Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy

We'll start the hearing in 60 seconds.

All right, well, let's go ahead and get started. I know Senator McNerney will be on his way. We'll call this hearing of the Budget sub two Subcommitee to order. We're going to be covering a number of very interesting issues today. We're going to start with Cal EPA for a departmental overview.

And we're going to invite Yana Garcia, the secretary, to the dais. And I think through the afternoon, we'll have. Through the morning, afternoon we'll have LAO and DOF available for opening comments or also they're always here available for questions as well. So welcome to sit up here if you like. Okay. So without further ado, we'll.

We'll turn to you, Madam Secretary. We appreciate you being here very much, and I'm looking forward to your presentation.

There we go.

There you go.

Hi. Good morning. Thanks for the opportunity. Pleasure to be here with all of you familiar faces for the most part. I'm Yana Garcia. I'm the Secretary for Environmental Protection for the State of California. And as secretary, I have the great privilege of leading two boards, three departments, and an office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment.

I will start with just some of our top lines in terms of what we're working on these days.

I'd like to speak to some of the critical work that we're doing to deliver and protect clean and safe drinking water, to protect our waterways, protect clean air and accelerate our work to address the climate crisis, as well as some of the work that we're doing to reduce waste and catalyze a circular economy, beginning first with drinking water.

In December, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. And while 90% of Californians have access to safe and clean drinking water, delivering the same to the nearly 1 million Californians who still lack access has always been a priority of the governor's as it is of mine.

Through the State Water Board SAFER program enacted in 2019, over 900,000 Californians who lacked access to clean and safe drinking water now have access to that right, thanks to the collective work of the Administration and the Legislature.

In the past fiscal year alone, the State Water Board has distributed over $500 million to improve access to safe drinking water in disadvantaged communities and a total of $880 million for both water resilience and drinking water projects. This has been through consolidating small at risk systems or failing water systems into larger, more resilient systems.

Still, we have more work to do to secure the human right to water and to safeguard a safe and sustainable water supply across our state. Thanks to voters.

In addition to supporting our work to provide clean and safe drinking water to the remaining Californians still lacking access, Prop 4 or the Climate Bond will support and enhance our ongoing work to ensure that our water systems are more resilient and and able to withstand the challenges we face today.

The Governor's Budget importantly includes 183.2 million of Prop 4 Fund Dollars to support loans and grants for drinking water and wastewater projects. This funding helps subsidize water systems, addressing critical infrastructure needs and improves their long term resiliency.

The budget also maintains 100% of the $1.7 billion in drinking water and wastewater infrastructure as well as the State Revolving Fund. The State Revolving Fund continues to provide critically important assistance to communities all across California.

Now, in addition to of course the work on water, I do want to pivot to our work on clean air and climate action. Despite challenging headwinds in California, we're continuing to lead and are at the forefront of climate action pushing fast toward our goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.

And as we do so because we know that air pollution translates directly into negative health impacts that will only grow as climate change causes more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfire seasons, we are laser focused on reducing air pollution impacts in our communities. The Air Resources Board continues to advance clean fuels as well.

To support our transition to a zero emission transportation system and to continue to protect consumers from gas price spikes. The Air Resources Board is accelerating the evaluation of increased ethanol blending in gasoline to 15%, also known as E15 fuel, as a potential strategy to augment existing gas supply and reduce gas prices.

This supports our transition to carbon neutrality as well, and the Governor's Budget includes $2.3 million to CARB to complete this work. Now, as you're aware, the state's Low carbon fuel standard has also led to a 15% reduction in the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels.

And throughout the program We've replaced over 31 billion gallons of petroleum liquid fuels with Low carbon fuels. And as a result of the LCFS, Californians are expected to save almost $5 billion in health care costs through avoided impacts of air pollution.

And throughout the implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund through our California Climate Investments Program, we have delivered $11 billion to more than half a million projects that fight climate change and cut pollution, with 76% of projects funded in underserved and Low income communities.

These investments have also slashed 112.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, equivalent to taking 80% of the state's gas cars off the road. Now, as we do this work, we also maintain steady progress in reducing waste and catalyzing a circular economy. CalRecycle, as you know, is building a circular economy that reduces waste and reuses materials.

By implementing a variety of programs including beverage, container and food, food and yard waste recycling, and extended producer responsibility for plastic packaging and textiles, CalRecycle food recovery programs have successfully rescued an incredible 21742 tons of fresh I'm sorry, 217,042 tons of fresh unsold food, redirecting it to California communities in need.

That's millions of meals going to families instead of landfills making a real impact in the fight against hunger and climate change. In addition, Californians have recycled 18 billion beverage containers in 2023 alone.

And as we lead the nation in creating a circular economy in which our waste is viewed as an economic resource, Extended Producer Responsibility, or epr, programs are one of the many policy tools we are deploying now. EPR offers businesses a flexible approach to meet the goals established by the state Legislature.

Ideally, these programs are adopted to meet the unique circumstances of manufacturing, distribution and management for each product type with performance standards set in statute, and businesses are able to identify their own path to compliance.

Now, I'd like to note that SB 54 is an important statute in this space, and CalRecycle and the Administration remains deeply committed to SB 54's plastic waste reduction goals.

In the coming year, CalRecycle will continue to work with industry advocates and all other interested parties to fine tune its regulations in a manner that balances the need to cut plastic pollution with the importance of minimizing costs to small businesses and families.

In the year ahead, CalRecycle will also begin implementation of SB707, our newest producer responsibility program that will focus on collection, reuse and recycling of textiles across the state and which will support a circular economy for textiles by creating markets for reused and recycled clothing in California.

Transitioning to some of the goals of the Department of Pesticide Regulation, who you will also hear from today.

As many of you know, the Department of Pesticide Regulation is focused on its work to increase the availability of sustainable pest management tools and practices and implementing the ambitious goals and objectives laid out in the 2024 Budget and associated legislation AB 2113 passed by the Legislature this year.

DPR is also seeking the Legislature's approval of additional resources in this budget to implement recently chaptered legislation related to pesticide use notification near schools, as well as related to rodenticide use. Finally, the Department of Toxic Substances Control is continuing to undertake critical work to clean up brownfields at a time where repurposing of lands is increasingly important.

The Department is also deeply embedded in much of the work that's already underway and much of which has been completed in the cleanup of the recent LA wildfires. Thank you so much for the opportunity and I look forward to answering some of your questions.

Thank you. Additional Comments okay, so let's open it up to the Members.

Could go first if you want to.

Okay, sure. First of all, thank you. Thank you, Secretary, and thanks for all the work that you do. We really appreciate your leadership on so many levels.

I don't think it would be a surprise that I'm particularly, I appreciate the comment that you made on SB54 implementation, obviously something that I worked really hard on for quite some time. And I think it would be an understatement to say that it was a lot of concern about what happened.

You know, we had these proposed regulations that were ready to be submitted to the Office of Administrative Law after CalverCycle had worked really hard on them. They'd engaged all the stakeholders throughout a two year process, and it was very disappointing to see those regulations shelved. So we're hearing from stakeholders.

Obviously, there's been a commitment made by the Administration. I guess, you know, one of the concerns I've heard from stakeholders is that the process, the new regulatory process that's been proposed might be performative. You know, we had a robust reg development process over at CalRecycle, stakeholders of every stripe participating in countless hours of workshops.

They sent in pages and pages of comments over the past 18 months, only to see the rug pulled out from the process. So let me just start by asking you how you see the Administration regaining the trust of those who participated in good faith and they were willing to accept the outcome of the public process.

They didn't love every aspect of what was put out by Calora cycle. So let me ask you about that and then how also to regain the Senate's trust? I mean, this was a law that we passed. We worked really so many of us worked really hard to get across the finish line.

And I think we were operating under the assumption that the Administration would support its own agency with these regs. So love to ask those questions. First sure.

Thank you and much appreciated. First, I do just want to signal hats off to you, Senator Allen, Mr. Chair, and the great leadership of the Legislature in passing this groundbreaking law. Similarly, hats off to Our Department team at CalRecycle who have done a very diligent job in pulling together a regulatory package for a very complex statute.

And we cannot underestimate the true groundbreaking nature, I think, of the approach in SB54. And we're extraordinarily proud to have a Department at the helm of leading its implementation in terms of restoring trust in the stakeholder community who may feel left out to wind with the process that we're currently undertaking.

First and foremost, we have every intention of making the implementation of this law successful in the long term. And by that I mean we want to make sure that there are not criticisms or real impacts that affect households and in particular, small businesses, specifically, including those that are not directly regulated under the purview of the law.

One of the things that we are focused on understanding better and understanding the ways that we can alleviate the stress on better are exactly those impacts. Two households and as I mentioned, small businesses.

So the goal, I think, of what we are doing with the fine tuning of these regulations is certainly to bring stakeholders along with us to hear again from folks who may have felt that some of the aspects of the law could be better articulated in regulation so as to be more implementable, but really to ensure that we are able to, over the long term of the implementation process, make this work, make sense for everyone involved.

And so I think this fine tuning, you'll see, while we have every intention to make sure that it moves as expeditiously as possible, we'll also include deep touch points with all of the stakeholders involved in the first iteration of the regs, as well as anyone else who we may not have heard from in that process.

So I appreciate all that. I mean, do you think that there was adequate attention given to. I think we all care a lot about affordability. I mean, it's part of, quite frankly, it was a primary motivating factor behind the Bill.

One of the reasons why we had the League of Cities and the counties so engaged from day one on this issue is because they were struggling to handle the infusion of plastic trash that was then forcing them to turn around and raise rates for regular working people just to be able to handle the logistics of all the additional plastic waste.

That, plus the fact that they were no longer making money off of recycling when China implemented the National Sword policy. So there's a real affordability issue on the, on the back end.

And the whole logic behind the Bill, of course, has been that addressing the kind of logistical challenges earlier on in the process actually could lead to much greater efficiencies and cost reductions throughout the whole process.

Do you think there was adequate attention given to the upside associated with for our cities and counties and the folks involved with waste management who have been forced to raise rates on people when this decision was made?

I think we could pay more attention to that, certainly. I think that could be better articulated throughout our process.

I also think, you know, realistically, this is such a dynamic terrain from a regulatory standpoint as well as from the standpoint of truly understanding the real costs not only of implementation but associated with inaction and not implementing this regulation and this law.

I think we want to strike a balance between ensuring that the implementation makes sense and is based on the most updated information that we may have about the amount of plastic coming into the state, where it is coming from.

And some of that I think is becoming clearer as time goes on and as our access to information becomes more enhanced.

We have every intention of ensuring that we are basing this fine tuning of this regulation on that most updated information to ensure that we are appreciating the costs of both implementing the regulation, but at the same time non implementation of the regulation.

Which is also why you'll see us undertaking an expedited process in ensuring that we're able to undertake this.

Okay. I know by the way, that our calories like leadership's here and they'll.

I guess I'll express that these are open questions to both you, Madam Secretary, and to the leadership of the Department if they want to come in during their presentation and answer them more specifically too, because they're very close to the process and of course, as are you.

Yes. I'd also just like to underscore a commitment that, you know, I think we've expressed in other spaces.

But I do want to take advantage of expressing here to all of you, to the extent that you are hearing directly from stakeholders, you have specific questions you would like us to hear, your concerns or your input in this process.

Please understand that there is an open door for that input and we would love to be able to keep you apprised of the progress as we're making it. Happy to answer additional questions obviously here, but does not necessarily need to be in a hearing.

Happy to have one on one conversations and make our expanded team available as you'd like them to be.

Okay, I appreciate that. So. Okay, so now. So we've got a couple sticking points you've alluded to. What's the process now for revisions? You also got a tight timeline. You guys have agreed to, I think 90 days so how do we, you know, do you expect the revisions to be narrow? Is this going to start from scratch?

How are you going to meet the timeline that you've committed to with all of that, with all these difficult forces and factors at play?

Sure. So a couple things we remain committed to the dates set forth in the statute, the dates for compliance that are set forth in the language of the current statute. We have not made a firm commitment on how long the process will take, and that is because, quite frankly, we are evaluating what this process will look like.

We will not, in the immediate term, as in the next couple of days, maybe even though next week, be in a position to make that evaluation. We do anticipate making it and communicating it as soon as we possibly can.

But just to transparently answer your question, we are still undertaking the evaluation process of what this next iteration of regulatory rulemaking will entail.

So when do you see your being able to give us a commitment to a firm timeline?

I would hope in the next couple of weeks, but I don't want to, you know, get ahead of our process per se.

Okay.

I mean, I think we would all, I mean, at the very least, by the end of the month, I think, you know, I guess I, you know, when this decision was made and the Administration was effectively, you know, apologizing to folks for making this decision, we were getting a lot of very strong statements from people about an expedited timeline, commitments made to the Senate leadership as well, late spring, early summer.

Those kinds of statements were regularly made to everybody involved. And I would hope there's not going to be, I mean, I understand. I don't want you to. Obviously, obviously there's now, there's a process we now have to go through because of this decision.

But so I don't want to make that process more difficult than it already needs to be. But, you know, some, some, some bold and encouraging claims were made, promises were made to the Senate, and I think it's important to us that they be. That they be adhered to.

Of course, of course. And we share the urgency. You know, you're not hearing, again, you're not hearing a finite commitment from me right now because we're still undertaking review, and I do not want to set an expectation that we and the Department cannot meet.

I will say, you know, again, as I mentioned, we are committed to the date set forth in the statute. We're also really committed to the ability to create consistency and predictability from the regulated community standpoint to understand what is upcoming and when and when they can anticipate those key processes and deadlines being kicked in.

And so we share the priority with you. Again, you're just not going to hear a firm commitment from me today because of the process that we're currently still in.

And that's one of the challenges with this decision. Right. The rates and dates and time commitments are all there in law.

And that's why we've actually heard from a number of businesses that are really upset about what happened because from their perspective, they needed guidance earlier rather than later because they know that they still have these, these responsibilities under the law and that now with this decision there's less certainty.

So, you know, I mean, in some respects this is about providing a pathway for businesses to comply and meet the requirements under the law and give them kind of a roadmap for them to better understand how they're going to be able to comply with the law.

100%. I completely agree with you, you know. Yeah, agree.

So look, I mean, the other thing, of course, is that, you know, I worry about on the extent to which there was enough information when this decision was made.

You know, we sat down when we heard there were some workability challenges and concerns associated with some of the regs, some of which involved some necessary tweaks to SB54 language and some flexibility on some notice requirements, various things like that.

There's a great deal of willingness on the part of our office and stakeholders on both sides to work through those kind of workability issues. In fact, we have a proposal that got support from all sorts of people across the board.

So I think you know this, but we stand, you know, the Senate's ready, the pro tem's office is ready. I know the speaker has expressed support for this effort. That's the law on the books.

And you know, we're eager for you to advance the regulations and get us to a place of where we're ready for implementation and provide a roadmap for those businesses that quite frankly, have been a little left in the lurch in addition to everyone else by this decision as they're trying to figure out their longer term business plans to comply.

One other final question, and I don't want to Jeopardy. I don't want to monopolize, But I'll ask CalRecycle the same question, but from the agency's perspective, why hasn't CalRecycle taken steps to implement the provisions of SB 54 that deal with the sale of expanded polystyrene?

They've not met the strict, the product has not met the strict requirements under SB 54. So there's now steps that need to be taken to prohibited sale. If you want me to focus that question on them, I'm happy to do it. But I'd love if you had any comments or thoughts.

A better question for the Department.

I think to answer more specifically, I will say in terms of, you know, the first set of comments you just made, Senator, I think, you know, we very much appreciate the partnership of the Legislature, of course, in this process, as in others, again, want to make sure that we are in communication about approach, that we are talking to each other about what we can each respectively address with respect to some of the challenges associated with implementing SB 54.

And, you know, look forward to this being an ongoing discussion with you all. I think in terms of perhaps messaging with respect to polystyrene, we possibly need to lean in more there as well, particularly at this moment. But again, I'll leave that to the Department to answer a little bit more specifically.

Okay, I'll look forward to talking to them about it. But yeah, you know, I spoke to the pro tem, came up to talking about this very item today, just this morning on the on the floor.

Understandable.

So this is just an area of real concern, what happened. I appreciate your your comments and your answers and your commitments. Obviously, this is going to be an area where we're going to continue to really expect the Administration to meet the commitments that were made to all of us around.

But in the buildup and in the immediate aftermath of this.

You know, unfortunate decision, of course. So anyhow, with that, I'd love to open up the floor to my colleague, Senator Blakespear.

Yes. Well, thank you, Secretary Garcia, for being here in person today. I very much appreciate that you came and that we're able to have this conversation. I'll just say that I was profoundly disappointed and very upset when March 7th came around, which was nearly two weeks ago, and the regulations were not released.

I think that the reality of the environment we're working in is that there are a lot of substantial existential threats to our environmental protections that we have in California from the Federal Government and the changes that we see coming.

And it's, you know, at the highest level of regulation and it's to the lowest level of cutting park rangers. And so, you know, we are in an environment where we can only control our own state.

And so when our own state basically fails to launch on one of the most important, most consequential waste reduction efforts and commitments that had been made three years ago through a very intensive process of negotiation with stakeholders and with a ballot initiative that was putting pressure on customers, coming up with solutions, when everybody came away from that negotiation a little bit unhappy but willing to live with it, and then having the agency, the Executive branch agency that is supposed to issue the regulations not do that in this environment was profoundly disappointing and upsetting.

And I, you know, it's been, as I said, nearly two weeks. We don't have any sort of a timeline from the Department, from the Administration, from you. We don't have the goals that you're planning to meet. You know, there's there.

To me, it seems, and this is what I really want to emphasize today, is that if you remain committed to the dates and you remain committed to the goals that you would be, you would be charting an expedited process that showed good faith and that demonstrated to the Legislature and to the public and to industry and to the Members, all the people who signed the ballot initiative saying, we want to have less plastic in our world, we want to be producing less plastic, we want it to be recycled more, we want to live more sustainably with our planet, you would be communicating the commitment to that.

And every day that passes and that doesn't come out, I think, where is that commitment, and why are we not seeing that yet? And I think, you know, the example with styrofoam is particularly important because the Styrofoam polystyrene, those goals were not met.

So all that's needed is for caloriecycle to Say, okay, so now it's banned and we're going to do enforcement, but we're not hearing anything. And I was asked by a reporter about this, why, you know, who's supposed to be talking about Styrofoam, like, can it be sold in the markets anymore and what's happening?

And because the recycling requirement wasn't met, you know, the only answer is CalRecycle is the one who's supposed to speak on it. Like, could I individually speak on it? Yes, but CalRecycle has to do that. And that doesn't have anything to do with all the other regulations that didn't come out.

So, you know, I urge you to own your space, to say that, you know, we are the environmental branch of this entire state and we can do things, even if we can't do everything we want to do for all sorts of other political reasons, we can do some things. So, you know, own it.

Be bold, make sure that we get on a path. So I'll say that I really want to see a plan. I want to see a plan and a path.

And when I had Meetings with CalRecycle and Plastics Industry and lobbyists who are all expressing this discontent about SB54 regulations, they were saying again and again, this doesn't have to go back to the drawing board. We don't have to go back through a long process. It just needs a few things that need to be specified.

And so do that, like do the expedited process. And I guess I want to hear from you, not platitudes, not, yes, we remain committed to the goals, but what specifically are you doing?

And it goes to the chair's question, which, as we know, the chair was the author of SB 54, but it goes to the question of regaining trust and confidence, but also showing us how we get from where we are to where we want to go.

Because if it's true, and I am very happy to hear you say it, I remain committed to the dates in statute because to me, that means that we're not going to be seeing bills, which I expect to come through my EQ Committee that say we want to push the dates because we can no longer meet these dates because CalRecycle hasn't done what they said they were going to do.

And so the regs didn't come out, so we can't meet the dates. So you, Executive branch, top level, saying, remain committed to the dates in the statute. Please stick to that. Please make sure. So if you remain committed to that, how are we getting from where we are now?

To the dates in those statutes and to come out with that, because that's the plan. And ultimately, you know, the Senate has the ability to confirm or to not confirm the Cal recycle Director. And that is supposed to. That is supposed to come before us one year expires in May.

And that is not something that we have brought forward yet because we want to exert our authority. We want to say that where we are now is completely unacceptable to us, that you had two plus years to be doing all of the outreach that was needed, all of the negotiating everything to come out with these regulations.

So if things need to be changed, you know, work on them and get them out. And I'd like to hear your response to this because I remain very upset and unhappy about this every single day that we do not see these regulations.

Sure. Very much appreciate your sort of passion in the questions. Look, I think again, yes, it has been two weeks. We are still trying to understand more precisely what the timeline will be in front of us. Respectfully, we do not, as the Executive branch, control what bills come before the Legislature.

So there, that will be what it is.

But very much appreciate your partnership and understanding where we stand as you all consider what is moving through the legislative branch as well, in terms of, again, polystyrene communication, understanding where we are with respect to enforcement, where we are with respect to what is under our purview, as opposed to, you know, the changing headwinds at the federal level.

Hear you loud and clear. I do think we need to do a better job of communicating where we are.

And I do want to address, you know, particularly in light of some of the drastic actions that you're referring to at the federal level, Please make no mistake that we are steadfast in our commitment to protecting our water, our air, reducing waste, protecting lands, protecting communities. We are in a very challenging time politically.

And in terms of the threats that we are facing, very real threats to communities, particularly vulnerable communities and their safety, quite frankly. And so what you will see, undoubtedly, is us moving strategically. Whether we are as loud and bold about our leadership or not in a public way, we are maintaining that steadfast commitment internally.

And so again, welcome ongoing communication with you in your office about what that looks like and what that means and what you may otherwise be perceiving as us, you know, slipping away. Certainly not. We are still here and committed to protecting the environment for all Californians.

Okay. Yeah. I think that stall tactics are real in that they stall tactics that result in analysis paralysis.

So this is days that lead to Weeks that lead to months, that lead to years of inaction on things where we've heard from loud and clear for years that we need to be dealing with the plastic, the creation of plastic, the plastic waste management, the recycling.

And I think, you know, nearly every conversation I'm in swirls around the question of affordability.

And in many ways it's so important to be recognizing the framing of affordability is around ratepayers and taxpayers and when they are the ones who are responsible for managing the plastic, the huge amount of plastic packaging and plastic waste that we have, and it's going into our landfills and it's going into our oceans and it's inside of our bodies and all of the microplastics that are polluting our food system.

These things are costs that are borne by the ratepayers and the taxpayers.

And so a myopic focus on what industry or the plastics industry, which is the fossil fuel industry, is saying about affordability, you know, that flag is being waved at nearly every Bill that I'm dealing with is this idea that if you do this you're going to affect affordability.

And it's so important that we recognize that the affordability question is on the back end. It's that somebody is paying these costs and so who and where it is happening.

And the point of SB54 is to drive manufacturers to produce things that have less plastic, that are, that are more sustainable with our planet, but also that are more affordable.

Because when they have to have the cost of a massive amount of plastic and they're bearing that, then they think, hey, maybe we should redesign this so that it doesn't have all that additional plastic. So it drives affordability at the source.

And so I think we can be so reactive around the concept of affordability by responding to every claim that the fossil fuel industries make about this is going to raise prices and it doesn't have to, and it probably won't because they won't want it to. And so being clear eyed about that is just so important.

And I fear that we're. That SB54 failed to launch, which I really think is the right phraseology because we got ourselves right to the edge of the launch and then we didn't actually jump off.

We said, you know, we put this all together, we did all this work, we did all these meetings, but yet we still have things that we need to work out. So how are we going to launch?

And so not letting us slip away from the timeline, slip away from the commitments, that's just so important and to recognize that stall tactics are real and they have real consequences.

So every single day that passes, that we don't have that timeline and we don't have the commitment about when it is going to come out, it's like, what are you doing every day? Why isn't this urgent that this happened?

Because to me it seems like the issues that you pulled it back based on are clear to you at least. So it's like, are we talking about chemical recycling? Are we talking about who is a producer? Are we, are we talking about what are the issues here? You know what they are. So start to work on them.

Basically figure out what is the thing. If it's not going to be what the draft regs were, what is it going to be so that we can move right away because nothing's happening in this stalling time that's good. Like it really, it's not like you're not getting more information, you're not doing anything.

All we're doing is just wasting days. So I'd like to ask your perspective on chemical recycling.

First. I think, you know, realistically the realm of chemical recycling is one that from a public transparency standpoint is difficult to know exactly what is meant by the term. There can be a wide range of activities that can be chemical or advanced recycling.

I think it is incumbent upon us from a policy standpoint to set minimum parameters around what that could be. And I think we saw that through the development of the statute and we are continuing our commitment to do that through the regulatory process.

You know, I'm not an expert in chemical recycling from an engineering standpoint or from even a scientific standpoint.

I do know from the standpoint of managing discharges, managing hazardous waste production, we absolutely have to ensure that whatever processes are undertaken are undertaken with the protection of health and the environment in mind and the long term management of waste streams in mind.

What is going to happen to the externalities from any activity, including chemical and advanced recycling? That's my position.

Okay, and can you talk a little bit about enforcement? Because I do think the enforcement side is so important and I know CalRecycle has frequently had a. We want to bring people into compliance, which is a good approach, but we also have to have some consequences. And I'll just.

I want to reference a study that I was made aware of from meeting with people at UCSD who had looked at. And I think this has been published. You may have seen the study that talked about the four or five states that had some type of SB 1383. So organic waste management.

And the only state, it was a state in the Northeast, I think it was Massachusetts, the only state that was actually effective at reducing the amount of green waste that was landfilled, which is the entire point, right, of having, of having an ordinance like SB 1383 is to divert from landfilling to use for beneficial uses and of course to get it out of the landfills.

And was the state that had enforcement. So the other, you know, when it's just education and it's aspirational and this, it wasn't effective at reducing the amount of green waste that was landfilled. But when there was enforcement, then it actually is. And it has to be enforcement at all levels.

You know, it's at the waste hauler level, it's at the contamination level of what goes into the waste stream, it's at the landfill level. So, you know, I would like CalRecycle to be, to have an enforcement that is real, so that we see the compliance that we want. And so I wanted to ask your perspective on enforcement.

Sure. So first, I do want to say that the Department folks who will be up here, including Director Heller, can answer maybe some more specifics about statistics with respect to the Department and their enforcement activities.

Enforcing all of our rules and regulations across the agency is a critical priority of mine personally and of each and every one of my directors and board chairs. That is the case across the board for enforcement with respect to 1383 Landfill Organics. You know, obviously the Department works very closely with local enforcement agencies.

These are often local governments, municipal entities that we have to rely on in terms of a dynamic relationship in understanding what is happening on the ground, sending out inspectors and actually doing the sort of day to day enforcement work that we then sort of oversee.

I think across the board we are going to see a lot more of a need to be active in the enforcement space, particularly with EPA taking, I.e. uS EPA taking perhaps a bit of a more inactive posture with respect to enforcement.

We work very closely with Das, again with local governments and the Attorney General's Office, and we have every intention of continuing to do so.

Okay. And then my last thing is, you know, I think there can be emergency regulations that are put in place for SB54. And, you know, I don't see that happening. And so I wanted to hear, you know, what, what you think about that.

I think right now we're again considering our options and I appreciate the point. And we'll be in touch when we have a little bit more solid information to share with you all. Okay, thank you.

And I'll yield back to the chair.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator. You know, and we'll go, we'll go to Senator minority.

I one of the thing that I think that the Senator raised, it needs to, we just need to remember was that we got this thing signed, you know, at 3:30pm with a 5pm deadline to get the ballot measure pulled because the Governor and others didn't want this costly, expensive, unpredictable ballot fight.

And everyone knew that there was a deep commitment amongst the General public to this issue. And this was the, this was the solution that we all came up with together in negotiation. And it was negotiated with all the key stakeholders. So anyhow, I think that needs to be remembered here too.

This is something that wasn't just purely a legislative idea. There was a pretty well established ballot measure effort that was well on its way and polling very well.

And Mr. Chair, if I may. Senator, you did mention quite a bit there on affordability and quite a bit there that I have to recognize. I fully agree with you on 100%.

And I think one of the things that we are going to continue to come up against is again, the reality of an affordability challenge that we have across the state is undeniable and narratives on a range of accuracy and inaccuracy about what that comes from, what the source of that affordability set of affordability challenges really is.

And so I would just put out there, again, a request and invitation for your partnership and pushing back on some of those narratives that have less of a basis in reality than others.

And just know that we are also very much interested in doing that from the standpoint of ensuring that we are not losing ground and, or contributing to even less affordability because we are not continuing to move the needle on environmental protection, health protections.

And in fact, I think we all accept that invitation.

I would also throw out there that you and us, we should also make sure that that invitation is aggressively and proactively sent out to the local government community, you know, who are ultimately the ones left holding the proverbial plastic bag, you know, and faced with this enormous logistical challenge and then faced with a very difficult decision of either cutting back services or raising rates on people, you know, at numbers that dwarf the potential cost increase on the front end for some for a number of these products.

And so they have to be part of that conversation. I encourage you to, you know, we will certainly reach out to them, but I encourage you to do the same. Folks in the Administration do the same. Before we go to Senator McNerney, just because we were just talking about chemical recycling.

I did want to just ask you a follow up question. You mentioned the nuance in the statute as it relates to chemical recycling, the standards that need to be met. It was our intention to be tech neutral, but ensure that any technology meet health and environmental standards.

And I will say there are a number of businesses that work in this space that actually felt that they could work within not just the language in 54, but also the regs that came out from CalRecycle.

I understand there were others that didn't want to make the changes necessary, but at the end of the day, this has always been about ensuring that if this activity is going to happen that there'd be really strict environmental health standards in place.

So, you know, is there, I mean, is there a commitment on your part to the language in the statute as it relates to any alternative recycling technology, you know, allowing it to move forward, but only under specific circumstances that adequately account for environmental and health protections?

From the standpoint of as the implementation agency, yes, I absolutely share the priority to ensure that there are parameters that it is the approach is technology neutral, but has a clear pathway that provides guardrails around environmental waste streams and around health protection. So, yes, I'm committed to that.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Senator McNerney, you've been very patient. Appreciate you.

Well, I do tend to be patient, I think. Chairman, I thank you, Secretary Garcia, for coming here in person.

As Secretary, I mean, as my colleague pointed out, you were clearly prepared for this Committee to be pushing back about the delays, which means to me that you're aware that you're behind schedule and behind the eight ball and you have, and you have to be ready to apologize and give answers for that.

I'm afraid the answers I've heard haven't been that satisfying to me. And I can, I can see you said that you wanted to have to ensure a successful rollout. So what precisely are you worried about in terms of rollout? Because anytime you roll out regulations, there's going to be unhappiness, there's going to be pushback. And that's clear.

And this was done in statute instead of by Proposition so that the Legislature could adjust as needed. So what specifically are you worried about in terms of rolling out these regulations? And clearly everyone knows that plastic is a problem.

I've heard clearly through my career in politics that the younger generation, their hair is on fire, they're ready to go to war about this. So what specifically is it? Can you be more specific than just saying we're worried about making sure that households don't have problems. I mean, what's going on here?

Sure. Well, first of all, I appreciate your acknowledgement. This is a tough position to be in, not desirable. And you know, look, as, as a regulating entity, as regulators, we are not unfamiliar with having a lot of pushback to our regs. That is very familiar territory for us.

It is familiar territory, frankly, to have legal challenges to our regulations. At the end of the day, our goal is to make sure that we can defend against those challenges and that we stand strong in the regulatory process.

With respect to what I am looking for, what we, I think collectively across the Administration are looking for is one, a sense from stakeholders, including some pretty key stakeholders who toward the end of our regulatory process did frankly express concerns about the ability to implement certain aspects of their regulation.

I think we are looking for a better dynamic, a more productive dynamic, understanding that there is a clear path to the regulations being implementable. And that path is acknowledged by those who need to implement the regulation.

And you know, as I mentioned, by implement you mean enforcement, enforce, and even from a practical standpoint, meet the process requirements set forth in the regulations to implement the law. I think we are looking for a little bit to be on the same page in a stronger way potentially as we're.

With whom, with what?

With the stakeholder community. I would say so.

And as Senator Blakespear pointed out, stakeholder community. A lot of that is the people that are producing the plastics.

Some of it is the people who are producing the plastics. Some of it is, you know, the producer, responsibility, organization and others as well. I think that that is more of the, that is the focus that at least we have in terms of working forward, looking forward to this next iteration of again, refinements to the reg.

Well, I guess my ask is that you let us know in specific terms what a time might look like and what the obstacles are for you to attain that. If there are obstacles, of course. And another thing I heard reference to a 90 day timeline and that's the first I've heard about it.

Any idea that was mentioned and that was mentioned in some of the conversations when they were explaining to us how serious they were about making sure this was an expedited. This can be an expedited process because the concern we had was that traditionally when you pull back the regs, it just starts the whole process from scratch.

Nobody wants to do this for another 18 months at least. We don't. And so that was a number thrown out from folks in the Administration in private conversation.

I understand, you know, your reticence to confirmly commit to that in public right now, but even if, but I think it's our position that even if, if, if we're not holding you to a strict 90 day calendar that gives a General idea of where we need to be, how we need to be thinking about a redraw of the regs so as to make sure that we're on track and meeting the commitments that were made to us when the Administration made this decision.

So that's my best understanding. All right, thank you.

Yeah, I'm going to yield back directly.

To the Senate leadership. Yeah, yeah, yeah. All right. Thank you. Well, look, you know, I think there was a, this was a long process and I appreciate the comments of my colleagues.

I think you're hearing from us and I know this goes right up to the top of the Senate leadership, a real deep concern about this decision and a continued commitment to ensure that we're going to have an expedited process here that's going to get this whole process back on track.

This is so important for so many reasons that have been articulated by my colleagues.

And you know, we've got a good law on the books that was put in place, signed by the Governor, among many things, to, to come up with a legislative solution to an issue that had become so pressing that people were ready to go to the ballot.

And you know, the polling that I saw had it polling very well. So, you know, this is the kind of thing where we now have increased certain uncertainty that's been created by this decision.

And you know, the Senate and I know our friends on the Assembly side as well because there was pretty intense hearing yesterday on this very topic. The Legislature, I think I can say with confidence, expects the Administration to implement this law as we intended. It was a difficult process.

It took a long time, but we finally brought everyone together and worked closely with the Administration through thick and thin to get this thing to a place where your folks felt comfortable.

And we expect implementation here and very much ask for your engagement and leadership in that process, which I know you're going to provide, but it's a deeply felt position here in the Legislature.

Thank you. I appreciate that and I'm hearing it loud and clear and it's understandable, of course, and again, you know, appreciate that the lack of specificity is frustrating in this context, but please know that we share the priority to make sure we get this right and make sure we get it done quickly.

So is it your plan to come back to us when You've got, you were saying, a couple weeks to report back to us on a plan, either in private or public, to give us a better understanding of the path moving forward, the timeline, all the things that we've raised.

Of course, happy to maintain open channels of communication on that, especially timing.

Okay. Any final questions from my colleagues or thoughts? All right, thank you, Madam Secretary. Appreciate your, your leadership on this and all the other issues that you work on.

Yeah, can I just, I just want to make one more comment. So, you know, the, the pro, the Producer Responsibility Organization, which is the regulated, the group of regulated industries, you know, that was one stakeholder that is really important, obviously, to implement, as you said.

But when this was negotiated, there were many others who are don't seem to be being centered right now. So right now what's being centered are the concerns from the PRO and the plastics industry, essentially those who produce all this plastic packaging.

But, you know, waste haulers and environmentalists and all these different organizations were part of the negotiation that came up with SB54. And so I recognize that they have a role that's different than others because they are the ones who need to make the changes to the packaging, they need to figure out the recycling.

They have to do this work. And this is the case across a lot of different regulated industries. But so.

And let me go further. We've largely addressed the key workability issues at the pro, and there's a lot of industry voices that were very unhappy about this decision and want to move forward because of all the certainty issues that we've discussed. So it's even. I know where you're going with this question. There's even a lot of.

It's not just. It's also a lot of industry voices, including PRO voices, that they want to see quick progress on this. But I know you're.

Well, I mean, so what I was trying to go to, and I want to make sure that you make the points that you have in mind too, about this, but is that the delay is not helping anything. So it is actually delaying potentially their need to do something. The organizations that are affected, the businesses, the plastics industry.

But you know what the friction points are here. You know what it is that needs to be dealt with. And so what I'm urging is to deal with it, but to keep in mind all these other stakeholders who you're not talking to every day.

And in some ways you're in this position personally and your entire organization and all of CalRecycle, hopefully, is all on board with what the ultimate environmental goals are so making sure that those are kept in mind when you're dealing with what the regs are going to be.

But it took two plus years to get these regs that were produced by CalRecycle together. So now to make the changes, I mean, it's important to remember that whatever is this first step, when we actually do launch out of the nest here, it's not forever. Right. It's iterative.

Like, that's the entire point, which is what Senator McNerney made the point of, like, this isn't all in statute, it's in regulation. And so it's iterative, it's changeable. We're. We're able to make amendments as we see what reality looks like. But we have to get started in order to make those changes.

So, you know that that is part of what. Because to me, this is the part that goes directly to feeling like, are we acting in good faith? Are they acting in good faith? Because. Because we have. Because we need to get started to make the changes, and let's just get started.

And so every day we're not getting started. Calls that into question. So. And I don't. I'd like you to.

And I think we've shown how willing we are to work through every single concern. It doesn't mean we're going to agree with opponents on every issue, but we are not doctrinaire.

And I think we've shown that over and over again through, including right up to the last couple days before the decision, you know, in our willingness to work on changes to the statute and workability issues.

So there's a real interest and also a flexibility, because in the end of the day, as I've said from the very beginning, it's very important for us to implement this in California. It's also very important for us to create a model that can help to influence other jurisdictions around the world.

And so I want this, I think all of us truly want this to be workable for everybody involved, including our industry stakeholders. And that principle has guided these negotiations and this policy work from the beginning as well. So there's a, there's an eagerness for, for, for. For workability.

Understood.

Yeah. All right.

I appreciate the time.

Yeah, thank you.

Appreciate the questions and the comments. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Appreciate it. All right, let's go to another easy issue, pesticide regulation.

It is fun. It's a fun one.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I've heard that the Director here is a former science fellow, which is a great testament to. Thank you, Yana. Thank you. Testament to the strength of that wonderful program that we continue to benefit from. I actually have a we have a Science fellow working for the EQ Committee for my staff.

It's a wonderful program. I've always been really struck by the high caliber of the program. So welcome Director Morrison, you're here to present on DPR's work.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that introduction. I think celebration of a program that's worked really well within the Legislature. Members of the Committee, pleasure to be here. Again, My name is Dr. Karen Morrison.

I'm the Director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation and I'm here to give an overview of our Department as well as some background relative to our funding and our work moving forward from last year's budget agreements.

Our mission is to protect public health and the environment by fostering sustainable pest management and regulating pesticides with a vision of a California where pest management is safe, effective and sustainable for everyone. Pest management plays a really integral role in the stability of California's healthy food supply.

It supports growers in agricultural societies, sustainability protects the health of our urban and rural communities and environments, and preserves critical infrastructure. And so our role at the Department begins with the registration review of pesticide products to evaluate potential human health and environmental effects prior to approving their sale and use within the state.

We then continue to evaluate pesticide products after their approval through a range of different practices. This includes comprehensive reviews of studies and risk assessments for environmental or human health impacts, including tracking adverse effects and illness reports.

We also track the use of pesticides statewide and monitor the air, groundwater and surface water as a part of our continuous evaluation process to inform DPR's understanding of pesticide impacts and any necessary regulatory actions to address those risks.

In addition to our ongoing evaluations of pesticides, we work to advance sustainable pest management through discussions of Low risk pest management techniques, including technical assistance and outreach management techniques, tools to protect endangered species, and offering grants. We also focus on supporting and enforcing safe pests.

This includes requirements specifically designed to protect the health and safety of those working with or near pesticides and conducting outreach to farmworker communities with information on pesticide safety. And finally, we conduct and oversee a robust statewide enforcement program.

This includes providing training and oversight for our local partners, the county agricultural commissioners, managing the required licensing for pesticide applicators, and conducting residue monitoring and compliance inspections.

So to holistically address today's dynamic pest management needs, DPR must have stable and sustainable funding to work through our foundational functions to protect people and the environment, to support bringing safe effective pest management tools to market faster and to encourage collaborations that broadly expand technical assistance and access to safe sustainable pest management practices.

So by way of background, our primary funding source, the MIL assessment, comes from the sale of pesticides in California and it had been fixed statutorily for 20 years and as a result did not adequately support the Department's statutory and programmatic responsibilities. And as a result the Department had entered a structural imbalance with its budget.

This was first recognized as a part of the 2021 budget. And so to comprehensively approach identifying the Department's current needs, the Budget act allocated funding for an independent stakeholder engaged MIL assessment study.

And this was foundational for the Departments and identified that DPR was critically underfunded and was part of what then led to the enacted MIL proposal that was approved by the Legislature last year.

So that 2425 budget and the accompanying policy Bill AB 2113 provided DPR with stable long term resources to meet the programmatic and statutory requirements and to fulfill our mission.

The budget included 120 positions over a three year phase in as well as increases in the mill up to 30 mils in 2027 to be able to support that work.

It also includes a number of statutory requirements to ensure accountability for the work that we are doing associated with that budget increase, including requirements relative to registration timelines, reevaluation and mitigation and transparency measures. So with that, thank you so much and happy to answer any questions about the Department or our work implementing 2113.

Well, thank you Director Morrison. We appreciate you being here today. Do you have any questions or comments?

You know, I'm not that familiar with how mills work. Is that just a sales tax basically? Right?

Correct. So the MIL is an assessment on each dollar sold within the state. We get 24 and a half cents to or 2.4 cents to the dollar.

Can you tell us what programs or initiatives will receive priority funding?

Sure. So the mil, the Budget act from last year looked at funding across a range of our programs. So looking both at our registration and evaluation work, our enforcement work as well as data collection. And so we're looking at across all of those areas as a part of work that we're doing to Fund and to enforce.

I think areas of particular focus for us are on our registration reviews of really staffing up, ensuring that we have timely and accountable work as a part of our registration and review of pesticide products. Coupled with that focusing on our work to evaluate and mitigate identified risks to pesticides.

Those sort of work hand in hand as part of the work that we do within the Department and an ongoing focus of work around enforcement of our rules and requirements within the state.

Have you heard of the term chemical trespass?

I would love for you to clarify what you mean in this context for it.

Well, there's a lot of chemicals in our environment. Some of those are unhealthy, and we don't have any way to prevent ourselves from ingesting those into our bodies. And that's basically what that means. So how big of a impact does the pesticide have on that sort of.

Eventuality, sure.

So this is something we take very seriously relative to our evaluation of pesticide risk and impacts within the state and is integral to a lot of the work that we do around our monitoring programs for pesticide residues on produce, pesticides and air pesticides and water and other potential exposures that folks may have.

That is very deeply rooted in risk based assessments relative to appropriate thresholds for balancing the need for critical pest management and where there are documented human health or environmental risks. We also recognize, and a core part of our program is that the science and information evolves.

And so it is important for us to be continuing to go out to monitor, to collect information and to refine our approaches as necessary, should we determine that that's necess.

Well, the EPA has a limited list of hazardous chemicals and there's tens or hundreds of thousands of chemicals that are in production and use today. So especially considering the changes that are coming from Washington, we need to be as diligent as possible to identify dangerous substances and prevent those from coming into our daily contact.

So pesticides is only one part of that. But you got a heck of a job, so I appreciate your hard work and want to see that continue to the degree possible.

Thank you, Appreciate that.

And Chair, I have a question. Okay. So one of DPR's missions is to reduce the amount of pesticides that is used and sold in the state while increasing more sustainable pest management. And I'm wondering if a decrease in the amount of pesticides sold as this is likely to start occurring.

And this is actually the mil assessment is 80% of the revenue of the DPR Fund. Do you see that this is a budgeting issue that you will be facing soon or in the distant future or something that should be talked about.

Thank you and appreciate the question. And certainly looking at that in the context of we came to this point coming out of a structural imbalance and wanting to avoid repeating that as we think about moving forward.

I think in the this was a key question that came up as a part of the MIL assessment study that we, that we conducted that was released in 2023, was to look at what is both short term and long term sustainability.

I think that is there are a lot of different factors that impact the mill, both in terms of cost of pesticides overall as well as the specific work that we're doing. So it's something that we are very carefully tracking relative to our budget projections, relative to the broader policies that we are working on.

So we're certainly committed to be keeping an eye on that and Being in conversation with all of you as we move forward.

Okay, thank you.

Can you give us just a General sense of sort of the health of the DPR Fund since the, you know, increased mill window effect and what kind of where you're seeing it positioned?

Sure. So the mill increased eight months ago and I'll say Department revenues have increased associated with that. We're still working through full budget reconciliation of kind of what's coming in and how that's comparing to our expenses. So happy to give a more detailed update as we continue to collect that information. But we are seeing the revenues are.

Have increased.

Okay. And do you see, I mean, does that, does that lead to kind of increased flexibility in terms of DPR's work and activities, you know, monitoring pesticide use and.

Yeah.

Evaluating products and all that kind of thing?

Sure. We're aggressively working to implement the positions and funding that we receive as a part of last year's budget, which was envisioned as a phase in. And so a lot of our work in year one is really setting the foundation for work moving forward.

That being said, we are already on track for meeting our new requirements under statute.

We are putting the money to good use relative to expanding grants programs, relative to expanded local monitoring in some places to be able to address local concerns that have been raised and really working to be able to address and respond to those needs more specifically and are in process of standing up our pesticide prioritization process, which is designed to be a data driven, transparent process for how we look at priorities within the state for addressing risks from pesticides and really bringing folks to the table to have those conversations to identify both needs and alternatives within that, including a public workshop next month to be able to solicit broader stakeholder feedback as we look toward implementation later in the year.

Okay. Okay. You know, one thing that we deal with sometimes on these kinds of, these kinds of assessments, you see this with tobacco and others, is you have the mission of reducing the number of pesticides used and then sold in the state while increasing more sustainable pest management? Of course.

You know, so I mean, there's a hope that there will be a decrease in the amount of pesticides sold every year. That's dangerous. That, of course, then, you know, reduces. That would reduce the amount of revenue supporting the Department, I think. I mean, with the Mills assessment is like 80% of your budget, right? Yeah.

So I mean, on the long term, you know, is that, is that an issue that. Is there. Is there a built in inconsistency there or threat there? I suppose you Know, is that an issue for the distant future or something that the Department should be thinking about sooner rather than later?

Or are we so confident that people are going to keep buying dangerous pesticides that you're going to be fully funded out into the future? How do you guys think about that challenge?

Sure appreciate the question. And you know. Well, we'll repeat a couple of things that I mentioned earlier, I think, while you were coming out. No, no, that's not a problem. But just to note that that's certainly something that we are acutely aware of a challenge associated with that.

It was a component included in the MIL assessment study around what long term sustainability looks like. The actual revenue the Department receives coming out of mill is driven by factors including costs of products as well as total amount used.

And so there are some different that are, I think, difficult to predict fully into the future about how that, that is evolving. That being said, the commitment to the mission is, is our driving North Star for the Department. And so we are keeping a close eye on what that looks like relative to budget funding for the Department.

As mentioned earlier, our mill is, is up this year, but certainly looking forward to being in conversation as that moves forward. We don't want to find ourselves in the same place that we were three years ago in the future. And so we'll certainly be tracking what that looks like and how people think about alternative pest management practices.

Right. That there are in some cases switching to lower risk pesticides. It could be moving to other practices that we don't regulate. Right. Manual weeding, for example. And so looking at the combination of all of those is something that we are absolutely tracking and looking forward to future conversations about.

Okay. All right, that's helpful. All right, thank you. I appreciate any comments you guys want to offer. No. All right, let's go. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate that, Director. And thanks for all the work you do. I mean, you know. Yeah, I mean, we're, we're, we're.

Well, we'll talk later about some other pesticide issues, but not, not in public. Okay, let's go to issue number nine. That's. We've got Zoe and Mindy here from CalRecycle and we look forward to your presentation. Neither of you are science fellows, right? No. Okay.

No, not a science fellow.

All right. We won't be able to start with that.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. My name is Zoe Heller. I'm the Director of CalRecycle and I'm joined with my Chief Deputy, Mindy Mcintyre.

It's an honor to be here Today we will discuss at a high level some of our priorities and programs going into the next year and then open to any questions that you may have to build on some of the discussion with the secretary on 54 or anything else on our programs that you'd like to explore.

So our mission is to protect California's environment and climate for the health and prosperity of future generations through the reduction, reuse and in recycling of California resources, environmental education, disaster recovery, and the transition from a disposable to a fully circular economy.

CalRecycle's programs are diverse and growing and include organics recycling, beverage container recycling, disaster debris removal, E waste recycling, used tires recycling, along with the recycling of used oil and filters. In addition, CalRecycle has a number of extended producer responsibility programs, some of which have been established for many years, others which were just getting off the ground.

Those include pharmaceuticals and sharps, waste mattress stewardship, carpet paint, and we're currently working to build the loose battery extended producer responsibility program and also expanding our E waste program to include battery embedded products.

So what you're seeing is we're right now managing a lot of more established waste streams and taking on some emerging and more problematic waste streams through innovative ways. On our horizon is the implementation of Senate Bill 707, the Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024.

It's our newest program that will focus on the collection, recycling and reuse of textiles across the state. Once again, I appreciate the discussion earlier on Senate Bill 54, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

All right, thank you. Do you want to kind of give any insights as to. I mean, you heard the discussion, you were here.

You know, do you have some initial sort of reactions to us about some of the questions that were asked by the Members or some additional detail you want to provide on some of the items that were raised by the panel?

Yeah, I very much appreciate the questions that were raised and you know, I'm fully aligned with the Secretary and our commitment to respond as soon as we can with what an expedited timeline may look like, understanding the complexity of the statute, the complexity of the regulations.

Regardless, our goal is to implement and be able to deliver on those existing rates and dates that are in statute and to work closely with the stakeholder community both on the regulations moving forward. But also there's quite a bit that we're doing to implement outside side of the regulatory process.

As you're aware, we've released the covered material category list and updates on recyclability and compostability. Of those packaging products that are sold into the state. We've developed that source reduction baseline, which is really important for us to have a better understanding of the amount of plastic covered material that's being sold into the state.

So we're committed to moving forward, attending and supporting the advisory board. There's a meeting tomorrow and really listening so that we can once again finalize this regulatory package and move forward with implementation.

But what about the polystyrene, for example?

Yeah, and thank you for raising that and totally agree with the secretary. Right now we need to lean into that.

That was a requirement that needed to be demonstrated by 1-1-25, and we need to get out in front of it and provide an update to you all on our website to the public as to what we've received and what the next steps will be moving forward.

So any timeline on that, we will.

Get back to you with that as soon as we can.

Okay. Okay. January 1st, you know, what is it? March 3rd, March 20th. So, yeah, you know, I'm almost wondering whether we should just have another hearing with, with you guys again in a month or something to, you know, to make sure we can continue this follow up on these various issues that were raised.

Okay, so having gone through this whole process of the past few months, are there some issues that, from your perspective, need to be addressed?

Statutorily little things that we need to fix or address in the 54 statute that will make your life a little easier in terms of implementation and dealing with the pro and all that kind of thing?

You know, we're committed to implementing the statute as it's written and are confident that we can do that. If there are conversations that the Legislature would like to have to address specific tweaks or anything along those lines, we're certainly open to them.

But, you know, as of now, we're committed to moving forward with the rulemaking process and implementing as soon as we can.

Sure, sure, sure. I guess, you know, just understand that we certainly don't want. It almost appears as though some concerns about aspects of the statute. And of course, it's your job to implement the statute. I get that.

But it appears as though some concerns about aspects of the statute got in the way of letting the regs move forward.

And, you know, I want to just reiterate that while we're certainly not interested in major changes, you know, surgical changes to the statute that might allow for a more effective implementation and allay some concerns and in the Administration is something that I think we're very open to. And I just Want to make sure you know that.

I think you do know that. Thank you. Yes. So how do you. So how, from your perspective, how do we make sure that this delay doesn't impact the rates, dates and other obligations in the law? Kind of along the lines of what Senator Blakesker asked about.

Yeah, it's a great question. And we are in a much better place today than we were a year ago or two years ago as far as understanding the lay of the land, as far as what stakeholders are looking for.

Throughout the regulatory process, we received 5,000 unique comments which helped us better understand how to implement on the ground. And these comments were from a diverse group of stakeholders that have been intimately engaged in the process.

So now that we have that knowledge, it's very helpful in us getting through this next regulatory process because so many issues have been concerns, questions, comments, or even opportunities for the stakeholder community to describe to us how they would like to see things play out. We didn't have that knowledge a year ago.

So that should help us through this next rulemaking process, be able to wrap it up as quickly as we can and begin implementation. You know, we still have a Runway before some of those first statutory deadlines come into play. The pro plan submittal and then the very important first recycling rate for plastic covered material in 2028.

So I'm confident that through this process, the regulatory process, through the needs assessment development that the Department is taking on right now, through the engagement of the group that's meeting tomorrow. Why am I blanking on their name? Thank you.

The Advisory Committee will continue to refine and better understand what we all need to do together for successful implementation so we can achieve those very important statutory deadlines without the plan we can't implement. So we need a plan. We need an approvable plan. The clarity as to what the program's going to look like moving forward.

Yeah, right. And the clarity, again, it's so important for the businesses and that's what we've heard over. And we've been working with business folks in this space for so long and you know, obviously they want law and regulation that they feel they can comply with. But that's, that's, that's, that's their number one ask.

Their second ask is just certainty and, and guidance.

And this is, this whole situation has just created a certain degree of uncertainty. And you know, I mean, for example, on the polystyrene issue. Right. Well, the, the laws, we all, we're all talking about adherence to the statute. Well, the statute is pretty clear. On that area, you know, restaurants and others need guidance.

Yes.

They've been traditionally using this product. Now they need, you know, the law is what it is. They're not hearing from you. So we really need to see action on that and a number of other things to just get people to a better place where they feel as though they can be in compliance.

Because I don't want to put businesses in a position where they're unsure about how to comply with the law.

Understood? Yes.

Okay. Now, of course, we are a budget sub, so we're looking at all the implications. And after this, I want to talk to you about Bottle Bill.

But there's an, there actually is a tie in here because, because, you know, you weren't allowed to submit the regulations to oel that then potentially impacts the loan from the Bottle Bill Fund that was used for regulation development. So is another loan needed? Where does that stand?

So right now we don't see the need for any additional loans to come from the Beverage Container Recycling Fund. However, if there was a need for anything, we would revisit that at May revision.

As far as the repayment of the loan goes, we weren't expecting any repayment of the loan until 2627 because SB54 doesn't allow the collection of any fees from the pro, which would then be used to repay the loan until 2627. So essentially, things are continuing as previously expected.

Okay. Okay. I'm sure they're going to want to ask a bit more about caloric about SC54, but let's talk about Battle Bill maybe because they're so closely related in various ways. Obviously, we were all excited about the passage of 1013. Then there was SB353.

So just love to get an update from you about, you know, just on where the Bottle Bill stands from your perspective and how much revenue is being generated from wine and distilled spirits and compliance with the new container types, you know, and the extent to which you're engaging in outreach to suppliers and education, that kind of thing, as we've, as we've been dealing with the changes in the law.

Yeah, great question. And we're also very excited about the changes and what we're seeing on the ground as it relates to more convenience, more beverage containers in the program, et cetera.

So as you're aware, wine and spirits joined the program January of last year and we've seen a slow uptake as far as increase of, of wine and spirit containers coming in through recycling centers and other collection systems throughout the state. And let Me get you some numbers. Okay. Where is the number? Give me one second here.

Okay, here it is. This is the answer I was looking for. So 129 million has been collected since 24-1-1 specific to the new beverage containers that are coming into the program. As far as what kind of outreach we've done on the new containers, we've done quite a bit.

We've had 15 webinars in both Spanish and English to help recycling centers and processors learn how to accept and handle this new material because it is a change overall in their operations.

We've also had 15 webinars with beverage manufacturers and distributors to help them understand their new responsibilities in the program as it relates to the new material types that are part of the program. We are going through the regulatory process right now for the new beverage containers.

We've had several drafts of those regulations go out and quite a bit of very, very helpful engagement from the stakeholder community. We've updated our system, our IT system, which is incredibly important to include the new containers so that we can track them in beverage manufacturer manufacturers can input that information for us.

And really importantly, and we're very excited about this, we're launching an education and outreach campaign with the beverage container recycling program.

As you all know, without education, without outreach, Californians who may not have utilized it for some time, given some of the changes in convenience, may not be aware of some of the changes in the program, whether it's the new beverage container types or the dealer cooperatives that are coming in the not too distant future.

So we're going to embark on education outreach throughout the state, Some specific statewide messaging on making sure people are aware that wine and spirits and large juice containers are in the program, but also looking to work with jurisdictions and others on more specific outreach within their communities that could be helpful as we see new infrastructure stood up.

Could you give me a sense of how. How much of the collection is through redemption versus curbside?

Yeah, I don't have those numbers in front of me right now, but we can certainly get back to you with those.

Ask a question on this particular. Yeah, please. Yeah, yeah. So could you just describe, like, what is the change? So if somebody drinks a bottle of wine and they put it in their recycling container, then what happens from there? That's different.

Yeah, it's a great question. So wine and distilled spirits did not have a CRV value with them prior. So when they were brought, they wouldn't be able to be redeemed at a recycling center, and there wouldn't be Any payment up front on those beverage containers.

So now Californians can bring these containers to a recycling center and they can get a dime back for the vast majority of those containers when before they couldn't do that.

And if they bring these materials to recycling centers or other convenient redemption opportunities, we're going to be seeing more reverse vending machines and bag drop programs stood up throughout the state. Then those are very clean streams of material. So when you get glass through a redemption center, it's not going to be contaminated with other recyclables.

So what that means is that material is very valuable and can be easily turned into a new wine or distilled spirit container or other glass container here in California.

At the same time, we're investing right now in a number of new grant programs to support the new infrastructure that's being stood up in the state to be able to accommodate both these new material types or the increase of these materials, glass bottles, but also to increase convenience as well.

So there's a lot happening to not only make sure people know that there is an opportunity to redeem more beverage containers, also that the infrastructure exists and that there are some incentives for those that are processing the glass and other materials related that are associated with these beverage containers.

Yeah, the redemption center is getting up and going seems really critical. And I don't. If they are happening in my district, I don't know about it. To me, it seems like I've only heard the complaints about them closing and not, you know, there's nowhere convenient to do that anymore. So. And this is only glass, right?

It's not plastic.

It's also plastic. Yeah.

Zero, it is plastic. When you said juice containers, those are.

Plastic juice containers, the large juice containers, correct? Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. So will CalRecycle be providing the information or is it county managed or on these redemption centers?

So it's going to be both. We do have information on our website. The other infrastructure that will be standing up soon, we're still in the regulatory process. We've submitted the regulations to the office of administrative law on the dealer Cooperatives. So what the dealer Cooperatives allow for is the grocers and the retailers within a community.

They have a requirement that they either redeem in store or that they join a dealer cooperative. And the dealer cooperative is a 501. It's an EPR type model where the dealers come together under the umbrella of the 501 and develop a plan that will provide for convenient redemption opportunities throughout that community.

So it could look like reverse vending machines in the Parking lots. It could look like mobile redempt opportunities where a truck would drive around through the community post its hours is when it would be located within a parking lot or another easily accessible place. And people could bring their beverage containers to those other locations.

Once again, why education and outreach is so important because these are going to be brand new in communities that haven't traditionally been served or that have recently been unserved due to a recycling center closing.

And thank you. My one last thing. Sorry, chair. No, that's great. Is can you make sure to message around what people should do about the tops? So if it's a plastic top on a plastic bottle, should they include that top?

If it's, you know, something else, a different material, it's metal and plastic, you know, do you know the answer to that or. But can you also make sure and communicate to the public about that?

Absolutely.

But do you know the answer?

Often it's good to have them put back on if possible, but they're accepted regardless.

Okay.

Yeah. But yeah, we can do more messaging on them.

It's my understanding that the preference is that it stay on. Yeah. Because the way that it floats.

Well, we just heard this in EQ yesterday. There's this Bill from Senator Padilla which I'm a co author on, but we talked about this extensively. But it's the caps like on a Coca COLA plastic bottle. That's plastic.

If it's not tethered, they basically don't get recycled if they're not connected and they're a different material and they float this issue or sink or they don't do whatever they're supposed to do. But the question of when they're different materials.

To me it seems like that is implicated a lot where the plastic, it's a plastic on a milk container, it's plastic on top of carton or it's peanut butter, that's glass and then the top is plastic. So there's all these different types of bottles. So making sure that we communicate if you want the caps or not.

I do think that's important for, for the education part.

Absolutely. Yeah.

You know, so, so. And then, so then there's this whole thing where in the law where I think by January, the magical January 12025 dealers in the convenience zone that don't have a recycling location, you know, for more than 60 days have to redeem in store or they operated this dealer cooperative redemption plan.

Correct. Yeah.

And so are you seeing the dealers choosing to operate this kind of plan as envisioned under the law? And yeah, so, and how are these Cooperatives happening or coming together as to the extent that they are?

We've had a lot of interest in the dealer Cooperatives by. We've heard from a number of the major grocers throughout the State of California. So we think that we anticipate that we'll get a robust plan or plans from 501C3s that have been forming throughout the state in interest of standing up a dealer cooperative quickly.

We have staff that are ready to review these plans as soon as they're submitted. Once again, we anticipate that the regulations. That we should know the outcome of the regulations in April so very, very soon. The other thing that I didn't mention is these specific grants.

They're called recycling innovation grants, some of which we've already given out another cycle that will be opening very, very soon that can help support these dealer Cooperatives throughout the state. These grants are specific for reverse vending machines, mobile recycling, these new innovative methods, also expansion of recycling centers to embrace some of these new methods as well.

So, yes, we anticipate that there will be a lot of interest in dealers and that we'll see cooperatives stood up in California this year.

Good. That's good to hear. Yeah. Okay. All right. I want to ask some wildfire questions. Landfill, all that, all the rest, and then. And then I'll open up to my colleagues. But, you know, as you can imagine, this has been a massive challenge for me to, you know, calories like.

And I know you've spoken to the pro tem who, you know, wrote legislation involving calorie cycle's role in post wildfire cleanup. Obviously, in my neck of the woods, we've had a big challenge associated with toxicity. And then where does this. Where the siting locations? Where does this material go? So, you know, do landfills.

I mean, to what extent do landfills traditionally test for hazardous materials in the.

Ways that they normally accept often do the landfills test. I'm going to have to get back to you on that one.

Okay. Does anyone here know or.

On hazardous waste, that would be a question for DTSC and they do need to meet the regulations that DTSC puts forward to make sure that they're being disposed of in the right areas.

Okay, so we'll. I know DTSC is here, so they're coming up later. Okay, so we'll ask about that. And then the connection to fire debris and then, you know, I wanted to know what you guys know about the extent to which redundancies are maybe in place to prevent environmental contamination. You know, particularly just beyond.

I know there's liners, they wet the waste, all those kinds of things. But can you speak to this or is this more a DTSC question from your perspective?

It's a multi BDO, local agency, federal agency question. So, happy to respond. So you're asking about the redundancies that are in place to ensure protection?

Yeah, because people are really worried, right? I mean there's all this toxicity in the fire zone and they're now trucking this material to sites and so they really, I mean everyone. I'm getting a lot of questions about what procedures are in place to really do everything you can to minimize potential environmental or health damage.

You know, beyond the liners and just wetting the waste.

Yeah, it's a great question.

And there's as mentioned, a number of different agencies, BDOs that have local government that have authority to ensure that various requirements are being met, whether it's the Water Board, whether it's the local enforcement agency, Air Resources Board, where there's various kinds of monitoring that happens to ensure that the waste stays in place and is protective of the surrounding communities with the fire debris.

And I can speak to, as you're well aware, we're not lead for any of the fires, the LA fires as far as debris removal, but we've done a number of other debris removal activities throughout the state.

And when we're working with the contractors to determine the landfills that can accept this waste, we are ensuring that those proper protections are in place.

And you know, from, you know, CalRecycle's perspective, ensuring that the cells are lined properly, that there isn't concerns about, there aren't enforcement concerns at those landfills as far as which cells are taking the material and the movement of the material from the wildfire footprint to that facility is very important as well, as you mentioned.

So the importance of getting the material off the ground, ensuring that it's loaded onto a truck in a very safe way, that it's burrito wrapped so there can't be any impacts from that material.

As it's going to the landfill and then disposed of in the landfill in a way in which is protective, meaning that there's cover that's put on the material at the end of the day, at the end of each day in monitoring that's happening at those landfills to ensure that there aren't any releases, whether it's air or water, protecting those surrounding communities.

Okay. And then, you know, have you found that there's been some kind of important long term environmental protections that need to be put in place beyond what you've just described for those facilities that are no longer accepting waste? You know, some of these landfills will at some point be shut down.

Yes.

And yet they will still have toxic materials in there. And so what are the. What are the long. What have we learned about the need for long about. About things we can do with regards to long term?

Yeah. So this requires very close coordination between CalRecycle and the local enforcement agency and the operator that landfill. So if a landfill is shutting down, it requires a post closure plan.

It requires funding determined for funding that post closure plan, ensuring that there is always an entity that's responsible for that landfill through its closure for the continued protection of human health and the environment post that landfill's life.

And this is something that CalRecycle takes very seriously, that our local enforcement agencies take very seriously, and that we're committed to because we do know that there are landfills that are potentially reaching their end of life in the state and the importance of protecting those communities from the waste that's been disposed of in those landfills.

Okay, what are some examples from around the country or the world that are maybe cautionary tales that you guys look at and say we really have to make sure we don't repeat those mistakes long term or near term risks relating to specifically to fire, debris and hazardous waste associated with fires, some situations that have gone wrong that we need to avoid.

I don't have a great answer to that, but I will get back to you on that one.

What are some of the risks that you guys are most concerned about, I suppose when you're doing this work?

Yeah, I mean, the risks that we've been most concerned about are less at those disposal sites because the landfills are very well permitted, monitored, et cetera. So we don't. The landfills themselves, as long as they're complying with the environmental laws, should be and will be protective of the surrounding communities.

I think our concern is more related to getting the material off the ground as quickly as possible and Being able to transport it safely to these facilities that can contain it in a safe way, that can't be assured when the material is still on the ground.

And we've seen this with a number of debris flows and issues along those lines with some of our previous debris removal missions where if we cannot remove the material quickly enough and dispose of it safely, then it can become a hazard for those surrounding communities.

Right. Yeah, please. Yeah, yeah.

So are counties required to have a landfill that takes treated Wood or that type of material? Because I recently had a complaint from somebody who said they went to the landfill that said, no, we don't take treated wood. They said to go to a different landfill, which that person did.

And then that landfill said, we don't take it either. That was the only lined landfill, according to the county's website in San Diego. And so I was. Is that. Is it possible to just not have a landfill that takes treated wood? Because it seems as if there's got to be a lot of construction material.

This isn't just a one off question.

Yeah, that's a very good question. I'm going to have to get back to you on that one. I know that landfills are often private businesses and have some autonomy as far as being able to determine what they take and what they don't take. But I don't have a specific answer for treated wood.

Okay. Does anybody else who's an expert in that know who's sitting at the table?

Not an expert, but I can tell you DTSU is also our partner in determining what is hazardous waste and what needs to go to a hazardous waste facility versus what is solid waste. And it would really depend for treated wood whether or not it's considered hazardous waste versus solid waste.

If it's a solid waste, then of course it can go to our solid waste permitted landfills. Otherwise it does need to be directed to a hazardous waste facility and they do not believe.

And again, this is a question for DTSC, so I probably shouldn't say anything beyond that, but that counties are not required to have a hazardous waste facility.

Okay. Okay, thank you.

Can I just ask specifically, in my area, this Calabasas landfill has gotten a lot of attention and I wanted to get a sense of how much sooner will that landfill have to be capped due to all these debris they've been taking in?

I don't know the capacity of Calabasas off the top of my head, but we will certainly get back to you on that.

Okay. And yeah, I mean. Yeah, okay. I mean, have you.

What sort of Lessons learned do we have from some of the previous catastrophic fires on this whole issue of the proper disposal of toxic debris in landfills, the impacts on the neighborhoods, whether it then gets so big that they then have to shut it down and rethink all their waste management practices, Are there lessons learned from Santa Rosa or from Woolsey or Paradise that you can speak to?

Yeah, at a kind of bird's eye view level.

One of the priorities that we have at CalRecycle is working and engaging with counties all throughout the State of California, particularly those that are of high risk of wildfire, which is unfortunately growing by the year, and ensuring that they have plans in place to understand what are the capacity of the surrounding landfills?

What would those ideal transportation routes look like to those landfills? What does an engagement strategy look like out of the gate?

As soon as we know that there is going to be a debris removal operation, what sort of engagement needs to happen with the local governments, with the counties, with the communities, so that careful coordination between state, state, federal and local government, so those communications are had early and those determinations and risk assessments are made in a way in which can lead to an outcome that has been vetted and discussed.

Now, this can be hard in an emergency setting where materials need to move very quickly. But with that said, we really need to do a better job statewide.

And this is a place that CalRecycle can certainly support with those counties to ensure that, you know, when a disaster hits, we're not starting at the drawing board, but instead have some of those parameters in place already and understand, have an understanding of the infrastructure and what sort of material is appropriate to go where.

This also goes for recyclable materials as well. You know, with these incidents, there's opportunity for concrete and metals to get recycled. Also with the tree removal that we do as well, what's the highest and best use for that, that wood waste? So having a better sense in place prior to the.

The disaster hitting will be helpful for communities across California.

Okay, and then. Yeah, okay. All right, where have we. What should I tell folks? I mean, if something were to go wrong at the landfill about the kind of procedures that are in place to protect the safety of the residents, given the potential toxicity of some of the.

Materials going in, that's often managed landfills will have a safety plan in place that will lay out what those interventions may or may not be.

And so working with the landfill operator, the local enforcement agency, of course, CalRecycle is always happy to come to the table to talk about, you know, our role in our coordinating role with other. With other agencies as well.

But we understand the importance of getting that information out and making sure people understand risk and understand really, what the landfill is doing to ensure protections.

Okay. All right. Let me. Let my colleagues ask more questions. I know there's so many topics. Sure. But appreciate it.

Yes, thank you, Chair. So I appreciate you being here, Director Heller. And I won't belabor all the SB54 things that we already covered. So I did want to just ask you, when you heard that conversation that we had here with Secretary Garcia, if you had any thoughts that you were thinking, I'd like to share this with them.

Yeah, that's a great question. You know, the main thought that I would like to share with you all is the commitment of the CalRecycle staff and really the expertise that they've built over the last two years in an area that was relatively new to the Department.

You know, we have a much better sense today than we had a year ago or two years ago as far as how to implement this program successfully, what needs to happen, what our partnership with the various stakeholder groups should look like, what our oversight and enforcement role needs to be.

So, you know, we hired essentially all new staff for this program throughout the Department, and just my confidence in their ability to implement and oversee this program. I just want to make sure, you know, that they're committed.

We have a tall order ahead of us, and we stand ready to fulfill it and to communicate also with Cal, EPA and the Administration on what our plan is moving forward.

Okay, thank you. And I think the one thing I just wanted to emphasize is that this issue of chemical recycling, I feel like, is a really big one that's sitting out there. And I think it's really important that the regulations that we ultimately pursue as a state, that they have a standard to evaluate the degree of hazardousness.

And so I understand that the regulations that were not approved, you know, that we're not moving forward with, they require that recycling would be at least no more hazardous than mechanical recycling.

And so we have a lot of, you know, this topic immediately becomes very technical, and I will say that I don't have all that technical expertise, but I do know that predating SB54, there were various technologies that were not considered to be recycling. So pyrolysis, solvolysis, waste to energy gasification, incineration, combustion.

And so the issue of what do we consider with this enormous amount of plastic that's generated from so many sources to be recycling of that? I think having some standard around the Degree of hazardousness is really important.

And so do you, you know, what is your understanding of where that discussion is and what, you know, what is on the table?

Yeah, it's a great question. And as you know, we have a statutory responsibility to have criteria that are in regulation to ensure that any new innovations in recycling don't create a significant amount of hazardous waste. So, you know, we received quite a bit of input on what that could or couldn't look like.

The regulatory text that wasn't submitted reflects those robust convers. Also coordination with our colleagues at the Department of Toxic Substances Control, since they're the hazardous waste experts on a process.

So, you know, we remain committed to ensuring that that part of statute is fulfilled in our regulatory text and committed to ensuring that we meet the requirement in statute that any recycling technologies are not going to be environmentally harmful, that they're not impacting communities, and that they're not, you know, producing this significant amount of hazardous waste.

But I hear you. There's a need for clarity to understand what that looks like, because chemical recycling, advanced recycling, is so nascent and there isn't good definitions of that yet. So what's the criteria look like to ensure that innovation and new technologies are not an environmental burden?

Right. Yeah. Yeah. And I think it's. I know this is.

There are other parts of SP54 that deal with overall plastic reduction, but I do, I feel that that is one of the things that needs to remain central is that, you know, we all experience in our daily life just the enormous amounts of plastic in every possible format that seem to be ever increasing, and the statistics on the fossil fuel industry moving from generating gas to generating plastics as like the main, you know, one of the main sources of their revenue.

And there needs to be this ongoing consumption of plastic in order for that business to maintain at that level or even to be growing. And I think we need to be directly tackling that. So making sure, you know, the recycling.

We don't want to continue to have so much plastic, restock plastic that's created from going to Costco or getting something from Amazon or all of the many bags that we receive with chips and cereals and everything that has enormous amounts of materials that are interwoven with each other and that are basically not recyclable.

So moving toward having our waste stream be more pure, more recyclable, extracting less from our land, all of these things, of course, reducing pollution and carbon, I mean, all of these things are goals.

But I just, I really want to make sure that we don't set up that system so that, so that we're able to skirt the other goals and we end up with just continuing increasing amounts of plastic. So, you know, keeping that as a central North Star in what we're doing is so important.

So I'll move off of SB54 and just say one other thing about plastics, which I really am grateful for your team engaging with me on my Bill, SB633. So this bill is aimed at when we have plastic bottles that say 100% recycled or some percentage recycled, that the amount of recycling is actually real.

Because what we have reports of is that there's newly made plastic in sheets that then is pelletized and then that's considered recycled. Because now that it's pelletized, it can be put into a bottle and considered recycled, but it actually has not had any prior use.

So this bill would require that manufacturers have a third party certification of their plastic. Where did it come from? What was it before? And I think that this is really important to give customers confidence that their bottles are truly recycled, because you do see these all the time now, 100% recycled.

So I really appreciate your team working with me on this bill because, of course, it's easier to get a bill that can be implemented when you work up front on it. So I just wanted to say thank you for that. And I think, I mean, I think with that, I'll just, I'll turn it back to the Chair.

And thank you for being here today.

Thank you for your questions.

Thank you, Senator McNerney.

Thank you, Chair. Ms. Heller, I want to thank you. Start by thanking you for your years of Service, leadership with CalRecycle, and your appointment to the directorship. I'm new here, but there's a lot of folks in my office that are big fans of you. So hope you take that well. Thank you.

I'm going to start in on plastics, and my first question is, what is the State of plastic recycling? I mean, you hear a lot about stuff in the news. You know, only a small fraction of it's used or none of it's used. It goes into the. I mean, what is the science here?

And is there a need for more resources for science to develop ways to deal with the plastic mountains that we're dealing, that we're seeing?

Yeah, that's a great question. And we don't have a whole lot of data for the State of California, but we do know some critical things to inform, you know, where there could be need for more research. You know, first, we know that Not a lot of plastic is recycled. That's fact.

I think some of the stats say between 5 and 9% total, which.

That's abysmal.

Yeah, agreed. Senator Blakespear also brought up another critical issue that we're seeing and we're hearing from a lot of our interested parties and stakeholders within California that there's a lot of recycled plastic that's being imported into California that's being utilized in products, whether it's beverage containers or other products.

But there's no verification to determine if that plastic is post consumer recycled. So it could be, you know, as the Senator described, a sheet is made and then it's pelletized or something else, we just don't know. So that's creating a challenge for our domestic markets where there's opportunities to recycle more plastic.

Within the State of California, we have a number of reclaimers that take beverage container material that are having a hard time keeping up because the cost for recycled plastic that's being imported is so much cheaper than what they're producing.

So there's challenges in that verification piece to ensure that plastic that is actually getting recycled, particularly here for businesses in California, is getting manufactured into new products. So building that circular economy.

And then further down the line of the life of a plastic, we're seeing so much research on the risks associated with the microplastics that are in our bodies and our food and our air, et cetera.

So being able to reduce more plus plastic at its source and ensure that it's getting properly managed is important, but also better understanding the overall health impacts and what we can do to protect ourselves and our children and the next generations from those health impacts. So plastics are a very, very challenging material type.

We haven't figured out how to successfully manage them really anywhere in the world. Implementation of Senate Bill 54 will help us ensure that plastics that are getting recycled, particularly plastic packaging, is going to a responsible end market.

This is a new concept In Senate Bill 54 that's critically important, ensuring that these markets are not only truly recycling these materials, but recycling them in an environmentally and socially responsible way and there's transparency in their processes and we better understand the yield, how much material is actually being used. So that was a lot of information.

So I think a succinct way to answer your question would be more research in validating recycled plastic. I think that is of interest globally right now and looking at what certifications may be available and those sorts of things. There's a lot of research happening on the health impacts Mindy and I were given the opportunity to attend Inc. 5 in Busan.

Which was the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations, and went to panels from like 8am to 11pm every day. Many of them focused on health impacts of plastics. Many of them focused on the environmental impacts in communities throughout the world that don't have resources to properly address those issues.

So having that global perspective and also the importance of local solutions, that work will be very important moving forward.

Well, I mean, this is a budget Subcommitee. And so my question would be, my next question would be, do you have the resources to do California's bit in the research to develop ways to recycle plastic? I mean, plastic has energy. You can burn it.

There's value in that somehow, and that ought to be teased out through science, in my opinion. Do you have the resources or are you the proper agency to put resources in to do that?

We do not do a lot of research in plastic recycling technologies and those sorts of things.

Some of the conversations that Mindy and I had in Busan, and also since we've been back, Is with the UCs and the CSUs in the state that are looking at life cycle of plastics and different either existing technologies for processing or other new technologies that may not have been explored yet.

So while we don't do a lot of research, the other place where we'll be seeing more data as to what works as far as plastics recycling from an environmental protection lens is through the implementation of Senate Bill 54 with this requirement that plastics go to these responsible end markets.

So that will require data that hasn't been submitted to the Department before to better understand what those processes look like, what their impacts are, what sort of protections they have in place to ensure that they're not part of the problem, but instead part of the solution for managing plastics.

I'm not advocating burning plastic.

Oh, yeah. Thank you. And Mindy also mentioned that we're doing the needs assessment as well, which is an analysis of what's the existing technology, what is the existing infrastructure, what does the existing collection look like in the state, what's needed to source, reduce, to achieve those. Those levels, but also to process what's still being generated.

Okay, I'm going to change directions here a little bit. Sure. What is calrecycling doing about recycling of critical minerals? And I mean, there's critical minerals in your cell phone, in your car, a lot of your coffee maker. I mean, what are you doing at CalRecycle to help capture that?

And you know, we want to keep those here in California. We'd save a lot of money from importing that kind of stuff from China and elsewhere.

Yeah, it's a great question. And it's relatively new to the department. We recently are expanding our electronic waste program to include battery embedded products and we're also building an extended producer responsibility program for loose batteries.

The work that's going into the regulatory development and the stakeholder engagement is helping us get a better sense of what does the infrastructure look like in the state. What are those processes? This is also a very important partnership between CalRecycle and the Department of Toxic Substances Control who also manages some of these materials as well.

You know, we look forward to continuing to work with the Legislature as new initiatives come forward that are specific to other products that have critical minerals and also continuing our partnership with the Department of Toxic Substances Control on best management practices so that we can recycle those materials and keep them in California when appropriate.

You know, when you first started, you mentioned a whole list of waste streams that you have to manage and that's pretty impressive. We want to make sure that you have the budget to do that, but that that money is spent wisely and appropriately. So going to yield back now.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right, well, thank you. Appreciate the time and all the work that you guys do. And I think there's a number of areas where we're going to need some follow up both on SB54, some landfill wildfire issues and one or two bottle bill issues.

So maybe we'll gear to do the scan in a month or so so we can make sure that we're doing our job and getting the doing the follow up oversight that we need to do. So thank you. Thank you so much. All right, great.

Well, you're going to stick around because we're going to do issue 10, which is the Responsible Textile Recovery Act, SB 707 implementation. You mentioned it briefly, but we'd love to. I think you've got a deeper dive presentation on the topic.

Sure. So our budget change proposal on Senate Bill 707 requests 27 permanent positions to be phased in over two fiscal years. 18 pys in 2526 and 9 pys in 2728, with a total ongoing cost of 4.5 million to implement this law.

CalRecycle additionally requests budget Bill Language to authorize a loan equally split between the beverage container recycling program and the electronic waste recovery and recycling account to cover the implementation costs until CalRecycle gets reimbursed by the producer responsibility organization.

Okay, so. So you're requesting 27 new PYs for the program similar to SB54.

Yeah.

It'S a lot of new PYs for each new program. It's supposed to be simpler to implement because it's epr. So I guess, what sort of lessons have you all learned since the passage of SB 54 that can be applied to this program to make these more efficient and reduce administrative workload?

Yeah, that's a great question. And I hear you on the intent behind EPR is to have a more streamlined approach to managing these different challenging material types, product types, et cetera. Textiles is new to the Department.

The vast majority of work we've done with textiles in the past have been analyzing how many are ending up in our waste streams by looking at our waste characterization studies and also seeing some of the challenges that they're bringing to our material recovery facilities in the state and the questions as to where they end up in their next life.

We know the vast majority aren't recycled, et cetera.

So administering this program properly will require a lot of knowledge development within the Department, but also the ability to have the proper oversight of the producer responsibility organization of the plans that are coming in to ensure that they're meeting the various goals that will be in regulation to achieve the goals in the producer responsibility organization's plan, et cetera, to achieve those higher collection rates for textiles, responsible recycling of those textiles, building up reuse markets where possible, et cetera.

So as far as what we've learned, I would say through the SB54 process, we've learned that having a robust, informal process is critical to the success of these new programs.

And 707 provides us a amount of time that will allow us, we're having our first workshop in the coming months here to have that robust engagement with the stakeholder community. One of the unique things with 707 is many of those stakeholders are new to the Department.

So we want to make sure that we're casting a wide net, talking to not only, you know, the producers, but those that have innovated in the recycling space, the communities that are impacted by textile waste now, the opportunity for source reduction, reuse and durability, et cetera, to really achieve the goals within the law.

So that robust informal process will be critically important to informing the formal process when we start so we can feel confident with the entire stakeholder community that's impacted that the regulations will help guide them in being able to implement successfully.

Okay, so, I mean, obviously. Well, so let me ask you a broader question from your perspective. How are EPR implementation costs kind of play out in practice, compared with sort of a state command and control approach.

Right. So I think the beauty of EPR is that the producer really designs the program. So the producer is making.

The producers are making that determination as to what those fees will be on those that are Members of the producer responsibility, organization and how to develop a cost effective yet successful plan to achieve the goals within the statute and the regulations.

So there's an incentive to look at both affordability, but also to look at the best pathways to ensure highest and best use of these products.

Since that burden, that cost burden is shifted from the ratepayer from jurisdictions to the producers themselves to best design not only the products, but the reuse, the recycling, the collection that best meets the needs of all those engaged in the program. So that burden of cost falls off the taxpayers, the ratepayers, and onto the producers.

Right? Yeah, I guess we're just sort of thinking about making sure that we're. And obviously we all want these programs to be successful. We want you to have the resources necessary to oversee this work. And you know, this is a, you know, I will say 707 is a broad based bill.