Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Welcome to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources. We are one Member shy of a quorum, so we're going to start as a Subcommitee. I see Senator Blakespear is here. Senator, whenever you're ready.

Well, thank you, Chair Bryan, and thank you Committee Members and staff. Hello. I will be accepting the Committee amendments on SB14. SB14 is a measure that would position California State agencies and operations as a leader for waste reduction and the circular economy. Every day, Californians send 12,000 tons of plastic to landfills across the United States.

Only 5 to 6% of plastic was recycled in 2021. Waste that isn't sent to landfills often ends up polluting communities and the environment. Single use plastics are among the most extractive, wasteful and harmful products in our society.

One way to tackle the problem and reduce the enormous flow of waste is to move to a circular economy which focuses on reducing, reusing and recycling products. SB 14 would require state facilities to take the lead in reducing and recycling plastic and organic materials as part of their integrated waste management plans.

Right now, each state agency is responsible for developing an integrated waste management plan to divert 50% of the waste generated at state facilities from landfills. SB14 advocates the goals of the State Agency Waste Management Plan to specifically achieve 50% reusable foodwear at state facilities by 2030 and reduce paper purchasing by 30% by 2030.

SB14 also updates the Integrated Waste Management Plans to require actions to provide adequate educational tools to inform state agency employees on how to properly sort materials for compost and recycling and ensure that recyclable and organic material reach responsible end markets.

SB14 pushes state agencies to chart a course toward better education for sorting waste at state facilities and to better ensure that plastic and organic materials leaving state facilities actually gets recycled once it leaves the state buildings.

My colleagues know that I am passionate about reducing single use plastics, and I hope that we as leaders move away from using single use plastic bottles and more fully embrace reusable bottles, carafes or pitchers for meetings and events rather than so much single use. SB14 will help steer us toward that goal.

In addition to ensuring best practices with source reduction and recycling for material at the end of its life, SB14 also leverages the state's considerable purchasing power to support recycling markets by requiring that all state contracts for single use plastic bottles must support meeting the minimum recycled content standards that were set forth by AB793.

SB14 would not prevent the state from purchasing the numerous substitutes to single use plastic bottles that are already on the market today, including aluminum bottles and cans, glass bottles and reusable products. With me to testify in support, I have Neil Edgar from the California Compost Coalition.

Good afternoon, Chair Bryan and Members. Again, I'm Neil Edgar on behalf of the California Compost Coalition. Our Members are predominantly service providers for municipalities throughout California who process yard trimmings and increasingly, food materials to meet the lofty climate goals prescribed in SB13.

A3 calrecycle is predicted that the state needs to double our existing capacity, adding some 50 to 100 facilities in many areas of the state. It's difficult to develop enough of a revenue stream to fund the critical infrastructure needed to meet community and regional goals.

Every ton of recyclable and compostable materials collected is an asset towards building and operating cost effectively programs. This Bill would encourage state departments and agencies to be an active contributor to collection and recycling programs across the state.

In many areas, the additional materials collected and processed can be a tipping point to getting more infrastructure built, particularly in rural areas where many state institutions represent a disproportionate percentage of the population.

More importantly, the state can demonstrate its ability to truly lead and help achieve the important landfill diversion, climate change and circular economy goals that have been placed on jurisdictions and ratepayers in California, particularly with the passage of SB 54 and SB 1383. Thank you, Senator Blakespear, for bringing this Bill forward and urge your aye vote.

We actually do have a second witness, if you don't mind him coming forward.

Okay, thank you. He's a representative from Republic Services, Chris Groggin. I understand that he is here. There he is.

Not at all.

That's a hell of an entrance, brother. I just hope the testimony is as good as that entrance was.

You guys don't make life easy having two different buildings.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Chris Groggin with capital abse on behalf of Republic Services. Excuse me. Well, the stairs were fun too.

Would you like a bottle of water?

I'm okay, sir. Thank you.

In support of SB14, first, we just would like to thank the author for introducing this important measure. As proposed to be amended, this Bill requires that state agencies. Thank you, Neil. Update their integrated waste management plans.

We just appreciate the Members introducing this Bill and supporting the importance of source separation for various materials and appreciate that and respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you, sir. Are there any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure? And also while you're coming up. Madam Secretary, I noticed we now have a quorum. Can we call the roll or call attendance?

Roll Call

Quorum has been established. Whenever you guys are ready.

Good afternoon. John Moffett on behalf of waste management in support.

Good afternoon. Michael Caprio with Republic Services here in support.

Mandy Strello with CRNR Environmental Services and Rethink Waste in support.

Thank you. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition today?

Chair and Members not in opposition anymore. Given that the author has taken the suggested amendment that we see on page 8 of the analysis, we'll be removing our opposition and going neutral. Elizabeth Escovel, California Manufacturers and Technology Association.

Thank you. Anybody want to check to see if there are primary opposition running through the hallway?

Mr. Chairman of Members, Eloy Garcia for the International Bottled Water Association similarly removing our opposition based on the amendments reflected in the Committee analysis. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Seeing no others, we'll turn it back to Committee Members question. Comments for Members of the Committee.

It was.

Thank you very much. Yes.

Hi, Mr. Chair, Senator. Thank you. Question. Was the amendment to remove the 90%?

Okay. Yes.

No questions from you. Mr. Vice Chair. Do we have a motion? Mr. Muratsucchi, in a second. Second by Mr. Schultz. This Bill is, we've seen versions of this before and just want to thank the Senator for incredible work. Would you like to close?

Yes, thank you. Well, even though one of my primary witnesses arrived carrying a plastic water bottle, we are, we are actually. We are trying to move away from the state.

I haven't used this water bottle for months. True story.

Sorry, miss.

We would like to have the state be a leader, so to lead by example by utilizing less single use plastic, more reusable and more compostable, and actually having some follow up.

Like for example, in this building, if we track or do we or do we not track where our waste goes, what amount is going to the landfill, what percentage is being recycled or composted, Are we following the state laws? There are many examples of state agencies that could do better in this area.

And because we are the State of California, I think that this is something that's really sorely needed and in many ways may be overdue. So I appreciate the support of the Committee and I recognize that the most controversial part of this Bill has been removed.

And so now I'm hopeful that we'll be able to move forward with the rest of it. And I appreciate your support. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Well you, you have my support today. This bill enjoys a do pass recommendation. We have a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

Roll Call

That Bill is out. Absolutely. We have two measures on the consent calendar. That's Item 5, SB514, Cabaldon and Item 11, SB 856 from the Committee on Natural Resources and Water over in the Senate. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll on the consent calendar?

We have a motion by the Vice Chair and a second by Ms. Pellerin.

[Roll Call]

The consent calendar is out. That leaves eight remaining file items. Please alert your favorite Senator. We are waiting for you patiently here. Absolutely. Presenting for Senator Becker on SB 326 is Assemblymember Pellerin.

Okay. I'll bring my reusable water bottle. I won't run. Is that okay?

We're ready when you are.

Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. S B326 is an important step for California in terms of managing wildfire risk. Let me begin on behalf of Senator Becker to accept the Committee's suggested amendments on page 13 of the Bill analysis. California is losing too many houses and communities to wildfire.

From my perspective, that is driving twin crises in affordability of electricity and availability and affordability of homeowners insurance. The first crisis threatens the clean energy transition. The second is becoming a major complicating factor for making progress on housing affordability.

As such, wildfire has become a major negative driver for the most important affordability issues confronting the state and the nation. As amended, SB 326 does two things to address the twin crises I'm speaking of.

First, it would create a framework for CAL FIRE to systematically evaluate and quantify the risk reduction benefits of fuels management and landscape resilience investments made by government and non government actors. This is important because it will help focus planning and resources on the projects with the greatest potential to reduce risk.

Second, SB 326 would increase early implementation of the pending Zone 0 building standards, also known as Ember Free Zone building Standards, to accelerate what has been acknowledged as one of the most, if not the most effective defensive space action homeowners can take to protect their home from wildfire destruction.

With regard to the strategic planning framework provisions, SB 326 would focus the State Fire Marshals Deputy of Community Wildfire Preparedness and Mitigation to do three things as pertaining to advancing comprehensive wildfire mitigation planning.

One, develop a wildfire mitigation planning framework to quantitatively evaluate alternative wildfire risk mitigation actions, develop a wildfire risk baseline and forecast to address risk from fire ignitions and the extent that the risk can be reduced and third, develop a wildfire mitigation scenarios report with a range of wildfire mitigation investment strategies and how one compares to the other.

Today, CAL FIRE uses its own judgment in deciding which projects to conduct itself and what grant applications to fund. This often means that the easiest acres to treat get done rather than the ones most important for reducing risk. Catastrophic wildfire imposes enormous costs on the State of California and its residents.

We are obliged to prioritize our mitigation efforts among all actors to achieve the maximum reduction in wildfire frequency, scope and intensity through targeted investments. That's what the planning framework in SB 326 can help accomplish.

With regard to the Zone Zero provisions, the Bill creates a grant program to assist local governments with homes in the very high Wildfire Threat Severity zone to implement and enforce the these defensive space standards. This Bill also expands the range of homes to which Zone 0 regulations will immediately apply to include rental properties and homes on sale.

All other existing homes would continue to have three years to comply. Lastly, the Bill expands the applicability of the, the WI building Code to reconstruction of homes after future wildfires. And here with me is Michael Mastandrea, Research Director, Stanford Climate and Energy Policy Program.

Yes sir. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Thank you. Chair Brian thank you to the Committee Members as well for the opportunity to be here. As we've heard, my name is Michael Mastandrea. I'm the Research Director of Stanford's Climate and Energy Policy Program, and I'm speaking in my personal capacity today as a climate science and a wildfire policy expert.

I and my team conduct research and work with policymakers to address the causes and impacts of catastrophic wildfires. SB 326 is an important step for California to make progress on reducing wildfire risk. As we've heard, we're losing too many homes and communities to wildfire.

And I want to focus my comments on why Zone Zero is so important as a key component of wildfire risk reduction and why SB 326, as amended, is important in accelerating Zone Zero implementation. The Legislature and Governor Newsom have recognized the importance of Zone Zero.

And this is supported by scientific research that shows Zone Zero to be one of the most important factors in determining home survival in both controlled experiments and post fire analysis of losses.

I would point, for example, to recent research by Professor Michael Golner at UC Berkeley, work led by Eric Knapp at the U.S. forest Service and Yana Valachovic at the UC Cooperative Extension, and research reports from the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, all of which support the importance of Zone Zero.

This is particularly true in existing neighborhoods where other important factors like the age of structures and the space between structures are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to change at scale. Governor Newsom has directed CAL FIRE to issue Zone Zero regulations by the end of this year.

And SB 326, as amended, would expand the categories of homes where Zone Zero will apply without a three year phase in. Zone Zero is more effective the more homes in a community implement protective measures. So accelerating implementation will move us faster towards meaningful risk reduction in the next three years.

SB 326 would also create incentives to help local governments hire inspectors and provide grants to homeowners to implement Zone Zero. This too is intended to advance implementation and enables new resources to be made available for this purpose. This Bill, as amended, advances critical measures to better safeguard our communities and to lose fewer, fewer homes when wildfires threaten.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Do we have any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?

Mr. Chair, Members, Doug Hewson representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in strong support.

On behalf of Climate Action California, Karen Jacques in strong support.

Hi. Emily Pappas on behalf of Nimala Pappas and Associates for MCE in support.

Good afternoon. Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities had a support position previously and we're working with the author to clarify the recent amendments on the Zone Zero local agency enforcement. Thank you.

George Coventa on behalf of the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of California in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition? Well done Senator Becker. We will now turn it back to Committee Members. Any questions, comments, concerns? We have a motion and a second. Assemblymember Pellerin, would you like to close?

I do have a close here. SB 326 will help state, local and non governmental actors to better prioritize wildfire mitigation investments through strategic planning and will accelerate the application of proven effective defensive space building standards in areas of the state facing the highest risk of destructive wildfires. There is no opposition to the Bill, as you see.

And on behalf of Senator Becker, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. With a motion and a second, Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is due Pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Great job. I don't see Senator McNerney in here, do we? No. So we're going to go ahead to Senator Richardson side.

Well, good afternoon, everyone. Good afternoon, everyone.

Good afternoon.

All right, there we go. First, I'd like to start off by thanking the Chair and Committee staff for working diligently with me and my office on this very important and timely measure, SB 34, while simultaneously continuing to improve air quality in the communities surrounding the San Pedro Port Complex Area and protecting jobs in our fragile economy.

I'm accepting those proposed amendments today. In terms of the scale and scope of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, they are the largest single intermodal commercial gateway in the State of California, the United States, North America, and the Western Hemisphere.

The complex supports 3 million jobs nationwide and supports economic activity that generates 2.78 billion in state and local taxes, plus an additional 4.73 billion in federal taxes in 2022. It is fair to say this port complex is a tremendous asset to the State of California and to the nation.

Yet, along with this amount of activity, the ports are mindful of the air quality within the area. After all, we live here, too. And to its credit, the ports have made tremendous strides to improve the air quality.

For example, according to the latest annual emissions inventory, the total San Pedro Bay Complex emissions of diesel particulate matter decreased by 91%. Again, that's 91%. Nitrogen oxides decreased by 72%, sulfur oxides decreased by 98%, and greenhouse gases decreased by 20%, compared to the 2005 baseline emissions.

In a commitment to continue to address air quality, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach adopted a joint Clean Air Action Plan. This was voluntary, and what they did in this particular report was to update their goals, including transitioning cargo handling equipment to zero emissions by 2030 and transitioning all drayage trucks to zero emissions by 2035.

Given the current fluctuation of the economy, stubborn inflation, and the imposition of pending tariffs, now it certainly is not the time to hinder productivity at our ports and divert from a plan that is working. So, what's the problem here?

Members of the South Coast Air Quality Management District attempted a port indirect source rule in 2024, which was opposed by both Mayors Bass and Richardson.

Rex Richardson of Long Beach?

Yes, Rex Richardson, not myself. And at the time, and I'm pulling out my receipts here because we've heard a lot of information that's been presented to you, when that port rule was brought forward, those were the organizations that came out in opposition to that rule.

A primary goal of SB 34 is to allow the ports and appropriate stakeholders to continue in their focus in meeting the Clean Air Action Plan. What does SB 34, as proposed, do, and the amended documents that we have already agreed to?

With the assistance of this Committee and its amendments, SB 34 is narrowed in scope and clarifies that in the event that South Coast Air Quality District takes an action on or after July 1st, 2025, the South Coast Board shall ensure that the actions fulfill the specified conditions.

So, one of the concerns was, did we go back too far? Did we go back beyond this year? And so, the amendment drafted by your Committee, which we gladly accept, made sure to address that. I understand that there were some concerns in the retroactive nature of the Bill.

So, this amendment ensures that none of the previous actions taken by the board would be affected. The second one, the amendment clarifies that the board's action shall not impose a cap on cargo and throughput at the ports, directly or indirectly.

It also clarifies what inaction means, the adoption or amendment of a rule or regulation that imposes new or additional emissions reduction requirements on sources of air pollution associated with the operation of ports. And then, finally, there was the concern of if this particular measure went into 2036.

And so, another amendment that was negotiated by your Committee staff and your Chair was to ensure that this Bill would remain in effect for five years less, which is 2031. I believe this Bill strikes the right balance.

What we're working to do is with the previous rule that was brought forward, which was opposed by many organizations and the mayors of both of those cities, all we have said in SB 34 is that the group should work together to address zero emissions.

In no way do we want to pause from emissions and what our goals are, but what we do want to make sure is everyone's at the table and those who are best to address it are at that table as well.

Now, you're going to hear some people talk about this district and say it's the dirtiest place in the state. Well, first of all, not to mention, I don't appreciate being said that I live in the dirtiest place in the state. Why are they saying that? Let me point out to you the truth.

The truth is that this area is surrounded. The ports are down here, right? These are the two ports. The ports are surrounded by LAX. We're surrounded by also Long Beach Airport. So, we don't control airplanes. That's interstate commerce. Then, you're going to have—we're surrounded by four major freeways.

You have the 405, you have the 110, the 91, and the 105. We don't control that. Then you're going to have the Gerald Desmond Bridge where all the trucks come over. We don't control that either. And then, you have the Alameda Corridor, which is the rail. So collectively, is this the source of great emissions? Absolutely.

But to say that the Port itself is the dirtiest and the cause of all emissions in this region is just not accurate. Now, let me give you two reasons to prove why.

Isn't it interesting that when you look at—when I was on the City Council in Long Beach, back in, from 2000 to 2007, we did various studies because there were cancer clusters. You would think, if this was the dirtiest area, why aren't the cancer clusters where the ports are?

Actually, you know, where the cancer cluster is? On the 710 freeway, where the trucks go up and down.

And then, the graph that I showed you there. The biggest challenge and the reason why the stakeholders want to work together and the reason why the amendments say that you can't create an action or a rule with something that the ports don't control, that graph shows you that 63% of the emissions to the port comes in through the vessels.

We don't control that either. It's called interstate commerce, guys—ladies and gentlemen—interstate commerce. And then, I noticed in the analysis it stated that one of our issues is the fact of electrification.

In order to remove the emissions with the vessels, we need electrification for it to connect to. That's a 200 megawatt station. The ports don't build the megawatt station. LADWP does.

LADWP has not submitted a permit, has not submitted siting, and anything related to it. Will the ports and the stakeholders absolutely work together to get that electrification? Because that's a key to us meeting our zero emissions.

But to say and to establish a rule that would inhibit the operations of the port based upon something they do not control and do not build would not be appropriate. And so, that's what SB 34 is about.

I just want to say, as colleagues, since when did we not support legislation that said, people, let's come together and work together on the best solution. And that's what SB 34 is about. With that, I will pause. I have a few remaining comments depending on upon if your questions pull them out.

But we have also here as a witness, Marvin Pineda with ILWU—will be making a presentation in support.

Thank you. Go ahead, Marvin.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Marvin Pineda with California Advocacy, on behalf of International Longshore Locals 1363 and 84. Want to thank the Chair and staff for working with those on those amendments.

For the Committee, we've been working on amendments since the Bill wasn't sent in Natural Resources with the opposition, but they continue to express other concerns and not remove their opposition. So, the IOW has a 90 year history of loading and loading ships, trucks, trains, at the ports of LA and Long Beach.

During that time, our members have adapted and welcomed new technologies that reduce air pollution. We want clean air. Our members work in these communities. Our families work in these communities. Our members have business in those communities. So, we want clean air like no one else does.

Today, we are collaborating with employers, cities, harbor departments, and other stakeholders to reduce emissions at the ports. I want to bring up one terminal at the ports called China Shipping. China Shipping—it's a terminal that has been litigated for years. There is, I'm going to say, some environmental groups. One, 100% zero emission equipment at that terminal.

It's not even feasible. It's not possible for us to even get there. But they're not willing to negotiate. What does that mean? That means that we're in a hard place where that terminal has to decide whether they close. Do they limit operations to comply with court decisions? So, that puts our workers in the middle of this conflict.

As the Senator mentioned, we, under the Clean Air Action Plan, our collective efforts have resulted in many accomplishments to clean the air.

One example and one point I want to make is that during COVID, when we all stayed home and the ILW continued to move goods for everybody to stay home and whether that was poor equipment, your couch, whether it was your masks, anything that you needed, we lost many members during that Pandemic and what you could see was the San Gabriel Mountains because all the other pollution factors were not at play.

The ports are not the cause of all that pollution. I just want to make that point. While we are continuing to collectively implement numerous new regulations from that California Resources Board, we have goals. And one other example is the port.

We're at 2:30.

2:30, okay. Can I get another minute since I'm the second one? Okay, so I'll make it quick.

A quick one.

Yeah. The Governor's Office called the LWU saying whether we were okay with implementing near zero emission by 2030 and zero emission by 2035. That said, we were okay with that because we want clean air.

With that, we want jobs. I didn't stick to my script, but we need a balanced approach from legislators, and that is to protect jobs, business, and our communities. We're not saying no to clean air. We're just asking for a balanced approach. Thank you.

Thank you, Marvin. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?

Mr. Chairman, Oracio Gonzalez, on behalf of California's Business Roundtable, in support.

Good afternoon. Alejandro Solis, on behalf of La Cooperativa Campesina California and Los Amigos De La Comunidad, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Mr. Chair and Members. Chris Schmode, on behalf of the California Trucking Association, in support.

Good afternoon. Tim Campbell, ILWU, with support.

Thank you, sir.

Hi. I'm Leslie Alvarado. I'm with ILWU, and I'm in full support of this bill.

Thank you.

Hello. I'm with ILWU. My name is Phillip Herman. Say, 'we support.'

We got them.

Emily Peterson, ILWU, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

David Lopez, ILWU, in support.

Diana Lopez, ILWU, in support.

Alan Couch, ILWU, support 34.

Thank you, sir. Any primary witnesses in opposition to this measure? We'll have the two primary oppositions go first.

Oh, okay. Should I just stand or go back and sit down?

You might want to have a seat. They'll be talking for about four minutes.

I'm sorry.

No. No worries. That's all right. We look forward to hearing from you. In whatever order you want and whenever you're ready.

Well, good afternoon, everyone. My name's Taylor Thomas. I'm with East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice and The Impact Project, and I'd also like to say we're a litigant in the China Shipping case, and we're in litigation because they violated a court order, not because of what you shared, but thank you for sharing that anyway.

So in the two minutes that I have to convince you to vote down this bill, I'm here to also uplift that this bill not only undermines almost a decade of community input, but also sets a bad precedent that polluters can forego the public process and use legislation to get what they want. This bill is not good governance.

The first time the author of this bill has engaged on the port's indirect source rule publicly is through this bill, not the countless working group meetings, community meetings, or board meetings that have taken place. There's been outspoken criticism from some of you against the federal government for its imposition on local authorities regarding immigration, and yet here we are considering overriding local authority in the face of mass environmental deregulation and an ongoing public health crisis in our communities.

There's many of us that came up today from the South Coast, and we're just a small representation of the millions of people that are directly or indirectly negatively impacted by port operations that don't have the ability to tell you the harm about the experience every day: the children stationed with asthma inhalers at their schools like I was, the elders carrying oxygen tanks, or the pregnant women who have diesel particulate matter in their amniotic fluid.

So in addition to demanding a no vote on this bill, I have two questions: why do you govern and who do you govern for? Because every yes, no, or abstention is a signal to the world about your character. Despite the years of consistent lies and gaslighting we endure to fight for our health, we keep showing up and engaging because we're rooted in truth and reason, and more importantly, love and compassion.

And we hope, I hope, that you have love and compassion for your fellow human beings as well. That's why I'm here. So you get to decide who you are today. Thank you.

Whenever you're ready, Wayne.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman, committee members. My name is Wayne Nastri. I'm the Executive Officer of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and we're opposed to SB 34, and while I appreciate the committee's efforts to amend SB 34 to be less harmful, the bill still poses great risks to public health and potentially the overall economy.

SB 34 sets a terrible precedent to allow a specific industry to run a bill anytime there's potential for regulation without regard to the impacts on the larger economy and communities.

SB 34 disregards over eight years of efforts by South Coast AQMD with the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, industry, labor, local government, and community stakeholders to reduce port-related pollution. Our agency has engaged all stakeholders in good faith to develop a path forward.

And let me be clear: South Coast AQMD is not and will not impose a cap on cargo throughput. We recognize the ports are vital to the regional, state, and national economy, and we're focused on enabling continued growth, cleaner technologies, and improved public health.

We can have a strong job market and economy while improving public health and the environment, and toward that end, we've already invested over $750 million in the ports for clean technology over the last ten years.

And we know these investments are important as the San Pedro Bay port complex is the largest single source of air pollution in the State of California. It's time for the ports to do their fair share, and if passed, SB 34 would shift the emission burdens to stationary sources while letting the biggest polluter off the hook.

It potentially costs the state tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds, trigger federal Clean Air Act sanctions, and for these reasons, I urge you to vote no on SB 34. And I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Wayne. Any persons in the hearing room who'd like to be heard on this measure?

Good afternoon, chair and members. Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy, on behalf of the American Lung Association, in very respectful opposition.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of Ocean Conservancy, in respectful opposition.

Benton Buecker, legislative intern with Environment California. Our organization is strongly opposed to this bill. Thank you.

Michele Canales with the Union of Concerned Scientists. We remain in opposition but thank the committee for your work.

Good afternoon. Ana Gonzalez, representing the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice in San Bernardino, Riverside counties, also vice chair of the CADEM Chicano Latino Caucus, in full opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Teresa Bui, Climate Policy Director for Pacific Environment. We respectfully best oppose this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Esther Portillo with the Natural Resource Defense Council and RDC. We're in opposition.

Good afternoon. Fernando Gaytan with Earthjustice, in respectful opposition.

Good afternoon. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity, in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Ada Welder, here to express opposition on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund, the Greenlining Institute, Communities for a Better Environment, Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator or LACI, and Energy Entrepreneurs, E2. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Martin Radosevich, on behalf of the Pacific Maritime Association, opposed unless amended due to the anti-automation provisions in the bill. Thank you.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters, in opposition. Thank you.

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

Bill Magavern, Coalition for Clean Air, opposed.

Karen Jacques, Climate Action California, in opposition.

Thank you, Karen.

Marlon Dueigi Vargas with The Impact Project, in opposition.

Hello. My name is Maria Reyes. I'm a volunteer for Impact Project. Oppose it.

Hello. Kimberly Amaya, a community member of East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice and West Long Beach resident, in opposition.

Hello. Diego Mayen, a member with East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice and resident of Carson, California, also in opposition. Thank you.

Alan Abbs with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, in strong opposition.

Brendan Twohig, on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, in opposition.

Theral Golden, resident of West Long Beach, in double strong opposition. May I say one thing?

No, sir.

All right.

Appreciate you, though.

Mandy Strello, on behalf of Ceres, in opposition.

Good afternoon. Yvette Torres, Ph.D graduate student at UC Berkeley and here with The Impact Project, and we oppose.

Andrea Vidaurre with The Impact Project. Oppose.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Bernise Joseph, CIA politician and scientist.

Thank you. And for what it's worth, brother, if you are who I think you are, I definitely read your piece. Yes, sir. We'll now turn it to committee members. Mr. Garcia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Relating to Mr. Golden's piece--I'm not sure if you had a chance to read it, Ms. Richardson--it's titled, 'SB 34 is the Death Sentence for our Communities.' Says, 'three people each day die each day in this region from poor pollution. It's not car crashes, not gun violence. It's air. And that is the price we pay for living near these ports and warehouses: our lungs, our health, our lives--and no, we can't just move away.'

So Mr. Golden, I believe, is here today, details how we've been looking for that balanced approach, that solution between the ports, the Air District, to make sure we protect our communities for ten years. Ten years and nothing has happened. Nothing. And so I know that the original bill here asked for an exemption for nothing to happen for many, many more years.

And I share the sentiments, and he said, 'the most infuriating part is that this is the type of behavior I would expect from Trump, not California Democrats. Trump and his people in Congress have already taken away the best clean air laws that we had on the books. Now our own State Legislature wants to strip away the little control, local control we have, by trying to shut down the communities fighting back.'

'If you vote for SB 34, you're voting to let pollution continue to kill people in my neighborhood. You're voting to silence the voices of the people most impacted. You are voting to impose a slow, quiet death sentence on Black, Brown, and working class families across the region.' So I appreciate Mr. Golden and his piece.

I thought it was really impactful what I heard today, and the testimony is just basically citing all the different factors that are out of your control. It took me back to school days where we blamed the parents, we blame students not doing their homework, we blame their previous grade teacher, everybody except the person responsible, and it's been ten years. I will not be supporting your your measure, Ms. Richardson.

Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Other committee members? Mr. Muratsuchi.

Thank you very much. As a representative of the South Bay and Harbor area, including half of San Pedro, I recognize and appreciate many of the issues being presented in this bill.

First of all, I. I do want to recognize that the ports of LA and Long Beach, they account for 40% of all imports and exports in the entire state, United States of America. It's one of the biggest economic engines not only for the area, but for our entire State of California.

It is the biggest port complex in the entire State of California. One of my biggest concerns. Well, let me say that I been a longtime supporter of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and all the great work that you do to protect our communities in Southern California.

I know we had worked together to address many of the issues coming out of the Torrance Refinery, and I truly appreciate the work that the AQMD does.

Having said that, one of my big concerns is with the objectives of the Clean Air Action Plan with its updates, including goals of achieving 100% zero emissions operations for cargo handling equipment by 2030 and for dredge trucks by 2035. My ongoing concerns have been the loss of competitiveness for our parts of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

And similar to conversations that we're having about refineries shutting down in the State of California and us in the State of California having to import refined gas from foreign countries with much lower environmental standards.

I'm concerned that we, you know, in our, well, you know, intentioned efforts to cut down on air pollution in the harbor area and, you know, in the larger Southern California area, that we are handicapping our ports and risking losing container volume. That is the big economic driver.

You know, I respect the passion of my colleague from Rancho Cucamonga, and I know that he's a fighter for his communities and for the air pollution. But I have to respectfully disagree that nothing's been done. I mean, when, as the earlier presentation cited, that there have been dramatic improvements in terms of emission reductions.

I guess my question for the AQMD is, I mean, what is your analysis in terms of how does the AQMD take into consideration whether the efforts to clean up the regional air pollution, how that impacts the competitiveness of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach?

Well, I think if you look at what's happened over the last several years, the port has cleaned up tremendously. And at the same time the port has increased its throughput on container traffic. And while you may hear arguments that the market share has been declining, you have to look at throughput through the pandemic and even recently.

There were a record high number of throughput. So the port continues to grow. The port continues to make investments in clean air technology. We recently received a $500 million grant from US EPA that's dedicated to looking at goods movement.

A good portion of that will look at the ports and the goods movement associated with throughout, not just the ports, but all the way through the border of California. And so, as I said before, we've invested hundreds of millions of dollars so that the ports can deploy that cleaner technology.

And in fact, when you look at Long Beach Container Terminal, which is the nation's first zero emissions port, they found that their throughput has more than doubled. They're running three shifts and they're tremendously productive in terms of economic growth. That's why I said you can see strong growth and you can see strong investments in the environment.

What we're asking as we're going through our rulemaking process is for the ports to put more detail to that Clean Air Action Plan and to be held accountable as regional administrator of U.S. EPA, a position that I held for over seven years, I worked on that force, that first port plan.

And yes, while there have been tremendous reductions since that time, we still need a tremendous amount more of emission reductions for that. And the new technology that we're looking at will help us get there. There are some technologies which we understand are not ready for prime time.

But let's get together, let's plan how that's going to work out. LADWP is not the only utility involved in this. We also have SoCal Edison. All of these people and parties and stakeholders and community members have been meeting, as Taylor mentioned. We've been having work group meetings, we've been having community meetings. We continue to do that.

We're hopeful to bring a rule to our board for consideration in October, and that's something that we're trying to do is to make sure that we address the economic impacts. And that is one of the requirements that we actually have to go through is we have to do that socioeconomic impact.

And again, I want to stress the fact that what we're asking for is give us the details of the plan, tell us how you're going to do it, tell us what are the financial mechanisms that are necessary. How can we then work together to identify those means, swallow those factors?

I hope answered your question in terms of the port ability to continue to make improvements, to continue to make those environmental investments, and most importantly, to continue to improve public health in the surrounding communities.

I appreciate your response, but I know that this issue has been hotly debated in the harbor area for years now. I remember, I think it was two years ago that I was a member of the Select Committee on Ports, California Ports, where we conducted a hearing in San Pedro.

I heard from the local elected officials a strong opposition to the indirect source rule because of the concerns about losing market share, losing cargo volume to Savannah, Georgia, to the other ports that don't have the strong environmental commitments. Another one of my concerns is if.

I mean, I think one of the biggest advantages that we have in the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach is the geographic proximity to China in particular, where I think what over 70% of the cargo volume comes from.

But as other ports become more competitive with lower environmental regulations, that we would just be contributing to the global greenhouse gas emissions by sending container ships, you know, past the ports of Los Angeles and Long beach to the other ports.

Does the AQMD take into consideration the global impacts of greenhouse gas emissions when the container ships would be bypassing the ports of Los Angeles and Long beach to go to other ports in the country?

So we look at the GHG emissions as a function of NOX emissions as well. So we have to calculate the total impact. And to your point about potential diversion, potential diversion would actually increase fuel consumption. It would increase GHG, it would increase NOx. And there are other reasons why people are going to do diversion.

As we've said before and has been said many times, The Port of La Long Beach complex is much more efficient. You have 17 million, close to 17 million people. And in the region that provides a market like no other.

And the fact that you may have diversion, I want to point out one of the things that really drives, and actually it's the primary driver, although you have the California Clean Air act is the federal Clean Air Act. And under the federal Clean Air act, we have the worst air quality in the nation.

We are in non attainment. And if we are in non attainment, the Federal Government can, can come in and say, you're in non attainment. And we're gonna show you how to come into attainment. And that's through a process called the Federal Implementation Plan, a FIP.

And through a FIP, they can say, you're not gonna have drive days or you're gonna have every other day is a no drive day. We're gonna do cargo diversion. The truth of the matter is this Administration is looking for any opportunity to show California that even though it has these great environmental aspirations, it can't come into compliance.

And so when you talk about where is the real opportunity for diversion. It's not from the south coast AQMD. It's from the Federal Government.

And the South Coast AQMD is doing everything it can to stop the diversion, to keep the economy going, to keep the jobs going, and to make sure that we can do it in a way that benefits everyone.

So are you saying, first of all, when you talk about diversion, you're talking about container ships bypassing parts of LA and Long Beach, going to other ports.

In the country, you want to be able to stop NOx emissions. So if you have a big source of NOx emissions, either hoteling, offshore, hoteling at the ports, you can stop that. You can make them go somewhere else. So those NOx emissions don't necessarily impact the air quality in the south coast region.

The same is true for a whole host of other areas.

Wait, wait. I was just asking for clarification on your use of the term diversion. Could you explain what diversion means?

Diversion would mean the transfer of equipment, of cargo of goods, all sorts of things to other places so that you don't have those sources of emissions within that area that creates the noxious problem which causes the ozone, the smog problems that we have, which contributes to the 1400 deaths in the south coast region alone each year.

Okay, and again, I appreciate all the work that the AQMD does to protect, you know, local Southern California residents, including myself, but does the AQMD study the, the, the, the global greenhouse gas impacts when ships are diverted from the ports of Los Angeles and Long beach to other ports in the country?

We wouldn't look at the GHG composition going to other areas. We would only look at the impact that it has to the south coast region.

Okay, may I chime in, Mr. Chair, regarding these two specific points?

We have some other questions from other Committee Members. I think you'll get a chance to address those in the questions as well.

Okay, I'm sorry, if I could just ask my last question there, which is, you know, I've heard for years how the ports of LA and Long Beach are striving for 100% electrification of the ports. Based on my awareness of that. I mean, the technology, the cost just doesn't seem to be feasible.

I mean, I'm hearing about electric trucks costing, you know, 350, $400,000 a truck, you know, not to mention the capacity to generate the amount of electricity necessary to 100% electrify the ports. And so I guess, if I may. Thank you for your patience, Mr.

Chair, but I just think that you know, the reason why it's here at the state level, number one, it's because this issue was not resolved at the local level.

And know, and, and number two, you know, I, I, I'm concerned that as much as I respect your efforts to cut down on local air pollution emissions, we also need to balance that with these issues of keeping our ports of LA and Long Beach competitive. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Zbur.

So thank you for being here today. Thank you for bringing the bill. I, before yesterday, I don't think I could have supported this bill, but when I'm looking at looks that with the amendments that have been proposed by the, by the Committee, it's hard for me to understand really where the beef still is with the bill.

I totally understand why we had so much environmental opposition to the prior version of the bill, but when I look at what's left of it now, there seem to be two pieces.

One that the action, action, meaning the indirect source rule, will not recognize, will recognize the contributions of sources of air pollution outside the control of the ports. Use of the word recognize is something you would do anyway. You would be taking into account of those. Right. So this doesn't change anything that you would do. Is that right? Mr. Nastri?

Is it right if I talk to the microphone?

Sure. Yes.

Yeah.

The basis for our opposition is the precedent that this sets for any group that doesn't want to be held accountable or that doesn't want to go through the rulemaking process of the South Coast AQMD to run to the Legislature and say, hey, we're doing everything we're trying to do and we don't need the South Coast, so where does it stop?

Yeah. So I mean, I understand the precedent issue and I actually share those concerns to a certain extent. I also, you know, share concerns of the fact that we don't want to be doing things that sort of unnecessarily harming employment at the port.

And part of the reason why I became more comfortable with the bill was because when I looked at what is left of the bill, it doesn't look to me like any of your regulatory authority to control emissions are reduced.

So you have the action shall do all the recognize contributions of sources of air pollution outside the control of the ports. You already do that. Require the ports. Require assessment of energy demand and supply, cost estimates, funding source, workforce and environmental impacts associated with the action. You already do that. I used to practice before your body.

I know you do that as part of your normal rulemaking. C, use the assessments developed by the ports prepared Pursuant to sub paragraph B, the thing I just talked about to determine timelines for achieving action targets. You already do that.

D create a process by which the ports can request extension to timelines developed to achieve the action's targets. You already do that. And then there's the prohibitions. The the action shall not do any of the following. Impose a cap on cargo throughput at the ports, directly or indirectly. Now that's new.

And I've said we won't.

And I. But, but if you aren't going to do that, then why would you have a problem putting that in place since it's such a big part of the concerns that the workers at the ports have?

Can I.

No, because I'd like to go through. I'm asking questions and I'll give you an opportunity to say something. If the chair allows me. Second part was impose a cap B before require any actions that reduce pollution from sources that are exclusively under state or Federal Government. That's gone now.

So if that had been there before, I pro would not have been able to support this bill. The other one C, set Shorter timelines for achieving a bunch of admission reductions. So. So this is one of the other things that actually I think intruded on your authority. And that thing is that that is gone now.

And so what's left are the use of the public grants related to the automation and that I think the automation probably needs to be tightened up some because I think there's probably some automated things that are currently being used at the ports. But I think that's the subject matter for another Committee.

But I also think that automation is really important to the workers, that we're making sure that we're not exporting those jobs. And so when I look at all of these things, I guess I just don't understand what's left. Before I understood exactly why we would have such strong outpouring of opposition for this.

But it looks to me like with the amendments, your authority is retained to reduce emissions through the indirect source rule. You're not prohibited from proceeding with it. You impose all your current standards. None of that is weakened except for the fact you have two new sets of standards you have to abide by.

One is not reducing cargo throughput, which I think is a new thing, and I support that. And the other is related to focusing on automation. So with that, where, where in the bill is your authority further restricted?

So I believe in the section that you identified regarding grants funds and like there is a term in there that says indirectly and I think the indirectly is a term that we feel could be interpreted many different ways and just lead to litigation.

I think the challenge that we've seen is that we know that an indirect source rule approach works. We've done that with warehouses. It's been through the courts, it's been approved. We're moving forward in a way. I would also argue that what we've seen with Longridge Container Terminal with regards to their electric utilization, that it's there.

So from the perspective of your specific points, my answer would be, first is the precedent sets a bad precedent and then second is that there is still language in there that causes tremendous concern on its interpretation and then ultimately the implementation.

Yeah, I guess the thing I would sort of say is on that, you know, with respect to the ports, the ports are sort of, especially the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are unique entities. They're the largest container terminals in the country.

I think when we're talking about issues of precedent, it's not like having some other industry coming in and, you know, and asking for something that is sort of different from your normal processes.

And I do think that the issue of concern about reduction in, you know, in cargo volumes is that you said, you say you're not going to do it anyway, so I don't understand why you'd have a problem with that.

I think on the automation piece, I think one of the things that is an issue that we're going to have to deal with as a society is the fact that we've got automation that's taking jobs away.

And so I know this may not be perfect, but it's, it's starting to look at that set of issues and frankly, you know, I'll tell Mr. Pineda and the author here, I think that needs to be tightened up. Something.

I think there's probably things at the port that are sort of automated under this definition that are currently used and would not take away jobs. And so I think that part needs to be tightened up. But it is an appropriate thing, I think, for us to look at. And it's something that is really unique to the port.

So with that, you know, I, I, I'm comfortable. There's nothing that I can see in here that's taking away your normal authority to protect the communities around the ports or that restricts your ability to even deal with the issues that I think my colleague from Torrance is concerned about. So I don't know. If you want to have one final comment, then I'm going to stop talking.

So thank you, member. As I said before, the main concern that I have is the slippery slope. And then this is just the first of many other attempts to try to diminish a regulatory agency's authority. The issue of automation. The South Coast AQMD has always been vocal in support of human operated equipment.

We just want that equipment to be zero emission and we've been a longtime supporter of that. We'll continue to support that. The South Coast AQMD is close to bringing a rule to our board to the point about our ability to resolve these matters.

We think that the approach that we're bringing, working with all of the stakeholders, is a way that we can address the emission reductions and get a commitment to put forward a plan that actually the parties can be held accountable for. We've been trying to do that for a number of years. We've tried. We thought we had agreements.

We unfortunately did not. I think that if this body were to wait and see what comes out of the South Coast AQMD in the process come this fall, we would all have the same opinion.

We were able to develop a rule that addresses community concerns, that creates timelines, that holds people accountable for what they're saying they're going to do. They're going to develop a plan, not us. We're going to continue to move forward.

And that's my main concern, is that we have the ability to do what's right, to do what's required under the law and to not have our authorities chipped away as we see what's happening at the federal level.

Yeah, I guess the last thing I'll say is I just don't see, and I think you haven't identified anything other than the cargo throughput and the automation where your authority is chipped away at all. I just don't see your authority chipped away.

It's like everything that's in the bill you do anyway and it doesn't, it's not taking away your, the other standards that you apply to protect the environment, to make sure that everything is cost effective, all the things that you normally do when you adopt a rule. So anyway, with that I just want to thank you for answering my questions.

Any other questions by Committee Members? Mr. Ellis.

The gentle Mr. Chair and Senator. I'd like to address the gentleman of the South Coast, sir. Of a million barrels a day that we import of crude oil from foreign countries, how much comes into the South Coast?

I couldn't tell you. The petroleum throughput right now, sir.

Do you know what kind of fuel those ships burn when they come in?

Those ships are required to burn a cleaner fuel as a result of the requirement from EPA and from CARB that they burn cleaner fuels. But if they're actually birthed, they should be using shore power.

So can I tell you that they burn number six fuel oil to within about 25 miles out, is that correct?

It could be correct, yes.

So that's one of the most unrefined products. So are you familiar with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons?

Yes.

Do you know that those ships burning that number six fuel oil, internal combustion engines, until they get 25 miles out before they convert to low sulfur diesel, are emitting particulate and those benzopyrene craftsanes.

They should be burning a cleaner distillate fuel. Sir, that's a requirement of USCP.

They should be.

They should be. So if someone's burning what I believe to understand, you're saying basically a bunker fuel.

That's correct.

They should not be burning bunker fuel. And if in fact that they are, EPA through the Coast Guard could take action on that by looking at their laws.

Well, out of 25 miles. So I'm talking about the area 25 miles out. There's not an international standard 25 miles out.

To my recollection, the U.S. is part of, it's called an ICA, an emission control area that was ratified by Congress in 2007. And my understanding on that was within 200 miles. They had to use that cleaner distillate fuel.

But we can't guarantee that, can we? So let me ask you my, my next, my next question. Since we don't have the electrical infrastructure to support electrification, then what would you consider? The answer is then to go to zero emissions in the particular timeline.

That's a great question and that's why what we're asking of the ports is to put together a plan to identify what are those infrastructure needs, what are the power needs? What is that power going to look like? Because it doesn't necessarily have to just be electrical. It could be hydrogen.

You could look at a fuel cell application, you could look at the use of methanol as one of the particular fuels. There's a number of different energy sources.

We just want to make sure that we've identified all the appropriate and applicable energy sources, how you're going to plan for them, how you're going to finance them, and then ultimately how do you actually implement that?

So I guess this. Senator, I want to thank you for bringing this forward because I commend you. I like the differentiation and I'm going to support this. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Any other question from colleagues of the dais? Mr. Connolly.

Thank you. Also appreciate the discussion today. So I'm kind of grappling in the sense that recognizing the immense importance economically of the ports, the workforce, on the other hand, I think several questions have been raised that warrant further discussion. I am concerned about the precedent.

Could the spill have a rippling effect on other air quality districts around the state? Can you speak on how limiting one air district's ability to regulate could affect other air districts in the state?

Do I get a turn? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Or whoever you'd like to answer.

Permission to answer through the chair?

Yeah.

Thank you. Assembly Member Connolly. The original proposed rule of 2304 applied to the South Coast District. And so this bill specifically states it's dealing with the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Originally, we did include up north, and Oakland is a significantly smaller port than the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles.

And so they were asked to be removed out of it, and we did. And so it kept this bill very perfectly aligned that it would be South Coast Air Quality Management District only and not referring to the other districts. This bill is specifically in several points speaks to that.

Yeah, I guess I appreciate that detail. I think there still is the concept out there, though, going forward. This does kind of open the door to the state coming in. And frankly, in this case, and this is kind of my second question, I've heard eight years, I've heard 10 years.

But in either scenario, it's been a lengthy kind of community based process. Why are you seeking through SB 34 to bypass the collaborative process that's been going on for eight years? In effect, down the road, a similar thing could happen, whether it is Oakland.

In the future, to be honest. So, that's concerning.

Sure. If I might, through the Chair, you asked basically two questions. The first one I'd like to answer has to do with precedence.

I would say to you that as when we adopted, when the state adopted term limits, that's when we began precedence of deferring our authority and our responsibility as legislators to really frankly do our job and to make sure that things that laws were consistent and appropriate for our communities.

It was only then that various local air quality districts began to take more ownership, more involvement, as they were directed by the Legislature. So, first of all, that's when the first precedents began. Second of all, I could give you a list of 200 bills right now where we are, as the Legislature, are giving direction to a particular agency.

We do that in our bills all day. This, this Bill is no different than that. This Bill, in fact, the difference, I would say is that it says the adoption, the amendment, or any other rule or regulation adopted. It's not saying that they can adopt any action that they choose to adopt.

It just says within the guardrails of adopting, of doing their work, they need to consider a few things. One, number one, they need to make sure they're considering things that are within the control of that body.

So, I would strongly disagree with the point of precedence because the precedence is they still have the authority in this Bill and also confirmed in your Committee amendments. Now, sir, if you had any questions or something you'd like us to further work on, the Bill is going next to Transportation, which would be next week.

If the Committee or yourselves have anything you'd like us to work on, of course we'd be willing to consider to do that in Transportation and then also, when it goes to the Floor. We have to be very clear. We've worked on this for seven months.

I haven't gotten a single thing from South Coast Air Quality Management District of changes of terms or amendments. It's been said by people, and I know some of you have heard it, oh, we've given them amendments. Show me an email where you gave me an amendment. We have—this is my time. This is my time.

We have not—we received a phone call which we responded and discussed, but there has not been an ongoing point. Now, to answer your second question of why are we doing this now? I heard the gentleman there talk about seven years. He's been on the board for seven years. Not me. I've been here for seven months.

I've served in the Assembly, I've served in Congress, and now I'm here, so why am I doing it is because I, like you, I'm tired of listening to it. I'm tired of nothing getting done.

Really to me, the question that should be asked is why are the people who've been in the position for 7, 10, 5 years have not solved this? The Port of Long Beach made an offer and said, we're willing to do electrification and put 500 million into it. And you know what they were told? Pound sand, we think we can get more from an ISR rule.

So, the reason why, as the Legislature, we're stepping in, is to codify and to say he said he wants to work together, let's work together.

That's what this Bill says, is that stakeholders, workers, terminal operators, vessels, air quality district, would have the ability to come together and to determine the plan. And one of the key points of that plan, require the ports to prepare assessments of energy demand and supply, cost estimates, funding sources, workforce, and environmental impacts. It's in the Bill.

No one's saying that they will not be at the table. They will definitely be at the table, but everyone needs to be at the table that has the ability to resolve the issues.

Then, final question. And this related to another concern that was raised around potentially triggering federal Clean Air Act sanctions through this course of action. So, my question is, in effect, will this impact California's ability to meet clean air targets which may result in sanctions by the Federal Government? Can you speak to those concerns that were raised?

Well, first of all, the Air Quality District has talked about this since 2017. You know what's kind of ironic? A couple weeks ago, the Administration already took away our—they suspended our low, low fuel standards. They already did it because the Administration said some of California standards are too far.

It's not a discussion of them saying, oh, you're going too far, we need to pull you back. The Administration has already said, 2 weeks ago, your standards are too excessive and so, we're eliminating them. And they did that. And they did it because of a lack of planning and lack of getting it done.

So, what SB 34 does is it says we're going to meet these goals. There's nothing in here that says we are not committed, all the stakeholders, to meet the goals. In fact, they say 2030 and 2035. So, we're full on board to do that.

What the Federal Government has done has said groups like the Air Quality Management District have gone too far. That's what they've done. And they came out with that 2, 3, weeks ago.

Yeah, no, I get that. This seems a little bit different, though, in that it would be basically an argument that we're not meeting federal standards. I can only imagine this Administration would certainly pounce on that opportunity to blacken our eye, if you will. So, that's a little bit different than I think the example you gave.

Maybe let me clarify again. There's nothing in here that says that the ports are refusing to meet the goals and the standards, either on the federal or the state level. There's nothing in SB 34 that says there is not the desire to do so.

In fact, since 2007, when I sat on the City Council, the ports have worked voluntarily, not by a stick. And he knows it. You saw him just, just nod his head. They have voluntarily worked since 2007 to address the targets and goals, both state, local, and federal.

And there's nothing in this Bill that would suggest they would not work towards doing that. What it's saying is, is that the stakeholders know best how to meet those goals, and the number one goal that we have to achieve, frankly, is electrification. Now, the person here from the Air Quality District said Long Beach has done it.

You know why Long beach has done it? It has one electrical source, Southern California Edison. The Port of Long beach has two. And the biggest lion's share is, frankly, LADWP. And for the reasons I already gave you, we're still waiting on something from DWP.

Now, I'm prepared to work with the individuals here to build upon this infrastructure plan, this energy infrastructure plan, and to make sure any and every group that needs to do its part so we can meet our goals does so. And I'll absolutely do that.

Any other questions from colleagues? Mr. Muratsuchi, you already had a crack at this.

I appreciate the Chair's indulgence. Senator, I do share the AQMD's concern about the language, "Impose a cap on cargo throughput at the ports, directly or indirectly." I can see how the ambiguity of the term "indirectly" can open the AQMD to litigation. Will you commit to addressing that in the Transportation Committee?

Absolutely. And in fact, it's my understanding the Committee staff has already met with two of the groups and has stated that they were going to work on that particular portion and I remain available to do so. Absolutely.

Thank you.

We do have that commitment. Any other questions from colleagues? Mr. Schultz.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Not a question, but I, I suppose this would be a good time for comment, correct, Mr. Chair?

Yes.

Thank you. Senator, I want to thank you for your presentation. I want to thank all of the witnesses, both those in support and those in opposition.

For the sake of time, I'll just say that I had many questions and comments to make. And I really want to echo the line of questioning from my colleague from West Hollywood, Assemblymember Zbur, who I think really captured most of what I was going to try to say.

I just wanted to explain my vote before I cast it. I will be supporting the recommendation of the Chair. And for me, it's a matter of process. I don't think that this Bill is fully there yet. And I'll be very candid. When I saw the original iteration of the Bill, I had very deep concerns.

Mr. Chair, I think you and the Committee staff did a phenomenal job of really winnowing this down to what is the crux of the issue, what was the author's stated intent, and how do we accomplish that?

We all know that we need to decarbonize our economy, but we need to do it in a way where we bring our workforce along with us. And striking that right balance is what I think this Bill hopes to do. So I understand, as you mentioned, Senator, this is going to go to Transportation.

I believe it might be marked fiscal, so it might be going to Approps. This Bill will probably change. I'm not saying how I'll vote on the floor today, but my vote is quite simple. Should we end the conversation today? I don't think so. I think this is too important an issue.

We have to continue it, moving forward. So, I will be voting aye today. And I take you at your word. And I encourage you to work with the opposition. And if there is more common ground to be found, that's great. The last point I'll make is, sir, I understand your concern about precedence.

I understand the Senator's response to that. My only encouragement of the two of you is that if we're not going to move past that point in this conversation, you're going to be right back here in Transportation and Appropriations. I would strongly encourage you to get together and talk, as my colleague mentioned, about a matter of policy.

Because most of what this Bill does—I take you at your word, sir—it's what SCAQMD is already doing. So, I encourage all the parties to continue chatting. With that, Mr. Chair, I will be following your recommendation.

Thank you, sir. Any other questions from colleagues? Nobody asked Taylor a question the entire time you were sitting up here. So, if it's okay, I'd like to ask you a question. How important is it to maintain the voice of local communities in the Air District's rulemaking process?

You know, I, I 'm 35 years old. I started doing this work because I was born and raised in West Long beach. There's the 710 freeway to the west, several refineries to the east, the 405 and then the ports to the south. I didn't get involved in this work because I thought it was something wonderful and magical.

And I had dreams to be a psychiatrist. I wanted to help my community. But when I found out that I was being directly impacted by all of the sources around my community, I felt compelled to get involved. Compelled to get involved.

And then, I started to understand that there are several communities like mine across the country that we're also advocating for, in Savannah, in Newark, and New Jersey. And so, you know, it's been very difficult to engage in this because I've been up to Sacramento several times in the past 15 years.

Here in CARB, we engage in good faith. Every public process we engage in, we could turn up and turn all this stuff out. We could. Because people in my community are dying, and yet, we still show up. Some people drove seven hours to be here today.

So, it's really hard for me and for us to sit here and hear all of these lies, these mistruths, while we're fighting for the right to breathe clean air. Right? Folks live and work in our communities. We're workers, too. We don't support automation. We support people getting good jobs.

But this is deeply personal when you watch people die in your community every day, right? And we show up and we do the good faith work of being in the community meetings, we write letters, we do our research. Right? I don't have graduate degrees for this stuff, but I'll tell you, I'm a lawyer. I'm a scientist, right?

I'm a realtor. I'm a chemical engineer because I had to be. We have to learn how to engage in this process because it's not easy. And so, it is very important because these issues are decades, decades that we've been dealing with. And so, Wayne will tell you, I'm not his friend. I do not like Wayne.

I mean, yeah, I've cussed his staff out. I don't like that I have to sit up here and be aligned with an agency that has, in my opinion, failed us for decades. But this is where we're at. We are now in a place where we can get something. Our communities have compromised everything. Everything.

And we always walk away, left with nothing. So, yes, thank you for asking me that question. It's very critical because our voices are often silenced and siloed.

Thank you for coming up here and for everybody who made the trip. Senator, would you like to close?

Well, yes, but I do need to respond to a couple of comments. Unfortunately, the witnesses were afforded, I think it was at least 30 minutes. So, there's a couple things I'd like to respond to. Number one, with all due respect, I came here to serve the community. That's why I ran for Senate.

And I remain open to working with you and any organizations and agencies to do the best for our community. But what I didn't come here to do is to be referred to as lies and certainly to be compared to Trump. And I gotta tell you, in a Committee, I'm a little surprised to hear it.

Let me briefly say that having served on Transportation in the US Congress, there are two forms that we can work with. There's intrastate and there's interstate. I N T E R. Interstate. Intrastate has to do with any of the activity within the state. Interstate does not work with vessels. We do not control vessels. Interstate does not.

So, when we say it's not in our control, there's no excuse, there's no blaming, there's no lying. I'm telling you what interstate is. Interstate, South Coast Air Quality Management District does not have the ability, interstate, to shut down a highway and to say trucks, you can only run from 9 to 10 at night.

Interstate and intra state are different forms and we have to operate within our lanes. So, nothing is intended to say we're not responsible, we don't want to be responsible, we're not going to work to do everything to be responsible. I was on the City Council when we set up the After Hours Program.

So, instead of running from 8 to 5 o'clock when kids are in school and the trucks are going by, we were like, you know what, this doesn't make sense. Three shifts. We need to make sure that we're running in the evening time when the volumes were significantly high. So, we have the ability to work with trucks.

But interstate shutting down a highway, interstate working with a vessel, those are federal requirements, those are not state requirements. So, when we say it's out of our control, we're not saying we don't want to work on it. We're saying we have limitations of what we can do. Now, electrification, I mentioned LADWP, Southern California Edison.

I believe everyone here in this room knows that they have their hands full with what's going on with the fire and reimbursement.

So, our best guess is going to be probably through LADWP, and I stand ready to make sure that we, in fact, do adopt a energy program that is going to help us to make sure we get to zero emissions. And then, it was asked about diversions. I'm sitting on a oil working group here in the Senate.

75% of our crude oil is coming from imports. 75%. 25% of gasoline is coming through imports. You just heard the agency say, we don't track what's not coming in California. Which one of you here on the Natural Resources Committee thinks it's okay, oh, let's bypass California, but we're going to now dump on Arizona and Nevada and everyplace else?

I didn't recall seeing that that was the work that you do. 75%. And oh, by the way, it's probably going to get worse. We're probably looking at doubling the fuel of gasoline to 50%.

So, when we talk about diversion, diversion is important because it's not just enough to say, I don't want it in my backyard. It's enough to say, let's fix the problem. And how we're going to fix the problem is to be able to have those vessels plug in.

Finally, I just want to speak to the amendments themselves and to the staff that work so incredibly hard. This Bill, SB 34, and Mr. Connolly asked this question, why did I author SB 34? Why are we here today? We're here today because we cannot wait another seven years or 10 years to fix this problem.

We need, in seven years and 10 years, to have met those emission goals. And the best way we're going to do that is not with a stick, but with everyone, including community organizations, working together and saying, we are going to meet these goals. This is how we're going to meet these goals.

And then we track them to them. My commitment as the author is to work with the agency and all agencies to work with amendments, should they come forward. And my commitment is to make sure, as a part of this Committee, that you see improvements over the next couple years as we achieve these goals.

And with that, I respectfully ask for a motion and also for your aye vote. Thank you.

Do we have a motion? Motion by Mr. Ellis. Second by Mr. Muratsuchi. I—Senator, I know this is your first time to this Committee. For those who have been here all year, I hold a pretty tight grip on it. One of the things I don't do, though, is, is tell community how to address us.

Because like you, I think I was referred to as ICE at one point in the testimony, and I think that's largely because when you've been directly impacted by harms and you come to places like this, all you know is how to translate that harm from community into the way that you address the body.

And so, I let it roll off of me personally and try to listen to the substance. And I want to thank all of the community advocates who made their way up here, especially if you came all the way from Long Beach in San Pedro.

I want to thank the Senator for working with the Committee staff for the last several weeks and the ILWU.

I think, as my colleague from Santa Monica mentioned, this Bill has been trimmed down significantly to focus on the kind of two key areas of, honestly, distrust, and that is that the rulemaking process will result in automation and cargo limits. And as was mentioned by AQMD, they have no interest in setting cargo limits or electrifying.

That's all the Bill addresses, are not electrifying. We have a deep interest in electrification, automation. Those are the only two things left in this Bill. This Bill is necessary because the distrust is that high. And like my colleague from Burbank mentioned, I'd like not to see bills like this.

I think that local authorities that are closest—the people closest to the ground—are the closest to the solutions. And that includes the air management districts, air quality management districts, that have held many workshops and many community convenings.

However, we're at a situation now, as the Senator mentioned, where the distrust is built to the fact that it has reached the Legislature. And if the question is whether we can supersede that local authority or not, the answer is yes, and we will, if we have to.

But it's certainly not a practice that this Committee plans on normalizing. It's not something that I believe this Bill will set a precedent for because it does not strip the Air Quality Management District of any rulemaking authority that it hasn't already articulated in public, that it has no desire to make, around automation and around cargo throughput limits.

That is why this Bill has my support today. And I want to thank all of my colleagues and the Senator for a robust conversation. I think it's incredibly important and I think it's going to stick with a lot of us for a long time. With that, Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

We'll leave the roll open for absent Members.

Thank you for all of your time. You're very kind.

Thank you. Senator Stern. Oh, nope, you're right. You're right. Senator McNerney.

Sorry.

Chivalry exists.

Whenever you're ready, Senator.

Thank you. Chair Bryant, Members of the Committee, I appreciate you hearing this Bill this afternoon. We'll try to be less tedious maybe, than the prior Bill, I say with a subdued voice. I'm here to present SB 279. This Bill will increase flexibility for farmers and growers to compost agricultural waste and increase capacity for community composters.

This year, a ban on open burning of agricultural materials went into effect, placing a significant new burden on farmers and growers on how are they going to manage their agricultural waste. And as we all know, farmers are always on sort of the edge, so they need a little bit of break here.

Compounding that problem, California doesn't currently have enough commercial composting facilities to meet the current waste demand.

SB 279 allows farmers and growers to compost their own waste from large biomass events at most once every 10 years in a big event like removal of a vineyard or an orchard, and to accept off site agricultural materials like manure to catalyze the composting process.

SB 279 also increases capacity for small community composters by allowing them to compost up to 500 cubic yards of green waste and food scraps. And SB 279 increases the amount a small composting operation is allowed to sell or give away to up to 5,000 cubic yards annually.

The Bill is co sponsored by the Californians Against Waste, the Western Tree Nut Association, California Wine Grape Growers, California Alliance for Community Composting, the Climate Center and People for Food and Land Foundation. With us today to testify in support is Louis Brown of the Western Tree Nut Association and Courtney Brown of California Alliance Community Composting.

With that, I'll turn over the witnesses to the supporting witnesses.

Two minutes each. Whatever order you want.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf of the Western Tree Nut Association, American Pistachio Growers and the California Fresh Fruit Association in support of the Bill. Believe me, we don't come here seeking to be composters. Our Members want to be farmers.

Unfortunately, any number of circumstances throughout the state have made that more difficult. From the Sustainable Groundwater Management act, to markets, to international issues, we have seen a downturn in the industry. And with that comes orchards and Vineyards that are in need of doing something with that waste. There has been money for this over the last few years.

There was money given to the San Joaquin Air District and others to deal with the alternative to ag burn. That money is now gone and so it is too expensive for farmers just to chip. And frankly, if we do nothing with that waste, it becomes a nuisance, it harbors pests and it creates other issues in the valley.

So this seems to be a common sense approach.

Give us, our growers, one alternative, that opportunity once every 10 years when you have that orchard removal or that vineyard removal process, to do something with that waste and that could possibly make up for the loss of those crops and in the interim, allow for those growers to at least survive for the next opportunity to find a crop that could take that place of that property.

And so with that, we ask for an aye vote and I'll be available for any questions you might have.

Good afternoon Chair and Members. I am Courtney Brown with the California Alliance for Community Composting. From 2021 to 2025, our organization launched and expanded 175 compost hubs in the State of California. We recovered over 6,200 tons of food and green material that is not being currently diverted by city sponsored programs.

These hubs created 42 full-time equivalent jobs and they produce high quality compost that's used to improve local soil and grow food for disadvantaged and low income communities. SB 279 supports local investments in this type of work and it's proven to be effective at both urban and rural communities.

Right now, California is sending a significant portion of organic waste produced annually to landfills precisely because there's not enough capacity and because many existing facilities are too far away from their sources for composting to be a cost effective solution. So some opponents have suggested that SB 279 would allow unregulated food waste composting operations.

And this is simply not true. Under existing regulations, composting sites with less than 100 cubic yards are already allowed to accept food waste. And these activities are explicitly exempt from CalRecycle permitting precisely because they're small sites and they're low risk, they're low nuisance. And we have demonstrated on our own accord their effective oversight of our own operations.

With SB 279, both state and local agencies are going to retain their authority to inspect and verify that these composting sites are meeting the regulatory requirements and they can do that at any time. Increasing the volume threshold just by a little amount for community composters doesn't undermine the investments that large commercial composting facilities have already made.

In fact, it complements it because we fill in critical gaps in capacity that commercial sites are not meeting right now. According to CalRecycle, we need 50 to 100 new facilities that can process over 50 tons per day in order to meet our SB 1383 diversion targets. And we're far from achieving that goal.

So now is not the time for protectionism over a limited compost supply. SB 279 expands the total amount of compost that can be produced and used for agricultural and environmental benefits by creating more opportunities to make healthy soil and reducing the organics that we send to landfill. So the bottom line, we need more composting in California.

That means expanding capacity, diversifying the options that local jurisdictions can choose and making room for sustainable food solutions at all scales. So for these reasons I respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?

Is composting in the house?

Hello Chair and Members. My name is Erica Parker from Californians Against Waste. We're a proud co-sponsor. I also have authorized to support for Zero Waste Sonoma, Pacific Beach Coalition, Biochosen, Blue Ocean Warriors, San Francisco Baykeeper and California Climate and Agricultural Network.

Taylor Nichols representing the Climate Health Now Action Fund speaking on behalf of 900 healthcare members in support of this Bill.

Despina Costopoulos Emerson on behalf in support of this Bill on behalf of Find out Farms in my neighborhood. I'm here as a citizen and support this. Thank you.

Hello. Esther Portillo with NRDC in support.

Good afternoon Chair and Members. Melissa Kosachuk with Western Growers in support. Thank you.

Jacob Evans with Sierra California in support. Thank you.

Michael Miller with the California Association of Wine Grape Growers. Also here for People Food and Land Foundation. Both of our groups are co-sponsors of the Bill we obviously support. Thank the author for your leadership and your staff as well and for the Committee thorough analysis. Thank you very much.

Mark Fenstermaker for the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts in support.

On behalf of Climate Action California and 350 Sacramento Legislation Committee. Karen Jacques in support.

Good afternoon Chair and Members. Peter Ansel, California Farm Bureau in support.

Hi Chair and Members. My name is Allison Hilliard with the Climate Center. Proud co sponsors of SB 279. Also here on support with LA Waterkeeper, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, and Carbon Cycle Institute. Thank you so much.

George Cavinta on behalf of the Almond Alliance in support.

Keisha Ernst with Soil Matters in support.

Casey Ernst with Catalyst Bio Amendments, Nevada County's only permitted composting facility. In support.

Good afternoon. Noelle Cremers with Wine Institute in support.

John Heywood with co sponsor People Food and Land Foundation.

Jennifer Feering for Community Alliance with Family Farmers in support.

Thank you so much. Any persons here in opposition? Any witnesses here in opposition? Welcome.

That's me. Nice to see so many environmental groups in favor of composting, but maybe not in favor of deregulating it. So I'm Neil Edgar on behalf of the California Compost Coalition. For those that weren't here earlier, I'm representing the commercial composting handling food and green materials from growing collection programs in jurisdictions across the state.

Few people have spent more time advocating for the expansion of composting and sensible regulations over the last 23 years than I have, both here in California and across the US in my work with the US Composting Council. I'm put in a very awkward position of having to oppose the Bill as the sponsors have not been able to address our key concerns with it.

While we appreciate some of the amendments, they were not adequate to addressing our two remaining key issues. We desperately need to expand composting capacity across the state to meet the challenges of SB 1383, but this is not a reasonable way to go about it. The Bill still does two key things we find problematic.

First, it provides an exemption for agricultural operations for a large biomass event, as was described. It generally would be an orchard or vineyard removal. But allowing those events to define an ability to become a deregulated commercial composting operation is significant to many of my members who've invested heavily in environmental protection measures across California.

I'll describe this permitting inequity as follows. Across the state, dozens of facility operators and ratepayers who use their services have made massive investments into regulatory compliance and mitigation measures. So in Yolo County, Northern Composting has spent $70 million to build a facility that services the Sacramento and Yolo County region.

In Kern County, Mr. Ellis's district, the County of Kern has spent $30 million to open a new facility next week or the week after that is going to be counting on those agricultural markets and probably are going to have some problems with competitors who may or may not be regulated to the same extent they are.

In Merced County, a new permit was issued on July 2nd for a facility to open there. In Tulare County, CEQA process is complete permitting underway. This is just to name a few.

While it's not certain how many farmers will take advantage of this carve out, this deregulation may strand historic investments and threaten the viability of the operations I mentioned given their reliance on agricultural markets.

And about three quarters of the compost we're selling in California from commercial facilities goes to agriculture. This Bill will allow each of the thousands of agricultural sites to sell up to 5,000 cubic yards annually, five times what is allowed under current regulations, and threaten the ability of these operations to be viable given their reliance on those markets.

What we have asked the sponsors to do is limit the amount of materials sold from the 5,000 cubic yards annually, which is five times the current limit to a more reasonable approach on balance of limiting it to 2,000 cubic yards, double what's currently allowed. This Bill also allows significant volumes of food waste at unregulated small sites.

Also a five fold increase in the allowed exemption from any regulation, creating potential environmental impacts that are bad for the industry.

We're at a solid 3:30 which is generous.

Be really quick. Food materials represent a significant risk to the environment and public health. And the primary reason we collect solid waste to minimize vectors which carry disease. We're asking for a limit on the amount of food waste. The sponsors have said we don't want 500 cubic yards, which weighs about 200 tons of food waste.

That's not what we want at these sites. We just want to have 500 cubic yards of total material. So we're asking for a limit on 20% of that total. Be food waste only.

I'm gonna have to stop you right there.

Thank you.

Any persons in the hearing room in opposition? Seeing none, will now turn it to Committee Members. Questions? Comments? Concerns? Is that a question, Mr. Ellis? Comment, concern?

Comment. I have a farm, and it's really tough. You know, you prune. There are certain times of the year, you know, you have piles of green waste, and it's tough to get around. You have to get an air permit if you can get one. I bunched up tumbleweeds one year, and I couldn't get a burn permit.

So I did something really uneconomical. I bought a baler and a grinder and a reactor, and I made organic acids and organic pesticide out of tumbleweeds. But it was cost prohibitive. So there are uses for this material. And I encourage recycle and reuse for grape pumice, for example. The grape industry has a huge problem with pumice.

I'm involved with actually making some products from the pumice, but the usable portion of a lot of those products is not marketable yet. So I encourage. Thank you, Senator. I'm in support of this because we do need. We do need more composting ability, and it's nothing but good for the soil. So I appreciate everybody's comments. Thank you.

You know, Mr. Ellis, I learn something new about you. Every Committee here. I'm waiting for you to tell everybody about the band, but we'll talk about that later. Mr. McNerney, would you like to close?

I thank the Chair. This is really, as Mr. Brown mentioned. This is common sense. Small agricultural and composting operations allow ag folks to use that resource to enrich their soils and spare the additional cost of shipping it or handling it in other ways. So I think it.

I think it's common sense, and I ask for an aye vote respectfully. Thank you.

Do we have a motion? Motion, Mr. Ellis. A second? Second, Ms. Pellerin. There was a third by Mr. Connelly, I believe. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

The Bill is out, sir. Thank you. Mr. Stern. Whenever you're ready, sir.

Okay. Members, I'm presenting SB 613. There's no opposition to this Bill.

We're looking at upstream methane emissions and trying to make sure that both the gas and the oil we import, to your point, Assembly Member, about all the oil and gas imports we make to this state and the lack of knowledge we have about upstream greenhouse gas emissions. We import about 90% of our gas and about 50% of our oil comes from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Ecuador, places like that.

So, this Bill is really an attempt to get better data upstream, whether it's from other states or other countries. As I said, Bill has no opposition at this point, and we know that methane is a major short term, short term climate pollutant. So, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Any support here in the hearing room?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Faith Conley with Wideman Group, on behalf of Pure West Energy, really appreciate the author's work on this, in strong support.

Thank you so much. Come on down, Ms. Karen.

Well, here I am again. And Climate Action California in strong support.

Thank you so much. Now, the Senator said there was no opposition to this Bill. Anybody care to call his bluff? Seeing none. We will now turn it to Committee Members, questions, comments, concerns? Oh, Vice Chair Alanis.

I am gonna ask real quick. I, I do show the Western States Petroleum Association on here.

Oh, you do? Okay.

I thought they dropped their opposition actually.

And they could have. It's—okay. They did, okay. Sorry, didn't want to misstate. Not calling his bluff.

No, I mean, they certainly didn't show up, so.

Got it.

Yeah. Any other questions, comments, concerns from Committee Members? Mr. Ellis, I was waiting for it.

I, I just have a quick question. The—when you're talking about methane emissions and you're talking about natural gas imports, natural gas is like 90% methane and 2% ethane and a couple percent butane. How, how would you propose—I guess, what's the mechanism for reducing the amount of methane in natural gas when it's mostly methane?

So, when you're producing the gas, drilling for it, fracking for it, whatever they do in Permian Basin and all through the Marcellus Shale, they—there's all different methods they use to produce that gas, also transport that gas. So, whether it's leaks in pipelines that we're worried about for shoddy equipment or actually on site. There's some practices called flaring.

So, if you're actually getting too much gas out of a petroleum field, you end up flaring some of it off that you don't need. Those are harmful. And we think the best producers out there are doing this the right way, without flaring and with really tight monitoring protocols.