Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

Good morning, everybody.

So happy to see you all here in this room this morning. We're going to get started officially in 30 seconds. Okay, so we are starting officially. The Senate Committee on Environmental Quality is coming to order and I'm excited to see that we have our first author here in the room.

We do not have a quorum yet, so we will begin as a Subcommitee. And this is item number one, AB28 from Assemblymember Schiavo. And we invite you to come forward to present your bill. Welcome. You're welcome to begin when ready. Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and incoming Committee, at any minute. I am really, really grateful for the opportunity to present AB28 today and especially want to thank Evan Goldberg's Committee staff, who has been incredible in helping us think through this bill and really dug into it with us, which we are grateful for.

And, you know, first I wanted to kind of tell the story of this community, Valverde, which now is encompassed also by Castaic in the north part of my county, in north LA County has an incredible history. It was known as the Black Palm Springs. It was where black folks would go to vacation in the 30s and 40s.

The first state African American rec and Parks Director is from Valverde. It has an incredible rich history, as you can imagine. It's not a surprise then that a landfill ended up in this community. Over time it's grown.

It's been seen as a place where people can live in LA County but be in a rural setting, beautiful canyons and mountains and, and trees. And so a lot of people have moved out there, found more affordable housing there. And it's become a very tight knit and incredible community that I am very proud to represent.

This is also now the only place where a fire is still burning in LA County. We have a burning landfill at Chiquita Canyon landfill that has been burning for three years now. And the temperature in some places has increased to over 200 degrees. That means that the PVC infrastructure for wells and extracting gases is melting.

This has tripled in size just from what we thought it was at the beginning of the year when it was 30 acres and now 90 acres, and has become a public health crisis that is affecting residents within five miles of the site and beyond.

To make matters worse, it is projected to burn for the next 20 years or more. This is a disaster and it's no small matter. Numerous county departments have issued over 300 notices of violations for air quality, water contamination and exceeding the collection of the waste limit.

Over 125,000 tons, millions of gallons of leachate, which is the toxic liquid that's created in landfills, is being extracted from the landfill and shipped to various states around the country. As far as Alabama, Arkansas, Arkansas.

Because of the toxicity and California's limitations to taking those toxic liquids due to the gases being emitted over the air, over 27,000 air quality complaints have been registered.

The number of air quality complaints in just one month at this location are what normally would send red alarms going up at South Coast AQMD if they were noticed in a year. But these are happening month after month after month.

And the LA County Department of Public Health has declared the gases a public nuisance and directed Chiquita to perform a root cause analysis to evaluate public health impacts and recommend remedial measures. There have been five ISE orders, Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Orders under Section 303 of the Federal Clean Air Act.

Chiquita was the last one that was issued. Only 5 in the history of the country. And Chiquita is one of those. And then it's the only place that we know of that both has an imminent and substantial endangerment order, both under the Federal Clean Air act and also under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

So landfill employees have been working on this site, implementing corrective action, breathing supplied air and full hazmat suits, looking like they're going to outer space. And meanwhile, just, you know, yards away. Community Members, all they can do is close their windows and doors and stay inside. And that's what's been happening in our community.

People are prisoners in their own homes, cannot go outside, cannot have barbecues, cannot have kids riding around on their bicycles. The root cause of this disaster was negligence operating in the landfill.

The lack of methane and moisture and oxygen extraction through the wellheads that extended below the landfill surface and into the subsurface waste allowed typically what are isolated hot spots to grow into subsurface chemical reactions. Covering nearly 100 acres and 109 football fields of just burning trash. Chiquita should really never happen in any other community.

And that's what this bill is really trying to do to make sure that we prevent this kind of a disaster from happening in any other community in the state. And so if temperatures, if temperatures rise to an alarming level, this bill requires that corrective action must be taken, that local enforcement agencies are notified.

And CalRecycle, it establishes multi agency coordinating groups to be constructed with CalRecycle as the agency in charge, which we thought was very important to have an agency actually in charge that we need to give advice for corrective action. They need to give advice for corrective action along with enforcement.

And that when temperatures exceed 162 degrees, then they will. Which is nearing in the federal regulations, is a danger zone. The LEAs have the authority to pause operations and to file for a State of emergency. The public is notified. And if these terms and conditions are ignored, then fines will be implemented.

Aside from the policy of the bill, I just wanted to talk a little bit about people who are being impacted. Neighbors like Brandy House, who has had stage three breast cancer. The year before, she was clear on her mammogram, and then suddenly a year later, she had breast cancer and had to have double mastectomies.

She's also had five miscarriages. We're finding that people in this community and Jane Williams, we'll talk about this a little bit more. Are having really high rates of miscarriages, 57 times the normal rate. She has cancer. The person on the right side of her house has cancer. The person on the left side of her house have cancer.

And two people behind her living in the houses behind her have cancer. It's not normal to look out every window in your house and see someone who has cancer. Jennifer has kids who have uncontrollable nosebleeds.

And upon hearing that it's now going to be burning for 20 years, she's taken the extreme choice to move her kids out of the school district away from their friends, which, if the children talk about it, they just start crying. Abigail runs a refuge for giant tortoises.

She's one of the few places in the state who has approved to run this. And she has a wonderful property for it. Hard to find. She actually had Michael Jackson's giant tortoise. They're expected to live 150, even 200 years. Yes, just like that one in the picture.

He died at, I think, 50, so 100 years before he should have. And we've had pets just dying overnight, we think, because they're low to the ground and some of the chemicals in the air will sit on the surface of the ground.

People had instances where they wake up and there are thousands of dead bees all around their house. And then, you know, Darcy is a neighbor of Brandy's. They live. If you look at the picture of the landfill where the white cap is, and then right over the ridge is where the President's streets are.

Brandy, where the cancer cluster is. And Darcy lived there. Darcy had to move. He's paying two mortgages right now because he had to get Away. He was so sick. He has hand tremors as Elizabeth has had. It's made people in our community disabled. They're not able to work. One cook can no longer work.

He lost his home because his hand tremors are so severe. So, you know, people are just suffering because of this. And unfortunately we have not gotten a State of emergency. We have not gotten an order to. There's been an order to the landfill to relocate people by Department of Public Health now, but they're not doing it.

And so people are just living there, suffering. I would love to invite Elizabeth Jeffords, who's a neighbor in our community, to speak and also Jane Williams from California Communities Against Toxics to follow her.

Thank you. Hi, good morning.

Yes, welcome. You each have two minutes.

Thank you so much. I just flew in and I'm very sick, so I just asked for some grace. I'm going to read. I'm not trying to be rude. Thank you for having me and giving us this floor.

My name is Elizabeth Jeffords and I'm here on behalf of all the families living within miles of the Chiquita Canyon landfill disaster. Five years ago, I stood very healthy at the top of a beautiful tree lined street in Cassaic, looking down at what I thought was to be my forever home.

My husband and I have worked our entire lives to get to be able to say that. And we thought it was a dream. Immediately after moving in, the dream became a nightmare. I started to struggle to breathe most days, waking up with nosebleeds, burning eyes and nausea and vertigo so severe I became bedridden for over a year.

Sorry. Never, never did. I think it was the air. I'm sorry. I had too many distractions. Thank you.

Chiquita Canyon landfill is an active burning landfill that's spewing less than a mile and a half from my bedroom window. It is poisoning the air as I speak today. Sorry. It's okay.

If you cannot get through that, it's okay. It's okay. It's fine. Okay.

I want the board to know. It's okay. Take your time. Yeah, it's okay.

Let me go. And then you.

If you.

If you. If you feel like it. Okay. Thank you.

Yes. However you both want to manage it, it's fine.

Thank you.

I'm Jane Williams. I'm the Executive Director of California Communities Against Toxics, which is a statewide organization of communities like live at Chiquita Canyon. We are now the oldest environmental justice network in the history of the country.

We were founded in 1989 by Juan Gutierrez and other environmental justice leaders that came together to fight hazardous waste incinerator proposed in East LA. So it is my unfortunate honor and privilege to be here to represent all of those communities. And the importance of this bill is that we have got to prevent this from happening.

It has been a source of tremendous frustration for me. I help respond to chemical disasters and fires across the United States and my role as the Chair of the Sierra Clubs Cleaning Clean Air Team and to see in my own backyard that I could not stop this from occurring.

I got the first phone call from this community in February of 2022. Since that time, this thing has become an environmental catastrophe. It has destroyed the health and well being of thousands of people that live around this landfill. And now what is happening is that we see landfills heating up across California, especially in Southern California.

That is due to mismanagement and a lack of regulatory infrastructure, both at the federal and state level. This Bill is designed to try to bolster that and then to get a better response, a more coherent response.

There's 22 agencies that regulate landfills, various portions of them in California and they're all pointing the finger at each other and trying to grapple with this situation. We cannot repeat the situation happening at Chiquita.

It is a stain on our state that we are the only facility in the country to have two imminent substantial endangerment orders in the history of the country. This has only happened one time and it's happened at Chiquita.

And that could have been prevented if we would had a more aggressive response early to what we knew was a landfill fire.

So I just want to say on, on behalf of my, my Members across the state, this could happen, could happen in any senatorial district, any Assembly District, anybody that's got a landfill in their district could now end up with the situation. So thank you for your kind attention and the opportunity to speak to the Committee today.

What do you think Elizabeth, you want to try?

Well, I just wanted to suggest, maybe I could just ask you an open ended question or two and then that that might make it easier. And I would just say how has this affected you and your family? You can just tell us without having to read if you would like to.

Thank you for that. I think I would like to continue because most of those answers probably would come out. So I just want the entire Assembly to know that before this incident I was very, very active. I ran multiple businesses and I ran two miles a day, every day in the neighborhood.

Today I'm running two inhalers and I can barely walk. I suffer daily from debilitating headaches, ear pressure, blurred vision, and I even have tooth loss now because of the extensive tremors 24,7 in my body. I'm only one story, but there's. Those are just some of the symptoms that the community has.

Entire families are struggling, so everybody's body is reacting differently. Many are on breathing machines and couldn't make it here today because of that. They're taking bags of medications, different kinds of medications daily just to survive to the next day. As Ms. Assembly Woman mentioned, there's multiple women with multiple miscarriages. That's not normal.

We have pets dying with no apparent reason. Puppies, young, young, old people having to put their pets down because they've gotten vertigo, lost their sight and hearing overnight. We have no State of emergency, which would be the greatest help to us. And we have no relocation plan or evacuation plan. That's why AB28 is essential. It's a lifeline.

The bill will help to prevent these landfill fires in other communities and can also provide needed funding for RV location and home hardening. Most importantly, AB28 tells the families that the State of California stands with its people and not with these waste companies.

I'm here today not only for my community, but for every single Californian who could find themselves in the same nightmare. This is for our well being and the future of environmental accountability in the State of California. Please, please vote yes on AB28.

Well, thank you. Thank you very much. If there are others in the room who would like to express support for this bill, please, please come forward to the microphone and state your name, organization and position on the bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Erica Parker with Californians Against Waste and strong support. Thank you.

Brock Campbell from the California Baptist Capital Ministry on behalf of Freedom's Way Baptist and Kistaic in support.

Emily Campbell with the California Baptist Capital Ministry on behalf of Lighthouse Baptist Church we support.

John Skogland with the County of Los Angeles in support.

Okay, thank you. If there are others in the room, please come forward. You have the opportunity to speak at the microphone.

Mandy Strello on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and support.

Thank you. And if those ladies at the back would like to come forward and express support, is that what's happening?

No. Okay. Okay. Well, if anybody else decides they'd like to express support, you're still welcome to come forward. So now we'll go to those in opposition and we'll call forward any lead witnesses in opposition. And thank you. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair Blakespear, Members of the Committee, Mark Apreya with capital advocacy on behalf of republic services in opposition to AB 28. No community should have to endure what the community in and around Kostaic have had to go through.

In that regard, I want to point out that the Committee analysis states, quote, what is not the subject of debate in this bill is this bill will have no impact on the Chiquita Canyon situation. I repeat, no impact on the Chiquita Canyon situation.

Therefore, it begs the question, what is the need to get this bill through the Legislature this year? Why not have the patience to get it right? Therefore, regrettably, we must continue to oppose AB 28 for the following reasons.

While there are many factors that have led to this event, we do not yet know all the factors that led to the subsurface elevated temperature event, Nor do we know whether the existing regulatory structure was adequate to protect and predict and address an event such as this.

Yet even before we know the cause of the problem, this bill seeks to propose a solution that will impact public and private, privately owned, active and closed landfills throughout California.

Further, while AB 28 seeks to address this problem because we do not know the cause of the problem, we cannot know if AB 28 will prevent such problems in the future. Now, this bill rightfully requires the California Air Resources Board to develop regulations to address, among other factors, landfill gas temperatures and responses to elevated temperature measurements.

This process is fully underway with formal revisions to the landfill methane rule due out this fall.

Rather than prescriptively dictating elements of the rule update, we ask that we allow the agency tasked with regulating this issue the latitude to holistically look at all the facets of how these events can better be predicted and responsively build those provisions into the rule update that is well underway.

Until such changes are made to the bill, we must respectfully remain opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. You have two minutes as well. Or you could hand her the microphone. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Faith Bautista, speaking for the Filipino Chamber of Commerce of greater San Diego and national diversity coalition and hundreds small businesses across our region. We truly appreciate assemblymember shevers genuine efforts to address the concerns behind AB 28 and acknowledge the amendments already made to improve the bill.

In fact, my husband lived for over 30 years in Santa Clarita. I started a grocery store in Santa Clarita. So I really, really appreciate what the effort is. However, AB 28 still raises deep concerns for small businesses, families at home. California faces a severe affordability crisis.

Businesses and families I represent are at their breaking point from relentless increases in cost, electricity, gas, Internet, food and more. Here in San Diego, residents just began paying $43 monthly trash fee for the first time in over 100 years due to Proposition B.

Even modest increases in basic utility costs can force painful decisions between meeting payroll, covering rent or keeping their doors open. AB 28 compounds these challenges by introducing heavy penalties and open ended regulatory costs, ultimately increasing trust bills for everyone. Our local restaurants, retail stores and family owned markets simply cannot afford another burden.

We urge you before imposing statewide mandates, let regulators clearly identify what went wrong at Chiquita Canyon and propose targeted solutions. California businesses and families deserve this balanced approach. Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you very much. Now we'll have those in the room in opposition, please come forward. State your name, position on the bill and organization.

Hi, John Kennedy, Rural County representatives of California. The amends take it in the right direction. We're hoping that with these amends we'll be able to remove our opposition, but recognize there will probably be some further tweaks that we need to see in the bill. Thank you.

Hi, good morning. Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of the Solid Waste Association of North America, California chapters echo the comments of my colleague from rcrc. Appreciate the work of the author, her staff and the Committee staff on the amendments and we'll be evaluating them in our position going forward. Thank you.

Good morning chairmembers. David Krieger for Waste Connections. We are in an opposing less amended position. Appreciate conversations with the author's office and with the Committee looking to see if we can get to a place where it's a bill that we can comply with and aligns with the science around these issues. Thank you.

Good morning. John Moffitt, on behalf of Waste Management with an opposing less amended position, appreciate the conversations with the authority author's office and look forward to ongoing conversation. Thank you.

Jordan Wells, on behalf of the California. State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities with concerns with the bill in print, but echo our comments with RCRC. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Regina Burnley. I am with Apapa. I oppose this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Alexandria Villarreal and I'm with NDC. And I oppose the bill.

Good morning. My name is Nellie Metra, I oppose the bill.

Good morning. My name is Von Befraeman, a small business owner, and I oppose this bill.

Good morning. My name is Femi Cupid. I am the President of the Filipino American Chamber of Commerce, Greater San Diego, and I appreciate this conversation and posting the bill. Thank you.

Nicole Wortleman, on behalf of the Orange. County Board of Supervisors and respectful opposition.

Good morning. Reverend Jack Miranda, Southern California, with great sensitivity, opposing the bill as it stands.

Adding support, sorry to be late. Bill McGavin with Coalition for Clean Air and support.

Okay, anybody else in the room wishing to express either support or opposition? If you missed your chance at the first go, you can come forward now. Okay. Not seeing anybody. I'll just start by asking the author if you're accepting the Committee amendments.

Absolutely. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. And I want to say first, just to start that, Assemblywoman, I know how deeply felt this is for you. I've heard you talk about it on dozens and dozens of occasions. I know it probably consumes your sleep and your wake, and your devotion to doing something about this problem is truly admirable.

And I also just cannot imagine the horror that your people are going through because you described it.

But for three years, to have basically people being slowly poisoned to death and the reality that there are 19,000 people in the area where the landfill is, and there is not a relocation plan for people as they are suffering and their kids can't go outside, and there's a horrible, constant stench of garbage, and there's a constant feeling of nauseousness and these incredible health concerns or health consequences that are very real.

Like a third of people who became pregnant in three years had a miscarriage. And that the rates in Los Angeles are actually 0.4 is what the population is for miscarriage. And a full 20. Nearly 25% of people had miscarriages in the last three years. And then 46% report having heart disease.

The rate in California is 5.9%, but 46% of people have heart disease. And then 85% have hypertension or high blood pressure. And the normal rate in Los Angeles County is 23%. So, I mean, there are. And then the testimonials that we received. I mean, it really is.

And the fact that it will go on for 20 years, it seems like anybody who can move, who has the ability to move, should. And the state should be really focusing on a relocation plan, particularly for those who are closest to the landfill.

And I recognize that what's happening in Chiquita Canyon may be a unique situation as the opposition pointed out. But I very much agree with your desire to be proactive and to not leave it to chance and to do something because it's urgent and you want to do something now.

So, you know, the idea of having many years of discussion about it doesn't, you know, is not appealing because we want to deal with the problem. I think I'll just note that in this Committee we made between about 20 to 25amendments.

And I appreciate the really good work of my Committee staff and also of the author and the author's team working together. I just want to mention some of the biggest ones because these were things that were of concern to the opposition. And I think, I just want to recognize that.

I think even though the opposition remains opposed, the Bill has gotten better from the perspective of those who are opposed to it. And it also has gotten better from the perspective of the author. So the Bill now makes it clear that reporting isn't just triggered by the temperature reaching a certain level.

Also, CalRecycle has to set other criteria such as water content and gas mixture level levels. We also moved the temperature monitoring from the flare to the well head so it's more accurate and made it clear that monitoring doesn't have to happen daily.

Also, we've brought in CalRecycle and the local enforcement agency in at the beginning, so in at the front end, as was mentioned in your testimony, having CalRecycle is a really important part of this to have somebody who's actually responsible. I completely agree with that, that there are so many examples of no agency is responsible.

And in my part of the state in San Diego, we have this Tijuana River Valley disaster that's been going on with enormous amounts of sewage that's coming over the border and poisoning people in the same way.

And you know, this issue, it happens to also be an international issue because of course, it's right on the border with Mexico. But the question of who's responsible and how can you have an emergency declared, which also hasn't happened for the that disaster?

You know, it's just, I agree with you that it's really important to have CalRecycle there.

And then they'll be working both the local agency, local enforcement agency and CalRecycle once that threshold temperature is met in any future problem in any landfill, that they would be working with the operator to develop a corrective action plan to bring the temperature back down so that we don't see anything similar to this in the future.

And then also the Bill became less bureaucratic just in terms of the red tape. Associated with it. So I recognize the importance of this and the uniqueness of the situation. But I do think this Bill does some really good things that are important, and I'm happy that we're able to help accomplish that goal.

I know the Vice Chair also represents this area, and I wanted to turn it to her to see if she had anything she would like to add.

Thank you. And you actually made a lot of the comments that I was going to talk about. So first of all, I want to thank, thank you for sharing your story. Thank you for coming up here as an example of what loving your community and what are the suffering that is going on in our community.

Thank you for that. I want to thank the Assembly woman for working so diligently on this issue. All of our leaders in our community are fighting to find resources to look for a plan. We're all cobbling together different things and it's a shame that, you know, it's been three years.

I have friends and family that are living in Castaic in this area that are impacted by this. And we are all doing our best to try and address the Chiquita Canyon issue, but also stop this from happening in the future, which I think is this bill is not about Chiquita Canyon.

I think the Assembly woman has mentioned that in the past, but it is about, you know, identifying an issue and looking for solutions. I do like that with the amendments you have a lead agency. That's really important.

What we're seeing in the, the work group in our community on Chiquita Canyon is there's so many agencies involved and it gets complex. So that's vitally important. But I do have some questions about the science, the science aspect. I don't know if that's you or even the opposition that can just kind of walk me through.

We understand that this wouldn't have, this won't impact Chiquita Canyon. But in terms of what are the reasons that you have temperatures influx in landfills typically.

So if I could let my witness, Jane Williams answer.

There's a couple different reasons that landfill subsurface temperatures are getting elevated. Sometimes it's about the waste that's in place and then sometimes it's about that air is being drawn into the landfill and then the temperature and the pressure is making the landfill heat up.

So two major reasons like, so we know that, you know, aluminum dross and, you know, a steel blast furnace slag, there are some things that create heat in the subsurface. And then there's this other problem where you're pulling too much air through the landfill.

And so CalRecycle has an extensive letter that they gave to the LEA and they believe that what happened here is that air is being pulled through the landfill due to the methane extraction system. And so, not to be disparaging towards the industry, but most of the landfills in the country are not on fire.

Most of them do not have a temperature signature from space. Most of them are being managed. They're a landfill. And so here, that management system failed, and then the regulatory agencies failed to see these rising temperatures and aggressively attack it and say, hey, you can't be doing this, right? I call it hot rodding.

You're old enough to like hot rods, right? We know. We know this. It's like, no, you cannot hot rod landfills. It's like, I make it sort of in my own mind. I'm like, you played Russian roulette and you lost, like, you hot rodded this landfill. And then it got out of control.

And now we've got this, really an environmental catastrophe. I want to emphasize while I have this. Do you know that there has never been a facility in the entire history of this country with almost 30,000 complaints? Hasn't happened. It's happened here at the irony that we have two imminent substantial endangerment orders and 30,000 complaints. And we're approaching.

How many NOVs do we have? I've lost track of how many NOVs because they happened again last night, Right. Where they had elevated hydrogen sulfide levels. So this is unprecedented in its scope. And AB28 is very important to avoid this in the future.

I do want to add, if I can, that it's this severe of a situation is unprecedented. But heating events in landfills is normal. It happens regularly. You'll have little hotspots pop up. I did a tour of the Calabasas landfill. I did a tour of the Sunshine Canyon landfill, which is also in my district.

And, you know, when I toured Calabasas, which is operated by LA County, they talked about, you know, really staying on top of these heating events, and you're able to quickly get on top of them.

Maybe you're extracting too much methane and you have to turn that dial down, or maybe there's a crack or some kind of fissure, you need to come excavate and fill in. And typically, if you stay on top of these, they talked about these temperatures can go down within hours, certainly within days.

And so it's very apparent that in this situation, they were not on top of it. Right? And some landfills I think, like Jane is pointing out, are thinking they can kind of skirt around being on top of these situations, trying to get waivers to operate at higher temperatures.

But as we've seen in Chiquita Canyon Landfill, when you operate at a higher temperature, it is very easy for it to get out of control and then you cannot get control of it.

And so really this bill is about making sure that you act early, that you remediate, that you mitigate, that you remediate the situation and that you're able to get control of those temperatures.

You take out the gases, you take out the leachate, you ensure that oxygen isn't getting introduced, which is like fueling a fire, just like when you blow on a fire, when you're starting a fire. And so that is, that's, you know, really the goal of the bill.

I will say though that I do believe that this will impact Chiquita Canyon Landfill. This bill, number one, because of the penalties that create a Fund to support relocation, home hardening, you know, Doctor's visits, all of those things. Right. So that actually provides direct relief to neighbors in the community potentially.

And also because this is going to be burning for 10 years, 20 years, 20 years. And so certainly some of the regulatory pieces that happen, actions that happen as a result of this bill, I think will come into play with the landfill because it's just going to be going on for so long.

So I'd love to hear from Republican just a better understanding of kind of how landfills work when it comes to the protocol and procedures for elevated temperatures, because this bill is going to affect every landfill across California.

So from your perspective, you know, what is the protocol one, what will this bill do in terms of changing that protocol?

Yeah. Senator Valadaris, Members of the Committee, thank you for the question. I am not a landfill operator expert, so my comments will be somewhat high level.

And to answer your question more specifically, I would recommend that the Committee ask Cal EPA and the regulatory agencies that currently have responsibility to provide the best answer that they can regarding what may have or what they know has caused the problem.

For us to engage in any kind of what happened here would be speculative based, not on any kind of knowledge with regard to the protocols.

I think that that question has been answered is that when you do notice that you have to be on top of it and address the issues, the underlying issues that may be causing that, whether it's in an inadequate draw on the leachate collection system or other management of the facility, that tells you that something's off and you need to address it quickly.

This is clearly a very complex issue, and we're dealing with kind of two different things here. What's going on in Chiquita Canyon and obviously trying to prevent this from happening in other areas, other landfills across the state. I want to thank the Committee for their Amazing work on this.

This is a really complex issue, and there's so many agencies involved. And I'm glad that we're taking. We're at least giving a lead agency responsibility in this Bill. And I hope that you'll continue to work with the opposition to make this Bill even better.

I know that the there, to my understanding that CARB may have additional policies or procedures coming out and being researched now that may conflict with this. Right. So it's gonna. It's gonna be an issue we're gonna continue to have to be vigilant about. Thank you.

Thank you. I think we'll establish a quorum now, and then we'll go to Senator Padilla. So, yes, please call the. Call the roll.

Senators Blakespear.

Present.

Blakespear. Present. Valladeras. Valladares. Here. Dahle. Dahle. Here. Gonzalez. Hurtado. Menjivar. Here. Padilla. Padilla. Here. Perez.

Okay, we've established a quorum, and now we'll go to Senator Padilla.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and colleagues, and thank the author for bringing the bill. And I know that it's complex from an operational standpoint, has some very unique features, obviously, unfortunately, that you've been dealing with and in many, many respects, as you well know. I can relate, unfortunately, as the chair has referenced.

I just wanted thank you for the diligence of. Around this and putting. Attempting to put an operational mitigating framework around a set of circumstances which could, in theory, present itself in any landfill in California, but certainly here has been a uniquely intense one, shall I say, to be diplomatic.

I think the chair and my colleagues well know my public positions about the need for California very generally to get into the 21st century as to how we dispose of solid waste.

And frankly, we continue to deposit solid waste in a 19th century or earlier method, often located in communities that are unfairly impacted under invested, poor communities of color, where opportunities for less political or economic resistance are fewer. And we still are still fighting the battle around getting the operations correct. We could take a lesson from.

From some of our colleagues in the Eu, frankly, about how they do that in a much more environmentally appropriate, sustainable way. All of that said, you don't have to convince me on the science here. This is clearly one of a number of issues that are complex and will continue to compound the longer we continue down this path.

So thank you for your diligence. Thank you for being the Bill and Madam Chair, I'm happy to be supportive at the right time.

Thank you. Senator Menjivar, thank you so much.

Some Member, I think since we've met, you've brought up this issue just like the chair has mentioned probably in every single group chat that we're a part of. You brought this up. You've invited the women's caucus to participate in an event that you had here.

And I think that we have an article about to learn more about this. I'm very familiar with the issue in your district and this Committee heard a Bill of mine that was district specific, similar to the changes and so forth.

But I have a couple of questions and I know you've mentioned that you do think that this is going to impact Chiquita situation because of the Fund is that because since the fire is still burning in Chiquita they would be eligible to this new Fund. Okay.

What would you say to opposition saying that the different temperature as it doesn't align with federal would confuse entities the 162 in particular degrees.

So this is actually putting federal EPA standards into state statutes. So it. So we would say it completely aligns with it. It requires certain action. But even you know, federal regulations stipulate that landfill owners and operators must initiate actions and corrective actions with only five days after positive pressure at individual wellheads.

So they are, you know, even I would say require faster action. But this we think, you know, we are. One of the reasons we're doing it is because we want those federal EPA regulations in state statute.

Okay. So maybe I understood incorrectly that the 162 degrees does not match with the Federal Government. That there's just like 170 degrees and this lowers it a little bit. Which is where maybe so. Okay.

No, quickly through the chair. Can I confirm that is correct? Can I confirm that every single level of degree aligns with federal guidance?

Yeah.

Senator, I'd have to go back to make sure that I answer you accurately.

Okay. Assembly Member curious. You know, we've talked about this is statewide. Why not geographic specific?

Because unfortunately and I think there was a packet connected with. With Jane's testimony that was handed out. Unfortunately we're seeing more and more of these incidents happening. We believe that there may be 12 landfills in the state that are having heating events.

And part of the concern that we have and you know, and Jane can speak to this more but as we have changed the makeup of trash, and I am very grateful for the comments of Senator Padilla, because how is our best idea digging a big hole and dumping trash in it and letting it rotate like it just blows my mind that that is our best idea.

But the. Because we have been changing the makeup of trash, and so we've been taking green waste out, for example, for composting. Right now, what's left in our landfills is a lot of plastic, which is basically petroleum, which is fuel for these fires.

So, you know, the other reason that these heating events happen is because, especially in the bigger ones, where there's more weight and pressure, it's like a pressure cooker. And so it creates heat inside the landfill.

And when these kinds of fires spark, literally the trash that it is burning is fuel for that fire to continue that loop and expand and expand it. So we believe that this is actually a. Not a canary in the coal mine, because it's much more serious than that.

But this is a huge, huge alarm bell going off that we need to get a handle on this because this is going to be happening throughout the state.

And we think that, you know, when we're very happy that CARB is going through a process right now around their methane regulation, because it appears that as CARB has had this requirement of methane extraction, that it is kind of over incentivized extracting methane also, because landfills can make money off of that. Right.

They have power companies and they can create power and sell it to the grid. And so but if you extract too much and then you start pulling in oxygen, as I mentioned before, that can actually be what ignites these fires. And so we think it's really important that CARB is going through that process.

We think that oxygen needs to be a part of that, and we're having those conversations with them. But this, we believe that this is actually a huge issue for the state that we need to address.

Do you think because how we're changing with our truck, gosh, the incidents are going to increase? Because I think the analysis said in the past 20 to 30 years, only three to four of these incidents have occurred in California. But because the way we're changing, your assumption is that we're seeing an increase?

We believe so. And if Jane can speak to, she's actually looked at satellite data, and I think that's one of the handouts that you got indicating these 12.

Now the agencies say there's two landfills on fire in California, Chiquita Canyon and El Sabronte. The definition of that is hinges on the temperatures at the top of the wellheads. Okay? And so what's happening now is those temperatures. We can see that from space.

From satellite data, we see a number of landfills, a dozen in California, whose surface temperatures exceed 125 degrees. And so Chiquita is the first, El Sabronte is the second.

But we see the pattern of this heating of the top surface, which means the subsurface is getting hot hotter at a number of landfills, which would make sense because California adopted its landfill methane rule in 2010. So California was the first state in the country to adopt a rule to extract methane from landfills.

The federal rule was passed in 2016. And we see this same surface heating occurring in a number of landfills across the country. But California by far has the most hot landfills, which would make sense because we went first. So most of the landfills across the country do not have a heat signature.

Most of the landfills in California don't. But when you get that heat signature, what this bill is saying and what the Legislature is saying to the regulatory agencies, get on top of that. Don't let Chiquita happen. The problem is that you get this finger pointing when you don't have someone in charge.

You get exactly what you were getting at, Senator, about who's in charge, who's going to say, no, you cannot operate your landfill like this. Right. And some of the regulatory processes are incredibly slow. And so now we've been three years into Chiquita, the fire has tripled in size and it's virtually not stoppable. And so we can.

This is like the beginning of a process that we started 15 years ago that we can't. We got to get in front of this. I hope that answers the question. And by the way, Senator, as I'm sure you are aware, you have a number of landfills in your district. Right.

So, like, for you and for you, there's a lot of skin in the game here. Right? Like, we have to get in front of what is happening on the ground.

Thank you so much. And I have a question to the opposition. I heard from the opposition, concerns about, you know, the temperature isn't the only tale for a subsurface fire. There should be other things that be contributed with the amendments. The temperature now is not the only triggering event to do X, Y and Z with the amendment.

Now, I can't remember if it was either calorie cycle or CARB. Has to add an additional component that will by default reduce the number of triggering incidents. I'd like to hear from the opposition how that, now that it's coupled with something else, how we feel about that.

Yeah. So, Senator, thank you through the chair. Thank you for the question. And I think consistent with our conversation and our testimony here today is that we're not suggesting that there isn't a need to address this issue.

What we are saying is, as the Committee analysis points out, that this is not going to solve the problem at Chiquita Canyon, number one.

And number two, that this is complex as the Committee addressed, as the opposition and the supporters have all stated, and that we need to take a look at what are the factors that go into this. We still don't know what happened here, what were the cause or causes of this event that requires us to change.

And given that this is not going to solve the problem at Chiquita Canyon, we're suggesting that we take a more measured approach, not in terms of addressing the problem, but making sure that we get it right. So to your question specifically, I can't give you a, you know, this is good, that is bad. There are, there are.

The bill certainly has been improved from the time that it was introduced. We are suggesting that the bill is too prescriptive and that you give greater direction to the regulatory agencies to address the problem, but give them the ability to determine how to best do that.

Well, thank you for the engagement from both the public and also from the Members of this Committee. I wanted to ask the author if she would like to close. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Chair and Members for the robust discussion and really diving into this important issue that is really, you know, creating such suffering in our community. I am incredibly grateful to Elizabeth who feels so sick and continues to come to Sacramento to advocate on this issue and on behalf of the community.

We've taken a van full of people up here before but couldn't this week because there's a CARB hearing tomorrow, there's a lawsuit happening this week. It's literally a full time job for our community Members to advocate for themselves around this issue. And grateful for Jane's partnership and expertise on this issue as well. You know this.

We took a number of amendments. We took amendments to also push some of the prescriptive pieces that we originally had in the bill to the regulatory process.

So we did actually also take those amendments and we believe that that makes sense because, you know, it gives an opportunity for regulators to figure out what have some flexibility because every landfill situation is not the same and we think that there needs to be flexibility in that.

But overall, we believe that this is a bill that will prevent the kind of pain and suffering that is happening in our community of Valverde and Castaic and make sure that no other community has to go through this kind of nightmare that Elizabeth described and bring real relief.

Because at the end of the day, and what everyone agrees to in our community and leaders in the community is that the people who caused this problem need to pay for the solution. It shouldn't be taxpayers on the hook having to relocate people or buy people out of their homes.

It should be this landfill that their parent company has, you know, is a $52 billion company. They should be paying for being negligent and really not being on top of the job and causing a 20 year catastrophe that now residents are having to deal with. So with that, thank you and respectfully request an aye vote.

Okay, thank you. Please call the roll. Or actually we need a motion. Okay, we'll let the Vice Chair do it. There's a motion by the Vice Chair. And just as a reminder, we are on item number one, which is AB28 from Assemblymember Schiavo.

The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, it's four to Zero. Thank you. We'll keep this on call. And we're going to go to the consent calendar while the second author comes forward. The second author who's here. I appreciate having number 2 and 3 here. So thank you, Assemblymember Papan and Assemblymember Rogers, for being in the room.

We're going to go to item number two, which is AB411. But in the meantime, we're also going to go through the consent calendar. So please announce what's on the consent calendar.

Do we have a motion on the consent calendar or.

I'll announce what's on the consent calendar. It is. Item number four, AB 696. Item number five, AB 899. Number eight, AB 993. Number nine, AB 998. Number 10, AB 1096. And number 12 is AB 1373. So do we have a motion on the consent calendar? Okay, thank you. Senator Padilla moves consent. So please call the roll.

[Roll Call] Five to zero on call.

Okay, thank you. The consent calendar is five to zero. We will keep that on call. So we're now going to the second item on our agenda, which is AB 411 from Assembly Member Papan. She is here and she is prepared with her witnesses. Thank you for coming.

You may. You may begin when ready. Thank you so much. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Can we have an amen for the second to the last day? All right. I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee amendments and thanking them for their work on this bill.

I'm here to present AB 411, which will allow for on farm composting of livestock mortalities in California, a practice permitted in 42 other states. Every livestock producer in California, large or small, faces the inevitable challenge of managing animal mortality safely, affordably and responsibly. The current options to dispense with carcasses are severely limited.

California regulations largely have confined producers to three methods, each with their own certain set of difficulties. Burial, which can contaminate groundwater. Bone piles, which pose public health concerns, environmental risks and invite predators. And then there's rendering. And while safer presents limitations, access can be limited. Many remote producers have limited access to rendering services.

In our Assembly AG Committee, Assemblymember Hadwick was kind enough to share some of the stories of her district, which goes up to the Oregon border. A lot of remote counties and the difficulties that they have with cattle mortalities. There are transportation risks. Moving carcasses off site increases the risk of spreading disease and adds unnecessary emissions from hauling.

There is inconsistency of service. Rendering capacity can fluctuate, leaving producers stranded with no good options. In the face of restrictive, unworkable carcass disposal methods, AB411 enhances California's approach by adding compost as composting as a practical proven tool on a very limited basis. On site composting is a proven science based alternative that is safe.

Proper composting achieves internal temperatures between 130-150 degrees, destroying most pathogens and viruses. It's sustainable. It keeps nutrients on farm and out of landfills, landfills or groundwater and three it's efficient. It requires minimal infrastructure and produces a valuable soil amendment.

In response to concerns raised by the opposition, we did offer some amendments over the weekend to address stakeholder concerns. And while the opposition rejected those amendments, I remain open to working with them as this bill moves forward. The renderers will have you believe the stakes have never been higher.

However, the very prescriptive and limited amount of composting allowed by this bill will have an infinitesimal effect on the dominant means of carcass disposal in California, which is still to be done. By the renders, AB411 simply complements existing disposal options and gives producers another practical tool to manage mortalities.

With me here, here to testify and support is Matthew Marsom from Roots of Change and Kirk Wilbur with the California Cattlemen's Association.

Gentlemen, thank you, thank you Assembly. Thank you Assemblymember and good morning Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Matthew Marsum, and I'm grateful to speak today on behalf of Roots of Change, an organization that works to advance a healthy, just and resilient food system in California.

Roots of Change partners with farmers, ranchers and advocates across the state to advance practical solutions that support a healthy environment, strengthen local economies and support thriving rural communities. AB411 is exactly the type of common sense forward looking policy California needs, giving ranchers a much needed science based and environmentally beneficial option for livestock loss management.

The bill does not restrict all limit options for ranchers. It would allow livestock composting as a safe, environmentally sound and cost effective alternative to traditional carcass disposal. It aligns directly with California's climate and soil health goals while providing ranchers with urgently needed flexibility. Today, ranches in our state are facing intense challenges.

Economic pressures are rising with the cost of feedback, water and land management and meanwhile, climate related disasters are putting additional strain on producers.

This bill provides a tool to ease some of that burden, offering a lower cost, lower impact way to manage unavoidable losses and helping to reduce the cost of input such as fertilizer and losses to predators, all keeping more resources in the hands of our producers.

The bill also delivers broad environmental health benefits, enhancing soil health, increasing soil carbon capture, improving water retention, reducing erosion. Importantly, healthier soils contribute to cleaner air and clean water and healthy soils, benefiting not just ranches but communities across our state.

This bill reflects climate smart regenerative practice that California should be promoting, supporting ranchers while improving the health of our land and delivering environmental benefits for all Californians. For these reasons, Roots have Changed is proud to co sponsor AB411 and we respectfully urge your support an Aye vote thank you.

Good morning Chair and Members. My name is Kirk Wilber with the California Cattlemen's Association, also a co sponsor of AB411, which would authorize small scale on ranch composting of livestock carcasses. Carcass composting provides a necessary disposal alternative for producers who are not well served by available options.

It is a regenerative agricultural practice, improving soil health and it decreases predator livestock interactions to the benefit of both ranchers and wildlife. With that said, I'd like to turn to some of the claims you will perhaps hear from the opposition today. Opposition has claimed that composting livestock carcasses poses a risk to animal or environmental health.

The truth is that a 2022 memo from the state veterinarian attests to the safety of livestock carcass composting, and this Bill has even earned the support of the California Association of Environmental Health Administrators. The opposition claims that we've made no effort to meaningfully address their concerns by amending this Bill. This couldn't be further from the truth.

As just one example, we took clarifying amendments in April reducing our maximum compost volume limitation in the Bill by 2/3, and in response, opposition simply moved the goalpost and requested a further 50% reduction in the compostable volume of carcasses under our Bill.

The opposition claims that AB411 will harm rendering businesses and the Teamster union employees that they employ. This argument simply isn't rooted in reality. Livestock producers use rendering when it is available because it is convenient, and they will continue to do so once another alternative comes online.

That said, empirical evidence from 42 other states which currently allow livestock carcass composting demonstrates that there is not harm to renderers and their employees. Indeed, nearly every concern raised by the opposition is based on the flawed assumption that producers will turn to composting instead of rendering. But there's absolutely zero evidence that's been presented underlying that claim.

Producers in roughly half of the state don't have access to rendering. Elsewhere. Producers are left in the lurch when haulers or renderers simply cannot or will not pick up their carcasses.

Finally, the state vet has cautioned that rendering disruptions are increasing due to mechanical failures, extended heat events and labor shortages, and that alternatives like composting are needed to avoid adverse impacts to human and or animal health and the environment.

California needs an alternative not to rendering, but but to practices like bone piling, burial and landfilling, which ranchers resort to when rendering is not available. Accordingly, I urge your aye vote and I welcome your questions on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. If there are others in the room who would like to express support, please come forward with your name, organization and position.

Hello, I'm Amanda Bloom with the California Association of Environmental Health Administrators. Thank you to the author and the sponsors for taking our concerns related to oversight and enforcement. We're proud to be in support of the bill.

Good morning. Alex Loomer, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and support. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Lizzie Kutzona, on behalf of the Office of Cat Taylor and support. Thanks.

Good morning. Tricia Garringer with Agricultural Council of California in support.

Good morning. Chair and Member Steven Fennaroli with the California Farm Bureau and also on behalf of Western United Dairies, in support.

Brian Shobe, on behalf of the California Climate and Agriculture Network, in support.

Good morning. Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of the California Certified Organic Growers Farmers in support. Thank you.

Tony Hackett, Californians Against Waste, in support.

Okay, thank you. If there's anybody in opposition, lead witnesses in opposition wishing to come forward, please do so at this time.

Welcome can sit here at the front. And you're each welcome to testify for two minutes. Hello. You're each welcome to testify for two minutes each. Yes. Okay. Go ahead when ready.

Good morning. Good morning. My name is Luis Vega. I'm a Member of Teamsters Local 150. I work at Sacramento Rendering where I have been employed for the past six years. While Mike Rowe may call Rendering a dirty job for 750 union Members in California, it's a good job. At Sacramento Rendering, we handle fallen livestock.

We go out to dairies and ranches and pick up these carcasses. The driver brings them into the plant where we remove brain and spinal cord to prevent mad cow disease. Then the carcass moves into the grinder and boilers where it's cooked at 260 degrees for 45 minutes. This kills all diseased pathogens and bacteria.

The plant has constant testing to make sure that the pathogens have been killed and the machines are working properly at the plant. We can also trace each lot back to the farm where it was picked up. USDA guidance for composting mortalities is on point for this legislation. It states successful mortality Composting requires the 1.

A qualified composting expert to guide windrow construction. 2. Trained equipment operators. 3. Sufficient carbon, water and space. If any of these components are lacking, composting is not recommended.

This is where professionals like myself are concerned that there is little chance a rancher whose going business requires keeping animals alive will have trained experts to guide the composting process, operate the equipment necessary and ensure safety and compliance. That is exactly what a company does.

Our plan is inspected by the FDA, USDA, CDFA and local county health and environmental officials. This bill has insufficient oversight and requires no trained professionals like myself and my fellow Teamsters employees. For these reasons, we must oppose this legislation unless the modest amendments we and the renderers have proposed are included. Thank you.

Thanks, Luis. Yes, thank you.

Madam Chairman, Members of the Committee, I'm Michael Kohler, President of Sacramento Rendering Company. And we are opposed of this to this bill unless amended. As renters, we work closely with the dairymen, the ranchers and public health officials. We do not have an issue with composting. It just needs to be to have proper oversight and enforcement.

Especially if we're removing a compost mammalian tissue. In 1969, the year the current statute was enacted, the livestock industry has grown significantly due to great ranchers, favorable weather, but also an animal health system that allowed managed growth protecting both the animals and the environment.

Our livestock system, which, excuse me with the dairy state and the fifth largest beef cattle state, we have implemented a risk based system and rendering plays an important part in managing the risk for pathogens and bacteria that can harm animals, our food supply, our air and our water.

Rendering with our time and temperature controls kills most if not all of these threats. California's livestock system is under unprecedented threats from animal diseases. Diseases that are controlled by rendering.

In fact, earlier this month, the state budget, in the state budget, y' all increased animal health funding for disease monitoring and Prevention by $6 million, approving 29 new positions while increasing funding and expertise. Expertise. On one hand, we are increasing the risk of disease spread with this Bill.

This Bill, with its BMPs, not regulations, overrides the current Water Board and CDFA protections. Composting can work as illustrated in the two studies they did at universities, but it takes training, focus, time and equipment. The proponents argue that with the right management, composting can be safe. However, rendering is always Safe.

We passed SB 1383 to reduce short term climate pollutants for organic material. This bill will increase the same pollutants that bill tried to reduce along with risk to public health. We have provided peer review evidence that this bill will, number one, increase GHG production. Composting produces methane 40 times stronger than CO2 while rendering captures that carbon.

It's if if just 20% of the eligible entities compost, the emissions will increase the equivalent of amount of 25,000 cars annually. Water quality. Animal carcasses are nutrient dense if not handled properly. Water quality is a challenge, especially in areas in the Central Valley. So you're going to have to wrap up.

Yeah, I have one more 0.1 more sentence. Okay, great. It's going to be a long one. The bill overrides our environmental and health regulations and we're opposed to this bill unless there are amendments, especially a sunset clause that would evaluate this bill in terms of what it would do to the existing regulations. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We appreciate hearing from you both. Next, we have anybody in the room who would wish to express opposition, Please state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Madam Chair, Matt Broad here on behalf of Teamsters California in strong opposition. Happy to answer any questions about the status of negotiations. Thank you.

My name is Mart Sweatt. I work for Sacramento Rendering Company. I've been with them for 26 years and I oppose this bill.

Good morning. Taylor Truffaut on behalf of the California Advanced Biofuels Alliance, in opposition.

Good morning. My name is Mark and I oppose Teamster Kerman for Baker commodities. Thank you.

Nicholas Galvan, Baker Commodities and Kerman, and I oppose this bill.

I'm Doug Fletcher, General manager of Kerman hamper division, and I'm opposed to the Bill. 411.

Jimmy Wilson, a Member with Baker Commodities. I'm a Member with the Teamsters Union 431 and use common sense and say no to AB411.

I'm Daniel Pena with Darling Ingredients, and I oppose this bill.

Good morning. My name is Mike Garcia. I. I'm a team server Member. I'm an employer of bigger commodities, and I. I oppose this bill.

Hi, my name is Sil Martinez, and I'm with Darling Ingredients, and I oppose this bill.

Morning. Anthony Rios with Kerman Baker Commodities, and I oppose.

Good morning. My name is Austin Sayer with UFCW Local 8, and I oppose this bill.

Hello, my name is Raymond Castro with Sacramento rendering companies, Sacramento, and I oppose this bill.

Hi, I'm Bruno Palo. I work for Darling Ingredients, and I oppose this bill.

I'm Carlo Luna and work for Darling Ingredients too, and I vote for no.

Good morning. Brad Fleming with Darling Ingredients out of Fresno, California, and I oppose this bill.

Hi, my name is Rodrigo Marquez. I'm a steward also with the Local 150 Teamsters. I've been working with them for eight years with Sacramento rendering, and I oppose this bill.

Hi, my name is Rogelio and I'm from Sacramento rendering. I've been 12 years working with it and I post this bill.

Hello. Dennis Albiani, on behalf of the Grain and Feed Association, we oppose this bill. I apologize. Our letters were not indicated, but we turned them in on July 8th. So apologize. Apologies for not being in the analysis for some reason.

Rhiannon Morales with UFCW Western States Council in opposition. Thank you.

Okay, anybody else in the room wishing to come forward and express opposition or anybody who missed the chance to express support? Okay, we'll bring it back. So I'll just start by saying that I very much appreciate the number of people who work in these jobs at rendering facilities coming forward today to express your position.

To me, it seems like it would be very difficult work to be doing that. And I appreciate the job that you do. I do think that this Bill is really important and has an important premise, which is to create a pathway for farmers to compost small amounts of animal carcasses on farms.

So it's important to remember that we're talking about 100 cubic yards or less, which is between six and 12 cattle at a time. And there are parts of the state that don't have Rendering facilities within any sort of a reasonable proximity.

And you know, to me, this, I think immediately about my efforts when my children were very young and in elementary school to get a composting program going at the school.

And the difficulties with the Public Health Department and getting approval to do something on site which seemed basically nearly De minimis the amount that was coming from the school garden going back into a compost pile, together with some things from the school lunches.

But the difficulties of dealing with perceptions of risk of spreading disease, and how is it that we can actually have a more sustainable society? I think we do need to be thinking about the very short supply and demand chain.

So to have things happening on site where we're composting, we're growing, we're eating the food, we're having a very short space where all of that happens. We're not shipping everything to a facility, whether it's food waste or it's animal carcasses or, you know, it's other things that can be reused.

So it all to me goes back to recognizing that we want the soil amendments. We want to have the ability to both process at scale and also do things that are much more small scale. So to me, this is clearly very small scale, given that it is between 6 and 12 cattle at a.

And also just recognizing that rendering facilities, it's not as if cattle ranchers are the only source. So rendering facilities also process animal byproducts from slaughterhouses and meat packing plants. And I'm sure with the popularity of collagen right now and nearly every food additive, that there's an additional.

A large amount of additional input coming to create that collagen and all sorts of other things. I mean, but basically, I appreciate this bill and I think that it's important to recognize that we do certain things that I think are good, like, for example, reintroducing a top predator of a wolf into California.

And wolves then are drawn to the bone piles, which might have been a way that and other predators, coyotes and all sorts of other predators that might not have come to a bone pile before. And a bone pile, from my understanding, is basically just an open air bone pit where animals are put to decompose.

But this allows it to be in a compost so it's not deeply buried in the ground. It is buried and managed in the way compost is, which is it's turned and it has other additives that are put into it, Soil and other green and fiber materials.

And so to me, the bill strikes the right ground of saying that the ranchers have to notify the Water Boards so that there's some acknowledgement of what's happening here. But then they're allowed to have a compost of these animal carcasses on site.

So I just want to recognize the hard work of the author and the sponsors and say thank you for bringing this. And I think to me it goes toward the type of society we want to build, which is that there are the opportunities for us to do more things locally at small scale.

And to me that seems like that is a better world in all ways. So with that I'll turn it to my Committee Members to see if there are any questions or comments. Any questions or comments? No? Okay, then I will turn it back to the author if you would like to close.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and knowing enough to know that I'll take your words as my closing. So thank you so much and I do respectfully request an Aye vote.

Okay, thank you. Is there a motion on this bill? Okay. The Vice Chair has moved the bill. Please call the roll.

Motion is do pass as amended to appropriation. [Roll Call} Five to zero on call.

Okay, that bill is five to zero and we'll leave it on call. Thank you very much. And we'll move on to our next bill which is from Assemblymember Rogers, AB531. And this is item number three.

And just as a reminder about the Bill that will be coming after this, we have AB864 from Assemblymember Ward and then AB881 from Assemblymember Petrie Norris. So with that, Assemblymember Rogers, you're welcome to begin when ready.

Thank you so much. Chair and Members, we're here today to present AB 531. 531 adds geothermal into the state's Environmental Leadership Project program. That allows the California Department of Energy to do a one stop shop for permitting for geothermal projects.

As many of you know, where California has really succeeded in its delivery of projects is around solar and onshore wind. Where we have really struggled to meet our climate goals is in evening when the sun is no longer shining and when the wind is a little bit harder for us to capture. Geothermal helps to plug that gap.

And in fact, one of the most substantial things that we can do for meeting our climate goals as we electrify, especially expand our state's fleet of electric vehicles is to give options for renewable energy in the evening.

Right now, when you charge your car at night, it means you're pulling from the grid that's being produced electricity that's being produced by natural gas and fossil fuels. Geothermal is one of the only options that we have.

And in fact, Sonoma County and Lake County, because of our substantial geothermal resources, is one of the only places in the entire United States, I think the only place in the entire United States that currently can deliver 100% renewable energy 24,7 from a locally derived source. With me today are two amazing witnesses.

We have Miles Horton for Sonoma Clean Power. We have Chris Snyder with the Operating Engineers Local 3. Sonoma Clean Power has been expanding what they call the GeoZone initiative, which is testing out additional new technologies related to geothermal and proliferating them across the state.

And in particular, when we talk about a just transition for workers, it's important to have the operating engineers and our electricians that are on board with the Bill as well, because oftentimes they can just slot into the geothermal jobs straight from fossil fuels. So I'll turn it over to them for additional comments.

Thank you, Assemblymember, and thank you to the chair and Committee staff for your work on this Bill. Miles Horton with Sonoma Clean Power we are a locally owned public power provider serving Sonoma and Mendocino counties.

Just very briefly, like the Assembly Member mentioned, what we've identified is that, you know, we're currently using a lot of solar, wind batteries, but in those periods when the resources aren't available, like a long dark week in the winter, we're still relying on natural gas and the rest of the state is too.

And if we're going to actually Wean off of natural gas and get to 100% clean energy around the clock. And that has a major climate benefit, obviously, but there's also a big financial benefit to our customers. If we can do that, we need those clean, firm resources like geothermal. And so California has colossal demand for geothermal power.

We have the best workforce, as we'll hear about. We have the best geology for these types of technologies. But the challenge is the regulatory environment.

And so by making it easier for geothermal projects to use this existing one stop shop process that the Legislature's already approved, this will really help move the ball forward in terms of attracting development to the state and helping us reach our climate goals in a timely and cost effective way. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Chris Snyder, I'm with the operating Engineers Local 3. And we actually have a training facility just 40 miles outside of here with about 2,000 acres where we train skilled craftsmen in drilling, crane operation and all that kind of thing. And we would be the skilled folks up there.

You know, we're in this strange climate right now where, you know, we just. We're seeing the unwinding of the Ira and all the things at the federal level where they're kind of unwinding some of those energy tax credits that we all worked hard for.

And this is a real opportunity for the State of California to kind of step up and make it easier to have that baseline. Like the Assemblyman said, the solar, you know, the sun doesn't always shine, the wind doesn't always blow, but that geothermal is there all the time.

And our folks are the folks that are going to be up there doing it. And we're also, you know, we have a lot of Members, tens of thousands of building trades Members and operating engineers that do work in oil and gas right now.

And this is also a great opportunity to build that bridge from old fossil fuels to the new energy sector. And we're completely committed to be able to give those good jobs that are in those highly unionized industries into new industries.

But without doing that, we need good labor standards that allows us for that transition and the ability to actually give folks locally the ability to, you know, provide for their families at the same levels that the old industries did.

So really appreciate your consideration for a yes vote on this, and I think it's a really exciting time to be part of this new transition. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, anybody in the room wishing to express support, please come forward. State your name, organization and position.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Members Mike West, on behalf of the State Building Trades in support.

Allison Hilliard with the Climate center and support. Thank you.

Good morning. Sophia Quach on behalf of San Jose Clean Energy, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair Members Molly Corcoran on behalf of Invenergy and support. Thank you.

Good morning. Michael Pickens, operating Engineers Local 3 District Rep. From North Bay, in support.

Morning. Edson Perez with Advanced Energy United in support.

Good morning. Chair Blakespear and Members John Kenrick on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and Sport.

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

Okay, thank you. If there are opposition witnesses, lead witnesses, please come forward to the table. See, we have one. Welcome. You have two Minutes.

Great. I'll try to be brief. Good morning. John Kennedy, Rural County Representatives of California. We're here today to oppose AB5. Our Member counties have most of the state's known geothermal resources areas. We share the same goal as the author. We really want to bring significant increases in geothermal production to the state.

There would be tremendous community benefits in many of our rural areas, but not by sacrificing local control for these projects. We oppose AB531's expansion of the AB205 opt in permitting process at the CEC because it further usurps local government's traditional land use authority authority in these areas.

We've offered amends to ensure that projects have local support, but those seem to be viewed as an unnecessary inconvenience by some of the supporters. And for that reason we must oppose again. We're not the problem. We want these projects. Take Modoc county, for example. We were up there a couple months ago.

They have significant geothermal resources and significant local interest. The population of 9,000 secured a couple of grants from the California Energy Commission to do research and exploration of geothermal energy.

They're also trying to develop an educational partnership program with University of Nevada, Reno, the CSU system and the Oregon Institute of Technology because they have so many resources up there. But they have grave concerns with this approach and oppose AB531's approach.

So we as an organization have always been interested in collaboration and efforts to improve renewable energy permits at the local level. But AB 531 is not collaborative or oriented in problem solving with the local governments. Instead, it invites even more state authority and discretion into traditional local permitting and land use decisions.

And for those reasons, we must oppose. Thank you.

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

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Jordan Wells, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Bringing it back to the Members. Any questions or comments? I'll just start by saying that I very much appreciate what this bill's goal is, which is to allow small geothermal energy projects to be eligible for the streamlined permitting process that already applies to larger clean energy projects under the direction of the California Energy Commission.

And it is. I think it's true that the state has an interest in achieving zero carbon energy by 2045, but locals might not have that same goal because their concerns are more hyperlocal.

And I come from local government and recognize that it can be very difficult to have community buy in for statewide goals that seem to be very distant and ancillary to their immediate concerns.

So to me, it does make sense if we would like to get a streamlined permitting process going for smaller projects like this, that I completely understand Mr. Kennedy's position on it.

But recognizing the importance of getting more of these projects off the ground, to me that does seem like a good idea to have it centered in the California Energy Commission in lieu of the local agency. So I appreciate. And also we are the environment Committee, not the local government Committee. Just recognizing that as well.

So with that, I'll turn it to my colleagues and see if there's a yes, Vice Chair.

Thank you. So I completely understand and agree that, you know, we need to take that all hands on deck approach to energy in the state and supportive of geothermal. But my bigger problem is actually the original Bill, 205 AB. 205. And you know, that it takes away so much control and say from our local communities.

And for instance, in my district, there is a best facility going through the 205 streamlining permitting process. And our community is up in arms because they had no say in it because the placement is in a high wildfire zone. And best facilities are known for thermal Runway and fires that take days to put out and omit toxins.

Obviously that's not the fact or necessarily the same thing when it comes to geothermal plants, but the reality is the locals have very little say. So does your Bill at all address any. Is there any safeguards?

Is there any recourse or oversight when it comes to communities feeling like the state process is moving too fast and especially when it comes to local risk or concerns.

So first of all, I think you hit it on the head that much of the opposition to the Bill is actually related to the enabling statute that was passed by the Legislature. As was noted, geothermal plants over 50 megawatts are already in this process, as others have seen.

And so what we are trying to do is actually give more localized, smaller opportunities for that geothermal to take place. What people are lacking when they make that type of investment, whether it's the workforce or whether it's the actual geothermal plant itself, is some level of certainty.

And especially as local governments change hands frequently, people come and go from those. You've got millions of dollars of risk that has been put out there for these companies just to do the exploration phase, let alone get to the point where they're actually producing energy that's what we're trying to make sure that we solve here.

There's also emerging technologies that are coming out that are safer than your traditional starting geothermal plants that we want to be able to test out. And that's part of what we're trying to do here, is provide that opportunity for folks. There's some history here related to local governments and geothermal activity.

Where originally the California Energy Commission was the stop where you would do much of your permitting for these types of projects, locals wanted more say, so they got more say there was legislation that allowed them to do some local planning as well.

Then come to find out that many places that are already struggling to deliver basic resources don't have specialists related to geothermal. And when people are unsure, they just tend to block. And that's what we've seen not just in the energy space, but really across California.

So when we talk about affordability and trying to make California more affordable, part of that is making sure that projects like this have experts who are weighing in and can look at it, can look at the conditions on the ground, determine the safety of it, can look at whether or not the project's viable as opposed to just locking up land for a long time that people can actually utilize while they see if there's a path forward using the expedited process or the opt in one size, one stop shop for permitting creates that certainty, makes sure that experts have their eyes on it, and ultimately helps produce energy for all of California.

So the current permitting process there, I mean, if it's for the smaller geothermal plants, is. I mean, are there examples of where it's taken longer or. I'm not understanding, like if this is.

Yeah, thank you so much for the. Is this on? Yeah, thanks so much for the question, Senator. So I think the thing we're trying to address, and I'll just tell you a little story here. So today for a geothermal plant under 50 megawatts and this, this may work out fine, or this may be a challenge.

You know, the developer would typically have to go to the county and the airboard and the Fish and Wildlife and, you know, a number of other entities. Right. It's this very sort of complex process. And again, I think our goal is to give them the one stop shop.

And you know, we're in a situation where because of these kind of regulatory challenges, like we mentioned, we have a colossal need for geothermal. But projects either aren't happening at all or when they are happening to, you know, are being built to serve the California market. They're being built in places like Nevada and Utah.

And so I had the chance a couple months ago to go with two of our Sonoma county supervisors to a site in Utah that is this very large new enhanced geothermal development that's being built to serve California customers.

It's not a big deal with Southern California Edison, and that's great, but it's this permanent export of ratepayer money and jobs out of California. Right. I was actually telling Chris on the way here, we were talking to the economic development Director for Beaver County, Utah, and she was like, zero, this is so great.

All this money and jobs are just pouring in. It's like, well, yeah, where's that coming from? Right, it's coming from us. And so I think to compete with these other states where the process is very streamlined, very straightforward, often again, kind of a one stop shop, this is why we're trying to plug into the AB205 process.

Okay. So just unfortunately for me, until there is an opportunity, whether it's for recourse or for locals to have more say in what's coming into their community, I just can't get there. But I appreciate the work you're doing.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else want to make comments? Senator Padilla.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank the author for bringing the Bill. And just briefly due regard to my esteemed colleague, I see the 205 process very differently.

And one of the challenges we've always faced looking at that unique entitlement review process, particularly on regional interconnect projects and other things, is to a help us get important infrastructure built and connected and online, and also to meet our GHG reduction goals, which we never will do with the current, you know, all due respect, current grid and some of the current entitlement processes.

So expanding on that here I think is entirely reasonable. I think the Bill is thoughtful. Appreciate the author for bringing it.

Okay, thank you. We'll bring it back to the Member to close.

Yeah, just. And I appreciate it. I understand the concern. But to Senator Padilla's point, if the state is going to meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals, we need to continue to invest in baseload technologies that are able to Wean us off of our natural gas power plants.

Right now, even during the day, even if we're not utilizing natural gas power plants, they still spin up in the middle of the afternoon because it takes that long to get them operational. That's additional time where we are burning fossil fuels that we're not even utilizing that energy yet.

And so by Investing in technologies like geothermal and making them actually viable in the State of California, then we are investing in a cleaner future. And we are investing in a future that has grid reliability and the ability to Wean ourselves off of those power plants. So with that, I just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, thank you. Is there a motion? Okay. Senator Padilla moves the Bill. Please call the roll.

Motion is due. Pass to Appropriations. Senators Blakespear. Aye. Blakespear. Aye. Validaris. Dahle. No. Dahle. No. Gonzalez, Hurtado, Menjevar, Minjvar Aye. Padilla. Padilla Aye. Perez.

Okay, thank you. It's three to one. We will leave that on call. And just to inform everyone of where we are in our hearing right now, we are on to item number six, which is Assemblymember Ward. Then we have item number seven, Assemblymember Petrie Norris. And my hope is that we are able to finish by one.

And if we are not finished by one, we will take our lunch break from one to two. So we'll definitely get to both of your bills, but just want to make sure others are aware of that. So after Assemblymember Petrie Norris, we would have Assemblymember Soria with AB 1111.

So with that, we'll turn it over to you, Assemblymember Ward.

Hey, Madam Chair, let me help you meet your goal. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. First, I want to thank all the Committee for their Hard work on this Bill and state that I will be of course accept the Committee's amendments outlined in your analysis.

As of this year, 2025, California has the largest solar market in the United States. We supply over 31% of the electricity. Thankfully, this capacity continues to grow as we move towards a more sustainable power grid and energy future.

Now, as you all know, given an average 20 or 30 year lifespan, many of these panels are beginning to reach the end of their life cycle. And this of course poses a huge challenge for the state.

To ensure that these panels are properly collected and managed, however, also offers a huge opportun to reclaim valuable materials and create a truly sustainable circular market. Unfortunately, solar panels are one of the few products that are not accepted for free at most collection sites.

Like other universal or household hazardous waste, there are limited opportunities for solar panel owners dropping unwanted panels at a public collection site or directly with recyclers.

On March 14th of this year, DTSC released a draft plan which is organized into 10 goals, each with specific recommendations intended to address the challenges of California's hazardous waste management system and strive towards the development of a Circular economy.

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

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

With us to speak in support is Evelyn Butler, the Vice President of technical services at the Solar Energy Industry Association. And when the time is right, I respectfully request your aye vote. Okay.

Thank you so much. You have two minutes.

All right. Thank you. Good morning. I will do my best not to repeat anything that the Assembly Member has already shared with you, including my name.

But I do want to begin by thanking all of you for the opportunity to speak with you today in support of AB864 and to the Assembly Member for his continued collaboration on this issue. I represent the National Industry Association for Solar and Energy Storage.

We actively represent companies, over 1200 Members that include manufacturers, installers, independent power producers or project owners, financial investors, and many third party owners who lease solar to customers. Today we also operate the nation's only circularity and recycling partner program, working with commercial recyclers to help them develop and deliver decommissioning and recycling services to these companies and owners.

And many of those Members are actually based here in California. As the Assembly Member has mentioned, the deployment of solar energy has grown exponentially over the last decade and particularly within California.

And we've also seen on the national level the necessity to make sure that we're responsibly managing our technology when it reaches the time of decommissioning and also during its service lifetime in case there's a warranty issue. And we do have the position of favoring reuse and recycling. It's not our preference to see solar panels landfills.

We don't think that's the right thing to do from a sustainability perspective.

AB64, we believe, will provide a much more needed clarity and structure for how to manage for these businesses who are actually professionally removing panels from rooftops as well as performing the recycling services, a cleaner way for them to understand what to do with panels that are actually hazardous and ones that are not actually hazardous.

This Bill allows that those solar panels that are not hazardous, as the Assembly Member mentioned. But are still characterized in California under law as universal waste to be managed as long as they're going to a legitimate recycler.

And that's a definition within the federal law that has not been adopted by the State of California as well as I want to say probably 11 other states in the country. That's not just California. zero, sorry. Doesn't. Doesn't adhere to many of those federal laws, but they just have not accepted that.

Additionally, we are also asking for California to adopt alternative management standards for how the panels are actually processed.

I'm sorry, but it's over two minutes. So we need you to. Would you like a conclusory sentence?

Sure. I will just say that we do believe that what's in the Bill does support a more sustainable, responsible management of our products. And we also ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you so much.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Thank you for being here today. And if you are in the room and support, please come forward. State your name, organization and position.

Kim Stone. Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California Solar and Storage Association in enthusiastic support.

Lizzie Cuzona on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council and support.

Chairmember Jael Dentas with Full Moon Strategies on behalf of Alameda County in support. Tony Hackett, Californians Against Waste in support.

Mandy Strello on behalf of Rethink Waste and support.

Okay, thank you for coming and support. If there's anybody in opposition who would wish to come forward as a primary witness, please do so now. Okay, not seeing anybody. Anyone in the room wishing to express opposition to this Bill. Okay, not seeing any. We'll bring it back to the Committee.

And I'll just start by saying that I appreciate the author's multi year effort to figure out how we can better manage solar panel waste and sustainably lead toward reuse and recycling. So this Bill takes a sensible approach by tasking DTSC with developing new standards for solar panels.

This will make it easier and more sustainable to manage the waste. And I appreciate a lot of the work that the Committee consultant and you and your team have done on this Bill. So does anybody else wish to make a comment on this Bill? Okay, not seeing anything. We'll turn it back to the author to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This isn't something that is new or terribly innovative. This exists in many other countries and even some United US States that we know we can do this. We just need to be able to sync up our own regulations within our state respect.

Of course, a lot of the environmental concerns and hazardous waste issues that we want to be able to work through.

But we believe, again, with your close attention and your staff's direct support, that we've got a pathway here to be able to ensure that the coming onslaught of hundreds of thousands of solar panels that are otherwise going to run out their lifespan and be decommissioned have a better future for both themselves as well as our overall ecosystem.

And I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Do we have a motion? Okay. We have a motion from Senator Menjavar. Please call the roll.

Motion is do pass, as amended, to Appropriations. Senators lakespeare.

Aye.

Lakes. Aye. Validaris. Validaris. Aye. Dali. Dali. Aye. Gonzalez. Hurtado. Minjabar. Minjar. Aye. Padilla. Padilla. Aye. Perez. Five to zero on call.

It's five to zero. We'll keep that on call. Thank you. Okay, next we are on to item number seven, which is Assembly Member Petrie Norris with AB881. She's welcome to come forward at this time. And after that, we will have Assembly Member Soria with AB 1111, and then after that, Assembly Member Wicks with AB 1156.

So we encourage those authors to come here soon. And with that, we will turn it over to you, Assemblymember Petrie Norris, to get started when ready.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Members. I want to begin by accepting the Committee amendments on AB81 and thanking you and your staff for your work on this measure. Particularly appreciate our shared commitment to continue working on the provision of the notice requirement to ensure that it is both a robust as well as workable solution.

AB881 ensures that California can meet our climate goals by supporting the safe transport of carbon captured by pipelines. Carbon capture technologies are an important and necessary part of California's strategies to achieve our climate goals.

Recognizing the importance of this, in 2022, California set carbon removal goals of 20 million metric tons by 2030 and 100 million metric tons by 2045. Also in 2022, the Legislature passed SB 905, which established a strategic framework for the state in pursuing carbon capture technologies.

As part of that, California placed a temporary moratorium on building new carbon dioxide pipelines in anticipation of federal guidelines that were then being developed. California's moratorium was to remain in place until the Federal Government finalized their safety regulations. In January of 2025, a draft of those federal regulations was indeed released by the Biden Administration.

But three days later, after Donald Trump's inauguration, that regulatory process was paused. So what comes next from the Federal Government is uncertain, and it is Critically important that California take our destiny in our own hands at this moment. So that's where AB881 comes in.

This Bill directs the fire marshal to build upon draft federal regulations and allow California to lift our moratorium. AB881 will ensure that California leverages billions of dollars in federal support to meet our climate goals, while also creating thousands of high road green jobs.

Pleased to be joined today by Laura Lewis, who is the chief legal and government affairs officer at smud, and Scott Wech, who is here on behalf of the California Carbon Solutions Coalition.

Well, thank you. Thank you for being here today, both of you.

And you each have two minutes. Thank you. Chair Blake Spear, Members of the Committee again. I'm Laura Lewis, Chief legal and Government Affairs Officer for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. SMUD is the sixth largest community owned electric utility in terms of customer served. We serve about 1.5 million residents in Sacramento County.

I'm pleased to be here today in strong support of AB881, a Bill critical to the advancement of carbon capture and storage technology. SMUD has a goal to reach zero carbon emissions in our power supply by 2030, within the guardrails of affordability and reliability. This is the most ambitious goal of any large utility in the nation.

We believe existing clean technologies like hydro, solar, wind and storage will get us up to 90% of the way there. To reach that remaining 10% while still maintaining reliable and affordable service, we need emerging technologies such as carbon capture and storage.

To this end, SMUD is partnering with Kaplan Corporation to retrofit its 550 megawatts Sutter natural gas plant near Yuba City, California to a carbon capture and storage facility. SMUD will be the off taker of the energy produced at this facility.

The project will provide us with clean, dispatchable energy that is necessary for us to maintain reliability as we transition to other cleaner sources of energy. It will also help us keep our rates affordable because it allows us to leverage existing infrastructure while reducing over 95% of the carbon emissions of the facility.

AB 881 will ensure that the carbon capture and storage projects can proceed in a manner that is protective of public health and safety, while also preserving existing jobs and creating new ones. As a community owned electric utility, we put community safety at the forefront.

We would not consider this technology if we thought it would not be done safely and responsibly. We would never put the communities we serve in work and at risk. And we know that we share these values with local agencies across the state. For these reasons, we respectfully Request your a vote. And thank you for your time.

I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. And you have two minutes as well.

Madam Chair. Member Scott Witch, on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council and the State Association of Electrical Workers and California Coalition of Utility Employees, I was very involved in Senator Caballero's SB905, a budget trailer Bill from 2022.

At the very end of that, it's, you know, it created the regulatory structure at the Air Resources Board to permit pipelines and carbon capture sequestration projects at the level.

At the very end of that, the amendment was put in to do a moratorium on pipeline until phmsa, the federal regulatory entity, passed safety guidelines, anticipating that there may be some hiccups on the federal process.

The legislation also directed the state fire marshal to do a report to the Legislature by February 30th of 2023, stating its ability and capacity to do safety guidelines as well.

Why this is so critical now is that a, the regulatory structure that we set up at CARB Sunsets, in a little more than five years, these projects, we have a million, 100 million metric tons of carbon that is in the scoping plan. So it's absolutely essential to our carbon goals.

All these projects are dependent on receiving what's called a 45Q tax credit, which is 65 to $85 per million metric ton of carbon. And those projects have to be under construction by 2032 in order to get that funding.

Lastly, just like to say there's been some alarm about, you know, adopting the Biden standards and then having the fire marshal go in. The fire marshal can go in in a regulatory process and add to these guidelines. It's important for the Committee to note that the Bill prohibits using existing pipelines.

So we're talking about new pipelines and they're going to have to go through a full CEQA process. Okay. So there's going to be more than ample time for the state fire marshal to add any other additions to this that they need to add before those pipelines are even close to being fully permitted and constructed.

So this is a really reasoned approach and we would urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Well, thank you very much. Anyone else in the room wishing to express support, please come forward. State your name, organization and position.

Leah Barrows, on behalf of Calpine and the Independent Energy Producers Association in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members Virgil Welch on behalf of the California Carbon Solutions Coalition, in support.

Matt Clavenstein on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association in support thank you, Mike West, on behalf of the State Building Trades in support.

Okay. Thank you. To those who came to express support. If there's anybody in the room wishing to come forward as a lead witness in opposition, please do so now. Hello. Welcome.

You're welcome to proceed when ready. You each have two minutes.

Good afternoon. Marie Lu, here on behalf of the Central California Environmental Justice Network, that has an opposed unless amended position. CCEJN works with communities who face historic disproportionate environmental burdens and who are the frontline of intense impacts of climate change.

Unfortunately, just because a project is labeled a climate solution does not mean the project is inherently good or low harm, especially for the surrounding communities. CO2 pipelines are hazardous. In 2020, a CO2 pipeline ruptured a mile away from the town of Satartia, Mississippi.

The operator's, the operator's leaf model inaccurately predicted that the facility was too far to be impacted. But nevertheless, a mile away, that's the distance between this building and the tower and the tower bridge, residents faced seizures, loss of consciousness, and were hospitalized.

Evacuations and emergency responses were hampered because there was not enough oxygen to run their gas-powered vehicles. The proposed amendments leave it to every lead agency for the project to determine what the acceptable range of harm is when they are considering pipeline siting.

There are key factors in determining what constitutes a dangerous level of CO2, including the duration of exposure, the age, and the health of a person affected. This bill will not require the lead agency to identify these key factors, let alone take them into account.

This bill will also, unfortunately, not take any baseline of risk off the table, such as a pipeline near a school or a hospital. Unfortunately, we can't take it for granted that the public pressure through a CEQA alone will be sufficient protection for communities, especially with ongoing efforts to limit transparency and environmental review under CEQA.

Our intention in this bill was to make sure that communities who have been burdened with the quote unquote, acceptable risk of fossil fuel production and combustion are not told once again that their health and safety are acceptable risks to these pipelines. Without assurances that a baseline level of risk is.

Without assurances that there is a base level of risk that's simply not acceptable, and without greater specificity on what must be considered when determining the acceptable risk of harm by these pipelines. CCEJN must remain respectfully opposed to this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. You also have two minutes.

Good morning. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity. We echo Ms. Liu's comments. Excuse me. And note that while we appreciate the author's work to incorporate certain guardrails, we remain respectfully opposed. First, as others have noted, CO2 pipelines are very dangerous. In Mississippi, the odorless gas caught many, including first responders, by surprise.

Odorants should be required, not just considered if feasible. It's a simple thing to do to protect lives. Second, the abbreviated emergency rulemaking process is inappropriate, especially considering the many dangers and unknowns. California law makes clear that expediency, convenience, best interest, general public need, or speculation are not sufficient bases to justify emergency rulemaking.

It's communities who suffer when we experiment like this. It's not another tool in the toolbox if it causes harm. The state must protect Californians and the environment from the known and unknown harms of CO2 pipelines. Finally, we push back on the alleged need for CO2 pipelines and CCS development. These are not climate solutions.

At least two California CCS proposals revealed they will actually increase GHGs. Decades on this tech has rarely demonstrated the claimed capture rates, and it remains ineffective, expensive, energy-intensive, it isn't carbon neutral or negative, and it can actually increase social costs, pollution, and emissions.

We've cited much of the data in our letters, provided one abstract for you today, and are happy to discuss further studies demonstrating this is a poor investment that will not bring us towards our climate goals, but will likely prolong the use of fossil fuels. We're in a real budget crunch.

You all face very difficult decisions on the likely cuts ahead. This is dangerous, ineffective, expensive tech, and while we appreciate the author's inclusion of guardrails, the legislature should think very critically about how it spends limited tax dollars.

Federal CCS subsidies already cost taxpayers six billion dollars per project, but we don't have a lot of time or money to throw around. CCS is not a climate solution that will prevent worsening climate harms. Investing tax dollars into CCS infrastructure like CO2 pipelines is a poor investment, contrary to the public interest. Thank you.

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

Katie Valenzuela with Everyday Impact Consulting on behalf of the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment in opposition. Thank you.

Asha Sharma, on behalf of Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, we are opposed unless amended and align our comments with those of CCEJN and CBD. Thank you.

Nicole Ghio, with the 200,000 Food and Water Watch members across the State of California, we oppose this bill, as do Oil and Gas Action Network, SanDiego350, Climate Justice Committee for the Unitarian Universalist Church of Berkeley, who could not be here in person. Thank you.

Hello. Isabel Penman here with Food and Water Watch as well in proxy vote for position for Social Responsibility LA, Biofuelwatch, Sunflower Alliance, 1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations, who also oppose this bill and cannot be here today.

Aditya Kataria, also here with Food and Water Watch in opposition for this bill. Also here as a proxy for Rio Vista Democratic Club, Elders Climate Action NorCal Chapter, Solana Democratic Central Committee, and 350 Bay Area Action, who also oppose this bill but cannot be here in person today.

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

Good morning. Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance in respectful opposition.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else in the room wishing to express opposition? Okay, not seeing any. We'll turn it back to the committee. And I'll just start by saying that this topic is very difficult. And I think it's difficult because of the premise.

The premise being that essentially capturing carbon and then transporting it and then storing it somewhere is something that we wish we didn't have to do. And I see the opposition flyers that were handed out and have been looking them over.

And the idea that this practice continues business as usual is something that environmentalists, and environmental community and environmental justice advocates get really upset about because you look to decision makers and say, why can't we transition to a renewable energy future faster and not have to rely on fossil fuels that produce the carbon that we then have to capture?

But I think it's important to recognize the reality of the fact that we are not transitioning faster, and in many ways, we're now transitioning slower based on just in this last year, I mean, there's been a tremendous change in our overall policies at the state level.

When you look at look together at everything that we're doing that will, that will create the midterm transition will last longer. And that's a big disappointment for many of us who care deeply about our planet and climate change and see it as the existential threat it is, and want us to move faster.

From my reading on this topic, there isn't a way for us to actually bend that curve and reduce the amount of carbon without taking some of it out that we have already produced. So, figuring out a way to make it as safe as possible is what the challenge is. And the author has taken this on.

I appreciate Assemblymember Petrie-Norris' involvement in this because you're just deeply involved in this topic. As the chair on your side, on the assembly side of a committee that is dealing with energy policy all the time, you're able to see the picture, the big picture.

And so, you know, what we've worked on in this committee is a lot of the details of striking the balance of how do you keep a project recognizing that there is these projects need to happen.

So, how is it that we can have them be moving quickly, ensure communities are notified and informed, and then also using the best available information to assess risk and to reduce risk. And we know there's risk from digging up oil out of the ground, but we're still doing it, and we're still dependent upon doing it.

And we of course, work all the time to make that as safe as possible for everybody, for the workers, for the community around. And I think some of the things that happened in Mississippi have all of those things have informed what it is that is being proposed in this bill.

So that we don't have a carbon capture leak that then leads to people, I'll note, I'm glad that nobody died in that.

But of course, having it be in a valley and have people affected so much with dizziness and going to the hospital and vomiting, and then some vehicles not being able to run because there's not enough oxygen. Interestingly, if they were electric vehicles, they probably could run, but because they're gas vehicles, they couldn't.

But, you know, we've continued to work on a lot of the details on this, and even just this morning, I want to acknowledge that we've been having this continuing dialogue about the details of the notification requirements specifically.

So it's important that people who are those what's called sensitive receptors, businesses or residents near, near the proposed pipeline are proactively informed. But we also don't want to prejudice what it is we are informing them about. So we're continuing to work on the very specifics of that language.

And I just want to have the author acknowledge that that part is still being worked out. Yeah.

And so, but, you know, it is important that people are informed about what's happening, but we also have a process that is best practice for how it is that we can transport carbon that we capture and to put it back into the earth in a way where it could potentially calcify and stay there instead of being used as a type of fracking or something else that produces more oil.

And, you know, this is capturing it underground in a place that is most suited for having it stay there indefinitely.

So, I just want to acknowledge that as the background and say a big thank you to the author for proceeding with trying to figure out what to do here, and also recognize the very valid concerns about safety and the environment that have been posed by the opposition.

So with that, I'll turn it to my colleagues to see if there are any other comments? Yes, Assemblymember Menjivar. I'm sorry, Senator Menjivar.

Thank you so much for that, Madam Chair. And I'll follow up with one of the questions related to what you mentioned about the sensitive receptors and being informed. But Assemblymember, could you just share like, how does your bill make it clear that new pipes won't be built near those sensitive receptors?

Or is it just a matter of informing them? Hey, this is happening, SOL.

So the way that the bill, the bill is structured is it picks up where the Biden Administration left off, and it uses those draft safety guidelines really as a starting point that then the fire marshal will begin a regulatory process to build on those guidelines.

So there's going to be many opportunities for those details to be fleshed out by, I think, you know, someone who is appropriate, namely the fire marshal, as you heard Mr. Wetch say, all of these projects, and we actually positively affirm it in the bill, will be subject to the CEQA process.

And so I frankly do not feel like it's appropriate for us to insert the level of kind of detail and specificity that the opposition is looking for at this level of the legislative process.

I think that we have established a structure and a frame where we are empowering the responsible agency who has the relevant expertise and knowledge to do that.

Work and maybe clarify, because I thought the amendment, even the most recent amendments, no longer have the fire marshal involved as for guidance, and now it's just the lead agency.

Oh, no, the fire marshal is the one who will be, who will be responsible.

Okay, so there still is going to be some statewide guidance by this fire marshal on what's acceptable risk.

Yes, yes. And as Mr. Wetch noted, as part of, again, the framework that, that we agreed in 2000 sorry, 2022, in 2023, you know, we said, state fire marshal, like in legislation, we said state fire marshal, evaluate whether or not you have the requisite knowledge and expertise to become responsible for this within state government. They conducted a study. They determined that they did.

And so I, I feel like it's really important for us to I'll start by saying that I'm grateful for certainly the committee, the chair and I think also our sponsors for ensuring that we are developing a solution that is sufficiently protective of community while also ensuring that we are making progress to achieve California's climate goals.

And I think it's really important that we're basing policy on facts and on science and not on kind of fears of what ifs, and what about that? And what about that? The reality is right now we are confronting a climate crisis.

And as much as I would love, I'd love to be able to wave a magic wand and get to our climate goals, that is not going to happen. And I really believe, kind of picking up Madam Chair on some of your comments, we're in kind of a come-to-Jesus moment right now.

So we have got to start making real progress and implementing real solutions if we want to achieve our climate goals and protect the communities that I know, you know, the opposition purports to represent.

I agree with that. But on the what-ifs, I would push back a little bit because when what-ifs happen in California, they don't happen in your district. That happened in my district. The what-ifs of consequences of what we push forward are impacting communities that look like me.

So I would just push back a little bit on that, recognizing that we still have to put into consideration the what-ifs because a lot of these projects are built in communities of color.

I'd like some clarification from the chair on the amendments just because they're last minute fire marshal is in charge of the regulatory process or the regulations of pipelines. But the risk is now removed from the fire marshal and down to the local lead agency?

No, I mean the fire marshal will adopt the regulations to regulate the pipeline.