Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

All right. We continue to welcome the public in person via the Teleconference service. For individuals wishing to provide public comment for today, the participant number is 877-226-8216. Access code is 570096. We're holding our Committee hearings today in the O Street Building. I ask for all Members of the Committee to be present in 2100 so we can establish our quorum and begin the hearing. Also ask authors to come on down. We've got a total of eight bills on today's agenda. One of those bills is on the consent calendar.

That's item one, AB 407. I'm going to thank the Vice Chair for his diligence and being here and welcome Senator Hurtado as well. So it's my understanding that Aguiar-Curry is on her way to present item two in the agenda.

She is. Okay. So before I let her present, we're going to make one note just regarding the Committee amendment. So, page nine. You can come on up. Thank you for coming on down. So, page nine of your analysis, this is item two, AB 1159. Page nine of the analysis has text that the Committee is asking to amend into sub paragraph B-3A. And because of some conversations that were still unfolding after the analysis was published, there's one further clarification to add to that amendment.

So where the analysis says, "to ensure that all greenhouse gas emissions reductions and removals are in addition to any reductions and removals that would otherwise occur" we will be adding, "used for any market based compliance mechanism." Now, I think we've got paperwork we're sharing with the Members, including okay, you guys have it too.

So to be crystal clear, the amendment the Committee is asking for is to add, "and that all greenhouse gas emissions reductions and removals used for any market based compliance mechanism are in addition to any reductions and removals that would otherwise occur" to the existing B-3A, and we're going to strike B-3B. Once again, we're going to make sure that all the Members are going to have that paperwork right in front of them, if you don't already have it. But with that clarified, we'd love to let you present the Bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. First of all, I'd like to thank.

Just remember, we're starting as a Subcommitee, so we don't have a quorum.

What? Wish I could say was surprised. First, I would like to thank your Committee staff for working with my office to further refine the language of this Bill. And I'm happy to accept the proposed Committee amendments. Last year, AB 1757 was enacted as part of the climate package at the very end of session. AB 1757 directed the Natural Resources Agency to set a range of targets for natural carbon sequestration and nature based climate solutions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions to support the state's climate goals. Provisions were added at the end of session that were intended to disallow the double counting of GHG reductions, as well as the double counting and use of state funding to develop offsets. The provision regarding state funding has caused some confusion. Among foresters, conservation groups and others who have forest sequestration projects and seek stake funding for other restoration and conservation efforts. As amended in the Committee, AB 1159 will remove the confusing provision, instead clarify that all greenhouse gas reductions and removals used for any market based compliance mechanisms are in addition to what would otherwise occur. Simply put, as amended, this Bill clarifies that the natural sequestration project may only sell offset credits that are above and beyond what would occur under other regulatory obligations or restoration efforts. The provision in last year's AB 1757 was ambiguous and confusing. The Air Resources Board has provided guidance on how to interpret this provision, which has been extremely useful. However, it does not have the force of law. AB 1159 provides the certainty nonprofit conservation groups, tribes and others required to continue accepting state funding for acquisition, restoration and conservation projects. This Bill is necessary to address the unintended consequences and confusion created by last year's AB 1757. With me today to testify in support, I have Reed Addis, principal consultant for environmental and energy consulting, on behalf of the Conservation Fund. I respectfully ask for my vote.

Okay, do we have anyone who wants to testify in support or folks who want to voice support for the Bill? Any opposition? Opposition to the Bill? This is AB 1159. Okay, let's go to the phone lines. AB 1159. Anyone wants to make comments either in support or opposition to AB 1159?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the phones, press one, then zero. To vote on our support or opposition for AB 1159, we do have one in queue already. We'll go to line number 141. Please go ahead. 141, your line is open. Please unmute and continue.

I was calling about another Bill. I'm sorry.

Mr. Chair. There are no other callers in queue.

Okay, let's bring it to the Committee. Questions? Thoughts? Comments? No. We will entertain a motion when we have a quorum, but it does enjoy a do pass recommendation with the acceptance of the amendments.

As much as we try to do perfect bills, there are times that we miss some things, and this is one where we need to clean it up, make it work for those that are intending to use it. So I ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember. I see Assembly Bauer-Khan here to present AB 1042. That's item 3 in your agendas, Members. You may present when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, good to see you. I'm proud to present AB 1042, which ensures the Department of Pesticide Regulation regulates all pesticides in our food system, including pesticides that are on our seeds. Just to be clear, this Bill is not a ban. It simply ensures that DPR regulates pesticides on seeds the same way it regulates other pesticides in our system. California has one of the strongest and best funded pesticide regulators in the nation.

However, Californians can be exposed to a wide range of unregulated pesticides in unmonitored amounts, simply because the pesticides were used to treat seeds instead of the crop once it's growing. Seeds aren't static. They're planted in the soil, they're watered, and they become plants. Every element of that process soil, water, and crops can therefore be avenues for unregulated pesticide contamination, putting farm workers, the environment, and our food system at risk. Seed treatments do not replace berry applications.

They simply add more chemicals, often without any pests to justify it. Lack of regulation means unmitigated exposure to these pesticides. A DPR study of lettuce showed that the use of pesticides on lettuce seeds could be anywhere from 5 to 35 times higher than known and regulated use. Since DPR does not require reporting for seeds, California has little idea how many pesticides are in our system and what effects they may have. The Bill is simple. It requires DPR to regulate pesticides used on seeds.

It does not determine the content of those regulations or ban any uses. It defers that to the Department. If we trust our pesticide regulator, they should be regulating all uses of pesticides to keep Californians safe. With me here today in support is Laura Deehan, Director of Environment California, and Hardy Kern with the American Bird Conservancy, who is also available for technical questions.

Thank you. Before we do that, let's establish a quorum, and then we'll go on to the witness. Consultant, please. Secretary, please call the roll.

Senators. Allen. Allen, here. Dahle. Dahle, here. Gonzalez. Hurtado. Hurtado, here. Menjivar. Menjivar, here. Nguyen. Skinner.

Okay, we got a quorum, so let's now proceed with the witness.

Okay. Thank you, Chair Allen. And my name is Laura Deehan, and I'm the State Director for Environment California Statewide Environmental Group. And we are so thrilled to be sponsors of AB 1042 and to support Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Khan and join with the American Bird Conservancy to support this. This Bill is really necessary to protect the birds, the bees, and all of those that rely on a healthy environment.

We are in the middle of what many are calling the 6th Extinction, a stunning drop in biodiversity threatening the whole web of life that we all rely on. And a recent study found that America's agricultural landscape is 48 more times more toxic today than it was just a few decades ago. And oddly, when is a pesticide not actually counted as a pesticide? And That's when it is treated on seeds. And for decades, chemical companies have been treating seeds with pesticides.

And because of this loophole in the law that the Assemblymember described, this entire use of pesticides is not tracked or monitored or in any way restricted. And that includes chemicals that are not even approved here, registered here in the State of California, and those are now getting into the environment. We know that when pesticides are applied on seeds, they grow into every part of the plant.

They slough off as dust into the environment, they soak into the soil where they can contaminate our water, and they can also harm human health as well as the health of pollinators and other species. So this Bill really closes this loophole, which is why we urge your aye vote. And we also have another witness.

Thank you so much, Laura. Thank you, Assemblymember Bauer-Khan. Ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, good afternoon. My name is Hardy Kern, and I'm Director of Government Relations for American Bird Conservancy, and we are one of the organizations co-sponsoring this fantastic piece of legislation alongside our great friends at Environment California. So thank you so much, firstly, for your work and your consideration of this Bill. AB 1042 closes a major gap in pesticide oversight left by a loophole in federal law.

American Bird Conservancy strongly believes in balanced, common sense oversight for state agencies, which is why we are so supportive of 1042. This Bill is not a ban on pesticides, nor does it remove important pest control tools integral to California's agricultural success. 1042 would grant DPR the ability to track pesticide coated seeds with the same authority, though not necessarily with the same measures, as it does other pesticides in the state.

The 2021 presentation That's been referenced a couple of times today was very, very clear in saying that only about 43% of chemicals used on seeds in California are chemicals that are registered for safe use in California. Pesticide application without oversight authority or full knowledge of active ingredients used hurts producers. It does not allow them to adequately manage pest resistance. It may interact with other chemicals or pest management procedures they're using, and it comes at an increased cost to growers while offering mixed results on efficacy.

Though they are an example of precision agriculture, there is no data to support the thought that seed treatment applications replace other types of pest control. Instead, they're often used in addition to them. 1042 ensures that only pesticides which are registered for use in California are used in California. It includes a grace period for growers and pesticide vendors to adjust to the requirement that all pesticides in the state adhere to the law. To make good policy, you need good information.

AB 1042 will close knowledge gaps and give Californians the tools needed to protect their livelihoods and environment. American Bird Conservancy thanks you for your time and requests your aye vote on AB 1042. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any other folks who want to weigh in support of the Bill? This is AB 1042.

Bill Allayaud for Environmental Working Group in support. Thank you.

Abigail Alvarez with the Pesticide Action Network, Californians for Pesticide Reform and the Center for Food Safety.

And then on behalf of Clean Water Action, the Friends Committee on Legislation, Audubon, and Family Advocates for Chemical Facts. And they also wanted to indicate their support. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. All right, let's go to opposition. Folks want to raise concerns about the Bill.

Good afternoon. Thank you very much. Dennis Albiani on behalf of the California Seed Association. Thank the Assemblymember for bringing this issue forward. And frankly, treated seeds do provide benefits and do reduce overall the use of pesticides in California by getting the plant off in its infancy stage, very strong, it can resist a lot more pests and diseases and therefore you have less foliar applications after using treated seeds. So generally, there's a very positive benefit to using treated seeds.

And we agree, we agree with the stated intent of the Bill, which is to close the loophole that all materials that are used, pesticide materials that are used to treat seeds of California and on those seeds should be regulated. And so we have provided amendments to the office that addresses that loophole and addresses that at that stage, what we are concerned about and what the Bill actually does is it doesn't only regulate pesticides, which DPR regulates pesticides and CDFA regulates seeds.

This Bill would have DPR regulating the treated seed itself and give that full open access for DPR to make a host of regulatory requirements on the seed itself, not the pesticide material. So this is a complete change in how pesticides are regulated in California and also how seeds are regulated in California. We want to make sure that that schism is not crossed and that's what our amendments do to say DPR has full authority to regulate the pesticide material and CDFA regulates the seed itself.

And then there's other things that we brought forward to data. It's in all the analysis and all the discussion that there lacks data, and that's clear. So what we also provided is a pesticide use reporting system that dovetails in nicely with the seed act and also how DPR pesticide use reporting and data collection are in those as well. So we've addressed that issue and going forward. Then we also picked up a couple other issues.

When you look at the seeds and how they're regulated, the label needs to conform to that. So that's a seed act regulated by CDFA. So we have amendments to the seed act on the labeling side. And then finally enforcement. AG commissioners enforce pesticide laws and seed laws. So we give authority for stop sale in our amendments to the AG commissioners to do their job and enforce this. So we've brought forward a very comprehensive, more comprehensive, frankly, than the Bill.

But we've also kept everybody in their regulatory appropriate lanes. And That's very critical. So That's why we are opposed unless amended. However, we have brought forward some amendments, comprehensive amendments that will address that and address all the issues that were discussed today. Thank you.

Thank you. And I know the bill's going to Agriculture Committee, where I'm sure a lot of this will be very carefully weighed and engaged with. So other folks who want to raise concerns?

Yeah, absolutely. Good afternoon, Taylor Roshan on behalf of Western Plant Health Association and various agricultural associations. We'd like to echo our comments of Mr. Albiani. Even with our opposed position, we'll continue to work with the author staff who's been phenomenal on being open to our concerns and our interests. I think I just want to zoom out to say this is an incredibly complex system.

Pesticides have a complex system with multiple agencies. Seeds are critical to the use of agriculture and outside of agriculture and commercial use as well. And so we need to be able to look for balanced solutions that serve both of those functions and that work within our complex systems. That is what our amendments seek to do, but we'll continue to work in earnest with the author's office. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Matthew Allen with the Western Growers Association, just align my comments with those made by Ms. Roshan. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Chris Reardon. I represent the California Farm Bureau. We're here also in opposition. However, we look forward to working with the author, and we think the amended language, I think, gets us where we need to be.

Good afternoon. Jennifer Roe with Capital Advocacy on behalf of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, also in opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Thank you so much. All right, let's go to the phone lines. Folks who want to weigh in either in support or opposition or concerns about AB 1042.

Of course, ladies and gentlemen, if you wish me comment in support or opposition, please press one zero. We'll be going to line 145. Please go ahead.

Michael Jarred on behalf of the California Institute for Biodiversity in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Next, we go to line 148. Please go ahead.

This is John Bottorff from CleanEarth4Kids.org. Strongly support.

And we do have another that's just queued up. One moment while their line number is given. Next, we're going to line 140. Please go ahead.

Lisa Owens Viani, Raptors Are The Solution, in support.

And there's currently no one else in the queue, Mr. Chair.

Great. All right. We'll bring the item back to the Committee for thoughts, comments. So, Caroline, Senator Menjivar moves when appropriate, when ready, but thank you. Appreciate that. And let's go to our Vice Chair for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you, Assemblymember. So first, I just want to start off by saying actually I'm a seed farmer. It's what I do for a living besides this job. And I've been obviously lobbied, and I know a lot in this area, so I actually hold an applicator's permit that allows me to use herbicides and pesticides on my farm. By the way, I am 95% certified organic on my farm. And so it's really hard to meet the criteria that we have in agriculture.

And I just want to say that treated seed is quite frankly, very necessary. Sometimes you don't know that you have, so, for example, in cereal grains, which I primarily produce, we have a fungicide that's called smut. And the plant grows, everything looks great, and when it flowers and goes to make its seed, the seed actually turns to dust and you have no crop after you've done everything along the way. So if you treat that seed, it reduces that and you don't have that problem.

So I do want to narrow in on, though I read the author's, what this Bill does on your website actually, AB 1042 simply mandates the Department of Pesticide Regulations, DPR, regulate the pesticide use to treat seeds. This mirrors its existing authority of regulated pesticides used on crops and is consistent with its charge to regulated pesticide use. With that being said, I want to just maybe narrow in on, I think, the real part of this Bill that really is challenging for me. The CDFA governs.

So the amendments that the opposition brought forward really need to be in this Bill because what we have is we have DPR, which regulates pesticide and herbicides and we have CDFA that regulates seed and they're blurred together. And if you look to the analysis, which I think was very awesome by staff, they did very good work. If you go to page eight of the analysis, section three, registered versus regulated. This paragraph right here really explains, I think, what the Seed Association representative talked about.

And I think we need to focus in on that amendment. It's very critical to making sure that the agencies stay in their lane and that we don't have the ability for DPR to be regulating seed and CDFA not doing, staying in their lanes. And I think that is something I wanted to ask you about, is what's your plan for that part of and when I met with the many people on the opposition side, they had said they had submitted these as amendments and you haven't been interested in taking any of these amendments.

And so I know that the Chair mentioned that we're going to be taking amendments and this is the Policy Committee where we do toxics. This is where we should be talking about these issues in this Committee, not in the AG Committee later. This is the toxic Committee where we typically do the DPR and the California food and AG stuff that would happen in the other Committee. So can you address that issue, please?

Yes. Thank you, Senator. You said a lot, but I'll address some of it. So I want to say, first of all, having served on the Mirror Committee in the other House with you, I know your experience well and I want to say I agree with you wholeheartedly that I think treated seeds are necessary. This Bill does not attempt to nor do I intend to get rid of treated seeds. So I want that to be really clear that that's not an area of disagreement between us two.

As for the amendments that we heard from Mr. Albiani, they came to my staff this morning. So there was different amendments and I believe there were new ones today, which is what Mr. Albiani previewed. And he's shaking his head. So you can see that he's in agreement with that. We have been working really closely with them because I think since the beginning. No, he's shaking his head.

Since the beginning, we have agreed that certain things that are not allowed in California to be sprayed shouldn't be on treated seeds. And I don't want to misstate what the opposition has said, but that's been something that I think we've been in agreement on pretty much through this process in the Assembly. And so getting to a place where we achieve that goal is what we've tried to do. And the prior amendments didn't do exactly what Mr. Albiani's amendments did today.

So I do, I have been out of the office literally all day, so I have not had the opportunity to review them, but do look forward to doing so and hope that we can meet our shared goal here. So I guess don't have a ton to say about his amendments. But to your point, I think having been a former regulatory lawyer, I agree. I mean, we don't want to mess up the way the agencies work and I'm happy to take a look at them.

Well and I'd also like to just mention the process, I mean obviously the EPA does, national EPA does regulate this and there is a loophole. That's not part of the discussion that we don't agree with. But the process to do that is not some simple, hey, we're just going to go do that. There is a process for labeling and that needs to have some time to be able to have those pesticides go through the process to actually be labeled.

And we cannot use stuff in California that's not labeled for California. So this Bill will actually do that. And so to get the loophole, we need to actually give the ability for the process to happen. And I'd like to know from the folks, the sponsors, do we have any case where you actually have the regulation you've seen this happen where there's been damage in California?

Damage, just to clarify the question, damage from treated seeds?

Yeah, where we've seen like they mentioned the bird. So we plant this stuff in the ground. You would have to dig it up to eat the seed.

Hardy Kern. American Bird Conservancy. Bird guy. Just being referenced, so I love it. I love being a bird guy. So sorry, can you clarify your question? You're asking is there any evidence of damage to wildlife from treated seeds?

Yeah, has there been documented in California where we've seen that actually the treated seed itself has caused damage to the wildlife?

So the current loophole is part of the problem and why this Bill is so important. There was a case in New Jersey several years ago where a flock of red wing blackbirds was feeding on pesticide coated seed and wound up dying from it. And there was absolutely no way to fully trace it back to exactly where that source may have come from or to take it anywhere to introduce mitigations because of the loopholes in the federal law.

Which is why it's so important that this is taken up at the state level, especially in states like California, where there is such a large amount of agriculture that happens. Additionally, California has seen largely elevated levels of neonicotinoid insecticides, which are one of the most common pesticides that are used as a seed coating and a lot of it's surface water and groundwater that's been tested.

And not knowing exactly how much or where pesticide coated seed is used, it's hard to know exactly where some of that contamination may have come from. Which is why the heart of this Bill, which is making sure the DPR has the authority to look more at treated seeds, is so important.

Okay, well, thank you.

Did I address your question, Senator?

Yeah. Basically there hasn't been a case in California, but there's been a case somewhere else that has been linked. So I took a note of what you said. To make good policy, you need good information is what you actually said earlier. So thank you for that information. So I wanted to again, I would like to thank you. I want to ask Mr. Albiani to come up and if he could provide information on the amendments that you provided today, because I think these are critical to the future of discussions that need to be made for this Bill.

So yeah, so the amendments we've provided previously back in I think May did close the loophole and address that. Now they also address some concerns that were brought up by other Assemblymembers in the Assembly. And that was some timing issues and we have a different timing standard. The 26 is the bills today. This would have the prohibition, I won't call it a ban, prohibition on planting seeds that are not treated with California registered material would start on 27.

We have the Department starting regulations immediately and 18 months to get through the regulatory process. Then it'd be 27. Why 27?Right now, just earlier this month, the DPR put out a report that they're mandated to do on how long does it take for a pesticide to get registered. And the earliest one that got registered from a new active agreement was 396 days. The longest was 1832 days. So it's anywhere between a year and a quarter and over five years to get a material registered.

So folks, if it's not currently registered, which we agree, let's prohibit that time but they start that process. 2027 from enactment of the Bill is only three years. So we want to make sure we get that. It's January 1, 2027, by the way. So it gives that time instead of two years, three. Also, and again, there's some discretion with the Department on how they handle if there isn't a material for a specific crop and that was a concern of another Assembly Member in the earlier house.

So that's that. Then we had provided the stop sell requirements for the AG commissioners. That's something that's been around in there and that so today we provided additional amendments because of data, like you said, and the previous person. How do we collect the data? And it's very challenging. It's going to be very expensive. I think people have talked about that. How do you build this system when all the information isn't even provided actually on the label to the farmer? Because they don't know.

This was explained to me as the cocktail of what's on the seed necessarily. They know the name of the material, the active ingredient, but they don't know how much per pound and those kinds of things and what the inerts are and those. So we need to address that. How do we get that data? How do we change the seed law to get better data?

All that was an ongoing conversation that we've been doing within the industry, with regulators, and trying to figure out what's the right way to do it, to be constructive in this conversation and make sure it does it right. We cannot have interruption in the fields where there's seed not available to be planted and there would be disease and pest issues at that time. And so we're trying to do this in a measured and appropriate way.

And then frankly dividing the appropriate CDFA does their job and deals with the labels and reporting and all that which they already require and they have a mill assessment on the industry to pay for that. DPR what they do the best and have them do it. But the earlier stuff was all about the closing loophole and that but the data was added today and some other things.

Thank you. I just want to thank the chair for indulging me and the author, because this is very technical. Yes, and I think we need to get it right. And I have one last question. For the AG people that do this every day, those of us who have applicators meant when we use a pesticide, we call our county, we tell them, hey, tomorrow we're going to apply and this is the field we're going to apply it on.

And they know that they can come out and inspect if we have wind. All these regulations that are in law right now. We are used to that world. But when you go to the local hardware store and you get a bag of grass seed or you get something that is a seed that has been treated. What is the process for the tracking of that seed that goes on somebody's lawn or a golf course or something like that? That area is kind of gray here. How would that work?

You're asking? Well, i think, to your point, the regulations on pesticides can be very complicated, right? I mean, for example, neonicotinoids that are sprayed, right? They can't be sprayed if flowers present on AG, right? I mean, there's very complicated depending on the pesticide and what DPR puts out is their regs.

And I am not here to say that I know what the right regs should be on any one of these pesticides that are treated on seeds, and that is for the Department to decide. And so, I guess you're envisioning a complicated situation where you can not plant a seed, perhaps?

No, I'm saying that we have treated seed now that we're going to fix the loophole, which 100% agree with. Thanks, good move.

Thank you.

I think there's a need, but it is complicated. And so the point I wanted to bring home was that those of us who have applicators permits and do this like AG, when you talk about the bird that was found ill somewhere. They know that once DPR does their job of telling me what's in the chemical and how I'm supposed to apply it and when I'm supposed to apply it, and then I'm regulated. And I have to report that to the county AG commissioners, who I call and say, hey, tomorrow I'm going to plant this seed or I'm going to spray this field.

We have a system for that. This Bill is going to regulate seeds that are sold in the hardware store to Megan Dahle, who doesn't have a permit, and she's going to go plant her lawn or she's going to do a golf course or she's going to do something. So you have no tracking ability. So That's why it's very critical on how each Department does their job so that we can track these and actually do what we're trying to do here.

For example, I think it's when Megan had her nursery, she sold Scott. It was a name brand, I always used to joke because she would sell fertilizer and seeds by the pound, and we sell them by the ton, and she made more money by the pound than the ton. So maybe I'm in the wrong business and she was in the right business. But to the point.

You have a smart wife, sir.

To the point. How do you track that? So those are things that I think are critical because we're talking about, first of all, closing the loophole, and then after that loophole is closed, I think it points to the fact that there's things that the opposition brought up that need to be dealt with in this Bill.

Yes. And I think that's why, I guess, to address your question, why I'm not doing a Bill that bans certain seeds or dictates how any of this done, because I think that the answer is that Department of Pesticide Regulation, who regulates you every day as an applicator, knows best how to do that for farmers so that they can comply. And in the same way that you're used to doing it. And so I defer to the Department to make those decisions in a way that will work for the industry they already work with every day.

Right. I understand my role and my obligation, but it's the person that doesn't have to have the applicators for them to do it. That's the point I'm trying to make.

And currently they do. I mean, neonictinoid is a great example where we've done the Department has done regulations as it relates to agriculture that do not apply to me as a person who does not grow AG. Right, That's true. And so the same could be true here. The Department does this every day.

So thank you for attempting to try to help me out with your Bill.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

I want to say to the Committee that I think there's a need for this Bill. I'm not opposed to that, but I think it needs some work. And I would really hope you would take the amendment so I can support this Bill as a seed farmer when it gets to the floor, because I think they're amendments that I've seen and that they've provided me are common sense, good amendments that need to be in this Bill.

So I'm going to not support the Bill today because I know it needs work and hopefully we can get there. Hopefully when it goes to AG Committee, we can hammer those things out.

You don't have to answer this now, but what's your sense of the state of your negotiations right now?

Again, I was not in my office today, but I know they had a good meeting and I appreciate all the opposition, and I'm getting head nods from them. And I will say that know, one of the first things that Ms. Roshan and don't ask me which of her many AG clients brought this to us, but one of, or maybe it was many, was this delayed implementation, which was not originally in the Bill. And immediately we were like, that makes sense.

So we did, and, you know, you heard from Mr. Albiani. Maybe we didn't get the timeline right. We'll absolutely continue to have that conversation, but we have been in conversations with them since the beginning of this Bill, and we'll continue to. I can't comment on the amendments I haven't seen, but we'll look forward to it. And perhaps Mr. Dahle will be my jockey on the floor.

That I would love to do. You can get it, right. I want to support this Bill. I really do. If we can keep them in the lanes and DPR and CDFA where they're supposed to be. I can support this Bill if we get those amendments, I think.

Thank you, sir.

I'd love to jockey it.

Great. All right, well, thank you. Thanks for all the work you're doing and you're going to continue to do and we'll see where this all goes. But I appreciate your leadership on this and on a variety of pesticide-related issues. So I think I heard a motion from Caroline, from Senator Menjivar and let's let you close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote, Senators. Thanks for the conversation.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1042. The motion is due pass and rerefer to the Committee on Agriculture. Allen. Allen, aye. Dahle. Dahle, no. Gonzalez. Hurtado. Menjivar. Menjivar, aye. Nguyen. Skinner.

Thank you, Members.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Senator. All right, we'll next call up Assembly Member Friedman, who's here. We're going to leave the roll up and obviously for that because there's number of Members who are not here. So Senator Friedman is actually presenting two bills, one having to do with pesticides. But let's start first with your product safety Bill on filament retardant chemicals. That's item four, That's AB 1059.

Thank you. AB 1059 prohibits the sale and distribution of juvenile products, mattresses and upholstered furniture that contains fiberglass and also restricts the use of flame retardant chemicals in adult mattresses. While the original focus of this Bill was fiberglass, as the Bill moved forward, I became aware of other flame retardant chemical issues with mattresses. I think all of us want to know that when we lay down to sleep at night, we're not unintentionally putting our health at risk, and that's what this Bill ensures. In 2018, AB 2998 was signed into law. That Bill banned the use of flame retardant chemicals in the foam part of mattresses, which is the inner part of mattresses, but still allowed flame retardant chemicals in the other components of the mattresses in order to eliminate any regrettable substitution problems that may arise from banning the use of fiberglass. AB 1059 is addressing those flame retardant chemicals too, and does so by eliminating the exemption for these other components. Both the federal government and the State of California have set standards that limit the flammability of mattresses for obvious reasons, and also upholstered furniture. For a long time, toxic flame retardant chemicals were used to meet those standards, but in recognition of their negative health impacts, the laws and regulations were changed at both the federal and state level to prohibit the use of these chemicals, because many of them are carcinogenic. While most manufacturers altered their manufacturing methods to use natural flame retardant materials such as rayon, latex and wool to meet the standard, which they do very easily. Some turn to fiberglass as a thermal barrier. Now, fiberglass is a manmade mineral fiber that is composed of cilia, sand, limestone, and recycled glass and soda ash, that is a lifespan of more than 50 years. When individuals unzip or open mattress covers, unintentional exposure to fiberglass can occur. In addition, there is concern that even when the mattress or couch covers are not disturbed, the fiberglass particle escapes to the surface, leading to exposure. Now, fiberglass is irritating to the eyes, lungs and skin. Long term exposure to fiberglass is associated with lung disease, including pulmonary fibrosis. Short term inhalation exposure to fiberglass may cause lung inflammation and bronchiolitis. Fiberglass fibers can cause visual changes, bleeding and scarring if they end up in your eyes. We know that only 13% of mattresses can claim fiberglass as a thermal barrier, so it's not necessary. These products can and are safely made without fiberglass, thereby effectively in eliminating accidents, leakage, or other mistakes from happening that needlessly expose the public and people in the recycling and disposal industries to the substance. Manufacturers do not have to turn to flame retardant chemicals as a substitute for fiberglass, and that's very important. Given the small amount of mattresses on the market containing fiberglass and the availability of alternatives to meet federal and state flammability standards. Our Bill would ban the use of fiberglass to protect public health. Now, I've been working very closely with the International Sleep Products Association since the bill's introduction, and I want to thank them. They have been great to work with, and I know that they share our goal of getting rid of fiberglass in mattresses, and they want to avoid any unintended consequences. As the analysis points out, the remaining issue for ISPA is whether to allow an exemption for modocritic fibers. At this time, I'm not comfortable with adding that exemption. It's only used in about 13% of mattresses, and there's a lot of evidence that it's harmful. We don't see any reason why we should continue to allow their use. Testifying in support on behalf of our sponsor Environmental Working Group is Bill Allayaud and Jordan Wells with the National Stewardship Action Council. And I would respectfully urge and aye vote.

Committee, I am Bill Allayaud with the Environmental Working Group and happy to be sponsoring this Bill. The author and EWG became aware of the fiberglass issue at about the same time last year. It was written up in the Los Angeles Times about a woman in Sacramento who was exposed to fiberglass and got it in her bedroom and her daughter was exposed. So That's how the Bill came about. From the start, the industry has been represented by the International Sleep Product Association, and they didn't oppose the removal of fiberglass. I think they see the handwriting on the wall. But as we progressed, as Ms. Friedman said, we became aware of other chemicals that were not necessarily banned by AB 298 by Mr. Bloom in 2018. And also New York State recently passed a law banning those two chemicals within two years altogether. So we've been looking at those closely, and so we've been in discussions with ISPA. And I want to put in a note here that we've been sharing science with them, dissecting this science together, and talking to the regulatory agencies at both the state and federal agencies to try to get this right. We've reached a point where one of the two chemicals, aramids, which are used in kevlar and nomex, we've set that aside as a very likely non hazardous to the consumer, but we're still concerned about mod acrylics. We remain concerned that the hazard assessments on mod acrylics are now becoming out of date. So we're not comfortable with saying, go ahead and keep using them. We know this is an innovative industry. Witness the bed in a box. We recently undid one for my wife's, Stepmom. You take it out of the box, and suddenly you have a double bed in front of you a couple of hours later. And they are innovative, and they're also very aware consumers don't want bad chemicals in their mattress, and they're working hard to get those out. So that, combined with Assembly Member Friedman's strong commitment to consumer safety, says that, I think we'll get to a pragmatic solution on this Bill that protects consumers and works for the manufacturers. And now for the bigger picture, long term picture, the next witness. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. And Members. I am Jordan Wells on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council, a nonprofit that advocates for an equitable circular economy. I also sit on the state's Mattress Advisory Committee, which advises the Mattress Recycling Council as it implements the statewide mattress stewardship program that was created by a law passed by the Legislature in 2013. We strongly support AB 1059, which would ban textile fiberglass in mattresses, upholstered furniture, and juvenile products, and restrict the use of flame retardant chemicals in adult mattresses. The first pillar of achieving an equitable and circular economy is to design out waste and pollution out of the system, which is less expensive than having to pay for it for cleanup. Flame retardants and fiberglass negatively impact human and environmental health. They also complicate the recycling system, adding challenges for recyclers and increasing costs. As stipulated by Terry Mcdonald, who also sits on the Advisory Council and represents the largest mattress recycler in Northern California, AB 1059 will protect consumers and recycling workers from harmful additives that also make recycling more expensive. I want to thank Assembly Member Friedman for her leadership and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. All right, let's go to folks who want to weigh in, in support, express support for the Bill, AB 1059.

Mr. Chair and Members. Lauren Day Valencia, representing the International Sleep Products Association. We actually have a support if amended position on the Bill. We have been working really great with the author's office, with the sponsors, and we appreciate all the conversations we've had on this Bill. As Assembly of Friedman noted, we're still discussing one particular fiber in specific it's not a flame retardant chemical. It's inherently fire resistant. Mattress manufacturers do not add flame retardant chemicals, the chemicals of concern in AB 298 to their mattresses. However, with the removal of that exemption in AB 298, that does open up the question about two specific fibers that are inherently fire resistant but could be captured under the broadband definitions in the Bill. So we're continuing to have that conversation, but we really appreciate the conversations on the Bill. We have some additional information we'll be sharing with the author's office soon, and we continue to work on that issue. Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you. Other folks who want to raise concerns about the Bill or express opposition. Okay, let's go to the phone lines. This is people who want to comment on AB 1059.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to comment in support or opposition, please press 1 and 0. We'll be going to line 148. Go ahead. 148, Your line is open.

We do have others that have queued up one moment while their line number is given. Next we'll go to line 150. Please go ahead.

This is Kim Cosby from Nontoxic Neighborhoods. And we are in strong support. Thank you.

Next we'll go back to 148. Please go ahead.

I need to get to the inner lane. This is like to get off of a different street.

Next we'll go to line 161. Please go ahead.

Hello, did you say 161?

Yes.

My name is Sarah Van Manchin and I support AB 1059.

Next, we're going to line 150. Please go ahead.

160. Your line is open.

Good afternoon. I'm Christina Garfinkel, and I'm in support of the Bill.

Next, we go to line 156. Please go ahead.

I'm Harry Babcock and I support the Bill. Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 163. Please go ahead

Hi, my name is Anne Valerio. I support the Bill.

And there's currently no one else in the queue, Mr. Chair.

Okay, thank you. And we got to hear a lot of interesting things on there. Let's bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments, thoughts. Mr. Vice Chair.

I just would like. To move the Bill.

I think it's a good Bill. I voted for the Bloom Bill. I think I was one of the few Republicans that actually supported that Bill. And so glad to see you're working with the opposition to try to get to an even more happy place. So happy to support your Bill.

Great, thank you. All right, with that, let's let you close.

Just I think we can all sleep better.

Yeah, That's true. Even planning that one. All right, so the items are moved by Senator Dahle, secretary please call the role.

AB 1059. The motion is due, pass and re refered to the Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development. Allen, Allen aye. Dahle, Dahle aye. Gonzalez. Hurtato, Hurtado aye. Menjivar. Nguyen. Skinner.

All right, so That's 3-0. We'll leave that roll open for other folks to add on. Let's now go to item five. This is AB 1322.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chair and Members. I want to thank you and your Committee staff for all of your hard work on this Bill, and I'm accepting the suggested Committee amendments outlined in the analysis. In 2020, the Legislature passed AB 1788 to minimize unintended poisonings from one subset of particularly dangerous rodenicides, second generation anticoagulant rodenticides SGARs, as they're called, by placing a mortuary on certain uses until more comprehensive restrictions were developed. However, despite the implementation of AB 1788 in 2021, recent evidence from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests there's still widespread exposure and deaths to wildlife from SGARs and other rodenticides. And this is because another subset of rodenticides, first generation anticoagulant rodenticides, includes defacinone, thank you, which is the most frequently detected SGAR in nontarget wildlife. Exposure to this chemical can result in both lethal and sublethal effects on nontarget wildlife, including severe skin diseases and decreased immune system response. AB 1322 adds disastrophone to the existing rodenticide moratorium to better protect wildlife from unintentional rodenticide poisoning, while maintaining exceptions for its use to protect public health, water supplies and agriculture. It also requires that the Department of Pesticide Regulation enact stronger permanent restrictions on second generation anticoagulant rodenticides and disasrophone to limit unintended wildlife poisonings, while making this chemical a restricted material so that your average Joe isn't just buying it at their local Home Depot. Anticoagulant rodenticide continues to result in an unreasonable number of public health incidents, with over 3000 human poisonings in 2021, at least 2300 of those involving children under six years old, according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers. AB 1322 will place greater restrictions on some of the most dangerous rodenticides while maintaining short and long term exceptions to provide public health, agriculture, and the environment. I also want to respond to recent points made by opposition about making disasrophone a restricted material. The State of California has always taken stronger action than the US EPA, such as pulling second generation anticoagulants from the shelves before the US EPA because our state recognizes the dangers of these products and also the unique wildlife that we have in our state. The US EPA's reevaluation process is too slow, and time is of the essence to prevent more poison. Mountain lions, California condors, and other wildlife. Also, DPR is not actively reevaluating this chemical. They have only sent out a notice that they may do so, but the product is not yet in re-evaluation. So we also know that there's a wide range of safer, more sustainable and cost effective alternatives to these most dangerous rodenticides available for use today that don't threaten our wildlife and our families. The animals that are being poisoned are our predators. And the best way to prevent a widespread outbreak of pests is actually to allow your predators to do their job and to kill them. If we have more owls, we have the mountain lions and coyotes healthy, they will deal with the rodents and the rats in our wooey areas, which is where a lot of these poisonings is happening. And I hope you don't mind, but I wanted to show you what this poisoning looks like. And we hear about this from our constituents even in urban Los Angeles all the time. The top is what a mountain lion is supposed to look like. This was P 22, a selfie that he took using one of the cameras that was placed in Griffith Park to photograph him. This caused widespread outrage in Los Angeles. The reason that he had this mange was because of these poisons, these anticoagulants, which are now so ambiguous that it's really hard to find animals in our wooey areas that have not been poisoned. And when we do necropsies on animals that are found dead, mountain lions, hawks, and owls, they have these chemicals in their system. They are literally bleeding out from within. They are being tortured because of our needless actions. And I hear it all the time from my constituents. Their heart is breaking every time they see one of these animals in their neighborhoods. And it's not necessary. Let's stop the carnage and pass this Bill. This is really, really important to me and to my constituents. So testifying today in support are who is testifying in support? I'm sorry. Oh, we have Dr. Rebecca Gooley, who's a Smith fellow and a postdoc at UC Davis here in person. Hi. Thanks for being here.

Yeah, hi. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Allen and Committee Members. My name is Dr. Rebecca Gooley. In 2022, I was awarded the David Smith Fellowship to investigate the sublethal impacts of anticoagulant rodenticides in golden eagles. I have over 10 years of experience working in conservation biology, during which time I've been a scientific advisor for many endangered species worldwide. In 1972, the EPA discontinued the use of DDT, a heavily applied insecticide, due to the adverse impacts this poison was having on our ecosystem, including the bald eagle. 50 years later, we find ourselves in a similar situation where rodenticides are having adverse impacts on the ecosystem again and the bald eagle is being impacted. A 2021 nationwide study found that over 80% of bald and golden eagles tested positive for anticoagulant redenticides. Outside of these second generation anticoagulants already covered by the California Ecosystem Protection Act of 2020, diphacinone is the most commonly found redenticide in California wildlife. It's been found in mountain lions, bobcats, great horned owls, redtailed hawks, just to name a few of the species. And when these poisons don't directly kill the individual, they can make them sick and weak. These sublethal impacts can dysregulate their immune function, can lead to chronic anemia, can decrease their coordination, increase their stress hormone production, we've seen hemorrhaging in bone, heart, liver, kidneys, lungs. We've seen an increase in parasite in pathogen load. And we now have evidence of near natal transfer of redenticides to young. A 2018 study led by Dr. Devon Fraser at UCLA found that a California population of bobcats had a disrupted immune function due to rodenticides, one of them being diphacinone. This led to an outbreak of mange, a parasitic skin condition that nearly wiped out that entire population. The lethal and sublethal impacts of rodenticides pose a serious threat to the long term population sustainability of California wildlife. Improved sanitation and exclusion practices remain the most effective long term solution for rodent management. There is a growing market among consumers for these solutions, and once done just one time, they are far more cost effective in the long run, and they prevent the harm of this nontarget poisoning. Preventing rats from entering our buildings, keeping our areas free of food waste and debris, maintaining dumpsters and trash cans are all management strategies that have long term success. In urban settings, rat fertility control is showing promising results at managing and reducing already established rat populations. For example, in a year long birth control study in Washington DC, rat activity was actually reduced by 90% across all monitored sites. And in one site there was no evidence of rat offspring at all. Outside of managing commensal rodents such as Norway and roof rats, diphacinone is frequently used to control ground squirrels. However, a two year long study in Ventura County found that installing raptor, perches and owl boxes was actually more effective and less expensive than poison in reducing the ground squirrel numbers. This approach was so successful that the LA Department of Water and Power just last month removed rodenticides from their nature preserves in the San Fernando Valley and installed raptor perches instead. There are alternatives. And while some of the proposed options may take a more upfront investment, they offer a more sustainable and more cost effective solution over time. Without this Bill, diphacinone will continue to impact California's invaluable wildlife. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

Thank you so much. Other folks who want to voice support for the Bill. AB 1322.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of San Diego Humane Society's Project Wildlife, one of the state's largest licensed native wildlife rehabbers, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members Mark Isidro on behalf of the County of Los Angeles. In support.

Good afternoon. Danielle Jenkins with Stockton Animals Save in support.

Good afternoon. Hardy Kern, American Bird Conservancy and support.

Great. The bird guy. Are you here to support, too? No. Okay. All right, we'll let you come up. Dom? Yeah. Folks who want to raise concerns opposition.

Thank you. My name is Dominic Tamari, and I'm here on behalf of the pest control operators of California who are the licensed professionals who manage pests here in California, usually in structural settings, more often than structural settings. But not our opposition is not predicated on the belief that there needs to be continued widespread use of these materials. It is predicated on the belief that you have a population of licensed professionals in California who are trained in how to use these materials in coordination with other exclusion practices, as mentioned by the supporters and the proponents. Absolutely. There are sanitation, eliminating food, putting barriers in the buildings are all part of the protocol that goes with exclusion, particularly when it comes to rodents. What we're arguing and opposing to is the wholesale banning of the material as a tool for use in structural pest control across the state. And there are instances where these other exclusionary practices, these less lethal exclusionary practices, don't work. And you get a population that explodes for a variety of different reasons, and then all of a sudden, those exclusionary practices are not as efficacious as they should be or once were when you had a lower population. That's where the use of materials like diphacinone comes into play. It comes into play to knock down large populations so that you can go back to that first exclusionary practice. So the first order of business is not to pull out a canister of diphacinone and apply it. It's to go through all those other meaningful exclusionary practices. Focusing in on the Bill in particular, thank you for the amendment on the IPM. We were concerned that the multiple definitions of IPM were going to create problems across the statute and across implementation in other areas of law across the state. So we appreciate that. We find that the 10% threshold included in the Bill for wildlife samples is somewhat arbitrary and then ambiguously written such that it's ambiguous to the outcome that would be produced. So we're focusing on that and would appreciate some further dialogue on how to resolve that.

That's the natural resources.

Yeah, totally get that.

Okay.

And I look forward to telling Natural Resources the same thing. And then there are public health and safety implications as well. And these implications aren't considered in this Bill. I mean, rodents carry disease. They carry typhus, they carry huntavirus, they carry plague. There are other infrastructure considerations to be considered. Roadways, airports, railways, water conveyance systems. Nutria is a recently arrived rodent here in California. It's an invasive species. It's massive as compared to other rodents, and it's been found in the lower reaches of the delta, which is entirely reliant on levee systems. And Nutria can wreak havoc on levee systems. You know, having this tool, it's part of our control strategy, I think would be essential to maintaining our infrastructure here in California against the problems caused by rodents. And then lastly, what I would say is it is true that this has not yet been approved for reevaluation by the Department of Pesticide Regulation. There's a public comment period that's open right now that will come to a close very soon. All indications point to that this material will be subject to reevaluation by DPR. As we heard in earlier testimony on another Bill. There's a lot of faith placed in the DPR process and reevaluation. In that process, the public health and safety consequences will be studied and analyzed, which is not something That's been done here with regard to this Bill. We think that the offsets and the trade offs between public health and safety and the environmental benefits of limiting the use of diphacinone need to be considered, as there are some pretty high stakes, public health and safety consequences that can arise from massive rodent infestations and the elimination of this material. So for those reasons and several others that I won't go into right now, we're opposed to the Bill, and we would ask for a no vote.

Yeah.

Now, the water stuff is exempted, is it?

Yeah, That's good. Okay, thank you. Lots of good things. I know that the discussion will be robust both here and at Natural Resources.

Okay.

I have water on my mind so.

Yeah. Well, we all do. Okay. Yes.

Good afternoon, Mr. Cair. Taylor Roche. On behalf of Rise, I'd like to echo the comments of my colleague and reiterate that DPR, as you heard earlier today, has a science based and led process for product evaluation, registration, reevaluation and environmental monitoring, all of which include the ability and empower the Department to restrict products with mitigations or cancel products outright, which they have done before. As noted in the analysis, AB 1322 disregards the current procedure that's in place immediately banning use, dictating that diphacinone is a restricted use material, and then charges the Department to reevaluate the product based on a safety measure That's arbitrary and unattainable. I think, from our perspective, and one that would result in from our perspective, a de facto ban DPR has a procedure That's in place, is already doing data collection for a potential reevaluation, which is standard operating procedure for diphacinone and has the authority necessary to protect public health and the environment if the science dictates that that's necessary. I'll be quick. Just oppose.

That'd be great.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah, you can blame Dominic for taking up all the time. Appreciate the comments and appreciate from both of you. Okay, let's let other folks who want to raise concerns come to the mic.

Thank you. Nicole Quinonez. On behalf of the Household and Commercial Product Association, opposed.

Great. Thank you. Other folks, anyone on the phone lines who want to weigh in on AB 1322?

Yes. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to make a comment and support our opposition, please press 1-0. We will be going to line 135. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Sosin Maddenat, W Strategies on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we go to line 142. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Robinson with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange on behalf of the Humane Society of the United States in support.

Next, we'll go to line 162. Please go ahead. 162, your line is open. Next we'll take line 167. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Almira calling on behalf of Direct Action Everywhere at full support for AB 1322.

Next. Go to line 168. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Rocky Chow and I'm a California resident and I support AB 1322 and I highly urge you do as well. Thank you.

Next we go to line 133. Please go ahead.

This is Radhika in strong support of AB 1322. Thank you.

Next. We go to line 175. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Louis Bernier and I'm calling in strong support of the Bill. Next.

Go to line 166. Please go ahead.

Hi, there. My name is Cassie King. I'm a California lifelong resident and I'm calling in support of AB 1322. Thank you.

Next. We'll go to line 173. Please go ahead.

Hi. This is Allison Maurico Bernard. I'm in strong support of AB 1322.

Next. To go to line 180, please go ahead.

Yes, this is Reverend Robert Ugandan Yamada of Dabuta Kyogi Soto Zen Buddhist Temple in strong support.

Next. To go to line 179, please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Michelle Lucreto. I'm a Berkeley resident and I'm calling in strong support for AB 1322.

Next, we go to line 182. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Antona Rosales and I'm a lifelong California resident and I support AB 1322.

Next, we go to line 149. Please go ahead.

My name is Nicholas Tackett on behalf of Social Compassion in Legislation, in support.

Next we go to line 185. Please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Anne Valerio. I'm in strong support of AB 1322. Thank you.

Next, we go to line 159. Please go ahead.

Thank you so much. I'm calling on behalf of the organization Our Honor. My name is Carla Cabral and I am in strong support of AB 1322.

Next, we'll go to line 158. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Abigail Mile on behalf of the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District in support.

Next we go to line 151. Please go ahead.

Dr. Loretta Mayer. On behalf of WISDOM Good Works and the Ramsey Social Justice Foundation, I am in strong scientific support. AB 1322.

Next, we'll go to line 183. Please go ahead.

This is John Botorf with cleanearthforkids.org, in strong support of AB 1322.

Next, we'll go to line 139. Please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Adele Slaughter. The chair of the Sustainability Committee of the Studio City Neighborhood Council. The Studio City Neighborhood Council is in strong support of the Assembly. Bill 1322 written by Laura Friedman And I just wanted to say that in LA. There are a lot of black boxes that are around that have the redemptive.

Let's go to the next caller. Next, we'll go to line 137. Please go ahead.

Yes. Hi, my name is Terry Sausea. I'm living here in Los Angeles and I strongly support this Bill.

Next. Go to line 128. Please go ahead. 128, your line is open. Next, we'll go to line 150. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. This is Kim Konte from Nontoxic Neighborhoods, and we are in strong support. Thank you.

Next, we go to line 140. Please go ahead. Next, we'll go to line 157. Please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Oscar Allen. Foster City. I'm in strong support of 1322. Thank you.

Next, we go to line 188. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Senators. This is Tony Tucci, chairperson for Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife, also known as CLAW. CLAW is in strong support of AB 1322.

Next, we go to line 191. Please go ahead.

Next caller, please.

Next, we'll go to line 154. Please go ahead.

Hi. This is Rebecca Demetrik. I'm part of the pest control industry representing Humane Wildlife Control Trade Association, and we are in strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 192. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is John Bowders, the mayor of the City of Emeryville, in support of AB 1322. Thank you.

Next, we go to line 164. Please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Alexander Taylor. I'm in strong support of AB 1322.

Next, we'll go to line 178. Please go ahead.

This is Curtis Ballmer with Compassionate Bay and I am calling in strong support.

Next, we'll go to line 187. Please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Jessica Proctor. I'm a California resident and I strongly support AB 1322.

Next, we'll go to line 162. Please go ahead. 162. Your line is open.

Can you hear me?

Yes. Please proceed.

My name is Diana Navon. I live in Berkeley and I support this Bill.

Next we go to line 176. Please go ahead.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yeah, we can hear you.

This is Mary Shaw Coron with Protect San Bernardino County in strong support.

Next we go to line 141. Please go ahead. 141. Your line is open.

Johnny Carlson with Planning and Conservation League in strong support.

Next we go to line 161. Please go ahead.

Hello?

Yes, we can hear you. Please proceed.

My name is Sarah Van Manchen, and on behalf of the farm animal, climate and environmental stewards of Sonoma County, I support AB 1322.

Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 156. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Henry Babcock and I'm calling in strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Next, we go to line 160. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good afternoon. I'm Christina Garfinkel on behalf of farm animals, climate and environmental stewards of Sonoma County, and I'm in strong support of Bill.

Once again we'll go line 141. Please go ahead.

Johnny Carlson with the Planning and Conservation League in support.

And there are no further in the queue, Mr. Chair.

Great. All right, let's bring it back to the Committee for questions, thoughts, comments, concerns. So, Senator Gonzalez moves it when appropriate. Senator Skinner has a question?

Not a question. Just thank you for bringing it forward. It's needed. I also wanted to just give the appreciation for both the Committee's men, but also your--you had a couple of exemptions that are particularly important, and I want to applaud you for recognizing those.And other than that, it's a very important Bill. So happy to support it. Thank you, Senator Dahle.

Well, first I want to say to the author that when you showed me that picture, I mean, nobody in their right mind would vote against this Bill if you saw that picture. But with that being said, we have DPR, which does the regulations for which we've delegated that power to them as the legislature, not me personally, but previous Legislature bodies, and it was bipartisan, by the way.

But I wanted to comment on the fact that for those of us who represent areas where we have lots of mountain lions and we have lots of wildlife and we also have a lot of illegal marijuana grows, and this is not to do with your Bill, and I know this Bill is going to pass. I get that.

But I've been very frustrated with the illegal use of coagulants, quite frankly, in illegal grows in places where we've had a lot of people trying to do the right thing and we have some people not doing that and there's no enforcement. And we're going to continue to see wildlife damage not mainly by the good actors who are trying to do what we do in agriculture is try to contain pest, our huge problem for agriculture.

And I know you have some exemptions for that in this Bill, but I just want to say that I'm frustrated with the fact that we don't really go after the bad actors out there who are not abiding by the current laws we have and are really destroying our wildlife at the same time. So I just want to bring that up as a topic for this type of legislation. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

I know that also there's going to be quite a bit of further discussion as the Bill moves forward. Natural resources and water. A number of the issues that were raised are issues that relate to that Committee, but love to give you the opportunity to close.

Thank you. Yes, we do have exemptions for agriculture. We have exemptions for water. We have exemptions for public health, even in urban settings. So we do think that we struck the right balance. And I totally agree with you, Senator.

It's very frustrating. I would echo that we should be going after people, getting some of more of these products off the shelves, off of the Home Depot shelves, hopefully will help with some of that problem. I was going to show all of you more pictures, but I'll spare you. I would just say that we hear it. I think the reason there's so much interest in people calling in is we just see this everywhere and it's heartbreaking.

So there may be best practices out there with the industry, but somehow something's going wrong, and we are stopping nature from creating the balance that it needs with our predators. So with that, I would request an I vote. Great. Thank you. Thank you. All right. It's a move by Senator Gonzalez. Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1322. The motion is do pass as amended and re referred to the Committee on Natural Resources and Water. [Roll Call]

All right, thank you. Thank you, Senator Friedman. I think Senator Gabriel's here. Senator Wood has been waiting, but Gabriel's next in line. He's learning. He's observing the queue. All right, Senator Gabriel, you may proceed. Item six, this is your voluntary carbon markets disclosure, AB 1305.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to start by accepting the Committee's amendments, and I want to thank you and your staff for the thoughtful feedback and assistance.

I am pleased today to presenting AB 1305, which would establish first in the nation transparency standards for voluntary carbon offsets. In concept, carbon offset credits allow an entity to reduce its net emissions by investing in projects or actions undertaken by another entity that reduce or remove greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case in practice, as recent reports have shown that many offsets fail to achieve the greenhouse reductions advertised.

A recent report by the Guardian found that over 90% of offset credits related to a rainforest preservation listed on one of the largest project registries did not represent a meaningful reduction in carbon emissions. Currently, there exists no governmental standards or regulations for voluntary offsets, leaving consumers with little confidence that what they are purchasing is legitimate.

AB 1305 seeks to address this unregulated marketplace by requiring simple disclosure of critical information where offset projects are located, how greenhouse gas emissions reductions are being achieved, and the data and methodology used to calculate the amount of carbon that has been offset. For businesses that purchase these credits and make claims regarding emissions reductions, AB 1305 would require them to disclose details regarding the credits purchased and how those emissions reductions claims were determined to be accurate.

These disclosures will not only give consumers the ability to compare credits and decide which are the most impactful, but also give researchers the tools needed to further evaluate these products to determine which credits, entities and practices yield legitimate results. AB 1305 represents a meaningful step forward in combating greenwashing and protecting consumers from fraudulent offset credits that do not represent genuine emissions reductions.

With me today to testify in support of the Bill is Dr. Barbara Haya, Director of the Berkeley Carby Trading Project at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. Thank you and respectfully request an I vote.

So thank you. And I'm Dr. Barbara Haya. I direct the Berkeley Carbon Trading Project at UC Berkeley. And I've studied carbon offset quality for 20 years. And over the last two decades, as been said, quality on the market, on the offset market has been exceptionally poor.

For example, we recently completed an analysis of one of the fastest growing offset project types, improved cook stoves, and found that this program, on average, generated seven times the number of credits than actual impact on emissions. And we found that across many different project types, from avoided deforestation to improved forest management to renewable energy internationally. And the voluntary offset market is created mainly by four private, unregulated carbon offset registries. And these registries do four things.

Basically, they decide which project types are allowed to generate offset credits. They adopt methods for monitoring, calculating, and verifying the climate benefits from each individual participating project. They issue credits, and they keep track of who owns them and who retires the credits. Offset quality matters because these credits can then be bought by companies to make emissions reduction or carbon neutrality claims or sell carbon neutral products. Companies buy these credits, and often, in place of reducing their own emissions.

In this unregulated industry, buyers are left on their own to figure out which credits are real, what's safe to buy, or they rely on experts to review quality. But reviewers like ourselves don't have the information that we need to fully assess quality. The registries have all of the documentation and all of the calculations needed to reproduce and assess the credit calculations, but these typically are not made public.

And I believe that one of the most important and easy steps that the government can take to regulate the voluntary offset market is to require disclosure, allowing buyers to know what they're buying and analysts to analyze quality in this most important of markets.

Other folks who want to voice support for the Bill, AB 1305? If you want to raise opposition concerns about the Bill? Let's go to the phone lines. People want to weigh in on AB 1305 on the phone lines?

Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to make a comment, support or opposition, please press one, then zero. We do have a few new lines that have queued up one moment while their line number is given. And we'll be going to line 138. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Kathy Schaefer on behalf of the San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles Chapters of Climate Reality. In support, thank you.

Next we go to line 153. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Gabriela Fascia with the Sierra Club California in support of AB 1305. Thank you.

That's currently no one else in the queue at this time. Mr. Chair.

Okay. All right, let's bring back to the Committee questions, thoughts, comments from the Members.

I would move the Bill.

All right, thank you, Senator Skinner. Appreciate your leadership on this issue. Let's let you close.

Thank you very much. Have always been a big fan of transparency. This would bring transparency to an important part of the market. Would respectfully request an I vote

Great. Thank you. Items are moved by Senator Skinner. Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1305. The motion is do pass as amended and re refer to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

Thank you. Thanks very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. I guess technically Chavo is next in line. Item seven AB 1423. Okay. Hi. Hey there. You may proceed.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Chair and Members, happy for the opportunity to present on AB 1423. A Bill to protect the health of our youngest athletes, our community, and our water. I wanted to start by saying I appreciate the Committee's diligent work on this and happy to accept the Committee amendments. Manufacturing patents and studies conducted on a number of artificial turf samples used throughout the country show fields contain PFAS and a class of chemicals that harm human health, known often as forever chemicals.

As children play in the fields, kick soccer balls, run with cleats on a sunny day, the field slowly wears down, and the microplastic dust creates a field that breaks down and is ingested or inhaled, as well as can enter the stormwater system. When fields are watered or when rains come, a new field can last over a decade. That's at least 10 years of PFAS dust and 10 years of leaching into water systems and 10 years of children breathing it in.

California must act to prevent and protect the health and safety of children from new fields containing these carcinogenic and dangerous chemicals. AB 1423 would bring California, alongside other states, in taking swift action to protect public health by prohibiting new installations at the start of the year at academic and public facilities, and prohibiting sale of turf containing PFAS in 2026. I am joined today by Bill Allayaud, California Director of Government Affairs from the Environmental Working Group, to testify as well.

Hey there, Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am Bill Allayaud with Environmental Working Group. We're pleased to sponsor this Bill. As this Committee knows, PFAS is a health hazard. DTSC has determined that through a bunch of white papers. And as you know, we now have in law bills to regulate it in food packaging, textiles, juvenile products, cosmetics. And this Committee recently approved bills on menstrual products and cleaning products. PFAS is a problem. We're working on getting it out.

We especially don't want it to get into drinking water and use on artificial fields through runoff can lead to that very thing. The Department of DTSC has acknowledged that this Legislature will move forward on consumer chemical product combinations that they can't get to yet. And we have another one here. As far as issues in the Bill, we're working with the opposition and trying to resolve each of those. Part of the proposed fields would have more time.

We've also agreed to allow for testing after manufacturing and before installation so you wouldn't get cross contamination. We don't agree on the 100 parts per million that they're proposing as a threshold. We note that US EPA is proposing four parts per trillion on drinking water standards. And so we can go way below that. And this Committee has gone below 100 several times now just as recently as last week. So we're continuing to work with them and we're available for questions and ask for your I vote.

Thank you. Thank you. Thanks so much. Other folks who want to weigh in support for the Bill?

Faith Conley with the California Water Service. In support.

Jennifer Williams, East Bay Municipal Utility District, in support.

Thank you.

Jeff Neal, representing the City of Millbray, continues to be in support.

Also given an I from Andria Ventura, Clean Water Action in Support.

Thank you. Okay, any folks who want to raise opposition concerns about the Bill? AB 1423. Hey there, Mr. synagogue President.

Thank you very much for that. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Randy Pollock, on behalf of the Synthetic Turf Council, we first want to appreciate the working with the summary Members office, especially with grace and the Committee staff. We believe that these amendments help move forward of what we're trying to accomplish. There's just a couple of issues that I'd like to raise. The first part is that we believe that there should be a delay implementation for all fields until 2026.

The way it's set up right now, it's that for the private you can have until 2026, but for the public, it goes into effect immediately. Additionally, talking about the parts per million, as Bill indicated, I think that the science is all over the place. We've heard this from the Committee in the past couple of weeks, and we are just concerned about testing down to that level.

Additionally, I want to raise another concern is that if we're going to start recycling this stuff, I think we have to determine what is going to be the level in the recycling parts. If we're trying to get this out of the landfills and I think we have to look at it if it could be parts per million of 50 or 100. So we think that has to be taken into consideration. So we think the level of 20 parts per million is a little bit too Low.

Initially, as the carpets, as artificial turf continues to go through and newer is being sold, then the PFAS is going to be diminished over that time. So we look forward to continuing to work with the Committee and also with the author.

Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Randy. Appreciate it. Other folks who want to raise concerns, have you guys been having good discussions? Okay. Yeah.

These are tough issues, and we were going over another PFAS Bill not long ago, and where to set the standards is really hard. Some of the testing issues, et cetera, especially since we know that there's no level That's considered safe and yet and there forever, and it's so damn ubiquitous. All right, folks, who want to otherwise, folks want to raise your concerns? Anyone wants to wait on the phone lines? AB 1423, thank you.

For supporter opposition, you may press one and then zero for supporter opposition and we will go to line 139.

Hi, my name is Adele Slaughter, and I am in strong support of this Bill. As you know, there's no safe level of PFAS, so I urge you to keep the levels down. Thank you..

Thank you. 137. Your line is open.

Hi, my name is Terry Stacier, behalf of the Climate Reality Project Los Angeles and San Francisco Valley Chapters. We're in support.

Thank you. Line 153. Line 153, your line is open.

Gabriela Facio, again with the Sierra Club California, in strong support of 1423. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 195. Your line is open. I'm sorry. Line 195. Hello?

My name is John Bower with thecleanupkids.org, in strong support.

Thank you. Line 184, your line is open.

Jordan Wells, on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council in strong support. Thank you.

Line 150. Your line is open.

Kim Conti, in strong support of AB 1423.

Thank you. Line 143, your line is open.

Leanne McAuliffe, resident of Santa Clara County, in strong support of 1423.

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

Okay, let's bring back to the Committee, Mr. Vice Chair?

Well, first I want you to thank you for bringing the Bill forward. And so, just a little history. It was a few years ago when Christy Bauma was with the firefighters and came and talked about PFAS, and it was the first I'd ever heard of it.

And we really moved, I think, in this Committee along the lines of trying to and I educated myself on PFAS a lot. And That's why I think we see the water agencies in here. It's in our water. It's everywhere. I think the struggle we're going to have is what level are we really going to go try to figure out in the short term till we figure out what the long term looks like. And That's where I think your Bill is headed.

I'm going to support your Bill today, but I wasn't able to be here on the menstrual products, I think That's what we called them. I missed that. And I wanted to comment on that because in the manufacturing side of it, they're trying to get there. We don't even really know exactly. And the water companies are really the ones I think are going to struggle because it's in pizza boxes, it's in microwave popcorn, it's really everywhere.

And so I think that just I wanted to take this opportunity because I didn't have the ability with the last couple of bills up, that the train is moving pretty fast. And I think we need to look at what parts per billion or million that we really want to focus in on and give the manufacturers an opportunity to come along with us and not just drop dead dates.

And so in my last comment on the last Bill about DPR, we have a system in place that we've allocated to do that and we need to work with them at the same time. So I'm going to support your Bill today. It's an area, I think, that we're going to see a lot more of these built.

I think we're going to see a heck of a lot more of them because we're seeing it in our water and it's hard to determine where it's coming from and how we regulate that.

So I just wanted to bring that up because I know this Committee is going to be seeing a lot more of these pieces of legislation and I wanted to figure out how we go in a manner that allows the manufacturers to come along with us and not be so harmful at the same time.

Thank you. Senator Skinner?

I appreciate, Senator, your comments, and it's always a balancing act, but we don't always know what we don't know. And now we know about PFAS and we know that it's forever. We know it is seriously harmful, not only on humans, but I guess when we learn about something that is as harmful as this particular product is and as basically persistent and ubiquitous, then while I appreciate that it is a burden, we need to do everything we can to get rid of it now. We don't really have time to delay.

I strongly support the Bill and have supported the past ones, and I think there should be a complete economic wide ban on these. And I think we should probably stop doing individual bills that keep affecting in particular and just flat out do it. But That's okay, you've got it in front of us, so I will move it.

I'm definitely in support. I would suggest to the Chairman and sorry for hijacking your Bill that we do a study on this as a Committee and look at all the areas that where we have PFA. I'm with the Senator from Berkeley.

I think we do have an obligation to really dive into this and I'd be happy to sit on that Committee and learn more about across the board because, look, I think it's fair only to the industry too, that, hey, we're heading that way and we could maybe do a study session out of this Committee. I think the appropriate Committee, and I would be happy to sit on that.

I think we need to get manufacturers to the table because we're going to do one offs for a long time until we get this figured out. So I'm with you, Senator Skinner, on this one. And I think we owe it to the manufacturers, we owe it to the water agencies that are dealing with this, and let's have a conversation about it before we just keep doing one offs and setting the bar and maybe get DPR and figure this out.

This could guarantee you a job post fellowship. Yeah. I mean, in fact, you mentioned the Menstrual Products Bill that we looked at last week, and we've been doing a deep dive into what Europe's been doing. Europe is looking at something very similar, very substantial sector wide strategy on PFAS. They've already banned PFOA and PFOS. Yes, exactly, PFOS. But now they're looking kind of sector wide at PFAS, so we should do something similar. And there we go. Let's get to work.

Items have been moved by Senator Skinner secretary. Please call the roll.

AB 1423. The motion is do pass as amended and re refer to the Committee on Governance and Finance. [Roll Call]

Awesome, we're going to leave that on call.

We're going to leave that on call so other people can add on. And finally, the ever patient, Assembly Member Wood. We appreciate you. So sorry. You may proceed.

No, not at all. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm here today to present AB 1489, which is a narrowly focused follow up to your SB 54 from last year.

As we all know, SB 54 was a landmark piece of legislation setting the ambitious goals for plastic reduction in the nation. To reach these goals, SB 54 required two things: for all single use plastics sold, distributed, or imported into the state to be either recyclable or compostable by 2032, and for a 25% reduction in the total amount of plastic material produced by the state by 2032. AB 1489 clarifies that within that 25% reduction goal, it is not the intent of the state to require the reduction of compostable products.

However, this does not mean compostable manufacturers get a pass. They still have to participate in SB 504's producer responsibility organizations. They still have to pay fees, and they still have to certify through the state that they will meet compostable standards, which the federal and state government are developing.

I worked on amendments in response to the concerns raised by the opposition that narrow the scope of this Bill to solely focus on source reduction. Members, I believe this is a common sense follow up that is critical to carrying out the goals of SB 54. With me to testify is Amy Mmagu with New Light Technologies and Bruce Magnani with the Biodegradable Products Institute.

Bruce?

Senator chair and Members, Bruce Magnani with the Biodegradable Products Institute. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As Assembly Member Wood explained in SB 54, and we all know what a daunting task that was to try and get a complete EPR program put together. And as that played out, as you know, towards the end, the definition of plastic itself was changed, and it didn't allow time to make all the amendments necessary to those sections that were affected. And compostables were one of those sections. So to Assembly Member Wood's point. This is narrowly focused. It's clarifying.

It doesn't upset the playing field of what SB 54 was negotiated on, and it just simply wasn't contemplated, nor was there time to contemplate it. And I'm happy to remain here to answer questions of the Committee. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair Members. My name is Amy Mmagu. I'm with New Light Technologies. I'm here today in support of AB 1489. New Light is a California grown company headquartered in manufacturing in Huntington Beach, California, with nearly 200 green jobs.

We spent more than a decade researching in a lab, trying to find a way that we could harness nature and greenhouse gases to develop a product that could be useful. The company has a dual mission of both addressing climate change as well as plastic pollution reduction. While we are a company that manufactures compostable materials, we're very supportive of California's goals to reduce waste and single use plastics. We're fully supportive of the efforts of CalRecycle and the development through the SB 54 implementation process.

AB 1489 is a technical clarification to ensure fair treatment of compostable materials. Under the current language, compostable materials will fall under the source reduction requirements of the Bill, meaning we will have to reduce our material by 25% from a 2023 baseline.

For companies that are just getting off the ground right now, if we take a baseline of 2023 and then reduce the amount of material that those companies are making, we're not going to be able to meet the goals of SB 54, which is to ensure that we have compostable products by 2032. California is a state that prides itself on innovation, and AB 1489 is a Bill that will signal to technology companies that they should continue to innovate in improving California and the world environment. Thank you for your time and allowing me to speak in support of 1489.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. All right, anyone else wants to voice support for the Bill? Okay, let's go to opposition or folks who have concerns. Jennifer.

Hi there. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of Ocean Conservancy, the Monterey Bay Aquarium and Oceania, respectfully opposed to AB 1489.

While we very much appreciate the work that the author and the Assembly Natural Resources Committee contributed to address our concerns with the introduced version of the Bill, we believe California should stay the SB 54 course by focusing first on reducing the production and use of all single use foodware and packaging and moving toward a truly circular and reusable economy which is critical to reducing the harms of plastic production and pollution on people and nature. AB 1489 promotes a transition to other single use materials.

Combustible plastics already get a preferential treatment by way of a reduced fee in SB 54's producer responsibility plan and adding an exemption for compostable materials from the industrywide. Source reduction mandate further encourages existing and new producers to use compostable plastic materials instead of prioritizing refill and reuse. Some certified compostable plastics contain fossil fuel components and some of the same problematic additives as fossil fuel derived plastics, which are known to contaminate waste streams.

Many California composters, perhaps all of them, refuse to take these materials and pick them out because they cannot label their compost as organic under federal standards. We are also wary of substantive amendments this year to SB 54 because they compromise cower cycle swift implementation timeline given SB 54's aggressive dates, and it compromises what was negotiated in a robust stakeholder process which we were key participants in. So we do respectfully request your no vote and appreciate your consideration. Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Chair and Members Isabella González with The Nature Conservancy, we would align ourselves with the comments made by our colleague Jennifer Fearing, and unfortunately in a respectful opposition.

Great. Thank you. Appreciate it. Other folks who want to raise concerns anyone else? Okay, no phone lines. Phone lines. For AB 1489.

Thank you. For in support of opposition, please press one and then zero again. That is one and then zero for support or opposition. Mr. Chair, we have no one in queue.

Okay, let's go back to the Committee. Questions, thoughts, concerns? Senator Skinner.

I'm familiar with the product of the person who testified their particular product, and I appreciate what you're trying to do. However, I am concerned that there are other products that are there's a lot of debate as to how compostable they are, yet they are branded as compostable. I do have that concern about that slippery slope, especially given that 54 did address.

So I don't know, since the main author, I was a co-author, but the main author is here and the chair of this Committee, I guess to both the author and the chair how have we constructed this, so that we are not signaling that products that are branded as compostable but are not really practically compostable fall into the cracks here?

So Assembly Member Ting had a Bill on this topic that we refer to in SB 54 that says that they have to be recycled, has to be compostable, not just under perfect conditions, but they've got to be compostable under real world existing conditions in California at the industry scale compostable.

Right, so then we're relying on CalRecycle to be able to determine that.

Exactly. And it has to be based on true compostability.

Right. Which I do know this particular manufacturer is, but not all.

Right. So at the end of the day, I think that the challenge here is it's our general feeling that the standards that are here are strong enough because we think that the compostability standards that we had are strong enough. I do know that one of the opposition's concerns in General is that we need to be moving away from single use of all forms, including those items that are compostable. Sends the wrong message.

That being said, I have significantly less of a problem with an item if it really is compostable, not the fake compostable. And That's something we really worked hard to work on. And we also worked hard to get really good language with regards to recyclability, because there's a lot of stuff that claims to be recyclable and it's not really right. That is not but in General, we all know that as good as recycling and as better compost, as better, you know, composting is better than recycling.

Waste reduction is really the goal. Source reduction is really the goal. And I think That's at the heart of the opposition's concerns, I think the Bill is reasonable. But I do appreciate the policing that is, quite frankly, going on, on the part of the opposition, because in the end of the day, we're going to need them as various industry groups try to get exemptions or one offs or little changes to SB 54, which I think are going to defeat its purpose.

And so I'm comfortable where this Bill is, but I totally appreciate the comments of the opposition and welcome their continued participation not only on this Bill, but also on future bills that implicate 54. But I'm not asking people to vote for it. I'm comfortable voting for it. But if others want to lay off or vote no, it's fine with me. Yeah. So there we are. Okay. Alright. The item has been moved. I would like to give you the chance to close.

Well, thank you, and I appreciate the discussion. I'm probably more comfortable talking about rodenticides and other things than I am this.

Well, how about single payer health care?

We did that yesterday. I'd rather pass on that one. I respect the opposition, and I think what we're trying to do is get a clarification out there. There are going to be companies that are going to produce what obviously, we all want to reduce source pollution.

We all want to do that, right? There will always be a need for some products out there, and we want to be sure that they are good products and reasonable products. And so the opposition said, because SB 54 is on a swift implementation path. I appreciate that. And that actually begs this legislation so that we can make what we believe was a correction of the intent of SB 54. So sometimes I think once things are in regulation, it's a whole lot harder to move them.

So I think this Bill actually guides the intent of the regulation a little bit better and in the long run, is better policy. So I respectfully ask for your I vote.

Thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member. Moved by Senator Dahle. Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1489. The motion is do pass, and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Appreciate it. Thank you. All right, thank you so much. Everyone. Let's lift the calls and go through everything. Let's first entertain a motion for the consent calendar. So moved by Senator Dahle. Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

All right. Thank you. I'd love to entertain a motion for Aguiar-Curry's AB 1159.

Okay. 1159. The motion is do pass as amended and re referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.

I think we need a motion. Is there anyone willing to move the Bill? This is Aguiar-Curry's 1159. Yes. Moved by Senator Hurtado. Secretary please call the roll.

Okay. [Roll Call]

That's six to zero. We'll leave that open for Senator Gonzalez to add on. Let's go to Bauer-Kahan's AB 1042.

AB 1042, The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Agriculture. [Roll Call]

Okay, That's three to two. We'll leave that open for Senator Gonzalez. AB 1059, Friedman.

AB 1059. The motion is do pass, and re-referred to the Committee on Business, Professions, and Economic Development. [Roll Call]

Okay, five to zero. We will leave that open for Senator Gonzalez. AB 1322. Friedman.

AB 1322. The motion is do pass as amended, and re-referred to the Committee on Natural Resources and Water. [Roll Call].

Okay, we can close the roll on item five. That's a four to two with one abstention. Let's go to the next Bill. AB 1305. Gabriel.

AB 1305. The motion is do pass as amended, and re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

All right, That's four two, we'll leave that open for Lena Gonzalez. Schiavo. AB 1423.

AB 1423. The motion is do pass as amended. And re-referred to the Committee on Governance and Finance Senators. [Roll Call]

That's five to zero. We'll leave that open for Lena Gonzalez, Assembly Member Woods, AB 1489. Okay, Senator Gonzalez is not here yet. I think otherwise, we're just waiting for her, so I will give her a call. Thank you so much, Mr. Vice Chair. Appreciate it.

All right, let's lift the calls. Let's start with the consent calendar.

Consent Calendar. [Roll Call]

Let's close that. Seven zero. Aguiar-Curry. 1159.

AB 1159. Motion is due, passed as amended, and re-referred to the Committee on Natural Resources and Water. [Roll Call]

Seven zero. Let's close the roll on that. Bauer-Kahan. AB 1042.

AB 1042. The motion is due. Pass and re-referred to the Committee on Agriculture. [Roll Call]

That's four two, that's out. Let's now go to the next item. That's Friedman's. AB 1059.

AB 1059. The motion is do pass and re-referred to the Committee on Business, Professions, and Economic Development. [Roll Call].

Alright, that is six to zero with one abstention, that's out. Friedman's, AB 1322.

AB 1322. The motion is due pass as amended and re-referred to the Committee on Natural Resources and Water.

Yeah, that one's done. I'm sorry. Okay, apologies. Gabriel's 1305.

AB 1305. Do pass as amended and re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

All right, That's out. That is a five to two vote. All right, now we'll go to appeal our Schiavo's AB 1423.

AB 1423. The motion is due pass as amended and re referred to the Committee on Governance and Finance. [Roll Call]

That is now a six to zero with one abstention. Finally, AB 1489. Wood.

AB 1489. Motion is do pass and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]. Seven zero, out.

That's seven zero. Okay, thank you. We'll adjourn the meeting. We'll be back for more EQ fun next week. It's going to be a morning hearing at 930, as opposed to 9930 the day after 4 July. Thank you.