GOOD AFTERNOON. WELCOME TO THE
ASSEMBLY. NATURAL RESOURCES
HEARING COMMITTEE. LET'S SEE.
WHERE IS HE? AT WE'VE GOT A NEW
ADDITION TO THE COMMITTEE, A NEW
STANDING MEMBER TO MAKE HIS
INTEREST. RIGHT NOW, THAT'S
ASSEMBLY MEMBER DAMON CONLEY.
WELCOME TO THE NATURAL RESOURCE
COMMITTEE. ASSEMBLY MEMBER TOM
LACKEY WILL BE SUBBING IN FOR
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MATHIS. AND
WE'RE LUCKY TO HAVE HIM. PLEASE
NOTE THAT SB 1036 LIMÓN HAS BEEN
PULLED BY THE AUTHOR. WE HAVE 16
MEASURES ON THE AGENDA TODAY.
THE FOLLOWING TWO MEASURES ARE
PROPOSED FOR CONSENT. THAT'S
ITEM SEVEN. SB 945. ALVARADO
GILL. ITEM 14 SB 1324 LIMÓN A
QUORUM IS NOT PRESENT, SO WE'LL
START AS A SUBCOMMITTEE. I SEE
SENATOR NEWMAN IS HERE. SENATOR,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME ON DOWN?
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS,
PERMISSION TO PROCEED. ALL
RIGHT, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT SB 707, WHICH WILL
ESTABLISH AN EXTENDED PRODUCER
RESPONSIBILITY PROGRAM,
GENERALLY REFERRED TO AS AN EPR
PROGRAM, TO INCENTIVIZE AND
EXPAND THE REUSE AND RECYCLING
OF TEXTILES IN CALIFORNIA UNDER
THE REGULATORY AUSPICES OF CAL
RECYCLE. BEFORE I BEGIN, I'D
LIKE TO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS, WHICH ARE TECHNICAL
AND CLARIFYING IN NATURE, AS
WELL AS THANK COMMITTEE
CONSULTANT ELIZABETH MCMILLAN
FOR HER DILIGENT WORK ON THIS
BILL OVER THE COURSE OF THE PAST
TWO YEARS. UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF SB 707, PRODUCERS OF CLOTHING
AND OTHER TEXTILES WOULD BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING AND
FUNDING PROGRAMMATIC PLANS TO
FACILITATE FACILITATE AN END TO
END SYSTEM FOR INCREASED REPAIR
AND REUSE OF CLOTHING AND
EXPANDED RECYCLING OF TEXTILE
FIBERS. ALTHOUGH MANY PEOPLE ARE
NOT AWARE, THE CLOTHING AND
FASHION INDUSTRY CURRENTLY
ACCOUNTS FOR FULLY 10% OF THE
WORLD'S OUTPUT OF HARMFUL
EMISSIONS OF CARBON DIOXIDE. THE
RECENT RISE OF SO-CALLED FAST
FASHION, WITH ITS FOCUS ON THE
MARKETING AND SALE OF LOW COST,
LOW QUALITY GARMENTS THAT TEND
TO GO OUT OF STYLE WITH EVER
ACCELERATING SPEED, POSES
ADDITIONAL THREATS TO THE
ENVIRONMENT THAT ARE POTENTIALLY
BOTH DEVASTATING AND LONG
LASTING. HERE IN CALIFORNIA,
TEXTILES REPRESENT THE FASTEST
GROWING COMPONENT OF OUR STATE'S
WASTE STREAM. CURRENTLY
ACCOUNTING FOR APPROXIMATELY 3
TO 5% OF TOTAL WASTE AND GROWING
YEAR OVER YEAR. FURTHER, DESPITE
THE FACT THAT 95% OF THE
MATERIALS COMMONLY FOUND IN
APPAREL AND TEXTILES ARE
ACTUALLY HIGHLY RECYCLABLE,
SADLY, ONLY AROUND 15% OF THESE
MATERIALS ARE CURRENTLY BEING
RECYCLED IN CALIFORNIA, AS
ELSEWHERE, THRIFT STORES,
CHARITIES, AND CLOTHING
COLLECTORS HAVE LONG SERVED AS A
CHANNEL AND MARKET FOR TEXTILES,
WHICH REMAIN REUSABLE.
UNFORTUNATELY, HOWEVER, DONATED
GARMENTS WHICH ARE DAMAGED,
DAMAGED, OR UNUSABLE TYPICALLY
END UP EITHER IN CALIFORNIA'S
LANDFILLS OR MAKE THEIR WAY TO
OVERSEAS MARKETS, OFTEN TO PARTS
OF THE WORLD WHERE THERE ARE
INSUFFICIENT RECYCLING
INFRASTRUCTURE OR LANDFILL
SAFETY STANDARDS, CAUSING
SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE TO BOTH THE
ENVIRONMENT AND TO PUBLIC HEALTH
IN THOSE JURISDICTIONS. DESPITE
THEIR BEST EFFORTS UNDER THE
CURRENT SYSTEM FOR USE,
TEXTILES, THRIFT STORES AND
CLOTHING COLLECTORS DO NOT HAVE
ACCESS TO ADEQUATE RESOURCES OR
TO SYSTEMS WHICH WOULD
FACILITATE THE EFFECTIVE SORTING
AND REUSE OF UNSELLABLE EXCESS
GARMENTS IN WAYS THAT WOULD MAKE
THE ECONOMICS OF SUCH EFFORTS
VIABLE. ADDITIONALLY, MANY
PRODUCERS ARE INTERESTED IN
INCORPORATING RECYCLED FIBERS IN
THE PRODUCTION OF TEXTILE GOODS,
ALSO LACK ACCESS TO COST
EFFECTIVE RECYCLED MATERIALS AT
SCALE. UNDER THE DESIGN OF SB
707, THE ENSUING FUNDS AND
INFRASTRUCTURE CREATED BY THE
PROGRAM WILL ALLOW THRIFT STORES
AND CLOTHING COLLECTORS TO
BETTER ACCESS THESE RESOURCES,
AS WELL AS PROVIDE AN END MARKET
FOR RECYCLING MATERIALS. AS THE
PROGRAM GROWS AND ACHIEVES
ECONOMIES OF SCALE OVER THE NEXT
DECADE, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
HAS A LONG AND PROUD HISTORY AS
A LEADER IN RECYCLING MODELS AND
TECHNOLOGIES. IN RECENT YEARS,
THIS LEGISLATURE HAS IMPLEMENTED
A NUMBER OF GROUNDBREAKING AND
EFFECTIVE EPR PROGRAMS FOR
HISTORICALLY HARD TO RECYCLE
PRODUCTS AS DISPARATE AS PLASTIC
PACKAGING, BATTERIES,
MATTRESSES, AND EVEN MEDICAL
PRODUCTS. THE COMMON DENOMINATOR
IN ALL OF THESE PROGRAMS IS THE
APPLICATION OF THOUGHTFUL
PROGRAM DESIGNS, WHICH ALLOW FOR
THE REDUCTION OF WASTE AND THE
LESSENING OF ENVIRONMENTAL HARMS
BY ASSIGNING A SHARED
RESPONSIBILITY FOR END TO END
FOR END OF LIFE PRODUCT
MANAGEMENT TO THE PRODUCERS AND
OTHER ENTITIES PARTICIPATING AT
EACH STEP OF A PRODUCT'S VALUE
CHAIN. A WELL DESIGNED AND
EFFECTIVELY ADMINISTERED
STATEWIDE TEXTILE EPR PROGRAM
HAS SIMILAR POTENTIAL FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION OF
PREVIOUSLY UNTAPPED OR
UNDERUTILIZED UPCYCLED AND
RECYCLED CLOTHING AND FIBER
MARKETS, AS WELL AS FOR
FOSTERING ONGOING EFFORTS TO
ENCOURAGE AND FACILITATE THE
EXPANDED REPAIR AND REUSE OF
CLOTHING AND OTHER TEXTILES IN
CALIFORNIA. IN SO DOING, SB 707
WILL FACILITATE THE TRANSITION
TO A MUCH MORE SUSTAINABLE,
MARKET ALIGNED CIRCULAR ECONOMY
FOR TEXTILES, ONE WHICH WILL NOT
ONLY BENEFIT THE ENVIRONMENT BUT
ALSO UNLOCK NEW PRODUCTION AND
CONSUMPTION OPPORTUNITIES, ALL
AT A RELATIVELY LOW COST TO THE
STATE TO PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS
ALIKE. WITH ME TO TESTIFY ON
BEHALF OF THIS LEGISLATION IS
DOCTOR JOANN BREISCH, DIRECTOR
OF ADVOCACY AND OUTREACH FOR THE
CALIFORNIA PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP
COUNCIL, AND JASON SCHMELZER
WITH SHAW YODER, ANDRE SCHMELZER
AND LANGE. I AM RESPECTFULLY
ASKING FOR YOUR AYE VOTE TODAY.
THANK YOU SIR. YOU CAN BEGIN.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS, JASON SCHMELZER HERE ON
BEHALF OF CPSC, I'M GOING TO
MAKE BRIEF COMMENTS AND THEN
I'LL HAND OFF TO THE EXPERT
HERE. MY CLIENT, JOANN BRASCH,
FROM CPSC. I JUST WANT TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE FOR THE HARD WORK
ON THE BILL. REALLY APPRECIATE
EVERYTHING THAT'S GONE INTO THE
AMENDMENTS TODAY. I ALSO WANT TO
THANK THE OPPOSITION. YOU KNOW,
THESE BILLS ARE LONG AND COMPLEX
AND THEY'RE SOMETIMES
CONTROVERSIAL, BUT BRANDS,
RETAILERS, MANUFACTURERS, THEY
REALLY MET US WITH A SPIRIT OF
COOPERATION OVER THE LAST 18
MONTHS. AND WE, FRANKLY,
WOULDN'T BE HERE WITHOUT THEIR
SORT OF SUPPORT ALONG THE WAY.
SO I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SB
707 ESTABLISHES A COLLECTION AND
RECYCLING SYSTEM FOR CLOTHING
AND OTHER TEXTILES, AS WAS
MENTIONED BY THE SENATOR. I'M
GOING TO FOCUS MOSTLY ON PROCESS
HERE, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S
SORT OF WHAT'S IMPORTANT, LAST
YEAR WE DECIDED TO HOLD 707 AND
GIVE IT MORE TIME, TO LET IT
MARINATE, LET IT COOK A LITTLE
WHILE LONGER. THIS IS FOR A FEW
REASONS. ONE, IT JUST WASN'T
QUITE READY AT THE TIME, BUT
TWO, WITH EPR BILLS IN
PARTICULAR, WHAT YOU REALLY GET
IF YOU TAKE THE TIME TO
ESTABLISH CONSENSUS IS YOU GET
BUY IN FROM THE REGULATED
COMMUNITY. AND THAT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT WHEN YOU HAVE AN
ENTITY OR A GROUP OF ENTITIES
THAT IS DESIGNING AND
ADMINISTERING THEIR OWN PROGRAM.
SO WE DID TAKE THE TIME OVER THE
FALL. WE DID, I DON'T KNOW,
MAYBE A DOZEN MEETINGS WITH
OPPOSITION, GOING THROUGH EVERY
LINE OF THE BILL, TAKING RED
LINES IN EVERY SECTION OF THE
BILL AND REALLY WORKING
COLLABORATIVELY. THAT'S LED US
TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY WITH A
VERY COOKED BILL, OF COURSE,
WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE
COMMITTEE. AND WE'RE EXCITED.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY. IF
NOT, I'LL HAND TO JOANNE BRASH.
THANK YOU. MY NAME IS DOCTOR
JOANNE BRASH. I'M THE DIRECTOR
OF ADVOCACY AND OUTREACH FOR THE
CALIFORNIA PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP
COUNCIL, FOR THE LAST FIVE
YEARS, I'VE HAD TWO CALRECYCLE
APPOINTMENTS HOLDING VICE CHAIR
AND CHAIR POSITIONS FOR THE
CARPET AND MATTRESS ADVISORY
COMMITTEES. I'M ALSO THE CHAIR
OF THE TEXTILE CHEMISTS
ASSOCIATION, CPSC HAS BEEN
LEADING TEXTILE RECOVERY PILOTS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE, AND
ALTHOUGH CALRECYCLE ESTIMATES
TEXTILES TO BE 3% OF THE WASTE
STREAM, AS WE'RE GOING INTO THE
LOCAL STREAMS, WE'RE FINDING
THAT IT'S UPWARDS OF 6% IN THE
CITY OF SAN JOSE FOR OUR PILOT
PROJECT, THEY DIVERTED THREE
TONS OF UNWANTED TEXTILES IN
LESS THAN 30 HOURS, AND THAT WAS
FROM THE RECYCLING STREAM, WHERE
THEY SHOULD NOT BE. TEXTILES
ABSORB, THEY TANGLE AND THEY
COMBUST, WHICH IS A DEADLY
COMBINATION FOR OUR TRADITIONAL
RECYCLING SYSTEM, IN THE
ANALYSIS, TEXTILE WASTE COSTS
TAXPAYERS UP TO $70 MILLION. BUT
I WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT
THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE INCLUDE
THE EXTERNALIZED COSTS WE ARE
SEEING TEXTILES ACCUMULATE IN
SECONDHAND MARKETS, AND A LOT OF
TIMES THESE PRODUCTS DON'T HAVE
THE PATHWAYS TO GET INTO REPAIR
AND RECYCLING SYSTEMS. SO SB 707
CREATES A GLOBALLY TRANSPARENT
AND ACCOUNTABLE PROGRAM FOR
TEXTILES, THAT TAKES REPAIR AND
REUSE INTO RECYCLING, INTO
CONSIDERATION, AT THE END OF THE
DAY, RECYCLED TEXTILES ARE VERY
RECYCLABLE. IF THE FABRIC STILL
HAS FUNCTION, IT CAN BE UPCYCLED
OR REPURPOSED. WE'VE SEEN THIS
IN SEVERAL OF OUR PILOT
PROJECTS, SB 707 HAS
INCENTIVIZED CHANGE FROM THE
INDUSTRY THROUGH ECO MODULATED
FEES, GRANTS, AND MARKET
DEVELOPMENT FUNDS. THIS IS, ONE
OF THE FEW PRODUCTS THAT
CALIFORNIA HAS. THE
INFRASTRUCTURE TO BRING IT BACK
TO MARKET. CALIFORNIA HAS ONE OF
THE LARGEST JOB FORCES AND JOB
WORKFORCES FOR TEXTILE
MANUFACTURING AND GARMENT
MANUFACTURING. SO AS WE SEE A
CLEAR PATHWAY FORWARD FOR
CIRCULARITY, NOT ONLY DO WE SEE
THE BENEFITS OF A WASTE PROGRAM,
WE SEE THE BENEFITS OF
MANUFACTURING ACCORDING TO OUR
ESTIMATES, PULLING THE NUMBERS
FROM THE REPORTED MATTRESS AND
CARPET PROGRAMS. WE ESTIMATE
1700 JOBS COMING FROM THIS
PROGRAM STATEWIDE. WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
AND HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. ARE THERE ANY
PERSONS IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO
WOULD LIKE TO ADD THEIR VOICE IN
SUPPORT OF THIS MEASURE?
ABSOLUTELY. AND BEFORE WE DO
THAT, REAL QUICK, MADAM
SECRETARY, CAN WE ESTABLISH A
QUORUM? BRIAN, I CAN HEAR LARA
LARA HERE. BAUER-KAHAN BAUER.
KHN HERE. CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY.
HERE FRIEDMAN. HOOVER. CHOLERA
CHOLERA. HERE. LACKEY. LACKEY.
HERE. MURATSUCHI MURATSUCHI.
HERE. PELLERIN. WICKS WOOD. AND
A QUICK VOTE ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. REAL FAST MOTION BY
FLORES. SECOND BY CHOLERA AND
BAUER CAN ITEM SEVEN, SB 945.
ALVARADO, GILL. ITEM 14 SB 1324
LIMÓN, BRIAN I, BRIAN I FLORA.
FLORA I BAUER-KAHAN BAUER.
COHEN, I CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY, I
FRIEDMAN. HOOVER. CHOLERA.
CHOLERA I LAKI LAKI I
MURATSUCHI. MURATSUCHI I
PELLERIN. WICKS. WOULD. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. YOU MAY BEGIN. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS. JENNIFER ROWE. SORRY.
ONE SECOND. WE'LL GET THAT FOR
YOU. TESTING MR. CHAIR MEMBERS
JENNIFER ROWE WITH CAPITAL
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
GOODWILLS AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. CHAIR, MEMBERS,
THIS IS DEB ZELLE OF. PLEASE
RETURN SMART LABELS FOR
CIRCULARITY AND TRANSPARENCY IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. THANK YOU
FOR SEEING US, IAN PUN FROM
AMBER CYCLE. JUST LIKE TO REMIND
THE GROUP THAT 82 POUNDS ARE
THROWN AWAY BY THE AVERAGE
AMERICAN A YEAR. SO THE
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DENT IS
FANTASTIC. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
NAME ORGANIZATION AND POSITION
ON THE BILL, HEATHER PODELL, ON
BEHALF OF NONPROFIT FIBERSHED,
OUR POSITION IS SUPPORT WITH
AMENDMENTS PER OUR LETTER. THANK
YOU. JORDAN WELLS, ON BEHALF OF
THE NATIONAL STEWARDSHIP ACTION
COUNCIL AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HELLO,
SARAH BOUDREAU WITH THE CITY OF
ROSEVILLE IN SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS OLIVIA
KEEN. I'M WITH THE SPONSOR OF
THE BILL, CPSC. I'VE BEEN ASKED
TO REGISTER SUPPORT FOR THE SAN
FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND FIVE GYRES. GOOD
AFTERNOON, LINDSAY GULLAHORN
WITH CAPITAL ADVOCACY ON BEHALF
OF THE RESOURCE RECOVERY
COALITION OF CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT. CRYSTAL ARENAS, WITH
CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE IN
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, SILVIO
FERRER, ON BEHALF OF SAVERS
VALUE VILLAGE AND SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, THERESA COOK ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. DYLAN
ELLIOT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MELISSA
ROMERO, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
VOTERS IN SUPPORT CHAIR AND
MEMBERS ROMAN VOGELSANG WITH THE
PREY AND COMPANY, SPEAKING IN
SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF OUR PUBLIC
SERVICES. THANK YOU. JOSH
GALLAGHER, ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTIES OF SANTA CLARA AND
SANTA BARBARA IN SUPPORT JACOB
EVANS WITH SIERRA CLUB,
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT, JOHN
KENNEDY WITH RURAL COUNTY
REPRESENTATIVES OF CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT. AND ALSO TESTIFYING ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES TODAY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE
ANY PERSONS IN OPPOSITION? COME
ON DOWN. TWO MINUTES EACH.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. HI. GOOD
AFTERNOON. CHAIR MEMBERS ADAM
WRIGLEY, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. UNLESS
AMENDED, I WANT TO BEGIN BY
THANKING THE AUTHOR, STAFF AND
ALL STAKEHOLDERS. AS NOTED BY
THE SUPPORT, WITH AN EXTENDED
PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY PROGRAM
HAVING PRODUCER BUY IN, WE AGREE
, IS CRITICAL. AND THE GOOD NEWS
IS ON THIS BILL, THE PRODUCERS
OF TEXTILES AND COVERED APPAREL,
WANT TO SEE A SUCCESSFUL EPR
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTED IN
CALIFORNIA. AND SO OUR
OPPOSITION TODAY IS RELATIVELY
NARROW, AND WE'RE PRETTY
OPTIMISTIC ON GETTING THERE WITH
THE AUTHOR. BUT I'LL JUST
HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE THINGS. FIRST
AND FOREMOST, WE'VE TALKED ALL
ABOUT FAST FASHION AND WHAT THIS
BILL IS REALLY GOING AFTER IS,
IS REALLY GETTING A MORE
SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY CHAIN AND
ECONOMY AROUND, CLOTHING AND
SHOES AND APPAREL OVERALL, WE DO
THINK THERE'S A SLIGHT LOOPHOLE
IN THE BILL UNLESS ADDRESSED IN
TERMS OF HOW DROPSHIPPERS CAN
MAYBE CIRCUMVENT HAVING TO
COMPLY. IT'S NOT THE INTENT OF
THE AUTHOR. I DON'T THINK IT'S
THE INTENT OF ANY STAKEHOLDERS.
IT'S REALLY A TECHNICAL ISSUE IN
WHICH WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
HOW DO WE GET FOLKS WHO MAY NOT
EVEN BE BASED IN CALIFORNIA OR
EVEN BASED IN THE UNITED STATES,
FULLY CAPTURED UNDER A PROGRAM
THAT IS PRODUCER, RUN AND
PRODUCER RESPONSIBLE FOR GETTING
THERE. AND SO WE WANT AN
EQUITABLE PLATFORM, THE SECOND
ISSUE IS REALLY AROUND THE
CONCEPT OF WHAT'S INTENTIONALLY
ADDED AND WHAT'S NOT
INTENTIONALLY ADDED ON CERTAIN
CHEMICALS IN WHICH IF YOU'RE IF
YOU'RE HAVING A BILL THAT
REQUIRES YOU TO RECYCLE
EFFECTIVELY, USE TEXTILES, AND
YOU GRAB THOSE TEXTILES AND YOU
WANT TO PUT THEM IN A NEW
PRODUCT AND MAKE NEW CLOTHING,
IF THERE ARE LEGACY CHEMICALS IN
THOSE CLOTHING THAT YOU DID NOT
ADD, WE DO NOT THINK YOU SHOULD
HAVE A PROHIBITION OR BE BANNED
FOR PUTTING THAT TEXTILE BACK
INTO THE MARKETPLACE IN WHICH
YOU DIDN'T ADD THAT CHEMICAL.
AND SO WE'RE IT'S A REAL
TECHNICAL ISSUE. WE'RE TRYING TO
GET AROUND IT. BUT I THINK IT'S
FUNDAMENTAL THAT WE DO
SUCCESSFULLY, ADDRESS THAT ISSUE
BECAUSE YOU COULD ULTIMATELY
HAVE CLOTHING THAT CANNOT BE
SOLD IN CALIFORNIA WITHOUT
ADDRESSING THAT. I'VE TALKED TO
THE SPONSOR AND THE AUTHOR.
EVERYONE'S ON BOARD WITH TRYING
TO GET THERE. SO OUR OUR OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED, IS JUST
CURRENTLY WHERE WE'RE AT. AGAIN,
THIS IS A MULTI YEAR PROCESS. WE
REALLY APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR
HOLDING THE BILL. LAST YEAR. WE
REALLY THINK THERE'S BEEN A
TREMENDOUS PROGRESS ON WHERE WE
WERE LAST YEAR AND WHERE WE ARE
TODAY, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING THAT CONVERSATION.
THANK YOU. AND ALSO JUST, FOR
ALL OF THE WITNESSES IN THE
ROOM, WE HAVE A VERY LARGE
HEARING ROOM TODAY. WE'VE GOT
SOME OVERFLOW INTO THE HALLWAY.
WE'VE GOT A NUMBER OF BILLS, SO
I'M USUALLY VERY LENIENT, ON
TIME. BUT, VICE CHAIR LARA HAS
ALREADY LET ME KNOW THAT I NEED
TO ENFORCE THIS. TWO MINUTES TO
THE BEST OF MY ABILITY. SO I
JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT
AHEAD OF TIME. BUT I DO. ALL
RIGHT, WELL, I'LL BE REAL REAL
QUICK, THEN. THANK YOU. CHAIR
BRIAN. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
LAUREN AGUILAR, ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR
ASSOCIATION, WE ARE THE
ASSOCIATION THAT REPRESENTS
APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR
MANUFACTURERS, APHA DOES BELIEVE
THAT DESIGN, WELL DESIGNED
EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
PROGRAM SHOULD PLAY A CRUCIAL
ROLE IN DIRECTING INVESTMENTS
TOWARDS REUSE, REPAIR AND
RECYCLING. BUT AS AS THE
CHAMBER. ADAM, WITH THE CHAMBER,
WE ARE ALSO IN AN OPPOSING, LESS
AMENDED POSITION, MAINLY BECAUSE
OF THE LOOPHOLE THAT ADAM DID
MENTION THAT EXEMPTS THIRD PARTY
SELLERS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF
CALIFORNIA WHO SELL TO
CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS DIRECTLY BY
USING ONLINE MARKETPLACES AND
PLATFORMS THAT LOOPHOLE IS
PARTICULARLY PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE
THESE SELLERS PRODUCTS WILL
STILL BE COLLECTED AND MANAGED
BY THE PRO, MEANING THAT THE
COSTS AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
THESE ACTIVITIES WILL BE PAID
FOR BY LEGITIMATE BRANDS AND
RETAILERS THAT ARE REGISTERED
WITH THE PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
ORGANIZATION, AND IT WILL COST A
HUGE DEAL FOR THOSE THOSE
COMPANIES. SO IT WILL CREATE A
COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE FOR OUR
MEMBERS. WE ALSO HAVE A COUPLE
SMALL CONCERNS AROUND THE
DEFINITION OF PRODUCER AND
LICENSEE AND TRADEMARKS. AS WELL
AS MAYBE PUTTING SOME GUARDRAILS
AROUND CAL RECYCLES
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. BUT I DO
WANT TO STRESS AGAIN, WE ARE SO
THANKFUL FOR THE AUTHOR AND THE
AND THE SPONSORS FOR
CONTINUOUSLY WORKING WITH US,
AND WE REALLY HOPE WE CAN GET TO
SOME SOME SORT OF SUPPORT HERE
IN THE NEAR NEAR FUTURE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ARE
THERE PERSONS IN THE HEARING
ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER
THEIR OPPOSITION TO THIS
MEASURE? CHAIR MEMBERS DEAN
TALLEY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION WITH THE GREAT WORK
AND CONVERSATION WITH THE AUTHOR
AND THIS COMMITTEE STAFF.
THROUGH THE LATEST AMENDMENTS,
WE'RE ABLE TO COME OFF TO
NEUTRAL. I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT
ON THE RECORD. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. KELLY LARUE WITH RESILIENT
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE
TEXTILE RENTAL SERVICES
ASSOCIATION, WHERE THERE'S A
MENTION OF IT IN THE ANALYSIS.
BUT WE'RE HOPING THAT FOLKS IN
THE SUPPLY CHAIN THAT ARE
LAUNDERING AND REUSING THE
TEXTILES AREN'T CAUGHT UP IN THE
PRO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. WE'LL NOW TURN IT TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER KALRA. THANK YOU, MISTER
CHAIR. FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO
MOVE THE BILL, I THINK THAT I
THINK THAT IS LONG, LONG
OVERDUE. I APPRECIATE THE
MENTION OF THE PILOT PROGRAM IN
SAN JOSE, BUT I THINK ANYWHERE
YOU ARE IN THE STATE, WHETHER
YOU LOOK AT THE WASTE HAULING,
THE RECYCLING, THE SIDE OF THE
ROAD, YOU NAME IT, YOU WILL FIND
TEXTILES. AND I THINK IT'S BEEN
A BIG HOLE IN OUR CONVERSATION
AROUND WASTE AND OUR WASTE
STREAM. SO GRATEFUL TO THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. I THINK IT'S A IT'S A
THOUGHTFUL TIMELINE AND BRINGING
ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS TOGETHER.
IT'S EXTREMELY COMPLICATED. I
DON'T NEED TO TELL YOU THAT, AND
I WOULD LOVE TO BE ADDED AS A
COAUTHOR. THANK YOU. TO DO THAT.
THANK YOU. REBECCA BAUER-KAHAN.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, THIS IS
REALLY AN EXCITING BILL, BECAUSE
I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT FAST
FASHION IS BECOMING OUR NEW
REALITY, AND IT'S REALLY
PROBLEMATIC FOR OUR WASTE
STREAM. SO I THINK THIS IS A
REALLY INCREDIBLE BILL. I
APPRECIATE YOU WORKING TO
INCLUDE THOSE ONLINE RETAILERS,
BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S ONE OF
THE BIGGEST SOURCES OF FAST
FASHION IS ACTUALLY THE ONLINE
MARKETPLACES, BUT I WILL TOUCH
ON ONE THING THE CHAMBER SAID,
WHICH IS THE INTENTIONALLY ADDED
CHEMICALS. AND I THINK IT IS
CRITICAL FOR US TO KEEP IN MIND
THAT WE HAVE DONE INCREDIBLE
WORK IN THIS LEGISLATURE TO
REMOVE THINGS THAT ARE GETTING
INTO OUR WATER THAT IS
CARCINOGENIC, THAT IS DANGEROUS,
AND THAT IF WE ALLOW THAT TO
CONTINUE TO PERPETUATE THROUGH
THIS PROGRAM THAT THAT COULD BE
HARMFUL TO OUR COMMUNITIES. AND
SO AS WE AS YOU NEGOTIATE, I
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, YOU
KNOW, THAT WE THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT WE'VE DONE THAT I THINK
WE'RE PROUD OF. AND WE SHOULD BE
CAREFUL NOT TO EXACERBATE THE
PROBLEM. BUT WITH THAT, I'M
HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT TODAY. LET
ME RESPOND REAL QUICKLY BY WAY
OF ONE. THE INTENT TO YOUR BILL.
YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE THINGS
GET VERY NUANCED TOWARD THE END.
AND ACTUALLY, DOCTOR BRADSHAW
CAN SPEAK TO THIS. I THINK,
BETTER THAN I ABOUT HOW WE ARE
DELIBERATELY SORT OF APPROACHING
THESE REMAINING ITEMS WITH AN
EYE ON, ESPECIALLY ON THE
TIMELINE, BUT WITH RESPECT FOR
ALL OF THE WORK THAT'S GONE
BEFORE IT. YEAH. SO RATHER THAN
A PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH, WE
ADDED TWO PROVISIONS, ONE IN THE
NEEDS ASSESSMENT. SO IN BEFORE
THE REGULATIONS ARE ADOPTED, THE
INFRASTRUCTURE AND INVESTMENTS
NEEDED TO MANAGE THE CHEMICALS
WILL BE DONE WITH CAL RECYCLES
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AND THEN IN
THE PLAN THERE'S A PROVISION
THAT SAYS WHAT IS FOUND IN THE
NEEDS ASSESSMENT DOES HAVE TO BE
REFLECTED. THANK YOU.
ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS AND A MOTION BY SENATOR
CARILLO, A SECOND BY ASSUMING
BAUER-KAHAN. SENATOR NEWMAN,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
WOULD, SO THANK YOU FOR THE
CONSIDERATION. GLAD TO ADD
COAUTHORS. APPRECIATE THE
SUPPORT. THIS HAS BEEN A TWO
YEAR BILL AND NOT BY ACCIDENT.
THIS IS A COMPLEX ISSUE IN ITS
OWN RIGHT, BUT IT INTERSECTS AS
WELL WITH SOME OF THE GOOD WORK
THAT'S GONE BEFORE IT,
PARTICULARLY SB 54 FROM MY
COLLEAGUE. AND SO AN EPR SYSTEM
IS, AS MR. SCHMELZER POINTED
OUT, ONLY WORKS IF ALL OF THE
PARTICIPANTS IN THAT VALUE CHAIN
ARE EQUALLY INVESTED AND
ALIGNED. THAT'S WHAT WE'VE
ENDEAVORED TO DO. AND WE'RE
GOING TO CONTINUE WORKING ALL
THE WAY THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
WE'LL TAKE ADDITIONAL MEETINGS
DURING THE SUMMER RECESS,
WORKING OUR WAY TO
APPROPRIATIONS IN THE FALL TO
MAKE SURE THAT TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT POSSIBLE, WE TAKE INPUT
TO ADDRESS ANY OPEN ITEMS. I AM
RESPECTFULLY ASKING FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANKS. THREE LETTERS.
THANK YOU. SENATOR. THIS BILL
HAS A DO PASS RECO FROM THE
CHAIR, MADAM SECRETARY, CAN WE
CALL THE ROLL? THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. BRIAN I BRIAN,
I. FLORA. FLORA. NØ. BAUER KHN.
BABIKIAN I CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. I
FRIEDMAN. HOOVER. CHOLERA
CHOLERA I. LACKEY. SORRY NO.
LACKEY. NØ. MURATSUCHI
MURATSUCHI I. PELLERIN WICKS.
WOULD WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. MEMBERS. THANK YOU.
CHAIR. SENATOR MIN, COME ON DOWN
. PRICE IS RIGHT. COME ON DOWN.
THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. NICE
TO MEET YOU. WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY. THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR,
TODAY I'M PRESENTING SAU 12, A
RESOLUTION TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO REQUEST THAT THEY
REVISE BANKRUPTCY RULES TO
ENSURE THAT THE OIL INDUSTRY
CANNOT USE FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY
RULES TO PUSH THEIR COSTS OF
DECOMMISSIONING OIL AND GAS
WELLS ONTO STATE TAXPAYERS. THE
RESOLUTION. THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. MY DISTRICT IN 2021 BORE
THE BRUNT OF THE OIL SPILL OFF
THE COAST OF HUNTINGTON BEACH.
OUR BEACHES WERE BLACKENED,
WILDLIFE WAS SICKENED AND
KILLED. LOCAL SMALL BUSINESSES
DEPENDENT UPON TOURISM AND A
CLEAN COASTLINE SUFFERED MAJOR
ECONOMIC LOSSES. AND WHILE WE'RE
WORKING HARD TO TRY TO ENSURE
THAT THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT
SPILL CONTINUE TO BE HELD TO
ACCOUNT FINANCIALLY, FARTHER UP
THE COAST, WE'VE SEEN OTHER
OPERATORS HAVE FOUND IT IN THEIR
BEST INTEREST TO DECLARE
BANKRUPTCY, WALK AWAY FROM
DOZENS OF UNPLUGGED OIL WELLS
AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT AND
INFRASTRUCTURE. THE BANKRUPTCIES
OF VENOCO AND RINCON ISLAND
LIMITED PARTNERS HAVE COST THE
STATE'S GENERAL FUND OVER $200
MILLION SO FAR, AND THIS DOES
NOT INCLUDE THE ONSHORE COSTS TO
ADDRESS ORPHAN WELLS ESTIMATED
TO POTENTIALLY BE IN THE
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. AND I KNOW
SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE HAVE LEGISLATION,
WORKING TO TRY TO ADDRESS THAT.
THIS RESOLUTION IS VERY SIMPLE.
ASKS OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO
MAKE SURE THAT AN OIL WELL
BANKRUPTCY DOES NOT ADVERSELY
AFFECT OUR ABILITY TO GET THOSE
PEOPLE TO PAY FOR IT DOES NOT
ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR STATE'S
GENERAL FUND. I HAVE WITH ME
TODAY, SHERRY PEMBERTON FROM THE
STATE LANDS COMMISSION, TO SPEAK
IN SUPPORT OF THE RESOLUTION
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
SHERRY PEMBERTON, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS
COMMISSION, WE'VE EXPERIENCED
FIRSTHAND THE FALLOUT FROM TWO
RECENT OIL AND GAS BANKRUPTCIES
AND ALL THAT'S FALLEN ON THE
STATE TO INCUR NOT JUST THE
MASSIVE FINANCIAL COSTS, BUT THE
IMMEDIATE PUBLIC HEALTH AND
SAFETY ISSUES THAT WE'VE HAD TO
ADDRESS. THE LEASES WERE ISSUED
WITH THE PREMISE THAT THE
OPERATORS WOULD HONOR THEIR
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION COSTS.
AND SO IT'S BEEN A BIG CONCERN
TO SEE THIS PATHWAY THROUGH THE
FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY CODE ALLOW
FOR THEM TO EVADE THAT. SO WE
STRONGLY SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY PERSONS
IN THIS HEARING ROOM WHO SUPPORT
THIS RESOLUTION? GOOD AFTERNOON.
CHRISTINA SCARINGE WITH THE
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MEGAN SHUMWAY IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. JACOB EVANS
WITH SIERRA FROM CALIFORNIA AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. ANY PERSONS IN THIS
HEARING ROOM WHO HAVE OPPOSITION
TO THIS RESOLUTION. SEEING NONE,
WE'LL NOW TURN IT TO NOBODY IN
THIS HEARING ROOM OPPOSES THIS
RESOLUTION. GREAT. WE'LL NOW
TURN IT TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS. WE
HAVE A MOTION BY MR. CARL OR A
MOTION BY MR. MURATSUCHI, A
SECOND BY MR. CORRE, A THIRD BY
MR. CONNOLLY, SENATOR MIN, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR. AYE.
VOTE. ABSOLUTELY. THIS HAS AN
OBVIOUS AND NECESSARY DUE PASS
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CHAIR.
MADAM SECRETARY, CAN WE CALL THE
ROLL? THE MOTION IS THAT THE
MEASURE BE ADOPTED? BRIAN I
BRIAN I FLORA. FLORA NØ. BAUER.
KHN. CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. I
FRIEDMAN. HOOVER CHOLERA.
CHOLERA. I LAKI. LAKI. NÓ.
MURATSUCHI MURATSUCHI I.
PELLERIN. WICKS WOULD. WE'LL
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN. BUT I THINK
YOU'RE IN GOOD SHAPE. THANK YOU,
SENATOR DOLLY. COME ON DOWN. MY
FAVORITE FARMER. SECOND. I'LL
TAKE THE MOTION AFTER THE
PRESENTATION. WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY. THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR.
MEMBERS I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE FOR, SB 1062, AND I
WILL BE ACCEPTING AMENDMENTS.
ACTUALLY MADE THE BILL BETTER.
THANK YOU. CALIFORNIA HAS
EXPERIENCED SOME OF THE MOST
DEVASTATING WILDFIRES IN RECENT
YEARS. ONE OF THE MAJOR
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS IN THESE
FIRES WAS YEARS OF FOREST
MISMANAGEMENT AND BUILD UP OF
EXCESS WOODY BIOMASS WASTE TO
REDUCE THE THREAT OF WILDFIRE
AND PROPERLY UTILIZE THE
VALUABLE FUEL SOURCE, SB 1062
WOULD REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSERVATION TO CREATE THE
BIOMASS TECHNOLOGIES TRANSITION
PROGRAM TO FACILITATE THE
CONVERSION OF BIOMASS ENERGY
GENERATION FACILITIES THAT
UTILIZE FOREST BIOMASS TO NEWER,
ADVANCED BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES.
IN DECEMBER OF 2022, CARB PASSED
A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE 2022
CLIMATE SCOPING PLAN, IN WHICH
THE BOARD RESOLVED THE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR
NONCOMBUSTIBLE. BIOMASS
SOLUTIONS NEED TO BE
PRIORITIZED. THIS BILL IS
CONSISTENT WITH CALIFORNIA'S
GOALS OF PRIORITIZING
ALTERNATIVE BIOMASS ENERGY
GENERATION METHODS BY CREATING A
PROGRAM THAT WOULD ASSIST
PARTICIPATING BIOMASS GENERATION
FACILITIES IN ACQUIRING THE
OFTEN EXPENSIVE ALTERNATIVE
GENERATION BIOENERGY
TECHNOLOGIES. THESE TECHNOLOGIES
WILL ENABLE THESE FACILITIES TO
CONTINUE USING BIOMASS AS A
VIABLE FUEL SOURCE, WHILE
REDUCING EMISSIONS AND REMAINING
CONSISTENT WITH CALIFORNIA
REGULATIONS. AS PART OF THE
PROGRAM, THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSERVATION SHALL IDENTIFY
FACILITIES THAT INTEND TO
CONVERT THESE NEW TECHNOLOGIES.
THE DEPARTMENT THEN SHALL WORK
WITH THE RELEVANT LOCAL AIR
DISTRICTS TO ENSURE THAT THE
FACILITIES MEET THE APPLICABLE
AIR STANDARDS, WHICH WOULD BE
NEEDED TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE
GRANT PROGRAM. PARTICIPATING
FACILITIES MUST THEN DEVELOP
BUSINESS PLANS TO INCORPORATE
THE TECHNOLOGIES ONCE THEY
BECOME COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE
AND VIABLE, AS ESTIMATED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION. THE
BUSINESS PLANS PROVIDED THIS
FACILITIES WITH FLEXIBLE NEEDED
TO BE PROPERLY ON BOARD THE NEW
TECHNOLOGIES AND ENSURE THE
RELEVANT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
AND THEIR PACIFIC AIR BASINS ARE
MET. THIS BILL WOULD HELP KEEP
BIOMASS FACILITIES OPEN AND IN
COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
REGULATIONS, AND WOULD ENSURE
THE FOREST HEALTH AND RESILIENCE
OF THESE ONGOING PRIORITIES. AND
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE TODAY WITH ME. I HAVE,
EMMANUEL OR OROZCO WITH PLACER
COUNTY AIR POLLUTION AND KEVIN
JOHNSON WITH THE FARM BUREAU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS
EMMANUEL OROZCO AND I REPRESENT
THE PLACER COUNTY AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DISTRICT, WHICH STRONGLY
SUPPORTS THE TRANSITION OF
ELECTRICITY PRODUCING BIOMASS
FACILITIES TO CLEANER, ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGIES. THE PROGRAM
DESCRIBED IN THE BILL WOULD
ALLOW FOR A HANDFUL OF IDLED AND
EXISTING BIOMASS POWER PLANTS TO
WORK WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSERVATION TO TRANSITION THEIR
FACILITIES TO CLEANER AND MORE
EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGIES BY
ALLOWING THE DEPARTMENT TO VET
AND IDENTIFY THE BEST CANDIDATES
WHO ARE MEANINGFULLY INTERESTED
IN SUCH A TRANSITION. THE BILL
WOULD ALSO CREATE A GRANT
PROGRAM FOR THE FACILITIES TO
OBTAIN NEW TECHNOLOGIES, WHICH
ARE SELECTED AND ULTIMATELY
APPROVED VIA PERMITTING BY THE
LOCAL AIR DISTRICTS. IT'S WORTH
NOTING THAT THE FACILITIES
WOULD, AT ALL TIMES, BE REQUIRED
TO MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL
ACTIVE LOCAL AND FEDERAL AIR
PERMITS. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO
MENTION THAT BIOMASS, AS DEFINED
IN THE BILL, IS EXCLUSIVELY IN
REFERENCE TO WASTES THAT ARE
BYPRODUCT RESIDUES OR FOREST
HEALTH RELATED WASTES, AND IT
DOES NOT INCLUDE TREES GROWN FOR
POWER GENERATION. THIS APPROACH
IS A SOUND WAY TO MOVE CURRENT
BIOMASS FACILITIES TO A NEW
PARADIGM, WITHOUT LOSING THE
ESSENTIAL SERVICES THEY
CURRENTLY PROVIDE WITH REGARDS
TO BASE LOAD, ELECTRICAL
GENERATION, AND PROVIDING A
VIABLE AND CONSISTENT OUTLET FOR
WOOD WASTE DISPOSAL. AS YOU ARE
WELL AWARE, CALIFORNIA HAS A
WOOD WASTE CRISIS AND THE LAST
THING WE NEED IS MORE FOREST AND
WOOD WASTE ARRIVING IN
LANDFILLS. AS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ARE STRUGGLING WITH ORGANIC
WASTE DIVERSION, AND WE
CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT TO SEE ANY
MORE UNCONTROLLED OPEN BURNING
OF WOOD WASTE THAN IS NECESSARY.
HOWEVER, WITHOUT RELIABLE
OUTLETS FOR THIS WASTE, THE
OPTIONS FOR FORESTERS AND LAND
MANAGEMENT AGENCIES ARE TRULY
LIMITED. SB 1062 REPRESENTS A
FORWARD THINKING SOLUTION THAT
ALIGNS WITH CALIFORNIA'S LONG
TERM AIR QUALITY, CLIMATE AND
ENERGY OBJECTIVES, WHILE
DIRECTLY HELPING TO ADDRESS THE
CURRENT PROBLEM OF WOOD WASTE
DISPOSAL. LASTLY, I WANTED TO
VOICE OUR SUPPORT TOWARDS THE
PROGRAM BEING MANAGED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION. THE
DEPARTMENT HAS A STRONG
UNDERSTANDING OF BIOENERGY
TECHNOLOGIES AND HAS THE
EXPERTISE TO SET UP A SUCCESSFUL
TRANSITION PROGRAM, SUCH AS THIS
ONE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. KEVIN
JOHNSTON, CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU
FEDERATION, OUR SUPPORT IS
SIMPLE. FARM BUREAU HAS ALWAYS
BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE OF BIOMASS.
WE HAVE WASTE. WE HAVE
BENEFICIAL USE FOR IT. IT
PROVIDES RELIABLE RENEWABLE
POWER. THE WASTE IS NOT BEING
GENERATED FOR ENERGY, BUT IT'S
GOING TO EXIST. AND THIS IS A
MUCH BETTER PROCESS THAN PILE
AND BURN OR LETTING IT
INCINERATE IN A WILDFIRE. AND SO
I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE. THIS BILL
IS SIMPLY JUST TRYING TO MAKE
SURE WHEN WE ARE DOING THAT,
THAT WE'RE DOING A BETTER JOB OF
IT. SO WE ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE
SPEED AT WHICH YOU GOT THAT
POINT ACROSS. SUCCINCT. VERY,
VERY WELL DONE. PERSONS HERE IN
THE HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE
TO REGISTER THEIR SUPPORT FOR
THIS MEASURE. OH. FALSE ALARM.
ALL RIGHT. ANY OPPOSITION IN THE
HEARING ROOM? TRUE. GOOD
AFTERNOON TO THE CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE. CHRISTINA SCARINGE
WITH THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION OF SB 1062. BURNING
OUR FORESTS FOR ENERGY IS CARBON
AND POLLUTION INTENSIVE FARMING
COMMUNITIES. AND THE CLIMATE.
CALIFORNIA INCORRECTLY TREATS
FOREST FEEDSTOCKS AS CARBON
NEUTRAL. THE SCIENCE IS
THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED THAT CLAIM
FINDING LOST CARBON STORAGE AND
SEQUESTRATION WITH BIOMASS
EXTRACTION, SIGNIFICANT CO TWO
EMISSIONS AND BIOMASS
PROCESSING, AND GASIFICATION,
PYROLYSIS OR COMBUSTION, AND
NOTING THE YEARS IT TAKES FOR
CUT FORESTS TO REGROW IF THEY'RE
EVEN ALLOWED TO DO SO. BIOFUELS
ARE ONLY AS GOOD AS THE
FEEDSTOCKS USED TO MAKE THEM,
AND WOODY BIOMASS IS A POOR
FEEDSTOCK GIVEN ITS CLIMATE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL BURDENS. FOR A
GIVEN BIO, BIOFUELS PRODUCED
FROM BIOMASS DON'T SATISFY THE
CRITERIA TO BE SUSTAINABLE, SO
THEY SHOULD NOT BE INCENTIVIZED.
THE SCIENCE DOCUMENT SUBSTANTIAL
METHANE EMISSIONS FROM LOG
LANDINGS AND WOODCHIP PILES USED
FOR ENERGY, BIOENERGY GENERATION
AND THE SCIENCE SHOWS THAT DEAD
TREES DO NOT INCREASE WILDFIRE
RISK, NOR ITS SEVERITY, RATE OF
SPREAD OR EXTENT. AND THE
PUBLISHED RESEARCH HAS CONCLUDED
THAT BROAD SCALE THINNING TO
REDUCE FIRE RISK OR SEVERITY CAN
LEAD TO MORE CARBON EMISSIONS
THAN IT PREVENTS FROM BEING
RELEASED IN A WILDFIRE AND LEADS
TO A NET LOSS OF CARBON STORAGE
FROM FORESTS. CCS DOESN'T
IMPROVE THE BIOMASS CALCULUS.
IT'S VERY ENERGY INTENSIVE,
REQUIRING 15 TO 25% MORE ENERGY,
INCREASING GREENHOUSE GAS AND
AIR POLLUTION EMISSIONS. SO SB
1062 RECOGNIZES THE POLLUTION
BURDEN CAUSED BY EXISTING
BIOMASS ENERGY FACILITIES, AND
WE APPRECIATE THAT. BUT IT
INCENTIVIZES RATHER THAN
ALLEVIATES THE HARM. AND FOR
THIS REASON, WE MUST OPPOSE THE
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I
THINK PERSONS IN THE HEARING
ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER
THEIR OPPOSITION TO THIS
MEASURE. NOW TURN IT TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS I HAD A FEELING MY VICE
CHAIR MIGHT HAVE A THOUGHT ABOUT
THAT. I DO THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR,
THIS IS THE SECOND TIME I'VE
HEARD THIS STATEMENT MADE BY
YOUR ORGANIZATION THAT DEAD AND
DYING TREES DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO
THE SPREAD OF WILDFIRES. AND I'M
JUST CURIOUS. AND THE LAST TIME
I ASKED WHEN I HEARD THIS, I
ASKED FOR YOU TO GIVE ME SOME
DATA THAT SUPPORTS THAT
STATEMENT AND HAVE YET TO GET
ANYTHING FROM YOUR ORGANIZATION
ON THAT. SO AGAIN, WE'VE
ACTUALLY SUBMITTED IT TO YOU.
OKAY. I HAVE NOT SEEN IT. AND
THE FUNDAMENTAL THING ABOUT WHAT
SUSTAINS FIRE, RIGHT. THERE'S
THREE THINGS FUEL, OXYGEN AND
IGNITION. YOU TAKE ONE OF THOSE
THREE THINGS AWAY. FIRES GO OUT.
SO I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW WE
CONTINUE TO SAY THIS FALSE
NARRATIVE THAT A REDUCTION OF
WOOD DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE
SPREAD OF FIRE. SO IF YOU WANTED
TO ADDRESS THAT, LIKE HOW IS
THAT THROUGH THE CHAIR? YEAH
YES. SO, THE WRITTEN COMMENTS
FOR THIS BILL ALSO CITES THAT
THE STUDIES WHICH PERTAIN TO
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND PACIFIC
NORTHWEST FOREST. SO IT'S
PARTICULAR TO OUR FOREST AS
WELL. IT'S NOT JUST IN GENERAL.
AND WE HAVE AND I DID RESPOND TO
YOU LAST TIME, BUT I WILL LOOK
FOR THAT EMAIL AND RESEND IT
AGAIN, OUR WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION
FOR THIS HEARING INCLUDES LINKS
TO THE STUDIES. THERE'S TOO MANY
TO LIST HERE, BUT BUT I
APPRECIATE THAT. IT'S NOT THE
WAY THAT CALIFORNIA'S BEEN DOING
THINGS. WE HAVE BEEN ON A LONG
HAUL WITH OUR TEAM OF SCIENTISTS
AND OTHERS WHO WHO ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT AROUND FOREST HEALTH TO
CHANGE THAT NARRATIVE THAT COMES
FROM A LONG HISTORY OF, ECONOMIC
BENEFIT FROM BURNING OUR
FORESTS, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT,
IT'S NOT CALIFORNIA. I MEAN,
THIS IS A FIRE SCIENCE. IT'S
TAUGHT ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND
AROUND THE WORLD AS IT RELATES
TO REDUCTION OF FUEL LOAD AND
HOW IT CONTRIBUTES TO THE SPREAD
OF FIRE. SO, IT IS NOT AN
ECONOMIC THING, AND I WOULD LOVE
FOR YOU TO SEND THAT AGAIN. AND
I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW WHERE THESE
STUDIES ARE SITED, BECAUSE I DO
THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
HONEST DEBATES IN THIS COMMITTEE
ABOUT THE FUTURE AND WHAT WE'RE
DOING, WE NEED TO BE HONEST
ABOUT WHERE THESE ALL COME FROM.
SO THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS? MR. DOLLY,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YES.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND I
WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I'VE
WORKED IN THIS SPACE FOR A LONG
TIME, TRYING TO DO SOMETHING
WITH. I HAVE 60, 60% OF
CALIFORNIA'S WATER COMES FROM MY
DISTRICT. IT'S VERY HEAVILY
FORESTED. WE'VE HAD THE DIXIE
FIRE, ALMOST A MILLION ACRES,
THERE HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW,
COMBUSTION IS AN ISSUE. SO WE
TAILORED THIS BILL TO DRIVE IT
AWAY FROM COMBUSTION AND DO
OTHER TECHNOLOGIES. AND SO
THAT'S THE GOAL OF THIS BILL, IS
TO FIND AN ALTERNATIVE, FROM
MISMANAGEMENT OF FOREST. WE'VE
HAD 100 YEARS OF FIRE
SUPPRESSION, WHICH IS NOT
NATURAL IN CALIFORNIA. IT BURNED
EVERY TEN YEARS. BY LIGHTNING.
AND NATIVE AMERICANS, SETTING IT
OFF. AND WE'VE STOPPED THAT. AND
WE HAVE TOO MUCH FUEL OUT THERE.
WE NEED TO THIN THAT FOREST, AND
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
MAKE IT HEALTHY. LIVE TREES
SEQUESTER CARBON, DEAD TREES
EMIT METHANE AND CARBON. AND SO
FOR THOSE REASONS, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
. THANK YOU. SIR THIS BILL HAS A
DO PASS RECOMMENDATION. MADAM
SECRETARY, CAN WE CALL THE ROLL?
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS.
BRIAN. HI, BRIAN. I, FLORA I
FLORA. AYE. BAUER-KAHAN
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. NOT VOTING.
FRIEDMAN. HOOVER CHOLERA.
LACKEY. LACKEY I MURATSUCHI
MURATSUCHI NOT VOTING. PELLERIN.
WICKS WOULD. HOW MANY DO YOU
HAVE TO HAVE? SEVEN. SEVEN. WE
GOT THREE. GOT YOUR WORK CUT OUT
FOR YOU, SIR. SENATOR ALLEN,
COME ON DOWN. SANTA MONICA'S
FINEST. WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
OH, DEAR. ALL RIGHT. WELL, VERY
GOOD AFTERNOON TO YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS AND COMMITTEE
STAFF. I WANT TO JUST THANK THE
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION AND HARD WORK ON
THE BILL, ALSO WANT TO THANK
STAKEHOLDERS, MEMBERS THAT HAVE
BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED ON WITH US
ON THIS BILL FOR THE PAST MANY
MONTHS, IT'S BEEN A WILD ONE. SO
I AM GOING TO BE ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS TODAY. WE
KNOW THAT CALIFORNIA IS AT THE
CONFLUENCE OF CRISES, A SEVERE
HOUSING SHORTAGE, ONE OF THE
MOST DESTRUCTIVE WILDFIRE
SEASONS IN STATE HISTORY THAT
WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH. AS
YOU'VE DISCUSSED, RISING RISK TO
OUR COMMUNITIES DUE TO SEA LEVEL
RISE AND FLOODING, OTHER
DISASTERS. WE GOT TO FIND WAYS
TO BUILD MORE, HOMES TO ADDRESS
OUR HOUSING CHALLENGES. BUT
UNLESS WE'RE DELIBERATE IN WHERE
WE SITE NEW COMMUNITIES, WE RISK
PUTTING MORE PEOPLE IN HARM'S
WAY. WHEN DISASTER STRIKES IN
AREAS OF MY DISTRICT AND LIKELY
MANY OF YOURS, EXISTING
EVACUATION ROUTES WOULD BE
STRETCHED THIN IN THE EVENT OF A
MAJOR EMERGENCY AND WITHOUT
CONSIDERATION AND INCLUSION OF
ADDITIONAL EVACUATION ROUTES IN
NEW DEVELOPMENTS, THE
CONSEQUENCES COULD BE DEADLY.
AND WE'VE CERTAINLY SEEN THAT
HAPPEN IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE
STATE. SO OUR BILL HERE CHARGES
THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND
RESEARCH TO WITH THE TASK OF
CONVENING A WORKING GROUP OF
DIVERSE STATE AND LOCAL
STAKEHOLDERS TO STUDY AND
PREPARE A REPORT THAT WOULD
RECOMMEND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS
TO STATE STANDARDS FOR INGRESS
AND EGRESS AND EVACUATION ROUTES
FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE EVENT
OF A NATURAL DISASTER. THESE
RECOMMENDATIONS WILL CONSIDER
THE NEEDS OF VULNERABLE
POPULATIONS. IT WILL BE TIERED
BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT, SIZE,
DENSITY AND TRAFFIC
CONSIDERATIONS. THE BILL
INSTRUCTS THE WORKING GROUP TO
CONSIDER THE EFFECTS THAT
UPDATED STANDARDS WOULD HAVE ON
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
AND THE ABILITY FOR INDIVIDUALS
AND COMMUNITIES TO REBUILD AFTER
A DISASTER. IT ALSO INSTRUCTS
THE WORKING GROUP WITH THE TASK
OF CONSIDERING FEASIBLE
EVACUATION TIMEFRAMES AND OTHER
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA. THE USE OF
TEMPORARY REFUGE AREAS, AND THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NEW
DEVELOPMENT AND THE EXISTING
COMMUNITY. THE IDEA IS THAT IF
WE BY BY ASSEMBLING LOCAL AND
STATE STAKEHOLDERS ACROSS
ENVIRONMENTAL, TRANSPORTATION,
HOUSING AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SECTORS WILL WE WILL HELP
IMPERILED COMMUNITIES BE THAT
AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE
BETTER DESIGNED FOR THE REALITY
OF WILDFIRE AND OTHER EMERGENCY
RISK WITHOUT CREATING UNDUE
BURDEN ON COMMUNITIES AND
DEVELOPERS. AND WITH ME HERE TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS MATT BAKER
FROM THE PLANNING CONSERVATION
LEAGUE. GOOD AFTERNOON, ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS MATTHEW BAKER, POLICY
DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING AND
CONSERVATION LEAGUE, LAST YEAR
WE SET OUT, WITH A CAREFULLY
CRAFTED PROPOSAL WITH, YOU KNOW,
THE INSIGHT OF MANY FIRE
EXPERTS. AND AS A STATUTORY
PRESCRIPTION FOR HOW EVACUATION
PLANNING SHOULD BE REQUIRED FOR
NEW DEVELOPMENT AND THAT THAT
BILL DID NOT SAY WHERE OR WHERE
NOT TO BUILD IT JUST SAID THAT
IF YOU IF YOU BUILD, YOU HAVE TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU CAN GET
PEOPLE OUT SAFELY, THAT THAT WAS
THE STARTING POINT FOR
EVERYTHING THAT WE DID HERE. WE
ENGAGED WITH MANY STAKEHOLDERS,
PARTICULARLY THE BUILDING
COMMUNITY AND THE BIA AND CRC,
AND I WANT TO CALL THEM OUT. AND
WITH APPRECIATION FOR THE TIME
THAT THEY SPENT WITH US OVER THE
LAST YEAR, THINKING ABOUT HOW TO
DO THIS, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE
SOME FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES OF
OPINION. THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY
CAME THOUGHTFULLY AND
CONSTRUCTIVELY TO THE TABLE AND,
AND, BUT AT THE TIME, WE
COULDN'T GET CONSENSUS ON THE
PRESCRIPTION AND WE STALLED. BUT
THIS, THIS YEAR, WHEN WE BROUGHT
IT BACK AS A REPORT, WE GOT OUT
OF THE FIRST HOUSE AND, AND, AND
HAVE HAD SOME MORE GOOD
DISCUSSION. AND, AND THOUGH
THERE WERE SOME, YOU KNOW,
DIFFERENCES OF OPINION THAT
CONTINUED ON ON THE INITIAL
PROPOSAL, I THINK THE ONE THING
THAT WE'VE REALLY COME DOWN ON
IN CONSENSUS WAS THE IDEA THAT
THIS REALLY TAKES MORE HOLISTIC
THINKING ACROSS AGENCIES, ACROSS
ACROSS SECTORS. AND, I THINK
WITH THIS NEW FRAMING OF THIS
INTERAGENCY REPORT TO GET TO
THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, YOU KNOW,
PICO, WHILE IT'S LESS AMBITIOUS
THAN WHAT WE SET OUT TO DO IN
THE BEGINNING, WE CONTINUE TO
THINK THERE'S A REALLY
WORTHWHILE WAY TO ADVANCE THE
CONVERSATION. THIS VERY
IMPORTANT CONVERSATION. SO, WITH
THAT, WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THE
BILL AND ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU, MR. BAKER. ARE THERE
ANY PERSONS IN THE HEARING ROOM
WHO WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR
SUPPORT FOR THIS MEASURE? GOOD
AFTERNOON, TRACY BRYANT. THE
RURAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES OF
CALIFORNIA, WE ARE NOT REFLECTED
ON THE ANALYSIS, BUT AS OF THE
LATEST AMENDMENTS, WE ARE IN
SUPPORT. I DO WANT TO SAY, AND
ECHO THE COMMENTS MADE BY
SPONSORS THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING
ON THIS FOR. WELL OVER A YEAR,
AND WE APPRECIATE ALL THE
CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD
WITH STAFF AND THE SPONSORS OF
THE SPONSOR. AND WE THINK THAT
LOOKING AT THIS HOLISTICALLY
REALLY DOES MAKE SENSE AND WE
APPRECIATE IT AND WE'LL BE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? MR. CHAIR MEMBERS,
SILVIO FERRARI, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, HUGE THANKS TO THE
AUTHOR, THE SPONSORS, COMMITTEE,
COMMITTEE STAFF WORKING ON THIS.
WHEN WE BELIEVE WHEN THE
AMENDMENTS GO IN PRINT, OUR
ENTIRE COALITION WILL GO
NEUTRAL. SO THANK YOU. WELL
DONE. SENATOR. ANY OTHER
OPPOSITION IN THE ROOM? SEEING
NO PERSONS IN OPPOSITION. THAT'S
A SIGN OF A JOB WELL DONE.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, ANY THOUGHTS?
COMMENTS CONCERNS OR OPPOSITION
YOU'D LIKE TO RAISE? SEEING
NONE, WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY
FLORA. A SECOND BY CONNELLY. MR.
ALLEN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
RESPECTFULLY AND VOTE? THIS BILL
HAS A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION BY
THE CHAIR. MADAM SECRETARY, CAN
WE CALL THE ROLL? THE MOTION IS
DUE. PASS, AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. BRIAN I BRIAN I
FLORA LARA. I BAUER-KAHAN
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. I FRIEDMAN.
HOOVER. CHOLERA LACKEY.
MURATSUCHI MURATSUCHI I PELLERIN
I PELLERIN I WICKS WOULD. WE'LL
LEAVE IT OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS
. WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
WE'RE BACK FOR MORE EXCITEMENT,
THIS IS SB 615. HAVING TO DO
WITH EV BATTERIES. DIFFERENT
TOPIC, WE KNOW THAT CALIFORNIA
IS BEGINNING TO SEE THE
PIECEMEAL DEVELOPMENT OF A
MARKET AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DESIGNED TO CAPTURE AND RECYCLE
THE VALUABLE MATERIALS THAT ARE
USED TO MANUFACTURE ELECTRIC
VEHICLE BATTERIES. ONCE THOSE
BATTERIES OR THE CAR REACHES THE
END OF LIFE, RECYCLING BATTERIES
REDUCES THE DEMAND FOR RAW
MATERIALS, THEREBY AVOIDING THE
NEGATIVE SOCIAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF MINING
AND POTENTIALLY CATALYZING A
DOMESTIC SUPPLY. AS DEMAND FOR
THE CRITICAL MATERIALS NEEDED TO
BUILD BATTERIES INCREASES. IN
SOME INSTANCES, ONCE A BATTERY
IS REMOVED FROM THE VEHICLE AND
BEFORE IT'S RECYCLED, IT CAN BE
REPURPOSED FOR APPLICATIONS SUCH
AS ENERGY STORAGE, BUT
UNFORTUNATELY, OUR STATE LACKS A
POLICY FRAMEWORK TO ENSURE THESE
BENEFICIAL OUTCOMES. IN 2018,
OUR FRIEND SENATOR BRIAN DOLLY
PASSED AB 2832, WHICH CALLED FOR
AN ADVISORY GROUP OF EXPERTS TO
DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
LEGISLATURE TO ENSURE THAT AS
CLOSE TO 100% AS POSSIBLE OF
LITHIUM ION BATTERIES IN THE
STATE ARE REUSED OR RECYCLED,
END OF LIFE. SO THIS BILL BUILDS
OFF OF THAT REPORT AND COUNTLESS
HOURS OF SUBSEQUENT STAKEHOLDER
FEEDBACK TO CREATE A
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM TO ENSURE
ALL EV BATTERIES ARE PROPERLY
HANDLED AND EVENTUALLY RECYCLED
AT THE END OF THEIR USEFUL LIFE.
THE BILL IS PROPOSED TO BE
AMENDED, BY THE AUTHORS.
AMENDMENTS OUTLINED IN THE
ANALYSIS WILL DO SEVERAL
IMPORTANT THINGS. FIRST, AND
FOREMOST, THE BILL REQUIRES ALL
EV BATTERIES IN THE STATE TO BE
SENT TO A QUALIFIED RECYCLER AT
THE END OF THEIR USEFUL LIFE.
OKAY. DON'T HAVE THE REST HERE.
THAT'S OKAY. WELL, WE GOT THE
REST OF THE LIST HERE. IT'S ON
THE OTHER SIDE. OKAY, GREAT. ALL
RIGHT, SEE, WE'RE SAVING PAPER.
YEAH. OKAY. THAT'S GREAT. OKAY,
SO AS I MENTIONED, WE FIRST
INFORM US, REQUIRE THAT ALL EV
BATTERIES IN THE STATE BE SENT
TO A QUALIFIED RECYCLER AT THE
END OF THEIR USEFUL LIFE. NOW,
HOW DO WE DO THIS? THE BILL
INCLUDES A NUMBER OF FACTORS TO
BRING US THERE. SO FIRST OF ALL,
EV BATTERY SUPPLIERS HAVE TO
SUBMIT A BATTERY MANAGEMENT PLAN
TO CALRECYCLE AND DTSC TO ENSURE
THE BATTERIES THAT THEY GET BACK
ARE PROPERLY MANAGED OR AND
RECYCLED, THIS WILL BE
PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT FOR
BATTERIES THAT ARE STILL UNDER
WARRANTY, AND THE ENTITY THAT
REMOVES THE BATTERY FROM A
VEHICLE, SUCH AS AN AUTO SHOP OR
A DISMANTLER, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
ITS PROPER MANAGEMENT. THAT
MEANS THE BATTERY CAN BE
RETURNED TO THE MANUFACTURER,
SOLD TO A SECONDARY USER FOR
BATTERY STORAGE, OR SENT TO A
BATTERY RECYCLER. ENTITIES THAT
USE EV BATTERIES FOR STORAGE OR
OTHER PURPOSES WILL THEN ENSURE
THAT THE BATTERY IS RECYCLED AT
THE END OF ITS USEFUL LIFE, AND
RECYCLED RECYCLING FACILITIES
THAT WANT TO HANDLE THESE
BATTERIES MUST GET RECYCLED,
MUST GET CERTIFIED BY CALRECYCLE
IN COORDINATED COORDINATION WITH
DTSC TO ENSURE THAT THE
BATTERIES ARE PROPERLY MANAGED.
LASTLY, ENTITIES HANDLING
BATTERIES UP AND DOWN THE SUPPLY
CHAIN WILL REPORT TO THE
DEPARTMENT CREATED SYSTEM THAT
THAT THAT IT'S GOING TO BE
MANAGED BY CAL RECYCLE TO
EFFICIENTLY TRACK THESE
BATTERIES AND ENSURE THAT THE
BILL'S REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. SO
THE BILL MAINTAINS A NUMBER OF
STANDARD ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS
OF OTHER PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
MEASURES THAT WE'VE WORKED ON IN
OTHER SPACES. IT PROVIDES
FLEXIBILITY AS THE MARKET FOR
USED EV BATTERIES GROWS. THIS
FLEXIBILITY HAS BEEN
PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT SINCE,
UNLIKE OTHER MATERIALS THAT
WE'VE SOUGHT TO MANAGE AT THEIR
END OF LIFE, EV BATTERIES
ACTUALLY CONTAIN ALL THESE
MINERALS THAT MAKE THEM VERY
VALUABLE IN A GROWING AND ROBUST
RECYCLING MARKET, WHICH HAS MADE
THIS PROCESS A LITTLE EASIER
THAN, YOU KNOW, SB 50 FOR
PLASTICS, WHERE IT'S SO HARD TO
MAKE A MARKET WORK FOR THOSE
PRODUCTS. HERE, WE HAVE REALLY
VALUABLE MINERALS COBALT,
LITHIUM, ETC, WE'VE GOT A BIT
MORE WORK TO DO AS WE CONTINUE
TO GET STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK ON
THIS SET OF AMENDMENTS, BUT I
BELIEVE WE'RE NEARLY THERE. AND
I HAVE WITH ME HERE TODAY TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
MEGAN MICKELBERG, REPRESENTING
CAL START AND DANIEL BARAD WITH
THE UNION OF CONCERNED
SCIENTISTS, TWO MINUTES EACH.
GREAT. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS
MEGAN MICKELBERG. I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF CAL START. THE CAL
START RUNS A US ELECTRIC VEHICLE
BATTERY INITIATIVE, WHICH WORKS
TO INFORM POLICIES TO
SUSTAINABLY AND RESPONSIBLY GROW
THE US SUPPLY CHAIN FOR EV
BATTERIES TO MEET CLIMATE AND EV
ADOPTION GOALS, AS WELL AS
ENSURE A RESPONSIBLE HANDLING OF
BATTERIES AT THE END OF THEIR
LIFE. SB 615 TAKES INTO ACCOUNT
THAT BATTERIES POSSESS VALUE,
BUT ULTIMATELY ENSURES THAT
PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY WHEN A
BATTERY DOES REACH THE END OF
ITS LIFE. SENATOR ALLEN AND HIS
TEAM HAVE CONVENED A STAKEHOLDER
GROUP OVER THE LAST 18 MONTHS,
WHICH CONTINUES TO INFORM THE
CREATION OF THE BILL IN REAL
TIME, AS REFLECTED IN THE
ANALYSIS, THE AUTHOR HAS MADE
MULTIPLE COMMITMENTS TO MODIFY
THE BILL WHILE MAINTAINING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS AND
ENSURING THE CLEAR DELINEATION
OF RESPONSIBILITY. CALSTART IS
GRATEFUL TO SENATOR ALLEN AND
HIS STAFF FOR PARTNERING US WITH
US TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE
BILL AND STRIKE THE APPROPRIATE
BALANCE THAT ALLOWS FOR
INNOVATION WHILE ALSO ENSURING
ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY. WE
BELIEVE THAT WE'RE VERY CLOSE TO
ACHIEVING THAT GOAL AND LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUED
CONVERSATIONS WITH STAKEHOLDERS
AND RELEVANT DEPARTMENTS IN THE
COMING MONTHS. WE RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU
. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. DANIEL BROD, ON BEHALF
OF UNION OF CONCERNED
SCIENTISTS. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF SB 615. WE'VE BEEN
ADVOCATING FOR THE BROAD
DEPLOYMENT OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES
FOR YEARS BECAUSE OF THEIR CLEAR
CLIMATE AND PUBLIC HEALTH
BENEFITS. NOW THAT WE HAVE
POLICIES THAT GUARANTEE THESE
VEHICLES WILL CONTINUE TO BE
DEPLOYED IN MASS, WE NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE CLEAN
TRANSPORTATION FUTURE IS ALSO
SUSTAINABLE. OVER THE NEXT
DECADE, EV BATTERY RETIREMENTS
ARE ESTIMATED TO INCREASE BY
450% IN CALIFORNIA FROM 30,000IN
2023 TO 165,000 ANNUALLY BY
2030. THIS WAVE WILL INCLUDE
BATTERIES THAT ARE DAMAGED,
DISPERSED AND MAY CONTAIN FEWER
VALUABLE MINERALS AND ARE
THEREFORE LESS PROFITABLE TO
RECYCLE. WITHOUT SOME POLICY
INTERVENTION, BATTERIES MAY SLIP
THROUGH THE CRACKS AND END UP IN
HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILLS OR
ABANDONED. TO AVOID THIS FATE
AND REDUCE THE NEED FOR NEWLY
MINED MATERIAL, WE NEED SB 615.
SPECIFICALLY, THERE ARE THREE
KEY PIECES THAT WILL MAKE THIS
BILL AS DESCRIBED IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS EFFECTIVE.
FIRST, SOME LEVEL OF PRODUCER
RESPONSIBILITY IS CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT SO THAT WHEN
MANUFACTURERS PUT THEIR VEHICLES
OR REPURPOSE BATTERIES OUT INTO
THE WORLD, THEY HAVE A PLAN FOR
ENSURING THAT THEY ARE
RESPONSIBLY MANAGED WHEN THEY
RETIRE. WE HAVE PRODUCED A
RESPONSIBILITY POLICIES IN
CALIFORNIA, AND THIS ISN'T A NEW
CONCEPT FOR EV BATTERIES EITHER.
THE EUROPEAN UNION AND NEW
JERSEY BOTH PASSED POLICIES TO
REQUIRE PRODUCERS TO BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR BATTERIES.
SECOND, TRACKING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS IN THE BILL MAKE
SURE THAT BATTERIES ARE NOT
GETTING LOST IN THE SHUFFLE, AND
IF THEY DO, THESE REQUIREMENTS
WILL PROVIDE THE LEGISLATURE AND
STATE AGENCIES WITH THE
INFORMATION THEY NEED TO
IDENTIFY AND RECTIFY ANY
PROBLEMS. FINALLY, THE BILL WILL
ENSURE THAT BATTERIES ARE ONLY
ALLOWED TO BE SENT TO RECYCLING
FACILITIES THAT ARE RECOVERING
HIGH LEVEL OF MINERALS AND THAT
HAVE FEWER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
ON WORKERS AND NEARBY
COMMUNITIES. SB 615 LOOKS TO
PREVENT BATTERIES FROM BEING
SENT TO THE MOST HARMFUL AND
INEFFICIENT TECHNOLOGIES, AND
ENSURE THAT THE BATTERY
RECYCLING INDUSTRY IS AS SAFE
AND SUSTAINABLE AS POSSIBLE. WE
ARE GRATEFUL TO SENATOR ALLEN
AND HIS STAFF FOR THEIR TIRELESS
EFFORTS ON THE BILL, AND WE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR.
ARE THERE ANY PERSONS IN THE
HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO
REGISTER THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS
MEASURE? MELISSA ROMERO
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MEGAN
SHUMWAY IN SUPPORT. LIZZIE
KUPTANA HERE ON BEHALF OF TESLA,
WITH THE SUPPORT OF AMENDED
POSITION AND THANK THE AUTHOR
AND HIS STAFF FOR THE WORK IN
THE BILL. THANK YOU. CHRISTINA
SCARINGE WITH THE CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND
SUPPORT. JORDAN WELLS WITH THE
NATIONAL STEWARDSHIP ACTION
COUNCIL, AND STRONG SUPPORT
JACOB EVANS WITH SIERRA
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. CRYSTAL
ARENAS WITH CALIFORNIANS AGAINST
WASTE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. ANY PERSONS IN THE HEARING
ROOM IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
MEASURE? COME ON DOWN. GOOD. TWO
MINUTES EACH. OKAY. MR. CHAIR,
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. JOHN
MOFFITT, ON BEHALF OF THE ON
BEHALF OF THE ALLIANCE FOR
AUTOMOTIVE INNOVATION. WE'RE THE
TRADE ASSOCIATION FOR THE AUTO
MAKERS. WE HAVE AN OPPOSING,
LESS AMENDED POSITION, HAVING
SAID THAT, WE APPRECIATE THE
ONGOING CONVERSATIONS AS
RECENTLY AS THIS FRIDAY WITH THE
AUTHOR AND SPONSORS ON THE BILL,
YOU KNOW, I THINK I THINK OUR
CONCERNS AROUND THIS, AND, YOU
KNOW, AROUND THIS CONCEPT ARE
BASED ON THE FACT THAT, YOU
KNOW, ZEV BATTERIES ARE NOT
PLASTIC BAGS, THEY'RE NOT
MATTRESSES. THEY'RE NOT, YOU
KNOW, MANY OF THESE OTHER
MATERIALS FOR WHICH WE HAVE
STEWARDSHIP AND PRO AND EPR
PROGRAMS, THESE ARE VALUABLE,
VALUABLE ASSETS. THEY ARE, YOU
KNOW, VALUABLE EVEN ONCE THEY'RE
OUT OF THE VEHICLE. AND BEING
USED IN OTHER APPLICATIONS IS,
AS THE OTHER WITNESS IS GOING TO
TESTIFY TO, AND IN ADDITION TO
THAT, MANY OF MY IF NOT MOST OF
MY MEMBER COMPANIES ALREADY HAVE
CONTRACTS WITH OTHER ENTITIES
OUT TO MAKE THE SECONDARY USE OF
THESE BATTERIES ONCE THEY'RE
DONE IN THE VEHICLE. AND SO OUR
VIEW IS WE THINK, YOU KNOW, WE
APPRECIATE THE, THE GOAL OF THE
AUTHOR AND THE SPONSORS. WE
THINK THIS NEEDS A LIGHT TOUCH,
NOT A HEAVY TOUCH, TRY AND KEEP
COSTS TO A MINIMUM TO NOT ADD
COST TO THE TO THE PRICE OF A
ZEV TO COMPLY WITH THE PROGRAM
AND THEN LET THE MARKET DO ITS
THING. IT IS OUT THERE WORKING,
AND SO HOW DO WE MELD THE GOALS
OF, OF THE BILL AND THE PROGRAM
WITH ALLOWING THE MARKET TO
CONTINUE TO GROW AND THRIVE IN
FURY AND FLOURISH? AND SO WITH
THAT, WE AGAIN APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR'S TIME AND STAFF AND THE
SPONSORS, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
THE ONGOING CONVERSATIONS. THANK
YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. DAN SCHORR
REPRESENTING, REDWOOD MATERIALS,
DEFINITELY ALIGN, OUR COMMENTS
WITH, THE ALLIANCES, AND GREATLY
APPRECIATE THE SENATOR STAFF FOR
WORKING WITH US. I THINK WE'RE
ALMOST THERE, IT'S BEEN A
ARDUOUS PROCESS, BUT I THINK WE
WILL FINALLY, HOPEFULLY GET
THERE IN THE NEXT SET OF
AMENDMENTS. WE'RE OFFICIALLY
OPPOSED TO THE VERSION IN PRINT,
BUT WE THINK THE SUGGESTED
AMENDMENTS IN THE ANALYSIS ARE
ABSOLUTELY HEADING IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION, AND AGAIN, WE
APPRECIATE THE SENATOR'S
RESPONSIVENESS. REDWOOD
MATERIALS TODAY IS DOING WHAT
THIS BILL ESSENTIALLY REQUIRES.
AND OUR PARTNERS, WE ARE
CREATING A ROBUST DOMESTIC,
SECURE, SUSTAINABLE BATTERY
SUPPLY CHAIN BY COLLECTING,
RECYCLING, REMANUFACTURING, END
OF LIFE EV AND CONSUMER
BATTERIES INTO NEW CRITICAL
BATTERY MATERIALS, MAKING
BATTERIES AND THUS EVS MORE
SUSTAINABLE AND AFFORDABLE. WE
HAVE DIRECT RECYCLING
PARTNERSHIPS WITH LEADING
AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURERS, MANY
REPRESENTED BY THE ALLIANCE
MAJOR BATTERY CELL MANUFACTURERS
AND DISMANTLERS WHO WORK
DIRECTLY WITH US TO MANAGE THEIR
END OF LIFE BATTERIES.
CURRENTLY, WE RECYCLE ENOUGH END
OF LIFE BATTERIES AND PRODUCTION
SCRAP ANNUALLY FOR THE
EQUIVALENT OF ABOUT 250,000 EVS,
AND ARE PLANNING TO INCREASE
THIS RATE TO 5 MILLION EVS BY
2030. THE MAJORITY OF LITHIUM
ION BATTERIES, RECYCLED IN THE
US ARE PROCESSED THROUGH OUR
FACILITIES, AS AS JOHN AND
SENATOR MENTIONED, THESE AREN'T
MATTRESSES. THESE AREN'T
TEXTILES. THESE ARE VALUABLE
PRODUCTS. EXCHANGING HANDS TODAY
AT A COMPETITIVE PRICE IN A
COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE. THE IRA
IS FURTHER MOTIVATING THIS
MARKET BY INCENTIVIZING DOMESTIC
BATTERY PRODUCTION AND RECYCLING
. I THINK THERE ARE ABOUT 20
BATTERY PRODUCTION AND OR
RECYCLING FACILITIES, EITHER, IN
OPERATION OR ANNOUNCED. SO AS WE
ALL ADAPT AND INNOVATE IN
RESPONSE TO A GROWING EV DEMAND,
IT'S CRUCIAL THAT ANY PUBLIC
POLICY PROMOTE WHAT IS HAPPENING
TODAY RATHER THAN HINDER OR
UNDERMINE IT WITH FEES OR
MANDATES. SO WE'LL GET THERE AND
RESPECTFULLY, WELL, I'M NOT
GOING TO ASK YOU TO OPPOSE THIS
BILL, BUT WE'RE GOING TO GET
THERE. YOU CAN ASK US TO IF YOU
WANT TO. ANY PERSONS IN THIS
HEARING ROOM WOULD LIKE TO
REGISTER THEIR OPPOSITION TO
THIS MEASURE. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, MEGAN ALLRED
FOR STF CONSULTING ON BEHALF OF
LKQ AND ALSO SPEAKING FOR THE
CALIFORNIA AUTOMOTIVE
WHOLESALERS ASSOCIATION. THIS
AFTERNOON, RESPECTFULLY AND AN
OPPOSED, UNLESS AMENDED
POSITION. WE TRULY APPRECIATE
ALL THE CONVERSATIONS SO FAR ON
AMENDMENTS REGARDING RE
MANUFACTURERS AND LOOK FORWARD
TO CONTINUING THESE
CONVERSATIONS GOING FORWARD.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
TURNING TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS,
CONCERNS FOR SENATOR ALLEN
SEEING NONE. OH MR. MURATSUCHI,
I THANK YOU, SENATOR. I KNOW
THAT THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT
ISSUE THAT ALL YOU KNOW, WE ALL
GET ASKED A LOT ABOUT, YOU KNOW,
HOW DO WE DEAL WITH ALL OF THE,
THE BATTERY WASTE? I WAS JUST
WONDERING IF. I MEAN, I SAW
TESLA, YOU KNOW, SUPPORTING IF
AMENDED AND I SEE THE ALLIANCE,
OPPOSING. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, CAN
YOU JUST TRY TO, GENERALLY
ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, HOW YOU'RE
YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT WORK
WITHOUT MAKING EVS MORE
EXPENSIVE AND. RIGHT. WELL,
YEAH. I MEAN, ULTIMATELY, IT'S
ACTUALLY ABOUT TRYING TO DRIVE
DOWN THE COST OF PROCUREMENT FOR
THESE MATERIALS. AND I THINK
PART OF WHY, I THINK EVERYBODY
INVOLVED WITH THE CONVERSATION
KNOWS THAT WE NEED TO DO THIS.
WE'RE NOT DRAGGING ANYONE
KICKING AND SCREAMING TO THE
CONVERSATION. THE CHALLENGE WITH
EPR ALWAYS IS THE DEVIL'S ALWAYS
IN THE DETAILS WITH REGARDS TO
THE PARTICULARS OF THE PRODUCT.
AND HOW DO YOU CRAFT IT IN A WAY
THAT IS GOING TO WORK. AND, YOU
KNOW, WE REALLY WANT TO COME TO
AN AGREEMENT WITH, WITH, WITH
EVERYBODY INVOLVED, BECAUSE AT
THE END OF THE DAY, THAT'S HOW
IT'S GOING TO WORK BEST. IT'S
JUST A MATTER OF SPENDING THE
NEXT MONTH HASHING OUT A COUPLE
MORE DETAILS. I MEAN, YOU'VE
BEEN INVOLVED WITH DIFFICULT,
NEGOTIATIONS. IT ALWAYS SEEMS TO
GO TO THE END, JUST HOW THINGS
WORK AROUND HERE. BUT BUT I
THINK I THINK YOU'VE HEARD FROM
EVERYBODY AROUND THE TABLE THAT
WE'RE, WE'RE FEELING, YOU KNOW,
GENERALLY CONFIDENT THAT WE'RE
GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO GET
THERE. BUT, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S
GOING TO TAKE SOME, SOME WORK
AND WE'VE GOT SOME REALLY GOOD
PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES THAT ARE
NEGOTIATING THIS OUT. OKAY WELL,
I TRUST YOU, MR. EPR AND, AND IF
IT'S NOT TOO LATE, I WOULD LOVE
TO BE ADDED AS A COAUTHOR. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU, LOVE THAT. WE'LL
DEFINITELY BE AMENDED. SO YEAH,
FOR THIS DISCUSSION. SO THANK
YOU. WE'LL ADD YOU ON SEEING NO
OTHER QUESTIONS. MR. ALLEN,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE. YEAH. I
APPRECIATE YOU APPRECIATE THE
GOOD DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE
WE'VE HAD AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO
HAVE, YOU KNOW, IN THE END OF
THE DAY, THIS IS ABOUT I MEAN,
THE FUNNY THING WAS, I WAS ON A
CFE TRIP WHEN THE WHEN, YOU
KNOW, IT WAS ACTUALLY YOUR
ORGANIZATION, MR. MOFFITT, WHO
KIND OF ANNOUNCED THAT THEY
REALLY WANTED TO TAKE A BIG,
BOLD LEAP INTO THIS SPACE
BECAUSE I THINK EVERYONE KNEW
THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS SO
IMPORTANT. AND SO NOW WE'RE
EFFECTUATING IT, AND WE
OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO DO IT IN A WAY
THAT'S, THAT'S GOING TO WORK FOR
EVERYBODY. AND THAT'S, THAT'S
WHAT THIS, THIS WHAT THIS
NEGOTIATION IS GOING TO BE ALL
ABOUT. BUT BUT THE BEAUTY HERE
IS THAT WE KNOW THERE'S REAL
VALUE TO THE, THE COURT. SOME OF
THE CORE PRODUCTS IN THESE
BATTERIES, COBALT AND LITHIUM IN
PARTICULAR. BUT THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF OTHER MINERALS AND
METALS THAT ARE, THAT ARE
INVOLVED WITH THE PROCESS. AND
WE ALSO KNOW, BY THE WAY, IT'S
NOT JUST A MATTER OF RECYCLING.
I MEAN, THESE SOME OF THESE
BATTERIES MAY NOT WORK WELL
AFTER THE LIFE OF A CAR, BUT
THEY CAN ACTUALLY STILL WORK
VERY WELL AS A BATTERY IN
ANOTHER FORM FOR OTHER TYPES OF
USE. SO IT'S NOT EVEN A
RECYCLING QUESTION NECESSARILY.
I MEAN, THERE'S A THE RECYCLING
HAPPENS MAYBE A STAGE OR TWO
AFTERWARDS. SO THERE'S A LOT OF
OPPORTUNITY HERE FOR WASTE
REDUCTION, IF WE CAN GET THIS
RIGHT, AND SO I LOOK FORWARD TO
THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'RE GONNA
BE HAVING THIS SUMMER. AND I
REALLY APPRECIATE THE
COMMITTEE'S WILLINGNESS TO WORK
WITH US. AND BIRD DOG THIS ISSUE
AS WE MOVE FORWARD. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE IN
THAT SPIRIT. BIRD DOG. THIS
ISSUE WE DID. YEAH. THIS BILL
HAS A DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION
FROM THE CHAIR. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION? SO MOVED. MR. MURATSUCHI
SECOND BY MR. CONLEY. MADAM
SECRETARY, CAN WE CALL THE ROLL?
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
BRIAN, I, BRIAN, I. FLORA.
FLORA. NÓ. BAUER-KAHAN BY
BAUER-KAHAN I. CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY. I FRIEDMAN. HOOVER
CHOLERA. LACKEY. NOT VOTING.
LACKEY. NOT VOTING. MURATSUCHI
MURATSUCHI I PELLERIN. PELLERIN
I WICKS. WOULD YEAH, YEAH. WE'LL
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS GOING FOR THE HAT TRICK
TODAY, UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S A
QUARTER. IT'S. WE GOT FOUR. SO I
KNOW, I KNOW, I APOLOGIZE. IS
THIS IS THIS IS THIS SB 571.
THIS IS A THIS IS 1143 1143.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. YEAH,
YEAH, ALL RIGHT. SO, ANOTHER EPR
TOPIC, YOU KNOW, BROADER IN
SCOPE. SO A LITTLE MORE
COMPLICATED. BUT I DO WANT TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR ITS DUE
DILIGENCE IN THIS, WITH THIS
MEASURE. THIS BILL RELATES TO
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE AND
LITERALLY THOUSANDS. THE
CHALLENGE HERE IS THAT THOUSANDS
OF EVERYDAY HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS
ARE CLASSIFIED AS AS HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE. NOW OF COURSE,
YOU KNOW, MOST RESIDENTS
RECYCLING IS HARD ENOUGH, BUT
THERE'S A LOT OF EDUCATION ABOUT
THAT. YOU KNOW, PEOPLE JUST
SIMPLY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S
CONSIDERED HAZARDOUS, WHAT'S
NOT. THAT MAKES IT REALLY HARD
FOR SO MANY OF US TO KNOW HOW TO
MANAGE A DANGEROUS PRODUCT AT
THE END OF LIFE, YOU KNOW, YOU
YOU I'VE ENDED UP NOT TOO LONG
AGO, I WAS AT A RECYCLING, A
STATE OF THE ART MURPH RECYCLING
FACILITY. AND SURE ENOUGH,
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
PACKAGING WAS IN WITH FOOD
PACKAGING, WHICH, OF COURSE, WAS
GOING TO CONTAMINATE THE SYSTEM,
YOU KNOW, I MEAN, AND THE THING
IS, EVEN WHEN YOU KNOW, THE
PRODUCT SIMPLY CANNOT BE THROWN
AWAY. SO MANY COMMUNITIES LACK
COLLECTION SYSTEMS OR DROP OFF
FACILITIES. YOU'RE STARTING TO
SEE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
COSTS INCREASING FOR OUR
CONSTITUENTS AND FOR OUR CITIES.
CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE TURNING
AROUND. THEY'RE EITHER RAISING
THE RATES TO COVER THE COSTS, OR
THEY'RE HAVING TO REDUCE
SERVICES, WHICH FURTHER REDUCES
CONVENIENCE FOR LOCAL RESIDENTS.
IN SOME EXTREME CASES, YOU
ACTUALLY HAD CITIES HAD TO CUT,
YOU KNOW, OTHER TYPES OF SOCIAL
SERVICES JUST TO BE ABLE TO MAKE
THEIR, THEIR, THEIR WASTE, YOU
KNOW, YOU KNOW, OBLIGATIONS. AND
BY THE WAY, CALRECYCLE HAS GOT
SOME, YOU KNOW, LIMITED GRANTS
TO BUILD NEW FACILITIES OR
EXPAND EXISTING ONES. BUT
FUNDING HAS FALLEN WAY SHORT OF
WHAT'S ACTUALLY NEEDED. I MEAN,
JUST TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, YOU
KNOW, CAL RECYCLES FACILITIES
GRANT PROGRAM HAS A CAP OF $5
MILLION A YEAR. JUST, YOU KNOW,
THERE'S A CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
FACILITY IN SONOMA THAT'S GOING
TO COST SOMETHING LIKE $15
MILLION A YEAR. THE DELTA IS
ENORMOUS. SO TO ADDRESS THESE,
BOTH THE CRUSHING COSTS AND THE
LACK OF CONVENIENT ACCESS TO A
PROPER DISPOSAL SYSTEM FOR
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE, THIS
BILL REQUIRES PRODUCERS OF THE
MOST TOXIC CONSUMER PRODUCTS, AT
LEAST IN ITS CURRENT FORM, TO
FORM A PR Ó A PRODUCER
RESPONSIBILITY ORGANIZATION THAT
WILL BE TASKED WITH ENHANCING
ACCESSIBILITY AND FULLY FUNDING
THE SAFE COLLECTION,
TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL OF
THE WASTE. WE ARE IN
CONVERSATION WITH THE OPPOSITION
ABOUT SOME FLEXIBILITY AND
ALTERNATIVES, BUT THAT'S A
DISCUSSION THAT'S THAT'S
CURRENTLY UNDERWAY, THIS ALLOWS
PRODUCERS TO COST EFFECTIVELY
IMPROVE ACCESS TO CONVENIENT
DISPOSAL. THEY CAN EITHER FUND
AND IMPROVE LOCAL SYSTEM, OR
THEY CAN CREATE AN ALTERNATIVE.
AS I SAY, WE'RE HAVING REALLY
ROBUST CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT
THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES MIGHT
LOOK LIKE, IT ALSO REQUIRES
ROBUST EDUCATION AND OUTREACH TO
ENSURE CONSUMERS KNOW WHICH
PRODUCTS ARE TOXIC AND HOW TO
HANDLE THEM PROPERLY. LASTLY,
THE BILL WILL ENCOURAGE
PRODUCERS TO INVEST IN LESS
TOXIC ALTERNATIVES. I KNOW
THAT'S BEEN AN AREA OF REAL
INTEREST FOR THIS COMMITTEE AND
MANY OF YOU MEMBERS I KNOW
BECAUSE NONE OF YOU HAVE BILLS
COME BEFORE EC ON THESE TOPICS.
I MEAN, THE IDEA IS THAT IF A
PRODUCER WOULD PREFER NOT TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE SYSTEM, THAT
WE STRUCTURE UNDER THE BILL,
THEY COULD ONE WAY TO GET OUT
WOULD BE TO REFORMULATE THEIR
PRODUCT TO A NONTOXIC
ALTERNATIVE UNDER THE CURRENT
SYSTEM, PRODUCERS DON'T CONSIDER
THE END OF LIFE COSTS WHEN
FORMULATING THEIR PRODUCTS.
THOSE COSTS DON'T APPEAR ON
THEIR BALANCE SHEETS. THEY HAVE
NO SKIN IN THE GAME, NO
ACCOUNTABILITY, AND WE'RE ALL
PAYING THE COST FOR THAT LACK OF
ACCOUNTABILITY, AND THE PROBLEM
IS THAT AS MUCH AS, YOU KNOW, WE
SOME FOLKS LOVE ONE OFFS, YOU
KNOW, THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT IS
TOO WIDESPREAD TO TACKLE,
PRODUCT BY PRODUCT, YOU KNOW,
THIS BILL SEEKS TO ESTABLISH A
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM TO ADDRESS
THE MOST DANGEROUS CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND SHIFTS THE BURDEN
FOR PAYING FOR THEIR END OF LIFE
MANAGEMENT FROM OUR LOCAL
CITIES. AND COUNTIES AND
RATEPAYERS, YOUR CONSTITUENTS,
REGULAR FOLKS BACK HOME TO THE
PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE MOST CONTROL
OVER THE DESIGN AND END USE OF
THESE PRODUCTS. THE PRODUCERS
THAT ARE PUTTING THESE PRODUCTS
OUT ONTO THE MARKET. WE'VE BEEN
WORKING REALLY DILIGENTLY WITH
THE INDUSTRY GROUPS OPPOSING
THIS BILL. WE'RE COMMITTED TO
CONTINUING THAT DISCUSSION. I'M
REALLY HOPEFUL THAT WE'RE GOING
TO BE ABLE TO FIND A PATH THAT
ALL STAKEHOLDERS CAN FEEL GOOD
ABOUT. TODAY, I HAVE HEIDI
SANBORN FROM NATIONAL
STEWARDSHIP ACTION COUNCIL AND
ALSO JOHN KENNEDY FROM THE RURAL
COUNTIES, TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL. THANK YOU, SENATOR
ALLEN, FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON
THIS. AND THANK YOU, MEMBERS. I
AM HEIDI SANBORN. I'M THE
DIRECTOR FOR THE NATIONAL
STEWARDSHIP ACTION COUNCIL. WE
ARE THE SPONSOR OF THIS BILL AND
OUR EXPERTS IN EPR NATIONALLY, I
WOULD CHAIRED THE STATEWIDE
COMMISSION ON RECYCLING MARKETS
AND CURBSIDE RECYCLING, AND WE
WERE TASKED WITH GIVING
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
LEGISLATURE ON WHAT TO DO WITH
WASTE ISSUES. WE CAME UP WITH 34
RECOMMENDATIONS IN TWO YEARS,
BUT THE FIRST ONE THAT WE CAME
UP WITH IN 2020 WAS THAT WE
NEEDED EPR FOR HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE. AND THE REASON
IS THAT THERE IS NO MARKET FOR
THESE MATERIALS. THEY'RE THE
MOST DANGEROUS. AND AS SENATOR
ALLEN SAID, WHEN WE GO TO
MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITIES, WE
LITERALLY SAW IN GALT AT THE
MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY THAT
ONLY TAKES BLUE BIN MATERIALS.
THEY PULLED 183,000 POUNDS OF
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE OFF OF
MATERIAL SORT LINE THAT WAS
SUPPOSED TO BE ONLY RECYCLABLES.
ALL OF THAT IS CONTAMINATING OUR
PACKAGING AND THE OTHER ITEMS
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO RECYCLE
THAT WE JUST PASSED WITH SB 54 A
FEW YEARS AGO. SO THIS IS GOING
TO BECOME AN ISSUE FOR ACTUALLY
THAT BILL AS WELL. THE COSTS ARE
OUTRAGEOUS FOR HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE, LA COUNTY IS
SPENDING $9 MILLION A YEAR AND
THEY ESTIMATE THEY'RE GETTING
ABOUT 5% OF IT BACK. IT'S
EXTRAORDINARILY EXPENSIVE. IT'S
DANGEROUS FOR OUR WORKERS. AND
WE HAVE ONE OF THE TOP TEN MOST
DANGEROUS WORKER INJURY RATES OF
ANY INDUSTRY. THE LEGISLATIVE
PATH PREVIOUSLY HAS BEEN PRODUCT
BY PRODUCT. WE'VE DONE MEDICINES
AND NEEDLES. WE'VE DONE PAINT,
BUT WHAT WE REALLY WANT TO SEE
IS ONE HARMONIZED STATEWIDE
APPROACH FOR WHAT'S LEFT.
BECAUSE IF WE KEEP GOING AT THIS
RATE, WE'RE JUST GOING TO ADD A
LOT OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR
ALL THESE DIFFERENT PRODUCER RUN
ORGANIZATIONS. ONE PRODUCT AT A
TIME. SO WE'VE BEEN MEETING WITH
STAKEHOLDERS. WE'RE TALKING TO
THE E-WASTE INDUSTRY AGAIN NEXT
WEEK. WE'RE EXCITED TO PAINTCARE
WANTS TO TAKE MORE OF THEIR
PRODUCTS BACK. THEY'VE GOT A
GREAT PROGRAM, AND WE'VE BEEN
WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION AND
EVEN OFFERED MAYBE A YEAR DELAY.
WE KNOW THERE'S A LOT GOING ON
RIGHT NOW, BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO
TALK ABOUT ALL THESE THINGS. BUT
WE REALLY DO NEED TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT THE MOST
DANGEROUS AND TOXIC PRODUCTS
THAT REALLY HAVE NO HOME FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT AND FOR PUBLIC
HEALTH. SO WE ASK RESPECTFULLY
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. GOOD
AFTERNOON, JOHN KENNEDY WITH
RURAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES OF
CALIFORNIA HERE TODAY TO SUPPORT
SB 1143. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE
REALLY THE BACKBONE OF SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AND
THIS INCLUDES HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT. WE OWN AND OPERATE
LANDFILLS, TRANSFER STATIONS,
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
COLLECTION FACILITIES, AND WE
MANAGE ALL THE MATERIALS THAT
COME INTO THOSE FACILITIES. SO
WE GET HÌ COMING INTO OUR
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
COLLECTION FACILITIES, TEMPORARY
EVENTS, LOAD CHECK PROGRAMS
WHERE THINGS ARE ACCIDENTALLY
DISCARDED IN THE TRASH THAT
SHOULDN'T BE, AND THEN CLEAN UP
OF ILLEGAL DUMPING, AT THE SAME
TIME, WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO
CONTROL OVER WHAT IS INTRODUCED
INTO THE MARKETPLACE THAT WE
HAVE TO MANAGE AT THE END OF ITS
USEFUL LIFE. IN SOME CASES, OUR
COST TO MANAGE A PRODUCT CAN
EQUAL OR EXCEED THE COST TO THE
CONSUMER AT THE POINT OF SALE
FOR THAT PRODUCT. MOST COUNTIES
OPERATE AT LEAST ONE PERMANENT
COLLECTION FACILITY. MANY OP
OPERATE TEMPORARY TAKE-BACK
EVENTS AS WELL. THESE AS THE
AUTHOR AND HEIDI MENTIONED, ARE
VERY EXPENSIVE TO OPERATE. EVEN
SMALLER PROGRAMS THAT HAVE
BUDGETS IN THE HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS CAN BE VERY
EXPENSIVE FOR VERY SMALL
COMMUNITIES, SO WE TRY TO MAKE
COLLECTION AS FREE AS POSSIBLE,
AS SAFE, CONVENIENT, AND
AFFORDABLE, MOST OF OUR
FACILITIES OFFER FREE DISPOSAL
TO RESIDENTS, TO KEEP THOSE
COSTS LOW, WELL, WE TRY TO KEEP
THOSE COSTS LOW BECAUSE HIGHER
GATE FEES WILL INDUCE PEOPLE TO
GO THROW STUFF AWAY, ILLEGALLY
ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. AND
THAT GETS MORE EXPENSIVE FOR US
TO MANAGE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GO
FIND IT. BY THAT TIME, IT MAY
HAVE DEGRADED. WE HAVE TO CLEAN
IT UP AND THEN BEAR THE COST OF
MANAGING IT. SO WE SUPPORT SB
1143 TODAY BECAUSE IT INCREASES
MANUFACTURER INVOLVEMENT IN THE
PROCESS OF MANAGING THE
PRODUCTS. THEY INTRODUCE INTO
THE MARKETPLACE. WE HOPE THAT
WILL LEAD TO PRODUCT AND
PACKAGING REDESIGN, A SINGLE
EXAMPLE WOULD BE GAS CYLINDERS.
IT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW THAT
THEY ARE EITHER REFILLABLE OR
THAT THEY CAN EASILY BE VERIFIED
AS EMPTY. IF EMPTY, WE CAN THROW
THEM IN THE TRASH OR RECYCLE
THEM. IF NOT EMPTY, THEY ARE
HAZARDOUS WASTE. AND THEN
FINALLY, IT HELPS US REDUCE HOW
MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL COSTS.
FOR THOSE REASONS, WE SUPPORT SB
1143 AND URGE YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANY PERSONS
IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD
LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR SUPPORT
FOR THIS MEASURE? CHRIS ARENAS
WITH CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE
IN SUPPORT OF THIS MEASURE.
MEGAN SHUMWAY, ON BEHALF OF
CLIMATE ACTION CALIFORNIA
CLIMATE REALITY PROJECTS,
CALIFORNIA CLIMATE COALITION AND
SACRAMENTO SANTA CRUZ CLIMATE
ACTION NETWORK IN SUPPORT. MR.
CHAIR DYLAN ELLIOTT, ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, THE COUNTY OF SAN
JOAQUIN, CALIFORNIA. PRODUCT
STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL, STOP WASTE,
THE WESTERN PLACER WASTE
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, AND SOLID
WASTE ASSOCIATION OF NORTH
AMERICA ALL IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. MELISSA ROMERO, CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL
VOTERS IN SUPPORT MEGAN
MECKLENBURG ON BEHALF OF RETHINK
WASTE AND SUPPORT MELISSA SPARKS
KRANZ WITH THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES AND SUPPORT
JORDAN WELLS EXPRESSING SUPPORT
FOR A ZERO WASTE SONOMA NAPA
RECYCLING AND WASTE SERVICES.
SEA HUGGER MARIN SANITARY
SERVICE, SUSTAINABLE MILL VALLEY
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS BANNED
SINGLE USE PLASTICS. CLEAN WATER
ACTION. PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK
D SPRAY ENVIRONMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP.
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RECYCLING
ASSOCIATION. ZERO WASTE MARIN
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY. MOJAVE
DESERT AND MOUNTAIN RECYCLING
AUTHORITY. ELDERS CLIMATE
ACTION, NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA CHAPTERS, NORTH
AMERICAN HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION FIVE
GYRES AND GREEN WASTE. THANK YOU
. GOOD AFTERNOON. LINDSAY GOLDEN
WITH CAPITAL ADVOCACY ON BEHALF
OF THE RESOURCE RECOVERY
COALITION OF CALIFORNIANS, JOHN
MOFFITT, ON BEHALF OF WASTE
MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT DAVID
KRIEGER FOR WASTE CONNECTIONS
AND SUPPORT JEREMY JONES,
AMERICAN COATINGS ASSOCIATION,
PARENT ORGANIZATION OF PAINTCARE
AND PROUD SAN DIEGO COUNTY
RESIDENT IN SUPPORT. JOSH KOGER,
ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTIES OF
SANTA CLARA, LOS ANGELES AND
SANTA BARBARA IN SUPPORT, TURN
MEMBERS ROMAN VOGELSANG WITH THE
PREY AND COMPANY ON BEHALF OF
REPUBLIC SERVICES AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANY PERSONS
IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD
LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR
OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURE? COME
ON DOWN. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. CHAIR MEMBERS. NICOLE
QUINONES, ON BEHALF OF THE
HOUSEHOLD AND COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION, IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1143, OUR
MEMBERS MANUFACTURE MANY OF THE
PRODUCTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN
THE SCOPE OF THIS BILL FROM
PESTICIDES, WHICH INCLUDE
HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS LIKE
DISINFECTANTS TO AEROSOL
PRODUCTS AND AUTOMOTIVE
PRODUCTS. WE APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE AND SPONSORS FOR
THEIR WILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE WITH
US ON THIS IMPORTANT TOPIC.
HOWEVER, WE BELIEVE PASSING SB
1143 THIS YEAR WOULD BE
PREMATURE FOR THE FOLLOWING
REASONS, SB 54 BY SENATOR ALLEN.
MR. EPR AS YOU TERMED, IS THE
MOST COMPREHENSIVE AND RIGOROUS
EPR PROGRAM IN THE COUNTRY
DESIGNED TO MANAGE PACKAGING
WASTE, AND THE COMPANIES WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF SB 54 ARE ALSO
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS BILL.
1143 THERE IS SOME SIGNIFICANT
OVERLAP THERE, AS WELL AS CAL
RECYCLE STAFF, WHICH WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO CREATE THE PROGRAM
AND DEVELOP IT ALL OF THOSE
PARTIES ARE SPENDING SIGNIFICANT
RESOURCES BOTH TIME AND
FINANCIAL, TO ENSURE THAT SB 54
IS IMPLEMENTED CORRECTLY AND
EVERYONE IS COMPLYING, AND THAT
THAT PROGRAM IS SUCCESSFUL.
BECAUSE OF THAT OVERLAP, THERE'S
ALSO OVERLAP BETWEEN THE SCOPE
OF THE PROGRAMS, SOME OF THE
PACKAGING THAT WOULD CONTAIN THE
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
MATERIAL, COULD BE INCLUDED
UNDER THE SCOPE OF SB 1143, AND
WE BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD ONLY,
YOU KNOW, THOSE PRODUCTS SHOULD
ONLY BE COVERED BY ONE EPR
PROGRAM, WE ALSO BELIEVE MORE
STUDY IS WARRANTED IN LIEU OF
ESTABLISHING THE NEW EPR PROGRAM
FOR HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE DON'T
OBJECT TO THE EXPANSION OF THE
PAINTCARE PROGRAM, BUT WE HAVE
OFFERED TO CONDUCT AN INDUSTRY
FUNDED NEEDS ASSESSMENT TO
BETTER UNDERSTAND THE GAPS IN
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT, AND
MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE RESOURCES
THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO
IMPROVE ITS COLLECTION. THAT
WOULD BE JUST A FIRST STEP, AND
WE WOULD BE COMMITTED TO COMING
BACK TO THE TABLE. ONCE WE HAVE
THAT DATA TO CREATE A BETTER
PROGRAM. MOVING FORWARD.
ADDITIONALLY, AS THE ANALYSIS
NOTES, DTSC IS UPDATING THEIR
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN,
WHICH IS DUE TO THE LEGISLATURE
IN MARCH OF 2025. AND WE SEE
THIS REPORT AS A CRITICAL FOR
SETTING THE FOUNDATION OF WHAT
IS CONSIDERED HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE. CALIFORNIA HAS
THE STRICTEST CRITERIA IN THE
NATION FOR DETERMINING WHAT IS
HAZARDOUS WASTE, WHICH RESULTS
IN MANY MORE PRODUCTS BEING
MANAGED AS HAZARDOUS THAN WOULD
BE ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY.
DTSC IS CONSIDERING WHETHER THIS
STRICT CRITERIA ARE STILL
NECESSARY CONSIDERING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS THAT
ARE NOW IN PLACE, SUCH AS BETTER
SOLID WASTE FACILITY DESIGNS. WE
BELIEVE ADDRESSING THE CRITERIA
PRIOR TO ESTABLISHING THIS
PROGRAM WILL CREATE A MORE EVEN
PLAYING FIELD AND AVOID THE NEED
TO POTENTIALLY REMOVE PRODUCERS
AND PRODUCTS WHO HAVE ALREADY
PAID INTO ESTABLISHING A NEW PRO
IF THEY ARE CONCEIVABLY NO
LONGER IN SCOPE. ONCE THAT
CRITERIA IS UPDATED. BUT WITH
THAT, WE ARE COMMITTED MINUTES.
OKAY. WITH THAT, WE'RE COMMITTED
TO WORKING TO IMPROVE THE
MANAGEMENT OF HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE IN THE STATE.
BUT ARE OPPOSED TODAY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANY
OTHER PERSONS IN THE HEARING
ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER
THEIR OPPOSITION? THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS. DAWN CAPC, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION, AS WELL AS THE
CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF
CALIFORNIA, IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. DAN CHAUFFER,
REDWOOD MATERIALS. WE HAVE AN
OPPOSING AMENDMENT POSITION, BUT
I THINK WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET TO
NEUTRAL WITH THE DISCUSSION WITH
THE AUTHOR AND THE SPONSOR.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
TAYLOR, ON BEHALF OF WESTERN
PLANT HEALTH ASSOCIATION AND
RISE IN OPPOSING. GREG HERNER,
ON BEHALF OF THE CAN
MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE IN
OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON, ADAM
WRIGLEY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
BABETTE FRANKEL, ON BEHALF OF
THE AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. GOOD
AFTERNOON. AND LEE AUGUSTINE, ON
BEHALF OF CONSUMER BRANDS
ASSOCIATION. RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. WE'LL NOW TURN IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ANY
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS
FOR THE AUTHOR, ASSUMING
BAUER-KAHAN. SO I WANT TO THANK
MR. EXTENDED RESPONSIBILITIES.
WHAT DO YOU CALL THEM, MR. CHAIR
MR. PRA MR. MR. PRA. YOU KNOW,
AND I THINK THIS IS REALLY
IMPORTANT. I USED TO DO
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL AS PART
OF MY LEGAL PRACTICE, AND EVEN I
WOULD REALIZE IN THE COURSE OF
MY PRACTICE THAT I WAS DISPOSING
OF THINGS WRONG. IT IS THAT
COMPLICATED TO GET IT RIGHT. AND
SO I THINK IT IS REALLY CRITICAL
THAT WE FIGURE OUT HOW TO
EDUCATE FOLKS SO THAT WE'RE NOT
PUTTING THINGS IN LANDFILLS WE
OTHERWISE SHOULDN'T BE, AND MAKE
IT EASY ENOUGH THAT PEOPLE WILL
ACTUALLY DISPOSE OF THESE THINGS
PROPERLY, BUT I WANTED TO DIVE
IN A LITTLE BIT TO THE LIST YOU
HAVE HERE, INSTEAD OF JUST WHAT
IS ALREADY DEFINED AS HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE, WHICH COULD BE
AMENDED, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A
LIST IN THE BILL, AND IT WAS A
LITTLE BIT PERPLEXING TO ME. I
ACTUALLY FEEL LIKE YOUR WITNESS
WHO SAID THAT AN EMPTY GAS
CYLINDER WOULDN'T QUALIFY
ACCORDING TO THIS. I THINK IT
WOULD, BECAUSE IT JUST LISTS GAS
CYLINDERS. IT DOESN'T SAY THEY
HAVE TO BE FULL. AND THEN YOU
HAVE LIKE HEALTH AND BEAUTY
PRODUCTS ARE OUT, BUT AEROSOLS
ARE IN. SO I GUESS TALK TO ME
WHAT Þ AND MR. FULLER WANTS ME
TO STOP TALKING. ABOUT IT. SO WE
WERE TRYING TO NARROW BECAUSE
THERE ARE THINGS LIKE CONSUMER
BEAUTY PRODUCTS THAT WE CLEARLY
THAT'S NOT THE TARGET. WE'RE
TRYING TO GET THE MOST DANGEROUS
AND TOXIC THINGS. AND I DO
BELIEVE THAT THAT MIGHT HAVE
BEEN A MISSTATEMENT. WE'VE ALSO
GOT THE LAIRD BILL THAT'S
DEALING WITH GAS CYLINDERS AS
WELL. SO THAT'S IN PLAY, SO WE
TRIED TO NARROW IT DOWN, AND
THERE'S EVEN OTHER PRODUCTS THAT
WE FOUND THAT HAVE COME IN TO
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES SINCE
WE STARTED WORKING ON THIS, THAT
ARE ODD THINGS THAT AREN'T
COVERED. BUT AT THIS POINT, WE
JUST WANT TO GET THE CORE MOST
DANGEROUS, TOXIC THINGS THAT ARE
ENDING UP THE MOST DISPOSED OF
IN THE WRONG PLACES NOW AND THEN
LATER. THOSE DISCUSSIONS CAN
HAPPEN WITH DTSC, AND THEY'RE
LOOKING AT AT ALL OF. THAT'S WHY
WE'VE OFFERED A DELAY AS WELL,
BECAUSE WE FINE. I MEAN, I'M NOT
SURE IN MARCH IF WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF NEW
INFORMATION FROM DTSC, BUT WE DO
KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF
DANGEROUS THINGS. AND IF WE WAIT
TO DO ANYTHING, THAT'S KIND OF
WHY WE'RE WHERE WE'RE AT,
BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S BEEN
WAITING, WAITING, WAITING FOR
MORE CLARITY ON WHO'S IN CHARGE.
WE'VE GOT TWO AGENCIES THAT ARE
PARTLY IN RESPONSE. YOU KNOW,
RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE PRODUCTS,
BUT NOBODY'S EVER REALLY TAKEN
THIS ON. AND SO WE'RE WE
NARROWED IT TO SOMETHING THAT WE
THINK IS THE MOST URGENT TO
MANAGE AND TO CLARIFY. SO THIS
LIST ISN'T EVERYTHING THAT WE
SEE IN OUR FACILITIES. WE'VE
BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS. WE HAD A 10
POUND CAN OF I THINK IT WAS
CALCIUM CARBIDE, COME INTO OUR
FACILITY. IT'S GOING TO COST US
$2,000 TO PROPERLY DISPOSE OF
THAT. IT'S NOT COVERED HERE. AND
THAT'S FINE. THIS IS GOING TO
HELP WITH A LOT OF THE THINGS
THAT DO COME INTO OUR
FACILITIES. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
CYLINDERS, SAY, PROPANE OR
SOMETHING. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE
MANAGED AS TO HOW IF IT'S
COMPLETELY EMPTY, IT'S HARD,
VERY HARD FOR US TO TELL IF IT'S
COMPLETELY EMPTY, IF THERE'S ANY
RESIDUAL LEFT, IT'S AGE THAT'S
FAIR. AND SO THEY ARE COMING TO
OUR FACILITIES. THEY ARE MANAGED
AS HW, BUT IF WE CAN NUDGE SOME
OF THE MANUFACTURERS TO DESIGN
SOME OF THESE PRODUCTS, SO WE
CAN TELL THAT THEY'RE EMPTY,
THAT ELIMINATES SOME THINGS FROM
OUR HW WASTE STREAM, ELIMINATES
SOME OF THE COSTS THAT THEY
WOULD OTHERWISE BEAR. SO IT'S SO
I GUESS I, I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU
GUYS ARE SAYING. AND YET I THINK
YOUR BILL DOESN'T FUNCTION THE
WAY YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IT,
WHICH IS TO GIVE THE FLEXIBILITY
FOR WHAT YOU JUST SAID TO BE
TRUE, I THINK IS MEANINGFUL. AND
I DON'T KNOW THAT THE BILL DOES
THIS BECAUSE IT'S SO DELINEATED.
RIGHT. SO I DON'T I GUESS THAT'S
WHERE I'M A LITTLE BIT STUCK,
BECAUSE I THINK I REALLY
APPRECIATED WHAT THE SENATOR
SAID ABOUT MOVING US TO MORE
RESPONSIBLE PRODUCTS. BUT WHEN
YOU LIST ALL FERTILIZERS, RIGHT,
WITH NO DELINEATE, NO ROOM TO
SAY IF YOU'RE MOVING TO A LESS
TOXIC FERTILIZER THAT PERHAPS
DOESN'T QUALIFY, THAT'S NOT
INCLUDED HERE. SO I GUESS I'M
JUST, WELL, STRUGGLING TO SEE
HOW IT FUNCTIONS THE WAY YOU
INTEND IT TO. IT'S UNDER THE
UMBRELLA OF THE FOUR KEY THINGS
THAT MAKE SOMETHING TOXIC, WHICH
MEANS IT HAS TO BE CORROSIVE,
FLAMMABLE. AND THERE'S TWO
OTHERS THAT I'LL FORGET, BUT
THAT IT HAS TO MEET THOSE
CRITERIA FIRST BEFORE IT'S UNDER
THAT LIST. SO IF IT'S A
FERTILIZER THAT'S NOT MEETING
ONE OF THOSE FOUR, THEN IT WOULD
NOT QUALIFY. THEY WOULD BE THEY
COULD BE OUT OF THE PROGRAM.
TOXIC. YEAH. GOT IT. OKAY. SO
THAT'S WHAT HE WAS SAYING. YEAH.
GOT IT. AND IT'S ALL OF THESE
THINGS. SO IT HAS TO QUALIFY AS
HOUSEHOLD ADDRESS AND BE ONE OF
THOSE PRODUCTS, CORRECT? YES.
GOT IT, SO IF THEY WERE TO TAKE
IT OUT OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS
WASTE, THEN IT WOULD NO LONGER
BE COVERED BY THIS. EXACTLY.
CORRECT. THAT'S OUR GOAL.
CLARIFICATION I NEEDED, SO I DO
THINK LOOK, I DON'T HAVE A LOT
OF FAITH IN DTSC. THEY'RE GOING
TO BE RIGHT ON TIME. I DON'T
KNOW THAT ANYBODY IN THE ROOM,
INCLUDING MR. ALLEN, DOES,
SEEING AS HE'S THE ONE WHO GOES
AFTER TSC THE MOST IN THE
LEGISLATURE, BUT, BUT I DO THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DO MAKE
ROOM FOR FOLKS TO BE ABLE TO
ADAPT AND COMPLY, AND I, I'M
VERY I MEAN, HAVING AGAIN DONE
DISPOSAL MYSELF, I'M SYMPATHETIC
TO NOT ONLY THE COST BUT THE
REACTIONS THAT HAPPEN. IT'S
DANGEROUS TO NOT BE DISPOSING OF
THESE THINGS PROPERLY FOR THE
HUMANS WHO ARE INTERACTING WITH
THESE PRODUCTS AND NOT EVEN
REALIZING THEY ARE. AND SO, FOR
EVERYONE WATCHING, STORE YOUR
POOL CHEMICALS SEPARATELY, BUT,
YOU KNOW, I THINK WE DO NEED TO
BE CAREFUL IN HOW WE DRAFT THIS.
I HOPE YOU'LL CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH THE OPPOSITION TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE ARE LEAVING ROOM FOR
THEM TO CONTINUE TO WORK AND
ENSURE THIS COVERS THE PRODUCTS
WE NEED TO COVER. AND AS WE MOVE
FORWARD TO LEAVE OUT THOSE THAT
DON'T. BUT I APPRECIATE THE
CLARIFICATION. SEEING THAT, MR.
ALLEN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
YEAH, APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION.
AND WE'RE VERY COMMITTED TO
SEEING, YOU KNOW WHAT WE CAN
LAND THIS SUMMER. YOU KNOW,
AGAIN, THESE EPR BILLS ARE
COMPLICATED. THERE'S A LOT OF
DETAILS ASSOCIATED WITH EVERY
PRODUCT. EVERYONE'S DIFFERENT.
YOU CAN'T JUST APPLY A MODEL AND
YOU KNOW, JUST FROM FROM ONE
BILL TO ANOTHER. AND IT'S WHAT
MAKES THIS WORK REALLY FUN BUT
ALSO CHALLENGING AND, I'M, YOU
KNOW, I, I'M, I HEAR THE CONCERN
ABOUT WANTING TO MAKE SURE, THAT
THAT WE HAVE THIS UPDATED PLAN
FROM DTSA. I WILL SAY, I THINK
WE HAVE A GENERAL SENSE OF
WHAT'S GOING TO BE IN THERE. WE
ALSO IT'S PART OF WHY WE PROVIDE
SUCH A LONG, RUNWAY. AND WE
CONTINUE TO, TO BE OPEN TO NEW
SUGGESTIONS AS TO HOW TO ENSURE
THAT THIS CAN BE IMPLEMENTED AS,
AS EFFECTIVELY AND SEAMLESSLY
AND PAINLESSLY AS POSSIBLE FOR
INDUSTRY. AND I THINK THAT'S
GOING TO BE THE FOCUS OF OUR
CONVERSATIONS OVER THE NEXT
MONTH, ASSUMING THE BILL GETS
OUT OF COMMITTEE TODAY. SO IT'S
IN THAT SPIRIT THAT I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE.
THANK YOU. MR. ALLEN. THIS BILL
HAS A DO PASS ON THE CHAIR. DO
WE HAVE A MOTION? SENATOR BAUER
KHN. ASSEMBLYMEMBER PELLERIN,
MADAM SECRETARY, CAN WE CALL THE
ROLL? THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. BRIAN, I, BRIAN,
I. FLORA. FLORA. NÓ. BAUER. KHN
BAUER. KHN. AYE. COLIN.
CONNOLLY CONNOLLY. AYE. FRIEDMAN
HOOVER. CHOLERA LACKEY.
NONVOTING. LACKEY. NOT VOTING.
MURATSUCHI. PELLERIN PELLERIN.
AYE. WIX WOULD. PASS FOR WILL.
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN. ALL RIGHT.
ALL RIGHT. LAST ONE, SB 571, NO.
WE'VE ALREADY DONE THAT. WE HAVE
ALREADY DONE THAT. YEAH. BRING
US HOME, MR. ALLEN. THIS ONE'S,
1231. SO LET ME LET ME
ESPECIALLY THANK THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR DIGGING INTO THIS
BILL. I'M VERY HAPPY TO ACCEPT
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. THIS
BILL COMES OUT OF ONE OF THE
PROBLEMS WITH WITH BEING AROUND
HERE FOR A LITTLE WHILE IS THAT
YOU THEN HAVE TO KIND OF WORK ON
YOUR PREVIOUS LEGISLATION AND,
AND ALL THE FOLKS THAT YOU
NEGOTIATED WITH. SO IT'S PART OF
THE FUN, BUT IT'S ALSO PART OF
THE RESPONSIBILITY. SO THIS BILL
WILL ALLOW PRODUCERS TO LABEL
CERTAIN PACKAGING AS RECYCLABLE
AS THEY WORK TO IMPROVE
RECYCLING RATES OF THEIR
MATERIALS, TO IMPLEMENT SB 54,
THE Kò PRECURSOR TO SB 54, WAS
PASSED IN 2021, WHICH WAS SB
343, WHICH SOUGHT TO REDUCE
CONSUMER CONFUSION AND RECYCLING
CONTAMINATION BY REQUIRING
MATERIAL TO MEET STRICT
RECYCLABILITY STANDARDS IN ORDER
TO BE LABELED WITH A CHASING
ARROWS RECYCLING SYMBOL IN THAT
BILL, WE INCLUDED AN ON RAMP
THAT ALLOWS THE SYMBOL ON
CERTAIN MATERIAL. IF THAT
MATERIAL MEETS THREE KEY
CRITERIA, IT HAS TO BE PART OF A
STATEWIDE PROGRAM AIMED AT
INCREASING RECYCLING RATES. THIS
IS SB 54, WHICH IS, OF COURSE,
OUR BIG PLASTICS PACKAGING BILL.
NUMBER TWO, CALRECYCLE HAS TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE MATERIAL
IS LIKELY TO MEET THE AMBITIOUS
RECYCLING RATES IN SB 54. AND
THEN FINALLY, THEY HAVE TO
DETERMINE THAT THE CONTINUING TO
PUT THE MATERIAL IN THE RECYCLE
BIN WOULD NOT CONTAMINATE THE
RECYCLING STREAM. NOW, THE
LANGUAGE IN SB 54 INADVERTENTLY
PRECLUDES CALRECYCLE FROM
IDENTIFYING WHICH MATERIAL COULD
QUALIFY FOR THIS. ON RAMP UNTIL
2027, AFTER THE DEADLINE FOR
REMOVING THE SYMBOL HAS ALREADY
PASSED. THIS IS A PROBLEM
BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO
PRECLUDE PRODUCERS FROM
ENCOURAGING CONSUMERS TO PUT THE
MATERIAL INTO THEIR BLUE BINS IF
THAT MATERIAL CAN ACHIEVE THE
HIGH RECYCLING RATES THAT ARE
REQUIRED BY CURRENT LAW, THAT
WOULD ONLY LEAD TO MORE CONSUMER
CONFUSION AND UNDERMINE EFFORTS.
WHEN PRODUCERS ARE WORKING IN
GOOD FAITH TO MEET THEIR
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND
INVEST IN RECYCLING
INFRASTRUCTURE. SO, SO TO AVOID
THIS, THIS BILL WOULD ALLOW
PRODUCERS TO PETITION CALRECYCLE
TO CONTINUE TO USE THE CHASING
ARROWS SYMBOL ON A PARTICULAR
MATERIAL TYPE IF THEY CAN
DEMONSTRATE TO THE DEPARTMENT
SATISFACTION THAT THE MATERIAL
MEETS THOSE THREE CRITERIA THAT
WE OUTLINED EARLIER. THIS WILL
FULFILL THE ON RAMPS AT ORIGINAL
INTENT, AND ENSURE THAT SB 54 IS
WORKABLE FOR BUSINESSES STRIVING
TO IMPLEMENT IT. THE STRICT
CRITERIA ENSURE THAT WE ARE NOT
COMPROMISING OUR OVERALL
ENVIRONMENTAL AND RECYCLING
GOALS. IMPORTANTLY, BECAUSE THIS
PETITION PROCESS IS PART OF SB
54, IT'S FULLY PAID FOR BY THE
PRODUCERS. THERE ARE NO COSTS TO
THE DEPARTMENT, NO COST TO
TAXPAYERS, AND SO WITH ME HERE
TODAY IS BRUCE MAGNANI FROM THE
RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP. AND
JORDAN WELLS FROM THE NATIONAL
STEWARDSHIP ACTION COUNCIL TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
THANK YOU, SENATOR ALLEN, CHAIR
AND VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. I AM JORDAN WELLS
WITH THE NATIONAL STEWARDSHIP
ACTION COUNCIL, A NONPROFIT THAT
ADVOCATES FOR AN EQUITABLE
CIRCULAR ECONOMY. WE WERE PROUD
CO-SPONSORS OF THE FIRST IN THE
NATION TRUTH IN RECYCLING
LABELING LAW SB 343 BY SENATOR
ALLEN, WHICH WAS SIGNED INTO LAW
IN 2021 AND PROHIBITED THE USE
OF THE OF RECYCLING
RECYCLABILITY CLAIMS ON PRODUCTS
AND PACKAGING THAT ARE NOT
ACTUALLY RECYCLED IN CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITIES. OUR ORGANIZATION
WAS ALSO ONE OF FIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL NGOS THAT
PARTICIPATED IN THE OVER TEN
MONTHS OF INTENSE NEGOTIATIONS
FOR SB 54, WHICH IS NOW THE
WORLD'S BOLDEST PLASTIC
POLLUTION REDUCTION AND EXTENDED
PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY LAW.
HOWEVER, THE VERSION OF SB 54
THAT WAS SIGNED INTO LAW
INADVERTENTLY CREATED A TIMELINE
MISALIGNMENT BETWEEN THE TWO
LAWS THAT POSES SERIOUS
CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION,
AND SB 1231 ENSURES A VITAL
OPPORTUNITY FOR PRODUCERS TO
SEEK APPROVAL FROM CALRECYCLE
FOR THE USE OF THE CHASING ARROW
SYMBOL AND OTHER RECYCLABILITY
CLAIMS ON PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
IF THEY ARE ON THE PATH TO
MEETING RECYCLABILITY STANDARDS
SET IN SB 343. TO BE ELIGIBLE,
PRODUCERS MUST DEMONSTRATE
INVESTMENTS AND SIGNIFICANT
IMPROVEMENTS TO RECYCLABILITY.
SB 1231 DOES NOT CREATE A
LOOPHOLE. IT CORRECTS AN ERROR
BY ALLOWING PRODUCERS TO
PETITION CALRECYCLE, ENSURING A
FAIR AND PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO
ADVANCING RECYCLING INITIATIVES.
THANK YOU, SENATOR ALLEN, FOR
CONTINUING TO STAND BY YOUR
COMMITMENTS AND FOR AUTHORING SB
1231 CHAIR AND MEMBERS, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A NIGHT
VOTE. CHAIR AND MEMBERS BRUCE
MAGNANI, ON BEHALF OF THE
RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP, THE
RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP IS A
PRIVATE NONPROFIT THAT WORKS
WITH COMMUNITIES, LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, STATE GOVERNMENT,
AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS TO
STRENGTHEN AND GROW THE
RECYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE
STATE AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY,
JORDAN AND THE SENATOR DID A
GREAT JOB IN LAYING OUT WHAT THE
PROBLEM IS. THERE WAS AN
INADVERTENT, MISALIGNMENT. AND
THE TEN MONTHS THAT YOU
NEGOTIATED SB 54 AND ALL OF THE
MINES THAT WERE INVOLVED IN
THAT, NO MATTER HOW BRIGHT, HOW
DILIGENT, WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING
SO MASSIVE, YOU'RE BOUND TO HAVE
A FEW ERRORS AND A FEW THINGS
THAT JUST AREN'T GOING TO LINE
UP. AND AS WE WORK THROUGH, IT'S
TAKING SOMETHING FROM CONCEPT TO
REALITY. SO WE'RE IN REALITY
NOW, AND THAT'S WITH THE
REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SB
54. AND THIS ALIGNMENT BECAME
CLEAR THAT IT WAS A PROBLEM, WE
ALL KNOW THAT THE WORLD IS NOT
STATIC AND THINGS ARE CONSTANTLY
CHANGING. SO YOU HAVE INNOVATION
IN PACKAGING, INNOVATION IN
MATERIALS, RESINS, ETC. SO YOU
NEED THIS ON RAMP. AND THAT WAS
AGREED TO, I THINK, BY ALL
STAKEHOLDERS IN SB 54. AND THEN
YOU ALSO HAVE ITEMS THAT DIDN'T
HAVE THAT ROBUST SUPPORT, SAY
OUR BEVERAGE CONTAINER HAS, AND
GETTING RECYCLING RATES UP TO
REALLY ADEQUATE NUMBERS. SO YOU
HAVE CERTAIN RESIN TYPES THAT
ARE DOING REALLY, REALLY WELL,
EVEN WITHOUT SUBSIDIES. BUT THEY
NEED TO GET PUSHED UP OVER THAT
HURDLE. THAT'S WHAT THESE ON
RAMPS ARE FOR. IT'S SO WE'RE NOT
CREATING PROBLEMS. WE'RE NOT
CREATING LOOPHOLES OR WAYS FOR
PEOPLE TO GET OUT OF IT. WHAT
WE'RE REALLY DOING IS WE'RE
SAYING THESE ARE THE STRONGEST
PARTS OF OUR RECYCLING
INFRASTRUCTURE, AND WE DON'T
WANT TO INHIBIT INNOVATION. SO I
THINK WE'RE TRYING TO RESOLVE A
PROBLEM HERE. AND I THINK WITH
THE STAFF'S HELP, I THINK WE'RE
GETTING ON THE RIGHT TRACK. AND
I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME
TODAY AND ASK FOR AN I VOTE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, SIR. ARE
THERE ANY PERSONS IN THE HEARING
ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER
THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS MEASURE?
BILL. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS DAWN KOEPKE, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS
AND TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION, IN
STRONG SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON,
NICOLE QUINONES ON BEHALF OF THE
HOUSEHOLD AND COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION, IN SUPPORT
DYLAN ELLIOTT ON BEHALF OF
STOPWASTE IN SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON. ANNALEE AUGUSTINE
HERE ON BEHALF OF CONSUMER
BRANDS ASSOCIATION, WE DO HAVE
CONCERNS WITH THE RECENT
AMENDMENTS, BUT WE'RE PLEASED TO
SUPPORT THE BILL. THANK YOU.
OBED FRANKEL, ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL IN
SUPPORT MARGIE LEE ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF FOOD
PRODUCERS, IN SUPPORT. KELLY
LARUE WITH RESILIENT ADVOCACY ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FOREST
AND PAPER ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
ADAM WRIGLEY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN SUPPORT.
THANKS RYAN. ELAINE, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA RETAILERS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. CHRIS QUIGLEY, PLASTICS
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, IN SUPPORT
. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANYBODY IN
THE HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE
TO REGISTER THEIR OPPOSITION TO
THIS MEASURE? HI, I'M JUDY,
SORRY, I REPRESENT 350 BAY AREA
AND WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, MISS JUDY. WE'LL NOW TURN
IT TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS
FROM COMMITTEE. SEEING NONE.
SEEING NONE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION
? GREAT. MR. ALLEN, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE, RESPECTFULLY.
YOU'VE HEARD ENOUGH FROM ME
TODAY. WHO WAS THE MOTION FROM
FLORA. WITH THE MOTION? A SECOND
FROM MISS PELLERIN. MADAM
SECRETARY, CAN WE CALL THE ROLL
FOR THE LAST TIME ON SENATOR
ALLEN? MOTION IS DO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS. ONE
CAN ONLY HOPE. BRIAN I BRIAN, I
FLORA. FLORA. I BAUER-KAHAN
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. I FRIEDMAN.
HOOVER. CHOLERA LAKI. LAKI I
MURATSUCHI. PELLERIN. PELLERIN I
WOOD. WICKS. WOOD ALL RIGHT,
WE'LL LEAVE IT OPEN FOR MISSING
AUTHORS. SENATOR WIENER.
YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. DO
YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE? FOR WHICH
ONE? WE KNOW. WHICH ONE WOULD
YOU LIKE TO START WITH? SB 312
312. IT IS. BILL. THANK YOU.
YES, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR,
I'M HERE TO PRESENT SB 312, TO
MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CEQA
EXEMPTION FROM SB 886 FROM A FEW
YEARS AGO FOR, ON FOR STUDENT
HOUSING AND FACULTY HOUSING AT
UC, CSU, AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES,
AND FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO
THANK THE CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE FOR WORKING VERY
DILIGENTLY AND HARD WITH US. I'M
SUPER APPRECIATIVE, AND WE'RE
HAPPY TO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS, COLLEAGUES, WE KNOW
THAT THE STUDENT HOUSING CRISIS
IS JUST IT'S HORRIFIC AT THIS
POINT. 10% OF CSU STUDENTS, 19%
OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS,
AND 5% ONE OUT OF 20 UC
STUDENTS, EXPERIENCED
HOMELESSNESS IN A GIVEN YEAR, A
FEW YEARS AGO, WE PASSED SB 886,
WHICH PASSED THIS COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU TO CREATE A CEQA
EXEMPTION FOR STUDENT HOUSING
AND FACULTY HOUSING. AFTER WE
PASSED IT, WE REALIZED THAT THE
THAT THE EXEMPTION WAS NOT
USABLE. AND AS A RESULT, IT'S
NEVER BEEN, INVOKED. AND SO WE
WORKED WITH THE èC AND OTHERS,
ON IDEAS FOR HOW TO MAKE THE
EXEMPTION. USABLE, WE THEN
WORKED WITH SENATE, EAC AND THEN
WITH THIS COMMITTEE AND WITH THE
BILL BEFORE US AND WITH THE
AMENDMENTS AND THE ANALYSIS, I
THINK WE HAVE AN EXEMPTION THAT
WILL ACTUALLY WORK AND BE USABLE
, AND SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE AND AGAIN, THANK THE
CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE, WITH ME
TODAY IS JORDAN CARBAJAL WITH
CALIFORNIA YIMBY AND SANDRA
ADLEY, A STUDENT AT CSU
SACRAMENTO WITH CHEN UP. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBER OF
THE COMMITTEE. I'M SORRY, A
MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME
IS SANDRA ADLEY, AND I'M A
RECENT GRADUATE FROM SACRAMENTO
STATE UNIVERSITY WITH A
BACKGROUND IN POLITICAL SCIENCE
AND ECONOMICS. I'M HERE TODAY TO
EXPRESS MY CONCERNS REGARDING
THE CURRENT STUDENT HOUSING
CRISIS, PARTICULARLY IN SAC.
RAMENTO HAS A FIRST GENERATION
PRE-LAW STUDENT. I'VE
EXPERIENCED FIRSTHAND THE
CHALLENGES OF FINDING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN THE AREA. WHILE
MAINTAINING SCHOOL WORK AND
INTERNSHIPS. THE HIGH COST OF
LIVING HAS SIGNIFICANTLY
IMPACTED NOT ONLY MY ACADEMIC
PURSUITS, BUT ALSO THE
WELL-BEING OF MANY OF MY FELLOW
STUDENTS. THE SITUATION HAS
BECOME INCREASINGLY DIRE, AND
IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDS TO ENSURE
THAT STUDENTS CAN ACCESS SAFE
AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING AFTER
RELOCATING FOR MY STUDIES, I
STRUGGLED TO SECURE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND EVENTUALLY SETTLED
FOR A SHARED APARTMENT OF FOUR,
EACH PAYING OVER 1200 A MONTH IN
RENT STARTING AT THE AGE OF 17,
I OFTEN FOUND MYSELF STAYING UP
LATE. WHETHER IT WAS WORKING OR
WORRYING ABOUT HOW I WOULD
MANAGE MY EXPENSES TO MAKE ENDS
MEET. I HAD TAKEN A MINIMUM WAGE
JOB, OFTEN FACING LATE NIGHT
SHIFTS WHILE STILL ATTEMPTING TO
MAINTAIN A FULL COURSE OF LOAD
AND PURSUE INTERNSHIPS. THE
FINANCIAL BURDEN FORCED ME TO
MAKE DIFFICULT SACRIFICES,
RESTRICTING ACCESS TO RESOURCES,
OPPORTUNITIES ESSENTIAL FOR MY
EDUCATION AND FUTURE CAREER
PROSPECTS. I HAD TO FORGO
EXTRACURRICULAR EXTRACURRICULAR
ACTIVITIES, NETWORKING
OPPORTUNITIES, AND YET, AND EVEN
SOME CLASSES THAT WERE CRUCIAL
FOR MY ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT. I'M NOT ALONE IN
THIS STRUGGLE. MANY OF MY
FRIENDS AND CLASSMATES HAVE
SIMILAR STORIES. ONE FRIEND HAD
TO COMMUTE OVER AN HOUR EACH WAY
FROM HOME, BECAUSE IT WAS THE
ONLY WAY SHE COULD AFFORD
COLLEGE, AND ANOTHER WHO WAS AN
ENGINEERING MAJOR, HAD TO DROP
OUT FOR A SEMESTER TO SAVE MONEY
FOR HOUSING. PUTTING HIS DEGREE
AND FUTURE ON HOLD. THESE
SITUATIONS ARE NOT JUST
INCONVENIENT, THEY'RE
UNSUSTAINABLE AND DETRIMENTAL TO
OUR EDUCATION AND OUR MENTAL
HEALTH. MOREOVER, THE LACK OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTS LOW
INCOME STUDENTS AND THOSE FROM
MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES. THESE
STUDENTS OFTEN FACE ADDITIONAL
BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES, MAKING
IT EVEN MORE DIFFICULT FOR THEM
TO SUCCEED ACADEMICALLY. THE
STRESS OF HOUSING INSECURITIES
WORSENS MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES,
LEADING TO HIGHER DROPOUT RATES
AND DIMINISHED CAREER PROSPECTS.
IT IS DISHEARTENING TO SEE
TALENTED AND HARD WORKING
STUDENTS STRUGGLE SIMPLY BECAUSE
THEY CANNOT AFFORD A PLACE TO
LIVE. ADDRESSING THE STUDENT
HOUSING SHORTAGE IS IMPERATIVE,
AS IT DIRECTLY IMPACTS STUDENTS
ABILITIES TO FULLY ENGAGE IN
THEIR EDUCATION AND PREPARE FOR
THEIR PROFESSIONAL ENDEAVORS. I
FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THE SENATE
BILL 312 PLAYS A CRUCIAL ROLE IN
ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE.
SUPPORTING STUDENTS TO HAVE
ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING,
WHICH IS VITAL, VITAL FOR THEIR
ACADEMIC SUCCESS AND PERSONAL
WELL-BEING. SENATE BILL 312 WILL
EXTEND BEYOND INDIVIDUAL
STUDENTS, ENSURING THAT STUDENTS
HAVE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. WE ARE INVESTING IN THE
FUTURE OF OUR OUR COMMUNITY AND
ECONOMY. EDUCATED INDIVIDUALS
MORE LIKE ARE MORE LIKELY TO
CONTRIBUTE POSITIVELY TO
SOCIETY, ENGAGE IN CIVIC
ACTIVITIES, AND DRIVE
INNOVATION. WE SHOULD FOSTER THE
ENVIRONMENT THAT HELPS ENABLE
THEM TO FOCUS ON THEIR STUDIES,
GRADUATE ON TIME AND ENTER THE
WORKFORCE PREPARED AND
MOTIVATED. I URGE YOU TO
CONSIDER AND THE SIGNIFICANT
IMPACTS AND BENEFITS OF PASSING
SENATE BILL 312 AND SUPPORT
INITIATIVES THAT ALLEVIATE THE
FINANCIAL BURDEN ON STUDENTS AND
ENABLE THEM TO THRIVE
ACADEMICALLY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. TWO MINUTES. SURE GOOD
AFTERNOON. SLASH. EVENING,
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS JORDAN, LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCATE FOR CALIFORNIA. YIMBY
HERE TO SPEAK AS A PROUD
CO-SPONSOR OF SB 312. CALIFORNIA
IS A STATEWIDE ORGANIZATION OF
OVER 80,000 NEIGHBORS DEDICATED
TO MAKING OUR STATE AFFORDABLE
PLACE TO LIVE, WORK, AND RAISE
AND RAISE A FAMILY FOR ALL
CALIFORNIANS. THE HOUSING CRISIS
AT CALIFORNIA AT CALIFORNIA'S
PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES, IS AN
IMMINENT THREAT TO THE SUCCESS
OF THE NEXT GENERATION OF
CALIFORNIANS. HOWEVER, THE COST
OF HOUSING MAKES COLLEGE MAKES A
COLLEGE EDUCATION INFEASIBLE FOR
MANY STUDENTS, AND MAKES IT
HARDER FOR COLLEGE FACULTY AND
STAFF TO SUPPORT OUR WORLD
RENOWNED PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM
. AS SENATOR WIENER MENTIONED,
THE LEGISLATURE PASSED AND THE
GOVERNOR SIGNED SB 886, WHICH
PROVIDED A SANCTUARY EXEMPTION
FROM CEQA FOR STUDENT AND
FACULTY HOUSING PROJECTS. AT UC
CSU'S AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES.
HOWEVER, ONE OF THE
QUALIFICATIONS OF THESE PROJECTS
REQUIRES ALL BUILDINGS TO MEET
LEED PLATINUM CERTIFICATIONS,
WHICH INCLUDES NUMEROUS
PROVISIONS TO DETERMINE IF A
BUILDING QUALIFIES FOR A
CERTIFICATION. SO MANY OF THESE
DETERMINATIONS, HOWEVER, CANNOT
BE MADE UNTIL THE BUILDING IS
OCCUPIED. SB 312 ADDRESSES THE
TIMING ISSUE BY REQUIRING THAT
THESE BUILDINGS QUALIFY FOR LEED
PLATINUM CERTIFICATIONS RATHER
THAN RECEIVE THE CERTIFICATION,
WHICH CAN BE ACHIEVED BEFORE
OCCUPANCY. IT'S FOR THESE
REASONS WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
YOUR SUPPORT FOR SB 312. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
ARE THERE OTHER PERSONS IN THE
HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO
REGISTER THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS
MEASURE? BALTHASAR CORNEJO WITH
BROWNSTEIN ON BEHALF OF THE
HOUSING ACTION COALITION IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANY
PERSONS IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO
WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR
OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURE? TWO
MINUTES. GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN,
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS, WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT TO THE AUTHOR WITH WHOM
WE AGREE WITH ON MANY ISSUES,
HOUSING AND CEQA TENDS NOT TO BE
ONE OF THEM, WE DID NOT TAKE A
FORMAL POSITION ON 1-888-6, BUT
WE WERE ONE OF THE MANY
STAKEHOLDERS THAT HELPED
NEGOTIATE THE CRITERIA. WHEN
THAT EXEMPTION WAS CREATED FOR
THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. AND WHILE
WE WANTED TO HELP STREAMLINE,
YOU KNOW, THE PRODUCTION OF
STUDENT HOUSING, YOU KNOW, WE
NOW OBJECT TO THE WALKING BACK
OF MANY OF THOSE CRITERIA AS
RECENTLY HAPPENED WITH THE
AMENDMENTS IN THIS, THIS BILL.
YOU KNOW, WE BELIEVE THAT AS A
FLAGSHIP INSTITUTION FOR
CALIFORNIA, THE èC SHOULD
REALLY BE HELD TO THE HIGHEST
STANDARDS FOR PLANNING AND
BUILDING. AND THEY HAVE THE
RESOURCES TO DO IT. WE HAVE A
STUDENT HOUSING CRISIS, NOT
BECAUSE OF NEIGHBORHOOD
RESISTANCE TO A PROJECT HERE OR
THERE, BUT REALLY BECAUSE THE
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM HASN'T BEEN
PLANNING ADEQUATELY FOR DECADES
FOR HOW TO HOUSE THEIR STUDENT
BODY. WE REALLY BELIEVE THAT WE
SHOULD BE RAISING THE STANDARDS
FOR HOW THE UNIVERSITY SHOULD BE
. SHE SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE
TO IN THIS AREA. AND WE DON'T
THINK WE SHOULD BE WEAKENING
THEM. WE THINK THAT THE AGREED
TO AMENDMENTS THAT THE COMMITTEE
HAS PROPOSED ARE A SIGNIFICANT
IMPROVEMENT, BUT WE AND WE THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR, FOR BEING
WILLING TO, TO WORK ON THAT. BUT
BUT WE REALLY REMAIN OPPOSED TO
THIS BILL FUNDAMENTALLY AND VERY
RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR IT. AND I
HAVE A NO VOTE. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. ANY PERSONS IN THE HEARING
ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER
THEIR OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURE
? SEEING NO OTHERS, WE'LL TURN
IT TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MR.
LACKEY. YEAH? COULD YOU HELP ME
UNDERSTAND WHAT'S THE BENEFIT OF
A LEED CERTIFICATION? THE
BENEFIT, THE BENEFIT OF A LEED
CERTIFICATION, IS IT'S THE
HIGHEST, MOST SUSTAINABLE,
STANDARD OF, CONSTRUCTION IN
TERMS OF CARBON EMISSIONS, ETC.
OKAY. OKAY. MR. LACKEY, ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS? I JUST WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR. WELL, I'D LIKE TO
CLOSE MR. WIENER, SURE. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, SO, OBVIOUSLY,
EVERYONE SHOULD ALWAYS BE HELD
TO A HIGH STANDARD, AND THE èC
SHOULD BE HELD TO A HIGH
STANDARD, BUT I'M ACTUALLY LESS
INTERESTED IN THE STANDARD THAT
WE HOLD. THE èC TO AND MORE
INTERESTED IN WHETHER STUDENTS
HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE, AND IT IS
JUST SUCH A OUTRAGEOUS SOCIETAL
FAILURE FOR OUR STATE THAT WE
HAVE SO MANY STUDENTS WHO ARE
LIVING IN CARS, HOPPING AROUND
TO MOTELS, COUCH SURFING AND SO
FORTH. IT'S JUST AN ABSOLUTE
INDICTMENT. AND THE REALITY IS
THAT WE DO HAVE, SITUATIONS
WHERE THESE PROJECTS ARE HELD
UP. BERKELEY IS THE MOST
OBVIOUSLY EXTREME EXAMPLE, AND
THIS LEGISLATURE HAS STEPPED IN
REPEATEDLY, TO MAKE SURE THAT
SOME OF THESE FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS
LIKE WE'VE SEEN AT UC BERKELEY,
ARE TAKEN CARE OF. AND WE
SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THAT. AND
SO WE HAVE HERE A WELL CRAFTED
SCHOOL EXEMPTION THAT STILL
HOLDS THE UNIVERSITY TO VERY
HIGH STANDARDS. BUT ACTUALLY
ALLOWS, THESE, THIS HOUSING TO
GET BUILT IN A TIMELY MANNER.
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. SENATOR, WE
HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT
THIS BILL WHEN YOU FIRST BROUGHT
IT, WE ASKED YOU TO FIND SOME
CONSISTENCY WITH LONG RANGE
DEVELOPMENT PLANS, AND YOU DID
THAT. WE TOLD YOU WE WANTED YOU
TO MITIGATE THE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS OF CONSTRUCTION, AND
YOU DID THAT. WE WANTED TO PUT
CONSEQUENCES ON FAILING TO GET
LEED CERTIFIED, TO PREVENT
CAMPUSES FROM ABUSING THIS KIND
OF EXEMPTION. AND YOU DID THAT.
WE WANTED THE UC TO TAKE PUBLIC
COMMENT MEANINGFULLY AND NOT
JUST TO HEAR IT AND HAVE NO,
RECORD OF HAVING HEARD IT OR
RESPONSE TO IT. AND YOU DID
THAT, COULDN'T ASK ANY MORE OF
AN AUTHOR WHO COMES BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
WORK ON THIS REALLY, REALLY,
REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE, THIS
BILL HAS A DUE PASS
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CHAIR.
MADAM SECRETARY, CAN WE CALL THE
ROLL, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE
GOT MR. FLORA AS OUR MOTION.
SECOND, I WILL SECOND IT. WE CAN
CALL THE ROLL. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. BRIAN I BRIAN I
FLORA, I FLORA I BAUER KHN
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. I FRIEDMAN.
HOOVER CHOLERA. LACKEY LACKEY.
NOT VOTING. MURATSUCHI.
MURATSUCHI I. PELLERIN WICKS.
WOULD. CHOLERA. I. THAT'S FIVE.
WE'LL LEAVE THE. YEA. SCOTT
WIENER NEVER GETS NERVOUS, WE'LL
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE
ON TO 610? I WOULD THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR,
COLLEAGUES. NOW, I'M PRESENTING
SENATE BILL 610, TO ENSURE
CONSISTENT APPLICATION OF
WILDFIRE MITIGATIONS FOR NEW
DEVELOPMENT AT RISK OF WILDFIRE,
I AM, ADVANCING THIS BILL IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH THE OFFICE OF
GOVERNOR NEWSOM. AND WE'VE
WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH THE
GOVERNOR AND HIS TEAM AND CAL
FIRE, OVER THE LAST YEAR ON ON
THIS, AND I WANT TO FIRST OF
ALL, THANK THE CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE, FOR, FOR THEIR WORK
AND WE'RE, WE'RE HAPPY TO ACCEPT
THE COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS, AND
WE HAVE, AGREED WITH THE
COMMITTEE, THAT WE WILL WORK
OVER THE SUMMER WITH
STAKEHOLDERS. AND THE GOVERNOR
AND CAL FIRE, TO, THAT WE'RE
REMOVING SOME PORTIONS OF THE
BILL. BUT THE GOAL WOULD BE TO
BE ABLE TO HOPEFULLY PUT THEM
BACK IN, PERHAPS A MODIFIED
TERMS. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS
WAS, THIS WAS A BILL I PUT IN
PRINT LAST YEAR, THE
ADMINISTRATION ASKED US TO HOLD
IT TO BE ABLE TO WORK TOGETHER,
IT TOOK A LITTLE LONGER THAN WE
THOUGHT TO GET THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL. IT'S
NOT A CRITICISM. IT'S A
COMPLICATED THING. AND I KNOW
THE ADMINISTRATION WAS WORKING
VERY INTENSIVELY, INTERNALLY TO
COME UP WITH WHAT I THINK IS A
REALLY GOOD, PROPOSAL. AND SO WE
KNOW THAT FOR A LOT OF
STAKEHOLDERS AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, ENVIRONMENTALIST,
ETC. THAT THIS, YOU KNOW, IT'S A
BIG ISSUE TO ABSORB. AND SO WE
DEFINITELY WANT TO TAKE THE
SUMMER TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT
WORK, AND THE STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT HAS BEEN, I THINK,
GOOD SO FAR AND WILL CONTINUE TO
DO THAT, SO, COLLEAGUES, WE KNOW
WE HAVE, RIGHT NOW THE MAPPING
SYSTEM FOR WILDFIRE HAZARD, IS
IT'S REALLY CHALLENGING. WE HAVE
ALL THESE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.
PEOPLE AREN'T ALWAYS SURE WHAT
IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
CATEGORIES, THE MAPS ARE WERE
UNTIL RECENTLY, VERY OUT OF
DATE, THE I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT
THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY RELIES
MUCH ON THESE MAPS. I THINK THEY
DO A LOT OF THEIR OWN MODELING.
AND, AND I THINK WE ARE OVERDUE,
TO DO TAKE A DIFFERENT APPROACH.
AND THE APPROACH IN THIS BILL IS
TO INSTEAD OF HAVING DIFFERENT
CATEGORIES, JUST HAVE YOU'RE
EITHER IN A WILDFIRE MITIGATION
AREA OR YOU'RE NOT. AND IF
YOU'RE IN ONE AND YOU WANT TO
BUILD, YOU HAVE TO TAKE CERTAIN
MITIGATIONS. THE GOAL HERE IS
NOT TO REDUCE, PROTECTIONS FROM
WILDFIRE, I THINK IT'S JUST TO
TAKE A BROADER, APPROACH TO IT,
WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE WITH ME TO
TESTIFY. IS CHIEF FRANK BIGELOW,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY
WILDFIRE PREPAREDNESS AND
MITIGATION, AT CAL FIRE. CHIEF,
WHEN ARE YOU READY? OKAY IT'S A
LITTLE CLOSER. OKAY. ON THIS
SIDE. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
BRIAN. AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE AGAIN. MY NAME IS
FRANK BIGELOW. I'M A DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF OUR COMMUNITY
WILDFIRE PREPAREDNESS AND
MITIGATION DIVISION FOR CAL FIRE
. OUT OF THE OFFICE OF THE STATE
FIRE MARSHAL, SO THANK YOU TO
THE COMMITTEE. AND FOR ALL THE
STAKEHOLDERS FOR THEIR
ENGAGEMENT IN THIS BILL, WE ARE
COMMITTED TO CONTINUE CONTINUING
TO RECEIVE FEEDBACK AND MAKE
ADJUSTMENTS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
THE SENATOR OVER THE COMING
WEEKS. WE RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS
A SIGNIFICANT SHIFT IN
STRUCTURE, BUT I WANT TO
EMPHASIZE THAT THIS BILL WOULD
NOT REDUCE MITIGATIONS AT ALL.
IT AT ITS CORE, SENATE BILL 610
IS ABOUT MAKING HOMES MORE
RESILIENT IN AREAS OF ELEVATED
FIRE HAZARD. THERE ARE TWO
ESSENTIAL PARTS TO SENATE BILL
610 THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR THIS
TRANSITION. THE CREATION OF THE
WILDFIRE MITIGATION AREA, OR
RMA. AS I'LL REFER TO IT, AND
MOVING REGULATORY AUTHORITY FOR
ALL THE WILDFIRE MITIGATIONS TO
THE OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE
MARSHAL FOR CONSOLIDATION INTO
ONE WILDFIRE URBAN INTERFACE, OR
WUI CODE. ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF
TRANSITIONING AWAY FROM THE FIRE
HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES TO A RMA
IS TO ENSURE THE ADOPTION OF THE
RMA MAP AND CORRESPONDING
MITIGATIONS THAT THEY ARE
ADOPTED THROUGH A REGULATORY
PROCESS. THE APA PROCESS, WHICH
ALLOWS FOR A ROBUST PUBLIC
PROCESS WITH ALL IMPACTED
STAKEHOLDERS. WE ALSO ENVISION
THIS TO FOLLOW THE TRIANNUAL
FIRE CODE CYCLE BY CENTRALIZING
THESE WILDFIRE MITIGATIONS INTO
ONE CODE, IT WILL MAKE IT EASIER
FOR HOMEOWNERS, DEVELOPERS, AND
BUILDERS TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE
MITIGATIONS THAT MAKE THEM AND
THEIR HOMES SAFER FROM WILDFIRES
AND MAKE IT EASIER FOR STATE AND
LOCAL OFFICIALS TO ENFORCE THESE
MITIGATIONS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO
NOTE THAT THE EXISTING WILDFIRE
MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS IN THE
CURRENT FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY
ZONE MAPS WOULD REMAIN IN EFFECT
UNTIL THE ADOPTION OF THE RMA
MAP. I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE
THAT SENATE BILL 610 WOULD BRING
THE EXISTING REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS TOGETHER AND PLACE
THEM INTO ONE SINGULAR CODE
WITHOUT SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO
THE CURRENT MITIGATIONS. SO
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY,
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE BILL.
THANK YOU SIR. ARE THERE OTHER
PERSONS IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO
WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR
SUPPORT FOR THIS MEASURE? MR.
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS SILVIO FERRER,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION,
VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS BILL.
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR, THE
SPONSORS, FOR WORKING ON THIS
DIFFICULT ISSUE. LOOK FORWARD TO
ROLLING OUR SLEEVES UP OVER
SUMMER AND KNOCKING THIS THING
OUT AND HAVING A GREAT PRODUCT.
SO THANK YOU, JULIE MOUNT, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRE
CHIEFS ASSOCIATION AND THE FIRE
DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA, HAVE A SUPPORT WITH
TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS POSITION.
WE BELIEVE THIS PROVIDES
CONTINUED PUBLIC SAFETY FOR
CALIFORNIANS. MR. CHAIRMAN,
MEMBERS THEOFILOS WITH SAN DIEGO
GAS AND ELECTRIC IN SUPPORT.
MARTIN RADOSEVICH ON BEHALF OF
SPUR AND CIVIC WELL IN SUPPORT
BALTHASAR CORNEJO ON BEHALF OF
THE HOUSING ACTION COALITION IN
SUPPORT. OKAY ANY PERSONS IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURE?
WELCOME BACK. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON AGAIN. MATTHEW BAKER,
PLANNING, CONSERVATION LEAGUE,
UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS THE
SECOND TOPIC THAT WE OFTEN
DISAGREE WITH, WITH THE SENATOR,
WE THINK THIS IS SO IMPORTANT.
AND, AS YOU SAW FROM THE BILL
THAT WE SPONSORED 571 EARLIER,
YOU KNOW, WE CARE ABOUT THIS A
LOT AND SHARE THE URGENCY AROUND
NEEDING TO DO MORE, TO FIGURE
OUT BETTER POLICY FOR HOW WE
WEIGH THE NEEDS OF OUR
COMMUNITIES AND PUBLIC SAFETY
AND ENVIRONMENT, WE BELIEVE THAT
THERE'S A LOT MORE ROOM AND NEED
FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION IN THIS
ARENA, BUT NOT THIS WAY, THERE
ARE MANY ASPECTS, AND NUANCES OF
THE PROPOSED POLICY THAT THAT WE
OBJECT TO, THAT WE HAVE MANY
MORE THAT WE HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT
THIS AS YOU ADMIT, WAS A HUGE
SHIFT, A REALLY BIG DEAL. AND,
WHAT WE OBJECTED TO THE MOST IS
ONLY HAVING A COUPLE OF WEEKS TO
TRY TO PROCESS IT AND THINK
ABOUT IT, WE BELIEVE THAT POLICY
CHANGE OF THIS SCOPE AND WEIGHT
THAT AFFECTS SO MUCH, INCLUDING
HUMAN SAFETY, YOU KNOW, REALLY
WARRANTS THE TIME AND ATTENTION
OF A FULL LEGISLATIVE CYCLE, AND
SHOULDN'T BE PUSHED THROUGH IN A
LATE GOTTEN AMEND, WITH VERY
LITTLE, STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT.
I IT LITTLE TO NONE, I MIGHT
ADD, WE APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT
THE COMMITTEE HAS DONE WITH THE
AUTHOR AND THE AUTHOR'S
WILLINGNESS TO TAKE A MORE
MEASURED APPROACH AND TAKE MORE
TIME TO TALK ABOUT THIS. BUT,
AND WE ARE DEFINITELY COMMITTED
TO BEING A PART OF THAT
CONVERSATION AND WORKING WITH
THE STAKEHOLDERS AND THE
AGENCIES AND THE AUTHOR AND THE
ADMINISTRATION ON TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT WHAT THE RIGHT
POLICIES ARE HERE, MOVING
FORWARD. BUT BECAUSE OF OUR
FUNDAMENTAL OPPOSITION TO HOW
THIS IS BEEN DONE, WE, WE REMAIN
OPPOSED AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
A NO VOTE. THANK YOU. SIR GOOD
AFTERNOON, TRACY RYAN, RURAL
COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES OF
CALIFORNIA, TECHNICALLY, OUR
POSITION IS CONCERNS, WE DID NOT
GO OPPOSE ON THIS POSITION
BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN
THE VISION THAT, THE SENATOR HAS
FOR THIS BILL. AND WE'RE VERY
SUPPORTIVE OF FINDING A WAY TO
FIND BALANCED POLICY AROUND
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND HIGH
FIRE PRONE AREAS AND BALANCING
THE NEED TO GET PEOPLE OUT
SAFELY, IN THOSE AREAS, BUT ALSO
ADDRESSING OUR HOUSING CRISIS,
WE APPRECIATE THE AUTHORS
OFFICE, YOUR COMMITTEE STAFF AND
THE ADMINISTRATION WITH TRYING
TO GET TO A PLACE WHERE OUR,
ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED. HOWEVER,
WE COULDN'T GET THERE. WE ARE.
THIS IS A PRETTY QUICK
TURNAROUND, AND, WE APPRECIATE
THE AUTHORS WILLINGNESS AND THE
COMMITTEE STAFF AND THE
ADMINISTRATION TO TRY TO FIND
LANGUAGE THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER
TO GET US TO A PLACE WHERE WE
CAN BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
ANY OTHER PERSONS IN THE HEARING
ROOM IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
AFTERNOON. PAUL MASON WITH
PACIFIC FOREST TRUST. WE HAVE AN
OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED POSITION.
THE AMENDMENTS THAT THE AUTHOR
HAS TAKEN TODAY ADDRESS MANY OF
THOSE AND WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING TO WORK WITH THE
AUTHOR IN THESE COMING MONTHS.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ON THIS
BILL REALLY STARTED LAST WEEK,
NOT A YEAR AGO. AND SO I THINK
IT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT TO BE
ABLE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE
GIVE AND TAKE, JUST NAME
ORGANIZATION POSITION ON THE
BILL, APPRECIATE IT. GOOD
AFTERNOON. CHAIR MEMBERS PETER
ANSEL OF CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU.
WE'RE OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED.
WE'VE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION WITH
THE ADMINISTRATION, WITH THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE AND THE AND WE
HAVE SOME LANGUAGE THAT WOULD
HELP ENCOURAGE THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT WILDFIRE
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION ON THE
BILL. APPRECIATE YOU, SIR. THANK
YOU, KIM DELFINO, REPRESENTING
DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, SIERRA
FOREST LEGACY AND CALIFORNIA
NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY AND OPPOSED
UNLESS AMENDED. LOOKING FORWARD
TO JULY. THANK YOU. CATHERINE
FREEMAN WITH THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES IN
ALIGNMENT WITH THE RURAL COUNTY
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
CALIFORNIA WITH CONCERNS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. CHRISTIE
RANCH WITH THE CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY. WE REMAIN
OPPOSED. BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COMMITMENT FOR STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT. MELISSA SPARKS KRANZ
WITH THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES, ALIGNING OUR COMMENTS
WITH A CONCERNS POSITION LIKE
THE RURAL COUNTIES OF
REPRESENTATIVES OF CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
MEGAN MICKELBERG. ON BEHALF OF
THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN
SPACE DISTRICT IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WE'LL NOW TURN IT TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?
MR. MURATSUCHI, THANK YOU. SO,
SENATOR, I'M HEARING, YOU KNOW,
PEOPLE THAT LIKE TO BE
THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THESE MAJOR
POLICY CHANGES, SAYING THAT THEY
HAVEN'T HAD ENOUGH TIME TO
EVALUATE THIS. AND, AND, YOU
KNOW, I, I REPRESENT ONE
COMMUNITY THAT, THAT THE PALOS
VERDES PENINSULA THAT, THAT, CAL
FIRE, CAL FIRE, UNTIL RECENTLY,
I BELIEVE, HAD DESIGNATED AS A
VERY HIGH FIRE RISK HAZARD ZONE.
BUT RECENTLY, THERE MIGHT HAVE
BEEN SOME CHANGES. I'VE RAISED
CONCERNS BEFORE ABOUT HOW WE'RE
CONTINUING TO, YOU KNOW, AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, SENATOR, YOU
KNOW, YOU'VE BEEN PUSHING TO
BUILD MORE HOUSING IN SOME OF
THESE AREAS WHERE WE'VE ALREADY
HAD, A LOT OF WILDFIRES AND,
LEAVE IT UP TO YOU TO I'M SURE
YOUR POSITION IS MUCH MORE
NUANCED THAN THAT. BUT I AM
CONCERNED, YOU KNOW, WHY ARE WE
CONTINUING TO BUILD, ENCOURAGING
THE BUILDING OF MORE HOUSING.
AND IN THESE HIGH FIRE RISK
HAZARD AREAS AND I'M CONCERNED,
GIVEN YOUR HISTORY, THAT THAT
THIS IS, FURTHER ALONG THOSE
LINES AND SO, YEAH, YEAH, JUST
RAISING A LOT OF CONCERNS. YEAH,
YEAH. NO, I APPRECIATE THAT. I
THAT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. THIS
IS NOT ABOUT ROLLING BACK THE
PROTECTIONS, AND MITIGATIONS
THAT, FRANKLY, EXISTED BEFORE I
BECAME A STATE SENATOR. RIGHT
IT'S NOT ABOUT ELIMINATING THAT.
IT'S ABOUT A SYSTEM WE HAVE NOW
A MAPPING SYSTEM THAT, FRANKLY,
I DON'T THINK IS WORKING FOR AN
AWFUL LOT OF PEOPLE. I MEAN,
THAT'S WHY WHEN WE PUT THIS BILL
IN PRINT, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN
AN ABSOLUTE TIDAL WAVE OF HELL,
NO, GO AWAY. AND INSTEAD, WHAT
YOU'VE HEARD TODAY IS A LOT OF
FOLKS LIKE RC, RC, AND SOME OF
THE MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE SAYING
WE'RE NOT THERE. WE HAVE
CONCERNS, WE WANT TO SEE
CHANGES, BUT THEY'RE BUT THEY'RE
NOT SAYING UNDER NO
CIRCUMSTANCES. AND THAT'S WHY
WHAT WE'VE AGREED TO TODAY, IS
TO REMOVE SOME PIECES OF THE
BILL AND COLLABORATION WITH THE
COMMITTEE AND TO CONTINUE THE
WORK OVER THE SUMMER. AND WE'LL
SEE HOW THAT GOES. AND OUR GOAL
IS TO TRY TO BUILD THE BROADEST
COALITION POSSIBLE. THIS ISN'T
ABOUT TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, SHOVE
ANYTHING DOWN ANYONE'S THROATS
TO BE A LITTLE TO BE CRASS. IT'S
ABOUT TRYING TO WORK TOGETHER,
AND YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO REACH
UNANIMITY. I'VE LEARNED THAT
EVEN ON EASY ISSUES, BUT WE WANT
TO BUILD A BROAD COALITION
BEHIND THE BILL, AND THAT'S WHY
WE'VE AGREED TO THE SIGNIFICANT
AMENDMENTS TODAY IN ORDER TO
MOVE THAT PROCESS, FORWARD.
OKAY. I MEAN, JUST FOR THE NO
DISRESPECT TO YOU, BUT, I'M
GOING TO FOLLOW THE CONCERNS
RAISED AND I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN
FOR TODAY, MR. GÂY. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. AND I JUST WANT TO
GET TO YOUR LAST COMMENT
REGARDING THE AMENDMENTS. I
BELIEVE THAT, NARROWED THE SCOPE
OF THE BILL, AND I APPRECIATE
THE CHAIR AND COMMITTEE FOR
PUTTING THOSE FORWARD, AND SO
WITH WITH THOSE AMENDMENT OR
WITH THE ACCEPTING ACCEPTANCE OF
THOSE AMENDMENTS, WHAT WILL BE
BECAUSE A LOT OF WHAT ARE THE
MAIN COMPONENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
STRIPPED OUT THAT YOU FEEL YOU
CAN ACTUALLY GET MOVEMENT ON
WITH SOME OF THOSE THAT ARE
CONCERNED, MOVING FORWARD, YOU
INDICATE YOU'LL BE CONVERSATIONS
OVER THE SUMMER OR WHAT HAVE YOU
, WHAT WILL BE THE, I GUESS,
GIST OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS THAT
YOU FEEL WOULD SET YOU UP FOR
SUCCESS KIND OF MOVING FORWARD?
YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK AND I'LL
LET I'LL LET THE PEOPLE ALSO
COMMENT ON IT, WHAT WE'VE HEARD
FROM A LOT OF STAKEHOLDERS IS WE
MAY NOT LOVE THE WAY THIS IS
RIGHT NOW, BUT BUT, BUT
SOMETHING HAS TO CHANGE BECAUSE,
YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW, IF YOU LOOK
AT THE SYSTEM, YOU HAVE, YOU
HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE VERY HIGH
AND HIGH AND MODERATE AND THEN
THE STATE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE
LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY, LIKE
MOTHER NATURE AND CLIMATE
CHANGE, DO NOT CARE IF A ZONE IS
WITHIN A CITY'S INCORPORATED
BOUNDARIES OR IN AN
UNINCORPORATED AREA THAT'S NOT
RELEVANT TO A WILDFIRE. AND YET
WE'VE SET UP THESE, LIKE
PARALLEL SYSTEMS. AND THAT'S
WHAT ORIGINALLY GOT ME
INTERESTED IN IT ABOUT WHY DO WE
HAVE THESE SEPARATE THINGS. AND
THEN AS WE STARTED TALKING TO
THE ADMINISTRATION, I REALIZED
THAT WE WERE NOT THE ONLY ONES
TO HAVE THAT HAVE THAT VIEW. AND
THEN YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, WITH
CITIES, A LOT OF, YOU KNOW,
THERE'S THESE CONFLICTING ISSUES
. YEAH. WE DON'T MAYBE THAT
MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T BUILD HOUSING
HERE OR THERE, BUT ALSO YOU HAVE
THE INSURANCE ISSUES, THAT,
THAT, THAT COME IN. AND SO IT'S,
YOU KNOW, AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
DESPITE I KNOW SOME OF THE
PERCEPTIONS YOU MAY HAVE OF ME,
I ACKNOWLEDGE THERE ARE CERTAIN
AREAS THAT ARE TINDERBOXES WHERE
WE REALLY SHOULD BE AVOIDING
BUILDING THERE, BUT THERE ARE
ALSO A LOT OF AREAS THAT ARE
CLASSIFIED AS HAVING SOME
WILDFIRE RISK WHERE WITH WITH
THE RIGHT MITIGATIONS YOU CAN
BUILD AND THERE ARE PEOPLE IN
THOSE PARTS OF THE STATE, THE
WILD AREAS WITH WILDFIRE RISK
ARE NOT ONLY LIKE VIRGIN
FORESTS, RIGHT? THERE ARE A LOT
OF EXISTING COMMUNITIES, LIKE IN
SANTA ROSA OR OTHER PLACES WHERE
WE'RE NOT GOING TO JUST SAY, NO
MORE BUILDING NO ONES, BECAUSE
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO NEED
HOUSING. BUT HOW DO WE DO IT IN
A THOUGHTFUL, SMART WAY? AND
THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. AND I
THINK THE CHIEF WAS CLEAR, AND I
AGREE, THIS IS NOT ABOUT LIKE
REDUCING THE MITIGATIONS THAT
ARE THAT ARE REQUIRED, IT'S
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HAVING A MORE
BROAD BASED APPROACH AND KIND OF
THE OPPOSITE OF THAT QUESTION
IS, SO WHAT IS WHAT WITH WITH
THE AMENDMENTS, WHAT WHAT IS
GOING TO BE THE RESULT OF THE
BILL WITH THE AMENDMENTS? IN
OTHER WORDS, WHAT DO WE WHAT CAN
WE FORESEE HAPPENING IN THE
WEEKS AND MONTHS AHEAD? WELL, WE
DON'T WE DON'T KNOW YET BECAUSE
IT'S GOING TO BE DISCUSSED OVER
THE NEXT COUPLE MONTHS WITH ALL
THE STAKEHOLDERS. SO I CAN'T
PREDICT EXACTLY WHERE THAT'S
GOING TO LAND. BUT CHIEF,
PERHAPS YOU WANT TO. YEAH.
MEMBER. THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION. AND I THINK WHERE WE
ULTIMATELY WANT TO GET IS AS
CLOSE TO THE LANGUAGE AS IT WAS
IN PRINT AS POSSIBLE BEFORE THE
AMENDMENTS, UNDERSTANDING THAT
WE PROBABLY WON'T GET,
EVERYTHING BUT WE REALLY FEEL
THAT THE CREATION OF THE
WILDFIRE MITIGATION AREA AND THE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY TO
PROMULGATE THE REGULATIONS THAT
GO INTO THAT AREA, THAT'S AN
IMPORTANT COMPONENT TO HAVE
TOGETHER AS ONE PACKAGE. AND,
YOU KNOW, THE SENATOR SPOKE
ABOUT KIND OF THE DISPARITY
BETWEEN THE STATE RESPONSIBILITY
AREA AND THE LOCAL HAZARD
RESPONSE. THE LOCAL
RESPONSIBILITY AREA, WHERE ALL
THE MITIGATIONS APPLY IN THE
SRA, BUT NOT ALL THE MITIGATIONS
APPLY IN THE LRA. BUT IT'S THE
SAME MAPPING AND THE SAME THREE
TIERS IN THE WILDFIRE MITIGATION
AREA. YOU WOULD ACTUALLY SEE
INCREASED PROTECTIONS IN THE LRA
BECAUSE ALL THE MITIGATIONS
WOULD APPLY. AND THE MITIGATIONS
I'M REFERRING TO ARE DEFENSIBLE.
SPACE. CHAPTER SEVEN Ã OF THE
BUILDING CODE FOR BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION TO BUILD MORE FIRE
RESILIENT HOMES AND A MINIMUM
FIRE SAFE REGULATIONS THAT
PROVIDE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONS AND PROVIDE FOR ROAD
WIDTHS, ACCESS WATER STORAGE
CAPACITY, AND ALL OF THOSE
FEATURES THAT COME INTO EFFECT.
THOSE INCREASE, THOSE WOULD YOU
WOULD SEE INCREASES IN THE LRA.
AND THE FINAL QUESTION IS THEN
YOU MENTIONED THERE'S GOING TO
BE CONVERSATIONS OVER THE
SUMMER. THEN IS THIS GOING TO
COME BACK WITH THE RESULT OF
THAT, OR IS IT MORE OF SETTING
UP THE PATHWAY TOWARDS RESOLVING
SOME OF THE ISSUES? SO RIGHT
NOW, THE BILL, IF IT PASSES OUT
OF COMMITTEE TODAY, IS QUITE
LIMITED. IT CREATES THE NEW
WILDFIRE WILDFIRE MITIGATION
AREA, WHMA, AND IT ENSURES THAT
THE CRAFTING OF THE AREAS IS
SCIENCE BASED, SO IT'S A VERY
GENERAL AT THIS POINT. SO, AND
SO IN TERMS OF ONCE ALL OF THE
STAKEHOLDER WORK HAPPENS WITH
THE COMMITTEE ALSO WITH, WITH
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES, THE
IDEA WOULD BE THAT IT WOULD BE
FOLDED BACK IN THE CHAIR, OF
COURSE. WOULD, YOU KNOW, THEIR
BILLS CAN BE CALLED BACK INTO
COMMITTEE, IF THE COMMITTEE
DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE. AND I VIEW
THIS AS A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD
BE, YOU KNOW, COMPLETELY OKAY
WITH IF THE CHAIR WANTED TO DO
THAT, SO THIS IS ONE OF THOSE
AREAS WHERE IT IS A BIG TENT
KIND OF SITUATION WITH, WITH
THE, WITH THE NARROWING
AMENDMENTS. AND GIVEN THE FACT
THAT THE CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
STAFF WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO
OVERSEE KIND OF PROGRESS, I'LL
BE SUPPORTING IT TODAY, BUT
SHARE SOME OF THE GENERAL
CONCERNS TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL
THE STAKEHOLDERS, ESPECIALLY
THOSE THAT EXPRESS CONCERN, ARE
PART OF THE PROCESS. ABSOLUTELY
SENATOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE, NO, I THINK I'VE, I THINK
I'VE SAID MY PIECE AND I WANT TO
THANK THE CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
STAFF AGAIN FOR WORKING REALLY
HARD ON THIS BILL AND
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU, I KNOW PAGE HAS
BEEN A LOT OF TIME ON THIS BILL,
AND WE EXPECT TO POTENTIALLY
SPEND MORE TIME ON THIS BILL,
YOU'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS
SOMETHING INCREDIBLY LARGE, IN
MORE THAN ANYTHING WE RECOGNIZE
IN THIS FIRST COMMITTEE, WE
NEEDED TO PUT OUR FINGERPRINTS
ON IT, BUT THAT THIS PROCESS IS
ONGOING AND REQUIRES A LOT OF
ENGAGEMENT, BUT HAVE THE FULL
CONFIDENCE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO
GO THROUGH THAT ENGAGEMENT, AND
IF WE HAVE TO RETURN BACK FOR
FUTURE CONVERSATIONS, WE'LL HAVE
THOSE. BUT THANK YOU FOR TAKING
ON THIS ISSUE THOUGHTFULLY,
INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATION,
INCLUDING FOLKS WHO ARE NEEDING
TO BE AT THE TABLE. AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO HEARING HOW THOSE
CONVERSATIONS AND NEGOTIATIONS
GO. IT ENJOYS A DUE PASS TODAY,
MADAM SECRETARY, DO WE HAVE A
MOTION, MR. FLOOR, AND A SECOND
BY MR. PELLERIN. CAN WE CALL THE
ROLL? THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS. BRIAN
I, BRIAN, I FLORA. FLORA I
BAUER. KHN CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY.
NOT VOTING. FRIEDMAN. HOOVER
CHOLERA. CHOLERA I LACK LACKEY I
MURATSUCHI MURATSUCHI NOT
VOTING. PELLERIN. PELLERIN I
WICKS. WOULD HAS FIVE WILL LEAVE
THE ROLL OPEN. THANK YOU.
ABSOLUTELY SENATOR CORTEZ. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. NÓ. SO.
YOU CAN BEGIN WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR,
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT SB 1298 TO YOU AND THE
MEMBERS, I WILL BE ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS. THIS
BILL INCREASES THE THRESHOLD FOR
DATA CENTER ELIGIBILITY UNDER
THE SMALL POWER PLANT EXEMPTION,
WHICH WE SOMETIME REFER TO AS SP
. UNDER THAT PROCESS, THE
EXEMPTION WOULD INCREASE FROM A
100 MEGAWATT THRESHOLD TO 150MW.
CALIFORNIA LAW CURRENTLY ALLOWS
THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
TO HAVE EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO
LICENSE THERMAL POWER PLANTS
THAT ARE 50MW OR LARGER. THE
SMALL POWER PLANT EXEMPTION AND
PROGRAM ALLOWS CEC TO EXEMPT
FROM ITS LICENSING AUTHORITY
THERMAL POWER PLANTS THAT DO NOT
EXCEED 100MW, AND THE CEC CAN
GRANT AN EXEMPTION IF IT FINDS
THAT THE PROPOSED FACILITY WOULD
NOT SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACT THE
ENVIRONMENT OR ENERGY RESOURCES.
IF THE EXEMPTION IS APPROVED,
THE PROJECT DEVELOPERS
RESPONSIBLE FOR SECURING ALL
LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITS
TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE THE
PLANT. THIS BILL DOES NOT
CIRCUMVENT ANY ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW OF PROPOSED FACILITIES.
THE BILL AT ITS CORE IS AN
ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE BILL,
DATA CENTERS, AND THE FIBER
NETWORKS UNDERPINNING THEM ARE
NECESSARY AND CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE. THEY ARE THE
BACKBONE FOR THE APPS, PLATFORMS
AND SERVICES. INTEGRAL TO DAILY
LIFE, CONNECTING INDIVIDUALS AND
ORGANIZATIONS WORLDWIDE.
HOWEVER, DESPITE THE SIGNIFICANT
STRIDES MADE IN RECENT YEARS TO
EXPAND THE DATA CENTER CAPACITY,
THE DEMAND FOR DIGITAL SERVICES
CONTINUES TO SURGE, PARTICULARLY
IN SILICON VALLEY, WHERE THE
VACANCY RATE FOR DATA CENTERS IS
A MERE 1.6. SILICON VALLEY POWER
FORECASTS THAT THE DATA CENTER
LOAD WILL DOUBLE BY 2035, AND
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE ADDITIONS
WILL BE NEEDED TO SUPPORT THIS
INCREASE. DATA CENTERS SUPPORT
BUSINESSES OF ALL SIZES,
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, AND
ESSENTIAL SERVICES SUCH AS 911
CALL CENTERS, GPS NAVIGATION
SYSTEMS. OUR STATE'S TECH
INDUSTRY AND MUCH MORE, AND I
VOTE TODAY WILL ENSURE WE
MAINTAIN THE STATE'S ECONOMIC
VITALITY AND BUILD CAPACITY FOR
FUTURE GROWTH. WITH US TODAY, WE
HAVE TIM MCCRAY, THE VICE
PRESIDENT OF SUSTAINABILITY AT
THE SILICON VALLEY LEADERSHIP
GROUP. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS AND APPROPRIATE TIME.
I'D RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU. TIM MCCRAY,
SILICON VALLEY LEADERSHIP GROUP.
WE'RE THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL.
THIS BILL IS ABOUT ALLOWING
BUILDING OF LARGER DATA CENTERS,
WHICH ARE A CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSITY.
EMERGENCY SERVICES, HOSPITAL
RECORDS, ONLINE BANKING AND
CLOUD BASED SERVICES ALL RELY ON
DATA CENTERS. DESPITE THEIR HIGH
DEMAND AND CRUCIAL FUNCTION FOR
THE ECONOMY AND SAFETY. SILICON
VALLEY IS THE NATION'S TIGHTEST
DATA CENTER MARKET, WITH A
VACANCY RATE OF JUST 1.6. SITING
DATA CENTERS NEAR TECHNOLOGY
HEADQUARTERS IS IMPORTANT FOR
COMPUTING LATENCY NEEDS. WHEN
YOU CALL 911, YOU WANT THE
RESPONSE TO BE INSTANT. BUILDING
BIGGER DATA CENTERS IN SILICON
VALLEY HELPS POWER THE SILICON
VALLEY ECONOMY, WHICH IS CRUCIAL
FOR THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY AND
FOR A HEALTHY CALIFORNIA BUDGET.
DATA CENTERS RUN ON GRID POWER.
THEY HAVE TO RELY ON THEIR
BACKUP SOURCES OF POWER. LESS
THAN 0.07% OF THE TIME. THAT'S
ROUGHLY SIX HOURS A YEAR. ALL OF
THE REST OF THE TIME, THEY RUN
ON THE POWER THE GRID PROVIDES,
JUST LIKE ANY OTHER HOME OR
BUSINESS. 59% OF CALIFORNIA'S
POWER NOW COMES FROM CARBON FREE
SOURCES, AND THE STATE HAS GOALS
OF RUNNING ON ZERO CARBON
GENERATION OF ENERGY BY 2045,
ALL OF WHICH THE SILICON VALLEY
LEADERSHIP GROUP HAS SUPPORTED.
THAT WON'T CHANGE REGARDLESS OF
THE ALLOWABLE SIZE OF CALIFORNIA
DATA CENTERS. IN ADDITION, THE
BILL HAS TAKEN AN AMENDMENT TO
HAVE AIR DISTRICTS PARTICIPATE
IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND
DETERMINE A TECHNOLOGICALLY
NEUTRAL BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY FOR THAT BACKUP POWER
. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT
THE FOLKS WHO OPPOSE THIS BILL
IN PREVIOUS COMMITTEES ARE NOW
NO LONGER OPPOSING THE BILL
BECAUSE OF THAT AMENDMENT.
FINALLY CALIFORNIA'S GRID IS AN
ADDITIONAL REASON TO CITE DATA
CENTERS HERE, AS OPPOSED TO
ELSEWHERE IN THE COUNTRY. THEY
WILL RUN ON ZERO CARBON ENERGY
ENERGY IF LOCATED HERE, AS
OPPOSED TO IF THEY ARE SITED OUT
OF STATE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME. OTHER PERSONS IN THE
HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO
REGISTER THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS
MEASURE. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
MARTIN VIOLA, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, THE
CALIFORNIA STATE PIPE TRADES
COUNCIL, AND THE WESTERN STATES
COUNCIL OF SHEET METAL WORKERS
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, SIR. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. KEITH
DUNN, ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TRADES
COUNCIL AND SUPPORT, THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIR MEMBERS.
TIMOTHY BURR, ON BEHALF OF THE
DATA CENTER COALITION IN SUPPORT
. HI, ROBIN HAYNES WITH
MICROSOFT AND SUPPORT, THANK YOU
SO MUCH. ARE THE PERSONS IN THE
HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO
REGISTER THEIR OPPOSITION TO
THIS MEASURE? GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M WILL BARRETT WITH THE
AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, ALSO
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF COALITION
FOR CLEAN AIR, MOVING TO A
NEUTRAL POSITION WITH THE
AMENDMENTS TAKEN TODAY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. CHAIR. MEMBERS.
ROSS, ON BEHALF OF SOUTH COAST
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
WE'RE OPPOSED THE BILL IN PRINT,
BUT APPRECIATE THE DIRECTION THE
AMENDMENTS ARE GOING IN AS WE
REVIEW THEM. THANKS DANIEL BROD,
ON BEHALF OF THE UNION OF
CONCERNED SCIENTISTS MOVING TO
NEUTRAL WITH THE AMENDMENTS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
ALAN. APPS WITH THE BAY AREA AIR
QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, WE
HAD AN OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED
POSITION MOVING TO NEUTRAL.
THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR FOR HIS
ASSISTANCE. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WE'LL NOW TURN IT TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?
CONCERNS MOTION BY MR. CARILLO
SECOND BY MISS PELLERIN.
ABSOLUTELY TELL ME AGAIN HOW
LONG OR HOW OFTEN THE BACKUP
GENERATORS ARE USED EVERY YEAR.
YOU SAID POINT ZERO 7% OF THE
TIME, WHICH IS ROUGHLY SIX HOURS
A YEAR. THEY DID A STUDY OF,
DATA CENTERS FOR 13 MONTHS IN
THE BAY AREA. AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. SOME OF
THEM NEVER RAN ON THEIR BACKUP
POWER, AND ON AVERAGE, IT WAS
SIX HOURS A YEAR. HAPPY TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. SENATOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YEAH. AGAIN, I WANT TO
REALLY THANK THE CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE FOR THEIR HELP,
ESPECIALLY WITH THIS LAST
AMENDMENT. IT'S, DONE A WORLD OF
GOOD IN TERMS OF GETTING US TO
THE POSITION TODAY OF MINIMAL,
IF ANY, OPPOSITION. AND WITH
THAT, I'D RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE. ABSOLUTELY. THANK
YOU. SENATOR. THIS BILL HAS A DO
PASS FROM THE CHAIR. MADAM
SECRETARY, CAN WE CALL THE ROLL?
THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO LABOR
AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE. BRIAN
HI, BRIAN. I FLORA I LARA AYE.
BAUER-KAHAN BAUER-KAHAN I
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I FRIEDMAN.
HOOVER. CHOLERA CHOLERA I LAKI
LAKI AYE. MURATSUCHI MURATSUCHI.
AYE. PELLERIN PELLERIN. AYE.
WICKS WOULD. THAT BILL IS OUT.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IF YOUR
NAME IS SENATOR BECKER, BLAKE,
SPEER. PADILLA OR CABALLERO, NOW
IS YOUR MOMENT. WE HAVE AN EMPTY
NAT RESOURCE COMMITTEE, AND WE
ARE LOOKING FOR YOU. CERVANTES
FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE.
COME ON DOWN. LONG TIME NO SEE.
I MEAN, YOU'RE LIKE EVERYWHERE.
YOU CAN BEGIN WHEN READY. YOU
CAN BEGIN WHEN YOU'RE READY.
OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
CHAIR. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU
AND YOUR TEAM FOR ALL THE WORK
ON THIS BILL. THIS HAS BEEN
ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF OF WORK,
AND, BUT A LOT OF INTENSE FOCUS
THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS. I
REALLY APPRECIATE IT. AND I
APPRECIATE ALL THE AMENDMENTS.
AND I THINK WE ARE GETTING TO A
VERY GOOD PLACE. AND I WILL
CERTAINLY BE ACCEPTING ALL THE
AMENDMENTS AND APPRECIATE THE
WORK. A LITTLE BIT OF A LONGER
STATEMENT. I'LL TRY TO CONDENSE
A BIT, BUT I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT, JUST THE CONTEXT THAT
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A
GOAL THAT WE COMMITTED TO,
THANKS TO YOUR GREAT WORK.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. AND EVERYONE
WHO SUPPORTED IT, THAT IN, WE
SET A GOAL OF 2045 GETTING TO
NET ZERO. SO THAT GOAL IS 85%
DIRECT EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS, 15%
CARBON REMOVAL, AND THAT MEANS
WE'LL BE NEEDING TO REMOVE AT
LEAST 15% OF 1990 EMISSIONS,
WHICH WAS 65 MILLION TONS PER
YEAR PER YEAR, TO GET TO NET
ZERO. THAT'S JUST THE DEFINITION
OF NET ZERO. SO YOU CAN'T GET TO
NET ZERO WITHOUT CARBON REMOVAL.
THE PROBLEM IS WE DON'T REALLY
HAVE A PLAN TO DO THAT. AND THIS
BILL DIRECTS CARB TO CREATE THAT
PLAN. AND GET STARTED. OF
COURSE, AGAIN, IT GOES WITHOUT
SAYING. MOST OF OUR EFFORT AND
MOST OF MY LEGISLATION IS
FOCUSED ON THE OTHER PART. THE
EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS, BUT THAT
WON'T BE ENOUGH TO GET TO NET
ZERO AGAIN WITHOUT CARBON
REMOVAL AND THAT HE SHOULDN'T BE
CONTROVERSIAL. THE IPCC HAS BEEN
TELLING US THAT CARBON REMOVAL
IS ESSENTIAL FOR ANY ONE POINT,
FIVE DEGREE, OR EVEN 2 DEGREES
PATHWAY. THE BIDEN
ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN
INCREDIBLY ACTIVE IN THIS AREA.
THEY HAVE THEIR OWN CARBON
NEGATIVE SHOT PROGRAM. THE DOE,
AND IT'S THE AIM IS DRIVING DOWN
THE COST OF CARBON REMOVAL BELOW
$100 A TON WITHIN A DECADE. AND
THAT'S THE GOAL WE'RE NOT GOING
TO DRIVE THE COST DOWN WITHOUT
CREATING THAT LONG TERM,
PREDICTABLE MARKET THAT CAN GET
ENTREPRENEURS AND INVESTORS TO
SAY, YES, WE'RE GOING TO INVEST
IN ALL THESE MANY, MANY NASCENT
CARBON REMOVAL TECHNOLOGIES. AND
YOU'LL PROBABLY HEAR ABOUT A FEW
OF THOSE, TODAY. SO THE QUESTION
IS, HOW DO WE GET THERE? THIS
BILL PUTS A FRAMEWORK IN PLACE
FOR SCALING UP CARBON DIOXIDE
REMOVAL. WE ALSO CALL IT CDR BY
ADDRESSING THREE ISSUES. AND I
WANT TO QUICKLY GO THROUGH THOSE
THREE ISSUES. THE FIRST ISSUE IS
WHAT SHOULD COUNT TOWARDS NET
ZERO. IF WE'RE CLAIMING NET ZERO
IT OUGHT TO BE HIGH QUALITY
CARBON REMOVAL AND NOT THE KINDS
OF QUESTIONABLE OFFSETS THAT I
KNOW. MANY OF US HAVE HAD ISSUES
WITH OVER THE YEARS. THAT'S WHY
THIS BILL AND A LOT OF THE WORK
THAT WAS DONE TO ESTABLISH,
RULES TO SUPPORT A WIDE VARIETY
OF CDR APPROACHES, INCLUDING
BOTH TECHNOLOGICAL AND NATURE
BASED SOLUTIONS, AS LONG AS THEY
MEET CERTAIN STANDARDS, SUCH AS
REQUIREMENTS FOR BEING
VERIFIABLE AND LONG LASTING.
WHEN WE PASSED SB 905 IN 2022,
WE ESTABLISHED SOME REQUIREMENTS
FOR CDR PROJECTS AS PART OF A
BILL THAT WAS MOSTLY FOCUSED ON
CCS AND GEOLOGIC STORAGE. SB 3.8
EXPANDS ON THOSE RULES TO MAKE
SURE THAT MANY DIFFERENT
PATHWAYS FOR CDR ARE SUPPORTED,
NOT JUST THOSE USING GEOLOGICAL
STORAGE, WHILE MAKING SURE THAT
CARB ESTABLISHES RULES FOR EACH
CDR APPROACH TO ENSURE THE
QUALITY. SECOND QUESTION SO
FIRST, AGAIN, WHAT SHOULD COUNT?
SECOND, WHAT GUARDRAILS DO WE
NEED TO PROTECT COMMUNITIES AND
THE ENVIRONMENT FROM ANY IMPACTS
FROM CDR PROJECTS HERE? 905 WAS
A GREAT START. INCLUDED STRONG
PROTECTIONS FOR NEIGHBORING
COMMUNITIES, THIS BILL REQUIRES
THAT ALL CDR PROCESSES APPROVED
BY CARB FOR USE IN MEETING THE
STATE'S TARGET, WHETHER LOCATED
IN STATE OR ELSEWHERE, TO MEET
EQUIVALENT STANDARDS TO THE
EXTENT FEASIBLE. THE BILL ALSO
INCLUDES SOME OTHER GUARDRAILS
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ONLY
SUPPORTING GOOD KINDS OF CDR.
SUCH AS, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR
BIOMASS ONLY WASTE BIOMASS
FEEDSTOCKS TO AVOID HAVING CDR
LEAD TO DEFORESTATION OR
CONVERSION OF CROPLAND TO GROW
CROPS SPECIFICALLY FOR CARBON
REMOVAL, ETC. ETC, SO THAT WAS
THE SECOND AREA THAT WE COVERED.
THE THIRD QUESTION IS HOW DO WE
CREATE INCENTIVES FOR CDR TO
SCALE UP, RIGHT. HOW DO WE
CREATE THOSE INCENTIVES AGAIN,
SO THAT ENTREPRENEURS WILL
CONTINUE TO INNOVATE? INVESTORS
WILL CONTINUE TO INVEST. WE
BRING THE COST DOWN JUST LIKE
WE'VE DONE FOR SOLAR. THIS BILL
IN, YOU KNOW, ORIGINALLY WAS
VERY FOCUSED ON VERY
PRESCRIPTIVE ON THE POLLUTER
PAYS MODEL. THIS BILL DEFERS TO
CARB. THE BEST WAY TO DETERMINE
TO CREATE THOSE INCENTIVES, BUT
IT DOES REQUIRE CARB TO CREATE
INTERIM TARGETS SO THAT WE CAN
SEE THE PATH TO NET ZERO AND
TELL WHETHER WE ARE ON THE TRACK
TO GET THERE. IT REQUIRES CARB
TO AIM FOR CDR EQUIVALENT TO 1%
OF EMISSIONS IN 2030. THAT'S
ABOUT 2.5 MILLION TONS, 1% OF
EMISSIONS IN 2030, WHICH SHOULD
PROVIDE A STRONG MARKET SIGNAL
TO SUPPORT PRIVATE SECTOR
INVESTMENT IN CDR SOLUTIONS. IT
ALSO REQUIRES CARB TO SET
SEPARATE TARGETS FOR BOTH
EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AND FOR
CARBON REMOVAL. SO WE CAN SEE
WE'RE ON TRACK TO MEETING BOTH
OF THOSE TARGETS SEPARATELY, AND
MAKING SURE, AGAIN, THAT CARB
REMOVAL IS SCALING UP IN
ADDITION TO EMISSIONS
REDUCTIONS, NOT INSTEAD OF THEM.
I WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE STAFF AGAIN FOR THE
TREMENDOUS WORK ON THIS. AND
JUST IN CONCLUSION, I JUST I
KNOW THAT CARBON REMOVAL IS A
RELATIVELY NEW TOPIC. AND OVER
TIME, YOU KNOW, IT WAS EVEN
MYSELF WHEN I FIRST STARTED
GETTING IT CONFUSED WITH CARBON
CAPTURE, BUT IT WAS, WELL, A NEW
TOPIC IS AN IMPORTANT ONE. WE
NEED TO CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON
EMISSION REDUCTIONS, BUT THAT
WON'T BE ENOUGH. WE NEED TO GET
STARTED NOW ON CDR, JUST LIKE IT
TOOK US 20 YEARS OF POLICY
SUPPORT TO SCALE UP SOLAR AND
GET A LOW COST GENERATION.
TODAY, WE SHOULD EXPECT TO TAKE
THAT MANY YEARS TO SCALE UP AND
REDUCE THE COST OF CDR. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A VOTE AND
HAVE TWO GREAT WITNESSES HERE
WITH ME TODAY. TWO MINUTES EACH.
HELLO CHAIR AND MEMBERS, MY NAME
IS HALEY LESLIE BULL, ON BEHALF
OF THE WORLD RESOURCES
INSTITUTE, WE ARE A GLOBAL
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
ORGANIZATION. I SIT ON REYES
CARBON REMOVAL TEAM, WHERE I
MANAGE OUR WORK ON NATURE BASED
CARBON REMOVAL AND BIOMASS
CARBON REMOVAL. THE IPCC AND
REYES OAN RESEARCH HAS FOUND
THAT CARBON REMOVAL WILL BE
NECESSARY AT A LARGE SCALE TO
COMPLEMENT DEEP AND RAPID
EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IF THE
WORLD IS GOING TO PREVENT
CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE.
CARBON REMOVAL, INCLUDING BOTH
NATURE BASED STRATEGIES AND
ENGINEERED STRATEGIES, WILL ALSO
BE ESSENTIAL IF CALIFORNIA AND
THE NATION ARE GOING TO MEET
THEIR CLIMATE TARGETS. SB 308
PRESENTS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
CALIFORNIA TO LEAD THE NATION IN
BUILDING AND EXPANDING
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT CARBON
REMOVAL TO THE SCALE REQUIRED TO
MEET THESE TARGETS. CALIFORNIA
HAS SET ROBUST EMISSIONS
REDUCTIONS TARGETS IN 2022, BUT
TO REACH NET ZERO EMISSIONS,
CALIFORNIA MUST ALSO SET TARGETS
FOR REMOVING CARBON IN 2045,
CARBON REMOVAL WILL BE NEEDED TO
COUNTERBALANCE THE HARDEST TO
ELIMINATE EMISSIONS, TO ALLOW
THE STATE TO MEET ITS NET ZERO
TARGET BETWEEN NOW AND 2045, THE
STATE MUST WORK TO SUPPORT
DIVERSE PATHWAYS TO MEET ITS
CARBON REMOVAL TARGETS. THERE
ARE MANY APPROACHES TO REMOVING
CARBON, AND JUST AS MANY
COMPANIES ARE LOOKING TO
INCREASE THE SCALE OF THE CARBON
REMOVAL THAT THEY CAN OFFER. SB
308 IS TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL, SO IT
DIRECTS CARB TO SUPPORT ANY
CARBON REMOVAL PATHWAY THAT
MEETS CRITERIA FOR QUALITY,
ENSURES THAT REMOVED CARBON
STAYS OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE, AND
ADHERES TO COMMUNITY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY RULES
ESTABLISHED BY CARB. THIS
INCLUDES TECHNOLOGICAL
APPROACHES LIKE DIRECT AIR
CAPTURE AND NATURE BASED
REMOVALS. PATHWAYS LIKE
REFORESTATION, AS WELL AS
APPROACHES THAT USE SUSTAINABLE
BIOMASS WASTE AND RESIDUES TO
PERMANENTLY SEQUESTER THE CARBON
THAT PLANTS PULL OUT OF THE AIR
AS THEY GROW. MANY OF THESE
APPROACHES OFFER ENVIRONMENTAL
BENEFITS BEYOND CARBON REMOVAL,
AND CAN HELP THE STATE MANAGE
THE THREAT OF CATASTROPHIC
WILDFIRE. SB 308 CREATES A
NECESSARY FRAMEWORK FOR
CALIFORNIA TO SET AND ATTAIN
TARGETS FOR HIGH QUALITY,
RESPONSIBLE CARBON REMOVAL THAT
IS SAFE AND COMPLEMENTS THE
STATE'S COMPREHENSIVE EMISSIONS
REDUCTIONS. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
TWO MINUTES. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, I'M DOCTOR COREY
MYERS. I'M AN ENGINEER,
SCIENTIST, AND ANALYST AT
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL
LABORATORY. I'M HERE TODAY TO
GIVE YOU ACCURATE AND UNBIASED
INFORMATION ON CARBON DIOXIDE
REMOVAL. SO HERE IT IS. IF YOU
WANT TO KEEP GLOBAL WARMING TO
TWO DEGREES C, OR MAYBE BRING IT
DOWN TO LOWER MORE REASONABLE
TEMPERATURES ONE DAY YOU NEED
CARBON DIOXIDE REMOVAL. NO TWO
WAYS ABOUT IT, TYPICALLY YOU'LL
HEAR ABOUT 2 OR 3 METHODS, BUT
IN REALITY THERE ARE DOZENS AND
DOZENS OF OPTIONS OUT THERE. SO
I'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU A TASTE OF
WHAT'S POSSIBLE IN CALIFORNIA.
WE HAVE ROCKS ACROSS THE STATE
THAT NATURALLY PULL CO2 OUT OF
THE AIR AND TURN IT INTO A ROCK.
WE HAVE BRINES BOTH NATURAL AND
FROM DESALINATION THAT YOU CAN
EXTRACT MORE WATER OUT OF FOR
AGRICULTURE. WHILE TAKING CO2
OUT OF THE AIR AND GETTING RID
OF THAT BRINE WASTE. AND THEN WE
HAVE, YOU KNOW, FOREST
MANAGEMENT WASTE THAT YOU CAN
CONVERT INTO HYDROGEN FOR
INDUSTRY WHILE TAKING CO2 OUT OF
THE AIR AND REDUCING WILDFIRE
RISK. AND AS I SAID, THERE'S
LOTS OF MORE OPTIONS OUT THERE,
THESE ARE BEING DEVELOPED BY
GOVERNMENT AND ACADEMIA, BUT
ALSO STARTUPS, MOM AND POP
OPERATIONS AND LARGE
CORPORATIONS. BUT IT DOESN'T
MATTER WHO'S DEVELOPING IT OR
HOW YOU KNOW, AMAZING. THE
TECHNOLOGY SEEMS FOR THESE TO
BECOME ACTUAL BUSINESSES, YOU
NEED FINANCING AND TO GET
FINANCING. WHAT A BANK NEEDS TO
SEE IS A LONG TERM STABLE
MARKET. SO THAT'S WHY I'M REALLY
ENCOURAGED BY WHAT I HEAR IN THE
LEGISLATURE. I'M HERE TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ON THE
SUBJECT, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR
TIME AND YOUR THOUGHT ON THIS
MATTER. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANY
PERSONS IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO
WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR
SUPPORT FOR THIS MEASURE? YES.
IS THERE. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
MARTIN RADOSEVICH ON BEHALF OF
HEIRLOOM CARBON TECHNOLOGIES IN
STRONG SUPPORT, I'D LIKE TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR HIS
LEADERSHIP ON THIS. GOOD
EVENING. BONNIE BAINWOL WITH THE
CLIMATE CENTER. WE HAVE A
SUPPORT, IF AMENDED, POSITION ON
THE BILL. I'D LIKE TO THANK THE
AUTHORS, STAFF AND COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR CONTINUING TO WORK
THROUGH OUR ISSUES. THANK YOU,
MARGIE LEE, ON BEHALF OF AB
CARBON, IN STRONG SUPPORT.
JONATHAN COLE, ON BEHALF OF
CLIMATE ACTION CALIFORNIA, ALSO
ON BEHALF OF CITIZENS CLIMATE
LOBBY CALIFORNIA REALITY
PROJECT, CALIFORNIA COALITION
SANTA CRUZ CLIMATE ACTION
NETWORK, 350 SACRAMENTO AND 350
HUMBOLDT IN SUPPORT. GOOD
EVENING, CAITLYN RUDNER. SUTTER
ON BEHALF OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DEFENSE FUND IN SUPPORT, WE
SUPPORT THE AMENDMENTS IN THE
ANALYSIS AND ALSO ESPECIALLY
CLARIFYING THAT NATURE BASED
CLIMATE SOLUTIONS ARE PART OF
THIS. SO THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING
ASHLEY, ON BEHALF OF THE CLEAN
AIR TASK FORCE IN SUPPORT, THANK
YOU. PETER HAGEN, I'M A PRIVATE
CITIZEN, LIVED IN CALIFORNIA MY
ENTIRE LIFE IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
ANY PERSONS HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO THIS MEASURE? SENATOR YOU
READY? GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS KATIE
VALENZUELA. ON BEHALF OF THE
CENTRAL VALLEY AIR QUALITY
COALITION AND SEVERAL OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL AND EJ GROUPS
WITHIN OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
POSITION. WE DO WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR HIS EARNEST
ENGAGEMENT IN THESE LAST SIX
WEEKS, AS WELL AS COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR CONTINUING TO HEAR OUR
CONCERNS. REALLY, WE'RE ASKING
YOU TO PASS THIS BILL TODAY WITH
A CLEAR COMMITMENT FROM THE
AUTHOR TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
US ON OUR OUTSTANDING ISSUES,
WHICH ARE SMALL IN NUMBER, THE
BIGGEST TWO ISSUES THAT WE HAVE
RIGHT NOW ARE MAKING SURE THAT
ADDITIONALITY IS MET. IN OTHER
WORDS, IF ANY OF THOSE CREDITS
ARE SOLD FOR THE LOW CARBON FUEL
STANDARD THAT GOES TO THE 85,
NOT THE 15, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THIS IS RIGOROUS. WE ALSO HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF
ELIGIBLE BIOMASS THAT WE'D LIKE
TO SEE ADDRESSED, AS WELL AS
ENSURING THAT THE LANGUAGE THIS
BILL LEANS HEAVILY ON THE
PROTECTIONS YOU ALL PASS IN 2022
AND SB 905. CARB HAS YET TO
IMPLEMENT ANY OF THOSE RULES,
WHICH MEANS PROJECTS ARE MOVING
FORWARD TODAY WITH NONE OF THOSE
PROTECTIONS IN PLACE. THE
LANGUAGE IN THE BILL TODAY
ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS THAT. IT'S A
LITTLE BIT TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE.
SO WE'D LIKE TO CONTINUE TRYING
TO STRENGTHEN THAT LANGUAGE TO
ENSURE IT'S MEANINGFUL AND THAT
THOSE PROTECTIONS ARE IN ARE IN
PLACE. A COUPLE OF OUR JUST
SMALLER THINGS, MAKING SURE
COMMUNITY BENEFITS ARE REAL AND
ACTUALIZED, AND ENSURING THAT
CARB USES THE TOOLS AT THEIR
DISPOSAL SO THAT ANY CDR THAT
COUNTS TOWARDS THIS TARGET MEETS
THE STANDARDS IN THIS BILL.
THEY'RE NOT CURRENTLY DOING THAT
WITH THE ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY
BAN AND SB 905. SO WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT THAT DOESN'T
CONTINUE IN IMPLEMENTATION OF
THIS MEASURE. BUT WITH THAT,
WE'RE VERY HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN
MEET A RESOLUTION ON THIS WITH
THE COMMITMENT FROM THE AUTHOR
TODAY. AND THANK YOU FOR HEARING
US. OF COURSE, MISTER CHAIR
MEMBERS, DAN SHAW FOR THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
REGRETTABLY, THE CHAMBER IS
OPPOSED TO THIS BILL UNLESS IT
IS AMENDED TO CLARIFY THAT A
REGULATED ENTITY IS NOT SUBJECT
TO DOUBLE OR TRIPLE JEOPARDY
SCENARIO WHERE IT IS REGULATED
TWICE OR EVEN THRICE FOR THE
SAME EMISSIONS. I'VE BEEN
MEANING TO USE THAT WORD IN
TESTIMONY. WE GREATLY APPRECIATE
HOW FAR THE SENATOR HAS COME IN
THE MOST RECENT AMENDMENTS, AND
I THINK THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT
OF DAYLIGHT BETWEEN US
CONCEPTUALLY IN THE NEED FOR
THIS TECHNOLOGY. AS AS
PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED, TO GET US
TO CARBON NEUTRALITY AND TO SEND
THE APPROPRIATE MARKET SIGNALS.
HOWEVER, TODAY, SOME MEMBERS OF
THE REGULATED COMMUNITY ARE
SUBJECT TO CAP AND TRADE LOW
CARBON FUEL STANDARD OR BOTH,
AND WE'D LIKE TO AVOID YET
ANOTHER REGULATORY REQUIREMENT
TO REDUCE OR REMOVE THE SAME
EMISSIONS WHEN THERE MAY BE MORE
COST EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS
AVAILABLE. OTHERWISE, THE IMPACT
COULD BE FELT, PARTICULARLY BY
CONSUMERS IN THE FORM OF HIGHER
COSTS. MUCH LIKE THIS
LEGISLATURE DID WHEN IT PASSED
CAP AND TRADE, TO ENSURE COST
CONTAINMENT IN THAT PROGRAM, WE
BELIEVE GUARDRAILS, SIMILAR
GUARDRAILS SHOULD BE PUT IN
PLACE IN THIS BILL TO PROTECT
CONSUMERS. IDEALLY, THIS PROGRAM
WOULD BE INCENTIVE BASED, JUST
LIKE OTHER CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAMS
THAT HELPED NASCENT TECHNOLOGIES
REDUCE COSTS AND SCALE, IN ORDER
TO ACHIEVE, SOLUTIONS THAT DON'T
NEED THE MARKET FOR SUPPORT. AND
AT THE VERY LEAST, WE WOULD URGE
AN AMENDMENT THAT GIVES
REGULATED ENTITIES THE
DISCRETION TO CHOOSE WHICH
REGULATORY PATHWAY MAKES THE
MOST SENSE FOR THIS BUSINESS.
FOR THESE REASONS, WE
REGRETFULLY OPPOSE TO THIS BILL.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANY PERSONS
IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD
LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR
OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURE?
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS.
VIRGIL WELCH, CALIFORNIA CARBON
SOLUTIONS COALITION WE ACTUALLY
HAVE A NEUTRAL POSITION ON THIS
BILL. HOWEVER BASED ON THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS AND THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT THE
AUTHOR MENTIONED, WE DO HAVE A
CONCERN ABOUT INCLUSION OF ANY
DATES IN THIS BILL THAT WOULD
DELAY IMPLEMENTATION OF 905. SO,
AS WAS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, 905
IS ALREADY, SLOW MOVING. THAT IS
A CRITICAL PROGRAM TO SUPPORT
TECHNOLOGIES LIKE BOTH CDR AND
CARBON CAPTURE. SO WOULD LIKE TO
MAKE SURE THAT MODIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS, THAT WAS A CREATIVE
WAY TO GET AROUND NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION ON THE
BILL. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
KEITH DUNN, STATE BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL
OPPOSED UNLESS THE MEN WERE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE CARBON
CAPTURE IMPACTS. THANKS. THANK
YOU SO MUCH, ASHA SHARMA, ON
BEHALF OF LEADERSHIP COUNCIL FOR
JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY. AND
WE ARE OPPOSE, UNLESS AMENDED ON
THE BILL. BUT WE APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR'S EFFORTS TO WORK WITH US
ON THE BILL. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN, AND MEMBERS. ELOY
GARCIA FOR THE WESTERN STATES
PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION, ALSO IN
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED POSITION.
THANK YOU SIR, MR. CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS. THEO PEREZ WITH CALPINE
GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF
EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID
HERE, BUT ALSO VERY MUCH WORRIED
ABOUT THAT DATE AND HOPE WE CAN
GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. I
ACTUALLY HAVE ONE OTHER TWEENER
POSITION. MELISSA ROMERO,
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS,
WE HAVE ANOTHER TWEENER POSITION
ON THIS BILL, BUT WE ARE WORKING
WITH THE GROUP'S ENVIRONMENTAL
AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE GROUPS
ON THE CHANGES BEING MADE. THANK
YOU TO THE SENATOR. SO LOOKING
FORWARD TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH
EVERYONE. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WE'LL TURN IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?
CONCERNS. MR. MURATSUCHI.
SENATOR, THIS IS, BRING IT BACK.
TRAUMATIC MEMORIES OF WHEN I WAS
TRYING TO THREAD THE NEEDLE,
BETWEEN. YEAH ADOPTING,
AGGRESSIVE CLIMATE ACTION GOALS
WHILE AT THE SAME TIME FACING,
THE COMBINED, CONCERNS. IF NOT
OPPOSITION FROM OIL TRADES AND
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE GROUPS.
WE'D LIKE TO BRING PEOPLE
TOGETHER. THAT'S RIGHT. BRING
PEOPLE TOGETHER, I RESPECT, ALL
THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE IN
THIS SPACE, ESPECIALLY IN TERMS
OF, YOU KNOW, RECOGNIZING THAT
THE ONLY WAY THAT WE CAN SAVE
THE PLANET IS BY DRIVING
INNOVATION HERE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. AND I SEE THAT AS
THE HEART OF YOUR YOUR EFFORT
HERE, I WANTED TO ASK YOU IF YOU
CAN RESPOND TO, COUNCILWOMAN
VALENZUELA'S, YOU KNOW, CALL FOR
A COMMITMENT, AS AS TO, DID YOU
SAY ADDITIONALITY? YEAH. WE HAVE
ABOUT FIVE AMENDMENTS.
OUTSTANDING. OKAY, WELL, JUST
REALITIES. SO THANK YOU, AND
AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR, WORK
AND SAY. YEAH, WE'RE BRINGING
PEOPLE TOGETHER, BUT I THINK
WE'VE COME A LONG WAY, ACTUALLY,
BOTH WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE COMMITTEE AND WITH,
FOLKS LIKE THE BUILDING TRADES
AND THE CHAMBER, AND, I CAN
ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS AS WELL.
I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, AS WAS
MENTIONED, I THINK WE'VE WORKED
VERY CLOSELY TOGETHER. WE'VE
COME A LONG WAY. I THINK THE
ADDITIONALITY IS CERTAINLY
CRITICAL TO US. SO I VENTURE TO
SAY WE'RE HAPPY TO DO ANYTHING
REGARDING ADDITIONALITY. AND I
THINK SOME OF THE OTHER CONCERNS
THAT ARE RAISED WERE WERE PRETTY
CLOSE. OKAY. OUT OF RESPECT FOR
YOU, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS
BILL. YEAH. THANK YOU, MISS
BAUER. CAN THANK YOU. AND I
APPRECIATE, THE SCIENTISTS BEING
HERE. I THINK I WAS BRIEFED, I
REPRESENT THE LAB, SO I WAS
BRIEFED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THEY
DID THE REPORT ON HOW WE SOLVE
OUR CLIMATE CRISIS. AND IT'S FOR
THOSE THAT HAVEN'T READ IT, I
THINK AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT
REPORT FOR PEOPLE TO READ,
BECAUSE THEIR ENTIRE MISSION IS
NATIONAL SECURITY. AND THEY
BELIEVE THAT THE CLIMATE CRISIS
IS ONE OF THE LARGEST THREATS TO
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, AND THAT
WE NEED TO REALLY DO AN ALL OF
THE ABOVE APPROACH. AND ONE OF
THE THINGS I APPRECIATE ABOUT
THE REPORT IS IT ALSO DOES SORT
OF A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS. SO
IT REALLY RECOMMENDS THE LOW
COST THINGS, EVEN THOUGH MAYBE
THEY DON'T HAVE AS MUCH BENEFIT,
AND THEN TALKS ABOUT THE
IMPORTANCE OF THESE MORE
EXPENSIVE INVESTMENTS BECAUSE OF
THE HUGE IMPACT THEY CAN HAVE.
SO WITH THAT LENS, ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT I'VE LEARNED IN MY
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE LAB,
ALTHOUGH YOU CAN DISPUTE ME IF
YOU'D LIKE, IS THAT WE NEED TO
USE IT BOTH TO PULL ADDITIONAL
CARBON OUT OF THE AIR. AS THE
BILL SAYS, BUT THAT WE ALSO,
BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TURNING OFF
OUR OIL REFINERIES OVERNIGHT, WE
ALSO NEED TO BE USING IT TO
CAPTURE CURRENT EMISSIONS. SO
NOT TO DRIVE UP THE EMISSIONS,
BUT TO CAPTURE CURRENT
EMISSIONS. AND I GUESS I WANTED
TO CLARIFY WHETHER THE BILL DOES
THAT, BECAUSE AS I READ THIS,
WHEN IT SAYS THAT IT HAS TO
MEET, THEY CAN ONLY CERTIFY
CERTAIN PROCESSES THAT MEET ALL
OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.
AND THE FIRST ONE IS THAT IT
RESULTS IN REMOVALS OF CO2 FROM
THE ATMOSPHERE, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, AND NOT ONLY THE
AVOIDANCE OR REDUCTION OF
EMISSIONS. SO I DO ACTUALLY
THINK WE NEED TO BE DOING
CAPTURE AS IT RELATES TO
AVOIDANCE. YEAH. SO I'D SAY SO
THIS IS THIS IS A SEPARATE BILL
RIGHT. SEPARATE ISSUE. THAT'S
WHY THIS IS FOCUSED ON, BECAUSE
CARBON CAPTURE IS HANDLED
SEPARATELY THROUGH, YOU KNOW, IS
BASICALLY REALLY CONSIDERED ON
THE OTHER SIDE OF A DIRECT
EMISSIONS REDUCTION. SO THAT'S
WHY THIS IS SEPARATE AND VERY
CLEAR OF SAYING, THAT, THIS IS
NET NEGATIVE. RIGHT. AND THAT'S,
THAT'S A TERM. BUT SHOULDN'T WE
BE ALSO I GUESS NET NEGATIVE. SO
THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE
OUT HERE, IS THAT CARBON CAPTURE
OR CARBON DIOXIDE REMOVAL, LIKE
NET NEGATIVE. SO YOU MEAN LIKE
IT DOESN'T GET US TO ZERO FROM
WHERE WE ARE TODAY? IT HAS TO GO
FURTHER THAN THAT. IS WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING, I THINK IS MY
UNDERSTANDING. AND SO WHY THAT?
WHY NOT GET US TO ZERO? ZERO
SEEMS GREAT. ZERO SEEMS LIKE A
LAUDABLE GOAL. WELL, THE PROBLEM
IS AGAIN, EVEN BY OUR OWN
SCOPING PLAN, IF BY SOME, YOU
KNOW, HEROIC EFFORT BY THOSE
ASSEMBLED HERE, WE'RE ACTUALLY
ABLE TO MEET OUR 2045 GOALS,
CARB STILL SAYS WE'LL HAVE 65
MILLION METRIC TONS A YEAR OF
CARBON EMISSIONS, RIGHT? IF,
LIKE WE'RE INCREDIBLY SUCCESSFUL
RIGHT IN THE TRACK THAT WE'RE
NOT QUITE ON YET TO MEET, AND SO
WE'RE GOING TO NEED EVEN TO GET
TO NET ZERO. WE'LL NEED 65
MILLION METRIC TONS A YEAR,
RIGHT. WHICH NOW WE HAVE VERY
LITTLE, BUT THEN ALSO TO STAVE
OFF THE WORST EFFECTS OF CLIMATE
CHANGE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
START GOING EVEN BELOW THAT.
RIGHT? WE WANT TO ACTUALLY WANT
TO BE REMOVING CARBON NET NET.
AND THIS IS CALIFORNIA, RIGHT?
YOU THINK ABOUT THE REST OF THE
WORLD IS DOING RIGHT. SO BUT
BECAUSE WE'RE CALIFORNIA, WE CAN
WE'RE BIG ENOUGH TO DRIVE DOWN
THE COST OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES,
WHETHER IT'S OCEAN ORGANIZATION,
WHETHER IT'S YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW,
BIOMASS TECHNOLOGIES, WHETHER
IT'S THE KIND OF REVERSE CEMENT
PROCESS, THAT SOME OF US HAVE
BEEN OUT TO SORT OF SEE, WE'RE
GOING TO DRIVE DOWN THE COST OF
THOSE AND OTHERS WILL BENEFIT AS
WELL, BUT IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO, TO
GET TO NET ZERO. RIGHT? EVEN IF
YOU PUT, YOU KNOW, CARBON
CAPTURE ON EVERY EMITTING
FACILITY TODAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE
YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE
PLASTICS PRODUCTION AND OTHER
PRODUCTION AND OTHER THINGS, AND
, AND, AND AGAIN, ULTIMATELY WE
HAVE TO GET EVEN BELOW THAT.
RIGHT. BUT THIS WOULD SAY MAYBE
THAT'S WHY I MIGHT BE MISREADING
IT. SO I ACTUALLY INVITE YOU TO
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. I JUST
WANT TO BE CLEAR, SENATOR, BUT
THIS SAYS THAT IF SOME PROJECTS
JUST GET US TO ZERO, THOSE CAN'T
BE CERTIFIED AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
BUT MAYBE I'M WRONG. WELL,
AGAIN, IT'S NOT ABOUT ANY
AVOIDED EMISSION, SO IT'S NOT.
NOTHING QUALIFIES IF YOU'RE
PUTTING A CARBON CAPTURE PROJECT
ON AN EMISSION LIKE THAT DOESN'T
QUALIFY FOR THIS BILL, RIGHT?
BUT IF YOU ARE EMITTING CARBON
DIOXIDE, RIGHT. I MEAN, PEOPLE
EMIT THAT. SO YOU COULD USE
CARBON DIOXIDE REMOVAL TO
COUNTER THAT, AM I WRONG? AM I
GETTING THIS WRONG? THAT'S IF I
MAY, THAT'S PART OF WHAT I WAS
TRYING TO ADDRESS IN MY
ADDITIONALITY CONCERNS, BECAUSE
IN THEORY, MANY CARBON REMOVAL
PROJECTS MAY DECIDE TO SELL SOME
CREDITS OFF INTO THE LOW CARBON
FUEL STANDARD, FOR INSTANCE. SO
COMPLIANCE ENTITIES CAN PURCHASE
THOSE CREDITS TO SAY WE'VE MET
THE TARGET. SO THAT'S WHY WE
WANTED TO MAKE SURE IF WE'RE
DUAL TRACKING, WE'RE COUNTING
THAT CARBON THERE AND THIS
CARBON HERE, THIS BILL ONLY HAS
TO DO WITH THE 15, BECAUSE 905
ALREADY REGULATES A LOT OF THE
CARBON CAPTURE AT INDUSTRIAL
SOURCES. SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT THEY'RE COUNTED SEPARATELY
IN THE TRUEST SENSE. GOT IT. SO
THESE ARE SEPARATE PROJECTS THAT
ARE NOT YEAH. ASSOCIATED WITH
EMISSIONS. RIGHT. BECAUSE WHY
YOU WANT THEM TO BE NET NEGATIVE
INSTEAD OF NEUTRAL. YEAH. SO
THIS IS WHAT YOU SEE IS LIKE A
BIG YOU KNOW, THAT YOU THINK OF
AS TRADITIONAL AIR CAPTURE LIKE
THE BIG, YOU KNOW, THE, THE BIG
THING SUCKING CARBON OUT OF THE
ATMOSPHERE OR, OR OTHER NATURE
BASED SOLUTIONS, OTHER THINGS.
BUT NOT IT'S NOT CS, IT'S RIGHT.
BUT EVEN I MEAN, I GUESS MAYBE
I'M ARE THERE EMITTERS WHO I GET
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CS AND
CDR. BUT I IMAGINE IF YOU'RE
EMITTING, YOU COULD USE THIS
PROCESS INSTEAD OF CC OR WOULD
YOU NOT? WOULD YOU JUST USE CCS?
I GUESS CORRECT ME AGAIN, I'M
LEARNING. IT'S ALMOST ALWAYS
CHEAPER TO NOT USE CARBON
DIOXIDE. OKAY. SO THE FOR COST
REASONS, THEY'RE GOING TO USE
CCS. YES. OKAY. THAT MAKES
SENSE. OKAY. NOW THERE ARE SOME
INSTANCES LIKE AGRICULTURE WHERE
THERE'S NO WAY TO CAPTURE THE
EMISSIONS THAT ARE COMING OFF OF
THAT. AND THERE ARE SOME
INSTANCES LIKE LARGE INDUSTRIAL
SECTORS, WHICH ARE, IT MIGHT BE
MORE COST EFFECTIVE TO USE CDR
TO OFFSET THAT LAST LITTLE BIT
FOR, SPECIFICS AROUND EACH
INDUSTRY. BUT IN GENERAL, IT'S
GOING TO BE CHEAPER FOR YOU TO
DECARBONIZE IN EVERY OTHER WAY
POSSIBLE. BESIDES CDR. CDR IS
REALLY JUST THAT BACKSTOP. GOT
IT. OKAY, SO IT'S MOSTLY A COST
ISSUE, WHICH IS WHY YOU WOULD GO
TO CS FIRST. I GUESS I
UNDERSTAND NOW IN THOSE
INSTANCES RIGHT WHERE YOU HAD AN
AGRICULTURAL SETTING OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND THERE
ARE OTHER WAYS IN SOME AG
SETTINGS TO CAPTURE, I GUESS I
STILL SEE THE BENEFIT IN GOING
TO ZERO, BUT I APPRECIATE WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. I JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE OPENING
UP ALL THE PATHWAYS TO GET TO
OUR GOALS, BECAUSE I DON'T SEE
US GETTING TO OUR GOALS RIGHT
NOW. AND SO I THINK IT'S WHAT
YOU'RE DOING IS REALLY
IMPORTANT. AND I DON'T WANT IT
TO BE TOO NARROW THAT IT DOESN'T
HELP US ACHIEVE THOSE GOALS. SO
THAT'S WHAT I WAS CONCERNED
ABOUT, BUT I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT
IT TODAY. WELL, AND AS A MEMBER,
IF I MAY, THE POINT OF THAT WAS
TO NOT CREATE AN OPERATION THAT
NETS ZERO. SO YOU COULD IMAGINE
WITH CONSTRUCTION, WITH
TRANSPORT OF CARBON AFTER THE
FACT, WITH THE OPERATION OF A
FACILITY, THERE IS CARBON THAT'S
ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. SO THE
GOAL IS IF YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE
DOING CDR, THE ACTUAL NET NEEDS
TO BE NEGATIVE. SO THAT'S WHY
THAT LANGUAGE IS IN THERE. SO
THAT WE DON'T HAVE A PROJECT
THAT'S MAYBE JUST SPINNING
THROUGH A PROCESS THAT'S
ACTUALLY GENERATING AS MUCH
CARBON AS IT'S CAPTURING. AND SO
THAT'S THE ONLY REASON THAT
LANGUAGE IS IN HERE. IT'S A VERY
NARROW SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES
WHERE THAT WOULD OCCUR. BUT I
THINK THEY'RE TRYING TO ENSURE
THAT THIS IF YOU SAY YOU'RE
DOING CARBON CAPTURE, YOU'RE
ACTUALLY CAPTURING SOME CARBON
AT THE END AND THAT IT'S NOT
GETTING CANCELED OUT BY OTHER
EMISSIONS AND PROCESS, IF THAT
MAKES SENSE. YEAH YOU KNOW,
GREAT, GREAT QUESTIONS. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, MR. LACKEY? YEAH. THIS
PROPOSED LEGISLATION SEEMS TO,
ALLOW CARB TO IMPLEMENT THE
PROGRAM. HOWEVER, THEY CHOOSE,
AND I WOULD HOPE THAT IT'S NOT
INTENDED TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT
CONSUMERS. THEY'RE NOT BEING
SPOKEN VERY MUCH IN THIS
COMMITTEE SO FAR. ARE YOU
WILLING IN ANY WAY TO PUT ANY
KIND OF CONSUMER PROTECTIONS SO
AS TO NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT
ENERGY COSTS, CERTAINLY WILLING
TO CONSIDER, ANYTHING? I MEAN,
CERTAINLY WE HAD A MUCH MORE
PRESCRIPTIVE BILL ORIGINALLY
WHEN THIS STARTED, YOU KNOW,
SORT OF TWO YEARS AGO, AND I
THINK FOR A WHOLE BUNCH OF
REASONS, FOR A WHOLE BUNCH OF
STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING CARB
ITSELF, YOU KNOW, THE DECISION
WAS MADE REALLY TO, TO, TO GO
BACK TO THEM, BUT YEAH, IT
DOESN'T IT DOESN'T MANDATE, HOW
THEY DO IT, BUT I THINK, YOU
KNOW, WE THEY'VE HAD A, YOU
KNOW, THEY'RE CERTAINLY TRYING
TO CONSIDER THOSE IMPACTS. IF
YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE OTHER
THINGS THAT THEY'RE DOING. SO,
YOU KNOW, HAPPY TO LOOK AT
ANYTHING, BUT THAT'S CERTAINLY
NOT THE INTENTION. WE'RE NOT,
TRYING TO RAISE PRICES OR
TELLING THEM THEY HAVE TO DO IT
A CERTAIN WAY. I CAN APPRECIATE
THAT YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO, BUT I
THINK IT'S VERY LIKELY TO RESULT
IN THAT. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR
HONESTY. THANK YOU. YEAH. AND
AGAIN, I'LL SAY JUST THIS IS
ALREADY PART OF OUR POLICY,
RIGHT? WE ALREADY SAY THAT WE
NEED CDR. THIS IS REALLY JUST
TRYING TO OPERATIONALIZE AND
CREATE THE PATHWAY. SEEING NO
OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. SENATOR, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR
THE ROBUST DISCUSSION. THIS IS
YOU'VE SEEN LIKE THE TIP, TIP,
TIP, TIP OF THE ICEBERG OF THE
CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN
GOING ON, OVER THE LAST SIX
WEEKS. BUT AGAIN, I APPRECIATE
YOUR EFFORT AND THE EFFORTS OF
YOUR TEAM. I THINK WE'RE WE'RE
GETTING A GOOD PLACE AND A
REALLY FIRST IN THE NATION,
BILL. I MEAN, THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT THE NATION AND THE WORLD
IS, HAVING TO STRUGGLE WITH. AND
SOMETIMES WE DO THINGS THAT ARE
VERY SPECIFIC TO CALIFORNIA, BUT
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WILL HAVE
GLOBAL IMPACT. AND, AND WE'RE
JUST TRYING TO FIND THE RIGHT
BALANCE TO GET THERE. AND I
APPRECIATE YOUR WORK AND
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. WELL, THANK YOU, SENATOR,
YOU AND I HAVE TOURED SOME
DIRECT CARBON REMOVAL SITES. I
THINK I ALIGNED MY COMMENTS WITH
A VARIETY OF THINGS I'VE HEARD
SOMEWHERE, KIND OF IN THE
BROADER SCHEME, A TWEENER. I
THINK THERE THERE ARE WAYS THAT
THIS COULD BE A NEEDED AND
TREMENDOUSLY BENEFICIAL APPROACH
TO ACHIEVING OUR LONG TERM
GOALS. I THINK IT'S ALSO ONE OF
THOSE THINGS THAT WE'VE GOT TO
SET UP AND DO RIGHT, OTHERWISE
WE'RE JUST BUILDING SOMETHING
ELSE THAT WE'VE GOT TO BRING
DOWN LATER. IF I COULD THINK OF
AN AUTHOR WHO WOULD BE THE RIGHT
PERSON TO KIND OF LEAD THAT
CONVERSATION AND TO BRING FOLKS
TOGETHER AND DO IT IN A
THOUGHTFUL, MEANINGFUL, AND
INTENTIONAL WAY, I THINK YOU
WOULD BE THAT GUY. AND SO THIS
BILL HAS A Dð PASS
RECOMMENDATION TODAY. MADAM
SECRETARY, CAN WE CALL THE ROLL?
WE HAVE A DO WE HAVE A MOTION?
SO MOVED MR. MURATSUCHI IN A
SECOND. SECOND. MISS PELLERIN,
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS. BRIAN
I BRIAN I FLORA BAUER-KAHAN.
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I FRIEDMAN.
FRIEDMAN. I HOOVER. NO. HOOVER.
NO CHOLERA. CHOLERA I LACKEY.
SORRY. NO. LACKEY. NO.
MURATSUCHI MURATSUCHI I PELLERIN
I PELLERIN I WIX I WIX I WOULD,
I WOULD I. AYE VOTES THAT BILL
IS OUT MR. BECKER. SENATOR
PADILLA COME ON DOWN, BROTHER.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'M HAPPY TO
PRESENT SB 1208. I WANT TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE FOR WORKING WITH
MY STAFF AND BEGIN BY CLARIFYING
THAT I WILL ACCEPT COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS FROM THE ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL
SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS TO BE
PROCESSED IN THIS COMMITTEE. MR.
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS, SB 1208
WOULD PROHIBIT THE REGIONAL
WATER BOARD FROM ISSUING A WASTE
DISCHARGE PERMIT TO ANY NEW
LANDFILL THAT IS LOCATED WITHIN
THE TIJUANA RIVER. NATIONAL
ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE, OR
WITHIN AN AREA THAT IS A
TRIBUTARY TO THE TIJUANA RIVER
AND ITS WATERSHED. UNLESS BOTH
THE SECRETARY OF EPA AND THE
REGIONAL BOARD MAKE SPECIFIC
HIGH STANDARD FINDINGS BASED ON
A SPECIFIC EVIDENTIARY STANDARD
STANDARD THAT TO THE EFFECT THAT
ANY DISCHARGE FROM SUCH PROPOSED
CLASS THREE LANDFILLS WOULD NOT
HARM OR OTHERWISE ADVERSELY
AFFECT THE TIJUANA RIVER
WATERSHED. THERE IS PRECEDENT IN
THE STATUTE FOR THE LEGISLATURE
PRESCRIBING CONDITIONS UNDER
WHICH THE REGIONAL BOARD CANNOT
ISSUE A DISCHARGE PERMIT BECAUSE
OF A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCES. SO LET ME JUST
EXPLAIN THE SCENARIO ON THE
GROUND HERE AND WHY IT'S VERY,
VERY PRESSING AND URGENT THAT
TIJUANA RIVER WATERSHED, ON THE
BORDER BETWEEN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA AND MEXICO,
TRANSVERSES THE BORDER A NUMBER
OF TIMES, BUT IT IS ONE
ACCORDING TO AMERICAN RIVERS. OF
THE TEN MOST DISTRESSED AND
POLLUTED RIVER SYSTEMS AND
WATERSHEDS IN THE UNITED STATES,
CURRENTLY, IT IS ALSO FOR THE
LAST TWO YEARS AND FRANKLY, FOR
DECADES, AN AREA WHERE LITERALLY
BILLIONS OF GALLONS OF UNTREATED
SEWAGE TRANSBOUNDARY FLOWS
THROUGH THE ESTUARY AND ITS
TRIBUTARIES INTO THE PACIFIC
OCEAN. IT CONTRIBUTES TO
INCREDIBLY UNHEALTHY AND
POLLUTING WATER IMPACTS. BUT
MORE IMPORTANTLY AND RECENTLY,
ACCORDING TO NEW RESEARCH BY
SCRIPPS INSTITUTION, WE ARE NOW
LEARNING THAT A LOT OF THESE
BIOLOGICAL POLLUTANTS ARE
BECOMING AEROSOLIZED IN THE AIR
COLUMN ALONG WITH OTHER
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
RUNOFF. SO IT IS LITERALLY A
POISONOUS SOUP THAT IS BOTH IN
THE TOPOGRAPHY, IN THE
WATERSHED. BUT IT IS NOW ALSO,
WE KNOW IN THE AIR COLUMN, AND
IT IS BECOMING AEROSOLIZED, AND
IT IS CARRIED LANDWARD FOR
FARTHER DISTANCES THAN ANY OF US
EVER ASSUMED. SO WE HAVE A
CONFLUENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND
PUBLIC HEALTH ELEMENTS HERE THAT
CREATE ONE OF THE WORST
ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS. AND
PUBLIC HEALTH DISASTERS
CURRENTLY OCCURRING IN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA. IT IS UNIQUE IN
THAT WAY BECAUSE OF THE
CONFLUENCE MULTI-LAYER NUMBER OF
ISSUES THAT ARE PRESENTING
THEMSELVES HERE, BUT IT IS ALSO
A PART OF THIS STATE THAT HAS
MORE THAN A CENTURY LONG
HISTORY, PARDON THE PUN OF
HAVING UNDESIRABLE AND UNHEALTHY
LAND USES DUMPED UPON IT. I GREW
UP IN THIS PART OF OUR STATE AND
SOUTH OF THE I-8 IN SAN DIEGO
COUNTY HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN
HOME TO, GAS POWERED, WATERFRONT
ENERGY PLANTS. DIESEL POWERED
PEAKER PLANTS, RENDERING YARDS
AND PLANTS WRECKING YARDS, HEAVY
INDUSTRIAL USES WITHOUT ADEQUATE
BUFFERING TO SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
AND ON AND ON AND ON. IT IS ALSO
HOME TO A CLASS THREE LANDFILL
THAT IS NEAR CAPACITY AND HAS A
LIMITED NUMBER OF YEARS ON ITS
SHELF LIFE, AND THE PROPOSAL AT
QUESTION HERE, AND IS THE DRIVER
OF MY BILL, IS ONE THAT WAS
INITIALLY BROUGHT FORTH IN THE
COUNTY BY WAY OF A COUNTY BALLOT
INITIATIVE MORE THAN A DECADE
AGO, ADVERTISING ITSELF AS SOME
KIND OF A RECYCLING FACILITY.
UNFORTUNATELY, THAT COULDN'T BE
FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH, THE
BALLOT MEASURE, WAS ADOPTED BY
THE VOTERS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY
AND PROCESSED A ZONING CHANGE
AND A CHANGE TO THE IMPLEMENTING
REGS TO THAT ZONING CHANGE TO
ALLOW THE POSSIBILITY OF A CLASS
THREE LANDFILL TO BE LOCATED AT
THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED SITE,
WHICH IS IN THE TIJUANA RIVER
WATERSHED, JUST A FEW MILES
SOUTH OF AN ALREADY EXISTING
CLASS THREE LANDFILL. SO THIS
WOULD BE A TWOFER, RIGHT IN THE
SAME COMMUNITY THAT HAS BEEN
EXPERIENCING, AS I ARTICULATED
EARLIER, NOT JUST THE BIOLOGICAL
AND PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS, BUT
ALSO YET ONE MORE PROJECT THAT
WOULD BE JUST ANOTHER IN A LONG
LINE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY ADVERSE
USES BEING DUMPED ON THIS
COMMUNITY, WHICH IS A COMMUNITY
OF COLOR UNDER-INVESTED
COMMUNITY WITHOUT THE HISTORIC
ABILITY, FINANCIALLY OR
POLITICALLY, TO FIGHT BACK, I
HAVE TO ADD ALSO THAT THE FINE
PRINT IN THE MEASURE THAT WAS
ADOPTED DID SOMETHING EVEN MORE
EGREGIOUS FROM THE PROCESS
STANDPOINT. IT UTTERLY REMOVED
ANY REVIEW OR ANY OVERSIGHT BY
THE PEOPLE'S ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES IN THE COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO, THE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS HAVE BEEN REMOVED
FROM THE SEQUEL PROCESS, AND THE
LEAD FOR CEQA REVIEW IN THE VERY
UNIQUE PROCESS THAT WAS
INADVERTENTLY ADOPTED BY THE
VOTERS, BASICALLY CREATES AN
ENTITLEMENT PATH FOR THIS. AND
ONLY THIS PROPOSED LANDFILL THAT
LITERALLY DOES NOT EXIST
ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE STATE. IN
OTHER WORDS, NO OTHER LANDFILL
EVER IN THE STATE HAS BEEN
SUBJECT TO THIS TYPE OF A
PROCESS. SO TAKEN TOGETHER IN
SUMMARY, MR. CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS, WE HAVE A VERY UNIQUE
CONVERGENCE OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS
IN THIS REGION. WE HAVE A
HISTORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL
INJUSTICE IN THIS REGION, AND MY
BILL SEEKS TO MAKE SURE THAT
THERE IS AN EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH
STANDARD. BASED UPON A FINDING
OF CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
ON THE PART OF THE SECRETARY AND
THE BOARD THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY
CIRCUMSTANCE IN WHICH IT COULD
OVERCOME A PROHIBITION ON THE
ISSUANCE OF A DISCHARGE PERMIT.
THIS WATERSHED IS ONE OF THE
MOST DISTRESSED IN THE STATE,
AND IT IS POISONING THIS PART OF
OUR STATE. AND IT IS NECESSARY,
IN MY VIEW, AND THE VIEW OF THE
SUPPORTERS OF THIS BILL THAT THE
STATE TAKE ACTION TO PREVENT
ANOTHER AGGRAVATION OF THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES. AND WITH ME
TODAY, I HAVE A COUPLE
INCREDIBLE WITNESSES, FIRST,
STARTING WITH STEPHANIE PECK,
THE FOUNDER OF PROTECT OTAY
FOOTHILLS, AND ALSO FRANCIS
MOTIWALA, AN ACTIVIST, SAN
DIEGO. THANK YOU, SENATOR
PADILLA. GOOD AFTERNOON. ALMOST
EVENING. THANK YOU, CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY. AS SENATOR
PADILLA SAID, MY NAME IS
STEPHANIE PECK, AND I FOUNDED
PROTECT OTAY FOOTHILLS TO GIVE A
VOICE TO THE SERIOUS CONCERNS
REGARDING THE PROSPECT THAT A
NEW AND PRIVATE LANDFILL COULD
BE SITED IN THIS LOCATION.
PROTECTED FOOTHILLS IS A BROAD
COALITION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS,
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, COMMUNITY
LEADERS AND RESIDENTS EXTREMELY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF
SITING A PROPOSED LANDFILL IN
THE TIJUANA RIVER WATERSHED, AND
WHO SUPPORT SB 1208. THAT
SUPPORT INCLUDES MEMBERS OF THE
SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, INCLUDING CHAIR
WOMAN NORA VARGAS, MEMBERS OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN DIEGO
INCLUDING PRESIDENT SEAN ELO
RIVERA, MAYORS AND COUNCILS FROM
COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM THE
IMPACTED CITIES. MORE THAN A
DOZEN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS AND
ORGANIZATIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE AND LABOR ORGANIZATIONS,
AND MORE THAN 1500 RESIDENTS.
THE PROPOSED LANDFILL CLEARLY
WOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN THE
TIJUANA RIVER TRIBUTARY SYSTEM,
AND WITH THE RIVER ONE AND A
HALF MILES SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED
SITE. DESPITE BEST EFFORTS.
OTHERWISE, WE KNOW THAT
LANDFILLS POLLUTE. WE KNOW
SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER THAT
LEAVE A SITE WILL FLOW INTO A
RIVER, AND WE KNOW TRANSBOUNDARY
FLOWS MOVE POLLUTANTS DOWNSTREAM
. WE APPLAUD SENATOR PADILLA'S
RECOGNITION THAT WE ALL LIVE
DOWNSTREAM. IT'S NOT A RISK WE
CAN AFFORD HERE. THE TIJUANA
RIVER CANNOT WITHSTAND ANOTHER
MAJOR STRESSOR. SAN DIEGO COUNTY
DOES NOT NEED A NEW LANDFILL.
THE 2022 FIVE YEAR STATE
REQUIRED REPORT CONFIRMED BY CAL
EPA SECRETARY YANA GARCIA,
UNEQUIVOCALLY SHOWS THAT SAN
DIEGO COUNTY HAS LANDFILL
CAPACITY THROUGH AT LEAST 2053.
THE BILL WILL NOT CHANGE ANY
CURRENT OR PLANNED CLOSURES OR
EXPANSIONS OF THE EXISTING
LANDFILLS. SITING A NEW HARMFUL
LANDFILL THAT IS NOT NEEDED IS
COUNTER TO STATE CLIMATE POLICY,
AND SAN DIEGO COUNTY'S OWN
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, INCLUDING
FEASIBLE METHANE REDUCTION
TARGETS. THE AREA IN THE TIJUANA
RIVER WATERSHED IS ONE OF THE
MOST RICH, DIVERSE AND UNIQUE
AREAS IN THE COUNTY. IN THE
COUNTRY, IT IS HOST TO MORE THAN
TWO DOZEN ENDANGERED, THREATENED
AND SENSITIVE SPECIES OF
ANIMALS, PLANTS AND CRITICAL
HABITAT. FURTHER IMPAIRMENT OF
THE TIJUANA RIVER TRIBUTARY
SYSTEM AFFECTS THESE SPECIES AS
WELL. 14 YEARS AGO, VOTERS WERE
PRESENTED WITH A MEASURE CLOAKED
IN THE URGENCY OF IMMINENTLY
RUNNING OUT OF LANDFILL SPACE IN
A MANNER THAT DEPRIVED THEM OF
TRULY UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY
WERE VOTING FOR. MUCH HAS
CHANGED SINCE 2010. THE TIJUANA
RIVER CRISIS HAS ONLY WORSENED
THE ENVIRONMENTAL BURDENS ON
SOUTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY.
COMMUNITIES HAVE GROWN, AND THE
PENDULUM HAS MOVED TOWARD REAL
CLIMATE ACTION, ORGANICS
DIVERSION AND ZERO WASTE. WE
MUST ADAPT TO CHANGING
CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THIS VEHICLE
ALLOWS US TO DO THAT. THE RISKS
ARE REAL AND VERY SERIOUS. THE
WORSENING OF THE TIJUANA RIVER
IS NOT A RISK WE CAN AFFORD, AND
THE SYSTEM CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT
. THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW
LANDFILL IN THE SAME RIVER
SYSTEM WHERE SIGNIFICANT
FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL TIME
FOCUS AND RESOURCES ARE FINALLY
COALESCING TO ADDRESS A DECADES
LONG CROSS-BORDER POLLUTION
CRISIS IS ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL
AND IRRESPONSIBLE. THERE IS NO
RATIONALE FOR IMPOSING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL, ECOLOGICAL, AND
PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS OF A
LANDFILL IN THE SENSITIVE
WATERSHED WHEN A LANDFILL IS NOT
EVEN NEEDED, WE RESPECTFULLY
SUPPORT. WE RESPECTFULLY URGE
YOUR SUPPORT FOR THIS IMPORTANT
AND NEEDED LEGISLATION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. TWO
MINUTES, THANK YOU, REALLY
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HERE AND ADDRESS YOU ALL ON
BEHALF OF OUR COMMUNITY IN SAN
DIEGO. HOPEFULLY YOU'VE ALL HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT AND
SPEND A DAY AT THE BEACH,
HOPEFULLY, THOUGH, FOR YOU, IT
WAS AN IMPERIAL BEACH. OTHERWISE
YOU MAY HAVE ENDED UP WITH E
COLI, OR A STAPH INFECTION,
HOWEVER, OUR LOCAL BUSINESSES
LIKE THE AWESOME KATIE'S CAFE,
WOULD HAVE REALLY ENJOYED TO
HAVE YOU. THEY HAVE AN EXCELLENT
AVOCADO TOAST. I HIGHLY
RECOMMEND, AND YOU KNOW, WE'D
LOVE TO HAVE YOU DOWN THERE. A
COUPLE THAT THE SENATOR AND I
MET LAST WEEK, I'M SURE WOULD
LOVE TO PERSONALLY TELL YOU
ABOUT THE HEADACHES THEY'VE BEEN
EXPERIENCING AND HOW THEY CAN'T
SLEEP AT NIGHT BECAUSE OF THE
TERRIBLE STENCH IN THEIR
NEIGHBORHOOD. AND AS YOU GUYS
KNOW, THEIR PROBLEMS ARE YOUR
PROBLEMS BECAUSE THE OCEAN
ECONOMY, INCLUDING TOURISM, IS A
HUGE CONTRIBUTOR TO CALIFORNIA'S
REVENUE AND EMPLOYMENT. AND
WE'RE MISSING OUT ON 50 MILES OF
NAUTICAL MILES OF ECONOMIC
ACTIVITY EVERY SINGLE DAY. THOSE
BEACHES ARE CLOSED. BUYING OR
RENTING A BOAT IS A NO GO,
BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO SWIM IN
THOSE TOXIC WATERS, FORGET ABOUT
BUYING FISHING POLES AND TACKLE.
JUST BEING NEAR THE WATER IS
ENOUGH TO MAKE YOU SICK.
RESTAURANTS ARE BUYING LESS MEAT
AND PRODUCE. BOOGIE BOARD SALES
ARE DOWN AND HOTEL ROOMS ARE
SITTING EMPTY. HOSPITAL ROOMS,
HOWEVER, ARE FULL, WITH ONE
URGENT CARE REPORTING A 2 TO
300% INCREASE IN PATIENTS
SUFFERING FROM GASTROINTESTINAL
ILLNESS. THERE'S A LOT WE MUST
DO TOGETHER TO HEAL OUR REGION
FROM THE TIJUANA RIVER.
POLLUTION CRISIS. THIS
LEGISLATION IS ONE SIMPLE THING
YOU ALL CAN DO TODAY TO ENSURE
THAT NO FURTHER HARM IS DONE. WE
DON'T NEED A LANDFILL. WE
DEFINITELY DON'T NEED ONE WITHIN
THE TIJUANA RIVER WATERSHED, OUR
PEOPLE ARE ALREADY SUFFERING.
PLEASE DON'T MAKE US SUFFER
ANYMORE. ALL POWER TO THE
PEOPLE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANY
PERSONS IN THE HEARING ROOM
WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR
SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL. MELISSA
ROMERO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
VOTERS IN SUPPORT CHRIS MARTINEZ
FOR CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE
AND SUPPORT. IN SUPPORT VICTORIA
ROHM WITH NRDC AND ALSO
REGISTERING SUPPORT FOR THE
CALIFORNIA COASTAL PROTECTION
NETWORK. THANK YOU. HELLO CHAIR
MEMBERS CHRISTINA HAMILTON HERE
WITH UNITED DOMESTIC WORKERS, WE
REPRESENT APPROXIMATELY 40,000
MEMBERS IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
INCLUDING THOUSANDS WHO LIVE IN
THE IMPACTED AREAS. TIRED OF
GETTING DUMPED ON. THANK YOU.
CHRISTINA SCARINGE OF THE CENTER
FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND
SUPPORT. JACOB EVANS WITH SIERRA
CLUB CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. IF I COULD ADD THE
CLIMATE REALITY PROJECT OF SAN
DIEGO ASKED ME TO ADD THEIR
SUPPORT AS WELL. ABSOLUTELY. ANY
PERSONS IN THE HEARING ROOM IN
OPPOSITION.
TWO WITNESSES. TWO MINUTES.
GREAT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS STEVE CRUZ. AND IF YOUR
INDULGENCE, I MAY OCCUPY THE
ENTIRE THREE MINUTES OR SO. AND
THEN MAYBE LEAVE, QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS. AND JOINING ME TODAY,
MR. DAVID WICK, WHO IS THE CEO
OF NATIONAL ENTERPRISES, WHO IS
THE PROJECT DEVELOPER, FOR THE
EAST OTAY MESA LANDFILL PROJECT.
AND THEN JAKE RUSSELL, WHO WAS
OUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT. SO
I'LL START WITH WHAT I'VE SHARED
PRIVATELY AND PUBLICLY WITH THE
SENATOR, A GREAT DEAL OF RESPECT
OF WHAT HE'S DOING, TO PROTECT
THE TIJUANA RIVER WATERSHED.
HOWEVER, WE DO DISAGREE WITH THE
APPROACH OF SB 1208 AS CURRENTLY
WRITTEN. THE BILL WOULD PROHIBIT
A REGIONAL WATER BOARD FROM
ISSUING A PERMIT FOR A LANDFILL
IN THE TIJUANA RIVER WATERSHED,
EVEN AS AMENDED. AND I WANT TO
ADDRESS AMENDMENTS, THE PROPOSED
, EVEN AS AMENDED, THE BILL
WOULD UNDERMINE THE EXISTING
ENVIRONMENTAL AND WATER BOARD
REVIEW PROCESS AND UNDERMINE 84%
OF SAN DIEGO VOTERS WHO APPROVE
THE INITIATIVE. AND THEY DID SO
WITH EYES WIDE OPEN, TO START,
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE
PROJECT IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN
THE TIJUANA RIVER ESTUARY AND
THAT THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC
BASIS AT THIS POINT THAT THE
PROJECT WOULD ADVERSELY IMPACT
THE TIJUANA RIVER WATERSHED. THE
PROJECT MUST GO THROUGH A FULL
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER
SEQUA, WHICH IS JUST UNDERWAY,
AND INCLUDING RIGOROUS REVIEW BY
THE REGIONAL WATER BOARD, WHO
MUST DETERMINE THAT THE PROJECT
WILL NOT HAVE ANY NEGATIVE
IMPACTS ON THE WATER QUALITY FOR
THE TIJUANA RIVER. MUST ALSO BE
STATED THAT THE VOTERS ARE FULLY
AWARE OF WHAT THEY WERE VOTING
FOR. IT WAS VERY CLEAR IN THE
TITLE AND THE SUMMARY AND THE
EIGHT PAGES OF THE MEASURE THAT
IT WAS A REZONING FOR A LANDFILL
AND RECYCLING CENTER IN THE SAN
DIEGO COUNTY AREA. ALSO WANTED
TO CLARIFY THAT THE LOCAL VOTER
INITIATIVE WOULD NOT PERMIT THE
PROJECT TO BYPASS SEQUA. IT WAS
A REZONE AND WITHOUT A VOTE OF
THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
HOWEVER, THE PROJECT THAT THE
COUNTY LÀ IS THE LEAD AGENCY TO
TAKE THIS PROCESS TO A FULL
SEQUA REVIEW AND THERE WILL BE
EXTENSIVE COUNTY INPUT,
INCLUDING MITIGATION,
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AS THE
PROJECT MOVES FORWARD, ON THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER THE LANDFILL
AND RECYCLING CENTER ARE NEEDED,
I KNOW WE'VE HEARD DIFFERENT,
STATEMENTS FROM THE SUPPORTERS,
AND I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT
THAT THEY'RE REFERENCING A
COUNTY REPORT, A FIVE YEAR
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
REPORT PRODUCED IN 2022. AND THE
REPORT QUESTIONS THE NEED FOR A
LANDFILL, BUT ONLY UNDER A
COUPLE OF CONCLUSIONS THAT ONE,
THAT WE MEET OUR, WASTE AND
DIVERSION GOALS AND THEN TWO,
THAT THE EXISTING LANDFILLS WILL
CLOSE AND THESE THREE EXISTING
LANDFILLS, HAVE SUBMITTED
REQUESTS TO INCREASE OR EXPAND
THE HEIGHT OF THE OF THE OF THE
WASTE. AND THAT'S WHICH HAS BEEN
CONTROVERSIAL BECAUSE THEY'RE
LOCATED IN EXISTING COMMUNITIES,
WHEREAS THE EAST OTAY PROJECT IS
SEVERAL MILES AWAY FROM ANY
RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY AND
SEVERAL MILES AWAY FROM THE
TIJUANA RIVER. I WOULD ADD ON
THE RECYCLING ELEMENT, BECAUSE I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. COMING UP
ON THREE MINUTES, I'M GETTING TO
MY THREE MINUTES. I WANT TO SAY
THAT TREMENDOUS RECYCLING,
COMPONENT TO THE PROJECT WILL GO
INTO THAT AND MAYBE JAKE WILL,
IN A QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD,
BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE TÌM
AMENDMENTS, APPRECIATE THAT IT
REMOVED THE PROHIBITION, BUT IT
PUT IN PLACE SOMETHING THAT
COULD EFFECTIVELY BE A DE FACTO
BECAUSE IT GIVES THE SECRETARY
OF EPA UNILATERAL AUTHORITY AND
UNIQUE AUTHORITY, WE THINK, TO
ESTABLISH FINDINGS AT A HIGH
STANDARD THAT WE DON'T THINK YOU
COULD OVERCOME. CLEAR AND
CONVINCING. AND IT SAYS ANY HARM
TO THE TIJUANA RIVER TRIBUTARY,
NOT THE ESTUARY, A TRIBUTARY
WHICH IS ABOUT HALF THE COUNTY
OR ONE THIRD OF THE COUNTY. IF
I'M TO BE PRECISE. AND WE THINK
THAT IS JUST A HIGH BAR AND WE
THINK THAT IT COULD AMOUNT TO A
FACTO, A DE FACTO, A BAN, OR
THAT UNILATERALLY COULD BE ABLE
TO STOP THE PROJECT. SO I'LL
STOP THERE, AND I DO HAVE FOLKS
HERE, IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS.
ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. NO ONE
ELSE WITH A TWO MINUTES, I WILL
ADD EVERYTHING THAT SENATOR
PADILLA AND HIS WITNESSES SAID.
THANK YOU. WITH REGARD TO THE
SEWER AND THE PROBLEMS IN THE
COASTAL COMMUNITIES OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, SEWER FROM TIJUANA GOING
INTO THE OCEAN IS A PROBLEM. I
RECOGNIZE THAT, AND I APPRECIATE
HIS SUPPORT TO SOLVE THAT
PROBLEM. THIS PROJECT HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. ZERO.
READ THE FACTS. READ THE
PROPOSITION. READ THE LETTER
FROM CALRECYCLE IN SEPTEMBER
22ND, YOU WILL SEE THERE'S A
COST. IF YOU KILL THIS PROJECT
AT THIS LOCATION, WHAT ARE YOU
GOING TO DO IN 2054, 20, 55? YOU
THIS IS NOT THE PROCESS. THE
PROCESS IS CEQA TO GO THROUGH
ALL THE STUDIES THAT WE'RE GOING
THROUGH 47 DIFFERENT STUDIES AND
HAVE THE PROJECT VETTED THAT
WAY, NOT TO KILL IT IN A BILL.
THAT'S ALL I'M HERE TO TELL YOU.
THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU. ANY
PERSONS IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO
WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR
OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURE? I'M
OKAY. THANK YOU. CHAIR. NICK
ROMO WITH THE CALIFORNIA
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. SEEING NO
OTHERS, ANY MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE? QUESTIONS, COMMENTS,
CONCERNS. MR. WOOD. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR, SO, SENATOR PADILLA
AND I, FIRST OF ALL, I'M GOING
TO TELL YOU UP FRONT, I'M GOING
TO SUPPORT YOUR BILL TODAY, BUT
I AM I HAVE A LITTLE THERE'S A
LITTLE BIT OF A HEAD SCRATCHER
FOR ME. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE
DIFFERENT REGIONS WITH WATER
QUALITY CONTROL BOARDS. AND I
WILL TELL YOU THAT IN MY REGION,
I, I JUST CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE
THAT THEY WOULD DO ANYTHING TO
HARM OUR WATERSHEDS. SO ARE YOU
IS A TIJUANA RIVER ALSO UNDER
FEDERAL JURISDICTION AS A
FEDERAL WATERWAY? THERE ARE
ELEMENTS AS YOU KNOW, MR.
CHAIRMAN, I APOLOGIZE. I
REMEMBER, AS YOU ALL ARE AWARE,
THERE ARE SOME REGULATORY
ELEMENTS THERE, BUT THEY'RE NOT
PREEMPTIVE, TO THE PROHIBITION
THAT WE'RE SEEKING IN THE BILL.
OKAY. AND SO YOU DON'T HAVE
FAITH THAT THE REGIONAL WATER
QUALITY CONTROL BOARD IS GOING
TO PROTECT THE WATERSHED
WATERWAYS. AND I AND I SAY THAT
BECAUSE LET ME GIVE YOU AN
EXAMPLE. IN OUR LITTLE CITY,
DURING A BIG STORM EVENT A FEW
YEARS, MANY, MANY YEARS AGO NOW,
WATER FROM A WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT FLOWED INTO THE
RIVER. THE IRONY OF THAT, AND WE
WERE SUED. WE WERE SUED, SUED
ACTUALLY WENT ALL THE WAY UP TO
THE US SUPREME COURT, AND WE
LOST. THE IRONY OF THAT WAS THAT
THE WATER THAT WENT INTO THE
RIVER WAS CLEANER THAN THE
RIVER. IT WAS TREATED AND
CLEANER THAN THE RIVER, AND
WE'RE SUBJECT TO A WHOLE LOT OF
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PLANT
PERMITS AND SO ON. AND SO FORTH.
AND SO I, I JUST I KNOW HOW
STRINGENT REGIONAL, REGIONAL
WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARDS
ARE. SO I'M JUST IS THERE IS
THERE A LACK OF FAITH WITH THIS
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD, OR IS IT JUST IS IT A
FEAR THAT THAT SOMETHING MAY
HAPPEN? SO I'M JUST TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN,
IF I MIGHT, AS YOU, AS YOU KNOW,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, THERE'S SOME I
WON'T GET TOO TECHNICAL, BUT AS
YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF FIRST OF
ALL, THERE'S A REASON WHY A
DIFFERENT AND UNIQUE PROCESS WAS
PLACED IN THE BALLOT INITIATIVE.
THIS THIS SAME APPROACH WAS
TRIED AND I CAN COME BACK TO
THAT IF THE MEMBERS ARE
INTERESTED. MORE THAN A DECADE
AGO IN NORTH COUNTY, THIS IS A
2.0 REPLAY OF A PLAYBOOK
DESIGNED TO GET CLASS THREE
LANDFILLS APPROVED, THERE WAS A
REASON WHY THE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND THE TYPICAL OPEN
PUBLIC, PROCESS THAT PROVIDED
FOR FINDINGS BY THE ELECTED
COUNTY BOARD AND A SEQUEL
REVIEW, AND FOR THEM TO BE THE
PRIMARY LEAD AGENCY AND TO MAKE
THOSE FINDINGS IN THE RECORD WAS
BASICALLY ELIMINATED IN THE
BALLOT MEASURE. THERE'S A REASON
WHY THEY DID THAT. THERE'S A
REASON WHY RIGHT NOW,
IRONICALLY, BECAUSE OF A FLUKE
IN OUR LAW, THE LEAD AGENCY THAT
WOULD TAKE UP THIS REVIEW AT THE
COUNTY IS WALLED OFF FROM THE
COUNTY BOARD AND INVOLVES A
SUBDIVISION OF A HEALTH
DEPARTMENT THAT DOESN'T HAVE SQL
REVIEW EXPERTISE. THERE'S A
REASON WHY THAT WAS IN THERE,
TYPICALLY, AS YOU KNOW, THE
BOARD HAS TO MAKE A CERTAIN
AMOUNT OF INDEPENDENT FINDINGS,
FINDINGS. EXCUSE ME, BUT THEY
CAN TAKE NOTE OF THE FINDINGS OF
THE LEAD AGENCY ON SEQUA HERE.
THAT BECOMES PROBLEMATIC. AND
THE REASON WHY IT'S NOT A
QUESTION OF TRUST. IT'S NOT A
QUESTION OF TRUST IN INDIVIDUALS
OR THE PROCESS. IT'S A QUESTION
OF WHETHER THE STANDARD HERE
SHOULD BE HIGHER BECAUSE OF THE
EXIGENCIES AND THE AND THE
INCREDIBLE STRESS THAT IS ON
THIS WATERSHED AND ON THIS
REGION THAT IS UNIQUE, I NOT TO
BE DRAMATIC, BUT I AND SOME OF
YOU ARE OLD LIKE ME THAT MIGHT
KNOW WHAT LOVE CANAL WAS. I
MEAN, IS THERE ANY SERIOUS
CONVERSATION THAT WE NEED TO YOU
KNOW, WE SHOULD JUST TRUST THE
NORMAL REVIEW PROCESS, THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER WE SHOULD
ADD MORE IMPACTS IN AN AREA LIKE
LOVE CANAL, RIGHT? THERE IS SO
MUCH DAMAGE TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH
AND SO MANY ISSUES IN THIS
EXISTING WATERSHED AND THE
EVIDENCE, AND I CAN PROVIDE IT
TO YOUR OFFICE, ARE SIGNIFICANT
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT NO
MATTER WHAT THE BEST PRACTICE
IS, NO MATTER THE MODERN
MITIGATION MEASURES THAT ARE
EMPLOYED IN A CLASS THREE DUMP,
THERE WILL ALWAYS BE IMPACTS
INTO THE WATERSHED BECAUSE OF A
LANDFILL. CERTAINLY ONE OF OVER
340 ACRES IN THE WATERSHED. SO
IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF TRUSTING
INDIVIDUALS OR HAVING FAITH.
IT'S A QUESTION ON WHETHER WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BECAUSE
OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE, WE
HAVE THE HIGHEST STANDARD
POSSIBLE THAT GOES ABOVE AND
BEYOND WHAT WOULD BE TYPICAL,
BECAUSE IT IS A JUSTIFIED IN OUR
VIEW. WELL, THANK YOU. AND I IT
SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE EXTENUATING
CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS PARTICULAR
CASE. AS I SAID, I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT THE BILL. BUT IF THAT
WAS A BIT OF A HEAD SCRATCHER
FOR ME, BASED ON MY PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE IN THE CITY, THAT I
LIVE IN, MR. FLORA, THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. AND, SENATOR, THANK
YOU FOR, YOU KNOW, YOUR WORK ON
THIS BILL. I DO, IS IT YOUR
BELIEF, THOUGH, THAT HAVING A
SECRETARY OF CAL EPA MAKE A
DECISION ON IS THAT KIND OF THE
EXTRA STEP OF THAT YOU'RE
LOOKING FOR? MR. CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBER? IF YOU LOOK AT THE
LANGUAGE, IT STARTS WITH THE
PROHIBITION ON THE DISCHARGE
PERMIT, AND IT QUALIFIES THAT
WITH THE HIGH STANDARDS HERE.
AND CERTAINLY ONE OF THOSE IS A
FINDING BY THE SECRETARY OF EPA
BASED ON A HIGH EVIDENTIARY
STANDARD THAT COULD POTENTIALLY,
IN THEORY, OVERCOME THAT, BUT
THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT VERY,
VERY HIGH FINDING. AND, AND SO I
THINK WE DO THINK IT'S
APPROPRIATE WE TOOK IT AS
AMENDMENT. WE, YOU KNOW, WE
THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, FAR FROM
THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE
BILL. BUT WE WERE HAPPY TO, TO
TAKE THAT AND TRY TO, YOU KNOW,
WORK WITH INTERESTED PARTIES.
BUT A SUFFICIENTLY SATISFIED
WITH THAT, THAT IT, IT STILL
RETAINS A VERY, VERY HIGH
STANDARD, WHICH AGAIN WE THINK
IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS
CIRCUMSTANCE. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. CAN I HAVE THE OPPOSITION
RESPOND TO THAT? IF THEY'D LIKE?
YES. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
AND, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IN LOOKING
AT THE LANGUAGE, IT DOES
ESTABLISH FINDINGS BASED ON
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE,
WHICH IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE
REGIONAL WATER BOARD WORK AND
IT'S VERY EXPANSIVE. IT USES THE
WORD WILL HARM THE TIJUANA
RIVER. IT DOESN'T EVEN REALLY
LIMIT IT TO WATER QUALITY. SO WE
DID HAVE SUGGESTED CHANGES. AND
WE HOPE THE SENATOR WOULD
CONSIDER THOSE, WHICH IS TO
ALIGN THAT REVIEW WITH WHAT THE
REGIONAL WATER BOARD IS DOING.
THAT'S FACT BASED AND SCIENCE
BASED. THERE'S A ROBUST
REGULATORY REGIME THAT, THAT IT
MUST GO THROUGH. AND IT
SHOULDN'T IT SHOULD BE
CONSISTENT, THAT YOU SHOULDN'T
HAVE ONE OFFICIAL COMING IN. IT
SETS A HORRIBLE PRECEDENT FOR
ANY PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
PROJECT WHERE YOU GIVE
UNILATERAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE
SUCH FINDINGS AND THAT'S NOT
CONSISTENT WITH THE REVIEW OF
THE WATER BOARD. SO THAT IS OUR
CONCERN WITH THE CHANGE. THANK
YOU. NO THANK YOU. JUST ONE MORE
JUST MORE STATEMENT. THROUGH
NATURAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE. YOU
KNOW, WE'VE BEEN ON THIS
COMMITTEE FOR A WHILE NOW, AND
WE SET UP THESE PROCESSES TO
PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT. AND WE
ALL KIND OF KNOW THE PLAYING
FIELD THAT WE STEP INTO WHEN WE
WANT TO GET SOMETHING APPROVED.
SO I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS THAT
KIND OF MOVING THAT GOALPOST,
KIND OF MIDSTREAM. AND SO I
WOULD JUST LIKE TO PUT THAT ON
THE RECORD THAT WE HAVE THESE
THINGS IN PLACE. AND THEN WHEN
THOSE GOALPOST MOVES, THEN I
WOULD KIND OF RAISE SOME
CONCERNS WITH THAT. ARE WE ABLE
TO ADDRESS, NO. MR. WOODS, MISS
FRIEDMAN, I WANT TO THANK
EVERYONE FOR THE DISCUSSION. I
MEAN, I THINK THIS IS A HARD
BILL FOR SOME OF US BECAUSE I
DON'T KNOW THE AREA. I DON'T
KNOW THE ALTERNATIVES. I'VE BEEN
THROUGH LANDFILL WARS IN MY CITY
FOR YEARS. THEY'RE STILL GOING
ON TO THIS DAY. AND IT'S IT CAN
BE A VERY FRUSTRATING AND
COMPLICATED QUESTION BECAUSE
NOBODY WANTS A LANDFILL NEAR
THEM, NOBODY WANTS TO SEE A
LANDFILL EXPANDED. AND YET
COMMUNITIES HAVE TO DEAL WITH
THEIR SOLID WASTE. AND AS MUCH
AS WE'VE ALL BEEN TRYING TO
ENCOURAGE DIVERSION, WE ALSO
KNOW THAT WE'RE JUST NOT
DIVERTING ENOUGH FROM LANDFILLS
TO KEEP, PARTICULARLY OUR URBAN
AREAS. THE LANDFILLS INTACT. WE
KEEP THEM OPERATING, AND THE
ALTERNATIVES ARE PROJECTS LIKE
THIS. OR IN THE CASE OF MANY
AREAS, SHIPPING GARBAGE FAR AWAY
WITH ALL OF THE TRUCKLOADS,
DIESEL TRUCKS THAT THAT MEANS ON
THE HIGHWAYS THROUGH COMMUNITIES
THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, NEAR THOSE
HIGHWAYS. SO IT CAN BE REALLY
COMPLICATED. I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT THIS TODAY. I SEE IT AS
A DISTRICT BILL, AND I JUST HOPE
, THOUGH, THAT AS YOU MOVE
FORWARD, YOU THINK OF WHAT THE
ALTERNATIVES ARE, BECAUSE I
HAVEN'T HEARD ANYONE TALK ABOUT
WHAT THE ALTERNATIVES ARE. AND
TO ME, DIVERSION IS NOT, YOU
KNOW, WE ALL WANT IT, BUT IT'S
OFTEN NOT GOING TO HAPPEN WITH
ENOUGH SCALE AND FAST ENOUGH TO
DEAL WITH THE WASTE. AND IF YOU
HAVE A, YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE
OPPOSED TO EXPANDING THE CURRENT
LANDFILLS AND YOU DON'T WANT TO
SITE ANOTHER LANDFILL IN THE
COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T
TALKED ABOUT WHAT THE ANSWER IS,
AND I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THIS
DISCUSSION HERE. I FEEL LIKE
THIS IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING FOR
YOUR COMMUNITY TO HAVE AT THE
COUNTY OR THE CITY LEVEL, BUT
I'LL SUPPORT THIS TODAY. BUT,
YOU KNOW, I'M VERY LEERY OF
WADING INTO ANOTHER COMMUNITY'S
ARGUMENT OVER WHERE TO DISPOSE
OF THEIR TRASH. OFTEN WHEN A,
YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD THIS IN MY
COMMUNITY, IT WAS COMMUNITIES
TRYING TO PUSH THE IMPACT INTO
OTHER COMMUNITIES. AND
UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S OFTEN WHAT
IT ENDS UP BEING. AND, YOU KNOW,
WE COULD BE TILTING THIS. WE MAY
HAVE ANOTHER LEGISLATOR COME
NEXT YEAR TO UNDO WHATEVER WE DO
BECAUSE OF THE IMPACTS ON THEIR
DISTRICT. SO I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT IT TODAY. BUT I, I FEEL
NERVOUS ABOUT DOING ABOUT WADING
INTO THIS. THANKS ANY OTHER
COMMENTS BY COLLEAGUES? SEEING
NONE. SENATOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS, IF
I TAKE A MINUTE, I WOULD LIKE TO
JUST TO CLARIFY AND CORRECT THE
RECORD, FIRST OF ALL, THIS BILL
DOESN'T UNDERMINE THE WILL OF
THE VOTERS IN ANY WAY. AS A
MATTER OF FACT, THE PROPOSITION
THAT WAS ADOPTED ACTUALLY TOOK
AWAY, A CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT
PROCESS FOR REVIEW AND
PARTICIPATION BY THE PEOPLE'S
ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. I DON'T
THINK THEY BELIEVE THAT WAS THE
CASE WHEN THEY WERE VOTING FOR
THIS MEASURE TO CHANGE THE
ZONING, THE STATEMENT THAT THIS
PROJECT LOCATION IS NOT IN THE
TIJUANA RIVER WATERSHED IS
PATENTLY FALSE, AND THERE'S
PLENTY OF DATA IN THE RECORD AND
IN THIS RECORD OF THIS BILL AND
OTHERS. AND WE CAN CERTAINLY
FORWARD IT TO THE CONTRARY, IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS
NOT A PROPOSAL FOR A RECYCLING
FACILITY IN ANY WAY. THE,
OPPONENTS OF THIS BILL HAVE AN
APPLICATION BEFORE THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS THAT SETS OUT
THE TOTAL ACREAGE AND VERY
CLEARLY STATES THAT MORE THAN
98% OF THIS ACREAGE IS TO BE
DEDICATED TO A CLASS THREE DUMP,
AND THEY HAVE ALSO ADMITTED, AS
DOES YOUR ANALYSIS ADMIT, THAT
THEY'RE NOT CURRENTLY PURSUING
ANY RECYCLING FACILITY OF ANY
KIND, IN THIS, SEQUA IS NOT
BEING REMOVED. THE SEQUA PROCESS
WILL BE FOLLOWED, A HIGHER BAR
HERE IS APPROPRIATE, AND THE
LAST THING I'LL SAY, JUST TO BE
CLEAR, THIS IS NOT, A LANDFILL
WAR OR A NIMBY ISSUE. THIS IS AN
ISSUE ABOUT A LEVEL OF WATER
CONTAMINATION, BOTH BIOLOGICAL
AND INDUSTRIAL. IN THIS
WATERSHED AND AIR QUALITY
DETERIORATION THAT IS UNIQUE IN
THE STATE AND IS POISONING AN
ENTIRE REGION OF THIS STATE, AND
THAT IS WHAT THIS BILL SEEKS TO
MITIGATE. AND WITH THAT, I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. SENATOR, I THINK
YOU'VE HEARD A LOT OF THE
CONVERSATION. THAT'S HAPPENED
HERE TODAY, I THINK MY COLLEAGUE
FROM BURBANK HAS HAS MADE, FROM
GLENDALE, MY COLLEAGUE FROM
GLENDALE HAS MADE SOME
INCREDIBLE, POINTS ABOUT LOOKING
DOWNSTREAM AND THE COMMUNITY
CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE GOING TO
HAVE TO TAKE PLACE. BUT, I DON'T
THINK I WILL EVER STAND IN THE
WAY OF A COLLEAGUE OF MINE
FIGHTING FOR BETTER WATER AND
AIR QUALITY IN THEIR COMMUNITY,
IN THE WAY THAT THE PEOPLE WHO
HAVE SENT THEM HERE HAVE CALLED
ON THEM TO DO WITH THAT. THIS
BILL HAS A Dð PASS
RECOMMENDATION. MADAM, DO WE
HAVE A MOTION? SO, MR.
MURATSUCHI, IN A SECOND SECOND
BY MISS WICKS. MADAM SECRETARY,
CAN WE CALL THE ROLL? MOTION IS
DUE. PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. BRIAN, I BRIAN,
I FLORA. NO. FLORA. NO.
BAUER-KAHAN CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I
FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN. I HOOVER.
HOOVER. NOT VOTING. CHOLERA.
CHOLERA. I LACK MURATSUCHI
MURATSUCHI I PELLERIN. PELLERIN
I WIX. WIX I WOULD, WOULD I?
THAT BILL IS OUT. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. AND MEMBERS. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. SENATORS BLAKE SPEER
AND CABALLERO, YOU ARE OUR FINAL
AUTHORS OF THIS HEARING. WE DO.
YES, MADAM SECRETARY, SINCE WE
HAVE A RELATIVELY FULL COMMITTEE
AT THIS MOMENT, CAN WE DO ADD
ONS FOR ABSENT MEMBERS? YES,
SURE. LET'S DO IT. LET'S LET'S
TAKE IT FROM THE FIRST ONE THAT
MISS WICKS MISSED. YES. ITEM ONE
SB 308. BECKER. MOTION IS DO
PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CHAIR VOTING
AYE. ABSENT MEMBERS. FLORA.
FLORA. NOT VOTING. BAUER-KAHAN
SHE'S STILL HERE. I WASN'T,
WHAT'S THAT? BECKER. YEAH. YEAH.
OKAY OKAY. ITEM TWO SB 312
WIENER MOTION IS DO PASS, AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
ABSENT MEMBERS. BAUER KHN
FRIEDMAN I FRIEDMAN I HOOVER I
HOOVER I PELLERIN PELLERIN I
WICKS I WICKS I WOULD, I WOULD,
I. STAN VOTES HAS TEN VOTES.
WE'LL LEAVE IT OPEN. SB 571
ALLEN. MOTION IS DUE. PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CHAIR. VOTING AYE. ABSENT.
MEMBERS BAUER. KHN FRIEDMAN.
FRIEDMAN I HOOVER. SB 571.
HOOVER I CHOLERA. CHOLERA I LACK
WICKS. WICKS I WOULD, WOULD I
HAS TEN. WE'LL LEAVE IT OPEN SB
610 WIENER MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
ABSENT. MEMBERS. BAUER KHN
FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN. NOT VOTING.
HOOVER I. HOOVER I WICKS I WICKS
I WOULD WOULD I HAS EIGHT VOTES.
I DON'T KNOW WHY HE KEEPS DOING
THAT. WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN
SB 615 ALLEN MOTION IS DUE PASS
AS AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CHAIR VOTING AYE. ABSENT.
MEMBERS FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN I
HOOVER I HOOVER I CHOLERA
CHOLERA I WICKS I WICKS I WOULD,
I WOULD I THAT HAS TEN VOTES.
THAT BILL IS DONE SO I THINK. SB
707 NEWMAN MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. ABSENT. MEMBERS.
FRIEDMAN FRIEDMAN I HOOVER. NO.
HOOVER. NO PELLERIN. PELLERIN I
WICKS. WICKS I WOULD WOULD I.
SIX NINE 9 TO 3. THAT BILL IS
OUT. SB 1062 DAILY MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CHAIR VOTING AYE
. ABSENT. MEMBERS. BAUER KHN
FRIEDMAN. FRIEDMAN. NOT VOTING.
HOOVER. HOOVER I CHOLERA.
CHOLERA. NOT VOTING. PELLERIN I,
PELLERIN I WICKS. WICKS I WOULD,
WOULD I 4567. HESS SEVEN VOTES.
WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN SB
1143 ALLEN. MOTION IS DUE. PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS. CHAIR VOTING
I ABSENT MEMBERS. FRIEDMAN
FRIEDMAN I HOOVER. NO. HOOVER.
NO. CHOLERA CHOLERA I MURATSUCHI
MURATSUCHI I WICKS, I WICKS I
WOULD I WOULD I. 673 9 TO 2 THAT
BILL IS OUT SB 1208 PADILLA
MOTION. SKIP THAT ONE. YEAH SB
1231 ALLEN MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. ABSENT MEMBERS.
BAUER KHN FRIEDMAN 1231
FRIEDMAN I HOOVER. HOOVER I
CHOLERA. CHOLERA I MURATSUCHI
MURATSUCHI I WICKS. WICKS I
WOULD WOULD I THAT HAS 11 VOTES.
WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN. SB
1298 MOTION IS DUE PASS TO LABOR
AND EMPLOYMENT, WITH AMENDMENTS
BEING TAKEN IN LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR
VOTING. I ABSENT MEMBERS.
FRIEDMAN FRIEDMAN I HOOVER. YES
I HOOVER I WICKS I WICKS I WOULD
WOULD I THAT HOUSE 12 VOTES IT'S
OUT. COR 12 MOTION IS FOR THE
MEASURE TO BE ADOPTED. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. ABSENT. MEMBERS.
BAUER. KAHAN. FRIEDMAN FRIEDMAN
I HOOVER. NO. HOOVER. NO
PELLERIN. PELLERIN I WICKS.
WICKS I WOULD, I WOULD I HAS
EIGHT VOTES. WE'LL LEAVE THE
ROLL OPEN AND CONSENT CALENDAR
CONSENT ITEMS ARE ITEM SEVEN SB
945 ALVARADO GILL. ITEM 14 SB
1324 LIMÓN ABSENT. MEMBERS.
FRIEDMAN THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
FRIEDMAN I HOOVER I HOOVER I
PELLERIN PELLERIN I WICKS. WICKS
I WOULD WOULD I CONSENT
CALENDARS ADOPTED. AGAIN WE ARE
LOOKING FOR SENATORS BLAKE SPEER
AND SENATOR CABALLERO. IF EITHER
OF YOU ARE IN EARSHOT OF THIS
HEARING ROOM, WE WOULD LOVE TO
SEE YOU.
ALSO. SENATOR ANNA CABALLERO HAS
ARRIVED.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. I KNOW
IT'S TRUE. YOU MAY BEGIN WHEN
READY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, THANK YOU
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT
SB 1420, WHICH PROVIDES A
PATHWAY FOR A SUSTAINABLE
TRANSITION TO A CLEAN ENERGY
ECONOMY COUPLED WITH THE
CO-BENEFITS OF BETTER AIR
QUALITY AND LOWER ENERGY COSTS
FOR CONSUMERS, ALONG WITH THE
ABILITY TO CREATE HIGH RODE
GREEN ENERGY JOBS. FIRST, I
WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS MY
GRATITUDE TO THE CHAIR FOR HIS
ENGAGEMENT ON THE BILL AND HIS
THOUGHTFULNESS IN OUR
NEGOTIATIONS, AS AGREED WITH THE
CHAIR, I WILL BE ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENT THAT WOULD
STRIKE SECTION ONE OF THE BILL.
SECTION ONE WAS CAREFULLY
CRAFTED WITH THE TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE OF THE CALIFORNIA AIR
RESOURCES BOARD AND WAS REVIEWED
AND EDITS OFFERED BY THE
CONSULTANTS OF THE SENATE
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE,
THE SENATE ENERGY COMMITTEE, AND
THE ASSEMBLY ENERGY COMMITTEE.
BEFORE ARRIVING TO THIS
COMMITTEE. SADLY, BECAUSE OF
INACCURACIES AND MISSTATEMENTS
IN THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, IT
BECAME IMPOSSIBLE TO SAVE THE
INTENT OF THIS SECTION AS FAR AS
I'M CONCERNED, WHICH WAS TO
ESTABLISH THE HIGHEST
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION, DELIVERY
AND USE IN THE WORLD RATHER THAN
ARGUE YOU SHOULD ALL HAVE
RECEIVED A DOCUMENT THAT
ARTICULATES THE SCIENCE AND
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF HYDROGEN
DEVELOPMENT IN CALIFORNIA AND
IT'S A FAX, NOT A FAX, BUT A
FACT SHEET. SB 1420 DELETES THE
DEFINITION OF QUALIFIED CLEAN
HYDROGEN AND LIMITS HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION FACILITIES AND
ASSOCIATED STORAGE AND
PROCESSING FACILITIES THAT WOULD
BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXPEDITED CEQA.
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND BUILDING
PERMIT STREAMLINING TO THOSE
PROJECTS THAT HAVE RECEIVED
FUNDS FROM THE FEDERAL OR STATE
GOVERNMENT. BY JANUARY 1ST,
2032, CALIFORNIA HAS INVESTED
BILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS IN
INDUSTRIES TO SUPPORT OUR
CLIMATE CHANGE GOALS. HOWEVER,
WE STILL REQUIRE A DIVERSE SET
OF SOLUTIONS TO ENSURE
CALIFORNIA CAN ACHIEVE OUR
CARBON REDUCTION GOALS BY 2045.
DESPITE ROBUST PUBLIC
INVESTMENT, SOME HARD TO
DECARBONIZE INDUSTRIES ARE AT
RISK AND WILL NEED HELP TO
CONTINUE TO OPERATE AND
DECARBONIZE TO MEET OUR GOALS.
THIS WILL TAKE POLICY CHANGE AND
ECONOMIC SUPPORT. THE SHIPPING
INDUSTRY, INCLUDING THE PORT
OPERATIONS, HEAVY TRUCKING,
AVIATION AND HEAVY INDUSTRY ALL
NEED ADDITIONAL PATHWAYS TO MEET
OUR STATE'S GOALS. ADDITIONALLY,
AS WE TRANSITION TO A ZERO
CARBON ECONOMY, WE HAVE AN
OBLIGATION TO INCLUDE HIGH ROAD
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR OUR
STATE'S WORKFORCE. LET'S BE
CLEAR THE CALIFORNIA AIR
RESOURCES BOARD, AFTER MUCH
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS,
DETERMINED IN THEIR 2022 SCOPING
PLAN THE CALIFORNIA COULD NOT
ATTAIN ITS CLIMATE GOALS. I'M
GOING TO REPEAT THAT WE CANNOT
ATTAIN OUR CLIMATE GOALS TO
DECARBONIZE WITHOUT UTILIZING
HYDROGEN AS A FUEL SOURCE. CARB
QUITE CLEARLY STATES THAT
CALIFORNIA CANNOT REACH ITS
GOALS WITHOUT EXPANDING HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION BY 1700 TIMES THE
PRESENT RATE OF PRODUCTION. I
WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR AND
EMPHASIZE THAT THE BILL DOES NOT
ALLOW ANY PROJECTS TO PROCEED
OUTSIDE OF THE SEQUEL PROCESS,
OR HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE
PUBLIC'S ABILITY TO PROVIDE
COMMENT AND INPUT ON IN EACH
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT. AND AS A
MATTER OF FACT, THE ARCHES GRANT
FUNDING REQUIRES A COMMUNITY
BENEFIT PLAN AS WELL AS ROBUST
MEETINGS AND BUY IN BY THE LOCAL
COMMUNITY. SB 1420 WOULD ENABLE
CALIFORNIA TO MEET ITS GOAL AND
ALLOW A TRANSITION IN THE
AVIATION, HEAVY DUTY TRUCKING
AND MARITIME INDUSTRIES AWAY
FROM DIESEL AND JET FUEL TO A
CLEANER, LOCALLY PRODUCED
PRODUCT THAT WOULD NOT ONLY
DECARBONIZE THE FUEL BUT
ELIMINATE, ELIMINATE THE
PRODUCTION OF AIR POLLUTION.
CONTAMINANTS SUCH AS SULFUR
OXIDES, THE SOX, AND NITRIC
OXIDE. THE NOX. SB 1420 WOULD
ALSO ENABLE ENABLE CALIFORNIA
DELIVERY LEVERAGE. THE $1.2
BILLION IN FEDERAL FUNDS FROM
THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT,
AWARDED TO THE ARCHES COALITION
FOR A HYDROGEN HUB GRANT BY
UNLOCKING PRIVATE SECTOR
INVESTMENT ESTIMATED TO BRING 10
BILLION INTO OUR $10 BILLION
INTO OUR STATE, CREATING JOBS,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND IN
UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES AND NEW
ENERGY RESOURCES AND ACTUALLY,
THAT PRIVATE INVESTMENT IS
WHAT'S BEEN MISSING, IN OUR IN
THE BUDGET SECTOR, THAT'S WHAT'S
CREATED THE DEFICIT. IT'S ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT'S CREATED THE
DEFICIT IS NEW MONEY. HYDROGEN
IS A CRITICAL PART OF
CALIFORNIA'S TRANSITION TO ZERO
EMISSION TRANSPORTATION AND
ENERGY SYSTEM. AND I AGREE WITH
THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES
BOARD AND THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY
COMMISSION THAT BY EXPANDING,
EXPANDING HYDROGEN PRODUCTION,
WE CAN BETTER DECARBONIZE
INDUSTRIES, MAKE OUR ENERGY GRID
MORE RELIABLE, STABILIZE COST
FOR CONSUMERS, AND CREATE HIGH
ROAD JOBS TO TRANSITION WORKERS
BY MAXIMIZING CALIFORNIA'S
HYDROGEN HUB AWARD FROM THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, FROM THE
FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, SB
1420 ENSURES PRODUCTION PROJECTS
ARE ONLINE IN TIME TO MEET THE
PROGRAM BENCHMARKS THAT THEY ARE
OPERATIONAL FOR TWO YEARS BY
2032, SO THE DEADLINE IS 2030
AND IT HAS TO BE OPERATIONAL FOR
TWO YEARS IN ORDER TO RECEIVE
THE FINAL, FINAL PART OF THE
AWARD. WITH ME TO TESTIFY AND
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IS KEITH
DUNN FROM THE STATE BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF
CALIFORNIA AND TERESA COOK FROM
CALIFORNIA. HYDROGEN COALITION.
THANK YOU. SENATOR. GOOD EVENING
, TERESA COOK ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA HYDROGEN COALITION.
PROUD TO SPONSOR SB 1420 ACROSS
THE GLOBE. OUR CLIMATE ALLIES
HAVE EMBRACED THE ROLE OF
HYDROGEN IN THE DECARBONIZATION
OF TRANSPORTATION AND ENERGY.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS
OFFERED CALIFORNIA THIS
OPPORTUNITY BY WAY OF ITS
HYDROGEN HUB AWARD. SB 1420
ENSURES HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
FACILITIES ARE UP AND RUNNING IN
TIME FOR THE 2030 DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY DEADLINE. WE ARE PROUD
AND EXCITED FOR THE HYDROGEN
ECONOMY. WE ARE TRYING TO BUILD
IN CALIFORNIA, BE IT THE USE OF
SUPER POLLUTANT METHANE FROM
AGRICULTURE, WASTE OR OUR
EXPORTATION OF CALIFORNIA'S
CLIMATE POLICY TO OTHER STATES,
AND THE CAPTURE OF THEIR METHANE
FOR THE PRODUCTION OF FUEL FOR
ZERO EMISSION FUEL CELL ELECTRIC
VEHICLES. IN CLOSING, I WOULD
ADD THAT WE AGREE WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION, KECK, CPUC AND
CARB THAT THE THREE PILLARS IS
NOT NECESSARY IN CALIFORNIA
BECAUSE OF THE RPS AND CAP AND
TRADE PROGRAMS, AND ONLY SERVE
TO MINIMIZE THE ROLE OF HYDROGEN
CAN PLAY IN CALIFORNIA'S
DECARBONIZATION GOALS. THANK
YOU, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR
CONSIDERATION FOR THIS BILL
TONIGHT. THANK THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. KEITH DUNN, HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE STATE BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCILS, I
WANT TO QUICKLY POINT OUT A FEW
THINGS. IT'S NOT OFTEN THAT
YOU'RE GOING TO SEE ME ON BEHALF
OF THE STATE BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION TRADES, ALIGNING
OURSELVES WITH THE CALIFORNIA
AIR RESOURCES BOARD. I'M HERE
DOING THAT TODAY. TAKE NOTE. I
ALSO WOULD TELL YOU THAT THE MEN
AND WOMEN OF THE CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY, THE TRADE,
CONSTRUCTION, SPECIFICALLY HERE
IN CALIFORNIA, WE'RE DOING OUR
PART, WE RECOGNIZE TO GET OUT OF
AND INTO A NEW ECONOMY, CHANGES
NEED TO HAPPEN. WE STRUGGLED TO
GET TO WHERE WE ARE WITH REGARDS
TO 14, 20 AND SOME OF THE OTHER
POLICIES THAT WERE NOW
SUPPORTING HERE IN THE STATE,
BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE IT'S GOOD
FOR THE STATE. BUT WITH THAT, WE
NEED TO REMEMBER THAT WE CAN'T
LEAVE OUR WORKERS BEHIND. WE
NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO
QUALIFY FOR ALL OF THE RESOURCES
THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF FEDERAL FUNDING TO
MOVE FORWARD AND INCLUDE
HYDROGEN AS A PART OF THAT
SOLUTION. THE ARCHES PROGRAM, OF
WHICH THE BUILDING TRADES ARE
FOUNDING MEMBER, HAS BEEN VERY
SUCCESSFUL IN PURSUING THOSE
OPPORTUNITIES. SO AGAIN, TAKE
NOTE THE BUILDING TRADES ARE
HERE AGREEING WITH CARB. IN MY
25 YEARS, I'VE NEVER SAID THAT I
DON'T KNOW IF I'LL EVER GET TO
SAY IT AGAIN. SO WITH THAT, WE
HAVE A GREAT APPRECIATION FOR
THIS AUTHOR. SHE HAS WORKED
DILIGENTLY TO MOVE THIS ISSUE
FORWARD. IT'S CHALLENGING,
PERHAPS MORE SO THAN IT NEEDS TO
BE. WE STAND IN SUPPORT OF HER
AND HER EFFORTS AND AGAIN, WE
APPRECIATE THE HARD WORK THAT
WENT INTO THIS TO GET WHERE WE
ARE, AND WE HOPE THAT WE CAN
CROSS THE FINISH LINE WITH THIS.
WITH THAT, I'D ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU SIR. THE
OTHER PEOPLE IN THE HEARING ROOM
WHO WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR
SUPPORT FOR THIS MEASURE. THAT'S
VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. GOOD
EVENING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, ALFREDO
ARREDONDO, ON BEHALF OF THE
GREEN HYDROGEN COALITION, AS
WELL AS H. CYCLE AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. EDUARDO
MARTINEZ HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
TOYOTA MOTOR COMPANY, IN SUPPORT
YOU, DYLAN ELLIOTT, ON BEHALF OF
THE COUNTY OF FRESNO, IN SUPPORT
. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON, RYAN
KENNEY ON BEHALF OF CLEAN ENERGY
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, STEVE
CRUZ, ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA GAS, IN SUPPORT. GOOD
EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN. CHRIS
MICHELI, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RENEWABLE
TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE, IN
SUPPORT, MISTER CHAIR AND
MEMBERS KURT KIMMEL CHAU HERE
TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF JOBY
AVIATION IN SUPPORT. GOOD
EVENING, CHAIR. MEMBERS OF
FRANCO HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA BIOMASS ENERGY
ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT. JEFF NEIL,
REPRESENTING THE CITY OF FRESNO.
ALSO IN SUPPORT. GOOD EVENING.
BILLY MCKAY, ON BEHALF OF
MONARCH BIO ENERGY IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING BETH.
ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE
AGRICULTURAL ENERGY CONSUMERS
ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU. JOHN
WINGER, ON BEHALF OF THE
COALITION FOR RENEWABLE NATURAL
GAS IN SUPPORT THERESA COOK FOR
THE BIOMASS ENERGY ASSOCIATION.
OPPOSITION IN THE HEARING ROOM.
GO AHEAD. OKAY. THANK YOU. MR.
CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, MATT FRIEDMAN,
REPRESENTING THE UTILITY REFORM
NETWORK, TURN, HAS BEEN WORKING
WITH THE LEGISLATURE FOR MANY
YEARS IN SUPPORT OF CODIFYING
MEANINGFUL STANDARDS FOR THE
DEFINITION OF RENEWABLE OR CLEAN
HYDROGEN. AS EVERYONE KNOWS,
HYDROGEN IS A FUEL THAT IS
SIMPLY PRODUCED BY OTHER SOURCES
OF ENERGY, WHETHER IT'S DIRTY OR
CLEAN DEPENDS ON THE INPUTS THAT
ARE USED TO CREATE IT, THE
REQUIREMENTS GOVERNING THE
ELIGIBILITY OF HYDROGEN TO SERVE
TRANSPORTATION NEEDS AND OTHER
NEEDS IN CALIFORNIA WILL
DETERMINE WHETHER THE USE OF
HYDROGEN ACTUALLY REPRESENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS. WE DO
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS AND THE VERY THOUGHTFUL
EXPLORATION OF THE ISSUES AROUND
THE EXISTING REQUIREMENTS FOR
CLEAN OR RENEWABLE HYDROGEN, AND
I THINK IT REALLY HIGHLIGHTS THE
FACT THAT CALIFORNIA LACKS AN
ADEQUATE STATUTORY DEFINITION,
THAT GUARANTEES THAT THIS FUEL
IS GOING TO PRODUCE SUPERIOR
ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES. AND AS
POINTED OUT IN THE ANALYSIS,
NEARLY ALL THE HYDROGEN PRODUCED
TODAY IS DERIVED FROM FOSSIL
FUELS AND EXISTING REGULATIONS
ALLOW, SO-CALLED RENEWABLE
HYDROGEN TO PRODUCE FROM, TO BE
PRODUCED FROM FOSSIL FUELS. SO
LONG AS THERE IS A TRADABLE
ELECTRONIC ATTRIBUTE PURCHASED
FROM SOMEWHERE IN THE UNITED
STATES THAT ACCOMPANIES IT, WE
UNDERSTAND THAT THE AMENDMENTS
TAKEN TODAY BY THE AUTHOR,
REMOVE SECTION ONE FROM THE
BILL, WHICH INCLUDED THE CHANGES
TO THE ELIGIBILITY RULES. BUT WE
SEE THE LACK OF ANY PROGRESS ON
THIS. AND PART OF A CONVERSATION
AROUND HYDROGEN AS A HUGE MISSED
OPPORTUNITY, A MISSED
OPPORTUNITY TO GUARANTEE
MEANINGFUL IMPROVEMENTS THAT
WILL ENSURE THAT RELIANCE ON
HYDROGEN GETS US TO BETTER
ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES AND NOT
MORE POLLUTION. WE'VE PROPOSED
AN ALTERNATIVE IN OUR LETTER TO
THE COMMITTEE AND TO THE AUTHOR,
WHICH WOULD CODIFY WHAT ARE
CALLED THE THREE PILLARS
APPROACH. THE THREE PILLARS
APPROACH THAT HAS BEEN BROADLY
EMBRACED BY ENVIRONMENTAL
GROUPS. SOME HYDROGEN INDUSTRY
PARTICIPANTS AND THE BIDEN
ADMINISTRATION, WHICH WOULD
REQUIRE THAT CLEAN HYDROGEN
SPECIFICALLY PRODUCED BY
ELECTRICITY, DEMONSTRATES THE
ADDITIONALITY OF CLEAN
ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES. HOURLY
MATCHING OF PRODUCTION AND
CONSUMPTION, AND DELIVERY OF
INCREMENTAL CLEAN ENERGY INTO
THE AREA WHERE THE POWER IS
CONSUMED. WE THINK THESE ARE THE
GOALS AND THE REQUIREMENTS THAT
SHOULD BE PUT INTO STATE LAW,
AND SHOULD GUIDE THE ACTIONS OF
ALL OF THE AGENCIES. THE FAILURE
TO EMBRACE THIS TYPE OF AN
APPROACH COULD SET BACK
CALIFORNIA'S PROGRESS ON CLEAN
ENERGY AND CLIMATE OBJECTIVES,
SO WE'VE IDENTIFIED A WAY TO DO
THIS THAT WE THINK WOULD BE
LEAST BURDENSOME FOR HYDROGEN
PRODUCERS. AND WE THINK AS A, AS
A AT A BOTTOM LINE, CALIFORNIA
NEEDS TO RAISE AND NOT LOWER THE
BAR FOR CLEAN HYDROGEN, THIS IS
A BIG OPPORTUNITY. AND ALTHOUGH
WE APPRECIATE THE ANALYSIS AND
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE BILL
DOESN'T CHANGE EXISTING LAW IN
THIS RESPECT, WE THINK THAT THIS
IS A MISSING PIECE OF THE AGENDA
FOR HYDROGEN. IT NEEDS TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE CONVERSATION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
GOOD EVENING. MEMBERS. MARK
FENSTERMAKER HERE FOR
EARTHJUSTICE, RESPECTFULLY, IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1420, OUR
OPPOSITION PRIMARILY STEMS FROM
THE PROPOSAL IN SECTION ONE,
REVOKING THE STANDARDS IN PLACE
FOR RENEWABLE HYDROGEN IN OUR
TRANSPORTATION SECTOR.
UNDERSTAND THAT THOSE PROVISIONS
ARE NOW COMING OUT. BUT WE'D
LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT, YOU
KNOW, THAT THAT REQUIREMENT WAS
PUT IN PLACE ALMOST 20 YEARS
AGO. AND SO HERE WE ARE IN 2024,
AND WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT
UPDATING AND STRENGTHENING THAT
MINIMUM STARTING POINT THAT WAS
SET OUT BY SB 1505 AND DEFINING
RENEWABLE HYDROGEN. SO THAT WE
CAN SPUR A TRANSITION AWAY FROM
FOSSIL HYDROGEN, WHICH IS
CURRENTLY PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE
HYDROGEN PROCURED AND PRODUCED
TODAY, AND REALLY BE FOCUSED ON
TRULY RENEWABLE HYDROGEN, WHICH,
AS MR. FRIEDMAN JUST POINTED
OUT, COMES FROM THE THREE
PILLARS. SO WE HAVE TO FOCUS ON
RAMPING UP ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN
AND UPDATE THE MANDATE TO
REQUIRE THAT THIS HYDROGEN
COMPLIES WITH THE THREE PILLARS.
I JUST WANT TO BRIEFLY TOUCH ON,
SECTIONS TWO AND THREE OF THE
BILL ON THE PERMITTING, YOU
KNOW, THESE EXPEDITED REVIEW
PROCESSES REALLY ARE A PRIVILEGE
FOR THE INDUSTRY. IT'S NOT A
RIGHT FOR THEM TO HAVE THESE IN
PLACE. AND THE PROJECTS THAT
WILL OFTEN BE, INCLUDED IN THESE
PERMITTING PROCESSES ARE GOING
TO BE FIRST OF THEIR KIND AND
POSE UNIQUE SAFETY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS THAT WE
REALLY NEED TO UNDERSTAND. AND
CALIFORNIA SHOULD BE DEMANDING
HIGH STANDARDS OF THE HYDROGEN
PROJECTS THAT IT GRANTS. THIS
STREAMLINING PRIVILEGE TO. WE
HAVE A PROUD HISTORY HERE IN
CALIFORNIA OF BUILDING ON
FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS TO ADVANCE
ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP. THE
BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND
EUROPEAN UNION HAVE LAID OUT
CLEAR AND RIGOROUS GUIDANCE FOR
ENSURING HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
THAT IS GENUINELY RENEWABLE, AND
WE SHOULD BE TAKING THAT HERE IN
CALIFORNIA AND BUILDING ON IT.
WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE BILL IN
PRINT AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME. THANK YOU. ARE THE PERSONS
IN THIS HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD
LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR
OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURE? HI
RICK MELMASON WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ALLIANCE AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL IN PRINT,
WE'RE STILL CONSIDERING THE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. ASHA
SHARMA, ON BEHALF OF LEADERSHIP
COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE AND
ACCOUNTABILITY IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. MELISSA ROMERO,
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS
IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL IN
PRINT, APPRECIATE THE
COMMITTEE'S WORK, WILL BE
REVIEWING THE AMENDMENTS. THANKS
CHRIS. ARENA IS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA WASTE IN OPPOSITION
OF THIS MEASURE. VICTORIA. ROME
WITH NRDC IN OPPOSITION. BUT
LOOK FORWARD TO REVIEWING THE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. JANET COX
FOR CLIMATE ACTION. CALIFORNIA
350, HUMBOLDT 350. SORRY, I IT'S
BEEN A LONG DAY. 350 HUMBOLDT
350 SACRAMENTO CLIMATE ACTION.
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. CHRISTINA
SCARINGE WITH THE CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. JUDY
SORRY. ON BEHALF OF 350 BAY AREA
ACTION IN OPPOSITION. LAUREN
GALLAGHER, ON BEHALF OF
COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER
ENVIRONMENT IN OPPOSITION. JACOB
EVANS WITH SIERRA FROM
CALIFORNIA IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL IN PRINT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS.
FAITH CONLEY WITH WHITMAN GROUP,
ON BEHALF OF AIR PRODUCTS, WE
ACTUALLY REMOVED OUR OPPOSITION
IN THE LAST HOUSE, THANKS TO THE
HARD WORK OF SENATOR CABALLERO
AND THE SUPPORT COALITION. THE
RECENT AMENDMENTS HAVE ADDED A
FEW MORE CONCERNS TO OUR PLATE.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO ADDRESSING
THOSE WITH THE AUTHOR. THANK YOU
. THANK YOU SO MUCH. COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. THERE YOU GO. I'M ALSO
HAPPY. MOTION BY MR. FLORES,
SECOND BY MISS BARRETT KHN. I'M
ALSO HAPPY TO START THIS
CONVERSATION. I WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR BEING INCREDIBLY
ENGAGED, AND EASY TO TRACK DOWN
AND EASY TO TALK TO ABOUT THIS
CRITICAL AND IMPORTANT NEED.
THIS IS A COMPLICATED
CONVERSATION, WE KNOW IN OUR
HOUSE WE LAUNCHED A SELECT
COMMITTEE ON HYDROGEN THIS YEAR,
ON WHICH I PARTICIPATED IN, WE
HAVE BEEN GRAPPLING WITH
DEFINING WHAT GREEN OR CLEAN
HYDROGEN CAN OR SHOULD BE
DEBATING THE THREE PILLARS.
WE'VE BEEN TOLD OFTEN THAT WE
NEED TO WAIT FOR THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT BECAUSE WE'RE
APPLYING FOR A RULE WAIVER, AT
THE SAME TIME, THE THREE PILLARS
ARE ALREADY, BEING CONSIDERED TO
BE PUT IN PLACE FOR CALIFORNIA
BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. AND
SO I THINK IT'S INTERESTING THAT
WE ARE BOTH BEING TOLD TO WAIT
WHILE ADVANCING OUR OWN
DEFINITIONS OF CLEAN. AND THAT'S
WHERE THE STRUGGLE, I THINK, IS.
THAT'S WHERE THE RUB IS. BUT I
THINK THE THING THAT IS APPARENT
IS IF WE ARE GOING TO ACCEPT
THIS AWARD IN ANY CAPACITY, WE
HAVE TO GET THESE PROJECTS BUILT
AND THEY CAN'T EVADE THE SEQUEL
PROCESS, BUT THEY SHOULD BE,
PROVIDED THAT JUDICIAL
STREAMLINING AND REVIEW.
OTHERWISE WE ARE FORFEITING
THESE FEDERAL DOLLARS THAT ARE
COMING JUST BY THE FACT THAT NO
MATTER WHAT KIND OF DEFINITION
WE HAD DECIDED ON, PARTICULARLY
IF WE ADOPTED THE THREE PILLARS,
IF WE COULDN'T GET THE PROJECTS
BUILT, WE COULDN'T GET THEM
BUILT. AND SO I THINK THAT'S
WHERE WE CAME TO ULTIMATELY A
COMMON UNDERSTANDING AND A
SHARED GOAL. AND I WANT TO
APPRECIATE, ALL OF THE MANY
CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD TO GET
THERE. I DON'T THINK THIS EVEN
GETS THIS FAR WITHOUT YOUR
PERSONAL LEADERSHIP. SO THANK
YOU FOR THAT AND OPENING IT UP
TO ANY OTHER CONVERSATIONS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MR.
MURATSUCHI, THANK YOU. SO I, A
LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO WHAT THE
CURRENT BILL WITH THE AMENDMENTS
DOES AND DOESN'T DO, I'M LOOKING
AT THE, THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
AND, THERE'S A PROPOSAL THAT,
THAT THE BILL BE AMENDED TO
CLARIFY THEN ELIGIBLE HYDROGEN
PROJECT DOES NOT USE FOSSIL FUEL
AS THE FEEDSTOCK OR ENERGY
SOURCE FOR PRODUCTION OF
HYDROGEN. DID YOU TAKE THAT
AMENDMENT? THAT'S PART OF WHAT'S
BEEN TAKEN OUT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
YEAH. LET ME LET ME AND LET ME
CLARIFY THAT IT WAS ALWAYS THAT
WAS PUT IN IN THE FIRST
COMMITTEE, I ACCEPTED IT, BUT
OVER THEN THAT WAS IN SECTION
ONE OVER THE THREE COMMITTEES.
SECTION ONE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF
AMENDMENTS AND THE LAST
AMENDMENTS WITH THE CARB,
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE THAT FELL
OUT BY ACCIDENT. IT WASN'T
INTENDED, IT JUST BECAUSE IT WAS
A MOST OF SECTION ONE WAS
DELETED WITH A NEW A NEW FRAMING
OF IT, THAT WAS INADVERTENTLY
LEFT OUT, BUT IT WAS NEVER
INTENDED TO BE TAKEN OUT, AND
THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT BACK IN
HAD WE. OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT,
BECAUSE THAT THAT WAS MY BIGGEST
CONCERN, I'M ALSO LOOKING AT,
PROVISIONS ON PAGE SIX OF THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS THAT APPEAR
TO, BE DESIGNED TO PROTECT
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES FROM
THE IMPACT OF ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.
AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT,
YOU YOU DECLINED OR REFUSED TO
TAKE THOSE. I'M LOOKING
SPECIFICALLY AT THE ITEM NUMBER
SIX, WHY DID IT ASK FOR YOUR
RATIONALE AND REJECTING THAT
PROPOSED AMENDMENT? WAS NEVER
PROPOSED AS AN AMENDMENT OTHER
THAN IN THE DISCUSSION HERE, BUT
WE TOOK OUT THE WHOLE SECTION,
ONE THAT HAD, THE AS I SAID, THE
FRAMEWORK FOR HOW WE WERE GOING
TO DEAL WITH, GUARANTEEING THAT
WE HAD THE HIGHEST STANDARD IN
THE WORLD WITH THE PROTECTIONS
IN IT. AND SINCE WE TOOK THAT
OUT, THAT'S WHERE THAT WOULD
HAVE BEEN. SO AGAIN, I CAN I I'M
NOT CLEAR ON WHAT THAT MEANS.
ARE YOU ARE YOU SAYING THAT IT'S
GUARANTEEING THE HIGHEST
STANDARDS OF PROTECTIONS FOR
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES, THAT
MAY WHERE THE PROJECTS MAY BE
LOCATED, WELL, THE, THE, THE,
THE, THE ARCHES GRANT HAS ALL OF
THOSE PROTECTIONS IN THEM. AND
SO, IT'S THE, IT'S THE, THE
PROTECTING DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES. IT'S THE COMMUNITY,
BENEFIT PACKAGE, THE FACT THAT
THE COMMUNITY HAS TO BE WILLING
TO HAVE THE PROJECT LOCATED IN
THAT COMMUNITY, ALL OF THAT IS,
IS, HAS BEEN PART OF WHAT WE'VE
BEEN TRYING TO ACHIEVE. AND
THERE, THERE EMBODIED IN THE IN
THE ARCHES PROJECT, ASK FOR
EARTH JUSTICE FOR YOUR RESPONSE.
YEAH. SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING,
ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES
THAT MY CLIENT AND THE
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE GROUPS
THAT HAVE BEEN TRYING TO ENGAGE
IN THIS PROCESS HAVE WITH ARCHES
IS JUST THE LACK OF CLARITY,
LACK OF INFORMATION AND
TRANSPARENCY AND LACK OF
CONVERSATION, YOU KNOW, OUR
CONCERN WITH THE WAY THE, THE
BILL WOULD SET THIS UP, THAT IF
IT'S ARCHES FUNDING, YOU GET
THIS STREAMLINING IS WE DON'T
KNOW WHAT PROJECTS ARE INVOLVED
THERE TO SAY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IF THEY
SHOULD ENJOY THAT TYPE OF
STREAMLINING. YEAH. THAT'S TRUE.
THAT'S TRUE. THAT IS TRUE. SO
SENATOR, THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND
WHAT THE TYPES OF PROJECTS THAT
WOULD BE COMING IN. YOU'RE
SAYING THAT. SO IT'S INTERESTING
THAT THAT THAT THAT THAT THAT'S
BEEN THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE
HEARD THAT COMPLAINT. BUT LET ME
JUST SAY THAT THERE'S A MAP THAT
ARCHES HAS THAT HAS ALL THE
COMMUNITIES THAT, WHERE A
PROJECT COULD BE PROPOSED AND,
AND INCLUDING WHAT KIND OF
PROJECT IT IS SO THAT THAT'S
THAT INFORMATION IS PUBLICLY
AVAILABLE. AVAILABLE IS MY
UNDERSTANDING, AND, WHAT UP
UNTIL AND I WANT I DON'T WANT TO
GIVE DATES, BUT I KNOW THAT UP
TO FAIRLY RECENTLY THERE WERE
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT OVER WHAT PARTS OF
THE GRANT WERE GOING TO BE
FUNDED, AND PART OF THE REASON
IT WAS TAKING SO LONG IS BECAUSE
CALIFORNIA HAD NOT SIGNALED THAT
WE ACTUALLY WANTED TO ENGAGE IN,
CHANGING THE RULES TO BE ABLE TO
ACCOMMODATE THE ARCHES PROJECT,
AND SO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
WAS CAUTIOUSLY, REVIEWING THE
ELEMENTS OF THE ARCHES PROJECT
TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THOSE
PROJECT PROJECT PIECES COULD BE
REALIZED IN CALIFORNIA. IN OTHER
WORDS, THEY'RE MAKING THEY MADE
THE DETERMINATION WE WOULD GET
ONE OF THE HUBS, BUT THEY ALSO
SAID, LOOK, IF YOU CAN'T GET
THIS DONE WITHIN A FIVE YEAR
PERIOD, WILL THE MONEY CAN
REVERT TO SOMEWHERE ELSE. AND SO
I KNOW THAT, THAT THERE, THERE
HAS BEEN CONCERNED IN CONCERN IN
ARCHES TO, TO FINALIZE THAT
GRANT PROCESS SO THAT THEY COULD
START TO ACTUALLY GO COMMUNITY
TO COMMUNITY TO START ENGAGING.
SO I AND I KNOW THAT, THAT, THAT
THERE ARE ONLY A COUPLE OF
COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE STARTED
THE ENGAGEMENT PROCESS. AM I
RIGHT? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. THESE
ARE GOOD QUESTIONS, ASSEMBLYMAN
MURATSUCHI, A COUPLE THINGS THAT
THE AUTHOR HAS POINTED OUT. ONE,
THIS IS NOT AN EXEMPTION FROM
ANY PERMITTING PROCESS BY ANY
MEANS. IT'S A STREAMLINING
THROUGH THE PROCESS. SECOND
AMENDMENTS THAT SHE HAS
COMMITTED TO TAKING FOR OUR
FRIENDS IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COMMITTEE COMMUNITY INCLUDE
GETTING LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR
THE PROJECT IN ORDER TO QUALIFY
FOR THE STREAMLINING SO THERE
ISN'T A DISMISSAL OF LOCAL, YOU
KNOW, COMMUNITY CONCERNS OR
ANYTHING LIKE THAT. ACTUALLY,
WE'RE ENGAGING THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT SPACE IN A VERY REAL
WAY. AND THEN TWO, IT'S
IMPORTANT FOR US TO RECOGNIZE
THAT THESE ARE RENEWABLE
PROJECTS ONLY INCLUDED WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF ARCHES, AND IT'S
WORTH NOTING THAT WE DO NOT ADD
ALL OF THESE ADDITIONAL CITIES
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PERMITTING OF
SOLAR AND WIND, I THINK IT'S
WORTH KEEPING A CONSISTENT
POSITION IN AVOIDING THE
ADDITIONAL CITIES WHEN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT PERMITTING PERMIT
STREAMLINING FOR A SPECIFICALLY
RENEWABLE HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
PROJECT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU,
LAST QUESTION. I'M JUST CURIOUS
WHY WHY IS TURN, YOU KNOW,
RATEPAYER ADVOCATES ENGAGED IN
GREEN HYDROGEN, THANK YOU FOR
THAT QUESTION. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
TURN HAS LONG BEEN INVOLVED IN
ISSUES RELATED TO THE DEFINITION
OF CLEAN ENERGY IN CALIFORNIA,
WE WERE ONE OF THE LEADING
SPONSORS ORIGINALLY OF THE
RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD,
AND THAT CONVERSATION LED TO
DISCUSSION OF WHAT RULES SHOULD
APPLY TO BIOMETHANE AS PART OF
THE RPS PROGRAM. AND WE WORKED
VERY CLOSELY WITH A FORMER
CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE TO
PASS LEGISLATION, AB 2196, THAT
ACTUALLY SET UP STANDARDS FOR
THE RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD
FOR BIOMETHANE. WHY DO WE CARE?
BECAUSE WE WANT CLEAN ENERGY TO
BE ACTUALLY CLEAN ENERGY. WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
RATEPAYERS ARE GETTING REAL
VALUE AND THAT THERE IS
INCREMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPROVEMENT. THERE'S A LOT OF
GAMES THAT GET PLAYED IN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL SPACE AROUND
CLAIMING SUPERIOR ENVIRONMENTAL
PERFORMANCE, CLAIMING GREENHOUSE
GAS REDUCTIONS, AND I THINK
CONSUMERS SHOULD GET WHAT THEY
PAY FOR, IN ADDITION, WE
RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S GOING TO
BE A LOT OF DEMAND FOR THE
EXISTING BASE OF RENEWABLE
ENERGY RESOURCES TO SERVE
ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN IF WE'RE
NOT BUILDING MORE CLEAN ENERGY
PROJECTS SPECIFICALLY TO SERVE
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION, IT'S GOING
TO DRIVE UP THE PRICES FOR THE
STUFF THAT'S ALREADY OUT THERE.
AND THAT DRIVING UP OF THE
PRICES IS GOING TO FLOW BACK TO
CONSUMERS. SO WE NEED TO HAVE A
PLAN TO MEET THE NEEDS OF
ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN PRODUCERS
IF IT'S GOING TO BE POWERED BY
RENEWABLE ENERGY. AND RIGHT NOW
WE DON'T SEE ANY PLAN AT ALL ON
THE TABLE, IN FACT, THERE'S BEEN
SORT OF A REJECTION OF THE IDEA
THAT WE SHOULD COME UP WITH A
PLAN ON THIS FRONT. AND THAT'S
PROBLEMATIC. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. WELL,
THIS IS THE SECOND TIME I HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE FOR THIS
BILL, AND I JUST WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR. I SAID THIS IN
ENERGY, BUT I WANTED TO SAY IT
AGAIN TODAY, YOU KNOW, MY
COMMUNITY IS SEEKING THIS
FUNDING FOR A HYDROGEN STATION
THAT WOULD FUEL NOT ONLY A GREEN
TRAIN WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD, BUT
ALSO THE BUSSES IN THE CENTRAL
VALLEY WHERE THIS KIND OF ENERGY
IS SO DEEPLY NEEDED BECAUSE OF
THE AIR QUALITY ISSUES. AND AS
SOMEONE WHO HAS REAL PROBLEMS
WITH CEQA EXEMPTIONS, I THINK
THE STREAMLINING HERE IS MODEST
IN APPROACH. BUT IT DOES EXACTLY
WHAT THE AUTHOR IS SAYING, WHICH
IS ENSURES THAT THAT FEDERAL AND
OTHER FUNDING IS SOMETHING THAT
WE CAN ACCESS, WHICH IS WHAT WE
AS A STATE SHOULD BE DOING AT
EVERY TURN. AND SO I THINK IT'S
AN INCREDIBLY MODEST APPROACH
THAT ALLOWS US TO GET MONEY FOR
PROJECTS THAT I THINK WILL
REALLY BENEFIT OUR COMMUNITIES.
AND I SPEAK SPECIFICALLY FOR MY
COMMUNITY. THAT IS HOPEFULLY
GOING TO BENEFIT FROM EVERYTHING
THE SENATOR IS DOING HERE. SO I
WANT TO THANK HER AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO SUPPORTING IT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I
ALSO WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR YOUR WORK, MAYBE JUST TO
FURTHER BUTTON DOWN THIS ISSUE.
AND I APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATION SO FAR. SO ON SB
149 AND AB 205, ARE CLEARLY
FOCUSED ON CLEAN ENERGY WITH,
WITH SPECIFIC EXCLUSIONS FOR
HYDROGEN, BASED ON FOSSIL FUEL
INPUTS, WHAT GUARDRAILS DOES
THIS BILL HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT
IT WILL NOT INTRODUCE FOSSIL
FUEL DERIVED HYDROGEN PROJECTS
INTO THESE STREAMLINING
PROCESSES FOR CLEAN ENERGY, SO
THAT THE INTENTION WAS NEVER TO
ADD THAT AS A POSSIBILITY. IT
ENDED UP IN THE SECTION ONE THAT
GOT TAKEN OUT THERE. CERTAINLY
OPPORTUNITY AS WE MOVE FORWARD
TO PUT THAT BACK IN. THAT'S ONE
OF THE COMMITMENTS THAT I'VE
TALKED WITH THE CHAIR ABOUT, IS
TO PUT THAT BACK IN. NOW THAT
SECTION ONE IS OUT THERE MAY BE
SOME ELEMENTS THAT WE NEED TO
ADD TO IT TO, TO THE, THE TWO
PIECES THAT ARE LEFT, ONE IT
WOULD BE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE
THAT YOU RAISED IN TERMS OF
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES. BUT
THE OTHER IS THE, THE FOSSIL
FUEL. ISSUE, QUITE FRANKLY,
ALTHOUGH THE, THE, THE ANALYSIS
SAYS THAT A MAJORITY OF HYDROGEN
IS, IS, IS PRODUCED BY FOSSIL
FUELS. THE REALITY OF THE
SITUATION IS THAT'S NOT TRUE.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WAYS THAT
HYDROGEN IS BEING PRODUCED RIGHT
NOW. AND IT IT IS, THE INTENTION
WAS ALWAYS TO, TO HAVE HYDROGEN
CREATED BY A RENEWABLE SOURCE,
AND THE REASON THIS BECOMES
REALLY CRITICALLY IMPORTANT IS
THAT THE CENTRAL VALLEY AND THE
CHAIR HAS HEARD ME SPEAK ABOUT
THIS WITH, WITH GREAT PASSION.
THE CENTRAL VALLEY IS BEING
VIEWED AS THE PLACE TO GO AND DO
INDUSTRIAL SIZED SOLAR. AND
WHILE I APPRECIATE THE ABILITY
TO DO INDUSTRIAL SIZED SOLAR IN
THE VALLEY, IT CAN'T REPLACE
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION BECAUSE
IT WILL ABSOLUTELY DEVASTATE ON
AN INDUSTRIAL SITE. IT WILL
DEVASTATE THE LOCAL ECONOMY. IT
WILL PUT FARM WORKERS OUT OF OUT
OF BUSINESS. IT WILL, REDUCE THE
REVENUE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT, TAXED,
SOLAR PANELS ARE NOT TAXED AS
PROPERTY TAX AS, AS FARMING IS,
IT, IT, VERY INTERESTINGLY,
THEY'RE ENCIRCLED WITH CHAIN
LINK FENCES WITH BARBED WIRE ON
THE TOP, WHICH MEANS THERE IS NO
WILDLIFE HABITAT WHERE YOU YOU
HAVE ACCESS, EGRESS AND INGRESS.
PEOPLE MAY LOOK AT THE CENTRAL
VALLEY AND GO, THERE'S NOT A LOT
OF, OF, OF, OF WILDLIFE, BUT I,
I, I REJECT THAT SOUNDLY, AND
THE ENERGY IS NOT SLATED TO STAY
IN THE VALLEY. IT GOES TO THE
BIGGER CITIES. SO THE ABILITY TO
PUT SOLAR IS TREMENDOUSLY
IMPORTANT. IF YOU CAN JOIN IT
WITH SOMETHING ELSE THAT
ACTUALLY CREATES JOBS, THAT
UTILIZES THE PROPERTY AND
CREATES VALUE SO THAT THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT IS GETTING SOME VALUE
FROM THE PROPERTY AND PROPERTY
TAXES, AND WHERE THERE'S AN ALL,
THERE'S A REALLY THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TOWARDS A,
AN INDUSTRY THAT'S CREATING
ENERGY, THAT'S ALSO FUELING THE,
THE AVIATION. I HAVE A SMALL
AVIATION COMPANY IN MY RIGHT
OUTSIDE MY DISTRICT. I'M TRYING
TO GET THEM TO COME HERE.
THEY'RE USING HYDROGEN. THEY'VE
CREATED AN ELECTRIC, IT'S LIKE A
DRONE FOR PEOPLE, FOR LACK OF A
BETTER WORD. BUT NOW CAN UTILIZE
HYDROGEN AND TRAVEL, I WANT TO
SAY ALMOST 100 TIMES FURTHER
RATHER THAN 15 MILES. IT'S 500
MILES, AND THEY'RE TESTING IT
IN, IN THE DESERT DOWN IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AS WELL. THE
HYDROGEN AVIATION SCRIPPS
INSTITUTE IS MOVING TO HYDROGEN.
THEY WILL NO LONGER BE USING
DIESEL. AND SO THE ABILITY TO
CLEAN THE AIR TO GET RID OF THE
SOX AND THE NOX FROM THAT
DIESEL, ELIMINATION IS GOING TO
BE TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT. SO,
SO THERE ARE INDUSTRIES WHERE WE
REALLY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
MAKE GREAT IMPROVEMENTS
IMMEDIATELY. AND SO ANYTHING I
NEED TO DO TO PUT INTO THIS,
ONCE WE TOOK OUT, THE SECTION
ONE, I'M MORE THAN WILLING TO DO
IT THERE. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE
THERE THERE'S A COMMITMENT TO
GUARDRAILS. YES OKAY. YEP SO
SORT OF ALONG THE SAME LINES. SO
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT OVER
90% OF THE STATE'S HYDROGEN
RIGHT NOW IS PRODUCED BY FOSSIL
SOURCES. SO ALL OF THE
ADVANTAGES THAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT, AT LEAST FOR NOW, FOR
THAT HYDROGEN FUEL, YOU'RE
REALLY JUST SHIFTING THE
POLLUTION TO OTHER PLACES, SO AS
YOU MOVE FORWARD, BECAUSE YOU
SAID THAT YOU ARE OPEN TO
PUTTING STRONGER GUARDRAILS TO
MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE DOING
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO REALLY
INCENTIVIZE GREEN PRODUCTION.
I'M NOT SEEING THAT IN THE BILL.
I DON'T SEE WHY, EVEN WITH THE
BILL, WE'RE NOT CONTINUING AT
THAT 90% RATE. AND THAT'S A
CONCERN FOR ME AS MUCH AS I
WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE HYDROGEN,
I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO BUILD
OUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE
INDUSTRY TO MAKE THE INVESTMENTS
IT NEEDS, BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO
HAVE THAT BALANCE WITH REALLY A
REGULATORY PUSH TO REQUIRE THE
HYDROGEN. I'M SORRY YOU DIDN'T
TAKE THE OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT
WERE OFFERED IN THIS COMMITTEE.
I THINK THEY MADE A MUCH
STRONGER BILL AND A BILL THAT
WOULD HAVE HAD A MUCH WIDER
BREADTH OF SUPPORT, AND I HOPE
THAT BEFORE I HAVE TO SEE IT ON
THE FLOOR, YOU'LL RECONSIDER
THOSE AMENDMENTS AND MAYBE WE
CAN YOU KNOW, THE COMMITTEE AND
YOU CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION AS TO
WHY MANY OF US FEEL THAT THEY
ARE NECESSARY TO SEE IN THIS
POLICY AND WHAT THE PATH IS TO
REALLY PUSHING THE GREEN
HYDROGEN AND CHANGING THAT
SCRIPT SO THAT WE DON'T SEE THIS
AS, YOU KNOW, SO THAT HYDROGEN
REALLY IS ON TRACK TO FULFILL
ITS PROMISE FOR LIKE YOU SAID,
AS AN EMISSIONS FREE, GREEN
SOURCE OF, OF REPLACEMENT FUEL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF I COULD
RESPOND TO THAT, I APPRECIATE, I
APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR OPINION ON
IT, BUT THE REALITY OF THE
SITUATION IS A MAJORITY OF THE
HYDROGEN THAT'S USED IN
CALIFORNIA IS NOT PRODUCED IN
CALIFORNIA. THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN
THAT WE'VE BEEN BRINGING IT IN
FROM OTHER STATES, IT'S NOT A
PROBLEM, BUT THAT'S WHERE A LOT
OF IT IS SOURCED. AND, AND THOSE
STATES DON'T HAVE RESTRICTIONS
ON, HOW YOU PRODUCE INDUSTRIAL
GRADE ANYTHING, I NOT ANYTHING,
BUT ALMOST THE REALITY OF THE
SITUATION IS THAT WHEN I STARTED
OFF THIS BILL, WE WERE LOOKING
AT HYDROGEN AND LINKING IT TO
THE RPS, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE
EASIEST WAY TO COME UP WITH A
PLAN FOR TRYING TO MEET GOALS,
TO MAKE HYDROGEN GREENER AND
GREENER, THE CHALLENGE IS, IS
THAT IF YOU IF YOU PUT IT AS
PART OF THE RPS, THEN YOU HAVE
OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU NEED
TO MEET THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE
TO HYDROGEN. AND SO BY THE NEXT
COMMITTEE WE DECIDED TO TAKE IT
OUT OF THE RPS, BUT LINK IT TO
THE RPS SO THAT WE STILL HAVE
THE SAME BENEFITS. THE GOAL OF
THE BILL HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO MOVE
TOWARDS A GREENER, CLEANER
PRODUCTION WITHOUT PICKING
WINNERS AND LOSERS. IN TERMS OF
WHO WHO, WHO CAN MAKE THE
HYDROGEN AND EXACTLY WHERE IT
GETS MADE, AND THEN AND THEN
ULTIMATELY WHAT HAPPENED IS, IS
THAT CREATED CONFLICT IN AND OF
ITSELF. I MEAN, THERE'S SOME
ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE NEVER
GOING TO LIKE HYDROGEN. SO AS
WE'VE TRIED TO, TO, TO MAKE IT
WORK WITHIN A SYSTEM THAT IS NOT
, PERFECT, THEN WE ENDED UP WITH
, WITH CARB SAYING, LET US GO
THROUGH A RULEMAKING PROCESS AND
WE'LL, WE'LL SET THE, THE
STANDARDS AND THE AND THE
TARGETS AND WE'LL MOVE FROM
THERE. AND SO THAT'S WHAT WAS
TAKEN OUT, IN THIS COMMITTEE.
SO, IF IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A
HOLE, THERE IS, THERE IS A HOLE,
AND, AND WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE
OUT WHAT ARE THE PIECES WE NEED
TO PUT INTO WHAT'S LEFT OF THE
BILL IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO, TO
MOVE IT FORWARD. AND I'LL BE
BACK NEXT YEAR, AND WE CAN HAVE
THIS CONVERSATION ALL OVER AGAIN
AS WE TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO
WE HOW DO WE COME UP WITH A
DEFINITION THAT IS THE THAT THAT
I, THAT MY GOAL WAS ALWAYS TO
HAVE THE HIGHEST STANDARD IN THE
WORLD, MEANING THE HIGHEST
STANDARD THAT'S, FROM ANY FROM
ANY STATE OR COUNTRY IN THE
WORLD. AND, AND, AND DO IT
OURSELVES SO THAT WE CAN LEAD
THE WAY AND THE, THE, I MEAN, IN
REGARDS TO THE THREE PILLARS,
THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION IS
THAT THE REASON THAT'S NOT IN
THE BILL IS BECAUSE I HAVE TAKEN
THE LEAD FROM OUR ADMINISTRATION
AND THE GOVERNOR IN, SENDING TO
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN
RESPONSE TO THE RULEMAKING THAT
THEY'VE DONE. THEY SEND A LETTER
FROM THE FROM CARB, CEC, THE
CPUC, AND GO-BIZ THAT ALL HAVE
THE SAME MESSAGE, WHICH IS THAT
WE HAVE HIGHER STANDARDS IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AND THE
THREE PILLARS DON'T FIT. OUR
REGULATORY PROCESS. AND THAT
LETTER, THE GOVERNOR SIGNED A
LETTER WITH THE STATE OF OREGON
AND THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR
THE WESTERN STATES TO SAY
EXACTLY THE SAME THING. SO THE
GOAL HERE IS TO BE CONSISTENT
WITH WITH WHAT THE WESTERN
STATES HAVE SAID AND TO HAVE, WE
WERE HOPING THE RULEMAKING WOULD
BE FINISHED BY NOW, SO WE'D HAVE
A DIRECTION AS TO EXACTLY HOW
WE, WE ADDRESS, ALL THE ISSUES
THAT ARE ARE PART OF THAT
RULEMAKING PROCESS. SO THAT'S
THAT'S THE THINKING THAT'S WHERE
I CAME FROM. AND THAT'S WHY
WE'RE HERE TODAY. AND TO BE
FAIR, THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THE
RUB HAS BEEN IN THAT, THAT
LETTER IS ASKING FOR AN
EXEMPTION, AN EXEMPTION THAT
HASN'T BEEN GRANTED BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT YET. AND THE
SAME WAY OTHER COLLEAGUES OF
OURS HAVE BEEN PUSHING THE EXACT
OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO AFFIRM NOT
GETTING AN EXEMPTION BECAUSE WE
MAY NOT ALWAYS AGREE WITH THE
GOVERNOR ON EVERYTHING I
UNDERSTOOD, AND SO THAT'S,
THAT'S THE, THE, THE DIFFICULTY
THAT YOU'VE MADE NAVIGATING. AND
I UNDERSTAND THAT AND JUST A
POINT OF CLARIFICATION. WE
TALKED ABOUT, THE FOSSIL FUELS,
COMING OUT AND THEN GOING BACK
IN. IT'S YOUR INTENTION TO PUT
THAT BACK IN THE BILL. NO FOSSIL
FUELS. YES. OKAY ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS
? I'M SORRY. PUTTING IT BACK IN
THE BILL YOU MENTIONED NEXT
YEAR. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING
ABOUT? THIS BILL. NO, THIS BILL.
THIS BILL. YEAH. AND
CLARIFICATION. SO THE COMMITMENT
IS TO THAT AN ELIGIBLE HYDROGEN
PROJECT WILL NOT USE FOSSIL FUEL
AS THE FEEDSTOCK OR ENERGY
SOURCE FOR PRODUCTION OF
HYDROGEN. WELL, THE LANGUAGE I'M
NOT GOING TO I'M NOT GOING TO,
WORDSMITH THE LANGUAGE, BUT THE
WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THE
LANGUAGE WE HAD BEFORE AND PUT
IT BACK IN. AND OKAY. YEAH.
YEAH. GOOD QUESTIONS TONIGHT.
HERE'S THE CHALLENGE WITH ADDING
LANGUAGE THAT SAYS NO FOSSIL
FEEDSTOCK OR PROCESS ENERGY IS
THAT FOR THE TIME BEING, UNTIL
THE THREE PILLARS GETS DECIDED,
DEPENDING ON HOW THAT GETS
IMPLEMENTED IN CALIFORNIA, DO WE
GO THE BENNETT ROUTE? DO WE GO
SOMEBODY ELSE'S BOUT ROUTE? THE
GRID IS GOING TO BE HELPING
ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
FACILITIES MAKE GREEN HYDROGEN
AND SO IF WE WERE TO SAY THAT
THE PERMITTING OF FACILITIES IS
LIMITED TO FACILITIES THAT NEVER
USE FOSSIL, KNOWING THAT I WILL
NEVER HAVE A FOSSIL FREE GRID IN
CALIFORNIA, THAT IS A BACKDOOR
SORT OF REQUIREMENT FOR THE
THREE PILLARS. IN EXCHANGE FOR
THIS PERMITTING BENEFIT. AND I
THINK THAT THAT GOES INTO THE
SAME POINT OF LIKE THIS HASN'T
BEEN DECIDED QUITE YET. SO IF WE
ALL AGREE THERE'S URGENCY AND
PERMITTING THE PROJECTS, MY
CONCERN HERE IS THAT THAT WAS AN
AMENDMENT THAT WAS ACCEPTED
PRIOR TO HERE, THAT NOT IN THE
PERMITTING. EXCUSE ME. I'M
SORRY. THANK YOU. THAT WAS TAKEN
OUT OF THIS BILL. WHATEVER THE
EXACT LANGUAGE IS THAT CAME FROM
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES, THAT
THEN WAS REMOVED. AND YOU AND
Â, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE LOOKING
TO PUT BACK IN. AND THAT'S WHAT
I BELIEVE WE HAD TALKED ABOUT
PUTTING BACK IN, WHICH WASN'T TO
WORKSHOP. IT WAS TO THIS WAS
THERE. NOW IT'S NOT WE'D LIKE TO
PUT IT BACK IN. YEAH. WAS WAS
THE UNDERSTANDING THAT I BELIEVE
THAT WE HAD. YES THAT'S TRUE.
YEAH. THAT IS CORRECT. JUST JUST
SO WE DON'T HAVE TO KEEP GOING
BACK AND FORTH. YEAH. THANK YOU.
SO THAT WILL BE IN WHEN WE VOTE
ON THE FLOOR. CORRECT YEAH. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. I MEAN IT'S NOT EVEN
730 YET. ARE WE SURE JIM WOULD
HAVE NOTHING FOR YOU, MAN.
SENATOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? WELL, I THANK YOU FOR
THIS ROBUST DISCUSSION, THIS IS
NOT MY FIRST RODEO, THIS IS A
TOUGH BILL, IT IT IT IS A
PASSION PROJECT OF MINE, AND
IT'S A PASSION PROJECT. AS I
INDICATED TO YOU, MR. CHAIR,
BECAUSE LEFT TO ITS OWN DEVICES,
THE CENTRAL VALLEY WILL BE
INDUSTRIAL SOLAR. AND THAT'S IT.
AND IT WILL ABSOLUTELY DEVASTATE
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR. IT WILL
RUN THE SMALL BUSINESSES OUT OF
THEIR TOWNS. THERE WILL BE NO
PEOPLE WORKING, I'M A BIG
SUPPORTER OF SOLAR. I HAVE SOLAR
ON MY HOUSE. BUT WHEN WE START
REPLACING. AGRICULTURAL
COMMUNITIES WITH INDUSTRIAL
SIZED SOLAR TO THEIR EXCLUSION,
THERE'S NO WORK THAT'S BLOWING
DUST. SO TALK ABOUT A DUST BOWL
WHERE, THERE ARE SPORES IN THE
SOIL THAT CREATE THE VALLEY
FEVER, WHICH IS A DEADLY DISEASE
THAT ATTACKS THE LUNGS. SO IT
SOUNDS LIKE, OVERREACH. BUT
QUITE FRANKLY, I'M LOOKING AT
THE SURVIVAL OF BLUE COLLAR
FARMWORKER COMMUNITIES, PEOPLE
OF COLOR AND, AND IT'S THEIR
DECISION. THEY HAVE ELECTED
THEIR LEADERS AND IT'S THEIR
DECISION AS TO WHAT THEY WANT TO
SEE IN THEIR COMMUNITY, WHAT
THEY TELL ME THE NUMBER ONE
ISSUE, THEY DON'T PEOPLE DON'T
ACTUALLY TALK TO ME ABOUT
CLIMATE CHANGE. THEY TALK ABOUT
GOOD JOBS. THEY TALK ABOUT A
LIVABLE WAGE. THEY TALK ABOUT
THE ABILITY TO BUY THEIR OWN
HOMES AND THEIR SMALL BUSINESSES
AND SO THIS IS REALLY CRITICAL.
AND I, I WELCOME ANYBODY THAT
ACTUALLY WANTS TO WORK ON THIS
TO HELP ME FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THE
BEST DESIGN FOR THIS, BECAUSE,
IT'S NOT EASY TO DO, BUT WE
DESPERATELY NEED HYDROGEN
SOLUTIONS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. WE OUGHT TO CONTROL
OUR OWN FUTURE AND NOT BE
DEPENDENT ON THE IMPORTATION
FROM OTHER STATES OR OTHER
COUNTRIES, AND, AND WE HAVE AN
OBLIGATION TO DECARBONIZE THESE
MAJOR INDUSTRIES THAT ARE RIGHT
NOW CREATING TERRIBLE POLLUTION.
AND, AND MY AIR DISTRICT IS ONE
OF THE WORST IN THE STATES OTHER
THAN THE SOUTH COAST AIR
DISTRICT. OURS IS IN BAD SHAPE.
IT'S NEVER GOING TO GET BETTER
UNLESS WE STOP USING DIESEL AND
JET FUEL AND, AND, AND GASOLINE.
SO THIS IS IMPORTANT. AND THAT'S
WHY I'M HERE TODAY. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR. AYE
VOTE. WELL, SENATOR, YOUR YOUR
HEART AND YOUR PASSION FOR YOUR
DISTRICT, AND YOUR DISTRICT AS A
PROXY FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED US TO
STEP UP ALL ACROSS THE STATE IS
ALWAYS FELT, AND I HAVE A STRONG
FEELING THAT THIS IS A
CONVERSATION. YOU AND I ARE JUST
BEGINNING ON TOGETHER, AND I
WELCOME IT. AND I LOOK FORWARD
TO IT. THANK YOU, YOU'VE PUT A
LOT OF WORK INTO THIS BILL, AND
I DON'T THINK IT WOULD EVEN BE
HERE IF IT WASN'T FOR YOU AS THE
AUTHOR, DO WE HAVE A MOTION?
SURE. YEAH. MR. FLOOR AND A
SECOND ALREADY. THIS BILL ENJOYS
A DUE PASS FROM THE CHAIR. THANK
YOU, MADAM SECRETARY. CAN WE
CALL THE ROLL? MOTION IS DUE.
PASS, AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. BRIAN, A BRIAN
I. FLORA. HI, FLORA. I
BAUER-KAHAN BAUER-KAHAN. I
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I FRIEDMAN.
HI FRIEDMAN. I HOOVER A HOOVER I
KALRA. LACKEY MURATSUCHI I
MURATSUCHI I PELLERIN I PELLERIN
I WICKS I WICKS I WOULD, I WOULD
I OKAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU SENATOR BLAKE SPEER. COME
SEND US TO DINNER. YOU ARE
DINNER. WELCOME MOVE THE BILL.
SECOND. SB 1053, WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY. THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND
THANK YOU. COMMITTEE STAFF. AND
THANK YOU, MEMBERS. I GLADLY
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.
SB 1053 AND AB 2236 FROM
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER KHN
ADDRESS PLASTIC WASTE IN
CALIFORNIA BY ELIMINATING THE
OPTION TO RECEIVE A PLASTIC FILM
BAG AT GROCERY STORES WHEN
PEOPLE ARE BUYING THEIR
GROCERIES. SB 1053 ADDRESSES A
MAJOR PROBLEM IN CALIFORNIA AND
IN OUR WORLD, WHICH IS THAT
PLASTIC WASTE IS CHOKING OUR
PLANET. THE AVERAGE AMERICAN
USES ONE PLASTIC BAG EVERY DAY
USING IT ON AVERAGE FOR JUST 12
MINUTES BEFORE DISPOSING OF IT.
EVEN WORSE, ONLY 10% OF PLASTIC
BAGS ARE RECYCLED, LARGELY DUE
TO HOW DIFFICULT THE PROCESS IS
AND HOW FEW PLACES ACTUALLY
RECYCLE PLASTIC GROCERY BAGS.
THE REST REMAIN IN OUR
ENVIRONMENT FOR HUNDREDS OF
YEARS, BREAKING DOWN INTO
MICROPLASTICS FOUND EVERYWHERE
FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE OCEAN TO
THE HUMAN BODY. IN 2014,
CALIFORNIA BECAME THE FIRST
STATE TO PASS A BAN ON SINGLE
USE PLASTIC BAGS WITH SB 270.
THE STATE'S VOTERS AFFIRMED THE
BAN IN 2016 BY PASSING
PROPOSITION 67. UNDER SB 270,
STORE CHECKOUTS WERE REQUIRED TO
PROVIDE REUSABLE PLASTIC BAGS OR
RECYCLED PAPER BAGS FOR $0.10.
THE NEW REUSABLE PLASTIC BAGS
WERE SIGNIFICANTLY THICKER TO
OSTENSIBLY FACILITATE
REUSABILITY. HOWEVER PEOPLE DID
NOT TREAT THESE BAGS ANY
DIFFERENTLY, USING THEM AS
SINGLE USE ITEMS AND THE BEST OF
CASES. THEY USE THEM TO LINE
BATHROOM TRASH CANS OR PICK UP
PET WASTE, BUT LARGELY THEY ARE
NOT REUSING THEM AND THEY ARE
NOT RECYCLING THEM. THIS MEANT
THAT BETWEEN 2014 AND 2022, THE
AMOUNT OF PLASTIC BAG WASTE
ACTUALLY INCREASED
SIGNIFICANTLY, RISING BY 47. SO
JUST TO RESTATE THAT, IN THE TEN
YEARS SINCE THE VOTERS BANNED
PLASTIC BAGS AT GROCERY STORES,
PLASTIC BAG WASTE INCREASED BY
NEARLY 50. RATHER THAN TRYING TO
REDEFINE REUSABLE PLASTIC BAGS,
SB 1053 TAKES A MORE DIRECT AND
SIMPLE APPROACH. THE LEGISLATION
PROHIBITS PLASTIC FILM BAGS FROM
BEING PROVIDED AT ALL AT GROCERY
STORE CHECKOUTS, INSTEAD, STORES
CAN ONLY PROVIDE PAPER BAGS TO
CUSTOMERS. PAPER BAGS ARE
RECYCLABLE AND COMPOSTABLE. THEY
ARE ALSO SUSTAINABLY PRODUCED.
ONE MAJOR MANUFACTURER,
INTERNATIONAL PAPER, GENERATES
NEARLY 70% OF ENERGY NEEDS
THROUGH CARBON NEUTRAL BIOMASS
RESIDUALS. EVEN MORE IMPRESSIVE,
90% OF THE WATER USED IN THE
PULP AND MANUFACTURING PROCESS
IS REUSED UP TO TEN TIMES, AND
THEN RETURNED TO THE WATERSHED.
THE MOST SUSTAINABLE OPTION,
THOUGH, IS FOR PEOPLE TO BRING
THEIR OWN TRULY REUSABLE BAG.
RECENT RESEARCH BY ENVIRONMENTAL
AMERICA RESEARCH AND POLICY US
EDUCATION FUND AND FRONTIER
GROUP FINDS THAT WHEN PAPER IS
THE ONLY OPTION AT CHECKOUT, FAR
MORE CONSUMERS BRING THEIR
REUSABLE BAGS. CONSUMERS HAVE
SHOWN THAT THEY ARE WILLING AND
ABLE TO ABIDE BY SB 1053
REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WILL LEAD TO
LESS PLASTIC FILM, BAG WASTE AND
MORE SUSTAINABLE SHOPPING
HABITS. OUR PLAN IS
STRAIGHTFORWARD AT CHECKOUT,
STORES CAN PROVIDE RECYCLED
PAPER BAGS OR CONSUMERS CAN
BRING THEIR OWN BAGS. THIS IS,
QUITE FRANKLY, OVERDUE, AND I'M
THRILLED TO BE CHAMPIONING THIS
EFFORT IN OUR STATE. TOGETHER
WITH ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN
. AND WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO
INTRODUCE MY TWO WITNESSES HERE
IN SUPPORT. JENNIFER FEARING, ON
BEHALF OF OCEAN CONSERVATORY,
OCEANA AND MONTEREY BAY
AQUARIUM, AND ALSO LOUIS BROWN
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
GROCERS ASSOCIATION. TWO MINUTES
EACH. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. JENNIFER
FEARING, ON BEHALF OF OCEAN
CONSERVANCY, OCEANA AND MONTEREY
BAY AQUARIUM, WE ARE PLEASED TO
BE AMONG THE OVER 75
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ORGANIZATIONS AND DOZENS OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEADERS URGING
YOU TO VOTE AYE ON SB 1053 TO
GET RID OF SINGLE USE PLASTIC
GROCERY BAGS ONCE AND FOR ALL.
CALIFORNIA'S FIGHT AGAINST
SINGLE USE PLASTIC CARRYOUT BAGS
AT GROCERY AND CONVENIENCE
STORES IS NOW MORE THAN TEN
YEARS OLD. WHILE ELIMINATING THE
FLIMSY T-SHIRT BAGS AS THE
GROCERY STORE STANDARD AT
CHECKOUT, SB 270 ALLOWED A
THICKER PLASTIC FILM BAG TO BE
USED UNDER THE GUISE THAT THEY
WERE REUSABLE. THEY'VE PROVED
ANYTHING, BUT SB 1053 CLEARLY
ENDS THIS RUSE STIPULATES THAT
ONLY PAPER BAGS MAY BE OFFERED
BY THE GROCERS AT POINT OF SALE,
WITH PAPER BEING THE ONLY
AUTHORIZED BAG. SB 1053
PROVISIONS SETTING STANDARDS FOR
REUSABLE BAGS NOW RISK MUDDYING
THE PRIMARY INTENT OF THE BILL,
AND EXPANDS THE SCOPE TO START
DEFINING WHAT CAN AND CAN'T BE
SOLD AS A REUSABLE BAG ANYWHERE
IN THE STORE. THE LAW HAS ALWAYS
BEEN ABOUT WHAT BAGS ARE ALLOWED
AT POINT OF SALE, AND WE'RE
PLEASED THAT THE BILL NOW
CLEARLY DEFINES POINT OF SALE TO
COVER ALL TRANSACTIONS WHERE
PURCHASED GOODS MAY BE
TRANSFERRED TO A CUSTOMER.
THANKS TO ALL OF YOU WHO
PREVIOUSLY VOTED FOR ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BACHMANN'S BILL EARLIER
THIS YEAR. WE URGE YOUR SUPPORT
FOR THIS STRENGTHENED VERSION
TODAY. MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, LOUIS BROWN, HERE
TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA GROCERS ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL, WE WERE
IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINAL SB
270. AND AS TIME HAS SHOWN,
WE'VE EVOLVED AND NOW WE SEE THE
NEED TO COME BACK. LOOK AT THE
BILL AGAIN, MAKE SOME
CORRECTIONS. AND THOSE
CORRECTIONS ARE WHAT IS GOING TO
COME OUT OF YOUR COMMITTEE. AND
WE APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT
YOU'VE DONE TO HELP CLARIFY
THIS, SIMPLIFY IT AND GET IT
BACK, BACK TO ITS ROOTS, WHICH
IS SIMPLY WHAT WE'RE PROVIDING
AT THE POINT OF SALE. AND IF
THIS BILL WERE TO BECOME LAW
WITH ASSEMBLYMEMBER BAUER CANS,
IT WILL BE CLEAR THAT CONSUMERS
WILL HAVE ONE OPTION AT THE
POINT OF SALE THAT WILL BE
PAPER. WE SUPPORT THE BILL AND
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. ARE THERE
ANY PERSONS IN THIS HEARING ROOM
WHO WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR
SUPPORT FOR THIS MEASURE? ETHAN
NAGLER I'M HALF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
SHERRY PEMBERTON, ON BEHALF OF
THE STATE LANDS COMMISSION AND
SUPPORT. FROM AS WELL IS WITH US
IN SUPPORT. YOU, DYLAN ELLIOTT,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL,
WESTERN PLACER WASTE MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITY AND SOLID WASTE
ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA ALL
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, GAVIN
MCHUGH. ON BEHALF OF
INTERNATIONAL PAPER SUPPORT CHEN
TALKS FOR CLIMATE ACTION,
CALIFORNIA, THE CLIMATE REALITY
PROJECT, CALIFORNIA COALITION
AND THE SANTA CRUZ CLIMATE
ACTION NETWORK. THANK YOU. GOOD
EVENING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
ROMAN VOGELSANG WITH THE PREY
AND COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF OUR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR.
REBECCA MARCUS, ON BEHALF OF
CALPIRG, IN SUPPORT, JOSH GEIGER
ON BEHALF OF THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
SUPPORT. IT'S A GREAT COUNTY.
THERESA COOKE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, JUDY.
SORRY. ON BEHALF OF 350 BAY
AREA, BAY AREA ACTION IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ARE THERE
ANY PERSONS HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO THIS MEASURE? MR. TARICCO
WELCOME. THANK YOU, MR. MAJORITY
LEADER. MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. GOOD. GOOD
EVENING. MY NAME IS ALBERTO
TORRICO. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL
WORKERS, WESTERN STATES COUNCIL.
I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON
THE POINTS BY, MY GOOD FRIEND
MR. BROWN, WHO MENTIONED THAT
THERE WERE SOME WE'VE ALL
RECOGNIZED THERE'S SOME
SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES AND
PROBLEMS WITH THE PLASTIC BAG
BILL, SB 270 AND ITS SUBSEQUENT
IMPLEMENTATION. AND THIS BILL
ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS THOSE, UFC
IS IN SUPPORT OF THE OBJECTIVES
OF THE BILL TO REDUCE THE FLOW
OF PLASTIC. BUT WE DID WANT TO
RAISE SOME CONCERNS AND SOME
ISSUES. SOME AREAS OF THE BILL
WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED.
LAST YEAR, UFC SPONSORED SB 777
BY SENATOR ALLEN AND OUR
PRINCIPAL CONCERNS AND ISSUES
THAT WE RAISED THROUGH THAT BILL
WERE THAT THE THERE WERE THREE
STATED PURPOSES THAT WERE
SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR THE
MONEY THAT WAS COLLECTED FROM
THE SALE OF THE BANKS, TEN CENT
MINIMUM PER BAG. THOSE THREE
AREAS WERE COMPLIANCE WITH THE
STATUTE. THE COST, THE ACTUAL
COST OF THE BAGS AND EDUCATION,
EDUCATION OF THE PUBLIC AND
OTHERS AS IT PERTAINED TO THE
USE AND THE RECYCLABILITY OF
THOSE BAGS AS WE DID THAT BILL,
WE CAME TO THE QUICK REALIZATION
THAT MANY OF THOSE THINGS WERE
NOT HAPPENING. AND I'LL TELL YOU
THAT IN PARTICULAR, THE
EDUCATION COMPONENT WAS NOT
HAPPENING, IS NOT HAPPENING NOW.
THE OTHER THING THAT THAT WE
WANTED TO ARTICULATE AND DID
ARTICULATE WITH THAT BILL AND
ARTICULATED THIS EVENING, IS
THAT NOWHERE IN THE BILL THAT
DID THE BILL SAY THAT PROFITS
FROM THE BAGS WAS TO BE WAS TO
BE GAINED FROM THE STORES. NOW
WE HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION
WITH THE GROCERY STORES ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE
PROFITS. SO WE SAID THERE WAS AN
EASY SOLUTION FOR THAT. LET'S
HAVE SOME ACCOUNTABILITY AND
TRANSPARENCY. WE ASKED IN SEVEN,
SEVEN, SEVEN THAT THE NUMBER OF
BAGS THAT WERE PURCHASED AND
NUMBER OF BAGS THAT WERE SOLD BE
REPORTED TO THE PUBLIC, EITHER
AT THE STORE OR TO CAL RECYCLE.
THAT BILL MADE ITS WAY TO THE
GOVERNOR'S DESK AND WAS VETOED.
WE STILL THINK THAT THOSE
LESSONS FROM THE FAILURE FROM
THE CURRENT PLASTIC BAG BILL
SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THIS BILL.
SO WE'VE OFFERED THOSE
AMENDMENTS. WE'VE OFFERED WE'VE
OFFERED THE SEVEN, SEVEN, SEVEN
AMENDMENTS. WE'VE ALSO
SUBSEQUENTLY OFFERED AMENDMENTS
THAT WOULD ALLOW LOCAL
GOVERNMENT TO TRACK THAT
INFORMATION, WHICH IS NOT
ALLOWED NOW BECAUSE IT'S
PREEMPTED. SO WE THINK THAT THAT
INFORMATION SHOULD BE TRACKED.
AND I WILL SAY THAT, THE ISSUE
OF PROFITABILITY IS IMPORTANT
BECAUSE IN NEW JERSEY, THEY
FOUND THAT ONE STORE MADE UP TO
$200,000 A YEAR IN THE SALE OF
PLASTIC BAGS, AND THAT THE STATE
ACROSS THE STATE WAS $42 MILLION
IN PROFIT. I THINK THAT'S A
THAT'S A PLAUSIBLE CONCLUSION,
BECAUSE THE BAGS COST 2 OR $0.03
TO MAKE, AND THEY'RE BEING SOLD
FOR MINIMUM $0.10, SOME
JURISDICTIONS $0.25. SO FOR
THOSE REASONS, UFC REMAINS
OPPOSED, REQUEST FOR A NO VOTE.
Þ. THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND
ESTEEMED MEMBERS OF THE NATURAL
RESOURCES COMMITTEE. THANK YOU
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS
YOU TODAY REGARDING SENATE BILL
1053. MY NAME IS PHIL ROSINSKI,
AND I'M A MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN
RECYCLABLE PLASTIC BAG ALLIANCE.
RPA REPRESENTS MANUFACTURERS AND
RECYCLERS OF FILM PLASTIC BAGS,
INCLUDING MEMBERS WITH
OPERATIONS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. WE SHARE THE BILL'S
GOAL OF PROTECTING THE
ENVIRONMENT, BUT THIS BILL WILL
NOT REDUCE PLASTIC. INSTEAD, IT
WILL RESULT IN SIGNIFICANTLY
MORE PLASTIC CONSUMPTION AND
INCREASED CONSUMER SAFETY RISKS.
REGARDING PLASTIC CONSUMPTION,
CURRENT LAW REQUIRES TODAY'S
FILM PLASTIC BAGS TO CONTAIN A
MINIMUM 40% CERTIFIED
POST-CONSUMER RECYCLED CONTENT.
ACCORDING TO CALRECYCLE DATA.
THESE BAGS DIVERT 183 MILLION
POUNDS OF PLASTIC ANNUALLY FROM
LANDFILLS TO SUPPORT THEIR
MANUFACTURING. IN CONTRAST, THE
NON-WOVEN POLYPROPYLENE BAGS
WHICH THIS LEGISLATION WOULD
USHER IN ARE RARELY, RARELY
CONTAIN RECYCLED CONTENT AND ARE
NOT RECYCLABLE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. I UNDERSTAND THE
RECENT AMENDMENTS IN THE
LEGISLATION HAVE SOUGHT TO
MITIGATE THE EXCESSIVE USE OF
NON-WOVEN POLYPROPYLENE BAGS BY
PROHIBITING THEM AT THE POINT OF
SALE. HOWEVER THE AMENDMENTS
SIMPLY WOULD MOVE THEM TO FEED
AWAY PICTURE THEM ON THE
BACKSIDE OF YOUR DESK. NOW
THEY'RE ON THE FRONT SIDE OF THE
DESK OFF THE POINT OF SALE.
ACCORDING TO MEDIA REPORTS IN
2010, MANY REUSABLE BAGS CONTAIN
TOXIC HEAVY METALS TO BE
CONSIDERED HAZARDOUS. SO MUCH
SO, THEY WERE CONSIDERED
HAZARDOUS WASTE. THIS LED THE
LEGISLATURE IN 2014 TO ADD
SAFETY STANDARDS FOR REUSABLE
BAGS INCLUDE TOXICITY TESTING
AND REGISTRATION. THIS BILL
WOULD REMOVE THOSE TESTING
REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS THAT
ARE THERE FOR THOSE BAGS TODAY.
FOR AN HONOR SYSTEM, FOR
DISCLAIMER FOR FOREIGN
MANUFACTURERS THAT ARE IN CHINA
AND OTHER COUNTRIES, MAKE NO
MISTAKE, THIS BILL WILL STILL
ALLOW THE USE OF PLASTIC BAGS,
BUT THESE BAGS WILL JUST BECOME
CHEAPER. LIKELY INCREASING
OVERALL SALES AND DECREASING
REUSE AS EVIDENCED BY CONSUMER
BEHAVIOR. IN CANADA. NEW JERSEY,
NEW YORK, DELAWARE AND
ELSEWHERE, WHERE SIMILAR LAWS
HAVE BEEN USED. THE AMENDMENTS
MAY LEAD US AND MAY LEAD THE
PROPONENTS TO SAY IT BANNED THE
USE OF PLASTIC BAGS AT POINT OF
SALE, BUT REALLY IT SIMPLY MOVES
THEM AWAY FROM THE REGISTER,
SACRIFICING CONSUMER SAFETY TO
BOOT. WE STRONGLY URGE MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE TO FULLY
UNDERSTAND THE BILL AND WHAT'S
AT STAKE FOR CALIFORNIANS. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU SIR.
ANY PERSONS IN THE HEARING ROOM
WHO WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR
OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURE?
DYLAN FINLEY, ON BEHALF OF THE
WESTERN PLASTICS ASSOCIATION,
THE ASSOCIATION OF PLASTIC
RECYCLERS, AND THE RECYCLING.
THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION, AND LESS
AMENDED TO BE PLACED UNDER SB
54, THE PLASTIC BAGS. THANK YOU.
GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
KELLY O'BRIEN WITH WESTERN
CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY. WE'RE
DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF THE
GOALS OF THE LEGISLATION. BUT,
ALIGNING OUR COMMENTS WITH UFCW,
W, WE ARE OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED. THANK YOU. LAUREN
AGUILAR WITH THE FLEXIBLE
PACKAGING ASSOCIATION. ALSO IN
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED POSITION.
CHRIS. CHRIS QUIGLEY PLASTICS
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. OBED FRANCO, ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN CHEMISTRY
COUNCIL, OPPOSED, UNLESS AMENDED
. MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS, COME TO
WIENER JOHN LATIMER ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA RETAILERS
ASSOCIATION. WE'VE BEEN IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL.
APPRECIATE THE RECENT AMENDMENTS
. WE'RE REVIEWING THOSE
AMENDMENTS, AND WE HOPE TO BE
ABLE TO ALIGN WITH OUR PARTNERS,
THE GROCERS ASSOCIATION, SOON ON
BOTH BILLS. THANK YOU. JOHN
MOFFITT, ON BEHALF OF METTLER
PACKAGING. WE HAVE AN OPPOSING,
LESS AMENDED POSITION ON THE
BILL. IF THE AMENDMENTS PROVIDED
BY THE COMMITTEE TODAY ARE
ADOPTED INTO THE BILL BY THE
AUTHOR WILL BE REMOVING OUR
OPPOSITION COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I
HAD A FEELING YOU MIGHT HAVE
SOME COMMENTS. AS YOU KNOW, IT'S
LATE. I'LL BE BRIEF, BUT I JUST
WANTED TO THANK THE SENATOR FOR
HER PARTNERSHIP IN THIS AND JUST
COMMENT A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT WE
HEARD HERE TODAY. I THINK IT'S
SO CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE
MAKE THIS MOVE FOR ALL THE
REASONS THAT YOU SET FORTH, AND
YOU HAVE BEEN A VERY STRONG
ADVOCATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
THROUGH THIS ENTIRE PROCESS. AND
I THINK THAT'S EVIDENT IN THE
LEGISLATION THAT IS APPEARING
BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE ON IT'S I
THINK, LAST STOP FOR THE FLOOR,
AND YOU KNOW, I THINK WE BOTH
MET WITH UFCW TO DISCUSS THESE
CONCERNS. AND FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE, ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT WAS NOT NOTED WAS THAT THE
PAPER BAGS ARE MORE EXPENSIVE.
AND SO THE NUMBERS THAT WERE
CITED MUCH MORE OF THAT COST
WILL NOW GO TO COVERING THE COST
OF THESE BAGS, WHICH I THINK IS
CRITICAL TO WHAT IS HAPPENING
HERE. AND ALTHOUGH I KNOW I
SUPPORTED THE BILL LAST YEAR, I
DON'T KNOW IF I ASSUME THE
SENATOR DID. YOU KNOW, I THINK
THAT IS A SEPARATE ISSUE. ONE
THAT IS WORTHY OF TAKING UP, BUT
IS NOT THE NATURE OF THIS BILL.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, I LOOK FORWARD
TO SUPPORTING THAT LEGISLATION
IN A DIFFERENT FORM. BUT, YOU
KNOW, I THINK WHEN THE ONLY
OPPOSITION LEFT ARE THE PEOPLE
WHO WANT TO MAKE PLASTICS THAT
END UP IN OUR WATERWAYS. YOU
KNOW, YOU'VE DONE GOOD WORK. SO
THANK YOU, SENATOR. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS BY
COLLEAGUES? MR. MURATSUCHI. SO
I'M SORRY I DIDN'T I WAS GOING
TO I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO
ADDRESS UFCW CONCERNS. IS THERE
A REASON WHY YOU HAVEN'T? I
MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING
THAT WE WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT THEY'RE NOT PROFITING OFF
OF THE BAGS. YES. THANK YOU,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, FOR THE
QUESTION, SO THIS BILL IS 100%
ABOUT PLASTIC REDUCTION. THIS
THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER
GROCERY STORES ARE MAKING MONEY.
AND SO IF WE WERE SOLVING FOR
THAT WHICH SENATOR ALLEN WAS
DOING LAST YEAR, I SUPPORTED
THAT BILL. THIS COMMITTEE
SUPPORTED THAT BILL. IT GOT ALL
THE WAY TO THE GOVERNOR AND HE
VETOED IT. SO I SEE THERE AS
BEING ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR
US TO INSERT A POISON PILL INTO
A PLASTICS BILL THAT RELATES TO
WHETHER GROCERY STORES ARE
MAKING MONEY ON ONE PARTICULAR
PRODUCT OR NOT. AND I THINK OVER
THE LAST TEN YEARS, WHAT IF
$0.10 IS OR IS NOT COVERING WHAT
IS NOW A MORE EXPENSIVE BAG, A
PAPER BAG YOU KNOW, IS A
QUESTION THAT COULD BE ANSWERED
AND RESPECTFUL TO OUR FRIENDS AT
YOU AT THE UNION THAT REPRESENTS
WORKERS WHO WORK IN GROCERY
STORES. THAT ISSUE IS JUST NOT
UP IN THIS BILL. THIS IS ABOUT
PLASTIC REDUCTION. SO I WOULD
LIKE TO WORK TOGETHER TO BE ABLE
TO HAVE FUTURE BILLS THAT
ADDRESS FUTURE QUESTIONS. BUT I
SEE THESE AS BEING ON COMPLETELY
SEPARATE TRACKS. AND THAT BILL
WAS VETOED LAST YEAR. AND SO
INSERTING IT REALLY IS NOT IS
NOT OF INTEREST. SURE. NO, I YOU
KNOW, I WAS A 100% A SUPPORTER
OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
ACCOMPLISH HERE UNTIL, YOU KNOW,
I HEARD, UFCW CONCERNS AND I IF
IT WAS VETOED, THEN OBVIOUSLY
YOU DON'T WANT TO TAKE THAT
POISON PILL. I MEAN, THAT HELPS
ME UNDERSTAND, BUT, CAN YOU HELP
ME FURTHER? I MEAN, I DIDN'T
READ THE VETO MESSAGE. WHAT WAS
THE WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE
VETO? I THINK MY WITNESS MIGHT
BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT
SPECIFICALLY. WELL, AT. WE'LL
PULL IT UP. I MEAN, MR. TIRICO,
IT WAS YOUR BILL. YOU. WELL, IF
I MAY, THROUGH THE CHAIR. YES,
SIR. MY RECOLLECTION OF THE VETO
MESSAGE, WAS THAT THE GOVERNOR
DIDN'T FEEL THAT THE INFORMATION
WAS NECESSARY, WE DISAGREE. AND
I ALSO WILL SAY A COUPLE OTHER
THINGS IN RESPONSE, I THINK THAT
THIS I THINK THAT ANY BILL THAT
GETS THIS GOVERNOR'S DESK THAT
HAS A BAN ON PLASTICS, PLASTIC
BAGS IS GOING TO GET SIGNED,
THIS, THIS, THIS BILL IS
OBVIOUSLY THE NEXT ITERATION OF,
OF THE OF THE REDUCTION OF
PLASTIC AND THE COMPONENT OF THE
COMPONENT THAT GOVERNS WHAT
HAPPENS AND HOW THE SALE OF
PLASTIC BAGS. AND IN THE FUTURE
OF PAPER BAGS SHOULD BE
ADDRESSED. LET'S NOT FORGET THAT
THE TEN CENT MINIMUM WAS THERE.
IT'S A MINIMUM. FIRST OF ALL,
CHARGE TO THE CUSTOMER AND IT'S
THERE TO DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM
FROM BUYING FROM FROM BUYING
BAGS. SO BRINGING THEIR OWN BAGS
THAT CAUSES SIGNIFICANT
CHALLENGES TO UNDERSERVED
COMMUNITIES. YOU KNOW, FOR MOST
OF US, IT'S OKAY TO BUY A BAG
FOR 4 OR 5, SEVEN, $10. SOME
FOLKS CAN'T AFFORD THAT. THE
OTHER THE OTHER CHALLENGE RIGHT
NOW WITH THE SYSTEM IS THAT
CUSTOMERS THAT USE WILK AREN'T
SUPPOSED TO BE CHARGED FOR THE
BAGS, BUT THEY'RE ALSO NOT
ALLOWED TO BE ASKED. SO YOU RUN
INTO THIS SITUATION AT THE
REGISTER WHERE THE PERSON'S
GETTING RUNG UP. MAYBE THEY GOT
CHARGED FOR BAGS. PROBABLY DID.
THEY DON'T WANT TO SAY THEY'RE
ON WICKS. THEY PAY FOR THE BAGS,
OR NOW YOU HAVE A YOU HAVE A
WHOLE TON OF CHALLENGES. MAYBE
IT'S POSSIBLE THE STATE'S BEEN
PAYING FOR THESE PLASTIC BAGS,
WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER WILK.
SO WE THINK THAT ALL THOSE
ISSUES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED. AND
WE AND WE ALSO THINK AS SOMEBODY
KHN SAID, THAT THE PAPER BAGS
ARE MORE EXPENSIVE. WE THINK
CUSTOMERS ARE GOING TO BE
CHARGED MORE AND PAPER BAGS
SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, LOOK, THOSE
OF US THAT GREW UP BAGGING
GROCERIES OR GOING TO THE
GROCERY STORE WITH OUR PARENTS,
A LOT OF TIMES YOU HAD DOUBLE
BAGGED. YOU HAD TO GET TWO BAGS.
SO THESE ARE ALL COSTS THAT
PEOPLE IN UNDERSERVED
COMMUNITIES WITH LOWER INCOMES
ARE REALLY GOING TO BE FORCED TO
BEAR, BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO
GET RID OF PLASTIC. AND I DON'T
THINK IT'S FAIR. THANK YOU.
KURT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR
MORE ABOUT THE VETO MESSAGE OR.
I QUICKLY SURE. LET'S READ IT
OUT LOUD. I PERMISSION TO READ.
YES, SIR. MR. CHAIR. IN SHORT,
IT SAYS I THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
THE COMMITMENT TO ENSURE
CONTINUED SUCCESS OF
CALIFORNIA'S SINGLE USE PLASTIC
BAG BAN. I SUPPORT PROVIDING
CONSUMERS WITH MORE CONVENIENT
OPTIONS TO RECYCLE, CARRY OUT
BAGS. HOWEVER, I'M CONCERNED
THAT THE DATA COLLECTION AND
REPORTING PROVISIONS IN THIS
BILL WILL IMPOSE AN UNDUE BURDEN
ON STORES LARGE AND SMALL ACROSS
THE STATE WITHOUT A CLEAR PUBLIC
BENEFIT OR IMPROVEMENT TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BAG BAN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM
COLLEAGUES? MR. SENATOR, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. GREAT I DEFINITELY SEE THE
CONFLICT HERE RIGHT, YOU SEE
THIS AS A POISON PILL, WHICH I
HOPE IS A WORD THAT WE CAN
ABANDON FROM OUR LEXICON AFTER
WEDNESDAY, AND YOU SEE THIS BILL
AS A TROJAN HORSE TO THE
GOVERNOR'S DESK, AND THAT'S A
YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT. AND
I THINK ALL PARTS OF THIS
CONVERSATION ARE IMPORTANT, BUT
I THINK THE HEART OF THIS
LEGISLATION IS TOO IMPORTANT NOT
TO MOVE OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE ON
THIS DAY, DO WE HAVE A MOTION?
MISS BAUER-KAHAN HAS A MOTION
AND A SECOND BY MISS FRIEDMAN.
AND MISS PELLERIN. THIS HAS A
DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION. CAN WE
CALL? THE ROLL MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. BRIAN I, BRIAN,
I FLORA. NO. FLORA. NO.
BAUER-KAHAN BAUER-KAHAN I.
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I FRIEDMAN.
FRIEDMAN I HOOVER. NO. HOOVER.
NO. CHOLERA I. CHOLERA I LACKEY.
NO LACKEY. NO. MURATSUCHI I
MURATSUCHI, I PELLERIN, PELLERIN
I. WICKS, I WICKS I WOULD, I
WOULD, I. THAT BILL IS OUT. CAN
WE CALL THE ROLL ON ANY ABSENT
MEMBERS.
FILE ITEM ONE SB 308. BECKER.
MOTION IS DUE PASSED AS AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATIONS. ABSENT
MEMBER. BAUER KHN BAUER. KHN
I. THAT HAS NINE VOTES, SB 312
WIENER. MOTION IS DUE. PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CHAIR. VOTING AYE. ABSENT
MEMBER. BAUER. KHN BAUER-KAHAN
NOT VOTING. THAT HAS TEN VOTES.
WAIT YES, TEN VOTES. SB 571.
ALLEN. MOTION IS DUE. PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
ABSENT. MEMBERS CHAIR. VOTING
AYE. ABSENT. MEMBERS. BAUER.
KHN BAUER. KHN. AYE. LAKI A
LACKEY I THAT HAS 12 VOTES. IT'S
OUT. SB 610 WIENER. MOTION IS
DUE. PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CHAIR. VOTING
AYE. ABSENT. MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN
BAUER. KHN I THAT HAS NINE
VOTES. IT'S OUT. SB 1062. DOLLY
MOTION IS DUE. PASS AS AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATIONS. CHAIR VOTING
AYE. ABSENT. MEMBERS BAUER-KAHAN
BAUER KHN I. THAT HAS EIGHT
VOTES. IT'S OUT.
WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THE.
YOU VOTED AYE. SB 1208 PADILLA
MOTION IS DUE. PASS AS AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATIONS. ABSENT.
MEMBERS. BAUER KHN BAUER KHN I
LACKEY. NOT VOTING. LACKEY NOT
VOTING. THAT HAS NINE VOTES.
IT'S OUT. SB 1231 ALLEN. MOTION
IS DUE. PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CHAIR VOTING AYE
. ABSENT. MEMBERS. BAUER KHN
BAUER. KHN. I THAT HAS 12
VOTES. IT'S OUT. SB 1420.
CABALLERO. MOTION IS DUE. PASS
AS AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CHAIR. VOTING AYE. ABSENT.
MEMBERS CHOLERA. CHOLERA. I
LACKEY A LACKEY I THAT HAS 12
VOTES. IT'S OUT COR 12 MIN.
MOTION IS THAT THE MEASURE BE
ADOPTED CHAIR VOTING AYE. ABSENT
MEMBER. BAUER. KHN BAUER. KHN.
AYE. THAT HAS NINE VOTES. IT'S
OUT. THANK YOU, MR. LACKEY.
YOU'RE WELCOME. AND THIS
CONCLUDES THE ASSEMBLY NATURAL
RESOURCE COMMITTEE. THANK YOU
FOR CÁC. THANK YOU GUYS. I'M
BEAUTIFUL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
WORK. I LOVE THE OUTFIT TODAY.
THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
THANKS EVERYBODY. YEAH GIVE US A
LONG HEARING.