Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

Call the Senate EQ Committee hearing to order as a Subcommitee. We'll start with you, Senator Dodd. Senator Dodd is here to present SB 1159.

Thank you very much, Mister chair and Members. Today I'm presenting SB 1159 regarding roadside wildfire risk reduction. The Bill requires that by January 1, 2026 the Office of Planning and Research Evaluate and the Secretary of Natural Resources Agency consider a categorical exemption for roadside vegetation management projects that reduce wildfire risk and meet appropriate conditions. SB 1159 does not create a statutory exemption.

Rather, it states that the roadside vegetation management is a legislative priority and that projects undertaking roadside vegetation management meeting appropriate safeguards should be considered for inclusion on the list of categorically exempt projects. OPR and the secretary already have a history of evaluating and appropriating. Excuse me, appropriately tailoring the categorical exemptions. Roadside ignitions are a significant source of wildfires when a spark from a passing vehicle or cigarette comes into contact with dry brush and grass.

Vegetation management along roadsides is highly effective at limiting the spread of these ignitions and also decreases the potential for an existing wildfire to spread across the road. With thousands of miles of roads and wildfire prone lands, roadside vegetation management is constantly required to minimize the risk of an uncontrolled wildfire.

Currently, roadside vegetation management projects are often subject to sequel reviews that can add costs and delays and ultimately reducing the amount of work that gets done, increasing the risk of runaway fires that are devastating to climate change, as well as human and environmental health. An exemption for roadside vegetation management projects would vastly increase the amount of roadside vegetation management work that can be completed in a given amount of time.

The Bill so far has no opposition, is supported by a number of organizations, including the California building industry, Associated General Contractors, California Fire Chiefs Association, Katrakosa County of Sonoma, and others. With me today is Fire Chief Dave Whitaker, representing the California Fire Chiefs Association. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Let's hear from your witnesses.

Chief, you're right over here.

You can come to the table.

Coming to the table.

Yeah, we're a civilized Committee.

Different committees, different. Different rules.

Yeah, we're friendly. You may proceed.

Good morning, Members of the Committee, and thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this critical Bill. Dave Winnacker and the fire chief of the Moraga Orenda Fire Protection District. District and a Member of the California Fire Chiefs Association Executive board. In fire dependent landscapes such as California, wildfire is a natural and recurring feature. As a result of that, we have a future that in a hotter, drier future, there is no certainty that we will not have fires.

When we have fires, it is only the speed with which they approach our communities that convert them into destructive events. Carrying out roadside fuel reduction projects enhances the non burnable nature of the existing road in areas that are less likely to be critical habitat and are very likely to be sources of ignition. Creating this exemption, as we have already done for defensible space work within 100ft of a home, will have the effect of increasing the efficiency of limited wildfire risk reduction resources.

As we approach this as a constrained optimization problem in a future with constrained budgets, it is less likely that we will have the essentially unlimited resources that the state has showered on this problem over the last several years.

It is important that we are more efficacious in our work and pull it into areas that will have dual use of not only preventing ignitions, but securing evacuation routes which will allow us to move our residents to safety, buying time for the aggregation of the effective firefighting force that is necessary to prevent the loss of structures. I urge your support of this needed measure and believe it is consistent with previous work that has established categorical exemptions for defensible space work around homes. Be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

Thank you. All right, let's hear from other folks who want to just weigh in support for the Bill. You can come to the mic.

Good morning. Noelle Cremers with Wine Institute in support. In the 2020 fires alone, wineries and wine grape growers lost an estimated $3.7 billion from wildfires. So we strongly support this Bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. John Kennedy with the Rural Counties and in support of the Bill wanted to say thank you to the author and. The Committee staff for clarifying that this. Is additive to existing CEQA exemptions and. Happy to support the Bill as it moves forward.

Thank you.

Adam Regele, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in support, thank you.

Morning Mister chair. Chris Micheli, on behalf of Humboldt Redwood Company, in support of the Bill, thank you.

Paul Mason with Pacific Forest Trust also in support. Roadsides are amongst the most important places that we can work and making it easier and clearer what we're doing there is important.

Thank you.

Good morning. Silvio Ferrari on behalf of the California Building Industry Association and support.

Thank you. I don't want to hear from this guy.

Good morning Mister chair Members. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the counties of Napa and Sonoma, in support. Thank you. Thank you. Security you can.

Good afternoon. Michelle Rubalcava, on behalf of Contra Costa County and support thank you.

Thank you very much. All right. Is that your first? Me, too. Dylan? No. No? oh, gosh. All right. You just left my staff, so. Hey, good to see you. All right, let's go. Opposition.

Anyone who wants to raise concerns about the Bill? No? Okay. All right, let's bring it back to the Committee. Questions? Thoughts? Comments? Great Bill. Yeah, great Bill. A move by Senator Dahle. You may close. We don't have a motion, sorry. We're a Subcommitee

Respectfully asked for your aye vote great. Appropriate time.

Appreciate you very much, Senator. Thank you. And thank you for being here. We pray support of the Bill. Okay, let's hear from Senator Caballero. All right, you may proceed.

Thank you, Chair. I'm glad I wasn't on your staff at one time. So good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1420. Let me start off by saying I accept the Committee amendments as outlined in the analysis, and I agree to work on Committee and stakeholders to resolve outstanding issues. It's a work in progress, and the opportunity, I think, to refine this and make it work in California is really important.

So really appreciate the conversations we've had and look forward to more. So let me just say that SB 1420 is a bill that will create the world's first renewable hydrogen production mandate, modeled on California's own Renewable Portfolio Standard, or RPS, which requires a decarbonization of the energy grid by 2050. Additionally, the bill allows the renewable and clean hydrogen production facilities to qualify for two recent energy streamlining processes, an expedited judicial review, and a consolidated permitting process.

The bill also includes language extending the Governor's Environmental Leadership Development Projects to add clean and renewable hydrogen production facilities. SB 1420 will ensure hydrogen is produced inline with California's strong environmental loss. Additionally, it will align the decarbonization of hydrogen fuel with the decarbonization of California's power grid while going a step further and requiring eligible hydrogen to have a carbon intensity score of less than or equal to that of the grid on an annual basis.

Specifically, SB 1420 requires that on a statewide basis, no less than 60% of the hydrogen used in transportation be renewable by 2030. By 2045, the remaining 40% must be a mix of renewable and clean hydrogen. Because the definition of zero carbon resources did not contemplate fuel and focuses mainly on grid reliability, this bill borrows from the federal Inflation Reduction Act definition of clean hydrogen, hydrogen which is produced through a process that results in a life cycle greenhouse gas emissions rate of not greater than 4 kilograms of CO2 per kilogram of hydrogen.

Let's be clear. The California Air Resources Board, CARB, in their 2022 Scoping Plan, determined quite clearly that California could not attain its climate goals to decarbonize without utilizing hydrogen as a fuel source. Let me repeat that. CARB has determined, our own agency has determined, quite clearly that California could not attain its climate goals to decarbonize without utilizing hydrogen as a fuel source. CARB states that California cannot reach its emission goals without expanding hydrogen production by 1700 times the present rate of production.

SB 1420 would also enable California to work more deliberately towards this goal and allow a transition in the aviation, heavy duty trucking, maritime industries, and, also, quite frankly, the ports, away from diesel and jet fuel to a cleaner, locally produced product that would not only decarbonize the fuel, but eliminate the production of air pollution contaminants such as sulfur oxide, SOx, and nitric oxide, or NOx.

And those are, that's the air pollution right now that is really confounding the South Coast Air Basin and the San Joaquin Valley, those air basin or nonattainment air basins, and have a really hard time reducing the SOx and the NOx because they don't produce it. It's produced somewhere else, and it blows in.

SB 1420 would also enable California to leverage federal funds awarded to the ARCHES Coalition, our own ARCHES here in California, for a hydrogen hub grant by unlocking private sector investment estimated to bring in $10 billion in private investment. Just as important, especially in my own district, this bill allows California to create good paying jobs comparable to the oil and gas industry.

And it is the opportunity to transition workers away from the fossil fuels into good paying jobs that have the opportunity to create not only a high wage equivalent to the oil and gas industry, but also benefits, the ability to stay in the Valley, and economic development in our communities that's so important to support the local economy.

In conclusion, SB 1420 would establish the highest emission standards for hydrogen in the world, all on California to meet its environmental climate change goals, create those high road jobs, create a community benefit plan, and bring new investment into the state. With me to testify and answer any questions is Mikhael Skvarla, on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition, and Dr. Jack Brouwer, a Professor and Chancellor's Fellow of Mechanical and Aerospace, Civil and Environmental, and Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering.

And I say all of that because, if you have any technical questions, it will be him that answers them. And he's the Director of the Clean Energy Institute at the University of California, Irvine.

Great. All right, let's hear who's going first.

No, please.

Okay. Chair and Senators, Mikhael Skvarla here on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition. We're proud sponsors of SB 1420. Bill seeks to do three things. First, it imposes a rigorous standard on renewable and clean hydrogen for transportation that mirrors the timelines and requirements and standards accepted for the electric grid and the Renewable Portfolio Standard.

It goes a step further and provides an additional backstop of carbon intensity overlaid on top of these requirements to assure skeptics of hydrogen that we will meet or beat the grid in terms of carbon intensity through an objective and quantitative metric. These are not qualitative statements. Second, SB 1420 adds renewable and clean hydrogen as an eligible resource within the RPS, thus allowing it to be integrated into our energy system and utilized for energy purposes.

Again, this puts us within the confinement and standards of a 22 year policy that's been improved and debated consistently through this Legislature and set forward. Third, and importantly, it adds renewable clean hydrogen to the provisions of AB 205 and SB 149, contemplated by this Legislature to accelerate our pace towards carbon neutrality. Importantly, we have a federal opportunity that is generational. I don't know that I'll see another opportunity like this in my lifetime, but there are some strict timelines on that.

Our hydrogen hub has to be operational by 2030 and in operation for two years by 2032 in order to receive the $1.2 billion. Importantly, the hydrogen hub is a $12 billion hub, which I know, Senator Allen, you're working on a $15 billion climate bond. This is a pretty significant investment in the State of California, with over $10 billion coming from the private sector on variable renewable electricity generated hydrogen. This is the only hub of its kind in the United States and the cleanest.

Additionally, the Inflation Reduction Act, Section 45V, provides tax credits. Again, those facilities have to be operational by 2032. And so the pace and scale in order to maximize our opportunity federally requires us to accelerate the current pace of industrial permitting in the State of California to allow us to do this. We've. Legislature's created a good process with the Energy Commission and that we should be allowed to enter into that to help accelerate the deployment of these projects and maximize California's value at the federal level.

I think there's obviously skepticism around hydrogen and some of the debate at the national level around a concept called three pillars, which is additionality temporal matching, so time matching and deliverability. Within the constraints and policies of California's leading energy stuff, SB 100, SB 350, we have solved and dealt for those things. We have deliverability requirements with first point of interconnection being the WEC, we have temporal matching within that, and we also have additionality that incremental load must be new and additional renewables.

However, hydrogen producers are simply customers of load serving entities. We don't have the ability, outside of providing us direct access or a tariff, which Senator Becker is working on, to do many of the things contemplated in three pillars. In fact, three pillars just create an impediment that won't allow us to produce hydrogen cost effectively in the State of California to compete with diesel and gasoline, which is ultimately the goal. And so to those points, we urge your aye vote and are here to answer any questions you may have.

Okay. All right. Yes, sir.

Yeah. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I've been working on hydrogen topics for the last 25 years. And all around the world, jurisdictions who have objectively analyzed what we must do next to completely decarbonize and depollute economies have decided to invest big time in hydrogen.

From my perspective, finally, we have had a lot of objective analysis that says, hey, if we're going to decarbonize and depollute every part of our economy, including the ports and the long haul trucks and heavy industry that you just mentioned, we need to invest in hydrogen. And we have this opportunity now for investment to occur as a result of the hub and 45V, that is, I think, once in a lifetime. It's the beginning of the beginning, from my perspective.

I am an interim board member of ARCHES and have been involved in the negotiations with the US Department of Energy on this very investment. And one of their major concerns is getting stuff in the ground quick enough, and especially the permitting streamlining measures included in this bill are super important for the money to flow to the State of California in this hub effort. So I also am in support of this, in particular because of those streamlining efforts that I know will make a difference and contribute to clean air and reduced climate pollutants with clean hydrogen.

All right, thank you. All right, let's hear from folks that want to weigh in, express your support for the bill.

I thought there was just a mass of us. Teresa Cooke, on behalf of the California Hydrogen Business Council, very pleased to be here in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Alfredo Arredondo here on behalf of the Green Hydrogen Coalition and H Cycle in strong support.

Morning, Mr. Chair. Chris Micheli on behalf of the California Renewable Transportation Alliance in support of the bill.

Good morning. Steve Wallauch on behalf of the Center for Transportation and the Environment in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Beth Olhasso on behalf of the Agricultural Energy Consumers Association in support.

Good morning. Greg Cane with the California Hydrogen Car Owners Association in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Phillip Vander Klay with Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Faith Conley with Weideman Group. On behalf of AES as well as Air Products, the single largest global hydrogen producer. We have a tweener position. We have some concerns, but we're working with the author to alleviate those concerns as the bill moves forward. And we appreciate her commitment to this industry.

Thank you. All right. Opposition to the bill or folks who want to raise concerns? You can come. What? Well, maybe we can move one of the other chairs up to the front. Up to the front side so they can come to the table here. Okay. Yeah, here you go. This is fine. And then she can go pull the chair in. There we go. All right. Interior decoration.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Kayla Karimi, here representing the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment. CRPE is committed to uplifting underrepresented frontline communities in the San Joaquin Valley, the communities that will also be most impacted by incoming hydrogen projects. We disagree with SB 1420's definition of renewable and clean hydrogen, its qualification under the California Renewable Portfolio Standard Program, and this bill's CEQA streamlining. The bill's definition of hydrogen fails to include critical guardrails such as the three pillars.

Hydrogen production without the implementation of the three pillars is inefficient at best. Even worse, hydrogen, as defined, includes biomass and factory farm dairy gas, the inclusion of which is extremely polluting and dangerous. Biomass facilities are some of the worst point sources of particulate matter, and they are being planned for the San Joaquin Valley, the nation's worst air basin.

The bill would also require the creation of procurement targets for renewable hydrogen, which would push more hydrogen creation and disincentivize investments into alternatives that are more efficient for our climate and healthier for our communities. These concerns underline the importance of full and robust CEQA reviews for hydrogen projects. CEQA offers a means for communities to actively participate and contribute essential insights and concerns regarding major projects.

It is the one opportunity for communities to be informed on the risks associated with projects and hold agencies and developers accountable for their decisions. Rather than view CEQA as a hindrance to responsible development, it should be seen as a necessity that ensures healthy communities, informed decision making, and government transparency. When it comes to stopping climate change, we often hear that we can't afford to take tools off the table when in fact the opposite is true.

We can't afford to waste billions of dollars and decades of development on climate distractions that will subsidize utilities, fossil fuel companies, the dairy industry, and others looking to expand their profits at the expense of frontline communities and environmental justice communities. We have discussed our concerns with the author's office and look forward to more discussions on hydrogen bills and language we can support. However, for these reasons, CRPE asks the Committee to vote no on SB 1420. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Mark Fenstermaker representing Earth Justice. We are respectfully opposed to SB 1420. We appreciate the opportunity that hydrogen presents in meeting our climate and clean air goals, so long as that hydrogen is produced in a manner that aligns with our climate and air quality goals, which requires achieving carbon neutrality as quickly as possible and a widespread transition to zero emissions equipment in our most polluted regions.

We are focused on California being a leader in the production of green hydrogen, but it must be based on the three pillars, meaning that hydrogen is produced through electrolysis that is powered by new or additional renewable energy resources, produced and consumed in real time, and delivered onto California's grid. Without the three pillars, hydrogen can and likely will increase carbon emissions, and this is a key concern of ours with the production pathways proposed in this bill.

The US Treasury Department has proposed rules for implementing the federal tax credit for electrolytic hydrogen production that require hydrogen be produced with the three pillars to be eligible for the most lucrative tier, catalyzing a boom in the production of truly clean or green hydrogen. The lowest tier would award production with a well-to-gate lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions rate of not greater than 4 kilograms of CO2 equivalent per kilogram of hydrogen, the same metric that SB 1420 uses to define qualified clean hydrogen.

California has a proud history of pushing the envelope on environmental policy and technological innovation, so we struggle to understand why California would aim for the bottom of the federal government standards rather than race to the top. Environmental justice and environmental groups, along with hydrogen production companies and electrolyzer manufacturers, have all indicated support for the three pillars approach at the federal level, and California should lean in rather than push away from adopting policy requiring the three pillars.

We also have serious concerns with the CEQA streamlining proposal in SB 1420. We appreciate the Committee's proposed amendment to remove streamlining for projects using hydrogen, but the production side still warrants full CEQA review. Projects that produce renewable hydrogen are likely to be first of their kind facilities.

Each production project is likely to pose unique environmental risks, given the numerous disparate technologies industry may propose for producing renewable or purportedly low carbon hydrogen, and these novel approaches need to be understood through the CEQA process to ensure the best projects proceed. Lastly, as it pertains to qualifying hydrogen as an RPS resource, we appreciate the concerns raised to the analysis and that certain safeguards are needed to make sure we get this right and don't increase emissions from the electric sector.

We look forward to working with this Committee, the Energy Committee, and the author on these technical aspects. We appreciate the conversations we've had with the author's staff and look forward to continuing those. But for today, we must oppose SB 1420.

Okay, let's hear from other folks who want to weigh in in opposition or concern.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters, respectfully opposed the bill. Thank you.

I'm Megan Shumway. I'm representing Sacramento 350 in Climate Action California, and we strongly oppose the bill.

Good morning. Raquel Mason, registering opposition for the California Environmental Justice Alliance. Also registering for the Center on Community Action and Environmental Justice and Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair and members. Jennifer Fearing, I've been asked to express the opposition of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network and Communities for a Better Environment. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair. Nick Lapis with California Against Waste and Opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Jamie Katz with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability in opposition.

Good morning. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity and opposition.

Okay. All right. So before we get into our discussion among the committee, I just want to make a few remarks about the bill and some of the productive conversations that we've had with members of the committee and also with the author. So, first of all, thank you for working with us on this whole issue of addressing the scope of the projects using hydrogen that could be eligible for permit streamlining.

Good morning. Darryl Little on behalf of NRDC and respectful opposition. Thank you.

I think there's some continuing CEQA concerns, as have been articulated by the opposition. But I will say that as written, the bill would give access to ELDP and CEC opt in streamlining for any project that produces or uses any renewable or clean hydrogen. And that really gave us pause, and it was an incredibly broad language. It allowed for shortened opportunities for public engagement and review of any hydrogen project effectively.

And given how much hydrogen technology is being developed, we might not even know what all those projects could end up being before streamlining them. So that was something, I think it was of real concern for the committee, and we address that through the acceptance of the amendments from the committee to limit to just hydrogen's production and use in RPS-eligible facilities. And I certainly appreciate that. Now, this is a big, technical, multifaceted bill. I mean, five bills in one, as I've heard from some people.

So, certainly, addressing that issue alone doesn't address all the questions that we continue to have, and I think the author knows this. We don't share the antipathy toward the three pillars that has been expressed. You know, there are a lot of issues that have been raised by opposition as well that I think are in line with where we are as a committee. So, the analysis flags a number of these questions.

I hope it can chart a path forward for us to follow as the bill goes through the legislative process. I understand this is the very first committee, and it's a long, unwinding road. So some examples: on page 12 of the analysis, the committee staff discusses the definition of qualified clean hydrogen in the bill, specifically, how, even though it sets a clear and improving target for the carbon intensity of hydrogen, it doesn't entirely prohibit the use of fossil fuel feedstocks.

Now, the author and I, I know this is a concern of several members of the committee. The author and I spoke about this on Monday when we met. The use of fossil fuel feedstocks does not, she's expressed to me it's not our intent with the bill. The real focus is on ag and biomass. And so I think the future amendments could help to address the concerns that we have by clarifying that, and that's something that we've agreed to work on and get resolved.

Similarly, page 13, the analysis notes that the bill eliminates a prohibition on projects using biomass fuels using ELDP streamlining. Again, the author has described to us that her intent is just to enable some promising state-of-the-art technologies that can produce hydrogen from waste without the same air pollution issues that old biomass plants had, and I know there's a lot of concerns on that front.

Been working in this space for a while, and I remember, and I've certainly heard concerns from environmental and environmental justice communities on that question. So it would, you know, we need to get that clarified as well. And then, of course, RPS. Now, that's technically an Energy Committee, Energy Utilities Committee purview, where the bill goes next, but it certainly deserves our attention.

Today, we are the lead committee on climate policy, and to the extent that RPS is a really important tool in addressing our climate challenges, it's certainly something that we care a great deal about. So, the author did keep one particular element of Senator Archuleta's SB 663 that we heard last year that relates to this, specifically saying that RPS-eligible hydrogen projects must not result in a net increase in air pollution or in GHGs from the electrical sector.

Of course, as seems to be the case in all things hydrogen, the devil's really in the details here. But I really appreciate that acknowledgment. Obviously, hydrogen only makes sense as a decarbonization solution when it truly reduces GHG emissions across the board.

So I know that the next committee is going to be working on this, and we're certainly hopeful and confident that the author and the committee, you know, will make sure this important provision includes all the details necessary to ensure that admissions are correctly and fully accounted for. Because RPS is a very important part of our climate change fighting toolbox. So, the authors agreed to the specific amendments written in the analysis.

What we're asking for, and it's my understanding that authors agree to, is that we're asking for the author's commitment to resolving three issues moving forward. Number one, fossil fuel free qualified clean hydrogen. Two, only advance biomass facilities for streamlining, and three, providing more detail on how emissions resulting from hydrogen's use in RPS-eligible facilities are accounted for. You know, we know the bill has a long, winding road ahead, and you know, I want to let the author continue to work on it.

I'm ultimately willing to support the bill today with the amendments and the commitment to work towards resolving at least these three other issues. I know that colleagues may have different opinions, and I know there's some kind of existing concerns out there about various aspects of the bill. But I know that the staff and members of this committee will continue to be really closely engaged every step of the way.

We remain the right to pull it back to committee if the need arises, given the terms of our understanding. But I do want to thank you, Senator Caballero, for your earnest commitment to working through these continuing concerns on the bill, and I know today's not the last time we're going to be speaking about this.

I wish.

Yeah. So, I don't know if you have any kind of initial reactions to my comments and then want to open up the floor to comments and questions.

Yes. Thank you, Mister Chair. Let me just say that I always appreciate having conversations with you about touchy bills. It's important that we get this right, and it's important in terms of our future efforts to decarbonize this state. And it's important to understand that there are opportunities that will make a tremendous difference in communities because they're right now, as we stand, we have no pathway at all towards a just transition.

And if I could say, my labor friends don't like that word, just transition, because they feel like it's been imposed on them. They've got their own idea about what should happen. But we don't have any way to get from the reduction of jobs in fossil fuels to a comparable salary in the energy industry. And so there are opportunities, and this is one of them. It is. I have never said this is the silver bullet. So whoever it is that said this isn't the silver bullet.

I've never said that. I've had multiple bullets in front of this legislature, and I won't go into them, but they've all been energy producing, and they get rid of waste, which is one of the things we desperately need to do, is to get rid of waste. Whether it's agricultural waste or dairy waste or trash that we have, or our own solid waste, we have waste, and we need to get rid of it, and if we can turn it into energy through a process, then I think that's a good thing. But let me just say that for every concern, there's an answer. We just need to figure out what's the language that has people feeling the most that we've taken care of an issue that's been raised. And so the three issues you raised, we agreed to continue to work on it, and the language becomes really important. So we will propose some language, and we can go back and forth.

If it moves out of the committee today, that's not the end of working with the committee. I commit myself to continue to have these dialogues and to see if we can work through some of the issues that you raised, and there are others as well. But I want to say in regards to the three pillars, I'm not opposed to the three pillars. They just don't work in California. They don't work in California. They don't work in the State of Washington.

They don't work in the State of Oregon. It's the reason that the western states, and there may be more, signed a letter to the Federal Government saying we have higher standards in our state already than the three pillars. So let us do our project, our Arches project, utilizing those high standards in order to meet our goals. Not only is California part of that letter, but it's the California Air Resources Board, the California Energy Commission, the California Public Utilities Commission, and GO-Biz.

They sent their letters to the Federal Government as well. So the tax credit, 45v, is being, the regulatory frameworks being established as we speak. And there's fairly solid unanimity among the administrations that there's a different way to do it other than the three pillars. The three pillars have been encapsulated in the work that we've done already. So I just put that out there because the mantra is that we're trying to somehow circumvent responsibility, accountability, or whatever you want to call it, to the highest standards.

That's not the case. What we're trying to do is to say, we've always said California is different, right? Well, if we're different, then why not use these higher standards and produce a product that's going to be a benefit to the community, not only because it helps us reduce greenhouse gas, it helps us reduce our socks.

But it also starts to provide a transition for our workforce, a workforce that is going to be decimated in rural California because in my region, what's happening is industrial solar has moved in, and it has taken over farms. It has reduced the number of workers that have jobs. It has a deleterious effect on local, small local communities, and it reduces revenue to local government because we don't tax big solar projects.

So there's this particularly important period of time where if we pick the right road, we can make a tremendous difference in the state by accomplishing a number of our goals. And if part of that is working on the language, that we can get it right, I'm there, but I need language. So far, I've got the opposition letters, and none of them have language. They don't propose solutions. It's just: no.

Well, you certainly have the commitment of the committee to work very closely with you on those three and several other issues. I do want to, and I want to open up the discussion. I will say, unless I'm grotesquely misinformed, it is my very strong understanding that we don't have, we don't already have higher standards than three pillars for hydrogen in California, and I don't think we're wedded to.

If there's an alternative approach that's workable, that also meets our high environmental goals, that is not in strict compliance with the three pillars, I think we're very open to that. But I understand it was written. These things get written and they're not sacrosanct, but they reflect a spirit and a set of concerns about this fuel that I think are very real, that this committee is going to continue to be really concerned about.

I just put that out there in terms of the future of our cooperation on this together.

I agree. Mister Chair, would you like a technical expert? I gave you the impassioned emotional explanation but in terms of the three pillars.

Okay, let's establish a quorum first.

[Roll Call]

Okay, so what, you wanted him to say something?

Yes. In terms of the three pillars.

Okay, sure. And then let's open up the floor to the discussion.

Yes. The three pillars are one way to achieve the environmental outcome. But MIT, University of California, Irvine, and a number of other academic institutions have had researchers and professors who have studied this, and we can achieve the same environmental outcome with lower costs. E3, who models the scoping plan, the IRP, the IPER, has indicated that in all 40 scenarios that they modeled, there would be a significant increase in costs of producing this type of hydrogen, whereas the environmental outcome, the 0.45 hydrogen, could be achieved with different standards. In the DOE's own white paper on achieving 45v tax credit, the standards of 0.45 hydrogen indicates that California actually has a more advanced carbon modeling than the rest of the United States. And we do.

We've been far out ahead of this for decades, and so to fit three pillars within the confines of California's existing policy structures would be detrimental to the advancement and proliferation of hydrogen. I think the opponents don't want to see the proliferation of hydrogen, which is why they're trying to impose three pillars. Three pillars were imposed in the European Union. We see the lowest finance decision rate of any jurisdiction in the world. This is not a policy intended to help.

Look, I'm neutral on the pollution of hydrogen. I just want to see if we're going to do it. It needs to meet our environmental goals.

And we can achieve those goals within the confines of the RPS, within the confines of the cap and trade.

If we're really, really careful, if we're really, really careful about how we frame this. That's the key here. So let's open this up to discussion from members. Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Senator, I share a lot of the concerns from the EJ group, and I do want to first say that I appreciate your commitment to the three items that the Chair mentioned. I still have some outstanding concerns, and one of my biggest concerns is related to potentially removing public input.

I know the analysis shared just one example of Orange Grove and that we hear that kind of story everywhere, right? Where certain more affluent areas will have a louder voice and get to move projects elsewhere, and in this case, was it SoCalGas moved their facility to Orange Grove, that is 96% Latino. I mean, that's the story that we hear across California. I'd like to learn a little bit more about how we're going to be able to protect community input when we're streamlining this.

And in relation to streamlining CEQA, this body here, I think, has a huge burden or huge responsibility to think about what outweighs the CEQA process. We have fought very hard to keep to protect a lot of these communities. A bill got pulled from this committee because it was looking to do the same thing that some of us felt didn't outweigh the benefits in streamlining CEQA, and I have those kind of lens through this bill.

I have a billion questions, but I'm going to just start with that one question in relation to streamlining, potentially removing community input.

So it's not the intention of the bill to eliminate community input because I agree with you 100%. CEQA is a really, really important tool. The part that we are focused on is a CEQA. It's streamlining the judicial review, not the public input and the public comment, and the ability to participate.

The Arches project, which is the federally funded program that is the underpinning of this bill, part of the requirement of the federal grant is a community engagement process, and it is new, and it's robust, and it's one of those obligations.

And you have to, basically, you have to give the community the ability to decide whether they want the project in their backyard or not, or in their neighborhood or in their area, because it could be that it's outside of a community, but it still could have an impact on the community. So a big part of Arches is to go in, do a community education. Here's what it is, here's what we would do, that kind of thing, and it's grassroots engagement that is required in order for you to be able to first move forward and access the grant money. So there's no intention to take that away. The intention is to be able to expedite projects once they've passed a certain level. In other words, they've done the community engagement. They've had input from the community. There's a community benefit obligation, so they have to agree to fund things.

And one of the options may even be that the community may say, "We want to own it," or, "We want to be partners. We want to be partners." And they create the framework for that to be able to happen. At a minimum, there's a community benefit that they can identify. We want to make sure that the jobs are local, and so we want a training program that's a community benefit.

We want to make sure that there is outdoor space or, yeah, I'm making up things now, but whatever it is that the community decides is important, that's part of their responsibility. So there will be, in terms of the Arches funding and commitment, there is a very robust.

Thank you for clarifying that. And I'll do one more question before we play tag here. Senator, could you, you know, this is, I feel like five bills in one. It's a really big, big lift to change a lot of policy here. Maybe if you can share a little bit more about, why not allow a more thorough policy discussion on one per? Why lump them all? I feel like we might be rushing a huge, huge lift, all in one bill.

Well, your point is well taken, and I think my experience is that what you have to do is propose what you think are the solutions to be able to get things done. Let me just say that the framework for this is working with Arches so that we can access the resources that have been made available by the Federal Government. Number one. Number two is that part of, so first is the definition so that we know what we're doing with hydrogen.

But the other were the two bills that we should have resolved last year and just never got to it. Can the bill be pulled apart into different pieces? Yes, it can. And maybe in one committee that there's a request that that happen. But ultimately, every single part of the bill needs to be. We need to move at some point because right now, Arches are negotiating with the Federal Government about what projects and the details of the timing of how they should happen.

But we have to, that project has to spend the money fairly efficiently and expeditiously, otherwise it goes to other states. So that's the reason for the expedited judicial review, and that's also the reason for the consolidated permitting process, where the permitting happens in one entity, and they're all working together. So, can it be pulled apart? Yes, it can be. But my attitude is we go big, or we go home.

And a big part of this is to take the time to get through and explain what it is that we're trying to do with this and engage. And it is impossible to engage unless you have someone on the other side that's a willing partner. And so I want to commend the Chair because what he has said is he's still got some concerns and he's willing to help to work on it. But we need language in order to be able to make sure we're getting it right.

I want to get it right. I don't want to just jam something through. I want to get it right.

Senator Dahle. Senator Gonzalez. Yeah. Okay.

I will yield the floor to you.

Okay. Thank you. Well, thank you, Mister Chair, and thank you to the author as well. I do commend you as well for bringing this forward. I know you've been working on this for some time. We certainly share differences in this aspect. And you know, that's certainly not any secret whatsoever, but sharing the same concerns. Look, I'm all for preempting the Federal Government, but I want to be able to preempt the Federal Government when we have the best and highest standards.

We do have communities many of us share that look similar, that still see this as very nascent technology and still want to ensure that we are utilizing hydrogen to the best of its ability in the most clean and renewable way. But we don't really have these definitions. They're arbitrary and all over the place, it seems.

And if we're going to preempt 45V, that is still going through conversations and public comment right now at the federal level, I want to ensure that, number one, we have community engagement that is really meaningful. I can tell you that back home through the ARCHES process. I feel like many of my community members don't feel as though the ARCHES process has been as public and transparent and meaningful as it should be. These are communities that are hit the hardest across California.

And I know you understand this and you share that same value that I do. And also, again, inclusive of the three pillars.

It's easy for us to dismiss that the three pillars shouldn't be included here, but there is a process that we should all be going through here in California to be able to find a way to come to some compromise over these three pillars and to really, again, ensure that we're applying the best and most meaningful and highest standards for this and then also utilizing the CEQA privileges.

Again, it's really hard for us, for me to come to that place where I feel like this could be applied to this Bill. So still sharing those concerns with you, I will sit and listen to the arguments and the discussions made here, but this is really hard for me personally to support. But I know that we will continue working on this regardless of what happens today.

I know that you and I will continue sitting down and making sure that we come to some sort of agreement, and I know that you're dedicated to that. So with that, thank you.

Thank you very much. If I could, Mister Chair- on the three pillars, quite frankly, the Federal Government is trying to decide what their standard is going to be. If they say it's the three pillars- unless they give us an exemption of some kind, it'll be the three pillars. Somehow it has to work. The reason that we've picked this strategy is because it's a strategy that aligns with our sister states in the region and the Administration.

So I just want to say that I think there's room to negotiate within the three pillars to get it right. But ultimately the federal government will make that resource available and we'll have to figure out how to access it for the, it's the private investment into the projects that become really important. That's the point. So thank you for that.

Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, Members. I just want to start out by saying I'm going to try to just bring some common sense maybe to the issue here. It's been something I know that you, Senator, have been working on not only just statewide, but for the folks in your district that are suffering from pollution, quite frankly. I've been to the Central Valley and the San Joaquin Valley, and the two of us have been working on biomass since the time we've been here in this Legislature.

But I wanted to say the judicial review is not- we've done this for sports arenas, we've done it for sites reservoir, we've done it for all kinds of projects. This is not excluding the public in any way. It's the judicial review. So I want to just set that out right off the top. And I'm very frustrated at the fact that we let the perfect get in the way of the good.

And so we have focused in this state on our renewables as wind and solar. Those are the top two things that we look at. And we really, quite frankly, need some diversity, and hydrogen allows us to have some diversity to continue. California, I just read an article yesterday that we're slipping to the 6th largest economy in the world. Apparently we're the fourth today. But we're losing ground here because we're not, as our goals for climate have pushed us into a spot where we can't be competitive.

And we've exempted solar from property tax locally, we have given tax credits to wind. And when it comes to hydrogen, somebody in the transportation industry myself, electricity just doesn't compete with diesel because it's not usable. So we need hydrogen would make it compete with diesel. On the other side of it is that we have all these communities. I'm going to talk about the San Joaquin Valley for a moment.

If you took every person and every car out of San Joaquin Valley, you would still have pollution there and it won't meet the standard. Why is that? It's because it's imported from the polluting areas which are to the west of them and the winds blow towards the east. And it's unfortunate. Those folks live there and they have the Sierras, which the air pools up in the valley there and they're stuck there.

And my frustration is that the folks there have biomass, they have dairies, they have all kinds of things that they could actually reduce the pollution. But we want to be 100%. We can't get 95, we have to get 100. And so this Bill, which is a very heavy lift Bill, I agree. I know that there's a lot of nuances here, but we talk about bringing in federal dollars to our state.

If we're going to lead, we have to take some risk, and we want to manage those risks, obviously. And I think this Bill is trying to strike that ability to be able to do that. So I just want to say that, look, at some point, we can't just have solar and wind. It's not going to do the job.

We have to have something that is usable by industry that will help flatten out that duck curve and drive down the rates of electricity at the same time saving the environment. And I believe this Bill will help that. I'm not going to say- it isn't the silver bullet, but it's part of the solution. We can't just continue to put all of our eggs in two baskets, wind and solar. And I just want to end with this.

The good Senator that represents the Imperial Valley, we're doing all kinds of exemptions to go out there. Lithium, because labor loves it and it creates batteries, which we need to offset so we can store some of this energy. This is a common sense approach. I believe that you're trying to do the right thing. I would just ask for this Committee to get this Bill out.

Let's work on it. Does it need some work? Yes. I don't want to see it die here today. I have to go to another Committee because there's only two bills left and they're needing my vote over there. But I will move this Bill at the appropriate time.

And I would just ask the Senators to give it a chance because we really do need this as a bucket, another bucket in the solution to climate change and to drive down the cost and to do the right thing for the environment. Is it perfect? No, but none of them are. And all of them have their ability to get tax credits into, and the lobby is playing in that. But this Bill really needs to move forward.

I think it would help California solve some of our problems. Is it tough? Yes, but I think we should move it forward. And I'll be happy to do that when the time comes. I will be back, Mister Chairman, in a moment.

Thank you and apologies. I wasn't able to hear all of the debate, but I wanted to first start out that I thought the Bill analysis is very excellent.

Okay. Senator Skinner.

It really goes into great detail over many of the issues that not only concern this Bill, I think it's really, I mean, it references the scoping plan, for example, and the estimations of the scoping plan, the 1700 times increase in hydrogen that the scoping plan is expecting, and then legitimate questions about how do we feel that we're going to get there. So I just wanted to give kudos to Committee staff, because I think this analysis is very, very good.

It's one of the better detailed for those of us who are trying to really get in the weeds on these issues of decarbonizing and how hydrogen fits into that decarbonization. I think it's a really, really good analysis. So I happen to be someone who, while I do not think hydrogen is the end all, be all for our decarbonization or the only panacea, I absolutely think there's a role for it.

And I have been doing a variety of bills in the space to create that pathway. And the issue, I think Senator Menjivar made this point that this Bill is sort of three bills in one. I'm not going to oppose it for that reason. I'm not opposing it at all, but I know I probably would have liked it to be parsed out a little more.

However, I think the points that meaning not all three of these things in one Bill, however, I feel like the opportunities we have because of federal action and the federal funding, it may be the path we have to take now. So it's perhaps pushing us a little faster than we'd want to be. We might want to be more methodical.

And this is why I like, if I understand this correctly, and again, I was not in the room, but I understand because my staff was filling me in while I was taking care of the other junk I was having to take care of, that the Chair has asked for your commitment to continue to work on ensuring that the hydrogen and eligibility in the RPS would be not fossil fuel. That there would be some more belts and suspenders on the biomass.

And on the third one was, remind me, Chair.

Fossil fuel.

Oh, the total non-derived, but also not adding GHGs to the electrical sector. But I think there was a third.

Right. How emissions resulting from hydrogen's use in the RPS.

Eligible facilities are accounted for.

Right, right.

Anyway, I really, I like those additions, those three belts and suspenders that the chair would like. And I understand that you've committed to work on those, which I appreciate. Now, all of that said, the legitimate concerns people have raised, I do not want to minimize those.

However, what I did want to raise is that if we think about where solar technologies were 25 years ago and what their cost was, we could never have imagined that we'd be where we are today, or that the cost would have come down to the level it is and the abundance for which we would be utilizing it.

If we take grid level battery technology. And for example, when I did the Bill in 2010, I think I was fortunate. I think I was able to get that Bill through because nobody believed it would happen. Everybody thought it was just a pipe dream. They were like, that's a lovely idea, Skinner.

So they kind of went with it, even though they would otherwise totally oppose it, because they didn't think it would ever happen. We're now, we have installed battery capacity in California equivalent to four times the generation of four Diablo power plants, and at a much more reasonable cost than we would have ever expected. So why I'm saying that is because I feel like we need to do measures like this to send the right market signals.

It is absolutely the case that electrolytic hydrogen is still too expensive and it is still too energy intensive. But I don't know what the technological changes could happen. And while I am not someone who is going to completely throw my, say, oh, we're going to solve everything around the climate crisis, because technology will advance. No, but we have seen some amazing technological advances in a variety of these areas. And so by sending the right market signals, I hope that we would continue to.

And then what that does is if we adopt policies like this, and if over time, those advances don't result in either reduced GHG production of these things, or it causes higher costs, then we have to. And I won't be here, but we have to be the ones to pull back. And I think the legitimate fear by many of us and by many advocates is that if we go too fast now, before we know that these things are secured, that we'll never pull back.

And that, okay, that's legit, because oftentimes we don't pull back. However, I think we're at the cusp in this climate crisis and with the technological advances, that we should not use that as the thing to stop us at the moment. But we do have to be willing. We have to be the right kind of watchdogs to pull back if some of the issues, for example, that are laid out in the analysis were to, you know, materialize more significantly.

So apologies for saying all that, but I have been playing in this field for a while, so I am supporting the Bill. I am very appreciative that the author has taken not only the amendments that were outlined in the analysis, but also the additional commitments the Chair has asked. And I appreciate it.

Thank you, Senator Menjivar.

Thank you. A couple of thoughts. First, I think I'm of the opposite mentality where I think we've done a couple of things really fast, that now we're trying to catch up. A couple of things I've mentioned in this Committee. We have all these deadlines- 2030, 2035- that we're nowhere near to reaching because we didn't think about the fine print or the implementation to get to these points.

Mister Chair, last year you had a Bill related to biogas at dairy farms because what we intended to do was having an opposite effect, where they're creating more just to be able to capture. But these things are coming up years after we pushed policy that, with all due respect, I think needs more time to really weed out. Senator Skinner, you had a Bill two years ago for a report that is coming out in June of this year on hydrogen, on development, the distribution, deployment of that.

Why are we ahead of the game and not waiting until that report comes out to really share the recommendations and then push policy from that? Senator, I also don't feel comfortable moving forward with this Bill, and I want to do the opposite, where when I see language, further language, I reserve the right to change it. Because I do worry that- and I agree with you, this is just transition, 100%. I like that phrase. We need to have just transition. Hydrogen is going to play a role.

I think we need to look at everything. But when it comes to this space, I've been very critical of our approach and how to address it. We're jumping the gun and then later on in years figuring out how to put it all together. So I want to be more mindful in this. So I will be staying off this Bill but will be reserving my right to come back and support it on the floor once I see it more fleshed out.

Okay. Yeah. Appreciate those comments very much too. So thank you. Thank you to the Committee. Why don't we give you the opportunity to close.

Thank you, Mister Chair. And I want to thank everybody that spoke and expressed concerns. So let me just say that I want to agree with Senator Skinner that the report is really well done. It has everything but the kitchen sink. And there's a lot to debate on, which means the Bill has a lot of pieces, right? A lot of moving pieces.

I make the commitment, again, to work with the staff of the Committee and the Chair to get this right and to do it in a way that has people feel comfortable, as uncomfortably comfortable as we can get them, because this is really important.

And to answer the question that you raise, Senator, the reason we're here and we're doing this now is it is the opportunity to access federal funding and to do it in a way that creates an opportunity for California to be successful and to do that just transition and to also create energy that is going to be really important for our grid, but to do it in a way that's socially responsible. So I do agree that that's really important.

So with that, Mister Chair, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Okay. With that understanding, I'm certainly willing to support today. And I do want to reiterate, thank the Members for their recognition of our staff work. I think this is Eric's longest analysis. And just up until late last night, we were still dealing with some of the

Because quite frankly, look, I think you've heard the very serious concern from this Committee. And anyhow, looking forward to a lot more work going forward, I'm certainly happy to vote for it today. It's been moved by Senator Dalhe. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call] I'm sorry. Let me go back. SB 1420, the motion is do pass as amended and re refer to the Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications. I'm going to go back and do that. [Roll call]

Okay, we'll leave that roll open for other folks to have.

Thank you very much. And thank you to everybody for your comments.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Okay, let's next hear from Senator Blakespear.

Do you want to announce about Wiener?

Oh, and while she's coming up. I just want to announce that Senator Wiener's SB 1227 has been put over to the next hearing on the 17th. Senator Blakespear, you're here to present two bills, SB 1066, a special date in British history, and SB 1361 as well. So let's start with 1066.

Okay, well, thank you, Chair and colleagues. SB 1066 is a common sense measure to ensure the safe disposal of pyrotechnic marine flares. Do I have the permission of the Chair to show a photograph of a marine flare?

Sure. Yes. With pleasure.

So this is what they look like in a box delivered to a fire department that the fire department then needed to deal with these. So this is what we're going to be talking about today. The US Coast Guard requires vessels that are longer than 16ft and are operating on oceans to carry approved visual distress signals for use in emergencies. Most often, boaters carry three pyrotechnic flares that are approved for both day and nighttime use.

While there are several brands of battery powered alternatives, many boaters prefer flares due to their increased visibility during the day. These flares expire 42 months after they're manufactured, meaning they no longer satisfy the Coast Guard requirements. Unused, expired marine flares cannot be disposed of in the regular trash or the recycling. They are explosives, and they must be taken to a facility permitted to accept explosives. Flares also contain chemicals that cause pollution and harm human health.

While the exact number can be debated, California's Division of Boating and Waterways estimates that 174,000 flares expire in the State of California each year. Conservatively, there are at least tens of thousands of flares in need of disposal each year, but nearly all household hazardous waste facilities refuse to accept them. In fact, Alameda County is the only county in California that we have found that actively accepts flare. But even they lack the permits necessary to dispose of them.

As far as we know, there is only one facility in the entire country that currently accepts flares for disposal, and it is over 1500 miles away in Missouri. Without viable option, boaters report storing these flares on their boat, shooting them up into the air, or dumping them into the ocean. Stockpiled flares are a fire hazard. Shooting a distress signal outside of an emergency is a federal felony. Dumping unused flares into the ocean or otherwise can leach toxic metals and other pollutants into the water.

Expired flares can often end up in the trash or left in front of local government buildings, like that photo that I showed you, like at police stations or fire stations. This results in high costs that are borne by local governments as they then become responsible for arranging for proper disposal. These costs are socialized then onto local taxpayers instead of the boaters who use them.

We are actively collaborating with Orion Signals, the primary producer of marine flares, and the Recreational Boaters Association to ensure the costs are not so high that boaters stop carrying these emergency safety devices. SB 1066 will put the responsibility for funding and operating a convenient take back system onto the producers, with oversight by the Department of Toxic Substances Control.

SB 1066 is supported by a broad coalition of stakeholders, including local governments, park districts, teamsters, California Professional Firefighters, and individual fire districts, waste haulers, harbor districts, and environmental and public health organizations. With me today, I have Leslie Lukacs on behalf of the Zero Waste Sonoma organization. They are a cosponsor of this bill. As well as Justin Malan on behalf of the California Association of Environmental Health Administrators, who also happens to be an avid boater. So if there are any questions about these flares specifically, he can answer them. So with that, if you don't mind, Chair, I will turn it over to my lead witnesses.

Please proceed.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Senator Blakespear, Chair, and the Members of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. My name is Leslie Lukacs. I am the Executive Director of Zero Waste Sonoma, a joint powers authority that covers the unincorporated area of nine cities and the town in Sonoma County and serves approximately 500,000 residents. Zero Waste Sonoma is proud sponsor of SB 1066, which solves a serious waste management problem plaguing California's coastline communities, like Sonoma County, which has over 76 miles of coastline.

California counties are responsible for planning the management of household hazardous waste, otherwise known as HHW, and our management plans are approved by CalRecycle. Our agency operates an HHW facility in Sonoma County, and we are building a second facility at the estimated cost of $14 million to our ratepayers to build this facility, and that does not include the management of explosives like marine flares.

The cost to operate at HHW facility is expensive and require highly trained staff to manage toxic materials. In fact, our HHW facility costs around $2 million a year to operate. Most HHW facilities across the state cannot afford the labor, transportation, and purchase of explosive storage containers called magazines needed to safely accept and manage explosive products.

Our HHW facility is not permitted to accept marine flares, and we do not accept them from the public, but residents often leave them at our facility without our permission because they have no local option to safely dispose of them. Senator Blakespear showed you this picture. This is actually left at a fire department in the town I live in in Windsor just last month, and they don't know what to do with this product. So it's still at our local fire department right now.

Sonoma County boaters sent me an email and stated there's literally nowhere to dispose of expired marine flares in our county. And he goes on to state that many boaters have told me that they soak marine flares in buckets and wait for the flares to disintegrate and then spread the remnants either on the garbage or down the drain in the waterways because they really don't know where to put the materials. But what happens to those chemicals that are in the water, in the bucket?

We know that the flares contain harmful chemicals and metals that can negatively impact our water quality. Furthermore, improper flare disposal in trash and recycling can expose hazards to our workers who work in the recycling facilities and the landfill. That is why we have support from the waste management and hauling industry. The majority of boaters literally have no option to properly dispose of flares and are confused on what to do with them. Yesterday, I went to a local marine store here in Sacramento to purchase a signal so you could see what a reusable one looks like.

If I could ask you to start wrapping up, because I know you have another...

Sure. So I just want to talk about the cost as the last thing. And that is, we organize an event in partnership with two other counties, Marin and Contra Costa. It cost us $11,000 to manage two buckets of marine flares. That was the cost of roughly $185 per flare when the product is only $12 to buy. There are more cost effective ways to do this. Alameda County does have the magazine to properly store them.

And when they work with the economies of scale, it costs them about $16 to manage the flares. So with that, with the proper partnership and working together with the manufacturers, we look to find a more cost effective way to manage flares. So with that, I thank you for your time and ask for your aye vote today.

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Thank you, Senator. Justin Malan with the Environmental Health Association. And we provide the oversight for both the coopers, the Hazmat folks, and the solid waste people. So we have this issue in both camps. Sometimes these flares end up in solid waste facilities, sometimes they hazardous waste facilities. But I also want to tell you about my experience as a boater. I've crossed two oceans, the Pacific a couple of times and the Atlantic. And I wouldn't go to sea without a marine flare.

So I wouldn't like to see a ban of the marine flare. But I can also tell you my extreme frustration in over 40 years in other countries as well as this, in getting rid of these things safely. And I'm not prepared to just throw it in the water. I'm not prepared to flare it off when I'm not supposed to. I'm not prepared to drop it into a solid waste facility where I know somebody can get injured and hurt.

And I'm also not going to take it home where my kids and my family can be injured because these things become unstable after a number of years. That's why they have an expiry date. So there is an issue. It's an issue not only in California, it's an issue around the nation. And the cost is exorbitant. And the safety for everybody, the boat operator, the handlers, is significant.

And the Coopers have found on many occasions that people can be in violation of taking these things if they don't have the proper protocols in place, if they don't have the proper handlers. So it is extremely frustrating for boaters to find a place to properly manage these flares at the end of their usable life. There is an expiry date on that, and you can get busted by the Coast Guard for having flares that are expired. So you have to turn these flares over.

And I have, on my own boat, I must admit, I have got 12 flares that I still haven't got a home for. So I'm just keeping them on my boat. But these are pyrotechnic things, so if there's an incident on my boat, it can go up. And I'm very, very nervous about that.

Just to stress, the reason why the hazmat folks, why the Coopers and the local environmental health are so concerned about this is we just hear from the people that operating these household hazardous waste facilities, either they cannot do it legally or financially or practically, or the general person that has a boat from any size, 15ft to 500ft. I've just seen a poll here. Over 50% of people are disposing of these things illegally by just holding onto them. They already expired.

They should have been properly dealt with. It is a concern. It's a concern for the regulators, you know that the firefighters are in support. It's a concern for the firefighters to go into a facility. And you might hear about the cost and you might hear about it inconvenient and have an EPR program. You can have an EPR program because I've taken used oil back to the marinas and the ports, and they have a process of dealing with it.

So there are usually secure facilities within each marina, each port, where you could incorporate this collection and do it safely. So we thank you for your consideration. It's not just a flippant issue, it's a serious issue in the state and elsewhere. Thank you to the Senate for bringing from. Happy to answer any questions from a technical and a voting perspective.

Thank you very much. Okay, let's hear from anyone else who wants to voice support for the bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Luis Sanchez on behalf of the California Waste Haulers Council in support.

Thank you.

Jordan Wells on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council. We're a co-sponsor. And I'm also going to list off a couple of organizations that have asked me to express their support, including Napa Recycling and Waste Services, the North American Hazardous Materials Management Association, Resource Recovery Coalition of California, Sonoma County Regional Parks Department, Center for Biological Diversity, San Mateo County Harbor District, Delta Diablo Sanitation District, San Francisco Baykeeper, Heal the Bay, Monterey Regional Waste Management District, Save Our Shores, BoatSafe Northwest, and Sirius Signal. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Arianna Creed on behalf of CleanEarth4Kids in support. Also, those are in support are California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Facts, Grandparents in Action, MAMAS, North County Equity and Justice, Interfaith Coalition for Environmental Justice, and NCCA.

Thank you.

Good morning. Just one organization. Sarah Pollo Moo with the California Retailers Association in support. Thank you.

That's good.

Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities in support.

Thank you.

John Kennedy with the Rural Counties in support. Thank you.

Andria Ventura with Clean Water Action in support.

Morning. Michael Caprio with Republic Services, here in support.

Michelle Rubalcava on behalf of Waste Management in support.

Guilhermina Guillon on behalf of San Mateo County in support.

Good morning. Nik Lapis with Californians Against Waste in support.

Good morning. David Creager for Waste Connections in support.

Thank you. Meagan Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in support.

Good morning. Elizabeth Espinosa on behalf of the Board of Supervisors in the County of Santa Barbara in support. Thank you.

Priscilla Quiroz on behalf of the following clients: Western Placer Waste Management Authority, Stop Waste, Solid Waste Association of North America Legislative Task Force, all in support. And in support in concept, California Product Stewardship Council. Thank you.

Good morning. Kyra Ross on behalf of the Town of Truckee in support.

Good morning. Samantha Samuelsen on behalf of ReThink Waste in support.

I'm Megan Shumway representing Sacramento 350 in support.

Thank you. Okay. Opposition. Okay. Why don't you come. You come up here.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. Jim Lites on behalf of Orion Safety Products, one of the primary manufacturers of marine safety flares. We're opposed the bill for a couple of reasons. We wanted to note for this Committee in particular that some of the chemicals of concern, that potassium perchlorate is not a component of marine flares. It has never been a component of aerial flares and was eliminated from handheld flares in 2022.

Also wanted to note that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has consistently deemed Orion flares to be exempt from their explosive device regulations. Another reason is that not all flares are created equal. Handheld flares can be safely burned in a safe location, not around water, not around other combustible debris, uch like a ground flare, would be burned. Our test results show that the ash from those burned flares does not contain any hazardous materials.

But the aerial flares is where we think the discussion here really should be had. There are fewer disposal options for aerial flares, and we look forward to working with the proponents and the author to discuss how those might be managed a little bit better.

Senator Blakespear did mention one of the things that we are most concerned about, and that is the cost of flares potentially going up as a result of a program like this and discouraging boaters from having the flares that are approved for day and evening use, whereas the beacons are good at night, but they're not approved for daytime use, the electronic light beacons.

Our experience is also that some of the most successful collection and disposal programs are localized, sometimes, you know, events that may take place in a day or over a weekend. And we would like to figure out how we can better operate some of those localized programs than a broader state program. And so with that, we would ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Thank you Chair and Members, Jerry Desmond with Recreational Boaters of California, RBOC. Maybe to start off, RBOC has been a statewide advocacy organization for the state's boaters since 1968, and we become engaged in a variety of issues affecting everything from boating under the influence on the waterways, to the use of our gas tax dollars, to rules of the road to copper-based anti-fouling paints, and have a tradition of representing over a couple 100,000 individual boaters that belong to different boating and sailing clubs and organizations. And our concern with the legislation at this point is really the public safety issue.

Our organization and the state's boaters have been financing for years a voluntary turn-in program for vessel flares through the Boating Clean and Green campaign financed by the Division of Boating and Waterways, as well as the Coastal Commission, and have encouraged boaters to turn in their flares. What we find is the experience is similar to one of the proponents, that a boater will keep the flares on their boat, even if they're expired as backup.

There's about a three-year live date where they work, but they'll just keep them on their boat, just as was testified to earlier. And the understanding that during the day, these flares, the alternatives to these flares, don't work during the day.

So what we're sensitive to, and we're engaged with the author and the proponents and all stakeholders, is to ensure that as we address the public health, you know, the hazardous and toxic materials and the explosive nature of these devices, that we recognize the important public health and safety benefit of a boater having this on their boat when they're out on the waterways. This bill doesn't thread that needle yet. We've heard of different ideas for EPR programs. We've heard of local program alternatives.

We heard of statewide, we heard costs between $15 a flare and $158 a flare. Those aren't ironed out yet. And without them being ironed out yet, and we're engaged to work those out. But at the present, without knowing that, we're not willing to sacrifice public health and safety as it's currently worded. Now, are we committed to try to develop a program that works that doesn't end up in a boat or having to pay $100 per flare to dispose of a ferry? Most certainly we are.

And for that reason, we appreciate the engagement and look forward to developing some solutions that work on the waterways.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Other folks, you want to weigh in opposition or raise concerns? Have we even gotten a letter from you guys?

We sent a letter in on Monday. Late letter, but a letter.

Okay. Okay. All right. Yes.

Mr. Chair and Members, Sarah Nocito, on behalf of the National Marine Manufacturers Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Okay. Okay. Certainly appreciate it. And I totally get a lot of your clients. I'm really glad that Orion's retained you, Mr. Lites, because I think it'll help with the discussions. It's a recent, they recently brought you on, is that right? Yeah. Okay. All right. So how are the conversations going? I mean, have you guys been able to sit down and talk shop?

We have and we have another call scheduled this Friday.

Okay. All right. Because I know, I know that. I know that some of the folks from the National Stewardship Action Council have been reaching out to Orion for a long, long time. And I'm just glad now that we've got some people they could talk to and engage with, because we really are looking for a way to make, I mean, I think everyone here knows what a believer I am in EPR, and it's something that, if done right, can be done collaboratively.

And the producers are absolutely essential part of the conversation. They know their products best, they know their markets best, and they also know the development and potential end use best. It's my hope. And our conversations with the author, staff and author, that's what they're seeking to get here.

And having these conversations with an open mind from your clients, I think, is going to be absolutely critical to reaching an agreeable solution here that's going to do right by our environment and make sure that we're not compromising safety for boaters. So I'm just glad that, I'm glad that you're on the job and we'll be working on this. So do you have any kind of initial reactions to some of the commentary made, Senator?

I mean, I can wrap it up in my close.

Okay. Okay. Any thoughts, questions? Yes, Senator Dahle.

I just want to say I'm going to be supporting your bill today. I think this is a common sense approach to a problem, obviously we have. But at the same time, as somebody who has worked with the coop, when I was a county supervisor and, you know, we had lead-based paint, all kinds of stuff coming in, and we, and people really don't know what they do to do with it. And quite frankly, a lot of it goes down the drain or gets tossed, and that's the wrong thing.

So obviously, in this case, we don't want that to happen either. But at the same time, we want to put a program together, hopefully with the manufacturers that there's a, in my mind, I'm thinking, like, you basically rent the thing for and then they can take it back, you know, something like that. I don't know. But I look forward to seeing the bill, like, get together and make it so that boaters will do it.

Number one, they won't throw them overboard and that they'll use them and it's reasonable. So that's what I'm looking for. And I think it sounds like you're headed in the right direction to get there. So I'll support your bill today and hopefully they can iron all those things out and we can alleviate this problem.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Let's let you close.

Yes, I just, I want to say again, thank you to the sponsors who and the lead witnesses who came to speak, as well as those in opposition who are at the table and we're in dialogue with, and then also to all the many organizations that came for forward to express their support. I think it really shows that we do have a problem here. And the extended producer responsibility approach is designed to have the producer at the table coming up with the solution.

So the cost is what it is. The question is who is bearing it. And so right now, if someone pays dollar 15 to Bioflare and it costs dollar 150 on the back end to collect it, manage it, send it somewhere, or it just goes up in our environment and it essentially pollution, toxic pollutant, you know, that's not the society we want.

So trying to figure out what are the solutions, and we will be working very closely with Orion to figure out how we can collect these in a way that is actually effective because we need to be where people with their boats and their flares are so that we can get them back. I mean, the last thing we want is to have a program that nobody's participating in. So, you know, that's why we have a bill like this that sends it into the extended producer responsibility realm.

Instead of trying to figure it out ourselves legislatively, we're getting into dialogue with them. So I really appreciate your support and I think this is a really important bill, and I urge your aye vote.

Yeah. Yes.

One last comment. If you, if it's $15 to buy this and it's $100 to get rid of it, they'll just shoot it off somewhere and it won't go back. We have to get that. We have to have parity there somewhere. So I know you know that.

Right. But it's a great example. It's a great example of how a company provides, you know, a service to people, right. Makes a lot of money off it, sends it out into the market, and yet they have no cost associated with the end use of the product, and it's then borne by the environment and everybody else. And this is a crystal clear example of the need for an EPR approach because there's such an externality cost here with a product like this.

And they're making the money from consumers and the environment's paying the cost and taxpayers are paying the cost in many respects with regards to cleanup. They have to be part of the solution. I just appreciate you forcing the issue and. Right, right. And so we have to have a plan for proper disposal, like with everything anyway. That's what you're trying to get at here, Senator Menjivar moves the bill, and let's call the roll.

SB 1066 motion is do pass, and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate it. And thank you for all the advocates as well, your engagement. All right, let's hear next from your next bill. Senator Blakespear has SB 1361.

Okay, I know you're probably running a bit late here, so these are our brief introductory comments. So this is SB 1361. I just want to say at the outset that I appreciate the work of the committee and agree to continue working on the certain definitions that we're still discussing. So, as I know and many legislators know and have testified about almost ad nauseam, we're in a housing crisis of an unprecedented scale.

And due to insufficient housing production for generations, homelessness in our state is growing much faster than everywhere else in the country. Between 2010 and 2023, homelessness increased 47%. The majority of these Californians are unsheltered. So the Legislature and the Governor are taking actions to increase housing supply.

But while we wait for these initiatives to take full effect, local governments need to be able to act effectively and efficiently to set up various shelter facilities, like low barrier navigation centers and safe camping and safe parking and safe storage sites. To this end, the Legislature has passed bills to provide CEQA exemptions or make by right the actions of local governments that they must take to establish these facilities.

And I just want to say that local governments face already significant disincentives to expand shelter capacities because facilities are always revenue negative and they are largely politically unpopular. So they are necessary, but they are very difficult to accomplish for local governments. And I say this out having come from being the mayor of a city and being in local government for eight years. So the Legislature has passed bills that provide CEQA exemptions for the facilities themselves.

But unfortunately, in 2019, the California State Supreme Court in the case Union of Medical Marijuana patients versus City of San Diego, the court set an ambiguous standard for determining whether actions that have an indirect environmental impact are subject to CEQA review. So, intuitively, the contract related actions should not require CEQA review when the actual land use is not requiring CEQA review because the contract related actions do not involve changes to the built environment.

But the ambiguous standard that was created in this California Supreme Court decision involving the City of San Diego makes this unclear. So the sponsor, my sponsor of this bill, the City of San Diego, is leading an ambitious charge to substantially expand homeless serving shelter facilities. They are really focused on this, and I very much want to help them achieve their goals. The city faces significant opposition and the risk of litigation from groups that are opposed to homeless serving facilities of any type near them.

My bill this bill, SB 1361, will clarify that these contract related actions are CEQA exempt. This will signal to locals that the Legislature recognizes the critical need for expanding temporary shelter. With me today, I am happy to introduce more retirement. She is a representative for the City of San Diego.

Would this be your only witness?

Yes.

Go ahead, you have four minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members who I'm sure are listening. I am Moira Topp, here on behalf of the City of San Diego, sponsor of SB 1361. 1st really do want to express our appreciation to your staff who spent many hours working through the details on this bill, and we're very appreciative. Homelessness is one of the most vexing issues that's facing cities today.

City programs like those in San Diego have sheltered and housed tens of thousands of Californians through sustained multi year investments with state and local partnership programs like HAPP, as mentioned before. But I think it bears repeating that in recent years, the Legislature has recognized the immediate and significant need to address homelessness by passing legislation that exempts the locating of homeless shelters from CEQA. Unfortunately, the service contracts associated with the local efforts to address the homeless crisis are not explicitly afforded the same CEQA exemption.

Given the need to rapidly address California's homelessness crisis, SB 1361 would help give local agencies another tool to expedite administration of these critical services. This bill is modeled after a bill approved just last year, SB 406, which applies the same logic to actions by the Department of Housing and Community Development to provide financial assistance or insurance for the development and construction of residential housing.

SB 1361 provides certainty for cities providing homeless assistance by simply clarifying that actions taken by a local agency to approve a contract for providing services for people experiencing homelessness shall not be subject to CEQA. So, on behalf of Mayor Todd Gloria, I want to express our appreciation to the Senator for carrying this important measure. And also, respectfully, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. All right, other folks who want to express support for the bill.

Good morning. Chair Adam Regele with the California Chamber of Commerce, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. John Kennedy, Rural County Representatives of California. Thank you.

Caroline Grinder, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support.

John Drebinger with the Steinberg Institute, in support.

Catherine Charles with Housing California, in support.

Thank you all right, folks, who opposition concerns raised. Okay, let's go to the committee for questions, thoughts, comments? Okay, it's been moved by Senator Menjivar. I just want to personally thank the author for working with our committee. Obviously, we had some initial concerns, but I really do appreciate you working with us on the amendments and getting them addressed. So with that, certainly happy to support the Bill. It's been moved by Senator Menjivar. Let's let you close.

Yes, thank you. I think it's really important to note that this is a legislative effort that comes at no cost and cuts red tape and provides certainty as we struggle to do better to address our homelessness crisis. And this is a really great example of making it so that a city could move faster and not be subject to litigation and have to go in front of a court and argue about the definition of something which certainly delays things and adds substantial costs.

So I very much appreciate your consideration here and would ask for your aye. vote.

Thank you. All right, let's call the roll.

SB 1361. The motion is do pass as amended, and we refer to the Committee on Housing. [Roll Call]

It's a good one.

Trust me. Yes.

File item three. SB 1361. The motion is do pass as amended, and we refer to the Committee on Housing. The chair is voting aye. Dahle.

Aye.

Dahle? Aye.

Okay, 3-0, let's, we'll leave that open for other Members to add on. Thank you, Senator. Let's now go to you Senator Niello, who's here to present two bills, SB 1259. Why don't we start with that?

Thank you, Mister chair and Members. Thanks for the opportunity to introduce to you SB 1259 we'd make four important changes to improve the California Environmental Quality act, otherwise known as CEQA. You will remember that Governor Brown said that CEQA reform is the Lord's work, I'm a disciple. First, it would limit the timeline for challenges and appellate review to 365 days for all major housing, commercial and public works projects, over $25 million that will address critical needs.

Second, it will require identity disclosure of individuals and groups that contribute $10,000 or more to a CEQA lawsuit in order to disclose the economic interests of those seeking to stop or slow down a project. Third, it would limit the ability of courts to stop projects from proceeding once they have been approved, except in circumstances where there are clear and direct threats to public health, the environment, and other important benefits.

The final provision will limit settlements to environmental issues related to the project, such as mitigation measures that materially reduce significant physical impacts to the environment. As the law currently stands, CEQA is used as a tool of obstruction to stop projects of any size when someone just doesn't like it. Even, and especially for non environmental reasons, change is needed in order for projects of all kinds, especially housing, to be approved to address longstanding needs instead of occasional individual exceptions.

By limiting timelines, the process will be streamlined good projects will actually be built. SB 1259 has a holistic approach, which is a feature, not a flaw, as the Committee analysis may infer. For example, the streamlining provision is for all major housing, commercial and public works projects above $25 million. This isn't designated to be a giveaway to the big guys, but rather providing a greater degree of certainty for the timeline of major projects that meets the needs of our community. These projects mean jobs, economic development, and needed infrastructure in our communities.

Last year, the Governor acknowledged that current law is flawed, stating in a press release, our CEQA process is clearly broken when a few wealthy Berkeley homeowners can block desperately needed student housing for years and even decades. I'd emphasize block it for years or even decades. California cannot afford to be held hostage by NIMBYs who weaponize CEQA to block student and affordable housing. Again, the words of the Governor, this selfish mindset is driving up housing prices and making our state less affordable.

Additionally, infrastructure streaming legislation from the Governor last year also provided numerous streamlining for some, but yet again fell short of a holistic reform that CEQA needs. SB 1259 prevents those with ulterior and non environmental interests from hiding behind CEQA to block projects with frivolous lawsuits. It does so by mirroring language that has already been approved by this Committee in Senator Glazer's SB 393, but expands it to all projects.

All too often, those enforcing CEQA do so for non environment reasons, ranging from Labor Union interests, competitive advantages, or those seeking to prevent diverse communities from coming into their neighborhood. By removing anonymity from those who file namelessly, transparency will be ensured for all. Right now, appeals of project approvals are surprisingly easy and affordable to file, especially since it can be done anonymously, essentially giving every neighbor a veto over a new project. CEQA is known to be California's most important environmental law, and it is.

But when individually favored projects by the powers that be has as has to be done, it is exempted from CEQA, for example, stadiums, sustainable groundwater management plans, and project Roomkey. One local example here in Sacramento of CEQA being abused by non environmental reasons was the Sutter Medical center built along Highway 80, the Capitol city Freeway in Midtown, being delayed for a number of years due to CEQA case files of CEQA lawsuit processes filed by SEIU motivated primarily by labor disagreements with the hospital.

One study demonstrates that 64% of those filing CEQA lawsuits are individuals or local associations, the vast majority of which have no prior track record of any environmental advocacy and CEQA legislation abuse is primarily the domain of NIMBY opponents and special interests such as competitors and labor unions seeking non environmental outcomes. SB 1259 will limit settlement measures to include only those that actually help mitigate environmental concerns or impacts that will help address systemic CEQA abuse.

Litigation, or the threat thereof creates delays and uncertainty leads to increased project timelines and costs, or abandoning the project altogether. Sometimes it's just a wait out hope the other side runs out of money strategy. Without a limits on the timelines for these challenges to be litigated, the challenge will essentially run until one party runs out of money or gives up.

With that, I'd like to invite Jordan Panama Carbajal with California, YIMBY and John Kennedy with the Rural County Representatives of California to join me in supporting testimony.

Under current law, CEQA lawsuits can be filed anonymously, meaning parties are not required to disclose identities, financial donors or conflicting interests. In some cases, NIMBY parties file lawsuits against projects under CEQA without regard to the environmental effects, but only to stall the projects. Without transparency in CEQA lawsuits, California is destined for never ending litigation, increased cause and ongoing delays if we do not make meaningful reforms.

With high litigation costs uncertainty comes increased project costs that are either pass on to the future consumer of the development or lead developers to abandon the project altogether. SB 1259 will increase transparency by requiring parties filing secret lawsuits to identify individuals or group, providing $10,000 or more to the lawsuit. In addition, this bill will limit the ability of the courts to stop projects from proceeding once they have been approved and limit settlements to to environmental issues related to the projects.

We believe that this bill will improve CEQA and provide critically needed transparency to address CEQA litigation abuses, removing a barrier to increase California's housing supply. It's for these reasons, California YIMBY respectfully request your support for SB 1259. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Mr. Kennedy.

Good morning. John Kennedy again with RCRC. I'll try to be brief. We represent 40 rural counties throughout the state and local government interest in CEQA. We're project proponents, we're lead agencies, we're petitioners, we're defendants. We're on every side of CEQA. We strongly support CEQA's information disclosure and environmental mitigation requirements. They drive better projects, better outcomes, and we want to support those and continue to support those outcomes.

But CEQA's evolved over the years into a litigation trap that's, as the author mentioned, sometimes exploited for anticompetitive or financial gain, or to delay a project past the point of economic viability. CEQA is ever changing and complex. It makes it really difficult for project proponents and lead agencies to navigate the CEQA process with certainty and navigate it in a timely manner.

We appreciate that SB 1259 tries to take a deeper, systemic look at CEQA, at some of the underlying policies and problems associated with CEQA litigation challenges and preserves those information disclosure and mitigation requirements. Going forward. We often see CEQA exemptions, and to be honest, we often support and sponsor many of those CEQA exemptions. But they're band aids to some of the larger systemic problems that exist out there. We need some real careful scrutiny and evaluation of structural changes as well.

So as the author mentioned, 1259 is a four part bill seeking to promote transparency, predictability and simplification of the CEQA process. With respect to the expedited litigation review of major projects, some of these projects can be really transformative. I think my really incredibly optimistic perspective on this is, look, we understand that this 365 day process is better than a three to four year process that we currently experience, and it's if feasible, right?

But at the same time, we're hoping that having a compressed process will drive courts to develop clearer solutions, make CEQA easier to navigate, easier to understand with easier expectations. So it takes courts less time to review these challenges because they're less complex. We think traditional review of CEQA settlements and non environmental settlement provisions will provide a lot of transparency. Sunshine's a really great disinfectant. Not everyone has furious motivations. Some do.

We've seen those frequently in the context of student housing, especially down at USC where we had one housing developer suing to stop a project from another housing developer. We've had projects where you have gas stations seeking to stop competing gas stations across the street, and even some activists seeking to stop reproductive health clinics, arguing that they themselves, in their protests of these clinics, are going to cause a significant effect on the environment. And so CEQA has to be performed for these types of projects.

So CEQA has a pathway for anyone and everyone to come in and try and derail something. And that's a problem. That's not what it was intended to do. But we recognize this is only part of the issue because there are a lot of other situations where settlements and threats of litigation are resolved before anything is filed with the courts.

Again, transparency of contributors, I think, is going to help tremendously to get a better grasp of who is bringing these actions and maybe what some of their underlying motivations may be. And on relief from injunctive relief, the last part of the bill, I think it makes sense as a way to provide more equity between some of the mega projects like the Kings arena, the Capitol annex, and your rank and file projects that need similar relief.

So we support SB 1259 because it seeks to take a hard look and improve CEQA without really changing the information disclosure or mitigation requirements that are the core functions of the law. And so we urge your aye vote today.

Thank you, John. Just one clarifying question. I mean. Cause I found your testimony really intriguing. In many, many cases, local government has the right to make these kinds of projects ministerial and bypass CEQA. So are you making the argument that you wanna have some CEQA process, but not the full blown process that's created all the challenges.

So locals can and have developed streamlined ministerial permit review processes on occasion. The Legislature's developed many of those over the last several years as a backdoor way to get a CEQA exemption without really having to. A lot of times, these are projects that aren't really going to have significant effects on the environment.

But for those projects where CEQA is triggered, we think it's important to have something that's clear, that's predictable, that provides the information disclosure and mitigation requirements without opening the door for people to come in and sue and delay projects for less than ideal purposes.

Okay, let's hear from other folks who want to weigh in support.

Good afternoon. Yep. Nope. Good morning Chair, Members of the Committee. Adam Regele, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sarah Noceto on behalf of the Sacramento Regional Builders Exchange and the California Builders alliance, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Silvio Ferrari on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, in support.

Dan Chia for the Civil Justice Association of, California, in support.

Thank you. All right, opposition testimony. You could both come up if you want. Come on up. Yeah, you just come to the mic. Okay. All right. Hey, Matt. Okay.

Good morning, Senators.

There you go.

Good morning, Senators.

Yep.

Matthew Baker, planning Conservation League. I wasn't planning on being primary on this, but. So bear with me. But with all due respect to the author and the proponents here that we work with often on these issues, we respectfully oppose the broadness of this proposal. You know, we understand the intent of what we're trying to do here, but as I often say with these bills, we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater on CEQA.

I mean, I appreciate that we want to get this effort to try to inhibit good projects being delayed by individuals or individual interests. You know, the instances that that happens is probably a fraction of the overwhelming number of projects that are improved by the community process that CEQA provides of where environmental protections are made and communities are protected where they otherwise wouldn't have been if that community engagement process wasn't there.

We agree with the analysis, the concerns across the multiple aspects of the Bill, expressed in the analysis. But I want to speak to one specifically because it comes up every year. This idea of needing to disclose contributors to litigation in CEQA, you know, CCOR requires public enforcement to be implemented. And requiring or given the ability to disclose contributors to litigation would severely undercut small community organizations ability to fundraise and sustain themselves.

It would give donors hesitance to contribute to organizations for fear that they would get damned on a lawsuit that they had nothing to do with, and rightfully so. But that would severely limit small, humbly funded community organizations ability to fundraise and sustain themselves. I work for one of those and I know it firsthand. So I really, really have great concerns about that provision, that proposal coming back year after year. Respectfully urge a no vote.

Why don't you stay up here, Matt, and let's hear from anyone else who wants to that have expressed opposition to the Bill.

Fatima Balziwayer with California environment holders agree with everything Matt said in opposition.

Thank you. Okay. All right. Oh yes, hey.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Keith Dunn here on behalf of State Building Construction Trades Council of California and also the District Council of Iron Workers, in opposition.

Mr. Chair, Members. Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation, in opposition. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Let's bring it back to Committee for questions and thoughts.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is-- First of all, thanks for bringing the bill forward. I know that this bill's got a tough road today, but I think we ought to have this conversation. And I really think it's funny that they don't want to let people know who they are funding these campaigns or these lawsuits, but they sure want to know who's funding campaigns. And I think those two things go together. I think we should know who's doing these frivolous lawsuits.

At the end of the day. You know, this bill's, like I said, I think has a tough time here, but I think we need to have this conversation because California, you can't afford to build here. I mean, Senator Skinner was just here yesterday talking about hookup fees. And there's a reason why those hookup fees are costly is because it's very expensive to do anything in California. And we are, we are not doing it in a-- If it's about the environment, then-- I love CEQA.

I've said that from the start. CEQA is a great law and I think California's led, but it's been used far too many times for a pawn. A pawn for, as the author stated, a labor agreement or a competitor. When I was at the local level, I had one mining company suing another mining company over CEQA because they didn't want the competition. If it's about the environment, then let's focus on the environment and let's do what CEQA is actually meant to do, which is mitigate those impacts.

And if those impacts can't be mitigated, then the project can't go forward. If they can be mitigated, then the project should go forward. So I think that I'll move the bill when the time comes. And I think that, you know, even Governor Newsom and Governor Brown both know that there needs to be some work done in this area, and we should--

Maybe this is a little too broad for you, but at the end of the day, California cannot move forward with the projects that we need to get done, whether it's transmission, whether it's mining for lithium. We can't do anything here because we're mired in the process, analysis paralysis and too many power brokers, quite frankly, using CEQA as an opportunity to extract or run the game out.

So I just think that, I think the public in general is starting to understand it, and that's why you don't see a lot of people in here. The opposition didn't even really formally come out because they know it's going to die today, but they can't really, with a straight face say, hey, this is about the environment, because it's about a lot of other things. And so I just want to say it because it needs to be said.

And I believe that Californians will wake up at some point and it will get on the ballot, and then we're going to have a war, and we need to have that because we can't do anything in California. And I'm in business, and I was also at the county level for 16 years, Rural County, trying to approve projects, good projects that just the clock ran out or they bankrupted the proponents and weren't able to get things done. So for those reasons, I'll be supporting the bill today. Good luck, Senator.

Thank you.

Well, let me just-- Yeah, I appreciate those comments. I mean, I think when our staff had conversations with your staff, Senator, and one of the questions was, do you want to present the bill as is, or do you want to have a conversation about amendments? I think you were, it seemed like your staff was interested in kind of laying out your vision and having that be an up or down vote. You know, I do think that I've listened carefully to the testimony and all the comments.

I think there's some merit to some of the things that have been said. You know, there are a number of things that are in the bill as written that just a real challenge for us. I mean, obviously, the idea of expedited judicial review has been granted in all sorts of different cases. And indeed, there's a bill that we're negotiating right now that has to do with that question.

The way, of course, in this bill, there were no environmental criteria that were put in place in return for streamlining. We've always asked for some form of environmental leadership before a project gets special treatment under CEQA. But I do agree that the idea that we've got cases just go on year after year hanging out there, and it is instructive to hear from our friends from local government who have concerns. That's an issue I think we need to spend some time on.

The other thing, of course, that was in the field that I think was of real concern was the prohibition on staying a project unless the project jeopardizes human safety or harms cultural tribal resources. Again, you could have environmental harm would not be part of that conversation under the way that you had it framed with the bill. So that also, of course, was a concern I think that we had. There was another portion of the bill that prohibited approving settlements on non environmental provisions.

Obviously, as we all know, settlements are oftentimes part of a big deal that struck between plaintiffs and the developers. And oftentimes there are things that are incorporated into a deal that could be beneficial. I'm open to these conversations. I actually think that there may be some space for-- Even listening to the testimony of the support and opposition, because I think at the end of the day, we want CEQA to be a tool that truly is a protector for the environment.

And I understand there's always pressure to try to do away with it. I think there's some changes that need to be made that will help to make it a more effective tool into the future. I just think that the way that it was framed in this bill, it goes certainly beyond what I'm comfortable supporting. So I'm certainly not going to support the bill today, but I do I think that there are some serious issues that have been raised that need to be addressed.

And I know there are a number of members that have interests in this space, and I'm hopeful that we can get a real conversation together with the environmental community to talk about ways to make some common sense changes to CEQA that will meet all of our mutual needs. And I know that's a difficult conversation. I'm sure that gets people nervous, but I think it's a worthwhile conversation for us to have.

So I just want to throw that out there in the context of this particular bill, which, as I say, goes too far for me for the reasons that I just stated. But I'm certainly happy to hear other people's comments and thoughts. Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, Vice Chair, I agree with you. I think we had a couple bills last year that I think on both sides you should be transparent in who's paying for all these things. So I do. I agree with you on that. You know, I'd like to hear a little bit more, Mr. Chair, if I could direct my question to California YIMBY.

Because, you know, you just heard my comments in the previous bills related to CEQA streamlining, but I tend to draw the line when it comes to more housing. I want to make sure, and I'd like to hear a little bit more about directly how you're seeing a barrier in producing more housing in California and directly how this will help create more housing projects.

With that. I like that question. One of the challenges here, we've created, I think, 120 targeted exemptions, including so many exemptions in this structural process specifically for affordable housing and housing more broadly that there's very little housing left under the purview of CEQA. And so that was another, I'd like to add that in there as you answer.

Because I think I didn't know you were, I mean, it wasn't on the analysis that you were a sponsor supporter. So this was new to me. This is where I'm getting drawn into the housing portion part of it.

Yes, absolutely. Thank you, Senator Menjivar. Yeah, we're proud of support of SB 1259. One of the reasons, one of the things I mentioned in my talking points is the long litigation cost behind it, behind the lawsuits and how specific projects we've seen delayed. Senator Niello mentioned specifically the universities. My colleague from RCRC, mentioned universities for student housing specifically are being delayed due to CEQA lawsuits.

And that's one of the ways we see that CEQA is being used as a tool to kind of delay projects, increase costs for that and really not produce the housing that we need, that we need to produce in California. I'm happy to follow up with your office specifically in examples in the last three years or specific years or maybe in the district as well, around the districts about how CEQA has been used to really use as a stall tactics when it comes to producing housing.

And I recognize, I'm not trying to negotiate from the dais or anything like that, but if there are still gaps that exist-- You know, you've mentioned 100 something, Mr. Chair, on removing housing from this as much as possible. But if there's still gaps exist of bearers, I'd be really interested that we're further addressing those. But I am not-- SoFi Stadium, so forth. I am not a proponent of streamlining any projects like that. I really, I'm not.

I think they need to go through all the entire review, regardless of the investment, because most of the times the investments are in communities of colors, right. And there's unintended consequences. But for housing specifically, I'd be more interested in seeing a narrower version of this bill, specific to housing.

So I'm interested in hearing more about--

Yeah, and so there's one thing, but I think it's a lot more complicated because it's how CEQA was designed, right? And so one of the mitigation tools under CEQA, we often see the size of these housing projects significantly reduced from what was originally contemplated. So you have less units delivered as part of whatever housing project than was otherwise proposed at the beginning. So I think there are a lot of reasons why CEQA can be an impediment to housing.

There are a lot of places where some of those existing and recent ministerial processes don't work. There are a lot of housing exemptions on the CEQA books today that are illusory because of all the other provisions in there, one of which can't be located within the boundaries of the state conservancy, which is probably about 60-70% of the state of California.

So a lot of those little check boxes that you have to check off were designed to limit the scope and preclude the ability to use these exemptions for housing and other important projects.

Another thing, by the way, I mean, there's a lot of merit to expedite review. It puts a massive burden on the courts and I will say to folks, if we're really serious about this, we've got to give the courts the resources they need. I mean, standalone CEQA courts, I mean, help folks with real expertise that can do the work because in the end of the day we want these reviews to happen.

They really do create a lot of, I mean, they become such an important tool for protecting communities and allowing for public input and quite frankly, better planning oftentimes. There's projects that I think, you know, this coming from local government, that having that robust review process is important. The challenge is it doesn't have to drag on for years.

And yet when we create this expedited review, the courts kick and scream, with good reason, because we haven't provided them with the resources to really do the work to get these cases done in a more expedited and timely manner.

So that has to be part of any kind of solution if we're really going to dramatically expand an expedited review approach because we don't want to take away-- I don't want to see projects move forward because they just ran out of time when they really still required, when they still really needed proper judicial consideration and public input and community input and all of the engagement that CEQA encourages. So anyhow, with that, I thank the author for sparking the conversation.

As I say, I'm certainly open to it and I do encourage broad based engagement. The bill is too broad for me to support today, but, but I think there's areas in this bill for conversation further. So with that, I'd love to ask you to close.

Thank you Mr. Chair, and thank you for the comments. Our staff and the Committee staff did have some discussions relative to amending the bill. And the reason that I wasn't interested in the sorts of amendments that we were sort of conceptually talking about was it did compromise my ability to present what vision I have for CEQA reform. Now I say the word CEQA reform. This really isn't CEQA reform. I'm not reforming the California Environmental Quality Act or I'm not proposing to. It is a good act.

But 50 years ago when it was adopted and I think signed by Governor Reagan, I don't think anybody envisioned that that law was going to be used to protest projects for reasons other than environmental aspects. And you state a concern with regard to the language defining the standing, if you will, of the protest and also the ability for the project to go ahead unless the protest was based upon certain aspects that you had concerns about.

But the CEQA- and public input and the like- but the CEQA process itself is an outstanding process. And when I was at the local level, we obviously had projects that were reviewed under CEQA. We would get the reports and I would try to plow through them, they're kind of lengthy. But they point out, number one, specific environmental impacts of the project, and it's quite complete. And also states suggested mitigation measures or if it can't be mitigated. But there's a public comment process.

There's the ability for the public to make comments on that review before it goes to the governing body that makes the final policy decision. So all of that public input has perfectly adequate time and scope to be aired. And back to the weaponization of it, to a certain extent, the opposition kind of made my case. Two of the opponents are labor unions.

Now, I'm not going to challenge their standing to object to a project for environmental reasons, but labor unions don't typically object to a project under CEQA review for environmental reasons. It's usually due to labor disputes such as what happened with the Sutter Medical Center. And there's an issue of equality here when we talk about projects that have exemptions just because the powers that be want those projects to go forward.

When I was in the Assembly, there were several of those proposals, and I voted against every single one of them. I will admit that if I was a Legislator when the Golden One project went through, I would have been a little uncomfortable, but I probably would have voted against that, too, because it doesn't make sense to provide favor just to those projects that are favored by the powers that be.

They should go the same review, or we should allow similar exemptions for any project subject to it going through a complete CEQA review and then subsequent public comment period, and the review by the governing board, that's going to authorize the project. And point about the big guys, by the way, if the desire is to lower that threshold, I'm fine with that. But the point is there are major projects that were presumably of more impact and importance from all sorts of aspects.

So what I'm looking for, I'll go to a conceptual description, and that is that we stop the weaponization of CEQA, that we require that any challenge, and even the proposal doesn't say that you can't challenge it for whatever reason you want to challenge it. But we've got to settle it quickly. And the disclosure, I think, is important, the testimony of the opponent notwithstanding, as has been expressed by two people on the other side of that dais, if we need that disclosure in political campaigns, why wouldn't we need it there?

So I do think that that's important. But we've got to stop the ability to use CEQA as a blunt instrument for reasons that have nothing to do with environmental quality. That's what I'm looking for. That's what my vision is. I realize it's not going to prevail today. Voters willing, I'll be here for seven more years, six and a half more years. And I am a determined and very patient legislator.

I have said frequently, as a minority, I propose things that don't stand a great chance here. And I am very adroit at crashing and burning with grace and my dignity intact and trying again. So, calling upon Governor Brown's comment of a few years ago, I invite you to be a disciple of that God's work. And I respectfully request an aye vote.

All right, then. It's been moved by Senator Dahle. Secretary, please call the roll.

SB 1259. The motion is due pass, and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll call]

Okay. All right. We'll roll up for your colleague. Okay, let's now go to another challenging but interesting bill, SB 1393.

Allow me to present something that I know you're going to love. So thank you, Mr. Chair, for that and for this and Members, the opportunity to present SBIR 1393. SB 1393 creates an appeals Advisory Committee made up of state agencies, industry experts, fleets, and local governments to navigate the exemption and extension process for the California Air Resources Board. Advanced clean fleets, ACF regulation.

As we all know, the Governor's Executive Order N 7920 imposed multiple strategies and directives to help the state address climate crisis, including calling on multiple state agencies to impose regulations to help achieve the state's climate goals.

One such goal is making the move to zero emission vehicles by certain deadlines. This is being done through CARB with their ACF regulation.

This monumental ACF regulation requires the reduction of emissions through requirements to both phase in and use of ZEVs for targeted fleets and requirements that manufacturers only manufacture ZEV trucks starting in the 2036 model year.

CARB has created some pathways for narrow exemptions and extensions. In certain circumstances. It is a best practice to establish some kind of an appeals process when a regulation grants exemptions and extensions.

We've seen this in other state agencies like OSHA, Labor and Workforce Development, a bureau of registered nursing, and the Department of Managed Healthcare, and even at local air resources boards such as the South Coast AQMD.

This process can be particularly helpful and impactful in giving clearer and more feasible pathways to compliance while not diminishing CARB's authority. As it is a Committee of an advisory role only, it's not a decision maker.

This bill would require the Committee to meet monthly on an evenly spaced schedule to recommend actions to CARB staff regarding all denied appeals submitted to CARB for exemptions and extensions as allowed for and permitted under the ACF regulation.

The creation of this Committee will enable these multiple entities to work together, share best practices, and advise CARB on the ACF regulations so real time decisions and adjustments can be made to help make the program successful.

Today I have with me a representative from the bill sponsors, the bill's sponsor named Fleet Management Association, Mr. Michael Taylor, as well as Mr. David Rentschler, Public Works Fleet Division manager for the City of Fairfield.

My name is Michael Taylor and I serve as the advocacy lead for NAFA Fleet Management Association, the largest Association of fleet managers in North America. SB 1393 would create an advanced Clean Fleets Appeals Advisory Committee. All decisions regarding appeals would continue to be made by CARB.

Thank you, Senator Niello. Good morning. Chairman Allen and Members of the environmental Quality Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today in support of SB 1393.

The Advisory Committee would simply help to inform decision making and provide greater transparency in the decision making process. Setting up an ACF appeals Advisory Committee continues to be the number one request from our California NAFA members.

Our members see it as the most positively impactful change that can be made to the ACF regulation.

We believe it will ensure that CARB fleet managers and other stakeholders, and the public at large, all have access to the most up to date and complete ACF compliance related information and guidance available. In this way, we seek to facilitate the highest possible level of compliance.

In addition, I would like to let you know that we are working to amend SB 1393 to include a labor representative should you vote it out of Committee today.

We are also working on garnering the support of the Environmental Defense Fund. NAFA actually has been collaborating with EDF in the area of electrification education, so we are optimistic about the final result in this case.

In closing in working with so many fleet managers in California and all across the country, I know them to be hard working professionals who are dedicated to delivering the essential services needed by the communities they serve.

They simply seek a clearer and more feasible pathway to compliance so they may fully support a zero emission future for California. With that, NAFA respectfully requests for an aye vote on SB 1393 and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Good morning. My name is David Renschler. I am the fleet division manager for the City of Fairfield. I've been a member of NAFA since 2006, also 2022 Government Fleet Manager of the Year and 2023 Hall of Fame inductee for government fleets. I've worked with CARB.

That's a cool hall of fame.

Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Government Fleet's Hall of Fame.

Government Fleet and American Public Works Association. I've been in fleet for over 35 years, both in federal, private, and local governments, currently since August of 2006 for the City of Fairfield. Prior to that was City of Tracy.

Prior to that was private, and prior to that was Federal Government. And so for over 35 years, I've been in the fleet industry and working with CARB since 2007 on regulations such as the heavy duty inspection, maintenance, which is now the CTC.

I have been a part of that since the very beginning, the innovative clean transit regulation. I've been a part of that since the very beginning, along with the advanced clean truck and the advanced clean fleet regulation.

So I've helped CARB with molding these regulations and getting us to decrease the carbon footprint of all fleets here in California and working towards the electrification and electrification, meaning both battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell electric for zero emissions.

So we are very much in favor of getting to that decarbonization. That would be great. However, there are some vehicles as a. I've also been working and doing specifications, writing, designing these vocational trucks that we use in public works.

I hate to cut off a hall of famer, but if you could just wrap up your thoughts. I'm sorry.

Yes, sir. So there are some vehicles that just aren't. The technology is not there yet. And so what we believe in is that there should be an appeals process for exemption that gets denied, and hopefully that authority stays with CARB. And this is just an advisory asking them to relook at some things. So would ask that you vote aye today. So thank you very much.

Thank you. All right, let's hear from others who want to weigh in support for the bill.

Nicole Wardleman on behalf of San Bernardino County, in support.

Hayden Tallman with the California Check in Association, in support.

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

Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. Matthew Allen with Western Growers Association. Please support the bill. Thank you.

Damon Conklin, on behalf of the League of California Cities in strong support.

Julie Malinowski Ball, on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Brady Van Engelen California Chamber of Commerce here in support. Thank you.

Christina Gallagher, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support. And I was also asked to register support for the California Special Districts Association. Thank you.

Good morning. Kirk Blackburn here on behalf of the California Tow Truck Association and the Western State Trucking Association in support. Thank you.

Adam Harper, California Construction Industrial Materials Association, strong support. Thank you.

Steven Fenaroli with the California Farm Bureau, in support.

Okay. Opposition to the bill. You're welcome to come up here. We can stay. Are you gonna come up? You wanna go up here, Melissa?

Yeah, I can do that.

Okay. Why don't you start?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Michele Canales.

Can you press the button, please? Yeah.

Michele Canales, on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists, in respectful opposition to SB 1393. UCS participated extensively in the multi-year process for Advanced Clean Fleets rulemaking, or ACF, a regulation which will help to increase the use of zero-emission, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles where feasible for fleets meeting certain criteria.

Research has long indicated that medium and heavy-duty vehicles contribute a significant amount of pollution to total on-road emissions and ACF will greatly reduce these emissions, specifically, ozone-forming nitrogen oxides by more than 60% and lung-damaging fine particulates by around 35% by 2050. The reduction in emissions estimated will translate to an estimated 2500 fewer deaths and over 2000 avoided hospitalizations over the same period.

Additionally, ACF was crafted in a practical manner to ensure that flexibility was available for regulated fleets, and this is widely represented by the many exemptions under the rule as well as the multiple pathways for compliance available to fleet operators. SB 1393 creates an appeals advisory committee with a monthly meeting requirement to review denied requests.

And while UCS appreciates the author and the sponsor taking the time to meet with us and we understand their perspective, the wide range of exemptions built into ECF are very straightforward, and an appeals advisory committee would only serve to unnecessarily delay the compliance for large fleets that are capable of meeting the requirements under the regulation.

After a multi-year process, the regulation is flexible enough and state agencies need to spend their resources implementing this vitally important rule rather than create a delay that will interfere with the goal of the regulation. For these reasons, we respectfully oppose SB 1393 and urge your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes.

Thank you, Chair. Members, Melissa Romero with California Environmental Voters. This bill will ultimately undercut the intent of the Advanced Clean Fleets Program to decarbonize the transportation sector in a timely manner. The Advanced Clean Fleet program is one of the state's critical tools to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, which is identified by the 2022 scoping plan as the largest contributing sector in California. The program has established conditions for exemptions to appeal or further exempt certain vehicles from these requirements would be counter intuitive to our climate goals. Moreover, the creation of such an advisory committee would complicate and hinder the processes already in place to review exemption applications. And for these reasons, we urge you to vote no on the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Other folks who want to raise concerns about the bill or opposition? Yes. Okay.

Darryl Little with NRDC, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, let's bring it back to the committee. Yes, Mr. Vice Chair.

Well, I just want to say I'll move the bill. I know this bill's probably got a tough time, but I want to just state the facts. The facts are, yeah, there is a process, and the process doesn't work very well. I represent Tahoe, where we have public utility. So these are, people have to clear the roads, counties, cities, and they're forced to buy vehicles that are emission efficient, zero-emission vehicles which can't get the job done.

And these are $1 million pieces of equipment or more that sometimes don't even exist and don't work well in close cold climate areas. And we've been trying to get the ability to get some exemptions to actually operate these other vehicles that they already have and own for short periods of time. And there's been some consternation doing that.

So I believe this bill would allow us to have that conversation where we need to have some exemptions for not only for the public, not to have to purchase these local governments and transportation providers for the public are having to come up with the resources to buy these vehicles and then put the systems in to charge them at the same time they're not working.

So I think there needs to be an opportunity somewhere to have some exemptions that are just common sense exemptions for those specialty vehicles that the technology hasn't quite caught up with. If we actually had hydrogen available for those vehicles, we could switch out and not have to charge them as quick. But we don't have that. What we have available to us is an EV, and it's not working out well.

So I just want to go on record to let the committee know that there needs to be some alternative to forcing, again, getting the perfect in the way of the good is a problem for a lot of these areas throughout the Sierras and the specialty pieces of equipment that the technology is just not there for.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, there's a long list of exemptions that are listed out on page five of the analysis that CARB has worked on for fleets, whereas those just aren't an option. And so happy to and I think CARB wants people to take advantage of these. So if it's a matter of adding to the list or looking more carefully at the way that it's crafted. I'm certainly open to those conversations, open to some of the concerns that have been raised. But I am really worried about tie in the hands of kind of creating more challenge for CARB to do. It's the work that we've tasked it with.

But let me just ask the question. What pieces of equipment did I make the statement? Right? Do you guys have those types of piece of equipment that they're not allowing you to, they're forcing you? Can you give me an example?

On that lack of configuration, availability, and duty, cycles and battery limitations as you might want to get, Senator.

So I helped write, helped CARB write those exemptions. We submitted 38 pieces of equipment, descriptions, pictures, jobs they do, and so forth. However, let me give you an example of a vehicle right now. We have a three-axle day cab, which you can go buy from Kenworth or E. Cascadia. You can buy an electric right now. Yes, it's more expensive. It's 2.8 times as much.

However, to hook up to a low buoy trailer to haul our asphalt grinder to fix our roads, the frame has to be cut and welded and made into a ramp instead of a boxed end frame. So it's nothing you can bolt on. You have to actually, you know, heat cut weld. And so I asked Kenworth if so, it's not eligible for an exemption because Kenworth can sell the truck. However, we can't modify it. Kenworth has for six months now.

I've been waiting for them, their engineers, to get back to me to let me know if we have to take the electric motor and all of the, and the batteries and all of the modules, control modules out to be able to do that heavy welding so that they don't get destroyed during that process. So I talked to CARB, and CARB said, you don't need an exemption. Just buy a diesel for now and buy a lightning, and that gives you your 50%. So I think that's not doing us any good right there. So if they were to deny that exemption and we could have an appeals process for that.

Yeah, well, look, I mean, that sounds like a case that we need to look into and engage with. And by the way, it's pretty bad for Kenworth not to be responding when they've got such a vested interest in putting this kind of thing resolved, but to sort of create this map, this whole, it seems that's the kind of issue that can and should be resolved through a different mechanism than creating a whole new appeals process. But that's where I am. I don't discount the need to get that kind of challenge addressed.

If I might offer a less granular insight on this. First of all, who am I representing here? I'm representing fleet managers. They're not political. They want to just be able to deliver the essential services that they need to deliver to their communities, whatever the circumstances may be. The goal to me of any regulation is 100% compliance. We have been expressing granular examples like this cooperatively with CARB since before this even was on the table, and we continue to do it on a regular basis. And this information needs to be addressed. I actually think more information will allow for more clarity for possible compliance, and that's the goal of a regulation, 100% compliance. I respectfully disagree with the delay in this.

We're not taking away from their jurisdiction. Have to pay attention. But if I was internal, doing government affairs with CARB, I would say, you know, this could help you because you only have your slice. We're bringing all the key stakeholders to the table, including the OEMs, that can tell you that a chassis for a particular configuration is not even on the R&D phase amongst any of the EV OEMs. So we're not trying to throw bombs. We're actually trying to improve ACF.

And I appreciate that a great deal. I mean, just to give you guys an example, we did pass Eddie Garcia's AB 1594 last year, which did fix two specific applications of ACF exemptions. So, I mean. So anyway, let me just say I'm not comfortable supporting the bill today. Let's see what happens with the votes if it does not pass.

I do personally commit myself to working with the author and the proponents and the staff to sit down with CARB and try to get a little bit more deep in the weeds on these kinds of challenges that you're running into. We want them to be responsive, right? I mean, they've got a job to do. We've tasked them with that job.

It's a very sacred job and something that we believe in deeply on this committee, and yet we want to make sure they're working with the folks that are actually handling the fleets on the ground throughout the state. So I don't want my lack of support for this particular approach to suggest a lack of interest in getting these kinds of challenges resolved, but certainly happy for members to support the bill if they so desire. Anyhow, the bill's been moved, unless there's any other comments. I'd love to give you the opportunity to close. Okay.

Thank you for the. For the example. But I would just say that the only people that are forced to do this are public fleets right now that are forced to have to buy electricity. I'm in the trucking business. I have a 359 Peterborough with a 600-horse Cummins in it, and I have ramps on it so I can haul the thing. I'm not forced to do it. Public fleets are forced to do it.

And the cost, this is, for me, it's like we talk about cost in California. This is a perfect example of why, of my 15 counties, most of them are very rural, and they're forced to have to buy these trucks that don't work, and they can't do it. They can't do it. So what are you going to do? You're stuck in a spot where you have something that works and you're forced to buy something that doesn't work and doesn't exist.

And somehow we have to give these people, let our public agencies have some freedom until the technology comes, until Kenworth or Peterbilt or somebody does the work. And we don't. We don't have that. They're in a box. And that's what I think the Senator is trying to bring forth. We need some common sense here. For crying out loud, drive the cost down. And when the technology is there, we'll get there. These gentlemen are actually working with them.

I think there's definitely an opportunity here somewhere because I know the private side. I'll never do it. I don't have to because I can't afford to, and it just doesn't work. But the public agencies that we represent, counties and cities and local governments, are in a box. And I hear it from my snow removal people all throughout the sierras who are forced to buy battery-operated snowblowers that don't exist or don't work for more than 4 hours at a time.

Okay.

Somewhere we got to get this right. Thank you.

The issue's been moved. Let's all get together, talk about it seriously. I'm very interested and open to it. Please call the roll. I'm sorry. Sorry. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah.

Thank you. I appreciate the comments. So I heard. What I heard from the opposition is that this will unnecessarily delay things. It will complicate the review process. It will ultimately undercut the regulation, and that what we got is flexible enough. And I would just suggest that perhaps they don't understand what the legislation proposes, and that is an advisory committee. It won't affect the review at all. The advice will come after the review.

And a decision that's been made based upon the review that was negative to the entity that was seeking the exception doesn't affect the delay at all. It doesn't have to. It doesn't affect the review at all. Excuse me. And it certainly is not undercutting. This body does not have the ability to make decisions or in any way affect the regulation or in any way force an exception and the unnecessary delay. Well, CARB doesn't even have to listen to them. It's advisory only.

And I'd also point out, as I did in my testimony initially, but the Labor and Workforce Development Agency has an advisory committee. The OSHA has an advisory committee. Department of Managed Healthcare has an advisory committee. The South Coast Air Quality Management District has an advisory committee. I will tell you that probably 20% of the meetings that I've had so far this year with constituents and others has dealt with this very issue. Special districts, cities, counties, private companies, dealers.

It is a broad and wide interest of public and private sector entities that are very concerned about the fact that the regulation is ahead of the technology. And they don't know if that's going to still be the case when the requirement hits a cliff if you will. And what they're really saying is they're begging, they're pleading, we need to have certainty that we are going to meet the regulation. And by the way, nobody has said to me that they disagree with it.

Whether they do or not, they don't state it that way. They are very concerned that they're going to be forced in to do something, as Senator Dahle was explaining, that they can't meet. I know CARB has to know that the regulation is in advance of the technology. It's plain for everybody to see. But this is not uncommon.

Back when emission controls were first imposed on the passenger automobiles in the early seventies, when I was just entering the retail car business, the regulation was way in advance of the available technology. And I will tell you, we had a nightmare in our service departments because the manufacturers could not meet the requirements without producing cars that were horribly unreliable. So this is not an uncommon approach in the regulatory field.

And in other cases, when CARB has been ahead of technology and their regulation, they have backed off when they get close to the deadline. And I would assume that this would happen here. But I will tell you, the users, the special districts, the cities, the counties, the private fleet operators, dealers, etcetera, that's not very much comfort to them. An advisory committee would at least have them allow them a mouthpiece.

And the effectiveness of a regulation involves the participation both of the regulator as well as the regulatee. And so far, we do not have the comfort of the regulatee that this can be made. And this would provide at least some comfort to them. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Look forward to further discussions. The item has been moved by the Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. Yeah, everyone will close the roll on that. Thank you. Thank you. Senator.

Would request a reconsideration if you're willing to talk about it a little bit.

Without objection. Yeah. Thank you. Okay, let's hear from Senator Newman. SJR 13, item one. Okay, Senator, you may proceed when.

All right, thank you, Mister Chair. Someday you will be in the Senate Environmental Quality Chairman Hall of Fame.

I would hope so.

I look forward to the ceremony. I am pleased to have the opportunity to present SJR 13. Before I begin, let me make clear that I'm accepting the Committee's amendment.

The Senate joint resolution before you urges the United States Congress and President Biden to appropriate $100 million in supplemental funding to address ongoing impacts on public health, the environment, and the local economy that were caused by damage and fallout associated with a recent massive fire at the former Marine Corps Air Station. The City of Tustin also calls on the President to declare a national emergency in response to the ongoing impacts of the fire.

As my witness will explain, the Navy North Hanger Fire has had a devastating impact on the City of Tustin and the surrounding community, both financially and environmentally. The fallout from the blaze has left the city grappling with an unprecedented financial burden as emergency expenses have well surpassed 100% of the annual budget for their coming year. The fallout from the fire, both literal and figurative, remains a source of frustration and concern in the community. So far, the city has incurred over $80 million in cleanup costs.

The Department of the Navy has many good partners so far, but the scale and expense of the cleanup, especially in light of the city's fairly limited resources, speaks to the need for formalizing the requested federal support and a disaster declaration. SJR 13 urges the Federal Government to support the pressing needs created by the damage caused by the fire. Here to testify in support of SCR 13 is Tustin City Manager, Nicole Bernard. I am respectfully asking for your aye vote.

Thank you. Appreciate the opportunity to be here. Chairman Allen, Members of the Committee, my name is Nicole Bernard. I am the acting City Manager for Tustin, and on behalf of the Mayor and council who could not join me today, they do appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. I would like to also thank Senator Newman for this opportunity and out of respect for everyone's time, I will try to be as brief as possible to explain the story.

November 7, 2023, is when the fire broke out at the Navy's North Hangar, which is one of two historic hangars at the former Marine Corps Airbase Station in Tustin, decommissioned in 1999 and has been redeveloped primarily by the city, which is a federal-local reuse authority designation. For those who may not be familiar with the actual dimensions of the hangars, I just want to take a moment and clarify that these structures, both of them, are 17 stories tall, they are 1000ft long and 300ft wide.

And by the math, that's almost six acres of a wooden building structure each. So it is quite a significant building. The fire burned for 24 days, and there were schools throughout our city that were closed, parks that were closed. The city and the county board of supervisors declared local emergencies, and it was a very disruptive situation for our entire community.

Very uncertain time during those 24 days where we were aware that there was asbestos debris that was coming from the fire, fortunately, the air quality remained healthy. It was just the debris and contact with the debris is what people were concerned about, and it was a widespread fallout of the debris. Over six and a half square miles were impacted, 14,000 residents. So the Navy asked the city to take over the response effort. Because it's a decommissioned site, there was no active Navy to be of assistance.

The city agreed to take that on for its residents, and we've incurred significant expenses that exceed our operating budget. With that, we do request that you all act to ask Congress and the President to provide supplemental federal funding to assist the Navy in reimbursing the city in this response. I just want to add that this is an ongoing situation. There is still debris that the city is actively cleaning up. This is not a... there has been no end to this yet.

With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Anyone else who wants to voice support for the Bill? Opposition? All right, let's bring it back to the Committee for questions, thoughts, comments. Moved by Senator Menjivar. Thank you for coming and bringing our attention to this issue. Let's call a roll. Oh sorry.

I appreciate the witness being here. These, by the way, these are two of the largest wooden structures in the world, and the wiring was full of toxic substances. $80 million thus far, probably $50 million in additional cost looking forward. We need the Federal Government's support to address the situation. So appreciate your support here.

Thank you. All right, move by Senator Menjivar. Let's call the roll.

SJR 13. The motion is be adopted as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

Okay, at 7-0, we'll close the roll. Thank you. Without objection. Let's go to Senator Gonzalez, who's here, who wants to present SB 1308. That's item 13 in your agendas, item 13 relating to indoor air cleaning devices.

Ochoa Bogh is here, too.

Okay, she's got.

I have a witness.

Let's proceed. I didn't see you, but I know we have a witness. This should be a really quick Bill, if that's okay. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate it. Thank you. Let's go ahead.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. And I'm here today to present Senate Bill 1308, which will ensure that indoor air cleaning devices continue to serve their intended purpose of improving public health and protecting Californians living with respiratory conditions. With the surge of COVID-19 and worsening impacts of climate change and air pollution, there's been a growing interest in improving indoor air quality. Air cleaners are an efficient tool proven to improve this air quality, helping people with asthma and other respiratory diseases.

And unfortunately, electronic air cleaners rely on technologies that can produce ozone or other byproducts harmful to health. And a recent paper published by UC Davis and sponsored by CARB found concerns about the health effects of electronic air cleaners and how they create ozone. This research found that a more stringent ozone emission standard of five parts per billion can help reduce secondary byproduct formation driven by ozone chemistry.

SB 1308 will address this risk, and testifying in support of this measure today, I have Anne Kelsey Lamb, Director of Regional Asthma Management and Prevention, and Theresa Pistochini, Co-director of Engineering at the UC Davis Energy Efficiency Institute and Western Cooling Efficiency Center, to assist. I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you. Please proceed.

Esteemed Chair and Committee Members. I am Anne Kelsey Lamb, the Director of Regional Asthma Management and Prevention, a project of the Public Health Institute. Air pollution and its disproportionate impact on low income communities and communities of color has long been one of our top concerns, as it can both exacerbate and cause asthma. In recent years, the growing problem of wildfire smoke has added to the urgent need to find ways for children and families across California to breathe clean air.

Portable air cleaners can help reduce the impact of air pollution. In response to the growing threat, air districts, ports, healthcare providers, and other agencies have begun providing portable air cleaners to low income Californians who are at increased risk from exposure to air pollution, including people with asthma. This increase in the use of air cleaners among vulnerable Californians makes it absolutely essential to ensure that the air cleaners they're using are safe. Unfortunately, some air cleaners actually worsen indoor air quality by emitting ozone.

Current law requires all portable air cleaners sold in California to meet an ozone emission limit of 50 parts per billion. However, since the original law went into place, scientific research has demonstrated that even extremely low levels of ozone have significant negative health impacts. SB 1308 will address that. It won't change anything about which devices CARB regulates. It simply reduces the allowable ozone level from 50 parts per billion to five.

It will align California's air cleaner regulation with current scientific information to protect and promote the health of our most vulnerable residents. Thank you.

Hello. I am Teresa Pistacchini, a researcher at UC Davis and co-author of a white paper written for CARB that recommended California require electronic air cleaners comply with UL 2998, a more stringent ozone emission standard of five parts per billion, or ppb. The main source of ozone in buildings is from outdoors.

The federal regulation for outdoor ozone is 70 ppb, and more than half of Californians live in areas that exceed this standard. Allowing devices in our buildings that produce significant amounts of ozone increase exposure above and beyond what is already transferred from outdoors, working against decades of effort to reduce ozone in California.

For background, UL 2998 measures ozone emissions from one device and a test chamber while building design and device installation affect actual ozone levels, let's assume for simplicity that a device passing UL 29898 will raise the concentration in actual building by five parts per billion. For reference, a study I led in 2018 in California classrooms measured average indoor ozone concentrations of eight to 15 parts per billion, which was about 30% of outdoors.

In this case, adding just five ppb from an air cleaner would increase ozone levels by 30% to 60%. The current CARB regulation, which allows emissions of up to 50 ppb, permits extreme increases in indoor ozone. I understand there is opposition from researchers and manufacturers working on emerging 222 nanometer UV technology for the purposes of pathogen mitigation. Unfortunately, this wavelength of light also generates ozone.

Based on my literature review, it is possible to design this technology to meet the UL 2998 standard by adjusting lamp power and wavelength filtering. It would be forward-thinking to continue to cover UV technology in the proposed legislation ensuring that manufacturers design UV to limit ozone production. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Others wishing to, in support here in 1200.

Hello, I'm Gavriel, Gavriel Kleinwaks speaking for the public health nonprofit, 1Day Sooner and we take an in-between position or support if amended so as to exempt technologies whose health benefits outweigh their costs due to efficiency at pathogen removal. Thank you.

Megan Shumway, a retired nurse and a person with asthma, in support.

This is support. This is all support. Yeah.

Hi, Ariana Creed with cleanearthforkids.org in support. Also those in support are California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Facts Grandparents in Action, Mama's North County Equity and Justice Interfaith Coalition for Environmental Justice, and NCCCA. Thank you.

Thank you.

Darrell Little with NRDC and support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Kevin Messner with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. We represent residential air cleaners. I don't have an official position on this. But I just wanted to say that we support the objectives and understand the intent to reduce Ozone down 50 parts per billion to five. We want to work through some details, but the kind of thrust of the bill makes sense to us. But we do have some things we want to work with the leaders office, within the Committee and you all. So thank you.

Thank you. Okay. All right. Opposition. You wanted to raise some concerns?

Yes. Thank you for listening. My name is Holger Klaus. I'm a California citizen and also an expert in germicidal UV and especially in far UV-C technology. And I also speak on behalf of the International UV Association and various manufacturers of far UV-C devices. We are very deeply concerned about the new ozone limits because they would accidentally or intentionally criminalize or prevent the use of far UV-C devices in California. Far UV-C is a new technology, not widely used. A lot of research is still going on.

But it is very clear from the scientific facts that it is a very effective technology to prevent infections. And it can be used in occupied spaces. It accidentally falls under CARP which considers these disinfection devices air cleaners. For your information, such a far UV-C device has about the size of one of these lamps here, has no resemblance of an air cleaner. And it does not remove any particles from the air. It only kills germs in the air.

Just four weeks ago, I was a panel speaker at a workshop in Washington, DC. And I want to inform you that right now CDC, NIOSH, EPA, DoE, and DoD show interest and see potential in this technology among the interests or the potential to mitigate future pandemics, bioterrorism, biowarfare attacks, and increased protection of essential strategic assets and infrastructures of the United States. Unfortunately, as you already heard, this technology creates little amounts of ozone. Typical devices emit about eight to 20 ppb of ozone.

So all the devices today pass CARP easily, but they would all be outlawed. In its current form, prohibiting the use of far UV-C in California would basically kill later on residents. Because the residents of California would be prevented to be protected. And there are various opportunities that are currently investigated. There is a lot of hospital-acquired infections that can be prevented with that technology.

I beg you, I urge you not to proceed with this bill in its current form and find ways and work with the experts to amend that bill. Thank you very much.

Hi, thank you for your time. To echo some of Holger's statements, my name is Alex Ferrin, a biochemist and toxicologist working right now with a lot of hospitals and infection control experts from the VA to Yale to the Cleveland Clinic, and all seeing tremendous impact.

The devices that we are working on are not created specifically with the interest of air filtration, but rather as similar technology that's already used, which is a lot of UV is already used in healthcare facilities, but a form that's actually safe for occupied spaces and to suppress pathogens, basic in real-time. So we don't not support clean air. And the goal to improve these air cleaners that do release ozone, however, we think we should look at the environment in which it's used.

In a hospital, you often have four to six, actually six air exchanges per hour as a minimum, and that would mitigate any of the ozone produced. And in fact, it's ironic that if you opened a window, you would actually exceed the levels that are proposed by this bill. So what we propose are amendments to work out how we can apply this promising technology in healthcare, hospitals, and for also for public health.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, anyone else in opposition? Okay, thank you.

Let's give the. Maybe if you want to the author. I know some of this opposition was late, though certainly this is the first committee, and there's some concern. I know you're doing some work with them. If you want to just respond to some of the comments.

We will continue working with everyone, but I think even just five PPB additional is harmful. So we're basing this off of a 2006 law that was authored by then-Senator Fran Pavly. So I think it's time to update this. And there is substantial health research, but if my witnesses would like to add to that, that would be great.

Have you guys all sat down together with them with the opposition?

I have met with. I met with one. We've had about three meetings. I was in one of them with different members that are concerned specifically on the issue of UV-C, yes. I think the big concern is that the federal, the outdoors, all the epidemiology studies that have been done that have set outdoor limits on ozone presume that the main source of ozone indoors comes from outdoors. Right.

And so that we kind of generally live in California in this, you know, eight to 20 ppb inside already based on these federal health, on this federal air quality legislation. So if all of a sudden we start producing excessive amounts of ozone indoors, right, the health impacts from that could be quite significant. And I don't even think we can totally understand that. So anyway, I would.

My position, talking to the opposition is that this is a, this would be an important standard to meet the five parts rebellion and essentially to design around that to balance pathogen mitigation with ozone production essentially.

Okay, questions, thoughts, comments from the Committee? Any concerns or things people want to raise? Okay. Appreciate the work on this, and I know there's going to be some more work to be done, and I'm sure there's going to be some of these facilities that are going to weigh in, but we all know we got major challenges with indoor air quality, and I know that's what you're trying to get at here. So with that, I appreciate Senator Menjivar moving the bill, and let's give an opportunity close.

Just want to thank my witnesses. We'll continue to work with the opposition. This is not banning any specific type of technology, just lowering the PPB would be substantial for indoor air quality. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. All right, secretary, please color.

All right, SB 1308 motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, we'll leave that open for other folks to add on. Thank you very much. All right, let's go to you to Senator Ochoa Bogh, who's here to present item five in your packets. Members, this is SB 1175.

It's been a busy day for many of us. I'm not sure I've had many opportunities to present bills here. It's a little intimidating with all of these very smart STEM people. So, Mister Chair and members, good morning. Let me start by thanking the committee staff for working with my office to improve the bill. I accept all of the committee's recommended amendments and commit to working with the opposition to address their remaining concerns.

Current regulations allow local governments to apply for waivers for some or all of the SB 1383 collection requirements for areas that are at a high elevation, sparsely populated, and or rural areas. However, these waivers are not based on well-established boundaries, such as city or county lines, but on census tracts, which are geographic regions currently used only for census purposes. The result is that the boundaries of areas eligible for waivers make little sense for the purposes of disposing organic waste.