Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

Okay. Good morning, everybody. We are officially gaveling this meeting in. This is the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality. We encourage all Members of this Committee to come to the Committee now so that we could begin our day.

And also we encourage all authors to come over as soon as possible because we would like to get through our agenda. So we are going to start with Senator McNerney, who we will invite him to come forward. This is File item number three, which is SB31.

And if you have any witnesses, they're invited to come forward as well. We are starting as a Subcommitee because we do not yet have a quorum. Senator, you are welcome to present your Bill when ready.

Do I need to do anything? I guess not. I was wondering if I need to switch a button or something and get a red light, but no. Good morning. I'm here to talk about SB 31, and I'm pleased to present SB 31, which has already received unanimous bipartisan support. I got some great talking points here. Climate change.

We're losing 10% or we're projected to lose 10% of our water supplies in the next 10 years. That's pretty gruesome. To meet the state's growing water demand, California is now recycling more water instead of treating water like a single use product. So, in other words, we don't want to just throw water away.

The state's water supply strategy sets an ambitious target for the use of recycled water.

Excuse me. Hold on a second. We'd like to request all people to stop speaking in the room so that we can hear the author. Thank you. Okay, go ahead, Senator.

I'll restart that talking point.

That would be great. Thank you.

The state's water supply strategy sets an ambitious target for the use of recycled water, aiming to reuse 1.8 million acre feet by the year 2040. In order to reach our water recycling goals, we need to expand opportunities to safely use recycled water.

SB 31 will help drought proof our communities by closing the gap and in our water needs by making it easier to use recycled water in outdoor irrigation, at homes, businesses, parks, and golf courses. In other words, we want to expand the way we are allowed to use recycled water. SB 31 is one little step in that direction.

With me this morning, I have Beth Olhasso with WateReuse California.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Beth Olhasso, on behalf of the sponsor, WateReuse California. WateReuse is the association of water recyclers in the state. Our members span the entire state, starting in San Diego, moving all the way up the coast, in the Valley and in Northern California.

As the Senator mentioned, we are working very hard to meet the governor's goal of recycling 1.8 million acre feet by 2040. The State Water Resources Control Board hasn't had the funding or the staff to conduct a comprehensive update of Title 22, which is our regulation for non potable recycled water, in about 20 years.

And with the current budget situation, as you well know, we completely understand that it's not realistic to expect the staff to be available soon.

However, in the past 20 years, we have made significant progress in other regulations and in technology that allow it to make sense to have some updates to Title 22 and the allowable uses of recycled water. For example, the widespread use of drip irrigation keeps recycled water focused on individual plants and not a wide spray.

On the regulation side, we have the Model Water Landscape Efficiency Ordinance that was just. Updates went into effect January 1st of this year, which have very specific rules for irrigation, including what hours you're allowed to irrigate. So we have these other things in place that we didn't 20 years ago when Title 22 was last updated.

So we think now is time to make these few little changes until the Water Board can do a more comprehensive update and really bring Title 22 a little closer to modern. So we urge your support of SB 31. Thank you.

Thank you very much. If there's anybody else in the room wishing to express support, please come forward and state your name, organization and position.

Good morning, Madam. Try that again. Good morning, Madam Chair. Alfredo Redondo here on behalf of Irvine Ranch Water District in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Jonathan Clay in support on the following entities. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Las Virgenes Water Agency, Inland Empires Utilities Agency and the Town of Windsor.

Good morning. Katie Davey with the Dairy Institute of California. We're in support of the bill.

Good morning. Jessica Gauger with the California Association of Sanitation Agencies here in support.

Jennifer Williams with East Bay Municipal Utility District in support.

Kylie Wright with the Association of California Water Agencies in support, thank you.

Sharon Gonzalez on behalf of the City of Roseville Environmental Utility Department in support, thank you.

Kasha Hunt with Nossaman on behalf of Padre Dam Municipal Water District and Santa Clara Valley Water District in support.

Emily Pappas on behalf of Santa Margarita Water District and West Basin Municipal Water District in support.

Dennis O'Connor with the Mono Lake Committee in support.

Jaime Minor on behalf of Eastern Municipal Water District and Monterey One Water in support, thank you.

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

Jacob Evans with Sierra California in support.

Katie McCammon on behalf of Climate Reality Project California Coalition in support.

Hi. Lily McKay, on behalf of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District in support. Thank you.

Okay, great. Is there anybody in the room wishing to express opposition to this bill? As a lead witness, please come forward. I'm not seeing anybody. If we have anybody in the room wishing to express opposition as a me too. Please come forward. Okay. Not seeing any.

We will bring it back to the members here, and I will start by saying that I very much appreciate this bill. Senator McNerney, I come from having served in local government on multiple water and wastewater districts.

And what was clear from that position is that we have the capacity to be reusing a lot more water than we are. And coming from a coastal district, I know that we are putting millions of gallons of nearly potable, treated, recycled water back into the ocean every single day.

And it's a resource which we should be reusing as much as we can. So recognizing where there's an opportunity for us to move legislatively is really a great thing. And I'm happy to see this bill.

And as you can see from the supporters, there's very much a recognition that this is something we need to be promoting more of. And to me, this goes to the point of we just need to have government working better, and this kind of a bill helps us to have government working better.

So I want to thank the author for bringing it forward, and I'm happy that I'm able to recommend an I vote today. Anything else? Okay. Well, with that, we thank you very much for your testimony. Oh, yes. I'd like to invite you to close.

Well, I thank the chair and I thank the supporting witness. She obviously knows what she's talking about and very enthusiastic as well, and a lot of enthusiasm in the supporting crowd as well. So this is important. We need to use reuse as much water as we possibly can.

We're clearly going to be facing water shortages in the future, and this is one step in the right direction. So with that, I ask for an I vote.

Thank you very much. Thank you. And next, we'll invite up Senator Cortese. Thank you, Senator Cortese. He has two bills. The first one is SB 30. And if you have any support witnesses, they're welcome to come up at this time as well. This is file item 1 and 2 for those following along.

Number one is SB 30.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. I'd like to start by thanking the chair and the committee staff for working with my office on a path forward on SB 30, which I will now present. I accept the committee's proposed amendments, and I'm also hopeful for an opportunity to add some clarity to the language in the future.

As amended, SB 30 prevents California public agencies from selling or transferring decommissioned Tier 0 and Tier 1 diesel locomotives and railroad equipment. It permits the sale or transfer of tier 2 and higher engines if the transferring agency can certify there would be an air quality benefit for the recipient.

The agency must also publish any studies that led to that conclusion. Additionally, the agency must approve the transfer by voting at a public meeting. Finally, a recipient of a tier 2 engine must agree to modify the engine to improve emissions when feasible. The devastating health impacts of diesel pollution cannot be understated.

Diesel particulate matter is a mix of gases and solid materials emitted from diesel engines. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified diesel emissions as carcinogenic. This is because they contain more than 40 chemicals known to cause cancer, including benzene, arsenic, formaldehyde, and lead.

Exposure to these chemicals can lead to increased hospitalizations, worsening health conditions and premature mortality. These chemicals make diesel exhausts more damaging to human health than gasoline vehicle emissions. An article from the National Institute of Health points that points to 115,000 deaths caused by gasoline emissions and an even greater 122,000 deaths caused by diesel emissions.

These diesel related deaths can be attributed mainly to soot and smog exposure. According to the California Air Resources Board, CARB diesel particulate matter can travel hundreds of miles once emitted. This means it can influence air quality far from the source of pollution, including here in California. Diesel engines are categorized into tiers based on their age and emissions.

Tier zero engines are the most polluting by far. They were manufactured before 2002. They do not have to meet EPA emission standards. Tier 4, on the other hand, is currently the highest standard and these engines were built after 2015 and have to meet far higher emission standards.

One agency, Caltrain, recently agreed to send its retired fleet of 90 cars and 19 Tier 0 diesel locomotives to Peru. Caltrain points to a U.S. State Department analysis that project emissions reductions from this transfer, but these Tier 0 engines will continue emitting hazardous particulate matter and GHGs in Peru.

The cost to electrify the Caltrain line was $2.5 billion. Billion. The retired Tier 0 fleet was sold for $6 million. Those dollars were not necessary to the the operation of that Caltrain line. This recovered 0.24% of the cost was 1 it was 1/4 of 1% worth it to expose new communities to hazardous pollutants. I mean, really.

That's the question we've been trying to raise. From the project's inception, Caltrain has been highlighting the GHG reductions from getting rid of the old dirty Tier 0 diesel engines.

In a 2016 news release, it projected that regional air quality would improve by 97% and that it would reduce 176,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent from the atmosphere by 2040. That's all of our atmosphere, including Peru.

If the switch from Tier 0 to fully electric reduces at least 176,000 metric tons of CO2, how can we then go and send those very same metric tons of CO2 somewhere else?

In a 2022 news release celebrating $10 million in federal funding to the project, the Caltrain in that example stated it would eliminate the particulate matter, quote, unquote, eliminate the particulate matter caused by these engines. Yet the trains will keep on rolling and keep on polluting. This kind of rhetoric extends to other requests to fund the project.

This includes measure RR from 2020 on that same project, which was approved by voters for a sales tax increase to fund electrification, which many, many of us in our own county supported. The ballot question also pointed to reduce air pollution. These trains, however, will continue polluting.

Though the bill for the transfer of tier 2 and higher engines under some circumstances, I still want to highlight the importance of thinking long term. When jurisdictions begin to build out the rail transit infrastructure, there's an opportunity at that point to start cleaner.

And if they begin by investing in diesel locomotives and infrastructure, the fear, and I think it's a legitimate fear, is that any future investment in lower emission or zero emission locomotives and infrastructure will probably have to come much, much later, closer to the end of the useful lives and at an additional expense.

In effect, these folks will have to subsequently do what we've invested in. Right now, the climate crisis is now. We all know that we need to reduce diesel emissions now. I think we all know that. SB 30 aims to reduce the ongoing harm caused by emissions from California's diesel engines once we replace them with cleaner engines.

This bill has the support of many environmental organizations who believe in a diesel free future. With us today to testify and support we have Jacob Evans with the Sierra Club and Jonathan Cole with Climate Action California.

Again, I appreciate all the hard work and back and forth with the committee that's resulted in us being able to be here today at the appropriate time. I would ask for an I vote. Thank you.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. I'm Jacob Evans with Sierra Club California here in support of SB 30. Sierra Club is the largest and oldest grassroots environmental organization in the nation, with over 500,000 members and supporters working to protect the environment.

SB 30 will ensure that as California takes action to decrease air pollution, we're not passing along this pollution and its harms into other communities. Gaseous pollutants from diesel engine emissions contribute to the creation of ground level ozone, which inflicts harm on the environment. The US EPA has found that ozone's harms are both through the ecosystems.

Ground level ozone reduces photosynthesis in plants, increases plants susceptibility to disease, and reduces susceptibility of ecosystems by endangering sensitive species and reducing available food for wildlife. Notably, these harms can occur in locations far from sites of diesel engines because their pollution travels.

A 2024 study from the National Parks Conservation Association found that California's own Sequoia and Kings Canyon national park are the country's most polluted. Though we think of these parks as isolated, ozone blows to them from the San Joaquin Valley, harming the stability of our prized redwood ecosystems and making them more susceptible to disease and fire.

In addition to these harms from gaseous pollutants, diesel engines produce diesel particulate matter, which is largely comprised of black carbon and contributes to climate change.

Black carbon interacts with UV radiation to heat its surroundings, and carbon is found that it's a major factor in the accelerated melting Sierra Nevada snowpack, which is a contributing factor to California's declining water supply. California is a world leader in protecting our residents and environment from the harms of air pollution.

SB 30 provides an opportunity to ensure that our diesel engines don't continue polluting our states, other states, or other countries. Sierra Club California urges your support of SB 30 to ensure that the pollution from these engines stops with us. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Blakespear and Members of the Committee. I'm Jonathan Cole with Climate Action California and an emeritus Professor of physics at Miracosta College in San Diego, North County. I've participated in climate research as a visiting scholar at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and co authored two chapters of a University of California textbook on climate solutions.

Diesel locomotives are a significant source of climate warming and health damaging emissions. As amended, SB 30 would prohibit public entities from transferring the oldest most polluting locomotives for continued use and permit transfer of newer locomotives only if they can be shown to produce a net air quality benefit.

What constitutes a net air quality benefit should be clearly defined and carefully documented. This did not happen with Caltrain's transfer of locomotives to Lima, Peru. The State Department white paper that justified that transfer is badly flawed.

The most serious error is that it estimates the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from removing the existing buses, but it fails to account for the added emissions from the diesel locomotives. According to the US EPA, diesel locomotives typically emit twice as much CO2 per passenger compared to buses.

So replacing buses with locomotives will likely increase CO2 emissions, not decrease them. Moreover, the study ignores any pollutants beyond carbon dioxide, even though Tier 0 locomotives are heavy emitters of NOx and particulates.

A peer reviewed study by UC Berkeley researchers published this month showed that before Caltrain electrification, particulate exposure in passenger cars downwind of those diesel locomotives was 10 times EPA standards and equivalent to the most polluted, some of the most polluted cities in Asia. And these polluting locomotives will now be operating in Peru.

In conclusion, California should be a leader in demonstrating climate solutions and should not be exporting pollution. SB30 will help address this issue, but its language should be clarified to specify that any transfers would be allowed only when net reductions in climate warming emissions and health damaging pollutants can be rigorously shown. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. That was very interesting. If there's anybody in opposition to this Bill, please come. I'm sorry. Supporters of this Bill, please come forward to microphone and express your name, the organization you represent and your position on this Bill.

Hi, Katie McCammon with Climate Reality Project. And I'm sorry, Climate Action California in Support and also 350 Bay Area action. Thank you. Thank you.

You're not supporting. Okay, well, we're going to opposition in a second. Anybody else supporting in the room? Okay. If there is a lead witnesses in opposition, please come forward and maybe we could make a little room at the table. You want to stay there? Okay. zero, you're A tweener. Okay. Concerns.

All right, well is there any other lead opposition that wants to come forward? Okay, then we will go to you, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Matt Robinson, on behalf of the California Transit Association, also represent Caltrain and Metrolink. We appreciate the authors movement. We had significant concerns with the Bill that's in print. The Committee amendments move us in a better direction.

I think there's some lingering issues that we want to continue to engage with on equipment, things like that that are used to maintain the systems. Some of us actually operate freight railroads and may one day get out of that business and need to do something with that equipment.

Others are still operating those Tier 0 and those Tier 1 locomotives. And we just need to have a conversation amongst ourselves and see where we're at in terms of the bill's impacts on those.

I would say that there is, I think a lot to be learned about just the locomotive marketplace and what's available to these agencies as vehicles break down, as vehicles need replacing, et cetera. And this Bill may inhibit some of that. But nonetheless, thank you Senator Cortese and look forward to continuing the discussion.

Thank you. Good morning. Chair Gus Khouri, on behalf of the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District, want to thank you and the author for the amendments. On behalf of Smart. We currently run Tier 4 equipment. We have Tier 3 switcher equipment too. Those things are expensive to procure.

We have useful life requirements that we have to adhere to both for the state and Federal Government. Converting over to zero emissions is very difficult. You need to make investments for catenary equipment and such. And so it's more than just a rolling stock.

But we very much appreciate the direction that the author is trying to take us in, which is to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. I mean passenger rail service should be helping in that endeavor. And so we look forward to continue to work with the author and the Committee and others and that.

And so we have a neutral position on the Bill. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else in the room wishing to express neutral position or opposition position, please come forward. Okay. Not seeing any. We will bring it back to the Members and I think I'll go ahead and start. This is a Bill that I had among the most involvement with.

And so I just want to say a few words about the Bill and to start by expressing gratitude to the author for bringing it forward and also for his commitment to improving air quality and not just here in California, but also throughout the world.

And I want to say that I share that commitment and I also have a commitment and an interest in trying to expand rail. So rail is something that we could have more of in the State of California and it could be cleaner. And we want it to be as clean as possible, as quickly as possible.

And more people riding the train would mean fewer cars on the road, less pollution, less congestion. And I'm grateful to the author who chairs transportation for allowing me to have a Subcommitee on the low Sandrail corridor and its resiliency.

One of the things just to note in terms of talking about what types of train sets, train engines can be sold under this Bill or are prohibited from being sold, it's important to ground what we're talking about and recognize that the prohibitions that are in this Bill are actually only applying to public entities.

So those sold or donated by public entities, and that makes up 1% of the locomotives in the state and already more than half of those are at Tier 4, which is the clean, cleanest burning diesel engine on the market.

So private entities, which is essentially freight, private entities, according to CARB in 2022, are responsible for 97% of the locomotive generated pollution. So the vast majority of the pollution is coming from the freight side. And it's. I don't perceive that we're able to regulate them and that's why they're not in this Bill.

But that is something that we need to continue to be focused on and doing what we can to advocate for those trains to also transition.

So what we ended up landing on in this Bill, which I very much appreciate, is that the tier, those trains that are in tier 23 and 4 can be sold or donated as long as they result in a net air quality benefit.

And it's important to note that there are 14 locomotives right now that are owned by state financed entities in California that are tier two. So 14 of them are exist. And it's.

When I think about transitioning away from really dirty trains, I think the dilemma is similar to what people who own really dirty polluting cars face, which is these older cars. It's best to buy a brand new Tier 4 or fully electric catenary, fully electric system for a train.

But if that's not available, if you're replacing your 25 year old car and you can buy a 5 year old used car that's a lot cleaner then that's a lot better. So trying to find a way that these trains which are cleaner but not cleanest are still able to be used.

And I appreciate the information that was provided by your second witness because the information that I had seen showed that the State Department saw there was A net air quality benefit. The U.S. state Department was involved in this Lima, Peru, transfer. So to me, it seemed like it was all very positive.

And I appreciate hearing more nuance to what it was that it was exactly tested and reported. And why you think that that was inadequate, because that adds useful color.

So I'm happy to support this Bill, and I'm really grateful that the author was willing to work on trying to make it maybe less broad and a little bit more specific. And the reality is this Bill still does prohibit tier 0 and 1 from being sold or donated at all.

And so the question of whether tier 0 and 1 could be made cleaner is something that still remains as a question in my mind. But the reality is that this Bill currently prohibits that totally.

So, anyway, that's just a summary of where things are, and I wanted to make sure and express that and say again, thank you, and if there are any. Is there anyone else on the Committee that wanted to speak? Okay. Yes, Vice Chair Senator Valladares.

Thank you. Thank you. I do have a few questions just regarding some clarification on the distinction, or lack thereof, between locomotives and other rail vehicles that don't independently generate emissions. Is that. Are you working? I would just be cautious that if this is too broad, there may be.

I don't want to call them locomotives, but rail vehicles that can't be sold, that would handicap the agencies. So I don't know if there's any clarification on that.

In the one instance that we have, that really triggered, you know, the idea in my mind, the need for the Bill was a $2.5 billion investment.

As I was saying in the opening, in my opening presentation, where the agency decommissioned the vehicles on the pretense that they were decommissioning the diesel vehicles, they actually had a contract that memorialized all of that. So in that case, and I want to really want to clarify, because I heard this from the opposition, too.

Hopefully it'll help answer your question. We came back and said, look, you know, not to sound like a school kid, but no fair saying that you need public money, sales tax money from the community to decommission diesel vehicles and then turn right around and put them back into service by way of a sale.

But first point I wanted to make was there was only $6 million brought in against a $2.5 billion project that was actually already done. Everything was already done. Caltrains. I was at the opening and, you know, among those who rode the first caltrain electrified trains subsequent to that, we. We hear about this Deal.

So it wasn't in this case, it wasn't, you know, a precondition of them being able to, you know, to succeed with the electrification. To your point, if I'm hearing it right, what if it was, what if, what if there was some financial need there? This is the second point I want to make.

The definition is crucial in this Bill. The definition of decommission, because half the stuff we heard about today isn't even affected by this Bill. Equipment that people aren't going to decommission that's being used for maintenance.

Because this Bill says decommission means to permanently cease the services of on track equipment when the public entity owning that on track equipment replaces it with lower emission on track equipment. So it's only when they make that replacement on their own own volition.

There's no mandate, there's no mandate whatsoever in here that anybody retires any diesel train, even zero, even one. You know, we've heard that, we've heard even from opposition. Well, God, you know, we might need these zero trains for a while longer. Don't force us to decommission them. No one's forcing anybody to decommission anything.

We're just saying when you go out to the public and you're a public agency and you say we are decommissioning them on our own volition in order to prove air quality, and then you turn around and damage air quality, you know, I find that ethically challenging. Let me just be real blunt about that.

So appreciate your question, though. I do imagine there's maybe a case somewhere online where somebody's going to say, you know, we need to be able to sell these in order to, you know, finish our electrification project or whatever the Clean Air project is. And I don't have a perfect answer for that because it's kind of a hypothetical.

So lastly, and so I'm going to abstain from the build because I think you have some really good intentions here. I want to see it develop a little bit and would hopefully be able to get to a support on the floor. But I'm just out of curiosity, in the Tier 0 and Tier 1. How.

Many, approximately do we know how many locomotives we have that are being utilized in that 0 and in tier 1?

I'll ask our witnesses if they, if they have numbers.

Actually, I think, I believe there was a number listed in the Bill analysis and they indicated that there are. That the Tier one. I'm trying to find it now.

I think it's under 50.

Yeah, under 50. Right. We know that within passenger vehicles, there are only about half that are in the tier one or zero, I believe, and. But a higher percentage with. From freight companies. But of course, those are not covered by this Bill.

Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I appreciate. And I did want to say to Senator Valladares said we, we kind of worked right up to the last minute on this tiering language that's before us. Amendments, which is one of the reasons, you know, we didn't really break down the individual tiers in time, you know, to sort of coincide with these amendments.

So I apologize for not having that information, but knowing that there's a chance this Bill is going to move forward out of Committee, we'll get you that information so you have it before, you know, four votes and other things last. And I'll do this more quickly than my previous comment as a close.

There's been, as usual with bills, there's a little bit of misinformation or spin out there. We've been asked, we'll keep working with opposition. I think it's smart for them to keep working with us.

Caltrain, for example, is very openly, through our Committee seeking enabling legislation to go back to the same community in Santa Clara County and in San Mateo county and San Francisco county and ask for more money again. And, you know, this issue will be raised, that this issue will be raised.

So I think it behooves me to work with them to try to make sure they're comfortable. Now I think it behooves them to work with elected officials in Santa Clara County who were climate advocates who got burned by this. Otherwise, I think it's going to be expensive for them.

That said, this issue about maintenance equipment and the issue about, you know, forcing diesel off the tracks is just not something that the Bill does. It's not something that it does.

If there's something that we need to do to further clarify that intent, another sentence of intent language or something that satisfies the opposition, by all means, we'll do that. But again, I appreciate all the work on it. It's, you know, I will be the first to admit there's a little nuance and trickiness to the Bill.

And the chair of the Committee showed a lot of patience working through with us. I respectfully asked for an aye vote. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We will vote when we have a quorum. So with that, we will move on to your second Bill. And just to make sure that it's Clear what's happening next. After Senator Cortese presents SB36, we will or SR36, we will go to Senator Niello with SB474. Okay, so go ahead on SR36.

Thank you to my witnesses. Thank you again, Chair and members of the committee. Yes, I'm here to present SR 36 now and I appreciate the opportunity. It's a resolution that reaffirms California's leadership on climate action and our steadfast commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement. Even as federal leadership has shifted away from these goals.

The resolution recognizes the urgent climate threats California faces. Record heat waves, droughts, wildfires, extreme weather and rising sea levels, and makes clear that we will continue to lead the nation in combating our climate crisis.

SR 36 highlights California's achievements in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, expanding clean energy, investing in zero emission transportation, and strengthening climate resilience, particularly for communities most impacted by pollution. Importantly, SR 36 also frames climate restoration, net zero emissions and net negative emissions as key state priorities, many of which have been acknowledged and adopted in prior resolutions.

Of course, while the United States withdrawal from the Paris Accords under the federal administration threatens both national and global climate progress, California and Governor Newsom alongside 23 other states through the US Climate Alliance, have all upheld the commitments of the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Importantly, SR 36 frames climate restoration, net zero emissions and net negative emissions as key state priorities. I'll be accepting the friendly amendments provided in the committee analysis. And again with us today we have Jonathan Cole from Climate Action California speaking in support.

Good morning again, Jonathan Cole with Climate Action California grassroots legislative advocacy group.

The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement seeks to avoid the most harmful effects of climate change by keeping the increase in global average temperature to 2 degrees above to well below 2 degrees Celsius below pre industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 11/2 degrees Celsius. Politics can't change the physics of climate.

As long as greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere continue to climb, the long term average temperature of the Earth will continue to increase. The recent federal withdrawal from the Paris Agreement will not change this basic fact. That's why California and the other 23 Members of the US Climate Alliance continue to uphold and advance the agreement's goals.

California is particularly at risk for from the impacts of climate change. As we're all aware, that includes rising sea level, increasing coastal erosion, heat waves and persistent drought and drying that promotes wildfires, including the recent devastating fires in the Los Angeles area. Recognizing the threat climate change poses to our state and to the planet.

California has long been a leader in developing and implementing climate solutions. Between 2006, the year the Global Warming Solutions Act was signed, and 2022, California has decreased our climate emissions by 22% while our real GDP increased by 58%. As recently reported, if it were a separate country, California would now be the world's fourth largest economy.

California has the resources, we have the scientific and technical know how, and we have the determination to take on this challenge. By reaffirming California's commitment to The Paris Agreement, SR 36 sends the US and the world a clear message that California remains committed to the international climate effort and will continue to be a global climate leader.

I urge your support of this important resolution. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support, please come forward. State your name, organization and position.

Katie McCammon, Climate Action California in support, as well as support from San Diego 350 and Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support? Okay. Any opposition witnesses wishing to come forward? Not seeing any. Anyone in the room wishing to express opposition? Not seeing any. We'll return to the committee. And just to confirm, you said you are accepting the amendments? Yes. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to make comments?

Okay. Well, this is a recommended I from me, and I appreciate you bringing it forward. Would you like to close?

Again, appreciate your help and cooperation as well as the committees. And I respectfully ask for an I vote.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we are moving next to Senator Niello. And after Senator Niello, we encourage others who are next in line. Senator Caballero, Senator Cabaldon, Senator Limon, or others who would like to pop over to come and be here to present their bill. So we will go now to Senator Niello. This is SB 474.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Madam Vice Chair. It's just nice for the both of us to be awake this morning. We were both here a little late last night. And Members of the Committee, thank you for allowing me to present SB474, which is really a simple Bill.

It gets at the issue that I believe the Legislature has abdicated its own rulemaking powers by transferring those to an unelected body. And I think it's time to have a conversation about whether the Legislature, not the California Air Resources Board or CARB, should be the appropriate rulemaking body for emission policies, especially greenhouse gases.

Unlike elected officials who are accountable to their constituents, CARB Members do not directly answer to the public. Yet CARB Wields significant power in shaping regulations that impact millions of Californians. CARBS regulations have often placed a heavy economic burden on businesses and consumers.

While the intention behind these regulations is to protect the environment and moderate climate change, the unintended consequences can stifle economic growth and innovation. By shifting the rulemaking authority to elected officials, we can strike a more balanced approach that considers both the environmental issues and economic stability.

Like many of you, I've heard from my constituents and businesses in my district about higher costs of goods and transportation as Californians struggle to pay bills to keep up with inflation. Last year, CARB passed controversial updates to their low carbon fuel standard that very likely will raise gas prices significantly.

Other decisions that CARB, not elected officials, have made to ban portable gas generators, Ban gas powered leaf blowers, ban new natural gas heaters, and ban vehicles that do not meet its stringent emission standards. So here's the problem.

While CARB has done an excellent job, quite frankly, of what the Legislature charged it to do, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, I doubt that many people who are paying those high gas and high utility prices realize that the efforts to reduce those emissions has had zero effect on greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. Oh.

You see, California emits less than 1% of of global greenhouse gas emissions. And an interesting factoid, by the way, China emits just from its coal powered power. Coal powered utility plants. Energy plants alone emits more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire United States.

The real risk result, Greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere is actually greater than when AB32 was passed. I know we want to lead, but if we glance in our rear view mirror, we're not going to see anybody there. As I indicated before, perhaps it's time for the Legislature to take over actual decision making.

Still with the expert advice of the California Air Resources Board to appropriately balance the emission reducing measures against economic impacts. I welcome the discussion and I ask for your aye vote so we can be in control. I have no supporting witnesses. I'm performing without a safety net.

Okay, anybody in the room wishing to come to the microphone to express support. Okay, anybody in opposition to this bill wishing to come forward, you'd have a lead witness come forward to sit at the table. They're scrambling to get across each other in the back. Okay, you made it. Yes. All right, so come forward.

You have two minutes.

Thank you very much. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Marc Gottschalk and I am the chief legal counsel for Calstart, Inc. A California based global non-profit dedicated to the growth of the clean transportation industry. CalStart is based in Pasadena with over 200 talented employees, most based in the state.

With over 285 member companies and organizations in the clean transportation industry, CalStart has spent nearly three decades working to build the zero emission vehicle market and galvanize businesses and governments alike in furtherance of cleaner and more sustainable transportation technologies.

All of our work to incentivize and provide transit agencies and local governments with technical assistance to transition to zero emission vehicles has been predicated on the leadership of the California Air Resources Board, or CARB.

From setting groundbreaking vehicle emission standards to driving innovation for new clean technologies, CARB's first in the nation, clean air and climate policies have been key to enabling the creation of the clean energy and clean transportation economy, with numerous other states, nations and federal agencies adopting California's policies as models.

While legislative oversight is essential, CARB's implementation of the Legislature's ambitious climate directives has allowed the state to effectively respond to the challenges posed by climate change and improve the air quality and environmental health of millions of Californians.

Under the Administrative Procedures Act, CARBS regulatory processes provide policymakers, stakeholders and the public with a deliberative, research based and consultative forum to develop policies and further innovation, public health, economic growth and progress towards the state's climate goals. A wholesale rollback of the agency's regulatory authority now would be an unprecedented attack on California's climate and environmental progress.

If California is committed to achieving its greenhouse gas reduction targets, CARB must be allowed to retain its existing statutory authority. Thank you. You need to wrap up. For these reasons, we respectively respectfully urge you to vote no on SB474.

Okay.

Thank you for giving me the time. Thank you.

Yes. Please state your name, organization and position. The people in support as well, or sorry, in opposition as well, can feel free to come forward.

Yeah. So, Julee Malinowski Ball, on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, agree 100% with their opposition. Witness in opposition. Thank you. Thank you.

Jonathan Cole with Climate Action California strongly opposed.

Santiago with California Environmental Voters in opposition.

Jacob Evans with Sierra Club California in opposition.

Lynn Shields with Golden State Advocacy Group on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists. In opposition.

Brandon Wong. Asked to do opposition metoos on behalf of the Advanced Energy United, the California Hydrogen Coalition, and World Energy.

Chair and members. Nate Solov on behalf of Zeem Solutions in opposition. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We'll bring it back to the members. And I'll just start by saying that CARB, like every state agency, has its flaws, but it only has the power that the legislature gives it.

If lawmakers disagree with certain CARB decisions, we can always introduce bills to override them or take board appointees to task during the confirmation process. I do not believe that the answer is to blow up CARB effectively and transfer its functions back to the legislature. That seems first of all impractical.

And also we do not have the expertise to do the job. We don't have the time to do it. And one of the last things we want is for any state agency to become actually more political, which would no doubt happen if CARB's functions were transferred to the legislature.

So unfortunately for you, I will not be supporting your bill today. But it's always delightful to see you. And with that. Yes, Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator, you came to one of the many committees that we have here and you see that we don't even have quorum today. Legislators are running back and forth between committees. Oftentimes we come at the end of committees just to cast a vote.

Committees run at least for Udish, maybe 12 hours, EQ 56 for bill after bill just in one day for CARB on LCFS, they had eight hours of public comment. Eight hours. There's no way our legislature would be able to run if we spent eight hours on just one bill.

So while we do have a public process, CARB has an even in depth public process where they have more ability to hear from the public because that that is their sole purpose. To add this to the legislature. I mean, we, we're generalists, right? We have to be generalist on all these different things.

It'd be really hard to add this to us. Additionally, the minority party is always complaining. The majority party always does these things behind closed doors and it's not inclusive of the minority party. I don't think you would like to give this over to us, right? And only focus and have us only have the discussions on this.

Even I wouldn't like that. Now there is something to say, Senator, about appointed versus elected. I do agree with you. There could be less accountability for non elected officials because they're not beholden to the voters and accountability of constituents, you know, upset with them.

At the same time, there also allows a layer of protection for those who aren't elected because they're also not beholden to the politics that exist here in Sacramento. So like the chair mentioned, there is weaknesses to them. I would have entertained shorter appointed terms, more accountability, more reporting. I do think there's a disconnect.

I think there is though, an ability for us to look at things that they pass. This committee is going to see a bill by Senator Hurtado that is looking to address one of those regulations as a whole.

But to completely remove their ability to exist as the agency that they are now is not something I can support today.

So I want to be very clear. I care about clean air, but I also care about the people that I represent. And right now, the California Air Resource Board has massive authority but zero accountability to working class communities like mine.

They pass sweeping regulations without ever stepping foot in our districts, without asking how it impacts business, farm workers, truckers, people who are just trying to make a living. Environmental policy can't come at the expense of economic survival. That's not equity, that's elitism.

If CARB won't consider real world impact on rural and working families, then it's time, I believe, that we start pulling back some of their power and return it to the people who actually live with the consequences. We all want a clean future, but we also want a fair one. So I will be supporting your bill.

And when we have quorum, I'll definitely make sure that I move the bill. I want to thank you for bringing this forward and for your commitment to our working class communities. Would you like to close, Senator?

Madam Vice Chair. I think you're correct and I think that's one of the weaknesses. I think.

You know, there was an article recently about CPUC and the makeup and having, I think, was it like no people of color on it and no one from Southern California and they were looking to pass increases on utilities that impacted Southern California because of the fires. I think you're 100% right.

I think, you know, there should be discussion on how we revamp the makeup of these boards. There is, but I think a sweeping just removal of authority is an automatic stick versus seeing if we could just change it up a bit. But I do want to say you do make some good points on that.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Niello, would you like to close.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So much to say. I'll try to keep this as brief as I can. But to Senator Menjivar's point as to whether I would be any more comfortable having the legislature make decisions because it is controlled by the majority party.

And you are right, by and large, the majority party agrees with most of those things that CARB does. So I understand where the votes would be.

But I think it's important for public accountability of elected officials, particularly all that I've heard about, number one, the low carbon fuel standard and, number two, the difficulties that both public entities and private businesses are having figuring out how they're going to meet the requirements of the Air Resources Board relative to zero emission vehicles.

I've had numerous meetings on that point and CARB has indicated that they're moving ahead with that regulation. So I'm happy to have the discussion at the legislature and have you folks make that decision. And I will cast my votes and my other Republican colleagues as we think we should. So I'm fine with that, actually.

And the other thing is the testimony of the opposition. I didn't disagree with anything he said, nor was there anything he said that disputed what I said. He talked about the leadership of CARB and their policies. And as I said, bringing it back to the Legislature still leaves CARB as a very important expert advisory board.

This doesn't change that at all. It just changes the final decision. And the gentleman spoke to legislative oversight. Well, I'd have to ask, has there really been. How many times has the legislature taken up a vote to either ratify or veto a regulatory policy of CARB? My guess is never.

Now, I don't have all those facts in my feeble little brain, but I still strongly suspect that the answer to that question is never. But I've heard plenty of conversations, even by people on the other side of the aisle relative to maybe carb's gone a little bit too far.

I've also had lots of discussions with people and organizations that support what I'm trying to do. But there's no way they're going to testify because a lot of them are regulated by CARB. They know this bill is going to fail and they will have to answer to CARB after having said that they support this.

So I know I have no illusions as to the viability of this bill. As I've often said as a minority member both in the assembly and here, I have become quite adroit at crashing and burning with grace and my dignity intact. But as I've said in my presentation, this is a conversation that we should have.

And I hope that this question does not die after the vote of this committee. At least I do not expect it to.

And I do strongly believe that the people that are paying higher gas prices and higher utility prices, to the extent that those are driven by Air Resources Board policies, they have no idea that the fact of the matter is regardless of what they think about climate change, they have no idea that all of those costs that are being foisted upon them have had absolutely no impact on the battle against climate change.

As I said before, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is greater now than than it was when AB 32 was adopted. So I think this is an important oversight issue. I hope the conversation continues and I still respectfully request your I vote.

Thank you, Senator. When we have quorum, we'll take up the bill. Thank you. We're now going to be moving. Lucky. Senator. So we are now moving to file item number six. Senator Caballero. SB 298. Senator, you're recognized when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair, for the opportunity today to present SB 298, which would ensure that California's seaports remain operational and competitive and that they meet California's climate and air quality goals. California has long been a leader in climate solutions, yet we lack a clear regulatory framework to transition the maritime industry, away from diesel dependence.

SB 298 begins to fill this gap. California ports handle 60% of all inbound US containers. 60%. Yet we lack the necessary infrastructure to support clean, alternative fuels in this heavy industrial sector. Global competitors are advancing multi-fuel operations and California risks falling behind in the transition to a cleaner maritime industry.

So, there aren't very many members here, but for those of you that went on the SIFI trip to Denmark, think Maersk, the Danish shipping and logistics company. We had an opportunity to visit their facility. They are the major container shipping company. They are moving to an alternative fuel. They are transitioning all of their barges to this alternative fuel.

They were very clear with us—had a great meeting with them—they were very clear that they will go to the ports that have the infrastructure in place to be able to provide the alternative fuel that they're going to need, to get back to Europe. And what that means is that they're, they're looking for partners.

They're looking for partners to create the fuel and then to have it available at the seaports. And we are, as I said, 60% of the container traffic comes through California. We need to be prepared. Barriers such as inadequate infrastructure, lengthy permitting process, financing obstacles, and regulatory uncertainty continues to hinder investment in cleaner fuel technologies.

This Bill will create a collaborative plan by 2030 to develop infrastructure for the storage and fueling of alternative fuels at California's seaport. The plan will be fuel agnostic, meaning it will remain inclusive of emerging clean fuel technologies as they develop. Does not dictate what the fuel is going to be or how it's going to be stored.

It starts the process for the identification to then create the plan. By ensuring California ports remain at the forefront of clean energy innovation, we can reduce polluting emissions and maintain our economic competitiveness. Reducing diesel emissions at our ports will lead to cleaner air for millions of California's—Californians—particularly in communities disproportionately impacted by pollution, in particular in air basins which have struggled with higher children and other higher population risk populations who suffer the health impacts of air contaminants.

And just so you know, that includes the Central Valley. The pollution that's created in the big urban cities blows into the Valley, and because we're a bowl, it never leaves.

And so, the modeling that's been done on cleaner air alternatives has shown that not only is the South Coast Air Basin cleaned up, but so is the Central Valley, which is critically important to me. This particular population suffers the health impacts of the air contaminants in diesel fuel.

This is a unique opportunity for California to lead the nation and the world in clean maritime technology. I want to thank the Committee and the Chair for their work on this Bill, and I will be accepting the Committee amendments, and I urge the Committee's support for SB 298 to ensure that our ports, economy, and the environment move forward.

With me to testify is Mike Jacob with Pacific Merchant Shipping Association.

You may proceed. One woman show now.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Committee Members, Mike Jacob with the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. Thank you, Senator Caballero. The proposition here is pretty straightforward. We're already investing billions of dollars and hundreds of new ships that are going to be equipped with the capability of using alternative fuels like LNG, methanol, ammonia, hydrogen, and other types of fueling sources.

What we don't have are the actual fuels. So, California is behind where we are in the rest of the world, in Asia, in Europe, and even in other parts of the country. There's no facility on the U.S. west coast which is set up right now to facilitate the types of fueling that we need for the future.

And also, we don't have the upland infrastructure that's actually coordinated with that fueling infrastructure. So, at the ports themselves, we know how to fuel a vessel. What we can't do is fuel a vessel when there is no upland infrastructure that's producing the fuel, storing the fuel, distributing the fuel.

And what this plan is intended to do is get ahead of the curve. We know these vessels are coming, they're already here. But they are not filling up with California alternative fuels. We don't produce them here, we don't sell them.

So, this plan is part of a process to get ahead of that curve, before most of our vessels, which have been procured and are in the planning stage, are actually appearing here and actually have that demand. Our fuels are critical for reducing carbon.

So, when we bring an alternative fuel vessel, right now they're dual fuel capable, which means that if we don't have alternative fuels that are actually available, we will burn the fuel that's available. And that fuel that's universally available is diesel. So, there's only two alternatives here. You either provide the alternative fuels and you decarbonize, or you don't.

And this Bill is the first step towards planning for actually decarbonizing, allowing us to use those fuels.

Thank you so much, sir. Now is the time for any Me Too's in support. Name, organization, and position please.

Good morning. Lauren Davalencia, representing the Cruise Lines International Association, and also representing Maersk, echoing our support through PMSA, and really thank the Senator for all their hard work. Thanks.

Good morning. Molly Corcoran, with Axiom Advisors, on behalf of Invenergy, in support.

Morning. Dan Chong, behalf of the Port of Long Beach, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other Me Too's. Any formal opposition on this Bill? Any Me Too's would like to share their opposition? Bringing in none. You hit a home run here then, huh, Senator? Bringing it back to my nonexistent colleagues. Any questions? None.

Senator, in my short time here I've seen you be a leader in these issues and you are very thoughtful and mindful in how you approach and what I've witnessed from the sidelines of other bills, it's just shooting for the headlines, and without a plan in place to get to those headlines and I think like your supporter mentioned, it's to have a plan in place to do the step one.

And you're not skipping any basis for just headlines. You just want to put a plan in place for us to be successful.

Very supportive of your Bill and I appreciate you bringing it forward. Just offering you time now to close.

Thank you very much. I really appreciate those comments. Let me just say that.

So sorry Senator, there wasn't any Committee amendments, and I know you said.

There were and I did say that I.

No, no, there weren't any proposed Committee amendments. So I just want to clarify that—yeah, you don't need to take anything.

From the last Committee.

There you go.

It's on your next Bill.

Yes, and that too. We still appreciate the Committee, whether there were amendments or not.

But the really critical thing that I've been trying to work on is I know that some of my bills are edgy and they're edgy because we've been a leader in climate change, but we really haven't prepared for the impact on working families.

And if we don't have a plan, if we don't, if we're not careful and we're working with the unions, the longshoremen, and the other unions that represent the ports, is we've been very careful to say we're not picking any alternatives.

We know that electrification and mechanization has created angst and very sensitive to the issue and want to assure everyone that what we're really trying to do is create the infrastructure, the plan for the infrastructure to be able to bring in alternative fuels, to do a whole number of things.

One is to meet our climate goals, which is the purpose of this Committee hearing, but also to create jobs and to create good paying jobs. I think, you know, you've heard some of the closures that have—really will dislocate people and families. We got to get ahead of the curve, and that's what this is about.

It's about a plan that people can respond to, look at, debate and discuss and then implement in order for us to stay as really one of the leaders in transportation of goods.

If you think that it's bad now with the tariffs, it'll be worse if you can't come to California ports to bring your products and we'll have to get them from somewhere else, the transportation costs will be exorbitant, and the greenhouse gas emissions will be bad. So, I respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote.

Thank you so much, Senator, and we have...to take a motion.

Sounds good. Thank you so much. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Senator, you have the next one, SB 643.

Okay. Now. Thank you, Madam Vice Vice Chair. So first I want to thank the Committee for their Work and we'll be accepting the Committee amendments. This is the one.

So I'm pleased to present SB643, which directs the California Air Resources Board to purchase and retire eligible carbon dioxide removal credits in order to accelerate progress toward California's carbon dioxide removal goals.

As you know, the climate change poses a severe threat to Californians that has resulted in wildfires, extreme heat waves, drought and other disruptions to the state's communities, environment and economy. Carbon dioxide removal, or CDR, refers to removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and permanently storing it in safe, secure locations such as underground geologic formations.

This is not the same thing as carbon capture, which captures CO2 from the Smokestacks of existing industrial facilities that burn fossil fuels. As you are aware, the state goal is to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions no later than 2045.

And the California Air Resources Board 2022 scoping plan for achieving carbon neutrality has stated that there is no path to carbon neutrality without carbon removal and sequestration. And they established the CDR targets of 7 million metric tons annually by 2030, which is just coming very quickly, and 75 million metric tons annually by 2045.

Over the last several years, a small number of companies have voluntarily purchased CDR removals as part of their own carbon neutrality goals. And these have been the tech companies. To date, with the exception of a pilot program, a private pilot facility in Tracy, almost none of the CDR removals have occurred in California.

And let me just say that this pilot facility in Tracy is available for viewing. I've taken legislators to look at is a novel and unique way of removing existing carbon in the atmosphere, out of the atmosphere, frankly, using rocks as the process, extracting it from those rocks and then putting it in cement, permanently securing the carbon.

The unique thing about this is the pilot project worked fantastically and the company, which is heirloom, is in the process of building a very large facility in the State of Louisiana because you can do it very quickly there.

And their goal is to be able to take carbon credits from other companies, use it to build their facility and to hire people. They're all union jobs. This Tracy facility was done with the PLA and in partnership with the City of Tracy. It's worth looking at because it is not your typical view of an industrial facility.

Anyway, the point of this is that you can do this very quick in other states. So it is not voodoo science, it's real. So our state has not developed sufficient pathways to achieve CARBS CDR target and the clock is ticking.

If the state is to meet our carbon neutrality goals, there needs to be an acceleration of CDR deployment to meet the urgent need to reach carbon neutrality.

This bill establishes the carbon dioxide removal purchase pilot program under CARB and it directs CARB to purchase and permanently retire $50 million in CDR credits generated by carbon removal projects by 2030.

Essentially, the bill directs the state to purchase CDR credits from eligible impactful and durable CDR projects to encourage private investment and create a market to scale the technology at the necessary pace. Eligible projects include four carbon removal pathways, direct air capture, which is the Tracy facility, biomass carbon removal, enhanced mineralization, and marine carbon dioxide removal and storage.

When selecting CDR projects, CARB must prioritize the potential to accelerate the strategy, the distribution of program funds across multiple geographies and project types, and the strength of community benefit plans. The Community Benefit Plans Plans will help to ensure that the benefits of carbo removal projects are returned to the surrounding community.

The bill also requires projects to be physically located in California and sets out project safeguards, including that CDR be additional and verified. Proud to have a broad coalition of supporters for the bill, including environmental groups like Project 2030, Restore the Delta, and the World Resources Institute, and labor organizations like the California Pipe Trades Council.

These groups recognize the environmental and employment benefits of building carbon removal projects in California by accelerating CDR deployment. The bill is an integral step to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and meet the state's climate goals. With me to testify and support are Dr. Bob Epstein with Project 2030 and Dr. Daniel Lashof, Climate Scientist Senior Fellow at the World Resources Institute.

Thank you, Senator. When you're ready, sir, you can begin.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Senator Caballero, I am Daniel Lashof. I'm a senior fellow with the World Resources Institute and a climate scientist who have been working on effective climate solutions at the international, national and state level for more than 30 years. I'm very proud, pleased to be here on behalf of WRI to support SB643.

This bill is really needed to scale up a carbon dioxide removal industry in California, which is essential to meet our climate goals.

We are already pursuing deep emission reductions and California has an excellent legal framework to ensure that carbon dioxide removal is developed in a responsible way that complements our emission reduction strategies and ensures that, for example, under AB1279 85% emission reductions must come directly from sources, so carbon removal can only be a small complement to that.

Also, under SB905, we have assurance that carbon removal will protect carbon removal projects, will protect public health and safety. But make no mistake, we will need carbon removal to complement those deep emission reductions. We'll need millions of tons of carbon removal, as the Senator said, as the scoping plan has outlined.

But right now, California only has some pilot projects that are removing carbon dioxide at the scale of thousands of tons per year that needs to be scaled up by a factor of 1000 or more in just the next few years.

And SB643 can jumpstart this process and ensure that California has a diverse portfolio of carbon dioxide removal projects. And as it has in so many other areas of climate policy, this is an opportunity for California to lead and to show what responsible scaling of carbon dioxide removal looks like. Like. So I respectfully urge your aye vote

Thank you so much. You also have two minutes.

Thank you. My name is Bob Epstein. I'm the co founder of Project 2030. Who are the sponsors of this Bill, SB643. I'm also California born, grew up in Stockton, went to the University of California, and I'm a serial entrepreneur in California. I've started four companies from scratch. They all went public and I took that success.

And for the last 25 years I worked as almost a full time volunteer working on climate policy in California, starting first with then Assembly Member Fran Pavley on her first bill in 2002. So I've been at this table a few times before.

What we want to talk about today is the intersection of economic development and our climate policy because there's a huge opportunity here. As Dan mentioned, we already have a demand and need for CDR in California.

But I want to combine that with the fact that if we look at the voluntary market that currently exists, we've seen about 20 million tons of CDR purchased, of which close to zero has been in California. The fact of the matter is that in the voluntary market it has no reason to prioritize California over anything else.

But if we look at what's happening in California and I would, it would be okay if I pass this up to you or through. I brought copies for all of the. Everyone if we need it. Okay, they'll be here.

So there's already about 35 companies doing development of CDR in California in various forms, but near zero that are actually doing production. SB643 will change that dynamic and pull these two opportunities together. This is the first time the Legislature will actually be supporting deployment of CDR to take full advantage of what's already happening in California.

And if we look in California, we have many of the startups, we have the national labs, we have the universities, and most importantly, we have the mandate to. Final thought, sir, final thought. So my final thought is this is going to be a $7 billion market. As a California entrepreneur, I want the chance to have those big California companies getting those contracts I urge an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Any me toos in support, please step on up. Name, organization and your position, please.

Good morning. Matt Klopfenstein on behalf of the Bioenergy Association of California in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Madam Chair and Members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Heirloom Carbon in support.

Good morning. Christina Rico on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council and California State Association of Electrical Workers in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Anthony Sampson here on behalf of Charm Industrial in support with the Committee amendments. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have any formal opposition, Any me toos who are opposed? Bringing it back. Senator, can you just talk a little bit more about some of the EJ Advisory Committee's concerns about the potential negative impact on the community's hair air quality? I know you mentioned some of it, but just the reassurance there.

Yes. So I think part of the challenge is that industrial development gets seen as a negative for existing communities. And part of the challenge is it's the old industrial development that has created the pollution.

So I understand the concern, but it's one of the reasons that I have led tours to Heirloom, the Tracy site, because I want them to see what clean green technology looks like. And you know, I've joked about you can eat off the floor, but it's really true. You do not see anything in the air.

It doesn't produce any air particulate matters. What it's doing is it's pulling carbon out of the air. And this is a small pilot project, proof of concept. So if I recollect correctly, it's like taking 600 vehicles off the freeway.

If you know Tracy, it's one of the major hubs towards the Bay Area, sees a lot of transportation going through that area. So what I would say is that the new technologies are very different than the old. And this is this particular opportunity provides us.

There are a number of new research that's happening that has talked about the possibility of taking waste, extracting carbon, cleaning water, and doing it all in a kind of a circular fashion, all at the same location. Location. So we really have the opportunities to solve a number of major pollution problems that we have in our community.

And the really important part of this bill is it includes a community benefit. So the community gets to say this is really what we want. And what I'm hearing from the communities in my district is that they want cleaner air because of the air pollution problem that they've had to deal with very high asthma rates.

So there's a community benefit. There's also the opportunity to take this carbon and permanently sequester it. What is the developing technology that is really incredible is the ability to store it underground and I'm talking about miles underground so that it never it's permanent storage. And geologically the central valley is perfect for that kind of storage.

Long time storage which means the development of good jobs. Again, creating a market so that we can accelerate our climate goals or we can accelerate towards meeting our climate goals and also doing good things for the community.

And it's, you know, it's imperative that we invest in that new technology. Right, Correct. And I recognize you do have a budget play here as well to get us to that point. All right, Senator, seeing nothing else, would you like to use that as your close or. I'll just give you as a I would.

Thank you very much. Thank you. When we have quorum, we'll entertain a motion. Thank you so much. I appreciate your time. Next up, we have file item eight, SB299. Senator Cabaldin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm here to present SB299. I want to begin by accepting every single amendment in the Committee analysis, of which there are quite a few. And I also wanted to say thank you.

As a former Committee consultant, I really appreciate the hours and hours and hours and hours and incredible creativity of the Committee staff to try to resolve some of these issues coming forward.

SB299 is motivated by a couple of circumstances and I'll describe the amendments in more detail in a moment, but they are intended to try to address two things.

One is both to comply with state rules, but also for jurisdictions that are trying to do the right thing on Housing and Community Development that we have to pay attention to our sort of non CEQA related barriers that make things take longer than they should.

And we have a situation where jurisdictions are required under law to adjust their zoning ordinance whenever they amend their General plan in order to be consistent and comply with the General plan. The zoning ordinance cannot be inconsistent with the General plan. And in fact, there's other legislation out there to penalize people who don't do that fast enough.

So the that's part of the point of the Bill, is to make it possible for cities and counties to act more quickly in areas that are essentially ministerial by making them ministerial.

The second reason though, and the one that's more compelling to me as a former mayor, the number of times I've sat in City Council where we invite and we send postcards out to everybody within 500ft of a project for a housing development or something, please come to this hearing where they come and they have heart wrenching testimony or heartwarming testimony and we cannot do anything about what it is that they're asking because either it's a ministerial action, in fact because we have to comply with the General plan, or because there's a deadline for the project, which is very, very often we're applying for state money.

The developer has a tax credit application. And so there's a deadline. And given the way that the hearing requirements exist today, if we make any changes changing the hours that a bar is open from 1:30 to 11:00pm and we have to start all over again and republish.

And in a town like Yountville or Dixon or Woodland, in my district that's not LA, that can mean months of delay and therefore not being able to compete for getting projects successfully done.

So we want to make sure that when people come to a hearing that we're treating their participation with respect and that we're inviting them to Hearings where there's at least a chance that their voices can be heard and be made meaningful and not invite them simply to theater where they're ignored.

So SB 299, as it came to the Committee out of the local government Committee, proposed to do that by making all conforming actions to the General plan.

Any amendment to the General plan when you had a conforming action in the zoning code, that would be ministerial trying to get at this issue, both in that Committee and then in the conversations with the chair and with the Committee staff, the amendments dramatically narrow the scope to those areas, to those situations which truly are ministerial in their function.

And so where it would have applied to every element of the General plan before and to zoning ordinances in a broad category. Now, with the amendments, the Bill will only apply when the, when the General plan amendment itself, number one, identifies the zoning land use designation, that's going to be. Oh, let me take a step back.

It now only applies to land use designations, not to General plan policies and other things, which the opposition and others correctly noted was too big of a

You know, if your general, if you change your general plan to say we want to have better parks and then you try to do all kinds of zoning ordinances to do that, including criminal penalties for, you know, littering in the park or what have you, that's not even close to ministerial.

So the Bill now only applies to land use designations. It only applies when your General plan amendment identifies what the, what the zoning designation is. Also, so that when CEQA is done, when the public hearings and the public engagement is done, everyone knows what the next step will be.

So there's no, there's no discretion being left to the local agency. And importantly, it requires the local and local agency that wants to do this to adopt a policy in advance. Here's how it will work under these conditions. Here's who's going to do it.

Because the opposition was concerned and they were right that, you know, just a rogue staffer might, you know, on their own, declare, hey, I've decided this is ministerial just out of the blue, project by project, arbitrarily. That's not what is intended.

So we want local governments to be transparent about how they will do that, who's accountable and what the procedures, if any, for appeals are. As well, we also agreed to amendments that limit the scope even further by not including changes to industrial uses or intensifying industrial uses.

This is an appropriate use for that and also to protect protected natural and protected lands as well from being covered in this way. So I think we've come a long way.

Obviously, one other change that the amendments include is making clear that when you're talking about making changes at the end of a public hearing, that bar example I gave, the public comes out said, we don't like this mixed use project because the bar is going to be open until 1am you could change it to 11:30 under the language that we propose, but you can't change it to and we're going to install surveillance cameras all over the city or it has to be on the same subject.

It has to further the purposes of that ordinance. So there's no surprises in that way either. So I appreciate the work that been done.

It's a modest step in order to try to both improve efficiency of the process and make it more likely that especially smaller communities can advance worthwhile projects that depend on that are subject to timelines and deadlines, but also to make sure that the public input is not a show that it is for real and that when people come to a hearing that they have a shot of having their concerns addressed.

So with that, I'd like to ask for an aye vote. I want to introduce our, our witnesses on SB29, if that's all right, Madam Chair?

Yes, Senator, you will have two minutes each.

All right, first is. Are you going first, Nolan?

Yeah, I don't mind.

Okay. First is Nolan Gray with California YIMBY.

Thank you, Senator. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Nolan Gray. I'm the Senior Director of Legislation and Research at California YIMBY and an AICP certified city planner here to speak in support of SB299.

California YIMBY is a statewide organization of over 80,000 neighbors dedicated to making our state an affordable place to live, work and raise a family. SB299 updates the outdated reading requirement for local governments, which often leads to weeks or even months of delays in adopting local pro housing policies.

These delays stall sincere efforts by cities and counties to meet their housing obligations and create roadblocks at every stage. From upzoning ordinances or from updating zoning ordinances to finalizing development agreements, from adopting the General plan to making dozens of follow up decisions.

We repeatedly ask local elected officials to take courageous votes and each time we make them do it twice. When a city or county needs to amend an ordinance, as the Senator was suggesting, to reflect community feedback, we make them take up the vote again.

Two further times, when local governments adopt their General plans and RHNA approved housing elements, the public outlines a citywide vision for the type of community they wish to reside in. Yet, when the relevant implementing ordinance comes to council for discussion, that conversation is divorced from those community priorities and values that inform the General plan.

For instance, while state law requires cities and counties to bring their local zoning ordinance into compliance with the General plan, local jurisdictions are forced to treat it like an entirely new planning process.

That's despite all of the community engagement and the completion of an environmental impact report that the city and County City or county engaged in and prepared for these exact types of decisions. Community input is essential to the policy making process.

Still, it can be accomplished without obstructing local government's ability to take action, especially in the face of a challenge as immense and immediate as our housing shortage and affordability crisis. For these reasons, we respectfully ask your support on SB299. Thank you.

Good morning Chair and Members. My name is Jordan Grimes and I'm the State and Regional Resilience Manager for Greenbelt Alliance. For the last 65 years, Greenbelt has worked across the nine County Bay Area to shape land use policies that advance climate resilience, protect our natural and working lands, and promote sustainable, inclusive communities.

Central to that mission is curbing sprawl and advancing infill development, creating homes in the places where people already live, work and access transit while safeguarding the open spaces that make our region so unique. That's why we're proud to support SB 299 today.

The Bill addresses a fundamental but fixable barrier to local housing progress, the outdated second reading requirement for ordinances that already reflect previously adopted community goals and plans.

Whether it's zoning updates to align with state certified housing elements, or local ordinances for parking for mixed use or complete streets, local governments are too often forced to run in circles, repeating votes, duplicating hearings, and wasting the time of both local officials as well as the General public. These delays don't serve communities.

They stall housing production, they drain staff capacity, and they undermine the very planning processes that we are asking cities and counties to take seriously. As we've seen through our deep engagement on General plans and housing elements across the region, community input is essential.

But once a vision is democratically adopted, we need to give our local leaders the tools to implement that vision effectively and efficiently. SB299 is a smart, targeted reform that supports local governments in following through on their housing commitments without sacrificing transparency or public engagement.

Thank you.

In the face of a climate and housing crisis, we can no longer afford unnecessary obstacles to building the resilient, inclusive and sustainable communities we know we need we need your aye vote today. Thank you so much.

If there are any others in support of the Bill, please come forward and state your name, organization and position.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Paul Gonzalez on behalf of the City of Fairfield, in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Spur, and Fieldstead in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Okay. Anybody in opposition to this Bill as a lead witness, please come forward. Let's make a little room at the table. Thank you.

Senator, Phoebe Seaton with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. We're a community based advocacy organization based in the San Joaquin Valley and Coachella Valleys. We work in partnership with lower income communities and individuals and especially environmental justice communities, communities most vulnerable to industrial development and other polluting uses.

We thank the author and the author's office for initial conversations with us and look forward to further conversations. I think our ultimate goals are aligned in developing communities and cities well, in partnership with constituents and we were just handed the recent proposed amendments based on our quick review. They do not address our concerns.

Zoning code updates Zoning code amendments do not simply mirror a General plan. They add significant detail and much needed detail and by definition require discretion and judgment. A couple examples that come to mind, a general plan might require buffers, but a zoning code really outlines what those buffers include.

The distance of those buffers, the quality of those buffers around industrial use and other commercial uses. A general plan additionally might allow industrial uses or commercial uses. Zoning code will outline what uses specifically are subject to conditional further review through conditional use. Permits are approvable by right, et cetera.

These are important decisions that require significant judgment, discretion and community input. Finally, the kind of robust engagement through zoning code updates we've seen, we've been a part of the result in significant improvements.

Most recently, we engaged in a zoning code update that resulted in improved signage and notice to residents of of pending development, increased buffers and improved rules around queuing, truck queuing, et cetera. Again, at this point, we remain opposed and look forward to working with this Committee and other stakeholders, especially the author's office, on further amendments.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else in opposition wishing to come forward, please state your name, organization and position.

Good morning, Chair Matthew Baker. We're Planning Conservation. We don't have a formal position, but we do share some of the concerns expressed by Leadership Council willing to work with the author and proponents on it.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building And Construction Trades Council still opposed. Look forward to seeing the amendments in print. Thank you.

Good morning. Marie Lu. On behalf of, oppose on behalf of Communities for a Better Environment, Public Interest Law Project, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Rice Poverty and Environment, California Coastal Protection Network, Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles, Center for Community Action and Environmental justice, and the California Rural League Assistance Foundation. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, seeing no other Members in opposition, we'll bring it back to the Committee and I'll start with some comments. So I want to really thank the author for bringing forward this Bill. I spent eight years in local government, six as mayor, and he spent over two decades as mayor.

And the experiences that you have sitting in the seats, you experience frustrations with things that don't seem to have a purpose, but they delay our process of whether it's needed housing or needed accessory dwelling unit policies or needed General plan updates.

But being able to specifically identify what is the solution legislatively to this problem is very difficult work. And it's not intuitive or obvious.

And this is the Senator's first year here in the State Senate, and it's wonderful to see him jumping right in to try to solve some of the problems that he experienced in local government so that we can actually do things in a more efficient way and make projects happen faster and also make it clear to the public when discretionary decisions are being made and when ministerial decisions are being made, because discretionary decisions from a local body need to be made by those who are elected.

But there are many decisions that are then made redundantly, and we can make those ministerial. We don't need to have the noticing requirements and also the communication to the public that can be misleading because, in fact, they're really not able to weigh in at that second hearing at least five days later.

So it is something that was put in place. Some of these things were put in place a long time ago for very good reasons. But in practicality, they're not accomplishing the goals that they were designed for. So I have worked with the author a lot on this Bill, and I very much appreciate where it's landed.

And I think it will help. Because this Bill, essentially what it does is that it says that the kind of rezoning that should be ministerial is and that it's that that is redundant with the General plan. So if it's...

There's nothing that would be ministerial like, for example, an industrial zone being rezoned as a housing zone, like, that would never actually happen because that is not a ministerial decision. That's reflected in the General plan. So.

So I just want to say a big thank you to the author and a recognition of where this type of legislation sits in an overall understanding of how local government works. And I'm grateful that it was brought forward and I'll be supporting it today. Any other comments, Senator Menjivar?

No. I'm appreciative of the Committee and the author having those conversations with the Committee because those were the issues that for me were causing a lot of concern, really helpful in smaller cities. But I was like for LA to have this immense powers, like, absolutely not. They were about to turn my entire district into industrial rezoning.

So I was meaning, like, they would have. I already have. I already have issues with that in my district. So really appreciative of you working with the Committee on addressing those concerns.

Okay, thank you. So with that, you may close.

Well, thank you so much. And I thank the chair and the staff repeatedly while you were still coming in. But I very much value the intersection of our local experience with the expertise and the context. Both of the chair and the staff and also the supporters and the opposition come a long way on this issue.

And of course, there's no way anybody has, we've been working on these constantly. So I recognize nobody's had a chance to look at all of the, In public, at every single one of the words.

But I do want to emphasize that one of the amendments makes it clear and it substantially narrows the scope of the Bill to say that it doesn't apply to modifying the zoning category, the definition or the standards.

So you can't, as part of this ministerial action, say, zero, and we are adding battery storage to what's allowed in the commercial zone, or it's multifamily. But we're changing the setbacks.

If there is the sort of discretionary actions that were described in some of the testimony under the amendments, you would have to go through the regular process, including both the public hearings and CEQA, in order to evaluate that.

This is only in the case where you have an existing zone, a General plan change, and the General plan change says it's going to be that exact zone, then it is ministerial at that point. And the NSB299 merely allows that to occur in reality, as it already should.

So appreciate all the work and ask for an aye vote.

Okay, thank you. Well, when we have more Members present, we will take a vote. Thank you. And I think you have one more Bill.

I do.

Okay. Our next Bill is SB486. This is item number nine on the agenda.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And then just as a housekeeping matter after that, we'll be going to Senator Limon with her two bills, SB567 and SB840, after Senator Cabaldon.

All right, thank you, Madam Chair. This is a, this Bill is, is trying to serve two twin purposes. Fundamentally. SB486 tries to assure that California is able to meet its statutory and long standing since 1960 commitment to every Californian that if they are in the top one eighth of the high school graduating class or the top 1/3, that they will have a space at the University of California at the California State University.

And this Bill is intended to make sure that we're aligning what happens at the local level through the CEQA process with that state level commitment that the state's enrollment targets for UC and SUSU are not UC San Diego and UC Davis don't independently produce their enrollment forecast.

And then the Legislature says, hey, well, whatever it added up to, that's what we're going to do. It's the other way around.

And so this Bill recognizes that we have an affirmative obligation to the young people and some adults of California to assure that we are planning and authorizing the local communities in order to move forward with plans for enrollment growth to meet the demand.

But secondly, it and so to accomplish that, it essentially says that the population impacts from enrollment growth don't have to be considered, don't have to drive a no project alternative in the environmental review for the long range development plan at the campus and in exchange, because it is absolutely essential that we do account for enrollment growth both for students and for commute patterns for faculty and staff and for students themselves, and especially for housing.

And so in Exchange expects UC and CSU to fully participate in the regional planning processes of SB375, the transportation plan, the sustainable communities plan, and therefore arena as well, so that the campuses are part of the solution, that their data and their forecasts are part of the planning and the analysis and so that we get those right and that local communities, as they are experiencing and accepting and embracing more enrollment, that they are also protected as part of that process as well.

So we can move from litigation to effective joint regional planning that both advances enrollment and improves the success in our outcomes on the regional plans for climate, for our climate goals. So I would ask for an aye vote on SB486 and appreciate this one.

Also a lot of work with the Committee in order to make sure that we get it, that we get it precisely right. And I very much appreciate the chair and the Committee staff in that regard.

Yes. Good. Thank you. Anybody witness in support wish to come forward? Okay. Other witnesses in support, please state your name, organization and position.

Good morning. Karen Stadt, on behalf of Power California Action, we're in support. Thank you.

Okay, Anybody else in support? Okay. Opposition? If you are in opposition, please come forward.

Good morning again. Matthew Baker with Planning Conservation League. We don't have an official position on the Bill, but we did submit a letter of concern. And I want to start by saying how much.

Maybe you can speak up and speak into the microphone a little bit. I'm sorry, could you just start over. With your name and organization and your position?

I'm sorry. Matthew Baker with Planning Conservation League. We don't have an official position. We have submitted a letter of concern. I want to start also by saying how much I personally respect the intellect and experience of the Senator in this area of regional land use and transportation planning.

It's had an impact on my career, so it pains me to be here. For the first time we meet in this context to be voicing concerns about the proposal. I want to say that integrating better consideration of the student body and student enrollment changes into the regional plan is absolutely a great idea. We fully support that.

What we submitted the letter of concern about was the portion of the Bill that would have obviated the need for the universities to analyze under CEQA population growth under for their long range development plan. We feel like that is really crucial that they should be doing that. So we appreciate the Committee's amendments.

I think it's an improvement, but I don't think that it fully satisfies our concerns. I want to explain that by reducing or eliminating the requirement to consider a NO project alternative for the purposes of population growth. I want to explain that the NO project alternative is not just like a static baseline for the existing conditions.

No project can have impacts on itself under changing conditions like with concerning housing of a growing student body. If the NO project is to not build more housing, then that's going to have impacts on the surrounding community, add housing stress or maybe displacement pressures.

And we really feel that those are very important things to be accounted for by the University. And I really want to hear the Senator's thoughts on that. Again, we're very committed to working with the author on trying to figure out what the solution is here for what you're trying to intend to do.

Well, thank you, Mr. Baker. Anybody else in opposition, please come forward and express your name, position and organization Apologies, Madam Chair.

Brandon Knapp, Chamber of Progress. We're actually in support. It was a little packed in here, so I was out. Out front there. So thank you.

Anybody else in support or opposition come forward? Okay. Not seeing any others. This is another Bill that we worked on quite a bit, which I appreciate. So, essentially, what this Bill does is it promotes regional planning by requiring the CSU and the UCS to report projected enrollments to regional planning agencies.

But this doesn't, of course, translate into how these impacted communities can have the money to buy land or build more classrooms or dorms, which is what we need to see happening. But having a system that is more aligned between this regional planning and our institutions of higher learning is really important.

And I understand you'll still be refining it. And some of the questions that were just posed by your neighbor here, I'm sure you'll continue to talk about them as this Bill moves forward. So I'm happy to support this Bill today, and I'm glad that you're working on this issue as well. So, anybody else? Okay.

When we have a quorum, we will vote. Thank you again. You can close, actually.

Yes. I'll ask for a navo. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Please.

Okay. Thank you. Okay, Great. Now we have Senator Lamon, SB567. And I want to say thank you to the authors for making it here timely so that we can proceed forward. We appreciate this. This is SB567. And after that, we will have SB840, also from Senator Lamone. So with that, you may proceed when ready.

Thank you, Chair and Members. The California Energy Commission has projected we will need 52,000 megawatts of. Of energy storage capacity by 2045 to meet electricity demand. To reach this goal, we will need a variety of types of energy storage, large and small, across the state. The state also has nearly 39,000 idle oil wells.

SB567 would create a pathway to pilot and study the use of gravity wells and how this technology may be able to take advantage of idle wells to create more energy storage. It will allow the permitting of gravity wells with appropriate testing and reporting afterwards to determine the impacts of this new technology.

With me today, I have Pete Montgomery with Renewal Energy in support of the Bill. Okay. You have two minutes. Proceed when ready.

All right. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members, Pete Montgomery, on behalf of Renewal Energy, we're the sponsors of SB567. As noted in the analysis, this Bill is nearly identical to last year's SB 1433, which passed out of this Committee without opposition.

Converting idle and orphaned wells to gravity energy storage wells will increase the rate in which these wells get plugged and monitored for emissions and leakage and will also provide critical and flexible energy storage that enables the deployment of more renewable energy.

Although this Bill only creates a pilot program for converting auto wells to gravity wells, it is a much needed step in creating a set of criteria, safeguards and analysis on the benefits of well conversions. With that, I ask for your aye vote.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else in support, please come forward. State your name, organization and position.

Madam Chair and Senator Menjivar, Paul Yoder on behalf of. Wait for it. The Kern County Board of Supervisors. In support. Thank you. Senator Limon.

Caitlin Rodner Sutter on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund. In support.

Madam Chair Members, Mike Monagan on behalf of the Building Trades. We were a watch but the sponsor and the author of taken our amendments or accepted our amendments for some building standards stuff and we are very supportive.

Thank you. All right. Nobody else in the room in support. We will call forward any opposition witnesses. Is there a lead witness in opposition? Okay, please make your way forward. Let's share a microphone with him. Okay.

Chair Stuck. Sorry. Madam Chair. My name is Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations, representing the Water Replenishment District. The District is responsible for replenishing and managing two groundwater basins in Los Angeles County, the Central and the West Coast basins.

Those those two basins provide 1/2 of the water supply for 4 million California residents. The concern for Water Replenishment District is that this bill would allow for pilot program for converting idle wells, oil and gas wells to this energy purpose. Some of these wells could be over 15 years old.

They were constructed for purposes of oil and gas extraction. And the concern is that with. With this project and these programs that we could see perforations or tears or accidents utilizing these wells that could contaminate groundwater.

There are 43 cities that overlie these two basins, most of which are disadvantaged communities that have suffered from legacy contamination, whether it's air quality from the ports or the freeways, groundwater contamination from legacy industrial pollution and what have you. Right now, in the Central Basin alone, we have over 60 groundwater wells that have PFAS contamination.

There is inadequate state and federal funding provide for these wells to be remediated and treated. Water Replenishment District has dedicated over $61 million of its limited reserves to assist these disadvantaged communities. When these wells are shut down, these communities often have to shift to imported water through the Metropolitan Water District.

The cost of that water is three times than the groundwater. So what we are bringing before the committee is that we understand the need to develop clean energy in California. But there is a compelling need under this committee to protect safe drinking water for Californians.

The district would prefer that this bill be amended to not allow for these pilot wells to be located in these two groundwater basins to give the state the opportunity to see if they work and if there's any issues. But once we have groundwater contamination, we don't know where it came from often.

And it is to those local agencies in the deal with the treatment costs. And as I indicated, the state drinking water SRF is not adequate to deal with even the PFAS contamination we have now. So we would ask for a no vote absent the amendment to limit the applicability of the bill. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else in the room wishing to express opposition, please come forward. State your name, organization and position. No. Are you anyone getting up for that? No, I don't think so. Okay. Well, we will bring it back to the committee. I wanted to ask the author if she'd like to respond to any concerns about wells.

Thank you. So, first and foremost, as someone who's authored a lot of legislation about keeping our waters clean, particularly from anything that can contaminate it, I want to say that that is definitely not the intention. This is why the gravity wells cannot use a well that is a conduit for fluid migration into a beneficial use aquifer.

That's section 3474B. We also want the regional water quality boards and the State Water Board to have a role in evaluating the pilot program to ensure safety of our water resources. So I think that that's a really important clarification in terms of the potential fluid mitigation that we've already, you know, addressed.

But we absolutely are happy to continue the conversations with the opposition.

Okay, thank you. Well, I appreciate the testimony today and this bill. I am recommending an I on this bill, and I think it's a good example of feeding two birds with one scone. So the two. Thank you.

So the two birds are the energy storage option for the state and also making sure that we use these thousands of abandoned oil wells, so having a use for them, a beneficial use for them. So with that, I will be recommending an I vote, but we don't have a quorum yet, so I'll invite you to close.

I respectfully ask for an I vote when the time is appropriate.

Okay, thank you so much. Now we have your second bill, which is SB 840.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. California enacted the cap and Trade program with AB32 in 2006. It was the first large scale cap and trade program in the United States and made California a global leader on climate change.

Although the program has not always been perfect, it has been a flagship program for reducing greenhouse gases while also being cost effective. The program has also invested billions of dollars in projects that lead to improved air quality and public health, as well as good jobs. SB840 only deals with one small part of the cap and trade program.

The Bill will require the Legislative Analyst Office to report to the Legislature on the economic impacts and benefits of the program in perpetuity. It is important for our cap and trade program to be evidence based, and we want to ensure that this reporting continues. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, thank you. Anybody in the room wishing to express support, be a lead witness, come forward to the microphone. One of the two.

Okay, thank you. Katelyn Roedner Sutter again with Environmental Defense Fund and support. Thank you.

Chloe Ames with NextGen California. We support the reauthorization of Cap and Trade with amendments to strengthen Environmental justice and affordability components. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, Any opposition witnesses wishing to come forward? Be a lead opposition witness. You can sit at the table. No? Okay. Anybody in the room wishing to express opposition? No. Bringing it back to the Committee. Any comments? Yes, Vice Chair Valladares.

I'll just say this will probably be the easiest vote I will take regarding a cap and trade Bill. Because we. Need to understand the economic impact. And, you know, my biggest thing for me and my district is fighting to. Make California affordable to live in again. And I think this is an important part of understanding the data.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Any other comments? I also have a recommended eye on this Bill. Would you like to close? Okay, thank you. Thank you. All right, we will move on to the next Bill. Thank you, Senator Limon. And that is Senator Stern.

I know he's quite close by, so we'll invite him to come forward. Now. This is SB614. zero, good. SB614. This is Senator Stern. And if you have any support witnesses, they're invited to come forward as well. Item number 12 on our agenda.

You're welcome to begin when ready.

Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start by thanking committee staff. We'll be accepting the amendments proposed, their outline on pages 8 and 9 of your analysis.

This legislation is really a response to a gap that we see in state law to provide a meaningful safety and regulatory framework for CO2 pipelines in this state. Previously, the law had relied on essentially a federal process to move things forward.

And the Biden Administration had proposed regulations at the at PHMSA, the Pipeline Hazardous Management Safety Administration, but those were subsequently rescinded by the Trump Administration.

And so there is sort of some regulatory uncertainty that we feel like, from both an environmental justice perspective, but also from an industry perspective, that we need to fill that gap, that folks are going to need certainty.

So this legislation would require, at minimum, that the state fire marshal adopt regulations that meet the previous federal standards, which we think are a good baseline. But it also provides discretion to the Office of State Fire Marshal to adopt additional safety standards. And we outlined some of those in the legislation. Odorant requirements, leak detection, pipeline location.

The other really important thing to note about this bill is there are other laws here in play. This is not the be all, end all. Once the Office of State Fire Marshal adopts regulations and would grant an operator a permit, they wouldn't necessarily just have carte blanche to build.

They'd have to go through local zoning, land use requirements, and there's other cross references here, for instance to the Port of Cologne Water Quality Act, California Environmental Quality Act, ESA. So.

So the goal here isn't to sort of end around any of the existing state laws, but to do things the best way we possibly can and really set the gold standard here in California for how we pursue this. You know, I know that there are, there are going to be some additional conversations.

I do think the committee amendments give us a really good roadmap here to look at both not just the alignment with broader state climate policy goals, but also the reference to technically feasible and commercially available improvements that have become available.

That's going to be important because this is an evolving industry and it's new ground we're breaking here, especially in California. So we are committed to this effort. We thank you for your engagement, Madam Chair, and respectfully ask for your I vote.

Okay, thank you. Any support witnesses wishing to come forward? No. Okay, opposition witnesses, if you're a lead opposition witness, please come forward to the table. Thank you.

Good morning. Marie Liu here on behalf of the Central California Environmental Justice Network who has an opposed unless amended position, it's imperative for the state to ensure that the state transportation of CO2 through pipelines is safe. And this is independent of concerns or thoughts about CCUs or the use of carbon capture and utilization systems.

The communities that CCEJN works with in the Southern San Joaquin Valley are the most likely to be intensely impacted by these pipelines. Given the geologic reserves in the area. CO2 pipelines are hazardous compared to a natural gas line.

They are more likely to lead to zipper like fractures which can release substantial amounts of CO2 that hang in a dense cloud, posing asphyxiation risks that can travel for several miles away from the rupture site. Even at lower CO2 concentrations, something we saw in Satosha, Mississippi.

The lower CO2 can cause health impacts and prevent internal combustion engines from working, impairing emergency response and evacuation. So we share the author's desires to make sure that California has strong regulations on these pipelines, especially in the lack of federal actions.

However, we must be aware that the state's ability to regulate even intrastate pipelines can be taken away from the feds and that regulating CO2 is new for the state fire marshal, something that the feds haven't done, nor the state.

So we're asking for this legislation to be more prescriptive in the regulations than we would normally require, especially given that the short regulation, the short timelines in the bill.

So we appreciate the amendments that the committee has offered so far and working with the author's office to help to put additional specific requirements to make sure that the initial draft state, the initial state fire marshal regulations are as strong as they can be to be protective of our communities. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. If there's anyone else in opposition who wishes to come forward, please come forward and state your name, organization and position.

Good morning. Jacob Evans with Sierra Club California in opposition.

Okay, thank you. Now bringing it back to the committee.

I'll just say, Senator Stern, that I appreciate your deep knowledge in this subject matter and it seems I appreciate you accepting the committee amendments. And I think they strike the appropriate balance between letting carbon management companies move forward with their innovative projects, while also raising the bar on safety and reliability as the technology and the field evolves.

These amendments will ensure that California holds its carbon pipelines to very high standards, regardless of what happens at the federal level. So I know that you'll continue, I hope you'll continue to work with the opposition on making sure that this is as safe as possible if it moves through this committee.

And I will be recommending a support. With that, I'd like to add. Okay, good. Senator Menjivar. Yes.

While I do appreciate the amendment from the committee and the chair to ensure that these are our new pipes, I do have a lot of concerns. And they're similar to the AG Advisory Committee. And Senator Stern, I was hoping if you could address one this. You know, I'm not a complete expert. I'm not an expert in this.

I'm wondering, I know there's a moratorium, so these projects don't exist. And then when the moratorium was established, there was no sort of projects in California that we needed to look at. I'm wondering how, if any, we approach this kind of approach, if that exists now and if pipes are the best way to go.

I know the analysis talked about this being the most efficient. I get that. But what about additional requirements regarding the separation of the tumao, the color orderant, While balancing prescriptive and non prescriptive, I still believe there leaves this bill as written leaves a lot of potential unintended consequences that could be detrimental to communities.

Thank you for the question. I really want to thank the opposition as well for digging into details here, especially given the broader sort of divide in the policy debate about carbon capture. Right. And that inherently you're talking about sources that emit carbon and have sort of. This is.

These are industrial projects. Right.

So this is a space where, you know, you're going to be working either with cement factories, refineries, power plants, things that a lot of environmental justice communities locally, when you have a power plant in your backyard like you do out in Pacoima, that you know, sort of inherently you say, why are we trying to extend the life of these facilities?