Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Welcome to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. We've got 18 measures on the agenda today. It's good to see our friend from the Senate, Senator Portantino. Please note that AB 2190 by Mathis has been pulled by the author. In the absence of a quorum, we will start as a Subcommitee. Me? Yeah. We have six Members now. Let's call it. Thank you, Assembly Member Wicks. We call the roll for a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Madam Secretary.

As a courtesy to our friend in the Senate, Mr. Portantino, would you like to present SB 551?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members, appreciate the opportunity and appreciate the fact that you're hearing this important, time-sensitive matter. I'd like to begin by accepting the amendments outlined in the Committee analysis, and thank your Committee and your Committee staff and my staff for working that out. SB 551 would clarify approved reporting practices across plastic beverage manufacturing companies product lines. Regulations of plastic manufacturers has been a complex issue.

In 2016, AB 2530 passed, which required manufacturers to report information about the amounts of virgin plastic and post-consumer recycled plastic in their bottles sold during the previous calendar year, and the accepted practice was reporting across a company's entire beverage portfolio. The later passage of AB 793 in 2020 created the requirement to include post-consumer recycled material in single-serving plastic bottles, currently 15%, but will rise to 50% by 2030.

When regulations were drafted implementing AB 793, CalRecycle took a very narrow interpretation of the term "beverage manufacturer." SB 551 would address this issue by authorizing specific beverage manufacturers to comply with post-consumer recycled plastic content requirements across their entire portfolio of products, not a single product line or production of a single bottle plant, returning it to the way companies reported prior to the regulations implemented in 793.

Compliance would be achieved by submitting a consolidated report with aggregated information, allowing one comprehensive report by beverage bottlers under common ownership or marketing agreements. The Bill has support from a wide range of entities, including the American Beverage Association, the Californians Against Waste, and with me today, Dennis Albiani, on behalf of the American Beverage Association, is to speak on the Bill. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Dennis Albiani on behalf of the American Beverage Association. The author did an outstanding job explaining it. So for brevity, I'll be very concise. Two bills were passed, one had reporting in it, and everybody would report across their portfolios. And when we say that, we mean if you had water and carbonated beverages and juices, then you would average that out and report and comply that way.

When we did the mandatory minimum content Bill, when CalRecycle interpreted that, they took a very narrow interpretation and said, "no, each line needs to be reported on." And so this is just implementing that agreement from 793. And we appreciate your support today. And I wanted to thank the Chair and the staff for working closely on this and giving us a review early.

Mark Murray with the environmental group Californians Against Waste. Just affirming that this was the original intent is as this is clarifying. And we're in support of the measure.

Absolutely. Are there any witnesses in the room who would like to voice their support of the measure?

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Chris Micheli, on behalf of Niagara Bottling, also in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Chris.

Chair and Members. Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Strong support.

Thank you, Dean. Are there any folks in the room who would like to register their opposition to this measure? Seeing none. Other Members of the Committee, any questions, comments for the author? Seeing none. We have a motion by Mr. Flora, a second by Mr. Muratsuchi, a third by Mr. Mathis. Senator, just want to confirm you are accepting the amends?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. This Bill enjoys a do pass. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

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

That's nine votes. We'll leave it open.

Move the consent calendar.

Second.

Motion to move the consent calendar, Mr. Wood. Second by Ms. Wicks. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

Consent items are item three, AB 1881 Davies. Item five, AB 1923 Davies. Item six, AB 1969 Hart. Item 12, AB 2311 Bennett. Item 13, AB 2344 Petrie-Norris. Item 14, AB 2393 Dixon and item 16, AB 2511 Berman. [Roll Call].

Nine votes. We'll leave that open. Ms. Davies. It looks like we've got a thing going today. Would you like to present 1922. Whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon. I want to say thank you so much for voting on the consent item as well, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Yeah. Succinct. No, absolutely. I thought we could have put this on consent, too. Are there any folks in the room who would like to register their support for this measure? Anyone who would like to register their opposition to this measure?

In support. Will Brieger for the Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley chapters of Climate Reality project.

Thank you so much. Any Members of the Committee question comments, concerns for the author? All right, just so folks understand, this requires the Director of the California Conservation Corps to establish a Green Collar Certification program. It's a good Bill and enjoys a do pass today. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call].

That has nine. We'll leave the roll open. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Assemblymember Reyes is not here. That's right. Mr. Grayson. Come on down.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. I am grateful for the Committee's work on this Bill and will be accepting the Committee's proposed amendments as they are outlined in the analysis. AB 2091 will help expedite public access to open space across California. It will exempt the opening of existing roads and trails for specified non motorized recreational uses to the public on an open space properties owned and operated by an agency.

So this Bill will also have no impact on existing land covenants that would apply, such as grant agreements, conservation easements and plans, and long term management plans. And the parks districts would still be responsible for enforcing management policies that protect species and habitat. With me today is Jennifer Galehaus, representing East Bay regional parks. Through the chair.

You may begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I'm Jennifer Galehouse with Environment and Energy Consulting, representing East Bay Regional Park District, the sponsor to this Bill. As the Bill was just amended here in Committee, it's narrowly focused to resolve an issue that arises when public parks agencies acquire land and wish to open it to the public for low impact recreational use prior to any development or improvements.

Bill narrowly focuses on public access to existing infrastructure, like trails, pathways, roads, and other disturbed areas on managed land acquired for parks purposes. The CEQA exemption will not affect existing wildland management policies, including special protection ordinances. Those will continue to safeguard the off trail and off road areas. Further, all conditions of land acquisition will remain unchanged by this legislation. Preventing negative impacts on ecosystems is a priority for the East Bay Regional Park District.

Through standard management practices and protective ordinances, this Bill strikes an important balance between allowing public access and protecting the environment. With that, on behalf of the district, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Are there any persons in the room who would like to register their support for this Bill?

Hi. Chair and Members, Nicholas Mazzotti. On behalf of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and strong support of the Bill. Thank you.

Alyssa Silhi. On behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, pleased to support.

Absolutely no, seeing no primary witnesses in opposition. Is there anybody in this hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this Bill? Any questions, comments, concerns from Committee Members? Ms. Pellerin.

Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. In my district, I have a lot of avid mountain bike riders, and they are going to love this Bill. So with that, I think I heard a motion and I'll second it.

Thank you. Motion by Mr. Flora. Second and third by Pellerin and Bauer Cahan. That's all right. Congratulations, Mr. Grayson. This is the first CEQA exemption of this year coming out of this Committee. It enjoys a do pass recommendation. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

We'll leave the roll open. Thank you, Mr. Grayson. Ms. Boerner. 1992. It's a great year.

I was doing crazy things in 1992. I was in Berkeley. I'm not going to say what I was doing.

Anyways, we might have to get this Committee back under control here in a minute. You may begin.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 1992. Most of you have seen this before. This is my blue carbon Bill. This is based on a really good project in my district. It just happened to go right and we should make it the best practice in the state. When they renovated the - as a mitigation measure for the I-5 widening in my district, they completely restored the San Elijo lagoon, and it is gorgeous. They put a bike path under the freeway.

We have trails, we have more habitat, more biodiversity. It's fantastic. But it was only because they happened to do it right, because the Nature Conservancy who was managing the project happened to do it right. We want to make this best practice in state. So AB 1992 would authorize the California Coastal Commission to add blue carbon demonstration projects to the suite of factors it considers for potential mitigation when improving coastal development permits where feasible.

I know there's opposition, and we work with the opposition - we removed in this Committee last year the contentious point in the Bill. There's no way you can build at all in lagoons, in the ocean, or in wetlands. This is not water world. So the opposition doesn't have a real basis for opposing this Bill. We'll meet with them again like we always do. But the Bill at this point, you can't build in the ocean. So we don't really understand their opposition.

So just to let you know, blue carbon ecosystems can sequester five times more carbon than tropical rainforests forests, and store 50 times more in their surrounding soil. Sadly, we've lost about over 90% of our historical wetlands and the associated benefits they provide, such as protecting coastal communities from harmful impacts of climate change, such as sea level rise and flooding. This Bill is the result of a transportation project - already said that.

And this innovative approach to mitigating impacts to natural resources can be replicated and built and to restore blue carbon sinks. You guys, this is what we need. We need to do the natural carbon sequestration as well as all forms of getting greenhouse gases out of the air. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And with me is Carlos Callado with Wild Coast in San Diego, the sponsors of our Bill. Did I say your name correctly? Almost, yeah. Okay, you're just being nice.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Assemblymembers. My name is Carlos Callado. I'm the Blue Carbon Conservation Coordinator at Wild Coast. I am here today to provide strong support for AB 1992, which will protect and conserve blue carbon ecosystems in the coastal permitting process. California is facing one of our biggest challenges yet, climate change. Luckily, California is a global biodiversity hotspot with many ecosystems naturally able to sequester and store carbon. Of special note are our blue carbon ecosystems.

Blue carbon is carbon removed from the atmosphere by plants in coastal and marine ecosystems, such as mangrove forests, as well as the salt marsh and seagrasses we have along our coast here in California. Through photosynthesis, plants pull carbon out of the atmosphere. Some of that carbon is stored in the plant's woody tissue and in blue carbon ecosystems much of it is buried in the soils where it can remain for potentially hundreds or thousands of years if left undisturbed.

So that prevents the carbon from being released back into the atmosphere. And in this wet environment, it is not able to decompose and release that carbon back into the air. Now, preliminary data from research Wild Coast is conducting alongside Scripps Institution of oceanography. It suggests that our coastal blue carbon ecosystems are storing about 4.8 times as much carbon as our local grasslands. Unfortunately, it is estimated only 10% of California's historic wetlands remain. So now is the time to take action.

AB 1992 will ensure that blue carbon ecosystems are preserved by allowing the California Coastal Commission to require demonstration projects to obtain certain permits and will add to the rapidly growing research in the field of blue carbon by requiring monitoring of permitted projects.

Adding references to blue carbon projects and greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the Coastal Act is consistent with the Legislature's priority to ensure all state agencies are proactive partners in the fight against climate change and continues the Legislature's important effort to modernize the Coastal Act through bills that have added sea level rise, civil rights and environmental justice to the statute. We encourage you support AB 1992 because it ensures coastal wetlands will continue to be natural climate solutions for years to come. Thank you.

Thank you, Carlos. Are there any folks in the hearing room who would like to register their support of this Bill?

Yes. Thank you, Chair and Members. Elise Fandrich, on behalf of Climate Center, in support.

Will Brieger, on behalf of Climate Reality Project chapters in Los Angeles and San Fernando Valley in support.

Thank you, Will.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters in support.

Thank you, Melissa.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Sean Drake with the California Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission doesn't have an official position on this measure, but I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Are there any folks in opposition who would like to register their opposition to this Bill today?

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm Audrey Retichek on behalf of the California Building Industry Association in respectful opposition. But we have a meeting coming up, as the Assemblymember mentioned. So we're looking forward to discussing with her and our other coalition partners, and we really are thankful that she wants to work with us, and we just want to make sure there are appropriate guardrails to ensure that investments in blue carbon are not used as a no growth tool. So thank you.

Understood.

Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. Not to repeat everything that the previous opponent indicated, we would love to continue our work with you. We're just asking for some guardrails on what it means to contribute to the cost. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Any other folks in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition? Seeing none, we'll turn it back to Committee Members. Questions? Comments, concerns? Seeing none. I know how hard you have been working on this Bill and how important it is to you. And I just want to take a moment to appreciate your leadership in this space and your willingness to bring all folks to the table. This Bill enjoys a do pass recommendation. Do we have a motion? Bauer-Kahan moved the Bill. Do we have a second, Ms. Pellerin seconds. Madam Secretary. Can we call the roll?

Can I close?

Oh, you may close.

Thank you.

Close it.

I just want to mention, the opponent's issue is about the nexus of contributing to these blue carbon demonstration projects. There's a Nollan Dolan decision that says there has to be a nexus, so it's already in federal law that there has to be a nexus. So that's where we've been going around and around and around about this, and so we'll continue, see if there's a creative solution we can arrive at this year. But really appreciate your aye vote.

We are hoping that you land this plane, and we want to help. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call].

Has five. Will leave the roll open. Mr. Bennett, come on down. And this is for 2648.

Yes, sir, whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members. First of all, I'd like to thank staff for all the work that they've done on this bill. And we certainly accept the amendments. AB 2648 phases out the purchase and sale of single use plastic bottles in California state facilities, with state agencies, et cetera.

There are appropriate exemptions for health safety emergencies, and we're certainly willing to clarify in particular for prisons and the issues that have been raised about prisons that we're willing to add specifically call that out. But we think the current exemptions actually take that into consideration. Single use plastic bottles have significant environmental impacts.

I think it doesn't behoove us to spend a lot of time for me trying to identify all of those impacts, I think most significantly is recently, Columbia had a recent study that identified hundreds of thousands of nanoplastics are in a single bottle of water. And those nanoplastics are so small that they can be transmitted through the cells.

And when you think about single use plastic bottles and their impact on the health of young kids, et cetera, as they're forming, I think that's one of the reasons why the UC system and the Cal State system and even the DGS, Department of General Services, all have come up with policies to ban or phase out single use plastic bottles. And that's the same thing that we should do. I'm just going to read to you.

This is from the UC system adopted July of 2023, about seven months ago. And they want to phase out the procurement, sale, and distribution of single use plastic beverage bottles. And the non plastic alternatives will be locally recyclable. So this is a modest bill to try to say the state of California's agencies ought to join with the UC system and the Cal State system in taking this forward leaning and pro educational step for our members.

Now, currently, we don't have a sustainable system when it comes to plastic bottle recycling. And to think that the solution is to just try to recycle our way out of this is wrong. The way you deal with this issue, like so many of our issues, is first you try to reduce. First you try to reduce, then reuse, and then recycle. And we are stuck in this recycle mode. The recycle content of plastic bottles had to be forced onto the industry.

We had to tell them that they had to go to 25% and now they have to go to 50% by 2030. But we had to push that. We have to subsidize them. So the recyclable market is not sustainable because we have to actually subsidize that market. And even at 50% in 2030, that means 50% of the plastic will be virgin plastic coming into the system. Now, how big of a problem is that? I think this is concerning statistic. California uses 12 billion.

That's 12 billion single use plastic bottles a year. Now, that means we'll be producing at least 6 billion plastic bottles, essentially with virgin plastic each year. That's new plastic coming into the system. And that's if we have a perfect record for recycling the 50% which we all know we don't have. We don't have good recycling data from the industry. It doesn't show us how the billions of bottles that are put into the blue recycle container are actually being handled.

We do know that a significant percentage are being put into the blue barrels, but we know many of those loads are contaminated. So they're not clean. They're not clean enough to recycle properly. The plastic keeps breaking down and it requires ever more virgin plastic. You just don't recycle these single use plastic bottles over and over again like you can aluminum and glass. And we need to work to find better ways, and there is not a simple, easy solution out there yet.

We need to work to find better ways to address this plastic bottle problem. And so California should join the UC system and CSU in demonstrating that we should all work to keep trying to improve our habits. And again, being more sustainable means reduce reuse first, and then try to move to recycle. I'd like to ask you, we all do a fair amount of traveling, at least we Assembly Members do.

When you go to the airport today, it's hard to get a drink of water from the fountain because everybody's lined up with their reusable bottles. And that's the kind of habit we have to get into. I'd like to just offer one other thing here before I close, and that is, I grew up in the 1950s. If you would have said in the 1950s you could make a fortune putting water into a plastic bottle and selling it, people would have laughed you out of the room, right?

Water that you got out of the tap, right. We can live without plastic water bottles. It can be done. Hundreds of millions of Americans did it. It has become a convenience. And the question is, how much should the environment pay for that convenience? So we saw with grocery stores and our effort with plastic bags that it's just too easy for the plastic industry to ramp up plastic production as it is to cut it.

So I invite you to join me in trying to get California to take this modest step so that our California agencies demonstrate leadership. I could see having refilling stations, and we could have plaques there that remind people why we're doing this, why we're taking this. And I'm really happy to have today Rena Cohen, CALPIRG Students, here and Laura Deehan, Environmental Coalition as witnesses for this. Thank you very much. I know it went a little longer, but it's an important issue, I think, for all of us. Thank you.

Ms. Davies saved you that time, so thank you. We'll do two minutes per witness in whatever order you'd like.

Sure, I can go. Hello there. Thank you so much, Chair Bryan, and my name is Laura Deehan. I'm the State Director for Environment California, statewide environmental group that works for clean air and clean water and protecting our open spaces and a livable planet. And I'm very pleased to be here with Assembly Member Bennett and Rena from CALPIRG Students in strong support of this bill. AB 2548.

Sorry, 2648, which I think is a really important step for California State government to really lead the way in tackling the scourge of plastic pollution. This bill is modeled on policy that already is law in Massachusetts, as well as it matches the policies that have already been adopted at several other institutions in California, like the UCs and the CSUs. And it's really crucial that we take this step, in part because of the sheer volume of plastic that we are continuing to produce every single year.

And the reality is that, today, only 9% of the plastic that has been produced since the 1950s or around then has ever been recycled. And unless we stop the flow of the plastic, this problem is going to keep growing. It's especially concerning giving the public health risks when we are consuming plastic, but also wanted to remind you that it is incredibly harmful for the wildlife and for all living things when we're putting so much plastic into the environment. So we urge a yes vote.

Thank you so much.

Hi, my name is Rena Cohen, and I'm a second year student at UC Davis. I'm studying at UC Davis, and I'm with CALPIRG Students. I'm the chapter chair for CALPIRG Students on my campus. So CALPIRG Students, if you guys don't know, is a statewide, student led, and student run nonprofit organization. We work to engage young people for change and work towards greener, healthier futures. So at sake of repetition, our generation deserves a future without so much plastic pollution. And plastic bottles create unnecessary pollution.

Plastic beverage bottles were the second most common item found during International Coastal Cleanup Day in 2022. Young people recognize that single use plastics are a serious issue. Nearly every student I know owns a hydro flask or other reusable water bottle. And it's even better because we can personalize them, stay hydrated, and protect the environment. At sake of repetition, less than 30% of plastic bottles that have ever been created have been recycled.

Most of them become plastic waste in our landfills, in the environment, and in our environment, plastic breaks down into really, really small pieces that could end up in our food, drinking water, and even human bodies. And of that 30 or so that's getting recycled, most of that is actually downcycled, meaning it's made into something of lower quality that can't be recycled again.

Recycling is only effective if it's creating that closed loop system, meaning that we're using the same material over and over again to reduce the amount of resources that we're using in the first place. Transforming plastic into a lower quality material still results in plastic in our environment, and what we really need to do is stop producing plastic in the first place.

Plastics are made from fossil fuels, and the extraction and refinement of oil for plastics releases toxic substances into the air and water, including known carcinogens and neurotoxins. To truly mitigate the climate crisis, we need to transition completely away from fossil fuels, and reducing plastic pollution is a very manageable place to start.

AB 2648 will reduce pollution from single use plastics by prohibiting state agencies from purchasing or selling single use plastic bottles and encouraging state buildings to install water bottle filling stations to increase the use of reusable bottles. This will make the state government align with our state schools and lead by example when it comes to tackling our plastic waste crisis. And the entire nation would benefit from our leadership on this issue. We thank Assembly Member Bennett for his leadership and encourage your aye vote thank you.

Thank you. Are there any folks in the room who'd like to register their support for this bill?

Good afternoon. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Ocean Conservancy, Oceania, and also the Surf Rider Foundation in strong support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Nicholas Mazati on behalf of Rethink Waste in support of the bill.

Thank you.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters in support.

Hello again. Will Brigger for the Climate Reality Project California Coalition.

Good afternoon, Committee Members. I'm Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Director at FracTracker Alliance, speaking in support of the bill.

Thanks, beautiful. Any witnesses in opposition to this? Don't get up too fast. Thank you.

Thank you, Dennis Albion on behalf of the Plastic Recycling Corporation of California and the American Beverage Association. I have to say that we have been, especially the Plastic Recycling Corporation, we have a bottle bill in California. We've been very committed to making that bottle bill work for many, many years. And in fact, we have a 76% recycling rate here in California of plastic bottles, of aluminum bottles, the numbers 80, and of glass bottles, it's only 69.

I think there's some facts that were left off from some peer review studies that I'd like to go through as we talk about these different containers. The plastic PET, all plastic is not created equal. And we have recognized that in the state we have a whole system of one through sevens in which each resin goes into and PET, which is the vast majority of all beverage containers, is a superior product when it comes to reusing it.

It's easy to recycle, it's cheap to recycle, and we can make bottle to bottle currently, and the industry has invested great time and effort into making this a reality. And we do it here in California. We have six reclaimers that take that material and grind it up and remake bottles here locally, from Fairfield down to Riverside and everywhere in between we have different plants that are locally done here in California.

We're going to invite you to come to the reclaimers as well and see that system in action. And then as we discussed, the mandatory minimum content. The other ones don't have those requirements. And so we're putting more and more plastic back into the bottles and using that technology to move it. I think we talked a lot about a bottled water here and refilling stations. This bill is much more broad than that. It includes juice, it includes milk.

It includes all the different beverages that could be there, both carbonated, non carbonated. So it's much more broad than that. So the other alternative that's pretty common for using milk, for instance, is a carton. A carton is not very recycled, I'll say very recyclable. Those paper cartons, when they're coated, are not put back into the system. And then I'll get to some of the science points. Several peer reviewed studies show that the PET bottle is superior on its GHG performance.

There are less global greenhouse gas emissions producing a PET bottle than there is aluminum or a glass. They're also far more heavier. There's more transportation, more energy to turn those aluminum and glass back into a bottle itself. We use detergents when you wash the glass bottles, hot water to get them clean, and then you have to transport them and they're very heavy. So those are all actual facts about this being a superior from that environmental standpoint.

Now I'll address the microplastics. Today you have several bills on plastics that are on film that's coming up that are there, and the microplastics are generated often and most commonly from threes and fives, not from one PETs and not from water bottles. Again, there's a use for those. And then finally, the state, state facilities. Everybody thinks of this as an office building or a classroom or a university. We have Caltrans work yards, fairgrounds. We talked about prisons.

Expo Park in Southern California where they're going to have--I was just listening to a hearing last week--where they're going to have olympic festivities and things of that area those are all going to need. We support filling stations but when you get to the plethora of beverages they're all going to need that.

And so with that, there's a lot of issues here that could be covered a lot of I think information that needs to be more thoroughly discussed and obviously the industry needs to do a better job educating folks and we plan to do that. Thank you.

Thank you. There goes all the grace gained by Davies giving us her time but wanted to give you a fair chance to make your point. Any others in the room who would like to register their opposition?

Mr. Chairman. Chris McKayley on behalf of Niagara Bottling we share the concerns as outlined by our Association, the ABA. Thank you.

Thank you, Chris.

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Tim Shestek with the American Chemistry Council also in opposition. Thank you.

Chair and Members. Bruce Magnani on behalf of the Association of Plastics Recyclers, really appreciate Dennis's testimony. We do have a very strong and robust recycling infrastructure here in the state. Thank you.

Thank you so much. With that, we'll turn it back to Committee Members. Senator Bauer-Kahan, lead us off.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Bennett for this bill. I had the privilege of going to the UN Climate Conference, and one of my biggest takeaways from the conference was the shift from oil companies producing oil for our cars to plastics, and we really need to be aware of what plastics are doing to our world and how it is providing greater contributions to the degradation of our climate and I think this is a piece of that. A couple of questions.

I think the opposition has brought up some very specific points for things that may make sense, that the alternatives aren't better. And I hope you'll continue conversations with them to refine the bill. But actually, I was more concerned about the health and safety exemption in here, which is very, very narrow. It requires a declaration of emergency. And I know that, for example, native Californians for much of the year do not have access to water.

Their land dries up and the state provides native Californians with bottled water to literally allow them to live through the end of the year. This happens in about July or August. And as I read this, that doesn't happen as a result of a declaration of emergency, and that purchase of bottled water could be at risk based on this bill. I have a Bill right now focused on clean water in prisons.

We have pregnant people in prison that do not have access to clean water, that need bottled water. And so I do think there is much needed amendment here to ensure that where California, beyond a declaration of emergency, is still providing for the health and safety of Californians, we have the ability to provide this resource because it is life sustaining. So I want to give you an opportunity to address that.

Thank you. Thank you very much. And as I said in my opening comments, particularly, we had heard the issues about prisons, and we're very comfortable making whatever amendments we need to make to make sure that it's clear. But the whole reason that we have the exemptions in here is because we're not trying to have unintended consequences of denying native people the water that they need, denying in any critical situation.

So we are more than happy between, as this bill moves its way forward to work with the industry, but also work with legislative leaders and other people that come up with good ideas to modify this. The real question is, do we want to join the UC system, the Cal State system, and demonstrating leadership while we still have appropriate exemptions for all of those things that we know we can't instantly switch over? So be happy to do that.

Thank you. Happy to support it today.

Thanks so much. Ms. Friedman.

So I have a question for the opposition. So when we're told that over 70% of these bottles are recycled, does that mean that they're actually made into something else or that they go into the bins? So what percentage are actually made into another good? And of that percentage, what percentage of that ultimately ends up in landfill?

A lot of the data you hear nationally, sorry, nationally is different. California is very different. We have a bottle built. The nickel follows it. So you do not get your nickel back until that bottle gets into the system of which Mr. Magnani's clients handle. And that's the reclaimers that they're actually grinding that up and handling it. So essentially, 76% get made into something different. Now, it mentioned that there could be building products if it's very low quality.

Higher quality, we want it to go build bottle to bottle. That is the ideal. But again, I do not have the statistic off the top of my head how many go into bottles and how many go into other uses. But essentially all 76% of those go into, are recycled into another product, or you don't get the nickel back.

So what is the recycled content now in the bottles?

Right now, it's required to be at least 15%. On 2025, it'll be 25%, and 2030 gets to 50%.

So you still have a lot of virgin plastic being manufactured to go into these. It's not nearly a closed loop.

Well, there's a closed loop for many of them, but several brands have fully 100% recycled product. There isn't enough RPET, and it's in California and in the markets to feed the entire demand. And part of that is because some of the demand is for Rothy shoes. My wife has Rothy shoes. I bought them for Christmas. Or cars are using them for sustainability on their dashboards and their things.

So a lot of people want this material, and we're putting a good amount back into the bottles, and those would be closed loop for that. But obviously, some comes in, as you mentioned, to fill the virgin side as well.

And do you have any idea of how much plastic that ends up in landfill started out as a bottle?

I don't know that. Yeah.

Thank you.

Assembly Member Wicks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Bennett, for bringing the bill. I'll be supporting the bill today. You're a very thorough author. I'm not just supporting the bill because my seven year old went to the Monterey Bay Aquarium and saw the installation there of the floating garbage, and she reminds me every day and actually lectures me for using plastics in our house. That's not why I'm supporting the bill, but I think that's not a bad reason.

But I am supporting the bill because I do think we have to make headway in this space. Having said all that, it's hard and it's complicated, and I would just ask that you work with the opposition as we move through the process, which I know you will, so that we can think through some of the unintended consequences that my colleague, who we matched today, which we did not plan on doing, has raised. Because I do think there are other things that we need to think through.

And I think the other thing that's important, and I think Ms. Friedman sort of got to this, is the data can be difficult to parse through in terms of the realities around recycling. So inasmuch as we can have data that really level sets the conversation as we go through the process, that would be helpful. But just would respectfully ask that you continue to work through. I know these bills are big lifts. I want to give you the opportunity to continue to working through the bills. I know that you will, and I will be supporting the bill in the hopes also that you keep talking to opposition.

Thank you. Mr. Wood.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the author. I'll kind of echo some of the comments that previously made, but just a couple of things. I will be supporting the bill today, but I have some concerns, there are details in here that I do have concerns about. I think someone brought up the concerns about emergencies and things like that. There are situations that happen where you need access to water, and it hasn't been a declared emergency.

And I want to be sure that we're not creating a bigger problem. There will be costs to putting in a lot of these water filling units. And what I'm puzzled by, because the bill is a recycling bill, but you've conflated health concerns in here that are still being researched. You've talked about microplastics showing up in fluids and organs and things like that. The science is out as to what that really means. And so I'm not sure that that's really other than a statement.

Look, I come from a science and a health background, so we don't know what that means. I'm a little concerned about seeing that there. I don't know how that really plays into this. In a perfect world that maybe that should have been referred to Health Committee too, if you're talking about this issue. But the other thing that comes back to me is thinking about the fillers.

They probably have plastic tubing in them, and that plastic tubing probably leaches microplastics because pretty much all of these things, my refrigerator has a water filler in it, plastic tubing and so on and so forth. So as we move to try to ban something, we may have other issues that are contributing to microplastics showing up in bodily fluids and organs and things like that. And then the final thing that there's a definition here of a single use plastic bottle which includes milk cartons, small milk cartons.

Is it your intent to have state agencies not have, how will they dispense milk? Because if you don't want the plastic bottles, and the definition is a milk carton that is less than 21 fluid ounces. I'm reading here says single use bottle means a beverage in a sealed plastic bottle or a plastic coated carton with a capacity of 21 fluid ounces or less. That's a milk carton. That's schools, that's prisons, that's potentially state hospitals and so on. And so I've got an issue with.

I guess my point is that there are things to work on here. I'll support you today, but this is a big lift and it's going off in multiple directions. So I'd just like to see it more focused.

Thank you, Mr. Wood. Ms. Pellerin.

Thank you. Just for my own education. So what is the best alternative to plastic bottles? So if we're going to be serving milk in these facilities, or orange juice or apple cider, what is the ideal container that is the best environmentally sound?

Whenever you could reduce or reuse. So larger containers, larger containers where you could then use a paper cup to do the distribution, et cetera. And I'm not saying I have the scientific solution for all of that stuff, but we can go back to bottles, bottles and aluminum. At least those items can be recycled over and over and over again. They don't end up in the waste stream. And because you can keep recycling those things, it's much easier to be able to do that.

This plastic breaks down, and it ends up in the waste stream one way or the other much faster than certainly aluminum or bottles. So I would go back to, we used to be able to get milk to people back in the 1950s without a single use plastic bottle. We used to be able to get those things done. It can be done.

I don't have every technical answer, and until we get the right technical answer, we certainly are not going to put the health of anybody at risk by saying, oh, sorry, we're going to serve you milk in some other contaminated way because of this bill. That would qualify until you come up with a more appropriate way, I would assume, and that's the kind of thing we would work on. But I'd be happy to answer the three questions from everybody after. I respect your answers. Do you have any other?

I just want to say I share their concerns and I appreciate your work as the author working with the opposition. And thank you.

So if I could respond to my colleagues that ask questions, I'm going to start with over here, and that is Assembly Member Friedman. And that is, I did not try to cite a lot of recycling statistics here, and I didn't because there aren't good recycling statistics.

And so the only statistic we seem to have that has any sort of long term validity to it is that CalRecycle goes in and they check the bins and they sit there and actually just do some spot checks and find out how much of this has recycled bottles in it, et cetera. And they use that to determine the rate that they're going to pay the recyclers to move forward.

And that rate is between 70 and 76% is what they're saying are the plastic bottles that are recycled. But it does not tell us how many of those bottles in that cube, when you see those big cubes of plastic, how many of those actually get turned into bottles? There's all kinds of other. And so I welcome the comments of my colleagues that said, please work with the industry.

Because the second thing I would point out in response to what my colleague brought up about just good government, she didn't want to have unintended consequences here. If the result of your bill is unintended consequences, you actually hurt your movement more than you help it. And so we're very committed to trying to say we will be creative and flexible and try to do everything we can to not have unintended consequences. So that's a pledge I certainly make to Assembly Bauer-Kahan in terms of doing this.

And Assembly Member Wicks was talking about working with the industry. I'm not here to say we have terrible recyclers and they're doing a terrible job or anything. We have great recyclers that are trying to do a good job. We just have a system that still needs to go a long ways before it's sustainable. If we say, you know what's good enough for California, it's good enough that we have 6 billion bottles, plastic bottles of virgin plastic being created every year, that that's good enough, right?

Because we have 12 billion, and at 2030 we're only going to have a 50% recycling content if we want to say that's good enough. So it's not that the industry is wrong, but we need to be able to work with the industry. But if we need to work with the industry, we have to be able to get answers. And we have not been able to get clear information from the industry. So I'm glad we get to say this out here.

We don't have clear information from the industry. Exactly what are they doing with the plastic when they get it? Exactly how many of those are an answer to the question? How many are being turned back into bottles? How many bottles to bottles do we have? There's nobody in California that's going to give you an accurate answer in terms of that. We ought to be able to answer those kind of questions.

So I welcome a partnership with the industry, as long as the industry will work with us and help us achieve the goal of, in the long run, get a truly 100% recyclable, a truly 100% recyclable. That's the third goal, remember, reduce, reuse, and then 100% recyclable. We're not even at that.

And then finally, to Mr. Woods, certainly agree that we're not trying to prove there's a health consequence yet from those nanoplastics, but when you get a study from Columbia University that indicates all of that is in that water, I think most of us could say that 150 years ago that wasn't in our water. And so it's at least a reason for us to be cautious and proactive. It's not proof that we should do something, and there are so many other things, like so many complicated issues. We recognize that it's just another reason, but not proof that we should go forward. But thank you very much for the comments.

Now, while I was going to take that as your close, Mr. Muratsuchi has a question.

No question. I just wanted to say that I just received a briefing recently from our water agency, and they were talking about microplastics being in our drinking water supply, being like, approaching a crisis situation. And so I trust that you will be working to address all the unintended consequences and would love to be added as a co-author to your bill.

What a great close.

With that, do we have a motion to move the bill? Motion by Muratsuchi, second by Friedman. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is do pass as amended, to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll leave that roll open. Thank you, Mr. Bennett.

Thank you, sir.

Ms. Reyes. This is 2440.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, I present AB 2440 which will incorporate the State Parks Department and other agencies managing state owned lands, into the state's goal of conserving 30% of lands and coastal waters in to the state's goal by 2030. The Bill would ensure equitable access to the outdoors for all and specify reporting requirements around the 30 x 30 goal.

The 30 x 30 initiative, which was codified last year by SB 337, sets the bold goal to protect and conserve 30% of California's land and coastal waters by 2030. This goal is a critical step to preserve the state's extraordinary biodiversity, ensure equitable access to nature, and build resilience to climate change. The California State Parks has an important role to play through both acquisition and stewardship.

Comprising 1.6 million acres of protected land, including almost one quarter of California's coastline, and preserving a wide range of ecosystems, from coastal wetlands to inland desert, to every major forest ecosystem in the state, California State Parks are an invaluable asset in conservation and providing public access to California's incredible landscape.

Given the unique role and size of our state parks, it is critical that the state promote and support the acquisition stewardship of state lands and strive to create opportunities for equitable access to the outdoors while fulfilling the 30 x 30 goal. As Chair of the Select Committee on State Parks, equitable access to the outdoors has been my number one priority.

Our hearing last year was focused on achieving outdoor equity, and this Bill would also require that the Legislature receive an annual update on progress towards expanding access to nature for all Californians. Here to testify in support and answer any technical questions is Emily Doyle, Climate Resilience Program Manager of the California State Parks Foundation.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Dr. Emily Doyle and I am the Climate Resilience Program Manager at the California State Parks Foundation, a member supported nonprofit dedicated to protecting and preserving the California State Park system for the benefit of all and the proud sponsors of AB 2440. As you well know, climate change and loss of biodiversity pose an existential threat to California's ecosystems and wildlife. The evidence is clear, climate change is having detrimental impacts on California's people and places.

It is critical that we act quickly to fulfill the state's 30 x 30 goals of protecting and restoring biodiversity, expanding access to nature, and building resilience to climate change. California State park system has a critical role to play in these goals, including 1.6 million acres of land and almost one quarter of California's coastline. California State Parks are an invaluable asset in conservation, historical preservation, and providing public access to California's incredible landscapes.

Unfortunately, the state's massive investments in 30 x 30 over the last three years have largely overlooked our State Park system. Since 2021, California has invested over $1 billion from the General Fund to fulfill our 30 x 30 goals and support nature based climate solutions. But only $12 million of this nature based solutions funding was directed to State Parks.

In addition to the state supporting the conservation of natural lands by private partners, we must also prioritize and support their responsible stewardship of state held lands in the pursuit of protecting California's rich biodiversity. AB 2440 will clearly recognize the important role that state parks and other land managers play in achieving 30 x 30 and will increase transparency in the state's progress toward fulfilling this goal. Thank you for your time, and I respectfully request your aye vote on this measure.

Thank you. Are there any people in the Committee room in support of this measure?

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters in support.

Good afternoon, Chair. Rico Mastrodonato with The Trust for Public Land want to thank the author for this Bill. We're a long ways from equitable access anywhere in California, so really appreciate.

Hello, Abigail Smet on behalf of Save the Redwoods Leagues and ... Fund and the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District in support.

Thank you so much. Are there any witnesses in the room in opposition to this Bill? Are there any people in this room in opposition to this Bill? Seeing none, we're turning it back to Committee Members. Senator Bauer-Kahan.

Yeah. I want to thank the author for this Bill. You know, I know your dedication to our State Park system is unparalleled, and I really appreciate that it's such an asset. I talked to the Secretary Crowfoot once about the two places that Californians directly interact with state government are the DMV and State Parks, and State Parks is where they feel good about us. So it really is one of our greatest assets.

And I know both Assemblymember Pellerin and I have dealt with incredible land trusts that are buying up open space to preserve it and then cannot get State Parks to transfer that land. And it's happening up and down the state. And these land trusts are willing to buy more land to preserve more land to ensure that we have the carbon sinks we need for our future. But they need to offload some of the maintenance to our State Parks.

There's a ton of land sitting adjacent to the Mount Diablo State Park that State Parks is just not taking on. And I think 30 x 30 is a perfect opportunity for them to start looking at those land acquisitions and building out our state parks to give more access. And that's just in my district. But I know this is true up and down the state. So I want to thank you for this, and I would love to be added as a co author, if you'll have me.

Of course we would have you. Thank you.

Assemblymember Pellerin.

Well, I want to ditto that, because I too, would like to be added as a co author. And thank you so much for bringing this Bill forward. It really does do a lot of work to meet our 30 x 30 goals. And as an ex official member of the State Park and Rec Commission, this is absolutely essential. And as my colleague said, we're both working on trying to get those open lands transferred from the nonprofits to the State Park. So this is right on track with that. So thank you so much.

Assemblymember Reyes, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

This is a fantastic Bill. Can I join as a co author as well?

Absolutely. We'd love it.

Madam Secretary, can we call the - do we have a motion? Pellerin and Bauer,-Kaha. Can we call the roll?

The motion is do pass to Water, Parks and Wildlife. [Roll Call].

We'll leave it open for absent authors. Ms. Irwin. Thank you for your patience. This is 2577. Whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. I'm pleased to present AB 2577. California's SB 1383 goals to reduce methane emissions and rescue more surplus food have been key drivers in our state's climate policies. As 2025 approaches, California must continue to do more if we hope to meet these statuary goals. One approach has been proven to reduce methane emissions and save surplus food is the use of standardized food product date labels.

Currently, grocery stores offer products with all sorts of different food labels, like expires on best before, enjoy by sell by, just to name a few. These labels consistently mislead and confuse consumers. Sell by dates, for example, are meant to show grocers when to rotate stock, and they are generally meaningless to the consumer. My son sees a sell by date and he automatically throws that food in the trash.

The result of this consumer confusion is a staggering amount of food waste, with one study attributing as much as 20% of food waste going to these labels. This contributes to methane emissions as wasted food rots in landfills, and it ultimately costs consumers money. At the grocery store. AB 2577 would standardize California's food labels and direct Cal recycle to promulgate regulations for food labeling in line with SB 1383.

The reduced consumer confusion stemming from clear, standardized labels will save surplus food, keep it out of landfills, and keep more money in the pockets of consumers. With me to testify today in support of this Bill is Mark Murray, representing Californians Against Waste.

Good afternoon. Mark Murray with the environmental group Californian's Against Waste. I think that the author has articulated the problem and the solution. I look at my refrigerator, I don't walk into my refrigerator. I look at my refrigerator and I see all of these different terms. My daughter asked me, what does this mean? Can I still consume this if it says best buy, if it says expires by sell by, unlike your son, I actually consume all of that stuff regardless of the date on it.

If it's in my refrigerator and I've already paid for it, I'm going to go ahead and consume it. That said, families are losing money in terms of the confusion over these dates.

Now, rather than specify in this statute what should all of these terms and dates, et cetera, mean, this is proposing a thoughtful process so that calrecycle can pursue regulation in consultation with the industry to figure out what is the best system for labeling our food products so we aren't poisoning people, we aren't making people sick, and we aren't throwing things away before their time. Urgen an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Are there any persons in this hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure?

Hello again, chair and Members. I'm Nicholas Mazati.On behalf of Rethink Waste and Compost Coalition in support of the measure. Thank you.

Rebecca Marcus, representing CalPIRG in support.

Will Brieger, on behalf of Climate Action California, as well as the Los Angeles and San Fernando Valley chapters of Climate Reality Project. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters in support.

Alchemy Graham, on behalf of Stop Waste and California Stewardship Council in support. Thank you.

Rena Cohen, on behalf of CalPIRG. Students in strong support.

Laura Deehan on behalf of Environment California in strong support.

Thank you so much. Are there any witnesses in opposition today? Seeing none. Any people who would like to register their opposition? Seeing none. Questions? Comments? Concerns from the Committee Members? Mr. Wood?

Thank you. Assembly Member Irwin this has been quite a journey. I know you've been working on this for quite a while, and I've supported you in all of those efforts. So actually surprised. I expected there to be opposition from egg producers. But maybe that will happen later down the line. So my understanding, as I recall from this, because Health Committee, that we asked industry to come back to us with plans, if I'm not correct. And are you still waiting for that?

We're still working with industry. But just to be clear, in 2017, industry came up with their own standards. And what we really would like to see happen is those standards put into statute. So that is to use, for instance, what they came up with is best if used by and used by again. The biggest thing we want to do is get rid of, sell by because it is completely meaningless.

And as we were working on this, we went into grocery stores and we looked at the cheese section and saw 1520 different labels there. And it is very confusing for consumers. So, yes, the journey continues, and we will continue to work with all parties.

Well, thank you. And thank you for that. And I'd be supporting the Bill today, and I'd love to be added as a co author if you've got room on your score sheet there.

Thank you, Mr. Wood. Ms Bauer Kahan.

Thank you, Ms. Irwin for this. I think it's the super smart Bill that will just lead to less food waste. So I appreciate the effort here. And as someone who is raised by Holocaust survivors, who taught me that the yogurt makes you stronger if you eat it past the cell by day because we didn't waste any food in our house, I agree it's meaningless. So I would also love to be added as a co author to this Bill if possible.

Any other comments from Committee Members? Ms Irwin, would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for all of your work on this. We've talked about this many times. As you know, I come from a family of 15. So when we went grocery shopping, we definitely looked at all of the cheese and picked the one with the furthest date. And as the date came closer, my mom had to clear out the fridge, clear out all that was good. Sometimes we'd eat cereal, multiple meals in a row just to make sure we got good use out of the milk.

And then, of course, if the date went past, we did the old smell test until that didn't prove to be effective. There's a better way to do this, and you've been working on that better way to do this, and I applaud those efforts. This Bill has a do pass. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. We'll leave it open for absent Members. Good, brother Jackson, thank you for your patience, sir. This is 1857?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, I am presenting AB 1857. As California policymakers grappling with the swift and devastating impacts of climate change. It will certainly test our resolve and require us to change from what we thought we knew to what we must learn. But once we learn, we must also take decisive action.

Since being elected, I've been asked by my own constituents, who have grown up in the Inland Empire, such as myself, to ensure that California does everything that it can to clean our air in the Inland Empire that has been devastated by the goods movement. Not only because of the moving and stationary sources of pollution, but because of the geophysical and topographical realities of being located in valleys.

Anyone who lives in the Inland Empire, and especially those who do not, I would like them to just imagine if they represented a district. That year after year, actually decades, has had the worst air quality in the entire state and is usually in the top five in the entire nation. Has had the highest cases of lung cancer and has had some of the highest cases of children, frequently going to the emergency room due to uncontrolled asthma.

In addition, what if you had an Air Quality Management District that no longer was trusted by its people that they tried to serve? And what if they were even deemed to be in violation of the Federal Clean Air Act? Well, that's what I'm facing. And we actually, Mr. Chair, share the same air management area. And when you look at the map, the eye of poor air quality in LA County is your district. But we're continuously being told that we're doing everything possible.

There's nothing else that can be done. I fully reject that argument. So all I'm trying to do is ensure that air policy regulators are taking into consideration the unique air quality regulatory needs of communities that reside in valleys. They use the word air basins. Due to the prolonged pollution concentration, and to ensure we have all the information that we need to ensure we are doing everything that we can within our power, because the status quo is just not acceptable.

Now, as currently written, the AB 1857 will provide better oversight of California air districts with valleys, collect data, and then, after five years, sunset the program so we can make sure that we are putting people first. However, with discussion, many with offices of Members of this Committee, I've received some great feedback and want to continue to work on this Bill to making sure that those concerns are being taken care of while still being able to deliver for the people of my district.

It is my intent to more streamline this Bill, to making sure that it does not affect other areas who may not have the same concerns that I have and more than happy to do so. Therefore, I'm just asking for this Bill to continue. To be quite frank, I have been very disappointed in the lack of discussion people are willing to have about such a serious issue.

I don't know if it's because hoping that the lack of discussion will just end a Bill, but I think many of you know that that's not enough for me. This legislative process is meant to have thoughtful discussion and it's meant to strengthen policy. And it's my hope that this Committee will allow me to do so because our communities deserve better and certainly my district deserve better. And so I respectfully ask for an aye vote to continue this conversation.

Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Any witnesses in support or persons in the hearing room who would like register their support?

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters, strong support. Thank you.

Hi Committee. Kyle Ferrar, Program Director at FracTracker Alliance, in strong support as well.

Thank you. Any witnesses or persons in opposition? Whenever you're ready.

Mr. Chair, Members. Brendan Twohig, on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. So that's the executive officers, air pollution control officers from all 35 local air districts. And we have a respectful opposition position on this measure. We sincerely appreciate the author's interest in air quality and caring about it and passion. We are at our core public health agencies, and we certainly are doing all we can and leaving no stone unturned to try to clean the air.

Unfortunately, we don't think that this particular measure will help move us forward in those goals. And that's because under current law, as the author mentioned, CARB already designates air basins based on similar geography and also meteorological conditions. And it also sets out the requirements for how air quality will be regulated in those basins.

And then within the current structure, CARB and the local air districts already partner closely on developing and implementing mobile and stationary source programs that reduce air pollution and improve air quality for all areas of California, including valleys. These programs are developed in coordination with and under the oversight of the USEPA to ensure they meet the federal Clean Air Act requirements.

We've also made tremendous progress as far as cleaning up the air goes, but certainly we still face significant challenges, and there's no doubt about that in many areas of the state. And it's because of these challenges that California has the most stringent regulations in the country. But again, that being said, there's more we can do, and we're making every effort to do that. It's just that while well-intended, this bill unfortunately could slow progress in meeting those goals because it adds complexity.

And so for this particular measure, we're in opposition. I mean, there are things that we believe can be done to help improve air quality faster. Those are things like, we've been active supporters. We're there every time on the AB 617 Community Air Protection program to get more funding for that program so that more communities can realize, improve public health. We're actively working on the Farmer program and getting more funding for that, which is cleaning up dirty diesel ag equipment.

We administer the Carl Moyer program, another incentive program that is very focused on disadvantaged communities and making progress in those communities and cleaning up the air. And so we are doing the hard work, the boots on the ground, and we acknowledge there certainly is a problem there and more needs to be done. And we would love to partner in that and try to get more incentive dollars so we can speed up this improvement.

Anyway, appreciate all the time and indulgence from the Chair and Members of the Committee and the author. And by the way, we did reach out to the author's office early and we've had discussions with the author's office. So I just wanted to put that on the record.

Thank you. Any other folks in the hearing room who would like to register opposition?

Chair, Members. Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. We don't have an official opposed position. We're simply a concern at this point. We need to flesh out the impacts towards our members. Thank you.

Members of the Committee? Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Jackson. So as you know, Mr. Jackson, I represent the Tri Valley which is the main trucking corridor from the port in Oakland to the five. That valley, like your valley I'm sure, collects all of that traffic and air pollution and often makes the list of the worst air quality in the state. That being said, not all air districts in the state are created equal. Right. I'm in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. There is trust in our air district.

And although the problem is not solved, I think that my constituents feel rightfully so differently than yours do. And so my concern here is that you are 100% right in everything you said. I don't disagree with any of it. Right. But my concern is that we are taking a particular problem and then applying it in places where we may not see better results. Right. Because your air district is different than my air district and currently there's a differentiation there.

And so I am concerned about that because I have the same problems you have. But right now we aren't in need of this fix. That being said, I do want to address the opposition here, which is to say that we have all these incentive programs and so you're just going to keep supporting the incentive programs, I think is very dismissive of what the author is focused on here, which is the health and safety of his community.

And each and every one of us is elected first and foremost to protect the health and safety of our communities. That is a job that we were elected to do. And his doing that I think is important. And I think that having been a former environmental regulatory lawyer, I know that incentives are great, but sometimes they don't work and you have to have regulation that's going to change the dynamic. And so I think that just saying we want to support more incentives is an insufficient answer.

And I do think, I mean, personally, I think a different answer is needed, because I do think we're painting with a broad brush here in ways that impact different parts of the state differently. So I personally do think a different solution actually is needed, but I'm really not satisfied with the solutions you provided.

May I, Mr. Chair?

Briefly.

Yeah. Thank you so much. I don't want my point to be lost. I didn't say only incentives. We are air districts, and it depends on attainment status and what's happening in that particular air districts, but are very aggressive when it comes to regulations. So we certainly believe that you need to have strong regulations, and that is a huge component in all of this. I was simply pointing out that we can also do incentives as well.

But I just think that this measure, the way it's constructed, that's the problem, is I don't think it will realize that improved air quality, and we do have a current structure in place that allows for regulation and aggressive regulation. I don't want to be lost. I'm not trying to.

Jackson, you want to respond as well?

I'm not trying to be dismissive in any way.

No, absolutely, my dear colleague. Actually, when our offices were talking, they actually mentioned that. And for me, I was like, oh, well, I guess that does make sense. So it is my intention to shrink the scope to ensure that it doesn't interfere with other places that may not have the same concerns or actually may be well ahead in terms of both relationships, credibility, and advancements. I think most of you know on this Committee that I actually enjoy the policy making experience through dialogue and back and forth and being able to put things on the table and all those things.

And so that's why I would like to continue with this process, to actually get to where I think we can be. I don't think I'm going to be 100% satisfied either by the end of this process, but I owe it to my constituents to give it all I got.

Yes, sir, Mr. Vice Chair.

Yeah.

That's where I'm trying to go.

Can I just conclude real quick? Sure. So I appreciate that. And I think that the model I had in my head for something that might work is sort of what we do to our schools when they fail. Right. That you have to sort of hit a failing metric before the state comes in and takes over. Right.

And so where the air quality district is doing a good job, I don't think it makes sense for CARB to come in with those stationary sources. But in your community, where they are failing, then maybe there is a metric that allows CARB to come in and supplant a failing air district or something of that sort, because I do think you deserve so much more in your community. I just want to make sure where the system today is working, it is allowed to continue to work, and I think we can get there. So thank you.

Absolutely.

Flora.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, colleague, for bringing this forward. And I just want to thank the opposition. I just want to say from my experience with working with CARB and our Air Resources Board, a number of years ago, 2017 was cap and trade and working with them on a very large piece of legislation that dealt a lot with air quality. The Farmer program was mentioned. Carl Moyer. The first really year, year and a half of that program wasn't particularly successful. It was just too clunky.

Right. The constituents didn't really buy into it. It's just there was a lot of paperwork. But when CARB and Samir, who is my Central Valley Air resources control guy and a very good friend of mine, when we raised these concerns with them, they were very, very quick to fix them and come to the table. And it has in place. We've succeeded the goals of CARB years quicker than what they anticipated. And so for me, it was just an absolute success of working with them.

And so I'm going to lay off this bill today just because I share my concerns with my colleague. Like the Central Valley, right, that's our area. We have a good thing going on, and we respect and trust our people. And believe me, there's things that I don't particularly love at times, but we have a good thing going on. And so that's the only reason. But I would just encourage you, and I know you do love the process. Right. And so I know you will.

But if you identify the issue and work with CARB, in my experience, they've been very open minded to dealing with things with a particular community because they sure as heck did it for mine. And so I just wanted to give you that encouragement.

No, absolutely. And I want to thank you for that. I've asked anyone, and I've asked that opposition as well, well, do you have any other suggestions? We haven't received any yet. I'm not sure if you're still working on them or whatever it may be. But the idea is I welcome it, but not to do anything is also not acceptable as well. And so we will continue to do that. And of course, I don't bring junk to the floor either.

And so I want to make sure that people understand that we will continue to have discussions, continue to work through the details to making sure that people are comfortable and respect the differences of each of your districts.

A.K.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As a former chair of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, I appreciate my Bay Area colleague for recognizing. I was talking about you.

It does oftentimes. But you're right, not all the air districts are the same. And some, like Bachmed, oftentimes lead the nation in terms of regulations put in place. And that's why the air quality is very different now than it was back in 1980 when I was a kid growing up in San Jose. That being said, there are portions of our state, Central Valley and other portions that rank as the worst or amongst the worst air quality in the nation.

And I applaud the author for treating this as the crisis that it is, and that to our colleagues' point, look, ultimately, as you go forward and put some guardrails or metrics in place that recognize those that are more effective in the work compared to others, that's fantastic. And so I have full faith in the author to be able to do that and encourage continued dialogue on that. And I'm happy to make the motion to move the bill.

Thank you.

Motion by Mr. Kalra. Question, comment by Mr. Wood.

Thank you. I have interest, probably a very different perspective on air quality management districts and how my district works. I worry that changes like this potentially lead over into challenges that we already face with some of our air quality management districts. For example, we are desperate to try to get more controlled burns, prescribed burns in our districts, and some of those are in valleys. Now I know you're talking about stationary sources here, but I worry about the challenges that we have there.

We generally enjoy in most of my district, very clean air, except when we have fires. And the frustration that I have, and I know some of the folks that are trying to do prescribed burns in my district have, is that what feels in many cases, like many times an intolerance to any smoke at all in the air and the conditions and the timing to do a prescribed burn get narrower and narrower and narrower and almost impossible for some.

That added to the fact that every Air Quality Management District charges a different fee for controlled burns and prescribed burns, which is crazy from my perspective, from zero to 1000 plus dollars. And I go back to the premise that wouldn't we rather have a little bit of smoke in the air than a massive wildfire smoke? When that happens, then all of my colleagues in the Bay Area are upset about that. And I get it because we have to breathe it.

We breathe it for weeks at a time and we've been lucky the last couple of years. So my concern is like, I don't want things that I'm concerned already. And as you move forward with this bill, and I'm going to support you today, bear in mind that some parts of the state are very different from your district.

And I don't want to see something that potentially creates a bigger challenge for things that we are trying to actively work on to protect the health and safety of our constituents going forward.

Ms. Friedman.

Thanks. So I first want to thank the author for bringing something that's fairly bold forward and to at the very least raising more of the profile of the issue in your district, because whether or not this is the right solution, making sure that people and stakeholders are more aware of the issue and really highlighting that through these discussions is very important.

I've been listening with interest to the discussion and I do think that my colleague from Marinda brings up an interesting point about having metrics assigned to this. And I'm always in favor of having our agencies have to have metrics and making sure that there's accountability in terms of whatever they're doing.

But I am curious, and I'm going to ask because it seems like that we have CARB talking about that they have incentives and they also have regulations and they have the ability under the law to regulate, as we've all seen through our own districts and we've all gotten the calls of an entity having CARB come down on them and have that entity, that business come and complain to us.

So we see that they are active, but it seems like you have a district that's particularly impacted because of topography and other things and also because of industrial uses. So given that they are regulators, are there specific examples of where you feel their regulations are falling short that you feel is really leading to the need for some sort of state preemption?

I think it would help us all understand what you're getting at if there is this gap or this delta, besides the fact that the air quality still sucks, if you feel like, hey, you've gone to them and you've said you need to take stronger action with X, Y, and Z type of facility or particular facilities, they're not doing that. I think it would be helpful for us to hear that and to understand that.

Absolutely. You've seen many of my colleagues representing the Inland Empire come with various other solutions. Some focus on the warehouses. When we came back into session, I had a bill to continue to support the trucking program to help truckers to retrofit their trucks, because we know if there's cleaner trucks, it'll help our district, our region as well.

So I've been trying to be a champion on that too. I really think, and what I've seen is that, and when I really ask CARB, tell me what specific regulations you have that are really specific to valleys. And there's not really any, they can't point to a particular regulation. And so number one, I know I'm not a scientist, so I don't know exactly what the answer is, but I know I want to make sure the best that we have do take a look at it and then report back at least on what can be done so that we can hold people accountable for that.

So if this bill passed, and I'll just make this my last question because I know we're short on time and I am going to support this today. But I guess what I would wonder is, let's say this passes and four years down the road, what actually is happening differently? Is it that all of a sudden the warehouses can't open because they have a regular, what specific real world change would you envision if this passed?

Yeah. Number one, that we begin to bring down the level of air pollution quicker than what we're doing. Again, we are one of the epicenters, if not the, of the goods movement. So that the rate of it kind of going down is being eclipsed by the rate of as much pollution that's being created. But my goal really is to bring down quicker the rate of particulate matter that is going into our air and really staying and being trapped in our communities.

My whole district is in valleys. And when you do that, I remember as a kid there were multiple days during the summer you can't go on the playground because the air quality is so bad, right? I mean, that's the stuff that we're dealing with. But I know one thing for sure, the worst thing we can do, and that's why I appreciate my colleagues, particularly in the Central Valley, is that we do know that a cookie cutter approach is not the answer either.

And so it's going to be my intent to make sure that it's based upon the realities that I'm experiencing and that my residents are experiencing. But again, making sure that we are taking a look at absolutely everything that we can do to be able to make it happen. And then at the end of the day, we can make our decisions from there. But I'm not trying to pick winners or losers in terms of this. I just want to make sure that residents are assured that we are doing everything that we can to be helpful.

Mr. Jackson, can I take that as your close?

Amen.

My favorite valley in the state is in your district. Moreno Valley, where I went to my first high school, and I remember playing football there my freshman year. And the homecoming game was canceled because of the air quality. Or moved.

Postponed, I should say. I appreciate your efforts. I recognize your efforts. I know that the legislative process can be arduous, but it's important and that you respect that full process. And I would like to see this bill go through that process, and so it enjoys a do pass recommendation from me. Do we have a motion? Kalra made a motion. We need a second. Ms. Pellerin with the second. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is out. Thank you, Mr. Jackson. All right, we've got just under 15 minutes left, and all of the remaining bills are being presented by Members of this Committee. And with that, Mr. Muratsuchi, would you like to present 2285 Rendon? I lied. The speaker pro tem is here, and. So we don't start until.

But Mr. Muratsuchi, whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm presenting this Bill AB 2285 on behalf of Speaker Emeritus Rendon. I'd like to begin by accepting the amendments recommended in comment number six of the Committee analysis. This Bill is a good Bill. It's emphasizing the importance of conserving land in highly urbanized areas. I have a witness in support of the Bill.

Mr. Witness, you may begin.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and Members. Doug Houston, representing the California Park and Recreational Society. Now, this Bill is taking its cue from the findings of the first partners Outdoors for All initiative, and this Bill seeks to elevate the awareness around the importance of continued investment and reducing nature poverty in our urban areas and urging your support?

Absolutely.

Any other witnesses in the room who would like to register their support? Just want to make sure that people can be heard.

Mark Isidro on behalf of the County of Los Angeles, in support.

Nicholas Mazzotti on behalf of California State Parks Foundation, in support.

Is there any opposition of any kind anywhere in this room? Seeing none.

Questions, Comments by Committee Members? Motion by Bauer-Kahan, second by Mr. Wood.

Madam Secretary, can we call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended to Water Parks and Wildlife. Bryan?

Bryan aye. Flora? Flora aye. Bauer-Kahan? Bauer-Kahan aye. Friedman? Friedman aye. Hoover?

Aye.

Aye.

Hoover aye. Kalra? Kalra, aye. Mathis? Mathis, aye. Muratsuchi? Muratsuchi, aye. Pellerin. Wicks? Wicks, aye. Wood? Wood, aye.

So, Ms. Friedman, I was going to have you go for Mr. Hart, but. Okay. No, we'll go fast. That only because yours is your Bill.

Specifically, this bill will increase the percentages of idle oil wells that operators need to plug each year and eliminates the option to pay insignificant fees in lieu of a plan to plug these wells. The bill also requires operators to prioritize plugging wells within 3200ft of where communities live, play and work with that. Because I'm coughing and we're short on time. I will go to my witnesses.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Bryan and Committee Members. I'm Hollin Kretzmann from the Center for Biological Diversity. And I've been working on California oil and gas issues for more than a decade. And I've seen over that time idle and oil orphan wells. The problem getting worse year after year. And it's grown into the crisis that we see today. We proudly sponsor AB 1866, a critical Bill that would tackle this crisis head on.

This Bill would protect public health, create jobs, fight climate change and help safeguard our state's budget. A rare quadruple win for the state. As the Assembly Member said, we have about 40,000 idle wells in California. Another 60,000 active oil wells that will become idle in the near future. It's important that we take care of these wells that are a serious threat to our health, environment and climate.

Just in the last couple of years, there were dozens of idle wells that were found leaking in the Central Valley, endangering nearby communities. Methane was leaking at explosive levels. As we know, methane leakage also threatens our climate. Two thirds of idle wells in California are leaking methane, undercutting our efforts to battle climate change. And finally, idle wells threaten the fiscal stability of the state. It will take more than $21 billion to plug the oil and gas wells in the state.

And even though it's the industry's financial and legal responsibility to do the plugging, in reality only about 1% has been set aside in the form of bonds from the industry. AB 1866 is a huge step forward. It forces all operators to start their plugging. It puts the biggest burden on the largest operators who are more than able to afford it and who have benefited the most from California's lax standard.

Thank you so much, sir. If we'd like some time for the other witness.

Okay, I'll go pretty quick. Afternoon, chairperson Brian and distinguished community Members. My name is Kyle Ferrar. I'm the western program director at FracTracker Alliance. I'm speaking in support of 1866 and wanted to offer my expertise focused on California oil and gas statistics. So for years I've been focusing on analyzing the oil industry's cost of cleanup and the risk of idle wells to California communities as well as to California budget.

So I want to walk you through some of my numbers just to show you how important AB 1866 will be. I've submitted my reports to the Committee as well via email, so please review them at your convenience or let me know if you'd like me to review any of those facts personally. So, to start, it's going to take more than $23 billion to plug California's unplugged oil and gas wells. But the industry has only set aside a tiny fraction of financial resources and bonds.

About a quarter of that, at most will be able to be seen through profits over the next few years. But production is decreasing and these profits are going to continue to be decreasing with them. So predictions show that in total, operators will not be able to cover even half of that amount. So on top of that, the number of idle wells keep going up.

That's because under the current law, operators can pay a nominal fee instead of actually plugging the wells. 96% of the operators opt out of a plugging plan. These idle well management plans, only 56 out of the 1200 operators actually chose a plan in 2021. And of those plans, they only require four to 6% of the wells to be plugged. And even if all the operators plugged all the wells, at those rates, it would take over a century, based on our analyses, to plug just the currently idle wells, the 40,000 wells.

There's another 60,000 operational wells that aren't even being addressed yet, most of them producing very Low marginal levels. So under 1866, operators can no longer put off plugging these plugging requirements and they will be ramped up to 10 to 20%.

Thank you so much. Any opposition to this Bill? Support? Before you start, can I hear the support in the room as well? Just a few folks I see.

Good afternoon, Christina Scaringe. I've been asked to note support from Nextgen California Environmental Defense center and Fossil Free California. And I won't list, I'll just reference the more than 100 organizations that have submitted a letter of support to Committee.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Kim Stone, stone advocacy on behalf of Consumer Watchdog in enthusiastic support.

Will Brieger, on behalf of 350 Sacramento, Climate Action California and the Climate Reality Project, California Coalition, in support.

Barbara Bino, on behalf of 350, Bay Area action, in strong support.

Rena Cohen with CALPIRG Students, in support.

Dr. Bonnie Hamilton with Physicians for Social Responsibility, Bay Area chapter and Climate Reality, Bay Area chapter, in very strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Elise Fandrich, on behalf of Climate Center, in support of the Bill, Thanks.

Nicole Ghio, on behalf of Friends of the Earth in support of the Bill.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters in strong support. Thank you.

Rebecca Marcus with CALPIRG and me too for my colleagues at Earth justice. Thank you.

Good afternoon. John Shaban, California Nurses Association, in strong support.

Hi. Dr. Amy Moas with Greenpeace USA in strong support.

Hello. Gabriela Facio with Sierra Club California in strong support.

Hello. Laura Deehen with Environment California and strong support.

Jason Fifel, Oakland resident strong support.

Jasmine Vazin, Los Angeles resident strong support.

Kayla Karimi, on behalf of on the Center on Race, Poverty in the Environment, with strong support.

Elizabeth Espinos, on behalf of the boards of supervisors and the counties of Ventura and Santa Barbara in support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And if the opposition could also be succinct like the expert witnesses.

Yeah, we're outnumbered here just a little bit, Mr. Chair Member. Sean Wallentine from CIPA in opposition to the Bill. The good news is the idle well management program works great. In fact, it works so well, the oil industry has plugged a record number of wells over the past two years, 11,032 idle wells in the last two years alone. CalGEM is doing a great job running the program, and we're doing an excellent job plugging wells. Contrary to what you heard earlier, CalGEM isn't asking for this bill.

We're not asking for this bill. Surprisingly, the bill shuts down tens of millions in funding from the oil industry to pay the state to hire union labor to plug orphan oil wells. They mentioned nominal fees. They're not nominal fees. There's $25 million currently sitting in the HIDWAF. That's 100% oil money that we've invested for the purpose of the state hiring labor to plug wells. Remember, idle wells are assets.

Many come back into production, and many will be used for carbon sequestration, hydrogen projects, and other alternative uses. Once they're plugged, they're gone forever. In addition to plugging a record number of oil wells over the past two years, CIPA has been working on implementing the bonding legislation with CalGEM. Bonds were mentioned. This bill really doesn't have anything to do with bonds. AB 1057 and 1167 from last year do have to do with bonds, and we're complying with that.

And I want to just point out that there is a layer cake of protection against the state safety valves that protect taxpayers. You have the bonding laws, you have the chain of title law that goes back to 1996. If that oil well was owned by anyone else after 1996, that company has to plug that well. And the state can utilize existing orphan well funds, which currently sit at a record $300 million. There's plenty of money.

You could wrap it up.

I will. Yes, sir. The idle well management plan program works. The Bill threatens to needlessly break a program that works just fine. CIPA asks for your no vote.

Thank you so much. Two minutes, sir.

Mr. Chair and Members, Paul Deiro, representing Western States Petroleum Association. I will not be repetitive. What I will comment on is this narrative by the proponents of the bill that the oil production in California is in decline. That's false. According to the US Energy Administration, California had $1.7 billion of barrels of proven crude oil reserves in 2021. The oil is there. We just need to get it, as opposed to importing 75%.

Also, there is a part of the narrative is a conflation of what an idle well is and what an orphan well is, and what a deserted well is and what a potential deserted well is. An idle well is regulated by the state. It's a well that hasn't produced in two years. And then you have long term idle wells. Wells that haven't produced in eight years. They are tested every two years. They are regulated.

If a test come back and it's potentially causing a health concern, CalGEM in the oil and gas supervisor has the direct authority, and should use that authority to plug and abandon that well permanently if it's causing any kind of health issues. The California Council for Science and Technology came out with a report five years ago that identified 5300 orphan wells, deserted wells, potentially deserted wells. These are wells where we do not have an identified operator and are the most critical and located in urban areas.

That ought to be addressed before you can complete what an idle well is and what an orphan well is. Idle wells have value, their assets, and we oppose this bill. Thank you.

Is there any opposition in this room who'd like to be heard? Seeing none, turn it back to Committee Members. Mr. Mathis.

I wish Mr. High was here so I could direct you towards him, but I think it's very well said. I mean, my biggest concern, and you saw it on Forbes yesterday. Green hydrogen is the future of energy, and idle wells are one of the best places. Everywhere else in the US is using idle wells to store green hydrogen. And if we are ever going to reach our goals, to move from combustion, hydrogen is the answer. That is the solution.

And I think it is completely asinine to take away the ability to do well storage for green hydrogen. If we were wanted to go after abandoned wells and orphan wells, 100%, we need to do that. We need to go after bad actors. But this bill goes too far, because if you take away the ability to store that green hydrogen, we take away the ability for California to be carbon free.

Thanks much. Any other comments about Committee Members? Mr. Hoover

Just as a follow up on that, I am concerned that there's not enough distinction that has been made between the type of wells that we're talking about. So is it the intent of this bill to take away these future assets, whether it be for bringing them back into production and using, actually creating cleaner gas that we are already using here locally or for carbon capture or hydrogen or things like that? Is that the intent of the Bill?

The intent of the bill is to create tens of thousands of jobs by plugging these dangerous idle wells. And for the largest operators, it would be up to them to choose 20% of their idle well inventory each year. So in the rare cases, and it's about maybe 1% of idle wells that are reactivated by the industry every year.

In those rare cases, if they want to set aside the 1% of wells that might become useful in the future, they are more than free to do that, so long as they meet the minimum requirements of plugging these dangerous wells. As we move away from fossil fuels.

Could we not, though, have even more economic activity and production by using these for other purposes in the future? Is that not something that could also potentially create jobs?

We can't leave these 40,000 idle wells unattended. The status quo is dangerous for frontline communities that have gotten sick from living close to these leaking wells. It's dangerous for the climate. As I mentioned, two thirds of these idle wells are currently leaking methane into the atmosphere. And it's a ticking time bomb for the state finances. $21 billion worth of cleanup costs could fall on taxpayers if we leave this problem alone.

So is it your understanding, or is it your, I guess, position that the current system is not working? These checks every two years are not working to correct or check for these problems?

Absolutely not. There's a recent study that shows that two thirds of these idle wells are leaking, and that's in spite of these regulations, there's simply not enough monitoring to cover 40,100,000 active wells as well to cover the amount of leaks that are happening statewide.

Can I just hear from the opposition, too, on the answer to those questions on your perspective? Because I'm trying to get a full understanding of this.

Yeah. I can tell you that idle wells are assets. They are regulated, they are tested, and if there is a leak, they will be remedied and plugged and closed. What he said about methane leaks.

The California Energy Commission came out with a study called the California Methane Survey, and they looked at 88,000 wells surveying each active, idle, plugged in, abandoned wells, just 120 wells, which is of those wells had minor potential leaks, and the concentration of those leaks were not harmful. So you have to have proper context when you're talking about two thirds of the wells are leaking methane, which is completely false. Thank you.

There seems to be a disagreement about the data as well. They're saying 40,000 idle wells. I was interacting in the crowd, and it's 17,888 idle wells that exist. We've plugged 11,032 over the last two years, and we're abiding by the idle well management plan created in 2016, and it's working. The problem is there's $25 million sitting in the HIDWAF, and the state's not using it to go plug some of the very wells that the support mentioned. And there's plenty of money.

Our money we put into that account. It's not nominal. There's $25 million in there to go hire union labor to go plug those wells.

Thank you.

Those are orphan wells.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Can you be very succinct and quick, Mr. Mathis? We've got things we've got to do.

I just, for the record. Okay. Can we walk through the process of what plugging a well is and what that means, just for clarity's sake.

Would. The sponsors of the Bill like to be very quick?

How do you unplug a well once it's plugged?

Yeah. If you don't mind. The process of plugging well is injecting concrete down the well bore to seal the formation, which has the hydrocarbons from groundwater as well as from the air. So protect the communities, and it's really the only way to do it.

And the opposition agrees that you fill it with concrete and it's done.

Yes.

So the asset is gone forever. Can't use it for carbon sequestration. Can't use it for hydrogen.

Thank you. So much. Mr. Mathis, the point has been made. Is there a motion to move the Bill? Motion by Mayor Succin second by cholera. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Thank you. Yep. Come close us out. Assembly Member Bauer, K Ann.

[chatter]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members and I want to start by thanking Committee for their work on the bill. I'm accepting Committee amendments. I'm here to present AB 2236. It is a super simple bill. It gets rid of those thick plastic bags in grocery stores that theoretically aren't supposed to be disposable, but we know are disposable and replaces them with paper bags. So if anyone like me shops at Trader Joe's, that's the future. Paper only under this bill.

And with that, I will turn it over to my witnesses. With me today in support are Louie Brown, and this is a historic day, the first time we're ever on the same side of a bill, with the California Grocers Association. And Rena Cohen, a student leader with CALPIRG. And we have Mark Murray, Californians Against Waste, just to answer any questions if you have any.

Perfect. Can we get a quick two minute testimony?

Hi again, my name is Rena Cohen. I'm a second year student at UC Davis and the chapter chair for CALPIRG Students on my campus. Again, CALPIRG Students, were the statewide student-led, student-funded, nonprofit organization. We organize young people for change and to work towards greener, healthier futures. So I know that we're short on time. So for the sake of repetition, I'll just say know advocating, personally.

I was born and raised, I grew up in California, grew up going to the beach, to the mountains, learning how to surf, going to ski, enjoying all of the natural resources that our state has to offer. And thousands of students like me are looking to California leaders of today to make decisions that will help reduce the plastic pollution currently in our communities and prevent our generation from inheriting a plastics crisis that's even worse.

Just as Assemblymember said, California's current ban on plastic grocery bags is not working as intended, especially in the last few years, these plastic bag companies have created these thicker plastic bags that they claim are exempt from the law. In reality, few people are reusing them. And because the plastic carryout bags at grocery stores have become thicker, the plastic bag weight has increased dramatically. The highest level on record, actually, 230,000 tons of plastic bag waste.

So we need to close the loophole in our bag ban that allows for these thicker bags to be provided in grocery stores and truly ban the bag. And that's exactly what this bill does. And so we're very thankful to Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan for her leadership and we encourage your aye vote on this bill.

Thank you so much.

Mr. Chair. Members of the Committee, Louie Brown here today, on behalf of the California Grocers Association, in support of the bill. We supported the original bill, SB 270, back in 2014. That moved us in this direction. But as it goes with policy since that time, we've learned. And we've learned that there's changes that are necessary to the law.

The plastic bags that were put into SB 270 at the time when we wrote that law were intended and thought that they were going to be recycled. And frankly, it worked in the very beginning and we saw a change in consumer habit. That change went back and it's never come back after COVID. And so we're here in support of the bill because we supported the original policy. We think this is a continuation of that policy, and we're prepared to help make that transition happen. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any persons in the room who'd like to register their support?

Good afternoon, Genesis Gonzalez. On behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, in support.

Crystal Kudos here on behalf of the Western Placer Waste Management Authority, in strong support.

Hello again, Nicholas Mazadi on behalf of Clean Water Action, in support of the bill.

Will Brieger, on behalf of 350 Sacramento, Climate Action California and the Climate Reality Project, California Coalition. Thank you.

Craig Swaim, on behalf of the Kroger company, operates Ralph's in Southern California in support.

Laura Deehan, on behalf of Environment California, in strong support.

Jennifer Fearing for Oceania Ocean Conservancy and Surfrider Foundation, support.

Gabriela Facio of the Sierra Club California, in support.

Thank you so much. Any persons in the room who would like to register their opposition to this bill?

Again, you've got two minutes, but if you can make it succinctly and faster than that, there are bonus points.

Thank you, Chairman Bryan and Vice Chair Flora, and the committee members. My name is Roxanne Spiekerman and I represent PreZero US. We are a waste, diversion and recycler of plastic film here in California. We also specialize in the downstream conversion of these reusable plastic film bags. As it is currently written in this bill, there are some unintended consequences that need to be addressed.

Recently we were awarded the CalRecycle Fiber, Plastic and Glass grant program, which allowed us to acquire equipment to actually recycle these bags in other bags and films that are in stores right now that can't be curbside recycled.

So there is a solution here regulating this to the point where other alternative bags like polypropylene bags that are allowed, that are simply just another plastic bag, just heavier and imported, with their only end life going into landfill, or the non reusable recycled content paper bag that uses much more energy and water use in both its pulping and repulping processes, is not the answer. So really banning the bag is really not the answer. People are still going to use plastic film.

They're going to use it in a wide variety of non carrier bag applications. It extends food life. It makes sure that we're all safe. So the real answer here is to make sure that there's a way to get this material, consolidate it and channel it back.

And the only way to do that, really the most sound solution is to amend this bill the way it currently is, and to integrate the bags into California's extended producer responsibility program, SB 54, and make sure that we have a much wider solution here for all flexibles and bags. That's going to solve a much greater problem. So I do ask that this be opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Chair and esteemed Members of the Natural Resources Committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you regarding Assembly Bill 2236. My name is Phil Rozenski. I serve as the interim director of the American Recyclable Plastic Bag Alliance. ARPBA represents manufacturers and recyclers of film plastic retail bags, including members with operations in California. I'm here on their behalf to express our opposition to the proposed legislation. The ARPBA shares the goals of AB 2236, protecting and improving the environment. But let me be clear.

The bill will not reduce plastic. It will merely shift Californians to other plastic bags that result in significantly more plastic pollution and consumption. After a similar bill passed in New Jersey, that is exactly what happened. A ban on traditional film plastic bags resulted in the state adopting nonwoven polypropylene bags as the new option, which led to a 300 percent increase in plastic consumption, 500 percent rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

Moreover, studies have shown that on average, these non woven bags are only used two to three times before they are discarded. They're simply not used the number of times needed for them to be more environmentally beneficial. They become the new single-use bag. Currently, law requires today's film plastic bags to contain 40 percent certified post consumer recycled content registered with CalRecycle every year. The bags used today consume 180 million pounds of recycled content that was destined for landfills to make these bags.

In contrast, nonwoven bags rarely contain recycled content and are not recyclable in California. If the law passes, the thick recyclable bags currently mandated by the state would cease to exist. Passing the bill would trigger increased plastic use, eliminate the use of 183 million pounds of recycled content, increase carbon footprints, move jobs out of California and increase the cost of groceries here in the state. I can't emphasize enough, this bill is structured not to reduce plastic, but to substitute it with a different form.

We urge you to vote against it and we invite collaboration to create a more effective solution.

Thank you so much. And at two minutes and 10 seconds, no bonus points are awarded. Are there any members of the committee room who would like to register their opposition?

Afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Alberto Torrico, on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council, opposed unless amended.

Hi, Sarah Pollo Moo, with the California Retailers Association. We have no position, but we do have concerns and we're working with the author's office. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Mr. Chair and members, Bruce Magnani on behalf of the Association of Plastics Recyclers, the Recycling Partnership and Western Plastics Association, we do think there's a robust law in this state, SB 54, and we think that would be the solution.

Thank you. Looking forward to working with the author.

Thank you, chair and members, Lauren Aguilar, with the Flexible Packaging Association. Also in an opposed amended position.

Mr. Chair and members, Rj Cervantes, on behalf of The American Forest and Paper Association, in an opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Thank you, RJ. Questions? Comments from Committee Members. Bonus points if you're succinct, fellas. Mr. Mathis, would you like to start?

Sure. Being that I once had a paper. Can you hear me now?

Thank you. I can pull out the drill sergeant voice if I need to.

I can't hear you, Devon.

Bottom line, I appreciate nothing against the plastics, but I'll take the paper every day. My biggest concern on this bill is looking at the 100 percent recycled paper. It's a durability issue. It's a fiber issue. I have paper manufacturing in my district and my concern goes, I'm going to walk out, I got five kids. I'm going to have a ton of groceries and I'm going to have bags exploding in the parking lot, glass breaking, and it's going to be a bad day.

And I don't want that to happen. If the bill was adjusted a little bit more to be more considerate about the fiber process, for paper bags to be more durable, I'd be a joint author with you. So things to consider going forward, but until it's there, I can't support it.

You can respond to my closing if you'd like.

Thank you so much. Mr. Hoover?

I'll just wrap mine up into one question. So last time we passed this bill, we increased the amount of plastic we use. I'm hearing similar concerns with this. I guess we'd love to hear your response to that. And then also, what is the cost difference that these new bags will potentially cost compared to the current recyclable bags?

So in response to that, the New Jersey law did not allow paper, so they were replacing plastic bags with just the reusable plasticky bags. We are not doing that. We really are allowing paper in response to Senator Mathis'; point. We actually have just met with the paper industry this week and are working on those standards. And I look forward to your joint authorship when we get to a good point on that.

I don't actually think we're putting more plastic into the system because we do have the paperback option, which is significantly different than what was cited. So I don't know what to say except we are removing a plastic bag that was not used. There will be less plastic, there will be more paper and that paper will be recycled and we'll have a high recycled content, although like I said, we're working on what that content will look like. And then the cost, sorry, you asked two questions.

The cost is higher, but it is less than the fee and the bill does not change the fee that is allowed to be collected. And so that fee now will, much more of that will go towards the cost of the bags, but it will cover it.

Any other questions? Comments from colleagues?

Senator, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you all for coming today. And I know the author is willing to work with all of the opposition partners, UFCW and others who came to speak today. I have no doubt about that. With that, this bill does have a do pass recommendation. Do we have a motion? Mathis, Pellerin. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Bryan? Bryan aye. Flora? Flora, no. Bauer-Kahan? Bauer-Kahan aye. Friedman? Friedman aye. Hoover? Hoover, no. Kalra? Kalra, aye. Mathis? not voting. Muratsuchi? Muratsuchi aye. Pellerin? Pellerin aye. Wicks? Wicks aye? Wood?

Thank you. That bill is out. Madam Secretary, can we also lift the roll? Can we lift the call for missing missing members?

[Roll Call]

And with that, today's natural resource Committee hearing is over.