Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

Good morning, everybody. This is the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, and we are now in order. We do not have a quorum, so we will begin as a subcommittee. And, we also do have an author. So I am going to bring him forward, Senator McNerney, SB 925.

And you're welcome to come to the microphone and bring your witnesses up if you'd like and begin when ready. This is item number five on the agenda.

Good morning. Good morning, chair Blakespear, vice chair Valadares, and, any other distinguished members of the committee. I'm here to, present SB, 925. And, this is, the first of two presentations, and I've I ask the, committee's, patience. I start with accepting the committee's proposed amendments and thank the staff, for working with my staff to make this happen.

SB 925 tasks the California Energy Commission with developing a statewide road map for the development of fusion energy. Fusion energy is made by mimicking the power of the sun, combining atoms to produce clean energy, and does not produce long lived radioactive waste. Fusion is still in the r and d stage, but significant advancement have been made in recent years.

For example, in 2022, liver Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories in my district achieved fusion ignition the first time in the world, and no other lab anywhere in the world has achieved that goal. Because of these achievements, disachievement and achievements like that, massive investments are now pouring into fusion energy.

California is at the forefront, but it's at risk of losing, the fusion leadership and the fusion ecosystem with several companies already choosing to locate in other states. For example, Pacific Fusion, opened up a billion dollar project in New Mexico because they have better incentives in California. We don't wanna lose that leadership. Fusion energy is going to be a a very big economic driver in the future. We want, to have leadership for that here in California.

And what SB 925 does is fills in the regulatory gaps, and develops a statewide road map for fusion that will help these jobs and investments stay here in California. Here to testify with me this morning, is Brian White on behalf of the General Atomics. I also have another witness that may that may arrive before we can end up with this bill. So Brian?

Alright. Thank you, Senator. Good morning, madam chair members. Brian White with KB Public Affairs here on behalf of General Atomics. We're pleased to be cosponsorbing the bill, SB 925.

As you know, California has taken several steps over the past several years to support the growing fusion ecosystem. In 2024, California enacted AB 1172, which requires the California Energy Commission to evaluate fusion's ability to serve as a source of clean energy in the 2027 IPER report. Last year, under your leadership, chair Blake Spear, the legislature passed SCR 25 going on record in support of hosting fusion a fusion pilot plant by the twenty forties.

At the same time, GOBIZ added fusion to the jobs first economic blueprint. The governor and governor Newsom enacted legislation through SB 80 and SB 86 to expand incentives for promoting fusion in research and development.

The legislation that you're considering today simply continues this growing effort with the goal of fulfilling in the missing piece of the puzzle. SB 925 requires the California Energy Commission to apply the findings of the AB 1172 report into an actionable strategic plan. This will cover every stage of development from research through commercialization, and this bill also begins the process of creating a streamline permitting process, but simply press for manufacturing as was noted in the committee analysis.

As fusion companies evaluate locations to set down roots and bring this technology to California, we do need streamlined regulations to perceive state support that can be determining factors as Senator McNary talked about Pacific Fusion. The potential is real and the impact is significant.

Billions of dollars worth of investments. California has the strongest fusion ecosystem already, but we can make it stronger. And so with that, we respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 925. Thank you.

Okay. Well, thank you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support, please come forward to the microphone. Okay. Not seeing anybody.

Anybody in opposition to this bill as a lead witness, please come forward. Not seeing anybody. Anybody else in the room wanting to express opposition? Okay. Well, that was easy.

Any comments? Vice chair, would you like to make any comments?

Thank you, madam chair. So I think it's pretty well known that I've been raising the alarm bells on our energy crisis right now. As we look in my district, we're seeing $7 a gallon for gasoline. And a lot of that is coming from our unrealistic climate goals. And I've always said that we cannot the scarcity model that we've been using to try and reach these climate goals is not working, and it's making power more expensive.

I've been saying we need an all hands on deck approach to our energy needs in California, whether it is hydrogen, whether it is nuclear, whether it is fusion. I love this bill because in order to get anywhere close to our climate goals, this is an important factor.

Can you just explain to me a little bit, or is it a request within the strategic plan to make sure that when we're pursuing fusion, that it's not over regulated to the point where it doesn't make sense to develop it here?

Sure. Yeah. This is the private sector speaking here.

So so so the goal, Senator, is to make sure that first, we have to have a plan to to figure out where we're going. We did this similar for offshore wind, and and now we're at a point where offshore wind is beginning to take off, at least in California. So at some point, there will be some efforts to try and streamline regulations. We we can't do that. We can't put the cart before the horse, so to speak.

We've tried to do that, but we know that we have to take it, you know, baby steps. So at some point, we will need to have some streamline regulations to deal with it.

Okay. Thank you. I I wanna commend the author for his leadership on fusion. This is one of several efforts that he has made in this space, and I appreciate that commitment. California is a leader in fusion technology.

One third of all US based fusion companies are in the state, and I was also aware of the one that moved to New Mexico. That was actually, as you may recall, we passed a large, CEQA exemption at the end of last year as part of the budget process. And there were two projects that use that sequel exemption applied for it. One of them was the fusion project, but then it ended up leaving the state, even though it got the exemption.

So it is, that is interesting to note, at SB 925 tasks, the energy commission with creating a strategic roadmap for the future of the industry, which is really important to start to start the process as, your principal, witness said, And I am a coauthor on this bill, and I'm proud to support it.

And with that, I'll turn it back to you to close.

Well, thank you. I see a tremendous potential for fusion. I think it's gonna create jobs both with the actual production of energy, but with the supply chain, manufacturing parts. I think we can build up a tremendous economic sector with employment, good paying jobs, etcetera. So with that,i'll ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. When we get a quorum, we will proceed to that step. Thank you. I'm happy to see another author come in. Excellent. Senator Cabaldon, that's you, if you're ready. Oh, oh, but McNerney's second one is on consent.

But there's a third one. I'm sorry.

Oh, okay. Sorry. McNerney has a third one, actually. 1350. Yeah.

So so you can go next, Senator McNerney. Oh, you're moving back? Okay. Yeah. Hello.

Welcome. Okay. So, now, we are on to item number seven, which is SB 1350 from Senator McNerney, and you're welcome to begin when ready.

I thank the, the, the chair for allowing me to move on this bill this morning. SB 1310, expanding green hydrogen, for someone to notice that I'm accepting the committee amendments. I thank the chair, and the staff for working with my staff, with me. California is committed to reaching 100% clean energy by 2045, which will improve our air quality and public health. But the development of clean energy industry in California is under a threat.

The Federal Government has canceled tax credits for solar and wind projects and canceled $1,200,000,000 in funding for California's proposed hydrogen hub. Clean hydrogen is made from renewable sources and a clean and safe fuel is a clean and safe fuel source that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Clean hydrogen can be used to transition existing power infrastructure into clean energy infrastructure. SB 1350 will help California utilize clean hydrogen to decarbonize the power system.

SB 1350 stimulates investments in clean hydrogen projects by allowing power plants to get renewable portfolio standard credit when they use green hydrogen to power turbines.

By incentivizing in-state clean hydrogen projects, we also—we are also creating thousands of jobs. One hydrogen production project alone in Lancaster, California—the name of that company is Element—is creating 1,200 construction jobs. With us today is Janice Lin from the Clean Hydrogen Coalition and Jeremy Smith from the State Building and Construction States Council. And I ask the, the chair to recognize my witnesses.

Of course. You are recognized.

Thank you, Senator. I just wanted to point out that there's a letter going around. We had a third technical witness who couldn't be here in person, and these are his comments. And I'm happy to take questions on that separately. Chair Blakespear and members, my name is Janice Lin, and I'm the founder of the Green Hydrogen Coalition.

We're an educational nonprofit focused on the thoughtful advancement of renewable hydrogen to achieve economy-wide decarbonization. I'd like to start by thanking the chair and committee staff for working with the author's office and the GHC this week on amendments. Members, renewable hydrogen is a carbon-free fuel that can be produced in large quantities and used to ensure reliability in our power sector. As you are all aware, energy reliability is the foundation of our economy.

As we're now facing severe energy price volatility, there is a need for fuel diversification.

Renewable hydrogen can help with those emergency reserves when the choice is an outage or burning diesel. It's already informally defined in the guidebook and eligible when used with linear generators and fuel cells. So, SB 1350 is the logical extension that puts renewable hydrogen on the same footing as other renewables in the guidebook. To be clear, nothing about 1350 mandates or requires its utilization.

Instead, it provides another opportunity for load-serving entities to meet their carbon goals using existing infrastructure, and that means we can achieve our clean energy goals affordably.

Any use of renewable hydrogen in turbines will still be held to the same stringent standards that restrict emissions from power plants today. Our air quality management districts will not permit any power plant that doesn't meet its world class emission standards.

And finally, 1350 is so essential now because the power sector is one of the few sectors that can utilize a lot of hydrogen near term, and this level of demand will encourage the development of larger production facilities, driving down costs and enabling faster conversion in other hard to beat sectors, such as long-haul, heavy-duty trucking, shipping, aviation, and fertilizer. Producing renewable hydrogen from local resources will also diversify our energy supply and enhance our energy security.

This is good for our economy, our environment, and our health.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. You also have two minutes.

Thank you, madam chair. Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, proudly supporting the bill today. First, I'd like to thank you, madam chair, your staff, Heather. I'm sure other folks on the committee, staff and the committee staff also help in this space. We were negotiating on this for a long time, the last, the last week or so, and we appreciate the long hours and the discussions that went into that.

I'm not gonna—I can't hold a candle to the previous speaker in terms of technical conversations about hydrogen and molecules and what, what this means for, for that industry. I will say though that I'm here for the workers who are gonna build these projects.

And it's important for this committee to understand as we run around this capital and and and are in different committees talking about our traditional jobs, and the traditional, like oil and gas sector, and the traditional energy sector, that we're building things like this too. Our members are gonna help us and help, help the state meet its goals, its stringent greenhouse gas emission goals, over the next couple decades. So, we're pleased today that this bill is moving.

It's important to note that there's a federal tax credit that one of the projects envisioned by this bill will be able to utilize, as this bill continues to move forward in a little bit of a faster way than other bills right now. So, it's important that we hold on to that. This is a very large project. The previous speaker talked about the over 1,000 construction jobs, but there's also many more maintenance jobs when this facility breaks ground.

So, we're pleased today for the hard work that everybody put on this bill.

We're gonna keep it moving forward with your direction, Senator, and, and, and make sure that we can build this project, we hold onto those tax credits, and we put some people to work in an area of the state that desperately needs it. For those reasons, we're happy to support and urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much, Jeremy. Anyone else in the room wishing to express support, please come forward to the microphone. State your name, the organization you represent, and your position on the bill.

Good morning. Andrea Abruzzo, with the California Municipal Utilities Association, in support.

Good morning. Lizzie Guansona, here on behalf of the Western Propane Gas Association, in support.

Good morning. Kate Eager with Vitamin Group on behalf of Air Products in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Anthony Samson, on behalf of the Southern California Public Power Authority, in support.

Sharon Gonzales, on behalf of the City of Vernon, in support.

Good morning. Tim Cameron on behalf of GeoKilm, GHC, and Yosemite Clean Energy, in support.

Okay. Anybody else in support? No? Okay. Opposition witnesses are welcome to come forward.

Thank you for making room.

Thank you. Good morning, madam chair, members of the committee. Matt Freedman here on behalf of the Utility Reform Network. We have an oppose unless amended position on SB 1350. The current bill, as amended by Senate Energy, does not address the concerns that we raised in our letter.

In recent years, the legislature has devoted significant effort into exploring a definition of renewable hydrogen and establishing best practices for renewable hydrogen production facilities located within the state. The version of this bill in print does not address the concerns that were raised in recent years and it could allow a massive expansion of hydrogen under the state's renewable portfolio standard program that doesn't include adequate protections against green washing, resource shuffling, and increased emissions across the West.

SB 1350 would codify the existing definition of renewable hydrogen adopted by the California Energy Commission, but it would require the Energy Commission to allow gas turbines that burn hydrogen under this definition to receive credit under the Renewable Portfolio Standard Program. The definition is not adequate from our perspective because it fails to address many of the critical issues relating to additionality of clean energy supply, hourly matching, prohibiting reliance on tradable attributes, and other topics that have come up before this legislature.

So, to ensure that renewable hydrogen produces incremental environmental benefits, we need to see a requirement that renewable hydrogen produced via electrolysis relies on newly developed renewable generating resources to prevent resource shuffling.

Now, we know the committee amendments have a language that would prohibit or at least ask the agencies to explore the issue of resource shuffling. My understanding is that that amendment would direct the Air Resources Board to perform that analysis while the Energy Commission would be in charge of the definition. Splitting that function between two agencies doesn't make sense from our perspective. We're honestly not confident that the Air Resources Board will take a hard look at this.

We think the Energy Commission is the better home for this analysis, and it also doesn't really get at the core issue of requiring incremental renewable generation to be built to serve hydrogen production needs.

And the proposed, the proposed facility in Lancaster, for example, would be building new renewable generation behind the meter. It would satisfy even the strictest definition that we could come up with. But we worry that there are many permutations under which facilities would be able to generate electricity using reshuffled electricity from other parts of the West. For example, in Arizona, state regulators just eliminated their renewable energy standards for their utilities.

Those utilities would be motivated to simply resell their existing renewable energy supplies into California, perhaps for hydrogen production.

They would backfill by buying coal and gas on the market. The net impact of that transaction is more coal and gas. We think that that needs to be addressed, with specificity. We do appreciate the prohibition on the use of tradable attributes that is in the committee analysis. We think that that is a significant improvement.

And with that, we would hope to be able to work with the author and work with the committee as this bill moves forward, but we are not satisfied with the amendments in the analysis to the extent that we understand them correctly. Thank you.

Thank you. You're recognized to begin when ready.

Thank you so much, madam chair. Mark Fenstermaker for Earthjustice. We are here in opposition. First, I wanna acknowledge to the author our tardiness with the position. We missed the Energy hearing last week having this position.

Also, I want to acknowledge that we met with the author staff, had a good conversation there, and can look forward to continuing those conversations. Earthjustice, we've been in this committee before advocating for the three pillars for many of the reasons that Mr. Freedman from TURN just laid out. We wanna ensure that we get the, the climate and environmental benefits that the proponents of hydrogen often tout.

What we often hear from the hydrogen proponents when it comes to transportation is that there are no emissions when when the transportation—the fuel is used. But that's not the case here with this bill, because we are talking about combustion in a gas turbine.

And that creates a fundamental problem for us, and that it will increase NOx emissions. And NOx emissions, of course, have severe human health impacts, from any of our most disadvantaged communities. So, what we find is that when you blend hydrogen with gas, we're gonna continue to have these facilities ongoing. We're gonna continue—going to continue to have these NOx emissions. Even when you have a high blend, say a 50-50 blend, studies are showing that NOx emissions may actually increase under those scenarios.

So, this is not necessarily going to realize in better air quality. We appreciate the proposed amendment coming out of this committee that would direct the bill to produce—reduce—NOx emissions across the electrical sector, but we're going to need to better understand how that is going to work. We really look forward to more conversations with the author in the author's office, but for these reasons, we must stay opposed.

We wanna ensure that our power sector is moving towards a situation where we are reducing emissions across the board, improving human health. I think most importantly, this isn't our renewable portfolio standard.

That is the standard that we should be looking for.

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

I'm Steve Uhler, U-H-L-E-R, California resident. I oppose this bill because RPS.

Sir, this is not the moment for why you oppose it. It's just that you oppose it.

Okay. Anyways, move the reporting on RPS. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mercedes with Sierra Club California, opposed respectfully.

Thank you very much. Okay. We'll bring it back to the committee now. I appreciate Senator McNerney's willingness to work with the committee to put in more guardrails on how hydrogen could be produced and used for making clean electricity. While it doesn't go far enough for the opposition, it, it is, it, it is a movement that's happened in the negotiations over this bill.

And we know that this is a complex and evolving issue, and I want to see good projects like the Lancaster Clean Energy Center succeed and take advantage of the substantial tax credits available. We also don't wanna open the floodgates to every gas power plant in the state, suddenly putting a little hydrogen into their product and then calling it clean. I think the amendments the author has agreed to in the Energy Committee and also in the EQ Committee help prevent some of these worst outcomes.

With the commitment to have no resource shuffling, no unbundled RECs, and no increased air pollutants or GHGs, I am comfortable supporting this bill today. That said, I encourage the author to continue working with the opposition moving forward to see if there's any room for future improvements.

Any other comments? Vice chair.

First of all, again, wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward. In the Antelope Valley, we just don't talk about renewable energy. We built it. Evident of the city of Lancaster naming itself the first hydrogen city in the world. We've also learned though that, the hard way, that energy isn't enough if it's not reliable.

And I think that this bill moves us closer to reality. And if we're going to call something renewable, it should also help keep the lights on, not just check a box. And expanding this def, definition, done right means more in-state production, more jobs, and it also reduce—it creates a more reliable energy grid and reduces the cost of energy, which every family in California is asking for right now.

I would one love to be a co, co-author, and wanna clarify that the amendments, I think, are pretty clear, this is my understanding, that the use of hydrogen shall result in a net decrease of air pollutants and GH—greenhouse gas emissions from the electrical sector. Pretty simple.

Is that—would you like to elaborate on that?

Yes. We did accept that amendment. It will reduce emissions. First of all, hydrogen has no carbon emissions whatsoever. So, when you add it to gas, you're gonna have fewer carbon, less carbon.

But the NOx question needs to be answered, and it's clear from the amendment that this application has to reduce emissions, as well. So, I think we're on the right path. It's not perfect at this point, but, and it'll also help transition the, the natural gas industry to clean as well. So, I think there's a lot of pluses here. Again, we're not perfect, and we are committed to working with the opposition.

Yeah. I think that this, you know, is, is striking the balance that we need here in California. What we office often find in the energy sector is leakage. Right? So, we're trying to reduce emissions, but we're not actually reducing demand or making energy cheaper.

So, what happens is our jobs are outsourced and our energy is imported. So, I think this is a, a wonderful bill. Again, would be happy to be a coauthor if you'd have me.

Okay. Thank you. Well, with that, we don't have anybody else here, so we will vote when we have the opportunity to have a quorum. Thank you, Senator McNerney, and thank you to the lead witnesses. Okay.

Next. I see Senator Grayson here. He is item number 9, SB 1145. And you're welcome to come to the podium with your witnesses, and you are recognized to begin when ready.

Thank you, madam chair and committee members. I am pleased to present SB 1145, which will provide specified streamlining procedures under the California Environmental Quality Act, we know as CEQA, and the federal base closure, and realignment disposition process for qualifying projects within the area of the Concord Reuse Project Area Plan. Before I begin and get in-depth and testimony, I do want to accept the committee amendments and express my deep, deep thanks to the chair, great leadership, and to committee, staff, consultant, extraordinary work.

Thank you so very, very much for your help, on this incredibly important district bill. SB 1145 is a district bill that will support the implementation of a long planned transit oriented development on the side of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station with housing, job creating facilities, open space, and environmental improvements.

The Concord Reuse project area plan anticipates no fewer than 10,000 housing units with 25% of units affordable to lower income households, up to 6,100,000 square feet of commercial building space, community facilities such as school sites, neighborhood parks, and sports facilities, as well as approximately 2,500 acres of open space. SB 1145 will help bring this long anticipated and much needed project, which also has the potential to create years worth of construction and construction related jobs closer to reality.

Now I think it's important to provide some context, if you will, for the bill. In 2005, the United States Navy identified approximately 4,972 acres of the former inland land inland area of the Concord Naval Weapons Station as surplus to the needs of the Federal Government in accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990. To put the size of this project into perspective for committee, Capitol Park here in Sacramento 40 acres in size.

This project will be the size of over 100 of these capital parks. The city of Concord is the local reuse authority for the base closure process. The LRA has executed legally binding agreements approved by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide four sites totaling 16 acres for primarily supportive housing and 10 acres for local food bank expansion within the former Concord Naval Weapons Station.

The Navy intends to convey through an economic development conveyance approximately 2,350 acres of the former Naval Weapons Station to the city as the designated local reuse authority for disposition to developers for redevelopment for the purpose of short and long term generation job generation. In 2010, after a multiyear process with substantial public input, the city certified the environmental impact report, the EIR, under CEQA, and adopted the Concord Naval Weapons Station reuse plan.

In 2012, the city adopted the addendum to the EIR and approved the area plan incorporating the reuse plans policies and goals into the city's general plan and establishing a land use plan that would transform former naval weapon station storage facilities into a mixed use transit oriented and sustainable community. The Navy completed National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, environmental review for the disposal and reuse based on the area plan and issued a record of decision in 2017.

Although redevelopment of the Concordateway Substation has undergone nearly two decades of land use planning and substantial environmental review under both CEQA and NEPA, as well as the federal base closure and realignment disposition process. Implementation of the area plan will require multiple future discretionary development approvals over many years.

Without procedural streamlining, the risk of serial sequel litigation and administrative record delays will will create uncertainty and it undermines the timely delivery of housing, jobs, infrastructure, and planned environmental and economic benefits to the city of Concord and for the East Bay Region.

SB 1145 will facilitate implementation of the area plan by leveraging the federal base closure and realignment disposition process along with extensive CEQA and NEPA review already completed for the Concord Naval Web station for qualifying projects that, among other things, maintain 25% affordability and have labor agreements. This all falls within the primary development parameters already analyzed in those documents. To close, SB 1145 does not exempt qualifying Concord Naval Weather Station projects from review or oversight.

It leverages review and oversight already completed for Concord Naval Weapons Station. So this bill is supported by the city of Concord as well as Concord, Contra Costa County along with the Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council, the District Council of Ironworkers of the State of California and Vicinity, and the Sheet Metal Workers Local Union one zero four.

So with me today through the chair, I do have a witness I'll allow to self introduce.

Welcome. You are recognized.

My name is Guy Bjerke, and I'm the director of economic development and base reuse for the city of Concord. And I'd like to thank the Senator as well as the committee and staff for working hard on this piece of legislation. The Senator was my former mayor. In 2010, I was mayor, and when we passed the reuse plan.

I've been working on this project as staff for the last eleven years, trying to get the various parallel paths to line up and reach Nirvana, which is entitlement in the creation of jobs and and community benefits.

It is a 5,000 acre project, the inland portion of the base. We have been working on it as a community for over twenty years as the Senator talks about. There are 12,000, housing units in the re in the area plan, 25% of which are slated to be affordable. We also, as was reported out, have four four acre parcel, 16 acres for the provision of permanent supportive housing for the homeless community under legally binding agreements with the Navy and HUD.

We also have planned, because the Navy wants our economic development conveyance to demonstrate job attraction and job recreation based on the jobs lost when the base was closed.

We have roughly 6,000,000 square feet of commercial uses of all types to generate jobs. This project will generate jobs. It will generate tens of thousands of construction related jobs, as well as tens of thousands of permanent jobs at completion, which is set over a thirty year course of time.

The project master developer has a PLA with both the building trades and the carpenters in order to ensure that job training and the work that is done on the base, both horizontal and vertical, is set to high standards.

The most important aspect of it, perhaps, for the environmental quality community committee, excuse me, is the 2,600 acres of the 5,000 acres that has been already transferred to the East Bay Regional Park District as a regional park and as a conservation area where we have and will be improving breeding and habitat for the California red legged frog and the California tiger salamander.

So that is already underway, but needs the project to help fund its long term success. The other thing the project does is expand and widen restore Mount Diablo Creek through the length of the project. So we will not only be improving the creek, improving stormwater drainage, but also providing a pedestrian and bike path along that.

Mayor, I appreciate your testimony. You're far over time, so we're gonna have to cut you off now. Thank you for your testimony. Do you have a second lead witness? No.

Okay. If there's anyone else anyone else in the room wishing to express support, please come forward, state your name, the organization you represent, and your position.

Good morning. Greg Hayes here on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support of this great jobs investment bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jeff Neal representing the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors also in support.

How you guys doing this morning? My name is Francisco. I'm with the Ironworkers Local three seventy eight, and we're in full support.

Hello. My name is Andres Janes. I'm with the Ironworkers three seventy eight.

Hello. My name is Christian. I'm with the Ironworkers three seventy eight. I support. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Juan Luis Olivo. I'm from Local three seventy eight. We're in full support. Good morning.

My name is David Moulay. I'm a journeyman, three seventy eight ironworkers, and I give my support.

Good morning, chair and committee. My name is Rachel Shoemake. I represent over thirteen, thirteen hundred electricians in Contra Costa County, and we're in big support. Thank you.

Good morning. Derek Cole with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and we are in support. Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair and members of the committee. My name is Aureliano Ochoa, and I'm here representing the Heat and Frost Insulators Local sixteen, and we're in the strong support. Thank you.

Morning. Eric Haines representing Sheet Metal Workers Local one zero four in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Nick Goodwin, business manager, Plumbers Team Fitters, local one five nine, and I support.

Good morning. Jason Lester, business agent, local one five nine, Plumbers Team Fitters representing over 500 members, strong support. Thanks.

Good morning. Anthony Croce. I represent operating engineers, and we're in full support. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Jaime Gonzalez. I I represent the operating engineers and we're in full full support.

Thank you very much. Thank you for taking your time to come and express your support. I appreciate the effort it takes to get here. Next, we will move to opposition witnesses. Do we have anybody in the room wishing to express opposition?

Okay. If you'd like to come forward and express opposition to the microphone, you're welcome to do so.

Good morning. JT Herchmack with the nonprofit housing Association of Northern California. We have concerns with the guarantees of affordable housing in the bill as it is, but as a housing organization, we do support the CEQA exemption, to ensure the success of the project.

Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to express opposition to this bill? Looks like no. Let's see.

Raise your hand if you're coming in and you want to. No. Okay. Alright. Well, we'll bring it back to the committee, which is me.

I have no other members here, unfortunately. But I do appreciate, the tremendous effort that the two mayors, you and the mayor who testified, have put into this along with many other people. This bill seeks to streamline environmental review for a very important development near Concord in Concord. That is taking areas that used to be a naval base and turning it into a whole new community. That will include more than 3,000 low income units, more than 800 acres of developed parks and trails.

As the author said, acquiring this land and turning it into a community will also provide critical housing for East Bay residents and a whole new hub with commercial light industrial. So people can live and work and play all together. Retaining environmental review in this process is important, but it's also important to acknowledge that this project has undergone environmental review already, so we know what natural resources are in the area through existing EIRs.

It's also important to realize that the current developer for the project is the third developer. The earlier two backed out because this is a significant investment, and there's also significant risk.

Also, the timeline is very long. Ultimately, I think with this bill, we have threaded the needle with committee amendments to add environmental streamlining that can build in certainty for this project while also retaining important environmental review for any projects in the area that deviate from the existing planning documents that have undergone review. Specifically, the committee amendments say that if a project sticks to the initial planning documents, then those future projects are CEQA exempt.

Only if projects add new land use types or change where that land use is located, So, for example, if a proposed housing development that was near a creek is now moved adjacent to a freeway, then CEQA would be triggered. But if that doesn't happen, then it wouldn't be.

I wanna thank the author for working so diligently with us on finding a middle ground for this proposal, and I'm enthusiastic about supporting it. So with that, I'll turn it to, Senator Allen if you wanted to make any comments on this bill. And if not, we'll turn it back to the author to close. Would you like to?

I've been asked to go to to rev and tax, but I Aye, but I've supported it and I moved the bill when appropriate.

Okay. Great. We're on SB 1145, and we will turn it back to you, Senator Grayson, for close.

Thank you, madam chair, and just thank you for your leadership. Thank you to the committee staff for incredible work, and, looking forward to this bill turning in coming to fruition and turning into reality for the East Bay Region. So thank you very much. I respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Okay. Thank you. Will do. And next, I see in the room Senator Cabaldon. I appreciate the authors coming to the room and being ready.

Hello, Senator Ashby. Thank you for coming. This is item number 8, SB 1010, and you are recognized to begin when ready.

I think this is the first time I get to be in front of you in this committee. Alright, thanks for having me. I am here to present SB 1010, which addresses a critical gap in California's climate strategy by ensuring that refrigerants are discarded properly. Refrigerants are among the most potent greenhouse gases in use and are the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions both in California and globally.

While manufacturers have transitioned to some cleaner refrigerants, legacy appliances that are still in use and entering the waste stream will continue to pose a significant risk for many years to come. Proper recovery has a significant impact. This is a really big stat: for every 1,000 refrigerators responsibly recycled, emissions are reduced by the equivalent of removing 1,500 cars per year off the road. Put another way, one refrigerator equals one car for a year and a half in terms of emissions put into our system.

While appliance recycling occurs today, there is no consistent statewide system to ensure that refrigerants are recovered or to track and verify outcomes. This lack of accountability makes it difficult to identify gaps and leaves many communities without access to proper disposal options. And importantly, something we've all been focusing on, it shifts cost to local governments and taxpayers. SB 1010 creates a consistent statewide manufacturer-funded system for the collection, tracking, and responsible end-of-life management of these appliances.

By shifting responsibility to manufacturers, SB 1010 reduces cost for local governments and ratepayers, expands access to proper disposal, strengthens the recycling system statewide, and most importantly, works towards our climate goals.

Proud to have the support of Seventh Generation Advisors, Californians Against Waste, Center for Environmental Health, Circular Polymers, cleanerearthforkids.org, The Climate Center, The Watershed Project, Western Placer Waste Management Authority, and many others. Today with me as my witness is Jason Schmelzer, who's probably not on his first time in this committee in front of all of you, on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council.

Good morning, and thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Jason Schmelzer here on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council in strong support of SB 1010. As you all know very well, at this point, EPR is simply a policy construct that requires producers of products with a significant end-of-life impact to design, fund, and operate a collection and recycling infrastructure designed to mitigate those impacts. Not all of those impacts, just some of them. We think it's generally a pretty fair construct.

The case for EPR for refrigerated appliances is pretty clear. Refrigerated appliances are ripe for a few different reasons. One, as the Senator mentioned, there is no consistent free and convenient collection for refrigerated appliances. Consumer options vary widely by jurisdiction. Where collection is free and convenient, it's heavily subsidized by local governments.

Where it's not subsidized by local governments, it can be quite expensive. In some cases, as high as $125 per item that you're dropping off at a facility. As a result, appliances continue to be one of the most frequently illegally dumped items. This burdens public agencies and also just diminishes the general quality of life. Third, hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants have a significant global warming impact, as the analysis mentions, anywhere from 124 to 14,000 times that of carbon dioxide.

An EPR program would centralize the proper management of this refrigerant, and we feel that the current sort of federal-state paradigm isn't enough. What you might hear from some of the opposition, who we're gonna work with very well, is that refrigerants are being replaced with less harmful options. This is true, but the transition is not complete, and manufacturers are still using those refrigerants.

There are many millions of appliances still in use that contain the hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants, and refrigerated appliances have other components that also need proper management. You might also hear that there are CAR-certified recyclers who would be crazy, right, to allow any of this refrigerant to escape because it has value.

I think we agree with that point, generally speaking, but not everybody is always acting in their own interest, and we have seen federal enforcement of California present CAR-certified recyclers for failing to properly manage the refrigerants. So for all of those reasons, we think this is a strong bill, and we're in strong support. Happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Well, thank you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support? Please come forward. State your name, position on the bill.

Good morning. Kayla Robinson with Californians Against Waste, supporting concept. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Opposition witnesses, you're welcome to come forward. Welcome. You're recognized to begin when ready.

You each have two minutes.

Great. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Jacob Cassidy. I'm the Director of Government Relations for the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Our members manufacture major, portable, and floor care appliances, many that include the use of refrigerants.

For several reasons, AHAM is opposed to SB 1010 as currently written, and I'm just gonna list off a few of the reasons. I did submit a letter that goes into greater detail. So as mentioned, industry did transition to climate-friendly refrigerants with minimal global warming impact, or GWP. As such, the legislation does not address a widespread environmental threat and is unwarranted.

There is no evidence that justifies a threat related to non-HFC refrigerants that would justify an EPR proposal such as this. This product is simply unwarranted in that regard as well. So the average lifespan of a refrigerator is about fifteen years, considering this transition began occurring ten to fifteen years ago.

Those refrigerators are already on the way out. So new manufacturers of new refrigerators would be required to participate and pay for this program. And as such, these products will decline yearly almost at an exponential rate, and, you know, within our lifetime, we'll be out of service. So the current system currently recycles about 80% of appliances, almost at no cost. There may be some places where there's a fee, but I'd be interested to see which are the places and what are these fees.

There are, as mentioned, California and federal laws that regulate disposal and recycling of refrigerants. The EPA Responsible Appliance Disposal program has standards for reclamation. The Clean Air Act specifically prohibits the venting of refrigerants and actually exempts many of the refrigerants that are in current use today. Existing California law, as mentioned, and CARB has a program; DTSC has guidance.

So ultimately, this legislation is targeting manufacturers whose products are already subject to federal and state laws, and most, if not all, have nearly eliminated GWP of the refrigerants.

They've invested millions of dollars, and now they're being asked to create a program that's gonna cost an additional million dollars, with the cost going to consumers ultimately, as we know from EPR programs. It would be great to see the evidence that's referenced. I know we have all the anecdotes about we've seen this, we've seen that, but we need to have actual evidence as we form public policy such as this. I welcome any questions, and I really appreciate the time today.

Okay. Thanks very much. Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Ryan Flanigan here on behalf of the Recycled Materials Association, and we are in opposition to this bill. Though well intentioned, we feel this bill could potentially cripple the recycling market and drive up costs of appliances to many hardworking Californians who are already struggling with affordability in their everyday lives. Appliance refrigerant recovery is highly regulated by existing California and federal environmental law.

The Federal Clean Air Act Section 608, CARB's refrigerant management program, California Integrated Waste Management Act, and DTSC's certified appliance recycler program already mandate collection of refrigerant gases.

If noncompliance or illegal dumping are the issue, then targeted enforcement is what is needed, not costly wholesale changes to a widely effective recovery system. We've had productive conversations with the author and sponsor and would be happy to work on more targeted approaches. What makes the existing system work are economic incentives. Unlike mattresses or carpets, household cooling appliances have real scrap metal value that motivates thousands of independent collectors to deliver appliances to certified facilities, where refrigerant recovery is mandatory at no cost to taxpayers or government. SB 1010's compliance costs will eat into the scrap metal value.

When the economics disappear, collectors stop collecting, fewer appliances reach certified facilities, and refrigerant recovery rates fall. This bill may create the very problem it claims to solve. We respectfully urge the committee to oppose this bill. Thank you. And I've got Jeff Farano with SA Recycling here if you have any technical questions.

Okay. Thanks very much. Anybody wishing to express opposition, please come forward. State your name, organization, and position.

Alright. Jeff Farano, SA Recycling, in opposition.

Okay. Thank you. We'll bring it back to the committee. Any comments from committee members on this bill? No?

Okay. Menjivar? No? Okay. Okay.

Well, there's substantial opposition. I encourage you to continue working with them, and I appreciate your commitment to try to do better. It is notable that appliances have a 78% recycling rate, because if we could get that for plastics, we'd be really happy. So anyway, I'll turn it back to the author to close.

Thank you so much, and thank you for hearing us out. Yeah. We don't have any concerns about working with the opposition moving forward. I think we've already made some strides. We'll continue to work on that.

It is not our goal to punish anyone here. In fact, you heard here today from the opposition that what's unique about refrigerators, and partially why their recycle rate is better, is they do have value at the end of life, which should reduce the upfront cost on making sure that people who put refrigerators into the chain of commerce are responsible through the end of life. We think we can get that number down to a very small number.

However, the difference between 25% of plastics and 25% of refrigerators is really a lot. And when we talk about evidence, I think we have all the evidence that we need in terms of climate and looking at what's happening around us in our world.

Unfortunately, a fifteen-year lifespan on a refrigerator is not what the average family deals with. We all know that. Think about your own families and how long your relatives and friends hold on to a refrigerator. Affordability doesn't allow people to replace a large appliance like that as often as we would hope they could, and as often as these guys are working really hard on the innovation.

This idea, by the way, was brought to me by a constituent who works in this industry in Sacramento, and was worried not only about end of life on refrigerators, but on the impact on workers who work in places where this isn't happening appropriately.

So there is a piece of this that is about enforcement, as the opposition has rightfully outlined. We will continue to work with them to strike the right balance, but this is an important component to California achieving its climate goals in the long term, and we appreciate the support of the committee. Ask for an aye vote.

Well, thank you very much. We do have a quorum, so we could actually establish it and vote on your bill.

Aye.

Alright. Let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. So if there's a motion on this bill, I would entertain a motion on this bill. Okay. Senator Allen moves the bill. So committee consultant, please call the roll.

Wait. Did we call other opposition? Pardon? Did we call the other opposition? We did.

[Roll Call]

Okay. It's three to one. We will keep that on call. Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you. So since we have a quorum, let's go through the bills that we've presented. First, we have item number okay. The consent calendar. That's good. From the vice chair. So the vice chair moves the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

We'll keep that on call. Okay. Senator Caballero, thank you for your patience. This is item number 10, SB 1183, and your witnesses are welcome to come forward. And you are recognized to begin when ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. First, let me start off by saying that I'll be accepting the committee amendments, and thank you for, your work on this. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1183.

In the face of growing climate change impacts, California has ambitious renewable energy goals, including a 60% zero carbon energy goal by 2030 and a 100% zero carbon energy goal by 2045.

The expansion of renewable energy, including solar, is a critical step to reach these goals.

As a result, large scale solar in California's Central Valley continues to grow and reshape the region's environment and the economy. According to the California Energy Commission, about half of the nearly one hundred thousand acres of of industrial solar

developed in California is located in the San Joaquin Valley, often on water deprived farmland.

As the presence of industrial solar in the Central Valley continues to increase, there is a need for careful planning by state and local governments to ensure that industrial solar projects directly benefit the residents and the environment of the valley without causing

generational damage to viable agricultural lands, small communities, and the health and welfare of the residents, and the personal assets of family that families that call the Central Valley home. And I'm not talking just about farmland.

I'm talking about whole communities that are agriculture dependent, like Mendota, Firebaugh, Huron, San Joaquin.

If you don't recognize those names, it's because you've never been through them. And you've never been through them because they're not on 99 or more importantly, they're not on I 5.

And so these are communities made up mostly of farm workers, and and they're they have vibrant economies that are all related to and dependent on agriculture.

SB 1183 requires a California governor's of land use and climate innovation to study the environmental, land use, and economic impacts of industrial solar in the Central Valley and make recommendations to ensure that the installation of industrial solar is

directly benefits its residents, businesses, and local government. With me to testify today is Peter Ansell from the California Farm Bureau.

Morning, Chair and Members. Peter Ansel representing the California Farm Bureau, a statewide nonprofit organization of more than 25,000 ranching and farming families.

SB 1183 supports the state's progress as a renewable energy leader by ensuring that we make informed balanced decisions so that communities undergoing change are justly treated.

A just transition, which is a word that's been discussed often regarding a renewable transition.

Solar development growth is accelerated by state policies designed to streamline project delivery, including AB pathways under AB 205, and a myriad of other bills and regulations designed to expedite expedite the transition to renewables.

As deployment speeds up, the need to understand regional cumulative impact becomes even more urgent. Today, projects reviewed individually under laws like CEQA, but we lack a clear understanding of what development means across system levels in this in the Central Valley.

Agriculture in the Valley supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and tens of billions of dollars in economic activity. SB 1183 directs the state to develop recommendations to ensure the projects provide meaningful benefits. It's not anti solar, it's pro community.

We commend committee staff for recommending that the office of land use and climate innovation lead the study as it's fundamentally about land use to regional economic planning.

The bill does not change permitting or siting decisions and it does not stop solar development in the Central Valley. It simply directs the state to evaluate development impacts, the good and the bad comprehensively.

California can meet its climate goals while ensuring the industrial scale of renewable energy development and rural community economic sustainability centered around agriculture can coexist.

And because of that, we urge an Aye vote because SB 1183 will deliver exactly that.

Thank you.

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

Good morning. Chelsea Gazzillo on behalf of American Farmland Trust, and I would like to express support. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Any opposition witnesses wishing to come forward? Welcome. You can sit at the front table here.

You each have two minutes, and you're welcome to begin when ready.

Thank you. Good morning, chair Blake Spear and members of the committee. I'm Lillian Marvis with the Large Scale Solar Association or LSA. We are here today with an opposed unless amended position on the bill. LSA submitted a letter on this bill with the other clean energy trades, and we apologize for the late submission.

We appear today not to oppose solar development in the Central Valley. Rather, we are here because we believe the Central Valley stands at a remarkable moment of opportunity, and we want to make sure state policy reflects that. Two timelines are converging in the Central Valley right now. California's clean energy build out calls for a 134,000 megawatts of clean energy by 2045. More than half of that is coming from solar energy.

And, much of that needs to come online in the next five years alone by 2031. The second is a sustainable groundwater management act, which the Senate fact sheet on this bill estimates will take at least 1,000,000 acres of irrigated farmland out of production by 2040. Solar is not displacing thriving agriculture. It's offering a productive, revenue generating second life for land that water scarcity has already claimed or will soon. The California Energy Commission's 2023 land use screens report confirms this alignment.

When sensitive lands, habitat, and other constraints are mapped and excluded, the lowest in lowest impact pathway for solar development runs directly through fallowed and water stressed agricultural land in the Central Valley. Done well, this transition will bring real benefits to the region. Jobs, stable lease revenue for landowners, and millions of new property tax revenues for county governments. LSA welcomes rigorous of evidence based inquiry into how to maximize these benefits for Central Valley communities.

We simply ask that any such study reflect the full picture, including the significant body of analysis the CEC and other state agencies have already produced, and that it treats solar as the opportunity it is.

Currently, our position is opposed unless amended to reflect the benefits of solar development in the Valley and to build off the work that has already been done by the California Energy Commission. You could We look forward to

the opportunity to continue to work with the author on this important topic. Thank you.

Good morning. McKinley Thompson Morley here today on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association or CIIA, the natch National Trade Association for all types of solar and storage companies. We work to promote an equitable transition to clean energy and meet our state's Landmark Clean Energy Goals. Unfortunately, we're concerned that SP eleven eighty three is drafted, duplicates work across the state agencies, and treats utility scale solar as a potential harm instead of a lifeline.

We're facing a climate crisis and need to meet the moment by developing thousands of megawatts of utility scale solar in the near term to meet our state's twenty forty five clean energy goals.

We know that communities will benefit economically from utility scale solar from property taxes, jobs, and landowner revenues. Farmers whose land would otherwise be followed can benefit from the development of solar projects on their land. It It provides a second economic life without precluding its future use for farming should water return. We urge the author to consider amendment shifting the study to the CEC and focusing it on identifying gaps in the current studies and including the forward facing benefits that utility scale solar provides.

We welcome the opportunity to work with the author and really appreciate your consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now move to anyone else in the hearing room with that. We'd like to express our opposition. Please state your name, your organization, and your position.

Good morning. Delilah Clay on behalf of the Independent Energy Producers Association, also in an opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no others, we will bring this back to the committee room. Any questions? Would you like to close?

Yes. I thank you very much, madam vice chair. Let me just say that the letter came two days ago. It's the first time we've heard from this group of organizations, and I look forward to the opportunity to have a conversation about, where the the bill is going to. I think we both agree on the facts, And the facts are that the Valley is a very productive area, agricultural wise, and that there are changes coming.

And Sigma mandates those those changes. And, and so part of what is happening right now is that there there every single organization that is developing energy resources is looking to the valley. The CCAs from the coastal region say we're gonna build solar in Fresno County or in Kern County or in Merced County. And it would be great if it had been mapped out ahead of time which lands were most at risk of losing, water or not being able to use groundwater, but that hasn't been done.

Instead, farmers are looking for an alternative revenue site when they don't have when they know that Sigma is coming and they they're not gonna have the water.

And so it's made on a farm by farm basis and without any so so solar comes in and it's low wage jobs, low wage temporary jobs. So it's great for someone to have revenue from the property.

But in the meantime, thousands of farm workers are out of work and the mechanics and the the the box makers and the welders, all of the people that live in small little communities are at risk because with the exception of maybe one or two projects, there have been no community benefits that have been provided to the to the people that live in the valley. So they have some of the highest energy costs.

On an average basis, it's 5 to $700 a month during the summer to try to cool down houses that are were built many years ago that don't have good air conditioning or cooling system so that there's this repercussion in the valley that I'm really concerned about long term is that what we're trying to do here is to do a study, not putting our thumbs on the scale, not foreclosing anything.

There's nothing in in this bill that says, do the study and then here is the way we think we ought to change the rules. That'll come later if it's necessary, but at least right now and and if I could, so far have not been presented with any studies that do exactly what this is is suggesting. There are pieces of studies out there, but no one that looks at what the what the full impact would be.

And and one of the things that I worry about, and I'll I'll close it, is this area is very prone to a spore in the dirt, and that spore causes permanent lung damage for for individuals that work outdoors, farm workers in particular, but also families. And as we move, if it's unchecked, if solar takes over the valley the way that I'm concerned it might, and I'm not anti solar.

I think it makes a lot of sense, but I also think it makes more sense on the top of buildings and over parking lots and in areas where we're not permanently restricting the use of of the land for other purposes. If if left unchecked, we end up with a dust bowl in the valley, and the health impacts and the economic impact, the valley will never recover from.

So it's the reason that that after talking to I mean, quite frankly, I was talking to all the counties to come together to, look at how each county is affecting the county next to them by doing these kinds of huge projects, and that's way too much. It's it's have

you ever tried working with the county board of supervisors? I'm just saying, it's not as easy as you think. And it it it there every county is looking at their own their own county separate. And this is really an opportunity to take a snapshot view. If every company if every company came in and said, look, we'll we'll do community benefits and we'll do it according to benefits that really help the residents.

That would be a different story, but that's not what's happening right now. So this study is is critically important for us to be really have a sense of in the in the area of the state that is the poorest, where we have the highest medical population, where people earn below the median income of the state significantly, I think we gotta do better.

And so there have to be a way for us to stimulate the economy and do do bring in solar, but also create opportunities for other forms of energy that create jobs. Respectfully ask for your eyebrow.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Senator Mangemar moves the bill. Thank you. And the motion is a SB 1183 do pass as amended to the committee on appropriations.

Secretary, please call the roll.

Senators Blake Spear. Valderas.

Valderas, aye. Allen, Dally, Gonzales. Aye. Gonzales, aye. Hurtado, Menjivar?

Aye.

Aye. Manjubar, aye.

Three zero. That bill is on call. I'm gonna actually hand the gavel over. One, I'm gonna call for authors. If they're are you an author?

Then let's go. So then let's move to file item 19, SB 1291. Senator Gonzales, you are recognized when you're ready.

Okay. Waiting for my witnesses. Go. Alright. Alright.

I got the okay that we are good to go. Thank you, madam chair. Alright. I'm here today, good morning, and members, to present Senate Bill twelve ninety one, the Shine Water Act, which will bring transparency and accountability to mutual water company board operations. Unlike private utilities regulated by the PUC or public public utilities subject to the Brown Act, mutual water companies or mutual water companies or MWCs are supposed to be accountable to the water end users that they serve.

This bill makes that a reality by doing a few things, eliminating the twenty four hour written notice requirement for Board Meetings, making MWC governance fully accessible to the rate payers they serve, two requiring that MWCs maintain a website with basic information including consumer confidence reports so end users know what is in their water, and lastly, requiring a comparative analysis report of mutual water companies serving disadvantaged communities against other forms of water governance to evaluate their efficacy and providing clean and reliable water and engaging the communities that they serve.

The reason I brought this bill forward is, you might have the photo, is so important because my constituents in Walnut Park, which is unincorporated Los Angeles County, Cut Ahead and Maywood in Southeast Los Angeles, have been served brown water for decades with no understanding of who the mutual water company is, what they are doing, and how to even get through to their office.

In fact, the city manager of Cuddihay has been to the mutual water company office multiple times to no avail because no one answers the door. So our communities are left asking the questions, who are they? What are they doing?

And why aren't we getting information on brown water? Water is not optional as we know here in the state. It is essential and a SB 1291 ensures the companies that provide it are held accountable. Testifying in support today, I have Michael Claiborne. On behalf of Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this bill.

Thank you, madam chair.

You're recognized for two minutes.

Good morning. My name is Michael Claiborne. I'm the directing attorney at Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. We work alongside residents of the San Joaquin and East Coachella Valleys in disadvantaged communities. Many of the communities that we work with lack access to safe and affordable drinking water, and many are served by small rural water systems, some of which are mutual water companies.

Mutual water companies, as Senator Gonzales mentioned, present a unique case in that they're not regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission because they're small, despite being private water companies. And even though they're not regulated by the CPUC, they are not subject to the Brown Act, to the Public Records Act, to proposition two eighteen, to these important measures that allow for transparency and accountability. The result is often that mutual water companies are less responsive to the residents they served than other forms of water system governance.

And the residents I work with often struggle to access basic information, like water quality reports, bylaws, annual budgets, etcetera. As one example, in January, residents we work with in Kern County, it's served by Athol Mutual, requested basic information about their water system, the sorts of things I just mentioned, annual budgets, bylaws, etcetera.

They're still waiting to hear back and receive that information despite it being almost May. This is information that residents should just have access to, rather than have to ask for and wait months and months to get. They did receive bylaws, but the rest of the information they requested, they haven't received, and that was only after the water board kinda put some pressure on the system.

And this is a water system that has TCP above drinking water standards, so it's the sort of system where questions should be answered. And this is especially important, and critical to ensuring positive outcomes with respect to water quality, safe drinking water act compliance, and safeguarding public funds.

You would wrap up your comments, please. Thank you.

Yeah. So that's why we're in support of SB 1291 and urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now move to anyone else in the room with that would like to express their support. Please state your name, your organization, and your position only. Seeing that oh, there you are.

Hi. Good morning. Mateo Kushner, Community Water Center in support.

Good morning. John Scoglin with the County of Los Angeles in support.

Thank you. We'll now move to any queue witnesses in opposition. Welcome. Please take a seat, and you are both recognized for two minutes each.

Okay. My name is Yvonne Greene, and I am here today as an Eaton Fire victim because my home was incinerated. I am also a certified public accountant who's worked in the water industry, especially with mutual water companies for over two decades. I moved to Altadena. I had been a LADWP customer and had horrible service issues and had to go through my city council member to get them resolved.

I moved to Altadena because my water company is is accessible and helpful. I urge that SB 1291 be amended to apply to all types of water systems on a tiered basis according to size.

As an illustration, a customer of County of Los Angeles struggling Waterworks number forty in Lancaster has to drive to Alhambra almost 80 miles away to dispute a billing and a 100 miles away to Los Angeles to complain before the board of sup supervisors during public comment, and they only get two minutes. As a fire victim, I can't imagine anyone having to deal with that. I love having a partner and a supporter as I try to rebuild my life.

Nonprofit mutual water companies should really not be singled out. The state is in the process of consolidating the three Altadena mutuals. Under SB 1291, we would not be entitled to the same level of transparency the bill pro proposes to apply only to mutuals. If it were if the mutuals were taken over by a for profit investor utility or by a city of Pasadena, different rules would apply.

Before the fire, our system was recognized as a high functioning water system and a reason I moved there.

After the fire, that remains true. The staff is working incredibly hard and under incredibly difficult circumstances and always serves us with a smile. It is unfair that our company is being classified as failing because customers had to be served bottled water. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is David Armstrong. I'm the general manager of South Mesa Water Company. We're a mutual water company proudly serving the cities of Yucaipa and Kalamasa. Our system serves a severely disadvantaged community in Riverside and San Bernardino County.

I'm also the vice president of the California Association of Neutral Water Companies. We oppose SB 1291 unless amended. We ask the author amend SB 1291 to include all types of water systems to the scale size of the water systems. In our region, it's very interesting. I am the only water agency in the whole Yucaipa Valley not failing or at risk.

I have water districts next to me that have been failing. Water in times of need. So I have supported a water district, but nobody ever came to me and said, Wow, this water district is failing. Can you take them over? Or anything like that.

Because we are operating at a very high level. So this water company, water district in Yucaipa, they've recently been, cited for water quality violations. Again, failing to, do their backflow prevention program correctly. Correct. I'm a mutual water company, and I'm I'm very proud of that fact.

So I say all this, I share that to underscore a key point. Under the state safer program, risk is not defined by governance structure, but by a system's ability to consistently provide safe, affordable drinking water, which we're doing. For a mutual water company, success has been driven by targeted state investments, strong regional partnerships, and success to bridge financing from a nearby larger water system, which I have done with two state water contractors and Riverside County. I've worked hand hand in hand with them.

State funding and bridge financing by a state water contractor agency in our area has allowed us to address critical infrastructure and extend service to nearby Mobile Home Park with a long history of nitrate contamination, bringing them into compliance, to all water quality standards.

If you would wrap up your comments, please.

Okay. Focusing on policy, one type of system risks diverting attention and resources away from the communities most indeed and away from the strategies that are already proving successful. For those reasons, I respectfully urge a no vote on s p twelve ninety one and ask that the author work with us on amendments to help everyone.

Thank you. We'll now move to anyone else in the room that would like to express opposition. Please come forward. State your name, your organization, and your position only.

Good morning, madam chair, and members of this committee. My name is Sandy McElhinney, and I am a shareholder at Christian Mutual Water Company, which is a small mutual water company in the mountains of Kern County. I drove here yesterday for five and a half hours in the pouring down rain to share with you that SB 1291 is one their idea of one bill fits all

is Ma'am, this is just your name, your position, and your organization. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry.

I didn't get that part. Sandy McElhinney, president of Christian Mutual Water Company and shareholder in Kern County, California. Thank you. That's all.

Good morning. Karina Cervantes with the California Association of Mutual Water Companies, and I just wanted to list off some of our members whose names were not included in, the committee's analysis report. We do have El Dorado, Green Valley, Heart Creek Estates, Hartley, Lake Elizabeth, Lucerne Vista, Maywood Number Two, Oak Glen, Orangevale, Sleepy Valley, Starlight Pines, Stockdale Annex, Tierra Bonita, and Tract 180, all in opposition unless amended to SB 1291. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no others, we'll bring this back to the committee. And having no other one no other on the dais, I would like to give the author the opportunity to respond to some of the opposition's concerns, and I know would love to hear about how you're working with them.

Thank you, madam chair, and I appreciate that. And I'm I'm grateful for the the opposition bringing light to the fact that we absolutely, I think, believe on the same thing, which is transparency, especially being an accountant. And I think, absolutely, every water system should be transparent. That's what the intent of this bill is. The other water systems do have, as been mentioned by my witness in the support column, they are subject to Brown the Brown Act, the Public Records Act.

They're also, obviously, there's oversight through the Public Utilities Commission, but multi but but the mutual water companies are not. And so that's that's the problem. As you've been I think we've been sharing with you the picture of the brown water that my community has been dealing with for decades. For decades. We're not asking a lot.

In fact, we're asking for very minimal, transparency opportunities, you know, how, individuals would like to be, communicated with. Is it an email, a text message? Where are they located? Where can we set some of them don't even know who exists on the board, and that's a a real problem. And I think that in the the fourth largest economy, our residents, whether you are a homeowner or a renter, should know that.

I don't know if there's anything else my, witness would like to add on that.

I think the only thing that I'd add is that we work alongside small mutuals, in many cases. And in fact, I even represent a small mutual in Tulare County. So we're also very interested in making sure that, this measure is as easy to comply with as possible. So if there are good ideas to make it kind of more implementable and avoid issues in implementation. I think those are worth talking about.

But the bottom line is that the information about water system operations, transparency, access to meetings, notice of meetings, things like that, need to be provided to residents served by these systems. So urgent I vote, but I'm also interested in talking with the opposition. So thank you.

We'll continue to work with them as we have been.

And buttons flickering on and off. Well, so I just wanna say that I do believe that this is a straightforward transparency and access bill. It simply makes it easier for residents to attend meetings, to get information about their water systems, and to stay informed about water quality without unnecessary barriers or fees. No new bureaucracy, just basic accountability and modern communication. I will be supporting the bill.

I think we are operating in a subcommittee, at this point. We do need authors. So would you like to close?

Yes. And I thank you for that and your support, madam chair, and I believe in the same thing. I want to make this the, you know, very low barriers to entry for our residents, most importantly, so they can access clean water, but also, of course, continuing to work with the opposition to make this as seamless as possible. And with that, we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And we will, come back to this bill when we have another there's no motion. Yeah. Right now. So what I'm gonna switch the gavel with you, and we're gonna move to file item number 20

Okay.

Because we're still working.

Okay. We're actually going to be moving to file item number 14, SB 1326. Senator Wahab, you are recognized when you're ready.

Thank you. Alright. Good morning. I first wanna thank all of you guys for being here. When conducting a California Environmental Quality act or CEQA project, environmental review lead agencies are required to consult with California Native American tribes culturally affiliated with the project area to determine potential impacts and identify measures to avoid or mitigate significant impacts to tribal cultural resources.

Unfortunately, the current tribal consultation process in effect for over a decade potentially overlooks critical tribal cultural resource information and has failed to effectively prioritize the avoidance and preservation of native American culture. California native American tribes are best positioned to identify their own TCRs, and how to best protect them. Entrusting a lead agency to define and determine a TCR significance without appropriate consideration of California Native American tribal knowledge and tribal records can be insensitive and may disregard culturally significant TCRs.

Project lead agency, CEQA review, may not prioritize tribal input, the preservation of Native American culture, and continuous consultation with tribes during the process. To ensure tribes can better protect their TCRs, SB 1326 updates the definition of a tribal cultural resource to include resources identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as a sacred place or on local tribal register.

This bill also reprioritized avoidance and protection of these TCRs by requiring lead agencies to document in detail when avoidance and protection is not feasible. It requires lead agencies to consider and incorporate avoidance and mitigation measures identified by consulting California Native American tribes. As you all know in history class, we have all heard, read, and understood the complete devastation of the Native American community, not only in The United States, but even here in California.

This is an attempt to right the wrongs of the past in some small way to ensure that culture and sensitivity sensitivity to this community and inclusion, is prioritized in California. With me today, testifying in support of this bill is councilwoman Catalina Chacon and tribal preservation officer, Buffy McQuillan.

Thank you. You're both recognized for two minutes. Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair and members of the committee. My name is Catalina Chacon, and I'm a tribal councilwoman of the Pechanga Band of Indians. At its core, this bill is about our past and our future. It is intended to preserve, protect the sacred sites, cultural resources, and tribal heritage of native people. As you know too well, so many of our tribal cultural resources and sacred sites have already been lost to development, gone forever.

Never to be experienced by future generations of tribal people. This is why California tribes have fought so hard for stronger protections in historic legislation, like SB 18, by the late Senator John Burton, and AB 52, by Mike Gatto. These were watershed policies in our ongoing struggle to protect what remains. Yet, too often, tribal voices are still marginalized. SB 1326 builds on this foundation.

When impacts to tribal culture resources are at stake, it ensures that traditional tribal knowledge is placed at the forefront of evaluating project mitigation. Tribal knowledge is not abstract. It is rooted in generations of cultural continuity, lived experiences, and a deep spiritual connection to the land. The bill affirms that tribes are the experts on what is sacred, what is culturally significant, and how tribal cultural resources should be protected and treated.

Critically, s p thirteen twenty six expands the definition of tribal cultural resources to include tribal cemeteries and burial sites.

This bill is not only for future generations, it is also for those who came before us. Our ancestors deserved deserve to have their remains and burial goods respected and protected. They should not be desecrated simply because their resting places don't have headstones marking their graves. Finally, s p thirteen twenty six makes clear that avoidance and protection of tribal cultural resources is a policy priority, not an afterthought. Thank you. We respectfully ask for your support of SB 1326. Thank you. Thank you.

You're recognized for two minutes.

Thank you so much. Good morning, chair and committee members. My name is Buffy McQuillan. I'm a tribal citizen of Round Valley Indian tribes. I'm here in my capacity as a tribal historic preservation officer for the Federated Indians of Great Rancheria.

The Federated Indians of Great Rancheria is a cosponsor of SB 1326. SB 1326 is focused on two key sections that will support California Native American tribes' ability to identify TCRs along with prioritizing proper avoidance and mitigation. More specifically, SB 1326 will add to the current CEQA tribal culture resource definition of those terms those key terms, which are sanctified cemeteries and burial grounds.

This will eliminate confusion by some lead agencies that these places are, in fact, TCRs and eligible for avoidance and protection measures. The bill also recognizes California Native American tribes' local tribal registers.

The addition of the local tribal register is consistent with existing law, AB 168, which was authorized by Assembly member Agora Curry in 2021, and more recently in AB 130 in 2025. SB 1326 ensures that California Native American tribes are the primary resource for identifying TCRs and protection measures. It upholds the intent of the 2014 AB 52 tribal consultation provisions by uplifting tribal knowledge and standards for the development of culturally appropriate avoidance and mitigation options.

It does not require the use of specific measures, but lead agencies must consult in good faith with tribes to develop feasible mitigation, and it provides options to avoid and protect TCRs and mitigate project impacts. Bills to streamline development have made protection of TCRs extremely difficult, to say the least.

SB 1326 supports California Native American tribes by uplifting tribal knowledge and expertise to identify and avoid impacts to TCRs, rather than eliminating and dismissing tribes from the entire CEQA process.

You could wrap up your comments.

We respectfully request your support. Thank you.

We'll now move to anyone else in the room that would like to express their support. Please state your name, your organization, and your position only.

Morning. Rocky Rushing representing the Society for California Archaeology on behalf of 1,300 members, including those from federally recognized and non recognized tribes. The SCA is offering a support if amended position. Uncertain why that position isn't listed in the analysis, but I'd like to say the SCA overwhelmingly endorses the bill's objectives. It does see elements, however, that could then lead to unintended consequences.

Thank you, Senator Wahab, for the ongoing discussions. Greatly appreciate it.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jerome Encinas on behalf of the United Auburn Indian Community, also a sponsor of the bill in strong support. Thank you.

David Quintana on behalf of the Habematole Pomo of Upper Lake, Picayune, Ranchooree of Chickchansi Indians, both cosponsors, and the Bea Hass Band of Kumeyaay Indians, all in support.

Carolyn Veal Hunter on behalf of Yoachidehi Winton Nation, also in support.

of Yoachidehi Winton Nation, also in support.

Thank you. We'll now move to any key witnesses in opposition. If you could make well, there's one right here. Yeah. If the opposition oh, perfect.

Could I actually have you switch seats with the gentleman in the back? Thank you. And to the opposition, you are each recognized for two minutes. Go ahead, John. Alright.

Good morning. John Kennedy, with the Rural County representatives of California on behalf of four 40 rural counties. We're here today in respectful opposition to SB 1326. First, I want to thank the author and sponsors for the opportunity to have very long, very weedy discussions about tribal consultation, to understand the gaps in the existing process, and what's trying what they're trying to accomplish with the bill. We support many of the provisions in the bill today, but we have concerns with others.

We think you've struck quite a nice balance, recognizing archaeologists may not always be best suited to identify tribal cultural resources, prioritizing, avoidance, and preservation. So that being said, we understand there are amendments that you all are working on. We look forward to reviewing those amends, trying to mark up those amends. We hope they address some of our concerns, but look forward to continuing conversations with you about that. Having said that, we must respectfully oppose the bill unless amended.

We're here today both as a project proponent and also a lead agency who's often caught in the middle between project developers and the tribes in resolving any disputes. So, we understand there may be some significant gaps in existing tribal consultation practices and support efforts to ensure that tribal consultation is a meaningful and mutually respectful process. Automatic inclusion of sites because of concerns about balancing confidentiality, precision, and substantial impacts on private property owners.

And then we're also concerned about what we view may not be what's intended, but we review as mandatory requirements to adopt mitigation measures. We want to clarify what that means, ensure that we have flexibility as lead lead agencies in determining what mitigation measures are adopted, and I think importantly, explaining where we're declining to adopt recommended mitigation measures.

So one, appreciate the author bringing this measure forward to refresh tribal consultation. I think it's a discussion we really need to have. We're committed to working with the author and with the sponsors to address our concerns.

I could have you wrap up your comments.

Consultation. Thank you.

Good morning, chair members. I'm Ben Turner with Axiom Advisors on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. Just like the representative from Rural County said, we've been having extensive conversations with the sponsor and the author's office, and we appreciate those. We also anticipate language forthcoming in the in the coming days that will hopefully address issues we've flagged. And I'll just go through those really quickly here.

The bill expands the definition of tribal culture resources to include NAHC registered artifacts, especially and it's it had sanctified cemeteries and burial air burial areas. It brought the definition, to include, local registers. And these, resources may not be identified until after project application is submitted. So we wanna clarify that process if possible. The bill also requires it says that lead agencies consider mitigations.

They they mandate they shall adopt measures and we just wanna ensure that feasibility, from CEQA remains a key principle, in that regard. So again, we look forward to, working with the sponsors to, hopefully, address our concerns, and at this point, CBA is opposed unless amended.

Thank you. We'll now move to anyone else in the room that would like to express their opposition. Please state your name, your organization, and your position only.

Hi. Good morning. Amber Rossow with the Association of California Water Agencies and with an opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Morning, madam chair and members. Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties, opposed unless amended.

Leila Romero on behalf of League of California Cities, and we are respectfully oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now move to the committee. No?

Senator Allen.

I wanna thank the author and thank, friends from the tribes who are here. You know, I I I just I think this has been an issue that's I mean, it's come up a number of times and, including in energy committee yesterday. You know, we've made major changes to CEQA over the years, which is really important because trying to incorporate tribal perspectives and I just think it's been an important trajectory.

So I I want I'd love to get your thoughts, Senator, about how to bridge some of these challenges that we're having with the local government folks. You know, I I certainly support the bill, and I wanna I wanna I I also really deeply support the spirit of the bill, and just wanna get your read on how the negotiations are going.

So I think that, you know, for the first part, we all want to ensure that we're preserving the cultural significance of whatever is potentially found. Number one, we are not interested in delaying any project, and I think that there needs to be better communication between the, administrative agency that is doing the project and the tribal consultation. That is the main effort of it. I think that the conversation, you know, we've been in engagement. I think that the tribes, their representatives have also been largely engaged.

We have an open door policy. We're very much interested in moving this bill along and continuing those conversations. So I I think that we all have the same goal. It's just a little bit about how we're threading the needle at this moment.

Okay. Alright.

Well, Aye, you know, encourage the the dialogue, and we'll move the bill when appropriate.

Thank you. Thank you. So, I'll be supporting your bill, because at a core, this is really about respect for tribal communities, their history, and places that hold deep cultural meaning. If we're going to require consultation, it should be real, it should be thoughtful, and actually lead to better outcomes. I do share some of the concerns, that the opposition raised, and I am I'm hoping that you will continue to work with the opposition to make sure that we get this as right as possible.

Would you like to close?

Definitely. So I I hear everything you guys are saying. I wanna be very specific that, by starting this off very early, it allows for projects to actually avoid delays. That is the ultimate goal of this bill, and it also gives the tribes an ability to tell them ahead of time, hey, what we understand that this was tribal land of one particular tribe years ago, and it may have a sacred site, whether it's a burial site or anything else.

Right now, it's, you know, where a lot of people are digging and then they hit something, they may destroy something, they largely pretty much, you know, decimate some of the cultural historic sites or religious sites.

And the tribes are just trying to preserve their their culture and the sacred tradition of even years ago by highlighting that this is incredibly important. We believe that we're gonna see either individuals buried here or, a ceremonial type of platform here, and we're gonna say that this part where you are going to dig needs to be a little bit more sensitive. If something is found, they place it somewhere else. And, you know, the tribes are also interested in building and developing and much more.

So there is no interest in delaying any projects.

There is no interest in in causing more bureaucratic red tape, if you will. The goal is to get ahead and help the projects move faster by also not decimating the cultural sites. So I think with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a sun we have a motion by Senator Allen. The motion is do pass as a do pass to appropriations. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Three zero. That bill remains on call. We're now going to move to file item number 16, SB 1398, Senator Rubio. And Senator, you are recognized when you are ready.

Good morning.

Good morning, madam vice chair. Thank you to the members of this committee for the work that you've done. I am proud to present SB 1398 Green Globe Certification. SB 1398 is a straightforward bill that will update California's green building requirements to reflect the reality of today's market. Under current law, state agencies are required to obtain green building certification for new constructions and major renovations starting in 2024.

However, the statute effectively recognizes only one system, which is LEED, despite the existence of other nationally recognized widely used alternatives. This creates a practical problem. By limiting agencies to a single certification pathway, the state reduces flexibility, may increase project costs, and excludes comparable frameworks that deliver similar environmental and performance outcomes. In effect, it narrows options without a clear policy justification. SB 1398 addresses this very this key issue.

By explicitly recognizing green globes developed by the Green Building Initiative as an equivalent certification, This bill does not weaken the standards as we know how important environmentally friendly policies are to the state and our goals, but it simply allows state agencies to choose between certification systems that meet comparable benchmarks for sustainability and building performance. With me, I have two witnesses to help testify, Don Koepke and Jan Mason, who will be speaking on behalf of the bill through the chair.

Thank you, madam chair. Members, Dawn Koepcke on behalf of the Green Building Initiative, a five zero one c three nonprofit ANSI standards developer focused on improving the built environment's impact on climate and society. GBI appreciates the opportunity to work with Senator Rubio to update government code section eighty three sixteen, as provided for in Senate Bill four sixteen by Senator Laird in 2023, to include an additional nationally recognized equivalent certification, Green Globes, to provide for greater flexibility, cost savings, and more tools in California's state infrastructure toolbox.

In 2023, the legislature passed and the governor signed us before sixteen that required any new building or major renovation project undertaken by a state agency on or after 01/01/2024 to obtain green building certification. However, as currently crafted, the law only explicitly recognizes one private sector building certification for state infrastructure projects, even though equivalent certifications exist and are you in use in California and across the nation.

Explicitly including Green Globes in California statute as on par with the single currently recognized building green building certification in statute will provide for greater competition, flexibility, cost effectiveness for state infrastructure projects required to meet green building certifications and standards for sustainability, energy efficiency, decarbonization, and more, in line with f b six four sixteen. Despite the opposition's assertions, the Federal Government, as well as many other states and municipalities, have long recognized and deemed Green Globes equivalent to the LEED certification for a variety of asset classes.

While the approach between the two certifications has their differences, as noted in the committee analysis, this is exactly what makes this, having multiple tools in the toolbox so beneficial. Green Globes is flexible without compromising the level of environmental, energy efficiency, decarbonization, overall rigorous standards required in California, and is tailored to the specific project recognizing that state infrastructure projects may be different from one to the next.

So for these reasons, we're pleased Green Building Initiative is pleased, to be the sponsor of this bill, and really urge your eye vote when the time is right.

Thank you, madam

chair. Okay. Thank you very much. You have two minutes.

Thank you, chair and members of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. Thank you for your time and For the record, my name is Janice Mason. I am a California resident and associate principal and Sacramento lead for McKinsey, an architecture and engineering firm delivering complex projects throughout California and Western United States. I'm here in support of Senate Bill thirteen ninety eight, and I will frame my comments around a principle Californians know well. California doesn't follow the pack.

It sets the pace. California has led the nation for decades by pairing ambition with accountability. We invest heavily in enforcement and continuous code updates. That leadership is structural, not symbolic, and Senate bill thirteen ninety eight continues that tradition. The bill does not relax performance expectations.

It maintains them enabling flexibility while modernizing how they can be met by allowing three green globes as an alternative to lead gold and two green globes as an alternative to lead silver. At the federal level, green globes was reaffirmed by the US General Services Administration in 2024 as equivalent to LEED for high performance public buildings. At the state and local level, jurisdictions are increasingly recognizing multiple certifications systems side by side. Importantly, Senate bill thirteen ninety eight operates within California's existing framework.

The January 2026 compliance interpretation makes clear that projects using green globes must still comply with title of 24 and CalGreen, UCEC approved energy modeling, and default to the most stringent standard when requirements differ.

From our project delivery perspective, Green Globes emphasizes early engagement with a third party assessor, supporting better coordination, fewer late stage conflicts, and more efficient use of taxpayer dollars. This is not hypothetical. Over 1,000,000,000 square feet has been certified nationwide, including major projects in California. California has always led by setting clear expectations and allowing multiple paths to meet them. Senate bill thirteen ninety eight reflects that approach.

I respectfully urge your aye vote on Senate bill thirteen ninety eight. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks very much. Anyone else wishing to express support, please come forward.

Madam chair, member Silvio Ferrari here on behalf of California Building Industry Association, as well as the California Business Properties Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody here in opposition? Lead opposition witnesses. Okay. Seeing none.

Anybody in the room wishing to express opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any committee comments? I'll just thank the author for this really good bill. It was, I didn't realize that this was even an option before, so I appreciate you highlighting this.

LEED is the oldest and most widely respected green building certification standard, but it's certainly not the only one. And I appreciate the author recognizing that there are other well respected certifying agencies for green building standards. And I welcome this addition to the law with the hope that allowing green globes to be used for state level building could help it become more prevalent in California. So thank you for your bill, and I'm enthusiastic about supporting it. You may go ahead and close when ready.

Yeah. Thank you. I just wanna again reiterate how it does not weaken our high standards of green building commitments, especially because we know that we wanna provide alternatives, and this is a highly respected alternative. So with that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Menjivar, which is, this is SB 1398, and the motion is do passed to appropriations.

Senators Blake Spear? Aye. Blake Spear, aye. Valdez? Aye.

Valdez, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Gonzalez, Artado, Menjivar?

Menjivar, aye.

Okay. It's four to zero. We'll keep that on call. We next, we have Senator Archuleta who braved the rain to get over here. No.

It's just barely misting. But he did have an umbrella just in case. And do you have any lead witnesses that you'd like to invite to join you?

I do.

Okay. Great. Well, Senator, you are welcome to begin when ready. Okay. You are recognized.

And it does appear that we only have two more authors after the vice chair presents. So I would like to encourage Senator Stern and Senator Hurtado to come to, the EQ committee and also any member of the committee to come here so that we can vote on all of the bills. So we'll move next to the vice chair, Senator Valladares with SB 1230.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and good good afternoon. Are we at we're on no, still good morning. Good morning, Members. I'm here this morning to present Senate bill 1230, and let's be clear about what this is really about.

Eligible dumping is not happening in Beverly Hills. It's not piling up in Brentwood. It's happening in communities that don't have the resources, the political clout, or the access to fight back. In places like my community in the Antelope Valley and High Desert, Lake Los Angeles, Phelan, Pinon Hills, families are living next to what are essentially open landfills, not by choice, but because bad actors know that there is no real consequence. This isn't just about how it looks.

This is about public safety and quality of life. Illegal dumping contaminates soil and ground mount water, attracts vermin, increases wildfire risk, and every time it happens, taxpayers are stuck footing the bill. The problem is that our enforcement tools have not kept up. The fines meant to deter this behavior haven't been meet haven't been meaningfully updated since 2004, over twenty years ago. While we took a step in 2022 to increase maximum penalties for large scale violators, the minimum fines and noncommercial penalties were left untouched.

Those penalties are most often applied in the communities getting hit the hardest. And today, those fines are still far below the actual cost of cleanup. For repeat offenders, that's not a deterrent. That's just the cost of doing business. In my district alone, residents have documented more than 100 unauthorized dump sites across the Antelope Valley.

From Lake Los Angeles to the Antelope Valley Poppy Reserve, some stretches some stretch hundreds of acres and go dozens of feet deep. We've seen over 70 trash related fires responded to by LA County Fire in just the past couple of years, costing taxpayers over 1.6 million dollars. In 2024, the Apollo Fire, sparked by illegally dumped material burned 800 acres, destroyed a home, and killed several dogs.

I've talked to residents who have had to stay inside their homes because the smoke and the smell from these sites made it unsafe to go outside. SB 1230 is a targeted fix.

It increases fines for second and subsequent violations only. We are not touching first time offenders, and it creates a centralized resource through CalRecycle so local governments have the tools they need to actually enforce the law and clean this up. Here today to testify in support is John Kennedy from Rural County Representatives of California.

Good morning again. John Kennedy with RCRC on behalf of 40 of the state's rural counties. We're pleased to be here today to support SB 1230. SB 1230 seeks to increase coordination of local efforts to respond to and prevent illegal dumping. Illegal dumping is chronic and pervasive problem in our rural communities, but also in urban areas as well.

Importantly, the bill also increases the maximum penalty amounts, maximum penalty amounts for second or subsequent violations of illegal dumping laws. It doesn't touch the fines for first violations, and in our perspective, it really roughly adjusts those penalties for inflation since, 2004/2006 when they were last adjusted. SB 1230 also designates CalRecycle as the state's lead agency to coordinate illegal dumping activities and tasks them with developing a website and additional resources.

This is consistent with an existing CalRecycle budget change proposal, currently under consideration and helps formalize the state's role. The state is currently involved in a less formal more informal role on coordinating an illegal dumping task force.

This helps to elevate that task force's efforts, provide us with tools and solutions that we can use as local agencies, and hopefully deter more illegal dumping across the state. So for these reasons, we're pleased to support SB 1230 and urge your aye vote today.

Okay. Thank you very much. Others in support, please state your name, organization, and position.

Chair and Member, Gerald Dentes on behalf of Alameda County in strong support.

Cody Boyles on behalf of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen in support.

Okay. Thank you. Anybody here in opposition? Okay. Any me too's in opposition?

No. Alright. We'll bring it back to the committee. Senator Menjivar.

Please add me as a coauthor if you'll have me. Love the bill.

Absolutely.

It is a great bill. And I'm wondering why why the why does it only kick in its second violation? It seems like anybody doing a first violation of dumping should have penalties.

No. It was a compromise that we made with, some of the opposition the initial opposition.

Okay. Well, it is a really good

But we can work on that together next year.

It is a really good bill, and we I mean, just recognizing how illegal dumping is a scourge in every way. It's an environmental disaster. It really degrades our state. It looks terrible. It's terrible for the communities around it.

It's a it's a wildfire it's a fire risk. It gets into the water. I mean, all of it is terrible. So I'm glad that we're doing more to address it. So with that, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. Would I'd entertain a motion. Okay. Senator Dahle moves, and the motion is, do pass to appropriations.

This is SB 1230. Senator Dahle moves, so we will take a vote.

Senators Blakespear? Blakespear, aye. Valladares?

Valdez, aye. Allen? Dahle? Dahle, aye. Gonzales?

Hurtado? Menjivar?

Okay. It's 30. We'll keep that on call. And so we'll go through the role, if Senator Dali would like us to. Okay. And if we don't have the last two authors after we go through the roll, then we are going to adjourn for lunch, and then we will come back after lunch. Okay. Well, where is he?

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Four zero. We'll keep that on call. Okay. Great. We're on item number 13, SB 1411.

Senator Stern is the bill is being presented by Senator Allen. And when he gets here, he can slide right in next to him.

The High Speed Rail Authority has all the tools it needs to meet its long term goal of developing a statewide network that extends well beyond Merced to Bakersfield and that we start building concurrently.

The bill makes a few but important changes to help the High Speed Rail Authority succeed its mission by giving it more flexibility to leverage private capital that's currently sitting on the sidelines waiting to hop on board local transit feeder lines that will ultimately connect to the bookends bringing passengers in the North and the South to high speed rail stations.

The bill removes the $500,000,000 project cap sending a big market signal and giving flexibility to the authority to attract that capital from those p three partners to seriously discuss and potentially invest in and develop transit projects that create jobs and advance our high speed rail goals. The bill also clarifies the high speed rail authority's ability to engage in additional activities that maximize the efficiency of delivering the project.

The bill is supported by Associated General Contractors, California Conference of Carpenters, Streets for All Climate Action, the LA Metro, Metrolink Building Trades.

It's a great group of folks. And here with me to speak in support, we have Wendy Mitchell from LA Metro and Keith Dunn from the State Building Trades.

Yes. You're welcome to proceed when ready. It's on.

Yeah. Hi. Wendy Mitchell on behalf of the LA Metro board of directors. Thank you, Senator Allen and Senator Stern, for introducing this bill. LA Metro has long worked with the authority on the on supporting the initial operating system, for the high speed rail.

But in addition, leveraging these funds for additional, projects like, for example, our our our

oh my god. I'm sorry.

I'm dry. Rosecrans Marquardt, facility that both will be needed when high speed rail comes to Los Angeles, but is offering benefits that was a very dangerous intersection. And so we support this bill. We will continue to work with the high speed rail authority, and to you know, hopefully, this will help leverage private funds, moving forward, and we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, madam chair. I would like to thank the author for always ensuring that my bills are always last. Thank you for that.

I would like to thank our pitch hitter for for our our pitch hitter for sitting in and giving me the opportunity to sit next to him in support of things. I appreciate that. I'm also pleased to

say that this high speed rail bill

in the however many years I've been doing this is a bipartisan bill, enjoying support from both parties who recognize that investing in ridership is good for the state. This is a common sense approach that opens opportunities while keeping our commitment to the Central Valley. And let me restate that. Commits the keeps our commitment to the Central Valley, which is critically important. Does not abandon that investment.

This is on top of that investment. We can chew gum and walk most of the time here in the state of California, providing the opportunity to jump start investments in Los Angeles and the Bay Area where those riderships exist for existing opportunities, partnering with our local agencies just makes sense. I would like to thank the author. All kidding aside, this is an important measure, and I'd ask for support.

Okay. Thank you.

Keep done with the building trade.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to express support? Please come forward. State your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Doctor Pam Odell from Climate Action California in strong support.

McKinley Thompson Morley on behalf of the

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority in support.

Bravo with Cruise Strategies on behalf of the City of San Jose in supporting CrossFit.

Mark Flickswitch on behalf of Streets for All in support.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I am I forgot to mention. I'm also here for, Joe Cruise and the laborers who are also in support.

Okay. Great.

Well, now opposition witnesses. Do we have anybody in opposition? Not seeing any. We will anybody else in the room wishing to express opposition? Okay.

We'll bring it back to the committee by

Thank you. I had highly technical questions for Senator Allen, but since you're you're back, it's very rare that I can so easily support a high speed rail bill. Let's be real. This is bipartisan. It's an important bill.

Happy to move it when it's appropriate. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks. Senator Dolly, did you wanna say anything? No. Okay.

Anybody else on the committee? Okay. We'll turn it back to the author to close.

Thank you to my my, my coauthor here and our supporters. Yeah. We do we do have to do a few things at the same time in our transportation infrastructure. And, you know, when you look at Southern California and just the power of rail from even above my district up in the Camarillo and all the way to Santa Barbara, down to San Diego, there are a lot of people who wanna get on the train. Ridership will provide the financing this project so desperately needs.

This is about saving taxpayers money, and we know we need to bring in private capital. And the only way we're gonna retract that private capital is by allowing for advanced engineering, design, kind of site acquisition that we're talking about in this legislation getting those early works going now, so that folks know that they're gonna get a payback on their investment and will lift all boats in the process. We know we have huge needs, for example, in the San Fernando Valley.

We wanna get our also, Poveda Pass built. We wanna build out the Van Nuys East Valley line.

We wanna get the purple line finished and, you know, get all the way to I wanna get that expo I'm gonna ride that expo line too, and and I and I love my surf liner. And we want that to be sustained. We've gotta treat this high speed rail not so much as a burden on taxpayers anymore, but hopefully as a financial opportunity. And by expanding the aperture and being more flexible about the funding, I think we have a shot at it.

So with that, I respectfully ask for your item.

Okay. Thank you. I would entertain a motion on this bill. Senator Allen. The oh, oh, you already moved it.

That's true. Okay. The vice chair already moved it. I'll take her. Sorry.

It's true. The motion is do passed to appropriations. This is SB 1411. Please call the roll.

Senators Blakesphere? Aye. Blakesphere, aye. Valdez? Aye.

Valdez, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Dally?

Aye. Dally, aye. Gonzales, Hurtado, Menjvar? Aye. Menjvar, aye.

Wait. Allen, are you sure you wanna leave? Because we could go through and get your votes on the things you're missing on. No. I just Okay.

Good.

That one was 50.

Okay. That's 50. We'll keep that on call. Oh, good. Gonzales is here too.

Yep. Okay. So we are as we wait for Senator Hurtado, we will go through the roll one more time. So and we'll just start from the beginning.

[Roll Call]

Five zero. We'll keep that on call.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Senator Hurtado, you are recognized. This is item S B1289, which is item 18. And you are recognized. I think we need to get the microphone to go on.

Okay. Thank you, madam chair. I'm here to present on, s p 1289, but I want to start, by thanking the committee chair and her and your staff for the time and effort that they put into this bill. I know how much work it went into it, and I want to acknowledge that. I took on this bill in part because of our Kings County and in large part because of the community of Kettleman City, which has not been receiving its fair share of investments.

And I want to, specifically thank supervisor Avaya for being a partner with me on this matter and also, the engagement that we've received from the community leader of Kettleman, Michaela Latore. Kettleman City, we're talking about a community that still lacks very much basic infrastructure, sidewalks, adequate public health resources, while at the same time, it carries one of the heaviest burdens in a state. A community that has experienced, health related clusters as well.

Kettleman City is only one is one of only two communities handling hazardous waste, for the state of California. The entire state benefits, but the burden is concentrated in two areas.

Those places are not being made whole, and I also want to be clear about something else is that in no way I'm trying to throw the, you know, the facilities under the bus either. The facility has paid its required fees and has been part of the conversations with the community and local leadership and that's very important and I'm I'm thankful and grateful for that. And but I also, again, wanted to point the inequity here for the community of of Kettleman.