Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

Good morning, everybody. Welcome. It's nice to see you all here in room 112 of the historic and working State Capitol. This is the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, and we encourage all Members of the Committee to come down to room 112 so that we can get going.

Our Committee announcements for today are that the following file items will not be heard. Item number 12, which is AB605 from Assemblymember Marisucci, number 16, AB911 from Assemblymember Carrillo, and number 21, AB1244 from Assemblymember Wicks. So we have a consent calendar, which we'll get to when we have a quorum.

But we do have an author here, so we will begin as a Subcommitee. And we will invite Assemblymember Alvarez to come forward and present his first Bill, which is number two, AB30.

Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members and staff. Really an honor to be here before you today to present Assembly Bill 30, cleaner, cheaper fuels Act. And I would like to begin by thanking staff for the work on the measure and for the analysis.

Assembly Bill 30 would authorize the E15 gasoline blend, which includes up to 15% of ethanol for sale in California. That brings California in line with 49 other states, the rest of the country, which already allows for the sale of E15 to give consumers a more affordable option of gas for their cars.

The reason this bill is needed is due to regulatory delays that we've seen from the Air Resources Board. According to the Senate analysis, regulatory approval at CARB should take two to five years.

CARB initiated the regulatory approval for E15 seven years ago in 2018, and CARB estimates at least another full year may be needed to complete their rulemaking. That's eight years and counting. Last October, Governor Newsom sent a letter directing CARB to expedite the rulemaking and welcomed a partnership with the legislature.

Assembly Bill 30 responds to that by approving E15 for sale and for use while still preserving CARB's ability to complete that regulatory process. By approving this bill, California drivers could expect to see up to 20 cents per gallon reduction of their cost of gas, according to the recent study by UC Berkeley.

The bill also has an urgency clause so that it can take effect immediately upon the governor's signature. AB30 has received strong support from a diverse coalition, including organizations representing small businesses, seniors, and many others.

I want to take also a moment to recognize the work done by the Problem Solvers Caucus who is sponsoring this issue that we've worked on over the last several months. And I'd like to now introduce Neil Koehler with the Renewable Fuels Association for testimony.

Thank you. Neil Koehler with Renewable Fuels Association representing ethanol producers, four of whom are in the great State of California. Urge your support of this bill.

Very important bipartisan, common sense way to increase supplies of clean burning fuels, reducing emissions, lowering cost and addressing affordability and tailpipe emissions and greenhouse gas emissions are reduced significantly by just going to a higher blend of ethanol. And would urge your support.

Okay, thank you very much. Are there any other support witnesses in the room who would like to come forward?

Good morning. Steve Wallauch on behalf of [unintelligible] in support of the bill.

Hi, Ellen Brittingham. I've got a couple of orgs here in support, so I'm just going to read off my list. Thank you. The Multicultural Business Alliance, the California League of United Latin American Citizens, California Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, CalPACE, Los Amigos De La Comunidad incorporated, Association of U.S. Army Southern California, the National Federation of Independent Business, and the Marine Corps League, Department of California. Thank you.

Good morning. John Moffatt for the Alliance for Automotive Innovation in support.

Good morning. Chris Mowrer for Growth Energy in support. Thanks.

Good morning. Dylan Finley. I've been asked to list California Chamber of Commerce's support to this bill.

Jack Yanos, we have the California Fuels Convenience Alliance in support.

Steven Fenaroli with the California Farm Bureau in support.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else in the room in support? Seeing none, we will go to opposition. Is there anybody wishing to come forward? Present for two minutes in opposition? Okay, seeing none. Anybody in the room wishing to express opposition? Okay, seeing none, we will come back to the committee. Any questions, Vice Chair?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And first of all, I want to thank the author for championing this bill that is a priority bill for the Problem Solvers Caucus. I am a co author on this bill as well. And I rarely miss the opportunity to bring up the fact that my district is a super commuter district.

I have hundreds of thousands of people that leave the high desert every day to go down to LA or down the hill towards Fontana for work. And one of the number one things that we complain about in my district is not only traffic, but the price of gas. And just yesterday, gas, the gas tax went up.

With two refineries closing in this state, it's projected that gas could be anywhere between eight and even $12 a gallon, which is absolutely terrifying for my district. People are struggling to put gas in their cars to pay for groceries, you name it.

And this this bill right here is probably one of the most common sense bills I've seen come through this committee and through the legislature in a long time. And it really looks to not only try and help California meet our climate goals, but actually looks at the affordability crisis and how it's going to reduce cost for commuters.

So I'm just so thankful for your work on this bill and I will be supporting this. Obviously, I'm a co author and just wanted to express my huge thank you.

Thank you.

I'll just invite anybody else who would like to come forward and support our opposition in the room to go. Go ahead if you missed the opportunity before. It's still open. Okay. Okay. Now with that, I don't see any other questions or comments from members, so I'll turn it back to the author to close.

Thank you and thank you to the co authors. As was stated, this is really something that we think makes a lot of sense. Appreciate the work that's been done in the analysis and that got us to this point and looking forward to be able to deliver for Californians with the use of E15 and respectively ask for for aye vote. Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you very much. When we have a quorum, we will take that vote and I think you have a second bill to present. This is item number three on our agenda, which is AB 652 from Assemblymember Alvarez.

Thank you again. Good morning, everybody. Thank you for allowing us to present Assembly Bill 652, which seeks to address some operational inefficiencies within the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District by providing a framework for the appointment of qualified alternates to the governing board.

This legislative initiative would permit each voting, each appointing authority to designate alternates who can serve, vote, and receive compensation in the absence or disqualification of regular members. By adopting this measure, the bill ensures the continuity of decision making process while maintaining rigorous qualifications for alternates that mirror those of the actual members on the board.

This approach is designed to uphold the necessary expertise and accountability required to tackle the pressing air quality issues that face the region of San Diego. It's important because the inability to appoint an alternate members has created some challenges at the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, which disrupts its capacity to respond promptly and make decisions decisions on air quality issues and impact those that impact constituents.

One major concern is the inability to meet the quorum due to the member absences caused by conflicts, illness, or recusals, which can stall the votes, as I stated earlier. The absence of public members such as specialists and advocates for environmental justice risks underrepresentation, which hampers progress on issues that disproportionately affect vulnerable communities.

Thus, the delays in governance and of the board taking action and fulfill its duty of safeguarding public health and aligning with safe climate objectives is something we'd like to avoid. Assembly Bill 652 proposes a straightforward and effective solution to these challenges by allowing each appointing a third authority, such as city councils or the County Board of Supervisors, to designate equally qualified alternates to those members.

This provision ensures that no vacancies disrupt board procedures proceedings, allowing alternates to step in as needed while adhering to the same rigorous selection criteria as regular members. In order to provide some testimony, we will read witness letter on behalf of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District. Madam Chair, permission for my legislative aide to read?

Permission granted.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District is in support of of Assembly Bill 652 as amended with the removal of the tie vote breaking procedure and the member appointment process at the City Selection Committee.

The SDAPCD's Planning and Policy Committee previously raised concerns regarding the equitable representation of smaller cities in the event of a population weighted vote to break the tie in that process. With that language removed, the SDAPCD does not have any concerns with AB 652.

The SDAPCD would like to express its appreciation to Assembly Member David Alvarez for introducing AB 652 and including provisions to clarify our governance structure as first introduced in 2019 by former Assembly Member Todd Gloria through Assembly Bill 423. We urge you today to support AB 652 as amended. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support, please come forward.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Moira Topp here on behalf of the City of San Diego. We do have a support position on the bill as it's currently amended. We are disappointed with the proposal to reduce or to amend the bill and eliminate what we thought was some equitable tie break vote provisions in the bill. But without that provision, we remain supportive with the remainder of the bill. So we ask for your aye vote today.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else in support? Okay, seeing none. We'll go to opposition. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition wishing to come forward? Okay, seeing none. Anybody wishing to express opposition? Come. Come forward. Yes.

My apologies. Kaylene Hahlbeck with Nossaman on behalf of the Motorcycle Industry Council, oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Well, thank you very much. Okay, anybody else in the room wishing to express opposition? Okay, I'm not seeing any. So we will turn to the Members. Any questions or comments? Vice Chair.

Just for the record, I do know that this is district bill. Happy to support it. But I would like to... I understand that there are amendments that will be taken. So I'm going to support it today, but reserve the right to change my vote if those aren't included once it comes to the floor.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. We'll turn it back to the author to close.

Thank you. I just respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Okay, thank you very much. When we have a quorum, we will vote. Thank you, Assembly Member Alvarez. Assembly Member Papan, you are next. Thank you for coming here to room 112. We have two items for this author. AB 60 is first and then AB 527. So we will turn it over to you, Assembly Member Papan.

Good morning, Madam Chair. I'm glad to be in room 112. Okay, so I'll take... Sorry, I'll do... I'm assuming you want SB 50 first.

Or SB 60.

60. Excuse me. AB 60. AB 60.

AB 60. Okay, so most of us don't think twice when we use deodorant, shampoo, perfume. But what we don't see are the toxic chemicals hidden behind the word fragrance. AB 60. The Musk Reduction act protects Californians from a class of the most harmful fragrances, fragrance ingredients still in use. Synthetic nitro musks.

Nitro musks are chemicals are chemicals found in everyday personal care products and have been linked to serious health risks. They build up in the body over time and interfere with hormone function, particularly affecting women's reproductive health. Studies have associated exposure to nitro musk with early puberty in young girls, which is a lifelong navigate.

Health impacts Increased cases of endometriosis, ovarian failure, menstrual irregularities and infertility. Increased growth of breast cancer cells. Beyond their health risks, nitro must are also a major environmental concern. These chemicals don't break down easily and have been found in waterways, soil and even marine life, contributing to long term contamination of our ecosystems.

Despite these risks, the US has yet to regulate nitro musks while 39 other countries, including those in the European Union have already restricted their use. AB 60 will close this gap by heavily restricting the use of nitro musks, thereby reducing exposure, preventing further environmental contamination and aligning California with global health standards.

With me to testify today is Susan Little, the California Ledge Director of Environmental Working Group and Fatima Iqbal Zubair, which I'm not seeing. Come on up, Fatima, the Legislative affairs manager for California environmental voters. Good morning. We'll have Susan start, then we'll go to Fatima.

Great. Thank you very much, Assembly Member. Good afternoon. My name is Susan Little. I'm the Environmental Working Group's California Legislative Director. We use a lot of cosmetics that can't contain a lot of chemicals on a daily basis.

The average woman uses 13 personal care products containing a total of 114 chemicals ingredients, while the average man uses 11 personal care products containing a total of 105. And although we rub these products all over our bodies every day, cosmetics are minimally regulated in the United States.

The US still lacks far behind more than 80 other countries that have embraced health protective cosmetics regulation. The European Union, for instance, has evaluated and banned 1600 cosmetic chemicals and restricted the use of many more, while the US Food and Drug Administration has only prohibited nine for safety reasons.

California, however, has stepped into the void and enacted legislation to prohibit the worst of the worst chemicals in cosmetics. AB 60 moves California's effort forward and enacts the European Union's bans and restrictions of five synthetic nitro musks.

Nitromusks are synthetic fragrance chemicals that have been shown to bioaccumulate in human blood and breast tissue, alter hormones, and in some instances have been linked to cancer. The cosmetics industry is already moving away from these musks and its voluntary guidelines prohibit four of the AB 60 musks. These guidelines also restrict the use of musk ketone.

Some companies, such as Procter and Gamble, have fully banned all nitro musks, including musk ketone, from their products. AB 60 continues California's effort to mirror the European Union's regulation of cosmetics. And we would ask that the Committee support this proposal. The Environmental Working Group would also like to thank Assembly Member Papan for her work to make cosmetics safer.

Thank you.

Hello, everyone. Fatima Iqbal Zubair with California Airport. Wait, let's get the. Sorry. Thank you. Fatima Zubair with California Environmental Voters. California Environmental Voters. We believe that we have the solutions to solve the climate crisis, but we just need the political will. AB 60 is about more than just regulating five chemicals.

It's about protecting the health of real people all over California, and especially in overburdened communities like mine in South Lake, who are already overexposed to pollution and now unknowingly face toxic chemicals like nitro musks in everyday products. These chemicals are endocrine disruptors. They've been linked to early puberty in girls, reproductive disorders and even breast cancer.

They've been found in breast milk, blood and body tissue. There's a clear environmental injustice and harm that can and should be stopped. Women bear the brunt of these exposures and in communities most left behind, most don't have access to safe alternatives or even the ability to know which products contain these harmful compounds.

Federal law doesn't require disclosure and people are depending on us and all of you to act. With federal environmental protections under attack it's never been more important for California to lead. AB 60 follows the science. It mirrors standards already in place across the EU and many other countries. We are not overreaching.

We are catching up and we are doing what justice demands. Taking harmful toxins off the shelves before they continue to harm another generation of girls and women. I urge you to vote yes on AB 60. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Are there others in the room wishing to express support.

Good morning. Kira Ross, on behalf of the City of Glendale in support.

Chloe King with political solutions on behalf of the California Water Association, in support. Thank you.

Claire Sullivan on behalf of the cities of San Mateo, Santa Rosa and Redwood City, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Keeley Morris, on behalf of Los Angeles County sanitation districts in support.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support? Okay, we will go to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses in the room who would wish to come forward? Not seeing any. Anybody wishing to express opposition? Okay, not seeing any. We'll turn it back to the members. Anybody have a question or comment?

Vice Chair yes, thank you.

Well, first of all, I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I think we can all agree that we want our cosmetics and our personal use products to be safe. I did hear though, that there was some questions or some concerns about the timeline in which this would be implemented.

And have you had conversations with the opposition in terms of moving the implementation date back a little bit further? And this just comes from my business experience knowing that sometimes it's just not that easy to flip a switch and change something.

So was just curious to know if those conversations were still having, if that was given any consideration.

I believe they are. The concerns. My staff has had most of the discussions, but given that the EU has already banned them, so a lot of manufacturers are already have done so. We have not yet come to terms about when the bill should take effect. 39 other countries have done this.

So given the harms, given that 39 other countries. That's why you don't see an opposition witness here today either.

And I completely understand and agree with you. I just want to make sure that we're being mindful about the implementation and the complexity that some businesses face in having to try and do that, you know, overnight. It's my understanding, not literally overnight, but so would love.

I want to get to support on this, would like to see those conversations continue. I'll support it today, but want to reserve the right to change my vote given that that's an important consideration for me.

Absolutely. And you do know it's a 2027 implementation date, correct? Okay, great. And my witness might have something to add. Please go ahead. Susan.

Yes, thank you so much. I just wanted to reiterate that the industry voluntary standards by, according to their own guidelines established, already bans four of these musts and restricts the fifth. So just, you know, they're already technically, operating under this standard. A little variation on musk ketone, but.

Okay, thank you for the question.

Thank you for the support. Okay, thank you. And I just wanted to confirm that you accept the amendments.

Yes.

Okay, great. So when we'll let you close. Now I just respectfully request an aye vote. And thank you for the opportunity to be heard. Okay, great. When we have a quorum, we will vote.

Excellent.

So we'll move to the next bill that you have, which is AB 527. And you're welcome to begin when ready.

I've got a couple of witnesses coming up, so as soon as they get here, I will do so. Good morning, gentlemen. Okay, I'd like to say that I will accept the committee's amendments to this terrific geothermal bill, which got even better.

AB 527 will streamline the permitting process for exploratory geothermal wells, an essential first step in expanding our geothermal energy supply. Geothermal energy is a uniquely consistent and reliable source of renewable power. It runs day and night, no matter the weather, and can provide the steady baseload electricity that California needs to complement solar and wind.

But before the development of a geothermal project, developers need to drill a small number of exploratory wells to understand what's underground. These early phase wells are low impact and temporary. But under current law, they're treated as separate projects under CEQA, triggering a full environmental review.

After exploration, the project at large then needs to go through a CEQA review. Put simply, geothermal developments must go through CEQA twice. This duplicative process slows down development, drives up costs, and pushes developers to go out of state, where the power then ends up being sold back to California. The Federal Government has already recognized this redundancy.

The Biden Administration implemented a categorical exclusion under NEPA for these exact kinds of exploratory geothermal wells. When done with rigorous environmental care, AB 527 brings California into alignment with that approach. It creates a narrow CEQA exemption for exploratory geothermal wells that meet strong environmental standards, cutting the red tape while maintaining stewardship.

AB 527 is by no means a blank check. It prohibits projects in wetlands or designated conservation lands, ensures that historical and tribal cultural resources are protected, and mandates full site reclamation. This bill is about speeding up clean energy without cutting corners.

It gives geothermal developers the regulatory expediency they need to invest in California and help us unlock up to 30 gigawatts of geothermal energy we'll need to meet our climate goals by 2045. With AB 527, we're not lowering our environmental standards. We're just raising our urgency.

With me to testify today are Miles Horton on behalf of Sonoma Clean Power and Matt Cremens with the operating engineers. Take it away, Miles.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, members. Miles Horton with Sonoma Clean Power. We are a community choice aggregator serving customers in Sonoma and Mendocino counties. And one thing we're really proud of is that we're serving our customers about 90% clean energy today.

But what we're running into is situations where there's no sun, minimal wind and batteries are empty or depleted. And that's when we're still relying on natural gas.

And so there's the climate impact there and there's also the financial impact to our customers to pay this natural gas system to kind of stand by even as we're paying for our renewables as well. And so we identified next generation geothermal technologies as the right solution for us to get to 100% clean energy.

Increasingly, the state is kind of coming to the same conclusion. They've handed down procurement orders for now gigawatts of geothermal energy. And there's a lot of demand for these exciting technologies. So the demand is really high. California actually has the best geology for geothermal energy in the whole country.

As we'll hear, the workforce here is the best in the whole country. But the challenge is the regulatory environment. And that's leading to these urgently needed projects not getting built and continuing our reliance on natural gas.

And it's also leading to when they do get built, it's often in places like Nevada and Utah to serve the California market. And that's, you know, that's great, but we think that we should be reinvesting our ratepayer money here where possible and creating jobs here where possible.

So as the Assemblymember mentioned, the developers and other states benefit from this new categorical exclusion from NEPA initiated by the Biden Administration that basically was based on the Bureau of Land Management looking back over decades and finding that when done right, these geothermal explorations projects really have no significant negative impact on the environment. They're very light touch.

We're trying to apply that same principle in California here with this bill. So thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members, Matt Cremens here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are co sponsors of AB 527, which would help the state achieve our ambitious climate goals and promote construction workforce opportunities by aligning state and federal environmental review policies for geothermal exploration projects.

As has been stated here today, geothermal energy is a critical component to ensuring that our state has a diverse renewable energy portfolio. And fortunately for us, in the State of California here we boast ideal conditions for this kind of energy.

Importantly, prior to commencing a geothermal energy project, an analysis must be made to determine if certain land is suitable for production. And these exploratory projects are critical to to ensuring the successful construction of geothermal energy.

As has been mentioned here today, the Biden Administration realized the potential of geothermal energy and in an effort to spur new construction of these resources, established a categorical exemption from NEPA for geothermal exploratory projects.

And they did so as the Council of Environmental Quality within the President's office determined that these projects do not individually have a significant effect on the human environment.

So with that being said, AB 526 would create a narrow targeted exemption from CEQA for geothermal exploration occurring on state lands which will align our state policy with that of the federal exclusion.

Importantly, this bill will not leave workers left behind in the streamlining and will require that developers utilize a skilled and trained workforce to complete all construction, which will assist in ensuring local workforce development opportunities for apprentices and aspiring journeymen seeking to participate in these important projects.

Happy to answer any questions or concerns and would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody wishing to express support, please come forward to the microphone. State your name, organization and position.

Morning, Madam Chair and Senators, Mike West for the Estate Building Trades in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members Delilah Clay, on behalf of Calpine in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members, Martin Vindiola on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers in support. Thank you.

Chair, members, Alex Torres here in support on behalf of San Jose Clean Energy.

Madam Chair, Members, John Winger here on behalf of Coloma and its subsidiary Golden Element Energy. We're the largest exploration company for clean natural hydrogen. Apologies for not getting our letter here in support, but we do support the bill.

Good morning, Chair Members. Marissa Hagerman with Tratten Price Consulting in support on behalf of American Clean Power. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any lead witnesses in opposition, please come forward.

Good morning. My name is Kim Delfino. I'm with Earth Advocacy and I'm representing Defenders of Wildlife and the California Native Plant Society. And I would like to just first say that we appreciate the author and the sponsor accepting the committee amendments and the work that the committee did on the bill.

But we still continue to have sponsors concerns about the bill. Even in its amended to be amended form. I would just start off by saying that my clients strongly support geothermal. We strongly support the transition to clean energy.

But we also want to make sure that we're doing it in a way that is most protective of the environment and communities. So I want to just focus quickly on three concerns. First, the 12 acre of previously undisturbed ground is too big of an area for a CEQA exemption.

There is no definition of what would be previously undisturbed ground or what is considered disturbed ground. And when I read the bill the other day, I realized the 12 acre exemption does not apply to disturbed lands.

So the way the bill is currently written, you could have an unlimited number of acres of disturbed ground for the CEQA exemption. Normal geothermal exploration projects here in California have been an average of five acres. There's no reason to go nearly three times the size as far as we understand.

The reason why we're going three times the size is because there's one company, Fervo, who is using a new technology of hydraulic fracking in order to do geothermal exploration. And they say they need a larger size of a project area and they won't start working in California unless they get a CEQA exemption.

Second, the bill would still allow for a CEQA exemption to apply even when the project is allowing temporary roads and and electrical lines to go through rivers, streams and riparian corridors. Even those types of activities have significant impacts on the environment.

And we believe that a CEQA exemption should not be given to a project if they're cutting through rivers, streams and riparian areas. Finally, the bill is being driven really by one company who uses fracking technology to explore geothermal resources.

And we do not believe that it is wise to use such a technology without first ensuring that it won't have adverse impacts on the environment or public health. Fracking has had significant for oil, has had significant impacts.

And while fracking for geothermal may be slightly different, we still don't know the amount and types of chemicals that are being used in the fracking liquid. And a CEQA exemption should not be granted unless we can show that there will not be adverse impacts on water quality or supply. And for these reasons, we would urge a no vote.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. Matthew Baker with Planning Conservation League. We align our comments made by Kim Delfino and remain with concerns and remain in an oppose unless amended position. I'll just speak to a high level here.

The group of us that have come to the table to talk with the author and the sponsors, we spent a substantial amount of time and we appreciate that time that they've spent with us trying to walk through this process.

You know, unfortunately, as we've educated ourselves on the technologies involved and the processes involved here, our concerns have kind of grown rather than narrowed. These are very big projects with intrusive processes and technologies involved. And we still have concerns. We have really tried. We are committed to trying to get there. We want to see more geothermal.

We want to make this work. And while we remain respectfully opposed unless amended. You know, we are committed to try to try to get this right.

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

John Mchale, on behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors of California. Opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We'll bring it back to the committee and I'll just start with a few comments. First, I want to recognize the author for trying to find ways for California to provide more alternative energy sources. So geothermal is an important part of an energy portfolio that transitions off of gas, coal and gas.

And so I want to fossil fuels. So I want to recognize the important efforts. And it's also, of course, in context of what we've just done, done in the legislature related to CEQA, which were large exemptions. And this is an exemption. It's an exemption for exploratory geothermal projects.

And exploratory geothermal projects involve drilling into the ground to find out if that site could be used for a full energy generating advanced geothermal project. So it's important to recognize that if there is a full project, it will undergo CEQA. So CEQA will. And there's no exemption for the full project.

This is for those who are considering a project to figure out if it's a good location for that. That's why it's an exploratory project. But the exploratory projects can still be highly impactful to the environment because they can contaminate groundwater if they're done improperly.

And also because the site location is relatively large, 12 acres that could be disturb the ecosystem. So as part of the exploration. So the committee amendments, which the author has agreed to take, ask that the project undergoes surveys. So it's not a full CEQA process, it's a survey, biological, hydrological and tribal surveys before they can get the exemption, the CEQA exemption.

And so the point of that is that the lead agency needs to know what are the baseline conditions for that land like what are the species and tribal artifacts and groundwater that's present before the area had any drilling, exploratory drilling done on it. So the survey is meant to be essentially, it's a less impactful, less expensive, shorter timeline, but still documents what that land looks like.

And I think it's important to note that this is attempting to figure out that pathway for how can we reduce redundant CEQA processes and the startup costs and timelines associated with doing alternative energy projects, but also protecting the environment.

So if the project, if the applicant decides to move forward with the project, then they would consider that baseline that existed before the exploratory happened. They would have to disclose that. They also have to disclose any chemicals that would be used in the injection process.

And then of course, if they went through the full CEQA process, they would potentially need to mitigate for any damage that was caused because that's part of what CEQA requires.

So this to me seems like it is an, it's an effort to recognize where we're trying to go in the state and what the author's trying to do with this bill, but also to have an amount of environmental protection and analysis that that's reasoned and reasonable.

So with that, this is why I support the bill and just wanted to make sure and state all that for the record. Do any other of my colleagues have questions? Yes, Senator Menjivar.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for bringing that together. Still have some, some outstanding questions, Senator. Assemblymember, if you could respond to one thing is while they still have to annotate or disclose what kind of chemicals, is there any that are going to be off limits or is just a disclosure, but still utilizing toxic chemicals?

I'm wondering why we went from 5 acres all the way to 12 and is it in fact true as a result to adhere or respond to that one company Fervo? If we could start there.

Okay, I'll take the second question first and if you don't mind, I'll defer to my witnesses about the actual chemicals being used. The bill actually started at 20 acres and so we reduced it down to 12 acres in natural resources in the Assembly.

The 12 acres also includes roads to get to the geothermal well because the well itself is not going to take up that much. So it's an all encompassing acreage, but the well itself will not be on 12 acres per se, but it was to include roads to get there.

So we felt that that was a workable amount of acreage to exclude from the CEQA, but to put into the survey so we know what we've done and how we've impacted a certain area.

Are the roads and connectors, do they all have to be within the 12 acres? Right. They can be outside. With the current 5 acres. With the current 5 acres. I heard from the opposition that that's the current approach, five acres right now. That's what they would like. But isn't that in place right now? Isn't that in place? Right. No.

No.

Okay, clarify. Can you clarify? Not in this bill, outside of this bill.

So when you look at the previously approved geothermal exploratory projects in California, the average footprint is around 5 acres. It is smaller. And we have had conversations with the author and the sponsor, and Fervo Energy, which is the company that currently operates in Nevada and Utah.

And we've actually gone down, as Matt indicated, we've kind of gone down the rabbit hole of what are we talking about here and have looked at Fervo's energy's footprint in these other states and they're quite significant because they use this advanced fracking technology that then requires them to use, use large amounts of pipe.

And so their project footprint, particularly under the ground, is much more significant than what we see in previous fracking technologies. And we're not anti technology changing and maybe this type of fracking technology will work and be better.

We're just simply asking for the basic CEQA analysis so that the communities that are being impacted by these projects will have an ability to participate and understand what the impacts are.

Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah. If I may, there is new technology, so I'm going to have the witness sort of describe for you. When we think of fracking, we think of it in the oil context. It is very different in geothermal. So I'll let them answer that question for you as well as your question about the chemicals. Let's get you the answer to both those.

Yeah, thank you. So, couple thoughts. So one is, and I'll just clarify. So we as an organization, we oppose fracking for oil and gas. We do not support that. But we see this new technology, what's called EGS or Enhanced Geothermal Systems, as being very different.

So what it involves is you drill down into a field of very hot, solid basement rock and then you drill another well not too far away. And then what you do is you hydraulically fracture the rock horizontally to create permeability for water to move through.

And then the idea is you have this sort of closed loop system that you can just send the water through over and over again. And because it's surrounded by solid rock. The water should just be in those pipes, those fractures. You can reuse the same water over and over.

So you don't need this huge supply of water like you might with some conventional technologies. And so unlike with, and you know, I'm not an engineer, but just at a high level, unlike with fracking for oil and gas. Well, actually, let me, let me lay out a few important differences.

So with fracking for oil and gas, you're sending the water down at a level where it could be interacting with groundwater, you're bringing it back up where it could be interacting with the groundwater.

And then while it's down there, you're often, not necessarily always, but often using a variety of chemicals to sort of scour the oil and gas out of the rock. And at the top you typically can't reuse that water, the produced water. You have to dispose of that.

And that's what I think that's part of what causes a lot of sort of oncs is this chemical filled water at the surface then has to be disposed of and hopefully that's happening in a safe way. With enhanced geothermal, you're sending the water down, bringing it back up in a steel lined pipe.

So it should not be interacting with groundwater at all. The only time it's coming out of the system is in that solid rock that you fractured at the very bottom.

And because what you're trying to do is just move heat into water essentially, so let the water absorb heat from the rock, you don't necessarily need this sort of slew of toxic chemicals. It's water. It does include a number of chemicals, like what are called propanes to keep the fractures open, you know, lubricants, stuff like that.

But it's not really on the same scale. And so I think again, this, this is a technology that was made possible by learnings from the oil and gas fracking industry. You know, how do you fracture rock cost effectively, but it really does function pretty differently in terms of the risks to public health and safety.

And that's again, that's why we oppose fracking for oil and gas. But we strongly support this. But EGS has also used chemicals, correct? Yeah, there are chemicals in the water.

And what kind of toxic chemicals are utilized? And in the disclosure, is it just in telling I'm using these chemicals and that's as far as it goes?

Yeah. So one thing I'd highlight with the bill, so we do support disclosure of those chemicals, it's obviously going into the bill there, but the other thing is, even if the project's exempt from CEQA, it's not the Wild West, Right.

You still have to work with the Division of Geologic Energy Management that oversees a lot of this stuff, get different permits. You have to report the history of all your operations to the division, stuff like that. Right. So this bill does not exempt you from any other requirement to CalGEM, DTSC, or whatever may be relevant. Again, it's just the CEQA process.

But that's the CEQA process once the actual project begins. This would exempt the CEQA process in the exploratory. So everything you just shared with me wouldn't happen in the exploratory.

Sorry. I think what I'm trying to say is even. Let's say this bill passes, even if an exploration project is exempt from ceqa, you're not exempt from all the existing permitting requirements of, for example, CalGEM, many of which relate to this. You know, what sort of fluids you can use and what sort of processes you can use.

And can you clarify maybe. Well, the chair's gone here with the amendments taken in terms of and survey has to be done now to be able to be granted that. Does that survey include providing the important environmental and cultural survey data to the lead agency to justify finding of the project?

Correct. Yeah. So that survey has to happen in advance and then that would support the lead agency's determination that the project would be exempt or not exempt.

Okay. And then can I go back to my final question if, do you agree Assemblymember. Do you agree that historically the exploratory projects have averaged five acres?

Sure. Yeah. Thank you. So that is correct. Five acres or less. So with conventional geothermal technologies like you see used at like the Salton Sea or the Geysers, the exploration footprint can be a lot smaller.

I think what we're excited about with EGS and other new technologies like advanced closed loop, is there's potential to do geothermal in a lot more locations. So you have a lot more flexibility and then use a lot less water than conventional technologies. But the footprint of the exploration project is bigger, you know, so I think it's.

Is it bigger because the new technology is by that one company? No, it's more that

In general. The average of 5 acres uses old technology. So the new technology averages about 12 acres so that it can support this, this loop, if you will.

And the main reason it's larger is with conventional technology, what you want to do is you drill down and you figure out, okay, is there a field of super hot fractured rock that we can reach, that we can move water through.

And so you drill, you know, one well, essentially with these new technologies, what you need to do is drill even in that space, drill two wells and then test. Not only can we reach the level we want and the heat that we want, but can we establish a connection between these wells? Because that's really the key, like we discussed.

But the new technology now requires 12 acres. It's just a bigger space to the opposition. Can you talk to me about the survey in lieu of the CEQA review?

So while we appreciate that the author took the amendments to require at least some information to be generated to the lead agency, which is a good thing, these are not the, the typical CEQA survey, but it is some information.

The one thing that is not included is the ability for the public to access that information and be aware of what is happening. There's. When you eliminate CEQA, you eliminate the ability for the public to engage in the process.

And there are, where a lot of these projects are going to go will be fairly remote with small communities. And some of these communities are very concerned about what these projects are going to do. They would least like to be able to participate and understand the potential impacts.

And you know, while I appreciate the explanation that's been given about the chemicals, I mean, there was a Newsweek article about this new EGS technology and they say we're taking a play a page out of the oil company's playbook and we are drilling deeper, we are drilling horizontal and we're drilling in a lot more places.

And this potentially could really impact water supply for these communities.

No further questions. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. I'll just end with a last comment and I think with full transparency. This committee today has a lot of CEQA bills and it came at a time where a couple of days we drastically dismantled CEQA.

And at least for me personally, it's going to be very difficult for me to support any CEQA exemption or streamlining bills moving forward just because I think we need to tip the balance the other way now just because CEQA has just been really dismantled.

Assemblymember, you know, I won't be able to support this bill today in committee. I recognize geothermal is important. That's not what I'm discussing here. I think it's just we're pulling away the protections that are put in place to protect people in our land. And that's why I won't be able to support this.

Thank you. And I just, I'll just add in here that I think this is a common sense bill. The chair does have a support recommendation on this and so. Assemblywoman, would you like to close?

I just. Thank you so much, Madam Vice Chair, for the opportunity to be heard. I. I think that the Biden Administration had it right when it said that that we should exempt the exploratory wells. I appreciate your comments about this being a common sense solution. So with that respectful request an aye vote thank you.

We still do not have quorum, but when we do, we will take this up. Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. Next, we will be moving to File item number six, AB 66 by Assemblyman Tangipa. You are recognized when you are ready, Assemblyman.

Ready to roll. All right. Well, good morning, Madam Vice Chair and senators. First, I just want to start off by saying thank you to the committee and all of your work on this bill. We are happy to accept the committee amendment.

Also, I want to take a second to say this is my first time presenting in the Senate and it is an honor and a privilege to be here. So thank you all for allowing me to do that.

And with that, today I'm here to present AB66, a bill that addresses a critical public safety issue in wildfire prone areas across our state. This bill provides a targeted CEQA exemption, allowing specific local agencies to act quickly to create life saving exits.

Right now, across California, too many communities face a dangerous reality, having only one way in and one way out, which as we all know, can turn truly into a deadly trap when wildfire strikes. These situations are not just hypothetical. These are real events with real consequences that many of my constituents have lived through, including myself.

This is a common sense solution and most importantly, it will save lives. And here to testify in support is Kerry Hillis with the town of Moraga.

Thank you. Thank you. You're recognized for three minutes.

Thank you. Good morning members of the committee and staff. My name as was mentioned, is Kerry Hillis. I'm the vice mayor of the beautiful town of Moraga which is located in the heart of the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area.

We are also the home of the only traditional four year college in Contra Costa County, St. Mary's we are a community which was recently awarded a pro-housing designation by HCD and was one of the first communities in the Bay Area with an approved housing element.

We were also the unfortunate subject of a January 18, 2025 article in the San Francisco Chronicle entitled the Bay Area's Pacific Palisades. This is one of the cities most at risk for an urban firestorm. I am here in support of AB66.

The bill would provide an exemption from CEQA for projects that improve emergency evacuation from areas with a single egress route. My community has no direct highway access. It is accessible only by four mountain roads. It is entirely within wue. It is flanked by very high fire severity zones. In one of These areas behind St.

Mary's College, there are two single family neighborhoods. They are on a dead end road that is one way in, one way out. Even though their access road, Bollinger Canyon, is only about 1.6 miles from a disconnected segment of Bollinger Canyon in the City of San Ramon, which by the way has its own highway exit on 680.

This could be an ideal location for an emergency evacuation route. AB66 balances environmental protections while providing the ability to exempt CEQA on projects that can improve wildfire evacuation routes for areas like those found in Moraga. Thank you for having me at the hearing. We appreciate this committee's consideration of AB66 and respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you very much. And now you have a lead witness.

You.

You have two minutes. Oh, you already did. Okay, great. Then we'll go to. Yes, then we'll go to the. The supporters. Go ahead.

State your name, organization and position. Madam Chair and Members. Alex Horus with Brownstein here today on behalf of Perimeter Solutions with the indulgence of the chair. 10 seconds. We utilize aerial response retardant that comes out of the Cal fireplanes. We can also use that for ground applied.

And in Wildcat Canyon in San Diego, county, we have a six year pilot that protects the only route out of that community. So in strong support of the bill here today. And a lot of communities in California could utilize this very proactively. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chris Maurer on behalf of CBIA in support.

John Kennedy with the Rural County Representatives of California in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Cassandra Marr on behalf of Pioneer Community Energy in support.

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

Okay, thank you. Any opposition witnesses, please come forward.

Good morning again,Chair, Senators. We respectfully oppose the proposal. We greatly, you know, appreciate the author's intentions here and we share those. You know, we care deeply about the safety of these communities that lack sufficient egress.

We've worked on these issues with the sponsors and, and others spent a ton of time of recent years trying to improve evacuation planning standards.

We care deeply about the topic, but we do object to the idea of just building any roads in these sensitive areas without any kind of environmental review or roads that haven't even been adopted or considered or reviewed at a programmatic level in a General, General plan or the regional plan. So we appreciate the proposed amendments.

We think that's a significant improvement. It doesn't allay all of our concerns. We think that there are still considerations that have to be made for the loss of biodiversity and growth inducement, the potential to be putting more people in harm's way with this new access and also, you know, unaccounted for VMT and GHG impacts associated with transportation.

You know, we are committed to continue to work with the author and the sponsors to try to get this to a good place. But we still, as of, for the bill today, we respectfully ask for new app.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else in the room in opposition, please come forward. All right. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. Yes, Vice Chair.

I just want to welcome the assemblyman to the Senate. This is a great common sense bill and I want to thank you for bringing it forward.

Thank you. And I'll just make a couple of comments. So this is the fourth time this bill has been heard and passed through the EQ Committee. And so in some ways, you know, it's not a new thing for us to be considering.

And I also just want to clarify which was mentioned, but that the committee amendments specify that the road must be considered in a General plan in order to be eligible for the exemption. And it incorporates some technical clarifying language from CAL FIRE. So when we have a quorum, we'll vote on it. Thank you.

And I'll let you close. Go ahead and close.

All right. Well, again, I just want to say this is my first time presenting in the Senate and I know, Madam Chair, you didn't get to hear, but I am just grateful and honored to be here. So thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Well, welcome. We're happy to have you. Come back anytime and we'll consider it when we have a quorum. Thank you. Okay, next we're going to item number 10, which is assembly member Ortega is here on AB455. Thank you for coming over here. We appreciate it.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present AB455 today. I appreciate the work of your staff on this Bill and I am accepting the Committee amendments to make the handbook update subject to the availability of funds.

AB455 takes two important steps to protect Californians from exposure to dangerous chemicals that are a byproduct of indoor tobacco use. When smoking or vaping takes place inside, the particles and gases left behind absorb into everything in the room, Flooring, walls, furniture, and even the H vac system.

The chemicals in these gases, known as third hand smoke, remain for years even after smoking or vaping stops. Exposure to third hand smoke has been shown to cause DNA damage, asthma, exasperation and increased risk of cancer and a weakened immune system.

Currently, California home buyers have no way of knowing whether this quiet killer is present in their future home. AB 455 will help potential homeowners be aware of the dangers of third hand smoke and aerosols and be fully informed before buying property that may be contaminated with this hazard. I have no primary support witnesses with me today.

However, here to answer technical questions is Dr. George Matt from the Center for Tobacco and Environmental Environment at San Diego State University.

Okay, thank you. So if there are questions from the Committee Members, he will answer them, but you would not like to make any statement? Okay. I represent San Diego and I'm grateful that you've come all the way here from sdsu. So thank you. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support? Okay, not seeing any.

Do we have any opposition to this Bill wishing to come forward? Not seeing any. Anybody in the room wishing to express opposition? Okay, don't see any. Do we have any Committee questions or comments? No. Okay. I just want to say that this is the first time that I'm conceiving of the term third hand smoke.

And I appreciate that you're dealing with that with this Bill because it does seem like people need to know. So disclosure is really important. And also recognizing it as a hazard that goes on for years and years in the built environment is something that's really important for us to be grappling with. So thank you for this Bill.

And when we get to the point where we have a quorum, we will vote on it and I'll hand it back to you to close

When the time is appropriate. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Which one is it?

The EQ Committee would like to invite authors who remain to come immediately to room 112 to present your bill. We only have four more authors. What did you say? So we have Assembly Member Boerner, Assembly Member Rubio, Assembly Member Rogers, and Assembly Member Bryan. Those are the four that we are waiting on to present bills. And we also encourage Members of the Committee to come so that we can establish a quorum and vote on these bills.

Thank you, Assembly Member Boerner, for coming. We are excited to hear your bill, AB 823. So when you are ready, feel free to begin.

Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. AB 823 would ban the sale of non rinse off personal care products and cleaning products containing plastic microbeads used as an abrasive to clean, exfoliate or Polish, and personal care products containing plastic litter beginning January 12029. I introduced AB 2823 because it was becoming more apparent the dangers of microplastics.

And I wanted to do something to protect our environment and our public health. Plastic pollution is a major problem. I'm sure this Committee and all your Members know that Microplastics have been found all 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 and the bloodstream, central tissue, breast milk and even the brain, raising serious health concerns regarding 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.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And with me here today, I have Nancy Biermeier with Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and Andrea Ventura with Clean Water Action. There you go. Welcome.

And we met. You have two minutes. Thank you again. My name is Andrea Ventura. I'm with Clean Water Action and you know the Assembly Member just mentioned some of the health impacts. My colleague Nancy will speak to those in more detail.

But the reason that Clean Water Action is pleased to be a co sponsor for this is because water is one of the primary exposure routes for human beings. First of all, we have the environmental justice issue of subsistence fishing, something I've worked on for about 20 years now.

We know that these plastics are collecting in our water bodies. San Francisco Bay has some of the highest levels in the world and they collect in the fish that these low income and communities of color are consuming at very high levels. So there's that issue.

But most of all, there is the issue of our precious and very limited drinking water. The presence of microplastics in our drinking water sources has prompted this Legislature to require the state board to start studying the issue and the extent of that issue, with an eye toward future regulation that is ongoing.

But to be brief, it is very expensive. And the treatment for microplastics is both complex and also very expensive. Consequently, we need to do source control. We need to stop the proliferation of these materials into our waterways because it's going to come back to our ratepayers.

And so I'll just end by saying that this is a common sense bill. It is a meaningful step, and we hope that you will support it today.

Thank you very much for your testimony. And your second witness also has two minutes. You may proceed when ready.

Take a deep breath.

Thank you, chair Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today. And thank you, Assembly Woman, for your leadership in authoring AB 823, protecting Californians from Toxic Plastic Macro Beads Act.

Sorry. It's okay. You can take a second and just take a couple breaths. It's an exciting Bill. It is. It's an exciting Bill.

I'm here on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, a science based organization committed to preventing breast cancer by eliminating exposure to chemicals linked to the disease. Microplastics aren't just an environmental problem, they're a human health threat. These tiny plastic particles are now everywhere in our air, water and food.

As a result, they've been detected in nearly every part of the human body, including the brain, placenta and breast milk. This means that exposure to microplastics begins even before birth and continues throughout our lives. And the more research we have, the clearer the health concerns become.

Microplastics often contain toxic chemicals like phthalates, bisphenols and pfas, chemicals linked to serious health harms including reproductive problems, preterm birth, metabolic disorders, impaired neural development and cancer. A recent study shows microplastics can pass through the blood brain barrier, and higher levels were found in people with dementia.

Other studies link them to cancers such as lung, blood, prostate, ovarian and breast cancer. With one in eight women being diagnosed with breast cancer in her lifetime and women getting the disease younger and younger, we must take steps, proactive steps, to reduce exposures linked to breast cancer and other diseases.

AB823 is a common sense step to eliminate intentional and unnecessary use of toxic plastic microbeads, impersonal care and cleaning products. I urge Your I vote. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Anybody wishing to express support, please come forward to the microphone and state your name, organization and position.

Hi, this is Fatima Iqbal Zubair with California Environmental Voters in support. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. Debbie Michael, East Bay Municipal Utility District, in support.

Good morning. Jason Schmelzer, on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council and Alameda Stop Waste in support.

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

Crystal Reynaez, on behalf of California Skins Waste as a co sponsor in support, also authorized to read in support for Skin Owl Friends, Community Friends Committee on Legislation of California, the National Stewardship Action Council, Breast Cancer Over Time Facts, Families Advocating for Chemicals and Toxic Safety, and the Green Science Policy Institute.

Mandy Strello, on behalf of Rethink Waste. And I'm also authorized to express support for Black Women for Wellness Action Project. The California Nurses for Environmental Health and. Justice, Sierra Club California, the Story of Stuff Project, Last Plastic Straw and the Plastic Pollution Coalition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We appreciate all the testimony. If there's anybody in opposition as a lead witness, please come forward. I don't see anybody. Anybody wishing to express opposition, please come forward to the microphone. I don't see anybody. So we'll turn it back to the Members. Yes, we would like to establish a quorum, actually.

Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, now, we can vote on your Bill when we get to that step.

So I'll bring it back to the Members and just say at the outset that I'm excited about this Bill and appreciate that the most effective way to reduce plastics is at the source, to eliminate at the source, not to be collecting it later and trying to deal with it.

So I appreciate that you brought this Bill and I look forward to supporting it. Anybody else have questions, Comments? Okay, we'll turn it back to the author to close.

Thank you. And thank you to the chair for always being a champion on reducing and eliminating plastics from our waste stream. And we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, thank you. We have a motion from Senator Padilla. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

It's 4 to 0. And we will keep that on call. Thank you for coming to testify. Okay, Assemblymember Rogers, you are next. We have AB 1139 and this is item number 19. Then I would like to encourage the After Assemblymember Rogers, we have our last Bill to be presented by Assemblymember Bryan. So I encourage him to come.

I'm presenting for him.

Oh, you are? Okay, great. So you're presenting for Assemblymember Bryan.

Okay? And also just as an announcement to the Committee, we are pulling from today's agenda AB839 from Assemblymember Rubio. So that Bill will not be heard today. So with that, we will turn it over to to you, Assemblymember Rogers.

Great. Thank you so much, Chair and Members. Today I'm here to present AB 1139. I want to start by accepting the Committee's amendments and thank the staff for working on that. We also have accepted additional amendments that weren't quite prepared ready for this Committee hearing that we'll be taking in the next Committee as well.

And you'll potentially hear a little bit about that as well from somebody in the public. But this bill allows our county park agencies to utilize an existing exemption that currently exists in California's Environmental Quality Act. It allows the county to provide greater access to the outdoors and helps Californians to connect with nature.

As an example of why this bill is needed, Sonoma County has recently acquired thousands of acres of open space parklands that border existing regional parks, open spaces, and regional trails. Most of these newly acquired parklands already have roads and trails that connect to existing roads and trails and share a border with the existing public parks.

Communities deserve greater access to recreation and nature exploring opportunities, and AB 1139 underpins a core tenet of both the governor's 30 by 30 and Outdoors for All initiatives. That's to get more residents outdoors faster.

It's important to remember AB 1139 would have no impact on the existing land covenants, such as the grant agreements, conservation easements, or long term management plans. And while this bill initially had opposition, with those amendments, we do expect that to be removed as well.

In summary, the intent of AB 1139 is to sensibly and judicially promote access opportunities in a fashion that is sensitive to the resource values of our land and to meet the growing needs and responsible recreation to enjoy our beautiful landscapes. We have two witnesses with us today.

First is Bert Whitaker, the director for Sonoma County Regional Parks. The second is Doug Houston, California Mountain Biking Coalition and the California Outdoor Recreational Partnership. And I want to thank them for their work on the bill as well.

Welcome, and you each have two minutes.

Great. Thank you, Assembly Member Rogers. Good morning. Bert Whitaker, director of Sonoma County Regional Parks. You know, I've been working for about 30 years in this field and work closely with other Bay Area public land managers to expand protection of the many unique resources of our region while also meeting the growing demand for low intensity, non-motorized outdoor recreation.

Our community in Sonoma County has been working really hard the last 20 years to assemble our park system. We continue to work extremely diligently to continue to expand our regional parks and open spaces for the community's residents in the area.

The overall strategy has been to increase the size of our open spaces as opposed to creating new parks in many instances. Often these parks were ranches or timber properties that have existing roads and trails and they're already interconnected with our adjacent parklands. In some instances, we require much smaller parcels for the primary purpose of connectivity between much larger areas of protected parklands and nearby communities.

If AB 1139 is approved, it would create another tool for county public land managers like myself to be able to provide these opportunities in certain instances to accelerate public access to land acquisitions adjacent to our current regional parks where the roads and trails already exist.

If enacted, these lands will see a higher standard of care while also providing enhanced opportunities towards our state's Outdoors for All initiatives and foster ongoing local support for additional land protection towards the state's 30 by 30 goals.

In closing, I want to express my appreciation to Brynn Cook for her support working with us and the Planning and Conservation League on the proposed amendments before you today and help clarify when the exemption will be appropriate to consider. Thank you. Look forward to answering questions you may have.

Thank you. And you have two minutes.

Yeah, very good. Thank you, Chair and Members. Doug Houston representing the California Mountain Bike Coalition. As mentioned, the the operational premise of this bill, it's really simple. If a county, upon purchase of lands from private hands, these are working lands, these are worked lands, containing pre-existing conditions, such as timber roads, ranch roads, trails, road trails.

If they choose to transition these lands into low impact public access purposes, they can forego CEQA under certain conditions. And we're working on those conditions through the amendments and really appreciate the Committee's indulgence on on this. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support, come forward please to the microphone. State your name, organization, and position on the bill. It's okay, you don't have to rush.

Good morning. Elizabeth Espinosa here this morning on behalf of the Board of Supervisors in the County of Santa Barbara in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Noam Elroi on behalf of East Bay Regional Parks District and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in support. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Anybody in opposition to this bill? Lead witnesses, please come forward.

I have additional support as well. Is that okay? Should I get over?

Oh, would you like to say support right here? Go ahead.

Yeah, just me toos. Yeah. Also on behalf of, as the Assemblyman mentioned, California Outdoor Recreation Partnership, which is the brands REI, North Face, Columbia, the Sierra Consortium, California Park and Recreation Society, and the California Trails Foundation, all in support. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay. Thank you so much. Yes, go ahead.

Good morning again. Matthew Baker, Planning Conservation League. Really appreciate the amendments that have been agreed to. And with that agreement and the agreement to work on one other little tweak maybe in the next Committee, I'm really happy to report that Planning Conservation League is going to be removing their opposition.

I can't speak formally for the others just yet, but I think that they're going to be pleased with where we landed on this once we have the language in print. I really, you know, our point from the beginning was that when you open lands to the public that hadn't previously been open, there could be impacts.

And if there's justification for bypassing the CEQA process, analyze that. And we still think you have to have a resource management plan in place that identifies those impacts and addresses them. That's what we've agreed to here in the amendments. I think that we really landed on the right policy here, and I really greatly appreciate the authors' and the sponsors' willingness to work with us.

I want to say, in contrast to some things that happened earlier this week regarding CEQA, you know, this is the way the legislative process is supposed to work. We really appreciate the dialogue. We think we landed on the right policy here. Want to thank the author again, and happy to pull our opposition.

Well, thank you for sharing that. We appreciate it. Anybody else wishing to express a changed position or ambivalence or... No? Okay. I'm not seeing anybody wanting to come forward, so we'll bring it back to the Members. I'll just start by recognizing that this bill does a really good job of striking the balance between protecting natural resources in parks and making sure that those parks are accessible to the public.

And I appreciate the work that was done with the small conservation groups that were opposing the bill initially because now what's required is that parks have a natural resources plan in place in order to use the exemption. And so this does seem like a really good compromise.

So I do appreciate the work that's been done, and I think this is a positive step forward that will allow for cities and counties to be the lead agency in circumstances where they weren't able to do that before. And that actually is a really big change. So with that, let's see. Any other comments or questions from Members? None. Okay, I'll turn it back to the author to close.

I just really grateful for the opportunity to work through the bill with folks. That is really what we're trying to do is make sure that we appropriately manage the these park lands as they come into compliance and quickly turn around and make them available to the public. Because especially, it is the public's land, they should have access to it. We do want to foster that outdoor spirit. And with that, I just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, great. I'd entertain a motion on this. Okay, we have a motion from Senator Menjivar. Please call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended to Natural Resources and Water. [Roll Call]

It's five to zero. We'll keep that on call. Thank you very much. And I'll encourage all Members of the EQ Committee to come to Committee because we are on our last bill, and we will be voting on all items after this last bill. So please come to room 112.

And we have Assembly Member Rogers presenting Assembly Member Bryan's Bill AB 1456, which is item number 23. And with that we'll turn it over to you.

Thank you so much. Chair and Members, today I get to be a poor man's Isaac Bryan. So hopefully I do this justice, but I'm proud to present AB 1456 on his behalf. This Bill would require the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to expand the treatable landscape under the California Vegetation Treatment Program, also known as CalVTP.

CalVTP was developed and approved by the board in 2019 to streamline vegetation management projects, including prescribed burning, mechanical treatments and manual treatments as tools to reduce hazardous vegetation around communities and to restore healthy ecological fire regimes to facilitate greater vegetation management projects under the program.

This Bill requires the Board to expand across the state where the programmatic Environmental Impact Report under CEQA can be applied. This Bill also integrates indigenous knowledge and tribal ecological knowledge by including provisions that recognize the dual objectives of cultural and ecological restoration through vegetation management activities. With that, we ask for an aye vote.

Okay. And you're welcome to give two minutes of testimony.

Sure. My name is Matt Diaz. I'm the President of the California Forestry Association. I would just want to give a bit of context on the California Vegetation Treatment Program. As mentioned, it was certified by the State Board of Forestry and fire protection on December 30th of 2019. And.

And at that time I was the Executive officer with the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. So I'm quite familiar with the program and I would just suggest that this program is a benchmark as it relates to the wildfire protection strategy that the state is moving forward with.

As a representation of that, currently there's approximately 650,000 acres that have been covered by the program where individual activities are essentially analyzing and allowing treatment activities in the space space of fuel break, ecological restoration and will we interface projects to happen more efficiently under a very thorough program EIR in the State of California.

Additionally, the Governor recently released an Executive order or emergency proclamation, I should say in March of this year urging expansion of this program. And 1456 is substantially supporting that effort, along with some identifying some other thresholds that could be addressed to make the program not only more efficient, but practical in nature. With that said, I would urge. An aye vote as well, and CALFOR is a strong support of this Bill.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody in the room wishing to express support, please come forward.

John Kennedy, Rural County Representatives of California in support. Thank you.

Okay, great. Anybody else not seeing any. Any opposition witnesses, please come forward. Not seeing anybody. Anybody wishing to express opposition in the room? Okay, we'll bring it back to the Members. Any questions, comments? Okay, we do have a motion, but we'll turn it back to you to close.

I think I will just respectfully ask for an aye vote on behalf of the Assembly Member.

Okay, great. Thank you very much. We have a motion from Senator Hurtado. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We'll keep that on call. Thank you very much. Okay, so we'll go to the consent calendar now. And the consent calendar consists of file item 1, AB 14, Hart. File item 7, AB 70, Aguilar Curry. File item 8, AB 80, Aguilar Curry.

File item 9, AB 620, Jackson. File item 11, AB 532, Ransom. File, item 13, AB 638, Celeste Rodriguez. File item 17, AB 961 from assembly member Avila Farias. And item 18, AB 1046 from assembly member Baines. So please call the roll on consent. We have actually. Is there another one? Okay.

We also have on consent item, file item 20, which is. Where's the number of the Bill? Oh, AB 1227 from assembly member Ellis. And also we have file item 22 from AB 1440. And so we have a motion from the Vice Chair to move the consent calendar. Please call the roll.

Senators Blakespear.

Blakespear aye. Validares. Validaris, aye. Dahle. Dahle, aye. Gonzalez. Hurtado. Hurtado, aye. Minjivar. Minjivar, aye. Padilla. Padilla, aye. Perez. Six to zero on call.

Aye.

Okay, that's six to zero. We will keep that on call. And we encourage all members of the EQ Committee to come now to vote to room 112 in the California State Capitol. So we'll go through the list in order. So we'll start with File item number two, AB30 from assembly member Alvarez.

And I would entertain a motion, a motion from the vice chairs. Please call the roll.

Motion is due. Pass to transportation. Senators Blakespear.

Blakespear, aye. Validar. Validar is aye. Dahle. Aye. Dahle, aye. Gonzalez. Hurtado. Hurtado, aye. Menjivar, aye. Padilla. Padilla, aye. Perez. 6 to 0 on call.

Aye.

At 6 to 0. We will keep that on call. The second item or the next item is AB652 from assembly member Alvarez. Do I, I entertain a motion on that? We have a motion from Senator Hurtado. Please call the roll.

Motion is due. Pass to local government. Senators Blakespear.

Aye.

Blakespear, aye. Validaris. Aye. Validaris, aye. Dahle. Gonzalez. Hurtado. Hurtado, aye. Menjivir. Menjivir aye. Padilla. Padilla, aye. Perez. Five to zero on call.

Five to zero. We'll keep that on call. Next item is AB60. Assembly member Papin, I would entertain a motion. We have a motion from Senator Hurtado. Please call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended. Senators Blakespear.

Aye.

Blakespear, aye. Validar. Dahle. Gonzalez. Hurtado. Hurtado, aye. Mejivir. Menjivir, aye. Padilla. Padilla, aye. Perez. Four to zero on call.

It's four to zero. We will keep that on call. Next item is AB 527 from assembly member Papin. We have a motion from Senator Hurtado. Please call the roll.

Motion is due pass as amended to natural resources and water. Senators Blakespear.

Aye.

Blakespear, aye. Validaris. Aye. Validaris, aye. Dahle. Dahle, aye. Gonzalez. Hurtado. Hurtado, aye. Minjvar, Padilla. Padilla, aye. Perez. 5 to 0 on call.

5 to 0. We will keep that on call. Next item is AB66 from assembly member Tangipa. Ooh, that was a close tie. Okay. Yes. She yielded to Senator Hurtado. Motion from Senator Hurtado. Please call the roll.

Motion is due. Pass as amended to Natural resources and Water. Senators Blakespear.

Blakespear, aye. Validaris. Validaris, Aye. Dahle. Dahle, Aye. Gonzalez, Hurtado. Hurtado, aye. Minjivar. Padilla. Padilla, aye. Perez. Five to zero on call.

Aye.

Five to zero. We'll keep that on call. Next item is file item number 10, which is AB455 from assembly member Ortega. Ooh. Senator Menjivar. Senator Menjivar moves the bill. Okay. Are you sure? Okay. Senator Hurtado moves the bill. Please call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended to Judiciary. Senator.Blakespear. Aye. Blakespear, aye. Validaris. Aye. Validaris, aye. Dahle, Dahle, aye. Gonzalez, Hurtado. Hurtado, aye. Padilla. Padilla, aye. Perez. Six to zero on call.

Okay, it's six to zero. Leave that on call. Our next item is AB823 from assembly member Berner. It's actually, we already had a motion on that. Yeah. So we'll lift the call on that. Please call the roll.

AB 823. The motion is do pass to Judiciary. The current vote is 4 to 0. Senators Dahle. Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado. Hurtado, aye. Perez. 6 to 0 on call.

Okay, it's 6 to 0 on call. The next item is file item 19 AB 1139 from assembly member Rogers. Do we have. Okay, we have a motion from Senator Hurtado.

Which is this?

It's Rogers.

We already have. We're lifting.

Oh, I'm sorry. We already went through that. So that we are lifting the call on that.

File item number 19 AB 1139. The motion is do pass as amended, to Natural Resources and Water. The current vote is five to zero. Senators Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado. Hurtado, aye. Perez. Seven to zero on call.

Okay, seven to zero on call. And we will lift the call on AB 1456 from assembly member Brian.

The motion is do pass to Natural Resources and Water. The current vote is six to zero. Senators Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Perez. Seven to zero on call.

Okay, it's seven to zero on call. Brian didn't come himself. He was presented by Rogers.

Oh, yeah.

Shall we go through the calls for Senator Gonzalez?

Yes, I think they. I think you've done all of them.

Sam Sa.

Okay, so we are going to lift the call here in Environmental Quality Committee. So we'll start with the consent calendar.

File item number 1. Begins the consent calendar. The current vote is 6 to 0. Senators Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Perez. Perez, aye. 8 to 0. The consent calendar is adopted.

8 to 0. The consent calendar is adopted.

File item number two. AB 30, the motion is do pass to Transportation. The Current vote is 6 to 0. Senators Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Perez, aye. Perez, aye. 8 to 0. The bill is out.

8 to 0. The bill is out.

File item number three, AB652. The motion is do passed to local government. Senators Dahle. Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Perez, aye. Perez, aye. Seven to zero. It's out.

Seven to zero. The bill is out.

AB 60, the motion is do pass as amended. Senators Valadez, Dahle. Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. Six to zero.

Six to zero. The bill is out.

Filing item number five. AB 527. The motion is do pass as amended to Natural Resources and Water. The current vote is 5 to 0. Senators Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Menjivar. Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. 7 to 0.

7 to 0. The bill is out.

File item number six, AB 66. The motion is do pass as amended to Natural Resources and Water. The Current vote is 5 to 0. Senators Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Menjivar. Perez. Perez, aye. 7 to 0. It's out.

7 to 0. It's out.

File item number 10. AB 455. The motion is to pass as amended to Judiciary. The current vote is 6 to 0. Senators Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. 8 to 0. It's out.

8 to 0. It's out.

File item number 14. AB 823. The motion is do pass to Judiciary. The current vote is 6 to 0. Senators Dahle. Perez. Perez, aye. We did.

Okay, so do you want to go through again?

So we're going back to item number five. AB 527.

AB527. The motion is do pass as amended to Natural Resources and water. Senator Perez. Perez. Ida, no. So it's six to zero is out. 6 to 1. I'm sorry.

It's six to one. It's out.

Okay.

AB 823 is seven to zero. And it's out.

File item number 19. AB 1139. The motion is do pass as amended to Natural Resources and Water. The current vote is 7 to 0. Senator Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. 8 to 0. That's out.

Also, one other thing just to note.

AB 1139. 8 to 0.

That's out.

File item number 23. AB 1456. The motion is do pass to Natural Resources and Water. The current vote is seven to zero, Senator Perez.

Aye.

Perez, aye. Eight to zero. It's out.

Eight to zero. That's out. Okay, that concludes our business for today, so we are adjourned.

Thank you. Bye. Ladies.

Sa.