Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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?
- Josh Newman
Person
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.
- Josh Newman
Person
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.
- Josh Newman
Person
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.
- Josh Newman
Person
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.
- Josh Newman
Person
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.
- Josh Newman
Person
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.
- Josh Newman
Person
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.
- Josh Newman
Person
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.
- Josh Newman
Person
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.
- Josh Newman
Person
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.
- Josh Newman
Person
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.
- Josh Newman
Person
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.
- Josh Newman
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, sir. You can begin.
- Jason Schmelzer
Person
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.
- Jason Schmelzer
Person
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.
- Jason Schmelzer
Person
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.
- Jason Schmelzer
Person
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.
- Jason Schmelzer
Person
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.
- Joanne Brasch
Person
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.
- Joanne Brasch
Person
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.
- Joanne Brasch
Person
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.
- Joanne Brasch
Person
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.
- Joanne Brasch
Person
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.
- Joanne Brasch
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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?
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call].
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
And a quick vote on the consent calendar real fast? Motion by Flora, second by Kalra and Bauer-Kahan.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Item Seven: SB 945: Alvarado-Gil, Items 14: SB 1324: Limon, [Roll Call].
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. You may begin.
- Jennifer Roe
Person
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Jennifer Roe--
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Sorry. One second. We'll get that for you.
- Jennifer Roe
Person
Testing. Mr. Chair and Members, Jennifer Roe with Capitol Advocacy, on behalf of the Association of California Goodwills, in support. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Deb Zell
Person
Chair and Members, this is Deb Zell of Please Return It: smart labels for circularity and transparency, in support of the bill.
- Ian Pund
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you. Name, organization, and position on the bill.
- Heather Podoll
Person
Heather Podoll, on behalf of nonprofit Fibershed. Our position is support with amendments per our letter.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Jordan Wells
Person
Jordan Wells, on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council, in strong support. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Sarah Boudreau
Person
Hello. Sarah Boudreau with the City of Roseville, in support.
- Livia Keene
Person
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.
- Lindsay Gullahorn
Person
Good afternoon. Lindsay Gullahorn with Capitol Advocacy, on behalf of the Resource Recovery Coalition of California, in support.
- Krystal Raynes
Person
Krystal Raynes with Californians Against Waste, in support.
- Silvio Ferrari
Person
Good afternoon. Silvio Ferrari, on behalf of Savers Value Village, in support.
- Teresa Cooke
Person
Good afternoon. Teresa Cooke, on behalf of the City of Alameda, in strong support.
- Dylan Elliott
Person
Thank you. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, in support. Thank you.
- Melissa Romero
Person
Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters, in support.
- Roman Vogelsang
Person
Chair and Members, Roman Vogelsang with Aprea and Company, speaking in support on behalf of our public services. Thank you.
- Joshua Gauger
Person
Josh Gauger, on behalf of the counties of Santa Clara and Santa Barbara, in support.
- Jakob Evans
Person
Jacob Evans with Sierra Club California, in support.
- John Kennedy
Person
John Kennedy with Rural County Representatives of California, in support, and also testifying on behalf of California State Association of Counties today. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you. Are there any persons in opposition? Come on down. Two minutes each, whenever you're ready.
- Adam Regele
Person
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.
- Adam Regele
Person
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.
- Adam Regele
Person
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.
- Adam Regele
Person
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.
- Adam Regele
Person
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.
- Adam Regele
Person
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.
- Adam Regele
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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.
- Lauren Aguilar
Person
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.
- Lauren Aguilar
Person
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.
- Lauren Aguilar
Person
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.
- Lauren Aguilar
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Are there persons in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this measure?
- Dean Talley
Person
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.
- Kelli Boehm
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. We'll now turn it to committee members. Assembly Member Kalra.
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
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.
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
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.
- Josh Newman
Person
Happy to do that. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Rebecca Bauer-Kahan.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Josh Newman
Person
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.
- Joanne Brasch
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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?
- Josh Newman
Person
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.
- Josh Newman
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, Senator. This bill has a do pass reco from the Chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call].
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you.
- Josh Newman
Person
Thank you, members. Thank you, Chair.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Senator Min. Come on down.
- Dave Min
Person
Come on down. Thank you. Appreciate it. Nice to meet you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Whenever you're ready.
- Dave Min
Person
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.
- Dave Min
Person
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.
- Dave Min
Person
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.
- Dave Min
Person
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.
- Dave Min
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Whenever you're ready.
- Sherry Pemberton
Person
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.
- Sherry Pemberton
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Are there any persons in this hearing room who support this resolution?
- Christina Scaringe
Person
Good afternoon, Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in strong support. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Megan Shumway, in support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Jakob Evans
Person
Jacob Evans, with Sierra Club California, in support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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?
- Dave Min
Person
I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
This has an obvious and necessary do pass recommendation from the Chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is that the measure be adopted. [Roll Call]
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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.
- Brian Dahle
Person
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.
- Brian Dahle
Person
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.
- Brian Dahle
Person
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.
- Brian Dahle
Person
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.
- Brian Dahle
Person
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.
- Brian Dahle
Person
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.
- Brian Dahle
Person
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.
- Emmanuel Orozco
Person
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.
- Emmanuel Orozco
Person
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.
- Emmanuel Orozco
Person
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.
- Emmanuel Orozco
Person
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.
- Emmanuel Orozco
Person
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.
- Emmanuel Orozco
Person
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.
- Emmanuel Orozco
Person
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.
- Emmanuel Orozco
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Kevin Johnston
Person
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.
- Kevin Johnston
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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?
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Oh, false alarm. All right. Any opposition in the hearing room? Sure.
- Christina Scaringe
Person
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.
- Christina Scaringe
Person
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.
- Christina Scaringe
Person
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.
- Christina Scaringe
Person
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.
- Christina Scaringe
Person
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.
- Christina Scaringe
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
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.
- Christina Scaringe
Person
We've actually submitted it to you.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
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?
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Yes.
- Christina Scaringe
Person
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.
- Christina Scaringe
Person
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.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you. Any other questions from Committee Members? Mister Dahle, would you like to close?
- Brian Dahle
Person
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.
- Brian Dahle
Person
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.
- Brian Dahle
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, sir. This bill has a do pass recommendation. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?
- Committee Secretary
Person
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.
- Brian Dahle
Person
What do you, how many do you have to have?
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Seven.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
And with me here to testify and support is Matt Baker from the Planning Conservation League.
- Matthew Baker
Person
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.
- Matthew Baker
Person
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.
- Matthew Baker
Person
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.
- Matthew Baker
Person
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.
- Matthew Baker
Person
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.
- Matthew Baker
Person
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.
- Matthew Baker
Person
So with that, we strongly support the Bill and ask for an aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, Mister Baker. Are there any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure?
- Tracy Bryant
Person
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.
- Tracy Bryant
Person
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.
- Silvio Ferrari
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Any witnesses in opposition,
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Respectfully ask for your vote?
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
This Bill has a do pass recommendation by the Chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?
- Committee Secretary
Person
Roll Call
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
We'll leave it open for absent members whenever you're ready.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
It provides us flexibility as the market for used EV batteries grows.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Megan Mekelburg, representing CalStart, and Danielle Barrad with the union of Concerned Scientists. Two minutes each.
- Megan Mekelburg
Person
Great. Thank you. My name is Megan Mekelburg. I'm here on behalf of CalStart.
- Megan Mekelburg
Person
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.
- Megan Mekelburg
Person
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.
- Megan Mekelburg
Person
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.
- Megan Mekelburg
Person
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.
- Daniel Barad
Person
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.
- Daniel Barad
Person
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.
- Daniel Barad
Person
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.
- Daniel Barad
Person
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.
- Daniel Barad
Person
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.
- Daniel Barad
Person
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.
- Daniel Barad
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, sir. Are there any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure.
- Melissa Romero
Person
Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters in support. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Megan Chamoy, in support.
- Lizzie Cootsona
Person
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.
- Jakob Evans
Person
Jacob Evans with Sierra California in support.
- Crystal Martinez
Person
Crystal Martinez with California against Waste in support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Come on down.
- John Moffatt
Person
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.
- John Moffatt
Person
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.
- John Moffatt
Person
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.
- John Moffatt
Person
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.
- John Moffatt
Person
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.
- John Moffatt
Person
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
Person
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.
- Dan Shaw
Person
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.
- Dan Shaw
Person
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.
- Dan Shaw
Person
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.
- Dan Shaw
Person
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.
- Dan Shaw
Person
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.
- Dan Shaw
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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.
- Megan Allred
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Turn to Committee Members. Any questions, comments, concerns? Senator Allen Singh.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
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.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
I mean, can you just try to generally address how you're trying to make it work without making ev's more expensive?
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Okay, well, I trust you and if it's not too late, I'd love to be added as a co-author.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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?
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass as amended, to appropriations. [Roll Call]
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Going for the hat trick today?
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Unfortunately, it's a quarter. We got four, so. I know, I know. I apologize.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Is this SB 571?
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
This is 1143.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
1143. Whenever you're ready.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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-
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
-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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Heidi Sanborn
Person
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.
- Heidi Sanborn
Person
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.
- Heidi Sanborn
Person
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.
- Heidi Sanborn
Person
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.
- Heidi Sanborn
Person
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.
- Heidi Sanborn
Person
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.
- John Kennedy
Person
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.
- John Kennedy
Person
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.
- John Kennedy
Person
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.
- John Kennedy
Person
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.
- John Kennedy
Person
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.
- John Kennedy
Person
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.
- John Kennedy
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure?
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
... with Californians Against Waste in support of this measure.
- Megan Shumway
Person
Megan Shumway on behalf of Climate Action California, Climate Reality Projects, California Coalition, and Santa Cruz Climate Action Network in support.
- Dylan Elliott
Person
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
Person
Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters in support.
- Megan Mekelburg
Person
Megan Mekelburg on behalf of Rethink Waste in support.
- Melissa Sparks-Kranz
Person
Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities in support.
- Jordan Wells
Person
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.
- Lindsay Gullahorn
Person
Good afternoon. Lindsay Gullahorn with Capital Advocacy on behalf of the Resource Recovery Coalition of California in support .
- John Moffatt
Person
John Moffat on behalf of Waste Management in support.
- David Krieger
Person
David Krieger for Waste Connections in support.
- Jeremy Jones
Person
Jeremy Jones, American Coatings Association, parent organization of PaintCare, and Proud San Diego County resident. Please support.
- Joshua Gauger
Person
Josh Gauger on behalf of the counties of Santa Clara, Los Angeles and Santa Barbara in support.
- Roman Vogelsang
Person
Chair and Members. Roman Vogelsang with the Aprea & Company on behalf of Republic Services in support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this measure? Come on down.
- Nicole Quinonez
Person
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.
- Nicole Quinonez
Person
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.
- Nicole Quinonez
Person
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.
- Nicole Quinonez
Person
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.
- Nicole Quinonez
Person
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.
- Nicole Quinonez
Person
We also believe more study is warranted in lieu of establishing the new EPR program for household hazardous waste.
- Nicole Quinonez
Person
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.
- Nicole Quinonez
Person
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.
- Nicole Quinonez
Person
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.
- Nicole Quinonez
Person
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.
- Nicole Quinonez
Person
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.
- Nicole Quinonez
Person
With that, we're committed to working to improve the management of household hazards waste in the state but are opposed today. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thanks so much. Any other persons in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition?
- Dawn Sanders-Koepke
Person
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 Chia
Person
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.
- Taylor Roschen
Person
Good afternoon. Taylor Roschan on behalf of Western Plant Health Association and rise in post.
- Greg Hurner
Person
Greg Hurner on behalf of the Can Manufacturers Institute in opposition.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Afternoon Adam Regley with the California Chamber of Commerce and respectful opposition.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Thanks obed Frank of the American Chemistry Council on respectful opposition.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good afternoon. Annalee Augustine on behalf of Consumer Brands Association, respectfully opposed. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. We'll now turn it back to Committee Members. Any questions, comments, concerns for the author. Senator Bauer Kahan.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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?
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
oh, and Mister Flora wants me to stop talking.
- Heidi Martin
Person
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.
- Heidi Martin
Person
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.
- Heidi Martin
Person
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.
- Heidi Martin
Person
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.
- Heidi Martin
Person
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.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
That's fair.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
So I guess I'm just struggling to see how it functions the way you intend it to.
- Heidi Martin
Person
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.
- Heidi Martin
Person
They would be. They could be out of the program. Yeah, got it. Okay, so that's what he was saying.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Seeing none. Mister Allen, would you like to close?
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
So, it's in that spirit that I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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?
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is due. Pass two appropriations [Roll Call]
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Pass forward. We'll leave the role open. All right.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
All right. Last one. SB 571. No, we've already done that. We have already done that.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Yeah. Bring us home, Mr. Allen.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Bring us home, Mr. Allen.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
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.
- Jordan Wells
Person
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.
- Jordan Wells
Person
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.
- Jordan Wells
Person
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.
- Jordan Wells
Person
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.
- Jordan Wells
Person
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.
- Bruce Minioni
Person
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.
- Bruce Minioni
Person
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.
- Bruce Minioni
Person
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.
- Bruce Minioni
Person
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.
- Bruce Minioni
Person
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.
- Bruce Minioni
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much, sir. Are there any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure?
- Dawn Sanders-Koepke
Person
Thank you, Mister Chair and members. Dawn Koepke, on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in strong support.
- Nicole Quinonez
Person
Good afternoon. Nicole Quinonez, on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association in support.
- Dylan Elliott
Person
Dylan Elliott, on behalf of Stop Waste in support.
- Annalee Akin
Person
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
Person
Obed Franco on behalf of the American Chemistry Council in support.
- Margie Lee
Person
Margie Lee on behalf of California League of Food Producers in support.
- Kelli Boehm
Person
Kelly LaRue with Resilient Advocacy on behalf of the American Forest and Paper Association in support.
- Adam Regele
Person
Good afternoon, Chair. Adam Regele with the California Chamber of Commerce in support Thanks.
- Ryan Allain
Person
Ryan Elaine on behalf of the California Retailers Association in support. Thank you.
- Kris Quigley
Person
Chris Quigley, Plastics Industry Association, in support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thanks so much. Anybody in the hearing room would like to register their opposition to this measure?
- Judy Sorey
Person
Hi, I'm Judy Sorey. I represent 350 Bay Area, and we are in opposition to this bill. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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?
- Benjamin Allen
Legislator
Respectfully ask for an aye vote. You've heard enough from me today.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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?
- Committee Secretary
Person
One can only hope. Brian.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Motion is do pass as amended, to Appropriations.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Leave it open for missing authors. Senator Wiener?
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
Yes. Thank you, Mister chair. Do you have a preference for which one we.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
No. Which one would you like to start with?
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
SB 312.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
312 it is.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Sandra Adly
Person
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.
- Sandra Adly
Person
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.
- Sandra Adly
Person
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.
- Sandra Adly
Person
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.
- Sandra Adly
Person
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.
- Sandra Adly
Person
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.
- Sandra Adly
Person
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.
- Sandra Adly
Person
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.
- Sandra Adly
Person
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.
- Sandra Adly
Person
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.
- Sandra Adly
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you. Two minutes?
- Jordan Panana Carbajal
Person
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.
- Jordan Panana Carbajal
Person
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.
- Jordan Panana Carbajal
Person
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.
- Jordan Panana Carbajal
Person
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.
- Jordan Panana Carbajal
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Are there other persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this match?
- Baltazar Cornejo
Person
Baltazar Cornejo with Brownstein on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this measure?
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Two minutes.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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?
- Tom Lackey
Legislator
Yeah? Could you help me understand what's the benefit of a LEED certification?
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
The benefit of a LEED certification is it's the highest, most sustainable standard of construction in terms of carbon emissions, et cetera.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Okay. Mister Lackey, any other questions from Committee Members? I just want to thank the author. Well, would you like to close Mister Wiener?
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Motion is due passed as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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?
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Chief, when you're ready.
- Frank Bigelow
Person
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.
- Frank Bigelow
Person
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.
- Frank Bigelow
Person
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.
- Frank Bigelow
Person
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.
- Frank Bigelow
Person
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.
- Frank Bigelow
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you sir. Are there other persons in the hearing room who would like to rest their support for this measure?
- Silvio Ferrari
Person
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 Menosky
Person
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.
- Theo Pahos
Person
Mr. Chair and Members, Theo Pahos with San Diego Gas and Electric, in support.
- Martin Radosovich
Person
Martin Radosovich on behalf of SPUR and Civic Well, in support.
- Baltazar Cornejo
Person
Baltazar Cornejo, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, in support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Okay. Any persons in opposition to this measure.
- Matthew Baker
Person
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.
- Matthew Baker
Person
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.
- Matthew Baker
Person
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.
- Matthew Baker
Person
And what we object to the most is only having a couple weeks to try to process it and think about it.
- Matthew Baker
Person
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.
- Matthew Baker
Person
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.
- Matthew Baker
Person
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.
- Matthew Baker
Person
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.
- Tracy Ryan
Person
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.
- Tracy Ryan
Person
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.
- Tracy Ryan
Person
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.
- Tracy Ryan
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Any other persons in the hearing room in opposition?
- Paul Mason
Person
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.
- Paul Mason
Person
And so I think that it's going to be important to be able to have a little bit more give and.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Take just name organization position on the Bill. Appreciate it.
- Peter Ansel
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Appreciate you, sir.
- Kim Delfino
Person
Kim Delfino, representing Defenders of Wildlife's air Force legacy and California Native Plant Society, in opposed unless amended. Looking forward to July.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Catherine Freeman
Person
Catherine Freeman with the California State Association of Counties, in alignment with the Rural County Representatives of California with concerns. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Christine Scranch with the Center for Biological Diversity. We remain opposed, but thank you for your commitment for stakeholder engagements.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Megan McElberg, on behalf of the mid Peninsula Regional Open Space district and respectful opposition.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. We'll now turn it to Committee Members questions, comments? Mister Muratsuchi
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
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.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
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.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
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.
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
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.
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
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.
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
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?
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
This is not about like, reducing the mitigations that are required. It's about, you know, having a more broad based approach.
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
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?
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
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.
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
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?
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Ash Kalra
Legislator
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.
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
Absolutely.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Senator, would you like to close?
- Scott Wiener
Legislator
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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?
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Has five. Will these roll open? Thank you. Absolutely, Senator Cortese. Thank you for your patience. You can begin whenever you're ready.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
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.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
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.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
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.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
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.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
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%.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
Silicon Valley power forecasts that the data center load will double by 2035, and significant resource additions will be needed to support this increase.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
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.
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
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.
- Tim McRae
Person
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.
- Tim McRae
Person
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.
- Tim McRae
Person
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.
- Tim McRae
Person
That's roughly 6 hours a year. All of the rest of the time they run on the power the grid provides.
- Tim McRae
Person
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.
- Tim McRae
Person
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.
- Tim McRae
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Are the persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure.
- Martin Vindiola
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, sir.
- Keith Dunn
Person
Good afternoon Mister chair. Keith Dunn, on behalf of the State Building Construction Training Council in support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Timothy Burr
Person
Good afternoon, chair Members Timothy Burr, on behalf of the Data Center Coalition in support.
- Robyn Hines
Person
Hi, Robyn Hines with Microsoft in support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Are the persons in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this measure.
- William Barrett
Person
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.
- Ross Buckley
Person
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
Person
Daniel Barad, on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists moving to neutral with the amendments. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much.
- Alan Abbs
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. We'll now turn it to Committee Members. Questions, comments, concerns? Motion by Mister Kalra, second by Miss Pelerin. Absolutely.
- Gail Pellerin
Legislator
Tell me again how long or how often the backup generators are used? Every year, you said.
- Tim McRae
Person
.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.
- Gail Pellerin
Legislator
Happy to support the Bill today. Thank you.
- Tim McRae
Person
Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Senator, would you like to close?
- Dave Cortese
Legislator
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Absolutely. Thank you, Senator. This Bill has a do pass from the chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass to labor and employment Committee. [Roll Call]
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
You can begin when ready. You can begin when you're ready.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
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.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
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.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
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.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
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.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
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?
- Josh Becker
Legislator
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.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
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.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
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.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
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.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
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.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
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.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
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.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
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.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
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.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Two minutes each.
- Haley Leslie-Bole
Person
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.
- Haley Leslie-Bole
Person
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.
- Haley Leslie-Bole
Person
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.
- Haley Leslie-Bole
Person
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.
- Haley Leslie-Bole
Person
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.
- Haley Leslie-Bole
Person
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.
- Haley Leslie-Bole
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Two minutes.
- Corey Myers
Person
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.
- Corey Myers
Person
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.
- Corey Myers
Person
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.
- Corey Myers
Person
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.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure?
- Martin Radosevich
Person
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.
- Baani Behniwal
Person
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.
- Margaret Lie
Person
Margie Lie on behalf of Ebb Carbon in strong support.
- Jonathan Cole
Person
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.
- Katelyn Sutter
Person
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.
- Ashley Arax
Person
Good evening. Ashley Arax on behalf of the Clean Air Task Force in support. Thank you.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Peter Chargin. I'm a private citizen, lived in California my entire life. In strong support. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Any persons here in opposition to this measure?
- Katie Valenzuela
Person
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.
- Katie Valenzuela
Person
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.
- Katie Valenzuela
Person
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.
- Katie Valenzuela
Person
CARB has yet to implement any of those rules, which means projects are moving forward today with none of those protections in place. The language in the bill today attempts to address that it's a little bit too little, too late. So we'd like to continue trying to strengthen that language to ensure it's meaningful and that those protections are in place.
- Katie Valenzuela
Person
A couple of our just smaller things, making sure community benefits are real and actualized, and ensuring that CARB uses the tools at their disposal so that any CDR that counts towards this target meets the standards in this bill. They're not currently doing that with the enhanced oil recovery ban in SB 905.
- Katie Valenzuela
Person
So we want to make sure that that doesn't continue in implementation of this measure. But with that, we're very hopeful that we can meet a resolution on this with a commitment from the author today. And thank you for hearing us.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Of course.
- Dan Chia
Person
Mister Chair and Members. Dan Cha for the California Chamber of Commerce. Regrettably, the chamber is opposed to this bill unless it is amended to clarify that a regulated entity is not subject to double or triple jeopardy scenario where it is regulated twice or even thrice for the same emissions. I've been meaning to use that word in testimony.
- Dan Chia
Person
We greatly appreciate how far the center has come in the most recent amendments, and I think there's not a whole lot of daylight between us conceptually in the need for this technology, as previously explained, to get it to carbon neutrality and to send the appropriate market signals.
- Dan Chia
Person
However, today, some members of the regulated community are subject to cap-and-trade, low carbon fuel standard, or both. And we'd like to avoid yet another regulatory requirement to reduce or remove the same emissions when there may be more cost effective solutions available.
- Dan Chia
Person
Otherwise, the impact could be felt, particularly by consumers, in the form of higher costs. Much like this Legislature did when it passed cap-and-trade to ensure cost containment in that program. We believe guardrails, similar guardrails should be put in place in this bill to protect consumers.
- Dan Chia
Person
Ideally, this program would be incentive-based, just like other clean energy programs that helped nascent technologies reduce costs and scale in order to achieve solutions that don't need the market for support. And at the very least, we would urge an amendment that gives regulated entities the discretion to choose which regulatory pathway makes the most sense for this business. For these reasons, we regretfully oppose to this bill.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this measure?
- Virgil Welch
Person
Thank you Mister Chair and Members. Virgil Welch, California Carbon Solutions Coalition. We actually have a neutral position on this bill. However, based on the Committee analysis and the proposed amendments that the author mentioned, we do have a concern about inclusion of any dates in this bill that would delay implementation of 905.
- Virgil Welch
Person
So as was previously mentioned, 905 is already slow moving. That is a critical program to support technologies like both CDR and carbon capture. So would like to make sure that modifications pursuant to the Committee analysis-
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
-That was a creative way to get around name, organization, and position on the bill.
- Keith Dunn
Person
Thank you, Mister Chair. Keith Dunn, State Building Construction Trades Council oppose unless amended. We're concerned about the carbon capture impacts. Thanks.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much.
- Asha Sharma
Person
Asha Sharma on behalf of Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability and we are oppose unless amended on the bill. But we appreciate the author's efforts to work with us on the bill. Thank you.
- Eloy Garcia
Person
Mister Chairman and Members, Eloy Garcia for the Western States Petroleum Association, also an opposed unless amended position.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you sir.
- Theo Pahos
Person
Mister Chairman and Members, Theo Pahos with Calpine. Generally supportive of everything that's being said here, but also very much worried about that date and hope we get some clarification on that. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you sir.
- Melissa Romero
Person
I actually have one other tweener position. Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters. We have an other tweener position on this bill, but we are working with the groups--environmental and environmental justice groups--on the changes being made. Thank you to the Senator. So looking forward to continue working with everyone.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. We'll turn it back to Committee Members. Questions, comments concerns. Mister Muratsuchi.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Senator, this is bringing back traumatic memories of when I was trying to thread the needle between, yeah, adopting aggressive climate action goals while at the same time facing the combined concerns, if not opposition, from oil trades and environmental justice groups.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
We like to bring people together.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
That's right. I respect all the work that you've done in this space, especially in terms of, you know, recognizing that the only way that we can save the planet is by driving innovation here in the State of California. And I see that as the heart of your effort here. I wanted to ask you if you can respond to Councilwoman Valenzuela's call for a commitment as to--did you say additionality?
- Katie Valenzuela
Person
Yeah, we have about five amendments outstanding.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
Well, additionalities--so thank you, and again, thank you for your work and say, yeah, we're bringing people together, but I think we've come a long way actually, both with the Environmental Justice Committee and with folks like Building Trades and the Chamber. And I can address their concerns as well.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
I would say, you know, as was mentioned, I think we've worked very closely together. We've come a long way. I think the additionality is certainly critical to us. So I venture to say we're happy to do anything regarding additionality. And I think some of the other concerns that are raised, we're pretty close.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Okay. Out of respect for you, I will be supporting this bill.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Ms. Bauer-Kahan.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Thank you. And I appreciate the scientists being here. I think I was briefed--I represent the lab--so I was briefed immediately after they did the report on how we solve our climate crisis. And it's, for those that haven't read it, I think an incredibly important report for people to read because their entire mission is national security and they believe that the climate crisis is one of the largest threats to our national security and that we need to really do an all of the above approach.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
And one of the things I appreciate about the report is it's also just sort of a cost-benefit analysis. So it really recommends the low-cost things, even though maybe they don't have as much benefit, and then talks about the importance of these more expensive investments because of the huge impact they can have.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
So with that lens, one of the things that I've learned in my conversations with the lab, although you can dispute me if you'd like, is that we need to use it both to pull additional carbon out of the air, as the bill says, but then we also--because we're not turning off our oil refineries overnight--we also need to be using it to capture current emissions. So not to drive up the emissions, but to capture current emissions.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
And I guess I wanted to clarify whether the bill does that because as I read this, when it says that it has to meet--they can only certify certain processes that meet all of the following requirements. And the first one is that it results in removal of CO2 from the atmosphere directly or indirectly, and not only the avoidance or reduction of emissions. So I do actually think we need to be doing capture as it relates to avoidance.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
Yeah. So this is a separate bill, right? Separate issue. That's why this is focused on--because carbon capture is handled separately through, you know, is basically really considered on the other side of a direct emissions reduction. So that's why this is separate and very clear of saying that this is net negative. Right? That's a term that-
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Right, but should we be also--I guess, net negative. So that's what I'm trying to figure out here, is that carbon capture and carbon dioxide removal, like net negative--so you mean... like it doesn't get us to zero from where we are today. It has to go further than that, is what you're saying?
- Josh Becker
Legislator
Exactly.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
I think, is my understanding. And so why that? Why not get us to zero? Zero seems great. Zero seems like a lot of a goal.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
Well, the problem is, again, even by our own scoping plan, if by some heroic effort by those assembled here, we're actually able to meet our 2045 goals, CARB still says we'll have 65 million metric tons a year of carbon emissions--if, like, we're incredibly successful, right, in the track that we're not quite on yet to meet.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
And so we're going to need--even to get to net zero, we'll need 65 million metric tons a year. Right? Which now we have very little. But then also to stave off the worst effects of climate change, we're going to have to start going even below that. Right? We actually want to be removing carbon net net. And this is California, right? You think about what the rest of the world is doing, right?
- Josh Becker
Legislator
So, but because we're California, we can--we're big enough to drive down the cost of these technologies: whether it's ocean alkalinization; whether it's, you know, you know, biomass technologies; whether it's the kind of reverse cement process that some of us have been out to sort of see. We're going to drive down the cost of all those and others will benefit as well.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
But it's not enough to get to net zero, right? Even if you put carbon capture on every emitting facility today, where you're still going to have plastics pollution and other production, other things. And again, ultimately we have to get even below that.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Right. But this would say--maybe that's why--I might be misreading it. So I actually invite you to correct me if I'm wrong. I just want to be clear, Senator. But this says that if some projects just get us to zero, those can't be certified, as I understand it. But maybe I'm wrong again.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
It's not about any avoided emission. So it's not--nothing qualified--if you're putting a carbon capture project on an emission, like, that doesn't qualify for this bill.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Right. But if you are emitting carbon dioxide. Right? I mean, people emit that. So you could use carbon dioxide removal to counter that. Am I wrong? Am I getting this wrong?
- Katie Valenzuela
Person
Assemblymember, that's--if I may--that's part of what I was trying to address in my additionality concern, because in theory, many carbon removal projects may decide to sell some credits off into the low carbon fuel standard, for instance, so compliance entities can purchase those credits to say we've met the target.
- Katie Valenzuela
Person
So that's why we wanted to make sure if we're dual tracking, we're counting that carbon there and this carbon here. This bill only has to do with the 15% because 905 already regulated regulates a lot of the carbon capture at industrial sources. So what we were trying to--that's why we want to make sure that they're counted separately in the truest sense.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Got it. So these are separate projects that are not associated with emissions.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
Right.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Which is why you want them to be net negative instead of neutral.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
Yeah. So this is what you see is a big, you know, that when you think of as traditional air capture, like the big, you know, the big thing sucking carbon out of the atmosphere or, or other nature-based solutions, other things, but not--it's not CCS.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
But even--I mean, I guess maybe I'm--are there emitters who--I get the difference between CCS and CDR. But I imagine if you're emitting, you could use this process instead of CCR, or would you not? Would you just use CCS? I guess--correct me. Again, I'm learning.
- Corey Myers
Person
It's almost always cheaper to not use carbon dioxide removal.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Okay, so the--for cost reasons, they're going to use CCS.
- Corey Myers
Person
Yes.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Okay. That makes sense.
- Corey Myers
Person
Now, there are some instances, like agriculture, where there's no way to capture the emissions that are coming off of that. And there are some instances, like large industrial sectors, which are--it might be more cost effective to use CDR to offset that last little bit for specifics around each industry. But in general, it's going to be cheaper for you to decarbonize in every other way possible besides CDR. CDR is really just that backstop.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Got it. Okay. So it's mostly a cost issue, which is why you would go to CCS first, I guess, I understand. Now, in those instances, right, where you had an agricultural setting or something like that, and there are other ways in some ag settings to capture.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
I guess I still see the benefit in going to zero, but I appreciate what you're trying to do here. I just want to make sure we're opening up all the pathways to get to our goals, because I don't see us getting to our goals right now. And so I think it's--what you're doing is really important, and I don't want it to be too narrow, that it doesn't help us achieve those goals. So that's what I was concerned about, but I'm happy to support it today.
- Katie Valenzuela
Person
Well, and Assembly Member, if I may, the point of that was to not create an operation that nets zero. So you could imagine with construction, with transport of carbon after the fact, with the operation of a facility, there is carbon that's associated with that.
- Katie Valenzuela
Person
So the goal is, if you're saying you're doing CDR, the actual net needs to be negative. So that's why that language is in there, so that we don't have a project that's maybe just spinning through a process that's actually generating as much carbon as it's capturing. And so that's the only reason that language is in here.
- Katie Valenzuela
Person
It's a very narrow set of circumstances where that would occur. But I think they're trying to ensure that this--if you say you're doing carbon capture, you're actually capturing some carbon at the end, and that it's not getting canceled out by other emissions in process, if that makes sense.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
You know--great, great questions. Any other questions from Committee Members? Mister Lackey?
- Tom Lackey
Legislator
Yeah, this proposed legislation seems to allow CARB to implement the program however they choose. And I would hope that it's not intended to negatively impact consumers. They're not being spoken very much in this Committee so far. Are you willing in any way to put any kind of consumer protections so as to not negatively impact energy costs?
- Josh Becker
Legislator
Certainly willing to consider anything. I mean, certainly we had a much more prescriptive bill originally when this started, sort of two years ago. And I think for a whole bunch of reasons, for a whole bunch of stakeholders, including CARB itself, the decision was made really to go back to them.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
But yeah, it doesn't mandate how they do it, but I think they've had, they're certainly trying to consider those impacts if you look at some of the other things that they're doing. So, you know, happy to look at anything, but that's certainly not the intention. We're not trying to raise prices or telling them they have to do it a certain way.
- Tom Lackey
Legislator
I can appreciate that you're not trying to, but I think it's very likely to result in that. And I appreciate your honesty. Thank you.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
Yeah. Again, I'll say just this is already part of our policy, right? We already say that we need CDR. This is really just trying to operationalize and create the pathway.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Seeing no other questions from Committee Members. Senator, would you like to close?
- Josh Becker
Legislator
Again, thank you for the robust discussion. This is--you've seen like the tip, tip, tip, tip of the iceberg of conversations that have been going on over the last six weeks. But again, I appreciate your effort and efforts of your team. I think we're, we're getting to a good place. And really, first-of-the-nation bill.
- Josh Becker
Legislator
I mean, this is something that the nation and the world is having to struggle with. And sometimes we do things that are very specific to California, but this is something that will have global impact, and we're just trying to find the right balance to get there. And I appreciate your work and respectfully ask for an aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Well, thank you, Senator. You and I have toured some direct carbon removal sites. I think I align my comments with a variety of things I've heard, somewhere kind of in the broader scheme: a tweener. I think there are ways that this could be a needed and tremendously beneficial approach to achieving our long term goals. I think it's also one of those things that we've got to set up and do right. Otherwise we're just building something else that we've got to bring down later.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
If I could think of an author who would be the right person to kind of lead that conversation and to bring folks together and do it in a thoughtful, meaningful and intentional way, I think you would be that guy. And so this bill has a do pass recommendation today. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll? Do we have a motion? Mister Muratsuchi. And a second? Miss Pellerin.
- Committee Secretary
Person
The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Bryan. Aye. Flora. Bauer-Kahan. Connelly. Aye. Friedman. Aye. Friedman. Aye. Hoover. No. Kalra. Aye. Lackey. No. Muratsuchi. Aye. Pellerin. Aye. Wicks. Aye. Wood. Aye.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Eight votes. That bill is out, Mister Becker. Senator Padilla, come on down, brother.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Whenever you're ready.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
Thank you very much, Mister Chairman and Committee Members, I'm happy to present SB 1208. I want to thank the Committee for working with my staff and begin by clarifying that I will accept committee amendments from the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials to be processed in this committee.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
Mister Chairman and members, SB 1208 would prohibit the Regional Water Board from issuing a waste discharge permit to any new landfill that is located within the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve, or within an area that is a tributary to the Tijuana River and its watershed, unless both the Secretary of EPA and the regional board make specific high standard findings based on a specific evidentiary standard, that to the effect that any discharge from such proposed class three landfills would not harm or otherwise adversely affect the Tijuana River watershed.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
There is precedent in statute for the Legislature prescribing conditions under which the regional board cannot issue a discharge permit because of a number of different exigent circumstances. So, let me just explain the scenario on the ground here and why it's very, very, very pressing and urgent.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
The Tijuana River watershed, on the border between Southern California and Mexico, transverses the border a number of times, but it is one, according to American Rivers, of the 10 most distressed and polluted river systems and watersheds in the United States.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
Currently, it is also, for the last two years and frankly, for decades, an area where literally billions of gallons of untreated sewage transboundary flows through the estuary and its tributaries into the Pacific Ocean. It contributes to incredibly unhealthy and polluting water impacts.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
But more importantly, and recently, according to new research by Scripps Institution, we are now learning that a lot of these biological pollutants are becoming aerosolized in the air column, along with other commercial and industrial runoff.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
So, it is literally a poisonous soup that is both in the topography in the watershed, but it is now also, we know, in the air column, and it is becoming aerosolized, and it is carried landward for farther distances than any of us ever assumed.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
So, we have a confluence of environmental and public health elements here that create one of the worst environmental disasters and public health disasters currently occurring in the State of California. It is unique in that way because of the confluence, multilayer number of issues that are presenting themselves here.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
But it is also a part of this state that has more than a century long history, pardon the pun, of having undesirable and unhealthy land uses dumped upon it.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
I grew up in this part of our state and south of the I-8 in San Diego County has historically been home to gas-powered waterfront energy plants, diesel-powered peaker plants rendering yards and plants wrecking yards, heavy industrial uses without adequate buffering to sensitive receptors, and on and on and on.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
It is also home to a class three landfill that is near capacity and has a limited number of years on its shelf life.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
And the proposal at question here, and is the driver of my bill, is one that was initially brought forth in the county by way of a county ballot initiative more than a decade ago, advertising itself as some kind of a recycling facility. Unfortunately, it couldn't be further from the truth.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
The ballot measure was adopted by the voters of San Diego County and processed a zoning change and a change to the implementing regs to that zoning change to allow the possibility of a class three landfill to be located at the currently proposed site, which is in the Tijuana River watershed, just a few miles south of an already existing class three landfill.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
So, this would be a twofer, right? In the same community that has been experiencing, as I articulated earlier, not just the biological and public health hazards, but also yet one more project that would be just another in a long line of environmentally adverse uses being dumped on this community, which is a community of color, underinvested community without the historic ability, financially or politically, to fight back.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
I have to add also that the fine print in the measure that was adopted did something even more egregious from the process standpoint. It utterly removed any review or any oversight by the people's elected representatives in the County of San Diego.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
The County Board of Supervisors have been removed from the CEQA process, and the lead for CEQA review in the very unique process that was inadvertently adopted by the voters basically creates an entitlement path for this, and only this proposed landfill that literally does not exist anywhere else in the state.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
In other words, no other landfill ever in the state has been subject to this type of a process. So, taken together, in summary, Mister Chairman and members, we have a very unique convergence of economic impacts in this region.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
We have a history of environmental injustice in this region, and my bill seeks to make sure that there is an extraordinarily high standard based upon a finding of clear and convincing evidence on the part of the secretary and the board. That would be the only circumstance in which it could overcome a prohibition on the issuance of a discharge permit.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
This watershed is one of the most distressed in the state, and it is poisoning this part of our state. And it is necessary, in my view and the view of the supporters of this bill that the state take action to prevent another aggravation of those circumstances.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
And with me today, I have a couple incredible witnesses, first, starting with Stephanie Peck, the founder of Protect Otay Foothills, and also Frances Motiwalla, an Activist San Diego.
- Stephanie Peck
Person
Thank you, Senator Padilla. Good afternoon. Almost evening. Thank you, Chair and members of the Committee appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today.
- Stephanie Peck
Person
As Senator Padilla said, my name is Stephanie Peck and I founded Protect Otay Foothills to give a voice to the serious concerns regarding the prospect that a new and private landfill could be cited in this location.
- Stephanie Peck
Person
Protect Otay Foothills is a broad coalition of elected officials, environmental groups, community leaders, and residents extremely concerned about the impacts of citing a proposed landfill in the Tijuana River watershed and who support SB 1208.
- Stephanie Peck
Person
That support includes members of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, including Chairwoman Nora Vargas, members of the City Council of San Diego, including President Sean Elo Rivera, mayors and council members from the impacted cities, more than a dozen environmental groups and organizations, environmental justice, and labor organizations, and more than 1,500 residents.
- Stephanie Peck
Person
The proposed landfill clearly would be located within the Tijuana River tributary system and with the river one and a half miles south of the proposed site. Despite best efforts otherwise, we know that landfills pollute. We know surface and groundwater that leave a site will flow into a river, and we know transboundary flows move pollutants downstream.
- Stephanie Peck
Person
We applaud Senator Padilla's recognition that we all live downstream. It's not a risk we can afford here. The Tijuana River cannot withstand another major stressor. San Diego County does not need a new landfill.
- Stephanie Peck
Person
The 2022, five-year state-required report, confirmed by CalEPA Secretary Yana Garcia, unequivocally shows that San Diego County has landfill capacity through at least 2053. The bill will not change any current or planned closures or expansions of the existing landfills.
- Stephanie Peck
Person
Citing a new harmful landfill that is not needed is counter to state climate policy and San Diego's County's own climate action plan, including feasible methane reduction targets. The area in the Tijuana River watershed is one of the most biologically rich, diverse and unique areas in the county in the country.
- Stephanie Peck
Person
It is host to more than two dozen endangered, threatened and sensitive species of animals, plants and critical habitat. Further impairment of the Tijuana River tributary system affects these species as well.
- Stephanie Peck
Person
14 years ago, voters were presented with a measure cloaked in the urgency of imminently running out of landfill space in a manner that deprived them of truly understanding what they were voting for. Much has changed since 2010.
- Stephanie Peck
Person
The Tijuana River crisis has only worsened, the environmental burdens on South San Diego County communities have grown, and the pendulum has moved toward real climate action, organics, diversion, and zero waste. We must adapt to changing circumstances, and this vehicle allows us to do that. The risks are real and very serious.
- Stephanie Peck
Person
The worsening of the Tijuana River is not a risk we can afford, and the system cannot and should not. The development of a new landfill in the same river system where significant federal, state and local time focus and resources are finally coalescing to address a decades long cross border pollution crisis is illogical, nonsensical, and irresponsible.
- Stephanie Peck
Person
There is no rationale for imposing the environmental, ecological and public health impacts of a landfill in this sensitive watershed when a landfill is not even needed. We respectfully support, we respectfully urge your support for this important and needed legislation. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Two minutes.
- Frances Motiwalla
Person
Thank you. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here and address you all on behalf of our community in San Diego. Hopefully you've all had the opportunity to visit and spend a day at the beach. Hopefully, though, for you, it wasn't Imperial Beach. Otherwise, you may have ended up with E. Coli or a staph infection.
- Frances Motiwalla
Person
However, our local businesses, like the awesome Katie's cafe, would have really enjoyed to have you. They have an excellent avocado toast, highly recommend. And you know, we'd love to have you down there.
- Frances Motiwalla
Person
A couple that the Senator and I met last week, I'm sure would love to personally tell you about the headaches they've been experiencing and how they can't sleep at night because of the terrible stench in their neighborhood.
- Frances Motiwalla
Person
And as you guys know, their problems are your problems because the ocean economy, including tourism, is a huge contributor to California's revenue and employment. And we're missing out on 50 miles of nautical miles of economic activity every single day those beaches are closed. Buying or renting a boat is a no-go because no one wants to swim in those toxic waters.
- Frances Motiwalla
Person
Forget about buying fishing poles and tackle. Just being near the water is enough to make you sick. Restaurants are buying less meat and produce. Boogie board sales are down, and hotel rooms are sitting empty. Hospital rooms, however, are full, with one urgent care reporting a two to 300% increase in patients suffering from gastrointestinal illness.
- Frances Motiwalla
Person
There's a lot we must do together to heal our region from the Tijuana River pollution crisis. This legislation is one simple thing you all can do today to ensure that no further harm is done. We don't need a landfill. We definitely don't need one within the Tijuana River watershed. Our people are already suffering. Please don't make us suffer anymore. All power to the people.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this bill?
- Melissa Romero
Person
Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters in support.
- Krystal Raynes
Person
Krystal Raynes for California Against Waste, in support.
- Tomas Valadez
Person
Tomas Valadez with Azul, in support.
- Victoria Rome
Person
Victoria Rome with NRDC and also registering support for the California Coastal Protection Network. Thank you.
- Kristina Bas Hamilton
Person
Hello, Chair and members. Christina Boss Hamilton here with United Domestic Workers. We represent approximately 40,000 members in San Diego County, including thousands who live in the impacted areas tired of getting dumped on. Thank you.
- Christina Scaringe
Person
Christina Scaringe of the Center for Biological Diversity in support.
- Jakob Evans
Person
Jacob Evans with Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.
- Frances Motiwalla
Person
If I could add, the Climate Reality Project of San Diego asked me to add their support as well.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Absolutely. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition? Two witnesses, two minutes.
- Steve Cruz
Person
Great. Thank you, Mister Chair and members. Steve Cruz, and with your indulgence. I may occupy the entire three minutes or so and then maybe leave questions and answers.
- Steve Cruz
Person
And joining me today, Mister David Wick, who is the CEO of National Enterprises, who is the project developer for the East Ota Mesa Landfill Project, and then Jake Durazo, who is our environmental consultant. So, I'll start with what I've shared privately and publicly with the Senator.
- Steve Cruz
Person
Great deal of respect of what he's doing to protect the Tijuana River watershed. However, we do disagree with the approach of SB 1208. As currently written the bill to prohibit a regional water board from issuing a permit for a landfill in the Tijuana River watershed, even as amended. And I want to address amendments the proposed.
- Steve Cruz
Person
Even as amended, the bill would undermine the existing Environmental and Water Board review process and undermine 84% of San Diego voters who approved the initiative. And they did so with eyes wide open.
- Steve Cruz
Person
To start, it's important to note that the project is not located within the Tijuana River estuary and that there is no scientific basis at this point that the project would adversely impact the Tijuana River watershed.
- Steve Cruz
Person
The project must go through a full environmental review under CEQA, which is just underway, and including rigorous review by the Regional Water Board, who must determine that the project will not have any negative impacts on the water quality for the Tijuana River.
- Steve Cruz
Person
It must also be stated that the voters are fully aware of what they were voting for. It was very clear in the title and the summary and the eight pages of the measure that it was a rezoning for a landfill and recycling center in the San Diego County area.
- Steve Cruz
Person
Also wanted to clarify that the local voter initiative would not permit the project to bypass CEQA. It was a rezone and without a vote of the County Board of Supervisors.
- Steve Cruz
Person
However, the project that the county LEA is the lead agency to take this process through a full CEQA review, and there'll be extensive county input, including mitigation enforcement actions, as the project moves forward. On the question of whether the landfill and recycling center are needed.
- Steve Cruz
Person
I know we've heard different statements from the supporters, and I just want to point out that they're referencing a county report, a five-year integrated waste management plan report produced in 2022.
- Steve Cruz
Person
And the report questions the need for a landfill, but only under a couple of conclusions, that, one, that we meet our waste and diversion goals, and then two, that the existing landfills will close, and these three existing landfills have submitted requests to increase or expand the height of the, of the waste.
- Steve Cruz
Person
And that's which has been controversial because they're located in existing communities, whereas the East Otay project is several miles away from any residential community and several miles away from the Tijuana River I would add. On the recycling element because I think it's important.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Coming up on three minutes.
- Steve Cruz
Person
I'm getting to my three minutes. I want to say that tremendous recycling component to the project. We'll go into that and maybe Jake will, in a question-answer period.
- Steve Cruz
Person
But with respect to the ESTM amendments, appreciate that it removed a prohibition, but put in place something that could effectively be a de facto, because it gives the secretary of EPA unilateral authority and unique authority, we think, to establish findings at a high standard that we don't think you could overcome. Clear and convincing.
- Steve Cruz
Person
And it says any harm to the Tijuana River tributary, not the estuary, a tributary, which is about half the county or one-third of the county, if I'm to be precise.
- Steve Cruz
Person
And we think that it's just a high bar and we think that it could amount to a de facto ban or something that unilaterally could be able to stop the project. So, I'll stop there, and I do have folks here. If there are questions.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
No, absolutely. No one else with a two minute.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I will add. Everything that Senator Padilla and his witness has said. Thank you. With regard to the sewer and the problems in the coastal communities of San Diego, county, sewer from Tijuana going into the ocean is a problem. I recognize that and I appreciate his support to solve that problem.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
This project has nothing to do with that. Zero. Read the facts. Read the proposition. Read the letter from CalRecycle in September 22. You will see there's a cost. If you kill this project at this location, what are you going to do in 2054? 2055? This is not the process.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
The process is CEQA to go through all the studies that we're going through, 47 different studies, and have the project vetted that way not to kill it in a bill. That's all I'm here to tell you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, sir. Any persons in the hearing room would like to register their opposition to this measure? I'm okay. Thank you.
- Nicholas Romo
Person
Chair and members, Nick Romo with the California Building Industry Association in opposition. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Seeing no others, any members of the Committee questions, comments, concerns? Mister Wood?
- Jim Wood
Person
Thank you, Mister Chair. Senator Padilla. And I, first of all, I'm going to tell you upfront, I'm going to support your bill today, but I am, there's a little bit of a head-scratcher for me.
- Jim Wood
Person
I know that there are different regions with water quality control boards, and I will tell you that in my region, I just can't even imagine that they would do anything to harm our watersheds. So, is the Tijuana River also under federal jurisdiction as a federal waterway?
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
There are elements, as you know, Mister Chairman, I apologize. And member, as you are aware, there are some regulatory elements there, but they're not preemptive to the prohibition that we're seeking in the bill.
- Jim Wood
Person
And so, you don't have faith that the regional water quality control board is going to protect the watershed, waterways. And I say that because let me give you an example. In our little city, during a big storm event a few years, many, many years ago now, water from a wastewater treatment plant flowed into the river.
- Jim Wood
Person
The irony of that, and we were sued. We were sued. Sued actually went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court and we lost.
- Jim Wood
Person
The irony of that was that the water that went into the river was cleaner than the river, it was treated and cleaner than the river. And we're subject to a whole lot of wastewater discharge, plant permits and so on and so forth. And so, I just, I know how stringent regional water quality control boards are.
- Jim Wood
Person
So, I'm just. Is there a lack of faith with this regional water quality control board or is it just, is it a fear that something may happen? So, I'm just trying to understand that.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
Mister Chairman, if I might. As you, as you know, assembly member, there's not going to get too technical, but as you know, in terms of, first of all, there's a reason why a different and unique process was placed in the ballot initiative. This same approach was tried, and I can come back to that if the members are interested.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
More than a decade ago in North County. This is a 2.0 replay of a playbook designed to get class three landfills approved.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
There was a reason why the county board of supervisors and the typical open public process that provided for findings by the elected county board in a CEQA review, and for them to be the primary lead agency and to make those findings in the record was basically eliminated in the ballot measure. There's a reason why they did that.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
There's a reason why right now, ironically, because of a fluke in our law, the lead agency that would take up this review at the county is walled off from the county board and involves a subdivision of a health department that doesn't have CEQA review expertise. There's a reason why that was in there.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
Typically, as you know, the board has to make a certain amount of independent foundings. Findings. Excuse me, but they can take note of the findings of the lead agency on CEQA. Here that becomes problematic. And the reason why. It's not a question of trust. It's not a question of trust in individuals or the process.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
It's a question of whether the standard here should be higher because of the exigencies and the incredible stress that is on this watershed and on this region that is unique. Not to be dramatic, but some of you are old like me, that might know what Love Canal was. I mean, is there any serious conversation that we need?
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
You know, we should just trust the normal review process on the question of whether we should add more impacts in an area like Love Canal. Right? There is so much damage to the public health and so many issues in this existing watershed.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
And the evidence, and I can provide it to your office, there's significant scientific evidence that no matter what the best practices, no matter the modern mitigation measures that are employed in a class three dump, there will always be impacts into the watershed because of a landfill, certainly one of over 340 acres in the watershed.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
So, it's not a question of trusting individuals or having faith. It's a question on whether we want to make sure that because of the circumstances here, we have the highest standard possible that goes above and beyond what would be typical because it is justified in our view.
- Jim Wood
Person
Well, thank you. And it sounds like you have extenuating circumstances in this particular case. And as I said, I'm going to support the bill. But that was a bit of a head-scratcher for me based on my personal experience in the city that I live in.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Mister Flora.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Thank you, Mister Chair. And Senator, thank you for, you know, your work on this bill. I do. Is it your belief though, that having the secretary of Cal EPA make a decision is that kind of the extra step of that you're looking for?
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
Mister Chairman and member, if you look at the language, it starts with the prohibition on the discharge permit and it qualifies that with the high standards here. And certainly, one of those is of finding by the secretary of EPA based on a high evidentiary standard that could potentially in theory overcome that.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
But that would require that very, very high finding. And so I think we do think it's appropriate. We took it as amendment.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
We, you know, we think it's, you know, far from the original version of the bill, but we were happy to take that and try to, you know, work with interested parties, but sufficiently satisfied with that, that it, it still retains a very, very high standard, which again we think is appropriate in this circumstance.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
Thank you, Mister Chair. Can I have opposition respond to that if they'd like?
- Steve Cruz
Person
Yes. Thank you for the question. And you know, again, looking at the language, it does establish findings based on clear and convincing evidence which is not consistent with the regional waterboard work. And it's very expansive. It uses the word will harm the Tijuana River. It doesn't even really limit it to water quality.
- Steve Cruz
Person
So, we did have suggested changes and we hoped the Senator would consider those, which is to align that review with what the regional Water Board is doing. That's fact-based, it's science-based. It is a robust regulatory regime that it must go through and it should be consistent that you shouldn't have one official coming in.
- Steve Cruz
Person
It sets a horrible precedent for any public infrastructure project where you give unilateral authority to make such findings. And that's not consistent with the review of the waterboard. So, that is our concern with the change. Thank you.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
No, thank you. One more, just more statement through Natural Resource Committee. We've been on this committee for a while now and we set up these processes to protect the environment and we all kind of know the playing field that we step into when we want to get something approved.
- Heath Flora
Legislator
So, I do have some concerns that kind of moving that goalpost kind of midstream. And so, I would just like to put that on the record that we have these things in place. And then when those goalposts moves, then I would kind of raise some concerns with that.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Are we able to address?
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
No, sir. Miss Friedman.
- Laura Friedman
Person
I want to thank everyone for the discussion. I mean, I think this is a hard bill for some of us because I don't know the area, I don't know the alternatives. I've been through landfill wars in my city for years. They're still going on to this day.
- Laura Friedman
Person
And it can be a very frustrating and complicated question because nobody wants a landfill near them. Nobody wants to see a landfill expanded. And yet communities have to deal with their solid waste.
- Laura Friedman
Person
And as much as we've all been trying to encourage diversion, we also know that we're just not diverting enough from landfills to keep, particularly our urban areas, the landfills intact, keep them operating.
- Laura Friedman
Person
And the alternatives are projects like this, or in the case of many areas, shipping garbage far away with all of the truckloads, diesel trucks, that that means on the highways through communities that are, you know, near those highways. So, it can be really complicated. I'm going to support this today. I see it as a district bill.
- Laura Friedman
Person
And I just hope, though, that as you move forward, you think of what the alternatives are, because I haven't heard anyone talk about what the alternatives are. And to me, diversion is not, you know, we all want it, but it's often not going to happen with enough scale and fast enough to deal with the waste.
- Laura Friedman
Person
And if you have, you have people who are opposed to expanding the current landfills and you don't want to cite another landfill in the community, you know, we haven't talked about what the answer is, and I don't want to have this discussion here.
- Laura Friedman
Person
I feel like this is actually something for your community to have at the county or the city level, but I'll support this today. But, you know, I'm very leery of wading into another community's argument over where to dispose of their trash.
- Laura Friedman
Person
Often when. We've had this in my community, it was communities trying to push the impact into other communities. And unfortunately, that's often what it ends up being. And, you know, we could be tilting this. We may have another Legislator come next year to undo whatever we do because of the impacts on their district.
- Laura Friedman
Person
So, I'm going to support it today, but I feel nervous about doing, about wading into this.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Any other comments by colleagues? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
Mister Chairman, members, if I take a minute? I would like to just to clarify and correct the record. First of all, this bill doesn't undermine the will of the voters in any way.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
As a matter of fact, the proposition that was adopted actually took away a clear and transparent process for review and participation by the people's elected representatives. I don't think they believed that was the case when they were voting for this measure to change the zoning.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
The statement that this project location is not in the Tijuana River watershed is patently false. And there's plenty of data in the record and in this record of this bill and others, and we can certainly forward it to the contrary. It's important to note that this is not a proposal for a recycling facility in any way.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
The opponents of this bill have an application before the Army Corps of Engineers that sets out the total acreage and very clearly states that more than 98% of this acreage is to be dedicated to a class three dump.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
And they have also admitted, as does your analysis, admit, that they're not currently pursuing any recycling facility of any kind in this. CEQA is not being removed. The CEQA process will be followed. A higher bar here is appropriate. And the last thing I'll say, just to be clear, this is nothing a landfill war or a NIMBY issue.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
This is an issue about a level of water contamination, both biological and industrial, in this watershed, and air quality deterioration that is unique in the state and is poisoning an entire region of this state. And that is what this bill seeks to mitigate. And with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, Senator. I think you've heard a lot of the conversation that's happened here today. I think my colleague from Burbank has made, from Glendale. My colleague from Glendale has made some incredible points about looking downstream and the community conversations that are going to have to take place.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
But I don't think I will ever stand in the way of a colleague of mine fighting for better water and air quality in their community in the way that the people who have sent them here have called on them to do. With that, this bill has a do pass recommendation. Do we have a motion?
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Mister Muratsuchi. And a second? Second by Miss Wicks. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?
- Committee Secretary
Person
Motion is do pass, as amended, to Appropriations.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
That bill is out.
- Steve Padilla
Legislator
Thank you, Mister Chairman and members.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you so much. Senators Blakespear and Caballero, you are our final authors of this hearing? Yeah. Madam Secretary, since we have a relatively full committee at this moment, can we do add-ons for absent members? Let's take it from the first one that Miss Wicks missed.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Item one, SB 308, Becker. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Chair voting aye. Absent Members. [Roll Call] Has 10 votes. We'll leave it open. SB 571, Allen. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Chair voting aye. Absent Members. [Roll Call] Has 10. We'll leave it open.
- Committee Secretary
Person
SB 610, Wiener. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Absent Members. [Roll Call] SB 615, Allen. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] That has 10 votes. That bill is done.
- Committee Secretary
Person
SB 707, Newman. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] That bill is out. SB 1062, Dahle. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] That has seven votes. We'll leave the roll open.
- Committee Secretary
Person
SB 1143, Allen. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] That bill is out. SB 1208, Padilla. We're gonna skip that one. Yeah. SB 1231, Allen. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] That has 11 votes. We'll leave the roll open.
- Committee Secretary
Person
SB 1298, motion is do pass to Labor and Employment, with amendments being taken in Labor and Employment Committee. Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] That has 12 votes. It's out. SJR 12, motion is for the measure to be adopted.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] Has eight votes. We'll leave the roll open. And consent calendar. Consent items are item seven, SB 945, Alvarado-Gil, item 14, SB 1324, Limon. [Roll Call] Consent calendar is adopted.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Again, we are looking for Senators Blakespear and Senator Caballero. If either of you are in earshot of this hearing room, we would love to see you also.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Senator Anna Caballero has arrived.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Thank you for being here. Thank you for your patience. I know that is true.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
You may begin when ready.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Thank you very much, Mister chair and Members, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1420, which provides a pathway for a sustainable transition to a clean energy economy, coupled with the co benefits of better air quality and lower energy costs for consumers, along with the ability to create high road green energy jobs.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
First, I would like to express my gratitude to the chair for his engagement on the Bill and his thoughtfulness in our negotiations. As agreed with the chair, I will be accepting the Committee amendment that would strike section one of the Bill.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Section one was carefully crafted with the technical assistance of the California Air Resources Board and was reviewed and edits offered to by the consultants of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, the Senate Energy Committee, and the Assembly Energy Committee before arriving to this Committee.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Sadly, because of inaccuracies and misstatements in the Committee analysis, it became impossible to save the intent of this section as far as I'm concerned, which was to establish the highest environmental review for hydrogen production, delivery and use in the world.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Rather than argue, you should all have received a document that articulates the science and legislative history of hydrogen development in California, and it's a facts, not a fax, but a fact sheet.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
SB 1420 deletes the definition of qualified clean hydrogen and limits hydrogen production facilities and associated storage and processing facilities that would be eligible for expedited CEQA judicial review and building permit streamlining to those projects that have received funds from the federal or state government by January 12032.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
California has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in industries to support our climate change goals. However, we still require a diverse set of solutions to ensure California can achieve our carbon reduction goals by 2045.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Despite robust public investment, some hard to decarbonize industries are at risk and will need help to continue to operate and decarbonize to meet our goals. This will take policy change and economic support. The shipping industry, including the port operations, heavy trucking, aviation and heavy industry all need additional pathways to meet our state's goals.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Additionally, as we transition to a zero carbon economy, we have an obligation to include high road employment opportunities and economic development for our state's workforce. Let's be clear. The California Air Resources Board, after much research and analysis, determined in their 2022 scoping plan that California could not attain its climate goals.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
I'm going to repeat that we cannot attain our climate goals to decarbonize without utilizing hydrogen as a fuel source. CARB quite clearly states that California cannot reach its goals without expanding hydrogen production by 1700 times the present rate of production.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
I want to be very clear and emphasize that the bill does not allow any projects to proceed outside of the CEQA process or have any impact on the public's ability to provide comment and input on each individual project.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
And as a matter of fact, the Arches grant funding requires a community benefit plan as well as robust meetings and buy in by the local community.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
SB 1420 would enable California to meet its goal and allow a transition in the aviation, heavy duty trucking and maritime industries away from diesel and jet fuel to a cleaner, locally produced product that would not only decarbonize the fuel, but eliminate the production of air pollution contaminants such as sulfur oxides, the SOx and nitric oxide.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
The NOx SB 1420 would also enable California to leverage the 1.2 billion in federal funds from the Inflation Reduction act awarded to the Arches Coalition for a hydrogen hub grant by unlocking private sector investment estimated to bring 10 billion into our $10 billion into our state, creating jobs, economic development and in underserved communities and new energy resources.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
And actually, that private investment is what's been missing in the budget sector. That's what's created the deficit. It's one of the things that's created the deficit is new money. Hydrogen is a critical part of California's transition to zero emission transportation and energy system.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
And I agree with the California Air Resources Board and the California Energy Commission that by expanding hydrogen production, we can better decarbonize industries, make our energy grid more reliable, stabilize costs for consumers and create high road jobs to transition workers by maximizing California's hydrogen Hub award from the Federal Government from the Federal Department of Energy SB 1420 ensures production projects are online in time to meet the program benchmarks that they are operational for two years by 2032.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
So the deadline is 2030 and it has to be operational for two years in order to receive the final part of the award. With me to testify and answer any questions is Keith Dunn from the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California and Theresa Cook from California Hydrogen Coalition.
- Teresa Cooke
Person
Thank you, Senator. Good evening. Teresa Cooke, on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition, proud to sponsor SB 1420. Across the globe, our climate allies have embraced the role of hydrogen in the decarbonization of transportation and energy. The Federal Government has offered California this opportunity by way of its hydrogen Hub award.
- Teresa Cooke
Person
SB 1420 ensures hydrogen production facilities are up and running in time for the 2030 Department of Energy deadline.
- Teresa Cooke
Person
We are proud and excited for the hydrogen economy we are trying to build in California, be it the use of super pollutant methane from agriculture waste or our exportation of California's climate policy to other states and the capture of their methane for the production of fuel for zero emission fuel cell electric vehicles.
- Teresa Cooke
Person
In closing, I would add that we agree with the Administration, CEC, CPUC and CARB that the three pillars is not necessary in California because of the RP's and cap and trade programs and only serve to minimize the role of hydrogen can play in California's decarbonization goals. Thank you and we appreciate your consideration for this Bill tonight.
- Keith Dunn
Person
Thank you Mister chair Members of the Committee, Keith Dunn here. On behalf of State Building and Construction Trades Councils, I want to quickly point out a few things. It's not often that you're going to see me on behalf of the state building construction trades, aligning ourselves with the California Air Resources Board. I'm here doing that today.
- Keith Dunn
Person
Take note. I also would tell you that the men and women of the construction industry, trade, construction, specifically here in California, we're doing our part. We recognize to get out of and into a new economy, changes need to happen.
- Keith Dunn
Person
We struggled to get to where we are with regards to 1420 and some of the other policies that we're now supporting here in the state because we recognize it's good for the state. But with that, we need to remember that we can't leave our workers behind.
- Keith Dunn
Person
We need to make sure that we're doing everything we can to qualify for all the resources that are available to take advantage of federal funding to move forward and include hydrogen as a part of that solution. The arches program of which the building trades, our founding member, has been very successful in pursuing those opportunities.
- Keith Dunn
Person
So again, take note. The building trades are here agreeing with CARB. In my 25 years, I've never said that. I don't know if I'll ever get to say it again. So with that, we have a great appreciation for this author. She has worked diligently to move this issue forward.
- Keith Dunn
Person
It's challenging, perhaps more so than it needs to be. We stand in support of her and her efforts. And again, we appreciate the hard work that went into this to get where we are and we hope that we can cross the finish line with this. With that, I'd ask for your support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, sir. There are other people in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure.
- Alfredo Redondo
Person
Good evening Mister chair. Members of the Committee, Alfredo Redondo on behalf of the Green Hydrogen Coalition as well as H Cycle in support, thank you.
- Eduardo Martinez
Person
Mister chair. Eduardo Martinez here on behalf of the Toyota Motor Company, in support.
- Dylan Elliott
Person
Dylan Elliott on behalf of the County of Fresno, in support.
- Ryan Kenny
Person
Hi, good afternoon, Ryan Kenny on behalf of Clean Energy, in support.
- Steve Cruz
Person
Steve Cruz on behalf of Southern California Gas, in support.
- Chris Micheli
Person
Good evening, Mister Chairman. Chris Micheli, on behalf of the California Renewable Transportation Alliance in support
- Kirk Kimmelshue
Person
Mister chair and Members Kirk Kimmelshue here tonight on behalf of Joby Aviation, in support.
- Obed Franco
Person
Good evening, chair and members Obed Franco here on behalf of the California Biomass Energy Alliance, in support.
- Jeff Neil
Person
Jeff Neil representing the City of Fresno, also in support.
- Lily Mackay
Person
Good evening. Lily Mackay, on behalf of Monarch Bioenergy in support thank you.
- Beth Olhasso
Person
Good evening. Beth Olhasso, on behalf of the Agricultural Energy Consumers Association, thank you.
- John Wenger
Person
John Winger, on behalf of the Coalition For Renewable Natural Gas in support.
- Teresa Cooke
Person
Teresa Cooke for the Biomass Energy Association.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Opposition in the hearing room.
- Matthew Freedman
Person
Thank you Mister Chairman. Members of the Committee, Matt Freedman, representing The Utility Reform Network TURN has been working with the Legislature for many years in support of codifying meaningful standards for the definition of renewable or clean hydrogen. As everyone knows, hydrogen is a fuel that is simply produced by other sources of energy.
- Matthew Freedman
Person
Whether it's dirty or clean depends on the inputs that are used to create it. The requirements governing the eligibility of hydrogen to serve transportation needs and other needs in California will determine whether the use of hydrogen actually represents environmental progress.
- Matthew Freedman
Person
We do appreciate the Committee analysis and the very thoughtful exploration of the issues around the existing requirements for clean or renewable hydrogen, and I think it really highlights the fact that California lacks an adequate statutory definition that guarantees that this fuel is going to produce superior environmental outcomes.
- Matthew Freedman
Person
And as pointed out in the analysis, nearly all the hydrogen produced today is derived from fossil fuels, and existing regulations allow so called renewable hydrogen to be produced from fossil fuels, so long as there is a tradable electronic attribute purchased from somewhere in the United States that accompanies it.
- Matthew Freedman
Person
We understand that the amendments taken today by the author remove section one from the Bill, which included the changes to the eligibility rules.
- Matthew Freedman
Person
But we see the lack of any progress on this and part of a conversation around hydrogen as a huge missed opportunity, a missed opportunity to guarantee meaningful improvements that will ensure that reliance on hydrogen gets us to better environmental outcomes and not more pollution.
- Matthew Freedman
Person
We've proposed an alternative in our letter to the Committee and to the author which would codify what are called the three pillars approach.
- Matthew Freedman
Person
The three pillars approach that has been broadly embraced by environmental groups, some hydrogen industry participants, and the Biden Administration, which would require that clean hydrogen specifically produced by electricity, demonstrates the additionality of clean electricity supplies hourly matching of production and consumption and delivery of incremental clean energy into the area where the power is consumed.
- Matthew Freedman
Person
We think these are the goals and the requirements that should be put into state law and should guide the actions of all of the agencies. The failure to embrace this type of an approach could set back California's progress on clean energy and climate objectives.
- Matthew Freedman
Person
So we've identified a way to do this that we think would be least burdensome for hydrogen producers. And we think, at a bottom line, California needs to raise and not lower the bar for clean hydrogen.
- Matthew Freedman
Person
This is a big opportunity, and although we appreciate the analysis and we understand that the Bill doesn't change existing law in this respect, we think that this is a missing piece of the agenda for hydrogen. It needs to be included in the conversation. Thank you.
- Mark Fenstermaker
Person
Thank you, Mister chair. Good evening, Members. Mark Fenstermaker here for Earth Justice, respectfully in opposition to SB 1420. Our opposition primarily stems from the proposal in Section one, revoking the standards in place for renewable hydrogen in our transportation sector.
- Mark Fenstermaker
Person
Understand that those provisions are now coming out, but we'd like to point out that that requirement was put in place almost 20 years ago.
- Mark Fenstermaker
Person
And so here we are in 2024, and we should be talking about updating and strengthening that minimum starting point that was set out by SB 1505, and defining renewable hydrogen so that we can spur transition away from fossil hydrogen, which is currently practically all of the hydrogen procured and produced today, and really be focused on truly renewable hydrogen, which, as Mister Freedman just pointed out, comes from the three pillars.
- Mark Fenstermaker
Person
So we have to focus on ramping up electrolytic hydrogen and update the mandate to require that this hydrogen complies with the three pillars. I just want to briefly touch on sections 2 and 3 of the Bill on the permitting. These expedited review processes really are a privilege for the industry.
- Mark Fenstermaker
Person
It's not a right for them to have these in place. And the projects that will often be included in these permitting processes are going to be first of their kind and pose unique safety and environmental risks that we really need to understand.
- Mark Fenstermaker
Person
And California should be demanding high standards of the hydrogen projects that it grants the streamlining privilege to. We have a proud history here in California of building on federal requirements to advance environmental leadership.
- Mark Fenstermaker
Person
The Biden Administration and European Union have laid out clear and rigorous guidance for ensuring hydrogen production that is genuinely renewable, and we should be taking that here in California and building on it. We are opposed to the Bill in print, and thank you for your time.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you. Are the persons in this hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this measure.
- Raquel Mason
Person
Hi, Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance in respectful opposition to the Bill in print. We're still considering the amendments. Thank you.
- Asha Sharma
Person
Asha Sharma on behalf of Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability in opposition. Thank you.
- Melissa Romero
Person
Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters in opposition to the Bill in print appreciate the Committee's work. We'll be reviewing the amendments. Thanks.
- Krystal Raynes
Person
Krystal Haynes with California Against Waste in opposition of this measure.
- Victoria Rome
Person
Victoria Rome with NRDC in opposition, but look forward to reviewing the amendments. Thank you.
- Janet Cox
Person
Janet Cox for Climate Action California. 350 Humboldt 350, sorry it's been a long day. 350 Humboldt, 350 Sacramento. Climate Action California. Thank you.
- Christina Scaringe
Person
Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in Opposition.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Judy Sorey
Person
Judy Corey on behalf of 350 Bay Area Action in opposition.
- Lauren Gallagher
Person
Lauren Gallagher on behalf of Communities for a Better Environment in opposition.
- Jakob Evans
Person
Jacob Evans with Sierra California in opposition to the Bill in print. Thank you.
- Faith Conley
Person
Thank you Mister chair and Members. Faith Conley with Weideman Group on behalf of Air Products. We actually removed our opposition in the last house. Thanks to the hard work of Senator Caballero and the support coalition. The recent amendments have added a few more concerns to our plate. We look forward to addressing those with the author. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thanks so much Committee Members. I'm also happy motion by Mister Flora, second by Miss Bauer Kahan. I'm also happy to start this conversation. I want to thank the author for being incredibly engaged and easy to track down and easy to talk to about this critical and important need. It's a complicated conversation.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
We know in our house we launched a Select Committee on hydrogen this year on which I participated in. We have been grappling with defining what green or clean hydrogen can or should be debating the three pillars. We've been told often that we need to wait for the Federal Government because we're applying for a rule waiver.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
At the same time the three pillars are already being considered to be put in place for California by the Federal Government. And so I think it's interesting that we are both being told to wait while advancing our own definitions of clean. And that's where the struggle I think is. That's where the rub is.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
But I think the thing that is apparent is if we are going to accept this award in any capacity, we have to get these projects built and they can't evade the CEQA process, but they should be provided that judicial streamlining and review.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Otherwise we are forfeiting these federal dollars that are coming just by the fact that no matter what kind of definition we had decided on, particularly if we adopted the three pillars. If we couldn't get the projects built, we couldn't get them built.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
And so I think that's where we came to, ultimately a common understanding and a shared goal. And I want to appreciate all of the many conversations we've had to get there. I don't think this even gets this far without your personal leadership. So thank you for that and opening it up to any other conversations from Committee Members.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Mister Muratsuchi.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Thank you so I'm a little confused as to what the current Bill with the amendments does and doesn't do. I'm looking at the Committee analysis and there's a proposal that the Bill be amended to clarify that an eligible hydrogen project does not use fossil fuel as the feedstock or energy source for production of hydrogen. Did you take that amendment?
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
That's part of what's been taken out.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Okay. All right.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Yeah. And let me clarify that. It was always, that was put in, in the first Committee. I accepted it, but over then that was in section one, over the three committees. Section one received a number of amendments, and the last amendment with the CARB technical assistance, that fell out by accident.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
It wasn't intended it just because it was a. Most of section one was deleted with a new, a new framing of it that was inadvertently left out, but it was never intended to be taken out, and that would have been put back in had we.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Okay, I appreciate that section one, because that, that was my biggest concern. I'm also looking at provisions on page six of the Committee analysis that appear to be designed to protect disadvantaged communities from the impact of eligible projects. And it's my understanding that you declined or refused to take those. I'm looking specifically at the item number six.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Wanted to ask for your rationale in rejecting that proposed amendment.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
It was never proposed as an amendment other than in the discussion here. But we took out the whole section one that had, as I said, the framework for how we were going to deal with guaranteeing that we had the highest standard in the world with the protections in it.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
And since we took that out, that's where that would have been.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
So again, I'm not clear on what that means. Are you saying that it's guaranteeing the highest standards of protections for disadvantaged communities where the projects may be located?
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Well, the, the Arches grant has all of those protections in them. And so it's the protecting disadvantaged communities, it's the community benefit package.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
The fact that the community has to be willing to have the project located in that community, all of that has been part of what we've been trying to achieve, and they're embodied in the Arches project.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Ask for Earth justice for your response.
- Mark Fenstermaker
Person
Yeah. So it's my understanding one of the biggest challenges that my client and the environmental justice groups that have been trying to engage in this process have with Arches is just the lack of clarity, lack of information and transparency and lack of conversation.
- Mark Fenstermaker
Person
You know, our concern with the way the Bill would set this up, that if it's Arches funding, you get this streamlining is, we don't know what projects are involved there to say one way or another from our perspective, if they should enjoy that type of streamlining.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Yeah, that's true. That is true.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
So, Senator, they don't understand what, the types of projects that would be coming in. You're saying that.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
So it's interesting that's been, this is the first time I've heard that complaint. But let me just say that there's a map that arches has that has all the communities that where a project could be proposed and including what kind of project it is. So that that information is publicly available is my understanding.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
And what up until, I don't want to give dates, but I know that up to fairly recently, there were negotiations with the Federal Government over what parts of the grant were going to be funded.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
And part of the reason it was taking so long is because California had not signaled that we actually wanted to engage in changing the rules to be able to accommodate the arches project.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
And so the Department of Energy, the federal Department of Energy was cautiously reviewing the elements of the Arches project to make sure that those project pieces could be realized in California. In other words, they made the determination we would get one of the hubs.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
But they also said, look, if you can't get this done within a five year period, the money can revert to somewhere else. And so I know that there has been concern in arches to finalize that grant process so that they could start to actually go community to community to start engaging.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
So I know that, that there are only a couple of communities that have started the engagement process.
- Teresa Cooke
Person
Am I right?
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Yeah, absolutely.
- Teresa Cooke
Person
These are good questions. Assemblyman Muratsuchi, a couple things that the author has pointed out. One, this is not an exemption from any permitting process by any means. It's a streamlining through the process.
- Teresa Cooke
Person
Second amendments that she has committed to taking for our friends in the local government Committee community include getting letters of support for the project in order to qualify for the streamlining. So there isn't a dismissal of local, you know, community concerns or anything like that. Actually, we're engaging the local government space in a very real way.
- Teresa Cooke
Person
And then two, it's important for us to recognize that these are renewable projects only included within the scope of Arches. And it's worth noting that we do not add all of these additionalities when we talk about permitting of solar and wind.
- Teresa Cooke
Person
I think it's worth keeping a consistent position in avoiding the additionalities when we're talking about permitting permit streamlining for a specifically renewable hydrogen production project.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
All right, thank you. Last question. I'm just curious, why is TURN ratepayer advocates engaged in grain hydrogen?
- Matthew Freedman
Person
Thank you for that question. Assemblymember TURN has long been involved in issues related to the definition of clean energy in California. We were one of the leading sponsors originally of the renewable portfolio standard, and that conversation led to a discussion of what rules should apply to biomethane as part of the RPS program.
- Matthew Freedman
Person
And we worked very closely with a former Chairman of this Committee to pass legislation, AB 2196 that actually set up standards for the renewable portfolio standard for biomethane. Why do we care? Because we want clean energy to be actually clean energy.
- Matthew Freedman
Person
We want to make sure that ratepayers are getting real value and that there is incremental environmental improvement. There's a lot of games that get played in the environmental space around claiming superior environmental performance, claiming greenhouse gas reductions, and I think consumers should get what they pay for.
- Matthew Freedman
Person
In addition, we recognize that there's going to be a lot of demand for the existing base of renewable energy resources to serve electrolytic hydrogen, if we're not building more clean energy projects specifically to serve hydrogen production, it's going to drive up the prices for the stuff that's already out there, and that driving up of the prices is going to flow back to consumers.
- Matthew Freedman
Person
So we need to have a plan to meet the needs of electrolytic hydrogen producers if it's going to be powered by renewable energy. And right now, we don't see any plan at all on the table. In fact, there's been sort of a rejection of the idea that we should come up with a plan on this front. And that's problematic.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
All right, thank you.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, this is the second time I had the opportunity to vote for this bill, and I just want to thank the author. I said this in Energy, but I wanted to say it again today. You know, my community is seeking this funding for a hydrogen station that would fuel not only a green train we're trying to build, but also the buses in the Central Valley where this kind of energy is so deeply needed because of the air quality issues.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
And as someone who has real problems with CEQA exemptions, I think the streamlining here is modest in approach, but it does exactly what the author is saying, which is ensures that that federal and other funding is something that we can access, which is what we as a state should be doing at every turn.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
And so I think it's an incredibly modest approach that allows us to get money for projects that I think will really benefit our communities, and I speak specifically for my community that is hopefully going to benefit from everything the Senator is doing here. So I want to thank her and I look forward to supporting it.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Thank you.
- Damon Connolly
Legislator
Thank you. Also wanna thank the author for your work. Maybe just to further button down this issue, and I appreciate the conversation so far, so on SB 149 and AB 205 are clearly focused on clean energy with specific exclusions for hydrogen based on fossil fuel inputs. What guardrails does this bill have to make sure that it will not introduce fossil fuel-derived hydrogen projects into these streamlining processes for clean energy?
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
So the intention was never to add that as a possibility. It ended up in the section one that got taken out. There's certainly opportunity, as we move forward, to put that back in. That's one of the commitments that I've talked with the Chair about, is to put that back in. Now that section one is out, there may be some elements that we need to add to it to the two pieces that are left. One: it would be to address the issue that you raised in terms of disadvantaged communities, but the other is the fossil fuel issue.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Quite frankly, although the analysis says that a majority of hydrogen is produced by fossil fuels, the reality of the situation is that's not true. There are a number of ways that hydrogen is being produced right now, and it is--the intention was always to, to have hydrogen created by a renewable source, and the reason this becomes really critically important is that the Central Valley--and the Chair has heard me speak about this with great passion--the Central Valley is being viewed as the place to go and do industrial-sized solar.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
And while I appreciate the ability to do industrial-sized solar in the valley, it can't replace agricultural production because it will absolutely devastate--on an industrial side, it will devastate the local economy. It will put farmworkers out of business. It will reduce the revenue to local government because they are not taxed.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Solar panels are not taxed as property tax as farming is. Very interestingly, they are encircled with chain link fences with barbed wire on the top, which means there is no wildlife habitat where you have access, egress and ingress. People may look at the Central Valley and go, there's not a lot of wildlife, but I reject that soundly.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
And the energy is not slated to stay in the valley. It goes to the bigger cities. So the ability to put solar is tremendously important if you can join it with something else that actually creates jobs, that utilizes the property and creates value so that the local government is getting some value from the property and property taxes.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
And where there's an all--there's really this opportunity to move towards an industry that's creating energy, that's also fueling the aviation. I have a small aviation company right outside my district. I'm trying to get them to come here. They're using hydrogen. They've created an electric--it's like a drone for people, for lack of a better word, but now can utilize hydrogen and travel, I want to say, almost 100 times further, rather than 15 miles--it's 500 miles--and they're testing it in the desert down in Southern California as well, the hydrogen aviation. Scripps Institute is moving to hydrogen.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
They will no longer be using diesel. And so the ability to clean the air, to get rid of the SOx and the NOx from that diesel elimination is going to be tremendously important. So there are industries where we really have an opportunity to make great improvements immediately, and so anything I need to do to put into this, once we took out the section one, I'm more than willing to do it.
- Damon Connolly
Legislator
So it sounds like there's a commitment to guardrails.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Yes.
- Damon Connolly
Legislator
Okay.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Yep.
- Laura Friedman
Person
So sort of along the same lines, so it's my understanding that over 90 percent of the state's hydrogen right now is produced by fossil sources. So all of the advantages that we're talking about, at least for now, for that hydrogen fuel, you're really just shifting the pollution to other places.
- Laura Friedman
Person
So as you move forward, because you said that you are open to putting stronger guardrails, to making sure that we are doing everything we can to really incentivize green production, I'm not seeing that in the bill. I don't see why, even with the bill, we're not continuing at that 90 percent rate, and that's a concern for me.
- Laura Friedman
Person
As much as I would like to see more hydrogen, I understand the need to build out the infrastructure for the industry to make the investments it needs, but we also have to have that balance with really a regulatory push to require the hydrogen. I'm sorry you didn't take the other amendments that were offered in this committee. I think they made a much stronger bill and a bill that would have had a much wider breadth of support.
- Laura Friedman
Person
And I hope that before I have to see it on the floor, you'll reconsider those amendments, and maybe we can, you know, the committee and you can have a discussion as to why many of us feel that they are necessary to see in this policy and what the path is to really pushing the green hydrogen and changing that script so that we don't see this as, you know, so that hydrogen really is on track to fulfill its promise for, like you said, as an emissions-free green source of a replacement fuel.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Thank you very much. If I could respond to that. I appreciate, I appreciate your opinion on it, but the reality of the situation is the majority of the hydrogen that's used in California is not produced in California. The problem has been that we've been bringing it in from other states. It's not a problem, but that's where a lot of it is sourced, and those states don't have restrictions on how you produce industrial-grade anything.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Not anything, but almost. The reality of the situation is that when I started off this bill, we were looking at hydrogen and linking it to the RPS because that was the easiest way to come up with a plan for trying to meet goals to make hydrogen greener and greener.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
The challenge is that if you put it as part of the RPS, then you have other requirements that you need to meet that are not applicable to hydrogen, and so by the next committee, we decided to take it out of the RPS, but link it to the RPS so that we still have the same benefits.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
The goal of the bill has always been to move towards a cleaner production without picking winners and losers in terms of who can make the hydrogen and exactly where it gets made. And then ultimately what happened is that created conflict in and of itself. I mean, there's some organizations that are never going to like hydrogen.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
So as we've tried to make it work within a system that is not perfect, then we ended up with CARB saying, 'let us go through a rulemaking process and we'll set the standards and the targets, and we'll move from there.' And so that's what was taken out in this committee. So if it looks like there's a hole, there is. There is a hole. And we're trying to figure out what are the pieces we need to put into what's left of the bill in order to be able to move it forward.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
And I'll be back next year, and we can have this conversation all over again as we try to figure out how do we come up with a definition that is--my goal was always to have the highest standard in the world, meaning the highest standard that's from any state or country in the world, and do it ourselves so that we can lead the way.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
And in regards to the three pillars, the reality of the situation is that the reason that's not in the bill is because I have taken the lead from our administration, and the Governor, in sending to the federal government in response to the rulemaking that they've done, they send a letter from the, from CARB, CEC, the CPUC, and GO-Biz that all have the same message, which is that we have higher standards in the State of California, and the three pillars don't fit our regulatory process.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
And that letter, the Governor signed a letter with the State of Oregon and the State of Washington for the western states to say exactly the same thing. So the goal here is to be consistent with what the western states have said and to have--we were hoping the rulemaking would be finished by now so we'd have a direction as to exactly how we address all the issues that are part of that rulemaking process. So that's the thinking, that's where I came from, and that's why we're here today.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Yeah, and to be fair, that's where some of the rub has been in that that letter is asking for an exemption, an exemption that hasn't been granted by the federal government yet in the same way other colleagues of ours have been pushing the exact opposite direction to affirm not getting an exemption because we may not always agree with the Governor on everything.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
And so that's the difficulty that you've made in navigating, and I understand, and just a point of clarification, we talked about the fossil fuels coming out and then going back in. It's your intention to put that back in the bill? No fossil fuels? Okay. Any other questions from committee members?
- Laura Friedman
Person
I'm sorry. Putting it back in the bill, you mentioned next year. What are you talking about you're going to amend?
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
No, this bill.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
No, this bill.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
This bill.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Yeah. This bill.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
And clarification. So the commitment is to that an eligible hydrogen project will not use fossil fuel as the feedstock or energy source for production of hydrogen?
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Well, the language, I'm not going to wordsmith the language, but we'll take a look at the language we had before and put it back in.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Good questions tonight. Here's the challenge with adding language that says 'no fossil feedstock or process energy,' is that for the time being, until the three pillars gets decided, depending on how that gets implemented in California, do we go the Bennett route? Do we go somebody else's route? The grid is going to be helping electrolytic hydrogen production facilities make green hydrogen.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
And so if we were to say that the permitting of facilities is limited to facilities that never use fossil, knowing that I will never have a fossil-free grid in California, that is a backdoor sort of requirement for the three pillars in exchange for this permitting benefit. And I think that goes into the same point of like this hasn't been decided quite yet, so if we all agree there's urgency in permitting the project--
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
So, my concern here is that that was an amendment that was accepted prior to here--
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
Not in the permitting.
- Unidentified Speaker
Person
I'm sorry.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Excuse me.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you. That was taken out of this bill. Whatever the exact language is that came from Senate Natural Resources that then was removed in U&E, that's what we were looking to put back in and that's what I believe we had talked about putting back in, which wasn't to workshop, it was to--this was there, now it's not, we'd like to put it back in was the understanding that I believe there that we had.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Yes, that's true. Yeah.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
That is correct. Just so we don't have to keep going back and forth.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Yeah. Thank you.
- Laura Friedman
Person
So that will be in when we vote on the floor?
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Correct.
- Laura Friedman
Person
Yeah.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Any other questions from committee members? I mean, it's not even 7:30 yet. Are we sure? Jim Wood? Senator, would you like to close?
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Well, thank you for this robust discussion. This is not my first rodeo. This is a tough bill. It is a passion project of mine and it's a passion project, as I indicated to you, Mr. Chair, because left to its own devices, the Central Valley will be industrial solar and that's it.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
And it will absolutely devastate communities of color. It will run the small businesses out of their towns. There will be no people working. I'm a big supporter of solar. I have solar on my house, but when we start replacing agricultural communities with industrial-sized solar to their exclusion, there's no work. That's blowing dust, so talk about a dust bowl where there are spores in the soil that create the valley fever which is a deadly disease that attacks the lungs. So it sounds like overreach, but quite frankly, I'm looking at the survival of blue-collar farmworker communities, people of color, and it's their decision.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
They have elected their leaders and it's their decision as to what they want to see in their community. What they tell me, the number one issue--they don't--people don't actually talk to me about climate change. They talk about good jobs, they talk about a livable wage, they talk about the ability to buy their own homes and their small businesses. And so this is really critical and I welcome anybody that actually wants to work on this to help me figure out what's the best design for this because it's not easy to do, but we desperately need hydrogen solutions in the State of California.
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
We ought to control our own future and not be dependent on the importation from other states or other countries, and we have an obligation to decarbonize these major industries that are right now creating terrible pollution, and my air district is one of the worst in the states. Other than the South Coast Air District, ours is in bad shape. It's never going to get better unless we stop using diesel and jet fuel and gasoline. So this is important and that's why I'm here today, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Well, Senator, your heart and your passion for your district and your district as a proxy for people who need us to step up all across the state is always felt and I have a strong feeling that this is a conversation you and I are just beginning on together, and I welcome it and I look forward to it. You've put a lot of work into this bill and I don't think it would even be here if it wasn't for you as the author. Do we have a motion? Mr. Flora and a second already. This bill enjoys a do pass from the Chair.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Madam Secretary, can you call the roll?
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Thank you.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call].
- Anna Caballero
Legislator
Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you Senator Blakespear. Come send us to dinner. SB 1053, whenever you're ready.
- Catherine Blakespear
Legislator
Thank you chair. And thank you Committee staff. And thank you Members. I gladly accept the Committee amendments. SB 1053 and AB 2236 from Assemblymember Bauer Kahan address plastic waste in California by eliminating the option to receive a plastic film bag at grocery stores when people are buying their groceries.
- Catherine Blakespear
Legislator
SB 1053 addresses a major problem in California and in our world, which is that plastic waste is choking our planet. The average American uses one plastic bag every day, using it on average for just 12 minutes before disposing of it.
- Catherine Blakespear
Legislator
Even worse, only 10% of plastic bags are recycled, largely due to how difficult the process is and how few places actually recycle plastic grocery bags. The rest remain in our environment for hundreds of years, breaking down into micro plastics found everywhere from the bottom of the ocean to the human body.
- Catherine Blakespear
Legislator
In 2014, California became the first state to pass a ban on single use plastic bags with SB 270. The state's voters affirmed the ban in 2016 by passing Proposition 67. Under SB 270, store checkouts were required to provide reusable plastic bags or recycled paper bags for 10 cents.
- Catherine Blakespear
Legislator
The new reusable plastic bags were significantly thicker to ostensibly facilitate reusability. However, people did not treat these bags any differently, using them as single use items. In the best of cases, they use them to line bathroom trash cans or pick up pet waste. But largely, they're not reusing them and they are not recycling them.
- Catherine Blakespear
Legislator
This meant that between 2014 and 2022, the amount of plastic bag waste actually increased significantly, rising by 47%. So just to restate that in the 10 years since the voters banned plastic bags at grocery stores, plastic bag waste increased by nearly 50%.
- Catherine Blakespear
Legislator
Rather than trying to redefine reusable plastic bags, SB 1053 takes a more direct and simple approach. The legislation prohibits plastic film bags from being provided at all at grocery store checkouts. Instead, stores can only provide paper bags to customers. Paper bags are recyclable and compostable. They are also sustainably produced.
- Catherine Blakespear
Legislator
One major manufacturer, international paper, generates nearly 70% of energy needs through carbon neutral biomass residuals. Even more impressive, 90% of the water used in the pulp and manufacturing process is reused up to 10 times and then returned to the watershed. The most sustainable option, though, is for people to bring their own truly reusable bag.
- Catherine Blakespear
Legislator
Two minutes each.
- Catherine Blakespear
Legislator
Recent research by Environmental America Research and Policy, US Perg Education Fund and Frontier Group finds that when paper is the only option at checkout, far more consumers bring their reusable bags.
- Catherine Blakespear
Legislator
Consumers have shown that they are willing and able to abide by SB 1053's requirements, which will lead to less plastic film bag waste and more sustainable shopping habits. Our plan is straightforward. At checkout, stores can provide recycled paper bags or consumers can bring their own bags.
- Catherine Blakespear
Legislator
This is, quite frankly overdue, and I'm thrilled to be championing this effort in our state together with Assemblymember Bauer Kahan. And with that, I'd like to introduce my two witnesses here in support, Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of Ocean Conservatory, Oceana and Monterey Bay Aquarium, and also Louis Brown, on behalf of the California Grocers Association.
- Jennifer Fearing
Person
Thank you. Good afternoon, Mister chair and Members. Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of Ocean Conservancy, Oceana and Monterey Bay Aquarium. We are pleased to be among the over 75 environmental protection organizations and dozens of local government leaders urging you to vote aye on SB 1053 to get rid of single use plastic grocery bags once and for all.
- Jennifer Fearing
Person
California's fight against single use plastic carryout bags at grocery and convenience stores is now more than 10 years old. While eliminating the flimsy t shirt bags as the grocery store standard at checkout, SB 270 allowed a thicker plastic film bag to be used under the guise that they were reusable. They've proved anything but.
- Jennifer Fearing
Person
SB 1053 clearly ends this ruse stipulates that only paper bags may be offered by the grocers at point of sale, with paper being the only authorized bag.
- Jennifer Fearing
Person
SB 1053's provisions setting standards for reusable bags now risk muddying the primary intent of the Bill and expands the scope to start defining what can and can't be sold as a reusable bag anywhere in the store.
- Jennifer Fearing
Person
The law has always been about what bags are allowed at point of sale, and we're pleased that the Bill now clearly defines point of sale to cover all transactions where purchased goods may be transferred to a customer. Thanks to all of you who previously voted for Assemblymember Bauer Kahan's Bill earlier this year.
- Jennifer Fearing
Person
We urge your support for this strengthened version today.
- Louis Brown Jr.
Person
Mister chair, Members of the Committee, Louie Brown here today on behalf of the California Grocers Association in support of the bill. We were in support of the original SB 270.
- Louis Brown Jr.
Person
And as time has shown, we've evolved and now we see the need to come back, look at the Bill again, make some corrections, and those corrections are what is going to come out of your Committee.
- Louis Brown Jr.
Person
And we appreciate the work that you've done to help clarify this, simplify it, and get it back back to its roots, which is simply what we're providing at the point of sale.
- Louis Brown Jr.
Person
And if this Bill were to become law with assemblymember cans, it will be clear that consumers will have one option at the point of sale that will be paper. We support the Bill and ask for an aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Are there any persons in this hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure?
- Ethan Nagler
Person
Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Carlsbad in support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Sherry Pemberton
Person
Sherry Pemberton on behalf of this State Lands Commission, in support.
- Tomas Valoadesul
Person
Thomas Valoadesul In support.
- Dylan Elliott
Person
Thank you. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council, Western Plaster Waste Management Authority and Solid Waste Association of North America, all in support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- Gavin McHugh
Person
Gavin McHugh on behalf of International Paper in support
- Janet Cox
Person
Janet Cox for Climate Action California, the Climate Reality Project, California Coalition and the Senate approves Climate Action Network. Thank you.
- Roman Vogelsang
Person
Good evening, Chair and Members. Roman Vogelsang with the Aprea and Company on behalf of our public services in support. Thank you.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, sir.
- Rebecca Marcus
Person
Rebecca Marcus on behalf of CalPERS in support.
- Joshua Gauger
Person
Josh Gauger on behalf of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
It's a great county.
- Teresa Cooke
Person
Teresa Cooke on behalf of the City of Alameda in support. Thank you.
- Judy Sorey
Person
Judy Sorey on behalf of 350 Bay Area, Bay Area action in support.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you. Are there any persons here in opposition to this measure? Mister Tirico, welcome.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
Thank you. Mister Majority Leader, Mister Chairman, Members of the Committee, good evening. My name is Alberto Torrico. I'm here on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council. Just wanted to follow up on the points by my good friend Mister Brown who mentioned that there were some.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
We've all recognized there's some significant challenges and problems with the plastic bag Bill, SB 270, its subsequent implementation, and this Bill attempts to address those. UFCW is in support of the objectives of the Bill to reduce the flow of plastic.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
But we did want to raise some concerns and some issues, some areas of the Bill which have not been addressed. Last year, UFCW sponsored SB 777 by Senator Allen and our principal concerns and issues that we raised through that Bill were that the.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
There were three stated purposes that were supposed to be used for the money that was collected from the sale of the bags, 10 cent minimum per bag.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
Those three areas were compliance with the statute, the cost, the actual cost of the bags, and education, education of the public and others as it pertained to the use and the recyclability of those bags. As we did that Bill, we came to this quick realization that many of those things were not happening.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
And I'll tell you that in particular, the education component was not happening, is not happening. Now the other thing that we wanted to articulate and did articulate with that Bill and articulating this evening is that nowhere in the Bill that the Bill say that profits from the bags was to be gained from the stores.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
Now we have a difference of opinion with the grocery stores about whether or not there are profits. So we said there was an easy solution for that. Let's have some accountability and transparency.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
We asked in 777 that the number of bags that were purchased, the number of bags were sold be reported to the public, either at the store or through Cal recycle. That Bill made its way to the governor's desk and was vetoed.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
We still think that those lessons from the failure from the current plastic bag Bill should be applied to this Bill. So we've offered those amendments. We've offered 777 amendments. We've also subsequently offered amendments that would allow local government to track that information, which is not allowed now because it's preempted.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
So we think that that information should be tracked. And I will say that the issue of profitability is important because in New Jersey they found that one store made up to $200,000 a year in the sale of plastic bags and that the state, across the state was $42 million in profit.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
I think that's a a plausible conclusion because the bags cost two or three cents to make and they're being sold for a minimum $0.10, some jurisdictions $0.25. So for those reasons, UFCW remains opposed. Request your no vote.
- Phil Rozenski
Person
Thank you chair and esteemed Members of the Natural Resources Committee, thank you for the opportunity to address your day regarding Senate Bill 1053, my name is Phil Rozenski and I'm a Member of the American Recyclable Plastic Bag Alliance. ARPBA represents manufacturers and recyclers of film plastic bags, including Members with operations in the State of California.
- Phil Rozenski
Person
We share the bill's goal of protecting the environment, but this Bill will not reduce plastic. Instead, it will result in significantly more plastic consumption and increased consumer safety risks. Regarding plastic consumption, current law requires today's film plastic bags to contain a minimum 40% certified post consumer recycled content.
- Phil Rozenski
Person
According to Cal recycle data, these bags divert 183 million pounds of plastic annually from landfills to support their manufacturing. In contrast, the nonwoven pypropylene bags which this legislation would usher in are rarely, rarely contained recycled content and are not recyclable in the State of California.
- Phil Rozenski
Person
I understand the recent amendments and the legislation have sought to mitigate the excessive use of non woven polypropylene bags by prohibiting them at the point of sale. However, the amendment simply would move them 2ft away. Picture them on the back side of your desk. Now they're on the front side of the desk off the point of sale.
- Phil Rozenski
Person
According to media reports, in 2010, many reusable bags contained toxic heavy metals to be considered hazardous, so much so they were considered hazardous waste. This led the Legislature in 2014 to add safety standards for reusable bags included toxicity testing and registration.
- Phil Rozenski
Person
This Bill would remove those testing and registration requirements that are there for those bags today for an honor system for disclaimer for foreign manufacturers that are in China and other countries.
- Phil Rozenski
Person
Make no mistake, this Bill will still allow the use of plastic bags, but these bags will just become cheaper, likely increasing overall sales and decreasing reuse, as evidenced by consumer behavior in Canada, New Jersey, New York, Delaware and elsewhere where similar laws have been used.
- Phil Rozenski
Person
The amendments may lead to proponents to say it banned the use of plastic bags at point of sale, but really it simply moves them away from the register, sacrificing consumer safety to boot. We strenuously urge Members of the Committee to fully understand the Bill and what's at stake for Californians. Thank you for your attention and consideration.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you, sir. Any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this measure?
- Dylan Finley
Person
Dylan Finley, on behalf of the Western Plastics Association, the Association of Plastic Recyclers and the recycling, the recycling partnership, and respectful opposition, unless amended to be placed under SB 54, the plastic packs. Thank you.
- Keely O'Brien
Person
Good evening, Chairman, Members Keeley O'Brien with Western center on Law and Poverty. We're definitely in support of the goals of the legislation, but aligning our comments with UFC, we are opposed unless amended. Thank you.
- Lauren Aguilar
Person
Lauren Aguilar with the Flexible Packaging Association, also in an opposed and less amended position.
- Kris Quigley
Person
Kris Quigley, Plastics Industry Association in respectful opposition.
- Obed Franco
Person
Obed Franco, on behalf of the American Chemistry Council, opposed unless amended.
- John Latimer
Person
Mister Chairman, Members. Kind of a Tweener. John Latimer, on behalf of the California Retailers Association, we've been in opposition to the Bill. Appreciate the recent amendments. We're reviewing those amendments and we hope to be able to align with our partners, the Grocers Association, soon on both bills.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Thank you.
- John Moffatt
Person
John Moffatt, on behalf of Mettler Packaging, we have an opposed unless amended position on the Bill. If the amendments provided by the Committee today are adopted into the Bill by the author, we'll be removing our opposition Committee Members.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
I had a feeling you might have some comments Assemblymember Bauer Kahan
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
You know, it's late, I'll be brief, but I just wanted to thank the Senator for her partnership in this and just comment a little bit on what we heard here today.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
I think it's so critically important that we make this move for all the reasons that you set forth, and you have been a very strong advocate for the environment through this entire process. And I think that's evident in the legislation that is appearing before this Committee on its, I think, last stop before the floor.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
And, you know, I think we both met with UFCW to discuss these concerns, and from my perspective, one of the things that was not noted was that the paper bags are more expensive.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
And so the numbers that were cited, much more of that cost will now go to covering the cost of these bags, which I think is critical to what is happening here. And although I know I supported the Bill last year, I don't know if I assume the Senator did.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
You know, I think that is a separate issue, one that is worthy of taking up, but is not the nature of this Bill, and so look forward to supporting that legislation in a different form.
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Legislator
But I think when the only opposition left are the people who want to make plastics that end up in our waterways, you know, you've done good work. So thank you, Senator.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Any other questions, comments by colleagues, Mr. Muratsuchi
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
So I'm sorry, I didn't. I was gonna, I thought you were going to address UFCW's concerns. Is there a reason why you haven't? I mean, it seems like something that we would want to make sure that they're not profiting off of the bags.
- Catherine Blakespear
Legislator
Yes. Thank you, Assembly Member, for the question. So this Bill is 100% about plastic reduction. This is not about whether grocery stores are making money. And so if we were solving for that which Senator Allen was doing last year, I supported that Bill. This Committee supported that Bill.
- Catherine Blakespear
Legislator
It got all the way to the Governor and he vetoed it. So I see there as being absolutely no reason for us to insert a poison pill into a plastics Bill that relates to whether grocery stores are making money on one particular product or not.
- Catherine Blakespear
Legislator
And I think over the last 10 years, if $0.10 is or is not covering what is now a more expensive bag, a paper bag, you know, is a question that could be answered and respectful to our friends at you at the union that represents workers who work in grocery stores, that issue is just not up in this Bill.
- Catherine Blakespear
Legislator
This is about plastic reduction. So I would like to work together to be able to have future bills that address future questions, but I see these as being on completely separate tracks, and that Bill was vetoed last year. And so inserting it really is not of interest.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Sure. No, I wasn't 100% as supportive of what you're trying to accomplish here until I heard UFCW's concerns and if it was vetoed then obviously you don't want to take that poison pill. That helps me understand. But can you help me further? I mean I didn't read the veto message.
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
What was the, what was the nature of the veto?
- Catherine Blakespear
Legislator
I think my witness might be able to answer that specifically. Well pull it up.
- Louis Brown Jr.
Person
I mean Mister Torrico, it was your Bill if I may, through the chair.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
My recollection of the veto message was that the Governor didn't feel that the information was necessary. We disagree. And I also will say a couple other things in response. I think that this, I think that any Bill that gets to the Governor's desk that has a ban on plastics, plastic bags is going to get signed.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
This Bill is obviously the next iteration of the reduction of plastic and the component of the component that governs what happens and how the sale of plastic bags and in the future of paper bags should be addressed. Let's not forget that the 10 cent minimum was there.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
It's a minimum first of all charged the customer and it's there to discourage people from buying bags. So bringing their own bags, that causes significant challenges to underserved communities. You know, for most of us it's okay to buy a bag for four, $5, 7, 10. Some folks can't afford that.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
The other challenge right now with the system is that customers that use WIC aren't supposed to be charged for the bags but they're also not allowed to be asked. So you run into this situation at the register where the person's getting rung up. Maybe they got charged for bags, probably did.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
They don't want to say they're on WIC, they pay for the bags or now you have all trends, challenges. Maybe it's possible the state's been paying for these plastic bags which is not allowed under WIC. So we think that all those issues should be addressed.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
And we also think as Senator Bauer Kahan said that the paper bags are more expensive. We think customers are going to be charged more. And paper bags, look, those of us that grew up bagging groceries or going to grocery store with our parents, a lot of times you had double bagged, you had to get two bags.
- Alberto Torrico
Person
So these are all costs that people in underserved communities with lower incomes are really going to be forced to bear because we're trying to get rid of plastic. And I don't think it's fair.
- Catherine Blakespear
Legislator
Would you like to hear more about the veto message
- Al Muratsuchi
Legislator
Quickly sure.
- Louis Brown Jr.
Person
Let's read it out loud. Permission to read? Yes sir. In short, it says, I thank the offer for the commitment to ensure continued success of California's single use plastic bag ban. I support providing consumers with more convenient options to recycle carry out bags.
- Louis Brown Jr.
Person
However, I'm concerned that the data collection and reporting provisions in this Bill will impose an undue burden on stores large and small across the state without a clear public benefit or improvement to the implementation of the bag ban.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Any other questions from colleagues? Senator, would you like to close?
- Catherine Blakespear
Legislator
I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Great, I definitely see the conflict here. Right. You see this as a poison pill, which I hope is a word that we can abandon from our lexicon after Wednesday. And you see this Bill as a trojan horse to the governor's desk, and that's a.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
You know, I understand that, and I think all parts of this conversation are important, but I think the. The heart of this legislation is too important not to move out of this Committee on this day. Do we have a motion? Miss Bauer Kahan has a motion and a second by Miss Friedman and Miss Pellerin.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
This has a dupass recommendation. Can we call the roll.
- Committee Secretary
Person
Motion is do pass, as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
That Bill is out.
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
Can we call the roll on any absent Members?
- Committee Secretary
Person
[Roll Call]
- Isaac Bryan
Legislator
And this concludes the Assembly Natural Resource Committee.