Senate Standing Committee on Rules

Alright. The Senate Rules Committee will come to order. Before we begin today's agenda, can we please establish quorum? Can we please call the roll?

[roll call]

Quorum.

Quorum has been established. We are now going to go to Governor' s appointees required to appear. We have item 1A the appointment of Rhys Williams to the Board of Environmental Safety. Mister Williams, you'll have one to two minutes, to do your introductory remarks. If you have anybody in the room that you'd like to introduce, you're welcome to do so.

As you approach the two minutes, we may interrupt you, and then members will have the opportunity to ask questions or give feedback.

Excellent. Thank you. I've timed it to two minutes. So, Madam Pro Tem, members of the committee, my name is Rhys Williams, and it's a privilege to appear before you. The moment is especially meaningful to me as a former Senate employee, having witnessed this process from the other side.

As a Senate staffer, I recognize and appreciate both, the gravity, of your respective roles, and the time commitment this committee demands. In that vein, I'm humbled that my nomination is supported by three recent Pro Tems, former chairs of this esteemed committee, along with groups representing firefighters, physicians, and union workers, all of whom carry a frontline stake in BES' mission to protect public health and reduce the risks of toxic exposure.

I want to share my appreciation for the Governor entrusting me to continue in service to the public and especially in a space that occupies a confluence of policy and covenants issues that hold a profound impact on people's lives, and mirror the challenges from the region in which I was born and raised myself.

As an independent board now, four years into DTSC reform, we've heard from both the community and the regulated stakeholders that they want the board to be more involved and more assertive, and I agree.

I was struck listening to testimony from Miss Johnson Mazaros last month at the joint oversight committee hearing on DTSC, where she invoked Doctor King's fierce urgency of now.

The communities that the board regulates and serves don't have the luxury of gradualism. My tenure in the Governor's Office focused on driving program delivery across departments, setting departmental priorities, and measurable goals, all instilled with that fierce urgency of now. And I hope with your support, to continue that work in the same energy. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you. Members, questions or comments? We'll start with Senator Laird.

Thank you. And thanks for the meeting yesterday. I appreciate it. I have two things I wanna ask about and the first is sort of was likely referred to in your opening comments, and that is is I'm familiar that the Department of Toxics Substance Control, as late as six or eight years ago, was in, I don't know the polite way to say it, was in complete disarray. And had trouble accounting, had trouble knowing where it stood on different permits, was just not functional.

So I wanted to get a sense of what your assessment is now and how that colors your role and what you think on this board you should be doing given whatever the state is you're about to describe.

Yeah. I don't think it's controversial to concur fully with your assessment of where DTSC was. In fact, I think as I shared yesterday, during the transition from the Brown administration to the Newsom administration. The first outreach I received as part of that informally was from legislative staff, and it was specific to DTSC and the challenges it faced.

My assessment on where it's now, and particularly with context, the role of the board, and I think this is where I feel that where the board is engaged, the outcomes are better.

So principally, some of the challenges that we're facing the board, which they're facing DTSC, which the board was asked to address, timeliness on permits. When DTSC SB 158 went through there were 30 permits that DTSC had, which had essentially become continuity permits. They passed their ten year expiry date, and DTSC hadn't finalized the approval on them. Fast forward four years with the board being involved in that process, we're now down to just the five.

Two of which will be heard in the next twelve months and three outstanding.

So 30 down to five, I think is an measure measurable example of improvement. I think the other major challenge that the department faced was community facing, A sense that the community did not the impacted community, the disproportionately burdened communities did not have a voice, in the decisions that the department was making. It did not have insight into what the department was doing.

And I think the board has fundamentally addressed that, not just through the statutory required hearings that we are required to do six times a month, but through working groups sort of adjacent to what the board is doing, establishing two member working groups and going through specific issues, whether it's Exide or Santa Susana, and really providing a different forum for members of the community to hear what DTSC soon is doing directly, but also to bring up in discussion what those challenges are.

And I think the last major piece is fiscal stability that I would point to.

As you noted, Senator, the state of DTSC's accounting was suboptimal. In fact, even when we did fee rate when fee rates were reformed and set, we still managed to come in with a underestimated generation and handling fee. And I would say in reflection the board is set to act on fee rate settings for next year ahead now that the budget's passed is that, generally, there is more stability. There are ongoing long term challenges.

So to the second part of your question, where what do we need to really be focusing on the years coming ahead?

The fiscal stability piece remains paramount. The generation handling fee, as an example, continues to be funded largely through staff vacancies year over year. It's structurally imbalanced. There are challenges that the board has in addressing that, including the 10% cap that we're allowed to set as a reserve so that we are unable year on year to sort of smooth those ups and downs, and that's a challenge.

And I think the other challenge the board faces is in the, in considering fees is be able to consider and work with DTSC in understanding their budget change proposals.

Those are not shared with the board. I think that needs to change, and I think that we can do that administratively. But I think that would help inform the long term of how to bring the department into a better fiscal standing and support them in that approach.

I was gonna ask you about the fee structure. I feel like you just addressed that. And one of the things we mentioned in the meeting, just to note, unless you wanna comment on it, is for example, the Moss Landing Battery Storage Fire, which I worked very closely with. DTSC released testing results and there was no context.

And the County felt so obligated to release whatever they had when they had it that they immediately released it with no context. And there were people around the plant that could not tell what that meant. And so I just hope that you will be an ally in trying to address issues.

I'm more than an ally if I more than comment on it. So I've seen my background's starting in the Governor's Office with a focus on emergency management. The first time I was actually brought into the sort of decision making circle was back again during the transition when I was invited to join the unified coordination group, which as you know, Senator, is the Governor's Cabinet, and it was in response to the Woolsey fire.

What was starkly absent in the discussion at that point was that Woolsey fire, which obviously burned through Santa Susana Field Laboratory. There was no air monitoring established, And just a little familiarity with SSFL as background, I think is one of the questions we made and obviously, the OES Director mission tested.

I would say where we were at that point to where we are now with example with the recent fire of the warehouse facility in Boyle Heights where DTSC went out and proactively worked to establish air monitoring, in itself shows progress. There are major gaps in between in that program.

One is timeliness. What I have seen during my experience in the Governor's Office and the Eaton and Palisades fire are a good example that three or four days to establish air monitoring is insufficient.

When the public is already dealing with the stress of a fire and an evacuation and loss of property, the last thing you want to know or want to be in the dark about is unanswered questions about whether the air is safe and whether the water is clean.

Let me just say, I'm glad you brought that up. And when the Aliso Canyon Leak happened in Los Angeles County, there was not air quality testing and it took the Los Angeles Department of Health to decide they would just do it. And there was no requirement. There was no coordination. And everybody was going crazy that was anywhere around it.

And then the exact same thing happened in Moss Landing where it was heavy metals, it was batteries burning, and nobody was monitoring immediately around the area to give any knowledge to the people that live there about what their exposure might be or what the risk might be. And so I'm hoping that that's something you just identified it yourself without being prompted, but I just hope that's something you will pay attention to because we shouldn't wait till disaster to have a discussion and then get it there.

So I agree. It's already a conversation I've initiated with DTSC and DTSC and I'm planning to raise with CalEPA. At least my experience on being on the other side of this is part of the challenge, honestly, is when you're getting into a unified coordination, unified command. So many entities at the table, a lot of people just look at each other and say, and, who is going to host this on what website? And to your point, Senator, who's gonna provide the context?

Who's gonna provide the QA? And so there's a lot of looking around with a crisis at the same time. It's rather terrifyingly simple to address, which is have an established pre incident plan as part of your operating procedures and so that it just goes into place instantly. And I look forward to working with you.

I know we don't have a lot of time. The other thing I wanted to ask you is there have been very serious concerns raised about your employment and how your employment might be a conflict. Would you address how you plan to handle this?

Yeah. I welcome the question. It's important. Appreciate the opportunity to speak to it. I think on on conflict, broadly, to look at the context in which the conflict is being raised, first of all, what is BES's role?

What does BES do to understand where the conflict arises? And then I'll speak to the conflict specifically, if I may. BES's role is not to be DTSC. BES role is not enforcement. It is not, for the most part, a decision making entity.

The legislature established BES to be a body that holds the department accountable, that helps the department set long term strategic priorities and make sure that they're delivering on what the legislature and the administration and they themselves have said they're going to do.

There is a narrow universe where BES has decision making authority directly on individual facilities. It's about it's a universe of about a 100 facilities in which permits issued by DTSC can be appealed and the board will consider them.

That is where a conflict consideration comes in. For me, I had been thinking about this question long before the issue was raised in public and my experience matters there.

As I said in my introduction remarks, former Senate staffer, I was here in the Pro Tem's office between 2012-2014, when we as a, as an institution were dealing with a number of issues around the political format, ethics, and a real deep dive and self assessment as to what we were doing as a legislative body and how we were conducting ourselves and the standards we set.

So I'm not only did I am I familiar deeply familiar with these rules, I had a hand in helping shape them. I understand why they exist. I understand why they need to exist, and I support them. And so I take that experience and, you know, being in my circumstance asked early on how am I going to apply this to myself.

And there are two tests that I applied. First is what is the legal requirement? What is the legal standard? Which is if you stand to gain financially from a decision you are making, then it is a conflict of interest. And so that is a simple straight up recusal.

I think we are all familiar with with that challenge. My experience at that time in the Senate and the time I've spent thinking about it is that, actually, the legal standard is one thing, but perception matters. And going the next layers above the legal standard is very important. And so what I have done is built those additional layers to address potential ways where people may think, oh, that's a gray area. That's problematic.

So, for example, in my private practice contract, there is a clause in there that my work for BES gets primacy. That's the conflict of interest code and incompatible activities that are explicitly called out as something that part of my private practice, needs to be respected and and takes precedent. So how does that play out in practice?

As I said, if there's a recusal well, first of all, I mean fundamentally, because of that clause, I would not take on I would not work with an entity that had a matter before BES as a standard. And therefore, the idea is that there would never be a point where I would need to take a recusal on that basis.

But I'd go a step further and say actually, if there is a if there is an entity that works with anybody in my private practice, that I should recuse myself from that as well so that there isn't this perception that the decision is an extension of where I work. So it's twofold. It's to accuse myself based on, work that I'd be doing but also if any of my colleagues are working on it.

Not only that, we don't it's not what we have agreed in the office and again, it's gated in this contract, is that we will not discuss in the office issues that go before BES. So in the universe of some 94,000 regulated entities, we've pre identified again working on this before the issue is raised in public and and working with board council.

We've identified one entity with an issue before BES that is a client of my private practice. Again, applying those rules, I do not discuss BES issues. In the office, I do not discuss, certainly do not discuss it with the individual representing them. But additionally, I've self voluntarily, self voluntarily recused myself from any action decision, actions to files, discussion on the BES side of the equation.

Let me just interrupt and ask because and I appreciate the response. When we met yesterday, one of the words you used was firewall.

And I would like to know how you define that and where that is. And it seems to me you went to where the problem is, which is we can fairly clearly identify where there's a legal conflict, but the issue that was raised in the letter and and some criticism was about appearance. And so I wondered if you would speak to that because I think that's the issue.

Yep.

Yeah. I think it's the right question, and I think to the additional layers of standard that I've put in, the additional firewalls I've put in, seek to speak to that perception. The fact that I will not work with a client before BES, the fact that I will not take action if my firm has a client before BES, the fact that I will not work with my firm with a client before BES. Those are all established as firewalls in the contract.

That is to address perception.

But it's the right question. I reflected it particularly after meeting with you and Senator Reyes yesterday in more depth. And I think, you know, 20 public years of service has taught me among many things that perception is difficult to write, particularly if others are prewriting it your story for you. I believe I was appointed among other factors because the people who I've worked with know me for my work ethic, for my passion, and my integrity.

And I believe that the support that I've received in this appointment from other Senate leaders that I've worked with is also for that reason.

My work predominantly in the Governor's Office has been internal facing, and it's been around driving program delivery and setting metrics and standards and holding departments to deliver, on what we were required to do. It's not been external facing. So when I reflect on the reference letter, it struck me yesterday evening that I don't know the signatories to this letter. They don't know me.

In fact, looking through the letter, I think there were two signatories that have had regular meaningful engagement with the board during the time, I've sat on it.

And I think what I've recognized here is that trust is built, that it's deeds, not words. And so I have my work cut out for me to familiarize myself and have them familiarize with me, those both those who added their name to the letter, but also broadly the community to be accessible, to go out and meet with members of the community and be available. First meeting of the board that I sat on, I invited anyone to reach out and have that conversation.

I didn't get a great deal of uptake, so I'd start since started reaching out the to the group so they can start familiarizing. In fact, one of the signatories to the letter, I just had a meeting with recently.

And I think the point is there is that I will continue working with anyone unbiased diligently, with BES's role is to facilitate and provide a voice and a forum, for members of the community to have the opportunity to engage with with the department.

One final very quick question and that is we work in this arena lots of times and the question is, you sort of alluded to it earlier, do you have an Attorney that if there's even any doubt you can consult and get advice independently as to whether you're threading the needle correctly?

Thank you. Yes. The board has some attorneys with us in the room today, and we've been working closely and diligently dating as far back as April on the issue.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate you responding to the question.

Senator Laird, we're gonna go with Vice Chair Grove and then Senator Reyes.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam pro tem. Thank you, my colleague from Santa Cruz, former Secretary of Natural Resources, in case you did not know that. He covered most of the questions that I had on your outside employment or your private employment that our bestie, my bestie, put us in a group text to make sure we cover publicly, last night, night before, something like that. So I'm not gonna go there.

You mentioned that, DTCS or that the BES does not have direct permitting over all these entities but a 100. What what industries I'm not asking you to name all 100, but what industries do you have permitting authority over?

It is. They are facilities, that reach the that reached essentially the highest risk level of hazardous waste.

What are those facilities?

So they would be, for example a hazardous waste. The term for the landfill, for example, that accepts that only certain landfills are designated or permitted. Not a 100 of those specifically. There are other examples. They are for example, battery lead recycling, or there was a battery lead recycling facility here.

That isn't actually a DTSC regulated entity. It falls in. So there are 94,000 or so regulated facilities for handling hazardous waste.

Over DTSC, and I'm not trying to interrupt you. I just know that we have a time strain. So you put the Board of Environmental Safety kind of governance or is over DTSC, but you said specifically outside of DTSC that you the BES has some type of authority over basically a 100 facilities is that refineries? is it oil? is it landfills? is it hazardous waste? like what' s the environment of that? Not these facilities, but the industry.

The industry is, it would be defined it's there are a lot of industries, and I wouldn't wanna be exhaustive. But example is, I can give you example. EcoBET is one that deals with recycling heavy metals, for example. So I think broadly to say, it is the category of facilities that deal the most difficult heaviest industries. And the permitting of so DTSC does the permitting.

If the permit is appealed, it now comes to the board for a decision in a public forum whereas previously went before an administrative law judge.

Thank you. And I appreciate you meeting with me. And one of the things that we discussed was the lengthy time it takes skip permit acquired. There are two hazardous waste facilities that are lined that have tags of where they can they can tell you what was buried there 25 years ago within an inch of where it was buried.

And so they are very detailed. They are California compliant. There's only two facilities. When it took 19 years to get a permit for one of the facilities in my district. 19 years of uncertainty.

19 years of not investing in capital investment because you weren't sure if you're gonna be able to operate in the State of California. So 19 years. Do you think 19 years is too long to wait for a permit?

Absolutely.

Okay. And then, and then and if you were to have to make a decision on that, I guess my question to you is that we have to, we have to collect this stuff. It's asphalt. It's sea melted. It's everything that we have to collect that's required us for us to collect.

Balancing permitting these facilities and creating the jobs here out in the middle of nowhere, right, in the middle of the area where these people this company is located. Do you balance the economic impacts to jobs, leakage, and the cost of shipping all that stuff, the cost of the state for shipping asphalt, we need to tear up a road out of the state in order to ship it out there to decompose it and bring it back to California so we can use it.

Do you balance all of that? And do you take into account the economic loss and the not only economic loss for the company and the jobs, but the cost of the taxpayer for paying the excess cost of having it done in Wyoming, Texas, or New Mexico?

Yeah. Probably yes is the answer. So the consideration for the board is to consider the general public interest with a dis, with a focus on disproportionately burdened communities. It's a quasi judicial role, so it's not strictly bound to specific judicial standards. There is room for maneuvering this.

So, yes, those considerations come into play.

Okay. And you have no, the BES has no regulatory authority or permit issuing over refineries. I'm really concerned about you don't have a positive taste in your mouth for oil or the industry, and I'm just actually represent the top oil producing county in the state if we were allowed to have permits which we did get 2,000, I' m pleased with that.

My concern is that your distaste for that industry and lets us Phillips 66, for example, there's all this coopla going on Phillips 66 because they conferred to a biomass fridge fry oil. There bringing there feedstock in from Australia. They realize they cant afford it.

So that facility is on it's way down losing $350,000,000 a year here in California but the rest of the company is making $4,200,000,000 last quarter because they are focusing on what they know best, how to refine petroleum products and deliver fuel at a cheaper level cost to our constituents. Where's your balance on that? So I have a concern with that, and I just want you to address it.

So I think where that may come up, so in the universe of a 100, it's it's existing facilities and post closure facilities. So top of my head, I do not know where oil refineries sit in terms of that 100. I do know, for example, I'm familiar with the Phillips 66 in the LA basing and then, and the post closure issues. They in fact, scheduled to go and

A million dollar funding for the things that they did. Yes.

Okay. Sorry. Go ahead.

No. I'm familiar with that, and I'll be again, to the point of getting out and being more on the ground and not in Sacramento, understanding some of the post closure considerations that are going on that Phillips 66 site, in LA in the LA area, and getting a better understanding. But I think, broadly to the point, I think my bias, if there is one, is towards community. It's towards community safety. It's towards worker safety.

It's towards the first responders that go into an incident, and it's towards public health. There is a balance out there that needs to be recognized that in addition to worker safety, there are worker jobs that go with it, and that needs to be factored into the overall equation as well.

So that was gonna be my last question until you just answered the way you did. So when you say first responders, worker safety, all of those things, do you say think it's safer for them to work in an oil industry to produce the petroleum products that we use every day or a battery facility that firefighters can't put out, they just have to burn the contaminants that go in the air.

You're looking at thousands of parts per million of contaminants that go into the air where there's no ability to the, you know. The transition to me is more hazardous.

And it's maybe I'm biased because I represent the industry. But the transition to me is more hazardous to people's community health, worker safety, firefighter safety. If there's a fire in the oil industry, firefighters go and put it out.

Yeah.

It's been one in a long, long time.

Senator, I don't, I don't view it as a binary choice.

Okay.

I see it is what the Governor would refer to as the power of end, which is you can have facilities in California, and they can be safe if well regulated, if the standards are appropriate, if the oversight is appropriate and the enforcement is appropriate, we can accomplish both.

One of the critiques I would have for example, of the hazardous waste management plan the department put out last year as that it really doesn't address some of these longer term challenges of what is the infrastructure that is needed in the State of California over the long term.

Do we have it here? Or do we want to continue setting up a standard where we are exporting our waste to other communities out of state, out of country where the standards aren't met?

Where the, my opinion is I think that California is in a place just through its ingenuity, the caliber of people that are here, that we can both set the highest standards, regulatory, and make them work at the same time.

And I don't think it'll happen anywhere else in this country than it can in California.

Yeah. I don't, I agree with you on that that, you know, California compliant products worse are by far better than you can get anywhere in the country and more safer to the environment and community. Thank you, Madam Pro Tem. Thank you, friends, and I look forward to supporting you.

Senator Reyes.

Thank you. Thank you for meeting with me. It was important to have that opportunity to speak with you, to hear from you. There is no question that you have lots of experience. And I think I mentioned to you, there are so many boards and commissions that you would be absolutely qualified to sit on.

Now one of the questions I often ask, appointees is why you want this particular job? And it gives them an opportunity to explain their motivations, and also to show their commitment to the people that the role is intended to serve. Now given your other job with Axiom, and as I understand, you were appointed to the board in January 26. You took the job with Axiom of 2026. And then I'll talk shortly about the GKN aerospace event.

But given your the job with Axiom and the many conflicts that will no doubt arise as a result and how that conflict might erode the trust that the board, the BES, and DTS have worked hard to foster. I ask you the very serious question. Why do you want this job?

I appreciate the question, Senator. I think, I think it's not, it's not possible to answer my why without a very brief apologies and origin story here, which is, which I it is relevant to why. I was born and raised in Cardiff, South Wales. In the late 19th century or what we in Britain called recently, there was a discovery of one of the most deepest and most richest coal seams on the entire planet.

By the end of the 19th century, Cardiff had become the world's biggest coal exporter.

And what was started coming in was iron ore and it established probably one of the world's most largest and most efficient steel mills in Europe at the time. With that came opportunity, but also with it challenges. And then two world wars intervened and market shifted and it facilitated the simultaneous collapse of both the coal, steel, and shipping industry in Cardiff. What was left was mass unemployment, mass public health problems, mass and general poverty.

But I think, the postural industrial collapse in South Wales left one of the most scarred landscapes in Europe. And decades of unregulated mining, metal smelting, and waste dumping created a toxic ecology that the region is still managing today.

And so why do I want to do that? That these are the issues that the board has tasked to look at. This is deeply foundational to my own story, but it's a space that also occupies what has come after, which is this confluence of the policy challenges and governance and issues that hold a profound impact on people's lives that mirror challenges from the region in which I was raised.

I think it, for me, it presents an opportunity to be engaged on really difficult in issues that impact workers, community, public health.

And I think it's about the opportunity to speaking with Senator Grove and pointed there to bridge some of these challenges and to understand that actually, there's a path where these aren't binary choices that we can do and rather than the tyranny of all, that we can create a place where, you know, the Board of Environmental Safety is able to provide a forum for DTSC, for people to speak with DTSC, to hear from DTSC, understand their decision making progress.

So the forum when the board can probe publicly why DTSC has come to this conclusion where we can create working groups on specific pull out issues so that the community can be brought in and engaged on that. And so that's why I want this.

Thank you. In May '26, there was a chemical emergency, a volatile chemical emergency in Garden Grove. Residents had to evacuate. And the facility was operated by GKN Aerospace, a client of Axiom. You attended meetings with the Senator representing the area and GKN.

And again, this was after you were appointed to BES. Talking about but you attended for GKN, GKN and Axiom. And you talked about potential legislation. How can we, how can the community be confident that when there are concerns of both entities and there is whether it is an a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest,. How can the community be sure that your decisions will side with the people you're supposed to protect in your role on BES?

I appreciate that question and the opportunity to talk to it. So as a foundational point, when I was asked to be brought in to support GKN on that, one of my first text messages was to the Board's Executive Director saying, I don't know if this is a BES. There's a tie into GKN and BES, but as we until we figure that out, let's just make sure that I am not copied on any correspondence or communications to it.

Working with Board Council, it was established that GKN does not have a direct line in terms of its permitting to BES. It's not permitted by DTSC.

It is a Cooper, a local regulated entity, and there is no pathway through the statutory structure for a GKN's locally permitted activities to be brought before the board. They do

There's an appeal?

Not for these

BES is responsible for appeals of permits. Isn't that correct?

For a specific subcategory of appeals, roughly about a 100. There are about 94,000 facilities that are registered in the state. DTSC has would, permits about a universe of 100, which would come before BES, GKN is not one of them.

So you don't see that there was any even potential conflict of interest in your actions with Axiom. That's an important question now because I thought you had recognized that there was at least that potential, but you're saying there's absolutely no there was nothing there?

I think to apply

The perceived conflict?

To applying the two standards I've set, a legal conflict of interest, no. But there's a perception, which is not a legal standard, but one I've sought to work to and address through the additional protections put in place. Well, I think knowing that the entity, would not come before BES as a relevant factor that, for me, in the conflict of interest question, answered a major test. I think the other pieces and you alluded to the legislation.

The legislation doesn't have a direct threat to BES as well.

I think when I answered Santolet's question at the top, in terms of context setting for what BES's role is that fundamentally the legislature created the BES to be a transparency serving forum for the community to meet with the department, to question the department, to hear from the department.

It is a accountability driving forum in which we help set long term strategic goals, approve the director's priorities in line with our mandate, which is the general public interest with a focus on disproportionately burdened communities.

Well, it's clear that legal experts have said that your appointment isn't illegal. It, otherwise we wouldn't be here. So I don't think that's that's the issue. But your appointment does raise questions of trust. And as I mentioned at the beginning, DTSC had serious issues with trust for the community.

BES both organizations now have worked very hard to gain the trust of the community. That wasn't easy. And if organizations that represent the environmental justice community are joining and saying this isn't a good fit. It is we're not talking about whether it's legal or illegal because there's nothing illegal about this. And it isn't about whether you are qualified, and I mentioned this to you.

You are a highly qualified individual. You have worked for the government for years. You've provided public service for years. So you're able to provide so much to the State of California. It's this mix with a Axiom has who has multiple clients who are regulated by the hazardous waste management requirements and have broad financial political interest in DTSC's regulatory activities and the board's oversight of these activities.

So again, it's not whether it's legal or illegal. And sometimes it isn't just whether it is a direct conflict of interest. It is whether there is a perceived conflict of interest. My former legal law partner used to tell me that. He'd say, Eloise, it isn't just whether there's a conflict of interest, it's whether there's a perceived conflict of interest.

The erosion of trust from the community for such an important agency that overlooks the activities of DTSC. That is extremely important to many. To me, it's extremely important. I shared with you why it is so important to me. So I would let me switch over to something else and I want to talk about metal shredding.

Metal shredding poses a concern for surrounding communities due to the potential release of materials and the risk of fires. Right now they're not regulated by DTSC or anybody else. There was a Caballero Bill and I'm not sure what happened to that Caballero Bill. I don't know if it was held, but that would have been the first time something could be done in that regard.

However, as BES is working with the stakeholders in DTSC, to figure out how to regulate metal shredding facilities. Tell me what what you see your role with BES to be, specifically with metal shredding facilities.

I think so the statute is envisaged is not for BES to regulate metal shredding facilities. Be for DTSC. And obviously, the structural changes that have been done in the budget to carve out from the facilities fee specific portion that directly addresses the metal shredding industry is gonna be evident in this week's board meeting where we're considering fee rate setting for the facility fee. So the board engages there. I think that's relevant.

In terms of metal shredding and the board's role more broadly, I think you know, we know the challenging facilities as a board. We know where they are. We know the communities that they are causing an issue for.

Our role as a board in this will to be to facilitate conversations for those communities to have and engage directly with DTSC. It will be to build this as a priority within DTSC's work and to, and to set expectations and and hold the department accountable.

Thank you for that. And my final questions has to do with the fees. If your firm represents the polluters, how will you then determine what the fees should be against those polluters? And how would you increase fees when again it's Axiom who represents many of them. And we have to recognize that without the fees, the department can't properly function.

Those fees are extremely important and that's part of the reason, that's part of the purpose of BES. Without we need proper, resourcing and that's a core issue as well as a commitment for collaboration with the community, especially the most marginalized communities because oftentimes those marginalized communities are the very ones that the polluters are dumping on.

And if BES is tasked with regulating these industries, these companies, how will you solve resolve that conflict? I'm very concerned about that.

And then just the BES doesn't regulate those communities. BES is an oversight entity for DTSC. I think with respect to the question you ask on, you know, fee rate setting

Before you you say BES does not regulate, but you provide the strategic guidance for DTSC. The whole purpose of BES is has to do with DTSC, has nothing to do with any other agency. Is that correct?

Yep.

Okay. So that we're clear. And DTSC then is the one that regulates. And if BES is the oversight, there isn't a disconnect. They are completely connected.

Yeah.

Okay. I'm sorry. You were going to

Absolutely. I think the question on fee rate settings, for example, is a similar one to, I think the same rules apply to the legislature, which is you know, where a subset where there is a financial interest identified.

If the, if the interest is a small proportion of the overall regulated community and there is no discernible impact on the interest versus the overall regulated community, then there's not, there's no conflict and these are the same rules that are applied in taking a vote on a piece of legislation, for example. So I think that just setting the legal standard. I think for me, again, within my private practice, we do not discuss BES issues.

Team doesn't come to me with them. I don't

They know you're on the board. They know this is your job. They know that the Governor is appointing you to this. So even if you don't discuss it, if it's something that is known. Anyway, I mentioned this to you.

And I say it in all sincerity. There is no question in my mind that you are a highly qualified public servant who has served in many capacities here for 20 years. There are so many boards and commissions I'd love to see you on. And the this the community not only did they ask for the resignation, they've now written a letter in opposition to your confirmation. And these are the communities or these are the organizations that represent the communities that are most marginalized in California.

I I've shared my thoughts with you. I sincerely appreciate you being here. I appreciate the time that you spent with me in my office. And I would yield now back to the the Pro Tem. Thank you so much.

Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Hello, Mister Williams.

Good morning.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Good morning. I've really appreciated your level of honesty in trying to address some of the concerns of conflict of interest. I think it's one of the biggest concerns that we have in government, our conflict of interest and especially due to the fact that we have a lot of, a lot of elements in which we are facing with concerning fraud.

And, with in particular this area that you're delving in which is very very important in the city of California and what one which I've seen kind of conflicting because I've seen a lot of legislation that deals with environmental safety and waste but yet we don't process many of it here in our state. We ship it out.

And it's interesting to me that we haven't done a better job in ensuring that we have an industry that actually takes care of our toxic waste. And we think that other states or other countries could do a better job than we could. So, that's why I'm very interested in your perspective and the way that you would approach things. I think, and as my colleague mentioned, I think your experiences is will be helpful in this capacity.

But I can see the concerns that people would have with also your experience on in your current job.

I'm gonna shift this a little bit and kind of address your time on the board, which has been very short. But in that time, have you formed an opinion on whether the board's oversight role is sufficiently clear in law, or do you see a need to clarify certain aspects of the board's mandate?

Thank you. Good question. I have to just pick up on the very first point you made about shipping out of state hazardous waste. And two questions other states, countries think they can do better. I don't think they can, and that's why it is easier to move hazardous waste out of state than there is to keep it in state.

And I think that is part of the challenge and this confluence and the these difficult decisions, that come before DTSC and with board oversight we need to address, which is how do we create the safest, highest standards so that we're not imposing our hazardous waste on other communities outside of state lines?

That is a fundamental question, and I don't believe other states can do it better. I think we do it better here. With regards to the board's role, I think it's four years into existing. It has come from a place of zero to being in a place where it's now beginning to hear individual appeals brought on permits.

I think we are expanding in our reach to just reach currently the legislative mandate that we've been given, particularly, for example, around metrics and establishing metrics for various programs for DTSC around the standards that the legislation and the administration expect them to meet.

For example, say for consumer products, the board is going to hear in the second half of this year and establishing metrics and standards around the department's work around there. We've just done before I joined the hazardous waste. So the board is expanding its footprint. It's established various working groups. I said on the Exide Santa Susana.

It was a working group with EJAC, with the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee. So there there's lots of different places where we're now building out and expanding. I think particularly with the burden, the enormous amount of staff work that has to go into permit consideration. What we are doing is having to shift priorities within existing resources rather than build out within our capacity.

So I think for the time being, at least in this stage in the symphony, the board is branching out to new areas that it hasn't done so yet. And I think as the board gets those reps in, becomes more familiar with kind of the foundation on the decisions that that need to be made.

The hazardous waste management, plan is a great example of the amount of time that went into that the first time around and the lessons learned coming out from it and for the next iteration, how we will approach those issues. And I think as we become more, routined and more familiar in some of these processes. I think the board will have a natural bandwidth that'll be able to increase.

Okay. So there is room.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Williams. I really appreciate the discussion that has been had here. And you have some support and you also have a bit of opposition. And you know, I wanna talk just a little bit about Senator some of the comments that Senator Reyes has made and some of the issues she's brought up.

I think there is no question that the experience is there. There's no question. But experience and trust go hand in hand. And the trust piece is the piece that I've struggle with because of the amount of opposition that has come in both formal and informal, including with members of the legislature. Have you, how do you build trust?

You've talked to me about the legal definition of conflict of interest, but how do you build trust? Because from my perspective, we are here to serve the people of California and they trust us to be their voice. How do you build trust? And again, I'm not looking for a legal definition of conflict of interest. I wanna know what you do so that people trust that the decisions you're making are decisions that are coming for the good of the people of California?

Senator, it will be indeed not words that the trust is built. It'll be about being accessible and meeting with the members of the community who will be working with them to advance their concerns, their needs as they see them with DTSC to provide the forum, to follow-up, to act upon it, and to be available.

I will put it out there again that if any of these groups, want to meet and discuss their concerns with DTSC and how BES can be helpful, I'm readily available. [email protected].

And I'm reaching out proactively, to these groups as well.

I think trust is built. I think the trust that I built within the administration is reflected in the appointment, and now I have that work to do more broadly with a more public facing external role that I haven't to date. And so it will be in the actions that I take. It'll be being accessible.

It'll be us, the community and myself getting to know each other and understanding, you know, why I have built this reputation that I have to date for my work with the administration.

And I'm committed to working on that and working through that and working with the communities without biases. I mentioned I've already had one conversation with one of the signatories to the letter that I, that I knew, and I'm committed to working with them diligently, unbiased, and hard on their behalf.

Because the the issues that they have as a community at Santa Susana Field Laboratory, surrounding communities are real. And they have been overlooked, and they have been cut out of conversations in the past.

It's a challenge with the Federal Government, and it's to be, to be their, to be their sounding board, to hear them, to understand, okay, well, here's, I think places where we can make real progress on it.

It's to take up their cause with DTSC. Is to ensure that they're getting the answers they need from DTSC. And that is my commitment to them as it would be to all of these groups, any of them, should they want to reach out, or I'll reach out to them if not.

Yeah. So I appreciate hearing deeds not words. I appreciate hearing also that you are taking a proactive stance on reaching out to them. There are six days left until this legislature, closes and I hope that over the next six days that you are able to proactively reach out to them. The concerns are about trust.

And, there are a whole group of folks who do not feel, that trust is there and those are the folks that do have the trust of our community. And if their support isn't there, if their understanding that you can use your expertise, your knowledge, your experiences that have served you, this legislature, and our state in a way to create that trust for the good of the people, I think it would be really important for you to think about that over the next six days.

Absolutely.

I think all the questions that are coming are coming from a place of wanting this board, and your role and the role of others that are appointed to be successful. That is where all of this is coming from.

No one is rooting for you or for the board to not succeed because that means California doesn't succeed. And so, I hope that, what you shared with me that it's, you know, deeds not words, will translate over the next six days. I think there' s some work to be done and I think that the comments today reflect that. But I don' t want that to be the only message that is taken from this hearing.

I think that you bring a whole lot of expertise and you've served in so many roles that have been very very helpful.

So it's trying to balance those things and wanting those elements to also be part of the good that we do for the state. But there is certainly some work to be done, I think over the next six days. So any additional comments or questions?

Alright. Seeing no additional comments or questions, we're going to bring this back to the members of the public.

We will begin by individual members of the public who are here to speak in support. I remind you this isn't, this isn't you don't get to say everything, but just state your name position since you're the first I'll let you say a few words, but we do have time.

Madam Chair, members. Scott Wetsch on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council, the Western States Council Of Sheet Metal Workers, California Coalition of Utility Employees, and the State Association of Electrical Workers. The 250,000 members that I represent are some of the most impacted by pollution because they work in it every single day.

I've worked with the appointee for many years and even when we disagreed, I always felt that I was heard, that he took into consideration what my members had to say and that he held himself to the highest ethical standard. And so we would urge you to confirm his appointment. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional members of the public here and speak in support? Any members thank you, Sir.

Stuart Thompson on behalf of the California Medical Association. The physicians of California had an opportunity to work with Mister Williams during the COVID 19 pandemic for the marshaling and and distribution of public health resources. Based on that experience, we strongly recommend his confirmation to this committee. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, madam pro tem and members of the committee. Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. We, for the better part of the last decade, worked with Mister Williams closely on emergency response issues, and we think that experience and expertise is a critical asset to the role on the Board of Environmental Safety.

As the discussion occurred, there is still risk at these facilities, and if our members have to respond, we do think that's an important issue to consider on the board and expertise that Mister Williams has and for those reasons we respectfully urge your support of his confirmation. Thank you.

Thank you. Any members of the public who are here to speak in opposition? Alright. Seeing none we bring it back to the dais. Members I will entertain a motion.

Alright. The motion has been made by Senator Laird. Can we please call the roll?

[roll call]

Three votes.

Alright. That appointment has the three votes needed to move forward to full confirmation, and I look forward to conversations over the next six days. Thank you.

We're going to leave that on call for the absent member.

For the final item, we will now return to the Governor's appointees required to appear item 1B, the appointment of Lauren Sanchez as Chair of the Air Resource Board.

Welcome, Ms. Sanchez. You'll have one to two minutes for your opening testimony to the committee. In your opening, you're welcome to introduce any guests that you may have in the room here with you today. We'll prompt you as you get closer.

My guests are walking in. I'm sorry. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and for your consideration of my appointment as chair of the California Air Resources Board. Before I begin, I want to recognize my husband, Ben, my toddler, Mateo, my parents, John and Kristen, and my siblings, Luke and Isabelle, who are here with me today.

Thank you for your endless love and support. I would not be here without you. It is a profound honor to appear before the first Latina pro tem of the California State Senate. As the first Latina chair of CARB, I recognize the profound significance of this moment, and I hope it sends an important signal to young Californians about the role they can play in the future of shaping our state. My commitment to this work is deeply personal.

My mom <unintelligible> first immigrated to Los Angeles over 70 years ago, chasing the California Dream. She raised my father and my tios in what is now an AB 617 community and suffering from the infamous smog of Los Angeles in the 1960s when Angelenos could barely walk outside without their air stinging-- eyes stinging. Today, my husband and I are raising our young son in Oakland. His favorite neighborhood park sits beneath the highway. He may have to step out, but he is-- his favorite neighborhood park is beneath the highway.

I sit there and I watch him play, and I can't help but notice every vehicle passing overhead thinking about the air that he is breathing. That is the lens through which I chair this board. Every regulation, every incentive, every program is ultimately about the son that my-- the air that my son and every child in California will breathe as they grow up. That sense of responsibility has guided me throughout my career in public service.

As Senior Climate Adviser to Governor Newsom, I had the privilege of advancing many of the state's most aggressive climate initiatives, working alongside many of you. Now as chair of CARB, I have the opportunity to implement that vision, and implementation requires listening, partnership, and accountability. The decision that CARB makes affects communities that have been burdened for far too long by pollution: businesses, workers, farmers, and many others. Those voices deserve to be heard, and they deserve a regulator that listens.

If confirmed, I will work closely with this Legislature, every stakeholder, and every member of the board. California's greatest successives have always come through partnership. I also believe deeply in CARB staff, the scientists, engineers, attorneys, and analysts whose commitment to public health and expertise are the foundation of our agency.

This is an important moment for California. In the face of unprecedented federal headwinds and efforts to roll back decades of public health progress, I believe California should continue to fight and should continue to lead because every Californian deserves cleaner air and a better opportunity and future for their next generation.

That is the California I believe in, it is the California I have spent my career serving, and the California I will continue to serve with humility, integrity, and dedication if you confirm me as chair of the Air Board. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you. Thank you. Members, questions, comments? None? It's a question about who would like to start first. Senator Laird, would you like to start first? Thank you.

I appreciate the fact you didn't wait for my answer. You sort of addressed this in your opening comments, but in some ways, the role of the Air Board in climate has overshadowed the role of the Air Board in air quality, which was its real original mission. Could you speak to how that's not going to be lost in your tenure?

Absolutely, Senator. Thank you for that question. Next year, we will celebrate the 60th anniversary of the California Air Resources Board. I mentioned the origin story of the Air Resources Board and the air that my father and others were suffering to breathe in Los Angeles. Simply put, air quality is the bread and butter of the Air Board.

Vehicles today on road are 99% cleaner than they were in 1975 because of the programs and regulations that the Air Resources Board has worked on over the last six decades. When AB 32 was passed almost two decades ago, CARB took on the additional responsibility of addressing greenhouse gas emissions as air pollutants. We've done so effectively and also found out that there are many co-benefits to different programs tackling air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions, but without a doubt, air quality remains the top priority of the agency as a public health agency and will remain a priority for me as chair.

And I meant to thank you for meeting with me yesterday. And also, while you cited your father, I mentioned the story in our meeting that we came to Los Angeles to stay with my uncles and aunts, and Disneyland had just opened, and my uncle and my dad drove me and my brothers and all my cousins, and we cried all the way from Glendale to Disneyland because the air quality was just so poor. It was just that palpable, and I feel like we have to remind people that that's one of the reasons CARB is there.

Just because we have had successes since then, there's still large basins that aren't in attainment and it's something we need to remind people. Then, let me go to the other issue of the day. And I think maybe I was looking for my colleagues because I thought they might wanna ask about Cap-and-Invest, and I think I'll reserve the right to come back to that if it's not done, but there's also--we have a letter that sort of asks a few issues with regard to environmental justice, and I think the manufacturing decarbonization incentive, the MDI, is mentioned in that letter and many others.

And I know there's concerns that there be guardrails around that, and the guardrails be evident at the beginning of the process, not after we're in it. Could you speak to what your thoughts are on that?

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Senator, and appreciate the time yesterday. A few things on the manufacturing decarbonization incentive within the Cap-Invest regulation, that was part of the staff's original proposal in January.

It went through several modifications based on public comment and feedback in May. And then, I would note, the board spent 10 hours deliberating the Cap-and-Invest regulation during our May board meeting, much of that focused on the MDI. I actually started the board discussion by proposing that we essentially ask staff to do more work on that part of the proposal. We had heard a lot of feedback from members of the Legislature and members of the public, various concerns raised and issues around guardrails.

So I proposed, and the board ultimately endorsed, directing the staff to do a public workshop and report back to the board and propose any amendments that are necessary ahead of approving any application. So the staff is already undertaking a lot of that analysis, and I look forward to the report to the board.

I know in my previous job that Senator Grove referred to already and will continue to refer to, one of the common things I said in meetings is how are we gonna get to the end? And you just described a good process. How are we gonna get to the end of that process in a timely way so that people's concerns are addressed about how this is gonna fall out?

Right, right. Well, the applications are due next summer, and we directed the staff to not approve any of those applications or receive them until that process has played out and the board has an opportunity to weigh in. So we have a hard deadline on the back end.

I would say the resolution that the board adopted alongside that regulation, eight pages of different guardrails regarding the MDI, whether it was a trigger after 25 million allowances are approved, different reporting on the applications that come in, different reporting and analysis on the applications that are approved. So I think I was really grateful to the board. I had several board members raise different concerns around the program and, you know, live from the dais direct the staff to ensure that those guardrails are both implemented, but first additional analysis is done.

And that is a concern, so I'm glad you're speaking to it. And then the last thing I'll ask about was also in that letter, and it was a question about whether you're gonna move ahead with the rule-making on off-road agricultural equipment that you did discuss in a board meeting. Maybe that's last month. So what's your view on that?

Yeah. Thank you for that question, Senator. That part of our discussion happened as the board was contemplating a revision to the ozone SIP for the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast. As noted, yes, we still have areas of non-attainment. We have 18 million Californians that still breathe unhealthy air every year.

The federal government has rolled back decades of progress, endless attacks on California's clean air regulations, so we are having to revise the State Implementation Plan and make sure we can still hit our federal clean air mandates. There was board discussion about a variety of additional regulations and tools that we wanted staff to look at as a part of meeting that gap. The staff have calculated that the additional gap is 165 tons of NOx. That's the deficit the federal government has created for us.

That-- and for reference, that's the equivalent of every heavy-duty truck on the road in California right now. So staff is now conducting the analysis of additional regulations, voluntary frameworks, incentive programs that we need to bring to the board in order to meet those goals.

Okay. Well, once again, we'll wanna know how it's gonna get to the end and that it gets to the end. I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you, ma'am.

Senator Reyes.

Thank you. I think Senator Laird was expecting me to begin. As chair of Budget Sub 2, Natural Resources, GGRF is part of what we have to deal with, and the MDI ruling, as we know, was something that affected GGRF. Some of it was because of the anticipation of what the MDI was going to be, so even though there was a pause, it still had an effect.

But I want to begin, though, by first talking about your absolute commitment to climate. This is-- this has been part-- this is what you studied. This is what you've done at various positions that you've held. The community interacted with you repeatedly over your years with the Governor's Office, and you were always someone that we could speak with that knew what she was talking about, and that was always very comforting for the community; for me also.

I have mentioned to you, I was very happy that the governor had appointed you to this position because of the experience that you brought. I also mentioned to you how I felt about the MDI and how it affected what we had to do then with the limited resources. We already know that GGRF, you know, goes up and down because it's based on the auction, but the effect that this MDI was going to have and I think did have on GGRF, especially on Tier 3, and what we were able to do for the community.

Now, we've been able to do some other things to be able to deliver to the community, but I do appreciate that after hearing from the community, after agreeing to come to the informational hearing that we called, you could have said you couldn't make it--your calendar didn't allow you to be there--but you had begun this process for the MDI, and you knew we had questions, and you and your staff made yourselves available. I appreciated that.

You got to hear from the community, and I think the majority of the comments from the community were all in opposition to MDI because of the additional allowances and because of what was-- what it was going to do to GGRF money, especially to Tier 3, to take away that $2 billion as the LAO estimated.

After you receive the information from staff, and I appreciate that you asked them to do extra reviews to provide guidelines, and as my colleague has mentioned, the guardrails, what do you see as the next step?

Thank you. Well, first off, Senator, thank you for those kind words and your leadership over the course of many years, and for the opportunity to appear before that oversight hearing. It was very informative for me and our whole team as we looked to that board meeting. In terms of next steps on the MDI, currently the staff is finalizing the regulation that the board approved in May through-- according to the APA and working with OAL.

You know, we have already looked at putting on for this fall that public workshop that the board directed staff to do to solicit additional community input and input from, you know, industrial stakeholders and workers, et cetera. That workshop and additional conversations will ultimately inform the report that comes back to the board and any proposed amendments that are needed, the-- and as we work to develop the implementation guidance for that program, any changes that are needed.

I just-- we have a, I would say, several key issues that were raised in public comment and by board members that staff is now starting the work of the analysis on. To your point on GGRF revenue, I just-- I want to say those programs have tremendous benefits for California, and we talk about Cap-and-Invest as the signature climate policy for California, and its primary goal, of course, reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

But a co-benefit of the program has been the over $35 billion it has raised for transit, affordable housing. Many of those dollars have come to CARB. To the point on agricultural equipment from Senator Laird, replacing agricultural equipment, heavy-duty incentives, low-income EV incentives, many of those programs will continue to receive funding from the Cap-and-Invest Program, but I would say the primary driver in the reduction of estimated revenue really was the allowance allocation changes that the board adopted in May.

That included, first and foremost, a much larger allowance allocation to the utilities to protect ratepayers and lower electricity bills to the tune of nearly $60 billion over the next two decades. We heard that affordability was a top concern, and then additional allowances to-- in the industrial sector as they raised concerns about economic impacts that they were facing as well.

On the utilities specifically, I think that our constituents are saying they're still not seeing it, even though we hear about the investment. So I think that affordability absolutely is key, and making sure that the constituents actually see the reduction in their their monthly bills is, I think, going to be the most important part.

I want to move over to AB 617. We have a number of communities that-- 19 selected as the most disadvantaged, the most marginalized, the most--my phrase--the most dumped on in California. And AB 617 then provides them the opportunity to put together these community emission reduction plans, these CERPs.

What has happened, and we hear from the communities, is that the CERPs simply are put on a bookshelf, and thank you very much, you spent thousands of hours-- AQMD, CARB spent-- between the communities and everybody else involved, thousands of hours have been spent to try to put together these CERPs. And then what?

The local communities or local government doesn't take them into account because they don't have to. And that has been one of the greatest concerns for AB 617 communities is that they spend all these time-- all this time putting together a CERP, and then in the end, decisions are made that don't take that into community-- don't take that into consideration.

What can CARB do specifically with the CERPs to have them implemented at the local level, have them be considered when decisions are being made, land use decisions are being made, that are going to affect the very communities that were involved in putting together a CERP?

Yeah. Thank you for that question, Senator, and your years as champion of this program. In my time as chair, I've been fortunate enough to visit four of our AB 617 communities across the state and hear firsthand from our community steering committee members what this program has meant to them and how it has affected the community. I will say, I remember hearing from one community member, a point you're raising, what happens, you know, once we're past year five, year six of CERP implementation, what does graduation look like?

That's a question a number of our early selection committee or communities are asking now, and he responded to me: attainment. That's what graduation looks like. So there's a tremendous amount of work at the community level. I'll note, I've also heard from an Air District partner that AB 617 has fundamentally changed how they do business up and down the state.

And I will reflect, in spending a lot of time with CARB staff on this program, it has changed how CARB does business as well, how we engage with communities, how we think about community governance, how we think about interagency interaction with communities. What we hear often as communities are developing their CERP is, as you raised, local land use issues, water issues, pesticide issues, and AB 617 really gives us a framework to have a conversation that is community-driven and community-empowered.

So for CARB's part, we are absolutely committed to continuing to implement the program. In addition to the 19 communities that you raised, there are over 60 consistently nominated communities, so the team is doing a lot of thinking about supporting those communities as well.

The board just adopted the charter for our AB 617 consultation group, which will now begin work on Blueprint 3.0, which will look closely at ways to improve the program, its implementation, the accountability for CARB for air districts, for local agencies. And thanks to your legislation from last year, we are also expanding monitoring and reporting to the Legislature on the program, so we look forward to continuing the good work and doing more that needs to be done.

Specifically on land use, is there something that CARB can do with the CERPs with regard to land use?

I think a lot of the power, again, of the CERPs is the convening framework and that the conversation is community-driven. So oftentimes in community steering meetings, we will have representatives from local agencies that are making local land use decisions. CARB does not regulate them or have authority over them, but just the power of convening and really the framework of AB 617 is a powerful tool.

Thank you. Now finally, I'd like to ask about medium and heavy-duty ZEVs, clean trucks. We have provided a number--we, California--have provided a number of incentives so that we can transition from diesel to zero-emission trucks. In Europe, as a result of the incentives, the price of trucks has gone down. In California, they haven't.

In fact, they've gone up, and that has become a serious problem. I know that we have HVIP money that has gone in and we've talked about this, but even with those incentives, the price of trucks are not coming down. What is CARB doing to make clean trucks cheaper in California and what can CARB do to help with that?

Yeah. I appreciate that question, Senator, and all of the funding to the HVIP program that the Legislature has dedicated, including just this year, and I'd be remiss if I didn't mention earlier this year, we also launched a billion dollars for clean trucks funded by the low-carbon fuel standards, so we are seeing those prices come down in real time.

But the issue of kind of pricing and transparency around pricing has been top-of-mind for the last few years. I know there's an active piece of legislation on that, so I won't go too far into details other than to say transparency around pricing is paramount and very important as we look at the ultimately transitioning to the cleaner vehicles being more available on the roads.

I'll also note, this is an area where we have suffered from those federal attacks that I mentioned, a number of illegal, unconstitutional, and reckless attacks on our Clean Air Act waivers. So the role of incentives is critically important now and that transparency around pricing is as well.

Wonderful. Thank you very much. I-- and as I close, MDI remains a serious issue, and I hope that as you get the staff recommendations and the guardrails, I know that there's discussion with the Legislature about what to do specifically with that, but I appreciate your willingness to discuss it, and most especially, the willingness to come to the hearing to hear from the community because I think that they are the most important voices because they represent the voices of the rest of those who can't make it to Sacramento to tell us how these programs affect them positively and negatively. Thank you.

Absolutely.

I yield back, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Vice Chair Grove.

Thank you. Thank you, Director Sanchez for being here. I appreciate it very much. I do have a couple questions. I know my colleague covered some of them. One of the things about-- that I wanted to go back to and reconfirm, and I know Senator Reyes asked it as well, I just want to, like, drive the nail in.

At the board meeting that we had on July 23rd, there was a motion regarding agriculture tractors and equipment, and the motion was ultimately withdrawn, and my heart just sank when I saw the motion and then when it was withdrawn because we put our farmers and our food producers in a very unpredictable situation when we require them to have equipment that is not readily available. And then when they have equipment that's, I don't know, $2 million piece of equipment or a $500,000 tractor, it's still good, it's only been operational for a few years, there's not a good retail market because people know they're required to sell it.

And so when your buyer knows that you are required to sell it because you can't keep it and you can't operate it, they're not going to offer you a fair price and there's not a fair trade-in value. What I wanna know, if you would support or would you oppose or would you be neutral on the replacement of agriculture tractors without fully funded incentive programs that allow them to be able to offset those costs?

Thank you, Senator, for that question, and as you noted, that motion was ultimately withdrawn, and, you know, just on a personal level, I've spent a lot of time with the agricultural community visiting farms. I was fortunate to visit a food processing facility just last week hearing about the important work of the FARMER Program and the very important role that, again, incentives play in helping to transition. So ultimately, the board did not direct staff to move forward with that regulation.

I think that, you know, additional conversations with all relevant stakeholders are definitely needed as we look to the future of any potential regulation, but it would absolutely have to include the critical role of incentives. The FARMER Program I was fortunate to celebrate in the Central Valley alongside some of our agricultural partners is one of our most cost-effective in terms of NOx reductions, and farm-- the agricultural partners are actually bringing a dollar of private investment for every state dollar that's invested. So I would love to see that program continue.

Thank you. And switching gears to the fuel cost, you know, California-compliant produced crude is expensive to do. We have an issue right now with refiners, not letting California crude flow through the fine lines or getting their oil from Sable, which means that we as producers--I say we as in my community--is trucking roughly 150 trucks a day from Kern County down to Los Angeles to get their oil produced because they can't-- there's no access in the pipeline. Trucking increases carbon emissions. It's a lot higher than just a pipeline.

The CARB-- between CARB and policies that come out of this building, it's increased cost of fuel. What's ways that CARB can interact in this process so that we can go back to the pipeline? And I know you don't oversee pipelines, but what's the way-- it's definitely less carbon-intensive to put oil from a produced company in a pipeline to a refiner to produce fuel that every Californian-- just about every Californian uses. Right now, that's not happening.

We're going from the field to a truck to the refinery. That additional costs about $4 a barrel for the oil and then an additional 150 trucks on the road every single day. How-- what is CARB's solution, or do they have one regarding that situation?

I would say a few things to that question. Thank you, Senator. The state is committed to ensuring a transition that is-- that has reliable, safe, and affordable supply of fuels. Most of that work on the supply side, of course, lives with my colleagues at the Energy Commission with whom we work very closely. The purview of CARB is largely reducing the demand for those fossil fuels, but we know that as we reduce demand, we have to work hand-in-glove with the Energy Commission, CalGEM, DOC, the PUC overseeing pipelines to make sure that that fuel supply remains affordable and reliable.

To your direct question on what CARB could do, I would say one of the most important things our agency does is the reporting on the GHGs and the carbon intensity of the different types of fuels, both at production and also at dispense. So we will continue to look at ways to refine that reporting and accurately capture the greenhouse gas emissions associated.

Thank you. So you mentioned supply, and we get about 70-- when I got here, we got 25% of our fuel from overseas in foreign countries. Now it's about 75% because we've reduced in-state production. It's about 126 million metric tons to bring a ship here from Saudi Arabia or some place that gives us-- and now we have a supply chain disruption because of the stuff going on in the Middle East.

CARB doesn't measure, or do they measure that carbon emission from bunker fuel ships bringing that supply to us outside of California's 12-mile coastline or four-mile coastline? Do you measure that? So does that 126 million metric tons carbon emission exposed to the atmosphere for our policies that generate that supply from foreign countries that we have to have this fuel come to our ports, do we measure that, or is that not included in our GHG factor?

So the model we use to measure for carbon intensity of those fuels in the low-carbon fuel standard, Senator, is called the OPGEE. We are always looking for ways to refine the data that feeds into that modeling to capture-- accurately capture the greenhouse gas emissions in, for example, refineries outside of the state.

I would say one regulation we are planning to bring to the board later this year, SB 253, regarding climate disclosure, will give us a better picture and accurate accounting into greenhouse gas emissions for fuel production activities outside of the States. We look forward to incorporating that into our modeling.

So most of these ships are foreign operators, like, from a different country. So these ships that bring this oil to us that we have to have because we are not off-- that transition isn't happening yet, these foreign ships that bring us this, they're foreign operators. Venezuela, they are, you know-- gosh, India. They're just-- they're-- I don't mean foreign as in a negative word.

I just-- it's the foreign countries bringing us this. How do you regulate those ships as a foreign-- with-- I mean, how is there a possibility to regulate those ships and the carbon emissions that they have that are so intense? How do we do that as a State of California? How do you regulate a foreign country and foreign ships with a foreign operator?

We-- primarily through two ways. We regulate the company that is producing the fuel for the part of the low-carbon fuel standard and also with our at-berth regulation at port when the tankers actually bring the facilities. But you are correct that in terms of the life cycle of GHG analysis, we need better data to accurately account.

I would say more broadly to your point, Senator, on the increase in foreign imports, this is, again, a a lens through which the board looked at the Cap-and-Invest regulations because our refineries are subject to Cap-and-Invest whereas the refinery in one of those foreign countries perhaps isn't, and that is ultimately why the board decided to increase modestly the compliance support for our industrial facilities from here till 2030, recognizing the massive energy disruption that is underway this year.

Thank you. So I do, without any harm or anything, want to say that you have been a welcome surprise to work with, and not because you always agree. I mean, we do argue about a lot of things. But you're accessible, you listen, and you have one of the concerns about leakage or job loss in the state that I haven't seen in any previous CARB board chair. I haven't seen that. And I'm not trying to be negative against previous CARB chairs. I'm just saying that before, to me, it was like, we're gonna lose those 400 jobs, but that's okay.

We're gonna be compliant with this. And you actually looked at the job loss piece that was affecting California and the economic piece with people losing their jobs, their benefits, how losing that particular company would affect local hospitals for medical insurance and private pay. You really did a deep dive on how a large loss, a large loss or a job loss would really affect not only the company itself, but the employees and the community around them, and that surprised me. And so I wanna just tell you thank you for that, and thank you for answering my questions.

Thank you.

I'm just going to narrow it down just really quick because of the essence of time. Right now all of the board is responsible and your responsibility is to ensure that we have that the state meets its greenhouse emissions goals. That' s very noble and I think in philosophically speaking, I think everybody agrees and I believe that'92s incredibly important for the next generation as we have your your little one here, by the way, he'92s beautiful. He'92s absolutely perfection. I hope you have a half dozen.

With that formula heis just the two brushes. But having said that, there is a component that I think is very relevant, which is the cost of living in California. And many of the policies that you folks are reviewing or implementing, you folks are just, you know, and I wanna just make sure, I remember our former pro tem Senator Atkins always said, you know, they re responsible for implementing the legislation that the legislature actually passes.

With that in mind I think as you' re coming in and ensuring that you folks are working towards achieving those goals the cost of living does come at the forefront especially when you are speaking to everyday californians. When I think about, you know, the goals are pretty simple, this is our goal how we' re going to address it in practice in the real world.

But that also has an impact on everyday californians. I'm gonna give you a little example and I wanna hear your thought process as you walk yourself through. I think my colleague from the big ears field actually kind of preface your your thought process and how you dive deep into an issue, but I think it's also important for our seniors for for, per se to understand how you folks go about placing these goals into practice.

When we look and and I speak to many folks, you know, the Inland Empire is a little it's it's a little unique in that our topography plays a role in the air pollution that stays within that area because of our mountain ridge. Many of it coming from the ports coming in and settling in our area.

So two two part question. One has to do as you're looking into the implementation of of of policy and practices, how do you navigate the impact on the everyday consumer? And do you folks provide, what is your what is your plan in ensuring that every board member knows the financial impact of that practice for Californians. As well as, do you take considerations when you're implementing these these policies or practices? The topography, How it impacts regionally?

Are there unique circumstances that you take into consideration where for areas like the Inland Empire who, you know, topography plays a role into into the pollutants staying in that area. And I share that with you, I ask that because, as I'm speaking to seniors who are many on fixed income in the inland environment, Many of them have to literally have said this to me, you know, I could care less. And I want you to think also context. Right? They're they're they're older up in age.

He goes, I could care less on what they're doing. He goes, when I still have to choose between shelter, food, and medicine, and pay my electric bills. So for them, it's a direct impact on on their quality and their ability to live independently and with dignity. Yeah.

I really appreciate those, questions and and points, Senator. I would say a few things. There are two lenses through which I Chair this board. One of them is equity and one of them is affordability, and both of them touch on your district.

To your direct question on affordability and cost analysis as part of every regulation, CARB acts in compliance with the APA, major regulations undergo a process where we detail out the benefits and costs of the regulation to the economy writ large, to businesses, and to consumers.

It is a a pride and joy of the track record of CARB that the benefits of those regulations often outweigh the cost.

And, you know, I would point to billions of dollars over the last sixty years that we've saved Californians primarily in health care costs, reduced asthma, reduced cancer rates, reduced cardiopulmonary, incidents across California to the point of seniors who are maybe more towards the end of their life, you know, their health has benefited from a lot of these regulations, and their grandchildren's health will benefit from these regulations. That said, affordability is top of mind.

It is a lens through which, again, we looked at the cap invest regulation and deliberations in front of the board earlier this year. It's why we increased the allowances to the utilities to help lower those seniors electric bills in your district, as well as to the industrial facilities, to make sure that the local revenue and the workforce maintains the adequate amount of support.

So, but that said, you know, I I said this in my opening comments, implementation requires listening, partnership, and accountability. And if you're hearing from constituents that feel like CARB regulations are asking too much of them, I would say give them my cell phone number. It would be an honor to visit with them, come to the district, and hear about how those regulations are showing up on their household costs so we can be mindful of that going forward.

To your question on board member awareness and preparation, each of my Board Members, and I am so grateful to the diverse perspectives that they bring. A 16 person board offers such diversity in perspectives.

And to your point, geographies. We have a board member representing the South Coast Air District, and, you know, other parts of the state. Each of them are receive briefings ahead of any of our major regulations and are always free to reach out to our team with any additional questions on on affordability or equity pieces of regulations as well. And I will tell you, they have been incredibly engaged in in all of carbs CARB's work.

I'm very fortunate to work alongside them, to learn from them, and look forward to their continued service to the board.

Thank you. Thanks, for being here. I I wanna echo just some of what I think has been said too about your availability, and accessibility and engagement with I think so many members of, at least I know the Senate and the legislature. It has been very welcomed. Whether or not we agree on issues, you have been able to, you know, answer the phone, answer our questions, and engage with us.

I think there was a lot of appreciation for you coming in, certainly with the Senate hearing. This year we have found ourselves at odds, I think from a policy perspective, in particular not just with members of, this, committee but with member- with the Senate actually, more holistically, with the Senate. But we always we haven't always actually been at odds. Over your time, working with, the legislature, we have certainly early on championed some things together, worked alongside.

And so I think that this is just the nature of the work that comes with with what we do.

But what I appreciate is that we all want the same thing. I think that whether, you know, what I've heard from colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, we really deep I mean, everybody wants clean air. There's no one that want that doesn't want clean air for their community. And we all care about how we achieve that, when we achieve that, and what it's gonna cost us to achieve that.

Both cost on the fiscal side, for the consumer, for our state, but also the health and human cost as well.

So I I think that that is something that, we will continue to navigate through time. On the MDI piece, I think that's still an issue, for us. Why do we bring it up? Because as Chair, your role is to help, you know, pass these policies but also interact with the legislature. And one of the things we've asked many folks who have been in front of us, on CARB is, you know, what is that?

You have had a unique experience as Chair, but what is that expectation and experience, and desire that you have in terms of what you believe our role is or is not as a legislature in terms of CARB and the decision and direction making? So if you can speak just a little bit to that, please.

Absolutely, madam Pro Tem. Thank you for that question. I would say, you know, I was recently asked, how I felt about all of the legislative engagement around cap and invest, and I said, I'm honored. Gratitude. This body passes has passed some of the most aggressive climate clean energy legislation truly in the world, but the following through and implementation and the ongoing engagement with me personally and our board is paramount to us getting it right.

So I would say, yes. We disagreed on pieces of cap and invest, but I'm committed to continuing the ongoing conversation and the engagement with each and every one of you, with any and all stakeholders that want to continue the conversation. I would also point out we have two big regulations coming to the board. Both of them start with SB. Two bills where we have received direction from the legislature on carbon removal and climate disclosure.

And we I and our entire staff welcome the ongoing engagement about where, you know, ongoing ideas, and revised concepts, and what have you. It is, it is welcome and I am grateful.

And on, on that note of, you know, the ongoing work and the things that come, are there any pieces that you feel as Chair you we have yet to tackle? Are there any elements, that we have yet to tackle that we haven't tackled? And if so, what are those?

That's a great question. You know, Aye, one of my top priorities as Chair is protecting our long standing authority under the Clean Air Act to promulgate the regulations that have cleaned the air here in California. It is under unprecedented attack, as I mentioned, from the Federal Government. There are six of our waivers in front of Congress, illegally in front of Congress, and the devastation that not only the federal rollbacks of their own public health protections, but the ongoing assault on California.

And yes, a lot of it is carb, but it's sable, it's Medicare, you know, etcetera, etcetera.

And so as we continue to fight back against those federal assaults, I think all options being on the table in terms of additional state authority is also a welcome discussion. Thank you.

And one final thing, one of the things that has come up, and you and I have actually talked about it, has to do with the role that carb staff plays in relation to the, intervening of, legislative priorities for members. It's something that has come up, between members. Just can you speak to a little bit about how you've tried to bridge the pretty big divide that has existed over time and at times has kind of made some moments challenging. I know that's something that you've taken on.

Can you just speak to that?

Absolutely. When I came in as Chair, I said, two of my big themes were partnership, and I jokingly used the term big tent. You know, I think CARB has, at times, been seen as an agency over on the I street developing regulations without talking to members of the legislature, without engaging meaningfully with stakeholders and community groups.

And we have fundamentally worked to change that, whether it's the recent appointment of our environmental justice advisory committee, the new Board Members, and the perspectives they're bringing, or my accessibility as Chair. And I just, you know, reiterate to staff how important that partnership, that perception of partnership, and that execution of partnership will continue to be for our success ultimately as an agency.

Thank you. And I and I appreciate hearing that. I think that that has, I mean we all struggle with this, right? There's the, the perception issue is real. It came up in the previous conversation.

It's coming up here and it's just real. It's real and we want to get past that so that we can get the good work done. And I appreciate that. I do wanna take a moment of personal privilege because this entire time I've had the honor of watching your parents. And, I just wanna note how proud they are.

And I have been watching you and, it is, you you should be proud. You should be proud and, I just it's it's a very special to be here, from the first Latina to the first Latina, and just watch how proud you are as you've, watched your daughter, answer these questions. So congratulations to you too. And not that the hubby is not proud too. Sorry.

It's just that, like, I I have the parents in front of me. Sorry. Yeah. Thank you. So with that, yes, Senator Laird.

I just wanna quickly close the loop on the cap and invest even though I struggle calling it invest still. And that is is the Senate has produced a plan for consideration that has architecture, that has the CAL FIRE backfill disproportionately in the next year. And then this year allows us to do $500,000,000 more of programs to take greenhouse gas emissions out of the air than would be possible with the administration's proposal. And that is very important to us. That allows for the SAFER program.

That allows for the sustainable communities in agriculture, and bunches of things that if we didn't have that architecture, we wouldn't be able to do. And I'm not necessarily asking you to comment, but I just wanted to clearly make that point. Our proposals out there to meet those needs and and and I I don't know if when you said how committed you were to partnership, if you knew what trap you were walking into. But but that is a thing that is very important to us.

And in the last days of session, we have the Chair of the of the Budget Subcommittee on Resources.

We have the former, lead negotiator for the Senate and head of the working group here on this committee. And that is just a very important thing to us, and I want to make sure I noted that during the hearing. Thank you, madam Chair.

Thank you, senators. I will say in my former role, it was always a point of pride this last week of August to be very engaged with you, from the governor's office. And here as Chair of CARB. In addition to supporting the governor's budget, I will just say anything, in the spirit of partnership, any additional data or analysis you need from our staff, always here to pick up the call.

Thank you. This is, where we turn to members of the public. If there are members of the public who are here to speak in support, I ask you to please come forward. Since there is a large group, I would say just state your name and affiliation and your support. I will follow the rule.

Good morning. Alfredo De Redondo here on behalf of conservation international in strong support of the confirmation as well as the south coast AQMD, also in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, Chair Limon. Vikram Iyer with Heirloom Carbon. We, help the state meet its net zero targets. I know our time is limited. I just wanna say, Chair Sanchez has been incredible in creating an open door policy, especially when there's a lot of differences in perspectives and balancing technology development like we do with community guardrails.

So we really appreciate your leadership.

Good morning, madam Chair and members. Steve Hansen on behalf of the Pacific Maritime Association representing maritime employers who move cargo through the ports in strong support of Chair Sanchez's confirmation.

Thank you.

Good morning, senators. It's an honor to be here to support Chair Sanchez's nomination. Tim Carmichael with the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance. I've had the opportunity to work closely with her on a number of issues and her team and echo the comments of Senator Grove and Senator Limon in, how good it is to work with her in this position. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and senators, Michael Pimentel of the California transit association representing California's transit industry, including 85 transit and rail agencies in the state. Here today to voice our support, for Chair Sanchez's, appointment, we'll submit our more detailed

Thank you.

Comments to the record. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Caitlin Rudner Sutter, environmental defense fund, in support. I just wanna say EDF has had some disagreements with CARB over the last year, but I will personally say I know Chair Sanchez's commitment to these issues even when we disagree, and those commitments are solid. So please confirm.

Thank you. Madam Chair and members, Beverly Yu on behalf of Hyundai Motor America. Miss Sanchez, you have demonstrated exceptional leadership, a clear commitment to advancing California's clean air goals, and thank you for your work advancing, ZEV technology adoption team in the state. Yeah. We urge your support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Daniel Broad on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists. We've worked with Chair Sanchez in the best of times and the most challenging of times, and she's been a tenacious advocate for the environment and has always taken our calls. So really appreciate it and, ask for your eye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. Marjorie Lee Sandston Advisors here on behalf of Charm Industrial, a California based carbon dioxide removal technology, here in strong support of Sheriff Sanchez's confirmation. We believe she has the expertise to continue this work, and we've really enjoyed working with her so far in SB 905 implementation. So please confirm.

Thank you.

Good morning, madam Chair, members. Timothy Burke Junior on behalf of Rivian Automotive, a California based EV manufacturer. Rivian's here in strong support of Chair Sanchez, and we look forward to the continued partnership to make California the home of ZEVs in the future. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, Louis Brown here today, on a number of associations, American Pistachio Growers, California Cotton Growers, Western Tree Nuts Association, California Citrus Mutual, California Fresh Fruit Association, and a host of others, in support of the confirmation of Chair. Lauren Sanchez asked for an aye vote and appreciate the attention she's given to the San Joaquin Valley, the agricultural industry, her willingness to continue to learn, and work with us to find solutions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Grishina Mohaveer, California Environmental Voters. Just wanna quickly say that we know CARB is a global and national climate leader, and we look forward to seeing you lead CARB holding the line on climate progress, especially with the attacks on our Clean Air Act waivers. So thank you for your partnership.

Thank you.

Madam pro tem and senators, Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the Clean Fuels Alliance America and California Advanced Power Fuels Alliance in very much support of Lawrence Sanchez, the Chair of CARB. Thank you. Thank you.

Morning, madam Chair. Chris McCailey here on behalf of two clients, the California Renewable Transportation Alliance and Humboldt Mendocino Redwood Company is in support of the confirmation. Thank you, madam Chair.

Thank you.

Hi. Audra Hartman on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition in support in strong support. Thank you.

Madam Chair, members, Sean Wenger here on behalf of RNG Coalition and the National Oilseed Processors Association in support.

Thank you.

Chair and members, Mikael Scavarro here on behalf of California Forest Carbon Coalition, Climate Build California, and California Hydrogen Coalition in support.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, Brendan Urbicki here on behalf of several clients. San Mateo County Transit, Caltrain, San Francisco Bay Ferry, Sunline Transit, County Connection, and Monterey Salinas Transit in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. Just wanted to say in support of the confirmation and wanted to thank you and your team for the deployment of alternative fuels, the maritime industry, as well as various other affecting global trade in California's competitiveness, and then as well on behalf of CEMA, also in support with the list of appreciations. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. Megan Murray with the Weideman Group on behalf of Lucid Motors and really strong support of miss Sanchez's confirmation. Thank you.

Good morning, madam Chair and members. Doug Houston representing California Nevada Cement Association enthusiastically endorsing this confirmation today.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Morning, Chair and members. Diego Maro on behalf of Phillips sixty six in support of confirmation. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Alexandra Lavey on behalf of the Ag Energy Consumers Association as well as the California Poultry Federation in support of miss Sanchez's nomination. Thank you.

Thank you. And I am gonna let this one talk as long as he wants.

We're not gonna filibuster here. Ben Friedman, Lauren's husband, Mateo Sanchez Friedman, Lauren's son, on behalf of Lauren's family who are here today. John, her father, the son of Avelio and Yvette Helena. Kristen, her mom, the daughter of Dennis and Arlene. And Lauren's two siblings, Luke and Isabelle.

And proud support of mama. Thank you for fighting for children and for everyone's ability to clean to breathe clean air for free and for future generations. Cheers. Thanks, y'all.

Yay.

I love that. Alright, folks. We're bringing it back, and opposition. Sorry. Here we go.

Opposition.

What an action follow. I'm Katie Valenzuela behalf of the center on race poverty and the environment and seven environmental justice organizations, not in opposition, but just seeking clarity at this juncture as the Senate is exploring confirmation. For instance, you know, cap and invest revenues were supposed to go down as industry emissions went down, not because industry was expecting a huge new incentive program to be available to them.

Also, the California Climate Credit will go down on rate payers bills this year, all again in favor of an additional incentives for our largest polluters. I think saying that CARB will explore measures to improve air quality in the Central Valley is different than committing to exploring a rulemaking on off road agriculture equipment.

And also saying that the MDAI changes will be considered before applications are accepted is very different than saying we will consider those before applications open. As CARB's own legal counsel has said, once applications are open, significant changes to the programs cannot be done. But we are long term partners of CARB, and we do not lay all of our issues with CARB.

At the Chair of speech, she has only been there for a few months, and we do hope to continue working with her and hope you can get clarity for us on some of these outstanding questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Would you like to comment on that?

Yes. Thank thank you, miss Valenzuela, for her appearance and to all of the organizations that she represents, many of whom I've had the opportunity to engage with directly and and visit in community. I look forward to, additional work in front of the board, and additional conversations and partnerships with her and others to clarify, some of the specific measures that an issue a legal issue was raised that I'm not aware today, but committed to resolving those. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Now we're bringing it back. I will take a motion.

So, madam pro tem, I would gladly move this confirmation to the floor. And, I thank you very much for the direction you' re taking our state not only on clean energy but making sure that 100% clean energy and the policies put forth don' t decimate the entire industries that services state and create a third world country and you have a good balance. My only regret that I have is this is not a six year confirmation before us.

Thank you. Alright. We have a motion. Senator grove has made a motion and we will go ahead and call the roll.

Limon aye. Grove? Aye. Grove, aye.

Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Ochoa Bog? Aye.

Ochoa Bog, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Five to zero.

Congratulations. That appointment has been approved to move to the full Senate for confirmation with a five o vote. Thank you. Thank you. Alright.

And we are at the end of our agenda, but I did want to take a moment. We have a member here who is, leaving us is an outgoing member. She first became a member of the Rules Committee in December 2018. And she has been the vice Chair, since 2023 for three different pro tems. Pro tem Emeritus Atkins, Pro tem Emeritus Maguire, and for me.

And, she- we disagree every day, on issues, but she has been a phenomenal partner as the vice Chair of rules. There's not a moment where I have questioned, the trust, between this committee, between us, in navigating both the open session and the closed session items.

And I think that says a lot to who she is, to her commitment to this state, and to the commitment of this legislature that at no point did our party lines get in the way of doing, what is right for this institution and for our state. And, we are, going to miss her. We're going to miss her leadership on this committee, but her leadership for this state, this, this committee touches so many, aspects of how this institution works, and how our state works.

And how our state works. So it really has been an honor. And I think a lot of people can't say that, you know, that they've been the vice Chair for three different leaders. And I think that speaks to you and who you are and what you've brought to this committee. Even if we disagree on policy matters every single day, you are someone who we are grateful to have had, serve in this role, serve in the legislature.

We're going to miss you, Senator Grove. We're going to miss you. You've made it very clear that you're not going away and that I will still get text messages from you, but you really have been so key to this committee. And so we want to properly say goodbye and thank you. Thank you for your leadership.

And we have some flowers here, for Senator Grove. We don't have an oil rig, you know, decorated cake like we did last time, but we do have a cake here, for you and, you know, just you're hearing from from the public too, in terms of what your leadership has meant, in this role. So thank you.

Thank you.

It's been an honor.

With that, we are going to, come back and open the now we're going back to business. So we're going to come back and open the role, for, appointee, Reese Williams. And so we'll just open the role for I'm sorry. Yeah. What happened?

Don't

don't recognize it.

We're we're opening the role just for a vote. Just for oh. It's a bit better move. So let's go ahead and open the role.

Grove. Aye. Grove, aye. Reyes.

Alright, that appointment is approved to move to the full Senate confirmation with a four-zero vote. Alright, and this concludes the public portion of the agenda. We are going to adjourn, and we are going to have to come back. I know. We are going to have, to come back for the executive session.

So we are going to recess at this moment.