Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

To present AB 1938, which will create a process to establish an official state designation for California's most important surf breaks. Our state surfing industry generates 140,000,000,000 in annual economic activity with over 3,300,000 domestic and international surfers visiting our shores every year. A 2025 study revealed surfing has an estimated economic value of almost 200,000,000 per year in Santa Cruz County alone. While California is home to several world renowned surf breaks, including Malibu, Rincon, Trestles, Mavericks, The state does not officially recognize them.

The value of a surf break of surf break designations for local economies can be a game changer.

The designation of high quality breaks in Australia demonstrated the ability to raise economic growth by 2.2 percentage points, bringing an annual average 20,000,000 for every region with quality waves nearby. AB nineteen thirty eight will require the Ocean Protection Council to establish a voluntary application process for local governments to designate an area of the coastline as a surf reserve.

By establishing a process for surf reserve designations, California will continue to promote the unique attributes of surf zones that make our Golden State proud to be home to some of the world's best surf destinations. And eyewitness is not quite here yet, so, we will move on.

Okay. Any or any supporters here in the hearing room?

Thank you. Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities, supportive of the measure in front of you with just a minor amendment to help local governments come in for these surf reserve designations. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Hi. Caitlyn Leventhal with the California State Association of Counties with the support, if amended, position for the reasons identified by my colleague at the league. Thank you.

Thank you. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition? Are you the primary witness in support?

Yes.

Come come on down and take it two minutes.

Sorry for being late. Little riding getting in the building. Good afternoon, mister chair. Mark Fenstermaker here on behalf of Save the Waves Coalition in strong support of AB 1938. Save the Waves is an international nonprofit based in Santa Cruz, California.

Our mission is to protect surf ecosystems across the globe. And at the heart of this mission is the strategy of creating surfing reserves and protected areas, which is why we're thrilled to see assembly member Erwin taking on the important issue, once again, to create California's system of surfing reserves. Thanks to funding from the Ocean Protection Council, we engaged in a two year long study to better understand the benefits and threats of surfing in Santa Cruz County. And the economics are clear.

The surf industry in Santa Cruz County alone is generating almost $200,000,000 annually for the local economy.

But the study also revealed that the threat is becoming more clear and that climate change, the resulting sea level rise, and how we respond to that threat can have detrimental effects on California's billion dollar surf breaks. While we know California's coast is one of the most regulated and best managed in the world, surf breaks as a natural resource fall through

the cracks of this regulation and management. With the twenty twenty eight Olympics approaching and and surfing set to be a prominently featured sport, the time has arrived to invest in these natural assets. From an international perspective, California is one of the leaders in coastal management. However, there are many other examples from out around the world where surfing reserves are being put in place.

Save the War waves has worked with over 14 different communities internationally to create these surf reserves, including one just last week in Puerto Escondido in Oaxaca.

We've seen the fruits of this program and how it has created community and ecological resilience in the face of a changing world. Surfing is the state sport. It generates billions of dollars for the state's economy, and it connects people to nature, community, and culture. For these reasons, we are pleased to support ab 1938. We thank Assemblymember Irwin for her continued leadership on this effort, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Absolutely. We're a little bit out of order. So just to close it out, are there any persons here in the hearing room in opposition to this bill? Everybody likes surfing. We're gonna establish a quorum now that members are here.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We'll now return it back to the dais. Any questions or comments? Miss Pellerin.

Thank you for bringing this bill forward. It's a great bill. And as the member who represents one of the designated sites worldwide for great surfing in Santa Cruz, Aye, would like to move the bill but also be added as a coauthor. So thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments from colleagues? Seeing none, miss Irwin, would you like to close?

Just, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Absolutely. We've got a motion by Miss Pellerin. Do we have a second? Second. By Mister Haney.

This bill has a do pass reco from the chair, madam secretary. Can we call the roll?

[Roll Call] That measures out, but we'll leave it on call. Thank you. Miss Wicks, would you like to present? Sure. And do we have a motion on the consent calendar while she's walking up? Motion on Miss Pellerin, a second by Mr. Zbur. Madam secretary, can you call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Whenever you're ready, Miss Wicks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members, and staff. Thank you to this committee for its analysis and for working with my staff to clarify and strengthen this bill. I'm happy to take the amendments outlined in comment 12 of the analysis. AB 2051 directs the Natural Resources Agency to convene a coastal resilience permitting working group, which will meet to develop a coastal resilience permitting road map for projects proposed along California's coast and in the San Francisco Bay.

As amended, I'm taking, as amendments I'm taking today will clarify, coastal resilience projects either maintain, protect, restore, or enable coastal ecosystems, infrastructure, or communities to withstand and adapt to sea level rise and other natural hazards amplified by climate change.

This is a broad definition encompassing nature based and engineered solutions, both projects that restore wetlands when we can and protect that may require us to build seawalls when we must. Under current law, a project sponsor on the coast may need to secure up to 10 separate permits from state, federal, and local agencies.

This process is plagued by redundant and inconsistent application requirements, no aligned review timelines, sequential rather than concurrent permitting processes, no single lead agency to coordinate or resolve conflicts, and chronic staffing vacancies in agencies that require highly specialized expertise. We must acknowledge that attempting to cut green tape is not a brand new idea and that recent administrations, including under governor Newsom, have sought to move faster and with less bureaucracy to adapt to the realities of climate change.

However, the challenge here remains massive, and our work as legislators is not done.

Decades worth of well meaning permitting processes remain overlaid on top of one another, and all too often, it is still too expensive and time consuming to move with the speed and cost efficiency our coastline is going to need to adapt to sea level rise and an altered climate. I recognize that I recognize that the shoreline I represent in the San Francisco Bay is governed by a different set of permitting rules than those that are governed by the outer coast.

However, as this as support for this bill grows, I'm hearing from parties around the state who have an interest in keeping it from becoming regional only. It remains my goal to set a big table to commute a broad group of administrative and outside stakeholders to recommend reforms that could apply to our entire shoreline. AB twelve fifty one, sorry, does not alter existing permitting requirements or weaken any environmental protections.

An advisory group mandated in this bill is specifically charged with ensuring that streamlining efforts do not weaken protections for fish and wildlife habitat, tribal cultural resources, or public access. But with this bill, we can set California on a path that will lead to actionable recommendations to improve permit issuance timelines, build a better alignment on mitigation requirements, accelerate permitting, and act and and assess how to recruit and retain essential permitting staff.

With me here to testify in support is Adrian Covert with the Bay Area Council and Brad Benson with the Port Of San Francisco. And when the time is right, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Two minutes whenever you're ready.

Thank you, mister chair and members, for the opportunity to testify today. My name Adrian Covert, here on behalf of the Bay Area Council and the 400 over 400 largest employers in the Bay Area that we represent and proud cosponsor of AB 2051 with the, with the Bay Planning Coalition.

The California Ocean Protection Council estimates California will see an average of 9.6 inches of sea level rise on our shoreline within the next thirty years, with major storms responsible with for significant coastal damage under today's sea level rise. This additional rise, with today's sea levels, this additional rise is going to cost billions of dollars of, damages. It's gonna cost tens of billions of dollars to adapt for, and it's gonna threaten billions of dollars of infrastructure and tens of thousands of California residents.

The legislature and voters recently responded to this challenge with a $1,000,000,000 investment for coastal resilience in proposition one proposition four, excuse me, To make sure the voters get maximum return on this investment, California must do everything it can to make sure the public dollars are going into actual projects and not just bureaucracy. Today, coastal resilience projects must first navigate many, up to 10 state and federal and local, permitting agencies, each with different applications, processes, and definitions.

Their jurisdictions often overlap, and changes to a project mandated by one agency oftentimes contradict demands by another. Navigating this process costs time and money that we don't have. Thankfully, we know another way is possible.

Ten years ago, the Bay Area Council and our prop partners convened state and federal permitting agencies to establish a system for streamlining wetland restoration permits in the San Francisco Bay Area. And this system has reduced permitting timelines from around five years to just one while maintaining the letter of the law on all of our environmental regulations.

As AB 2051 puts California in a position to replicate that success statewide and for all coastal resilience projects by bringing state agencies together to develop a coastal resilience permitting road map to present options to the governor and the legislature, Prada Speed, coastal resilience projects, while continuing to meet the letter of California's strict environmental standards. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon, chair, committee members. My name is Brad Benson. I'm the Port of San Francisco's waterfront resilience program director. We're working with the Army Corps of Engineers right now to develop a multibillion dollar plan for coastal resilience along the San Francisco shoreline. And so we're in the thick of this permitting process right now, consulting with both federal agencies and state agencies.

This multibillion dollar effort is gonna require implementation over an expected thirty two year period of time, but we're gonna have to break it down into implementable pieces. We're talking about starting the project in the ferry building area so that we can defend BART and Muni from flooding. There's current flood risk today. The Embarcadero flooded during the king tides that we just had in early January.

And what we can't afford to do is go through permitting processes like this 10 or more times to implement a project like this.

We really need a programmatic permitting approach that is coordinated across multiple agencies so that we can have a reliable and efficient means of implementing a multibillion dollar project. You know, over the last decade, we saw very significant construction cost inflation on large infrastructure projects across the state. And we've calculated that for our project alone, a year's delay in implementation of that project could cost up to a $100,000,000 just in construction cost inflation alone. So, this is sorely needed.

We need the regulatory agencies at the table providing their best thinking. We need the permittees to be participating in the process. We really appreciate your consideration of the bill today and respectfully urge an iPhone.

Thank you, sir. Are there any witnesses in opposition here in the hearing room? Seeing none. Are there any persons in the hearing room in support or opposition? Come on down.

Cleveland with The Nature Conservancy in support.

Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties in support.

Thank you so much. And I'll turn it back to the dais. Questions, comments from my colleagues? Mister Ellis.

Thank you, mister chair.

Vice chair, mister Ellis.

So thank you for bringing this forward. I have a comment and then a suggestion. I I'm I'm gonna hold off on voting for this today, but because I have a problem with giving any commission, especially the Coastal Commission authority, under one jurisdiction. But I would like to work with the author on some amendments, and I have some ideas, assembly member, if you don't mind. But but I appreciate the bill, and and I look forward to working with you.

My door is always open, Mr. Ellis. So Thank you.

Seeing no other questions or comments, Miss Wicks, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Do we have a motion? We have a motion by miss Pellerin, a second and third by mister Zaburn, mister Haney. This bill has a do pass recommendation. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. Mister Rogers, welcome to the neighborhood. I'm so sorry. Whenever you're ready. Whenever you're ready, sir.

Mr. Chair, Members, I'm here today to present AB 2494. I'll start by accepting committee amendments. I really wanna thank, Paige for working so hard with our office on this one. It has been over fifty years since we have rethought the management practices at the state's demonstration forests. In fact, it was 1947 was when the definition that we currently use to guide the management practices was written, so nearly eighty years.

There are 14 demonstration forests in the state of California. By far, the largest one, which is about half of the total acreage, is in Mendocino County, the Jackson Demonstration State Forest. The current law says that the management of these forests will be governed by maximum sustained production of high quality lumber products. That means that these forests are being sustained by the very harvesting that happens and the lumber that's taken from them.

In the last eighty years, not only do we know more about, ecological restoration, biodiversity restoration, carbon sequestration, and especially wildfire, but we also have changed our partnerships and how we manage lands of indigenous folks in the state as well.

So this bill would change the guiding principles that we use, for these demonstration state forests to really focus on those factors that I mentioned. Biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, wildfire resiliency, recreation, and research. This is a gem in the middle of my community, and Mendocino County has been struggling to figure out how to create economic development. What we know is that the ecotourism industry in Mendocino County is 20 times larger.

It has huge capacity to be able to both fit in this restorative work to make sure that we are supporting even the sawmills and the industries that have relied on it, but also focusing instead on a future and an economic potential, that the county wants.

I'll introduce them in a moment here, but last November, the board of supervisors for the county in Mendocino changed their legislative platform, asking for a change in how the management occurs so that they could begin that process of creating an economy that works for everybody. I did this bill for a couple of reasons, but first and foremost was to be responsive to our constituents who have been asking for this change for a long time.

We did it because we wanted to recognize the co management practices of the indigenous tribes who help represent the area as some of that has been occurring, but we wanted to make sure we codified that in statute. We did it because this is a key component of the governor's 30 by 30 goals. And in fact, as I mentioned the last time that we've revisited the management practices, we didn't have any climate change goals in California.

And redwood forests are the highest sequestering trees per acre out of any type of land use in the state and across the world as we want to recognize that as well. And finally, for the the local economy, we know, that there is a huge potential. It, it is not a question of how much timber should we take. It's how by focusing on a restorative economy, a restorative, environment, we can we can provide a better future for our community.

So with me to testify today, we have Ted Williams, who's a supervisor for the county of Mendocino. We also have Buffie Campbell, who's the executive director of the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council.

Absolutely. You have two minutes each.

Thank you. You can go.

Ladies first.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you for your time here today. My name is Buffie Campbell. I'm the executive director of the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council. It's a consortium of 10 sovereign tribal nations in Northern California. And it's my privilege to speak on behalf of these 10 self governing nations.

The entirety of Jackson Demonstration State Forest is in Northern Pomo Country. Our ancestors were forcibly and abruptly removed from everyday existence on these lands. JDSF is still our home. It's a cultural landscape where we once tended the land and held ceremony. The historical management of Jackson Demonstration State Forest is concerning to tribes due to the impact of destructive logging practices.

CAL FIRE has not always had a good relationship with tribes. The tribal nations have not had a voice in co managing or governing regarding any state forest. In the past, there have been issues with consultation and protection of tribal cultural resources.

While there have been some improvements made at JDSF, such as the tribal advisory committee, these improvements have not been codified. AB 2494 would allow for this and be the first opportunity for tribal nations to voice concerns about our relatives, the redwoods.

Modern science has not yet begun to know what these magnificent creations can give us in the way of ancient knowledge. These beings have been on earth for centuries and are the wisest we can learn from. By providing meaningful, committed tribal co governance and stewardship and integrating into indigenous tribal ecological knowledge, sustained forest health and ecosystems will be realized once again.

The InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council by resolution is committed to working with federal partners to ensure the success of the 30 by 30 policy goals to safeguard the natural environment while strengthening government to government relationships with sovereign, self governing tribal nations. And by resolution, the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council supports AB 2494

We thank you for your support on AB 2494. Thank you.

Mr. Williams.

Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Ted Williams, and I've served for seven years as Mendocino County's fifth district supervisor. Prior, I served as the fire chief for a local district. My district includes Jackson Demonstration State Forest. My own career was shaped by the kind of economic opportunity that only California and Silicon Valley made possible.

That level of opportunity has not reached Mendocino County. 48% of our population receives public assistance, and we're about to feel greater pain under HR1. Historically, our economy was rooted in resource extraction, a model with ever decreasing ceiling. Timber tax revenue today is a rounding error for us. In 2021, I sponsored a county resolution requesting scientific review of JDSF.

It passed unanimously. Shortly after, deputy secretary Jessica Morse of the California Natural Resources Agency joined us to respond directly. AB 2494 is the logical next step to that conversation. Half a century ago, the California Coastal Act was passed with a bold vision that the coast should be protected and accessible for all people. This bill offers a similar bold vision of seeking the highest and best use of our forests for the benefit of all Californians.

It would create potential for new diversified economic opportunities, supporting greater self sufficiency. It would allow us to meet the urgency of climate change, advance restoration, expand tribal coast stewardship, retain our existing forest workforce with more stable funding, and broaden the scope of research endeavors.

Support for this concept was added to my county's legislative platform recently. While our board is scheduled to formally discuss tomorrow, I see you already have independent letters of support from three of our supervisors. I respectfully urge you to, your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Any persons in this hearing room in support of this measure?

Good afternoon. Melodie Meyer on behalf of the Environmental Protection Information Center. We are proud to sponsor this bill and with permission on behalf of the following organizations, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Clean Water Action, 350 Humboldt, Siskiyou Land Conservancy, Forest Working Group of the Grassroots Institute of Mendocino County in support, and on behalf of over 1,000 constituents in Assembly District 2 in support. Thank you.

Hi, everyone. Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in support.

Good evening. Alex Leumer on behalf of Mendocino Fire Protection District, Natural Resource Defense Council, Resources Renewal Institute, Trout Unlimited, California Trout, and the California Native Plant Society in support. Thank you.

Hello. Oops. Hello. My name is Phyllis Aguilera, and I'm here on behalf of the JDSF Coalition and also as an indigenous person asking for support to save our mother earth.

Hi. I'm Jessica Curl, and on behalf of Mendocino Trail Stewards, I'm in support.

Larry Aguilera, Save Jackson Demonstration Forest, and I'm in support.

Good evening. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in support. Thank you.

Any witnesses in opposition?

Mr. do I stand up here?

Oh, no. Come on down. Got two microphones and two minutes of peace.

You're up first.

Alright. Good afternoon, Chair Bryan and Members. My name is Peter Ansel. I'm representing the California Farm Bureau in opposition to AB 2494. As outlined in the thoughtful committee analysis, the demonstration state forests are intended to serve as living laboratories, testing how to balance ecological values and sustainable timber production. AB 2494 fundamentally shifts that mission.

Even with the thoughtful amendments that have been proffered up and accepted by the author, the bill redefines management to prioritize on-site carbon storage and ecological processes and restricts timber harvest to only restoration and research purposes.

In doing so, it treats carbon as something that must remain standing rather than recognizing the full carbon life cycle of working forests. The bill creates a false choice between carbon storage and timber harvest. In reality, sustainable harvest is a key mechanism for long term carbon storage.

The state is already investing in these forests through actions like the climate, California Climate Investments with nearly $3,000,000 going to the demonstration forests.

It's a commitment to improve sustainable timber harvest, including through the advanced wood product grants made by the governor's wildfire and forest resilience task force, the Joint Institute of Advanced Wood Products, that seeks to create supply chains dealing with the fuels taken out of our forests. AB 2494 moves in an opposite direction, away from active management and towards a preservation model that limits state's ability to fully realize those investments.

The committee's analysis warns that reducing timber harvest creates a funding instability, shifting the forests away from a self supporting revenue stream into a reliance on a fund where funding is uncertain and a lower priority. But most importantly, unmanaged and undermanaged forests do not maximize carbon benefits. The analysis acknowledges that timber harvest remains a vital tool for forest health and fire reduction.

Without it, we increase the risk of catastrophic wildfire. We don't decrease it, releasing far more carbon than is preserved in the forests. Finally, the bill disrupts ongoing science. As noticed, as noted, forest management research takes years, and CAL FIRE is actively updating management plans today with a JDSF management committee that includes tribal co management.

Changing statutes midstream risk delay, added cost, and lost data for all the work that's been going on over the past few years since that committee was formed and previously for science that has been in place in the forest for years.

Demonstration forest reflect the full spectrum of modern forest science, including how carbon is stored in forest and in wood products. This bill narrows that scope at at exactly the time when the state is looking to invest and expand that scope.

This is 2026, not 2016. We are in the midst of a wildfire crisis and cannot afford to return to a forest management strategy that combined with climate change led us to this exact crisis. For these reasons, I ask for a no vote still today.

That was a extra minute of grace there. If we can keep it to two minutes.

I'll keep it within two minutes. Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Matt Dias. I'm the president and CEO of the California Forestry Association, and I come before you today to respectfully oppose 2494, AB 2494. Three reasons.

Number one, the bill undermines the principles and values of sustainable forestry and forest management by significantly significantly constricting the application of sound forest management practices across the entire demonstration state forest system.

Now I appreciate the committee's work that's been done to date to try to address these concerns, but I believe that there's more work that should be done really to allow for continuity of force management activities without the threat of future litigation. That's one piece that I find to be very, very concerning to myself while also maintaining long term sustained yield of force products from the demonstration state force as a whole.

For up, for upwards of seventy years, the demonstration state force have literally been self sustaining. Seventy years self sustaining force system in California. There is a funding shift, as Peter has indicated, to another fund in this state that is based on the generation of revenue from the sales of lumber products.

And that fund has very specific mandated statutory requirements which have not been achieved to date, and I would suggest that we need to take a very close look at the funding shift needs.

Lastly, Calforests is aware that there have been some challenges with demonstration state forest in Jackson, the Jackson demonstration state forest itself. And those and as stated by the author, there are actually 13 that are forests to landscapes in California that are forests, one that is near the Mexican border.

And these 13 forests are now being, the issues in Mendocino County are being thrust upon the 13 forests that have no social challenge with them at all. Jackson Demonstration State Forest is a unique situation, and I will con I will continue to work with the author and staff to try to come up with solutions that are going to allow this bill to move forward well into the future.

In closing, I just wanna say that today's nomenclature as we talk about forest management in California is based on conservation, 30 by 30, natural working lands, and the demonstration state forest meet those in all in every form and fashion. They were 30 by 30 conservation and working lands before that term was developed by the state. With that, I stand before you to answer any questions, and we'll commit to continue to work on the bill.

Thank you, sir. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition?

John Andersen, Humboldt Mendocino Redwood Company, and Mendocino Forest Products in opposition.

Chair Members, Brian White on behalf of California Licensed Foresters Association, the reg state foresters. We are respectfully in opposition. We'll look at the the amendments to review. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll now return it back to the dais. For that, though, Mr. Rogers, what would you say to the opposition's three points?

Yeah. So, first of all, I I've been, I just wanna say I have been very happy with the working relationship and being able to work with the opposition on some of those amendments. Some of it's just a fundamental difference on what we view as the role of the forest. Right? The original charge of the forest was around self sustaining timber.

And what we are fundamentally doing is saying that now given the challenges of climate change, that the we're not saying that there will be no forest products, no timber products, but we are saying that the projects need to better reflect the science of what we're trying to achieve globally as a state. I'll give you a really good example because I heard, kind of a red herring around, wildfire.

When you have improper techniques that are based on the economics of the forest and not based on the the science and especially the carbon sequestration of the forest, you end up taking the larger redwood trees that opens up the canopy that then allows for invasive species to grow in an area, which then does increase your wildfire risk. And in fact, it creates additional competition with a bunch of smaller trees that make it more dense and actually makes it harder to manage the forest. That's why our bill doesn't say don't cut trees.

I know that there are folks out there who would like us to say that in our bill. That's not what it says. What our bill bill says is that we need better management of this asset that both leaves room for a healthy force while also recognizing, again, this is public land, not private land. We're not touching private land. This is the public's land to determine how best to utilize it for their local economy.

And you heard from the supervisor about the challenges that Mendocino County has had. There's room to do both in it. And then also to kinda level set for folks about how much we're talking about. This is 2% of the state's forest, total forest mass, is the demonstration forests.

It is less than 1% of the timber sales. It's 0.7% in the last calendar year. So, again, we're just trying to build a better future for Mendocino County. We're trying to build a better future for Trinity County, which has a demonstration force as well in my district. We wanna make sure that this better reflects the science of today, not the science of 1947.

Understood. Colleagues, any questions, comments? Miss Pellerin.

Thank you. And as somebody who represents the Soquel Demonstration Forest, this so if you could speak a little more to your intention behind shifting the DSF funding from the Forest Improvement Fund to the Timber Fund.

Yeah. Absolutely.

And, and why does that, why does the current situation not suffice?

Yeah. So currently, the amount of money that goes into managing the forest actually comes from the product that the forest is creating. It creates a perverse incentive to take trees that either might be more valuable or also to take more that has created, quite frankly, a distrust between CAL FIRE and the community that relies on it.

We are trying to build an apparatus where that we help foster that trust and that the community can rely on the the decisions being made are based on these principles that I mentioned, like biodiversity, conservation. Part of why we selected the timber fund was, one, because it was suggested to us by folks within the industry that it has been a mismanaged fund and that they'd like to see changes to it.

So we're trying to help square that that peg. But the other one is, that fund has enough money in it and has been sustainable over the long haul. It typically has about 40 to 50,000,000 left over in it, each year, year over year. And in fact, the governor just rated a 120,000,000 from it because it was such a flush fund. So we were looking for a sustainable source of funding where every wood product in the state pays the the lumber tax.

That's, I think it's 2.9% that goes into this fund, and that was an appropriate nexus for us, to be able to, push these projects forward.

Okay.

Alright. Then a question to our forest friends. How do DSFs impact old growth forests? And do the DSFs allow old growth trees, or is old growth part of their regular harvest?

Yep.

You want me to take that?

Yeah, please.

So, so the thirteenth, well, I shouldn't say that. The, the each individual forest has a forest management plan with it, and that forest management plan is developed through the course of time with public engagement. And all the forest management plans that I'm familiar with, Latour, Mountain Home, Soquel demo, one being prepared right now on divestilance from PG&E and Jackson, all preclude the harvesting of any old growth. Our old growth is not a harvested, is not allowed to be harvested.

And in fact, many of the management plans have set asides already to promote the development of late successful let's just put it this way, old forests. Let's just leave it at that.

And, and a real quick follow-up on the forest science. The stand density indexes that have been produced by Malcolm North and other fire scientists and forest scientists over the past few years have clearly shown that a overgrown forest is an unhealthy forest.

And a healthy forest is one where there is space between trees and canopy. In fact, we've learned from forest management in our Sierras that that contributes to a healthier watershed because snow is able to hit the forest floor and ends up instead of being evaporated in the atmosphere, it ends up in our water system.

So there is definitely a difference on the way forest science works because we're looking at modern forest science like stand density that says, you want some space in between trees that actually shows you have a healthier forest, and the large trees are able to thrive. You have fewer straws in the ground basically competing for resources.

And, and respectfully, that's what I was mentioning about kind of a a red herring here because we agree. You don't want an overly dense forest. But what's happening is if you take the canopy, the biggest trees that provide the canopy, you create more competition and more small trees that are fighting in the same space that causes that density. Rather than having sustainable or, conservation projects that are able to distinguish in the area, and having an age leveled, forest, which is more appropriate.

But you were saying that you don't take those bigger trees?

That, not the oldest ones.

The oldest one. Yeah.

The, the so so when we speak to I mean, I would say fair to say that I believe that Assembly Member Rogers is most familiar, I suppose, with Jackson Demonstration State Forest. And there are remnants that again, that forest was divested to the state, transferred to the state in the forties. At that period of time, there were old growth remnants spread throughout the forest. It's 48,000 acres. It's quite large.

All those trees remain, and they will remain into the future until some level of natural mortality. So the old growth trees are retained. Now to be fair and accurate and transparent, timber harvest activities are conducted well, well planned, well thought out, and do harvest trees of all sizes. And that does include some of the larger second growth trees on the property at times, but certainly not all of them at any given time.

Okay.

And, and I will say part I think part of the impetus for this bill too, some of the history in the area, is that there was a moratorium, and an agreement that we would wait for this forest management plan to come in, and that I think that it flared up again because an additional THP Timber Harvest Plan was approved last year in advance of the management plan showing folks that CAL FIRE wasn't going to wait to actually have these conversations and get some of these principles in place.

Okay. Alright. So yeah. I mean, with the the SoCal Demonstration Forest in my district and also I have a lumber mill in Santa Cruz that depends on those logs for their financial stability. And I've gotten several letters of concern, of course, from my district and and from forest managers who've worked at the SoCal Demonstration Forest for decades. So I'm weighing this bill very carefully and because I don't want to jeopardize that financial stability of the demonstration forest.

So I appreciate the amendments that you're taking. I think that's a good step toward resolving some of the opposition concerns. I still have some concerns with the funding shift, so I'm not quite sure about that. And I'm really not certain of the financial impacts that we're gonna have in my district as a result of this bill. But I trust the author, and I believe you're gonna be working with opposition and trying to address their additional concerns here.

Do I have that commitment from you?

Yes.

So with that, I will go ahead and vote for the bill today, but I'll continue to be watching it. Thank you.

Vice Chair Ellis.

Yes. Question for the folks in opposition. This sounds like this driven from an environmental stance with co2 storage and co2 sequestration.

Could you, could you explain to me what that means in the forest as far as storage for co2 storage?

Well, I think what we're looking at is a binary view of either leaving the forests untouched so that every tree represents stored carbon at the forest level, or going in and doing management to address both captured carbon in the form of wood products. So this table, that bench of your home is captured carbon.

The state clearly is leaning into the opportunities to stand up new supply chains to to help rural economies by investing in advanced wood products, like cross laminated timber that will take out all of the overgrowth in the forest, the small stand trees, and create new products out of it.

So that will be captured carbon. It will decrease the potential for carbon emissions coming out of our forests, and so you'll end up with a sustainable healthier forest with a real balance of carbon remaining at the forest level and carbon that's been removed to decrease the risk of emitted carbon.

So then you're saying that the healthier forests actually are better for co2 sequestration. Is that correct?

Yeah. Healthy forest benefits from a combination as opposed to an either/or. It's a both and.

Thank you for that.

Just to clarify, your bill is not stopping timber harvest.

Correct. That's what I keep trying to point out

That's why that's why I wanted to do it for you. I got you. Mr. Connolly?

Yeah. I wanted to kinda clarify that too because on one hand, we're having the leave the forest untouched, which connotes a certain visual versus you're saying the bill doesn't say don't cut trees. So it seems like you've clarified that enough. But

Yeah. I, I just just one more time for the the record. It is active management that allows for continued timber harvest, but the timber harvest has to be projects that further biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, wildfire resiliency, recreation, and research. So when I hear from the opposition that this wouldn't allow for some of the projects that are currently there, research projects to continue, it's literally in the bill that that is still allowed.

Yeah. Particularly with the clarifying amendment. So that's duly noted. Supervisor Williams, can you tell us a little bit more about how this bill will help, your local economy and jobs?

Well, our economy was long tied to resource extraction, and, our only hope at the moment is a visitor economy. And in the winter, know, some places, if you have a mountain and snow, you may have a visitor economy in the winter. We don't. We have a lot of people, restaurants, inns, wage earners that don't have those opportunities. Winter, basically, we shut down.

And so, this is an opportunity to hopefully bring, people from urban environments to enjoy their forest. And we know when they come, say, there's an, ultra marathon that's hosted in our county. I think this year, it sold out in about four minutes. There's a lot of demand for access to the forest. When those people come, they, they lodge, they shop, they buy food, and, that benefits, not just county government, but all of the, wage earners that are trying to make ends meet.

The our large the largest employer in my county is government. And I think we can all agree when that's the case, it's, it's that's not an economic strategy that's gonna work in the long term.

One final question for you and appreciated hearing your fire or prior role as a fire chief in the local area. Do you see this making the forest more resilient to wildfire?

It, do I see bringing forest ecologists and fire ecologists into the decision making, making the forest, less safe or more safe? I would say more safe. Are all of us have a duty to public safety, number one priority. But closely intertwined with that is the the the public trust. And as long as the public sees that the harvest rate has to keep up with covering the wages of the decision makers, the public will never trust us.

They won't trust that process. But if we can decouple those, and I think that's what this bill does successfully, we can show that the decisions are being made by experts in the field of forest health. We should reach the same conclusion the opposition is pointing at, that you need to actively manage forests. We do care about the forest health. So I think it's it's it's twofold.

If what we're doing today is perfect, bringing science in shouldn't shift it. If it does, that science is basically an audit highlighting, where we can improve. Just like in the sixties, we could have said, our air and our water is already clean. Right? Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, we've come a long way since the sixties.

There's a parallel here. If we bring scientists in to look at our forests, they're going to find ways to manage it better. And in the process, we will build the public trust.

Thanks. And then for the opposition, can you provide details on some past or current research projects and demonstration for us? How will 2492 stop this research from occurring in your estimation?

So the research, so if you there is a there's actually some information online that's that's provided by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and, or CAL FIRE, I should say. And right now, there are 23 projects ongoing on just Jackson Demonstration State Forest alone. The longest tiered watershed study in the nation is the Casper Creek Watershed Study.

It has and for those of you that don't know, I spent some of my career in public service service working for the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection.

The research coming out of the demonstration state forest was reviewed and literally used as a means of promulgating regulation to address things such as stand density as talked about by Peter here, to talk about surface erosion, protection from road use, skid trails, post fire recovery on Boggs Demonstration State Forest was was I mean, for years was studied after the after the Valley Fire. Good god. We have, there's research from UC Berkeley, Cal State, Wisconsin, Portugal, Spain. I mean, it's on and on and on and on.

The funding structure becomes challenging when the department does not have the resources necessary to pair with partners at times. Other sources of of funding coming in and thrift may be short and can't partner well to get the work done.

It also provides staffing for the the demonstration state forest. If that funding is short for some reason, that becomes a challenge. But let's investigate why the funding is actually short. And the funding has actually been short in years where there is some level of acrimony, as it relates to projects actually pushing through.

So to my previous comment about being very cautious on amendments as it relates to promoting litigation on projects out there is a very real problem. That is where, that's why I'm spending a lot of time being very, very open and transparent while being cautious to put together the right language that will allow projects to move forward, to allow for sustained fiscal resources for the state forest, and allow for the state of research.

And then finally, one last question from a tribal standpoint, missus Campbell. How would you how would tribal co management improve forest management and benefit the state as a whole?

Well, like I mentioned, our tribal ecological knowledge has not been used in the in the state forest since it's been given to the government. And since 1947, we have not had voices. By bringing indigenous knowledge back, we can continue stewarding the land, bringing forest health through stewardship from bringing our people back into there, reconnecting them, and and realizing our connection with the land.

We, we have many tribes that have cultural knowledgeable, knowledgeable people that have the wisdom to come in and manage these forests in a way that is not transactional, but, you know, relationships. And that has, that has scientific facts towards it too.

We have many many people that are ready to go out there and be tribal guardians, tribal rangers. We just currently don't have the capacity to do that, to do that. So that's why we're supporting this this bill today so we can get our voices heard once again.

Thank you. Senator Macedo.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I have a few issues with the bill. The first being, you're talking about one particular demonstration forest. That's correct. When, with your witnesses you have here today.

If the, the...

The example. But it applies...

To all demonstrations. Yeah. It's half of the demonstration for our system.

So from my point of view, after hearing my colleague, why not just do this for just yours and see if it works, and then next year say, hey, it worked. We should do this for all demonstration forests?

Oh, so first of all, I think it would have to be for more than a year. I don't think that in, in a year's timeline. But,but second, we're trying to create a consistency across the system that makes it easier for compliance and easier for folks to be able to look at what's happening. If you have different rules in each of the different forests, I'm not saying it couldn't work. I'm just saying it'd be more difficult for folks.

I just, based on my knowledge, there's differing needs. And so this one size fits all approach and I'm gonna refer to you, Matt. I mean, you kind of have familiar do you think this one size fits all approach works, or should we do this on a smaller scale before we apply it statewide?

I,I personally applaud the idea of going into, looking at Jackson specifically. And with regard to consistency, I think that there's some truth to the consistency piece, but there's also some problems with the consistency. The statutes of the mandates for the state force are already unique. There are specific codes set forth for Boggs, for Latour, so on and so forth.

And so it would be actually relatively easy to work on Jackson itself and not have to, I shouldn't say, worry about, but not have to look at the challenges associated with mixed conifer in Tulare County.

It's actually not mixed conifer there, but Sequoias in Tulare County versus mixed conifer in Latour in Shasta County versus digital redwood in Santa Cruz County, so on and so on and so on. So so I think that honing down to Jackson and focusing on Jackson is not a terrible idea at all.

Okay. The next issue that I have is there's a few buzzwords that have been brought up. You said audit. You say compliance. From somebody that has an environmental background, I have watched sometimes statutes be weaponized by the environmental community to slow things down or sometimes stop them or make them so expensive they're not even worth it.

So from that standpoint, I have concerns about lawsuits. I have concerns about unnecessary delays. So I wanna ask opposition, do you think that is possible based on the language in the bill? And then have you give me a chance of why you think that's incorrect. So

So I haven't, this has happened this this all happened relatively quick. And, again, I applaud the committee and committee staff for for working on on amends here. I haven't had a lot of time to look at them, and to look at them through those lenses does take a moment. I literally got them not long ago at all.

So I am, what my point is, I am being cautious, and I will be looking at that very closely, and we'll be getting back to the author and others as well. I don't know the answer to that question because I need to do some more research. Yeah. And so that's where I sit with it.

And I'll just add that when I did see the language that came from committee, the second thing I did after talking to Matt was share it with Farnborough's legal team. And before the recent co management efforts came together with the Pomo tribes and CAL FIRE and Jessica Morris assembled that effort, there were a number of people that were on the verge of going into litigation in order to get those THPs moving again specifically because of the delays that were being experienced.

So, yeah, I think it's a real concern, that everyone's gonna have to be mindful of as we go forward here.

So, Mr. Rogers, how can you guarantee me or, I guess, to a reasonable amount of certainty that your bill would not be used to slow down the process that we've all agreed on is vital to our forests and the forest health?

Oh, so first of all, I can't guarantee anything because I could never prevent anybody from doing anything. But what I can tell you, and the supervisor can weigh in on this if you'd like to, this has been contentious for decades. And you have at times seen timber harp timber harvest plants prevented by protests, by litigation already in the way that we currently do things.

That's part of why we took this bill on was to try to find an equilibrium that would be more satisfactory to the constituents that rely on the forest. Right? So will it prevent any disruptions? I have no idea. But I also can tell you if the bill doesn't pass that the disruptions probably aren't gonna stop, because that's what we have decades of history with.

And just to touch on it, because I know that this will be sorted out in appropriations. I just wanna go on the record regarding my concerns about the shifting of the funding from the demonstration state forest system away from its current dedicated fund to the timber regulation forest restoration fund because it was established for very specific reasons, including more transparency and certainty in the process of approving timber harvest permits.

Given that TRFR, I'm told, is the response has yet to meet its statutorily required purposes, I find it somewhat irresponsible for us to shift the funding to the state demonstration for our system to TRFR and encourage the author to remove that. But, obviously, I think you will work with opposition to figure those things out. So those are the concerns I have, but, hopefully, you can work with these folks and come to an agreement.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Absolutely. Any more questions or comments, colleagues? Thank you for the robust conversation. Mr. Rogers, would you like to close?

Yeah. I there's been a lot of discussion, so I, I don't need to relitigate it all. I do wanna thank first of all, I wanna thank the County of Mendocino, supervisor Williams, and the literally a thousand people from my district who have signed on in support of the bill.

This has been a long time coming for many of them because this issue has been thorny. Sacramento hasn't wanted to touch it. And from my perspective, it is about delivering for our local community who is trying to find a different future and what economic development means, and squaring that with what we know about climate science, about carbon sequestration, and building, building a force that works for everybody. And so I'm happy to continue to work with the opposition.

There are will be some fundamental disagreements about the future, but we certainly wanna make sure that we find something that works for folks.

And, and, again, you know, I was going through some of the different red herrings that that that exist that are out there. We are looking for a well managed, actively managed forest that can provide for this community. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for that. Yeah. The red herrings and the fire conversations, I think, are, are interesting. I think it's safe to say, supervisor, you don't have any interest in allowing your county to burn down by mismanaging this forest and not having that robust visitor economy that you're trying to build. For many of us on the dice.

We'd like to see continued conversations with the opposition. We know this bill is gonna have a long journey. I don't think any other member of the Democratic caucus could get it even this far. Conversation, but we'd like to see that continue. It does have a do pass recommendation today.

We have a motion by Mr. Zbur and a second by Mr. Haney. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. [ROLL CALL]

The bill is out. Yeah. We'll leave it open for absent members. Mr. Haney, do you wanna present on behalf of Miss Elhawary? As item number 8, AB 2483.

Alright.

Alright. It says good afternoon, but I think it's good evening.

Can I- Should I start? Good evening, Chair and Members. I'm proud to present AB 2483 on behalf of assembly member Alhawary, who is accepting the committee's proposed amendments. This bill creates a permanent dignified pathway into firefighting careers for formerly incarcerated individuals who served on CAL FIRE hand crews. For nearly a century, California has relied on incarcerated firefighters who risked their lives clearing brush, cutting fire lines, and supporting fire suppression across the state.

Participants are carefully screened and restricted to low level nonviolent offenders who demonstrate good behavior and hold low security classifications. These are folks who went through Cal Fire's rigorous hands on training, risked their lives on the front lines, and yet they return home with no certificate and no job prospects. This bill will change that. I want sure they leave with an official certificate and a fair shot at a real job, But this bill is about more than a job.

It's about recognition, dignity, and rebuilding and a chance to rebuild their lives.

Joining me today in to testify in support of the bill is Anthony Pedro, a formerly incarcerated firefighter now with the Future Fire Academy. Thank you. Alright.

How you doing? My- My name is Anthony Pedro. I'm the founder and the CEO of Future Fire Academy.

I started our program, it was, like, four years after I came home. I- I was able to pursue fire service, and, it was a struggle. Right? And, if- but if, say, a bill like this would have been a little helpful- a little- give me a kick start, you know, to make it a little faster, and that's what I put all my energy into our nonprofit to help our- our- our demographic, you know, our folk- our incarcerated population that when they come home.

So it- it'd just be nice if they're already doing the job to so and they're already getting the training in the curriculum.

So this is just certifying them in it and giving them something to be proud of. When they come home, maybe they'll come get more and stack up. You know? You know, that- that's- that'd be beneficial for them, a sense of pride. You know?

When- When we're out there wearing them oranges, we look up to the firefighters in yellow. You know? And so that's that goal is to to get in the- them yell- get out them oranges and put in that that yellow with the patch. You know? And and by giving that certificate, it's huge.

You know? It's- It's showing, you know, Cal Fire on it. You know? So they're- they're one step there. And, you know, there's always a sense of competition when it comes to even the incarcerated firefighters and the civilian firefighters.

Like, we- we would say we- we run circles around them like that. That's what we would say. And and a lot of times, we do. And so and we excel in fire service, you know, and and we've been doing it. I'm one example of many.

There's hundreds of us. So it's- and it's the best men and women for the job, and these are the men and women out here helping our state. You know, let's- let's certify them. You know, that's- that's what I gotta say.

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

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Shane Gusman on behalf of the Prosecutors Alliance in support.

Bella Kern on behalf of Michelson Center for Public Policy, co-sponsors in strong support.

Good evening. Carmen-Nicole Cox with the Cox Firm for Law and Policy on behalf of the Forestry and Fire Recruitment Program. It's actually the oldest program in the state established by formerly incarcerated firefighters, preparing formerly incarcerated firefighters for family sustaining careers post incarceration. Co-sponsor, strong support.

Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Seeing no one. I'll turn it to Committee Members. Any questions, comments? Mr. Zbur.

If you could let Assembly Member Elhawary know that I'd love to be a co-author of this bill. I think it's a terrific one in giving people recognition for the contributions they've made and hopefully giving them a leg up on the next days. Obviously, these programs, you know, are effective also in reducing recidivism. And so I'd love to be a co-author.

I'm sure she'll appreciate that message. Any other questions, comments, concerns? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close, Mr. Haney?

Yeah. I just wanna thank Anthony for for being here and for him and all of his fellow incarcerated and formerly incarcerated firefighters who have done so much to protect us. I think this is a really critical step forward to acknowledge that and provide them a pathway to service in the firefighting career moving forward. And so with that, on behalf of Assembly Member Elhawary, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I would also like to be added as a co-author if I'm not already. Colleagues, if you don't know, we invested as a state through the climate bond last year into these exact academies. It only makes sense that we continue to help folks get certified down the down the pipeline. The motion by Ms. Macedo, a second by Mr. Schultz. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is do pass as amended to Public Safety. [Roll Call]

Great job, Anthony. That bill is out. Mr. Garcia, would you like to close us out?

Good evening, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present AB 1777, the California Clean Skies Act to you today. This bill simply affirms California's authority to implement indirect source rules. These rules provide a flexible way to regulate pollution magnets or places that attract a lot of large vehicle activity and the tailpipe pollution that comes with them.

The need for AB 1777 is more urgent than ever as the Trump administration retreats on climate and clean air policies and tries to undermine California's ability to protect our own residents from dirty air.

This bill will ensure our state has the tools it needs to prevent the federal rollback of our landmark air quality laws. I introduced this bill for California's children and other vulnerable populations that are disproportionately impacted by dangerous air pollution. Particulate air pollution, particularly from diesel engines, raises the risk of serious health problems, including asthma, damage to lungs and airways, heart attacks, cancer, and even early death. The health impacts of air pollution are contributing to the affordability crisis facing Californians.

This the sickness drives up spending on health care and pricey prescription medicines and forces Californians to miss days of work and school.

This bill is a substantial departure from my AB 914, which you may remember from last year, which passed out of committee ten four. AB 1777 does not require the Air Resources Board to act. It merely affirms that the board does in fact have the authority to issue an indirect source rule. I wanna be clear that this bill is not prescriptive.

Should CARB decide to exercise the authority that would be affirmed by AB 1777, they would need to initiate an open public process that considers cost effectiveness and input from all stakeholders, including supporters and opponents of my bill.

We have seen indirect source rules used effectively at the local level in both the, San Joaquin Valley and South Coast Air districts. Compliance can be achieved through a menu of flexible options from acquiring zero emissions trucks to building charging infrastructure, install- installing solar panels, placing air filtration systems in local schools and hospitals, and so on. Southern California's warehouse indirect source rule is already working ahead of schedule and building the goods movement system of the future.

This sensible approach demonstrates that businesses can be enlisted support California's zero emissions transition while maintaining their competitiveness. It is our responsibility as lawmakers to push forward policies to protect the health of our children, vulnerable residents, and workers.

AB 1777 will clarify and safeguard California's authority to clean up our air. I am proud to have the support of the environmental and environmental justice communities, clean tech business leaders, health professionals, as well as both the SEIU State Council and SEIU United Service Workers West. With me today to testify are Ada Waelder with Earthjustice and Ben Liu with the American Lung Association.

Alright. As you heard, I'm Ada Waelder with Earthjustice. I am senior state legislative representative, and we are proud cosponsors of AB 1777. This bill, as you also have heard, affirms CARB's authority to regulate indirect sources. These sources attract activity from polluting vehicles.

They spew diesel dust. They pollute our air, and they harm our communities. And, affirming this authority would allow CARB to take action when needed to slash this dangerous pollution. As the Trump administration attacks our ability to clean up our own air in the state, this is more important than ever that we have tools in our toolbox.

Much of California is in federal nonattainment with the Clean Air Act, and as we've seen, this administration is not above revoking funding like federal highway dollars that could be in jeopardy because of our nonattainment.

To use this authority, CARB would go through a full rule making process, which doesn't require input from all stakeholders. And this is what the South Coast Air District did when implementing their warehouse indirect source rule or ISR. This ISR in the South Coast, created a a menu of options, flexible, ability for industry to, comply by installing solar panels or, increasing the number of zero emissions trucks, or, in- installing, charging stations.

And what we've seen in the South Coast is that this has not only helped with pollution, but warehousing has actually grown by a 100,000,000 square feet in the South Coast alone since the rule was implemented. Not only can ISRs help clean our air, they provide market stability for our green economy.

Clean vehicle companies alone employ over 72,000 Californians. And as we've had incentives from the Federal Government ripped back, these green economy companies need stability, and this is something that can be provided from an indirect source rule. We don't have to choose between clean air and a strong economy, and that's why we're urging your yes vote on AB 1777. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and Members. I'm Ben- I'm doctor Benjamin Liu, and I'm the- sorry. And I'm the cleaner advocacy manager for the American Lung Association. We are a cosponsor of this bill and are joined by a broad group of health partners, lung doctors, pediatric nurses, and asthma coalitions in support of AB 1777. Despite decades of hard fought progress to clean the air, we are now facing a critical public health crossroads.

California's clean air programs are being attacked by our federal government, challenging our ability to protect our health. Over 90% of Californians live in communities impacted by unhealthy levels of air pollution, which contributes to both acute and chronic health emergencies, such as asthma, heart attacks and stroke, developmental harm, lung cancer, and premature death. These are costly and disruptive health emergencies that strain family budgets across the state.

Despite being less than 10% of the total vehicles on California roads, diesel engines represent the lion's share of pollutants that burn communities with ground level ozone and particulate pollution. Diesel emissions and their health impacts are not evenly distributed around the state.

They congregate around hot spots like warehouses, ports, and other commerce hubs. Hubs which are frequently in lower income areas and in communities of color. Hence, the need for AB 1777, which clarifies the authority of the air resources board to adopt rules regarding the indirect sources which necessarily attend these hubs. These indirect source rules have found success at improving air quality at the air district level and would- and would provide- be- would be even more effective by providing health protections at the state level.

With the federal government dis- dismantling cleaner policies, it's important for California to step up to protect our health.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair and Members.

Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of a group of health organizations, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, California Association of Environmental Health Administrators, the Center for Environmental Health, nurse practitioner, and NAPNAP, Orange County Legislative Group, National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, San Francisco Bay Area chapter, Nurse Heroes for Zero, Prevention Institute, Regional Asthma Management and Prevention, RAMP, San Bernardino County Medical Society, Society of Latinx Nurses, Saint John's Community Health, and Breathe California of the Bay Area, Golden Gate, and Central Coast. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mariela Raucho with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability in support.

Good evening, Committee Chair and Members. Rafael Aguilera with the Greenlining Institute in strong support.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair. Mark Fenstermaker here to convey support for several organizations, including the California Labor for Climate Jobs representing 17 unions and local councils, Environment and Economy or E2, Center for Environmental Health, San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, Central California Environmental Justice Network, Sierra Club, and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners.

Thank you.

Hi. Katie Webb with the Climate Center in support.

Hi, everyone. Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in strong support.

Good evening. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in support.

Thank you.

Sofia Rafikova with the Coalition for Clean Air in support.

Alan Abbs with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in support.

Good evening, Chair and Members. Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists as well as from my colleagues at NRDC, SEIU State Board, SEIU, SEIU United Service Workers West, and Pacific Environment.

Alex Limer, on behalf of the Environmental Protection Information Center and the Resource Renewal Institute in support. Thank you.

Good evening. Darryl Little with Cal Start in support. Thank you.

Doctor Ruth McDonald on behalf of Climate Action California, retired lung specialist speaking in strong support. Thank you.

Absolutely. Do we have two primary witnesses in opposition? You are our last witnesses in opposition for the day. So this two minute timer is real.

Good evening, Chair Bryan and, committee members. Chris Shimoda on behalf of, two clients today, the Supply Chain Federation and the California Trucking Association in respectful opposition. First, I'd like to thank the author for meeting with us over the interim. And I'll just summarize the question before you with AB 1777 as follows.

Should the legislature depart from a decades old proven framework of, reducing emissions through cost effective, technologically achievable mobile and stationary source, emission standards, and instead grant CARB expansive new authority to impose duplicative and costly indirect source rules.

To quote CARB's most recent air, attainment document, quote, CARB has over fifty years of experience reducing emissions from mobile, and other sources of pollution under state authority. During the 1960's, there were as many as a 186 smog alerts in a single year. Today, alerts have been

eliminated due to improvements in air quality, end quote. While no doubt these existing regulations have also added to California's cost of living, we have measurable results to show for them. For example, since 2005, diesel particulates from trucks servicing our ports have been reduced by 98% and nitrous oxides by 93%, despite a 44% increase in cargo volumes. AB 1777, on the other hand, gives CARB expansive new blank check authority to adopt ineffective and costly regulations known as indirect source rules.

These rules regulate broad categories of facilities, including ports, shopping centers, highways, and large residential developments based on emissions from vehicles and equipment they do not own, operate, or directly control, and the CARB already directly regulates.

Where these rules have been tried by air districts, they have failed as emission reduction strategies with the Biden EPA declining to award California credit, for the aforementioned South Coast AQMD's warehouse ISR in, 2024 despite imposing more than a half $1,000,000,000 in costs. These costs are being passed directly on to consumers.

Members, in the midst of our state's affordability crisis, we urge you not to hand card a blank check to impose added costs without clear additional benefits to the state's air quality goals and respectfully request a no vote on AB 1777. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair Bryan and members. Jon Kendrick from the California Chamber of Commerce.

We oppose AB 1777 as a cost driver. This is a front door affordability issue. Californians already struggle with the cost of groceries, consumer goods, and every other day- every other everyday essentials. AB 1777 makes life more expensive, more difficult. As a threshold issue, if this is just, stating existing authority, why is this bill needed?

AB 1777 hands CARB, broad new mandate to regulate indirect sources whenever it determines it's necessary. There's no clear limiting principles. There's no guardrails. There's no meaningful direction on how to balance a feasibility or cost effectiveness. I fear we're gonna see a familiar pattern play out here where the legislature gives CARB broad authority.

CARB does what it's asked to do, and the legislature screams, why did you do it that way? That's too expensive. The answer is because the authorities open ended and probably shouldn't belong with CARB in the first place. This matters here because an ISR must be carefully tailored to avoid imposing excessive costs for little to no environmental benefit. The reason that authority rightfully rests with local air districts is that California's air quality challenges are not uniform.

Each region is distinct in geography, economy, emission sources, and air quality attainment status. The Port of Long Beach is very different from the Port of Stockton. It's very different from the Port of Humboldt. A warehouse in San Bernardino does not have the same characteristics as a warehouse in the North Coast. And direct source rules by their nature need to reflect local geography, regional economic conditions, infrastructure constrain- constraints, attainment status.

That's why these programs are developed, if at all, at the local air district level where regulators routinely balance these factors for their specific air district. A statewide framework, applying uniform requirements across different regions and facilities is a blunt instrument that drives cost and ignores the complexity of California. The result is unnecessary cost when an ISR is not properly tailored to local conditions.

Facilities are forced into measures that don't fit their operations where they default to paying mitigation fees that function as a surcharge on the supply chain. If an ISR effectively operates as an electrification mandate, it ignores real world constraints where in many regions, grid capacity is limited and interconnection timelines are measured in years, not months.

We're at two minutes and fifteen seconds.

Thank you. In- In closing, I'll skip a few things. Californians will feel the impact of AB 1777 where it matters most, at the front door in the form of increased prices on goods, housing, everyday necessities. This risks worsening our affordability crisis, and we urge you to vote no. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Is there anybody here in opposition to this measure?

Marvin Pineda on behalf of the International Longshore Warehouse Unions, Locals 1363 and 94. All of you know that there was a network that was reached between the ports of LA and- and Long Beach with HMD. Now we're giving the authority to CARB to come and--

Yeah, I'm not sure. If you got a third testifying witness. Good try though Marvin.

Mr. Chair, Chris Micheli on behalf of the California Renewable Transportation Alliance as well as the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and Members. James Throuactor with the California State Council of Labor is in respectful opposition. Thanks.

Chair and Members, Oracio Gonzalez on behalf of California's Business Roundtable in opposition.

Good evening, Chair and Members. Adam Regele on behalf of NAEP SoCal in strong opposition. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Todd Blumstein representing the Southern California Association of Contractors as well as the Southern California Association of Scaffolding Contractors opposed. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and Members. Skyler Wonnacott on behalf of California Business Properties Association, NAOP California, and the Building Owners and Managers Association of California in opposition.

Good evening, Members and Chair, and behalf of the California Association of Court Authorities and the California Self Storage Association in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California in opposition.

Matt Roman on behalf of Union Pacific Railroad in opposition.

Daniela Garcia Hernandez on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association in opposition. Thank you.

Chair and Members, Brian White on behalf of Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, also in opposition.

Good evening, Chair and Members. Melissa Koshlaychuk with Western Growers. We represent California's farmers, shippers, and processors in opposition. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and Members. Jasmine Valle on behalf of International Warehouse Logistics Association in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and Members. Kirk Blackburn here on behalf of the Western States Trucking Association and the California Tow Truck Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good evening, members. Ryan Kenny on behalf of CLE Energy in opposition. Thank you.

Cindy Hillary, BNSF Railway in opposition.

Nathan Skadsen on behalf of the California Association of Realtors in respectful opposition.

Eric Turner on behalf of the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good evening. Taylor Triffo with KSC on behalf of the California Advanced Biofuels Alliance, a variety of agricultural groups, California Grocers Association, and a association of equipment manufacturers in opposition.

Elizabeth Esquivel with California Manufacturers and Technology Association in opposition. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, good evening. Andrew Antwih with Shaw Yoder, Antwih, Schmelzer and Lange, here on behalf of the California Moving and Storage Association, the Western Propane Gas Association, and the Specialty Equipment Marketers Association, each in opposition with respect to the author.

Good evening, Mr. Chair. Jack Yanos on behalf of the California Fuels Convenience Alliance. Respectfully opposed.

Hi. Good evening. Leticia Garcia with the California Retailers Association, also a respectful opposition. Thank you.

Craig Schuler on behalf of the Port of Long Beach, respectful opposition.

And the final final here, on behalf of the Orange County Business Council in respectful opposition.

Thank you so much. I will now turn it back to the dais. Questions, comments from colleagues. Also, I have a question, Mr. Kendrick. I just wanna clarify if I heard your testimony right.

It is not that the chamber is against ISRs. They just strongly support the local air district's ability to set ISRs. Is that what you told me?

Well, look, I what what I'm saying is ISRs should be tailored to local conditions. Right? So now if you if you ask me to point to an ISR and say, there's a good ISR, that might be hard for me to do. Right? But--

But if there was, it would be regulated by the local air districts.

You- You nailed it. Yes.

From your perspective.

Yes.

Gotchu. Mr. Schultz.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I actually had a follow-up question. So I understand that the California Chamber of Commerce has labeled this a cost driver.

I appreciate the argument, although I find it to be a little tenuous. So in fairness, I'd like you to help walk me through it, and I will give the author a chance to respond. Can you explain to me what the anticipated increase in cost will be? And I'd like to as much specificity as you can provide. Who will bear the cost?

And walk me through the methodology of how you labeled this particular bill to be a cost driver.

I- I would be happy to. There is no specificity that can be provided in response to this bill because this bill merely says this is declarative of existing law. How do you judge that? There's no constraints. There's no guardrails.

How do you actually understand and estimate it? Now what we can do is we can look at how this layering of authority, right, all of the thousand different mandates that companies have to comply with in California, how that has driven costs up over time. We look at the things that carb has done on a consistent basis, and we see upward pressure.

Now where you have upward pressure and a corresponding environmental benefit that is demonstrable, that's a different conversation than just saying, let's do something different, but we don't have a vision of what that different thing is. That if there is that vision, it's not articulated in this bill at this time.

So, there's no specificity I can provide you on what this would do to drive cost, but we have seen when you increase costs on the supply chain, those costs do flow through to consumers. They do make things and it's not just the cost of transporting, it's the cost of inputs. Right? So think about, housing. Right?

Housing becomes more expensive because all of the inputs that are involved in housing become more expensive. I mean, that's true across all construction. So there needs to be a recognition that this does drive costs. It's for you to determine, ultimately, whether those costs have demonstrable environmental benefits associated with them. Is that helpful?

That is. Thank you. Thank you. And then in fairness, Mr. Garcia, would you like to respond?

Yeah. So I I would like to share that, you know, this is the reintroduction of a bill that I had last year, AB 914, which- which was more prescriptive and did include mitigation fees. And I met with opposition regarding the concerns and really tried to- to- to make it palatable and stripped it down to its core, which basically says that- that CARB has the explicit authority to regulate indirect sources of emissions.

And- And- And it doesn't have to exert that, but it has the right to. And that's basically it.

But it I've kinda feel like in conversations that the default position has always been any regulation is bad regulation and and there's an opposition from industry.

Thank you both for answering the question. I would just say I'll- I'll be brief, Mr. Chair, and then I'll happy to move the bill at the appropriate time. I appreciate the response from the Cal Chamber representative. I think it's fair to say I guess it's a possible cost driver, but it hasn't been articulated to me to any degree of sufficiency that it will actually lead to increased costs.

It's a lot of theoretical application, quite frankly. I wanna start by acknowledging Assemblymember Garcia and for his commitment to work on this effort and- and his constituents. I did support AB 914 last year, and I'll be supporting AB 1777 today. Great bill number, by the way. I do wanna take this moment though to recognize and uplift the concerns that were raised by the ILWU and thousands of their members in a letter that they submitted.

I would be remiss if I didn't point out assembly member that the ports have created thousands of jobs, amongst our communities. Their letter mentions that 74% of their members live within 10 miles of the ports, which speaks to how deeply rooted their workforce is in the future of this industry. There has been significant progress made in reducing emissions and improving operations at the port.

I will also note that disadvantages- disadvantaged communities across the state continue to face serious air quality and public health challenges that cannot be ignored. My understanding of the intent of your bill is to ensure that the state uses all of its available tools at our disposal to address- to address remaining gaps and maintain progress for clean air statewide.

My one ask of you, Assemblymember Garcia, is that sometimes you're not gonna find common ground with the opposition, but I ask you to continue to meet with them, engage with them, and to find that common ground where you can. Do I have that commitment from you?

Absolutely.

Okay. With that, I'll move the bill.

Mister Connolly.

Thank you, and appreciate my, colleague sentiments as well. I also picked up on the local air district point. So I guess I will ask this, at this, time. Why haven't more local air districts drafted their own indirect source of regulations? What are the barriers that make creating these regulations difficult or more appropriate to happen at the state level?

Yeah. I- I can't speak to the local air districts. Perhaps other folks that have more experience regard- regarding previous history can can speak to that. But the the concern here is that it's- it's a federal pushback. The the intent of the bill is to be a federal pushback to what the Trump administration is doing with the Environmental Protection Agency, which is not protecting the environment at all.

And- And this is the California response to make sure we have a statewide response to we the and CARB already has the authority to regulate stationary sources of pollution. So this would be in addition to has the right to also indirect sources of pollution. And it has been working as as was demonstrated with evidence with the South Coast rule.

Yep.

Yes. So the Bay Area Air District is actually in process looking at their own ISR right now. And, you know, I- I can't speak specifically for air districts. I will say that when you are implementing regulations, especially regulations on you know, it's it's a- a new at their first time doing it, that's a costly thing to do from the air district's perspective, right, from the regulators perspective. It takes time.

It takes energy. They wanna be thoughtful in the way that they're implementing their rules and the way that it's impacting industry and the way that it's impacting frontline communities. It takes a long time to work through that process, which is also our point that if CARB were to go through this, they also would have to go through a very thorough rule making process. CARB does have the advantage of having more resources than many of our air districts do.

I mean, South Coast Air District is the largest air district, not only in California, but I think actually in the country in terms of population represented.

And so their, you know, their resources and their ability to put forth something like this looks really different than some of our smaller air districts who maybe would want to do something like an, ISR for their local jurisdiction, but wouldn't necessarily be able to do so. And and I'll say that, you know, to the point that's been made over and over, this bill doesn't prescribe what an ISR would look like. There's nothing that says that CARB couldn't regionally tailor an ISR that they implement.

It doesn't say that it's a one size fits all for the entire state.

Correct. Appreciate that. Do we have a sense of how long it would take CARB to kinda come up with indirect source regulations?

Well, I could tell you right now, you know, we would wanna get federal alignment with the with the federal government. We don't see that happening anytime soon with the current administration. So, you know, as it stands, I think yeah, 2029 would be a starting point.

And then finally, kind of an open question or open ended. If the state chooses not to regulate indirect source pollution, what would be some of the impacts of that lack of action?

Well, I could speak to my district. So consistently ranked by the American Lung Association as one of the most polluted in the in the country. And that is because of the vehicular traffic. And so I know a lot of the concern in opposition is the warehouses.

The explosion of warehouses in my district, which has become the logistics hub of Southern California, has created a lot of a lot of pollution. But it's not the warehouses themselves or the construction that caused pollution. It's the mobile sources. Right? The Trucking Association. And I spoke with Mr. Shimoda about this.

And so that's why I do have a companion bill that addresses and provides incentives for truckers to make that transition to EVs. And so this isn't happening in isolation. As I've always said, I have more of the the carrot approach as opposed to the stick. And so I'm looking forward to this being a starting point. And like I said, and it was stated again by Ms. Welder, there is a regulatory process that will happen if this if this bill goes through.

And if we're not in federal, there's many areas of state that are in non-attainment by the Federal Clean Air Act. There is a stick approach that the federal government can take, which is withholding federal highway dollars. Now I know you're saying you're thinking, like, oh, this administration, like, doesn't care about clean air, obviously. So why would they withhold, you know, highway dollars for not attaining clean air?

We have heard that there have been members of US EPA who have said to air districts that they would happily take the excuse to take away federal highway dollars from California. And while an ISR, even a statewide sweeping ISR, you know, that took twenty five years to develop and was perfect.

Could never fully make up for the emissions that we, emissions reductions we've lost from, you know, our mobile source waivers that the Trump administration has revoked. We have to start somewhere. We have to begin to clean up our air. It's a, it's an affordability issue from a health standpoint too. You're choosing between buying an inhaler and putting food on your table.

I would just like to point out the...

We are not actually gonna have a back and forth debate unless Mr. Connolly has another question for you.

I don't. But quickly.

Yeah. So the Assembly Member articulated very well why this authority resides with local air districts. Your district is very unique. Right? You've got the explosion of logistics hubs. I mean, it's an economic engine of California, and it also happens to be trapped up against those mountains where it traps pollutants.

Right? Your district is very different than the rest of the state. So an ISR, which your district already has, in theory tailored to your district does not necessarily, you know, the North State would need a different form of ISR than what your district has. Right?

And no one is saying that wouldn't be the case if this bill moves forward, that it wouldn't be a regional approach. No one is saying that because it's not prescriptive. And so those regulations would have yet to take place to determine how it would work.

Mr. Zbur.

So, you know, whenever I see a bill where we've got strong strong support from, you know, everyone in the environmental community. And, obviously, you know, this indirect source rules are incredibly, incredibly important. And you have that on one side.

But then you've got the workers who are affected by this strongly opposed to the bill. I look at these things very carefully. So I just I've read all the letters on both sides. To me, you know, it's almost like we've got just sort of two narratives out there that are just, like, don't meet.

On one hand, you've got, one side saying that this is giving CARB broad new authority. And then on the other side, you say that it's affirming existing authority. And so, you know, my question in a way is, okay, if it's existing authority, why do we need it?

And why are we sort of whipping up all of this opposition and concern about the bill? And on the other hand, if it is broad new authority, if it's something new, what is the new authority you're giving them? I mean, is it is it do you have existing, do you think the CARB has existing authority or not?

It's unclear, which is the purpose of this legislation. I'll just be blunt. It's unclear. And so I don't think, and I don't wanna speak for them, but that CARB would move forward without this making it clear that they do have the explicit authority, which is the whole purpose of this bill.

So is the is the goal to have CARB do a broad statewide indirect source rule as a backup to local jurisdictions? Because if that's the case, it's not for...

There, like I said and repeated, there is no prescription here.

Yeah. I don't wanna speak for the author, but I don't think he's asserting an indirect source rule. And the current law, it implies that CARB has that authority. By definition, if a local air district has that authority, CARB also has that authority. But I think without that specificity, there's not even the potential for those conversations where there's great hesitation in them even engaging in those conversations.

And I think that is the purpose of bringing the bill. I don't wanna speak for the author too much, but I think that is the point not to, you know, move us towards a pathway of coming up with some sort of statewide indirect source. It would just be to be clear about where authorities lie.

That's correct, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

So yeah. So it looks like the assertion is that this, that it's unclear and this would affirm that the CARB would have authority to adopt indirect source rules, and that could be either tailored regionally or statewide?

It is to be, it is to as yet to be determined.

So what about the concerns that are sort of raised by the folks at ILW about the ports?

Yeah. Absolutely. So with the passage of this bill, what it would what would happen next is there's a regulatory process of rulemaking, which would involve all stakeholders. And so as I've repeated with all stakeholders, opposition, those supporters, we're looking for a win win. Workers don't have to lose for us to win on our health and our environment.

And so those processes, the rulemaking is has yet to be determined, and this bill does nothing that prescribes in regard to mitigation fees, the nightmare scenario of of job loss, any of that, it is not in here. So all it does is say that CARB does have the right to regulate indirect sources of emission if they so choose.

So the authority that air districts have now, what are the criterion that guides their decisions? Because I looked at this bill and there's basically it just gives broad authority to CARB. So what is the, what are the the standards that guide the air district? And just so you know, I'm focusing on this with the perspective of the workers. I care about the laborers.

I care about ILWU. I care about... Let me just finish my question. I care about the fact that I mean, I'm just I haven't I didn't finish the prior question. So let me let me just finish it. I care about the these workers.

And the nervousness that I have is that we've got a rule, an indirect source rule down at the Port of Los Angeles and LA. That is an incredibly complicated environmental challenge because we have to protect the people that live in and around the ports.

And at the same time, those are very different strategies that are gonna be required in order to sort of protect them and move to electrification of the ports given the funding issues. And so I get very nervous about us giving CARB authority to do a statewide rule.

That then could result in either overriding or not having the attention required for what's necessary to protect the public at the ports and the workers at the ports at the same time. So, you know, that's one of the concerns I have about the bill.

The other, the other one is, you know, we've had some proposals that have, you know, indirect source rules are incredibly, incredibly important for people living around these warehouses, these large industrial areas that are bringing lots of trucks, truck traffic in and through communities.

But there have been some proposals that actually had like out took guidance from CARB that was that were factors that were supposed to be used when you were doing environmental review of of indirect sources and applied them as outright prohibitions.

At one point, there was one proposal that actually had a prohibition of anything that was sort of a warehouse, which was defined as a 100,000 square feet within a, I think, a quarter mile of a whole bunch of potential sensitive receptors.

So that would have picked up things like supermarkets, like Costcos, things like that. So is I guess the question is, I'm concerned about proposals in which the workers don't have adequate opportunity to weigh in on these decisions.

And so I guess the question is, what is the goal of the bill? Is it to actually move this to the state and have a state backup? And then how do you address sort of these other kinds of concerns? And are you open to considering things, working with labor to address some of these concerns?

Absolutely. And I have been in conversation with labor, and I visited the ports. I met with PMA. I've met with all the stakeholders, and, like, I can't reiterate enough, you know, what keeps on this narrative, the two narratives that you're talking about.

This narrative that the sky is falling. The nightmare scenario. It's gonna mean this, this, and this, and this, and this, and this. I don't know where that comes from because all this is doing is affirming the CARB, our state regulatory air resources board, the authority to regulate indirect source of emission if they so choose.

Yeah. I mean, I'm gonna support the bill today because there's, you know, there's no way I'm not gonna support a bill that is necessary to protect public's public health around the kinds of things that should be regulated. I do, though, worry about the bill.

Like, I don't know what's in existing law, and I think one of the things I'd be interested in is what are the guardrails that an air district has that bounds their authority. And that's something I'd hope that you would look at. I'd hope you would look at in particular what should happen with the ports because I think those are a different animal.

And I think there needs to be some protections to make sure that you know, to have a statewide rule that sort of upends what needs to be done in the ports to protect those communities and the workers. I mean, both of those two things. So I'm hoping that I've got a commitment from you to work with both of those unions to try to address the concerns that they've raised.

Absolutely, Mr. Zbur. You you have my commitment, and they have the commitment from me. They've heard it from me of what my intentions are, you know, and I've heard it from labor that they are concerned about the same things. And I'm looking for a win win. It's not a zero sum game.

Yeah. I'd like you to consider looking at sort of what standards the air districts guide the air districts and think about whether or not those should be included as part of your bill. Obviously, if you've got an air district that doesn't have the resources to do an indirect source rule and, you know, the public isn't protected because an air district isn't acting.

Having the CARB have the ability as a backup to come in, I think, is an important protection for the public. But on the other hand, you know, this bill is one sentence. It basically says, you know, if it's necessary to carry out their duties, the board has indirect sources authority, and it really isn't bounded.

So I think that that's where some of the concern is coming up. And then I'd say to say to the chamber, you know, I read all of this stuff, and it doesn't seem to me like it's brand new wholesale new authority. I mean, I think they've got the authority that's embedded there now.

Probably, they've gotta show, they've gotta take a step and show that an air district isn't protecting the public before they do that, or they've gotta show that there's gotta be a demonstration made before CARB asks now. So I do think there is an expansion of authority with this, which I think you're, you know, is appropriate, yeah.

It's an appropriate one. But on the other hand, I think we need to address the concerns that have been raised by folks in labor about both the ports and about making sure that this new authority is guided by at least the same kinds of guardrails that the air districts have.

Understood, Mr. Zbur. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Vice Chair Ellis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Alright. I've been listening to all this. I've been in business for forty years, and I have had chemical process equipment permitted in all of these air districts. And guess what it does?

It drives up your cost of doing business because you have to implement process equipment. You have to implement instrumentation. You have to have engineers, air engineers meet specification, and these are good things. Right? These are good things.

What you're missing here is when you have broad authority and they can come on your site anytime. That costs you money because you have to set. It's cost, cost, cost. Is does anybody have any idea what this is gonna cost from the state?

What it's gonna cost the state of California to implement with implement with more inspectors? Does it know what it's gonna do to business? Do we have any idea what it's gonna do to business? I defer to you, sir. What's it gonna do to our business and cost?

Mr. Vice Chair, the rule in question, the South Coast AQMD's warehouse indirect source rule costs about a half billion dollars a year. And just wanted to point out, with respect to benefit to California's federal attainment standards, the prior administration...

So the Biden administration actually declined to give credit to the South Coast for that regulation. So the state is imposing a half billion dollars of costs for no progress towards our attainment goals.

So that's gonna be passed on the consumer?

Correct.

Okay. We talk about affordability. We talk about affordability. Forgive me. I'm a little fired up because I have been under the jurisdiction of the air districts, and I know how they cost businesses money.

It's a cost. We talk about affordability every day. Affordability. Affordability. And yet we're gonna impose another half billion dollars and who knows how much more on what's called broad authority. Broad authority for them to implement anything they want.

Does anybody know here that tires are made of butadiene styrene, which is an oil derivative and they wear out on the road, and that's part of your particulate and your brake pads. And there are a lot of issues here. So I guess if you wanna comply, don't drive. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Any other questions, comments? Assembly Member Macedo.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I echo what my colleague says when it comes to costs. He says it a lot smarter than I do, so I'll leave that to him. But there is something that I want to make sure that we are stating with fact, which is I have the fact sheet from the EPA of what exactly was done when it comes to the federal regulation.

So February 12, 2026, this fact sheet released by the EPA stated that the federal government has not rescinded or modified, quote, criteria pollutant emission standards, quote, mobile source air toxic standards, or, quote, fuel economy standards.

So we can agree that as of right now, the federal government has not rolled back these authorities granted under the Clean Air Act, nor has California lost the ability to request waivers to set its own emission standards.

So when we're branding this as us fighting back against the federal government, I think it's important that my colleagues look at this fact sheet of what we're actually accomplishing, which is just driving up costs. We're not actually getting closer to accomplishing the mission of providing clean air for all Californians. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just one comment in response to that.

How about we do it in your close? Okay. Mr. Muratsuchi.

Thank you. So Mr. Garcia, I fully respect, what you're trying to do. I understand your frame of reference is primarily coming from the ISR with the warehouses. I represent San Pedro. San Pedro is an ILW town. And, as their letter points out, you know, vast majority of their members live within proximity of the ports.

And I've been watching the debate, you know, in the San Pedro community surrounding the ports. As their letter of opposition points out, they've been negotiating four years over a MOU, three years over the ISR rulemaking process.

And ultimately, you know, the Mayor of Los Angeles, the Mayor of Long Beach urged and the AQMD abandoned their ISR in favor of this cooperative agreement. So, you know, my concern is that there was this very localized attempt.

You know? Well, first of all, there have been hearings surrounding the ports that Mr. Gipson, who also, who represents the ports conducted. And there was testimony after testimony about how the the container volumes at the Port of Los Angeles in Long Beach, you know, have been dropping over the years.

And the concern has been that, you know, the ports in other parts of the country with that don't have the same environmental regulations that they're choosing to bypass the Ports of Los Angeles in Long Beach and going to these other ports. And, you know, I mean, I don't think they're just talking about the sky is falling.

I mean, they were showing data showing that the container volume was dropping. And so my concern is that with this very localized you know, I mean, normally, I'm usually in support of empowering CARB to reduce emissions.

But here, where we're talking about, you know, how the local AQMD was trying to come up with a local ISR solution, the Mayor of LA was against it. the Mayor of Long Beach was against it.

And now it just seems like this is an attempt to try to ignore the years of negotiations that were taking place between the South Coast AQMD and the Port of LA and Long Beach for this localized ISR that you're now going to a statewide ISR. How is this not circumventing those years of negotiations that have already taken place, specifically in the context of Port of LA and Long Beach?

So, to reiterate once again, my this bill is not prescriptive. It does not say whether those would continue to be standing or not or overlap or preclude from existing. All this is saying is that our state air resources board would have explicit authority to regulate indirect source emission if they so choose. How's that, so how that affects the agreements that have been long standing or attempted at the ports, it does not apply.

I'm sorry I made you repeat that again, Mr. Garcia. I've heard you say, you know, repeatedly that this is not prescriptive. But my point is that those attempts to be flexible and to negotiate an agreement for an ISR with the Port of LA and Long Beach.

They have already been taking place for years. And now it sounds like, you know, you want to extend the opportunity for, you know, for new rounds of negotiations involving CARB rather than the South Coast AQMD. And that's my concern.

So I, you know again, normally, I would support empowering CARB to to address emissions questions. But given the particular history with the Port of LA and Long Beach and the ILW's role in this, I will be abstaining from today's vote. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from colleagues? Seeing none. Mr. Garcia, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I did wanna just respond, Ms. Macedo, regarding one point because there was a a waiver for certain companies to receive unmitigated waiver to unrestricted pollution. And in California, there's three companies, and one of them is in my district. So I'm well aware of it.

And what I wanna reiterate here is that I have attempted to work with all stakeholders, everybody here at this table, multiple organizations. We talked about affordability. We talked about cost. You know, what hasn't been stressed enough is the cost on people's health.

On these communities, on the people that live in these areas affected, children with asthma. I worked at a school a mile away from the most polluted hot spot in Southern California, so I know how many days kids missed.

And we haven't seen the long term effects either. With COVID, logistics exploded in my area, and those are just the short term effects. We don't know the chronic long term effects yet, but we will soon. And so I'm trying to protect my community.

I'm trying to protect the residents of California. And those health care costs, those costs to people whose years are cut short, we haven't factored that in. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Do we have a motion? By Mr. Schultz. And a second by Mr. Kalra. Favorite thing about being Chair is I get to say the last words. Last Thursday, 40 states actually joined a collective lawsuit to sue the Trump administration for its recent termination of the endangerment findings.

Which underpinned six greenhouse gases that could be categorized as dangerous to human health, a critical component under the Clean Air Act. The EPA is not playing in good faith towards people's health, and those 40 states included California.

The author's been very clear numerous times, and especially when you contrast it with this bill last year, this is not prescriptive. It is just codifying implied authority and making it explicit so that all the tools are in the tool belt as we look to try to provide a state that has clean air for everybody.

It should also be noted that CARB does rules all the time that don't apply to everywhere in the state unilaterally. For example, diesel truck rules have exemptions for ag trucks and logging and at birth rules by definition only happen at the ports and not everywhere across California.

The fact that we'd be focused on non-attainment also brings something into focus here. But the ultimate power stays here in the legislature. I'm incredibly sympathetic to the ILWU and those negotiations at the ports. And to be honest and to call it straight, they also came to the state last year looking to work around their own air resource board.

Acknowledging that even those conversations required or desired for us to get involved, and we did, and we moved that legislation. The final power rests in the legislature. But I think clarifying the powers of our regulatory agencies and our local air districts is important as we figure out which tool is the appropriate tool for the right problem.

It's not one size fits all, but you need all those tools. And so I wanna thank the author for pushing as hard as he does on all the things that he does. This bill has a do pass recommendation. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

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

That bill is out.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, everyone.

Madam secretary, can we call the roll for absent members? Namely, Mr. Alanis, who's sitting very far away.

Lifting the call on AB. Lifting the call on AB 1938 Irwin. Motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Absent member, Alanis. Alanis. Lifting the call on AB 1938 Irwin.

Motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call] That has 12 votes.

AB 2051 Wicks. Motion is due passed as amended to committee on water parks and wildlife. [Roll Call] That has 12 votes. It's out.

AB 2483 Elhawary. Motion is due pass as amended to public safety. [Roll Call] That has 14 votes.

So AB 2494 Rogers, motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call] That 10 to four. That bill is out.

Consent calendar. [Roll Call]

This concludes the Assembly Natural Resource Committee hearing.