Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

Good afternoon, everyone. We're calling to order the hearing for Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee. Sergeant, if you can please call the absent members. Quickly go over the ground rules for the committee, and welcome, everyone. Great to see you.

Our committee's policies for testimony are as follows. Primary witnesses and support must be those accompanying the author or who otherwise have registered a registered a support position with the committee. Primary witnesses and opposition must have their opposition registered with the committee as well. Primary witness testimony is limited to two witnesses in support, two in opposition. Testimony.

All additional witnesses will be limited to stating their name, organization, if they represent one and their positions on the bill, so called Me Too testimony. We are accepting written testimony through the, position letter portal on the committee's website. I will note an absence of a quorum at the moment, although we're joined by our illustrious vice Chair. So we'll wait for additional committee members, but in the meantime, act as a subcommittee and start hearing on bills. So I text Senator Caballero here.

Welcome. Come on up. And, I believe you're gonna start with SB 1153, file item four. And this bill deals with wildfire preparedness for water systems, anytime you're ready. Thanks.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members, for the opportunity to present SB 1153, which provides a practical and responsible approach to wildfire preparedness in California. Let me begin by thanking the Chair and the committee staffer working with my staff so incredibly with my on a incredibly important bill, but we've had numerous conversations both with the Chair, with staff, and with committee members as well.

And, through that discussion, I'm happy to clear clarify language in the bill to ensure continued coordination is required between the water agencies and the fire fire agencies. We ran the bill through the fire chiefs, and they're in support of the bill. And I thought that was clear enough, but if clarifying it more is appropriate, happy to do that.

The dialogue on this complex issue will continue. Over the last decade, California has endured some of the most destructive and unpredictable wildfires in our history. In addition to the destruction and devastation these wildfires have caused throughout the state, they have also placed an extraordinary demand on California's public water systems and their customers.

In response to these unprecedented disasters, our public water systems have invested significant resources and time to prepare for future wildfire events through emergency preparedness actions, which vary based on the system and region of the state. While public water systems were designed to provide customers with safe and drink and reliable drinking water and to provide water to extinguish structural fires in the communities they serve, they were never designed to function as wildfire defense or suppression systems.

Despite this miss this misunderstandings about how public water systems operate have shaped public expectations and contributed to perceptions that some of these water systems may not have performed as they were designed during wildfire events, which is really not the case. SB 1153 will improve local emergency planning, clarify the role and capabilities of water systems during wildfire events, protect right rate payers, and support future investment in infrastructure, all while identifying while wildfire suppression and hardening strategies the state can invest in.

With me today to testify is Matthew Sampson, division one director of Marin Municipal Water District, and Kylie Wright representing the Association of California Water Agencies.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Kylie Wright with the Association of California Water Agencies, the sponsors of SB 1153. ACWA represents approximately 470 public water agencies statewide, and we really appreciate, the Senator for offering this bill. SB 1153 improves wildfire planning and resilience while recognizing the limitations of water infrastructure.

This bill would bolster existing emergency planning efforts by requiring urban retail water suppliers to incorporate wildfire specific response procedures into existing emergency plans beginning 01/01/2028. The bill would require the inclusion within the plans actions to prepare, respond, and recover from a wildfire. This bill promotes effective emergency planning and coordination by providing a planning framework while allowing water suppliers, the experts of their systems, to develop preparedness strategies that reflect local conditions and operational needs.

Following major wildfire events, public water systems have increasingly faced claims and lawsuits for wildfire damages. The financial burden of litigation is ultimately borne by customers impacting water rates and affordability.

Public water systems are designed to provide customers with safe, reliable drinking water and aid in structural firefighting for the properties they serve. They are not designed to meet the significant volume of water necessary for large scale wildfire defense and suppression, and systems can become overwhelmed due to the high demand during a wildfire. Designing a system in such a way could impact the ability to provide safe and clean drinking water, maintain financial stability, and protecting water affordability.

As catastrophic wildfires grow more frequent and severe across California, SB 1153 takes a balanced approach, promoting effective wildfire planning while recognizing the role of public water agencies and their systems' capabilities and limitations. We respectfully request your aye vote today.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, honorable Chair, Connolly, and committee members. My name is Matt Sampson, and I currently serve on the Marin Municipal Water District's board of directors as well as the Fire Chief for The city of South San Francisco. I'm here today on the behalf of the Marin Water Board in strong support of SB 1153 as we believe the bill takes a responsible approach addressing commonalities water districts and purveyors face statewide when addressing and mitigating their risk from catastrophic wildfires.

For districts that include areas of high and very high fire severity zones, the bill requires common sense measures such as incident specific response procedures for wildfires as part of their disaster preparedness plans. These plans applied at state at a statewide level can be challenging to implement if too prescriptive due to the large variations and nuances of water districts water district designs, excuse me, their geography, their current infrastructure, and their available resources.

SB 1153 strikes an appropriate balance by requiring water water districts to focus on meaningful mitigations to critical infrastructure while allowing each public water system the ability to identify which actions are most critical for operational continuity, decisions which should remain with those who know and understand their systems the best. Building on recent wildfire events throughout California, SB 1153 directs water districts to evaluate and take action on the most critical parts of their systems, such as pumps, tanks, pipelines, and backup power generation.

These actions can include structural hardening, defensible space clearance, and redundant power supplies. This approach allows individual water districts the ability to prioritize infrastructure hardening projects and align available funding with their highest risk project. Additionally, the bill requires preparatory action in advance of critical fire weather events and assures a plan to inform district customers.

These actions have proven to be beneficial through our recent large scale wildfires in California. As we continue to witness each year, a new reality for water severe wildfire severity exists in California. Much like current fire departments, water districts were not designed to adequately support fire suppression efforts during large scale urban conflagration events resulting from wildfires that transition from the open space into the built environment.

While water districts routinely prepare for individual structure fires, the amount of water needed to effectively suppress hundreds of simultaneously burning homes will easily overcome any water purveyor's current capability. Water districts play a critical role in fire suppression efforts but cannot be responsible for back stopping wildfire prevention and suppression efforts.

We simply cannot out engineer our water systems, systems that were initially designed to provide safe and reliable drinking water, not to suppress large scale fires. The cost of infrastructure replacement is just unrealistic and cost prohibitive. In addition to the extreme monetary costs associated with upgrading systems, operational limitations further prohibit the feasibility of such system enhancements. Water quality would be compromised on a daily basis for an enhanced system designed for a once in a decade event.

Water districts, especially those with watersheds, are at equal risk from wildfire impacts as the communities just as the communities and the customers that live in them.

Water district infrastructure can be easily overwhelmed, with a new severity of the fires we're experiencing, and it's unrealistic to expect the water district to fully become resilient to impacts from one of these events, understanding that any impacts can reduce their ability to provide water during a wildfire. SB 1153 is responsible next step in better preparing the California water industry in advance of catastrophic wildfires, while also understanding water district's role in balancing their primary mission with support during emergency incidents.

Thank you. Any additional audience members in support? Come on up.

Good afternoon. Horacio Gonzales on behalf of the California Association of Mutual Water Companies in support.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Danny Merkley with the Coaco Group on behalf of San Jose Water and Stockton East Water District in support.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. Kristen Olsen-Cate here with West Valley Water District in support.

Sharon Gonzales on behalf of the cities of Thousand Oaks and Santa Rosa in support.

Good afternoon. Audra Hartman on behalf of Contra Costa Water District, California Fire Chiefs Association, and Fire Districts Association of California in support.

Nico Molina on behalf of the Rancho California Water District in support. Thank you.

Andrea Abruzzo with the California Municipal Utilities Association in support.

Dawn Koepke on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance in support.

Ashley Walker on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Water District, Padre Dam Municipal Water District, and O'Levenheim Municipal Water District in support.

Sarah Brennan with the Weideman Group on behalf of California Water Service in support.

Patrick Foye with the Three Valleys Municipal Water District in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Lily McKay on behalf of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District in support. Thank you.

Adam Quinonez, California Advocates on behalf of Mesa Water District and Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for Sonoma Water in support.

Chris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce in support.

Laura Bennett on behalf of Las Virgenes Municipal Water District.

Tiffany Pham, behalf of Eastern Municipal Water District and Santa Margarita Municipal Water District in support. Thank you.

Deanna Latour-Jaquin on behalf of San Diego County Water Authority and Irvine Ranch Water District in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Caitlin Johnson with political solutions on behalf of California Water Association and California American Water in support.

Thank you. Any opposition to the bill? Seeing none, we're gonna bring it back to the dais. No comments. Senator, yeah, just really wanted to note tremendous amount of work on this bill.

A lot of conversations, perhaps only matched or exceeded by your other bill. We're gonna be hearing later. But you've been busy. I I did want to note and thank you that there will be additional work on clarifying coordination. And that was by virtue of Assembly member Bauer Kehan, who will be here shortly.

I know there's been a lot of work with another one of our colleagues who had kind of a a somewhat related bill in the Assembly. Thank you for taking amendments last week dealing with liability, which was a big issue. And, again, just overall for taking on this important and challenging subject. I think we all believe wildfire prep preparedness plans that your bill requires water suppliers to draft are a good step towards strengthening our state's wildfire readiness.

I'm recommending an aye vote, but would ask if you would like to close.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Before Yeah.

I'm sorry.

Yeah.

I'm here.

Would it be possible to make remarks before there's a closing Oh, yeah.

Welcome. Yes. Of course.

I really appreciate it. I apologize for being a little late here. Thank you for the opportunity. Yes. So I'd as you know, there's been a lot of attempts to make this this language stronger as it relates to the plan itself, the emergency plan.

And I I've had the opportunity to both speak with the Chair and the author, and I I am troubled by this concept of not doing a a plan that includes all of what you have on the line to fight wildfires. And I as we talked about, I think the the language in the bill that says a failure to provide, you know, a thorough plan or or to comply with the plan is cannot be considered a substantial factor in one's liability is very strong language.

So I don't see why we can't just have a comprehensive plan. So as I mentioned, I I'm willing to vote for the bill today, but I I do think when it gets to the floor, nobody's gonna be harmed by a transparent thorough plan, especially when you have that what what I will call absolving language in there.

And so I'm hopeful that many of the water agencies that seem to be having some consternation with full transparency when you get that kind of I'm not gonna say absolution, but some restriction on liability won't take advantage of it so that the public is truly informed.

And I say transparency should prevail. But I'll be voting for the bill today. And I thank the Chair for the time he's put in on it.

And we also do have a quorum now. But thank you. And perhaps you can address that in your clothes, but why don't we pause and establish a quorum?

For the purposes of establishing a quorum, [Roll Call]

Thank you very much for your comments, and thank you, Mr. Chair, for all the work that that you put into this bill. Let me just say that I think part the the I hear what you're saying about transparency. I don't think that it's an issue of not wanting transparency in the bill. The concern is I've heard expressed is every water agency is different, and they have different physical configurations of where their water goes and how it gets distributed.

And the the concern is to allow every water agency to identify in the numbers of of of the backup materials that may be available, whether it's a generator or any other backup thing that but in consultation with the fire department and the office of emergency services, they feel is necessary in order to be able to protect.

What we're talking about is protecting the homes and the businesses in in the in the in their their service area. And you can't compare apples to to apples if if what you're doing is preparing a a report that's very prescriptive that that looks like it's really different from a neighboring community because there may be differing needs in that community.

So there's no as as as I've had discussions, there's no interest in not saying how many backup generators you have and that you've tried them and they work and they they work in your community. Because I've heard that in other communities, the generators that they purchased it didn't match the equipment that they needed to use it on and that's not a good thing. We wanna make sure that it actually works.

So so to answer your question, we'll continue to have conversations. It's bills never done until the final vote as far as I'm concerned, but there was some concern about having, first of all, protecting protecting the assets of the water company so that they don't have to identify where things are and and be subject to sabotage, if you will. People that start wildfires are very cunning, and they they can figure out how to maximize a wildfire start.

And so we wanna make sure we're protecting the information so that they can move things around. Some of it may be mobile, and some of it may be stationary, but but the identification can be an issue.

So that's kind of a a broad overview. The one of the reasons that this was really important for me in wrapping up is that, I believe, as we even made major investments in Blackhawk helicopters and, airplanes to fight wildfires, we gotta have some place for them to scoop up water. And we're not building water sources that are above ground storage in every part of the state in order to be able to meet the need the the the wildfire needs all over the state.

My point is state's gonna have to make some major investments in wildfire defense and protection if we're if those if that equipment is really gonna be useful to us. And I know there was a lot of criticism in the Eaton fire because they were scooping off the ocean and that then that's not the best environmentally.

But when you have a wildfire that's devastating communities, you need to be able to put it out. So so my my I think the next step is as we look at these reports that are gonna be required, we're gonna have to determine where are their resources that are capable of of of at least fighting to save communities, but also to put out wildfires beyond that that water agencies just are not equipped to do, number one.

We don't want them to be equipped because our water prices would be through the roof. And what they provide is potable water. And there's a difference between water you can throw on a fire and water that's potable.

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

Thank you. Looking for a motion and second on the bill. I'll move.

I'll give you a second.

Thank you. Clerk, please call the vote.

This is file item number four, SB 1153, authored by Senator Caballero. The action is or the motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay. That carries. We will leave the roll open for absent members.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you. Why don't we move to file item one?

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

This is your bill bill SB 811 dealing with metal shredders.

Getting too anxious here. Trying

Trying to get rid of me.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. Again, let me thank that committee for the work that they've done on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. I'm pleased to present SB 811, which establishes a statutory framework to ensure comprehensive and safe regulation of metal shredding facilities in California.

As as you all know, last year, I authored a substantially similar bill, SB 404, and that bill received overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate and in the Assembly, including support from this committee as well. In the final days of session last year, the administration indicated they had one lingering concern with the bill, and they sought clarity around DTSC's enforcement authority over the materials listed in the bill.

It was a technical amendment. We prepared a letter to the journal in an attempt to address their concern and offered to fix the issue this year. They vetoed the the bill, preferring that our office resolve the issue through a new piece of legislation. So we introduced, SB 811 to fix the issue identified in the governor's veto message. The bill in print now clarifies the department enforcement and authority over the materials covered in the bill.

And, additionally, I wanna note that last year, I had the opportunity to engage with environmental justice group regarding their concerns, And I was able to take several amendments in hopes of addressing, their concerns, including strengthening the standard by which DTSC can shut down a facility that poses a danger to the surrounding community and requiring facilities to have a fire prevention, detection, and response plan in place with strict standards. Every single negotiated settlement from last year is included in in SB 811.

And and we've taken a whole series of amendments as you'll note on the front of the of the of the bill to deal with issues that have popped up since then. SBA 11 is a culmination of over a year's worth of negotiations between the legislature, industry, environmental groups, agencies, and the administration.

This bill will ensure that California has a robust regulatory process for the metal shredding industry and remain is and remains a sustainability leader in reducing, reusing, and recycling by fostering the recycling of scrap metal into new metal products.

With me today to testify in support of the bill is Bob Huffman with the California Metal Recycle Recyclers Coalition and Scott Wech with the California State Association of Electrical Workers and California State Pipe Pipe Trades Council.

Good afternoon, Chair Connolly and members. My name is Scott Wetsch. I'm here on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council, the California State Association of Electrical Workers, California Coalition of Utility Employees, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers in support of SB 811. The state's 10 metal shredding facilities provide critical recycling infrastructure as part of a robust circular economy that operates without any subsidies.

These facilities safely and reliably recover and process viable metals from end of life materials that would otherwise accumulate in huge quantities, creating a burden on local governments and posing a potential threats to public health and safety.

Metal Shredders successfully recycle many of the materials that are essential to California's building trades, like steel beams, pipe supports, rebar, and other metallic construction materials. Metal shredding metal shredding facilities safely and efficiently recover these valuable metals for reuse in the manufacture of new steel and other metal products, saving natural resources and energy. The ability of California's builders to sell scrap metal products to metal shredders is an integral part of the many building projects we work on.

Importantly, the recycling recovery of scrap metal is purely a physical mechanical process not involving heat, chemicals, gases, or any other material that could be considered hazardous, toxic, or poisonous. Your support for SB 811 will ensure thousands of employment opportunities for individuals in union shops with good salaries and significant benefits, vocational training, and career advancement.

The continued viability of a critical component of the state's infrastructure and circular economy, shutting facilities operate in a way that prioritize environmental protection and public health and safety under a strict, clear, certain, and appropriate regulatory environment outside of hazardous waste statutes, a ready a ready and economic source of raw material to California's new steel mill in Kern County.

For these reasons, the California State Pipe Trades Council, the California State Association of Electrical Workers, Q and the workers, the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers urge your support for SB 811. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Connolly, members. My name is Bob Hoffman, and I'm here on behalf of the California Metal Recyclers Coalition, and we're the sponsor of SB 811. Over the past ten years, California Metal Shredders have operated in a state of legal and regulatory uncertainty, and that has created negative impacts on this important industry. SBA 11 addresses and solves those issues.

The Senator gave you a bit of history of of the legislation on this topic, and I just wanna point out that the we believe that we have the support of the Department of Toxics, Cal EPA, and the administration at this time.

The opponents of the bill have a right to their opinions. However, they misstate key aspects of the bill and current law. Most simply do not appreciate that SB 811 will set a new high bar for metal shredders in California and indeed for metal shredders nationwide. For the first time, California will have a clear and comprehensive regulatory framework for metal shredding facilities. SB 811 will establish new rigorous enforceable standards that will both protect neighboring communities and advance this critical industry in California.

Also, as noted in the committee analysis, SB 811 also preserves existing local authority over these facilities and provides multiple opportunities for public engagement in the permitting process. This bill is essential for the future viability of this critical industry and the thousands of businesses, employees, and communities that rely upon it. We urge your aye vote, and thank you for your consideration. Miss Rosgay and I are available to address any questions from the committee.

Great. Thank you. Let's hear from Me Too witnesses in support. Come on up.

Thank you, Mister Chair members. Dawn Koepke on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance in support.

Good afternoon. Catherine Brandenburg on behalf of SA Recycling.

Good afternoon. Lindsey Golhorn on behalf of the Resource Recovery Coalition of California in support.

Good afternoon. Athena Ushana in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Kristen Olson Kate here on behalf of the San Joaquin County District Attorney, Ron Freitas, as well as the San Joaquin County Sheriff, Patrick Withrow. Thank you. In support.

Good afternoon. Richard Mandel for Ecology Recycling Services and AIM Recycling in support.

Diego Mar on behalf of the Latino Caucus California counties in support.

Aloha. Mitchell Bechtel on behalf of the operating engineers local three in support.

Good afternoon. Anthony Croce with operating engines engineers in support. Thank you.

Chris Snyder, o e three support.

Patrick Poitelho, o e three support.

Mister Chair members, Robert Wachowskian with Radius Recycling in support.

Chair, Reverend Max Shorty, Los Angeles County representing underserved communities, and we are in support. Please vote yes. We need the cars off the streets. I have lost relatives, babies that got stuck in refrigerators before because we wasn't able. People are still continue to dump those items. Appreciate it.

We'll next hear from opposition to the bill.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Karen Chen. I am an attorney, at NRDC, the Natural Resources Defense Council here in strong opposition to this bill. SB811 would exempt metal shutters from hazardous waste laws and and put into place dangerously loose standards for managing toxic contamination throughout the state.

California should not be in the business of carving out industries from critical hazardous waste laws, especially here when DTSC itself has repeatedly recognized that metal shredder waste is toxic enough to be considered hazardous waste and must be managed as such.

The latest set of rush amendments fail to alleviate the concerns that we have raised over multiple legislative cycles. It is not true that any litigation has reached a result that would preclude regulation of metal shutters under the hazardous waste control law or leave SB811 as the only option. DTSC and CUPA's have shared authority to regulate hazardous waste regulators under the hazardous waste control law as is. In some cases, they have, utilized that authority to regulate individual facilities.

So for example, on June 12, the Alameda County Environmental Health Department note issued a notice of violation to Radius Recycling in West Oakland for violations of the hazardous waste control law.

If DTSC were to proceed with its efforts to regulate shutters as hazardous waste facilities, it would have authority to enforce the hazardous waste control law to ensure protection of communities and the environment. In short, SB811 represents a deregulatory proposal that would replace already existing hazardous waste control law requirements with diluted ones, and I'm happy to go into some of the details of these lessened requirements of 811 in the Q&A.

My colleague, Ben Eichenberg, also an attorney with San Francisco Baitkeeper, is here to also answer question technical questions afterwards. We urge the committee to vote no on the bill and instead create space for meaningful dialogue from all stakeholders about how to tackle the chronic issues of fires and toxic pollution at these facilities. Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Scott Andrews. I'm here on behalf of Miss Margaret Gordon and Brian Beverage, the cofounders of the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, who unfortunately couldn't be here today, but asked me to read the statement. The controversy around this bill comes down to the word waste and the shredder industry's attempt to convince lawmakers in end of that end of life vehicles and broken appliances aren't waste.

Other recycling companies like waste management pick up our curbside waste products and extract valuable glass, aluminum, and other metals. The base shredder is the only industry that thinks they don't handle waste even though many modern vehicles and appliances contain a growing percentage of e-waste that is smashed and hammer mills releasing tons of toxic dust into neighboring communities.

The legislation is an attempt to avoid being regulated by the hazardous waste control law and subject to the inspections needed to keep frontline communities like ours safe from heavy metals, particulate matter, and thick toxic smoke that blankets entire regions from increasingly frequent flyers fires that start at these facilities. This bill does not create new clear regulatory framework. It preserves carve outs and continues to throw a frontline communities under the bus and is classic greenwashing.

This bill solidifies too much self regulation by these historically bad actors.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Additional folks in opposition, come on up.

Alex Bloomer on behalf of Earthjustice, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice. and Resource Renewal Institute in strong opposition. Thank you.

Ben Eichenberg on behalf of San Francisco Baykeeper in strong opposition. Thank you.

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

Mister Chair, Chris McCailey on behalf of the Athletics Group, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

William Mendonca. I own a shredder in in Stockton, and I oppose 811 because of the impact it'll have on my employees, my company, and my family. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sasha Horwitz, Los Angeles Unified School District. On behalf of our 400,000 students, we oppose.

Lucy Salcedo Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education in strong opposition.

William Mendonca with Universal Service Recycling, also in opposition to SB811.

Michael Mendonca with Universal Service Recycling, a small shredder facility, and we oppose SB811.

My name is Steven Slater. I represent USR Park and Kimco in strong opposition unless the mega shredders are regulated under hazardous waste control law.

Isabella Bravo on behalf of San Mateo County in opposition.

Chair, Member, Gerald Dentez on behalf of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors in strong opposition.

Good afternoon. Theresa Cook on behalf of the California Recycling Alliance, a coalition of small shredders in opposition. Thank you.

Isabella Aragueta with the Health Officers Association of California in an oppose unless amended position.

Amanda Bloom with the California Association for Environmental Health Administrators and the Cooper Forum Board in an oppose unless amended position.

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

Thank you. We're gonna bring it back to the dais. Vice Chair.

you, Mister Chair. Thank you everyone here. Senator, I've been here a year and a half. This is the toughest bill I've had to deal with. I'll explain why.

I was in the chemical treatment world for forty years, And I dealt with air quality, DTSC, water boards, and I understand the regulatory environment probably as well as anyone in this room. The problem that I have here is on one hand, you have a group that is desirable of this legislation, and then you have another group that is not, but they're they're it comes down to size. You have some some big guys that do 55,000 tons a month, and guys that do 3,000 tons a month.

The big guys are using thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, metal precipitation, metal stabilization, several chemical processes that are regulated by the DTSC and they they're already regulated. Then you have the small guys that take their waste and they put it in a drum and they ship it off to a disposal site, so they're not doing any treatment.

For me, it's hard. And then and then the small guys, you know, they're ten, twenty folks. They're small companies. When you have a small company and like mine was at one time, when you outsource your environmental engineering and all of the, the, the analytical that goes along with it, it gets very expensive. Let and then you're dealing with in a time consuming dealing with the TTC.

So I have a question. Since you're already these processes are already regulated by the DTSC and the Air District, how does this bill add on? How does this bill they're already regulated in all of these processes. So why would what are you trying to do with 811?

So so so let me just say that, that the, the air district looks at air. The Koopas look at something totally different. The water board is looking at material on the ground and what seeps into the into the water in terms of a, a chemical process and stuff. And so what this bill is attempting to do is settle once and for all the regulatory oversight of DT, DTSC over all of that in conjunction with them, but, but coordinating it.

And then also, making sure that that they have the ability to come in and look at every all the whole process to determine whether it's it's being processed according to the bills, the, the strictures of the bill.

And there's different materials that are part of the process that have to be handled differently. And I'll, I'll let the my witness talk to the specifics of the chemical issues that you were talking about, if that if that makes sense.

Couple of different points. First of all, DTSC does not regulate the metal recovery processes at these facilities under existing law. So what the bill does, and if you look at the bill analysis, it lists 55 different aspects of regulation that it would be part of this program. So it it's it's a misrepresent misrepresentation to say that DTSC is regulating all aspects of this. Okay?

In fact, one of the benefits for the state will be that DTSC will be regulating all aspects of the operation. When it comes to chemical treatment, that that's a that's a bit of a almost a distraction in the bill because DTSC does have jurisdiction now over chemical treatment, and the smaller shredders that are not treating their waste are carved out in the bill. There's no requirement for chemical treatment.

They can maintain exactly the same management practices that they do now, and nothing would push them into into that treatment activity. For the larger shredders who do treat their waste, there's always been an interest and the legislative history that the analysis points out shows that the legislature wanted the current regulation of that treatment process to move to something more formalized.

Right now, it's done under a variance and what's called an f letter, which is a declassification of the resulting material. Under the bill, that will all become part of the permit, be standardized, and be subject to public review and comment. So for the large shredders, there will be a new level of transparency and, level playing field. And for the smaller shredders, they can maintain exactly their same practices.

I, I would so the DTSC does, in fact, regulate some of the processes in the large shredder facilities. Is that correct?

Correct. Because

So the Let me let me finish my question. So therefore therefore, if they do regulate part of it,

why is metal shredding itself considered hazardous waste treatment?

Not, well, under the law under the law, it's not considered hazardous waste treatment.

And then you want them to follow under hazardous waste treatment?

No. We don't. And that's one of the that's one of the designs of this bill is to set up a program that has all that has the protections necessary to ensure that these are these facilities are safely operated, but that's not under the umbrella of hazardous waste management.

Opposition, how do you respond to that? And you made a comment less than standards in your statement. Yes. Just explain.

Thanks for the, the question. The I would I would argue and and I think a number of the organizations who are in opposition to this bill would argue that DTSC, yes, does have capacity authority to regulate metal shutters under the hazardous waste control law. They have not exercised that authority to regulate all aspects of metal shutter operations under the hazardous waste control law, but they could.

And this bill would ex exclude the entire industry from the hazardous waste control law despite the fact that DTSC and other CUPAs and agencies that do have the authority to regulate has or to regulate under the hazardous waste control law have been use utilizing that authority. This bill would take away that.

In your opinion, where's the balance here?

Where's the balance here? Yeah. In my opinion, we would leave this this, the hazardous waste control law, industry regulated under the hazardous waste control law.

And the ideal situation would be for the legislator at a later at a later time to come up with alternative management standards within the hazardous waste law rather than carving them out of the hazardous waste law, which would be specific to the industry and would account for all of the specifics of the industry's operations while also maintaining the rigorous standards of the hazardous waste control law.

How do you respond to that, ma'am?

Yes. Thank you for the opportunity. So I would like to say that the, the bill is crafted in such a way that it requires the Department of Toxics to take into consideration

And if, if you can get right Excuse me. On that one.

I'm sorry. Thanks. I'll try again. Okay. So the bill is crafted in such a way that the Department of Toxics is required in the permitting process to take into consideration both the nature and the size of the facilities.

It also allows the facility owner and operator to develop their own operating plan. So there's no requirement that they outsource that material to an expensive consultant or anything of that nature. They can develop their own plans based on their own business model, based on their own size and the materials that they process, and their permit will be downsized, if you will, commensurately. They also have relief on fees.

As to the, the, the, the nature of the prescriptive standards, the specifications, the operating requirements that are in 811, I've worked with this industry for forty five years.

The requirements of SB811 far surpass anything that is in place today for this industry. There has been ten years of litigation over the scope of the department's authority to regulate these facilities.

We have put aside huge differences of opinion over some of these legal issues in an effort to reach a consensus and develop a program that will put this industry on a solid footing that is very protective of of the communities as the primary focus of this bill is protection of the local communities where these facilities operate. So

Thank you. I'll, I'll close with one comment. Being in this business and and and it comes down to the bureaucracy a lot of times of these regulatory agencies and the onerous responsibilities you have to live up to, and it's a burden on small business. If we could figure out a way, say, small guys, you're exempt. Is it because you're not doing any hazardous waste treatment?

Is it but, but I don't like the, the saying, well, we just have less things we have to do. I don't like that because I feel that at some point, if you make the inspector mad, they're you're gonna fall under some other bureaucratic problem. So for that, Senator, I really respect what you're trying to do here. Thank you so much for hearing me out everyone today, But I'm really passionate about this. Today, I'm gonna vote no because I for the small guy.

But I thank you all very much for the conversation.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Additional questions or comments from members? Not seeing any. Senator, we'll invite you to close, respond to anything.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair. And I appreciate the, the robust conversation. If I could, there there are no there's no state in the nation that utilizes hazardous waste as a standard from which they they regulate metal shredders. So this will be the highest standard anywhere in the country and, and the, the little guys, the little shredders don't want to be regulated under this framework at all.

So we have the environmental community saying well you need a higher standard and the, the middle the small guy is saying, don't regulate us like like the big guys who have come in and said, let's solve this once and for all.

As was articulated, there have been years of litigation over exactly what the standard should be. And and rather than leaving it to the courts, we've decided to come in and try to try to resolve this. This is not easy. There have been some bad actors and that's that that makes it complicated.

But, but if this passes and gets signed, that activity is gonna be very it's very clear to report it and to stop it because everybody will will know what the rules are and and we'll have a regulatory framework and the framework allows the local government to work in conjunction with DTSC with DTSC.

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

Thank you, and really wanna commend you again for working with the committee. I think staff did a really good job on this. It's a complex issue. I think, you know, we're all learning more and more about this through this process and that will continue. I think it is a good policy to have metal shredding facilities permitted by DTSC.

I think that's the fundamental framework here. I'm recommending an aye vote. With that, I will ask for a motion and second on SB811, and I will second. Why don't we go ahead and call the roll?

This is file item one SB811 offered by Senator Caballero. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations. [Roll call]

K. We'll keep that bill on call.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

It's just begun a little while ago.

It's made to file item two. Senator Umberg, SB883.

Thank you. Good to see you.

Seems like just yesterday. I

know. Today's gonna be a long day.

So I understand there are some amendments you wish to take. Yeah. Okay. Great. And that would specifically define reactive chemical storage facility and make other changes.

And those are that you and your very capable staff, Mister Josh Tooker, suggested we're taking.

Thank you so much. Appreciate that. So with that, whenever you're ready.

Well, thank you, Mister Chair and and members. I'm pleased and privileged to be able to present SB 883. Six weeks ago in our district, we had a near catastrophe unprecedented in California. At that point in time, as the chemical tank was undergoing a rapid internal heating, there were two outcomes that were predicted by all those who were expert. One outcome was an explosion with about a 1,000 meter radius destroying everything in thousand meters.

About twice the explosive about twice the explosive, power of the Oklahoma City bombing. That was alternative one. Alternative two was a leakage which would emit a toxic vapor, which would also cause, unprecedented harm. Indeed, there were 50,000 people who were evacuated from the area, many going to shelters. Fortunately and fortuitously, there was a leak in the tank, a crack in the tank that allowed the pressure to escape.

And by virtue of some very, very, very courageous firefighters who climbed up on the tank and other hazardous waste, material handlers who pulled off, the insulation and did some other things to, allow for cooling of that tank, we would have seen that kind of catastrophe. And as a consequence, I've introduced SB 883 to make sure that we don't have that same kind of calamity and that we have transparency as to what we're storing and where we're storing and how we're storing, certain chemicals.

In particular, methyl, methyl methotriolate.

What this bill does is this bill provides for, a prohibition on new facilities that store reactive chemicals in residential areas unless specified conditions are met, including public review, requiring facilities that have these substances have a backup cooling system to limit the risk of explosions, clarifying that fire departments and emergency response authorities have jurisdiction over events involving thermal runaway reactions, requiring California office of emergency services to develop and maintain the statewide list of facilities that hold chemicals capable of thermal runaway reactions requiring calEnviroScreen to show explosive potential of polluters, incorporating methyl methachrylate MMA into California's accidental release prevention program and requires facilities storing the chemicals above regulatory thresholds, develop a risk management plan, clarifying that CEQA exemption for advanced manufacturing does not apply to certain explosive chemicals under specific conditions.

And lastly, exempting any future settlements for those who were evacuated from California taxation. With me here to testify, concerning the bill, are, two witnesses, Mai Do with the Harbor Institute of Orange County and, Asha Sharma with the California Sierra Club. Thank you very much.

Great. Welcome.

Thank you, Chair and members. I'm doctor Mai Nguyen Do, research and policy manager at the Harbor Institute for Immigrants and Economic Justice, which is based in Orange County, and I'm here today to testify on behalf of my organization. So the Senator just mentioned a few weeks ago, communities across several Orange County cities had to evacuate due to the methyl methacrylate leak and risk of explosion at the GKN aerospace manufacturing facility in Garden Grove.

Thousands of gallons of flammable flammable methyl methachrylate or MMA have been stored for use at the GKN facility, with manufacturers at 35 transparency canopies. And it turned out GKN's MMA tank was overheating, and it was possible that the tank could keep heating up to the point where it would explode due to a thermal runaway reaction.

Now the GKN facility is next to a residential area and just down the street from an elementary school. As as a result of the explosion risk posed by GKN's failing MMA cooling system, 50,000 people were forced to quickly evacuate, and thousands of local small businesses lost revenue. For several excruciatingly long days, OC communities were burdened with uncertainty about our homes, our jobs, and our lives.

While the risk of explosion has thankfully passed, uncertainty remains, especially on the many working class immigrants and refugee neighborhoods by the GKN facility. And as cleanup begins this week, residents continue to raise important questions about the GKN manufacturing facility that stores and uses MMA.

Why it is that this facility gets to be so close to homes and schools? How a facility with a long record of environmental and safety violations has been allowed to continue to to quietly expand, why MMA storage isn't overseen more closely, and what the status of the backup cooling system at GKN even was or is.

Our communities deserve to have these concerns addressed to help prevent this type of crisis from happening again, which is why we're here to urge your yes vote on SB 883. Thank you.

Hello. Thank you, Chair members. My name is Asha Sharma, deputy director of Sierra Club California, here today representing our half a million members and supporters across the state. The number of industrial disasters across California in the past month alone from the GKN aerospace manufacturing chemical leak to the warehouse fire in Tracy to the cold storage facility fire in Boyle Heights that released toxic chemicals and smoke into nearby communities points to a need for additional health and safety guardrails at industrial sites.

SB 883 is a common sense bill in response to the GKN aerospace manufacturing incident.

The bill requires backup cooling systems, safe distances from homes, public hearings, and the usual environmental review process and injury to nearby community environmental laws in the past, which were settled, and yet the facilities still posed an extreme risk to nearby communities.

The bill requires backup cooling systems, safe distances from homes, public hearings, and the usual environmental review process and injury to nearby community environmental laws in the past, which were settled, and yet the facilities still posed an extreme risk to nearby communities.

Therefore, additional safeguards are clearly necessary to ensure that industrial facilities handling these reactive chemicals, especially facilities surrounded by residential areas, do not harm human health or the environment. For these reasons, Sierra Club, California strongly supports SB 883, and we thank the author for bringing this important bill forward. We urge your yes vote on SB 883. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional, folks in support.

Chloe Shea on behalf of California environmental voters in strong support. Thank you.

Mariela Rocha with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, APEN, and the Center for Race, Poverty, and Environments, in support. Thank you.

Alex Loomer voicing for support on behalf of Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles and San Francisco as well as Resource Renewal Institute. Thank you.

Ben Eichenberg on behalf of San Francisco Baykeeper in support.

Marquis King Mason on behalf of Natural Resource Defense Council in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there more opposition witnesses?

There are.

Here they come.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Tim Schestic with the American Chemistry Council. Appreciate the opportunity to, testify today. Let me first say that while the facility in Garden Grove is not operated by one of our member companies, we recognize the seriousness seriousness of the issue and and share center emergent intent of preventing future accidents and supporting strong emergency preparedness.

Advancing safety and sustainability in the communities where we operate is our top priority. Given the bill that was recently amended and coupled with the amendments we just saw before the hearing, I also want to acknowledge the work of the committee staff, identifying some several items for continued discussion. Some of those are similar issues that we had initially raised when the bill was first amendment amended.

Those concerns involve some of the definitions, a compliance pathway that may provide a little more flexibility for companies that may utilize safety measures that are not entirely appropriate for all scenarios. And then the bill currently does eliminate, existing flexibility within the CalArt program, by making facilities storing or using MMA ineligible for, like, for exemptions that are currently available under the program regardless of facility specific risk or process design.

So with all those, we're committed to working with Senator Unburd on conversations going forward the next couple of months, hopefully finding a spot where this makes sense as implementable, given the potential scope of impacted, facilities. So with that, I appreciate the committee's consideration. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, Dawn Keppke, on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, California Council for Environmental and Economic Environmental and Economic Balance, and Chemical Industry Council of California, all in respectful opposition. As was stated by Mister Schastek, certainly our members and, trade associations recognize the impact recent incident in Orange County on the surrounding communities.

While the company is not one of our members across those trades, certainly, our members recognize that safety is of the utmost importance, not only to the organizations, but each individual member who comply with a myriad of, federal, state, and local laws, regulations, permitting requirements, along with disclosure, requirements.

Current version of SB 883, and in line, with my colleague, we are certainly continuing to seek feedback from our members, and do have a vested interest in working productively with the Senator on this issue. We do, believe that there is a workable place to land to ensure, that if there are, potential safety gaps, regulatory gaps, that we can help kinda work towards ensuring, that those are addressed.

We would just caution, however, given that the investigation is ongoing with that particular incident, want to just be sure that we're not over correcting the could have implications for our manufacturers, for our supply chains, particularly when it comes to some of these critical chemistries for some really critical industries here in California. So with that, again, we're reviewing the amendments, not only that were just put into the bill, but also those, that are, subject to the committee's, jurisdiction and agreement. So I look forward to further conversation.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are there me two witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, we're gonna bring it back for questions or comments. Vice Chair.

Real quickly, does this does this apply to all reactive chemicals?

We are working on definitions at this point.

Yeah. Because as I'm I'm hearing you, the problem that I have is there are hundreds of hundreds of chemicals that are reactive and, you know, they're endothermic, exothermic. I mean, so so that really concerns me. That's all I had for now. Thank you.

Funny.

What we're It sounds too. Do we know that. Right?

We're we're working on we're definitely committed to MMA being one of those chemicals. Yeah.

Great. Other questions, comments? Assembly member.

I just wanna thank the Senator. I wonder if this is one of the last times I'll see you present bill in committee. But Oh, you'll make me cry. I know. But

I was gonna say, there's no one I trust more to get this right than you. I know this was a last minute incident that happened in your district. It was a last minute bill, which is actually the perfect time to do a gut in a minute. When we see a crisis of this magnitude we haven't addressed and we realize it needs to be addressed at, and that's what you're doing. And so I know there's work to be done, and you've said you're gonna work on it.

And I absolutely trust you, because you have proven yourself to be someone who leads with your community mind no matter what. And so appreciate all of your service, but this being one of the things that you do on your way out, Senator.

Thank you. Well stated and, you know, obviously, feel free to continue to call on the committee for the additional work as you get this across the finish line. I'm recommending an aye vote. With that, would you like to close?

Sure. Well, you can be assured I won't rely on my own personal expertise in this space, that we will, indulge your invitation. Number one, I I wanna thank, doctor Maidel. I wanna thank Asha Sharma for coming forward. This is a bit of nostalgic for me because thirty four years ago, a fellow named Willie Brown appointed me Chair of this very committee, and we met in this very room, and I sat in that very seat.

I'm glad to see that the chairmanship has been upgraded in the last thirty four years. Appreciate it. And my office was right across the hall. And this committee's done some excellent work over the last several decades. So I I wanna thank you and you and all of you for your service in protecting California's an urgent eye vote.

Thank you. With that, do we have a motion and second? Okay. Okay. Motion.

I will second. Let's call the roll.

This is file item number two, SB 883 offered by Senator Umberg. The motion is do pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. Connolly?

Aye.

Connolly, aye. Ellis? No. Ellis, no. Bauer Kehan?

Bauer Kehan, aye. Castillo? No. Castillo, no. Lee, Mckinner, captain.

K. We will place that bill on call. Thank you. So one more item. File item three, center Ashby.

We saw her a little bit earlier. We'll await.

Wing can. He's so talented. He's a good guy.

Senator Ashby as well. Whoops. Got my mic on now. This is file item 3, SB 1010, Senator Ashby. Whenever you're ready.

Yes. I'm so sorry. I tried to hang in there with you too, and I got called away. So thank you very much for letting me sneak back in. I appreciate it.

Colleagues, I am here to present SB 1010, which is an Appliance Recycling Accountability Act. 1010 strengthens California's existing framework for managing hazardous materials removed from discarded appliances. Refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners, and other major appliances contain refrigerants and other hazards that must be properly removed before they are dismantled or recycled. When these materials are not properly managed, they can be released into the environment and contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. The impact of proper recovery is extraordinary, actually.

For every refrigerator responsibly recycled, emissions are reduced by the equivalent of removing one and a half cars for a year off of the road. While current law already requires hazardous materials to be removed from discarded appliances, the state has limited visibility into appliance recycling activity and whether these materials are being consistently and properly managed at the end of life. SB 1010 strengthens the existing certified appliance recycler program by improving reporting, increasing inspection certification requirements, and, most importantly, transparency.

The bill also gives regulators better tools to oversee program compliance and target enforcement where it is needed. Since its introduction, SB 1010 has been substantially amended from an extended producer responsibility framework to focus on strengthening California's existing recycling and oversight systems.

I would very much like to thank your committee staff, which has been helpful. We really set out on this idea because it was so important. Refrigerators and these particular appliances actually have end of life value, unlike some other things that are at the end of life. We really want to capitalize on that to make sure that they're recycled properly to help us reach our goals in the state of California. It is one area that is within our reach.

So I really deeply appreciate your staff. Very helpful. I think the bill is better having come through your committee. We've also reviewed the amendments submitted by the Recycled Materials Association. Look forward to continuing working with them on the bill as we move forward.

With me to testify today is Doug Kobold, who's the executive director of the California Product Stewardship Council. Very happy to have him with me when you're ready.

Please. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Chair and committee members. I'm happy to be here as a sponsor of SB 1010, helping out Senator Ashby with this awesome bill. I come to you with over thirty years of solid waste and recycling experience, with at least a couple of those decades being directly related to appliance recycling and the proper management of running solid waste facilities.

To put it in perspective, there are somewhere between one and a half to almost 2,000,000 refrigerator units sold in California alone. US sales were 19,000,000,000 in 2025. That's US. So you can do the math for the population of California. There are another 700 to 800,000 portable air conditioners that are sold every year into the market.

This is the data that is available. There's also freezers, dehumidifiers, personal refrigeration units, which are the small coolers that have gases in them as well. Those are not in those numbers. But if you just look at the number of certified appliance recyclers, we've got to call them the CAR program, that are registered with DTSC, there's only 138 of them statewide.

If you use the numbers I just cited, about 2,200,000 units, that is 16,000 units per CAR that have to be processed each year, or basically 60 per day per CAR, five days a week, fifty two weeks a year.

So that's a pretty substantial number. And that again does not include all those others that we don't even have data for right now. This is where data is really important for us. We need to get to the data. Senator noted that earlier.

We need to have an idea what's being processed in California so that we can understand whether or not all the appliances are actually being properly managed and degassed. There are a lot of other materials, not just the gas in there. There's also gas that's impregnated in the compressor oils that has to be captured. There's capacitors, and there's a lot of processing that has to happen with these appliances before they can be put into a shredder for ultimate recycling.

The need for the additional data is also critical for proper enforcement. We need to know, again, what is out there, what's not being reported, what's not being properly processed, what's just being off gassed to the atmosphere, as the Senator pointed out. That has a large impact on our air quality and also on our ozone layer when these gases are released. A beautiful part about this bill is it also is going to provide funding to DTSC to actually implement this program.

Currently, there's no funding that we can identify that DTSC has targeted specifically for the CAR program. So this will actually bring funding in there to allow DTSC to further their efforts to make sure that there is proper enforcement and that there's proper permitting of these facilities.

The bill levels the playing field for the legitimate processors that are out there doing this right. They've registered with DTSC. They are trying to do their job the way that it is prescribed. The bill also authorizes the CUPAs to perform inspections on a regular basis. Those CUPAs are already out there at a lot of these solid waste facilities statewide, doing their inspections of the solid waste facilities.

And so they can now also have the authority to come in and actually do the inspection to make sure that the CAR program is running appropriately at the different sites. And so we really appreciate the opposition's efforts to work with us to shift this bill from an EPR model to an improved enforcement structure, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have additional support in the audience? Seeing none. How about opposition? Come on up.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Ryan Flanigan on behalf of the Recycled Materials Association West Coast chapter, and we have an opposed unless amended position on the bill. I'm very encouraged by the direction the bill has taken in terms of enforcement. We had great conversations with the author's office and sponsor.

So I have a few concerns, particularly related to the fee, as it relates to site visits with the department that could get really costly, which I know isn't the intention. And recycling facilities having to certify that the merch has been removed, oftentimes, when we buy them from CARs, most of the time or many of the times when we buy these appliances, they've been crushed or baled, so it's almost impossible to do.

I think these things can be worked out. We also had some ideas and suggestions that we think could help enhance the bill and further the effort. We share the same goal in terms of cracking down on the bad actors in the space. So look forward to continuing those conversations, and hopefully we can get those ironed out over the next month or so. Thanks.

Great. Thanks.

Mandy Strello on behalf of Rethink Waste in support.

Jason Schmelzer on behalf of Solid Waste Association of North America and Californians Against Waste in support. Thank you.

Okay. And no other opposition? Alright. So I think we got everyone at this point. Sounds like work is ongoing.

Great. We will bring it back. Questions or comments from committee members? Not seeing any. Senator Ashby, invite you to close, and also want to commend you for the work on the bill.

It looks like there has been some work with stakeholders to modify the bill, perhaps a few more ideas emerging, but really wanted to support your efforts. I think it's important to ensure these facilities that handle hazardous waste from appliances are regulated and have oversight from the appropriate state and local regulators. So there will be continued conversations on the bill. Please consult with us if we can be of help, as always. With that, I'm recommending an aye vote and would invite you to close.

Yeah. Well, first of all, thank you so much. Truly, we may ask your committee for help as we move along. We've tried very hard to be open to the opposition and move. Our goal here is really to effectuate an outcome of greater participation in appropriate recycling at the end of life.

It's dangerous for workers to be around a non compliant facility. This bill is ultimately a district bill because a member of my district brought it to me, a good actor who said it's really hard to do business in California and follow all the rules if you don't enforce against the people who don't. And so that's why I'm doing the bill. I want to help people. I want to help our environment.

And we've been working on the bill for three years. We didn't introduce it until this year because it required a lot of research, and we've had a lot of help from committee staff to get to this place. So I'm deeply appreciative. And when you do have a quorum here, I would ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Sounds great. We are short quite a few members. I will look if we have a motion. And so, oh, just in time. Wow.

And I'm going to second it.

My hero.

Let's go ahead. Let's go ahead and call the roll.

This is file item number three, SB 1010, authored by Senator Ashby. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Alright. We'll keep that item on call. Thank you.

Thank you all so much. Thank you.

Thank you, Stan. Alright. So why don't we go ahead and do add ons at this time?

Alright. To do an add on for file item number one, SB 811, Chair voting aye. Motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations. Bauer-Kahan. Not voting. This is file item number one, 811, Chair voting aye. [Roll call] File item number two, SB 883, Chair voting aye. The motion is do passed as amended to the committee on appropriations. [Roll call]

K. That item's out. We'll leave it open for absent members.

File item number four, SB 1153. Chair voting, aye. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations.[Roll call]

File item three, SB 1010, Chair voting aye. The motion is do pass the committee on appropriations. [Roll call]

Alright. K. That item's out, and we'll leave it open for absent members. Okay.

Okay. Let's add on.

Alright. File item one, SB 811 offered by Senator Caballero, Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

That bill has four votes and is out.

Okay. File item two SB 883. The motion is do passed as amended to the committee on appropriations. Chair voting aye. McKinnor, aye.

Five to two. That bill is out.

File item number three, SB 1010. Motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations. McKinnor, aye.

Five to two. That bill is out.

File item number four, SB 1153. The motion is do pass the committee on appropriations. Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

That vote that matter has five votes and is out. With that, we are adjourned. Thank you.