Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy

All right, let's call this hearing, Budget Sub 2, to order, or we'll give you a couple. And let's go ahead and establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Okay, so quorum is present. Today, as folks may know, items are vote only. So, we're going to take some public comment on the items. Members can make some comments and, and then we'll cast our votes.

But this is essentially what's been negotiated in the two-party agreement between the leadership of the Assembly and the Senate, as part of the broader negotiation with the Governor. And so, why don't we go ahead and start taking public comment and then, we'll give the Members and others opportunity to weigh in.

All right, so we got quite some—quite a few folks. So, we just ask you to be prudent with your time and people start to abuse all clamp down with an iron fist because that's what we're doing these days. Okay, carry on.

All right, well, thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Michael Pimentel here on behalf of the California Transit Association. Just want to show our thanks and support for the two-party agreement and its proposed investments in public transit.

I'll note that the plan does reject $1.1 billion in proposed cuts in the Governor's May Revise. That does fully fund our program. So, thank you. One of the things I did want to acknowledge is that we do have some remaining exposure as it relates to continuous appropriations for public transit programs, TRZP and LZ Top.

Understand that that will be subject to discussion in the cap-and-trade negotiations that are to follow. We want to uplift the importance of maintaining our continued investments through 2030 and seeing those continued investments extended beyond 2030 as we build toward a cap-and-trade expenditure plan, carrying us forward through at least 2045.

So, thank you again and appreciate the time to be before you.

Mr. Chair and Senators, Brendan Repicky on behalf of VIA Transportation. We're a micro transit company that works with local governments, school districts, and transit agencies all over California to provide clean, on-demand micro transit services. We supported the Governor's Proposal in January for CARB Sustainable Community Strategies programs.

These help disadvantaged communities all over the state access clean transportation options. Unfortunately, these were zeroed out last month and have not yet been restored as cap invest discussions continue. Urge the Legislature to prioritize the restoration. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members. From—I'm here on behalf of two people this time. First, on behalf of Generac Power Systems and Ecobee Smart Thermostats, I'd like to say thank you for, you know, rejecting the, the cap and—some of the cap-and-trade allocations—that the Governor had asked for.

We look forward to having more conversations in the coming months in those negotiations.

On behalf of the California Water Association, I would like to thank the Legislature for including language in the—I know that Prop 4 expenditure plan is still, you know, not in, it's not included in SB 101, but in the agenda, it was included that projects with federal funding will be prioritized for demand—distributed electricity backup assets program.

And I want to express our appreciation for that. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Ellie Fenton Sutliff on behalf of Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy for the California Solar and Storage Association. We are very concerned about the possibility of this year's budget not including new funding for the CEC's demand side grid support and for distributed electricity backup asset programs.

Both programs are crucial to California having affordable, reliable, and clean electricity grid. In particulary, instead of—in particular—instead of providing new funding, this year's budget bill takes $18 million away from DSGS. Without new funding this year, we risk discouraging participation this summer and next summer. We can't afford to lose this reliability resource.

We strongly encourage the legislature to provide funding for DSGS and DEBA in this year's budget. Thank you.

Hello. Pilar Onate-Quintana here for the Yuba Water Agency and Irvine Ranch Water District. As the—we're part of the Dam Safety Funding Coalition, of course.

We would request that as the Legislature continues its work to allocate Prop 4 funds, we urge that, at minimum, the Governor's original proposed $231.5 million in Prop 4 dam safety monies for this year ultimately be approved by the Legislature.

Appropriating funding for this program was a subject of strong bipartisan support by legislative signatories to a budget letter that was spearheaded by Assemblywoman Papan. And in the context of that letter, we were grateful for the support of Committee Members Choi and Blakespear.

While different Prop 4 programs are in different stages, the Dam Safety Program is poised for immediate impact and success, given the excellent guidelines developed by DWR. In fact, an initial solicitation for the General Fund monies that had existed at only $50 million generated 369 million in responses for 72 projects.

So, again, we appreciate the Legislature's support for improving dam safety statewide and urge you to appropriate the funding for this critical public safety program.

Good afternoon, Chair, Committee. I'm Jennifer Pierre with the State Water Contractors. First, I just want to comment on the removal of funding for the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, which is a program that's a combination of environmental water that would nearly fill Folsom Lake.

It's a significant amount of water dedicated to the environment and tens of thousands of habitat acres throughout the Central Valley in the Delta Watershed. It is nearly complete. It is ready for implementation. We've already implemented 40 habitat restoration projects.

The State Water Project took its water actions this year and others are ready to go as soon as the state board takes an action. It's shortsighted and contrary to the co-equal goals of the State of habitat restoration and water supply reliability to not fund the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program.

It protects the environment, it protects the economy, and it does so in the most affordable and quickest way possible. The Board's adoption of Phase One, which was their first phase of the plan in 2018, has still not been implemented. Not a single part of it's been implemented.

We are ready to go as soon as the Board takes action, and this funding is critical to do that. I also just want to comment on the deference of the Delta Conveyance Project Trailer Bill Language. Every day that that's deferred is a million and a half dollars to ratepayers.

And this project is necessary and it is inevitable and all we're doing is making it cost more. Thanks.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of Oceana, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, San Diego Humane Society, Occidental Arts and Ecology Center, and the California Wildlife Officers Foundation. We want to express our gratitude to this Committee and to your Assembly corollary.

And I'll name check Senator Blakespear and Assemblymember Connolly specifically for leading the charge on the conversation that undoubtedly led to the legislative budget proposing to hold on the sweep of vacant positions. There are about 6,000 of those positions, hundreds of which are critical roles in natural resources and environmental protection departments.

We urge the Administration to concur with the Legislature and work with you to carefully assess the impacts that losing these positions would have on conservation programs, permitting, and enforcement. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies. Would like to support the comments made by my colleague, Jennifer Pierre, with the State Water Contractors on the Healthy River and Landscapes Program. This funding is critical.

These type of projects are urgently needed, regardless of what decision the State Water Resources Control Board makes related to the pending Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan and would just support the continued funding there. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Ivy Brittain with the Northern California Water Association, here today in opposition for the significant budget cuts proposed for the Healthy Rivers and Landscape Program and would just like to echo State Water Contractors and Association of California Water Agencies that funding is really needed for important habitat and ecosystem restoration projects that we're on the ground completing.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kim Delfino on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon California, California Native Plant Society, and the Power and Nature Coalition. I'll just align my comments with those made by Jennifer Fearing with a big thank you for the deferral of the cutting of the open positions, especially for the resource agency and departments.

With respect to the—also, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and Golden State Salmon Association, want to thank the effort to reject the two Delta trailer bills and defer that to the policy process. We believe that's the best outcome and want to thank Senator McNerney for your efforts on that.

And we would also support the proposed reversion of the $351.7 million of General Fund for the supposed Healthy Rivers Program, which is basically the voluntary agreements program, which is actually not producing a good outcome for the Delta.

And we would ask that with respect to Issue 36 on the Olympic Trailer Bills that we work with the California Coastal Commission on, trying to just make sure that that language gets right and appreciate all of the efforts. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Jacy Hyde. I'm the Executive Director for the California Fire Safe Council and I'm here today to thank you for your support for the Wildfire County Coordinators Program in this year's budget. The program establishes critical local capacity in 47 California counties to implement home hardening, defensible space, community education, and other wildfire mitigation strategies.

The County Coordinators are a cornerstone investment in our state's Wildfire Resilience Strategy and CFSC has been delivering this program in partnership with CAL FIRE since 2021 to tremendous success on the ground. We look forward to building on that momentum to implement the goals of the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force Action Plan.

So, thank you so much for your support of the Wildfire County Coordinators.

Hi, my name is Ellon Brittingham with Full Moon Strategies, here on behalf of San Diego Community Power. We're a community choice aggregator wanting to express our support for Issue Number 46 on Agenda Part B, relating to trailer bill language for the Self Generation Incentive Program, known as SGIP. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Chris Anderson on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. Just want to echo the comments of State Water Contractors, in terms of our opposition to the reversion of funding for the Healthy Rivers Program, as well as our opposition to moving the Delta Conveyance Budget Trailer Bill to the policy process. Thank you.

Alex Loomer on behalf of California Trout and Pacific Forest Trust. Just echoing previous comments, thanking you all for not sweeping the positions of the state agencies. These are all really critical and we're happy to see these remain. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Allen and Members. Megan Cleveland with the Nature Conservancy. We appreciate the work of the Senate and the Assembly and Staff to formulate the two-party agreement. We appreciate the Legislature rejecting some of the GGRF appropriations that were proposed in the May Revise.

And as part of the ongoing Cap and Invest negotiations, we look forward to working with you to secure multiyear funding for nature-based climate solutions. We also look forward to working with the Legislature to craft a Prop 4 expenditure plan that ensures these investments remain dedicated to their intended purpose.

This will provide the greatest public benefit and uphold the will of the voters. And then, finally, I'd like to echo the previous comments and thanking the legislation Legislature for deferring the cuts to the open positions at the resources agencies. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Jason Eichert, on behalf of the Citrus Heights Water District and the California Municipal Utilities Association. Very briefly, we are opposed to your staff proposals on the Healthy Rivers funding.

You've already heard the reasons why that funding is so important but just want to add on behalf of Citrus Heights Water District, we are, in fact, under contract already for an important project that increases the state's water resilience and its sustainability of its water supply over time.

This proposal in Issue 69 will directly impact the ability to continue working on that project. So, we urge you to leave this funding in place. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Andrew Antwih with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange, on behalf of a number of clients. First, on behalf of LA Metro and Metrolink, align ourselves with the comments made by the California Transit Association. Our heartfelt thanks for rejecting the cuts.

We look forward to the ongoing conversations regarding Cap and Trade, Cap and Invest, and exactly how the final negotiation proves out on that. And on behalf of Advanced Energy United, relative to DSGS, AEU is part of a large coalition of clean energy industry and environmental organizations that support restoring funding to DSGS.

That program has helped the state get through grid emergencies using clean energy since 2022. Its capacity has doubled in size over the last year, reaching up to 1,000 megawatts, over a third of the capacity of all peaker plants and contracts for those facilities.

It will run out of funds after the 2025 summer if we don't fund it this year, wasting all the private investment that's already been made in that program. And it leverages equipment like home batteries and smart thermostats instead of using polluting peaker plants.

And we encourage the Legislature to find a solution that doesn't result in that program being defunded. And on behalf of the Port of Los Angeles, relative to the ongoing cap-and-trade investment negotiations, we encourage retention of the investments in zero-emission vehicle funding.

We hope that we can be part of a solution that actually preserves that commitment. Understanding cap invest is going into extra innings with respect to the budget negotiations. So, thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Vince Wertmaja with MCE, California's first CCA. We would like to align ourselves with SDCP's comments and echo their gratitude for including Agenda Item 46, the budget language clarifying CCA eligibility to receive SGP funding. These funds will not only reduce bills for ratepayers but also help support grid reliability.

Thank you again for your work on this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for Peninsula Clean Energy, the CCA serving San Mateo County as well as the City of Los Banos. Align comments with previous speaker. Really appreciate all the effort to clarify the SGP eligibility for CCA customers and then, on behalf of the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts and the California Council of Land Trusts, would echo the comments from Nature Conservancy.

Really appreciate the Legislature's approach on GGRF and look forward to working with you to find some funding for nature-based solutions. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Chloe Ames with NextGen California. We also want to echo previous comments by starting off and thanking the Legislature for your commitment to taking your time on the Cap-and-Trade Program reauthorization and look forward to working with the Legislature to strengthen the program.

We also want to thank the Legislature for rejecting much of the proposed budget cuts to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and Proposition 4. However, we do continue to oppose using the General Fund—or using Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund—and Proposition 4 to backfill the General Fund.

Both of these programs are critical to funding various climate programs across the state and as a climate leader, we see them as necessary to continue to use the legislative intent for both programs. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the Delta Counties Coalition, just want to thank you and express our appreciation for the staff recommendation to move the Delta Conveyance Project to a policy space. It never belonged in the budget, and we appreciate your all's concurrence on that.

And of course, a special thank you to Senator McNerney who represents much of the Delta, for all of the work you've done up to now and in the future. Thank you very much.

Hi. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Molly Corcoran, on behalf of Growth Energy and National Biofuels Association, in regard to Item 19 in Part B of today's agenda. We're in support of CARBS BCP for the E15 fuel specification, as presented in the Governor's Budget, with $2.3 million ongoing from the Air Pollution Control Fund for 10 permanent positions to complete the regulatory process to authorize the use of fuels with up to 15% ethanol.

The Legislature's two-party agreement only provides this funding for two years which puts completing the regulations and ongoing implementation at risk. Approving the use of E15 in California is estimated to save California drivers as much as 20 cents per gallon and will reduce tailpipe emissions compared to E10.

We appreciate the Legislature's acknowledgment of funding for E15 in the two-party agreement but urge funding to be appropriated on an ongoing, rather than limited term, basis. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Brandon Wong on behalf of a couple of clients. First, for CALSTART, really want to thank the Legislature for directing Hino Motor Settlement dollars to HVIP, as part of the two-party agreement.

This funding is going to be crucial to reopening that Clean Truck Incentive Program at what's a really critical moment at this point. And on behalf of the California State Parks Foundation, we're disappointed to see that the Legislature is rejecting this year's appropriation of $6.75 million for the State Library Parks Pass Program.

This has been really critical in allowing Californians to have meaningful access to the outdoors and promoting environmental stewardship throughout the state and so, we hope you reconsider this particular item as you guys continue to have these negotiations. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Kurt Kimmelshue, here today on behalf of the Regional Water Authority. I want to echo some of the comments from some of my colleagues, in regards to the voluntary agreements, or what we refer to as Healthy Rivers and Landscape, RWA, specifically on Items 4 and Item 69, are concerned with the approach to oppose the continued funding of those agreements.

I want to echo the comments of one of our members from Citrus Heights Water District that illustrated that currently, RWA is in contract with the Department of Water Resources for $55 million and we have been for two years. That $55 million is coming out of these funds that are potentially under the Legislature's budget being rejected. RWA has invoiced DWR, to date, for $23.5 million of that $55 million and has received over $10 million of those invoices.

However, based on the Staff Report, it's unclear to us if the remaining $45 million of that $55 million project, which is under contract, is in jeopardy. And so, if that's the case, we obviously have some strong concerns with potentially rejecting that funding and would urge you to fund the program at the highest levels. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chris Rosa, on behalf of NRDC Action Fund. We appreciate the Legislature's decision to take the time needed to work through the complexities of cap-and-trade reauthorization.

We encourage the Legislature, during this process, to use the GGRF to fund the most critical programs that holistically and equitably reduce emissions and improve air quality, including electric vehicles and building decarbonization. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Matt Easley, representing the Associated General Contractors of California, here in opposition to the proposal to exempt the SB 253 and 261 regulations from SRIAs. SRIAs are really important accountability and transparency requirements that help us to understand the impacts on jobs and the state's economic competitiveness. Thank you.

Hello. Cynthia Cortez with Restore the Delta. I want to thank you for rejecting the trailer bills for the Delta Conveyance Project and water quality control plans, and for the reversion of funds for the voluntary agreements. Special, special thanks to Senator McNerney for continuing to be a champion for the Delta.

And on behalf of the Delta communities that we represent, we really want to thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Allen, Members of the Committee. My name is John Kendrick, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. I'd like to direct your attention to Agenda Part B, Item 27, which is an effort to exempt SB 253 and 261 rulemaking from SRIA and CEQA.

From our perspective, it's very interesting that these bills, which were presented as being about transparency and accountability, are now being exempted from statutes that squarely address transparency and accountability. It's kind of a "good enough for thee but not for me" approach to governing. We find that problematic.

I'd like to read a few quotes that the Legislative Analyst Office has said in the past that SRIA has increased the consistency of agency analysis and as a result of additional DOF oversight, agency analyses of proposed rules are often more robust and higher quality.

The Cal OSHA has said that the SRIA process surfaced many instances of confusion regarding the intent of regulations and their related requirements. Subsequent revision of the proposed regulations helped refine the intent, which was viewed as very productive and a useful benefit of the SRIA process.

The Department of Finance has said, we know major regulations implemented by one department may have unknown side effects on other state agencies or result in reimbursable state mandates. The SRIA process provides an opportunity to analyze these side effects but exempting certain major regulations from this analysis risks creating costs on other state agencies or reimbursable state mandates.

So, I urge you, if you're going to look at SB 253 and 261 as being about transparency and accountability, the rulemaking should be transparent and accountable as well. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Skyler Wanaka, here on behalf of the California Business Properties Association and our members, the Building Owners and Managers Association of California and NAOP California. Here for the previous item as well.

We align our comments with the California Chamber of Commerce and we're here in strong opposition to the proposal to exempt SB 253 and 261 from SRIA and CEQA. These measures will have major impacts on property owners and logistics operations across the state of California.

Skipping economic and environmental review removes key protections that ensure regulators are workable and grounded in real world impacts. We urge you to reject this attempt to sidestep transparency and accountability. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Allen and Members of the Committee. Natalie Brown of the Planning and Conservation League. We thank the Committee for the rejection of the Delta Conveyance and Water Quality Control Plan trailer bills that would have had sweeping harmful consequences for Delta ecosystems, communities statewide, safe drinking water, and financial burdens on Californians.

We also support the Committee's proposed reversion of over $351 million in voluntary agreement funding to General Fund dollars that can better serve California's needs. Also, a major thank you for your work to suspend the proposed DFW position sweeps, helping to protect critical environmental programs and the ability for efficient permitting. Thank you guys so much.

Hi, Matteo Kushner, Community Water Center. Our organization is very supportive of the framework proposed so far by the Senate and Assembly.

We recognize there's still a lot of work to do in the months ahead, but namely, we would like to express our support for the reduction in GGRF spending from the Governor's initial May Revise Proposal as this funding is limited and plays a critical role for a variety of programs directly benefiting environmental justice communities, in areas such as affordable housing, transit, and notably, safe drinking water through the SAFER Program.

And it's critical to continue providing resources under SAFER, such as emergency water supplies that support long-term solutions on an ongoing basis and stable funding is key to ensuring relationships with impacted communities can continue so solutions can be delivered.

Furthermore, given the projected budget deficits for this year and the next, we'd like to urge the Legislature to protect these funds from being used as ongoing backfill and ensure that existing continuous appropriations and reauthorization of the Cap-and-Trade Program remain separate from the budget process.

And lastly, we'd like to express support of the proposed loan of $16.4 million from the Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund to support the 22 existing positions implementing and enforcing SGMA.

SGMA is currently at a critical point in implementation and preserving these positions provides the state with staffing resources to ensure progress is being made toward mitigating the worst impacts of subsidence and overdraft. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Meg Snider. I'm with Axiom, here on behalf of Renew Home and Prolex. We hope to see the Demand Side Grid Support Program and the Distributed Electricity Backup Assets Program funded to the 2024 budget deal and to the 2025 January budget.

We think that these two programs are critical as we head into summer to promote grid reliability and reduce our reliance on peaker plants. And then, on behalf of Rewiring America, we hope to see a $400 million investment from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for the CEC's Equitable Building Decarbonization Program.

As we see, this investment could help serve an additional 12,000 households and also reduce carbon emissions by 224,000 tons of carbon. So, thank you for your consideration.

Good afternoon, Chair Allen, Members of the Committee. Sarah Pollo Moo with the California Retailers Association, commenting today also on Agenda Part B, Item 27. We also align our comments with the California Chamber of Commerce and CBPA. The California Retailers Association is very concerned about the proposed exemption of the SRIA process for SB 253 and SB 261.

The standardized regulatory impact analysis is a cornerstone of regulatory rulemaking and ensures that major regulations have proper independent financial analysis. These bills involve hundreds of millions in compliance costs for businesses and their being exempted from SRIA will prevent the public and regulated community from receiving all the information on the full impact these laws will have.

These proposed exemptions from SRIA and CEQA for SB 253 and SB 261 in the form of a budget trailer bill removes a critical, structured, transparent, and evidence-based framework for evaluating the effects of these regulations.

Without SRIA and CEQA, we will not have an adequate understanding of the potential costs of SB 253 and 261, including direct and indirect effects on businesses, consumers, and the state agency tasked with implementing these laws. We ask that this Subcommitee reject this proposal. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. Marie Liu, on behalf of the Leadership Council. Thank you for moving the CEQA discussion on the water quality control plans to the policy process. We look forward to working with you on the continued conversations on how 607 and—SB 607—and AB 609 will be incorporated into the budget process.

CEQA provides critical transparency and environmental impact reductions, which is especially critical for communities such that LCGA represents. Also, thank you for delaying the cap-and-trade discussion to give some additional time to make sure that the program is successfully reducing GHG reductions.

We look—we appreciate—the reduction of the CAL FIRE backfill and we look forward to working with you all to make sure that the remaining dollars of DGRF can be expended in a way that truly protects and helps communities, specifically the SAFER Program. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members....here on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association and the American Chemistry Council, here to address Part B, Item 27. We'd like to echo the concerns you've heard about the legislative proposal to exempt SB 253 and SB 261 from the standardized regulatory impact analysis and the CEQA requirements.

A SRIA ensures that agencies rigorously evaluate the economic impacts of proposed regulations that are expected to have significant statewide effects. We see no reason to make an exception for SB 253 and SB 261. We urge you to reject this proposal. Thank you.

John McHale, on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. We're also here in opposition to Issue Number 27. Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Briana Castro. I'm with Central California Asthma Collaborative. We are a nonprofit serving the San Joaquin Valley through research, advocacy, and direct services. I'm here today to urge you to ensure that 2025-2026 state budget continues to fully fund and strengthen the AB 617.

This program is a vital tool for communities threatened by pollution and the budget must reflect a strong commitment to its success. A key piece of this continued support for Local Community Emissions Reduction Programs, or LCERPs. These community-developed plans allow for targeted emissions reductions in areas most impacted by air pollution.

To ensure LCERPs are effective, they must be formally approved by air districts and treated with the same weight and funding eligibility as other emissions reduction plans. As federal environmental justice funding remains uncertain, California must continue to lead. AB 617 and especially LSERPs have demonstrated their value. Now is the time to invest, not retreat.

Thank you for your time and for your continued leadership on clean air, equity, and community health. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Charles Watson, on behalf of BART, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, echoing the comments of the California Transit Association and other transit agencies. Just want to express our appreciation and support for the rejection of the proposed cuts for transit funding and we look forward to the ongoing discussions on cap-and-trade and GGRF. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Alexandra Biering, California Farm Bureau. I echo some of the concerns brought by some of the other water users and organizations with regards to the proposed cuts for Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program funding.

Every year—2025 is going to be a really important year for this and every year that goes by that we don't make investments in habitat for fish and other sorts of improvements is a year lost in terms of building climate resiliency for fish populations and other beneficial users of water in the Delta Watershed. Thank you.

Elizabeth Esquivel with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. We have comments on—two different comments—on Part B of the agenda. First, on Item Number 27, expressing our opposition to the proposed exemption—of the exempt of SRIA process for SB 253 and SB 261.

We do think that these are major regulations with potentially significant economic impact and it's critical that they undergo proper analysis. The next item is on Item number 48 with cap-and-trade reauthorization. We do urge the Legislature to advance this as a clean reauthorization through the budget process to provide the stability for the market and CMTA manufacturers.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Dawn Kempke, on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, CCEEB, on two items. First, Issue 83, related to the Department of Toxic Substances control's generation and handling fee. CCEEB does have concerns with regard to the new staff positions. I believe it's nine under that proposal, as well as the regulatory development for exemptions.

We have concerns that not only through that process, but also some legislation that's been moving through the legislative process around caps on generation handling fees for certain segments and sectors will have added cost pressures and result in other generators having to subsidize those other types of industries unfairly.

So, do look forward to further conversations with the Budget Subcommittees in both houses, as well as the policy committees on that issue and Administration. Urge us to perhaps have a convening in the fall to discuss the, you know, what we believe to be the unsustainable nature of kind of those fee structures.

Additionally, on Issue Number 67, related to the Delta Conveyance Project, CCEEB is in strong support of the Delta Conveyance Project and does have concerns about moving that into the policy process, which could result in longer delays in advancing that and streamlining those processes, but while not impacting the environmental reviews that have been well underway and are required.

So, we would urge the Legislature to take that up as soon as possible. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Noam Elroi with two separate comments. On behalf of the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, we want to say thank you for the funding shift to DTSC for the Biomonitoring Program.

And then on behalf of the California Compost Coalition and Rethink Waste, we just want to express a hope that we will see some funding, whether from GGRF or General Fund or the larger GRGRF talk, for organics diversion and 1383 goals as they are a very cost-efficient way to reduce emissions and ratepayer costs. Thank you very much.

Hello again. Ellon Brittingham here to provide comment on behalf of the Renewable Fuels Association. Just wanted to outline our comments with Growth, who spoke previously on Issue 19 in Agenda Part B, to support the proposal on E15 fuel specification. Thank you.

Hi. Daniela Garcia Hernandez with the Western States Petroleum Association and we are here to align our comments with my colleague from Cal Chamber, regarding Issue Number 27. Thank you.

Hello, I am Mariah Lawertzen, representing the Resource Renewal Institute and the California Water Impact Network. We oppose the trailer bills and want to thank you for rejecting them. These trailer bills would have interrupted the established process for the Delta Tunnel, undermined environmental protections, and shut out community voices. These trailer bills do not belong in the budget process.

They should be deferred to the policy process, and we support cutting the voluntary agreement funding. The voluntary agreements do not protect the Delta, which is already under threat due to excessive diversions. This funding could be better spent on other projects to benefit the citizens of California. Thank you.

Chair and Members, Jerry Desmond on three specific issues. For Recreational Boaters of California, express our support for the direction being given in the budget bill to direct state parks to identify approaches to remedy the harbors of watercraft revolving fund deficiency, with real proposals that come back to the Legislature.

The recreational boating community also supports the action that's being taken to defer or reject the Delta Conveyance Project and require that it come to the policy committees in that process.

We think that's worthy of that process. And then, also, on behalf of Plumbing Manufacturers International to express our concerns with the SRIA exemption for the SB 253 and SB 261 regulations. We think it's important that that process apply there as well. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Members of the Committee. Valerie Torella, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Want to make a few statements. First, we appreciate the approval of the GRIP 2 Grants item to enable PGE to obtain the 400 million in federal funds we applied to under the Biden Administration.

We support the trailer bill to reallocate Cal-shaped funding back to our customers that paid for that program to Emergency Load Reduction Program or other uses for our customers.

With regard to the extension of EPIC, just want to note that it is ratepayer funded. It's collected through the Public Purpose program charges, and our position is that all Public Purpose Program, PPP, as it's known, funding should be shifted to the General Fund or other funding source outside of ratepayers, independent of the merits of any of those programs.

With regard to Prop 4, we do appreciate the restoring of the intent of the ballot measure to provide incremental funding, rather than backfilling. We fully support funding CAL FIRE and any efforts to mitigate wildfire risk in California. And finally, appreciate the recognition of the need to urgently extend cap-and-trade.

We look forward to engaging with the Legislature, all of you, and furthering a program that is the most cost-effective means to achieve greenhouse gas reductions. Our position is that we should leverage cap-and-trade to provide cost savings to our customers in the form of additional allowances, maximizing the climate credit, and using GJRF. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Dan Chow on behalf of two CCAs, Clean Power Alliance and Ava Community Energy, here in support of Item 46, the trailer bill language regarding the Self Generation Incentive Program. Greatly appreciate your support for that.

It's unfortunate that we actually have to push for this language since the PUC has the authority today to allow low-income customers of CCA statewide to pursue solar and storage options to help reduce their bills and increase their resiliency. They can do so now today but greatly appreciate your support for this language.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members, Molly Colton. On behalf of Sierra Club California and our half a million members and supporters statewide, we oppose the Delta Tunnel and Bay Delta Plan CEQA exemption trailer bills and agree with the staff recommendation to reject the trailer bills pertaining to issues 67 and 68 on today's agenda.

Additionally, we're in strong support of the reversion of General Fund money that was supposed to be used for the faulty and inadequate voluntary agreements. Thank you.

Well, thank you. Thank you everyone for your participation and your comments. This is now an opportunity if Members have anything they want to say. We've got an A, B and C role here where Senator Choi is either going to be voting aye, no or abstain.

But I do want to give the chance to Members to make comments if they have any. It's okay if you don't, but I do. Yeah. Okay. Senator Choi.

Yeah. I appreciate the Chairman's effort for this very complicated budget bill and Subcommitee bill. And so many people have expressed wide variety of satisfactions or dissatisfactions.

This is a very wide level of concerns and bills we are talking about covering natural resources, you name it includes a lot of things, energy and air quality, transportation, public safety, habitat restoration, delta conveyance, wild, wildfire issues, cap and trade restoration, reauthorization projects, to name a few.

So much issues involved with the $120 billion budget deficit unfortunately our state is facing. I wish we had plenty surplus so we can satisfy all the needs that we hear on these tire. But with this anticipated budget, I think we have to really streamline and tighten our belts. And some will be happy, some won't be happy.

And that's the reason I will support some of the bills and hopefully majority of the bills. Some will be. I'll be objecting opposing the bills and some I may abstain from voting. But these are my priorities that will be reflected in my vote.

So I hear your voices, but I will do my best in prioritizing, reflecting my thoughts and my philosophy and my what I believe in and in terms of with the budget that we are facing this particular year of $120 billion.

Okay, thank you. Well, thank you to the public who came and did public testimony. I appreciated hearing all the different feedback. I just wanted to make, make a few General comments that I'm really grateful for. A lot of things that we see in this budget sub. I know for the process for us.

We hear from experts and people who are working for our important agencies and then it goes into a bit of a process where we're not sure what's going to come out until it actually comes out. So then it did in the last couple days, and we were able to see it.

And there are a lot of things that are really great, and I just wanted to highlight a couple of them that I was really happy about. So one of them had to do with the Department vacancy sweeps. That did seem to me like it was a very broad brush approach and did not have the precision that's needed.

It's important that we rightsize government and that we fill positions and have positions that are needed. And that changes as time changes. But we also need to recognize that our agencies have a mission they're trying to accomplish. And just because a position happens to be open doesn't mean that it's not needed.

So spending another year to do an analysis of which of these positions are needed and which aren't, and we could have some cost savings by eliminating them. To me, that seems like the right process. And so I was really grateful for that.

And I know I was advocating for at least for 339 positions in three agencies, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Parks, and then the State Water Resources Control Board, because that's what's under the purview of this budget sub.

But it was interesting to see that the Department vacancy sweeps issue, it was really what was rejected by the Legislature was eliminating 6,000 vacant positions. And so that's just across all sorts of different areas. Public health and safety and other things, not just natural resources and environmental protection.

So doing more of a fine brush analysis, I think, is what's called for, and I'm grateful to see that. I also wanted to mention that I'm happy the Delta conveyance is coming back to being a policy discussion. At some level, it seemed like it was inappropriately placed into the budget and it should go through policy committees.

So I was happy about that. I also just wanted to mention a little bit of a concern about the state park's library pass program.

I think there's always this big picture question of whether we should be subsidizing only people who are low income or are in certain categories, like, for example, veterans or seniors or in fourth grade, and that they would get subsidies versus everybody else who would have to pay. And just the reflection on the fact that people go.

If they go to their library and they check out a pass because they want to go camping that weekend, and it's worth it to them to save the money associated with paying the entrance fee because they're balancing their own family's budget, you know, that's something that is the Legislature's proposal is to have that not be expanded.

So the Governor had proposed expanding that with 6.7 million of a General Fund transfer. And so and I recognize that there are these different categories where people are still able to access it, the Golden Bear pass, the fourth Grade Adventure pass and the Distinguished Veteran pass.

But I do just like people might be able to afford to buy a book, but they go to the library to check it out or that kind of thing. It seems like to me checking out more passes to go to a state park would be something that would be of benefit, of generalized benefit.

So that was something that I noticed in our proposal, which I'm not sure I totally support. But that's okay. I just wanted to go on record about that. And then there are many things in the clean energy space which are more technical. But and so I won't go into those.

But I do think that what we've done in this Subcommitee has been really good work. And I want to commend the chair and the staff for all the hard work and listening very closely to what you heard and incorporating that into the feedback that's relayed up the chain. I really appreciate that.

And with that, those are my comments and I'll yield back.

Sarah McCre. first of all, I want to thank the chair and the staff for their hard work putting this together. It was complicated. There's a lot of interest in this one way or another. It was interesting and good to hear the public comments. Every one of those represents a valid viewpoint and they should be considered.

Some of them stood out as being repeated over and over, and I think that's important to take that into consideration. I do appreciate that the Committee is not going to be including the Delta conveyance in the budget and using that as a policy issue, which is where it belongs.

And otherwise, I look forward to getting this budget out. Thank you. All right.

Well, I want to reiterate thanks to our great staff on both sides of the aisle for all their work in helping to pull this together.

And thank you to the Members for all the great discussions we've had and all the folks who participated from LAO Department of Finance as well, who've helped us as we shaped our opinions and thoughts about this process. So with that, I've got I'm going to do I'm going to.

Okay, so we'll start with we'll just go right through this chart, which basically is six categories of of items. So we will start with areas where we have unanimity. So as in, all four Members have expressed an interest in voting for the item. This is part A of the Natural Resources.

So we're talking about issues 3, 6-9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16-20, 23, 26-30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 70, 71, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, and 88.

So with that, I'll entertain a motion. Okay, so we'll hold a vote on those items from part A. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay, so that those items have received a four to zero vote. Let's now go to part B in the same category. These are items that. It's my understanding we have unanimity on this Committee. So part B. Energy and air quality issues. 1, 3, 12-16, 19, 21, 29, 31, 33, 35-42, 45, 48.

I'll entertain a motion for those items. Okay, so that's been moved. Secretary, please call a vote on those items from Port B.

[Roll call]

Okay, so those items have been passed on unanimous vote. Now, the next series of items. It's my understanding that Senator Choi desires to vote no. So let's. Let's look at these. Part A, natural resources issues. 10,15, 21, 72 and 83. I'll entertain a motion. I'll move from Senator Blakespear. Secretary, please call the roll on those items.

[Roll call]

Okay, well, next, entertain a motion. We're going to look at part B. Energy, air and quality issues 2, 4-8, 10, 17, 18, 20-28, 30, 32, 34, 46, and 47. Moved by Senator Blakespear. Secretary, please call the roll on those items.

[Roll call]

Okay, the next series of items. My understanding that Senator Choi intends to abstain. So let's go through these items. This is part A. Natural resources issues. 1, 2, 4, 5, 22, 24, 25, 31, 34, 37, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 51, 56, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78.

I'll entertain a motion for those items. I'll move it. Move by Senator McNerney. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay, so those items are done with a three to zero vote, one abstention. Okay, finally, part B. Energy and air quality issues. 9,11, 43, 44 and 49. We'll entertain a motion.

I'll move.

Move by Senator Blakespear. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay, thank you, Members. That is our work for the day. I'm sure we'll have a hearing soon on some important topic, but it's as yet unknown when, so. Appreciate it. Thank you, everyone, for your participation. We'll adjourn this hearing.