentrations hit an alltime high with the largest annual increase since systematic measurements began in 1983. Cutting methane leaks across the oil and gas value chain is one of the most impactful cost effective abatement options.

By requiring state agencies to certify Low leak gas procurement, this Bill can drive methane emissions cuts in California and far beyond. This Bill is powerful for several reasons. First, it recognizes that California's emissions stem from producers and shippers beyond the state's borders. A big share of emissions goes into the atmosphere long before combustion in a power plant. This Bill would spur buyers to incorporate upstream methane emissions into their purchasing decisions. Second, this Bill would capitalize on California's tremendous market power.

California is the second largest consumer of gas after Texas, and unlike Texas, California depends heavily on imported gas, with nearly 90% of its gas sourced from out of state. By requiring the purchase of Low methane gas, California can influence producers outside the state to significantly cut their emissions. Third, this Bill underscores that certification can play a key role in creating a Low methane gas market. If the standard is transparent and reliable.

SB 781 will task the Air Resources Board to approve a much needed Low methane certification that can be technically robust, open source, and free from conflict of interest. California has put in place policies to cut emissions from imported electricity and transport fuels. We now must do the same for domestic and imported gas, even while advancing myriad demand side efforts to transition away from fossil fuels. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify.

We look forward to continuing to work with the author and the Committee on Improvements in the Bill. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Michelle Mormon Applegate and I am here as the senior Director of policy for Project Canary, and we are here in support of the Bill. We are an environmental data and technology company, a mission driven b corporation with the goal of decarbonizing the natural gas supply chain.

California can make a meaningful impact today in the battle against climate change through simple means such as prioritizing the procurement of certified Low emission natural gas that quantifies and reports an actual methane intensity. We can make substantial and material reductions in greenhouse gas emissions happen today by stopping the intermittent leaks that occur in the energy supply chain.

We believe you can't manage if you don't measure and the Bill before you today positions California to set a new performance standard and stop the leaks using its influence in energy markets to procure natural gas with a measured methane intensity. To maximize our climate benefit, we must strive to drive the methane intensity as Low as possible, but not higher than 0.2%.

As TJ mentioned, California is the second largest consumer in natural gas in this country at just over 2 trillion cubic feet in 2020, with 90% produced in other states and countries. If the gas that was produced for California was measured with a methane intensity of 0.2% instead of the 1.38% estimated by EDF, that's the equivalent of 36 million metric tons of co2 or taking 8 million cars off the road annually.

Targeting methane reduction on imported natural gas will drive adoption in other segments of the energy supply chain, including the pipeline industry. We can accelerate the decarbonization of these fuel sources today and abate millions of metric tons of co2 years ahead of the state's deadlines for effectively eliminating fossil fuel use. California can signal to the global oil and gas industry that only certified Low emission natural gas with a measured methane intensity of 0.2% or less is acceptable. Project Canary.

Thanks Senator Stern and Senator Dodd for introducing the Bill and asked for an I vote on SB 781 to make an immediate, measurable, and meaningful impact on our climate. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support, please in room 1200.

Thank you. Ruth Mcdonald, Sacramento area congregations together in support. Katie McCammon, on behalf of 350 Sacramento in support.

Thank you. Good morning. Chair and Committee. My name is Joel Guzman. I'm here on behalf of the Climate Action California, and we support this Bill. Thank you. Seeing no others, we will go to opposition. Is there anyone in this room 1200 that was in opposition? Seeing none, we will go to the lines in support and opposition. Thank you. Please press 10 at this time and currently nobody in queue. I'll bring it back to myself then.

I do have a question, and maybe, I know that you're presenting this Bill for Senator Stern, but I do want to get it on the record because it's something I'm concerned about. So this Bill will be implemented in 2026, and this is going to set California into the same category we have with fuels, which we have a Low carbon fuel in California, which is a special blend, and we've just passed laws to figure out how come our prices are higher.

If California, which is the largest consumer of natural gas, is now going to be by 2026 in that same category as we are with diesel and gas, do you expect the price to go up?

And do you expect the ability for them to be able to game the system like we just heard about last week, how these bad people are going to come and take advantage of all of my constituents, which in the last couple of weeks or months have been paying exorbitant prices for natural gas, and we're not in any category right now. So I would like for you to talk about that maybe for a second.

Certainly, and I appreciate the question. So currently certified Low emission gas is being produced in all of the major basins across the country, and it is being produced in basins that are currently providing gas to California. Right now, there may be a premium associated, but the premium is incredibly small. We're talking one to five pennies per mmBtu. And so we do not expect there to be a significant price increase.

And in fact, as there's more adoption across the industry, we expect that premium to decline over time, as we expect that producers doing this will basically balance out the cost.

So you're telling me that basically, if you're narrowing up the amount that can be available, that the price is only going to go up a couple of cents?

No, I'm saying that as the amount that's available increases, the price will go down and levelize.

And if that amount doesn't increase, what happens?

Well, right now, right now, premiums being paid are zero to MmBtU, and I think you could expect that to be the case. There are rfps that are going out for certified gas that get zero premium, though.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good answer. I won't be supporting this Bill, Senator, when we get a full group. I just want to, for the record, to show that this is another Bill that will drive the cost up in California because you're limiting free markets to work and narrowing it down to a size. You may close, though, for. Senator,

I'm sure Senator Stern respectfully asked for your. I vote. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Dodd. I did as well. Yes, absolutely. So we have, Senator Becker, it's just you and me.

So SB 485, just like sub two. I know it is like sub two. It's just usually you and I. You may proceed when you're ready.

Thank you. Well, good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to present SB 485. I first want to thank the committee for its work. Say we're accepting all the proposed committee amendments. Methane emissions from enteric fermentation, which are emissions which are created from the digestive gas in livestock, compose 30% of all methane emissions from livestock in California. California's agriculture industry has been a leader on methane emission reduction as Lara's SB 1388 set a target of 40% methane emissions reduction from the agriculture industry by 2030.

However, this target excluded emissions from anteric fermentation. The 2022 scoping plan finds that to meet its emissions goals, California should, quote, implement enteric fermentation strategies that are cost-effective, scientifically proven safe for animal and human health, and acceptable to consumers, and that do not impact animal productivity, and, quote, provide financial incentives for these strategies as needed. Moreover, the California Air Resources Board most recent report finds that California may fall short of the 2030 target absent and interact strategy and insufficient public funding.

SB 45 implements CARB suggestions by creating an incentive program for farmers eager to be early adoptive of feed additives. The bill creates an offset program and requires CARB to encourage voluntary adoption of feed additives once they're demonstrated scientifically to be safe and effective in the long run. This legislation further places this program, as well as the other two livestock methane programs at the Department of Agriculture under the Scientific Advisory Board to ensure that we're using long-term effective methods of reducing methane.

I want to thank our industry partners that are working with us to ensure this legislation gives them enough certainty about the health and safety of their animals. SB 45's early adoption program will help bolster a much-needed technology to meet California's goals as signal to market investors that California will help its agricultural industry get to net zero in a steady, thoughtful manner. With me today, I have Louis Brown on behalf of California Dairies, Inc.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members, and staff of the committee, Louis Brown. Today, on behalf of California Dairies Incorporated, we're supporting concept of the bill. California Dairies is the largest milk cooperative in the State of California, with over 300 dairy family owners and producing over 40% of the milk in California. We were at the table when SB 1383 was negotiated. We believe and know that voluntary incentive-based programs can work in agriculture. We've seen it with the progress that we've made on 1383.

We've seen it in other areas. Carl Moyer program, the farmer program, all of those incentive-based programs, voluntary programs that agriculture embraces and then actually make work. And we believe the same is happening with 1383. And we think that the idea that Mr. Becker has within this piece of legislation will actually help us get there as well when it comes to the enteric emissions.

Our director of sustainability just earlier this year was actually in the European Union, in an international conference, in workshops, working on this issue because it is an international focus. We're taking this responsibility seriously and believe that the concepts that Mr. Becker has put forth in this piece of legislation can work. And we look forward to continue working with him as we refine the language to ensure that voluntary incentive-based programs gets us there with our 1383 goals. Thank you.

Thank you.m Anyone else wishing to speak in support? Seeing none. Those who want to speak in opposition?

Mr. Chair and members, Matt Broad, on behalf of Western United Dairies, we don't have a formal position. I think we have a tweener, as they say. We are working with Senator Becker on a set of amendments that would get us to a better place, if not supportive of the bill. I think our concerns are really making sure that an incentives-based program is just that. We do have some concerns about the adoptive fee schedule that's currently in the bill under CARB. Likewise, I think we're working to get the bill in a better place, but we still need to see that in print. So we will continue to work with the author. We thank him, we thank staff, and hopefully next time, the next committee, it'll be ready to go. Thank you.

Okay. I see no one else in room 1200. We will go to our phone lines. Those speaking in support and opposition, now's your chance.

Thank you. Please press one, zero at this time. We've just had a couple of queue up. Give me just a moment here.

It. And our first line was line number 30. Please go ahead. Good morning, Karen Members. Bonnie Benuel with the climate center in support. Thank you. And we've got another here. We'll go to line number 12.

Good morning. This is gv ayes for Bryant government affairs, and we have a tweener position on behalf of the California Cattlemen's Association. We've shared our concerns with the author and have asked that the Bill be amended to clarify that it applies to dairy cattle and not all livestock. Not all livestock consistent with SB 1383. Look forward to working with the author on these amendments.

Thank you.

And currently, none further in queue.

All right, Mr. Becker, one question. So I know that you have the dairy folks, but this is including beef cattle as well, which are typically range. A lot of them are on range. Are you working with the cat? That was the last caller's suggestion. I know you're trying to get to a place where everybody's happy to meet the goals. What about those folks?

Yeah, we're certainly talking to them, as you mentioned, for range. It just doesn't apply. Right. It's primarily around feed lots and such. I think it is important to point out that cattle were included in 1383, and we folks who are at the table can sort of attest to that. I don't know if you want to comment, Louis, quickly, but I just more well over, just want to kind of keep the focus on the fact that this is a voluntary program.

So if cattle farmers want to participate in this, we want to let them participate. But again, it's a voluntary program. Might have a quick comment. Yes, go ahead,

Louis Brown, on behalf of California Dairies Incorporated, as you know, a number of dairy cattle also make their way into beef cattle feed lots. And 1383 explicitly throughout the Bill talks about the dairy and the livestock industry. All ruminants create interrog emissions.

And so we believe it's important that everyone be at the table again to accept the voluntary incentive based program, that this could be created when those feed additives are at the table. So in order for us to actually get there, we need everyone to participate in some form or fashion. And I think that if we shape this Bill correctly, then everyone in the livestock industry is going to see the value of it and work together to get to those reductions.

I appreciate that. Primarily, my district is on the other side of the coin, beef. And so I'm going to hear about it. There's a Bill moving through that's going to do something. So I just wanted to make sure that was clear. That it's voluntary. They do end up in feedlots, quite frankly, and that's where the concentration should be. So if you'd like to close, that would be great. Yes. And you accepted the amendments that the Committee.

Yes, we're accepting all the proposed amendments.

All right, you may close.

Thank you. Appreciate the comments there and concerns and look forward to working with all parties going forward. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote today.

Well, clearly the Committee is very interested. That's why we're all here. I'm glad you exactly for the close. The close was the key. That was amazing. Appreciate the vice chairs standing up for the Committee amendments. I'm certainly going to support the Bill, obviously appreciate your work with the Committee and appreciate your work in this area.

So apologies for us not having a quorum. It's a problem all over this morning. So thank you. We'll be back. Thank you. Thank you for your time. All right, so Newman is not here. Okay. Do you want to keep talking about your, about this Becker Dahle? Yes, once. Let's hear from you. Item 12. This is item 12. Senator Dahle, if you want to do okay. Just trying to reduce your carbon footprint. Whatever you want, it's up to you. Yeah, you look more presidential up there.

I got at least an audience of one.

Yeah, well, these guys aren't chopped liver. All right.

I'm sure they got a lot of questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm presenting SB 861. In recent years, we have prioritized using less water rather than saving and storing more water. California needs to start focusing on storing much as water as possible. Protect our water reliability and access in the future allows the state to be more flexible with the release of water depending on drought, flood conditions to ensure the health and safety on our natural waterways.

We have received historic levels of rain and snowfall since early January. California must be able to capture and store that water for the future use. Streamlining the environmental review process for water projects is essential in securing reliable and consistent access to water for all Californians. We are comfortable with CEQA exemptions for sports arenas that we've heard earlier, but not on water storage. This Bill will allow water projects to receive expedited judicial review and requires that the review be completed in 270 days or less.

I am in support of the Committee amendments to narrow the scope of this Bill to just Prop One water projects and grateful to the chair and the Committee for working through with these issues with me. However, though I am concerned that the amendments specifically leaves out Sites Reservoir, which would provide much needed water for the Delta and other areas. So with that, I'd ask for the support on my Bill.

Yeah. Thank you. Let's go to the phone line. Sorry. Other folks who want to weigh in in support. Anyone who wants to? No. Okay. Express support. Yeah, you're thinking about it. Okay. Opposition. Yeah. Come on up. Tell us your concerns.

Good morning. I'm Erin Woolley. On behalf of Sierra Club California, in respectful opposition to this Bill, as amended. Water storage and conveyance projects, including the Proposition One eligible projects can have potentially significant effects on environmental quality, public health, and safety, and judicial review for CEQA is extraordinarily important to ensuring public transparency and adequate consideration of the effects of these projects. Thank you.

But you understand it's not all seven, it's the five.

Yes, I understand that there are multiple projects, surface water projects, that are still included in that five that could raise concerns.

Okay. I think we talked to you folks, and you were okay, but now I guess you're not. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay, let's go to the phone lines.

Just because it's my Bill, I don't know that they've ever supported one of my bills.

Well, streaks are important. All right, let's go to the phone lines.

Thank you. Just one zero at this time. And currently, nobody in queue.

Okay, let's bring it back. So, listen, I think there's a lot of promise to the Sites Reservoir Project. I know it's certainly controversial. It was my understanding that that was the Sierra Club's main concern, because we all know they have some concerns. But I will say this whole concept of having a reservoir that can take water during times of plenty is certainly, I think, compelling. I will say that this is a Bill that kind of just came out from the author, and there's no listed support.

And the only opposition just came in late. The Governor's Office hasn't engaged in this. But I do think we're all looking for ways to make the Sites Project meaningful if it really fulfills its promise, which I think is one where it could really be an opportunity to collect excess water during times of plenty.

That being said, there's some really good projects that are going to be helped along with this Bill relating to groundwater, which I know is something kind of a shared agenda that we all have, including the Sierra Club. But I'm happy to continue discussion about some of the other projects in this analysis and certainly recommend a passage. This is a long journey.

It's going to go to Judiciary next, but I do think with regards to some of the other projects, it would be good to get some engagement from the agencies and the Administration and see where they are and see where this Bill can go forward. Unless there are other questions or thoughts from the Committee, be happy to have you close.

Well, I'd like to just point out that this is narrow. And we should note that in 2014, we passed the Water Bond, which I supported, and we allocated resources, and we see the inflation is happening. So the money that we appropriated in bonds in 2014, that money is not going to go as far. And I'd like to just close with this.

And I know that I wasn't aware of the opposition as well, but when I first came to the Legislature, there was many environmental groups who thought we shouldn't thin trees in the forest. And I came in 2012 before we had the mega-fires, and I was saying it's going to burn. And we've seen million-acre fires in California, and we know that if we thin, it actually saves the environment. And so I think we're moving in the direction on some of these thoughtful processes for water.

As you know, I'm a proponent of Sites, but there's a lot of other great projects to do, groundwater, to do conveyance, that this piece of legislation helps. So I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Yeah, I think there's a great deal of consensus on groundwater projects. I guess the question then comes to the reservoirs, and there's a lot of interest in supporting those projects, too. So let's continue that dialogue, but I certainly will support its passage today. We still don't have a quorum, as you know. But we'll appreciate your presentation, Senator. All right. I see Senator Cortese here. He's here to present item eight in your agendas Members. That's item eight, SB 642, and you may proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. Thank you for allowing me to present SB 642 to you today. SB 642 gives county councils the same authority to prosecute hazardous materials violations as city attorneys, district attorneys, and the Attorney General. Authorizing additional public prosecutors to prosecute these violations can help to protect our communities, particularly Low income communities and communities of color near hazardous waste facilities. In 1993, the Legislature passed AB 1934 to augment civil enforcement of hazardous waste violations.

As the Committee analysis notes, the Bill amended the Hazardous Waste Control act to authorize county councils to prosecute these violations in order to promote a level playing field for the regulated community. However, the Legislature did not make conforming changes to several related statutes. These include other enforcement provisions of the act, the Hazardous Materials Business Plan, program, the Underground Storage Tank program, the above Ground Petroleum Storage act program, and the Medical Waste program. This incomplete authority limits county council's ability to effectively prosecute polluters.

For example, the above Ground Petroleum Storage act program requires certain petroleum storage facilities to develop and implement the spill prevention, control and countermeasures plan. A violation of these requirements could lead to an oil spill, which can cause respiratory damage, liver damage, cancer risk, reproductive damage, among many other issues. SB 642 adds another tool to our toolbox to prosecute violations like the ones I mentioned, helping to more completely enforce California's hazardous waste laws.

This is particularly important in counties where the agencies that can prosecute these violations are unable to move forward due to limited resources. The need will only become stronger with the coming budget crunch. SB 642 aims to fill gaps in enforcement matching past legislative intent. Legislation this Bill is sponsored by the County of Santa Clara, Rural County Representatives of California and the California State Association of Counties CSAC.

The Bill also has the support of environmental organizations that attest to the under enforcement of hazardous materials laws in their communities. With me to testify today are Sonya Wills with the County of Santa Clara and John Kennedy with the Rural County Representatives of California. Thank you.

Thank you. And before, with your indulgence, I'd love to establish a quorum secretary. Please call the role Alan. Here.

[Roll Call]

Okay, great. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Let's proceed with your witnesses,

Mr. Chair, and thank you to the Committee and to the staff for your work on this Bill. My name is Sonya Wills and I am a deputy county council who advises Santa Clara County's Department of Environmental Health. Santa Clara County is pleased to sponsor SB 642 and grateful to Senator Cortese for his staff for bringing it forward. The Legislature has vested civil prosecutorial authority in county councils in numerous statutes, including the unfair competition law, false advertising law, Narcotics Abatement act, and the public nuisance law.

Last year, the Legislature granted county councils and city attorneys throughout the state the authority to take civil enforcement action against unlicensed cannabis cultivation in order to help protect our water supply and quality. This Bill is a cleanup measure in multiple senses. As the Senator mentioned, the fundamental policy decision to give county council's enforcement authority in this area was made in 1993 at the request of auto dismantler Association businesses associated with inadequate prosecution of environmental laws resulting in non compliant competitors enjoying an unfair business advantage.

Such enforcement actions are initiated when DTSC, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, or the local program agency, known as the CUPA, or certified unified program agency, makes a referral to the public prosecutor. Currently, all 482 city attorneys are authorized to bring actions when such a referral is made. This Bill simply follows through on the Legislature's previously expressed intent by putting county councils on the same basic footing as their city attorney counterparts.

This will help fill any gaps in enforcement on a county by county basis, providing a more level playing field for the regulated community while protecting the public and the environment. I urge an I vote, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. John Kennedy with the Rural County Representatives of California. RCRC represents 40 of the state's 58 counties, including nearly all with populations between 1100 and 500,000 residents. We're pleased to sponsor SB 642 today because it provides another tool in the toolbox for locals to address violations that impact public health and safety related to above ground storage tanks, underground storage tanks and hazardous materials business plans.

These are violations that could pose very serious problems, including threats to first responders that are responding to an emergency at a regulated facility. We're not seeking to necessarily address any past problems, but merely to provide some additional flexibility going forward should the need arise in the event that one of these cases doesn't rise to the level of the AG bringing an action or the DA otherwise doesn't have capacity to address this. This allows flexibility for local county councils to pursue the issue.

This flexibility is especially important in many of our smaller rural communities, where we have fewer resources both at the local level and also with the DA. In some cases, the DA may have other criminal environmental cases that are taking their attention, including illegal cannabis growth.

And so we really urge your support of SB 642 today to improve local flexibility and add a tool to our toolbox, admittedly a tool that we hope we don't have to use, but a tool that could be very helpful if the need arises. Happy to answer any other questions that may arise and urge your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right, let's hear from other folks who want to weigh in support. Hey, Melissa.

Good morning. Melissa Romero, California environmental voters in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Ada Welder, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, which is sponsoring this Bill, as well as the urban counties of California in support.

Great. Thank you so much. Ok. Anyone who wants to raise concerns about the Bill opposition.

Thank you, Chair and Members, my name is Adam Cook with the Fresno County District Attorney's office. On behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, we oppose this Bill unless amended to do two things. One, limit to the counties over 750,002 give the Das the first right of refusal. This Bill seeks to do more than what is stated. Instead of being a Bill that conforms to the intent to the.

That conforms to the law, to the intent of AB 1934 from 1993 that was mentioned, this Bill instead expands prosecutorial authority to county councils beyond waste statutes and outside of Chapter 6.5, which was the only statute that was amended by 1934. Nine of the 15 code sections this Bill amends are not in Chapter 6.5. The result of this expansion of prosecutorial power would be to allow the absolute worst environmental violators and violations escape criminal prosecution and instead write a check as a cost of doing business.

Because when county council evaluates an environmental violation, they do so with the tools they have, civil training and civil remedies, not criminal ones. So this Bill would allow a criminal violation to bypass criminal prosecutors and go to attorneys with, again, civil training and civil remedies, not criminal ones. Environmental violations deserve to be evaluated for not only civil remedies, but criminal ones as well. Thank you.

All right, but listen, this just deals with civil remedies. I mean, there's nothing stopping a prosecutor from the DA's office to pursue criminal remedies if they want to.

Right? But this Bill would allow, would allow a CUPA or other program agency to refer a case straight to county council without alerting the District Attorney, without the District Attorney ever even knowing. So that case goes to a county council and is never evaluated for criminal prosecution.

The DA can evaluate any case it wants for criminal prosecution.

Not if they don't know about it and the district attorneys aren't aware of.

As though, it's not as though people won't find out at some point about these things happening.

Well, the District Attorney's offices aren't aware of the violations that are happening. They're only made aware by the CUPAs. And they're made aware when the koopa makes the referral.

And nothing's stopping a CUPA from also referring it to the DA.

Right? That's true. But if a CUPA sees a case and decides, zero, prior cases that were pitched to the DA's office weren't taken or they didn't have the resources for or whatever.

That's exactly the point. The Das are dropping the ball on pursuing a lot of these cases and we're trying to provide more opportunities for enforcement. But nothing's limiting the power of the DA to pursue criminal action if it wants to. And there's no hiding the ball here. It's not like the DA can't find out about this.

I don't know of a single example of a CUPA pitched case that a DA's office said, we lack the resources to take.

But you just said that that's the reason why CUPA would go to a civil. To these civil enforcement authorities.

Well, the reason a CUPA might go is because they feel that their case was turned down for whatever reason. They just said for lack of resources.

Or just not taking up the case.

Right. And that's what they might believe. The reason was it was turned down when in fact the case was turned down because there was not adequate proof to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the ethical standards of Das, which.

Is the criminal procedure. That's the criminal standard.

Right.

That's why sometimes you pursue a civil remedy.

Correct?

Sometimes if the issue is that if they're worried about the threshold, then the civil enforcement remedy is better anyway. Right, right.

But what I'm saying about the threshold is if a prior case was not taken because of threshold and because of that, the CUPA be evaluated for criminal prosecution.

But there's nothing stopping the DA from doing it if it wants to.

Well, a DA can't take a case they don't know. You know, there's been amendments discussed about notice.

I mean, I guess we could look at maybe requiring the, you know, give heads up to the local DA as they're referring the case. I mean, that's something we could consider. If that's the concern you want to make sure the DA is at least aware that this investigation is being referred.

I do think that would alleviate some concerns. When proposed amendments were discussed, holding light on amendments was the response. So I think that among some of the other concerns detailed in the letter are what the prosecutors have outlined. And again, when asked for a single example of a new case, attorneys don't have the resource to prosecute. None were given. There's a plethora of environmental prosecutors throughout this state. Prosecutors in this state lead the nation in environmental prosecution.

Yeah. And I don't think there's any interest on the part of this Committee to hamper a robust environmental prosecution from the Das. So, listen, I appreciate your comments. This obviously is going to judiciary. What I'm taking out of this colloquy, which I appreciate you engaging in, is that maybe there ought to be some sort of mechanism whereby the Das would at least be given notice so that they can also consider.

But with so much respect, I can't help but feel as though at least some of the opposition is just kind of basic turf stuff.

Zero, not at all. In my county, in my colleagues counties, when we discuss this, we have great relationships with county council. I know we can't speak to everybody. There's a lot of different counties, a lot of different resources and different shapes and forms. But part of the concern is a case goes to county council, and smaller county councils will oftentimes use outside contingency based plaintiffs firms.

And that kind of opens the door to some kind of the abuses that we've seen in the past with some of these civil statutes, civil enforcement mechanisms. And that's an additional worry for prosecutors, who prosecute on behalf of the people on behalf of an elected person, as opposed to a client like county council.

Yeah.

Okay. Did you want to just kind of give your thoughts? I'm sorry. I know it's a little unusual,

but I do appreciate this opportunity. Just responding to a couple of issues. One, smaller counties under 750,000 are often the ones that will need this. Absolutely limited resources. Absolutely. Some of the smallest counties, we do contract for county council operations, but that's no different than a lot of smaller cities. The city I live in in West Sacramento has long contracted out for City Council council advice.

So some of our smaller counties are in the same boat. These councils are still at the beck and call of the elected supervisors and answerable to them. And so I don't see rampant abuse or ADA type litigation being brought in many of these counties. I think they would be very averse to things like that in many of these smaller counties. Okay,

I appreciate this, and I appreciate the indulgence of my dear Vice Chair. Let's now hear anyone else who wants to raise concerns about the Bill. Stick around, because I'm sure Dahle wants to ask you some more questions. Anyone on the phone lines who want to weigh in on the Bill.

If you would like to provide public comment on this Bill, please press one, then zero at this time. And we have no comments coming.

Okay. All right, great. All right. Any comments, questions, concerns? No callers. Yeah. Mr. Vice Chair.

The real thing we should be talking about instead of whose turf is taken up. The problem I have with the Bill is that, and I've mentioned it to the folks at RCRC, which I have great respect for because they represent really small counties, like the county I was a supervisor in.

But at the end of the day, the CUPAs, when they find somebody, it's the fox watching the hen house, because those fine monies come back and they're all strapped for resources, whether it's the DA or whether it's the county council. And when you have the ability to fine and those resources come back to you, you're going to go out and find more people. So I want to just share. I actually had a fuel supplier.

I'm not going to name the county, but the first thing the CUPA asks you is if in violation. There was a violation, by the way, not one drop of fuel was spilled. There was no environmental problem. It was a reporting issue. And the first thing on the form they ask you is, what's your gross receipts for your business? So obviously, when you move lots of fuel, it was very high.

So I think there's some ability to target producers who have the ability to be able to pay. And so my experience was not good with the county that was taking it to the next level. And a lot of these are negotiated and settled fines, and those fines go back to the people who are enforcing the law. So that's my biggest issue with this is, look, county councils have the ability to do it. I like the fact that DAs are elected and they're held accountable to that.

County councils are appointed by city boards or the Board of Supervisors, which is somewhat in there. But my big question is, you have the fox watching the hen house, and there's a great opportunity for people to be able to abuse that system and produce fines when there is really no environmental damage. So that's the thing I think we should be focused on and make sure that I'd like to see a sunset on this Bill. Actually, it would be great.

We could try it for a few years and see what happens. And then if we don't have concerns, we can continue to let it work, and if not, we can address the issues that come out of it.

Well, when you say no environmental damage, Senator, I guess these are all hazardous waste violations. Unless there's some sort of rampant abuse amongst the county councils. I don't know that I agree with that.

Well, you still have the ability to fine.

Yeah.

And when you have the ability to fine, you're going to get more fines if that money goes back to your organizations, which is typically suffering, especially in budget years where it's tough.

Right. But there's a remedy if a county council is acting in an arbitrary, capricious, unjustified manner anyway. Okay. All right. Maybe we have some philosophical.

Look, I know the Bill is going to pass, but at the end of the day, if you are in business and you're getting harassed, or when you have those calls, which I've had, there was no drop of oil spilled anywhere. It's a reporting process. You feel abused. And you know what? It sounds great. We went after 25 of them. We raised $1.0 million and it goes right into the pot. And it's not right.

Kind of Tic Tac violations.

Yeah and it happens. It happens because they need money to run their associate, their organization. And the DAs could do the same thing, I guess. But the point is there has to be some guardrails on it. If you're the finding agency and the money goes back to you, the CARB does the same thing, the money goes back to them. So there's an incentive to go find people.

Well, what I would like to do, assuming the Bill passes out, I'd like to refer two issues to Judiciary Committee. One, this issue of notice to the DAs that was raised. And I think your issue of ensuring that this is really about environmental protection, because the central issue you're raising is a Judiciary question. It's about prosecutorial abuse. I mean, these are civil cases, but enforcement abuse, I suppose so that's a judiciary question. Hey, how are you? You want to say something?

May I address one of the points that was brought up? Thank you. And to speak to some of the enforcement and judgment mechanisms, that's another point. You know, the DA has been doing this for now decades. There's trainings, there's a statewide organization that prosecutors use to discuss and treat every single violator fairly and use funds to go back to organizations that help remedy these situations.

And so now opening these kind of judgments and these kind of violations and these kind of fines up to offices who have never done this can lead to some of the issues that were brought up.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Vice Chair.

So I just want to make one more comment, because this is the biggest problem we have with environmental issues, and the representative from RCRC brought up the illegal grows. I will guarantee you there's no DA or, I have not seen one, or CUPA or anybody going after anybody that's damaging the environment for marijuana. Not one. In the 11 counties that I represent, not one of them will go out there. And the reason is they're fearful because there are people with firearms.

There are a lot, and they don't do any of that. None of this ever happens to the illegal guy. It all happens to the guy who's actually a permittee who is trying to get the job done. And so if you can show me somewhere in this state where we've actually went in, and now there's counties that have went in and take out growers, but they never find anybody. They never put anybody, they never did anything and they're destroying our environment. That's the hypocrisy.

They go after the law abiding citizen who has got a permit and trying to, the gas station owner, but they don't go after the illegal people who are really destroying our environment, and it's not right.

Well, I'm all in with you on that issue. I know that somebody.

What was brought up, that we're going to go after these illegal grows, and I will guarantee you, I challenge anybody in the state to show me somewhere where we actually went after something environmentally and did something, because I haven't found one yet.

Well, we ought to and.

Yes, we should.

You're doing it?

Submit them to me so I can say, hey, how many we've done out of the millions of freaking illegal growers we have out there.

Yes, Senator, I'll do that. And that's part of the advantage of having a statewide group where we talk about and our actual upcoming training is almost fully about illegal environmental violations at cannabis growth. So I appreciate you bringing up that issue, and I'll get all of those examples to you. Thank you.

If you could send them to the Committee, too, I'd appreciate it. Yeah.

Aabsolutely. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Okay, so, look, I mean, I think the issues that have been these issues, except for the last point, everything else that's been discussed has been Judiciary questions. We're going to really ask the Judiciary Committee to watch this hearing carefully so that they can consider all these issues, including the issues raised both by the Senator, the Vice Chair, and the folks from the DA's Association, so that those can be taken into consideration when the Judiciary Committee takes up the Bill.

But with that, I'm certainly happy to support the Bill. I think in the end of the day. What you're trying to get at is more enforcement of hazardous waste violations, which is a legit issue. We don't want them to be working on the Tic Tac stuff that the Vice Chair was talking about, but we certainly do want them to be working on the serious stuff.

We know there's a lot of challenges out there, and this is going to provide more tools for civil enforcement authority, and I think that's very meritorious. And I certainly support the Bill. So with that, love to ask you to close, and we also will ask for a motion by Senator Skinner. Yes.

Okay. Thank you again, Mr. Chair. I certainly appreciate the robust discussion, although I would have to say the last thing I expected was to get into a cannabis illegal grow discussion.

This is the fun having quality hearing.

Yeah I will plug Senator Hurtado's in my town hall meeting tomorrow night, which is going to be presented in three counties with experts on some of that topic. But that isn't what this Bill is about. This Bill isn't about CUPA reform. I would certainly love to see a Bill on CUPA reform if you want to bring it, Senator Dahle. But that isn't what this Bill is about.

This Bill is about who should receive the referrals based on the system that we have right now and who should be able to prosecute. Santa Clara County. Ms. Mills County, which I was proud to serve as a Member of the Board of Supervisors on, was named the number one public law firm law office, public law office in the country just a couple of years ago over and above anybody else in the United States of America.

To not have them in a position in a large urban county which also has 15,000 agricultural employees and over 12,000 acres of flatland agriculture and agriculture that extends all the way to the Stanislaus-Alameda County line. To not have them in a position to prosecute these cases would be shameful, as far as I'm concerned. The opposition didn't ask for concurrent notice. They asked for a 60-day grace period.

That's why we didn't accept their suggestion as an amendment. I can't imagine, obviously, I would like talk to sponsors, but I can't imagine any county not willing to, in effect, concurrently, as a courtesy or mandated. But I can't imagine anybody objecting to concurrent notice to the local DA's office when they file a civil action so that they are on notice, that they know not to duplicate efforts or to do something that's redundant.

And a rhetoric.

But 60 days we thought was out of the question, especially when you have situations where operating engineers and heavy equipment are moving and all kinds of things are going on that might require injunctive relief in the very immediate future. That's my responses to those issues. Of course, we'll continue to work with the opposition to try to come up with the sweet spot on the notification issue.

I think that's really the only thing outstanding here, if I might say so, with all due respect, and again, respectfully, I would ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate those comments very much. And I think at least the most meritorious and substantive comments, I think we're going to be able to get addressed. So, secretary, please call the roll.

Item number eight, SB 642 by Senator Cortese. The motion is do pass to the Senate Judiciary Committee. [Roll call].

Great. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you, Senator. And also, Senator, if you could share the information about this illegal gross town hall you're doing with the Committee, that would be appreciated, too.

We'll get it out.

We're certainly very interested in that topic, too. Okay. I don't see any other authors here from the Non Committee Members. Maybe we can ask our good friend Senator Skinner if she's willing and able to present item 14, SB 682, ... So, item Members, this has to do with low carbon cement, concrete. This is item 14. Senator Skinner, you may proceed when ready.

... Thank you so much, chair and Members, I'm pleased to present SB 682. Cement production, I think most of you are aware, is one of the toughest industries to decarbonize because there is carbon emissions from the very power that has to power the industry. Plus, in most cases, from the process, there is process emissions due to the use of limestone and other materials in that process. Globally, cement and concrete represent about 8% of carbon emissions.

And in California, this industry is the second highest source of industrial emissions. But the good news is there are technological solutions emerging to help achieve much deeper cement and concrete decarbonization. Now, I carried a Bill last year, for example, that allowed for some pilot projects to capture the carbon from cement that would then be stored geologically. That is one method, one technological solution to reduce carbon.

And there are other technological solutions that are being tested now but haven't fully been brought up to scale in terms of production. But adopting clear market signals that help motivate the investment necessary to bring those technologies to market can help us achieve bringing them to scale and thus decarbonizing the industry. The Federal Government, for example, has established what's called the First Movers Coalition, which is a public private partnership to commercialize clean technologies through advanced procurement agreements.

What SB 682 does is build on California's efforts to decarbonize cement and concrete by allowing advanced procurement agreements with state agencies to help drive these markets for cleaner technologies in the cement and concrete sector. And just as an example, Caltrans purchases 40% of all concrete in the state. So Caltrans, for example, having an advanced procurement agreement on low carbon cement solutions is one way to achieve this. So allow me now to have my witnesses. We have Simon Brandler, who is the VP of Public Policy for Brimstone, and Joe Hicken, who is head of policy for Sublime Systems.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Senator Skinner, Chair Allen, Vice Chair Dahle, and Members of this Committee for the Opportunity to speak today on behalf of DC2, which is the decarbonized cement and concrete working group in strong support of SB 682. As Senator Skinner said, my name is Simon Brandler. I serve as Vice President of policy of Brimstone. Brimstone is an Oakland, California company that developed a breakthrough process that's carbon negative to make ordinary Portland cement.

We're one of seven founding Members of DC2, which is a coalition of innovative, us based, venture backed companies with solutions for achieving deep decarbonization of the cement and concrete sector. Passage of 682 would mark a significant milestone in cleaning up a sector that today accounts for about seven and a half, or 8%, of global carbon emissions. By helping California to dramatically reduce the embodied carbon of state projects, the legislation represents a critical step in California's quest for carbon neutrality.

By 2045, achieving California's climate priorities will require cement and concrete with dramatically smaller carbon footprints than even the lowest carbon solutions on the market today, SB 682 would leverage the state's power as the largest buyer of cement and concrete to bridge the gap in the market to scale up and commercialize truly transformative low carbon technologies needed for future state projects.

Under SB 682, Caltrans and other state agencies would be empowered to directly contract for low carbon cement and concrete up to 10 years in advance, mirroring the power purchase agreements long used to purchase and finance clean energy. These advanced market commitments would provide two essential benefits. First, they would enable state agencies to secure a pipeline of the ultra low carbon materials. Increasingly needed to achieve California's climate ambitions.

Second, emerging suppliers must show proof of demand to attain the industrial scale financing necessary to scale up their operations. Procurement agreements from California State agencies, the most dominant buyers of cement and concrete anywhere, would unlock financing to commercialize low carbon solutions. This would create jobs, spur economic activity, and critically establish a low carbon industrial base in California.

We greatly appreciate Senator Skinner for introducing this legislation and the Committee for its consideration and feedback, and we look forward to the opportunity to collaborate with you should this legislation advance. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Thank you. Chair Allen, Vice Chair Dahle, and Members of the Committee for the Opportunity to present today, I'm Joe Hicken, head of policy at Sublime Systems. We're working with infrastructure owners, contractors, engineers, architects, and ready mixed concrete plants to commercialize electrochemical manufacturing of ultra low carbon cement. We're also founding Members of DC2 here and in strong support of SB 682. I'm proud of your leadership, the State of California's leadership at the intersection of the climate crisis and our ongoing economic transformation.

Despite my recent relocation to North Carolina, I often joke that my daughters were born in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and are therefore entitled to their Californian citizenship. Our coalition's innovative companies believe cement and concrete provide California an untapped additional opportunity to advance its climate objectives, while paving the way dad joke intended toward economic and climate innovation, cement and concrete provide the literal building blocks for our roads and hospitals, but cement production is also a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.

New manufacturing technology and novel materials are emerging from DC2 and other innovators to support this sector's transition to a net zero economy of the future. State agencies represent the largest consumer of concrete in California and one of the largest users on the globe. Their choices on cement and concrete can define the market moving forward. SB 682's permissive authority aligns the state's procurement capabilities in anticipation of the sector's transition and sends a reliable signal to the market that the largest purchaser is interested.

By adopting structured optic agreements for a relatively small fraction of the state's total cement and concrete use, California can create even more high quality manufacturing jobs in the clean energy economy. We thank Senator Skinner for her vision of economic prosperity, high quality jobs of the future, and clean manufacturing, and thank you for your consideration of this Bill.

Thank you. Thank you. We'll have an evaluation of the dad jokes later, but okay, let's hear from other folks who want to add on.

Chris Rosa on behalf of NRDC, low carbon concrete is a priority for NRDC. We thank the author for pushing this Bill, and we ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and Members. Bob Houston, representing the California Nevada Cement Association. We're the people who actually make concrete here in California. We join the Senator in her efforts to lower our carbon footprint. However, we don't have a position on this Bill, but I think our past has been evidenced by the fact that we supported 905 last year and we were the almost the sponsors of 596, which is Senator Becker's Bill, which outlines all the things that we need to do here in California.

We've just recently engaged in conversations with the Senator, and for that reason, we'd like to see the Bill move forward so we can continue those conversations. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir.

Ryan McCarthy, on behalf of Blue Planet Systems in support.

Thank you. All right. Anyone who wants to express other concerns about the Bill? Opposition. I know we don't have any registered opposition. No. Okay, let's go to the phone lines. This is phone lines. People who want to comment on SB 682 want to weigh in in support of opposition with concerns SB 682.

To provide public comment for SB 682, please press one, then zero at this time. And we do have a comment coming through from line 32. Please go ahead.

This is Janet Cox for Climate Action, California, in support. Thanks.

Thank you, Janet.

And we have no further comments at this time.

Okay, so we'll bring it back to the Committee for discussion.

Let me just state, chair, I very much appreciate the Committee's analysis, and we'll be taking the Committee's amendments.

Okay. Yes. Appreciate that. And we know, of course, the Bill is also going off the Transportation Committee, so there'll be further work there on the Bill. But thank you so much for bringing this forward and for all your work on concrete. And I know ... and I know Senator Becker, too, has been doing a lot of good work in this space, but very much appreciate your work. Would you like to close, Senator Menjivar might.

Yes. I appreciate our friends from the California Nevada Cement Association being here. We do have at least five cement production facilities existing in California. And from my point of view, it's very important to retain those. One of the problems or not a problem, but as we increase our decarbonization goals, we want to do it in a way that retains our industries because to lose those industries and to then, number one, there's no guarantee that concrete or cement produced anywhere else is going to meet our goals.

And number two, the emissions affect us regardless. So if we can support our industries that are here, which I think was the purpose of Mr. Becker's Bill and also my Bill last year. That's essential. And so in working with them, I am going to be working closely to craft this Bill in such a way that it sends the right signals to innovation in the technologies or in the industry, but does not harm the productions that we have now.

And I think we'll be able to achieve that. I'm hopeful right now the Bill doesn't necessarily harm existing industries, but we just want to make sure as we move through the process and really appreciate the Committee's suggested amendments because they help us move in that direction.

Great. Senator Menjivar, do you want to move the Bill?

Yes.

Okay, we'll move the Bill. Let's call the roll.

Item number 14, SB 682 by Senator Skinner. The motion is do pass is amended to the Transportation Committee. [Roll Call].

Okay, that's four votes.

We'll leave the roll open for other Members to add on. Senator Gonzalez, if you're ready to present SB 674, that would be fantastic. That's item 13, lucky number 13 in your packets. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm here today to present SB 674, which will create a statewide, statewide standards for the refinery fence line and community air monitoring program. And I also want to thank the EQ Committee for their thorough analysis as well. Great job.

The Refinery Fence Line Program, which was codified in 2017, requires refineries to install and maintain air monitors along their facility fence line, to publish this air monitoring data online, and to send real time alerts to the community, as well as to take a corrective action when dangerous levels of pollutants are detected. In the six years since the Refinery Fence Line Program was launched, there have been serious deficiencies in implementation that are depriving fence line communities of the information and protections needed.

In particular, real time alerts are not being sent, fence line data is not available online, dangerous pollutants are not being monitored, and some refineries have even exempted from the program altogether. SB 674 will address these shortcomings and create a statewide standard for the Refinery Fence Line Air Monitoring Program to ensure that all necessary pollutants are measured and that best practices and technologies are deployed.

Testifying in support today, I have Oscar Espino-Padron, a senior attorney for Earth Justice, and Jan Victor Andasan with East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice as well. So thank you, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Yeah, thank you. Let's hear from your witnesses.

Hi, good morning. Good morning Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Oscar Espino-Padron, and I'm a senior attorney at Earth Justice, which is a co sponsor of SB 674. Refineries are inherently dangerous operations that are prone to explosions, fires, and flaring incidents that can threaten the health and lives of surrounding communities, refinery workers as well as first responders.

Between January 2021 to June 2022 alone, California refineries experienced over 100 incidents of oil and fuel spills, fires and flaring malfunctions, and toxic vapor and sulfur dioxide releases, among many other dangerous incidents. Refineries are also some of the largest stationary sources of air pollution in the state's most over polluted communities. And as studies have confirmed, refinery emissions are significantly higher than what's reported to regulators and the public.

It was for these reasons that in 2017, the Legislature adopted AB 1647 by Assemblymember Muratsuchi to implement a uniform statewide refinery fencing and community air monitoring program by January 1, 2020. Unfortunately, what has emerged is a patchwork of requirements that are undermining the Legislature's intended goals in enacting AB 1647, in particular to identify sources of refinery pollution, inform emission reductions, and notify residents.

SB 674 is a critical step forward to create a uniform program and implement best practices that ensure data quality, provide the public with data access and notification of excess emissions, and address excess emissions at refineries. So we urge your support, and we also want to thank the Senator for authoring this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes.

I see you not as a puma. Good morning. Wait, let me take this off. Good morning. My name is Jan Victor Andasan. I am a staff and member at East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, where we organize with residents in the Long Beach, South Bay, Southeast LA and East La community to address industrial pollution affecting predominantly black and brown neighborhoods, and we are one of the co sponsors of this bill.

Not only do I currently organize and work directly with residents adjacent to refinery operations, but I also grew up next to the now marathon facility, which is one of the largest facilities in the West Coast. Growing up, I thought that these facilities were normal and having respiratory issues like asthma were normal.

My brother was born a year after I immigrated from the Philippines to the US, and he was born only to come out of the womb needing to use a nebulizer every night to be able to breathe. My family's story is not actually unique. It happens in neighborhoods next to refinery facilities, and it's still happening today, 26 years later, after I've come to this country, to this state, and every day, many residents adjacent to refinery production have to decide what their day will look like.

For me, I think, does the air feel heavier? Can I feel my throat close up? So instead of walking in the park, I'll go to an indoor gym. These are the questions that many have to go through daily, even just doing basic tasks. So we urge you to support this bill because it's not revolutionary. Through this bill, we are simply filling gaps in defense line monitoring that needs to occur at all refinery facilities in this state.

This will also allow to fill the gaps in monitoring with sites that already have air monitoring, but they're not capturing all that we need to know. This will allow local residents, like those in Long Beach, Carson, Southeast La, Central Valley, up and down the state, to be equipped to make better decisions in their lives. Finally, this bill will allow decision makers to have the data to make more informed policymaking on how to oversee these inherently dangerous facilities. Our stories are often told and questioned.

Well, what does the data look like? How many days did this facility potentially emit? What were you exposed to? Because apparently I'm a scientist and know all that I was exposed to. This bill is about transparency, so refineries, emissions over time will be collected and paired with our community narratives and what we're experiencing on the ground. We can truly, truly come together to create solutions, both as residents and decision makers. Again, I urge you to support this bill and stand alongside refinery communities. Thank you.

Thank you. Other folks who want to weigh in in support of the bill.

Melissa Romero. Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters in support.

Daniel Barad on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists in support.

Thank you.

Erin Woolley on behalf of Sierra Club California in support.

Thank you.

Erica Romero. On behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, in strong support.

Thank you. Okay, folks, who want to raise concerns or opposition to the bill. Hey, Zach.

Morning Mr. Chair. Morning, Senators. Zach Lear on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association. We've taken an opposed unless amended position but want to thank the Senator and her staff. We had a very good conversation with our staff on the issues that we've outlined in our letter and the amendments that we were asking for. Our members do have robust fence line monitoring systems at their facilities. I just want to highlight a few of the concerns in the bill because it is a very technical bill.

This bill significantly expands the very prescriptive requirements for refinery fence line systems. Currently, the air districts and air pollution control districts have requirements that are tailored to each district, particularly in paragraph D of the bill, it requires a prescriptive list of pollutants that must be monitored. We believe the determination for which pollutants should be monitored should continue to reside with the district so site specific refinery configurations can be taken into account.

I believe one of the amendments in the committee analysis addresses that issue, but want to see the final language on that. In paragraph C requiring the entire perimeter of the refinery to be monitored, we think it's appropriate that perimeter coverage should be site specific determination made by the district with input from the community, as is currently today. Monitoring sections of a refinery perimeter that does not have receptors downwind of emission sources will not provide meaningful or actionable data to the public.

And then finally, on the bill in print in paragraph H, subdivision four, the bill states that fence line monitoring systems shall presumptively yield credible evidence to determine a violation. We don't believe that this alone should be the basis to invoke a violation because fence line monitoring systems cannot distinguish between refinery emission or non refinery emissions. And then one concern I'll just raise with one of the amendments outlined in the committee analysis.

The amendment appears to expand the definition of auxiliary facilities to include facilities that receive 50% of production or input from the refinery. We read that as potentially capturing gas station terminals, terminals at airports, AG operations that operate gas stations or tanks because those facilities receive inputs from the refinery. We don't believe that's the intent, but want to work with the Committee and the author to clarify. For these reasons, we remain opposed unless amended, and look forward to working with the author to hopefully resolve our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. And we'll certainly take a look at that. And I know one of the amendments, just speaking to one of your earlier points, and I believe the authors agree to accept all the amendments. Yeah. But it talks about allowing implementing air districts to exclude pollutants where substantial evidence supports that monitoring that pollutant in real time would be either technologically infeasible or inapplicable for the refinery.

Correct.

Okay. Yes.

Genesis Tang on behalf of World Energy. We submitted a letter of concern regarding the overly broad definitions, and we look forward to continuing to work with the author's office.

Okay, thank you. And I do want to just remind everyone the bill is also going to Judiciary like so many bills today, and so that conversation will continue there. And I know you'll be engaging. But your last point, Zach, I think is a good one, and we'll spend some time looking at that.

Okay. Other folks who want to raise concerns? Anyone on the phone lines who want to either voice support or opposition, SB 674.

If so, please press 1-0 at this time.

Go first to line 32, please go ahead.

This is Janet Cox for Climate Action California, in support. Thank you.

And next we have line seven.

Hi, this is Kathy Schaeffer on behalf of the San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles Chapters, the Climate Reality Project in support.

And we'll go to line 33.

Valerie Ventre-Hutton with 350 Bay Area Action in support.

Again, it's 1-0. We'll now go to line 18.

Kathy Kerridge with Good Neighbor Steering Committee of Venetia, home of the Valero refinery. We support.

Currently none further in queue.

Okay, we'll bring the item back to the Committee moved by Senator Skinner. I certainly want to thank you for this bill. I mean, I've got a couple of refineries in my district as well, and we all know the data continually coming in about the danger. And I think that one of your witnesses spoke really eloquently about it and it's certainly a great concern to me. Here are some of the opposition concerns.

I think we'll continue working on them, but I think the crux of what you're doing here is very important, certainly going to support it. So it's been moved by Senator Skinner. I would like to let you the opportunity to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say thank you to the many advocates that have been working so, so very hard. I've known Victor for many, many years when I was on the 710 Project Committee. But this is a long standing issue. We do need to fill the gaps, and these communities need to be heard. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you. All right, let's call the roll.

Item number 13, SB 674 by Senator Gonzalez. The motion is due pass as amended, to the Senate Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

Lena, I see you want to vote for your bill, right?

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll hold the bill open for other Members to add on.

Sure, yeah, Senator Nguyen moves the consent calendar. Why don't we call the role in the consent calendar?

On the consent calendar is item number 1, 3, and 7. [Roll Call]

Okay. Maybe Senator Gonzalez might be willing to chair while I present SB 615. Is that okay? Thank you. And then when Senator Newman gets here, I'll defer to him to let him to present his bills.

Chair, Senator Allen, welcome.

Thank you, Madam Interim Chair. So, California is beginning to see piecemeal development of a market and infrastructure designed to capture the value of materials used to manufacture electric vehicles, particularly traction batteries in those electric vehicles, once that battery is removed from the vehicle. So in some instances the battery is recycled, in others, the battery is repurposed for applications such as energy storage. However, California lacks a policy framework to ensure that batteries are reused or repurposed when possible and recycled when no longer useful.

So back in 2018, our good Vice Chair, Senator Dahle, passed, authored, and we passed AB 2832 when he was in the Assembly, and that called for an advisory group of experts to develop recommendations to the Legislature to ensure, "That as close to 100% as possible of lithium ion batteries in the state would be reused and recycled in end of life."

So SB 615 seeks to take the policy options formulated by the group that was brought together by Senator Dahle's bill and create a first-in-the-nation program that will ensure that all electric vehicle traction batteries are properly handled and eventually recycled at the end of their useful life. This measure is still a work in progress where we've convened a working group made up of parties interested in the issue.

It includes auto manufacturers, dealers, the dismantlers, the battery recyclers, environmental groups, innovative companies that are buying used batteries for storage installation. It really is a fascinating and strong group of people from all different perspectives. We still have some significant details to work out, but all parties already agree to a few truly meaningful policy objectives.

First, recycling batteries reduces demand for raw materials, thereby avoiding the negative social and economic and environmental impacts of mining, potentially catalyzing a domestic supply as demand for the critical materials needed to build batteries increases. And I know this is something that is a shared concern in both Democrats and Republicans.

Therefore, this bill would require all EV traction batteries in the state to be sent to a qualified recycler at the end of life, so we can capture those materials from those batteries, reuse them, and reduce our dependence on foreign imports of some of these materials that we know are oftentimes procured in a really problematic manner. Second, the manufacturers of these batteries and those putting the batteries on the market, the automakers, have a really important role to play in ensuring the proper end-of-life management.

But all entities handling these batteries will need to be involved. So this bill takes a page out of our bipartisan effort last year with SB 54, with plastics and extended producer responsibility. So this bill will create a producer responsibility program designed to ensure those who handle batteries have a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities, and really importantly, make sure that producers are responsible for any orphaned or stranded batteries and that the public's not just left holding the bag.

So, as we just said, the details are still under discussion, and it's a great discussion so far. It's really including everybody. And we're committed to working with this Committee as talks progress, hoping to have your support.

Do you have any witnesses in support?

Do we? Yes? Okay.

And we also have a motion by Senator Nguyen, just for the record.

Sorry?

I said we also have a motion by Senator Nguyen.

Thank you, Senator Nguyen. I appreciate you.

Right off the bat.

I appreciate it. You're the best. You're the best.

This is all good omens for me coming up here.

Yeah.

Hi, everyone. Orville Thomas, State Policy Director for CALSTART. We are a California-based, internationally recognized clean transportation technology consortium, and our Members, which now over 300 vehicle manufacturers, battery manufacturers and ecosystem of zero emission vehicles, are all working to accelerate the transition of zero emission.

CALSTART is very happy to convey our support for Mr. Allen's idea and proposals and working together with this wide array of stakeholders. Creating a lifecycle for EV batteries that includes repurposing, reusing, and eventually recycling the battery material is a win-win for the environment and for the clean transportation technology industry. Lithium ion and other critical minerals and EV batteries are perfect for recycling when they have reached their useful life as a power source.

Prior to that, though, they can be reused and they can be repurposed for things like solid state battery storage and help our utilities achieve California's ambitious climate goals. For those reasons and many more, we hope that this Committee votes to pass this bill as we continue to work on it and allow us those conversations to be had. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Any other witnesses in support, please?

Yes. Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council. We're in strong support of SB 615 to ensure all vehicle batteries in the state are recovered, reused, repurposed, remanufactured or recycled to the best management practices. We are the experts in extended producer responsibility, help draft, pass and implement EPR bills in California. EV batteries are large and are quickly growing in the waste stream with California's adopting the use of EVs. In 2022, 144,000 EVs were sold in California. We can see what's coming.

California has a history of allowing products to be sold in the market without having an end-of-life plan, causing a real problem in the back end of the system. Examples include solar panels, loose batteries, marine flares to just name a few. When that happens, the costs are borne unfairly to the garbage ratepayers and are socialized amongst all ratepayers, causing frustrations amongst consumers and environmental damage when there is not enough money or adequate recycling facilities to handle the waste. We are excited about this bill and are hoping to continue the conversations with the Senator and stakeholders and we respectfully ask for your aye support. Thank you.

Thank you. And additional witnesses in support in Room 1200, please.

Chair and Members, Dan Chia with Omni Government Relations here on behalf of Redwood Materials. Red Materials collects and recycles lithium ion batteries used in EV and electronic devices and then refines and manufactures them into critical battery components. Redwood is the leading company in the US that is developing a domestic, closed-loop supply chain to power our country's transition to a sustainable future. In fact, Redwood is today partnering with Ford, VW, Toyota-

-My apologies. If we can ask everyone--we'll let you close--but if we can ask all other supporters to just ensure that they have their name, whether you're in support of the bill and that's about it and your organization, please.

Understood. The point is, recycling of EV batteries is happening today and it's happening under free market principles, frankly, because of the inherent economic value of end-of-life batteries. So we ask--thank the Senator for his leadership on this, really appreciate the stakeholder efforts that he's brought together, but ask the Legislature to take a gentle regulatory approach so as to not increase EV costs or discourage the nascent domestic supply chain in battery materials that's happening. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. So just name, organization and whether you're in support.

John Kennedy, RCRC. Regret that we don't have a letter in yet. We look forward to getting one in and have supported these since Senator Dahle introduced things. Thank you.

Thank you.

Daniel Barad on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists, support the bill in concept and look forward to future conversations. Thank you.

Clara Vazeix with Californians Against Waste. We support the bill and want to thank Senator Allen for his leadership on this issue. We look forward to working with him and his staff. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Jason Schmeltzer, on behalf of Tesla, just want to make a quick comment. We're support in concept, but we strongly support the producer takeback obligation that's being discussed, and we think the bill should be fine-tuned to reflect that more clearly. Thank you.

Good morning. John Moffatt on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation Trade Association for the automakers, appreciate the author's office bringing us in early on the conversations and look forward to continuing to work to get something that reflects the task force report. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any additional witnesses in support here for SB 615? Okay, see none. It doesn't look like you have any registered opposition as well, so we'll take anybody who is in opposition to the bill, SB 615. See none. So we'll take it to the teleconference line. Moderator, can you please ensure if anyone on the line is in support or in opposition of SB 615, please?

Good. Thank you.

Thank you. Again, it's 1-0. We'll go to line 32. Please go ahead.

This is Janet Cox for Climate Action California in support of this bill as you continue to work on it. Thank you, Senator Allen.

Next we have line seven. Please go ahead.

Kathy Schaeffer for the San Fernando Valley and LA Chapters' Climate Reality Project in support. Thank you.

And at this point, we have none further in queue.

Thank you, Moderator. So we'll take it back to Members for any questions. Senator Menjivar.

Thank you. I appreciate the author's intent here. I want to voice some of the same concerns. I like the possibility here. You've mentioned there's significant details to work on, so I'm looking forward to seeing the details. I just want to make sure that we're providing--when we're calling for people to be responsible for the life, that we have steps in place for them to be successful. Thank you.

Oh, yeah.

Thank you. Any other questions from Members? Okay, see none. Senator, would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you for the comments. Thank you, Senator, for your comments. I think it's why we brought in all the stakeholders, including producers and people at various places along the supply chain and the distribution and sales chain and the end-of-use chain, to be part of this. So this is a truly collaborative effort. We want this to be successful. We want this to be something that's going to be not just successful here, but something replicated around the country and indeed the world.

As we transition toward more and more EVs, we got to make sure that we're collecting the cars at end-of-life, that we're finding a way to ensure that those batteries are being repurposed and the materials are being reused for the next generation. So that's what this is all about. It's all about workability as well. And just really appreciate Tina and all the stakeholders who've been working so hard to get this right. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you. And, Chief Consultant, if you can please call the roll, please.

Item number 15, SB 615 by Senator Allen. The motion is do pass to the Senate Transportation Committee. Allen. Aye. Dahle. Gonzalez. Aye. Hurtado. Menjivar. Aye. Nguyen. Aye. Skinner. Aye.

Okay, that bill has five votes. He will leave the bill on call. So now we will move on to Senator Newman. We have, I believe, file item 5, which is SB 425, Clean Vehicle Rebate Project. Welcome, Senator Newman.

It you offer move to Bill. Thank you.

Let's do it.

All right. Good morning. Thank you. Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 425, which will enhance the consumer rebate for hydrogen fuel cell pickup trucks under the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project and expand access to the Clean Air Vehicle Decal to ensure that hardworking Californians can and will more fully participate in our transition to a zero-emission vehicle fleet in California.

As you're well aware, California has now fully committed to the ambitious and aggressive goal of moving beyond gasoline-powered passenger vehicles by the year 2035. Here within the Legislature, we've been having a conversation over the past couple of years as to how best to design programs and prioritize resources to most effectively facilitate that transition.

As part of that conversation, there's been an ongoing debate as to the place of hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles relative to other investments we might make in support of the adoption of battery electric vehicles and expanded electric charging infrastructure. Within the light-duty segment, there is actually one category that will be demonstrably harder to decarbonize and whose transition to zero emissions on some basis will be necessary at scale if we're going to achieve our 2035 goals.

And that's light-duty work vehicles or pickup trucks. It's for this driver cohort, which currently comprises more than 2.7 million of California's overall fleet of roughly 20 million vehicles for whom hydrogen fuel cell electric technology offers substantial promise toward rapid decarbonization. Unlike battery electric vehicles, or BEVs, fuel cell electric vehicles, or FCEVs, do not require long intervals for stationary charging.

Nor do they require ever-increasing amounts of the rare earth minerals found in batteries to achieve longer ranges. Where BEVs suffer a range penalty of roughly half when towing the heavy payloads often required of pickup truck users. The ability of FCEVs to quickly refuel allows consumers the option of towing and hauling heavy cargo loads without the range anxiety and charging downtime associated with battery electric equivalents.

SB 425 would update the state's existing market incentive under the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project to align with and encourage market expansion of FCEVs in the pickup truck segment. Specifically, SB 425 would enhance the consumer rebate provided to purchasers of a lighter, medium-duty FCEV pickup truck by $1,000. SB 425 would also allow for a rebate of up to $8,000 for low and moderate-income drivers in California who want to participate in our clean energy transition but currently often cannot afford to do so.

For these drivers, SB 425 would validate the state's commitment to equitably investing in our working-class families and ensuring they have access to zero-emission vehicles that meet their needs. In addition to the enhanced CVRP rebate, SB 425 would further allow purchasers of qualifying FCV pickup trucks to claim a clean-air vehicle decal, which makes them eligible to utilize HOV lanes across the state irrespective of household income.

The allowance for dual award of both the CVRP and CAV programs is deliberately intended to create compelling incentives for zero-emission vehicle adoption in this hard-to-decarbonize category at a minimal fiscal expense.

Industry experts agree that the development of a robust market for light and medium-duty fuel cell vehicles represents the smoothest path toward achieving the economies of scale needed for the widespread further deployment of hydrogen and heavy-duty transportation, port drayage, and goods movement in general. As evidenced by the registration of almost 1 million new pickup trucks a year in California, pickup trucks are a prime example of a vehicle class in high demand and desperately in need of zero-emission options.

If California tends to realistically reach our decarbonization goals, we need to increase the manufacture and adoption of zero-emission pickup trucks consumers will want. Farmers, agricultural workers, laborers, landscapers, construction workers, and independent contractors are examples of the types of prospective purchasers whose livelihoods depend on the use of a capable and reliable light or medium-duty work truck.

The passage of SB 425 will create compelling incentives to ensure that these hardworking Californians can and will participate in this critical transition to zero emissions in the most rapid fashion possible. With me to testify today are Rosanna Carvaccio, on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition. I think it may be Teresa Cooke and Mike Monaghan on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote today.

Good afternoon. Good morning still. Teresa Cooke on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition and California Hydrogen Business Council, I'm going to do my best to testify as quickly as Mr. Ben or Newman did this morning.

You do not have to, especially given your soon-to-be maternal condition.

Please responsor SB 425. As the Senator noted, this Bill would add and provide additional support for medium-duty, zero-emission fuel cell electric vehicles under the state's CVRP Program. It would also allow these vehicles to qualify for HOV lane access decals. Medium-duty vehicles support a critical segment of California's workforce, ranging from construction to lawn care to delivery services, each with unplanned and variable routes with different payload and towing needs.

For these reasons, fuel cell technology will play a critical role in enabling the transition of this vehicle class to zero emission. By adding special consideration for this vehicle weight class, SB 425 signals to automakers California's strong desire to ensure vehicle decarbonization across all vehicle classes and all segments of the economy. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Mike Monaghan on behalf of state Building and Construction Trades Council, and we're very proud to support this legislation by Senator Newman. Maybe if you've noticed, passing by construction sites, there are tons of pickup trucks that are being driven, owned, by our Members. This is a good opportunity for the construction industry to participate in this very valid mission of decarbonizing the transportation industry. We ask your support.

Thanks, Mike. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Yes, other folks who want to weigh in in support of the Bill?

Ryan McCarthy, on behalf of Air Products, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else? Opposition to the Bill or folks who want to raise concerns?

Thank you. Anyone else? Opposition to the Bill or folks who want to raise concerns?

Good morning. Erin Woolley on behalf of Sierra Club California in opposition. But we look forward to working with the author moving forward. So thank you.

Okay. Anyone else? Anyone on the phone lines who want to raise concerns or voice support?

If so, please press one zero at this time. I have one in queue here. I'll go to line 32.

This is Janet Cox for Climate Action California, in opposition to hydrogen for light-duty vehicles.

Thank you. And give me one moment I have one more here. We'll go to line 34.

Morning, Chairman Allen, Members of the Committee, this is Dr. with First Element Fuel. We are the largest hydrogen provider world, and we're voicing our support for this before and ask for your Aye vote.

And none further in queue at this time.

Thank you. All right, we'll bring it back to the Committee. I know we've expressed some concern about some of the claims being made about hydrogen in this Committee before, but I think that in this case, we're talking about medium-duty trucks. This is a very limited Bill. That being said, I know there's some late opposition. I know some of the concerns are shared by the Chair of the Transportation Committee, and the bill's going over there. So there's going to be some additional work done.

But I'm certainly comfortable passing out of Committee today. I don't know if there's other thoughts questions, comments from the Members. Have you, have you, have you had a chance to chat at all with some of the folks who've come out in opposition Senator?

We will continue to do so. As I mentioned, I mean, this is part of a broader conversation, not just about choice of platform, but about the sort of downstream external consequences of different approaches to decarbonization. And they're all valid, right? But we have in front of us a 2035 goal. And I would argue, and I think many agree with me, the only way to meet that goal is to use one of the two technologies for zero-emissions vehicles, one of those being fuel cell electric vehicles.

This is a category that will be much harder to electrify than others. That is why the focus is on this category in this case.

Right. That's our sense, too. Okay, thank you. If I'm anyone interested in moving the Bill, Senator Nguyen did. I'm sorry. Senator Nguyen did. I apologize. Okay, so you may close.

I think that was my close. So thank you for your consideration. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. Okay. Moved by Senator Nguyen. Secretary, please call the roll.

Item number five, SB 425 by Senator Newman. The motion is do pass to the Senate Transportation Committee. [Roll call].

All right. We'll leave the roll open for that. I know you've also got another bill, SB 707. Do you want to just go ahead and--

I do. I do. So thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 707, which will establish an extended producer responsibility program, also known as an EPR program, to incentivize the reuse and recycling of textiles in California under the regulatory auspices of CalRecycle. Before I begin, I would like to note that I am gladly accepting the Committee's amendments, and I thank Brent Cook for her very good work on this bill.

Under the provisions of SB 707, producers of clothing and other textiles would be responsible for implementing and funding programmatic plans to better facilitate the repair and reuse of clothing and the recycling of textile fibers in California. Although many people are not aware, the clothing and fashion industry accounts for fully ten percent of the world's current carbon dioxide output.

Further, the rise in continued growth of fast fashion, which revolves around the marketing and sale of low-cost, low-quality garments that tend to go out of style with increasing speed, threatens to have a long-lasting and devastating impact on the environment. In fact, textiles are currently the fastest growing component of California's waste stream and account for approximately three to five percent of total waste in California.

And even though fully 95 percent of the materials commonly found in apparel and textiles are in fact highly recyclable, only around 15 percent of these materials are currently being recycled. There has, however, been a recent and pronounced shift in consumer sentiment toward products which are sustainable and environmentally responsible. In response to this demand and the increased attention being given to fashion's prospectively negative climate impacts, an increasing number of major clothing brands have recently committed to better utilizing recycled fibers and upcycled materials in the manufacture of their products.

In order to encourage this movement and thereby unlock the market potential of scaled recovery programs, a revised framework for responsible stewardship infrastructure is necessary in California. California has a long history as a leader in recycling models and technologies and has implemented a number of groundbreaking and effective EPR programs whose design allows for the reduction of waste and environmental harms by assigning a shared responsibility for end-of-life product management to the producers and other entities participating across a product's value chain.

I'll note that you were just earlier discussing an EV battery recycling program which applies the same basic principles. In light of the negative environmental impacts of textiles on the waste stream, it's time to apply a similar infrastructure and standards to this growing category of waste. Under the current framework, the thrift stores, charities, and clothing collectors across California, which currently accept textile donations, have long represented the best secondhand market for textiles that remain reusable.

Unfortunately, however, when donated garments are found to be damaged or unusable, they generally end up in one of two places: either in California landfills or in overseas markets, too often ending up in parts of the world where there is insufficient recycling infrastructure or landfill safety standards, which represents a substantial danger to both the environment and public health in those locations.

Despite their best efforts and the positive role that they play, thrift stores and clothing collectors unfortunately have neither the adequate resources nor access to systems which will allow for the effective sorting of unsellable excess garments to support the repair and reclaim of recyclable textile fibers in ways that would make viable the economics of such efforts. That is why we need an EPR framework.

The provisions of SB 707 will generate the necessary funds and create the appropriate infrastructure to allow thrifts and collectors to access and contribute to these systems and access these resources. Under these provisions, textile producers and other stakeholders will develop a framework for the implementation and management of an end-to-end system that encourages the repair recycling of all covered products, thereby minimizing the flow of textile products into our landfills or the landfills of other nations.

One of the many benefits of the proposed EPR framework is that Californians will not have to significantly modify their behavior. Consumers will still be encouraged to bring their unwanted clothing and household textiles to thrift stores, charities, and other collection sites for donation, with these collection sites becoming more fully integrated into a larger system for sorting and ultimately recycling used textiles, which, for whatever reason, may not be reusable or resellable.

A well-designed and effectively administered state, while textile EPR program has the potential to develop previously untapped or underutilized upcycle and recycled clothing and fiber markets, as well as to support ongoing efforts to encourage the repair and reuse of clothing and other textiles in California, the bill sponsors and I look forward to continuing to work with all relevant stakeholders, and I am respectfully asking for your aye vote today.

With me today to testify on behalf of this measure are Dr. Joanne Brasch, who is the Special Projects Manager for the California Product Stewardship Council, and Randi Marshall, Head of Government and Public Affairs for H&M Clothing, a leading international manufacturer and retailer.

Okay. Hey there.

Thank you, Chair Allen and Committee, and thank you so much, Senator Newman. My name is Joanne Brasch. I have a PhD in textile economics, and for 14 years I was teaching and researching in UC Davis at the Department of Textile. I'm here today on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council. We're a nonprofit that's primarily funded by cities and counties and local government waste authorities.

For two years, we have been hosting a Textile Advisory Committee with industry representation that helped develop the model of this bill in SB 707. In addition, CPSC is leading more than six locally funded pilot projects for textiles and clothing, which have helped develop the evidence and firsthand data to develop this program. The program proposed in SB 707 builds off the precedent of California's many EPR programs, but it has a major repair component.

It's a new flavor of EPR that adds opportunities for our garment workers and our businesses--as mentioned, the thrifts and the collectors--to tap into these funds and to get more integrated into a circular economy in which the industry is really welcoming, as many of them have sustainability goals.

SB 707 adds transparency, responsibility, and enforcement to these materials' final disposition. We continue to engage the industry and we hope to pass a meaningful EPR program for textiles that impacts the world. So with that, I thank you, everyone, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Hi there.

Hi. My name is Randi Marshall. I'm with the H&M Group. I head up our government and public affairs for the U.S. We are the second largest fashion retailer in the world. We have over 4,500--well, excuse me--less than 405,000 stores across 79 countries. 80 stores are here in California. What we actually support here is something that we are already engaging in. We have a garment collection program that we've had in all of our stores since 2013.

So we have a decade of experience of actually doing garment collecting, which we realize is going to be the heart of why we're actually doing circularity in the first place. Circularity is what is necessary in order to make the transition to a circular economy textile EPR, and we're very excited that Senator Newman has put forth this bill. This is why we're in support of it. We are looking forward to working with his staff, with policy recommendations and all stakeholders. And so we hope that you continue to support this bill and vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Jason Schmelzer, on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council, in support of the bill. Thank you.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters, in support.

Clara Vazeix with Californians Against Waste, in support.

Thank you, Chair and Members. My name is Noah Whitley, and I'm speaking on behalf of RethinkWaste and Clean Seas, both of whom are in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Priscilla Quiroz, on behalf of StopWaste, Solid Waste Association, North America Legislative Task Force, and Western Placer Waste Management Authority, all in strong support. Thank you.

Erin Woolley, on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support.

Good morning. Michael Caprio with Republic Services, here in support of Senator Newman's bill.

Michael Rattigan, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara County, in support. Thank you.

Okay. Anyone who wants to raise concerns about the bill, opposition beyond--obviously, a lot of good comments made so far. I know there's no registered opposition. Yes, sir?

Senator, Dean Grafilo, on behalf of the California Retailers Association. Don't have a position on the bill today. Want to express appreciation for the commitment from the author to continue to work with us on this matter. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else on the phone lines, the phone lines who want to raise concerns or express support for the bill? SB 707.

Thank you. And again, it's one zero. We'll go to line 41.

Good morning. Jim Lindburg, on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support.

And next, we can go to line 39.

Kathy Shafer, on behalf of the San Fernando Valley and LA Chapters of Climate Reality Project, in support. Thank you.

And next, we have line 40. Please go ahead, 40.

North range.

Connie Lastowitz, CBU Productions in support of SB 707.

And currently none further in queue.

Okay, thank you so much. Let's bring the matter back to the Committee for comments, questions, thoughts? Senator Menjivarr?

I'd like to move the Bill.

Move the Bill. Okay, great. I certainly support this. Appreciate the work you're doing in this area that I have a lot of interest in as well. And if I'm not hearing any questions, let's call the roll. Let's ask you to close and thank you for the support.

I want to make really clear, sort of, in response to the CRA's comment. EPR bills are hard, and it's really important that all stakeholders are properly consulted throughout the process so we can, in fact, achieve the circularity that is necessary. So I'm fully committed to doing that. I just want all the stakeholders to know that. And I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Great. All right, secretary, please call the roll.

Item number six, SB 707 by Senator Newman. The motion is do pass, as amended to the Senate Judiciary Committee. [Roll call].

Okay, we'll leave the roll open, but thank you, Senator, for your presentation.

Thank you, Members. Thank you, Chair.

All right, while we wait, I think we're waiting for Senator Portantino, who will be presenting item 11. Why don't I jump up and present the next item? Next of my bills is item 16, SB 665, and I'll pass the gavel to Senator Menjivar.

Am I up?

Oh, there you go. Okay.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I know my Bill is your favorite Bill of the day, and I apologize for keeping you waiting.

We're going to talk carpet, so let's go back to item 11 in your agendas Members. This is SB 854. It's a Smallwood-Cuevas Portantino Bill, and Senator Portantino is going to present.

Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members, I'd like to begin by accepting the amendments outlined in the analysis. So thank you for your staff's work on that and getting this Bill ready. SB 854 would provide better allocation of funding for apprenticeship and training programs to meet the needs of California's carpet market and expand recruitment in underrepresented communities. Since July 2011, California consumers have paid a carpet stewardship assessment fee when purchasing carpets sold in the state.

The fee funds carpet recycling program known as the Carpet America Recovery Effort, CARE. 854 will improve accountability for CARE and any other consumer-funded carpet recycling programs. And today I have with me Robert Smith from the Painters District Council 36, and I believe we have another witness. And when the appropriate time, I'd respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

All right, let's hear from Bob. Seeing you here all day.

Good morning.

Good seeing you.

Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, my name is Robert Smith. I am the Political Director for the Painters and Allied Trades in Los Angeles, California. And I'll go over this real quick. We represent in the Los Angeles County over 10,000 Members, Northern California, over 11,000 Members. We at the Painters and Allied Trades are in full support of the carpet recycling efforts that have been made to reduce the 1.6% by volume that was discarded carpet remnants in our California landfills.

We do believe that there needs to be more accountability to make sure that our stewardship programs. Let me put my glasses on. Sorry. Programs operator. Carpet Recovery America Effort has been found in noncompliance by Cal Recycle. In every year from 14 through 18 through to 19. Excuse me. And in 21 and 22, CARE has repeatedly failed to meet its obligations, frequently submitting inadequate plans and annual reports, and being consistently out of compliance with collections and recycling targets.

Their failures have required significant oversight enforcement by Cal Recycle and has caused the Advisory Committee and stakeholders significant resources to monitor. In fact, we've had to develop a graft of the violations. As written in SB 54 would require 10%, which equals to $0.05 cents per yard. The current rate of fee is $0.50 soon to go up to $0.70. We're asking for five cents to be put into apprenticeship programs. They have stated that they've given over $100,000 for apprenticeship training.

In fact, they've only given $15,000 to District Council 16 for a pallet wrapping machine, a tool. They have stated that they trained over 200 workers. Fact, they went to DC 16's training center and filmed video only. They were invited to 36 my home District Council and declined. Use of funds will be expended for apprentices and journey-level workers on proper carpet-level installation and recycling practices.

These are workers that do the removal of the product and need to be well trained in the proper removal and processing for the recycling centers to accept post consumer products.

Robert, if we could just ask you to wrap. I think so.

I'm sorry. The funding, we believe, should be expanded to trainings throughout apprenticeship programs for extensive training on the proper installation of carpet, a large portion of carpet that lands up in landfills is due to installation failure. It's like a cradle to the grave. You put it in wrong, that carpet lasts two years, a year, and it goes right to the landfill.

Installers need to be thoroughly trained on carpet bowing skewing issues and tolerance, moisture testing, mitigation, streaming diagrams, proper layout procedures to cut out waste, proper adhesive usage and compatibility, and other aspects that contribute to early failures and removal of carpet that ends up in our landfills.

Thank you.

We ask that 95% of the funds stay in the State of California. That may be an unrealistic goal, but we're currently sending money to Ohio, South Carolina, Arizona. It's going everywhere but here, and it's a California fee. It's our money that we pay when we buy carbon and it's sent elsewhere. And I respectfully ask for an Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Okay. Hey there.

Priscilla Quiroz on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council in strong support of this Bill, as our previous speaker has noted, CARE has failed to meet their obligations on their submitting plans. Annual reports and their failures have required significant oversight and enforcement by Cal Recycle and stakeholder resources.

CARE is spending consumer assessments on activities outside of state and feeding businesses outside of California, while recyclers and collectors have left the state or gone out of business due to the lack of feedstock, including a plant here in woodland. And most of the carpet is currently being landfilled even without being sorted or recycling. We thank the Senators for their spearhead in this issue, and we ask the Committee for their Ira support. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah. Other folks who want to weigh in support.

Jason Schmeltzer on behalf of CPSC, in strong support. Thank you.

Thanks, Jason.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Tony D. Trinidad with the Painters and Allied Trades District Council 36. And on behalf of our 11,000 Members in Southern California, we're in support as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Opposition? Folks who want to raise concerns.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Committee, Randy Pollock on behalf of the Carpet and Rug Institute, we represent the manufacturers of the carpet industry who participate in the CARE Program. I first want to thank the Senator and his staff and also the Committee staff for taking the time to meet with us to talk about the Carpet Program, because there's always room for improvement.

But I think it's very important just to acknowledge today that for the year 2022, CARE came out with their report where they exceeded all of their goals. As a matter of fact, the recycling rate was supposed to be at 27%. They came in at 33%. And in the fourth quarter, it reached 39%. The program is working. We have over 400 collection sites throughout the state. And to the folks at the union with apprenticeship programs, I can tell you we did train.

CARE told me they trained 200 people down at DC 16. They did videos, they have paper materials, they have websites. They also have done extensive outreach to DC 36. So I would ask that they continue to contact CARE. They're ready to begin training immediately. We've also placed pallets.

We've also placed containers at their locations to make sure we can continue to take back carpet. So we believe the program continues to work properly. We just are concerned a little bit about the Bill, about how just directing, like three or $4 million towards a program when you don't know whether you need that much money to do this training. So we believe it should be very focused. It should be focused on how do you take back carpet, how you prepare it for recycling.

And with that, we look forward to working with the Senator and the staff in the future. Thank you.

Okay, anyone else on the phone lines who want to weigh in, concern or raise or support for the Bill?

Thank you. Please press one zero at this time. We go to line 27. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Chair and Members Josh Karnick with the State Building Trade in support of SB 854. Thank you.

And none further in queue at this time.

All right, we'll bring the matter back to the Committee for questions, comments, concerns.

I moved the Bill.

Okay, moved by Senator Menjivar. Okay, let's go ahead and. Any questions? Yeah. Okay, we'll call a roll, let you close.

I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Okay. Secretary, please call a roll.

Item number 11, SB 854 by Smallwood-Cuevas. The motion is do pass, as amended, to the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll call].

Okay, great. Let's call some votes, and then I'll present my next bill, SB 665. Let me take a look here. Okay. Let's open the roll on consent calendar, first of all.

On the consent calendar are items 1, 3 and 7. The vote is 5-0. Dahle. Aye. Hurtado. Aye.

Okay, that's 7-0. We'll close the roll on that. How about item 2? This is Senator Dodd's SB 3-

-We haven't taken role on it.

Right. So let's hear a motion on Senator Dodd's SB 353.

I move the-

-Move by Senator Hurtado. Let's call a roll on that.

Item number 3, SB 353 by Senator Dodd. The motion is do pass, as amended, to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Allen. Aye. Dahle. Gonzalez. Hurtado. Aye. Menjivar. Aye. Nguyen. Skinner.

Okay, we'll leave the roll open for that. Let's go to item 4. Senator Hurtado moves Senator Becker's bill?

Yes.

Okay, item 4. This is SB 485.

Item number 4, SB 485 by Senator Becker. The motion is do pass as amended but first, re-refer to the Committee on Rules. Allen. Aye. Dahle. Gonzalez. Hurtado. Aye. Menjivar. Aye. Nguyen. Skinner.

Okay, we'll leave the roll open for that. Item 5 is Senator Newman's SB 425. She doesn't vote for it?

I screwed it.

Okay. Wait, no, that was Becker. That was Becker. You're right. Yeah. So let's do item 5, SB 425, so they can add on.

Okay. SB 425 by Senator Newman. The motion is do pass to the Senate Transportation Committee. The Chair is aye. Dahle not voting. Dahle. Aye. Gonzalez. Hurtado. Aye. Menjivar. Aye.

Nguyen and Skinner voted for it.

We already have you down. Yeah. Okay, so we'll let Senator Gonzalez weigh in on that one. All right, we're not going to do that. Let's go. So 7, Seyarto, we've already done. We're not going to do that. Let's do Stern. Can we take a motion for SB 781, Senator Stern's bill?

Yeah.

The motion is do pass, as amended, to the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee. Allen. Aye. Dahle.

This is item nine?

This is Stern. Yeah, 9. Item 9.

Dahle. No. Gonzalez. Hurtado. Aye. Menjivar. Nguyen. No. Skinner.

Okay, we'll leave the roll open for that. This is item 10. This is Roger Niello's bill. A move by Senator Dahle. Let's call the roll.

SB 794 by Senator Niello. The motion is do pass to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Allen. No. Dahle. Aye. Gonzalez. Hurtado. Menjivar. Aye. Hurtado. Aye. Menjivar.

This is for Senator Niello's bill. Item 10.

Senator Neillo. Menjivar. No. Nguyen. Aye. Skinner.

Okay, we'll leave the roll open for that one. Item 11 that we just did. Let's hear it. So Senator Dahle--Menjivar moves Senator Dahle's bill. Item 12. This is SB 861. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Allen. Aye. Dahle. Aye. Gonzalez. Hurtado. Aye. Menjivar. Aye. Nguyen. Aye. Skinner.

Yeah, okay, item--674, Gonzalez's bill--item 13--SB 674.

The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Chair is voting aye. Vice Chair not voting. Dahle. No. Gonzalez. Sorry, she already voted. Hurtado. Not voting.

That's that. So we'll close the roll on that. That vote is 4-2 with one abstention. And then the next two--Senator Hurtado, are you not voting on purpose? That's the Skinner--no? Okay, well, we'll call the role on those. Skinner's, SB 682.

The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Transportation Committee, with the chair voting aye and the Vice Chair not voting. Dahle. No. Hurtado. Aye. Nguyen. No.

Okay, we'll close the roll on that. That is a 5-2 vote. Okay. And then Senator Allen's SB 615, this is item 15.

Motion is do pass to the Senate Transportation Committee. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair not voting. Dahle. Aye. Hurtado. Aye.

Okay, 7-0, we'll close the roll on that.

Can I open the roll on item 9 to record a vote?

Sorry. Let's just record a vote on item 9. We'll open the roll again later. Okay, this is item 9, 781, Stern.

Menjivar. Aye.

Menjivar. Aye. Okay, we're still going to leave that open so we can let--Gonzalez and Skinner. Okay, I'm going to present 665 ... to the Vice Chair.

All right, Members.

Thank you so much. Okay. So we've discussed a little bit about SB 54, last year's big plastics bill. That bill combined with ongoing efforts across several state agencies to address the pervasive environmental and public health risks posed by plastic has laid some fertile ground for the growth of alternative material types. So we've got pioneering companies, many of them based here in California, that are seizing on consumer demand for environmentally friendly options by creating packaging materials or introducing cutlery made from unconventional sources.

So the potential benefits of these novel material types vary greatly depending on how they're produced or how they break down at end-of-life. Some of these new materials are created from biological sources. They could be compostable or biodegradable in different types of environments or with the use of catalysts. Some are sourced from renewable feedstock but have the same properties as fossil fuel-based plastic. California currently lacks a meaningful way to evaluate the potential benefits or long-term impacts of these new materials.

Even our vernacular struggles to differentiate sustainable options from those who we might seek to shift away from. So this bill will convene a working group of the relevant state agencies to develop a framework to evaluate plastic alternatives as they are introduced onto the market and inform efforts to ensure the materials are properly managed. The group will be tasked with establishing a methodology for effectively evaluating and comparing these new materials, along with recommending policy approaches to ensure proper regulatory oversight.

This would include developing production and consumer safety standards, evaluating environmental and public health impacts, recommending labeling and safe end-of-life management requirements. Members, we're at a critical juncture as these innovative materials are being introduced onto the market.

Now is the time to develop the tools to understand the pros and cons of each new alternative and to ensure our statutory and regulatory regimes incentivize better and more sustainable materials. And we have here today John Kennedy with the Rural Counties, RCRC, to speak in support of the bill.

Morning. Still, I think. John Kennedy with RCRC in strong support of this bill. As I said before, we have 40 rural counties, often very low population counties. Local governments, historically, have been the ones responsible for achieving the state's solid waste recycling objectives, and we've traditionally had no role or say in what gets introduced into the stream of commerce that we have to deal with at the end of the day once consumers are done with it.

So for those reasons, we supported the author's SB 54 last year, which requires manufacturers to take greater control over some classes of products, single-use packaging, single-use plastic food serviceware. SB 665 does fill an important gap. It tries to help the state get ahead of future problems, avoid regrettable substitutions so we don't have these challenges with waste management in the future, requires the state to develop a framework to evaluate these new material types, their impacts on the environment, and how they fit into the existing solid waste system.

So we appreciate the author bringing this bill up. We appreciate conversations with the author on how to ensure locals are engaged in this working group, and to ensure that it considers the ease with which these materials can be worked into the existing recycling process. So for these reasons, we urge your aye vote on 665. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Priscilla Quiroz on behalf of StopWaste, echoing the support with amendments with our CRC. Thank you.

Morning. Michael Caprio with Republic Services, here in strong support of Senator Allen's bill. Thank you.

Erin Woolley, on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support.