Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

You we're going to bring in shortly, and we're obviously asking for Members to make their way down. We do have a really busy schedule today, so I just want to take care of a little business before we start. We do continue to welcome the public in person and via the teleconference service, us. And for individuals wishing to provide public comment, today's participant number is 877-226-8163. The access code is 936-6021. Where have you been? So we've got 13 bills on today's agenda.

One important thing to mention, file item 12, this is AB 1347 on the agenda will not be heard today. We've got four bills on the consent calendar. That's item four AB 585 Item seven AB 1594. Item nine, AB 9014, and item 14, which is AB 1548. And those will be on the consent calendar. So we'll start this hearing as a Subcommittee, and now I think we're waiting for authors. Is that righteous? One other piece of business, file item three, AB 347. I think it's AB 363.

That will be presented by Aguiar-Curry. Well, yeah, there's I'll mention the call in number one more time for folks. The call in number is 877-226-8163. That's 877-226-8163. Access code is 936-6021. We do have a really intense schedule, and so we're going to have to move quickly. Come back. Okay, I see Assembly we're holding here. Thank you so much. He's going to present item one, that's AB 43. He's got two items on the agenda. So items 1 and 2, AB 43 and AB 249.

You may proceed when ready. Thank you so much. You can come up here to the there you go. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee, I appreciate your taking up my Bill this morning. AB 43. 1st, I'd like to state I accept the Committee's amendments, and I thank the chair and his staff for working with my office and with the sponsors. AB 43 is a Bill that would authorize the California Air Resources Board to establish an embodied carbon trading system as defined, and would make it applicable to building materials, material providers, and developers.

Last year, this Committee supported my Bill, AB 2446, which requires CARB to develop a framework for measuring and reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with new building construction. A segment of that Bill dealt with CARB establishing a carbon trading system to allow the industry time to ramp up its efforts to meet our climate goals. However, due to insufficient time, I amended that portion out of the Bill. AB 2446 was signed by Governor Newsom.

Currently, CARB is providing technical assistance on AB 43 to ensure that it aligns with the timeline and goals of AB 2446. I will continue to work with CBIA engineers, architects and contractors to address any concerns should the Bill move forward. This Bill would allow the State Board to integrate the embodied carbon trading system into the Low carbon building standard framework on or before December 31, 2026. And to implement the system on and after January 1 of 2029.

The Bill also incorporates revisions to AB 2446, including removing the interim target of 20% by 2030, ensuring there is public input through a rulemaking process prior to adopting any regulations, updating some definitions and other provisions to give more flexibility to the Board to implement the program. With me to testify in support is Mary Solecki, partner with AJW, Inc. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Hi there. You may proceed.

Good morning. I'm Mary Solecki with AJW. I worked with Sam Ruben at Mighty Buildings and Assemblymember Holden on Dispill's Precursor AB 2446 from last year. We are now co sponsoring AB 43 because we want to improve the implementation of AB 2446, which was passed into law, and make the program as robust as possible.

Big picture what we're trying to accomplish with last year's AB 2446 and this Bill is to create a first in the nation program where the embodied carbon of our buildings is first measured and then reduced in accordance with our climate goals. For those unfamiliar, embodied carbon is the energy and emissions it requires to create a building. The manufacturing of our construction materials comprises 40% of a building's total carbon footprint. There are no ways to fix this retroactively. We can only help create better buildings.

From the start, AB 2446 tasks CARB to create a program that will measure and reduce the embodied emissions of our buildings. But it did lack some key tools that CARB might need along the way. The most important of these is a credit trading system. A credit trading system will allow entities to have more flexible compliance. Rather than making each development project perfectly match the benchmark, they will be able to trade credits where there is overcompliance and undercompliance.

And by having a means of monetizing credits, there will be an incentive to overcomply, which in this case, means to build the best possible building. I would like to thank the Committee staff for a lot of work and conversation on this Bill over many months, actually. So we look forward to the amendments that the Committee staff have proposed today.

And we continue to work in conversation, as the Bill author has acknowledged, with the building industry and the contractors and engineers to hammer out some of the detailed language around some additional clauses within the Bill. So thank you. Thank you for your support.

Appreciate it. Let's hear from anyone else who wants to weigh in. In support.

Is here on behalf of Stop Waste and Support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Nick Cameron, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. Just to say that we're working with the author. We're not yet in a position of support or opposition, but thank you for working with us, Mr. Holden. Great. Thank you. So other folks who want to voice opposition to the Bill.

Mr. Chair, Members. Scott Govenar, on behalf of the Construction Employers Association, Our Members are the largest union signatory building contractors in the state specific to the amendment. Certainly, we appreciate defining what an entity means, but liability is a tremendous issue. And this Bill kind of hearkens back to the defect fights of old, which I think predate all of you. And the issue is, will the developer put in their contract with a contractor if they are liable for penalties from the state?

Will they automatically, by contract, impose those penalties on the contractor or require the contractor to defend them at a court action? This is a regulatory matter, not a civil action. What we're saying is the language should be clear. The developer is the one who's liable for the penalties. If, after the fact, they elect to sue a contractor for breach, have at it. But you can't put in your contract with us that we're automatically required to defend you. It didn't work in the defect statutes.

It won't work here. So, again, what we're asking for is a clear language saying they're responsible, and then they can, after the fact, come after us for breach. If they allege that we put in the wrong products. With that change, we'd go neutral on the Bill. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies. We align our comments with those of Mr. Govenar. We appreciate the acceptance of four A and the amendments. Still working with Mr. Holden on the specific language in B that would hopefully remove our opposition. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Members, Bret Barrow with the United Contractors, the California Legislative Conference of the Plumbing Heating, Piping Industry, and the National Electrical Contractors Association also mirroring the comments of the prior opposition. We remain opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Other folks who want to voice concern opposition. Let's go to the phone lines.

If anyone wants to weigh in one way or another on AB 43, and if you wish to speak in support or opposition, please press one, then zero at this time. Mr. Chair, we'll start with line 30. Please go ahead.

Gabrielle Pascal is Sierra Club California, calling in strong support of AB 43. Thank you.

Okay, let's bring the item to the Committee for questions, thoughts, comments. We also don't have a quorum that I guess I'll just ask you, Mr. Author Mr. Sullivan, sir author, could you give us your sense of the current State of conversation with CBIA?

And Mr. Chair, we have no one else queuing up at this time to speak.

Sure. I think that my opening statement was designed to lay the predicate that we are recognizing. This is a big piece of what was a part of the Bill last year. And by taking it out, it gave us more opportunity to focus on some of the implementation elements. Moving forward. We're continuing to work with each of the different categories of individuals and organizations, architects, contractors, to address their particular issues.

We will come to a conclusion on that, and I hope that we'll have a resolution I believe that we can, and that those amendments we would take in appropriations. It'll give us the summer to sit down with everyone and try to work through the remaining concerns that have been expressed.

Thanks, Mr. Holden. Yes, we've got some amendments that we're putting in today with the Bill Language that at least start down this path to show intent to try to resolve this issue. We acknowledge that it's not 100% there yet. So, as Mr. Holden said, we look forward to continuing the conversation with the contractors and construction folks.

Great. Okay. All right. If you like to close, but we'll entertain a motion for your Bill when we have a quorum.

When you have a quorum, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Okay, thank you so much. Let's let you go on to item two. This is AB 249, and you may proceed when ready. Okay.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you and Members of the Committee for the Opportunity to present today Assembly Bill 249. Lead is a dangerous toxin. There is no safe amount of lead in a child's drinking water. Even low levels of exposure can cause learning and behavioral problems for children and damage their organs and nervous system. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as much as 20% of lead a child takes in comes from drinking water.

In 2018, I authored a Bill, Assembly Bill 23 70, that tasked the Department of Social Services, in consultation with the State Water Board, with developing regulations for the regular testing of lead in the drinking water of child daycare centers. Through those regulations, the lead testing standard for childcare centers is set at a five parts per billion.

AB 249 builds on that important work by requiring schools and community water systems to collaborate on comprehensive sampling plans to test for lead and drink and water and food preparation outlets using a five parts per billion threshold, a standard used in many other states, including Maryland, Montana, and Washington. Faucets and outlets that test higher than the lead threshold are required to shut down and either replace or properly filtered. Because transparency is an important part of this process.

Schools must notify parents if outlets at their child's school tests above the lead threshold and the state water borders required to make all lead testing results publicly available by posting them on its website. From the lead and water data currently available through the limited testing conducted to comply with AB 746, we know that nearly one in five California schools have water outlets that are emitting lead amounts higher than five parts per billion.

Unfortunately, that testing rounded only required testing of one to five water outlets at each school. What's worse, some school districts were able to keep their lead-leaching faucets operational by flushing, a technique whereby a Faucet is left to run for 30 seconds and then restarted or re-tested.

A 2020 study by the Center for Disease Control on the implementation of AB 746 estimated that an action level of five parts per billion would have resulted in a ninefold increase in the amount of schools required to remediate their drinking water. From that data we have, we know there are many faucets leaching lead at schools our children are attending. And many of these schools are concentrated in low-income areas predominantly attended by students of color.

Testing data from childcare centers released earlier this year showed that over one in four exceeded the five parts per billion action level and were required to remediate those water outlets. Outcomes like this show just how important lead testing policies are. Testifying in support of AB 249 is Dr. Patel, a Professor of pediatrics at Stanford University, and Nora Lynn with Children Now. I respectfully ask for your aye vote when you have your forum.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. My name is Nora Lynn and I'm with Children Now, a statewide policy, research, and advocacy organization. We are proud to co sponsor AB 249, along with Environmental Working Group. This Bill implements a comprehensive water testing and lead remediation approach for the state's Title One Schools building on AB 2370 by Mr. Holden and AB 746 by Ms. Gonzalez. In addition to being a children's health issue, lead exposure is an environmental justice issue.

A USEPA analysis found that communities of color and Low income neighborhoods are at disproportionate risk for lead exposure in drinking water. Lead poisoning screening rates for children in medical are low. 61% of kids with medical were screened for lead by their second birthday, with only 45% of black kids being screened. This means too many kids may be falling through prevention safety nets. Many of California students of color are also in disproportionately. Older, more financially insecure schools, educators and school employees are also at risk.

Lead exposure in adults is linked with an increase in mortality of 37% for all causes, 70% for cardiovascular, and 108 for heart disease. We know that one size fits all doesn't work for our schools. The flexible remediation approach allows for both Faucet replacement and or filter installation based on the school's needs and capacity. Data from the Department of Social Services from AB 2370 indicates that in 95% of cases, replacing the faucet itself remediates lead exceedances to below five parts per billion.

This means the Bill is not requiring schools to rip up their walls to fix lead issues. The problems can either be fixed at the faucet or with a filter. We have been and are continuing to meet with state and federal EPA, education, environmental justice, and children's health stakeholders. This Bill leverages federal funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to ensure the financial burden does not fall on schools. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Anisha Patel. I'm a Professor and pediatrician at Stanford. I have over 15 years of experience conducting research on drinking water in schools. Scientists agree that there is no safe level of lead that children can consume. Even Low levels of lead can cause lifelong behavior development and learning problems that increase health care and societal costs. Lead is most toxic to children because their bodies and brains are developing rapidly.

And when children drink water that contains lead, about half of that lead is absorbed. 20% of lead exposure comes from drinking water. Prevention is key in reducing lead exposure. Schools are critical for prevention since children spend substantial time there. Based on our own studies of California school drinking water, 16% to 18% of schools had at least one tap that exceeded the five part pavilion standard, and five to 7% of all tested taps were high.

We know that concerns about water safety also prevent many children from drinking any water at school. Instead, they are likely to consume sodas and sugary beverages. This can lead to additional health problems such as diabetes, heart disease, and dental caries. In summary, I ask you to please pass this Bill, which will help ensure that children have access to safe drinking water at school. Provides a simple, cost-effective investment to protect California's most at-risk children to promote their health and learning. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, anyone else who wants to weigh in support of the Bill?

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Randy Pollack on behalf of the Water Quality Association. And if this Bill passes Committee, we'd just like to suggest some amendments that all these products be certified by a third party and that the standards would meet the NSF ANSI standards. With that, we support this Bill. Thank you.

Rebecca Marcus, representing CALPIRG, in support.

Thank you. Susan Little with Environmental Working Group, one of the other co-sponsors. Thank you.

Jessica Moran with the California Dental Association. Thank you.

Liv Butler, Californians Against Waste in support.

Good morning. Cassie Mancini, on behalf of the California School Employees Association. Laura Deehan Environment, California in support.

Abraham Mendoza, on behalf of the Community Water Center, in support. Okay, folks, who want to raise concerns about the Bill or opposition.

Good morning. My name is Danielle Blasted Hayden with the California Municipal Utilities Association, and we are respectfully opposed to AB 249. Our Members highest priority is delivering a safe and reliable water supply to their customers. For decades, our Members have worked to remove lead pipes from their systems and take other actions to protect public health. I want to be clear.

We agree with the author's intent to ensure that children are protected from exposure to lead and drinking water and appreciate all the work that he and his staff have done to address our concerns. We are not fundamentally concerned with the concept in AB 249, meaning testing schools for lead and drinking water sources. AB 746 has been talked about a little bit.

Between 2017 and 2019, Water Systems completed a large scale school testing program, and based on AB 746 and permit amendments issued to each water system, the testing measured a sample of outlets down to five parts per billion, the action level now included in AB 249. So the state and Water Systems have a good amount of information about which schools are in most need of lead remediation.

But more importantly, the federal government will soon require lead testing in schools through the Lead and Copper Rule revisions and the Lead and Copper Rule improvements. Already in the LCRR, there are robust testing requirements for all water systems that will achieve the same outcomes as AB 249. We are concerned that should this Bill pass, there will be two different testing regimes that must be complied with at the same time without any additional public health protection. It is unclear how water systems would reconcile the differences.

We appreciate the Legislature allocating funds for the provision in the Bill, but the amount will fall far short of the costs that will be incurred by water systems in schools. To better utilize the limited funds, we believe that the Bill should focus on the existing test results from AB to 746 to start replacing faucets and other outlets as soon as possible. We share the author's goal of protecting children from lead exposure, but AB 249 is the wrong approach. We respectfully urge your no vote.

Thank you.

Thank you and good morning. Cindy Tuck with the Association of California Water Agencies. We agree that testing for lead and drinking water at schools is very important, but we do have an opposed, unless amended, position on this Bill, and I'll explain why. We did work back in 2017 on AB 746. That was the Bill that required testing in schools as was referenced. That data is publicly available now and could be used for further work.

But our concern is that the Biden Administration as we speak, is working on making the federal rule more stringent. So the new rule will be called the Lead and Copper Rule improvements that will be finalized in October of 2024. And the way AB 249 is proposed, this Bill and the federal new rule would have overlapping compliance schedules, so our Members could be working on testing for two programs at the same time. We don't think that makes sense.

Awkward has offered amendments, and what we would suggest is take the existing Bill, take what's in there out, and put in a requirement that when the federal rule is final in 2024, that the State Water Board review that rule and report to the Legislature very quickly. So it'd be within three months, and say to the Legislature, either the federal rule is good, or here's what we would add to make this program work as one program in California. So those are our suggested amendments but with the Bill in the current form, we urge a no vote. Thank you.

Other folks who want to raise concerns.

Good morning Mr. Chair, Members, Dorothy Johnson, with the Association of California School Administrators. We do have opposed unless amended position, summarize those amendment requests by again securing additional funding to test all of the schools that fall under the current parameters for Title I, or narrow the scope and then also provide guidance should unfortunately, if the tests come back and still exceed five parts per billion after replacing faucets and installing filters. Other Mediation Methods. If those don't work, we need to know what to do next and again, have the resources to do so. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Ian Padilla with the Coalition for Adequate School Housing. We don't have an official position on the Bill, but we've been working with the author and the sponsors, other stakeholders, from the beginning based on concerns about cost and implementation issues, some of the issues that my colleague mentioned. But we appreciate being in this conversation and we'll continue to work as we go forward. Thank you. Thank you.

Elizabeth Escovel with the California Association of School Business Officials, also with opposed, unless amended, position. We do appreciate the conversations we're having with the author's office and we want to align our comments with the lack of funding with this and also want to appreciate although the intent is to narrow the scope of the Bill for Title One schools, we do see that as it being inequity when it comes to the school sites within a school district. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association respectfully opposed and aligned my comments with CMUA. Also want to thank the author for working with us. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Let's go to the phone lines. Folks who want to weigh in on AB 2491 way or another.

To voice your opposition or support for AB 249, please press one followed by zero. Mr. Chair, our first line will be 26, please. Go ahead.

Good morning. Linda Way with Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Thank you. Next line is 38. Go ahead, please. My name is David Ramos. Cleaners for Kids intern. Strongly support. Our next line is 36. Go ahead, please.

John Borf with CleanarsforKids.org. Strongly support. Line is 29. Go ahead, please.

Good morning. Jim Lindbergh on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California in strong support. Thank you. Next line is nine. Go ahead, please.

Abigail Mile on behalf of the Breast Cancer Partners in support. Our next line is 30. Go ahead, please.

California in strong support.

Our next line is 35. Go ahead, please.

Hello, Lucia Manios calling on behalf of California Environmental Voters in strong support.

Our next line is 45. Go ahead, please.

Hello, Lendri Purcell with Facts Families Advocating for chemical and toxic safety. Strong support.

Our next line is 42. Go ahead. Please.

My name is Noemi Chico, Greenfield Safe. AG safe school member. I support AB 652 and our next line is 37. Go ahead, please. I can't remember my number. 37. Your line is open.

Suzanne Hume cleanersforkids.org strongly support you.

It, and our next line is 15. Go ahead, please. 15. Your line is open. And.

All right, let's bring an item back to the Committee for questions and thoughts. Senator Menjivar. And then we'll go to Vice Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Go ahead. Of course, you always my question was, Mr. Chair, if we could bring up the opposition I believe it was the yes. Sorry, ma'am, I didn't get your name. Quick question for you. You mentioned should this Bill pass, schools potentially would have to test know we're seeing that the LCR currently authorizes states to issue waivers. If that state is already requiring testing, it's safe to assume that perhaps they'll issue those waivers. They'll continue to issue those waivers. Can you just respond to that?

My understanding and CMUA can speak to this I believe they offered a suggested amendment that if there's a waiver, then the Bill would go into effect. But if California isn't granted a waiver, it would go into effect. And I believe those amendments were not accepted, at least by the sponsors, maybe the author. So that raises the question. I think there's no certainty on the waiver as far as we're so that's that's the issue.

OK. Could I get a little bit more background? Maybe I missed that part. Maybe. Assembly Member.

Well, I'm asking your sponsor.

Susan thank you. If I could clarify the process. I'm Susan Little with the Environmental Working Group. And if I could respond to your question Assembly Member I'm sorry, Senator. The LCR well, the LCRI, that the Lead and Copper Rule improvements the Biden Administration is planning to roll out will be proposed final rules, not yet final, in October of 2024. So there will still be a public comment period after that before they are finalized. And usually those public comment periods are six months to a year long.

Once that then that final rule goes into effect in 2025 sometime or the end of 2025 beginning 2026, then it's our understanding that the Water Board will actually have to issue regulations to inform water utilities how to implement the LCRI, including the school testing provision, at which point the Water Board is allowed to issue waivers to water systems in situations where water testing has already happened at schools. But that would be in play, and that would be subject to the waterboard regulation process.

It's not something that we wouldn't be submitting a waiver. My understanding is, at least the way the Lead and Copper Rule revisions are currently written, it states explicitly the states are allowed to issue waivers through their rulemaking process. So it would be us to do it. California. Great. Thank you.

I'd like to clarify one point if possible. Thank you very much. Our understanding is that the new federal rule will be a final rule by October of 2024. A final rule? October 2024. And I believe that's reflected in the analysis.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Senator Dahle.

Thank you. Good to see you. Assembly Member. So just a couple of observations. One, in sub two, so there was a Bill a couple of years earlier to authorized $5 million to allow schools to put in water dispensers that refill their water bottles. And this year we talked about that and it wasn't actually used. So we took the money out of the budget for this year because schools didn't take advantage of the $5 million.

So as I know that your focus on trying to get the lead out is because of very disadvantaged communities, which I have all throughout my district, very small, rural, very old structures and trying to determine where the lead is coming from and get it out. So one of my concerns is that the process is really what we're after here is to try to try to get the lead out. Number one, is the water provider responsible or is the school responsible for where the lead comes from? Because it sometimes can come not just from the faucet in the school, but from maybe the water provider. So could you kind of talk about how that looks?

Well, I think certainly the goal is to test and to make sure that in testing we're getting a clear understanding of whether or not there is lead leaching into the drinking water that these young people are exposed to or in preparation of food and things of that nature. And so the testing element is where we get a clear idea of how to strategically now direct resources. On Assembly Bill 746, the threshold was at 15 parts per billion.

And so that's a higher threshold and not testing every particular outlet. What we're trying to do is be a little bit more robust in our identifying the problem by lowering the standard to five parts per billion and then being able to have water districts test all facilities, all water outlets, faucets, drinking fountains. And if it shows that it exceeds the five parts per billion, then those water fountains have to be shut down. We're trying to provide concurrently with that resources.

Now I can't speak to why monies weren't drawn down previously to make available because once you find that there's lead leaching above the standard, then you shut down the fountain and then you provide potable drinking water for the students until the equipment is replaced. That's my understanding. I can turn to my witnesses to elaborate on it. And as it relates to $5 million in the budget and why that was not drawn up makes no sense.

So the hard part is when you go out to your districts and you talk to them about the issues that they're faced with regulatory side. It's actually trying to get it done and actually fixing the issue that we have with the federal regs coming out and this Bill, do you see work between now and then to bring that gap together so that there is one unified voice so that the districts actually know?

One of the things that I supported the I think it was an Eggman Bill that authorized the $5 million because I was excited to be able to have the ability to refill their water bottles and have a purified water. But when you talk to the districts themselves, they don't have a grant writer. They don't have people to do the work that's available to the grants. In this case, it will be mandated that they have after the testing, they have to do something.

So I'm just trying to get a grasp of how to actually administrators and the people who run our schools get these projects done and actually meet the goals that we have and ability to be able to afford to do it at the same time.

I want to ask my sponsors if they'd like to weigh in on it, but we're being very clear about the water agencies going in and doing the testing. We're doing our best to make monies available. There also is a shared responsibility. If you don't have I mean, I'm just going to speak to the grant writer part of what you shared.

If I'm an administrator and now I've been told that I have lead that's leaching into my water where my kids are drinking, that goes above a safety standard and there's money available, I'm going to try to figure out how to get it.

I'm going to try to figure out how to bring on staff, whoever I need to bring on, even if it's a temporary, just to help put together whatever we need to put together to get access to the resource so I can get that lead out of my drinking water so my kids are safe. That's how I would look at it. If I was an administrator. I wouldn't make excuses. I don't have anybody to write a proposal. I would figure it out.

Let me jump in. Just establish a quorum, because I know that one of our Members has to come and go a bit. So secretary, please call the roll.

Senators, Allen aye. Here. Here. Alan. Here. Dahle. Tip my hat. Dahle. Here. Gonzalez. Gonzalez here. Hurtado? Menjivar. Menjivar. Here. Nguyen thank you. Caroline Skinner.

Okay. All right. We have a quorum. Great. May proceed.

I would just, of course, second what the Assembly Member was saying, that it's certainly the school's responsibility to make sure that they're providing safe water for children. And if they find out because there is testing required and they have to meet this level, that that is a requirement that they have to comply with, and then, of course, we expect them to seek out those funds to do so.

We have found that when funding is just sitting there and there's no requirement that the systems do any or the folks do anything about the problem, that the funding oftentimes isn't taken advantage of, as you found in that case.

And then to answer the second question about the federal and the state law coming together, at some point, you're going to work on that in appropriations. Is that what I heard you say?

Well, in terms of it coming together, I think the analysis does the staff analysis sort of lays out the time frames and that this action puts us in a position to move more expeditiously to addressing the issue before us. You talk about bureaucracy.

If we're waiting on the federal government to put something in place, and then there's still an extended process once it gets here for us to then put through when this Bill could be moving forward and then putting in motion a solution that will work right now, I think that's the path that is preferred. Does that mean we stop having conversations? No, it does not.

Yeah, I think the appropriations conversation can be important. It's an important Bill, very expensive, potentially, and the question is all the cost benefits. But I'm certainly happy to support the Bill and want to see how that discussion continues to go. So with that, we'll entertain a motion moved by Senator Gonzalez, and we'll let you close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, normally it's easy to just know I respectfully ask for your aye vote, but I must say that we can't put too much else in front of the responsibility of protecting our young people, our kids, in a learning environment. Are you kidding me? This is where they're supposed to go and be safe. This is where they're supposed to go and learn. And now they're being exposed to lead that's impairing their ability to learn.

At what point does that not become the most important thing to fund and address? To me, it's simple. To me, it's about you want to make sure that our young people are accelerating and learning at that early stage of life where their brain is functioning at the highest part that it can be. To be able to absorb the information that they need so they can move on and have a productive life and to be able to be on par for college.

And they're getting derailed because they're thirsty on the playground. They take a drink of water, and now all of a sudden, they've got stuff happening in their body that they're not even aware of, but it's going to be with them the rest of their life. Is it their fault? No, it's not. Is us falling back on excuses that the system doesn't work? That doesn't work either, because this is happening right now, and it's happened for a very long time.

And then we wonder why kids are not learning, why they're getting falling into the achievement gap, why they're now getting distracted and maybe on a path that they should not be on. And now we're funding for that. How do we manage them now in their life? Well, it starts now. We're at the beginning. Part of maybe getting a better understanding, a glimpse into what we can do to make sure we're minimizing, if not eliminating completely lead and drinking waters have direct exposure to our young people. Now I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Thank you. Secretary.

Please call around AB 249. The motion is due. Pass and re-refer to the Committee on Education. Senators Allen aye. Allen. aye. Dahle. Aye Dahle. aye. Gonzalez. Gonzalez aye. Hurtado. Menjivar. Nguyen. Skinner.

All right, thank you. We'll leave that open for other folks to add on. We'll deal with her. All right, let's now hear from Assembly Member. That's right. Aguiar-Curry is dressed up like Bauer-Khan today. Yeah. So she's actually presenting item three. I apologize. So so why don't you come forward, Speaker Pro TEM, right? Is that right? Okay, all these titles. Why don't you present AB 363?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. Today I'm presenting AB 363 on behalf of Assembly Member the Assembly Member from Orinda, a Bill that continues her efforts to save bees. The author would like to thank you and your Committee staff for your work on this Bill, and she will accept the Committee amendments. Today's. Devastating pollinator loss is primarily caused by pesticides, specifically a class known as neonics. Loss of pollinators endanger upwards of 11 billion annually in state agricultural production, driving up food costs.

As financial environmental factors strain the production and consumption of food in the State of California, protecting our ecosystem is critical. Last year, my colleague from Orinda ran AB 2146 to limit the use of neonics in nonagricultural settings for turf and ornamental plant applications. Unfortunately, the Governor vetoed the Bill directing the Department to evaluate and regulate these uses of neonics.

AB 363 simply ensures this evaluation happens in a timely manner by requiring the Department of Pesticide Regulation to complete their evaluation and finalize control measures for the use of neonic pesticides on turf and ornamental plants in non agricultural settings. Neonics have alternatives which are much less harmful to the environment and human health. Other countries and states have already recognized the risks neonics pose. They are already banned in the European Union for nearly all uses in the US.

New Jersey and Maine have banned their non-agricultural use. This Bill simply asked DPR to use the latest science to reevaluate neonics in non-agricultural settings and adopt control measures to protect pollinating insects, aquatic ecosystems, and human health. With me today. In support are Laura Deehan from the Director of Environmental California and Darryl Little, legislative advocate with the Natural Resources Defense Council. I respectfully ask for your vote.

Hi there.

Hello. Laura Deehan, State Director for Environment California. Thank you so much to Allen and Committee Members. We are really excited to co-sponsor AB 363 to really extend greater protections to the little creatures that really help to support our whole web of life. Bees play a critical role in our natural world. Pollinating the flowering plants that make up much of the food that we eat. However, since the widespread adoption of neonicotinoids or neonics, bee populations have been in really steep decline.

In fact, just some recent numbers that came out that were published in the last couple of weeks showed that this past winter may have been one of the worst winters on record, with nearly 50% of colony bee colonies lost, and now one in four native bee species is at risk of extinction. An outpouring of scientific evidence identifies neonics as a lead cause of the bee die offs.

And we've seen a similar connection between neonic exposure and harm to butterflies, like the western monarch butterfly that used to number in the millions on the West Coast and has now dropped to just a fraction of that. Recent scientific studies also show neonics harm birds, and today our skies have 30% fewer birds than in the 1970s. But while these products are on the shelves, consumers gardeners are unwittingly turning their gardens that might be pollinator havens into bee traps, death traps.

So by passing AB 363, the California Legislature can ensure that the Department of Pesticide Regulation acts swiftly and effectively to provide a lifeline to pollinators and in turn, protect life for all of us who call Earth home. So we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Good afternoon, Chair Allen and Members. I'm Darryl Little on behalf of NRDC. Proud co-sponsor of AB 363. In relation to human impacts, neonics are neurotoxins that pose risk to human health, especially to developing nervous system of fetuses and young children. Recent research found that of 171 pregnant women tested in California and four other states, over 95% had neonics in their bodies.

This is especially concerning giving other research showing that neonics pass from mother to fetus and that neonics are linked with malformations of the developing heart and brain. In addition, neonics are a lead driver of bee and broader pollination declines that threaten production of pollinator-dependent crops and the functioning of ecosystems. Researchers estimate that pollinator declines are already causing a three to 5% drop in production of healthy fruits, vegetables, and nuts worldwide.

DPR's recently completed reevaluation of agricultural uses of neonics took 14 years to complete and failed to assess harms of lawn and garden neonic uses. AB 363 ensures that DPR's reevaluation for nonagricultural uses of neonics is both timely and thorough. These non-agricultural products are often approved at far higher rates than those in agriculture, meaning they intensely contaminate urban and suburban areas where many Californias live, work, and play.

If California is to protect its children and ecosystems from these neurotoxins, it must act quickly to rein in the most harmful and unnecessary uses. We urge the Committee to begin that process today by advancing this Bill. Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much. Other folks who want to wait in support Mr. Chair and Members Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates, representing the California Association of Professional Scientists. In support thanks.

Thank you.

Asha Sharma, on behalf of Pesticide Action Network in support.

Heidi Sanborn, on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council. My mother, who absolutely loved monarch butterflies in support.

Abigail Mile, on behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in support.

Jane Sellen, co-Director of the Statewide Coalition Californians for Pesticide Reform in support.

Lupita Sanchez, Good Cause, in support.

All right, let's hear anyone who wants to raise concerns about the Bill opposition. Hi, there.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Members Taylor Roschen, on behalf of Agricultural and Input Providers who also love bees and butterflies. We appreciate the Committee amendments, and they do a lot to help. But unfortunately, we still have a respectful opposingly submitted position on the Bill. As it's currently drafted, the Bill has three parts. It requires the Department to make a determination whether or not reevaluation is necessary. It requires the Department to conduct a reevaluation, and then it requires the Department to promulgate regulations or control measures.

The concern we have is the lack of connective tissue between those three steps. As an example, under the current drafting of the Bill, the department's required to make a determination if reevaluation is necessary and if they determine that it's not necessary. By their own decision-making, the Bill still requires DPR to do re-evaluation anyway, even without a scientific justification to do so. Rather, we would suggest that language be added to the Bill to codify this as an if than sequential process.

Even with the amendments, DPR would determine if reevaluation is necessary, and they can consider all the data points brought forward by the proponents. If re evaluation is necessary, they would then complete one in the appropriate time, and if it finds that control measures are necessary, they would be implemented.

This more closely aligns the Bill with the standard operating procedure and the Department science based procedures, making any rulemaking the Department would promulgate legally defensible while still obtaining the Department obligating the Department to move in a timely manner that includes accountability. We've been working with the author's staff on the Bill, and we'll continue to do so. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, anyone else who wants to weigh in opposition or raise concerns?

Good morning, Chair, Members. Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. We remain opposing unless amended. We do appreciate the goal, but just want to align my comments with my colleague before me. Thank you.

Dennis Albiani, on behalf of the California Seed Association. Again opposed unless amended.

Thank you.

Good morning. Brenda Bass, California Chamber of Commerce. Respectfully opposed unless amended. Align our comments with Ms. Roschen's.

Hi. Karen Stout, on behalf of the California State Beekeepers Association. We are also in respectful opposition and echo the lead opposition concerns. We hope that they take the amendments.

All right, let's go to the phone lines. Folks who want to weigh in one way or another on AB 363.

And if you wish to speak in support or opposition of AB 363, please press one, then zero. At this time. We'll start with line 36. Please go ahead.

Kim Lindbergh for the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support line number 50, please go ahead.

Gabriel Lafazio with Sierra the Club California in strong support.

Line 51, please go ahead.

David Ramos, Clean Earth for Kids strongly Support.

Line 37. Please go ahead. Line 37, please go ahead. Okay, we'll move on to line 47. Please go ahead. John Botorf with Cleanearthforkids.org Strongly Support Line number 35. Please go ahead.

Hello, Lucia Manuel, calling on behalf of California environmental voters in support.

Line number 53. Please go ahead. Bill Alio, Environmental Working Group support. Thank you. Line number 46, please go ahead. Okay, move on to line 52. Please go ahead.

This is Carol Weed speaking for three organizations 350, Bay Action, the Democrats of Rossmoor, and Sustainable Rossmoor. All in support.

And we'll go to line 55 please go ahead.

Pursue with families advocating chemical and toxic safety and protect wild Petaluma in strong support.

And just a moment, Mr. Chair. We had somebody else just queue up and.

And we'll go to line 56. Please. Go ahead.

Suzanne Hume Cleaner for Kids strongly Support.

And Mr. Chair, we have no one else in queue wishing to speak at this time.

Okay, let's bring back the Committee. Questions, thoughts, comments moved by Senator Gonzalez. Would you like to close.

I simply asked for an aye vote

I know the author is working on.

Some yeah, the author is. I have a note here. The author hopes to have a conversation with Beekeepers Association, but is proud to have the American Beekeepers Federation in support of AB 363. Thank you very much.

Yeah. Okay, let's call the roll.

AB 363. The motion is due pass as amended and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Allen aye. Dahle no. Gonzalez aye. Hurtado. Menjivar aye. Nguyen. Skinner.

Okay, let's hold that open for other folks to add on. Let's now go for you. Let's go to for item eight. That's AB 863.

Thank you Mr. Chair. And thank you, Mr. Lee. I'll be hopefully quick. I appreciate your patience. Good afternoon. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members, since July 2011, California consumers have paid a carpet stewardship assessment fee when purchasing carpet sold in California. This fee funds a statewide carpet recycling program known as the Carpet America Recovery Effort. In other words, we call it Care, which is a producer responsibility organization designed and implemented by carpet manufacturers with Calrecycle oversight.

We need to reform this program to prevent more carpet in landfills, foster more responsibility, use of consumer fee resources, lessen litigation with the state, and promote more robust recycling infrastructure. Four major processors in California are no longer in operation, in part because we need to improve management of our system. One of those even closed in my district, AB 863 will improve accountability for Care or any other carpet recycling program by increasing civil penalties for violating Revolent laws and making repeat offenders ineligible to run this program.

With me to testify. In support are Heidi Sandboard, Executive Director from the National Stewardship Action Council and Bob Jerome, representing the Northern and Southern California Council of Painters. Welcome. Thank you.

Nice to see Jerome and Sanborn together. That's great. Let's hear from you, Heidi.

Thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member Curry Chair and Members. I'm Heidi Sanborn with the National Stewardship Action Council. We are a nonprofit that advocates for an equitable circular economy and we are proud to sponsor AB 863 to improve California's carpet recycling program using two mechanisms. First, increasing the penalties to levels used for other national and international corporations.

And the second is to ensure that the stewardship organization that has failed three or more times to meet its obligations and the goals of the program becomes ineligible to run the program. Care has repeatedly failed to meet its obligations frequently and consistently submitting inadequate plans, annual reports, and being out of compliance with the program goals. Their failures have required significant oversight and enforcement by Calrecycle caused the Advisory Committee and stakeholders significant resources to monitor.

In fact, we had to develop a graph to keep track of the program failures because I could not remember them anymore. In 2020, 111 years after the original Bill passed establishing the program, care's annual report states that 163,000,000 pounds of carpet is still being landfilled with only 88 million collected. This means that just over half of the available carpet for recycling is even getting collected.

After 11 years of this program, failure to meet the targets for convenient collection is a key problem and they haven't been meeting that for a while. It's causing us to lose our recyclers because they cannot get enough carpet in California. In fact, one of the plants actually not only closed, but they took the equipment that was paid for out of the fee program and the California fee payers paid for to another state. So we just want the program to work.

Californians deserve a program that's easy to use, creates and keeps jobs in California, and recycles most of the carpet. It's made primarily from fossil fuels and has a huge greenhouse gas footprint. So I want to thank Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry and Senator Dodd for their leadership and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. All right. Thanks. Bob.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I'd like to first thank Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry for taking on an issue that isn't always the most beautiful, but it's necessary. We have two issues. I represent the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, district Council 36 in Southern California and District Council 16 in Northern California. One of our many crafts are carpet layers. We have carpet layers and floor layers. We have a training facility in West Sacramento and one in Pleasanton. We have two in Southern California.

Our goal is quality, not quantity. We want more carpet to be able to be recycled. And our belief is that if we have apprentices learning how to apply the epoxy and the glue and the other things that need to be done to lay carpets on the front end, there will be more carpets to be able to be recycled on the back end.

In Pleasanton, at our training facility, over 50% of the carpet that we remove from jobs that are given to our signatory contractors cannot be recycled. And that's because it was not installed correctly. So we're here hoping and we're continuing to work, I understand, with the author and the Administration as this Bill moves through.

We're double referred to judiciary, I understand, to tighten that language, to ensure that revenue stays in California so that we can do more recycling and that we are receiving money into the apprenticeship programs, whether it's us or any other body that has an apprenticeship program to train carpet layers, that they get it on the front end and not the back end. And it's our belief that that will increase the amount of carpet that can be recycled. And that's it. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks very much. Other folks who want to voice their support for the Bill.

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

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members Jason Schmelzer, on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council, in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman Members, Stephanie Morwell here on behalf of Recology, in support.

Priscilla Kudos, here on behalf of Stop Waste and Western Placer Waste Management Authority in support.

Liv Butler, Californians Against Waste, in support.

Abigail Mile on behalf of Rethink Waste, in support.

Thank you. All right, folks who want to raise concerns about the Bill or voice opposition. Hi, there.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Jen Stout. I'm with the Carpet and Rug Institute. We are the trade Association that represents the carpet manufacturers in the United States. About 97% of what you walk on that soft floor covering is made in the United States. It's something we're very proud of. And we have some new leadership at CRI. We have a new President who has a strong background in sustainability.

But with that, we do have some concerns about the legislation as it's currently written. Care has had success in spite of what you've heard. Their annual report for 2022 will show that they met all the goals for the program year. And cCare has ample documentation to show that. Today we're collecting almost 50% of all the carpet that's discarded annually in California. Not all of the carpet that's collected is able to be used.

If it is contaminated by water or any sort of construction debris, it's more difficult to recycle it, even in spite of COVID We had a COVID emergency action plan, and we were able to keep the plan running and still collect. We have spent Care when I say we care has spent millions of dollars educating everyone from the retailers to the installers, the union installers, in fact, with educational materials. And we are opposed to 863 in its current form, but we look forward to working with the author to come up with language that we can agree on.

And if we wish, we can support our opposition of AB 863. Please press one, then zero at this time. And we'll go to line 16. Please go ahead.

Good. All right, anyone else who wants to raise concerns about the Bill? Okay, phone lines. Let's go to the phone lines. AB 863.

Melissa Lovato on behalf of the County of Santa Clara in support.

Line 53, please go ahead. Line 53, your line is open. Hello, Bill Alio Environmental Working Group in support. We'll go to line 43. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning. Eric Nelson on behalf of Aquafil Carpet Recycling, our three facilities in Southern California, and close to 50 employees in strong support of AB 863. Thank you.

And Mr. Chair, we have no one else in queue wishing to speak at this time. Okay, let's bring the item back to the Committee for questions, comments, thoughts.

I know you're going to continue to do some work. I know this has been a really hard area to make progress, and there often are a lot of logistical issues at play. But I appreciate you weighing in on this and trying to make sure that the operations are meeting the goals that we set out when we first created this program. So I'm certainly happy to support the Bill and would entertain a motion. Okay, so it's been moved by Senator Menjivar. You can close if you like

I simply ask for your aye vote. And I appreciate the time with your Committee as well as the opposition and those that support this.

Yeah, and I know you're going to continue to work on some of the operational implementation issues. All right. With that, let's call the roll.

AB 863. The motion is due pass as amended and re referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators. Allen. Aye. Allen. I Dahle. Dahle no. Gonzalez. Gonzalez. I Hurtado Menjivar. Menjivar. I Nguyen Skinner. Okay, thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. And thank you, Assemblymember Lee, for waiting. As Assembly Member Lee makes his way up, let's do the consent calendar moved by Senator Dahle.

Okay. Consent calendar. Senators. Allen aye. Allen aye. Dahle aye. Dahle aye. Gonzalez.

Yes. The amendments have been accepted. File item seven. That's the Garcia Bill.

Gonzalez aye. Hurtado. Menjivar aye. Nguyen aye. Skinner.

Thanks for that question, Senator. They're important amendments change the bills considerably. All right. Thank you, Assemblymember Lee, and we do very much appreciate your patience. Absolutely. Apologies.

Yes. Thank you, Chair and Members. I want to begin by thanking the sponsors and community members who have traveled here today to support this Bill. AB 652 requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation to establish an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee to integrate environmental justice considerations into DPR's programs and policies. This Committee will create a public, accessible, and institutionalized process for people in communities of color and low income communities to meaningfully participate in decision-making processes about pesticide use which disproportionately harms and burdens them.

Scientists have linked pesticide exposure to both acute and chronic human health impacts, including an increased risk of cancer, birth defects, respiratory illness, endocrine disruption, and reproductive harm. And studies show that black, indigenous, and people of color, as well as people living in low income communities, are disproportionately exposed to pesticides. Yet these same people have historically not had, and still don't have, the opportunity to provide meaningful input into the laws and policies regulating pesticides that directly impact them.

While we have made some progress in addressing the needs of environmental justice communities, too often their concerns go unheard and unaddressed. There are few formal processes for DPR to address the real needs of these communities. This Bill takes an important step in rectifying this issue by establishing the EJ Advisory Committee made up of environmental justice leaders, tribal representatives, farm worker representatives, socially disadvantaged farmers, and scientists to make recommendations to DPR concerning the needs of these impacted communities.

The Bill then requires DPR to formally respond as to how they are incorporating the Committee's recommendations into their programs. Ultimately, this Bill will improve the environment and public health of the communities disproportionately burdened by the harms and risks of pesticides through the formal processes created by the Bill. DTSC recently announced the formation of a very similar Environmental Justice Advisory Council, and there has been an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee operating for years at CARB. It is time to institute a similar committee at DPR.

With that, I'd like to introduce my two prime witnesses in support. I have Asha Sharma, organizing Co-Director at the Pesticide Action Network, and Angel Garcia, Co-Director of the Californians for Pesticide Reform.

Thank you, you may proceed.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Asha Sharma and I am the organizing Co-Director at Pesticide Action Network. I thank Assembly Member Lee for his leadership in authoring AB 652, which is a critical first step in ensuring environmental justice at the Department of Pesticide Regulation, or DPR. Given their inherent toxicity, pesticides carry many health risks for communities and children most exposed to them. The data show that pesticide exposure and related health impacts disproportionately impact majority resident of color communities in California.

There are multiple statistics to illustrate this point. For example, a study from the American Journal of Public Health, using Cal EPA data, found that pesticides are one of the top two environmental hazards in California whose distribution was most correlated with race and ethnicity. A BMC Public Health Journal study found that over half of the glyphosate used in California, the fourth most-used pesticide, was applied in the eight lowest income counties, where the majority of residents identified as Latinx.

These higher exposure rates all translate into higher risks of acute poisoning and chronic diseases such as cancers, heart disease, and respiratory disease, to name a few. While these statistics are extremely troubling, of equal concern is a lack of representation that environmental justice communities have in our pesticide policies. There are only limited ad hoc ways community members can currently voice their concerns

Establishing an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee would give communities a way to advocate for their concerns and provide recommendations on what they need to be protected from pesticides. Creating a formal, consistent and public process is absolutely necessary to ensure accountability at DPR to the communities that bear the brunt of the harmful impacts of pesticides. Thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee. I urge your support on AB 652, and I will pass the testimony on to my colleague, Angel Garcia.

Thank you, Asha. Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Angel Garcia. I am Co-Director with Californians for Pesticide Reform. But today I'm going to be reading for someone who's supposed to be here. A great leader from the community of Greenfield, Yanely Martinez who is also a colleague of mine and then lead organizer with Safe Ag Safe Schools. She writes, "My name is Yanely Martinez and I'm a Greenfield City Council Member and the leading organizer of the Monterey Bay's Coalition Safe Ag Safe Schools.

More importantly, I'm here today as a mother of four, the mother of Victor whose health was affected by pesticide exposure near his school, causing him to suffer a severe asthma attack. I'm lucky to have my son with me today, but many other parents haven't been as lucky. I'm also here today in memory of a little girl named Sophia whose life was tragically cut short by a rare cancer at the age of three.

I'm here today as a voice advocating for protection from pesticides in communities of color. Like my hometown of Greenfield, the heart of the valley, the salad bowl of the world. The Salinas Valley is also the place where CHAMACOS research by UC Berkeley scientists have revealed through more than 100 published studies that when pregnant women are exposed to pesticides, their children are more likely to suffer from brain and lung harm, including ADHD, IQ loss, and asthma. And yet we see continued cruel pattern.

Farm workers warn us that they and their children are harmed by pesticides. Then scientists confirmed that farm workers were right. Then, many years later, sometimes decades, sometimes never, the state finally restricts pesticide use. It is also hard to have our voices heard. The previous Monterey County Air Commissioner's Office refused to meet with my group for two and a half years and the last DPR environmental justice workshop in Monterey Bay region was in 2019.

If you wouldn't mind just wrapping it up.

Sure. Thank you. So with that, thank you, Chair and Committee Members, we strongly urge that you support this Bill.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Other folks want to weigh in support and voice their support for the Bill?

Raquel Mason, on behalf of the California Environmental Justice Alliance, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Come on up.

Darryl Little, on behalf of NRDC, in support, thank you.

Rebecca Marcus, representing CalPERS Carbon Cycle Institute, the California Climate and Agriculture Network, and the California Certified Organic Farmers in support. Thank you.

Beth Smoker with the California Food and Farming Network and also the Community Alliance with Family Farms.

Jane Sellen with Californians for Pesticide reform in strong support. And we're a co sponsor.

Katie Valenzuela, with the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition in support. Thank you.

Hola, mi nombre es Asusena Jimenez. Soy trabajadora agricola del campo, miembra voluntaria de la Coalicion CAPS. Vengo por mi familia, mi vecinos, y compañeros y yo para apoyar projecto de le seiscientos cincuenta y dos. Gracias.

So quick translation of that is "hello, my name is Asusena, and I'm a farm worker. I'm also a member volunteer of the coalition caps. I'm here for my family, for my neighbors, for my coworkers, and I'm here to support AB six, five, two."

Thank you.

Buenos dias, mi nombre es Alvarado. Vengo de Tulare, soy trajo del campo agricola. Soy miembro voluntario de la Coalition CAPS. Vengo por mi familia, por mi vecinos y companeros, estamos aqui para apoyar AB seiscientos cincuenta y dos.

Just a quick summary.

Dahle speaks Spanish? Dahle speaks Spanish. Estoy aqui.

Estas tu yendo.

Gracias. Hola, buenos dias, mi nombre es Lupita Sanchez. Organización con el Tulare Coalicion. Vengo por mi familia por mi vecinos y companeros trabajo agricolas apoyar AB seiscientos cincuenta y dos.

Gracias.

Good morning. I'm Anne Katten from California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, in strong support.

Thank you.

Buenos dias, Abraham Mendoza on behalf of the Community Water Center, in strong support.

Thank you.

Abigail Mighell on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, in support.

Thank you.

Melissa Sagun on behalf of the Valley Improvement Projects, in support.

Thank you. Okay, thank you so much. Let's now turn to opposition or concerns about the Bill AB 652.

Good morning again, Mr. Chair and Members. Taylor Roche, on behalf of the Coalition of Agricultural and Input Providers. We'd like to express thanks to the author for the recent amendments. And we think the Bill is moving in the right direction. But unfortunately, we still have an opposed position. No one debates that marginalized communities and their voices have not historically been given the right and the space to be heard.

But we do believe that this Administration, and DPR in particular, has taken and will continue to take demonstrable steps, both formally and informally, to rectify those historical wrongs. And I would reference a list of nonexhaustive actions that are in our position letter. Our concern remains about committee appointments and the practical impacts in implementing the Bill. We'd like to express concerns about the appointment process in the Bill.

Under its current provisions, the first members of the Advisory Committee are appointed by the director through an open process, which we appreciate, but then it imposes no term limits on those members. And if a member does choose to leave, they get to select and vote in their successor. We believe this ingratiates a closed loop system of appointees that represents a very limited number of the thousands of environmental justice interest groups in the state and it's not reflective of the principle of inclusivity.

Respectfully, we believe that this Bill practically will add bureaucracy to DPR at a significant cost, as we've seen with our sister agencies such as CARP. I think it's fair to say the regulated community shares the frustration that the Department is not moving fast enough and, as with all agencies, they should be more accountable to the public and those that they serve.

But when DPR must direct limited resources away from core functions, we believe this will lengthen existing delays for actions like registering safer and more sustainable products, processing licenses, and conducting environmental and public health monitoring. For these reasons, we're still opposed, but we look forward to continuing to work with the author's office. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Chris Reardon, California Farm Bureau. I just want to add to what Ms. Roche said. I like to zero in on one area up to two people with expertise in issues affecting socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. From our perspective there's 400 plus commodities in this state. Our question is how long do those folks serve on the Committee? How do we get a diversity of opinions from across the commodity world in California?

There's nothing in the legislation that allows for that or says that. So we'd sure like to get input not just from sort of a few commodities, but from a cross section in all the areas listed in the states from the Central Valley to the Central Coast, Northern, Southern California. So that's one issue.

And then the second issue I just want to follow up is in terms of I'd sure like to see or I think we'd sure like to see and Ms. Roche said this well, the Department, the authority of the Department to appoint existing future members of the Committee. So, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Yeah, interesting. Thank you.

Dennis Albiani on behalf of the California Seed Association, California Paragrowers and others agree with the previous comments. Thank you.

Max Perry on behalf of the Pest Control Operators of California, also in strong opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California, respectfully opposed, reflective of the prior comments. Thanks.

Let's go to the phone lines. Folks who want to weigh in on AB 652.

And if you wish to speak of support or opposition to AB 652, please press 1 and 0 at this time. And we have about 11 in queue so far. Mr. Chair, we'll start with line 57. Please go ahead.

John Bottorff with CleanEarth4Kids.org, strongly support.

Line 50. Please go ahead.

Gabriela Facio with the Sierra Club California in strong support.

Line 48, please go ahead.

Rita Medina on behalf of Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights CHIRLA in strong support.

Line 40. Please go ahead.

Hi, Victor Torres here, Member of SASS and strongly in support of Bill 652.

Line 32, please go ahead.

Mi nombre es Luis Torres. En apoyo para mi.

Line number 18, please go ahead.

Hello, good morning, my name is. And I'm a Member of. And I strongly agree with this Bill.

Line 36, please go ahead.

This is Jim Lindburg on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support.

Line 22, please go ahead.

Good morning, my name is Jesse Orosco with the Center on Race, Poverty and Environment in strong support of AB 652.

Line number 61, please go ahead.

Suzanne Hume CleanEarth4kids.org, Strongly Support.

Line 35. Please do. Please go ahead.

Calling on behalf of California Environmental Voters in support.

Line 60. Please go ahead.

Hello, this is Andria Ventura with Clean Water Action calling on behalf of the communities that we work in, our rural communities in strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Line 64, please go ahead. Line 64, please go ahead.

California Nurses for Environmental, Health, and Justice, strongly support.

Line 14. Please go ahead.

My name is Janelle Martinez and I am with Safe Ag Safe Schools, and I am in full support of AB 652.

Line 53, please go ahead.

Bill Allayaud with Environmental Working Group in support.

Line 42, please go ahead. And 42, your line is open. Please go ahead.

My name is Noemi Chico, Greenfield Safe Ag Safe Schools member. I strongly support AB 652.

Line 51, please go ahead.

My name is David Ramos. I'm an intern at CleanEarth4Kids, and I strongly support.

Line 62, please go ahead.

Karen Cameron, Safe Ag Safe Schools, Monterey County. In strong support.

In line 55, please. Go ahead. And 55, your line is open. Please go ahead. Okay, and Mr. Chair, there's no one else in queue wishing us to speak at this time.

Let's bring it back to the Committee. Questions, thoughts, comments from the Committee? Senator Gonzalez?

I just want to thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing this forward. I would like to be added as a co author. This is similar to, as you mentioned, CARB, and as many of your proponents have mentioned, but also similar to a lot of the legislation. We've tried to push for air quality measures, but in the realm of pesticides, which I think the analysis depicts very meaningfully, especially under the meaningful engagement portion, which you've made this a pretty prescriptive kind of Bill, but for good reason.

Because these communities often feel left out, the workshops aren't enough. It needs institutionalized processes, a committee where there is this engagement that is consistent and where people feel heard at the end of the day, especially for communities like our farm worker community and adjacent communities that are affected by these pesticides. So happy to support and move the Bill as appropriate as well.

Honored to have your co authorship. Thank you.

So move when appropriate. Just a quick question. There was an interesting issue brought up by one of the folks who was raising concerns about folks from socially disadvantaged communities that are on the farming and ranching side. I noticed that there's a line in here adding two members with expertise in issues affecting them. That's vague language. Tell me a bit more about your thoughts on making sure that there may be voices from those communities on the committee.

Yeah, right now, inside the Bill, we do prescribe up to two people's expertise in issues affecting socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers. And there are categories of folks, especially indigenous groups and other folks who are affected on the frontline community. So we have a kind of prescriptive kind of formula about it. But we give some wiggle room, of course, to how the commission, sorry, how the DPR ultimately appoints people. I don't know if my sponsors want to comment on this expertise in socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers piece aspect of it.

Yeah, sure. If the question is making sure that socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers themselves could serve on the Committee and be eligible, that's definitely the case. I think we wanted to make sure the language was open for, you know sometimes there's advocate groups that have the expertise and have members who are socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. But of course, they're a group that their farmers are very busy. So we want to make sure that we left the language open to representatives as well.

Yeah, I guess I would just say that the way it's written right now, it could be anyone who studies them, and it could be actually very antagonistic toward them, but they may know a lot about them. So I would think that as the Bill is moving forward, that might be something that you would take some time to look at. I know there's some broader concerns that were raised. Where do you see the status of the conversations right now with the folks raising concerns?

Yeah, with the folks who have raised concerns today. I'm always happy to discuss changes where we have not received any proposed amendments. We only received these concerns via letter. But my staff and I are always happy to talk about any changes or proposals they want, especially any languages.

Okay. All right. I mean, without understanding, I'm happy to support the Bill today. I'd like to give you the opportunity to close it's been moved by Senator Gonzalez.

Yeah. I, of course, respectfully ask for your aye vote and support today for this Bill because for too long, our frontline communities, especially those are poor, those are people of color, and those are rural communities, often don't get a voice in meaningful decision making that could change the outcomes of their entire lives or their families lives. And there's a big difference between when our institutions talk at people and listen to the people who need it most.

So this is one of those small steps where we make sure we uplift voices of rural communities, people of color, especially those who often don't get so much power in decision making. And so I respectfully ask for aye vote today. Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much. Let's call the roll.

AB 652. The motion is due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Allen Allen, aye. Dahle. Dahle, no. Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado. Menjivar. Menjivar, aye. Nguyen. Skinner.

All right, thank you very much, Assemblymember. Let's go now to the long waiting Eduardo Garcia. I appreciate it. I didn't notice you until a little while behind the column there, but thank you so much for being here and thanks for presenting AB 849.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and colleagues. This bill will require the relevant state agencies, implement and enforce measures assigned to it in the Community Emissions Reduction Program known as CERP, adopted by Local Air Districts and Air Resources Boards. It also creates some flexibility on some administrative costs for those who are involved in the AB 617 Community Steering Committee. So with that, we have two witnesses, I believe, that are going to be testifying briefly on the bill.

Please proceed.

Good morning, Chair and committee members. My name is Catherine Higgins and I'm the assistant deputy executive officer for community programs at South Coast AQMD. We are in strong support of AB 849 and pleased to serve as the bill's sponsor. Under the AB 617 program, air districts are required to address localized air pollution impacts that endanger the health of environmental justice communities. There are currently 19 AB 617 communities statewide, and six are within the South Coast region. To facilitate this community-driven program, we work closely with community members, local leaders, nonprofit organizations and other stakeholders to form community steering committees known as CSCs. Throughout the CSCs, air districts coordinate with AB 617 communities to develop community emission reduction plans known as CERPs, that include strategies to reduce disproportionate levels of air pollution. CERPs are developed through a process co-led by CSCs in collaboration with air districts and reflect the community's air qualities priorities. CERPs contain a variety of strategies, such as commitments to develop new regulations, incentives to accelerate the adoption of cleaner technologies, and collaborations with community stakeholders and other agencies. However, at times, proposed surf strategies go beyond the authority of the California Air Resources Board and local air districts. It is in these cases that involvement of relevant state agencies is critical to address and resolve community identified issues, and without such involvement, various strategies could simply be abandoned. Also, as part of the CSE process, community Members who engage in developing CERPs should be provided with an administrative budget supporting their autonomy. With CARB coordinating such a statewide administrative budget allocation, greater program consistency will be achieved. Thus, we strongly support the passage of AB 849, and we ask for your support for this important bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

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

Thank you. Other folks who want to weigh in support?

Brendan Twohig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, representing the executive officers from all 35 local air districts in support.

Thank you. All right, people, you want to opposition and concerns, come on up.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, Paul Deiro, representing the Western States Petroleum Association. My apologies for not having a letter on record. We do have very small concerns with the bill. Having had conversations with the sponsor South Coast earlier today and earlier last week, we do applaud the author and his commitment to have more collaboration and cooperation amongst the state agencies that ultimately will have to implement the CERP. We would like the state agencies to be at the table in the development of the CERP, which I believe the bill does that. So we will continue our conversations and do thank the author.

Thank you. All right, anyone else has concerns, want to raise issues with the bill? Let's go to the phone lines, AB 849, have folks who want to weigh in.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if you wish to speak in support or opposition of AB 849, please press one and zero at this time. We'll go to line 41, please go ahead.

Good morning, Chair and members, Alejandro Solis on behalf of... in support

John Bosworth with Cleanearthforkids.org, strongly support

Line 68, please go ahead.

Line number 69, please go ahead.

Hello, this is Mariela Loera with Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, and we're calling in on AB 849 to express our concern for the bill in terms of it missing some areas, in terms of ensuring that the bill encompasses the measures of AB 617 and community engagement and accessibility to community steering committees.

My name is David Ramos. I'm an intern at cleanearthforkids.org in strong support.

Thank you very much.

Line 51, please go ahead.

Mr. Chair, we have no one else in queue wishing to speak at this time.

Great. Let's bring it back to the committee for comments, questions, thoughts. Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you. I want to thank the assemblymember for bringing it forward. I know that, as mentioned, there was a letter of concern from Leadership Council. Can you just address that? I think they were referring to the public comment period, as well as replacing infeasible with technologically infeasible or scientifically infeasible to just sort of clear up some of that language. And I know you're working with them.

Yeah, the letter came in just a few days ago.

Okay.

And so we look forward to being able to clarify those questions and concerns. I have no doubt that we'll be able to land at a place of consensus. But as you are aware, these plans are community driven and it requires tremendous amount of stakeholder process and input. And so we're not steering away from that particular process. We're just wanting to make sure that the respective agencies have a role when it comes to implementing the strategies that are identified by the communities. And in some cases, there may be a situation where it's just not a feasible strategy and having the agencies tell us that will be important. But I think we'll be able to address those questions raised by Leadership Council.

Thank you. And then also on the administrative uses as well, because I know that one of the air quality management districts had mentioned some of that administrative uses could be used for technical assistance, I believe for community groups as well.

That's correct everything from technical assistance to in some cases, providing stipends for those who are participating in the process. Right. These are folks that are working long hours and then they go and volunteer and do this work, sometimes having to travel. So there's some form of compensation there that is reasonable and respectable.

Awesome. Thank you very much.

Okay, other questions, thoughts? Someone want to move the item? Okay. So moved by Senator Gonzalez. You may close.

Thank you. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, let's call the roll.

AB 849. The motion is due, pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Dahle. No. Dahle, No. Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado. Menjivar. Menjivar, aye. Nguyen. No. Nguyen, No. Skinner.

All right, thank you so much. We'll leave that open for other folks to add on. Let's call you Senator Arambula is here. Item 10. AB 985, you may proceed when ready. Yeah. Thank you so much and I appreciate you coming in earlier. I know.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, I'd like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity to present on AB 985 today. I also would like to start by acknowledging the Committee's hard work and in particular Eric Walters. And we are happy to accept the Committee's amendments as proposed. Within the analysis, the amendments narrowed this Bill greatly by removing the reforms from prior versions and instead focusing solely on bringing much-needed transparency to the Valley. AB 985 now represents a critical first step towards restoring the community's faith in its government in protecting the health of those who live next door to some of the highest polluting industrial operations in our state. Originally, the emission reduction credit programs were based on the notion that polluters could be motivated to voluntarily use a system of pollution credits that would result in the reduction of emissions beyond that achieved through direct regulation. However, after years of efforts, community groups identified serious discrepancies with credits that had been validated by the air district. In 2020, the California Air Resources Board finally agreed to look into it at approximately 200 of the credits. There are currently over 2000 credits available for sale. The report confirmed what community groups had long suspected, that there are credits for sale right now that should have never been issued in the first place. These credits can be used to allow future pollution when there was no original voluntary reduction of pollution to justify the original credit. Despite this discovery, however, there are a couple thousand credits that have yet to be reviewed. AB 985 directs CARB to finish the job it started to ensure that all of the credits in the program are valid. Not reviewing the remaining credits doesn't make any sense. The unchecked credits contain offsets for pollutants that are implicated in severe health adverse impacts. Particulate matter, PM 2.5 and PM 10 have been shown to accumulate in fetal tissue gestation with links to Low birth weight and infant mortality. Carbon monoxide reduces the capacity of the body to pump oxygenated blood to the heart. The oxides of sulfur may increase the risk of children developing asthma and worsen respiratory symptoms and outcomes. Among those children that do develop asthma. There are also credit banks for acetone, ethane, sulfate and hydrogen sulfide, each with its own set of health and environmental impacts. This has resulted in decades of exposure by communities living next to these stationary sources to excess pollution that should have never been permitted. It is essential that credits be based on emission reductions that were real, properly quantified, permanent, enforceable and surplus. This is not a new standard. It has always been the standard. This Bill simply demands that credits currently up for sale meet this standard. CARB and the Air District must ensure that the system is functioning as intended, transparently, and fairly. Testifying in support of AB 985 are Sassan Sadat with Earthjustice and Maricruz Ramirez, a community organizer with Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Mari Cruz Ramirez and I'm a community organizer with the center on Race, Poverty and the Environment. I was born and raised in Kern, County, a place where oil is viewed as sacred and considered the blood of the Earth. However, I am here to represent the forgotten and neglected voices, the poor and working class communities who have no choice but to endure the consequences from the destruction caused by oil and gas industries. As the main holder of emission reduction credits, oil and gas corporations need to be held accountable for the momentous damage they have caused to countless community Members. Being an organizer on the ground, my work requires me to create bonds with those affected and I carry their stories with me to share some. Today, one Member in the town of Arvin, Estella Escoto, shares that she knows too many people that have suffered asthma, cancer, allergies respiratory issues due to pollution caused by abuses courtesy of oil and gas companies. Another current resident, Jose Chavez, has told me that those who abuse the emission reduction credits do not live in the towns that they happen to contaminate and that they need to be held accountable for leaving innocent people in the dust to suffer and die. Regarding the necessary accountability from both Big Oil and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. It would only be appropriate for that to include an investigation into how much additional pollution was released due to the inappropriate use of emission reduction credits. I strongly urge support for AB 985 as an imperative step in the corruptionism management of these credits and as an essential action towards restoring clean air to the Central Valley and beyond. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Sasan Saadat. I'm a senior policy analyst with Earth Justice and strong support of AB 985. The Bill is fairly straightforward. It essentially requires an assessment of whether industries are following the rules of the Clean Air Act in the most polluted air basin in the country. When a district is severely out of attainment for health based air standards, as the valley has been for decades, the ERC program is supposed to ensure that new sources of pollution are offset with reductions that are real, surplus and permanent. And after pressing the issue for years, residents were successful in getting CARB to do a sample audit. Small but representative fraction of the credits in some of the pollutant banks. And the results of that audit speak for themselves. Almost half of all the credits were almost all of the credits were active were from over 30 years ago. And using the district's raw data, CARB could not back up the district's claims for reductions of over half the projects examined, and the district did not have any additional documentation to explain their math. CARB found cases where inflated credits were awarded for required pollution reduction in violation of federal and state law. In one instance, the district overcredited orphan oil well shutdown with more than 500 tons of VOCs when CARB determined the project should have received zero tons of credit. The glimpse from the sample audit is enough to be outraged, but it's not enough to understand the full scope of harm to valley residents. Air AB 985 tells the district to do what any logical observer would do given this information. Keep going. Finish reviewing the rest of the pollutant banks. Quantify the invalid credits that still remain in the bank today. We need to know that no significant new pollution in the valley can occur unless it's offset by reductions that are actually real surplus and verifiable, as the law has always required. So, in summary, the Bill is just ensuring that the ERC program functions as it was intended, and that industry in the most polluted air basin in the country is playing by the rules, because the audit we have so far proves that's not been the case. And when you hear Saber rattling about job loss whenever communities demand accountability, just remember this Bill is just bringing the industry closer to having to comply with the basic health protections that they managed to subvert for decades. It's not too much to ask that industry figure out how to run a business that doesn't require evading the law. Thank you.

All right, anyone else who wants to weigh in support of the Bill? AB 985.

Good afternoon. Chair Katie Valenzuela from the central valley air quality coalition. Also on behalf of our members Little Manila Rising Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, Valley Improvement Projects, Central California Environmental Justice Network and the Central California Asthma Collaborative and a broad coalition listed in your analysis and strong support. Thank you.

Sofia Rafikova with the Coalition for Clean Air in support.

Darryl Little with NRDC in support.

Melissa Sagun on behalf of the Pesticide Action Network in support.

Okay, let's go to opposition concerns about the Bill AB 95.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Morgan Lambert. I'm with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, and we are here today to respectfully oppose AB 985. The district works very closely with our state and federal partners as we try to implement our clean air mission for valley residents. Through these ongoing efforts, permitted stationary sources or facilities in the valley face the most stringent air quality regulations in the country, and this has been continuously reevaluated and validated by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, as well as through legal actions and court cases. Only after a facility installs the most stringent emission control requirements do ERCs come into play and are part of the system. As in print, AB 985 will make permitting new and modified facilities in the valley impossible in many circumstances by artificially limiting the availability of ERCs. This includes all types of different facilities, including critical operations and essential public services. We understand that amendments to the Bill may change aspects of these parts of the Bill, and we look forward to seeing those once they come out in print. The Bill also requires a costly study of ERCs that has already been done and in many cases is of pollutants for which the valley has long been in attainment for decades. In most circumstances, it is a waste of both state and local resources that should be used instead to identify additional ways to actually reduce emissions for which are needed to bring the value into attainment. The district has worked cooperatively with CARB and EPA in their oversight capacity during the recent program review. And recently, with that review, we look to identify opportunities to make enhancements to the ERC and our permitting programs. These enhancements were applied to all banks, not just those reviewed by CARB during the review, and were formalized through amendments to the district's permitting rules in April of this year. Therefore, the district sees the review as duplicative, and the significant amount of state and local costs required to meet these new provisions are without a corresponding benefit to air quality. Instead, these resources could be better invested in continuing to develop and deploy the most stringent local measures and achieving the much needed reductions in mobile source emissions, which make up the vast majority of emissions in the valley and contributes most significantly to our attainment challenges. Again, we have heard that the Bill may be amended, and we heard today from the author that he's accepting those amendments. However, the district still has concerns about the Bill, and we remain in opposition of the Bill. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Brendan Tuig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. ERC programs are not unique to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control district. As required by state and federal law, air districts operate ERC programs. And again, as Mr. Lambert said, ERCs come into play only after compliance with prohibitory and stringent air district rules and also meeting best available control technology requirements. We're very concerned with the precedent that this Bill sets that others will pursue these types of approaches that are a huge drain on air district resources. Air districts are already under resourced. This type of approach is not going to result in any further emission reductions or improvement of public health. And we think air districts are doing all that they can to reduce emissions and air pollution from stationary sources over which we have authority. But the role of mobile sources needs to be part of this conversation. In the San Joaquin Valley, for Knox, mobile sources account for 85% of the pollution statewide. 70% are from mobile sources for air pollution. And so what we need, Members, is we need help. We're under resources underresourced. We need further investment in mobile source incentive reduction programs that have been found to be efficient, highly cost effective, and actually improve public health efficiently. We ask that you help us in that matter rather than pursuing approaches like this that just make it harder for us to meet our clean air goals. So we appreciate your time and urge your opposition to the Bill.

Hey, listen, as a courtesy of our Republican colleagues, they've got a caucus at 1130. So with your forbearance, we're going to lift a couple of calls to let Senator Nguyen add on. I apologize. I know this is very unusual. This is the request of our Republican colleagues. So let's quickly lift the call on item one, AB 43. It's been moved by Senator Menjivar, and let's lift the call on that.

AB 43. The motion is due pass as amended and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Allen aye. Allen. I Dahle. No. Dahle? No. Gonzalez? Gonzalez. aye. Hurtado. Menjivar? Menjivar. Aye. Nguyen. No. Nguyen. No. Skinner.

All right, let's go to item 249. Item two. Yeah, it's all ready.

AB 249. The motion is due pass and re refer to the Committee on Education. Hurtado. Menjivar aye. Menjivar aye. Nguyen. Skinner okay.

AB 363. Item three.

That motion is due pass as amended and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is three to one. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting. No. Hurtado Nguyen no. Nguyen no. Skinner.

Consent calendar.

Consent calendar. Hurtado Nguyen aye. Skinner.

All right, item five. AB 652. Lee

That motion is due pass and we refer to the Committee on Appropriation. Current vote is three to one of chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting. No. Hurtado. Nguyen? No. Nguyen no. Skinner

Okay, we're going to go to item eight. Aguiar-Curry 863.

That motion is due pass as amended and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is 31. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. Hurtado. Nguyen. Skinner.

Okay, thank you so much. I really do apologize. Let's hear the folks who want to raise concerns about AB 985.

Hi, John Kennedy with the Rural County Representatives of California. We oppose the current version of the Bill. Happy to take a look at the amendments adopted today and reassess our position. Align our comments with the previous statements made. Thank you.

Hello, Ada Waelder, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, as well as the urban counties of California. Align my comments with Mr. Kennedy ahead of me.

Good afternoon. Taylor Rochen on behalf of the African American Farmers of California, California Fresh Fruit Association, California Cotton Growers and Generous Association, far west equipment dealers, Nisei Farmers League, Walnut Commission, western AG Processor Association and Western Plant Health Association in opposition.

Katie Little with the California Farm Bureau in opposition.

Good morning. Philip Crab on behalf of the South Coast AQMD, in opposition.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Just want to say we appreciate this Committee for a meeting with us on our specific concerns with the Bill and especially for Eric Walters on his good work on it. We remain opposed at this time.

Mara Eger, on behalf of the California Compost Coalition. We have an opposed, unless amended, position on the Bill. And we want to thank Erica as well for his hard work with the Committee and also continue our conversations with the author's office. Thank you.

Good morning. Trisha Geringer, with Agricultural Council of California, respectfully opposed.

Sylvia Solicha, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors. For the counties of Kern, San Joaquin, Merced, Stanislaus, Madera and Fresno. All in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Aaron Norwood, on behalf of the Almond Alliance and respectful opposition. We will take a look at the amendments and help those address our concerns. Thank you.

Brady Van, Engelen, here on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, currently opposed to the Bill in its current form. Look forward to looking at the Bill once the amendments are adopted and seeing if we can reassess our position based on that. Thank you.

Good morning. Noelle Cremers with Wine Institute. Respectfully opposed.

Good morning, chair Members. Veronica Pattillo, representing Navy Region Southwest on behalf of the Member services in California. We were opposed to the Bill as currently in print, but with the suggested amendments and thanks to the author's office and the Committee staff, we would withdraw our opposition and look forward to hearing or to looking at the Bill in print. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Paul Deiro, representing the Western States Petroleum Association. In opposition.

Okay, thank you. All right, let's go to the phone lines, folks who want to weigh in one way or another on AB 985.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if you wish to speak in support or opposition of AB 895, please press 1 and 0. At this time, we'll go to line 50 please go ahead.

California in strong support.

Line 74, please go ahead.

John Badorf with cleananceforkids.org support. AB 985.

Line 51, please go ahead.

My name is David Ramos with Clean Earth for Kids. Strongly support.

Oppose Nissay Farmers Lake.

And line 72, please go ahead.

Line 75, please go ahead.

Clean earth for kids. Suzanne Hume, Clean Earth for Kids, strongly support.

Line 22, please go ahead. 22, your line is open. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Gracia with the center on Race, Poverty, Environment and Support. Thank you.

Line 73, please go ahead.

Vanessa Forsyth with Clean Earth for Kids in support.

Line 20, please go ahead.

Philip Vanderclay, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, currently in opposition, but we look forward to reviewing the amendments and seeing if we can change that position. Thank you.

Line 71, please go ahead.

Good morning, chair and Members. Clint Olivier for the Central Valley Business Federation. Respectfully opposed.

Line 53, please go ahead.

Yeah. Bill Allio of Environmental Working Group support.

Line 35, please go ahead.

Lucia Munoz, calling on behalf of California environmental voters in support.

Mr. Chair, we have no one else in queue wishing to speak at this time.

Great. Let's bring that and back to the community for thoughts, questions, concerns. All right, the bill's been we'll let you close.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, I again just want to thank your Committee for all the hard work that's been put into this Bill and the amendments which were proposed that I believe allow us to take the incremental first step to get the transparency needed to start to clean up the air in the San Joaquin Valley. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 985. The motion is due passed as amended, and re referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Allen aye. Allen. aye Dahle Gonzalez. Gonzalez. aye Hurtado. Menjivar aye. Menjivar aye. Nguyen Skinner.

Thank you. Thank you. All right, I see Assemblymember Papan here. Let's present item 11, AB 115.

Good morning, chair and Members, nice to be with you this morning. I'm here for AB 1115, which is an industry supported Bill, no opposition. It simply extends the sunset date of the underground storage tank Fund. The Underground Storage Tank fund is a critical financial mechanism for tank owners and operators to cover environmental cleanup costs, as self insuring is a massive burden on small operators. California is among many other states that provide an underground storage tank fund as an option for operators to meet their financial responsibility.

Without this fund, many owners would have very few, if any, options to secure another financial insurance mechanism. Furthermore, as California transitions to green infrastructure and is burdened with an increasing amount of orphan tanks, we must ensure that the resources are available to address this issue. As I mentioned, this Bill has no opposition and is a common sense measure that assists small business owners and supports the state's goal for a cleaner California. With me to testify today in support of the Bill is John Wenger on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members. John Wenger, on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance. So we represent the fuel haulers and retail gas stations in the state. A lot of them are small businesses. As the Assembly Member testified to, as the analysis points out, we do have a federal requirement to have a financial assurance mechanism for our tanks for when they leak, for environmental cleanup. And so this is a very important fund that helps us with our cleanup.

Without it, we would have to go to the insurance market which is very expensive and would cost our station owners a lot more money. And so happy to be here in support. Appreciate the Assembly Member pushing this Bill forward and just ask for your aye vote today. Thanks.

Other folks who want to weigh in support.

Mr. Chair and Member, Silvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the Board of Supervisors for the County of Sonoma. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Members. Steve Baker with Aaron Read and Associates for the Professional Engineers in California Government in support. Thank you.

John Kennedy with RCRC in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Folks. Want to raise concerns about the Bill opposition? Let's go to the phone lines. This is for AB 1115.

If we speak in support or opposition to AB 1115, please press 1 then 0. Go to line 66. Please go ahead.

Jenny Trice on behalf of the County of Santa Clara in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair. We have no one else in queue wishing to speak.

Let's bring it back to the Committee. Questions, thoughts, comments from the Members? Okay, moved. We'll let you close.

I just respectfully ask for an aye vote. And thank you for your time.

Okay secretary, please call a roll.

AB 1115. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Dahle? Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado?Menjivar? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Nguyen? Skinner?

3-0. We'll leave the Bill on caller. Not many Members. I'm so sorry. Thank you. Assembly Member okay, next. I think we are waiting for Assemblymember Wicks. Okay, great. Welcome Assembly Member. I'm your pinch hitter. Today you are going to present AB 1465. Welcome. Thank you. zero, you got it.

Madam Chair Members, AB 1465 tackles a problem that plagues California neighborhoods with oil refineries and other major sources of air pollution in their backyard at too many of these facilities. In recent years, there have been serious declines in compliance with air quality requirements coupled with increasing in flaring and other events that release toxic air contaminants into our communities.

Refinery flaring can result in shelter in place notifications, school closures and a surge of visits to healthcare facilities for medical care in the Bay Area refineries remain among the largest sources of air pollution pollutants. Specifically in my district. Increased Flaring events have led to incidences that negatively impact the health of my constituents and schools in the surrounding areas. AB 1465 triples the civil penalty ceiling for state air quality violations that occur at Title Five sources.

If the discharge contains one or more toxic air contaminants, fines are designated. Fines are designed to act as credible deterrence and most air quality civil penalties across our state are in fact working as intended. But Title Five sources are large and their air quality violations are potentially far more dangerous than other facilities. Refineries and other major emitters must be held more accountable when they pollute the air. The consequences for air quality violations must be severe enough to deter a discharge before it occurs.

So these emitters don't simply treat fines for causing community disruptions as an acceptable cost of doing business with me. Here to testify in support of the Bill is Alan Abbs on behalf of our sponsor, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and Mariella Rache on behalf of the American Lung Association and also say we're still in ongoing conversations with Wispa.

We've taken a pretty large amendment for them to include all Title Five facilities, not just refineries, but are in continued negotiations on some additional components of the Bill and have meetings set, I think today or tomorrow for those continued conversations. So there's still conversations to be had with the opposition. And with that, there's one of my primary witnesses.

Hi, primary witness.

Good morning, Chair Allen and Members of the Committee. I'm Alan Abbs representing the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and sponsor of AB 1465. Before I get too far, I want to thank the staff for the excellent analysis, as always, of the Bill. People that live next to large sources of air pollution such as refineries experience some of the highest cumulative health burdens in California even in circumstances where they are operating within all their permit conditions.

Unfortunately, and as an example refineries don't always operate within their permit conditions and AB 1465 provides an appropriate remedy to try to refocus refineries and other large sources on operating within existing air quality law and being a good neighbor in their community. For the past five years we've seen a trend of increasing refinery violations in the Bay Area. In 2021, the AQMD issued over 250 notices of violation and for 2022 that total exceeded 300.

This includes Flaring events which have totaled up to 70 individual incidents in recent years and a Thanksgiving night incident last year that spread over 24 tons of heavy metal laden dust over cars, homes, yards, streets and other parts of the City of Martinez. The company reassured residents that the dust was nontoxic and non hazardous rather than telling the truth that the spent catalyst contained heavy metals and that people shouldn't be breathing it.

As the Committee analysis acknowledges, in many cases, large single day events are likely to be settled under strict liability provisions, and the penalty ceiling for these events was $10,000 in the year 2000 as a result of SB 1865 from Senator Parada, and only recently has risen with inflation beginning in 2018. AB 1465 raises the penalty ceiling for large facility violations including the strict liability provision, but also provides the ability to minimize penalties for violations that don't result in large emission releases.

I'd like to thank Assembly Member Wicks for her leadership in authoring AB 1465 which takes a small step towards better aligning penalties for large facilities, violating permit conditions and endangering public health. While these small increases don't fully recognize the impacts in these communities we hope it begins to discourage thinking about these events as a minor cost of doing business. Thank you for considering the Bill. I'm here to answer any questions and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Next, ma'am.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Mariella Rache from the American Lung Association in California speaking in support of AB 1465. Over nine in 10 Californians live in a community impacted by unhealthy air. Our State of the Air report found that California has six cities in the top 10 for ozone pollution in the nation and eight cities for particle pollution. Air pollution impacts everyone but the populations. Most vulnerable are children, seniors and people with preexisting conditions.

Air pollution can cause a range of negative health effects such as asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes, lung cancer and premature death. Lower income people and people of color often bear an added disproportionate burden to the nearby sources of harmful emissions. AB 1465 is important because it will impose higher penalties for sources that release air contaminants that cause harm to communities affected by the release.

This Bill triples fines deterring large facilities from emitting air pollution that causes injury, harm to health and safety to a considerable number of persons or the public. This Bill seeks to improve public health, air quality, environmental justice by increasing civil penalties and deterring flaring and the release of harmful air contaminants to protect the health of Californians especially those living near violators. We urge an aye vote thank you.

Yes.

Mr. Chair Members, Brendan Twohig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in support.

Philip Crabb with the South Coast AQMD in support. Thank you.

Sophia Aficova with the Coalition for Clean Air in support.

Great. All right, let's turn to opposition. Folks want to raise concerns about the Bill?

Good morning. Zach Leary on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association We remain opposed unless amended. Had good conversations with the author's office. Look forward to continuing those, particularly as it relates to the criteria that would warrant or justify the tripling of penalties. But today, we remain opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, anyone else want to raise concerns? Let's go to the phone lines. This is AB 1465.

And if you wish to speak in support or opposition of AB 1465, please press one, then zero at this time. Mr. Chair, we have no one queuing up wishing to speak at this time.

Okay. Let's bring it back to the Committee for questions, thoughts, comments. Okay. We have a motion if you like to close. I know. And maybe you can comment on your clothes on the status of the conversation with the opposition.

Yes, we are continuing to talk. I took a rather large amendment when the Bill headed over here to include all Title Nine facilities. The thing that we're still trying to land is determining when that is sort of triggered and what the impact of the Flaring incidences are and how that would trigger the fine. So that's the stuff that we're still working on, and we'll continue to have conversations with them on it. But respectfully, ask for an I vote.

Okay. Moved by Senator Gonzalez. Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1465. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Judiciary. Senators Allen aye. Dahle. Gonzalez aye. Hurtado. Menjivar aye. Nguyen. Skinner aye.

Okay. Thank you so much. Great. All right, let's lift calls. We'll start with the consent calendar.

Consent calendar. Hurtado. Skinner aye.

We'll now go to item one. This is AB 43 by Holden.

The motion is do pass as amended, and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 3-2. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. Hurtado. Skinner aye.

All right. 4-2. We'll leave that open for Hurtado. Let's go to item two. AB 249.

The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Education. The current vote is 4-0. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting aye. Hurtado. AB 249. Hurtado aye. Skinner aye.

Okay, that one's out. That is six to zero with one abstention. All right, let's now go to 363. This is Bauer-Kahan's Bill. Item three.

The motion is do pass as amended and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 3-2. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. Hurtado aye. Skinner aye.

That's five to two. That Bill is out. Let's now go to Assembly. Member Lee's Bill AB 5652.

The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 3-2. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. Hurtado no. Skinner aye.

That's four to three. That is out. Okay, let's go to Assembly Member Garcia's Bill. AB 849.

That motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is 3-2. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. Hurtado aye. Skinner aye.

Okay, that's 5-2. That is out. Let's now go to item eight. AB 863.

The motion is do pass as amended, and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is 3-1. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. Hurtado aye. Skinner aye.

That's 5-1. That is out. I'm sorry. Okay. Yeah. Let's go 5-1. That's out. Okay, let's now go to Arambula. AB 985.

Motion is do pass as amended and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is 3-0. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair. Hurtado aye. Nguyen. Skinner aye.

Okay, we'll put that on call, but we're just going to clarify with the Republican consultant if they're okay with us closing the roll. All right, we'll leave that open for now. Let's go to item 11. Papan 1115.

That motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is 3-0. Chair voting aye. Hurtado aye. Nguyen. Skinner aye.

Thank you so much. That's five to zero. I guess we'll leave that on call, but we're going to figure that out. All right, finally, the Wicks Bill 13. AB 1465.

Motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Judiciary. Current vote is 4-0. Dahle. Hurtado aye. Nguyen.

Okay, we'll leave that open. Let's go back now to that's five to zero. Yeah, let's go back to the consent calendar again for Senator Hurtado to add on.

Consent calendar is Hurtado aye.

All right, that's 7-0. We'll close the roll on the consent calendar and then finally AB 43.

AB 43. Do pass as amended and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is 4-2. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. Hurtado aye.

Okay, so we'll close the roll on that. That's five to two. Okay. So I think what we're going to do thank you, Members. Thank you so much. And thanks to the staff. I think we will take a recess. We will come back after floor session, briefly reconvene to allow the Republicans to add on. So we're going to go into recess. But the likely plan is that we will reconvene after session. Just for you guys to know.

Current vote is 5-0. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair no. Dahle no. Nguyen no.

All right, that's 5-2. We'll close the roll on that. Let's go to item 11. AB 1115.

The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is 5-0. Chair voting aye. Dahle. Nguyen.

Okay, that's 5-0. That's out. Let's now end with item 13. Wicks is 1465. AB 1465.

The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Judiciary. The current vote is 5-0. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair no. Nguyen no.

All right, five to two. That's out. Thank you, Members. Appreciate it. Thank you to our staff. We got a long meeting next week, but now we're all heading to the floor. Thank you.