Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Welcome to the Assembly Natural Resource Committee hearing. Following measures have been pulled from today's hearing. Item 7, SB958, Weber Pearson. Item 15, SB1341, Cabaldon. Additionally, the following measures are proposed for consent.

Item 4, SB894, Allen, although it's still debatable. Item 6, SB955, Blake Spear. Item 8, SB937 Becker. Item 10, SB1079, Stern. That leaves 7 Bills to be presented.

We do not have a quorum yet, but I appreciate my Republican colleagues who are here. We're gonna start as a subcommittee. Senator McNerney, would you like to go first?

I would like that.

Come on down. Whenever you're ready.

Hello. Good afternoon, Vice Chair Brian. I'm sorry. Chair Brian, Vice Chair Ellis, and distinguished members of this committee. I accept the committee amendments.

That's important. And I thank the committee for working closely with my staff. California is committed to reaching 100% clean energy by 2045, but this development of clean energy industry under California is under threat. Federal government has canceled tax credits for clean energy projects that canceled the $1,200,000,000 funding in California's proposed hydrogen hub arches. Hydrogen made from renewable sources is a clean, safe fuel that can help us meet our clean energy targets.

Hydrogen can be used as a transition to exist from existing power infrastructure into clean energy infrastructure. SB1350 will help California utilize hydrogen to decarbonize the power system. SB1350 stimulates investments in hydrogen projects by allowing power plants to get renewable portfolio standard credit when they use green hydrogen made from renewable energy sources to power turbines by incentivizing in state hydrogen projects. We're also creating thousands, really thousands of jobs.

1 hydrogen production project alone in Lancaster, it's called Element, It's creating 1,200 union construction jobs.

I'm pleased to say that recent amendments have removed opposition from the NRDC, Earthjustice, and others. And I thank the committee for helping us add an urgency clause so that the clean energy projects like Element can secure federal fundings before they expire. With us today to testify, well actually, not with us, was the Senate member 1, Senate member Carrillo, who is a principal coauthor, Janice Lin from the Green Hydrogen Coalition, and Jeremy Smith from the State Building Construction and Trades Council.

And, Janice, would you like to take the book?

Thank you, Senator. Chair Brian, Vice Chair Ellis, members, my name is Janice Lin, and I'm the founder and president of the Green Hydrogen Coalition. We're an educational nonprofit focused on the thoughtful advancement of renewable hydrogen for our energy transition. I'd like to thank all of you and committee staff for working with the author's office and sponsors. Members, renewable hydrogen is a carbon free fuel that we can produce in large quantities from the resources we have right here in California.

These resources can be used to ensure reliability in our power sector. This is helpful and provide this can provide emergency reserves when the choice is either an outage or combusting diesel. And it's already informally defined in the guidebook and eligible when used with linear generators or fuel cells. Today, we're facing a pretty severe energy price shock, and we have a need for fuel diversification. SB 1350 is the logical choice that puts renewable hydrogen on the same footing as other renewables in our RPS guidebook.

And to be clear, nothing in SB 1350 mandates nor requires utilities use of hydrogen. Instead, it provides another tool in the toolkit for load serving entities to meet their carbon goals while using existing infrastructure, and the ability to repurpose existing infrastructure ensures affordability. Any use

of renewable hydrogen and turbines will

be held to the same stringent standards that restrict emissions from power plants. Our air quality management districts would not permit any power plant that didn't meet its world class emission standards. And finally, SB 1350 is really needed. It's an urgently needed market signal today because the power sector is one of the few sectors that can use large quantities of renewable hydrogen near term.

And that demand will encourage the development of larger production facilities driving down cost and enabling faster conversion in other hard debate sectors, such as long haul trucking, aviation, shipping, and fertilizer production.

Producing renewable hydrogen from our local resources will also help diversify our energy supplies and enhance our energy security. This is good for our economy, our environment, and our health.

Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Members of the committee, Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. Also, proud, cosponsors of this legislation. I'd like to thank you, Mister Chair, and your hardworking staff, for getting us here today along with the staff of the previous committee.

It's been a long, fast road to get here, but we felt it important to go through the policy committee process here and and have all the differing opinions heard and make a bill that's before you today that has broad support for

an

issue that really we've got to help along these next few years. It'd be interesting for you to know that the lead staffer at the state building trades on hydrogen is president Hannon. He unfortunately could not be here today, but he worked very hard on the Arches project, you know, on behalf of the state building trades council. And it was devastating when the administration pulled the funding for that.

And this is a project, that can help us bridge that gap, get, maybe hopefully to a more, friendly federal administration when it comes to hydrogen.

It's a project that is poised to create over a thousand, construction worker jobs as the Senator pointed out, and it's gonna be clean and reliable. So we've been happy to be part of this process. It's been a long haul, but we're here today. We appreciate the the understanding of the committee and the staff while we work through some last minute things. It's a good bill today.

It's been amended in a way that removes a lot of opposition, and we are dry vote. Thank you.

Absolutely.

Persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?

Good afternoon. Alfredo Redondo here on behalf of Yosemite Clean Energy, Energy Vault, and GeoKilm, all in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Alfredo Medina here on behalf of Element Resources. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jason Iger on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association and the Northern California Power Agency in support.

Good afternoon. Claire Sullivan on behalf of the city of Burbank and the city of Vernon in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Tim Kammer in support, with Hanwha Power and, GeoMonia. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair, members. Esa Diaz on behalf of the California Hydrogen Business Council in support.

Marjorie Lee, Samson Advisors here on behalf of the Southern California Public Power Authority in strong support.

Thank you so much. Any persons here

in the hearing room, primary witnesses in opposition to this measure? Seeing no primary witnesses, are there persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?

Good afternoon. Chris Rose on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund. Well, we hadn't opposed unless amended position. Through the Senator and his staff's great work, we, happily remove our opposition. We're now neutral.

Thank you. Will

Breager for Climate Action California, respectfully opposing.

Good afternoon. Jacob Evans with Sierra California. We are registered on position but are reviewing the amendments and really appreciate the direction they've taken the bill. Thank

you. Thank you, Mister Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for Earthjustice. We had an opposed position. Thank you to the Senator and to the committee for the very strong amendments that came in last week.

We have pulled our opposition off of SB 1350.

Sounds like a damn good hydrogen bill to me.

Turn it

back to the dice. Any questions, comments from our colleagues? Seeing none, Senator, would you like to close?

Well, I

Your gonna what? Your other witness is here as well. Mister Carrillo, do you wanna join the conversation?

I do. I very much

do. Senator. We'll give you 2 minutes before the Senator closes.

you two minutes before the Senator closes.

Mister Chair, committee members, thank you, and thank you, Senator McNearney. I am a proud principal co author of SB 1350 and have seen firsthand the benefits of hydrogen projects. Within my district, the Sierra Lancaster has been an early adopter of hydrogen and is seen as a worldwide leader in hydrogen investment and industry development. In December 2024, Lancaster launched the first public hydrogen authority, otherwise known as FPH two, as California's first public hydrogen utility.

FPH two was established to revolutionize hydrogen accessibility and affordability by connecting renewable hydrogen producers with various municipalities and industrial operators through a transparent marketplace.

Since then, FPHU has laid a foundation for the normalization of hydrogen as a key energy source that directly helps the city of Lancaster generate more clean energy that it consumes. California must continue creating policies that support investment and innovation. Projects such as the Lancaster Clean Energy Center have the potential to create more than 1,200 construction jobs while significantly reducing emissions from California'SBower sector. Members, for this reason, I urge you to vote on SB 1315. Thank you, Mister Sherry.

Absolutely. Thank you, sir. Senator McNerney, would you like to close?

Well, thank you, Mister chairman. I think we have a pretty strong bill here and a good support coalition. We've, worked hard with the opposition to make sure that they see the light here and, have come to some good resolution. And I will ask for an aye vote.

We are one member short of a quorum. But I can imagine once we get a quorum, you'll have both a motion. You definitely have my support today. Largely because whenever Assemblymember Carrillo tells me it's important to him, we take that very seriously in this committee. Thank you both so much.

Thank thank you, Mister Chair.

Senator Allen, always on time.

Hey, Ben. Alright. Well, let's do this. Alright. Well, thank you, Mister Chair members.

Plastic pollution continues to be a major environmental public health challenge. Microplastics are now commonly detected in air, drinking water, and food. They have negative impacts on human health, including links to illnesses like heart and lung diseases, as well as reproductive harm. So that's one of the reasons why 2022, I authored s p 54, which established the most comprehensive regulatory framework for plastic covered materials in the nation.

Within this framework that, was part of the bill as the plastic pollution mitigation fund, which will consist of at least $5,000,000,000 annually.

Sorry. Sorry. $5,000,000 total

over ten years, half 1,000,000 annually, half 1,000,000,000 annually, to address the harms that plastic is already causing in communities and environments. So this bill, SB 1180, builds on that foundation by providing detailed operational guidelines that are necessary to administer the funds, ensuring the dollars are being spent effectively and equitably. The bill outlines requirements for expenditures, including improvement of public or environmental health, engagement with communities, establishment of reporting and transparency measures to ensure that funds are used for their intended purpose.

It also expands the eligible fund recipients beyond those originally listed in SB 54, ensuring that the door to funding is open to the full range of organizations doing this work and encouraging the potential for collaborations in large scale projects.

The bill also addresses a persistent barrier in grant programs accessibility By mandating that the implementing agencies provide technical assistance and you standardize grant applications and reporting guidelines and initiate projects in a timely manner, the bill ensures that groups such as tribes and smaller community organizations are provided with streamlined administrative pathways.

We're continuing to work with stakeholders and relevancy departments to ensure that money goes towards meaningful projects that will protect public health, restore our natural environment, deliver real benefits to the communities that have historically borne the greatest burden of plastic pollution. Here with me today is Mauro Kacousian with the environmental justice communities against plastics and Maya Olegari with the Surfrider Foundation.

Okay. Good afternoon, Chair Brian and members of the committee. My name is Mauro Kacousian, and I'm speaking today on behalf of environmental justice communities against plastics coalition or EJCAP. We are in strong support of SPLM eighty, and we urge the members of the committee to vote in support of this bill as it is necessary to ensure that that California's plastic pollution mitigation fund or PPMF delivers on its intended purpose to address the environmental justice and public health harms caused by the full life cycle of plastics.

Plastic pollution is not just a waste issue.

It is a public health crisis. Plastics release toxic chemicals such as endocrine disruptors like BPA and phthalates, plastic materials and fragments known as microplastics enter the human body through ingestion and inhalation. Once inside, they can cause inflammation and act as Trojan horses that carry other harmful pollutants, such as pathogens and heavy metals, thereby increasing overall exposure risks. Together, these pathways make plastics uniquely complex and difficult to mitigate once exposure occurs. These harms are not experienced equally.

Environmental justice communities, disproportionately low income communities and communities of color face cumulative exposure across the life cycle of plastics due to proximity to production, refining, and waste facilities. SB 1180 strengthens the original purpose of the PPMF established by SP 54 by ensuring expenditures actually reduce harm and improve public health. The bill provides an important opportunity to prioritize communities, workers, and tribes most burdened by plastics.

It maintains a clear nexus to plastic pollution by requiring funded projects to directly reduce pollution, mitigate health impacts, restore environments, and deliver measurable benefits, while ensuring polluters pay for a just transition to local zero waste economies.

Thank you so much.

Okay. Two minutes.

Great. Thanks. Good afternoon, Chair Brian and members. My name is Mihail Agare, and I'm with the Surfrider Foundation. I'm the senior plastic pollution initiative manager.

I'm honored to be here in strong support of SB 1180. Communities throughout your representative districts, such as Los Angeles and San Jose County and the Central Valley are all oil and gas companies sacrifice zones with high exposure to environmental hazards. However, with the effective use of plastic pollution mitigation funds, we can turn this around and the funding can serve as a catalyst resulting in improved health, vibrant communities, eco and ecosystems for all Californians.

SB 1180 builds on this to ensure that the mitigation funds fulfills its intended purpose. First, to be clear, plastic production drives plastic pollution and creates harm across its entire life cycle.

Therefore, unless we address production, there will always be plastics in our communities, in our bodies, and in the environment. The plastic pollution mitigation fund is a groundbreaking opportunity to make transformative change and it's imperative that we get it right. SB 1180 adds clarity, transparency, accountability, and ensures that the funding is directed where it's needed most and supports projects with meaningful, long lasting benefits and communities. It also prioritizes environmental justice organizations, tribes, and other entities who have historically been left out.

Finally, Surfrider strongly believes that the mitigation funds should be guided by the communities most harmed by plastic pollution and not by the producers responsible for creating the problem.

So SB 1180 will be will create a catalyst to fund meaningful and measurable plastic reduction solutions. And I hope we can count on all of your support to create healthier communities and environments across California. Thank you for your support.

Thank you so much.

Are there any other persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?

Will Breager for Climate Action California in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Marie Lu on behalf of in in support on behalf of Oceana, Ocean Conservancy, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, the California Environmental Justice Alliance, as well as the Central California Environmental Justice Network.

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

Good afternoon. Isabela Lobawadio with the Nature Conservancy in support.

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

Good afternoon. Nick Clapas with Californians Against Waste in strong support.

Claire Sullivan on behalf of the City Of Thousand Oaks in strong support. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon. Doctor Zoe Conleff with Black Women for Oneness in strong support and also offering strong support from Pacoima Beautiful and Just Transition Alliance.

Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties in support.

Good afternoon. Michael Chen on behalf of Audubon, California support. Thank you.

Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities in support.

Kai Clawson on behalf of Rethink Waste in support. Thank you.

John Kennedy on behalf of the rural counties with the new amends, pleased to support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. April Robinson with the Voice for Choice Advocacy in support.

Hello. Tom Helm on behalf of California Environmental Justice Coalition and their members, West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs, Ecology Center, one thousand Grandmothers for Future Generations, Green Action for Health and Environmental Justice, Global Alliance for incinerator alternatives, Richmond Shoreline Alliance, Central California Environmental Justice Network, Sunflower Alliance, Access to Thrive, the Sacramento Environmental Justice Coalition, West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, Parents Against the Santa Susana Field Lab, and Presidents Against Fracking. Thank you.

Hello. Kevin Hamilton from Physicians for Social Responsibility of Los Angeles, Heal the Bay, Climate Health Now Action Fund, and Clean Water Action in support.

Jacob Evans with Sierra Leone, California in support.

any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure.

You're welcome to come down here.

Two minutes each whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Nicole Quinionez is here today on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association and the California Chamber of Commerce. Both organizations were members and the lead negotiators on SB 54, which established the plastic pollution mitigation fund. First, I just wanna extend my appreciation to the Senator and his staff who have continued to meet with us throughout this process and have continued to amend SB 1188 to help us get closer and close the gap on our opposition.

We certainly share the senator's goal to provide more specificity and transparency around how the 500,000,000 annually, which is paid by industry, is or should be spent.

However, we do have a few remaining concerns and simply want to ensure the scope of eligible grants are as closely connected to reducing plastic waste and mitigating the impacts of plastic pollution where the policies in SB 54, cannot fully eliminate or, move away from those plastic materials. Again, we have a long history of working with the Senator and his office and look forward to resolving these concerns. But today, we are opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Mister chairman, members. Tim Schoestick with the American Chemistry Council. I too would like to thank the Senator and, his staff for the ongoing dialogue we've had over this with this bill, as it moved through the process. I'd second the, comments made by, miss Quinones on this bill. We do have a concern regarding a general statement in the bill about plastics reduction.

In my view and our view, this does not necessarily take into consideration why these materials may be used, the critical role they do play for certain industries, food, healthcare, and the often overlooked, performance benefits, such as reducing, food waste. So striking this sentence in our view does not impact what the overall objective of the bill is. The current EPR law, SB 54, does contain a, component, for plastic source reduction. We think it's, better, handled, through that particular statute, than including it in this bill.

So, we also oppose unless amended and look forward to working with the Senator as the bill moves forward.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. The other person's in the hearing room in opposition to this measure.

Good afternoon. Dawn Kepke on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association to align our comments, with the opponents. Thank you. Marisol Ybarra with Consumer Brands Association also in opposition as amended.

Edwin Borbon on behalf of the Flexible Packaging Association, also oppose the less amended. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jasmine Vai on behalf of Plastics Industry Association with an oppose and less amended position. We align our comments the testimony. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair members. Melissa Kostichuk with Western Growers. We align our comments with those of the lead opposition, oppose and less amended. Thank you.

Sarah Palomio, California Retailers Association also align our comments with the opposed testimony. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

We'll now turn it back to the dais. Questions, comments, concerns from my colleagues? We will do that as soon as we have a quorum. We're waiting for one more Republican.

Charlie?

And about seven Dems. Mister Allen, would you like to close?

Look forward to

a few of

the discussions. We're trying to you know, there's this balance here between, you know, obviously, litter reduction is so important. We also source reduction is important too. It's a big part of '54. How do we land this in a way that meets the spirit of the law and and the and the broader challenges that we have societally looking forward to figuring out how to how to how to do this.

But we start to ask for a high vote. Thank you

so much. Madam secretary, can we establish a quorum? Brian? Here.

Brian present. Ellis? Here. Ellis present. Alanis?

Present. Alanis present. Connolly?

Here.

Connelly present. Garcia Haney, Hoover? Here. Hoover present. Cholera, Macedo, Maritsuchi?

Here. Maritsuchi present. Pellerin, Schultz?

Present.

Schultz present. Wicks Ziburr? Here. Super present.

Perfect. And we had a motion by Mister Marisucci and a second by Mister Schultz. This bill has a do pass recommendation. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is do pass to appropriations. Brian?

Aye.

Brian, aye. Ellis? No. Ellis, no. Alanis?

No. Alanis, no. Connelly? Aye. Connelly, aye.

Garcia? Haney? Hoover? No. Hoover?

No. Cholera? Mercedo? Maritsuchi? Aye.

Maritsuchi, aye. Pellerin? Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye.

Wicks?

Oh, we? Hi.

Hi. Sorry. We're on SB 1180, Allen. Hi. Yeah.

She loves this book. Wix Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Zipper.

Aye.

Zipper, Aye. Put it out.

We'll leave it open for absent members. We have a motion on the consent calendar by Mister Schultz, a second by Mister Alaniz. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?

Brian. Aye. Brian, Aye, Ellis. Aye. Ellis, Aye, Alanis.

Aye. Alanis, Aye. Connolly. Aye. Connolly, Aye.

Garcia, Haney, Hoover. Aye. Hoover, Aye. Cholera, Macedo, Maritsuchi? Aye.

Maritsuchi, aye. Pellerin, Schultz?

Schultz, aye. Wicks?

Aye.

Aye.

Wicks, aye. Zipper?

Aye.

Zibur, aye.

I believe the senators are still in floor session.

Two. Would can

we get a motion for thank you. We have a for SB 1350 McNerney, we have a motion by Mister Schultz, a second by Mister Marisucci.

SB 1350, McNerney. Motion is do passed as amended to appropriations with the adoption of an urgency. Brian?

Brian, aye. Ellis? Aye. Ellis, aye. Alanis?

Aye.

Aye.

Alanis, aye. Connelly? Aye. Connelly, Aye. Garcia?

Haney? Yeah. Hoover? Aye. Hoover, Aye.

Cholera? Masato? Maritsuchi? Aye. Palerin?

Aye. Palerin, Aye. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, Aye.

Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye. Zubar? Aye.

Zubar, aye.

That bill is out. Alright, senators. We've got eleven minutes before we start killing bills.

We'll see

y'all soon.

y'all soon.

Senator Wejau, would you like to present?

Alright. Real quick. Yes.

We got some contentious motions down there.

Alright. Good morning, Chair and members. I'm here to present SB 1326. Recent author amendments provide clarity for lead agencies while still strengthening tribal consultation, tribal cultural resource protections under CEQA, and preserving the bill's central purpose of increasing consideration of tribal expertise, knowledge, and participation in identifying avoidance and mitigating impacts.

The project's environmental review process requires lead agencies to consult with California Native American tribes culturally affiliated with the project area to determine potential impacts and identify measures to avoid or mitigate significant impacts to tribal resources.

Unfortunately, the current tribal consultation process overlooks critical tribal cultural resource information and has failed to effectively prioritize, the avoidance and preservation of Native American culture. California Native American tribes are best positioned to identify their own TCRs and how to best protect them. I'm gonna speed this along. SB 1326 empowers California Native American tribes to better protect their TCRs and preserve their culture.

With me today in support of the bill is Laura Miranda of counsel to the Pechanga Band of Indians and chairman John Williams from the United Auburn Indian Community.

Alright. Good afternoon, Mister chairman and members of the committee. My name is John Williams. I am the chairman of the United Auburn Indian community. I'd like to thank Senator Wahab for her work on this issue.

SB 1326 is very important to my tribe. United Auburn is proud to be cosponsor of SB 1326, and we are honored to work with other California Native American tribes on this very important legislation. Protecting our tribal cultural resources and heritage is an utmost top priority for my tribe, our tribal membership, other tribes, and their membership. In the past, our cultural sites were destroyed or damaged because

tribal cultural resources that

were only listed in tribal that were only listed in tribal registers did not have legal protections. Our tribal knowledge is critical to set the standards for development of cultural appropriate avoidance and mitigation options. Prior to SB 1326, archeological identification, evaluation, treatment were used on tribal culture resources. This resulted in archaeologists dismissing and authorizing the destruction of many of our important tribal cultural sites, especially our grinding rocks. There is no such thing as an unsignificant grinding rock.

SB 1326 ensures that California Native American tribes have the authority to use our tribal cultural knowledge to identify tribal cultural resources and protection measures. The sites in our tribal registers will now have the same protections as sites on this as sites that are on the state and local registers, and out of state archaeologists can no longer authorize the destruction of our grinding rocks based on archaeological criteria that ignore tribal significance ignore tribal significance.

We have worked hard to listen to the concerns of our opposition. We under we understand their issues and have amended the bill to address those concerns while still maintaining the intent of our legislation. Our opposition had concerns about feasibility and clarity.

To address those concerns about about feasibility, we adopted their recommended language, which limits mitigation measures to those that are feasible. To address the opposition's concern about clarity, we updated the language in SB 1326 to be more clear about what happens when the lead agency does not adopt the identification, avoidance, mitigation, or treatment that a that a California Native American tribe has recommended. We appreciate the time and expertise of the opposition.

We feel that the changes they recommended will make it easier for lead agencies to successfully use SB 1326 because of the clearer language regarding feasibility and clarification of the lead agency agency's process for disagreeing with California Native American tribes. Your support of SB 1326 will go a long way in protecting our tribal cultural resources and our sacred way of life as well as protecting the legacy of our ancestors and making our tribal elders that are still here proud of you.

Thank you very much.

And it's two minutes two minutes per witness, although you are never gonna find a moment where I cut off California's first peoples. Whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon. Thank you. Good afternoon, chairperson Brian and members of the committee. My name is Laura Miranda. I am a member and legal counsel of the Pechanga Band of Indians.

I have dedicated more than twenty five years of my legal practice to cultural resources and historical properties law, including serving as technical advisor on several landmark cultural resources bills, including SB 18 in 2005, AB 52 in 2014, and AB 168 in 2020. This measure, SB 1326, helps to protect tribal cultural resources in two important ways. First, by supporting and elevating tribal knowledge to identify tribal cultural resources.

Specifically, this measure recognizes tribal registers as an authoritative source, and this is this addition is consistent with AB 168, which contains tribal registers, and AB 130 enacting tribal registers last year in 2025. Tribal registers are comparable to state and local registers, and they draw from a wealth of recognized sources, including published research, ethnographic data, archaeological information, and tribal knowledge, which are language, songs, customs, tribal traditions.

Tribal knowledge is not abstract. It is rooted in generations of cultural continuity. The second, part of this measure prioritizes culturally sensitive mitigation options. While this measure does not require specific mitigation, it builds on the good faith consultation between lead agencies and tribes to develop feasible mitigation. If avoidance is deemed infeasible, the lead agency is required to document the decision consistent with CEQA so that California tribal history is not lost.

We respectfully ask for your support and your aye vote on an SB 1326. Thank you.

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

Hello? Mister Chair. Mister Chair, members of the committee, Mister Chair, Mister vice Chair. Paul Latreat on behalf of Pechanga, on behalf of the Calusa, and the Tohon tribes in strong support.

Alex Alanis on behalf of the Hapomitola Hapomitola of Upper Lake, which is a cosponsor in addition to the Chuck Chancey and BHS tribes in support.

Good afternoon. Jerome Santis on behalf of the United Auburn Indian community in strong support.

Mister Chair and members, Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the Federated Indians of Great Rancherian support. Thank you.

Rocky Rushing representing the Society for California Archaeology, which maintains its position of support if amended. However, the society is open and willing to engage in constructive dialogue with hopes of reaching an unconditional position of support. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. Any persons in opposition to this measure? Two minutes each.

Okay. Great. Good afternoon, Chair. Thank you. My name is Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities. We do appreciate the ongoing conversations with the authors and the sponsors and for the recent amendments to the bill. Tribal consultation is an important topic, and we believe that for SB 1326 to be successfully implemented, additional details are needed in the bill.

Cities and counties are often the lead agencies under CEQA, and we're simply trying to clarify further in the bill language how tribal consultation is being expanded and how that may potentially have a wide range of impacts on housing, transportation, utility, and other infrastructure projects. The bill would allow a tribe to use a local tribal register to identify tribal cultural resources, and we believe there needs to be additional specific information in the bill for how to evaluate that under the consultation process.

The bill also changes the standard from considering mitigation measures to requiring the adoption of mitigation measures as part of the consultation when feasible.

These changes are uniquely impactful because a lead agency could be put in a situation where we have multiple tribes identifying cultural resources or, large cultural landscapes, for example, within their local register and requiring different mitigation measures from different tribal, governments. There could be then legal challenge to development or other infrastructure projects based on the determination of feasibility of mitigation measures being adopted or not as described, in the bill.

The bill does not address how a lead agency under CEQA would be able to seek that clarification, and so that's really what we've been looking for to prevent additional concerns and legal challenge, through the CEQA process that is that is already very common. We do remain opposed unless amended, and we are respectfully working through the author and sponsors and would like to continue working on our concerns as the bill moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. John Kennedy with RCRC on behalf of the rural counties. Respectfully oppose unless amended. SB 1326. As counties were lead agencies and often caught in the middle, between tribes and developers having to navigate those situations to comply with the law and reduce the risk and threat of challenges.

We as an organization are strongly committed to improving tribal consultation. We've seen some recent court opinions that have started to outline some of the contours of tribal consultation, but they are far too late. We need a lot more clarification on what we have to do and how we should be approaching tribal consultation. This bill checks some of those boxes.

There are a lot of things that I I think we agree with when it comes to recognizing tribal cultural knowledge, putting it on the same playing field as archaeologists, and appreciate the amendments that have been taken.

At the same time, we do remain concerned with some other aspects of the bill. I hope that we can continue working together to try and thread the needle and, you know, addressing our concerns over the next few weeks and months. But right now, we need to continue opposing the measure. Thank you.

The person's here in the hearing room in opposition to this measure.

Ben Turner with Axiom Advisors on behalf of CDIA.

Yeah. Thanks.

Sorry. Ben Turner with Axiom Advisors on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. Opposed unless amended.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. Jay Snacker on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, also with an opposed unless submitted position. I would align myself with the other opponents. Thank you.

Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties with the position of opposing less amended, also in alignment with my fellow local government associations. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Amber Rasa with the Association of California Water Agencies, also opposed the list amended and look forward to the continued conversations. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll now return it back to the dais. Questions, comments from colleagues? Seeing none, Senator, would you like to close?

Yes. Number one, I do just wanna address some of the things that were mentioned. We are more than happy to work with opposition to make this bill better as always. That's a commitment from me, but I also wanna flag that this bill literally addresses some of their concerns. Number one, it brings in the tribes very early on into addressing some of the concerns they have.

Number two, it's all the tribes, and that's one of the reasons why there is so much concern about what's going on. This way, if we bring in all the tribes that are specifically experts in that site, they can address some of the concerns very early on and reduce cost to any of the opposition groups that, care about this bill. The mitigation is also a lot simpler than, described.

So I do just wanna respectfully ask for an aye vote, as this bill actually addresses a lot of the concerns that they have.

Thank you for that. I agree, and this conversation is always ongoing. I also thought some of the opposition testimony was interesting. The idea that a large project that potentially crosses into the historical lands of two different tribes, I understand that's inconvenient, but I I think it is also incredibly inconvenient for the two tribes or multiple tribes who have historic remains and artifacts in that jurisdiction as well.

And I think this is a a clean and expedited way to make sure that we respect that history and that we preserve tribal artifacts and make sure that the tribes are included.

So I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. It has a do pass recommendation for me today to have a motion Move, Bill.

By Mister Shultz and a second Two seconds. By everybody else. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is do passed to appropriations. Brian.

Brian, Aye, Ellis? Aye. Ellis, Aye. Alanis? Aye.

Aye.

Alanis, Aye. Connolly?

Thank you.

Garcia? Yeah. Haney? Hoover? Culra?

Aye. Culra, Aye. Macedo Maritsuchi? Aye. Maritsuchi, aye.

Pellerin?

Pellerin, aye. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Wicks?

Aye.

Aye. Wicks, aye. Ziburr? Aye. Ziburr, aye.

That measures out. Senator Blake Spear, would you like to start with 954

Sure.

Or whatever order works for you?

954?

Yes. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Chair and colleagues. I rise to present SB 954, which provides thoughtful improvements to the CEQA exemptions passed through the budget act last year in SB 131. Last year, when the legislature passed SB 131, it created many sensible CEQA exemptions and reforms. It also created an exemption for advanced manufacturing that is so broad that it covers strip mining and other activities known to be especially harmful to the environment.

As you will recall, many elected members, including many people who are here today on this committee, raised serious concerns about this policy when it went through the legislature at the end of session.

The bill passed on the condition that further changes would be taken to revisit the definition for advanced manufacturing and add stronger protections for habitat for sensitive species and for tribal resources. Assembly member Connolly introduced legislation at the end of last session to achieve those goals, AB 1083. SB 945 sorry. SB 954 builds off the work in AB 1083 and follows through on the promises to clean up SB 131.

Under SB 954, the list of advanced manufacturing facilities eligible for a CEQA exemption is narrowed to exclude raw material extraction and conversion of materials into fuel, while adding important guardrails to protect the environment, communities, workers, and tribal resources.

These guardrails are are responsible, including a requirement that projects be set back from sensitive receptors, including homes and schools, and that they limit their air pollution to below significance thresholds. Such guardrails, while firm, are essential given the potential environmental hazards associated with advanced manufacturing. We've all witnessed the potential danger and environmental risk of advanced manufacturing facilities. This was illustrated less than a month ago with a chemical leak at an aerospace company that forced 50,000 res- residents of Garden Grove to evacuate.

It's important to remember that the advanced manufacturing CEQA exemption created in SB 131 was unprecedented.

Before SB 131, there had been no explicit sequo exemptions for industrial facilities or manufacturing facilities of any kind. This is because CEQA exemptions are typically not granted or, sorry, are typically only granted for projects that don't have known harmful impacts on air, water, and soil.

SB 954 attempts to modify the CEQA exemption in SB 131 by adding critical guardrails for advanced manufacturing, and it's important to recognize that we are in uncharted territory by granting a CEQA exemption for projects that have known harmful impacts.

The guardrails in SB 954 set high standards for manufacturing industries if they want to get a CEQA exemption, but all of those criteria are clear cut, meaning there will not be litigation on whether or not the project meet the criteria. This is a significant advantage for manufacturing facilities.

Moreover, SB 954 will incentivize manufacturing that meets the strong guardrails in the bill, including requiring that projects be LEED certified and meet high road labor standards. This will bring not just more, but better manufacturing to California. SB 954 also adds protections for habitat by requiring that rezoning for housing projects and habitat for protected species must go through CEQA, which provides important transparency and mitigation measures.

Finally, SB 954 modifies a CEQA exemption for day care facilities in SB 131 so that the CEQA exemption applies to day care facilities and residential areas, which were not included in SB 131, but it does not apply to day care facilities and industrial areas. Taken together, SB 954 meets the promise of cleanup on SB 131 and provides a path forward to streamline CEQA while retaining important protections for workers, the environment, and communities.

With me today is my lead witnesses. I have Elmer Lazardi from California Labor Federation and Chloe Shea from California Environmental Voters.

Thank you, Chair members. Elmer Lazardi with the California Federation of Labor Unions. We are here representing over 2,300,000 union workers in the state, including thousands of skilled workers who build, maintain, operate, and labor in manufacturing facilities in California. Our unions fully support expanding California's manufacturing base, but we must ensure that industry growth is accompanied with protections for workers, communities, and the environment. SB 131, with its broadly defined advanced manufacturing projects, eroded labor standards for workers, environmental safeguards, and public accountability in the process.

Without any significant cleanup legislation, companies will continue to take advantage of the overly broad definitions to skip over the public environmental and community review process to access building permits. This status quo allows companies to deprive workers, unions, and their communities of the opportunity to provide necessary input for large industrial projects that are cited in their own backyards.

And as the natural resource committee analysis clearly outlined, the facilities that we're talking about here include incredibly toxic and dangerous project types, like semiconductor facilities, fertilizer production, and rare earth mining. And I know Senator Blakes here already mentioned the Garden Grove incident. I think we're incredibly lucky to be having this conversation in a world where a crack in GKN's chemical tank help relieve pressure and avert a disaster.

But these are the types of facilities that we are talking about. And workers are the first line of exposure to imminent dangers in these facilities that can cause injury or death. Building any large scale industrial facilities without the safeguards that are traditionally required under CEQA increases exposure to unsafe conditions, compromises safety, and removes oversight mechanisms that ensure that projects are built correctly the first time. With this in mind, we support SB 954. We thank Senator Blakesford for her leadership in this.

It is a great step towards establishing oversight of advanced manufacturing projects while, of course, prioritizing labor standards that allow for growth in the state's economy while investing in safe middle class jobs for the workers who are actually propelling that growth. Thank you, and we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Chloe Shea, and I'm a legislative advocate with California Environmental Voters. We wanna thank the author and her team for working on this cleanup legislation as well as the coauthors for this bill and the previous, cleanup vehicle, AB 1083. We also want to thank the over 30 legislators who signed the letter last year explaining expressing their outstanding concerns for SB 131.

California environmental voters represents over 150,000 members across the state and works to build the movement power needed to solve the climate crisis and advance justice.

Through last year's budget process, the legislature passed SB 1311 of the biggest environmental rollbacks we've seen in recent history. Its its recent sequel exemption for advanced manufacturing opened a Pandora's box for industrial projects like strip mining and nuclear facilities to get a free pass from environmental review and public input. SB 954 delivers on commitments that the legislature made last year by reinstating a number of critical safeguards for frontline communities and the environment.

Among other guardrails, it establishes trigger distances for vulnerable communities and protected species, establishes air quality standards, and requires consultation regarding tribal resources. The CEQA process regularly improves advanced manufacturing projects to protect communities.

Through CEQA, Gilead Sciences' biomanufacturing campus in Foster City, for example, received public input that helped reduce impacts on water, energy demand, and fuel consumption, saving over half $1,000,000 annually for commuters in fuel costs. Local air just local air districts and water agencies also often rely on sequel analyses for the discretionary permitting processes. Furthermore, we know that Californians want to see our environmental regulations protected. Polling commissioned by Envirovoters Ed Fund shows that there is a demand for proactive climate solutions.

83% of Californians want to want to prioritize regulations and investments that protect communities from wildfires, flooding, drought, extreme heat, and air pollution.

So for all these reasons, we are happy to support SB 954. We appreciate our ongoing partnership with Snyder Blake Spear and the coauthors of this bill and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Are there any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?

Will Brigger on behalf of three climate oriented groups, Climate Action California, three fifty Humboldt, and three fifty Sacramento in support. Thank you.

Alex Loomer on behalf of the Maryland Defense Fund, Pacific Forest Trust, Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, Earthjustice, Sonoma Land Trust, and Defenders of Wildlife, all in support. Thank you.

With The Nature Conservancy in support.

Jacob Evans with Sierra Club, California in support of amended to strengthen the safeguards in the bill. Thank you.

Judy Yu, the state building and construction trades in support and was asked to register in support for United Auto Workers.

Good afternoon. Christina Scrivner, the Center for Biological Diversity and Support.

Hi. Vanessa Flores on behalf of the Cleaning Healthy California in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. April Robinson with the Voice for Choice Advocacy in support.

Gabriel Tolson with the Planning Conservation League in support. Also registering the same support for men in position of Sierra Club on behalf of NRDC, Save the Bay three fifty Bay Area Action, and Endangered Habitats League. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Nick Lapis with California's Against Waste, also support if amended.

Michael Chen with Audubon, California in support.

Katie Valenzuela on behalf of Communities for a Better Environment and support if amended. Thank you.

Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Property in support if amended.

Laura Muther on behalf of California Interfaith Power and Light in strong support.

Kevin Hamilton with Physicians for Social Responsibility in support.

Tom Helm with Valley Improvement Projects in support. Thank you.

Hi. Marie Lu on behalf of Restore the Delta Resources Renewal Institute, California Protection Information Center, San Francisco Baykeeper, the California Environmental Justice Alliance, and NRDC in support if amended position. Thank you.

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

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

Two minutes each.

Chairman Bryant, Assembly members. My name is Matt Regan. I'm here representing the Bay Area Council and about 400 of Northern California's largest employers. We were the first business group in California to support AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. We're firm believers that California should lead the world in creating a clean, sustainable economy.

But we fear that in the future, California will be held up as a cautionary lesson on what not to do. California has the cleanest energy in the country, the cleanest energy portfolio, the highest energy standards, and the cleanest fuels. If we were really here to address the environmental impacts of advanced manufacturing, then surely we should be seeking ways to encourage manufacturing under the umbrella of California's highest-in-the-nation standards. We are aligned with the author's intent to clean up SB 131.

However, the bill in its current form adds significant new barriers, undermining CEQA reform efforts undertaken to combat CEQA misuse and abuse that we all know exists.

While well-intentioned, SB 954 goes beyond mere cleanup by introducing new land use requirements, a new certification process, and new labor requirements to achieve a CEQA exemption path. Please make no mistake.

Please make no mistake, we are not opposed to establishing environmental guardrails on projects seeking seeking a CEQA exemption. But as in print, SB 954 requires conflicting and at times impossible to meet benchmarks, some of which have nothing to do with the project's environmental impacts. This bill will have serious serious implications on California's ability to attract and retain advanced manufacturing projects and the climate benefits that those jobs and that those jobs that come with it.

As an example, in December, a Bay Area company, Anthro Energy, which invented a new cutting-edge battery—they received a $5,000,000 grant from the California Energy Commission, have an R&D facility in Alameda, and just announced their new manufacturing facility in Kentucky, where 78% of their energy comes from burning coal.

This is just one of many examples of companies that have left California or are choosing not to site in California because it is impossible to locate here due to the lengthy regulatory burden and risk of litigation under CEQA.

And when they leave, their carbon footprint greatly expands. Out of sight, out of mind, and off our books is not a winning strategy to address global climate change. For these reasons, we respectfully oppose SB 954. Thank you.

Two minutes.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Dawn Koepke on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also in opposition to SB 954. Historically, California has been a bright light. However, we are concerned that we are falling behind in manufacturing competitiveness overall, with losses of over 600,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000, and 82,000 lost since 2024 alone.

Projections indicate these losses will continue over the next decade. Once a key economic driver, California is no longer keeping pace when it comes to manufacturing. This decline is an urgent—and economic—urgent economic and climate challenge, since many of these industries, as was stated, are choosing to grow in states with less protective laws and regulations.

A significant driver of the decline in California's manufacturing base is that the speed at which manufacturers must bring products to market in a competitive global economy is inconducive with California's lengthy pre- and post-entitlement permitting landscape, including but not limited to CEQA. While California makes CEQA out to be the end-all and be-all of protections, the reality is that all project decisions begin with local land use planning decisions.

Any decision to site a project next to a sensitive receptor—as often referred to as different sorts of examples—ultimately begins with that local land use planning agency. They are the entities that give that first initial green light for such projects. All this notwithstanding, California is one of the most protective states in the nation with the strictest emissions, climate, energy efficiency, water quality protection, and labor laws.

Manufacturers, regardless of any CEQA exemption, continue to have compliance obligations under a myriad of laws, regulations, and permitting requirements across dozens of federal, state, and local agencies. That doesn't change with the CEQA exemption under SB 131.

In this regard, instead of placing significant added regulatory permitting and costs for non-advanced manufacturing, we would urge you to vote no. Happy to answer any questions.

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

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Chris Micheli here on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition. Thank you.

John Kennedy, RCRC, opposing unless amended, not related to advanced manufacturing. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Adam Regele on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and NAIOP SoCal in opposition. Thank you.

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

Sofia Quach on behalf of the California Council for Affordable Housing and the Housing Action Coalition in respectful opposition.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Skyler Wonnacott with the California Business Properties Association, as well as NAIOP California and BOMA California, in respectful opposition.

Good afternoon. [inaudible] on behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. Respectfully opposed.

Afternoon. Sarah Pollo-Moo with the California Retailers Association. Respectfully opposed.

Sibley Simon from Workbench Affordable and Workforce Housing Development, oppose unless amended, so it doesn't stop our affordable housing.

Thank you so much.

Hello. Aaron Eckhouse with California EMB, oppose unless amended to address the impact on housing streamlining measures. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs. I'd like to echo the comments of California YIMBY on behalf of Abundant Housing LA, SPUR, Fieldstead, Circulate Planning & Policy Company, and the Student HOMES Coalition. Thank you.

Eric Turner, on behalf of the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association, respectfully oppose. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll now turn it back to the dais. Mr. Zbur.

So, first of all, I want to thank you for bringing this bill. You know, last year, I think we all know we were given a very hard choice, you know, because a full CEQA exemption related to advanced manufacturing was brought up in the context of our budget deal.

And I supported that bill last year, not because I liked it, but because it was part of the budget deal and based on assurances from the Senate and elsewhere that we would actually bring a cleanup bill that would protect the public. One of the problems with the bill was that the advanced manufacturing definition was so broad, it could virtually encapsulate anything that labeled itself as advanced in some way.

And it had virtually no public safety protections and virtually no habitat and species protections in the bill.

So I want to thank you for bringing this bill—for bringing the bill forward. I think it is a good compromise in providing critical protections while at the same time, you know, keeping eligibility for an advanced manufacturing exemption in the bill. I also want to thank other members of this body here. I know Assemblymember Connolly was heavily involved and engaged in this issue.

I do say that I'm planning on supporting the bill because it it is so much better than what the law is today, but I do think there's still some gaps in the bill.

And so the first is just a question of the lack of a sunset date, which I know a lot of the environmental advocates had brought up. I mean, generally, something this complicated and something that is this new, and I think there is a fair amount of breath that's still in this, which makes me very nervous still, especially in manufacturing facilities that actually are using high amounts of, of chemicals, which with the risks of chemical releases.

And, you know, the fact we've got an exemption that, I know you've tightened it up a lot in terms of the guardrails that are there, but I'm wondering why—if there's a reason why we didn't—why we don't have a sunset in the bill that allows us to come back and take a look at this.

I think that's emerged recently as something that's a strong ask. But, you know, how negotiations go, if there's if that doesn't remove any opposition, you know, it's doesn't seem like that really adds anything that is important to take. But if it's something that's important to you, we'll certainly consider it.

I—I'd like you to look at it. I mean, I think it's the—you know, I think this is an important enough bill, and—and I think the exemption is still relatively broad. And I think, you know, you've done a really—made a really good faith effort to try to tighten it up, but I'm still nervous.

And I guess I get to the second point, which is, you know, we had a GKN air aerospace manufacturing chemical leak and a near explosion that forced the evacuation about 50,000 people in Garden Grove, which demonstrates the dangers of some kinds of manufacturing facilities. And, I'm told that, there's another GKN facility received an advanced manufacturing tax credit.

And, therefore, these types of plants, I think, would likely be eligible for this exemption, and that makes me very, very nervous. So I was wondering if you can talk about what what protections are in the bill. And this is the main issue that I think relates that that I think remains, and that is public safety protections where we actually have manufacturing that results in the use of hazardous chemicals where there's potential for hazardous chemical releases in in water and in the air.

You know, CEQA is a really important tool because it the transparency forces local agencies to look at whether or not, a project is complying with the other environmental requirements that are out there. And, frankly, sometimes if no one's answering asking the questions, people may be skirting other, law.

So for me, with with manufacturing facilities, you know, I have I have less concern over an office building. You know, I saw some folks, you know, there's there's really not a lot that when you've dealt with the species and the habitat issues that an office building may have other than maybe trip trips to and from it. But manufacturing is a big deal, and, and there's, you know, a lot of risks, I think, to the public.

So I wonder if you can talk about what's in the bill now and what what other thing if you're open to looking at other guardrails for that?

Yes. I'm definitely open to looking at other guardrails, and I'm gonna ask, my witness to answer that if that's okay.

So there in this bill, there are a couple of provisions. I can go over them, but some of them include setbacks, for disadvantaged communities, so a thousand feet, and then for sensitive receptors. So think schools, hospitals, for example, those have a 1,600 feet setbacks. We're also looking at narrowing the advanced advanced manufacturing exemption just to final tier manufacturing, which in general tends to be a lot less environmentally destructive, a lot less impactful on, public health as well.

So think about, like, final assembly of certain projects rather than, the extractive sort of resource based, yeah, productions that we're thinking of.

So those are those are a couple examples. We can, of course, talk about this outside of this hearing as well. But happy to go into anything else after this. Yeah.

Well, thank you. I mean, I I think I would ask that you continue looking at these. I I don't think the bill is quite there yet in terms of being adequately protective of the public. I mean, you have a chemical release and, you know, that kind of setback is not is not gonna be protective of communities that are nearby. I mean, that that may be protective of, something that is a a less risky facility.

So I'm gonna vote for the bill today, and and I don't want to you know? And I just wanna compliment you because I know this is a very hard bill. This is a significant improvement over where we are today, and I know this has taken a ton of work. So I just wanna thank you for that.

But, I do think that the bill needs continues to need work, especially on the manufacturing facility piece of it to make sure that, public health is adequately protected, and I think we need some additional guardrails.

And I'd like to ask you to take a look at the sunset.

Well, absolutely will do. Thank you, Assemblymember.

Also, I just wanna clarify. The setback language gets thrown around often normally or in many cases when we're talking about setbacks, we're talking about a prohibition on doing something within that zone. So, like, 3,600 feet, you can't drill in a neighborhood. This is not a prohibition. This is the distance you need to be completely exempted from CEQA.

You can actually build it right next to my house. You just have to go through the CEQA process. And so I wanna be clear about that distinction. Ms. Wicks.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the author for bringing the bill forward, and I'm also appreciative of the conversation we were able to have late last week. And I understand what you're trying to do. And I know last year, there was a lot of consternation about 131.

And I also understand the desire and the need from the EJ community to bring about some more, important guardrails, which I do think are warranted. I still want to recognize that. I do have concerns about the housing aspect of this. I think there was important movement made on CEQA last year with regard to housing, specifically the near-miss rule. Also, you know, the streamlining of rezoning process that obviously the state is requiring of our communities now.

And my concern is that this jeopardizes all of that. So I'm—I'm not gonna be able to support the bill today. But assuming it gets out of committee, which it probably will, I would love to continue to work with you as it advances to the next committee, and see if we can figure out ways that we can mitigate towards that because I don't wanna roll back any of the important, I think, movement we made on CEQA vis-a-vis the housing aspect of the bill.

That sounds great. Thank you.

Mr. Connolly.

Thank you, Chair. Also, I had a few comments and then I'll have, some questions for both sides. Also wanted to start by thanking Senator Blake Spear, for presenting SB 954, fulfilling the commitment as several have recognized that was made last year to clean up SB 131.

This is an issue that we have been working on for almost a year, starting with the introduction of my bill AB 1083 last September and followed by the speakers, SB 131 working group over the interim. Members of this community committee, including Chair Brian, have been involved in several meetings on this issue.

I know that our staff had have had dozens of meetings with both opposition and support groups, so thank you for that. The Senate completed similar work through Senator Blake Spear as its champion. SB 954 is a product of all that work. So I wanna commend the Senator and her staff on bringing forth, a strong bill that protects endangered species and habitats, establishes meaningful environmental and public health guardrails for sensitive receptors and frontline communities.

Most importantly, this bill prevents projects that can be dangerous to public health and safety from receiving blanket CEQA exemptions.

As a committee analysis accurately points out, the current SB 131 exemptions apply to just about any manufacturing project you can think of from mining to aerospace manufacturing. It should not be controversial to say that most of the projects now considered advanced manufacturing under SB 131 have no business receiving that kind of blanket CEQA exemption. So my first question to the opposition is, in your view, if there are any SB 131 advanced manufacturing projects such as lithium extraction or fertilizer production that you think should not actually be exempt from CEQA.

Thank you for the question, Assemblymember. Well, first and foremost, you know, we—we are not opposed to environmental guardrails, appropriate environmental guardrails, for advanced manufacturing projects. We wanna make—and we, as I say, we are first and foremost an organization that supports a sustainable, vibrant economy, and a part of that sustainability is environmental protection. Our—our large-scale objective is to make sure that we don't push the negative impacts of the products that we consume. These are legal to consume in California.

We do not want to push the negative impacts of—of the products that we consume to states with lower standards than we currently have here. So we—we are supporters of guardrails. We would like to work with the Senator on potentially creating a blacklist of projects that do not qualify for—I mean, the—the—the way the bill is currently written, it only applies to projects that are in land areas zoned for exclusively heavy industrial. That's about 0.0001% of California's land. It's almost nonexistent.

So, I mean, we're we're really playing in the margin of the margins here. So we we would be happy to talk about potential projects that should not qualify for a CEQA exemption. But our end goal here is to make sure that the products that we consume--our air district, for example, in the Bay Area is mandating higher and higher usage of batteries. We have the raw materials in California to mine, to create batteries.

We have the companies that are designing batteries, but we're outsourcing the production of those batteries to states with lower standards and then importing the batteries back for use here. I would argue that that's not the best outcome for the environment.

Yes. And if I may, I'm just echoing my colleague from Bay Area Council's comments, would also just add, you know, from CMTA's perspective and looking at kind of the definition here would also preclude those entities, those projects that are existing facilities, here in-state that are looking to upgrade, to respond to California's climate goals, energy efficiency goals, even to put in more protective equipment to respond to the concerns would be precluded from utilizing the exemption to expedite those types of activities.

So I think it's not only from CMTA's perspective just concerns about wholly new projects, but even those that are existing facilities here in state today that could ultimately also run into this. And I think, you know, to the, point about lithium, you know, I think that also raises some concerns and could be at odds with our broader kind of energy efficiency state climate goals too.

And so that's kind of the lens that CMTA is looking at it through is trying to square all of those different, you know, elements.

But as we read the bill, currently, not only with the setbacks, the zoning, that would be required, but the myriad of additional added elements, that fail to consider that there are other, you know, protections around hazardous material business plans that require facilities to, be clear, provide site plans that indicate where specific chemicals are and what quantities working with their unified, agencies who are the enforcers of many of these kind of hazardous material, you know, waste generation, those sorts of things as well.

Also, you know, a number of other components working with a lot of other state agencies on that. So I think from CMTA's perspective, you know, we're certainly willing to talk more about how we can kinda work on this. But I think just to suggest all environmental protection, labor protections are eliminated, we don't agree with that.

Thanks. I wanted to talk about GKN Aerospace for a minute as well. My understanding is it's a half-mile away from an elementary school. As we know, it displaced tens of thousands of residents after a 7,000-gallon chemical tank ruptured. As my colleague noted, and I had a question on it, GKN has previously received the advanced manufacturing tax credit.

So does that mean they credit. So does that mean they are exempt from CEQA under SB 131?

Oh, the way that we interpret SB 131, yes. The industries that have received the tax credit are the way we're defining advanced manufacturing because there's no other, place that defines advanced manufacturing clearly in California state law.

Yeah. So that's troubling. Would that exemption extend a rebuilding efforts that might occur after the accident?

I mean, I couldn't speak definitively, but it could.

By contrast, how does CEQA mitigate the potential environmental and public health impacts of these types of manufacturing facilities, especially when they are built near sensitive receptors? So in other words, how would your bill make things better?

Do you mind if my witness answers? Yeah. Can we ask some a different witness to come forward? Is there a Corey Brown in the room?

Hiding in the back for dramatic effect. I love that.

Thank you. I hear that. So the Member, the Chairman, Members of the committee, and thank you for doing this important legislation. Receipt what comes in is before you build a facility or expand an existing facility, you look at the different factors. Where are their schools? Where people live? What impact do you have on workers?

What impact do you have on water quality, what impact you have on air quality. And then you look to see if any of those impacts are significant. Are there feasible ways of decreasing those impacts before the project is built? And that's really critical is to get is to deal with these issues before you have a GKN type of situation. If you have a CEQA exemption, you take away the public disclosure.

You take away the requirements of mitigating the impacts. If chemicals like PFAS that are associated with cancer, that have no federal or state regulations. So even though the opposition might say, we have all these different regulations, there's quite a few chemicals that aren't regulated. Those would completely escape these type of protections.

So the advantage of having CEQA with, Senator Blake here's legislation where you have some of the most dangerous types of facilities that could create a GKN facility, you're able to get those protections in place because you know what the problems could be.

You have requirements for mitigation, and you don't have to deal with the problem afterwards. The best example of this is the Exide facility in Verdon that was approved long before CEQA was adopted. Through state dollars, this legislature has already approved more than $750,000,000 to deal with the lead pollution that came from that one facility in Exide. If you don't deal with the problems beforehand, oftentimes you end up with cleanup problems.

They're very expensive and shifts the costs from prevention to the public either through having to pay for cleanups, through, health care costs, through increased asthma, which can lead kids to missed days in school, can miss work workers missing days at work.

The cheapest way of dealing with these problems, especially for taxpayers, is to prevent the problem beforehand, and that's why CEQA is so important.

Thank you.

Happy to answer any other questions.

Thank you, Mister Connolly. Any other questions, comments from colleagues? Mister Muratsuchi.

Thank you very much, Senator Blakespear, for bringing this bill forward. I was one of the Thank you. Many colleagues on on the Assembly side that that spoke against SB 131 on the floor and expressed my frustration with this advanced manufacturing blanket sequel exemption appearing with in in the budget trailer with no opportunity to go through the the policy process.

And so just for the the mere fact that that we're finally having this policy process policy discussion through the, regular committee, process, is my number one reason why I asked, that you add me as a coauthor to your bill. You know, clearly, this is much better than the blanket CEQA exemption that was proposed in SB 131.

But given that it's my understanding that came from the governor's office, my my first question is, you know, what conversate what what can you share in terms of the the likelihood of the governor signing this bill, assuming it gets to his desk?

Also, I don't wanna speak for the Senator, but, I can't guarantee he signs any of my bills this year.

Yeah. I understand. But in terms of But I

think we all feel pretty good if we get something to him. It's got a fair shot.

Well, thank you. I appreciate that, Chair. When I brought up, this bill with the governor directly, and I said, right now, strip mining would have a full sequo exemption. And he said, I don't wanna be part of this strip mining caucus. So it seemed like it was a rhetorical answer, but certainly an openness to considering that we limit things, when it comes to the types of projects that we give full blanket SQL exemptions to.

So that's about the extent of the conversation, I would say.

Okay. Well, I imagine that as your bill gets gets closer and closer to his desk that perhaps, you know, you will have

a further conversations. By the way, I also wanna give a a shout out to miss Shay, who used to work in my office. And so I want to give my my my props. Senator Blakespear, you know, when I first started here in in 2012, I remember when CEQA exemptions, the the only projects that would get CEQA exemptions were football and baseball stadiums.

And, you know, now it seems like under this abundance theory that, you know, every committee hearing seems to bring more and more CEQA exemptions.

And and and so it seems like, you know, I'm hearing from the Bay Area Council and and others that, you know, this is swinging back, you know, to the days when when CEQA is is driving manufacturing out of the state of California, and it's slowing down affordable housing production.

And so, you know, while I'm, you know, fully in support of your of your bill, I , you know, just wanted to hear your thoughts in terms of, you know, how this is striking that balance, given the, the shift in and the attitude towards CEQA that that I've seen over the the last twelve years.

Yeah. Thank you for that. I mean, I think my honest assessment of the situation is that CEQA ends up being blamed for the large range of delays that projects face in California. And, you know, one of our major delays can be utility relocation, and permitting associated with utilities. And another massive uncertainty is litigation.

CEQA is, unique in that it requires mitigation. And so we don't have a process if we are actually destroying natural habitat or we are creating air or water pollution, that the projects have to mitigate that in some way that does protect habitats. And so to me, the idea that we would have large CEQA exemptions and there would not be a process, I think we do very much put public health at risk, and we also put our environment at risk.

And we see from the Federal Government that we're already facing, the reality that we will have worse air pollution because of all the regulations around, our fleets. And the rollbacks of those things all around will make California a less healthy place to be.

And so so to me, trying to really thread that needle where we are promoting manufacturing in California that does provide good, safe, high paying jobs, that we are protecting communities by having, setbacks and making sure projects have a higher, level of environmental commitment, that they they meet level threshold levels around air pollutants and things, that they're LEED certified, that there is a process for doing mitigation.

You know, those to me, those are things that are the guardrails that are important, but we also are eliminating it still is a CEQA exemption, so it still is the elimination of the litigation risk, which I think is really substantial. So, you know, it's a hard road because, of course, I also believe we need to do better in California, and I you know, when the opponents are speaking, they are speaking truth in many ways.

But what I fear is that throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the idea that we won't have adequate environmental protections when we have these big CEQA exemptions. And so how to find that way back so that it's the appropriate balance, that's what we're really trying to do with this bill.

Alright. Thank you. Lastly, I just want to, close my comments by, you know, not just, citing the, the Garden Grove, aerospace facility, but the more recent ongoing fire in East Los Angeles, the the the Vernon, egg side plants. I mean, those all, you know, seem to be compelling, you know, cautionary experiences that that should temper our exuberance for granting more and more CEQA exemptions with every one of our committee hearings. So thank you very much, Mister Chair.

Comments, concerns, committee Members. Mister Hoover.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator. I, you know, have to respectfully disagree with my colleague from Torrance. I think, you know, they're I think we've actually been making a lot of progress in California when it comes to striking what I would call a better balance between our environment and our economy. And I think 01/31 was a good example of that.

But I think one of the big concerns I have with this bill is really just the uncertainty that it could potentially create. So if possible, you know, I was would like to ask the opposition, you know, under this new framework. I mean, would it be more difficult, I guess, for industry to take advantage of of these exemptions? And do you think there would be a, a decrease in the amount of interest in expanding manufacturing capability in California?

Thank you. Yes. Absolutely. In addition to, again, as we mentioned, the setback requirements, the zoning requirements, that in and of itself severely limits, if not makes any exemption under nine fifty four essentially moot because that heavy exclusively heavy industrial zoning is such like a fraction of the land that's in California. Much of the land is zoned as kind of mixed industrial, what have you.

And so that in and of itself essentially guts any potential for an exemption as as our members understand it. Further, when you layer on all the other additional components around setbacks with that as well as community benefits agreements, labor standards, which, you know, our members certainly are very supportive of our labor members to be sure.

But it would also puts in in place provisions for, you know, various labor components on an ongoing basis in perpetuity for facilities, some of whom may have more specialty processes needs where there isn't, perhaps unionized labor in those scenarios. Additional requirements, you know, across the board on various, you know, environmental, standards and requirements, you know, you know, air emissions, what have you. And even on those fronts, again, all covered under current air permitting requirements.

Also, a number of elements associated with the Air Resources Board. So you're just piling on, you know, component after component that, again, just makes the benefit of one thirty one for many facilities that we're looking maybe to take advantage of the CHIPS Act under the Biden administration and some funding that was left on the table ultimately negates their ability to do that. And so I think, you know, from what we're hearing from our members is also concerns about it impacts on their supply chains.

Many manufacturers here in California appreciate and value having various other, you know, manufacturers in their supply chains. Nearby reduces kind of the need to ship things, you know, truck traffic, what have you.

But also having that nearby, you know, also has efficiencies associated with it. And while, can't speak specifically to the GKN facility incident, you know, would also just say there are, you know, also considerations going back to local land use decisions where many of our manufacturing facilities have been in place in operation for decades, if not a hundred or more years. And what we've seen over time is local land use decisions citing housing and other sensitive receptors closer and closer to the established fence lines.

And so we're really kind of at, you know, a a pivot point or a turning point here where we really need to decide, okay, are we going to have a vibrant manufacturing sector here given all of these complexities? You know, our manufacturers work to try to be compliant with all current laws, regulations, permitting requirements, CEQA or no CEQA.

But at the end of the day, local land use decisions and added regulatory burdens really are just making it much more difficult year over year to operate much less site here in California.

Yeah. If I may, Assemblymember, just to add a a little extra context. Talking to some of our members who are in the advanced manufacturing space, they've told us that looking at CEQA versus SB 954, they'd rather do CEQA. The exemption is, you know, the squeeze ain't worth the juice, if you will. And there there are some provisions in the bill that are just simply impossible to comply with, like LEED certification.

LEED certification is given to a project after it's open and operational. The ribbons cut. The LEED inspectors come look at it and go, okay. You qualify for lead. CEQA is done before the building is built.

It's done in the permitting and an entitlement process. So you physically can't have a lead certification in order to get a CEQA exemption. It it's it's physically impossible. So there's there are poison pills in the legislation that just make it impossible to comply with for for people who would seek to use the exemption.

I appreciate that. And and just to clarify on this, the zoning issue. Right? So is that is that that's a big portion of this because it's my understanding that there's a lot of manufacturing currently going on in mixed use spaces, you know, spaces that, would no longer be allowed under this this legislation. Is that correct?

Correct. Well, not that it wouldn't necessarily be enabled, but ongoing. If for existing facilities Yeah. But any of those existing facilities under CMTA's read of the bill would preclude them from taking advantage of the exemption for, again, you know, upgrades for energy efficiency purposes, meeting our climate goals, even installing more protective, you know, materials in systems, equipment, what have you, to even, you know, improve the protections of communities and much less the environment. So I think that is a very core concern.

I mean, we want to at least avoid eroding further our manufacturing base here. That is critical to that. But in terms of bringing new investment and new advanced manufacturers to the state, really challenging given that very small zoning. As as we understand it, the exclusively heavy industrial zoning may only just exist in places like where the ports

are located. So, exist in places like where the ports are located. So, you know, that's a very limited, you know Sure. Portion of the state, frankly.

I appreciate it. I would just, you know, close by saying, you know, I think there's a lot of, obviously, changes going on in the world as it comes to manufacturing right now, and I would love to see California be a part of those opportunities. I would love to see our workers, you know, our citizens, get an an opportunity to, to to have some of that here in California. I do worry that this bill is going to reduce that.

I'm obviously happy to hear if you have a response to that concern.

But, you know, that's at this point in time, that's that's why I plan on voting no on the bill today, but appreciate you bringing it forward. Thank you.

Mister Alanis.

Thank you, Mister Chair. So I'm trying to wrap myself around this as well. Obviously, a lot of my colleagues have questions about this bill. I know we just brought up opposition. I think you're referring to, like, stacking up the requirements. FDA approved approval timeline, state Federal Government permitting.

So, Senator, with the governor certification, the community benefits agreement negotiations, the workforce eligibility requirements, would they revoke the the approval after it's already been granted by the FDA process, Or how would that work?

No. I mean, what happened last year is we we passed this broad CEQA exemption for all advanced manufacturing. And it you know, it just to make sure it's clear. So currently, it's for exclusively industrial sites, the current SB 131. So so, you know, having a discussion about about whether changing the zoning a lot of zoning in California is permissive.

So it's commercial and or industrial or commercial and or residential, that kind of thing. So having a discussion about where this applies to in the zoning is something that we're happy to continue talking about. But so what this bill does is it doesn't, we have this broad exemption. It doesn't close the door back. It it it reduces it somewhat by by eliminating certain types of things like strip mining would no longer get a full CEQA exemption.

So minerals extraction is not something that would have a full CEQA exemption. But for all the things that still do have a full CEQA exemption, it puts guardrails around those. So it has labor standards and then these environmental requirements. And some of the things I mean, just to answer the point that's been made, you know, the LEED certified you know, there are levels of LEED certification. And in order to get them at the end, you have to have done things at the beginning.

So none of this is designed as a poison pill to say, oh, gotcha. You know, you didn't get it at the beginning even though you can't get it at the beginning. That's not part of, you know, what's happening here. It's and there are, there are different ways to meet the certification. And so we started out with the proposal of LEED platinum, and now we're at LEED Gold because that makes more sense and is easier for businesses to to get.

So basically, on almost all of these points, we're open to and still in negotiation when it comes up as being an issue so that we can, drive toward having guardrails but not making it so onerous that the juice isn't worth the squeeze. So and I'll just say that, you know, there are only two projects that have, received this exemption in the almost year that this has been in effect.

And in many ways, because CEQA has been so litigated and is so understood, and there's a whole industry around going through CEQA, there is something that can seem more certain about that process than launching off on this brand new, law that was passed last year. So and the two projects, one was fusion, which moved out of the state to New Mexico after getting the exemption, but then not actually building here. And the other was quantum, which is apparently being built right now.

So, so, you know, what happens with a brand new law, it we'll see. Right? But that's part of what we're trying to do is to have the exemption still exist, but then have the appropriate guardrails.

And have you had, like, any or do you guys represent strip mining or anything like that, do you?

So we do have mining companies that do, you know, various types of aggregates, other type of mined materials. Yes.

Okay. Then that would fall into this as well then.

We believe that their facilities, especially those that are existing, could be impacted should they want to upgrade their facilities to, again, respond to climate requirements. Some of our manufacturers in that space also have very steep compliance obligations under the air resources boards, climate related measures. And so in that case, they would not be able to take advantage of the exemption to expedite their ability to upgrade equipment, potentially, what have you.

Okay. And then just one more question, Senator. I know there's some, pharmaceuticals that are making or have the products or whatever to make the medications that they're doing, but then there's some, facilities that are maybe doing the bottling that don't fall under this. Is is the intent to go after them as well or just go after the manufacturers? How does that work?

The intent is to have these guardrails with the CEQA exemption apply to this final tier manufacturing. So not every single part that goes into the final thing, but to the final product, if the products, a life sciences product or if it's a solar panel, to have it be that product.

Okay. And and and sorry, Char. Just one more. Do are we hearing that maybe they're also gonna leave the state like everybody else did? Because, like, I have the same concerns.

I just I want everybody still to stay here and us work with them and let them leave and us lose jobs. I know he's here representing labor. I would I would hate for you to lose a lot of labor here and to other states.

I mean, obviously, we're not hoping to drive anybody out of the state. I mean, we have we have policies around leakage, not having industries move leave the state that are even polluting industries just by nature. You know? So so I don't think we're not the coalition that's putting this bill forward doesn't want to lose jobs or lose industries. What we're trying to do is create support for our manufacturing industry, have them be good, safe jobs, and also protect the environment and our ecosystems and our communities.

Okay. Thank you.

Mister Kalra. Also, Mister Ellis, you heard her say fusion and quantum. Right? Are you sure? Mister Kalra.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Just a just a couple of comments. One with I mean, with all due respect, you know, things like strip mining, it should be under pretty strong environmental scrutiny. And as part of the problem, when you talk about advanced manufacturing, include things like that, Being in Silicon Valley, advanced manufacturing, although I know there's difference opinion or or as to the definition, I don't think it would ever include anything kind of mining.

It really is about industries that are are subject to or or that allow for, at least in the context of Silicon Valley, advanced manufacturing has been cutting edge technologies that have allowed us to increase our job base, high quality jobs.

And that was the concern this last year. And and and one of the concerns I had, and I'm seeing it happening now, when at the eleventh hour, at the end of session last year, when there was massive opposition, folks said, well, you know, we're gonna fix this. And I knew as soon as it got passed, like, well, now this is the status quo.

This is what exists, and we're now we have broad exemptions to CEQA, and or we have these broad exemptions, and now we're trying to scale them back. When in actuality, when it was passed last year, it was very clear that it was very flawed and there was a lot of folks, a lot of issues with it to to suggest that somehow this has been the status quo for many, many years.

But just a few months ago that it was a past with the understanding that we were gonna fix it, and we were gonna fix it because we knew it was broken. And so I don't, you know, I I don't I don't feel as badly for those industries that feel like, oh, well, we have this broad exemption for the last few months, and now you're coming in and curtailing it because that was the deal all along when it was passed.

And the work that the Senator has done, that a summary of Connolly has done and so many others to make it very clear that we have to fix it. I agree with others that this is not as complete of a fix as I would like, but it's way better than where we left at the end of session. I'll be supporting it.

I do appreciate the Senator and everyone else, the Chair and and staff here that have been working on this to ensure that we've moved this in in a better direction. And it doesn't mean there's not gonna be more work to do, but I'll certainly be supporting it today. But just wanted to say that because I knew that was gonna happen when we came back, that there are gonna be suggestions that somehow, well, now we're going we're going backwards, which is completely not what is happening.

Mister Ellis.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you, Senator. CEQA is like aspirin. Two will help you, 20 will hurt you. Being in business for forty years in California is tough and I've thought many, many times about leaving just because of the regulation.

And as I listen to the debate today, working with local agencies and local authorities and water quality control board, the Air Resources Board. There are about 13 or 14 regulatory agencies that we go through now to get permits. And then you pile CEQA on. It's concerning because, you know, we live with CEQA for for a long time and all of a sudden we we repealed it.

We went, yay, in industry. And then we see this come back and it is concerning because we are we do

technologically with fusion. With quantum I was in the quantum business for many years. Quantum business, we wanna manufacture here. We wanna we wanna produce here. But being a business owner, I feel the the burden of overregulation on a daily basis.

And it is literally has driven some folks out of so I'm I'm just cautious. Those are just my comments. Thank you. Thank you for the attempt here, but I I'm gonna go no today simply because I'm a proponent of less regulation that makes sense. So thank you.

Any other questions or comments from colleagues? Senator, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. I think my the last point I'd like to make is that in many ways, CEQA can consolidate permitting. So the process itself is, it means that the agencies aren't spread out all over the place. And in some ways, I do perceive the risk that without CEQA, there will there will be an extension of water board and air board and coastal commission and a lot in city and county processes, and you will end up with a process that's actually less consolidated.

I also wanna just recognize the baseline concern, which is repeated, by, my Republican colleagues, more more commonly, but also, of course, Democrats, that we we do need to do better as governmental agencies. We need all levels of government to to recognize and process and have urgency and and recognize that businesses have carrying costs associated with our loans and that it does take too long.

And this is something that cities, city building departments, and city attorneys, and, as I mentioned, our utility companies, you know, there are so many places, I think, where we could be shaving off some time and being aimed at trying to get things through the process faster.

So the you know, my hope is that SQL doesn't become, the only thing we focus on, and then we think we're done with it because it really it does take a a a full analysis across the whole, process of getting a project built in California. But this bill is aimed at making sure that we prevent some very serious harms that we've already seen some examples of in Orange County, and Exide was mentioned a couple times.

And those types of things, we could see more and more of those, and I think we will if we don't have appropriate, guardrails around advanced manufacturing process projects. The risk is high. So figuring out how to land this plane with this bill. And my hope is that with the opposition, we continue to work on, things that seem reasoned, but are also a recognition that something is necessary, not just it being wide open.

So, you know, in the next committee, if I'm, fortunate enough to get through this committee, I intend to keep working on it.

And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. I feel very confident you're gonna get through this committee. We've done a number of streamlining. In fact, my first bill as Chair of this committee was a streamlining bill that had environmental leadership components, including LEED certification and its LEED eligibility. Once you are eligible, the governor can certify the project and then you complete it, on the back end.

That's not uncommon. I think Assemblymember Karl was right. This was a mess last year. A hot mess that I don't think made anybody feel good. Right now, you could start a new strip mining site with zero tribal consultation.

Just thinking about the bill that came for you could do it on tribal remains. You could find remains and still build this next to somebody's house because there's also no setbacks for where this exemption could happen. That's insane. And the argument that we often hear about, you know, California has the highest standards and other folks go to places, there's definitely legitimacy to that.

And it's unfortunate that California can't lead the rest of the country, especially right now where our country has such a derelict and leadership at the federal level, but that shouldn't stop us from continuing to be California.

In fact, every time I hear that, I'm reminded that we only get to say that we have the cleanest this or we have the highest standards of that because that's what we did and that's what we do. The fact that that then gets thrown back on us is is always a little bit interesting to me. I also think about my my colleague from Sacramento's question about, you know, whether this is better or worse than what exists right now. And I think we have multiple counterfactuals.

I think outside of the wild wild west that passed in last year's budget, you'd be in a support if amended position to this bill.

This would be the greatest bill you had ever heard for advanced manufacturing, and you'd be looking for the author to do a little bit more because the idea of an exemption from CEQA for exam advanced manufacturing at all was not even a thought, and it wasn't a thought for any of us until I don't know. We saw it the earliest, and it was less than 24 hours before I voted on it.

And so also for my Senator and Senate colleagues, we didn't put heavy gloves on this bill. I think the just because we can touch a thing doesn't mean we always have to touch a thing. You've done a lot of work on this.

You're continuing to do work. This is requiring a lot of work. There have been working groups in both houses. I sat on one chaired by our colleague from Marin. I know this is not done yet, but your ability to to steward it to this point, in this depth of conversation, I think is admirable, and it definitely has my support today.

We have a motion by Mister Connolly and a second by miss Pellerin. Can we call the roll?

Motion is due passed to labor and employment committee. [Roll Call]

We'll leave it open for absent Members. Thank you. And you've got another bill. Whenever you're ready.

Okay. I appreciate the forbearance of my colleagues who are waiting to present their bills in front of you, and this one should be much shorter, hopefully. This is SB 1031. Thank you, Chair and members. This establishes a science based framework to ensure compostable plastics support and do not undermine California's circular economy.

The bill will specifically require clear and standardized labeling so consumers and composters can easily distinguish compostable plastics from conventional plastics, reduce contamination in both recycling and composting streams, direct the office of environmental health hazard assessment to study how compostable plastics break down, including their toxicity and environmental impacts. Compostable plastics have been promoted as a promising alternative, but our current systems are not equipped to handle them. Today, most composting facilities do not accept compostable plastics, or they immediately sort them out of their compost piles.

And the reason is compostable plastics are nearly indistinguishable from traditional plastics. This creates confusion for consumers and composters who struggle to identify compostable plastics.

At the same time, there are unanswered questions about the environmental and public health impacts of these materials. Without action, compostable plastics risk contaminating recycling streams and disrupting composting operations rather than advancing our climate and waste reduction goals. This bill is a smart, sensible approach to address these challenges. And with me, I have Nick Lapis on behalf of Californians Against Waste.

Two minutes.

Good afternoon. Nick Lapis with Californians Against Waste. We actually have a support and concept position on the bill and wanna thank the author for bringing it forward and for convening stakeholders. This is not a new issue for this committee. You heard a similar bill that also was moved as a work in progress earlier this year.

And in the past, these issues come before this committee repeatedly. We've had seven bills going back to 2004 that all seek to basically regulate who can make a degradable claim. And the reason why the legislature has come back to us over and over and over is because it is very complicated. And there there's sort of thinking about this. There's sort of a four legged stool here where we have consumers who are paying more for a product that they think will break down.

And so we need to make sure that they get what they expect to get. You have manufacturers, a lot of them are put a lot of time and money into developing degradable alternatives to traditional plastics. And they want an even playing field to make sure that the random companies that sell additives to traditional plastic don't get to compete with materials are actually degradable.

And then you have the composters who want products that break down in real life conditions that do not contaminate their compost, that do not increase their costs or make it harder to sell compost. And finally, there's old governments and ratepayers who ultimately don't wanna be on the hook for managing anybody's packaging when that's the producer's responsibility.

Threading this needle is not easy, but I think there's some really good conversations to be had between this bill and the other bill over the summer. And it is actually really, really important to reach a good outcome on both of these bills because with SB 54 going into effect, with SB 1383 being implemented, with several of our policies, we need clear rules of the road for compostables, for recyclables, for manufacturers, for composters, and for local governments. Thank you.

Are there any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?

Will Breager, Climate Action California in support. Thank you.

Tom Helm for Valley Improvement Projects in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. April Robinson with the Voice for Choice Advocacy in support.

Tevin Hamilton with Physicians For Social Responsibility Los Angeles in support.

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

Welcome,

and welcome back.

Two minutes each. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and members of the committee. My name is RHNAud Desrosiers. I'm sustainability director at Amy's Kitchen, a California based organic food company. And I also serve on the board of directors of the Biodegradable Products Institute. Amy's Kitchen and other California food companies looking for sustainable packaging alternatives to conventional plastic oppose SB 1031 unless amended.

In terms of the major content of the bill, we support the goals of labeling and understanding how compostable products affect compost quality in well managed compost systems. As long as a broad set of stakeholders are included in the process and a focus on science is emphasized as outlined in points one and two of the BPI comment letter. But we emphatically do not support the bill unless it removes the NOP language from AB 121.