Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

Good afternoon, everyone. We're calling the hearing of the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee. To order. Sergeants, please call the absent Members. We'd like to take the opportunity to welcome our new Vice Chair of the Committee today, Stan Ellis. Welcome, Stan. Briefly, our Committee's policies for testimony in today's hearing are as follows.

Primary witnesses and support must be those accompanying the author or who otherwise have registered a support position with the Committee. Primary witnesses in opposition must have their opposition registered with the Committee as well. All other support and opposition can be stated at the standing mic.

When called upon to simply state name, affiliation and position, each primary witness will have two minutes to give their testimony. I also want to note that we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. We will hear 12 measures today with five measures on consent. Again, thank you everyone, for attending.

Appears we have a quorum, but. Madam Secretary, please call the roll to establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Great. And while we have. Folks, why don't we go ahead and call the roll on the consent calendar? Do I have a motion on consent? Second on consent. Great. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Great. We'll leave that role open. So we actually have a special order of business today. File item one. Assembly Member Lee's Bill. Looks like he is still getting some witnesses. We are going to go ahead and move and file order on other bills. I'm noting the presence of of Assembly Member Ramos. Invite him to come up with any witnesses. This would be AB362, dealing with tribal uses of water.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The witnesses are coming from the. Right here in the hallway, but we'll go ahead and get started. I would like to begin by thanking the chair for working with me on the Committee amendments that we continue to work on. Today I'm presenting AB362, a Bill aimed.

At taking steps to repair legacies of. Injustices faced by Native American tribes in the State of California. When it comes to water policy. Since time immemorial California tribes have been. Stewards of their environment. Waterways and bodies of water have an. Important cultural aspect and must be treated as such with a voice in the process. An existing statute.

Beneficial uses of water have been established. And required to be protected by local. Water authorities and the State Water Board. This Bill would simply add the requirement for tribal uses to be viewed in the same manner. In making this addition, the state can correct a long standing injustice. Tribes have historically been left out of.

The conversation as it relates to policy in the State of California. When California's first people are not at the table, cultural impacts are sometimes irreversible. Underscoring the importance of this Bill, tribes. Can fulfill their sacred duties of being. Stewards of the land in which they are traditionally tied to if they are giving a voice at the table.

With me today to testify on this Bill is Vice Chairwoman Melissa Tayaba of the Shingo Springs Band of Miwok Indians, the sponsors of the Bill, and also Max for technical questions.

Good afternoon, Chairman and Committee Members. My name is Malissa Tayaba and I am the Vice Chair of the Shingle Springs Band of Milwok Indians. We sponsored this Bill to bring forward this very important measure that seeks to adequately, holistically and expeditiously protect the health of our tribal communities.

In recent years, we've become increasingly concerned about the degraded conditions in our rivers which impact the ability of our people to maintain culture, tradition and food sovereignty. Our people have relied upon these waterways and the cultural landscapes connected to them since long before European colonization.

We have also heard similar concerns from other tribes and determined that current state efforts to protect tribal water uses are insufficient, which is why we are pursuing legislation. AB362 would place tribal water uses on equal footing with other statewide beneficial uses of water, such as recreation and aesthetic enjoyment.

A statutory designation would ensure that the state regulators understand and act and expeditiously to protect the water uses of all California tribes. Additionally, the Bill would create improved frameworks for state agencies to consult with tribes and benefit from their knowledge when setting quality standards.

Furthermore, it would allow the Legislature to track and evaluate progress on implementation of tribal beneficial uses. Although the Water Boards have made some some progress on advancing tribal water use designations, not all regions are moving forward quickly, and only one regional board has set enforceable water quality standards that protect the way tribes uniquely used our waterways.

We are bringing this Bill to the Legislature because the Water Boards need clear direction to protect our ways of life. Thank you for your consideration and I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you. Here with Me is Max Gomberg. And he's just here to help me with any technical questions.

Welcome. Do we have any remaining Members of the public who wish to indicate their support for this measure? Come on up.

Pam Lopez on behalf of the Santa Rosa. Pam Lopez on behalf of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe in support. And the Tule River Tribe in support.

Good afternoon. Michael Chan with Audubon California support. Oops, sorry. Auduban California and Defenders of Wildlife. I'm so sorry.

Sean Flanagan on behalf of Saquan and strong support. Thank you.

Cynthia Cortez with Restore the Delta and support.

Andrea Ventura with Clean Water Action. And strong support.

David Quintana with the Cahuilla Tribe in support.

Nick Brokaw here on behalf of the. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in support.

Frank Molina on behalf of the Havitam of San Manual Nation and the San Diego Spanish Indians in ... Park.

Excuse me. Just ran up four flights of stairs. To show my strong support for this Bill. Rachel Mueller on behalf of Rural Community Assistance Corporation. Thank you so much.

Abraham Mendoza on behalf of the Community Water Center and support.

Gabriela Facio was Sierra Club California and strong support.

Do I have anyone in opposition to AB362? Please come forward.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Members of the Committee. My name is Chelsea Haines with the Association of California Water Agencies. And we respectfully have an opposed and less amended position on this Bill. Aqua represents 470 public water agencies throughout California that deliver 90% of the water.

And we support the stated goal of recognizing tribal beneficial uses of water and creating seats at the table for the tribal community. And I really appreciate the Assembly Member and the sponsor's willingness to meet with ACWA to discuss the intent of the Bill and some of the recent amendments that they've made.

This Bill would make other substantive changes to existing law that we have some concerns with and provisions that are more expansive than the stated goal in recognizing tribal beneficial uses of water. We want to ensure consistent treatment and of all recognized beneficial uses of water in California.

This Bill would create a new requirement for any project or regulatory program subject to CEQA and approval by the Water Boards to quantitatively and qualitatively describe impacts on tribal water uses. This provision goes beyond current CEQA requirements and would require extensive analysis inconsistent to how other beneficial uses are evaluated.

So we're seeking amendments that would narrow that provision and require analysis of potentially significant impacts to designated tribal beneficial uses. At the same time, the Bill would also exempt the inclusion of tribal water uses within regional water quality control plans from ceqa and the intent and the scope of that language is currently unclear.

CEQA is a really important process that provides both tribes and public water agencies with the opportunity to engage in decision making processes. So we request that language be clarified and we want to ensure that there's an opportunity for transparent and inclusive decision making.

We additionally think other cleanup throughout the Bill will be helpful to support clear implementation for all water rights holders. With that, I will turn it over to my colleague Mr. Reeb to provide additional details on other provisions for the Committee's consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations. On behalf of the Valley Ag Water Coalition and El Dorado Irrigation District. I want to focus on two concerns the clients have with the Bill.

First, the legislation provides that state agencies should make resources available for tribal co management of aquatic resources and also requires the state and regional boards to maintain tribal beneficial uses through regulatory actions including co management of water resources.

Now, the State Board provides for the orderly and efficient Administration the water resources of the state and they're also charged with exercising adjudicatory and regulatory functions of the state. For water resources. The Board is the primary agency for water quality under the federal Clean Water Act.

And in California, the primary authority for protection of water resources is the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control act, which this Bill proposes to significantly alter the jurisdictional reach of Porter Cologne extends to all waters of the state, including any surface or groundwater within the boundaries of the state.

So in providing for tribal co management of waters of the state, this Bill provides for co management of the water supplies relied on by your cities, your farms and your constituents. This threatens to upend decades of statutory and case law water rights priorities and the very underpinning of California's economy.

Second, the Bill requires the Board to propose water quality standards into the water Quality control plan for the Bay Delta watershed. This language is inconsistent with existing law which requires the Board to establish water quality objectives, not water quality standards.

But more to the point, the October 2024 draft of the Bay Delta Plan already includes beneficial uses for tribal tradition and culture and tribal subsistence fishing. The Board plans to adopt the plan this year. Move into phase three of the process which will consider implementation actions related to flow water project operations and physical habitat restoration.

So Section 5 of the Bill should be deleted as it conflicts with existing law and the timeline for board action. My clients respectfully request a no vote. Thank you.

Any other Members here in opposition? Come on up.

Good afternoon. Andrea Abergel with The California Municipal Utilities Association. Respectfully opposed unless amended. Echo some of the comments and requests from acwa. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Alex Biering, California Farm Bureau and also. Representing California Chamber of Commerce on this. Also respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. And let's bring it back to the dais. Are there any questions or comments from Committee Members? We have a motion. Do I have a second?

Oh, okay. Assembly Member Papan. Move. Assembly Member Lee. Second. Seeing no questions or comments. Mr. Ramos, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And with regards to some of the. Opposition, we are currently still in negotiations. Some of these issues that were brought up, we did have meetings prior to. Our First Committee that we went to and made some amendments to the Bill there. Our earnest is to continue to talk.

About these issues that we can resolve and move forward. But we also have to make sure that when policies were established, there was. No seat at the table of a tribal voice. And I think in 2025, the state Legislature honors that voice of California's first people. So we'll continue to move forward.

We'll continue to work together to make sure that we can come to some type of respectable mutual respect with some amendments moving forward. But we are at the table. We are discussing these things, but it's time for California's first people to have a seat at the table. I ask for your aye vote.

Great. Really happy to hear. Obviously acknowledging your tremendous work on these issues on this Bill. It does enjoy an eye reco from the chair. And good to hear there are still conversations ongoing, particularly around just, you know, further clarifications or the scope of the CEQA exemption along the lines that we have just talked about today.

We have a motion and second to do pass to the Committee on approach. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay, we will leave that open for absent Members. Thank you again. Thank you. Yeah. We're going to go back to the special order of business, item one. Assembly Member Lee. All right, so on AB728 dealing with skin care products and age verification.

All right, well, chair and colleagues, I went on a little bit of a shopping spree. So I am bringing to you some of the many colorful, oh, let's see how many we have in here, colorful products here that are anti aging products that are supposedly meant for adults that's enough of them.

I'll bring those ones meant for adults which deal with fine lines, wrinkles, things that we might think about when we're well beyond the age of 11. But these are actually products today that children can go to the store at Ulta Sephora and purchase off the shelves today.

I have with me a poster that shows you just an example of the types of skinfluencers that exist right now that are encouraging so many young children to go buy these products. These products with active ingredients are intended for adults but are able to be bought and sold without an adult ever present.

The beauty industry itself is a multi $1.0 billion industry worth an estimated $180.3 billion globally. Tweens aged 6 to 12 accounted for 49% of growth in mass skin care sales in 2023. These corporations know that anti aging skin care products should not be used by children. They even said that they don't support children using these products.

But social media trends have kicked off the practice of kids buying and applying these products to their faces, causing short term and possible long term consequences to their faces and skin. Frankly, it's better marketing than any corporation could ever pay for.

But to deflect blame on skinfluencers ignores the one party that is making all the profit, the cosmetic industry. They continue to make money off of children selling products to kids that they cannot prove are safe for kids to use. I want to make it clear that our Bill is specifically focused on anti aging products.

The Bill does not encompass products or does not encompass acne products or prescriptions. So when someone says that these products are safe to safe when used as directed, remember these aren't prescriptions.

There are no warnings on the products about the potential effects on a child's skin, no information that even a well intended parent or kid can reference on or in the box. So when will the kids ever be directed to use? The products we encompass in this Bill contain harsh potent active chemicals.

Children have more sensitive skin than adults and common ingredients in anti aging skin products are retinols, glycolic acid and ascorbic acid, which are all highly irritating ingredients that can lead to redness, itching, swelling, blisters, peeling and increased sun sensitivity.

The British Association of Dermatologists has warned that children using skin products with anti aging ingredients or other potent actives can lead to irreversible skin problems.

Additionally, the Connecticut Children Health, sorry, Connecticut Children's Medical Center's Physician in Chief released a warning that adult skin care products are not safe for children and last year the opposition stated that they do not support kids using anti aging products. So you may hear today that these products are safe.

However, there is no scientific evidence, no scientific evidence that potent anti aging products are safe for kids to use because these products have never been clinically tested by the industry on their tween customer base except in real life, which you'll hear more about. Right now there are no protections in place for kids on these products.

Countless Californians go through an age American process for their purse for their purchases. If you believe that a parent should be involved and have responsibility over what products their child is putting on their face, then age verification ensures this.

There are some companies who have acknowledged the issue by making statements that kids should be kids and that kids and teens have no need for anti aging products. But these statements, absent real and meaningful action, are performative and fall short of responsible behavior. The Bill is a common sense measure to protect kids.

And of course I want to thank the Committee for their hard work on this issue. On this Bill with me and today with me testify is Scarlet, who is here to tell her story about using these products and Ed Howard from the Children's Advocacy Institute. So first I'm going to have Scarlet.

Start hi, my name is Scarlett. I'm 11, almost 12. Some of you might remember me from last time, but I'm here again to tell you about how using beauty products damaged my skin. During the pandemic, I spent a lot of time on TikTok and YouTube watching get ready with me videos made by other kids and teenagers.

They talked about how the products made their skin glow, feel hydrated, and other good things. After hearing this, I wanted to buy the products so that my skin could feel that way too. A lot of the videos were sponsored by brands, so I thought the products were safe for kids to use them.

I started buying products on my own from places like Amazon and Target. I would also go shopping with my older sister and use gift cards I got for my birthday and Christmas. I was putting mist, toners, creams, and masks on my face.

I had no idea how everything worked together or if it was even okay for my skin. Spoiler alert, it wasn't. I started having burning and bumps on my cheeks that looked like a rash, especially when I went out in the sun. I just thought the products weren't working so I kept using more.

One of the worst things I used was a face mask that looked like a kitty cat. I thought it was cute and would make my skin glow. I didn't know it had retinol in it. I didn't even know what retinol was. One night my face hurt so badly that I was crying and couldn't sleep.

I went to tell my mom. She found out what I was using and made me stop for about two weeks. It was really hard. It was really sorry, it was really painful and I had a hard time sleeping. Years later, I still have bunks on my cheeks.

If you look at my cheeks now, they get red and itchy when I sweat and when I am out in the sun. I used those products because I wanted to feel pretty and more confident. But now I feel embarrassed and pretty self conscious. I wanted to say this.

It should be a no go for companies to sell these products to kids. It's not just about the ingredients. It's about feeling like you're not pretty, popular, or worth anything unless you have all the cool skincare. Companies put retinol in bright colored packages and packaging with animals faces and sparkles. That's not for grownups.

It's for kids like me and they know it. Kids shouldn't be able to buy products that can hurt our skin. Companies shouldn't be using other kids to sell us those products. They're not, they're using us to make money and they're hurting us. And that's not cool.

Thank you for letting me come here and tell you about my experience.

Mr. Chairman, Members, good afternoon. Ed Howard, Senior Counsel of the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law. I want to thank our witness, but also thank the Committee and you, Mr. Chair, for your excellent analysis of this Bill.

There seems to be broad agreement that social media is operating so as to create an irrational demand, especially among teen girls, for these products.

There also appears to be at least some agreement that, quoting some sources that have been cited, that these products can cause, quote, irreversible damage, that they are dangerous, that they can cause, quote, significant problems. And not just to anybody, but to children.

And not just any part of a children's body, but the only part of their body that cannot be hidden, whether now or forever, and that is a child's face. We also know that retailers are already obligated to age verify a broad variety of products.

Every online retailer is required to take, quote, unquote, reasonable steps to age verify products that are unlawful to sell to children under our civil code. Likewise, every retailer must already age verify spray paint and etching cream, not to protect children, but to protect property.

They also must age verify fireworks, tanning devices, tobacco paraphernalia, of course, alcohol guns, including BB guns. And they must age verify diet pills, but not all diet pills. Retailers must age verify diet pills that contain ephedrine group alkaloids. And against all of that we have the possibility of irreversible damage to a child's face.

And what is the remedy that is acceptable under this exceptionally reasonable Bill? This is perhaps the only Bill in a long time where I can explain to you literally how to comply. May I ask your age please? That's the burden placed on the retailers by this Bill simply to inquire of a child's age.

If they do that, then they have met the obligations under this Bill. Please restore to our parents some possibility of being able to be a parent when it comes to the purchase of these products that could potentially cause irreversible damage to a child's face. And respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any remaining Members of the public who would like to come forward in support of this Bill? Come on up.

Hi, Sean Flanagan. On behalf of my 11 year old daughter and Scarlett as well. Great job support.

Thank you public. Yeah, bring them on in. No more. Okay, great. Do we have anyone in opposition to AB728? If so, please come forward. Yeah, come on up to the, thank you.

So thank you Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Dr. Jason Castillo. I'm a dermatologist and dermatologic surgeon with Kaiser Permanente and Orange County county and faculty at Harbor UCLA Safety Net Hospital. Today I'm speaking on behalf of the California Society of Dermatologists and Dermatologic Surgeons, also known as CalDerm.

Contrary to what the Committee analysis suggests, California dermatologists are strongly opposed to AB728. Although well intended, this Bill is misguided over the counter skin care products, including those containing retinols and alpha hydroxy acids provide critical and affordable access to treatment for common skin conditions such as acne vulgaris, folliculitis, keratosis, pilaris, warts, and hyperpigmentation.

The FDA approved Adapalene, which is a form of a retinoid that's over the counter in 1996, which is safe in minors. These conditions significantly affect young adults self esteem, body image, mental health and can make the targets of bullying both online and offline. This Bill falsely singles out retinal based products as uniquely dangerous.

That is not supported by dermatologic evidence based science. Many over the counter products, including widely used products like Neosporin, can cause irritation or allergies in the skin and reactions if misused this is reversible. Retinols and alpha hydroxy acids are no different in that respect and targeting them specifically is not medically justified.

Lastly, the Bill fails to address the real source of harm, the relentless imposition of an unrealistic standard of beauty on minors through social media platforms. AB728 does nothing to regulate these influences on social media or online sales, focusing instead on restricting access to legitimate evidence based over the counter treatments at brick and mortar retail locations.

Thank you for your consideration and for all these reasons. CalDerm, on behalf of 3,000 dermatologists across the State of California and dermatologic surgeons, urges our Committee to vote no on AB728. Thank you for your time.

Mr. Chair and Members, Margaret Gladstein here on behalf of the California Retailers Association. We are opposed to AB728 because it's virtually impossible for us to comply with in California. We do ban a number of products from being sold to miners, tanning services, aerosol paint, and etching cream, just to name a few.

These bans exist because the products either do damage to the person or to have risk for property damage and we ban these across the board. We don't prohibit the sale of red paint, but allow the sale of blue and green paint.

We don't prohibit some etching creams with certain ingredients and allow other etching creams with different ingredients, but that's what AB728 does. It will create a compliance nightmare because it prohibits the sale of some skin care products but not others. In order to follow the law.

Some retailers may choose to ask every person buying any type of skin care product what their age is. Some customers may be abused, others may be very annoyed and choose to shop elsewhere.

Other retailers may choose to identify which products meet the requirements of the law, but that just about the time they would get their list in order products change. Products can be announced seasonally. Ingredients change, so they'll never be able to comply.

In either scenarios, both big stores and mom and Pops will have to spend significant resources training their staff and become the skin care police. This is precisely the kind of law that increases costs across the board and threatens affordability in California. For these reasons, we asked for a no vote.

Any Members of the public who would like to also signify opposition to this Bill?

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

Molly Mallow with Adelstein, Gilbert, Robeson, and Smith, on behalf of the Consumer Healthcare Product Association opposed. Thank you.

Mandy Isaacs Lee on behalf of the Personal Care Products Council in opposition.

Adam Regele, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Members. Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the California Grocers Association, in opposition.

Great. Not seeing any others. Why don't we bring it back? I know I have a few questions, but let's go to Committee Members. Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Appreciate your Bill very much. I do have a couple of questions for this gentleman here. Are not the hydroxyacels and glycolic acids organically driven or derivatives of a hydrogen ion?

So great question. So the alpha hydroxy acids, they're basically organic acids at the alpha position. That's where they have a hydroxyl group coming off of them. Common ones that we see are lactic acid, glycolic acid, and ascorbic acid is what most people are familiar with, and it's not retinol, a derivative of an alcohol.

So retinol, you are correct and retinol is basically a precursor. So, retinoids are a group of vitamin A products that we use throughout dermatology. There are prescription strength retinol products and then there are less irritating, such as retinol that we commonly use for medical indications. So I would like to make a comment.

So based on science, obviously we all use alcohols and derivatives. Thereof and we also use acids in our everyday world, in our makeup. So I want to thank you for your comments.

Other Members. Okay, I have a couple questions for each side to the opposition. So it sounds like one of your arguments is that an ingredient like retinol is actually used in other contexts for even medical purposes.

You cited the example of acne cream, but here we're kind of talking about a different situation where it's anti aging products being sold to minors. So whereas presumably what you're talking about would be kind of clearly identified as an acne medication. This is a different situation.

So are you saying that this product should stay available to minors for a medical reason? Is that kind of what you're trying to say?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. And the differentiation, if someone was looking at the product, it's not always clear whether it's used for anti aging or acne purposes.

However, in medicine today, we use these retinol based products because they reduce the risk of antibacterial resistance that antibiotics that can be commonly prescribed for acne can develop with and retinoids, they have a lot of, they're basically the cornerstone of acne treatment.

And as I mentioned, all those other medical indications, it's really hard to freeze a child's wart in clinic because it's uncomfortable. It's scary to have use a cryotherapy gun for a child so often. For parents, they're frustrated. How do we treat these warts that are really causing psychosocial stress for my kids?

Well, here are these over the counter retinol based products or retinoid based products like Adapalene, which is over the counter and FDA approved. They still achieve the same effect of helping to get rid of the wart without all the scariness that kids are faced in a clinic with.

But wouldn't it be easier from your standpoint to just direct them toward the anti acne medication as opposed to trying to suggest that they should use an anti aging cream to treat acne?

So that's a great question. In an ideal world, everyone would have access to a dermatologist. Growing up in the Central Valley and now teaching at a safety net hospital, it's really hard for patients to see dermatologists across our state, especially in some of these rural areas in California.

So there still needs to be an affordable over the counter option for these patients to treat these medical conditions without adding to health care disparities. I don't want my patients or my family that lives in the Central Valley not having an over the counter option for these medical reasons.

And yes, in an ideal world, it'd be great to be next week my nephew who's 12 can get an appointment with the dermatologist in Clovis. But I know that's not going to happen.

But not to beat the point, there are over the counter identified as anti acne medications available.

Yeah, I guess it depends on the store. Some of them do have them grouped, you know, as we've all seen with like the acne aisle or the oral care aisle. So in that way it does give them a resource.

Say if you're a kid struggling with acne and you can't afford to go see a physician or a dermatologist or anyone, you could go to that acne aisle, see that there's a lactic acid wash or a glycolic acid wash or adapalene, which is FDA approved for children since 1996 for acne.

You could go to that aisle, purchase it and know that you can at least do something until you can get further care if needed. Acne scarring is irreversible. Contact dermatitis or irritation, which is what this Bill describes, is easily reversible. You stop the product, the irritation goes away. Okay.

Yeah, so I don't think the subject matter of this Bill is to ban anti acne medication. Though the broader point I believe you are making is fundamentally you just feel that there is not sufficient proof of harm from this product. Am I hearing you correctly? You are correct.

And how would you respond when you hear testimony like Scarlet's where did create a situation there?

Yeah. So I do think there is an issue with social media. I think we can all agree in the room that social media has created a problem for anyone.

But the issue is that by if this Bill passes, it really is going to impact dermatology and healthcare in a negative way because we use these as part of our treatment regimen. So I think the bigger issue-

You use anti aging creams as part of your treatment?

Well, the anti aging creams and the acne have a lot of similar components in them and so that's the greater, and the concern that CalDerm has on behalf of this legislation is that, if you look at a lot of the ingredient list for acne treatments or anti aging treatments, there's a list of ingredients as we all know.

And so if it has an alpha hydroxy acid, the concern is, you know, we don't want to restrict these treatments that we use for medical reasons. It's not just anti aging things.

Usually as a dermatologist, when I'm recommending a salicylic, sorry, excuse me, a glycolic acid wash, it's because I know that that will help their acne, it'll reduce their comedones, which are blackheads and whiteheads in their skin.

Although the ingredients could be in an anti aging product as well as an acne product, by blocking it to the sale for minors, it's just adding to health care disparities in our state. And the dermatologists are in strong opposition to this.

And if you even look at some of the evidence that was used for dermatologists that practice out of our state, they sell these products for their acne daily cleansers. And if you look at the active ingredients, the dermatologist actually has a alpha hydroxy acid in that product with lactic acid.

Turn to the proponents. You heard testimony that this would be something that would be impossible to comply with. Could you maybe respond to that?

Sure. I mean, I think my witness put it very bluntly how easily it is. It's easy to comply, is that a retailer, all they have to ask is how old are you? When's your date of birth? Can I see an ID?

And this is, as opposition said, standard practice for many routine products that are on the shelves now.

And once we have a new law on the books, I am very certain that our retailers can easily comply with this and train the right staff and be like, now you look up for the anti aging products and all you have to do at checkout is ask for the as for age, because the reality too, as Scott was talking about, is you can be 11, 10 years old and go buy these things on your own right now.

So I appreciate that, and asking the age is one aspect. I think what we're hearing as well is just kind of the range of products. Right. How do you identify which would kind of be an anti aging product that would fall under this as opposed to something that could be labeled differently.

And now we're even hearing somewhat for the first time that it, you know, could or couldn't maybe even incorporate acne related medication. I assume your goal is not to ban anti acne medication.

Yes. This Bill does not encompass any of the acne products nor medication. So if there's any prescribed by dermatologists or anything like that, then of course that is not banned. But I want to just prove the point here is that these products are very clearly about radiance, baby face, etc.

I'll read you just very quickly this one. It says, and the print is so small, even my eyes are struggling. This mask is an at home facial that effectively gently exfoliates, dramatically smooths texture and reveals a radiant baby soft complexion. There's the same thing about acne on here.

I read all of them and as you can see on my face, I've always struggled with acne and other things and I clearly know when I go to the store am I looking for anti acne Medicaid products or looking for anti aging products. And they're sold, marketed all very differently and you get things like the baby face.

Any follow up questions? Senate Member Bauer-Kahan.

I understand what you're trying to target, but I guess I think you are incorporating other products in what the bill's language actually targets. I guess I understand not the products that are sitting before you, but as the mother of a teen daughter who is in the midst of the acne phase of life, they definitely use these washes for acne.

So I guess I'm just confused how we can say that those aren't covered by the Bill, but I tried to pull-

If you look, if you look at the first page of the. I was kind of looking at it as well. It says anti aging.

So then how are you okay. So if it's just the anti aging, I mean, I guess I'm super confused and I will confess. I buy anti aging products. I'm in my mid-40s. It's time. Oh, you're the sweetest. They're not marketed that way.

They're not like the, the one I use is marketed just, I guess I'm, that's confusing to me. Can you clarify how they would, how a Sephora person would know whether it was covered by the Bill or not when they were selling it? Like there's a separate section at Sephora that is just anti aging?

Yeah, I mean I would just rationalize that. I think most consumers, including yourself, know when you're going for these products, this is the category you're going for.

But this is law, like.

Yeah, I know.

I mean if I'm a company and I have to comply with the law, I need to know very clearly which products does my Clerk need to card people for and which do they not? And so I think vague language would be hard for a company to comply with.

And I guess I'll just say, I mean you don't need to. I, I will say I, I am raising a teenage daughter as you all know.

She and I had a conversation about this, to be totally honest, and she said, who thinks I'm going to go spend my very limited Sephora gift cards because that's the only way she gets to buy Sephora. She gets gift cards for her birthday on anti aging creams. I don't have the money to do it. It's not.

And so I don't know that. I've seen living in the world of teen girls this to be a huge problem. And I, on the other hand, I do know that they use these products for things like acne and, and it is working for them. And they use creams and sunscreens as appropriate to not get the harms.

But I, I can't support a Bill that like, if we're banning something, I need to believe there are serious scientific basis on which to do that.

And when I have the physicians whose entire job is to protect the skin of all of us but our children as well, saying that this is not necessary, but just the opposite, I can't get behind it.

But I also think that there needs to be serious work on ensuring that if this does move forward, it is incredibly clear to the folks that we're expecting to comply. What is an anti aging cream and what is anti aging? What is not because the ingredients are often overlapping.

Other questions or comments. Seeing none. Senate Member Lee, would you like to close?

Yes. I really appreciate the discussion today and I appreciate the comments made today. You know obviously you weren't here for Scarlet my witnesses testimony about using these products as well. But this is a phenomena that is happening in real life.

And I would again stress that while there's a lot of deflections in social media companies, the social media companies have their own problems. Right. Obviously ignores the fact that there was one entity in this discussion that profits off of children using these products and that is the cosmetic industry.

And we simply believe it is reasonable expectation for to have age verification for products that admittedly the industry talks about is intended for adults. Now I would dispute that, you know, these are marketed or seen as anti aging, sorry, anti acne products.

I have acne problems and I go to the acne area and I look at those things and maybe and I also say this is like, you know, none of us here are vividly or scientists. We are that smart. Unfortunately we don't aren't scientists in that way.

But it is very easy, it is very easy to obfuscate and make something very theoretical by talking about ingredients, talking about different forms, different studies when there are ways to Nitpick and cherry pick these things too. I heard the study about retinoids being safe for minors perhaps in 1996 study.

But was it an oral or is it a topical study? Was it a retinoid or a retinol? There's lots of these little things and we even talked about this too and that was talked about with the opposition too. So I think it's really important to understand that this is a phenomenon that's happening in real life.

And whether or not the FDA industry has tested this clinically in a lab setting, they have done that because they don't intend to have the kids buy these things. But in real life that is real laboratory that's happening right now. And hopefully it doesn't grow to be even more and more children out that are using it.

But in fact the reality that is happening. So respectfully ask your aye votes on this very important issue. And I want to thank my witness Scarlet again for coming all the way up to the Capitol. Thank you.

And to clarify it, it would not ban these products. Right. Parents could still buy them and, yeah if you're 18, 18 to purchase. Yeah, exactly. Appreciate it. Well, thank you again for bringing the Bill forward. I think we can all agree it's important to protect children from products that are not intended for them and could cause harm.

We've heard pretty compelling testimony a couple of times now on that, it sounds like there could be and I do recommend an aye vote on this as a chair. It sounds like there could be some additional thought into kind of more clearly defining the Bill itself does not define anti aging product.

There may be some thought that we could put into that as well. With that, do I have a motion on AB728?

Well, I guess that leaves me with. The proviso that we're going to take a look at the breadth of it, so that would be.

Motion happen with that understanding as well. I'm happy to second the motion. This is do pass to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is File Item 1, AB728, authored by Assemblymember Lee. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Connolly. Aye. Connolly, aye. Ellis. No. Ellis, no. Bauer-Kahan. Castillo. Lee. Aye. Lee, aye. McKinnor. Papan. Aye.

Okay, we're gonna leave that vote open for absentee Members. Thank you again, everyone on that.

IT.

All right, we're moving to file item three, Assembly Member Ransom AB532 dealing with water rate assistance.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon Chair and Members. I would like to thank your Committee staff first for your collaboration and work on getting this Bill to a sound place.

In 2012, California became the first state to establish water as a human right, enshrining in state law that every human being has the right to safe, clean, affordable drinking, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitation. Despite this commitment, many Californians continue to struggle with water affordability.

According to a 2020 State Water Board report, 34% of households earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level needed water rate assistance and 21% of California's water system has unaffordable rates. During the pandemic, the federally funded Low Income Household Water Assistance program helped over 85,000 households in California.

However, when the funding for the program expired in March 2024, California was left without a permanent state program to fill the gap. Assembly Bill 532 aims to address this urgent need by establishing a statewide low income household water assistance program, providing the needed relief for Californians struggling to afford their water bills.

Importantly, this Bill would also provide legal clarity by affirming that urban retail water supply suppliers have the authority to operate their own low income water rate assistance program, helping expand local options for our communities.

Safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water is a basic necessity and no family should ever have to choose between keeping the water running and putting food on their table. Assembly Bill 532 provides critical targeted relief to ensure that water is affordable, especially in disadvantaged communities and a small water system where the need is the greatest.

I would respectfully ask for your aye vote on this Bill. But before we do that, with me today, I have witnesses in support. I would like to introduce Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association and Danielle Coates with Rancho California Water District to help me explain the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association. CMUA is a proud sponsor of AB532. We represent 84 publicly owned electric, gas, water, and wastewater utilities statewide. First, I'd like to thank the Assembly Member for her leadership with this Bill.

Affordability is the key concern for most Californians and CMUA appreciates her work in tackling water affordability through rate assistance. I'd also like to thank this Committee, the consultants that we've been working through, key refinements for this Bill. AB 532 is a step forward in a multi year struggle over water affordability.

Over the past few legislative sessions we've been unable to put into law a statewide solution for water rate assistance. AB 532 proposes progress. The Bill, distinguishable by two parts, offers a solution for urban retailers that may have the means to provide water rate assistance to their low income customers.

It also offers a statewide solution for water systems that expand experience more financial hardship. The statutory authority that AB 532 grants for urban retail water suppliers is needed for continued and future water rate assistance programs.

The California Low Income Household Water Assistance Program, or CA LIHWAP, is a targeted measure that builds upon prior success to provide ongoing Bill relief. The Department of Community Services administers several low income energy needs assistance programs and administer the federal LIHWAP, which ended in 2024 that offered crisis assistance to households across California.

The California LIHWAP builds upon the success of that program by transforming it to provide monthly direct Bill benefits. By utilizing CSD, the CA LIHWAP minimizes administrative costs and CSD has drafted guidelines for the federal program that can be adapted for a state program.

Additionally, CSD has existing relationships with low income service providers that are used to administer the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and with these existing relationships the baseline program guidelines. CSD can establish the CA LIHWAP in a timely manner and begin distributing funding to Californians in need.

CMUA is committed to continuing to work with our author on refining the Bill as it moves further along in the legislative process and we urge your aye vote today to continue those discussions.

Thank you. Pardon me.

Thank you Chair Connolly and distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is Danielle Coats and I am the Director of Government and Public affairs with the Rancho California Water District in Temecula and we in Southern California.

I'd first like to also thank the Assembly Member for her leadership in this space and I'm here to express my agency's strong support for AB532. It is Rancho California Water District's mission and responsibility to provide clean, safe, and affordable water to the communities we serve, a responsibility that we take very seriously.

While we currently do not have an affordability program in place, we recognize that the growing costs of water as well as the expiration of the COVID era assistance programs that many of which Andrea just expelled upon have expired, and the transition of the demographics within our communities into greater populations of seniors and low income households that advancing such a program is something that we are exploring in earnest.

However, legal uncertainties surrounding Proposition 218 along with the past anticipated legal challenges to these types of programs are a real problem. While statewide affordability discussions have been underway for more than a decade and I've been personally involved in many of them, AB532 represents meaningful near term progress. This Bill does not close the door on broader statewide solution.

Instead, it builds upon the strongest foundation that we have today, which is local leadership. This Bill provides much needed clarity and assurances to agencies like mine that want to act but need a stable and clear framework to do so. We are eager to be part of the solution, but we cannot do it alone.

With AB532, California has the opportunity to empower local water systems like ours to serve our most vulnerable community Members in a manner that best addresses the needs of our customers struggling to pay for their water Bill without compromising operational stability. We respectfully urge for your aye vote. Thank you for your time and commitment to water affordability.

Thank you.

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

Kasha Hunt with Nosman here on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Water District in support.

Brenda Bass of KP Public affairs here on behalf of Western Municipal Water District in support. Thank you.

Claire Sullivan here in support on behalf of the City of Roseville, the City of Santa Rosa and the City of Thousand Oaks. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Kristen Olson, Kane with California Strategies here on behalf of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and West Valley Water District in support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.

Hi there. Jamie Minor on behalf of Eastern Municipal Water District in support.

Hello. Brian Sanders with the City of Sacramento and also representing the Sacramento Regional Water Authority in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, or afternoon now. Soren Nelson on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies and our 470 Members, very pleased to be in support. Thank you.

Chloe King with Political Solutions on behalf of the California Water Association in support. Thank you so much.

David Quintana with the Irvine Ranch Water District, East Valley Water District and the San Diego County Water Authority in support.

Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of Desert Water Agency, El Dorado Irrigation District and Palmdale Water District and support.

Thank you. Do we have anyone in opposition to AB532? Not seeing anyone. Including Members of the public? No. Okay. Questions from Committee Members. Motion McKinnor seeing no comments or questions. Do I have a second? Okay, we go Vice Chair and invite the author to close.

Awesome. Thank you. I really appreciate not only your Committee's assistance with this. But I also appreciate all of the different municipalities, agencies, and folks who came forward in support of this Bill. As we've already stated, access to clean, affordable water is a human right in the State of California.

And we want to make sure that every municipality can make this a reality. So this would provide. Assembly Bill 532 would provide direct relief for Californians and ensure struggling families have access to safe, affordable water, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Yeah, we really appreciate the work you and your staff have been doing with the Committee on this. Thank you for that. And certainly agree with you that our constituents should have access to safe and affordable drinking water. Finding a workable solution for affordable drinking water across the state, as we know, is incredibly complex.

Again, appreciate your work in tackling this issue and would ask that, and I have a recommendation on this, would ask that you keep me and staff in the loop as this Bill develops and continues through the legislative process. So thank you again.

We did have a motion and second, this is do pass to the Committee on Utilities and Energy. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is File item number three, AB532, authored by Assemblymember Ransom. Motion is do pass to Utilities and Energy. Connolly. Aye. Connolly, aye. Ellis. Aye. Ellis, aye. Bauer-Kahan. Castillo. Lee. McKinnor. Aye. McKinnor, aye. Papan. Aye. Pappan, aye.

All right. That's our first Bill that has enough votes to get out, but we will leave it open. So congrats. We will leave it open for absentee Members.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Committee. Thank you.

File item four. Assembly Member Dixon, as you come forward. This is AB773 dealing with copper based anti fouling paint.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon Mr. Chair and Members. Thank you. I would like to thank the Chair and the Committee staff for working so diligently with my staff and myself on drafting the amendments for AB773. Current law gives the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. I'll refer to it in the future as DPR.

A lot of acronyms in this discussion. The authority to regulate the leach rate of copper based anti following paint for use on recreational vessels and to make recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures to protect aquatic environments from the effects of exposure to the paint.

The State Water Resources Control Board, SWRCB also has the authority to develop and enforce water quality objectives for copper in water bodies. Copper based antifouane paint is a legal California registered commercial pesticide which has been distributed and sold through the state for decades.

This widely used and necessary paint is proven to be the most effective barrier against marine growth attaching to the undersides of boats, which if left unchecked can significantly affect vessel fuel consumption and efficiency, leading to increased operational cost and emissions.

These paints also serve as an important line of defense against transport and the spread of invasive species into and out of various harbors and waterways within the state and around the world in which vessels travel.

However, over the last several years, the State Water Resources Control Board and the Department of Pesticide Regulation have issued several conflicting regulations in an attempt to reduce the amount of dissolved copper that is discharged within our harbors.

Boats within California are using paints regulated by DPR, but the saturation of some waterways is not or at below the levels set by the Water Board, the State Water Resources Control Board, causing confusion and complications.

Cities are now being asked by local Water Boards to invest millions of dollars into lowering the copper levels within harbors, while those of the same cities have no authority, control of paint formulation use or movement of vessels with these paints.

To address the conflicting regulations and provide clarity on copper based antifouling following bond paint products and elevated copper concentrations in saltwater harbors, bays, and marinas, AB773 consists of the three following parts.

First, by December 12028 DPR shall complete a re evaluation of copper based anti following boat paint products to determine whether to retain, modify or suspend the current standards on the chemical composition or use of copper based antifouing paints.

Second, by June 12027 the CPA, State Water Control Resource Council Board and Regional Water Control Boards and DPR will be required to collaborate on active studies related to the effectiveness of low leach rate paint and elevated copper concentrations in saltwater harbors, bays and marinas that are primarily a result of the use of copper based antifouling paint.

Lastly, by January 12028 the CPA, the State Resources Control Board and DPR will collaborate to determine and make available on its website the best methods to address elevated copper concentrations in saltwater harbors, bays, and marinas that are primarily a result of the use of this paint in the state.

AB773 would improve government efficiency by requiring the State Water Board, the Department of Pesticide Regulation and local Water Boards to work together to develop and provide updated uniform copper based antifouling boat paint products regulations and address elevated copper concentrations in saltwater harbors, bays and marinas.

The health of our waterways and wildlife is paramount, but we need to ensure regulations, testing, enforcement, and costs are uniform, justifiable, and comprehensible in order to ensure the safety of our harbors and all Californians. I have with me Chris Miller, Public Works Manager and John Kapler, a senior engineer who will be speaking in support of AB773.

Thank you, Member Dixon. My name is Chris Miller, manager with Public Works in charge of Newport harbor and major capital projects. Joined with me is John Kapler, our senior public works engineer whose specialty is water quality. You've heard this afternoon the main important points. I'm just going to emphasize a few of those in my brief comments.

The City of Newport Beach does support AB773 in the efforts of Assemblymember Dixon and her staff, and especially the detailed analysis and hard work of the Committee. As Member Dixon can attest, the City has a proven water quality track record and we've partnered with the Water Board on a myriad of issues over the past 25 years.

Just a couple broad points. The City strongly supports the boating community and we also support anti fouling paint for use on recreational boats. Newport harbor has 4,500 boats, most at privately owned marinas. And as you know, the City of Newport Beach has a deep nautical heritage.

The Recreational Boaters of California who represent California's 3 million boaters are present this afternoon. They had to step out to a different hearing, but they support this Bill as well. As Member Dixon mentioned, the benefits of copper paint are increased vessel efficiency, less drag, improve fuel consumption, improve air emission and also repel invasive species.

But really at the heart of the issue is that DPR approves copper based antifouling paint to be sold in California. And the shipyards are applying this legal formulated paint on nearly every boat in California's harbors, bays and marinas. Conversely, the State's Water Board, a sister agency to DPR, is enforcing regulatory copper water quality compliance through TMDLs.

And to us this represents an inherent regulatory conflict. The city or county, or even as once suggested, the individual boater cannot lawfully control the use of legal California paints. Essentially, this Bill asks both agencies to work together and collectively decide via ongoing studies if the existing standard is adequate or requires adjustment.

I'll turn it over to John Kapler, our the City's water quality expert, for a few brief comments.

Sure. Thank you Mr. Chair. Committee Members John Kapler, City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. And I'm really here to assist with any technical questions from the Committee.

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

Hi Mr. Chairman, Members. Bo Biller, on behalf of the Marine Recreation Association and we joined with the Recreational Boaters of California to support this measure and appreciate your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have anyone in opposition to AB773? If so, please come forward. Witnesses or public not seeing any. Any questions from Committee Members. Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Assemblymember Dixon. This is great on the technical expert. Yes. First of all, there is what's called 100 year acid leech life on products that contain metals.

And so as part of their study, I would really encourage that because it will determine what your acid leaching and basically what components, how much copper would actually come out of this paint. But then I also wanted to add they might come up with some other metal compounds. So I would strongly urge that.

That you keep in mind that there are other. Other catalysts in metals that could do the same thing. But just by saying copper concerns me a little bit. So you might say copper and or other, but just a suggestion. That's my comment. Thank you very much. Great.

Any further questions or comments? Seeing none. Assemblymember Dixon, would you like to close?

Well, thank you very much and thank you again to the Committee for hard work and the witnesses that have been working and the organizations for many, many years to reconcile these two different agencies. And finally we came together and we agreed let's just meet for the next period of time and let's resolve any differences that may exist.

So I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you and this does enjoy an eye recommendation from the Chair. Do I have a motion? Senator Mayor Ellis. Second Papan. This is do pass to the Committee on appropriations. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is item number four, AB773, authored by Assemblymember Dixon. The motion is do pass to the Committee on appropriations. Connolly. Aye. Connolly, aye. Ellis. Aye. Ellis, aye. Bauer-Kahan. Castillo. Aye. Castillo, aye. Lee. McKinnor. Papan. Aye. Papan, aye.

Great. That has the votes to get out. We will leave it open for absentee Members. Thank you. We are going to have Senate Member Hadwick come up next. Thank you for waiting. Five item seven.

I was hoping nobody else showed up.

This is AB998 dealing with household hazardous waste and vape pens. Whenever you're ready. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. First, I would like to thank the Chair and the Committee staff for working with me on this ever growing issue. I'm pleased to be here to address the vaping epidemic plaguing our schools, our children and our environment.

In 2023, more than 1.6 million middle and high School students reported vaping and each year Americans throw out 142 million vapes, or 4.5 vapes per second. Vapes are hazardous waste because they contain nicotine or cannabis, lithium batteries, and electronic components.

As a former teacher and the former safety and preparedness of the County Office of Education, I often confiscated the vapes from students. I was the TUPI Director, so I was the person that taught the class when you got caught at school vaping and the schools had nowhere to take those.

So, I ended up with an entire drawer of vapes. I was going to bring them, but I didn't want to drive my six hours with them in my car. Since schools are not considered a household, vapes confiscated by schools cannot be considered household hazardous waste and cannot be accepted by a household hazardous waste facility.

I confiscated them, accumulated an entire wide filing cabinet full of vapes. Assembly Bill 998 will address these challenges by allowing schools to safely dispose of confiscated vape pens, allowing household waste collection facilities to receive vapes from schools, and enabling these facilities to recycle them.

This Bill also reduces program costs and consolidates duplicative Cal Recycle and Department of Toxic Substances Control reporting requirements for household waste collection facilities. This Bill helps teachers focus on teaching, gives local government the tools that they need to process vapes and protect the environment.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote and I'm joined today by John Kennedy representing Rural County Representatives of California.

Good afternoon, John Kennedy with RCRC. We're pleased to be here today and as a sponsor of AB998. As local governments, we're responsible for solid waste collection and management in our jurisdictions, and that includes household hazardous waste management.

As local governments, we operate over 180 household hazardous waste collection facilities throughout the state, not just in our rural counties, but statewide, and we supplement those with a lot of temporary events and others.

As the author mentioned, AB998 provides some operational flexibility to our local government so that we can address illegal disposal so we can reduce management costs and reduce bureaucratic duplication. Really, it's a four part Bill. The first part concerns vapes. Vapes that are confiscated by a school from students should be acceptable at our HHW facilities.

We should be able to manage them as HHW because the schools are confiscating them in loco parentis so they are standing in place of the household.

We have a lot of work to do with the US EPA to make sure they're comfortable with this because we want DTSC to be comfortable with this as well. Our costs for managing these are expensive and so that's where the second part of this Bill comes into play.

The Bill would allow HHW collection facilities to safely disassemble HHW devices that come into our facilities. They may be vapes, they may be smoke detectors, they may be other things like the flexible stem lighters that we have to cut off the stem in order to transport it by DOT regulations.

This will help us ensure that the nicotine cartridges go in the poisons bucket for incineration in other states, but that we can recycle the lithium ion battery that's in the device and then manage the electronic components separately. So if we can safely disassemble this, we can manage it much more cost effectively.

With respect to reporting, it consolidates duplicative reporting requirements. We've long been reporting to CalRecycle. We just had to start reporting on a different schedule, the exact same information to dtse and it's very complicated.

This would streamline that and it would bar us from being able to put these vapes on our shelves for materials exchange programs, programs where we offer household hazardous waste that comes into our facility for reuse because we're trying to minimize disposal. Disposal is very expensive. So it's a common sense measure. We think.

We've tried to make it as non controversial as possible and appreciate your consideration and urge your aye vote today. Thank you. Thank you.

Any Members of the public who would like to speak in support?

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

Crystal Reynaez with California Against Waste in support of this Bill.

Sasha Horowitz, Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Do I have the mic on?

Hello. Ellen Brittingham on behalf of Alameda County in support.

Janet Nudelman on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention partners in support of this Bill.

Thank you. Do we have anyone in opposition to AB998? Seeing none. Members of the public. All right. Questions from Committee Members. Seeing none. Would you like to close?

I request an aye vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you. And wanted to again, thank you for bringing the Bill forward. I think it is a good thing to look at ways of assisting schools with safety managing these vape pens. It sounds like there will be some continued discussions as the Bill moves forward. Please keep the Committee in the loop with that.

We are recommending an aye vote. Do I have a motion on 998 from the Vice Chair? Second Papan, please call the roll.

This is file item number seven, AB998, authored by Assemblymember Hadwick. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. Connolly. Aye. Connolly, aye. Ellis. Aye. Ellis, aye. Bauer-Kahan. Castillo. Aye. Castillo, aye. Lee. McKinnor. We are on file. Item number seven. AB998. Aye. McKinnor, aye. Papan. Papan, aye.

Great. That is out. We will leave the roll open for absentee Members. Thanks again. Oh, actually, Gonzalez. Okay, we're going to move to file item 8. Assembly Member Jeff Gonzalez. Welcome. AB 1031, dealing with geothermal hazardous waste.

I want to stand in front of Assembly Member Papan. Good afternoon Chair and Members. I'm pleased to be here today to present Assembly Bill 1031. First, I want to thank the Committee and its staff for working closely with my team on amendments to ensure this Bill was ready to be heard.

Today, AB 1031 addresses an important regulatory challenge facing geothermal energy producers in California. Specifically, burdensome fees imposed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. By creating targeted reductions for certain low risk geothermal waste streams, this Bill supports responsible energy development while maintaining strong environmental oversight. Geothermal is among the cleanest and most reliable renewable energy sources we have.

Expanding this infrastructure will help California reduce its dependent on traditional fuels, improve air quality and contribute to a more stable and resilient energy grid. It also supports communities that are disproportionately affected by pollution and economic hardship, particularly in regions like Imperial County.

Just last week, our remaining sugar beet factory plant in California, the last one, located in the City of Brawley in my district, announced it would be shutting down this summer. This closure will leave hundreds of workers without jobs and force farms to go fallow and impact families across the region.

With our unemployment rate already at 17.2, which is the highest, this serious blow to the local economy. This is a serious blow to local economy. Geothermal development offers not only a path to job creation in engineering, construction, and plant operations, but more importantly, it brings hope to a community that urgently needs new opportunities.

Today, AB 1031 removes fiscal roadblocks and sends a clear signal that California supports innovation. California supports energy reliability and economic opportunity, especially in areas that need it most. This is a measured, science based policy that ensures continued environmental protection while aligning with federal standards and California's broader energy goals.

I'm proud to have with me today Imperial County Supervisor Ryan Kelly and Barry Been, Deputy CEO of Natural Resources for Imperial County, who are here to testify in support of this measure.

Thank you, Assembly Member Gonzalez, the Chair, and Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Ryan Kelly. I'm a supervisor from Imperial County, California. I represent the 4th district, which includes The Salton Sea known geothermal resource area, also known as Lithium Valley.

I'm a strong advocate for the Bill before you today. 10:31 and the reasons are is it's critical to the future of Imperial county renewable energy goals set by the State of California. We've been moving in that direction and to meet those goals. Energy by new geothermal 4,000 megawatts of untapped power.

Mineral recovery, manufacturing, secure supply for critical minerals is all on the table. Imperial county is home to one of the largest geothermal resources in the world. A natural energy source that provides around the clock weather independent power. Geothermal is exactly the kind of clean baseload power California must expand to meet its 100% clean energy goals and targets.

But geothermal in our region does more than create electricity. It unlocks the future of lithium production for domestic production and direct lithium extraction, the cleanest process known on earth to be able to recover these critical minerals.

This technology places Imperial county at the heart of California's efforts to build a domestic supply for electric vehicles and large scale energy storage. Without a healthy and growing geothermal sector, California's vision for Lithium Valley and for energy Independence will stall.

Unfortunately, the increase in hazardous waste laws imposing severe costs on geothermal facilities, costs that threaten new investment and expansion, but also existing operations these costs impose a geothermal waste are directly contradictory to our state goals for clean energy generation. AB1031 reduces these fees for geothermal while upholding environmental protections of the waste.

This legislation is essential to our region to preserve jobs, to spur innovation and accelerate California's leadership in clean energy and critical minerals. I respectfully urge your support for AB1031 and I thank you for your time and consideration.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Barry Been and I'm the Deputy CEO of Natural Resources for the County of Imperial and before this role, I spent two years working directly in the geothermal industry. And I'm proud to speak in strong Support today of AB1031.

As a lifelong resident of Imperial County, I know firsthand of the challenges and opportunities that we face in our region. As we heard already, we have over a 17% unemployment rate and 21% poverty. Undoubtedly, every economic opportunity in our region makes a difference to the people that call our area home.

Unfortunately, the DTSC hazardous waste fees on geothermal make it challenging for both existing and new geothermal generation in our region. In fact, after 18 months of going through the permitting process, we recently had BHE renewables suspend three of their new geothermal projects in our region, with DTSD fees being cited as one of the primary hurdle.

This is not only a loss of 350 megawatts of clean energy to the State of California. It's a loss of thousands of construction jobs, hundreds of operational jobs, and hundreds of millions of dollars that can benefit benefit our community.

In fact, the property tax allocation for those projects over 30 years would have a benefit of $460,620,000 to the CaliPatria Unified School District, $51,060,000 to the Health Care District, and $94,900,000 to the Imperial County Community College District. Collectively, these projects would have life changing impacts on our region.

And these are just three examples of geothermal projects that could benefit Imperial County. As someone deeply rooted in the community, I am undoubtedly passionate about opportunities to benefit our residents. Which is why I want to highlight that AB 1031 is not an industry Bill, it's a community Bill.

Without changes to these regulations, our community stands to lose catastrophic losses for employment, services, and economic growth to our region. I respectfully urge your aye vote today on AB1031.

Thank you. Do we have any Members of the public who would like to indicate support for this measure? Come on up.

Good afternoon. Delilah Clay on behalf of the Independent Energy Producers Association in support.

Good afternoon. McKinley Thompson-Morley on behalf of BHE Renewables and support. Thank you.

Anyone in opposition to AB1031? Seeing no opposition questions from Committee Members. Seeing none. Vice Chair.

Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. Assembly Member Gonzalez, thank you for bringing this attention to us for regulatory relief in one of the cleanest industries in the world that are sustainable. I've worked in the geothermal fields. I know that from the drilling and the production of so called waste that they put out.

Sometimes the DTSC can be very onerous in its regulation and its charges and it sometimes becomes cost prohibitive. We must be affordable in our renewable resources. So thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

Semi Member, would you like to close?

I had a few people come to my office from that region. They are poor, when I mean poor, like three families in one house. It was about 10 of them and this happened yesterday and they saved up.

They scrounged money to get on a bus from the region to right up here 12 hour ride to meet with me to say please help us. So when we get that opportunity to do something for our community, it's not just numbers, and Bills. This is lifelong impact to jobs and community.

And if we have the opportunity to remove a barrier to take care of our most needy in our community, then I'm going to do whatever it takes to do that and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We do appreciate you bringing this Bill forward. There has been some concern that lowering fees for one industry could lead to increased fees on other industries. That being said, but it does feel like it's time for us to take a deeper look into how to support the regulatory oversight of hazardous waste.

Acknowledge potential cost impacts these fees have on certain industries, including the one you're highlighting through this Bill. This is a chair I recommendation. Do I have a motion? And second on AB1031. Great. Castillo. Motion. Vice Chair. Second. This is a do pass to the Committee on Appropes. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is file item number 8, AB 1031, authored by Assembly Member Jeff Gonzalez. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. Connolly. Aye. Connolly, aye. Ellis. Aye. Ellis, aye. Bauer-Kahan. Castillo. Aye. Castillo, aye. Lee. McKinnor. McKinnor, aye. Papan. Aye. Papan, aye.

Great. That has enough votes to get out. Congrats. We will leave it open for absentee Members. Yeah. We go back to file item 6.

Welcome, Assembly Member Ward. This is AB 864, dealing with hazardous waste and solar panels.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Good to be with you this afternoon. Here to introduce AB 846, which is actually a reintroduction of a bill we worked on last session and an approved version. As you know, California has the largest solar market in the United States.

We supply over 20% of our electricity through solar, and this capacity continues to grow rapidly as California is currently listing one of the top three states for annual solar capacity additions. Given of course, the average 20 to 30-year lifespan of any given panel, many of these are beginning to reach the end of their life cycle and that of course will continue to grow as we continue to expand this energy resource. This poses a huge challenge for our state to ensure that these panels are properly collected and managed.

However, it also offers a huge opportunity to reclaim valuable materials and create a truly sustainable third circular market. Unfortunately, solar panels are one of the few products which are not accepted for free at most collection sites like other universal waste or household hazardous waste.

There are limited opportunities for solar panel owners dropping unwanted panels at a public collection site or directly with recyclers. On March 14th of this year, DTSC released a draft plan. The plan is organized into one of--into ten goals, each with specific recommendations intended to address the challenges of California's hazardous waste management system and strive towards the development of a circular economy.

One method noted in the draft plan is to identify potential opportunities to promote hazardous waste recycling through the evaluation of exemptions and exclusions provided by the EPA. Unfortunately, California has not adopted all the exclusions or exemptions for recycling hazardous waste that the federal government has adopted.

AB 864 exempts solar photovoltaic modules, or PV modules, not identified as hazardous waste and treated as universal waste from state hazardous waste requirements if the solar PV modules are transferred to a designated recycler for legitimate recycling as authorized under federal law and regulation.

With me to speak in support is Jason Schmelzer, on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council, and Evelyn Butler, the Vice President of Technical Services at the Solar Energy Industry Association.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair Connolly and committee members for the opportunity to speak in support of AB 864. Thanks as well to the author, Assembly Member Ward, for his leadership and collaboration on this bill. As Assembly Member Ward mentioned, my name is Evelyn Butler for the record, and I am the Vice President of Technical Services with the Solar Energy Industries Association.

We are the national trade association and actively represent companies not only throughout the U.S. but also here in California who are manufacturers, installers, independent power producers, owners, and many others who provide services for solar and energy storage, including recyclers.

We operate the nation's only circularity and recycling partner program, working with commercial recyclers to develop and ensure that we can deliver decommissioning and recycling services at end of life. As solar energy grows nationally and more particularly here in California, it's critical to support responsible management of the equipment at decommissioning and we do favor reuse and recycling of these products.

AB 864 will provide much-needed clarity and consistency for the recycling of PV modules here in California and also out of state, and also making it easier to recycle these panels. The bill allows solar panels that are not hazardous waste yet categorized in California specifically as universal waste, to be managed as non-hazardous, as the Assembly Member Ward has mentioned, as long as they're transferred to a legitimate recycler as defined by federal law.

It also provides the Department of Toxic Substances Control the ability to develop alternative management standards for these non-hazardous panels so that working panels can be reused and those that can be repaired can also be reused.

Non-hazardous solar panels that can't be reused or resold or repaired can then safely be recycled within California or out of state using the transfer-based exemption provision. This will support sustainability and the responsible management of solar panels at the end of their useful life. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Jason Schmelzer, here today on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council. We're a proud supporter of AB 864. I want to thank the author and his staff and your staff and also our industry partners for the long conversations we've had about solar recycling.

I think we're all on the same page wanting more solar recycling and this is the first step to get there. California continues to lead the way on green energy and this is fantastic. We have twice as much installed solar capacity as the second place state and the growth continues, which again, is absolutely fantastic.

But that also means we have more solar waste than any state in the union. Page three of the analysis notes that the industry expected that from 2014 to 2017 the amount of solar waste would grow roughly tenfold, from 10,000 tons to 100,000 tons.

We're now eight years beyond that point, so it is a large waste stream that we need to get under control. 864 takes that first step to making this more manageable and we support the bill for that reason. Thank you.

Thank you. Any members of the public in support?

Krystal Raynes with Californians Against Waste, in support of this bill.

McKinley Thompson-Morley, on behalf of Solar Cycle, a solar panel recycler, and also on behalf of our friends at CALSA who couldn't make it to committee but are also in support.

Great, thank you. Do we have any opposition to AB 864? Please come forward. Not seeing any. Bringing it back. Questions from committee members? Seeing none. Got a motion. McKinnor. Second, Vice Chair? All right. Great. Assembly Member Ward, would you like to close?

Well, thank you, members. I appreciate the support. Still a working effort, but we really want to make sure that we're helping helping this industry do the right thing. We do see other countries that are also growing in their capacity for solar energy, already successfully being able to reuse, and many of the materials that come from these panels are reusable. And to be able to create second gen opportunities as well is only going to further accelerate our ability to go green. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great, and thank you for your work. This is a recommended aye vote. We have a motion and second to do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is File Item Number Six: AB 864, authored by Assembly Member Ward. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Great. That has the votes to get out. We will leave it open for absentees. Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay, we're going to move to file item 10, noting that Assembly Member Gabriel is here. Come on up. Sign AB1264. Ultra processed foods. Welcome.

Okay. Good afternoon Mr. Chair and colleagues. I am pleased today to present AB1264, first in the nation bipartisan legislation that would phase out particularly harmful ultra processed foods from school meals in California by 2032. AB1264 would achieve this goal in two important steps.

First, it would establish a first ever statutory definition of what qualifies as an ultra processed food. And second, it would direct state scientists working in cooperation with leading experts from the University of California to identify a subcategory of particularly harmful ultra processed foods that should be phased out of school meals based on their known health harms.

In recent years, doctors and scientists have increasingly warned us about the negative health consequences of ultra processed foods. These products are often filled with harmful additives and specifically engineered to interfere with our brain signals. In ways that can contribute to food addiction. The science is clear.

Consumption of ultra processed foods is a leading driver of poor health outcomes and rising healthcare costs. Ultra processed foods have been linked to serious health harms including cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, metabolic disorders, reproductive harms, and neurobehavioral issues in children.

AB1264 is based on the common sense premise that our public schools should not be serving students food products that can harm their food, physical or mental health, or interfere with their ability to learn.

State scientists would be charged with determining whether a product meets the definition of a particularly harmful UPF by considering factors such as whether it includes additives that are banned or restricted in other jurisdictions, whether products are required to include a warning label, whether the product or ingredients have been linked to harm such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, or metabolic disease whether the product contributes to food addiction and whether it has excessive fat, sugar or salt.

This year, California is projected to serve over 1 billion school meals. So changing what we serve in our public schools is an incredibly powerful way that we can make a difference in our children's physical and mental health.

This Bill continues California's national leadership on food safety and school nutrition, and I am proud that since we have began this work, more than 20 other states have introduced versions of our legislation.

This Bill is supported by a broad coalition that includes the Environmental Working Group, Consumer Reports, the California Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Diabetes Association, the California State PTA, and the Center for Environmental Health, among many others.

I'm very pleased to have with me today to testify in support of the Bill, Scott Faber from the Environmental Working Group. Thank you and respectfully request an aye vote.

Great. Thank you again. My name is Scott Faber. I'm the Senior Vice President for Government affairs with the Environmental Working Group. I also teach food law at Georgetown University Law Center. Prior to joining EWG, I was the Vice President for Federal affairs for the Consumer Brands Association.

Processed foods are part of a healthy diet and AB 1264 does not prohibit schools from offering processed foods on the tray or a LA carte. However, the overwhelming scientific evidence shows that ultra processed foods have been linked to serious health harms including type 2 diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease.

Ultra processed foods, or UPFs, are different from processed foods because they combine industrial ingredients and additives in ways that make food hyper palatable.

These industrially engineered foods are not simply delicious, they are literally irresistible because they change the way signals are sent to our brains in ways that trigger our brain's reward system by increasing the speed with which that reward is delivered and in ways that interfere with the signals that tell us to stop eating.

Americans are among the world's biggest consumers of UPFs. More than half of the calories we consume are UPF, including 67% of the calories eaten by our children. So it's no wonder that 73% of Americans are either overweight or obese. Or that diet related disease has now surpassed smoking as our leading cause of death.

Fortunately, most of our schools have already moved to eliminate UPFs, replacing UPFs with healthier processed foods and with whole foods from local farms. These schools have shown us we don't need to make expensive changes to school kitchens to phase out harmful UPFs.

By directing California State experts to identify the most harmful UPFs, AB1264 will send the right signal to the vendors selling to our schools. Because AB1264 places the burden on vendors, it will be the food companies, not our school food professionals, who will have the job to distinguish between processed foods, ultra processed foods, and the most harmful UPFs. Again, under AB 1264, only the particularly harmful UPFS will need to be reformulated.

And as somebody who worked for the food industry, I'm confident that our food companies can meet this challenge. Let's do what our scientists tell us is best for our kids, and let's phase the most harmful UPFS out of our schools. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other folks in support of the Bill? Come on forward.

Chris Moreno for California Against Waste in support of this Bill.

Kristin Zellhart with Eat REAL, a public health nonprofit that works with districts across the state, in full support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. April Robinson with a Voice for Choice Advocacy, in strong support. Thank you.

Sylvia Solis Shaw, on behalf of the Office of Kat Taylor, in support. Thanks.

Janet Nudelman with Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, in support of this bill.

Brian Spencer. I have my clients, the California Medical Association, the California Podiatric Medical Association, and the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation, all in support of the bill, and if you don't mind, I also have a list of other folks that asked me to read on their behalf as well.

Sure.

We have the American Academy of Pediatrics California, the American Diabetes Association, the California School Employee Association, California State PTA, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Chef Ann Foundation, Children Now, Cleanearth4kids.org, Conscious Kitchen, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports Advocacy, Educate Advocate, Endeavor Health, Food and Water Watch, FoodFight USA, Fresno Unified School District, Los Angeles Community School District, and Morgan Hill Unified School District, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have anyone in opposition to AB 1264? Come on up.

Nice to see you. Please.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Katie Little, and I'm with the California League of Food Producers. The members of our association create a variety of food products from canned and dried fruits and vegetables to cheese to snack foods, including raisins, to olive oil and sauces, all of which are produced right here in California.

While we share the author's intent of ensuring our children have access to nutritious foods, unfortunately, this bill is far too broad and fundamentally problematic. We have many questions as to what would be considered an ultra-processed food and potentially a particularly harmful ultra-processed food as proposed by the bill in print.

It is our understanding that the bill as drafted may impact tomato sauces, pastes, salad dressings, soups, dairy alternatives such as almond milk, oat milk, and fruit cups, just to name a few.

I think we can all agree that these foods are important choices to offer to our students, as many provide a healthy, shelf-stable option to schools and children who might not have access to fresh fruits and vegetables daily. The confusion on what is included in UPF is why we're highly concerned about defining ultra-processed foods in statute.

Late last year, the Dietary Guidelines for American's Advisory Committee, which is comprised of leading nutrition scientists, was unable to conclusively develop a definition for ultra-processed foods and stated there was not enough data to develop these guidelines. If these experts could not develop a workable solution, we would strongly caution against defining ultra-processed foods.

Make no mistake, we care deeply about food safety and quality. To that end, our coalition has proposed an alternative option to Assembly Member Gabriel that we believe will address the fundamental goal of this legislation, which is outlined in our letter. I'm happy to answer any questions and thank you for letting me testify here today.

Thank you, chair, members of the committee. John Hewitt, on behalf of the Consumer Brands Association. Wanted to start with a few overarching points and then specifically talk about the opportunity that's in front of us here with this legislation.

First, no industry is more committed to food safety than the consumer packaged goods companies that we represent, that Katie represents as well. Our members adhere to FDA science and risk-based evaluation of ingredients both before and after they're in the marketplace.

With respects to school lunches, as we're all very well aware, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans establishes recommendations on what to eat, what nutrient requirements are required to promote health and prevent disease.

The USDA then takes those DGAs and uses them as a starting point for establishing school nutrition standards that are age-specific, you know, K-8, 9-12, etcetera. Those requirements include minimums for fruits, vegetables, whole grains, proteins, and milk, and specific limits for saturated fats, added sugars, and sodium that are substantially below the DGAs.

With respect specifically to 1264, we commend Mr. Gabriel for continuing the conversation about improving school nutrition. We are equally as committed to that in concept and what we're trying to achieve through additional innovation and alternative ingredient options.

Unfortunately, as it's currently drafted, the definition of ultra-processed food that kicks things into the review of particularly harmful ultra-processed food is extremely broad and unnecessarily captures a number of food products that I think we would all agree that would--we wouldn't want to see as part of that review.

And as Katie mentioned, in lieu of those, you know, in lieu of heading down that pathway, we have some reasonable alternatives, or at least we think they're reasonable alternatives to try and capture the essence and the spirit of what the author is trying to get to here with respects to the bill. I am happy to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you. Any remaining members of the public who want to indicate opposition to this measure?

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

Jimmy Fremgen with Food Solutions Action, representing the alternative protein technology sector in respectful opposition unless amended as mentioned in the committee last week and look forward to working with the author on amendments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Annalee Augustine, here on behalf of a variety of agricultural entities, including the California Grain and Feed Association, Pacific Egg and Poultry Association, Association of Wheat Growers, Pear Growers. Thank you. Also respectfully opposed unless amended.

Good afternoon. Katie Davey with the Dairy Institute of California. We're opposed. Thank you.

Chair and members, Tricia Geringer with the Agricultural Council of California. Respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Adam Riley, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, Carlos Gutierrez, here on behalf of the American Pistachio Growers, California Grocers Association, Western Tree Nut Association, and the Walnut and Tomato Commission with an oppose unless amended position. Thank you.

Thank you. Bringing it back. Questions from committee members? Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Assembly Member Gabriel, thank you for this bill. I actually really like this bill. As we mentioned yesterday, I had a couple concerns. I would like to ask a question of...Katie, is it? Katie, can you summarize the letter in just a few words on what you had written for an alternative solution?

Yeah, so currently we think the process is duplicative, that there is already a process in which ingredients can be reviewed, and so there was a process actually at the Department of Health. Let me pull it up right here. I just want to make sure I actually quote it correctly. Yeah, sure, if you'd like to.

It's up to you.

No, you--that's fine.

Please, please.

The three recommendations that we had made within the comment letter was to review the school nutrition standards and determine if additional modifications, the saturated fats, added sugars, and sodium should be made. In other words, reduce those should we be making a further reduction from what USDA says on that for our California school meals, as well as should we be increasing the amount of fruit, vegetables, and whole grain requirements that go along with it? We think those are important considerations for the nutrition component of it.

Improve upon the existing ingredient review process that is currently available by the Department of Public Health under Health and Safety Code 110070 that authorizes them currently to prior--and we can prioritize. Happy to have a discussion about prioritizing ingredient categories if there are specific ingredients or categories of ingredients that would like to be addressed first, including dates on which those need to be done and completed, and then incentivizing the purchase of California grown and manufactured food items were the three items, sir.

Okay. So I'd like to address Assembly Member Gabriel. We discussed yesterday the--I thought it was a little too broad. For example, thickeners are, you know, you could use hydroxyethylcellulose, you can eat that all day long, and yet it's on the list here, so you did a real good job of explaining to me how you would narrow this down so it didn't--we just don't regret, have regretful consequences to the food industry and make sure that they are really ultra-processed foods.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you so much, and I appreciate the wonderful conversations we've had on this. I think two things to say: one is of course we're open to having conversations about how we might tighten any of these definitions and make sure that they are protective of our kids, but also workable for industry, and in the two bills that we've done before, that's been something that we have been very committed to. But the other thing that I think is important for folks to understand here is this is not a bill that's banning all ultra-processed foods.

It is very--and we're very intentional about that because as you and I talked about, that would be an over-inclusive definition. This is about banning what we would define as particularly harmful ultra-processed foods, and that is something that we're going to ask our state scientists working in cooperation with leading experts at UC to look at all the research and the data and the evidence and tell us these are the things that we think are particularly harmful to kids.

So we think there's a lot of things out there that would be categorized as ultra-processed foods under this bill that would remain on shelves, that would remain permissible to be served in schools, and it's that particularly harmful piece that is going to narrow the scope of this bill.

Thank you very much.

Assembly Member Papan. Oh, okay.

All I can think is you're probably talking about the center aisles at the grocery store, but I don't know. In any event, I don't have any questions. Thank you.

Okay, great. On that note.

And no offense to the people who supply food to the center aisle of the grocery store.

Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Yeah, just appreciate, appreciate the opportunity to present the bill, grateful for the work that has been done here, and, you know, I will say I really appreciated the suggestion about prioritizing California grown food. I think that's something we should do, and you know, I talked with Assembly Member Gallagher who is a co-author of the bill about the ways that we can work directly with our Ag community, and since I see Assembly Member Soria behind me, note that, you know, a lot of folks from agriculture regions are supporting this, including the Fresno Unified.

So there are ways that we can do this working hand-in-glove with all the food producers in California that we're part of, where we can protect our kids in the way that our pediatricians and our doctors are telling us is good, but also in a way that is good for industry. And with that, would respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. Appreciate you bringing this forward. We have a motion, second from the Vice Chair. Please consider adding me as a co-author. I would love to, yeah. Thank you, and certainly recommending an aye vote. We have a motion and second. This is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Can we have a roll call, please?

This is File Item Number Ten: AB 1264, authored by Assembly Member Gabriel. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Okay, we're going to hold that open for absent members.

Thank you.

Thanks again. Yeah. Okay, we're going to move back to File Item Five, noting the presence of Assembly Member Boerner. If you could come on up. This is on AB 823, dealing with plastic microbeads.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. First, I want to thank the chair and your amazing committee staff for working with me on this bill. I introduced AB 823 because it's become more apparent the dangers of microplastics. And I want to do something to protect our environment and public health.

AB 823 would ban the sale of non-rinse off personal care products and cleaning products containing plastic micro beads used as an abrasive to clean, exfoliate, or polish and personal care products containing plastic glitter beginning January 1, 2023 - 2029. Sorry; it's not retroactive. Plastic pollution is a major problem.

Microplastics have been found across the earth - from Mount Everest to the Mariana Trench. Emerging research is now linking plastic microbeads and microplastics to serious health risks.

Microplastics have been found in lungs, in the bloodstream, placental tissue, breast milk and even the brain, raising serious health concerns such as dementia, hormone disruption, infertility, and cancer affecting the lungs, blood, breasts, prostate, and ovaries. This is also an environmental justice issue. It disproportionately affects those in communities that don't have access to advanced water treatment.

We've been negotiating in good faith with the opposition and have taken amendments to address concerns and came to a compromise that most of the option that has resulted in most of the opposition going neutral. We've included personal care products that have plastic litter as there are alternatives currently on the market.

That's why groups like Estee Lauder have gone neutral as well. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And with me here Today, I have Dr. Tracy Woodruff, a Professor at UC San Francisco, and Andrea Ventura of Clean Water Action.

Good afternoon. I'm Dr. Tracey Woodruff. I'm a Professor and Director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California, San Francisco. My research focuses on uncovering and addressing how harmful chemicals and pollutants impact pregnancy, child development, health, and health inequities. Microplastics are not just polluting our beaches and oceans.

They are also polluting people and are impacting our health. Microplastics are pervasive. They are found in our air, water, food, and consequently they are found everywhere inside the human body. They have been measured in the brain, testes, breast milk, and placenta, among other places that we do not want plastics.

As a result, exposures to microplastics begin before birth and continue throughout life. And they contain chemicals that we know adversely affect human health. This includes phthalates, bisphenols, and perfluorinated compounds, which can increase the risk of reproductive health problems, preterm birth, metabolic disorders, impaired neurodevelopment, and cancer. And many of these health conditions are increasing in the population.

Our team was the first to conduct a systematic review using a gold standard method to evaluate the health evidence on microplastics. And we concluded that microplastics themselves are suspected to harm reproductive, digestive, and respiratory health, with suggested links to colon and lung cancer. Other studies have found more health outcomes.

For example, a new study shows that microplastics can pass the blood brain barrier, enter the brain, and that higher levels are found in people with dementia. I want to emphasize that microplastics are forever: once in the environment, they only break down into smaller plastics and they don't go away.

The best solution to lower microplastic exposure is to reduce plastic and microplastic production. Unfortunately, plastic production is expected to triple in the next 30 years, which means more exposure and health harms.

While this bill is only part of the solution for the microplastic pollution in our bodies, it does take an important step to reducing some of the exposures to intentionally added plastic microbeads in personal care and cleaning products.

Good afternoon, my name is Andria Ventura. I am with Clean Water Action. You've just heard some of the compelling health implications of microplastics in humans. Clean Water Action is co-sponsoring this benefit because water, our water resources are one of the primary exposure routes to humans.

First of all, there are the environmental justice issues for low-income communities and communities of color that fish during culture - for reasons of culture and or out of need, out of economic need.

For instance, one study monitoring for microplastics in San Francisco Bay found these particles throughout every part of San Francisco Bay where people were fishing, some at the highest levels measured globally. As these things collect in fish, those fishing communities are usually low-income communities. Communities of color are being exposed to more of these plastics than many other people.

Then, of course, there is California's precious and limited drinking water supply. The presence of microplastics in drinking water is of such growing concern that the California Legislature passed SB 1422, which required the state board to develop plans for measuring microplastics in water.

That work is ongoing because it turns out to be extremely complicated. It depended on the variety of plastic particles in there and particularly the problems around the additives, including just the color of these materials. And there are other confounding problems as well. So, it becomes extremely, extremely expensive.

One sample can take up to 70 hours and cost upwards of $4,000 for a water system. Consequently, that is a cost that's going to be passed on to ratepayers. In sum, we have to practice source control in every way we can.

And while this bill does not pretend to be a panacea to resolve all our plastic problems, it is a meaningful step toward protecting public health, the environment, and yes, our pocketbooks. So, on behalf of our members, we want to thank Assemblymember Boerner for this bill and request your aye vote.

Great. Thank you. Do we have any remaining members of the public in support?

Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm Victoria Rome with NRDC, in support.

Hello. Janet Nudelman with Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. We're one of the bill sponsors and are in support of this bill. Thank you.

Hello. Keely Morris, on behalf of Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, and support.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Molly Culton with Sierra Club California in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, in support.

Jennifer Williams with East Bay Municipal Utility District, in support.

Rice Spencer with the American College of OBGYN's District 9 and the Environmental Working Group both, in support. Thank you.

Krystal Reyna is for Californians Against Waste and Five Dryers. We're both co-sponsors on this bill and if the Chair allows, we also have a list of supporters. I'm authorized to give a me-too on.

Please.

350 Bay Area Action, 350 Sacramento, 7th Generation Advisors, Active San Gabriel Valley, Algalita Marine Research Education, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Azul, Ban Single Use Plastic, Black Women for Wellness Action Project, Breast Cancer Over Time, California Black Health Network, California Domestic Workers Coalition, California Environmental Voters, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, the California Product Stewardships Council, CalPIRG: Public California Public Interest Research Group, the Catholic Charities of Stockton, the Center for Environmental Health, Chico Bag Co.

Climate Action California, Coastal Corridor Alliance, Community Water Center, Courage California, Credo Beauty, Defender Health, Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority, Dr. Bronner's, The Ecology Center Berkeley, the Erin Brockovich Foundation, and FACTS: Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety.

Mandi Strella on behalf of Rethink Waste and I also have a host of me too's if that's all right.

Yep.

On behalf of the Friends Committee Legislation of California, Friends of the Earth, Green Science Policy Institute, Inner Sense Organic Beauty, Integrated Resource Management, Intelligent Nutrients, Just the Goods, Just Transition Alliance, Last Plastic Straw, Los Angeles Waterkeeper, Mamavation Non Toxic Products for Healthy Families, the National Stewardship Action Council, Naturepedic, Northern California Recycling Association, Oakland Recycles, Pacoima Beautiful, Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles, and San Francisco Bay Plastic Free Future, the Plastic Pollution Coalition, Region Monterey, the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority, Save Our Shores, Save the Bay, Social Eco Education, Sierra Club California, Skin Owl Inc, SoCal 350 Climate Action, Surfrider Foundation, the US Green Building Council California, Zero Waste Marin, Zero Waste San Diego, and Zero Waste Sonoma in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Nicole Quiñonez on behalf of the Fragrance Creators Association and the Household and Commercial Product Association, please to remove our opposition. We're officially neutral the bill and just want to thank the author, the committee and her staff for all of their hard work. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Do we have anyone in opposition to 823?

Mr. Chair and members: Mandy Isaacs Lee here on behalf of the Personal Care Products Council. I want to start off by thanking the committee and the author for really thoughtful engagement over the last couple of weeks. And I also want to recognize the tremendous forward movement with the amendments that she referenced in her comments.

We believe that the removal of subdivision c really avoids unintentionally banning a lot of key ingredients that we don't have subdivision for today in a lot of high-end cosmetics which would have had a pretty devastating impact. And now instead of talking about that bill we are focused on a glitter ban bill which I did not appreciate.

I was telling the author earlier I did not appreciate fully the significance of glitter until we started talking about this amendment but it's one of the many things you learn as you go through the legislative process. What I will say is that PCPC unfortunately has to remain opposed.

Today our members are reviewing the amendments and trying to land in a place where of compromise where we can avoid unintentionally banning glitter alternatives that our members are innovating towards. The EU also banned glitter, and we've had conversations about mimicking that structure.

I know there's some resistance perhaps to fully mimicking it, but we want to do so in a way that doesn't ban the alternatives we're moving towards.

We'd also like to engage with the author's office about a sell through date because certainly having to dispose of all of those products that are currently in commerce today will have also a negative environmental impact that we want to avoid.

So, we want to make sure we strike the right balance there and we look forward to continuing those conversations. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members: Margaret Gladstein, Capitol Advocacy here on behalf of the California Retailers Association. I too would like to thank the author for the amendments narrowing of the bill. I will align myself closely with the comments of Ms. Lee and appreciate the author's offer just seconds ago to continue working with retailers.

We are appreciative of how far this bill has come. I too was part of was ignorant of the importance of the glitterati. So, we would like very much to see this bill more closely aligned with the EU both in terms of what products are banned and the sell through date.

You know the ban on glitter will hit some consumers and retailers hard. When consumers come and they're looking for products for like glitter eyeshadow and glitter face products and things for cheer and gymnastics and dance and theater competitions. They may be disappointed not to find enough products or their favorite products on the shelf in the future.

And this invariably creates to creates negative feelings about the retailer who isn't selling them because they can't be sold. So, we would like to see the bill limited to insoluble plastic and allow for biodegradable, soluble, natural or inorganic litter and extend the deadline to align with the EU. Thank you very much.

We look forward to continuing work on this.

Appreciate it. Do we have any remaining members of the public who wish to indicate opposition?

Cody Boyles, on behalf of the California Grocery Association, we line our comments with Ms. Lee and thank the author for continuing to work with us.

Great. Thank you.

Questions from committee members? And maybe talk a little bit more about the glitter.

Well, I usually say something like probably inappropriate for public testimony about glitter.

Duly noted.

There are natural alternatives to plastic glitter. And I know when - I mean, I was a cheerleader when my daughter and I put on plastic glitter, I don't even think until I ran this bill, I didn't know what I was doing to myself and my health. And I don't think many of us do.

And I think part of the thing that we've demonstrated in just going through the first house. This is our second committee hearing, and we've already made, I think, very demonstrative efforts to be reasonable, to be rational, to be really protecting public health and environmental justice.

And so, we'll continue what we've already demonstrated in that same vein as we go forward with this bill, should it get out of committee today through Appropriations, through the floor and into the Senate. But there are natural alternatives, and that's what we want for our children.

We want our kids to be wearing glitter and having fun and all that. But we don't want to poison our children either. And I think that's the thing we all have to keep in mind.

Is that your close?

And with that, I respectfully ask for aye vote to protect the children from poisonous glitter.

More to come on glitter. Thank you for bringing the bill forward. You have been working this hard, and I know, engaging, refining the scope of the bill, which is much appreciated. This does have an ireco. I believe we did have a motion in second. Or was I imagining that? Okay.

And this is do pass to the Committee on Appropriate. Please call the roll.

This is file item number five, AB823, authored by Assemblymember Berner. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That'll remain open for additional votes.

Thank you. If I could, I'd like to thank my staff. They've done an amazing job at negotiating as well on my behalf. So, thank you and thank you to your committee staff. You guys have been awesome.

Assemblymember Soria is here. We're going to move to file item number 12. Welcome. This is Assembly Bill 1373, dealing with water quality and state certification.

Great. Thank you, Chair and members. AB 1373 increases transparency and public participation in the decisions that impact our water resources by requiring the State Water Resources Control Board to hold a public hearing on water quality certifications for hydroelectric facilities under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

It would also prohibit the board from delegating this authority to staff. Californians, especially those in the Central Valley, depend heavily on the management of hydroelectric facilities not just for clean energy, but also to manage water flows for irrigating our farmlands, providing drinking water for our communities, controlling flood, and protecting our environment.

These facilities are the economic backbone of our region. Despite this, the development and adoption of one of the key elements of hydroelectric facility management occurs behind closed doors.

401 certifications under the Clean Water Act Apply mandatory conditions that must be accepted without modification to continue operating these essential hydroelectric projects and can cause governed project operation and can - excuse me - and can govern project operation for up to 40 or 50 years.

While the current process does provide a 30-day written comment period, this is not sufficient for decisions of this magnitude. Our communities deserve the opportunity to voice their concerns directly to decision makers at a public hearing with a vote.

AB 1373 creates that opportunity by requiring the State Water Resources Control Board hold public hearing and vote on water quality certifications for hydroelectric facilities under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Here with me to testify in support of AB 1373 is Stephanie Dietz, Board of Directors for the Merced Irrigation District.

And then also Josh Weimer with Turlock Irrigation District.

Good afternoon. Chairperson Conley, Vice Chair Ellis and honorable members of the committee: I want to first and foremost thank you for the opportunity to testify today in favor of AB 1373. My name is Stephanie Dietz. I serve as an elected Board Director for the Merced Irrigation District and as Executive Director of the Community Foundation of Merced County.

I also formerly served as City Manager of Merced and held senior leadership roles in Merced County's Administration. I've spent over two decades working in and for this region.

I'm here today to express strong support for this legislation which would require that decisions on 401 water quality certifications by the State Water Resources Control Board be made by the board itself rather than delegated solely to staff.

The draft.401 certification from the State Water Board staff for MID's relicensing of its hydroelectric projects at New Exchequer and McSwain dams would have had devastating, far reaching impacts on our region.

The draft was developed without a full board vote despite the fact that its implications are massive for local farmers, families, and the future of our community's water supply. MID has a long record of environmental stewardship and collaboration. But the proposed conditions of our certification are unreasonable and, in many cases, physically or legally impossible to meet.

For example, the draft imposes water temperature targets that simply cannot be achieved given the size, inflow patterns, and storage limitations of Lake McClure. The science behind these targets appears borrowed from entirely different river systems, not the Merced River.