Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

So Senate EQ Committee will be starting in 30 seconds. We do have our Vice Chair here. Thank you.

All right, EQ Committee in the Senate has commenced. We have our Vice Chair, Senator Dahle, who is here today. So thank you so much. And we will begin with the first item on the agenda, Item 1, AB 457 by Assembly Majority Leader Aguiar-Curry. Welcome.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. First, I'd like to thank you and the Committee staff for all their work on this Bill. It's truly appreciated. This is a simple Bill. Under SB 1013, all wine boxes, regardless of size, were assigned a 25 cent CRV or bottle deposit on small boxes that retail for a.

That, excuse me, that retail for a few dollars and that are sometimes sold in multi packs. That 25 cent deposit adds up quickly. These products compete with canned products that only have a five cent deposit. So the larger the deposit is noticeable to consumers and hurts the industry.

This Bill creates more parity across industries and helps consumers and the wine industry by lowering the deposit for small boxes of wine spirits from 25 cents to. To 10 cents, which is still double the CRV required for competing drinks. With me to testify in support of this Bill is Tim Schmeltzer with the Wine Institute.

Thank you. And I just wanted to clarify that you will be accepting the Committee. Yes, I will. Thank you very much. So we've got. Currently in support. We've got one of your witnesses, Mister Schmeltzer.

Yeah. Tim Schmelzer, representing Wine Institute in support. And just here to answer any questions for you.

Great, thank you. Any other folks would like to come up in support of AB 457, please?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, Kirk Kimmelshue, on behalf of BeatBox Beverages, in support.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else would like to come forward and support? Okay, see, none. Anyone who would like to come forward in opposition? Any witnesses, please come forward.

I'm Mark Murray with California's Against Waste and just want to clarify that with those amendments, we're removing our opposition. Thank you to the staff, the author, the author, staff for pulling this together. Thank you.

All right, anyone else in room 1200 who'd like to come forward in opposition? Okay, see, none. So we'll take it back here to the daisy. We have just one other Member here. So I don't know if Senator mentioned lovely in pink. zero, okay. No questions right now. So we'll leave this Bill on call. But would you like to.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote this is a simple Bill and makes a lot of sense. So thank you very much for your time and particularly your staff. They have been instrumental in helping bring this all together. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. We'll take that as your close, and we'll leave the Bill on call because we do not have a quorum at this time. So thank you. I know the feeling. Thank you. Thank you very much. We appreciate that, madam Majority leader.

All right, so next we will move on to file, and actually file item two has been pulled by the author at the request of the author. That is file item two, AB 627. Assemblymember Jackson. Then we'll move on to file item four, which is AB 805. Assemblymember Arambula, welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, for the opportunity to present. I'll begin by appreciating and thanking your staff for the tremendous amount of work that's gone into this Bill since last year, and I'm happy to accept the Committee amendments.

Assembly Bill 805 protects disadvantaged communities from failing and poorly managed infrastructure by authorizing the Water Board to require a service provider that has demonstrated difficulty in managing its sewer system to contract with an outside administrator designated or approved by the board.

In addition, Assembly Bill 805 authorizes the board to use funds in the State Water Cleanup and Abatement Account in the State Water Quality Control Fund to issue grants to be appointed administrators to cover their costs. Failing sanitation systems can leak contaminants into underground aquifers that residents rely on to replenish their wells.

These contaminants can cause adverse health effects such as gastrointestinal illness, nervous system or reproductive effects, and chronic diseases such as cancer. The Water Board is currently undergoing a multi year assessment of the statewide need for wastewater upgrades.

This Bill will ensure that residents of disadvantaged communities won't have to wait another decade to get some relief in this process before this process is completed. Testifying in support of Assembly Bill 805 are Bertha Dias, a resident of East Orosi, and Kyle Jones, who is the policy and legal Director at Community Water Centers.

Thank you, assemblymember. And before we get to your witnesses, if we can establish a quorum, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Kyle Jones, policy and legal Director with Community Water Center. Just really want to share most of our time to Bertha Dias for the resident to share her story with translation, but urge your aye vote, and I'm here for any technical questions, should you have them. Thank you.

Hola, mi nombre es Bertha Díaz. Soy de la comunidad de East Orosi y del condado de Tulare, y estoy aquí para dar mi testimonio sobre las injusticias que hemos estado enfrentando.

Do you want me to translate or.

Okay, sorry.

I'm happy to. Hi, my name is Bertha Diaz. I'm here from the community of East Orosi and Tulare County, and I'm here to give my testimony on the injustices we've been facing.

Soy parte de Vecinos Unidos, que representa a la comunidad de East Orosi y también parte de la Coalición AGUA desde hace 25 años.

So, I'm part of Vecinos Unidos, which represents the community of East Orosi and also part of the AGUA Coalition for 25 years.

Sólo nosotros, los residentes de East Orosi, conocemos las situaciones difíciles que enfrentamos aquí en nuestra comunidad.

Only us, the residents of East Orosi, know the difficult situations we're facing here in our community.

Nos enfrentamos a múltiples problemas. Principalmente el agua tiene un alto contenido de nitratos, además el empleado de la empresa proveedora de agua que nos proporciona las facturas nos amenaza y amenaza con llamar a inmigración cuando simplemente exigimos el derecho a ver nuestras facturas y ser tratados de manera justa.

So, we face multiple problems. Mainly the water is high in nitrates, as well as the employee of the water provider that provides our bills, threatens us and threatens to call immigration on us when we just demand the right to see our bills and be treated fairly.

La mayoría de la comunidad en East Orosi es hispana y de bajos ingresos, y muchas veces las cinco botellas de agua que reciben al mes simplemente no duran.

The majority of the community there in East Orosi is Hispanic and low income, and a lot of times the allotted five water bottles they get a month just doesn't last.

A veces, los tanques sépticos se desbordan. Cuando compré la casa, me dijeron que el tanque séptico debía vaciarse anualmente. Y el año pasado, hubo un incidente en el que mi casa se llenó de aguas residuales durante dos semanas y media y el empleado de la empresa proveedora de agua no fue de ninguna ayuda.

And sometimes the septic tanks overflow. We were told, I was told when I bought the house that the septic tank should be cleared out annually. And last year there was an incident where my house was filled with wastewater for two weeks, two and a half weeks, and the employee of the the water provider was not helpful.

Soy madre soltera y he estado criando a una hija con discapacidades. Es ciega y tiene necesidades especiales. Y el trato injusto que me da el proveedor de agua y cómo les facturan de manera injusta. Les envían facturas fraudulentas. Y solo pido que se me dé el derecho a que me traten de manera justa y a que me facturen de manera adecuada.

Thank you if you want to translate, please.

Yeah. So she is a single mother and she's been raising a daughter with disabilities. She's blind and has special needs. And it's the unfair treatment from the water provider and how they are billed unfairly. They're provided with fraudulent bills. And she's just asking that she has the right to be treated fairly and to be billed properly.

Thank you. Gracias. Thank you. No tenemos mucho tiempo disculpe, per vamos a seguir con la proxima persona. Okay. We'll move to the next person, but I don't know if there's any other support witnesses. Okay. Any other folks in support of this Bill today? That is AB 805.

Good morning. Michael Claiborne with Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability in strong support. And I was also asked to provide support for Clean Water Action. Thank you.

Good morning. Angela Islas with Central California Environmental Justice Network, CCEJN in strong support.

Good morning. Jakob Evans with Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.

Anyone else in support? Okay, see? None. Now. We'll move to opposition. Anyone who'd like to come forward? Any witnesses in opposition of AB 805?

Good morning, Madam Chair. Jessica Gauger with the California Association of Sanitation Agencies. Happy to report that with the amendments taken today, we are moving from an opposed position to a neutral position. Just really want to thank the author, sponsor and Committee staff for working with us to address our concerns.

Good morning. Don Gilbert, on behalf of California Municipal Utilities Association, we also appreciate the Committee's work on the amendments and will remove our opposed, unless amended position. Thank you.

All right, well, thank you so much. We will now move back to the dais. Any questions or comments from Members? Senator Laird.

Thank you very much. I want to thank the author for doing this bill, and I really, it was going to be my question about whether the opposition had been removed. It gets answered in the testimony.

And I am doing a similar Bill that requires there to be basically the TMF, technical, managerial, and financial failings on small water agencies because we have the same environmental justice issues and environmental issues of small agencies not having the capacity to do it.

And it's nice to get in front of that and figure out, I mean, in this case, and I'm not sure it falls over to sewage.

I mean, when the fire happened in the Santa Cruz mountains, the CZU Fire, one water district went so belly up, and they couldn't even tell who their customers were, whether they were on service. And it cost almost $1 million of public money to come in and try to upright it.

And so, I think you in the sewage sphere are trying to get in front of this in exactly the same way. And the amendments clarify that. It's not as far-reaching as some of the districts were concerned about, but it does reach wherever there is a failing agency. So, Madam Chair would move the Bill.

Great. Thank you so very much. Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First off, I wanted to say that this is not unique to your district. This is something I know that Senator Laird was just talking about. But I want to drill down a little bit deeper because we've been trying to figure this out and actually what we do in disadvantaged communities.

The witness talked about septics. So, this is more focused towards systems, wastewater systems, not septic systems, correct?

That's correct.

Okay. So I want to make sure that I got that right, because I know that septics are different than wastewater systems. But. And I know I'm going to support your bill, but I want to just morally get, maybe have this opportunity to talk about some of the challenges that we're faced with, not just in your area, but all over California. You have Prop 218 that doesn't allow you to, without the vote of the people, to raise the rate.

Number one. Number two. So I talk to the water managers.

My father-in-law actually runs a community service district, in my district, and is very frustrated with the ability to be able to provide the service, number one, and upgrade a system that is 50 years old and is leaking and needs repair and can't get the resources from the district, the ability to raise the rate to actually do the job.

And at the end of the day, we have revolving loans, ability to do that. We do. The state does put out a lot of resources, but the technical assistance for somebody to write the grant and then be able to get the grant and then administer it is very difficult.

So, I want to support your Bill today, but I want to say that, you know, there's a bigger overarching problem here. We can run bills all day long, but at the end of the day, we really need to figure out how we can actually help these small water providers get through the process in a way that works.

So, I'll be supporting your bill, but I just want to bring that to light, that this is not unique to your district. It's everywhere. And we have some challenges with the laws that are in place to be able to up the rates enough to pay for the work that needs to be done.

Thank you, Senator Dahle. Any other questions? Okay, see, none. Would you like to close, Assembly Member?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I again, just want to thank the Committee. This is a two-year bill, and we slowed down to make sure that we got the bill done correctly. You see, through the process that we've removed the opposition, and that's come through the hard work of the Committee staff.

And I just want to make sure they know my appreciation as we're able to more urgently address the wastewater needs up and down our state. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you and great work. So we've got a motion by Senator Laird, and that is do pass is amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We'll leave the Bill on call. Thank you, Assembly Member. All right, next, we'll move to our file item five, AB 990. I see Assembly Member Grayson in the crowd. There he is. Welcome.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members, I would like to begin by thanking the Committee for their work on this Bill.

AB 990 would require the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board to revisit a part of their municipal regional stormwater permit that threatens the progress that has been made to help streamline the construction of infill housing. To deal with California's housing crisis, numerous policies have been enacted to help reduce the barriers to housing development.

But the recent actions of the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Board threatened the progress that has been made already. Under the most recent changes that were adopted last year by the Board to the municipal regional stormwater permits. The Board has imposed very stringent inclusionary housing requirements and has required the use of low-impact development techniques in order for developments to qualify for the board's minimum credit. This would have a really a detrimental impact on several developments across the Bay Area that are already in the pipeline.

So, to avoid these negative impacts, AB 990 would require the Regional Water Quality Board to revisit the Special Category C permits that have an effect on affordable infill housing and consult with regional and local governments such as ABAG and MTC, community organizations, business groups, and housing developers to make sure that an updated permit will not impair development of housing in the Bay Area.

So, the bill does not affect parts of the permit that are related to stormwater pollution management but is narrowly tailored to address the concerns of affordable housing. And through the Chair, I do have a witness today from Bay Area Council, Louis Morante.

Thank you. Welcome.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. My name is Louis Morante. I represent the Bay Area Council on issues related to housing, and I've worked on this permit for the last three years. I think Mister Grayson absolutely nails the issue here.

And I just wanted to add that the Council, while we represent developers, works to make the Bay Area the best place to live and work, and that includes protecting the Bay Area's environment, which this permit generally does.

It's unfortunate that we're not streamlining infill housing in the way that we used to under version two of the permit, because that not just harms our housing market, but also harms our ability to protect our environment by encouraging sprawl and discouraging infill.

Strongly urge your support for this Bill and am happy to answer any technical questions because it can get pretty technical, pretty fast that you have about this issue or about our involvement in this permit in the last three years. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other witnesses in support?

Madam Chair Members, Silvio Ferrari, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, in strong support.

Steven Stenzler with Brownstein, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else would like to come forward in Room 1200? Okay seeing. Oh, we may have one more. Oh, all right. Now we'll move to opposition. Any witnesses in opposition, please come forward. Okay. Anyone else would like to come forward in opposition? Seeing none. All right, we'll take it back to the dias.

Any other questions or comments from Senators?

Move the bill.

Okay, just have a quick question. I know. Can you just provide more information as to why this is a special circumstance? I know it's been outlined, but. And what protections there might be to prevent a future party from doing the same thing with another permit in the future?

So, I think if I read into that, it's somewhat of a precedent. And if we want to talk precedent, first of all, facing a precedent or setting a precedent is really not to be taken lightly.

And so, with this, I think the real question is, is this particular agency the appropriate agency to actually start setting guidelines and policies for housing development, or is it better met through local governments and through local agencies as well as developers that are there?

So I think the purpose of AB 990 is to really create those lanes and help everybody work together rather than silo themselves into where they actually end up in conflict. So, with that, I, again, can get technical, but if you want something a little more in depth.

We're good. Thank you. Thank you very much. I just wanted to make sure I address that question.

Thank you very much.

Okay, I have a motion, I believe, by Senator Dahle. Did you want to close? Okay, we'll take that as your close, actually. All right. Senator Dahle has motioned. And this is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll call]

All right, we'll leave the bill on call for now. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair.

Madam Chair? Madam Chair, is it appropriate to move the consent agenda?

Absolutely. We've got seven items on consent, so just for clarity, file items 3,10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, all on consent.

And I would move those items.

I assumed you would. Thank you, Senator Laird. So Senator Laird moves the consent calendar. May we please call the roll?

[Roll call]

Thank you. Okay, now we'll move on to file item seven. I see Assembly Member Lee in the crowd. That is AB 2503. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Today I am presenting AB 2503. First, I want to say that I accept the Committee amendments referenced on page six of the Committee analyses. And I want to thank the committee staff for working with us on this Bill. AB 2503 will streamline delivery of train electrification projects.

The State of California faces significant barriers in meeting its climate goals. According to the ARB 2022 Scoping Plan, VMT, or vehicle miles traveled reductions, will play an indispensable role in reducing overall transportation energy demand and achieving the state's climate, air quality, and equity goals.

The report also emphasized that a key strategy to achieve VMT reductions required the state to invest in making public transit a viable alternative to driving by increasing affordability, reliability, coverage, service frequency, and consumer experience.

Electrification of locomotives will be an important part of the larger strategy to reduce transportation emissions and exists as a nexus of air quality and climate goals. Electrified trains are faster and would allow transit agencies to run trains more frequently.

In addition, the electrification of existing rail corridors will significantly reduce sources of air pollution that acutely affects frontline communities with pollutants such as nitric oxide, ozone, and other particulate matter. In a time when we need to electrify our rail lines, it's never been more clear substantial barriers remain to deliver projects in a timely fashion.

As an example, Caltrain's long awaited rail electrification project was delayed for years, in part due to litigation. AB 2503 will allow the state to scale up decarbonization of its transit system and reduce the cost of electrifying our rail system. With that, I'll introduce my lead witness in support, Mark Vukcevich for Streets for All.

Thank you. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Chair and Committee. Mark Vukcevich from Streets for All. Our bill's intent is fairly simple. It's exempting rail corridors that are currently served by dirty diesel locomotives from electrifying from CEQA. This exemption would prohibit lengthy and often prohibitive environmental review and really importantly, the opportunity for bad faith litigation.

Diesel trains have played a really important role in our transportation system, and we support their continued use. We're big train supporters, but communities living near diesel rail corridors are often exposed to higher levels of air pollutants, which lead to respiratory diseases, cardiovascular issues, other health problems.

Electrifying these corridors is a direct action towards these mitigating these health risks. Electrification isn't novel or new. It's not as new as EVs. Electrified trains have been running for the past 100 years. One of the most best example is actually one that was running in Sacramento for quite a long time.

And most recently, you think about California high-speed rail, you think about Caltrain. All of these are electrified rail corridors, or going to be at least electrified rail corridors. Yeah, this policy will have far-reaching benefits potentially for California's Amtrak, Metrolink, coaster services.

The LOSSAN Corridor for those paying attention at LOSSAN, Capital Corridor tracks, sustain to gain substantially from electrification, from the reliability, efficiency, and environmental benefits. And so, in light of all these considerations, in light of the litigation saga that Atherton faced with Caltrain electrification. Yeah. Ask for your support for this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. So we'll invite anyone else who would like to come forward in support of the Bill, please.

Madam Chair Members, Michael Pimentel here on behalf of the California Transit Association, voicing our support. Also on behalf of Caltrain, one of the few corridors that is actually electrified here in support. Encourage your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, anyone else would like to come forward in room 1200? See none. We'll move on to opposition. If there is any, see none. We'll take it back to Senators. Members, any questions, comments? Senator Dahle?

Assembly Member, I looked over your bill really closely, and I had actually reached out to the staff and asked about CEQA exemptions for the high-speed rail. And so, this Bill is really not tight when it comes to the definitions of.

Yes, I'm all for electrifying, but I don't want to allow a CEQA exemption for the high-speed rail. And there may be possibilities where we still have diesel engines on the high-speed rail that would be able to have a CEQA exemption.

So, could you talk a little bit about how. I'm not going to, the way it's written today, love to see an amendment that says, hey, this does not include high-speed rail at all. Is that something you'd be willing to look at?

So, the bill today is about the electrical infrastructure upgrades, right? So, on existing right of ways. So, whatever path it is on a passenger rail, it's about existing right away. So, if the right of way doesn't exist yet for a line or something, it wouldn't obviously yet apply to that. But it's for existing right of ways.

But you still have to do a CEQA. Even if they're putting high speed in where there was an existing rail, there still has to be.

This would be for the electrical support aspect of it, not for the actual part of the laying of the rails itself. So, if. I'll give you an example right?

So, if Capital Corridor, an existing rail corridor that is, of course, not electrified, this is about CEQA for the upgrades you do to make it electric, not necessarily to go lay the track and do all the other things of it, just to do the upgrading aspect of it, if that makes sense.

So, including construction or rehabilitation of stations, terminals, existing operation and facilities, that's the part I'm concerned about. That's more than electrification.

I'm being told this only applies to lead local agencies, so it wouldn't apply to HSR.

You willing to put that in your Bill?

We can definitely discuss more of it. I think the way it's written today is warranted, but I'm happy to have further discussion with you, Senator.

And Senator, we will see this again in Transportation.

Yes.

Yeah, I am, too. Thank you.

So, we'll get more clarity when we get to second committee for you two

Yes, and thank you. I'm glad you'll be engaging with that clarity. Any other questions, comments from Members? All right. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

For the future of our transportation, our environment, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, I will take. Senator Menjivar is motioning. I see that over there. Okay. Senator Menjivar is motioned. And this is a do pass as amended, to Senate Transportation Committee with Senator Menjivar motioning. Please call the roll.

[Roll call]

We'll leave the bill on call, Assembly Member. Thank you. Next, we'll move on to file item eight, which is Assembly Member Pellerin. I see her there. Thank you. Welcome. This is AB 2513.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 20513.

First off, I want to thank the committee staff for their work on this bill, and we will be taking the committee amendments in order to prevent excessive exposure to nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, benzene, and other carcinogenic byproducts that cause harmful health effects. AB 20513 will require consumer warning labels for all new gas stoves sold in California.

The labels will inform consumers of the hazards associated with gas stoves and oven appliances. The information on the label will be taken directly from the California Air Resources website per committee amendments. This will allow for increased vigilance in installing and proper use of gas stoves in order to prevent undue exposure.

Similarly, by making this information available to consumers at the point of sale, it will help the purchaser make more informed decisions. AB 2513 would require that the label will instruct on proper ventilation installation to allow for exhaust of all harmful gases. Understanding of the importance of venting the fumes that initially leads to this hazard.

Just running a stove for mere minutes with poor ventilation can lead to indoor concentrations of nitrogen dioxide that exceed the EPA's air quality standards for outdoors. The American Medical Association, the Association, the American Public Health Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the American Lung Association have all spoken out about gas stove pollution.

Despite the growing body of evidence about the health risks of gas stoves. Most of this isn't common knowledge. When you go to the store to purchase a gas stove, there's little to suggest the extent of the health issues involved with appliances or the safety measures, such as using a vent hood, that the users should take.

And with me to testify today is Doctor Lisa Rasmussen, a pediatrician, and Jenn Engstrom with the California Public Interest Network, CALPIRG.

Thank you. Welcome.

Good morning chair and members of the committee. My name is Jenn Engstrom. I'm the state Director for CALPIRG, a consumer advocacy group in California, and we are proud to sponsor AB 20513 which will give consumers, consumers important information about the harmful pollutants admitted from gas stoves.

So more than four decades of research show that gas stoves are producing dangerous levels of indoor air quality pollutions. Gas stoves can emit harmful levels of nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, formaldehyde, and benzene.

And just running a stove for mere minutes with poor ventilation can lead to indoor concentrations of nitrogen dioxide that exceed the EPA's air quality standards for outdoors breathing. This pollutant can exacerbate pre existing respiratory illnesses and increase the risk of asthma symptoms, especially for children.

Stanford study also found that gas stoves can emit carcinogenic benzene levels above those found in secondhand smoke, increasing the risk of leukemia.

Despite the growing body of evidence about the health risks associated with gas stove pollution, lack of education and regulations leave consumers largely unaware of these risks, and we found that store retailers are not providing this information to consumers.

In February, US PIRG Education Fund released the results of a consumer survey that found three quarters of survey takers were told by workers and major retailers that gas stove pollution was not a concern and eight in 10 were told that ventilation was not necessary to protect health.

Consumers deserve the truth when it comes to the harms of gas stove pollution. AB 20513 will provide consumers with this important information so they can make educated purchasing decisions as well as information on proper ventilation if they choose to purchase a gas stove.

Gas stove warning labels are a simple step that California can take to empower families to make good decisions for their health. We thank you and ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you Chair Gonzalez and committee members for the opportunity to address you today in support of Assembly Bill 20513. My name is Doctor Lisa Rasmussen. I'm a pediatrician and I fully support this bill.

As a pediatrician deeply invested in the health and wellbeing of our children, I feel that it's imperative that we make potential health risks clear to our families. The evidence is clear. Gas stoves pose a significant health risk.

Studies have shown that emissions from indoor gas stoves produce nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and benzene, and all of these can have detrimental impacts on our health. Nitrogen dioxide has been found to be associated with significantly increased risks of asthma, decreased brain function, heart disease and stroke. Children are more susceptible to the impacts of indoor air pollution.

Children living in a home with a gas stove have a 42% increased risk of experiencing asthma symptoms. In California, 20% of childhood asthma cases are attributed to pollutants associated with gas stove usage. For children with asthma, these indoor pollutants are associated with worse respiratory symptoms and increased medication usage.

Children living in apartments and smaller spaces are at a higher risk due to higher nitrogen dioxide levels, putting our underserved families at a higher risk, making it even more imperative that we take action. As a parent myself, we switch from a gas to electric stove to minimize indoor pollutants and protect our child's health.

It's imperative that other parents are made aware of these risks so that they can make informed decisions. By requiring clear labeling of gas stoves as a potential health hazard, we can protect the health and well being of our children and future generations.

So, in closing, I urge you to stand up for the health of our community by supporting AB 2513. Thank you for supporting the health of children and families in California.

Thank you, Doctor. Appreciate your comments. Now we'll welcome anyone else in the room in support of the bill AB 2513 please.

Chair and members, Alicia Priego, on behalf of San Jose Clean Energy, in strong support.

Priscilla Kudos here on behalf of Stop Waste, in support.

Good morning. Jacob Evans of Sierra California, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Mark Fenstermaker. On behalf of Peninsula Clean Energy, in support, thank you.

Anyone else who'd like to come forward in support of the bill? See none. We'll turn it over to opposition. Any witnesses in opposition of AB 2531 please come forward.

Good morning, Committee. Good morning, Assemblywoman. I'm Kevin Messner, I'm with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. You know, I got up this morning and we use a lot of appliances every day. We trust them. And I noticed in the bathroom, it wasn't completely put away.

We had a hair dryer. On that hair dryer, there was a big warning label said risk to children of death to electric shock and a picture of a bathtub and don't put it in water. These warnings are very important to people's lives every day.

Cooking that we're talking about today, unattended cooking is a significant issue that people need to be aware of. Edelman does a trust barometer every year. This year they found that 66% of people feel that government is misleading them. Their trusted source of information are someone like me that's equal to a scientist.

They get their information from online research or social media. The good news on this is the credible source of information is most credible when business and government agree on information that's true and accurate and credible, then people will pay attention to this. The language in this Bill, even with the Committee amendments, is inaccurate.

It's not consistent with what CARB has on their public messaging. It's not consistent with CEC, it's not consistent with EPA, it's not consistent with Consumer Product Safety Commission.

It's not consistent with any unbiased public health officials in the U.S. or Canada that is going to lead to people diminishing the warning labels' effectiveness not only for this warning, but other important warnings on hair dryers or anti-tipping on cookings or other life-threatening warnings that have to be available.

We have provided a warning label that it should be put on all cooking. Let's get real about indoor equality. If you cook, you need to ventilate, electricity or gas. That's 10 times the pollutants is cooking. PM 2.5 is 66% of pollutants. That dwarfs all the pollutants together.

And PM 2.5 is what public health officials say we need to focus on. That is 10 times more when you're cooking anything, regardless. So, if you move people from gas to electric and you still don't educate them on the needs for ventilation, you have caused significant health risks. I would assume the scientists would all agree to this.

Certainly, public health officials do. That's what we need to focus on and that's what we propose, a solution. Government and business together to have a credible, trusted message that consumers can believe in and rely on. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And just for clarification, I believe the Committee amendments do clarify that the warning label would closely align with the existing state guidance from CARB.

Correct.

And OEHHA. So that is just.

Could I respond to that?

No, I'm sorry. I'm just clarifying the amendments.

It says closely aligned. It doesn't align.

Well, thank you very much. We've heard your testimony, so we appreciate that. Thank you. Absolutely. All right, we'll bring forward anyone else in opposition of the Bill, please.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Silvio Ferrari, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, in opposition.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Israel Salas with Southern California Gas Company in opposition as well.

Good morning. Lizzie Kutzona here on behalf of the Western Propane Gas Association in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to oppose the Bill, please come forward. Seeing none. So, we'll take it back for questions, comments from Members. No questions. No comments. Oh, Senator Dahle, excuse me.

Thank you. So, in regards to the opposition testimony, first, number one, I got a couple questions. Number one, I believe our building codes in California require ventilation under when you construct a home. So, I think that's number one.

Number two, we have Prop 65, which requires the manufacture of something that's to cause cancer or health effects has to be posted on the appliance. So, can I get an answer to those two things? We already have that. So, your bill's narrowing down to just gas, but it should be labeled right now as cancer-causing under Prop 65.

Well, Prop 65 is a very short warning, and it doesn't go as far to direct the consumer to also ventilate. And I'm going to be 62 years old this month. And through the course of this Bill, I learned that ventilation is required also when I using the oven, I have never done that.

I've always used it when I use the stovetop and things are smoking and I use my ventilation, but I've never used it when I'm cooking a lasagna in the oven. Now I do because I've learned a lot from running this Bill. So, this is what we want to do.

We want to inform consumers of information and the toxic gases that gas stoves do emit and what they can do to protect themselves and their families.

So, what you're saying then is an electric stove doesn't emit any of those, only gas. Because you're not requiring. You're not requiring. So, the devil's in the details and it matters to the consumer because we're misleading people. Just what the opposition was talking about.

Look, I'm in business and everything that a lot of the stuff that we use in business is Prop 65 labeled and nobody reads them anymore because everything's Prop 65 labeled. And there's some of those things that you really need to focus in on.

So the reason I ask these questions is because I think it matters that we're telling the public. I mean, there's a campaign against gas right now. I personally don't buy into it, but I did read some background on your bill and cooking, which is what the opposition brought up with, causes carcinogenesis as well.

So, I think we need to be honest with the public. We're just going to put a label on there because there's people in the environment that don't like gas. But let's be honest. Does cooking cause carcinogenesis? Yes. Whether it's electric or gas. And should we have ventilation? Yes. Then that's what we should be talking about.

Should we put it on all appliances? Yes. Not just narrow one out, because that's the narrative of the day. That's the point I'm trying to bring.

Absolutely. And if I could have our CalPIRG expert respond to you, that would be great.

And I would like the opposition to have the opportunity to speak as well.

Sure. So to answer a couple of those questions on Prop 65. So Prop 65 is just warnings for things that are causing cancer, reproductive harm. So, that's the benzene formaldehyde. It does not warn people about the nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, things that are associated with respiratory illness, and increased risk of asthma symptoms.

So, that's why we want to have the additional warnings on this label. In addition, of course, to the recommendations to ventilate when it comes to the emissions from cooking. So, it's true that particulate matter can be released when you're cooking regardless of the fuel that you use.

If you're, you know, basically burning something, cooking with hot oil, that can create pollution. What this label is focused on is the pollution that comes from the appliance itself. So just by turning on the oven, turning on the stove, regardless of what you're cooking, there are pollutants that come from that flame because it's the product itself.

That's what we want to focus on warning people about. We think cooking is just separate. You know, there could be separate warnings about cooking. I think there needs to be a little bit more research into the impacts of particulate matter from cooking.

There's a lot on the research done around the gas stove itself, pollutant, and that's what we're focused on in the product itself. I think those were the questions.

Thank you. I'd like the opposition to have an opportunity as well. If I may, Madam Chair.

Sure.

Sure. Thank you. There's a lot of. So, first of all, on the labeling, if you have a point-of-sale label, if you go into Home Depot to buy cooking, and as a consumer, all you see is a label that gas cooking needs to be vented. Then what are you going to think? Oh, I can buy electric.

I don't need to vent. That's where 10 times the pollutants are. That's misleading the consumer and actually having an adverse impact to people's health. Secondly, I'm just baffled by the saying that there's no studies on PM 2.5. That's all you hear about from public health officials.

We had a task force that was chaired by PIRG and AHAM at the Consumer Product Safety Commission specifically on this. We invited CARB to participate, which they did. Health Canada, CPSC and EPA. All four of them said PM 2.5 is what is the most important impact.

And when you cook, 66% of the pollutants, 66% of the pollutants are PM 2.5. When you cook, the rest of the pollutants all dwarf that. We need to be talking about PM 2.5 and all cooking and ventilation. That's what they all say. That's what our warning label does.

It's honest, it's credible, it's believable, and it will improve people's health. We're throwing people under the bus and doing a disservice for those people that cook with electric.

Thank you.

That need these health information as well.

Thank you very much. So, we've heard from both just to be equitable here. So, Senator Dahle, any additional questions? Okay. All right. Okay. We heard it here first. All right. Any other questions or comments from Members? I personally just want to thank you for bringing forward this bill. I'll let you close first, but I will.

I'll just say what I have to say and then we'll let you close. How about that? Because I'm in the middle of that. Thank you for bringing this forward.

Having a, you know, worked on indoor air quality issues and knowing that, you know, outside in many of our districts is horrible, but then you go inside, it could be even more horrible. And what you're doing is providing a warning with state guidelines through CARB and the other office.

And so, I really appreciate that work that you're doing. I would like to be added as a co-author as well.

Thank you so much.

Please close, Assembly Member.

Well, as you said, this is a label to inform consumers of the possibility of having these toxic gases in their home and how they can mitigate that by ventilating. I even opened a door as well to ensure I've got great ventilation going, and it's to protect our families and our children. So, thank you so much. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? I see one by Senator Menjivar again. All right, great. The motion by Senator Menjivar, and this is a do pass to Senate. Do pass is amended, excuse me. Please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Thank you.

Okay, we have. Next up is file item number six. Nope. Assembly Member Berman.

This is perfect timing, Senator Dahle. I had. Chair Dahle I have. I have a Bill you can vote yes on right here. I'd like to begin by thanking Committee staff for your work on this bill. I will be accepting the Committee's amendment to shorten the sunset date to January 1st, 2032.

In 2018, I authored legislation to provide a CEQA exemption for infill housing projects within unincorporated areas of a county to be a tool to help address our housing crisis. Prior to this, there was already an exemption for infill projects, but only in cities.

This exemption, or the exemption in my previous bill, which sunsets next year, incorporated the same narrow conditions as the exemption in cities, as well as provided further limitations to prevent sprawl. According to State Clearinghouse data, the exemption has been used for nine projects, ranging from 10 to 98 units, for a total of 378 units.

As California continues to face a housing crisis across the state, in all communities, AB 2199 would extend this existing tool to promote infill housing projects in our counties without adversely impacting the environment. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And with me today are two witnesses.

Chris Lee, on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, and John Kennedy, on behalf of Rural County Representatives of California. Mister Chair. Ready when you are. Thank you, sir.

Good morning, Chair Dahle and Members. Chris Lee here on behalf of the urban counties of California. We're an association of 15 of the largest counties in California. I think when we think about counties, a lot of the times we focus on things like countywide health and human services or public safety.

But what's sometimes forgotten is that counties have all the same obligations as cities to plan for their housing needs in the unincorporated areas. We've got millions of people who live in unincorporated areas. In Los Angeles County, over a million people reside in the unincorporated area.

So as we're thinking about how we accommodate those housing needs, how we meet state goals related to reducing VMTs, protecting agricultural land and natural resources, we thought it was very important that counties have the same sort of regulatory incentive that has existed in cities for decades to encourage infill development, to provide a little bit more certainty that these projects, which are environmentally beneficial in numerous ways, as well as make sure that people are living close to resources like schools, parks, shopping, are expedited.

And so, we're very pleased today to be the sponsor of AB 2199. Don't want to reiterate anything that the Assembly Member has already covered, but there are a lot of exceptions here to make sure that there aren't unintended consequences. This year we added a protection to make sure that there's no impact to tribal cultural resources.

And despite all of these exceptions, we've still seen the exemption used to exercise some very great projects in counties large and small from around the state. So here today to ask for your aye vote. And thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning. John Kennedy with RCRC. We represent 40 of the state's smallest counties. And I'll be brief because Chris summed everything up pretty well. It's a simple Bill. It's an important tool for local governments. We support it because it's a tool in our toolbox to bring housing to our communities.

We have many unincorporated areas, either located as islands within cities or in subdivisions that have chosen never to incorporate and become a city. This bill allows us to continue using this exemption for housing projects in those areas. Lake County was one of those smaller rural jurisdictions who used this exemption to build 69 units on an infill site.

So, it has been used. We hope it's used more frequently in the future and strongly urge your aye vote on this Bill today. Thank you.

Thank you. Witnesses in support. Me toos.

Good morning. Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership in support, particularly for its impact on affordable housing. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Lauren. Day Valencia, representing the American Planning Association in support.

Good morning. Matt Klopfenstein, on behalf of the Association of Environmental Professionals in support.

Thank you. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition of this great bill? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Members. Anyone wishing to ask a question, I will entertain a motion by Senator Menjivar, and you may close, Mister Berman.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote on this good bipartisan bill.

Thank you. This is going to housing, as amended. Call the roll, please.

[Roll call]

Thank you. We'll leave that bill on call to Members to add on. Okay. We'll take up AB 2522 by Assemblymember Carrillo. How are you?

Good. Good morning. Let me know when ready. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members, I too have a bipartisan bill that I hope could garner your support. I'm proud to present AB 2522 which will raise the compensation limit for South Coast Air Quality Management District Board Members to $200 a day, at most $2,000 a month.

And authorize a yearly compensation increase not to exceed 5% or, due to inflation, 10%. Air district Board Members are dedicated public servants entrusted with improving air quality and establishing effective clean air programs, despite their importance to our environment. The compensation limit for Board Members was last amended in 1987. That's 37 years ago.

At this time, the compensation limit was set at $100 per day, not to exceed 1000 per month. Over time, this figure has diminished with inflation and does not reflect the public service these Board Members provide.

This bill would increase these figures to dollar 200 a day, at most 2000 a month, and provide the Board Members and provide that the board may increase compensation up to 5% or 10% due to inflation.

Moreover, we plan to amend AB 2522 and Senate Local Government Committee to similarly increase compensation limits for the Bay Area, Sacramento, San Diego and unified air districts. The South Coast Air Quality Management District has been in conversation with other partners and other AQMDs. This bill is sponsored by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

There is no opposition. It has received unanimous and bipartisan support, and here to testify is Senior Public Affairs Manager for the South Coast AQMD, Philip Crabbe.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. My name is Philip Crabbe and I represent the South Coast AQMD. We are in strong support of AB 2522 and serve as the bill's sponsor. This bill would increase outdated compensation limits for Board Members of local air districts and authorize future increases based on consumer price index.

The current Bill Language focuses on South Coast as mentioned, but we'll be expanding it to cover other various air districts throughout California. In general, compensation limits for Air District Board Members have not increased since the 1980's.

It was set last, for example, South Coast AQMD in 1987 at $100 per day and based on inflation, an equivalent amount in 2024 would be over $270 per day. This bill would double current limits to modernized compensation to be more comparable to the level set nearly 40 years ago.

Air District Board Members throughout the state are dedicated in their efforts to clean the air and protect public health at the local level. They are public servants who often travel long distances and perform an important public service with nominal compensation.

The outdated per diem limits present challenges for Air District Board Members, who often have other essential duties to perform as local elected officials or are private citizens who with existing careers that must provide their primary financial support. AB 2522 also creates an opportunity to enhance equity in environmental governance.

Improved financial incentives could attract a more comprehensive array of candidates, including those from underrepresented and vulnerable communities. The bill enhances local control by empowering local agencies to appropriately update per diem rates going forward without impacting the state budget. This is in line with SB 329, Dodd signed into law in 2023 that more than tripled compensation for limits for City Council Members.

We respectively request your support for this important bill.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in support? Seeing none. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in opposition? Seeing none. We will bring it back to the dais. Senator Menjivar.

There you go. Thank you so much, Mr. Vice Chair. I know it hasn't been increased in a long time. My only concern, it's two different things. Well, I hope now there's more incentive to really address the air quality and air pollution in the area.

I have a lot of criticisms of SCAQMD because I represent areas that have an immense amount of terrible air pollution, where maybe now with this increase, we'll actually be able to address these issues. Additionally, I don't think this is fully getting at the equity issue.

I think if we really want to address equity, we really should have people on this board with lived experiences, more from the community, maybe for another bill. I am going to support this bill, but I don't think it's meeting the mark.

Okay. Thank you, Senator Dahle.

First off, I like the bill, but there's one thing I am concerned about on the bill, and that is the ability for them to be able to raise their own rate in the, the future.

And it would be, it's kind of hard for me to get around that part because it needs to be put out into the public that they're actually doing it somehow. I know they have to vote on it, but, like, it can't get on the consent calendar. I mean, those are the things I'm thinking about.

Like not just allowing it to be put on the consent calendar and you're going to raise it whatever the maximum of CPI is every time it comes around, because over time with inflation, this could go from $2000 to $5000 really quick if we have inflation like we've seen in the past.

So it just was kind of your thoughts on that maybe about maybe putting it, making sure that it has to be a legit item, maybe not just put on consent and just pass through every time there's an ability to be able to do it.

Philip, would you like to speak on the process of Q&D?

Sure. Absolutely. No. As you mentioned, Senator, it will go through a public process. It is not specified in the bill. But of course the board would have to take do a public hearing. So we're happy to have more discussions in terms of maybe outlining something more specifics on the logistics of how this would occur.

Just to follow up, I noted you're going to add other air districts to it because obviously this is not just a problem in your area, it's a problem throughout the state where you having low compensation. But these Members are Members of boards of supervisors and city councils to start with. Right.

That then they're appointed to their districts some.

And then there are, I believe that there are also public members as well, correct?

There are. Well, there are Members that are appointed by the Governor, by the Senate, by the Assembly. Then we have representatives from like the different four county supervisors, also member cities, from western cities and eastern cities. That's just in South Coast. There's slightly different processes for different air districts throughout the state.

So some of them that are like City Council Members or Board of Supervisors, they're compensated. But the at large Members that are appointed by the Governor and the Senate are not compensated, only the $100. Correct.

It's equal across all Members. They all receive $100 per day, per diem. The current one set back in 1987.

Thank you.

Thank you. And I will sort of align with what Senator Menjivar mentioned. Although I do support this bill, I do believe that this work is so valuable. Air Quality Management District and one of the largest air quality districts in the state and nation.

But too, you know, as someone who's authored a bill on EJ seats and still feeling the repercussions from that bill, quite honestly, five years later, I do want to see those voices and equity should be at the forefront of this type of work.

So I know you believe in that, and I assure you that I know that and feel assured that you'll continue to work in that vein. So, Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Thank you. And thank you for the comments. I too represent an area that has been impacted by air quality related to railways and manufacturers and housing being built around communities that traditionally have not had housing in the past.

And because of the impact of how the City of Los Angeles and unincorporated areas have produced housing around certain areas, air quality is certainly of importance to me. What I have seen in certain appointments is that it's very difficult to get on the conversations around equity.

It is difficult to get everyday people who have jobs, who have everyday lives to be involved on board such as this when the compensation is so low. And so that's also a challenge. Right.

And so how do we get folks that live in our communities to be a part of the conversation and also be able to make a living? And so this may require attending Board Meetings and not going to work and missing out on other types of pay.

So then how do we actually make it equitable for folks to want to participate in government, in boards on conversations that impacts their districts related to air quality? So I hope that this is a step in the right direction to get those voices on these boards and have folks be a part of the conversation.

So with that, I respectfully request and aye vote.

Thank you very much. This has been moved by. I don't know who. Can we have a motion by Senators? Okay. Senator Menjivar moves the bill, and this is a do pass to Local Government Committee, AB 2522. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll leave the bill on call. Thank you, Assemblymember. All right, that wraps up our file here. We'll go down the line. I know we've got one other Member that's joined us. If any other Members can please join us, we are now pulling the call or lifting the calls here.

But first we'll start with file item one, AB 457. We do need a motion. We do not have a quorum.

And that is as amended, right?

Yes. Correct.

Then I would move that bill as amended.

Perfect. Thank you, Senator Laird. AB 457, motion by Senator Laird. Please call the roll.

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

Okay, six to zero on call. Okay, great. File item two, again, has been pulled by the author. That's AB 627. So, we'll move on to file item three, AB 6. I'm sorry, file item four, AB 805, Arambula.

The motion is do pass as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

Okay, 6-0. We'll leave the bill on call. And file item five, AB 990, Grayson. That is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee.

The current vote is four to zero, with the Chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

6-0. The bill is still on call. File item six, AB 2199, Senator, I'm sorry. Assembly Member Berman. Do pass as amended to Senate Housing Committee.

The current vote is four to zero, with the Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

7-0. The bill is out. We'll move on to file item seven, AB 2503, Assembly Member Lee. Do pass as amended to Senate Transportation Committee.

The current vote is three to zero, with the Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

File item seven, AB 2503, Assembly Member Lee.

[Roll call]

And that is the bill. Five to zero, the bill is out. File item eight, AB 2513, Pellerin. Do pass as amended.

The current vote is three to zero, with the Chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting no. [Roll call]

Five to two, The bill is out. File item nine, AB 2522. Assembly Member Carrillo. Do pass to Senate Local Government Committee.

The current vote is four to zero, with the Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

Five to zero. The bill is out. Okay, we'll move and then we'll move back to the top. Actually, we'll start with the consent calendar for folks who are not here. Consent calendar again, has file items 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. That's seven items on the consent calendar. And we'll start at the top, please.

[Roll call]

7-0. The consent calendar is adopted. All right, we'll start again with file item one, AB 457, Aguiar-Curry.

Okay. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. The current vote is six to zero, with the Chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

Okay 7-0. The bill is out. File item three, AB 637, Jackson. I'm sorry, file item four, AB 805, Arambula.

The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. The current vote is six to zero, with the Chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

Okay, 7-0. The bill is out. File item five, AB 990, Grayson. Do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee.

The current vote is six to zero, with the Chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

All right, 7-0. The bill is out. File item six AB. We already did that. File item six. It's been a long day. My apologies, everybody. File item seven, AB 25. Okay, seven is out. We're good to go. All right. Senator Skinner, thank you so much for joining us. And that is it. We've adjourned today. Thank you, everybody.