Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

Good morning, Chair and Members. Today I present to you SB 1036, which would establish clear protections for purchasers of carbon offsets. Taking inspiration in part from SB 343. Authored by the Chair last session, this builds on California's long standing false advertising law by specifying our expectations for business activities relating to voluntary carbon offsets. Voluntary carbon offsets are tradable financial instruments that claim to represent a reduction of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The legitimacy of carbon offsets is determined by answers to key questions like whether they claim carbon benefits are real and quantifiable, and whether they claim carbon benefits would have happened without the existence of the offset arrangement in the first place. Unfortunately, academic researchers and investigative reporters have uncovered many examples of offsets - of offset projects that simply fail to deliver the claimed carbon benefits.

Some of the examples include some projects related to forest lands that were never at risk of logging, reforestation projects with physical impossible assumptions of tree growth and related carbon sequestrations, and renewable energy projects in jurisdictions where it is cheaper to build renewable generation than traditional fossil fuel plants. This Bill focuses on voluntary offsets. As implied by their name, these offsets are purchased on a voluntary basis and are not related to legal requirements or regulatory programs like compliance offsets in our cap and trade program.

So what is the harm if voluntary offsets do not live to its claim value? There are two general challenges with allowing low quality offsets to remain unaddressed. First, consumers are harmed when they do not get what they pay for. A consumer who purchases an offset to mitigate the emissions associated with an international flight, for example, expects that that offset to actually deliver some environmental benefit. And even more commonly, businesses make green claims, such as their products being net zero or carbon neutral.

If that business relies on low quality offsets to support such claims, the consumer may be misled to believe that their consumption has no negative environmental impacts. In both cases, consumers are enticed to buy something that they would not otherwise buy based on misleading claims, a classic violation of our consumer protection laws. The second general challenge with the low quality offsets is their potential to undermine our climate goals. Corporations who purchase low quality offsets may ignore changes in their own operations that could reduce their emissions directly.

Similarly, low quality offsets projects siphon financing away from investments in high quality carbon removal projects. With such a steep hill to climb to address our climate challenges. We simply cannot allow for low quality offsets to get in the way of our goals. SB 1036 provides legally enforceable standards for voluntary carbon offsets, a policy that is long overdue for California consumers and our climate. Testifying in support today, we have Melissa Romero from the California Environmental Voters and Paul Mason of Pacific Forest Trust.

Oh, do I come up there?

Either way. Yeah.

Okay. Good morning. Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters here in support of SB 1036 by Senator Limón. This Bill is a critical step towards ensuring the integrity of voluntary carbon offsets market and holding corporations accountable for their environmental commitments. The philosophy behind offsets is to incentivize GHG reductions that are cost effective or more cost effective than direct emissions reductions. However, the current lack of regulation in these markets has led to significant issues, particularly with low quality offsets.

This Bill aims to address the rampant problem of junk offsets, which often fail to deliver on the promised carbon reductions. And there are examples of offsets backed by projects with really dubious claims of carbon benefits from falsely labeled forest lands that were clear cut, to renewable energy projects already in motion. Those offsets do not live up to their promises. Not only do they deceive consumers, but they undermine our climate goals and divert funding from even more effective projects.

Relying on offsets that later prove to be ineffective only perpetuates rising emissions. SB 1036 is a measure that will protect consumers and our environment, ensuring that offsets truly deliver the promised climate benefits. Corporate accountability is essential in this context. Companies that purchase offsets to meet their net zero goals must be able to rely on the accuracy and effectiveness of these offsets. Otherwise, the environmental commitments become meaningless rather than genuine efforts to combat climate change. And for those reasons, we urge you to support SB 1036.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Allen, Members of the Committee, Paul Mason with Pacific Forest Trust. Pacific Forest Trust has a long history in this space of forest, climate, offsets. About 20 years ago, Pacific Forest Trust sponsored the Bill with Senator Sher that created the California Climate Action Reserve. They then went on to develop the first of the voluntary forest carbon offsets that was eventually ported over into the compliance offsets that the Air Resources Board uses.

And my Boss is currently chairing the expert Advisory Committee for the AB 1757 climate process that's trying to set some targets in natural working lands to make sure that those lands are really leveraged to meet our state climate targets. So we're very supportive of the role of lands and natural world to try and meet our climate goals. And we're supportive of offsets. The really critical piece here though is quality.

And not just because when we have offsets that don't actually deliver the long term benefits to actually offset the greenhouse gas emissions over their entire lifetime that are essential for meeting our climate goals. So we have the climate harm, but if we have offsets out there that are not actually fulfilling what they were actually sold as, that undermines the entire concept of using offsets in the regulatory space or using natural lands as ways to achieve our climate goals.

And those are going to be essential for meeting our climate goals. So we think it's just absolutely essential that the voluntary market is of quality. I mean, that's why the regulatory of the compliance market the Air Resources Board runs has a very high value to those offsets because they are of quality as opposed to the very low value some of the voluntary offsets, because the quality is dubious. So quality also brings financial reward.

There's been a number of concerns raised about the Bill and I think there are places where it can be clarified and improved going through the process. But the underlying goal of the Bill is both meritorious and necessary and we urge your support.

Thank you. So next we'll hear folks who want to add on in support at the mic.

Hi, Michelle Passero with The Nature Conservancy. We're in a support if amendment position, so I hope I could still say a few words, if you don't mind. I've worked on carbon accounting and the protocol since the Legislature established the California Climate Action Registry back in 2000, working on the forest protocols. The Nature Conservancy supports the intent of this Bill to support the transparency integrity of voluntary offsets. Last year, AB 135 was adopted to.

I'm gonna ask you to make this like a thirty second comment.

Okay. We think there's opportunity to focus on registries for this Bill. So we would be happy to work with you to really focus on registries who work on these issues and transparency so it's not duplicative of AB 135 which was signed into law last year. Happy to help and answer questions.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Savannah Jorgensen with the Lutheran Office of Public Policy. And we are in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Hey.

Good morning. Scott Sadler. On behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund, we appreciate the author's commitment to this and we support greater accountability and transparency. We've provided amendments that we think address the Governor's veto from last time and we look forward to working with you on that.

Great, thank you. All right let's hear from a couple of opposition witnesses. Two minutes each. You can come up here.

Yeah. Hi, sir. Let me get a quorum established, but have a seat and we'll hear from you. All right, thank you, secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

All right. Thank you so much. Appreciate your patience. You may proceed.

Thank you Chair. Brady Van Engelen, California Chamber of Commerce here on behalf of a broader coalition of stakeholders, and we are respectfully opposed to this Bill. Unfortunately, there are a couple of components that we find troubling and problematic, and our opposition is based on a couple of key points here. First, the chilling nature of lawsuits that can stem from this measure mean that carbon crediting standards, registration bodies, project developers, and other components to California's existing carbon market ecosystem could be subject to litigation.

Increased liability isn't going to increase the degrees of assurance that would bring forward more quality projects, but rather discourage assurances due to the fact the measure takes aim at those very same people that are offering those assurances on offsets. Also, it's worth questioning whether this issue, putting this issue into the court system is meritorious or if the Bill even contemplates the necessary funding that would be required to actually put this into the court system.

Right now, I'm not aware of any court system that has the technical know how to actually define what some of the project guidelines, whether they're real quantifiable and additional. This means they're either going to have to staff up or they're going to have to augment in some form or fashion. And again, just pointing out, I don't think there is any augmentation associated with this Bill that would actually afford that to happen. And there are a number of standards beyond that.

I just want to point out there are a number of standards that actually do exist. I know that the author made clear that your Bill last year, SB 343, is something, but there are a number of other standards that exist within the carbon accounting ecosystem that I just want to clarify and make sure that we're aware of before we move forward here.

And unfortunately, this Bill doesn't seem to borrow from any of those in facts kind of displace some of the definitions that are used from different efforts. For example, the FTC has green guidelines. Those were first established in 2012. They're currently in the process of being updated right now. Beyond that, there is an ISO standard for voluntary carbon offsets. It's ISO 14064-3 2019. So there is actually an ISO standard for the VCO market itself.

And beyond that, the industry has taken upon itself to work through this and it's created - it's called the Integrity Council for Voluntary Carbon Markets, the ICVCM, which has developed a set of core carbon principles, those are being put forward, and unfortunately, this seems to circumvent that process, quite frankly. More specifically, one of the concerns we have is with the definition of atmospheric lifetime of CO2 and durability. Simply put, there is no accepted definition of durability. And similarly, the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 can vary widely.

And this isn't just me saying this, this is the IPCC as part of their report in 2021 that made this clear. It's not feasible to verify that the project durability is greater than or equal to the atmospheric lifetime of CO2. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 component is going to have disproportionately negative impact on the nature based solutions, where permanence of carbon storage may be closer to the hundreds of years rather than thousands of years.

This seems to be contrary to the Natural and Working Lands Climate Smart Strategy developed by CNRA as a requirement of SB 27. Nature based solutions can play a critical role in climate mitigation, as much as has been said by CARB, part of their scoping plan, and by others who have suggested that nature based solutions might make up to 30% of the global climate mitigation efforts by 2050. For these reasons, we are respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. All right, other folks who want to voice their opposition on the mic to add on.

Committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to be here. My name is Leslie Durschinger. I'm the founder and CEO of Terra Global. We are a California based, woman founded, woman run organization that provides nature based solutions, climate finance, to developing countries to produce a climate and community benefit. I'm also here as a board member of the International Emissions Trading Association, which is a global association of all sector private sector that's promoting markets to reach our global net zero goals. And so I'd like to respectfully oppose this Bill for a number of reasons.

I'm so sorry. We're asking, folks, if you want to make some very brief comments, but this was the primary opposition.

Fine. The Bill does not ensure integrity. There's a number, as mentioned, of other arenas in which integrity is insured. And in fact, it discourages organizations like ours and the members of IETA from actually taking climate action. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. And we'll obviously stay here. We may have a broader discussion.

Good morning. Joanne Bettencourt, on behalf of SIFMA, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning, Members. Melanie Cuevas on behalf of the California Bankers Association, also in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Smith Monson, on behalf of Anew Climate, LLC. Anew climate has long been involved in voluntary and compliance markets here in California. We respectfully oppose the Bill for reasons stated in our March12th letter and just would like to remind the Committee that there's been a lot of talk about low quality carbon credits, which do exist. However, there's a significant number of high quality carbon credits that we need to protect and incentivize, and this Bill does not accomplish that. Thank you.

Good morning. Zach Leary, on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association, opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers & Technology Association, respectfully opposed.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Let's bring the item back for discussion or questions. Senator, maybe would you like to give some responses to some of the concerns raised by the opposition?

So I guess I'll start with saying that the amendments that some of the folks have brought to us would actually undermine the Bill itself. As far as the aspect of the courts and whether or not this belongs in the courts. This is in the courts at the moment independent of this Bill. You have companies at this very moment who are being sued through consumer protection laws, and the courts have yet to dismiss the case, despite the initial filing being a proposal to dismiss the case.

I think courts deal with complex issue all the time. So the assumptions that the courts cannot deal with an issue like this I don't think is the truth. I think that the reality is that that is why that it's in courts at this moment. And so, look, I think that one of the biggest question is why did this Bill go from receiving bipartisan, broad bipartisan support last year to now having a lot of opposition?

And I think that there's a bigger conversation here to be had about the concern - that the concerns there are around some of the legislation that's passed related to greenwashing. Greenwashing exists. And so this is all interconnected. This is one very particular aspect, voluntary offsets. Right. One very particular aspect. It's a narrow aspect. And we want to find a way to ensure that what entities claim to do, they do.

This Bill is not intended or the desire of this Bill is not to shut down the voluntary offset. It is actually to address the problems that are being litigated at this moment in our courts in the United States. And to say here is a definition for California that we have, and here is a definition of what we mean by these high quality offsets. So that I think is important.

Okay. Appreciate that answer. Yes, Senator Hurtado.

I just respectfully move the Bill.

Okay. Yeah, great. Well, seeing no other questions, shall we take that as your close?

Sure.

All right. Thank you. I know the Bill is going to have long a winding road. You're absolutely right. It got through very easily last year. Obviously, I know you're going to have to work out some of the concerns that have been raised because of the Governor's veto from last year, and some of those issues remain. So I wish you the best with that. And as you work with the opposition and also some of the tweeners we heard from The Nature Conservancy and others. So with that, let's call the roll.

SB 1036. The motion is do pass and re referred to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call].

All right, we're going to leave that on call. And thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right. Let's now hear from our next Senator, Archuleta, who's here to present SB 1158. That's Item Six in your packets, Members. Thank you.

Well, thank you, Mr. President, and good morning to all. I appreciate your time this morning. Today I'm presenting Senate Bill 1158, which extends the time all districts have to disperse Carl Moyer Program funds from four years to six years and increases the portion of the funds permissible for indirect administrative costs from 6.25 percent to 12.5 percent for larger districts. For clarity, this percentage increase simply aligns the administrative fee levels for larger and smaller districts and does not add costs to the program.

The Carl Moyer Program is a proven, cost-effective clean air program administered by local Air Districts that provides incentives to private businesses and public agencies to voluntarily clean up older, dirtier vehicles and mobile off-road engines with cleaner than required engines, equipment, and emissions reduction technologies. Since its inception in 1998, this public health-centered program has enabled the replacements and scrappage or repower of over 68,000 engines, resulting in reduction of more than 198,000 tons of nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gases.

The Moyer Program helps to reduce harmful emissions in order to reduce serious health impacts such as asthma, bronchitis, decreased lung growth in children, cancer, and premature death. The Moyer Program benefits low-income residents and communities disproportionately impacted by pollutants and toxic emissions. However, current global economic trends have amplified the need for the Moyer Program to be modernized. External economic impacts, including inflation and supply chains, includes shame, and these issues have negatively impacted Air District's ability to operate this valuable program.

Additionally, I want to note that the Moyer Program was established in late 1990. Since then, the Moyer Projects have become significantly more complicated and the volume of projects has risen dramatically. For example, the first year of the Moyer Program, in 1998, 99, South Coast implemented approximately nine million dollars in rewards and awards, compared to around 196 million in the most current funding year. This shows both the success in the program and the need for updates to ensure that those successes will continue.

By expanding liquidation time and increasing indirect administrative fees for larger Air Districts, we will ensure that California's Air Districts are able to continue successfully implementing this vital program. With me today to testify if you would like is Aaron Katzenstein, Deputy Director and Executive Officer with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and Alan Abbs, Legislative Officer for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. This bill has no opposition, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, thank you. Come on up and tell us what you got. You may proceed when ready.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Aaron Katzenstein. I'm the Deputy Executive Officer for the Technology Advancement Office at the South Coast Air Quality Management District. So we are in strong support of SB 1158 and we're serving as the bill sponsor. The bill will move the highly effective Carl Moyer Program to the next phase where we are going to implement more zero-emission technologies as these technologies become commercially available. First, we need an extended funding location time due to several reasons.

We still see supply chain challenges, in particular with truck chassis right now. Those are being delayed by months. The war in Ukraine has resulted in delays for, say, air conditioners for battery electric school buses, and we see labor shortages, in particular with our marine projects. In addition, the deployment of zero-emission equipment like battery electric and hydrogen trucks requires construction of supporting zero-emission infrastructure, and the infrastructure is delaying longer than we expected, largely due to permitting--switch gear deliveries are 18 to 24 months delayed.

And then lastly, Moyer's success is really made possible because of the substantial staff resources Air Districts invest in the program. So applications and projects funded through Moyer have increased dramatically, and the complexity of the programs and projects have really increased. So with the rise of zero-emission technology and infrastructure projects, larger Air Districts in particular have been incurring increased administrative implementation costs that exceed our current allotments, and the bill recognizes these challenges.

So typically, when we have applications for Moyer through South Coast AQMD, we get three to four times more applications than we have funding, and we have to go through every application to make sure we fund the most cost-effective application and projects through the Moyer Program. And then in addition, these projects, once we fund them, they can last up to 15 years. We have continued reporting and monitoring for these projects, and they often require several modifications of contracts. And then lastly, just rising inflation has exacerbated the growing need for implementation resources for the Moyer Program.

We're going to ask you to just wrap up the conversation--the opposition--

Just respectfully request your support for the bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir.

Thank you, Chair Allen and Members of the Committee. My name is Alan Abbs, with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, nine-county region serving seven and a half million residents, one of the largest administrators of the Carl Moyer Program. We administer about 20 percent of the annual funding.

As Aaron said, it's one of the most popular and competitive grant programs in California, where we get applications that exceed the available amount of funding by orders of magnitude, which require a lot of staff time to prioritize which projects we're going to fund throughout the nine-county region. When Carl Moyer started--as the Senator mentioned--in 1998, the program was relatively simple. You're trying to get surplus emission reductions, and so when you have an uncontrolled diesel engine, it's very easy to meet that criteria, fund the project, look at it for five years.

But now, as Dr. Katzenstein has mentioned, we have increased technology requirements, a lot less surplus emissions, a lot of regulations that drive which projects can and can't be funded. It makes it really challenging for us to go through and make sure that we're funding the most cost-effective ones, getting the applicants through the process, which can take a long time.

Projects drop out because they don't have the funding in the absence of the additional Carl Moyer funding that we get, and so it makes doing these projects a lot more complicated than when we initially started doing it 25, 30 years ago. So with that being said, I'm here to answer any other questions you have about the Bay Area's program, and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Folks want to add some support?

Yes. Mr. Chair and Members, Brendan Tuig, on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, representing the Air Pollution Control Officers from all 35 local Air Districts, in support.

Thank you. Okay. I don't believe that there's any registered opposition, but if there is anyone here who wants to voice concerns about the bill or opposition--okay. Discussion? No. Do you have any comments? I appreciate your work on this, and we follow Carl Moyer very closely in this Committee, of course, and appreciate your leadership. So I'm certainly happy to move the bill when I have some friends here. You're all friends, too, but you're not allowed to move the bill, but thank you. If you have any closing comments.

No, I just--Mr. Chair, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Senator Newman claims to be on his way. Yes? Okay, great. I know he's chairing Education, but he will be presenting SB 1113, and then assuming he gets here really quickly, we'll hear from him, and then I'll go ahead and after that I'll present 1136, which is Senator Stern's bill. Senator Stern is sick in bed in Los Angeles.

You know what I'm going to do? I can't present myself? No, I'm not allowed. All right.

All right. Here's the man himself, the great champion for beverage container recycling and especially pilot projects, extensions, all the rest, let's hear from you, Senator Newman, SB 1113. You know, the whole committee is very excited to hear from you.

Morning, members. Looking unusually dapper to all of you. Thank you. And thank you, everybody, for your interest in this important subject. Mr. Chair and those members watching somewhere, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1113, which will extend the sunset date on 10 existing beverage container recycling pilots across the state. Before I begin, I'd like to make clear that I am accepting the committee amendments and thank the committee's consultant, Brynn Cook, for her good work on this bill.

As I'm sure this committee is aware, the California Beverage Container Recycling and Reduction Act, often referred to as the Bottle Bill, authorized a five-cent fee on all cans and bottles. As part of some subsequent legislation, we introduced the possibility to establish first five and then 10 as a result of another bill, pilot programs that would explore innovative approaches to making it easier and more cost-effective for consumers to recycle their cans and redeem their CRV.

That bill had a sunset which is coming up relatively quickly. And although the results are inconclusive, I am asking today for an extension of that sunset to allow for an additional level of market certainty to allow the participants in those programs to continue pursuing the models that they have been exploring. And so with that, I have a witness from the Sacramento program, Mr. Tony Gonzalez, to speak to the bill today. And I'm sure you're all eager to hear from him. And please proceed.

Thank you, Senator Newman, and thank you, Mr. Chair Members. I'm Tony Gonzalez. I represent Tomra Systems, a global recycling company with operations around the world in every jurisdiction that has a deposit program, including soon to be in California. Coming back to California, I should say. Our pilot project is in permitting review right now in Sacramento County. If you know where the Rayleigh's is in the Fair Oaks area. It's a state of the art facility that would be state of the art in terms of California recycling centers, but pretty standard as far as what you would see in other jurisdictions in North America, western Europe, and in New South Wales, Australia.

We're here to give a particular shout-out to Cal Recycle and Director Wagner, former Director Wagner in particular, for their support for the pilot projects, to see what works, what doesn't work, take lessons learned so that we can inform how SB 1013 can be fully realized. And we're going through rulemaking on that right now. And that's probably all you want to hear from me today about. I do have photos of what this project will look like if anyone's interested. But we're very excited to move forward and thank Senator Newman for introducing the bill.

Okay. Let's hear from you.

Erica Romero on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps, in strong support.

Awesome. Thank you. Okay, any opposition concerns. I will ask for a motion when my colleagues return.

I appreciate that. By way of a close, it is a very narrow bill. All the bill does is grant additional time to those pilot programs so that they can continue their work. In some cases, at least one of them is in pursuit of additional investment. Extending the pilot will allow them to do that with private investment because the state funds have been exhausted. And using Sacramento as an example, it's taken this long to get the program started. So we want to give them time to get up, get running, and do the work of figuring out what are the best ways to allow Californians to recycle their bottles and cans. So with that, respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Well, I actually think our colleague is a co-author of this bill, so maybe she's going to move it. Okay, great. Wonderful. Great. Let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Just so you know, up in education, it's a full room. So I think that shows that we're more interesting in the two committees. Thank you.

At this time, we're going to hear item five, SB 1136.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm presenting this on behalf of Senator Stern, who I can attest has got a very raspy voice. I think he's getting some sleep, so he's not feeling well. But this bill revisits the Legislator's direction when we created the Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies, which he chaired back in 2016 upon the reauthorization of the cap and trade market-based mechanism program. And the intent was to have the committee provide ongoing and permanent oversight of the implementation of the state's climate policies.

This bill updates the information that CARB provides to the committee, specifically including updates on the implementation of the scoping plan process as the state moves toward carbon neutrality. Last month, this committee, along with budget sub two, held a hearing on carbs, cap and trade rulemaking, followed by a Joint Climate Committee hearing last week, which I was there, some of you were there. These hearings highlighted the need for more data and targeted updates from our air board.

And this bill allows the Joint Climate Committee to address key topics that will enable or hinder the success of carbon neutrality policies, including focusing on implementing the scoping plan, greenhouse gas trends, potential gaps in data collection, and data communication. I know the author is very committed to working with all stakeholders and continuing to work with this committee as the bill advances. And I certainly ask the committee for an aye vote.

At this time if there's any witnesses in support, any individual who would like to say you support it, any witnesses in opposition, or any individual who would like to oppose seeing none, I'm the only one here. Would you like to close, Mr. Chair?

I appreciate your attention. And I guess we really need members to come back. So I'd really like our folks to come back because this is our last bill. But I will say I've really enjoyed being on the Joint Climate Committee, and they really play an important role. Obviously, we look at climate issues at EQ, but they've been an important forum for members from both houses to get together and discuss our path moving forward. And I'm excited about what this bill is going to do to help to further empower that committee. And with that, I hope that my colleagues will support it. Thank you.

Thank you.

I will entertain a motion from my colleague. Okay. Senators moved. SB 1136. We can call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that's on call. So why don't we lift calls so that Senator Nguyen can get on her merry way? Oh, consent calendar. Let's move the consent calendar. Yes. Okay, let's call the roll on the consent calendar.

Okay. Consent is SB 1046, the motion consent, and SB 1087.

Okay, good. Do that.

Okay. [Roll call].

Okay, thank you. Oh, did she not want to go for the Archuleta? Abstain. Okay. Okay. I don't know what to do. I'm going to go head over to. Take a brief recess.

It is?

Yeah. Okay. We're going to reconvene the hearing to let our colleague add on. So let's go through the roll. Let's start with item. We'll start with the consent calendar.

Oops. Sorry about that. [Roll call].

Okay. Let's do item four. That's Newman's SB 1113.

[Roll call].

Okay, let's go to item five, SB 1136. That's Senator Stern's Bill.

[Roll call].

Great. And let's finally wrap up with Senator. Oh. Would you mind moving 1158? This is Archuletta's Bill. Okay, so moved by Senator Hurtado. Let's open the roll on that.

[Roll call].

Okay. Thank you so much, Senator. So we'll now do another brief recess, and we'll be in touch. Thank you.

It's funny. So we're going to reconvene. Education is cannibalizing because I have to go over there, too, and present. So we'll reconvene, and we'll let our friend and colleague, Senator Skinner, add on. So, let's start with the roll. Item one. Sorry. Yeah. Item one. Yeah, the. The votes. Item 110. 36. SB 1036.

File item one, SB 1036. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary. The current vote is 2-0 and the Chair voting yes. [Roll call].

Okay, let's go to the consent calendar.

File item two, SB 1046. File item three, SB 1087. [Roll call].

What was the current vote on now?

That was three to zero.

Okay, but before.

On the consent? It's 4-0 now, with you.

It's consent.

It's consent. It's okay.

Okay, we'll next go to Senator Newman's 1113. SB 1113, item four.

Okay, file item four, SB 1113. The motion is do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations, with the Chair voting Aye. [Roll call].

All right. And then that's four to zero. Okay. And then we'll go to Senator Stern's bill, 1136.

Okay, SB 1136. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations, with the Chair voting Aye. [Roll call].

Okay, and then finally, items, that's four to zero. Item six, 1158, Archuleta.

The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Transportation. [Roll call].

Okay. Thank you, Senator, for coming down. Appreciate it. We will now. Yeah, totally. Senator Dahle wasn't here, so we went particularly quickly. Okay. Yeah. No, and I think Education.

Thank you, Senator. I appreciate you. Let's lift the calls. We'll start with item one, SB 1036.

SB 1036. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary. The current vote is 3-0, with the Chair voting Aye. [Roll call].

Okay, we'll do the consent calendar.

The consent calendar is file item two, SB 1046. File item number three, SB 1087. [Roll call].

Okay, how about SB 1113?

The motion is do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations, with the Chair voting Aye. [Roll call].

It's five to zero. How about SB 1136, Stern?

Motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations, with the Chair voting Aye. [Roll call].

Okay, and then five to zero. Finally, we've got SB 1158, Archuleta.

The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Transportation, with the Chair voting Aye. [Roll call].

There you go. Excellent. Thank you, Lena. All right.

And Nguyen. So, Menjivar Aye? Okay.

So we're going to close the roll on SB 1158, item six, and we'll go back through the roll for Senator Menjivar. So we'll start. Thank you. Thank you, Lena. I appreciate you. All right, item one, SB 1036, Limone. Offsets.

The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary, with the Chair voting Aye. [Roll call].

Okay, that will close the roll on that. That's a five to zero vote. Next, the consent calendar.

Consent calendar. File item two, SB 1046. File item number three, SB 1087. Chair voting Aye. [Roll call].

All right, we'll close the roll. That's a six to zero vote on the consent calendar. Item four, SB 1113 by Newman.

The motion is do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations, with the Chair voting Aye. [Roll call].

We'll close the roll on that. Six to zero. Item five, SB 1136, Stern.

Motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Chair voting Aye. [Roll call]. 6-0.

All right, that concludes our votes. Thank you very much, folks. This is by far the easiest hearing we're going to have this year, I fear, but glad to get these bills through, and thank you so much to the staff and look forward to a rip roar on April 3. Yeah. Thank you.