Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

Good morning, everybody. We'll convene in 30 seconds.

Okay. Good morning, everybody. We're calling this meeting to order. Welcome. It's nice to see all of you in the audience today. This is the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality and we would like to call anybody who is on the Committee as a Member to come.

We have a very long agenda and we'd like to get started and any authors who are possibly watching to come over. We are waiting for our first author, so we will go into a brief recess until we have her come. She's apparently on the way over. Okay, we have an author. Thank you.

Senator Weber Pierson is here on Bill SB236. So we do not have a quorum yet, so we will begin as a Subcommitee. And I would like to welcome Senator Weber Pierson with item number three, SB236. And you're free to start when ready.

Thank you. Well, good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Today I will be presenting SB236, which would prohibit the manufacturing or selling of hair relaxer products with toxic chemicals. I want to thank the Committee for working with our office and I accept the Committee amendments. Hair can highlight one's identity, creativity or culture.

We should feel free and encouraged to express express ourselves. No matter the style, hair type or texture, whether one wears their hair natural or straightened, we must ensure that we both have their beauty and health in our best interest. And unfortunately, this is not the case for hair relaxer products.

Hair relaxers are used and marketed to women and young girls, predominantly of color, as a convenient, long lasting and effective cost saving way to achieve and conform to Eurocentric standards of beauty. Even I for about 20 years of my life relaxed to straighten my hair to fit into those standards of beauty.

Nonetheless, the supposed perks of these products come with a great price exposure to harmful ingredients including endocrine disrupting chemicals, also known as edcs.

Research institutions like NIH and other studies like Renowned Sister Study and governmental agencies like DTSC have all concluded that the use of personal products with EDCs can be linked to a variety of hormone related health complications and cancers such as premature puberty or what I call precocious puberty, uterine fibroids, premenopausal breast cancer, among other several health related issues.

Too many women, through decades of using these products multiple times throughout the year, have now paid the cost with their health. And this is not right, nor is it what they should deserve. They deserve to be celebrated and to shine in their natural beauty, not be harmed in the pursuit of it.

SB236 will affirm the prohibition of manufacturing, distributing or selling any hair relaxers containing several endocrine disrupting chemicals. And it designates the Department of Toxic Substance Control, DTSC as the primary regulatory and enforcement agency. This Bill will ensure proper oversight to make sure hair relaxer products with hormone disrupting chemicals are truly off California shelves.

DTSC scientists have the expertise to do the work along with our shared commitment to protect all in California. Here to speak in support of the Bill today is Ryan Spencer representing the Environmental Working Group. And also, unfortunately, the person who is representing our sponsors, which is California Black Health Network, was not able to come. However, my legislative aide, Unique Ma Ferguson, will be reading her testimony. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. You're welcome to proceed. Witnesses have two minutes each.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Members, my name is Ryan Spencer and here on behalf of the Environmental Working Group EWG, in strong support of SB236, this Bill takes critical action to protect public health by prohibiting the sale or manufacture of hair relaxers in California that contain toxic chemicals like formaldehyde, Parabens and phthalates.

Ingredients have been linked to cancer, endocrine disruption and reproductive harm. EWG's research, along with findings from leading public health institutions, confirms that over 25% of hair relaxer products contain at least one formaldehyde releasing preservative. And these exposures, as Dr. Weber Pearson mentioned, disproportionately affect women of color.

Studies have shown high risk of breast and uterine cancer among black women who frequently use these products, including deepening existing health disparities. Despite these risks, there are virtually no federal or state safeguards. SB236 closes this gap by eliminating the most dangerous chemicals, improving safety standards and authorizing DTSC to enforce protections Californians deserve.

This Bill is about fairness, transparency and health equity. For these reasons, EWG respectfully asks for your aye vote on SB236. Thank you.

Thank you. You may proceed. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony for SB236 on behalf of our sponsor, the California Black Health Network, and Rhonda Smith, their Executive Director for Quick background.

The California Black Health Network, or cbhn, is the only Black led statewide organization dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians to ensure that they all have access to high quality and equitable health care and avoid unnecessarily succumbing to disease.

The intent of SB236 closely aligns with their mission and we as an office are thankful to work with this organization, the average woman uses 12 different beauty and personal care products every day, exposing her to 168 toxic chemicals.

Many of these chemicals are hormone disruptors that have been linked to health conditions, including diabetes, endometriosis, infertility, uterine fibroids and various cancers. Even products that claim to be natural or organic can contain these dangerous chemicals. As for hair care products, Black women spend nine times more on hair products than the average consumer.

This usage is driven by beauty standards, which celebrates a more Eurocentric appearance. A recent study from Boston University suggests that Black women who have used relaxers more than twice a year or for more than five years have a 50% increase in uterine risk cancer.

And 95% of Black women in the US have reported using hair relaxers at least once in their life. While many endocrine disrupting chemicals found in these products are banned in statute, stronger enforcement is needed to ensure that they are truly off the market.

CBHN launched the Conscious Black Beauty Movement, which aims to empower all Black women and girls to lead healthy lives free from these harmful effects of toxic chemicals. At Cbhn, we believe it is important to address the root causes of these health disparities and eliminate exposure to these chemicals, which is why CBHN strongly supports SB236.

Thank you again to the Committee for allowing me to provide witness testimony on their behalf. And the California Black Health Network respectfully asks for an aye vote for SB236. Thank you.

Well, thank you very much. If there's anybody else in the room who would like to express support, please come forward to the microphone. Okay. Seeing none, we will move to opposition witnesses. Do we have any opposition witnesses in the room? Seeing none. Any opposition? Anyone wishing to express opposition at the microphone, please come forward. Okay.

Seeing none, we will bring it back to the Members. Any comments or questions? No? Okay. Well, thank you to the author for bringing this Bill. And with that, you may close.

Thank you. Thank you so much. You know, to close this is not only a public health issue, it is truly an equity issue. Hair relaxers pose serious health risk, but these effects of these products have a disproportionate impact on communities of color.

My work as an OBGYN and also here in the Legislature is rooted in improving the health of our women in our minority communities, and that is shown through this Bill. And with that, I respectfully asked for an aye vote on SB236. Thank you.

We will hold this open for a vote when we have a quorum. Okay. Next we have our item number one, SB 34 from Senator Richardson. You're welcome to come forward. And if you have two witnesses in support, they are welcome to come forward as well. And Again, this is SB34 from Senator Richardson.

Thank you very much and good morning to all of you. First of all, I want to take a moment to thank the chair and the staff. And that's something I say for every Bill because usually bills you're working with staff and the Members. But I want to particularly acknowledge you, chair.

You have a long history of your advocacy of environmental standards, of us improving air quality. And I think when it's all said and done, California will be much better for you having served.

So I want to thank you for your due diligence, your insistence upon us getting to where we need to be, but you also working with us. So I wanted to say that personal thank you onto the record. Before I start, I think it's important to give some of the basic facts.

And usually I read my statements like most of us do. But, you know, this is something I have lived and breathed for over 30 years. I have been a staff Member on a local, state and federal level, and I've been an elected official on a local, state and federal level.

And in all of those capacities, I have represented one or both of the ports that we're talking about today. So this is something that I know pretty well. It's something that I have seen grow.

But it's also an industry that I've seen has worked with California standards to do its part to make sure that all of California is better.

With that in mind, some of the background facts that I'd just like to share with you is that when I grew up, I remember when I grew up in Los Angeles and you could not see downtown Los Angeles, it was a fogged area. You couldn't see the high rises.

And it's due to groups like Air Quality Management District and so on that were diligent and said we need to really make some efforts to improve the air. But what I think we also need to remember is the industries that worked in CO with them.

So when I served on the Long Beach City Council, the Port of Long beach had started a program called the Green Flag Program. And what we know is that pollution is not limited to the ports alone. Pollution is actually related to many aspects in our area. And I think that's very important for everyone here to understand.

In the community that I live in, it's not just the port complex, but it's also I have two airports I have four major freeways, I have the Alameda corridor. I have just trucks upon trucks. We have the Vincent Thomas Bridge. I mean, we have all of those aspects contribute to the air quality that we have.

And so because of that, the Port of Long beach was proactive and said one of the things we know that causes the greatest amount of missions is actually the vessels as they're coming into the port.

And so what they did was they offered incentive programs and if a vessel were to, you know, reduce their speed, that they would get a green flag and they could actually come in a little sooner.

And so what the Port of Long beach and then ultimately the Port of Los Angeles did was they began to do programs that would incentivize. Not everything doesn't have to be done by a stick. Oftentimes we can work with industry to adopt goals that are helpful.

And so with that in mind, I just want to make sure that the Committee is aware for the record, that the San Pedro ports actually independently on their own back in 2017, adopted their own Clean Air Action Plan. They have worked to the goals of the Clean Air action plan since 2017 and frankly before that.

And I'm sure our witnesses today will share some of those results. I just want to highlight a few to you. In addition to the Clean Action Air Plan, they do an annual inventory of the air emissions.

And so the report that was put out In August of 2024, the Port of Los Angeles actually had a reduction of 26% of DPM tons, 24%, Knox 29%. So 2s 40%, Co 15% and HC 16% reflective equally in the Port of Long Beach. And this is for a period of from 2005, excuse me, 2023 to 2022.

And I also have the reports for you if you would like them, from 2005 to 2023. But the same thing is evident in the Port of Long Beach. You have reduction levels from DPMs of 14%, knocks of 21%. So 2 is 11%, cos 25%, HC 15% and CO2's at 16%. Why do I point these out?

And that's why I'm here today. You know, I find it interesting that this Legislature worked very hard and I believe it was in 2022. And I look at Eric here, who is very instrumental in helping us form the zero emission standards and the goals.

It would be one thing if we were talking about an industry that had done nothing. But both the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long beach have been working actively since before 2007 to do the goals.

So the question is, why do we need an agency that's not an elected body to come before us and to say, we're going to dictate how you achieve those goals? So the purpose of SB 34 today, and what we're asking for your support on is, is for the stakeholders to work collectively.

In all of my years of being an elected official, I've never seen anyone frown on the idea that people would actually work together, that the individuals who actually do the work, who have the best ability to achieve those goals in the fastest and the best way, that they would be the ones at the table.

And so that's what SB34 is about. It's about making sure that all stakeholders are involved, that it's not a dictation, but it's actually an agreement, an area, an action that everyone can agree to. And it's also something that's reasonable. As I stated earlier, the ports are actively working, but some things are beyond their control.

We do not dictate, and neither do we control vessels. That's interstate commerce. And so to hold ports responsible for a part of their pollution of something that they don't control. Another item is the grid.

We know that one of the best ways that we can reduce emissions is to have everyone plugging in, all of the vessels plugging in but one. We have to have Los Angeles DWP actually build this grid. So there are some steps that we need to take.

And what we're saying in SB 34 is that the industry is willing to work with South Coast Air Quality Management District to continue to make the reductions as planned and to eventually get us in our zero emissions goals. So with that, before I introduce my witnesses here today, I want to talk one moment about the workforce.

And I see many of my brothers and sisters here who are in the audience, and I want to say why they're here. The men and women you're looking at back there, those are what we call essential workers.

When Covid and everybody else was hiding under a blanket and at home, they got up every single day, 24 hours a day, to make sure we had toilet paper, to fight over, to make sure we had paper towels, to make sure we had clothes, to make sure we had all of the vital materials that we needed.

And so the workforce is here because it's not just the terminals that get zero emissions done, it's the workers that are equally committed to making sure that not only California, but also as a workforce, we have a healthy environment to Work in. They all live here. Believe me, if it wasn't healthy, they wouldn't be fighting for this.

I live in San Pedro, Most of them live in San Pedro and Wilmington and Carson in these communities. So this isn't a group of people who, zero, I just want to keep my job. These are people, men and women, where their children actually live in these communities.

And so they want clean air as well, but they also want the right to work and they want the ability to work in conjunction with industry, with the agencies to get us there. And with that, I'd like to introduce the two witnesses that I have here today. They can decide who will actually go first.

But we have before us Marvin Pineda. He's representing ILWU. And we also have Mr. Thomas Yellinek. He's the Vice President of Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. Thank you, gentlemen. I pass the ball to you.

Thank you. You each have two minutes.

Thank you. Chair Blakesphear and Members. Marvin Pineda, on behalf of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union here, on behalf of Locals 1363 and 94 in support of SB 34, we want to thank the chair and the Committee staff for all their hard work on this Bill.

The IOW has a 90 year history of loading and unloading ships, trucks and trains at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. You're right. The backstory that a lot of people don't know is that a lot of we lost a lot of workers during COVID while we all stayed at home.

They, you know, and as a protective equipment was not available, they took a risk, they sacrificed, and a lot of them lost. Some of them lost their lives. So with that, our Members continue to move cargo, even using the most modern equipment.

Today, we are collaborating with our employers, local cities, harbor departments, supply chain stakeholders to reduce emissions at the ports. Our collective efforts have resulted in impressive accomplishments. So thank you, Senator, for those numbers.

Since the inception of the Cleaner action plan in 25, the ports have reduced diesel particulate matter by 92%, nitrous oxides by 72%, sulfuric oxides by 98%, and greenhouse gas emissions by 17% while increasing cargo volumes by 20%.

While we are continuing to implement new regulations such as the 2030 goal, that all port equipment is near zero emission by 2030, and that all poor equipment is zero emission by 2035 in the XHSO rule, we feel that it's. It's a bridge too far without guardrails, which are now included in SB 34.

Simply put, as the LWU has always stated we need economic sustainability to be in equal regards to environmental sustainability. We cannot have another Detroit Insulin. California. The ports are vital not only for those communities, but for the entire state.

We will lose thousands of jobs and we are here as we've been engaging with AQMD since the warehouse rule and a lot of times we feel that we've never gotten answers. Without the protections offering this proposed legislation, cargo will be diverted into other ports like Texas, Florida and Georgia to name a few.

This ports have lax regulations and lower cost to operate which attracts ships that are coming through the Panama Panel Panama Canal. Currently, the California Resources Board, as you mentioned, has several regulations on the ports. We continue to be regulated and I've. We're going to need you to wrap up, please. Thank you so much. And we ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning Chair Blakespear Committee Members, my name is Thomas Jelenić. I'm a Vice President with the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to be here. Our Members are the ocean carriers and terminal operators that serve California's ports. Our Members facilitate international trade that drives the California economy.

The companies working in just the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach create annually $20 billion in labor income, 226,000 regional jobs and $2.7 billion in local and state taxes. And the benefits that the ports bring to our state and to our local community are under threat from both tariffs and bad poor regulation.

Just looking forward to May and the impact of tariffs. We're looking at third 34 vessel arrivals that have been canceled just in May. So Marvin's reference to Detroit is well founded today. And I'm here today because I am the son of a longshoreman.

And the benefits of that community and the work the port provided is what's so important to our community and making sure the ports remain vital, strong economic engines. So I'm here to speak in support of SB 34 and continued collaboration. And that why continued collaboration is the best path to achieving a zero emissions future.

Terminal operators and ocean carriers that make up PMSA are also stewards of the environment in addition to driving the economy. Since 2005, as you've heard, emissions are down. Diesel Emissions are down 91%. 91%. That is huge. And that is faster than the region as a whole and faster than any other source in our region.

You've already heard the environmental benefits that the ports have achieved from the Senator and Marvin. In addition to that are commitments to zero emissions equipment. There is test equipment being deployed throughout the port, trying to get there. Work is being done with the local utilities.

But all of this, what has been achieved and what will be achieved has been through collaboration. The Clean Air Action plan is a 20 year history of successful collaboration. The ports in the maritime industry have worked successfully through the Clean Air Action Plan to create the cleanest port complex in the nation and likely the world.

Unfortunately, proposals like the indirect source rule will stifle the most successful partnership in the nation. SB 34 lays out the ground rules for continued collaboration and success that will help ensure that we can achieve our zero emissions future.

SB 34 will also ensure that we protect incentives that will be necessary, the incentives and grant funding that will be necessary to achieve these goals. Because these goals to achieve a zero emissions port are going to be enormously expensive and we're going to need to rely on the grant programs that are out there to achieve this program.

And an indirect source will push puts that at risk. SB 34 preserves it. So with that, I'd like to thank you for your time today and urge your support for the Bill.

Thank you very much to both of the witnesses who came today. If there's anyone else in the room who would like to express their support, now is the time to line up. So it's just your name, your organization and your position, which means that you support or oppose.

Sarah Wiltfong with the Supply Chain Federation in support.

On behalf of California's Business Roundtable and the California Business Properties Association in support.

Sean Farley with the ILW stand in support.

Dan Chia for the Port of Long Beach for support and concept. Greatly appreciate the author's leadership, hard work of staff. Look forward to continuing working with everyone as this Bill moves. Thank you.

Good morning. Nick Chappie, on behalf of the California Trucking Association in support. Thank you.

Derek Peterson, ILWU, in support.

Good morning. Emily Peterson, ILWU in support.

Good morning. David McGarry Jr. On behalf of the. ILWU in support of SB 34.

Morning. Anthony Palata, ILWU in support.

Good morning. Diane Campbell with the ILWU. I support SB 34. Thank you. I appreciate your time.

Good morning. Natalie Gray, I'm with the ILWU. I support SB 34.

Good morning. I am Kaula Kalakini. I'm with the IOW in support.

Craig Garcias, ILWU Sport 34.

Good morning. Timothy Campbell, ILWU in support of SB 34.

Good morning. David Lopez, ILWU. I support SB 34.

Good Morning. Diana Lopez, from ILWU. I support.

Good morning. I support the Bill and I'm from ILWU. My name is Philip Herman. Have a good day.

Good Morning. Tim Campbell, ILWU in full support of SB 34. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Peter Bianchini in. Full support of SB 34.

Good morning. I'm Mark from ILWU and I'm in support.

Good morning. My name is Cassie Edwards from the ILWU in support.

Hello, my name is Rick Apodaco in support of ILWU 34.

Good morning. My name is Lauren Poncia from the ILWU in support of Bill 34.

Alan Couch, ILWU support Bill 34 SB 34.

William John Linker Jr. In support ILWU.

Thank you to everybody who came to express their support. Before we move to any opposition witnesses, I just want to encourage any author who is presenting today to come to. To present in GO because we currently. Or sorry, Environmental Quality. I'm also on geo, but it come to Environmental Quality. To present your EQ Bill. We need authors.

So with that, if you are opposed to this Bill and you are a primary witness, please come forward. Welcome and you each have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair Members of the Committee. My name is Ian MacMillan. I'm an assistant Deputy Executive Officer with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the agency responsible for air quality for the 17 million people in the greater Los Angeles area, a region that suffers the worst air quality in the nation.

I'm here today to testify in opposition to SB 34. This Bill would prevent South Coast AQMD from addressing our largest source of emissions of smog forming of smog forming emissions for more than a decade. Goods movement is an important economic engine in Southern California.

However, port air pollution also causes about 250 premature deaths and three and a half $1.0 billion of health impacts every year.

Further, we are at real risk of devastating economic sanctions from the Federal Government if we are unable to meet air quality standards over this next decade, including the loss of tens of billions of dollars in transportation funding. But we know that we don't have to trade off clean air for economic vitality.

South Coast AQMD has a successful record of implementing regulations that reduce emissions while population, jobs and our economy continue to grow. Indeed, emissions from the ports have reduced over the last two decades, but almost exclusively due to regulations from CARB. Meanwhile, both ports have enjoyed record cargo volumes.

The primary objective of this Bill appears to be to restrict South Coast AQMD from imposing caps on cargo volume at the ports. We would never impose such a harmful scheme. But the Bill goes much farther than that. Barring South Coast AQMD from implementing any action that would require the ports to reduce pollution.

While the ports are attempting to implement their Clean Air Action Plan, it falls far short of the emission reductions that are needed and they are not on track to meet even their own goals. If the South Coast AQMD is unable to achieve additional emission reductions from port sources, we will never meet federal air quality standards.

The obligations and sanctions under the federal Clean Air act won't go away, causing actual economic harm and prolonging ongoing health impacts. We therefore respectfully request opposition to SB 34. Thank you very much.

And you have two minutes as well.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and Members. My name is Ada Welder, policy advocate with Earthjustice, a public interest environmental nonprofit law organization here.

In opposition to SB 34, our team works directly with communities impacted by pollution from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which are the largest fixed sources sources of emissions in one of the most polluted parts of the country.

As the analysis points out, these ports are responsible for 15 to 20% of total emissions in the air basin, leaving communities at just over double the cancer risk compared to the national average. SB 34 would weaken the air district's ability to implement life saving regulations that local communities have been demanding for decades.

While we appreciate all the work the Committee has done with the chair and author to the bill's scope remains dangerously broad and alarmingly vague. Ultimately, the amendments do not fix the bill's core flaw. It's a solution in search of a problem. We agree that building out zero emission infrastructure will require collaboration and coordination.

And that's why a well thought out and vetted rule at the local level is essential. South Coast's work to establish a rule on the ports is not new. The rule in its current form has been in the works for several years as part of a formal rulemaking. But stakeholders have been negotiating how to proceed for a decade.

The process and procedures leading up to and through rulemaking are incredibly important, Especially in an air district that represents 17 million people. The established procedures for rule development that are in place allow for robust participation for all interested parties from community groups to industry.

We are extremely concerned that the voices of environmental justice communities will be left out because more well resourced groups in opposition can consistently show up in Sacramento, while frontline communities cannot always afford to make this trip.

By having this conversation in the Legislature and not locally, we are not only threatening local control from the air district, but from the people most impacted. We are not here to say no to economic development.

In fact, indirect source rules can help us build out infrastructure and bring Our goods movement system into the future with the rest of the world. However, a strong economy is worth nothing if local communities are forced to breathe dirty air and suffer from health impacts ranging from asthma to birth defects to premature death. We appreciate your time today.

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

Yes. Dr. Pam Odell, Climate Action California. Opposed.

Sofia Rafikova with the Coalition for Clean Air, also speaking on behalf of the Communities for a Better Environment and opposition.

Hello. Guillermo Ortiz representing the Natural Resources Defense Council in opposition to SB 34. Thank you.

Good morning. Michelle Canales with Union of Concerned Scientists. And in opposition.

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

Madam Chair. Members, Brendan Tuig, on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, representing the Air Pollution Control Officers from all 35 air districts in opposition.

Madam Chair, Mark Fenstermaker registering opposition for the Ocean Conservancy.

Okay, thank you. Thank you to all of our support and opposition witnesses who came forward today. Now we will bring the discussion back to our Members, if anybody would like to. Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank you and the Committee for a Lot of this diligent work, as well as the author for bringing this forward. These are never. We've talked about it constantly. These are never easy items, of course. And I know that we're in between two parties that I don't think are incorrect.

Both of you are right. We do have some of the worst air quality in the nation. We absolutely need to attack that. We absolutely need to ensure that there's a workforce and that there's economic vitality at our ports, global competitiveness. All of that needs to intersect. There needs to be both parties in good faith at the table. And this, I think, Bill will help navigate that.

I know that there are differences with the way that this Bill went about, but I do think that it provides an opportunity for us to have ongoing discussions, especially in this time of uncertainty, because as I think each of you had mentioned is we are in an unprecedented time of tariffs and an unprecedented time of having attacks on clean air and water.

And so we've got to navigate this. So I'm hopeful that this Bill, through Senator Richardson and thank you and your team and the folks at ILW and PMSA for, you know, working on this and Willie on your team, too, is that I hope that this provides us an opportunity to really sit down in this new time and really talk about how we can work together on all of these fronts.

And I know that's easier said than done. I'm saying this very simplistically, but we really need to do that in a very different way. With that, of course, supporting the Bill. Look forward to more conversations on this.

And I know that this will be moved to transportation next, and then we have more work to do there in transportation to ensure that we are certainly addressing issues of labor and issues of other logistical, you know, matters within this Bill. So with that, I'll move the Bill when appropriate as well.

And I just want to thank you, Madam Chair, for all your work and the Committee. I know this was a lot of work. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, I also want to thank the majority leader for her engagement on this Bill and the author for her passion and diligence in and really digging deeper into what's trying to be accomplished and how best to do it.

And I appreciate all the engagement as well from the supporters and the opponents because this has been a very robust conversation. And also I want to recognize the Committee staff who's also been working hard on it. So it has been really a big effort and a team result here.

So at this point, we don't have a quorum, so we'll hand it back to the author to do a close and then we'll vote when we do have a quorum.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I'm going to respond with your permission, to a couple comments that were made by the opposition, and then I'll close the first comment that I want to make. And I'll pass this map around to all of you. We were looking for a better one. We'll have one in transportation.

Very nice for you. Many of us sit on that Committee. But in this map here, you'll see this bottom corner portion is the port, the Port of Long beach and the Port of Los Angeles. What you see over here is lax. What you see over here is Long Beach Airport. What you see here is the Alameda Corridor.

What you see here is the Vincent Thomas Bridge. And so it's my understanding, actually the opposition has a report that shows that all of the pollution, in fact, I think they someone indicated 15%.

But to say that the pollution of the worst in the nation is due to the San Pedro complex, I think is not a fair assessment. In fact, when I was on the Long Beach City Council, where the cancer cluster is.

Is along the 710 Freeway and where we have cancer and asthma, and many of us have had these discussions over long periods of time, it needs a collective approach, not just with the ports, but all aspects of what we face here.

The other point I just wanted to make is that it was stated that we would never meet our goals. We will not meet our goals if ELADWP does not build a megawatt station that the vessels can connect to and that the new equipment can connect to.

That's what's the largest block of us being able to achieve those goals. So as we move forward in this discussion, we have to remember it's not just the operations, it's what is going to be the infrastructure required and that's why all stakeholders are so important. And finally, it was mentioned about this being a local matter.

I would say that that's the whole point of SB 34 is that it shouldn't be something dictated by one agency of a few board Members. It needs to be all of the stakeholders, including local Members. So with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I commit to the Committee that we will continue to work with the opposition and with the South Coast Air Quality Management District to develop a plan that will help us to in fact achieve the 2035 goals, which I know is your mission. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. So with that we will move on to our next Bill and we appreciate all of your testimony. I do see Senator Choi here. Thank you for coming. This is Bill SB797 and we welcome you to come forward with your support witnesses if you have them. Welcome Senator Choi. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you. Good morning Chairwoman and the Members. I would like to start by accepting the Committee's amendments today came to before you today to present the ability 797 which intends to create a study group on undergrounding and insulating power lines in wildfire prone areas across the state.

By forming a CPUC led workgroup, the state can gather essential data on cost comparisons between undergrounding and insulation, geographic prioritization impacts on ratepayers and long term wildfire prevention strategy. This Bill ensures policy decisions are backed by thorough analysis, not guesswork or piecemeal approaches.

The workgroup will evaluate existing wildfire mitigation plans which will be represented wmps and identify the most impactful, appropriate and cost effective investments with using energy rising energy bills, ratepayers impacts must be considered and this Bill will ensure so they are.

The report will help the Legislature make informed funding decisions with the best return on investment in safety and infrastructure resilience. Without this Bill, lawmakers are at the risk of blindly regulating and funding wildfire safe infrastructure. SB797 is common sense, proactive step to better protect California from catastrophic wildfires.

It brings transparency, coordination, and accountability to one of the most urgent infrastructure challenges facing the state. This is about saving lives, preventing disaster, and building smarter, safer energy infrastructure for the future. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Choi, do you have any support witnesses you would like to invite up?

No, I don't.

Okay. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support, please come forward to the microphone. Not seeing any. We will invite opposition witnesses to come forward. If there are any. Not seeing any opposition witnesses. We invite anyone in the room to come forward to the microphone to express opposition. No, I don't see that happening. Okay.

We will bring it back to the Members for any questions or comments. Okay, then. Senator Choi, you may close.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, thank you. When we have a quorum, we. We will proceed with our voting. Thank you very much and thank you for coming down here. We will now move to Senator Menjivar, SB526. Her Bill is SB 526.

Good morning.

We could wait for your visual displays to be set up if you would like us to.

It. While we are setting up the visuals, I wanted to encourage any author in this Committee to come down to room 112 in the California State Capitol to present your Bill after Senator Menjavar finishes her Bill. We do not have any other author here, so we will take all first comers.

I would also like to encourage any Member of the Committee to come because we could then have a quorum and vote.

Madam Chair.

Yes, please proceed. Senator Menjivar

thank you so much, Madam Chair, and to the Committee for working with me on this Bill. We'll be accepting the Committee amendments as described in the analysis on page six.

Colleagues, I represent a community that the north, that has a northeast area, a pocket that is concentrated with terrible air quality, has about 56 freeways running through a small pocket of my district, has industrial areas, has waste management, has car dismantling facilities, has aggregate dismantling facilities, and so many other issues.

And somehow years ago, the City of Los Angeles decided that it would be a perfect place to put homes, to put parks. And what we have is a really inequitable distribution of or lack of access to clean, breathable air.

And one of my promises to my constituents was that I was going to come to Sacramento and address these EJ issues. And this Committee has seen several of them. And I'm coming with you with another one, SB526, that is very important and localized to my district.

What you see behind me is one example of what my constituents see on a daily basis. And it's not just in ISO, but I call them my high rises because it's a suburban area that does not have high rises. And the tallest buildings are these piles of aggregate material, of dust, piles of businesses.

And as you see in one of the photos of people playing soccer right in front of them, because again, you have parks that are within 300ft, homes that are within 300ft.

When I was out doing research or outreach for this Bill, I filmed a video of putting my finger on all the cars in front of certain aggregate facilities. And the dust that is constantly, as you see in one of the photos, existent there.

This is, it looks as if it was post a disaster, but this is an everyday experience for individuals. And that is because unfortunately, South Coast AQMD has not updated their Rule 1157 since 2006, which manages the hair quality, the air quality in the area.

And this rule does not provide protections for residential communities who desperately need this protection. That is why SB526 is looking to ask South Coast AQMD to update their Rule 1157 with parameters of stronger dust containment, fence line monitoring and enforcement threshold limits. Because if Your stockpile is 20ft higher than your fence, what's the point of your fence?

The fence and the 5 foot trees are not doing anything to mitigate the PM10 emissions that are coming out into this community that is always talking to their elected officials about the high rates of asthma, their kids getting sick, older individuals inability to walk around.

And in a community that is that used to be park poor and now we have one park there, there's no other option for my constituents. They have to go to this park. Where else are they going to go? We're looking to strike a balance here.

And South Coast AQMD has a responsibility jurisdiction of approximately 389, some people say 369 facilities. But of these facilities there's only Approximately less than 20 facilities that are within a sub sensitive receptor.

Which means that those are the facilities that would fall under my Bill that if you're within 300ft of a sensitive receptor you should have additional protections for the community Members. And to be a good partner we want to Max those stockpiles to 8ft.

We want to ensure that there's fence line monitoring and with the Committee amendments we want to ensure that the constituents know who do they need a call to complain of any violations?

Because as a staffer, when I was a staffer before a Senator, I used to work on this very issue in this area and when I had meetings with South Coast NQMD they would tell me no one's complaining.

It's a community of low income working class, a lot of monolingual Spanish speaking individuals that are afraid or don't trust government to make these complaints and they would depend on staffers to make those complaints for them. But when they see a lack of number of complaints, they think that nothing is happening.

But you colleagues look at these photos and tell me that this is livable, this isn't livable. Opposition is going to tell you that this is going to put people out of work. People are struggling to breathe here.

What balance are we looking to strike in ensuring that businesses are good neighbors and ensuring that we're providing or we have a responsibility to provide someone to breathe good quality air. I'll stop there and like to turn over to two really important witnesses who helped me bring this legislation forward.

For the past two years I've been working on how to address this issue. We turned to UCLA law students to help us build together a legislation that was going to be feasible, that was going to work to address these issues. And I'm so proud that this legislation came out of a report that two students worked on.

And Madam Chair, with your permission, I'd like to turn to them for them to talk about how we got to this point.

Absolutely. Welcome. And you each have two minutes.

Oh, sorry. Thank you.

All right. Good morning. My name is Maya Joel Hernandez and I'm a second year law student at UCLA. I'm here to talk about SB526 which will protect Southland communities from health harming dust emissions from from aggregate facilities.

As Students in UCLA's California environmental legislation Clinic, we conducted extensive research on the regulatory landscape governing the operation of aggregate facilities in the Southland. Aggregate facilities process or handle old building materials like concrete and asphalt, grinding them into fine debris. There are hundreds of these facilities throughout the South Coast Air Basin.

When we visited a facility in Senator Menjivar's district, we could see and taste the dust in the air. Residents living near aggregate facilities face constant exposure to harmful particulate matter from massive open air stockpiles of crushed material that blanket their streets, homes and cars.

In a thick layer of dust, the fine particles can seep deep into people's lungs, worsening asthma, allergies and respiratory diseases, particularly for children and the elderly who are most vulnerable to the worst effects of this potential pollution.

Aggregate facilities are often located in or near communities that are already overburdened by many industrial uses, compounding the health harms residents experience. Our research concluded that these facilities have been operating under an outdated patchwork of regulations that have allowed them to emit significant amounts of harmful dust pollution dangerously close to residences, parks, schools and other sensitive receptors.

SB 526 addresses these issues by directing the South Coast Air Quality Management District to update their aggregate facilities rule to more effectively monitor and reduce particulate matter emissions, providing long overdue relief for surrounding communities.

While it is important that we process construction debris, SB526 is structured to ensure that the benefits aggregate facilities bring do not come at the expense of public health when they are located just steps away from neighborhoods.

My name is Ian Bertrando and I'm also a second year law student at UCLA. Through our research in the clinic, we determined that the health impacts my colleague described are being felt throughout the south coast from Sun Valley to Upland to Signal Hill.

This Bill proposes a basic common sense rule update that will protect these frontline communities without being overly burdensome to businesses. Aggregate facilities will need fencing at least 6 inches taller than the largest open air stockpile so that dust stays on site and not in their neighbors yards.

A rule update would also promote better enforcement of air district standards by implementing real time fence line monitoring instead of depending on overburdened residents to alert the district to potential violations. Fence line monitoring systems are already used by the Air District to monitor dust emissions for similar facilities covered under other rules.

Families near aggregate facilities deserve the same protection. The bill's most stringent requirements are limiting pile height to 8ft at facilities located within 500ft of sensitive receptors and requiring pile enclosures at those facilities if they persistently exceed emission standards. When facilities are so near to residences, schools and parks, these requirements will keep communities safe.

According to our research, of the hundreds of aggregate facilities in the Southland, only a few dozen are situated so close to communities that these restrictions would apply. These are not radical ideas. Other states already have far stronger regulations in place for similar activities.

Reducing emissions from these facilities is more crucial than ever as communities across the region are being forced to shoulder the burden of a massive amount of construction debris from the Eden and Palisades fire being brought into their neighborhoods for processing.

With the increased amount of material coming in, it is imperative that both imperative that both community and worker health be a priority. SB526 directs an overdue, straightforward and necessary rule update to protect environmental justice communities that deserve relief from harmful air pollution. California can promote community health alongside aggregate facilities. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Well, thank you very much for coming here from UCLA to testify. Is there anybody in the room who would like to express support for this? If so, please come forward to the microphone and state your name, your organization and your support or opposition.

Sophia Afrikoa with the Coalition for Clean Air in support.

Dr. Pam Odell, Climate Action California support. Also Climate Reality Project Statewide Coalition support.

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

Good morning. Aleyah Kretcher with Communities for a Better Environment. We are support if amended and we. Look forward to working more with the author's office.

Thanks Asha Sharma on behalf of Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. Also support if amended and appreciate the. Positive conversations with author's office. Thank you.

Good morning. Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance. Also in the support of amend. Appreciate the positive conversations. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now do we have lead opposition witnesses who would like to come forward? You can come and sit at this front table right here. Good morning and welcome. You each have two minutes and you're welcome to start when ready.

Appreciate that. Good morning Madam Chair and Members. Delilah Clay on behalf of the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association and I Have Adam Harper with CalCIMA. He's their senior Director of Policy here to help answer technical questions. We are respectfully opposed to SB526.

CalCIMA represents over 500 local plants and facilities throughout the state producing rock, sand, gravel, concrete and asphalt for construction projects. Our Members produce the materials that build our state's infrastructure, including public roads, housing, water projects and hospitals. Our motto is if it's built, we're in it.

SB526 is the outgrowth of local concerns about dust in the Sun Valley area, a community in Senator Menjewar's district. Aggregate recycling facilities are not the only industrial use in that area, but we are very sensitive to the experiences of community Members concerned about their air quality.

Our Members Member companies strive to be good neighbors in every community we're in. However, the challenge with this Bill is that it takes a specific community's issue and would change the rule structure for aggregate facilities throughout the entire south coast aqmd, which cuts across Los Angeles, Orange County, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

That would impact hundreds of facilities across the region before there have been any findings about the source of dust, the appropriate measures to mitigate it, and no analysis on the impact to business operations. Just last year, the state awarded $27 million to the statewide Mobile Monitoring Initiative to study air quality in AB617. Consistently nominated communities.

This Bill would make dramatic changes ahead of that analysis for aggregate facilities. Stockpiling rock, sand and gravel is our system of inventory to support construction projects. Concrete and asphalt are perishable materials. Once mixed, they must be delivered and used in a matter of hours. Having materials readily available is critical to serving construction needs across Southern California.

So for example, the bill's provisions to limit piles to 8ft would cripple that critical supply supply chain. If there are bad actors, we support south coast going after them.

And to the extent there need to be changes to the rules, we believe that South Coast AQMD is in the best position to determine the timing and the scope of that investigation. It's worth noting that the South Coast Air Basin is in compliance with National Ambient Air Quality standards.

We've had very good conversations with Senator Menjivar and her staff. We appreciate her open door, but continue to advocate that a district wide change to the regulation is not the right or purpose right approach here.

We hope we can continue to work with her to find a solution that better fits the needs of the air District and the community. And we respectfully ask for a no vote on SB526 today. Thank you.

Thank you. You're here for technical support. Okay. If there's anybody else in the room who would like to express opposition, please come forward to the microphone and state your name, organization, and your position.

Good morning. Sarah Polo Moo with the California Retailers Association. In opposition.

Elizabeth Esquivel with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association.Also in opposition,

John Kendrick on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. In opposition. Okay, thank you.

With that, we will bring it back to the Members. And I think I'll just start by recognizing that it's very hard to look at those photos and think that we don't have a problem. So I recognize that for some reason it's come to the point where the problem has not been addressed at the local level.

And so it's taking the intervention of a state Senator to try to solve this problem. And I appreciate the UCLA students that you've involved in this. It's a great community effort, inclusion in our next generation of our brightest minds. And I also appreciate hearing that other states have regulations around this industry. So this isn't this.

It's not like we're charting. This is not uncharted territory here. So I think it does seem strange to me in a way that the city has not become more involved. And I wanted to ask the author, to me, this seems like it would be a nuisance and that there are clear community impacts from this use.

And I'm wondering if what has been your experience of the city's engagement on this clear problem?

Thank you for that question. I mentioned that it's been about five or six years that I've been working on this situation. I started as a staffer, and during that time I had meetings with South Coast aqmd and they would tell me that there's no violation happening. The reason why there's no violation is they're right.

They're within their allotted work requirements. Because current law in Rule 1157 states that if they're within 300ft, if they're outside of 300ft, they can work business as usual. This facility in particular is 301ft away from sensitive receptors, which is why they would always tell me there's no violation. There's no violation, Madam Chair.

The reason why there's no violation is because we haven't updated it since 2006.

Well, thank you. I appreciate that. But I'm like, more specifically asking the question about the city's role. Why hasn't the city become involved in this?

Because it seems as if people would be going to their City Council or you would be, and they would hear about elected officials or living in the community and see the situation they did.

So at that time I was a staffer for the City of Los Angeles for the councilmember in this area and I inquired with the city and they would tell me they have they're within their permit.

The next time they apply for a permit maybe we could look into it Specifically the facility with the photos behind me is currently in litigation right now is being sued by community Members in the in the area.

So there is some work in for at least one particular one particular bad actor and and I can acknowledge that a lot of this Bill came out of a couple of bad actors and in conversations we haven't gotten exact Ta from SQMD how I can decrease the or focus in more on City of la.

Very amendable to that but we just haven't gotten any TA1 if that's legal if I'm allowed to just focus on one city, on one zip code. But I am open to that because I do again recognize that it's not every single 389 aggregate facilities because not all of them are within sensitive receptors.

Right. Thank you. I appreciate that. Yes, I would just. I'd like to amplify your comment which you've made a couple times, which to me is really important that because people haven't complained doesn't mean it's not a problem because people learn to live with all sorts of intolerable circumstances.

And this is really the definition of environmental justice work is recognizing when we have an effect on quality of life that's so substantial and we have kids playing in the park and those cars with that kind of dust on them and those piles. It's just very hard to see that and not think we should manage this differently.

I think it is important to recognize that this is an important business in the state that everything that's built uses this material. But there are ways for that to happen without having such a severe impact on neighboring communities. And we probably have examples from other states where that has where that has been the case in many ways.

I recognize that industries do not self regulate when they don't need to. If they are not receiving complaints that are at a certain level and there is no enforcement from governmental agencies above, they're not going to make changes. But the reality is that the South Coast Air Quality Management District updating its rule makes a lot of sense.

That's a process where there's community engagement, there's business engagement. There's a way to come up with a regulatory framework that protects communities and also allows the businesses to continue to be successful. And of course, it's an ongoing negotiation imbalance.

But recognizing that there's a clear problem here and that the South Coast Air Quality Management District needs to do better and needs to do more and needs to be more engaged in it, which is what this Bill will force, is a good thing.

So I'm grateful to the author for bringing it forward and I wish you best of luck in getting it across the finish line because it does seem very important. So with that, I'll see if there are any other comments. Yes, Senator Gonzalez.

You said everything very eloquently, Madam Chair, but I just want to thank the author as well for continuing this really good work. Had a Bill, SB674, which is referenced in the analysis on fence line monitoring, ultimately vetoed by the Governor.

But I do think that this is a really good path, again, as been mentioned by the chair, to be able to build engagement, most importantly by these overburdened communities. So thank you very much and I look forward to working with you and would love to be added as a co author as well.

Okay, thank you. We do not have a quorum, so we won't vote, but I want to confirm with the author that you're accepting the amendments. Yes. Okay. Thank you and thank you very much for coming, everybody. zero, I'm sorry I didn't let you close. Yes, please, please close.

You know, we've, I've read the letters from the opposition. I've delving into this issue. It's my number one priority and we haven't received Ta yet. You know, while it's not unchartered, it still is in mainstream. Right. There's only been a couple of states that have been looking into this.

So we're very limited in what we can look to. As an example, we came up with the number of eight feet, these other provisions, but we did leave it open to South Coast AQMD to have them determine at what threshold a company is violating PMT emissions.

I have not received any language from opposition for me to look at to see if we can go back and forth in conversations. Very open to that. I want to make sure that this Bill makes it all the way through and is feasible and implementable. You've mentioned it, Madam Chair. Aggregate is very important.

Recycling centers especially, we want to deter them away from landfills. They're crucial for rebuilding not just after fires, but we need them across California and the United States, but not at the backs of our low income communities. I'm not trying to put any business out of. Out of business.

Which is why I didn't introduce a Bill to say seize all operations immediately. I want to find a way that these businesses are good for their employees as well and for the community. With that, at the appropriate time requesting an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you very much, Senator Mqnjivar, and thank you to the witnesses. Now we have Senator Becker. Thank you. Senator Becker here is here on Bill SB 318. And if you have support witnesses, they are welcome to come forward at the same time. Okay. Senator Becker, you're welcome to start when ready.

Okay, thank you. Today I'm here to present SB 318, the California Clean Air Permit Monetization Act. We are at a pivotal moment for climate action. California's contending with the Federal Government that is intent on challenging our bold climate leadership.

Congressional Republicans have been working hard to figure out how to use the Congressional Review act to overturn and challenge California's Clean Air act waivers. And today the Supreme Court is hearing a case at whether polluters have standing to challenge US EPA's power to grant states waivers to go further than the Clean Air Act requires.

Because this I do believe the indirect source rule provisions included in the Bill are an important conversation to have. Nonetheless, I agree with the Committee's assessment that this discussion warrants its own careful consideration. Therefore, today I'm accepting the Committee's proposed amendments which remove the indirect source rule and associated fee authority provisions from the Bill.

Today, despite the uncertainty caused by the Erratic Federal Administration, California's climate future is in our own hands. We have been here before and we have the power to continue taking bold action that moves California and the rest of the world into the future. And that is what SB318 is all about.

About moving our existing air permitting systems into the future. A future where innovative technologies are being commercialized and where all Californians enjoy the benefits of clean air, good health and a good economy.

Today's Committee analysis points out if a factory were seeking a major source permit that included a natural gas boiler to warm apart in an industrial process, permitters would only need to consider ways to make the natural gas boiler emit less air pollution. Not consider using, for example, an all electric heat pump to achieve the same heat.

The California Clean Air Permitting Modernization act addresses this problem by making improvements to existing programs and processes so the cleanest technologies are used where feasible to reduce air pollution and protect public health. Bill accomplishes this in a couple key ways. Number one, updating definitions to avoid automatic rejections of proven Available technologies, fuel and processes.

Two, building on the existing technology pre certification program and AB617 clearinghouse at the Air Resources Board so that local permitters have an updated central database that informs their permitting decisions. 3. Streamlining permit pathways for permit applications that use technologies identified by CARB's Pre Certification Program. And lastly, enhancing transparency over major source Title V permits. Excuse me.

Finally, I am aware that there are concerns about the approach outlined in the Bill.

I am committed to working with my air district in the Bay Area as well as air districts across the state on specific suggestions they have to ensure that the Bill can be implemented in a manner that's efficient, improves air quality and provides certainty for businesses in California. With that, I'd love to turn it over to my witnesses.

You're welcome to begin. You each have two minutes.

Thank you, Senator, for your leadership and thanks, chair and Committee for being here and the opportunity to testify. My name is Craig Holt Siegel. I'm an independent environmental policy consultant speaking pro Bono on my own behalf. I've authored chapters in a leading legal treatise on the permitting system and a recent report on potential reforms.

I previously was Deputy Executive Officer and Assistant Chief Counsel on the California Air Resources Board. Of course, I'm speaking for myself, informed by that experience. This Bill addresses a critical flaw in our air permitting system.

Even though zero and near zero technology now exists for many industrial uses, even though aging industrial facilities pollute many of our communities, and even though, as we've heard earlier today, California urgently needs legal tools to protect itself against federal rollbacks and secure cle your air, we currently do not recognize these technologies in our foundational air permit system.

If a company comes to a perimeter with plans to burn coal, diesel fuel, garbage, it will get a permit to burn that specific fuel as cleanly as possible. No one ever asks if a cleaner fuel, including electricity, was available in 2025.

We should not be blinding ourselves to the off the shelf technologies, many already in use, that would help cut pollution. Instead, we should be scaling up those options and working to help IG facilities upgrade when they can. That's what this Bill does by clarifying that permitting ideas of 1990 do not constrain us today. Let me be clear.

Nothing in this Bill requires companies or air districts to use cleaner technologies if they genuinely don't work or are too expensive at a particular site. This isn't a sweeping mandate. It's just a common sense modernization of old language that isn't working well for California.

It creates a path forward for progress and leaves room for us to learn as we go. Now, I understand that some, including local air districts and my friends and colleagues there, are working through some of these complexities. That's an important conversation.

But we shouldn't take those complexities as an excuse for the status quo, just as it always has been without more conversations. Yes, air permitting is complex. I know that.

But what isn't complex is that we need now to be looking at the technological innovations California has driven forward and ensuring we can scale this up for community benefits and for our state. Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you. My name is Christian Bisher and I'm an air Programs Coordinator for the Central California Environmental Justice Network, or CCEJN. I also have extensive experience in air permitting as I previously worked as an air permitting in the Air Permitting Department myself.

We at CCEJM believe SB318 has the potential to help our region make progress on our severe air quality problem by fixing the way stationary sources of pollution are permitted. Foremost, permitting largely only considers what control measures can be applied to a source without fundamentally altering it.

In other words, it asks what's the best way to control emissions from a dirty operation when we should be asking what's the cleanest way to achieve the same desired outcome. Take for instance, two boilers using walnut shell waste that were recently permitted in our region.

Our air district did not consider natural gas, fuel or electrification in the permitting process, even though natural gas is three to four times less polluting and electrification has zero local emissions. SB318 would have directed air districts to consider cleaner power sources, which is imperative for air basins whose residents are suffering from severe health impacts from air pollution.

Additionally, the Bill improves oversight of large polluters by allowing communities to request reviews of the sources technological choices. This gives communities like the ones CCEJN works with an opportunity to be involved in the public process that impact our health.

Lastly, I'd like to drive home the point that the communities we serve are inundated with multiple forms of pollution, water too toxic to drink, and air quality that takes years off our lives.

And permitting in the past and as it is today helped to create this reality by leveraging the act and permitting to push the state's industries to next generation technologies. SB318 modernizes the process to meet our current air quality challenges. In closing, it's very difficult for a community organization to advocate around individual back guidelines.

SB318 has the ability to raise the state bar on what's considered best available and thus raise all votes. We respectfully request an aye vote.

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

Good Morning Madam Chair and Member Sharon Gonzalez on behalf of the City of Mountain View and support.

Sophia Afrikoa with. A Coalition for Clean Air and support.

Asha Sharma on behalf of Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability in support.

Good Morning Mary Sulecki on behalf of two organizations, E2 Environmental Entrepreneurs and Clean Air Task Force

Melanie Law here in support. On behalf of Evergreen Action

Jacob Evans. With Sierra Club California in support.

On behalf of the center on Race, Poverty and Environment appreciating the Author working with AB617 communities we support if amended thank you.

Thank you very much. Now we invite forward opposition witnesses. We'll have two lead opposition witnesses. You can sit here at the front table and you'll each have two minutes and feel free to begin when ready.

Thank you Madam Chair. Members still Brendan Tuig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, which are still the Executive officers from all 35 local air districts, we're respectfully in opposition to the measurement as CO regulators, CARB and the 35 air districts share responsibility for meeting federal and state Clean Air act requirements.

That responsibility is split. Generally, CARB is responsible for and has the expertise to regulate emissions from mobile sources, with the air districts having the responsibility and expertise to regulate stationary sources of emissions.

And that includes a broad spectrum of facility sizes from large oil and gas operations all the way to small backup engines at hospitals that provide power in the event of emergencies.

CARB in the Air District's regulatory programs and staff expertise in these areas have been developed over the last 50 years of reducing mobile and stationary sources emissions respectively. This approach to air pollution has realized great success.

In fact, since the 1970s when the partnership began, CARB in the Air districts have decreased many pollutants by 75 to 99% in California, despite the state's economy growing to become the fifth largest in the world as well as doubling of the population and quadrupling of vehicle use.

SB318 would upend this decades old partnership by shifting critical tools needed to regulate stationary sources from the air districts to carburetors import impose unnecessary duplicative responsibilities on the agency and lock up air district permitting programs, including for critical infrastructure like hospitals and wastewater treatment facilities.

Also, the authority provided to CARB in the Title 5 permitting sections is questionable under federal law.

Title V permitting is complex and this Bill would significantly slow progress to clean the air by ignoring local air district expertise built over decades of implementing tailor made stationary source air pollution control measures and shortcutting community participation in local Air district programs.

And so I'll just wrap up by saying with the withdrawal of the federal waivers necessary for California to implement its Advanced Clean Fleets locomotives and part of its harborcraft regulation, Carbon Air District's efforts to protect public health has become even more challenging. And this Bill only complicates things further.

So we just wanted to say SB318 will have a negative impact on our air quality and our community's health. It's an attack on the very programs California needs most as it as its climate, environmental and public health programs are endangered by decisions made by the Federal Administration. So I do have in the audience.

You need to wrap up. You need to wrap up.

I'm very sorry. I just wanted to say that we have Dr. Sarah Reese with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, a technical expert to help answer questions after this.

Good morning. Chair Blakespear and Committee Members, John Kendrick from the California Chamber of Commerce. We oppose SB318 because it piles costly uncertainty on the nation's most stringent implementation of federal Title V permitting. SB318 is a recipe for job loss, tax base erosion and emissions leakage.

As we've heard the author, SB318 redefines backed and barked in ways intended to compel process redesign and electrification even for Title V facilities in compliance with existing Air District rules. As the Committee analysis notes, SB318 defies long standing federal doctrine against redefining the source.

It pushes every Title V facility, new or existing, toward the most extreme control used elsewhere, even if built for a different industry, climate, country or circumstance.

CARB's informational backed BART clearinghouse shifts from an advisory tool to a hard floor, locking yesterday's best practice in as tomorrow's minimum legal standard, Title V permit renewal becomes a De facto upgrade or lose your permit standard. Every five years, older equipment must clear a barked check.

If deeper air pollution cuts are possible, it must be replaced or the process redesigned with a strong compulsion towards zero emission or electrification. This forces costly redesigns long before equipment reaches its end of life, in some cases before it's even paid off by reopening past investments.

Every five years, the Title V program is altered from ensuring compliance with Air District rules to a perpetual upgrade standard. There can be no long term business planning in this environment. Businesses that survive will pass these costs on to consumers. Businesses that don't will move to other jurisdictions.

Now the Clean Air act gives final review of local air district permitting to the USEPA. Yet SB 318 lets CARB cancel permits already approved by districts, inviting preemption battles, installing upgrades and investment. Every permit would need to be approved locally by the state and by the Federal Government.

This creates new avenues for legal challenge and creates significant uncertainty. SB318 also forces air districts to ignore their own expertise and familiarity with site specific considerations and making back BART determinations. I understand that I need to wrap up. I'm happy to do so.

California's Title V facilities have already spent billions of dollars to meet the Nation's toughest limits. SB318 hijacks that program, turning it from a compliance tool into a rolling technology mandate, replacing local air district expertise with Sacramento politics, inflating costs and deterring investment at a moment when California needs economic resilience. We urge you to vote no on SB318.

Thank you. And I'll also cede my seat to the technical expert, but we'll be available for questions as well.

Okay, thank you. If there's anybody in the room who would like to express opposition, please state your name, organization and position.

Madam Chair and Members. Paul Deiro representing the Western States Petroleum Association, in opposition.

Good morning. Cody Boyles on behalf of the Association of Equipment Manufacturers and the California Advanced Biofuels Alliance, in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Keely Morris, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, in opposition.

Good morning. Sean Bellach with the California Association of Realtors. We appreciate the proposed amendments, but in its current format, opposed unless amended.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Jasmine Vaya on behalf of the International Warehouse Logistics Association, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Noel Kramers with Wine Institute, respectfully opposed. Good morning.

Sarah Rees, South Coast Air Quality Management District. We respectfully oppose.

Elizabeth Esquivel, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in Opposition.

Maria Spencer Nyder with the California Association of Port Authorities, in opposition. On last amendment to remove the indirect. Source language as as stated by the author. We appreciate that. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Committee Members. Nick Chappie, on behalf of the California Trucking Association. We're currently opposed but look forward to. Removing opposition when the Committee amendments are in print. Thank you.

Good morning again. Sarah Polo Moo at the California Retailers Association. Opposed.

Jennifer Cohen with Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, currently opposed but looking forward to removing opposition with the amendments in print.

Good morning. Nicole Rice, California Renewable Transportation Alliance. We are currently opposed to the Bill. In print, but given the amendments today, we'll look forward to seeing that language in print and how it affects our position going forward. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. Ryan Kenny with Clean Energy. We also are opposed, but we'll likely. Remove our opposition upon review of the amendments. Thank you.

Alan Abbs with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Appreciate the Senator referencing working with the air district. However, we are opposed unless amended. Really need a lot of time to. Work on this Bill. Appreciate making it a two year Bill. Also willing to answer any questions the Committee may have. Thanks.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Matt Robinson with Shaw Yoder Antwih. Schmelzer and Lange currently in opposition on behalf of the Specialty Equipment Market Association. Sema, the Western Propane Gas Association as well as the California Moving and Storage Association would also say that we will review the amendments and may revisit our position. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you to everyone who came to express opposition and support. We will bring it back to the Committee Members. Does anybody on the Committee wish to make any comments?

I'll just start by saying that this is a huge and complicated and very technical Bill and I applaud the ambition of the author for jumping into this and trying to modernize how we address pollution. So I am just confirming that you're taking the Committee amendments. Yes, yes. And I will be supporting this Bill today. Senator Padilla.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And to the author, thanks for your. Work and leadership in this space. I just want to indicate on the. Record first that we work collaboratively, Senator, all the time in this space. Appreciate the leadership. I echo the comments of the chair. I do have some limited concerns particularly.

And you addressed it a little bit earlier with respect to the veto authority provision with CARB. I want to encourage you to keep Flushing that. Flushing that out. And I'll be happy to help you move the Bill forward. Even though I, I do Reserve the. Right to continue to, to look closely. On the Bill as it progresses.

Yes, I want to appreciate that. And we are working on that provision and certainly open to discussions on actively working on it. Thank you.

Okay. Seeing no other questions or comments, we will turn it over to the author to close.

Thank you. I appreciate all the comments and support. And also in opposition. Great respect for the air districts and the work being done across the state by our air districts. Certainly none of nothing in this Bill is meant to be a slight at air districts in any way.

We do believe that there is a path forward here to modernize our air permitting system. We know there still is work to do and I look forward to digging in myself and with my team to do that work. I appreciate the opportunity to keep moving the Bill forward and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. When we have a quorum, we will get back to that. Thank you. And next we're going to Senator Padilla.

So have a sat. Have a sat.

Okay. Welcome, Senator Padilla. Welcome to the lead witnesses and you are welcome to proceed when ready.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, I'm pleased to present SB675. I want to begin by stating that we'll accept the Committee amends and I'll. If it's okay, Madam Chair, I'll pause for a second until the room is a little more in order.

Let's try to close the door at the back, please, so that we can have a little bit of a quieter room. Yes, please come on in and let's close the door. Thank you. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. You're welcome to proceed.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair, we do accept the Committee's amendments. Thank you and the Committee staff for working with our office. These amendments narrow the provisions of the bill to apply solely to the Seaport project, a targeted approach the Legislature has taken on many occasions.

Seaport Village is an iconic but aging waterfront destination in San Diego and revitalization is urgently needed to better serve the community and support modern infrastructure. A comprehensive redevelopment is currently being planned that will address long standing issues including outdated facilities, limited pedestrian bicycle access and public open space, while offering climate resistant infrastructure improvements.

The new Seaport Village will generate thousands of high wage construction jobs and permanent employment opportunities. The development will also create parks, plazas, promenades and public gathering spaces, restoring community and visitor access to San Diego's waterfront and is designed to meet or exceed LEED Gold standards, incorporate sea level rise adaptation and include an ocean education center.

Large multi agency projects like Seaport often face years of delay due to multiple discretionary approvals, processes that run sequentially to one another. First, the lead agency prepares, as you know, an EIR which often takes many years before certification and final approval of the project.

In the case of the Seaport project, the applicant was awarded the project as part of an RFP process that concluded in the year 2017. After years of design, public outreach and collaboration with the lead agency, notice of preparation for the IR was published in 2023.

The lead agency is currently in the process of preparing draft which will be circulated for public comment. Before the final is prepared and established, a public hearing or hearings are held and the lead agency decides whether to certify or approve or disapprove.

After that first process, which could take another year or more, and if the lead agency does certify and approve the project, the agency review process will begin.

While there are currently approval timelines in laws such as permit streamlining, they are not always adhered to and there are consequences for missed approval timelines causing projects significant delay in the need for this bill. SB 675 ensures responsible agencies act within 180 days, preventing bottlenecks after EIR certification.

Early coordination among agencies as required by this bill promotes transparency, reduces duplicity, and gives applicants clarity and predictability that they're entitled to. Seaport is a model project pursuing ELDP status requiring strong environmental standards, local economic impact and public benefits that justify targeted streamlining without procedural efficiency, critical projects risk dying on the vine.

SB675 helps move this transformative high impact development forward in a timely and responsible manner. Joining me today to testify are Carol Kim from the San Diego Imperial County Labor Council and Yuri Gaffin, the CEO of 1 Highway 1.

Thank you to the lead witnesses. You both have two minutes.

Good morning Chair Blakespear and Senators. My name is Carol Kim and I'm the Business Manager of the San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council.

I have the honor of representing and serving over 35,000 union construction workers in the County of San Diego and serve on the board the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, as well as being a Vice President for the California Federation of Labor Unions.

I'm here today in support of SB 675, which provides streamlining benefits for environmental leadership development projects. As amended, the bill would apply to the proposed Seaport San Diego Redevelopment Project. Specifically, the Environmental Leadership Development Projects, or ELDP.

Projects are projects that will create high quality highly skilled jobs paying prevailing wages for construction and high quality permanent jobs with living wages for Californians. In order to obtain the classification, ELDP projects must meet stringent environmental standards, including LEED gold or better, with no new net GHG emissions.

SB675 would also require that responsible agencies move quickly on subsequent approvals after a lead agency considers and approves an ELDP project. Responsible agencies must participate in lead agency process and then must make a termination within 180 days of an application to the responsible agency after EIR and lead agency approval.

SB 675 also requires that if a responsible agency denies a project, the denial must be based on a specific objective, standards similar to standards set forth in other state legislation.

In this time of national and even global economic upheaval and uncertainty, projects like Seaport San Diego Redevelopment have the capacity to provide some stability for the working families of San Diego County and California, but not if those projects are delayed by years while navigating an onerous discretionary approval process despite having already met or exceeded the highest standards for environmental and job quality.

So together, these streamlining benefits would help bring this important project to fruition sooner, creating an economic engine for the region and thousands of good jobs for Californians. I respectfully urge you to support SB 675 with your aye votes today.

Thank you, thank you. Chair Blakespear Senators, My name is Yehudi Gaffen. People call me Gaff. I'm the CEO of One Highway One, which is the developer of Seaport San Diego. Seaport San Diego is the redevelopment of the existing Seaport Village site in addition to other tide lands in downtown San Diego into a world class mixed use community.

I live a few blocks away from the site and the vision is to create a destination with hotels, restaurants, retail, an aquarium, an event center, a learning center, a Center for marine education, a bluetech office building and lab space, and over 17 acres of public space. The project originated in an RFP.

As Senator Padilla said, we won it through about 20 competitive proposals that came forward. Our vision for this project is a Seaport San Diego for all. A place where everyone will feel welcome and there is something for everyone, regardless of income, to do and to participate in.

We'll have hotels at a variety of price points including a low cost hostel, retail and restaurant footprints from large to small, including kiosks and small opportunities for local and small business. The project's anticipated to provide over 25,000 full time equivalent construction jobs and 4,500 jobs at build out permanent jobs a year.

Construction costs are currently estimated to be around $3.6 billion. Seaport San Diego is projected to have a $1 billion net fiscal impact to the City of San Diego over 30 years and a $400 million net fiscal impact in addition to that to the County of San Diego over 30 years.

The project's currently undergoing environmental review as said, and also going through the ELDP certification process. As said, ELDP projects must meet very stringent environmental standards and provide significant benefits for the state including construction and permanent jobs.

Seaport has multiple discretionary approvals from multiple government agencies and the risk to the project of these additional improvements provides a very uncertain timeline and as the sayings go, time kills all deals.

Eventually, SB675 will allow this one time kind of project to come to fruition sooner by requiring early collaboration with the responsible agencies, requiring the responsible agencies to make a final determination of the project in 120 in 180 days, and limiting the grounds upon which the project can be denied, similar to the Housing Accountability act and the State law density bonus.

The project does not get any shortcuts. A full EIR is still being prepared for the project, and it still requires all of the approvals from all of the government agencies with jurisdiction over the project. This mill will provide fair and timely process for the project, which is really the important aspect for us.

We encourage your support of SB 675. Thank you.

Thank you to both of the lead witnesses. And with that, we'll ask for others in support in the room to come forward. State your name, organization and position.

Madam Chair, Members, Scott Wech on behalf the California State Pipe Trades Council, The Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, The State Association of Electrical Workers, and the Elevator Constructors Union. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in support? Okay. Any lead witnesses in opposition wishing to come forward to testify? Not seeing any. If you would you like to come forward. Okay.

My testimony is opposed unless amended. Is that.

Yes, you can be a lead witness, but you need to say your name. And you have two minutes.

Good morning. My name is Kim Delfino, and I'm testifying on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and the California Coastal Protection Network. And we really appreciate the amendments that were taken to this bill to narrow it. However, we still have some concerns with the bill as presently written, and I just want to go over those concerns right now.

We look forward to working with the author as the bill moves forward to try to address these concerns, but they are significant issues. First, we have to say that, you know, we appreciate that we do want to have an efficient process where responsible agencies are engaging quickly and effectively within the CEQA process.

But there's also with, besides the CEQA process, there is the permitting processes that these responsible agencies also conduct under Porter Cologne, the State Endangered Species Act, the Lake and Stream Bed Alteration Agreement Act.

The build, as currently written, creates a dynamic where if a responsible agency doesn't raise an issue at some point, which is another issue with this bill, which is when they actually can engage, they give up the right to be able to, say, condition their other permits if information comes forward later on through the other application for their permit.

This bill says that that responsible agency cannot deny, say, a State Endangered Species Act permit or a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement permit if the issues were not already addressed in the CEQA document.

And we would just like to work with the author to be able to try to clarify that the intent of this bill isn't to undermine the existing standards within Porter Cologne or the State Endangered Species Act or the Coastal Act, but it's rather more an efficiency measure.

We also asked for some additional clarifications about when the responsible agencies are supposed to engage.

Because the way the bill is currently written, it says that the responsible agency, when receiving information from the lead agency, at some point from when the Governor issues the certification for it being a leadership project and before another application is proposed to it, that they have to respond within 60 days.

It could be before the draft EIR is done, which does not set up a very efficient way for responsible agencies to engage in the process. And finally, the 180 day trigger for, for responsible agencies makes a lot of sense.

But we do think it needs to be clarified that when the agency receives an application that is deemed complete, then the 180 days is triggered. Because we have seen many instances where applicants will provide an incomplete application. And then you have the 180 days, but then you're going back and forth. It just isn't very efficient.

So with that being said, again, we have these issues with the bill, which is why we continue to have an opposed and less amended position. And that's why I wanted to come up. But we do want to try to work as the bill moves forward. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to express opposition, please come forward. State your name, organization and position.

Hi, Natalie Brown with the Planning and Conservation League. We continue our opposing, unless amended position as well. We thank the recent amendments, but echo the concerns mentioned in the testimony. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Sarah Christie with the California Coastal Commission. The Commission's a tweener on this bill. Due to the timing of the amendments, the Commission hasn't had an ability to take a position one way or the other. But leadership did ask us to submit a letter of concern, which is in your record.

I want to say we look forward to working with the author going forward to address the outstanding issues. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. Now we will bring it back to the Members and any questions or comments. Yes, Senator Gonzalez. Madam Chair, I just want to reiterate, you will be.

Obviously I know you will work with the opposition. That is in all the issues that have been stated with the opposed, less amended testimony.

Madam Chair. Senator, Absolutely. I have a history of working with these interested parties and we'll continue to dialogue and do so.

Okay, thank you. Thank you for all of the work that the sponsors and the author have done on this bill and also to the staff who's been involved in this for a while. And we encourage you, of course, to continue to work with the opposition. Are those things that you have heard, those concerns, they seemed very reasonable.

I wanted to know if you were already, they were already on your radar, if this was new.

They are, Madam Chair, and I'm happy to just make it as part of my close, if that's at your description.

Okay, that's great. Yes.

But I think it is important. First, you know, there's a lot of dialogue in this Committee today and on all days about finding ways to balance environmental protection and review to the standard I think all Californians expect.

And at the same time balancing that in a way that works and is fair and provides a reasonable process for all parties involved. I think that is also something we value in this state. And I think we should continue to do so. And I think we should reject the premise that it has to be either or.

That said, with respect to the testimony of the opposition, I would just point out the receipt of pre op materials by any RA from any input is not aligned or consolidated in one timeline. So I want to be careful that we don't get lulled into the false impression that we're creating one master consolidated limited timeline here.

That depends on where in the review and entitlement process that responsible agency's process begins or ends. It just requires that that process be reasonably expeditious and reasonably transparent and clear.

In other words, no last minute games or surprises, which unfortunately we have seen has not always been utilized procedurally as a tool to ensure environmental sustainability, but rather as a political tool to kill projects.

And I think that all of us in the conversation we're having lately in this Capitol are sort of fed up with that as well. And with that, Madam Chair, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, thank you very much. When we have a quorum, we will return to our voting. So thank you for your testimony and we will move on to Senator Padilla's second bill. And I'll also encourage all Members of this Committee to come to the Committee so that we could establish a quorum, which we have not yet done.

We've been operating as a Subcommitee and also the. The remaining author. Where's that? It's just Wiener. Wiener and Cabal are next door, so. You can call them over.

And Senator Hurtado is presenting in labor, so hopefully she'll be over soon. And Senator Padilla, you have your second bill?

Yes, it's. It's SB819 is the next bill.

Chair and Members, I'm happy to present SB819, which would task the Department of Toxic Substances Control with Developing a study on geothermal waste generation handling fee exemptions. As you know, California is experiencing a massive demand on energy from data centers powering AI to decarbonization.

While solar and wind power is variable, depending on the time of day or weather, geothermal provides a constant source of energy throughout the day. And in 21 and 25, DTSC raised generation and handling fees to make up for the department's revenue shortfall, causing companies to pull their geothermal project applications.

Companies cited both the increase in fee cost as well as the uncertainty of future fee raises affecting contract prices. In my district, Imperial county has one of the largest geothermal fields in the world.

Tapping into lithium and geotherm in this region can provide hundreds of jobs for an economically distressed region, as well as providing lithium, which is vital to batteries and geothermal for a stable energy source.

Lithium recovery in this site with geothermal facilities is a unique extraction and removal process that has been rated environmentally superior to any that is employed on the globe. These companies do not treat or add any chemicals to this waste.

The brine is naturally concentrated when extraction and separation occurs and condenses it, and the project operator becomes then responsible for the safe handling of these important compounds.

This Bill simply requires a study on the effects of exempting geothermal from generational handling fees and ensure that California does not lose an opportunity to harvest an important source of clean energy. And with that, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, thank you. And no support. Witnesses. Okay. Anyone else in the room wishing to express support, please come forward. Anybody in the room wishing to express opposition as a lead witness, please come forward. Anybody wishing to express opposition at the microphone, please come forward. Okay.

Seeing none of that, we will return it to the Committee to ask questions. So I did have one question. So I think the Committee analysis raised the suggestion that any additional fee exemptions would mean that DTSC would either have to raise everyone else's fees or run an operating budget deficit. And I'm wondering if you have thought of that or have a response to that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good question. I would just argue that there are existing exemptions and those exemptions were not predicated, approved, or denied based on a budget question. They were based on the proper policy and why the exemption should exist. I would argue the same would apply here.

And I think this Bill makes sure that we take the first steps for getting the data and analysis in the record that we can base any new policy on.

Okay, thank you. That's a good answer. Any other comments? Not seeing any. You're Invited to close.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, thank you very much. We'll return to this when we have a quorum. Thank you. All right, thank you. So now we have Senator Cabaldon with SB 674. Thank you for coming. And you're welcome to proceed when ready.

All right, thank you. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm pleased here to present SB674. This Bill will look familiar to most of you who aren't freshmen like me, who have cast your votes in favor of an identical Bill last session by Assemblymember Aguirre Curry.

And this Bill creates a more equitable California Redemption Value fee on boxed wine and distilled spirits under 24 fluid ounces by lowering it from 25 cents to 10 cents. Prior legislation set the cruv for all boxed wine and spirits, regardless of their size. That's what the 25 cent figure is.

And has a disproportionate impact on the smaller containers. Newer to market single serving boxed wines in containers, often referred to as tetra packs, are competing with canned products that are only charged a fee of a nickel if the product is less than 24 ounces.

Not only does that create a barrier to purchase for price conscious consumers who are in search of affordability, it also decreases the likelihood that those products will be recycled. And we are continuing to work with the Administration and with the interested parties to try to respond to the issues that were raised in the veto message.

But this Bill is supported by a wide variety of stakeholders, including the Wine Institute, California Family Beer Distributors, Container Recycling Institute, Beatbox Beverage, Beatbox Beverage, and Tetra Pak. And I respectfully, for now, I vote.

Thank you, Senator. And could you just address the issues that were in the veto and what you might be doing about that?

Yeah, so we think that both the California's infrastructure for these products, with the potential construction of a facility in Fresno, the growing market in this space that we're addressing, the sort of the need for the issue that was not as apparent to the Administration in the last cycle.

And we'll continue to work with them and others in Calercycle in order to get a different outcome.

Okay, great. I see no lead witness, but if you are a witness who would like to express support at the microphone, please come forward. State your name, organization and position.

Morning. Faith Conley with Weideman Group on behalf. Of Tetra Pak and strong support.

And Tim Schmelzer representing Wine Institute in support.

Okay, thank you. And if you are an opposition witness, please come forward. Yes, of course. Yes. You can sit next to each other. It's okay. This is civilized.

Good morning. Mike Robeson here on behalf of the Glass Packaging Institute, which is the trade Association representing the glass bottle bottle manufacturing industry in the nation and in California. There's four glass plants in California, fully unionized operations, making wine bottles, jars and beer bottles for everybody. A little history on why we're opposed.

And you know, we did not oppose the Bill last year because it was kind of a late moving Bill, late amended Bill, and it just didn't happen.

But just the history on this is prior to wine and spirits being added to the program, the containers that we're talking about here, you know, pouches, bladders and boxes, they were being sold to consumers as, you know, with juices, waters and things like that. And they were always outside the CRV program.

They were not part of the beverage container recycling program. So a whole generation of kids grew up drinking juice boxes and Capri Suns and things like that and are pretty comfortable drinking out of a straw. And now they're adults, and now they're drinking wine and spirits. And so the market for this product is good.

I mean, you know, you got a whole generation who's willing to. Who's willing to sacrifice drinking out of an aluminum can or out of a cool bottle and drink out of a pouch.

And so when wine and spirits were added to the program, they put a CRV on this product because it was never in the program, it was never recycled. It doesn't really have a recycling infrastructure. So the CRV that the Legislature put on was 25 cents for all of them. And the CRV.

The purpose of the CRV is to. To drive consumer behavior. It is a consumer redemption value. It's not a, it's not a, you know, part of, it's not to Fund the recycling program. It is a consumer redemption value was put at 25 cents to drive recycling.

So right now, after the first six months of wine spirits, of having some records of whether, whether these products are being recycled, they're being recycled about 1%. So they're not, they're not being recycled. And so, you know, they, they're in this market because they were. They had a competitive advantage all the years prior to wine and spirits.

And now they're in the market. And as the author said, they're at a competitive disadvantage on the CRV. It's probably fair. So. So anyway, we're opposed. We think in.

We think that until this product demonstrates a higher recycling rate, you know, above 1% and gets up there in the, in the range where, you know, the other, where the other packaging types are. That is probably premature to reduce this to a dime. So with that we're a post. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you. Any comments or questions from the. Or actually sorry. Anybody in the room wishing to express opposition, please come forward to the microphone. Not seeing any. We'll turn it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments about this Bill? zero, we have a late arriving oppose or support. Late arriving support. Okay.

Not seeing any questions or comments. We will turn it back to the author to close.

Thank you. Simply ask for an aye vote.

Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. We are concluded with this matter now. So let's see. We have. We're almost finished. We need to have. We are finished with this. Yeah. We don't have a quorum, so we can't take a vote. Okay. Okay. Senate Environmental Quality would like to conclude before noon.

It's currently 11 and we have two bills remaining and we have a consent calendar and we need to vote. So we have not had a quorum yet today.

So I encourage all Members of the Committee to come to Committee so that we can establish a quorum and our outstanding two authors, who are Senator Wiener and Senator Hurtado to come and whoever comes first will get to present first. And I think we'll go into a brief recess until one of them gets here.

Okay, great. It was a short lived recess. Thank you Senator Hurtado, for hurrying over here. We invite you to come present your Bill at the table here if you would like to. And this is SB441 from Senator Hurtado. And you're welcome to proceed when ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I apologize for the delay. I think I've presented like three bills already this morning. But I'm here today to present Senate Bill 441. We are at a time here in California, and especially in places like the Central Valley where, you know, bureaucratic decisions are being made that really significantly are impacting them.

And so we know what happens when powerful agencies make sweeping rules behind closed doors. The attentions might sound good, the headlines might read bold, but the burden, it falls squarely on the shoulders of hardworking families. Without warning, without explanation and without recourse, families in my district and across the state are feeling underserved and overburdened.

They wake up every day and see higher and higher prices. They are feeling the effects of the financial realities that bureaucratic decisions have created. We saw it last fall when CARB quietly approved massive updates to to the low carbon fuel standard while the Legislature was out of session.

No public spotlight, no real economic analysis, just a rubber stamp on policies that raise the cost of fuel and ripple across the entire supply chain. For folks in the Central Valley, that's not just a policy shift. That's fewer groceries in the cart. That's harder choices at the end of the month. And it's not just the Valley.

From Crescent City to Chula Vista, individuals are feeling it. Farmers, truckers, small, small business owners, commuters, all wondering how decisions with $1.0 billion consequences can be made with such lack of accountability. And let's be clear, this isn't a fight about climate action. California's lead on clean air and clean future, I firmly believe that.

But leadership demands trust and it demands transparency. And right now, too many individuals feel like CARB is acting less like a steward and more like a shadow government. SP441 is about restoring that trust.

It says if an agency is going to pass rules that cost Californians tens of millions of dollars, then Californians deserve to know what's happening before it happens. It ensures major regulations, get an independent economic impact review. It requires full transparency on carbs votes and proposals.

And it gives the Legislature the authority to remove board Members for incompetence or misconduct or just simply because they feel there is a need mirroring what is already available for other state boards and commissions. Because authority without Accountability is really a recipe for abuse. So you might ask, why now?

Because every time we delay oversight, another family pays the price, another farmer scales back, another business closes early. SB441 is not about weakening environmental policy. It's about strengthening democratic process.

It's about making sure the rules are fair, the impacts are understood, and the people, especially in rural and working class communities, have a voice in the decisions that shape their future. Let's make sure climate policy doesn't become a cloak for unaccountable power.

Let's stand up for fairness, for transparency, and for the people who keep California running from the field to the freeway to the front line. I want to really thank the Committee staff for work on this Bill. I will be accepting the Committee amendments found in comments 3 and 4, but I.

I really want to hold firm on the removal process because I feel that that gives a balance of power that is much, desperately needed in this time. I don't have any witnesses with me today. This is an authored sponsored Bill and I respectfully asked for an aye vote on this measure.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else in the room wishing to come forward to express support for the Bill? Okay. Any lead witnesses wishing to come forward to express opposition? You're welcome to come forward to the front table here.

Great. Thank you so much. Good morning. Chair Blakespear and Committee Members. Sofia Rafikova with the Coalition for Clean Air. Thank you for this opportunity to Voice opposition to SB441. This Bill would unnecessarily harm California's ability to clean up air pollution.

California is already experiencing the worst air pollution in the nation, and the Trump Administration has been rapidly rolling back air quality protections and directly attacking our state safeguards. SB441 sets a dangerous precedent by giving the Legislature the authority to vote to remove any card board Member.

For the board Members appointed by the Governor, the Senate already has an opportunity to weigh in on these appointments through the Senate Rules Committee confirmation hearings and the other Members already appointed by Assembly and Senate leaders. Additionally, this Bill requires the Legislative Analyst's Office to review any CARB regulation that would impose costs on California consumers.

We believe this provision is redundant and is a waste of California taxpayer dollars as CARP already includes lengthy analysis as part of this regulatory process. And finally, this Bill requires CARP to no longer make changes to the regulation once the draft regulation has been published on their website.

Like most agencies, CARB publishes its draft regulations to give board Members and the public time to review the regulations and provide feedback and suggestions at upcoming hearings. By removing carb's ability to make changes to the regulations during hearings.

This Bill would not only turn CARB board Members into yes men capable of only approving whatever the CARB stuff come up with, but would also render the public process at CARP hearings meaningless, violating the California Administrative Procedures Act.

SB441 not only disrupts the legislative and Executive branches separation of powers and undermines CAR regulatory authority, but it does so at the cost of the health of Californians. On behalf of the 7,500 Californians who die each year due to health complications caused by poor air quality, we urge you to vote no on SB441. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to express opposition? If so, please come forward to the microphone. Okay, not seeing any. We will bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions or comments, Senator Gonzalez?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I do understand where you're coming from in terms of. I get it. I understand the complexities that CARB presents for businesses in some cases. I understand the complexity that CARB can, you know, put unduly in some cases on communities. And I understand how you feel in that case.

But this is a pretty significant Bill that would remove board Members. And I think I align with the opposition in feeling that removing board Members that may in some cases, feel like it's an arbitrary move, not just solely because of corruption or because of anything malaligned with, you know, a decision.

So how do you feel about the opposition's comments and the chair providing additional amendments that you were not willing to take at this time?

So I do accept the amendments, aside from the removal process. I really would like to stand firm on that piece just because I'm trying to ensure that it mirrors what other commissions already have in place. So I think that, if anything, your CARB is getting special treatment and not having that specific.

That we don't have that specific language and authority to be able to do what we're allowed to do with other commissions and boards. So they're getting special treatment. And this is not about making the environment worse in any kind of way. Like, who wants that? Nobody does. I don't think anybody does.

But obviously we are seeing a trend right across the country that. Where you're rolling back regulations and we don't know. Right. Our next leader could be someone that is in line with those rules and policies. It could be a Democrat, it could be a Republican, it could be an Independent. Doesn't matter. Right.

But the whole point of this Bill is to ensure that there's balance and power because at the end of the day we are the ones that are held accountable and responsible for the health and well being of the people that were elected to serve. And so that's what this Bill is about.

It's just ensuring that CARB doesn't get special treatment. Right. Because they are right now at this moment by not having this in place. So just wanted to clarify that. Yep.

And thank you for that. I, you know, I'm going to have a hard time supporting this Bill today, unfortunately. But I do, you know, would love to work with you.

I think this is something that's been obviously lifted up many times before and I think it's something if you would like to put some additional guardrails and I think the Committee has provided some sort of inroads to do that.

But there are also opportunities, as the opposition mentioned, that provide clarity and transparency around what you're you're looking to do. Happy to work with you on that. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Senator Padilla.

Thank you. Madam Chair for the chair and or consultant wasn't clear. I mean there's a number of examples cited in the analysis with respect to appointing authority and dynamics and as the chair probably knows, there's some significant California Supreme Court cases on point drawing the distinction between pleasure appointments in the Executive and term appointments from the legislative branch.

Even in it seems a lot of the comparable commissions that were pointed out in the analysis are term appointments of varying degrees, even by the Executive.

It wasn't clear to me with respect to CARB whether it seems to read in the description that the CARB appointments even by the Executive are term appointments with the specific legislative set of exceptions dealing with the qualifications. Is that a correct understanding? And the chair has indicated. Yes.

So I think but there are no provisions for removal either by the appointing authority at CARB, Executive or legislative in the case of malfeasance, corruption or what existing other statutory provisions apply here that would make this requirement redundant. I don't have an answer to that.

In other words, I'm raising the possibility that where the author is trying to go here may already be covered in other statute. And I don't have an answer to that. And I didn't know whether the staff had was aware.

Okay. I think that there's no redundancy around the Legislature being able to remove, but if somebody is convicted in a court, then the Governor could remove or the court could remove, but the Legislature doesn't have that.

Yeah, okay. I mean, I understand where the author is trying to go and I'm just wondering whether this is completely flushed out or not.

In a way it makes it, I mean, it makes it difficult for me to be supportive with that provision still in and perhaps would want to work with you on a, maybe a separate approach that looks at clarifying or tightening up some of these other avenues that could achieve the same result.

If in fact that could apply to all of these. You know, certainly if we have a loophole with regard to any regulatory appointed Commission where there's some egregious malfeasance, that the appointing authorities are basically their hands are tied to do anything until there's an adjudication, which can take years.

Meantime, there are adverse effects to the people of the State of California. Why someone remaining in that position? So I am sensitive to where you're trying to go. I'm just not sure that this is. I'm not just sure that this is the venue, the avenue.

Thank you. And I'll just express to the author and publicly that I do. We'll establish a quorum after we finish this here.

But while giving the Legislature the ability to remove a CAR board Member by a majority vote would possibly make them more accountable to the Legislature, I think it could also, it would have a chilling effect on CARB's ability to make decisions that are difficult and independent and science based.

And I think ultimately that is what we are looking for from our CARB board Members.

And I also want to highlight the concern about even if somebody isn't actually removed or doesn't even come up in a Committee because the chair doesn't bring it up, that having the introduction of a resolution to terminate a CARB board Member could have a chilling effect on their decision making. And I don't think we want that either.

So encouraging our CARB board Members to be able to operate in a fashion that prioritizes long term planning and thinking and science based approach. The winds of politics can be very rough and we want these positions to be able to chart a course forward.