Assembly Natural Resources Committee, Monday, April 20, 2026
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Assembly Natural Resources Committee California State Assembly
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 3
Thank you. Good afternoon, chair Brian and committee members. As mentioned, I'm Densicki, general manager of Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, here to speak in support of AB twenty twenty six. The fabric fabric, excuse me, of Yolo County is deeply rooted in its agricultural heritage and defined by its role and productive soil and the legacy of the Bracero program. Farm workers are essential to the county's productive agricultural industry, which we all know is very dependent on water availability.
Our irrigation district is a conjunctive use district. We use surface water and groundwater to grow food. Surface water comes from upstream reservoirs and Cache Creek in wet years. Groundwater is considered our savings account in dry years. We have optimized our system to divert excess winter water from Cache Creek to replenish groundwater using our unlined earthen canals.
And our winter recharge program is using green infrastructure, and it's considered to be very cost effective. As was mentioned, more recharge is necessary, and the state has done its best to prioritize recharge during wet years. But somehow, over the past decade, the process has become much more complex. We're considered to be the most successful applicant with the State Water Board's one hundred and eighty day temporary permitting process. Of the eleven years that we've submitted one hundred and eighty day temporary permit applications, we've diverted winter water in seven years successfully while protecting downstream users and the environment, and the diversions have totaled a little more than 42,000 acre feet.
Speaker 15
The first year that we diverted, we spent about two months consulting with state and federal agencies, and we received an eight page temporary permit six days later with nominal fees. This last year that we applied for a permit, the eleventh time doing so, we received a 30 page permit, a hundred and twenty five days after we submitted the application, and the fees were about $35,000. So we are committed to scaling up Recharge, and we think AB twenty twenty six is the best way to do that. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Well, I'll try to deliver on the same or even shorter. Good afternoon, chair O'Brien and members of the committee. Ryan O'Jackiehan with the Regional Water Authority. RWA is cosponsor of AB twenty twenty six with the Northern California Water Association. RWA is a joint powers association comprised of 20 local agencies that provide drinking water to 2,200,000 people in the greater Sacramento area.
The job of RWA members is to make sure that when people go to the tap and turn it on, there's water that comes out. It's safe for them to drink, and that service is provided at the lowest possible cost. We've been very successful thus far at doing that, but climate change is creating significant challenges to that success. The the system simply won't meet our needs moving forward, in a low snow, extreme between wet and dry, and so we have to make changes. Analysis from the Public Policy Institute of California, PPIC, tells us there's significant opportunity in wet years to do more recharge and to do that in a way where we're already meeting existing water user needs and environmental needs.
That's the volume of water that is available to us out there. The the analysis is also telling us, as the assembly member laid out, that we aren't doing a good job on that opportunity at this moment. Here's the good news. There's broad consensus that groundwater recharge is a good thing. It's utilizing our natural infrastructure, and we've got lots of water to put into that natural infrastructure.
Speaker 16
So a v 2026, what it does for us is provide a pathway to do that within our existing processes, not creating new things, but saying, let's take our existing system and make it work better. Right? So, importantly, within that, we're we're starting from a place in a v 2026 where it's wet out. Right? If if we do that, we can make good on our promise to protect the environment and protect other water users.
Speaker 4
So, with that, I do wanna reemphasize, as the assembly member noted, because I gotta stay on time here. I know you got a busy schedule, that the analysis calls out that we are not creating a new exemption from CEQA, but we're just codifying exemptions that have existed. With that, I'll thank you, for your time and attention. Respectfully ask for your
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Or, actually, I'm sorry. Anybody in the hearing room in support of this measure? It's gonna be a long hearing, y'all.
Speaker 6
And, chair and members, my name is Cam Bezdek, and I'm with the Northern California Water Association. Happy cosponsor in support. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Sergeant Nelson with the Association of California Water Agencies in support. Thank you.
Speaker 8
So oppose unless met, but I'm the only one here. I'll try and keep this to two minutes just because you guys have a busy day. Chair O'Brien, members of the Natural Resource Committee, I'm Alex Lumer on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife. We respectfully oppose a b twenty twenty six unless it's amended to address our concerns. We're grateful to the member and her staff for the time and effort to work with us and for the amendments offered by this committee.
While we look forward to continued conversations, we must remain opposed even with committee amendments. I wanna walk you through one significant issue pursuant to the committee's jurisdiction and then quick high level overview of our other concerns. First and foremost, this bill includes exemptions from CEQUA and the Lake and Stream and Alteration Agreement laws for a water diversion program and certain water rights permits. Specifically, the bill contains this exemption for the experimental program from the water code, which does not require a water permit at all to divert surface flows during floods. In addition to no requirement for a water right, this bill proposes to further exempt any sort of environmental review for these water diversions that have potential to degrade our over appropriate rivers and streams.
The CEQUA and LSAA exemptions in this bill also apply to other permits, including the five year temporary permits or even, quote, unquote, minor amendments to water rights permits that could last thirty years or longer. We agree we need to we need sustainable groundwater supplies, but it needs to be done in the right way. Exempting these water permits from bedrock environmental protections creates a loophole that could exacerbate conditions in our overallocated water system, not solve it. This is particularly concerning given the impacts of the climate crisis. We currently have one of slowest lowest snow packs in record.
We strongly urge the committee to not include any CEQA or LSAA exemptions unless tribal consultation is preserved for federally and nonfederally recognized tribes, and there are additional provisions added to the bill that protect public trust resources. This bill is also problematic for other reasons. So just super quickly, the bill will allow diversions from the declining delta even if diverters violate existing Endangered Species Act and water quality protections. Second, the bill redefines flood flows in an overly broad way that would allow diversions of flows to the detriment of the environment, water quality, and public health and safety. And third, we oppose extending the current sunset twenty thirty four.
There are not sufficient guardrails in place to ensure that these water diversion programs won't continue to harm our over appropriate freshwater habitats. The current sunset of 2029 should remain in place. For these reasons, we urge a no vote on this bill unless it's amended to address our concerns. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?
Speaker 9
Good afternoon. Assembly members, Matthew Baker with Planning and Conservation League. We don't have a formal, position on the bill, but we do share many of the concerns expressed by the lead opposition here. But we do also care very much about getting this right and are very committed to working with the author and the many stakeholders in getting this policy right. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Good afternoon. Gabriel Tolson registering opposition on behalf of Friends of the River and the Golden State Salmon Association. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Good afternoon. Jacob Evans with Sierra California in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 77
And good afternoon. Jamie Miner, with Turlock Irrigation District. We are a member of the San Joaquin Tributary Authority. Have been working with the author and the sponsor on a a problematic provision that we are currently in opposed unless amended position, but are are working to ensure that the recharge can be in all parts of the state due to one specific provision of the bill. But we are hopeful that, you know, conversations will continue to happen, and we appreciate all the work today.
Speaker 37
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Karen Lang, on behalf of the South San Joaquin Irrigation also a member of the Tributaries Association, oppose unless amended due to the one provision, and we're hoping we can continue working and find a solution. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Afternoon, mister chair members. Alex Salinis on behalf of the Modesto Irrigation District. Also, share the comments by the previous two speakers.
Speaker 16
Mister chairman, I'm I'm out of turn. I'm sorry. I am in support of this bill on behalf of Pichanga, Band of Indians, and thank the majority leader for including the tribal language.
Speaker 1
We will now turn it back to the dais. Questions, comments, concerns from committee members, miss Mesado.
Speaker 69
Thank you, mister chair. And, madam majority leader, I just wanna tell you, it's so wonderful to hear people talk about Recharge because in The Valley, I really am pushing for water infrastructure investment. But until we address subsidence, that infrastructure is just going to crumble. And this conversation needs to continue, and I'm very grateful that we're gonna continue this conversation. I do we have a quorum avail well, at the time, I will move the bill and support it, but would appreciate you considering some of the input from stakeholders on this.
Speaker 17
But once again, please continue this conversation about recharge that is vitally important not only for water quality, but also for the safety of
Speaker 1
We are one member short of a quorum. So if you belong to this committee and you are nearby, we would love to see you. Madam majority leader, would you like to close?
Speaker 2
Yeah. I'll make it easy because it's a long day. I respectfully asked for you. I vote.
Speaker 1
Absolutely. Once we get a quorum, I'm I'm sure we'll be able to move this.
Speaker 91
Thank you, mister chair and members. Today, I'm proud to present AB fifteen seventy seven, the Data Center Energy Accountability Act. AB fifteen seventy seven requires data centers to report various energy usage statistics to the Energy Commission on a monthly basis and report estimates of energy and water usage to local planning agencies during the permitting process. Energy intensive data centers ring built at an unprecedented rate. The PUC's public advocate's office recently wrote that interconnecting data centers to the grid poses risks for ratepayers because of the enormous infrastructure costs required to serve them.
Speaker 24
These costs may ultimately be passed on to all ratepayers, especially if the facilities use less energy than projected or shut down before the utilities recovered the associated interconnection costs. We all know that the cost of energy is one of the top concerns for Californians right now. And so this very simple bill that merely requires transparency is one way to start to address it. I am obviously well aware of the Gen AI revolution happening, and I am not here to stop it or prevent it as you will hear from the opposition. But we do need to know what the demands on our grid are going to be that we can build out the energy infrastructure to meet that need and ensure the costs aren't being borne by ratepayers.
California cities and counties should also be empowered to make informed decisions when improving permits for new data centers, which this bill will empower. And the energy commission and local planning agencies will have critical information for protecting communities and strengthening our grid. With me today is Ethan Rarek, executive director of the Little Hoover Commission.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, mister Sharon. Members, the Little Hoover Commission is an independent bipartisan, agency charged with recommending to the legislature and governor improvements in state policy. Earlier this month, we released a report on the growth of data centers focusing on how that will impact the, state's electricity grid and in particular, rates for average ratepayers. As you know and as you as the assembly member just mentioned, experts are predicting significant growth in energy demand over the coming years. This growth has important implications for grid reliability, infrastructure planning, water use, and community impact.
Speaker 25
Our report identified four key principles. First, that the additional costs imposed by data center growth should be borne by the centers and not by average rate payers. Second, that they should be integrated into the grid in a way that avoids needless cost and ensures grid reliability. Third, we should maintain the state's commitment to clean energy goals. And fourth, most important for this bill, we should ensure that California regulators have access to relevant information such as how much power is used.
This bill obviously addresses the fourth of those key principles, transparency and data access. Regulators currently rely largely on aggregate electricity consumption data, which can make it difficult to understand how individual facilities interact with the grid or impact specific communities. Better data, more data would allow the state to plan responsibly for the rapid expansion of data centers while protecting communities, the electricity grid, and ratepayers. Our report recommended that California allow regulators to confidentially access facility level electricity use data from large data centers. This bill does exactly that by implementing a reporting framework.
For these reasons, we respectfully request your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much, sir. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?
Speaker 20
Good afternoon. Christina Scringe with the Center for Biological Diversity. We have a supportive amended position that we'd really like to see the water consumption reporting back in the bill, but we thank the author and look forward to continued conversation.
Speaker 26
Good afternoon, mister chairman, members. Vince Huerta, MCA California's first CCA in late support. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Good afternoon. Jacob Evans with Sierra California in support if amended. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Ruth McDonald representing Climate Action California in support. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Jack Worson from Nossiman on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Water District in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any persons in this hearing room in opposition to this measure? Two minutes each whenever you're ready. Good
Speaker 19
afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Kara Bunder, and I'm a director of state policy at the Data Center Coalition presenting today in respectful opposition to a b fifteen seventy seven. DCC serves as a national voice for the data center industry, and our members include leading data center owners, operators, and companies that lease large amounts of data center capacity. While we fully support California's goals for energy efficiency and the data center industry is committed to paying for its full cost of service for electricity, we are unfortunately opposed to this legislation. Data centers are the backbone of California's digital economy.
Speaker 32
They enable everything from telehealth and digital classrooms to the smart meters and EV charging station that the state relies on. We often talk about data centers as large energy users, but what's lost in that conversation is the efficiencies that we've gained. Between 2010 and 2018, while computing output jumped 550%, energy consumption only rose by 6%. AB fifteen seventy seven singles out data centers for monthly reporting of granular metrics that go beyond understanding low growth and efficiency standards that are not applied to other large energy users. Isolating one end end user fails to provide a holistic view of the load coming onto the grid.
Data centers are just one part of a massive demand surge that includes EV adoption and industrial electrification. California also already has robust mechanisms like DIPER and CEQUA aimed at better understanding energy needs and potential impacts to environmental quality. This bill creates a parallel, potentially conflicting track that adds cost without providing tangible benefits for that long term grid planning. AB fifteen seventy seven risks cycling the very innovation and job creation that makes California a global tech leader. Urge the committee to move away from this heavy handed mandate and instead favor a collaborative framework that leverages existing reporting and protects our digital infrastructure.
Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 26
Thank you, chair Brian and members. I'm Ahmad Thomas, CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, representing our region's most innovative employers in respectful opposition to AB fifteen seventy seven. We share the author's interest in making sure California has the information it needs to plan for growing energy demand and to protect communities. Our concern is that the bill creates a reporting regime that is disproportionate, duplicative of work the state has already authorized, and uniquely punitive to a single industry. SB 57, signed into law last year, directs the CPUC to assess the extent to which data center loads result in cost shifts to other rate payers.
That assessment is due 01/01/2027. AB fifteen seventy seven layers an entirely separate reporting framework on top of that. Data center operators would be required to report monthly across more than a dozen energy categories, plus water consumption, water usage effectiveness, and sound levels measured at the property boundary. No other energy or water intensive industry in California faces anything comparable. The definition of data center is broad, reaching any facility housing computing infrastructure above the 500 kilowatt threshold.
Speaker 48
That sweeps in mid sized enterprise operations and colocation providers that simply do not have the staffing or systems to manage this level of compliance. California is already a high cost environment for data center development. Our member companies are investing billions in the state in capital, jobs, clean energy procurement, and in grid reliability. But AB fifteen seventy seven stacked on top of the other six data center bills proposed sends a cumulative signal that California intends to single out this industry for regulation that exists nowhere else in the country. We therefore respectfully ask for your no vote.
Speaker 1
There are other persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?
Speaker 52
Good afternoon, chair Brian and members. John Kendrick from the California Chamber of Commerce. Opposition?
Speaker 36
Gonzalez on behalf of the California Business Properties Association in opposition.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. We'll now turn it back to committee members. Questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none, miss Brower Kane, would you like to close?
Speaker 24
be here today, and I look forward to continuing this conversation, hopefully, if this were to pass out in committee when you have a quorum and have the opportunity to take a vote. One more member or maybe less now. More now. Two members. On behalf of the chair, I'll ask you to join him.
And, you know, invite the opposition. We have made some of the changes that were referenced in the opposition, testimony prior to this hearing actually in utilities and energy, but happy to continue working on this bill, but look forward to actually seeing constructive red lines from the opposition. With that, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. This bill has a two pass recommendation. And when a quorum is present, I have no doubt you will get out today.
Speaker 1
I don't see assembly member Wilson, so we're gonna jump to p town's finest. Assembly member Rodriguez.
Speaker 21
Thank you, mister chair and members for the opportunity to present AB two thousand two forty five. I also want to thank the committee staff and stakeholders who have worked with us on this bill. We will be accept accepting the committee amendments. AB 2,245 establishes a responsible framework to improve the collection and recycling of vehicle lubricant products and their containers that are currently not captured under existing programs. The bill creates a producer responsibility program that builds on California's existing recycling infrastructure and aligns with the framework already established under SB 54.
By leveraging certified collection centers, household hazard hazards, waste facilities, and existing used oil haulers, the bill strengthens our ability to safely collect and recycle these materials while minimizing new costs and bureaucracy. AB twenty two forty five also ensures producers help fund and manage a system while supporting local governments that play a key role in collection and recycling. Here to me to testify is Tristan
Speaker 38
Thank you, chair O'Brien and members of the committee for the opportunity to provide testimony today. My name is Tristan Steichen. I'm the executive director of the National Lubricant Container Recycling Coalition, the NLCRC, and we're the sponsors of the bill. The NLCRC is a coalition of companies in the lubricant industry. This includes both large and independent oil companies, used oil haulers, recyclers, and packaging manufacturers.
We're committed to the development of a national program for collection and recycling of lubricant packaging and products. The purpose of a b twenty two forty five is to fix two very critical pieces of environmental legislation, SB 54 and the used oil recycling act through an EPR mechanism. The intent is twofold. First, to pull certain packaging products out of 54 that would otherwise contaminate and lower the value of other curbside materials collected. And the second is to include certain products not already covered by the used oil recycling program today to offset HHW collection burdens on municipalities.
Twenty two forty five achieves three primary outcomes. First, it lowers the cost to all stakeholders, particularly consumers and municipalities, producers, and retailers. Second, there's a faster achievement of recycling goals for lubricants in their packaging where this packaging is currently being landfilled today. And finally, this creates a better environmental outcome for its citizens. This bill is industry led, but we also have the support of environmental groups.
Unfortunately, Heidi couldn't be here today with the National Stewardship Action Council, but she did provide her testimony last week at ESTM, and I wanna provide that commentary for you. So I'm quoting Heidi. I'm not gonna do all the inflection, but just imagine me being Heidi here.
Speaker 38
the committee already? It was the same comment she submitted last week.
Speaker 40
Quickest highlights I can is not every product needs an EPR solution, but lubricants in their packaging do. As one of the key negotiators of 54, my goal was to exclude any packaging from hazardous products from being included with food grade materials. Unfortunately, the references in SB 54 did not separate the two and left packaging for lubricants as a covered product. AB twenty two forty five resolves that conflict for lubricants and packaging, and she's very grateful for the industry being willing to take responsibility. So as Heidi stated, there's still some outstanding items to address, and we're working with opposition and other stakeholders to to to to do that.
Speaker 38
We're in the process of finalizing those negotiations, so we respectfully ask for your eye vote today, and I welcome any questions.
Speaker 1
That's perfect. And and we are definitely missing Heidi here in the room. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure? Alright. Any opposition?
Two minutes a piece whenever you're
Speaker 39
you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Sarah Polomu with the California Retailers Association. First, I wanna thank the author and sponsor for their stakeholder engagement. Last week, we were we were at a place of confusion due to multiple drafts and red lines on the bill. But throughout last week, we've made a lot of progress.
Unfortunately, due to the very short time frame between policy committees, we remain opposed our chief concern remains, which is the continuous piling on of EPR and product stewardship programs before existing programs begin implementation. California's retailers are under all 14 of California's product stewardship and EPR programs, and we have significant concerns that adding another complex program will only create further compliance burdens and litigation risk, which will drive up consumer costs. A b two two four five seems to provide a solution for legislation that hasn't been implemented yet, which is California's SB 54, the packaging EPR. Among other things, a b two two four five removes packaging from SB 50 four's requirements. But at this point, we don't know how or if SB 50 four's pro is unable to account for these products.
Additionally, while it has become clear that retailers will not be mandatory collection centers, which meets a major concern of ours, we still have concerns with the creation of another pro, including expensive unchecked startup costs. Retailers are also concerned about the potential for lack of transparency, accountability, and due process, But we do, however, support a pilot project to see how a b two two four five would work before passing a statewide program. It's our understanding that the bill sponsors exploring a pilot project project in LA or another local jurisdiction in California and working through that program on a smaller scale before pursuing a statewide model makes good policy sense. In closing, we will continue working on the bill with the author and sponsors and remain committed to sustainability, but we feel it is essential that policymakers focus on helping existing frameworks work before piling on new regulatory schemes. So we remain opposed at this time.
Speaker 7
Thank you, chair and members, of this committee. Ryan Perini on behalf of the California Automotive Wholesalers Association as well as the Auto Care Association. Collectively, we represent automotive parts manufacturers, jobbers, warehouse distributors, retailers, and program groups, an industry that supports over 229,000 jobs across the state and generates more than $49,000,000,000 in annual economic activity. Our members are deeply committed to responsible environmental stewardship and have a long track record of supporting and participating in California's used oil recycling infrastructure. The author, her staff, and its bill sponsors have facilitated a robust and meaningful stakeholder engagement process and one we will remain engaged in until a reasonable solution is agreed upon.
Thank you all for spearheading this issue. Unfortunately, at this time, we must respectfully register our opposition to a b twenty two forty five as currently drafted. Our concerns are largely aligned with CRA, so I won't reiterate them in the comments right now at length. I would, however, underscore three key issues that remain unresolved. First, the need for clarity to avoid duplicative regulatory obligations.
Speaker 86
Second, ensuring transparency and appropriate cost controls around pro fee setting to prevent excessive costs from being passed on to consumers and third, minimizing administrative and compliance burdens to the greatest extent possible. Like I said, we are committed to working with the author, the sponsors, regulatory agencies, and this legislature to find a reasonable solution. Thank you, and I welcome any questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?
Speaker 17
Mister chair and members, Christopher Finarelli on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association. We don't object to the premise of the bill but have a narrowly focused issue related to how aerosol products would be handled under the program. We look forward to working with the author and the stakeholders, throughout the process as the bill moves along.
Speaker 55
Good afternoon, chair and members. Kayla Robinson with Californians Against Waste here with a concerned position. Appreciate the author and sponsor for their work and for the committee for the proposed amendments, but look forward to continued conversations to try and hash this out. Thanks.
Speaker 12
Good morning, or good afternoon. Mike Robson here on behalf of the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association. There's a, we were retained this afternoon on this bill. The ILMA has some very specific concerns with this bill that haven't been resolved over the the last year of of of stakeholder negotiations.
Speaker 42
And I'm here to I'm I'm here to help make sure that the seven amendments, reasonable amendments that they have, get incorporated into this process going forward.
Speaker 1
Appreciate you. We'll now turn it back to the dais. Any questions from committee members? Seeing none. Miss Rodriguez, would you like to close?
Speaker 59
Thank you, mister chair and members for the thoughtful discussions today. I also want to thank the committee, staff, stakeholders, and all those who have engaged with us throughout the process and provided valuable feedback on the bill. I appreciate your questions raised around affordability. AB twenty two forty five is designed to build on California's existing collection and recycling infrastructure and place responsibility with producers to manage these materials responsibility at end of life. By leveraging existing programs and facilities, the bill does not result in additional net cost.
Speaker 21
While ensuring these products and containers are properly collected and recycled, we remain committed to continuing conversation with the stakeholders to address implementation details and ensure the program works efficiently and cost effectively, and I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
We don't have a quorum yet. But when we do, this bill has a due pass recommendation from the chair, and I have no doubt we'll get it out today.
Speaker 46
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. First, I wanna thank the chair and his committee staff for working with me on this bill. I will be accepting the committee's amendments. AB twenty one seventy will improve language access and strengthen environmental protections for overburdened communities by modifying select provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA. CEQA provides an important mechanism for local communities to provide input on projects that have had a significant impact on their health and their lives.
This bill focuses on the highest impact projects and most overburdened communities by adding protections for communities where English may not be the principal language spoken. In those cases, it's it is important to provide access to groups that have historically been disproportionately impacted by massive projects. Just as we push for transparency in our public process to restore trust in government, we should ensure that there are environmental protections for projects that impact nearby communities, air, water, and health. At the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for your I vote, and I have here with me Doug Carstens with the Planning and Conservation League and Annabel Marquez with the Committee for a Better Shafter with Alma Marina Marinas? Martinez.
Sorry. There's a t missing. Alma Martinez with the Center for Race, Poverty, and Environment who will be doing the translation. Thank you.
Speaker 49
Good afternoon, honorable chair and honorable committee members. My name is Doug Karstens. This bill is desperately needed, and it has been for a long time. It's vitally necessary to level the playing field by empowering communities with information in their own languages and to participate in decisions affecting their lives and their families' lives. For over twenty eight years, our office, which is located in Redondo Beach, has been working with disadvantaged communities all over the state, are overburdened by pollution and economic and other challenges, not to mention being targeted by ICE raids recently.
Speaker 47
That includes communities around the ports of Los Angeles, in Long Beach, in Oakland, and in the urban areas of Los Angeles, Fresno, San Diego, and elsewhere, and in rural areas like Tulare and Cantua Creek and Bakersfield. Many people in these areas face language access challenges and barriers. They are often the neighborhoods most lacking voices in the halls of government and therefore most vulnerable to to proposals that pile onto the environmental harms that they are already facing. This bill is saying, let's give everyone a fair chance to participate. While there may be necessary proposals, they need to be vetted at least to the same extent as they would be in other areas.
While some environmental impact reports are done, they are very rare, and they're especially rare for overburdened communities. A negative declarations, provide some review, maybe twenty days, but exemptions cut the public out of the review process entirely, and they are claimed too commonly and for the wrong reasons. The theory seems to be that certain neighborhoods are burdened already, so more pollution won't make a difference. But that turns these areas into sacrifice zones rather than areas for special attention. This bill specifically addresses those communities very near and within areas that allow industrial development, there it's not about housing.
And there are people in these areas that need protection. It is high time to ensure common sense public involvement and translation requirements and to make it stick. Thank you for your consideration. I would be glad to answer any questions.
Speaker 6
My name is Annabel Marques on behalf of the committee for a better chapter here in strong support of AB twenty one seventy. The committee for a better chapter is a volunteer organization. We advocate for environmental health and justice in the Central Valley. Our community, one of the most overburdened in California, is plagued by pollution from oil and gas industry, agriculture and pesticide, industrial manufacturing, heavy traffic, and warehousing. CEQUA is an important tool for communities like mine because it requires agencies to inform us about incoming projects or expansions.
Speaker 48
Agencies often try to find loopholes to avoid CEQA review, weakening its ability to protect us. The industrial pollution that surrounds us has increased our risks of cancer, asthma, other illnesses, premature death at higher rates than the entire nation. AB twenty one seventy allows CEQA to live up to its promises by ensuring that new industrial projects and environmental justice communities go through environmental review. This is crucial so that our voices can be heard when projects are proposed so that we can mitigate harm and stop the vicious cycles we currently face. AB twenty one seventy would greatly improve our communities by ensuring important notices are translated into the languages we speak.
This would make it easier for us to understand proposed projects and their impacts. It would give us the chance to participate in decision making to ensure these projects benefit us. For example, on Lerdo Highway, several industrial and railway projects have been approved. And now along these same streets, there are plans to build housing. The approval of AB twenty one seventy will guarantee that if there are any other polluting projects approved near homes, we will be notified, and we will meaningfully be able to participate with our ideas and commentary.
Therefore, we strongly support a b twenty one seventy to promote greater transparency and create a healthier future for our communities.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any other persons in the hearing room who'd like to register their support today?
Speaker 17
Asha Sharma, on behalf of Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, cosponsor in proud support and would like to register support as well for Asian Pacific Environmental Network Action, Clean Earth for Kids, and Public Interest Law Project, and I'm also here to answer any technical questions on the bill. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Alex Lumer in strong support on behalf of Green Foothills, Restore the Delta, Mercury Press, Friends of the River, and Catholic Charities of Stockton. Thank you.
Speaker 62
a Better Environment in support. With the Center on Race, Poverty, and Environment, also a proud cosponsor in support and registering support on behalf of the following organizations Youth Leadership Institute, three fifty Bay Area Action, Building Healthy Communities Kern, TODEC Legal Center, Clean Water Action, Food and Water Watch, Environmental Health Coalition, Jakarta Movement, Central California Environmental Justice Network, Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Hi. My name is Diana Midelles, and on behalf of Commitee Progreso de la Monde, and I'm in support.
Speaker 50
Elizabeth Olvera Tapia, a Wasco resident, and I support on behalf of the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment.
Speaker 11
Gabriel Tolson of the Planning and Conservation League in support, also registering support on behalf of the Council of Mexican Federations in North America and Committee for Land, Air, Water, and Species. Thank you.
Speaker 20
Good afternoon. Christina Scrugg with the Center for Biological Diversity in in support. Ada Welder with Earthjustice in support.
Speaker 51
My name is Hugo Trujillo, and I can support the bill, a b twenty five seventy. I live in the Martini truck for twenty four years. My community
Speaker 1
Thank you, sir. Name, organization, and position on the bill, unfortunately.
Speaker 1
I wish I wish I could. We've got 24 we've got 24 bills we've gotta do today. I'm I'm deeply sorry.
Speaker 1
if you have it in written form and you wanna submit it to the committee in writing, we'll definitely put it into the record.
Speaker 79
that slurry, and, my community is now in the center to the industrial park. My community and the school, Palo Verde School. I need your help because I need this proposal because we need more communication. We need more information and more participation. It's very important in the life for the children's and my school, Palo Verde Thank
Speaker 73
Maria LaRacho with leadership council. I'll be, providing some translation if needed for residents. Do you need translation? Adela, in support of AB twenty one seventy. Thank you.
Speaker 54
She's from Pixley in support. Thanks to Sequa. They were able to stop a Pixley facility.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Everyone. My name is Rosalina Pena. I'm from Fresno, from Community Adam, supporting twenty one seventy.
Speaker 90
Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Property. Western Center is a cosponsor of the bill and also wanted to register, support for the with the fossil free California Environmental Defense Center, Center for Environmental Health, facts, Center for Food Safety, Esperanza, UDOS Network, Center for Community Action, and Environmental Justice. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Thank you. Thank you. Jonathan Perut here with Say Hi Action, proud cosponsor of the bill and speaking on behalf of PODAIR, California Coastkeeper Alliance, Restorative Delta, communities for better environment, communities interventions, San Francisco Baykeeper, Center for Public Environmental Oversight, Planning and Conservation League, Greenpeace USA, and Green Foothills. Thank you. Thank you so much.
Speaker 58
Michael Torres from Fresno and lives in an area like that. Joe, we need your help.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you so much. Is there anybody in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Yeah. Come on down.
We're gonna need one of those seats, unfortunately.
Speaker 66
Good afternoon, chair and members. Adam Regle on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and NAEP SoCal and a coalition of opposition to AB twenty one seventy. This bill in print has been labeled the cost driver. We haven't had time to fully analyze all of the, amendments that, have not gone into print yet, so we will do that. But we can only speak to what we've heard on the amendments and then what the bill says.
Speaker 60
The committee analysis appropriately notes that section one was extremely large in terms of its impact to all categorical exemptions. And so we appreciate that the bill is being narrowed to eliminate the categorical exemption portions of it. We we still think it'd be an expansive element of CEQUA to do the translation piece, which I wanted to speak briefly about. I think it's a very laudable intent to wanna translate EIRs, MNDs, NECDEX, notices With the liability provisions as written in this law, the the idea that a local government could potentially have its entire environmental review invalidated turns on whether you think it's a a, quote, minor mistranslation, which at any litigation is generally where the heart of the discrepancy comes into. We think there should be liability protections if you're gonna require local governments to translate into it could be it's not just Spanish.
It could be Vietnamese, Chinese. You're gonna need technical staff at local governments being able to translate highly technical documents into, other languages that are sometimes terms of art, not only in the main documents, but sometimes in the notices. And so I think there should be some, language or amendments that really address that liability concern because local governments are already stretched on resources. I don't think it's fair to say that they can translate it into potentially any language that triggers that threshold in the law. And so I think as much as people say AI can translate it, well, there's massive legal liabilities if it's done wrong.
And so if the liability protection's addressed, then there's a conversation to be had on the notice piece.
Speaker 1
Ali. Thank you so much. We're gonna establish a quorum real quick while we have eight members. Madam secretary, can you, call the attendants real fast?
Speaker 10
Brian. Here. Brian present. Ellis? Here.
Ellis present. Alanis? Connolly? Here. Connolly present.
Garcia? Haney? Hoover? Calra? Here.
Calra present. Macedo? Here. Macedo present. Matsuchi?
Here. Matsuchi present. Pelerin?
Speaker 1
I I'm just kidding. I was You can take the two minutes. You have the option of taking the two minutes from your fellow witness. It's up to Oliver.
Speaker 9
Good evening, mister chair and members. My name is Ben Turner, from Maximum Advisors speaking on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. We appreciate the committee suggested amendments, but they do not resolve our core concerns, and we must remain in opposition. The proposed amendments would preserve categorical CEQA exemptions but do not address the invalidation of both statutory CEQA exemptions and ministerial review processes that may apply to many types of projects, including a b one thirty statutory housing exemption. As the committee analysis correctly points out, the bill's geographic scope covers more than half of the Los Angeles Metro Area, most of the San Joaquin Valley, and a significant portion of the Bay Area.
Speaker 61
These are communities with the greatest unmet housing need, and making housing more difficult to build in these regions is counterproductive. Beyond the sequel reform rollbacks, the bill's zone to allow industrial uses trigger remains far too broad, and it captures mixed use in commercial zones where homebuilders are constructing housing today, not just industrial South sites. The sixty day expanded notice radius and prescriptive hearing requirements remain unchanged by their amendments, and these will extend entitlement timelines for every affected project. So we urge a no vote. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any other persons in the hearing room who'd like to be like to be heard on this measure, like to register their opposition?
Speaker 31
Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities respectfully opposed. Thank you.
Speaker 39
Sarah Brennan with the Weiderman Group on behalf of Supply Chain Federation in opposition.
Speaker 4
Eric Will on behalf of rural county representatives of California and Urban Counties Caucus in respectful opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Elizabeth Escobello, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also in respectful opposition.
Speaker 62
Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties in opposition.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Charles. And I'll turn it back to the dais. Colleagues, any questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none, miss Burner, would you like to close?
Speaker 14
Yes. I think it's really important that the committee amendments have narrowed the scope of these projects to the largest projects that impact the most polluted communities. I don't think anybody representing the people we represent want to have our children breathing polluted air, drinking polluted water, and growing up sick. So with that, I respectfully ask for an eye vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. We have a motion by mister Marisucci. Second. Second by mister Carra. It's supposed to do pass recommendation from the chair.
Madam secretary, can we call the roll?
Speaker 10
Brian I. Ellis? No. Ellis no. Alanis?
Connolly? Aye. Connolly I. Garcia? Haney?
Hoover? Calra?
Speaker 10
Calra I. Masero? Meretsuchi? Aye. Meretsuchi I.
Paleron? Aye. Paleron I. Shultz? Wicks?
Zebur? Aye. Zebur, aye.
Speaker 1
We'll leave it open for absent members. Miss Wilson, assembly member Wilson. Nice. We know you have your own committee that you're chairing right now, and so we will try to get you in and out.
Speaker 63
This is the least controversial bill, so I know it only takes two seconds.
Speaker 63
I know, Rick. Mister chair, members, I am proud to present AB twenty fifty nine. I'd like to thank the chair, committee staff, and stakeholders for their work to find a landing place on this bill. I'm pleased to accept the proposed amendments. AB twenty fifty nine is a narrow, practical update to how transportation impacts in rural communities are analyzed under CEQA.
It does not change our climate goals, and it does not weaken CEQA. It strengthens the integrity of our environmental review process by ensuring that mitigation requirements deliver real, measurable environmental benefits rather than just compliance on paper. When s b seven forty three was enacted, it was intended to modernize CEQA, shifting the focus away from congestion and towards broader environmental outcomes with flexibility to reflect local conditions. But over time, implementation has become increasingly rigid and standardized, often disconnected from how communities actually function. AB twenty fifty nine is a modest course correction.
It applies only to the 21 of the state's most rural counties, just 2.3% of California's population, and is designed to better align policy with real world conditions. In rural communities, travel's distances are long, transit options are limited, and land use patterns are dispersed. Driving is not optional. It is a necessity. As a result, the standard VMT mitigation strategies like transit investments, trip reduction programs, mode shifts are often infeasible or ineffective.
In many cases, they don't meaningful meaningfully reduce vehicle travel or emissions. When we require mitigation that doesn't work, we're not advancing our environmental goals. We're undermining them. So this bill, also focuses on public infrastructure projects that improve safety, support goods movement, and enable emergency evacuation. The current VMT framework was designed to influence land use decisions, not to constrain essential infrastructure.
Speaker 41
Applying it to the same way applying it the same way creates a mismatch, adding cost and delays without reducing emissions. At a time of declining transportation revenues, our rural communities should not direct scarce public funds towards ineffective mitigation measures, especially when delays can compromise safety and wildfire evacuation readiness. AB twenty fifty nine, with the help of, this committee and our stakeholders, is a targeted fix. It prior it prioritizes outcomes over assumptions and ensures our policies remain grounded in evidence and tailored to context. With me today, I have Kiana Valentine with Transportation California and Mike Woodman, executive director of the Nevada County Transportation Commission.
Speaker 26
Good afternoon, mister chair and members of the committee. Kiana Valentine, on behalf of Transportation California, proud sponsor of AB twenty fifty nine, would also like to acknowledge the great work of the chair and the committee staff and all of the stakeholders to arrive at the bill as proposed to be amended this afternoon. I wanna start by grounding my comments in the original intent of s b seven four three. Passed in 2013, s b seven four three was never meant to stop transportation projects. It was intended, as, chair Wilson acknowledged, to streamline CEQA, to reduce the cost of infill development, and to modernize transportation analysis so it considered the broad range of environmental outcomes more effectively.
Speaker 64
But over time, the state's implementation of the VMT framework has moved well beyond that intent. What was supposed to be flexible and concept context sensitive has oftentimes become too rigid, especially for project level transportation improvements. Today, critical public infrastructure projects in rural areas are being delayed, scaled back, or not advancing at all, not because they create meaningful environmental harm, but because they face mitigation requirements that are often infeasible, extremely costly, and in many cases, ineffective. In rural communities, travel patterns are shaped by geography and long distances. People drive to work, school to access health care, and other basic services, and these are necessary trips that cannot always be replaced by biking, walking, or transit.
Yet agencies are still being asked to mitigate VMT in ways that don't actually reduce vehicle travel or greenhouse gas emissions. When we require agencies to spend limited funds on mitigation that does not work, it diverts those dedicated resources away from other vital improvements. And that's not just an inefficient, but it undermines the credibility of our environmental review process. AB twenty fifty nine offers a narrow practical solution. It applies only where the current framework is the least effective, and it helps ensure public funds are spent on actions that actually deliver results.
And so for these reasons, we respectfully urge an I vote.
Speaker 35
Good afternoon, mister chair, members of the committee. Mike Woodman, executive director of the Nevada County Transportation Commission, and I'm here today to voice my strong support for AB twenty fifty nine. For rural communities like Nevada County, the current BMT framework and statewide policies often unfairly disadvantage the very transportation projects our rural residents depend on for safety, reliability, and access to lifeline services. Currently, rural highway improvement projects that propose to add highway capacity, in my experience, are not being supported for state funding. This is the case despite the fact that the key prerequisite factors of induced vehicle miles traveled are not present in these rural corridors.
Speaker 65
And these rural counties have very low levels of growth, if not losing growth, and also low levels of development. Overestimation of rural vehicle miles traveled can add significant costs, delays, litigation risks, and uncertainty to projects with most of the required mitigation measures being infeasible and beyond the ability of rural agency to fund. To put that into perspective, NCTC's biannual highway formula funding share is typically less than $5,000,000. And that $5,000,000 is what we use to advance improvements to the hay the highway system in Nevada County in partnership with our state and federal partners. AB twenty fifty nine represents a practical reform, and I thank Assemblywoman Wilson for bringing this forward.
It recognizes that a one size fits all approach does not work, and rural counties only represent 4% of the state's BMT. In rural counties where where travel distances are longer, facilities are substandard, and safety and evacuations are top priorities such as in State Route 49 in Nevada County, transportation investments must be strategic with limited resources. This bill helps ensure that scarce transportation dollars are spent delivering real project benefits, not chasing costly mitigation measures with little real world value that aren't based on substantial evidence. I respectfully urge for your high vote on a b twenty fifty nine.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much, sir. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?
Speaker 66
Thank you, mister chair. Todd Blumstein for the Southern California Contractors Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Good afternoon. Delilah Clay on behalf of the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association in support.
Speaker 34
Hello. Sofia Quach on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support. Thank you.
Speaker 67
Mister chair, Chris Chamot on behalf of the California Trucking Association in support.
Speaker 39
Crystal Moreno on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers in strong support.
Speaker 67
Excuse me. Good afternoon, chair and members. Jeannie Wardwaller. We're actually on in a neutral position. So I wanna say on behalf of ClimatePlan, the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, transform, MoveLA, Streets4All, three fifty Bay Area Action, and three fifty San Diego, based on the amendments in committee where all those organizations are going neutral.
Speaker 68
And also on behalf of, NRDC, they are really happy with the direction the bill is headed in. They wanna see the amendments have a little more time, but, yeah, they like the direction the bill is going. So thank you.
Speaker 9
Good afternoon. Matthew Baker with Planning and Conservation League. We were on that same coalition letter, and and I'm not able to declare that we can fully take off our opposition yet, but we do think we greatly appreciate the amendments. We think the bill is headed in the right direction. We greatly appreciate the author's willingness to work with us, and we just have a couple more concerns we'd like to work on with you.
So thank you.
Speaker 12
Jacob Evans with Sierra California. I really appreciate the amendments, and, we'll be reconsidering. Thank you.
Speaker 1
We'll now turn it back to the dais. Colleagues, any questions, comments, concerns? Mister Zabur.
Speaker 63
It did. Absolutely. We basically moved to an exempt status. And so we noted that, we are we have a rule definition when it comes to housing from the California tax credit Allocation Committee, which I think is 22. I might have said 21 in my testimony.
Basically, the ones that are listed there as rule, which, basically, it's a population less than, a 150, thousand, and doesn't have an urban center. And that's all those counties listed there. So we're using existing definitions, and then we're saying they're exempt. However, if they are doing a highway widening, then there's language around you can only do that when you have documented basically an issue as it relates to safety or evacuation. And so those are the amendments we made.
So the 5% completely gone and was replaced with that. And that was with consultation with our, as you noted, with stakeholders and, committee staff.
Speaker 69
So I'd like let you know that I appreciate you're working with the environmental community on this. It looks like they're pretty much content neutral, and I think Sierra Club looks like it's looking at this. So with that, I'll be, happy to move the bill today.
Speaker 1
I wanna thank the author for her willingness to engage with me, and with our team. I wanna thank our team for all of the work that went into this bill. We've been talking about this bill since last October or November. It started with a conversation in Los Angeles, and it took a lot of work to get to this point. So thank you to everybody who's been involved.
It does have a due pass recommendation from me. We have a motion and a second. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?
Speaker 10
Brian I Ellis Aye. Ellis I Alaniz, Connolly Aye. Connolly I Garcia, Haney, Hoover, Cholera Aye. Cholera I, Macedo, Mertucci Aye. Mertucci aye.
Halloran, my husband Schultz, Wicks, Suburr. Suburr aye.
Speaker 52
Thank you, mister chair and committee members. I'm here to present to you assembly bill 18 o eight. I would like to thank the committee chair and his staff for their work on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. Let me just be clear. My intent with this bill is not to undo the hard work that went into the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act.
In fact, I believe I am the only member of the legislature in the Joshua Tree Range that supported a trailer bill.
Speaker 52
is in part why I feel so much responsibility to make sure it works well. The Western Joshua Tree is an iconic species in California that is both ecological and culturally important. Joshua Tree span across a large portion of California's desert, and I do believe that we need to preserve it as it's an iconic, tree in the High Desert. In my hometown of Palmdale, where I serve as a city planner and later as a council member, we have been requiring developers to mitigate and preserve Joshua trees for decades. Regardless of the proposed development in the city of Palmdale, each developer had to conserve on-site or transplant the Joshua tree, two Joshua trees per acre.
But my district is disadvantaged, left behind, and in desperate need of housing and economic development. We need this conservation program to work to work and make it work. We need to make sure local residents who love the Joshua Tree can admire and preserve the tree while also still having the ability to do work on their property and have safe, effective public infrastructure. The current Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act allows the department to enter into an agreement with any county or city to delegate limited authority to permit the taking of a Joshua Tree associated with single family residences, multifamily residences, and renewable energy projects. This bill adds commercial and industrial projects to the list of projects that can be permitted locally.
This should be a win win for everyone involved. The department, has been currently understaffed for decades, can pass on responsibility to local governments. A developer can then use City Hall as a one stop shop where we'll need to deal with state for their Joshua Tree permits, and local governments will have more control over the timing and efficiency of delivering this desperately needed economic development projects. Additionally, this bill will allow the department to waive fees for the removal of up to 10 trees for single family homeowners to do work on their own property and up to 40 trees for maintaining existing public works. Public works put in before the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act are pieces of critical infrastructure often surrounded by the Joshua Tree because of how prominent the Joshua Tree is in my district.
Currently, any maintenance on this critical infrastructure has a high price tag leading to delays in necessary improvements and increased costs for locals who are already low income. Similarly, local homeowners who love the Joshua Tree are also unable to do work on their own property without paying high fees. Here to testify in more depth and on the fact, this house in residence is former assembly member Chad Mej, service for the city of Yucca Valley, and Jennifer Cusack, general manager of the Bighorn Desert View Water Agency.
Speaker 1
Absolutely. Usually, we do two minutes apiece, but seeing as this is my former seatmate, you may speak as long as you'd like.
Speaker 71
Thank you. But I got two minutes. I got a script to keep me on to two minutes, so be careful of giving former politicians microphones. But good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Chad Mays, and I'm here today as the contract lobbyist, for the town of Yucca Valley in support of AB 18 o eight.
This one is a little different for me, because I grew up in Yucca Valley. I served on the town council and as mayor. So when I say I know this community, I mean it personally, not just professionally. Joshua Trees are a part of who we are in Yucca Valley. They're in our backyards, our front yards, lining the roads I grew up on.
My friends, my family have always lived alongside them, worked around them, and genuinely treasure them. This isn't a community that wants to see these trees disappear. We understand better than most what it would mean to lose them. But loving them and living among them means facing realities that are easy to miss from Sacramento. In Yucca Valley, virtually every existing homeowner has Joshua trees on their property.
Speaker 76
That means almost any home maintenance or improvement project can suddenly become a regulatory challenge, including state of compliance. Putting in a pool that a family has always dreamt of, a new water or sewer line, hardening your home against wildfire, any of it can trigger fees that run into the tens of thousands of dollars. I've sat across the table from residents who simply couldn't afford it, retired folks on fixed incomes, young families, people trying to do the right thing buried in paperwork and fees they never expected. That's not conservation. That's a burden falling hardest on the people least equipped to carry it.
Speaker 71
AB 18 o eight seeks to provide some relief limited to the built environment. It's measured, it's reasonable, and it protects the trees that matter most while giving homeowners a workable, affordable path forward. I wanna thank the committee for their their work on this bill. I also wanna thank the author for being responsive to his constituents because I know you've heard from folks in the Antelope Valley as electeds have heard in, in the Victor Valley, in the Morongo Basin, and even Kern County. So, again, thank you so much, and the Tanayaka Valley urges your I vote.
Speaker 6
Good evening, chair, Brian, and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Jennifer Cusack, general manager of Bighorn Desert View Water Agency, a very small water district in the Mojave Desert. I am here in support of assembly member Carrillo's Western Joshua Tree bill, a b 18 o eight. I come from the Morongo Basin, Yucca Valley, where the Western Joshua Tree is not just a symbol of our landscape, it's part of our daily lives.
These trees are prolific around across a vast range from Joshua Tree National Park through San Bernardino County up into Inyo, Los Angeles County, and even into Bakersfield. We value and respect the Joshua Tree. Our communities have been protecting these trees locally for decades, much like the long standing protections for oak trees in other parts of California. And the science matters. The March 2022 California Department of Fish and Wildlife's own scientific report, page 53, documents the Western Joshua Tree does not meet the current criteria for listing under CISA, the California Endangered Species Act.
Speaker 64
But as such, we are glad it is protected statewide as they exist across a large, diverse area in large quantity. Under the current Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act, even routine yard maintenance can become unclear and potentially restricted and costly. Joshua trees naturally shed sharp, rigid leaves and spikes that accumulate on the ground. In residential yards, those spikes can pose a real hazard, especially for children. Even basic yard raking and clearing just to keep the yard safe can fall into a gray area of a take.
Speaker 6
That creates confusion and concern for residents who are simply trying to maintain safe, livable spaces. At the same time, it is increasing costs through the Western Joshua Tree fees being charged on placing additional burdens on critical infrastructure projects, including water systems and improvements on their private property, including water lines and water line repairs and septic system pumping. Projects that are essential to public health and affordability. Fees are being paid on trees that are not taken necessarily. They are still standing and surviving.
These added burdens are not resulting meaningful new protections. Our communities have already demonstrated long standing commitment of to stewardship as evidenced by their prolific nature throughout our communities. Assembly member Carrillo's bill helps correct some of these unintended impacts. It maintains appropriate protections for the Western Joshua Tree while providing clarity so people can reasonably live among them. It supports affordability, allows essential infrastructure to move forward, and keeps conservation grounded in practical reality.
It's about balance, protecting the tree while also respecting the people who live among them every day. This bill is very important to our communities, and I respectfully request your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any other persons here in the hearing room in support of this measure?
Speaker 49
Nicole Wortelman on behalf of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors in support.
Speaker 2
Good afternoon. Nathan Scatson on behalf of the California Association of Realtors in support.
Speaker 23
Jennifer Aguilar on behalf of the California Building Industry Industry Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 75
Tim Worley on behalf of the Community Water Systems Alliance speaking in support, also representing Palmdale Water District and the Morongo Basin residents for reasonable Joshua Tree regulation, and individually, San Bernardino County supervisor Don Rowe, all in support. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Good afternoon again, chair, committee members, staff. My name is Alex Loomer, and I'm here on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, California Native Plant Society, and the Mojave Desert Land Trust. We continue to oppose a b 18 o eight because we believe this bill is unnecessary. We appreciate the amendment suggested in the committee analysis and that Assemblyor McCrea has taken the suggested amendment. But even in its amended form, we still must oppose this bill until section two of the bill is either deleted or modified.
The Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act already includes the tools necessary to ensure faster permits for homeowners, local utilities, and commercial and industrial projects. The act authorizes CDFW to delegate permitting authority to cities and counties, particularly for housing, infrastructure, and public works projects, allowing local agencies to issue take permits concurrently with project approvals, which accelerates timelines. Unfortunately, none of the local governments have availed themselves of this permitting delegation opportunity. Instead, they continue to send their constituents to CDFW to resolve permitting issues. In addition to the concurrent to the current opportunities within the act itself, CDFW also is undertaking a regulatory process to facilitate faster permitting.
Speaker 29
In November 2025, CDFW issued a notice preparation for a program a programmatic environmental impact report for the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act permitting program. The PEIR is intended to streamline CEQA compliance for projects that may result in limited take of Western Joshua trees while ensuring that impacts are avoided, minimized, and mitigated through standardized conservation measures. Finally, CFW is undertaking a fee adjustment process that is statutorily required to be completed by the 2026. This fee adjustment process offers the best opportunity to adjust fees to better reflect impacts and cost to homeowners and other project developers. Indeed, CFW has indicated that it plans to reduce or eliminate fees to to single family residents, and we support that outcome.
Speaker 8
Given the the current ongoing processes regarding permitting and fee adjustments, we do not believe that it is appropriate or timely to change law regarding fees or mitigation. For these reasons, we urge a no vote on a b 18 08. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any other persons in the hearing room in opposition to this may?
Speaker 20
Good good afternoon. Christina Sprinter with the Center for Biological Diversity. We also maintain an oppose unless amended position. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. We'll now turn it down. Turn it back to committee members. Seeing no questions, any comments, mister Curio? Would you like to close?
Speaker 52
I'll just respond to a couple of things that were mentioned by the opposition. I we we continue to work with the opposition. When I hear that it's working, believe me that when I hear constantly every time I go back to the district, not only from developers, but also from single family homeowners, how frustrating the process is. And I'm also speaking as a retired city planner. I did that for about twenty years.
Speaker 50
The city of Palmdale, like I mentioned in my my comments, we had an ordinance that allowed for the city to have developers say to Yasuo three respirator regardless of the type of development. When you drive through the Antelope Valley and the Victor Valley, you can clearly see that there's a lack of economic opportunities for for the region. And and some of that has to do because how much time it takes to go through the department to get a permit and also because the the industrial and commercial development is is not there right now. And primarily, it is single family homeowners that are suffering through it because there are requirements that, for instance, they have to comply with sewer connections, for instance, if the sewer becomes available, like in Jaca Valley. And they just take so long and are so costly for single family homeowners that want to do improvements so that they have to do improvements on their property.
Speaker 52
That's why we included that in this bill today, and we will continue to work with with you and with anybody else that has these kind of concerns. The program EIR that was mentioned, you know, as a part of myself, I don't know how long it's gonna take for that to to go through. There are so many, ways that, these processes can take even longer. And, again, I'm speaking as as a city planner with over twenty years of experience. So I respect that the department is trying to address these concerns, but I don't think that we can afford to continue to wait.
The the the region is this, bill because we need to make sure that those economic opportunities come to the desert, the High Desert, and also to alleviate those burdens by single family homeowners. So I've got again, I continue to to work with the concerns. And with that, I just respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Mister Ellis made a motion. Do we have a second? I'll give you a second. This bill has a due pass recommendation from the chair. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?
Speaker 10
Brian I. Ellis? Aye. Ellis I. Alaniz, Connolly, Garcia, Haney, Hoover, Cholera?
Aye. Cholera, aye. Macedo? Meretsuchi? Meretsuchi not voting.
Pelerin, Schultz, Wicks, Zipper. Zipper not voting.
Speaker 1
Is that not a gift basket for us? Thank you, sir. Assemblymember Erwin. It'd be 2182.
Speaker 78
Good afternoon, colleague colleagues. As you may know, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from industrial facilities is one of the greatest challenges we face in reaching our climate goals. One of the tools we have available to deploy industrial upgrades to cleaner technologies is the energy efficiency program overseen by the CPUC. However, the current program excludes many promising industrial upgrade projects. As a result, large industrial facilities are struggling to effectively investigate invest in cleaner technologies despite their potential to deliver significant emissions reductions.
Speaker 74
AB twenty one eighty two will restructure the industrial energy efficiency program in the following ways. Shift program administration from the CPUC to GOBIS, assess project benefits based on the performance of existing equipment rather than a hypothetical baseline, and only use funds paid by the industrial facilities themselves, ensuring that no other projects are subsidized by other customers. AB twenty one eighty two will align the industrial energy efficiency program with the realities of industrial decision making, encourage timely investments in decarbonization projects, and support industrial emissions reductions in California. Today, to testify with me is Bruce Magnani, a representative of the California Large Energy Consumers Association.
Speaker 35
Thank you very much, chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity. Bruce Magnani on behalf of CLICA. As the, author mentioned, the current system is broken. In fact, a lot of our clients won't even apply for projects anymore under the current system.
And so what 2182 will do, as described, will take those energy efficiency dollars that are paid on your monthly bill and put them in an escrow account where you can go and apply for your own money to be returned back to you for projects. No cross subsidies. No other ratepayers are paying into this for you. You also have to do a dollar for dollar match on these projects.
Speaker 18
you have to also commit capital along with the money you get back in this energy efficiency program. The reason that matters so much are a lot of these large facilities are owned by large, international or national companies. And when you're inside those discussions, those capital dollars, it's a competitive it's a competitive market. And what this does is this tilts the table in favor of California when those when those capital dollars come to the table. So rather than those companies investing somewhere where they might get a larger return, say, in Texas or Ohio or outside of this country where you have a lower regulatory threshold to overcome, it really makes it attractive to invest in your own facilities in California to make them more efficient and decarbonize and continue to operate.
Speaker 1
Thank you, sir. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?
Speaker 18
Chair members, Cassandra Moore on behalf of the California Efficiency and Demand Management Council in the support of amended position looking for some definitions, clarity around energy efficiency. Thank you.
Speaker 76
David Bullock is a me too, industrial power plant worker in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. We'll now turn it back to committee members. Questions, comments, concerns? We have a motion by mister Zabur.
Speaker 1
Second by mister Ellis and a third by mister Calra. Senate member Irwin, would you like to close?
Speaker 1
This bill has a due pass recommendation from the chair. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?
Speaker 10
Brian I Ellis. Aye. Ellis I Alanis. Connerly. Garcia.
Haney. Hoover. Calra? Aye. Calra aye.
Macedo? Mertzuchi?
Speaker 1
We'll leave it open for absent members, but I feel like you've got a good chance.
Speaker 28
That that also works. Good afternoon, mister chair and members. First, I wanna thank you and your committee for working with my office on this important district bill. We are accepting the committee amendments which shift from a sequel exemption to a streamlining approach. AB two two three one supports the timely development of two critical health care infrastructure projects in the Bay Area, one in my district in the heart of Silicon Valley and one in Emeryville.
Speaker 74
As our region continues to grow and innovate, our health care system must keep pace. Sutter Health's new medical center in Santa Clara represents a major investment in the future of health care for Silicon Valley. This project is about more than just a building. It's about expanding access to high quality care, supporting a strong health care workforce, and ensuring our infrastructure meets the needs of a diverse and growing population. Unlike the other CEQA bills before this committee, these hospital projects are fully prepared to move forward.
Speaker 28
Shovels in the ground, and they are and they are desperately needed, to be timely to support and deliver a real public benefit for California. With me today is Cynthia Lee, chief strategy and growth development officer with Sutter Health.
Speaker 27
Thank you, and thank you, mister chair and committee members. My name is Cynthia Lee, and I'm the chief strategy and growth officer for Sutter Health. I'm here today in strong support of a b twenty two thirty one. Sutter Health is a not for profit health care integrated system serving some 3,600,000 Californians across the communities of Northern And Central California. We are making major investments, thank you, in the Silicon Valley and the East Bay to expand access to care by modernizing our existing facilities and building new ones where they are urgently needed.
Speaker 77
Two generational projects are the two new medical campuses, one in Emeryville and one in Santa Clara. Both will provide a full spectrum of outpatient and inpatient services with hospital new hospital capacity as well as emergency room capacity. The Emeryville Hospital is is, especially critical. It will replace our Alta Bates Summit Ashby campus in Berkeley, which must stop operating as a hospital by 2030 to comply with California seismic safety requirements. Without a timely replacement, the East Bay risks losing essential inpatient and emergency care, including our very busy maternity and neonatal intensive care unit.
The Ashby campus, after the hospital is built, will transition to an outpatient campus, and the new hospital will be in Emeryville. The Santa Clara project is a rare milestone. It's a net new hospital for the state of California At a time when many hospitals are cutting services or closing beds, Santa Clara County has already among the lowest inpatient bed availability in the state. Population growth and rising acuity are only increasing the strain already set on the stress system. This new campus will add critical inpatient and emergency services, reduce travel times, ease pressure on nearby emergency rooms and hospitals, and serve patients across Santa Clara and surrounding counties.
AB twenty two thirty one helps to ensure these essential health care projects are not delayed or halted and that patients and our communities are not underserved. In closing, we respectfully urge your support of AB twenty two thirty one and ask for your yes vote. Thank you so much.
Speaker 53
Committee, mister chair and committee members Joe Gregerich here to answer any questions with Soter Health.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?
Speaker 50
Good evening, mister chair and members. Jasmine Vai on behalf of Civil Justice Association of California in support of this measure. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Nissette Short on behalf of the private essential access community hospitals in support.
Speaker 60
Adam Regley on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in support. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Michelle Welkawa representing the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in support.
Speaker 11
Ashanti Smith on behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group in strong support.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?
Speaker 9
Good afternoon. Again, Matthew Baker with Planning and Conservation League. Respectfully opposed to the bill print, and but we appreciate the the conversation going here. We don't have any objection to the projects at hand here or have an opinion about their merits. Really, what we object to is the increasing number of legislative proposals to just have these single project CEQA exemptions.
We don't think that that's really an appropriate way, a good way of planning. And we don't think it's really an effective way for the legislature to guide planning and development policy in the state. We think that if there are projects of merit that the state does want to incentivize and accelerate, we
Speaker 94
a well thought out policy for how to do that. And we have suggested that the environmental leadership program is such a policy that governs that kind of accelerated development for things that we wanna incentivize. And we think that the proposed amendments, like the like the proposed amendments for the the the bill that passed through this committee last year, it'd be eight eight thirty, I believe it was, you know, put the guide this conversation in the right direction, and that's a conversation that we're willing to have. So with the amendments, we'll we'll review review our our our position, but are willing to work with the author moving forward. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Absolutely. And I just wanna say I I recognize that the opposition's testimony is to the the bill as it came to the committee. Thank you. We actually went exactly that route with streamlining it through the environment environmental leadership route because we agree that patchworking exemptions is is probably not the best guidepost for the state, but there is a method to do this and do it faster. I will also say that this particular author is probably the only person who could have negotiated the kinds of conditions that that this bill, ultimately received.
Are there any other persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? We'll now turn it back to the dais. Colleagues, questions, comments, concerns? Motion by mister Zabur.
Speaker 28
I would just say, thank you so much for your consideration. Happy to continue working, with the opposition. Thank you, mister chair, for clarifying the record. This is not a CEQUA bill. It's a streamlining bill.
But let us be clear. If we continue to keep seeing these bills come forward, the real solution is to fix what's breaking California, which is CEQUA itself, needs to be fixed, or else you're gonna we will continue to see these bills keep attacking it. So let's actually tackle the problem instead of resisting. I respectfully ask for your eye.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. This bill does have a due pass. I would also say it's important for us to plan. Seismic retrofits for hospitals has been put in the regulations since 1996. I was four years old.
The fact that we are now building the hospital that we need because 2030 is only four years away, I think is also part of the planning conversation that I've had locally with my hospitals as well. And so I think, all things are true, and all of these conversations should be had. But this is important, and it's timely, and we're gonna move it today. Madam secretary, we have a motion and a second. Can we call the roll?
Speaker 10
Brian I. Ellis? Aye. Ellis I. Alaniz?
Connolly? Aye. Connolly I. Garcia? Haney?
Hoover? Calra?
Speaker 10
Calra I. Masato? Matsuchi? Aye. Matsuchi, aye.
Palarit? Schultz? Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye.
Suburr? Aye. Suburr, aye.
Speaker 1
That bill needs one more. Good luck. Thank you, mister chair. Yes, Mister Alvarez. Good afternoon, assembly member.
Whenever you're ready.
Speaker 79
Thank you, mister chair, and colleagues. I'm here to present assembly bill twenty four thirty three. It would not be a legislative anomaly to have a bill on density bonus come before you as I've worked on this issue now a few years here in the legislature and prior to this as a city council member. Mister chair, I wanna begin by stating that I accept, the amendment consistent with, current law, related to, section m related to the coastal act as presented by your committee, and thank you. We are taking that amendment.
California's housing crisis is not a mystery. You've heard it all. I'm not even gonna go over the numbers. You you know what they are. We are not producing the amount of housing that we need, and we need to look at policies that have actually worked.
And to that effect, last week, all of our staffs were invited, to a, a briefing that occurred with a circulate planning policy. This is a document that was produced based on data obtained from cities on what's being built in our state. I highly recommend it. What this summary of all the work happening in the state says is that density bonus is working. And so I am here before you to try to, strengthen this one tool that has produced the most amount of housing built in California bar no other policy that the state has approved.
This has been the most successful. Since 2021, bonus law has entitled more than a 140,000 homes across all of California at no cost to taxpayers as these are not, subsidized product. This works by getting builders who commit to affordable housing. They must build affordable housing in their projects. It gives them certainty and flexibility they need to make projects pencil out.
Density bonus law is unfortunately sometimes being used only to create rental housing, which I think is very important. But this bill, in particular, also talks about new incentives for homeownership opportunities. And I know you probably, like me, are hearing from your constituents that, they would also like opportunities to buy their first home. This bill is specifically focused on that. We also have data in this that will, from HCD that has determined that, some people are not utilizing density bonus even though it's available to them.
Speaker 51
And so this bill is attempting to remind them, of something that's already available to, those who build homes that they can use this as a tool to create housing using the certainty and the flexibility that is allowed in density bonus. So I bring you today this this proposal, which allows for builder to build derestricted units at income levels lower than what the law says. There's a little bit of a misunderstanding, and some jurisdictions are not thinking they can provide the density bonus incentives to developers if they build even more affordable than what is strictly stated or obviously stated in the current statute. That is not the intention. We want affordable housing to be built, and if it's more affordable, even better.
Speaker 79
And the developers should be able to have access to those benefits if they are building that even deeper level affordability. This bill clarifies that. It also allows for ministerial approval of projects that qualify for density bonus and a b one thirty infill exemption that the legislature enacted last year, and, it aligns with recent court findings, related to, these issues. Again, you know the housing crisis is. I continue to work on and committed to work on this project on on making sure we have the housing built for the people of California.
And I thank you for the opportunity to present this. And now I'd like to turn it over to Jordan Grimes with Greenbelt Alliance for our one witness today. Thank you.
Speaker 36
Well, good afternoon, chair and members. As the assembly member said, my name is Jordan Grimes. I'm the legislative director with Greenbelt Alliance. We are an environmental organization in The Bay Area that has worked, for the last sixty, seventeen years to advance, sustainable land use policy, climate resilience, and conservation work. And over that time, we have learned that being effective conservationists actually really requires us to be as zealous in our advocacy for infill housing as we are for our climate and for natural resources.
The primary driver of sprawl and the destruction of California's natural, and sensitive landscapes, is the demand for new homes. And to combat that destruction, we have to be ardent champions of making it easier to build within our existing communities, ensuring that we are putting new housing in all of the right places in California. AB twenty four thirty three modernizes and strengthens density bonus law, which is, as the assembly member said, one of our state's most successful tools for producing affordable housing. By facilitating dense environmentally friendly infill, we are directly reducing the pressure to develop, our natural and working lands, the forest, the wetlands, the agricultural areas that serve as our state's best defense against climate change. AV twenty four thirty three makes several targeted improvements, including enabling a 100% affordable developers to provide those deeper levels of affordability that and while still providing and qualifying for the stacked bonuses that we were talking about.
It increases incentives for affordable, for sale units, adds additional waivers and concessions, creating those vital pathways for homeownership in the transit rich, sustainable neighborhoods where this housing belongs. And then importantly, it adds a critical layer of transparency by actually requiring jurisdictions to proactively notify, applicants and developers of the density bonus eligibility. This shifts the burden away from the applicant themselves and ensures that the state's most powerful housing tool, is being used to its full potential rather than remaining hidden behind, often complex bureaucracy. Finally, the bill offers, certainty, and, you know, currently, even the most sustainable infill projects are often subject to a gauntlet of discretionary approvals that can take years to navigate. These delays end up acting as a hidden subsidy for sprawl.
And when it is easier and or when it is harder and more expensive to build a transit oriented development, an apartment building rather than a subdivision on a hillside in a high fire area, the environment loses. So by creating a by right approval process, and pathway for infill projects, a d twenty four thirty three ensures that code compliant affordable housing cannot be watered down or killed arbitrarily by local opposition. By removing these roadblocks and streamlining the path for infill development, a b twenty four thirty three protects our natural resources and addresses our housing crisis simultaneously. We are proud to support the bill today and respectfully ask for an I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Holly Fermini, Deus with Lakehaus Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Fieldstead and Company, Habitat for Humanity California, and San Diego Housing Commission, all in support.
Speaker 28
Dominic Damari here for, the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce here in support.
Speaker 8
Alex Lumer on behalf of California Coast Protection Network and Committee for Green Foothills. Just removing our opposition. Really appreciate the author taking the committee amendments to clarify the scope. Thank you.
Speaker 1
We'll now turn it back to committee members. Any questions, comments? Miss Wiggs?
Speaker 34
Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, mister Alvarez, for your leadership in this space. I think I heard you say this, but I just wanna confirm. So should this bill pass against signing the law, these projects, if qualified, would enjoy the benefits of a b one thirty. Is that correct?
Speaker 80
Okay. Great. I would love to be added on as a coauthor at whatever level you'll you'll take me. I'm happy to
Speaker 1
Second by mister Calra. Mister Alvarez, we question for mister Marisucci.
Speaker 82
So first of all, mister Alvarez, I I just wanna make sure I understand. The committee amendment is to harmonize your bill with the coastal act.
Speaker 79
That's what the committee analysis says. We are reaffirming it's already a requirement
Speaker 79
As part of density bonus. We are just restating it once again as requested by the committee that section m, which is a reference to the coastal act, also applies to any of these new changes that we're adding.
Speaker 82
Okay. So, yeah, I I this is not our first conversation over, these housing issues. I appreciate your ongoing efforts to, you know, boost housing production in the state of California with the ultimate objective of of making it more affordable for for all California families. I was just meeting with a constituent in Manhattan Beach a couple weeks ago. Have you ever been to Manhattan Beach?
Speaker 82
I I imagine it's it's probably similar to a lot of communities in in San Diego. But it it's it's primarily single family homes, and and and and there's a big controversial project, multistory, surrounded by single family homes that the city is telling all the residents that are complaining that, well, we can't do anything about it because it's ministerial by right. Speak to your estate representatives. Mhmm. And the residents are are talking about, you know, how they've worked hard, you know, saved up over the years to buy their their dream home in the beach cities.
And and now they have this development right next door that's completely out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. What would you tell that constituent?
Speaker 79
Yeah. I would tell them at least that in this case, if you vote for this bill, you you are not, voting to change local zoning. If your local city is allowing a type of development that is multistory, that is your local city who is choosing to do that. I don't know the circumstances of this particular parcel that you're referring to, but this bill, at least, does not touch the authority of locals to zone. If they made what this bill does do is that if they made the decision to allow a more dense development, multifamily type of development on a parcel, then they can use this, but that was a decision made by the locals.
Speaker 79
That this does not change that. I don't know the circumstance of the particular project you're talking about, but, again, if you were responding to your vote on this particular issue Mhmm. It does not this this would not, impact that. And if Manhattan Beach is in the coastal zone, this would also not impact that as as much as I would just tell you, and I think we disagree on this, that I believe the coast has a role to play in providing housing for people of all incomes, this would actually not apply to a coastal city if that's the case there.
Speaker 82
Yeah. I mean, I I suspect the city's response would be that in order to get their housing element approved, that they have to they've had to rezone many of their their residential neighborhoods in order to comply. And yeah. So I, you know, I I I I just want to voice the frustrations of my constituents who, you know, are seeing all these changes being forced upon them. And, for that reason, respectfully, I would not be able to support your bill.
Speaker 69
Good afternoon. I actually think, density bonuses are actually one of the tools that are really important in terms of providing more affordable housing for our communities, and so I will be supporting the bill today. The one pause I had was related to one of the letters that indicate there aren't any labor standards. I'm wondering if you're having discussions about that.
Speaker 79
Yeah. No. In fact, the labor standards that we have in the assembly bill one thirty are also included in this bill. And so I don't believe that I don't wanna misspeak, but I don't believe and I will follow-up and correct the record if that's the case with you. I don't believe that an opposition remains on this bill.
I think it's good.
Speaker 69
And if there's you'd you're open to working with the building trades on Absolutely. But related to labor standards.
Speaker 1
Seeing no other questions or comments, mister Alvarez, would you like to close?
Speaker 79
Yeah. Thank you again, mister chair. Appreciate always being able to come, to the committee and and to work with you, particularly on issues that I think, address real issues for Californians, in this case housing. I wanna thank all the questions. I do believe that California needs to be a place where we all welcome people of all income levels into every community.
I think we can find a way to do so. This is my contribution to that. And more specifically, I don't want this to get lost, housing ownership opportunities. This bill has that. We haven't done a lot of work in that space.
I look forward to this being perhaps the beginning of much more work that we do to incentivize development of homeownership opportunities for Californians because I think we also need to we owe it to them to not just create rental housing, but housing owner ownership opportunities. And for that reason, respectfully, ask your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, mister Alvarez, for always coming to the committee and engaging in this conversation and doing consistently good work. I would also be happy to join you as a coauthor on this bill. You have a motion and a second. Madam secretary, can we call the
Speaker 10
Calra, aye. Macedo? Mertzuchi? No. Mertzuchi, no.
Pelerin? Schultz? Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye.
Zabur? Aye. Zabur, aye.
Speaker 53
thank the chair. I think the committee will be accepting the committee amendments. I know every member likes to get up here and say that it's a simple bill. I assure you this one is not, and I appreciate all of the work that they have put into this one. We're here today to present a b sixteen sixty six.
This bill will establish one or more biomass innovation parks and accelerate a sustainable wood based bioeconomy in California. California continues to face a catastrophic wildfire crisis causing tens of billions in annual economic damages while driving up electricity rates. In response, the state has established a goal to steward over 2,000,000 forested acres per year to reduce wildfire risk. The state state currently does, at best, about 25% of that total amount. The Air Resources Board estimates that this active management could generate 14,500,000 dry tons per year of forest biomass.
This adds the approximately 10,000,000 dry tons per year of wood waste from crops, orchards, and vineyards that is generated in California's agriculture. In both cases, the woody biomass residues are typically piled, burned, which usually emits black carbon or left, often left to decompose, which ends up, actually being worse, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, causing significant carbon and air pollution in the communities that this, that see these projects. Finding carbon beneficial end uses for wood waste is critical, yet currently options face key drop drop excuse me, drawbacks. Direct combustion, for instance, for electricity is the main outlet that California sees right now with biomass. These facilities have been shown to increase localized air pollution, and they are prohibitively expensive to operate.
Speaker 58
According to the California Energy Commission, biopower is the most expensive form of available electricity generation, resulting in an increased cost to ratepayers compared to alternative energy resources. In place of burning wood waste for power, CARB has modeled a series of advanced end uses for woody biomass consistent with the intergovernmental panel on climate change science that plays a key role in the state achieving its greenhouse gas and air pollution mitigation goals. Uses like engineered wood products to be used in building materials, biomass fuels such as clean hydrogen, and providing carbon dioxide removal or negative emissions to support the state's net zero emission goals. This bill also incentivizes mobile processing of biomass, a technology that's invented here in California as transportation times and remote project sites often make these end uses difficult to sustain. To advance these innovative goals, a b sixteen sixty six would establish several policies to address California's wood waste surplus and support the state's wildfire prevention goals by incentivizing the deployment of noncombustion biomass technologies.
Speaker 53
The bill directs the Natural Resource Agency to identify one or more biomass innovation parks that could serve as a centralized hub in regions to host noncombustion biomass projects with the goal of facilitating supply chains, logistics, workforce, and other commercial benefits. The bill establishes a grant program to facilitate the development of the innovation parks with the tenant developers. The bill also directs various agencies to address barriers to long term forest biomass feedstock supply, develop a life cycle assessment of alternative uses of California sourced wood waste, incorporate engineered wood products in the new embodied carbon program, as well as incorporate the use of engineered wood products and state grant programs to incentivize their use. California's wood waste surplus has been dangerously neglected to date, exasperating an ongoing risk of catastrophic wildfire while undermining the state's climate and air quality goals. As I said at the beginning, this is an ambitious bill.
A part of that is because this has been one of those third rail or sacred cows as we were able to talk about in in another committee just a little while ago. What we don't wanna do is incentivize forestry management practices based on this new economy. But what we do need to do is figure out an economic response that allows for, this biomass to be accounted for, to be taken care of, and to help us to manage our forests, and to help us to manage our greenhouse gas emission risks. So with that, I'm gonna turn it over to our two witnesses. We have Sam Udin, who is the cofounder of NetZero California, and Steve Frisch with the the president of the Sierra Business Council.
Speaker 89
Thank you, chair and members. My name is Sami Den. I'm with NetZero California, and we're proud to sponsor AB sixteen sixty six, which should establish one or more biomass innovation parks and support a sustainable wood waste bioeconomy in the state. California is facing a wood waste crisis where millions of tonnes of forest and agricultural biomass are being piled and burned or left to decay every year causing significant carbon and air pollution. In response, the state has established a goal to expand a sustainable bioeconomy that takes this wood waste and converts it by noncombustion technologies into low carbon products, such as mass timber, clean hydrogen, biomethane, and carbon removal.
Speaker 86
This goal is clearly identified in multiple state plans, including carb scoping plan, recent s p two fifty four report on how to manage wildfire risk in the state, the Sierra Nevada, North Coast, Central Valley, and Kern County jobs first plans, and the forthcoming update to the California Wildfire Task Force's action plan. AB sixteen sixty six simply aims to implement these existing goals on wood biomass with incentives and targeted reforms, including establishing one or more innovation parks, as well as addressing key barriers to project development including related to feedstock contracting, life cycle assessment and others. The state has really struggled to make progress on wood biomass issues to the point where local governments have been forced to consider strategies such as exporting forest slash from the Port Of Stockton to burn in power plants overseas. This points to the massive scale of the problem and the public safety threat that would push these communities, who would much prefer to support an in state bioeconomy, to even consider this as an option. It underscores that we can't ignore this issue any longer.
So a p sixteen sixty six provides a path forward consistent with state policy and respectfully request your iPhone. Thank you.
Speaker 70
Thank you, chair and committee members. My name is Steve Frisch. I'm the president of the Sierra Business Council. Sierra Business Council also manages the small business development center for the eight county Northeastern California region and acts as the economic development district in the Central Sierra Nevada region, and we're proud to support a b sixteen sixty six. There are several strong economic regions to support a b 1666.
First, by investing in wood utilization, innovation parks, and creating economic uses for wood waste, we reduced the cost of forest and vegetation management treatments by moving waste management from the negative to the positive side of the balance sheet for many projects that are implemented on the ground. And this stretches our limited wildfire resilience funding further in the state of California to achieve our wildfire resilience goals. Second, many regions of the state have developed economic development strategies as part of their California jobs first programs, as my colleague Sam mentioned, and several of these regions have included bioeconomy hubs as key implementation strategies in their regions, largely because they have a very high quotient of high quality job creation attached to them. So we think a b sixteen sixty six is an opportunity to kick start those economic development plans that would, that literally thousands of stakeholders have participated in developing across the state and would work particularly well in rural regions of the state, to address these issues. Third, by supporting a b sixteen sixty six, we can leverage federal matching funds and private investments in forest management.
As a matter of fact, the USDA just announced a $115,000,000 investment in wood utilization loans nationwide. $62,000,000 of that funding came to California, including $25,000,000 for a noncombustion gasification facility in Calaveras County and 18500000 Dollars for a small diameter timber mill and cross laminated timber manufacturing facility in Eastern Nevada County. These projects unlock
Speaker 70
$2,000,000 in private investment. I thank the committee and staff for their hard work, time, and consideration and urge an I vote on a b sixteen sixty six.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?
Speaker 75
Good afternoon. Alfredo Arredondo on behalf of the Green Hydrogen Coalition in support.
Speaker 71
Michael Jarrett with the Nature Conservancy. With the committee amendments, we're we're moving to a support position, and I'd like to thank the committee and the author for their work on the bill.
Speaker 14
Karen Lang, behalf of the Placer County Board of Supervisors in support.
Speaker 26
Chair and members, Nate Solev on behalf of the following groups who can't be here today. Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District, Mariposa County Resource Conservation District, Placer County Air Pollution Control District, Sierra Institute for Community Environment, Watershed Center, and the World Resources Institute. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?
Speaker 20
Good afternoon. Christina Springer at the Center for Biological Diversity. We remain respectfully opposed but very much appreciate the thoughtful discussions we've been having with you and your staff and hope that we can continue those.
Speaker 12
Good evening. Jacob Evans with Sierra California, respectfully opposed. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. We'll now turn it back to committee members. Questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none, miss mister Rogers, would you like to close?
Speaker 53
Yeah. No. Just, respectfully ask for an I vote. We'll continue to work with folks. But as we, mentioned, we're trying to strike a real balance here between creating additional economy in some of these areas, increasing our ability to do wildfire management while also making sure that that's not the driver for our forest management practices.
And I think, many of you have already seen some of our other bills in that space and know that the intent is to have a well managed healthy forest system in California. But I
Speaker 1
Well, thank you, mister Rogers, and thank you for working so hard with our committee, and thank you to the committee staff for putting so much time into this, into this bill. It would do pass recommendation from me, a motion, and a second. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?
Speaker 10
Brian I Ellis? Aye. Ellis I Alanis? Connolly? Aye.
Connolly I. Garcia? Haney? Hoover? Calra?
Aye. Calra aye. Macedo? Mereducci? Aye.
Mereducci aye. Pellerin? Schultz? Wicks?
Speaker 87
Thank you, mister chair. Good afternoon to everyone. I'm pleased to present a b twenty four sixty one, a bill to clarify California's oil and gas bonding requirements to ensure that companies, not taxpayers, are paying the full cost of properly puggling wells and decommissioning facilities. California has tens of thousands of aging and active oil wells that eventually need to be plugged. According to the Carbon Tracker Initiative, California's onshore oil production decommissioning and site remediation liabilities could total as much as $21,000,000,000.
Existing law, AB eleven sixty seven, passed in 2023 already requires operators acquiring new wells or facilities to provide financial assurance sufficient to cover plugging, abandonment, and other costs. When operators go bankrupt or otherwise face financial trouble, taxpayers are often left on the hook to properly plug wells and decommission facilities. Over the last two years, multiple acquisitions through all stock deals by the California Resources Corporation were determined by CalGEM to not trigger these financial assurance requirements. In 2024, CRC acquired Era Energy, one of California's largest oil producers. In December 2025, CRC also announced the acquisition of Barrier Corporation for 717,000,000, including the assumption of Barrier's debt.
Both transactions were structured as all stock deals, meaning control of the companies transferred without a traditional asset sale. So CRC was determined to not have to meet financial assurance requirements designed for the exist this exact type of ownership change. That bill, a b eleven sixty seven, was designed and intended by the legislature to prevent operators from shifting closure costs to financially unstable operators in exactly these types of circumstances. AB twenty four sixty one strengthens accountability by clearing by clarifying that even in the case of these all stock transactions or corporate restructuring, existing financial requirements already approved by this legislature still apply. This bill will also strengthen financial assurance by eliminating the carve out for certain higher producing wells.
The bill would instead require that any well that gets transferred to a new company should be covered. This legislation strengthens California's oil and gas bonding requirements to ensure that companies, not taxpayers, are paying the full tax cost to properly pugging wells and decommissioning facilities. Speaking in support of this bill is Anne Alexander, a consultant with the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Laura Dien, state director of Environment California.
Speaker 37
Good afternoon, mister Terran members. Anne Alexander for cosponsors NRDC and the Center for Biological Diversity in support of AB twenty four sixty one. The state and taxpayers face a projected $21,000,000,000 liability if oil companies don't meet their obligations to clean up their wells. AB eleven sixty seven sought to address that risk, which is heightened by well transfers. The law was clear.
It was written to apply to acquiring the right to operate a well by any means, including, and I quote, by purchase, transfer, assignment, conveyance, exchange, or other disposition. The long standing definition of the right to operate a well is equally broad and includes anyone who has the right to control a well or production facility. Yet in 2024, when the behemoth well operator CRC decided to merge with Era Energy and acquire Era's roughly 20,000 oil wells, CalGEM declined to apply a b eleven sixty seven to the transaction on the specious ground that the law doesn't actually mention stock transfers by name and also that even though CRC bought Era Energy LLC in its entirety, the operator name on the CalGEM paperwork didn't actually change. CalGEM's strained reading of a b eleven sixty seven is too clever by half, and it's putting California's taxpayers and communities at real risk. Following a similar merger with Berry, CRC now owns nearly half of the idle wells in California, but there is only cents on the dollar financial assurance for the estimated more than $4,000,000,000 in closure liability that CRC now holds.
Assembly member Carrillo and 15 colleagues implored CalGEM supervisor to apply AB eleven sixty seven to cover these transfers as intended, but CalGEM declined to do so. So we urge your aye vote on a b twenty four sixty one to correct this wrong and ensure that a b eleven sixty seven is implemented as intended. Thank you.
Speaker 57
Hello, committee. Laura Deahan. I'm the state director for Environment California, and we joined NRDC and the Center for Biological Diversity as sponsors for this bill by assembly member Hart to clarify the intent of the earlier legislation and to protect Californians from worsening the worsening problem of idle and orphan oil and gas wells. I want to emphasize today that the orphan well problem that Anne just described has very real and problematic consequences for public health and safety in addition to our economy. Idle wells leak methane as well as dangerous co pollutants that cause increased risk of cancer, asthma, and other health conditions.
And many of these wells, that are, idle or, you know, have not been properly dealt with, they're right next to schools and childcare centers, hospitals, and senior centers. The public support we saw for a b eleven sixty seven in 2023 was overwhelming. Over a 100 organizations supporting it to ensure that oil companies have enough insurance to clean up any mess, before you know, if they go out of business before cleaning it up. And the state legislature passed the law. The governor signed it.
Speaker 20
And we support a b twenty four sixty one because it would ensure the overwhelming desire of all of us involved to protect the state from Norphin Well catastrophe is not thwarted by this misinterpretation. So we respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 20
Good afternoon. I've been asked to register support for Central California Asthma Collaborative, Clean Water Action, Climate Hawk Boat, Climate Health Now Action Fund, Environmental Defense Center, Environmental Protection Information Center, Food and Water Watch, Greenpeace USA, Physicians for Social Responsibility LA, San Francisco Baykeeper, California Nurses Association, and Bay Area System Change, not climate change. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Alex Lumer, voice in support on behalf of Azul, the California Coast Protection Network, and the Environmental Committee of West Marin. Thank you.
Speaker 49
Grecio Orozco on behalf of the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment in support.
Speaker 19
Sally Calligan, third act, Sacramento and National, Auburn Friday for future, and XRA Sacramento. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists, in support. Thank you.
Speaker 45
Thomas Yates. I am in support of AB twenty four sixty one in behalf of 350 Sacramento, 350 Bay Area, three fifty Santa Barbara, 50 South Bay, South Los Angeles, and, three fifty, Southland legislation legislative alliance as well as, San Diego, three fifty. Thank you very much.
Speaker 11
Gabriel Tolson with the Planning and Conservation League in support. Thank you.
Speaker 85
Mister chair and members, Paul Diero representing the Western States Petroleum Association. As the author and the proponents have described, the bill three years ago was under the theory that, if there is a transfer of a well from one owner to a a buyer, those that are low producing wells, the buyer would have to put up full cost bonding for that well. This bill expands that to all wells. So the the the the remark that they're preventing wells that are owned now to that that will be orphan is completely misleading. What will happen through this bill, there will be no transfers of sales from one company to another if they have to go put up full cost bonding for all of the wells of which they purchase.
So if you have a well financed, company that owns wells and wants to buy wells from a marginal, smaller developer that wants to sell his or her Wells because they're done and and and they they are not in the same financial position as as the larger company. So this bill would prevent the smaller, not well financed company that owns Wells to do two one or one of two things. They can't sell their Wells, and they're not economical. So that that owner then walks away. And those those wells become orphan wells of which we're all trying to avoid.
If you prohibit the sale of a well from one company to another company and the other company wants to get out of the business and and is is having financial problems, by preventing the sale, you will create additional orphan wells, which would be a liability to the state of California who then are are obligated to plug and abandon all of those wells. For those reasons, we pose.
Speaker 1
Thank you, sir. Any other persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?
Speaker 10
Mister chair members, Mike Monaghan on behalf of the state building trades. We are opposed, and our opposition is very late. And for that, we apologize. Based on conversations with other stakeholders, I think there's a a avenue for us to get to a better position, and hopefully, we can work with
Speaker 33
Good afternoon. John Kendrick on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, opposed for many of the reasons articulated by WISPA.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Now turn it back to committee members. Thoughts, questions, concerns? Mister Marasucci?
Speaker 82
Mister Hart, can you respond to Whisper's concerns about the orphan wells?
Speaker 37
Yes. I can take that. I think the first thing to note is simply on the facts. If you look at the numbers, the number of wells declared deserted by CalGEM since AB eleven sixty seven passed has actually declined. But let's get to the the bigger picture.
First of all, if you look overall at the types of transactions that have been taking that that take place in the oil market, most transactions are to smaller operators. And it has been documented repeatedly that those are the risk the riskiest types of transactions, so the most common and the riskiest. But we also need to talk about these transfers that do happen to firms such as CRC. And I know that the oil industry has tried to paint these as basically, creating a a safe type of transaction. And I wanna push back against that again on the facts because we need to look at the business model of companies like CRC.
What they are doing is they are acquiring large numbers of low producing wells, in order to, to pay the cost of plugging and abandoning some idle wells. But if you look at how that business model works, those wells that they're acquiring, that are stripper wells, the low producing wells, are gonna produce less and less over time. But at the same time, those companies have to buy more and more idle wells because those are always included in these transactions. So, basically, what you have is a growing pile of idle wells and less and less revenue coming in from the stripper wells that they bought to pay for the cost of plugging and abandonment. So what that really amounts to is a large Ponzi scheme that is bound to implode sooner or later and probably sooner and leaving all of us to pay the cost.
Speaker 82
And and and so, I mean, you know, I I I'm fully in support of the intent of the bill to, try to make sure that the the the owners and the operators of these wells are held responsible for the wells. But, you know, Whisper was describing the situation where we have these underfinanced companies that that are just gonna be walking away from these wells. And and I I didn't hear you answering, you know, what we're gonna do about that.
Speaker 37
Okay. So what I'm trying to describe is that, yes, there is a risk that any company that is under financed may walk away from a well. But the fact of the matter is you increase that risk if you allow the well to be transferred. And then the other thing I think to think about in that argument is that, basically, what is going on when they say that there is a problem with these companies holding wells that they then can't sell in order to finance plugging and abandonment is that they're essentially admitting that there's not that these companies don't even have the money. They don't have the cash flow from their wells to actually pay for plugging and abandonment, and the only thing that they can do is to either sell them or use them as collateral to finance loans to pay for plugging and abandonment, but they simply don't have the revenue.
So I think what you have to ask there is, are you increasing the risk if you let that company sell its wells as opposed to holding onto it? And the research suggests the answer is yes. And just to kind of pull out in kind of the bigger picture, I think it's important to note that there there's kind of an underlying assumption that sales are healthy in a market, and you always want to promote that. And that is true in any healthy market. But in an unhealthy market, you have to step in and prevent the types of sales that are gonna put the public at risk.
And that's why we have, for instance, antitrust law and law against pyramid schemes, and this is really the same thing. It has been determined in research that you increase the risk even of these marginal operators when you let them sell their wells as opposed to holding on to them, And that is what we would like to prevent until and unless they can put up the type of security that is necessary, to actually cover the cost of plugging and abandonment.
Speaker 82
So you're you're saying that you increase the risk of abandoned wells by letting the underfinanced companies sell?
Speaker 44
Isn't CRC a billion dollar corporation? And and when they buy leases, they're buying leases to improve them and for more reserves to increase production. So can you explain this Ponzi scheme?
Speaker 37
Yes. I can. First of all, I think it's important to note that the fact it a company's capitalization, even if it's a billion dollars, does not make it too big to fail. And the problem is that the setup of CRC, which, by the way, was essentially formed some years ago to take the liabilities from Occidental Petroleum, and they did go bankrupt, and leave a lot of people holding the bag in 2020. But now what their business model is is essentially to acquire what are known as stripper wells, which are these very low producing wells that are on their way out.
So in a transaction, and this is exactly what they did when they acquired Era and Berry, is they will acquire a lot of these stripper wells, and they will also, as part of the deal, have to take a whole lot of idle wells. So then they're in a situation where they're using the stripper wells to pay for plugging and abandonment, but the stripper wells, by definition, are running dry. So every day that goes by, the number they are increasing the the number of idle wells that they have, and the revenue that they have to actually pay for plugging and abandonment is going down. So it does not matter how much they're capitalized for. That business model is not sustainable.
Speaker 44
I'm sorry. I've been in the oil and gas business for fifty years. You're wrong. Sir, how do you respond to that, miss Webb?
Speaker 85
I'm not sure how to respond to that through the chair. Mayor mister Marisucci asked a question on lower marginal companies that wanna get out of the business and wanna sell their wells, this bill would effectively stop that. So what will happen is the the smaller company will walk away, and those wells will become orphan because they can't sell them. And then those wells become the liability of the state of California to plug and abandon them. That's the impact of this bill.
Speaker 44
So you're saying someone that like CRC that has the financial backing that buys these small companies actually is better for the abandonment. Is that correct?
Speaker 1
Any other questions or comments by colleagues? Mr. Hart, would you like to close?
Speaker 87
Yeah. This this bill is is actually very simple in its construct. It is basically saying that CalGEM made the wrong call when the previous transactions happened and that this is an attempt to clarify the law as it was intended with legislature. That when you sell a well, you have to have the financial financial resources to take care of it long term to make sure that that that bill that taxpayers are not gonna pick up the cost of of those bill those wells when they have to be, unplugged and abandoned. And and that is what this point is.
That's the point of the bill is to say when these transfers happen, the financial obligation will also go with that, and there'll be the resources to make sure that that happens. And if the companies that are buying these, wells don't have those resources in in place, then there's a good problem for the taxpayers, and we wanna make sure that doesn't happen.
Speaker 1
Thank you, mister Hart. This bill has a due pass recommendation from the chair. Do we have a motion?
Speaker 1
And a second? Miss Pelerin and miss Wicks. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?
Speaker 10
Ellis, no. Alanis? No. Alanis, no. Connolly?
Aye. Connolly, Garcia? Haney? Hoover? Calra?
Matsuki? Aye. Matsuki, I. Pelrin? Aye.
Pelrin, Schultz? Wicks? Aye. Wicks I. Spurr?
Aye. Spurr I.
Speaker 1
We'll leave it open for absent members. You have a second bill, don't you?
Speaker 87
I'm also pleased to present a B twenty seven thirty four, which updates the whale tail licensing plate funding structure to better support coastal access and outdoor education programs. The whale tail plate was created to fund programs that connect Californians to the coast through outdoor education, stewardship, and public engagement. It has supported pivotal programs such as Coastal Cleanup Day, Adopt a Beach, and the King Tides program. Since its inception, it's helped connect more than 4,600,000 people to the coast with 95% of grant funded communities facing barriers to coastal access and marine education. These efforts play a critical role in expanding equitable access to the outdoors and ensuring that all Californians, regardless of background, have the opportunity to experience and engage with our state's natural resources.
Speaker 31
However, only about 25% of the revenue from the whale tail plate goes directly to these programs, while the majority is deposited in the environmental license plate fund. Despite the whale tail plate raising over $4,000,000 last year, only about 1,000,000 was available to support these programs, limiting opportunities for outdoor education and coastal access, especially in underserved communities. At the same time, the environmental license plate fund is already well supported with strong ongoing revenue from sources like the legacy plate, which directs 100% of its revenue to the fund. Directing additional whale tail revenues to these programs can go a long way in expanding access and opportunity. AB 2,734 helps achieve this by ensuring that more of the money drivers pay for will directly support the programs it was intended to fund.
Speaker 87
Speaking in support is Adriana Guerrero, executive director of Salted Roots, and Alfredo Arredondo speaking on behalf of Tree People.
Speaker 90
Is it on? Okay. Good evening, chair Brian and and members of the committee. My name is Adriana Guerrero, and I'm the executive director of Salted Roots, a proud cosponsor of AB twenty seven thirty four. I'm also speaking today on behalf of the Surf Justice Collective, a coalition of 10 California based nonprofits dedicated to equitable coastal access and ocean connection through surfing and nat nature based experiences.
Salted Roots, formerly operating as Brown Girl Surf, received our first government grant through the state coastal conservancy's explore the coast program in 2018. That grant was seed funding. It helped us grow from a grassroots idea into an organization that has now brought over a thou 5,000 people to the coast. We have been in partnership with both the Coastal Commission and the State Coastal Conservancy ever since. At least half of our participants each year are visiting the coast for the very first time.
And across the surf justice collective, our 10 member organizations are seeing the same thing. Communities that have never had access to the coast showing up for the first time. That is what this funding makes possible. These programs work. Since 1997, the Whale Tale grant program has supported over 200,000 student field trips, reaching kids who face the greatest barriers to accessing the coast.
Speaker 83
Over 95% of the whale tail funded programs engage communities facing the same barriers today. But right now, only 25¢ of every dollar raised by the whale tail plate actually reaches those programs. Last year, the plate raised over $4,000,000 and only $1,000,000 made it to the whale tail projects. AB twenty seven thirty four corrects that as simple practical fix. In turn, the money people pay for the plate honoring the coast actually funds coastal access, making it not just a symbol of California's natural beauty, but a shared resource that every Californian can access, enjoy, and steward.
Speaker 90
The California Coastal Act just turned 50. AB twenty seven thirty four is how we can promise how we can make that promise real for the next fifty years. On behalf of Salted Roots and the Surf Dresses Collective, I respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 75
Good afternoon, chair Bryan, members of the committee. My name is Alfredo Arredondo, and I'm here on behalf of Tree People, proud cosponsor of a b two seven three four. Tree People's work is grounded in a simple idea. When Californians experience nature directly, they become lifelong stewards of the places that sustain us. And at its core, this bill is about whether California is serious about delivering on one of the most important environmental promises, that the coast belongs to all Californians.
Speaker 22
Now for the last fifty years, the coastal act has said that public access to and along the coast is as close to a birthright as it gets. That is a public public promise. This bill by Assemblyman Burhart continues to make that promise real, and I use the word continues very deliberately. The Whale Tale and Explore the Coast grants are changing lives for grantees that may never experience a day at the beach otherwise, but they're doing so on a shoestring. Public access to the coast isn't a goal that we're gonna reach on a predetermined date like carbon neutrality or 30 by 30.
Speaker 75
Instead, we must constantly provide and promote these opportunities. And as it turns out, we can't use geo bond dollars to fund these efforts. This makes Assemblyman Burhart's proposal today, an essential way to fund more connections to the coast. From our perspective, that connection to nature through access and education is everything. So this isn't just a funding adjustment.
This is a deepening of our investment in equity for rural, inland, tribal, marginalized communities who have too often been told that the coast is for someone else. This is about whether we can continue to reach inland communities, working families, and young people with programs that have a great track record in that regard. This bill is good conservation policy, good public engagement policy, and, yes, on the coastal conservancies and the coastal commission's fiftieth anniversary anniversary, it's also good and unifying politics. On behalf of tree people, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?
Speaker 8
Good afternoon. Alex Lumer on behalf of Audubon, California and the California Coast Protection Network, Surfrider, California Coastkeeper Alliance, the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Resource Renewal Institute, Smith River Alliance, Azul, and Eco San Diego. Proud to be among the 109 supporters on this one. Thank you.
Speaker 20
Good evening, chair and members. Sarah Christie with the California Coastal Commission, which just voted unanimously last week to support this bill. I'm here to answer any questions. Should the the committee have any? Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this bill? Nobody hates whales. I I was worried. Turning back to the dais.
Any questions, comments?
Speaker 1
A motion by Mr. Anise, a second by mister Marisucci. Mister Hart, would you like to close?
Speaker 1
Bill has a due pass recommendation from the chair. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?
Speaker 10
Brian, I. Ellis? Alanis? Aye. Alanis, I.
Connolly? Aye. Connolly, I. Garcia? Haney?
Hoover? Calra? Aye. Calra, I. Masato?
Metsuchi?
Speaker 10
Metsuchi, aye. Pelrin? Aye. Pelrin, aye. Schultz?
Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye. Subur? Aye.
Subur, aye.
Speaker 50
Somebody Thank you, mister chair and members. I wanna start off by saying I greatly appreciate committee's working with me and my team on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. I'm pleased to present a b twenty six forty seven, a companion measure to s b 100. Signed in 2018, SB 100 mandates a 100% clean electricity by 2045 and defines qualifying sources as those with zero net greenhouse gas emissions. AB twenty six forty seven directs the California Energy Commission by 07/01/2027 to prepare a comprehensive assessment of the potential role for advanced nuclear technologies in meeting California's long term electricity needs.
Californians pay the highest electricity rates in the Continental United States. Since 2010, average household's bill has risen 88%, double the national average, and now stands at $1,876 a year statewide. That's 13,000,000,000 more than Californians would pay at the national national average rate. According to the CPUC, nearly one in five California households is behind on their electricity bill. Families are being forced to choose between food, medicine, and keeping the lights on.
That isn't fair for everyday Californians trying to pay their bills and feed their families. Our businesses pay nearly triple what their counterparts pay in states like Texas, more than a 170% above the national average. Advanced manufacturers, hydrogen producers, and defense contractors are weighing California against competitor states, and we're losing. California's own energy agencies confirmed in their 2021 joint agency report that nuclear meets s b one hundred's definition of clean energy. Yet because of the 1976 moratorium, they refrained from including it in their modeling scenarios, depriving the state of a clear understanding of its role in achieving SB 100.
AB twenty six forty seven marks an important historic step. In addition to mandating the CEC study, it authorizes the California Energy Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, the Independent System Operator, and other public agencies to evaluate advanced nuclear energy's potential to meet statewide needs for new electricity resources. The CEC study will examine safety, waste management, system costs, reliability, siding, public health, job creation, and the environment in direct comparison with other energy sources and current pathways. Advanced nuclear also creates thousands of well paid permanent jobs in construction, engineering, and operations. These are careers to stay sustained families and stay in communities for decades.
To conclude, fifty years ago, California made a choice based on the technologies and needs of that era. Today, we face an entirely different reality. Our grid needs firm, clean power. Our families and businesses need affordable electricity. Our climate goals need every tool available.
AB twenty six forty seven gives us information to make a new choice based on the technologies and needs of the century. I have two witnesses to testify in support with me today. I have Jeff Donovan from Glow Strategies and Reluka Scarlett, professor of nuclear energy from UC Berkeley.
Speaker 66
Thank you very much, chair and members. My name is Jeff Donovan, cofounder of Glow Strategies. I spent more than a decade leading nuclear communications at the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, the UN nuclear watchdog. I didn't start in nuclear there. As a student at UC Santa Cruz in the eighties, I went door to door for the nuclear freeze movement, lumping nuclear weapons together with the technology that produces reliable carbon free electricity.
A lot of people made that same mistake, but the world has moved on. Nuclear is back on the table, not as a ideology, but as infrastructure. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have both recognized it as essential for deep carbon decarbonization. Policymakers globally are realizing that decarbonization, reliability, and affordability require a broader toolkit. Momentum is building in red and blue states alike.
Speaker 68
In January, Illinois governor Pritzker lifted his state's moratorium two years after opposing the same move. New Jersey last week did the same thing. The New England states are exploring a coordinated path to nuclear power. In Europe, countries that committed to phasing out nuclear are reversing course. Italy, Denmark, and Spain are all reconsidering, and countries including The UK, France, and all of the countries virtually of Central And Eastern Europe as well as The Nordics are, actively working on expanding their nuclear energy programs.
Speaker 66
In Asia, the shift is maybe sharper. Japan, despite Fukushima, has restarted 15 reactors of the 33 that remain, technically operable, and they have plans to build new ones. China is building at a scale unmatched anywhere, and emerging economies like Bangladesh, Egypt, and Turkey are well along in building their first nuclear reactors. Financing these things is changing too. Small modular reactors are opening up pathways for private capital, largely off the public ledger.
Major energy users, including Google and Meta based right here in California, have contracted directly for clean, firm power and other states, easing the burden on ratepayers. Against all this, California stands apart. AB twenty six forty seven is a modest but important step. It doesn't mandate building anything. It doesn't commit ratepayers to new investments.
It restores something essential to good policymaking, the ability to study, evaluate, and compare. The bill directs the CEC to take a comprehensive look at nuclear, cost, reliability, environmental impacts, waste, and workforce
Speaker 66
state so agencies to consider nuclear alongside other options. That's hardly radical. It's responsible. AB twenty six forty seven starts to narrow the gap so that the debate can finally happen on the basis of evidence rather than prohibition.
Speaker 91
Good afternoon. My name is Raul Cascarlat. I'm a professor of nuclear engineering at UC Berkeley. My expertise in is advanced fusion and fission reactors, reactor safety, and engineering ethics. The last nuclear power plant built in California was in the nineties, and the nineties were the times of the car phones, which were too heavy to be carried and let alone would not fit in pocket.
So since then, nuclear energy, the nuclear energy industry has had many breakthroughs in design, manufacturing, hardware instrumentation, fuel cycles, waste management, maintenance and inspections, human factors, and emergency preparedness. So these innovations can make today's nuclear technology products diverse and responsive, specifically responsive to the state's energy needs and goals. California has a thriving ecosystems of advanced nuclear startup companies. In which ways can these modern nuclear technologies serve California's needs? For energy security, for energy affordability, resilience, safety, labor markets, water desalination, climate adaptation, and environmental stewardship.
In which ways? And also in which ways may they not yet meet California's expectations? Nuclear technology can provide a modern and cost stable energy. It can produce essentially no gaseous or liquid waste streams, so no c o two, no local pollution, soil, or water. But beyond electricity, it can provide essential services for aerospace, agriculture, and health industries.
Speaker 43
And California has long been a leader in management of its nuclear power plants and of in public engagement. So for example, the independent safety committee for Diablo Canyon is a unique model of oversight that no other state in The US requires for their nuclear power plant. There are two pitfalls to be avoided, the irresponsible deployment of nuclear energy and the lost opportunity for energy security, affordability, resilience, and decarbonization. So the cost, the necessary investments, the benefits, the risks of nuclear tech technology must be evaluated at both the county level and the state level. AB twenty six forty seven proposes that California evaluate what modern nuclear technology can bring to California, And I think it's really timely for the state to invest the resources necessary to make this assessment meaningful, to really listen to what people of California need and what, bright, innovating minds can create.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?
Speaker 88
Mister chair members, Mike Mottingen on behalf of the state building and construction trades. We are a cosponsor of the bill. I'd like to thank your guidance, mister chair, on this issue. Appreciate it.
Speaker 39
My name is Caitlin Jennings, and I'm here in strong support of the bill on behalf of myself, a nuclear engineering student at UC Berkeley, as well as Generation Atomic, Mothers for Nuclear, Stand Up for Nuclear, and the Breakthrough Institute. Thank you.
Speaker 14
Karen Lang on behalf of the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors in support. Support.
Speaker 79
Anthony Stamson on behalf of the Southern California Public Power Authority in support.
Speaker 71
Rohan Reddy, UC Berkeley nuclear engineering student in in support on behalf of the Nuclear East Clean Energy Club from UC Berkeley. Thank you.
Speaker 79
Hi. My name is, Benny. I'm also a student at UC Berkeley, and I'm also here on behalf of the UC Berkeley Nuclear's Clean Energy Club strongly in support.
Speaker 63
Ryan Pickering, Berkeley, California in support supporting, representing native nuclear and citizen climb Citizen Climate Lobby's nuclear energy action team.
Speaker 43
Randy Thomas, business manager of boilermakers local five forty nine Pittsburgh, California. Stand with the building trade in support of this bill. Micah Brown from the Anthropocene Institute. I support this bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?
Speaker 8
Good afternoon. Again, my name is Alex Lumer here in respectful opposition on behalf of Mothers for Peace and the Committee to Bridge the Gap. These groups are two of the many organizations that opposed the previous version of this bill that would have overturned California's long standing moratorium on the construction of new nuclear reactors without solving the problem that led to the ban in the first place, the nuclear waste that remains extremely hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. So we appreciate the committee's work on the bill amendments, taking removal of nuclear ban off the table. However, we still oppose the bill as amended, which would direct to the energy commission to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the potential role of nuclear energy on California's grid.
Don't We need an expensive study to know what nuclear waste problem remains unsolved. The nuclear safety regulation has been absolutely gutted by the Trump administration, and that nuclear energy remains among the most expensive energy sources on the planet. Two years ago, the assembly declined to advance AB twenty ninety two, which would have directed the state to conduct a study of small modular reactors for a cost of $4,700,000. The bill before you envisions a far more comprehensive study, thus is likely to cost even more than that. We've actually labeled this a cost driver.
At a time our state is facing multibillion dollar structural deficit, the study would be in an inappropriate use of staff time and resources, and we respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Any other persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?
Speaker 3
My name is Thomas Yates. I think it's good to research it, but I'm against this. I think that, if you bet on Thank you so nuclear power, you're gonna lose.
Speaker 12
Jacob Evans with Sierra California remaining is strictly opposed because of the cost and safety impacts of nuclear. And registering opposition for positions for social responsibility, LA and SF Bay, the Samuel Lawrence Foundation, West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs, Paranos Against the San Joseuna Field Lab, Ecological Options Network, the Sunflower Alliance, and Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists, we're actually removing our opposition due to the recent amendments and thank the author and the committee.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. We'll now turn it back to committee members, Mister Marisucci.
Speaker 42
Thank you, miss Calderon. You know, normally, I would just support a a study bill, and and I appreciate you reaching out. And and I told you that because of my my concerns with what I witnessed in Japan, you know, I I I think miss Witts and I, we we went on that trip to Fukushima, And, you know, we we saw the devastation, miles and miles of, you know, a former port town was was you know, you you had weeds growing out of cars that were abandoned, schools abandoned. I mean, it it was it was something out of, like, a out of a sci fi movie. And, you know, and at the same time, I I recognize that, you know, I mean, especially with the the war in Iran that that Japan is desperate for for alternative sources of energy, and that's why they're having to start up these, you know, these these nuclear plants despite their their history, you know, that that goes beyond Fukushima in in in in in terms of nuclear devastation.
Speaker 82
And and, you know, and I that that it's a complicated issue that that I I I believe the Obama administration was recognizing nuclear as as a, you know, non greenhouse gas emitting source of of of of energy. You know, I I I just as the the the letter from the coalition of environmental organizations, you know, we we have alternatives. Unlike Japan, you know, we we can't con and continue to invest in renewable energy sources like solar and wind. And I I you know, I I've seen how studies lay the foundation for for appeals down the line. And and and for those reasons, I I cannot support your bill.
Thank you.
Speaker 81
Thank you, mister, chair. Although I I I definitely, share some of the concerns of our colleagues and, you know, have have been someone that has certainly been cautious about nuclear. The fact that it's a study bill, you know, gives me some sense of comfort. I do think that, you know, we we have definitely gotten things back in studies that we haven't necessarily followed through on or have educated us, but that's only if the study brings us the information that we need and is not just kind of like a rubber stamp to move forward. I'm hopeful that the studies that will come from this will actually give a full perspective because, yes, nuclear is zero emissions.
It only emits steam. However, you know, there are other issues to consider. I I know that we've seen some disasters. You know, Chernobyl is not a good example. It didn't have a container building.
Speaker 28
It's not similar to nuclear reactors that we would necessarily deploy here, but Fukushima was a GE, a general electric reactor. And so it'll be interesting in this study because that was a sixties era design, old school design of reactor, what advancements have been made to make those reactors safer, particularly from human error because that's really what the issue was. 3 Mile Island as well as Fukushima was human error. They weren't able to get, to do what they needed to do to keep those reactors and keep them cooled and keep the water levels high enough. And so I think that'll be an important component of the study is like, are they safer now, if at all, than before?
Speaker 81
And we do see them in France, I think, as as much as 70% of their energy from nuclear now. So there are a a lot of countries that are deploying it, and that most of those countries are using US technology. And so what about current technology is safer than what we may have seen from tragedies, horrific tragedies in the past? The other aspect is in the fuel, in the spent fuel. What I know that the the Yucca Valley, the federal government, it's been, you know, thirty years now, and they have not that's the big plan is to have all the waste to one place, and it just hasn't happened, and I don't think we should count on it at this point.
So that being said, what about the waste? And what about the waste, both in terms of what we do with it, as well as what advancements have been made there? My understanding is that there's been as much as 96% of fuel now is recyclable compared to when nuclear started many decades ago. And so that will be important to know what volume of waste is being created now compared to the 1960s and 70s, and then what do we
Speaker 81
it? And the third thing is safety from from outside forces, terrorism, sabotage, whatever it might be. I think that's critically important because it's one thing if you have a coal plant that is struck by a bomb versus a nuclear power plant and the devastation that would create. So what measures would be in place to protect from outside forces, not just the actual safety systems of the power plant itself. So I just wanna put that on the record so that if this does move forward, that we don't just have a study that is there to promote nuclear.
Quite to the contrary, we have a full spectrum study so that we know eyes wide open of what we're getting into.
Speaker 69
Sort of feel like I don't have to say very much after, after my colleagues scientist. So so I wanna thank I wanna thank the author. I wanna thank the chair, I know, for, moving this bill to a place where I can support it today. I really do think that, obviously, my views about, you know, nuclear energy is a is a carbon free source of energy, but, obviously, you know, everything comes down to sort of the safety of the technology. I mean, my views changed pretty significantly after the accident in Japan, and, obviously, I know the technology is is evolving.
And so from my perspective, I'm supporting this today, you know, based upon what I understand had been discussions with you and the chair about making sure that part of this comprehensive analysis includes a big focus on safety. I think all the things that assembly member Calver said, not only safety of the new technology, how is it safer than the existing technology, but also safety of the spent fuel, and then also safety related to terrorism risk. So, you know, I I have a lot of constituents in my district that are very, very nervous about nuclear energy. I hear a lot about it. And so I think, ultimately, considering changing our policy does require a study, and that's why I'm thankful for moving that in the direction and thankful for the chair and the staff's, view.
And so, you know, some of this is about making sure that Californians are are comfortable with where we're headed. And so I just wanna make sure and underscore again that the study there's a big focus on safety. And so with that, just wanna thank you, and we'll be supporting the bill
Speaker 83
Thank you, mister chair. So I've only been up here four years, or I'm going on my fourth year right now. And, I'll admit, I I was not a nuclear fan. It wasn't until being I was up here, and I was taught and went to conferences and everything else that I learned about, nuclear that I am I am a 100% behind it now. I I know one of the analogies that, UC Berkeley, professor gave about a week or so ago was a way to dummy it down for somebody like me with technology with vehicles.
You know, those vehicles that are built in the sixties. You know, we don't have that same technology as we did then. We've we've upgraded. We've improved, and this is the same thing that nuclear has done also. I represent a lot of ag as do a lot of my other colleagues, and I want ag land to stay ag land.
Speaker 36
I want it to be to produce for us. We have to feed the world, right, let alone just feeding California. And so we're running out of space. And so if this will also help that, then I I would appreciate that even more. So I'm looking forward to, voting on this bill, and I thank the author for bringing this forward.
Speaker 50
Yes. Again, I just wanna thank you and your staff for, helping us work through this bill, and I respectfully ask for a night vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. In the years that I've chaired this committee, we have voted this measure down or measures like this two or three times. Last year, a similar bill didn't get a hearing. Two weeks ago, we voted down a bill to lift the moratorium. And I think it's because of many of the questions that were raised by mister Carra and others.
Energy it produces is clean. The waste is not. We had one presentation this year that said we'll just put it on trucks and ship it to Tennessee until we find which place in California it belongs. I think there's a need for good analysis and good study here. And I think those of us who are interested in making good policy shouldn't be afraid to ask thoughtful questions, in the way that you have worked with our committee to ask as many thoughtful questions as we can or or that we think are necessary.
I think we heard some more today. You're gonna learn many through this process, but I think that will inform the kind of decisions we need to make going forward. And I don't think we should be afraid of that And so this bill has a a due pass recommendation for me. We have a motion and a second. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?
Speaker 10
Motion is passed is due passed to utilities and energy committee. Brian?
Speaker 10
Alanis, I. Connolly? Garcia? Haney? Hoover?
Calra? Aye. Calra, I. Macedo? Metsuchi?
Pelerin? Aye. Pelerin, aye. Schultz? Wicks?
Speaker 1
Absolutely. Going in file order, that would be assembly member Dixon. Or not in file order. In sign in order, that would be assembly member Dixon. We'll go assembly member Shiva while we wait for Whenever you're ready.
Speaker 93
very happy to be presenting a b twenty three ninety today. Mister chairing members, there were there ambiguities in the current law have resulted in inconsistent interpretations and prolonged timelines. A b twenty three ninety provides targeted clarification to ensure the streamlined process is applied predictably, allowing complaint, compliant projects to move forward without unnecessary disruption while maintaining key safeguards. I also wanna thank the committee for working with us on amendments to ensure that the appropriate environmental guardrails remain in place. It was never the intent of the bill to weaken those protections.
These provisions are designed, to prevent projects with significant environmental impacts from moving forward without proper disclosure or mitigation, protecting workers, residents, and surrounding communities. It's my understanding with the that with these amendments, much of the opposition will go neutral, but I'll let them speak for themselves. And, with me today is Michael Lane from Spur, and Holly de Jesus may show up from Lighthouse Affairs, who are also in support of the measure and here to answer any technical questions.
Speaker 85
I saw her on the plane yesterday. She had a star with the birthday. Yeah.
Speaker 78
Mister chair and members, Mike Lambert, public policy think tank in the San Francisco Bay Area. SP thirty five has been a boon to affordable housing over the past eight years, producing more than 20,000 housing units with nearly two thirds at below market rents. A b twenty three ninety is technical cleanup legislation to improve implementation of this housing approval streamlining law. The bill one specifies that modifications must be evaluated using the review standards that were used at the time the original application was submitted. Two, subsequent modifications are also reviewed using the same methodology as any prior modifications.
Speaker 81
And three, it clarifies that extensions of project approvals during litigation apply to multiple modification requests and not just the first request. We respect the request your I vote.
Speaker 19
Again, Holly Fermini Dehisi at the White House Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles and to here in support, but only for technical questions as well.
Speaker 49
Good evening. Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California Yimby in support.
Speaker 29
Hello. Kate Rogers on behalf of the Student Homes Coalition in support.
Speaker 8
Removing opposition, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, California Native Plant Society, Green Foothills, and we really thank the author for taking the committee amendments. Thank you.
Speaker 20
Christina Scrinch from the Center for Biological Diversity. We are opposed unless amended bill and print but need to review the amends. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Good evening. Again, Matthew Baker, Planning Conservation League. We were opposed, but we, really appreciate the the committee amendment and thank the author, and we'll be removing our opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. We'll now turn it back to committee members. Questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none, miss Schiavo, would you like to close?
Speaker 1
Do we have a motion, mister Schultz, and a second by mister Alanis. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?
Speaker 10
The motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Brian? Aye. Brian I. Ellis?
Alanis?
Speaker 10
Garcia Haney? Hoover? Calra? Aye. Calra aye.
Macedo, Mertzuchi, Pelrin? Aye. Pelrin aye. Schultz? Aye.
Schultz aye. Wicks? Zipper.
Speaker 22
I think I have two witnesses coming forward. Any place you want? Very good. Thank you very much. And thank you, mister chair.
Good after good evening, mister chair and members of the committee. I'd like to begin by accepting the committee amendments and would like to thank the committee for working with me on this bill. I am proud to present a b twenty three seventy three, which would authorize local governments within the coastal zone to utilize the neighborhood scale adaptation approach when completing their local coastal pro local coastal programs, otherwise known as LCPs. As many of you know, local governments are required to develop LCPs to balance land uses along the coast. Once completed, LCPs are submitted to the Coastal Commission for certification.
Speaker 23
This the LCP update process can be unnecessarily time consuming and challenging for coastal cities and counties to complete, oftentimes taking years to finish. I know this from personal experience. However, the city of Pacifica recently committed completed an LCP update utilizing a pilot of the neighborhood approach. The Coastal Commission subsequently approved this update and was supportive of the new approach, describing it as practical planning approach that fully considers the feasibility of adaptation strategies. AB two thousand three and seventy three would codify the Coastal Commission's recommendations to allow local governments to utilize the neighborhood scale adaptation approach when including land use policies and implementation measures in their local coastal program or sea level rise plan.
Speaker 22
The com this common sense solution will help our coastal cities and counties efficiently complete their mandated LCPs. In addition, the bill is the bill approach agnostic, allowing the Coastal Commission to make decisions on a case by case basis rather than mandating the usage of certain strategies. This the bill is sponsored by the League of California Cities and carries a broad range of support, including Association of Counties, the County Of Orange, and the cities of Oceanside, Paramount, Pismo Beach, Point Arena, San Clemente, and Port Weneme. I have with me today Melissa Sparks Kranz from the League of California Cities and council member Sue Beckmeier from the City Of Pacifica to testify in support. Which one wants to go first?
Speaker 31
Good evening, chair Brian and committee members. My name is Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities, and we're pleased to be the sponsors of a b twenty three seven three, working with assembly member Dixon. A b twenty three seven three would allow local governments in the coastal zone to use the neighborhood scale adaptation approach when completing their local coastal program updates. The bill defines neighborhood scale to mean areas or assets within a city or county with shared characteristics that could be geologic, land use, or other shared characteristics of an area. By defining these areas at the local level, more focused adaptation planning can take place to minimize, mitigate, and avoid potential impacts on our changing coastline.
Speaker 80
Examples of areas or assets could include developed areas, long stretches of beach, protected coastal resource areas, specific sites, or other areas with critical infrastructure or assets. AB twenty three seven three deploys an approach that the coastal commission has developed via white paper and solicited public input from stakeholders through a public workshop. AB twenty three seven three does not change the LCP review process nor does it constitute a new planning requirement. It simply allows local governments to deploy this approach when updating their LCPs. Updating LCPs can be complex and resource intensive, while at the same time, climate change is knocking and reshaping our California coast, driving sea level rise, stronger storm surges, increased flooding and coastal erosion, and habitat loss.
Speaker 31
These changes put public health and safety, critical infrastructure, homes and communities, public access, and coastal economies and ecosystems at risk. AB twenty three seven three is of utmost importance to support the development and advancement of tools to ensure coastal cities and counties can be more successful at updating their LCPs to address coastal adaptation challenges specific to their community while maintaining consistency with the coastal act. We are pleased to have council member Sue Beckmeyer from City of Pacifica here today to testify, and we appreciate the kit committee's consideration of a b twenty three seven three and respectfully request your I vote.
Speaker 50
Good evening, chair O'Brien and committee members. My name is Sue Beckmeyer, and I'm council member and former mayor of the City Of Pacifica, coastal city of 38,000 residents located on the Western edge of the San Francisco Peninsula. Everything West Of Highway 1 in our city is designated coastal zone, including six of our seven hotels and approximately 25% residential uses, 48% permanently dedicated open space, and 27% commercial and public use, including critical infrastructure such as wastewater pump stations, roads, and utilities. In 2025, after fourteen years of work and investing approximately $2,000,000 in staff time and consultants, the city of Pacifica was able to gain coastal commission approval of our local coastal program. Key to that accomplishment was the innovative use of the neighborhood scale approach to adaptation planning.
Speaker 25
Our LCP took many years to finalize, in part because of our city's unique terrain and features, including 6.5 miles of open coastline with several million dollars invested in businesses, homes, and critical infrastructure, most constructed in the nineteen fifties and sixties. Over the past thirty years, Pacifica has lost over 14 single family homes and two affordable multifamily apartment buildings to significant impacts from coastal erosion. Aside from minor adjustments, our LCP had not been updated since adopted in 1980. Like so many cities, Pacifica's LCP required a major overhaul to reflect new sea level rise science and updated policies to address climate change and hazard mitigation. It was integral to our process to have our community involved while also collaborating closely with Coastal Commission staff to ensure our policies are consistent with the coastal act.
Speaker 50
Key to our success was integrating a neighborhood approach to adaptation plan planning by developing two special shoreline resiliency areas within our city. This approach recognizes that different areas may need different solutions for long term coastal management, which the city can implement in phases. These solutions vary depending on the type of coastal environment, features, facilities, structures, and critical infrastructure. In our case, the two special areas comprised more than 70% of Pacifica's visitor serving businesses and six of our seven hotels. The neighborhood approach recognizes that adaptation can be phased over time to achieve near term action and long term benefits.
AB twenty three seventy through codifies this important approach to help coastal jurisdictions achieve the incredibly challenging task we face, managing our coastline in a way that continues to balance coastal access, critical infrastructure, and coastal resource protection in the face of sea level rise and other climate risks.
Speaker 50
Thank you for the opportunity to share Pacifica's experience. I requested I vote. You so much.
Speaker 19
Good evening, mister chair and members. Moira Top here on behalf of San Diego mayor Todd Gloria in support.
Speaker 30
Good evening, Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Is there a single person in this room in opposition to this measure? Well done, miss We'll now turn it back to committee members. Any questions? Seeing none, miss Dixon, would you like to close?
Speaker 22
I appreciate your consideration, and I re respectfully request an I vote. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
You have a motion and a second and a do pass recommendation from the chair, madam secretary. Can we call the roll?
Speaker 10
Connolly, not voting. Garcia, Haney, Hoover, Cholra? Twenty twenty three seventy three.
Speaker 10
Caller, aye. Macedo? Meretsuchi? Pelrin? Aye.
Pelrin, aye. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Wicks?
Subur.
Speaker 1
With the exception go ahead. With the exception of assembly member Avila Farias, all of the rest of the presentations will be done by committee members. So assembly member Avila Farias, if you can hear this, we are looking forward to you joining us in committee. But with that, mister Schultz, would you like to present for assembly member Celeste Rodriguez?
Speaker 27
Well, thank you very much, and good evening, mister chair and committee members. I'm pleased to present assembly bill twenty six thirty five on behalf of assembly member Celeste Rodriguez. I wanna, start by thanking committee staff for the thoughtful analysis and for working with the author's office on this important legislation. I'd also, at this time, like to accept the committee's proposed amendments on behalf of assembly member Rodriguez. AB twenty six thirty five is a Latino caucus priority, piece of legislation that's focused on clear workable compliance for the workers whose livelihoods are at stake.
The Just Transition for Landscapers Act establishes a practical pathway for landscapers to transition to zero emission equipment. Specifically, it requires air districts to implement voucher programs that help cover the cost of electric equipment and ensure that enforcement of local bands are aligned with the availability of financial support. Landscapers are essential to maintaining our communities, yet many operate on tight margins and face significant barriers to transitioning to electric equipment. Across California, more than 100,000 landscapers, many of whom are immigrants or informal workers, rely on this work to support their families. While the state has set important clean air goals, existing programs are difficult to access and require upfront costs that small operators simply cannot afford.
Speaker 24
At the same time, local ordinances are increasingly imposing fines, sometimes escalating to criminal penalties without ensuring that workers have the resources to comply. This creates a cycle where the workers are penalized before they are supported, slowing progress rather than accelerating it. AB twenty six thirty five focuses on what actually drives adoption, making the transition achievable in practice. By shifting to a voucher model that can cover up to 85 to a 100% of the equipment costs, the bill removes upfront cost barriers and helps accelerate the transition on the ground. It also takes a balanced approach to local control by ensuring that when policies move forward, funding for compliance is in place so implementation is consistent across our communities.
Speaker 27
In addition, the bill addresses practical barriers such as documentation requirements and language access so that these programs can reach the workers they are meant to serve. Ultimately, a v twenty six thirty five recognizes that affordability is what enables environmental progress. Without it, adoption slows. With me today, we have Bernardo, a landscaper from the Pasadena Community Job Center and member of NDLON, and Luz Castro with Inclusive Action to provide testimony. Thank you.
Speaker 94
translate. My name is Bernardo Rosorio. It is an honor to be here. I'm an immigrant and arrived to this country forty years ago with the hope of finding a better life. When the company I worked for closed ten years ago, I found the Capacadena Community Job Center.
This is when I began to work as a gardener. First, I took small jobs. Little by little, I learned the amazing work of beautifying cities and neighborhoods. After ten years of this work, I have built up my client list and work in Pasadena, Altadena, La Canada, and Arcadia. When I first learned about the cities banning gas powered equipment, I became very worried, not because I was against the efforts for clean energy and a better environment, but because I do not have the resources to make the transition.
For more than ten years, my lungs have inhaled the toxic fumes of gas powered equipment to provide for my family, to meet the needs of my clients, to make every yard, every garden, and every house beautiful. Buying an electric leaf blower is a huge economic burden, and not to mention the multiple batteries I need in order to make the complete change. And that is only one of the many pieces of equipment I need. Because I I am still using gas equipment, I have to hide or move fast so I am not fine in the multiple cities I work in. Each of those cities have their own rules and regulations, and it can be overwhelming.
Speaker 38
All these obstacles and with the rising cost of living, the fear of being fine is stressful. I know many of my fellow gardeners go through these same problems, from the day laborer who has a few yards to clean to the gardener who has a weekly route. I'm here because I want a better world for me and my kids, and I understand our way of using gas powered equipment needs to change. I'm a 100% for clean air and safer tools. Thank you.
Speaker 92
Hi. Good afternoon, chair Brian and members of the committee. My name is Luz Castro. I'm the associate director of policy at Inclusive Action for the City. We're a community development financial institution and proud cosponsors of AB twenty six thirty five.
Landscapers are low wage immigrant workers who take immense pride in their work and who have turned to landscaping after being shut out of traditional opportunities. Despite their economic contributions, they face physically demanding working conditions, wage theft, and limited economic mobility. Now they are being tasked with navigating the transition from gas to electric equipment. Landscapers support the transition. They understand the health impacts that gas pollution has and want cleaner air for their families and for their communities.
In 2021, a b thirteen forty six phased out the sale of gas equipment in California. This bill established a critical framework to help the sector transition. But, unfortunately, many landscapers have struggled to access the benefits because of unanticipated administrative barriers. Meanwhile, local bans on gas equipment are putting workers in an impossible situation. As a result, landscapers are being criminalized with significant citations, trapping them into cycles of debt.
Speaker 84
And for low income immigrant landscapers, these penalties can mean choosing between paying a citation or paying for food at the table. These citations also make it harder for landscapers to fully transition to climate friendly equipment. These enforcement actions could also have negative impacts to a landscaper's ability to adjust their immigration status in this country. AB twenty six thirty five accelerates climate justice by making voucher programs available in larger and medium sized air districts. It removes unnecessary barriers to voucher access, protects the data privacy of landscapers, and creates fair enforcement and fines that cities will be required to follow.
Speaker 92
AB twenty six thirty five upholds California's climate goals while ensuring that the voices of landscapers are heard and recognized. Thank you, and I urge you for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?
Speaker 39
Monica Madrid with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. CiRLA in support.
Speaker 79
Christopher Sanchez with the Massive Other Group on behalf of the Central American Resource Center in strong support.
Speaker 49
Chloe Hermosillo with the California Immigrant Policy Centers, proud cosponsor in support. Medium Degas with Endolon and Pasino Community Jobs Center in support.
Speaker 53
Giovanni Rossell here with, Grupo Auto Defense at Endolon and the Pasadena Community Job Center, and I strongly support it.
Speaker 92
Good evening. My name is Virma Santiago. I'm member active Pasadena Youth Center. I support. This is ABC twenty six twenty thirty five.
Speaker 39
Good afternoon. My name is Fatima Garcia with Sembrando Semillas Day Labor Workers Center in Sacramento, and we ask for your support. Christina Alvarez with Sembrano Semillas Day Labor Workers Center here in Sacramento, and we ask for your support. Thank you.
Speaker 50
Good evening. Nancy Beth. I'm here with the National Day Labor Organizing Network, and DeVon also asking for your support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? They're gonna need two of the chairs. Oh, yeah. Sorry about that.
Two minutes each.
Speaker 16
Mister chair and members, Brendan Tug on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. That's the air pollution control officers from all 35 local air districts. We're in respectful opposition. I did wanna make it clear that we air districts are not fining anyone. That's the other part of the bill with cities and local governments, so we're not doing that.
We're actually the ones that, run the programs, operate the programs to try to help incentive programs to try to transition to zero emission equipment, and so we are supportive of that. The problem with this bill is that it's an unfunded mandate. We already have a majority of, the state's residents reside in air districts that operate commercial rebate programs. And so what this bill says, it says, well, other air districts that aren't necessarily operating a commercial, program must do so, and it it doesn't have any funding contained in it. We are already under a lot of pressure given the federal rollbacks.
Speaker 65
Districts are underfunded. They're strained. And so what this bill says is, take Karl Moyer funding and use that to fund lawn and garden programs, commercial rebate programs, which we think is valuable. But the problem is that should be left up to the local air district's discretion if they're going to run a program, how much the incentive should be for, at least on the minimums. And that's because each air district is different.
Speaker 16
You have to look at the pollution sources in that district, the inventory, what the federal and state attainment standard is for that district, other local factors. The other thing I wanted to point out is that, last week's amendment changed it from a rebate program to a voucher program, so we're unclear. Does that mean we have to do a whole other program on top of that? Do we have to engage with, retailers? And so, we're confused with that as to what that actually means.
So I will, say that the the only other thing is that, we do have some concerns around, some of the provisions related to, the expenditure of public funds, to make sure that that we're doing that, within the law.
Speaker 45
Bill McGavin with the Coalition for Clean Air. We respect the intentions of the author and the supporters and appreciate their reaching out to us, and we agree with the parts of the bill that would remove the barriers for small businesses and individual landscapers to receive incentives. We hope there'll be incentive funding available. We've advocated for that in the past. Where we part ways is on the restriction of the authority of the local governments to protect the health of the residents and the workers who, as the witness stated very clearly, are the most exposed to this pollution.
Speaker 95
And we hear from people all over the state who are sick of the fumes and the noise from these dirty gas fired engines. We think they should be allowed to work with their city councils, their boards of supervisors to hasten the transition to clean and quiet engines, if the local conditions, dictate that. So this is actually not about climate. This is about air pollution, and it's not a trivial amount of air pollution. Operating a commercial lawn mower for an hour emits as much smog forming pollution as driving a new light duty passenger car about 300 miles.
And for a commercial leaf blower, one hour of operation emits smog forming pollution comparable to driving a new car about 1,100 miles. So, you know, that's why this committee voted for the phase out and why we think local governments should have the authority to more quickly phase out the gas fired engines within their borders. And happy to work with the author and the sponsors, as the bill moves forward and with the committee, of course. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?
Speaker 36
Benjamin Lu with the American with the American Lung Association in in respectful opposition.
Speaker 30
of the California State Association of Counties with the tweener position, we we appreciate the recent amendments and the engagement with the author's office and the sponsors where we still have some remaining concerns and look forward to continued conversations. Thank you.
Speaker 31
Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities, also with the concerns position in between. We've been having very productive conversations with the sponsors, and we really appreciate that. So, look forward to continued work on this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. We'll now turn it back to the committee. Any questions, comments, concerns by committee members? Seeing none, mister Schultz, would you like to close on behalf of asylum member Rodriguez?
Speaker 27
Yeah. Thank you, mister chair. I I just make two points. One is that the bill, as I understand it, wouldn't prohibit a local government from adopting or enforcing the ordinance provided that they also provide the key financial support to make the transition. And I think that's the point I'd leave you all with, mister chair.
I think we all agree on the goals. We all want cleaner air. The question is who's going to bear the brunt of that transition? And folks like Bernardo do a lot of great work in our communities and never get the thank you for all that they do for our communities and for our economy. So I just wanna take this opportunity to say thank you, gracias, to Bernardo for all that he does.
And on behalf of him and all the landscapers that don't often get the attention and representation they deserve in this building and on behalf of an author I greatly respect, I humbly ask for your eye vote today.
Speaker 1
You have my support, and I do pass recommendation today. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?
Speaker 10
Connolly I. Garcia? Aye. Garcia aye. Haney?
Hoover? Calra? Aye. Calra aye. Macedo?
Metsuchi? Paleron? Aye. Paleron aye. Schultz?
Aye. Schultz aye. Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye.
Suburr? Aye. Suburr, aye.
Speaker 50
mister chair and members. I'm pleased to present a b twenty seven sixteen. I will start by accepting all the committee's proposed amendments listed on page seven of the committee's analysis. A b twenty seven sixteen delivers a clean cleanup legislation that the governor called for when he signed a b eleven sixty seven in 2023. In his signing message, he cautioned that increasing the financial assurance requires for all oil well transfers could cause more operation operators to desert their wells.
According to the committee's analysis, CalGen processed an average of 3,500 wells per year. Since the passage of a b eleven sixty seven, there is there has been one well transfer, and as a result, no decrease to the state's liability. AB twenty seven sixteen strikes the right balance, giving the oil and gas well operators a reasonable alternative financial assurance options and reducing the occur the occurrence of orphan wells and protecting California's environment and public health. Testifying with me today is Rock Zierman and behalf of the bill sponsor, CIPA and Ben Turner representing the Signal Hill Petroleum.
Speaker 62
Mister chair, members, thank you. Rox Zimmerman, California Independent Petroleum Association. Thank you to the for carrying this important bill. AB eleven sixty seven was intended to increase financial assurance, when wells are bought or sold. We're now year three into this experiment, and the results are clear.
Speaker 62
The results are there has not been a single dollar of additional financial assurance as a result of this bill. So what has been the result? Well, the result has been property taxes going down a $130,000,000 for reasons that Ben Turner's gonna go over. The second thing has happened has been zero transactions. All of these wells have been transacted for the purposes of surface development.
No wells for the purpose of production have changed hands. So why is that bad? There was a discussion in the heart bill. Paul Diera of Whisper outlined a lot of the reasons why it's better to have better capitalized companies acquire these wells from less capitalized con companies. But there's something fundamental that's getting lost in this debate, and that is since 1996, oil companies cannot sell their liability in the state of California.
So I just wanna repeat that. Oil companies cannot sell their liability in the state of California. If you sell a well from one company to the other, you retain all the liability. If that company you sell it to cannot properly plug and remediate for that well, it reverts back to you. And that's not just theory.
Speaker 21
That has happened in recent memory where companies have been sent multimillion dollar bills from CalGEM for plugging orphan wells. So if you have Jones Oil Company selling to Smith Oil Company, you don't lose Jones Oil Company, you gain Smith. Now you have two companies that are responsible for that well instead of just one. And that's why companies have required, as a condition of contracts to acquire assets, increased plugging and abandoning of wells from the purchasing company. What there isn't an example of is any well, onshore well in the state of California that's cost the California taxpayer a dime.
Speaker 62
All orphan wells have been paid for either by prior owners or by special funds paid for by industry. There's been a lot of changes the state has implemented through this body, like ten fifty seven by Limon, eighteen sixty six by Hart, which have increased bonding and P and A responsibilities from industry. That is working, and we've been plugging and remediating a record amount of wells. However, we've been threatened that that's gonna reverse because all of the additional plugging that's happened because of acquisitions has now been completely frozen. And for that reason, we asked for an I vote.
Speaker 61
Good evening, mister chair and members. My name is Ben Turner with Axiom Advisors on behalf of Signal Hill, Petroleum, which is a small airline gas operator in Signal Hill that engages in real estate and commercial development as well as oil and gas production. A b twenty seven sixteen, as the member, mentioned, was, intended to address consequences of a b eleven sixty seven, the unintended consequences of a b eleven sixty seven. Operators are required to secure bonding instruments that are unavailable in California. So that bill, as Rock mentioned, resulted in a de facto moratorium on the sale of oil and gas wells.
A b twenty seven sixteen seeks to correct that that deficiency by just simply saying that an operator that is has sound finances and has an idle well management plan can purchase wells. That's what the bill does. So healthy oil companies that have enforceable agreements can purchase wells. I have with I gave you guys three documents. The first one is a analysis from the Department of Finance when a b eleven sixty seven was passing.
It indicates that there's unintended consequences of increasing the number of orphan wells in California, which will also result in increased financial liability to the state. That's in opposition to the bill that this this bill is seeking to correct. The second document is one that, assuming where Azulafari has referenced where the governor outlines possible unintended consequences of increasing orphan wells in the state. The final document is from the board of equalization to county assessors, indicating that the requirement of bonding or setting aside funds to remediate petroleum properties, may have a dramatic effect on property values. And as, mister Zierman mentioned, it has.
So when you devalue a company's assets, it makes them, less healthy, restricts access to capital, and increases the risks of insolvency. So for those reasons, we believe that it's important to, pass this bill, to enable healthy operators, with idle well management plans to be able to purchase wells. Thank you.
Speaker 33
Good evening, Chair Brian and members. John Kenner from the California Chamber of Commerce. We did support the bill in print, have some have some concerns around the amendments, currently trying to get our head around it, but, concerning development. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Two minutes each.
Speaker 37
Good evening again, mister chair and members. Anne Alexander, from NRDC, opposing twenty seven sixteen, notwithstanding, the amendments, which we do appreciate the thought and effort that's gone into those. Just to touch quickly on some of the arguments that have been made in support of this bill. First of all, it is simply not true that no public money has been spent based on operators not meeting their liability. In fact, just in recent years, Bunoco, HBI, Cat Canyon, Griffin Resources, and twenty five Hill properties have all declared bankruptcy and left hundreds of wells on the public dime to be
Speaker 37
Remediated. Tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars of public money have been spent. Otherwise, I think I mostly covered the arguments, but just to reiterate, first of all, the number of wells declared deserted since AB eleven '67 has declined. Research has shown that well transfers on the whole are risky. It is safer to leave the wells in place, and it is really a problem that the oil companies have so little money to pay for these transfer to pay for plugging and abandonment that they have to basically sell their producing wells.
Speaker 56
But moving along to the bigger picture, I think it is very important to appreciate that a b twenty seven sixteen would ultimately eliminate, a b eleven sixty seven. Eleven sixty seven was enacted pry precisely because the a b ten fifty seven from 2019 supplemental bonding is insufficient to deal with transfer risk. While we appreciate the increased cap that's been proposed in the amendments, it's still insufficient, because the kind of liability we're talking about, is in the hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars. I would additionally note that a b twenty seven sixteen would allow companies to functionally circumvent eleven sixty seven with corporate guarantees that have already failed in the coal industry per the committee analysis. Again, while we appreciate the efforts in the amendments to strengthen these corporate guarantees, that form is simply insufficient.
Speaker 37
So we therefore urge your no vote on a b twenty seven sixteen because it would irresponsibly open the state and taxpayers to fiscal risk.
Speaker 20
Good evening, chair and members. Christina Skarinch for the Center for Biological Diversity opposing a b twenty seven sixteen, which would wipe out a b eleven sixty seven and a b two four six one protections through circumvention. The legislature passed a b eleven sixty seven for one clear reason, to protect tax payers by requiring that buyers of oil wells secure full financial assist assurance so cleanup liabilities aren't offloaded to the public. Well transfers are extremely risky. Research shows low value wells are more likely to be transferred and less likely to be promptly plugged.
The industry's claim it can sell high producing wells to pay for cleanup doesn't withstand scrutiny. After four decades of oil production decline, there aren't enough left to pay the bill. When large companies buy many low producing wells, it's a red flag, not a solution. Without full financial assurance, there's absolutely no guarantee they'll cover the billions in cleanup we face. Proponents claim AB eleven sixty seven froze the market, but an unchecked market for dangerous risky wells is a threat to our safety and our finances.
The public has already borne hundreds of millions to clean up wells the industry left behind, and current bonds cover less than 1% of actual costs. Using public funds to plug wells is unsustainable and unfair. Californians can't afford it. This is the industry's responsibility, but this bill makes it easier for companies to escape accountability. Even with the amends, which we much appreciate, this bill opens sweeping loopholes that the industry will exploit.
Speaker 46
Idle well management plans, self insurance, corporate guarantees, vague claims of solid finances won't protect taxpayers when a company goes bust. Cleanup costs are systematically underestimated, and financial reporting obscures those lies liabilities. AB eleven sixty seven purposely excluded these mechanisms because they were worthless when the coal industry's biggest players went bankrupt and dumped billions in liabilities on taxpayers. It's inexcusable to repeat this mistake by weakening the law just as companies are actively seeking exits. Doing so exposes California to an entirely foreseeable multibillion dollar fiscal risk and ongoing climate and health harms.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?
Speaker 76
David Bullock representing neighbors of the 40th Assembly District for saying legislation in opposition.
Speaker 45
Thomas Yates, in opposition, representing three fifty Sacramento, three fifty Bay Area, and three fifty San Diego.
Speaker 39
Allison Hilliard with the Climate Center in respectful opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 49
Chris Yarosco with the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Sally Calligan, third act Sacramento and National, Auburn Friday for future, and XRA Sacramento.
Speaker 65
Kyle Ferrer, western program director of Fract Tracker Alliance in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 85
Mister chair and members, Paul Diero representing the Western States Petroleum Association. We are in strong support of the bill that's in print. We do have concerns and are opposed to the committee amendments would substantially increase the bonding amounts.
Speaker 1
So are you, you would would you be opposed to the bill the amendments have been accepted. You'd be opposed to the next iteration of
Speaker 83
I'll make it brief, mister chair. Some things that were brought up for the author or her experts requiring additional financial assurances. Could we talk about that or speak about that?
Speaker 61
Mister Alonso, good question. Would you like me to describe the process for requiring additional security? Sure. Okay. So if a under under current law, under AB eleven sixty seven, if an operator wants to buy a well from another operator, then the they have to go to CalGEM and say, hey.
What's the cost of decommissioning this this well? And so say for a well that produces about 15 barrels a day, it may be worth, like, a million dollars. And then if it's an urban area, CalGEM would say that you'd have to buy that for you'd have to have $300,000 in additional security. The the operator would not be able to find bonding that would, would meet that requirement because it's not available in the state of California. So they would, increase the cost of acquiring that well, by, $300,000.
And what would happen is the operator would have to, put that money into a certified deposit account, which CalGEM would hold and not have access to those funds until that well was plugged and abandoned. So the operator would essentially be forced to lock up $300,000 for the life of that well.
Speaker 62
Yeah. Veneco is a completely it's an offshore project, completely different set of body of law. The state was the owner of the resource. They reaped billions of dollars in profits over thirty years of production. They negotiated the, contracts and the bonding requirements.
And so that's a completely different body of law, than onshore wells.
Speaker 50
Any question? If I may. I also just wanted to add a point of clarification, making sure that we're not comparing apples to oranges. We're dealing with inland, not offshoring wells as it was cited by the testimony. So that was not correct.
Speaker 1
Absolutely. Any other questions by colleagues? Miss Simmer, would you like to close?
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you for taking the amendments. By raising the bonding threshold, as you can see, this, is now of concern to the large oil companies, which I think when you look back at the committee analysis and you look at learning from the past, I think some of those lessons are being learned in this moment through some of those amendments. We saw another bill earlier today around this very same topic, and these bills, I think, together create a new picture of what this can and should look like, which is why this bill is contingent on that bill passing for it to be enacted. That is also why it has my support today.
Do we have a motion? Second. And a second? Can we call the roll?
Speaker 10
Brian I Ellis? Alanis? Aye. Alanis, Connolly? No.
Connolly, no. Garcia? Garcia not voting. Haney? Hoover?
Calra? Matsuki? Pelerin?
Speaker 10
Pelerin not voting. Schultz? Wicks? Aye. Wicks?
Aye. Zipper? Zipper not voting.
Speaker 1
We'll leave it open for absent members. Is it your desire to visit the second bill?
Speaker 50
Thank you, mister chair and members. I'm pleased to present a b twenty seven fifty two. Protecting public health is indeed an important goal, but so is protecting our jobs, protecting our tax base, and keeping down the cost of gasoline in for our constituents. AB twenty seven fifty two is about knowing the impacts of our actions and balancing all of these important goals for the state of California. The bill ensures that the Bay Area and South Coast air district make rules affecting refineries that they have full information on economic effects of those rules and make good faith effort to minimize adverse economic impacts to the state of California.
The bill further requires these districts to reanalyze two existing rules that are particularly costly. We are all aware that recent refinery closures and the loss of high road jobs. As a result, we are importing more fuel from foreign nations and lesser labor and and environmental standards are incurring in all emissions in the tanker ships across the oceans. Nor do foreign refineries have to reduce on-site emissions or pay into cap and invest programs. These outcomes are direct conflict with California's climate goals.
While various factors have been contributed to these closures, the energy commission has cited as one of the significant factors inconsistency and high compliance cost of California system that allows the state, local governments, and regional airborne districts to adopt regulations that impact refineries. The commission recommends a strategically aligning regulations and permitting process across all levels of government to to achieve a state policy goals. Without taking away air district discretion, a b twenty seven fifty two takes a step towards the recommendation by ensuring regional air districts analyze and minimize the economic impacts on refineries and to the California economy. I look forward to working with the stakeholders to refine the bill and to achieve a better transparency of airborne policies. Testifying with me in support are Keith Dunn, State Building Trades, and Paul Diero, West State Petroleum Associations.
Speaker 85
Mister chair and members, Paul Diero with Western States Petroleum Association. Just some context on this bill. When Valero announced their closure, which left us with six refineries. The governor sent, the, the vice chair of the energy commission a letter, to have them work with the refineries closely to retain the six that are still in the state. The governor's letter requested vice chair Gunda to come up with some recommendations.
Speaker 53
He came up with a handful of recommendations, one of which was to strengthen coordination across state, regional, and local authorities, communities, and stakeholders for policy implementation. And this was said in the context to stabilize in state gasoline supply. So this bill, it reflects what the vice chair was recommending, to the governor. It recognizes, and the and and the energy commission recognizes that regional air districts play a major role in in the policies that they adopt on, maintaining refineries in California or their ability to operate in California. And we're not creating new public policy here.
Speaker 85
We're not we the the role that the air districts play are very important. All we're doing is we want a a deeper dive on the analysis that they currently have to do in their socioeconomic impact report when they adopt these policies. We want a bit more transparency. We want a deeper dive. That's all we're asking for.
Is this the blueprint of such transparency? Perhaps not. But I think it it it recognizes the role that they play, and and we just want more information as they set policies. Thank you, chair.
Speaker 89
Thank you, mister chair members. Keith Dunn on behalf of State Building Construction Trades Council. I'll give you back a couple minutes, hopefully. I would just endorse the statements by my colleague. I would say that, you know, the State Building Construction Trades Council's workforce depends upon this industry for thousands of jobs.
Speaker 82
I appreciate the analysis that looks back at a decade ago when some decisions and settlements were made. I would argue this is not the same economy and that it would be a good policy to go back and look at these agreements to make that determination whether or not they still hold value today. And, again, this is information to make those decisions. I appreciate the analysis, but I think it is a a good policy to look today. It's a different economy, a different impact with different stressors.
Speaker 85
Good evening, chair. Michael Suragosa on behalf of Latin Business Association, Hispanic one hundred, and the California Multicultural Business Alliance in strong support.
Speaker 36
Mister Gerald Rasugonzales on behalf of California's business roundtable in support.
Speaker 48
Nora Kaneti on behalf of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco and the Latin American and Caribbean Business Chamber of Commerce in strong support of AB twenty seven fifty two.
Speaker 34
Hello. Sofia Quach on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support. Thank you.
Speaker 60
Good evening, chair and members. Adam Reilly on behalf of the NAEP Southern California in support. Thanks.
Speaker 79
Anthony Butler Torres on behalf of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce in support. Thank you.
Speaker 57
Cheyenne Gomez on behalf of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union three zero two in support.
Speaker 72
Randy Thomas, Boilermakers Local five forty nine in, in support of the bill for the refinery workers and community members.
Speaker 13
Good evening, mister chair and members of the committee. My name is Alan Abs, and I'm the legislative officer at the Bay Area Air District. And with respect to the author, I'm here in strong opposition to a b twenty seven fifty two. Just to level set, on the day this bill was introduced in February, the price of gas in California according to triple a was $4.59 a gallon. Today, it's $5.84.
Speaker 97
The air districts haven't done anything in that time period, yet this bill asserts in the author's statement that the Bay Area and South Coast AQMDs have adopted significant fees and policies that make California gas uncompetitive and have led to refinery closures. As the excellent staff analysis points out, this bill discounts significant factors, including our responsibilities under the Clean Air Act, public health benefits, global oil markets, market power, and maximizing profits. AB twenty seven fifty two singles out two rules the air districts adopted in 2021 that were identified through the AB six seventeen Community Air Protection Bill that was passed by the legislature in 2017 that provided significant reductions to criteria in toxic pollutants to improve community and regional health. The oil industry and other stakeholders actively participated in this rule process, and the Western States Petroleum Association even supported the adoption of the South Coast rule. Economic analyses at the time projected compliance costs that equate to $02 per gallon if the refineries pass through these costs to consumers.
AB 2,752 also targets Air District's annual budget process and associated fee rules, which the health and safety code already caps at the actual cost of providing services. These services, including review reviewing applications, issuing permits for thousands of pieces of equipment in accordance with federal, state, and local requirements, inspection and testing, incident response in investigation, which included nearly 381, notices of violation and inspection of 1,000 deviations and compliance issues in 2025 alone. This cost to protect public health and safety amounts to less than a tenth of a penny per gallon, and that's a public health bargain for the for what the air districts are providing. Looking forward, a b twenty seven fifty two directs the two air districts to reanalyze the cost of these rules and any future rules related to refineries that protect public health and instead look at them in a way that reduces cost to oil companies and externalizes these costs to other polluters in the public and reduces public health protections.
Speaker 23
Good evening, chair Brian and members of the committee. Caitlin Alcontin with Communities for a Better Environment. We urge you to oppose a b two seven five two because it would delay lifesaving pollution controls and impede critical public health protections, worsening affordability burdens for everyday Californians through increased health care costs and missed work in school days. As a statewide environmental justice organization dedicated to protecting fence line communities, especially refinery neighbors in Contra Costa County and Southeast LA, we've witnessed firsthand how air district rules are lifesaving for the most vulnerable. For example, residents fought for Bay Area rule six five to protect communities from fine particulates emitted at refineries causing about three thousand deaths per year.
Speaker 71
The multi year fight for this rule reduced particulate emission by 493 tons per year and provides $559,000,000 annually in public health benefits. Similarly, by reducing emissions of nitrous oxides and other co pollutants, South Coast AQMD rule 1,109.1 will prevent three hundred and seventy premature deaths, thousands of asthma attacks, and thousands of missed workdays by 2037. It is projected to create thousands of jobs in construction, technical services, and more, while its health benefits were valued at 2,600,000,000 to $3,500,000,000 Cost impacts, meanwhile, were less than a cent per gallon of gasoline. These rules are extraordinarily cost effective and do not drive the increased gas cost that this bill purports to address. Requiring air districts to perform futile analysis will lead to deadly delays in emissions reductions without lowering prices.
Speaker 23
This bill wastes limited resources that should be devoted to the public, even discerning its requirements would be costly as the vague standards raise complex legal questions that invite litigation. Allowing the South Coast and Bay Area air districts to be singled out and penalized performing their duties deters all air districts from passing protective rules. Also reduces these air districts' ability to pursue projects that benefit us all, such as innovative technologies at our state's major shipping hubs and ground based research. To protect the right to clean healthy air for all Californians, please oppose a d two seven five two. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Are there folks in the hearing room who oppose this measure?
Speaker 20
Good evening. Christina Skorinch with the Center for Biological Diversity in opposition.
Speaker 57
Hello. Ada Welder with Earth Justice in opposition and also in opposition on behalf of APN Action, three fifty Bay Area Action, and Center for Environmental Health. Thank you.
Speaker 53
Good evening, chair and members. Ross Buckley on behalf of South Coast Air Quality Management District opposes the bill.
Speaker 26
Good evening, mister chair. Mark Fenstermaker asked to pass along opposition from the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Regional Asthma Management and Prevention, San Francisco Baykeeper.
Speaker 16
Brendan Tuig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in opposition.
Speaker 1
Turning back to the dais. Any questions, comments, concerns? Senator, would you like to close?
Speaker 50
Yes. Thank you, mister chair and committee members. Appreciate the committee's discussion on this really important topic. Also, just wanna remind the committee members and my colleagues that, you know, the space that I come from, my background is housing and community development. It isn't from the industry.
However, I represent a district that is 60% of industry, which what that looks like beyond the industry is over 35,000 jobs of community members that are predominantly from black and brown communities and communities of color that are very diverse in my district. And protecting the environment is equally important to me as an assembly member. I'm also home. You all have heard me of John Muir, the environmentalist. And I feel that both industry and the environment can coexist together.
And this is in a very important topic that, while it's uncomfortable regardless of what side you are on, we are gonna have to talk about it as the third largest consumer of petroleum in the state of California. And being the environmentalist that we are, that we produce the cleanest, in the country or in in the world, to be frank. And if we are truly environmentalist, we need to talk about the importance of being able to protect this workforce in the state of California. California's refineries are closing, which means greater imports from places less regulated and the possibility of supply shock to our constituents. While there are various contributors to this closure, it is clear that the regional air districts regulations are one significant factor.
And I would also like to clarify in a statement here, made by the opposition that, it's not about a moment in time in February. It's about collectively what has happened out of the airborne that has had adverse effects on the cost and and and how we legislate. And, also, this bill does not propose taking away power from air boards. It's about doing thoughtful analysis that have unintended consequences on many fronts. So I just wanted to clarify that.
But it seems apparent that I do not have the votes in the committee today, and so I will withdraw the bill with consideration. And I thank you all for your time, and I especially thank the chair for for working with me. But this is a topic that, as legislators, we cannot run away for our constituents. And if we are really going to be about affordability, then we really need to have this discussion, and we need to have reforms, and we need to visit legislation that had a lot of unintended consequences, not only for the state of California, but for my district and the workers.
Speaker 1
I wanna thank you for that and and definitely gave the floor and the opportunity for the presentation as a courtesy. I think the rest of my colleagues will hate me for that because it is 08:00 at night, and we have three more bills, which is why that's not a common occurrence in, I would say, the third busiest committee in the house. But, since it is your first year coming to the committee, we wanted to make sure that you could at least be heard.
Speaker 61
Okay. That bill fails without a motion. Assembly member Alanis, come back. In the meantime, mister Zuber, would you like to present? Whenever you're ready.
Speaker 69
Thank you, mister chair, members. First of I'd like to thank your staff for the hard work on this bill, and would love to accept the the staff recommended amendments. Today, I'm proud to present a b twenty five forty nine, which will provide necessary compliance improvements to the state's covered battery embedded product, CBEP, program. In 2022, California expanded the definition of covered electronic devices under the Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003 to include cover covered battery embedded products. The purpose of this being to ensure the state had planning underway aimed at the safe collection and recycling of battery embedded products.
Speaker 44
Covered battery embedded products are those of which, contain a battery that is not designed to be easily removed by the user with no more than commonly used household tools. This new definition of a covered electronic devices was subsequently ruled on by the Department of Resource Recycling and Recovery, CalRecycle, in a recent rulemaking proceeding. Unfortunately, among the new regulations, compliance issues began to emerge specifically regarding the manufacturer notification process to CalRecycle. These complications have since created significant compliance ambiguities and liability exposure to retailers increasing costs for products that fall under the scope of CBEP and ultimately hindering the success of the overall recycling program. Without clear compliance obligations and program standardization for the regulated involved, implementation of this critical program will result in California falling behind in its recycling and environmental goals as well as drive up costs for consumers.
Speaker 69
AB twenty five forty nine aims to address this by by adding clarifying fixes. Specifically, it standardizes the use of the universal product codes and template notice designs in manufacturer notices to streamline the identification of in scope products and create critical uniformity in all notices being sent to CalRecycle. Second, it requires California manufacturer notifications to go directly to Cal Recycle, making the department the central repository for all manufacturer notices and to ensure accurate reporting with one unified database for all products falling within its scope. Third, it exempts thrift stores from the requirements of the CBEP program. These establishments often receive secondhand or even fourthhand goods, leaving them unable to be certain where their products are originating from.
Lastly, by providing it provides delayed implementation for discount stores to comply with the CBE program CBEP program. Many of these stores often have outdated point of sale systems and could use additional time to ensure compliance and avoid liability concerns. So it really merely delays for a short period of time the compliance the beginning of the compliance obligations for these discount stores. AB twenty five forty nine will strengthen the management and recycling of battery embedded products In order to advance California's environmental goals, this bill is essential for ensuring regulatory compliance while also achieving the critical cost savings to consumers, businesses, and the state. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your I vote at the appropriate time.
With me today in support of the bill is Sarah Polamu with the California Retailers Association.
Speaker 39
Thank you. Sarah Polamu with the California Retailers Association here to support our sponsored bill, a b two five four nine, which will provide essential fixes to California's covered battery embedded product or CBEP program. Several issues surfaced during the rule making process for s b twelve fifteen, which CRA worked throughout last year with Calricycle to identify. These issues include inefficiencies and lack of standards in the manufacturer notification process that has created significant compliance burdens and liability exposure for retailers, driving up the cost for products that fall under the scope of CBEP without achieving program objectives. These program deficiencies require several statutory fixes to ensure the program meets environmental goals while preserving consumer affordability.
CRA worked with CalRecycle to identify many of these fixes, which include, as assembly member Zabur mentioned, requiring universal product code and manufacturer notices. Current statute lacks UPC requirements forcing retailers to chase model numbers with, varying by year. The next fix requires manufacturer notices to only go to Cal Recycle and direct manufacturers to no longer send those notices to retailers. Right now, manufacturer notices are very hard to chase down and are going to stores or the wrong contacts within each company and potentially getting lost altogether. A third fix is to standardize the template and file format for manufacturer notices to retailers.
Speaker 87
Right now, we're getting data dumps in incompatible formats like Excel, screenshots, c CSV, and Word. And then standardized templates will streamline the point of sale system coding and compliance verification and reduce administrative burden and error rates significantly. We're hoping to build off of the great website and database that CalRecycle already has and just implement a simple upload form with a link that manufacturers then upload their product notices to, and it goes directly to the website, and the CalRecycle database automatically gets updated. A b two five four nine also seeks to strengthen CalRecycle as a single source of truth for CBEP product scope, alleviating the current issue of retailers facing uncertainty and significant litigation risk under the program. We've also updated the five day programming turnaround for point of sale systems from five days to sixty days as many companies need more time than that, and the the time line varies.
Speaker 39
And then finally, we, are exempting thrift stores as it's hard for thrift stores to know where the product's coming from with second, third, and fourth hand sellers. And then the discount stores would have a one year implementation delay due to their very old point of sale legacy systems. So I would grateful for the assembly member for carrying the bill and look forward to, fixing the program. So that's it.
Speaker 84
Thank you. Any additional testimony in support of the bill? Come on up. Seeing none, how about opposition?
Speaker 41
Good evening. Kayla Robinson with Californians Against Waste. I wanna start registering a concerns position. Sorry. Not in formal opposition.
I wanna thank the author and sponsor for bringing this measure forward. There's actually a lot about the bill that we like and we support. We have minor out outstanding concerns around enforcement. We appreciate the committee amendments. We wanna review them.
We think we may still have concerns, look forward to continue continued conversations. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Noah Melroy on behalf of Rethink Waste, GPA in, San Mateo echoing the comments of Californians against waste. Thank you.
Speaker 84
Thank you. Seeing no one else, we'll bring it back. Any questions, comments?
Speaker 69
So first of I wanna thank our bill sponsors, California Retailers Association. I also wanna thank Californians Against Waste. They they've raised some, some legitimate concerns, we're committed to continue to work with them, to to resolve those as the bill moves forward. So, with that, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 10
motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Brian Ellis? Aye. Ellis, aye. Alanis?
Aye. Alanis, aye. Connolly?
Speaker 10
Connolly, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Haney?
Aye. Haney I. Hoover? Aye. Cholera I.
Macedo? Meredsuchi? Pelerin? Aye. Pelerin I.
Schultz? Wicks? Zipper? Aye. Zipper, I.
Speaker 30
Alright. Mister chair, I'm, pleased to present a b twenty seventy four, the Downtown Revitalization Act. A b two twenty seventy four will address two overlapping challenges, California's housing shortage and our struggling downtowns, will create a streamlined ministerial pathway for high rise mixed income housing and transit rich centers. It focuses on a small number of the state's largest cities and will also allow other cities who want to opt into it. It will establish land use controls to allow high risk housing, including minimum standards for high density and floor area ratio appropriate for downtowns.
Speaker 58
And, it will also establish a state backed revolving loan fund administered by CalHFA, which will be pursued through a broader budget request to provide low cost financing. Here with me to testify today are Mohamed Al Madin from from California Yemi and Jordan Grimes, welcome, from the Green Dot Alliance. Busy day for
Speaker 93
Thank you thank you so much for having us. And hello, mister chair and members of the committee. My name is Mohammed Al Amaldin. I'm the senior policy adviser for California INB, proudly here to speak in support of AB twenty seventy four. The bill would help revitalize California's major downtowns by catalyzing high rise construction, good union jobs, and the street level businesses that follow.
Speaker 98
We know that changing work patterns have hit downtowns hard and that housing is the most powerful tool we have to bring them back to life. And we know that the transit rich downtowns to our cities are a place where we could really go big on addressing California's housing shortage. AB twenty seventy four combines land use standards to ensure high rise housing is possible, streamlined permitting to protect it from delays, labor standards to support workforce development, and low cost financing to make sure these projects get off the ground. It applies within seven large transit rich cities, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland, Long Beach, and Sacramento. It gives those cities flexibility to designate exactly where this bill applies and let other cities opt in.
Why would they all opt in? Low cost revolving fund in this bill is such a powerful tool to catalyze sustained investment in downtown regrowth. Because of the way their loans are structured, a b twenty seventy four will leverage private capital to magnify its impact. And because those loans revolve back into the fund, it is a onetime commitment from the legislature. The money is appropriated in this bill returns to the taxpayer and revolves for however long the, legislature sees fit.
AB twenty seventy four adds a powerful new tool to California's efforts to address the housing crisis, employs thousands of residents, and brings people and businesses back to our cities. California's downtowns built the state. AB twenty seventy four helps build them back. I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 36
Well, good evening, chairing members. Appreciate the opportunity to, speak with you again a couple hours after, my first opportunity. Jordan Grimes, legislative director with Greenbelt Alliance environmental nonprofit, organization working throughout the nine county Bay Area. California's housing crisis is the direct result of policy choices that we have made, that have had the effect of limiting development in the places where it makes the most sense to build. Because we have limited land in urbanized areas, we have to ensure, that we are, allocating urban uses, and urban land to, its highest and fullest potential.
Speaker 5
Failing to do so creates development pressure, in exurban areas and on the urban fringe, on rural areas that directly threatens our natural resources. And while our cities, urgently need housing, the areas best sued for much greater densities are downtowns in our largest cities with close proximity to high quality major transit stops often remain significantly underutilized, due primarily to local processes, high construction costs, and financing challenges in a uniquely difficult economic environment. AB twenty seventy four creates a direct pathway to highway, to high rise, and mixed use development in major regional hubs through four coordinated strategies, expanding building envelopes, establishing transit hub districts, streamlining projects that use skilled labor, and supplying early stage financing, via a state backed revolving loan fund. Under this proposal, seven California cities with populations over 400,000 must designate a downtown transit hub district. Should they choose not to designate one, a district will be automatically eligible, and establish around their highest ridership station to ensure that we're maximizing our transit investments.
Speaker 36
By unlocking development in our urban cores, AB twenty seventy four, could easily make feasible tens of thousands of badly needed new homes for everyday Californians. Even a modest acceleration of these types of projects would help bolster our public transit systems, support local businesses, and help restore California's downtowns and ensure that they are vibrant, active neighborhoods while relieving pressure on lands that should be protected from development. This bill facilitates infill housing in all the right places, and we urge your support today. Thank you so much.
Speaker 89
Thank you, mister chair. Keith Dunn, on behalf of State Building Construction Trades Council here, happy to support housing.
Speaker 19
Good evening, chair and members. Moira Top on behalf of San Diego mayor Todd Gloria in support.
Speaker 34
Hello. Sofia Quach on behalf of the chamber of progress in support. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Holly Fermini, De Jesus' Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Circulate Planning and Policy in support.
Speaker 50
Good evening, mister chair and committee members. Marina Espinoza with the California Housing Consortium. CHC advocates for the production and preservation of affordable housing, and we strong strongly support the goal of this bill and respect the author's efforts to revitalize downtown areas. However, we must regrettably oppose a b twenty seventy four in its current form. We believe that the bill will largely result in the state subsidizing market rate housing, and we question whether limited government resources should be dedicated to building housing that will be out of reach for the average California family.
While we support a comprehensive state housing policy that allows housing to be built at all income levels, we do not believe that market rate housing should require state subsidy. At a time when the state is facing a structural deficit, CHC believes that state investment should be used to support California's lowest income residents. Additionally, while we support downtown revitalization, to us, that also means investing in jurisdictions of all sizes. The funds in this bill target only our largest urban urban cores, further aggravating regional economic disparities. We look forward to continuing conversations with the author and sponsors, but at this time, we must respectfully oppose this bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any other persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?
Speaker 1
We'll now turn it back to committee members. Questions, comments, concerns?
Speaker 1
Seeing none, we have a motion and a second. Mister Haney, would you like to close?
Speaker 10
Brian, I. Ellis? Ellis, no. Alaniz? Connolly?
Aye. Connolly, I. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, I.
Haney? Aye. Hoover? Calra? Aye.
Calra, I. Macedo? No. Matsuchi? Pelerin?
Speaker 98
their phone here. I don't know whose this is. Saw yours. Uh-huh. Oh, thank you.
Speaker 1
Assembly member Hoover, if you are watching, this would be an excellent time. An excellent time to show up to committee. Republican magic tricks. Whenever you're ready, miss Jellis.
Speaker 44
Thank you, mister chair and members. I wanna start by saying that I'll be accepting the committee's amendments. I'm proud to present a b twenty four ten, which is a necessary measure that will ensure that critical wildfire prevention projects projects continue to be carried out in a timely manner. Is it it is evident to everyone how critical these wildfires are in this state. Recognizing the urgent need to reduce wildfire risk, the governor issued an emergency proclamation at March 25 that suspended CEQA, the coastal act, and other regulatory requirements for fuels reduction.
Since then, over 300 wildfire safety projects have been approved statewide with projects being approved as little as thirty days. While this proclamation has been highly effective at accelerating critical trends and work, project applications will no longer be accepted after May 1. So, basically, what we're doing is trying to extend this proclamation for three years. A b twenty four ten will create targeted exemptions for fuels reduction projects for very high fire severity zones, high fire threat districts from requirements of CEQUA and the coastal act for three years. By removing these barriers, twenty four ten, will accelerate critical critical wildfire prevention work, reduce cost, delays, etcetera.
I respectfully ask for your I vote. Today with me is Brandon Abek with PG and E and Eric Will with Royal County.
Speaker 54
Good evening. Brandon Ebeck on behalf of PG and E. I will be brief because the hour is late and my blood sugar is low. We as PG and E, we are required by Public Resource Code and various state agencies from PUC to support forestry to cut over a million trees per year. Every year, hundreds of those trees projects require various state permits, either from Coastal Commission or CEQUA.
Speaker 99
As we've noticed, some of these permits have historically taken two hundred and fifty days or longer. Under the executive orders, as the author mentioned, we have seen some of those permits take as short as thirty to sixty days. That's a vast reduction in the amount
Speaker 99
Wildfire expenses make up at least $20 of every monthly bill. So anything we can do to cut down costs is related to electric affordability. As I believe some of the opposition will note, the state has made a lot of progress, whether it's CalVTP or some of the streamlining last year. Generally, the legislative work has not applied to private utility, scope of work. Those typically apply to public agencies, which, of course, PG and E is not.
So we support the bill. We support continuing the the work that CNRA and the the governor have led through the executive orders and asked for an I vote.
Speaker 67
Good evening. John Kennedy, RCRC on behalf of our 40 member counties. We're pleased to be here tonight to support AB twenty four ten. The bill creates limited CEQUA and Coastal Act exemptions for vital wildfire fuel reduction projects. These will help our communities do these projects faster and at lower cost with fewer legal delays.
Speaker 8
Local agencies, the state, and utilities have invested a lot of time, money, and efforts to reduce wildfire risk through fuel management and community hardening. Much more work needs to be done, and there's a lot of effort that goes into maintaining those fuel breaks. AB twenty four ten is directed at those types of projects. It'll help us perform these critical fuel management projects much faster. Many of these exemptions are limited to the removal of non native species, 12 inches in diameter and smaller.
Speaker 67
So because it will help expedite performance of these projects, reduce costs, and uncertainty of litigation, We're pleased to support a b twenty four ten.
Speaker 76
David Bullock, on behalf of the neighbors of the 40th Assembly District for SANE legislation, we are in support.
Speaker 8
Good evening. Once again, my name is Alex Lumer. I'm here on behalf of the California native plant society. We appreciate the committee amendments and the author
Speaker 8
the specific amended language to understand how the amendments address both the CEQA exemption and the coastal Act exemption. However, unfortunately, based on what we believe is still in the bill, we must continue to oppose the bill as it would create a large and unnecessary exemption from environmental review. The California Native Plant Society strongly supports good planning and fire preparedness. However, CEQA and the Coastal Act exemptions like those proposed in the bill threaten significant harms that counteract good fire resilience work. CEQA provides important benefits to project design and public safety, including the ability to hold responsible agencies legally accountable for their decisions and the right for nearby residents, ecosystem stewards, and fire experts to know about projects and adverse potential impacts while there's still time for improvement.
Further, there are already there are already many CECO exemptions and streamlined processes that have that already apply to vegetation management projects as well. And the coastal act already has a streamlined process for fire management management projects specifically. Finally, we're unsure of how the committee amendments will work. Who will make the determinations to whether these projects meet compliance criteria and who ensures that these projects are implemented consistent with the compliance criteria. It is not clear that any agency is in charge.
We do not believe that the state should be continuing these one off time limited exemptions. Instead, there should be a programmatic evaluation of these projects and clear guidelines in mitigation. This bill fails to include any of those safeguards. For these reasons, we do not believe we need the exemptions in AB twenty four ten, and for those reasons, we urge you no vote. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Good evening, mister chair and members. Jacob Evans with Sierra Club California here on behalf of our over half a million in California in opposition day v twenty four ten. Though we appreciate the committee and the author for the amendments taken today, Sierra Club California remains opposed due to the timeline and scope of the CEQUA and coastal exemptions included in the bill. It's vital that California maintain its leadership in ensuring a wildfire resilient natural and built environment. However, the CEQUA and coastal exemptions provided under this bill are not compatible with these goals and would allow actions with broad impacts on the environment coastal resources to be carried out without the environmental review that prevents ecological and public health harms.
Speaker 60
While the amended bill will place CNRA oversight on applications for projects seeking to be exempted from CEQUA and the coastal acts, the CEQUA and coastal act exemptions in the bill remain incredibly broad. Exemptions would apply to removal of any hazardous dead or dying trees without regard for the number of trees, their size, their species, or any other factor. This is this exemption could be applied without consideration of the ecosystem benefits that older, larger, decaying trees have for forest health. The scope of these qualifying projects would reduce ecosystems' abilities to regenerate after severe natural disasters and increase the risks of floods and fires. Such broad removals would come at a high environmental and public safety cost.
Speaker 12
Governor Newsom's emergency proclamation allows for these projects to qualify for CEQA and close lot exemptions, and like like mentioned, will remain in effect until May. Expanding the scope and timeline of the governor's limited proclamation moves away from the governor's intention and is unnecessary. The legislature has also provided many CEQA exemptions for fuel reduction programs, include those in SD one thirty one just which was passed just last year. Further exempting fuel reduction projects without having an opportunity to examine the impacts of newly legislated CEQA exemptions could lead to unintended consequences for our environment and our public health. Your turn no vote.
Thank you.
Speaker 9
Good evening. Again, Matthew Baker with Cleaning Conservation League. We do appreciate the committee amendments, but continue to share the concerns expressed here by the lead opposition and, remain respectfully opposed.
Speaker 20
Good evening. Christina Scringe with the Center for Biological Diversity. We remain opposed.
Speaker 44
I would like to close. Thank you, everyone here. I appreciate the opposition, and we certainly are open to amendments. I just wanna let you know it you know, success breeds success. The governor's proclamation was successful.
And I think if we continue along that path, we know that we're heading into another dry year. And and and if we keep this active, we'll save a lot of homes and a lot of lives. Thank you.
Speaker 1
We have a motion in a second. Colleagues, just to take us down memory lane, this was mister Ellis's first bill ever as an assembly member last year. We moved it out of this committee. We moved it out of the assembly floor, It made it all the way to senate appropriations, and he's back trying it again. Identical language has a due pass recommendation.
And, madam secretary, can we call the roll?
Speaker 10
Calra, I. Masato? Aye. Masato, I. Marzucci?
Pelerin? Aye. Pelerin, I. Schultz? Wicks?
Suburr.
Speaker 1
See how? Good job. That bill is out. We'll leave it open. And then you've got another six bills.
Speaker 44
thank you, mister chair members. I'll accept again. Oh, I'm sorry. 2711. Thanks, Damon.
I'm proud to present twenty seven eleven, which is essentially a measure that will bring clarity to California's drilling permit process. California is facing serious energy crisis. The in state production of oil and gas has declined drastically, and the state is now down to just seven refineries from one once operating more than 40. With more set to shut down in the near future, all the while demand for fuel in the state has is, remained sustainable. As a result, California has dramatically increased dependent on foreign crude supplies.
Many of these source countries such as Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil operate under far weaker or nonexistent environmental safety and labor standards than those in California. This increasing reliance on foreign imports has put the state at a state at a heightened risk of shortage, price spikes, and supply vulnerabilities. If we wanna protect working families from these potential consequences, we must have robust domestic production. AB twenty seven eleven is a reasonable measure that will help restore predictability and efficient efficiency to the permitting process. The bill re would require CalGEM to improve or deny a notice of intention within thirty working days of receipt receipt in the event of denial include a sufficient explanation, of why the notice was denied.
The bill does not weaken environmental review. It simply requires a reasonable time frame and to not hold operators' limbo. AB twenty seven eleven will restore predictability and efficient efficiency in the permitting process. I respectfully ask for your I vote. I have Ted Cordova here with me.
Speaker 96
Good evening, chair and members. My name is Ted Cordova, I'm with E and B Natural Resources. We're a California based energy company, and we're in support of AB twenty seven eleven and appreciate the work of assembly member Stan Ellis. This bill is simple but critically important. It ensures that California's exist existing permitting system functions in a timely and transparent way.
Under the current system, permits that should take days are taking months, often over two hundred days on average. That uncertainty makes it extremely difficult for companies like ours, a small business, to plan projects, retain workers, and deploy capital here in California. We have experienced this firsthand. Delays in permitting directly translate into delayed production, lost jobs, and reduced investment in the communities where we operate. AB twenty seven eleven does not weaken any environmental protections.
Speaker 32
It simply requires that CalGEM approve or deny a permit within thirty working days and provide clear reasoning if it is denied. That's accountability, that's transparency, and that's just good governance. This bill will help stabilize in state production, support jobs, unlock investment, and strengthen California's energy resilience, all while maintaining the highest environmental standards. We respectfully ask for your support on a b twenty seven eleven and your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?
Speaker 76
David Bullock, neighbors of the 40th Assembly District for SANE legislation. We are in strong support.
Speaker 59
the Central California Environmental Justice Network, we're here respectfully in opposition to twenty seven eleven. CalGEM's mission is to regulate California's, to regulate California's oil, gas, and geothermal industries with a focus on public health, safety, and environmental protection. Under this mission, CalGEM reviews applications for, whether the, any well work might impact an aquifer, for example, cause dangerous gas leaks, or whether the well is appropriately set back from sensitive receptors as required in our state setback laws. Notice of notice of intent review is an important step in CalGEM's regulatory process where the agency works with the operator to obtain the information necessary to properly consider the impacts of an NOI. This review can often be very quick.
Speaker 7
However, we've also also seen situations when there are delays when CalGEM needs more information from the operator. This bill could curtail CalGEM's regulatory discretion by forcing the agency to make a final permitting decision on a rushed and arbitrary timeline of thirty days regardless of the completeness or thoroughness of the application. This bill does not give any leeway for CalGEM or the operator to even mutually agree upon additional review time if necessary. Paired with the requirement that CalGEM must give a comprehensive reason why an NOI was denied, sends the message that speed and approval should be CalGEM's mission rather than the statutory mission of safety, public safe of safety, public health, and the environment. We appreciate and support the author's desire for governmental transparency and accountability, but we are concerned that this problem is this bill is in search of a problem.
Speaker 59
According to CCEJN's analysis of NOIs reviewed in 2026 in Kern County, 90 NOIs have been approved within a week. A 121 wells took seven to ten days, and only 10 wells were, took longer than thirty days. This means less than 5% incur of NOIs in Kern County are taking longer than, thirty days. So when Kelgem needs the extra time, it's for a reason. We believe it's important to protect, Kelgem's ability to appropriately review NOIs and thus respectively request a no vote on this bill.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Are there any other persons in this hearing room in opposition to this measure?
Speaker 20
Good evening. Christina Screnge with the Center for Biological Diversity in opposition.
Speaker 12
Jacob Evans with Sierra club club Sierra Club California in opposition. Good night.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. We'll now turn it back to the dice. Seeing no questions, mister Ellis, would you like to close?
Speaker 44
I would. Thank you very much. I appreciate the the opposition. However, you guys have heard me say that I've been in the oil and gas business for fifty years, forty of that in business for myself, and I've been subject to many regulatory agencies permitting processes. This this bill does not ask for any exemptions.
All it's saying and and I wanna talk about there are several different types of permits that CalGEM issues in the oil and gas sector. They issue water injection permits. I've got some companies waiting two years for a water, and and when you produce oil, you get 10 barrels of water for they gotta reject that back in the formation. They're waiting years for this. When you're when you're so there's there's several different regulatory agencies involved.
CalGEM, I'm not asking for any exemptions. I'm asking them, like any agency in California, for example, when you go down to get a building permit, when you go down for construction, we're held up by permits. That's why I brought this forward. Simply give us a yes or a no in thirty days. If you give us a no, tell us why.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Perfect. We have a motion and a second. Suppose it do pass. Madam secretary, can you call the roll?
Speaker 10
Connolly not voting. Garcia? No. Garcia not voting. Haney?
Haney not voting. Hoover?
Speaker 10
Metsuchi not voting. Pelerin? Aye. Pelerin, aye. Schultz?
Wicks? I'm oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Twenty seven eleven. Aye.
Speaker 1
one needs one more. We'll leave it on call. Alright, Stan. Close us out.
Speaker 44
Okay. Again, thank you, mister chair members. This is AB twenty six zero six. It was developed in collaboration with Cal State Bakersfield to promote reasonable innovation and low carbon subsurface technologies while addressing environmental and fiscal challenges posed idle and marginal, oil and gas wells. California oil and gas sector supports thousands of jobs, particularly in the Central Valley, yet the state faces serious challenges with thousands of marginal, idle, and potentially orphan wells that we've heard about earlier in this committee today.
Speaker 88
With the most recent CalGEM data estimating the plugging and remediation of 5,300 orphan wells. A b two six zero six authorizes the Department of Conservation to partner with Cal State University System with a pilot at Cal State Bakersfield to establish forward looking programs that will drive innovation in low carbon subsurface technologies. Specifically, the bill would would, creates the regional subsurface energy transition and applied research program at a new subsurface energy field station dedicated to applied research and field testing monitoring, real world demonstration, and technologies. It also authorizes the department to formally collaborate with Cal Energy Research Bakersfield, reorganizing the center as a state affiliated partner for applied research, technical assistance, and policy policy support. Twenty six zero six leverages the world class expertise of unique look of the unique location of CSU in Makersfield because it's in Kern County.
Speaker 44
The university brings proven strengths in subsurface science, chemistry, engineering, environment and public health research, workforce development, and data driven poll policy analysis. This diverse research these diverse research opportunities will advance proactive solutions for safe well repurposing while delivering clear benefits to the region and the entire state. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Good. You look like an expert. Are there any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?
Speaker 38
Sean Valentine, California Independent Petroleum Association in support of the bill.
Speaker 76
David Bullock, neighbor of the 40th Assembly District for a sane legislation. We are in support.
Speaker 59
Hi, mister chair. Marie Lu, on behalf of the Central California Environmental Justice Network, we appreciate the amendments that has been worked out with the committee that we think it's really important to remove, the language regarding enhanced oil recovery with c o two, which is which was prohibited under which is prohibited under existing law. We've we're reassessing the bill, and once the we see the amendments in print, but we remain concerned that we're using public resources to fund research that, supports the continued use of oil and gas, including energy in intensive and expensive carbon capture technologies, which will drive up costs for consumers.
Speaker 20
Good evening. Christina Scrinch with the Center for Biological Diversity in opposition. We do need to review the amends. Also, I've been asked to note opposition for Food and Water Watch, Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment, three fifty Bay Area Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility LA, Biofuel Watch, Fossil Fuel California, and Oil and Gas Action Network. Thank you.
Speaker 1
And, I just wanna confirm you're gonna take those amendments, that will be added in
Speaker 1
Motion second. Any questions, comments, concerns? Michelle, would you like to close?
Speaker 44
Yeah. So there's quite a bit of research being done right now, and and I'll get off of enhanced oil recovery real quickly. Enhanced, there are many, many different sciences used in enhanced oil. It's not just necessarily using c o two sequestration, but I'll get off that. I I would like to let you know that these abandoned oil wells, there's actually a company out there that has derived clean energy.
It's it's the wellbore, and they drop a weight, and it generates electricity in peak hours. And then when they come back up and off peak hours, so they're generating electricity. So there are lots of uses we'd like to study in Kern County and for green purposes. So, thank you guys very much for the consideration.
Speaker 1
I've I know about that company with the Gravity Wells. It's in Kern County, and I think, our senate pro tem ran a a pilot bill on that work last year or the year before that. This bill has a due pass recommendation for me. I will study just about anything. Just just so you all know, it's the academic in me.
It's very hard for me not to green light a study or the idea of a study. That being said, we have a motion and a second. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?
Speaker 10
The motion is due past the higher ed committee with the amendments adopted in higher ed. Brian? Aye. Brian, I. Ellis?
Aye. Ellis, I. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, I.
Connolly?
Speaker 10
Aye. Pellerin, aye. Schultz? No. Schultz, no.
Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye. Zipper.
Speaker 1
We'll leave that bill on call for absent members. I would hate to be the member who has to present a bill at 08:30 at night and and think that you're gonna get it out, but mister Hoover.
Speaker 5
was also last in the transportation committee, so this is very fitting. Thank you, mister chair members. Appreciate the opportunity to present a B twenty one eighteen. I'll be quick. I wanna thank the chair and committee staff for their consideration.
Speaker 92
Understand the concerns raised in the analysis. We're accepting the first proposed committee amendments to strike the inclusion of any state permit or approval as suggested in the analysis. With that, this is a a bill that's trying to streamline housing and clarify existing law. Would it respectfully ask for an I vote, and I'll turn it over to my witnesses.
Speaker 29
Good evening, chair members. I'll be as brief as possible. My name is Kate Rogerson with the Student Homes Coalition. Student homes is sponsoring AB twenty one eighteen because we believe it will build on our previous work in campus development zones as well as deliver much needed affordable housing for all Californians. As you all know, AB twenty eleven created streamlined pathways for mixed income and 100% affordable housing in commercial development areas.
Speaker 1
But, unfortunately, even though these projects have a plethora of benefits, some cities still look for ways to block projects. And I I believe, actually, as of 2024, there were thousands of a b twenty eleven projects caught in the approval of pipeline, even though they have a right to ministerial review. So a b twenty one eighteen was drafted to help get these units approved. And so we're working on twenty eleven issues because we believe it can be a powerful tool to deliver housing for Californians. But if we don't close these loopholes now, all of the work that we've done on on a b twenty eleven and subsequent bills is at risk.
Speaker 1
That's a professional right there. Anybody in the hearing room in support of this measure?
Speaker 19
Holly Fermini, De Jesus of Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Circulate Planning and Policy, Field Studying Company, and Abundant Housing Los Angeles in support.
Speaker 11
Mister chair and members, Andrew Antwee with Shaw Yoder Antwee Schmelzer and Lang here today on behalf of the city of Beverly Hills. We will take a closer look at, the bill as amended since we heard the author accepted the suggested committee amendment, but we have to get on record in opposition and apologies to the chair and the author for late opposition. We did not get a letter in time, mostly because we didn't know we were gonna be cited as the example of a recalcitrant city under the 2011 process relative to a project on Santa Monica Boulevard that's mentioned specifically in analysis. There's also some representations about the city's intent to oppose soil remediation going forward, which the city attorney asked me to express exception to that as far as what the city's intent is going forward. For those reasons, we're here today, in opposition, at least to the bill that was presented to the committee.
Speaker 73
We will take a look at the bill with fresh eyes based on the amendments that have been adopted. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, sir. Now turn it back to the dais. Questions, comments, concerns? The member from Beverly Hills.
Speaker 69
So, so first of all, you know, I just wanna stand up for Beverly Hills. Beverly Hills has actually been focusing on trying to build housing in Beverly Hills and has been doing a good job in my view of that. With that said, I think this is a good bill. And and I think Beverly Hills was supportive of it before some of these amendments some of the issues related to the amendments. But I think it's a good bill, and, we'll be supporting it today.
Speaker 10
Brian, I. Ellis? Aye. Ellis, I. Alanis?
Aye. Alanis, I. Connolly? Aye. Connolly, I.
Garcia? Aye. Garcia, I. Haney? Aye.
Haney, I. Hoover?
Speaker 10
Pellerin, not Vody? Schultz? I. Schultz, I. Wicks?
I. Wicks, I. Zebur. I. I.
Speaker 1
Bill is out. We need a motion on on the consent calendar. We have a motion by Wickes, second by Pellerin. Madam secretary, can we call
Speaker 10
Brian. Aye. Brian, I. Ellis? With aye.
Consent calendar? Ellis, I. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, I.
Connolly? Aye. Connolly, I. Garcia?
Speaker 10
Garcia, I. Haney? Aye. Haney, I. Hoover.
Aye. Hoover, I. Cholera, Macedo, Macedo, I. Mereducci, I. Mereducci, I.
Pelerin, I. Schulz? Aye. Schulz, I. Wicks?
Aye. Wicks, aye. Zipper, aye. Consent calendar's done.
Speaker 1
Great. We need a motion on a b fifteen seventy seven, Bauer Cahan, item one. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?
Speaker 10
Brian, I. Ellis? No. Ellis, no. Alanis?
No. Alanis, no. Connolly? A v fifteen seventy seven. Connolly, I.
Garcia? Not voting. Garcia not voting. Haney? Aye.
Haney, I. Hoover? No. Hoover, no. Calra?
Aye. Calra, I. Masato?
Speaker 10
Mereducci, aye. Pelerin? Aye. Pelerin, aye. Schultz?
Aye. Schultz, aye. Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye.
Zuber? Aye. Zuber, aye. That has nine votes.
Speaker 1
The bill is out. We need a motion on item number four, a b twenty twenty six, Aguirre Curry.
Speaker 10
Okay. Motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye.
Ellis? Aye. Ellis, aye. Alanis?
Speaker 10
2026. With my truth, Terry. I. Connolly, I. Garcia?
I. Garcia, I. Haney? Aye. Haney, I.
Hoover? Aye. Hoover, I. Calra? Aye.
Calra, I. Masato? Aye. Masato, I. Meredzucci?
Aye. Meredzucci, I. Pelerin? Aye. Pelerin, I.
Schultz? Aye. Schultz, I. Wicks? Aye.
Wix, aye. Zuber. Aye. Zuber not voting.
Speaker 10
So item one is done. AB sixteen sixty six, Rogers, motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Chair voting, aye. Absent members, Alanis.
Speaker 10
Alanis, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Haney?
Aye. Haney aye. Hoover? Aye. Hoover aye.
Macedo? Aye. Macedo? Aye. Pellerin?
Aye. Pellerin? Aye. Schulz? Aye.
Schulz? Schulz? Aye. That has 13 votes. AB 18 o eight, Carrillo.
Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Chair voting, aye. Absent members, Alanis?
Speaker 10
Connolly, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Haney, Haney, aye.
I. Hoover? Aye. Hoover, I. Macedo?
Aye. Macedo, I. Pelerin? Aye. Pelerin, I.
Schultz? Aye. Schultz, I. Wicks? Aye.
Wicks, I. That has 12 votes. AB twenty fifty two Wilson. Motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Wait.
I mean, 2059. Sorry. Motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Chair voting aye. Absent members, Alanis?
Speaker 10
Hoover, aye. Macedo? Aye. Macedo, aye. Pelerin?
Aye. Pelerin, aye. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye.
Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye. That has 14 votes. It's out.
AB twenty seventy four Haney. Motion is due passed to appropriations. Chair voting aye. Alanis? Alanis, no.
Hoover?
Speaker 10
It is out. That one's done. AB twenty one seventy, burner. Motion is due, pass as amended to appropriations. Alanis?
Speaker 1
Whatever the We already finished it. We finished it. You know? It's alright. It's coming now.
It's Yeah. Okay. Thought so.
Speaker 10
Haney not voting. Hoover? No. Hoover, no. Macedo?
No. Macedo, no. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye.
Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye. Has nine votes. Is out.
Speaker 10
2182, Erwin. Motion is due passed to appropriations. Chair voting aye. Alaniz?
Speaker 10
Item ten, twenty 182? Haynie, aye. Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye.
Macedo? Aye. Macedo, aye. Pellerin?
Speaker 10
Schultz, aye. Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye. That has 14 votes.
AB twenty two thirty one, Arrens. Motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Chair voting, aye. Alanis? Aye.
Alanis, aye. Garcia?
Speaker 10
Macedo, aye. Pelerin? Aye. Pelerin, aye. Schultz?
Aye. Schultz, aye. That has 14 votes.
Speaker 1
Motion by miss Pelerin, a second by miss Wicks. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?
Speaker 10
Connolly, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Haney?
Aye. Haney, aye. Hoover?
Speaker 10
Hoover not voting. Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Macedo?
Aye. Macedo, aye. Mereducci?
Speaker 10
Pelerin, aye. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Wicks?
Aye. Wicks, aye. Zabur? Aye. Zabur, aye.
That has 12 votes. It's out. A b twenty three seventy three Dixon, motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Ellis? Aye.
Ellis, aye. Garcia?
Speaker 10
A b twenty three ninety, Schiavo, motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Ellis? Aye. Ellis, aye. Connolly?
Speaker 10
Connolly, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Haney?
Aye. Haney, aye. Hoover?
Speaker 10
Zuber, aye. That has 13 votes. It's out. A b 2410 Ellis, motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Meretsuchi?
Speaker 39
Zuber not voting. 11 votes. It's out. AB twenty four thirty three, Alvarez motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Alanis?
Speaker 10
Pellerin not voting. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. 11 votes is out.
AB twenty four sixty one, Hart. Motion is due passed to appropriations. Chair voting aye. Garcia? Aye.
Garcia, aye. Haney, aye. Hoover?
Speaker 10
Schultz, aye. That has 10 votes. It's out. A b twenty five forty nine Zuber, motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Brian?
Speaker 10
Hoover, aye. Macedo? Aye. Macedo, aye. Mereducci?
Aye. Mereducci, aye. Schultz?
Speaker 10
Schultz, aye. Wicks, aye. That has 14 votes. AB twenty six zero six Ellis, motion is due passed to higher ed committee with amendments being adopted in higher ed committee. Chair voting, aye.
Absent members, Meretsuchi?
Speaker 10
A b twenty six thirty five, Celeste Rodriguez. Motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Chair voting aye. Ellis? No.
Ellis, no. Haney?
Speaker 10
Item twenty, twenty six thirty five. Celeste Rodriguez? Haney, aye. Hoover? Aye.
Hoover, aye. Macedo? No. Macedo, no. Mereducci?
Speaker 10
AB twenty six forty seven. Calderon, motion is due passed to utilities and energy. Chair voting aye. Ellis?
Speaker 10
Connolly not voting. Garcia? I'm sorry. I couldn't Not voting. Garcia not voting.
Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Hoover? Aye.
Hoover, aye. Macedo? Aye. Macedo, aye. Meredsuchi?
Speaker 10
AB twenty seven eleven Ellis, motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Chair voting aye, Wicks. Aye. Wicks. Aye.
Zipper.
Speaker 10
A b twenty seven sixteen, Avila Farias. Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Ellis Ellis I. Haney? Aye.
Haney I. Hoover? Aye. Hoover I. Calra?
Macedo? Aye. Macedo, I. Mereducci?
Speaker 10
Schultz not voting. Eight has eight votes. It's out. Twenty seven thirty four, Hart. Motion is due pass to appropriations.
Chair voting aye. Ellis? Aye. Ellis aye. Garcia?
Aye. Garcia aye. Haney? Aye. Haney aye.
Hoover?
Speaker 10
Hoover aye. Macedo? Aye. Macedo? Aye.
Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. That has 14 votes. It's out.
And I that's it. We're done.
Speaker 10
AB 2647 Calderon, Assembly Member Garcia is no. Not from not voting to no.
Speaker 1
This concludes the Assembly Natural Resource Committee just before 09:00.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.