Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

Okay. The Senate Committee on Environmental Quality is now coming to order. Good morning, everyone. It's nice to see a packed house here. We have our first author, which is also great.

So we're going to start as a subcommittee because we do not yet have a quorum. But when we have a quorum, we'll pause in the middle and establish one. So we are going to begin with file item number three, which is AB 839 from assembly member Blanca Rubio. So we'll invite her to come forward with her witnesses. And you are welcome to begin when ready.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. I am presenting AB 839, which would add up to three Sustainable Aviation Fuels, or SAF, projects to the list of infrastructure projects expedited judicial review under CEQA. California has reduced greenhouse gas emissions over the past two decades through cleaner transportation technologies and renewable fuels. While electrification is an important strategy for reducing emissions, aviation remains a sector that currently relies on liquid fuels.

Commercial aviation accounts for approximately 2% of US greenhouse gas emissions. SAF is one of the, is one approach being developed to reduce emissions associated with their air travel. According to industry estimates, SAF can reduce life cycle carbon emission compared to conventional jet fuel and may also reduce particular, particulate matter emissions. Remains limited. Supporters of the bill have cited regulatory uncertainty and concerns about project delays as factors affecting investment decisions.

AB 839 would provide an expedited judicial review process for a limited number of qualifying staff projects while we maintaining environmental review requirements under CEQA. With me today are Cathy Van Austin on behalf of Airlines for American, for, for America and Don Alberto Torico. Sorry. No problem. Alberto Torico is with me. Thank you.

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

I could go for hours. Thank you, Madam Chair. Kathy Van Osten on behalf of United Airlines. The SAF story in California has been a really interesting one. As much as seven years ago, we were the global leader in the production of SAF.

We had the first facility in the world to consistently produce SAF. That facility, World Energy, which is known as the World Energy Project down in Paramount. Interestingly enough, when we were able to get SAF into the LCFS as an opt in fuel, that sent signals to investors, which gave the company the tools they needed to work to expand. Ironically, when they did get their permitting, everything went through, they ended up in litigation under the CEQA, and that litigation dragged on.

It broke the bank in the company, and that project is now up for auction. So it's sort of a full, very sad, full circle here.

For the airlines, this is the only means we have to significantly reduce emissions. There is ground equipment. We can do our best. It's going to be a fraction, not not even one or 2% of what we need to do to reduce emissions. This bill would invite three projects, whether it is a fuel production facility converting to biofuels, whether it is ground floor up, whether it is a holding tank or a pipeline infrastructure.

We need this infrastructure. We need signals to go to investors and to those who are looking to build in California that you can do it here. So this is a bill. It's it's one that we have worked on for three years now, and, we've worked very closely with the assembly natural resources committee. They've been, very generous with their time.

We've worked out amendments with them, and redoing amendments with them, And all we can do now is we ask for your aye vote. We really need this bill. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Alberto Turico on behalf of Airlines for America. I wanna thank the author for for dogged advocacy on behalf of this this measure. The airlines, we as my colleague mentioned, we've been advocating on behalf of creating situations where we produce more SAF because airlines will buy up every drop of SAF because it's a plug and play situation where we don't have to retrofit the planes. We can use we can use the existing jets, use the SAF, and we can reduce emissions by 80%.

It's the best way and literally the only technologically available way to reduce emissions. That's why we've been we've worked on this issue for several years. We're also supporting the tax credit in the governor's budget proposal, and we're supporting this bill and and very proud to sponsor it. We're also working with the administration over the last several years. Miss Van Austin mentioned we have a a voluntary agreement with CARB, which resulted in LCFS allowing for the use of SAF.

So all of these pieces are working together, and and this is an important piece as well. Again, to signal the marketplace that, that SAF production is welcome and needed in California, and an expedited review process will only incentivize that production. Respectfully ask for an ad vote.

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

Good morning, madam chair and members. Kate Bell on behalf of American Airlines here in strong support.

Thank you.

John Kennedy, Rural County Representatives of California in support. Thank you.

Margie Lee, Samson Advisors here in behalf of Alaska Air Group in support.

Thank you.

Audra Hartman on behalf of Southwest Airlines in support.

Good morning. Lizzie Guansona here on behalf of Boeing in support.

Thank you. Anybody opposed to this bill? Lead witnesses and opposition? Not seeing anyone come forward. Is there anybody wishing to express opposition?

Please come forward to the microphone. Oh, there is? Okay. Are you a lead witness or expressing opposition just

Support.

Oh, support. Okay. Go ahead and state your name for the record.

Monica Salas on behalf of Bay Area Council in support.

Okay. Great.

And I am here in opposition.

So if we're Okay.

Are you a lead witness in opposition? Okay. Let's make room at the table so she could sit down, please. Thank you. Okay.

So you're welcome to begin when ready. You have two minutes.

Good morning, chair and committee members. My name is Ada Waelder, senior legislative representative for Earthjustice here in a respectful opposition to AB 839. Our coalition of environmental and environmental justice organizations oppose this bill because it undermines the public's right to challenge polluting SAF projects throughout the state and is an unnecessary handout to the industry at public health expense. The production and transport of SAF and its feedstocks causes wide ranging health harms, including emissions of toxic and carcinogenic air pollutants.

Producing SAF requires more refinery processing, hydrogen, electricity, and water than, for example, renewable diesel, all while still emitting harmful pollutants like NOx and particulate matter.

As the analysis highlights, all existing SAF refineries are in communities that have lived with industrial pollution for decades and rank near the top of Cal Enviro screen metrics for pollution and air toxics. As the the support witnesses pointed out, the Paramount project was scrutinized by judicial review. And this highlights the importance of CEQA, because it was found in that project that, the local community proved the original environmental impact report used faulty baseline environmental assumptions, which is why it was quote unquote bogged down in judicial review.

The use of judicial review under current law did not stop the project, but it played a key role in keeping industry honest when constructing a refinery across the street from two schools and an economically disadvantaged community. These projects require careful judicial scrutiny to ensure they are properly analyzed and mitigated.

Independent judicial review of these projects is not useless red tape. It is the core means by which people who breathe dirty air can get the relief they need to live full and healthy lives. The staff industry already enjoys strong market signals through subsidies at the LCFS and federal tax credit, and the governor even has a substantial proposed tax credit to support the industry further. There's no reason that Californians need to subsidize this industry even further with their lungs and livelihoods. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to come forward and express opposition?

Asha Sharma on behalf of Sierra Club California Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability and San Francisco Baykeeper in opposition. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. We'll bring it back to the committee. Any comments? Okay.

Well, I will turn it back to the author if you'd like to say anything in response to the opposition witness and the things that were brought up.

Thank you. I appreciate. I do come from disadvantaged communities. However, I do also understand that, you know, the number one polluter is jet fuel. If we don't transition, the goal has always been to transition.

If we don't transition into an alternative fuel, the the lungs that, you know, we're talking about are still gonna be, impacted, however, with no viable solution. And I think SAF is a an alternative that we can look forward to because I'll tell you, I'm not flying in an electric plane. So I with that, I respectfully ask for your time. I vote.

Okay. Great. Is there somebody in the back who would like to express support or opposition?

Yes. And apologies to the author for being a little tardy. Don Gilbert on behalf of SFO and strong support.

Okay. Thanks so much. Great. Well, thank you. I I do support this bill, and I believe that it's a measured approach to support the industry by accelerating judicial review for just three projects.

And these are projects that are held to a high bar. The I think this sends the industry in the right direction without unreasonable costs. So when we have a quorum, we'll come back to, to the vote. But with that, if you would like that wasn't an official close if you wanted to close.

Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Great. Thanks so much. Alright. And next, we will go to item number two on the agenda, which is AB 762 from Assembly member Irwin.

Unless she wants to yield her time to somebody else in the room.

Sorry about that.

Well, good morning, Chair and members. I'd like to begin by accepting the committee amendments to clarify the definition of tobacco product. I would also like the chair to ask for, permission to use crop props. I am pleased to present use props.

I am pleased to present AB 762, which would ban the sale of disposable nicotine vapes in California. Unfortunately, these disposable devices are incredibly popular and have become an accessory for several age groups. You see them in bars, restaurants, workplaces, and our in our children's backpacks. They are often made to resemble mundane objects like pens, but a new trend is emerging to include elaborate screens and buttons to play classic games like Pac-Man or Tetris.

As distressing it is as it is to see these disposable devices in the hands of our children or thrown on the sidewalk, the scariest place to find one is in the place that manufacturer designs them for, the trash can.

With designs that prevent the refilling of, vape liquid and the recharging of lithium ion batteries, these devices have an intended lifespan of approximately one week. You may be thinking, why is this so bad? Plenty of consumer items are meant to be thrown away. The answer is simple. Lithium ion batteries and vapes are highly flammable.

They cannot easily be removed, so they pose costly and hazardous safety issues at every point in the waste stream. Marketed as disposable and with an out of robust EPR program for these devices, they are thrown in the trash, sent to material recovery centers, and landfills where they ignite and catch entire garbage trucks and recycling facilities on fire, putting facility operators at risk. Local governments and our constituents end up shouldering the cost of extinguishing and cleaning up dangerous battery fires, imperiling our firefighters and first responders.

We must clear that by allowing these devices to be sold and thrown away, we are putting our first responders directly in danger. This is not a problem without a readily accessible available solution on the market. There are reusable options that are refillable and rechargeable.

Despite the fact that disposable vapes carry a battery that is capable of 700 recharges, they are thrown away after one battery cycle because the manufacturer has omitted a charging port. We do not throw away our phones or our laptops after one week of use, and we should not treat other lithium ion devices any differently. AB762 has strong enforcement mechanisms to deter the sale of disposable devices before consumers have the chance to purchase them in the store.

I'd also like to talk a moment to talk about the illicit market and the argument that this bill will expand it. When consumers have a clear preference for a substance, they will look at the illicit market for that product.

This is the case with flavored vapes, which remain a problem in illicit market. With single versus rechargeable vapes, there is a clear and accessible substitute, and we don't see consumers choosing to seek out illicit dealers to obtain a disposable vape walking into when they can walk into a retailer and get a refill for a rechargeable vape, making it very unlikely to expand the illicit market.

The study in The UK shows that prior to the disposable vape ban being enacted, consumers shifted to reusable models, reducing the use of disposables from 63% to 35%. This past summer, UK banned disposable vapes. Since then, ElBar, one of the largest manufacturers, has put out data that 85 of consumers easily pivoted to reusable devices.

This bill keeps the devices out of the trash can and out of the hands of our kids. With me here to testify in support of the bill are Joe LaMariana from Rethink Waste and John Kennedy representing rural counties.

Welcome. You each have two minutes.

Thank you, madam chair. My name is Joe LaMariana, and welcome, other senators. For the last ten years, I've had the privilege of serving as the executive director of Rethink Waste. We are a public agency in San Mateo County representing 11 local jurisdictions. We're a JPA.

We own on behalf of the 430,000 rate payers, we own and operate a solid waste facility in San Carlos known as the Shoreway Environmental Center. We receive all recyclables, green waste, and garbage that are collected in our 100 square mile plus, service area. And, again, it represents, 430,000 plus, residents and 11,000 businesses.

We are a proud cosponsor of this bill, because we've seen firsthand how fires impact, our facilities and all the ancillary feeds that the Senator just referred to, including the trucks, not only the facility, but the trucks, the landfills, etcetera. Embedded lithium ion batteries cause fires that are hard to put out, and they harm factory workers and damage equipment and the facilities at risk.

And in our case, they're they're rate payer owned. So these are we have a higher level there. They require repairs and can and can and do increase rates for our constituencies constituents. Excuse me. In 2016, a battery car started a four alarm fire that shut down our facility for over three months and related resulted in 8 and a half million dollars of damages.

As a result, we saw about, 75 employees that were furloughed. We had significant damages to the to the equipment and the facility. Material that would have been recycled went to the landfill. And a lasting little gift from this situation was our insurance rates went from a $180,000 per year before the fire to over $3,000,000 to to provide the same level of coverage. And instead of having one insurer, we now have 17.

So it's gotten a lot more complex. We have fires on a regular basis, and between 2017 and 2025, we've had over 130 fires. I can increase that number because in the last couple of weeks, we've had three.

I'm sorry. Your time is up, so you'll need to conclude.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. The legislator has already passed two bills to create a responsible collection of other batteries. This material falls outside that realm. So we're asking for your strong support of AB 762 on behalf of our 11 jurisdictions, our rate payers, and our, hundreds of thousands of workers in our industry in California.

Thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead. You have two minutes.

Good morning. I'll try to be brief. John Kennedy with the rural counties. We represent 40 counties in the state, but counties collectively and some cities operate just shy of 200 household hazardous waste collection facilities. We're pleased to support AB 762 because it will significantly reduce costs and management challenges for our facilities, particularly with respect to single use vapes.

So in doing so, we can actually increase collection and disposal opportunities for residents to safely manage vapes. So management challenges. Fires are a huge risk. Fires are an even more acute risk in rural areas where we have forests, and are susceptible to to catastrophic wildfires. We're seeing more and more vapes.

They are extremely expensive to manage. Your typical five gallon bucket will cost our facilities $350 to manage to properly dispose of. That's about 150 to two fifty vapes. That's not sustainable. So the challenge and the main cost driver is these vapes contain nicotine cartridges.

Some are embedded in the single use device. Some are detached. If we can separate the two commodities, we can manage cartridges in the five gallon bucket, manage many more of those for that same $350 and offer more convenient and cost effective disposal opportunities. This is incredibly important when we're trying to offer free disposal opportunities to all of our residents. Products.

We're just banning one form of the delivery device. We're shifting to a much more sustainable device, one where we're actually able to separate and, recycle the lithium ion battery that's inside. That's incredibly important. There are other valuable materials in the circuitry, whereas the entire single use vape will just go in the poison bucket, and go out of state for incineration at disposal. So the same manufacturers, as you can see, produce both devices.

It's not really that big of a shift, and they will still be readily available for consumers. We're probably going to hear some concerns about the illicit market. We are very concerned about the illicit market. If the opponents are interested in addressing, illegal sales, the illicit market, we are extremely happy to partner with them and try and find solutions. These are problems in our communities and problems we want to solve.

And then I guess I'll share a little internal board politics, if you'll give me just a second. We're a late supporter of the bill, far later than many of the other initial supporters of the bill, particularly because I I wasn't quite sure where our board would be on this. We have a lot of very conservative Board Members who are very concerned about costs and liability and enforcement for businesses.

I was shocked and pleasantly surprised when they advocates on behalf of the children in our communities, on behalf of trying to recover the lithium ion batteries and reduce costs for our facilities. So that's what I have to say this morning.

Appreciate the indulgence. Thank you for bringing the bill. We're happy to support in any way we can.

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

Alright. Tony Hackett on behalf of Californians Against Waste, Waste Management, American Nurses Association, the City and County of San Francisco, the City and County of Sacramento, the City of Long Beach, Pacoima Beautiful, Tobacco Education and Research Oversight Committee, Rural County, Environmental Services Joint Powers Authority, California State PTA, physicians for social responsibility Los Angeles, Los Angeles city and county departments of sanitation and the environment, Placer County board of supervisors and republic services.

Noam Elroy on behalf of Zero Waste Sonoma joint powers authority, Zero Waste Marine joint powers authority, Environmental Committee of West Marin, California Public Interest Research Group, Clean Water Action, CR and R Environmental Services, Parents Against Vaping, Plastic Pollution Coalition, The Last Plastic Straw, FAX, Families Advocating for Chemicals and Toxic Safety, Breathe selling California, and Americans for Non smoker Rights. Thank you.

Jake Schultz on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Division of Resource Recovery and Waste Management, Environmental Protection Information Center, Green Science Policy Institute, Oceanic Preservation Society, Save Our Shores, Zero Waste San Diego, Pacific Beach Coalition, Sunrise Movement California, Save the Bay, Cal Poly Center for Health Research, Alliances of Nurses for a Healthy Environment, Bay Area Student Activists, and Oakland Recycles. Thank you and support.

Asha Sharma on behalf of Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jack Werson with Nossaman on behalf of the County Of Monterey in support.

Good morning. Keeley Morris on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts in support.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the cities of Foster City and, Thousand Oaks in support. Thank you.

Doctor Ruth McDonald on behalf of Climate Action California in support. Thank you.

Julia Au, Northern Cali on behalf of Northern California Recycling Association, Mojave Desert and Mountain Recycling, JPA, National Association of Environmental Medicine, Nontoxic Neighborhoods, San Luis Obispo County Tobacco Control Coalition, Santa Cruz County Tobacco Education Coalition, Southern California Public Health Association, Tobacco Prevention Coalition of Contra Costa County, Del Norte Waste Management Authority, Castro Valley Sanitation District, Yuba Setter Recycles, and Southern California Public Health Association in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jim Lindbergh on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support. Thank you.

Mandy Strela on behalf of Action on Smoking and Health, Alameda County Tobacco Control Coalition, Algoleta Marine Research and Education, America's Sustainable Business Network, Association of California Health Care Districts, Azul Bay Area Pollution Prevention Group, California Health Coalition Advocacy, California California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Children Now, Courage California, Defender Health, and Seventh Generation Advisors in support.

I'm Jen Avery on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in support.

Nancy Biermeyer on behalf of Yuba County, Sutter County, Yuba Sutter Integrated Waste Management Authority, Beyond Plastics, Community Environmental Council, National Stewardship Action Council, Clean Earth for Kids, Sustainable Works, Montgomery Waterkeeper, Active San Gabriel Valley, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Resource Recovery for the for co Resource Recovery Coalition for California, and hopefully, the last list you have to listen to.

Hi. Vanessa Flores on behalf of Alameda County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Reed Addis on behalf of a host of supporters, Heal the Bay, Central Contra Costa County Solid Waste Authority, Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority, the Central Contra Costa Sanitation District, Tehama County Solid Waste Management Agency, Western Placer Waste Management Authority, Region Monterey, Merced County Regional Waste Authority, City Of Arcadia, and Smoke Free Air for everyone. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and senators. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council, a proud cosponsor, as well as the Solid Waste Association of North America's legislative task force and, Alameda County StopWaste, all in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Kehinde Ojeikere with the Weideman Group on behalf of Breed Southern California in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities in strong support. Thank you.

Jordan Wells, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support, also register registering support on behalf of Yosemite Rivers Alliance, three fifty Bay Area Action, three fifty Contra Costa Action, three fifty Ventura County Climate Hub, Los Angeles City Department of Sanitation, San Luis Obispo Integrated Waste Management Authority, California Communities Against Toxics, Napa Waste and Recycling Services, Just Zero, San Francisco Baykeeper, The Story of Stuff Project, LA Waterkeeper, and Endangered Habitats League. Thank you.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors in support.

Okay. Thank you. We're gonna pause for a moment here while we transition to the opposition witnesses and, have our committee assistant call for a quorum, Establishing the role to establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Okay. We've established a quorum. So now we'll turn it back. Are you an opposition witness? Okay.

You have two minutes.

Thank can you hear me okay?

Yes. Perfect. Thank you. Chair and members, thank you. Alessandra Brichetto on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance.

Let me start with where we agree. The goal behind AB 762 is a good one. Single use batteries and vape litter are real environmental problems and we support addressing them. But I'd ask you to look closely at what this bill would actually do because California's disposable vape market is already overwhelmingly illegal. Responsible retailers following current law don't stock these products.

The disposables driving the litter and the fires come through the illicit market and they will keep coming regardless of what compliance stores are allowed to sell. Today, only one disposable vape carries full FDA authorization, and there's only a handful permitted under the attorney general's unflavored tobacco list. That is the entire universe of disposables that can be legally sold in California. The one FDA authorized device was reviewed in full, battery included, and cleared as appropriate for public health.

AB 762 would ban that legal regulated tax product, while the illegal market that's already the majority of this category continues to grow.

This has been tried elsewhere and the results are not promising. A year ago, The UK banned disposables to stop battery fires, yet fires hit a record high after the ban because manufacturers simply shipped large refillable pods that consumers threw away just the same. The throwaway behavior didn't change. Only the legal product disappeared. Belgium and Australia saw the same illicit surge.

Banning a legal regulated nicotine product doesn't put less of it on the street. It trades a taxed regulated product for an unregulated one. So we support the environmental goal. Let's reach it through real enforcement against illegal imports, not by handing the market to the very products no one is regulating. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in the room wishing to express opposition? Please come forward to the microphone.

Good morning. Chris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Megan Loper on behalf of the California Distributors Association in opposition.

Gonzales on behalf of California's Business Roundtable in opposition.

Jacob Brent with the California Retailers Association in respectful opposition.

Okay. Thank you. Well, we'll bring it back to the committee, and, I'll just start by saying, I I think the author did a great job of describing the problem and your witnesses as well, very, effectively supporting what we're trying to address here. It's clear that that vapes are a hazard for both our youth and our waste management facilities. Are you yes.

California Asian Chamber of Commerce in opposition. Thank you.

Okay. Great. Any late breaking opponents can come forward at any time. But I also just want to recognize the the reality that we clearly have an illicit market problem as well, and I appreciate that this is something we need to continue working on in the state of California. And, this bill is banning single use vapes that contain nicotine.

And the estimates are that nicotine vapes make up only 10% of all single use vapes sold in California. So this ban in this bill starts is a really good start, and I think it could set a precedent and something that we could follow to look at the other products, particularly cannabis products and other non tobacco products.

I understand that amendments taken on the floor were what exempted vapes containing cannabis from being part of this bill, but we know that we we have really, a massive problem, and we should be addressing both the illicit and the the non illicit, the legal market in California. So I appreciate the author taking it on and the sponsors. And, to the opponent, I I do think we need to work on the illicit market.

There's no question. So with that, I'll turn it to my colleagues if anyone wants to make any comments. Senator Menjivar?

Thank you, Madam Chair, for acknowledging that. And I was wondering if the author could just respond a couple to how how we're grappling and what your thoughts are moving forward, in the safe disposal for, the illicit market, the examples the opposition gave of the other locations that saw this ban and the increase in that. How are you gonna, moving forward, balance that?

Yeah. We we look at what happened in The U UK. I've I've read some of the statistics. We think it is, successful in showing how easily, users switched over to, the reusable vapes. And And again, with nicotine, there are plenty of reusable devices on the market.

This does just address a small percent of the illicit devices. And yes, it is a small percent, but I think in the capital here, we work in incremental changes. And the reality is the less lithium batteries are in the waste stream, the less likely we are to have fire. So this will definitely start to make a difference, but we do need to look at how many people in the cannabis market are moving over to reusable vapes.

And then I would also like you to address the potential EPR for cannabis?

So, I think cannabis vapes are are a little different. We've been in a lot of discussions with DTSC over another bill that I'll talk to you about shortly, and I think there are other promising pathways for managing cannabis vapes. Nicotine is an acutely hazardous waste, but this legislature has passed some laws saying that cannabis waste is not considered hazardous. And so with that, I think there are more opportunities to potentially manage cannabis vapes as e waste, as universal waste.

Those opportunities don't exist for nicotine vapes.

So we're trying to partner with some of the other players, out there on cannabis vapes to see if there are other, avenues for managing those vapes outside of the statutory framework, because we may not need legislation on that. And if those retailers are interested in partnering on some of these programs, I think we'd we'd be happy to embrace them and try to work forward on that.

So opposition, I think some of the retailers or manufacturers are interested in, like, an EPR program for the and that would actually bring in the illicit market as well. You would capture people to come in, turn in, submit their batteries, and you're both balancing the illicit market and, the the FDA approved. I think there's a there's some products that are FDA approved. My question is, I think one of the FDA approved products helps people Wean off and helps them quit. Is there two questions in here.

If the end game is to get rid of batteries at the at the Wasteland, EPR, we've been focusing a lot on that. Why not do that route? Because that would bring in the illicit market. The second question to that, if there's a product that's helping people Wean off of nicotine, it helps them get to completely quit. Or is this bill gonna ban that product from existing and not provide ability for people to get to quitting?

There is there are already many, reusable devices that could be used for tobacco, cessation programs. So those are devices. We're only talking about, a small percent that would be that are single use and would be banned. And as you see, many of the devices even look similar whether they have a a way to recharge or they don't. So, that's that's those devices are available for, for nicotine.

Right now, there is we are looking if if there would be a way to have an EPR program, but as was mentioned, nicotine is considered a hazardous waste, so we don't have a solution for EPR for tobacco yet. And that's why there is more promise for an EPR program with cannabis, which is not considered a hazardous waste. So it would be recycled more easily.

And if I can Yes. Add on to that. We've been struggling with how we could do an EPR program for this. I I think some of the manufacturers approached DTSC with that very question years ago. It's not easy, particularly because of the nicotine and the acutely hazardous waste in those devices.

Those typically will have to be managed by local governments if it's it's HHW, because I apologize.

But the EPR would just be on the batteries itself. Right? They can just submit the batteries. They would have to turn in the entire product?

Right. If if you can't separate You can't separate.

Somebody can't separate. Okay?

Right. And and that's a big challenge. And, you know, trying to figure out how we could get to the illicit market for all of these other things, you know, it cost us probably about $4 to manage each vape that comes into our doors as HHW collection facilities.

And I'm not sure how we would be able to approach the the manufacturers of those to recover those costs with the illicit marketplace, unless we just bill manufacturers for everything that comes into our doors regardless of whether they need it or not. I'm not sure that's a viable solution either.

So we're we're this is a preferred alternative to significantly reduce the the the scope of the problem that we have to deal with. We've got other legislation that will try and deal with some of the illicit market as well. We're just doing what we can.

My last question here is then I I hear you on that. I would say this legislature has created their brand new EPRs on everything we can imagine. I wouldn't close the door on that. But there's an existing embedded battery program as well.

Well, yes. But you can't I mean, the whole difference between the disposable and the reusable is that you can remove the battery. So it's very difficult to get the battery out of a disposable vape.

Okay. So be so that that you would say is the, the barrier to incorporating into the current embedded battery program? Because

Right. I I I don't think the PRO for that program has any interest or may have legal challenges managing the nicotine that's in those states that would come in through that program.

And cannabis isn't considered hazardous waste?

Right. Cannabis separate and distinct right. And not what we're dealing with. Happy to have those conversations whether it's EPR or something that we may not need to get to an EPR program for cannabis, to be completely honest. Okay.

There are opportunities there.

Okay. Thank you.

I'll I'll just add the perspective that EPR at the highest level makes a lot of sense and seems simple, but it it's actually enormously complex to get off the ground, and there are lots of different proposals for EPR that don't get off the ground. So it it's it's great to be working on that, but it you know, we shouldn't, think that that's somehow simple. Yes. Vice chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So to the author and to the, sponsor, can you just is there any actual quantitative data on the lithium batteries from these disposable vapes that show that it they're creating these fires one to to well, yes.

Thank you, Madam Senator. I don't have hard data and stats, but I know they exist. But I can tell you from real world experience, this is escalating at a very rapid rate.

So is it escalating because of these vapes or is it toys? Is it other products that have lithium?

It's everything and this is a big sub excuse me. Sorry.

No. Go ahead.

We're seeing a dramatic increase in these incidents. We've just had three fires in the last two weeks, which is way ahead of where we've been in the last three years. So we're very concerned.

But there's no, you don't actually know if they're being created by the batteries from lithium vapes versus other products.

We at the, when you put the fire out in a plant of our size, you're dealing with probably 300 tons of material a day coming in. It is the proverbial needle in the haystack. So at the end of it, when you put the fire out and you've cut away and you've identified where the source is, there's a charred remain. There's very little to identify what it is. In some cases, you can identify it but in many cases, you can't.

So then it's an assumption anecdotally at least.

We do find that

I'm sure there, I'm sure there is data on that, but I think really what we're talking about is the bigger the volume of batteries that are in the waste stream, the more likely it is that they are causing fires. And if you're talking about somebody throwing away a toy, that might be once a year. These are disposable vapes. You are throwing, hundreds per year per person into the waste stream.

So the odds that one of these is causing a fire are relatively high.

So yes, we can say, you know, right now, if we don't have the data, that it's anecdotal, but it is a huge volume of there is a huge volume of lithium batteries that are being thrown in specifically with this use. And that is, you know, another difference between cannabis and tobacco. With the cannabis project products, you're taking one or two puffs with the tobacco products.

You have people that can go through a vape a week or even more, and all those batteries are being thrown into the waste stream.

So I'm a mom of a nine year old. I am well aware of how many, toys get thrown away, and I have one, so I can only imagine for multiples. I just have concerns that we are blaming this project for or this product for a majority of these fires, and we really don't know that at this point.

So my other question is really for some understanding, maybe from the opposition, on what can you kind of just clarify what types of vapes, usable, reusable, are approved by the FDA, And how many?

Yeah. So as of right now, there's only one that's been approved by the FDA. And, there's only

Reusable or

Oh, sorry. For a single use. There's only one.

Okay. And then, there's a handful that are on the California unflavored tobacco list. Our compliant retailers are only able to sell products on the unflavored tobacco list, so that obviously limits the scope of what can be sold. But it's very finite.

A lot of the vapes that you see, like single use vapes that you see in California are actually not being sold by compliant retailers being brought in the state through the illicit market.

My major concern here is that especially in my district, we've seen this proliferation of the illicit market and the cannabis market in particular. And what history has shown us is that prohibition does not work. I mean, let's talk about the twenties in alcohol and what The United States did to address prohibition. And whether it's cannabis, whether it's nicotine, whether it's alcohol, I don't think that this is gonna empower the legal market.

If anything, it's gonna, it's gonna make our illicit market grow even more. And it's not just the the cannabis market that is concerned about this. It is public safety. It is law enforcement who I understand are in opposition to this right now because they've seen what happens when you don't more thoughtfully. I know you're trying to solve a very complex issue, but try and balance a legal market and illicit market.

And for those reasons, I'm not gonna be able to support this. I need to see more balance. I understand what you're trying to accomplish. We know fires are a huge threat across California. My district, I've just seen multiple fires in my district, including just this past week.

My in-laws were actually, supposed to evacuate from their home because of a fire that was just a mile away. So I understand that what we're facing here, but I think we need to take a little more time to balance, our approach just to not make the illicit market, even larger. And frankly, to we're losing significant revenue in the state because of the illicit market, and that's my major concern here and and why I'm not gonna be able to get to support. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks. Seeing no more comments, we'll turn it back to you to close.

And I'll just, thank you for the robust discussion. I will just say the concerns, with the illicit market, we find it's difficult to swallow because people are addicted to the nicotine. They are not addicted to the device that is delivering the nicotine. So, we think this will make a big impact on the number of fires. This will remove a large number of lithium batteries from the waste stream but it's not gonna solve the entire problem.

But we take things one step at a time, and we think this is a good first step. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion.

Okay. We have a motion on let's see.

The motion is the motion is do pass as amended to Revenue and Taxation. Please call the roll.

[roll call]

Okay. That's 2-2. We'll keep it on call. Thank you.

Okay. Next, we'll go to item number four. AB 907 from Assembly Member Solache.

Alright, you're welcome to begin when ready.

Thank you, Madam chair and committee members. Good to see you all this morning. I'm happy to present AB 907. I'm grateful to the committee and for your hard work and thoughtful analysis on this bill. AB 907 seeks to correct a long standing inequity by ensuring that six local air district representatives that serve on the California Air Research Board receive the same compensation as their voting Board Members.

The CARB governing board consists of 14 members plus two ex official non voting members who are members of the legislature. While most of the CARB members receive an annual salary, six representatives on the local districts who perform the same duties are currently uncompensated.

As a former South Coast, AQMD board member, I can attest their local district representatives on the front lines of California's air quality efforts.

To highlight, Gideon, my seatmate on AQMD was a CARB representative and a true and a representative of community to currently, current mayor of Riverside, Mayor Lock Dawson, who are the current representatives from the South Coast to CARB. I can tell you firsthand, sitting next to Gideon, that they are really good representatives of community.

They provide firsthand knowledge to regional challenges and play a vital role in shaping effective policies. Fair compensation on the CARB board ensures that local voices are heard, It supports regional representation that recognizes the value of their expertise.

Uncompensated service limits participation in those with financial means excluding many qualified voices from underrepresented communities. AB 907 eliminates financial barriers to better ensure CARBS Board reflects California's diverse population and prioritizes needs of communities burdened by by pollution.

My guest today, I wanted a special acknowledgment. He and I were student body presidents in college twenty plus years ago, and now we get to serve in local office at Sacramento City Council, and I get to serve the legislature. And if you could talk about a public servant that truly cares for his community is Eric Guerra, who is a proud member of the City Council here in Sacramento, but also the representative locally to the CARB board. And so with that, Madam chair, with your permission

Welcome. You have two minutes.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair, Councilman Eric Guerra for the City Of Sacramento and also a board member of the California Resources Board representing Sutter, Yuba, Placer, El Dorado, Yolo and Sacramento County. This bill, it makes significant steps to ensure critical local representation on the California Air Resources Board. The board makes decisions that have significant impacts on the everyday life of California residents.

And at a time when stability for working families are more important than ever, the board is often criticized for not having consistent and enough local representation from their local elected officials.

Those they are the ones who are responsive to the daily needs of not only local businesses, but the families and everyone that's impacted in their air basin. These officials are on the ground with those families, those local businesses every day and are suited to amplify those those voices.

In many cases, such as here, we represent urban, suburban, and rural communities that require us to make sure we're meeting with them daily. The board's regulations are most effective when diverse and local voices from across the state are adequately represented. And with that, I urge your aye vote on this bill.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in the room wishing to express support? Please come forward.

David Quintana with the sponsor, South Coast Air Quality Management District in support.

Brendan Tuig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in support.

Thank you. Okay. Any opposition to this bill wishing to come forward?

Not seeing anybody. Anybody wishing to express opposition?

Not seeing anybody? Okay. We'll bring it back to the committee. Any comments? No?

Okay. Well I'll just say, I support this bill. People deserve compensation for their work, and the rest of the CARB board gets paid for the work that they do. So it makes sense that those representing our districts get the same amount. So when we have a quorum back again, we'll proceed to a vote, but I'll I'd like to hand it to you to close.

Thank you, Madam chair. And if I may just highlight one thing, I know firsthand especially seeing these amazing, senators that are there on this committee and obviously the legislature, there's concerns about CARB. There's no secret about that. There's no I you know, I've been to our senators districts. I understand the needs of local communities.

I serve on Local South Coast Air PMV board, and I understand the concerns that community members at times have of the work that one CARB does or even our Air Quality Resource Board. But I could tell you firsthand that representation matters.

And you know, we all do this work very honorly, and we get elected by community. I think that the six Board Members that come from our local air districts and serve on the CARB board, should be compensated. Right?

I think I wanted to separate the fact that there are concerns about CARB. I admit the concerns that people have, but the people like Eric Guerra, who has been a champion state one since we served as student body presidents, I was actually taller, you know, skinnier. Eric still looks the same, but to public service. Right?

And why should these Board Members that serve on CARB, which again, separating the CARB work that they do, they serve community and they deserve to have the same compensation that the other CARB Board Members have.

So I just bring in the equity, from the 14 people that get paid, these six Board Members do not get compensated.

Eric was telling me that he has to buy his own lunch at the CARB meeting, which I think I would have complained about that first of all, because I'm a foodie guy and you wanna be at board meeting, you need to make sure that you, you know, serve at least food and water to Board Members. But, you know, the the compensation level is definitely an an equity issue.

So I would hope that we can separate the CARB situation versus the fact that these members should have the same equity of service and get compensated for the work. So I would just wanna uplift that concern, and if you maybe plan to vote no, maybe you could just lay off and and show the inequity and and support these Board Members. Thank you.

And I ask for an aye vote once you have a quorum.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And I will note that this identical bill passed out of this committee seven to zero in 2023, Assembly member Calderon, AB 2958 and it was held on suspense in Senate appropriations. So

And working with some of my Assembly members that are, you know, first bipartisan support as well. So

Yeah. Okay. Great. Well, when we get to that point, we'll have a vote. Thank you.

Thank you. See you guys.

Good idea. Okay. We have a motion to move the consent calendar from the vice chair. So let's go ahead and call the roll.

File items on the consent calendar are one, AB 643. Eight, AB 1153. 10, AB 1617, and 14, AB2559. [Roll Call]

Okay. So that on the consent calendar, we will keep that on call, and it was, three to zero. And so now we'll move to file item number three. And the vice chair moves file item number three, which is AB 839, and the motion is do passed to judiciary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That's 3-0. We'll keep that on call. Okay. We are gonna go into a brief recess. And when we have our next author, we'll reconvene.

We will reconvene in thirty seconds.

Assemblywoman, you're welcome to come to the desk when you're ready.

We're now gonna be taking up file item number 5, AB1148 from Assemblywoman Sharp Collins. Assemblywoman, you are recognized when you're ready.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Thank you to the committee staff. I don't know. I had to rush over here, y'all. I'd like to thank the the committee staff for all of your help with getting this bill right, and I will be accepting committee amendments.

Everyday Californians are exposed to a growing number of chemicals, pollutants that increase the risk of cancer and other serious illnesses, but those risks are not they're not shared equally.

The burden falls disproportionately on working families, low income communities, and communities of color, people who are more likely to live near pollution sources, more likely to face environmental hazards, and less likely to have the resources to avoid them.

For far too long, the cost of doing business has been measured in profits, while the cost of public health has been measured in lives. And when cancer touches your family, as it has touched so many of ours. These risks stop being abstract. They stop being stats, and they become personal. That is why I am proud to bring forward Assembly Bill 1148, the Safe for Food Packaging Act.

This bill prohibits two classes of harmful chemicals commonly used in food packaging materials, phthalates and bisphenols. In fact, California has already acknowledged the dangers these chemicals pose. Phthalates have been banned from children's toys since 2007, from cosmetics since 2020, and from IV bags since 2024. BPA was banned from baby bottles more than a decade ago. And last year, we expanded those protections to prohibit all bisphenols in children's drink water drinkware.

So if these chemicals are too dangerous for a child's toy, too dangerous for a baby's bottle, and too dangerous for medical equipment used in health care settings, then we must ask ourselves, why are we still allowing this this this particular product to be in the materials that come into contact with our food? Why should Californians be forced to accept the level of exposure that we have already determined is unacceptable elsewhere and internationally?

Assembly Bill 1148 closes this particular loophole because public health policy should not stop at the edge of our food package. And because preventing cancer is always better than treating cancer, this bill is about making sure that families are not unknowingly exposed to chemicals every single time they sit down for a meal. Now, what I want to be clear about is that this bill is not about attacking the industry.

It is about challenging industries to innovate. California has always led the nation by proving that economic growth and public health protections can go hand in hand. We do not have to choose between protecting consumers and supporting businesses. We can actually do both. That is why I have worked closely with stakeholders throughout this entire process.

We have adopted amendments to clarify the definition of food packaging, address concerns regarding the internal and external services of cans, improve transparency, and maintain the exemptions for TMBPS as a safer alternative. Those amendments reflect my true commitment to getting this policy right. And what is no longer acceptable is pretending that uncertainty exists where evidence already does.

And what is no longer acceptable is allowing known hazardous chemicals to remain in food packaging simply because change requires effort. Assembly Bill 1148 says that California should not have to choose between feeding their families and protecting their health.

And it says that when science tell us that there is a problem, once again, I'm a say it again. When science tell us that there is a problem, then we have a responsibility to act. So with that, I do respectfully ask for your aye vote.

But here to testify, in regards to this particular bill, testifying in support today is Doctor Rainbow Rubin, the Director of Science of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, and Nancy Buermeyer. Can I get it right?

Yeah. Buermeyer, the Director of Programs and Policy of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. Thank you so much for your time. I'll turn it over to my witnesses.

Thank you. You'll each be recognized for two minutes.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and thank you Assemblymember Sharp Collins, for your leadership on AB 1148. I'm Rainbow Rubin. I have a PhD in nutritional biology from UC Davis and MPH in environmental health from UC Berkeley, and I'm the Science Director at Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, a science based org working to prevent breast cancer by reducing exposures linked to breast cancer. AB 1148 focuses on bisphenols and phthalates. Why?

Because we are all exposed to these chemicals. More than 90% of people in The US carry Bisphenol A in their bodies, and other bisphenols are widely detected in our population. For Ortho-phthalates, the percentage is near 100%. The science clearly shows these chemicals are harmful to our health. Specifically, these chemicals are linked to cancer.

Bisphenols are hormone disruptors. Over 1,000 studies show links to obesity and diabetes, cardiovascular disease, behavioral effects, aggression, impaired learning and memory, altered sperm count and sperm quality, reduced testosterone, uterine fibroids, polycystic ovarian syndrome, breast cancer, and risk of miscarriage.

Studies have found that BPA increased the growth of mammary tumors in lab animals and reduces the effectiveness of common chemotherapy medications from blocking the growth of breast cancer cells. Ortho-phthalates are also hormone disruptors. Exposure has been linked to breast cancer, developmental issues, infertility, obesity and asthma, and problems of children's neurological development, including learning and behavioral outcomes.

Some phthalates have been shown in lab studies to increase growth of human breast cancer cells and decrease the efficacy of Tamoxifen, a drug commonly used to treat breast cancer. Exposures to higher levels of what's yes. Finally, we know that if we remove these chemicals from food packaging, the levels of these harmful chemicals in our bodies go down.

So for all of these reasons, I urge your aye vote to eliminate these chemicals from our food packaging. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Nancy Buermeyer, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. I also wanna thank the Assembly woman for her leadership on this bill, and I wanna thank the committee staff for their hard work on this legislation. 1 in 8 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in her lifetime, and women are getting the disease younger and younger.

AB 1148 can make an important contribution to reducing the public's exposure to chemicals linked to cancer and other negative health impacts. You've just heard how hazardous these chemicals are and why they don't belong in food packaging, and you heard from the Assemblywoman that this body has already banned these same chemicals in other product categories, including toys, personal care and beauty products, IV bags, and tubing.

Despite that, they are still legal and used in food packaging. Maine and Vermont have banned phthalates in the in food packaging, and the European Union recently banned BPA and other hazardous bisphenols in food packaging. In fact, the EU will ban BPA on the external surface of food cans as of January 2028.

Californians deserve the same protection. Last session, the legislature unanimously unanimously passed SB 1266, which banned the entire class of bisphenols in juvenile feeding and teething products. Enforcement in AB 1148 is modeled after that bill.

This bill gives the Department of Toxic Substances Control the ability to enforce, as well as the flexibility to adjust the bans, if appropriate, based on new science. But let me reiterate what my colleague explained.

The scientific evidence of harm from these chemicals is clear. Where we know there's harm and safer alternatives already exist, consumers should not have to wait for a lengthy regulatory process to be protected. AB 1148 will give Californians the certainty and protection they need and deserve. I urge your aye vote.

Phenomenal timing.

I worked on it.

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

Asha Sharma on behalf of Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.

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

Good morning. Kai Clausen on behalf of a few organizations, so please bear with me. Clean Water Action, Campaign for Black Health Equity, Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety, Reculate Energy, 350 South Glen Legislative Alliance, 350 South Bay Los Angeles, Green Science Policy Institute, and CalPurg. Thank you.

Mandy Strela here on behalf of San Diego 350, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Breast Cancer Over Time, San Francisco Baykeeper, the Center for Environmental Health, Seventh Generation Advisors, The Story of of Stuff, and Indivisible Marin in support.

Hi. April Robinson with the Voice for Choice Advocacy in support.

Tony Hackett on behalf of Californians Against Waste in support.

Hi. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of Alameda Stop Waste in support.

Susan Little on behalf of the Environmental Working Group in support, and we're one of the cosponsors. So thank you, the assembly member.

Seeing no others, we'll now move to any key witnesses here in opposition if you would make some room at the desk. Thank you.

Good morning, ma'am chair.

You're recognized for two minutes.

Good morning, ma'am chair, members of the committee. Randy Pollock on behalf of the American Chemistry Council. Currently, we are opposed to this bill unless amended but with the amendments from last night that we saw in the analysis and working with both the sponsors and the Assembly member, we believe that we're moving much closer to a resolution of these issues. We look forward to seeing the amendments.

Hopefully, they will be adopted by this committee today, and then we look forward to finishing off the discussions and hopefully having a positive result with that. Thank you very much.

Dawn Koepke on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. I wanna align my comments with the representative from American Chemistry Council. We are reviewing the amendments. Certainly appreciate the author, the proponents, and committee staff for working with us to address many of our concerns.

We do continue to have just an overarching principled position of relying on our safer consumer products program at DTSC for product chemical issues. That notwithstanding, I really appreciate the considerable progress we've made. Continuing to review those amendments and we'll follow-up. Thank you.

Madam chair members, Eloy Garcia for the International Bottled Water Association. Similarly, similar position, we have been in a oppose position, but very much appreciate the author and the sponsors and the committee's work. We do wanna continue to work with you on further refining the definition of the durable materials but very much appreciate the movement. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Nicole Quinonez on behalf of the California Chamber. Just wanna align my comments with the previous speakers. We really appreciate the progress and look forward to reevaluating our position. Thank you.

Greg Hurner on behalf of the Can Manufacturers Institute. Same similar to ACC, we look forward to seeing the amendments in print. We believe that we will be moving to neutral. And for the record, we do not use bisphenols on the internals of any food contact surface, except for TMBF BPF, which is what the sponsors have indicated is safe.

And I'll just remind everyone your name, your organization, and your position, please.

Kevin Barrett on behalf of PPG Industries. Thanks to the work of the committee, the sponsor, and the staff. The expected amendments we'd likely move, we withdraw our opposition to the bill.

Good morning. Meg Snyder, substituting for Ferrari Capital Advisors on behalf of the Vinyl Institute in opposition. Thank you.

Margie Lee, Samson Advisors here on behalf of the California League of Food Producers reviewing the amendments. Thank you.

Edwin Borbon on behalf of Ameripen, the American Institute for Packaging and the Environment as well as the Flexible Packaging Association oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Dylan Finley, on behalf of the Western Plastics Association, align our comments with American Chemistry Council. Thank you.

Dennis Albiani on behalf of the Consumer Brands Association. Been working with them, and we'll continue to work with them and align our comments with American Chemistry Council as well. Thank you.

Seeing no others, we'll now move to the committee. So one, it's very great to see that you've been working so diligently with stakeholders. I haven't read the recent amendments. I know there were some concerns about the timeline for implementation. Can you just walk me through your openness to modifying implementation date and some conversations that you may have had around the complexity of that?

We have worked extensively with the manufacturers, packing packaging companies and other stakeholders, and the amendments have been adopted to clarify the definition of food packaging to address the reusable use, but also provide until 2037.

For the external bisphenol use, which is gonna be obviously, improve transparency and maintain the exemption for TMBPF, and we remain committed to that continued collaboration as the bill moves forward. I'll also ask for my witness to also explain the timeline extension from, to 2037.

Yeah. So as you heard from the Can Manufacturers, they mostly are out of BP on the internal lines of cans. So the timeline for the overall implementation of 2028 seems we have not heard is a problem. The external cans was one that we asked for a long extension. We were, we have agreed to a 2037 timeline, which we think is incredibly reasonable, given that in the EU, they need to be out of this material on the outside of cans by 2028.

So they have an additional nine years in The US to get out of this chemical, which we know is hazardous and is on the outside of these cans.

And to the opposition that was here for manufacturers, can you just clarify that the timeline is workable?

Thank you, Senator, for the question. Yes. We are continuing just to evaluate that timeline with our manufacturers recognizing that the EU has kind of move forward on that kind of more expedited timeline. We do believe that is likely workable, but again, still consulting with our manufacturers. I'm happy to follow-up.

Great. So I'm gonna, I'd like I'm gonna see this bill again in health. So I'm gonna lay off until we can work out some additional details. I can read amendments, and then I think we're gonna wait for some additional committee members to join us to take up the bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

We're now gonna be moving to file item number nine, Assemblywoman Stefani. Again, file item number nine, AB 164. Assemblywoman, you are recognized when you're ready.

We're here. Great.

Suzanne's it's hot. Yeah.

Are we at morning? Yes. We're still morning. Good morning. Thank you so much, madam chair and colleagues.

Today, I'm presenting AB 164. And AB 164 would prohibit the use of Bisphenol A, BPA in paper receipts by 01/01/2028, and all bisphenol chemicals, BPS, in paper receipts by 01/01/2029. Additionally, this bill would allow the Department of Toxic Substances and Control to develop regulations and enforce violations.

Violations would be punishable of 5,000 or less for the first violation and 10,000 or less for each subsequent violation, and the department, the attorney general, or other local attorneys may enforce this section or this action. Receipts are known to generate millions of pounds of waste and billions of pounds of carbon dioxide per year.

These receipts that can't be cycle recycled contaminate paper and are extremely harmful to human health. Handling receipts on a day to day basis is known to pose high exposure to BPA and BPS, and people who handle receipts every day, especially cashiers, are exposed to these chemicals over and over again. Studies have linked this exposure to breast cancer and other serious health risks. By removing bismos from receipts, this bill will cut daily exposure to harmful chemicals, protect workers and consumers, and keep our recycling systems clean.

With me today are Nancy Buemeyer with Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, and Tony Hackett with Californians Against Waste.

Good morning, again, Chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and thank you Assemblymember Stefani for your leadership on AB 164 to ban bisphenols and from thermal receipt paper. I'm here on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, a science based organization working to prevent breast cancer by reducing exposure to chemicals linked to the disease. Bisphenol a or BPA is one of the best known toxic chemicals, and many products are now labeled BPA free.

However, BPA is often replaced with similar chemicals like BPS or BPF that have similar structures and raise many of the same health concerns.

This is exactly what happened with receipt paper. A 2023 study showed that while BPA was found in only one percent of receipts, nearly 80% contained BPS, an example of regrettable substitution. Growing evidence shows that the entire class of bisphenols can disrupt hormones and harm health with links to conditions including asthma, reproductive harm, metabolic disease, cancer, and cancer, including breast cancer. These chemicals are absorbed through the skin when handling receipts. This affects all consumers.

It is the greatest risk for cashiers who have significantly higher levels of exposure. Cashiers are disproportionately women of child bearing age, making this exposure especially concerning during critical developmental windows like pregnancy. The good news is that safer alternatives already exist. About 20% of receipts are already bisphenol free. It's time to eliminate this entire class of chemicals from receipt paper.

I also wanna note that the cosponsors have worked with the author to clarify that any enforcement action takes into account the severity and and intent of the violation to ensure companies acting in good faith will not be hit with unfair penalties. We respectfully urge your aye vote.

Your timing impeccable today. You're recognized for two minutes.

Thank you, Chair and Members. My name is Tony Hackett with Californians Against Waste, and we are proud to cosponsor AB 164. This bill at its core really does one simple thing which is takes a toxic chemical out of something that millions of Californians touch every single day which is the paper receipt. Californians handle about 98,000,000 thermal receipts every single day.

Four out of five of which are coated with bisphenols, which Nancy has already elucidated, being extremely health harmful. They rub off onto skin with a single touch, and that means that nearly 80,000,000 toxic receipts are changing hands in the state every day. And people aren't just shoppers. They're cashiers, disproportionately working class women of color that handle them for hours a day and it doesn't stop with people. The chemicals don't disappear when a receipt is thrown away or wish cycled.

They've been found in recycled paper products like tissues and napkins that ultimately contaminate the recycled paper pulp stream that California has spent decades building. Safer receipt paper already exists and it's scaling fast. Businesses are moving in the direction, on their own, and this bill just makes that transition more uniform, predictable, and fair. AB 1604 has cleared the assembly nearly unanimously and with bipartisan support, in large part because protecting workers and our recycling system shouldn't be a partisan issue.

And we think that the timeline is reasonable here, the science is clear, and we, respectfully urge your aye vote.

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

Good morning, madam vice chair, members, assembly member. I'm here on behalf I'm Scott Cox here on behalf of Learning Disabilities Association of America, Courage California, earthday.org, Ecology Center, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, the California Public Interest Research Group, Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety, Pacific Environment, Save the Bay, 350 Bay Area Action, and Just Zero, here in strong support. Thank you.

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

Good morning again. Kai Clausen on behalf of a few organizations, so please bear with me. San Francisco Baykeeper, all in support. The Story of Stuff Project, Beyond Plastics, Community Environmental Council, Clean Water Action, Endangered Habitats League, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, California Health Coalition Advocacy, and cleanearthforkids.org. Thank you.

Mandy Strella here on behalf of the American Sustainable Business Network, Plastic Pollution Coalition, The Last Plastic Straw, the California Black Health Network, Physician and Scientist Network addressing plastics and health, Active San Gabriel Valley, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles, and the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, in support.

Lauren Kubiak with the Natural Resources Defense Council, in support.

Good morning. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council in support.

Good morning. Julie Au on behalf of the Northern California Recycling Association in support. Thank you.

I'm seeing no others here in support. We'll now move to any key witnesses in opposition that'd like to come forward.

Thank you, madam chair and members. Matt Sutton with the California Restaurant Association. We are opposed unless amended. The author has been fantastic at, working with us on a number of things, and I'll just say shortly, we're not here to defend any chemical. We're not here to defend any paper.

We're the end users of receipts. The bill references a Washington state receipt law, and in that law, the implementing regulations did not hold the end users, brick and mortar businesses responsible. Holding manufacturers responsible for the paper seems appropriate, but we just can't have 5 and $10,000 fines for receipt paper that we think is compliant. And so I know it's an unintended consequence.

It's certainly not what's intended by the author of the sponsors as far as I know, and we appreciate it and hope we can continue to have this discussion.

So thank you.

Thank you. And are you in a key witness in opposition?

No. I just they said I could add in. I'm here for support. I just couldn't get in the room. So I'm April Robinson with the Voice for Choice Advocacy in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And this is I'm also in support, but wasn't able to get in the room. Susan Little with Environmental Working Group, also in support. Thank you.

Thank you. So if there are no other key witnesses in opposition, we'll move to any other opposition that would like to state your name, your organization, and your position.

Hi. Jennifer Aguilar on behalf of the Cinema Association of California in opposition, and we echo the comments of the restaurant association. Thank you.

We'll now move to the committee. Do we have any questions?

Seeing no questions, I'll just ask the author if the the comments or the concerns of the opposition are still in negotiations or if there is a existing bill that would show that we're creating more liabilities for for restaurants or for for local businesses. Is there is there room?

Yes. Thank you, madam chair. Yes, of course. We continue to work with the restaurant association to make sure, that our tent is known, that we are trying basically just to remove these chemicals from, receipts so they are no longer injuring people. We are not our intent is not to, find good actors, so we will work through that and continue to work with them.

As, Matt stated, we have been working very well together, and we will continue to have those discussions.

Thank you. So we have a motion. Secretary, would you call the roll?

Senators oh, the motion is do pass due judiciary. [Roll Call]

That is, on call. We'll now move to file item number 11, Assemblymember Gonzalez with AB 1704. Assemblyman, you are recognized when you're ready.

Alright. Thank you, madam chair, members, for the opportunity to speak with you today. I am pleased to present AB 174, which creates a cost assessment for conventional building materials and lower embodied carbon materials. I wanna begin by expressing my sincere appreciation to the chair and the committee staff for their work on this bill. I will be accepting the committee's amendments, and I wanna thank the stakeholders and opposition who have been involved in this thoughtful discussion and and on the journey of this bill.

To give context for my bill, AB 2446, the Holden from 2022, and AB 43, Holden twenty twenty three, established an embodied carbon program that would require manufacturers and developers to measure and reduce the embodied carbon footprint of building materials at the production and project level only.

As a result, the state's building sector, including housing developers, would have to switch out building materials currently in use, and we'll have to and we still do not know if the housing market is ready for the immense change. In our current housing reality, every cost impact can have resounding ripple effects. Down the line, these costs will eventually impact renters and home buyers and those having to rebuild from the massive fires that we've experienced in Los Angeles.

California is facing severe housing affordability challenges with 55% of renters struggling to pay rent and one third of homeowners pay more than 30% of their income on housing alone.

Additionally, estimates from the state and housing experts believe California has a housing shortage ranging from 800,000 to 3,500,000 units. To ensure the embodied carbon program does not adversely impact the market, AB 174 would direct the California Air Resources Board to study the cost effectiveness of the lower embodied carbon materials building materials. If CARB determines cost effectiveness is not achieved, the program will be paused for five years.

I wanna stress that AB 174 is not ending the efforts to reduce embodied carbon in building materials. This bill merely presses pause until the market is ready.

The bill ensures that if the process of pursuing our important sustainability goals, we avoid any unintended consequences affecting our most vulnerable and low income communities. We need a data driven responsibility policy implementation. We often talk about affordability here. Now we must deliver on it in every effective decision that we make. Here to testify, this morning in support of the bill are two fantastic leaders, Ali Saperman, the advocacy and policy manager of the Housing Action Coalition, and Margie Lai, a legislative advocate for Samsung Advisors.

Take it away.

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

Thank you. Ally Saberman, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, a member based organization dedicated to supporting affordable housing production, here to speak in support of AB 174. HAC is a statewide nonprofit and member organization that advocates for more housing at all levels of affordability. Our members span 20 plus industries, including developers, architects, attorneys, labor partners, and construction professionals across California. The state faces a severe housing shortage that has driven up costs for both renters and home buyers.

The state is also trying to reduce emissions from the building sector. Both of these goals are essential, but we must ensure climate policies are implemented in ways that do not unintentionally make housing more expensive or harder to build. HAC has seen this tension firsthand. We work with builders across California who are trying to deliver homes that working families can actually afford and who are already operating on razor thin margins. Construction costs are skyrocketing across the board.

Insurance premiums, market instability, the price of oil, transporting materials, everything associated with building a home is going up. If materials are not cost effective, it can kill a project's financing or force a developer to cut affordable units. Market rate projects can absorb cost shocks in ways affordable developers simply cannot. Implementing lower embodied carbon standards before the market is ready will undermine our goal of getting homes built for Californians who need them most.

The reality is when we don't build enough housing, more people compete for the same limited number of homes.

That competition drives up rents and home prices. But by supporting housing development, supply can better meet demand, helping stabilize housing costs over time. That is why building enough housing is one of the most important steps we can take to address affordability. For those reasons, I ask respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, chair and members. Margie Lee with Samson Visors here on behalf of the American Wood Council and several other clients in the building materials space, all in support of AB 1704. The data is clear. Our housing affordability crisis is severe and worsening. According to recent LAO numbers, the mid tier California home price stands at about $755,000 which is more than twice the comparable homes across The US.

For first time buyers, this picture is more dire with bottom tier homes running about 30% above the average national mid tier home. So some of the opponents may note that the current program already contemplates cost impact, but that only triggers when materials costs rise to about 5% or more. While that may sound modest, on a mid tier home, that amounts to roughly $37,000 price increase. And according to the National Association of Home Builders, every $1,000 increase in a home's price prices out over 11,300 households.

So a 5% jump would price out thousands of Californians.

AB 1704 does not suspend the embodied carbon program. It simply asked carb to determine whether the requirements are cost effective. And if they are not, they would then apply a temporary pause. We think that is a reasonable step. And for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We're not gonna move to any, one else in the room that would like to express their support. Please come forward. State your name, your organization, and your position only.

Hi. Good morning. Sonia Eschenberg on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies in support.

Elizabeth Escobello with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also in support.

Good morning. John Kendrick with the California Chamber of Commerce, also in support. Thank you.

Monica Salas on behalf of California Council for Affordable Housing in support. Thank you.

Yeah. Julie Monoskeba on behalf of the American Chemistry Council in support. Thank you.

Hi. Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors on behalf of the California Building Industry Association in support.

Nico Molina on behalf of the Gypsum Association in support. Thank you.

Chris Bollinger on behalf of the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association, the Poly ISO Manufacturers Association, the California Agent Chamber of Commerce in support. Thank you.

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

We're now gonna move to any key witnesses in opposition. If you could make room for the witnesses in opposition. Thank you. You're each recognized for two minutes.

Yeah. Just us too. Good. Oh, okay. I think you're good.

Good morning, chair and committee committee members. My name is Lauren Kubiak. I'm a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council speaking in opposition unless amended to AB 174. NRDC works to protect the climate and environment while supporting economic growth and public health. California is not only facing a housing crisis, but a climate crisis as well that is increasing electricity costs and insurance premiums.

California's embodied carbon program can drive solutions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions without impeding or raising the cost of housing development. It's possible to reduce the embodied emissions of many types of building materials at no added cost, and some even generate real cost savings. The programs enacting legislation included cost protections, which were designed with the support of many of the same constituents now working to undermine it. AB 174 would put that progress at risk.

It could delay the program for at least five years before it's even begun.

While the committee amendments are an improvement and we greatly appreciate our dialogue with Heather Walters and Doris Kim and their efforts to address our concerns, the bill still creates a critical ambiguity. Whether cost effectiveness must be demonstrated at the individual material level or at the project level. This matters because a single more expensive material could trigger a five year delay for the entire program.

Clarifying that cost effectiveness is assessed at the project level ensures that cost effective strategy is ready to go now, like optimizing building design and using lower carbon concrete can move forward. In addition, a pause of five years is excessive and arbitrary.

There's no merit to a pause of this duration. This would delay common sense, market ready, and cost effective strategies that must be deployed at scale to reach our climate goals. I wanna emphasize that no requirements have even kicked in yet. All that's happened is the release of a draft data collection framework. The Federal Government has already taken away California's tools to address transportation emissions, so why are we considering adding ambiguity to a program that hasn't even begun yet?

We urge a no vote on AB 174 unless further amended. Thank you.

You're also recognized for two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and committee members. My name is Keith Krugh. I am the chief manufacturing officer at Fortera. We are an innovative low carbon cement company.

It's headquartered in San Jose with a commercial plant north of here in Shasta County. We directly employ more than 70 workers across the clean manufacturing value chain, from scientists and engineers to the plant operators on my team. Fortera cement generates about 70% fewer carbon emissions than traditional cement and at lower cost. When making traditional cement, you burn nearly two tons of limestone to create one ton of product. And that's due to losing about 44% of your initial input as c o two emissions.

To make Fortera cement, we use only one ton of limestone to create one ton of product. This fundamental efficiency, difference allows Fortera to produce at a commercial scale without the need to ask our customers for a green premium. Our cement's performance is functionally unchanged from traditional cements. And in some designs, it's even an improvement in both strength and workability. The Shasta commercial facility has a production capacity of about 15,000 tons of cement per year.

That's directly mineralizing about 7,000 tons of c o two. You can find our California made product in real real world construction projects across The US and more locally just a few mile miles west of here at UC Davis. We maintain strong partnerships with local and statewide cement users, especially including concrete producers, driven by the fact that our product does not compromise on performance or cost.

California has long been a leader in environmental stewardship, protecting the health of my family and my neighbors and while encouraging innovative novel technologies. Fortera chose to build and invest in this state because of that leadership and because of policies like your embol Please.

Thank you.

You can close. Just five seconds.

For those reasons, Fortera is opposed to AB 174 unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. We're now gonna move to any other individuals in the room that would like to express their opposition. Please come forward, state your name, your organization, and your position only.

Good morning. Scott Cox on behalf of Industrious Labs here to reiterate our position opposed unless amended and looking forward to seeing the amendments in print. Thank you.

Good morning. Kristen Shariyachi, representing the US Green Building Council, and we are here, to be opposed unless amended.

Asha Sharma on behalf of Sierra Club California in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Ruth McDonald with Climate Action California, respectful opposition. Thank you.

We'll now bring it back to the committee. Can you clarify, assemblyman, that you've you have accepted the amendments? Thank you. Would you like to close?

Sure. Thank you, madam chair. Look, by by setting impacts on the housing market, AB 174 ensures we are building smarter, not just faster, aligning housing development with our climate goals and environmental stewardship. And, of course, the conversation about cost effectiveness will continue to be ongoing with our folks who are here in opposition today.

Of course, your environmental partners and advocates, your concerns are heard and and reflected in our amendments that we have accepted and shared commitment to protecting our natural resources while meeting California's housing needs.

This is certainly something that is an urgency, and we do wanna work with folks to get this done, build that housing, get it done effectively, while at the same time making sure we obviously respect the environment, but making sure we're getting it done costly, effectively, and with those all involved so we can get done. So I know we'll work together on that, and I commit to that. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I ask for your vote.

Thank you. And I do have a motion from Senator Dahle. Secretary, would you please call the roll? The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations.

[Roll Call]

That is, two and on call.

Thank you.

I'd like to ask any authors from the assembly. The oh, we that was and so be it. We're going to move

to file item number 12, AB 191, by Assemblyman Berman. Assemblyman, you're recognized when you're ready.

Thank you, Senator or vice chair, vice chair. Thank you, vice chair. Gotta be respectful. AB 191 would require manufacturers of children's diapers to clearly label all ingredients on both the products package and online. I'll be accepting the committee amendments to create a six month sell through provision to give manufacturers time to sell existing stock through 07/01/2029.

As a new dad, I have a greater appreciation for how important it is for parents to make informed decisions when it comes to the health and wellness of their child. Recent testing shows many diapers are made with ingredients linked to health and environmental concerns. Given this, the lack of industry wide transparency around diaper ingredients prevents Californians from making the best decision for their families when buying the one thing that is touching their baby's skin literally every minute of their lives for their first few years.

Some manufacturers already voluntarily disclosed their ingredients showing that this requirement is feasible for businesses to comply with. To ensure transparency across the board, AB 1901 would require all children's diaper manufacturers to disclose ingredients online and on the outermost packaging.

Showing parents the the list of ingredients allows them to make an informed decision that is right for their family, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And I'm pleased to be joined today by Stephanie Davis Michelman, president of Healthy Baby, and Susan Little, California Legislative Director at Environmental Working Group.

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

Chair Blakesphere and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Stephanie Davis. I'm the president of Healthy Baby. I am a mother of two, and Healthy Baby is the pioneer of the first ever environmental working group verified diaper. We were founded on a very simple mission.

It's to powerfully protect and enrich the full potential of every child. We believe that mission begins with transparency. Since 2020, long before AB 191 was introduced, Healthy Baby committed to fully disclosing every material used to make our diapers because we believe parents have the right to know what touches their baby's skin every day. We built our business on the principle that transparency and innovation can coexist and that families should never be in the dark about information that can impact their children's health.

We strongly support AB 191 because we believe parents deserve clear and consistent information about the products that they use on their children daily.

The first years of a baby's life matter fondly. It is estimated that eighty percent of a baby's lifetime brain development takes place within the first three years. During this critical window, our children are wearing diapers twenty four seven. We also know that a newborn's skin is new is significantly thinner and more permeable than that of an adult and can readily absorb certain chemicals. Yet despite this extraordinary exposure, most brands, parents can't access any of the information about ingredients and materials in their child's diapers.

AB 191 is not a ban. That's why this matters. It doesn't prohibit ingredients. It doesn't tell parents what diapers to choose. It doesn't tell manufacturers what materials they can use.

It simply ensures that parents have access to information so they can choose what's best for their child's health.

If you would wrap up your comments.

Okay. Today, parents are often left relying on marketing claims, Internet searches to understand what's actually in their diaper, and we believe families deserve better than that. We understand that some stakeholders have raised concerns about confidential business information. However, confidential business information should not be a loophole that allows intentionally added ingredients to remain hidden from parents. Parents aren't asking for proprietary formulas.

They're not asking for supplier contracts. They're not asking for manufacturing processes or ingredient percentages. They just want to know what is being intentionally added to their child's diapers. We believe the requirement for companies to disclose raw materials, chemical names, and CAS numbers serves an important purpose. This information helps Clinicians, researchers, regulators, and parents identify accurately and consistently the ingredients that are included.

So at its core, this bill is about transparency and informed choice. The answer to confusion is not less information, it's better information. Transparency and innovation are not mutually exclusive. Our company, Healthy Baby, proves that. We haven't been limited in our growth.

We haven't been limited in our innovation. And in fact, we are a stronger company because we have the trust of our parents, and we know that we're doing the right thing. California has long led the nation in advancing consumer transparency and public health, and we believe diapers, one of the most frequently used products in early childhood, should be no exception. Parents know what's in their baby food. They should know what's in their child's diaper.

For these reasons, Healthy Baby respectfully urges your support of AB 191. Thank you for your time and consideration.

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

Good morning. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council in support.

Hi. April Robinson with the Voice for Choice Advocacy in support.

Nora Angeles with Children Now, proud cosponsor.

Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation California in support.

Kai Clawson on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in strong support. As a parent, thank you, author.

David Stammerjohan, policy in turn with Miss Aveda Group here on behalf of Consumer Federation California in support.

Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in strong support. Thank you.

Center for Environmental Health, and Children Now who just spoke, and also Consumer Reports, all cosponsors. Thank you and support.

Thank you. We'll now move to any key witnesses in opposition. If you could make room for the opposition witnesses, please. Thank you.

Do you want us to come back up? Yeah. Questions?

Yeah. That'd be great.

Oh, no. It's okay. No. Come on over.

No. We're gonna have we'll have a seat back and we can bring you back up for questions. And you're each recognized for two minutes.

Yes. Thank you so much to the committee for the opportunity to provide testimony today. My name is Edwin Borbonne. I'm here on behalf of the Center for Baby and Adult Hygiene Products known as BAHB with an oppose unless amended position on Assembly Bill 1901. BHP represents manufacturers of absorbent hygiene products in North America such as menstrual products and diapers as well as companies that supply materials for those products representing over 85% of the market in North America.

We do wannA Be clear that BHB members take the safety of consumers as our utmost priority and don't disagree with the intent of the bill. This commitment does go down to the level of ingredients that are present in our products, but to ensure that manufacturers can comply with the letter of this law, we are requesting amendments to align AB 191 with California's menstrual product right to no act, which was passed in 2020.

The menstrual product right to no act contains provisions that allow sufficiently time to change labels when there's an ingredient update, an ingredient hierarchy that lists ingredients using standardized nomenclature that's broadly understood by consumers, administrative penalties for noncompliance, and protections for confidential business information. Many people are likely consumers of both menstrual products and children's diapers and often simultaneously. So given that both our absorbent hygiene products comprise a similar materials, we do recommend having a similar compliance framework for both products.

Menstrual products framework aside, there are still some compliance challenges in 1901. What we do appreciate the committee amendment to provide a six month sell through when there is an ingredient update, any labeling loss should reflect that those packaging changes will require appropriate lead time to enable a path to continued compliance which is why we're requesting an ongoing eighteen month window for packaging changes due to an ingredient update and six month window to update those ingredients online.

Additionally, a AB 191 does require manufacturers to display intentionally added ingredients on the product details page on a website where children's diapers are sold, which may include retailer websites. And for these reasons, we are opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning, chair, members. Nicole Quiniones here on behalf of the Fragrance Creators Association, and I just wanna echo that we, of course, share the author's goal, and we're not here to oppose transparency, but we do believe there is a balance to be had between transparency and intellectual property protections, and we believe those frameworks exist in existing law under the bills mentioned by my colleague, the Cleaning Product Right Know Act, the Cosmetic Fragrance and Flavor Ingredient Right to Know Act, and the Master Products Right to Know Act.

These frameworks ensure that any ingredient on any of 22 designated hazard lists and any fragrance allergen that is present in a product must be disclosed, while also providing a pathway to protect intellectual property for manufacturers, through trade secret protection provisions that are included in this bill. The designated list framework does create a clear and enforceable floor that a general mandate, like, is it 1901 today, may not.

It also encourages companies to reformulate in order to remove any ingredients that are on those hazard lists, which I think we can all agree would be the ultimate goal.

And just to clarify from some of the comments made by supporters, I wanna be clear, confidential business information is less about transparency to consumers, and it is more about protecting that intellectual again, that is why that balance is so important to us and, respectfully oppose 1901 today. Thank you.

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

Hello. Dennis Salviani on Consumer Brands Association. We agree and oppose at this point. Thank you.

Elizabeth Escobello with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also with the oppose unless amended positions for the reasons that were stated. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now move to the committee. So we will we will have a motion, by Senator Dahle. First, I'd just like to thank the author for bringing this forward. I do not miss the diaper years by any means.

But I, but I can completely understand from a parent's perspective that, you know, want whether it's wanting to make the healthy choice or option for your child or just trying to to understand potential allergens? And and as we know, as parents, you don't necessarily know what allergy your child is going to have. And often, it's a guessing game of of trial and error.

So when you can identify that, having the information on ingredients, whether it's diapers, whether it's food, is so is so vital. So I wanna thank you for bringing this forward.

I will be supporting your bill. Would you like to close?

I'll defer to your close for me. You know, I appreciate the conversation. We've been having lots of conversations with with the opposition, and we'll continue to have those conversations. You know, the the bill, they don't have to comply until 07/01/2029. It's not even 07/01/2026.

So I think that's a good a good stretch of time to give the industry time to comply with the bill. I respectfully ask for aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And we have a motion by Senator Dahle. Secretary, would you please call the roll?

The motion is do passed as amended to judiciary. [Roll Call]

2-0, and that bill is on call.

Thank you, Senators. Thank you.

Oh, awesome. What about on this side? 6,7. 6,7. We're now gonna move back up to the file order item number 6.

Assemblyman Jackson, assemblyman, you are recognized when you're ready.

I have show and tell.

Oh, boy.

Should I hand these up here? Or No.

You can keep them right here.

Alright.

We're gonna start with, AB 1149, Madam Chair.

First, I would like to start by saying how grateful I am to the time and attention to the Chair and committee staff who have put into understanding and updating our collective vision for market development incentives in response to California's conservation and circular economy objectives. And we will be accepting the committee's amendments today. While Californians returned a record number of PET beverage containers in 2025, a 74% recycling rate, and the program invested more than $130 million to collect those containers.

Incentives for processing those containers in California have failed to keep pace. In the last twenty four months, market conditions have demonstrated that current policy has not adequately supported the processing of those same materials to be made into new products for a true circular economy.

I have with me today representatives of two of the state's remaining PET reclaimers, both of whom have facilities in my district. Mister Paul Bahou of Global Recycling and Hannah Martinez of Indorama.

Go ahead, you're first.

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

Before my time starts, this is the show and tell. So just so you guys understand what we're talking about here, I have a PET bottle and a PET clamshell package, and this is the material after it's been ground up and washed. So here's your visual.

You can also turn around and show it to the audience so they can see it.

This is the wash flake after we grind it up and wash it, and this is the bottle and package. So this is what we're talking about.

Alright. Thank you.

Hey, everyone. My name is Paul Bahou, and I am the President of Global Plastics Recycling, a family owned business that has been in operation for thirty years. We are a PET wash line reclaimer based in Paris, California, which is an assembly member Jackson's district. I really appreciate that he came out and visited my facility that he is trying to save us all from closing our doors with AB 1149.

For the uninitiated, wash line reclaimers are the middle part of the closed loop of the bottle recycling process.

We buy CRV PET bales, pop them open, sort through the material, ground up the good stuff, wash it, and create an FDA compliant food contact grade flake material that can be used as a replacement for virgin resin made out of oil. The flake can be made into packages, fiber, and new bottles for a closed loop system. While my industry is necessary for California's recycling goals to be met, we have been struggling to compete with cheap plastic imports coming in from overseas.

Last year, two of the six wash line companies in California closed their doors, and I fear more may follow if immediate assistance is not given. The good news is that AB 1149 would give us this lifeline that we need and will help to save California's remaining infrastructure by closing the gap between import and domestic RPET prices.

Not only have imports push sale prices down, but feedstock prices are artificially higher. PET bale demand in Mexico is very strong, which often means companies from across the border who pay a fraction of our labor costs poach our bale supply, driving up prices for feedstock and squeezing California reclaimers in the middle. It's like we're Indiana Jones. Right? And we just got trapped in a room where the ceiling is coming down and the floor is rising up.

And at the same time, we're getting squished and time is running out. AB 1149 is the secret off switch in the wall. By giving California reclaimers a part of the CRV fund to process CRV PET bales, we can offset those higher input costs and lower sale values and protect the remaining infrastructure in the state.

Without it, California's programs like SB 54, the Landmark Packaging Law, and AB 793, the plastic minimum content law, would be imperiled as there wouldn't be anybody left in the state to process these clamshells or make the pellets for the bottlers to meet their minimum content requirements.

I love my state and I love my industry, and if this bill passes at the full funding amount requested, both will be better off for it, and we'll both have a more sustainable future. Thanks for listening, and I hope you will support this bill.

Well thank you for your enthusiasm. We appreciate that.

I love what I do.

Yes. Good. Okay. And you also have two minutes.

Thank you. That was a that's going to be a tough act to follow. I'm definitely not as enthusiastic, but definitely proud of my company as well. So good morning, and thank you, chair and members of the committee. My name is Hannah Martinez, and I'm the head of sustainability advocacy for Indorama Ventures in the Americas region.

We are the largest producer and mechanical recycler of PET in the world, and we're here today in support of support of AB 1149 to increase and extend PMDP for PET recyclers in California, and we thank assembly member Corey Jackson for his leadership in this issue. Sustainability is core to our business model. We grew our recycling businesses because our customers demanded packaging that was economic, sustainable, and environmentally friendly.

With more than 20 recycling facilities across 11 countries, we proudly recycle 789 bottles every second. And as of August 2025, we have recycled 150 billion PET bottles, avoiding an estimated 3.8 billion, eight million tons of CO2 emissions and diverted 2,800,000 tons of plastic waste from landfills and the environment.

While California is one of the few states with a bottle bill that recycles nearly 75% of PET, it is also the state that is losing the most PET recycling capacity. The global overproduction of PET has forced domestic prices below what is sustainable, thus reducing domestic recycling capacity and jobs. Nearly 30% of US PET recycling capacity has been shuttered in the last year, and investments to optimize or expand PET have stalled or been canceled.

Our PET overcapacity is driven by policy incentives without commensurate domestic demand. Policies promote recycling without enacting corresponding domestic recycled content mandates or broad food grade packaging approvals.

Recycling works, but it does not work when policies are not aligned. We have incentives that encourage collection, but not enough support to ensure that the material is actually processed here and turned back into new products. That's why AB 1149 is so important, increasing and extending PMDP in California is critical to support and maintain the PET recycles that still remain in especially our Fontana, California facility, which, recycles 5 billion bottles per year and employs approximately 135 people.

And we want to remain in the state to effectively achieve the state's goal of having a circular economy. So we respectfully urge support for AB 41149. Thank you.

Okay. Well, thank you very much. So if there are others in the room wishing to express support, please come forward to the microphone. State your name, the organization you represent, and your position on the bill.

Good morning, madam chair. Chris McCauley here on behalf of Niagara Bottling and Our Planet Earth in strong support of 1149. Thank you.

Madam chair, madam vice chair, members of the committee, Paula Treed, on behalf of the alliance of which Paul and Hannah belong to, along with RPET and Peninsula Packaging. And I won't read the other 25 companies in support, but ask for yours. Thank you.

Madam chair, members, Mark Murray with environmental group, Californians Against Waste in support, and also on behalf of my new best friend, Dennis Albiani, support from the PET Recycling Corporation of California. Thanks.

Noah Melware on behalf of CR&R Environmental Services in support. Thank you.

Chad Mays on behalf of Republic Services in support.

David Krueger for Waste Connections in support.

Good morning. I read on behalf of the International Bottled Water Association in support.

Dylan Finley on behalf of the Association of Plastic Recyclers and the Recycling Partnership in support.

Okay. Thank you. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition in the room who wish to come forward? Okay. I don't see any.

Anybody wishing to express opposition to this bill? Please come forward to the microphone. Any opposition? No? Okay.

Well, we'll turn this back to the committee, and I'll just start with a couple of comments. Thank you for this bill. This is, I've had the opportunity in my role as the EQ chair to do some tours of various recycling facilities, including ones that create those little plastic pellets and then blow it back into water bottles so that it can be used again.

And I think we have a goal of having all parts of the supply chain stand on their own. So, ideally, a functioning market doesn't require a subsidy.

Right? But we recognize that for our recyclers to stay in business in California, it's not quite functioning at that state yet, so we need to have a subsidy. And that's what you are doing here with the PMDP, which stands for Plastic Market Development Program, to help California recyclers stay in business and stay afloat and be successful.

So, there's a lot of discussion about what's the right amount and over what amount of time in that, but I appreciate your bill bringing forward a proposal, and I'm happy to be supporting it today. So I'll look to my colleagues to see if anyone else has comments they'd like to make.

Okay. Well, then we'll turn it back to you to close.

Thank you very much, madam chair. Now that we are all fully awake due to my witnesses, as you can see, this issue brings together a broad and diverse coalition including recyclers, environmental advocates, beverage producers, and continue manufacturers with bipartisan support for this bill. California has led the nation in collection, but collection alone isn't enough. If we are serious about a closed loop economy, we have to invest in processing and remanufacturing here at home. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion.

Moved.

Okay. The vice chair moves. Please call the roll.

The motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Next, we have AB 1584 from Assemblymember Jackson. This is file item number seven. I think we're nearing completion. Maybe we have three bills left after this bill. Yeah.

So you can invite any witnesses you have or not, and you're welcome to begin when ready.

Madam chair, no more witnesses. I don't think you could bear any more of my witnesses. No. You can stay there. Just stay there.

This bill, madam chair, would establish and specify duties for the Office of Civil Rights at the California Air Resources Board. This bill would require that board staff, grantees, and contractors are provided training on their civil rights obligations, as well as developing an evaluation tool to assist staff in understanding their civil rights requirements. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. Anybody in the room wishing to express support for this bill, please come forward. Alright. Anybody in opposition?

Lead witnesses, opposition? No. Not seeing anyone in the room wishing to express opposition? Okay. Not seeing any.

We can bring it back to the committee. Any comments on this bill? Oh, yes.