Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Assembly Natural Resources Hearing Committee. Let's see, where's he at? We've got a new addition to the Committee, a new standing Member to make his interest right now. That's Assemblymember Damon Connolly. Welcome to the Natural Resource Committee. Assemblymember Tom Lackey will be subbing in for Assemblymember Mathis, and we're lucky to have him.

Please note that SB 1036, Limon, has been pulled by the author. We have 16 measures on the agenda today. The following two measures are proposed for consent. That's item seven, SB 945, Alvarado-Gil. Item 14, SB 1324, Limon. A quorum is not present, so we'll start as a Subcommitee. I see Senator Newman is here. Senator, would you like to come on down?

Afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members. Permission to proceed? All right, Mr. Chair and Members, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 707, which will establish an extended producer responsibility program, generally referred to as an EPR program, to incentivize and expand the reuse and recycling of textiles in California under the regulatory auspices of Cal Recycle.

Before I begin, I'd like to accept the committee's amendments, which are technical and clarifying in nature, as well as thank Committee Consultant Elizabeth MacMillan for her diligent work on this bill over the course of the past two years.

Under the provisions of SB 707, producers of clothing and other textiles would be responsible for implementing and funding programmatic plans to facilitate an end-to-end system for increased repair and reuse of clothing and expanded recycling of textile fibers. Although many people are not aware, the clothing and fashion industry currently accounts for fully ten percent of the world's output of harmful emissions of carbon dioxide.

The recent rise is so called 'fast fashion,' with its focus on the marketing and sale of low-cost, low-quality garments that tend to go out of style with ever accelerating speed, poses additional threats to the environment that are potentially both devastating and long-lasting.

Here in California, textiles represent the fastest growing component of our state's waste stream, currently accounting for approximately three to five percent of total waste and growing year over year. Further, despite the fact that 95 percent of the materials commonly found in apparel and textiles are actually highly recyclable, sadly, only around 15 percent of these materials are currently being recycled. In California, as elsewhere, thrift stores, charities, and clothing collectors have long served as a channel and market for textiles, which remain reusable.

Unfortunately, however, donated garments which are damaged or unusual typically end up either in California's landfills or make their way to overseas markets, often to parts of the world where there are insufficient recycling infrastructure or landfill safety standards, causing substantial damage to both the environment and to public health in those jurisdictions.

Despite their best efforts under the current system for used textiles, thrift stores and clothing collectors do not have access to adequate resources or to systems which would facilitate the effective sorting and reuse of unsellable excess garments in ways that would make the economics of such efforts viable.

Additionally, many producers who are interested in incorporating recycled fibers in the production of textile goods also lack access to cost-effective recycled materials at scale. Under the design of SB 707, the ensuing funds and infrastructure created by the program will allow thrift stores and clothing collectors to better access these resources as well as provide an end market for recycling materials as the program grows and achieves economies of scale over the next decade.

The State of California has a long and proud history as a leader in recycling models and technologies. In recent years, this Legislature has implemented a number of groundbreaking and effective EPR programs for historically hard to recycle products as disparate as plastic packaging, batteries, mattresses, and even medical products.

The common denominator in all of these programs is the application of thoughtful program designs which allow for the reduction of waste and the lessening of environmental harms by assigning a shared responsibility for end-of-life product management to the producers and other entities participating at each step of a product's value chain.

A well-designed, effectively administered statewide textile EPR program has similar potential for the development and expansion of previously untapped or underutilized upcycled and recycled clothing and fiber markets, as well as for fostering ongoing efforts to encourage and facilitate the expanded repair and reuse of clothing and other textiles in California.

In so doing, SB 707 will facilitate the transition to a much more sustainable, market-aligned circular economy for textiles, one which will not only benefit the environment, but also unlock new production and consumption opportunities, all at a relatively low cost to the state, to producers and consumers alike.

With me to testify on behalf of this legislation is Dr. Joanne Brasch, Director of Advocacy and Outreach for the California Product Stewardship Council, and Jason Schmelzer with Shaw, Yoder, Antwih, Schmelzer and Lange. I am respectfully asking for your aye vote today.

Thank you, sir. You can begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Jason Schmelzer, here on behalf of CPSC. I'm gonna make brief comments and then I'll hand off to the expert here, my client Joanne Brasch from CPSC. I just want to thank the committee for the hard work on the bill.

Really appreciate everything that's gone into the amendments today. I also want to thank the opposition. You know, these bills are long and complex, and they're sometimes controversial, but brands, retailers, manufacturers, they really met us with a spirit of cooperation over the last 18 months, and we frankly wouldn't be here without their sort of support along the way.

So I want to acknowledge that. SB 707 establishes a collection and recycling system for clothing and other textiles, as was mentioned by the Senator. I'm going to focus mostly on process here because I think that's sort of what's important. Last year, we decided to hold 707 and give it more time to let it marinate, let it cook a little while longer. This is for a few reasons. One, it just wasn't quite ready at the time.

But two, with EPR bills in particular, what you really get, if you take the time to establish consensus, is you get buy-in from the regulated community, and that's really important when you have an entity or a group of entities that is designing and administering their own program.

So we did take the time; over the fall, we did, I don't know, maybe a dozen meetings with opposition, going through every line of the bill, taking red lines in every section of the bill, and really working collaboratively. That's led us to where we are today, with a very cooked bill, of course, with the assistance of the committee, and we're excited. I'm happy to answer any questions, if you have any. If not, I'll hand to Joanne Brasch.

Thank you. My name is Dr. Joanne Brasch. I'm the Director of Advocacy and Outreach for the California Product Stewardship Council. For the last five years, I've had two Cal Recycle appointments, holding Vice Chair and Chair positions for the Carpet and Mattress Advisory Committees. I'm also the Chair of the Textile Chemists Association.

CPSC has been leading textile recovery pilots throughout the state, and although Cal Recycle estimates textiles to be three percent of the waste stream, as we're going into the local streams, we're finding that it's upwards of six percent. In the City of San Jose, for our pilot project, they diverted three tons of unwanted textiles in less than 30 hours.

And that was from the recycling stream, where they should not be. Textiles absorb, they tangle, and they combust, which is a deadly combination for our traditional recycling system. In the analysis, textile waste costs taxpayers up to 70 million dollars, but I want to remind everyone that that does not include the externalized costs.

We are seeing textiles accumulate in secondhand markets, and a lot of times these products don't have the pathways to get into repair and recycling systems. So SB 707 creates a globally transparent and accountable program for textiles that takes repair and reuse into recycling into consideration. At the end of the day, textiles are very recyclable.

If the fabric still has function, it can be upcycled or repurposed. We've seen this in several of our pilot projects. SB 707 has incentivized change from the industry through eco-modulated fees, grants, and market development funds. This is one of the few products that California has the infrastructure to bring it back to market.

California has one of the largest job forces and job workforces for textile manufacturing and garment manufacturing. So as we see a clear pathway forward for circularity, not only do we see the benefits of a waste program, we see the benefits of manufacturing. According to our estimates, pulling the numbers from the reported mattress and carpet programs, we estimate 1,700 jobs coming from this program statewide. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote, and happy to answer questions.

Thank you so much. Are there any persons in the hearing room who would like to add their voice in support of this measure? Absolutely. And before we do that, real quick, Madam Secretary, can we establish a quorum?

[Roll Call].

And a quick vote on the consent calendar real fast? Motion by Flora, second by Kalra and Bauer-Kahan.

Item Seven: SB 945: Alvarado-Gil, Items 14: SB 1324: Limon, [Roll Call].

Thank you so much. You may begin.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Jennifer Roe--

Sorry. One second. We'll get that for you.

Testing. Mr. Chair and Members, Jennifer Roe with Capitol Advocacy, on behalf of the Association of California Goodwills, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair and Members, this is Deb Zell of Please Return It: smart labels for circularity and transparency, in support of the bill.

Thank you for seeing us. Ian Pund from Ambercycle. Just like to remind the group that 82 pounds are thrown away by the average American a year, so the opportunity to make a dentist--fantastic. Thank you.

Thank you. Name, organization, and position on the bill.

Heather Podoll, on behalf of nonprofit Fibershed. Our position is support with amendments per our letter.

Thank you.

Jordan Wells, on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. Sarah Boudreau with the City of Roseville, in support.

Good afternoon. My name is Livia Keene. I'm with the sponsor of the bill, CPSC. I've been asked to register support for the San Francisco Department of Environment and Five Gyres.

Good afternoon. Lindsay Gullahorn with Capitol Advocacy, on behalf of the Resource Recovery Coalition of California, in support.

Krystal Raynes with Californians Against Waste, in support.

Good afternoon. Silvio Ferrari, on behalf of Savers Value Village, in support.

Good afternoon. Teresa Cooke, on behalf of the City of Alameda, in strong support.

Thank you. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, in support. Thank you.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters, in support.

Chair and Members, Roman Vogelsang with Aprea and Company, speaking in support on behalf of our public services. Thank you.

Josh Gauger, on behalf of the counties of Santa Clara and Santa Barbara, in support.

Jacob Evans with Sierra Club California, in support.

John Kennedy with Rural County Representatives of California, in support, and also testifying on behalf of California State Association of Counties today. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any persons in opposition? Come on down. Two minutes each, whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Adam Regele, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, in respectful opposition unless amended. I want to begin by thanking the author, staff, and all stakeholders. As noted by the support with an extended producer responsibility program, having producer buy-in, we agree, is critical.

And the good news is on this bill, the producers of textiles and covered apparel want to see a successful EPR program implemented in California, and so our opposition today is relatively narrow, and we're pretty optimistic on getting there with the author, but I'll just highlight a couple of things.

First and foremost, we've talked all about fast fashion, and what this bill's really going after is really getting a more sustainable supply chain and economy around clothing and shoes and apparel, overall. We do think there's a slight loophole in the bill unless addressed in terms of how drop shippers can maybe circumvent having to comply.

It's not the intent of the author. I don't think it's the intent of any stakeholders. It's really a technical issue in which we're trying to figure out is how do we get folks who may not even be based in California or even based in the United States fully captured under a program that is producer-run and producer-responsible for getting there? And so we want an equitable platform.

The second issue is really around the concept of what's intentionally added and what's not intentionally added on certain chemicals in which, if you're having a bill that requires you to recycle, effectively use textiles, and you grab those textiles and you want to put them in a new product and make new clothing, if there are legacy chemicals in those clothing that you did not add, we do not think you should have a prohibition or be banned for putting that textile back into the marketplace in which you didn't add that chemical. And so it's a real technical issue. We're trying to get around it.

But I think it's fundamental that we do successfully address that issue because you could ultimately have clothing that cannot be sold in California without addressing that. I've talked to the sponsor and the author. Everyone's on board with trying to get there. So our opposed unless amended is just currently where we're at.

Again, this is a multiyear process. We really appreciate the author holding the bill last year. We really think there's been tremendous progress on where we were last year and where we are today, and we look forward to continuing that conversation. Thank you.

Appreciate it. And also, just for all of the witnesses in the room, we have a very large hearing room today. We've got some overflow into the hallway. We've got a number of bills. So I'm usually very lenient on time, but Vice Chair Flora has already let me know that I need to enforce this two minutes to the best of my ability, so I just want to let you know that ahead of time.

All right, well, I'll be real, real quick then. Thank you, Chair Bryan and Members of the Committee. Lauren Aguilar, on behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association. We are the association that represents apparel and footwear manufacturers. AFA does believe that well-designed, extended producer responsibility programs should play a crucial role in directing investments towards reuse, repair, and recycling.

But as the Chamber, Adam with the Chamber, we are also in an opposed unless amended position, mainly because of the loophole that Adam did mention that exempts third party sellers located outside of California who sell to California consumers directly by using online marketplaces and platforms.

That loophole is particularly problematic because these sellers' products will still be collected and managed by the PRO, meaning that the costs associated with these activities will be paid for by legitimate brands and retailers that are registered with the producer responsibility organization, and it will cost a huge deal for those companies.

So it would create a competitive disadvantage for our members. We also have a couple small concerns around the definition of producer and licensee and trademarks, as well as maybe putting some guardrails around Cal Recycle's administrative costs. But I do want to stress again, we are so thankful for the author and the sponsors for continuously working with us, and we really hope we can get some sort of support here in the near future. Thank you.

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

Chair and Members, Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. With the great work and conversation with the author and this committee staff through the latest amendments, we're able to come off to neutral. Just want to put that on the record. Thank you very much.

Kelly LaRue, with Resilient Advocacy, on behalf of the Textile Rental Services Association. There's a mention of it in the analysis, but we're hoping that folks in the supply chain that are laundering and reusing the textiles aren't caught up in the PRO. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll now turn it to committee members. Assembly Member Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I'd like to move the bill. I think that it is long, long overdue. I appreciate the mention of the pilot program in San Jose, but I think anywhere you are in this state, whether you look at the waste hauling, recycling, the side of the road, you name it, you will find textiles.

And I think it's been a big hole in our conversation around waste and our waste stream. So grateful to the author for bringing this forward. I think it's a thoughtful timeline and bringing all the stakeholders together. It's extremely complicated--I don't need to tell all you that--and I would love to be added as a co-author.

Happy to do that. Thank you.

Rebecca Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is really an exciting bill because I think we all know that fast fashion is becoming our new reality and it's really problematic for our waste stream. So I think this is a really incredible bill. I appreciate you working to include those online retailers because I think that's one of the biggest sources of fast fashion is actually the online marketplaces, but I will touch on one thing the Chamber said, which is the intentionally added chemicals.

And I think it is critical for us to keep in mind that we have done incredible work in this Legislature to remove things that are getting into our water that is carcinogenic, that is dangerous, and that if we allow that to continue to perpetuate through this program, that that could be harmful to our communities.

And so as we, as you negotiate, I just want to make sure you know that we, that's something that we've done that I think we're proud of and we should be careful not to exacerbate the problem, but with that, I'm happy to support it today.

Let me respond real quickly by way of one: the intent to your bill. You know, some of these things get very nuanced toward the end. And actually, Dr. Brasch can speak to this, I think, better than I, about how we are deliberately sort of approaching these remaining items with an eye on--especially on the timeline--but with respect for all of the work that's gone before it.

Yes. Rather than a prescriptive approach, we added two provisions, one in the needs assessment. So before the regulations are adopted, the infrastructure and investments needed to manage the chemicals will be done with Cal Recycle's review and approval, and then in the plan, there's a provision that says what is found in the needs assessment does have to be reflected. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Seeing no other questions or comments and a motion by Assembly Member Kalra, a second by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan, Senator Newman, would you like to close?

I would, so thank you for the consideration. Glad to add co-authors; appreciate the support. This has been a two-year bill, and not by accident. This is a complex issue in its own right, but it intersects as well with some of the good work that's gone before it, particularly SB 54 from my colleague. And so, an EPR system, as Mr. Schmelzer pointed out, only works if all of the participants in that value chain are equally invested and aligned.

That's what we've endeavored to do, and we're going to continue working all the way through this process. We'll take additional meetings during the summer recess, working our way to Appropriations in the floor to make sure that to the maximum extent possible, we take input to address any open items. I am respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. This bill has a do pass reco from the Chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

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

We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you.

Thank you, members. Thank you, Chair.

Senator Min. Come on down.

Come on down. Thank you. Appreciate it. Nice to meet you.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today I'm presenting SJR 12, a resolution to the Federal Government to request that they revise bankruptcy rules to ensure that the oil industry cannot use federal bankruptcy rules to push their cost of decommissioning oil and gas wells onto state taxpayers. Thank you, Assemblymember.

My district in 2021 bore the brunt of the oil spill off the coast of Huntington Beach. Our beaches were blackened, wildlife was sickened and killed, local small businesses dependent upon tourism and a clean coastline suffered major economic losses.

And while we're working hard to try to ensure that those responsible for that spill, continue to be held to count financially, farther up the coast, we've seen other operators have found it in their best interest to declare bankruptcy, walk away from dozens of unplugged oil wells and associated equipment and infrastructure.

The bankruptcies of Vinoco and Rincon Island Limited Partners have cost the state's General Fund over $200 million so far. And this does not include the onshore costs to address orphan wells, estimated to potentially be in the billions of dollars. And I know some of the Members of this Committee have legislation working to try to address that.

This resolution is very simple, asks our Federal Government to make sure that an oil well bankruptcy does not adversely affect our ability to get those people to pay for it, does not adversely affect our state's General Fund. I have with me today Sherry Pemberton from the State Lands Commission to speak in support of the resolution.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Sherry Pemberton, on behalf of the California State Lands Commission. We've experienced firsthand the fallout from two recent oil and gas bankruptcies. And all that's fallen on the state to incur not just the massive financial costs, but at the immediate public health and safety issues that we've had to address.

The leases were issued with the premise that the operators would honor their environmental restoration costs. And so it's been a big concern to see this pathway through the federal bankruptcy code allow for them to evade that. So we strongly support the resolution. Thank you.

Are there any persons in this hearing room who support this resolution?

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

Thank you.

Megan Shumway, in support.

Thank you.

Jacob Evans, with Sierra Club California, in support.

Thank you so much. Any persons in this hearing room who have opposition to this resolution? Seeing none, I'll turn it to. Nobody in this hearing room opposed this resolution? Great. We'll now turn it to Committee Members. A motion by Mr. Muratsuchi, a second by Mr. Kalra, a third by Mr. Connolly. Senator Min, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

This has an obvious and necessary do pass recommendation from the Chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is that the measure be adopted. [Roll Call]

We'll leave the roll open, but I think you're in good shape. Senator Dahle, come on down, my favorite farmer. I'll take the motion after the presentation. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to thank the Committee for SB 1062 and I will be accepting amendments, actually made the bill better. Thank you. California has experienced some of the most devastating wildfires in recent years. One of the major contributing factors in these fires was years of forest mismanagement and buildup of excess woody biomass waste.

To reduce the threat of wildfire and properly utilize the valuable fuel source, SB 1062 would require the Department of Conservation to create the Biomass Technologies Transition Program to facilitate the conversion of biomass energy generation facilities that utilize forest biomass to newer advanced bioenergy technologies.

In December of 2022, CARB passed a resolution regarding the 2022 Climate Scoping Plan in which the board resolved the opportunities for non combustible biomass solutions need to be prioritized.

This bill is consistent with California's goals of prioritizing alternative biomass energy generation methods by creating a program that would assist participating biomass generation facilities and acquiring the often expensive alternative generation bioenergy technologies. These technologies will enable these facilities to continue using biomass as a viable fuel source while reducing emissions and remaining consistent with California regulations.

As part of the program, the Department of Conservation shall identify facilities that intend to convert these new technologies. The Department then shall work with the relevant local air districts to ensure that the facilities meet the applicable air standards which would be needed to be eligible for the grant program.

Participating facilities must then develop business plans to incorporate the technologies once they become commercially available and viable as estimated by the Department of Conservation. The business plans provided the facilities with flexible needed to be properly onboard the new technologies and ensure the relevant air quality standards and their Pacific air basins are met.

This bill would help keep biomass facilities open and in compliance with California regulations that would ensure the forest health and resilience of these ongoing priorities, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Today, with me I have Emmanuel Orozco with Placer County Air Pollution and Kevin Johnston with the Farm Bureau.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. My name is Emmanuel Orozco and I represent the Placer County Air Pollution Control District, which strongly supports the transition of electricity producing biomass facilities to cleaner advanced technologies.

The program described in the bill would allow for a handful of idle and existing biomass power plants to work with the Department of Conservation to transition their facilities to cleaner and more efficient technologies by allowing the Department to vet and identify the best candidates who are meaningfully interested in such a transition.

The bill would also create a grant program for the facilities to obtain new technologies which are selected and ultimately approved via permitting by the local air districts. It's worth noting that the facilities would at all times be required to maintain compliance with all active local and federal air permits.

It is also important to mention that biomass, as defined in the bill, is exclusively in reference to wastes that are byproduct residues or forest health related wastes, and it does not include trees grown for power generation.

This approach is a sound way to move current biomass facilities to a new paradigm without losing the essential services they currently provide with regards to base load electrical generation and providing a viable and consistent outlet for wood waste disposal.

As you are well aware, California has a wood waste crisis and the last thing we need is more forest and wood waste arriving in landfills as local governments are struggling with organic waste diversion. And we certainly do not want to see any more uncontrolled open burning of wood waste than is necessary.

However, without reliable outlets for this wasteland, the options for foresters and land management agencies are truly limited. SB 1062 represents a forward thinking solution that aligns with California's long term air quality, climate, and energy objectives, while directly helping to address the current problem of wood waste disposal.

Lastly, I wanted to voice our support towards the program being managed by the Department of Conservation. The Department has a strong understanding of bioenergy technologies and has the expertise to set up a successful transition program such as this one. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you. Kevin Johnston, California Farm Bureau Federation. Our support is simple. Farm Bureau has always been very supportive of biomass. We have waste, we have beneficial use for it. It provides reliable, renewable power. The waste is not being generated for energy, but it's going to exist.

And this is a much better process than pile and burn or letting it incinerate in a wildfire. Very supportive. This bill is simply just trying to make sure when we are doing that, that we're doing a better job of it. We ask for your support. Thank you.

I appreciate the speed at which you got that point across. Succinct. Very, very well done. Persons here in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure?

Oh, false alarm. All right. Any opposition in the hearing room? Sure.

Good afternoon to the Chair and the Committee, Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in respectful opposition of SB 1062. Burning our forests for energy is carbon and pollution intensive, harming communities and the climate.

California incorrectly treats forest feedstocks as carbon neutral, though science has thoroughly debunked that claim, finding lost carbon storage and sequestration with biomass extraction; significant CO2 emissions in biomass processing and gasification, paralysis or combustion; and noting the years it takes for cut forests to regrow, if they're even allowed to do so.

Biofuels are only as good as the feedstocks used to make them, and woody biomass is a poor feedstock given its climate and environmental burdens. For a given, biofuels produced from biomass don't satisfy the criteria to be sustainable, so they should not be incentivized.

The science documents substantial methane emissions from log landings and wood chip piles used for energy--bioenergy generation. And the science shows that dead trees do not increase wildfire risk, nor its severity, rate of spread, or extent.

And the published research has concluded that broad scale thinning to reduce fire risk or severity can lead to more carbon emissions than it prevents from being released in a wildfire and leads to a net loss of carbon storage from forests. CCS doesn't improve the biomass calculus.

It's very energy intensive, requiring 15% to 25% more energy, increasing greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions. So SB 1062 recognizes the pollution burden caused by existing biomass energy facilities, and we appreciate that. But it incentivizes rather than alleviates the harm, and for this reason, we must oppose the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this measure? Now turn it to Committee Members. Questions? Comments? I had a feeling my Vice Chair might have a thought about that.

I do. Thank you, Mister Chair. This is the second time I've heard this statement made by your organization that dead and dying trees do not contribute to the spread of wildfires. And I'm just curious, and last time I asked, when I heard this, I asked for you to give me some data that supports that statement and have yet to get anything from your organization on that.

We've actually submitted it to you.

Okay. I have not seen it. And the fundamental thing about what sustains fire, right? There's three things: fuel, oxygen, and ignition. You take one of those three things away, fires go out. So I do not understand how we continue to say this false narrative that a reduction of wood does not contribute to the spread of fire. So do you mind to address that? Like, how is that?

Yes.

So the written comments for this bill also cites that--the studies which pertain to Northern California and Pacific Northwest forests. So it's particular to our forests as well. It's not just in general. And we have--and I did respond to you last time, but I will look for that email and resend it again.

Our written documentation for this hearing includes links to the studies. There's too many to list here, but I appreciate that it's not the way that California has been doing things. We have been on a long haul with our team of scientists and others who are concerned around forest health to change that narrative that comes from a long history of economic benefit from burning our forests.

With all due respect, it's not California. I mean, this is fire science that's taught across the country and around the world as it relates to reduction of fuel load and how it contributes to the spread of fire. So it's not an economic thing. And I would love for you to send that again, and I would love to know where these studies are cited, because I do think if we're gonna have honest debates in this Committee about the future and what we're doing, we need to be honest about where these all come from. So thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions from Committee Members? Mister Dahle, would you like to close?

Yes, thank you, Mister chair. And I would just like to say that I've worked in this space for a long time, trying to do something with--I have 60--60% of California's water comes from my district. It's very heavily forested. We've had the Dixie fire, almost a million acres.

There has been--you know, combustion is an issue. So we tailored this bill to drive it away from combustion and do other technologies. And so that's the goal of this bill, is to find an alternative from mismanagement of forests. We've had 100 years of fire suppression, which is not natural in California.

It burned every 10 years by lightning and Native Americans setting it off, and we've stopped that. And we have too much fuel out there. We need to thin that forest, and we need to make sure that we make it healthy. Live trees sequester carbon. Dead trees emit methane and carbon. And so for those reasons, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, sir. This bill has a do pass recommendation. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Bryan. Aye. Flora. Aye. Bauer-Kahan. Connolly. Not voting. Friedman. Hoover. Kalra. Lackey. Aye. Muratsuchi. Not voting. Pellerin. Wicks. Wood.

What do you, how many do you have to have?

Seven.

Oh, dear. All right, I'm well. Very good afternoon to you, Mister Chair and Members and Committee staff. I want to just thank the chair and Committee for your consideration and hard work on the Bill. Also want to thank stakeholders that have been actively engaged with us on this Bill for the past many months.

It's been a wild one, so I am going to be accepting the Committee amendments today. We know that California is at the confluence of crises, a severe housing shortage, one of the most destructive wildfire seasons in state history that we've been going through.

As you've discussed, rising risk to our communities due to sea level rise and flooding, other disasters. We got to find ways to build more homes to address our housing challenges. But unless we're deliberate and where we cite new communities, we risk putting more people in harm's way.

When disaster strikes in areas of my district, and likely many of yours, existing evacuation routes would be stretch thin in the event of a major emergency, and without consideration and inclusion of additional evacuation routes and new developments, the consequences could be deadly, and we've certainly seen that happen in certain parts of the state.

So our Bill here charges the Office of Planning and Research with the task of convening a working group of diverse state and local stakeholders to study and prepare a report that would recommend potential improvements to state standards for ingress and egress and evacuation routes for new development in the event of a natural disaster.

These recommendations will consider the needs of vulnerable populations. It'll be tiered based on the development size, density and traffic considerations. The Bill instructs the working group to consider the effects that updated standards would have on transportation planning, affordable housing development, and the ability for individuals and communities to rebuild after a disaster.

It also instructs the working group with the task of considering feasible evacuation timeframes and other performance criteria, the use of temporary refuge areas, and the relationship between the new development and the existing community.

The idea is that if we by assembling local and state stakeholders across environmental, transportation, housing and emergency response sectors, we will help imperiled communities and make sure that they're better designed for the reality of wildfire and other emergency risk without creating undue burden on communities and developers.

And with me here to testify and support is Matt Baker from the Planning Conservation League.

Good afternoon Assembly Members. Matthew Baker, Policy Director for Planning Conservation League last year we set out with a carefully crafted proposal, with the insight of many fire experts as a statutory prescription for how evacuation planning should be required for new development. And that that Bill did not say where or where not to build.

It just said that if you, if you build, you have to demonstrate that you can get people out safely. That was, that was the starting point for everything that we did here.

We engaged with many stakeholders, particularly the building community and the BIA and RCRC, and I want to call them out with appreciation for the time that they spent with us over the last year thinking about how to do this.

Even though we have some fundamental differences of opinion, they, you know, they came thoughtfully and constructively to the table. But at the time we couldn't get consensus on the prescription and we stalled. But this year, when we brought it back as a report, we got out of the first house and had had some more good discussion.

And though there were some differences of opinion that continued on the initial proposal, I think the one thing that we've really come down on in consensus was the idea that this really takes more holistic thinking across agencies, across sectors.

I think with this new framing of this interagency report to get to these recommendations, you know, PCO, while it's less ambitious than what we set out to do in the beginning, we continue to think there's a really worthwhile way to advance the conversation, this very important conversation.

So with that, we strongly support the Bill and ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mister Baker. Are there any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure?

Good afternoon. Tracy Bryant from Rural County Representatives of California. We are not reflected on the analysis, but as of the latest amendments, we are in support.

I do want to say, and echo the comments made by sponsors that we've been working on this for well over a year, and we appreciate all the conversations that we've had with staff and the sponsors off and the sponsor. And we think that looking at this holistically really does make sense and we appreciate it and we'll be in support. Thank you.

Mister Chair, Members, Silvio Ferrari, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, huge thanks to the author, the sponsors, Committee, Committee staff working on this. When we believe when the amendments go in print, our entire coalition will go neutral. So thank you.

Thank you so much. Any witnesses in opposition,

Respectfully ask for your vote?

Well done, Senator. Any other opposition in the room? Seeing no persons in opposition, that's a sign of a job. Well done. Committee Members, any thoughts, comments, concerns, or opposition you'd like to raise? Seeing none, we've got a motion by Flora, a second by Connolly. Mister Allen, would you like to close.

This Bill has a do pass recommendation by the Chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

Roll Call

We'll leave it open for absent members whenever you're ready.

All right. Thank you, Mister chair. We're back for more excitement. This is SB 615, having to do with EV batteries. Different topic. We know that California is beginning to see the piecemeal development of a market and infrastructure designed to capture and recycle the valuable materials that are used to manufacture electric vehicle batteries.

Once those batteries, or the car reaches the end of life, recycling batteries reduces the demand for raw materials, thereby avoiding the negative social and environmental impacts of mining and potentially catalyzing a domestic supply as demand for the critical materials needed to build batteries increases.

In some instances, once a battery is removed from the vehicle and before it's recycled, it can be repurposed for applications such as energy storage. But unfortunately, our state lacks a policy framework to ensure these beneficial outcomes.

In 2018, our friend Senator Brian Dahle passed AB 2832 which called for an advisory group of experts to develop recommendations to the Legislature to ensure that as close to 100% as possible of lithium ion batteries in the state are reused to recycle the end of life.

So this Bill builds off of that report and countless hours of subsequent stakeholder feedback to create a comprehensive program to ensure all EV batteries are properly handled and eventually recycled at the end of their useful life. The Bill is proposed to be amended by the author's amendments outlined in the analysis will do several important things.

First and foremost, the Bill requires all EV batteries in the state to be sent to a qualified recycler at the end of their useful life. Okay. Don't have the rest here. That's okay. Well, we got the rest of the list here. It's on the other side. Okay, great. All right. See, we're saving paper. Yeah. Okay. That's great.

Okay. So, as I mentioned, we first and foremost require that all EV batteries in the state be sent to a qualified recycler at the end of their useful life. Now, how do we do this? The Bill includes a number of factors to bring us there.

So, first of all, EV battery suppliers have to submit a battery management plan to calrecycle and DTSC to ensure the batteries that they get back are properly managed and recycled. This will be particularly important for batteries that are still under warranty.

Any entity that removes a battery from a vehicle, such as an auto shop or dismantler, is responsible for its proper management. That means a battery can be returned to the manufacturer, sold to a secondary user for battery storage, or sent to a battery recycler.

Entities that use EV batteries for storage or other purposes will then ensure that the battery is recycled at the end of its useful life and recycling facilities that want to handle these batteries must get certified by Cal Recycle in coordination with DTSC to ensure that the batteries are properly managed.

Lastly, entities handling batteries up and down the supply chain will report to the Department created system that it's going to be managed by calorcycle to efficiently track these batteries and ensure that the bills requirements are met. So the Bill maintains a number of standard enforcement provisions of other producer responsibility measures that we've worked on in other spaces.

It provides us flexibility as the market for used EV batteries grows.

This flexibility has been particularly important since, unlike other materials that we've sought to manage at their end of life, EV batteries actually contain all these minerals that make them very valuable in a growing and robust recycling market, which has made this process a little easier than 54 plastics, where it's so hard to make a market work for those products.

Here we have really valuable minerals, cobalt, lithium, et cetera. We've got a bit more work to do as we continue to get stakeholder feedback on this set of amendments. But I believe we're nearly there and I have with me here today to speak in support of the Bill.

Megan Mekelburg, representing CalStart, and Danielle Barrad with the union of Concerned Scientists. Two minutes each.

Great. Thank you. My name is Megan Mekelburg. I'm here on behalf of CalStart.

Calstart runs a US electric vehicle battery initiative which works to inform policies to sustainably and responsibly grow the US supply chain for EV batteries to meet climate and EV adoption goals, as well as ensure a responsible handling of batteries at the end of their life.

SB 615 takes into account that batteries possess value, but ultimately ensures that producer responsibility when a battery does reach the end of its life. Senator Allen and his team have convened a stakeholder group over the last 18 months, which continues to inform the creation of the Bill in real time.

As reflected in the analysis, the author has made multiple commitments to modify the Bill while maintaining environmental protections and ensuring the clear delineation of responsibility. CalStart is grateful to Senator Allen and his staff for partnering with us to continue to work on the Bill and strike the appropriate balance that allows for innovation while also ensuring environmental responsibility.

We believe that we're very close to achieving that goal and look forward to continued conversations with stakeholders and relevant departments in the coming months. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon chair and Members Daniel Barad on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of SB 615. We've been advocating for the broad deployment of electric vehicles for years because of their clear climate and public health benefits.

Now that we have policies that guarantee these vehicles will continue to be deployed en masse, we need to make sure that the clean transportation future is also sustainable over the next decade. EV battery retirements are estimated to increase by 450% in California from 30,000 in 2023 to 165,000 annually. By 2030.

This wave will include batteries that are damaged, disperse and may contain fewer valuable minerals and are therefore less profitable to recycle. Without some policy intervention, batteries may slip through the cracks and end up in hazardous waste landfills or abandoned. To avoid this fate and reduce the need for newly mined material, we need SB 615 specifically.

There are three key pieces that will make this Bill, as described in the Committee analysis, effective. First, some level of producer responsibility is critically important so that when manufacturers put their vehicles or repurposed batteries out into the world, they have a plan for ensuring that they are responsibly managed when they retire.

We have produced a responsibility policies in California and this isn't a new concept for EV batteries either. The European Union and New Jersey both passed policies to require producers to be responsible for their batteries. Second, tracking and reporting requirements in the Bill make sure that batteries are not getting lost in the shuffle.

And if they do, these requirements will provide the Legislature and state agencies with the information they need to identify and rectify any problems. Finally, the Bill will ensure that batteries are only allowed to be sent to recycling facilities that are recovering high level of minerals and that have fewer environmental impacts on workers in nearby communities.

SB 615 looks to prevent batteries from being sent to the most harmful and inefficient technologies and ensure that the battery recycling industry is as safe and sustainable as possible. We are grateful to Senator Allen and his staff for their tireless efforts on the Bill, and we respectfully request your aye vote thank you.

Thank you, sir. Are there any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure.

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

Megan Chamoy, in support.

Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of Tesla with the supportive if amended position and thank the author and his staff for the work in the Bill. Thank you, Christina. Scoring with the Center for Biological Diversity and Support, Jordan Wells with the National Stewardship Action Council and strong support.

Jacob Evans with Sierra California in support.

Crystal Martinez with California against Waste in support.

Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Come on down.

Two minutes each, Mister chair, Members of the Committee, John Moffat, on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, we're the Trade Association for the Automakers. We have an opposed and less amended position. Having said that, we appreciate the ongoing conversations as recently as this Friday with the author and sponsors on the Bill.

You know, I think our concerns around this and, you know, around this concept are based on the fact that, you know, Zeb, batteries are not plastic bags, they're not mattresses, they're not, you know, many of these other materials for which we have stewardship and pro and EPR programs, these are valuable, valuable assets.

They are valuable even once they're out of the vehicle and being used in other applications, as the other witness is going to testify to.

And in addition to that, many of my, if not most of my Member companies already have contracts with other entities out to make the secondary use of these batteries once they're done in the vehicle. And so our view is, we think, you know, we appreciate the goal of the author and the sponsors.

We think this needs a light touch, not a heavy touch. Try and keep costs to a minimum, to not add cost to the price of a EV to comply with the program and then let the market do its thing. It is out there working.

And so how do we meld the goals of the Bill and the program with allowing the market to continue to grow and thrive in the and flourish. And so with that, we again appreciate the author's time and staff and the sponsors, and we look forward to the ongoing conversations. Thank you so much, Mister chair Members.

Dan Shaw, representing Redwood Materials, definitely align our comments with the alliances and greatly appreciate the Senator and staff for working with us. I think we're almost there. It's been an arduous process, but I think we will finally, hopefully get there in the next set of amendments.

We're officially opposed to the Bert version in print, but we think the suggested amendments and analysis are absolutely heading in the right direction. And again, we appreciate the Senator's responsiveness. Redwood materials today is doing what this Bill essentially requires.

And our partners, we are creating a robust, domestic, secure, sustainable battery supply chain by collecting, recycling, remanufacturing, end of life EV and consumer batteries into new critical battery materials, making batteries, and thus EV's, more sustainable and affordable.

We have direct recycling partnerships with leading automotive manufacturers, many represented by the alliance, major battery cell manufacturers and dismantlers who work directly with us to manage their end of life batteries.

Currently, we recycle enough end of life batteries and production scrap annually for the equivalent of about 250,000 EV's and are planning to increase this rate to 5 million EV's by 2030. The majority of lithium ion batteries recycled in the US are processed through our facilities. As John and Senator mentioned, these aren't mattresses, these aren't textiles.

These are valuable products exchanging hands today at a competitive price in a competitive marketplace. The Ira is further motivating this market by incentivizing domestic battery production and recycling. I think there are about 20 battery production and or recycling facilities either in operation or announced.

So as we, we all adapt and innovate in response to a growing EV demand, it's crucial that any public policy promote what is happening today rather than hinder or undermine it with fees or mandates. So we'll get there and respectfully. Well, not going to ask you to oppose this Bill, but we're going to get there.

You can ask us to, if you want to, any persons in this hearing room who'd like to register their opposition to this measure.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. Megan Allred for STF consulting on behalf of LKQ and also speaking for the California Automotive Wholesalers Association this afternoon, respectfully, in an opposing, less amended position. We truly appreciate all the conversations so far on amendments regarding remanufacturers and look forward to continuing these conversations going forward. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Turn to Committee Members. Any questions, comments, concerns? Senator Allen Singh.

Thank you, Senator Ike. I know that this is a very important issue that all, we all get asked a lot about, you know, how do we deal with all of the battery waste? I was just wondering if. I mean, I saw Tesla, you know, supporting if amended, and I see the alliance opposing.

I mean, can you just try to generally address how you're trying to make it work without making ev's more expensive?

Right. Well, yeah, I mean, ultimately, it's actually about trying to drive down the cost of procurement for these materials. And I think part of why, I think everybody involved with the conversation knows that we need to do this. We're not dragging anyone kicking and screaming to the conversation.

The challenge with EPR always is the devil's always in the details with regards to the particulars of the product and how do you craft it in a way that is going to work. And we really want to come to an agreement with everybody involved because in the end of the day, that's how it's going to work best.

It's just a matter of spending the next month hashing out a couple more details. I mean, you've been involved with difficult negotiations. It always seems to go to the end just how things work around here.

But I think you've heard from everybody around the table that we're feeling generally confident that we're going to get there, but it's going to take some work and we've got some really good people on both sides that are negotiating this out.

Okay, well, I trust you and if it's not too late, I'd love to be added as a co-author.

Thank you. Love that will definitely be amended. So yeah, for this discussion. So thank you. We'll add you on seeing no other questions. Mister Allen, would you like to close? Yeah, I appreciate the good discussions that we've had and we'll continue to have in the end of the day, this is about.

I mean, the funny thing was, I was on a seafeed trip when it was actually your organization, Mister Moffat, who kind of announced that they really wanted to take a big, bold leap into this space because I think everyone knew this was something that was so important. And so now we're effectuating it.

We obviously have to do it in a way that's going to work for everybody and that's what this negotiation is going to be all about. But the beauty here is that we know there's real value to some of the core products in these batteries, cobalt and lithium in particular.

But there are a number of other minerals and metals that are involved with the process. And we also know, by the way, it's not just a matter of recycling.

I mean, some of these batteries may not work well after the life of a car, but they can actually still work very well as a battery in another form for other types of use. So it's not even a recycling question necessarily. The recycling happens maybe a stage or two afterwards.

So there's a lot of opportunity here for waste reduction if we can get this right. And so I look forward to the discussions that we're gonna be having this summer. And I really appreciate the Committee's willingness to work with us and bird dog this issue as we move forward. And I respect the astronaut vote in that spirit.

Bird dog this issue. We did. Yeah. This Bill has a do pass recommendation from the chair. Do we have a motion, Mister Marisucci? Second by Mister Connolly. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

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

We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Going for the hat trick today?

Unfortunately, it's a quarter. We got four, so. I know, I know. I apologize.

Is this SB 571?

This is 1143.

1143. Whenever you're ready.

Yeah. Yeah. All right, so another EPR topic. You know, broader in scope, so a little more complicated. But I do want to thank the Committee for its due diligence with this measure. This bill relates to household hazardous waste. And literally thousands--the challenge here is that thousands of everyday household products are classified as household hazardous waste. Now, of course, most residents--recycling is hard enough, but there's a lot of education about that. People just simply don't know what's considered hazardous, what's not.

That makes it really hard for so many of us to know how to manage a dangerous product at the end of life. I've ended up--not too long ago, I was at a state-of-the-art MRF recycling facility, and sure enough, household hazardous waste packaging was in with food packaging, which, of course, was going to contaminate the system.

I mean, the thing is, even when you know the product simply cannot be thrown away, so many communities lack collection systems or dropout facilities. You're starting to see collection and disposal costs increasing for our constituents and for our cities. Cities and counties are turning around.

They're either raising the rates to cover the costs, or they're having to reduce services, which further reduces convenience for local residences. In some extreme cases, you actually had--cities had to cut, you know, other types of social services just to be able to make their--their waste obligations.

And by the way, CalRecycle has got some limited grants to build new facilities or expand existing ones, but funding has fallen way short of what's actually needed. I mean, just to give you an example, you know, CalRecycle's facilities grant program has a cap of $5 million a year. Just, you know, there's a construction of a new facility in Sonoma that's going to cost something like $15 million a year. The delta is enormous.

So to address these: both the crushing costs and the lack of convenient access to a proper disposal system for household hazardous waste, this bill requires producers of the most toxic consumer products, at least in its current form, to form a PRO, a producer responsibility organization, that will be tasked with enhancing accessibility and fully funding the safe collection, transportation and disposal of the waste.

We are in conversation with the opposition about some flexibility and alternatives, but that's discussion that's currently underway. This allows producers to cost effectively improve access to convenient disposal. They can either fund an improved local system or they can create an alternative. As I say, we're having really robust conversations about what the various alternatives might look like.

It also requires robust education and outreach to ensure consumers know which products are toxic, how to handle them properly. Lastly, the bill will encourage producers to invest in less toxic alternatives. I know that's been an area of real interest for this Committee and many of you Members. I know because a number of you have bills come before EQ on these topics. I mean, the idea is that if a producer would prefer not to participate in the system that we structure under the bill, they could-

-One way to get out would be to reformulate their product to a non-toxic alternative. Under the current system, producers don't consider the end-of-life costs when formulating their products. Those costs don't appear on their balance sheets. They have no skin in the game, no accountability. And we're all paying the costs for that lack of accountability. And the problem is that as much as some folks love one-offs, this is an issue that is too widespread to tackle product by product.

This bill seeks to establish a comprehensive program to address the most dangerous consumer products and shifts the burden for paying for their end-of-life management from our local cities and counties and ratepayers--your constituents, regular folks back home--to the people who have the most control over the design and end use of these products: the producers that are putting these products out into the market.

We've been working really diligently with the industry groups opposing this bill. We're committed to continuing that discussion. I'm really hopeful that we're going to be able to find a path that all stakeholders can feel good about. Today, I have Heidi Sanborn from National Stewardship Action Council and also John Kennedy from the Rural Counties to speak in support of the bill.

Thank you, Senator Allen, for your leadership on this. And thank you, Members. I am Heidi Sanborn. I'm the Director for the National Stewardship Action Council. We are the sponsor of this bill and are experts in EPR nationally. I chaired the Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling, and we were tasked with giving recommendations to the Legislature on what to do with waste issues. We came up with 34 recommendations in two years, but the first one that we came up with in 2020 was that we needed EPR for household hazardous waste.

And the reason is that there is no market for these materials. They're the most dangerous. And as Senator Allen said, when we go to material recovery facilities, we literally saw in Galt, at the material recovery facility that only takes blue bin materials--they pulled 183,000 pounds of household hazardous waste off of material sort line that was supposed to be only recyclables.

All of that is contaminating our packaging and the other items that we're trying to recycle that we just passed with SB 54 a few years ago. So this is going to become an issue for actually that bill as well. The costs are outrageous for household hazardous waste.

LA County is spending $9 million a year, and they estimate they're getting about 5% of it back. It's extraordinarily expensive, it's dangerous for our workers, and we have one of the top 10 most dangerous worker injury rates of any industry. The legislative path previously has been product by product. We've done medicines and needles. We've done paint.

But what we really want to see is one harmonized, statewide approach for what's left. Because if we keep going at this rate, we're just going to add a lot of administrative costs for all these different producer-run organizations, one product at a time. So we've been meeting with stakeholders.

We're talking to the e-waste industry again next week. We're excited that PaintCare wants to take more of their products back, they've got a great program. And we've been working with the opposition and even offered maybe a year delay. We know there's a lot going on right now, but we're happy to talk about all these things. But we really do need to do something about the most dangerous and toxic products that really have no home for the environment and for public health. So we ask respectfully for your aye vote.

Good afternoon, John Kennedy with Rural County Representatives of California here today to support SB 1143. Local governments are really the backbone of solid waste collection and recycling in the State of California, and this includes hazardous waste management.

We own and operate landfills, transfer stations, household hazardous waste collection facilities, and we manage all the materials that come into those facilities. So we get HHW coming into our household hazardous waste collection facilities, temporary events, load check programs where things are accidentally discarded in the trash that shouldn't be, and then cleanup of illegal dumping.

At the same time, we have absolutely no control over what gets introduced into the marketplace that we have to manage at the end of its useful life. In some cases, our cost to manage a product can equal or exceed the cost to the consumer at the point of sale for that product.

Most counties operate at least one permanent HHW collection facility. Many operate temporary take-back events as well. These, as the author and Heidi mentioned, are very expensive to operate. Even smaller programs that have budgets in the hundreds of thousands of dollars can be very expensive for very small communities.

So we try to make collection as free as possible--as safe, convenient and affordable. Most of our facilities offer free disposal to residents to keep those costs low. Well, we try to keep those costs low because higher gate fees will induce people to go throw stuff away illegally on the side of the road.

And that gets more expensive for us to manage because we have to go find it. By that time, it may have degraded. We have to clean it up and then bear the cost of managing it. So we support SB 1143 today because it increases manufacturer involvement in the process of managing the products they introduce into the marketplace.

We hope that will lead to product and packaging redesign. A single example would be gas cylinders. It would be nice to know that they are either refillable or that they can easily be verified as empty. If empty, we can throw them in the trash or recycle them. If not empty, they are hazardous waste. And then finally, it helps us reduce HHW management and disposal costs. For those reasons, we support SB 1143 and urge your aye vote.

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

... with Californians Against Waste in support of this measure.

Megan Shumway on behalf of Climate Action California, Climate Reality Projects, California Coalition, and Santa Cruz Climate Action Network in support.

Mister Chair, Dylan Elliott on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, the County of San Joaquin, California Product Stewardship Council, Stop Waste, the Western Placer Waste Management Authority and Solid Waste Association of North America, all in support. Thank you.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters in support.

Megan Mekelburg on behalf of Rethink Waste in support.

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

Jordan Wells expressing support for Zero Waste Sonoma, Napa Recycling and Waste Services, Sea Hugger, Marin Sanitary Service, Sustainable Mill Valley, City of Thousand Oaks, Ban Single-Use Plastics, Clean Water Action, Pesticide Action Network, DeSpray Environmental, Environmental Working Group, Northern California Recycling Association, Zero Waste Marin Joint Powers Authority, Mojave Desert and Mountain Recycling Authority, Elders Climate Action, Northern and Southern California Chapters, North American Hazardous Materials Management Association, 5 Gyres, and Green Waste. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Lindsay Gullahorn with Capital Advocacy on behalf of the Resource Recovery Coalition of California in support .

John Moffat on behalf of Waste Management in support.

David Krieger for Waste Connections in support.

Jeremy Jones, American Coatings Association, parent organization of PaintCare, and Proud San Diego County resident. Please support.

Josh Gauger on behalf of the counties of Santa Clara, Los Angeles and Santa Barbara in support.

Chair and Members. Roman Vogelsang with the Aprea & Company on behalf of Republic Services in support.

Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this measure? Come on down.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Members Nicole Quinones on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association, in opposition to SB 1143, our members manufacture many of the products that are included in the scope of this Bill, from pesticides, which include household products like disinfectants, to aerosol products and automotive products.

We appreciate the author's office and sponsor for their willingness to engage with us on this important topic. However, we believe passing SB 1143 this year would be premature for the following reasons.

SB 54 by Senator Allen, as you termed, is the most comprehensive and rigorous EPR program in the country designed to manage packaging waste, and the companies within the scope of SB 54 are also within the scope of this Bill 1143.

There is some significant overlap there, as well as cycle staff, which would be required to create the program and develop it. All of those parties are spending significant resources, both time and financial, to ensure that SB 54 is implemented correctly and everyone is complying that that program is successful.

Because of that overlap, there's also overlap between the scope of the programs. Some of the packaging that would contain the household hazardous waste material could be included under the scope of SB 1143, and we believe that it should only, you know, those products should only be covered by one EPR program.

We also believe more study is warranted in lieu of establishing the new EPR program for household hazardous waste.

Just to be clear, we don't object to the expansion of the paint care program, but we have offered to conduct an industry funded needs assessment to better understand the gaps in household hazardous waste collection and management, and most importantly, the resources that would be necessary to improve its collection.

That would be just a first step and we would be committed to coming back to the table once we have that data to create a better program moving forward.

Additionally, as the analysis notes, DTSC is updating their hazardous waste management plan, which is due to the Legislature in March of 2025, and we see this report as a critical for setting the foundation of what is considered household hazardous waste.

California has the strictest criteria in the nation for determining what is hazardous waste, which results in many more products being managed as hazardous than would be anywhere else in the country. DTSC is considering whether the strict criteria are still necessary considering the environmental protections that are now in place, such as better solar waste facility designs.

We believe addressing the criteria prior to establishing this program will create a more even playing field and avoid the need to potentially remove producers and products who have already paid into establishing a new pro if they are conceivably no longer in scope. Once that criteria is updated, but with that one minutes.

With that, we're committed to working to improve the management of household hazards waste in the state but are opposed today. Thank you.

Thanks so much. Any other persons in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition?

Thank you Mister chair Members. Dawn Kapke on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association as well as the Chemical Industry Council of California and respectful opposition.

Dan Cha for Redwood Materials we have an opposed amendment position, but I think. We'll be able to get too neutral. With the discussion with the author and sponsor. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Taylor Roschan on behalf of Western Plant Health Association and rise in post.

Greg Hurner on behalf of the Can Manufacturers Institute in opposition.

Afternoon Adam Regley with the California Chamber of Commerce and respectful opposition.

Thanks obed Frank of the American Chemistry Council on respectful opposition.

Good afternoon. Annalee Augustine on behalf of Consumer Brands Association, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll now turn it back to Committee Members. Any questions, comments, concerns for the author. Senator Bauer Kahan.

So I want to thank Mister extended responsibility, is that what he called him? Mister chair? Mister Pra, Mister Pra. Pra, too. You know, and I think this is really important.

I used to do hazardous ways disposal as part of my legal practice, and even I would realize in the course of my practice that I was disposing of things wrong. It is that complicated to get it right.

And so I think it is really critical that we figure out how to educate folks so that we're not putting things in landfills we otherwise shouldn't be and make it easy enough that people will actually dispose of these things properly.

But I wanted to dive in a little bit to the list you have here instead of just what is already defined as household hazardous waste, which could be amended. You actually have a list in the Bill. And it was a little bit perplexing to me.

I actually feel like your witness who said that an empty gas cylinder wouldn't qualify according to this. I think it would because it just lists gas cylinders. It doesn't say they have to be full. And then you have like health and beauty products are out, but aerosols are in. So I guess, talk to me. What?

oh, and Mister Flora wants me to stop talking.

Heidi San Martin so we were trying to narrow, because there are things like consumer beauty products that we, clearly, that's not the target. We're trying to get the most dangerous and toxic things. And I do believe that that might have been a misstatement. We've also got the Laird Bill that's dealing with gas cylinders as well.

So that's in play. So we tried to narrow it down, and there's even other products that we found that have come into hazardous waste facilities since we started working on this that are odd things that aren't covered.

But at this point, we just want to get the core most dangerous, toxic things that are ending up the most disposed of in the wrong places now. And then later those discussions can happen with DTSC, and they're looking at all of. That's why we've offered a delay as well, because we. Fine.

I mean, I'm not sure in March if we're going to have a whole bunch of new information from DTSC, but we do know that there's a lot of dangerous things. And if we wait to do anything, that's kind of why we're at where we're at, because everybody's been waiting, waiting, waiting for more clarity on who's in charge.

We've got two agencies that are partly in response, you know, responsible for these products, but nobody's ever really taken this on. And so we narrowed it to something that we think is the most urgent to manage and to clarify.

So this list isn't everything that we see in our facilities. We've been in discussions. We had a 10 pound can of, I think it was calcium carbide come into our facility. It's going to cost us $2,000 to properly dispose of that. It's not covered here, and that's fine.

This is going to help with a lot of the things that do come into our facilities. When we talk about cylinders, say propane or something, it doesn't have to be managed. As to HHW, if it's completely empty, it's hard, very hard for us to tell if it's completely empty. If there's any residual left, it's HHW.

That's fair.

And so they are coming to our facilities. They are managed as HHW. But if we can nudge some of the manufacturers to design some of these products so we can tell that they're empty, that eliminates some things from our HHW waste stream, eliminates some of the costs that they would otherwise bear.

So I guess I agree with what you guys are saying, and yet I think your Bill doesn't function the way you're talking about it, which is to give the flexibility for what you just said to be true, I think is meaningful. And I don't know that the Bill does this because it's so delineated. Right. So I don't.

I guess that's where I'm a little bit stuck, because I think I really appreciate what the Senator said about moving us to more responsible products. But when you list all fertilizers, right. With no delinquent, no room to say if you're moving to a less toxic fertilizer that perhaps doesn't qualify, that's not included here.

So I guess I'm just struggling to see how it functions the way you intend it to.

It's under the umbrella of the four key things that make something toxic, which means it has to be corrosive, flammable, and there's two others that I'll forget, but that it has to meet those criteria first before it's under that list. So if it's a fertilizer that's not meeting one of those four, then it would not qualify.

They would be. They could be out of the program. Yeah, got it. Okay, so that's what he was saying.

Yeah, got it. And it's all of these things. So it has to qualify as household arrests and be one of those problems. Yes, correct. Got it. So if they were to take it out of household hazardous waste, then it would no longer be covered by this. Exactly correct. That's our goal. Clarification.

So I do think, look, I don't have a lot of faith in DTSC. They're going to be right on time. I don't know that anybody in the room, including Mister Allen, does, seeing as he's the one who goes after DTSC the most in the Legislature.

But I do think it's important that we do make room for folks to be able to adapt and comply. And I do. I'm very. I mean, having again done disposal myself, I'm sympathetic to not only the cost, but the reactions that happen.

It's dangerous to not be disposing of these things properly for the humans who are interacting with these products and not even realizing they are. And so for everyone watching store your pool chemicals separately. But you know, I think we do need to be careful in how we draft this.

I hope you'll continue to work with the opposition to make sure that we are leaving room for them to continue to work and ensure this covers the products we need to cover and as we move forward, to leave out those that don't. But I appreciate the clarification.

Seeing none. Mister Allen, would you like to close?

Yeah, appreciate the discussion. And we're very committed to. To seeing what we can land this summer. Again, these PPR bills are complicated. There's a lot of details associated with every product. Everyone's different. You can't just apply a model and lock shut just from one Bill to another. And it's what makes this work really fun, but also challenging.

And I hear the concern about wanting to make sure that we have this updated plan from DTSA. I will say I think we have a General sense of what's going to be in there. We also. It's part of why we provide such a long Runway.

And we continue to be open to new suggestions as to how to ensure that this can be implemented as effectively and seamlessly and painlessly as possible for industry. And I think that's going to be the focus of our conversations over the next month, assuming the Bill gets out of Committee today.

So, it's in that spirit that I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mister Allen. This Bill has to do pass on the chair. Do we have a motion? Senator Bauer, Cahan. And Senator Pellerin. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is due. Pass two appropriations [Roll Call]

Pass forward. We'll leave the role open. All right.

All right. Last one. SB 571. No, we've already done that. We have already done that.

Yeah. Bring us home, Mr. Allen.

Bring us home, Mr. Allen.

This one's 1231. So, let me especially thank the committee staff for digging into this bill. I'm very happy to accept the committee amendments. This bill comes out of. One of the problems with being around here for a little while is that you then have to kind of work on your previous legislation and all the folks that you negotiated with. So, it's part of the fun, but it's also part of the responsibility.

So, this bill will allow producers to label certain packaging as recyclable as they work to improve recycling rates of their materials to implement SB 54.

It has to be part of a statewide program aimed at increasing recycling rates. This is SB 54, which is, of course, our big plastics packaging bill. Number two, CalRecycle has to determine whether the material is likely to meet the ambitious recycling rates in SB 54.

And then finally they have to determine that continuing to put the material in the recycle bin would not contaminate the recycling stream. Now, the language in SB 54 inadvertently precludes CalRecycle from identifying which material could qualify for this on-ramp until 2027, after the deadline for removing the symbol has already passed.

This is a problem because we don't want to preclude producers from encouraging consumers to put the material into their blue bins if that material can achieve the high recycling rates that are required by current law.

That would only lead to more consumer confusion and undermine efforts when producers are working in good faith to meet their statutory requirements and invest in recycling infrastructure.

So, to avoid this, this bill would allow producers to petition CalRcycle to continue to use the chasing arrows symbol on a particular material type if they can demonstrate to the department satisfaction that the material meets those three criteria that we outlined earlier.

This will fulfill the on ramp's original intent and ensure that SB 54 is workable for businesses striving to implement it. The strict criteria ensure that we are not compromising our overall environmental and recycling goals. Importantly, because this petition process is part of SB 54, it's fully paid for by the producers.

There are no cost to the department, no cost to taxpayers. And so with me here today is Bruce Minioni from the Recycling Partnership, and Jordan Wells from the National Stewardship Action Council to speak in support of the bill.

Thank you, Senator Allen, Chair and Vice Chair, and members of the Committee. I am Jordan Wells with the National Stewardship Action Council, a nonprofit that advocates for an equitable circular economy.

We were proud co-sponsors of the first in the nation Truth and Recycling Labeling law, SB 343, by Senator Allen, which was signed into law in 2021 and prohibited the use of the recyclability claims on products and packaging that are not actually recycled in California communities.

Our organization was also one of five environmental NGOs that participated in the over 10 months of intense negotiations for SB 54, which is now the world's boldest plastic pollution reduction and extended producer responsibility law.

However, the version of SB 54 that was signed into law inadvertently created a timeline misalignment between the two laws that poses serious challenges to implementation, and SB 1231 ensures a vital opportunity for producers to seek approval from CalRecycle for the use of the chasing arrow symbol and other recyclability claims on products and packaging if they are on the path to meeting recyclability standards set in SB 343.

To be eligible, producers must demonstrate investments and significant improvements to recyclability. SB 1231 does not create a loophole. It corrects an error by allowing producers to petition CalRecycle, ensuring a fair and pragmatic approach to advancing recycling initiatives. Thank you, Senator Allen, for continuing to stand by your commitments and for authoring SB 1231. Chair and members, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Chair and members, Bruce Minioni, on behalf of the Recycling Partnership. The Recycling Partnership is a private nonprofit that works with communities, local government, state government, and other stakeholders to strengthen and grow the recycling infrastructure in the state and across the country. Jordan and the Senator did a great job in laying out what the problem is.

There was an inadvertent misalignment. And the ten months that you negotiate SB 54 and all of the minds that were involved in that, no matter how bright, how diligent, when you do something so massive, you're bound to have a few errors and a few things that just aren't going to line up.

And as we work through, it's taking something from concept to reality. So, we're in reality now. And that's with the regulatory development within SB 54. And this alignment became clear that it was a problem. We all know that the world is not static, and things are constantly changing.

So, you have innovation in packaging, innovation in materials, resins, etcetera. So, you need this on-ramp. And that was agreed to, I think, by all stakeholders in SB 54. And then you also have items that didn't have that robust support, say our beverage container has, in getting recycling rates up to really adequate numbers.

So, you have certain resin types that are doing really, really well, even without subsidies. But they need to get pushed up over that hurdle. That's what these on-ramps are for. So, we're not creating problems, we're not creating loopholes or ways for people to get out of it.

What we're really doing is we're saying these are the strongest parts of our recycling infrastructure, and we don't want to inhibit innovation. So I think we're trying to resolve a problem here. And I think with the staff's help, I think we're getting on the right track. And I really appreciate your time today and ask for an aye vote.

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

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. Dawn Koepke, on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in strong support.

Good afternoon. Nicole Quinonez, on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association in support.

Dylan Elliott, on behalf of Stop Waste in support.

Good afternoon. Annalee Augustine here on behalf of Consumer Brands Association. We do have concerns with the recent amendments, but we're pleased to support the bill. Thank you.

Obed Franco on behalf of the American Chemistry Council in support.

Margie Lee on behalf of California League of Food Producers in support.

Kelly LaRue with Resilient Advocacy on behalf of the American Forest and Paper Association in support.

Good afternoon, Chair. Adam Regele with the California Chamber of Commerce in support Thanks.

Ryan Elaine on behalf of the California Retailers Association in support. Thank you.

Chris Quigley, Plastics Industry Association, in support.

Thanks so much. Anybody in the hearing room would like to register their opposition to this measure?

Hi, I'm Judy Sorey. I represent 350 Bay Area, and we are in opposition to this bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Miss Judy. We'll now turn it to Committee Members. Questions? Comments? Concern from Committee Member? Seeing none. Seeing none. Do we have a motion? Great. Mister Allen, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. You've heard enough from me today.

Who's the motion from? Flora, with the motion. A second from Ms. Pellerin. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll for the last time on Senator Allen?

One can only hope. Brian.

Motion is do pass as amended, to Appropriations.

Leave it open for missing authors. Senator Wiener?

Yes. Thank you, Mister chair. Do you have a preference for which one we.

No. Which one would you like to start with?

SB 312.

312 it is.

Thank you, Mister chair. I'm here to present SB 312 to make adjustments to the CEQA exemption from SB 886 from a few years ago for student housing and faculty housing at UC, CSU, and community colleges. And first of all, I want to thank the chair and the Committee for working very diligently and hard with us.

I'm super appreciative, and we're happy to accept the Committee's amendments. Colleagues, we know that the student housing crisis is just. It's horrific. At this point, 10% of CSU students, 19% of community college students, and 5%, one out of 20 UC students, experience homelessness in a given year.

A few years ago, we passed SB 886, which passed this Committee. Thank you. To create CEQA exemption for student housing and faculty housing. After we passed it, we realized that the exemption was not usable, and as a result, it's never been invoked.

And so we worked with the UC and others on ideas for how to make the exemption usable? We then worked with Senate EQ and then with this Committee, and with the Bill before us and with the amendments and the analysis, I think we have an exemption that will actually work and be usable.

And so I respectfully ask for an aye vote and again, thank the chair and the Committee. With me today is Jordan Panana Carbajal with California YIMBY and Sandra Adly, a student at CSU Sacramento with GenUp.

Good afternoon. Chair and Member of the Committee I'm Member of the Committee. My name is Sandra Adly and I'm a recent graduate from Sacramento State University with a background in political science and economics. I'm here today to express my concerns regarding the current student housing crisis, particularly in Sacramento.

As a first generation pre law student, I've experienced firsthand the challenges of finding affordable housing in the area while maintaining school, work and internships. The high cost of living has significantly impacted not only my academic pursuits, but also the well beings of many of my fellow students.

The situation has become increasingly dire, and immediate action needs to ensure that students can access safe and affordable housing. After relocating for my studies, I struggled to secure affordable housing and eventually settled for a shared apartment of four, each paying over $1,200 a month in rent.

Starting at the age of 17, I often found myself staying up late, whether it was working or worrying about how I would manage my expenses to make ends meet. I had taken a minimum wage job, often facing late night shifts while still attempting to maintain a full course of load and pursue internships.

The financial burden forced me to make difficult sacrifices, restricting access to resources, opportunities essential for my education and future career prospects. I had to forego extracurricular activities, networking opportunities, and yet, and even some classes that were crucial for my academic and professional development. I'm not alone in the struggle. Many of my friends and classmates have similar stories.

One friend had to commute over an hour each way from home because it was the only way she could afford college, and another, who was an engineering major, had to drop out for a semester to save money for housing, putting his degree and future on hold.

These situations are not just inconvenient, they're unsustainable and detrimental to our education and our mental health. Moreover, the lack of affordable housing disproportionately affects low-income students and those from marginalized communities. These students often face additional barriers and challenges, making it even more difficult for them to succeed academically.

The stress of housing insecurities worsens mental health issues, leading to higher dropout rates and diminished career prospects. It is disheartening to see talented and hardworking students struggle simply because they cannot afford a place to live.

Addressing the student housing shortage is imperative as it directly impacts students abilities to fully engage in their education and prepare for their professional endeavors. I firmly believe that Senate Bill 312 plays a crucial role in addressing this issue, supporting students to have access to affordable housing, which is vital for their academic success and personal well being.

Senate Bill 312 will extend beyond individual students, ensuring that students have access to affordable housing. We are investing in the future of our community and economy. Educated individuals are more likely to contribute positively to society, engage in civic activities, and drive innovation.

We should foster the environment that helps enable them to focus on their studies, graduate on time, and enter the workforce prepared and motivated. I urge you to consider and the significant impacts and benefits of passing Senate Bill 312 and support initiatives that alleviate the financial burden on students and enable them to thrive academically. Thank you.

Thank you. Two minutes?

Sure. Good afternoon. Evening chair Members of the Committee, my name is Jordan Panana Carbajal, legislative advocate for California YIMBY here to speak as a proud co-sponsor of SB 312.

California YIMBY is a statewide organization of over 80,000 neighbors dedicated to making our state affordable, place to live, work and raise a family for all Californians. The housing crisis at California's public universities is an imminent threat to the success of the next generation of Californians.

However, the cost of housing makes college makes a college education infeasible for many students and makes it harder for college faculty and staff to support our world renowned public education system.

As Senator Wiener mentioned, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 886, which provided a sanctuary exemption from CEQA for student and faculty housing projects at UC, CSUs and community colleges. However, one of the qualifications of these projects requires all buildings to meet LEED platinum certifications, which includes numerous provisions to determine if a building qualifies for certification.

Some of the determinations, however, cannot be made until the building is occupied. SB 312 addresses the timing issue by requiring that these buildings qualify for leave planning certifications rather than receive the certification, which can be achieved before occupancy. It's for these reasons, we respectfully request your support for SB 312. Thank you so much.

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

Baltazar Cornejo with Brownstein on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support

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

Two minutes.

Good afternoon again, Assembly Members with all due respect to the author, with whom we agree with on many issues, housing and CEQA tends not to be one of them.

We did not take a formal position on 886, but we were one of the many stakeholders that helped negotiate the criteria when that exemption was created for the University system. And while we wanted to help streamline the production of student housing, we now object to the walking back of many of those criteria.

That has recently happened with the amendments in this Bill. You know, we believe that as a flagship institution for California, the UC should really be held to the highest standards for planning and building, and they have the resources to do it.

We have a student housing crisis, not because of neighborhood resistance to a project here or there, but really because the University system has been planning adequately for decades for how to house their student body.

We really believe that we should be raising the standards for how the University should be, should be held accountable to in this area, and we don't think we should be weakening them. We think that the agreed two amendments that the Committee has proposed are a significant improvement.

But we, and we thank the author for being willing to work on that. But we really remain opposed to this Bill fundamentally, and very respectfully asked for a no vote.

Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room who would like to raise their opposition to this measure? Seeing no others, we'll turn it to Committee Members. Mister Lackey?

Yeah? Could you help me understand what's the benefit of a LEED certification?

The benefit of a LEED certification is it's the highest, most sustainable standard of construction in terms of carbon emissions, et cetera.

Okay. Mister Lackey, any other questions from Committee Members? I just want to thank the author. Well, would you like to close Mister Wiener?

Sure. Thank you very much. So obviously everyone should always be held to a high standard, and the UC should be held to a high standard. But I'm actually less interested in the standard that we hold the UC to and more interested in whether students have a place to live.

And it is just such an outrageous societal failure for our state that we have so many students who are living in cars, hopping around to motels, couch surfing and so forth. It's just an absolute indictment. And the reality is that we do have situations where these projects are held up.

Berkeley is the most obviously extreme example, and this Legislature has stepped in repeatedly to make sure that some of these frivolous lawsuits like we've seen at UC Berkeley are taken care of, and we shouldn't have to do that.

And so we have here a well crafted CEQA exemption that still holds the University to very high standards, but actually allows this housing to get built in a timely manner. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. We had a lot of conversations about this Bill when you first brought it. We asked you to find some consistency with long range development plans, and you did that. We told you we wanted you to mitigate the greenhouse gas emissions of construction, and you did that.

We wanted to put consequences on failing to get LEED certified to prevent campuses from abusing this kind of exemption, and you did that. We wanted the UC to take public comment meaningfully and not just hear it and have no record of having heard it or response to it. And you did that.

Couldn't ask any more of an author who comes before this Committee. So thank you for your work on this really, really, really important issue. This Bill has a do pass recommendation from the chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll? Do we have a second? We got Mister Flora as our motion. Second, but I will second it. Call the roll.

Motion is due passed as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That's five. We'll leave the. Scott Wiener never gets nervous. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Would you like to move on to 610?

I would. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Kelly's now representing Senate bill 610 to ensure consistent application of wildfire mitigations for new development at risk of wildfire.

I am advancing this bill in partnership with the office of Governor Newsom, and we've worked very closely with the Governor and his team and CAL FIRE over the last year on this, and I want to first of all thank the Chair and the Committee for their work. And we're happy to accept the Committee's amendments.

And we have agreed with the Committee that we will work over the summer with stakeholders and the Governor and CAL FIRE to--we're removing some portions of the bill, but the goal would be to be able to hopefully put them back in perhaps and modify terms.

We understand that this was, this was a bill I put in print last year. The Administration asked us to hold it to be able to work together. It took a little longer than we thought to get the administration's proposal. It's not a criticism, it's a complicated thing.

And I know the Administration was working very intensively internally to come up with what I think is a really good proposal. And so we know that for a lot of stakeholders and local government, environmentalists, etcetera, that this, you know, it's a big issue to absorb.

And so we definitely want to take the summer to be able to do that work. And the stakeholder engagement has been, I think, good so far, and we'll continue to do that. So, colleagues, we know we have right now the mapping system for wildfire hazard is. It's really challenging. We have all these different categories.

People aren't always sure what is the difference between the categories. The maps were, until recently, very out of date. I don't even know that the insurance industry relies much on these maps. I think they do a lot of their own modeling, and I think we are overdue to take a different approach.

And the approach in this bill is to, instead of having different categories, just have, you're either in a wildfire mitigation area or you're not. And if you're in one and you want to build, you have to take certain mitigations. The goal here is not to reduce protections from wildfire.

I think it's just to take a broader approach to it. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. With me today to testify is Chief Frank Bigelow, Deputy Director of Community Wildfire Preparedness and Mitigation at CAL FIRE.

Chief, when you're ready.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Bryan and Members of the Committee. Again, my name is Frank Bigelow. I'm the Deputy Director of our Community Wildfire Preparedness and Mitigation Division for CAL FIRE out of the office of the State Fire Marshal. So thank you to the Committee and for all the stakeholders for their engagement in this bill.

We are committed to continuing to receive feedback and make adjustments in partnership with the Senator over the coming weeks. We recognize that this is a significant shift in structure, but I want to emphasize that this bill would not reduce mitigations at all. At its core, Senate Bill 610 is about making homes more resilient in areas of elevated fire hazard.

There are two essential parts to Senate Bill 610 that are necessary for this transition, the creation of the wildfire mitigation area, or WMA, as I'll refer to it, and moving regulatory authority for all the wildfire mitigations to the Office of the State Fire Marshal for consolidation into one wildfire urban interface, or WUI code.

One of the most important aspects of transitioning away from the fire hazard severity zones to a WMA is to ensure the adoption of the WMA map and corresponding mitigations that they are adopted through a regulatory process, the APA process, which allows for a robust public process with all impacted stakeholders.

We also envision this to follow the triannual fire code cycle. By centralizing these wildfire mitigations into one code, it will make it easier for homeowners, developers, and builders to comply with all the mitigations that make them and their homes safer from wildfires and make it easier for state and local officials to enforce these mitigations.

It is important to note that the existing wildfire mitigation requirements in the current fire hazard severity zone maps would remain in effect until the adoption of the WMA map. I would like to reiterate that Senate Bill 610 would bring the existing regulatory requirements together and place them into one singular code without substantive changes to the current mitigations. So thank you for your time today and I'm happy to answer any questions related to the bill.

Thank you sir. Are there other persons in the hearing room who would like to rest their support for this measure?

Mr. Chairman, Members, Silvio for on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, very supportive this bill. Appreciate the author, the sponsors for working on this difficult issue. Look forward to rolling our sleeves up over summer and knocking this thing out, having a great product. So thank you.

Julie Manosky on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association of California. Have a support with technical amendments position. We believe this provides continued public safety for Californians.

Mr. Chair and Members, Theo Pahos with San Diego Gas and Electric, in support.

Martin Radosovich on behalf of SPUR and Civic Well, in support.

Baltazar Cornejo, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, in support.

Okay. Any persons in opposition to this measure.

Welcome back. Thank you. Good afternoon again. Matthew Baker, Planning Conservation League. Unfortunately, this is the second topic that we often disagree with, with the Senator. We think this is so important.

And as you saw from the Bill that we sponsored 571 earlier, you know, we care about this a lot and share the urgency around needing to do more to figure out better policy for how we weigh the needs of our communities and public safety and environment.

We believe that there's a lot more room and need for legislative action in this arena, but not this way. There are many aspects and nuances of the proposed policy that we object to that we have many more that we had questions about. This, as you admit, was a huge shift, really big deal.

And what we object to the most is only having a couple weeks to try to process it and think about it.

We believe that policy change of the scope and weight that affects so much, including human safety, really warrants the time and attention of a full legislative cycle and shouldn't be pushed through in a late gutnamenda with very little stakeholder engagement, little to none, I might add.

We appreciate the work that the Committee has done with the author and the author's willingness to take a more measured approach and take more time to talk about this.

But, and we are definitely committed to being part of that conversation and working with the stakeholders and the agencies and the author and the Administration on trying to figure out what the right policies are, are here moving forward.

But because of our fundamental opposition to how this has been done, we remain opposed and respectfully asked for a new vote. Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon. Tracy Ryan, Rural County Representatives of California. Technically, our position is concerns. We did not go opposed on this position because we actually believe in the vision that the Senator has for this Bill.

And we're very supportive of finding a way to find balanced policy around housing development in high fire prone areas and balancing the need to get people out safely in those areas, but also addressing our housing crisis.

We appreciate the author's office, your Committee staff and the Administration with trying to get to a place where our issues are addressed. However, we couldn't get there. We are.

This is a pretty quick turnaround, and we appreciate the author's willingness and the Committee staff and the Administration to try to find language throughout the summer to get us to a place where we can be in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any other persons in the hearing room in opposition?

Good afternoon. Paul Mason with Pacific Forest Trust. We have an opposed, unless amended position. The amendments that the author has taken today address many of those, and we'll look forward to continuing to work with the author in these coming months. Just to be clear, the stakeholder engagement on this Bill really started last week, not a year ago.

And so I think that it's going to be important to be able to have a little bit more give and.

Take just name organization position on the Bill. Appreciate it.

Good afternoon, chair Members. Peter Ansel of California Farm Bureau. We're opposed unless amended. We've had a good discussion with the Administration, with the author's office and the, and we have some language that would help encourage the acknowledgment that wildfire organization. And position on the Bill have a Low risk.

Appreciate you, sir.

Kim Delfino, representing Defenders of Wildlife's air Force legacy and California Native Plant Society, in opposed unless amended. Looking forward to July.

Thank you.

Catherine Freeman with the California State Association of Counties, in alignment with the Rural County Representatives of California with concerns. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Christine Scranch with the Center for Biological Diversity. We remain opposed, but thank you for your commitment for stakeholder engagements.

Melissa sparks Cranz with the League of California cities, aligning our comments with a concerns position like the rural counties of representatives, California thank you.

Thank you so much.

Megan McElberg, on behalf of the mid Peninsula Regional Open Space district and respectful opposition.

Thank you so much. We'll now turn it to Committee Members questions, comments? Mister Muratsuchi

Thank you. So, Senator, I'm hearing, you know, people that like to be thoughtful about these major policy changes saying that they haven't had enough time to, to evaluate this. And, you know, I represent one community that the Palos Verde's Peninsula that CAL FIRE, until recently, I believe, had designated as a very high fire risk hazard zone.

But recently there might have been some changes. I've raised concerns before about how we're continuing to, you know, as I understand it, Senator, you know, you've been pushing to build more housing in some of these areas where we've already had a lot of wildfires. And I leave it up to you.

I'm sure your position is much more nuanced than that. But I am concerned, you know, why are we continuing to build, encouraging the building of more housing in these high fire risk hazard areas? And I'm concerned, given your history, that this is further along those lines. And so just raising a lot of concerns.

Yeah, no, I appreciate that. That's not the case. This is not about rolling back the protections and mitigations that, frankly, existed before I became a state Senator. Right. It's not about eliminating that. It's about a system we have now, a mapping system that frankly I don't think is working for an awful lot of people.

I mean that's why when we put this Bill in print there could have been an absolute tidal wave of hell. No, go away. And instead what you've heard today is a lot of folks like RCRC and some of the major environmental organizations who are saying we're not there.

We have concerns, we want to see changes, but they're not saying under no circumstances. And that's why what we've agreed to today is to remove some pieces of the Bill in collaboration with the Committee and to continue the work over the summer and we'll see how that goes.

And our goal is to try to build the broadest coalition possible. This isn't about trying to, you know, shove anything down anyone's throats to be a little, to be crass. It's about trying to work together. And you're never going to reach unanimity. I've learned that even on easy issues.

But we want to build a broad coalition behind the Bill and that's why we've agreed to the significant amendments today in order to move that process forward.

Okay. I mean just for the, no disrespect to you, but I'm going to follow the concerns raised and I'm going to abstain for today. Mister Kalra.

Thank you Mister chair. And just want to get to your last comment regarding the amendments. I believe that narrow the scope of the Bill and I appreciate the chair and Committee for putting those forward.

And so with those amendment, with the acceptance of those amendments, what will be a lot of what are the main components that have been stripped out that you feel you can actually get movement on with some of those that are concerned moving forward.

You indicate there will be conversations over the summer, what have you, what will be the I guess gist of those conversations that you feel would set you up for success moving forward?

Yeah, I mean I think, and I'll let the also comment on it. What we've heard from a lot of stakeholders is we may not love the way this is right now, but something has to change.

Because right now if you look at the system you have the very high and high and moderate and then the state responsibility and the local responsibility like mother nature and climate change, do not care if a zone is within a city's incorporated boundaries or in an unincorporated area that's not relevant to a wildfire.

And yet we've set up these like parallel systems. And that's what originally got me interested in it about why do we have these separate things? And then as we started talking to the Administration, realized that we were not the only ones to have that view.

And then you have, you know, with cities, a lot of, you know, there's these conflicting issues. Yeah, we don't, maybe we shouldn't build housing here or there, but also you have the insurance issues that come in.

And so, it's, you know, and as some Member, despite I know some of the perceptions you may have of me, I acknowledge there are certain areas that are tinderboxes where we really should be avoiding building there.

But there are also a lot of areas that are classified as having some wildfire risk where with the right mitigations, you can build. And there are people in those parts of the state. The areas with wildfire risk are not only like virgin forests. Right.

There are a lot of existing communities, like in Santa Rosa or other places where we're not going to just say, no more building, no one's, because there are people who need housing. But how do we do it in a thoughtful, smart way. And that's what this is about. The chief was clear, and I agree.

This is not about like, reducing the mitigations that are required. It's about, you know, having a more broad based approach.

And the kind of the opposite of that question is, so what is, what with the amendments? What is going to be the result of the Bill with the amendments? In other words, what can we foresee happening in the weeks and months ahead?

Well, we don't know yet, because it's going to be discussed over the next couple months with all the stakeholders. So, I can't predict exactly where that's going to. Lamba, chief, perhaps you want to.

Yeah, Member, thank you for the question. And I think where we ultimately want to get is as close to the language as it was in print as possible before the amendments, understanding that we probably won't get everything.

But we really feel that the creation of the wildfire mitigation area and the regulatory authority to propagate the regulations that go into that area, that's an important component to have together as one package.

And the Senator spoke about the disparity between the state responsibility area and the local responsibility area where all the mitigations apply in the SRA, but not all the mitigations apply in the LRA.

But it's the same mapping and the same three tiers in the wildfire mitigation area, you would actually see increased protections in the LRA, because all the mitigations would apply, and the mitigations I'm referring to are defensible space.

Chapter seven a of the building code for building construction to build more fire resilient homes, and the minimum fire safe regulations that provide for environmental protections and provide for road widths, access, water storage capacity, and all of those features that come into effect, you would see increases in the LRA.

And the final question is then you mentioned there's going to be conversations over the summer, then is this going to come back with the result of that, or is it more of setting up the pathway towards the issues?

So right now, the Bill, if it passes out of Committee today, is quite limited. It creates the new wildfire mitigation area, WMA, and it ensures that the crafting of the areas is science based. So it's a very General at this point.

And so in terms of once all of the stakeholder work happens with the Committee, also with Senate Natural Resources, the idea would be that it would be folded back in the chair, of course, would bills can be called back into Committee if the Committee Deems it appropriate. And I view this as a collaborative process.

So that's something that I would be, you know, completely okay with if the chair wanted to do that. So this is one of those areas where it is a big tent kind.

Of situation with the narrowing amendments. And given the fact that the chair and Committee staff will have the ability to oversee kind of progress, I'll be supporting it today, but share some of the General concerns to make sure that all the stakeholders, especially those that express concern, are part of the process.

Absolutely.

Senator, would you like to close?

No, I think, I think I've said my piece, and I want to thank the chair and Committee staff again for working really hard on this Bill and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I know Paige has spent a lot of time on this Bill, and we expect to potentially spend more time on this Bill. You're trying to address something incredibly large.

And more than anything we recognize in this first Committee, we needed to put our fingerprints on it, but that this process is ongoing and requires a lot of engagement. But have the full confidence that you're going to go through that engagement. And if we have to return back for future conversations, we'll have those.

But thank you for taking on this issue thoughtfully, including the Administration, including folks who are needing to be at the table. And we look forward to hearing how those conversations and negotiations go. It enjoys a do pass today. Madam Secretary, do we have a motion, Mister Flora and a second by Miss Pellerin. Can we call the roll?

The motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Has five. Will these roll open? Thank you. Absolutely, Senator Cortese. Thank you for your patience. You can begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mister chair. Appreciate the opportunity to present SB 1298 to you and the Members. I will be accepting the Committee's amendments. This Bill increases the threshold for data center eligibility under the small power plant exemption, which we sometimes refer to as SPPE. Under that process, the exemption would increase from a 100-megawatt threshold to 150 megawatts.

California law currently allows the California Energy Commission to have exclusive authority to license thermal power plants that are 50 megawatts or larger. The small power plant exemption and program allows CEC to exempt from its licensing authority thermal power plants that do not exceed 100.

CEC can grant an exemption if it finds that the proposed facility would not substantially impact the environment or energy resources. If the exemption is approved, the project developer is responsible for securing all local, state and federal permits to construct and operate the plan. This Bill does not circumvent any environmental review of proposed facilities.

The Bill, at its core is an economic infrastructure Bill. Data centers and the fiber networks underpinning them are necessary in critical infrastructure. They are the backbone for the apps, platforms and services integral to daily life, connecting individuals and organizations worldwide.

However, despite the significant strides made in recent years to expand the data center capacity, the demand for digital services continues to surge, particularly in Silicon Valley, where the vacancy rate for data centers is a mere 1.6%.

Silicon Valley power forecasts that the data center load will double by 2035, and significant resource additions will be needed to support this increase.

Data centers support businesses of all sizes, critical infrastructure and essential services such as 911 call centers, GPS navigation systems, our state's tech industry, and much more, an aye vote today will ensure we maintain the state's economic vitality and build capacity for future growth.

With us today, we have Tim McRae, the Vice President of sustainability at the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. Thank you, chair and Members. At appropriate time, I'd respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Tim McRae, Silicon Valley Leadership Group we're the sponsor of the Bill. This Bill is about allowing building of larger data centers, which are a critical infrastructure necessity.

Emergency services, hospital records, online banking and cloud based services all rely on data centers despite their high demand and crucial function for the economy and safety, Silicon Valley is the nation's tightest data center market, with a vacancy rate of just 1.6%. Citing data centers near technology headquarters is important for computing latency needs.

When you call 911, you want the response to be instant. Building bigger data centers in Silicon Valley helps power the Silicon Valley economy, which is crucial for the California economy and for a Healthy California budget. Data centers run on grid power. They have to rely on their backup sources of power less than 0.07% of the time.

That's roughly 6 hours a year. All of the rest of the time they run on the power the grid provides.

Just like any other home or business, 59% of California's power now comes from carbon free sources, and the state has goals of running on zero carbon generation of energy by 2045, all of which the Silicon Valley Leadership Group has supported. That won't change regardless of the allowable size of California data centers.

In addition, the Bill has taken an amendment to have air districts participate in the permitting process and determine a technologically neutral, best available control technology for that backup power. And my understanding is that the folks who'd opposed this Bill in previous committees are now no longer opposing the Bill because of that amendment.

Finally, California's grid is an additional reason to cite data centers here as opposed to elsewhere in the country. They will run on zero carbon energy if located here, as opposed to if they are cited out of state. Thank you for your time.

Are the persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure.

Good afternoon chair and Members Martin Vindiola, on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers in support.

Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon Mister chair. Keith Dunn, on behalf of the State Building Construction Training Council in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair Members Timothy Burr, on behalf of the Data Center Coalition in support.

Hi, Robyn Hines with Microsoft in support.

Thank you so much. Are the persons in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this measure.

Good afternoon, I'm Will Barrett with the American Lung Association, also speaking on behalf of Coalition for Clean Air, moving to a neutral position with the amendments taken today. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair Members Ross Buckley, on behalf of South Coast Air Quality Management District were opposed to Bill in print, but appreciate the direction the amendments are going in as we still review them. Thanks.

Daniel Barad, on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists moving to neutral with the amendments. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Alan Abbs with Bay Air Quality Management District. We had an opposed unless amended position. Moving to neutral. Thank you to the author for his assistance.

Thank you so much. We'll now turn it to Committee Members. Questions, comments, concerns? Motion by Mister Kalra, second by Miss Pelerin. Absolutely.

Tell me again how long or how often the backup generators are used? Every year, you said.

.07% of the time, which is roughly 6 hours a year. They did a study of data centers for 13 months in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Some of them never ran on their backup power, and on average, it was 6 hours a year.

Happy to support the Bill today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Senator, would you like to close?

Yeah. Again, I want to really thank the chair and the Committee for their Help, especially with this last amendment. It's done a world of good in terms of getting us to the position today of minimal if any, opposition. And with that, I'd respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Absolutely. Thank you, Senator. This Bill has a do pass from the chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is do pass to labor and employment Committee. [Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Thank you. If your name is Senator Becker, Blakespear, Padilla, or Caballero, now is your moment. We have an empty Nat Resource Committee and we are looking for you. First come, first serve.

You can begin when ready. You can begin when you're ready.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. And I want to thank you and your team for all the work on this bill. This has been about a year and a half of work, but a lot of intense focus the last couple months. I really appreciate it and I appreciate all the amendments, and I think we are getting to a very good place. And I will certainly be accepting all the amendments and--and appreciate the work. A little bit of a longer statement.

I'll try to condense a bit, but I think it is important, just the context that we understand that this is a goal that we committed to thanks to your great work, Assembly Member, and everyone who supported it, that we set a goal of 2045, getting to net zero.

So that goal is 85% direct emissions reductions, 15% carbon removal. And that means we'll be needing to remove at least 15% of 1990 emissions, which was 65 million tons per year. Per year, to get to net zero. That's just the definition of net zero. So you can't get to net zero without carbon removal. The problem is we don't really have a plan to do that. And this bill directs CARB to create that plan and get started. Of course, again, it goes without saying: most of our effort and most of my legislation is focused on the other part, the emissions reductions.

But that won't be enough to get to net zero, again, without carbon removal. And then it shouldn't be controversial. The IPCC has been telling us that carbon removal was essential for any 1.5 degree or even 2 degree pathway. The Biden Administration has been incredibly active in this area. They have their own Carbon Negative Shot program, the DOE.

And the aim is driving down the cost of carbon removal below $100 a ton within a decade. And that's the goal. We're not going to drive the cost down without creating that long-term, predictable market that can get entrepreneurs and investors to say, "Yes, we're going to invest in all these many, many nascent carbon removal technologies," and you'll probably hear about a few of those today. So the question is, how do we get there?

This bill puts a framework in place for scaling up carbon dioxide removal. We also call it CDR, by addressing three issues. And I want to quickly go through those three issues. The first issue is: what should count towards net zero? If we're claiming net zero, it ought to be high quality carbon removal and not the kinds of questionable offsets that I know many of us have had issues with over the years.

That's why this bill and a lot of the work that was done to establish rules to support a wide variety of CDR approaches, including both technological and nature-based solutions, as long as they meet certain standards, such as requirements for being verifiable and long-lasting. When we passed SB 905 in 2022, we established some requirements for CDR projects as part of a bill that was mostly focused on CCS and geologic storage.

SB 308 expands on those rules to make sure that many different pathways for CDR are supported, not just those using geological storage, while making sure that CARB establishes rules for each CDR approach to ensure the quality. Second question. So first, again, what should count? Second: what guardrails do we need to protect communities and the environment from any impacts from CDR projects? Here, 905 was a great start, included strong protections for neighboring communities.

This bill requires that all CDR processes approved by CARB for use in meeting the state's target, whether located in-state or elsewhere, to meet equivalent standards to the extent feasible. The bill also includes some other guardrails to make sure that we are only supporting good kinds of CDR, such as, for example, for biomass--only waste biomass feedstocks to avoid having CDR lead to deforestation or conversion of crop land to grow crops specifically for carbon removal, et cetera, et cetera.

So that was the second area that we covered. The third question is: how do we create incentives for CDR to scale up? How do we create those incentives, again, so entrepreneurs will continue to innovate, investors will continue to invest? We bring the cost down, just like we've done for solar.

This bill originally was very focused and very prescriptive on the Polluter-Pay model. This bill defers to CARB the best way to determine, to create those incentives. But it does require CARB to create interim targets so that we can see the path in at zero and tell whether we are on the track to get there.

It requires CARB to aim for CDR equivalent to 1% of emissions in 2030. That's about 2.5 million tons, 1% of emissions in 2030, which should provide a strong market signal to support private sector investment in CDR solutions. It also requires CARB to set separate targets for both emissions reductions and for carbon removal.

So we can see we're on track to meeting both of those targets separately and making sure, again, that carbon removal is scaling up in addition to emissions reductions, not instead of them. I want to thank the Chair and Committee staff again for the tremendous work on this.

And just in conclusion, I know that carbon removal is a relatively new topic and over time it was--even myself, when I first started getting into it, confused with carbon capture. But it was--while a new topic is an important one, we need to continue to focus on emission reductions. But that won't be enough.

We need to get started now on CDR. Just like it took us 20 years of policy support to scale up solar and get a low cost generation today, we should expect it to take that many years to scale up and reduce the cost of CDR. I respectfully ask for aye vote and have two great witnesses here with me today.

Two minutes each.

Hello Chair and Members. My name is Haley Leslie-Bole on behalf of the World Resources Institute. We are a global environmental research organization. I sit on WRI's carbon removal team where I manage our work on nature-based carbon removal and biomass carbon removal.

The IPCC and WRI's own research has found that carbon removal will be necessary at a large scale to complement deep and rapid emissions reductions if the world is going to prevent catastrophic climate change. Carbon removal, including both nature-based strategies and engineered strategies, will also be essential if California and the nation are going to meet their climate targets.

SB 308 presents an opportunity for California to lead the nation in building and expanding critically important carbon removal to the scale required to meet these targets. California has set robust emissions reductions targets in 2022, but to reach net zero emissions, California must also set targets for removing carbon. In 2045, carbon removal will be needed to counterbalance the hardest-to-eliminate emissions to allow the state to meet its net zero target.

Between now and 2045, the state must work to support diverse pathways to meet its carbon removal targets. There are many approaches to removing carbon, and just as many companies are looking to increase the scale of the carbon removal that they can offer.

SB 308 is technology neutral, so it directs CARB to support any carbon removal pathway that meets criteria for quality, ensures that removed carbon stays out of the atmosphere, and adheres to community and environmental safety rules established by CARB.

This includes technological approaches like direct air capture and nature-based removals pathways like reforestation, as well as approaches that use sustainable biomass waste or residues to permanently sequester the carbon that plants pull out of the air as they grow.

Many of these approaches offer environmental benefits beyond carbon removal and can help the state manage the threat of catastrophic wildfire. SB 308 creates a necessary framework for California to set and attain targets for high quality, responsible carbon removal that is safe and complements the state's comprehensive emissions reductions.

Thank you so much. Two minutes.

Members of the Committee, I'm Doctor Corey Myers. I'm an engineer, scientist and analyst at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I'm here today to give you accurate and unbiased information on carbon dioxide removal. So here it is. If you want to keep global warming to two degrees C or maybe bring it down to lower, more reasonable temperatures one day, you need carbon dioxide removal. No two ways about it. Typically, you'll hear about two or three methods, but in reality, there are dozens and dozens of options out there.

So I'd like to give you a taste of what's possible in California. We have rocks across the state that naturally pull CO2 out of the air and turn it into a rock. We have brines, both natural and from desalination, that you can extract more water out of for agriculture while taking CO2 out of the air and getting rid of that brine waste. And then we have forest management waste that you can convert into hydrogen for industry while taking CO2 out of the air and reducing wildfire risk.

As I said, there's lots more options out there. These are being developed by government and academia, but also startups, mom-and-pop operations, and large corporations. But it doesn't matter who's developing it or how amazing the technology seems. For these to become actual businesses, you need financing.

And to get financing, what a bank needs to see is a long-term, stable market. So that's why I'm really encouraged by what I hear in the Legislature. I'm here to answer any questions you have on the subject, and I appreciate your time and your thought on this matter.

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

Good afternoon, Chair. Martin Radosevich on behalf of Heirloom Carbon Technologies in strong support and would like to thank the author for his leadership on this.

Good evening. Baani Behniwal with the Climate Center. We have a support, if amended, position on the bill and would like to thank the authors, staff and Committee staff for continuing to work through our issues. Thank you.

Margie Lie on behalf of Ebb Carbon in strong support.

Jonathan Cole on behalf of Climate Action California, also on behalf of Citizens Climate Lobby California, Reality Project California Coalition, Santa Cruz Climate Action Network, 350 Sacramento, and 350 Humboldt in support.

Good evening. Katelyn Roedner Sutter on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund in support. Support the amendments in the analysis and also especially clarifying that nature-based climate solutions are part of this. So thank you.

Good evening. Ashley Arax on behalf of the Clean Air Task Force in support. Thank you.

Peter Chargin. I'm a private citizen, lived in California my entire life. In strong support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any persons here in opposition to this measure?

Good evening, Chair and Members. My name is Katie Valenzuela on behalf of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition and several other environmental and EJ groups with an oppose unless amended position. We do want to thank the author for his earnest engagement in these last six weeks, as well as Committee staff for continuing to hear our concerns.

Really, we are asking you to pass this bill today with a clear commitment from the author to continue to work with us on our outstanding issues, which are small in number. The biggest two issues that we have right now are making sure that additionality is met.

In other words, if any of those credits are sold for the low carbon fuel standard, that goes to the 85%, not the 15%. We want to make sure this is rigorous. We also have concerns about the definition of eligible biomass that we'd like to see addressed, as well as ensuring that the language--this bill leans heavily on the protections you all passed in 2022 and SB 905.