Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

You. So we continue to welcome the public in person and via the Teleconference service. We'll bring the committee hearing to order. For individuals wishing to provide public comment on the telephone, today's participant number is 877-226-8163. The access code is 352-5905. We're holding our committee hearing here in the O Street Building, and we ask all Members of the committee to come be present in the room, room 1200, so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. We have 13 bills on today's agenda. File item number 13. Well, I'll talk about that. Senator Menjivar will be presenting AB 418 for Assembly. Gabriel we have three bills on the consent calendar. There are three bills. Item six. That's AB 350. Item eight, AB 573. And item 12, AB 1526. The Chair will be here in a few minutes, I think.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. She's being efficient with our time. First, I wanted to thank our Chair and some more committee members and staff for their work on the bill. I look forward to continuing to work, of course, with all of you on some of the concerns outlined in the analysis. As we know, solar photovoltaic deployment has fortunately grown at unprecedented rates in our states. However, as the PV market -- panel market -- increases, so will the volume of decommissioned PV panels. Sectors like PV panel recycling will be essential in the state's transition to a sustainable, economically viable, and increasingly renewable energy future. So this bill, AB 2, will fulfill some of the missing steps towards creating a truly circular solar energy economy, by establishing a two-pronged solution to require that all panels sold in California are properly managed at the end of their life, and ensuring that no panels end up in landfills.

First, this bill expands the Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003 to include, under the definition of covered electronic waste, customer-owned solar PV modules, and establishes a covered solar PV recycling fee. This fee will be calculated by CalRecycle, based on the reasonable regulatory costs, to ensure that there is a plan and financing in place to properly recycle, reuse or dispose of all PV modules after they are decommissioned. Second, for all panels not covered under the customer-owned definition, such as utility or other large scale solar installations, the panel owners will be required to submit an end-of-life management plan to CalRecycle. These plans will follow guidelines already set by CalRecycle and will be subject to audits and penalties for non-compliance. California, we lead the nation in renewable energy adoption, and we're uniquely positioned to be a model for the sustainable end-of-life PV panel management.

So we must take steps now to ensure that the solar energy remains completely renewable and continues to be California's best energy option. For my witness in support, I have Priscilla Quiroz, on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council, and Delaney Hunter, on behalf of the Solar and Energy Industry Association.

Thank you. First witness.

Good morning. Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council, who is a powerful network of local governments, non-government organization, businesses, and individuals supporting policies and projects where producers share the responsibility of managing problem products till their end of life. We are the proud, now, sponsors of AB 2 to ensure that there's an end-of-life management plan for these solar panels. We appreciate the work of Assembly Member Ward and his staff and the committee on this bill, and appreciate where the goal is going towards. Solar panels that have reached their end of useful life, which are often abandoned, become the obligation of residents or are legally dumped, both of which cost -- are a cost burden to local governments at either household hazard waste facilities or as part of the illegal dumping cleanup efforts.

The current average cost for processing and recycling of these old solar panels is estimated to be $20 per panel. For a typical household with 16 panels, it's estimated to be cost $320 by household hazardous waste facilities. Customer-owned solar panels only represent approximately 10 to 15 percent of the panels out there. And AB 2 provides a needed funding for the collection and recycling of old solar panels that are currently or have been customer-owned.

Customer-owned solar panels are those that exist on rooftops, wherein the property owner has either financed, purchased or outright purchased their solar system, including the purchase of property, wherein the solar system already exists. Since there is now a visible fee applied to each new panel installed in California under customer-owned requirements, the funds collected would be managed by CalRecycle, and this will help ensure the proper management and the use of the public fund money. We thank the Assembly Member for his leadership on this issue and we hope to continue the conversation with the solar industry. And on behalf of the Western Plaster Waste Management Authority, they are also in support. And we have Doug Kobold, who's part of CPSC, who can answer any technical questions. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Mr. Chair and members, Delaney Hunter on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association, or SEIA. We're the national trade group for the solar industry, and represent more than 1000 companies across the value chain for solar, including the burgeoning recycling markets up and down the coast and throughout the country. We are proud to support AB 2. We think this is a workable framework that lets the CalRecycle experts help us develop guidelines for end-of-life management plans for the lion's share of solar in California today. It also does, as Priscilla mentioned, create a new fee structure for those panels that are not otherwise covered under a plan or customer-owned. We think that this is a really good working plan to ensure that we do start managing panels in a sort of organized and focused way in California. They are being managed today, but probably not in the most efficient way.

We think that recycling, and pushing forward for recycling, makes sure that we don't have them end up in landfills or abandoned in some other fashion, around our state. We also think that California can be a model and show the rest of the nation how we can get a recycling program up and going, to start managing what we know will be a very robust amount of panels as we go forward and move towards 100 percent clean, renewable energy for our country and our world.

We obviously know that there is a little bit of work left to do. We are committed to do that with this committee, with Assembly Member Ward and his team and our friends at CPSC. We are thrilled to be in this position today and supporting a bill that really does start to sort of pave the way towards recycling for our product. I have Evelyn Butler with me, who is our Vice President of Technical Services, for any technical questions or sort of more in depth information that's needed by the committee. Thank you.

Okay, let's have folks who want to weigh in in support. Come on up.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Cara Martinson here on behalf of the Large Scale Solar Association, would like to echo the comments of my colleague from SEIA. Also, just thank you to the author and committee staff. We know, as was mentioned, there's some work to do ahead, but pleased to be in support today. Thank you.

Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California Solar and Storage Association in support.

Mr. Chair, members, Brian White with the California -- actually, Cypress Creek Renewables. We're also in support. Look forward to working with the author and great bill. Thank you.

Chloe Brown on behalf of Californians Against Waste, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Kayla Robinson on behalf of Rethink Waste in support. Thank you.

Jordan Wells with the National Stewardship Action Council. We're in support of the bill getting out of committee today, thanks to the author's commitment to work on toxicity labeling, reuse and durability, that are currently missing in the bill, as highlighted by the thoughtful analysis. Thank you.

All right, let's give opportunity to folks who want to raise concerns about the bill who might be here. Okay, let's go to the phone lines. Moderator, anyone who wants to weigh in on AB 2?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As he stated, please press one followed by zero at this time. If you're in support or opposition. And we'll go to line 26. You are open. Line 26, I think you took yourself out of queue. Go ahead and do it again. There you are. Please go ahead, 26.

Yes. Please vote yes on AB 2.

Let's give another reminder. If anybody's in support or opposition to AB 2, please press one, then zero.

And maybe try to identify yourself.

Thank you. We'll go to line 34.

... Orange County. Support.

And that's it, Mr. Chair.

Okay, all right, let's bring it to the committee for questions. So let's go first to Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As a member with so much respect to you as the author of this -- and I really understand the intent of this. And a lot of the individuals who spoke said this is a work in progress, there's a lot of work to be done. It's just, I'm having a little trouble taking that in, as this is the last policy committee is going to go to. Usually with so much work to be done, it should be done before it gets to the last policy committee.

So I just have a lot of questions for this specific bill, Assembly Member. The analysis -- this is one of the analyses that posed so many questions, that is yet to be missing. And I just want to know if you could just talk a little bit more about, specifically, what do you think would be added to this bill, should it come out of committee regarding what goes into the plan? I mean, on page six of analysis, it asked nine different things that should be considered to be added. Who's going to develop the plan? I'd just like to hear a little bit more about why, up to this point, none of that was considered.

Thank you for the question, and I appreciate the broad concern and perspective about the development of this. We have been working and have been reaching out to interested stakeholders and agencies as well, since the inception of this winter. And so, it's only as of recent that we've gotten more specific feedback and actual agreement and some constructive engagement that's going to be able to address some of these final points. This bill, of course, has developed through the Assembly as well, making it over here to the Senate.

And so I really, really appreciate the even more thoughtful and close study that committee staff has been able to afford to get all these details right. And knowing that some of these are in motion, we're very hopeful. Two things: one, should this move forward here today? I do want to say at the outset that it is my commitment to work very closely with the Chair, that any final amendments that should satisfy the subject areas that are being worked on right now.

And also, to your points, were they not acceptable to the Chair, that this would not be brought up for a vote, or I would certainly not request that this would be brought up for a vote on the Senate floor, that we would continue to work on this at the time. But I think that with the momentum that's there right now, that we can resolve some of these subject areas and have that worked out over the summer recess. Again, appreciate the Chair's willingness to have this considered for discussion here today. To your question about what goes into the plan, I think there are some great ideas about the committee analysis, defined to those nine points that you identified, that really sort of match the breadth that we would want to be able to see.

Right now we are working and have asked CalRecycle to, at a very high level, really try to work with industry and others to make sure that we have that latitude to be able to have a plan mechanism, that will be able to be appropriate for both small single family homeowners, as well, and their responsibilities, but also the large solar scale manufacturers and installers as well. Sort of two different tracks that we're on there right now. I do think that there is some clarity, but I'm happy to further clarify again, who is responsible for those plans. Because on one hand, the owners are going to contract with somebody who's actually doing the installation.

And so we want to make sure, not necessarily the manufacturers who could actually be out-of-state or out-of-country producing those, but those that are installing them sort of know where this thing is going to go in ten or 20 years or more at the end of its life. And then for the large scale solar companies that both own and install -- likely install -- their own facilities, they would retain their own responsibility to be able to have a plan that is specific to their site and the size and scale of their development. We talked about enforcement mechanisms and you've raised that as well already with me.

That is something that CalRecycle, we're giving latitude to come back with us, knowing that they have always provided very thoughtful ways of defining what that enforcement looks like and what the scope of a penalty, and the conditions on that penalty, could look like. So we want to really take their existing expertise and experience that they do for other kinds of similar programs and I look forward to that feedback as well.

Quick follow up in talking about the manufacturer. So would you say that each manufacturer would be responsible to develop a plan?

For the technical assistance?

Senator Menjivar. Again, Delaney Hunter for SEIA. So no, in this case the plan would be the responsibility of the owner. So in this case, say it's whomever developed, say, the large scale solar system for selling to a utility or a CCA. So the owner of the asset, who would be operating the asset, would be required to have an end-of-life management plan, because they would be the ones that will be -- in most cases --responsible for the decommissioning plan at the end of that project's life. That's usually part of their permit with a local government. So it wouldn't be a manufacturer, it'd be the owner. In this case, say it's EDF Renewables, or EDP Renewables, or whomever is developing the project and has taken ownership of the panel.

Thank you for your response and maybe, Mr. Chair, you can clarify for me. We've got an answer here who would be responsible for developing the plan. But Mr. Chair, the analysis states that there is no clear language to state who's going to develop the plan. So we got an answer from one of the witnesses, but the analysis is unclear. So I'd like to know if there is current language that states what you just mentioned.

So the language in the bill currently, has CalRecycle working with the industry to develop guidelines. I think in the way that we, in the energy space, tend to work is relying on the experts within the regulatory sphere to sort of help guide how those things come together. So we were expecting that that would be part of the guidelines development process at CalRecycle. I think we're open to thinking through whether there needs to be more meat on the bones. I think we've been trying to be very careful to not presuppose any ownership model or financing model, because that is pretty fluid in the industry and has led to essentially a whole bunch of different ways you can get solar in California.

Thank you.

Well, and I got to say I would hope that the question of the ultimate responsibility is still very much up in the air. I understand why the manufacturers would want it to be all on the consumers, but it's not necessarily the best way of doing it to put it all in their laps.

If I may, Senator, I think the concern is, you know, say somebody sells a panel to a big developer, they don't know where it ends up. Right. So if you're buying a whole lot of panels that could be deployed anywhere around the country, that's essentially California to say to the owner, "You're going to install a solar panel somewhere in California, this is your responsibility." If it's going to hit a rooftop, a parking lot or a plot of dirt in California-

You can make the same argument about plastic waste. Right. And yet we've made the producers responsible for the end use, even though it's far harder to track down a piece of plastic out in the economy. So I hear you. I know this is going to be the subject of a lot of negotiation and I have a lot of comments about this bill, but I do want to hear from the Vice Chair.

Well, first off, I want to say good to see you. What's the hurry? Nothing against author. This is something that we do here all the time. It's the process. This bill has really been changed. It's been completely changed since its original form. I have no problem. I want to get to where we need to go. I did a battery recycling question bill and then Ben followed it up with the -- excuse me -- Senator Allen followed it up with a bill that were going to do with batteries.

We don't really have a lot of these coming offline. They're starting to, the 20 year ones. There's probably some -- but those are -- we got to figure out what we're going to do with those because there's no money for those. But anyway, for me, "What's the hurry?" is number one. And so I asked the Chair that, just on the sidebar, and he said because CalRecycle won't talk to you. Well, I can't have a hard time believing that we're going to get this bill out today. It's going to go into law, ... in law, and it's really not cooked as well as it should be. My question to you is: what's the hurry? Why can't we work on this and get it right? Because there's a lot of moving pieces in here that -- there's a lot of detail left out.

Thank you for the question, Senator. I think that to one, we have momentum right now that -- we have those experts and those stakeholders at the table right now that are just now, and just recently now, engaged. Although, I will state on the record that we have been trying to get more specific feedback. The bill has improved since its time in the Assembly, but we've taken the feedback, we've answered the questions, we've made those improvements as we have received some of that engagement right now.

But that's active engagement, I think all the stakeholders are at the table that can really solve this over the coming month right now. And as you probably well know, if something is paused for another year, then they're going to go probably work on something else right now. It's on the front burner and I'd like to be able to continue that momentum as well. We know the issues that need to be worked out and resolved with everybody's agreement.

And so I think that, by a courtesy to be able to move this forward today, that we can get there. But it's always subject to not go into law, but for a final consideration, if all these tests have been met. What is the urgency right now and why not delay it another year? Because California is leading the nation and pumping out additional PV activity. And to be able to send a signal to some of the installers that this is going to be the new framework, to be able to go forward, is going to be able to capture yet another year's growth, on the near term, of what they need to do with recycling plans and management plans going forward as well.

So I think that the energy, so to speak, is current in the moment. And I think that we should capture that and try to seize that moment to try to get this right, of course, but to also make sure that we're not delaying another year of product that otherwise would not be subject to the new world order here.

Mr. Vice Chair, if you don't mind. Mr. Vice Chair -- if you don't mind -- why don't I jump in and give you my perspective as to how I've been thinking about this and then we can go back to the discussion. Everyone can raise as many concerns as they like. And in fact, if you don't buy the logic of moving forward today, it's acceptable to me to hold this bill in committee. I think we were going back and forth a lot over this question.

I think this is an area, extended producer responsibility, that I've been very interested in for quite some time. And I guess it's why I'm both excited about the bill, but also a little trepidacious, because I do think that there's a lot of outstanding issues. They were all articulated in the analysis. Having gone through it myself, I also know how hard it can be to negotiate with the agencies and all the different players without deadlines.

Part of my thought of giving the Assembly Member the opportunity to continue working on it, with that in mind -- with the caveat, of course, that the bill would come back to EQ, not just the chair, but I want to have all the members fully apprised. And if folks don't feel comfortable with whatever final product you come up with, we're not going to move this year. And there's so many outstanding issues. I mean, I think some of them were articulated by Senator Menjivar.

The question of who will develop and implement solar panel stewardship plans. Who's at the heart of them, right? I mean, with SB 54, everybody's at the table, and there's responsibility very much on the producer side. How will they be evaluated and updated? What are the policy objectives of these plans? How will the plans in their evaluation and implementation be funded?Of course, big one. How will the bill be enforced? What guardrails will be added to prioritize green design and recycling and reuse?

This could include warranties and labeling for all solar panels in a plan, or not. So those are some of them. There's a lot of things that are raised in the analysis. I know this is really important work. We've got a lot of folks from industry that are happy. That's great. And they need to be a really important part of this conversation. But there's also a whole slew of implementation and funding questions that -- there's going to be pushback from CalRecycle. As you know, there already is.

This committee has got opinions. The members have opinions. There's a lot of consumer-facing organizations that are involved in the conversation. NSAC's here, they were very involved with all of the major extended producer responsibility work that we've done before. Of course, we also have to learn, as we did with the SB 54, from the mistakes of the past. There's a number of EPR programs that the state has passed that have been inadequate, where, quite frankly, we did not put a strong enough program in place.

And it actually has arguably set back the broader effort that the authors, I think, originally, had set out to solve, so that's one of the many sensitivities at play here with this bill. My thought, members, was: with those caveats, with us having control over and weighing in on the negotiation, understanding that this isn't going to move forward without all of these different players, including CalRecycle signing off, that we give the author the opportunity to do some more work.

And yes, quite frankly, deadlines are important for the agencies when it comes to getting them to respond and take bills seriously. That being said, there's another argument to be made for holding the bill in committee today. I am willing to let the author go forward to give him some opportunity to work over the summer. But all the issues that you've raised so far in the committee hearing are valid, and everyone's got to make their own decision. But that's where I am coming from. So I'd love to go back to the members if you want to continue the colloquy. Mr. Vice Chair.

Well, so if you read the analysis, it's not going to take in effect till 2028.

Right.

I prepared to come to either layoff or vote no, because I don't think it's cooked, number one. I thought I was just going to get rolled like I normally do, but obviously some other members have some concern. I would like to do it right. I think this is an area where we really do need to do some good work. And there is an opportunity, I think, to get it right. But I think there's a lot of things that-

It's hard for me to buy the fact that the agencies aren't going to work -- bull crap. We run a bill, we get it done, they go do it. And if they don't, we'll come back and have a hearing and talk why they're not getting it done. Anyway, we tell agencies to do stuff all the time and, quite frankly, give them too much rein, in my opinion. So, look, if you guys want to move it forward and we can call it back, that's up to you. I'm going to lay off today.

I think this is an area where we really need to do good work. Of course, all the proponents are in here, but the devil's in the details of how it actually happens. And what's the structure going to look like? What's in these things? How do we need to handle that? I think that's something that's kind of vague in here, too.

Absolutely. Listen, there's no question it's not cooked today. What gives me comfort with my position, is that it will not move forward if it doesn't get cooked right. So it will have to be fully cooked for it to move forward. But once again, your points are well taken. Senator Menjivar.

Mr. Chair, would we confirm it 100 percent -- it would come back. You would call it back?

Yes, it absolutely will come back. The challenge, of course, always is when you bring it back. So, if it's -- either it's a two year bill in which we'll have more opportunity to do amendments. If it does happen -- if somehow they're able to strike a major deal by the end of this year, this legislative year, it would come back. And of course, you can't take amendments in committee at that point. Now, that's the reason why -- very engaged -- if they're getting close to a deal, very engaged dialogue with the members. I would especially say the three of us, given the interest that's here, is going to have to be absolutely critical on the part of the author's office, if he's going to want to have a chance of getting a positive vote out of EQ.

January.

Yeah.

So how Republicans get this option is they say if we hope they get a two year Bill, we'll come back in January and get it done. And then usually nothing happens in January for us, but I think it might happen here.

Right.

From September to January is four months.

Right.

Look, it's a tough negotiation they're going to have to engage in, and I don't know that anyone knows whether they'll be able to land something substantive. From my perspective, I wanted to give the author the opportunity to take the next month to really dig in and work hard. But as I say, it's up to the committee, and I certainly would respect a different if folks are not comfortable with that plan on the committee, then that's fine, too.

Anyway, we don't have a quorum yet, which is maybe good, because it kind of punts the question a little further. Do you want to give us your latest and greatest pitch as to why we ought to give you this opportunity, and we'll see where things go this morning?

Thank you. Mr. Chair, I think I'll just really echo the comments that you made as well. I think that there is good momentum of all the necessary stakeholders that can help us to answer these questions. I deeply appreciate the committee staff's hard analysis on this, because these are important questions that, with that sort of second House level of detail, that we want to afford to be able to develop policy in the most responsible manner.

Just came to light over the last month about specifically, what do we need to make this the best Bill that it should be, especially based on a lot of our past experience developing similar areas of legislation. So all the pieces are right in front of us. All the stakeholders are actively engaged in trying to make this right. I just don't want to lose that momentum.

And so, again, for another time to underscore my commitment to make sure that we will stay engaged with the chair and all committee Members to make sure that these questions are satisfied. We have the menu of what needs to be done. We are working on it. We will get this done. And I would just appreciate any courtesy to be able to afford to be able to get that done, because the momentum is in front of us right now. If it doesn't get done, it gets held. But this is how I spend my summer recess is to make sure that we are ready to go for that last conversation and respectfully at the time, request your aye vote. Thank you.

Okay. So I think what I'll do is I'll fill in Senator Gonzalez, and you can do the same as well. She hasn't been here for you were watching. Okay. Are you willing to move the Bill under the terms that we were discussing or well, so let's discuss we'll talk about it. We'll talk about it, mr. Vice Chair. Sure. We have to establish Quorum first. Yeah.

Has the Integrated Waste Management have you been meeting with them? Have you been meeting with electronic waste folks or no, I'm going to ask.

Our sponsor to come up here and confirm that.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee Members. We have been talking with if you were talking about the electronic waste recyclers, yes, we have been in contact with several of them. We're talking more about what's in 1238, which is some restrictions they have on actually processing these panels in state. So they've been really more focused on that.

They're very receptive of this, especially for the expansion of the e waste program, because that's going to allow funding to start flowing in to get the panels, the panels that are orphaned panels, the ones that are being left at HHW facilities, left out on the streets, those are the ones with no funding. Nobody's going to want to process them.

And so that's where this comes in, is it helps that first part of the Bill certainly helps that part, which is get the funding flowing for those panels. So, yes, we've been in talk with some of the waste processors and then also those collection sites as well, because a lot of the landfills and transfer stations actually receive these things or their customers want them to receive them and they actually can't because they really don't have any way to take them in.

And you're with who?

I'm sorry. I'm Doug Cobbled. I'm the Executive Director for the California Product Stewardship Council.

OK. All right. Thank you.

And let me just mean to add to the complication of your negotiation. There is an open question about who should be paying that fee, right? Should that be on the consumer or the producer? There will be kind of a consumer side pushback on some of the things that are being proposed right now as part of that negotiation. So I just want to warn yeah.

No, I understand that, Senator. And fortunately, this is, like Priscilla mentioned, that it's only 10% to 15% of the actual stream out there that would be subject to the visible fee and the expansion of the UAE program. That other significant portion is what's left under the plans because it's the utility owned the PPA owned panels, not the customer owned.

Okay. All right, why don't we thank you. Thank you. Assembly Member let's move on to the next Bill. That's good, but I very much appreciate your work on this incredibly important area. And I think the only reason why quite frankly, the one thing I can say, I think we all agree that something substantive needs to be done in this space. I mean, all the e waste issues associated with the rollout and end use of these panels is something that's on everybody's mind.

We all know what an important solution Solar has been and will be to our reaching our climate goals, and that involves a lot of solar panels. And we got to make sure that we're taking care of these panels in a responsible manner and at the end of life. So this is vitally, important work, and if anything, we all want to make sure it's done right.

Thank you. I agree, and I appreciate your time this morning.

Thank you, Senator. I appreciate it. Okay, let's establish a quorum, and then as we're establishing a quorum, we'll ask Senator O'Connelly to make his way up to the dais. Secretary, please call the committee.

Roll calls, senators. Allen. Here. Allen Here. Dahle. Dahle Here. Gonzalez. Gonzalez Here. Hurtado. Menjivar. Menjivar Here. Wynn. Skinner.

Okay, we have a quorum. Let's now. Let sale Member Connolly present item two. That's AB 99.

Thank you, Chair and Members, good morning. I would like to begin by accepting the amendments indicated in the analysis and really appreciate the thoughtful work that staff and you, Chair, did on this Bill as well. The impetus for AB 99 stems from the work numerous cities and counties have done in curtailing the use of pesticides. These jurisdictions have taken action in response to the increasing concerns over the harms of pesticides to human health, pollinators, and wildlife.

According to Beyond Pesticides, 26 of the top 40 pesticides are possible or known carcinogens, and 24 have the potential to disrupt the endocrine system, among other impacts. While great strides are being made locally, caltrans continues to use Roundup and other pesticides as their primary tool to manage vegetation. Technically speaking, Caltrans does have a policy of Integrated Pest Management, or IPM, since 1992, yet they've not made meaningful reduction in their pesticide use.

AB 99 seeks to decrease pesticide use at Caltrans by bringing their vegetation management operations in line with the locals. Specifically, AB 99 would require Caltrans develop a statewide IPM policy for use in counties and cities that have taken action to restrict pesticide use. Additionally, AB 99 requires Caltrans, to the extent feasible, to abide by what the locals have adopted if that local jurisdiction has adopted a policy that is more restrictive than the statewide policy adopted by Caltrans.

Finally, the Bill also contains numerous reporting requirements for Caltrans to ensure maximum transparency in their vegetation management practices. I really appreciate the work of this committee again and your dedication to this issue. With me today to testify in support of this Bill is Patty Mayall of Protect Our Watershed, San Mateo County, and Julie Royce, founder of Pesticide Free Rona Park and a board Member of Sonoma Safe AG Safe Schools.

Okay, where are your witnesses? Let's see. Here we go. Okay.

Hello and thank you. I'm Patty Mayall, founder and Director of Protect Our Watershed, San Mateo County. I'm honored to be here today. I've been working on this issue since the 1990s with a group of community Members that have needed legislation, begged for it since then. And finally, a potential Bill is here. In San Mateo county we have 34 watersheds. Our state highways run through those watersheds where Caltrans broadcast sprays up to eleven different toxic chemicals.

We have them listed on our website from their own records, like Roundup, Glyphosate based products. Some of these even have warnings that you should not go into the area 24 or 48 hours after applications. We started in the 1990s in Pescadero took a county wide in 2006. In 2012, our Board of Supervisors passed resolution ending broadcast spraying of pesticides on county roads and parks. They've been managing our roads fine without the broadcast spraying. In fact, they're better maintained than ever.

And there are more wildflowers and native plants that have come back because the sprain kills everything. It's too much and it's unnecessary. There are other counties that have eliminated broadcast spraying, like Marin Alameda, Santa Clara, Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, trinity, Sonoma, San Francisco, Monterey, San Diego, and others. We're still confirming, yet Caltrans keep spraying. Despite our protests for decades, their reasons don't hold up for us and do not override the science of how dangerous and pervasive these chemicals are to the environment and to our lives.

Our water sources are along these roadways. We have wells and creeks, and the chemicals end up in them because they come off the roadways, they run off soil moves in California as we know it moves, and that's what carries these chemicals into watersheds. I worked extensively with the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District to help them annex to the coast side, and I've been shocked at their stance on this. We don't want to see AB 99 weakened.

We had a strong letter of support for our work from their General manager, Steve abores in 2015, to our Caltrans District Four Director asking them to adopt similar methods along state highways bordering district open space preserves. The district. Midpin completes this maintenance activity solely with mechanical mowing, with spot application of herbicides only. He cites all the reasons why to protect the habitat for over 160 sensitive plant and animal species. And the protection of these is at the center of the district's mission.

We think that they should follow their mission to protect and preserve. 133 environmental organizations have signed on supporting this Bill. We think it's time to prioritize protecting our health and the environment. AB 99 will do this. I hope you will also today with your vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there other folks who want to weigh in support and express their support for the Bill? AB 99,

One more witness. Okay, got you. All right, please keep it short because your last witness took some time. Thank you.

we have one more witness.

Loud, terrifying screams echoed through their home, and my son cried out for help. I rushed to the bathroom, where he was in an absolute state of panic. I pulled back the curtain and I saw his pain. Flaming red hives covered his entire body. Chair Members. My name is Julie Royce and I'm representing the Healthy Highways Coalition and Sonoma Safe Egg Safe Schools. Over the years, I've learned my son's painful pesticide reaction is not unique to my family.

However, I have discovered it doesn't need to be this way. AB 99 provides the opportunity to curb caltran's, excessive glyciphate and other pesticide use in Region One. Caltran has demonstrated for over 34 years that roadsides can be managed effectively with minimal or no herbicide use. It's time to extend this approach to other regions, especially to those areas that have already worked with their local officials and electeds to develop IPMP's that align with their community's values.

This is the beauty of AB 99 as it applies to those communities. In Sonoma County where I live, our government has successfully managed roadsides with 30 times fewer pesticides per road mile than Caltrans. The Board of Supervisors in Sonoma, Napa, Marin and Humboldt counties unanimously support AB 99. They have experienced firsthand how achievable this type of pesticide reduction can be. I am here representing these organizations and Members. I am one of the locals that have worked hard on these.

But mostly I am the face and voice of the families and children that not only have been affected by harmful pesticide use, but also who have had the privilege of living in a county who has decreased significantly its use. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, other folks who want to add support for the Bill. I saw you yesterday.

My name is Suzanne Hume. I'm the educational Director and founder of Cleaners for Kids and a pesticide survivor. I very much support this Bill. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Sean Bothwell, on behalf of. The California Coastkeeper Alliance in support of the Bill. Thank you.

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

Good morning, Chair Allen and Committee Members. Leah Jones on behalf of A Voice For choice Advocacy in strong support.

Thank you, Chloe Brown, on behalf of Californians Against Waste and Support. Thank you,

Amara Eger on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and the California Compost Coalition in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members Kira Ross on behalf of the Marin County Council of Mayors and council Members in support.

Thank you. All right, opposition who wants to raise concerns about the Bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members Taylor Roshan on behalf of Western Plant Health Association. I'll be speaking on behalf of the coalition today. Unfortunately, we're here in an opposed position. We agree conceptually with the author's effort to specify that Caltrans implement and exercise integrated pest management, or IPM. IPM is a systems approach requiring the user to review the issue and select what tool or suite of tools use is best used, and pesticides are a part of IPM tool set when necessary.

But rather than follow IPM, as the analysis, Julie notes, AB 99 goes beyond the UC defined and adopted practice of IPM by prohibiting the use of pesticides, both organic and conventional, with very narrow exemptions in high fire severity zones for addressing invasive plants, and even in those two circumstances only if no other alternative has been proven effective. With respect to the first exemption, While we appreciate the allowed use in high fire severity zones, we know these zones are not the sole indicator of wildfire risk. With the amount of late winter rainfall that we had, new vegetative growth, and the start of a very hot summer, there will be significant new fuel loads all over the state, including in areas that are not historically fire prone.

Within those areas, pesticides according to AB 99 would not be available for use, which may lead Caltrans to use less effective methods that could exacerbate the problem, like spreading weed seed, require more frequent treatment, more equipment, and put more Caltrans employees at risk in an already incredibly dangerous job. When considering the risks and realities, AB 99 would conceivably restrict the safer and more sustainable IPM dictated approach in this circumstance. The Bill also states that pesticides can only be used when there's no other alternative that's been proven effective. We have serious questions about what kind of process that would obligate and who makes that decision. Is it Caltrans? Is it a licensed applicator that's applying the products? Is it? The Department of Pesticide Regulation.

We believe that licensed and trained Caltrans crews in the field should be allowed to use their professional experience and discretion to select the best and most effective approach additionally, which may include a non chemical approach and should in those circumstances. AB 99 additionally states that Caltrans would follow this policy, but must deviate from that policy if the local jurisdiction has a more restrictive standard. California has 58 counties, 482 cities, and we would ask what that patchwork approach would look like in terms of implementation.

Finally, AB 99 requires Caltrans to provide 24 hours notice in advance of a pesticide application identifying the location and the time of the application. We want to note for the committee that the Legislature gave the Department of Pestide Regulation last year $10 million to develop a statewide pestide notification system for the public. We don't believe that creating a duplicative system at Caltrans is the proper use of limited resources. Our coalition and author do want the same thing.

We want the judicious and safe use of pest management tools that are the lowest risk options when they're balanced with their effectiveness to protect our communities and our ecosystems. Unfortunately, we believe AB 99 would leave Caltrans at a minimum with much less effective and responsive tools to do their work. And so, when the time is appropriate, we request a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Other folks want to raise concerns about the Bill, express opposition. All right, let's go to the phone lines for AB 99.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, as he stated, if you're in support of opposition of AB 99, please press 10 at this time. Unfiled by zero and got quite a few queued up. Queuing up. Here we'll go to line 66. Please go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Jennifer Tanner for Indivisible, California Green team in strong support I almost died of glyphosate. This is a fantastic Bill. Thank you.

Line 21.

Hi, I'm Yvette Bozini in Berkeley, California. I'm a breast cancer patient calling in strong support, please, of AB 99. Thank you.

Please go aheadline. 30.

This is Keon Schulman, Director of Poison Free Malibu. We are strongly in support.

You are open. Line 31.

Hi. My name is Theodore Rutledge Jr. I'm a Member of Protect Our Watershed of San Mateo County and I'm calling in strong support of AB 99. Thank you.

Please go ahead. Line 76. 76. You are open. One more shot, line 76. Let's move along to line 78.

Good morning, chair and Members of the committee. My name is Theodore Rose. On behalf of the Send Them All Foundation, we respectfully urge your aye vote on AB 99 as an overdue step forward for wildlife and human health in California. Thank you.

Line 79. You are open.

Melissa Segun, on behalf of the Pesticide Action Network and the California Pesticide Reform in Support. Thank you.

Please go ahead. Line 20.

Jennifer Height of fogs. Breath Farm in Lahonda. Please vote yes. Thank you so much.

Line 36. Please go ahead.

Kim Conte, with non tax, neighborhood in strong support of AB 99. Thank you.

And we'll go to line 38.

Nontoxic schools, Marin County. And strong support.

We'll go to line 62.

Kelly Williams, human health intern with Cleanliness for Kids.

You are open. Line 34. 34. Please go ahead. Line 34. Let's move along. We'll go to line 18. You are open.

Hello. My name is Kathleen Downing. I am a local gardener and dog walker in San Mateo County and I'm calling in support of AB 99. Thank you.

Line 35. Please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Kathleen Biki, Lajanda, California, and I'm in strong support of AB 99. Thank you.

Line 70, you are up.

Good morning, Don McInhill with Russian River Keeper, in strong support, and we do fire prevention all summer long. And when we spray vegetation, we leave it dead behind. We remove it, we don't spray it for fire prevention. Thank you

please go ahead. Line 82.

Catherine Dodd, registered nurse and bone marrow transplant survivor from Glyphosate and strong support.

Line 81, you are open.

This is Kyle Chode family advocating for chemical and toxic safety and strong support,

please go ahead. Line 55.

California in strong support of AB 99.

Line 71, you are open.

Jason Greenwald from Protect Wild petaluma in strong support.

Line 68. Please go ahead.

Hello, I'm Sue Brenton from San Carlos, San Mateo county. I support AB 99.

Line 58. Please go ahead.

Lindy Purcell, representing Jonas Philanthropies and grandparents in action. Strong support.

Line 28, you are open.

Patty Clary of Californians for alternatives to toxics based in Humboldt County where Caltrans has not used herbicides in 34 years. In strong support of AB 99.

And a final reminder star followed by one, followed by zero. If you are in support or opposition to AB 99, please go ahead. Line 80.

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

Line 69. Please go ahead. 69. Line 60.

Megan Town. Megan Town from the Healthy Highways Coalition in strong support,

line 34, please go ahead.

My name is Lynette Vega. I am from LA Honda Indivisible, and we're in strong support of AB 99. Thank you.

Please go ahead, line 76.

... , San Diego County, ... for ... in support.

Let's try 34. Once again.

... Orange County, Climate Reality. Support.

Thank you. And that does clear the queue. We do have one more queuing up with an operator. One moment. They just -- and we'll go to line 87.

Michael Konte, Director of Nontoxic Neighborhoods Youth. I'm in support.

And, Mr. Chair, if you would like to entertain one more, they're with an operator.

Sure.

Okay. Please go ahead, 22.

This is Brian Lilla from Napa County, and I am in favor of AB 99.

And that does clear the queue.

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

Yes. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Assembly Member. I know this was in Transportation Committee, you're taking the amendments here. I guess just in the practicality -- in practical sense -- you're taking the Cal Fire amendments, as we discussed, and then because of the -- I guess the question I have is in terms of implementation, I think, which is what we've discussed -- and I think, what I think all of us want to ensure, is that this actually gets implemented in a very streamlined fashion. Now that the locals will have to be providing Caltrans with this, how do you see that implementation moving forward? Sonoma, Marin, have done a great job for many years with this plan. What do you see as the next step in terms of implementation?

No, I appreciate the question, and in answering, maybe I'll pick up some of what I heard in the opposition as well, which was kind of a new argument. We've been at this for about five hearings now, so appreciate the ongoing dialogue. The IPM approach is not piecemeal. Locals have adopted very similar approaches in line with what UC has done, and in line with what we are talking about implementing here. It was noteworthy to me that there seemed to be an issue with the requirement that, if other means are available that would be effective, this would require those efforts to be made. And remember, IPM is a suite of solutions. It's not any one. It could be a combination. I'll just say point blank: our goal here is to reduce the use of pesticides through an IPM approach.

The argument seems to be -- and she more or less conceded there could be other effective means, but pesticide use could be more effective and Caltrans should be able to, thus, use that. We want to move away from that. Where there's an issue, apparently, with this bill is if the locality has adopted a more restrictive approach. The way we're seeing that usually, is the banning of glyphosate, which is at this point, a known carcinogenic.

We recognize that there has to be some give and take with the locals and Caltrans. That's why we're putting the burden now, on the locals, to come forward with their plan to have that dialogue. And then there will be a determination of whether it's feasible, in that circumstance, for Caltrans to match the more restrictive approach. Caltrans is showing that it can do it. This currently is the case in Humboldt and Mendocino counties, and has been for years.

Rather than spraying glyphosate, Caltrans works with the community and hand pulls, mows, uses goats, uses native plants, all the other various tools that they have. We're hoping through this, that they would continue -- and we're talking about six to eight counties right now, a number of cities -- and really, just to have a good faith, real effort to move in this direction, toward a true IPM direction. Caltrans technically does have an IPM. They have since 1992. It's just not being implemented.

Okay. Any additional questions or thoughts? I guess my question for you, Assembly Member -- one of the things we had been going back and forth on was -- and it's discussed on page ten of the analysis -- this question of -- we were asking -- so you've got a line here on page four of the bill, where you say that this kicks in where no alternative vegetation management method has been proven effective. We've been having discussion about effective and safe. What's wrong with adding in a line about safety from your perspective?

I think I did deal with the effective point.

What do you mean? What do you mean you dealt with it?

Well, I just answered a question on that. So the argument seems to be, even in the face of other effective means, spraying of pesticides, in the opponent's view, could be more effective, and thus Caltrans needs to take that into account. We would argue that's the wrong approach to IPM. The point is to go with the least harmful means: vegetation management. So you're raising a little bit of a separate issue on safety.

Exactly.

Which is the point I was surprised not to hear about this time because I've addressed it at every hearing. Not spraying cancer-causing pesticides will create more safety for workers. That's the bottom line.

Right. Which is why I wasn't understanding why there was pushback on the use of that word, given what you just said.

So the effort was to kind of create a loophole right at the top line of the IPM policy. And that was effective, safe and feasible. I've dealt with the effective issue. Feasibility is within the bill. The approach is that Caltrans needs to match a locality, if it's feasible to do so. And that takes into account a lot of different circumstances around particular geographic issues or topographical issues, et cetera.

We believe the effort by one of the opponents to put that amendment forward was to water down the bill. That in effect, it would create a status quo situation. In an IPM approach, safety is already built in. Again, I would argue it creates more safety, by wherever possible, using the least harmful means, and particularly around situations where a known carcinogen, namely glyphosate, is being reduced. Under an IPM approach, you can use a variety of means. So I think what we were pushing back on is -- those factors are already in the bill, and to just, I think, offer a way around kind of the IPM approach initially, created a loophole we didn't want to see in the bill.

Well, I mean, obviously you're going to have to have a lot of effective and feasible conversations with the administration over the extent to which they're willing to have this imposed upon California?

That's completely how it's drafted, and we've dealt with safety at every hearing. It interestingly was not raised as an issue today, by the opponent.

Okay. All right. Any additional questions or thoughts from the committee? Yeah? Okay. Is there a motion for the bill? Okay. So moved by Senator Gonzalez. We'll let you close.

Thank you. Really appreciate the 133 organizations that have signed on to support this bill, the thoughtful amendments that were proposed, the conversation. This bill is better because of the process we've gone through, including this committee. And with that, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Item's been moved by Senator Gonzalez. Secretary will you call the roll?

AB 99. The motion is do pass as amended and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators: Allen. Aye. Dahle. No. Gonzalez. Aye. Hurtado. Pardon me? Okay. Hurtado. Aye. Menjivar. Aye. Nguyen. Skinner.

All right. Thank you. That's got the votes to get out, but we'll leave that open for other members.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we'll next call up Assembly Member Ting to -- of course, sure. Senator Dahle's moved the consent calendar while Assembly Member Ting prepares. Secretary, please call the roll.

Okay. Senators: Allen. Aye. Dahle. Aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Hurtado. Aye. Menjivar. Aye. Nguyen. Skinner.

Okay, thank you. We'll leave that open.

All right. Assembly Member Ting is here to present three bills, and he'll start with item 3. That's AB 347.

Yes. Thank you very much.

And I'm glad that unlike Judiciary last night, you get to present early in the-

Yes. Thank you. There's no alphabetical list today.

Even though I'm an A, I want to be fair. I want to be fair.

Numeric, right?

Yes.

So AB 347 requires the Department of Toxic Substance Control to ensure compliance with two existing laws, regulating the use of PFAS chemicals in food packaging and juvenile products. We've done a lot of great work in this area, yet we really haven't given the Department the authority to do testing, as well as to do any sort of regulation of these PFAS chemicals in these particular product areas.

DTSC really would have the opportunity to test products and also would be able to assess administrative fines, should they choose. This bill would also authorize DTSC to provide guidance to manufacturers seeking to comply with those laws. We've had ongoing discussions with different environmental and business stakeholders throughout this process, and we will continue to do so to keep refining this bill. But with that, respectfully ask for, aye vote on AB 347. No witnesses, just support and opposition.

Okay, so folks who want to just weigh in, in support of AB 347. Here we go. I love the sign.

Thank you so much.

We got to patent it.

Suzanne Hume, Clean Earth 4 Kids. Strong support.

Great.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, I left my sign at home today, but Jason ... , on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, want to really thank the author for his good work. We're strong supporters.

I don't think we want to see your sanitation sign.

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

Mara Eger on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. In support.

Kayla Robinson on behalf of the California Compost Coalition. In support. Thank you.

Chloe Brown on behalf of Californians Against Waste, in support. Thank you.

Ryan Spencer on behalf of the American College of OBGYNs, District Nine. In support.

Good morning, Chair and members. Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. We're currently a tweener position. While the provisions related to the DTSC enforcement is an improvement over the other PFAS related legislation moving this year, CMTA has continued to work with the author and staff on fine tuning other elements of the legislation to address some lingering concerns. Definitely appreciate the continued dialogue, and we'll continue working with the author. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Are there other folks who want to raise concerns or opposition to the bill? I don't think we have any registered opposition. All right, let's go to the phone lines. This is opportunity for folks to give their position on AB 347 on the phone lines.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you are in support or opposition to AB 347, please press 1-0. Line 92, please go ahead. Line 92, you-

Hi, Yvonne ... with Clean Earth 4 Kids in support.

102, you are open.

Good morning. Jim Lindberg on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California. In support.

Please go ahead, line 62. Line 62, are you muted? One more shot, line 62. Let's go to line 9. Go ahead. Excuse me.

Williams ... with Clean Earth 4 Kids. In support.

Thank you. Line 94, you are open.

Hello. This is Kirsten Rasmussen, intern at Clean Earth 4 Kids in strong support.

Okay, one more reminder. One followed by zero if you're in support or opposition to Assembly Bill 347. Line 76, please go ahead. Line 76.

Vanessa Forsythe. Sorry, Vanessa Forsythe. Clean Earth 4 Kids. In support.

And you are open. Line 58.

... Families Advocating for Chemical & Toxics Safety. In strong support.

Please go ahead line 103.

Hi, my name is Sam Cole, and I'm a public health intern with CleanEarth4Kids.org, and I strongly support AB 347.

And that does clear everybody up.

Great. All right, thank you so much. Let's bring it back to the committee for questions, thoughts, comments. Senator Menjivar.

Assembly Member, thank you so much for this bill. I've come to learn that a lot of the bills that we've passed under this go into the orphan code. So I think this is much needed legislation to help address that. So thank you so much.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

Sounded like a motion to me, maybe. Okay, so let's let you close on this one. You got two more to go after this.

Just appreciate the nice words and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. All right. Secretary, please call the roll.

Item number 3, AB 347 by Assembly Member Ting. The motion is do pass and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Allen. Aye. Dahle. Gonzalez. Aye. Hurtado. Aye. Menjivar. Aye. Nguyen. Skinner.

All right, thank you. We'll leave that open, obviously, for other folks to add on, but that's out. Let's go to your next bill, AB 1347.

Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, let me thank you and the committee for their work on this bill. I'm happily accepting the amendments -- the committee amendments. AB 1347 does a couple of things. The first is: require all businesses to ban the use of toxic chemicals in receipts. Starting in 2024, receipts cannot contain any BPA, and starting in 2025, receipts cannot contain any bisphenol. The second provision is: require businesses with over $25 million in revenue to offer consumers a choice between a receipt and no receipt.

If the consumer does not want a receipt, then the business cannot print one. This would take effect in 2025. The bill does not ban paper receipts, nor does it infringe on any business's ability to provide a paper receipt or proof of purchase if they require one. The bill is needed simply because of -- a report by Green America talks about receipt waste. There's nearly 3 million trees, 10 billion gallons of water, and 300 pounds of waste, annually, coming from receipts alone. This environmental impact is really unnecessary, especially as we've really moved toward a number of e-receipts and no receipts. Companies like Trader Joe's, TJ. Maxx, Whole Foods, and In-N-Out already have removed BPA from those receipts. Appreciate all the help with this bill. Respectfully ask for aye vote on AB 1347.

Great. All right, let's go to anyone who wants to weigh in support, AB 1347. Oh, here we go.

Suzanne Hume. CleanEarth4Kids.org. Strong support.

Thank you, Suzanne.

Sorry. So, witness, do we want to-

No, yeah. Let's hear from you. Please.

Okay. Good morning, Chair and members, Nicole Kurian and with Californians Against Waste. We are proud to co-sponsor AB 1347, which would allow consumers to choose whether or not to receive a paper proof of purchase, including allowing businesses to offer electronic proof of purchase options. Receipt paper production utilizes more than 3 million trees and 10 billion gallons of water every year in the US. And the production and disposal of receipt paper emits the carbon equivalent of almost half a million cars on the road.

The vast majority of this production creates unnecessary waste. One survey found that Americans threw away or lost about half of the paper receipts they received, even those that they intended to keep. Prevention is the foundation of the waste hierarchy -- more preferable to recovery, reuse, recycling, and finally, disposal. Environmentally and economically conscious businesses who've implemented point of purchase prompts, presenting consumers with these options, as CVS did in early 2022, understand this and have already seen the benefits. CVS is the largest pharmacy chain in the US-

-and this move alone saved about 87 million yards of receipt paper, enough to circle the globe two times. Finally, receipt paper is often coated with toxic, endocrine-disrupting chemicals like BPA and BPS. In addition to exposing retail workers and consumers to these chemicals, if recycled, the toxic coating on receipts can contaminate recycled paper products, such as toilet paper and food packaging. AB 1347 will require paper receipts to be BPA-free after Jan 1, 2024, and free of all bisphenols after Jan 1, 2025. This bill would simply allow consumers to choose how they receive a purchase, reducing waste and saving natural resources. For these reasons, we urge your support of this bill. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much. Other folks who want to just voice their support for the bill.

Miho Ligare on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation. In support. Thanks.

Thank you.

Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council and Stop Waste in support.

Amara Ager on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, the Clean Seas Lobbying Coalition, Grove Collaborative, Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxics Safety, Save Our Shores and Educate Advocate. Thank you.

Hello, Kayla Robinson on behalf of Rethink Waste in support. And also asked to voice support for Story of Stuff, Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy and Clean Water Action. Thank you so much.

Good morning. Stephanie Morwell on behalf of Recology in support.

Thank you. Great. All right, people who want to raise concerns about the bill?

Hi. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Margaret Gladstein here on behalf of the California Retailers Association. Do appreciate how far the bill has come, but we remain in an opposed, unless amended position. We would prefer the bill just be limited to eliminating the chemicals in receipts. Our main concern is, well, we don't like the new penalties, I must say. But our main concern really rests with the no receipt option. This body, last session, approved $300 million in its budget to fight organized retail crime.

The first people who will take advantage of the no receipt option are criminals who are stealing things from our stores. More and more stores unfortunately, today, are actually checking receipts at the exit to help reduce organized retail crime. And so, if there's a no receipt option, that simply does not work. I would also note that the author has created an unleveled playing field by essentially carving out Costco and other club stores, who regularly check receipts at the door in order to reduce theft.

And so he does recognize that's an issue in some places, but not in other retail locations. So that is still our remaining concern with this bill. We do appreciate how far the bill has come. It's been a multi-year battle with the author, and we do know it's come a long way, but we remain opposed unless amended for those reasons. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Thank you Mr. Chair and members. Matt Sutton with the California Restaurant Association. We do appreciate the multi-year discussion on the bill, and we are trying to get to neutral. We are not quite there yet. And it largely focuses on the issue of, when a customer or guest says that they do not want a receipt, it creates some challenges for us in the full service dining environment. You can imagine when someone comes to close out the bill.

If a guest says they don't want a receipt, it makes things difficult for us to finalize the transaction, unless we are forced to buy the certain point of sale systems and technology that offer an alternative to that. So that, and some app ordering issues and nuances, continue to give us great challenge with some of the provisions. But the bill has moved in a lot of great directions, and we appreciate that and we hope we can get these other issues resolved.

Thank you. Yes.

Yes, good morning. Taylor Roschen on behalf of the California Grocers in respectful opposition.

Norlyn Asprec on behalf of the Paper Receipts Converting Association with an opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Also for my colleague from CalChamber. Opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning. Sabrina Demayo Lockhart with the California Attractions and Parks Association. Also opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Okay, let's go to the phone lines. People who want to weigh in on AB 1347.

Thank you. If you are in support or opposition to AB 1347, go ahead and press 1-0 at this time. One followed by zero. Line 51, please go ahead.

Hey, good morning. Dan Howells from Green America, one of the authors of the Skip the Slip report. In strong support.

You are open. Line 105.

Kyle ... Grandparents In Action in strong support.

Please go ahead. Line 102.

Jim Lindberg for the Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support of AB 1347.

Line 62, you are open.

Kelly ... , public health intern with Clean Earth 4 Kids. Strong support.

Line 48, please go ahead.

Bill Allyaud, Environmental Working Group in support.

Line 49, you are open.

Good morning Chair and committee members. Tyler Gerlach on behalf of the California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Line 55, please go ahead. Line 55.

Alyssa Orozco on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support of AB 1347 thank you.

Line 58. You are open.

... Purcell, representing California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice in strong support.

Please go ahead. 34.

... Orange County ..., support.

Quick reminder to express support or opposition for AB 1347. One followed by zero. And we will go to line 36.

Kim Konte with Non-Toxic Neighborhoods. In strong support. Thank you.

And line 94. Line 94. That's you, please go ahead. One more shot. Line 94. Well, that does clear our queue, Mr. Chair.

There are no other participants queued up at this time. 94 re-queued. Let's try them again.

Hello. This is Kirsten Rasmussen. On behalf of Clean Earth 4 Kids, strong support.

And Mr. Chair, nobody else is queued up.

All right, thank you. All right, let's bring it to the committee.

... , Educator, School Board Member. Receipts are important in case somebody needs to be reimbursed for expenses. Also, if you're audited by the IRS, you need to show receipts. So I think receipts are important. I agree with the toxic piece of it, but people need some sort of receipt. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, let's start. How would you respond to the gentleman's concern he just raised, Assembly Member?

Oh, this is a consumer choice. So if someone needs a receipt, they get a receipt.

Yeah.

There is no ban on receipts in this bill.

Right, okay. All right. Could you give us your sense of how things are going with the opposition? Certainly, we're hearing a lot of progress having been made. I think the core concerns really come down to a lot of the practicalities associated with running their operations. We seem to have given a special dispensation to companies that proactively check their receipts on the way out. But what about everybody else? Some of the theft issues that were raised by Ms. Gladstein, I'd love to get your reaction.

Let me just start with criminals. Criminals don't ask for receipts. They take things and they leave the store. So the receipts absolutely do not -- they don't get in line, pay for some things and not pay for others. They go into a store and they walk out.

Well, I think she's more referring to folks that may take a little bit more than what they bought for it. Isn't that the-

That's not how criminals work. I mean, if you're going to go -- you don't say, "Hey, I'm going to pay for a pack of gum and by the way, I'm going to steal this other stuff." So if you look at criminals go in, they take things and they leave. They don't try to pay for things. So that's one. Two: in terms of retailers checking receipts, you have very, very few retailers check receipts. The last time I had the receipt checked was when I was in Costco. We talked about that issue. Perhaps there are more retailers starting to check receipts, but at this point, I'm a frequent shopper at a variety of retail locations, both here as well as in my home city, and I can't recall the last time a company or retailer checked my receipt. In terms of the Restaurant Association, we appreciate their feedback.

We're going to continue to keep talking to them. One of the major changes with the bill we started with, originally, e-receipt, no receipt or paper receipt. And now we're just sort of yes and no on the receipt because we know that some establishments already have that option of no receipt. We didn't want to force companies that already give people the option of no receipt to force them to do an e-receipt. And of course, if they do an e-receipt, that's additive.

It's not something that's required in the bill, but continue to be additive. So again, I think we feel very good about where the discussions are with the receipts. And again, the legislation -- we took a very big amendment in Assembly privacy. So we're really talking about only businesses that get revenues of $25 million and above. So you're talking very sizable businesses. So that's a very high revenue threshold.

Okay, questions from the members, thoughts? Yeah, I just hope that -- obviously I think everybody on this committee is very interested in waste reduction. It's been part of our work for quite some time. I'm glad that we're now getting to the point where the discussion, really, is about how your bill melds with the business practices and how we make this actually feasible for our restaurants and our grocers and other retailers. The bill is now in second house. How do you see the conversations going over the next month? At the restaurants and others.

Look. Unlike the earlier discussion you had with our colleague's bill, this bill is pretty much just about done. I think we're finalizing a couple modifications, minor modifications with different industry concerns. But in general, I think, when you're talking about businesses that are $25 million and above, you're talking about a receipt, no receipt. Again, it's quite often that people will ask me if I want a receipt or not. I say no, but they still print out the receipt and throw it away.

Again, that doesn't help the waste stream, that is additional waste that doesn't really need to occur. And so I think some modification of business practices -- I think these are all very doable practices. The industry has already said that they're moving away from the toxic chemicals, which is a great -- I think, a major, major step. But I think at this point, we are very close to being done.

Okay, just with that, can I just hear from the Restaurant Association? You made some comment about how this is going to potentially jam up accounting procedures. I just want to better understand that concern.

Sure, Mr. Chair. Our issues aren't so much about the accounting procedure -- well, I guess they are in a sense. The full service restaurant -- and it may be an issue of what constitutes a receipt -- in a full service restaurant, when you're presented with your bill, for instance, is that a receipt? Is that where the consumer has the option to say yes or no to that? That's been brought up by our full service members. And so that's one issue, and I think that's probably something we can continue to work on with the author. The other issue is with the app-based ordering.

Lots of restaurants and food service places, whether it's Mendocino Farms or you name it, you know, you walk in and you pick up a bag, the receipt is the identifier that's on the bag that has your name, your order, and those things. So it's those nuances that I think are workable, but those are nuances -- they're big headaches for our members.

Yeah. I would presume -- I understand the bill is almost there, but I would hope that you-

Yeah. We don't ban pieces of paper identifying people's orders. I mean, the bill is pretty specific in terms of what it does.

The piece of paper will have the transaction on it, and in many minds, that is a receipt. So that's sort of the confusion that our members are facing.

Yeah. We're happy to have further discussion for additional clarification. If the Association has language they wanted to -- I think in the past, associations would come to us with exemption language, not with fine tuning. So, again, happy to take any language that they want to present to us that would address their issue. But again, the bill does not ban pieces of paper identifying things.

Yeah. I just would hope that we could get this resolved within a reasonable manner. Once again-

Happy to.

Yeah. Okay, so we'll be monitoring that conversation over the course of the month. Did you want to finalize...?

I appreciate the attention to the issue. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Do you have a motion from any of the members? Okay, so thank you. Thanks for that discussion. Moved by Senator Menjivar. Let's give you the opportunity to close.

Just again, appreciate all the work that this committee has done on e-waste, on just waste in general. Really appreciate the assistance with this bill. Respectfully ask for aye vote on AB 1347.

Great. All right, Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1347. The motion is do pass as amended and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators: Allen. Aye. Dahle. Gonzalez. Aye. Hurtado. Menjivar. Aye. Nguyen. Skinner.

That's 3-0. That's on call. Okay. And then there's one final bill. This is AB 1633.

Yes. First, let me just thank you, Mr. Chair, also the committee, on the work on AB 1633. Really appreciate your discussions and your thoughts. We're happy to accept the amendments that add a seven year sunset and align the definition of infill with AB 1449. AB 1633 just strengthens the Housing Accountability Act. The Housing Accountability Act was designed to ensure that local governments don't overstep their authority and stop very critically needed housing. We had an example of that situation in my city, where a parking lot, used as a valet parking lot for Nordstrom's, which would have been a great site for housing, was delayed, delayed, delayed -- and eventually, after the governor stepped in to get the project approved -- now the economics have changed, and the housing doesn't look like it's going to get built anytime in the near future.

The bill does not touch CEQA. It also creates a remedy for developers and offers a timeline for developers, should they need it, who are awaiting local administrative approval. I think one very critical piece of this, is that local jurisdictions would have to follow the exemptions that we, as a legislature and the governor, have signed into law. I think that's a very critical piece. We believe that oftentimes, there's a concern that local jurisdictions would ignore, or haven't always been as quick to follow, the exemptions that we have passed through this legislative body. Again, this is all about ensuring that there are guardrails. We don't anticipate -- I know there's been a concern in the past about litigation and additional court fees, and AB 1633 allows a court to waive court fees that the local agency acted in good faith and had reasonable cause to require more environmental review.

So we believe that this bill strikes a balance with retaining local control, but again, strengthening a law that has been on the books for a long time, to ensure that local governments don't overstep their power, as we need, critically -- that we need housing that's very critical to our state to be approved.

Okay, do you have witnesses?

We do ... witnesses.

Mr. Chair and Members, Michael Lane with SPUR, a public policy think tank in the San Francisco Bay Area. AB 1633 does not touch the CEQA statute, including the timelines, nor truncate the process of environmental review. The bill has been carefully crafted to ensure the statute functions as intended, for dense infill housing on climate-efficient sites protected under the Housing Accountability Act -- an act that has also been on the books for many decades, and which the legislature has strengthened significantly over the past few years to address our housing crisis. Further, the bill does not create a new CEQA exemption.

In fact, the plain text explicitly states, the measures shall not be construed to require a local agency to approve an exemption for a project that is not exempt under CEQA. AB 1633 maintains and protects the deference afforded to lead agencies conducting the environmental review, and we worked closely with local government representatives in drafting the language. If there is substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that further environmental study is indeed necessary, the local agency is presumed to be acting in good faith.

The bill is narrowly targeted to those jurisdictions and actions that abuse CEQA to avoid running afoul of the Housing Accountability Act and delay a project approval indefinitely, by refusing to certify legally complete environmental documents. AB 1633 ensures that CEQA's purpose and intent are honored to protect human health and the environment, and not as a political tool to slow or kill environmentally friendly infill housing development. We respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Yes, sir.

Good morning. Mark Stivers of the California Housing Partnership. We advocate on behalf of increasing the stock of affordable rental housing. Rental housing is environmentally friendly, yet very susceptible to even the threat of CEQA litigation by project opponents, whether they are motivated by environmental reasons or any other. For that reason, this legislature has created a number of CEQA exemptions for affordable housing. Yet they are only as good as the paper that they are written on, if a local government can choose to ignore them.

By clarifying that when a denial of a CEQA exemption violates the Housing Accountability Act, this bill creates some badly needed certainty for the developers of affordable housing, so that we can increase the stock of affordable housing to those low-income families who need it most in the state. Thank you very much.

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

Good morning, Jennifer Armenta with the California Housing Consortium in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Graciela Castillo-Krings, here on behalf of California YIMBY, a proud sponsor. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Michael Gunning here with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of CivicWell, Fieldstead & Company, Habitat for Humanity California, Sandhill Properties, HAC and the Bay Area Council. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, people want to raise concerns about the bill, opposition?

Good morning, senators. Matthew Baker with Planning Conservation League. PCL sympathizes with the intent of the legislation to limit the ability of bad actors to delay good housing projects, particularly affordable housing projects, where affordable housing intensification may be politically difficult. I stood here in support, just a couple of weeks ago, of AB 1449 with some of my very same housing advocate friends, that I'm now on the other side of this issue with, unfortunately, today. We appreciate the committee amendments. We think that they are significant improvements in targeting the bill, but we still respectfully, fundamentally object to the policy in principle. There's an inherent conflict between the Housing Accountability Act and CEQA, and we are very interested in talking about ways to resolve that conflict.

But we feel this tips and scales of leverage far too heavily towards the Housing Accountability Act and the developers -- putting local governments in an untenable situation and undercutting community voice in the process. There are an infinite number of scenarios where, depending on the specific conditions of a project, it could warrant further review -- even when a project otherwise meets the letter of the law, to qualify for an exemption or a negative declaration. The local government must be allowed to continue to be able to make this determination.

But by making a decision to demand further review, a potential violation under the HAA, the state would be exposing local governments to litigation, even when they're trying to do the right thing. Developers will have every incentive to sue every time they don't get their way. And in turn, governments, in fear of that, will be encouraged to prematurely approve a project, even when further review and mitigation is warranted. So we fear that this will likely result in far more projects being approved with unmitigated impacts, rather than the number of good projects that we're trying to help and accelerate. So we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We respectfully urge a no vote. I'm sorry.

Thank you. All right. Other folks who want to raise concerns about the bill?

Good morning. Raquel Mason registering opposition on behalf of The Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, Communities for a Better Environment, Esperanza Community Housing, Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles, and PODER San Francisco. Thank you.

Good morning. Joe ... with the State Building Trades. Respectfully opposed.

All right, we'll go to the phone lines. Folks who want to weigh in on AB 1633.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you're in support or opposition to AB 1633, please press 1-0 at this time. Line 109, please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Elizabeth ... , and I'm speaking on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity in opposition. Thank you.

I think I said the wrong item number accidentally. It's AB 1633. Please press one, followed by zero. One followed by zero. And line 113. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Corey Smith on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support.

And we have one with an operator. Anybody else, please take this opportunity and press 1-0 for AB 1633. Line 60, please go ahead.

Good morning. Mark Wolf on behalf of ... in opposition. Thank you.

And we cleared the queue, Mr. Chair.

All right, we'll bring the item back to the committee for questions, thoughts and comments.

Mr. Chair.

Yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Assembly Member. I just have a question relative to our environmental justice communities. I think they provided a letter that says the bill makes no attempt to define what projects are environmentally friendly or environmentally beneficial. Can you just respond to that and what your take is?

Yeah, this is my second year running the bill, and this is the first time that we have received opposition from the EJ communities. They haven't requested a meeting, so we're happy to sit down and talk to them. The original bill already has definitions around the scope, so it already is limiting the scope of the legislation, which I am looking for right here. The eligible projects, they have to be in an urbanized zone.

They have to have minimum density requirements of 15 units per acre, and they also meet the requirements for an exemption or has gone through legally sufficient environmental review. So that's been a standing definition the last two years. Again, this is the first time we've received any discussion or opposition from them.

We're talking about projects that are eligible for exemptions. Right. So those are projects that typically have had environmental leadership associated. But that being said, do you know when this letter came in?

I don't.

I have it dated July 7.

Okay. Yeah, just a few days ago.

Five days ago?

Yeah. Okay. But definitely -- I think it would be important for us -- for you guys to-

Happy to. My office is -- people know where to reach me.

If I might just add, we are not touching the CEQA statute at all, so anything like a phase one environmental review for soils testing, et cetera, that's required for the infill exemption, for example, you still have to follow that if there's a negative declaration that has to be done, that process -- we maintain all that process. It's just that at the end of that process, if there's not substantial evidence in the record for additional environmental review after those timelines have passed, or if the jurisdiction actually has completed documents, and they agendize them and have a meeting, and then defer the decision, then there would be an opportunity for the developer to call the question. 90 days to rectify the issue with the local jurisdiction. They can even ask for an additional 90 days extension.

So lots more time to do additional work that may be necessary, before there would even be a cause for action on the part of the developer. And developers don't want to spend their time in court. Litigation takes time and dollars away from a project that they want to complete, and they're actually working with the lead agency through that entire process of the environmental reviews that are necessary. We don't change any of that. We're just creating some safeguards and transparency for those bad actor jurisdictions. And it's really narrowly tailored, when the jurisdiction cannot provide that substantial evidence for why additional environmental study is needed.

But I will say -- this would certainly be something that -- if this does pass, it'll create new implications associated with new exemptions if those are being considered in the future. So I think it's something everyone's going to have to really watch really carefully. Anyway. I'm not sure if they want to make a motion or if they want to hold off. Whatever. Are you interested in making a motion or...? It's okay if you're not. We can wait. Yeah, okay. All right. We'll give you the opportunity to close. Unless there's additional questions. I'm sorry. Yeah.

No, I just -- the letters are new information to me. I didn't know about the letters.

Yeah. This is from CEHA? Yeah, they got it in too late for it to get an analysis, but if you want to hold off -- if you want to check with folks?

No, I'll vote the bill out.

I've been working on this bill for a year and a half now. This is the first time that the EJ groups have submitted a letter, never asked for a meeting. I don't believe -- my staff person, who's worked on this bill, has been out last couple of days on illness. But again, we have met with everybody who's wanted to discuss this. So this letter comes as a little bit of a surprise.

Okay.

Okay. All right. It's been moved by -- I think we'll all vote for it today, with the understanding you're going to sit down with them-

Absolutely. I'll sit down with everyone.

-and some of the other folks, to see what further work can be done. Okay. Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1633. The motion is do pass as amended and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators: Allen. Aye. Dahle. Gonzalez. Aye. Hurtado. Menjivar. Aye. Nguyen. Skinner.

3-0. We'll leave the bill on call. Thank you so much.

Appreciate that. And again, we'll follow up. Thank you so much.

Great. Thank you. Assembly Member Garcia. Welcome.

Good morning, Madam Chair and colleagues. You often hear that these are simple bills; this one truly is a simple Bill. 1403 asked the fire marshal to collect data as it relates to the dangers, injuries caused by fireworks, both the Safe and Sane fireworks sold in municipalities throughout California, but also to take a look at the impacts of what we have seen is an escalating issue with illegal fireworks throughout the state.

This also creates an opportunity for those municipalities who sell the Safe and Sane fireworks to support those local communities, to educate their constituents about the Safe and Sane fireworks, how to use them responsibly, but also to look at ways to enforce the current laws on the books as it relates to legal fireworks being utilized. That's what this Bill does. We have one witness that will be very brief, Dennis Revell, who will be speaking to the Bill.

Good morning, Senators. Dennis Revell--excuse me--on behalf of American Promotional Events, Inc. You may know them better as TNT Fireworks, the state's leading wholesale distributor of state-approved fireworks. TNT Fireworks is proud to be a sponsor of AB 1403 and enjoys the support of the 2700 local nonprofit organizations who serve as its retail partners in 297 communities across the state that allow the sale and use of state approved fireworks every Fourth of July. We respectfully request your aye vote and be happy to answer any technical questions.

Thank you very much. Okay, anyone in opposition at this time? I don't see any listed, so we'll bring forth anyone who'd like to support or oppose AB 1403, please. Here in room 1200. Okay, seeing that moderator will take it to the phone lines. Anyone who'd like to support or oppose AB 1403, please.

Thank you very much. As she stated, if you're in support or opposition to AB 14 Three, please press one followed by zero. One followed by zero at this time. And Madam Chair, we're not getting anybody queuing up this time.

Okay, thank you so much. Moderator we'll take it back for questions. Senator Menjivar?

Assembly Member, thank you so much for this Bill. As a veteran, I've heard endless amount of stories related the impact fireworks have on my fellow veterans, and also as a dog mom, the past couple of weeks have been horrendous to my dogs. Not even trazodone has helped for them. I think we need to go beyond what this Bill does, but really excited that you're bringing this up and happy to move the Bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion, and I want to say thank you as well. This is, I think I don't know, it felt like this was the year on record that had the most illegal fireworks. And so this is a really good step in the right direction. Would you like to close?

Just to say that both of your comments are well noted. We've seen an escalation in illegal fireworks for Californians out there. They look pretty. We enjoy seeing them in the air. But people are not taking into account the dangerous risks that take place with launching these particular fireworks that are illegal from a neighborhood. Right. And, of course, the impacts that it has on mental health, on our pets, and just the dangers overall. So we respectfully ask for aye vote this is the beginning, I think, of a larger conversation.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

AB 1403. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Allen? Dahle? Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Nguyen? Skinner?

2-0, we'll leave the Bill on call. Thank you, Assemblymember. Now we'll move on to file item seven, AB 418 by Assemblymember Gabriel, but done by Senator Menjivar.

Thank you.

Senator Gonzalez, I'm here to present to you on behalf of Assemblymember Gabriel, who is out sick and sends his regrets that he cannot be here today. I can definitely not do it justice. I've heard his presentation. He's phenomenal. So please excuse me not getting to that level. AB 418 is a common sense food safety measure that would ban five harmful chemicals that are routinely added to processed foods in the United States.

Each of these chemicals has been linked by well documented scientific research to significant health harms, including cancer, reproductive harm, and behavioral and developmental issues in children. These five chemicals are already banned in the 27 nations in the European Union, and many are banned in other jurisdictions like Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan, Sri Lanka, and so many others. And it's not just other countries that have taken action to protect consumers.

Indeed, many of the most iconic American companies have voluntarily stopped using these chemicals because of concerns about their health impacts. This includes major food and beverage manufacturers like Coke, Pepsi, Papa John's, Dunkin' Donuts, Panera, and so many more. Unfortunately, the US is far behind the rest of the world in food safety due to the major weaknesses in the FDA approval and oversight process.

Shockingly, nearly 99% of new food additives never receive independent, meaningful review by the FDA due to the major loophole known as GRAS, or Generally Recognized as Safe ,that was originally intended for common household items like vinegar and sugar. Moreover, unlike other federal agencies, the FDA almost never re-reviews the safety of chemical additives, meaning that many chemicals were last reviewed decades ago and have not been reconsidered despite significant new evidence of health harms.

One of the best examples of the failure of the FDA process is red dye three, which has been banned by the FDA in cosmetics since 1990, but is somehow still allowed in food. It doesn't take a PhD in herbology to realize that this makes absolutely no sense. So it's not safe for us to put it on a face, but it's safe for us to ingest it, apparently.

To be clear, AB 418 will not ban any particular foods--your skittles are safe--or result in any products coming off the shelf. It will simply require food companies to make the same minor modifications to their recipes that have already been made in Europe and so many other places around the globe.

Additionally, Assembly Member Gabriel has been engaged in constructive conversations with opposition since he first introduced his Bill and recently added to an agreement recently agreed to an agreement that would delay the implementation date to 2027 to give manufacturers ample time to adjust their supply chains and sell their products that are currently on the shelf.

The Assembly Member is also proud that this Bill is supported by a broad and diverse coalition of healthcare, environmental, consumer protection, public health and cancer prevention groups, as well as many other organizations devoted to protecting children and families in the state of California. Since it would be difficult for me to answer any of your potential questions, here to testify in support of this Bill is Melanie Benesh, who is the Vice President of Government Affairs for the Environmental Working Group, and Dr. Homer Swei, the Senior Vice President of Healthy Living Science for the Environmental Working Group to provide testimony.

Great. Let's hear from them.

Good morning. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today in strong support of AB 418 on behalf of EWG, a co sponsor of the Bill. My name is Melanie Benesh. I am the Vice President for Government Affairs at EWG. And on a personal note, I am also expecting my first child, and I am alarmed by the prevalence of harmful chemicals in food and the lack of regulatory oversight by the FDA.

I'm an expert and even I find it difficult to make good choices when it comes to our food for me and my growing family. The FDA process for addressing risks from food chemicals is deeply broken. Today, nearly 99% of food chemicals are assessed for safety by food and chemical companies, not the FDA. If chemicals are FDA approved, the FDA does not have to re-review them, even when new science identifies serious harms. As a result, many chemicals have not been meaningfully assessed for safety for decades,

The five chemicals covered by AB 418 have been banned in nearly all foods sold in Europe's 27 nations, and many other nations around the world. These harmful chemical exposures are also completely unnecessary. Cost effective alternatives for these chemicals are used by brands to sell safer versions of their products in Europe that look and taste nearly identical to their American counterparts.

Major companies like Papa John's, Dunkin' Donuts, and Pepsi have voluntarily phased out these chemicals, and millions of Americans continue to enjoy their products every day. This experience shows that you can have the food that you love without the chemicals that you hate. Unfortunately, we can't count on the FDA to take the action needed to protect consumers. The FDA regularly misses statutory deadlines to respond to food chemical petitions.

Some petitions have been under review by the FDA since 1990, making those petitions older than many of my coworkers. The FDA also recently conceded significant weaknesses in its food program and acknowledges that it needs significant new resources, changes in leadership structure in order to adequately address the risk from food chemicals in our food system. Today, I urge you to vote aye on AB 418 to make Californians and Americans safer, and I am happy to answer any questions that you might have about FDA's regulations. Thank you so much.

My name is Homer Swei. I am the Senior Vice President of Healthy Living Science at the Environmental Working Group. I have a BS in Chemical Engineering from UC Berkeley and a PhD from, chemical engineering also, from Northwestern University. I joined EWG after spending 30 years in the private sector with companies such as Johnson and Johnson and Dow Chemical. So I have a detailed understanding of how exactly chemical companies and industry approach issues that we'll be discussing today.

Taking a step back, I think it's important to understand that the five chemicals referenced in AB 4118 are industrial chemicals, chemicals that are routinely used in products like paint, ceramics, paper, rubber, textiles and inks. Or put it differently, these are nonessential ingredients that do not need to be and, EWG strongly believes, should not be in our foods, particularly in foods marketed to children.

Additionally, with 30 years of experience working for industry, I can say with certainty that there are readily available safer alternatives for these chemicals already in the marketplace. In fact, the industry already knows exactly what those safer alternatives are. They don't need to do additional research or investigation because they're already using safer alternatives in Europe and other countries around the world. Finally, I understand there has been a conversation around the use of titanium dioxide in dairy products.

As you consider arguments from the opposition, it's important to understand that only 0.6, less than 1%, of dairy products include in the US include titanium dioxide. Major brands such as Lucerne Organics, Organics Value Corner, Lactate, Yoplait, Jovani, Octavia, Face, and Sigia are made without titanium dioxide, as are all dairy products sold in Europe. In short, there is well documented scientific evidence that these five chemicals cause harm. It's why so many nations and major companies have stopped using them.

Thank you. All right, let's hear from other folks who want to wait and just express their support for the Bill. Clean Earth 4 Kids.

It's well past time that California does the same. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I'm happy to answer any questions. We also have the privilege of having Dr. Rashmi Joglekar in the audience today, PhD, toxicologist. She is the Science Director of UCSF and also available to answer your questions. Thank you.

Hi. Suzanne Hume, Clean Earth 4 Kids. Strong support.

Great. Thank you.

Nicole Morales with Children Now in support.

Libby Sanchez from Food Safe, in strong support.

Amara Eger on behalf of breast cancer prevention partners in strong support.

Priscilla Quiroz, here on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council, in support.

Ryan Spencer, American College of OBGYN's, District Nine, in support.

Hi, I'm Dr. Rashmi Joglekar. I'm Associate Director of Science, Policy, and Engagement at the University of California, San Francisco. I express my strong support of this Bill, and I'm also happy to help answer any questions as they come up. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, let's give folks the opportunity to opposition to the Bill, raise concerns. Hey, Dennis.

Good morning. Dennis Albiani on behalf of the Consumer Brands Association--excuse me for that--and also a coalition of distributors, retailers of foods and beverage manufacturers. Obviously, food safety is paramount to our clients and Members, and we take this very seriously. In fact, United States has a very strong history of food safety, and California has a program of food safety, and I'll talk a little bit about that today.

We have programs that review these, including two of these chemicals are being currently reviewed at a petition by some of the proponents of the Bill at Department of Public Health. We also have programs like Prop 65, which was brought up in the analysis, and that take care of this and require either warning labels or those if they come to a certain level of exposure that create health issues.

So we do have a comprehensive health system in both the state of California and at the federal level of the FDA. All five of these additives have been thoroughly reviewed by the federal and state systems and many international bodies, even in the European Union. And I want to make this certain. When reviewed by the European Food Safety Authority, they recommended that the politicians take no action. These are not scientific actions. However, the political body in the EU ignored their own scientists and moved forward.

This Bill is a political action and ignores the scientific process. And if we do this, we're not following the scientists in the EU. We're not following the scientists at FDA and Deals. We're following the political actions of the EU. In fact, several substances of this Bill to ban are already under review. As we mentioned, in November and October, 2 different petitions were started at FDA and again initiated by many of these organizations.

FDA on their own, not even with a petition, last month recognized that BVO, started a regulatory process to remove BVO from the market. Again, their activities are occurring when appropriate and supported by peer reviewed and scientific evaluations. The FDA will then either require warning labels they could remove them from the market, or they may find out that there is not scientific justification to remove these.

So four of the five chemicals here are under active petitions and review, currently started as early as October and as recently as May 2. The current regulatory environment provides significant scientific oversight, where qualified regulators review hazards and risks, these scientifically based regulatory process should be allowed to continue without second guessing their outcomes. We oppose AB 418 and then Ms. Menjivar mentioned, and I appreciate you stepping in here, mentioned the amendments that were taken in the last committee.

One of the issues that was not recognized is when you give extended time is a sell through of existing stock. And so we think, regardless of what happens today, obviously we're opposed, but sell through needs to be addressed in this Bill as well. Thank you.

Okay, other folks who want to raise concerns or weigh in in opposition.

Yeah. Julee Malinowski-Ball on behalf of the American Chemistry Council, in opposition. On behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi McKay Carney, on behalf of the International Association of Color Manufacturers. Respectfully in opposition.

Peter Kellison on behalf of the National Confectioners Association, in opposition.

Chair Members, Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Opposed.

Good morning. Sarah Pollo Moo with California Retailers Association. Opposed.

Margie Lie, Sampson Advisors, on behalf of the California League of Food Producers and the Council for Responsible Nutrition, in opposition.

Thank you. All right, let's go to the phone lines. Folks who want to weigh in on AB 418.

Jack Yanos, on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance. Respectfully opposed.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, if you are in support or opposition to AB 418, please press one followed by zero, one followed by zero, and let's go to line 85. You are open.

Victoria Reiser on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council in strong support. Thank you.

Moderator, you there?

Thank you very much. Sorry I was muted, Mr. Chair. Let's go to line 102.

Jim Lindberg on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support.

Line 116, you are open.

Jesse Gabriel, concerned parent from the San Fernando valley, want to thank ... for her excellent testimony, strongly urge your aye vote.

That's awesome.

Please go ahead, line 118.

Melissa Dunn on behalf of the Pesticide Action Network in support, thank you.

Line 36, you are open.

Kim Konte with Non Toxic Neighborhoods in strong support of AB 14. I'm sorry, AB 418. Thank you.

Line 34, please go ahead. Line 34?

... Orange County Climate Reality, support.

Please go ahead. Line 58.

Lendri Purcell with California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice and Jonas Philanthropies in strong support.

Line 119, you are open. Oh, let's move to the next line. Line 74, please go ahead.

Matthew Sauls with California Business Roundtable in opposition, thank you.

Line 114, please go ahead.

Vanessa Forsythe with California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice and Clean Earth 4 Kids. Strong support.

Next is line 111. You are open.

Yusef Miller, Clean Earth 4 Kids and the North County Equity and Justice Coalition ... In strong support.

Thank you. A quick reminder, one followed by zero. If you're in support or opposition to assembly Bill 418. Please go ahead line 94.

Kirsten Rasmussen, Clean Earth 4 Kids, strong support.

Line 21, you are open. Line 21, please go ahead.

Hi, this is Malaika Elias on behalf of Friends of the Earth in strong support of AB 418...

And Mr. Chair, that does clear the queue.

Thank you. Moderator we'll take it back to myself since I'm the only one here for questions or comments. But I'm sure that the Assembly Member is listening since he's called in and it's so great that he did that. I just want to thank him so very much for bringing this forward. As a mom of three, I certainly understand why this is very important. So with that, Senator, we'll allow you to close.

Thank you, madam chair. And I would know to some of the remarks that were mentioned in the opposition, BBO was not just banned by the FDA. And while the FDA has said it plans to review BBO in the future, there has been no action. In fact, back in 1977, they said they were going to review it, noting that at that time, the agency was only allowing BBO on an interim basis pending further study.

So we see that there's no guarantee that the FDA will act on BBO anytime soon. Additionally, three of the chemicals are not under any active review at FDA. The CDP is also not independently reviewing the use of any of these chemicals in the food. With that, the Assembly Member will on behalf of the Assembly Member, I respectfully ask for your aye vote when appropriate.

Thank you. Madam secretary, can you please call the role? There's no motion you can motion.

Can I motion?

I can motion the chair or okay, then we don't have a motion right now, but I'm sure we will get one once we get ourselves together here. The Environmental Quality Committee senators can come down and that would be great. All right, well, thank you so very much for that, Senator Menjivar. Now we'll move on to Assembly Member Pappin, who is here file item ten AB 753.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator. I'm delighted to be with you today. First of all, I'd like to start by accepting the committee's amendments, and thank you so much for working with my office on them. AB 753 will reform the State Water Board's Cleanup and Abatement Account. Basically, it'll bring the money back from where it comes from and ensure that fines paid by water quality violators are sent directly back to the community that was impacted by them.

To be clear, this legislation will not create or increase any fines or fees. It will simply guarantee that existing money is spent in the most effective way possible. When a violation of water quality standards occurs, a violator has two options. One, you can restore the waterway yourself, or you can pay a penalty. Most people pay the penalty. And the way the penalty program was originally envisioned, was that the money in the Cleanup Abatement Account would then be sent back to clean up the affected waterway.

Unfortunately, in recent years, the State Water Board has diverted more and more of this money to a few specific projects, leaving many disadvantaged communities without the funding necessary to clean up their water. AB 753 will simply ensure that -- it was 50 percent -- we're willing to take the amendments to 40 percent of the money going back to the community from which it came from, the community that was affected, so that those that are impacted can afford to clean up the affected waterways. So with me here to testify today is Sean Bothwell, with California Coastkeeper Alliance.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and committee members. Sean Bothwell, Executive Director for California Coastkeeper alliance. I want to start with the primary intent of this bill, which is to send enforcement fines back to the community that was originally harmed, to essentially make them whole again for the violation that occurred.

One of the first things you learn when you go to law school is torts law, and the idea behind torts law of making the victim whole again, or putting them back in the place they were before the accident. If you take a car accident, for example, the person that is responsible for that accident doesn't just pay a fine and walk away. They make the person, the, victim whole again by fixing the car, health, medical bills, whatever that takes.

We do a lot of work with the State Water Board, and a couple of years ago, we did a governance project looking at how we can improve governance between the state and the regional Water Boards. And the number one consistent thing that got brought up by the regional waterboards, was their frustration that their enforcement money was no longer being returned to them to do the type of projects that this bill considers. As the Assembly Member stated, when there's an enforcement action, the polluter has two options.

They can pay into what's called a supplemental environmental project, which is a community restoration project, or they can pay into the Cleanup and Abatement Account. They almost always choose the Cleanup and Abatement Account because they want to write that liability off their books. They don't want to be responsible for the implementation of the project. Now, for years, the State Water Board did return that funding back to the regions to decide on restoration type projects.

But starting in 2016, the Water Board started using that money for emergency drinking water purposes. In 2019, this legislature passed SB 200, which is the SAFER Program at the State Water Board, so that now there's an existing source of funding and a program in place to address any of those drinking water needs. And so, we think the time is right to start returning that money back to the communities originally harmed. My organization does Clean Water Act enforcement, too.

And when we do enforcement actions, we get a couple of things. One is a consent decree that tells the polluter how to come into compliance with their permit, and one of these supplemental environmental projects. When the Water Board does enforcement, they simply assess a fine and they say, "Go comply with your permit," and then they walk away. And the problem is, if that's all that's being done in the enforcement action and then that enforcement money is going to other parts of the state, not to the communities that were originally harmed, then we have a situation where the polluter can continue to do business as usual, and yet that money that was paid for the violation, is not going back to make the community whole again.

So we believe AB 753, with the committee amendments, allows 60 percent of the money to remain for emergency purposes, that the State Water Board can do what they want with, and the 40% will then go to the regions to make their decisions on what local projects are most necessary to bring their waterways whole again from past water quality violations. So with that, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, other folks who want to voice support for AB 753.

Suzanne Hume, Clean Earth 4 Kids. Strong support.

Thank you. All right, opposition to 753. AB 753. No? Anyone on the phone lines who want to weigh in?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you're in support or opposition to AB 753, please press 1-0. One followed by zero. Go to line 36.

... neighborhoods in strong support of AB 753. Thank you.

And line 80, you are open.

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

Please go ahead, line 114. Line 114, you are open.

This is Vanessa Forsythe, Clean Earth 4 Kids, in strong support.

And let's give a quick reminder, one followed by zero to express support or opposition to AB 753. Line 117, please go ahead.

Hello, Don McEnhill with Russian Riverkeeper in support.

Line 120, please go ahead. Line 120.

Hi, Ben Harris on behalf of LA Waterkeeper in support of AB 753.

And line 54, or excuse me, 55. Please go ahead.

... in support, on behalf of Clean Earth for California. Thank you.

And that does clear the queue, Mr. Chair.

Yeah, right. Okay, let's go to the committee for questions, thoughts, comments on AB 753. Okay. Moved by Senator Gonzalez. You may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just respectfully request an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 753. The motion is do pass as amended and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators: Allen. Aye. Dahle. Gonzalez. Aye. Hurtado. Menjivar. Aye. Nguyen. Skinner.

Okay, that's on call. All right, let's now go to Assembly Member Muratsuchi, who's here to present 899.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senators, I am here to present Assembly Bill 899. And first, I want to thank your committee for their diligent work. I'm not sure who I should be looking at. Yes, okay. Thank you very much for all your work on this, accepting the committee amendments regarding the QR code.

And I want to acknowledge that we will be continuing to work with stakeholders regarding the Internet posting provisions as indicated in your committee analysis. I wanted to say that well, first of all, this is a Bill that is a transparency Bill that will help protect babies from ingesting toxic metals. This is a Bill that actually came from one of our legislative staff colleagues in the building who just had her first baby about a year ago.

And she quickly realized that there is very little transparency in terms of the amounts, the levels of toxic heavy metals in baby foods. The original Bill, I should clarify, is that we had both infant formula as well as baby food. We had a very rigorous discussion on this Bill in Senate Health, and we agreed to take out infant formula. So this Bill only deals with baby.

You know, as pointed out in your committee analysis, the US House Committee on Oversight Reform, their Subcommittee conducted a fact finding hearing on the issue of toxic heavy metals in baby foods, and they came up with pretty alarming findings. Specifically, as quoted in your committee analysis, commercial baby foods are tainted with significant levels of toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. Exposure to toxic heavy metals causes permanent decreases in IQ, diminished future economic productivity, and increased risk of future criminal and antisocial behavior.

Toxic heavy metals endanger infant neurological development and long term brain function. So this measure seeks to shine a spotlight and to require with a QR code on the label, addressing the manufacturer's concerns about how we can make this work, given the federal versus state regulatory schemes that need to be coordinated here to provide that transparency for California consumers in hopes that that will help spur the national market for baby food.

To further support and enhance the FDA's ongoing efforts to address this critical issue of toxic heavy metals in baby foods, I'm here to supported not Susan Little, but with Melanie Benish with the Environmental Working Group in support of the Bill.

Thank you so much and hello again. My name is Melanie Benish and I am testifying on behalf of the Environmental Working Group. I am testifying in support of AB 899 as proposed to be amended. We strongly support efforts to test baby food for toxic metals and to make the results of those tests public. Too often, baby food can contain toxic heavy metals that harm a baby's developing brain, including lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury. The FDA is moving too slowly to protect our babies.

Every day, 10,000 babies start eating solid food. But the FDA so far has only issued draft standards for lead in some baby foods and our babies can't wait. Requiring companies to test baby food and to report the results will help parents avoid products with high levels of toxic metals and drive important changes in how we grow and process baby food ingredients. Even if the FDA completes standards, they may not be strong enough to protect our babies.

Baby food standards should be driven not by what's achievable based on current food manufacturing, but should be based on what's needed to protect our babies. Baby food companies should be challenged to change where and how they produce baby food ingredients and challenged to replace or blend baby food ingredients to reduce toxic heavy metals. Too often, the FDA bases their standards on what baby food companies can achieve today and not what they could achieve in the future.

Basing baby food safety standards on current industry practices is little better than letting companies set their own standards, which so far has failed our babies. EWG strongly supports AB 899 because testing and reporting on toxic metals in baby food will produce the results our babies need far quicker than the standards that might someday be set by the FDA. Thank you so much.

All right, anyone else who wants to voice support?

Suzanne Hume clean Earth for Kids. Strongly support.

Is this like an organization? What is this group?

Check out the website. I was poisoned by pesticides. I was a teacher. I left my job. I work for free. We have interns throughout the country, cleanersforkids.org. We're full of love and scientists and work proudly with EWG, Consumer Reports and many others. Thank you guys so much for all the love and support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, opposition. Anyone who wants to raise concerns about the Bill.

Dev Salvian. On behalf of Consumer Brands Association. I want to compliment the consultant here on this one. I know she was working even on July 4, trying to come up with solutions and wrestling with that. Our biggest concern was on labeling. It's very difficult to provide products across state lines and different labels and all that. Again, I have to work with my clients and see the language. I think that idea number three, the comment addresses our concerns and that this may be a suitable solution.

But again, I need to work that through with our folks and see where we are on that. Thank you.

Thank you. Great. Anyone else? Okay, let's go to the phone lines. Folks, want to weigh in on AB 899? Thanks much,

Mr. Chair. If you're in support or opposition to AB 899, please press one followed by zero, and let's start with line 125.

Hi, my name is Carl Alfaro, public health intern with publichealthforkids.org.

Line 123, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Dori Chandler, I'm a parent of a young child and I strongly support.

And for anybody else to express your thoughts on this Bill, please press one followed by zero, and we'll go to line 36. 36, I think you accidentally took yourself out of queue. Go ahead and hit 10 again. There you go. Please go ahead.

Kim Conte Non-toxic neighborhoods and our advisors are in strong support of AB 899. Thank you.

And we have no other participants. Queued up.

Okay, great. We'll bring the item back to the committee for comments, discussion, motion moved by Senator Gonzalez. We'll let you close.

Thank you. I didn't realize that you were working on July 4 and so thank you very much. I know that Mr. Albiana likes babies too, as we all do, and so I appreciate you helping address the Consumer Brands concerns. Respectfully. ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. All right, secretary, please call the roll.

AB 899. The motion is due pass as amended and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators. Allen Allen Aye Dahle Gonzalez. Gonzalez Aye Hertado Menjivar. Menjivar. Aye Wynn Skinner.

Okay, it's 3-0. We'll leave that on call. Thank you. Thank you. All right, let's hear from Senator McKinnon who's here to present the final Bill on the agenda that is AB 1628.

Good morning. I'd like to start with thanking the Chair for working with us on this Bill. I appreciate you, Chair. Good afternoon, chair and Members. I'm here to present AB 1628, which would require all new washing machines for sale in California to have a microfiber filter. California is in the midst of a plastic pollution crisis with plastics of all size accumulating in our environment.

Californians are exposed to microplastics through the air we breathe, water we drink, and food we eat, which have now been detected in human pulmonary tissues, intestines and even in Placentas. While wastewater treatment plants are passive receivers of fibers in wastewater from clothes washing and capturing microfibers at a very effective rate. These fragments risk escaping and being introduced to the natural environment through the use of wastewater biosolid as soil amendments.

Through these pathways, microfibers may end up in some of California's agricultural fields, where they can persist for decades. With global production of synthetic textiles expected to triple by 2050, this problem will only continue to grow. In order to effectively prevent microfiber pollution, we must look to upstream solutions. That is why AB 1628 will require all new washing machines for selling California to have a microfiber filter.

This is the solution that is cost and energy efficient and has the potential to dramatically reduce the volume of microfibers entered into the environment. Built in filters are now readily available in washing machines in a number of geographics, including Japan and the EU, and can be brought to scale in the US. As well. The witnesses that I have here today are Lissa Arildo I hope I didn't mess up your name too bad. Representing five years. And Jason Eckhart, representing the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right, let's hear from your witnesses.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair Allen and Members of the committee. My name is Dr. Lisa Ertel, and I'm honored to be here representing five Gyres. I've dedicated over a decade to researching plastic pollution, and I've studied habitats and wildlife around the world. Often, the majority of the particles that we're finding are microfibers. These small textile fragments less than 5 mm in size.

I am here today to provide scientific evidence in support of this Bill, which comes in support with 75 organizations, scientists, and textile brands in support. We know that microfibers pose a threat to our environment and wildlife. There are hundreds of species spanning from land to ocean that ingest microfibers. And as Assembly Member McKinnor mentioned, they're also in US. Research has uncovered that a single load of our laundry can release millions of microfibers.

But we know that washing machine filters are highly effective at capturing these microfibers before they're released to the environment. In laboratory studies that I've conducted and published in peer reviewed scientific journals, we found that these filters can capture up to 90% of microfibers, so they work. Washing machine filtration is not only effective when we test these devices in the lab, but also in practice.

In a study that I led, we implemented washing machine filters in just 10% of households in a community, but found a significant reduction in microfibers at a wastewater treatment plant. In this research, we also found that these filters don't clog. Consumers are already familiar with cleaning out dryer filters, and we found this behavior was quick to adopt for the washing machine as well.

More and more companies are investing in this type of technology at both residential and commercial scales, and this Bill offers considerable room and flexibility for innovation. Just requires 100 micron mesh, which we know works also, given that filtration technologies exist in other places, the timeline laid out in this Bill would enable technologies that are existing already to be incorporated into new machines. Just to sum up, we know that washing machine filters are a well established solution to capture microfibers.

Addressing microplastics in California requires a multifaceted approach, but this Bill serves as a critical step towards reducing a known source of microplastic pollution. I express my gratitude to Assemblymember McKinnor for her leadership and respectfully request your aye vote on this critical issue. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members. Jason Eichert on behalf of the Los Angeles county sanitation districts. A lot has already been said about the problem being addressed by the Bill and the solution in the Bill. So to keep it brief. LACSD provides solid waste and wastewater service to five and a half million people in Los Angeles County. We operate eleven municipal wastewater treatment facilities. And important for this Bill, we are passive receivers of pollutants, including the microfibers that are being discussed here.

We're not the source of it. We don't have the ability locally to do source control on this, but this Bill can. And that's why LACSD is a forward thinking entity that supports waste conversion and supports recycled water. It's also supportive of this pollution prevention measure because it is the opportunity that we have on the table to essentially ensure that the microfibers don't enter the wastewater stream in the first place and therefore aren't getting into our environment through our facilities or otherwise.

So we appreciate the work that the author has done with us to address some initial thoughts that we had on the Bill, and we look forward to seeing it progress. Thank you.

All right, great. Other folks who want to win in support of the Bill.

Bill Allio Environmental Working Group support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of my client's co sponsor Ocean Conservancy and the Monterey Bay Aquarium and also asked to share the support for AB 1628 of clean water action save our shores. And I just want to mention then, nearly three dozen leading scientists who indicated their support as well. Thank you.

Good morning. Spencer Sachs on behalf of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies. In support. Thank you.

Hi Miha Laguer, on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation, in strong support. Thank you.

Kayla Robinson on behalf of the Clean Seas Lobbying Coalition and Breast Cancer prevention partners in support thank you.

Chloe Brown on behalf of Californians Against Waste in support. Thank you.

Sean bothwell on behalf of California Coastkeeper Alliance. In support. Thank you.

Isabella Gonzalez Potter with the Nature Conservancy, a proud co sponsor standing in strong support. Thank you.

Clean earth for kids. Suzanne Hume clean Earth for Kids. Strong support.

Great, thank you. All right, let's go to opposition folks who have concerns about the Bill.

Hello. Good morning. Stills Committee. I'm Kevin Mestron with the association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. I'll just go through a couple quick things because I know I don't have much time. First of all, I want to just clarify. These filters are not readily available anywhere in the world. We represent a global industry. France enacted a similar law three years ago, and they're still not able to implement it, and they've delayed it because they are not able to have clothes washers in France at this point.

So I just want to make sure that is clear. They don't exist in Japan. That's a different filter. It's not microfibers. So there's a lot of us. So back to the Bill. We certainly oppose design requirements. We don't think the California Legislature, you guys are very involved, a lot of issues, but we don't think that's the best place to be designing clothes washers. Let manufacturing clothes washer, engineers design the clothes washers.

This Bill designs the close washers by saying 100 micron filter has to be in there. 100 micron filter is going to clog, it's going to flood the room. There's a lot of other potential technologies that are not filters. This Bill prevents any innovation outside of filters. It designs the clothes washers, and France acknowledged this, amended their law to say filters or any other technologies. They still don't have a solution yet, but at least they're not designing the clothes washer. There's no regulatory agency in France.

Again, they had the ministry to oversee this, to implement this. They're having troubles implementing it, but this has no agency at all. Oversee this or try to figure out how this happens. If there's no clothes washers available on the market or how to do this, there's no clarity on installed. This Bill would prevent a person from going to Home Depot, picking up a clothes washer, bringing it home and installing it the way the Bill is drafted. So it would prevent that from happening.

It requires filtration on all cycles, which means you can't have a bypass. So if it clogs, it either stops working or it floods the laundry room. It includes commercial washers, laundry mats, et cetera. I'll let another my colleague get to that.

So you're about halfway through. If your other speaker wants to have. Some time,

you finish with two things and let him speak. It increases energy and water use almost twice as much energy and water. This will be in violation likely of EPCA and the federal law and preemption. And the label that's been suggested is inaccurate. It says it has to contain there are no built in products that contain a filter, so that label would be inaccurate to put on. But yet this requires us to put this on. So there's a number of issues that are here, and I actually agree with the person who testified from the LA sanitation District saying they're not the source. Clothes washers are also not the source of this problem. So I'll give some time.

Appreciate it. I'll move quickly. Pat Joyce on behalf of the Coin Laundry Association, which trade association representing over 3000 laundry mats in California. Just want to quickly go through a couple of concerns. We appreciate the author's intent to reduce microfiber pollution, but believe this one size fits all approach is inappropriate and would significantly impact thousands of small business owners. So, based on some research, there is evidence that the 100 micron filter can potentially be an effective tool for residential washers.

But this Bill assumes the same technology will be equally effective with commercial washers, which are dramatically different. The average laundry mat has anywhere from 50 to 100 high capacity washers and the volume of water the high capacity loads. These filters will quickly clog, requiring the tedious task of technicians removing the bulkhead where all the electrical is the drains, all the mechanical equipment crawling through that space to unclog each individual filter. That's going to increase labor costs for these small businesses.

And we do appreciate the long on ramp, right? It's a good long on ramp, but given how specific the control technology is, the timeline is irrelevant because it's already predetermined what solution should be implemented. And this is going to preclude other future solutions. For example, the industry is exploring the development of a central collection system to capture the microfiber fibers in each bulkhead or a store wide filter system. All right, you need to wrap it up.

And this is a much better approach tailored for laundry mats. So appreciate the consideration. Legislatures should treat commercial laundry and residential washers separate, and I'll leave it with that. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll go to the phone lines for those wanting in support or opposition. Moderator thank you.

Oh, I apologize. AB 1628. Thank you so much. Appreciate that. As he stated, AB 1628, one followed by zero. And let's go to line 110.

Thanks a lot. Mr. Chair, I believe we're on AB 899. If you're in support or opposition to this Bill, please press one followed by zero. At this time,

AB 1628.

Hello, my name is Nicholas Tackett. Social compassion in legislation in support.

Please go ahead. Line 10 two.

Jim Lindbergh on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support,

line 128, you are open.

This is Jen Inkstrom with Calperk. In support,

please go ahead. Line 34.

Sierra Club, California. Strong support.

Line 80, please go ahead.

Hello, Lucy is calling on behalf of California environmental voters. In support.

You are open. Line 129,

hi, Lindy Purcell with California Nurses for Environmental Health and justice and Families, advocating for chemical and toxic safety and strong support.

131, your line is open. Please go ahead. Line 132. 132, please go ahead.

This is Kirsten Rasmussen. Clean Earth for Kids. Strong support.

Line 36, you are open.

Kim Conte with nontoxic neighborhoods and strong support of AB 1628. Thank you.

133, please go ahead.

Vanessa. Forsythe with Clean Earth for Kids and California Nurses for Environmental. Health and justice support.

Let's give one more quick reminder. If you're in support or opposition, please press one. Filed by zero for Assembly Bill 1628, line 123, you are open.

Dory Tandler, volunteer with Clean Earth 4 Kids in support.

111, please go ahead.

Yusef Miller with Clean Earth for Kids North County Equity and Justice Coalition and Surf Rider for support.

Line 135. You are open.

Kyle Chode protect Wild Petaluma grandparents in action and strong.

And we'll go to line 134,

Victoria Reiser on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Moderator. We will bring it back to the Members.

And Mr. Chair, we did clear the queue.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Assembly Member McKinnon. Thank you for bringing this. I think the analysis shows that there have been many other Members have brought this issue to all of our attention and while their bills were not successful, there's clear indication that the Legislature and Member have been aware, as we know that scientists and others have been aware of this problem for a good deal of time.

I guess what I'm raising is that the industry, while of course they were not required to do anything, yet they've been on notice and it is a real problem. Beyond the impact on the waterways, our body loads of these materials, much of which are plastic, we still don't fully understand what the impact of that is going to be on all of us and our children and our grandchildren.