Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

To avoid unintended consequences. Members the issue of organic waste, including ag waste and forest biomass, is one I've been working on since I came to the Capitol in 2016. I live in Winters, a small town 40 miles from here that is surrounded by agriculture.

As I drive around my district, I see fruit and nut trees being pulled up, piled, and burned because there's nowhere for this waste to go. Communities like the rural areas in my district have been struggling to find ways to divert their organic waste from landfills. But we need to put that waste to beneficial climate friendly use.

And rural communities really need reliable energy supplies. So converting organic waste to energy makes sense for energy reliability too, not just emissions reduction and waste reduction. The goal of this bill is to provide certainty to communities and projects as they look for ways to deal with their organic waste.

First, because confusion has resulted from the absence of a definition in the code, this bill codifies a definition of pyrolysis. I want to make very clear that this bill does not, let me repeat, it does not change how pyrolysis is permitted or regulated. It simply helps communities and companies know what projects count as pyrolysis projects.

Second, this bill allows communities to get procurement credit for projects that use exclusively organic waste to generate pipeline biomethane. This is important for communities that need more options for meeting their SB 1383 goals. This bill will help reduce future emissions by helping divert organic waste from landfills, and it will help increase energy reliability and resiliency in those communities that need it the most. With me to testify in support of the bill is Julia Levin, Executive Director of the Bioenergy Association of California. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. As the author said. Julia Levin with the Bioenergy Association of California. We have about 100 members, including many of the local governments that are on the hook to comply with the state's waste diversion requirements.

We represent tribes, research institutions like the University of California, and then many energy technology providers, investors, utilities, and others focused exclusively on organic waste to to energy projects to meet the state's climate goals, air quality, and energy reliability policies. So AB 70 is fundamentally about reducing short lived climate pollutants in California.

These are the climate super pollutants that cause an outsize effect on the climate, but when you reduce them, you get an immediate benefit, unlike reductions in carbon dioxide. The California Air Resources Board has said that reducing short lived climate pollutants is one of the most urgent things we can do to address the climate because it does benefit the climate right away. In California, particularly with methane, that is all about organic waste. 87% of the state's methane emissions come from decomposing organic waste.

And that's what this bill is trying to address, the organic waste that would otherwise go to a landfill. The state's short lived climate pollutant law, SB 1383 requires that cities and counties divert 75% of their organic waste by the end of this year. The Little Hoover Commission, no surprise I'm sure to any of you, did a report on how we're doing on meeting those legal requirements and found that we are many, many years behind and that one of the reasons is there aren't enough alternative product markets for the diverted organic waste.

And so what AB 70 does is provide one of those very important markets. Pipeline Biomethane is already a program at the Public Utilities Commission. The gas utilities are required to procure 72 billion cubic feet a year, and this will provide a carbon negative in state source.

One of the other things that SB 1383, the state's short lived climate pollutant law, requires is for state agencies to adopt policies and incentives to increase the in state production of renewable gas, including biomethane. And this bill will help with that as well. So for all of these reasons, we urge the Committee to pass this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure? Seeing none. Any opposition? Seeing none. Committee Members? One, two. Seeing no questions from Committee Members. Madam Majority Leader, would you like to close?

I simply ask for your aye vote and thank you very much.

Absolutely. When a quorum is present, we'll call the roll.

Great. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 30. I also want to express my appreciation for the amendments proposed by the Committee and the work done by the Committee consultants, which we fully accept. Assembly Bill 30 is the Cleaner, Cheaper Fuel E15 Blend Act, which seeks to allow the sale and the use of E15 fuel, gasoline blended with 15% ethanol in California.

This bill brings California in line with 49 other states, every other state in the union, that already allow the sale of E15, a fuel that both burns cleaner and is more affordable to consumers. As noted in the analysis, CARB initiated their regulatory approval process seven years ago in 2018.

A Tier 3 report, also known as this multimedia risk assessment final report, was circulated to relevant agencies in the year 2022, but little progress has been made since that time, with CARB currently estimating that at least another full year may be needed to complete their rulemaking.

Last October, Governor Newsom sent a letter directing CARB to expedite the rulemaking, a welcome partnership with the Legislature. I believe AB 30 symbolizes that partnership. And I also am also grateful that Governor Newsom included in the year, in this year's budget provides for additional support for CARB to expedite this process.

But the truth is, we really can't afford to wait. California consumers cannot afford to wait any longer. By approving this bill, California drivers could see a 20 cent per gallon reduction to their cost of gas, according to a recent study by UC Berkeley and the US Naval Academy.

AB 30 is a common sense bipartisan solution that, with the Committee's amendments as they are before you today, which we accept, ensures that E15 fuel blend can be used in California just like in the 49 other states, while also preserving CARB's formal rulemaking process and allows it to be completed.

This bill does have an urgency clause, so it can take effect immediately upon the Governor's signature. Lastly, I just want to mention that this, if this doesn't, if this sounds familiar to you, it's because last fall in the special session, the second special session, AB 30 was introduced then by our colleague from Orange County. In that special session, it was discussed, debated and it passed the Assembly floor with a 68 to 0 vote.

Unfortunately, it was never advanced in the Senate, and that is why we're here back with you today. I'm grateful for all the co-authors that have signed on and welcome more to the fold, for sure. The bill has received strong support from a diverse coalition. And with me today is Neil Koehler with the Renewable Fuels Association to speak more on the importance and the technicalities of approving E15.

Neil, can I pause you for one second? I see a quorum is now here. Can we call the roll real fast?

[Roll Call]

Thank you.

Honorable Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Neil Koehler with the Renewable Fuels Association. Really appreciate the opportunity. We're very supportive of this bill. Been working on this for many years. I was just smiling with Lawrence because been at it for about as long as I think you've been in the Legislature.

So the time is now. The affordability issue in California is critical. E15, it's an option. It's not a requirement, it's just giving an option for consumers to choose a lower cost way of meeting our clean energy goals. Not only does it lower the cost, Assembly Member Alvarez mentioned the 20 cents a gallon, but at the same time it reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Just going from 10 to 15% would be a 2 million plus metric ton benefit on GHG as well as reducing tailpipe emissions.

I think it'd be hard pressed to find another measure that can reduce costs, reduce tailpipe emissions, and lower greenhouse gas emissions all at the same time. So strongly appreciate the bipartisan support for this, the common sense support, and would very much encourage your support and can answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you, Neil. Is there any support here in the hearing room? Come on down. I apologize for not having a microphone ready.

Have a great voice. I want to hear it now. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Apologies for not getting our letter in on time. Jack Yanos on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance in support.

Good afternoon. Josh Baker with the California Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, representing your hometown military force. We are in support.

Juanita Martinez on behalf of California LULAC, Multibusiness Alliance, California Council of Chapters Military Officers Association of California, and Los Amigos de la Comunidad in support.

Good afternoon. Yolanda Benson representing the California Association of County Veterans Service Officers in support.

Good afternoon. Kris Rosa on behalf of the Marine Corps League, Department of California and the Association of U.S. Army Southern California in support.

Chair and Members, Austin Heyworth on behalf of Pearson Fuels. We're in a support of amended position. We'd like to see Legislature go further expand access to E85 fuels. A higher blend of ethanol will add more to the affordability potential here. Thank you.

Any primary witnesses in opposition? I got two microphones for you.

Hello, Chair and Members. Jerry Desmond with Recreational Boaters of California, 52 year old advocacy organization for the 700,000, you know, registered boats in California. And our concern is that E15 fuel is prohibited by federal law in motorized recreational vessels in California, as you know, set forth in the analysis.

So we're afraid that with the authorization for E15 fuel to be accelerated in California, there will be a problem for the boaters who often fill their boats with fuel at a regular gas pump, you know, where they have their boats, at their residences in the suburbs of California. And also E15 fuel not only prohibited.

The reason it's prohibited is because it ruins the engines. And so there's a, could be a drastic effect on, you know, the 700,000 registered boats in California and the 3 million boaters who use them. And so what we're asking for is some kind of assurance that, as the state moves forward towards E15, there's an accommodation to ensure the continued availability of E10 fuel for the recreational boaters throughout the state in a way that assures there won't be misfueling as we move forward in this, in this way. Thank you.

Absolutely.

Mr. Chair and Members. Mark Smith on behalf of the National Marine Manufacturers Association, also the Off Road Vehicle Legislative Caucus, which doesn't have an official position on the bill yet. NMMA is an opposed unless amended position along with RBOC. I asked the Sergeant to distribute two photographs to you.

The first is what a fuel pump looks like where they sell E15 in addition to other types of gasoline and diesel. The second, and I apologize for not making it in color for all of you, is sort of the copy of the warning label that we are suggesting go along with the sale of E15 for the reasons stated by my colleague. These fuels are actually federally illegal. They're prohibited from being put into these types of engines. And it's not just boat engines.

It's off road vehicles, it's lawnmowers, it's chainsaws, it's a bunch of other engines that consumers in California own and may not be aware of the distinction in these fuels and the possible ramifications to their consumer products. Again, we're not urging you not to sell E15.

What we're doing is urging you to provide consumer notification to people who are often confused at the pump. Maybe in a hurry, maybe they are looking at the fact that the fuel is 20 cents cheaper. I mean, I know I certainly would because fuel costs a lot these days. So we're asking for some consideration around these amendments.

There was some suggestion that we're prohibited from doing this. Yes, there are federal standards related to the signage on pumps, but we put Prop 65 warning labels on all fuel pumps in California. That is a uniquely California requirement. Right. So there is, there's latitude in the law here to allow us to put additional labeling at our discretion on these pumps to inform consumers. So with that, be happy to take any questions if there are any, and thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you, sir. Any opposition here in the room who would like to be heard?

Sorry, Mr. Chair. I should have staged quicker. Beau Biller on behalf of the Marine Recreation Association. And we'll simply liken our comments with those of the RBOC and the NMMA. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. I'll now turn it back to my colleagues. Any questions from Committee Members? Ms. Pellerin.

Hi there. Okay, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. So I don't see how we can assume that allowing E15 will necessarily reduce the price of gas. The study that the bill is based on is commissioned by the Renewable Fuels Association, who are representatives of the ethanol industry.

And even that study points out the need to evaluate the price impacts of changing pumps and other fueling infrastructure. So I'm just wondering if CARB determines that the adoption of E15 would have significant adverse economic impacts, what would the process be and how long would it take for CARB to take E15 off the market?

So I can answer the first part of your question, which is related to the cost study. It wasn't just the study that you referenced, but it was also in the CEC report that we utilized last year in our special session discussions. That's really where this all derived from. It was one of the multiple options that was presented to us in that. And as it relates to the CARB taking action, I don't know if our witness may be able to answer that a little bit better.

Sure. So the work that, in the multimedia analysis, is really, and at the budget hearing a week or two ago, a member from CARB said that the work is done. We have a draft report. It looks like there is no adverse impact. And we've been engaged with CARB now for seven years doing this exhaustive both literature reviews and vehicle testing on 20 vehicles. And not only did it show no adverse impacts, it showed very positive environmental impact. So we're very confident that is the conclusion. And but if CARB in this latest stage of finalizing that were to determine that, then they could move very quickly.

And what percentage of gas stations use the E15?

Well, right now it's not a legal fuel in California. But there's 3,000 gas stations in the United States. And so what we, we are seeing there is that the price is lower. So I mean, this was a study in California that looked at California conditions, California economics.

But we certainly can provide you, whether it's pictures, whether it's evidence, because it is just ethanol sells at a lower cost than gasoline. Plus it displaces very expensive octane enhancing additives in gasoline. So that's why it reduces the price. And so that is a, you know, that is just a known fact where it's sold elsewhere that it does reduce the price.

But you have to redo the infrastructure, right?

No, you have to... Most of the pumps, virtually all the new pumps sold in California today are already compatible with even higher than 15%, all the way up to 25%. So if your dispenser is of a certain age, then you might have to replace the dispenser. But all of the underground tanks and many of the dispensers are already ready for E15. But that's why it's very important to expedite this opportunity to provide the signal to the market that this fuel is legal, and then it's a business decision on whether to offer it or not.

I will say, on the, on the boating side, you know, we're sensitive to that. That's why the EPA does have the label. We do know that, where E15 is sold, that we're not having issues with boaters being unable to provide fuel that they would like to for their boats.

Okay. So I guess my other concern is just allowing the E15 sales before CARB has an opportunity to do their evaluation. It just seems like that's sort of a risky position to be taking. Is there any reason why we're... It feels like we're putting the cart before the horse a little bit.

Yeah. We would just disagree that given that the use of 49 other states, given the fact that it's been seven years in the works of this, the multimedia study, that the work that's been done to date puts us in a position to be ready to move forward, and that's why we're proceeding this way. But there could be, I guess, conceivably, CARB could have other findings. CARB may never finish the work, and we'll never know. So the idea here is to actually move forward with this, again, as has been proven to work in other states.

Yeah. Because the bill that was going to require them to do that review never got enacted, Correct?

Yeah. In the Senate. Correct.

Okay. Well, I appreciate your effort here and thank you for answering my questions, but I will most likely lay off the bill today. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I think my colleague kind of addressed the two issues on my mind, but maybe just to put a finer point on both. One is impact on cost or price, the other is environmental impact. So it sounds like from your testimony, but maybe address it directly. And it sounds like, based on a track record, given that this has played out in other states or have studies, frankly, suggesting that this will actually lower gas prices. But what exactly can you tell us about impact on price?

That it has, in fact, lowered the price, which is why it sells well in areas that it's introduced, that it has been in. That depending on you know what the price of oil, what the price of ethanol. But it is in that range of anywhere from 10 to 30 cents a gallon lower than. And on these pumps you'll have E10, you'll have E15, and you'll see the difference. And it very factually has reduced the price of cost of gas.

Thank you. Then on the environmental piece, 15% ethanol has a higher evaporation rate. Would the authorization of this blend cause negative environmental impacts? If not, why not? Elaborate again.

Well, on the evaporative piece, on that one. And again, there's three phases of the multimedia work that evaluation that CARB has done and it's addressing all these issues. Ethanol does have in lower concentrations increases the vapor pressure of the gasoline at actually in the first 3% at between 10 and 15, it doesn't change at all. In fact, it starts going back down. So that's why as you increase to even higher levels of blend, you will have other environmental benefits as it relates to vapor pressure.

And I think one thing that didn't mention but that is really quite, it was a very positive and startling result on particulate emissions. When you go from just 10 to 15% ethanol blends in this 20 car study that was co-funded by CARB, it reduced particulate emissions by 18%. Just that going from 10 to 15%. So in our communities that are around freeways, that that is a very significant benefit.

Seeing no other questions. Mr. Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank the author for his bill. I'm proud to be one of the co-authors. I know caucus we belong to, Problem Solvers, has been really interested in this also, and I think we're all behind that as well. And so I want to thank you for your leadership on this and I will be voting for this. And I'll move the bill.

Mr. Alvarez, would you like to close?

No. Again, I just want to thank you, Mr. Chair, and again thank the Committee staff for the work to get us to the product that we have before you today and would respectfully request your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. I have full confidence that the author will continue to engage with the opposition and seek to address some of the concerns that have been raised by some of the Members of this Committee. Also incredibly grateful to the Committee staff for engaging in this conversation and recognizing that this is a measure that moved off the Assembly floor last year. Although without my vote, as I was on my honeymoon. This bill enjoys a do pass reco from the Chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

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

Eight votes. That Bill is out. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Congratulations. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members since we have our quorum here. We've got five measures on consent. Item 5, AB261. Item 6, AB274. Item 7, AB300. Item 9, AB337. Item 14, AB471. Do we have a motion on the consent? Motion by Ms. Pellerin.

And a second by Mr. Flora and a third by Mr. Schultz. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Thank you. The counter move. Mr. Wallace, come on down. Our first Republican.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I have before you today AB 580, a vital measure for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the 19 million Southern Californians it serves. I'd like to thank the Committee for working with us and the Committee staff for the excellent analysis.

Happy to accept the Committee's amendments extending the sunset date by 2025 years. Because we have a motion this second, I'm just going to go ahead and turn it over to my lead witness. Joining me today is Dr. Christopher Gavilich, Metropolitan's principal environmentalist specialist.

Mr. Chair and Committee Members again, I'm Chris. Gablidge with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. As Assemblymember Wallace mentioned, the elimination of. The sunset date, or extension thereof, will allow Metropolitan to continue to quickly and cost effectively repair and maintain the Colorado River Aqueduct system, which is vitally important. For Southern California's water supply.

Metropolitan has operated the Colorado river aqueduct. For over 80 years now and plans to do another 100 years in a minimum. So elimination or modification of sunset date will allow Metropolitan regulatory certainty moving forward. As such, I would like to thank. Assemblymember Wallace for introducing the Bill and. And ask for your support for the Bill.

I'm here to take any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Any support here in the hearing room.

Jamie Minor, on behalf of Eastern Municipal Water District, please to support. Thank you.

Beth Olasso, on behalf of Inland Empire Utilities Agency, and support. Thank you.

Cyrus Duavers for the Municipal Water District of Orange County and the Las Vergines Municipal Water District in support.

Hello. Keely Morris with Edelstein, Gilbert, Robeson and Smith. On behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association and Rancho California Water District in support.

Good afternoon. Aaron Avery, California Special Districts Association, in support. Thank you.

Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Anybody in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition, questions or comments from Committee Members? Mr. Wallace, would you like to close? I respectfully request an I vote. We've got a motion by Alanis and a second by Sanchez. This enjoys a dupass reco from the chair.

Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is due. Pass as amended to Water Parks and Wildlife Committee. Brian.

Aye.

[Roll call]

That Bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Some Member. Tanky Pa.

Oh, I'm sorry. I jumped up. I'll make it up to you.

They get up to my five meetings after this.

Be quick.

Through the Bill.

Ready to roll?

Whenever you're ready.

Perfect. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. When it comes to wildfires, every second counts. Right now, across California, too many communities face a dangerous reality, having only one way in and out, which can turn into a deadly trap when wildfire strikes.

We've seen this happen before and my district experienced it firsthand in Fresno county over labor day weekend, in 2020. The Creek Fire grew to 36,000 acres, forcing the evacuation of more than 30,000 people from the Shaver Lake area. These situations are not just hypotheticals. These are real. Preventable tragedies. And that is why AB66 is so critical.

This Bill removes unnecessary roadblocks so that communities can build emergency evacuation routes in high risk areas without getting tangled in years of red tape. It provides a targeted exemption from CEQA, allowing local agencies to act quickly to create life saving exits.

When a fire breaks out, it won't wait for paperwork or politely knock before forcing you to flee. AB66 is a common sense solution and most importantly, it will save lives. Here to testify with me today is John Kennedy from RCRC.

Good afternoon. John Kennedy with the RCRC, representing the state's 40 rural counties. We're here today in support of AB66. This is a fairly narrow CEQA exemption for emergency egress route projects. These are projects for communities in high fire risk areas that have been identified by the Board of Forestry.

Many of our smaller rural communities were built decades ago and so have inadequate egress routes based on today's increased wildfire risks. Again, this bill creates a narrow exemption for these projects and contains many environmental safeguards to protect species, wetlands, archaeological, cultural resources and projects must comply with all of their environmental laws that are out there.

We are especially supportive of this bill because we think it will reduce time and cost associated with CEQA compliance for many of our local agencies, reducing the risk of of litigation and the time for sequel litigation. And so for that reason, we're happy to support the bill and work on it as it moves forward.

Thank you. Any persons in the hearing room who'd like to register their support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Chris McKayley, on behalf of Humboldt and Mendocino Redwood companies in support of the bill. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members. Chris Mar, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association in support.

Absolutely. Any witnesses in opposition? Anybody in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition?

Hi, Natalie Brown with the Planning and Conservation League. We haven't gotten a letter in yet, but we will be speaking about our opposition with the author. We have a long history on this issue and we're definitely going to continue that dialogue on this. Thank you so much.

Gabriela Facio is here at Club California in opposition.

Now turn it over to Committee Members. Mr. Zbur.

So thank you for bringing the bill. I obviously support the goals of it. And you know, I know that there are many communities that actually need improvements on fire egress roads.

But I, in reading it, it doesn't seem like a narrow exemption to me when you look at so first of all, let me just ask some, ask some questions.

When you, you know, you have a number of things you need to qualify for in order to avail yourself of the exemption, some of them are that it doesn't affect archaeological, historical or other cultural resources. It doesn't affect Fish and Wildlife, it doesn't affect a number of basically natural resources.

How do you go, how is the agency going to go about making those determinations when there hasn't been an evaluation under CEQA to support that exemption?

Well, this, it really empowers a lot of the local agencies to actually have a public hearing and gives them the opportunity to actually talk to the community on why these are so important to exempt the secondary. And it's very focused on secondary egress routes. So I think it actually just empowers communication and dialogue.

So that way we can focus on protecting most of the natural resources, but also making sure that we're prioritizing protecting a lot of the people first.

Right, but a hearing isn't an analysis and an environmental review of where the scenic, where the resources are, what you need to do to protect them, whether there are less environmentally damaging alternatives. I mean, how do you go about doing that with one hearing?

So through the chair, as we are determining whether a given project is exempt from CEQA, we will be going through and determining whether there are any wetlands that are impacted by this, whether there are any protected species in this area. So those are determinations we would normally make as part of the exemption process.

The alternatives analysis is a tougher nut to crack, but for that reason, we've tried to tailor the size of the road based on the population that's served in the community today. So we're not trying to increase the size of the road, we're not trying to increase the size of the community.

We're merely trying to provide another escape route.

And where in the Bill are those limitations?

On the size of the road?

As the requirements.

Well, I see that you have something that says it needs to be sized.

Right.

For the size of the community, but it doesn't talk about the where the road is, whether or not the road is something that actually avoids sensitive habitats, whether or not the road is something that is actually the safest alternative, whether it's something that the community thinks is the right alternative.

The whole point of an environmental review is to make sure that you actually have public- one, that you've done the right analysis and second, that you have public impact- a public input on before you've made a choice.

And I don't see anything that requires any of this stuff to be done up front or that limits this to the circumstances that you've talked about. So for example, is there any limitation that that this cannot be used for a 50 mile long highway? I don't see anything in there. You could have something that has huge impacts.

It's specifically focused on secondary egress routes. And so what I think about is back in 2004, I was evacuated from the French Gulch fire. There was one road in, one road out. And that road is called Rock Creek Road.

And I will always remember it because the only thing that saved our lives was, was the sheriff that didn't get out of their car, didn't do anything. He just spoke on the microphone and just told everybody to get the heck out.

I get it, I get it.

But there's no definition of what a secondary egress is. There's no limitations on the size, there's no limitations on the length. There's nothing that requires anything to happen before the public hearing.

I mean this could effectively, if you actually have the right, the right agency that doesn't care about either the public or the environment that wants to sort of build a road and could actually be used to build a 50 mile long road without any environmental review, couldn't it? I mean there's nothing in the bill that prevents that.

But it specifically focus on high risk, high fire areas with specifically looking at exit routes in addition. So it's focused on secondary egress routes and high risk, high fire areas. So, it's specific to the maps.

Where in the build, do you have definitions that limit to put any guardrails up around how this can be used?

Yeah, so there are no limits on the length here. They weren't part of the discussions that we'd had in previous years going back to right after 2911 came out.

There are limits on the size of the roads, certainly that's what we included in previous bills on 9a, the egress route scale to the existing population subdivision and then adding some metrics for that that were suggested by Senate Environmental Quality several years ago on how we would make that determination.

Some of those determinations on whether this is impacting the wetlands, whether we can even use this, would be made as we're determining whether the categorical or statutory exemption in this case would apply.

So there are evaluations that we have to make on the back end to justify and we need to make absolutely sure that we're right on all those. Otherwise we're in no better place than when we started because we're going to be subject to litigation.

Okay. I mean, the problem I have with the bill is that it seems to be it just drives a huge hole through I think, what is necessary environmental study and review for projects, the projects that it covers. There's not guardrails around them.

There's not definitions in the bill and there's no, other than one hearing, which there's no requirement that anything happen before the hearing. The public participation is very limited. I think that there are ways that you can expedite. I mean, I think the goal of having secondary egress is a laudable and important goal.

I just think that this bill doesn't, I mean, it sort of takes a sledgehammer approach rather than something that's more fine tuned.

And I'd rather see something where the Department of Forestry actually takes a look at, has some kind of plan in place where they think that there aren't secondary routes available and it's done in sort of a more holistic way and that you actually do environmental review on a plan of secondary egress roads that actually allow for the kinds of determinations that you want, which is to make sure that we're not impacting, you know, we're also not impacting communities.

There's really nothing in here that's protective of making sure that, that these are the safest egress routes, that they're, that the public thinks that they're adequate. It's just sort of one hearing and then the lead agency makes it makes a determination. So anyway, those are the concerns I have with the bill.

Mr. Muratsuchi.

Thank you. So, following on Mr. Zbur's line of questioning, well first of all, you know I have in my district the Palos Verdes Peninsula, which I believe is still designated as a very high fire risk hazard zone.

But I've never heard of the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection getting involved in any land use decisions in the Palos Verdes Peninsula to the rural counties, would they get involved in suburban communities of Los Angeles County like mine?

So from my recollection, there was a Laura Friedman Bill several years ago that invested them with authority and by authority requirement to go in and evaluate all subdivisions with 30 units or more in high fire risk areas that lack a secondary egress route and make recommendations for improvements, whether that's creating a secondary egress route, removing locks along the primary egress route or secondary egress route or whatever other changes.

And they went through and made recommendations for several dozen, potentially more than 100 communities a few years ago to that effect. It was shortly after the the bill that was vetoed that was identical to this was vetoed.

Do you happen to know if there are any recommended secondary egress routes in the Palos Verdes Peninsula?

I can go back and look at their map. They had a great map. What they did was recommend that a community needed a secondary egress route. They did not suggest where that secondary egress route would be located, but did identify that these communities need a secondary egress route,

Specifically the Palos Verdes Peninsula?

I would need to go back and look at the map to see what communities they reviewed and what their recommendations were. I can go back and try and find that out.

Alright, thank you.

Ms. Pellerin.

So, yes, I represent an area as well that is very concerned about this and prone to wildfires and having a safe exit route is absolutely critical. And more than one is even more so. I, I do have some concerns that have been expressed today, so I'll go ahead and support this bill today.

But I hope we can continue some conversations to try to fine tune some of these issues.

More than happy to work with staff so that way we can really refine and make it even better. Because the entire goal of this is to making sure that we could protect lives.

I'm 100% there. Thank you.

Mr. Connolly.

I'm going to echo that. I'm going to vote yes today. You're raising an important issue, trying to address it. A lot of our areas have this issue. We hear about it. That having been said, I think some legitimate concerns have been raised. So I think through the process, let's continue to address those. Thank you.

Mr. Schultz.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, assembly member Tangipa, I just want to thank you for bringing the issue forward. I have faith in you. I also have great faith in our committee chair. So I will be going with it and saying an aye today.

But my ask of you is I do think the Assembly Members of Burr raised several important issues and definitions that you should look at. I encourage you to do that.

And then I'd also hope that you give some thought to not only the appropriations aspect, but really, you know, if you get it all through both houses, how you actually going to get the Governor to sign this thing? So work still left to do.

But for today I think it's a conversation, an important one, as Assembly Member Connolly said. And I think it should continue. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Absolutely. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye.

So based on all the conversations happening here, I just want to clarify. Yes, it was AB 2911 by Friedman that identified the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and assigned a recommendation to create the creation of a secondary access to different subdivisions. That map is online, you can view it.

This applies only to those areas where they have been recommended a secondary route. But this Bill has also left this Committee three times before it died in the Governor's hands. It died in Senate approps died in Assembly approps.

Thought about it dying here today, but want to give you a chance to to continue to work on this. I think my colleagues have raised some tremendous concerns, but there's a agreement in the importance of the issue and I think you see that as well. Was there a motion to move the Bill? Motion by Mr. Flores.

Second by Ms. Sanchez. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is due. Pass to appropriations. Brian.

Aye.

[MOTION CALL]

Not voting.

[MOTION CALL]

Not voting.

Zbur. Not voting.

Good luck. That bill's out.

Thank you.

Assembly Member Burner. Second by the chair.

Hello. We are back with blue carbon. Woohoo. Fourth time's the charm. So I'm here. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members.

I am presenting AB 399 which would authorize the California Coastal Commission to add carbon sequestration to the suite of factors it considers when it looks at mitigation and approving coastal development permits where feasible, as well as authorizing blue carbon demonstration projects. As you know, we have land banks when you do land development.

We do not have blue carbon banks when you are affecting wetlands. Just to remind everybody, water world was fiction. We do not build in California and wetlands lagoons, intertidal areas or oceans. Research has shown that blue carbon ecosystems such as sea grasses and salt marshes are more efficient at capturing and storing atmospheric carbon than most terrestrial forests.

Sadly, California has lost 90% of its historical wetlands and the associated benefits that they provide in protecting coastal communities from the harmful impacts of the climate crisis, such as sea level rise and flooding.

This Bill idea is a result of a transportation project in North County, San Diego where a project to widen the I5 freeway lanes addressed environmental concerns related to wildlife living in six coastal lagoons, 32 acres of wetlands and 74 acres of coastal sage through mitigation projects. During this project, specifically the San Elio Lagoon.

If you ever come down and visit me in San Diego County, I'll take you there. The San Elio Lagoon inadvertently did a major carbon sequestration by replanting eelgrass and salt marshes, thereby sequestering carbon. That is not something currently the Coastal Commission can specifically look at. They did it inadvertently.

But we want to make the San Elio Lagoon the standard of the State of California. If we don't have forests, we don't have large forests that capture carbon. We have lagoons and salt marshes and this is what we really should be doing to protect the environment.

And with that I ask for an aye vote on AB 399. And with me here I have Katie O'Donnell with Wild Coast in San Diego. The sponsors of our Bill. Katie, take it away.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon Assemblymembers. My name is Katie O'Donnell and I am the US Ocean Conservation Manager at Wild Coast. I'm here today to urge your support for Assemblymember Boener's Bill AB399 critical Bill for California's climate future. We all know that climate change is a daunting challenge.

But California has a powerful natural ally in its fight, our coastal wetlands. Think of our salt marshes and seagrasses beds. These are what scientists are calling these blue carbon ecosystems. Blue carbon ecosystems are like nature's carbon sponges. Through photosynthesis, these coastal plants can pull carbon dioxide from the air just like trees do.

Their advantage is that unlike terrestrial forests, instead of just storing the carbon in their woody tissue, they also bury vast amounts of carbon deep into the wet oxygen poor soil. This soil acts like a long term vault, locking away carbon for millennia if left undisturbed.

To put this in perspective, preliminary research from Wild Coast and Scripps Institute of Oceanography shows that our coastal wetlands store nearly five times more carbon than grasslands we see inland. But here's the alarming part. As mentioned by Assemblymember, we have lost a staggering 90% of California's historic wetlands.

This means that we have lost a massive natural tool in our fight against climate change. AB399 is about protecting what's left before it's too late. It empowers the California Coastal Commission to ensure the development impacting these blue carbon ecosystems is carefully considered and monitored. This isn't just about protecting plants. It's about safeguarding our future.

AB399 will ensure that blue carbon ecosystems are protected by allowing the California Coastal Commission to require demonstration projects to obtain certain permits and will add to the rapidly growing research in the field of blue carbon by requiring monitoring and permitted of permanent projects.

You've already shown leadership by modernizing the Coastal Act with sea level rise, civil rights and environmental justice considerations. Now let's add blue carbon to that list. By supporting AB399, you're not just passing a Bill. You're investing in a proven natural solution to climate change.

You're ensuring that California's coastal wetlands will continue to be powerful carbon sinks for generations to come. Please join us in supporting these vital ecosystems by supporting 399. Thank you so much for the opportunity.

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

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Committee Members Jonathan Clay here on behalf of the Port of San Diego, in support.

Gabriela Facio, Sierra Club California in support.

Allison Hilliard with the Climate Center here in support. Thank you.

Marquis King Mason, California Environmental Voters in support. Thank you.

Anybody in opposition?

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Member. Skyler Wonnacott with the California Business Properties Association. AB399 grants the Coastal Commission sweeping new authority. Mandates costly carbon projects, clear limits, no fee schedules or accountability. Forces commercial developers to fund mitigation unrelated to their specific impacts while exempting other sectors.

This Bill imposes unfair burdens, increases costs and and creates regulatory for those reasons. We're in opposition.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Jon Kendrick on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. Here with a bit of a unconventional oppose in the sense that when we submitted our position letter, we submitted an oppose. We intended to submit oppose unless amend. So I apologize for any confusion that may have caused to the Committee.

I apologize to Assemblymember as well. You know, this Bill has come up multiple times. Cal Chamber did not previously oppose. While looking at it this time, we saw some things that we'd really like to talk with the author about.

We've had some preliminary conversations with the author's staff and we look forward to working with her office for amendments as the Bill moves forward. Thank you.

Okay, anybody else in the hearing room in opposition? Now turn it to Committee Members. Mr. Muratsuchi.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Boerner, for your persistence. And I think I requested to be added as a co author in the past, I would request that I be added as a co author again. Thank you. And I move the Bill.

Thank you.

Great comments. Mr. Zbur.

Thank you.

So. Thank you. This was one of the first bills that I actually ever engaged in when I was here elected three years ago now. And, and Assemblymember Boerner and I have had an ongoing dialogue about the Bill. It's.

Let's call it love.

Yeah. Love about the Bill. So first of all, I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about what this Bill does, which could be cleared up a little bit. I actually don't think it's by just a couple tweaks. You know, Assemblymember Boerner and I actually had a little bit of a back and forth last night by text.

And I think it's true that your intention is twofold. This one authorizes the Blue Carbon Demonstration Projects, which is an independent thing of impacts related to development. That's one thing that it does. Right. Is that true?

Yes, but it's only there has to be a nexus, and that's through the Nolan Dolan case. So the argument from the opposition that the Coastal Commission would willy nilly just ask people to mitigate that have no impact to wetlands is invalid and cannot, cannot be sustained.

Had they come talk to me beforehand rather than just submitting, like calling my staffer this morning before this Bill hearing, they would have known that. And I would be happy to work with you, Assemblymember Zbur. Because we took amendments based on your language several years ago.

So it's funny that you're sitting here saying there needs to be more language. Happy to keep working.

I actually don't have a. I actually think the bill's a good Bill. So-

I think it's a good Bill too.

And I'm planning on supporting it today.

I think it's-

Let me just explain that. Yes, yes, it's gonna happen this time.

I think for those that are opposing the Bill, one of the things that the opposition letters don't reflect is that most commercial projects would never be built in a wetland, a tidal wetland, that only.

The only thing that the Coastal Commission has authority to approve are going to be things that are allowed specifically in Section 30233 of the Coastal Act. So it would be when it's basically Coastal dependent uses.

When something is, and a coastal dependent use is something like a port or aquaculture or something like that, commercial buildings would not be within what's approved, what you can actually affect wetlands for.

And so I think the thing that I would suggest, because I think you've got opposition when the Bill doesn't really have an impact, would be where you've said your second bucket of things, which requires that an applicant with a non residential project impacts coastal wetland subtitle and intertidal or marine habitats.

What I would suggest that you do is just make it very clear that it's basically an impact that's permitted under 30233. And then frankly, there's no way that a commercial project is impacted by this.

I mean, this is the fourth time I've run this Bill with this language. So it's shocking to me that anybody would come out, the fourth year. I understood the first year there was no, for those of you who are new, first year there was no opposition. The sealed through it was just held in Senate approves. Right.

Like no one noticed it, no one cared. Second year we had BIA problems to solve. Those third year we have more BIA problems than we had. We got it through Senate approves. There's no way you read this language and don't know Nolan and Dolan and think that you still have a coastal impact.

Now if you have a commercial, if you have a coastal dependent use, there could be a nexus in which case rather than having to, you will have to mitigate no matter what.

And all we're saying is when you mitigate no matter what, you could either do it well, you could do it more expensive on your own or for some of the smaller ones, you can pay into these blue carbon banks like what the Port of San Diego is envisioning and where in the past where their support has come from.

And so I think that's where I find it shocking that somebody would come out with such late opposition without having responded to my staff or spoken to me before this Bill hearing. But we'll take that under advisement. If there's a way to clarify it simply like that, I'm happy to clarify it simply like that.

And I'm not, I'm not. Yes, I haven't spoken to.

I love that you're always coming up with creative solutions for other people's problems.

I haven't spoken anything about this. But what, but I, what I'll say is that it's, you know, the Coastal Act does not allow for the construction of Warehouses or commercial facilities in wetlands. And I think if you just tied it to 30233, then that makes it absolutely clear we can.

I'm happy, I am happy to clarify that because it is not my intent, my original build language. This is for those of you who are new. This is your first Tasha B. Special. This is a Bill I wrote myself and my first version said public projects.

Because when you're looking at carbon sequestration and large mitigation, you talk about large scale carbon sequestration. The only things that can actually build at that scale over wetlands or intertidal areas or in marine habitats are public projects. They're bridges, their roads, their highways. That's what you're really seeing.

Now we do have in Northern California, apparently you have some private docks that might have something that could be impacted, in which case you would want a blue carbon bank because it's very, very costly to mitigate on site. So this would give us an option much like you have with Lampics, but we'll take that under advisement.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member support. I appreciate that.

Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Seminary Boerner for bringing this forward. I do think that it does definitely provides for opportunities for us to look for creative solutions, especially as it applies to our 30 by 30 goals, which we're finding it more challenging on the water side versus the land side.

I think we're close to approaching our 30% goal for land, but water is proven to be more challenging. The coastline in particular has been proven to be more challenging. And I think that we do have to start if we really want to meet that goal.

We have to look at more creative opportunities to really build out these protective zones. But also you talk about the blue carbon. I think that's an area that relatively speaking is newer in kind of the climate science, but has as much if not greater impact globally than any other type of environment.

And so I appreciate you not just recognizing it, but for now, for several years in a row trying to get us to move forward on these efforts. So happy to support it. We'd love to be at it as a co author as well.

Thank you. And thank you. The first time I ever learned about 30 by 30 was from you, Assemblymember Kalra.

Any other comments by Committee Members? Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember. There are four of us here who have voted on this every single time that you've brought it, and I am one of them. Except this time I would also like to be added as a co author.

Thank you.

To offset any other changes on the other side of the ledger. Is there a motion, Mr. Muratsuchi? In a second. By Mr. Kalra. Okay. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

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

Thank you.

We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. It's on call. Sanchez.

At the request of the author, we're going to pull item 11, AB404, Sanchez.

If we could get a Marin's Finest to the dais, please.

I said what I said. Whenever you're ready, sir.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Members. Want to begin by thanking the Committee for their work on this bill, and I will be accepting the Committee's amendments. I'm proud to present AB 491, which would strengthen California's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by codifying California's Nature-Based Solutions Climate Targets.

In April 2024, the state released California's Nature-Based Solutions Climate Targets Pathway to more fully engaged lands in achieving the state's climate goals. Based on expert advice, agency input, and significant stakeholder outreach, the targets were developed for actions that would have significant impact by 2030 and 2045. California has committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.

But California is lagging behind on its climate change goals. The state would need to triple its rate of reducing greenhouse gases through 2030 in order to meet these goals. The Governor has urged California to adopt more ambitious goals to help reach climate neutrality.

As the state gets closer to achieving this goal, more carbon emissions need to be cut to make these goals a reality. AB 491 will help the state meet its goals by codifying the Nature-Based Solutions Targets developed by the California Natural Resources Agency.

These targets will help California harness natural and working lands through climate actions, such as conserving working agricultural lands, scaling up climate smart agricultural practices that improve soil health on croplands and grasslands, restoring and conserving coastal, mountain, and delta wetlands to reduce the risk of dangerous flooding, expand the potential for carbon storage, and improve ecosystem function. With that, I will now pass it to my witness, Laurie Wayburn, the President and Co-founder of Pacific Forest Trust.

Thank you, Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee for this opportunity to speak in support of this very, very important bill. I think we are all aware of the urgency of the climate crisis with fires, floods, droughts, heat spells. And with that, while California has made great strides in terms of energy and transportation emissions reductions, as Mr. Connolly says, we are behind.

And frankly, we have been addressing this crisis with one hand tied behind our back because natural and working lands have the capacity to reduce net emissions more quickly, less expensively, and with more co-benefits than any other actions that we can take.

And in doing so, not only do we mitigate climate change, but we promote adaptation for the changes that we are already experiencing. The gains that are identified to be achieved in these targets are all ones that can be achieved in the next five to 10 years.

And this is the scale and speed of emissions reductions that we need not only for carbon dioxide, but for also gases such as methane. The actions in these sectors address our urban scapes, our wetlands that you were hearing about earlier today, grasslands, croplands, deserts, shrub lands, and forests.

All of these targets are with actions that are proven, feasible, and scalable. They do not require lengthy R&D or investment in startup or scaling per se to show that they are feasible. Within this, the biggest driver is likely the activities that are in the forest sector.

And what drives the gains here is very simply the growth and management for older, more natural, and less fire risky forests. Urban scapes are the next area of greatest gain. Actions here improve everybody's quality of life as well as reducing risks in urban areas of things like fire and flood.

And importantly, the actions here and the targets here are so important to embed in law because they will give the certainty that drives the kind of employment in our rural areas that is so critical to have the labor force that maintains the kinds of gains that are identified here in these targets. In closing, I want to flag that this is something that California is known worldwide for its biodiversity and for the richness and productivity of its natural and working lands.

The kinds of actions here, which thanks to the Legislature's action and the passage of Prop 4, and I want to thank you all, and you sir, in particular, for that. We now have the means to implement this and provide models that can be replicated in other states as well as other countries to leverage the power of natural and working lands for a healthier, safer future.

Thank you for that. Are there any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support?

Natalie Brown with the Planning and Conservation League in strong support. Thank you.

Cole Barlow on behalf of California Trout in support. Thank you.

Allison Hilliard with the Climate Center here in support. Thank you.

Kim Delfino on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and the California Native Plant Society in support.

Erica Parker with Californians Against Waste in support.

Mandi Strella on behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and the California State Parks Foundation in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Doug Houston on behalf of the Sierra Business Council and the Sierra Consortium. Both are enthusiastically endorsing this bill. Thank you.

Brian Shobe on behalf of the California Climate and Agriculture Network in support.

Thank you. Anybody in opposition? Come on down.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Richard Filgas on behalf of the California Farm Bureau. While we support many of the things in the targets, we have concerns with putting them in statute. Many of the factors that control the scale and pace at which these climate smart practices are adopted on farm and ranch, many of them are uncontrollable and that will complicate achieving the targets established at a single point in time. In relation to the organic targets, Farm Bureau supports organic production. Many of our members are certified organic.

But farmers weigh many factors when they choose to transition acres to organic. Unfortunately, these factors, like the commodity market, land use patterns, access to natural resources, they often lead a grower not to transition. And therefore we believe that market demand should drive increased organic acreage. So for these reasons, we must unfortunately oppose the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Any other persons in the hearing room in opposition? I'll now turn it to Committee Members. Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Assembly Member Connolly, you knew this bill would, you know this bill will get my gears going, so to speak. I'd like to move the bill and would love to be at his co-author.

Mr. Muratsuchi.

Thank you. I just want to clarify... And I just saw this, so I apologize for not bringing it to your attention earlier. But I'm looking at a Sierra Club California opposition letter for March 6. Is that... They are mentioning or they're arguing that it would effectively eliminate all but tree thinning as a carbon reduction method in forests, among other provisions, and wanted to ask if you can address.

Yeah, appreciate that. So we have been working with Sierra Club Center for Biological Diversity as well. The latter has actually removed opposition now due to the amendments. We're hoping to continue the discussion. That was kind of the basis of the amendments that hopefully you have. So those were subsequent to that letter. So it's ongoing discussion.

Obviously, by no means is the goal of the targets or this bill, frankly, to commercially thin or log our forests. The forests are seen, as my distinguished witness pointed out, as a way to sequester carbon through healthy forest practices that enhance biological diversity and ecosystem health. So. But we are more than open to continue the discussions in that regard. I don't know if you want to add anything.

The only thing that I would add is that the gains here that were projected from the expert advisory committee on AB 1757, which I'm pleased to chair, are driven almost entirely by growing older forests. And so I think there may be a misunderstanding of what the targets actually are.

Okay. Yeah. No, that's certainly the Damon Connolly that I know that would be promoting. Yeah. I just want to give you courtesy that, you know, I'm going to be looking to the Sierra Club to work out there their concerns with you. I'll be abstaining today. Thank you.

Any other questions from colleagues? Mr. Connolly, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Absolutely. I have complete confidence that you will get this exactly where it needs to be. Similar to Mr. Kalra, this really gets my gears going as well. It's a fantastic bill and another step in an effort that you've been running point on, including on the climate bond last year. It enjoys a do pass reco from the Chair. There was a motion and a second. Can we open the roll?

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

Thank you. Leave the roll open for absent Members. That bill's on call. Can we lift the call for Members who missed previous votes?

Do you want to invite a motion on the Committee rules?

Yes. Can I get a motion on the Committee rules? Can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

And do we have a motion and a second for item number four? A.B. 70. Motion by Ms. Pellerin. A second by Mr. Connolly.

[Roll Call]

Awesome. That Bill is out. Mr. Rogers, come on down. Welcome to the neighborhood, Mr. Rogers.

He's the chair. He can say whatever he wants. That's the most incredible joke I've ever heard. Mr. Chair.

You may begin when you're ready.

Well, first of all, I just want to thank everybody. I know a couple of us were caught in another Committee, so thank you for waiting. I'm proud today to pronounce to introduce to you AB539. This Bill makes two changes to the California Coastal Act.

The first, under current law is when there's a de minimis change to our local coastal plans or port master plans that typically is being requested by local jurisdictions. There's a 10 day period after the Coastal Commission acts before that goes into effect.

This Bill would make it so that unless three coastal commissioners say that it is not a de minimis change, that it goes into effect after that meeting. It's a streamlining that allows for the work to be done faster.

The second thing that this Bill does is it would streamline reporting requirements for the Coastal Commission and add additional things that they have to report around coastal violations so that that way it's more useful for the public.

And instead of reporting it every single year, which takes staff time to actually be able to implement, it would make it so that the Coastal Commission can do it every five years instead, while still having some of that data available for folks to be able to participate in.

Thank you, sir. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure.

Familiar faces. Happy New Year.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Sean Drake, Legislative Manager for the Coastal Commission. The Commission does not yet have a position, but I would note it as no policy concerns with the bill. I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Gabriela Facio in support. Sierra Club California in support.

Thank you so much. Any persons in opposition? Seeing none. Anybody who would like to have their opposition recorded for the record? Seeing none. We'll now turn it back to Committee Members. Motion by Ms. Pellerin and a second by Mr. Kalra Connolly. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB 439.

This bill enjoys a do pass recommendation. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

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

That bill is out.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Ms. Ransom, are you ready? Stay ready, you ain't got to get ready. Either one. Whenever you're ready.

Oh, you're okay. Let's go. All right. Thank you, sir. All right. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 436. 436 addresses... What happened? Okay, great.

We got a motion in a second, but we'd like to hear more.

Assembly Bill 436 expedites the siting and permitting of composting facilities. Nearly half of what California's throw away is organic waste, like food scraps and yard clippings, and it ends up in landfills. Organic waste contributes about 20% of methane emissions. And to fight this, California set very ambitious goals to divert organic waste.

50% by 2020 and 70%, 75% by 2025. In my community, my bill went up. I got a green composting bin. We saw lots of companies trying to figure out how to do it. And this bill seeks to help people figure it out. Meeting this goal requires 50 to 100 new or expanded composting facilities to process the waste.

Siting and permitting composting facilities is a complex and slow process. While the environmental regulations are important, the unnecessary barriers are holding up progress and preventing timely development of the needed infrastructure. We want to help people figure this out.

Zoning regulations are a major roadblock, as many local codes don't permit composting facilities and they're forcing operators to seek special approvals or navigate complicated exceptions. So these delays are preventing us from building the infrastructure we need to effectively manage our organic waste and reach our climate goals. So AB 436 will streamline...

Streamline the siting and composting facilities, siting and permitting of the composting facilities by creating a more clear and more efficient process for local government to follow. This will help local government identify suitable locations for composting operations and avoid the unnecessary roadblocks.

By making it easier to site compost composting facilities, we can reduce methane emissions, protect the environment, and create a more sustainable future for California. So that is why we are presenting AB 436. And at this time, I would like to pass it over to my two witnesses who will, of course, speak in support of the bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Bryan and Members. Great to be back. You may remember we were here last year with SB 1045. Unfortunately, didn't make it through. Our members are predominantly service providers, municipalities. Neil Edgar on behalf of the California Compost Coalition, by the way.

Predominantly members, service providers from municipalities who are processing yard trimmings and increasingly food materials to meet the lofty climate goals of SB 1383. CalRecycle predicted the state needs to double our existing composting capacity, as the Assembly Member said, to add some 50 to 100 facilities.

Since SB 1383 has been passed in 2016, we've opened about a dozen new facilities, only two of which are permitted to take food materials, which requires a higher bar for permitting. In my day job, I permit and develop composting facilities. Having permitted 46 facilities in 23 counties, only because I'm pretty old, I know firsthand the challenges of getting them on the ground and operating across the state.

This bill is intended to resolve one of the key hurdles we face in moving forward with critical infrastructure by providing model zoning ordinance language. Local governments have every incentive to plan for and permit organic waste processing facilities in the interest of meeting the SB 13A3 requirements. I just don't believe they have the right tools to resolve these issues that delay numerous projects. This bill will help provide some of those tools.

Agromin, one of Our members, spent 12 years to complete two zone text amendments in Ventura County to expand an existing composting facility, largely because the zoning ordinance in Ventura County did not explicitly allow commercial composting operations on agriculturally zoned land. Local solutions are important to limiting transportation impacts as well. I thank Assembly Member Ransom for bringing this bill forward.

Good afternoon, again. John Kennedy with RCRC. Our 40 counties are local agencies responsible for solid waste management. And so we have a pretty big burden implementing SB 1383. Part of that is diverting organic waste away from landfills to facilities like composting facilities. Part of it is procuring that material from composting facilities once it's been recycled.

As has been said, sometimes it's a challenge to permit and site these facilities. And so we worked with last year's author, Senator Blakespear, and with the sponsors to refine this language, get it into a place where it's helpful, provides locals with tools to cite these facilities more easily, will help us identify maybe where those facilities should be located in our general plans in the future.

And so appreciate the author bringing this bill back again this year. I think it's helpful for local governments, helpful for solid waste management, and urge your support today. And I've also been asked to convey the support of the Resource Recovery Coalition of California, the other RCRC, RRCC.

Any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure?

Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you.

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

Erica Parker, Californians Against Waste, in support.

Mandi Strella on behalf of CR&R Environmental Services in support.

Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Seeing none. We'll turn it back to Committee Members. Questions, comments? Seeing none. Do we have a motion and a second? Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Chair Bryan and Committee for hearing this bill. I definitely appreciate it. As we know, we have very lofty California goals regarding our environment. We've already put the regulations out there. Now it's important that we support folks in our cities, counties, and community in being able to meet these regulations that we put forward in order to move us forward. AB 436 ensures that California can build the composting infrastructure needed to handle our organic waste effectively. And so I definitely respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you for that. And I want to thank the sponsors for all of their work on this bill and for picking an incredibly thoughtful author. This bill enjoys a do pass reco from the Chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is do pass to Local Government Committee. [Roll Call]

That is the first unanimous vote of the day.

All right. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you.

Absolutely. Mr. Schultz. Come take us home.

All right, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, glad to be here and glad to be presenting Laura Friedman-related Bill, Assembly Bill 43. I just want to give a—make three points about the Bill if I might. Just a little bit of background.

First up, Assembly Bill 43 permanently extends the authority previously granted to the Natural Resources Agency by the State Legislature to protect the state's wild and scenic rivers.

Some of you might recall that in 2018, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 2975, authored by my predecessor, Assemblymember Friedman, which put in place the current provisions of Public Resources Code Section 5093.71.

The Statute, as currently written, requires the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, at their discretion, to take action to add any California river, currently listed in the National Wild and Scenic River System, that is removed, delisted, or whose protections are otherwise weakened by the Federal Government, to the state's Wild and Scenic river system, even if it's not already part of that state system.

It also allows the Legislature and the Governor to statutory repeal or modify the designation at any time.

Now, the second point I'd like to make is the need and the urgency for this Bill. 2975, as codified in state law, currently has a sunset of December 31, 2025, unless this Legislature acts to keep it in place, past this year.

There are over approximately 819 miles of federally protected wild and scenic rivers in the State of California, that are preserved in their free-flowing condition for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future Californians.

Current law, as modified by Assembly Bill 43, applies to federally protected rivers if Congress or the Federal Administration were to pass legislation, or enact an Executive order, to eliminate federal protection from all, or a portion, of a federally protected river.

It also applies if the Federal Government were to exempt a federally protected river from the provision in the Federal Act that prohibits new dams and major diversions from designated river segments.

One last point on this, Assembly Bill 43 would not add any new rivers that are not otherwise protected but would ensure that federally protected rivers in California would continue to receive protection under state law. The last point I'd like to make is, that to the best of this author's knowledge, Assembly Bill 43 has no opposition.

With that, I'd like to introduce Ron Stork, with Friends of the River, and Steve Evans, from Cal Wild, to testify in support of Assembly Bill 43.

My name is Ronald Stork. I'm on the staff of Friends of the River and have worked on wild and scenic rivers for more than 40 years. Friends of the River has also been working on wild and scenic rivers for 50 years. So, we've got a long history on this, and, you know, we watch these things very carefully.

I think the reason for the Sunset Clause was pretty simple, that eight years ago, we didn't think we'd ever be in the place that we are today, with, potentially, well, an administration and a congress in which we may not have the be able to trust to protect our national wild scenic rivers.

This Bill is not just a hypothetical bill to deal with a hypothetical danger.

The President's recent executive orders do suggest that he's charged federal agencies with, "Identifying any regulatory hurdles that that unduly burden each respective water project," and "Develop a proposed plan for review, by the secretaries, to appropriately suspend, revise, or rescind any regulations or procedures that unduly burden these projects."

We have an Administration that thinks very highly of itself, is verging on an imperial presidency, and it's more than appropriate for California to step up and defend national wild and scenic rivers, for the benefits of the entire country. So, I ask for your "Aye" vote, and thank you for letting me speak.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Steven L. Evans. I'm the Wild Rivers Director for Cal Wild. It's a statewide organization dedicated to the protection of our wild places on our public lands.

Like Ron, for the last 37 years, I've been involved in the protection of nearly 600 miles of both state and federal wild and scenic rivers throughout California. The state and federal systems are similar. They prohibit new dams and diversions that threaten the specific free-flowing segments that possess outstanding or extraordinary natural and cultural values.

There are about 2,400 miles of rivers and streams in the state that currently enjoy protection under the federal and/or state law. That's about 2% of the 94,000 miles of rivers streams—rivers and streams—in California. Public Resources Code 5093.71 and AB 43 apply only to the 819 miles of federally protected rivers that currently lack state protection.

This includes about 18 federal rivers and streams, and a handful of Smith River tributaries. Current law permits the Secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency to administratively add federal rivers in California to the state system, if the Trump Administration or Congress move to reduce or eliminate protection of federal rivers in the state.

This protective provision sunsets at the end of 2025. AB 43 eliminates the sunset provision and makes this provision permanent. AB 43 does not add to the state system any rivers or streams that aren't already in the Federal System. If AB 43 passes, this provision would apply to additional rivers and streams, only when Congress adds to the national system.

In this time of uncertainty, caused by the political turmoil of the Trump Administration and Congress, it's imperative that we make the ability—that we make permanent—the ability to provide state protection of federal rivers, to ensure their free-flowing character and outstanding and extraordinary values are protected in perpetuity, for present and future generations.

I urge you to vote "Yes" on AB 43, and welcome any questions you may have. Thank you.

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

Hello. Gabriela Facio. [Adjusting Mic Volume]

Gabriela Facio with the Sierra Club California, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Paul Mason with Pacific Forest Trust, also in support.

Kim Delfino, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife. In support.

Marquise Mason, California Environment of Voters, in support. Thanks.

Natalie Brown, with the Planning and Conservation League, in support. Thanks.

Dylan Finley, on behalf of the Sierra Business Council and the Sierra Consortium. In support.

Cole Barlow, on behalf of California Trout, in support.

Is there any opposition in the hearing room? Seeing none, we'll turn it to Committee Members. Questions? Comments? Concerns?

Move the Bill.

We have a motion and a second. Mr. Schultz, would you like to close?

We disrespectfully ask for your "Aye" vote.

Mr. Schultz, is this your first Bill that you ever introduced?

In this Committee, I think this is now the third or fourth hearing I've had.

Okay, never mind.

Getting the hang of it.

It's not his first rodeo.

Never mind then.

No, I just think it's an incredibly, an incredibly smart Bill, and thoughtful and pragmatic, as was mentioned. Not the times we thought we'd be living in, where all of the different things that we are protecting, including our scenic rivers, could be under threat. This is pragmatic, and as you mentioned, no opposition is here to enjoy a "Do Pass" from the Chair.

Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Can we call the roll for absent Members, on the other measures?

Lifting the call. Item one, AB 30, Alvarez. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Absent Members [Roll Call]

No, she's not coming. That bill is out.

Item 2, AB 43, Schultz. The motion is... Oh, we just did that one. Never mind. That has 11 votes. So it's out.

That measure's out as well.

File item 3, AB 66, Tangipa. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. Absent Members [Roll Call]

That measure's out.

Item 4, AB 70, Aguiar-Curry. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. Absent Members [Roll Call] That was 13 votes. It's out. File item 10, AB 399, Boerner. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. Absent Members [Roll Call] Has nine votes. It's out. File item 12, AB 436, Ransom.

Oh, that's out. 13 votes. File item 13, AB 439, Rogers. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. Absent Members [Roll Call] Okay, so it's 10 votes. That's out. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, sorry. Vote counter. Davies from not voting on AB 439 to no. Okay, so that is 10 to 1. It's out.

File item 15, AB 491, Connolly. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Absent Members [Roll Call] So it has nine votes. It's out. AB 580, Wallis, file item 16 is motion is do pass as amended to Water, Parks, and Wildlife. Absent Members [Roll Call]

Okay, so that has 13 votes. It's out. Consent calendar. The consent calendar items are AB 261, Quirk-Silva. AB 274, Ransom. AB 300, Lackey. AB 337, Bennett. AB 471, Hart. Absent Members [Roll Call] 13, consent calendar's out. The adoption of rules.

That bill was pulled. And Committee rules adoption. Lifting the call on those. Absent Members [Roll Call]

That concludes today's Natural Resource Committee hearing.