Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee hearing. We have nine measures on the agenda today. Two bills are on consent. SB 511 by Blakespear. SB 675 by Limon. We have, I believe we have a quorum, so we will take the roll to establish the quorum. Secretary, please take the roll.

Rivas. Rivas, here. Flora. Addis. Addis, here. Friedman. Hoover. Hoover, here. Mathis. Muratsuchi. Muratsuchi, here. Pellerin. Pellerin, here. Ward. Wood. Wood, here. Zbur.

Move the consent calendar.

Okay, we have a quorum. We're taking bills in sign in order. Senator Laird signed in first, but I don't think he's here, right?

Move the consent calendar.

Oh, yeah. We have a motion and a second for the consent calendar.

Consent items are SB 511 Blakespear, and SB 675 Limon. Rivas. Rivas, aye. Flora. Addis. Addis, aye. Friedman. Hoover. Hoover, aye. Mathis. Muratsuchi. Muratsuchi, aye. Pellerin. Pellerin, aye. Ward. Wood. Wood, aye. Zbur. Zbur, aye.

Okay, that consent has seven votes. We'll leave it open for absent Members. Next, we'll take Senator Allen, which you want to start with SB 414?

Sure. Yeah, that's great.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Committee Members. Appreciate that, Assemblymember.

Motion and a second.

We're basically trying to get a better understanding of where hydrogen fits into the mix, and we're looking to do a really independent, value neutral study that will assess the use of hydrogen under various energy applications. And that's the idea of the Bill. I appreciate the support.

You're not a witness in support? Okay.

No.

I'm sorry. Okay. Are there any witnesses in support? In the room?

Good afternoon. Michelle Walgava on behalf of the City of Melbourne, in support.

Senator Grove, on behalf of this Bill, in support.

Thank you. Thank you. She did vote for it.

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

When do you see Janet and Shannon together? That's great.

Thank you.

Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or Comments? Seeing none. Would you like to close? We have a motion and a second.

Thank you. Thank you, Members. Ask for an aye vote.

Thanks. We have a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the roll.

Motion is due passed to Appropriations. Rivas. Rivas, aye. Flora. Flora, aye. Addis. Addis, aye. Friedman. Hoover. Hoover, aye. Mathis. Muratsuchi. Muratsuchi, aye. Pellerin. Pellerin, aye. Ward. Wood. Wood, aye. Zbur. Zbur, aye.

Thank you, Members.

That Bill has eight votes. We'll leave it open for absent Members. Next, item seven SB 665, also by Senator Allen.

Let me just thank the Committee for its thoughtful work, and I'm happy to accept the Committee amendments. So last year, with SB 54, our large plastic Bill, along with ongoing efforts across several state agencies to address the pervasive environmental and public health risks posed by plastic, it's created some fertile ground for the growth of alternative material types. Now, pioneering companies are seizing on consumer demand for environmentally friendly products by creating packaging materials, introducing cutlery made from unconventional sources, and there's a lot of potential benefit.

But the potential benefit really varies a great deal depending on how the products are produced, how they may break down at the end of life. Some of these new materials are created from biological sources, and they could be compostable or biodegradable in different types of environments or with the use of catalysts. Some are sourced from renewable feedstock, but they ultimately have the exact same chemical properties as fossil fuel based plastic and ultimately break down at the same, or don't break down at the same pace.

So right now, we just don't have a meaningful way to evaluate the potential benefits or long term impacts of these new materials. Even our vernacular struggles to differentiate sustainable options from those that we may seek to shift away from. And this Bill will conduct a working group, will basically bring together a working group of relevant state agencies to develop a framework to evaluate plastics alternatives as they are introduced onto the market, and then inform efforts to ensure that the materials are properly managed.

The group is going to be tasked with establishing a methodology for effectively evaluating and comparing these new materials, along with recommending policy approaches to ensure proper regulatory oversight. And this would include developing production and consumer safety standards, evaluating environmental and public health impacts, recommending labeling safe end of life management requirements. We're at this critical juncture right now. These innovative materials are being introduced onto the market.

Now is the time to develop the tools to understand the pros and cons of each new alternative and to ensure that our statutory and regulatory regimes incentivize better, more sustainable materials. The Bill was passed out unanimously out of the Senate. We have John Kennedy with RCRC here, and then also Marco Preya with the Republic Services. Both are here to speak in support of the Bill.

Good afternoon, John Kennedy with RCRC on behalf of 40 of California's counties. As local governments, we've long been charged with overseeing solid waste management, recycling, and disposal. And locals in the solid waste industry alone have been charged with meeting the state's really, really aggressive recycling goals and the 75% recycling and diversion goals. This is why we strongly supported SB 54 to require manufacturers to take responsibility for recycling the single use food service packaging, single use packaging and plastic food service, where they introduce into the stream of commerce.

Manufacturers alone hold the key to product design to ensure their goods are readily recyclable and environmentally benign. SB 665 requires the state to develop a working group to protect against regrettable substitutions as these novel material types are introduced into the marketplace. We support SB 665 because it requires a deep dive in evaluating these emerging materials to ensure consideration of GHG, water and energy impacts, and especially to ensure they're readily recyclable, compostable, or reusable in our facilities that we operate, as well as the solid waste industry.

SB 665 also ensures the voices of academics, industry, environmental, and local solid waste managers are heard in developing this framework. For these reasons, we're pleased to support SB 665 today, and thank you for introducing the Bill.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Marco Preya. I'm here on behalf of Republic Services, a leading solid waste recycling and compost provider. We're very happy to be here in support of Senator Allen's measure, and we just want to point out that this is a measure that builds upon the success of Senate Bill 54 that you all adopted last year, and that this is important, that this measure, like others, will continue to build upon the success of Senate Bill 54. And for those reasons, we ask that you vote aye on Senate Bill 665.

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

Yes. Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of Stop Waste and National Stewardship Action Council in support.

Janet Cox for Climate Action California in support. Thanks.

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

I appreciate the great attention the Committee gave. I'm happy to accept amendments and ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. So we have a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations. Rivas. Rivas, aye. Flora. Flora, aye. Addis. Addis, aye. Friedman. Hoover. Hoover, aye. Mathis. Muratsuchi. Muratsuchi, aye. Pellerin. Pellerin, aye. Ward. Wood. Wood, aye. Zbur. Zbur, aye.

Thank you, Members. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Shannon Grove.

That Bill has eight votes. We'll leave it open for the absent Members. Next, we'll have Senator Grove, SB 15.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. And I just want to start off by thanking you for your indulgence and letting me pull this off of consent. My lead witness traveled all the way from San Diego this morning, and I was unaware that you had put this Bill on consent, so I'm hoping that the favorability will last through this presentation. So, colleagues, Californians consume about 1.8 million barrels of oil every single day. That's roughly 522 million barrels a year. But only a fraction of that oil is produced in state by California workers for California consumers that use this oil.

And it's brought here by tanker ships, on huge tanker ships. The amount Californians spend on imported oil is enormous. If oil is priced at roughly $70 a barrel and that holds for the year, then Californians will pay more than $36.5 billion a year for just the raw cost of oil which we could be producing here in state to use those resources to stay in state. Truly, I think that the state's energy policy in this arena does not make a lot of sense.

Most of the oil that we bring in, over 75% of the oil that we bring into this state, comes from Iraq, Ecuador, and Saudi Arabia. With foreign oil imports, we place California's energy security into the hands of countries that actively are hostile to California's values when it comes to human rights, labor rights, and the environmental rights. The top five countries that we purchase oil from equates to about 75% of the oil that California uses every single day. That's Iraq, Ecuador, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, and Colombia.

Currently, California's number two source of foreign crude oil is Ecuador, and it's been strongly criticized for its environmental indigenous Indian groups, and they practice clear cutting and bulldozing down the rainforest. Four of the top six countries that we import oil from are actively destroying the most biodiverse ecosystem on the planet because they don't adhere to the strict environmental policies that we as a legislative body control here in California. One state, this state, imports half of the crude oil produced in Ecuador.

California's decision to import rather than produce oil here means that financing more than just the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. Just last February, an indigenous leader in Ecuador was murdered. The killing was believed to be linked to the community's fight to block Ecuador's in state oil production from expanding. Saudi Arabia and Iraq are annually highlighted by the US State Department for the deplorable human rights violations in these two countries.

We import 50 million barrels of oil every year from Saudi Arabia, and this is a country where the LGBTQ community is punishable by death. Women cannot drive or vote and torture is used for a form of punishment of crimes. Californians send roughly $3.5 billion a year to Saudi Arabia just to meet the demand that we are using here every single day. I'm going to cut my comments short because I know you're being very patient.

But I want you to know that if you look at Vesselfinder, which is vesselfinder.com, you can go on there and you can track these vehicles or these vessels that come from foreign countries. What's interesting to me, and what I found out when we did research with the California Resources Board, is that they only track these vessels 12 miles off our coastline. And when you use vesselfinder, you can see days and days and days where these ships circle outside the 12 mile radius of our coastline.

And then as soon as the price goes up, they beeline it to one of our ports. What's really frustrating is that the carbon emissions, and in the Committee's analysis, which I applaud, has 100 million metric tons from port of origin to point of, you know, roughly to point of entry or point of destination. But like I said, carbon only counts the emissions used on the 12 mile radius outside our coastlines.

Again, colleagues, just to let you know that 1.8 million barrels of oil are consumed every single day by all of our constituents. And it's not just oil. It's over 6000 everyday products that are made for petroleum, such as shoes, phones, toothbrushes, eyeglasses, and heart valves and disposable diapers. It takes 35 gallons of oil to make tires for a Tesla. We import a lot of this oil and it takes away jobs from our community, our state, and specifically revenue.

And I know that all of us could figure out a way to spend about $50 billion in this state to better homelessness and other things. Let's keep our resources and our jobs here in California. Respectfully asked for an aye vote. My colleague here to testify is Mike Umbro.

Hello. Thank you for your time. Chairperson Rivas and Committee. My name is Mike Umbro. I'm a lifelong California resident, an energy producer, and CEO of Californians for Energy & Science. My focus is to support SB 15 and the necessary steps to complete a holistic cost benefit analysis of California's oil market. I respectfully ask for your aye vote for this Bill. If we reduce our oil demand as a state, 1 million barrels every month in perpetuity, we won't be off foreign oil until 2049.

Since 2018, California has shuttered 65 million barrels of instate production, but our local CEQA AB 32 compliant barrels are replaced by oil sourced from South America's Amazon rainforest and the unregulated deserts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. SB 15 is the first of many necessary steps to ensure a level playing field for California's oil market and it's time we hold OPEC accountable. In October of 21, Governor Newsom declared a State of emergency after 25,000 gallons of crude oil leaked in the waters of Orange County.

The oil was promptly cleaned up, and the cargo ships responsible for the spill paid a $97 million settlement. That same year, Iraq flared 630 billion cubic feet of natural gas, second only to Russia. This is our number one source of oil. Relative to CO2, Methane is 80 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere. This wasteful flaring in Iraq equates to 12 million gallons of oil energy equivalent per day.

Said differently, the people of Iraq inhale the equivalent of 480 Orange County oil spills every day. In 2022, Iraqi Environmental Minister Jassim al-Falahi acknowledged that pollution from this rampant flaring is the main reason for increases in local cancer rates, which are up over 20% in Iraq. California banned the wasteful flaring of natural gas in 1939 and recently implemented 3200 foot setbacks.

Thirty seconds.

Just to sum up, the Wall Street Journal reported last week that Russian oil is being funneled through Middle East and Asian refineries, where it is sold and reclassified to Western markets. We lost those 18 million barrels of Russian crude. They're coming through Iraq now, and that's why we need to track this. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional witnesses in support?

Madam Chair and Members. Theo Pahos of the California Independent Petroleum Association. You know what our emissions are. You know what our criteria pollution emissions are. You know what our methane emissions are. Because those are all monitored. We just ask that we also collect the same information on imported oil. Thank you.

Priscilla Quiroz on behalf of the County of Kern and Fresno, in support. Thank you.

Michelle Walgava on behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors of California in support.

Thank you. Next, do we have any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? Okay, we have a motion by Assemblymember Muratsuchi, second by Assemblymember Pellerin. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Members, for indulging us in this. I just have a few poster boards. This is an oil spill in Iraq. This is rivers and stuff where indigenous Indians are required to. Oh, sorry, upside down. This is indigenous Indians that are required to do their laundry. They used to do this. And this is in Ecuador, not in Iraq. The flaring, like my colleague said, has been going on continuously, and ours was abolished in 1939. It just is important that we track these emissions, and I just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

So, we have a motion and a second. Secretary, please take the roll.

The motion is due pass to Appropriations. Rivas. Rivas, aye. Flora. Flora, aye. Addis. Addis, aye. Friedman. Hoover. Hoover, aye. Mathis. Muratsuchi. Muratsuchi, aye. Pellerin. Pellerin, aye. Ward. Wood. Zbur. Zbur, aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues.

The Bill has seven votes. We'll leave it open for additional.

This is a Kern County Oil Field. We're not destroying anything. No rainforest. If you haven't visited, I'd love to give you a tour.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next we have Senator Laird, SB 272.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm presenting Senate Bill 272, which would boost our state's coastal resiliency by ensuring coastal communities are planning and prepared for sea level rise. There's no registered opposition. We're going to still work with the Governor on the money. And I have Laura Walsh here from the Surf Rider foundation to testify in support, and Sarah Christie from the Coastal Commission. In case there are questions, I would, at the right time, respectfully ask for an iPhone.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Go ahead.

Hi, I'm Laura Walsh. I'm here on behalf of the Surf Rider Foundation. On behalf of our hundred chapters and clubs in California, I'd like to urge support of this Bill. This mandates local coastal program updates. Which Surf Rider is involved in all different communities up and down the coast.

These are tools for cities to plan comprehensively for sea level rise based on science, to protect our beaches and waves, to keep development safe from flooding and erosion, and to streamline projects in the coastal zone. A handful of cities have local coastal programs, but mostly sea level rise is considered on a permit by permit basis. This would be like planning for earthquakes based only on if development is on a fault line.

There's no holistic, broader consideration for zoning or development standards or insurance outcomes without these LCPs. So we really support them to have a bigger, broader conversation. And I just like to comment quickly on the cost benefit. January storms have put Santa Cruz into $17 million of repairs just due to infrastructure impacts there alone. So we really Support proactively planning for sea level rise, not just for infrastructure, but to keep our $44 billion year ocean economy accessible. Thank you. We request your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there additional witnesses in support?

Priscilla Kuros here. On behalf of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the City of Santa Monica, in support.

Michelle Rubalcava. On behalf of Contra Costa County, in support.

Janet Cox for Climate Action California in support. And as a part owner of Beachfront Property in Del Mar.

Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? Okay, so we have a motion by Assembly Member Flora, second by Assembly Member Addis. Would you like to close?

Just. I really appreciate the witness and the comments. It would just be much better if we had all the planning and all the discussions before the atmospheric rivers and not after. So I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I agree, and thank you, Secretary. Please take the roll.

Okay, that Bill has six votes. We'll leave it open for absent Members.

The motion is do pass to appropriations. Rivas? Rivas aye. Flora? Flora aye. Addis? Addis aye. Friedman? Hoover? Mathis? Muratsuchi? Muratsuchi aye. Pellerin? Pellerin aye. Ward? Wood? Zbur? Zbur aye.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. We're waiting for authors Limon, Gonzalez. Just Limon and Gonzalez. Okay. Senator Limon and Senator Gonzalez. Okay, we're waiting. We're going to go ahead and add on votes. Gonzalez is here, so I think we'll go ahead and present. Okay, next we'll move to SB 394. Senator Gonzalez, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I'm here today to present SB 394, which will require the California Energy Commission to collaborate with various state agencies and education stakeholders to develop a master plan for healthy, sustainable, and climate resilient schools. California students are served by over 1000 school districts that utilize more than 10,000 school facilities, comprising of 125,000 acres of grounds and 730,000,000 square feet of facility space, which produce substantial GHG emissions and contribute to other environmental impacts.

A master plan on climate resilient schools will better position California school districts to leverage the billions of dollars available under the Inflation Reduction Act. Testifying in support today, I have Kirk Anne Taylor, Executive Director for Climate Action Pathways for Schools, and Andra Yeghoian, Chief Innovation officer for 10 Strands and for Technical Assistance we also have Tiffany Mock with the California Federation of Teachers. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Gonzalez, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, I'm pleased to be here with you today to support SB 394. I'm Kirk Ann Taylor, Executive Director of Climate Action Pathways for Schools. We're a nonprofit that works with school districts across the state to help them reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save money while preparing students for college and future careers in sustainability.

I'm also a parent that's concerned about the harm to children's academic progress and their social emotional development that's a result from climate related disruptions to their schooling. This Bill will help us prepare students and have climate resilient schools so that when extreme weather forces our local utilities to cut power, our schools can remain online. And when temperatures soar, children can play on tree sheltered schoolyards with heat sinking surfaces and drought tolerant landscaping.

And then, when students struggle to make sense and find balance in the face of uncertainty, their schools can offer connection, competence and hope in the face of uncertainty. Since 2019, Climate Action Pathways for Schools has been partnering with Porterville Unified School District in the California Central Valley, and together we're working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2030. As a result of these efforts, Porterville has achieved a 28% reduction in GHG emissions and produced over 887,000 in energy cost savings to date.

We need to make sure that more schools across the state have access to this kind of sustainability plan that not only advances sustainability, but economic stability in their communities. The master plan is great, and it will help. The CHC is already well positioned to lead the planning through the work that it's been doing through Cal Shape, and it will align dollars from the national, state and local investments in school infrastructure with state's goals for de-carbonization, climate resilience, and economic and educational equity.

Thank you, and I respectfully ask that you vote aye on SB 394. Great. Thank you, Senator Gonzalez and Members of the Committee. My name is Andra Yeghoian and I am currently the Chief Innovation Officer at 10 Strands, a nonprofit field catalyst that strengthens partnerships to bring environmental literacy to all of California's T-K12 students.

I've also worked in formal education as a teacher, and I was the first full time Director of Sustainability in a school site setting and the first environmental literacy and sustainability coordinator at a County Office of Education in San Mateo County. I was also one of the lead authors of the 2023 study, A Call-to-Action Climate Resilient California schools, safeguarding children's health and an opportunity to Learn in T-K12, which was jointly released with Sanford.

This report's central recommendation is for the State of California to develop a master plan for climate resilient schools, a plan that focuses in on, particularly on climate adaptation of school infrastructure. Thankfully, leaders in California are making positive headway in investing in this area with things like Cal Shape funding through California Energy Commission, Schoolyard greening Funding through CAL FIRE and community resilience funding through the Strategic Growth Council.

But we need to make sure that these funds and future efforts are coordinated and promote responsive, equitable investment in energy infrastructure and climate justice for schools. And we need to make sure, investments are scaled to address the problem. We have more than 1000 school districts which operate over 10,000 public K-12 schools, and these facilities include thousands of buildings, and an estimated 40% of these schools are over 50 years old. Recent studies have found tremendous inequities across California and access to healthy, modern school facilities.

I know this firsthand from supporting school districts across San Mateo county, who all experienced in just the five years that I was there, different levels of challenges from high heat, wildfires, air pollution, sea level rise and storm-based flooding. Across California too many facilities are outmoded, especially for climate resilience and adaptation, and too many are not taking the steps to mitigate climate change. Additionally, many school districts don't have up to date facilities plans, and for those that do, there's little consistency and focus across these plans.

An outcome of SB 394 will be a statewide master plan which will help bring that consistency and roadmap that is so badly needed by California facilities managers and school administrators. Thank you for your time and consideration. I respectfully ask that you vote aye on SB 394 to safeguard our children and help navigate the massive climate related changes that our schools face. Thank you.

Next, we're ready for more witnesses and support.

Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of the Children's Partnership, in support.

Hi, Meg Snyder, Axiom Advisors on behalf of Rewiring America and the Building DCARP Coalition. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair Members. Josha Karenick, State Building Trades in support.

Thank you. And Tiffany Mock with CFT also representing Undoc K-12 and Climate Ready Schools College in support. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? Assembly Members Burr so I wanted to.

Thank the author for bringing this Bill. I think as our state has adopted really necessary and important climate action goals, one of the things we haven't been doing that needs to be done is the planning to meet those. You know, when I was a candidate for office, I always used to talk about the fact that we needed all of government approach, and that means planning at every level of government. We need the Coastal Commission to be planning. We need our schools to be planning.

We need our local governments to be planning and we haven't really taken the steps to nudge those entities. Which have really important primary functions generally to actually do this work. So, I'm strongly supportive of the Bill. I would love to be a co-author if that's welcome and thank you for bringing this.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Assembly member Muratsuchi thank you.

Great Bill I'm going to hold off on asking to be added as a co-author until after we hear it in the Education Committee. But I have a question. I know that the Lustin School of Public affairs at UCLA issued a recent report focusing on the extreme heat aspect of what you're trying to address here. I mean, is your Bill calling for recommendations in terms of what would be know acceptable levels of extreme heat at schools?

Absolutely. We're incorporating everything here. I mean, in order to decarbonize. I mean, my child goes to second grade now, third grader permeating heat, 20-30 degrees more than it should be. So absolutely. We want all stakeholders at the table to look at extreme heat as well, especially, it's been called out multiple times, especially by the chair. She's been certainly a major advocate for extreme heat measures. So. Yes, but we have to build, as Assembly member Zbur said, we have to ensure that everybody's at the table.

We have $6 billion to leverage from the Biden Administration now, so we need to ensure that the planning is in place to do that.

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Okay, yeah. Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. And like you said, I've worked on extreme heat and making schools greener in the past, and I'm definitely in support of this Bill. Would you like to close? Just want to thank our sponsors for doing great work as the dynamic women team today. And so, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion by Assemblymember Flora, second by Assemblymember Muratsuchi Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due passed to Education Committee. Rivas? Aye. Rivas, aye Flora? Flora, aye. Addis? Addis, aye Friedman? Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye. Mathis? Muratsuchi? Aye. Muratsuchi, aye. Pellerin? Pellerin, aye. Ward? Wood? Wood, aye. Zbur? Zbur, aye. That Bill has eight votes. We'll leave it open for Members that are absent. Thank you. We are now waiting for Senator Limon. And while we'll wait, while we wait, we'll go ahead and do add on's until she gets here.

Motion is do pass to appropriations chair, voting aye. Friedman, aye. Hoover, aye. Mathis. Ward, aye. Wood, aye.

That Bill has 10 votes. We'll leave it open for the absent Member. ItEm four, SB 394.

The motion is do pass to education Committee, chair, voting aye. Friedman, aye. Mathis. Ward, aye.

That bill has 10 votes. Item 5, SB 4114 by Allen.

Motion is do pass to appropriations chair, voting aye. Friedman, aye. Mathis. Ward, aye.

Bill has 10 votes. ITEM 7, SB 665.

The motion is dupes as amended to appropriations chair, voting Aye. Friedman, aye. Mathis. Ward, aye.

Will have 10 votes. Item consent consent consent items. There were two items on the consent.

Consent items are SB 511, Blakespear and SB 675 Limon. Chair voting, aye, mean consent calendar. Flora, aye. Friedman, aye. Mathis, Ward, aye.

That has 10 votes. We'll leave it open for the absent Member. And we are waiting for Senator Limon. And we will be done. Commander. Thank you. Welcome. Our final presenter, Senator Limon, will start with item 3, SB 390.

Thank you. Since we do have a motion on that Bill, I just will say that I respectfully ask aye for an aye vote. I can say my whole speech if you'd like.

No, this works for us.

I do remember the green carpet ways.

It does have an aye record from the chair, too. Okay, so, any witnesses in support.

For 390? Yeah, she's 728, sorry, that's okay.

Any additional witnesses in the room in support? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any questions or comments from Committee? Okay. Would you like to close?

Just so we're on record, the Bill is enacting protections for purchasers of voluntary carbon offsets. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

The motion is do pass to Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

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

Great.

And then final item, SB 728. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Committee and Chair I'd like to thank the Committee staff for their work on this Bill, and I'd like to accept the suggested amendments. SB 728 transitions the state away from the sale or distribution of plastic gift cards by January 1 of 2027 towards more environmentally sustainable gift card options that are readily available at many retailers. More than 3.4 billion plastic gift cards are sold in the United States in 2021, according to Beyond Plastics.

The vast majority of these gift cards are made from polyvinyl chloride plastic (PVC), considered to be one of the single most environmentally damaging of all plastics. This Bill focuses a transition away from the single use plastic alongside a single use plastic. Many businesses already offer more environmentally friendly gift card options now, including paper, wood, electronic and others. In April of this year, MasterCard announced that they're removing their first used PVC from all payment cards, including gift cards for sustainable materials, including recycled and bio-sourced plastics.

And so I do have a little show and tell. These are all the more environmentally friendly ones. There's many other companies, but if you want to feel them, because people are, we're not banning these. These are the good ones. They're going to be there. You can feel them. So I'm happy to pass that around if people want to see what we're talking about. But I do have Laura Walsh here to testify on behalf of Surfrider Foundation in support of the Bill.

Thank you, I'm Laura Walsh from Surfrider. In short, we support these alternative options because they don't produce carcinogens and aren't made of carcinogens. This Bill helps us get away from single use plastics by targeting PVC. PVC is hazardous at the beginning of its life because it creates CO2 and other chemicals that the EPA deems hazardous. It's also very toxic at the end of its life because it creates hydrogen chloride, which becomes acid in human lungs.

The US EPA cited the total amount of PVC products in 2018 recycled as negligible. So basically these don't get recycled. And when consumers try to recycle them, many municipalities don't accept these gift cards because they are usually small and thin and they get stuck in the machinery. As was stated, businesses are transitioning away to many other more sustainable options. And so on behalf of the public that bears the brunt of these carcinogenic products, I respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there additional witnesses in support?

Chloe Brown on behalf of Californians Against Waste, for all the reasons that Surfrider listed, we are in support. Thank you.

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

Janet Cox for Climate Action California. Thank you.

Are there any witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, Madam and Chair Members. Margaret Gladstein here on behalf of the California Retailers Association, we are in opposition. I do want to thank the author and her staff, they've been fabulous working with us, appreciate the Committee's recommended amendments. One of the things we do want to clarify and again have been discussing with the author and her staff are what a violation would look like. So we'd like the opportunity to keep working on that.

Our concern, and the author rightfully recognizes that retailers are moving in that direction. We do have some concerns about particular applications where a card is going into a reader, and we want to make sure that the technology will be able to accommodate that. So the delayed time frame is helpful. We're trying to get to. Yes, we're working with the author and again, appreciate her willingness to work with us and the Committee's recommended amendments. But right now it's our biggest concern based on the new amendments is the violations and the description of that. So we want to keep working on that. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition.

Chair Members, Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Just want to say we certainly appreciate the goal. We haven't seen the latest amendments, but we are opposed at this time. Thank you much.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Carlos Gutierrez, on behalf of the California Grocery Association, opposition to both.

Thank you. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? Assemblymember Muratsuchi?

Yeah, actually, I was going to ask Ms. Gladstein, but since she already left, Senator Limón, maybe you can answer. Yeah, I was just curious, what are the challenges in terms of making sure that cards are readable for retailers? That would be lost if you don't have these PVC cards.

Yeah. The concern is whether currently a lot of technology is the magnetic stripe, and if they're going into a reader that's feeding and think about your ATM card, sometimes those readers actually chew up the non-plastic cards. And so in that case, the value of the card is still there, but accessing it at that particular time. So it's really about the technology of the readers and intermingling with the cards. I think the examples you have, I haven't seen this, probably have a barcode. And so some retailers have the barcode technology and some still use the magstripe. They're all different.

Yeah, so I think the non plastic ones are all now using the barcode technology, but not all retailers have that and not all gas stations. If you think about it, you insert your card there. So that's really where the challenges lie for us. So we're working to get there, and that was where our opposition comes from.

Okay. Thank you, Assemblymember Zbur.

I think this is a great Bill and actually appreciate the fact that the retailers and some of the business interests actually are supportive of the goals of the Bill. I just had a couple, and I'm going to support this. Strongly support it. But I'm assuming that you're looking at, on some of these technological issues, the fact that they would have to comply both with the new cards as well as the fact that people may have old plastic cards for a fairly long period of time.

Yeah. So the old ones, there is no penalty for anyone that is maybe like me and keeps your gift cards until you need them, and, like, four years later, you still have them. So there's no penalty. And this really is a transition. That is why it's just about selling, right? The old ones will be used, and certainly we are keeping up with just what's out there in terms of the technology. And we know so many are already moving forward.

I also want to make it clear that this Bill does not. This is for gift cards specifically. It does not apply to hotels or transportations or credit cards. Those are used in a different way multiple times, repeatedly. This is really targeting just one time use ones. But certainly we've extended the implementation date a few years out in order to keep--to ensure that the technology is there with the retailers.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? I see none. Do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

And we'll continue to work with opposition.

Secretary, please call the roll.

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

That Bill has eight votes. That Bill is out.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, we only need Mathis to add on and then everyone else is. Yeah. No, I have to leave right now to present. We will start from the top. We'll start with SB 15.

SB 15, Grove. Motion is do pass to appropriations. Mathis, aye.

Bill has 11 votes. That's out. SB 272.

Motion do pass to appropriations. Mathis, no.

10 to 1, that Bill is out. Next. 390 S B. 390.

Motion is do pass to judiciary. Mathis, aye.

The Bill has 9 votes. That Bill is out. Next. SB 394.

Motion do pass to Education Committee. Mathis, aye.

Bill has 11 votes. That Bill is out.

SB 4114 Motion do pass to appropriations. Mathis, aye.

Bill has 11 votes. That Bill is out. SB 665.

Motion is do pass, as amended, to appropriations. Mathis, aye.

Bill has 11 votes. That Bill is out. And consent. The consent.

Mathis, Aye.

Consent has 11. That consent is out, and we are adjourned. Thank you.