Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee meeting for Tuesday, April 8th. Sergeants, please call. The absent Members would like to welcome. Ultimately, when he gets here, Assemblymember Hart is going to be temporarily filling in for Assemblymember Ballard Cahan this afternoon. Let me briefly review our Committee's policies for testimony in today's hearing.

And by the way, we do not have a quorum right now. We will establish that when present, but we'll go ahead and start to move through the calendar. In the meantime, primary witness testimony is limited to two witnesses in support and two in opposition. Each witness will have two minutes to give their testimony.

All additional witnesses will be limited to stating their name, organization, if they represent one, and their position on the Bill. I also want to note that we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. We will hear six measures today with two additional measures on consent. Again, thank you everyone.

Do we have any authors here? It looks like Assembly Member Addis. Please come on up. This is file item 1 AB405 relating to the fact Fashion Act. Assemblymember Addis, you may begin when you're ready.

Great. Thank you so much, Chair. And I want to say thank you to your staff for working on us with amendments. We are accepting all of the Committee amendments and I want to thank my advocates that are here as well.

Fast fashion, sometimes known as trash fashion, is a business model that, extremely rapid, rapidly produces very low quality clothing at a very high profit margin. It is not just low quality and low durability, but it is made to be worn once or maybe twice and then thrown away. And it often has dangerous levels of toxic chemicals.

And so while there are many different kinds of problems with trash or fast, fast fashion, such as excessive waste and hidden costs, one of the worst and most important for this Committee is the worker and consumer exposure to harmful chemicals throughout the manufacturing process.

The apparel and footwear industry uses over 8,000 synthetic chemicals, especially in the textile mills, where fibers are dyed, finished, and made into materials for clothing. And these chemicals have been known to cause horrendous health effects, including hormone disruption, infertility, and even cancer.

And textile workers are exposed to these chemicals as they produce hundreds of thousands or even millions of pieces of clothing a day. Additionally, consumers are exposed to these chemicals as they wear the clothing. And eventually these same chemicals leach into our waterways as they are washed.

AB405 incentivizes fashion companies and sellers to adopt business practices that are environmentally sustainable and safer for human health. And as amended, the Bill addresses the fashion industry's toxic chemical impacts by putting the force of law behind the industry, developed frameworks for chemical management.

And this Bill will hold companies accountable for their chemical usage and implement necessary guardrails to ensure that health and safety of California residents. And we aim to increase transparency and hold companies accountable while driving innovation to ensure that fashion is safe for workers, consumers and the environment.

And with me today are Maxine Bedot from the New Standard Institute and Scott Echols from the ZDHC Foundation.

I'll turn it over to you and Assemblymember you have accepted the amendments.

We do accept the amendments. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Maxine Beydotte. I'm here on behalf of the New Standard Institute, the sponsoring organization of AB 405. I am not a campaigner or a paid lobbyist. I have come to this work because I came from the industry and understand how it operates in its current regulatory vacuum and the impact it has on California.

Huge players in the industry pit their suppliers against one another for the cheapest product. And now the fastest growing part of the industry are foreign players dumping cheap, low quality disposable clothing. It is a race to the bottom.

In a time in which Los Angeles has just experienced the worst fires in history, the fashion industry is responsible between 4 and 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions. And as a result of this, race to the bottom is on a path to take over 1/4 of the global carbon budget by 2050.

The race to the bottom also means increased toxic exposures for Californians, particularly California's young and marginalized communities. Toxic substances up to 428 times safe levels were found in a recent test of Shein and Temu Children's wear. The Fashion act is common sense legislation drafted with the companies that would have to comply with it.

These leading companies recognize that to address the collective action problem in the industry means they need to be regulated. California has spent significant sums ensuring that it does its part to decarbonize. And McKinsey research looking at sample supplier found decarbonization would cost 2 cents per cotton t shirt.

The laggards in the fashion industry have long claimed change and knowing where their products were produced was an impossible task. However, the tariffs that the Trump Administration has just announced will quickly demonstrate how change is very possible and is now inevitable.

So as the industry retools its supply chain, now is the opportunity for California to ensure that this retooling ends the race to the bottom so that we have safe products safe protect our young people, one third of whom report feeling addicted to fast fashion and have an industry that does its part with marginal cost to address its current outside's role in addressing the climate crisis and an opportunity for California innovators, producers and brands to benefit.

With the floor raised for all parties, we respectfully ask you to vote Aye on AB405.

Thank Good afternoon Chair and Members. My name is Scott Echols and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm a chemist with nearly 40 years experience and I'm currently the Chief Impact Officer at the nonprofit ZDHC Foundation. Having worked at a major sportswear brand, I understand firsthand the complexity of the fashion supply chain.

This complexity led to the creation of the ZDHC Collaboration which works globally to advance sustainable chemicals management in the textile, apparel and footwear industries. We bring together over 300 brands, suppliers and chemical formulators along the fashion value chain. I'm here today in strong support of AB405.

The Bill builds on what we know, that transparency and accountability and chemical use are essential not just for public health, but for climate impact as well. Our recent study with Sustain confirms that the chemicals used in textile production directly influence greenhouse gas emissions, especially where the dyeing and finishing where they interact with water and heat.

By using better chemistry, these manufacturers can reduce both energy use and emissions, improve efficiency while protecting workers, communities, ecosystems and ultimately the consumers. AB 405 builds on existing industry standards rather than creating new ones from scratch. The chemical limits align with those already in use across the sector.

And the Bill references globally recognized frameworks like the OECD due diligence guidance. The tools that support this, such as ZDHC's MRSL, our wastewater guidelines, our chemical inventory tracking system are already being used by thousands of facilities worldwide. And now is the right time to act.

Supply chains are shifting rapidly due to tariffs and geopolitics as relationships between brands and suppliers are reconfigured. AB 405 would ensure that the health, safety and environmental integrity are baked into those new contracts not bolted on later. So ZDHC supports legislation like AB405 because it enables aligned action.

It sets the foundation for our future work where we seek to measure not just compliance, but actual environmental impact. Thank you for your leadership. I urge an aye vote on AB 405.

Thank you. Do we have any remaining Members of the public who wish to indicate their support for the measure?

Come on up, Noah. Noah Melroy. No, not quite. Noah Melroy, on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in support. Thank you.

The California Center for Environmental Health has authorized me to convey their support on behalf of the bill. My name is Bettina Baumgarten. Due to competing hearings, the Consumer Federation of California has authorized me to convey their support for the bill.

Patagonia, a California domiciled fashion company and fashion seller, has authorized me to convey their support for the bill. Reformation, a California domiciled fashion brand and fashion seller, has authorized me to convey their support for the bill. Rothy's, a California fashion seller, has authorized me to convey their support.

Eileen Fisher, a California fashion seller, has authorized me to convey their support for the bill. Faherty, a California fashion seller, has authorized me to convey their support for the bill. Thredup, a California domiciled company and a Member of the California Retail Association has authorized me to convey their support for the bill.

Cotopaxi, a California fashion seller, has authorized me to convey their support for the bill. Another Tomorrow. A fashion brand selling into California has authorized me to convey their support. Californians Against Waste has authorized me to convey their support for the bill. The Climate center has authorized me to convey their support.

Alliance for Nurses for Healthy Environments has authorized me to convey their support for the bill. California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice has authorized me to convey their support for the bill. Flap Happy a California domicile business, has authorized me to convey their support.

Eco Fashion Manufacturers, a fashion manufacturer and fashion seller, has authorized me to convey their support. Community Made, a California domiciled fashion manufacturer and fashion brand, has authorized me to convey their support for the Bill. The Plastic Pollution Coalition has authorized me to convey their support for the Bill.

The Association for Farmers Rights Defense has authorized me to convey their support. Blue Ocean warriors has authorized me to convey their support for the bill. Map Guild, a sustainable organizational consulting company, has authorized me to convey their support.

The Fashion Action Network, a student organization at San Francisco State University, has authorized me to convey their support for the bill. Unravel, a student organization at the University of California, Los Angeles, has authorized me to convey their support. Sustainable Fashion Program at.

So maybe just say the names of the organization.

No problem. Sustainable Fashion Program at California State University at Northridge. Students for a Sustainable Stanford Design Kids, Stanford University, Cardinal Policy Group, University of San Diego Social Justice Club, Surfrider. Student organization at UC Berkeley.

Defend Our Health, Clean Earth for Kids, Community Action Against Plastic Waste, Heirs to the Ocean, Zero Waste in San Diego, The Last Plastic Straw Shark Stewards, Save the Albatross Coalition and the Diana Circle of Jewish Silicon Valley. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Gabrielle Baumgarten. I'm a sophomore at Redwood High School in Larkspur California and I'm here to support the Fashion Act.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Gracie Honsa. I'm here to represent Unspun, a Fashion Technology Certified B Corp. That's located in Emeryville, California and we support the Fashion Act.

Tony Hackett from Californians Against Waste and Heal the Bay in support.

Thank you. Do we have anyone in opposition to AB 405? Please come forward.

Is it afternoon already? I forget what time it is. Good afternoon. My name is Rachel Michelin. I'm the President and CEO for the California Retailers Association. I'd like to make 1.0 before I start. Someone mentioned Thredup was a Member of our Association. They are not a Member of the California Retailers Association.

I just want to clarify that. Honorable Chair Members, I'm here today on behalf of my Members in respectful opposition day before O5 due to its potential to disproportionately burden California consumers with increased costs and its redundancy with existing impending state regulations.

While environmental accountability in the fashion industry is a shared goal, this Bill risks undermining affordability for working families and duplicating efforts already underway. 405 will increase costs for California consumers. The bill's compliance requirements, including mandatory environmental due diligence, emissions reporting and wastewater testing will impose significant operational costs on businesses.

These costs will inevitably be passed on to consumers through higher prices with rising tariffs, supply chain disruptions and inflation.

AB405's added burdens come at the worst possible time for retailers and consumers which will result in California's low and middle income families who spend a higher proportion of their income on essentials like clothing bearing the brunt of these price hikes. But more importantly, AB 405 duplicates already existing California laws.

The California Legislature banned PFAS in new Textiles which started January 1st of 2025 and the DTSC already regulates chemicals in textiles including PFAS treatments under the Safer Consumer Products regulations of which CRA has been collaborating with in order to educate the retail industry on SB253. The Climate Corporate Data Accountability act already requires admission disclosures for companies.

And SB 707 which CRA worked with the author and stakeholders for two years and we never opposed that Bill because we wanted to ensure the policy was correct is the first in the nation.

EPR for textiles and CRA is actively engaged in ensuring that this legislation is implemented as a model for other states, keeping in mind that the program is cost effective for both consumers and businesses. And finally, DTSC's Green Chemistry Initiative already evaluates chemicals in consumer products and mandates alternatives.

While we appreciate the author's leadership to advancing California's climate policy, this Bill imposes stricter reporting requirements than many international frameworks, which will only increase the cost of living in California. AB 405's well intentioned goals are already addressed in California's robust legislative and regulatory framework.

Instead of layering duplicative mandates, we urge the Committee to allow existing laws and regulations time to demonstrate their results. And we respectfully ask the Committee to oppose AB405 to protect affordability for California families.

Thank you. We're going to pause for a minute and establish a quorum.

[Roll call]

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Adam Regley. On behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, in respectful opposition, we've tagged this bill as a cost driver, aligning our comments with the Retail Association in terms of really again, duplicating efforts that we as an industry pride ourselves on sustainability.

We worked diligently and in good faith with Senator Josh Newman last year on the state's first extended producer responsibility program or creating a circular economy for the entire fashion industry. And in that Bill we worked on getting recycling rates, addressing chemicals of concern, not only pfas, but other chemicals as well.

We are trying to stand up really the nation's most aggressive EPR program for textiles. And we did that in good faith.

And then literally the very next year before they even had time to do regulations on that, we are now imposing another mandate that overlaps with not only SB253, the climate disclosure, but drops that down by tenfold to go to $100 million.

But then now we're talking about amendments that candidly, Chamber has not even had sufficient time to review. We don't know what those thresholds, the supporters have argued they're internationally accepted. I don't necessarily know or agree with that. We haven't seen that. So we are really opposing a Bill that we don't fully have line of sight on.

But I can tell you it will increase costs. And Roughly, Californians spend 3 to 5% of their budget, according to the Bureau of Labor, on clothing. And literally any cost right now is very sensitive for Californians right now.

And so this is not helpful during global trade wars, during California's trying to negotiate in and of itself with other nations. And now we are imposing yet another mandate on these will be cost drivers. And we anticipate this raising your constituents costs on pretty much all clothing, whether it's school uniforms or work attire or anything in between.

And so we unfortunately strongly oppose this and we'll look forward to working with the author. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any remaining Members of the public who wish to indicate their opposition for the measure?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Annalee Augustine here on behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association, also opposed. Thank you.

Any others? Seeing None. We're going to bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? Comments? Vice Chair?

I have some questions for the author. So this bill would require global companies based in California and other states and other countries to trace their entire supply chains backwards. How would DTSC and its staff be able to determine how other countries and states manage their on site chemicals and water discharge?

Well, I think similar to other disclosure bills. Right. So this would work in concert with the other disclosure bills, not necessarily looking at what other countries are doing, but asking the companies to trace those.

Okay. And then historically the Committee has raised concerns about safer consumer products programs, not reviewing enough substances to the Committee's satisfaction. How would these significant additional responsibilities affect the department's ability to execute its already existing mission?

Do you want to respond to one of those?

The chemicals that are proposed in the list are already on accepted lists. They're already controlled by the companies that are manufacturing globally. And so I would not expect that there would be new chemicals that a brand would say, this is not something we already have in our restricted list.

And would they need to hire more staff or redirect staff to be able to do this new program or complete this program?

I think most of the brands that we work with are already tracking these items.

Would DTSC, would they need to hire more staff?

We don't expect that. I mean the chemicals that we're talking about were added through the Committee's amendments. And these are things like formaldehyde, lead flame retardants. We don't expect that there's going to be an extra hiring on these.

Okay. And then so I'm nervous about how this fits into the, not just our nation, but the rest of the world and their rules. For example, the EU rules don't meet the rules of this Bill. Which framework does a California company have to follow? Do they follow the national rules? Do they follow international rules?

Like how do we, how do we help them as a Legislature trying to help businesses in California?

Yeah, no, it's a good question. Assemblymember the ABA 405 was drafted to harmonize with the EU due diligence framework. And we have specific provisions that a company can submit a due diligence report that is prepared to meet other national and international reporting requirements.

So the bill is designed to allow companies to work within the frameworks in the EU as well as this legislation.

Okay, and then do we have an estimate of how much this is going to cost the businesses? And then, like, will any of that cost be passed on to the consumers?

I think that when we talk about cost to consumers, many consumers think that they're purchasing lower cost items. Right. Because the cost on the shelf might be a lower cost. What happens, though, is folks are getting sick from cancer, hormone disruption, respiratory irritation from many of the chemicals that have been found in some of these products.

And so there's a cost there too. There's a hidden cost to that. In addition, consumers are getting hit with the cost that these kinds of items are designed to be thrown away. They're designed to not wear multiple times or to be kept for years.

And so you layer that cost on top, expect this to raise costs from the perspective that many of these chemicals are already on some of the company's restricted materials list or company restricted lists.

So we see this as synergistic with where the industry is already going, but is a needed step given how sick folks can get from these chemicals in their apparel.

Okay. Does the opposition have answers to any of those questions to add on to that?

Yeah, I appreciate the question. I mean, with all due respect, this Bill was introduced without any consultation with us. And so I'm not sure which companies were worked with. So from our perspective, we weren't consulted. We do think costs will pass through almost inevitably as margins on textiles are pretty small.

The other thing with formaldehyde and azo dyes and some of the other chemicals, they are on the Prop 65 list. So if there is this cancer cluster or exposure that is articulated by the sponsors and author, then Prop 65 already has the requirement for warnings if you are at levels that trigger either reproductive toxicant or cancer.

So it does both. And the list is duplicative of Prop 65 in our mind. And so are we suggesting Prop 65 is a failure? It's one of the most aggressive and limitless costs on companies when they, when they litigate. It's 2,500 per day as well. And so that's why in our articulation of our opposition, we.

We say it's not only duplicative, but in some ways in contrast with other existing regulatory regimes.

Yeah, you know, and I'll, I'll add that, you know, someone mentioned, you know, for my Members and trying to lean into all of these different EPR programs. And my Members are under a number of EPR programs, including I'm an active Member of the SB54 Advisory Committee. And so we're working through regulations around that.

They don't even know who to look towards. Is it Prop 65? Is it DTSC? Is it SB707? Is it 54? Is it Cal Recycle? It is getting to the point where I was just in Washington, D.C.

last week, where there's going to be lack of products for Californians because it's getting to the point where it's getting so difficult because it's layer upon layer. And I think to my colleague's point, we spent two years in good faith negotiating SB707. My Members are paying into the pro multimillions of dollars to make that pro successful.

I am all into making that work and being a national model. And boom, this gets introduced a Bill that failed twice in New York and just recently failed in Washington because of the cost. And yet here we are grappling with this Bill when all we've been hearing from the Legislature is affordability.

And I'm going to tell you, I've talked to multiple, and my Members are not some of the Members I think, that the author has been mentioning. We're trying to take this seriously and do our responsibility for the environment. This is going to just. It's one thing after another in California.

And it's really getting to the point of my Members are saying, is it worth it to even operate in the state?

And I'm frustrated as a Californian because this will increase costs when we're seeing people grappling with getting lunches, school lunches, we're dealing with healthcare, rising insurance costs, rebuilding Los Angeles, and we already have first in the nation, EPR for textiles coming down the pipeline. So, I mean, I appreciate what they're trying to do.

The great thing about California, we've already been doing it and this is just adding on to it. Again, it's like a hamburger. And it's getting so big we can't even take a bite out of it. Thank you.

I'm very concerned about the implementation, just challenges and how, how the ripple effect of this works and the cost associated to it. I think it's already challenging to live in California, let alone be a small business owner or business owner in California. And we are facing a huge economic crisis in the next few years.

So I respectfully will be opposing your Bill. But I appreciate the intent and I think we already are leading the way environmentally in California and we have to give some relief to our businesses.

But thank you other Members. Yes, yes, Mr.

Chair to the author, I appreciate you bringing this Bill as well. It's a thoughtful Bill. Now let me ask you guys a little bit, something about SB 707. Was that last year? Yes, that was the last year Bill.

He signed it in the fall, September.

And so this year for me, I'm really concerned with passing on prices right now and I'm staying, I'm doing this everywhere. So I'm keeping my word because I can't say it to one Member and not say it to all the Members.

But I really, really, we really, really have to look, have to watch out, especially this particular year on raising costs on consumers. Another thing is like I do believe that we have to let things work itself through.

Like if we have a bill last year, let's give it a couple years, let's work it through, let's see if it how that works. Let's give the regulations time. So on this one, and I would love to see you guys work together too, a little bit closer.

But on this Bill today, I'm going to have to stay off of it because I'm going to stay consistent across the board with cost affordability. We just got to kind of keep the prices down this year. Thank you.

Other questions or comments from Members, CNN before we get back to the author, I understand there may be one other witness who wanted to briefly come up. Name organization supportive or a pose.

Sorry, I was another I'm so sorry. Fatima Ibal Zaber for California Environmental Voters in strong support and also doing a MeToo for Sierra Club. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Addis. Would you like to close?

Sure. I'll just briefly address the 707 that 707 attempts to address textile waste on the back end but doesn't address on the front end before textiles enter our market. And that's what this Bill would do. Also very much committed to working with the opposition. Happy to chat.

I think we actually have talked in our office about this Bill a little bit and happy to continue those conversations if we're able to get this Committee get this Bill out of Committee. Happy to continue those conversations and so just would respectfully ask for an aye vote from the Committee Members so that we can continue the conversation.

Yes.

So you know what, I'll give you the vote today if you work through with the, with, with the Opposition before it gets to the floor.

And Assemblymember happy to continue that work.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that sentiment. Thank you for bringing the Bill forward. It sounds like a clear understanding there will be more work on this Bill as it moves forward, hopefully to another policy Committee. I'll just say I agree with you. It's important to reduce the amount of toxic chemicals in the clothes sold in California.

With that and kind of the ongoing work you've committed to, the Chair does recommend an aye vote in this case. Do I have a motion? And second on AB 405. Got a motion. Papan. Second McKinnor, please call the roll.

This is file item number one, AB 405, authored by Assemblymember Addis. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Natural Resources.

[Roll call]

So that bill currently has three votes. We're gonna keep it on call and wait for absent Members. Thank you again.

Thank.

Thanks.

Assemblymember Papan, are you ready? Oh, Senate Member Irwin is here. Yeah, why don't we go there? Welcome. Yeah, I. I didn't see Jacqui. Taking up file item 3, AB 762 vape pens, single use prohibition. Assemblymember Irwin, welcome. And we'd love to hear about your bill, AB 762.

All right, thank you so much. Chair Connolly and good afternoon members. I'm pleased to present AB 762, which would ban the sale and distribution of disposable vapes in California. Unfortunately, these disposable devices are incredibly popular and have become an accessory for several age groups. You can see them in bars, restaurants, workplaces, and even in our children's backpacks.

They often look like mundane objects like pens. But a new trend is emerging to include elaborate screens and buttons to play classic games like Pac man or Tetris.

As distressing as it is to see these single use devices in the hands of kids or thrown on the sidewalks, the scariest place to find one is in the place that manufacturer designs them for the trash can.

With designs that prevent the refilling of vape liquid and the recharging of lithium ion battery, these devices have an intended lifespan of about one week. The lithium batteries and vapes are highly flammable and cannot be removed. And they pose costly safety issues at every point of the waste stream.

Marketed as disposable and absent a robust EPR program for these devices, they are thrown in the trash and sent to material recovery centers and landfills where they ignite, posing safety risks to workers. Local governments end up shouldering the cost of extinguishing and cleaning up dangerous battery fires, putting firefighters in harm's way.

Although single use vapes pose dangers to their surrounding environments when littered, AB 762 focuses on the immediate impacts to the waste stream and the dangers they pose to recycling facilities and those that operate them. And this is not a problem without a readily available solution, as there are already reusable options that are refillable and rechargeable.

We don't throw away our Iphones after a week or our laptops after a week, and we should not treat any other lithium ion devices differently. I'd also like to take a moment to note that this bill is similar to AB 1670 by former Assembly Member Luz Rivas.

That bill was amended from a ban on all vape devices to a ban on single use devices, removing opposition from several groups including the California Chamber. AB 762 has strong enforcement mechanisms to deter the sale of single use devices before the consumers have the chance to purchase them in the store.

While opposition points to illegal online sales as the source of this problem, I would point out that convenience sought by disposable vape consumers is not met by a Chinese manufacturer that takes two weeks to deliver the package, but by the corner convenience store.

With me to testify in support of the bill are Nick Lapis from Californians Against Waste and Joe La Mariana from RethinkWaste.

Good afternoon chair and committee members, Nick Lapis with environmental group Californians Against Waste. While there are a lot of reasons to be concerned about the growth in vapes, especially among teens, I'm really here to talk about the environmental impact of disposable vapes. Disposable vapes are an environmental disaster at every stage of their life.

The critical minerals that go into making the batteries in these products are not only a finite resource, but extracting and processing them has huge environmental and social impacts, and because of the way they are designed, we have absolutely no way to recycle them.

So these resources are lost for good no matter where the product ends up at end of life. In the US alone, we throw away four and a half disposable vapes every single second, which would be enough to make batteries for 2,600 electric vehicles. But the environmental impacts don't stop at point of production.

Each disposable vape is approximately equivalent to a pack of cigarettes, so you can imagine how quickly they add up for a pack a day smoker. Once the consumer is finished with a vape, there is no good place for that product to go.

The best case scenario is that a person will go out of their way to collect all of their vapes and take them to a household hazardous waste drop off location.

In that scenario they are collected and eventually incinerated out of state at both a great cost to the local governments that run those facilities and and to the health of the communities that live by those incinerators. Realistically, they mostly go into one of our three waste bins or are littered.

In any of these outcomes they're both directly hazardous to the environment and pose a significant fire risk. In recycling facilities, especially, the batteries in these vapes risk being punctured or going into what's known as thermal runaway.

With the fires potentially spreading incredibly quickly among the fast moving conveyor belts and and dry paper that make up most of our recyclables, these fires pose an existential risk to the entire recycling system and a gigantic cost to ratepayers.

As you'll hear more hear more from our co sponsor and the kicker is that there are readily available alternatives. Went to 7/11 today. The same company who happens to be lead opponent of the bill sells a disposable and refillable option. So there are these alternatives. They're readily available.

And that is why several countries including the UK, New Zealand, France, Belgium and others have banned the disposable version of these vapes. Thank you.

Good afternoon Mr. Chair and fellow committee members. My name is Joe La Mariana. I am the Executive Director of RethinkWaste. RethinkWaste is a public joint powers authority, a public agency that's based in San Mateo County. We are a coalition of 11 government entities in the county.

We own and operate the Shoreway Environmental Center that's located in San Carlos. We handle about 420,000 tons of unknown materials a year and these items are in there. And we, our workers and our facilities are at risk every single day that they're there. We also collect material from 420,000 residents and about 11,000 businesses.

RethinkWaste is a proud co sponsor of AB 762 because we've seen firsthand how fires impact material recovery facilities. What you would probably call recycling centers, we call them material recovery facilities. Embedded batteries in particular cause fires that are really hard put out. You can't just splash water on them.

You've got to cut them out away from all the other fuel and let them burn out. That's the runaway thermal event that Nick was just talking about a moment ago. These battery fires are frequent and they harm facility workers and damage our equipment and the ratepayer owned facilities.

The repairs are expensive and they can definitely increase rates to our ratepayers. In 2016, our facility experienced a four alarm fire from a lithium ion battery at the Shoreway Environmental Center. We were closed for over four months. During that period, about 60 workers were furloughed. We experienced $8.5 million in equipment replacement costs.

The material that normally would have been processed on site had to go to an alternative facility and some of it went to the landfill. And it had a dramatic increase on our insurance. It increased about 200x.

So it is with that compelling background and perspective, we strongly urge an I vote for AB 762 to protect the safety of the workers and the ratepayers facilities. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any remaining members of the public who wish to indicate their support for the measure? Come on up.

Good afternoon, my name is Andria Ventura. I'm with Clean Water Action.

In support, Nancy Buermeyer, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. In support.

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

Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties. In support.

Hello. Keely Morris with Edelstein, Gilbert Robson and Smith on behalf of the Los Angeles County sanitation districts. In support.

Good afternoon. Michael Caprio with Republic Services here in support.

John Kennedy on behalf of the rural counties in support.

Jeff Neil representing both Yolo County and Waste Management both in support.

Mandi Strella on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, FAX the Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety, the Alliance of Nurses for a Healthy Environment, Plastic Free Future, the Sierra Club, the Surfrider Foundation, CALPIRG, Heal the Bay and 5 Gyres in support.

Good afternoon. April Robinson with the Voice for Choice Advocacy in support.

Thank you, members. Jason Schmelzer here on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council, SWANA and Stop Waste in support.

Thank you. Do we have anyone in opposition to AB 762?

Good afternoon. Can you hear me? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members. Amy Jenkins, here on behalf of the California Cannabis Operators Association in respectful opposition. We represent hundreds of licensed operators across the supply chain from from farmers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. We share the author's commitment to environmental safety and consumer protection.

And yet banning integrated cannabis vaporizer devices will not achieve those goals. It will only deepen an already growing problem, the illicit market. Patients depend on integrated cannabis vaporizers that are safe, accessible, and long lasting. These devices are especially important for medical patients managing chronic pain or mobility impairments, people for whom connecting rechargeable cartridges may be difficult or impossible. I also want to note that the characteristic of single use or non-reusable is misleading.

A half a gram device delivers 150 doses and a full gram delivers more than 300. These are used over weeks and months and not discarded after one session. Under California's strict product safety laws, they are also not refillable. And this is to adhere to our rigorous testing protocols and protect against contamination. California's legal industry is among the most regulated in the world. In contrast, the illicit market faces none of these requirements.

And this bill will only push consumers back to illegal products. The public health risks are real. The Centers for Disease control linked the 2019 EVALI outbreak to illicit market vapes, not legal vapes. And removing compliant tested products from legal shelves will not protect consumers. I would also note that this bill, we believe, is premature.

There was another Rivas bill, AB 1894, that took effect on July 1st of last year, that requires legal cannabis operators to provide proper disposal education and treat these products as hazardous waste. So if we adhere to this ban, as proposed in the bill, you are eliminating the only consumer education and awareness program that we offer. And again, we will still have a thriving illicit market for these products. So for all these reasons, we are in respectful opposition to this bill and urge your no vote today. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Alessandra Magnasco, and I'm here on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, which represents a majority of California's 12,000 gas stations and convenience stores. We must respectfully oppose AB 762.

We absolutely understand and respect the intent behind this bill to reduce environmental harm, but the practical effect will be to push consumers towards unregulated illicit markets, creating greater risk to public health and safety. We've seen this play out before. When flavored tobacco products were banned in California, demand didn't disappear, it just moved to the illicit market.

The same will happen here. Disposable vapor devices with embedded batteries are still in high demand. If licensed retailers can't sell them, consumers will turn to online sources, street vendors, and other unregulated channels. And that's dangerous. Products sold in the illicit market aren't subject to California's strict safety standards, age verification, or quality controls.

That puts young people and everyday consumers at real risk from harmful ingredients to faulty batteries. At the same time, the state loses out on millions in tax revenue from legal sales, funds that support public health programs as a priority, while spending more on enforcement to try and chase down bad actors.

We urge you not to repeat the mistakes of the past. AB 762 will hurt compliant, responsible retailers and empower illegal sellers. Let's work together on smarter solutions that address environmental goals without compromising consumer safety or state and local revenue. Thank you, and I respectfully urge your no vote.

Do we have any remaining members of the public who wish to indicate their opposition to this measure?

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. Anthony Butler-Torrez on behalf of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sara Arsenault on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association in respectful opposition.

Oracio Gonzalez on behalf of California's Business Roundtable, opposed.

Keilen Fong representing the Cal Asian Chamber in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's bring it back to the Committee. Questions from Members, comments? Assembly Member Papan, then McKinnor.

One quick question. So on the reusable one, no battery included, that would happen is, does it have a battery included? Is it recycled differently? How does the reusable one work? Because you say, oh, there's good news, there's reusable. And that may temper your arguments just a little bit. What happens to that one in the garbage? Because, you know, I come from San Mateo. I remember the fire.

So this has a rechargeable battery and then pods that you replace. So the third prop I didn't bring out just for sake of not having too many props. These are the replaceable pods that you buy. Each one is the equivalent of about a pack of cigarettes.

And so you charge the device and put in a new pod. Because they're separable, first of all, you don't throw this away as often, so there's a lot fewer of them in the trash. But if you do throw it away, you actually can recycle it because this would be going to the incinerator. But the part with the battery can go to an e-waste recycler and actually be recovered.

One more question. If you know, so how long does that rechargeable thing last?

I'm not aware of it having... It's rechargeable. So it's, I mean, I'm not aware of any finite...

I was just curious. Thanks.

And for me, hello to the author and thank you, Mr. Chair. What I'm thinking about is the cannabis piece of this. I have a lot of cannabis stores in my district, which I spoke with the author about. And I am very worried about this going into the illicit market.

As we push out cannabis and we make it, we're making something illegal, then it's going to, folks are definitely going to go into the illicit market to purchase it, which again, it does make it more dangerous for my community. It makes it more dangerous, and then we're turning cannabis into something that's illegal. And I never want to see that happen. And so with that, I'll be staying off the bill today. Thank you.

And I certainly appreciate where you're coming from. I do want to say we've heard, where we really agree is that we need enforcement to make sure that the legal market can thrive. And there has just, the state has put $28 million toward enforcement. And we were also asked to put a very strong enforcement mechanism in this bill. And so between the resources that the state has provided and the strong enforcement mechanism that we have in the bill, we're really hoping to drive out the illegal market.

And cost wise, I know you're very always very concerned about cost, but we've seen single use vapes go from $6 to $20 and have actually found rechargeable vapes that are as low as $5.99. I think that one was $10 and those are, you know, can be used many, many times. So certainly cost is not a, I think once you use for more than a few weeks, you are much better off with the reusable, with the reusable vapes.

And that's the tobacco. Correct? What about the cannabis prices?

That's a good question. I don't believe there's a very significant differential, but I will get back to you on that. It does represent a fairly substantial part of the market and I, we do offer rechargeable products. They aren't as long lasting. I don't have precise data on how long the actual rechargeable battery lasts, but it's not, I wouldn't say it's a year. I mean they definitely go out. I can tell you from experience. But the other thing I'll say about the single use is they're really not single use. They do last a significantly long time.

Now, certainly, if you are a patient and you are excessively using, that might be shorter, but some have reported these products last months and months and they are much smaller and they are more discreet. But I will get you data on the price differential. I don't believe it's substantial.

Thank you.

Other Members, questions or comments? Seeing none, I would invite the author to close.

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. I appreciate you bringing this forward. In my view, it's important to continue to reduce the source of hazardous waste before it enters the waste stream. And this bill does that by prohibiting single use vape devices. So I'm going to be recommending an aye vote today, and we'll see if we have a motion and second. Assembly Member Hart moves. And Papan seconds. Please call the roll.

This is file item 3, AB 762, authored by Assembly Member Irwin. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Business and Professions. [Roll Call]

So that matter has three votes. We're going to put it on hold on call and look for absent Members. Thank you. Okay, before we get back on file, we're going to go to the consent calendar. Madam Secretary, could you call the roll on that? Do I have a motion? And second on the consent calendar. Move. Mckinnor. Second.

[Roll Call]

That matter passes with six votes. We'll keep the roll open for absent Members. Moving back on file, it looks like. Do we have a second Assembly Member Gabriel here? File item four, AB 794, drinking water and PFAS. PFAS. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair and colleagues. I want to start by accepting the Committee amendments and thanking the Committee for the Thoughtful work on this bill. I am pleased today to present AB794, which would protect Californians from exposure to dangerous forever chemicals known as pfas in our drinking water.

These are a category of chemicals used since the 1940s and are found in many everyday products like nonstick cookware, stain resistant fabrics and firefighting foam. Unfortunately, the science is clear. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to serious health problems, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, reproductive harm, and developmental issues in infants and children.

Recent tests suggest that millions of Californians may be exposed to tap water that has been contaminated by pfas. Last year, the Biden Administration took action to establish the first ever national drinking water standards to protect Americans from PFAS exposure.

However, we've seen efforts by corporate polluters to challenge federal standards, which has raised concerns that the new Administration could weaken or roll back these protections. This bill would address these concerns by directing the State Water Board to establish a maximum contaminant level or MCL that mirrors the current MCL set at the federal level just last year.

Our Committee amendments clarify that the MCL would have the same timelines around compliance as the federal standard so water utilities will have consistency as they plan to implement treatment needed for these chemicals. This bill is based on a simple premise.

Californians shouldn't have to worry that their drinking water has been contaminated by toxic forever chemicals linked to deadly cancers and other serious health harms. Parents shouldn't have to worry that the water coming out of a tap will harm them or their kids. Californians deserve to feel confident that their drinking water is free from toxic chemicals.

California already lags behind 11 other states that have taken action to protect their residents by setting a state level mcl. Today we are advancing a bill that will take strong action to ensure that California is leading with strong science based health standards that will protect our communities from harmful chemicals regardless of what happens at the federal level.

I'm proud that this bill is supported by a coalition of public health and environmental groups that includes the American College of Ob gyns, California Environmental Voters, the Sierra Club, Clean Water Action and the Environmental Working Group. I'm pleased to have with me today to testify in support of this bill.

Scott Faber from the Environmental working group and Dr. Sarah Kirchner and OBGYN, on behalf of the American College of OBGYNs, thank you and would respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Whenever you're ready. Thank you. My name is Scott Faber and I'm testifying today on behalf of the Environmental Working Group. I'm also an adjunct law professor at Georgetown University Law Center. PFAS has so far been detected at levels exceeding the new standard in the tap water of 11.8 million Californians.

Using EPA and state data, we estimate that 264 drinking water systems in California could be subject to the new standard or just 9% of California's systems. Many of these systems have already adopted treatment to address other contaminants and will only have to modify existing technology.

As you've heard, 11 states have already adopted state standards that are similar to the federal standard without experiencing increases in water rates. Congress recently provided utilities $9 billion specifically to address PFAs and the bipartisan infrastructure law and water utilities have so far recovered $14.7 billion from PFAS manufacturers through state law litigation.

The federal standard relied on thousands of studies and received more than 120,000 public comments, including comments from ACWA, CMUA, IEUA, California Association of Municipal Water Companies, Eastern Municipal Water District, Monterey One Water, Monte Vista Water District, San Gabriel Water Quality Authority, Liberty Utilities, Orange County Water District, San Gabriel Water Valley Association, Western Urban Water Association, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and many other California organizations and individuals.

Delaying or rescinding the drinking water standard will not only increase increase the cost of treatment will also pose needless health risks to millions of Californians, including increased risk of kidney and testicular cancer. While a state drinking water standard is a priority for all of us, past efforts under state laws have taken many years.

State regulators have not yet asked OEHA for public health goals for four of the six PFAs subject to the federal standard, and setting the PhDs for PFOA and PFOS took almost five years. And that is just the first step in a state process that can take more than a decade.

If the federal standard is delayed or rescinded, almost 90 million people in 10 other states will still be protected from PFAS and their tap water.

And if you can wrap up, that would be great.

Millions of Californians will not thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairman and Members. I'm Dr. Sarah Kirschner. I'm an OB GYN here in Sacramento and I'm speaking on behalf of the American College of OB GYN's District 9 in support of AB 794.

First, I'd like to thank Assembly Member Gabriel for his commitment to protect the health of women and families and respond to a threat that's been overlooked in terms of reproductive health PFAS contamination in our drinking water acog.

The American College of OBGYN has long been committed to reducing exposure to toxic chemicals in order to ensure a healthier future for our patients. As a physician, I have many concerns about the devastating impacts of PFAS on my patient population.

PFAS has been linked to increased risks of miscarriage, preterm birth, low birth weight, and other complications during pregnancy. These chemicals disrupt hormone function, which is essential for healthy pregnancies and reproductive well being.

Studies have also shown that PFAS exposure is associated with increased rates of preeclampsia a serious blood pressure condition that can lead to life threatening complications for mothers and babies. PFAS have even been found in umbilical cord blood and breast milk, meaning exposure begins before birth and continues during critical stages of infant development.

The EPA's drinking water standards, finalized last year, were a crucial step in protecting public health. But now there is a real risk that these protections could be weakened or eliminated, leaving millions of Californians, particularly women, pregnant mothers and their children, vulnerable to the toxic chemicals. We cannot afford to let that happen.

The science is clear and so is our responsibility to ensure that every woman can go through pregnancy without the added burden of exposure to toxic chemicals and that every baby has the best possible start in life. This is not just a debate on policy. This is a debate about life and health.

As a physician, I urge you to vote I on AB 794. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any remaining Members of the public who wish to indicate their support for this measure?

Ryan Spencer. I'm going to speak on behalf of numerous supporters who have were not able to make it today, if that's okay with the chair.

Yes.

Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety, Raycolt Energy, CALPERG, Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy, Center for Community Action and Environmental justice, the Environmental Defense Federation, Children Now Center for Environmental Health, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, and Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles. All in support.

Good afternoon. My name is Andrea Ventura. I am with Clean Water Action and a co-sponsor of the bill. Very excited. I also have the other half of the list. So all in support.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Non Toxic Communities, Clean Earth for Kids, North County Equity and Justice Coalition Activist, San Diego Interfaith Coalition for Earth Justice, Green Science Policy Institute, California Environmental Voters Friends Committee on Legislation of California Resource Renewal Institute, Protect Our Watershed, San Mateo County, Sierra Club and San Francisco Bay Keeper.

Thank you, Fatima. Mike Balls will be with California and Watermelon Voters in strong support this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Mark Ysidra, on behalf of the County of Los Angeles, in support. Thanks.

Hi. April Robinson with A Voice for Choice Advocacy in support.

Nancy Biermeier, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in support. Thank you.

Do we have Anyone in opposition? AB794, please come on up.

Okay.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. My name is Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association. We regretfully oppose AB794. CMUA represents over 60 public agencies, including retailers and wholesalers that provide drinking water and wastewater services to over 75% of Californians.

AB794 goes far beyond its stated intent and would establish a dangerous precedent for adopting drinking water standards without thorough review. We understand the intent is to ensure that the federal drinking water standard for PFAS can be established in state law even if the federal standard is repealed or lowered.

But by allowing for standards to be adopted that are more stringent than the federal standard, the Bill effectively cuts scientific review and the public process. Our Members prioritize delivering safe drinking water and have invested millions in PFAS treatment. Those financial investments demonstrate a strong continued commitment to complying with the existing federal law and to protecting their customers.

The possibility that the federal standard could be repealed would not stop the statewide movement to treat PFAS. We are significantly concerned that AB794 authorizes emergency regulations for primary drinking water standards when this has never been allowed and has been expressly excluded for at least a decade.

Adopting drinking water standards through permanent rulemaking allows for the regulated community to be involved and in the process and requires the Water Board to analyze not only the scientific necessity but also technical and economic feasibility with meeting the standard.

Should the Water Board adopt a more stringent standard through this expedited process, all water agencies would be on the hook for extra financial hardships. Those impacts on smaller water agencies could mean substantial rate increases, further hurting the pockets of Californians.

This Bill also currently applies to all federal drinking water standards adopted prior to January 19th, all of which, except for PFAs, are state laws. So there's no need to expand the Bill beyond PFAs.

Lastly, we believe that there's no clear purpose for the Bill because the Water Board is engaged in pre rulemaking to adopt the federal PFAS drinking water standard and plans to initiate rulemaking later this year before this Bill would even become effective. So for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Chelsea Haynes with the Association of California Water Agencies and we respectfully have an opposed and less amended position. AQA represents 470 public water agencies that deliver 90% of the water throughout California.

AQA Members take very seriously their mission to deliver safe drinking water and comply with federal and state drinking water standards. We echo the concerns raised by CMUA. California has an important process for developing state drinking water standards. This bill provides emergency regulatory authority for developing drinking water standards, not just limited to pfas.

Also, this circumvents legal challenges to federal PFAS regulation. We recognize PFAS poses really significant health impacts and in California there are efforts underway and guardrails in place while the state develops state drinking water standards.

We've offered amendment language to the author's office that meet the stated goals to continue progress towards developing state drinking water standards, but in more targeted way than expanding emergency regulatory authority to all drinking water standards, and that maintains the state's process for developing drinking water standards.

We recommend limiting the scope of the bill to PFAs, limiting the bill to only if the federal PFAS regulation is repealed ordering water suppliers to complete federal PFAS monitoring requirements by 2027, consistent with the current federal regulation and directing the State Water Board to report annually to the Legislature on its progress for developing drinking water standards until it's completed.

We would appreciate more conversations with the author's office and require significant changes to the bill to remove our opposition. Absent to the changes, we request a no vote.

Do we have any remaining Members of the public who wish to indicate their opposition to the bill.

Mr. Chair and Members, Don Gilbert here on behalf of the Orange County Water District in opposition. Thanks.

Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities, respectfully oppose unless amended.

Mr. Chair and Members, Beth Olhasso on behalf of WateReuse California. We are opposed unless amended. I know the analysis doesn't have a category for that, but very clear that we would love to work with the author's office and echo ACWA's comments. Thank you.

Jonathan Clay on behalf of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, opposed unless amended.

Annalee Augustine here on behalf of Mesa Water District, also opposed as of right now. Thank you.

Kris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce, opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to bring it back to the Committee with any questions or comments. Vice Chair.

I always have questions. So water is very sensitive in my district. I'm very rural. I'm sitting here trying to think of the water districts in my 11 counties that would be able to be sitting in a financial position to be able to do this, and I cannot think of one. The emergency regulations make me very nervous. This would, as written, provides the State Water Board blanket authority to adopt emergency regulations. Am I understanding that right? Beyond PFAS. Beyond PFAS.

So. Well, I think the answer there is practically no. Practically speaking, no. Theoretically, if someone, if there were a bunch of things that I think have no realistic chance of happening in Washington were to happen, then theoretically that would allow for additional action by the State Water Board.

But I think as a practical matter, when we, with all due respect to law professors, when we step out of the world of law school hypotheticals, I think the answer is practically no. That this is really confined to this specific issue on this specific federal regulation that we think was really well thought out and really well developed.

Can we change the wording? So there's, it's a no, not practically no.

Always happy to have to continue to have those conversations with the opposition. I mean, we've been in very close consultation with the State Water Board as we've developed this. They provided a ton of technical feedback. We have had a lot of conversations with opposition here and we think we're on the right path.

I think part of the maybe disagreement here is because there was such a robust process at the federal level to develop this. You heard the witness talk about 100 and more than 120,000 comments, rigorous scientific review, rigorous review of the evidence. I'm not a big believer in bureaucracy for bureaucracy sake. So the idea that we would rerun all of that bureaucracy at great expense to the taxpayers when we already have really good science here.

When we already have had a very, very thorough process done at the federal level and when we already have a bunch of other states that have done the same thing, feels to me like, and I know we're in a policy committee, apologies, and we can talk about the fiscal part of this in a fiscal committee, but to me does not feel like a prudent use of or a necessary use of taxpayer resources.

So for us, it seems like there's been a lot of science, a lot of research, a lot of evidence, a lot of data, a lot of public comment. The answers are clear. So why do we want to go through this really long, really expensive, multi-year process to come to the same answer that we already have it today?

Okay, you went into my next one a little bit. So I've been told this will cost billions of dollars. Do you have an estimate on the cost to the water districts?

So because it's existing federal law, they already should all be on this process anyway. I mean, every district in, every water district in California should be on a path to complying to this, and we are just locking in the exact same timeline. I think you heard the witness talk about the fact there are literally tens of billions of dollars appropriated in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act to address this issue. 9 billion specifically for the PFAS issue. And then you have... What was the number? An additional 14.7 billion so far from litigation that is going to fund this.

So we have a minimum of 23.7. I think I did my math right. A minimum of 23.7 billion and counting to fund all this. So not only do, should water districts already be on a path to comply with it, there are billions of dollars of federal resources already and, and litigation resources flowing to fund all this.

So you mentioned all those water districts in your, in your community. And I'm very sensitive to this. I don't believe we should ask people to do things that they can't afford and that are impractical. But we think this is very well within everybody's reach and frankly are surprised that people would be pushing back on something that federal law currently requires them to already do and where resources have already been provided.

I think my concern isn't necessarily with the federal level. I think that's fine. It's already been established. It's the emergency regulations. I think we abuse emergency regulations in California and it makes me nervous. What are the requirements for that emergency regulation or has that been established?

So there's a well thought out process that's already laid down in code for developing that. I think, to your point, it requires people to consider issues like cost. It requires issues to consider. It requires rulemakers to consider issues like technical feasibility. All of that is already baked into the process and requires them to think about that.

But again, all of those are also requirements of the federal regulatory process. And so policymakers have already really, there's been a lot of conversation about all those issues. Are we asking people to do things that are technologically feasible? Is there advances in technology that will make this possible in a cost effective way?

And what the what the EPA found is, yes, there are cost effective ways to do this. This is within our power. We can protect our kids from chemicals that are going to cause cancer in their drinking water. And I actually think a lot of, I was thinking about it on the way in here.

I think a lot of Californians would be very surprised to see that their water districts are up in Sacramento pushing back on common sense environmental regulations that other states already have that their OBGYNs are saying are super necessary. So to me, that's a little bit of a surprise to see that kind of pushback.

So if this is already a federal standard, why do we need this bill?

So I think the concern here is that either because of litigation by polluters at the federal level or because of changes there, that we may walk this back. And I think the analysis did a masterful job of pointing out you're actually going to catch people in this regulatory boomerang where people are already working to comply with this regulation. They then may temporarily not have to comply with it.

I would argue that California should then step in, which is what we're trying to do now, to make sure that we're not losing that floor of protection here, to make sure that when I turn on the tap before Little League and fill up those water bottles that I don't have to worry that my kids are being exposed to chemicals that are going to cause cancer or reproductive harm or any of the other things that there's no dispute in the science about.

So to me, I think we already have this good level of protection. If we're worried about it going away, let's just create certainty for everybody and lock that in. And then parents can feel confidence, kids can feel confidence. Water agencies don't have to worry about what the answer may or may not be. Let's just lock that in and then we can all know that we're providing an appropriate level of protection for our communities.

Okay, so Orange County Water District has two and a half million people. It's going to cost them $1.8 million to implement this. So that would come from federal funds, then. The grant program. Is there enough federal funds to cover all of that?

We think that there should be, we think that there should be... Again, in this... You know, usually we talk about these things in fiscal committee, but we think that there should be more than enough resources here to cover all of this from the federal level.

Thank you.

Brief response to one of the questions.

Yes. Yes. If that's okay. The concern with the, with the costs and how water systems are already investing millions, which I, we did. We totally agree. Our water systems are investing. The concern is with more. So when you look at more stringent standards, that's when there's going to be added costs that are unknown. And in this process, you don't do a cost analysis as thoroughly as the regulatory process that is ongoing.

And if the concern is to keep in place the federal standard, which everyone is working towards right now, you can do that in other ways through an order complying with the monitoring. And the water board can then proceed with its regulatory process to adopt a MCL on the state level without disrupting the investment process.

I just wanted to clarify. Orange County Water District, their cost is $1.8 billion. And so... That 9. The 9 million that was referenced that's available federally, that's nationwide. So... But we know we have the Budget Chair support for help with funding.

That's a huge concern for me and my, yeah. And my water, my water districts are all run, most run by volunteers. They're not even going...

Yeah, I was just going to, I was just going to point out, I know, you know, we saw this the other day and the federal government cut $11 billion in a program and actually $1.0 billion was going to be cut from California. So we do get, because of our size, because of how large our population is, because of what our percentage of the, of the population United States are, we're going to get a very significant percentage of that federal funding that's out there. That's usually how these things work, just because we're so large.

So I, again, I think we're all very, very sensitive to cost of living issues, to making sure that things are feasible. But I would argue that if we're looking for ways to save money, I wouldn't do it by asking Californians to drink tap water that we know has chemicals in it that are going to cause them cancer or going to cause reproductive harms that you heard.

And the costs that we're ultimately going to bear as individuals, as consumers, as taxpayers, and as a state for from all of the harm is so much more significant. So to me, this is a very wise investment in the health of our population, in the health of our children, and also in the health of our state budget.

Because think about, you know, we're talking and we're having a big conversation about health care costs and what's driving health care costs. So if we're gonna do a lot of work here on the front end to protect kids and families and, you know, pregnant women from all of the things that you heard the OBGYN talk about, those are ultimately savings that are gonna accrue to the state. So to me, this is actually both good policy, good health care policy and smart fiscal policy.

Let's move on to our next Committee Member. Yeah, Assembly Member Papan.

You were so busy waxing on about all this, how could I possibly interrupt? So I want to get back to just the nuts and bolts of what water agencies go through for a minute. As I understand it, while this might be an emergency enactment, the timelines within which to comply are not going to...

I have that right. Okay, so I do want to make one comment. While we hope to get our federal money back, you notice how I said federal money back. Being the donor state that we are, I look forward to getting our federal money back. But nonetheless, it's my understanding as it relates to water agencies and my time in local government, all of this work and what is being newly mandated as we go along. And it's not just PFAs.

There's a lot of things that come into being for water providers. Is that some will be absorbed by rate payers and that there is a... What's the word? A timeline for how one gets rate increases. You know, Prop 218, you got to go through this process, yada, yada, yada.

And so I just want to say that I like the part of the bill that's not going to alter timelines because it makes your job incredibly difficult given that there's only certain times that you're going to be allowed to go back to the ratepayers and say, hey, can you help us make water better with these new requirements?

So that's very important to me as it relates to this bill in particular because I am sensitive that we ain't getting all back from the feds. You like how I keep saying that? Back from the feds, California being the donor state that it is. But also it gives you a little time in the planning and the process.

I don't think anybody can dispute that PFAS and in our water. These are pretty... You know, when this first came out by the feds, I met with a lot of water agencies. And I recognize this is a fairly low level to get to. And I played in the PFAS elimination game before.

But I want to do everything we can to get there. So I will be supporting the bill. But I just want you to know that I'm sensitive to what you go through to make these regulations happen and to be able to fund this kind of infrastructure. And we'll continue to work together on it because we got a Budget Chair, as you mentioned, like Assembly Member Gabriel.

Not seeing any other questions or comments, would invite the author to close.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Assembly Member, for being so on message with our getting our resources back. I do think it's an important conversation, and I appreciate the questions. I appreciate the spirit of the questions. I think they're, they're the right questions to be asking.

And obviously, you know, everything is a balance, right? And that was the process. There was a lot of conversation at the federal level as the EPA was developing this rule about that balance. And you know, we, we're always thinking about those things, right.

When we set a speed limit, when we set any kind of, any kind of regulation where we're balancing different things. And so, you know, my take on this is, and I do also want to thank Assembly Member Papan for the conversation about the implementation timeline, because that was helpful in our thinking about phasing it in, in the right way.

So as I listen to the conversation, and I don't want to speak for the opposition, I don't, I don't think we're actually that far apart on pieces of this bill. I think there's a lot that we do agree on on the need for it and doing it in the right way and in a way that is going to, going to work for folks.

So I will just go back to say we believe that this was an important step forward that the Administration took in Washington after a lot of thoughtful consideration. We are worried about litigation and other things out there that might make that go away. And locking in that level of protection would help California to be on the same level as a lot of states that have actually moved ahead of us on this.

And also give California consumers, moms and dads, and others in your district confidence that when they turn on the tap and they fill up their kid's water bottle, that they're not going to be exposing their kids to chemicals that I don't think any of us wants our kids to be exposed to.

And so for that, we see this as a common sense environmental protection. We're happy to continue conversations with industry. We know that they have tough jobs, as everybody does, and to try to create something that we hopefully everybody could be proud of. And with that, would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Really appreciate that. Thank you for bringing the bill forward. I think it's important to keep the federal drinking water state standard on PFAS in place. The longer we wait to comply with the federal regulation, the more expensive it will be. The Chair is recommending an aye vote on this item. Do I have a motion and second on AB 794? Okay, motion, Papan. Second, Hart. Madam Secretary.

This is file Item 4, AB 794, authored by Assembly Member Gabriel. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That matter has four votes. It passes, but we will keep the roll open. Yep.

Going to move to file item number five. AB 1148. Food packaging, chemicals, prohibition. Assembly Member Sharpe-Collins. Welcome. Whenever you're ready. AB 1148.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I am pleased to be here today to present AB 1148. Every day we are exposed to multiple layers of different toxins and pollutants that contribute to cancer risk. Some of us are more exposed than others, depending on where--

On where we live or even where we work. And when you or someone that you care about has cancer, you become very aware of how those layers of risk add up. This is why I am championing AB 1148, the Safer Food Packaging act, which bans three chemicals that are commonly found in food packaging.

One being anthonymonic trioxide, two, being phthalates and three bisphenols. While these chemicals are banned at the federal level from being used in food, they are still permitted in the materials our food come in to contact with. These chemicals have already been banned in other products here in California.

Phthalates were banned from cosmetics in 2020 and from IV bags in 2024. They've been banned from children's toys since 2007. Bisphenol was initially banned in baby bottles in 2010, and last year that ban was expanded to include all bisphenol in children's drinkware.

Anthemony has been banned from newly upholstered furniture, replacement components of reupholstered furniture, foam and mattresses, and certain children's products since 2020. These chemicals are scary enough to keep out of baby's mouths, but while the material. Let me start over.

These chemicals are scary enough to keep out of baby's mouths and the materials that we sleep on and out of IV bags, but they can still be used in the packaging that touches our food.

This legislation is a conversation on outcomes, on how we can decrease cancer and how we can decrease the risk which some of these very items that we come in contact with on a daily basis, the chemicals that we are talking about, we know they are hazardous. We know they are in our food packaging.

We know they get into our bodies whenever we eat the food. So let's find a way that is reasonable to all of our consumers and to the industry and how to decrease the risk of breast cancer. This is a long term conversation that I do intend to have.

I am committed to working with the industry through this process to develop the policy and timeline that will make the packaging our food actually become safer. We have already amended our language to accept the TMBPF which has been identified as a safer alternative to bisphenol. But let's talk about what other alternatives are actually viable.

What kind of timeline do we need to do this smart work and actually to be able to do this right? I urge you all to support AB 1148 not just as a piece of legislation, but as a commitment to protect the health of our communities and future generations.

Together we can create a safer, healthier California where the food we use every day supports our well being rather than compromise that. So thank you so much

Here with me today to testify in support, I do have Dr. Rainbow Rubin, the Director of Science of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, and Nancy Buermeyer, the Director of Program and Policy for Breast Cancer Prevention Partners.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and thank you, Assembly Member Dr. Sharp-Collins, for your leadership on AB 1148.

I'm Rainbow Rubin and I have a PhD in nutritional biology from UC Davis and an MPH in environmental health from UC Berkeley. Did you know that over 12,000 chemicals can be used to make food contact materials and over 1800 are known to migrate into food.

19 different phthalates and multiple bisphenols have been frequently detected in both food contact materials and in humans. A recent study documenting the evidence of widespread food contamination found that the two most common chemical groups used in food contact materials are plasticizers such as phthalates and metals.

AB 1148 focuses on these chemicals in the form of bisphenols used in canned food lining phthalates, a plasticizer and antimony trioxide, a metal. We are all exposed to these chemicals because they are in plastics we encounter every day and we know these chemicals leach from packaging into food.

Recent testing of 85 different supermarket foods and fast foods found widespread bisphenol and phthalate contamination. Testing in 2022 found 40% of the beverage samples from PET plastic bottles had antimony levels above the OEHA public health goal for drinking water. We know that these chemical exposures are harmful to our health, resulting in adverse health effects.

Authoritative bodies and a growing body of peer reviewed scientific literature demonstrates associations between these chemicals and adverse chronic developmental, reproductive and neurological health effects. Exposure to these chemicals increases breast cancer risk and and bisphenols and phthalates are known to interfere with breast cancer chemotherapy treatments, reducing efficacy of chemotherapeutic drugs.

The good news is that when we remove these food packaging exposures, chemical levels in our bodies have been shown to decrease which is why I urge your aye vote to eliminate these chemicals from food packaging. Thank you for your leadership.

Hi Nancy Buermeyer, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and thank you Assemblymember Dr. Sharpe-Collins for your leadership on AB 1148, the Safer Food Packaging Act. I also want to thank the committee for their work on this legislation.

Breast Cancer Prevention Partners is a science based organization working to prevent breast cancer by reducing exposure to chemicals linked to the disease. One in eight women will be diagnosed with cancer in her lifetime. 32,000 Californians are diagnosed and 4,600 will die each year from this devastating disease. And women are getting breast cancer younger and younger.

AB 1148 can make an important contribution to reducing people's exposure to chemicals linked to cancer and other health harms. We are proud co sponsors along with CALPIRG and Environmental Working Group. You have just heard how hazardous these chemicals are and why they are a problem in food packaging.

In fact, this body has already prohibited these chemicals in other product categories including toys furniture, juvenile feeding products, personal care products, and IV bags and tubing. Despite that, they are still legal in food packaging. Only Maine and Vermont have banned phthalates in food packaging. Californians deserve the same protection.

Industry will say that we should use the regulatory process rather than legislation. But where we know there is harm and safer alternatives already exist, consumers should not have to wait for a lengthy regulatory process to be protected. Industry will say that FDA says these chemicals are safe.

However, the FDA has been asleep at the wheel on many critical public health issues and in the case of BPA, has ignored thousands of peer reviewed articles showing harm in favor of old outdated science. Industry will say that a little bit of a carcinogen is okay.

Try explaining that to someone who has cancer or a family who lost a loved one to cancer. It's an unacceptable answer, especially where safer alternatives exist. AB 1148 will give Californians the certainty and protection they need and deserve. I urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any remaining members of the public who wish to indicate their support for the measure?

Hello, Noam Elroy on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council, San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, Save the Bay, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety. The Last Beach Cleanup. alliance of Nurses.

Alliance of Nurses For Healthy Environments, Seventh Generation Advisors, Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority, Californians Against Waste, Active San Gabriel Valley, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Non Toxic Neighborhoods and San Francisco Bay Keeper all in support.

Hi, I'm Andria Ventura with Clean Water Action in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Jason Schmelzer here on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council and Alameda Stop Waste in support.

Hi, April Robinson with A Voice for Choice Advocacy in support.

Mandy Strella on behalf of Breast Cancer Over Time, Defend Our Health, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Environmental Health, cleanitforkids.org, the Green Science Policy Institute, Friends of the Earth, California Black Health Network.

Latino Coalition for Healthy California, the Sierra Club California, Black Women for Wellness Action Project ACOG District 9, Just Transition Alliance, Climate Action California, Consumer Reports and Stop Waste in support.

Do we have anyone in opposition to AB 1148? Come on up.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Tim Shestek with the American Chemistry Council, appreciate the opportunity to testify today. First, I'd like to thank the author, staff and the sponsors of the bill for their openness in discussing our concerns with the bill.

As it was mentioned, this bill, as introduced, would have proposed restrictions on the use of certain chemistries and food packaging applications.

And as we outlined in our letter to the committee, we and several other industry groups have concerns about the need to ensure that any sort of regulatory oversight over ingredients and materials used in packaging is grounded in sound science and includes a rigorous discussion among stakeholders of the available scientific information.

We continue to believe that the regulatory framework, both at the federal level and here in California with DTSC provides that appropriate form for making those regulatory decisions. The bill has been amended. Most recent language directs DTSC to develop regulations that set limits for these chemistries and food packaging applications.

But we think policy questions do remain that are worthy of further discussion. First, DTSC already has authority to review these chemicals in food packaging. And in fact, its current Safer Consumer Products Program three year work plan specifically mentions food contact articles, including packaging, is going to be under consideration by the department.

Secondly, the department does have new authority to require manufacturers to report chemical identity, concentration and functional use information to the department and provide DTSC with the ability to move more quickly to a regulatory response for priority chemical product combination. AB 1148 is now proposing an entirely separate regulatory process to what DTSC is already doing.

So in our view, this kind of begs the question of whether this parallel process at DTSC is necessary. Finally, from an implementation standpoint, the proposed January 1 2027 date is, I think, in our view, extremely challenging for the department.

Additional time would be needed should this bill move forward for DTSC to conduct research, propose regulations, solicit public comments, and manufacturers would certainly need sufficient lead time to reformulate their packaging if a regulatory response was issued by DTSC. We do look forward to constructively engaging in the conversation should this bill move forward. Appreciate the committee's consideration of these concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Dennis Albiani, on behalf of the American Beverage Association, we appreciate that the author and her staff have done a great job in reaching out and the proponents. So we've had some conversations with them and some of the amendments that have already been taken. So we appreciate that. We are really focused.

The American Beverage Association is opposed, unless amended, focusing primarily on the remaining antimony trioxide, and that is used as a catalyst in the production of PET plastics, which are our containers. This early in the PET process, it basically changes the properties when it goes through the chemical process. And it frankly is no longer antimony trioxide.

And has other characteristics. And then one of the positive elements of PET is that it's very stable and it minimizes leaching. So those are some of the areas of the chemical side of it. Recently OEHA actually reviewed antimony trioxide under Prop 65 for digestion. They had previously reviewed it for inhalation.

So there are different exposure tracks and digestion is the one they recently did. The digestion is a completely different exposure pathway with entirely different physiological patterns. And at the end of it, they chose not to list for digestion. There just is not adequate exposure methods.

And so with that we're moving forward and we look forward to working with the author as the bill moves and trying to address antimony trioxide. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any remaining members of the public who wish to indicate their opposition to the measure?

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

Dawn Koepke on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in opposition.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Eloy Garcia for the International Bottled Water Association also in opposition.

Margie Lee on behalf of the California League of Food Producers and respectful opposition.

Annalee Augustine on behalf of the PET Recycling Corporation of California and Consumer Brands Association respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Chair and members. Marlon Lara on behalf of the California Restaurant Association in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Bring it back to the Committee. Questions or comments? Seeing none.

We'll invite the author to close.

Thank you. I would like to respond to the opposition in regards to--so I will continue to work with you all in regards to establishing timelines as we previously have discussed, but I would like to continue to work with you on that. And as we talk about the antimony triax side.

Feasibility has always been the actual crux of this conversation. And in every meeting I have made clear that my goal in this bill is to reduce the risk of breast cancer, but to do so in any way that does not reduce access to the necessary the household goods.

I've asked the industry about what kind of alternatives would be suitable for their products and I've asked for the for the workable timeline for this for the substitute and product. And I've only received two responses and the remaining request is currently still pending.

We have already amended our language to exempt TMBFP, which has been identified as a safer alternative to bisphenol. And we have had the same conversations regarding all of the chemicals in AB 1148. And I've received new information today. So thank you for the new information today that there are no viable alternatives for the antimony trioxide.

Therefore, I am committed to removing the antimony trioxide from the chemical listed in AB 1148 during well, later in this legislative process. So I do hope that you all will accept that particular amendment of removing that from this policy. And as I continue to close, unless you wanted to respond to anything else. Okay.

As I continue to close, I would like to thank the Chair and also committee members for all of your hard work and also the staff as well, for all of your hard work on this important bill.

As I stated in the beginning of this conversation, every day we are exposed to multiple layers of different toxins, pollutants that contribute to cancer risk. Some of us are exposed more than others. And I represent a district that has a cancer cluster in San Diego. The leading cause of death. It is not cardiovascular disease. It is cancer.

And so, as we talked about from our previous presenters as well, that this bill is also a wise investment within our health. And I thank you once again, Chair and members and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We appreciate your hard work on this, your willingness to undertake this challenge. Appreciate it. I am recommending an aye vote on this bill. Do I have a motion? And second.

Yes, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the author for her diligent, thoughtful approach to the bill and move it for approval.

Motion. Hart.

Second.

Second. McKinnor.

This is file item number five, AB 1148, authored by Assembly Member Sharp-Collins. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

With four votes, this item is out. We will leave it open for absentee members. We'll move to file item 6 AB 1338. Assembly member Solache. I think we saw him. Yeah. Please come on forward. Your bill is dealing with metal shredding facilities.

Okay, chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to present AB 1338 which will ensure air pollution protections for communities in my district, support AB617 community priorities, preserve local control and promote efficient use of resources. I would like to thank the chair and Committee staff for their engagement with us and their thoughtful analysis.

To provide context, last session a bill, AB 2851 was enacted which included facility wide fence lining air monitoring requirements for metal shredding facilities statewide.

Prior to this, the effort South Coast Air Quality Managing District, who I have the honor of representing be a member for two years before joining the Legislature, the regulatory agency serving my district had implemented their own local rule-making alongside AB617 communities.

Our communities of South Southeast Los Angeles and South Los Angeles are extremely proud of their efforts to develop a comprehensive role to reduce unhealthy emissions from metal shredding facilities.

Ahead of last year's legislation, AB 1338 enable local air districts to recover costs related to implementation of facility wide faceline air monitoring requirements and meta restraining facilities, which is costly and resource intensive. Ensuring protections for communities while exploring greater local resource efficiency.

I look forward to working with my colleagues and stakeholders on this Bill to implement local authority and honor community input and collaboration. Joining me today is Dr. Sarah Rees, Executive Officer of Planning Rule Development and Implementation for South Coast Air Quality Management.

Great. Good morning chair, members of the committee, my name is Sarah Rees. I'm the Deputy Executive Officer for Planning Rule Development and Implementation at South Coast and we are very much strongly in support of AB 1338. We do in fact serve as the bill sponsor.

We also want to thank Assemblymember Solache for his support in championing this issue on our behalf. This bill would require metal shredding facilities to effectively reimburse local air districts for the costs associated with implementing a Bill that was passed last year. That bill required that these metal shredding facilities Institute fence line monitoring.

It's critically important that we get cost recovery for this because fence line monitoring is expensive, it's very costly, it's very resource intensive. There's a lot of work that goes into data validation, data collection, all the QA and QC, et cetera. We're very well versed with the impacts associated with metal shredders in our communities.

As Assemblymember Solache pointed out, two of our AB617 communities rated metal shredders as a top concern for air toxics in their region and that's why we worked with those communities as well as other stakeholders to develop a rule that comprehensively addresses emissions from shredders. Now, that rule was adopted back in November of 2022.

It's been implemented ever since. What that rule does is really focus on instituting a comprehensive suite of best management practices to reduce emissions, minimize them, and make sure they stay on the facility so they don't even get to the fence line. We think that that's really the way to which you reduce those emissions most effectively.

We think that fence line monitoring is a very valuable tool. It's typically best suited for the types of facilities that have a very unique chemical signature associated with their operations. But. But we also see that some of the metal shredders and other types of facilities could benefit from enhanced monitoring.

And we remain committed to working with all parties to be able to come up with solutions that better protect public health. With that, thank you. And I urge you to support AB 1338.

Thank you. Any remaining members of the public who wish to indicate their support for this measure. Seeing none. Do we have anyone in opposition to AB 1338? Also seeing none. With that, let's bring it back. Questions from committee members. Any issues? Motion Hart, second Vice Chair. Thank you. Let's go to the roll call.

This is file item number six.

No, actually, let's invite the author to close. Sorry about that.

Thank you for the opportunity. I'm honored to have Dr. Rees, who is super smart, technical person that I served with for two years and she's amazing. So thank you for the consideration today. I think this helps our local government agencies like ourselves, local AQMD boards, to do the right thing for communities.

Yeah, I appreciate that. I wanted to say thank you for bringing the bill forward. Appreciate you working with the committee on this bill. As the bill continues to move through the process. Please keep us apprised. Appreciate it. And with that, we will take a roll. Thank you.

This is file item number six, AB 1338, authored by Assemblymember Solache. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That matter is out with six votes. We'll leave the roll call open.

Appreciate the bipartisan support as well. Thank you so much. Thank you.

And finally, our own committee member, Assemblymember Papan, with file item two, AB626, dealing with underground storage tanks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I'd like to start by accepting the amendments to AB 626 as mentioned in the Committee analysis AB 626 is just really a common sense approach to something that we're confronting out in the real world here.

It provides relief to underground storage tank operators who are working to upgrade to safer double walled tanks, but they're facing delays in the permitting process. Recently the focus has shifted, replacing single walled tanks with double walled tanks, which as you can well imagine, are far safer and less likely to leak. However, there's a tight deadline.

By 12-31-2025, all single walled tanks have to be replaced or operators are going to face fines of up to $5,000 a day starting on January 1st of 2026. Many operators are experiencing long delays in the permitting process which puts them at risk of non compliance despite their own best efforts.

So AB26 addresses this risk by providing a grace period for operators who are acting in good faith. If they can show they submitted the necessary documents but are delayed due to factors beyond their control, they will be exempt from penalties while they work to replace their tanks. This ensures operators are not unfairly penalized for bureaucratic delays.

AB626 is crucial for fairness and helps tank operators meet environmental responsibilities without facing financial penalties. It supports the transition while at the same time it supports the transition to safer double walled tanks and contributes to cleaner, safer communities. I'm going to turn it over to you to testify first because I know you have a 3:30 deadline.

Appreciate it. John Kennedy on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California. We represent 40 of California's 58 counties. We have lots of small population towns, very low population densities, extensive forested and ag communities, and some counties have over 90% federal lands. This means many of our communities face unique challenges.

In many rural areas we have very few fueling stations and so the loss of even a single fueling station can have really far reaching consequences. We're happy to support AB626 because it provides a grace period for single walled UST operators making a good faith effort to comply. We have several dozen remaining single walled USTs in our communities.

Some are operated by the smallest local governments in the state, others serve rural airports or recreational areas, and others are located in communities with just a couple hundred residents. So they can be even more compelling examples for a good faith consideration.

So it can be really difficult for these facilities to schedule and perform upgrades, especially in rural areas with limited labor pools and construction windows. For this reason, it just makes sense to provide some exceptions when there's a good faith effort to comply. And we urge your support of AB626. Thank you.

See you later.

Good afternoon again, Chair and Members of this Committee. My name is Alessandra Magnasco and I represent the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance. I'm here today to express our strong support for AB626. California's single walled underground storage tank deadline is fast approaching and tank owners who fail to comply by 1-1-2026 face severe consequences.

$5,000 per day in penalties and a red tag designation that shuts down fuel operations entirely. Many operators have done everything in their power to meet this deadline, investing significant time and financial resources to upgrade their tanks.

However, despite their proactive efforts, unavoidable delays such as excessive permitting backlogs and prolonged rust Fund application processing have left them in regulatory limbo. Some of these delays have lasted one to two years, putting businesses that began the process well in advance at risk of non compliance through no fault of their own.

AB 626 does not extend the compliance deadline. It does not provide relief for tank owners who failed to act. It simply ensures that businesses that made a good faith effort to comply before the deadline took effect are not unfairly penalized due to circumstances beyond their control.

These are responsible operators who do everything right, yet they now face severe financial hardships because of bureaucratic delays. AB626 is a narrowly tailored common sense solution that balances environmental safeguards with regulatory fairness. It ensures compliance is achieved without putting small businesses, many of which are critical to California's fuel supply, out of business for reasons beyond their control.

For these reasons, we strongly urge your support of AB626. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any remaining Members of the public who wish to indicate their support for the measure? Seeing none. Do we have anyone in opposition to AB626? Does not appear to be anyone. Questions from Committee Members Comments?

Vice Chair I always do. I just really want to thank the author for this bill. It's going to be a huge benefit for my rural communities. I can't even tell you. I wish I would have thought of it myself. I would love to be a co author though and this really.

I personally know people that are in the business and are struggling so so hard to comply and they want to. So I just, I thank you for bringing it forward.

My pleasure.

Seeing no other questions or comments. Senate Member, would you like to close?

Respectfully request an aye vote and welcome the co authorship and that's it. Thank you sir.

Yeah, thank you for bringing the measure forward. Appreciate you continuing to work with the Committee to clarify a few of the timelines as Noted. With that, I will be recommending an aye vote. Do we have a motion and second motion. Heart. Second. Castillo. Let's call the roll.

[Roll call]

That item is out with six votes. We will hold the roll open. That was our last Bill. I think we already did consent. Why don't we go ahead and enable Members who still have not voted yet who would like to to please come back to the Committee room right now and we will stay open for business for a little while for Members to add. Okay, so we have Assembly Member Lee on his way. We're going to turn to Assembly Member Hart for any add ons.

[Roll Call]

That bill passes five to two.

[Roll Call]

That Bill passes 7 to 0.

[Roll Call]

That matter passes four to one with two not voting.

[Roll Call]

That matter passes five to two.

[Roll Call]

That matter passes five to two.

[Roll Call]

That matter passes 7 to 0. This concludes a hearing of the ESTM Oh, Chad.

[Roll Call]

So can. Thank you. Consent passes 7-0 as well. So now that concludes a hearing on the ESTM Committee, this hearing is now adjourned.