Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

You. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee hearing. Please note that AB 340 by Vince Fong has been pulled by the author. We have 17 measures on the agenda today. This is sign in order. So if there's an author in the room that hasn't signed in, please ask the sergeants to sign in. Six measures are proposed for consent today. AB 297 by Vince Fong. AB 76, by myself. AB 788. Petrie Norris. AB 998. Connolly. AB 1172.

Caldrone and AB 1279 by Mike Fong. We are waiting for a quorum, but I want to start as a Subcommitee and we will be doing bills in sign and order. Let's start with Assembly Member Patterson, item 5, AB 692. We have a quorum. So I want to go ahead and.

My staff has not come up yet, but the two bills. I know there's support. Support. I'll be quick, but I'll defer to the next person. Okay, then we'll start with Assemblymember Davies. But we have a quorum I want to go ahead and take roll.[Roll Call]

[Roll Call] We have for the consent, should I vote for consent? Okay, so we'll go ahead and start with item number 11 by Assemblymember Davies.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Today I am here to present AB 882. I first want to thank Committee staff for working with my staff and stakeholders on this measure.

Members, as proposed to be amended, AB 882 would grant the state coastal conservative the authority to issue advanced payments of grant funding to recipients and awardees. As background, Governor code Section 110119.1 was enacted in the budget last year and applies to certain state agencies. Under some grant programs, the administrating agency is allowed to provide up to 25% of the grant amount as an advanced payment to get the project kick started.

As discussed in the analysis of the Bill, the benefits of advanced payments is that it stems a cash flow problem for grant recipients who need funding to kickstart a project, and it can also help in circumstances when grantees have to submit reimbursements for project costs. Unfortunately, under the authorization last year, the coastal conservancy was a state entity. Left out of this authorization, AB 882 closes the loophole.

The coastal conservancy is the state agency established in 1976 to protect and improve natural lands and waterways, help people access and enjoy the outdoors and sustain local economy along with length of California's coasts. Example of grants and programs that could be helped with advanced payments through the conservancy includes the climate ready program as well as funding for sea level rise resilience and wildfire resilience.

Members, as we prepare to combat the ever growing threat of climate change, we must be innovative in our tactics and efforts to help our communities curb our ever growing environmental challenges. Two weeks ago in my district, we hit a landslide due to the aspirate rivers and it will take millions of dollars to fix our coastal bluffs and shore up coastlines. Thanks to the great work by Committee staff, the conservancy is okay with this Bill and would like this authorization. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I respectfully ask for a aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion by Assembly Member Marisucci, second by Assembly Member Flora. Secretary, please call roll. The motion is dupast as amended to appropriations.

Witnesses in support. Hold on, please. Go ahead. Got it.

Good afternoon, Abigail Mile. On behalf of the mid Peninsula regional open space district in support. Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any questions or comments from the Committee? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

[Roll Call]

Okay. Please, go ahead. Thank you.

Madam Chair, AB 1347 is my skip the slip legislation. I'm bringing it back to reduce waste and ensure that we don't expend valuable resources allowing consumers to make the choice whether they get a receipt or not and also making sure that we take toxic chemicals out of our most common receipts. According to Green America, receipts waste nearly 3 million trees, 10 billion gallons of water, and 302 million pounds of waste.

I didn't discover until I did the legislation a few years ago that the thermal paper in these receipts contain BPA and sometimes BPS. And as we know, this is a very toxic chemical. Something that we really don't want in our waste stream or our water stream or frankly, it actually infects you when you touch it. So I thought, zero, if I touch it, it's okay; it's just the ingesting part. Actually, touching it is actually some of the bigger problems.

We're very, very proud that many companies have already moved away from BPA and BPS in the receipts - Trader Joe's, CVS, Whole Foods, TJ Maxx - and we've seen already Illinois as well as the European Union move away from BPA and BPS. But ultimately, we want to make sure that we have the freedom to say no to receipts if we don't want them. I also wanted to make sure there were some concerns around privacy.

Should this Bill get to privacy, we are going to be working very, very closely with both the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the California Low Income Consumers Coalition to address the concerns with the Bill and ensuring customers can still access a paper receipt if they want one. Again, this is consumer choice. Should you want a paper receipt, you absolutely can get one. And hopefully, if you want that paper receipt and you get it, it's not toxic. With that, I have two witnesses, Nicole Kurian from Californians Against Waste, and Nancy Buermeyer from Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. Excuse me.

I just want to remind each witness has two minutes. Go ahead.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members, Nicole Kurian with Californians Against Waste. We're proud to sponsor AB 1347, which would allow consumers to choose between options to receive a paper receipt, an electronic receipt or no receipt, and prohibit BPA or BPS on these paper receipts. Receipt paper production utilizes more than 3 million trees and 10 billion gallons of water every year in the United States.

And the production and disposal of receipt paper emits the carbon equivalent of almost half a million cars on the road. The vast majority of this production creates unnecessary waste. One survey found that Americans threw away or lost about half of the paper receipts they received, even those that they intended to keep. Furthermore, automatically printing a paper receipt is an outdated and wasteful practice.

Environmentally and economically conscious businesses who've implemented point of purchase prompts that present consumers with these choices, as CVS did in early 2022, have already seen the benefits. CVS is the largest pharmacy chain in the United States, and this move alone saved about 87 million yards of receipt paper, enough to circle the globe two times. Finally, receipt paper is often coated with toxic endocrine disrupting chemicals like BPA and BPS. In addition to exposing retail workers and consumers to these chemicals.

If recycled, the toxic coating on receipts can contaminate recycled paper products like toilet paper and food packaging. AB 1347 would simply allow consumers to choose if and how to receive a proof of purchase reducing waste and saving natural resources. For these reasons, we urge your support of this Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, Nancy Buermeyer with Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. AB 1347 is an important Bill that has real life implications for our health. Breast Cancer Prevention Partners works to prevent breast cancer by reducing our exposure to toxic chemicals that are linked to the disease. BPA has long been a chemical that we are deeply concerned about. It's time to remove it and the regrettable substitute, BPS, from thermal receipt papers. Our exposure to bisphenols is ubiquitous and continuous. According to the CDC, over 90% of us have BPA and BPS in our bodies.

They disrupt the very sensitive balance of our hormones and have profound negative effects at very low levels. Early life exposures are particularly concerning because this developmental period is when these chemicals have their biggest and longest lasting impacts. BPA and BPS are absorbed through the skin when handling thermal receipt papers. This exposure is concerning for all consumers. However, the greatest risk is for cashiers, 70% of which are women and 70% of those are of reproductive age.

Occupational studies confirm that BPA levels in cashiers rise significantly after a single shift. BPA and BPS are structurally very similar to each other and to estrogen. Hence their designation as estrogen mimickers. Bisphenols have been linked to numerous health harms including low birth weight, fertility problems, obesity, and an increased risk of breast and other cancers. Connecticut, Illinois and the EU have already banned BPA from thermal paper. And a recent report suggests that BPS has largely replaced BPA.

Of the over 350 receipts tested, a whopping 79% had BPS. The very good news is that 20% of those receipts were free of these toxic chemicals. Clearly, alternatives are available and in use. It's time to pass AB 1347. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any additional witnesses in support? Please state your name, organization, and position on the Bill. Hold on, please. We have to connect this mic go ahead.

Hello, Madam Chair and Members. Victoria Rome, with Natural Resources Defense Council in support.

Megan Shumway, retired nurse, in support.

Sakereh Carter on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support.

Good afternoon. Amara Eger, on behalf of Rethink Waste, Clean Seas Lobbying Coalition and Clean Water Action in support.

Good afternoon. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in support.

Good afternoon. Heidi Stanborne with the National Stewardship Action Council in support.

Are there any witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am Margaret Gladstein, here on behalf of the California Retailers Association. We have an opposed, unless amended, position. We appreciate the author's desire to eliminate bisphenols in receipts. We are okay with simply that provision of the bill, as long as there is a 2025 implementation date. Which is our understanding of when the market would be able to supply an adequate supply of receipt paper without those chemicals.

So with a one year implementation date and the bill only having the bisphenol ban, we would be okay with it. Unfortunately, we find the other provisions of the bill very problematic. In particular, we have concerns about the requirement to offer no receipt. Just last year, this Legislature allocated nearly $300 million for grants to prevent organized retail theft. Some retailers are now using receipts as a method to stop organized retail theft, checking receipts at the exit.

So it is one tool that retailers have and so we don't like. Unfortunately, some retailers do offer the no receipt option, but we don't like that across the board and as Committee notes, the Committee notes, receipts overall make a very small percentage of the waste stream and without the bisphenol coatings, those would be compostable and recyclable. In addition, we proposed the provisions of the Bill that require the receipt only be as long as--sorry, does not include items nonessential to the transaction.

This would limit the number of coupons that people can be offered. We know people use coupons, particularly in challenging economic times. We also aren't even clear if we could say thank you for shopping with us or have a nice day, or please support the local charity that a retailer may be supporting. So for these reasons, we have an oppose unless amended position. And if the author does not accept our amendments, we will hope you oppose the bill today. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members Matt Sutton with the California Restaurant Association. We too are opposed unless amended. About 85% of our restaurants are those smaller, community based restaurants. And I know the proposal may seem very simple, and I think on its face it is. But the implementation of it has a lot of unintended consequences. And we as a restaurant community, and I think the small business community at large isn't really there yet.

Yes, lots of people, especially during the pandemic, sort of advanced their use of technology and electronic receipts. But there's still an awful lot of restaurants and other small businesses that do not have the point of sale systems that can accommodate the requirements of the Bill. We, as you can imagine, don't care what kind of paper is in the point of sale system. It is just a fact that it has these chemicals on it at this point.

So a matter of phasing those chemicals out on a timeline that meets the needs of the people that make the point of sale systems. Because keep in mind, we're just the end users of these systems. A timeline that meets their ability to phase out these chemicals is absolutely appropriate. And that's something that Ms. Gladstein referenced and that we would support. And that's why we are opposed unless amended.

There's some other things - this is basically a de facto ban on paper receipts unless they're free of those chemicals. So in the meantime, we can't offer paper receipts, which means we have to offer electronic receipts, which means that in a long line, in a fast, casual setting, we're asking customers and guests for some level of personal information. So that's got operational hiccups, because all that's happening in line, it's happening verbally, it's possibly being overheard by others. And so we have operational concerns with that piece.

The privacy issues I know will get discussed in a future committee, but that, too, is an issue. There's a lot of small restaurants that currently aren't under the CCPA. But with these types of exchanges, they could hit the threshold where they would be in that. And that is costly compliance for small restaurants. And then finally, the speech issue, the limitation on what can and cannot be on the receipt in terms of nothing in addition to the financial transaction, generally, all of the things that we put on receipts are meant to protect the guest and the consumer - their feedback mechanisms, their coupons, their surveys.

There are all sorts of things that actually provide value to our guests and consumers. And so we object to the fact that speech is being limited on our receipts. And for that reason, we are opposed unless amended.

30 seconds.

Thank you. Next - any additional witnesses in opposition in the room?

Good afternoon. Chair and Members of the Committee, Adam Regele, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, want to align our comments with the Retailer Association and Restaurant. We have an opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Kirk Kimmelshue, on behalf of the American Forest & Paper Association, also at an opposed, unless amended, position. Thanks.

Afternoon, Madam Chair Members. Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Opposed, unless amended. Thank you.

Madam Chair Members. John Wenger, on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, also opposed, unless amended.

Thank you. Any questions or comments from members of the committee? Assemblymember Muratsuchi.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Ting. I started loving your Bill until I started hearing organized retail theft. Not having the capacity to get to the BPA. A free challenge for small businesses. We love our small businesses. Can you respond?

Absolutely. So two states have already banned BPA, both Illinois and Connecticut. We believe that there's enough time to meet the deadline with the current deadline, as in bills, the European Union. So Connecticut banned it in 2011. Illinois banned it in 2019. The European Union, beginning in 2020, has restricted the use of BPA in their thermal paper. So we believe there's plenty of supply. And also, given the amount of time that the lead time that this could take, we think that this Bill can be implemented.

What about, I'm very concerned about organized retail theft, as you know, and I would hate to take a tool away from our restaurants and our retailers to be able to verify that someone had purchased.

Sure. I appreciate the comments from our Restaurant Association. I don't know that organized retail theft is prominent in that industry. Obviously, we're continuing talks with the one retailer that really wants you to show a receipt on your way out. As you think about it, every time you walk out of a store, there really is no store that really checks your receipt upon exit, except for two of our big box retailers, which is Sam's Club, as well as Costco. Sam's Club's already implemented this. They've already had that paperless option. So it's really only Costco.

Again, I think if Sam's Club can figure out a way to do this and still not be concerned about organized retail stuff, I don't really think this is a major issue in terms of small businesses. I think when I introduced the Bill a number of years ago, obviously that was an issue.

But during the pandemic, as you will probably just think about all the small businesses that we go to think about, all of the ones that are already transitioned to paperless during that time, because we were so focused on not touching anything, not wanting to come into contact many of them, all the new terminals, the newest tech terminals that cater to small businesses, they all have that option of paperless receipts, tax etc.. I think most of them are already up to speed.

Oh, I don't know. I'm just telling you, I don't shop at Sam's Club or Costco that much. This is just my understanding that they have implemented. They've already implemented it.

So I only shop at Costco. I never shopped at Sam's Club. How do they do it?

Thank you.

Assemblymember Zbur.

Yeah, I sort of had similar concerns to Mr. Muratsuchi. First of all, I think this is a great Bill. I think both of these chemicals need to be banned. From what I could tell from the letters, it sounds like, the major issue is what happens between January 1, 2024 and January 1, 2025 isn't it?

I mean, that's one issue. The other major issue is the receipts upon request. The opposition is not in favor of the receipts upon request. So if you were to ask a retailer not to print a receipt, not to give you a receipt, you don't really have that choice. Right now. If I'm at my pharmacy, I don't need the receipt because I got a pack of gum. I don't need anything that's this long.

I think it's almost as tall as I am when you're walking out with two items. And so therefore, I don't really have that option. If I don't want all these coupons, I don't get to say no to them. They get printed out and they get thrown in the trash. So again, it's really putting the power back in the hands of the consumers. Consumers make the choice. If they want the receipt, they get the receipt. There's nothing changing what the consumer wants.

What about the privacy concerns about the electronic systems for the smaller retailers?

Yeah, well, again, I think those are issues that we're working on with potential opponents. I know that last time when we did the Bill, there were some concerns about privacy. What we've seen is a huge shift into sort of paperless consoles for small businesses. So clearly, I think that concern in terms of, from a consumer point of view, not from an advocate point of view, but from a consumer point of view, there's already a significant amount of comfort for touchless sort of terminals.

For me, the biggest benefit in this Bill is the banning of the chemicals. And I think that's probably the most important thing. Obviously, you don't like the paper waste either, but I do think that there's some legitimate concerns that I think the small businesses are raising around these privacy rights. And I'm going to support the Bill today, but I'm hoping that you'll continue working with the retailers to try to address some of the small business concerns.

Yeah, I think with privacy, should we get out, we'd be going to privacy next, and we'd definitely be working with the advocates there to address their concerns, for sure. Now, again, the crux of the Bill is still paper upon request. So again, the power is in our hands right now. We get shoved something, whether we like it or not, the power is back in our hands, whether we want it.

I'm just wondering if maybe on sort of the issue of the paper, there might be something you might think about for small businesses, especially those that have these point of sale issues, I think that's a sympathetic set of issues that they're raising.

Absolutely.

Okay. Assembly Member Wood.

Yeah, thank you. I too support your Bill. And when you're done, can I have the receipt for my toothbrush too, once again, I don't like giving out my email address everywhere I go. And if I don't and I choose to print the receipt at home, or I do print the receipt at home, I've now generated paper and spent money on ink for receipts. We need them for taxes and to report to our campaigns or whatever else we do in our lives. Right.

And so in some ways, part of this is shifting the burden back to consumers, but albeit with a safer product, though. So I support removing the chemical from that, but also recognize that we're shifting burden back to the consumers for things as well.

Well, again, I think my experience, and again, it's just one person's experience, is even with the newer kiosks and newer terminals, if you want a paper receipt, like you mentioned, if you're getting reimbursed, you can ask for that. It's just something that you have to request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Assembly Member Pellerin.

First of all, love the scarf. Have you tried to use that as a coupon at the store?

I haven't, but I do have a matching tie. I'm going to wear it next time.

And I agree with my colleagues about the concern of the impacts this is going to have. I'm hearing that this BPA, BPS free paper is not readily available, but yet other states are using it, the EU is using it. So do we have data around the availability of this paper?

Ask my staff.

All I know is that there's a report that was released last week that showed that 20% of the receipts that were from stores across the country were bisphenol free. So we know that there are those receipts out there. And presumably we'll be printing a lot fewer receipts if the Bill passes as a whole. So the volume that you will need would be lower. And our experience is that the industry is going to rise to the occasion.

Okay, well, and I hope you continue to work with the opponents to make sure their concerns are addressed.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you.

Assemblymember Mathis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate where you're going with this, and I think if the Bill was just about getting rid of the toxic side of it, I'd be all about it. It's been my experience that now that we're able to choose if we would like a receipt or not. Quite frankly, there's been times where I've needed to choose a receipt. And because they're like, well, there's an electronic version. They don't actually have the paper and people aren't carrying them.

And so it's putting people at a disadvantage. So my question is, what are we doing on the consumer protection side to make sure that if they do want a paper receipt, they're able to get one? Is there any aspect in the Bill built into there to make sure, absolutely. They still have paper there because I'm starting to see it and I get complaints from people. They're like, I can't even get a receipt anymore. And that's just how some folks do business.

Yeah, the Bill is saying that consumers can still get receipts upon request.

Upon request, if they have the paper, they're not carrying the paper.

Well, my Bill is not mandating every business have paper receipts. That's a different Bill. Right. So if a coffee shop doesn't want to print you a receipt, then we have a choice whether we want to go to that coffee shop or not.

Right now to that same argument, that we have a choice of whether we want to go to somebody that's paperless or not.

If I could jump in really quickly. So the language of the Bill requires the business to present all of the options neutrally so the consumer can choose. And so in this case, businesses would be required to have at least all of the options available. So that might actually fix the issue.

My point is they're supposed to, but without a mechanism to ensure that that's being done, businesses are going to slack on that and it's not going to happen. And that's been my experience.

So would you want enforcement then?

Are you going to want enforcement on your side?

No, I'm asking you. You're the one suggesting.

Business works the way it is now.

Are you supporting ... then? I'm just trying to understand, Mr. Mathis, your point.

Mr. Ting. I don't think you've seen a fee you don't like.

I would completely disagree with that.

Assembly Member Hoover.

Thank you, Assemblymember, just really quickly, I think, just reading the opposition letters, I think there is a real consensus here on some reasonable environmental legislation on removing BPA on a reasonable timeline. I would be very interested in seeing that Bill. I certainly can't support this version with the mandates. And to be honest with you, I do shop at Walmart. You might want to add that to your list because they also check receipts at the door. Millions of our constituents shop at Walmart.

And we have made it very hard in this state to stop retail theft. And so that is a huge concern of mine. Also have concerns with the privacy issues as well, but would love to. If those provisions get stripped out, I would definitely consider supporting this. Thank you.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Need a motion. Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Assemblymember Ting, would you like to close?

Again, appreciate, I think, the robust discussion around small businesses, around privacy. I think we'll continue to work with different advocates about the provision of the Bill. Appreciate Mr. Hoover's comment about Walmart. So we'll definitely look into that as well. Again, we believe that this is really about providing a certain level of consumer choice while also having environmental benefits. Respectfully asked for your aye vote on AB 1347.

Thank you. So we have a motion from Assemblymember Addis, second by Assemblymember Ward. The motion is do pass to Privacy and Consumer Protection. Secretary, can you please call the role.

[Roll Call]

That Bill has six votes. We'll leave it open for absent Members.

Thanks. Is Assembly Member Patterson in the room again? We'll move to Assembly Member Carillo. Item 14, AB 1167.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I am proud to present Assembly Bill 1167, the Orphan Well Prevention Act, which would protect our communities from orphaned oil wells and protect taxpayers from being left to foot. The Bill when these oil wells are orphaned. Orphaned oil wells are wells without a responsible operator available to complete the plugging and abandonment and site restoration. These wells pose a serious threat to public health, safety and our environment. They can leak oil, gas and other contaminants into the air, water and soil.

My district is one of the most densely populated in the state and it has many oil wells, I'd imagine as many other communities across the State of California. Currently, the state has about 70,000 active wells and 35,000 idle wells in total. According to the California Council on Science and Technology, over 5000 wells are very likely orphaned. Cal jammed estimates that there are another 18,000 more that have yet to be documented and 40,000 likely to become orphaned in the next few years.

Wells are orphaned when they are passed down from bigger companies to smaller ones near the end of their operating lives. Those smaller companies have often filed bankruptcy or just dissolved before addressing site remediation. Currently, California is not collecting nearly enough bond funding to cover the actual cost of plugging and abandonment.

The ability of blanket bonding means that there is many cases with only a few $100 of financial assurance are associated with each well, when in reality the actual cost to plug an abandoned well can be over $100,000 and sometimes over a million. AB 1167 will raise the rates for bonds collected from the purchaser and the sale to the moment to the full amount that it would cost to properly seal the well.

Stemming the tide of wells we know are nearing the end of their life from becoming the responsibility of the state. I'd like to just simply point out that my district has the communities of Echo park and Silver Lake, amongst many others, whom at some point in the history of the City of Los Angeles had thousands of oil wells up until the early 1900's. Those are no longer there.

But if you go to the Kelgem website, a large majority of those are orphaned and they're still open and they're still emitting gas to our communities, which is why we often have a correlation related to public health. You go to Echo park. Now, it's a beautiful community within the City of Los Angeles, but it still needs a lot of support, and so we need to figure out this situation. With that, I respectfully request and I vote and introduce our key witnesses to testify.

And Alexander, who's a senior attorney with the Natural Resource Defense Council, and Stephen King, not the author clean energy advocate with Environment California.

Good afternoon, Ms. Chair and Members. I'm Stephen King, clean energy advocate with environment California, and we're pleased to join NRDC as sponsors of this important Bill. From Assemblymember Koreo. AB 1167 addresses an increasingly urgent problem for the state and its taxpayers, as well as the countless communities at risk from idle and orphan oil wells. The costs of oil extraction are high, from local air and water pollution to serious health problems to global warming pollution and more.

But a growing problem in California is the number of oil and gas wells at risk of becoming orphaned due to an extreme shortfall in available bond funds to clean up these wells when they're done being used. Orphaned wells can contaminate land, surface water and groundwater, sickening communities and representing a huge liability to the state. While the average cost to plug and abandon a well is around $68,000, the average available bond per well is around $1,000.

This shortfall of available bonds is a very real financial risk for the state. As California's oil fields age and decline, wells are increasingly being sold off, often to operators in less of a financial position to plug and abandon them. California already lived through the results of this scenario with the 2016 bankruptcy of the Rincon island wells, which stuck taxpayers with a Bill for over $27 million.

Although the Legislature subsequently passed a Bill requiring bonding for the full costs of plugging and abandonment for offshore wells like Rincon island, the threat still exists for onshore wells. Just last fall, era Energy, an ExxonMobil partnership, sold off 23,000 wells to an asset management group. Many of these wells are idle.

AB 1167 would address this risk head on by requiring bonding for the full cost of plugging and abandonment upon transfer to ensure that the public is not stuck footing the Bill or suffering the health consequences of living near idle or orphan oil wells. We respectfully urge your aye vote.

Good. Afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I'm Anne Alexander, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council here as a sponsor of AB 1167. The Orphan Well Prevention Act would put the brakes on this growing crisis in California that you're hearing about today of idle wells joining the growing ranks of orphan wells when they're sold to new owners who lack the resources to plug and abandon them as is required.

Plugging and abandoning the orphan wells that exist now that we know about today is estimated to cost taxpayers about half $1.0 billion. Those are the ones we know about. This Legislature, as well as the Federal Government, took the important step last year of allocating funds to start paying for this process of plugging and abandonment. But it's essential that we not allow the orphan well problem to grow any worse, which would require yet more outlays of money, which is a very real risk right now.

The risk exists, as has been explained today, due to the twin problems of wells being sold to less solvent operators. And the other problem is the woefully inadequate bonds that current law requires to ensure that plugging and abandonment occurs at the end of the life of a well if the operator grows bankrupt.

So two problems contributing to this AB 1167 addresses these problems by ensuring that whenever a well is transferred, the transferee is required to post a bond for the full cost of plugging and abandonment, already a legal requirement. They would just need to post a bond to ensure that that is done, and this is needed to supplement the often trifling bond funding that is currently available.

California is in a very deep hole right now with orphan well liability, but AB 1167 would ensure that we follow the first rule of holes, which is that when you're in one, you need to stop digging. We respectfully urge your aye vote.

Ruth Mcdonald, 350, Sacramento. In support. Christina scarring with the Center for Biological Diversity and Strong Support. Megan Shumway from SAC act in strong support, Cynthia Shallot with indivisible California State strong, representing 82 chapters across the state. Thank you. In support. Hello, Laura Dehan. I'm with environment California, but I'm up here today to say that also Calperg, the California Public Interest research group is in strong support of this Bill. Hello, Fatimai. Paul Zubair from California environmental voters in support. Sakura Carter on behalf of Sierra Club California, in strong support.

Thank you. Are there additional witnesses in support in the room?

Next, we'll move on to witnesses in opposition.

Thank you.

Hello, Madam Chair and Members Paul Diero, representing the Western States Petroleum Association. We've gone a long journey since the publication of the CCST study back in 2018. We have adopted numerous bills on bond for wells, both blanket bonding and individual wells. We work closely with Senator Lamone in that respect and will continue to do so. We believe this Bill is duplicative of existing statutory provisions that prevents liability falling to the state.

We believe that the Bill will place an impediment to the sale of oil and gas wells to operators who are willing and capable of posting blanket bonds as currently allowed. We were looking at the Bill in a different direction, where you would have a major provider that wants growth in California to buy off of a smaller provider, not the other way around. Current Public Resources Code sections 324 and 325 establishes requirements of bonding individual wells and blanket bonds covering several wells.

Public Resources Code Section 3205.3 already authorizes the state oil and gas supervisor to mandate additional bonding for any operator of its entire inventory of wells. If the supervisor of the oil and natural gas at Calgem believes that the existing bonding amount is insufficient, and I'll repeat that, the existing oil and gas supervisor already has the ability to go beyond a bonding amount of which has been posted by an oil and gas operator to go beyond that amount if it determines that those bonds are insufficient.

30 seconds.

We also have been partners in the budget process on orphan well Fund, which has gone from 3 million to 5 million plus $7.5 million in the next two fiscal years paid by operators. Again, we believe this is duplicative of existing protections and it will exacerbate the problem it may intend to solve. We are looking at it from a larger oil operator, buying a smaller oil and operator. For those reasons, we oppose the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next. Additional witnesses in opposition in the none. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? We have a motion. Second.

We have a motion by Assemblymember Addis. Second by Assemblymember Marisucci. Would you like to close? Respectfully request your vote, Madam Chair. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Please call the roll. The motion is due past two. Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll leave it open for absent Members. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have item one by Assemblymember Holden. Mr. Holden, ready whenever you are.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Madam Chair, you're still here. Okay. Thought you were leaving.

I didn't have to go down and vote. Okay, go ahead.

Madam Chair and Members, first, I'd like to state that I accept the Committee's recommended amendments, and I thank the Chair and her staff and consultant for working with my staff to address some of the Chair's concerns while keeping the spirit of what I'm trying to accomplish intact, which is to see California meet its affordable housing demands, but not at the expense of our climate goals.

Therefore, today I'm presenting AB 43, a bill that would require California Air Resources Board to establish an embodied carbon trading system as defined and would make it applicable to building materials providers, developers, architectural and engineering firms, and construction companies. Last year, the Committee supported my Bill AB 2446, which requires CARB to develop a framework for measuring and reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with new building construction.

A segment of that bill dealt with CARB establishing a carbon trading system to allow the industry time to ramp up its efforts to meet our climate goals. While this committee supported this provision in the bill and Senate Environmental Quality, it was determined that the carbon trading system should actually be a separate bill due to insufficient time to analyze that portion of the bill. AB 2446 was signed by Governor Newsom.

During the interim last year, my office and supporters began having discussions with CARB and CBIA regarding the carbon trading system. CARB is providing technical assistance on AB 43 to ensure that it aligns with timelines and goals of AB 2446. I also want to thank CBIA for continuing to engage in good faith negotiations with my office and our supporters. Finally, late last week, I was made aware of concerns that some construction groups may have with this bill.

I commit to Members of this Committee that I will work with them to address their concerns should this bill move forward. AB 43 would include a credit trading system to allow for more efficient compliance with AB 2446. The system, called an embodied carbon trading system, will award credit for entities that go above and beyond the requirements of AB 2446 and require the state board to adopt rules and regulations for credit allocation method.

The bill further details how credits may be utilized to achieve the goals of AB 2446 and the state's greenhouse gas emissions targets. This bill would also require the state board to periodically review and update its emission reporting requirements as necessary. With me to testify and support, Mary Solecki, partner AJW, Inc. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Madam Chair, Members, good afternoon. Mary Solecki with AJW. I worked with Assembly Member Holden on this bill's precursor, AB 2446 from last year. We are now co sponsoring AB 43 because we want to improve the implementation of AB 2446 which was passed into law, and to make that program as robust as possible.

So big picture what we're trying to accomplish with last year's bill and this year's AB 43 is to create a first in the nation program where embodied carbon of our buildings is first measured and then reduced in accordance with our climate goals. For those unfamiliar, embodied carbon is the energy and emissions it requires to create a building. The manufacturing of our construction materials comprises up to 40% of a building's total carbon footprint. There are no ways to fix this retroactively.

We can only help create better buildings from the start, AB 2446 tasks carved to create a program that will measure and then reduce the embodied emissions of our buildings. But it lacked some key tools that CARB might need along the way. The most important of these is a credit trading system, which is the bill before you. A credit trading system will allow entities to have more flexible compliance.

Rather than making each development project perfectly match the benchmark, they will be able to trade credits where there is overcompliance or under compliance. And by having a means of monetizing credits, there will be an incentive to overcomply, which in this case means to build the best possible building. I do want to acknowledge that this bill is a work in progress. We are in conversation with stakeholders and appreciate this Committee's feedback and the amendments that you've offered. We appreciate your time and attention to this bill. We look forward to continuing to improve it.

Thank you. Are there additional witnesses in support in the room?

Hi, Sakereh Carter, on behalf of Sierra Club California in support.

Thank you. Next, witnesses in opposition.

Madam Chair, Members, Silvio Ferrari, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, we're actually not opposed, but we have raised concerns and we raised in that form largely out of respect for the author and the sponsors and the years long work we did on 2446 last year. So we are hopeful, based on conversation last week, that we can have that kind of collaborative process again and hopefully get there. So thank you.

Thank you. Next, any questions or comments from Committee Members? We have a motion by Assemblymember Muratsuchi, second by Assemblymember Wood. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, appreciate working with your Committee. This is a bill that's work in progress, even though we have really the fundamental of what this represents in the Bill 2446 last year. And we look forward to working with those who have concerns to see it move forward in a very positive and productive way. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion in second. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations.

[Roll Cal]

That Bill has six votes. We'll leave it open for absent Members. Thank you. Next we have Patterson. Patterson. Assembly Member Patterson. AB 692, item five. Let's start with that one.

Madam Chair and Members, thank you for the opportunity to present 692 and also 74. My understanding these bills have a support. Support which I appreciate and thank the chair for. Am I right? Did I get that right?

Yes. There was some late opposition on 692 today on AB 692. Okay, go ahead.

Well, that's what I. So we'll do 692 first then.

Okay. Yes.

In 2018, Assemblymember Friedman authored AB 20911 requiring the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to make recommendations that improve the fire safety of existing subdivisions that don't have a secondary exit route. Less than two months after AB 20911 was signed into law, the deadly campfire tore through the City of Paradise, killing 86 people, destroying nearly 14,000 homes. Capacity problems notwithstanding, paradise had four routes to get residents out of town in the event of an emergency, while many other communities only have one.

Had this been the case in Paradise, we could have expected that death toll would have been much higher. So this Bill before you, AB 692, provides a sequel exemption for projects recommended by the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection that improve the fire safety of existing subdivisions that are located in high or very high fire hazard zones and who do not have enough exit routes to get residents out safely.

A previous version of this Bill was passed by the Legislature, but was vetoed by the Governor. However, this Bill is important now. It seems to us now more than ever, in light of the increasing number and severity of fires that sweep across the state each year. Creek Fire, Dixie Fire, the Calder Fire being a few, the board has now released subdivision reviews, making it the perfect time to implement this policy and protect these communities before it's too late.

AB 692 is needed so that these projects, those that are in high and very high severity zones, can be completed with the urgency identified by the Board of Forestry. Here to testify in support is John Kennedy with the Rural County Representatives of California.

Good afternoon. John Kennedy with RCRC representing 40 rural counties, counties heavily impacted by wildfires over the last several years. Many of these subdivisions that could enjoy this Bill were built very long ago with just a single road for entering and leaving. This Bill seeks to address the risks of road closure and of congestion during an emergency, like experienced in paradise during the campfire, by expediting the creation of a secondary route and avoiding delays associated with CEQA and with potential for litigation.

Recent wildfires have been fairly horrific in terms of acreage, number of lives lost, and tens of thousands of Californians displaced. Simply speaking, this Bill will help these projects get built faster and reduce costs. The Bill fills an important gap because many of these types of projects won't be eligible for existing CEQA exemptions, and it's also designed to minimize environmental impacts.

The projects don't qualify for an exemption if there's a wetland or riparian area, if there are sensitive protected species, and you have to have public engagement in the process. And finally, all other environmental laws will still apply. It's just a CEQA exemption. So for these reasons, we strongly continue to support this Bill and urge your eye vote today.

Thank you. Additional witnesses in support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Chris McKaley, on behalf of Humboldt Mendocino Redwood Companies in support.

Good afternoon. Members and Chair, Madera County Board of Supervisors in support. And as indicated in the analysis, the Chairman of the Fresno board is also in support.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Amy Rohrer, Valley Contractors Exchange in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, witnesses in opposition.

Hi. Sakereh Carter, on behalf of Sierra Club California, Defenders of Wildlife, Endangered Habitat League, and California Native Plant Society and opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Assemblymember Mathis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Patterson, for bringing this forward. I think this got started with looking at the wildfires and colleagues. Many of you may know that I was absent from our body up here in Sacramento all of last week because I was on the ground in my district due to flooding and due to the lack of egress routes.

Some of that time was spent working with OES to get helicopters in to communities that had been completely cut off, to get folks medevaced out for the opposition. Let me tell you what happens in what's been happening with the floods. These single roads in and out get completely washed out, completely cutting communities off. And what happens when these things take place, the roads that are put in?

There's zero regard for the environment at that point during an emergency like a flood rip, rock, which is basically tore up, concrete, asphalt, whatever that you can put into the river to build a stable base to then create a road and gets put in. Mr. Patterson's Bill actually looks at a little bit of the environmental concerns, looks at the factors of what's going on, and makes sure that communities have a plan of what to do.

That way we can build and plan for these events that are going to happen, whether it's a fire or a flood. We have to make sure that communities are not being cut off, that they have a way out, because the last thing we need to be doing is trying to figure out ways to evacuate people with helicopters. Members, I ask you to support this, to really look at it.

I know we get into environmental concerns on things, but the reality of it is when there's an emergency, the last thing anybody's thinking about is an environment. The goal is to get in and get folks to safety. So if you really care about the environment, you'll make sure we do egress the right way on the front end. Instead of doing it during an emergency, ask for an aye vote.

Assemblymember Pellerin.

So my district has been profoundly impacted by fires and floods, and we have people who've been cut off from access, a way to get out in case of an emergency. So as much as I care deeply about protecting the environment, I think it's extremely important to protect human life. So I will be voting I on this Bill today.

Thank you. Assemblymember Wood.

Yeah, I, too, want to thank you for bringing this forward, Mr. Patterson. I can't remember the Bill. You said the previous version was vetoed. At what point? What year was that? Do you recall? It was an obernalty Bill, AB 394. So it's been 2019.

Okay. I guess I would just note we now actually have new wildfire severity maps that are probably significantly different. And I know that they are actually expanded from what we saw before. So I'm happy to support your Bill today. I think it makes a lot of sense. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Thank you, Assemblymember Muratsuchi.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson, can you cite examples of how CEQA prevented any egress route projects or delayed?

You want to address that?

Sure. So when local governments will be undertaking these projects in the future, they could have to go through the CEQA process. That process will add $100,000 or more in cost in terms of actually preparing the environmental documentation. Let me stop you there. My question is not speculative.

My question is do you have actual examples of CEQA that have prevented or slowed down?

So respectfully, there are numerous examples out there of CEQA cases that have been used to slow down various types of projects, specifically egress route projects. But we could easily see those types of lawsuits being filed against these projects as well.

Okay, so your answer is no. Correct. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Assemblymember Addis?

A certain number of counties came on, a certain number of counties came on in support, and I was just wondering if all counties across the state that have been affected by wildfires and now floods, as many of our districts have, if all counties were asked to support or just select counties, kind of how that came about.

I can take that. We've sponsored this Bill in previous iterations. Several of our counties are very familiar with it and are very engaged in the process to write letters. Others are considering it, and it takes longer for them to get letters out. I think there is a certain level of excitement and interest in this proposal. I would anticipate more letters coming from various counties. We would welcome any support from our member counties.

Certainly. Thank you. Yeah, I am supporting the Bill this year. I know Assemblymember Patterson has brought this Bill to this Committee in the past, as well as former Assemblymember Obernolte, but do I have a motion? I don't. So I have a motion. Assemblymember Mathis, second by Assemblymember Pellerin. Would you like to close? Sure.

I appreciate the comments and the consideration here. I think what has changed over time is, as was mentioned, we have a much better idea of the high fire areas. This is limited to those high and very high fire areas. We also have forestry boards and others who have taken a look at this and have basically made the value judgment that we've been able to identify the areas and those areas that are now in those risk areas have expanded.

And it seems to me that this is a prudent approach that we think will go a long way, as Member Mathis suggested, that we plan ahead and that these counties participate. And I think that the end product of all of this is going to be much better planning and a much safer circumstance for people in these difficult times. So I ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Please call the roll.

Motion is due. Pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

The Bill has eight votes. We'll leave it open for absent Members. Next item six, also by Assemblymember Patterson AB 704.

And again, thank you Members and Madam Chair, I will be accepting the amendments that the Committee has proposed. In 2019, AB 178 was signed into law. The Bill provided an exemption to the California Energy Commission ruling that required all newly constructed homes in the state to have solar panels beginning in 2020. The exemption was only for victims whose homes were destroyed in a natural disaster that occurred during a Governor declared State of Emergency.

AB 704 would extend that narrow provision of AB 178 to natural disasters that occurred in 2020 through 2027 to ensure that victims who are being forced to rebuild through no fault of their own are treated fairly under the law. 2022 has seen some of the most devastating wildfire seasons we've seen in history. Over 7 million acres burned. The financial burden of the pandemic added to the burdens of the victims also during this same period of time needs to be considered.

To imply that these victims should have to install solar panels, since they are building new construction is kind of not recognizing their particular and specific set of circumstances. If their homes were still standing, they would not be facing that kind of a decision. Given the average cost of solar panels after grants, that totals something like $20,000, along with the changes to net energy metering and the fact that many of these victims already do not have enough insurance to cover the cost of rebuilding as it is.

So AB 704 is an appropriate and limited measure to help ease the burden of rebuilding one's life, after all, was destroyed by a wildfire. Here to testify in support of AB 704 is Amy Rohrer, Executive Director of the Valley Contractors Exchange and Valley Contractors Workforce Foundation. She is also a Board Member of the Campfire Collaborative group, co-chair of the Campfire Collaborative Housing Committee, licensed general contractor, and a campfire survivor.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. I bet you didn't see that licensed general contractor thing coming, did you? As previously mentioned, that the campfire happened in November 2018. It actually killed 85 people and destroyed 14,383 homes and 619 businesses. We are coming up on the four-and-a-half-year anniversary of the campfire, and to date, we have only received certificates of occupancy for 18% of those homes. That's how many people have returned home after the fire.

So it's been a crazy slow recovery, and the need is actually growing. Four and a half years later, disaster case managers currently have 218 open cases. Since January of this year, they've opened 73 new cases. That's seven per week, again, four and a half years later, still getting new cases in. This is the most vulnerable population that can't afford market rate construction, let alone the solar panels that are now required to go on them.

We've been lucky enough to have the exemption, which expired in January of this year. And since then, we've had just even more complicated cases coming forward. For instance, we've got an elderly woman that can afford to build with $150,000. It's going to be a 750 square foot home and $150,000. I don't know if you've ever tried to build in California, but that's next to impossible. We rely on the volunteer build organizations to come in and help out with those builds. They're leaving the area.

And so to then put on another $20 to $25,000 on top of that price tag is just simply pricing these families out of the market of being able to afford to. And as Assemblyman Patterson already said, these people didn't want to build a home. This is just adding insult to injury. This isn't new construction. This is replacing the housing stock that was lost. Furthermore, I was lucky enough to be in a meeting last week with the CSLB registrar.

He pointed out that they used to get 80 complaints for solar installers per year in 2023. That jumped to 200 a month. So from 80 a month to 200 a month. And I think a large part of that is due to the number one issue we face in construction, which is lack of workforce. We don't have construction workers across the board, and solar installers are no exception to that. So for these reasons, I wish you would vote aye on this measure. Right.

And John Kennedy with RCRC again. So we're supporting this Bill again. As was mentioned, Senator Dahle's exemption expired January 1 of this year, but there's still a lot of homes out there that need to be rebuilt as the victims are slowly paid from the trust fund. So this Bill will help people put their lives back in order.

The Committee amendments narrow the scope of who can benefit from the Bill, but the Committee amendments will also ensure that those who are in greatest need of this assistance are able to get it. Contrary to what you may hear and may have heard in the past, solar panels don't add any extra resiliency benefits.

Many of our counties and jurisdictions have gone without power repeatedly, and it was quite a shock when residents found out their solar panels aren't going to keep them energized during a PSPS event, during any other type of outage, unless they have batteries as well. And the problem with that is batteries also add several tens of thousands of dollars more to the cost of rebuilding. So we think this Bill is narrow in scope, but it's desperately needed in many of these communities that are struggling to rebuild their lives. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, additional witnesses and support.

Next, witnesses in opposition.

Good afternoon. Chair and Members Kim Stone, on behalf of the California Solar and Storage Association, with sincere apologies for our late opposition. Apologize to the Committee in the Members and the author and to, I think Gavin Newsom said it best when he vetoed last year's version of this Bill. So I'm just going to read a couple of sentences from that.

The solar requirement is an innovative and forward leaning policy that requires new residential buildings to install a minimum amount of cost effective solar photovoltaic capacity to reduce homeowner energy costs, improve energy resiliency, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Extending this exemption would nullify these positive outcomes and instead increase homeowner energy costs at a time when many homeowners are facing rising electric rates and bills. This exemption also undermines the energy resiliency of homes, especially those in high-fire-risk areas, and increases greenhouse gas emissions. We respectfully oppose the Bill. Thank you.

Christina Scarring for the Center for Biological Diversity in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Next, any questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Assemblymember Wood?

Well, I want to thank you, Mr. Patterson, for bringing this Bill forward. As someone who's also experienced a lot of loss from fires, we see that in the case of the Tubbs fire in my district, wine country fires up in Potter Valley, up in Mendocino County, many people are underinsured. About 60% of people are underinsured. And so adding this onto, they've already experienced a loss. Now we're going to add an additional cost.

And in addition to that, some people aren't even able to get insurance for these new homes as they are built. So if the Bill passed out a Committee, I'd like to be able to be considered as a co author on this. It's narrow. I think it's necessary. And I will note that in one of the counties that I represent, little Trinity county, about 14,000 people, we have 100% carbon free power.

The cost is 6.5 cents per kilowatt, probably arguably some of the lowest power you'll ever find. And yet there is still a requirement for solar panels on new construction in that particular county. So that county has to file every two or three years for an exemption from that. It's the only county in the state like that.

But during the wildfires, after the wildfires, and there have been wildfires in that county every year for the last several years, those homes would have been subjected, possibly I have to think about, because they have the other exemption, but it could have potentially been subjected to this as well, even though they have that carbon free power 100% in the county. So I'm happy to support your Bill and like to be a co-author. Thanks.

Assemblymember Zbur.

Yeah, I appreciate what's behind the Bill, but given our climate crisis, I really do think that California really should be doubling down on solar, not moving away from it. I mean, I'm not aware of other circumstances where when you have a building that's been affected by a fire or other thing where you don't have to comply with building codes. So I think this is sort of unique. And given the climate crisis, I can't support the Bill.

I think on top of it, in many cases, insurance will cover costs with code compliance, and that removes an ability for people to actually add solar to building and have it covered by insurance after a loss. And from a climate perspective. Yeah, Solar alone doesn't provide resiliency, but solar plus battery does. And obviously, having those solar panels in place is the step towards more resiliency. And I think we should be focusing on how we add battery storage to some of these homes that are in these areas. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other questions? Assemblymember Mathis.

Yeah. For some of these homes that are up in the mountains. Mr. Patterson, I remember when you and I were part of the tree mortality task force, and we got to go up and look at this. A lot of those canopies are pretty high, and those homes didn't traditionally have solar, frankly, due to the fact that the trees were so high, they'd cast a shadow over, and it wouldn't really work all that very well.

So are there instances, I think, the building code question is interesting because there's a reason why they weren't built with that and why that wasn't looked at as an option. But do we have any cases where insurance companies have covered adding solar because of the new building code.

In the insurance policy? A percentage of it goes to code upgrades. So it's not just solar. I mean, you're rebuilding these homes to current energy efficiency standards. So comparing the energy efficiency to a house built in 1950, which is the majority in our area, to one built today, it's apples and oranges. But to your question, no, they won't.

Aside from the percentage they are allocated, if you had that in your insurance, which not everybody did, then, no, you pay out of pocket, which these people, many can't afford to do.

On that, the Bill would require the individual who benefits from this to not have code upgrade insurance. So code upgrade insurance would not cover that.

Assemblymember Hoover.

Just a quick question for the author on this Bill are there income requirements for who can take advantage of this exemption? Were those the amendments?

Yes. It's my understanding the amendments now require you to check all of the boxes instead of any of the boxes. And so the individual has to be at or below the median income for the county in which the residential billing is located. Okay, thank you. And it seems like with all these stipulations that this would have a pretty minimal impact.

Very few people are actually going to be doing this. Would that be the correct assessment of it? Frankly, it depends on the various kinds and types of communities that are impacted by it. I think with respect to the veto of the Governor, it suggests to me that there is an aspiration to have the solar, but there is a reality of people where you are putting another, and many times last nail in the coffin of them being able to rebuild their homes.

And the other reality is I represent a huge swath of the forest. And if you were to come with me to areas, you'd get an earful. All right. You get an earful. Insurance companies are not stepping up the way that they should. The, the ability to even get homes rebuilt because of some of the construction pipelines that, that are, are difficult. And so again, I want to remind us that 178 passed out of this Committee unanimously.

And what I am suggesting is that there is an entire cohort that has now been limited by these amendments that we've taken who are in a circumstance similar, but in many instances even more desperate.

And so I think if we can understand their plight, give this another opportunity, especially given the identification of so many of these other high forest areas, what we've seen with respect to the growth in this big footprint, of real concern, and that it seems to me that the people have identified and the foresters have identified these areas as being significant, that I think we need to recognize that things have changed. Thank you.

And that these folks deserve the same kind of recognition and help that their counterparts received in these other fires that were not covered. Thank you.

Okay, thanks. Do you have-. Assemblymember Wood?

And just a question as I look at item six here, and I apologize because item 6D, you've got these four. There are four conditions here. This is the owner of the residential building did not have code upgrade insurance at the time the property was damaged. And what was pointed out by one of the witnesses here is that even if you do have code upgrade insurance. It's included in the entirety of the payout of that.

So noting that in many of these fires now, including the fair plan, you can't get complete coverage for your property. You cannot get it. In some cases, you're limited to $3 million, and there might be properties that are much higher than that. What happened, and certainly in Sonoma County, Mendocino County, with the tubs fire and the wine country fires, 60% of people were already underinsured. To me, that piece there feels restrictive and not necessarily reflective of the reality of what some people are actually facing.

These are fires. Oftentimes they're not at fault. There's a third party that's responsible for that. So you're now adding insult to injury. And by the way, some of these folks are still waiting, in our case, 2017, the fire trust. There's still people waiting for payouts, people who haven't rebuilt houses. And I do appreciate that. Yes, it'd be great to have batteries and other things as well.

However, the reality is a lot of folks just haven't been able to get back into their homes, and the cost is so prohibitive. So I support this, but I really wish that d wasn't there or it was changed in some way, because if you're maxed out of your insurance and you have the code upgrade insurance, it doesn't help you rebuild your house anyway. Thank you. Madam Chair.

I believe I need- Question, Assemblymember Addis.

Just a, just, I want to echo a statement by Assemblymember Wood that there are so many people that would like to get insurance, that would like to do this, that would like to be able to afford this, that would like to add batteries, that would like to add solar, but it's not even that. They can't afford the insurance. They just can't get it. And so it's critically important, and I think we've seen the wildfires.

Now we're seeing the floods, historic floods over the last three years, and many people are out of their homes, and many people are not going to be able to get back into their homes. And so I know you crafted this around wildfire situations, but it's only going to get worse as our weather patterns increase. And so for that reason, I'm supportive.

Thank you.

Is that a motion? That's a motion. Thank you. I need a motion and a second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

I appreciate the discussion. As I said, I think the aspiration is a good one. I would suggest that if we give this exemption and we get more homes rebuilt, and people get their lives back together again. They may very well be in a position sometime delayed to maybe even consider solar or other ways to upgrade their homes. But we've got to get them back in their homes first, and they've got to be living their lives as close to what it was like prior to the fire.

So I think this is giving people a helping hand for a period of time. And who knows? They may very well be deciding to have other amenities added to the home over time. But they've got to get back in and get their lives back together, and I think we're giving them a hand in doing that. Appreciate your. I vote.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Secretary. Please call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill has eight votes. We'll leave it open for absent Members.

Appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Next we have Assembly Member Calderon. Item 16, AB 1195, roll. Hi. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. And Members, I want to thank the committee staff for working with my office on this bill, and I will be accepting the Committee's amendments. AB 1195 will establish the climate change preparedness, resiliency, and jobs for communities program. The program will provide grants to implement multibenefit, neighborhood level projects to increase community and landscape climate resiliency.

California is currently facing repeated cycles of extreme heat, devastating wildfires, and rising sea levels. AB 1195 will prioritize investments in low income and disadvantaged communities since they disproportionately experience the effects of extreme weather. Californians need greater access to climate resiliency to serve as active participants in meeting the state's important climate goals. Here with me today speaking in support of AB 1195 is Reed Addis, on behalf of Community Nature connection, and Abigail Mile, on behalf of the La Conservation Corps and the La Neighborhood Land Trust.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Reed Addis, on behalf of Community Nature Connection. Here today in support. Our organization works on the front line with communities that are typically vulnerable, especially to climate change. So we see it firsthand, their need to both address climate change, but they also want to be leaders in climate change. To do so, they need new tools.

We think the assembly members measure helps us to get those kind of tools that allow new innovation, allows us to work in our neighborhoods to put multi benefit projects together allows us to build new partnerships, which are critical when we're trying to advance climate change, at the policies and procedures to address climate change that is at a scale that is unprecedented. What I want to say is even though we work with a number of organizations in Los Angeles to help build this proposal, it does work.

And we purposely made sure it would work for those of you on the north coast or on the central coast by helping small communities or rural communities, allowing you to work at a neighborhood level to put these projects together.

So we're in strong support today especially, and I will say, because you may hear some comments about the affordable housing provision in this policy, we believe it's incumbent upon those of us in the environmental community, in our communities to be able to work on projects that deal with climate and affordable housing. So for that reason, we're in strong support today. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Abigail Mile, on behalf of the LA Conservation Corps and the LA Neighborhood Land Trust. Both of these organizations work across communities in the La area to bolster climate resilience in neighborhoods, parks and open space. So I want to talk a little bit today about this measure and how it's going to support this work. We work on the front lines of responding to the climate crisis.

There's a long list of climate projects that we and our partners are ready to pursue, from expanding alternative transportation options in our neighborhoods to supporting building electrification and increasing landscape resiliency across our communities. But as it stands, there are barriers keeping us from going after some of the existing funding out there for these projects.

Primarily the large size and scope of the existing grants makes it difficult for smaller community based organizations like ourselves to gain access to the funding and to partner with other small community based organizations to bring these projects to life. The partnerships and the plans are in place, but we need the state and partners like the regional conservancies to help us roll these projects out.

AB 1195 would support our work by providing manageable and accessible grant opportunities for smaller community based organizations to collaborate and implement multi benefit climate projects. Like I said, the partnerships are in place and we're ready to roll out these projects for a range of multi benefit projects. But we need the extra support to make that happen. So for these reasons, we strongly support AB 1195 and we respectfully request your support as well.

Thank you. Are there any additional witnesses in support?

Megan Shumway in support of this Bill.

Amara Eger on behalf of Calstar, California Association of Local Conservation Corps, Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, Cal Vans, Endangered Habitats League, and the California Invasive Plant Council in support.

Thank you. Next, witnesses in opposition? I see none. Are there any questions or comments from committee members? Seeing none. Okay. We have a motion from Assembly Member Addis. Second Assembly Member Calderon, would you like to close?

Just. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Please call the roll. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill has six votes. We'll leave it open for absent members. Thank you. Okay, next up, Assembly Member Connolly.

AB 388, item four. We have a motion and a second. Thank you.

Thank you, appreciate it. Madam Chair, members, great to be presenting on AB 388. Catastrophic wildfires have increased in frequency and severity over the last decade and continue to be one of California's greatest threats to the loss of human life, property, and ecosystem function. Wildfires are also increasingly happening across large landscapes ranging from tens to hundreds of thousands of acres. AB 388 would require CAL FIRE to establish a roadmap for developing and deploying larger landscape level projects in order to increase pace and scale of forest health projects, strengthen protection of communities, manage forests to achieve the state's economic and environmental goals, and drive innovation and measure progress. This Bill would also authorize CAL FIRE to provide regional block grants to eligible regional entities to implement regional plans and initiatives. This bill would build upon efforts at the regional forest and fire capacity program, or RFFC, operated by the Department of Conservation. The RFFC program has been a catalyst to build up regional capacity, develop regional priority plans for wildfire resilience. With me today to testify in support of this bill, I have Mark Fenstermaker, representing the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts, the sponsor of this measure.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts, proud to sponsor AB 388. Thanks to the regional forest and fire capacity program, over the past several years, we have seen regional and local capacity be built up, enabling the development of regional priority plans and the identification of hundreds to thousands of projects that are going to increase our wildfire resilience, restore the health of our forests, help protect our communities. And these plans are nearing their completion. And so we really need to be thinking about the next step here and how we get these projects funded and then implemented in an efficient manner so that we can really increase the pace and scale of our wildfire response. And that's where AB three a eight comes in. It's going to have Calfire develop this roadmap so that they can start to plan out how they get the projects and the plans really funded, as well as authorize some new tools for CalFIRE to really push the money down to that regional level in a more efficient and speedy manner. And that's why we are proud to sponsor AB 388 and really thank Assembly Member Connolly for bringing this forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support?

Yes, Madam Chair. Chris Micheli, on behalf of Humboldt and Mendocino Redwood companies, in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Michael Jarred, on behalf of the Nature Conservancy, in support. Thank you.

Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? There are none. So we have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

Motion is due passed to appropriations. [Roll Call]

The Bill has nine votes. We'll leave it open for absent Members next, I believe Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry. Item 10. AB 863. Go ahead.

Okay. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Since July 2011, California consumers have paid a carpet stewardship assessment fee when purchasing carpets sold in California. This fee funds a statewide carpet recycling program known as the Carpet America Recovery effort. CARE, which is a producer responsibility organization designed and implemented by carpet manufacturers with Calrecycle oversight.

Despite repeated interventions by Calrecycle and the California Legislature, CARE's consistent failure to successfully administer California's carpet recycling program has resulted in more carpet in landfills, wasted consumer fee money, constant litigation with the state, and permanent damage to our recycling infrastructure. Four major processors in California are no longer in operation, in part because of the consistently poor performance by Care, including one facility in my district that left the state for lack of sufficient material.

After failing to provide a plan for supplying recyclable material sufficient to support the facility and its up to 60 jobs. CARE actually allowed that company to take $500,000 in customer funded equipment to operate in Arizona. AB 863 will improve accountability for care or any other carpet recycling program by increasing civil penalties for violating relevant laws and making repeat offenders ineligible to run this program.

The Bill will also provide at least 10% of program revenue for grants to apprenticeships, programs for training journey-level carpet professionals in proper carpet recycling practices, which will increase the amount of carpet available for recycling. With me to testify in support of the Bill are Heidi Sanborn, the Executive Director of the National Stewardship Action Council, and two people will split up their time from north and south districts of the Painters Union, Mike Greenlee, representing District Council 16 and Tony De Trinidad, representing District Council 36.

Thank you, Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry, Madam Chair, and Members, I'm Heidi Sanborn with the National Stewardship Action Council, a nonprofit that advocates for a circular and equitable economy. We are the proud sponsor of AB 863 to improve California's carpet recycling program using two mechanisms that the Legislature has recently employed and other bills.

First, to increase the penalties to levels used for other national corporations and second, to ensure that the stewardship organization, which has failed three or more times to meet its obligations, is ineligible to run the program. CARE has repeatedly failed to meet its obligations, frequently submitting inadequate plans, annual reports and being consistently out of compliance with collection and recycling targets. Their failures have required significant oversight and enforcement by cowrecycle and used a lot of resources to monitor by the advocates and the Advisory Committee as well.

In fact, we've had to develop a graph because we literally could not even keep track of how many enforcement times the state has enforced against them and they've been out of compliance. In 2021, CARE's annual report states that 163,000,000 pounds of carpet is still being landfilled, with 88 million collected. Simple math. That means that two-thirds of the carpet that's available for recycling is not even being collected 11 years after the program started.

That means that our recyclers and our processors are not getting the carpet that they need to stay open, which is why we have lost our infrastructure. I've worked my whole career to build infrastructure and jobs here, and there's been nothing more frustrating than watching them leave after sighting after we passed a Bill like this. Californians deserve a program that's easy to use, creates and keeps jobs in California, and recycles the majority of carpet. It's made primarily from fossil fuels and has a very large carbon footprint. We want to thank Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry and Senator Dodd, and we ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members of Committee, my name is Mike Greenlee. I'm the Political and Communications Director District Council 16. I've been in the trades for over 29 years. We here at the Union of Painters & Allied Trades are in full support of the carpet recycling efforts that have been made to reduce the 1.6% of waste by volume that discarded carpet represents in our California landfills. We do believe that there needs to be more accountability to make sure that our stewardship programs meet the goals that are set.

The current stewardship program operator, Carpet Recovery America effort has been found in noncompliance by Calrecycling every year from 2014 to 2019 and again in 2021 and 2022. There needs to be serious penalties in place, with consequences to ensure the stewardship program is doing everything in its power to adhere to and meet the goals set forth in the plan requirements.

A lot of the retailers and contractors that we deal with feel that they are being forced to add fees to their products to fund a failing program where eventually the price point of carpet will be so high that consumers will opt for different products for their flooring needs that might not be as easy to recycle and end up in landfills as well.

We feel the requirement of this Bill to ensure that 95% of the assessments that are collected that are passed off to and paid by California consumers should remain in California to focus on the recycling efforts in California, program grants awarded by CARE from 2017 to 2022 have been awarded to multiple entities in Arizona, South Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Georgia.

Keeping these funds in California will help increase collection locations in California, making it easier for post consumer recycling efforts, as well as focus on California recycling centers to increase their capacity for testing and processing to handle the increased volume of materials and create jobs for California residents. This Bill also requires that 10% of the fees collected through assessment sales of carpet in California shall be 30 seconds on grants for state approved apprenticeship programs.

This should also be spent on training the installers on proper installation of carpet. Most of the carpet that fails early prior to end of term of life of product is due to improper installation by not knowing the compatibility of glues, adhesives, basic installation instructions, anything. If that's the 3 minutes I yield my time. I'm just kidding. Do I have time?

Go ahead.

All right. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Tony D. Trinidad with Union of Painters & Allied Trades District Council 36 from Southern California. We represent over 10,000 Members in Southern California and we're here in support of this Bill.

Just to echo what Mike was saying, this Bill would ensure that at least 10% of the assessments collected to be expended on grants to the apprenticeship programs approved by the Chief of Division of Apprenticeship Standards for training, apprentice and journey level carpet installers in proper carpet recycling practices and installation practices. And I believe Mike conveyed the reasons why we want installation practices included in this Bill. Thanks, guys.

Thank you. Next, additional witnesses in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jason Schmelzer, on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council and Alameda County Stock Waste, in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Mike West, on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, also in support. Thank you.

Nick Romo, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Robert Smith, Political Director for District Council 36 Union of Painters & Allied Trades and strongly asked for your support for this Bill. Thank you.

Chloe Brown in Californians Against Waste, in support.

Amara Ager, on behalf of Rethink Waste and support.

Thank you. Next, witnesses in opposition.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Randy Pollock, on behalf of the Carpet and Rug Institute. We're the Association that represents the carpet manufacturers throughout the country. We are part of the stewardship plan of care. And first, I want to say we did submit a letter. It was a little bit late. We were waiting for the Bill to be amended so that we could make it relevant.

And additionally, I also want to thank Assemblywoman Aguiar-Curry, who came out to a recycling facility, and her office has reached out to us, and we've been working with them. We all agree any program can be improved. But also I just want to mention that for the year 2022, the carpet industry and the care program was very successful. It met all of its stewardship requirements, all of its goals. The recycling rate was supposed to be 27%. We came in at 33%.

And in the fourth quarter, we ended up closer to 40%. We have approximately 400 public and private collections. Additionally, we do work with many of the premises programs from district council 16. As a matter of fact, in San Leandro, we have trained over 200 people, journeymen, there to learn how to take back the carpet, how to wrap it. We have actually placed containers on their facility there to make sure that there's a place to drop it off. We also do a lot of education with retailers.

Of course, it's very difficult to try to get those folks to get it all back into the process. We try very hard to do that. And we also want to work with the Southern California and the apprenticeship programs because we believe that's very important. We've done outreach with them, and we hope to continue to foster that, because the more carpet we get into the system, the better the recycling rate.

I can tell you, with the carpet that's coming in, we are about 100 different manufacturers that we have to subsidize in order for them to make the products, because many times they can buy virgin material a lot cheaper. So we have to subsidize it. So that's where almost 75% to 80% of the money goes to subsidize these programs. So we want to make sure that the money is being used wisely and making sure we're getting the best bang for the buck.

One of the issues that we run into with the enforcement, of course, you could have 12 goals in your program. You could say that we're going to have 30 collection sites, and instead we only end up with 28 collection sites for that year.

30 seconds.

Okay. We're deemed to be not in compliance, and that's what makes it very difficult. We could have a processor who say they could take 5 million pounds, but they have equipment breaks, so they have 3 million pounds, and then we are sent to enforcement. We were even sent to enforcement for the year 2020. There was a pandemic. Very hard to get back carpet during that time.

For all that, we look forward to working with the Assembly Member and her staff, because we believe that all programs could be fixed. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any additional witnesses in opposition, seeing none. Any questions or comments from Committee Members. Assemblymember Zbur.

I think this is a great Bill. Thank you for bringing it. I think it improves the program. I think it preserves jobs here in the State of California. So I'll be supporting the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any other Members? Okay, we have a motion from Assemblymember Addis. Second by Assemblymember Muratsuchi, Pellerin. Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I will support. Thank you for improving this EPR program. Would you like to close?

AB 863 just provides additional accountability for corporate stewardship organizations that rely on consumer fees. I'm excited to get this Bill forward. I appreciate all the work that your whole team's done, as well as my supporters here today. Thank you very much.

And for our record, will you be accepting the amendments?

Thank you very much.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Can you please call the roll?

The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Rol Call]

[Roll Call]

Okay, that Bill has seven votes. We'll leave it open for members that are absent from the Committee. Next, we have Assembly Member Garcia. I think two more bills, Garcia and then Hoover. And then the consent. Okay, great. Okay, this is item nine, AB 849. Mr. Garcia, you have a motion and a second already.

Thank you. And I'll be accepting the committee amendments. And with that, I'll allow for our two witnesses to be brief and talk a bit about the bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Kathryn Higgins and I'm the assistant deputy Executive officer for community air programs at South Coast AQMD. We are pleased to serve as the bill's sponsor. Under the AB 617 program, air districts are required to address localized air pollution impacts that endanger the health of environmental justice communities. There are currently 19 AB 617 communities statewide, and six are within the south coast region. To facilitate this community driven program, we work closely with community members, local leaders, nonprofit organizations, and other stakeholders to form community steering committee meetings known as CSCs. They represent each designated community. Through the CSCs, air districts coordinate with AB 617 communities to develop community emission reduction plans, known as SERPs, that include strategies to reduce disproportionate levels of air pollution. SERPs are developed through a process coled by CSCs in collaboration with air districts, and they do reflect the community's air quality priorities. SERPs contain a variety of strategies, such as commitments to develop new regulations, incentives to accelerate the adoption of cleaner technologies, as well as collaborations with community stakeholders and other agencies. However, at times, proposed SERP measures go beyond the authority of the California Air Resources Board and local air districts. It is in these cases that involvement of relevant state agencies is critical to address and resolve community identified issues. Without their involvement, various strategies will simply be abandoned. Additionally, as part of the CSC process, community members who engage in developing SERPs should be provided with an administrative budget supporting their autonomy. With CARB coordinating such a statewide administrative budget allocation, greater consistency throughout the program will be achieved. Thus, we strongly support passage of AB 849 to ensure that SERPs can be effectively implemented to address the needs of disproportionately burdened communities from the negative impacts of air pollution and toxics, and to provide autonomy for community members involved in developing SERPs. We respectfully ask for your support for this important bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Alan Abbs and I'm the legislative officer for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the district is in strong support of AB 849. Our air district serves 7.5 million residents and includes four AB 617 communities, West Oakland, Richmond, San Pablo, East Oakland, and Bayview Hunters Point. I'd like to thank Kathryn Higgins for describing the work of the air districts community steering committees and community members to develop and implement community emission reduction programs. As she noted, in many cases these communities identify strategies that go beyond the authorities of CARB and the air districts. To the extent that these strategies involve acknowledgment and participation from a state agency other than CARB, AB 849 provides a reasonable process to engage these state agencies and have community voices heard. At the same time, communities also should be able to get formal feedback from these state agencies either that the proposed strategy is worthy of consideration and future action, or that the strategy is infeasible and will not be considered. And that's what this bill is really about, giving communities the voice that we promised them with the passage of AB 617 in 2017. Additionally, we also support the proposal in AB 849 to establish an administrative budget allocation for community members involved in SERP development. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this bill, and I look forward to answering any of your questions, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Additional witnesses in support?

Brendan Tuig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association that's representing the executive officers from all 35 local air districts in support.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there witnesses in opposition.

Madam Chair and Members Paul Guerrero with the Western States Petroleum Association. Again, what we have is rather a technical concern which is recognized in the Committee analysis and specifically in the proposed amendments. There may be times when a community emissions reduction program has an element that may not be related to an air district's authority. In those cases, we want to make sure that the applicable state agency to not only implement, but adopt as well.

If an existing airborne does not have existing authority, we believe that the state agency should also adopt as well as implement consistent, we believe, with the proposed amendments. For that reason, we have an opposed unless amended position.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? Seeing none. We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Thank you for the Committee analysis. As I mentioned, we are accepting the amendments. And again, thank you for your attention on this Bill.

Thanks. Please call the roll.

The motion is due. Passed, as amended, to appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill has seven votes. We'll leave it open for absent Members. Next final bill is Assembly Member Hoover, item number 12, AB 909. And we still need also the consent calendar. I'm warning Members, but we'll start with AB 909. You have a motion and a second.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just want to start by saying that we accept the committee amendments. Thank you for working with our office on those. It's an important measure that'll help aid local governments and private landowners in cleaning up their communities and ensuring that hazardous waste is properly disposed of. Protects public health and safety, good for the environment. I'll turn it over to John Kennedy with RCRC.

Hi, John Kennedy with RCRC. We're happily sponsoring the bill today. We think this makes a more complete grant program at Cowercycle, a one stop shop for locals to get complete funding for cleaning up illegal disposal, and appreciate the committee's work to make sure that this actually does what it's intended to do.

Thank you. Additional witnesses in support.

Izzy Swindler on behalf of Solana Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? Seeing none. We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary. Please call the roll.

Motion is due. Passed, as amended, to appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill has 10 votes. We'll leave it open for the absent member. Thank you. We have a motion and a second for the consent calendar. Please call the roll.

Items on the consent calendar are AB 297, AB 706, AB788, AB 998, AB 1172 and AB 1279. [Roll Call]

Okay, we have 10 votes. We'll leave it open for the absent member. Thank you. Next, we're ready to lift the call. Okay. We'll start with item one, AB 43.

The motion is do pass, as amended to appropriations, absent members. [Roll Call}

That Bill has seven. We'll leave it open. Next, item four, AB 388.

The motion is do pass to appropriations, absent members. [Roll Call]

That bill has 10 votes. Leave it open for the absent member. Item five, AB 692.

The motion is do pass to appropriations, absent members. [Roll Call]

Bill has nine votes. We'll leave it open. Item six, AB 704.

Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations, absent members. [Roll Call]

Nine votes. Item 10. Excuse me. Sorry. 11. Item 11.

The motion is do pass, as amended to appropriations, absent members. [Roll Call]

That was item 11, AB 882. Okay, that Bill has 10 votes. We'll leave it open for the absent member. 14, item 14, AB 1167.

Motion is do pass to appropriations, absent members. [Roll Call]

That Bill has seven votes. Item 16, AB 1195.

Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations, absent members. [Roll Call]

Bill has seven votes. Item 18, AB 1347.

Motion is do pass to privacy and consumer protection, absent members. [Roll Call]

Bill has seven votes. We'll leave it open for absent members. I believe we're done. We're just waiting for assemblymember Friedman. Okay, thank you. Ward is on your. Okay, so we're ready for add ons. We'll start with one. AB 43.

Motion is due, pass, as amended, to appropriations, absent member.[Roll Call]

That bill has eight votes, that's out. Item four, AB 388

Motion is do pass to appropriations absent member. [Roll Call]

Bill has 11 votes. That Bill is out. Item five, AB 692

Motion is do pass to appropriations. Absent Member Friedman.

Bill has nine votes. That Bill is out. Item six, AB 704.

Motion is do pass, as amended to appropriations. Absent Member Friedman.

Has 10 votes. It's out. Item nine, AB 849.

Motion is do pass, as amended to appropriations. Absent Member [roll call]

Bill has eight votes. That's out. Item 10, AB 863.

Motion is do pass, as amended to appropriations. Absent member [roll call]

That's eight votes. That's out. Item 11, AB 882.

Motion is do pass, as amended to appropriations. Absent member [Roll Call]

Bill has 11 votes. That's out. Item 12, AB 909

Motion is do pass, as amended to appropriations. Absent Member [Roll Call]

Bill has 11 votes. That's out. Item 14, AB 1167.

Motion is do pass to appropriations absent members. [Roll Call]

Bill has eight votes. That is out. Item 16, AB 1195.

Motion is do pass, as amended to appropriations. Absent member [roll call]

Bill has eight votes. That's out. And item 18, AB 1347.

Motion is do pass to privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. Absent Member [Roll Call]

Bill has eight votes. That's out. Next, the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

11 votes. That consent calendar's out. Meeting is adjourned. Thanks.