Assembly Standing Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife

We will call this meeting to order of Assembly of Water, Parks and Wildlife. Good morning, everyone. To ensure Members of the media and public have access to our proceedings today, this hearing will be streamlined on the Assembly's website and Members of the public can provide testimony in person here in room 447. Come one, come all. And I want to note that this is a change from room 444. I want to welcome assemblymember Ta, who I think will be with us shortly.

And he is replacing assemblymember Mathis, who will be absent from today's hearing. I also want to represent welcome Assemblymember Gallagher, also not here, but I'm sure we'll be coming back to the Committee. He is replacing Assemblymember Dahle for today's hearing. Due to an approved absence witnesses for each Bill, we're allowing up to two main witnesses in support, two main witnesses in opposition.

Following the primary witnesses, remaining witnesses are asked to limit their testimony to their name, organization and position on the Bill, otherwise known as me too. Okay. Thank you for your cooperation. We've got two bills on the consent calendar, but we don't have a quorum, so we'll be operating as a Subcommitee until we can get rolling. But without further ado, I want to welcome Assemblymember Hoover, who is here on behalf of Assemblymember Fong.

And we'll start with 2617 and we can go on to 2799 after that. Excuse Me 2517 says 26 here, but that's okay. You're a ok. Yes.

Assembly Member Vince Fong, the author would like to accept the Committee's amendments and pass along their thanks for working with them. During the historic storms and precipitation last year, many waterways were inundated with an unprecedented volume of water, which led to severe flooding, specifically in the Central Valley. Irrigation districts play a critical role in clearing channels and waterways to prevent overflows and more flooding.

They enter into maintenance agreements with the Department of Water Resources for a term of five years or less, or more than five years, which are considered long term agreements. But without defined timelines for responding and improving long term maintenance agreements, irrigation districts are left with little certainty as to how they can maintain local waterways. AB 20517 would simply expedite the department's response to districts requests for long term maintenance agreements. They can act swiftly to clear debris from waterways and protect rural communities from excess flooding. Respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Excellent. No witnesses?

I'm not sure if they're here.

Okay. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions? Comments? I think we may have a quorum now. We don't have a quorum, so guess what? We'll take a vote a little bit later once we get a quorum. But thank you for the presentation. Let's have you move on then to AB 2799 item four.

All right, thank you, Madam Chair and Members, also presenting AB 2799 on behalf of Assembly Member Vince Fong. The 2023 water year saw massive amounts of rain and snowfall pushing California's water infrastructure to its limits. In some regions, the state received upwards of 3322% of normal annual precipitation. The southern Central Valley was hit especially hard, with massive flooding overwhelming the dams, rivers, and canals that managed flows throughout the region.

To help offset this stress on our water infrastructure and aid groundwater recharge, many farmers intentionally flooded their fields. While this was done as a service for the good of the whole industry and the greater Central Valley community, these farmers received no credits toward their water use bills for this voluntary groundwater recharge and flood management. AB 2799 simply directs groundwater sustainability agencies to consider efforts by small farms to recharge their groundwater basins through voluntary.

Through voluntarily allowing percolation and flooding of their land during high water events. Farms across California continue to struggle every day with increasing water use regulations and fees. This Bill will encourage them the further voluntary groundwater recharge adoption and respectfully request for an aye vote.

Excellent. Great. Any witnesses in favor? Any witnesses opposed? Who can be opposed to voluntary ground? Exactly. Groundwater recharging. Let's bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? Comments? Still no quorum.

Thank you so much. We'll take it up as soon as we get one. Thank you so much, Assembly Member Hoover. Have a great day. So some of my Members, Friedman or Garcia, if you're listening, we're waiting. Okay, we've got a quorum, so let's call roll.

[Roll Call]

Excellent. So we have. Let's take up the consent calendar. A motion in a second for the consent calendars. Motion from Davies. Who was the second?

[Roll Call]

So we've already heard two bills. They were both Assembly Member Fong bills as presented by Hoover, and we'll go ahead and take a vote. Do we have a motion for the. Okay, so that was a motion on AB 2517 with a second from. Motion from Davies, second from Villapudua.

[Roll Call]

Excellent. We'll go ahead and leave the roll open, but the bell is out, and let's get a motion, if we can, in a second on the second Vince Fong Bill, which is AB 2799. Do we have a motion from Davies, second from Addis. We'll go ahead and call the roll.

[Roll Call]

So we'll keep the roll open for anybody else that might come in, but it looks like both of those are out. While we wait, we're going to get you up to speed on some of the votes we've taken. Consent calendar and two assemblymember Fong bills.

[Roll Call]

Assemblymember Friedman, welcome. Why don't we have you take it away on AB 2552, item number three?

Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you and your committee staff for all of your hard work on this bill. And I will be accepting the suggested committee amendments as laid out in the analysis. Despite the passing and implementation of bills such as AB 1788 and AB 1322, recent evidence from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, which is CDFW, suggests there is still widespread exposure and depth to wildlife from escars and other anticoagulant rodenticides.

Exposure to anticoagulants can result in both lethal and sublethal effects on non target wildlife, including severe skin disease and decreased immune system response. If you've seen the pictures of P 22 looking like he's suffering from mange, that's actually anticoagulant rodenticide poisoning. It means that that animal is hemorrhaging from within, and it's what we, what a lot of if you see a dead owl on the street, if you see other kinds of raptors that are dead lying on the ground, it's usually anticoagulant rodenticide.

We know that from necropsies on these animals. And what's also really ironic about this is that these apex predators are actually the natural rodent control. The last thing that a rat will ever see in the wildlife is off of the face of an owl or a hawk. And if we kill all those animals, that's when we really get nature out of balance and we get large rodent infestations.

AB 2552 adds the two remaining first generation anticoagulant rhodenicides, called efgars, chlorosophanine and warofen to the existing rodenticide moratorium to better protect wildlife from unintentional rodenticide poisoning while maintaining exceptions for its use to protect public health, water supplies and agriculture. So there's very large allowances in this bill for being able to use these substances. Often more than one anticoagulant is used at a time, leading to cumulative impacts. The state's moratorium needs to consider cumulative impacts from these poisons used altogether.

The bill also requires that the Department of Pesticide Regulation enact stronger permanent restrictions to FGARS to limit unintended wildlife poisonings while making chlorosilane and warfarin a restricted material so that your average Joe isn't buying this really deadly product at Home Depot. Anticoagulant rodenticides continue to result in unreasonable number of public health incidents, with over 3000 human poisonings in 2021 alone, and at least 2300 of these involving children under six years, according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers.

But I'd like to take a moment to highlight the concerns that we've heard from opposition about the bill. As with existing moratoriums on anticoagulants, the bill has exemptions for public health infrastructure and agriculture. Even with the passage of this bill, there would be dozens of other rodenticide products available for use in all agricultural settings. For example, zinc phosphide is the most commonly used rodenticide in agriculture, and this bill does not limit its use because it isn't frequently detected in wildlife.

The US EPA is undergoing its periodic review of rodenticides and has circulated a proposed interim decision for 11 rosenicides, including anticoagulants. Unfortunately, many of EPAs proposed restrictions have already proven ineffective for limiting wildlife poisonings in California because we still see widespread poisonings of materials banned by the EPA. Their process is also slow. It's way behind schedule, and even meager steps and restrictions are being opposed by House Republicans. So it may not get through through to control ground squirrels and gophers.

Most farmers use other products like zinc phosphide and gopher traps. Owl boxes and raptor perches have proven very helpful to keep rodent numbers down on farms as it relates to other alternatives. A pyelon study using rodent fertility control was performed at an animal production facility in California in which rat presence was successfully reduced by 94%. Predation on chickens and grain loss from rat consumption was significantly reduced while using fertility control. To be clear, the vast majority of agriculture remains completely exempt from this bill.

It only affects agricultural areas within 2500ft of a wildlife habitat area. And the committee amendments I've accepted completely take out additional open space lands. So when it comes to the alternatives like fertility products, they are readily available in California and are categorized as minimum risk pest pesticides that pose little or no risk to people, pets and predators. We are not advocating for other poisons.

I also want to remind people that we added the private right to action just this year because unfortunately, the limited resource bans County AG commissioners and DPR from effectively preventing unintended poisoning for both humans and wildlife. So this only intends to apply to instances in which state and local officials lack capacity to enforce. However, we are willing to we're going to continue working on that provision, and we are willing to make a compromise with opponents on the PDA part of the Bill.

I also want to emphasize that a person cannot even bring action under the citizen suit as we have it in the bill, unless they first notify the Department of Pest Regulations of unofficial use. And after 60 days, neither the department nor any local officials have started addressing the violation. So again, we are willing to forego the citizen enforcement of any civil penalties to reduce potential costs to the industry.

So we're putting that on the table to the opponents as something that we are willing to negotiate over. We're also willing to eliminate the ability to sue for civil damages beyond what would be actually actual harm to a person's livestock while affirming that the Attorney General and the city attorney can enforce the law. But we need the opportunity to continue this conversation in the next committee because the private right to action was not germane in the jurisdiction of this committee.

So it's not something you're willing to take up. So we have to be talking about it in a different committee. Testifying in support this afternoon is Doctor Rebecca Gooley, a Smith fellow and postdoc at UC Davis, and Jonathan Evans, environmental health legal Director and senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. And with that, I do want to pass these around. And so you can see, these are all animals who were tested and showed rodenticide poisoning, including our beloved P 22.

I mean, LA was heartbroken when they saw this. And my neighbors say, why do I see all these dead owls? Why do I see all these dead raptors? Why do I have to look at the mountain lions in my community in P 22 looking like this? Well, they shouldn't have to look like that. You shouldn't have to see this because these chemicals are absolutely unnecessary and shouldn't be used in areas where they're poisoning wildlife.

I'm going to hand this out to pass around for the committee members, and with that, I will leave it to my witnesses. Thank you.

Thank you Assemblymember Friedman. Good morning, Madam Chair and cembers of the committee. My name is Jonathan Evans. I'm the environmental health legal Director at the Center for Biological Diversity. One of the bill co sponsors. Anticoagulant rodenticides, including those covered by the Poison Free Wildlife act, are some of the most scientifically studied and widespread wildlife poisons. This bill places restrictions on the remaining anticoagulants, providing better protections for wildlife habitat areas and enhancing enforcement, while reducing costs on government officials and government agencies.

It also, as Assemblymember Friedman mentioned, has public health exemptions, has exemptions for infrastructure, has exemptions for agriculture. Anticoagulants have a unique mode of toxicity that makes them particularly lethal to other animals in the food web because they bioaccumulate and create a cumulative body burden in wildlife higher in the food chain. This poisoning is widespread.

The most recent report by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in 2023, covering data from 2022, found that anticoagulants were in 88% of birds of prey that they were tested, including hawks and owls, 80% of large game mammals, 86% of bobcats, along with the majority of mountain lions and over 90% of gray foxes.

The Poison Free Wildlife act adds the remaining anticoagulants, the entire category of these wildlife poisons, to the existing moratoriums of AB 1788 and AB 1322 to reduce the cumulative threats to non target wildlife. Importantly, we don't need these dangerous for genocides. Safer, cost effective alternatives are readily available, necessary and frequently used for pest control. Sealing buildings and eliminating food and water sources are a necessary first step. Fertility control has proven highly effective and also is in use by municipal governments in the state.

Lethal rodent control strategies like snap traps and electric traps are frequently implemented. And even if this bill passes, there will be over 100 different types of rodenticides that aren't affected by this bill that will still be available in use for all users, including agriculture and pest control operations. I request an aye vote. Thank you very much.

Good morning Chair Papan and committee members. My name is Doctor Rebecca Gooley. I'm a conservation scientist. Thank you. Hi, my name is Doctor Rebecca Gooley. I'm a conservation scientist investigating the impact of rodenticide in wildlife at UC Davis. Over 50% of mountain lions that were screened by CDFW in 2021 tested positive for chlorophastone or warfarin. And when these poisons don't directly kill individuals, they can make them sick and weak.

Sublethal doses of chlorophastone and warfarin have been found to cause dysregulated firmoregulation, increased parasite and pathogen load, reduce egg hatching and lowered fledgling success. Wildlife have intrinsic value. They form social bonds, can experience pleasure and pain, and they have a right to not be poisoned. Providing protected buffer zones around natural habitat is a well established and scientifically backed management practice, and one that in this case allows California wildlife habitat and home ranges that are free from poison.

Improved sanitation and exclusion practices remain the most effective long term solution for rodent management. While concern has been raised that the remaining rodenticides have no antidote, we'd like to make it clear that no rodenticide should be used around children or pets, and that for wildlife poisoned with anticoagulants it's often difficult to save them even with an antidote. Anticoagulants also pose a public health concern.

In a 2021 study by Murray and Sanchez, it was found that poisoned rats had significantly higher loads of leptospira than non poisoned rats. Fertility control successfully reduces rotom populations, but it does not disrupt the immune system like poisons do. Further alternatives include hawks and owls. A two year long study in Ventura County found that putting out raptor perches and owl boxes was actually more successful and less expensive at managing ground squirrels than poisons were.

While some proposed alternatives may take a more upfront investment, they offer more cost effective solutions over time. With this bill, California will continue to have a more biodiverse and compassionate future. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have me, too in favor in the audience? Come on down.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Sosan Madanat, W. Strategies, here on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund, a proud co sponsor of the bill and support. Thank you.

Good morning. Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council and the Humane Society of the United States, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Navdeep Jaj, a concerned resident of Sacramento, in strong support of the bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Carla Cabral, 16 year research scientist and emergency room veterinary technician, in strong support of the bill.

Gemma Rudy from Hamilton Raptor Center in Penn Valley. I support.

Hello, I'm Tim Rudy and I'm in support of AB 2552. I love birds and all animals, so please.

Hi. Nickolaus Sackett, on behalf of Social Compassion in Legislation, in support.

Good morning. Abigail Smet, on behalf of the mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, in support.

Chair and members, Pat Moran with the California Association of Professional Scientists in support. Thank you.

Sophia Markowska with Defenders of Wildlife, in support.

Kim Delfino with Audubon California Mojave Desert Land Trust and the San Diego Humane Society, in support.

Hello. Ariel Ryan, a concerned citizen of Sacramento, in strong support of this bill.

Hi, I'm Dora Vandekamp and I'm a citizen of California. I'm expecting and I want my children to experience the beautiful wildlife that California has to offer. Thank you.

Hi. Maggie Zurowska, an educator in support. Please. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much. Do we have witnesses in opposition.

They are essential for managing food safety and public health. Rats carry communicable diseases that threaten ourselves, our employees and their droppings poison our food sources, causing serious food safety problems like aflatoxin in almonds and threaten global trade. Because of this, the second generation ban and 1322 from last year maintained this agricultural exemption 2552 does remove the exemption for any farm cold storage food processing facility within a half a mile of a buffer zone.

This is a significant impact geographically, especially as farms are encouraged to pursue more wildlife friendly amenities like forage and habitat associated with their farms and ranches. With respect to some of the alternative techniques that the sponsors had mentioned, like removing trash, that's already standard operating procedure at many of our farms and ranches and processing facilities. And to be frank, rat fertility is not a realistic solution in an agricultural cultural setting, and the risk of doing nothing is insurmountable.

We'd also like to present that rats pose a serious risk to native wildlife as well. They predate species, destroy habitat and outcompete for food sources with native species. We'd also like to object to the bill on process banning products without state supported science to substantiate it. Prior to 2018, there were seven rodenticides largely used by structural pest control and agriculture. 1788 removed four of those seven, but we were told you have three more, in the phrase of first generations.

Last year, AB 1322 removed diphastinone, one of those remaining three products. And now, we were told at that time, you have two remaining products, and now we are removing the remaining two first generational denticides that do have antidotes. And with respect to zinc phosphide, this product is highly toxic to humans, highly toxic to animals as well, with no known antidotes. This is the complexity that needs to take place at our science agencies.

We are removing our health safeguards one at a time, and we implore the Legislature to stop buying into a whack a mole approach. California has scientific agencies full of technical specialists, wildlife biologists, entomologists, toxicologists who are well suited to review science and make determinations about the ongoing use of products or disuse of products. And there's an open procedure for any point in time, including the sponsors, to provide that data to the departments.

If the data substantiates action, those agencies are duty bound to set additional use restrictions, mitigations, or cancel products outright, which they have done and they have the obligation to do. Once again, we believe that our scientific agencies are better appointed to make scientific specific decisions, and we have procedures in place that should be followed. For these reasons, we respect and vote.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Brenda Bass. On behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, we are unfortunately opposed to AB 2552 as my colleague outlined, we really need to properly balance risks to wildlife against the real need to protect public health and food safety. This bill, unfortunately, does not strike that right balance. As a wildlife and bird enthusiast myself, this balance is really important that we get it right.

One of the biggest concerns we have with this bill is the expansive and unprecedented private right of action. In no other context in California or in the United States does the law allow representative standing for wildlife. So this is a brand, a whole new era that this bill would usher in. In addition, the lucrative damages and attorneys fees provisions, plus the conceptual and representative injury requirements allowed under this bill really incentivize abusive litigation tactics, which is highly concerning to us.

Properly resourced state enforcement is both effective and protects property owners and small businesses from unscrupulous would be plaintiffs. While this section of the bill may not be fully within this Committee's purview today, it remains part of the language of the bill upon which you're voting today. And so for these and the reasons outlined by my colleague, we unfortunately oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have other witnesses in opposition? Good morning.

Good morning. Matthew, Western Growers, also opposed. Thank you.

Good morning. Annalee Augustine, on behalf of California Green and Field Association, California Seed Association, and a variety of other agricultural entities, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Good morning. Chris Reardon, on behalf of the California Farm Bureau, we're opposed.

Good morning. Erin Norwood, on behalf of the Almond Alliance, also opposed.

Madam Chair and Members. Matthew Cyberling, on behalf of the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association, also opposed. Thank you.

Chair and Members, Max Perry, on behalf of the Pest Control Operators of California, also opposed.

Chair and Members Tricia Garranger with Agricultural Council of California, respectfully opposed.

Katie Little with the California League of Food Producers, in opposition.

Okay. Seeing no other opposition, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Questions assigned? Member Gallagher. Yeah.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So we've had these similar type of bills here before and in the past, we have had exemptions for agriculture. Obviously, that's a very important issue for me in my district. I mean, you can come to my district. Many members have, we have a plethora of wildlife. We have an amazing amount of waterfowl that come through the Pacific flyway that, you know, come into our rice fields in Northern California. We have skunks and beavers and egrets and, you know, bald eagles.

We have, you know, a plethora of wildlife throughout our, throughout our areas. We have wildlife preserves, you know, Graves. Gray Lodge is in my district outside of Gridley, California. But in all of those places in the north where we have processing facilities, dryers and the such, we use rodenticides because I'm pretty sure that people in this room don't want rat infestation in their food supply or rodent infestation in their processing facilities that ultimately bring their food to them.

So it's very important from a sanitary conditions and a health and human safety standard that we have the ability to use rodenticides that's been recognized in previous legislation and has exempted out the use in agriculture. This seems to be an end around to that by saying, hey, if you're within so many feet of a wildlife area, I guess granted, the Committee amendments, I think do a better job of kind of defining that a little bit better.

But it's going to impact areas like mine where we've safely used these resources. And there's a whole lot of small business owners who are, you know, they're vendors that we utilize and we've been able to do it safely. There's been no, no evidence of any impact of us using those red endicides and causing issues with wildlife. And I, I'd beg you to show me one that involves my district. And so my question is, hey, we've already passed legislation that I think has tried to balance this.

It's tried to weave and navigate that to ensure safety, but it has exempted agriculture. Why are we not doing that in this case?

Thank you for the question. So a few things. First of all, agriculture is exempted, but we have a buffer between the agricultural facilities and a designated wildlife habitat zone of the 2500 sq ft. So as long as you're beyond that, everything is exempted. That's in agriculture. I was the author of the other bills. So this is the reason that we are introducing another bill is because unfortunately, there's been switching to this other generation and other materials that are causing a lot of the same effects.

And with all due respect, some of the wildlife that you mentioned is not affected because it doesn't eat rats. The animals that are affected are the apex predators that are the most likely animals to eat a poisoned rat. Egrets. You know, there's other animals that are eating fish. They're not going to be affected by these bald eagles. Bald eagles might. I'll leave it to my scientist here.

Yeah, I'm just like wondering, has a study been done in your district specifically to investigate?

That's what I'm asking you.

Well, what's your district?

Northern California.

Yeah.

I mean, Sacramento.

I can have.

A lot of people don't often think of it.

Yeah, no, I.

It's pretty important to where you get your food.

The data we're definitely talking about is collected from California wide right now. So it's from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. They receive necropolis birds and wildlife, and they perform necropsies throughout the years. And they do group it by county. I just like, you know, I didn't specifically pull out the county of interest, but we can look into that. And sometimes when there is a formal study done in like, a specific county, it's hard for us to know if it's having an impact or not.

But, you know, that's the kind of data that we're missing. We need those specific counties, specific studies.

When our witness was testifying, she did have the numbers where they randomly test animals. Not just animals that have died from the poisoning, but just an animal that was hit by a car, an animal that's being studied. And between 50 and 80% of all mountain lions, for instance, have the rodenticide poisoning. The numbers of animals that are poisoned are very, very high. And this causes these animals often to die, to become very weak.

At a time when a lot of animals are struggling because of other impacts from fires, from climate, from drought, this is putting a huge strain on the ecosystem. So we're not banning the use in agriculture. Agriculture is still exempted, but we're saying we're still seeing an unreasonably high number of animals dead and dying from the rodenticide. Let's at least have a buffer between designated wildlife zones. So I think it's very reasonable. It still allows for on your ranch, on your farm.

It's just within that 2500 sqft that we would want you to use an alternative. So we're not, we still are exempting agriculture and the Committee has made that even clearer and exempted even more areas that were originally in the bill. You know, we'll continue to. I'd love to talk to you. I'd love to have you maybe look at some of the county by county data, because I also know that people in your area, and you, yourself included, you're outdoorsmen, you love the wildlife.

You don't want to see the same thing that I showed some photos of animals that are bleeding from their eyes, from their mouths because of rodenticide poisoning. That's not your intended target either with this. So we're just trying to create that buffer zone and limit the use so that people aren't buying the stuff at home Depot in urban areas and ending up poisoning the neighborhood cats, which is something else that's happening quite a bit.

Right. Well, I can understand that. The problem is when you're talking about wildlife preservation areas. In my area, we have processing facilities. Next to them, we have rice dryers, you know, we have pruned dehydrators. We have walnut haulers. You know, all these things are pretty critical to being able to bring food to people's table. And so, like, they are, I mean, and we have a lot of wildlife preserve areas. I mean, I mentioned Gray's lodge, but that's just one of them.

You know, a lot of them are dedicated to waterfowl habitat. So it's something that, you know, I think is very problematic because it could end up including them, you know, in this and they're. And then they're prohibited. But you mentioned, I mean, look, that we, people are starting to use alternate to be, to be real. Like, your bill's been into law for a year. We haven't had any time to really see what the full effect of that legislation and that statute has been.

You brought up alternatives. I think that's another question here, is, you know, just because a product is registered, right, doesn't mean that, you know, it's easily accessible or the safest option, you know, in California. That's why, you know, we have vendors who help try and identify the pest control operators, you know, in the state that helped try to identify those alternatives. They're coming up with different alternatives. But, I mean, I'll just ask the proponents, can you identify pesticides that are effective or as effective as these?

And can you confirm, like, if there's an antidote, for example, if there is an accidental poisoning that comes from that product?

Let me just speak to the issue of alternatives. We're focused on the anticoagulant rhodonicides. This Bill is focused on the blood thinning products that cause animals to bleed internally out. They tend to be slow acting. They tend to humiliate very heavily. So that's one category. All of the non anticoagulants are not covered by this Bill, still readily available.

Last time we looked in the Department of Pesticide Regulations registrations, there are approximately 114 different rodenticide products that could still be used within that buffer zone within agriculture that wouldn't be affected by any of these anticoagulant rodenticide restrictions. And interestingly, if you look at the data on usage, so DPR Department of Pesticide Regulation aggregates the data on usage of restricted use pesticides and sales of all products.

The amount of anticoagulant rhenoside sales is under 100 pounds of active ingredients because usually the active ingredient is just like 2% of the overall food pellet. So that's less than 100 pounds of active ingredients for anticoagulants. For all the anticoagulants we're talking about, zinc phosphide is used 17,000 pounds of active ingredient each year. So that product is heavily used. We're not seeing it affected in terms of wildlife. We're not advocating for that as use because there are some other impacts associated with that.

But that's already, cat's already the bag there. That's the most heavily used.

You just hit on it. And I want to follow up on that. It doesn't mean that these products aren't poisonous, that these other alternative projects, products that you're talking about aren't poisonous or don't have other effects. So that's another question is like, hey, if we're going to push people to move away from coagulants which have been an effective redendicide, I mean, whether, I mean, I think everybody would probably agree with that.

You know, if we're going to move to these other alternatives, what are the implications of that? You know, are those, are there going to be poisonings and other things associated with the use of those chemicals that maybe people don't have as much experience using? That is a concern, legitimate concern.

And I think you look at the reported poisonings of zinc phosphide because it turns from, goes from, into a gas in the animal and ends up dissipating pretty quickly. We're not seeing that reported in wildlife. We're not seeing that sort of same level of poisoning, particularly as somebody Member Friedman mentioned. We're 2300 kids poisoned nationally by anticoagulant rodenticides each year. So we're not seeing that same level in zinc phosphide or some of the other products.

But clearly all of these products are designed to be lethal to mammals, right? So they're going to have the same mechanism of problems for humans. So as Doctor Guley mentioned, we don't want to get keep, we want to keep kids and pets far away from these and we want to keep these restricted use chemicals so that they are less harmful.

That's all I have, Madam Chair, but with your permission, could I allow the opposition to respond to what was maybe just said there?

So thank you, Mister Gallagher, and through the chair. What I'd like to note is that conversation was exactly the complexity that really should be had at scientific agencies, with toxicologists and entomologists and wildlife specialists looking at impacts, looking at trade offs, looking at access, affordability, complexity, accumulation. All of these factors are the things that, with respect, scientists, these agencies should be reviewing.

And in lieu of an out and out ban which is proposed in this Bill, there is a pathway forward to direct those agencies to look at these types of products for safety. And if data substantiates further restrictions, additional buffers, which may be half a mile as proposed, may be less. That is the role of those agencies to do that work. And so what we would say is there is an existing pathway forward to pursue questions about impacts to non target wildlife species.

And we don't think that the limited amount of time that this Committee's had to discuss complexities and trade offs is appropriate to really evaluate the impact.

If I could just make a note on a nomenclature issue. This Bill is directed at active ingredients, and my friend over here mentioned how many products would be available still on the market. One active ingredient can create multiple different products. So it's kind of an apples to oranges comparison. It's not that we're only banning two and there's going to be 100 plus left. That's not really. There are probably hundreds or dozens of products that will come off of the shelves when you ban these active ingredients.

So I just wanted to flag that it's not like a product and an active ingredient are two separate things.

Any other Members of the Committee?

Thank you. First of all, I appreciate everybody at the table who knows exponentially more than I do about this issue. And so my questions will likely be very maybe simple to you, but important to me as I try to understand the bill. I guess I'd start with the easy part. The author has already stated that on the issue of the private action, that issue would be addressed on that alone. If that wasn't addressed, I would not be able to support the bill.

So now I'm trying to get to the issue of what exactly what happened on the ground. Let me start with the issue of the 2500 ft. And just to make sure I understand, because it seems that maybe others do understand, the buffer would be 2500 ft from the outlying skirts of a wildlife area. Would that buffer also then potentially cross into land that is being used for agricultural purposes?

So these are designated wildlife habitat areas. So they, in my understanding, they wouldn't typically be the farm because that's not a wildlife area. So what we would say is don't put the poison within that range. It wouldn't affect the whole farm. Just don't put the actual poison trap, you know, the poison within that 2500 ft.

So if the farm is within the 2500 ft, what would the implications be?

They would have to use one of the different poisons.

So if you do have agricultural activity, farming within the 2500 ft, you would be limited from using the product, just the.

Anticoagulant rodenticide, you'd have to use one of these other over 100 products.

And just curious, I don't know if the 5000 amendments to 2500 how that came to be, but I'm just interested in why a number of feet is the right number of feet.

Well, we're trying to be obviously reasonable to the farms at the same time these animals that are hunting are crossing over into the farm. That's why we're suggesting using a buffer, as the witness was saying, using a wildlife using some kind of buffer. And in addition, when the rats are poisoned, the substance bioaccumulates. So it's not the case that they eat it and drop over dead.

They eat it, they get sick, they wander off into the woods, and that's when they get eaten by the owl or the bobcat, especially since they're kind of stumbling around in their easy prey. So we're trying to keep them further away so that as they die, they're not dying right within the wildlife habitat area.

Let me ask also about the process of making law on a very, very technical issue that you certainly seem to have the expertise, but I'll just admit I don't on this body or on this Committee. And so not allowing, why not allow a technical body to make the decision or at least some recommendations to us on what the right law would be as it relates to this particular product?

Yeah, thank you for that question. It's a great question. So since I've been in the Legislature, I have successfully authored bills to ban first generation rodenticides, to ban PFAS from children's clothing to ban the 31 most toxic chemicals from personal care products. Last year, there was a bill, I'd like to say it banned skittles. It didn't really ban skittles. It banned an ingredient in Skittles. We have seen numerous bills that enact bans or prohibitions to protect public health or the health of wildlife.

And the reason is because our agencies take way too long to act. The reason the groundwater in my city is poisoned with PFAS is because we had agencies that did nothing and we had a Legislature that didn't do anything. So I've always seen it that, yes, I wish that our agencies move more quickly, especially when there's. They said, this is one of the most studied areas of chemicals in the nation.

We have EPA already moving in the direction of banning this, it looks like, but they're going to take forever and a day. And for P 22, it was too late. It was too late. You know, he was horribly poisoned by rodenticides for the wildlife. And the photos that we showed, it was too late. So I tried to ban the Green Chemistry Council.

A few years ago, I actually introduced a bill to ban it, which is an agency that's supposed to do a lot of this stuff, because in all the years they've been in existence, I think they've actually banned, like, one or two chemicals. They do nothing. So when they're not acting, when we see that they're taking steps, they're studying. Our wildlife is struggling so much that they just can't wait. And we have scientists here who have been studying this forever and a day. There's a lot of.

There's research studies. There's research studies comparing raptors to using these poisons that actually shows that the raptors, in many cases, will outperform because you're killing the natural controls. We have exemptions for public health crises. We have exemptions for public health. We have exemptions for critical infrastructure. We have exemptions for agriculture. We have exemptions for vulnerable populations. We have exempted out a ton in here. We want to get this stuff off the shelves from Home Depot because people are buying it and bringing it home.

We still see thousands of children poisoned every year. It's not just about the animals. And there are alternatives.

Could we not do that and not impact the agricultural, um, significant agricultural economy that we have? Because I think, based on the earlier response in my reading, this would ban this on farms. If you happen to be within, or have you mapped how many farms?

It's around the edges of the farms? Um, it's not the farm itself. It's, and we, we all, and, you know, I mean, certainly there's, there's areas of some farms that will be affected, but we, you know, our experts will tell you that there are many other pesticides that can be used safely in those areas.

And so, you know, yes, a farm that abuts a designated wildlife habitat area does have to take extra care to not harm their neighbors and they should be using an alternative that is effective and safe. And there are plenty on the market. This is not the only pesticide.

Let me ask maybe the opposition who represents farmers and growers, have you had a chance to analyze to what extent this buffer number of feet would impact how many either acres of farming or individual businesses, anything like that?

Well, so we haven't been able to do an exhaustive review, especially with the Committee amendment to take out the open space provision. But at this point, there are many, many farms that abut a wildlife habitat area, especially because those wildlife habitat areas have been either converted into farms or those farms have been converted back into wildlife habitat areas as a part of easement agreements or other things. I just want to note, 2500ft is a half a mile.

If you are a small farm in California that happens to about one of these areas, it could be an extensive ban on the use of these rodenticide products. And we understand that the author is making points that there are alternatives, but at this point, products are used on farm because pest control advisors make recommendations for the most effective, most affordable, available and less impactful product.

So if these products have already been used, there's been a vetting process, especially in agriculture, that alternative techniques or alternative products may not be available. And when we have immediate impacts like food safety concerns, we have to act quickly and expeditiously to manage that. So once again, I would just note that there are farms that abut wildlife habitat areas. 2500ft or half a mile is not a small amount of acreage to come out of production in those areas as well.

So it's a significant impact to farms in California.

Thank you. Appreciate both of you answering my questions. I think at this point I remain uncertain as to the extent of the impact of what 2500ft means. Again, I acknowledge and appreciate the willingness or the, it seems like removal of the private action, which I think is the right thing to do. So I will withholding my vote today not knowing the extent to which the 2500ft potentially creates an impact in agricultural land in California. So thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Weber.

Thank you, Sharon. Thank you to the author and to everyone up here, this has been a very informative, very robust discussion. I've learned some things as well. I don't represent your typical agricultural district, but I do understand what Assembly Member Gallagher and what assemblymember Alvarez was pointing out, because we definitely do not want to do anything to impact our agriculture here in the State of California. My main concern and I have supported your previous bills with banning this particular form of pesticide.

But this bill, and I know we're not dealing with the private right of action here. However, like it was stated, you know, if we vote for it, then our name would be supporting it. And so I do just need to address my significant concerns with one it being in there in the first place and to the language. I don't think I've ever read anything like that since I've been here in the Legislature. You know, someone can undergo civil penalty.

Specifically, it says the suit may be brought by any person on their own behalf or on behalf of an individual animal, wildlife, wildlife species, or any representative thereof that are at risk of being killed, injured, harassed, or harmed by the unlawful sale or use of first generation anticoagulant or second generation anticoagulant.

For purpose of this paragraph, harassment includes creating a likelihood of injury to an animal by annoying it to such an extent as to disrupt normal behavior patterns, including but not limited to breeding, feeding, or sheltering. I mean, I have to agree that this would open up the floodgates for litigation. It's so, I don't even know how you would determine something like this, that it's valid or not.

It's concerning, that we would even be potentially even going in this direction, you know, outside of the concerns for the agriculture, which is, you know, which is definitely valid, and we hear you, and hopefully that will be able to be worked out. I know that this is going to be dealt with in the next Committee, and I have no idea what that will be. I don't think there needs to be any pra in this.

Honestly, I don't even know why we're talking about being able to sue because we think we understand how an animal feels or can definitely say that their pattern has changed because of a pesticide is, and not because of, you know, climate crisis, global warming, or the fact that they chose to go and mate in that tree because they felt like, I mean, I just, I just had to voice when I read it, I just could not believe the words that were coming off of this page.

It's very concerning. I have no idea what will happen in judiciary. I don't know what will happen with this bill if it will get out of Committee, but there is no way that if it got to the floor and this had any kind of PRA in it that I would be able to support it, which would be unfortunate because I have supported your bills in the past that deal with this particular type of pesticide. Thank you.

I would just like to focus on 1.0 and that is the ability to actually do something, to move something, to get something done. Generally, our democracy from the very beginning has been set up to make it really easy to block, but very difficult to actually take action to get something done. And so I think the author rightfully pointed out the frustration that we have seen over and over again when we know something's wrong.

And it, it continues to exist for decades and decades while it's studied and studied. And one of the, so there are numerous places, number one, Committee after Committee after Committee. A bill can stop in three different committees here. This bill can stop in three different committees in the Assembly, then the Assembly floor, then two or three committees in the Senate, then the Assembly, then the Senate Floor and the Governor.

And there's nothing wrong with it being challenging to get something done, but we have to recognize that the next place where things stop is the regulators. We can say, well, we're not going to do those bills because let's let the regulators figure it out. They're the experts. And we have seen regulators be captured by arguments of delay.

And the most common way to make sure we don't have an action is not to say it's a bad action, but to say we need more delay and more delay as it goes forward. So this is the first hearing of this, and the fundamental question in front of us is, is there enough information out here about this being a negative concern that we should allow this bill to continue to go forward and get further refined with each time.

My colleague here pointed out language that concerns her a lot, that's going to be taken into consideration by the author and I think very eloquently pointed out. But that's how a bill gets refined. The easiest thing is to kill the bill. The harder thing is to keep working the bill and having it make it all the way through. And with that, I will be supporting the bill as it moves forward because of the amount of evidence out there about the problems caused by this particular pesticide.

Thank you.

Anyone else, some memory of this?

Thank you. Madam Chair, I have a question about, you know, the author and the supporters say that there are alternatives, right, to this pesticide. And why wouldn't, I mean, we're talking about the farmers within this 2500 ft buffer zone. Why couldn't they use one of the existing alternatives? I know the opposition said it may not be available, but I just don't understand why they can't use that.

Why don't we let one of the.

Yeah, both scientists.

Well, I think there can. And I've had interesting conversations with some of the pest control operators who know some of these products by the name, you know, Kill Quick Soft Bait, but they don't know the active ingredient that's being used. And so sometimes it's just, you know, what is available, what's recommended without really the understanding of what some of the alternative impacts are.

But certainly a lot of these products are frequently used, much more so than the anticoagulants that we're talking about here today that we prohibited so they can be used. And that's just, I mean, that's just the category of rat poison. Again, we're talking about, not talking about other types of less noxious poisonings. There's ability to use carbon monoxide, venting into burrows for ground squirrels. There's ability to use old fashioned snap traps, mold traps. There's a whole suite of options that are less harmful than these rodenticides.

What we're saying is there are still over 100 different products. The point was taken that those are not all active ingredients, but they're products that are registered with DPR, with the Department of Pestilence regulation. And the vast majority of the volume of use would not be affected by this Bill. So I can't answer the question as to why some nefarious products are used more than others. It's just sometimes there's better marketing within the agricultural industry.

Sometimes there's issues associated with cost, but the labor costs are going to be much more dramatic than any of the cost of the products themselves.

Yeah, I just feel like there are a lot of alternatives and at least what we're evaluating today and making a decision today, I will be supporting this Bill. I know there seems to be other issues that will go to the Judiciary Committee, but in terms of this Committee, I just feel like there's other alternatives that can be used and are safer than what's being proposed today to be banned.

Some of em, yeah.

I agree with just about all my colleagues. I think there's some really interesting, complicated issues here, and I have confidence that the author is going to work diligently to work those issues out. Judgment here today in water Parks and Wildlife is that there is a profound impact on species that are ingesting these dangerous toxic chemicals, and that we have to do something about that. And frankly, the regulators that are charged with doing that work have not done a good job.

The evidence is clear there is a problem and we need to do something. And trying to find the sweet spot to make sure that we can protect agriculture and protect wildlife is our job. And I'm going to be voting for this bill today.

What else? Okay. The recommendation is to do pass as amended. I thank the author for taking these amendments because we really did try to reach a balance between where civilization butts up against wildlife and civilization that feeds us butts up against wildlife, which makes it all the more important. So I appreciate that the open space you were amenable to are removing the open space space because that was a bit amorphous and difficult. And the agriculture exemption, I'm hopeful, will be workable with that.

We understand that the PRA, I appreciate your remarks, some Member Friedman on the PRA and I look forward to those further discussions and hopefully that'll work its way out in Judish. But for purposes of the parameters of this jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of this Committee, I think we've tried to reach a balance as to how far out we can go. I come from a suburban area. You come from a suburban area. I know what you're talking about.

But we really do have to be cognizant that this is a huge state that feeds a lot of the nation. And I think we've really reached that, to use your word, semi Member Hart. Sweet spot. So with that, do we have a motion? In a second. zero, would you like to close? I really appreciate the discussion. There's no bad guys here. We're not, you know, we're not, we eat food.

We're not trying to, you know, hurt agriculture, certainly, you know, and to be clear, we did remove open space. So we're talking about designated wildlife zones where we've sort of told the wildlife, this is for you. This is an area for you. And so I think we do have a responsibility to protect the animals who live in those, those special areas. We will continue the discussion. I really loved some Member Bennett's comment that these things are hard. That's why it takes a long time.

We shouldn't in the Committee stage be just sort of voting against something just because we don't like one or two provisions in it. I hear your comments. I hear the concerns. We are willing to continue to work with opponents. We are absolutely willing to look at the PDA language to remove that. It was actually targeting, by the way, the people unlawfully selling, not users. Just to be clear, these are people who are knowingly selling something that's already banned on the market. But we would.

We're fine with taking that out and, you know, addressing those concerns. And with that, I would request and I vote so we can continue this important conversation, because we can't just keep watching year after year while we lose our precious wildlife to these poisonings. Thanks so much. And I'm guessing your request. And I vote. I do request and I vote. Great. Do we have a motion? I'll second some of our heart. Already seconded earlier. zero, under his breath, you seconded.

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

[Roll call]

Thank you. Okay, we'll keep it on call. Thank you. Assembly Member Friedman. The elusive Assembly Member Garcia. I'm hopeful we'll be near.

Good morning, Assemblymember Garcia. It's great to see you. All right, we got 3238.

Yes. Thank you so much. And thank you and your team for kind of diving into this issue. And we will be accepting the Committee amendments. I want to address the Committee by saying that this bill is about ensuring the acceleration and build out of electrical transmission can meet California's ambitious climate goals, but also ensure that we are preserving and protecting our environmental policies that are in place.

Achieving the state's ambitious climate goals will require unprecedented construction of electrical infrastructure and provide reliable renewable energy to electrify homes, commercial buildings and transportation. To accomplish this, changes are needed. The total effort here by this bill modifies existing process to accelerate the electrical infrastructure development. From the beginning, you know, we've committed to foster good collaborative communications with the Members of the committees, with the stakeholders to focus specifically on what is a very sensitive area when we talk about any type of CEQA modifications.

This bill seeks to focus on some CEQA exemptions for wildfire mitigation and incorporating a sunset into the date bill, which are part of the amendments that we're accepting. Through those conversations and issues that were raised, we've addressed those issues via this Committee.

Our work continues to ask that Members, not only of the prior Committee, but of this Committee, continue to collaborate with us and the stakeholders, both proponents and opponents of the bill, so that we can continue to work on the outstanding issues if given the opportunity to move on to the Natural Resources Committee.

The other area that I just will mention that I appreciate the Committee's input on are the changes to the California Endangered Speed Species Habitat act and the Natural Community Conservation planning changes that are being proposed. And so with that, I don't need to tell you how important it's going to be that we carefully thread the needle on any potential changes when it comes to environmental policy.

But you also, I know, recognize how significantly important it is that we accelerate the build out of our transmission infrastructure in order to meet our climate goals that we've set forward. So I will stop there and pass over the time to our witness.

Thank you. Good morning, Members of the Committee, Madam Chair. I'm happy to be here with you today. My name is Erica Martin. I'm the Director of Environmental Services for San Diego Gas and Electric. Happy to be discussing and supporting AB 3238 and the essential role that this bill will play in the clean energy transition.

Just to underscore what the author just described about the need for unprecedented construction of generation and infrastructure, the CAISO just put out its draft transmission plan for 2023-2024 on April 1 and forecasted that we will need to add 7,000 megawatts of generation annually for the next 10 years, which is an increase from the 2021 plan, which estimated a need for 1,000 megawatts. Just to put things in perspective, 7,000 megawatts would instantly power about around 5 million homes. So that's a significant amount of generation.

And then the associated electric infrastructure that's needed to carry the generation from the places where it's produced to the places where people need it. It just underscores what we already know, what the collective can consensus of the state is recognizing that we need to move at an unprecedented rate and scale if we are going to make the climate policy goals of the state, if we're going to succeed in protecting the environment from a warming climate.

And we appreciate and are encouraged by the continuing acknowledgement that we need to do things differently in order to achieve those goals, to construct that infrastructure, to bring those renewable resources online. That's important and is moving us forward in this debate. The challenge is, of course, how do we do things differently? What is it that we can look at in our existing processes and requirements in order to streamline and gain efficiencies to move the process forward? These are tough questions, this is complicated.

And, you know, we appreciate the challenge. Obviously, that's before it's before you all, that's before the state in undergoing that exercise.

And so we propose with AB 3238 that there are some strategic, measured approaches that this bill can take to find places in that existing process, the status quo, places where there's duplication, where there is delay, where there are unnecessary costs that can be refined, efficiencies gained to not shortcut environmental review, but to streamline it, to allow it to move forward so that these projects, these essential projects can move forward in order to move the clean energy transition forward.

The focus of the bill is a lot on the CPUC's rules for, for permitting and environmental review because of their statutory and constitutional jurisdiction over electric infrastructure. That's a primary focus. But there are also places where we have looked out at the process, at the status quo, to try to find other streamlining measures that would still promote conservation planning, for one, but allow streamlining in the operation and maintenance of existing electric transmission infrastructure once it's built.

We need to promote the safe and reliable operation of it, as well as the construction of those projects. So those are an additional focus here, an additional place where your consideration for streamlining, for looking at ways to truly do things differently here. I look forward to taking your questions on this bill and continuing to support this important effort. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Thank you. Melissa Cortez, on behalf of the California Wind Energy Association, we're actually a little bit of a tweener. We've been working with the author's office on some technical amendments around jurisdiction when there's local or CEC authority. We believe we have agreement. This is a good bill and concept. As the author and the witnesses stated, we desperately need this transmission if we want to meet our climate goals. So this is a good effort. We ask for your support today. Thank you.

Good morning. Alejandro Solis, on behalf of the Clean Power Campaign in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Edson Perez with Advanced Energy United, also in support of moving the bill forward. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much. Do we have witnesses in opposition?

Good morning. Chair Papan and Members of the Committee. My name is Kim Delfino, and I'm here representing Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon California, and the California Native Plant Society. Let me start off by thanking the Committee for the Amendments to AB 3238 and for the author accepting them. They are improvements to the bill. However, even with those amendments, the Bill still includes a breathtaking array of exemptions, weakened standards, and limitations to state authorities.

I want to turn to the Natural Communities Conservation Planning act, changes that remain in the bill, which we didn't really touch on in the witnesses testimony. At the heart of the NCCP act, which was a significantly redone in 2003, was a deal and a win win solution of establishing conservation while securing a permit, that the permittees would not have changes to that permit as long as you stayed within the confines of the deal, it's known as No Surprises.

Unfortunately, the changes being proposed in this bill would really get to the, would undercut the heart of the NCCP Act, because the way the act was structured is that your deal is a deal unless, as a plan applicant, you go back to the wildlife agency and say, I want to make changes. If you go back later on and say, I want to make a bunch of changes to my plan, that reopens the whole issue.

And the Department of Fish and Wildlife, in order to issue an amendment to a plan, still has to find that the plan will provide for the conservation of the species. Unfortunately, the two changes that are being proposed here for major amendments are that the Department of Fish and Wildlife cannot look at impacts to cover to already existing species, and it has to narrow what they're examining in terms of impacts to only the new activities.

They can't look at whether the plan was functioning or not functioning and so that really goes to the heart of the NCCP Act because it undercuts the certainty for conservation while we were giving certainty to the developers. The other issue that the other change that's being proposed here is that the bill would create a new rebuttable presumption that everything is going well in the plan if you're reopening it and asking for new changes. When the NCCP act was drafted-

-and unfortunately, I'm old enough where I was part of the discussion in 2003, that it was a carefully orchestrated deal. And we did not put rebuttable presumptions in one way or the other. We didn't put a rebuttable presumption in saying that the plan was working well, and we didn't put a rebuttable presumption in, said the plan was working poorly. And to make this change does destabilize the balance and the agreement that was arrived at in 2003 when Senator Scherr authored the changes to the NCCP Act.

And I am not overstating my concerns that if these changes move forward and undercut the deal that was the NCCP Act, we will not see new NCCP's in the State of California, because the environmental community, when they agreed to this deal, said that we were going to get conservation, and by tying the hands of the Department of Fish and Wildlife when they're looking at major amendments, undercuts whether or not we will end up with conservation in a changed plan.

So I, you know, I appreciate the changes that were made, but I am letting you know that those were not insignificant changes that are being proposed by San Diego Gas and Electric. And I would also just comment that San Diego Gas and Electric has one dispute, a 1995 Plan that they're in dispute with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, yet they're coming here and proposing significant changes to the NCCP act that would affect everyone.

And I just think that we have to be really careful in terms of destabilizing the NCCP act. The last thing I would just- I'm not going to talk about the CEQA exemptions because we're going to be hearing the bill in natural resources. But I do want to flag that AB 3238 purports to enshrine a settlement proposal to the PUC. But what's in the bill, it goes far beyond what the parties propose to the PUC.

And the one part I want to really call your attention to is at the end of the bill in Article 3 that creates an in loop permitting process for the PUC. So the PUC would issue for transmission projects and renewable energy projects a one stop shop permit, which potentially could be okay. We did this in AB 205 with the Energy Commission a couple of years ago.

But this bill doesn't include any standards in terms of interpreting whether or not you're meeting the underlying state and local standards that you're issuing the in loop permit for. It includes an exemption for the Coastal Act. It includes an exemption for the Fish and Game Code. It includes no information about where, how the public can participate in the process. What's the timing of this? There's no sideboards, nothing, nothing that we negotiated in AB 205 is showing up in this bill at this time.

And I guess what I would say is I appreciate the need to try to, for hurry up transmission planning or transmission, actual construction of transmission.

But I'm actually concerned that by creating a new in loop permitting process at the PUC, that what's going to end up happening is that the energy division at the PUC, if anyone's ever had experience with the energy division at the PUC, is that they're going to experience analysis paralysis and we're going to be asking the PUC to do a bunch of stuff they've never done before.

And I'm worried that actually what we're going to create will end up having the opposite effect and we will actually slow down the energy projects.

With that being said, as we move forward, if this in lieu process stays in place in this bill, I strongly urge that we include standards for review, the ability for the public to participate, do not exempt the Coastal Commission, do not exempt the Fish and Game Code, and, you know, actually try to protect our environment while we're building the important transmission we need. Thank you. And for these reasons, I would urge a no vote.

Any other members of the public wishing to come forward to express opposition.

Jakob Evans with Sierra Club California in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Sophia Markowska, on behalf of California Coastal Protection Network, Endangered Habitats League, Center for Biological Diversity, Epic, NRDC and San Diego Audubon in opposition.

Okay, seeing no other witnesses for or against. Let's bring back to the Committee. Questions, comments? Assemblymember Bennett.

I think there's probably virtually unanimous, excuse me, unanimous support for improving the pace at which we are expanding the grid and getting ourselves ready for one of the most important things we have to do for climate change, which is have a much more robust grid. So I appreciate that. And I appreciate the author working with San Diego Gas and Electric in terms of trying to fashion something, number one.

Number two, I really want to compliment the Committee and Committee staff for the amendments and the analysis here. To me, the most important thing is to make sure that the settlement agreement, that we get the settlement agreement, the other items have challenges to them as pointed out by the Committee staff with their amendments. And I had some things I wanted to articulate about that, but the opposition witness articulated them better than I could.

And so I just want to say I will be supporting moving this off today because this is comments I made last time. That's what the Committee process is, is to keep trying to make things better, not trying to block things if we can, but encourage the author that when I evaluate this again when it comes to me on the floor, I'm not on Natural Resources. I hope that you've been able to address these concerns, particularly how some of these things are.

Well, she said it better than I did. I'll just leave it at that. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Assemblymember Alvarez.

Thank you. I think it's important that we talk about some of the concerns. So I'd ask the author to maybe provide a response to what those concerns that have been brought up in particular. And I don't want to just direct you to this one concern, but I think it's a, something of value is the standards for review from the CPUC. So just to what, where our conversations, what has been talked about and where do things stand today?

So I'll share with you, and thank you for the question, Mister Bennett, thank you for allowing us to at least consider moving this conversation forward to address the concerns. We've actually brought forward a workgroup of colleagues, the opposition proponents, and I think we've made some strides in the right direction. Conversation happening here today with some of these amendments that are being taken were based on issues that were raised in the first Committee.

The issues that are being raised today were very open to setting those standards for review and taking a look at the exemption issues that have been raised regarding the Coastal Act, the Fish and Game act. And I'm going to ask our sponsor of the bill witness to dive in a little deeper on some of the details to the concerns that were raised.

Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate that opportunity. And we've appreciated the discussion with the opposition and other stakeholders to understand concerns and to be able to think about how to, as we said, do things differently but move it forward. And so some of the amendments move in that direction just in response on the conservation planning piece. So contrary to what the opposition stated, the goal here is to incentivize other entities, including SDGE, to continue to seek programmatic permits through conservation plans.

It's a net benefit to the environment. Impacts are fully mitigated under the plant. We have had a plan since 1995 where we have operated under that, and I think the region has benefited significantly from a conservation perspective for that reason.

Some of the reforms and streamlining that was proposed were born out of our experience that the opposition also referenced in our difficulty in getting it amended to modernize it and update it for new activities, including wildfire mitigation work that wasn't envisioned in 1995, but that we do now and that the plan should cover. And the idea with the remaining provision is that the existing plan becomes part of the environmental baseline.

The protocols and measures that are applied now are the baseline against which any changes, new activities or new species that were not previously listed would be measured. So those new activities would and their impacts would be measured against the existing baseline, which is the existing plan. And it allows the Department, of course, to exercise the rebuttable presumption if there is information, data, or belief that the underlying plan has not functioned the way that it was supposed to.

That is the point of the rebuttable presumption when they are considering an amendment. So it does not hamstring the Department from considering that underlying plan in that way. The idea is, if you already have a conservation plan and it is being amended in a way to allow new activities to recognize the listing of new species, that it should not be a process that takes a decade or it is a significant disincentive for any entity to undertake this, including SDGE.

I guess I want to ask more about that because that's so the overall mission of the bill is to expedite the transmission that is required. I think there's just, everybody just agrees with that.

And what I'm trying to understand when it comes to this particular part, the plan, it's not just the permitting approval regular process that today takes years, but it's also the plan then also that you anticipate these changes would allow to also tell me about your assumptions of the expedited process, if you will, that will occur as a result of these changes in this bill.

So there's many streamlining benefits, both for the agency and the applicant in obtaining a conservation plan. There are many benefits to the operation and maintenance of infrastructure. So as I mentioned earlier, we need to construct the new infrastructure as quickly as we can. We also need to maintain the safe and reliable operation of it. So that's where operation and maintenance comes in.

And this streamlines the ability of an entity having a conservation plan to not have to go to an agency for individual permits every time there is an implementation.

Let me just pause you there. Given our history in San Diego about wildfires and the issue of transmission lines as it relates to what was the process that was undertaken as a result of that requirement of protecting those lines? Post the 03 and 07 fires as it relates to the plan.

The 1995 Plan, when it described the activities that the plan covered, did not include many of those wildfire mitigation projects, maintenance, fire hardening work that the utility has done since 03 and 07. And for us, our amendment to the existing plan would be to put those activities into the plan and mitigate for them and apply measures and protocols necessary to assure that any impacts are fully mitigated.

So tell me, because I'm familiar with what had to be done then after 03 and 07, hardening, all of that, given that these changes did not exist, the process is what the processes today. What were some of the constraints, limitations or delays in being able to accomplish that work that was so important for those people in East County, San Diego?

If there are activities that are not covered by the plan, then we wouldn't be able to use the plan to be able to address impacts from that work. And they are new. They were not included in the '95 Plan. So they need to be described and studied to determine what those impacts would be so that the conservation plan addresses them as the utility continues to go forward.

So then did that work require full EIR's and everything else that comes with that, or what was required in order to permit those or allow those?

I think your question is asking about what approvals were necessary at the CPUC for that. And that is outside of the NCCP question or that issue. Those depending on the project. Obviously the facts and location of the project dictate what approvals are necessary, so they would still be under the oversight of the CPUC. But this deals with the aspects of those projects that may impact habitat or species.

The last question would be on the length of time and since the goal is to reduce the time, what can you be more, give us more, maybe specific scale of we would go from x number of days or months or years to with this expedited process, we anticipate this would be the outcome.

Sure. Looking at the bill holistically and particularly focusing on the reforms to the CPUC permit and review process, we conservatively estimate that it would reduce the, it would reduce the permitting time by two years. Other stakeholders have estimated an even longer time reduction savings from the permitting process at the Utilities Commission. So those are, it's cumulative. All of these, all of the reforms together considered would impact the process.

But it's real time savings on a five year permitting process that could be more than half that we can save by these straightforward reforms of that process.

Okay. I'd ask the opposition if there's any, share, any thoughts on some of the questions that I've made that could be helpful.

I appreciate the opportunity. So let me just, I'm going to go kind of backwards. So on the PUC process, the bill does include some, it includes the settlement proposal in part of what was given to the PUC. And I actually think some of the proposals in there make a lot of sense. 270 day review, the ability to use, to not have to use the, to use draft CEQA documents.

I think those are things that will speed up the CEQA process, which I think is really at the heart of where folks were trying to find efficiencies. My point about the in lieu permitting process is we could do that at the PUC. We have to put standards in. We do have to put standards in, and we do have to put and clarify.

What does this actually mean if the PUC is now going to take over the role of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, other state laws and local laws? I mean, the CEC is currently doing that right now through the AB 205 process. Frankly, I'm not entirely sure that is really going to speed things up. So I think that the bill includes some things that are really helpful.

I think the in lieu permitting process may actually have the opposite effect because I don't think the PUC is prepared to do the thing that we're asking them to do even if we put in the sideboards. But we're open to doing that. We're open, I've said to the, I've said to the proponents, we're open to, we've negotiated AB 205 two years ago. We can do an in loop permitting process at the PUC.

They just need to have standards, not exempt the Coastal Act, not exempt the Fish and Game Code.

Well, I think I heard the response from the expense directly from the author on working with you on that issue in particular. But I'm concerned with one thing that you're saying that I think we should be, if it's a 270 day review, you're concerned with longer delays. But statutorily they'd be required for 270 days?

Oh, yes. Statutorily, they would be told they need to get it done in 270 days. I'll be honest. I mean, my experience with agencies, when you tell them to do 270 days and you have something as complicated as a massive transmission project, I'm not sure that we'll make that. And then you're asking them to take on the role of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the State Lands Commission. I worry that that will actually slow things down.

But the 270 day requirement for the CEQA process, I do think makes a lot of sense. I do want to answer the question on the NCCP Act, just to be clear. So one thing I just want to just point out is that the standard for the NCCP Act is not fully mitigated. The standard for the NCCP Act is conservation. And that's a very important distinction between the federal. The State Endangered Species Act, which is fully mitigated, and you don't get no surprises policy.

You know, you don't get that guarantee. The NCCP Act gives plan applicants the no surprises policy in exchange for the conservation standard. And I'm troubled by the fact that San Diego Gas and Electric seems to think that their amendment to an NCCP only needs to meet a fully mitigated standard. That is not the correct standard for the NCCP Act.

And I think it actually demonstrates what I'm trying to say here, which is the changes that they're asking for in the NCCP Act will undercut the conservation standard on the NCCP when you're doing a major plan amendment. I can't, you know, and the other point I would make is SDGE did work with the Department of Fish and Wildlife. They got an emergency NCCP amendment, utilized a CEQA exemption in order to move that 2022 amendment forward.

So it's not that the Department isn't trying to accommodate what San Diego Gas and Electric is asking for, but they're asking for a significant change to a plan, and they're asking for no surprises guarantees out to 2050.

Thank you. Do you have a response or understand the concern on the mitigation versus the conservation in the plan?

Yeah, I think that's the California Endangered Species Act standard. And it is a requirement of the plan that any. Just standards aside, it must be, all impacts have to be mitigated, completely mitigated, fully mitigated, whatever, to the maximum extent practicable. That is essentially the same.

The approval standard for an NCCP act is 2835 of the Fish and Game Code, which is the conservation and management of covered species. Believe me, it's burned into my brain.

Okay, let me let her respond.

So my point in making that is just that a conservation plan, which is what you obtain, is a net benefit because impacts are completely mitigated by in kind mitigation, as well as the measures and protocols that are required for avoidance and the design to reduce impacts wherever possible and then mitigate for them when they are. So the result is that there are all impacts are mitigated.

Madam Chair, thank you both for the presentations and certainly the answers to the question questions. Thank you.

Assemblymember Rivas.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be brief. I know there's already been a discussion. You know, I appreciate that the author is trying to find a solution, you know, to help our state meet its ambitious climate goals. You know, however, I know that it's important to bring all the groups together, and I hope that, especially the ones that are seeking to protect the environment. And I know you have another opportunity to do that in the next Committee and beyond.

And, you know, I will be supporting the bill today, but I hope that the conversations with the opposition will continue. Thank you.

Assimilator Schiavo.

Thank you. I know it's complicated and I really appreciate your work in this space. I know you've been a leader on this issue and in this space for a long time, and there's serious concerns about whether or not we're going to be able to make our goals. And we're feeling like it's not looking so good. So, you know, we have to move faster and we have to do more.

I share concerns around some of the environmental impacts and really appreciate that you're working with opposition to figure out resolution.

And we'll also support today to be able to allow that process to continue and am optimistic that there will be some other great amendments in the next round of Committee hearings that we'll see move forward to bring together some of those concerns and especially around the state lands and being able to expand on state lands, I wonder if there's, I mean, it seems like you could just expand and then expand again. And then expand again, right?

Like some kind, you know, guardrails in spaces where we want to make sure that there is conservation, that there is protection, but also we, you know, we allow for things to move much more quickly to be able to meet our goals, which is incredibly important to us. So thank you so much for your work on this.

Anyone else? Okay, before I let you close, I do have a couple comments. First, I appreciate the endeavor because it's not easy and the minute you start saying the word streamlined, people get very alarmed. I'm not afraid of the word streamlined. And I looked at this bill from the perspective of what is the public benefit that it's going to achieve, because these utilities provide a public benefit. And so from my perspective, I wasn't afraid of the word streamlined.

And I think that the CPUC has to look at all the laws on the books, whether it's the Coastal Act, whether it's fish, game and wildlife and what stands under their purview. I think 270 days is going to put, they're not known for their expeditious manner. So I appreciate that you've got 270 in this Bill to really put their feet to the fire. It's not perfect.

I recognize you're going to another Committee and you're going to see other perhaps other amendments, but from, I just want you to know that this bill came to me from the perspective of what is the public benefit that we've got to focus on here. So that's why you have a recommendation of due pass as amended from me. I appreciate the questions that came from my colleagues. So with that, would you like to close?

Thank you. And I appreciate the openness. I appreciate the willingness to continue this discussion. We are committed to bring the group together. We will add your offices, Mister Alvarez, Mister Bennett, Miss Rivas, to the workgroup they met yesterday, proponents opponents, to address the issues that were raised in the first Committee. We will schedule another meeting and invite your offices to address some of the issues that have come up today.

And we would hope that we will have a very similar kind of environment, climate to have a good conversation if this bill gets out in the next Committee. This bill wasn't originally triple referred, and when we heard that it was going to go to a third Committee, I thought it was a good thing so that if in fact there are serious concerns, we can vet those out.

And if given the opportunity to come on the floor before you with this bill, after three bills, after three Committee policy committees of vetting, and three or four stakeholder meetings, I'm not sure what else there would be to vet at that point. I think it's a question of now, you know, where do you stand on the issue of accelerating transmission, protecting the environment, and meeting our climate goals of the State of California? So thank you for entertaining this issue.

I appreciate the aye reco and the amendments that are before us. And respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, great. And you didn't get everything here. So, you know, I think we've come up with a reasonable solution, no doubt. Do I have a motion?

Oh, Davies had a motion. Excuse me. And Weber was a second. Great. Let's go ahead and take a vote.

Item number six, AB 3238. Motion is due pass as amended to Natural Resources. [Roll Call]

Okay, it's out, and we'll leave it open to Assemblymember Garcia for additional votes. And we've got some cleanup voting. Thank you. We have some cleanup voting for some that we're not here for all the votes, and I'll let the Clerk take it away.

[Consent Calendar] Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Welcome, assemblymember Bonta. Let's see if we'll get some of your votes on record. Thanks for getting here.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we will stand in adjournment. It.