Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Assembly Natural Resource Committee hearing. The following four items have been polled. That's Item 1, AB305, Arambula. Item 7, AB 527, Pappin. Item 1910. 23, Gibson. Item 271325 Michelle Rodriguez. The following 11 measures have been proposed for consent. Item 2, AB 369. Ward. Item 4. AB 443. Bennett. Item 5. AB 472. Rogers.

Item 6. AB 526. Pappin. Item 8, AB 531. Rogers. Item 10, AB 674. Connolly. Item 15. AB 846. Connolly. Item 18, AB 982. Carrillo. Item 22, AB 1143. Bennett. Item 30. AB 1478, Hoover. Item 31. AB 1486, Soria. That leaves 16 bills on consent. And when we have a quorum, we will establish it.

In the absence of a quorum, we're going to start as a Subcommitee. Thank you, Mr. Ellis, for joining us and allowing us to establish a bipartisan Subcommitee. We've got a lot of folks here today. I love it. That's the way democracy should work. Just a quick reminder on decorum. Let's all be respectful through this process.

If not, I've got a really big gavel. We're going to go out of file order to respect everybody's time because you all showed up to be here and be heard, and this Committee appreciates that. And jump all the way to item number three. Or not three. Where's she at? Yeah. Item, second page. Item 23, Addis. Addis, would you like to come down whenever you're ready.

Well, thank you, Chair, Committee Members, staff and advocates, and we really do appreciate your flexibility in putting us up. First, I know there's a lot of folks with a lot of strong feelings, so I am here to present AB1243, the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025.

This Bill is a reasonable, responsible and revenue-smart approach to addressing the escalating costs to taxpayers of climate destruction in California. The Bill has two main goals. First, to alleviate the financial burden on everyday taxpayers who are currently alone and footing the Bill for climate disasters.

And second, to generate funding to launch climate resilience and recovery projects that will create building, construction and other jobs. The climate crisis, as we all know, is imposing real and rapidly rising costs from the central coast to Los Angeles and beyond.

And the Fourth Climate Assessment estimates 113 billion per year in damages by 2050 and more unquantified impacts to public health and wildfire destruction.

And every day people are paying more and more to cool their homes during extreme heat, evacuate from and rebuild after mega fires and floods like those in Los Angeles and across the central coast to cover the cost of exorbitant insurance and pay for medical care for pollution-related health issues.

Disturbingly, it is the taxpayers alone who foot the Bill to remediate and recover from climate damage. And to add insult to injury, this damage is caused by the world's largest polluters, while those same polluters reap unimaginable profits and are given trillions of dollars in subsidies.

For example, in 2023, 5 major oil companies collectively gave 113 billion in profits to their shareholders in just that year alone. And in 2022, according to the International Monetary Fund, total global subsidies for fossil fuel companies was $7 trillion, or 7.1% of the world's total GDP. This imbalance is unneeded, unsustainable and unjust.

And so 1243 is an equitable policy that ensures polluters contribute alongside taxpayers to cover the costs of climate damages. It is based on the principle that those who cause harm should be part of the solution so that all of us can prosper. Specifically, 1243 will direct Cal EPA to do three things.

Identify fossil fuel companies responsible for at least a billion metric tons of global greenhouse gas emissions between 1990 and 2024, conduct a climate cost study to quantify the total damages to California through 2045, and to assess fees on the largest fossil fuel polluters proportional to their emissions, with choice in the payment structure to allow flexibility to cover these costs.

The funds will then be available to invest in important projects that create building and construction and other jobs, for example, renewable energy acceleration, building, decarbonization, school resilience and extreme weather and climate disaster, school resilience to extreme weather and climate disasters.

Affordable infill, housing and home hardening funds are also specifically available for local and tribal governments and public agencies and essential workers who respond to climate disasters and protect our communities. And the Bill prioritizes labor and job standards and dedicates at least 40% of the funds benefit communities most affected by fossil fuel pollution.

So 1243 will help us move into a future that we all want, one where taxpayer dollars are protected, building and construction jobs are created, and the world's mega polluters who are mega profiters rectify their past destruction by helping fund the solutions that regular people need.

Joining me today to testify in support of AB1243 are Maya Golden-Krasner from the Center for Biological Diversity and Mabel Tsang from the California Environmental Justice Alliance.

Two minutes each. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Maya Golden-Krasner, Deputy Director and Senior Attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute supporting AB1243. Also Altadena strong. Luckily my home survived, though my kids former school in synagogue did not.

My experience fleeing with my family that night, still displaced months later, my community devastated, have made clear that California is not ready for the climate that fossil fuels created. We face a hostile Federal Government playing games with disaster response. Hardworking Californians simply cannot afford to shoulder the looming monumental climate costs alone.

With escalating insurance, housing, utility and health expenses, and with city and county budgets stretch beyond the brink, this Bill requires a relatively small number of the largest multinational fossil fuel corporations overwhelmingly responsible for climate devastation, who are lining their shareholders pockets with record profits to pay a small portion of those profits to invest in our communities, businesses and workers threatened by the climate crisis.

Fossil fuel lobbyists are trotting out the same empty scare tactics they've tossed out for over 70 years whenever there's any attempt at climate action. We've provided you and are happy to discuss the mounds of case law and data supporting strong legal, economic and scientific bases for this Bill.

Courts have repeatedly upheld laws that retroactively require polluters to remedy pollution harms even when the product was legal, beneficial and used by others. Economists from across the country, including Berkeley and Nobel prize winner, have explained why the Bill will not increase gas prices.

AB 1243 is an opportunity to invest in California to insulate the budget and relieve the burden on taxpayers, create thousands of jobs building resilient communities and transitioning to clean energy, fortify against climate disasters and protect air, water and health.

That's why this Bill is supported by a broad coalition of hundreds of labor, environmental justice, faith, public health and youth groups. We need you to vote yes on this common sense unnecessary legislation. Thank you to the chair, coauthors and the rest of the Committee.

Ma, before you start, can we establish a quorum now that they're here? Mr. Secretary, will you call the roll for us?

[ROLL CALL]

Quorum is established. Thank you. You may begin.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon Chair Bryan, Members of the Committee, my name is Mabel Tsang. I serve as the Political Director for the California Environmental Justice Alliance, or CEJA and one of the Steering Committee Members of the Campaign for a Safe and Healthy California.

The campaign is committed to reversing years of historic inequity in our communities and neighborhoods that are still living with the consequences of industrial pollution, including asthma, cancer and other health consequences. We are proud co-sponsors of AB1243, which takes a new and exciting approach to redressing these historic wrongs.

We represent the communities that will be the first and hardest hit by climate change. Our communities lack essential infrastructure, making incredibly difficult, if not impossible to withstand extreme weather events, wildfires, sea level rise, flooding and food insecurity.

AB1243 provides 20 years of dedicated funding to help these communities mitigate the historic impacts of climate change and build long-term resilience. Crucially, the Bill ensures that at least 40% of the funds are directed towards projects and programs that directly benefit disadvantaged communities, prioritizing the Californians most in need.

We are proud to stand alongside our communities, labor unions and other 180 organizations in strong support of AB1243, including AFSCME, the California Federation of Teachers, California Nurses Association and the American Lung Association.

While every day Californians struggle with rising costs in the health crises from pollution, the fossil fuel industry continues to make billions in profits without paying for the damage they've caused. Some may falsely claim that this Bill will raise costs for consumers, but the truth is that our communities have been paying the price for decades.

More than 9 million Californians, predominately low income families of color, live near oil and gas production facing disproportionately high risks of life threatening health issues. To address these long standing injustices, California needs a stable dedicated funding source. And AB1243 provides exactly that. Thank you. Chair, co-authors, Committee.

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

One second. Let's, let's get that microphone on. We're good. Okay.

Thank you. Good morning. I've been asked to register support for Dayenu: A Jewish Call to Climate Action, Courage California, San Francisco Baykeeper, SCOPE, Human Impact Partners, Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy, Indivisible East Bay, Oil and Gas Action Network and Extinction Rebellion, San Francisco Bay.

I'm not supposed to touch it, but I can't reach. Can you adjust it? Thank you. Good afternoon Committee. Thank you for this hearing. My name is Ruth Atkin. I live in Emeryville, Assemblymember Wicks' district. California already has Polanco Act to clean up...

Name and organization, if possible. And position on the Bill.

Ruth Atkin, City of Emeryville, representing over 800 members in the Bay Area and Polanco Act is on the books. Cleans up groundwater and contaminated soil.

We just need your position on the Bill. Support. You support?

Yes, ma'am. absolutely. So name,organization and position on the Bill.

Support.

Ruth McDonald, Climate Action California in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Ruth.

Meghan Sahli-Wells, former mayor of Culver City, representing EOPA Code Blue and the 50 elected officials throughout the state who have signed on in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Good afternoon Committee. R.L. Miller, Climate Hawks Vote. Representing over 20,000 Members in the State of California. Strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Nancy Feinstein, Buffy Wicks area and I represent 1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations. 1600 plus Members.

Thank you.

Very strong support.

Yeah. Barbara Rhine, I'm also with 1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations, the co-chair of our legislative working group. Definitely in support of this crucial Bill.

Thank you.

Ms. Al Brown from Alameda. I live on Bay Farm Island. I am a member of California Retired Teachers Association, also No Coal in Oakland and also 1000 Grandmothers. And very, very much in support of this Bill because all my life I'm 80 years old and have taught and seen what happens...

Thank you so much.

...when this pollution is so horrendous. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Committee. My name is Nancy Hollander. I live in San Rafael. I'm a member of 1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations in enthusiastic support of the Bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Andrea Leon-Grossmann. I live in Los Angeles and I'm in very strong support of this Bill and I represent Vote Solar.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Members. Genevieve Diane Colborn, excuse me. I live in Davis, California. I'm a Member of Third Act and strongly support this Bill.

Thank you.

Hi. Maria Rittner. I'm a member of Third Act, San Francisco Bay Area. There's 80 Members in nine counties and we strongly support the Bill.

Good afternoon. Maria Gavedia. Climate Action California and 350 Sacramento in support.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Judy Rosenfeld. I'm a Member of 1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations. We have hundreds of Members and Haney is my representative. I strongly support this Bill. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. Deborah Abraham, retired psychotherapist, 1000 Grandmothers. We have 1600 Members and also I'm part of Third Act. We strongly support this Bill. Thank you for your attention.

Joan Anyon, I'm a retired lawyer with 1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations. I want to thank our Representative Haney for supporting this Bill. And we strongly support the Bill. Thank you.

My name is Sarah Theiss. That's T as in Thomas, H, E, I, double S as in Sam. I'm a CalPERS retiree and formerly worked for the California State Public Defender. I'm a Fossil Free California member and I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Linda Dahlin. 1000 Grandmothers. There are at least a thousand of us here today, I think. I live in San Francisco. Assemblyman Haney is my rep and I strongly support the Bill too.

Thank you.

Hello, good afternoon. I'm Christy Windham. I live in Oakland. I'm a constituent of Mia Bonta. I'm a former public school teacher and I currently work as a naturalist at the Port of Oakland on Middle Harbor Shoreline, which is in West Oakland, an area very impacted by sea level rise. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Jane Perry. I'm with 1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations. We sponsored this for over 1500 and my representative is Buffy Wicks. Please stay safe and healthy.

Hello, my name is Toni Dwiggins. I'm from Cupertino. My representative is Patrick Ahrens and I am. I'm a writer. I write environmental thrillers and I believe we are living in a real life thriller right now that really needs some attention. So I strongly support this Bill and hope that you will too. Thank you.

Thank you. And because of the amount of people, if at all possible, name, organization and position on the Bill.

Got it. Okay. My name's Charles Williams. I live in Cupertino. Patrick Ahrens is my Assemblyperson and I strongly support this Bill. Thank you, sir.

Isabel Penman here for Food and Water Watch in support of the Bill.

Ben Smith, Greenpeace USA. Strong support. Thank you.

Eric Lerner. On behalf of the 17,000 Members of ACE, the Alliance for Californians for Community Empowerment. We urge you to support this Bill and stand with us. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Elliot Helman. I live in Matt Haney's district in San Francisco, directly on the bay shoreline. I'm a Member of Cal State Educators Association. I'm an American Sign Language interpreter. And I want you to know I took a day off of work without pay because as my shirt says, I support the Bill.

Hello, my name is Dorrie Bruggemann. I flew in from San Diego this morning for this hearing. I am represented by Chris Ward and I also am with San Diego 350. We represent 8,000 Members in San Diego and we support this, this Bill.

Hello, I'm Coby Schneider. I'm 16 years old. I also flew in from San Diego, I'm a high school student, I'm with San Diego 350 and we support this Bill.

Hello, my name is Emma, I'm 17 years old, senior in high school, also from San Diego, Assemblymember Boerner's district. I'm the Youth v Oil intern for San Diego 350 and Youth v Oil is a campaign that represents more than 30 young people in San Diego County and we support this Bill.

Thank you. Hi, I'm Chloe Ames, I'm here on behalf of NextGen California. I'm also here in support of AB 1233, 1243 and giving my me-too in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Megan Elsea, I'm in Maggy Krell's district. I'm an attorney and I'm with 350 Sacramento. Support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Daniel McKeegan, I'm from District 5. I ask you to please support AB 1243. Thank you.

Thank you sir.

Good afternoon, I am Adekemi Ademuyewo, a resident of District 6 and I am in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Simon Hyatt here on behalf of the California Working Families Party shout out to Ash Kalra for co authoring this Bill. Here in strong support. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Heather Macleod from Oakland, California Assemblymember Wicks' district. I'm here representing Youth Power Climate Action because the kids are in school.

Lynn Griffith drove in from Oakland, Mia Bonta's district. I cofounded stopOAKexpansion.org or yeah, coalition to reduce climate emissions. Hope you'll support.

Thank you so much.

My name is Ashley McClure, I'm a constituent of Assemblymember Wicks and I'm here on behalf of Climate Health Now which is organizing health professionals across the state in support of 1243 for health, equity, and kids.

Two support positions. I see.

Hi, my name is Dr. Emily Williams. I am an Assemblymember Mia Bonta's district. I'm a climate attribution scientist at UC Merced and a proud member of UAW 5810 and I support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Jean Amato. I'm an American River Democrat Club member and I want this place for my great-grandchildren.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Ella Nigrelli, I'm 17 years old and I'm from San Diego in Boerner's district and I'm here representing Youth v Oil and I'm in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Tarika Seti. I'm 14 years old. I'm a freshman in high school in San Diego. I'm a constituent of Tasha Berner. I'm in strong support of this Bill and I'm part of Youth v Oil. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Anushka Kalia and I'm a senior in high school from Sacramento, California and I skipped school to be here and I'm in Joe Patterson's district. I'm with Fridays for Future Sacramento and 350 Sacramento, and I'm a strong support of the Bill.

Thank you and we won't tell Joe.

My name is Sofia Carrasco. I am 16 years old. I flew in here from San Diego with the rest of Youth versus Oil, which I am proud to be a part of. I'm from Assembly Boerner's District and I'm in strong support of this Bill.

Thank you so much.

Hi, my name is Sarah. I'm a volunteer with 350 Sacramento. I'm 16 and yes, I support this Bill.

My name is Abby. I'm a senior at Hilltop High School in San Diego. I'm a constituent of Assemblymember Alvarez here with Youth v Oil and I'm in strong support of this Bill.

Hi, my name is Darren Starcevich. I am a youth activist. I am 14 and I am a constituent of Darshana Patel and I support this Bill because this is my future that we're dealing with.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Greta Busch Castro. I'm 15 years old. I'm a constituent of Darshana Patel, and I'm a 10th grader from Youth v Oil and I strongly support this Bill.

Hi, Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters, a proud co sponsor and strong supporter of this Bill. Also here on behalf of, in support of, Extinction, Extinction Rebellion San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego 350, Climate Reality Project Los Angeles Chapter, Mill Valley Seniors for Peace, Church and Society for Our, First Presbyterian Church of San Anselmo, Aquarium Minions, Sunrise LA, 350 South Bay Los Angeles, 350 Southland Legislative Alliance, Cal Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Social Eco Education, Carbon Cycle Institute, Courage California, Sisters of St. Joseph Orange, and the Immaculate Heart Community Environmental Commission. Thank you.

My name is Barbara Washburn. I'm a retired toxicologist, CalEPA, a member of Third Act Sacramento, and in keeping with the teachings of Pope Francis, I am a strong supporter of this legislation.

Thank you.

Karen Randles also worked at CalEPA as a scientist, worked on the Climate Change Indicators Reports. I'm an ESAC resident and I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

My name is Azalea Angeles. I'm 17 years old and a child of immigrant parents. I'm a constituent of Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins. I'm a first generation Filipino high school senior from San Diego with Youth v Oil and I support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I'm Daniel Hernandez, a 17 year old constituent of Assemblymember Alvarez and a Chicano first generation student with Youth v Oil and I support this Bill. Thank you.

My name is Carol Crooks. I'm a 77 year old retired teacher, Member of SEIU. I'm here with the 1000 Grandmothers. I'm co-convener of Berkeley East Bay Gray Panthers. I live in Oakland and I'm in Mia Bonta's District and I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Rosemary Ehat. I'm 79 years old. I was in the Convent the Holy Name Sisters for 30 years and I am a psychotherapist now. And I am the constituent of Buffy Wicks and I strongly support this Bill. And I'm with the 1000 Grandmothers.

Thank you so much.

Hello, My name is McGarrah Wilson. I'm a constituent of Chris Ward and a representative of San Diego 350 and I support this Bill.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Rowan Osman. I'm a constituent of Assemblymember Boerner. I am a science communicator and a member of San Diego 350 and I support this Bill.

Hi, my name is Maggie Tai. Registering strong support for AB 1243 on behalf of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network Action, a steering committee member organization with a Campaign for a Safe and Healthy California. Also registering support on behalf of the campaign on other Campaign for a Safe and Healthy California Steering Committee Members, Communities for a Better Environment Action, Black Women for Wellness Action Fund, Center for Race, Poverty and the Environment and the California Environmental Justice Alliance Action. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Hello. Michael Rincon, Director of Policy and Research at Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles. I am also a Master's in Public policy student at UCLA and I support this legislation. It's great to also give a MeToo for community water Center. Thank you.

Barry Vesser with the Climate Center and strong support.

Hi. Nancy Tierney. I'm in Assemblymember Berman's District 23. I'm with the Bay Area Third Act Working Group and I'm also with Laudato Si, which is at St. Ignatius Parish in San Francisco. And I strongly support this Bill. Thanks.

Hi, I'm Judy Bortz. I live in Redwood City under Diane Papan and I represent Climate Action California with over 8,000 Members and we strongly support this Bill.

Hello, I'm Diana Cassidy in Maggy Krell's district, retired public health professor from UC Davis, representing Third Act Sacramento and all of the Third Act chapters in the state with about 7,000 Members strongly in support of the Bill.

Hi, I'm Pat Farris, I'm in Maggy Krell's Assembly District and I'm from Third Act Sacramento with 500 Members. Strongly support.

My name is Marianne Fenstermaker, I'm in Maggy Krell's Assembly District. I'm a former teacher and union member rep for CUEA Local 952 and on behalf of retired teachers and union members, I strongly support Bill 1243.

Trina Lee, Assembly District 10, retired public school teacher and member of 350 and Third Act and I support the Bill.

Hello, my name is Jane Flint. I'm a filmmaker and a retired health professional. I represent Third Act, 1000 Grandmothers and Extinction Rebellion which represent many many people in California and thousands more in the nation. I support this Bill.

Sally Callaghan with Third Act, XRA Sacramento, retired CDR state worker, highly support the Bill. Josh Hoover, Fulsam.

Raelene Ferris, Third Act Sacramento, Ashby's district and I support this Bill. Thank you.

Maureen Stubblefield, 70 year old climate activist. I'm here on behalf of my community in Napa Valley whose lives have been upended by the climate disasters caused by Big Oil. I strongly support this Bill.

I'm a Karen. And I taught my children to clean up when they made a mess. Why don't the polluters do the same and not on a taxpayer dime.

Thank you Karen.

Okay, I'm done.

Fantastic.

I'm a private citizen and I support this Bill.

Thank you so much.

My name is Susan Weisberg, I live in Assemblyman Haney's district. Thank you very much Assemblyman for being a cosponsor of this Bill. I also am a volunteer with Walk San Francisco and I strongly support the Bill. Thank you.

I'm Linda Hayward, an 84 year old activist, retired teacher. I strongly support this Bill.

Thank you.

Kimberly Burr from Sonoma County, environmental attorney. And I think this is an appropriate next step that California needs to take. Thanks for all your hard work on helping us deal with our climate crisis.

My name is Theo Lecane with the Center for Biological Diversity supporting the Bill obviously and also here to read a few names of groups who couldn't be here but asked me to say that they support the Bill as well.

We've got California Green New Deal Coalition, Clean Water Action, Protect Monterey County Prevention Institute, Climate First: Replacing Oil and Gas, Climate Equity Policy Center, San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, Climate Reality, Bay Area Center for Environmental Health, the Make Polluters Pay National Campaign, 350 Bay Area and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. Ochella. Thank you.

Hi, Heather Rawson from Sonoma County and I'm a mother and I'm a teacher and I'm also the Vice President of Forest Limited. And I'm here to support the Bill and I thank you for your time.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Woody Hastings speaking on behalf of Consumer Watchdog today in strong support of AB 1243. Thank you very much.

William Pavik from Sacramento, Assemblymember Krell's district, on behalf of the thousand members of Climate Health Now in strong support. Thank you.

Dr. Wendy Bernstein from Albany, California. Assemblywoman Wicks' district, also from Climate Health Now in strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Jackson Goulding with the ASUC Eco-Office at UC Berkeley and I strongly support this Bill.

Hi, my name is Maya Williams. I'm 18 years old and I'm a first year student at UC Berkeley. I am here on behalf of the environmental community at UC Berkeley as a constituent of Assemblymember McKinnor to express my strong support for AB1243. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Karuna Gray. I'm a student at UC Berkeley and I'm here on behalf of ASUC Eco-Center as well as the environmental community as a whole and I strongly support this Bill.

Thank you. Allison Hilliard on behalf of the Climate Center Action Fund in strong support. Thank you.

Hi, Ellie Cohen from San Anselmo and Assemblymember Connelly's district here in strong support. Thank you so much.

Dave Shukla, Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy. Strong support.

Thank you, sir.

Helen Fitzmorris, I'm a constituent of Assemblymember Bonta. I'm a Member of UAW 4811 and I'm in strong support. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Patricia Johnson and I'm in strong support. And I'm an RN and I'm part of Third Act and my International Union Operating Engineer Local 39 and I'm in Assembly Maggy Krell's district.

Hi, my name is Brittany Friedman. I'm a conservation professional in California and I'm here as a volunteer of Climate Action California and 350 Sacramento and I strongly support this Bill.

I'm Michael Dack, I'm a resident of Assemblymember Josh Hoover's district. I'm a member of Third Act Sacramento and Indivisible Sacramento and I strongly support the Bill.

Hello, my name is Quinn Ide and on behalf of Fossil Free California and our 12,000 members, I strongly urge you to support this Bill.

My name is Katie McCammon. A lot of other groups already spoke for me, but I'm a constituent here in Sacramento and I strongly support this Bill. Pass it for the environment.

Good afternoon. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Mari Lopez with the California Nurses Association in support.

Chair and Members, Jael Dantas with Full Moon Strategies on behalf of the Campaign for Safe and Health California support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Chris Lish. I'm a constituent of Assemblymember Connolly and I strongly support.

Hello. Eric Bertschinger, a UC Santa Barbara graduate from Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin's district here today on behalf of Seafrog and Ventura here in strong support of AB1243. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Molly McCoy. I am from Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin's district in Ventura County and I'm here as a college student activist on behalf of Climate First: Replacing Oil and Gas in strong support of AB1243. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Cynthia Kaufman, Assemblymember Berman's district and I'm the Director of the Institute, the Vasconcellos Institute for Democracy in Action at DeAnza College. And in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, I'm Joan Lowman from Oakland, California. Assemblyman Bonta's district. I'm here in strong support on behalf of my 19 great nieces and nephews. Thank you. Strong support of 1243.

Hello, my name is Diana Curiel. I'm an Assemblymember Wicks' district. I'm with Fossil Free California and we're in strong support. Thanks.

Hi, I'm Donna Graves. I'm representing Indivisible East Bay and we are in Assemblymember Wicks' district in strong support of this Bill.

Hello, my name is Ariella Grenette. I am a constituent of Assemblymember Wicks, District 14, and I'm a Member of 350 Bay Area. I strongly support.

Hi, my name is Bhima Sheridan. I'm from Wicks' district and I'm in strong support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. Bryce Doherty on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics California in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Tony Hackett from Californians Against Waste and support.

Hi. Kristen Gorey on behalf of Seventh Generation in strong support along with the companies in support listed on the coalition letter from the California Businesses for Climate Justice. Thank you.

Hi. Assemblymember Heath Flora. This is Liz Walsh and I'm retired educator and I'm in strongly support of this Bill.

Thank you and he's definitely watching.

Good afternoon, my name is Darrell O'Sullivan and I'm also Heath Flora, in Heath Flora's Assembly area, and I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you sir.

My name is Elias Wells. I'm a Buffy Wicks' district excuse me and I'm strongly in support of this Bill. None of you guys are F students so you know what it is.

Thank you sir.

Gabriela Facio with Sierra Club California and strong support.

Thank you. Mitch Steiger with CFT a union of educators and classified professionals also in support.

Ruth Sosa Martinez on behalf of PowerCA Action in support

Is there anybody else in the hearing room or the hallway or the Capitol or Assemblymember Flora's district who would like to register, like to register their support for this measure? Seeing none, are there any primary witnesses in opposition? We'll start with just the two.

Thank you so much.

Thanks, fellas. You got two minutes apiece, whenever you want.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Keith Dunn here on behalf of the construction the California Building Construction Trades Council of California, channeling the spirit of Paul Revere with a cautionary warning which you're getting handed out a printed warning from the San Francisco Chronicle. Today. The affordability gap is widening. It's not by chance, it's by choice.

And the burden on working family grows heavier. We must confront a troubling trend here in California. Specifically that aspirational legislation such as AB 1243, when confronted by economic reality, causes loss of jobs, increased costs for goods and services and creates a stealth regressive tax on every Californian. This is not conjecture, this is.

This week's announcement of the closure of the Valero refinery underscores the urgency of this message. Every day 40 million Californians get up and need to go to work, school, just the grocery store.

And due to a historic lack of investment in public infrastructure here in California, most of the time that means they have to get in their car and drive AB 1233. 1243 would impose excessive regulatory constraints on these essential businesses, driving up operating costs and discouraging future investments. California's working families will pay the price.

Higher costs lead to increased energy prices, adding financial strain on working class families who are already struggling to survive in our nation's most expensive state. According to the Chronicle article which you just received, we will lose hundreds if not thousands of middle class careers and expect a 20% reduction in oil refining in the next 12 months.

And let's be clear, shutting down in state energy production, which legislation like 1243 will accelerate, doesn't eliminate energy demand. It just shifts production to other states and countries, all of which have weaker environmental and labor protections than we have here in California. The result is lost jobs, increased costs and higher emissions globally. It's a lose lose scenario.

Air quality and global emissions worsen. Blue collar middle class jobs are lost and our skilled workforce is displaced. Instead, we ask you to support policies that foster investment, protect jobs and maintain in state fuel production as we transition responsibly towards a sustainable future.

To be clear, our members support and work every day to build a renewable energy future for California. We build and maintain and support California's ambitious renewable energy goals. California's energy transition is a complex, multi decades long effort to that can't be achieved overnight.

And let me be perfectly clear, our state still depends on oil and gas to run every single day. California has long been a leader in environmental policy with the Cap and trade program serving as a model for reducing emissions while maintaining an economic balance.

AB 1243 threatens to destabilize that carefully calibrated system by imposing additional restrictions and unpredictable costs on an already heavily regulated community. Energy production in California is changing. And the men and women of the building trades, who you will hear from shortly, play a huge role in delivering clean, renewable energy. Energy production is nowhere near 100% on renewables.

We still need to have our gas and oil production. To paraphrase Paul Revere, again, increased costs are coming. 1243 will accelerate it. We ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Out of a deep abundance of respect. Let you fly way over two minutes. Thank you, sir.

This is an important issue, so I appreciate.

No, absolutely. I didn't expect the two Paul Revere quotes.

Well, I'm a history major, so it's in my nac. Right. I have a whole thing on lanterns and horses. But in respect for your time, I cut that out.

Absolutely. You've got two minutes. But if you bring up any of the other founding fathers, we're gonna have to.

Fair enough. Can you hear me?

Okay. Good afternoon, my name is John Kendrick. Here today on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, we oppose AB 1243 as a cost driver, which is our new term for job killer. AB 1243 creates harmful uncertainty for business planning by retroactively punishing decades old lawful emissions that largely occurred outside of the State of California.

Yes, sir.

AB 1243 disincentivizes businesses from considering doing business in California because of a fear of a jurisdictional hook if enacted. Businesses must assume that the choice to do business in California means that their future lawful activities, whether they occur in the State of California or outside of the State of California, means may someday be punished with retroactive liability.

This sends the message that even strict adherence to the state's compliance programs is not enough to avoid retroactive punishment because many of the entities that are targeted by AB 1243 have been paying for their emissions through cap and trade for more than a decade now. It signals that California's legal and regulatory environment is unpredictable, unstable and punitive.

This damages our economic competitiveness. This deters long term investment in California from an affordability lens. Thank you for bringing that up. AB 1243 means higher costs for fuel, electricity, transportation goods, services, the things that we need for everyday life. For vulnerable communities and populations already financially strained, these higher costs will diminish economic well being and financial stability.

Now, if the goal of AB 1243 is to fund climate action, we already have a program that's doing that. It's very successful. It's called Cap and Trade. It's raised nearly $30 billion over the course of its existence and it actually drives in state emissions reductions. Today.

We should refocus on reauthorizing a program that works and works well, rather than retroactively punishing decade old lawful conduct that largely occurred outside the state. From a legal perspective, the attempt to regulate extraterritorial conduct places significant burdens on interstate commerce.

We're at two minutes.

Thank you. This retroactive approach is fundamentally unfair. No business operating in 1990 could have predicted that it would be retroactively punished for legal emissions. So it's fundamentally flawed, economically detrimental and legally dubious. We urge this Committee to reject AB 1243.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. You all have done this before. All folks in opposition in the hearing room, please state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Good afternoon, My name is Erica Valentine. I represent UA Local 393. 3,100 plumbers, pipefitters team fitters and H VACR technicians. Santa Clara, San Benito County. We stand with the building trades and ask that all of you also oppose this bill with us. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Mike Greenlee. I'm the Political Director for the Painters and Allied Trades. We stand with the State building trades in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Committee Chair Rachel Shoemake with IBEW Local 302, representing over 1300 electrical workers in Contra Costa County. We stand with the Building trace in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Committee. Pete Wogsogan, UA Local 250, representing 7,000 Members and representing 17,000 Members of the District Council 16. Southern California Pipe Trades in strong opposition of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Pete.

Good afternoon. John Tweed, District Council 16. We stand opposed to this bill.

David Beanie representing 23 craft unions and 30,000 construction workers of the Santa Clara and San Benito Counties Building and Construction Trades Council. Standing in strong opposition in solidarity with the State Building and Construction Trades Council. Thank you.

Martin Rodriguez, Ironworkers Local 433. President, Tri County Building Construction Trades. Representing 12,500 Members. We strongly oppose this bill in solidarity with State building trades.

Representing the heat and frost insulators. representing the heat and frost insulators. And we stand in the strong with the stabilist. Standing strong with the State buildings trades and opposition of this bill. Thank you.

Hello. Jeff Hunterlock with the Operating Engineers Local 3. We are. We have four, almost 41,000 Members. We are standing with the State Building trades on this. Thank You.

Tommy Sandoval, business representative, Painters and Allied Trades out of Alameda County, and we stand with the building trades in opposition.

Good afternoon. Renee Ross, Boilermaker, Local 549. I am a mother. I'm a chairperson of our women's Committee, and we strongly oppose this. Thank you.

Thank you. Angel Greer, District 15 with the Boilermakers, Local 549 and I strongly oppose.

Troy Notrangela, Vallejo resident representing District Council 16, Painters and Allied Trades, extending opposition of this bill.

Daniela Garcia Hernandez, with the Western States Petroleum Association in opposition. Thank you.

Kevin Ferrer, the Executive Director of the Sacramento Sierra Building and Construction Trades Council. We stand with the State Building Trades in opposition of this bill. Thank you.

Samuel Salgado, I'm an iron worker out of 378 from Oakland. I oppose.

Mario Mendoza from Hayward, California, Union Iron Worker, or oppose this bill.

Jeremy Dolan, from Martinez, California. I'm a Ironworker out of Local 378 and I oppose.

Good afternoon. My name is Bob Llewellyn. I'm a business representative with the Painters and Allied Trades, and I live in Venetia and I oppose this bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Dustin Spurgeon. I'm with District Council 16. I'm a business representative for Local 741 and a San Joaquin county resident, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Anthony Nuwanis. I'm a business representative for the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, and I stand with the building trades and oppose opposing this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Jason Anthony. I'm a business representative for Local 3, Painters and Drywall Finishers, Alameda County, and I stand in opposition.

Good afternoon. My name is Frederick Jordan from Local Ironworkers 378, and I oppose. Thank you.

My name is Chen Wang. I'm the President of Asian Business Association, Inland Empire. We represent small businesses in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. We oppose this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Alexander Kim, Board Secretary of the Asian Business Association of Orange County, also representing the Asian Food Trade Association, African American Business Alliance, Asians Energy, Cambodian Chamber of Commerce, Coalition of Filipino American Chambers of Commerce, and the Thai American Chamber of Commerce. We oppose this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Joseph Zapp, Boilermaker Local 549. And I stand in opposition to this bill.

Good afternoon. Chair and Members. Matt Cremens, here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are respectfully in strong opposition. Thank you.

Aloha. Mitchell Bechtel, on behalf of the District Council of Iron Workers in opposition.

Thanks. Good afternoon. Carl Pineal, business manager of Ironworkers Local 118, Sacramento and President of the Mid Valley Billing Trades. We strongly oppose this bill and stand with solidarity with the state billing trades.

Good afternoon. Mitch Ponce, business agent for the Iron Workers Local 433, Los Angeles. President of the Los Angeles Orange County Buildings Construction Trades Council. We strongly oppose.

Hello, Assembly Members. Alec Misseropian on behalf of the Los Angeles County Business Federation, otherwise known as Bizfed LA. And we are in opposition to this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Stephanie Estrada with Crew Strategies on behalf of the California Business Properties Association. In opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Dr. Ruben Guerra, Chair of the Latin Business Association, representing over 700,000 Latino businesses in California for 50 years. And we're in all your districts and we strongly oppose.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members on behalf of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce and opposition. Thank you.

Hello, everyone. My name is Andrew Farfan. I'm an iron worker out of 378, which is what? By Vacaville Oakland area. And I oppose this bill. It's a bad idea. Thank you.

How you guys doing? My name is Francisco Llanes. I'm with the iron Workers Local 378 and I oppose.

My name is Joshua Rodriguez with Ironworkers 378. As a blue collar worker. We oppose this bill.

Andrew Hayes with boiler makers local 549. We opposed the bill.

Mr. Greg Everetts boilermakers local 549. I oppose the bill.

Hello, my name is Cedric Former and I'm the Executive Director at Urban Recovery Los Angeles. And we stand in opposition to this bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Robert Cesedo. I'm President and CEO of Community Build, co founder of Groundswell for Water Justice, board Member of Bizfed Institute, and we strongly oppose.

Hi, my name is Brenda Hartson. I'm from Los Angeles. I am an administrative system of Urban. Recovery in Los Angeles as well. And I'm also a worker of Aviva Family and Children's Services and I oppose this bill.

My name is Candida Santilla and I'm. With CUIP Horseback riding program and I oppose this bill. We are in Los Angeles, Watts and South Central area. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Randy Thomas. I'm the business manager, Secretary, Treasurer, Boilermakers Local 549 in Pittsburgh, California, right in the middle of the Bay Area. And we stand with the State Building Trades in opposition of this bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Osbaldo Troche. I'm a business agent for boilermakers local 549. We oppose this bill.

Hi, my name is Paul Fredette. I'm a human being. First of all, I'm also a union Boilermaker. Our local 549 and also local 304. Laborers and we oppose this.

Good afternoon. Dion Simone, Boilermakers Local 549 opposed.

Good afternoon. Members. Ed Sanders with the Groundswell for Water Justice Coalition and we oppose this this bill.

Good morning. Martin Ludlow with Groundswell for Housing Justice. Salute the best Chairman in the State of California. We oppose this bill.

Good afternoon. Jessica Guerrero with Groundswell for Water and Housing justice and I also stand in opposition.

Hello. Cheyenne Overton from Los Angeles. I'm with Groundswell and I oppose this bill. Swell, thank you.

Hello, my name is Maisha Cairo. I'm from Los Angeles with Groundswell and I oppose this bill.

Good afternoon. Martin Vindiola, on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers and the California State Pipe Trades Council in opposition. Thank you.

James Holland, business agent for Local 92 Boilermakers. We oppose the bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Rudy Portillo. I'm a welding Instructor for Local 92 apprenticeship and we oppose this bill.

Good afternoon. Diana Ordaz Charington with the Multicultural Business Alliance and we oppose this bill.

Good afternoon. Roberta Arnold, founder Chairman of the Multicultural Business Alliance and we oppose this bill.

Good afternoon. Doug Kessler representing U.S. central and Northern Yemeni Society. We oppose the bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Estea Kessler and I'm with Central Valley Elected Officials and we oppose.

Good afternoon. My name is Michael Garcia, I'm from Sisa Puerto and we oppose this bill.

Hi, my name is Rachel Guevara, I oppose this bill.

My name is Jess Gonzalez and I'm with out of the Fresno area and we are in opposition of this bill.

Good afternoon. Michael Zaragosa on behalf of Hispanic 100 in opposition.

Mr. Chair. Chris McKayley on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California in respectful opposition. Thank you.

I am President San Joaquin Building trades council representing 14,000 working men and women. We strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Jason Miranda, Local 442 business agent, stand to oppose this bill.

My name is Steve McCall, I'm business. Manager of local 343 plumbers and steam. Fitters representing over 38,000 plumbers and steam fitters in California. And we oppose this bill.

Andrew Davey, UA Local 447, Sacramento. We oppose this bill.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Members. Joe Cruz on behalf of 80,000 hard working laborers from the Oregon border to San Diego who drive 40 miles one way to the job site every day. We oppose this bill.

Jack Yanis on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon. Elizabeth Esquivel with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association and strong opposition. Thank you.

Afternoon. Sarah Polo Moo, California Retailers Association opposed.

Good afternoon. Teresa Cooke on behalf of the California Council for Environment and Economic Balance and opposition.

Good afternoon. Delilah Clay on behalf of the Independent Energy Producers Association. We're opposed unless amended. Thank you Mr.

Chair. Members Andrew Antwee on behalf of the Western Propane Gas Association and strong but respectful opposition.

Good afternoon. Robert Smith, political Director for the painters and all eight trade Southern California. We've already lost enough jobs at the Phillips plant. We oppose this project. Thank you. Or killing of this project.

Mike West, also with the State Building Trades in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you for closing us out, Mike. We will now turn it to Committee Members. Any questions or comments from colleagues on the dais? Stan. Mr. Ellis.

Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Assembly memberman Addis. Thank you. First of all, are you familiar with carbon index? Anyone?

Carbon index.

So are you considering the imports of not only refined products but crude?

Are you considering that when you're making these decisions regarding basically implementing an additional tariff on these oil and gas companies, assuming that you believe in paleoclimatology and global warming because of fossil fuels, are you considering China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Russian ghost ships, Trans transloading Russian oil in to get this to the US Are you considering the carbon index?

Frankly, when you're making this decision to tariff. I know my question is we, we want to impose an assessment on oil and gas companies in the US Are international and international polluters being considered here?

That is irrelevant actually to this question. I mean this is actually a fee on international multinational fossil fuel companies. The fee is based on their past emissions and it's only the percentage of their global emissions that they would pay of California's damages. There's no tariff on imports.

It's not treating different places differently unless they're only responsible for the proportion that they, that these multinational companies have emitted.

So it's American multinational companies.

There are any multinational companies that have done business in California or have ties with California.

Are you, are you also, have you, have you also taken into consideration the thousands of companies that put out 6,000 oil and gas product, oil and derivatives, 6,000 products that are derivatives of oil and gas products? Are you considering them a pollutant as well?

Well, we're considering it's, it's extractors and refiners and they're responsible for the Pollution that is downstream from the products that they created. That's a policy choice and it's not an uncommon one.

Are you familiar with the Air Resources Board? Yes. Does California put out the cleanest oil and gas in the world?

No, it does not.

And why do you say that?

Well, California production is actually declining. And the reason for that is geology, not regulations, not economics. They are scraping the bottom of the barrel to produce the dirtiest oil in the world, some of the shortiest oil.

Mr. Chairman, am I allowed to comment on that? Yes, sir. So I'm going to give you an example. The Air Resources Board and the air quality management districts regulate all of the emissions that come from the oil and gas and refining sector.

If you've ever visited an oil site, you would see from the wellhead to the tanks that they are under odor abatement and voc, volt or organic compound abatement when it goes into the pipeline. The refinery is held to the same standard.

They are fined if they have over like 300 parts per million of fugitive vault or organic compounds. So I disagree 100% because I worked in that industry for 40 years. You are absolutely wrong. Okay. I have another question. How do you, how do you get tons. How do you get tons from emissions?

I don't understand your questions.

Well, you, you measure emissions in tons?

Yes.

And how do you do that exactly? How do you do that?

Well, it's actually from their own report, self reported data.

And, but I'm asking if it's a gas, how do you get tons out of a gas?

Well, I'm not a scientist, but companies have this, their own self reported data that they are putting out as to how many emissions they are responsible for. I'm asking if it's a gas, how do you get tons out of a gas?

I'll explain.

Great.

Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, organic compounds are measured in their molecular structure weight and their molecular weight is then totaled and that's how you get tons. Now again I come back to you want to target multinational companies. How do you consider that Russia and that we're getting oil indirectly from Russia.

And are any of those missions from the ships being counted in the carbon index?

Well, this actually the bill as written wouldn't count the emissions from the ships, although the New York Bill does in fact count those transportation emissions. I think you're, I don't know why you're.

Where I'm going is I think that we put off the cleanest oil and gas in the world and then you're claiming me not. And I respect your opinion, but I've been in the industry for 40 years. I know.

So I would tell you that these emissions, the ships that are coming in are putting out, they're burning number six, fuel oil, and they're putting out emissions into the atmosphere. And when they get 20 miles out, they kick over to low sulfur diesel.

So for three or four weeks at a time, they're putting out phenanthrosine, cryosine, benzopyrene, all of the constituents that the EPA regulates hazardous. So my concern here is that we're trying to regulate multinational US Companies, but we're not taking that into consideration. All of the other companies around the world that are polluting. That's all.

We're not. We're not. They're not just U.S. Based, first of all. And second of all, we're happy to add the transportation emissions from companies that extract and then export.

To my point about the carbon index.

Okay. Okay, thank you. You can add it to our bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Ellis. Before we get to other colleagues, comments. I do love how you mentioned an additional tariff referencing the actual tariffs that are being levied by the Federal Government. And I think without making a judgment call, I know at least half the room would call clean oil an oxymoron. Any other Committee Members? Mr. Garcia?

I just want to thank you, Ms. Addis, for bringing this forward. It's very brave and courageous to tackle this on and make polluters pay. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Pellerin.

Thank you. I just want to thank the author and your witnesses for being here today. And I appreciate your comments and knowledge and expertise in this area. I just had a question about. Can you speak to which entities this bill would apply to?

So the bill would apply to entities that have emitted over 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution during the years 1990 through 2024. These are huge companies. I mean, this is like the amount that Japan emits in a year. And so these are companies like Exxon, Chevron, most likely.

The companies also need to have ties to California. So they need to have taken advantage somehow of working in California because we have to have that for jurisdictional purposes. So there's databases you can go look at, like the carbon majors database that have done this work that sort of give an idea.

But it would be less than 70 companies and probably more like couple dozen.

Thank you for that. And then I just had another question here. The opposition expressed concern about this being a job killer and cost of living issues. Can you address some of those concerns, please?

Yeah. Keith Dunn, state billing.

Actually, I was asking the author.

Oh, I thought you said the opposition. My apologies, but I'd love to answer that question.

Well, so as a World Economic Forum notes, the climate crisis is actually the real job killer. For example, by reducing worker productiv due to heat, fire, smoke, dealing with disasters, as I can attest to, and climate migration and also due to damage to business assets, transportation routes and industrial and agricultural infrastructure.

But jobs in climate adaptation and mitigation are among the largest growth areas. The building trades actually stand to. They actually stand to benefit more than anyone on this Bill. As we cite in our sponsor letter, two thirds of the jobs generated directly by energy efficiency investments in California are in the traditional building and construction trades.

And these sort of investments have huge multipliers expanding jobs in California.

Well, thank you for that. Yeah, I wanted just another opinion about the opposition that was raised earlier.

So I would be great to let the opposition.

You got it. You got to trust the Chairs running the Committee.

Mr. Chair.

Yes.

I got you.

Thank you. And I just want to end with thank you to the author for presenting this bill today. I think we need to find new ways to fund climate resilience and I appreciate that.

This bill directly sources from the biggest emitting entities and I've gotten many calls on this bill in my district office and I'd be honored to be added as a co author. Wow. Thank you

Thank you, Mr. Zbur.

So this has been probably the toughest Bill for me this year and maybe one of the toughest bills I've had to think about since I've been in the Legislature for three years.

Part of that is because I believe that the climate is in crisis and that we need to be doing everything we can to reduce the demand for fossil fuel and the use of fossil fuel in our communities.

And I think that that is something that, you know, the, the oil industry, I think has caused harm to our communities, health impacts and you know, the cost that will be borne through sea level rise and, and you know, polluter pay laws are something that economists would say is a sound basis to sort of internalize costs in the cost of a product.

So I know all of that and I've been taking that into account. On the other hand, I have always said that when we're devising climate strategies, we shouldn't be doing it on the backs of hardworking Californians, especially when we can avoid it.

And, and in this case it's really hard for me to, based on where the Bill is today, to come to a determination that what we're doing is not going to have pretty significant harmful impacts for workers and that it might end up resulting in closures of refineries that are necessary in order to supply the demand that's there.

I've always thought that the building trades have a valid point that what we need to be focusing on is as aggressively as possible reducing the demand by converting to electric and other kinds of fueled vehicles, decarbonizing our homes.

I mean, all of the things that result in carbon and that naturally, in terms of the refinery jobs and the jobs that are sort of out there, when we reduce the demand, the jobs there will be a natural progression in terms of the job loss.

But if we're doing things that are resulting in closure of refineries before the demand has been reduced, then I think in the long run we both hurt workers and we potentially hurt the environment if we're going to have to import things from out of California.

Because of all of that, I don't, I can't tell from this Bill where, what the impact is. And part of that is because when I look at the definition of what harm is, it is so undefined, it's sort of vague.

It's not like federal Superfund or state Superfund in the hazardous waste context. I mean, when you're talking about polluter pays in that context, you actually have a defined amount of pollution that's either in the ground or in the water under pieces of property. And it's not easy.

I mean, you have lots of experts that take time to sort of characterize those things, but they're bounded expenses and so that, so in this case, when you talk about harm, it could be everything from all of the cost of moving every home in a inundation zone, reinforcing all of our ports.

I remember at one point when I was in private practice, there was a study that I read that showed that if you were actually going to try to look at sort of what the costs were going to be for climate change in the major ports over the course of a hundred-year period, it was going to take 20 years of the world's output of cement.

And so when I look at just sort of the general idea of what the harm is, it's just so undefined here that I don't have a way. And this is also recognizing that oil companies have made record profits. It's billions of dollars.

But I don't have a way of understanding how the cost of this relative to the profits are not going to result in early closure of refineries and potential, potentially significant increases in gas prices.

And I just, you know, between now and the next time I have to vote on this, I'm going to be spending time and I want to like, thank the author. She spent a ton of time with me over the weekend. I spent a ton of time with one of the sponsors over the weekend.

I am going to follow the Chair's recommendation today, but frankly, I've got concerns about the Bill and I think, you know, the closure of Valero last week raises for me real questions about, you know, a few months ago, I would say that I don't believe that the risk of refinery closures is really significant.

I don't stand in the same place right now. And so that's why, you know, even though I think this Bill is really righteous and I want to thank the sponsors and I'm going to, as I said, follow the Chair's recommendation today.

I just want to tell you I do have some concerns, some significant concerns about it and look forward to continuing to work with all of you before it gets to the next Committee.

Mr. Connolly.

Thank you, Chair. My first question was started to be answered at least, let's open it up again. And that is on the issue of jobs, job creation, potentially worker protection. And then if you can answer directly. The issue that was raised by a number of the speakers, how does the proposed policy impact or address affordability?

Okay, I can, I can go ahead and start. So I talked a little bit before about how it would invest in building trades type work and in energy efficiency. Work around energy efficiency. The people of Altadena are going to need to rebuild. And some of them honestly, some of them can't afford to rebuild.

Some of my neighbors can't. And if they do, they might not be able to afford insurance if they get it at all and some have no choice but to leave. So this Bill, to address your question on affordability, just one example, it can fund energy efficiency projects in homes and schools and businesses.

It can help with rebuilding with solar and microgrids instead of adding gas, which can make rebuilding cheaper. Or it can take the cost of undergrounding power lines off of ratepayers. And in all of these ways, it will save people money on utility costs.

In terms of some of the ways that it can also help other jobs, we're investing in clean energy jobs. It can help provide PPE and equipment to frontline people like firefighters. It can help with heat protective, with heat protection for teachers, students and farm workers.

There's just a lot, a big range of how this Bill can be used to help invest in our workforce and in hardworking Americans and Californians. Just one thing I'll note is that just today the City of Los Angeles announced that they're laying off 1600 people and a large part of that is due to budget shortfall from the fires.

And so this is also a way to help local governments shore up their budgets.

Any other comments?

Go ahead. No, no, please, no. You know, I might add, I'm very sensitive to the idea that folks are, are driving extreme distances to get to work. I'm leaning over to see you, Assemblymember.

I am married, actually, to a construction worker who commuted 75 miles one way, 150 miles round trip to get to work and back because I live in a very remote place. At another time in our marriage, he was commuting across many, many counties.

And, and the reason that we had to do that is we had to have affordable housing. We had to live in a place that we could afford and work in a place where there were jobs.

And one of the things that this Bill does is helps ameliorate that situation because affordable infill housing as much as we have tried in California is very, very difficult to achieve unless there's a pot of funding to do that.

One of the things that the Superfund Bill does is would create that pot of funding so that we can construct that kind of housing. It would also create the kind of funding that many working people need for home hardening.

I don't know about all of you, but oftentimes when I go to bed at night, I lay awake wondering if there's going to be a fire in my community that's going to burn down my house. And I wonder how we're going to pay for the home hardening that all of us need.

And I think it's on all of our minds after the Los Angeles fires where we saw, I think, 16,000 people displaced because their homes burned down. So this Bill would create funding that could then be used as home hardening grants and other kinds of monies for communities.

It could also be used for school resilience to extreme weather and cooling projects. We talked, you and I were both on the Climate Bond working group.

One of the things we talked about on the Climate Bond working group was how are we going to approach extreme heat for our schools and children who are out on asphalt playgrounds, and how are we going to make change in those communities?

And so this Bill would provide a pot of funding where school districts could access that money to cool down those schools. When we talk about affordability right now, there is one set of people that's paying for these costs, and it's the taxpayers.

We're paying for it with our tax dollars that aren't going to other things, but we're also paying for it in the form of increased insurance rates and other increased costs that have been directly created by oil companies who knew from the get go, they've known since the 50s that their companies were causing immense climate destruction and lied about it and made billions in profits from it.

And then we as taxpayers give them trillions in subsidies. And I would just say when it comes to affordability, it's time for these companies to be partners to come to the table with solutions, to act collaboratively. And that's what this Bill does.

Thank you, Mr. Connolly. I very sympathetic to the author, of course, and this Bill. I do think we have to be careful about all of the things the Fund could do between shoring up LA's budget, creating new jobs, fixing our schools. I think we just need to be careful about that.

Especially when we mentioned the state building trades by name several times and they are sitting across for us. And so I'm curious what you would say to folks who would say that this Fund is an opportunity for us to invest meaningfully in state building trade and construction jobs.

Well, the first thing I'd like to point out is that I do represent the workers of the state building construction trades and their affiliates. And I'm the only one here that represents the workers of the state building construction trades affiliates. And you heard from me that this will impact their jobs. This will make life more, less affordable.

We are sympathetic. We are in the same position as your family in driving to work. We can't take public transit to the construction site. We have to get up at 4 o'clock in the morning much like I'm sure your husband did and find your way to a job crossing counties, which sounds like the Assembly woman has done.

So there is a huge impact on the cost of fuel on our drivers. What I would say is that we have a program right now which I hope all of you are going to get the opportunity to contemplate this legislative session.

It seems like the Administration and your leadership and the Senate's leadership has come to some considerations given some of the actions from the Federal Government, to start the talks about renewing the cap and trade program.

We have been a supporter of that program, I personally, since its inception and have pushed not only for programs that help construction trades but also all of those that are impacted from the climate impacts that affect all of us here in this great state.

So what I would tell you is all of the questions that go to and answers that came from the supporters who say this won't impact, in fact it's good for us. I want you to hear me when I tell you I am here telling you we will lose jobs.

You have an article today that I didn't write that's in the Chronicle about Valero closing which will cost thousands of careers, not just jobs. These are careers that people support families on generationally that are leaving. We are going to feel the impact.

The Chronicle, and I haven't done the research, says a 20% increase in fuel prices within 12 months. That's not my number. That's the Chronicle's number. And I'm here to tell all of you and I hope you will come talk to me later. This is going to cause job losses. This is going to drive fuel prices.

We support cap and trade.

There's a program, the other message that we're sending, not only the markets that play in the cap and trade and the buying and selling but but also the Federal Government is we have a cap and trade program that is one of the crown jewels of our environmental policy here tries to balance a program to provide jobs while still transitioning.

By the way, the transition into renewable energy is built and supported by the building trades. All of our Members work in those fields in wind, in solar, in Hydrogen. We support actively all of those programs. You can't flip a switch and make that happen overnight. It takes time. We are invested in time and in that transition.

And I would just again tell you I am the only one who speaks for the workers here at this table. It is going to cost jobs. It is going to drive and increase costs. We support renewable energy, but that is a year's, if not decades long process. So I appreciate the opportunity to address that question.

Absolutely. Any other comments by Committee Members, Mr. Hoover?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do think you're going to create jobs. I think you're going to create jobs in other states and you're going to create jobs in other countries by enacting this policy. Look, I've heard you address the job question. I've heard you address some of the other questions on this dais.

I haven't heard anything about consumers. What is the consumer impact of this Bill going to be? What is my constituent's gas prices going to be as a result of this legislation?

Well, we've had economists from across the country on the political spectrum look at this Bill and the similar bills in New York and Vermont and have all explained why this is actually not going to raise gas prices. And I can go through really quickly.

First, the global price of crude oil sets wholesale price of oil, which is 42 to 46% of the pump price. This is, second, the Bill is unlikely to affect all refiners, maybe two or three. And third, and similarly, only a handful of carbon majors operate gas stations here.

So there will be competition from unbranded companies like Costco or Safeway who are going to help keep the price contained. Fourth, the CEC now prohibits price gouging by refineries thanks to California's 2023 price gouging law. And fifth, because this is a one time recompense for past emissions, it's not an ongoing regulatory requirement.

It does not affect today's marginal cost of production. And finally, as the Senate EQ analysis said, nothing in the Bill would force fossil fuel companies to increase gas prices. They've been internalizing their profits and externalizing their costs onto all of us.

They can now just take a little bit of that to work with us to help us weather the climate crisis. And to your point about the refineries, I mean, I feel, I feel for the workers who, who are going to lose their jobs. Valero had been planning this.

Through the Chair, love a debate. You all are welcome to have this debate in the hallway afterwards. Mr. Hoover, do you have another question, sir?

Look, first of all, you know, you mentioned the price gouging thing. My question is always, you don't need to answer this. Why are we only being price gouged in California? I go to other states, I pay a lot less for my gas prices. The price gouging law that this Legislature passed hasn't been used a single time.

So I reject that outright. Look, here's what this is going to do. We've got this article on our desk right here. You said it's only going to affect two or three refineries. Two refineries in California are going to lead to a 20% reduction in fuel in California.

Look, I'm not an economist, but I understand supply and demand and I understand that demand has not changed for gas in this state. Supply is going to change substantially as a result of this Bill.

So I want to actually pass it if I could to the opposition to answer the question on the consumer side, your perspective on how this is going to impact, you know, consumers and gas prices.

Through the Chair, I'll be real quick drive to any gas station. To your point, any other state in our nation has cheaper fuel and you know, the law of supply and demand. We do have a transition to electric vehicles.

But I think all of us will recall the warning that came out that said, hey, don't charge your car today, okay? We don't have enough energy, renewable energy, to meet the demand. Even what we're doing today on every day, but we are working. I want everyone to hear me again.

The men and women of the state building construction trade support renewable energies. We do it every day. We're out there building it. We're not there yet. Take my word for it. We need to continue to have these in-state fuel productions for some time.

And you know, I hope it's sooner than later, but it's a long time from now.

May I also add to that the.

The chamber is going to answer a consumer question.

I, I, I'm, I'm just happy to throw this up there from a business perspective overall. You know, spoke earlier about the, the uncertainty the bills like this create in terms of business planning. Right. The ability to say, hey. When you do something like this, you change the rules of the game. You're doing it retroactively.

Businesses have to anticipate going forward. But that's going to be the rules of the game in California. This retroactive application. That makes it more risky to invest in California, when it's more risky to do an activity, prices go up. Right? Whether it's insurance costs, whether it's the lending costs that they incur.

When those costs go up, those costs also go up on the consumers as well.

Thank you, sir.

So I'll just close this out because I know a lot of people have been speaking, but I mean, look, the reality is that, yes, you're right, my constituents do care about climate change, but what they care about more is being able to afford to get to their job.

They care about more affording what they're putting in their vehicle. They care more about having a job. And not only is this Bill going to directly impact and take away specific jobs in California, it's also going to make it expensive for every one of my constituents to actually get to their job.

I think that is a huge, huge problem. In fact, I really would love to know how everyone in the support coalition got here today. My guess is for a lot of them, they had to use gas to do that. So, you know, for those reasons, I would strongly urge a no vote on this Bill.

Thank you, Mr. Muratsuchi.

Thank you. I want to thank Ms. Addis for bringing this bold, ambitious Bill forward. You know, I absolutely believe that, that polluters should pay and corporations should be held accountable for the damage that they cause. But I am concerned also about the timing of this Bill.

You know, I, ironically, I represent probably more refineries in my Assembly District than any other Assemblymember. And I have three now. But after next year is going to be down to 2.

With the Phillips 66 refinery closing down, I got on, I met with the Phillips 66 folks the day after they announced that they're going to be closing.

And, you know, they told me that they're going to be shipping in refined gas to meet Californians', you know, insatiable demand for gas from hundreds of miles away from countries that don't have the strong environmental protections that we have. And that's a real thing. It's a real concern.

What is the environmental justice where we're just exporting the environmental damage as well as all of the emissions caused from importing the gas from hundreds of miles away. And then last week, you know, hearing the Valero Benicia announcement, you know, it's.

And so in my mind, we have switched from hypotheticals to, you know, what's unfolding in real time here.

And again, I'm similar to some of my colleagues on this, that on the one hand, if I can be assured that making polluters pay to be held accountable for the climate damage, the wildfires, the sea level rise, all the billions of dollars that Californians are going to have to bear in a responsible transition to clean energy.

And if this is just going to lead to us relying on importing refined gas from abroad, I don't see the climate or environmental justice in that. So I wanted to give your witnesses an opportunity to respond to my concerns as well as the opposition.

So the reality is that demand is already declining and extraction of oil is also declining in this state. And what the refineries do is that they increase their exports to other states and countries. Exports of petroleum products are now about 30% of refinery output.

The global market and company strategy to replace state demand with exports is the major determinant of employment, not a fee on past global emissions. The reality is, look, the transition is happening as these are showing. The transition is happening.

And we are going to need a way, and we are going to need funding to manage this transition, including by investing in hardworking Californians, by stimulating clean jobs and economic growth for job training in green jobs, when we know that the biggest job killer is the climate crisis.

This Bill helps workers we know are affected by the climate crisis, which includes the people in this room. I can't remember what else you were. Do I go for it?

Well, you want, you want it too?

Oh, oh, can I. Sorry, I. Just one more thing is in terms of the, in terms of the profits, you know, in terms of like, are they going to afford it? Are they going to pass this on? Hypothetically, we, we did a back of the envelope calculation.

Hypothetically, if we assume it's $100 billion in total damage to California and these companies are found to be responsible parties, Exxon would pay 0.37% of the profits it made from 2000 to 2020. And that's not even the whole covered period. It would be an even less percentage. Royal Dutch Shell would pay 0.54%. Chevron 0.53%.

And note that these companies have the option to pay the fee over 20 years. And these hypothetical illustration doesn't even consider any future massive profits that these companies continue to enjoy and the subsidies that we are continuing to give them to continue to pollute us.

Through the Chair. Thank you. Mr. Muratsuchi, with respect, you need to stop speaking for workers. You do not speak for workers. I speak for the workers in the workforce.

Can we, can we just. No, no.

She's continued to say that. So I just need to reiterate the. Fact that I got it.

But your, your response, respectfully, is to the Member of the Committee and we're gonna. We're gonna stop the cross table talk.

Thank you. With regards to the workforce, I represent the workforce. I don't have to speak in hypotheticals. Read the handout that you have in front of you. Unfortunately, that is the fact. That is the Chronicle. That is not me. Read the article. It's going to cost jobs. It's going to raise costs.

We don't need hypotheticals to understand that. You know the rest of the science behind we. Again, the Building and Construction Trades Council supports renewable energies. We don't need training. We have training. We have training programs that we take people who have. Who need second chances in their lives.

We've worked with the Chair in building up those programs throughout the state. They're robust. We have a program, it's called Cap and Trade, that invests in those programs. We need to extend that program. We need to reinvest that program and continue to invest in the programs that train our workforce for a sustainable future.

But the notion somehow that this legislation doesn't impact workers, quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of repeating myself, and I'm sure you're tired of hearing me. It's going to cost jobs, it's going to increase costs. And I ask for you not to support this policy. That's not me. Read the article in front of you.

That's not hypothetical. That's reality. And I hope that you would consider my request. Thank you.

Mr. Schultz. Do you want to close us out?

That's a pretty big order there, Mr. Chair. I'll do my best.

I'll add to it.

All right, well, thank you. First of all, thank you very much to the author. Thank you to everybody who's testifying both in support and in opposition. Though I've been a little bit in and out of the room, I have been monitoring it from my phone, and I'm happy to be here.

Now, there's just one comment and one question I have for each of you, but I want to start with a comment in response to Assemblymember Hoover, who unfortunately has left the room.

Yes on this issue, but even more broadly speaking, I just reject the premise that we have a binary choice, that we're either choosing to invest in jobs or the environment. I think consumers want both, and that's not necessarily something we're going to solve here today.

But I think, as a matter of further discussion, we have to understand that people care about climate change and they want us to take action and they want to keep their jobs here, too. And quite frankly, they shouldn't have to choose. That's for us to figure out. That's why we were all elected to thread that needle.

So I look forward to continuing that with Assemblymember Hoover once he's back. My question to each of you. I'll start with the opposition and then go back to the supporters.

Can you just, in sort of like one roundup moment, if you will, tell me again why you feel that this program that's being proposed is not necessary given cap and trade, should that be extended?

My question then to those testifying in support would be, what do you feel that this program would accomplish that is not contemplated by cap and trade?

Yeah, you know, I think you kind of hit it on the head. California already has a very successful program, cap and trade. It's raised nearly $30 billion for climate action so far. Hopefully, it will continue to raise significant funds for climate action.

It's something that, you know, I mean, look, Cal Chamber initially opposed cap and trade back in the day. Right? But it's something that the business community has recognized and rallied around. And we support reauthorization of cap and trade now because it actually addresses in-state conduct. Right. It's addressed at.

In-state emissions rather than this broad extraterritorial reach of global emissions dating back 35 years. You know, so a program that raises funds and actually reduces in state emissions going forward, that's. That's a program that we can support. This is not one.

I would just again say the Building Construction Trades Council supports renewable energies. We're the ones out there building them. We have training programs. Cap and trade goes to expanding those. You don't have to make the choice.

In fact, California right now is doing both and doing it as a leader in this nation, and I would say in the world.

And I would encourage us, as discussions continue on the cap and trade program, to continue to invest in job training and all the other programs that were mentioned, because those are important, but we need to do it in a reality of how impactful shutting down refineries and other productions of oil in the state.

We just export jobs and we don't do anything to control emissions. There's fewer environmental protections and next to no labor standards in some countries and other states. California is a leader in both those categories.

And then you go, thank you. So while for environmental justice communities, we are the communities that live at the front line of refineries.

For the people who live and the neighbors and neighborhoods that create the buffer zone, that live in the buffer zone, are in the buffer zone, are the buffer zone between those who experience pollution deeply and for those who are suffering the greatest at the hands of pollution and for decades-long pollution.

And so I want to reiterate that, that what cap and what, excuse me, AB 1243 do that cap and trade will not do is reduce direct emissions from the source. Will actually do something to support environmental justice communities. AB 1243 has a commitment for 40% committed towards disadvantaged communities.

And just to add to that, cap and trade, they're two completely different programs. Cap and trade is a market-based program that's to incentivize future emissions reductions from a huge variety of industries. This act seeks recompense for damage caused by past emissions because fossil fuel companies have evaded responsibility to remedy the harm caused by their past emissions.

Californians have never been made whole. There's actually only a handful of companies subject to cap and trade that are also likely to be subject to this act and those would be huge multinational corporations.

The cost of participating in cap and trade is fairly cheap and simply allows polluters to avoid reducing their own emissions, including by receiving free allowances. The program also doesn't cover out of state emissions which still cause damages to California. In addition, the cap and trade proceeds fluctuate and are actually designed to decline over time.

Even as we know that climate costs are going to rise. And even the combined potential proceeds of the cap and trade and Superfund programs won't come close to covering all of the loss and damage, mitigation and adaptation costs that are necessary to address the climate crisis.

Seeing no other Questions or comments, Ms. Addis, would you like to close.

At the risk of saying too much? Actually I would. I would like to say that, you know, first and foremost, this is a tough time to be a brave, thoughtful person in the world. And in this room, I, number one, want to commend my colleagues on this Committee.

I've had many conversations about worries and concerns, not just about this Bill, but about their constituents, about how we address the climate crisis, around how we address the destruction, around how we address the uncertainty. Much of which is for just regular everyday people.

I know that when the 23 atmospheric rivers hit my district and I went to homeowners who lost their homes and were out of work, that that created a lot of uncertainty for them.

I know that there are folks that have come to hearing after hearing in this Legislature, both in budget and in policy committees, who have expressed uncertainty because they can't get hotel rooms, they don't know where they're going to live, they've been pushed out of their homes.

We had this when the Santa Barbara fires happened and then the mudslides, and then there were what we call climate refugees, came to San Luis Obispo because they had nowhere else to go. And so they were traveling two hours to find a hotel room because of the uncertainty of where they were going to be.

And I know there was a claim here that there will be jobs, they'll be in other countries. The jobs will be here. They will be creating infill housing, doing home hardening, working on school resilience and building decarbonization and renewable energy acceleration and electrification.

And as that list sounds big, and I appreciate the Chair for saying it's not everything in the basket. The things I've named here today are the things that are outlined in the Bill.

They're not the only things, but they are outlined in this Bill because we worked very hard to get amendments in the Bill to make sure that we were getting money to local communities that would create jobs.

And I want to respect my colleagues from the chamber, my colleagues from the building trades who do represent thousands and thousands of workers. I'll say I represent three workers. One of them is my husband, who's in construction, and two of them are my kids.

My kids want to be in a future where they can have green jobs, where they can use their skills to work on jobs that they feel like are benefiting our climate. They say this to me almost every time I talk to them.

And I think all of us in this room have people in their lives that are saying, we want to work on jobs of the future that are going to help our world and our communities heal. And so the Superfund Bill is a way to get at that.

It's a way to create the funding, first and foremost, to create the funding to help taxpayers pay for those kinds of jobs that we need, those projects that we need. But it's also a way for polluters to just become partners to be collaborative in creating the future that all of us want.

So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember. I also want to thank everybody who's come up here today, all of our folks in the building trades who took time off of job sites to come up here and to be heard, specifically the folks out in my region, out in LA. I see you pipefitters, I see you everybody who came up here.

I hope you know that this Committee hears you. Also, to all of the supporters of this Bill across the state, from San Diego to Oakland to Assemblymember Hoover's district, Assemblymember Flores's, District. My own forever mayor in Culver City.

You all made this potentially the most robust conversation I've ever had on any Committee that I've ever served on in my time in the Legislature. And I think that's important to the civic process. And I just want to thank you all for coming up and showing up into the witnesses on the dais, opposition and support.

I appreciate your decorum and your patience and what is a righteous and intense conversation about the future we want to live in, the reality that we do live in, learning from best practices around the country, balancing the everyday needs of Californians. Thank you for your testimony today.

Similar to some of my colleagues up here, you know, I'm balancing all of the considerations that are outlined in this Bill and also recognizing that this conversation wasn't as contentious in some other jurisdictions where this is already passed.

I think it's interesting when we're doing something that seems revolutionary but is actually based off of something that has already been done before, in some ways, we are behind.

That being said, I think we need to continue these conversations, and I think working people, and specifically the building trades, should be involved in that conversation in a meaningful way. And I trust that the author is the right person to try to continue that conversation.

And so I certainly don't want to stop you in the First Committee in the first House with such an important conversation that clearly the people of California care deeply about, because I know it is far deeper than just the people who were able to make it to this often inaccessible Committee hearing room.

With that, this Bill does have a do pass recommendation today. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll? Oh, do we have a motion? Ms. Pellerin. And a a second. Mr. Connolley.

The motion is do pass to Judiciary Committee. {Roll Call]

We'll leave it on call. All right. One Bill down. 15. 15 more to go. Madam Majority Leader, come on down.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you for your patience today. I really appreciate being able to present today. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. First, I'd like to thank the chair and Committee staff for all the work you've done on this Bill. I will be accepting the Committee's amendments today.

This Bill addresses a growing problem I've been working on since I started the Assembly in 2016. Yes, that would be eight years ago. When I was a new Member, we had one of the worst years for wildfire we've ever seen. I represented six counties, and at one point, all of them had a wildfire.

So many of us know the feeling of trying to help our community stay safe during a wildfire crisis, then taking on the hard work of helping people rebuild their lives after wildfire. Mitigation work is important to prevent wildfires from threatening communities. And California State agencies have recommended that we take on these projects.

For example, the California Air Resources Board 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan calls for forest thinning and management on 2.3 million acres of forest a year to reduce a wildfire risk and restore healthier, more resilient forests. So we're not talking about healthy trees here.

We're talking over 150 million dead and dying trees and small underbrush that accelerate wildfire and leads to much more catastrophic fires. Some of the wildfire mitigation will be done with prescribed fire, but a lot will have to be done mechanically and will generate tens of millions of tons of forest biomass waste.