Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Welcome to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources. Assemblymember Hart is subbing in today for Assemblymember Wicks. Please note that AB 2647 Calderon has been pulled from today's hearing. The following measures are proposed for consent. Item 8, AB 1934, Bennett.

Item 10, AB 2100, Connolly. Item 13, AB 2312, Ávila Farías. Item 18, AB 2627, Hart. At least 14 bills to be presented. And if you are a member of this committee, please come to the hearing room so we can establish a quorum.

I see our majority leader is here. We'll start as a subcommittee, and you can begin.

Oh, thank you very much. I'll make it as quick as possible. Thank you very much, mister mister chair and members. I'm here today to present 2216 a bill to expand the Delta Conservancy and protect the greater watershed. AB 2216 creates greater opportunities for projects that benefit the Delta by expanding the Delta Conservancy to fully include Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo Counties.

Today, the Delta Conservancy only covers certain parts of these counties. The remaining portions are not part of the conservancy even though projects in this region still provide direct benefits to the Delta into the wet watershed. This expansion creates more opportunities for the Delta Conservancy to continue its habitat conservation and sustainable agricultural efforts such as the successful fish friendly farming program. These projects not only, are not only economically and environmentally beneficial to the Delta region, but they are a great example of multi benefit approach to conservation.

Expanding the Delta Conservancy will create a holistic approach to conservation of this crucial ecosystem and expansive watershed.

With me today is Michael Jarrett on behalf of the Nature Conservancy and Lucas Freirex on behalf of Yellow County. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and honorable members. Michael Jarred with The Nature Conservancy. We're proud to sponsor AB 2216, which would expand and update the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Conservancy. The Delta Conservancy has a proven track record of working with local communities to identify shared objectives and develop locally supported priority projects to provide statewide benefit. AB 2216 will expand the area that receives those benefits, supporting larger watershed scale projects and new sources of funding.

AB 20216 expands the Delta Conservancy to the whole of existing counties it already serves, which has local support and would cover important areas of the state that aren't covered currently by a conservancy. Some of these areas have significant wildfire risk and have had not had access to the recent funding packages for conservancy wildfire resilience projects.

In addition, AB 2216 would benefit the areas of the Delta Conservancy they already serve, including clarifying the ability to fund on farm activities that contribute to wildlife habitat, expanding the types of climate resilience projects that the conservancy can fund, provide the conservancy authority to provide grants for workforce development, and to tribal organizations consistent with other conservancies, and to support the funding of underserved groups by authorizing the conservancy to do advanced payments and cover indirect costs.

AB 2216 would not affect the allocation of Prop$4, but would better position the conservancy to support this vital region in future funding measures. This will lead to better conservation and and climate resilient outcomes while supporting, regional economic development and public recreation opportunities.

For these reasons, we urge your support of AB 2216. Thank you.

Mister chair and members, Lucas Frerichs, a member of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors here in support of AB 2216. Wanna thank the majority leader for her authorship of this bill. While portions of Yolo County are contained within the boundaries of the Delta Conservancy, the entirety of our county and especially portions of the extended watersheds are not. So they do currently do not qualify to receive the same benefits as those contained within the conservancy boundaries.

The lands in the Central Valley surrounding the Delta comprise part of the Delta's watershed.

Since 2021, the state of California and this legislature has increasingly focused on watershed scale planning and project implementation for state conservancies with watershed defined extensions of the Baldwin Hills Conservancy, Sierra Nevada Conservancy, and the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancies. I just wanna thank the majority leader for her leadership on this measure and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you for being so succinct. Any persons in this hearing room in support of this measure?

Good afternoon, chair and members. Rico Mastro Donato with the Trust for Public Land in support.

Good afternoon. Michael Chen with Audubon in California in support.

Kim Delfino with Defenders of Wildlife in support.

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

Everybody loves the San Joaquin Delta Conservancy. Questions, comments from committee members? Seeing none, we are still one short of a quorum, and if I have to say that again, we're gonna start calling names, but when the appropriate committee members arrive, I'm sure you'll get your motion. Would you like to close?

Oh, no. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I already heard Miss Lucido would support my bill.

I think you're in good shape. Thank you.

Thank you very much, everyone.

Assembly Member Soria.

Collection of paperclips.

Whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, chair and members. I'd like to start by accepting the committee amendments and thank the chair and the committee staff for their work on this bill. AB 2481 authorizes CalRecycle to make glass quality incentive payments or equip, to glass processors for recycled glass used for the in state manufacturing of products such as fiberglass insulation.

These payments will only be authorized to be made with the funds remaining after all the equip payments are made for recycled glass used in the manufacture of glass favorite beverage containers. For decades, California has set ambitious recycling targets, including the goal of achieving 80% recycling rate for beverage containers sold in the state.

To help meet this goal, these quick payments were established using funds from unredeemed CRV deposits collected when beverages are sold to improve the quality and marketability of glass collected for recycling. By paying entities that clean and sort recycle glass, the state helps cover the cost of processing recycled glass to the high high standard suitable for manufacturing new products.

These payments are all are so crucial to the sustained health of California's glass recycling program that in 2022, SB 1013 increased the amount allocated for the QUIP from 10,000,000 to 15,000,000 annually. While SB 1013 made many important improvements to recycling in California, Some of its changes also had unanticipated consequences. Though the bill increased the QIP by $5,000,000 annually, it also made recycled glass used for beverage containers the only end used eligible to receive QIP.

This change has resulted in less than $8,500,000 being dispersed annually and the authorized increase to 15,000,000 being effectively unrealized. Our bill proposes to ensure that the 15,000,000 allocated annually for Quip will be more fully and efficiently used by authorizing CalRecycle to make Quip payments for recycled glass used in the manufacturing of products other than beverage containers. But, crucially, AB 2481 only allows these

payments to be made using using any leftover funds after the existing quick payments for glass use in manufacturing beverage containers. This approach maintains California's prioritization of the use of recycled glass in beverage containers without putting other significant end users of recycled glass in the state at an insurmountable disadvantage. In this way, AB 2481 better supports glass recycling in California and helps to increase the amount of recycled glass used in making fiberglass insulation.

This will not only help support industries using recycled materials, but also lower the cost of insulation in the construction and weatherization of homes and other buildings. Here with me today to testify in support of a v twenty four eighty one are Melanie Law on behalf of North American Insulation Manufacturers Association and Kayla Robinson with Californians Against Waste.

Two minutes each.

Thank you. Good afternoon, mister chair and committee members. I am Melanie Law representing the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association, also known as NEMA, in support and as a sponsor of AB 2481 introduced by assembly member Soria. NEMA is the North American trade ass trade association for fiberglass insulation. NEMA promotes energy efficiency and environmental stewardship through the use of fiberglass and encourages the safe production and use of these materials.

The fiberglass industry has deep rooted presence in California with three of the four US fiberglass manufacturers having facilities in the state. The fiberglass industry is the second largest user of recycled glass in California. Under state law, we are required to use at least 30% recycled content, but we consistently exceeded that standard and strive to continue increasing recycled content to meet our environmental goals. Our main challenge to this goal is the availability of recycled glass.

AB 2481 presents a simple fix to address the gap left in 2022 by SB 1013.

While the legislation increased the funding for glass quality incentive payments from 10,000,000 to 15,000,000 annually, it restricted eligibility exclusively to glass used for new beverage containers. QIP has historically been undersubscribed with only about half of the total allocated amount dispersed annually. This leaves millions of dollars in authorized recycling incentives sitting idle while glass processors face difficult economics. As a result of the changes in eligibility under SB 1013, processors can no longer access QIP for the recycled glass purchased by fiberglass manufacturers.

This has a direct impact on fiberglass manufacturers who have seen an estimated 15% increase in the recycle in the price of recycled glass.

AB 2481 provides a solution by restoring QIP eligibility for high quality recycled glass used in products like fiberglass insulation. To be clear, this bill respects and maintains priorities for glass beverage containers, and the QIP will continue to go to glass processors as usual. The QIP will only be opened for a second call if other uses if the funds were made after biannual disbursement for glass beverage containers.

AB 2481 simply ensures that the funding already allocated for glass recycling is fully utilized. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB 2481.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. I'm gonna stop you right there just for one second. Madam secretary, can we establish a quorum real quick?

Brian?

Here.

Brian present. Ellis?

Ellis present. Alanis Connolly? Here. Connolly present. Garcia?

Here.

Present. Garcia present. Haney, Hart, Hoover, Cholera, Macedo?

Here.

Macedo present. Maritsuchi, Pellerin? Yeah. Pellerin present. Schultz?

Present. Schultz present. Spur.

We also had a motion on the consent calendar by miss Macedo and seconded by missus Schultz. Can we call the roll on the consent calendar?

Bryan?

Brian, Aye, Ellis. Aye. Ellis, Aye, Alanis, Connolly. Aye. Connolly, Aye, Garcia.

Aye.

Aye. Garcia, Aye, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Cholera, Macedo. Aye. Macedo, Aye. Maritsuchi, Pellerin.

Pellerin, aye. Schultz?

Aye.

Aye.

Schultz, aye. Ziburr. Aye. Ziburr, aye.

Thank you. Sorry. A little bit of housekeeping. Whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Kayla Robinson with Californians Against Waste here in support of AB 2481. We know that not all recovered glass can be remanufactured into new beverage containers. Fiberglass manufacturers play a critical role by providing a reliable end market for recycled glass that can't be used in container production. And since 1992, California laws required fiberglass sold into the state to include increasing levels of recycled glass reimport reinforcing this really important market.

But as recently as 2021, we saw according to cow recycle fiberglass manufacturers use more than a 180,000 tons of recycled glass. But since the passage of SB 1013, we've seen that number drop in 2024 to about a 139,000 tons, highlighting this concerning trend of, using less less of this material. So a really key barrier has been the cost and difficulty of processing this glass to meet strict quality standards, which becomes even more demanding as more recycled content, is used.

And so we think using these unredeemed funds to offset these processing costs is an essential, use of these funds. So, for these reasons supporting this bill.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, mister chair and members. Dawn Kapke on behalf of Strategic Materials and its parent company, Sabellco, largest glass recycler both in California and the nation. Pleased to be in support.

Good afternoon. Jennifer Rowe with Capital Advocacy on behalf of Knopf Insulation, a fiberglass manufacturer in Shasta Lake, California. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any persons in this hearing room in opposition to this measure? Is there nobody who would oppose this incredible measure?

That good.

So you know, turn it back to the dias. Any questions, comments, concerns?

We have a motion by miss Macedo, a second by missus Abirt. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

This bill has a do pass recommendation. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Brian.

Brian, aye, Ellis.

Aye.

Aye.

Ellis, aye. Alanis. Connolly. Aye. Connolly, aye.

Garcia. Aye. Garcia, aye. Haney, Hart, Hoover, Calra, Macedo

Aye.

Macedo, Aye. Redzucci, Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, Aye. Schultz, Zabar.

Aye. Zabar, Aye.

We'll leave it on call. Thank you. Mister Gonzales, come on down.

There he is. Ready, sir?

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I wanna begin by saying, thank you again, sir, and to your staff. I know we spoke over the weekend extensively on this. I know this has been extremely important for you, and just wanna thank you again for taking the time to have that conversation. I know it took a lot of work, and I will absolutely gladly accept the committee amendments today.

Before I begin, I know the committee amendments are significant, but I wanna give a little bit of background on that. The amendments that will go into print will streamline the legal review process, ensuring that if CEQA lawsuits were to occur, it will be resolved within one year. The other piece of the bill that I have committed to work on with the Chair is around creating a series of best practices a job site must follow in addition to the other considerations already listed that will lead to presumptive negative declaration for new construction of a fire station.

Combined, these efforts balance the scales, ensuring essential fire stations move forward while protecting the environment. With that said, I'm pleased to present AB 2152, which will streamline the construction of new fire stations throughout the state. Firefighters, as we know, they are the backbone of our communities. They're the ones who run into burning buildings, save lives, who help our elderly family members when they're-- when they fall, who provide emergency medical services, and, yes, will take a moment to hand a sticker out to a kid at a fire truck.

Across our great state, calls have hit historic highs, with firefighters responding to emergencies at unprecedented rates. And while call volume has surged, fire department infrastructure hasn't exactly been able to keep up. This bill addresses two issues at once. First, the conditions our witnesses will talk about today about fire stations are so infested with mold that firefighters can't safely sleep there.

And every summer, I make it an obligation and a goal and a duty and a responsibility to do fire station visits in my district to just check on the firefighters that are there during both shifts, and these are one of the many issues that they have spoken to me about that especially stations that were built in the 1900s that are too small for modern equipment and are double or triple-staffed to ensure their response times are met.

At the same time, call volume has skyrocketed. In 1969, just over a 100,000 incidents required a fire department response. In 2023, that number was 504,000. And while that mirrors population growth in places like Los Angeles, here's the disconnect. In 1960, Los Angeles Fire Department had a 112 stations serving 2.5 million residents.

Today, it has only a 106 fire stations serving 3.9 million residents. So LA has six fewer stations to serve 1.4 million of its residents. So, yes, demand has gone up. Coverage has not. LAFD needs 62 new fire stations and 4,000 new firefighters.

And here's where things get a little frustrating for us. The last time LAFD tried to build a new station, specifically in Van Nuys, they did everything right, and still a group of residents sued under CEQA not once, but twice, to prevent these fire stations from being built. That project was delayed for two years, putting thousands of lives at risk and cost taxpayers 1.9 million reports and legal fees just to end up exactly where it started, which was approved.

And so, as brave firefighters continue to risk their lives to be there when we need them, I think it's time for us to have their backs and also answer that call. Here to support the bill and give us an on-the-ground perspective are the Dougs: Doug Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, and Doug Coates, President of United Firefighters Los Angeles, Local 112. Take it away.

All right. Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and the members of the committee. My name is Doug Coates, and I'm a firefighter engineer for the City of LA, and I'm proud to serve as the President of the United Firefighters of LA City, Local 112. As a park-- as the fire department with the largest city in California and the second largest city in the nation, we're proud of the work we do every day in keep our community and citizens safe.

As the first on scene for emergency, the firefighters of City of Los Angeles provide unparalleled service and protection for every citizen. However, no matter the quality of training and work or how quickly we leave the station, there are certain facts that we cannot escape, mainly, the critical shortages of both firefighters and fire stations across our fire department.

A recent study done by the International Association of Fire Fighters found that in order for us to effectively meet the community, that the LAFD would need 62 fire stations. 62 more fire stations, and right now, we have a 106.

According to this analyst, the City of LA does not have a fire station close enough to meet their goal of four minutes response times, leaving our residents without rapid public safety, and they deserve much more. In response to this urgent need, we at Local 112 pushed our own local ballot measure that will bring in hundreds of millions of dollars of additional funding for new fire station construction.

But even with this funding, we faced long delays and numerous hurdles in the already long and costly process. The most telling example is the construction of Fire Station 39, which delayed by several years as a result of CEQA and the court challenges, and cost us over a million dollars. In the City of LA, we have half the fire department we need to to properly serve our community.

With our ballot measure passes and the monies available, we cannot afford years of long delays in construction of public safety and infrastructure, both for the safety of our community and the health of our members. AB 2152 will help expedite the construction of our fire station, saving time and resources, while ensuring that facilities will be built with union labor in an environmentally sound manner. And I'm asking you to support this bill.

Just so everybody knows here, we've spent-- the firefighters of our own money has spent our own money to help serve our community. We spent a million dollars already of firefighter money, just so you guys know. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Doug Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. We're pleased to support and co-sponsor AB 2152 and would like to thank the Chair and the committee for working with us on this measure. As President Coates noted, we have many jurisdictions across the state that are behind in investment and infrastructure, given the increasing call volume that many of our fire agencies experience.

This bill will help ensure the fire stations can be built efficiently and effectively while stretching scarce, local resources. Station construction will improve response in communities across the state but also improve the health and safety of our members. New stations bring significant benefits to our membership. They are designed-- the facilities are designed and living spaces are designed with health and safety in mind, more accommodating of all members of the fire service, also more controlling of light and other things that facilitate the health and safety of our members.

Second, there's better storage for our personal protective equipment. Firefighters continually are going out to scenes and often have the residual emissions from all types of experiences and different fires, and that equipment can also off-gas and risk our members.

New stations have better ways to house that PPE and keep it safe and separated from the firefighters. And lastly, many new facilities have extractors, or cleaning for PPE on-site, another thing that will help facilitate the health and safety of our members. We really appreciate the work on this bill, look forward to continuing to collaborate and streamline station construction, and for those reasons, we would ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much, sir. Are there any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?

Mr. Chair and members, Mike West, on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, in support.

Patrick Foy, City of Redondo Beach, in support.

Is there anybody in opposition to this measure?

Good afternoon, Chair, members. My name is Felipe Fuentes, and I'm here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California. And let me just begin by saying that we absolutely appreciate the author's intent here. AGC generally supports CEQA exemptions because they're an important tool to help agencies deliver critical infrastructure faster, reduce delays, and control costs. And we absolutely support the goal of building fire stations quickly in Los Angeles in particular, my old home.

Our concerns with the bill is not the exemption. It's how the exemption is structured. The bill conditions CEQA relief on a mandatory, with a mandatory project labor agreement for any contract over $50,000. That threshold is far below industry norms. PLAs are typically used on large, complex, multi-trade projects, not small, routine, or single-trade work.

At $50,000, this requirement would apply to minor upgrades, maintenance work, and small construction scopes. That creates a mismatch between the purpose of a CEQA exemption and the effect of this bill. CEQA exemptions are intended to speed projects up. But a PLA mandate at this level can reduce bidder participation, increase administrative burdens, and ultimately slow delivery. It also removes local agency discretion. Buyer agencies are best positioned to determine when the PLA makes sense based on a project size and complexity.

This bill replaces that judgment with a one size fits all mandate. And importantly, the impacts will fall hardest on small and rural fire agencies, who rely on local contractors that may not be able to absorb PLA requirements on a small job. That means fewer bidders, higher costs, and delays in communities that already face elevated fire risk. We also note that the committee analysis indicates that most fire station projects already move forward under existing CEQA pathways without significant delay or litigation.

So the question becomes, why tie a broad labor mandate to a problem that is not widely demonstrated?

Our bottom line is that we support the goal of streamlining projects like these, but that streamlining must be neutral and broadly available, not conditioned on a mandate that restricts competition and may slow projects down. And for those reasons, the associate general contractors of California respectfully oppose this measure.

Absolutely. Two minutes.

Good afternoon. Kim Delfino, representing Defenders of Wildlife and the Sonoma Land Trust. My issue is completely different, and I will just say that, hopefully, will be more easily remedied. The reason why we're up here is that the way that this bill has been drafted, that it has a provision. So there's been a lot of CEQA exemptions.

And in the CEQA exemptions that have been given out, we normally have a list of various types of lands that if you put a project on top of it, you don't get the CEQA exemption. And this bill has that, and we thank the author for that and the sponsors. And we actually think that, you know, we wanna see streamlining going on for for fire, for fire stations, of course.

But the bill added a provision that said that a lead agency can only. may only rely on state and federally generated science and doesn't has to, doesn't and may not ask for any surveys of the site. This is a departure from how we normally are doing these CEQA exemptions, SB 35, SB 423.

Local governments are asking sometimes for folks to go out and at least take a look at the site to make sure that there's no habitat out there. And Sonoma Land Trust is an example where they've been given funding by the state to actually carry out, scientific review for wildlife connectivity.

And they would you know, my clients and others would like to be able to use that data, as part of the decision making process as to whether you get an eg-deck, which sounds like that's the direction that this bill might be going in, or the judicial streamlining provision. So, we've been in conversation with the author's office.

We're hoping that this small issue gets resolved because even though it's in this one bill, our experience has been that when we start to see an erosion of these types of standards associated with exemptions, they just get carried out in the next bill and the next bill and the next bill.

And we'd like to just try to address that, and we hope that that can be done. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any other persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?

Oh, and we're opposed unless amended. Sorry.

Assembly members, Richard Marcuson, on behalf of the Western Electrical Contractors Association. Like the previous witness, we're concerned that the next CEQA bill will also include a PLA mandate. We're strongly opposed because of that. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We will now turn it back to members of the dais. Questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none, Mr. Gonzales, would you like to close?

Thank you. Mr. Chair, I know we talked about some of this over the weekend, and and we are gonna work on that. We did receive the the opposition letter very late on Friday, so we will continue to go through that. But there are some pieces that that will be fixed, need to be addressed, but end of the day, we can't say no to these fire stations.

As it was mentioned, Los Angeles is is obviously on the teetering edge of that, and we need to do everything that we can to make sure that we cater to the communities, especially the ones who need it the most, who live in these denser parts of the areas, who live in these areas that also don't have it but need the support and are the first ones to say, well, where were the firefighters?

And they put the finger on you guys and they blame you, when the reality is that we need to put be able to provide that infrastructure research. So for us, this bill is about something, about something that's simple in making sure that firefighters can do their job safely and effectively. Right now, the demand is growing, the infrastructure is aging, and the gap between the two is getting harder to ignore.

We can either keep delaying critical projects or we can be honest about the consequences of that delay. Because when a fire station, just a fire station is held up, it's not just paperwork that stalled.

It's response times. It's emergency care. It's lives. It's you. It's me.

It's everyone in this room. So with that, Mr Chair, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Gonzales. This bill has a due rec, a do pass recommendation by me. I wanna thank the author for working with us on it. It it is not an exemption, but it is a provides a level of certainty through the streamlining process so that we can predict costs and predict timelines. And I think we can even do slightly better.

And so you have my commitment, our committee's commitment to work through the approach process to see if we can get this in final form. Additionally, it was really important to me to make sure that this didn't just apply to my home Los Angeles. Although it is a clear need and and and evident, I think the ability to build stations quickly across the state for local jurisdictions is important and something that this committee wanted to prioritize. Do we have a motion on this measure?

Second.

Mrs. Zbur and a second by Ms. Pellerin. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is to pass as amended to emergency management committee. Bryan.

Aye.

Brian, Aye, Ellis.

Aye.

Ellis, Aye, Alanis. Connolly.

Aye.

arcia, aye. Haney, Hart, Hoover, Calra, Macedo, Maritsuchi, Pellerin?

Aye.

Connolly, aye. Garcia.

Garcia, aye. Haney, Hart, Hoover, Kalra, Macedo, Maratsuchi, Pellerin?

Aye.

Pellerin, aye. Schultz, Zbur.

Aye

We'll leave the roll open for absent members.

Zbur, aye.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yeah. But it was Yeah. Alvarez.

Is Assembly Member Alvarez here? I do do not see him. Assembly Member Addis. San Luis Obispo, come on down.

You remember. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to your staff in particular. We're here-- and to all of the advocates and all of the committee members. I'm here to present AB 1536, the Save Our Shores Act, which protects California's thriving coastline and communities and economy from the threat of dirty offshore oil and gas activity. And I wanna thank your staff because we-- they gave us amendments, and I do accept those amendments as outlined in the committee analysis.

So as you know, and everyone on this committee, I think, knows that California's coastal economy is essential to our state's prosperity, and it's particularly the case along the Central Coast where I would say everyone on this committee either lives, vacations, or has family and friends, and the primary reason that everyone on this committee and many people in this Legislature visit the Central Coast is because of the pristine and unrivaled beauty in that part of California.

But it's not the only place that we have such a pristine coast. The North Coast, you know, north of the Bay Area is also very much an untouched coastline, and much of California's coast is beautiful, and people come from all over the world to see it. And it's not by accident.

That's really happened because of people who have stood firm on protecting and promoting our environment, our coastal way of life, and our ocean-based economy, people that we all know, like Secretary Panetta, who led the coalition of the Monterey Bay-- led the creation of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Chumash tribal leaders who worked for over a decade to create the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary, and thousands of local champions who have fought for decades to protect our coastline.

And the truth is that California's ocean-based economy generates between 42 and $51 billion annually and employs more than half a million people, almost 10 times the economic benefit of offshore oil drilling, and 40% of that is in the visitor-serving sector.

So in essence, the way that our coasts benefit the California economy is through our ocean ecosystem and our ocean economics. We cannot keep doing this, though, if offshore oil disasters kill our wildlife and soil our shores, like they did in California's largest oil spill in 1969 and, again, just 11 years ago with the Refugio Spill in 2015. That spill alone cost hundreds of millions of dollars due to shutting down fisheries, harming marine mammals, and halting visitor-serving businesses.

So despite the minuscule reward of offshore oil drilling, the Trump Administration, for the first time in over 40 years as a federal administration, is proposing to open up new drilling. Our Central Coast Caucus, which some of you members are also members of the Central Coast Caucus, has submitted no less than four letters opposing the move to open up offshore oil drilling across California's coastline, but we feel like we need to do more.

So in order to create more action, we have AB 1536 that would do a number of things. First, when a company attempts to restart a pipeline, the bill will require a 60-day public comment period, ensure that projects that receive an exemption are subject to CEQA, require best available technology to restart operations, and ensure that the most dangerous pipelines, those that have spilled more than 10,000 gallons of oil, will be decommissioned.

And second, AB 1536 will mandate operators to prepare detailed leak detection and response plans for any new coastal oil infrastructure, building in-- and this would build in critical safety measures from day one. So we've got two witnesses here to testify, Christina Scaringe from-- California Climate Policy Director at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, and Dr. Paasha Mahdavi, Associate Professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity, proud co-sponsor of AB 1536. This is a bill to protect California's 51 billion dollar coastal economy, our unique biodiversity, communities, and cultures from yet another devastating oil spill. The Feds plan to expand drilling off our coast, even as they drop bonding guardrails and hundreds of millions from coastal protection and environmental cleanup.

California has had many pipeline failures, 16 since 2010 have spilled more than 10,000 gallons of oil. Three major spills dumped more than 4 million gallons, impacting more than 1,500 square miles, including marine-protected areas and 200 miles of beaches, closing fisheries and killing wildlife.

The 2015 spill on Chumash lands and the 2021 spill on Tongva lands contaminated 1,500 acres of coastline, 2,200 acres of ocean habitat, and closed fisheries and state parks, costing the state millions, including more than 200 million in cleanup and damages and 3.9 million in lost recreational value. The federal plan could bring another 1.9 million gallons to pollute our coast.

This bill strengthens state pipeline safety standards and public process. It emphasizes prevention, requires independent analysis versus self-reporting, and mandates best available technology. It demands safety before reactivating those that caused major spills. It requires leak detection and response plans for new infrastructure and forestalls repeated disasters by requiring abandonment and restoration where the worst already occurred. California's multibillion-dollar coastal economy enjoys over 150 million visitors every year.

Nearly 600,000 jobs rely on clean beaches and a healthy ocean. Coastal tourism and recreation are the major drivers of GDP and employment for our marine economy. Oil spills devastate homes, businesses, ecosystems, communities, and livelihoods, so this is about fiscal responsibility. Californians have for decades overwhelmingly opposed offshore drilling, so we urge you to vote yes to protect against these foreseeable risks to all we hold dear. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Paasha Mahdavi. I'm an Associate Professor of Political Science at UC Santa Barbara. I'm also the Director of the Energy Governance and Political Economy Lab.

I have over 20 years experience working on energy policy, specifically in the oil and gas industry. I'm here today in support of AB 1536. I believe this bill will protect California's coastal economies, which impacts, of course, nearly 600,000 jobs. But compare that to 19,733 jobs in California's oil and gas sector, or just 0.1% of all wage-earning workers in California based on data from the BLS in 2025. This bill will also create high-quality jobs in oil asset decommissioning.

My research shows that such programs are highly supported by households in oil communities with 90% support for policies for decommissioning oil infrastructure, and our findings show high awareness about oil and gas issues, further justifying the bill's requirements for public comment. A separate study we conducted with the UCSB Community Labor Center shows that pipeline decommissioning is a significant near-term employment opportunity for displaced oil and gas workers.

A report on decommissioning pipelines from the Point Arguello offshore platforms shows the generation of 20.5 jobs per one mile of offshore and landfall pipeline decommissioned over a two-year period. What this bill will not do is raise gasoline prices.

Gas prices are largely a function of crude oil prices. These are set by global markets that account for worldwide oil consumption of 106 million barrels per day. Even the rosiest scenario for unmitigated new oil production offshore, California would be 229,168 barrels per day, which would not be produced until 2040, and only account for 0.22% of global oil production. In other words, a drop in the bucket; not enough to move oil prices.

This bill would also not force consumers to increase reliance on high-cost and high-carbon imported crude oil. That's because California's oil is more carbon-intensive than oil imported to the state, and on a per barrel basis. Imports from the Middle East and South America are less expensive to produce and ship to California than oil produced offshore California. Thank you for your time, and I urge the committee to vote yes on AB 1536.

Thank you so much. Are there other persons in this hearing room in support of this measure?

I guess I'm first. Susan Jordan, Director of the California Coastal Protection Network, in support. Thank you.

Jennifer Savage, Surfrider Foundation, in support.

Victoria Bogdan Tejeda with Center for Biological Diversity, registering support for the following: Environmental Defense Center, 350 Bay Area Action, Active San Gabriel Valley, Center for Environmental Health, Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, Santa Barbara Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Food and Water Watch, Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy, Ocean Conservation Research, San Diego 350, Save Our Shores, and Santa Cruz County Climate Action Network. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Vanessa Flores, on behalf of Clean and Healthy California, in support.

Dr. Pam O'Dell of Climate Action California and 350 Sacramento. Support.

Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support.

Tomas Valadez with Azul, in support.

Michael Chen with Audubon California, in support.

Marie Liu, on behalf of Oceana, in support.

Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of Monterey Bay Aquarium, in support.

Jakob Evans with Sierra Club California, in support. Thank you.

And Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities, pleased to be in support. Thank you.

Are there any persons in opposition to this measure? Welcome.

Mr. Chair and members, Paul Deiro with the Western States Petroleum Association. First and foremost, my apologies. We do not have a letter in the analysis or to the committee yet, and I apologize to the author as well. We do have a lot of concerns about the bill. Primarily, there are some loose definitions, undefined terms, and numerical thresholds that seem somewhat arbitrary. Our next step is to meet with the author and go through those. I will not take any more of the committee's time. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there any other persons in this hearing room in opposition to this measure? Is there anybody who would like to submit a late letter in this hearing room? We'll now turn it back to the dais. Miss Pellerin.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the author for bringing this bill forward. I remember growing up in Santa Barbara County and going out to the beach and coming back with just tar stuck to the bottom of my feet and on all of our beach blankets and everything; was horrible. And we just cannot let this continue to happen and we have to stop this offshore oil with every ounce of effort that we have. And I really appreciate the contents of this bill, and I'd be honored to be added as a co-author.

Absolutely.

I can feel my Vice Chair. Mr. Ellis.

So, thank you. I want to first address the impacts of offshore drilling and production. There are about 70,000 barrels per year that wash up on shore from natural seeps, and when you drill and produce from these formations, you reduce formation pressure, which allows those oil seeps not to produce.

To address carbon intensity from production from third-world countries, when these ships bring in this million barrels a day of crude into California, they run internal combustion engines, which burn Number 6 fuel oil, which is the lighter fraction of asphalt.

And when they run-- when they produce and burn this Number 6 fuel oil, they put out polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, which are phenanthrenes, benzopyrene, the heavy molecular ends, which are considered hazardous by the EPA. So the carbon intensity that you quoted is wrong. I'd like to talk about pipelines. Pipelines are very regulated and they have extreme pressure regulations.

They are x-rayed, they are tested, and we need them desperately because if we do increase production because of our world supply shortage, we can't take them out of service. We're gonna need them. I would also like to say that oil and gas in California is 8% of our GDP, but it's the first 8%, because if we can't get diesel to our trucks and food to our grocery stores, we're out of business. I strongly oppose this bill because we need pipelines. We need pipeline infrastructure. We certainly need regulation. Not opposed to that whatsoever, but we need common sense. So thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, may I respond?

Not if a question wasn't asked of you.

Thanks.

Mr. Schultz might ask you one, though.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have a burning question in my mind. I'd love to know if either of the witnesses have a response to the Vice Chair's question. I'd love to hear your answer.

Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'd respond to this point about greenhouse gas intensity and carbon intensity. The numbers I quoted are from the California Air Resources Board, so if you have a problem with their numbers, I suggest you take it up with them. Secondly, I cross-validated those with petroleum engineering back numbers from Oil Climate Intensity plus or OCI plus from the Rocky Mountain Institute.

I'm sorry. Oil Climate Index plus gas. Those are greenhouse gas intensities that factor in some of the issues that you raised, in particular shipping, as well as methane intensity and other numbers. So that's OCI plus, but the numbers that I mentioned before are from CARB.

Thank you. The only other thing I would add, Mr. Chair, is appreciate the author for bringing the bill forward. Would love to be added as a co-author. Has a motion been made, Mr. Chair?

There has not.

Move the bill.

Motion by Mr. Schultz; second by Miss Pellerin. Any other questions, comments by committee members? Miss Addis, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you so much, Chair. I would just-- I think maybe just simplify the bill a little bit. It's really about improving the public process so that local communities have a voice and a choice in improving public's pipeline safety requirements and regulations. So I think we do have commonality there when it comes to improving regulations.

And I do believe that together, all of us, every single person here in this room that loves to visit the coast, whether it's Central Coast where I get to live or the North Coast or the South Coast, but that together, we can keep our greatest asset thriving in California. And with that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you for that. This bill has a do pass recommendation. Can you add me as a co-author as well?

I would be honored to.

Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is do pass as amended to Emergency Management Committee. [Roll call].

Thank you.

We'll leave it on call for absent members. Next, we've got Miss Papan.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. I'm delighted to be with you today to present eighteen forty nine. I'd like to focus on the bill number eighteen forty nine. What happened in 1849 was a gold rush. Right?

It was sort of the future of California. Well, likewise, this bill represents kind of the future of energy. Just serendipity, actually, that we got that that number. So in any event, AB 1849 directs the California Air Resources Board. So you can oh, I would we will conduct accept the committee's amendments and thank the committee for its work on the bill.

So, eighteen forty nine directs CARB to conduct a study on the need for decarbonized gas fuels in hard to electrify sectors and for grid reliability. California has made immense progress in decarbonization over the past quarter century, and we are a global leader in clean and sustainable power development. Renewable sources of power are more abundant than ever, and both public and private entities continue to find innovative ways to electrify and move towards our climate goals.

However, we've gotta accept the reality that you can't electrify everything, and that's what this bill is about. Currently, California's power grid still relies on natural gas and diesel through peak peaker plants and backup generators to supply power during periods of peak electricity demand.

At the same time, industries such as cement and glass manufacturing, they rely on high heat combustion processes that are difficult to electrify, which is why they continue to use fossil fuels. Trying to electrify these sectors would significantly strain the grid and remain financially infeasible in the near term. If we wanna achieve California's climate goals of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045, we

need solutions that are practical and implementable at scale.

Decarbonize gas implementable at scale. Decarbonized gaseous fuels may offer that pathway. They could replace fossil fuel use in these hard to electrify sectors like cement and glass manufacturing, while also help stabilizing the grid by replacing fossil fuels in industrial processes, peaker plants, and backup generators as I spoke about. The issue is that we don't have an understanding of the need for decarbonized fuel and then the feasibility of a transition. So this is really a steady bill.

AB 1849 will provide the necessary information on if and how decarbonized gaseous fuels will fit into our energy future future. With me today is Katrina Fritz of the California Hydrogen Business Council and Julia Levin of Bioenergy Association of California who explain a bit more just about decarbonized gases, fuels, and their potential in our state.

So I'll

turn it over to Katrina first, please.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. I'm Katrina Fritz, president and CEO of the California Hydrogen Business Council, and we're proud to cosponsor AB 1849. We must decarbonize sectors that cannot easily be electrified. These sectors account for more than a quarter of California's total greenhouse gas emissions, and meeting our air quality and climate goals will require reliable affordable electricity as well as solutions for hard to abate areas, such as heavy industry and long duration seasonal energy storage.

In a moment of market uncertainty, ABN eighteen forty nine sends a clear signal. California remains committed to scaling clean fuels, supporting jobs, and maintaining air quality, energy reliability, and resilience. Our member companies are already investing in these solutions here in California, supporting jobs in manufacturing, construction, project development, and operations. These are durable, well paying jobs often in rural and industrial communities that need them most. But today, these investments are increasingly at risk.

Ongoing federal uncertainty under the Trump administration is making it harder for companies to plan, finance, and deploy projects at scale. For emerging industries like hydrogen, that uncertainty can stall momentum in a critical moment. AB 1849 provides a path forward. This bill establishes a comprehensive data driven assessment of demand for decarbonized gaseous fuels across sectors which California currently lacks. That analysis is essential for infrastructure planning, capital investment, and market development.

This technology neutral approach avoids prematurely defining eligible fuels and can provide a necessary foundation to reach California's objective of deep decarbonization over time. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Two minutes.

Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. Julia Levin with the Bioenergy Association of California. AB 1849 takes an important step in meeting the state's climate goals by requiring an assessment of the need for decarbonized gaseous fuels, both in the electricity sector and in hard to electrify sectors. It does not require or incentivize any particular procurement. It is a study bill, no more and no less.

But the assessment that it requires is an essential step in decarbonizing these really stubborn, hard to abate sectors. Claims that will accelerate or incentivize any particular outcomes are not accurate. AB 1849 is also consistent with the Air Board's climate change scoping plan and multiple plans released by the California Energy Commission, including the integrated energy policy report and the energy commission study on firm power.

The 2022 climate change scoping plan in particular calls specifically for an increase both in low carbon hydrogen and in biomethane and other forms of biogas as a way to provide electricity reliability, seasonal storage for the electricity sector, and to decarbonize hard to electrify sectors. So not only is AB 1849 consistent with both of these plans, it is an essential step to decarbonizing these sectors.

For all these reasons, we respectfully urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there persons here in the hearing room in support of this measure?

Good afternoon. Alfredo Rodondo on behalf of the Green Hydrogen Coalition in support.

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

Good afternoon, Mr. chair. Jackie on behalf of the Coalition for Renewal Natural Gas in support.

Good afternoon. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of the Western Propane Gas Association in support.

Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Come on down. Two minutes a piece.

Thank you, chair Brian and members. I'm Victoria Bogdan Tejeda with the Center for Biological Diversity opposing eighteen forty nine along with 22 other groups. Her main concerns are as follows. First, under the bill, CARB must assess how to accelerate and incentivize decarbonized gaseous fuels. While this may sound appealing, the bill explicitly favors problematic fuels, mainly biomethane and hydrogen, both of which are costly and polluting.

And by biasing the assessment towards these fuels, CARB cannot be objective. Ultimately, if these fuels are as good as the bill would make them out to be, other ongoing agency processes, which I will mention in a second, will bear that out. Second, the bill duplicates and possibly conflicts with ongoing state efforts. For example, CARB is already assessing decarbonization within the scoping plan. Then there is SB 1075 from 2022 directing agencies to study the role hydrogen could play in the state.

And electric reliability, another topic in the bill, is subject of ongoing PUC and CEC proceedings. Third, the bill uses the word incentive four times even though there is no evidence that incentives are needed or useful. For example, the PUC just issued the decision to close out the Biomat energy tariff, a type of incentive, for being underused and costly. The bill analysis recognizes that there are incentives worked into the assessment.

Finally, eighteen forty nine omits any consideration of climate, air quality, and public health impacts, meaning the bill focuses on accelerating and incentivizing fuels without considering what impacts that could have.

Thus, we see no benefit to creating a new narrow analysis, particularly when other agencies are already working on decarbonization goals. In fact, this bill could hamper or conflict with those ongoing agency efforts. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Katie Valenzuela on behalf of the Center for Race, Poverty, and the Environment here in opposition to this measure. In addition to the excellent points just raised by the Center for Biological Diversity, I have to say this isn't an unknown universe of fuels that we're talking about. We've studied and know the range of fuels that would fall under this definition in the bill pretty well.

Many of these fuels enable poor land use practices, unsustainable things, things that run really counter to our climate goals in general.

And almost all of them have negative health benefits and enable health impacts through increased air pollution to the communities near those production facilities, which are overwhelmingly communities of color that are already overburdened by pollution. So for those reasons, in addition to those mentioned by CBD, we urge your opposition. Thank you.

Thank you

so much. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition?

Good afternoon. I've been asked to register opposition for Sunflower Alliance, Little Manila Rising, Forest Forever, Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center, Biofuelwatch, Food and Water Watch, San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Sonoma County Climate Activist Network. Thank you.

Hello. Ada Waelder on behalf of Earthjustice in opposition.

Jakob Evans with Sierra Club California in opposition. Thank you.

Nick Lapis with Californians Against Waste in opposition. Thank you.

Monica Wilson with GAIA in opposition.

Tom Helme with Valley Improvement Projects in opposition.

Marie Liu on behalf of Leadership Counsel in opposition.

And Jaime Minor, sorry, actually in support on behalf of Monterey One. I missed that line. Sorry.

Thank you so much. And I'll turn it back to Committee Members. Questions, comments, concerns? Mr. Connolly.

Quick question. What is the definition of decarbonized gaseous fuel?

The bill doesn't provide any definitions. We thought it was important to define...

That's why I'm asking.

We thought it was more important to define the scope of the problem first, and then the legislature, once you know how much low carbon gas will be needed in the future, then the legislature can decide what forms of low carbon gas it wants to see to address that hole, basically. But we thought the first step is to define the problem, which is we're still using a lot of carbon intensive fossil fuel gas.

And so we're asked, the bill asked the Air Board to figure out how much will the ongoing need be for gas, and then the legislature can decide, okay. Now that we know the magnitude of the problem, what gaseous fuels will we allow to fix the problem? So the bill, we thought it was premature to try to define what would be eligible when we don't know how big the problem is.

We have a motion by Ms. Macedo. Second by Mr. Schultz. Mr. Muratsuchi.

I just wanna follow-up Mr. Connolly. If you wanna define the scope of the problem, who was going to be defining decarbonized gases fuels?

That would be up to the legislature once the Air Board knows how much is the long term need for low carbon gaseous fuels. I mean, hopefully, a lot will be electrified. Other fuels can provide that need, but we don't, we really don't know the magnitude.

But you're saying it's up to the legislature to define decarbonized gaseous fuels, but it currently is not defined in the bill?

Correct. Because we think trying to define it before we know the scope of the problem, it would make more sense to to figure out what is the scope of the problem and then define how to fix it.

But how are we supposed to define the scope of the problem if we don't know what we're talking about?

We know what we're talking about now. So this is from the 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan. So we know that hard to electrify end uses now are causing 15% of the state's greenhouse gas emissions, and continued fossil fuel use in the electricity sector is another 20% of the state's greenhouse gas emissions.

What we, what the Air Board needs to do is figure out how much of that can be electrified going forward and then what, what will be the remaining gas use. And once we know what the remaining gas use will be, then it could come back to the legislature to decide how to address that, how to decarbonize that.

May I add something, Chair?

Not if he didn't ask a question. Ms. Papan, would you like to close?

I would. I respectfully request an aye vote. This is a study bill, and let's find out. Let's find out what can't be electrified, and let's see how we deal with it. With that request an aye vote. Thank you, sir.

We have a motion by Ms. Macedo, a second by Mr. Schultz. This is a do pass reco. Madam Secretary, can you call the roll?

Motion is do pass as amended to Utilities and Energy Committee. [Roll Call]

We'll leave it open for absent Members. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Alvarez. I'm sorry. I can't use my welcome to the neighborhood joke.

Do you wanna present together?

That is up to the Chair.

Whenever you're ready, Mr. Alvarez.

Hello, mister chair. Are you ready for us?

Yes, sir.

Anyway, hey, thank you very much. The district attorney has a 06:00 flight, and he's here as my witness. So I'm not gonna take much time at all. As you can imagine, looking at the clock and all of us have trophy dashed out there, but this is a bill the district attorney has worked with us, our office on after the mountain fire and some complications that they discovered. So I'll turn it over to the district attorney.

Thank you. Assembly member Bennett, mister chair, members of the natural resources committee. Last year, our arson prosecutors received an investigative package from CAL FIRE and the Ventura County Fire Department. That package entailed two separate fires a week apart. They're known as the Balcom Fire and the Mountain Fire.

In the Balcom Fire, this is what we learned. A tractor driver was clearing brush as he should have been. In doing so, the tractor caught fire. 1.8 acres were burned. He did everything he was supposed to do.

He ran up the hill to get a fire extinguisher from his truck. He summoned help. He waited on scene for first responders to arrive. What we didn't know at that time is that latent heat sources underneath a tire rim continued to smolder. A week later, high winds, red flag alerts caused the tire embers to be dispersed and dislodged resulting in 20,000 acres of burn and the loss of nearly 250 homes.

Why is this legislation so important? Because it places the fire suppression, the fire extinguishment equipment at the potential ignition source. Rather than the driver of the tractor having to go up and retrieve the shovel as well as the fire extinguisher, it will be right there in the tractor or affixed to it. This, in our opinion, is a way to help save lives and also to reduce homes from being burnt.

Also, there's a companion piece to this legislation that says, if you are a limited liability company, a corporation, or any other type of business entity, we would like to go ahead and extend potential, criminal liability to you, but only because we wanna standardize responsibility and place responsibility in the entity that is best positioned to address this, which is the business owner himself.

Thank you.

Do we have anyone else in the room in support? How about opposition? Okay. Would you like to close? Alright.

I'm sorry. Bring back the dais. Any questions? Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Motion and a second.

Would you like the call roll?

Second.

Yes.

Yes. Twenty 2075. Oh, and also, do you accept the committee amendments?

I we I do accept the committee amendments, and I appreciate the bipartisan motion and second.

Thank you. The motion is do passed as amended to judiciary committee, Brian Ellis.

Alright.

Aye.

Ellis, Aye. Alanis? Connolly.

Aye.

Connolly, Aye. Garcia.

Garcia, Aye. Haney. Hart.

Aye.

Hart, Aye. Hoover, Calra, Macedo?

Aye.

Macedo, aye. Muratsuchi?

Aye.

Aye.

Pellerin, aye.

Muratsuchi, aye. Pellerin?

Aye.

Schulz, aye. Zbur?

Aye.

Aye.

Zbur, aye.

Schultz?

K. Assembly member? 2335. Do you have another one here today?

2334. Yeah.

Twenty three thirty four?

It's twenty seventy five.

It's the bill. K. That was 2075.

Oh, to do 2074. Yes. Yes. Okay.

No. I should do robbery. No. Please. Please.

I think it's fine. Go for it.

I'll move the bill.

Thank you. Thank you. And with that, I'll respectfully ask for your aye vote. Okay. You know, I think I should just very quickly it, AB 2334, you know, directs calendars recycle to study, you know, the waste reduction measures in in other nations.

And really appreciate the work of the committee to try to address some of the concerns about the bill. And so I think we're in good shape on the bill now.

Thank you very much. K. Anybody else in support? How about opposition? Okay.

Back did I ask any question? Oh, we do we have some opposition?

Sorry. Come on up.

Yes.

Over here. Oh, no. Over here.

I'm sorry. Should've taken the number.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, chair and members. I'm Monica Wilson with Gaia, a global network with our head office in assembly member Wix's district and an office in the EU. We need to, I'd like to share three lessons from our extensive experience in Europe showing that European incinerators are a cautionary tale.

They are not a model for California to follow. The first is that the idea of the safe European incinerator is a toxic myth. Even with the EU's stricter emissions limits, modern incinerators contaminate dioxins, heavy metals, and PFAS to land, soil, and agriculture nearby. The second is that incineration is undercutting European climate and recycling goals. It's the single dirtiest fuel in Europe.

And in many cities, an incinerator is the single largest point source of CO2. Norway is burning 65 of its collected waste and can't meet its recycling goals. As a result of these climate impacts, several countries in Europe have changed their policies in recent years. Denmark is shutting seven incinerators and increasing recycling just to meet its national climate goals. Many countries have introduced CO2 taxes on incinerators.

The EU has stopped climate finance or green finance for new incinerators. And our third lesson that we've learned is that incinerators are a billion dollar boondoggle. Adding CCS to incinerators costs another billion dollars from the facilities we've seen trying this new experiment. To be clear, we agree that landfills are a major source of climate pollution, but trading one form of climate and toxic pollution for another form is not the solution.

The solution is to fully implement SB 1383 with proven approaches that are gonna be more efficient, safer, faster, create more jobs, all at a fraction of the cost of incineration.

We also need to remember the legacy of environmental racism from California's last incinerators, and we can't afford to go backwards. So I urge you to keep us focused on the proven solutions for 1383 and not move forward with this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon or evening, to pick up on the environmental justice part about incinerators. Thanks for allowing me to speak today. My name is Thomas Helm. I was born and grew up in and currently reside in Stanislaus County where I cofounded Valley Improvement Projects, a grassroots environmental justice organization that's worked for years to close down

the remaining incinerators in California. Currently, as AB 2334 stands, we're thinking through the ramifications of committee amendments, but

we'd like to comment on the underlying premise considering incineration as a waste reduction strategy or methane reduction strategy. This environmental justice issue goes back to 1984 when a report commissioned by California's waste management board stated that rural, low income Catholic communities that have high school diploma or less or who work in farming and ranching would be the least likely to oppose the sighting of a trash incinerator.

One year later, construction of the Covanta Stanislaus incinerator broke ground in West Stanislaus County, an area historically home to Latino farm workers with a population of nearly 80% people of color, mainly Latinos, and have, several other environmental burdens such as Highway 5, pesticide use, contaminated groundwater, and increasing heat.

As part of a a statewide movement against incinerations being cited in the valley and in places like LA, including Mothers of East LA, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, Grayson Neighborhood Council in West Anaslos County, were fighting against the incinerator, raising, the pollution, like dioxin, particulate matter that they release, as well as how it disincentivizes recycling efforts. The one in West Anaslos County was one of the highest for particulate matter and disincentivizes reducing waste.

In fact, in 1972, Modesto had one of the first voluntarily curbside recycling programs in Modesto. And soon after the incinerator was built, it was slowly phased out. In addition, a 100 other cities and and companies also dumped waste in the West Anaslos, incinerator, making our area a dumping ground for the state and for large corporations. We believe that incineration is not a solution for waste. It actually will go to Overburden environmental justice communities.

It will commodify trash, which will, disincentivizing us reducing waste and actually incentivize making more of it so that it can be burned for for profit. Thank you for your time today.

Okay. Anyone else in opposition? Okay. Back to the members. Sorry?

Sorry. Good afternoon. Nick Lapis with California's Against Waste. We're also in opposition to align our comments with the two speakers. We're gonna have to review the amendments before we consider changing the position.

Thank you.

Okay. Anyone back at the any of the members? K. Will you accept the amendments?

Yes. I do accept the amendments. Okay. And in a second.

Yeah.

I'll second it. Yeah.

Okay. Call roll.

I think if I if I could make a closing statement

since sorry.

We've had the opposition comments. If this was a if this was a bill that authorized us to start to do incineration, I think these comments would really be meaningful. I think these comments are still very appropriate for us to hear right now because they emphasize what's wrong with incineration, and there is a lot that is wrong with incineration. There's also a lot that's wrong with landfills in California right now.

We're having spontaneous combustion starting to take place, and it's going to become a bigger and bigger problem as e waste becomes a bigger and bigger part of the waste stream.

The solution we all like is is the recycling solution and the zero, you know, the the the recycling economy and zero waste. The challenge is getting there. And the reason I'm just simply asking for this is this seems like an appropriate time for us to stop and say, they're in Europe, they're doing something that doesn't fit what we're trying to do so much. In The United States, we're doing something that doesn't fit in Europe.

But I would like us to look at all of the things that are going on and is there are there new things that we could do that don't have the disadvantages of incineration?

And it's particularly interesting to see what they were doing with carbon capture in Norway, which is why I was specifically referencing that. But this is not an attempt to try to take us back to the incineration era. It is an attempt to try to say, let's look at it. Let's stop. Take a break.

Look at everything. Are there is there some new idea better than what they're doing in Europe and here that we could focus on? Because I'm concerned that our recycling goals are going to be very difficult to meet. Everybody's saying we're having a lot of trouble with the organics and getting the organics picked up like we'd like. So that's all this is.

It's a request for a study to look. Thank you very much and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Okay.

Go on a call roll. Where'd she go?

Okay.

Yeah.

Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Bryan. Ellis.

Aye.

Ellis, Aye. Alanis. Connolly.

Not voting.

Garcia, Aye. Haney.

Connolly not voting. Garcia?

Aye.

Aye.

Hart, Aye. Hoover. Kalra.

Hart.

Macedo?

Macedo, aye. Muritsuchi?

Aye.

Not voting.

Muritsuchi not voting. Pellerin?

Pellerin, aye. Schultz? Zbur.

Aye.

Not voting.

Zbur not voting. We'll leave that.

Okay. We'll leave a roll open then. Okay. I forgot the number.

Okay. Thank you, assemblymember. Come on up.

Hey. Thank you. Yeah. No problem.

Yes, sir. Alright. Mr. Vice chair, thank you so much. We're here to present AB 1911. This bill really tries to thread the needle to do two things.

It tries to increase the value of the voluntary carbon market by increasing the integrity of it, while also removing a key barrier that is stopping businesses from investing in the system. To reach our climate goals, we know that we have to incentivize private sector to be a participant. However, the voluntary carbon market currently operates with inconsistent standards, uneven oversight, and ongoing risks such as double counting and nonpermanent emission reductions.

California has the opportunity to be a global leader in this space to really define what a good credit looks like, what the standard should be, who should determine those standards, and then for businesses that choose to invest to make sure that they have protections, legal protections as well. I wanna thank, first of all, Lawrence and the committee for working so hard on the bill with my staff.

We'll be accepting the committee's amendments. And with me today in support, we have Alfredo Arredondo on behalf of Conservation International and Theresa Lang on behalf of A New Climate.

Good afternoon, vice chair Ellis and members of the committee. My name is Alfredo Arredondo. I'm here on behalf of Conservation International, one of the the two proud cosponsors of AB 1911. CI has worked to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides humanity since 1987, combining field work with innovations in science, policy, and finance. And as such, CI has helped to protect more than 2,300,000 square miles of land across, land and sea across more than 70 countries.

So let me start with the core issue. Nature needs capital, and capital needs rules. We cannot meet the scale of the climate and biodiversity crisis with public dollars alone. We need private investment flowing into real climate solutions. We simply cannot regulate or publicly fund our way to every acre restored, every forest protected, or every ton of emissions avoided or reduced.

We need private capital to ensure that nature is part of the solution. But today, the market is clouded by confusion. Companies that want to do the right thing face uncertainty while bad actors can exploit that uncertainty. This proposal by Assemblymember Rogers draws a clear bright line. It says that environmental claims tied to carbon credits must be backed by programs that meet serious standards.

Not vague promises, not self created labels, not smoke and mirrors that ultimately do nothing for nature. AB 1911 is about accountability. It rewards rigor through independent verification, transparent, registries, protections against double counting, safeguards for communities and biodiversity, and standards for permanence and reversal risk. In other words, the bill supports markets that are worthy of public trust. The choice before you today is whether California helps shape a high integrity market or whether we leave the field to weaker standards and less accountability.

California has always led by setting the bar higher. AB 1911 does that. It protects consumers, rewards integrity, and helps unlock the private investment in nature that we know is essential to meet our goals here and across the globe. I respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Yes.

Good afternoon or good evening to vice vice chair Ellis and committee members. My name is Theresa Lang, and I'm here on behalf of Anew Climate in support of AB 1911. Anew has developed over 200 high integrity carbon credit projects resulting in tens of millions of tons of emission reductions and carbon removals to date. We are supporting this bill because we want to see ever improving integrity standards in the market. This bill does just that.

It establishes clear standards for the use of high integrity carbon credits in climate related environmental marketing claims, such as net zero or carbon neutral. The bill provides certainty for companies that make such claims so long as the carbon credits used were issued by a qualifying carbon credit issuing body and audited by a qualified validation and verification body. Voluntary corporate climate action is essential for addressing climate change and meeting California's climate goals.

Companies care about climate action and about making truthful claims as their customers consistently express willingness to pay higher prices for goods labeled with environmental or climate claims. However, companies investing in high quality carbon credits face uncertainty when communicating these climate commitments due to the lack of explicit quality guidelines.

This in turn has hindered corporate climate action. AB 1911 addresses these challenges by establishing objective criteria for carbon crediting programs and verification bodies. Importantly, this bill directly improves credit integrity. It aligns California's framework with and incentivizes purchases from crediting bodies that meet well accepted standards developed by the California Air Resources Board, CORSEA, a program under the International Civil Aviation Organization, and the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market.

Leveraging globally accepted integrity standards streamlines and clarifies compliance for buyers and judges as the bill requires CARB regularly publish and maintain a list of carbon crediting issuing issuing bodies approved by one of these three expert entities.

California will also demonstrate leadership on this topic by becoming the first jurisdiction to establish this type of legislation. Doing so sets the bar for others to follow and will provide much needed clarity in this space, which in turn will enable enable greater voluntary climate action by corporations and more climate finance to flow to important emission reductions and carbon removal projects. I thank you for your time and encourage your aye vote.

Alright. Do we have anyone else in support? Anyone in support?

Reed excuse me. Reed Addis on behalf of CERi is in support.

Matt Dias, Cal Forests in support.

Good afternoon. Scott Sadler on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund in support.

K. Do we have anyone here in opposition?

Miss Lebel. Okay.

Back to members.

Alright. Would you like to close?

Ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Alright. You wanna call the roll?

Motion is do passed as amended to judiciary committee. Brian?

Aye.

Bryan, Aye, Ellis? Aye. Ellis, Aye. Alanis?

Aye.

Alanis, Aye. Connelly? Garcia?

Aye.

Garcia, Aye. Haney. Hart? Aye. Heart, Aye.

Hoover? Aye. Cholera, Aye. Masito? Aye.

Masito, Aye. Marzucci? Aye. Marzucci, Aye. Pellarin?

Aye. Pellerin, Aye. Schultz? Zibur. Aye.

Zibur, Aye. Okay.

The bill's out. We'll leave it open for absent members. Assembly member Avila Farias. So and before you begin, can we call the role on two items for assembly member Macedo?

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Assembly member, sorry about that. You may begin.

Oh, no worries. I was just debating whether to go with the 20 page presentation or

as much time as you need.

Thank you, Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present AB 2552. I would first like to start off by accepting the committee's amendments and thanking the Chair and, Lawrence Lindbergh for the assistance on this bill. Really appreciate it, and, it is my first time before this committee, so it was a pleasure working with you both on it.

Last year's housing trailer bill, AB 130, included an innovative program to allow projects with vehicle miles traveled, mitigating obligations under CEQA to meet those obligations whole or in part funding affordable housing near transit through the Department of Housing existing TOD program.

The Governor's land use and climate initiatives office is currently working on guidelines to implement this program. AB 2552 clarifies that the lead agency may only require a land use development project to utilize the mitigation program if the cost is equal or less than the VMT mitigation measure, and the state has validated VMT reductions from earlier affordable housing projects. A project may still voluntarily use this program.

In the way, to ensure that VMT mitigation program reduces the cost of new housing, achieves effective environmental protection. Testifying with me in support is Silvio Ferrari, with CBIA, and I would like to pass it over to you.

Yep. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members. Silvio Ferrari here today on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, proud sponsors of the bill. The author said it but we too want to extend, sincere appreciation to the Chair and the Committee Consultant for, what was days of very diligent, conversation and collaboration to to get to where we are today, and we thank you for that. At the end of the day, everyone wants to see these programs be successful, wanna see these programs work.

And I think, even as this bill moves forward, there's probably gonna be more work to do, and none of it will be done without, the work and engagement moving forward of this committee. So thank you very much for that. This bill was introduced, and I think even as amended, continues to keep the spirit alive and intact, which is the TOD fund is an option out there, and we want it to be a successful option. We want it to thrive. We want it to be used.

And really in order to do that, we have to make sure that when it comes for, from mitigation to mitigation that it is on par with other like-type mitigation measures. We have to do that to number one, make sure that we are not inadvertently driving costs up, that we are not making the housing crisis accidentally worse. And that is all this bill simply does at this point. Again, much to the great work of this committee.

But one, we wanna make sure it's cost effective, that if it is the only mitigation measure, but there are not other lease cost options out there.

So, again, we are not driving up the cost of housing. There's still a lot more work to be done on this. This is still kind of a, a wild wild west of policy areas. We look forward to continuing the collaboration. And we would just today encourage your aye vote so this conversation continues.

Thank you.

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

Morning, Chair and Members. Freddie Quintana on behalf of the California Apartment Association in support.

Good afternoon. Marina Espinosa with the California Housing Consortium in support.

Nicole Quinonez on behalf of the California Chamber in support.

Oracio Gonzalez on behalf of California's Business Roundtable and the California Business Properties Association in support.

Nathan Skadsen with the California Association of Realtors in support.

Are there any persons in the hearing or in opposition to this measure? We will now turn it back to members on the dais. Any questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none, we have a motion by Mr. Alanis and a second by Macedo. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Chair and Members. I just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I can say very few members come before this committee and have their first bill on consent, and their second one go what I think is probably gonna be a unanimous vote. So not bad.

Okay. Thank you.

This bill has a do pass recommendation. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is do pass as amended to housing and community development committee. [Roll Call]

Gotta keep you on your toes.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. We'll leave it open for absent members. So now it's just committee members. Right?

Yes.

Miss Pellerin, would you like to go?

I would love to go. I brought my phone.

The remaining bills belong to committee members, and we'll just go down in file order.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. I'd like to start by accepting the committee amendments. The counties of Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz encompass some of the California's most iconic landscapes, a global agricultural region, and communities that deeply value the benefits of environmental conservation. Yet the region faces mounting climate impacts from wildfires, drought, flooding to coastal storms and extreme heat.

While the region has made significant investments in land protection and restoration over the past thirty years, strategic investment for stewarding these landscapes has been elusive. Over the last year, my office and I work closely with the trust for public land and more than 25 different organizations across Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz Counties to identify regional needs, provide input on draft legislative language, and consider the appropriate scope for an entity that could provide support for long term stewardship and long term land preservation.

These practitioners provide a direct input into the creation of the language in AB 1548. AB 1548 establishes the Monterey Bay Stewardship Authority, MBSA, to support and enhance the work that is being done in the region by supporting long term stewardship of natural and working lands and strengthen regional climate and water resilience. MBSA is not planting, but supporting efforts for a wildfire recovery, water and habitat restoration, agricultural sustainability, and expanded access to open space.

Revenue projections for MBSA will be developed over time once a governing board is in place and a regional needs assessment is completed. It may be several years before any revenue measures are pursued to support local projects. The expenditure and distribution plan across the three counties would be determined by the governing board drawing on models such as the San Francisco Bay Authority, which was successfully, which has successfully directed resources across multiple counties in a fair and transparent way.

And joining me today to testify in support are are Moises Moreno Rivera, senior program manager for climate resilience at the Trust for Public Land, and Vanessa Flores on behalf of the San Benito Resource Conservation District.

Gracias. Buenas tardes. Good afternoon, everyone. Again, thank you, Assemblymember Pellerin. Thank you, chair, and members of the committee.

My name is Moises Moreno Rivera, and, and here, just very excited for this opportunity. Since 1972, Trust for Public Land has protected more than 4,000,000 acres of public land, created more than five five thousand five hundred parks, trails, school yards, and iconic outdoor places, has raised a $112,000,000,000 in public funding for parks and public lands, and connected nearly 10,000,000 people to the outdoors. I wanna thank Assemblymember Pellerin and her office for their leadership and their commitment to engaging regional partners every step of the way.

TPL's Central Coast work is grounded in deep partnerships with local organizations, including land trusts, tribal communities, and community based organizations. I'm here because there's this region is where the national mission meets reality.

AB 1548 establishes the Monterey Bay Area Stewardship Authority, a name that also came from public engagement, a regional entity serving Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz Counties. Its purpose is to secure, coordinate, and allocate public and private funding to restore and enhance, protect and support long term stewardship of natural and working lands across the region. In 2021, Trust for Public Land began listening, community engagement, geospatial analysis, biodiversity roundtables, and in person convenings across all three counties.

Local, natural, and working lands leaders all said the same thing. This region needs a coordinated way to secure long term stewardship funding.

As the member mentioned, over 25 organizations participated as part of this ongoing effort. Climate change is not a future threat here. Drought, flooding, wildfire, and habitat fragmentation are already eroding the landscapes that support the region's exceptional biodiversity. California condors, steelhead, salmon, endemic plants, and critical wild wild, life corridors. Natural working lands are not separate from the economy.

Agriculture and tourism generate 10,500,000,000 annually. That economy requires an active long term stewardship. Without it, the land degrades, and so does everything that depends on it. The state owned own natural and working lands climate smart strategy projects temperatures of four to 5% increase by mid century, severe droughts, two thirds of beaches lost, and longer and more destructive wildfires in the Central Coast. You know, so protecting the land that we charge as aquifers and filters, watersheds, is climate infrastructure.

AB 1548 does that. This region has the partnerships, the science, and the local will. ABN fifteen forty eight gives us the mechanism to do that. We've kindly request your aye vote today.

Thank you. Two minutes.

Good afternoon, chair and members of this committee. My name is Vanessa Flores, and I'm testifying on behalf of Carminder Brown, executive director of San Benito Resource Conservation District, who unfortunately could not make it today. The San Benito Resource Conservation District provides free nonregulatory confidential assistance to landowners and land managers to address soil, water quality, climate resilience, and ecosystem health on private and public lands.

Our mission is to deliver and fill like, sorry, facilitate voluntary programs that conserve, protect, and enhance the natural resources of San Benito County. We facilitate stewardship and restoration projects on agricultural lands and community spaces through outreach, education, technical assistance, and project implementation.

Our main clients are farmers, ranchers, and owners of working lands. We support this bill because it was built from the ground up. SBRCD was at the table from day one. We participated in convenings on conservation practitioners from the three counties, governance concept reviews, and coordination across all three counties long before a bill was introduced.

We organized and hosted county site visits with the Assembly of the Propellants team to ensure they understood the funding gaps associated with long term stewardship of natural and working lands in San Benito County.

This effort was shaped from the land up, not Sacramento down. This is nonregulatory legislation. No new mandates on landowners. Instead, it creates opportunity and brings resources to the people who are already doing the work. With over half a million acres of privately owned rangeland and farmland in our county, the RCD assists ranchers, farmers, and private landowners with habitat restoration, flood risk reduction, prescribed fire, and other wildfire mitigation strategies, invasive species managements, and other important conversation actions.

However, we lack the capacity to pursue the large state, federal, and philanthropic grants that would sustain this work long term. Farmers and ranchers in San Benito County already steward their lands in ways that keep the land productive to the benefit of us all, producing nutritious foods, contributing to our economy, and maintaining hundreds of thousands of acres of working land.

Many of the practices that agricultural land owners are being asked to do for public benefit, including habitat restoration, invasive weed abatement, prescribed fire, and require additional and sustained funding so that agricultural does not have to bear the burden alone. The Salinas And Bajaro's Rivers runs through this region and support both agricultural and some of the state's most significant wetlands, those waterways depend on active stewardship of the private land surrounding them. SBRCD does not does that work?

In partnership with farmers and ranchers, and it requires a sustained funding we do not currently have. Many growers and ranchers in this region have already adopted climate smart practices in their own. They are willing partners. What they need is reliable funding to maintain those practices over time. MBSA creates a mechanism to prove that.

MBSA functions as a strategic granting and stewardship focused entity, helping the region complete for and manage state, federal, and philanthropic resources that local agencies like SBRCD lack the capacity to pursue on their own.

Thank you.

This region needs more resources at the table. AB 1545 does that. Thank you.

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

Good evening, chair and members. Rigel Mastro Donato. I'm the legislative director for the Trust for Public Land. So I am giving me twos in behalf of the California Marine Sanctuary Foundation, Wildlife Conservation Network, The Climate Center, San Benito Agricultural Land Trust, San Benito Parks Foundation, and Protect San Benito County. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Hi. Michael Chen on on behalf of Audubon, California in support.

Thank you, chair and members. Rafael Garcia here as a private citizen who grew up in San Benito County, and I support.

Kim Bill Kim Delfino on behalf of Trout Unlimited and Green Foothills in support.

Reed excuse me. Reed Addis on behalf of Simprovirens Fund and the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County in support.

Any persons here in opposition to this measure?

Two minutes.

Two minutes. Good afternoon, mister chair, members of the committee. Matt Diaz, president of the California Forestry Association, Calforest. And before sharing, my remaining concerns with the bill, I would first like to acknowledge the ongoing conversations that our members and myself have had, not only the staff, and Assemblywoman Powell and herself, as well as with your staff and committee members here.

In fact, most of the issues that have been that we had with the bill have been addressed by amendments that were accepted today, so we're we very much appreciate that.

And we have one more remaining issue that we would like to continue to have conversations and try to work through. And that was a that that issue is the potential for working lands that are consistent through zoning measures to be potentially subject to additional taxes to support the authority into the future. For CalForce, that is timber production zone. Timber production zone is set in statute, is adopted by the local jurisdictions, and is applied to landscapes throughout the jurisdiction of the authority that is being contemplated here.

And that zoning in the minds of many, including myself, are very consistent with the goals of the of stewardship and working lands.

So I wanna say very clearly that CalForce is very supportive of both the notion of stewardship and the continuation of working lands and all the and all the co benefits that come along with that.

But the issue of of the zoning the lands that are already in production, working well, achieving the goals of wildlife corridors, achieving the goals of economics as well as recreation, are concerned to our members because the the remaining industry, the vestige of industry that remains within the the area that we are contemplating with this bill, the geographic scope of this bill is very, very narrow. And with that, I would accept any questions, comments, and I thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir. We'll now turn it back to oh, are there any persons in the hearing room in opposition? We'll now turn it back to the dais. Any questions, comments, concerns? We have a motion by mister Zbur, second by mister Hart, miss Pellerin.

Would you like to close?

I would. So I wanna thank our witnesses today, and I also wanna thank my chief Tomasa Duenas who spent the last year plus working on this bill and being down the district and meeting with all the stakeholders. And I look forward to continuing to work with you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

This bill has a do pass recommendation. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?