Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

And we have a special order. So we're going to go ahead and hear from Senator Cortese, who's presenting SB 740. You may come up and proceed when ready.

Good morning, chair and members, thank you very much for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 740 to all of you today. I know we have the chair and perhaps some others that were here very late last night, so we appreciate you being back here early in the morning to hear our bills. SB 740 extends the skilled and trained workforce requirements now applicable to petroleum refineries to additional industrial facilities, including commercial facilities for hydrogen manufacturing, biofuels manufacturing, and carbon dioxide capture.

As with petroleum refineries, the skilled and trained workforce requirements will apply to contractors performing onsite work at these facilities. The Bill does not affect in house work at a facility. This Bill will keep communities and workers safe. Manufacturers of chemicals like the ones identified in SB 740 is inherently dangerous work. Exposure to these chemicals can be extremely hazardous for a workforce untrained in their impacts. Historically, the state has chosen to use a skilled and trained workforce in high risk environments.

The Bill was modeled very much after Senate Bill 54. SB 54 was signed into law in large part because of the vulnerabilities exposed after the Richmond refinery fire and the resulting community legislative concerns. Since the passage of the prior Senate Bill 54, there haven't been such fires and explosions as with any other industry.

Industrial maintenance and construction should require an adequately skilled workforce equipped to prevent and reduce the risk of fires, explosions, the leaks of noxious air, solvents, or other substances, and any and all adequate industrial protections to protect the surrounding communities. With us to testify here today, we have Tim Jeffries, international representative of the boilermakers. Thank you, and at the appropriate time for your.

Thank you with your indulgence, Senator, I'd love to establish a quorum first. We're going to establish a quorum.

Thank you, secretary. Please call the Committee. Okay, Senators Allen. Here. Dahle. Gonzalez. Here. Hurtado. Menjivar. Jones, Skinner. Okay, we've got a quorum thank you. You may proceed.

Yes, absolutely.

Thank you. Good morning, Senators and Allen, Members of the Committee. Good morning. My name is Timothy Jeffries. I serve our country for 12 years as a United States Marine and

as Brentwood resident and representative of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers and former business manager of Local Lodge 549 in Pittsburgh, California, I stand before you in strong support of SB 740 in this Committee. A lot has been said about just transition. The Bill is an opportunity to finally put teeth into that term. Senate Bill 740 will ensure that we will take the turn from traditional fuel sources and power generation to new innovations like biofuels, hydrogen, carbon capture, and related chemical plants.

We do this with the climate crisis, safety and workers, all its priorities. SB 740 will require that a skilled and trained workforce be used at these facilities, ensuring that the community that hosts these industries are provided the most skilled, trained workforce to ensure that the contracted out construction maintenance work being done is performed by the highest trained construction workers who prioritize community safety as their number one concern. By utilizing graduates from extensive state accredited apprenticeship programs.

One of my favorite parts of my job is to do the outreaching for the apprenticeships. This includes going into communities and encouraging young people who are not college bound to enter apprenticeship programs. The state building trades apprenticeship programs boast 75,000 strong and three quarters of people of color. And we're proud to say that there are more women in apprenticeship programs than any other program. In our apprenticeship programs, apprenticeships in the trades are life changing.

They're usually three to five year apprenticeship training programs where apprentices learn in both the classroom and hands on on the job. After graduating from the apprenticeship, journeymen and women have the pride of a profession that can allow them access to the middle class, a path that is nearly impossible for most other blue collar Californians.

Comparing apprenticeship programs to some undefined certificate programs not only disrespectful to the young Californians who are working so hard in our apprenticeship programs today, but somewhat classes as the assumption is that all manual labor is interchangeable. If you work with your hands, it's all the same. I can assure you that it is not my trade or my skill is my profession.

It will be the same as saying I'm not going to say that SB 740 is an expansion of the landmark SB 54 passed and signed by then Governor Jerry Brown a decade ago and co authored by Senator Skinner. SB 54 applied to contractors contracted out construction maintenance workers at oil refineries. SB 54 has unequivocally made refining safer. It has also lifted up workers.

Prior to SB 54, we had tens of thousands of out of state workers moving around our state who lacked the trainings, do the work they were expected to perform. These workers were paid day rates, no benefits, and when the work was done, they left the state with that pay. They didn't have any involvement in their communities. Their children didn't go to those schools. There was no ties to the community. SB 54 changed all that. Local workers were lifted up, changed.

They trained in our apprenticeship programs, reflecting the communities they came from. These communities became stronger and safer because of it. This is what will happen when SB 740 becomes law. I like to address some of the Committee's analysis briefly. The concern that SB 7740 will slow down our ability to implement climate innovation, safety standards and labor protection should never be sacrificed for some unsubstantiated concern for speed.

That's exactly the rhetoric that's brought us shoddy and dangerous construction and labor standards, and has allowed the underground economy to flourish in other jurisdictions. But California is better than that, and it should be. This is California. Also, there's a concern for workforce that is not relevant to this Bill.

We have been in constant contact with the steel workers, and I myself work closely with the steel workers who work in operations in California industrial facilities, but they are not a contracted out workforce, and therefore, this Bill will not affect them negatively, and most likely will help them retain more workers at higher wages and operational side as they navigate forward in these new technologies. The boilermakers have been transitioning for over 100 years.

We started as the trade that built the magnificent steam engine that allowed America's western frontier to be opened up during the great wars. We built battleships that fought for our country and our allies in Europe. We built the power generation that has allowed California to be the fifth largest economy in the world. And now we're building the carbon capture facilities that CARB has stated we need to build to meet our existing climate goals.

We are building the massive offshore wind turbines, allowing our country to harness the wind for green power, converting power plants to hydrogen, and parting to bring new fuels to market that will allow California to keep moving forward safely, economically and safely. On behalf of the boilermakers, on behalf of half a million Members of the state building trades, we thank Senator Cortese for his leadership and Senator Skinner for her continued support of our Members in this Committee for his consideration. And we urge you aye vote on this important Bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thank you for your service, too. Okay, Scott, are you dealing with me, too? Are you going to do some testimony? Yeah, come on up. Let's hear from you.

Ran from another building. Mr. Chairman and Members, Scott Wedge, on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council, State Association of Electrical Workers, the Western State center of Sheet Metal Workers, the elevator constructors Union, and the California Coalition of Utility Employees, just want to thank the Committee chair and staff for all the work on this Bill.

I'd just like to stress, remind the Committee this Bill only applies to work that is contracted out and that is a sector for which the building trades has thousands of contractors. We'd happy to provide to the Committee it 's work that we do now and we'd like to continue to do and would urge you.

I vote. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wedge. Appreciate it. All right, let's now folks, want to just add on in support. So if you just want to express your support with your name and affiliation, you can come up to microphone and just express your support from different affiliate, different groups. Good morning, chair. My name is Vince Gru, on behalf of sheet Metal Workers Local 104, we're in support. Thank you. Good morning, my name is Dominic Lucero.

I'm business agent for the bowl makers. Just urging my support. Not reading. Yeah, okay. Yeah. On behalf of my brothers and sisters in the state building trades, I support this Bill.

Appreciate it, but appreciate your willingness to testify. And Members will know they can ask him questions if you have them. Morning, my name is John Hershey with UA local 447, plumbers and pipe fitters urging your support on 740. Thank you, thank you. Good morning. Kevin Ferreira, Sacramento Sierra Building Construction Trades Council. And we are in support of this Bill as well. Thank you so much. Andrew Hayes, bowemakers Local 549 as well, one of our apprenticeship instructors. I also support this Bill. Thank you.

Angel Greer, journeywoman out of Local 549 boilermakers in Pittsburgh, and I support this Bill.

Thank you. Good morning. Zach Noonan, local 447, plumbers and pipe fitters, I support. Good morning. Aura Leona Choa, Local 16, insulators on support. Thank you.

Good morning. Selena Darrell with Tracerman Inc. In support of SB 740. Thank you. Good morning. Anthony Visquuso, also with Local 16, heat and frost insulators, business agent in strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Great, thank you. Good morning, my name is Randy Thomas. I'm the business manager, secretary, treasurer, Boilermakers Local 549, graduate apprentice, and I support this Bill. Good morning, my name is Osbaldo Troche, business agent for Bolomakers Local 549. Strongly support 740. Thank you, good morning, my name is Guillermo Zague from Southern California, Local 92 bolomakers. I support this Bill, too.

Thank you. Good morning. Hugo Castaneda, business agent out of Local 92, Southern California and I support this Bill. Thank you very much. Okay, let's now go to opposition. I think we have Catherine here from the steelworkers.

Good morning, chair Allen and Committee Members. My name is Catherine Houston and I'm with United Steelworkers District 12. I'd like to begin by making it very clear that we support the intent of the Bill, and we certainly do not want to see any of this work done by nonunion employees.

But we also need to ensure that there is inclusivity for all the highly qualified and skilled current and future union workforces who perform these industrial jobs and that transitions that will take place as we see the industries we are employed in transition over to the new emergent technologies as they are developed and implemented. For decades, USW union Members have been safely performing operational and maintenance work in industrial facilities with a proven track record of long term experience, skills, knowledge and safety.

This has been achieved through participating in programs and processes jointly developed, implemented and maintained by USW, its Members and its employers. These programs ensure that every worker, in addition to having the necessary job skills, qualifications and certifications, has proven knowledge of all safety procedures and protocols. These training programs become increasingly crucial in the ongoing evolution within the clean economy as the work in traditional industries changes and we advance our climate goals toward the achievement of carbon neutrality.

Members of our current contracting workforce trained through these cooperative programs have an average of 10 to 15 years of experience. Right now, the largest concentration live and work in the San Joaquin Valley area. And our people of color, our Members take great pride in their communities, in the work they do and in their safety records. Today, we are here asking you to protect the livelihoods of these Members, those currently advancing through their training programs, and the future workers we know will be coming.

As the fossil fuel sector continues to transition and contract, there may be more highly qualified, long term workers entering jobs in the green economy, and we firmly believe we can all be a part of these changes and advancement together as union Members. As the legislative analysts recognize, the State of California should not be cutting off welltrained, highly qualified union workers from green jobs if it wishes to meet its ambitious climate goals.

We respectfully ask you today to show your support of the value of these union Members by amending SB 740 to allow for workers trained through programs jointly developed by employers and workers to be accepted. And we appreciate the efforts of all who have endeavored to advance the dialogue on SB 740. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, anyone else who wants to express opposition or concerns about the Bill? Okay. Yes, sir. Morning. My name is Carlos Presa. I'm the business manager for local 1945 Steel Workers. No contracting workforce. They said that everything is proprietary. Workers are hurt. We are used to be also one of the biggest contracting units for steel workers in Southern California and Northern California as well. At this time and moment, as Catherine mentioned, we do represent a large contracting workforce in Kirk County or San Joaquin Valley.

Thank you. And again, I'm going to repeat what Catherine says. Right. United Steel Workers District 12. We do not oppose the intent of the Bill. We just do believe that it doesn't provide our current members an opportunity to continue in their jobs, which are middle class jobs as well, with benefits. Right. Good or bad? I don't know about that. Right. I cannot really compare what my brothers and sisters from the building and trades have to what my Members have.

We have fought for those benefits and our wages. Again, our request is the Bill to be amended to allow a trained workforce, as the steel worker has at this moment, to continue in their jobs. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. All right, let's go to the phone lines. Let's go to the phone lines for folks who want to weigh in support or opposition to the Bill. Certainly.

Ladies and gentlemen, on the phone lines, if you wish to queue up, please press one, then zero at this time. We do have about six in queue at this time. We'll go to line number 22. That's two. Two, your line is open. Thank you. My name is John Corso, I'm a representative of UA local 38. The plumbers and steam fitters here in San Francisco stand with the state building trades in support of this Bill. Thank you. We'll now go to line number 50.

That's 50, your line is open. Good morning, my name is Danny Wright. I'm the business manager of plumbers and pipe fitters, UA local 246 in Fresno. We represent Fresno Bader in Kings county. We stand with the Buildings trades in support of this Bill. Thank you. We'll go to line number 36. That's 36, your line is open.

Good morning, my name is Scott Deal. I'm with local 467 of The plumbers and refrigeration fitters in San. Mateo county, and we are in support of SB 740. Thank you. We're going to line number 51. That's 51. Your line is open. Good morning, my name is Robert Dopetta, training Director for the Fresno area plumbers, pipe and refrigeration Fitters apprenticeship program. And we are in strong support of SB 740. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to line number 21. That's 21, your line is open. Good morning, my name is Anacito Damo.

I'm an organizer with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, local 428, Kern. county. On behalf of our local, we support this Bill. Thank you. Line number 17. That's 17, your line is open. Good morning, honorable chair and Committee Members. My name is Chris Hannon with the Los Angeles Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council, and stand in solidarity with the state building trade in support of SD 740. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to line number 27.

That's 27, your line is open. Good morning. Brandon Lovingberg, business agent, local 246. Plumbers type fitters, HVAC tech, Fresno, California. And we stand with the state building trades in strong support of SB 740. Thank you. We'll go to line number 41. That's 41, your line is open. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Okay. Yes. My name is John Henry Lopez. I'm with the plumbers, pipe fitters, local 246, representing Fresno, Madeira, Tularia and Kings counties.

And we stand in strong support of SB 740. Thank you. Next, we'll go to line number 12. That's 12, your line is open. Yes, my name is Nick Goodwin, business manager, plumbers, esteem Fitters, UA local 159, in Martinez, California. And we stand in support of SB 740. Thank you. Now go to line number 47. That's 47. Your line is open. Good morning. My name is Mark Dewey. I'm with the ibew in Kern, county, and we are in strong support at SB 740.

Go to line number 42. That's 42. Your line is open. Good morning, this is Gaston Moore, business agent, Ibew local 428, electricians union. We are in strong support of SB 40. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to line number 38. That's 38. Your line is open. Yes, good morning. My name is Ray Camacho, business agent for UA United Association. Team fitter dwellers and apprentices, local 250, Los Angeles, in strong support of SB 740. Thank you. And we have two more currently in queue.

We'll go to line number 24. That's 24. Your line is open. Hi, good morning. My name is Derek, with Ibew Local 302, Contra Costa County, and our membership is in support of SB 740. Thank you. And we'll go to line number 20. That's 20. Your line is open. Good morning, Tim. Redondo Ua local 484 and district council 16, Southern California stand with building trades and in strong support of SB 740. Thank you. And, chair, we have exhausted the queue at this time. Please continue.

Okay. Thank you so much. All right, let's bring the item back to the Committee. And, gosh, if you don't mind, let me start with a couple of comments this Bill has gotten. We're obviously. Well, first of all, let me thank the, the author for bringing the Bill forward. You know, we're all trying to figure out how to confront climate change. We all know we're playing a big role in creating that change.

Let me start by saying that to all the union Members here, both on the trade side and the steel workers, you've got dogged strong union leaders. And Andrew Meredith from the trades and Catherine Houston from the steelworkers. I got to see their advocacy and negotiation skills up front. I think our initial hope was that this issue that's been raised in front of everybody could be worked on kind of quietly within the labor community.

But of course, there's been some long standing disagreements over a lot of the fundamentals of how to approach these kinds of questions with regards to skilled and trained. And then we brought everyone together. Chair was there as well, and got to kind of hear and all the discussions.

But I think all the union Members here should feel like you've got some people helping to run your unions that are really looking out for you, looking out for the workforce, trying to do right by the membership, both on the steel worker side and also the building trade side.

So the question that we've been trying to figure out, if there was some way for us to reconcile some of the very differing positions, we certainly had thought that we'd come up with a reasonable proposal that would allow for some of the existing training programs that exist within the steel workers to move forward.

I understand that's raised some concerns with the author and sponsors, because I think they're concerned about creating an alternative path to skilled and trained, which, of course, has been such an important priority for the trades through a lot of bills that we've been working on through the course of the last few years. This is a big Bill. It obviously covers a lot of different industries, industries that are of real importance to our meeting, our climate goals, and then also industries that have.

There's a lot of implications regarding the future of work and labor in the state, and very conflicting narratives, quite frankly, over the implications and the outcomes of SB 54 and as it impacted the United steel workers. So it's been a tough, tough time, I think, especially for our Committee that doesn't have, this is a strange thing that this Bill is in this Committee, and it has to do with some interesting history from 2013, long before any of us were here. Well, no, that's true. Yes.

I'm so sorry, Nancy. Yes, Nancy Skinner was very involved in that. Thank you for the correction, Senator. So it is a funny, we have been, unfortunately, tasked with trying to see if we can resolve this labor dispute, and it has proven challenging. So I've been on the phone with some of the leadership of the trades this morning.

We're trying to figure out a possible sunset, trying to work out some of the details, including reporting back so we can get a sense of how a Bill as ambitious and broad as this is impacting the market, the labor force, and our ability to meet our climate goals. So I'd love to hear discussion. It would certainly inform our continued conversations with the trades. I definitely want to hear from the Members. It's my preference that obviously, this is the very first Bill of the morning.

We've got a lot of other bills. It's my preference that we not take a vote now. We kind of work out, continue the negotiations and take a little to vote a little bit later today. I'm certainly hopeful that we can move forward. But anyway, I'd love to hear people's thoughts. And let me also just point out that Senator Nguyen was not able to attend today, and we are very fortunate to have Senator Brian Jones here as her replacement.

Senator Dahle well, just a risk of not getting chastised by the chair who, somebody who we haven't been really involved in the negotiations that are actually ongoing, apparently. Well, that's why I want to hear people's thoughts. Well, okay. So is there amendment you and I have spoken to? Yeah, we did speak about it, but I know there's been some last minute negotiations. Maybe you could speed us up.

I'm in the dark of, we're trying to figure out the trades did not like the amendment as proposed in the analysis. Happy to discuss that as to their rationale, if you like, but we're now having conversations about what a sunset for the Bill might look like. It would give an opportunity for the Legislature to see how the implementation of the Bill plays out.

Now, I think on the trade side, there's concern about making sure there's enough time to invest in the growth of the apprenticeship programs and the training programs. On the industry side, investing in long term relationships with the trades. I think on the other side is this Bill is asking for a really massive change in big portion of the economy.

That certainly has a lot to do with the broad based climate goals that we share as a Committee and the desire on the part of the EQ team that we be able to monitor and stay abreast of how such a big change in labor standards, labor rules might impact our ability to meet our climate goals. And quite frankly, a lot of the concerns about the impacts on the labor force that have been raised by the opposition from the United steel workers.

So that's the contours of the conversation. But certainly love your thoughts, Senator, as we try to figure this. Yes, Senator Menjivar and then Senator Hurtado.

So many thoughts. So I apologize if they're not coming out as I want them to. And I wasn't here back when these conversations happened. So I'm trying to first wrap myself up into why we're discussing labor and EQ, but getting past that, maybe Nancy.

Can tell us all about that.

Getting past that. And my brother in the core pointed out something that has been in the front for me, and it's that just transition part.

Right.

These are individuals that have been working in the fossil fuel space. And if we're thinking about ensuring that they all have jobs as we transition and maintaining the same workforce and ensuring they have priority, I see this as a just transition towards and moving forward in that. And I know I'm talking to the Senator and the author. The conversations are being had specifically to perhaps one entity.

And perhaps those conversations moving forward in a Committee that has more background or expertise in labor might be where we should go, perhaps right? Where maybe in a probes or an Assembly Labor Committee can dive more into that.

Yes. If we're up to me, this Bill would not be in this Committee. I guess my question for you Senators, what do you think about the just transition issues that have been raised by the steel workers, too?

I've yielded to the good Senator, if.

I can make a comment. Yeah, labor is going to have their fights and that's okay with me. They'll figure that out. But I want to talk about the environment. I think at the end of the day this is more about how are we going to transition and what does that look like? Five years is not enough time. I don't think if you set a sunset, we won't get these projects on the ground. We won't really able to that. I'm not in favor of a sunset.

I think we're going to be out quite a ways on this. And so I'm prepared to vote for the Bill the way it is. And then labor needs to go to Labor Committee and figure out what they're going to do with labor.

On my part, I think for the environment and for the best for California, if we're going to lead the way, we need to move in this direction and we need to move at a faster pace, in my opinion, than we are to help with the environment. And look, we're exporting jobs, all your jobs, to some other place because we're not getting ahead of the curve on the ability to do these new technologies, and we need to do them in California if we're going to show.

So that's where I come from on this Bill, and I'm not so much caught up in the labor part of it. I'm more caught up in how we're going to move forward on the environment. And that's what this Committee really should be focused on, in my opinion. So if you want to know where I'm at, that's where. Thank you, Senator. And I think that they're going to have their fights and they can figure that out someplace else.

But I think we need to get these technologies on the ground and prove to the world that we can actually do these things. Yep. Appreciate that, Senator Hurtado, and then Senator Skinner.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to echo my colleagues and their comments and what they just stated. And quite frankly, climate change is already here and it's already becoming an unfair transition. And so I think we do need to expedite this process of a just transition as much as possible under the circumstances as we can. With all respect, I think that the Bill is in front of us. I definitely don't want to go until midnight. No, that's not, don't worry, Mr. Chair.

And so I would love to, I mean, the Bill is here, and I think that the conversations are going to be ongoing. The negotiations are going to continue to be ongoing. I really would love to just be able to vote on the Bill as it is in front of us. And if it's got the support, then it goes out. And if it doesn't, then it doesn't.

Right.

But then I guess the conversations can continue. But I really think that it's important to move this agenda forward and the conversations to continue to.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Skinner.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And I won't go into too much detail on history. The analysis does a good job of it. But the original Bill that this current Bill references, that was done in 2013. I was a co author, and it was due to a very serious refinery incident at Chevron Refinery in my district.

And what, as the analysis points out, what we had was, and a lot of owners or employers do this, they will go for cheap contract labor, and that cheap contract labor does not meet the safety standards that our skilled and trade labor does.

And we are now expanding into, because the climate crisis, into many new areas of technology, as our chairs pointed out, whether hydrogen, lithium, various other things, all that have, I'm not going to say comparable, but have similar circumstances which could raise safety issues and to ensure that we don't have owners that might have desire to go with the cheap labor that does not have the proper safety training.

I think this kind of Bill is essential, and the analysis raises some legitimate points, but there's nothing in the analysis that would suggest putting the sunset. So that's a little bit. I know that, as you described, was a conversation you've been having, but there's not anything in the analysis that raised that. Now, perhaps you could ask for a report in five years so that there could be some information about whether moving in this direction has caused any problems either. Slowness of the rollout.

Now, of course, I don't want to necessarily recommend that right now because you don't want to add costs to a Bill in a time when we have a shortfall. But that's a method to have the Legislature be updated without necessarily putting in a sunset. But I certainly would not support a five year that is too short. And I'm willing and ready to support the Bill, as is.

Senator Gonzalez.

Now, I would move it, but I think it's appropriate for the chair to.

I appreciate that. Yeah. Thank you very much. And we'll accept the motion when appropriate.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And I came in here again, not prepared to actually vote on the Bill because I hate being in the middle of these jurisdictional issues. But knowing that, especially someone that is an environmental leader, that pushes for the 2035 goals to move us from internal combustion engines over to hydrogen and electric, and really, we're really trying to move the needle as Californians, and we have to do so, Ken, like I always say, with the workforce at the table, we have to do so.

I don't like to be in the middle of fights between my friends at USW or Building Trades, but I know that having the good author, who is the chair of labor, and knowing that I know he's going to do the right thing and continue to talk to our friends on all sides, that I feel comfortable at this point moving this forward and ensuring that we can still have discussions and also understanding the data.

As Senator Skinner mentioned, I think we don't want folks from out of state coming to work on these projects. We definitely don't want that. I think we can all agree on that. We definitely don't want nonunion working on these projects. And we definitely don't want any additional issues with contractors that are going to give us a problem on these very specific projects that are going to really turn the curve on the green economy.

But I'd also like the data on how many steel workers are actually going through the skilled and trained program. What does the program now look like? I haven't even seen it myself. On the labor management side for USW, it'd be great to see what that looks like so we can figure out what the next road ahead could be. But with know would love to move this Bill forward and continue the discussions. And I know, chair, you'll do the same thing as well.

Thank you. All right, look, I think at this point it's a few details, so I feel confident we'll get a meaningful Bill done today by 12 noon, not 12 midnight. So I appreciate the author and your involvement. I'd love to give you the opportunity to close. And with your indulgence, we'll take a vote on this Bill just a little later. Yeah.

Thank you.

Of course, it's been moved, but I'll accept the motion when approved.

Ironically, I'll be chairing the labor Committee next, and just like the rest of you and two or three other committees today. So obviously, our preference would be to call the question now.

But let me say as part of my close that I appreciate the extensive amount of time the chair and the Committee staff put into this, including, I think, an hour and a half in my office talking to people, trying to get to the kernel of something that might get us to the point where we wouldn't be here today talking about an amendment. So as we often hear from other authors at this stage of the game, it's an early and long negotiation.

I think I have a reputation of being diligent and very much in good faith in working with people down the road to try to get to a place where concerns have been resolved. I know the sponsor in the personage of Andrew Meredith was in our discussion, our last discussion, that the chair was alluding to or informing everyone about, and said straight up, if we had the information in the narrowly tailored language that is somehow required not to impact other employees or other workers, that's fine.

We don't have that today. And let me just say straight up, the idea of a five year sunset 10 years after SB 54, when we're really getting the data. Now, the trades have been able to demonstrate with the real data that there's twice as many apprentices now in this space. Apprentices, just workers, apprentices in the space. What the California for all than there was 10 years ago.

And that's a direct effort of that skilled and trade language and Senator Skinner's efforts and other efforts to make sure that the highest standards are at work. So we feel very good about the Bill, where it's at right now, and I'm certainly absent anything specific that we can hang our hat on that works. I would certainly ask the Committee, respectfully asks the Committee to let us move this Bill forward as it's now in print, and we'll keep working on it just like we always do.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Author, Mr. Senator, labor chair. Appreciate it. We will appreciate everyone coming in. And I do kind of reiterate my admiration for the advocacy and the leadership of Andrew Meredith from the trades and Catherine Houston from the steel workers. So stay tuned. We'll get this thing resolved very shortly. Let's go ahead and start with Mr. Chair, if you don't mind. Just a quick question, since I'm new today.

Can you just kind of reiterate, explain the process that you're asking for on this, because this is kind of an unusual order that you're asking for. So if you can just for those of us here, because, look, let's go ahead and do this. I think, as I've been going back and forth with Andrew, he had suggested a 10 year sunset. We want to work out kind of a look back process, like some sort of reporting process. So that's something we want to work out with him.

But I don't think we need to figure out the details on that now. We've gotten the. It goes to approach from here. It goes to probes from here. Yeah, we could take that amendment. Some of us are on approach. Do we want to just go ahead and move it with that understanding? I think, in deference to the author, he did ask for us to. Okay, all right, let's do that. That's fine with me. Yeah. Okay.

Moved.

So moved. Moved.

With the understanding that there will still be discussions for whether there's something to add to inappropriate or not.

Perfect. Okay, let's move with that understanding. Secretary, please call the roll. Okay. File item 10, SB 740. The motion is due, passed to Appropriations Committee. Senators Allen. Aye. Allen. Aye. Dahle. Aye. Dahle. Aye. Gonzalez. Gonzalez. Aye. Hurtado. Hurtato. Aye. Menjivar. Menjivar. I. Jones. Jones. I. Skinner. Aye. Okay, thank you so much. All right, great. That bills out. Great. All right, let's now hear from Senator Wiener, who's here to present SB 270. That's item two in your agendas. Um.

May I proceed? All good.

Thank you. You may proceed, Senator.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today I'm presenting Senate Bill 271st of all. I want to really thank the chair and committee staff for working with us on this Bill. This Bill is follow up to SB 886 from last year, which this committee passed and the Governor signed into law to streamline the approval of student on campus student housing at UC, CSU and community colleges.

We know we have a severe shortage of student housing in our public institutions of higher education, resulting in high rates of student homelessness, and we need to fix that. So this Bill sort of starts the process of doing some adjustments and cleanup to SB 886 to make it as workable as possible. The Bill will adjust the provision of that law, which was an amendment in this Committee requiring lead platinum, changing it to a version of lead gold.

The chair and I have committed to continue to work with each other. We anticipate talking about some potential additional adjustments and cleanup, which we would only include in the Bill with the permission of the Committee as the Bill moves forward. We know from recent actions of this Legislature surrounding some of the fights at UC Berkeley, but that this Legislature highly prioritizes student housing, UC, CSU, community colleges. It's not been a controversial issue.

It's received broad bipartisan support, and I hope that we'll be able to make it even better with SB 270. And again, thank you to the chair and committee staff. Respectfully asked for your. I vote, and I do not think I have a witness today, and so I will leave it in your hands.

All right, thank you so much, Senator. Anyone who wants to voice support for the Bill, express support here. Opposition. Anyone who has opposition concerns. I know we don't have any. All right, let's go to the phone lines. SB 270, anyone who wants to call in and support our opposition of SB 270.

Thank you. If you'd like to have public comment, please press one, then zero on your telephone keypad at this time. And, chair, there is no one queuing up at this time. Please continue.

Okay, let's bring it back to the Members thoughts, questions, concerns. Senator, we'll accept that motion when appropriate. Maybe it's appropriate now. Thank you, Senator, for working with us on this. I think we got to a pretty reasonable place here to ensure that if we're giving flexibility under CEQA, we really want to show serious environmental leadership. We also understand it's hard to get the lead platinum designation before you folks have moved into the building.

And so this is a very reasonable compromise that I'm certainly happy to support. So it's been moved by Senator Hurtadoo, and you may close with me.

I look forward to continuing to work with you and your staff, Mr. Chairman, as we move forward. And I respectfully ask for an ivote.

Thank you, Senator. All right, secretary, please call a roll.

SB 270. The motion is due. Pass to housing Senators Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Dahle. Aye. Dahle, aye. Gonzalez? Hurtado? Hurtado, aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Jones? Jones, aye. Skinner.

Yes. Thank you. That's five - zero. We'll leave the roll open for others to add on as Senator Laird is making his way to the dais. Senator Jones has moved the consent calendar. Okay, what bills are on consent? It's just one Bill. It's SB 659 by Ashby, item five. Secretary, please call a roll.

Okay. Senators Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Dahle. Aye. Dahle, aye. Gonzalez? Hurtado? Hurtado, aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Jones? Jones, aye. Skinner.

Okay, thank you so much. The consent calendar is out, but we'll leave the roll open for a couple of other Members to add on. Senator Laird, thank you so much for being here. You're here presenting item number three. That's SB 508. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you very much. Let me just say first, I'll be accepting the Committee amendments listed on page 6 and 7 of the analysis. And this is simple in goal, but there's a level of complexity to this. And I think at the high level, the real idea is, in general, CEQA is required twice for various people in the cannabis regulatory system on the same project, and we're trying to get it to one.

But overall, the real issue is that as we move into legalized cannabis production in California, there's a whole host of regulatory issues that make it really hard for some of the people trying to enter the system. And we still have competition from those not in the system. And so I think it's incumbent on us to make the system work. And we've been hearing a whole host of bills in the last few days.

I have another one on allowing the Water Board to have the same requirements to go in on an illegal grow that sheriffs have, so there doesn't have to be advanced notice of it. And Senator Caballero, I believe, had another related bill yesterday on the diversion of water. Those are both as much environmental bills as they are drug enforcement bills.

And I think there are some overall difficulties, not just in the regulation that I mentioned, but the system seems to tilt against the smaller growers as opposed to the bigger ones. And that is a goal. And in my district, one of the classic cases is the legacy farmers in the Big Sur area. And they all, by nature of the terrain, small farmers, and yet the system just keeps squeezing them out. And they were squeezed out by Monterey County.

I don't want to lay it on the state. The county initially had a requirement for a few years that you had to do it in a greenhouse, and that helped unused greenhouses. At the same time, it allowed no path for legacy small farmers that are outside, and they have been struggling. So the environmental review is critical, should be completed. But for applicants transitioning their provisional licenses to the annual license, it's time consuming, it's expensive, it's duplicative.

Since environmental review is done at the local and the state level, I authored a similar bill last year, which passed this Committee with unanimous bipartisan support. But since the problem remains as a barrier to entry, I'm here once again. That bill did not make it out of the last process to the floor in the Assembly. And I think one of the, there are a few opposition letters, and I should note that there's concern about corruption. This bill, I don't think, plays to that in any way.

Another item is intent language that was included in a trailer bill that its attempt that no further exemptions be done. This is not an exemption. There is still a requirement that environmental review be done. And in a Senate B and P hearing, oversight hearing a few weeks back, there was a robust conversation about how we can still uphold Proposition 64 environmental protections. There's also a letter that states the problems across the entire system and tries to put them on this bill.

And that's not what this bill is designed to do, although I would be happy to participate in whatever that is. One indicator of the illicit market's threat to the legal and regulated market is millions of dollars, almost 134 allocated in the state budget and past budget to clean up and remediate the environmental impacts. And I worked with that in my prior job. So let me just try to make that presentation as compact as possible. And here to speak in support of the bill is Mark Smith on behalf of the Origins Council, and I would respectfully, at the right time, Mr. Chair and Members, ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Is Mr. Smith here? He's gone to Washington. Wrong capitol. Okay. All right. Anyone else wants to speak in support of the bill? Here we go. You're not Mr. Smith. Maybe you are. All right.

Alicia Priego, on behalf of the California Cannabis Manufacturers Association, in support.

Thank you. Opposition, any concerns?

Here's Mr. Smith.

Oh, here he is. All right. Get those earbuds out.

You guys moved a lot further away from the Capitol. Yeah, sorry about that, Senator Laird. I catch my breath. Chair Allen, Mark Smith on behalf of Origins Council. We've been engaged with the Legislature on CEQA related cannabis policy issues, sorry, since our founding in 2019. Since that time, provisional licensed cannabis operators statewide have been facing ongoing. Man, I got to get in shape. I'm working on that.

Too much cannabis, maybe.

Since that time, provisionally licensed cannabis operators statewide have been facing ongoing licensing insecurity and cyclical existential licensing crisis, all due to the state mandate for site specific CEQA review of every single commercial cannabis licensing project in California and anomalous application of CEQA. Fundamental tools for regulatory efficiency authorized under CEQA for every other industry are denied to cannabis licensing applicants and the local and state agencies that regulate them. Ministerial licensing is off the table. Local general plans and existing zoning codes also off the table.

This disruption to normal CEQA process flow has had a systems wide negative impact on licensing. Five years into legalization, half, half, of the licensed cannabis businesses in the State of California still have not achieved full CEQA compliance and annual licensure. The Committee amendments being considered today significantly undermine the utility of this bill to help our industry achieve CEQA compliance more efficiently, which is clearly needed, as evidenced by licensing statistics to date.

We have watched the Legislature kick this can down the road for five years now, and the problem must be substantively addressed. Senator Laird mentioned the B and P Committee hearing on cannabis oversight. To a person, every individual that came to that Committee to testify spoke about the challenges with CEQA. So if you haven't seen the hearing, I recommend that you do. I ask that you do. I implore you to. Because we know that the system that Prop 64 has created is fundamentally flawed.

We want cannabis farmers to become licensed. They receive state Water Board oversight, they receive CDFW oversight. This is the pathway forward to prevent environmental degradation, to ensure that these folks are good actors in their communities and for the environment. But what are the alternatives? If we close the door to them, where do they go? They've grown for generations. The jobs in the community for other opportunities, particularly on the north coast, don't exist. Ask yourself what happens if we don't create a pathway to legalization and finally get it right. Thank you. I apologize for being late and for being so out of shape.

Oh, you're good. Well done. Appreciate it. All right, so we've heard from supporters. Any additional supporters? Okay. Opposition to the bill? Okay, I think RLF.

Thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee. Alex Leumer on behalf of Resources Legacy Fund, California Trout, Trout Unlimited, the California Coastal Protection Network, the Planning Conservation League, Defenders of Wildlife, the California Native Plant Society, and the Environmental Protection Information Center in respectful opposition. While we greatly appreciate the time and effort staff took on the analysis and proposed Committee amendments, we remain in opposition as this bill would still remove important state oversight, which has proven essential to protect the environment.

And it's inconsistent with the voter intent in Prop 64, as noted in the analysis. So we respectfully ask for your aye vote, and thank you to the Senator for your intent. We share your intent to try and see a successful legal market, and we hope we can continue to work with you to make that happen.

Okay. Are you feeling, I mean, obviously there are some important amendments on the environmental side that I think at least meet a lot of your key goals. Certainly hope to keep working together as the bill moves forward. Other folks who want to raise concerns about the bill?

Hi, Erin Woolley on behalf of Sierra Club California. We agree with the comments previously made, also in opposition.

Okay, thank you. Let's go ahead and go to the phone lines. SB 508, folks who want to raise concerns or support for the bill on the phone lines.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd like to queue up for 508 in support, please press one, then zero at this time.

No? No one in the queue? Okay.

And one moment, please. We do have one that's queuing up last moment. One moment. And we're going to go to line number 57. 57, your line is open.

Good morning, Members of the Committee. Sam Rodriguez, Policy Director for Good Farmers Great Neighbors based in Santa Barbara County, representing outdoor sun-grown cannabis farmers in strong support of SB 508.

Where is it?

Mr. Chair, we have nobody else in queue at this time.

Thank you so much. Okay, great. Let's bring it back to the Committee for conversation. Thoughts, comments? Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a broad question on how you respond to the opposition. And I know you've been working with them, and I know this is well intended. But specifically, as Resources Legacy Fund notes, the operations can cause damage. A lot of the application could be poorly cited in some cases. And then they also referenced the 2021 cannabis budget trailer bill about the Legislature not seeking additional cannabis CEQA exemptions. So on those two fronts, if you can address that.

I have to apologize because I addressed those in my opening statement.

I'm sorry I was gone.

But let me repeat them.

Okay, great.

Let me repeat them. The 2021 budget trailer bill language implied or stated, there will be no further exemptions. This is not an exemption. This goes from two CEQA reviews to one. And some of the concerns that exist with your other question is a worry that if there's not adequate CEQA review at the local level that that will be let go at the state level if you narrow the number of CEQA reviews. And I think it's really clear, Department of Fish and Wildlife, their process is not really included in this directly. They still do it.

And the Department of Cannabis Control has made it clear they review everyone, and they make sure in their own way that it is adequate. And I think that is the nature of some of the environmental opposition, is they will call out two or three counties in particular that they think there is inadequate local control. And I think this bill does not make that the last word in the process.

And my exasperation with some of it is, and I also said in the opening, is that there's a broader critique of the system and they're trying to load that entire critique on this bill. And this bill is trying to address the duplicating environmental review, not the overall system, although I am totally open to working on that and believe that some things need to be addressed. And then the other half of that is, is that I'm looking for practical, tangible solutions.

If you identify that as a problem, and you don't think this bill deals with it, what is the path? And we're two years into this, and they say, oh, you might want to go over here, you could consider this. That's not good enough. If you have a problem with how we are trying to take two reviews and get them to one and make this system work, what is the alternative for making the system work?

Because there's a certain urgency out there, particularly among the small growers that just can't navigate the system. And I, maybe unfairly, read some of this as, well, we really don't care. The initiative was written this way. And if it really disadvantages the small growers, that is not our problem. And so we're trying to address this. And with the amendments that I happily took, some of my supporters on this bill were not very happy because they said, once again, you're just getting lost in the process.

And in the end result, we're not there. And so those are the issues. And that's why I'm continuing to work on this. I want to make sure that if there are critiques, it's not enough to just make the critique. What can you suggest that we can actually do to address this problem? Because there's going to be a time if we don't address it that people are going to say, what happened? Why did all these people go under? Where were you? Well, that's the debate right here, right now. And so actually, I'm happy you weren't here for the opening because it allowed me to make that statement.

And you had a great statement. So thank you for that. I know you'll continue working with both sides of the issue, and I thank you for bringing this forward.

Thank you. And I think the fact that this bill moves along, and hopefully it will today, will send the signal that there's seriousness about working on this and that some people that maybe have not engaged in a serious way, will engage in a serious way because we welcome it. We're open to it. We want to do it.

Hi, Senator. I know our offices have been talking about this. I'm having some difficulty in my district. I represent a majority Latino district that every time I'm in the district, I hear concerns from students, from parents that the review of these locations aren't tough enough. The impacts that they're seen in my district are outweighing what, you know, supportive of the spot businesses and the cannabis business as a whole in California.

But when you say that there's no exemption here, what I read, you go from two to one. You're exempting one. So by definition, there is an exemption to CEQA because you're removing one. That's how I'm reading. You know, your points regarding the broader critique being piled into this bill. I can respect that. But at the same time, this is included. This is part of the broader critique. And trying to adjust, or trying to address step one, or skipping the addressing step one of.

I do recognize that, in the past two years, or it's been two years, we haven't really had done this right. I personally think, in my opinion, that we should address that, first, before skipping a couple of steps and removing a review. This additional review, that could perhaps, this oversight is in place to catch some of the things that aren't being caught in the local level. There's a lot of critique in my local districts, in my local municipalities, of it not being adequately done. All that to say, all that rambling, just to say that, for me, it's a little difficult given my district and just giving my constituents concerns around this.

Well, let me say, on the very first part of your statement, we just have a disagreement. I think requiring that there's an absolute environmental review is not an exemption. It is just making that environmental review workable. And on the discussions with the Department of Cannabis Control over the last year, they have been very clear that regardless of the outcome of this bill, they do a hard review in a way that these issues get addressed.

And as I said earlier in the debate, this is particularly true in a few places. And that is driving a lot of the concern about this bill, is there are a few counties where they believe that there's more of a textbook case that they're not doing an adequate review. And there have been a few counties that keep passing or not passing their own initiatives that sort of color this. And so what we really want to do is make sure there is a thorough review just once.

That's the deal. And if it's not at the local level, then let's have it be there at the state level with what they do. And they, the Department of Cannabis Control has been a strong partner in this bill, advising us, giving technical advice, because they want to make it work. And they really see what's happening. They see that a lot of people are going to be driven out of the system, and they're almost entirely the small people.

And so we are trying to make sure there's a review, and a strong review, just not multiple reviews that price people out of being able to participate and only leaves the big corporate people as the ones that are in this system. And you're not alone. It seems ground zero for a lot of this is Santa Barbara County, and I hear from them in many ways. Mendocino is another place, and they keep voting on things. And so it's trying to figure out how to have something that works for everybody and still addresses some of these individual situations. And we will be happy to work with you on that.

Next. Okay, you're mulling. We'll be here till early, yeah. at least, well, yeah, probably 12, so, maybe less. Oh okay.

I'm going to move the Vice Chair and that's it. Not going to question you at all. Alright.

Man. I need to be doing more bills today.

Yeah, don't get any ideas. Okay. So it's been moved by Senator Dahle. Thanks for working with the Committee.

And let me just say in closing, I appreciate the work with the Committee and I appreciate some of the comments.

And I would really like to work with people about specific things that they think would make this work and I appreciate all the exchanges. I requestfully, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, it's been moved. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll leave the roll open for folks to add on. Thank you. Okay, I see Senator Caballero here. She's here to present item number one. Thank you. You may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Senators, for the opportunity to present SB 23, which seeks to provide the framework for California to streamline the regulatory permitting process for water supply and flood risk reduction projects without compromising environmental protection. First, I would like to thank the Committee for their work on the bill and the Chair for all of the input. And I will be accepting the Committee amendments which addressed, I think, a majority of the concern that are outlined in the analysis.

From 2020 to 2022, California experienced the driest three year period on record. About three short months ago, this prolonged drought was met with a series of atmospheric rivers and a bomb cyclone that brought significant amounts of rain and snow, leading to widespread flooding, residential and agricultural property damage, and evacuation orders for tens of thousands of residents. And in my district, there were farm workers that were required to leave their homes, and many of them have still not returned because of the flooding.

The havoc of the last few months has resulted in at least 22 fatalities in the state and thousands of displaced individuals and families, not to mention millions of dollars of agricultural land inundated with contaminated water, delaying production. And this on the back of hundreds of acres of land that was fallowed last year because we didn't have enough water. In Merced County alone, nearly 3000 households had residential property damage, including their vehicles, requiring them to file for assistance through FEMA.

In Monterey County, over 2,500 residents have had to leave their homes, with hundreds ending up in shelters for an extended period of time. As I said, mostly farm workers. Children's education has suffered. Families have suffered. Businesses have suffered. I bring these figures to light because, while you will hear much about how the outlook of our state's water supply is still not normal, storms of this impact have a tangible effect on people's lives in a drastic and sudden manner.

Not to mention the areas in the state that are more susceptible to flooding overlap where California's lowest income communities are located. And if that isn't enough that this snow melt, if it happens fast enough, those same communities will be inundated because we haven't done the work that we need to do to clear the channels and to make sure that we don't have the flooding that we saw when the cyclone came through. It is simply not accessible. Did I say something?

It's all of a sudden the Committee emptied out. Anyway, as is simply not acceptable for California's most vulnerable populations to bear the majority of the risk when flooding cannot be properly mitigated. The unnecessarily lengthy permitting process for water supply and flood risk reduction projects is a contributor to this propensity. The state's long and expensive permitting process is not a well kept secret. Delays in permitting for water supply and flood protection have affected projects in every single one of our districts.

Despite the need for oversight, the permitting process is mired in delays caused by overlapping jurisdictions, confusion over what's required for a completed application, and state agency and project applicant staffing issues. As delays occurs, cost increased, and depending on the size of the project, delays can ultimately cost water ratepayers and taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. This regulatory gridlock can also lead to worse environmental outcomes and delay projects that will benefit aquatic and natural resources.

The state has invested billions of dollars in water infrastructure projects in recent years, which will be essential to managing extended dry conditions and intense precipitation events. But we must recognize that improving water supply reliability and ecosystem resiliency through the development of new infrastructure requires efforts to modernize regulatory schemes. That's the reason that SB 23 was introduced, which will provide comprehensive solutions to streamline a multitude of projects meant for various hydrological events.

SB 23 identifies opportunities to improve and streamline the regulatory permitting process while preserving established environmental protections so these critical infrastructure projects are built at the pace and scales needed to prepare for climate change, protect families and businesses that are affected by the delays inherent in our current system. Streamlining projects incentivizes investment in water projects. Infrastructure investment not only prepare California for changing climate, they generate jobs and contribute to state and local economies through taxes and purchasing of products and services.

Streamlining projects will help to stabilize our water supply, and most important, they will help to keep our community safe. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your. aye vote today. With me to testify in support are Adam Quinonez with the Association of California Water Agencies and Mary Lynn Coffee, speaking on behalf of Valley Water District.

Yeah.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Adam Quinonez on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies, representing over 460 public water agencies throughout California. I want to thank the Senator for her continued leadership on water issues in general, but certainly on this bill. I think she covered really the need for this bill really well. But since I have my two minutes, I will use it. We are all too aware of the impacts of climate change on water management.

As the Senator said, from one of the driest periods on record to historic rainfall and snowpack, the state has to respond now. If I can draw a comparison with the energy sector and our response to climate change, what we did was we really encouraged conservation, which is critically important in the water sector as well. But we also built hundreds and hundreds of projects throughout the state to create a system that can respond to climate change, and we have to do the same in the water space.

And that's really what this bill does. It provides a mechanism for the state to build resilient water management projects at the pace and scale that is needed to respond to climate change. The bill does this in a few ways. First, by addressing the permit application process, it establishes some timelines between the project applicants and the state agencies. Oftentimes there are lengthy delays, as the Senator mentioned, in this process. Extensive back and forth. And this bill would establish a really clear process and timelines for that.

Second, the bill would direct the water boards to implement the dredge and fill procedures, including provisions that are already there, to streamline the application process. And finally, state agency staffing and resources is often an issue to expedite permitting. This bill would create a mechanism where project applicants could provide resources, funding, for example, to hire additional staff to process applications more quickly. Importantly, what this bill intends to accomplish is within the existing regulatory permitting framework.

SB 23 would not shortcut or compromise any steps in the CEQA process. It is not about lessening environmental review. It's about building water projects that will help communities throughout the state to achieve water resilience. And, Mr. Chair, if I may, we are working on a water bond for 2024 with you and the Assembly as well. The funding is great, but we have to actually get projects built in a timely fashion to address the impacts of climate change. So with that I urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Other folks want to voice support?

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members. I'm Mary Lynn Coffee, representing Santa Clara Valley Water District, or Valley Water. For 2 million people of Santa Clara County, Valley Water is the first line of defense against drought, groundwater overdraft, intensified urban flooding, and sea level rise. We strongly support this bill. First, let me touch on the importance of timely permitting sea level rise adaptation projects that are critical to protect many of California's most disadvantaged.

In the Bay Area, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has estimated the cost of these projects through 2050 at 146 billion dollars. The sheer number of projects identified through this effort is daunting, but delays in permitting and implementing the projects increase costs by tens of millions of dollars per year of delay, and more importantly, leave flood prone communities at an unacceptably high risk of loss of life and property. Valley Water is on the front lines of this issue with its South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Project.

Not only is more state and federal funding urgently needed for this project, but also, we need to expedite permitting to prevent further delay related costs and to protect South Bay communities before harm strikes. Adaptation projects typically take more than a decade to design, publicly vet, environmentally review, and then we have 3 to 10 years of permitting before project delivery. To help address this delay, SB 23 sets a generous 405 day timeline for an action on a 401 cert.

The timeline ensures that both the local agency proponents and state permitting agencies are working expeditiously to protect communities. There's also an additional 90 day extension of the timeline if final CEQA documents not submitted in a timely way to the water boards. This timeline is sufficient even for complex projects and is far more generous than the 365 day presumptively reasonable period for issuing 401 certifications under the federal Clean Water Act. That presumptively appropriate...

OK, your time period time is running real short.

Very good. Valley, for these reasons, to get that expediting, Valley Water respectfully urges your aye vote on SB 23 to deliver critical climate change adaptation projects.

Thank you. Those wishing to speak in support, name and association, please.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Erika Romero on behalf of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in support.

Heidi Hannaman on behalf of the California Special Districts Association in support.

Thank you.

Erik Turner with on behalf of Turlock Irrigation District and Eastern Municipal Water District and Santa Margarita Water District in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Brenda Bass, California Chamber of Commerce and Western Growers, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Syrus Devers for the Municipal Water District of Orange County, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District, in support.

Thank you.

Mike Robson on behalf of the Rancho California Water District, in support.

Thank you.

Morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Glenn Farrel on behalf of the State Water Contractors and CalDesal in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kristin Olsen on behalf of San Luis Delta-Mendota Water Authority, United Water Conservation District, and San Diego County Water Authority, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Mark Fenstermaker for Sonoma County Water Agency in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Catherine Freeman on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support, thank you.

Thank you.

Morning. Dawn Koepke, McHugh Koepke Padron, on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, in support.

Thank you. Okay, we will go to opposition, a total of four minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, Members. Doug Obegi, on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Really appreciate the efforts of the Committee staff and the author's amendments, or the author's willingness to accept those amendments, which did address many of our concerns. However, we do, NRDC remains opposed to SB 23 even with the amendments, and I want to highlight three concerns.

Effective permitting of water supply and flood control projects is critical to protect the environment, downstream communities, and ratepayers. We all have numerous examples of poorly designed projects that have failed, projects that have run over budget, and our ecological crisis throughout the Bay Delta is primarily the result of unsustainable water diversions, and poorly designed projects could worsen those problems. First, in our view, the bill does not adequately ensure that projects not just mitigate impacts, but actually avoid and minimize those impacts.

That's critical because avoidance and minimization is essential. Second, the project doesn't adequately ensure that projects actually comply with state water quality standards and other appropriate requirements of state law, as state and federal law both require. Third, the timelines for permitting in this bill are actually shorter than what's required by the Permit Streamlining Act. And there's a good example in the Committee analysis of where public comment was essential to avoid a water supply project that could have contaminated drinking water for decades.

And by limiting that opportunity for public comment and public review, we're worried that this leads to worse outcomes. We appreciate the author's willingness to address these concerns and work with us, but unfortunately, we respectfully oppose the bill. Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Kim Delfino, and I'm here on the behalf of Defenders of Wildlife. First, let me thank Chairman Allen and the Committee staff and the author for the discussion around the amendments. They do address a number of the concerns we've raised. However, we must remain opposed to the bill. Mr. Obegi spoke to a number of the concerns that we also share, but I want to speak specifically to the wetlands procedures portion of the bill.

Namely, the bill continues to put forward a misinterpretation of how we proceed with the use of watershed plans. When the watershed provisions were being discussed as part of the larger compromise to get to the wetland procedure regulations in 2019, the intent was to allow the regional board to use an HCP or an NCCP as a substitute for the alternatives analysis and to inform mitigation of specific projects only if certain findings are made.

The procedures were not written to have the board to make some kind of finding that an HCP or an NCCP is a plan writ large, independent of a specific project, and thus could be used for all projects. That would require the board to somehow forecast that all the possible projects that could come before it in the HCP area, and that's, frankly, not possible.

Instead, the intent was for the project proponents to include an HCP and an NCCP in their individual project application with an explanation that it was a watershed plan and it could be used to satisfy the alternatives analysis and mitigation requirements for that specific project. Why is this important? It's because we have less than 10% of our wetlands left in California, and we must be focusing on avoidance first, minimization next, and then mitigation.

HCPs and NCCPs sometimes will not adequately analyze these types of wetlands, and they will jump immediately to the mitigation part of the analysis. Unfortunately, we're concerned that SB 23 continues this misinterpretation. And then, therefore, for that reason and the reasons given by Mr. Obegi, we must respectfully continue to oppose and urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Other folks want to raise concerns about the bill or voice their opposition, me too.

Alex Leumer on behalf of California Trout, Trout Unlimited, and the Environmental Law Foundation in opposition.

Rebecca Marcus representing the Union of Concerned Scientists opposed. Thank you.

Erin Woolley on behalf of Sierra Club California, also in opposition.

Okay, thank you. Let's go to the phone lines, SB 23.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, if you are in opposition or in favor of SB 23, press 1-0. We first go to line 64. One moment, please, and go ahead. One moment. They remove themselves from the queue. I apologize. We will start with line 19. You may go ahead.

Danielle Blacet-Hyden with the California Municipal Utilities Association in support.

Next we go to line 61.

Good morning. Rebecca Baskins, on behalf of the growers, California Citrus Mutual and other ag organizations in support. Thank you.

Next we go to line 43. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Hannah Davidson with the Hidden Valley Lake Community Services District in support.

And next we go to line 62. Go ahead, please.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Eric O'Donnell, on behalf of the Yorba Linda Water District, in support.

Next we go to line 63. Go ahead.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the Cities of Santa Rosa and Belmont in support.

And we will have one final person. One moment, please. And line 37. Go ahead, please.

Yes, my name is Andria Ventura with Clean Water Action in respectful opposition.

And there are no other comments. Please continue.

All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Let me just start by. I want to personally thank the author and then specifically author staff, Michelle, and the sponsors for working with the Committee staff and the opposition to substantially improve the bill. My concerns about the bill's provisions that would limit the state's authority to impose terms and conditions to mitigate adverse environmental impacts of water infrastructure projects have been addressed.

I believe that the sponsor's intent to codify the processes and the procedures has been realized with the Committee amends. I understand that there are still some concerns out there on the opposition side. We've heard them. We certainly want to continue to work with you on those issues, but I think you've made substantial improvements from an environmental perspective with the amendments that we've all worked on together. But I certainly welcome kind of continued dialogue as the bill moves along.

But I'm certainly comfortable with supporting it today with the changes that have been made. And special shout out to Michelle for all her work. Okay. Questions, thoughts, concerns, issues. All right. So moved by Senator Dahle. Senator, you may close.

Thank you very much. And I appreciate the comments. Just know that I'm at the table. I want to get this right. I'm not interested in doing anything that's going to hurt the environment. Merced County, Merced and parts of Madera County have part of the wetlands that is, I believe it's the biggest wetlands in the State of California, although I think other people want to take that credit. A great partnership has been created to create that wetlands.

There's federal land, there's state land, and then there's private land that has been committed because of duck hunters. And so it's significant. It's beautiful. People don't even know it's there. I'm the last person that would want to do anything that would affect that. I understand explicitly the benefit that wetlands have to our communities, and I'm totally committed to it. So I will commit to continue to have this dialogue.

We want to get this right, but we also need to move some of the permit process along so that we can protect our communities, in particular our most vulnerable farm worker communities that were inundated because of our lack of permit. So respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Okay, let's call the roll.

SB 23, motion do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. Senators Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Dahle. Dahle, aye. Gonzalez. Hurtado. Menjivar. Menjivar, aye. Jones. Skinner.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much, Senator. Let's let Senator Grove present. Some point very soon I'm have to go present a bill over in Govern 5, but let's start with you, Senator Grove.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Today I'm presenting SB 651. I'd like to thank the Committee chair and staff for working with my office on the Bill. I'm happy to accept the Committee amendments to limit the Bill to projects under Sigma. SB 651 is amended to shorten the judicial review period to 270 days for projects outlined in Sigma GSPs and GSPs that DWR may order to be adopted. Sigma requires groundwater sustainability agencies to adopt groundwater sustainability plans that will reduce pumping to sustainable levels by 2040.

Many GSAs plan to reach this goal by implementing groundwater recharge and surface water projects. Unfortunately, many gsas have failed to achieve their short term implementation goals because of the drought and long, drawn out litigation. What this Bill calls for is not an exemption like the governor's emergency Executive order last year, where we started, but rather it calls for a simple streamline for judicial reviews that occur when the party challenges the results of an environmental impact report.

I credit the Senator from Bieber for running the measure to use for Prop one projects, two of which are in Kern and surrounding districts, Kern, fan and willow Springs. I'm also seeking to pass a similar measure that will streamline the judicial review process for projects outlined in the gpss and the DWR projects that address Sigma. We shouldn't wait to capture much needed water for our environment, food production and communities. And as I said many, many times before, and I'll say again, food grows where water flows.

And I do have the opportunity and the privilege of representing the top three food producing counties in the world, I'm advocating for a proactive approach that will speed up the construction of our critical water projects. The longer we wait, the less water our growers, communities, and habitats will have captured to survive the dry years. SB 651 will help GSAs build the projects that we need with Sigma compliance and to have them reach that compliance window in just 17 years.

Last month, six plans were deemed inadequate by DWR, meaning that they are a threat to state control. This includes Tulare Lake, Kuia, Tuli and Kern River sub basins, all within or near and around my district. The GSAs believe that SB 651 will help achieve the priorities that they've set forth to reach the sustainable yield while not hindering the environmental quality. The Bill is also supported by nearly two dozen state and local agricultural and business organizations and water districts.

Members, I ask for your I vote on SB 651. Unfortunately, my main witness in support of representing Valley Water Air coalition had a personal emergency this morning and was unable to attend. But testifying in place is David Edwards. David and his family are in the agricultural business in Merced County and have operated in this industry over 50 years. His knowledge of the water industry and water issues has earned him a full ride scholarship to McGeorge University Law school and hopes to be an environmental attorney.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. As somebody who has been involved in agriculture in the Central Valley my entire life, I asked the Committee to support SB 651. Historical lack of water, burdensome regulations and thin profit margins are all too common in our industry. I understand the need for CEQA to apply to water supply projects. However, it should be done in a way fast enough to address water shortages and dry years.

Thank you may proceed.

SB 651 will expedite the judicial review process for water projects relating to sigma. As sigma is an emergency, it should be treated as such in the court of law. Gsas need expediency for environmental impact reports, negative declaration and mitigated negative declaration approvals without going through the delay and expense of a long and burdensome lawsuit. This Bill isn't about ending or restricting a party's ability to sue. It's about making sure we get our projects built on time to comply with Sigma.

As the Senator said, we have 17 years to achieve sustainability in our plants. The chance that at least a few projects will be tied up in secret litigation across those 17 years is high. Our farms need water and they can't afford to wait years for a lawsuit to finish in order to put a shovel in the dirt. SB 651 gives local gsas the ability to avoid being classified as probationary by the Department of Water Resources.

Prioritizing seeker related legal challenges in these instances will allow gsas to continue making decisions about what actions best represent their water users without the threat of state intervention. This legislation is needed and is for these reasons that I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Other witnesses in support, name and Association.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kristen Olsen, on behalf of the San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority and United Water Conservation District, in support.

Good morning. Brenda Bass, on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce and western growers, in support.

Thank you. Seeing none approaching witnesses in opposition. Two minutes.

Good morning, chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Aaron Wooley. On behalf of Sierra Club California and also on behalf of NRDC, we appreciate the Committee's work to clarify the definition of projects that would be eligible under this Bill. However, Sierra Club remains opposed and still has concerns regarding the streamlining of the CEQA judicial review process.

CEQA plays a critical role for environmental review by facilitating public transparency, holding the government accountable to comply with laws to protect environmental and public health, and ensuring that environmental justice and equity are part of the decision-making process. CEQA requires that a project proponent fully analyze, publicly disclose and mitigate significant effects of these projects. Judicial review is available where CEQA has been deemed to be inadequate, such as when significant environmental impacts are not analyzed or not properly mitigated.

The judicial review process acts as CEQA's enforcement mechanism and ensures that the review process is properly followed, including addressing important public health and safety requirements. It's important to understand the full impacts of new water projects, including impacts on streams and rivers that have already been heavily affected by existing diversions. And as the Committee analysis notes, CEQA review is already prioritized in our courts. Adding new restrictive timelines to streamline CEQA judicial review undermines transparency and puts unnecessary pressure on our court system.

California must maintain strong environmental review, including full and robust judicial review processes for new water projects. Thank you. And respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you, other folks who want to raise concerns. Opposition to the Bill. All right, let's go to the phone lines on SB651.

For SB651 If you are in support or opposition, press 10. One moment. We go to line 70. Please. Go ahead. Line 70, your line is open. Do you have your phone muted? Yeah, we can barely hear you. We will move on to line 69.

Good morning. Rebecca Baskins, on behalf of California Wallet Commission, California Fresh Fruit Association, and other ag organizations and support, thank you. And no other comments. You may continue.

All right, let's bring it back to the Committee for thoughts discussion. It's moved by Senator Dahle if you'd like to close.

Thank you. Thank you again, Mr. Chair and the Committee staff for working with me on this Bill. And just a few comments to the opposition. Our farmers, families, communities, homes and our wetlands are either in severe drought or underwater. And we have the ability to not limit CEQA and not stop CEQA review and still have an impact on public comment and all of those things.

But the judicial review process, some of these cases could be tied up for the 17 years that these gsas are going to be required to have their plans complete before state takeover. So, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. All right, let's call her off.

SB 651. The motion is do passes amended to Appropriations Committee. Senators Allen?

Aye.

Allen aye. Dahle.

Aye.

Dahle aye. Gonzalez.

Gonzalez I. Hertato.

Minjivar. Aye. Minjivar I aye. Jones.

Aye.

Jones, I. Skinner.

Okay, thank you. All right, let's ask Senator Gonzalez to present her SB 84. This is item 11 in your agendas, members.

It's my last bill. I'm so excited. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I'm here today to present SB 84, which will extend the existing funding for California's Clean Transportation program and Air Quality Improvement Management program until 2035. As you all know, the transportation sector is the single largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions and harmful pollution in California. And the only way we can address this issue and meet our ambitious climate goals is by supporting the innovative programs that can help drive the decarbonization.

Since their inception in 2007, these programs have directed over $1.0 billion of funding to incentivize manufacturers to develop new technology and infrastructure and to help establish markets for the millions of zero emission vehicles that are needed to meet our statewide goals.

SB 84 will also prioritize equity by requiring 50% of the CTP funds to be spent on programs and projects that directly benefit or serve residents of disadvantaged communities and also support the deployment of medium and heavy duty vehicles, as well as fill the gaps in light duty vehicle infrastructure. I hope you will join me in ensuring the most impactful and technology transforming programs do not cease to exist in such a critical time.

Testifying in support today, I have Orville Thomas, the State Policy Director with Calstart, as well as Mr. Bill McGovern, Policy Director for Coalition for Clean Air, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good morning, committee members and Chair, Orville Thomas, Calstart. Really want to emphasize the importance of these reauthorized funding programs. The programs would be imperative to continue California's march towards its ambitious climate goals, and we know how important they are given the uncertainty that we see in the budget having these programs that provide long-term financial programs and incentives to zero-emission trucks, zero-emission infrastructure would be ideal for achieving some of our equity and climate goals.

I want to focus just really quickly on some of the issues that have been brought up in other committees, namely the deemphasis of hydrogen. This program reauthorization would not cut hydrogen out. It would make the program pool apply more widely so that they could have a larger bucket to apply for the clean transportation programs. So as Calstart is agnostic, we have several hydrogen members as well as battery electric.

We want to make sure that we emphasize that we think having hydrogen and battery electric both compete for the same pool of dollars is great for the state, and it would advance the best projects forward. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vice Chairman. Bill Magavern, speaking on behalf of the Coalition for Clean Air and also the Charge Ahead California Campaign in strong support.

As the Senator Gonzalez said, these programs have a proven track record, and she's making some important updates in the programs, particularly with the focus on equity. We are very pleased that the bill guarantees that at least half of the funding in the clean transportation program would go to those in disadvantaged and low-income communities. Those are the folks that are bearing the worst burden of our air pollution and climate crises. So it's important to invest in cleaning up transportation in those communities.

In addition, like Calstart, Coalition for Clean Air supports both battery electric and fuel cell electric technologies as zero-emission solutions. So we agree with the approach of the bill that both technologies would be funded. The Energy Commission would have the discretion in deciding the balance, and it's important to understand the scope. So in California, there are roughly 100 battery electric cars for every fuel cell electric car. So we need to expand the charging and fueling for both.

But if we give a carve-out to one technology that takes away from the other. So we think the technology-neutral approach of this bill is best. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, let's hear from other folks who want to voice support for the bill.

Melanie Morales with the Greenlining Institute in support.

Erica Romero on behalf of Valley Clean Air Now in strong support.

Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists and CALPIRG, in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dan Jacobson, Environment California, strong support.

Morning, Chairman and members David Bunn, representing California Electric Vehicle Charging Association in strong support. And also today representing the California Electric Transportation Coalition. Strong support.

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

Dan Chia for Flo EV Charging in support.

Chris Zgraggen with Aprea and Mecheli on behalf of Chargepoint in support. Thank you.

Okay, great. Let's go to the phone lines. This is SB 84. Any thoughts from the phone lines? No, oppostion.

Ladies and gentlemen.

No. I'm so sorry, Mr. Moderator. Sorry about that. We have to go to opposition. I apologize. Let's hear from opposition. Sorry.

Good morning. I'm Jordan Curley. On behalf of the California Hydrogen and the California Hydrogen Business Council, who are both opposed to SB 84, unless it's amended to allocate 30% of program dollars for a total of 300 million to create a statewide and self-sufficient fueling network of 1000 stations. While it's exciting to see the state making serious infrastructure investments to help reach our zero-emission goals, we must recognize that investments in hydrogen have fallen significantly behind.

For every $100 the state spends on zero-emission infrastructure, less than four of those dollars are for hydrogen infrastructure. The massive investment disparity is even with the 20% hydrogen allocation mandated in current law, we cannot rely on a clean transportation program that does not continue to specifically allocate funding for hydrogen. The state recognizes that hydrogen is a critical part of California's transition to zero-emission vehicles.

CARB's advanced clean cars package states that we will need a minimum of 17% of Zev fleets to be fuel cell by 2034, a total of 1.7 million vehicles, which will require well over the 1000 stations. We are at a critical point to ensure our success for generations to come. We will not reach our goals unless we make meaningful and serious investment now in hydrogen fueling stations.

So we want to thank the author for continuing to work with us and the committee, and we're hopeful that we can get to a place where we can see some specific dollars set aside so we can catch up where we are on needing to be for hydrogen infrastructure.

Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Victoria Rodriguez with Nielsen Merksamer, on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation and respectful opposition unless amended.

Great. All right, anyone else? Okay, now we go to the phone lines. SB 84, support and opposition.

Thank you. We go to line 73 first. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Christina Scarring for the Center for Biological Diversity, in support.

And next we go to line 52. Please go ahead.

Good morning. This is Mariela Ruacho with the American Lung Association in support.

And next we go to line 72. Please go ahead.

Yeah, my name is Stephen Rosenbaum, representing Climate Action California in support of SB 84.

And there are no other comments. You may continue.

All right, let's bring that in back to the Committee for questions. Comments? Thoughts? Okay. I'm happy to support your Bill. I'm not going to ask our poor downturn. Where are you on this? Okay. Are you allowed to move your own Bill? No. We'll take a motion when we caan. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Appreciate that. Let's give you the opportunity to close.

I just want to say thank you for entertaining this and thank you for the Committee analysis. And I want to thank my Mr. McGavin and Mr. Thomas for coming forward. And we'll continue to work with our friends in hydrogen, of course. We want to make sure, again, that this is technology neutral. I keep saying that. I know we're overemphasizing that.

But it's really important as we're decarbonizing, that we're really allowing all both electric hydrogen to really play a significant role in the decarbonization, but at a pace that's equal. So with that, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote. And I really look forward to these conversations as they move ahead.

Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Okay, secretary, please call the roll.

SB 84 motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. [Roll call].

All right, two to one. We'll let that. We'll leave that open for folks to add on. Now we're going to hear from Senator Eggman, who's here presenting item seven. That's SB 687.

Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. SB 687 concerns the health of the California Bay Delta and California's water supply. Bay Delta covers over 1600 acres square miles and is the largest estuary on the West Coast, home to nearly 10 million people. The health of the Bay Delta water supply is critical to provide drinking water to over 25 million people and providing 4 million acre feet of water to farmland. It's safe to say it's really important to California's economy.

SB 687 requires that before water can be diverted from the Bay Delta through the Delta conveyance, the water quality plan needs to be updated and then implemented. It's a common sense approach, and it just makes sense. It hasn't been updated in 30 years, despite having all kinds of conversation about it. And in that time, we've all become really aware of climate change implications and how they affect the state's water supply. The update is long overdue, supposed to be done a long time ago, and it wasn't.

So we understand that the updating the plan is complicated, and we understand that the Delta conveyance is controversial. And this Bill is neither of those. It's just a common sense approach before we decide how much water we're going to take out and how people are going to pay for that, that we should have the water quality plan in place before we do that. And with me here today to testify is Paul Yoder on behalf of the Delta Counties Coalition and Doug Obeji with the NRDC.

Mr. Chairman and Members, good morning. Paul Yoder, on behalf of the Delta Counties Coalition, that's Solano, San Joaquin, Sacramento, Contra Costa, and Yolo. Is a genius, straightforward analysis on this. Thank you to the consultant and the Committee. Quote from it here. SB 8687 simply requires the Bay Delta plan to be updated before the State Water Board considers whether to issue permits for the Delta Conveyance Project and that the plan be implemented if the project is operated.

This should help ensure that any diversions taken through such a project adhere to the applicable water quality and flow standards, thus avoiding further harm to the Delta. I want to quote from that because one of the things that's not in your analysis is the history. The Legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger in 2007 did a deal, and that deal required co-equal goals for the delta and in terms of the health of the Delta.

The deal in 2007 said the state had to protect, restore and enhance water quality in the Delta. Right. The only way to do that is to get this Delta plan finalized and for it to be legitimate. The Delta is the hub of California's water system. It provides two thirds of the drinking water in California. I respectfully urge your Aye vote on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wants to express support for the Bill?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Doug Obeji, on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, in support of the Bill. SB 687 does two things which really helps protect the environment, Delta communities and ratepayers throughout the state. First, it requires the State Water Board to update the long overdue Bay Delta water quality control plan, which sets the rules for how much water has to remain in the Delta to protect fish and wildlife, to protect water quality, and to protect the communities that depend on it.

Right now in the Delta, we have an ecological collapse. Our salmon fishery is closed. We're watching species go extinct, and Delta communities face harmful algal blooms that threaten human health and safety, all tied back to the lack of adequate flows.

What the Bill does is said, we just will do this plan first, and that will enable not just protecting the environment, but it helps ratepayers who are considering paying $16 billion for the Delta tunnel to have a better sense of how much water supply they would get from it and whether it's a good investment. Second, SB 687 requires that if the Water Board does approve, the Bay Delta does approve the Delta Conveyance Project in the future.

The project couldn't be operated if the water quality control plan is not being fulfilled. It simply says, we're going to make sure we don't degrade water quality in the future by diverting water through the north delta, leaving the Delta to turn salty, leaving thousands of family farms, communities, and the environment left behind. The Bill does not affect any other water projects, and it doesn't prejudge the outcome of permitting decisions around the Delta conveyance project or the Bay Delta Conservation Plan.

We appreciate the Committee's analysis, which we thought was spot on, agree this is a common sense Bill and urge your support. Thank you.

Good morning, Senators. Matthew Baker, Policy Director for planning and Conservation League. We're in support, and I just apologize to the author for not being able to do so earlier.

Thank you. All right, opposition. Folks who want to raise concerns about the Bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Jennifer Pierre. I'm the General Manager of the State Water Contractors, and we represent the ratepayers that are proposing to build the Delta Conveyance Project. This morning, the Committee has approved a number of bills that are meant to streamline the permitting process, and this is the exact opposite. This creates hurdles for the Delta Conveyance Project.

We agree with the Senator's desire to see progress made on the water quality control plan, but all of the proponents of the Bill are actually actively opposing not only the voluntary agreement, but the Delta Conveyance Program and the Water Quality Control Plan staff proposal by the State Water Board. We are trying to move that forward, and we agree that there needs to be an update to the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan.

The Legislature has implemented a number of approved a bunch of funding to help advance the voluntary agreement, and we're fully supportive of doing that, and we are working very hard to do that. But we have really strong concerns with the tactics being used in SB 687 to leverage the progress on the Water Quality Control Plan. All of the projects in the delta or in the Delta watershed, including the Delta Conveyance Project, will be subject to the Water Quality Control Plan.

It doesn't matter if it's the 1996 plan, the 2023 plan, or some 2030 plan. We are subject to the requirements of that plan. And the Delta Conveyance Project is a critical climate adaptation strategy for the 27 million Californians that take water from the state water project. We have to get this done.

We saw this year that we had prolonged drought followed by these extreme weather patterns, and the tunnel is meant to address that by moving water when it's available from the delta into storage for use when it's not wet. The longer the project takes to build, the more it's going to cost ratepayers, and we are going to build this project.

California's existing water system and aging infrastructure is poorly equipped to handle climate change, and the DCP is a centerpiece for making sure the state water project continues to operate into the future. There's absolutely no rationale for holding progress on the DCP hostage to leverage other objectives. Both the Water Quality Control Plan and the Delta Conveyance Project processes can and should advance simultaneously without creating undue conflict or challenges for California water management.

For these reasons, we're respectfully opposed to SB 687 and request your No vote on the measure. Thank you.

Other folks who want to raise concerns?

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members of the Committee, Danny Merkley with the Guacaw group, on behalf of Kern County Water Agency and Kings River interests, in opposition.

Dennis Albiani, on behalf of Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency as well as Mesa Water, as well as San Gabriel Valley MWD, in opposition.

Good morning. Brenda Bass, on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce and Western Growers, in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Cindy Tuck with the Association of California Water Agencies, in opposition.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, respectfully opposed.

Nick Cammarota, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, opposed.

All right, let's go to the phone lines, folks who want to weigh in on SB 687.

For those that want to comment, press 10. We go to line 76. Go ahead, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Frank Molina, on behalf of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, in support.

And it will be just one moment. We have a few more lines. Next we go to line 78. You may go ahead.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Sara Medina with Restore the Delta as a Sustainable Agriculture Coordinator, and I support Bill 687. Thank you.

And next we go to line 16. Please go ahead.

This is Roger Mammon. I'm the President of the West Delta chapter of the California Striped Bass Association, and I urge your support of SB 87. Thank you.

And we have no other comments. You may continue.

Okay, let's bring that item back to the Committee for comments, thoughts, questions? Senator Gonzalez would like to move the Bill when appropriate. Maybe the mean. There were objections of the opponents about the tactics being used in the Bill. Would love your serve some of your reactions to some of the opposition arguments that have been raised today.

Sure. I mean, I could just go back to the genius analysis in the Bill that says it's very simple. I mean, I think the opposition talking about tactics, I think what they basically said is they want the water no matter what. And we think that the water quality, we should know what the water quality is going to be and the impact on the community before you just decide to build a conveyance and ship a bunch more water down.

I invite anybody to come to my district in August where the water is fluorescent yellow and green from the algae blooms and the toxicity that remains when you move too much water. And there's not enough in the system to be able to keep things clean. As we've heard, there's our salmon. There's no salmon this year because we took too much water. So the water quality plan was supposed to be done.

We're just saying it should be done before we decide how much water you're going to take and at what times you're going to take it. It seems a pretty straightforward environmental protection Bill, and I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

And you trust the Water Board to do this work?

They are given a specific plan to be able to evaluate the water quality.

Yeah, because that's what we entrust the Water Board to do a lot of important work in general in this space. Great, I appreciate that. I'll take that as your close. Let's call the roll.

SB 687. The motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. [Roll call].

Great. All right, we'll leave the roll open for folks to add on. Let's bring Senator Archuleta up. SB 663, this is item six in your agendas, Members.

Okay, thank you everyone, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members. Today I'm presenting Senate Bill 663 related to California's Renewable Portfolio Standard Program, also known as RPS. I would like to start by thanking the Chair and the Committee Members for working with me and with the amendments. And we have received all your suggestions, and we accept them, and we'll be working closely together. Senate Bill 663 defines renewable hydrogen and adds renewable hydrogen as a renewable energy resource under the renewable portfolio standards.

Senate Bill 663 defines renewable hydrogen consistent with prior RPS legislation and in technology neutral way. California is a leader in renewable energy adoption with one of the most ambitious renewable portfolio standards in the United States. California's goal is to achieve 100% clean electricity by 2045, and its RPS program has been instrumental in achieving this goal. However, in order to meet this target, it is crucial that California includes more renewable hydrogen in its RPS program.

Renewable hydrogen is a sustainable fuel that can be produced from renewable sources such as solar and wind. It's an attractive alternative to fossil fuels because it does not produce harmful emissions when used in fuel cells or combustion engines. One of the main advantages of renewable hydrogen is that it can be stored and transported easily, making it an excellent option for addressing California's emergency energy needs during times of peak demand.

As the state continues to transition to renewable energy resources such as solar and wind, the need for reliable backup power becomes even more crucial. By including renewable hydrogen in the RPS program, California can support the development of backup power systems that are both reliable and sustainable. California's RPS was established over 20 years ago, and while hydrogen was included in the original program, no one could have predicted the advancements in technology hydrogen has made since then.

Senate Bill 663 recognizes that progress has therefore updates and those updates on our RPS code to allow renewable technologies to utilize renewable hydrogen to produce electricity for the renewable portfolio standard. California has a strong, clean energy industry, and by including more renewable hydrogen in the RPS program, California can help create new jobs, stimulate economic growth of the energy sector, and meet our state's ambitious climate goals.

With Senate Bill 663, California will be able to move away from our reliance on natural gas and into a clean, renewable hydrogen future. For these reasons, I respectfully ask your aye vote on Senate Bill 663. And with me today in support of the bill and to answer any technical questions you may have, I have Janice Lin, founder and President of the Green Hydrogen Coalition.

Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon. My name is Janice Lin, and I'm with the Green Hydrogen Coalition. Vice Chair and Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. We're an educational nonprofit that's dedicated to a clean and just energy transition. We're pleased to sponsor Senate Bill 663. Would like to thank Senator Archuleta and Senator Skinner for authoring this important legislation.

I want to share with you that we have been studying the potential for a scaled green hydrogen, renewable hydrogen economy for California for more than three years, and our findings are amazing. What we have found is that we can, at scale, achieve very low cost scaled renewable hydrogen that's competitive with fossil fuels. This is profound because history will take care of itself. So how do we get there? And Senate Bill 663 is absolutely key for the reasons the Senator mentioned.

Importantly, it's technology neutral, so it enables competition and innovation. Secondly, it allows us to repurpose existing infrastructure to produce low carbon, I'm sorry, long duration, zero carbon power on demand. So with this, we can achieve 100% renewables in the power sector. Without an alternative fuel, zero carbon fuel like green renewable hydrogen, we will continue to burn natural gas. Finally, Senate Bill 663 is so essential right now because the power sector is an ideal application to scale demand for renewable hydrogen.

Demand at a single power plant can provide needed certainty to incentivize large scale production, thereby driving down cost. Lower cost will accelerate adoption in other sectors that are really hard to decarbonize, like heavy duty trucking and aviation and terminal operations. The power sector and the changes envisioned in SB 663 are a necessary catalyst for a scaled green hydrogen economy in California. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Those wishing to add on in support, name and association, please. Are you testifying? I'll give you two minutes if you are.

So, Mik Skvarla here on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition, California Hydrogen Business Council. I'll just associate my comments with the Green Hydrogen Coalition. This is a critical step in ensuring investment in California. Right now, California's hydrogen hub is undergoing review at Department of Energy, and hopefully we're one of the eight who are able to win. This tool is critically necessary in order to ensure that those investments are not lost. Thank you.

Thank you. Those who wish to... name and association, please.

Excuse me. Mr. Chair and Members, Mike Monagan on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council in strong support.

Hello. Silvio Ferrari on behalf of Mainspring Energy in support.

Okay, let's now go to the opposition. Let's go to the opposition. Anyone who wants to raise concerns about the bill? No? All right, we'll go to the phone lines.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen on the phone lines, if you wish to speak, please, plus one, then zero on your telephone keypad. And we will go to line number 67. That's 6-7. Your line is open.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Anastasia Kovalchuk, on behalf of Bionergy Association of California in support. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now go to line number 72. That's 7-2. Your line is open.

Hello, this is Steve Rosenblum representing Climate Action California in opposition.

Thank you. We'll go to line number 80. That's 8-0. Your line is open.

Good morning. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in opposition.

Thank you. We have one more. One moment, please. We'll go to line number 60. That's 6-0. Your line is open.

Phillip Vander Klay with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts in support.

Chair, you're out of callers in the queue. Please continue.

All right, let's bring the item back to the Committee for thoughts and questions. Senator Gonzalez.

Yep. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Senator Archuleta, for bringing it forward. Although I know you're taking the amendments that really prevent, I think. Sorry about that. I had it here. The need for hydrogen use by electric generation facilities to meet best practice standards and for leakage risk to be minimized. Correct? Okay.

Yes.

Great. And I thank you for working with the Committee on that because I know as, it's very easy for us to talk about green hydrogen and kind of loosely define it, but I think this provides additional guardrails and additional prevention of any issues. But I look forward to working with you as well on this.

I know you're President of the Hydrogen Caucus, and you're going to continue to do that work, and you're going to continue to figure out how to define green hydrogen in a way that I think will protect our communities, but also get us to that decarbonization goal. So I'll support with the amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. Great. Additional thoughts? Moved by Senator Dahle. Let's call the roll.

I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you for the close. All right.

SB 663, motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Senators Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Dahle. Aye. Dahle, aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Hurtato. Menjivar. Menjivar, aye. Jones. Jones, aye. Skinner.

Okay, we'll leave that open.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members.

Thank you. All right, let's hear from Senator Limone, who's here to present item nine, SB 728.

Thank you, Chair and Senators. First, I would like to thank the Committee staff for their work on this Bill, and I would like to accept their suggested amendments. I would also like to commit to continue to work with the Committee staff on this Bill. SB 728 is a Bill that would transition the state away from a sale or distribution of plastic gift cards by January 1 of 2026 towards more environmentally sustainable gift card options.

And I'm going to have the sergeants actually pass around what the more environmentally options are because there are many that already exist. More than 3.4 billion gift cards were sold in the United States in 2021, according to the Beyond Plastics report. The vast majority of these plastic gift cards, around 70%, are made from Polyvinyl Chloride plastic pvc, considered by Green Space to be one of the single most environmentally damaging of all the types of plastics.

SB 728 focuses the transition away from single-use plastic gift cards on something that's been long and overdue to look at in terms of the supply of the waste for plastic. Many businesses offer more environmentally friendly gift card options, like paper or wood gift cards, or even electronic gift cards that are provided for more eco friendly options. With me today, I have Miha Laguer, a plastic pollution policy manager from the Surf Rider Foundation, to speak in support of the Bill.

Good morning chair and Senators. My name is Miha Laguer with the Surf Rider Foundation. SB 728 is intended to assist in the transition away from single use plastics by focusing on an often overlooked producer of plastic waste. Plastic waste, in general, poses a threat to the environment and communities from its origin to end of life. It's a petroleum based product and releases carbon emissions and other chemicals depending on the type of plastic when created.

Once plastics are created, they do not break down for hundreds and thousands of years and over time break down into very small particles of plastic or microplastics that can be ingested by wildlife or even humans. Polyvinyl chloride plastics, known as pvc, is a type of plastic found in plastic gift cards. It emits carbon dioxide and certain chemicals upon its creation, deemed hazardous by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The specific chemical additives found in PVC can also pose environmental issues and concerns if discarded improperly.

Studies found that when PVC is burned, it releases dangerous chemicals, including dioxin, pyrene and hydrogen chloride that becomes hydrochloric acid in human lungs. The recent disastrous derailment of train cars in the town of East Palestine, Ohio, was filled with vinyl chloride and is yet another reminder that it's imperative that we transition away from single use plastics. Plastic gift cards are also difficult to recycle and PVC products, in general, tend to not be recycled.

The U.S. EPA reported the total amount of PVC recycled in 2018 was negligible. If consumers put their PVC gift cards in a recycling bin, most of the cards will likely end up buried in a landfill or burned in an incinerator due to their small and thin size interacting poorly with recycling machinery.

Many businesses have already made the transition away from plastic gift cards because they're conscious of the destructive nature of plastics, and this Bill further expedites the transition away from pvc gift cards to already available sustainable products. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Other folks who want to weigh in support? I see some people who want to are you in support or opposition? Support. Okay.

Chloe Brown on behalf of Californians Against Waste and Clean Water Action, in support for the reasons listed by Surf Rider Foundation. Thank you.

Great. Thank you.

Belazo Valadez with Azul, in support.

Thank you so much. Opposition to the Bill?

I hate opposing this author's bills. Margaret Gladstein here on behalf of the California Retailers Association, we are unfortunately opposed to this measure. We do appreciate the author's desire to reduce plastic. As many of you know, this Legislature, previous Legislatures have adopted a number of bills to reduce plastic. Retailers are doing all we can to comply with those laws, get ahead of those laws, reduce our use of plastic, and also reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

Some retailers, as the author points out, have indeed moved to non-plastic cards. Those cards do not work in all applications and that's why we have to oppose today. There are times when non-plastic cards cannot be read by the EMV readers. Gas stations are one example. There are other types of examples where those cards won't work or won't work potentially over time. As you may know, California has a law on the books where gift cards cannot expire.

So if a card is a large amount and it somehow gets destroyed over time, the consumer may lose that value of the card. It could be harmed by the reader. You could spill your coffee on it. And my favorite personal thing is to put it in the laundry. So there are reasons why these cards don't work in every time. I would also say that digital cards are not always an option for everybody, given sometimes lack of cell service or not every consumer has a cell phone.

So for these reasons, we unfortunately oppose today. Thank you.

Thank you witnesses. Are you speaking or are you?

Yes, in opposition. Jeff Sievers on behalf of InComm payments, we appreciate working with the Committee staff. Great job of the analysis and the author's office. Thank you very much for taking the amendments on part of it. I'd just like to associate some of the comments. It is not appropriate in all circumstances, but a majority are moving that direction.

I think we're ultimately going to get there as technology continues to evolve, I think the biggest issue still revives those magnetic stripes on the back that just don't adhere well to a lot of other products without putting another plastic chemical over it. And so we're trying to avoid that. It's getting there. It's just taking a little bit longer than I think is anticipated by this Bill. But we hope to keep looking forward with the author and find a solution. So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Chair and Members. Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. We certainly respect the goal from the author, but at this time we are opposed. Thank you.

Okay. Seeing no others here in 1200, we will go to the lines. Moderator, those wishing to speak in opposition and support.

Thank you. If you'd like to speak in opposition or support, you may press one, then zero. At this time. We currently have three already in queue. We will go to line number 86. That's 86. Your line is open. They have removed themselves from the queue. We'll go instead to line number 82. 82, your line is open.

Good morning. Rebecca Baskins, on behalf of the California Grocers Association in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll try line number 86 again. They have re queued. Your line is open.

Kris Quigley with the Plastics Industry Association opposed to the measure.

Thank you. We'll go to line number 84. That's 84. Your line is open.

John Winger, on behalf of California Fuels and Convenience Alliance in opposition.

And we'll go to line number 37. That's 37. Your line is open. Line 37. You may have self muted yourself. Please check your line. Do apologize. We're getting no audio from that line. And with that, there are no further in queue.

Thank you. We will bring it back to the Members. Any questions or concerns? Senator Jones.

Just a couple of questions. Would this apply to the state in using the EBT cards and the multiple millions of support that they've sent out to Californians?

So at this time I'm not aware that it applies to the state. Actually, one of the amendments that this Bill took in this Committee is to clarify the gift cards. And so there are already some things that, believe it or not, say gift cards act like gift cards are used like gift cards that are not in the legal definition.

So I don't want to specifically call out which companies or what, but I don't believe if the Committee would like to clarify, but that is my belief that at this time, that would not.

Okay. And then the second question in your opening statement, and then even the testimony from your witness, mentioned that many companies, and by your display, and I'm actually an REI customer myself, so I get their annual gift card from them. Actually, whatever the rewards card, the industries and a lot of places are already trying to get there also, as demonstrated by the witnesses in opposition. I'm kind of, like, struggling here that the government really needs to get involved in this.

If the market is already moving that way, do we really need to impose and get in the way of this, or can we just let them get there as they get there?

So I would say that the reason that we're involved in this is to help them get there faster. I think we all know that all companies are different, right? Different sizes. Some are already there. That's not a problem. There's others that are working to get there, and there's others that I think are going to probably need some direction from the state.

Even this definition of what a gift card is or is not, and what's included, who is not included, I believe, is more helpful, as opposed to disadvantage, disadvantaging. And I think that this Bill is a work in progress. We will continue to have a conversation about what the date looks like, what this definition looks like. I think that that's something that's needed. And the reason I brought this is because many of you, I mean, they're not going away.

The concept of a gift card is not going away. Many folks already use a card and don't know that it's already made with the better product. But there's still some that are out there. And like I said, because of the legal definition of a gift card, there are some things for some users that will not change at all, specifically ones that may be associated with a credit card.

Okay, thank you.

Any further questions? We will let you close.

I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Do we have a motion? Have a motion? Please call the roll.

SB 728. The motion is do pass as amended, to the floor. [Roll call].

That Bill has whatever votes, and we'll hold it open to get the rest.

Thank you.

And now you are going to present for Senator Stern?

Correct. I'll be presenting SB 720 on behalf of Senator Stern. The author amendments taken in this committee, requested by Senate Transportation, remove Caltrans, who does not have jurisdiction over GHD emissions and narrow the bill's scope to only the largest airports in disadvantaged communities. The Senator believes that these important changes help to address the concerns of the opposition and make this bill stronger.

As amended, the bill would require every airport with 50,000 private flight takeoffs annually in an EJ community to report on the following to CARB on their progress towards net zero GHG emissions to local air quality management districts on their efforts to mitigate EJ and air quality concerns. Lastly, it would require CARB to consider, not mandate, regulations to address the issue of emissions from aviation. Aviation jets and general aviation accounts for 1% of the state's total GHD admissions.

Though this may sound insignificant, this is a massive amount of tonnage per person, considering in the year 2017, less than half of the US population had the opportunity to fly at all. SB 720 gives our state departments key information to identify systems and programs that are successfully reducing the negative environmental and air quality impacts of flying for disadvantaged communities, and empowers CARB to reexamine our regulatory process in light of this information to orient our state towards long term sustainability and aviation.

Here to support the Bill is Bill Magavern with the Coalition for Clean Air. Thank you.

Thanks. Good morning. Bill Magavern with the Coalition for Clean Air in support. And I'll be brief because I think your committee analysis really covers the issues very well. I want to call out one important fact from that analysis, which is that in the South Coast air district, which has the worst smog in the entire country, it's estimated that 9% of the emissions of NOx, oxides of nitrogen, are coming from aviation.

Thank you.

So NOx is the key pollutant in that district, as it is in most of the state in terms of our smog problem. And 9% is really a large amount. And as we've taken action to reduce a lot of the other sources of NOx, that proportion is only going to grow from aviation. So that's why it is important to get better data in this area.

And the environmental justice provisions are also important because what we have is often the pollution is going into disadvantaged and low-income communities, while the people benefiting, the people who are taking most of the flights, actually are some of the most advantaged people in our state. So we appreciate the bill and support it.

Thank you, other folks in support. It's your opportunity. Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition.

Good morning, Jim Lites. On behalf of the California Airports Council and the Association of California Airports, why are airports opposed to this bill? We're opposed because we are, in fact, years ahead of what this bill is actually talking about. There are three main sources of emissions at airports: aircraft, shuttle buses, and the ground service equipment, starting with ground service equipment. Most of that in the state is already electric and, in most cases, has been for over a decade.

So CARB has not chosen to do a reg on GSE because most of it is already electric. As the analysis points out on shuttle buses. CARB has already done a mandatory airport electric shuttle bus reg several years ago, and airports are currently complying with that. And that already carries a reporting requirement. Finally, the aircraft. Well, federal law prohibits individual states from regulating aircraft emissions. How do we get at that? Well, we get at that through sustainable aviation fuel.

We've asked the author's office to partner with us to try and create more sustainable aviation fuel production in the state, which is very key. That notion was rejected in favor of the language that's in front of you today, and that really doesn't help airports move the needle. And using more sustainable aviation fuel will help us get there. Today at SFO, every private jet that takes off from that airport is fueled with sustainable aviation fuel.

What we need to do is focus on policies and incentives to boost that production, to make that a true statement at every airport in the state instead of SFO. The language that you're adopting today really ends up creating a mix of random airports, about 20 or so, that would be subject to reporting by this bill, and most of them don't have shuttles. The GSE is already electric. We can't do anything directly about the aircraft, so we don't see the value in this new reporting requirement.

We ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition here? Seeing none, we'll go to the moderator. Those who wish to speak in opposition or support, now is your opportunity.

As a reminder, you place yourself in the queue for public comment on the phone line by pressing one and then zero. We currently have four in queue. We'll go to line number 88. That's 88. Your line is open.

Good morning, Christina Scaringe for the Center for Biological Diversity and support.

Thank you. We'll go to line number 32. That's 32. Your line is open.

Gil Wright with the California Pilots Association. We are in opposition of this bill.

We'll go to line number 87. That's 87. Your line is open.

Andy Swanson, Association of California Airports, President, opposed.

Thank you. We'll go to line number 89. That's 89. Your line is open.

Cody Roggatz, County of Humboldt Aviation, Vice President of the Association of California Airports, opposed.

Thank you. We'll go to line number 34. That's 34. Your line is open.

Karen Huggard with the National Air Transportation Association, representing more than 150 aviation businesses and airports in California, we urge you to oppose SB 720. Our association is actively working to increase the aviation industry's sustainability. Unfortunately, though, this bill is ineffective in reaching reporting requirement for a strange assortment of airports.

Name and affiliation, please?

Thank you. We'll go to line number 85. That's 85. Your line is open.

Hi, I'm Carol Ford, the President of the California Pilots Association, and we oppose bill SB 720.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's no further public comment in queue at this time. Please continue.

Thank you. We will bring it back. We'll entertain a motion and then allow a close. We have a motion. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Call the roll. Sorry.

That's okay. SB 720. The motion is due. Pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

One to two, that bill is on call. Leave it open for members to add on. We only have Senator Allen's bills left. We're waiting on author. In the meantime, we will lift the call on the bills that Senator Jones missed and he's presenting in Gov. & Fi.

Okay, file item one, SB 23. The motion is due. Passes. Amended to Appropriations Committee. The current vote is 30. Chair is voting aye. Vice Chair is voting aye. Gonzalez, Hurtado. Jones. Jones aye. Skinner, file item three, SB 508. The motion is due. Pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. The current vote is 2-0. Chair. Voting aye. Vice Chair voting aye. Jones. Jones, aye. Okay, file item seven, SB 687. The motion is due pass to Appropriations Committee. Chair is voting aye. Vice Chair. no vote Jones, no. Jones, no. File item 11, SB 84. Motion is due. Pass to Appropriations Committee. Chair is voting aye. Vice Chair is voting no. Jones. Jones, no. Okay.

We will recess until Senator Allen gets back from presenting in Gov. And finance.

All right, let's bring this hearing back to order. While the Vice Chair gets up to the dice, let's lift calls on the bills where I haven't had the chance to vote. Yeah.

Okay, file item eight. SB 720. Senators Allen, aye. Allen, aye. All. Okay, file item nine. I'm sorry. I didn't call the motion. The motion is due pass. Amended to Appropriations Committee on SB 720. File item nine. SB 728. The motion is due. Passes. Amended to the floor. Senators Allen. Allen, aye.

All right, we will take up item 12. SB 144. Allen, proceed.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I am accepting the Committee's amendments. I truly appreciate the great staff work on this measure. And if you have additional amendments, Mr. Vice Chair, looking forward to a discussion. We have all the time in the world at this point now as we await other Members coming back. So as we've discussed extensively at this Committee, including today, we're trying to cut greenhouse gas emissions at the pace that we need to help address our global crisis. And it's our feeling that we need to have all hands on deck and rapid shift to a decarbonized economy. So we're having conversations about lots of different possible tools, and hydrogen, of course, is one such tool that we can use to do this. We've even heard a Bill today about it. In order to choose the right tool for the right job, the state has to have early, accessible data to make informed choices. And this Bill asked for an assessment to make such information readily available and enable comparisons between hydrogen use and alternative options such as electrification. But Bill asked for an assessment that includes an evaluation of different potential hydrogen applications, including light, medium, and heavy duty vehicles, maritime, shipping, aviation, industrial manufacturing, and electricity generation. There's a lot of conversation about, zero, this is best for this. This is best for that. Right now, there's a lot of speculation, and we want to get more information. The evaluation will examine each of these applications and assess the potential for GHG emissions reduction, the cost, the energy efficiency of using hydrogen compared to directly electrifying, either by using batteries or grid electricity directly. Different decarb options may be better suited for different applications, and that's kind of the basic premise here. Applications such as the industrial processes might require high heat or long distance transportation. They might benefit from a long distance kind of like a liquid fuel, such as hydrogen. Other applications might be more efficiently electrified. Battery. Electric passenger vehicles, for example, require much less energy than hydrogen fuel cell cars, at least for now. And that could change over time as technology improves. That would be something else that we would look at. So this is all about ultimately evaluating different, the appropriateness of these different zero carbon tools for different applications that will help the state make more strategic choices. So as we take the steps to massively scale up the use of hydrogen in the state, there's a number of different concerns and questions that we have to consider, including any potential health, safety, environmental, or climate risks. For example, as we've discussed in the Committee, hydrogen gas acts as an indirect GHG through its reactions with other gases in the atmosphere, and injecting hydrogen into our existing natural gas system can potentially brittle or degrade the existing pipelines, allowing hydrogen to leak out. But we also know there's potentially much safer ways of transporting hydrogen, and the focus ought to be there. So we've got to better understand how concerning this might be, whether we're prepared to design appropriate transportation and storage infrastructure to minimize leakage risk, to monitor for leaks. So this Bill aims to complement other hydrogen assessments and requested by the Legislature to answer some of these questions and allow us to compare this tool to alternatives such as electrification. Using the results of the assessment, then the Bill asked the airborne and the CEC and the CPUC to prioritize applications where using hydrogen can be most effective for the state to meet its climate goals. And it's in that spirit that I ask for and aye vote.

You have a witness or no?

I don't think so.

Anybody wishing to speak in support?

Tweener. Okay, we got a tweener. We'll give you an opportunity for the opposition comes in.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members Victoria Rodriguez with Nielsen Mercksmer on behalf of the City of Millbrae. In support.

Support. Ah, we got a support. There we go, Millbrae. Anybody else in support? Folks in opposition in between, opportunity.

Hi, Mikhail Scovarli here on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition, California Hydrogen Business Council. We can appreciate the kind of long dialogue that we had with Committee and the chair's staff right after the amendments came into play. We did provide a series of balancing amendments for consideration, and we're hopeful that those dialogues continue. We do believe that at this time the Bill as drafted leads to some inherent bias in the outcomes. To that end, we're asking for certain additional considerations in the study, such as indirect and direct land use, cradled grave lifecycle emissions, a full assessment of infrastructure costs and the risks of those infrastructures. We do know that electrification was not without its own risks, and it's not our job to highlight. We don't want to be in this. Hydrogen versus charging versus electrification thing. I think the scoping plan studies from National Renewables Energy Lab, Bunch of national laboratories, a lot of the University of California indicate that it is hydrogen electrification and a lot of other tools that we don't have on the table currently to achieve carbon neutrality. And to the extent that hydrogen is decarbonized and part of that, it's not going to be one versus the other in any given category. It's going to be a little bit of each. And in some cases, it's going to be a combination of the two. Hydrogen has great potential to help with some of our grid issues with regards to over procurement of renewables, the moving of those renewable molecules in time and space so that we have less over procurement, less curtailment, recovering economic value for the rate payer, but also there's different drivers in different use cases across the fleet, be it heavy duty, medium duty, or light. Consumer decisions are not necessarily as Linear as the analysis is trying to make it. And so to the extent that we can incorporate some of the complex decision making in some of these things and have a more robust discussion and not just single out hydrogen, if we want to do this full analysis of the risks of decarbonization, we should include all technologies that are being considered because we didn't do that with kind of the end of life issues that we're going to encounter with regard to rooftop solar and batteries and so on. And so there is risk and benefits in everything. There's no simple answers. And to the extent that we can continue to work with the author to create that balance, to have that more robust conversation, we appreciate it. Thank you.

Okay. You exceeded your two minutes.

I was just going to say that he used all our time. So Alicia Priego here on behalf of the Green Hydrogen coalition, also a tweener, and would align our comments with mixed comments and just would add on that system costs are key to consider in evaluating feasibility, timeliness, and ultimate cost to consumers of each application. Thank you for having an open door and looking forward to working with you.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else seeing? None. We will go to our phone lines. Moderator. Anybody in queue for opposition or support?

Yes. As a reminder, if you wish to queue up on the phone lines, please press one, then zero at this time. We do have one in queue already. We'll go to line number 90. That's 90. Your line is open.

Good afternoon. John Winger, on behalf of the renewable. Natural gas coalition, would echo the concerns that were previously stated.

Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go to line number 72. That's 72, your line is open.

Good afternoon, this is Stephen Rosenblum representing Climate Action California, in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair. There's nobody else in queue at this time.

All right, thank you. We will bring it back to the dais seven. SB 1414, we have a motion. Would you like to close, Mr. Allen?

Yeah. Appreciate the conversation. And I do think there's a number of some additional changes we're looking to make. I'm reluctant to sort of make this a Bill about every single possible energy source. There are some. I certainly don't want this to be seen as some sort of bias against hydrogen. I think we recognize that we're trying to get all different types of energy sources online, and some could be more appropriate for different types of uses, and that's what we're really trying to get to the bottom of here. You're probably right. I mean, there's issues that we ought to spend time studying on the electricity space. Look, I just yesterday was presenting a Bill on extended producer responsibility system for EV batteries so that we can deal with the end of life issues that you correctly mentioned there. And we need to do more in that space, too.

Do you urgent aye vote, or are you.

I do. An urgent aye vote.

With that. We will open the roll, please.

SB 4114, the motion is due. Passes amended to appropriations. Senators Allen? Aye. Allen? aye. Dahle? Aye. Dahle aye. Gonzalez. Gonzalez aye. Hertado. Menjivar Jones. Skinner.

30. That builds on call. We'll leave it open for remaining Members. Okay. SB 670. Allen.

Thank you, Members. Hi, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, guys. Thank you. All right, so this is the final Bill of the day, SB 670, and it calls upon our Air Resources Board to develop a methodology for assessing vehicle miles traveled VMT, along with designing maps that display VMT averages at the city, regional, and statewide levels. Obviously want to thank the Committee for its Diligent work on this issue. I'm accepting the Committee's amendments. So back in 2013, Darryl Steinberg did SB 743. The Legislature passed that Bill which changed the manner in which transportation impacts are measured under CEQA to vehicle miles travel, and it set opportunities for streamlined analysis in Low VMT areas. And to accommodate this change, lead agencies have made efforts to implement SB 743 by doing their own jurisdictional mapping with the assistance of a technical guidance produced by OPR. Now, some have found great success in doing this, others have not. And that's where we're trying to help with SB 670, by requiring CARB to produce a methodology and VMT maps that will allow lead agencies and planners and developers to use this tool by making informed decisions in areas that presently lack mapping. It's just been a bit of a mortgage board and a bit of a free for all. As I say, it's worked really well in some communities, but some communities have come to us really, really struggling. So the analysis talks about the fact that on page six of the analysis, it talks about how that these maps can be used to delineate areas exempt from VMT analysis, helping a development avoid the cost and effort required to produce a transportation impact analysis under CEQA. This Bill doesn't set new thresholds of significance, nor does it supersede existing maps made by locals. If there are multiple maps for a particular area, the Bill provides total discretion over which map is chosen for use. The measures aimed ultimately at being a collaborative effort between the state and locals as we look ahead, and for that reason, the Bill calls on CARB to consider existing mapping and methodology in the process of developing their own our state set some ambitious climate goals. It's important that we make efforts to reach them in thoughtful ways. This Bill aims to do just that by serving as a helpful tool to plan for the future. And here to testify in support, we have Matt Baker from the planning Conservation League, the Bill sponsor.

Thank you.

Matthew Baker, policy Director for planning and Conservation League the reduction of vehicle Miles traveled is a critical component of California's ability to achieve its climate and equity goals. BMT reduction is integral to successful implementation of landmark smart growth legislation, including SB 375 and 743 of the Senator mentioned, and as such has become a primary metric through which we assess transportation impacts in project planning analyses. Yet, many jurisdictions of the state lack adequate, up to date mapping of VMT performance, and some still have none at all. Some jurisdictions simply lack the resources and capacity, technical capacity, to develop such spatial analyses. SB 670 provides the Air Resources Board develop a standard methodology for spatial analysis of VMT and develop and maintain a statewide inventory of VMT performance mapping in coordination with the relevant state, regional and local agencies. These maps will not supersede any existing mapping that has been developed by regional or local agencies, but will offer an important planning reference for areas of the state where adequate mapping is lacking. Understanding existing VMT performance across the state is essential for state and local agencies to be able to make sound planning decisions and to best target housing and infrastructure investments in accordance with state goals and to build more healthy, sustainable, equitable communities. There are many laws, policies, funding guidelines that use VMT currently as a criteria. For example, AB 2334 from last year just passed, extends the maximum density bonus incentives to affordable housing, from the transit priority areas to the greater Low vehicle travel areas. Implementation of the Bill is now being.

Exceeded your two minutes, so please wrap.

It is now being obstructed in many ways because the state and there's no other witnesses. I thought I had four minutes.

Nope, two per witness.

Because there are many areas of the state that lack the VMT maps of the Low vehicle travel area. So there are many other examples. But to repeat, lack of VMT mapping is holding up development of affordable housing now. So we strongly urge you your support. I'll leave it at that, but I'm more than happy to answer any questions or.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to support SB 670? Seeing none. Do we have any opposition for SB 670? We have two minutes and 39 seconds if we're going to be fair.

Thanks very much. I'll try to talk really fast. Nick Cammarota, on behalf of the California Billing Industry Association, they're regretfully in opposition. We just want to just lay out some of our concerns here that we don't want to have a tool which should be used as an informational tool, be a tool for misinformation. And in the past we've seen some of that with the maps for VMT in particular, the idea that green means go is not necessarily a realistic idea because we don't look at a map. And that's the only thing we look at in terms of making a project viable. It's not as if this is the only concern that we have VMT when we're trying to build a project. A lot of these areas, there's already a use to which the property is being put. There is an unwilling landowner who doesn't want to sell it, and if they do want to sell it, the price is way too high. VMT is a small part of CEQA. CEQA is a small part, believe it or not, of the overall approval process. And there are many other things that a home builder has to look at when it comes to putting together a successful project, not the least of which is whether or not a home buyer or renter can afford that. Please don't take my comments as saying the whole idea is bad. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that there's some of the language in the Bill and some of the language that is describing it, either in terms of fines and declares or in terms of the Committee analysis, that gives us some pause and requires some clarification. So some of those things are what we have is projects that are in the pipeline today that spent three years trying to design and build a project that meets the current standards that are already in existence at the local level. If you have a state agency creating a methodology and maps that now may come into conflict. local government is doing, then that creates a problem for a project that's already in the process. Okay. So we want to have this addressed and we want to have clarification in this. Happy to sit down with the author and the sponsors to work through these issues. Appreciate the willingness to take the amendments. Hopefully, we can work together in the future on this. But I'm seeing a pained look, and that's bothering me.

I didn't mean to create a pained look.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? Name and Association hearing none. We can go to the moderator. Those wishing to support or oppose SB 670? Moderator.

Certainly. If you wish to speak for public comment, please press one, then zero at this time. We do have one that's queuing up. Please allow us a moment to provide a line number. Thank you. We'll go to line number 92. That's 92. Your line is open.

Hello. This is Ryan Elaine with the California. Retailers Association and opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

There's no further public comment in queue. Mr. Speaker, please continue.

Thank you. We will bring it back to the daisal.

I think the Senator, the author may be, sorry. It's been a long day, maybe describing the or addressing the opposition in his close, but it'd be good to do that. I know you've been working on this for some time, and we've seen this in bits and pieces and transportation Committee as well, but would love for you to address that in your closing. Thank you for bringing it forward.

If I may tag on just for a second. I have a couple of questions before you close. We have cogs and we have. The ability to do, they're tasked with this type of work vehicle miles traveled. I think the frustration for my district, let's just talk about the very rural areas who are tasked with some of these same challenges. But at the end of the day, we don't have public transportation. There's no options available to reduce your vehicle miles traveled when there are no other options. So I want to throw that out. And I know that a lot of the more, I should say developed or urban areas where we have cogs and we have many multiple agencies and counties working towards reducing vehicle miles traveled, I think that we have a pretty good system in place. But for those areas of the state that, and I know there's been comments about people shouldn't really live out there because we use a few more resources when it comes to transportation. What's your thoughts on how this be another layer on top of? Well, there's a broader criticism of the VMT system that I'm certainly happy to talk to you about. All this Bill does is provide some help with the current structure. Right. So right now, it's basically just saying, hey, we want Carb's help with developing maps so that for those communities that don't have the maps or for whom they're seeking help, they're looking for, CARB will provide that help. So this is really about making sure that the policy that's already on the books is implemented in a fair way that provides resources and support for local governments. And by the way, as I said, there's no rules in here that say it doesn't supersede maps that are made by the locals. So if the local wants to keep its local map, the Bill provides total discretion over which map is chosen for use. So I understand you've got a broader concern about the SB 743, the Steinberg framework, and that's certainly worth a discussion. But this Bill ultimately is just about.

You're thinking then that what we have is not adequate or it's not being interpreted the right way. So we need another layer to.

No, think about it. SB 743, if that's a big whale, right? I'm going to mix metaphors. I shouldn't even try. But this is not an additional layer, Senator. This basically says, okay, we've got this framework, right? Mapping is an important tool for the VMT analysis. Under 743, you've got lots of different communities that, some for whom they've had no problem, they develop their own maps. They're able to use the rules. They may not like the rules, right. But they're able to work within them. Some communities that are really struggling to come up with maps, to come up with a formuLA for the drawing of the maps. And this basically says, CARB, help these folks if they want it and need it.

I guess my question would be, then there's no opportunity for CARB to go do it unless the community asks them or they're going to do it. And then if there's a conflict in the maps, I think that's where we have an issue. You have some group that says, hey, the locals did it this way, the CARB did it that way, and there's a screpsency, then you have opportunity for litigation, I would assume, on what's really accurate.

I mean, the Bill provides. I don't know if Matt has some additional thoughts on this, but the Bill tells to the community, the locals have discretion over the maps they use. Sorry.

I can't hear you.

Can we make sure the mic's on? There you go. Yes.

There's a question about the discrepancy that might happen between the state map and the local map. It's potentially happening. It's our hope that through this process, part of the developing of methodology is working with the local agencies to figure out how to resolve any differences that there could be. Definitely, it would be up to the local agency to decide between which map they think is best for and most scientifically defensible for their area. Yeah, I think it's inevitable that there might be conflict, but I think through the process, as we move on and these things get more standardized, that everyone will be doing the same kind of mapping. And really, it's more about providing mapping in the places that don't have it at all, where people want to. 2334 want to build affordable housing right now in the Low vehicle travel area, and they don't have maps to be able to identify it.

How many areas don't have maps in the state?

Well, I don't have a proportion of the state, but it's vast. It's a lot.

Okay.

Even the big four mpos don't readily publish their maps in an open source way. CEQA is very good about it, but the other big mpos aren't necessarily.

Well, maybe we should do a build in that says you should publish your map, I guess. Sorry, I'm just concerned that this is duplicative, number one. And number two, if there's a discrepancy, it allows the opportunity for litigation under CEQA to be able to say which map you're going to use. So I'm not going to be supporting the Bill. I'm assuming it's going to get out of here, the chair. So I need to belabor that much longer. Would you like to close?

Yeah, I mean, the problem is there's already litigation over this process. The Bill is very clear about granting discretion to the lead agency. So I totally hear your concern about CEQA litigation. I don't think the Bill makes any difference in that space. There may already be too much litigation with regards to SB 743 implementation, but we were really careful to ground the discretion for the use of maps and for which maps to choose in the lead agencies. And we've done it very explicitly, but happy to work with you. Continue talking. I am very sensitive to the very different nature of rural areas. Certainly, we spent time on this issue with Senator Caballero and some others. So it's something that we're familiar with and trying to, quite frankly, struggling to come up with some happy mediums on. But let's focus on what this Bill does. Folks may have a broader critique of VMT as a factor in planning, but it's the law of the land, for better, for worse, and I think, many respects for better. I mean, there's been a lot of benefits associated with that analysis. And this Bill ultimately is just about providing local governments with an additional tool to engage in that analysis, especially those local governments that may be underresourced rural areas that might need some additional help. With that I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Which you will open the roll.

SB 670, the motion is do passes. Amended to appropriations. Senators Allen? Aye Allen aye. Dahle no. Gonzalez aye Hurtado. Minjivar. Minjivar aye Jones Skinner?

Thank you. Members. Bill has 31, we'll leave it on call for Members to add on. Have a great day. All right, let's do it. Let's lift some calls. Let's start with the consent calendar. Well, why are we doing that first? All right, fine. Let's do the consent for that first. Yeah.

Okay. Consent. Gonzalez? Aye.

Skinner all right, let's start with item one. Caballero, SB 23.

File item one, SB 23. The motion is do passes. Amended to appropriations chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Hurtado. Skinner.

Okay, we will leave that open for Senator Skinner. Let's go to item two. This is SB 270.

File item two. SB 270. Sorry about that. File item two. SB 270. Motion is due, pass to housing Committee. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez? Aye.

Skinner okay, we'll leave that open for Senator Skinner. Item three, SB 508. Laird.

Motion is due, passes. Amended to appropriations. The current vote is 30. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Hurtado? Menjivar. Skinner.

This is the Laird Bill I think you wanted to lay off. Yeah. Okay. No, are you. No.

Okay.

Yeah, she's laying off. All right, let's go to. We'll go now to. Yes. SB 720.

Stern motion is do pass is amended to Appropriations Committee. Current vote is two. Two chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. Gonzalez? Gonzalez? Aye. Hurtado Skinner.

Okay, that's three to two. Let's go now to the Limon Bill. That's an item 97 SB 728.

Motion is due, passes. Amended to the floor. The current vote is two. Two chair. Voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Hurtado? Skinner.

Okay, let's go next to item 11. That's SB 84 by Gonzalez.

Motion is due, passed to Appropriations Committee. Current vote is two. Two chair. Voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. Hurtado? Menjivar. Menjivar. Aye. Skinner.

Okay, that's three to two. We'll leave that open. Item 12, SB 414.

Allen, do you pass? As amended to appropriations, current vote is 30. Chair. Voting aye. Vice Chair. Voting aye. Hurtado? Menjivar? Menjivar. Aye. Joan? Skinner.

Okay, that's great. We'll leave that open for folks. Item 13, this is SB 670. I think we got everyone. Okay. All right, we'll wait for our new Members. Thank you so much for coming back. Appreciate it.

Why don't we just start at the top?

Let's start at the top for Senator Caballero. SB 23. Item one.

Motion is do passes. Amended to appropriations, current vote is 50. Chair. Voting aye. Vice Chair. Voting aye. Hurtado. Skinner.

Hurtado is here. This is a unite. Everyone's voted for it. Okay, so far. Yeah, I know. Let's give her the opportunity to just settle. So this is item one, SB 23. Caballero.

Okay, motion is due. Pass as amended to appropriations, current vote is 60. Chair. Voting aye. Vice Chair. Voting aye. Hurtado? Aye.

Okay, we got Skinner.

Yes.

Great. Let's do item two. SB 270 by Wiener.

Okay. Motion is due, passed to housing Committee. Current vote is 60. Chair. Voting aye. Vice Chair voting aye. Skinner? Skinner, aye.

That's out. That's out. Seven to zero. Let's go now to lairds. SB 508.

Motion is due, passes. Amended to Appropriations Committee. Current vote is three. Is 40. Wait a minute. I'm sorry. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting, aye. Hurtado? Skinner. Skinner. Aye. That Bill is out.

Okay, great. It's five to zero. Let's go to Senator Grove. SB 651.

Motion is due, pass. Is amended to Appropriations Committee. Current vote is 50. Chair. Voting aye. Vice Chair voting, aye. Hurtado. Hurtado, aye. Skinner. Skinner. I.

Great. That's seven to zero. That is out. Let's go to the consent calendar. Senator Ashby's SB 659, item five.

Okay. Skinner. Yeah. Consent, out. Okay, that's out.