Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

But we will start as a Subcommittee. So we've got ten bills on today's agenda, four on the consent calendar. That's item four SB 406, item five SB 91, item seven, SB 301, item eight SB 367. And we will have to adopt the rules once we have a quorum and all the rest. But let's get started with Senator Stern, who's going to present to us item one, SB 12.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Of course, we appreciate you being here at center. Stern, you got a baby coming within hours.

Yes. imminently.

Yeah. Congratulations.

This EQ has been the hub of a lot of big life events this year. Be on the verge of a new life here. But with that in mind, thinking about the future presenting to you SB 12 and 2030 is not far away. Even though all our kids will somehow be like eight and nine and ten years old by then, it's sort of hard to imagine it's going to be here before we know it.

And unfortunately, the state of California right now, I don't think has an adequate enough roadmap for how we get from 2023 to 2030. And we're going to have to make some really big decisions about how we implement not just the current program, but how we reach beyond, because we know we're not going fast enough. And that's true. Just look out your window at flooding Sacramento and freezing Southern California and elsewhere. The damages are very real and the liabilities to our state are massive.

I don't think we can afford to go slow and to land somewhere that's south of what the President's recommending, what the EU is on track for. And right now, California is not on track to keep up with the rest of the world when it comes to reducing climate emissions.

So SB 12 would not only increase our ambitions, but thanks to the pathway carved out in the analysis here by EQ and the joint hearing we had, I believe last week, maybe two weeks ago, two weeks ago, losing track of time. But because that joint hearing and some of the work we did on oversight of the Airboard, I think the analysis rightly points out that it's not just about this number of 55% or 48% or 40%.

It's really about how we get there and what decisions are we willing to make right now? The Airboard, for instance, didn't take into account the Inflation Reduction Act in their modeling to determine how far we could get by 2030. And yet the costs drivers that are going to be associated with the IRA could make technology implementation incredibly less expensive than is currently modeled for. So when the airboard says we can reach 48% by 2030, I think they're not accounting for all the tools in our toolkit.

So this Bill pushes them to look at those enhanced targets again to the committee analysis point. I want to work with you all to flesh out beyond the targets what that implementation roadmap looks like.

There's a provision, for instance, in the Health and Safety Code, if you look back to the origins of AB 32 called 38 561, subsection B, that section says the airboard needs to lay out what mix of direct emissions reduction measures, market based measures, and other financial or other incentives that are necessary to achieve our 2020 targets. However, we never updated that statute and so it only required them to look at 2020.

And so they didn't look at that mix of measures when they proposed their Scoping plan in the past few months. And so that lack of sort of roadmap, yes, we have a compass, but we need details. The consequences are significant to our natural resources, to our forestry and AG communities, to our environmental justice communities living on the front lines. And so rightly so I think a number of stakeholders have concerns and questions about the lack of clarity.

And I just want to express I've met with both some of the industry and labor groups that have concerns about this measure, but also the environmental justice community that also has a variety of concerns about sort of not just a number, what's the actual implementation roadmap? So I actually think there's a strange confluence of opinion there where everyone's going to want to see more detail out of this Administration.

I don't personally think it's the Legislature is the best to make all those decisions and sort of pick pathways. So we're going to have to try to find a balance between exactly how much detail we get into in the Legislature of what do we want the future of cap and trade to be? Do we want a future of cap and trade? Are we going to redefine the entire program?

Do we want to have no say trading in certain environmental justice zones or is that going to actually drive up costs without much benefit? Those are the kinds of questions that I think the airboard has to wrestle with, I think we need to wrestle with. And most importantly, I think this was the governor's fifth pillar of his climate plan that we pushed through the Senate last year.

It is certainly unfinished business and the Assembly failed to pass this bill, but I don't think we're going to pass the same exact bill again this year and send it to the governor's desk. I think we're going to have to do more Governor is going to have to hear the legislature's opinions and get a little more hands on about all this.

So I would really invite this committee to put their opinions input on this legislation and certainly committee staff to dig in and hopefully come up with a good piece of work product here in the coming weeks before we go into appropriations and you guys have a better sense of, again, not just a number, but details. And what are we going to ask the Airboard to get back to us and when? So with that, I've got two lead witnesses here.

I don't know how you want to structure timing and all that, but I think Barry Vesser with Climate Center is here standing in for Dr. Dan Cameron and then Melissa Romero with Enviro. Voters, thanks

Let's just go right ahead with your witnesses, let's establish the quorum first. Secretary, please call the Members.

Roll Call

Okay, so we have a quorum and let's proceed. So we're not still not doing witnesses at the table or how does that work? How unfriendly. Okay, well, you may proceed.

Thank you.

We're friendly, just the rules are not right. All right.

Good morning, Chair Allen and Members of the committee. Thank you so much. My name is Barry Vesser from the Climate Center. As the UN General Secretary said, it is code red for humanity. 220 medical journals have warned us that our rapidly warming climate poses the greatest single threat to public health and that there is no temperature rise that is safe. With the state being pummeled by atmospheric rivers made more intense by climate change.

The time for accelerated climate action is now, as California has shown, with AB and SB 32, SB 100, and more recently, the 2035 ZEV goals. Establishing bold targets sends market signals, unleashes private investment and major innovation. Last year, Energy Innovation, using their Energy Policy simulator model, found that a 55% reduction scenario creates millions of jobs in California in the coming decades. By 2030, it leads to more than 200,000 additional jobs. That's jobs gained net. It is not a job killer, it is a job generator.

We believe that a 55% target is achievable. The European Union has set a goal of 62% by 2030. The UK has set a goal of 68%. The Climate Center's report based on Energy Innovation's model, found that we could achieve a 65% reduction by 2030, which would have many benefits for California. We hope that the committee will consider adopting this target commensurate with the science seriously. To ensure that our approach is equitable, we need to do two things. First, we must move as quickly as possible.

A report by E Three shows that we could avoid 5000 deaths per year from fossil fuel pollution by moving more rapidly, by decarbonizing buildings and transportation. Those fatalities are occurring now predominantly in communities of color. Second, we must ensure that climate solutions do not increase pollution burden that these communities face now. We support adding guardrail language to the Bill as suggested by our environmental justice colleagues. Please vote yes on SB twelve. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next witness, hey there.

Good morning, chair and Members. Melissa Romero with California Environmental Voters. California has not only an opportunity here, but a responsibility to be a global leader on climate. The latest climate science shows us that things are much more dire and much sooner than previously predicted. The climate crisis is not in the distant future, and we're no longer just acting for future generations. We're acting to save our own lives.

If the extreme heat wave last September, prolonged drought and extreme storms over the past two months that have caused flooding and devastation in many parts of the state weren't evidence enough that this Legislature has a moral obligation to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy, we're not sure what is. And the details of how we implement this accelerated goal are absolutely critical.

We have to make sure that as we address the climate crisis at the scale and pace that we need to, to save our own lives, we don't continue practices that keep many communities bearing the brunt of pollution. It is possible, and we can and we must address environmental racism on our path to climate justice because we have no other choice. We urge your aye vote on SB 12 to accelerate our state's climate targets. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, let's go ahead and take other folks who want to voice their support for the measure.

Mr. Room and then.

You can go right ahead.

Good morning Will Breeger on behalf of 350 Sacramento Climate Action, California Conejo Valley, 350 Southland Legislative Alliance and 350 Humboldt and we are in support of the Bill thank you.

Thank you so much.

Good morning, Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in strong support of the bill and in strong support of the Guardrail language proposed as well. Thank you

Liv Butler on behalf of Californians Against Waste in support. Thank you,

Janet Cox for Climate Action in California. Thanks so much, Senator Stern, it's a great Bill, we strongly support it.

Good morning, Chair and Members Mara Eger, on behalf of Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, California Compost Coalition and series in support of SB Twelve. Thank you.

Thank you

Faith Conley on behalf of Air Products in support

Miriam Eide with Fossil Free California, in support of SB Twelve.

Phoebe Seaton with Leadership Council for justice and Accountability on behalf of a group of environmental environmental justice organizations. We really appreciate the author's commitment, the committee analysis and consideration of environmental justice as we reach our climate goals and look forward to working with the author and sponsors in the committee going forward. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Great. Let's go on to the phone line. No, we're not doing the phone line. Excellent. New system. Okay, let's go to lead witnesses on opposition. Who do we have?

They just come up on their own now. We don't have it ahead of time anymore.

What if they have fight?

They organize it on council.

All right. Hey there.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Good morning.

You can move the mic up a little bit, I think. There you go. Great.

Thank you. Is that better? Yes. Great. Morning, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair and Members Brady Van England, here on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. First, I'd like to thank Senator Stern for creating an open door and actually starting that conversation with us. We really appreciate the conversations that the conversation you've shared with the committee this morning.

Members of the Chamber do actually have a lot of the same viewpoints. We have Members that are investing in sustainable aviation fuels, Members that are sequestering working lands, and Members that are actually pushing to increase energy efficiency and uptake and adoption amongst their constituents as well. However, unfortunately, we do have to base our position on what's in print.

So we are respectfully opposed to this Bill, given that the due deliberation that's often informed as part of the Scoping plan and the modeling that's necessary hasn't really been taken care of here. There are cost concerns that are associated with that. Californians right now their pocketbooks are stretched then, so we need to be mindful of how that same code section, I think it actually is 38 561 says that this needs to be done in a cost effective and technologically feasible manner as well too.

So we'd hope that that approach is taken rather than finding, I think we called them arbitrary targets, but finding targets that are beyond what we currently have in place and what's been scoped out and ensuring that we're able to achieve those targets in a way that actually does minimize the cost. We have a delicately balanced energy system in its current front. I think we're all painfully aware of how delicately balanced it is.

So ensuring that when we do integrate new energy capacity into the grid, that we're actually able to do so in a cost effective way and ensure that it's done in a way that actually can deliver the most capacity in a meaningful way as well too. So with these reasons, we're respectfully opposed and thank you very much.

Thank you. Hey, Jeremy.

I am not as tall as him. Good morning. Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. In opposition today.

As we all know, California continues to be in a crisis. Whether it be extreme weather, an overburdened electric grid, or skyrocketing costs for cost of living for all Californians. Families are leaving the state in unprecedented numbers as California companies are announcing mass layoffs and the state is looking at a multi billion dollar deficit. To be clear, the building trades believes in climate change. Because of that, a generation ago, we started to train our apprentices in utility scale solar and wind.

And we fought for the Entitlements and built the vast majority of utility scale wind and solar, making California a global leader. But we also have the unique position to understand the electric grid, renewable power generation, and how hardworking families, including our own Members, are struggling with the cost of everything from heating their homes to watching the price of a dozen eggs skyrocket. Escalating climate goals when we've already been told by the regulators that we cannot reach existing goals is reckless.

And the unintended consequences will hit working families the hardest. It will drive the cost of living up even more, but will not do anything to decrease California's dependence on oil and gas in the near term. It will just make everything more expensive and risk even more mass layoffs. We share the author's commitment to the environment. We appreciate the conversations we've had with him already.

That is why we have appeared before you in support of offshore wind, carbon capture, new clean fuels and any number of green energy solutions and hope to do that in the future. And we remain committed to a cleaner California for all. But we cannot do it in a way that risks collapsing the power grid and making necessities like heating our homes or driving to work or school a luxury that prices even more Californians out of the state we're respectfully opposed today. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Let's hear from other folks who want to voice their opposition to the Bill here in person. And then we will be taking all of the support and opposition on the phone lines after this. At this point, me too.

Good morning. Nick Chiappe, on behalf of the California Trucking Association, in a respectful opposition. Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks, Rob.

Good morning, Members. Rob Spiegel, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in opposition. Thanks.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members Matthew Allen with western growers also opposed.

Morning, Mr. Chair. Zach Leary, on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association. We're opposed.

Thanks, Zach. Thank you. Okay, so there's a new system. We're just having everybody call in on both sides. So let's hear from the phone lines.

Thank you. If you are in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero again. That is one and then zero for support or opposition.

Yeah. And just for folks to remember, this is SB Twelve. Henry Sterns, SB twelve.

Thank you. We will go to line 27. Your line is open.

Maddie Munson on behalf of the Agricultural Energy Consumers Association in opposition.

Thank you. Next, we will go to line 22. Your line is open.

Hello, Alice representing the Glendale Environmental Coalition in support.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 26. Your line is open.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Roger Dickinson of Civic Well, formerly the local government commission in support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next go, line 28. Your line is open.

Hi, my name is Sarah Vonrdridge with Public Citizen. We have over 500,000 Members and we support SB 12. And I just like to pose the note and question. When we talk about economic impacts to hardworking Californians, there's probably no greater impact than climate and specific example.

So sorry, we're just asking for folks to voice their support, opposition, their fellation. We're happy to take written testimony from

oh, I see. Okay. It's my first time doing this.

It's all good.

We support the Bill.

Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Next call.

Good morning chair Members. Megan Cleveland with the Nature Conservancy in support.

Thank you. Our next one will be line 31. Your line is open.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next line is twelve. Your line is open.

Hi. Stephen King with environment California. We strongly support SB Twelve.

All right, thank you, mr. King. Next call.

Thank you. That'll be line nine. Your line is open.

Good morning. Kathy Schaefer, San Fernando Valley climate reality in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next line 24. Your line is open.

Yes, good morning. Valerie Ventry Hutton with 350 Bay Area action in strong support.

Thank you. And next we'll go to line 32. Your line is open.

Good morning, Mr. chair and members. This is Victoria Rome with NRDC in support.

Thank you. And Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Thank you so much. All right, everybody, that's the new system. We're sticking with it. Appreciate the callers, and let's now bring the item to the committee for questions, comments, thoughts? Oh, let's call a quorum first. Let's do that. How about that?

We got a quorum.

We've already established the quorum.

If you want to do that now.

I'm sorry. You want to do the rules? Gosh, kid was up a lot last night. All right. Yes. So let's vote for the rules. Let's adopt our committee rules. Without objection, the rules are adopted. Let's go to now to hear about the Bill. Questions, comments, thoughts? Senator Gonzalez?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. I'm a proud joint co author, I believe, or principal co author. This is the right thing to do. At the end of the day, I think obviously we're going to still have a fight here in California to some degree, but I think over 90% of S and P companies now publish ESG reports in some form. And since 2017, this has been the sort of reporting of the day.

And I think climate risk, of course, is something we need to know about, not just from industry, but for the General public to be able to understand where we need to pivot in terms of climate risk and change and all of the above. And so with that, I'm happy to support, and I look forward to working with you on this bill to see how we can move it forward.

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. It's my first policy committee. Very excited to be here. So I gave a lot of attention to this bill. I'm in the phase where I'm still reading everything, but as a new Member here, I've come up here, I've soaked up a lot of information, and some of the things that I've been hearing is that we're not even on track to meet the goals now.

And while no one here has to convince me to say that this isn't a crisis I know it's a crisis. I'm on board to get us closer to creating an actual future for my children's children's and so forth. I would ask for some teeth here. I would ask for a plan to get to that goal. Not sure if this is the military in me where I need to see the mission be accomplished and how it's going to be accomplished. That's really important for me.

And at the end of the day, we can pass all this symbolic great headlines, and I applaud you for being at the front of this, Senator, but I want to make sure that we're just not passing headlines, but that in five years, we can actually do another headline and say California actually reached it. So when the analysis spoke, he had some concern about not being able to reach the 40%. I'm looking at Carbs recommendation of 48%.

I recognize in your introduction, you said that this may not look like what the end product is. So I am going to be supportive of this, but I want to make sure that, as you continue those conversations, we're adding some meat to it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good to see you, Senator Stern. So a couple of questions. In your opening statement you said, I want the committee to kind of help along again. I'm kind of along the same lines as Senator Menjivar. Where's the where's the detail? So we have the LA report. We just went through the hearing a week or so ago and we've not met any marks when it comes to how are we going to do it.

I know there's suggestions for dairy digesters and those types of things, but really, how are we going to do that? Because that's what you're hearing from the business community and I'm hearing from my constituents and I'm assuming you are as well. Just a couple of days ago, I got a call from somebody who was on a fixed income, whose gas rates went up, who power is being shut off many times through the year. And they're like, hey, what are you guys doing up there? What's happening?

And this is real. And I totally am not somebody who says the climate is not changing. It is.

I'm a farmer. Look, I guarantee it's changing, but what are we doing about it? How are we doing it? That's the point. It's like we have floods now and the water is going straight into the ocean. We need that water when we have droughts. We talked about last year continuing Diablo Canyon because we actually need that power. So I guess the question is we can set all the goals in the world and they're great for headlines. They're great.

And your name's going to be on it, you're going to champion it, but there's detail behind it and Californians are suffering. So where's the detail? I go, tell me how we're going to actually achieve this when we haven't. According to the LAO and what we heard two weeks ago, we haven't met one of those goals yet. And the costs are skyrocketing in California. And Californians are leaving because they can't afford to live here. That's the number one reason they're leaving.

They can't afford to buy a home. They can't afford to travel. You got vehicle miles traveled in here. How's that achievable? I mean, we heard from Senator Caballero during the hearing about vehicle miles traveled for her district and no solution. So where's the solution to how we meet these goals?

Thanks for the question and I'll try to respond also to Senator Menjavar's excellent point in response as well. We want this vehicle, this bill to be the place for that reform. And whether it's a matter of telling the Airboard to come back to us with those details or supplying them ourselves I think is the big question, right? So do we want to lay out those decisions? Do we have a cap and trade program, for instance, that extends beyond 2030?

And what do you want that to look like? Do you want the Legislature weighing in on that. Right now, the Airboard has basically kicked that can down the road and not decided. So we have a scoping plan essentially without knowing what the role of market based mechanism would be. I think the folks at the chamber would argue and others would say, that's going to ensure cost effectiveness. That's going to ensure costs are low.

And the Environmental Justice Committee would say, well, that means we may be sacrifice zones and there will be trading in our areas. The Airboard has sort of avoided that question, if you will. And so I think either we need to answer that question or push them to answer that question. So that's sort of the decision point

Do we make this bill a very long bill where we sort of spell out our own scoping plan and sort of make all those decisions, or do we just tell them within some kind of time frame, lay out that roadmap, and we want to see specifically, say, jobs numbers associated with these different scenarios. There were scenarios that they didn't model. That's what this bill is going to be.

What I would ask from you and for anybody here today is to keep this bill moving along and take a look at it before it gets to appropriations or the floor and to see then if it meets your test. And I would say to the folks from agriculture with concerns, I want to hear what those are and how to work them in, because I think there's big potential for sequestration natural working lands. But to your point, if the VMT GHT Reductions don't show up,

If we don't end up building more infill into rural and suburban areas or that starts to fail, where are we going to meet that shortfall? This bill is intended to force the Administration to show us where that shortfall is going to be met, as opposed to sort of waiting till, say, 2028, and then we're saying, oh, we're short 10%, or whatever it may be, and then we don't know.

So I recognize that you're voting on something that's sparse today, so I appreciate if you can't be there. But that's certainly the intention is to flesh that out. And maybe in more detail here, or maybe administratively.

Just a follow up, I'd like to say that I'd be happy. This Bill doesn't talk about the airborne and their unelected authority. They're appointed folks who have not met the goals. And when they came back to it, if you want to put that in this Bill, it's something I'd love to talk about, about us taking control back of what the airboard is just authorized to be able to go do on their own. And they've failed on almost every single front. This bill doesn't talk about.

This bill talks about in creating the percentage of a higher mark, and they failed on every count so far. We had a hearing, Senator Bradford asked for an audit of the Airboard, and I went to that hearing. I don't know if you were there. It was a joint hearing with the Assembly and the audit came back where they failed on every front. And so I have no confidence in the agency to be able to get it done.

If you want to talk about that, I'd happy to be looking at legislation that actually gives the power back to us and we can talk about those things. I'm a certified organic farmer in California and you want to talk about AG, it doesn't matter. If I can't balance the books and compete with China and Nevada and Oregon, I'm not here and it doesn't matter. You win, then you have no emissions for me because I'm out of business. But we're still getting that food from somewhere.

We're still going to eat. We're still going get to that electricity. And there are many bills about that. So I'd love to have those conversations. And when you talk about jobs, we heard from the building trades about jobs. Yeah, you create jobs when you go out and build offshore wind. Absolutely you do. But what jobs do you place get displaced? We never talk about the jobs that get displaced by the cost up and businesses leaving California. And they are leaving. There's no doubt about it.

I'm not talking about the 10,000 jobs that are Silicon Valley. I'm talking about people who are leaving, taking their businesses because they can't afford to stay here, but still producing the product somewhere else and shipping it into California. So today I'm not going to be able to get there. I haven't seen I don't have the confidence in the fact that we're actually going to give the business community and our constituents a plan to say, hey, this is going to drive down the cost of energy.

This is going to save the planet and you're still going to be able to stay in California. So I appreciate you bringing the Bill forward because we need to have these conversations. And I'd be happy to talk about these agencies that are totally out of control and missing the mark every time. Whether it's CPUC, whether it's the California Air Resources Board, EPA, they're all missing the mark. And we're giving them a lot of power that we should have right here. So. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, I appreciate the Bill. I guess we had a hearing with the LAO to tell us if we are meeting the 2030 mark. We're not. I was there at the hearing. I heard him. We're not meeting the mark. Now you're bringing it higher. So we have no plan from right now in 2023 to meet the mark in 2030. Now you're making it harder to even meet it in 2030 or 2050. Right.

The other part for me is that my constituents are suffering. Inflation cost is so great. And last year when gas prices went up almost $9 per gallon. In areas in my district where people can't even get to the grocery stores they're now picking between a gallon of milk versus a gallon of gas. I have areas in my district that are the poorest of the poorest in Orange County and they are reliant on getting to work with their car. The bus system doesn't work well for us.

It takes twice the amount or three times longer to get to work versus a car. And we can talk about folks giving incentive for folks to buy EV hybrid. My constituents, part of my district can't even afford to buy those cars, they're so expensive. I've been in the market trying to find one. I can't find one for us either.

And so you know, I guess is that we're here last year when gas prices went up so high we had to then reimburse the residents of California to give them a little relief and help. How do you see this in terms of will this actually raise more costs in the future or is it going to lower the cost of gasoline? Are we going to make it? I don't know what the incentive is to buy an EV, 8000, whatever it is.

These cars are like 20, 30, 40, 50, $60,000. You can't find a $20,000 ones around anywhere these days for EVs or hybrid. I'm looking at the perspective of a young family who has young children. You have them, I have them, whose both parents are working and can't. I mean looking at a carton of eggs versus milk and a gallon of gas and then the natural gas goes up, electricity goes up, so everything's going up.

And at the end of the day oil in itself though affects almost everything that we do or have in our life, not just gasoline for our car. So I'm looking balancing what your goal is but then also being realistic and try and figure out what the meat of it is. And I know that you mentioned we're not really here to do that part of the work.

You want the Administration to do it and the agency but it's kind of hard for us to support something that's just like well here's the bag but it's empty. I don't know what's in the bag yet.

Right, thank you for that. And I think affordability does need to be at the heart of our entire climate conversation because if we can't show away out of poverty in California and with the climate ambition that's commensurate with global leadership then we're not proving a leadership model right, we're just showing some kind of new elite form of sort of energy poverty.

I think the key is going to be well a things outside the scope of this Bill like getting protections in place against windfall profiteering from the natural gas industry or from the oil industry. So that's sort of outside the scope. But I think to your point about the sort of economics behind this? I think the modeling we're really confident in, it's the same modeling that drove the inflation reduction act the folks at Energy Innovation did, that downscale California model.

And so that electric vehicle that you talk about is maybe too expensive today. The projections are we're going to have under $30,000 cars coming onto the lots in the next year and two, and the vehicle sales have spiked dramatically. Used car sales are up dramatically.

So if the Airboard, in other words, didn't anticipate how cheap batteries are about to get, how cheap these cars are about to get, and this flood of almost a trillion dollars of capital moving into this sector, if that's not being accounted for, then how do we even know that we're not going to hit it, right?

I think the issue is it's not so much that we're not on track to hit 40%, it's that they haven't spelled out the details of how we're going to get there again, are we going to use cap and trade to help us get there or not? Are we going to sort of depart from that? Are we going to rely more on incentives and carrots, or is more going to be sticks?

Do we need to, for instance, accelerate the 2035 light duty vehicle standard and make that faster, or the renewable portfolio standard, which is a huge part of the power sector that Senator Dali talked about? Does that need to actually go faster? The PUC just ordered another three gigawatts of renewable power. So it's not a dynamic enough climate model that the airboard's using to lay out for us what those sort of choices are. That's what I would say. It's too high level vision. 2045 not enough.

Okay. If you take this route, you're going to end up with more cost here, job loss here, but bigger health benefit here versus path B, where you're going to have, say, more job creation, but more industrial projects, things like that. So that's where, look, we can try to fill that bag with all those pieces ourselves. But part of me wrestles with how much expertise we've got here to actually do that.

I think if they open up their books, showed their model in more detail, added some of these key factors, and again kept pushing, I think then we can go home and really be clear about what this path entails. I appreciate that if you can't be there today without that bag full, but maybe we can get it halfway full for you and Senator Dali before the floor, you'll take a second look.

Yeah, and I appreciate that. It's just that we have a current goal that we can't even meet. I just don't know how if you can't meet your current goal. I don't know pushing that goal further is going to make it easier. I don't think it is. If they had the answer, it would have been

This won't be easy.

Yeah. So I mean, if the answer is already there for the current goal, then I would have more confidence in going higher.

But since there isn't and we're not meeting it and I look at the LAO, I mean, LAO is an agency that is not for us, not for anybody. They're just an independent agency that helps us understand and look from the outside, has no relationship to us, the Governor, nobody. It's just their job is to go in and look at these things and just give us their opinion.

And so when the LAO tells you us in a hearing saying that, yeah, we just don't know how you guys going to meet that goal. And there isn't really anything in detail right now on how to even meet that goal. So pushing the goalpost higher, to me it's just impossible now it's become completely impossible than anything. So thank you.

Senator Hurtado.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, thank you for bringing this to our attention. Last year I did not support a Bill that was similar to this one. Obviously, there's a lot of issues that need to be addressed. But the reality is that the climate crisis, as everyone knows, it's here. It's here already and we have to deal with it.

I had an interesting conversation just last night with a couple of people and I we're talking about family and children and I said, Well, I don't know if I want to have children because why would I want to bring children into this environment of climate crisis after climate crisis, right? It doesn't look good. That's the reality. But I also believe a lot in the people of California and the talent that we have here. And I do believe that we need to get to this goal.

That we need to get to this goal. We need to reduce emissions, bottom line. But we also need to look into adaptation and affordability. That's got to be part of it. It can't be left aside. And the other thing is that all those that are opposed to this Bill should be in support. So how do we get those in opposition in support? Because the climate crisis just doesn't impact one community or another. Obviously it impacts some communities more than others, but it impacts us all.

And the bottom line is that we need to reduce emissions. We need to all come to the table. And today I'll be coming to the table in support of this Bill. But I want to make sure that moving forward, this Bill also doesn't impact financially those that are already most harmed by the climate crisis. So I will reserve my right to vote against it down the road if I see that those issues are not being addressed. But I will support it in committee today.

Thank you.

Senator Gonzalez.

Just wanted to clarify, I had the wrong Bill, user error. But of course I support. This Bill, and I will align my comments with the author. This is what happens when you're running late. Total full disclosure, but I will align my comments with you. Just yesterday, we were talking about transportation and of course, the IIJA and all of the billions of dollars that are going to be coming to California to ensure that we're decarbonizing while also creating good jobs. We can do both.

I believe these are very ambitious goals on top of ambitious goals, but I do believe that we can hit them if we try with these dollars. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for us to receive these dollars from the federal government and actually apply them to where we need most. It is not fair that there are farm workers in the Central Valley that are fleeing right now from atmospheric rivers and from flooding because of climate change. It's just not fair.

We need to do something. And I know it seems very ambitious. And yes, the LAO has said we don't have the plan in place. But it didn't account for all the trillions of dollars we're going to be receiving and the leverage that we have as Californians to be able to get these dollars to support small business, to support the good jobs while also ensuring that we're hitting our ambitious climate goals. So I commend you for bringing this back.

It needs to get done, and we'll do everything we can to support our California economy in the process. So thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Senator. I know there's obviously lots more work to be done here, but as you say, this is one of the governor's priorities and hopefully we can get this fully fleshed out and continue this climate progress. So with that, I think I heard it sounded like a motion from Senator Gonzalez and let you close.

Well, thank you. Thank you for the robust conversation and especially to your staff for digging in. We really are going to count on this committee and the Members here, especially those taking a chance on us today, to bring you a Bill that meets some of these concerns you all have, before you have to vote on it again. But I would just say it may feel impossible to pull off what we have to do here as a state by 2030 and certainly by 2045.

But we need to reimagine this. And I think we all need to push ourselves outside our comfort zones. And that means what do we want to build? What do we want to say yes to? What are those plans that go beyond plans into actually doing things? And those are going to be tough decisions. And it may be that the Legislature is the one that has to make those decisions or risk the IRA and some of this other money passing us by.

I really do think we're at risk of that. But if we put a plan together and start to get politically brave. I think we can get that done. So thank you for your debate and I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Secretary. Please call the role.

All right, the motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Roll Call

All right, we'll hold the roll open for Senator Hurtado to add on. Thank you so much, Senator. I know you have another Bill. This is item two, SB 261.

Yes. Thank you. You don't mind if I proceed, Sorry.

Great. So SB 261 is a bit of a redux from a Bill that did not pass a mine last year, SB 449, which some of you may have voted on. Right now, there's a lot we don't know, and it's not just about the roadmap for achieving our climate targets, but there's a lot we don't know just about emissions, period.

Something that Senator Gonzalez referred to earlier, and you're going to be voting on another related measure later today when it comes to thousands of companies operating not just in California, but across the world. We're talking about some of the largest corporations on the planet. Banks, financial institutions, investors, pension funds, people who have our retirement in their coffers and hoping that it'll be there when we actually need it. There is risk from climate on those funds, on those assets.

And this Bill here today would simply require a basic level of reasonable disclosure about not just what those emissions are, but more clearly what risks are.

So if you own real estate assets throughout the state of California, and half of those are in extreme fire zone areas, we're going to want to know that the insurance industry recognized that, in fact, and took up the recommendations of this legislation on their own with the Department of Insurance this last year to disclose their climate risks because they know that there's a lot of risk in their portfolio. And whether you're insuring in a floodplain or in a fire zone, that risk is there.

Whether you've got a family farm that sells to some larger supplier out there in, say, the beef industry or dairy industry. And you know that there's threats from either droughts or from supply chain issues. Those are risks we need to know about.

The Governor took a lead on this and the past Governor did as well, along with some of the major global leaders at two UN climate summits ago to get trillions of dollars of global capital to start showing the risk on their books and CalSTRS and CalPERS, while falling short in some other ways in this front, has actually done that disclosure. So right now, basically, our pension funds are disclosing the climate risk they've got, but a lot of private banks, private equity and other institutions are not.

And so we think that puts not only our pensions at an unfair advantage to the others out there, but frankly, our businesses can't afford to fly blind, and neither can we as taxpayers. So this Bill would lean on the Task Force for Climate Financial Disclosures, which is hundreds of companies and financial institutions around the world trying to find best practices. It doesn't micromanage exactly what those practices ought to be.

We can talk a little bit about that, but I think just puts California on a leading path towards transparency at a time where, around the country, you have other states actually forcing not just their pensions, but their banks to bury their heads in the ground, to say, ignore climate risk, don't talk about it. And if you do, we're actually going to boycott you. We're not going to do business with you.

The thought of forcing a company to blindfold itself as you're propelling towards a harrowing future where you don't truly know the risk is the definition of business malpractice. And it's something that in California, I think we do business better. I think we can lead in this regard. This is going on all around the country. This debate. It's happening in our Congress as we speak. The Biden Administration itself is defending this exact kind of plan.

And so I hope we can take a step and keep moving the needle here today with this very straightforward disclosure Bill whose time has come so respectfully ask where aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Let's go to your witnesses in support once you come on up. Melissa's working hard today. All right, here we go.

All right. Good morning, chair Allen. Committee Members. My name is Sarah Sachs, and I'm speaking today on behalf of Sirius, a national nonprofit that has worked for decades with influential investors, major companies, and policymakers in California and across the country to build a more sustainable economy. Series believes California has an opportunity to set a gold standard on requiring climate related corporate risk disclosures with SB 261. And we are pleased to support and serve as a sponsor for the Bill.

The climate crisis poses material financial risks to companies and investors and systemic risks to financial markets. And it requires urgent action by market stakeholders. This is why last year, more than 500 investors, representing 39 trillion in assets under management, called them governments across the world to strengthen climate disclosure standards, including through mandatory reporting. Leading businesses and institutions also know that consistent, comparable, and reliable information at scale is necessary to fully assess their risk disclosure risk exposure and to navigate the path to a net zero future.

And that's why thousands of companies support the disclosure of climate risk information or disclose that information themselves, including 92 of the 100 largest public companies in the world. However, the current state of voluntary climate disclosure is inadequate for investors to evaluate the climate risk facing the companies in their portfolio. In a 2022 letter in support of SB 449.

The earlier version of this Bill, investors noted that it is not enough to accept voluntary climate disclosure from some companies because participation is limited and existing disclosures do not provide comprehensive, decision useful information needed to support a sustainable, resilient and prosperous future. In addition, as Senator Stern mentioned, the Securities and Exchange Commission is considering a parallel climate disclosure regulation, which is expected to include TCFD aligned risk disclosure requirements. But the SEC can only cover publicly traded US. Companies.

These disclosures are needed from large nonlisted entities as well to cover the entire US. Economy. As the phrase goes, you can't manage what you can't measure. SB 261 will close this critical information gap between private and public corporations and serve as a key complement for the SEC's Climate Disclosure Rule. And California will soon become the fourth largest economy in the world, making it well positioned to join the SEC in requiring these disclosures.

And finally, SB 261 will ensure standardized, reliable and comprehensive climate risk disclosures enabling informed decision making on the climate crisis's, systemic impacts on California's economy and capital markets. For all the reasons stated above, series respectfully requests your aye vote on this measure. Thank you for your time and consideration. Melissa Romero with California Environmental Voters. I want to thank all of the authors of the Bill package that SB 261 is part of.

In addition to SB Two Five Three and SB Two Five Two, the climate crisis isn't just coming for our lives. 261 thank you. The climate crisis is not just coming for our lives, our livelihoods, and our health. It's coming for our economy. If we ignore the material and financial risks that come along with the climate crisis, the climate crisis can and will destabilize capital markets and lead to serious negative consequences for financial institutions and the economy.

We need standardized, comprehensive and mandatory climate risk disclosure in order to provide actionable information to address the climate crisis impact on capital markets. And we urge the Committee's aye vote on SB 261 for those reasons. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, who wants to voice support for the Bill? Who's here in person? You can just come up to the mic and introduce yourselves and your affiliation. Janet.

Thanks so much. Janet Cox for Climate Action California.

Thank you.

Thanks a million.

Yeah, trillion, right? All right, thank you.

Good morning. Christina Scarring with the center for Biological Diversity in support.

Thank you. Good morning. Will rigor for 350 Sacramento and 350 Humboldt. Thank you. In support. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Joyce Lynn Martinez Wade with California State Teachers Retirement System in support.

Morning.

Barry vessel from the Climate center in strong support. Thank you. All right, let's now hear from the prime opposition witnesses at the microphone. Hi there. Make sure I get her at this time. Good morning, chair and Members, Brady Van, England from the California Chamber of Commerce. As you're all aware, California Chamber of Commerce represents the entrance of over 14,000 large, medium and small businesses across California. And we're committed to doing our part to address the climate crisis.

We have members that have that are signatories in the climate pledge. And just like to point out that the last time this Bill was brought up, SB 449, there were 61 signatories. And then I think now they're at close to like 400. So the numbers have escalated pretty significantly. And I do think that does need to be acknowledged in some fashion. However, though Cal Chamber is respectfully opposed to this Bill because it's premature at this time.

As Senator Stern noted, the SEC and the Biden Administration are actively engaging in a way to offer guidance related to climate disclosures, and we anticipate that rulemaking to be commenced and finalized very soon. So this Bill is just a little premature in its time, and that the national requirements. We feel that the national requirements should preempt what happens here at the local level or local jurisdictional level, which is actually one of the recommendations that's included in the TCFD.

It does note that there is a preemption required, or if not, recommendation included in it. And also the Bill in its current form doesn't really contemplate that, which is a concern for us as well, too. Disclosures as required by SB 261 could make California a much more challenging place to do business as well.

We've heard from members that the Bill paints for the broad brushstroke and could cause the very capital that's necessary to transition and address climate risk and mitigation as companies seek access to the capital that's necessary for this transition. That's unlikely, or would become more challenging for them to actually access the capital due to the increased risk associated with the company itself if they're combined into a sector that might not necessarily be appropriate for them, particularly with the way that this language is drafted.

There are a number of occasions that SP 261 is actually in conflict with the recommendations as well too, which is a little uncomfortable for us. But the report itself notes that it should be done on a voluntary basis, yet we're codifying the report, so a little disconnect there as well. And they also note the importance of scalability within the report. And unfortunately, SB 261 doesn't contemplate scalability as well too. For these reasons, we're respectfully opposed.

Hopefully we'll have a chance to continue working with the author and addressing these issues. But thank you for your time. Thank you. All right, other folks who want to voice concerns or opposition to the Bill here in person, you can just come up to the mic and tell us your affiliation. Hi there.

Good morning. Melanie civil with the California Bankers Association, also in respectful opposition. Thanks. Thank you.

Joanne Bettencourt on behalf of SIFMA, the securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, also in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Chaired Members Naomi Pedrone, on behalf of the California Credit Union League, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Ryan Elaine on behalf of the California Retailers Association, in opposition.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Rob Spiegel, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in opposition. Thank you. Good morning. Matthew Allen with Western Growers. Also post.

Good morning. Sylvio firm on behalf of the California Building Industry Association.

Opposition. Zach Leary on the behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association where post.

Thanks.

Thank you. Brett Gladpelty with Apex Group, on behalf of Financial Services Institute, in opposition. Thanks. Thank you. All right, we'll go to the phone lines, hear from folks in support or opposition on the phone lines.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of SB 261, you may press one and then zero again. That is one and then zero for support or opposition. And we will go to line 34. Your line is open.

Yes, good morning, chair and Members of the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality. Thank you for the opportunity to voice support for SB 12. I'm Enrique, legislative Director at Climate Resolve, a Los Angeles based nonprofit working hard to adapt.

Excuse me, we're just taking in support. We've already had testimony.

We're taking everybody support and opposition. Okay, thank you. I'd like to voice my support for SB 12. We already did that testimony.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 27. Your line is open. Line 27, your line is open. Next we will go to line 25. Your line is open.

Good morning. Jim Lindbergh on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 22. Your line is open. Hello, Elise. Glenville Environmental Coalition in support. Thank you. Next, we go to line nine. Your line is open. Kathy Schaefer on behalf of the San Fernando Valley Climate Reality Project, in support. Thank you. Thank you. Next will go line 28. Your line is open. Hi. This is Clara Bondridge with Public Citizen. This time just noting support. Thank you. Next we'll go, line 20. Your line is open.

This is Marcia Lieberson in support of SB 261 on behalf of 350 Bay Area and 350 Contra Costa County. Thank you. Next will line 38. Your line is open.

Good morning. Darryl Little Jr. With the Natural Resources Defense Council in support.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 39. Your line is open.

Hi, Stephen King on behalf of Environment California and Calpert, the California Public Interest Research Group, both in strong support of SB 261. It's a big deal.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 27. Your line is open. It.

It. Line 27. Your line is open.

Maddie Munson on behalf of the Agricultural Energy Consumers Association and California Poultry Federation in opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have no more support or opposition in queue.

Thank you so much. All right, the item is now before the committee for questions, thoughts, Senator Dahle.

Just real quick, I know this is being discussed at the federal level, which I think is really the appropriate place. How do you envision it working for those companies who are either not in America or in another state or some of those companies that are supplying products here from other countries?

It's a great of when it comes to at least the publicly traded companies that be in the scope of the SEC rulemaking, which are multinational companies, not just here. I want the SEC to act and act boldly and

Last year I was open to this and I remain so this year to basically say that if you're complying with the SEC standard, you're complying with this legislation for those who are going to be subject to that rule. I'm open to that idea. I think enforcement ends up being a challenge, especially on some of those multinational companies that are based in places that aren't going to, say, subject themselves to international or European accounting standards.

But for the most part the large asset managers we're talking about mean some of the biggest banks in the world, right? I mean, bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase, you name it. If those folks are stepping up and going and doing their full disclosure, all three scopes under SEC, then I say let them handle that.

I think we're trying to find those who aren't necessarily regulated by that rule and make sure that there's not undercutting occurring, say in private asset management, the blackrocks out there, the sort of private equity funds. And so that's really, I think, the key gap filling piece. Assuming that the Feds act, there's going to be a lot of challenge to that.

So I worry that if we don't have this Bill ready and moving and the Feds fall down on that job, then we're going to have nothing and then we're going to be flying blind again.

What about the companies that are not based on they're like China or other nations that are not part of that process? I think it puts us at a disadvantage in not only California but in other states that are trading in the states.

Listen, there is a bit of a black box when it comes to places like Russian operating oil and gas companies or Chinese assets where they don't want to disclose what their factory's output is on any given day or that government is going to control that sort of market data.

I will tell you China actually recently adopted global sustainability reporting metrics voluntarily on their own because ultimately, if they don't assign themselves a number or do the disclosure, these standards the way they work is they'll sort of impose a default factor on you. So you just assume then that any steel coming out of China is going to have this emissions associated with it.

Now, it may be that China is actually making that steel cleaner, but if we're sitting there and saying, well, if you're not going to tell us, then we're going to just assume it's this output of a coal fired power plant making that steel, there should be a market deterrent to that. In other words, and it ends up acting like now, you don't want to say this, but trade policy by other means, right?

The IRA right now is in the same factor where it's domestic policy, but it ends up impacting global markets and makes them shift their business planning. Same goes here. So that would be the idea, is that if we had standards and we said, okay, so a California major agriculture company is doing their disclosure, but a Chinese hog farm isn't saying what their emissions are.

Well, let's just assume the worst for them, and let's assume exactly what California is telling us for our operations, that poultry operation or wherever it may be. And I think we win in that fight. So I actually think this puts us at a competitive advantage to do this disclosure in a smart way. But I think you're right to pull at that thread and know that it is a gap globally. And anyway, this is the best thinking of how to solve that.

Other thoughts? Questions? Senator Gonzalez I hear that motion.

I will. Motion. Okay, thank you.

You'll move. All right, great. Excellent. Senator, you may close.

Thank you so much. I appreciate the deep indulgence this morning on two measures. I hope you guys keep going with your Bill hearing, but I would just say this is important for the whole country, for the world, but really, to put California in the most competitive position it can be when it comes to risk disclosure. We cannot afford to fly blind. Climate is here right now, and if we want to blindfold ourselves, it will be at all of our financial peril.

So with that, I would hope you would consider making an aye vote and move this forward today.

Thank you. Thank you. And I'm sorry I'm always picking on you, Senator, because you're co authoring all these bills. Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

All right, the motion is due. Pass to Senate Judiciary Committee. Alan, no.

Aye. Alan, aye. Dahle? No. Dahle, no. Gonzalez? Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado? Menjivar, aye. Menjivar, aye. Nguyen no. Nguyen? No. Skinner? Skinner, aye. That's 14.

All right, we'll leave the roll. That's everyone. Okay, great. Okay, we'll close the roll on that. Oh, before you go, can we take the consent calendar? Okay, let's hear a motion for Senator Skinner moves the consent calendar. Secretary of color roll.

Okay, for the consent calendar, that is item file number four, SB 406, file item number five, SB 91. File item number seven, SB 301. And file item number eight, SB 367. Allen. Aye.

Allen, aye. Dolly. Dolly, aye. Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado. Hertado, aye. Menjivar, aye. Menjivar, aye. Nguyen. Aye. Nguyen., aye. Skinner. Skinner. Aye.

Thank you, Nancy. Thank you so much, seven, zero. We'll close the roll on that. Okay, let's go to you now. Senator Cortese here with SB 69, item three. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senator, thank you for allowing me to present SB 69 to you today. SB 69 adds transparency to the sequence notification process. Currently, state agencies are required to post notices of determination and notices of exemption to the State Clearinghouse website. But local public agencies are only required to post these notices to the county clerk's website.

When the notice is only posted on the county clerk's website, people tracking the project can miss it and do. SB 69 will require all public agencies to post these notices to the State Clearinghouse website so they can all be found in one place. These notices must be posted within five days of action on a project. Under current law, public agencies are also required to send a notice of determination or notice of exemption by mail to any Member of the public who requests one.

Unfortunately, in 2021, the 6th District Court of Appeals in San Jose held that there is no recourse for a violation of the statute when stakeholders are not notified, even though they requested notification that they are legally entitled to and rely upon it. This can result in the limitations period ending before a stakeholder has a chance to bring an action.

The statute of limitations period for a Sequa project currently begins either when a notice of determination or exemption is posted or if there's no formal decision when a project begins. The Bill addresses the court's decision by improving the sequence notification process. Under this Bill, the statute of limitations would either begin when the agency posts the notice to the State clearinghouse or when they directly send it to anyone who has requested it, whichever happens first.

Additionally, if the notice is amended, corrected, or revised, the statute of limitation resets agencies are also required authorized excuse me, but not required to send notices by email if a stakeholder requests it in place of physical mail. These changes strike a balance between improving notification, giving Members of the public more time to challenge projects, and making sure that the limitations period is not extended indefinitely so projects can still move forward. This Bill is sponsored by the California State Council of Labors.

Has support from ten organizations thus far, including California Labor Federation, District Council of Iron Workers, the center for Biological Diversity, and the center on Race, Poverty and the Environment. With us to testify today are Richard Drury, representing the California state council of labors and gracia Orosco, representing the center on race, poverty and the environment. Thank you, and at the appropriate time, I'll respectfully ask for your aye vote. Okay, let's go.

Thank you. I'm Richard Drury of the law firm Lozo Drury, representing the hardworking men and women of the California State Council of Laborers, sponsor of this Bill. Sikwa is very important to the laborers. It allows us to ensure that our hardworking Members are protected from hazardous soil contamination. It allows us to ensure that clean construction equipment is used on projects, that clean energy is used in the construction of projects, and then we can build those projects better, safer, and cleaner.

SB 69 fixes a hole a gap in Sequa that was created by the case Alvizo versus San Jose. Sequa has 180 day statute of limitations, which is short, but it allows the agency to take advantage of a 30 day statute of limitations if they post a notice of determination, and they send the notice of determination to anyone who requested it. Unfortunately, the Elviso case held that even if the agency fails to send that notice, the 30 day statute of limitations continues to run.

And in that case, the community group missed the 30 day statute of limitations even though they had requested it in writing. SB 69 simply closes that gap, and it says if the agency doesn't send the notice of determination to anyone who requested it, the statute of limitations doesn't start to run until they send it or they post it on the state clearinghouse website. So everyone knows that 30 day statute of limitations is running. It's simply a transparency matter.

It will allow people to know that that 30 day statute of limitations has begun to run, and they can take action if necessary. It does not change any standards of review. It doesn't make it easier or harder to win or lose a Sequa case, and it doesn't disturb the 180 day statute of limitations that remains in place regardless. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next witness.

Good morning, chair Members. My name is Graciela Orozco, and I'm here representing the center on Race, Poverty and Environment, a nonprofit organization committed to environmental, justice and uplifting communities in the San Joaquin Valley. First, I'd like to thank Senator Cortese for introducing SB 69, which would strengthen notice requirements in Sequa. Now, at CRPE, we work closely with communities to advocate for their needs and public health.

Many of our communities are low income communities of color, with neighborhoods often targeted to house polluting land use facilities, such as hazardous waste sites, industrial facilities, warehouses, and oil and gas refineries. Now, our community Members are very vigilant in learning about proposed polluting land uses introduced into their neighborhoods. But sometimes that's simply not enough. It is not always possible to catch every hazardous land use proposed in their communities, and this is particularly made hard due to inadequate notice requirements.

As such, many polluting facilities make their way into disadvantaged communities without community awareness and without community input. Nasiqua is community's first line of defense against combating harmful land uses. This defense becomes meaningless if community Members are not given adequate public notice. As the Senator and Mr. Drury mentioned, in Organisacion Comunida De Aviso versus San Jose, residents were not given the notice of determination that they timely requested.

And even though they had valid legal claims to raise, the court found that they could not issue a remedy absent additional statutory language. And SB 69 would remedy this gap in sequa by requiring that 30 day statute of limitations to begin running only after the required notice is provided when a timely request is made. As such, our organization supports SB 69 to ensure communities have a voice in projects that directly impact their day to day lives. And we urge you to vote. I with SB 69.

Thank you.

All right, let's hear from anyone who wants to voice support for the Bill who's here in person.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Members. Matt Cremens here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning again. Christina Scorinch with the center for Biological Diversity in Support.

Great, thank you. I know we don't have any restaurant position in the analysis, but is there anyone who wants to voice okay. Oh, here you go.

Chair Members, Nick Romo with the League of California Cities like to thank the author's staff for considering our concerns. Our concerns are primarily, we want to find the right balance, as the Senator mentioned, between providing timely notice, but also making sure we're not creating a new loophole for delaying projects even further.

So we would like to work with the author throughout the session to make sure that one that we're well clear as to when the clock start and stop when we are filing, and as well as making sure that the person who's requesting the documents. It's the same person that has taken part in the public comment period and throughout the process for the project. So we look forward to working with the author. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Are you going to get us a letter? And I know this is the very first hearing, but we weren't aware of your concerns, which are very, from what you're saying, very valid. So I'd love to get a letter and then work with the author to make sure that these concerns are met, because certainly we don't want to exacerbate some of the issues that have been raised with regards to sequa in previous conversations.

Thank you. And we appreciate the and also, you're.

Going to take the yes. Yes. Okay. All right, folks, who want to anyone else who wants to voice concerns here in person? And is the League taking a formal opposition position or is it just concerns?

Just concerns. Right now? We're hoping that we can clarify some of these things and hopefully that will okay.

And the committee would like to be involved, too, to help with that process. Okay. Thank you, sir. Other folks who want to raise concerns, let's go to the phone lines. Opposition and support. People want to raise opposition support on the phone lines.

Thank you. If you're in opposition or support, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero for support or opposition. We do have one one moment further number. They disconnected. We have no support or opposition in queue.

Okay, thank you. Let's bring it to the committee vice Chair Dahle.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I like your Bill.

There's just a few clarifying things I hope we can get ironed out. I know that the counties so if it goes through the process, it'll be signed into law at the end of session sometime, and then it'll take effect January 1. The problem is that the local cities and counties that are going to implement that, it's a real short time frame from the end of the year to the first of the year.

So is there any opportunity to maybe extend out that deadline for those folks to be able to comply and actually educate and get their system in place?

Which you're talking about is sort of.

A ramp up period july 1 instead of a January 1, which the Bill would be implemented. I think that would maybe help alleviate some of the concerns about timing of the actual implementation of the Bill.

We're willing to consider that. I'm not sure 180 days will be needed to ramp up, but some sort of grace period after January 1, given I'm understanding your concern that folks won't know perhaps whether it's going to be implemented or not, although we would hope the Bill would be signed well before that. But just to give you assurances, we'll continue to consider that. We do know that in talking to the governor's office in the state clearinghouse process is a very quick and simple process.

These folks at the counties are already at the cities are primarily, in some cases, in rural areas. There's probably counties doing a little bit more of this, but they're already recording with their county Clerk. So it's a matter of just getting that same, in effect, the same notice to the state clearinghouse. We're just adding the state clearinghouse. But again, I'm happy to, as we work through the process here to consider whether that helps alleviate things in the pipeline.

Thank you.

Can I just follow up on that, the current process, do they have to do within five days as well?

Okay, I'm going to piggyback on Senator Dolly. As you know, I haven't been in the county. I think the budget is in the middle, like June, July, that they have to adopt a budget. So not knowing if this Bill it's a good Bill. It's whether when it passes a sign, they already have by then have already passed their budget. So if you wait till July, it helps them for the next following year and they have it budgeted.

Yes.

And you know how it is at the county and the city is they're going to have to budget another staff or some more time or something to get this process going. And so I think giving them that extra time, even though it's only the six months, but it helps them gear up for the next budget and gives them that flexibility to make sure that they do meet the new law.

Yeah, for whatever it's mean. Again, as I said to Senator Dahle, we'll consider that impact. And I think we need to check obviously we aren't hearing opposition from the counties themselves. We're not really hearing opposition from the cities. We're hearing some concerns. I think on their part is to make sure that when we toll the statute of limitations because they missed one of those steps.

I think their concern is wanting to make sure that that statute of limitations doesn't stay open sort of permanently and therefore delay projects. And I think we've got that pretty clear. This committee has done, I think, an excellent analysis in helping us to get to the right place here. But we got time as we go on.

We'll keep working with them and kind of hopefully demonstrate to them either that the Bill is already taken care of, that which I think it has, or as I said to some consultants in my office a couple of days ago, do a lot of SQL work. Give us the specific word or two or three or whatever you need the phraseology. And again to the chair.

Happy to come back if we get that kind of phraseology and we think it's right to come back and work with you, make sure your staff feels that it's right. Because these are now getting into legally operative, I think, phrases that go in here to make sure that if we toll statute of limitations, there's an end time to that. And it's clear.

Also, for whatever it's worth, we made it a little easier in terms of appropriations and all those things, the counties and budget and all that they can now, email in lieu of a written notice in this Bill. And notice is upon delivery, is defined as when that email is sent or when that mail notice is sent, which also helps clear things up. So there's not an issue of constant dispute about, I didn't receive the notice. You said you sent me an email. You sent it.

I didn't get it. It went to spam. I mean, we're very clear here that sort of basic contract law is in place. Even though this isn't a contract. They send it, it's delivered. I hope that helps. We'll get the rural counties involved in the conversation too. Yeah, okay, great. Okay.

All right.

Any other thoughts or questions? Motion perhaps? Yeah. Moved by Senator Hurtado. You may close, Senator. Ready to close. Okay, thank you. I respectfully ask for your vote. Thank you. All right, let's call the roll. Secret, please call the roll.

All right, the motion is due pass as amended to Senate Judiciary Committee. Allen Aye. Aye. Dolly. Gonzalez. Hurtado aye. Hurtado aye. Menjivar, aye. Menjivar aye. Nguyen? Skinner? 30.

Okay, 30. We will leave the roll up in for other Members to add on. Thank you. Thank you again, Mr. Chair. Okay, I see Senator Glacier here. Why don't you come and present item nine? That's SB 393.

Good morning, everybody. Nice to see you all in person, starting our year off in a good way here. I want to thank Chair Allen and the committee for allowing me to present this Bill, SB 393, today. I want to thank the excellent staff who have worked with me and my staff, and I'm happy to accept the committee's suggested amendments.

SB 393 would require plaintiffs who file a CEQA lawsuit to disclose donor identities of those who now, with the amendments, donate $5,000 or more towards the cost of that action. This Bill would also prevent repetitive CEQA lawsuits against housing projects, part of a larger plan that have completed the environmental review process and have been already litigated under CEQA. We all know that we are in a housing crisis in our state.

According to the Department of Housing and Community Development, we must build 2.5 million homes over the next eight year cycle, and no less than 1 million of those homes must be affordable to lower income households. We know that CEQA can hinder California's progress towards meeting its housing goals, particularly for affordable housing. Excuse me. CEQA abuses can hinder California's progress towards meeting its housing goals, particularly for affordable housing projects.

Litigation costs are significant, and affordable housing projects already struggled to obtain all of the necessary financing to build while keeping rents below market rates. Unfortunately, one of the most prominent examples of this abuse occurred in my district this past few years in the city of Livermore. And that litigation significantly delayed a very important affordable housing project. The nonprofit developer lost $68 million in funding from the Low income housing tax credit program as a result of that litigation, which, of course, has been found meritless.

The Livermore project is not unique. Many housing projects have faced similar obstacles when interest groups and individuals with ulterior motives seek to abuse the CEQA process in order to stop them. I have two witnesses with me today. First Linda Mandolini, who is President of Eden Housing. And we'll talk about this project, this valuable project in Livermore. I also have Marina Wyatt, who's vice President of governmental affairs at the California Housing Partnership consortium as well. And with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Hey, you may proceed. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, Members of the committee. My name is Linda Mandolini. I'm the President and CEO of Eden Housing. I'm here to testify in support of SB 393, a Bill that will increase transparency around CEQA litigation by requiring petitioners to disclose their identities and their business interests when they contribute, I guess now more than $5,000 in an action. Eden is one of California's oldest and most respected nonprofit developers. Since our inception, we've developed more than 11,000 apartment units.

Eden works closely with elected officials to win approval for our projects, ensure that they comply with local zoning, and fit into the character of the communities they're located in. Nonetheless, we're seeing a significant increase in the number of lawsuits against our projects from anonymous groups whose Members are not required to disclose their identities or the motives for their legal challenge. In all instances, these suits have been rejected by judges for having little or nothing to do with protecting the environment.

And in some cases, the courts have required opponents to post a bond under 529.2 California civil code to impose damages on them for the delays they impact our projects. In the case of Livermore, we received unanimous approval from the City Council in 2021 to develop a project on a site that was paid for with housing funding from the State of California and required to be affordable housing. This project would be the first project in the city's downtown.

And as of today, we would be welcoming residents had we not been sued on this project by an anonymous group to save Livermore downtown. The group of anonymous, well funded opponents have used CEQA to delay this project now for years, in spite of the judges dismissing their arguments as almost entirely without merit. These delays forced us, as the Senator noted, to give back a $68 million award of tax credits, and it's threatening other funding sources for this project.

We would again be welcoming these families this year. Instead, we're spending all of our time in court arguing with lawyers and yet anonymous groups that are not required to disclose who they are.

Senator Glazer's legislation would help us identify the nameless opponents behind challenges like these and offer a small amount of redress to nonprofit, affordable housing developers like Eden who are forced to defend against these very expensive legal actions while deliberate, delaying tactics, jeopardize other funding awards and expose our projects to increased costs or even worse, potentially never being built. This Bill would also serve the public interest by increasing transparency around SQL lawsuits to ensure that entities and interests on both sides of these legal actions are known.

We believe this is good public policy, and a critical next step in California is building more of the desperately needed affordable housing that we need here in the state. Thank you for your support, and we urge you to keep this legislation moving. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Marina Wyatt with the California Housing Consortium. CHC is an affordable housing advocacy organization focused on the production preservation of Low income housing. In 2018, the Legislature passed and Governor signed AB 686, which expands fair housing requirements and protections, and in particular, requires all state and local public agencies to facilitate deliberate action to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past patterns of segregation and to foster more inclusive communities.

Expanding affordable housing opportunities for lower income families in high resource areas like downtown Livermore is a critical strategy for affirmatively furthering fair housing. These communities have shown by much research to support positive economic, educational, and health outcomes to Low income families, particularly families with children. While experiences like those described by Eden Housing are not expansive, they are not unique, and more importantly, they have a chilling effect on the state's ability to affirmatively further fair housing.

Affordable housing developers like Eden cannot afford years of costly legal battles and will continue to shy away from providing the affordable housing we need in communities of opportunity without reforms like these.

SB 393 is a moderate reform to CEQA, but by providing greater transparency to the CEQA process, would have an extraordinary impact on the ability for affordable housing developers to prevail on 52 9.2 bond motions and allow more affordable housing developers like Eden to take on the risk of expanding access to opportunity for lower income Californians. For these reasons, I urge your support today.

Thank you so much. Other folks who want to weigh in and support who are here in person. Good morning.

Silvio for on behalf of the California building industry association's, Support, and we have identified this Bill as a housing creator. Thank you.

Thank you. Dennis Alabi, on behalf of the Family Business Association of California. We support this transparency Bill. Thank you. Robert Copeland's, concerned citizen, pass the Bill Okay, all right, let's hear from folks in opposition, lead witnesses in opposition. And then we'll go to and then the phone lines. Yes, sir. Oh, I'm sorry. Wait. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, okay. Yes, that's right. New system, please. Please proceed.

Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members and staff, Mitch Stiger with. The California Labor Federation also in opposition.

Melissa Roberto with California Environmental Voters currently opposed to the Bill. And thanks the author for willingness to chat about our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you.

Christina Scarring with the center for Biological Diversity and Opposition.

Thank you. And I know obviously the Bill was significant scaled back with the amendments, though I know there's still some concerns and we can talk about them here. And of course, it's also going to Judiciary if it gets out today. So other folks who want to weigh in is either support or opposition on the phone lines.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero. That's one and then zero for support or opposition, in one moment, we have one in queue. Will go to line 46. Your line is open.

Thank you, madam. Operator. Mr. Chairman, Senators, this is Alberto Torico on behalf of United Food and Commercial Workers, Western States Council appreciate the committee and the Senator Dahle there's work on the amendments, but regrettably we remain opposed. Thank you.

Thank you, Alberto.

Thank you. And we have no further support of in queue.

Okay. All right, it's now at the committee for comments and discussion. Let me just start by saying a few things. First of all, I think when the Bill is come into a committee and it's only single referred, the committee kind of bears a kind of additional burden to cover all the issues. I think there are a number of issues that are raised by the analysis that are largely issues that are going to be dealt with by the Judiciary Committee if it goes over there.

I'm in a funny position as well because I serve on the Judiciary Committee. I think there's sort of the environmental protection questions that are first jurisdiction here. And I think that, as you all know, the original Bill and of course all the original bills in this space in the past have basically been blanket application for CEQA lawsuits, even though the arguments always seems to be made for housing.

The way the Bill was originally written, it would have covered everything from big box stores to industrial factories, et cetera. And we've limited down to housing. We'd originally asked for affordable housing. The Housing Committee pushed back, wanted the definition that we ultimately took from the government code with regards to housing. But there are a number of implementation issues that are raised by the analysis.

Everything from how we would really lay out the reporting requirements, splitting and laundering contributions, reporting the exact amounts and increases, a lot of the things that are mentioned on pages five, six and seven of the analysis. I think they're really going to be best dealt with in Judiciary Committee. There is also the broader philosophical question about disclosure of contributions to lawsuits, and that is kind of very much squarely. A Judiciary Committee question and one that I'm struggling with, quite frankly, with regards to this Bill.

And so for the purpose of EQ, I'm happy to vote for the Bill today with all the amendments having been taken. But I want to reserve my own right to reconsider my position, given all the discussion that will presumably come in Judiciary Committee with the analysis there and the discussion there on these broader philosophical questions relating to their jurisdiction. There are a number of changes that have been made. Obviously, we raise the threshold. If people want to go higher, that's something to consider.

If you think about it, these lawsuits are really expensive and even 5k is actually relatively low. It would still be meaningful at 25 or fifty thousand to be quite honest, if you're really trying to get it at kind of deep pocketed donors to a lawsuit that are trying to hide their involvement. Another thing to consider, especially given some of the concerns that have been raised by opposition with regards to a possible chilling effect. Maybe put on a sunset clause.

Not something that we asked for in the negotiations with you, Senator. So I'm not going to insist on it now, but something to consider in the future as a possibility. I do know, though, that as I say, the Bill is certainly really all the arguments have always been about housing. So we really wanted to focus it in on housing and the Housing Committee got involved in that discussion. So we'll see where this goes. But I know there's discussion that the committee wants to raise.

And let's go to you, Mr. Vice Chair. Well, I just want to thank you for bringing the Bill forward. I mean, even the Governor came out recently and said CEQA and other things. Housing has been an issue and he was committed to do something about it. This is a great opportunity for transparency. The end of the day, I think the public has the right to know who's doing what and I would move the Bill.

We'd like to ask if it gets out to be added as a co author to this Bill. I think it's good public policy.

Thank you, Senator Skinner.

My an apologies that I wasn't able to have two committees going on at once, but I was not able to hear the initial. But I did read the full analysis, and I've spoken to the author, and I'm aware of a particular case in the city of Livermore where a project and this may have been discussed, but a project was approved unanimously.

By council and then has still been subject to lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit with the name particular organization named but with it been revealed or uncovered that it's a single person wealthy woman that is financing this lawsuit. And I think that's an egregious what she has done is an egregious misuse of, I should say misuse. She's allowed to under CEQA, but it's an egregious example of some of the things that need to be corrected and is part of what is broken about our housing system.

And my initial thinking, because I'm very strongly reacting to that circumstance, was that maybe this is a good idea. However, I'm not sure what this is really going to service is it going to stop those kind of lawsuits? And when I think about all lawsuits, then beyond Sequa, why wouldn't we have disclosure on any and every lawsuit? Why is it only this?

And I guess when I think about the problems with Sequa and I know I appreciate that the author has an approach and he feels that anything we do is going to be an improvement over the circumstance now. But I wonder if again, it's that begs the question that we really need to have some serious review of how Sikh was being used and what its purpose was originally and some reforms to it.

Now, I know there's many stakeholders who have wildly varying opinions on this, but I think we have obviously know enough abuses that there needs to be some changes. But whether this change is going to result in the kind of fix that the author is trying to achieve or just either maybe hurt the ability for some groups to bring legitimate lawsuits and there's other ways we could approach this. So right now, I'm not sure this is the way to go.

And so I'm going to stay off the Bill right now because after reading the analysis and talking to a number of people involved in this arena, it just seems like I completely appreciate the intent, but I'm not sure it will accomplish the goal that we have in mind.

Thank you.

Senator, other thoughts, questions from the Members?

Yeah, Senator Menjabar, I will always be a fan of full transparency when it comes to dealing with anything. And of course we can dive into at what point do we stop? But I've seen Sequoia be weaponized on several occasions and I would like the public to know who's behind that. I think we approach it the same. We do ballot measures and props. As for me as a voter, I'm always looking at who's supporting a prop and that's where I could really get some unbiased information, right.

Regardless of the, you know, I echo some of my chairs sentiments regarding I want to reserve my right to change my vote down the line, but I want to see this have you continue conversations I think Melissa talked about you've had some conversations. I would like to see some of those concerns be addressed and see if we can get to the point where we have environ, you know, a lot of these unions be on board with some other compromise.

So for now, I would like to move it out and then reserve later on because I do want to get to some point of transparency.

Okay. So the items have been moved by Senator Dahle okay. You may close, Senator.

Well, first, thank you to committee Members for your thoughtful comments and feedback. Chair. Allen. Thank you. And Member Skinner? The same. Look, it is a disclosure issue. There are so many challenges in our housing problem in California. Is this the biggest one?

No.

Has it contributed to stopping, in this case, 130 units of affordable housing in my district? Yes, it has. A lot of these fights, even the lawsuits, they're not in silos. There's broad community debate about these projects. And this issue of disclosure carries on beyond lawsuits to that broader discussion that takes place. Are we getting the truth? Who's behind it? Is there a need for a broader review of Sequa?

Look, I've carried some other bills in this space, but I've never tried to deal with the environmental analysis that's done. And nothing before you today in this committee changes the environmental analysis that's been in law for decades now. No changes in the standards of environmental review. So it's always surprising that we still nibble around the edges, but never really go to that broader point that Senator Skinner raises.

Of course, it'd be a healthy discussion to have, given how long CEQA has been in effect, decades now, to not have a review. But that is not what this Bill before you does. Should it apply to all lawsuits? Well, I think working with the chair, we've narrowed it just to housing to try to be constructive here in this space at this moment in time.

And let me mention something that opponents have raised and hasn't really come up in this conversation, but courts have the flexibility to determine if this Bill will significantly impact the plaintiff's First Amendment rights. Courts under this legislation have the flexibility to exempt it from this bill's requirements. So were there to be some concern that the First Amendment rights would be jeopardized in some significant way, you can petition the court to not have this Bill be applicable. We're not interested in limiting people's First Amendment rights.

It's really just about disclosure and honesty. We could have differences of opinion, but you shouldn't hide who are the players. And I think that's the healthy part of this Bill. We know it would have made a big difference. I think we believe it would made a big difference for these 130 units. I want to commend Eden housing. Their dedication for putting these affordable housing projects together in all of our communities is so difficult.

When you see all the financing challenges that they have, the hoops they have to jump through to try to make it economically viable, and then to lose $68 million in tax credits because of the delays, it's just not reasonable. And let me just say, in closing, if we say we're in a housing crisis, well, then we got to take steps. Maybe not the biggest always the biggest steps, but little steps at a minimum to deal with it.

We can't say that if everything stays the same, we're going to somehow magic wand and we're going to be out of our housing crisis. We've got to take steps. This is a small step, but an important one. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you Senator. Secretary, please call a roll.

All right. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Dahle? Aye. Dahle, aye. Gonzalez. Hurtado. Hurtado. I Menjivar. Menjivar, aye. Nguyen? Skinner? Sorry. Nguyen, aye. Skinner. Thank you. That is 5 - 0.

All right. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

5 - 0. We'll leave that on call for other Members to add on. All right. Senator Archuleta, you're welcome to the dais. This is item ten SCR 21. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, committee Members. Thank you for allowing me to come before you. As chair of the Select Committee on Hydrogen Energy. I could not be more proud to introduce Senate Concurrent Resolution 21. This resolution relating to California's hydrogen hub application. I would like to start by thanking the committee staff for working with my office and I agree to accept the committee's suggested amendments. Senate Concurrent Resolution 21 recognizes the importance of hydrogen as part of the clean energy transition.

It also recognizes the alliance of Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy System, also known as Arches, which is a public private consortium working in partnership with the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development, also known as GoBiz. And finally, this resolution urges Arches to prioritize renewable clean hydrogen for the state. Arches was created to prepare California's application to the federal government for hydrogen hub funding. The federal funding was made available in 2022 through the passage of the bipartisan infrastructure Bill in California's hydrogen hub application.

If it's successful, and we hope it will be, the United States Department of Energy could reward an award California with up to $2 billion. The money would go directly to building a self sustaining hydrogen economy of producers, infrastructure and users. The development of hydrogen hubs across the United States is intended to be the first step towards the creation of a national network of clean hydrogen producers and customers.

A critical aspect of each hub application is the types of feedstock that will go into the production of the hydrogen. Federally eligible feedstocks include renewables, fossil fuels, nuclear and biomass. However, California, through the Arches application, has committed to pursue the renewable feedstock application only. This would ensure that any money awarded from the Department of Energy would go directly towards renewable clean hydrogen projects only. No fossil fuel based hydrogen products and projects would be eligible for funding. I'm sorry.

Furthermore, Arches has made it its top priority to focus their efforts in communities with the largest pollution burden to ensure an environmentally just transition. As in my district. Your district? California is a world leader in the fight against climate change and a successful hydrogen hub application has the potential to deliver lasting results that will be felt by every Californian for years to come. Cleaner air, better jobs, a greater resiliency would help California face climate change head on.

In closing, Senate Concurrent Resolution 21 simply acknowledges Arch's effort to bring hydrogen hub to California and reinforces Arch's goal to prioritize renewable, clean hydrogen energy for California. This resolution has no opposition, and for these reasons, I would like to respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Who witnesses support.

Members Mike Monaghan on behalf of the California State Building and Construction Trades Council in support of this Bill. Thank you, Senator. Members Mikhail Scovara here on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition in support. We appreciate Senator Archuleta as championship here. Thank you.

Other folks who want to voice their support, opposition, any opposition witnesses? I know we don't have any records for opposition. We do. Uh huh. Here we are. CBD.

Good morning. The center for Biological Diversity and Opposition.

Could you give us I hadn't gotten any of this beforehand, so could you just sort of outline your sure, sure.

Center for Biological Diversity has provided a fact sheet to the committee Members outlining our concerns, which includes, among other things, that there are more cost effective cleaner options available and that we should not be putting preferences over one technology over others, and that there are community concerns. I appreciate that. The author noted some EJ concerns. We also have EJ concerns.

Okay, I appreciate it. I will definitely read your letter carefully, just hearing about it. And I will mention one of the things that we're asking, one of the amendments has to do with urging Arches to ensure the projects minimize hydrogen leakage risk, which was an issue that came up at our last hearing that I think continues to be a concern. So, anyway, appreciate that. Look forward to reading your letter. Hey, Janet.

Janet Cox for Climate Action in California.

We would support this Bill if it were amended to clarify the definition to work with PUC 400.2 or the federal definition that's noted in this analysis, but it's just a little vague.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah, we noted that in the analysis, but point well taken. It is a resolution, but point well taken. And we'll do some additional follow up. Okay. Phone lines. Who has concerns, issues, support on the phone lines.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero again. That is one and the zero for support or opposition. And we have no one in queue at this time.

Okay, so the items before the committee, the author has accepted the amendments. Questions, thoughts? Motion moved by Senator Dolly hearing no questions. You may close. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Secretary.

Please call a roll.

All right. SCR 21. The motion is be adopted as amended. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Dahle? Dahle, aye. Gonzalez? Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Nguyen, aye. Nguyen, aye. Skinner, aye. Skinner, aye.

Excellent. That's 60. We will leave the roll open for Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. All right, I see Senator Weiner here to present our last Bill of the morning. That's item six, SB 253. You may proceed when ready, Senator.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to see you on this Bill. After we were in this committee two years ago on SB 260, which was the predecessor Bill that got up to 40 votes on the Assembly floor, but we could not get vote number 41. So we are back at it. And as noted in the analysis, this is a narrower Bill than what was before this committee two years ago. So, colleagues, SB 253 is the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act. And it'll require all us.

Based companies, both public and privately held, with a billion dollars or more in annual revenue if they do business in California to disclose their entire carbon footprint. After this disclosure, the state will be required to basically contract out with a client with a registry that will then host this data on a website so that the public policymakers investors will know which corporations have what carbon footprint. We know that there are large corporations that work very hard to be green to reduce their carbon footprint.

There are others that do not. And unfortunately, among the ones that really don't do a great job lowering their carbon footprint, they will, at times, market themselves as green, what we call greenwashing marketing yourself as green when you're not. We need to make sure that the public actually knows who's green and who isn't, and to make sure we have that transparency. That's all this Bill does, transparency information for the public. So right now, we do require carbon disclosures for a very limited set of companies.

Basically large point source emitters through the cap and trade program. But the vast majority of corporate California, corporate America, is not required to do this. Some corporations do a great job compiling this data. Walmart is one of those examples. So anyone who tells you, including some of the opponents, that this is somehow not doable or a problem, some of the largest corporations in the US already do this. In fact, Walmart goes beyond what we're requiring in this Bill.

So that opposition claiming that this is not doable or a terrible burden is simply inaccurate because we know that companies are already doing this. The EU is already requiring this. The SEC is trying to require a more limited version of this. There's been a lot of back and forth, and I hope that the SEC succeeds, but we don't know. So this is absolutely an idea whose time has come and California should do this.

So, colleagues, I just want to stress that we have worked very hard over the last few years with the opposition led by the Chamber of Commerce. We took amendments in the last version of the Bill which we have all honored in this Bill. For example, scope three, which is probably the most contentious part, and we know scope three includes supply chain. Scope three for many companies is about 90% of their carbon emissions are effectively contracting out their carbon emissions. And scope three is incredibly important.

In the last version of the Bill, the opposition came to us and said this is going to effectively sweep in small suppliers and also create a burden by having to track down suppliers in different parts of the world. And so we worked out an amendment to allow at their option to use formulas and estimates which are very well established in this methodology. There's software for it. It's an established thing. We're not creating anything new.

And we did that to respond to this issue of sweeping in small suppliers in the global supply chain. The main opposition letter once again says we're going to sweep in small suppliers. Respectfully, with all respect to the opposition, that is absolutely untrue. And that was the amendment that we took last year and that we have honored. We took other amendments last year to make sure that implementation could be as smooth as possible.

We took several amendments on the enforcement structure in response to critiques from the opposition. We've honored all of those amendments in this Bill. So I would be honored to have your support and I respectfully ask for your aye vote with me today testify are two lead witnesses. Sarah Sachs, who is a Senior Associate State of State Policy at Ceres, which is a business coalition that is a co sponsor of this Bill, and Alvaro Sanchez, the Vice President of Policy at the Greenlining Institute.

We also have, if questions arise, catherine Atkin, the Director of Carbon Accountable, who has enormous technical expertise in this area, if there are questions that we need to ask her to answer.

Thank you. All right.

Hi, good morning, Chair Allen and Members of the committee. My name is Alvaro Sanchez. I'm the vice President of policy at the Greenlining Institute. We work towards a future where communities of color can build wealth, live in healthy places filled with economic opportunity, and are ready to meet the challenges posed by climate change.

In order to meet the challenges posed by climate change, it is imperative to recognize the right of communities to know how and if corporations are working to reduce their emissions and to verify corporate claims of sustainable leadership. The transparency required by SB 253 provides Californians with the necessary information to make informed decisions about how to manage the emissions from corporations.

By requiring reporting of direct emissions from these corporations and any emissions produced from their supply chains or indirect emissions, SB 253 creates the data infrastructure to drive down corporate carbon emissions. This mandate of comprehensive climate pollution transparency would set the gold standard for the rest of the nation and establishes the right to know which companies are polluting our environment, how much they are emitting, and if they are decreasing or increasing their climate emissions, offering a transparent and public way of verifying corporate claims of climate leadership.

Now, we know that California, thanks to the hard work of many of you, is a global leader in fighting climate change and reducing emissions. And we know that not only because of the goals that we've set for ourselves, but more importantly, because of the climate actions, the reporting, and the transparency that the state has for achieving our climate goals. SB 253 is requiring that corporate sector follow Ghe emission reporting practices that are the norm in other sectors.

And for the State, this reporting ensures accurate and truthful reporting of corporate corporations'climate carbon footprint. Corporate emissions contribute to over pollute communities and deadly climate outcomes from harsher wildfires seasons and historic storms and floods. The worst of these impacts disproportionately fall on communities of color and low income communities. And for all the reasons above, the Greenlining Institute requests your aye vote for this measure.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, Sarah and Sarah, I thought Ceres was the goddess of agriculture. Is that not true?

It's also a moon, I believe, for Saturn, so no, there's the moon of Saturn. Okay, very common, very common.

How'd you guys end up with that name?

We initially started as an acronym, so you'll sometimes see it in all caps. We got started in 1989 after the Exxonvalda's oil spill and very much focused on ESG values, which leads us here today. Okay, well, good morning again, Chair Allen, committee Members again, Sarah Sachs on behalf of series and in parallel with Senator Stearn's, SB 261.

We also believe that the state has an opportunity to set a gold standard on requiring corporate emissions data disclosure with SB 253, and are pleased to support and serve as a cosponsor for this Bill. Similar to climate risk reporting, the current voluntary climate emissions reporting landscape is fragmented, incomplete, and often unverified. And this gap in publicly available emissions data creates a massive blind spot for consumers, investors and policymakers who are seeking to derive meaningful insights across the entire economy.

In recent years, we have begun to see more and more action on emissions data reporting from leading companies. These businesses and many of their peers understand that climate change poses a significant risk to their long term economic success, impacts the health and livelihood of the communities in which they operate and live, and disrupts the value chains on which they rely. Reporting emissions data in a consistent, standardized format that all companies must follow will provide a competitive edge for leading businesses with investors and consumers.

And as a result, many companies are already voluntarily reporting some form of their emissions data, including over 80% of S and P 500 companies. However, mandatory emissions disclosure, including scopes One, Two and Three, is necessary to access the full picture across companies value chains. This Bill would level the playing field by ensuring that all major public and private companies disclose their full emissions inventory.

And this Bill will also complement the SEC's proposed climate Disclosure Rule, as well as the European Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive that took effect in January, and global standards that are expected to be finalized this year by the IFRS so many acronyms in the Sustainability World International Sustainability Standards Board. We'd also like to note that several major companies and institutions already support this Bill, including Patagonia, Ikea, USA, Dignity, Health, sierra Nevada Brewing Company, avocado, Green Brands, grove Collaborative and Everlane.

For all the reasons stated above, serious, respectfully requests your Ivote on this measure. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. All right, there folks who want to voice support for the Bill who are here in person. Just come on up to the Mic.

Faith Conley on behalf of the SCIU, in support. Thank you.

Janet Cox for Climate Action California, in support.

Thank you for your perseverance.

Christina scoring with the center for Biological Diversity and Support, Liz Petler, California Against Waste in support, Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters proud co sponsor of SB 253. Thank you.

All right.

Yes, sorry, I was also asked to voice the support of Community Water Center for the Bill.

Great, thank you. All right, witnesses in opposition to the Bill. I want to come up to the Mic. Good morning. Brady Van, Engelen, here on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. First, I'd just like to take a moment and thank Senator Weiner for the work that he's done with us previously on this Bill. He's really kind of served as a model author of the kind of collaboration that we'd like to see from members moving throughout this process.

So just wanted to take a moment and acknowledge that he has been very accommodating. However, there are still some concerns that we have. Primarily, the transition isn't exactly happening through one sector. The economic impact varies depending on which sector and which sector, and which is why you see companies in various stages of analysis, tracking and goal setting. We respectfully oppose this Bill primarily because the outsized impact would have on medium and small businesses, particularly those located here in California.

It's impossible to remove the supply chain from scope three, so it just creates a real challenging dynamic. Given the breadth of calculating scope three emissions, it's still more of an art than a science. There isn't really an objective criteria for calculating scope three, and this fundamentally compromises the notion that SB 253 is intended to be a transparency measure. Data transparency is only valuable when you're comparing apples to apples. The different methodologies are going to create different kinds of analysis, which makes things more complicated.

If SP 253 were adopted, it would create yet another disclosure regime. It would only further complicate climate reporting, which is happening at a national. And global scale. There isn't yet broad consensus. We're seeing that through the SEC and through the Biden Administration. And we just encourage that to be contemplated. This Bill is further revised to contemplate that as well. And at a minimum sorry. And last, but another point to raise here is that GHG emissions are an international issue. This Bill doesn't really contemplate that either.

Thinking about this from a global perspective, rather than here in California where carbs regulatory authority really is confined, really complicates this issue as well, for the reasons that I've noted above, that's the reasons that we're opposed to this respectfully opposed this Bill. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, other folks. Yeah.

Hello again, Mr. Chair. Rob Spiegel, senior Policy Director for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, definitely concur with the comments of my good colleague from Cal Chamber and also definitely and deeply respect the efforts of Senator Weiner in kind of bringing forward this largely a transparency measure. But to give the committee and Members a little bit more of an optic as to how this impacts the supply chain, And I understand the arguments surrounding well, it doesn't impact small businesses.

Well, the manufacturing sector, not only California sector, but internationally, is going to be at the heart of this scope three emission challenge. We are the ones, as everybody knows, manufacturing that finished product, that complex product, that airplane, that vehicle, that electronic device, that medical device. And within CMTA's own membership, we have Members or manufacturers that rely on a supply chain, sometimes 10,000 or more subcontractors, and contractors to supply that finished product.

The only way in which the reportable entity for scope three emissions in this Bill will be able to comply is to go to each one of those 10,000 manufacturers, those subcontractors, in order to provide that emission data. Now, I do respect that there were modifications made in SB 260 last year, including industry averages, a proxy data, secondary data. And those are all fine and good.

But the issue and the challenge with primary and secondary data is it's not a replacement for accuracy and it's not a replacement for completeness. And that's what SB 253 is providing. It relies upon average data, secondary data, not the fundamental core component of what is that emission target. And that's an issue. So with that as well, and I'll wrap up here very quickly, CMTA, our National Association of Manufacturers as well, and discussing the SEC modifications. This has been ongoing now for almost two years.

We're close to having that finished. But through that process, we've been able to understand what the financial impact is for all size businesses and manufacturers. The cost of the reporting requirements can extend in the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars, to millions of dollars for those manufacturers of products with complex supply chains. So this is going to be an expensive endeavor for California businesses and others to comply. We do respect what the author is trying to do.

But for these reasons and others, we do have to respectfully oppose.

Before you sit down, can you just respond to the idea that major businesses such as Walmart, I mean, the author just mentioned they're complying with the basic parameters of the Bill. So how is it that they're able to comply? But it's so onerous for everybody else.

I think onerous is in the aye of the beholder. Okay, so for a manufacturer and obviously we don't represent Walmart. I don't represent Walmart. For a manufacturer, though, it's broader than just the retail sector for what we have to do. It's broader than transportation. It's broader than bringing that final product to a retail establishment and to a consumer. As we build and construct that product, you're incorporating lots. Exactly. So on that level, again, to Brady's point, it's not an apples to apples comparison.

Is it any more complicated than a big retailer that's bringing in so many products from so many different places and has this complicated supply chain and I don't know.

I mean, in some ways it's very similar. You take that final product, the T shirt, the television for Walmart, they're requiring that manufacturer to also provide that data, I would assume. What was the manufacturing profile of it? What were the emission targets of it then from that supplier, Samsung or whoever the TV manufacturer is, they're going to each one of those internal components to provide that additional data, whether it's the LCD screen with wiring or what have you.

That is how we conceptually understand this Bill and how it conceptually works.

All right, well, we can discuss it further and obviously stay here and I'm sure we'll have some discussion, but appreciate that. Okay. Other folks who want to just weigh in, in opposition, make sure that their opposition is recorded. Good morning. Brett Glad filthy with Apex Group. On behalf of the association of General Contractors and Financial Services Institute. Unfortunately in opposition again, scope three is the big issue here. I think we could find a middle ground if we just resolve scope three. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, Mr. Chair and Members of the committee. Matthew Allen with Western growers also opposed. Thank you.

Hi, there. Zach Leary with the Western States Petroleum Association. We're opposed.

Joanne Bettencourt, representing Stifma, the securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. In opposition.

Good morning. Nick Chappie with the California Trucking Association in respectful opposition. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. Melanie Cuevas with the California Bankers Association. Also in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Dan Kreckleberg with the Climate Registry. We have concerns about this Bill, about some of the language in there. We're not in opposition to the Bill, but we do have concerns. Specifically, we'd like to see standards and protocols included in there that ensure the integrity of the greenhouse gas emissions that are being disclosed, including the integrity of the data. The data, if the intent is to prevent greenwashing, then we want to make sure that verification is done correctly, measurement and reporting as well.

And that includes inclusion of the protocols that were developed by the voluntary registry created by the State of California 20 years ago. Thank you. Okay, folks on the phone lines, folks on the phone lines, do you want to raise concerns or support for the Bill?

Thank you. Supporter opposition, you may press one and then zero again. That is one and then zero. For supporter opposition, we go to line 44. Your line is open. Maddie Munson, on behalf of the Agricultural Energy Consumers Association and California Poultry Federation in opposition. Thank you. Next we'll go. Line 25. Your line is open. Line 25, your line is open.

Jim Lindbergh on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 50. Your line is open. Andrea Korea, on behalf of the California Life Sciences and Opposition. Thank you. Next to the line 49. Your line is open. Good morning. Megan Cleveland with the Nature Conservancy in support. Thank you. Next to the line 24. Your line is open.

Valerie Ventry Hutton with 350 Bay Area action in support.

Thank you. Next go. Line 35. Your line is open. Taylor Roshan, on behalf of the American Pistachio Growers California apple, blueberry, date and walnut. Commissions western Plant Health Association, California Olive Growers Council, Nissay Farmers League, Far West Equipment Dealers, cotton Dinners and Growers Association, freshwater association and Western AG Processors in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Next we'll go to line 43. Your line is open. Good morning. Victoria Rodriguez with Nielsen Mercksmer on behalf of the alliance for Automotive Innovation and Opposition. Thank you.

Next we'll go to line 51. Your line is open. Natalie Bowse with the California Business Roundtable. Respectfully opposed. Thank you. Line 48, your line is open.

Darryl Little Jr. With the Natural Resources Defense Council in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 39, your line is open.

This is stephen king with environment, California and Calperg. The California public interest research group. Both groups are in support of SB 253. All.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 45. Your line is open.

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

Thank you. And next we'll go to line 47. Your line is open.

Kathy Schaefer on behalf of the San Fernando Valley Climate Validity Project in support.

Thank you. Thank you. We do have one more in queue. We're just waiting for their line number. Just a moment. Thank you. And next we'll go to line 52. Your line is open.

Mr. Chair, Members, John Winger on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance and The Advanced Medical Technology Association in opposition. Thank you. And we have no further supporting or opposition in queue.

All right, thank you. We'll bring the Bill back to the committee for questions, discussion, concerns, support. Senator Hurtado.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Senator Wiener. I know that last year I supported a similar Bill that you had. It was probably the exact same thing. And I know that you made some changes to the Bill. I'm all for climate corporate data accountability, but I do have some new concerns in this area. I love the fact that it puts a responsibility on corporations over $1 billion.

At the same time, I also have concern over those corporations having and collecting information of the supply chain and what type of information they'll have in their hands. And I don't think that the Bill clearly defines what needs to be collected from those companies. I believe that it leaves a responsibility to a panel of experts to advise CARB. And I think without having that information in my hands, I can't support the Bill because I just don't know what will come about from it.

And the concern really is there was mention of Walmart. Walmart just picks and chooses who they buy from. And can they have a competitive edge down the road because of the information that is provided? I mean, that's a concern that I have. And I don't know if you have anything to say on those issues there.

Sure. I appreciate it, Senator Hurtado, and thank you for your support of this Bill last year. This Bill is no broader than last year. In fact, in some ways it was somewhat narrowed in the Assembly. So it's a very similar Bill to last year. So, first of all, scope three is extremely well defined. It's called the GHG Protocols, which is what the Bill is based on is a very well fleshed out and established methodology that companies around the world are using today.

We gave Walmart as an example. A lot of other companies, big and small, are using it in the US. In the EU, and they're compiling scope three. So we're not creating anything new in this Bill other than the requirement to do it. We're not creating a new methodology, a new system. This is all established methodology and it's all very well defined. So I don't agree that it's like a nebulous scope three.

In addition, these companies, if they want to, can already collect the state or require this data from their suppliers. They have every ability to do that, and some of them are already doing it. And we're not even requiring them to go to their suppliers because and I appreciate the opposition acknowledging that we worked very hard with them in the last two years to allow for scope three use of formulas and estimates, which is also an established methodology.

So they're not required to go to every single micro supplier and demand that data. They can do that if they want, and some companies are already doing it, but we're not requiring them to do it. So I think the scope three is very well established and we're not doing anything new or out of the ordinary here with that requirement.

Thank you. I guess on my end, I would love to learn a little bit more about the formulas and the methodologies that are being used because I think that's what will get me back to a position of aye on this measure. I want to support it. I supported last year. I do have, as I've mentioned, new concerns. However, I do want to learn some more about the formulas and methodologies and to be able to get myself back to an Ivo.

We'll absolutely be happy to work with you on.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Yes. Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I listen to a lot of debate and obviously so. I'm a producer of agriculture commodities in California, which is amazing. I'm still here. We have AB 32. We have airboard. We have all kinds of things to meet goals of reducing carbon in California and are just two California businesses. So I think the difference you're talking about Walmart is doing it already, and you're talking about these it's billion dollar companies.

So I sell my products to and I looked them up, companies that will meet this threshold and my products go there. And I'm not required to report today and they're not required to ask me. They could use some formula, I guess, to try to figure out what I do.

But when you add in the fact that they can get a $50,000 fine or $100,000 penalty by the AG's office, according to what I'm reading here, is that there will be ability to be able to do that and then we're going to talk later down the road about how accurate they are and what the ability is. So I think that's the nervousness of why people are concerned about your piece of legislation.

So if you could address that issue and give us some sort of secure answer in why it would be not pushed down to those smaller companies that are producing those products that go to these large corporations, I think that would be helpful.

I think that some of the nervousness by large corporations is because they don't want to do the disclosure and they don't want to say what their carbon footprint is because they think they're going to be embarrassed by it. I'm just being totally blunt. I think that's what the nervousness is because again, they came forward and said, oh, my, it's going to be really hard for us to go through the entire global supply chain.

Those 10,000 suppliers that the folks from the manufacturers talked about, we don't want to go to 10,000 people. We said, okay, we'll work with you and allow you the option. You can go to all of them if you want to, but you don't have to. You can use these estimates formulas, which are well established methodology. There's established software. It's an established thing, and you can do that if you want to.

And now they come back and say, well, on the one hand, it's still going to affect our suppliers, which it doesn't. That's just not accurate. On the other hand, you accommodated us by saying we could use formulas. Now we're saying it's not accurate enough to use formulas. Well, which way is it? You're saying it's going to be too accurate and too hard to get that precise accuracy, and it's going to sweep in small suppliers and be too burdensome. Okay, we'll use estimates.

Well, now it's not accurate enough. So I understand they oppose the Bill, and I appreciate that they have worked with us, but at some point, the arguments stop making sense. I think that companies largely are going to use the formulas. I strongly suspect that if a company was bound and determined to get precise data from its suppliers, they would probably be doing that already, right? They don't like this Bill. They're not going to go above and beyond what they're required to do.

I'd be surprised if they did. And so that's my take on it. And we did this amendment and we put a lot of work into it precisely to lower the risk of smaller suppliers being swept in. That was our goal, because my goal has never been to require an impact on these small suppliers.

What about out of country suppliers that aren't required to give any information at all?

They can use the formulas and estimates. The two reasons for making the change were the small suppliers, and the other one was especially if you're larger and you have a worldwide supply chain, we get that micro supplier in Indonesia. You might struggle to get information from them, different country, different business atmosphere, and they may not be able to calculate it.

And that's why we gave companies the options of using these established formulas to do it so that they would not get caught up in that kind of situation.

Okay, joint author Gonzalez has moved this Bill.

Thank you.

We'll let you close, Senator.

Thank you very much. Colleagues, just looking big picture. This is about information and transparency. This Bill does not regulate these companies. It does not require them to do anything to change their emissions. I know there are other bills that are dealing with that, and that's its own debate. All this does is they tell us what your carbon footprint is. Just like all these other corporations here and around the world are already doing.

We have major corporations that are not just doing this, but are sponsoring this Bill and are submitting support letters saying, this is doable we do this? It should be standardized. There's not few things that are more maddening when you see some major I know the oil companies oppose it. The oil companies that literally run around having, like, greenwashing ads on network TV about how incredibly green they are with all the green imagery for oil companies that are polluting.

They can advertise however they want, but they should at least have to tell us what their carbon footprint is so that Members of the public don't just have to believe what they see on TV. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Thank you, Senator. Secretary, please call the roll.

All right, this is SB 253, and the motion is due passed to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Dahle? No. Dahle, no. Gonzalez? Gonzalez aye. Hurtado? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Nguyen. Nguyen? No. Skinner? Skinner aye. Okay, I'm sorry.

That's four to two with one abstention, so we'll close the roll on that. All right, thank you, Members. That concludes our agenda. Let's just make sure we got all the votes added on for everybody. We will start out with the SB 12. Item one on your agendas, Members. Item one SB 12. Secretary, please call the roll.

SB 12. The motion I'm sorry. SB 12 is file item number 1, and the motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote is 4-2. Chair voting aye. Vice chair voting. No. Hurtado, aye. Final vote is five to two.

Okay, that's five to two. We'll close the roll on that item. Let's next go to item two. That's stern SB 2.

I'm sorry, the roll is closed there.

Okay. Item three SB 69. Cortese,

SB 69 Item 3, file item three, SB 69. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The current vote is three to zero. Chair voting aye. Vice chair not voting. Dahle. Gonzalez, aye. Nguyen. Skinner aye.

Okay, that's five to zero, two abstentions. So we'll close the roll on item three. The consent calendar is done. Okay, so let's now go to item nine. This is item nine. Glazer, SB 393.

All right, the motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Current vote is 50. Chair voting aye. Vice chair voting. Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Skinner okay, the vote is 60.

Okay, 6-0 will close a roll on that. Let's now go to item ten. This is SCR 21.

Archuleta, the motion is be adopted as amended. Current vote is 6-0. Chair voting, aye. Vice Chair voting. aye. Gonzalez. Aye. 7-0.

Okay, that's seven to zero. I think that's our entire agenda. Thank you, Members. We will be back for a lot more excitement later on.