Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

[Roll Call]

Okay, we have a quorum. Should we vote on the consent count?

Can I have a motion for the consent? Okay, we have a motion and a second. Please take the roll.

[Roll Call]

That Bill has seven. The consent calendar has seven votes. We'll leave it open for absent Members. We will start off with file item two, SB 286 by McGuire. He has given permission to Assembly Member Wood to present on his behalf.

Whenever you're ready. You have a motion and a second.

I'll be really brief in the interests of not wanting to lose votes. This Bill establishes the California Offshore Wind Energy Fisheries Working Group to address offshore wind energy project impacts to certain fisheries and other interests. We have two witnesses, and I'll ask them to be brief as well.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm Sarah Christie, the Commission's Legislative Director, and I'm pleased to represent the Commission today in support of SB 286. This is a Bill that would streamline the permitting process for offshore wind and add specific direction to the Offshore Fisheries Working Group, which was authorized by the Commission's federal action last year.

Now, it may seem a little unusual for the Commission to support a permit streamlining a Bill, but we understand all too well that we're in a climate emergency and we must speed our transition to renewable energy. SB 286 would significantly reduce permitting timelines for offshore wind without bypassing or undermining the Coastal Act or CEQA California's two bedrock environmental laws. And it would ensure that local LCP policies are respected. Increasing efficiency without sacrificing environmental protection, we consider that a model for good governance.

The consolidated permit process is an existing streamlining option under the Coastal Act for projects that straddle two or more jurisdictions. When local governments agree, the Commission is able to issue a single permit for what would otherwise require two or more separate processes, permits, and fees. This Bill would make that process mandatory for offshore wind. Consolidated permits work particularly well for large multi-jurisdictional public infrastructure projects like highway realignments, bridges, and pipelines.

The Commission uses the certified LCPS for guidance and Chapter Three as the legal standard of review. This means that the Commission follows the LCP within certified areas and Chapter Three in areas of our retained jurisdiction. In this way, local policies are followed and respected, while the Coastal Act ensures that resources are protected. The Coastal Commission is going to play a significant role in the successful deployment of responsible, environmentally sustainable offshore wind energy development.

SB 286 will ensure that the Coastal Act and CEQA will continue to guide and inform the decisions that all of the public agencies will be making, and that the Commission is able to carry out an expedited fair process that honors local policies. For these reasons, the Commission respectfully acts for an Aye vote and I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Jeremy Smith, here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, also proudly to support SB 286 today. As most Members of this Committee know, the construction trade unions have been at the forefront of the renewable energy power generation in this state. Our journeymen and women have built a vast majority of utility-scale solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal projects. SB 286 seeks to create a path forward to finally capture California's massive California offshore wind potential.

In light of the ongoing strains on the electrical grid and the further electrification of our homes, we appreciate Senator McGuire's commitment to this industry, to these jobs, and to his commitment to the North State, along with the Assembly Members, especially when it comes to offshore wind. We are strong supporters today. Urge your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we're ready for additional witnesses and support.

Hi, Andrew Govenar, Governmental Advocates, here on behalf of the commercial fishing industry, on behalf of Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, the California Wet Fish Producers Association, the Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen's Organization, Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries, Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara, Bodega Bay Marketing Association, California Fishermen's Resiliency Association, the Marketing Association of Humboldt, as well, in support of the purpose and the intent of the Bill and look forward to working with the author to ensure the vitality of the commercial fishing industry. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, Matt Cremins here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Matt Robinson with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer and Lange, on behalf of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association PMSA, we have a supportive, amended position. We have been working with the authors and his staff on those amendments and look forward to resolving them. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Members. Molly Croll with American Clean Power Association. We have all along supported the creation of a fisheries working group to develop a compensation and mitigation strategy. We had previously issued a letter of concern, primarily about issues with the standard of.

We're taking just name, organization, and position on the Bill.

Sure. Thank you very much. Removing our letter of concern. We're now neutral leaning, supportive.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members, Dan Chom, on behalf of the Port of Long Beach. We don't have a position, but we much appreciate the author and the Coastal Commission for working with us to clarify Port's jurisdiction over to act as a lead agency under CEQA, so really appreciate their consideration.

Thank you. Next, are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? Assembly Member Hoover?

Sorry, through the chair, I just wanted to just get a little more clarity on the American Clean Power Association's change in position, if that would be okay. Just very briefly, just so I understand why they removed their letter of concern. Is that okay?

I'm sorry, you wanted them to clarify why they removed their letter of concern?

I have a letter of concern and I just want to clarify why they're removing that.

Oh yeah. Can you be brief?

It can be super short.

Sure, the Committee amendments address our primary concerns. Perfect.

Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions? Comments? Okay, but before you close, I just want to verify that you will be accepting the amendments.

On behalf of Senator McGuire. I will accept the amendments, yes.

Thank you. And thank you for presenting on his behalf. Would you like to close?

Yes. I want to thank the author for bringing the measure forward. Offshore wind poses immense challenges to the North Coast, which both the Senator and I have the honor of representing. And while I believe our coastal communities are up to the challenge, it's going to take an all-hands-on-deck mentality to accomplish the offshore wind goals set forth by the Biden Administration. I believe we can get there if we engage in all impacted parties early and often, and that's exactly what the Bill does.

With that, I want to thank my colleague, Senator McGuire, who dove right into this early this year. I know it's been an immense undertaking, and I believe that what is before us today is a good bill, one that I'm proud to co-author. So with that, I would ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by several Members and seconded also by a couple of other Members. I just don't remember who, but I know it was one of them. For now, but secretary, can you please call the role? The motion is do pass as amended to Utilities and Energy Committee. [Roll Call] That Bill has seven votes.

We'll leave it open for absent Member. Are? I believe we are waiting for authors. Is there any authors? I don't see any. Senator Allen. Welcome. That's item four, SB 303.

Thank you so much. This is all about making some minor changes to SB 54 to clarify that it is the producers who are responsible for ensuring material meets Cal Recycle's verification criteria when that material is sent out of state. With that. We've got Marco Preya.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Marco Preya on behalf of Republic Services. First, we want to thank Senator Allen for authoring this important measure that ensures this successful implementation of SB 303.

We also want to thank the Chair and her staff of this Committee for working with the author and supporters of the measure. And finally, we also want to thank the other stakeholders of SB 54 who worked to get this Bill before the Committee today. Republic Services is proud to have been a part of the effort to address single use disposable, packaging and food serviceware, and to be counted among the early supporters of that measure as part of the SB 54 process.

The solid waste industry raised some concerns with the final version of SB 54, but because of the press of time to enact the measure before June 30 of last year, those concerns could not be addressed in SB 54. SB 303 addresses those outstanding concerns. SB 54 governs the producers of single use packaging and plastic single use food plastic wares.

So therefore, it is important to recognize that the provisions of SB 54, are applied to the producer responsibility, organization, or pro of those covered materials, and that local agencies and solid waste service providers do not face redundant or conflicting regulation. It is therefore important to make clear that the pro provides data and verification that covered materials are shipped to responsible end markets. SB 303 provides necessary clarity to SB 54's application to the pro.

Finally, SB 303 clarifies the definition of processing and responsible end market to not overly burden the movement of materials to end markets, and reflects that contaminants are removed during processing and not at the end market. For these and other reasons, we support SB 303 and respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there additional witnesses in support?

Thank you. I'm Janet Cox for Climate Action California and the Santa Cruz Climate Action Network.

Thank you. Next. Are there witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Are there any questions or comments from Committee Members? There are none. Would you be accepting the amendment?

Yes, absolutely.

To make sure. Okay. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Appreciate the work of the Committee both last year and this year, and accept the amendments and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

The motion is do passed as amended to Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you, Members, thank you very much.

Bill has seven votes, seven ayes. We will leave that open for absent Members. Okay. We are waiting for Senate authors. Yes. Senator Stern? No, go ahead. Next. Senator Stern? Yeah, please go. Please sit down. Yeah. To present, we have item 13, SB 781 by Senator Stern. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I begin, I just want to accept the suggested amendments on page five, number seven, clarifying that nothing in this division shall relieve any person compliance with federal, state or local laws. This Bill is about what happens to that natural gas before it gets to California and all the embedded emissions that may be in there. We do a lot of great environmental work in this state, and we hold our utilities, our oil companies, to very, very high standards.

However, that is not the case in other parts of this country. And we import well over 90% of our natural gas in this state. So this Bill is some kind of incentive, hopefully, for the marketplace to start to certify that they're at least meeting some minimum standards in other jurisdictions. So places like Pennsylvania, the Marcellus Shale in Texas, the Permian Basin, those areas are slowly starting to adopt better standards, wellhead practices, fugitive emissions monitoring, but not in many cases.

So hopefully, by putting forth some kind of certification standard, which there's a number of competing standards out there, which I think is actually a good thing, we're hoping industry actually starts to deliver gas to the State of California that's as low-carbon as possible as we make that bigger transition. So That's the context of the Bill. But I'm happy to answer questions and dig in deeper. I know. So Michelle is here.

So Michelle Applegate is here with Project Canary, but I believe Howard Penn or Matt Baker, Howard Penn may be here with PCL as well. But do you want to start? Why don't you start and then we'll see if yeah, please join. Penn is here. Is that all right?

Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Michelle Applegate. I'm the Senior Director of Policy for Project Canary. We are a mission-driven B corporation with the goal of decarbonizing the natural gas value chain. So with this Bill, California can make a new and significant impact in the battle for climate. And they can do so at minimal cost to consumers. By acting today and taking steps today and enacting SB 781, it would effectively enable procurement of low-emission natural gas for California.

Material reduction in greenhouse gas emissions can be accomplished by stopping the intermittent leaks that occur in the energy supply chain. We believe that you can't manage what you can't measure. And the Bill before you today would establish California as a national and global leader by using its market power to procure natural gas with a measured low-methane intensity. Adoption and implementation of SB 781 would have the effect of driving the industry to stop the leaks.

And stopping the leaks in the energy infrastructure is actually the lowest hanging fruit in the battle for climate change. In fact, adopting this Bill and the resulting standards that come from it represents the single most cost-effective carbon reduction and climate change mitigation avenues available to the state.

The procurement and broad use of low-emission natural gas will have a negligible impact on California's residential and commercial utility bills for residential customers less than 20 cents per month per household for either of the state's two largest utilities. In addition to the Low cost, the environmental benefits are significant.

If the imported gas consumed in California was produced with a measured methane intensity of 0.2% instead of 1.38%, which is what EDF estimates, we could abate the equivalent of about 36 million metric tons of CO2, which is the equivalent of taking 8 million cars off the road for one year in California. So until we no longer use natural gas, we have the ability to decarbonize these fuel sources and eliminate millions of metric tons of CO2 now, which is well ahead of the state's goals and guidelines.

Project Canary thanks Senator Stern for introducing this Bill and respectfully requests an aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any additional witnesses in support?

Alex Lewa on behalf of the Planning and Conservation League. Sorry they couldn't be here to be a witness, but they are in full support. Thank you.

Janet Cox in support on behalf of Climate Action California, Santa Cruz Climate Action Network and the 350 Southland Legislative Alliance which is the number of groups in the Los Angeles area. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, are there witnesses in opposition? I see none. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? See none. I believe we have a motion. And a motion by Assemblymember Addis. Second by Assemblymember Wood. Would you like to close?

Thank you. I don't want to talk past yes here. So I will appreciate the motion, ask for your support, and hopefully we get to a bipartisan place on this one. I really do believe that this kind of incentive framework, not a mandate on the sector, but really just trying to give standards to lift everyone up and get us a big win on climate here that won't cost much. So that I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please take the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended to Utilities and Energy Committee. Rivas? Rivas aye. Flora? Flora no. Addis? Addis aye. Friedman? Hoover? Hoover no. Mathis? Mathis no. Muratsuchi? Pellerin? Pellerin aye. Ward? Wood? Wood aye. Zbur?

The Bill has four votes. We'll leave it on call. Next, we have Senator Wiener, SB 273. You have a motion and a second. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair, colleagues. Today I'm presenting Senate Bill 273, which will authorize the State Land Commission to approve an important project at San Francisco's. Dilapidated and falling into the bay piers 30 and 32, this project, once the pier is removed and rebuilt, will reduce the pier's footprint by almost half, so it'll be a much smaller intrusion into the bay, increasing open water and adding sorely needed public amenities and public spaces, improving harbor infrastructure, resiliency on the waterfront.

It will, along with the adjacent housing project, create 700 units of housing, including a significant number of below market rate homes. And the project has a number of exciting elements for the San Francisco waterfront to aid in its revitalization. It'll feature visitors serving retail, general use, office space, a deep water berthing facility, and a publicly accessible aquatic center with a floating swimming pool and bay access. It also has strong emergency access.

The office space in the project will finance a series of urgently needed infrastructure improvements, rebuilding the sea wall, and protecting our waterfront from sea level rise, which is a huge, huge problem. Along the San Francisco waterfront, piers 3032 is one of the only naturally self scouring deep water berths and one of the few piers that can accommodate emergency response in the event of a major earthquake or natural disaster. So its rehabilitation is incredibly important. Just to be clear, this Bill does not approve the project.

All it does is allow the State Lands Commission to approve it, allow us to work the city, to work with BCDC, and by the way, we have taken amendments working with BCDC to keep that agency neutral. The Army Corps of Engineers will need to sign off regional water quality control board in addition to the San Francisco Port Commission and the Board of Supervisors. I want to thank the Committee for its engagement on this Bill.

And I want to just stress that this is a really important Bill for the future of our waterfront. And so with that, I respectfully ask for an I vote. With me today to testify is the Executive Director of the Port of San Francisco, Elaine Forbes, and ... with the Boys and Girls Club of San Francisco, who was our 2023 Youth of the Year, also an avid swimmer and a youth swim coach.

Thank you so much. Senator Wiener, Members of the Committee, I'm Elaine Forbes, Port Director, San Francisco waterfront faces a very urgent threat from earthquake and sea level rise. Our harbor protects over 600 acres of the downtown critical MUNI, BART infrastructure, and we were urgently looking for investment into our harbor.

Here we have a project that came through a community planning process, through a competitive solicitation process that actually provides us $400 million to repair our seawall and prepare for sea level rise at a very low lying area from private money, from private investment. And in addition to that, we get wonderful amenities. Senator Wiener spoke to them, including 700 homes, swim facilities. The community is calling for active recreation along the waterfront, and swim is such a wonderful amenity of San Francisco. You'll be hearing more about that.

So my team and I just could not be more proud to bring a project that really makes sense in this part of the waterfront that really adds amenities and helps us prepare for sea level rise. It's very hard to find all the financing necessary to do this big job.

So I'm very thrilled to be here today, and I want to thank in particular, of course, Senator Wiener, for your leadership on our first bond to work on this problem, which was 425 million, and this project, which is almost the same amount in one location. So we're making progress. Thank you, Senator Wiener.

Hi, everyone. My name is .... I'm a Member of the Boys and Girls Club of San Francisco. My support for this legislation doesn't mean that I'm fully understanding of support of this project, but I'm here enthusiastically to have better access to first rate facilities for the overall public, in particular low income facilities and communities of people of color. Thank you very much. People of color who have historically been excluded from opportunities to learn to swim and to swim competitively.

More great pools are very valuable in my opinion. I've been an active Member of the Aquatics Boys and Girls Club since I was six years old. When I was in middle school, my family and I experienced homelessness and had to move in Oakland with my uncle on the floor of a nine by 12 with my mom and my three sisters. Despite all these changes, I knew I could always come back to the club. Swimming at the club changed my life.

My coaches, Jonathan and Claudia, were always there for me from the beginning. The pool has always been therapeutic for me. No matter what life threw at me. Swimming taught me to take one lap at a time and to focus on the moment. The club was a home away from home. I always knew I'd be welcomed there with open arms and I'd be able to part of a team and a community.

The more I got into swimming, the more I realized there are not a lot of swimmers that look like me. Representation matters. Looking back at the years of team photos, there are only a few swimmers that look like me. That is why I wanted to be a role model for the kids in the pool who they can see a familiar face in a new environment.

By joining the swim staff at my clubhouse, I am coaching the next generation of swimmers, and I became the person I wanted to see in the pool growing up. Thank you for listening to my story. As a San Francisco youth, I am pleased to share how access to strong aquatics programs and pool facilities made such a great impact on my life. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any additional witnesses in support?

Thank you. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Jeremy Smith, here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council and our San Francisco Building Trades Council in strong support.

Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? Assembly Member Addis.

Well, I want to thank your witness. You have wonderful witnesses here today and congratulations on your accomplishments as a swimmer and appreciate the project and your clarification. Coming from a community that also has waterfront in the tidelands Trust that is struggling.

I know how hard these projects can be and want to appreciate your clarification that you're taking a look at the project, or that this Bill is allowing State Lands to look more deeply at the project, not necessarily approving it. So appreciate that piece of it and the clarification and working with the opposition.

Assembly Member Flora.

Thank you, Chair. And just to your witness, for the Members, I spoke with him a little bit earlier, and it's his first time to come to the capitol. And to come to the Capitol and testify in a Committee is kind of badass. So well done. So I'm super proud of you for that. But I also want to say something to the Boys and Girls Clubs.

I think they are the unsung heroes of our communities, and whatever we can do to support these clubs is tremendously beneficial for folks like yourself. And I just appreciate you bringing them up and showing your support to them and look forward to supporting this Bill. So thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? I also want to thank angel for being here and testifying and sharing your story. It's always great when we get a young person from the community that will directly benefit, come and share those stories with us. So thank you for being here in our Committee, and I'm glad Natural Resources was your first Committee. I'm sure it won't be the last that you will testify. Thank you for bringing this measure forward in full support. Would you like to close?

No, I appreciate it, Madam Chair. Thank you. Colleagues, I'm really excited that what has become a derelict part of our waterfront literally falling in the bay has a future. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thanks. We have a motion and a second secretary, please take the roll.

The motion is due past two appropriations.

Thank you. Thank you, colleagues.

That Bill has eight ayes. We will leave it open for absent Members. Next up, Senator Caballero with SB 447.

I'm sorry, SB 438. Caballero, whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members, for the opportunity to talk about SB 438. There have been recent media reports regarding the intent of 438 filled with misleading information and incredulous accusation accusations about my integrity. I'd like to take this opportunity to make clear what my intent is, as I am the author and the only person who makes the final decision on policy language.

Obviously, with the help of committees in no way, shape or form am I going to allow any lobbyist or industry to hijack my Bill for their own use. This is not how I conduct my business. And my time in the Legislature has shown that I engage in a transparent and collaborative manner for the Members of the public and the press. That is not how the legislative process works.

My office has always engaged in an open manner to seek collaboration and compromise that would best serve my constituents and ultimately, the State of California. Carbon capture, removal and utilization storage projects are much needed if we are to achieve California's climate change goals. These projects are part of the ambitious GHG carbon neutral bridge that can bring a complete clean energy economy with good jobs while creating economic prosperity for residents in the Central Valley and in my district. And this Bill is very simple.

The Bill clarifies that the unintended expression of residual oil that may occur during carbon capture sequestration is not enhanced oil recovery. And number two, it creates a reporting mechanism to report and track their occurrence so that we know when they're happening and where and can do something about it. However, to alleviate the concerns that have been circulating about the future intent of this Bill, I have decided to ask the Chair to hold the Bill today and to make it a two year Bill.

But take my word for it, I will be back. And the reason is because we absolutely need this kind of movement in order to be able to do carbon capture sequestration. Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments, Madam Chair, and I respectfully ask that you hold the bell.

Thank you, Senator, for addressing that article that was recently published about your Bill. You and I had a conversation before that was out because the reporter did reach out to me for comment. I don't comment on bills. I talked to the author directly. And when you and I sat down, you said that that was not your intention to gut and amend this Bill to do something that we agreed to in a deal last year as part of the climate package, which has to do with pipeline safety. And this article says that you were going to or a lobbyist was going to change your Bill to undo our agreement from last year.

And I know you and I sat down and you said that that was not your intention then that you would not do that. And so it's up to you to make this a two year Bill. But thank you for clarifying that this was not the intention of your Bill and making it clear that you are the author and you make the decisions on the content of your Bill.

Madam Chair, thank you for that. I think part of the challenge from my perspective is that the issues about pipeline safety and the issue about unitization, which is who owns the land above and who owns the mineral rights below that those were unresolved as well and that the Administration, as well as myself, were working on what would it look like to put those two ideas into a Bill and that. We've been working on that with all the stakeholders, but that was not this Bill.

And so the allegation was that that part that we're working on, unitization and pipeline safety was going to get snuck in this Bill somehow and either taken away from me or else I had an ulterior motive. And I just wanted to make it very clear that that still has to be resolved. We've got to figure out long term what happens with those two items. But it wasn't my Bill.

If we're having conversations about issues that are outside of a Bill and they get impugned to the person, like there's a sneak attack coming, it's really detrimental to our process because then it gets everybody ginned up about what's really going on. And I think that from my perspective, I wanted it to be very clear I'm having those conversations. Yes, we have to work on pipeline safety and unitization, but That's not this Bill. Okay.

So any decision that gets made in the future, of course those issues are within the jurisdiction of this Committee. Correct. And myself and the Committee Members will have a say also right. In a future Bill, if you do bring that forward in the future. I believe there are some witnesses either in support or opposition, since they may have traveled. I didn't know that you were going to make this a two year Bill.

And we do have some witnesses here that came from a long distance and I just want to make sure that they have a chance to testify either in support or opposition. We'll start with, was there support for this Bill? You didn't have a witness in support. We did not ask. Maybe opposition.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. And thanks for the opportunity to speak today and appreciate the Senator pulling the Bill to be a two-year Bill. My name is Dan Russ and I'm a Staff Attorney for the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment. I'm also speaking on behalf of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition and the Climate Center.

CRP is a community based organization in the San Joaquin Valley where we provide communities with organizing technical and legal support in the fight for environmental justice. Outwardly, SB 438 is intended to clarify the prohibition on enhanced oil recovery using captured carbon that EGI advocates secured last year through tough negotiations. Its legal impacts are likely to be minimal, but the goal is to speed investment in carbon capture use and storage, or CCUS.

That's a bad idea because by and large, CCUS delays meaningful climate action and causes local harms. Instead of phasing out sources of climate criteria and toxic air pollution, CCUS would subsidize them, inviting investment expansion and continued operation for decades. Our climate and our communities cannot afford to stumble into this dead end. This latest tactic from fossil fuel companies playbook. But don't just take my word that CCUS is a cynical ploy by fossil fuel companies to subvert our state climate policy.

Listen to their own lobbyist, Theo Pahos, who represents an oil industry trade group, CIPA. Speaking with unusual candor to capital in Maine, Pahos said that they don't want environmentalists to see what they're up to and that they are deliberately misadvertising that self-characterization could easily be applied to the entire scheme of CCUS. But to be fair, Bahas wasn't speaking about all CCUS, but rather about this Bill.

SB 438, the plan to gut and amend the Bill to undo the moratorium and carbon pipelines that EJ advocates won in those same tough negotiations. Carbon pipelines aren't dangerous and under regulated. After a 2020 pipeline rupture in Satasha, Mississippi, hospitalized more people than lived in the town, the federal regulator found that its own lax regulations were partially to blame, and it started a new rulemaking in response.

Under current regulations, another disaster is likely, and next time, it could happen in a population center like Arvin, Bakersfield, or LA, potentially asphyxiating and killing hundreds. So during the climate package negotiations last August, the Legislature put in place this moratorium until the federal rulemaking concludes, allowing space for stakeholders to come together and time for more research. Many legislators wouldn't have voted for the package but for the moratorium. Removing the negotiated moratorium is what SIPO is quietly trying to profit from by subverting the legislative process.

That is unacceptable, whether through a gut and amend or through a budget trailer Bill, another strategy they're pursuing as we speak, even though it has nothing to do with the budget frontline. Communities need this protection, and we need legislators like yourselves to defend it. And we need to refrain from adding to the rush to CCUS.

Yes, as such, we respectfully, well, actually appreciate the Senator pulling the Bill for this year and look forward to being added to the group of stakeholders engaged as you're talking about pipeline safety. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, well, thank you, Senator, for letting us know about your decision to make this a two year Bill. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Comments or vote? Thank you. Thank you. Thank.

Thank you. Next. We're ready for SB 583 by Senator Padilla. Whenever you're ready.

All right, thank you. Madam Chair and colleagues, I'm pleased to present SB 583, which would establish the Salton Sea Conservancy. I want to begin by thanking the Chair and the Committee staff for working with my office and we are accepting the Committee Amendments offered in the analysis.

As many of you may know, the Salton Sea is for decades and in recent years much more acutely, probably the worst ecological, environmental and public health, and economic disaster in the State of California that directly impacts one of the most underinvested overlooked communities of color that has known nothing but exploitation in many, many decades.

Unless substantial efforts are undertaken to address this crisis, to build on the agreements and the investments that this state has made substantially in the remediation and restoration of this area, continued environmental and public health impacts will continue unabated.

In short, recently, because of the Colorado River Compact, the shrinkage of the Salton Sea will accelerate over the next decade to a level that will get ahead of earlier projections by a decade, further exposing dry toxic lake bed which then becomes aerosolized and contributes to an exceedingly unhealthy air quality. On top of the other challenges that this part of our state already faces. The Governor's Budget already has swept backed over $169,000,000 from the state budget directed at the Salton Sea restoration efforts.

But the federal government has pledged over 233,000,000 for restoration efforts at the sea. And my hope as we move other legislation forward on resource bonds, that this will receive the appropriate attention it's deserving of which there funding. The Natural Resources Agency will be directing and leading remediation efforts and working with local stakeholders.

This Bill creates the Salton Sea Conservancy, which for the first time will involve local stakeholders representing special districts, counties, environmental justice organizations and others at the same table with a state instrument that is both liable and responsible for implementing the restoration of the Salton Sea. It will strengthen their voices. As has not been possible to date, local stakeholders are critical to the success of restoration efforts at the Salton Sea.

California has an exemplary record of conservancies up and down the state that provide focus, leveraging of funding, better coordination and collaboration around entitlement with local, state and federal regulatory agencies and the ability to collect, distribute and leverage additional funds. It is long past due that this part of the state benefit from a conservancy directed at the restoration of the Salton Sea. SB 583 has had zero no votes and Madam Chair, with me today is Frank Ruiz from Audubon and following his testimony, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Frank Ruiz and I am the Salton Sea Program Director and the California Desert Program Director for Audubon California and also a Member of the Sound Sea community. Someone who is leading the second-largest habitat restoration of the sea.

I am here in support of the Salton Sea Conservancy Bill SB 583. This conservancy will consolidate the agency responsible for the Salton Sea restoration and help expedite the project's implementation. I applaud Senator Padilla for his leadership in leading this initiative and for the work that continues in bringing all the stakeholders together. The Salton Sea needs long-term management that is strongly guided by local voices and leadership.

This conservancy will enable the state to meet its legal obligations in reaching its milestones in providing habitat for the migratory birds and wildlife and suppress the rapid exposure of playa expected as a result of the Colorado River reductions. In addition, it will ensure that biological monitoring of the sea continues. The community engagement is a priority, and the funding allocated in a systemic manner comes along. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Thank you. Next. Are there additional witnesses in support?

Good afternoon. Aaron Wooley on behalf of Sierra Club California. We have a support and concept position. Thank you.

Kim Delphino on behalf of the Civic Institute in support and concept.

Hi. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Members. Alfredo Medina here on behalf of the Imperial Irrigation District. And while I'd had a supportive amendment on the Bill in print, we would like to thank the author for his continued work. We look forward to our meeting this weekend in the district. And more importantly, would like to thank him for his leadership on ensuring that the preservation and restoration of the Salton Sea is a priority. Thank you.

Next. Are there witnesses in opposition?

Madam Chairperson, Members of the Committee, my name is Patrick O'Dowd, and I'm the Executive Director of the Salton Sea Authority, a role I've held for the last two and a half years. Prior to that, I served on the Salton Sea Authority Board for the previous six years as a representative of the Coachella Valley Water District, where I served as a Director. I've been a resident of the Coachella Valley for over 25 years.

I want to start by thanking the Senator Padilla for his bold efforts right out of the box to address the concerns in our community. And this Bill certainly is bold. The Salton Sea Authority Board not long ago took an opposed, unless amended, position on this Bill. But since that time, we have been in active, productive discussions with the author on amendments that would address our concerns and believe we have made enormous progress. As a result, we think the Bill should move forward at this time. As we continue our discussions, we look forward to working with the Senator on this and other important issues, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Are there additional witnesses in opposition?

Madam Chair, Cyrus Stevers for the Coachella water district. I'm afraid I'm a tweener. So the district lodged opposition, but that was prior to the Senate amendments. Those amendments addressed key points in the letter, but they have not had the opportunity to revisit that position. They will tomorrow. So at this time, I think all I can say is that a flat opposed no longer represents the attitude of the Board of CBWD. Thank you,

Madam Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission. We do have an opposed position. We are looking into the amendments being taken, as well as the discussions going on between the authority and the author. And we'll look forward to updating our position if necessary. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments from Committee Members besides a motion by Assemblymember Wood? Second by Assemblymember Pellerin. Okay. Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Madam Chair, thank you for the Committee's interaction and good recommendations. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the roll. The motion is due. Pass as amended to appropriations. Rivaz aye. Flora no. Addis aye. Fiedman. Hoover not voting. Mathis. Muratsuchi. Pellerin aye. War. Wood aye. Zbur aye. Bill has five votes. We'll leave it on call.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Next. We're ready for Senator Dodd SB 310. Hello, Bill. Oh, whenever you're ready, Senator.

Thanks. Madam Chair and Members, I'm presenting SB 310 pertaining to cultural burning. I'm accepting the suggested amendment in the Committee analysis and thank the consultant very much for working with my staff. SB 310 would recognize tribal sovereignty with respect to cultural burning practices, defined as the intentional application of fire by cultural fire practitioners to achieve cultural goals and objectives. This Bill would vest authority in the Secretary of Natural Resources to decide if, in recognition of tribal sovereignty, certain state approvals for cultural burning may be waived.

Tribes and Native people have retained control and sovereignty over cultural burning since time immortal immemorial. Excuse me. The state Wildfire enforced Resilience Task Force has established it would support and enable the expansion of cultural burning for the health and well-being of all communities.

Pursuant to an agreement with the State Resources Secretary, Native American tribes would not only be able to continue their cultural burning practices, but would also benefit from protections granted to certified burn bosses and have access to the prescribed fire liability pilot program, which was established in my SB 926 last session. The Bill is supported by a number of organizations, including the Pacific Forest Trust, Defenders of Wildlife, the California Farm Bureau, and the Humboldt Redwood Timber Company, among others.

With me today is Jenna Archer, representing the Karuk tribe, and Alexandra Loomer. I hope I've got that right. Thank you. Representing Defenders of the Wildlife. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon. My name is Jenna Archer and I'm an attorney with Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, which is a public interest law firm that has been representing the Karuk tribe for a number of years. With respect to cultural burning issues, and today we ask for your aye vote on SB 310. Tribes and Native American people have practiced cultural burning since time immemorial. It is used to steward plants, used for basket weaving, food, and medicine.

It is used to create and maintain habitat for important species such as elk and salmon, and it reduces the risk of catastrophic wildfire by reducing fuel loads and creating resilient ecosystems. Tribes are knowledgeable about cultural burning and have never ceded control or sovereignty over cultural burning. SB 310 would formally recognize tribal sovereignty with respect to cultural burning. It would enable the Secretary of Natural Resources to enter into agreements with federally recognized California tribes in order to coordinate cultural burning activities on their ancestral territories.

Specifically, the Secretary would be authorized to find state permits issued by CAL FIRE and air districts would not be required for cultural burning programs. Instead, potential health and safety issues would be handled by tribal law in coordination with the state regarding air quality. The Bill requires that tribes work with the Secretary of the Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees carbs and local air districts to ensure coordination with CARB and air districts on smoke impacts.

And SB 310 includes a small but meaningful expansion of 2021 legislation on prescribed fire liability. SB 332, also authored by Senator Dodd, made it less likely private landowners or nonprofits would receive suppression cost bills if they needed help with escaped fires, so long as they were following best practices. SB 310 would allow federally qualified burn bosses to also rely on this liability standard in order to address important workforce issues. So thank you again, and we request your aye vote on SB 310.

Thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Alex Loomer. I'm here on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, whose mission is to protect all native animals and plants in their natural communities. We greatly appreciate Senator Dodd bringing this Bill forward and his leadership on the issue. In 2021, I had helped to evacuate my parents from the Tamarac Fire in Alpine County, and a month later, I had to evacuate my home in South Lake Tahoe.

When the Caldor fire hit of the biggest fires in California's history, eight of them were in the last decade, thousands of homes have been lost and over 7 million acres of habitat. We probably all know someone who's been affected by wildfire with climate change. We know we are facing bigger and more severe wildfires as they burn land that hasn't seen fire in over a century. Tribes in California have been doing cultural burns since time immemorial.

These burns reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires while also promoting biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. As the analysis points out, state and federal land managers have hundreds of thousands of acres that need careful burning to reduce the risk of extreme wildfires in our state. California set an ambitious goal to apply prescribed burns to 400,000 acres in the state by 2025. This Bill will enable tribes to do more intentional burns, thus helping the state meet our goal.

Tribes are critical partners to help limit these damaging wildfires while also stabilizing forest carbon, better protecting our communities, and restoring and maintaining the resiliency and biodiversity in the California landscape. SB 310 acknowledges the sovereignty, jurisdiction and control over natural resources within tribes ancestral territories and allows tribes and cultural fire practitioners to have the authority to determine when, where, and how to apply cultural burns on their lands.

By doing so, SB 310 will help to address the historical injustice of California's approach of trying to eliminate fire, including blocking Native Californians use of prescribed fire. We strongly support SB 310 and urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next. Witnesses. Additional witnesses in support.

Madam Chair Chris McKaley on behalf of Humboldt Redwood Company and Mendocino Redwood Company in support of Senator Dodd's Bill. Thank you.

Hi. Samantha Samuelsen for the Trust for Public Land in support.

Hi. Megan Cleveland with the Nature Conservancy in support.

Michael Jarrett on behalf of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers in support. Thank you.

Kim Delphino representing not defenders this time, but California Native Plant Society and the Sierra Forest Legacy and support. Thank you.

Madam Chair Mark Fenstermaker for the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts in support. Thank you.

Chair, Members. My name is Noah Whitley, speaking on behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in support.

Thank you. Next. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Please go ahead.

Madam Chair and Members Brendan Twohig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. That's the Executive officers from all 35 local air districts. Respectfully, we have an opposed and less amended position on the Bill. We agree that cultural burns and prescribed fire generally are a highly effective tool at reducing wildfire risk, and are collaborating, implementing programs, and engaging in collaborative discussions to expand its use. From 2019 to 2021, air districts approved 99% of requested prescribed burns.

We're actively advocating for prescribed fire at the federal level because we're engaging with U.S. EPA as it reconsiders the federal PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards because we're concerned that, should the standards be promulgated without consideration to prescribed fire, the emissions from prescribed fire that California will be prevented from continuing its use to mitigate the impacts of wildfire and wildfire smoke.

Air districts in partnership with CARB, CAL FIRE, federal land managers, tribes and others work closely to ensure that emissions from prescribed fires do not significantly impact downwind communities, and the current permitting process considers such factors as meteorological conditions fire suppression techniques and location to the nearest population centers, among others, and the permits also include public notification and smoke modeling requirements to help inform potentially affected areas. Consistent with the US. Constitution, districts do not require tribes to obtain permits on federally recognized trust lands.

However, because of the definition of ancestral territory in this Bill, with the sign off of the Secretaries of Natural Resources in Calipa. Cultural burns could be allowed anywhere in the state without the safety measures I described. So SB 310 would override local government's ability to protect public health and safety by shifting authority for making burn decisions to the state. And I'll just wrap up by saying burn decisions are made using highly localized data, often in real time.

And it's our concern that without this data, prescribed burn decisions will be based on incomplete knowledge and risk jeopardizing public health and safety. So we're asking the Bill be amended to limit exemptions to federal trust land and retain local permitting to ensure public health and safety is protected. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Next. Hi, Madam Chair and Assembly Members. My name is Kalie Bonomo. I'm with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association and I'm just here to assist any questions that you may have as I run the prescribed burn program for CAPCOA. Thanks. Any additional witnesses in opposition?

Hello, ma'am. David Quintana with the South Coast Air Quality Management District. We're opposed unless amended, and we echo CAPCOA's position.

Thank you. Next. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments? Assemblymember Wood?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senator Dodd, for bringing this Bill forward. I've had the opportunity to visit the Director of Natural Resources with the Karuk Bill Tripp, who is an expert and a trainer in cultural burns. He's worldwide recognized for his expertise. I'd trust him any day to decide whether a burn should happen or not. And it's an important process. It's important to the tribes. It's important to the land. I've never seen anybody who respects the land more than our native peoples. And so should the Bill move forward, Senator Dodd, I'd love to be added as a co author, and I thank you for bringing it forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Zbur.

Thank you, Senator Dodd, for bringing this measure forward. I'm just wondering if you can address the request for the amendments that the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the air districts had and what the impact of that would be, whether you consider that

The experts might have a better answer. But right away, it's just more red tape. We really believe that the Department of Natural Resources here is in lockstep with the airbornes and air districts, and I don't think it's a necessary element for this Bill to move forward. I don't know if you have anything to add.

Yes, and with respect to if this Bill were to be limited to federal trust lands, that would make the Bill completely ineffective. The State of California does not have regulatory jurisdiction over federal Indian countries. So if it were to be limited to that, the Bill would effectively be moot. And we do believe that air districts at the local level have an opportunity for input on air quality permitting issues.

The Bill does not mandate that the Secretary of Natural Resources waive the air quality permit requirements it requires. Concurrence of CalPA which oversees CARB and CARP, is in regular communication with air.

It was better. Appreciate that. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Case seeing none. Do we have a motion? Okay, we have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask your aye vote.

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

The motion is due. Pass as amended to Judiciary Committee. Rivas aye. Flora aye. Flora aye. Addis aye. Friedman. Hoover. Mathis aye. Muratsuchi aye. Pellerin aye. Ward. Wood aye. Zbur aye. Bill has seven votes. We'll leave it open for absent Members.

Thank you, Chair. Moving on to our final Bill today, file item number 12, SB 674. Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Here today to present SB 674, which will create statewide standards for the refinery fence line and community air monitoring program. This historic program, which was codified in 2017 and championed by our good colleague, Assemblymember Muratsuchi, was here to protect the health of our fence line communities and requires refineries to do the following install and maintain air monitors along their facility fence line.

Publish this air monitoring data online, send real time alerts to the community, and take corrective action when dangerous levels of pollutants are detected. In the six years since the refinery fence line program was launched, there have been serious deficiencies in implementation that are depriving fenceline communities of the information and protections they need to make informed decisions about their health and well-being. In particular, real-time alerts are not being sent. Fence-line data is not available online.

Unfortunately, dangerous pollutants are not being monitored, and some refineries have even been exempted from the program altogether. SB 674 will address these shortcomings and create a statewide standard for the refinery fence-line monitoring program to ensure that the necessary pollutants are measured and the best practices and technologies are deployed. As we know far too long, many of our communities have dealt with horrible air quality, and they just need greater transparency in order to ensure that their health is of utmost importance.

I look forward to continuing to work with interested stakeholders. We've been actively talking to them since day one to ensure the Bill is proactive and that it is encompassing their ideas and testifying in support today. Mr. Chair, I have Byron Chan, an attorney with Earthjustice, as well as Jan Victor Andasan with East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. First witness, please. Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Byron Chan, and I'm a senior attorney at Earthjustice, which is a co-sponsor of SB 674. California is home to numerous refineries that are some of the largest stationary emitters of air pollution in the state. Incidents at these refineries, including explosions, fires, and flaring events, threaten the health and safety of nearby community members, first responders, and refinery workers.

To address these harms from refineries, the Legislature adopted AB 1647 in 2017 to implement a uniform statewide refinery fence line and community air monitoring program. And by creating such a program, the Bill aimed to identify sources of refinery pollution, notify residents of such pollution and inform emission reductions. Six years since AB 1647 was enacted, serious flaws in its implementation have become apparent.

Instead of creating a uniform statewide monitoring program, what has emerged is a patchwork of requirements from local air districts that are failing to protect public health and safety. SB 674 addresses the serious flaws in this patchwork of requirements and implements best practices to ensure data quality, provide the public with data access and notifications, and address excess emissions at refineries.

Ultimately, SB 674 is critical to realize the promise made by this Legislature six years ago to provide transparency and protection to those impacted by refinery hazards and pollution. So we urge your support of SB 674, and we want to thank the Senator for authoring this Bill.

Thank you so much. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon. My name is Jan Victor Andasan. I am a staff and ember at East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, where we organize residents in the Long Beach, South Bay, Southeast LA and East LA community to address industrial pollution affecting predominantly black and brown neighborhoods. Not only do I currently organize and work directly with residents adjacent to refinery operations, but I also grew up next to the now Marathon facility. Growing up, I thought that these facilities were normal and having respiratory issues like asthma were normal.

My brother was born a year after I immigrated to the US. And he was born to come out of the womb needing to use a nebulizer every night to be able to breathe. My family's story is one of many that still happen today, 26 years later, of living in this region. Every day, many residents adjacent to refinery production have to decide what their day will look like. Does the air feel heavier? Can I feel my throat close up?

So instead of walking in the park, I go to an indoor gym? These are questions I go through every day, even when thinking about simple errands. We urge you to support this Bill because it is not revolutionary. Through this Bill, we are simply filling gaps in the fence line monitoring that needs to occur at all refinery facilities in the state. This will also fill the gaps of monitoring with sites that already have air monitoring.

This will allow local residents like those in Long Beach Carson satisfied up and down the state to be equipped to make better decisions in their lives. Finally, this Bill will allow decision-makers to have the data to make more informed policymaking on how to oversee these facilities. Our stories are often told. What does the data look like? How many days did the facility potentially emit? What were you exposed to?

This Bill is about transparency, so refinery emissions over time will be collected and paired with our community narratives, will highlight truly what we are experiencing and what solutions we can create together. Again, I urge you to support this Bill and stand alongside refinery communities. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anyone else in support of SB 674? Name and organization, please.

Alan Abbs with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in support.

Isabella Argueta with the Health Officers Association of California in support.

Aaron Wooley on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support.

Noah Whitley on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and Clean Seas Lobbying Coalition in support.

Hi. Raquel Mason. On behalf of California Environmental Justice Alliance Action and the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment thank you.

Hi. Fatima Balziwayer from California Environmental Voters in strong support.

Janet Cox on behalf of Climate Action California, the Santa Cruz Climate Action Network 350, Humboldt, the Southland 350 Southland legislative alliance climate Reality Project San Fernando Valley and Climate Reality Project Los Angeles in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Ross Buckley on behalf of South Coast Air Quality Management District. We have a support from ended position, but have had a number of productive conversations with author and stakeholders and look forward to continuing those. Thank you so much.

Anyone in opposition to SB 674?

Good afternoon. Zach Leary with the Western States Petroleum Association. We've taken an opposed and less amended position on the Bill. I wanted to start by thanking the author and her staff for the very productive conversations we have been having on this Bill. It's very technical, very complex issue and look forward to our continued discussions on them. As was mentioned, AB 1647 was passed and signed into law.

Our Member companies worked through the local air districts and their local rules that were developed to implement the program and have invested significant dollars in the fence line monitoring program that was passed and then implemented by the local air districts. Unfortunately, SB 674, it takes kind of a one size fits all approach to a very difficult and site specific issue.

And this Bill really says how the air district should monitor, should implement the system with little flexibility for decisions to be made at the local level based on that site specific information or geographic location, say in the Bay Area or the South Coast. The one size fits all approach really fails to recognize the complex nature of refineries in California and then the investments already made by these companies who are complying with 1647. A couple of issues that I just want to highlight.

The definition of auxiliary facilities in the Bill could have different meetings, could have potential different interpretations, and as was pointed out in the Committee analysis may be impractical or unnecessary. We think there needs to be clarification on the definition of refinery pertinent to the property ownership of the refinery. And then with regards to the perimeter monitoring, the Bill requires that every corner of the refinery be monitored. That's not how it works today.

With the programs that are implemented at the local level, we believe it should be site specific determination with the district and figure out where the best spots to monitor are. There are different locations, so different monitoring requirements would be made. And then the last issue I'll highlight here is with this issue of a presumption that this data is yield credible for a violation against a refinery. Not a perfect science. The monitors can go off for many different reasons. And so for those reasons, we remain opposed unless submitted. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anyone else in opposition to SB 674 name and organization, please?

Mr. Chair Members, Mike Monahan on behalf of the State Building Trades in opposition.

Thank you so much. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions from the Committee Members? Assembly Member Zbur

So first off, I want to thank the author and the sponsors of the Bill. I think this is really important to really closing gaps in the monitoring that is occurring around our refineries. I did have a couple questions and I know that this is a bit of a work in progress, but one of the questions I had is I noted that there were some comments about nervousness about Duplicative requirements from the current air districts and what this would impose.

Is it accurate that this would really require the air districts to go back and supplement the current monitoring requirements so that there wouldn't be Duplication? Could you sort of go into that a little bit?

Yes. Byron, do you want to take this one? I don't know.

Sure. So sorry. A Duplicative of an effort, basically that refineries. Sorry, if you could just clarify that.

So if you looked at some of the comments that the building trades had, one of the things they're nervous about is that there would be Duplicative requirements that would be imposed by this Bill and what the current air districts are doing. I thought in reading this that what will happen is that the air districts have to go back and update their requirements so that there won't be two sets of requirements, there will be updated sets of requirements. Is that accurate or not?

Yeah, exactly, That's accurate. So in one example is the list of pollutants, for example. So a new rulemaking would be initiated at the air districts to expand the list to include all of the pollutants of concern at refineries. That's right.

The other thing I'll say, I'm not going to be supporting the Bill today. I think it's important. But in reading through the Bill itself, and I'm a lawyer and I read all these things, I do think that some of these definitions on auxiliary facilities, refinery, refinery processes, they really need to be tightened up because actually I was just sort of going through and saying, okay, would this pick up an auto supply store? Well, some of them would, right. If you actually give these things plain meaning.

So, just wanted to ask if you're willing to continue working with the building trades and some of the other opponents to try to tighten some of these things up. I know what you're after. It's really trying to make sure that the monitoring around the fence lines of refineries is all being captured.

But I think looking at some of these definitions is going to be important to make sure that you're not capturing things that don't really pose an environmental risk and not, for example, requiring, for example, monitoring around something that is not really an emission source because of the fact that it might be a separate parcel. So that is something that I'm hoping you'll work with.

Absolutely. We've been working with the opposition since day one to ensure that we're streamlining the definitions and we've actually omitted gas stations because that was like an explicit request from the opposition. So we have more work to do. We'll certainly continue working with them. But I think there's some technology out there now that does differentiate the emissions from specific refineries, whether bio or regular refining locations and other pollutants. So there is an opportunity to distinguish between them.

But I do know that we'll still continue to go back to the drawing board and continue working with them. But again, with the agreement and the insurance that we're getting good outcomes for the community and it's transparent.

And I have confidence in you and the sponsors and just want to thank you for doing that.

Thank you.

Thank you. I had a similar question about the accuracy of the system. So it sounds like it is able to distinguish between

yeah, there is technology. I think there's a specific study that I had read and Byron, you can chime in if you'd like to, that basically states that you can distinguish the difference between they're saying if there's other pollutants outside of the refinery, how do you distinguish between them? There is technology. And I'm totally blanking out on the specific study that I had read. But you may want to double up on this and add additional to that.

But there is sure, I would just add I'm thinking of the Flux Sense study that was done in the South Coast that used a vehicle with a tracker that actually looked at the perimeter of these facilities and found that refineries were significantly underestimating their emissions. So that was part of the impetus for this fence line monitoring program. And I would just say that I think it's a really great question to think about differentiating between pollutants.

The ultimate decision is still with the air district to look at a variety of different conditions. For example, meteorological conditions, wind that day. This just provides another tool for air districts to think about how do we make sure that these refineries are being transparent about what's crossing into fenceland communities.

Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Muratsuchi

Thank you very much, Senator, for picking up the ball from where I left off in championing this cause. I'm proud to sign on as a co author of your Bill to continue the effort. At the same time, I'm listening to the presentation of the Bill and I'm thinking in terms of what you're seeking to accomplish with the Bill, I'm thinking, wait, I thought my Bill was supposed to do that or my Bill was supposed to do this.

And to me, I'm hearing the challenge between the policy that we enact up here in the state capitol versus what is actually implemented in our communities. One of the points that you made about how different air districts are apparently implementing the policy in my Bill six years ago.

Can you give your best example in this Bill of how you're going to ensure that how your Bill is going to tighten up the situation, but you're basically going to require all air districts to more specifically implement the goals of your Bill?

Absolutely. So, for example, I'll give you a good example. So South Coast AQMD, I think I'm sorry, Bay Area AQMD at this .1, 2, 3, 4, 5, only five chemicals currently that they are measuring out of the 18 from the Office of Environment and health hazard threshold notifications only South Coast AQMD, actually notifies the public in a timely manner. Quarterly data reports. It's only south coast AQMD that does quarterly data reports.

We want to make sure that all of the air quality districts, South Coast, Bay Area, San Joaquin are doing the same thing, measuring all 18 pollutants notifications to the public. Quarterly data reports, of course, the sighting of fence line air monitors all the same. And of course we're including biorefineries as well because we think that those obviously are still emitting quite a big deal in Southgate.

I've got one example and as well is in paramount and they're emitting just the same, but we're not capturing that data. So I hear from folks back home in Southgate that are saying I am smelling something and I'm hearing or feeling something, but where's the data? Online? And so this Bill would also include them, which I think is a really good thing for transparency and for allowing those residents to also have the same benefits.

Okay, well, thank you very much and I hope your Bill succeeds in tightening up what I intended to accomplish in my Bill. Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Assembly Member Hoover

Thank you so much. I appreciate the Bill. I just wanted to clarify a couple of things. I do have some concerns kind of about the lack of or the taking away of local control under this Bill. Your Bill currently talks about the fence line monitoring and how it shall cover the entire perimeter of the refinery unless that was infeasible.

So I'm trying to figure out what your Bill means by infeasible, like, what would be considered infeasible, and then also whether or not you would be willing to remove that portion of the Bill at a future time to ensure that these can be taken on a case by case basis based on different factors in different districts and with different refineries versus kind of a one size fits all.

Well, on the last question, I think, again, we want to ensure that there's consistency across all three air quality management districts. And so right now I think we're providing them with even more control to be able to do that by having more data at their hands. Right now, they don't have enough data, in my opinion, to be able to provide to the public on what exactly is happening.

Again, this Bill is for the public to ensure that they know exactly what's being emitted in the air, what pollutants the notification, and also for researchers too, to be able to understand what's out there. And so in terms of the infeasibility, I don't know what specific scenarios I don't know if Byron, you have a specific scenario. I know keep pointing to you because you're our expert here on the specific scenarios for infeasibility, but of course continuing to be open. But again, with the assurance that we're going to get the same data and it's going to be consistent across the board.

Yeah. Sorry, this is kind of awkward, but let me I think what you're getting at, this one size fits all model is a really important question. And I think that the Bill itself has language that allows flexibility to preserve local control. So when you're talking about infeasibility, for example, if a refinery one side of the refinery borders the ocean, for example right.

So there's no communities who would be impacted by those emissions, then that would be an infeasibility where I could understand a situation where the air district wouldn't require the refinery to then install fence line monitors along that side of the refinery. Right. So I think that that's an important way of maintaining that local control at the local level. I think there's also an issue of the pollutants.

As the Senator was mentioning, the number of pollutants that are measured in each air district are different, even though there's a list of 18 pollutants that came from the state saying that these are the most commonly emitted pollutants at refineries. So the Bill itself allows for refineries to say, we're not emitting this pollutant, so we shouldn't have to monitor it, which makes a lot of sense. But I think creating that groundwork of these are the 18 pollutants. And then you have to justify why you're not looking at that pollutant or why monitoring isn't appropriate is the right approach instead of creating an exemption from the beginning.

Got it. Thank you. Yeah. And I appreciate that explanation. I think it'd be interesting to see if we could kind of better define infeasibility in the Bill. But that is helpful to know that some of these geographic challenges for refineries, at least the intention of the Bill is to alleviate that. So I think That's it for now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any other questions from the Committee? See you got a motion second. All right, Senator, would you like to close?

I appreciate all the questions, and we'll certainly determine some additional answers for the questions that were asked, but we thank you and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due. Pass to Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

Bill has three votes. We'll leave it open for absent Members. It's on call. All right. We would call all the Members of Natural Resources Committee to come to the chamber, and we will go through the roll a couple of times.

Colleagues, we're going to start from the top and go through the file, starting with Wiener. SB 273

The motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee Chair voting aye. Absent Members [Roll Call]

It's. Senator Wiener SB 273 chair voting. Aye.

[Roll Call]

Bill is out with 10 votes. Moving on to file item ... Moving on to file item number two, SB 286. Senator Mcguire.

The motion is do pass as amended to Utilities and Energy Chair voting aye. Absent Members.[Roll Call]

Bills out with 11 votes. Moving on to file item number four, SB 303 Senator Allen

The motion is do passed as amended to Judiciary Committee Chair voting aye. Absent Members. [Roll Call]

Bills out with 11 votes. Moving on to file item number five, SB 310 Senator Dodd.

Motion is do pass as amended to Judiciary Committee Chair voting aye. Absent Members [Roll Call]

Bill is out with 10 it's on call with 10 votes. Sorry about that. Moving on to file item number eight. So file item number 10, SB 583.

The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

The Bill has nine votes. We'll leave it open. Yeah, we do. One more vote change on file item 10, SB 583.

[Roll Call]

File item 12. We're going to jump down for the chair to file item 12, SB 674, Gonzalez.

Motion is do pass to Judiciary [Roll Call]

That Bill has six votes. We'll leave it on call. I think we're going to jump back up. We'll do consent we'll do file item 13, SB 781, Stern.

Motion is do pass as amended to Utilities and Energy Chair voting aye. Absent Members. [Roll Call]

The Bill is out with eight votes, and then we'll do the consent calendar.

Consent items are SB 301, Portantino, SB 367 Seyarto SB 422 Portantino, SB539 Stern, SB 613 Seyarto Absent Members [Roll Call]

I thank you very much. We're going to hang out for a little bit longer for Assemblywoman Addis to come add on.

All right. File item 12, SB 674, Gonzalez Bill is out with seven votes. Thanks, sir. And then we're going to go to file item five, SB 310, Senator Dodd. That Bill is out with 10 votes and we will close the roll. And with meeting is adjourned.