Senate Environmental Quality Committee
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
Senate Environmental Quality Committee California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 1
Okay well thank you very much for your testimony If there are others in the room wishing to come forward and express support, please come to the microphone and state your name, the organization you represent, and your position on the bill.
Speaker 5
Good morning. David Tran on behalf of San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Jim Lights on behalf of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. Bart has not had a chance to take a position on the bill yet, but we're pleased to see this bill come forward and look forward to supporting it soon. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Madam chair Duncan McFetcher on behalf of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in strong support.
Speaker 41
Good morning, madam chair. Matt Robinson on behalf of Caltrain. Echo the summits of bar. We don't have a position yet, but we will be taking it to our board for support as soon as possible. And I would just note we are the fully electric railroad that serves here at On Station.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. So now we're we do have a quorum, so we're gonna pause for a moment and have our committee assistant call the role to establish the quorum.
Speaker 4
Valderas present. Allen? Dally? Gonzalez? Hurtado?
Here. Hurtado? Here. Menjivar? Here.
Menjivar? Here.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. So if there's any opposition witnesses who would wish to come forward now is the time. No opposition witnesses? Okay.
Anyone in the room wishing to express opposition to the bill can come forward. Alright. Not seeing anybody. Everybody in this room is here for a different bill apparently. Not to oppose this bill, senator.
Alright. So we will bring it back to the committee. Any committee questions or comments? I'll just make a couple of comments about this bill. And I appreciate the senator's interest in this topic and also just recognizing that he had a very moving tribute for mister Derrida on the senate floor who recently passed away.
And so it's it's it's there's a synchronicity to dealing with the station that's named after him right now. So I I'm a huge proponent of clean transportation, and I find that the Diradon Station project is a really exciting clean transit project because it connects high speed rail, BART, and regional and local transit all in one hub in Downtown San Jose. And I think this is why the mayor of San Jose reached out to me about this bill and this project to make sure that it can move forward. This is really the type of development that we want to see more of in California if we want to see that abundant and clean future that we talk about. But it's also important to recognize that when we're doing really large projects, we have to make sure that we're accounting for environmental impacts and community impacts.
Speaker 24
And so this the the original proposal was just to have a straight CEQA exemption for the Diradon Station. But what we added as part of the committee amendments, which I appreciate that you are accepting the committee amendments, and I think it's a really good example of what we're doing here because we're actually creating a new category of exemption that doesn't just refer to the Diridon Station, but it also allows other rail projects that meet these stringent criteria to be able to move forward more quickly. It's trying to find this path around how do we how are we protective of the environment and our communities while also allowing these big projects to be built. So some of the things just to mention or highlight what what what what we were doing with the committee amendments is there there's now a requirement of a displacement plan because there are already people who are living in the housing there. So to fully replace all the housing that's impacted by the project and requiring that the city provide legal services to residents who who would be displaced by this construction project.
Speaker 1
There's also a requirement of a plan to mitigate the construction impacts and also a requirement for a natural resources management plan that identifies and considers how to protect the natural resources that are affected by the project. So you there already is this plan in effect, but there might be some tweaks associated with that. So recognizing that this is a a big project and it it is in a conservation easement, it's near or related to a wetland, and there's also a historic structure. So there are multiple different things that are happening with this project that are really impactful. But figuring out a way to shave two years off of the construction and move it forward faster is important and an example of of here in the legislature trying to do that important work where we can.
So I I'm happy to support this bill and I'm really glad that the author has brought it forward for our consideration. Alright. So, turn to my committee members to see if anyone has any other comments on it. Okay. Okay.
Great. We have a motion by senator Hurtado. But, first, but we'll turn to you to close first.
Speaker 15
You madam chair for all of your comments and for acknowledging the late rod daredon it is very timely to be doing that still today we haven't even you know concluded his memorial services yet so I'm sure in a world where he could be proud of this he would be because he's all about efficiency and getting things done without sacrificing environmental standards in any way shape or form he was probably the most notable person I've known who was an absolutely significant leader on environmental issues through institutions that we' all aware of and transportation in the same way and I think this bill reflects that and I think it reflects it honestly because of the work done by the committee to say there' a path here only because certain conditions already exist with this site and certain work has already been done and we're gonna go ahead and try to make that work so we appreciate it and hopefully others will see that as the bill moves along if it gets out today I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Speaker 1
Okay. Well, you very much. We have a motion from senator Hurtado. And so, the committee consultant, please call the roll.
Speaker 4
Motion is to pass as amended to transportation. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare? Aye.
Valderas? Aye. Valderas? Aye. Allen?
Aye. Allen? Dally? Gonzalez? Aye.
Artado, aye. Mengevar? Aye. Mengevar, aye.
Speaker 1
And not seeing any other authors here, think I'll present my bill SB ten thirty one to the committee and we'll hand it over to the vice chair to with the gavel to run the meeting. Thank
Speaker 10
you. We'll now move to file item number nine s b ten thirty one. And senator Blake Spear is recognized when she's ready.
Speaker 1
Okay. Well, thank you vice chair and colleagues. I'm here presenting s b 1031, and I gladly accept the committee's amendments. S b ten thirty one establishes a science based framework to ensure that compostable plastics support and do not undermine California's circular economy goals. Specifically, SB ten thirty one will require clear and standardized labeling so consumers and composters can easily distinguish compostable plastics from conventional plastics.
It will reduce contamination in both recycling and composting streams and direct the office of environmental health hazard assessment to study how compostable plastics breakdown including their toxicity and environmental impacts so that we have a better understanding of it. California has been a national leader in reducing waste and advancing a circular economy recycling or composting approximately 31,000,000 tons of material annually with a statewide recycling rate of about 41%. Under s b 54, whose author is here today to my left, single use packaging must be recyclable or compostable by 2032. Compostable plastics have been promoted as a promising alternative, but our current systems are not equipped to handle them unfortunately. Today, most composting facilities do not accept compostable plastics.
So composting facilities do not accept our compostable plastics. And, they immediately attempt to sort these plastic out of their compost piles and take them to the landfill. One major reason is simple. Compostable plastics are nearly indistinguishable from traditional plastics. This creates confusion for consumers and composters who struggle to identify compostable plastics and therefore treat it as traditional plastic that is sent to landfills instead of composted.
At the same time, there are still unanswered questions about the environmental and public health impacts of these materials. Without action, compostable plastics risk contaminating recycling streams and disrupting composting operations rather than advancing our climate and waste reduction goals. SB ten thirty one aims to eliminate the confusion about compostable plastics and help the state get the most mileage out of its recycling efforts. With me in support, I have Kayla Robinson on behalf of Californians Against Waste.
Speaker 12
Thank you. Good morning, vice chair and members. Kayla Robinson with Californians Against Waste here in support of SB ten thirty one. California has long been a leader in preventing deceptive environmental marketing going back to Byron shares landmark truth in environmental advertising law in 1990. These policies protect consumers and the waste stream while ensuring a level a level playing field for companies investing in truly sustainable products.
When items are falsely labeled as compostable, it misleads the public, undermines trust, and creates a real challenge for our waste stream. SB ten thirty one would strengthen California's commitment to truth and environmental labeling and build on the progress made by a b 12 o one in 2022 by improving labeling clarity and consistency. This is critical for reducing contamination in compost streams, which can lower compost quality, increase processing costs, and ultimately send more materials to the landfill. SB ten thirty one would also clarify that the misleading label compostable except in California, which you may have seen on products here, is not allowed under existing law. There's a long standing legal understanding that disclaimers cannot cure any otherwise misleading claim, but this makes it abundantly clear.
Lastly, we support that this bill will also take a forward looking approach by directing a WEHA to evaluate the health impacts of compostable plastics as they break down. As these materials become more common, we need to ensure they are not only effective in our waste systems, but also safe for our environment, soil, and public health. And for these reasons, I respectfully urge or I vote on s b ten thirty one today. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Great timing. So we'll now move to anyone else in the room that would like to express their support. Please state your name, your position, and your organization.
Speaker 5
Noah Melroy, on behalf of the California Compost Coalition in support. Thank you.
Speaker 13
John Kennedy, rural county representatives of California in support. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Thank you. We'll now open it up to any key witnesses here in opposition. Please state your name, organization, and you're recognized for two minutes each.
Speaker 14
Great. Thank you. Good morning. Dawn Kepke on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in respectful opposition unless amended to s b ten thirty one, unless it is amended to solve the severe crisis facing compostable products and packaging, in plain terms, a ban of such materials by 2027. For years, California has pushed manufacturers to be more sustainable, more environmentally friendly, to innovate towards less persistent materials and more.
Manufacturers have heeded the call but continue to encounter policy roadblocks at every turn despite significant investments to meet California's goals. Unfortunately and respectfully, s b ten thirty one institutes new roadblocks that will accelerate the ban and create barriers that will inappropriately affect these materials viability in other states and internationally much less in California. SB ten thirty one prohibits labeling certified compostable products with any language indicating that the product is compostable except in California. With the goal of ensuring accurate labeling is understandable, the fact of the matter is, however, that these materials are indeed compostable and being composted elsewhere in the nation and internationally. Amid California's overly stringent standard for compostable materials, responsible manufacturers have already begun labeling their products compostable except in California to stay in legal compliance with California's labeling laws and that of other jurisdictions.
Such labeling is not deceptive. It is transparent. By prohibiting accepting California language, s b ten thirty one ultimately doubles down on the ultimate ban of compostables. This will not only affect compostable manufacturers but also tools that help divert our organic waste to meet our climate goals. We appreciate the engagement of the chair and staff over the past year and a half on this critical issue.
The accepting California label is a reaction to the underlying problem, not the problem itself. Between this truth this truthful labeling restriction and the inclusion of the OEHHA study, what benefit do either provide if these products are ultimately banned in a year anyway? For these reasons, we respectfully oppose s b ten thirty one.
Speaker 15
Hi. Good morning, madam chair and members of the committee. My name is Jeanette Hannah. I'm the senior advocacy and sustainability manager for the biopolymers business at BASF, and I'm also a board member at the Biodegradable Products Institute, also known as BPI. BPI is the leading third party certification body for compostable products in North America, and BPI certification builds on requirements and ASTM standard specification that compostable products meet for biodegradability, disintegration, and ecotoxicity in California statute today.
I'm here representing BPI to respectfully oppose SB ten thirty one unless it is amended. Our core concern is straightforward. SB ten thirty one does not fix the actual problem facing California. AB
Speaker 15
one tied California's compostable labeling standard to the Federal National Organics Program or NOP, a program never designed to regulate compostable products. Because the framework at USDA does not include these products, virtually all certified compostable bags, serviceware, and food contact packaging will not be able to be labeled compostable in California starting 07/01/2027. SB ten thirty one does not address this NOP requirement, and the resulting contents of this bill cannot save a market that will effectively cease to exist once this prohibition takes effect. A future without combustible products directly threatens California's ability to meet the goals of SB thirteen eighty three and SB 54. Certified combustible products are the bridge between those two mandates.
They allow consumers to divert food waste from landfills while giving California businesses a viable path to meet their 2,032 packaging targets. If these products are driven out of the market, businesses that could have used compostable packaging will be forced to pivot to conventional You
Speaker 15
Thank you. Plastic alternatives and both organics diversion programs and environmental targets will suffer for it. We appreciate the intent of this bill and look forward to working with the, the author in their office on, a fix for the NFP requirement. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Thank you. We'll now move to anyone else in the room here to express their opposition. Please state your name, your organization, and your position.
Speaker 1
Good morning. My name is Ismet Yassine. I'm a senior government affairs manager at BPI. A long born and raised resident of California, and I respectfully request that we you oppose this bill unless amended. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Good morning. Jacob Brent with the California Retailers Association with a respectful oppose unless amended position.
Speaker 20
Thank you. Madam chair, I appreciate what the what you're looking to address here if we're not composing it. I think the analysis talked about farmers having to go in themselves and separate. I get that part. My my question on one of the things the opposition mentioned.
If other states are composting this and they're looking to, like a better term, you know, do a standardized product and they're covering by telling consumers don't compose this in California. Why are we not allowing the businesses to move forward with that phrase still?
Speaker 12
I think from our perspective it's a bit misleading. I can't speak necessarily for every other state but I know that not every state is composting these materials. I think we are fine if for other states they want to claim compostability, but here in California we've been really clear that we don't want these products saying compostable, it's misleading, consumers could still end up putting them in the compost bin thinking that they're compostable and it creates a lot of confusion for our compost stream. I will say right now there are materials that can use the compostability claim until 07/01/2027 and we're hoping that we can find a solution with this NOP issue that will allow more materials to be labeled compostable in the long term. But for now, I think the FTC has been pretty clear in terms of you can't caveat a claim, right?
You can't say this is compostable except insert thing here California. So those products can be sold elsewhere, but here in California we want a really clear standard that doesn't confuse consumers and ultimately punish composters.
Speaker 20
I would, you know, I saw an example. I saw a couple examples. I did a Google search on all of them. It's pretty clear. It's not like in super small fine print compostable except in California.
Speaker 34
I don't see the confusion in that. I know we're asking a lot of companies to help us meet the goals, and I will always be on the side and often on the other side of companies asking for us to do this, but I also wanna recognize that as we request for a lot of these things, allowing a little bit of leeway on things that are still meeting our goals and for them to adjust. I would say if there's opportunity to continue those conversations because they must be composing in another states if that's why they're putting it there. That was my only concern of the bill. So if through the chair's willingness to still engage at least in that part.
Speaker 1
I mean, I I can't speak to other states. I know that all 24 composters that were contacted in California, none of them are accepting these products. And so they are what's happening is it's essentially really it's composted but it's expensive landfill because the composters are sorting it out and then it's getting its way back to the landfill. In other states, I mean we're concerned about the quality. The composters are concerned about what they can sell to farmers and if it has plastic forks in it then the farmers don't want it basically or plastic bags.
So if it's not composting within the time period that composters need it to then they're not considering it compostable. But I mean I would I'm open to others comments on what's actually happening in other states. Yeah. Do you mind if my if my witness and then your opposition witness? Go ahead.
Speaker 12
And my understanding was that a b 12 o one back in 2022 was a direct response to Washington State composters saying that they were going to not accept any compostable plastics. And so our composters came together and said, we'd like to strike a compromise, and 12 o one is what came out of that was my understanding. So I I think it's, I mean, a little misleading to say that every state is composting them, but, I mean, I, you know, defer to others if they, you know, can can say that with certainty.
Speaker 11
Yeah. Who's who who do you think is the gold standard on industrial composting of these kinds of materials?
Speaker 14
So perhaps my colleague and I, through the vice chair, can both speak to the elements that we know. So while I'll defer to my colleague about what's happening in other states, I would just say there are composters here in California that are taking these materials and composting them. There are obviously complexities to that, but to suggest that they are not being composted and accepted here in California is not the case. The issue really comes down to those that are focused on organic compost, that being kind of where, you know, the crux of the issue lies. But I'd love to turn if the Vice President
Speaker 11
You know the challenge we've always had is that so many of these products aren't theoretically recyclable or theoretically compostable and they and they can be composted or recycled under perfect conditions, then in the real world when we're trying to scale these operations we're not whatever amount is actually getting composted or recycled is at a miniscule level so it's not worth us writing policy around that possibility. We have to look more big picture. Mean I assume that's the theory behind the case with this bill.
Speaker 14
I would just argue for other states are allowing these materials to be composted and labeling requirements with those other stable states because of that and international requirements.
Speaker 11
Who's got the gold standard from your perspective on really operationalizing these kinds of products and making it work on a mass scale not just in a niche market?
Speaker 15
Yeah, thank you. Yeah, in particular the city of Minneapolis, St. Paul is doing quite a lot of large scale composting. Also, city of Seattle has also done quite a lot. I will say the implementation of SB thirteen eighty three has put a lot of pressure on jurisdictions and composters alike.
Speaker 35
They've been been hustling to create a diversion and pathway for all the residents in California. And there's a myriad of challenges that come with that that really haven't been sorted out frankly. I know the report that was issued prior to the implementation of thirteen eighty three indicated California had only half the capacity for the organics that were going to be diverted under thirteen eighty three. And when you consider the length of time it takes to permit a facility, seven to ten years perhaps it's been published, but that's about the ballpark. We won't even in California have enough capacity until it's 2032 or so or even beyond that.
Speaker 15
The other thing is that 1383 put a lot of pressure on the ability of programs to be implemented, which includes all the elements that we all know are important like education, feedback loops, etcetera, to build these programs up. So that's what's led to a lot of the pressure I think that we're seeing in this space in California. And it's part of the growing pains that hopefully leads us to a more sustainable future.
Speaker 11
So is your is it is your suggestion that in Minneapolis and Seattle because they don't have a thirteen eighty three system, there's less they they don't have to there's less pressure on on on creating a really systematic scaled system so they're able to take these products and it doesn't screw up a broader composting operation?
Speaker 15
Yeah. It's actually an interesting question. In North America, most composting programs have scaled from the bottom up rather than top down, which is more the model for Europe, for example. And so when we see really successful programs, in particular those that use compostable products, they're typically in opt in programs, and they're also in programs that are more medium scale. Right?
So to take a statewide view with so much such a diverse state, it's a it's a big lift, and it's really important that we have it to drive us.
Speaker 11
But see, that's the challenge. Right? So I this is always the problem here. Right? I think, you know, if if in a perfect world, everyone would be sorting everything really nicely and then bringing them directly to the spot where they can then be properly composted into the right conditions.
But we know we're just single streaming well, least at we're single streaming our green waste now and and our, you know, we've got this massive system that we're trying to work with, and and we're having all these people on the composting side who are finding that this is contaminating their their their their material given their thirteen eighty three requirements. But I guess what you're saying is these other folks don't have the thirteen eighty three requirements. It's a much more niche program, so they're able to work effectively with with the people who really wanna compost these materials.
Speaker 11
Yeah. Okay. Alright. But there's no there's no place there's no place in the world that has the ambition kind of the the the comprehensive ambition of 1383 that somehow found a way to effectively compost these materials within that kind of Yeah. More systematic approach.
Speaker 15
I'm not sure of any place in North America that has a mandatory organics diversion at the scale of 1383 with the corresponding capacity constraints, I guess.
Speaker 11
Yeah. Okay. Alright. Appreciate appreciate the dialogue very much, and, you know, we're always trying to find solutions.
Speaker 14
I would just also offer Modesto is ramping up their operations to accept and receive compostable materials for composting. Oh, cool. Recently just announced kind of their efforts to grow their capacity there as well. So even here in California, that is happening.
Speaker 11
Sounds like a field trip. Let's go to Modesto. Okay. Thank you. I'd love to check that out.
I'd to check that out. Thank you.
Speaker 10
So I have a a really, you know, simple question here. I'm very sensitive to our affordability crisis right now. So if manufacturers have to retool, relabel, obtain additional certification, what will that potential cost could that look like on their actual grocery shelves? Could this increase costs?
Speaker 3
Thank you for the question, vice chair. Ultimately, if manufacturers are ultimately between a rock and a hard place and either have to manufacture and label products solely for the California market in kind of a different way based on the constraints of 10/31 and other prior compost related laws, yes, that will inevitably drive up costs. It also begs the question, do they decide to just ultimately abandon compostables here in California amid these challenges and the fact that as of July, because of all of the compounding effects of all these different factors, they'll be banned in effect anyway. And so it definitely does have an impact with the cost to focus on just the California market.
Speaker 1
Yes. Thank you. Well, appreciate the wide ranging discussion here and I think just to frame what this bill is and also what was being discussed and you know senator Allen was the former chair of this committee for six years and so really was able to dive into this topic in the same ways that I've tried to dive into it and what you realize is that it is legitimately a mess. In some ways California is ahead because we we do have a really good composting system for the green waste that's produced. And then there there's composting that's happening with fiber products.
And then what we're talking about with this bill is particular is around composting for bioplastics. So that's basically some version of a fossil fuel. So so essentially what this bill is aimed at is we're happy to look at the other best practices and gold standards for composting in general, But this bill is really aimed at a truth and labeling requirement. So it's recognizing that we are having a greenwashing problem with products because a lot of things that are are being sold as compostable, and they are just they're they are not being composted by the composting facilities we have in California. So we're what we're doing is requiring that products have this uniformly green and labeled with the word compostable on one side of the product with the lettering being at least one inch in height and that they can only use that if they fall into certain categories that the product is actually considered compostable.
So what we're trying to do is weed out the things that are clearly not going to be compostable and are also being confused. So like for example, I saw a product on the market that was those Styrofoam packaging peanuts and it says that they're compostable. But when those Styrofoam packaging peanuts end up in the compost and they look just like the white ones that are made styrofoam that's not compostable not recyclable, know it's something that a composting facility doesn't know what to do with. So we need to have we need to have standards around what is considered compostable And then we also and we need it to be clearly communicated to the public so that when people are buying something they think is compostable, it actually is. And and so getting back to the relative narrowness of this bill, it's it's dealing with that.
And then also it's this part about the California office of environmental health hazard assessment. So they have to study the breakdown toxicity and long term impacts of compostable plastics because what you get into is a difficult science discussion of is this really good for the environment? Is it additives to soil? Is it just a neutral? What should we do about these products?
And so trying to figure out what we're doing with the composting industry in California It is something that's really important and we need to get our arms around it. So this is the beginning of that. And we're happy to continue working with the opposition to make it work, to make it not more expensive for consumers. But really we want the system to work and right now it really isn't working that well. So with that, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 4
Yeah. Thank you. Senators, the motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. The motion sorry. Senators Blakespeare?
Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Valadares? No. Valadares, no.
Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Dali? Gonzalez?
Ortado? Menjivar?
Speaker 1
Okay. Well, we have our file I I file item number, Weber Pearson is first. If Reyes is in a rush because she's been here a lot longer, do is it are you okay to wait for Weber Pearson? Okay. Senator Weber Pearson, would you like to present?
This is file item number one, s B958. Please proceed when ready.
Speaker 12
you. Good morning chair and members. Sorry for my tardiness I was presenting with the diversity caucuses and senate education. But this morning, I will be presenting SB nine fifty eight and would like to begin by stating that I am accepting the committee amendments and would like to thank the staff and this committee and the chair of this committee for working with me and my staff and sponsors on this bill. SB nine five eight in its current form provides a pathway to allow the city of San Diego's midway rising redevelopment project to proceed following years of extensive planning, environmental review, and two voter approved measures.
Speaker 22
The city of San Diego faces an acute housing shortage with the median home price exceeding $1,000,000. As of December 2024, the regional housing needs assessment found that San Diego will need over a 100,000 new housing units by 2029 to meet the demand of all income levels. The city of San Diego has advanced the transform transformative midway rising project for several years to address the region's acute housing shortage while revitalizing a centrally located but underperforming public asset. In 2021, the city initiated a formal process to lease approximately 49 acres of surplus city property at the San Diego Sports Arena site in the Midway District to facilitate development of what may soon become one of the largest affordable housing projects in Western United States. The project replaces an aging obsolete arena and expansive surface parking lots with climate resilient, transit oriented community that prioritizes housing production, active transportation, and high quality public spaces while maintaining the site's long standing role as a regional entertainment destination.
More specifically, the project will create at least 4,250 residential units of which at least 2,000 will be affordable, a modern 16,000 seat multipurpose sports and entertainment venue that will achieve LEED gold certification for a new construction within one year following completion and over 14 acres of parks and public space and a mixed use entertainment arts and cultural district. The midway rising project is projected to generate 285,000,000 in local economic impact including thousands of permanent jobs, new businesses, and new tax revenues for the city and county of San Diego. Based on committee and community feedback, amendment will shift the bill away from a full CEQA exemption and instead clarify CEQA law so that impacts related to increase building height are properly accounted for within the projects future environmental impact report. The amended bill will simply provide a guidance perspective to the courts. SB nine fifty eight helps ensure that our environmental review process remains focused, consistent, and predictable so that agencies, courts, and stakeholders are all operating with a shared understanding of the law.
Joining me today is Moira Top representing the city of San Diego as well as Heidi Von Blum the city planning director who is our technical expert and can answer any questions needed. Thank you.
Speaker 38
Thank you chair and members. Again, Moira Top on behalf of San Diego mayor Todd Gloria, the sponsor of the measure. Again, this Midway Rising project is proposed to use city owned land that, as the senator described, is a is a vast land of old decrepit, black asphalt and a aging sports arena. It really truly will revitalize the community, not only adding a tremendous, amount of housing desperately needed for the city, but including commercial space, green space, parks and parklets, walking, pedestrian pathways, and, a rebuilt sports arena that will bring, also much needed economic development and jobs to the area. As noted, this, proposal and this, project has been put before the San Diego City voters twice in the last seven years, and yet seven years later, here we are without, having broken ground.
Speaker 23
SB nine fifty eight will provide the city and the developer with some certainty as the project moves forward. We have been continuing to do significant environmental review and mitigation of the project. The city is poised to certify an EIR in the coming weeks and months. And and, again, this this bill as proposed to be amended will provide us guidance and certainty as we move forward. From the city's perspective, this is exactly the kind of housing development that we have heard from the state in terms of the types of projects.
It's it's infill. It's taking unused space. We've used the land act to to further this project, and we're actually building almost twice as many affordable housing units than are required by the surplus land act. So we're very proud of this project. On behalf of the mayor and the the many San Diegans who, hope to call Midway Rising their home, we ask for your I vote today.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Great. Anybody else in the room wishing to come forward and express support? Please come to the microphone. State your name, organization, and position on the bell.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. Anybody opposed to the bill lead opposition witnesses? Please come forward. Not seeing any.
Anybody wishing to express opposition to this bill please come to the microphone. Express your name. Is that somebody standing? No. Okay.
Alright. Great. We'll come back to the committee and I'll just make a couple of comments here. So representing San Diego myself, I also am very very much aware of the Midway Rising Project because as was stated, it's gone to the voters twice, and it has been an area that is in desperate need of revitalization. As the author said, this is, of course, in her district, and she's very much aware of this.
And as she said, it's underutilized and has so much potential to be so much better and to help solve our problems like our housing crisis. So it's it is predominantly a vacant parking lot and an old stadium, so a lot of asphalt. And it will create 42 4,250 new residential units with 2,000 of them at least being affordable and have a new stadium. Midway Midway Rising is being held back right now by a court ruling that found that the city did not do an adequate job of analyzing impacts related to building heights in the EIR. But the criteria that the judge used to assess this was it really set an impossible standard for developers because how how are they supposed to do studies on things that have never had to have been studied before?
It's just essentially an open ended question about studying everything under the sun, including peregrine falcons, possibility of the buildings becoming an attractant, which is something that would just not be considered by, I I think, an average developer, and also shadows and other things. So this is the kind of thing that discourages confidence in the sequel process, and so we end up with having to deal with it in the legislature. So we we want to have a sequel process that works and to get projects like Midway Rising built. So so I'm happy to support this today. I understand there's a lot of conversation remaining with the city, the developer, the author's office about what is the best way to manage this going forward, but I'm happy to continue to support it as it moves into different committees.
And I just really wanna thank the author for taking this on and helping the city to get across the finish line faster. So with that, any other comments? Okay. We'll turn it back to the author for close.
Speaker 22
Well, thank you, chair. You know, the legislature has proved proven time and time again that, you know, we wanna bolster housing production without being overly burdensome while maintaining the utmost environmental review. And this bill balances both of those. And so I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Please call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry. Do we have a motion? Okay.
The vice chair moves. And the motion is it is due passed to local government.
Speaker 4
Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Valderas? Valderas?
Aye. Allen? Allen, aye. Dally? Gonzalez?
Ortado? Menjivar?
Speaker 10
We're gonna now move to file item number two, s b ten seventy five. Senator Reyes, you're recognized when you're ready.
Speaker 16
Thank you, madam chair, vice chair, members for this opportunity to present s p ten seventy five, the clean air promise. I would like to start by thanking the committee for their work, for their hard work on this bill. I'm accepting the bolded amendments listed as listed on page 12 of the committee analysis that refers to comments two, three, four, and five. In addition, I appreciate the conversations we've had with our local air district, and I am committed to removing the language that adds an e j representative on the air district boards, removing the language that adds the ability for CARB to audit to take and take corrective action. And finally, I am committed to continue continuing work on the placement or or or where we place local community emission reduction plans known as L SERPs throughout the bill.
These amendments will be incorporated in this bill should it move forward to its next committee, senate local government. SB ten seventy five builds on the state's promise of clean air for all by strengthening enforcement and ensuring this promise leads to real results. It has been nearly a decade since the passage of a v six seventeen, which as part of the cap and trade negotiations that took place that year, offered the promise of local emissions reductions in our most polluted communities. As of 2026, there have been 19 communities granted a community emissions reduction plan or CERP designation because of a b six seventeen's community air protection program. Each SERP is documented is a documented plan that requires specific reduction measures and an enforcement plan for impacted communities.
Speaker 50
Despite the importance of this program, there has consistently been a fundamental disconnect between program goals and efforts to maximize emissions reductions in impacted communities. Specifically, even when plans are identified in the SERP for implementation, there are no requirements for local governments to comply with the emissions reduction measures identified by state agencies, local air districts, and community members as they put together the SERP plan. In order for a b six seventeen to reach its goal of significantly reducing air pollution in overburdened communities, statutory changes are needed to ensure the full implementation of CERPs. SB ten seventy five will bridge this gap and ensure more effective enforcement and implementation of the statewide strategy to reduce emissions. I would like to address some of the concerns from opposition.
Speaker 16
I understand the concerns relating to the shift in land use decision making and the deference granted to SERPs. To be clear, developments are still allowed to move if there is no reasonable alternative. I also understand the expansion of enforcement from the attorney general's office, environmental justice bureau is significant. It is critical that the voice of impacted residents be heard, and an avenue for this is through the existing EJ bureau. Members and staff, let me be clear.
This is not a finished product. The problem at hand is that SERP implementation has not resulted in cleaner air. Land use decisions and local development have not resulted in the clean air outcomes that the state has promised. The solution we need is to protect our most overburdened communities with real guardrails. I recognize that the bill in print is not perfect.
I am asking for the opportunity to continue working on this policy. I invite, as I have, collaboration and input from all stakeholders on s b ten seventy five. The matter at hand is serious. It is critical that we address the air pollution prevalent across California. Cleaner air should not depend on where you live or how hard your community has to fight to be heard.
Impacted communities across California have done the work, identifying pollution sources, developing solutions, and advocating for clean air. SB ten seventy five fulfills a promise of a b six seventeen by ensuring more effective enforcement and implementation of the statewide strategy to reduce emissions. Here to testify in support are doctor Katherine Garupa, exec executive director for the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, and Alma Martinez, policy advocate for the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment.
Speaker 28
Thank you. Doctor. Catherine Garupo with CVAC. I also serve on the South Stockton Community Steering Committee for AB six seventeen. And our coalition coordinates coalition members on all four selected communities in the San Joaquin Valley and many leading the local community emission reduction plans.
Speaker 26
More accountability for air districts and integration of plans are two components needed to fully realize the potential power of community grounded planning. Unfortunately we have commonly seen the San Joaquin Valley air district come with prebaked proposals that primarily give money to their existing programs and focus on offering incentives that do not address our largest pollution sources Strengthening the California Air Resources Board's oversight role could help ensure that community priorities are implemented. Secondly, a b six one seven communities are experiencing new polluting sources and expansion of existing sources taking us backwards while promising that these already overburdened communities are being prioritized for cleanup. These disconnects are in large part due to a lack of coordination with land use and transportation agencies and plans. For example in South Stockton and South Fresno we are seeing a proliferation of warehouse proposals more accountability for air districts and alignment of the plans created through the a b six one seven process would strengthen the community air protection program.
For these reasons, I urge your I vote on s b ten seventy five and thank senator Reyes for her leadership on this issue.
Speaker 18
Thank you. My name is Alma Martinez, policy advocate for Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment. SB ten seventy five is the logical next step to strengthen the Community Air Protection Program or CAP approved in 2017 by a b six one seven. Under the cap, California air resources board and local air districts provide pollution burden communities throughout the state grant funding towards emissions reductions. Community steering committees or CSCs made up of local residents, anchor organizations, industry representatives, and others come together to work alongside CARB and air districts to undergo an intensive two year process to develop an LCRP or a local emissions reductions plan targeting emissions and emissions reductions and mitigations.
Speaker 27
L SERPs communities are those that consistently experience pollution overburdened identified by CARB. To complete the L SERPs, local CSCs work diligently mostly on a volunteer capacity to identify emission sources innovative alternatives to reduce harmful health and environmental effects. In fact, community led efforts in locations like Delano, California put forth an estimated fifteen hundred hours collective volunteer hours towards their emission reductions plans. Once an LCRP is completed and reviewed by carbon local air district, the CSC can turn their focus to implementation. Currently, there is no formal funding for the implementation.
However, some plan strategies are funded through existing air grants and programs. Senator Reyes' s b ten seventy five keeps the promise to pollution burden communities by strengthening local community emissions reductions plans and ensuring state funding is reaching its intended goal of emissions reductions. Therefore, we urge an a vote for s b ten seventy five. Thank you.
Speaker 10
We'll now move to anyone else in the room that would like to express their support. Please state your name, your organization, and your position only.
Speaker 25
Alex Lumer on behalf of the central California environmental justice network and strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 37
Sofia Carrasco. I am a 17 year old in high school in San Diego, Blake Pierce district. I represent youth v oil in San Diego San Diego three fifty. I am in support.
Speaker 29
Hi. I'm Tarka Sati. I'm a 15 year old from San Diego 350 in youth versus oil, and I am in strong support of this bill.
Speaker 28
Hi, I'm Megan Nguyen, I'm 13, I'm from San Diego, and I support s p ten seventy five.
Speaker 30
My name is Miles Wacam, I'm from youth fuel oil, I am 15 from San Diego and I support this bill.
Speaker 14
My name is my my name is Maya Shunian. I'm 16 in going to high school in San Diego with San Diego three fifty and Youth Fuel Oil, and I support this bill. Hi. My name is Frida Vergara. I'm a 17 year old in senior high school from San Diego three fifty, and I support this bill.
Speaker 12
Good morning. My name is Maricia Vergara, 16 year old from San Diego representing UV oil, and I support this bill. My name is Lexi Hahn. I'm from UFE oil and I support this bill.
Speaker 27
Hello. My name is Sophia. I'm 18 years old and I'm from San Diego 350 and I support this bill.
Speaker 23
Asha Sharba, on behalf of Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, cosponsor of the legislation and the broad coalition of environmental justice organizations listed in the analysis, in support. Thank you.
Speaker 33
Raquel Mason on behalf of the California Environmental Justice Alliance, say hi, action. Thank you.
Speaker 28
My name is Azul Bay, and I am a senior at Sweetwater High School down in San Diego. I'm here supporting San Diego three fifty, and I am so in support of this bill.
Speaker 34
Good morning. Christina Scringe with the Center for Biological Diversity and Support.
Speaker 21
Good morning. Guillermo Ortiz with the Natural Resources Defense Council in support of the bill.
Speaker 17
Hi. My name is Diego Sandoval and I'm a senior in high school representing youth v oil and I support this bill.
Speaker 14
Hi. My name is Doran Tarcevic. I am a sophomore from San Diego. I am 15 years old and I support this bill.
Speaker 29
Hello. My name is Diana Tapia. I'm a Stockton resident, I support this bill.
Speaker 19
Good morning. I'm Janet Preciado Vargas from Communities for a Better Environment and we support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Gabriel Tolson on behalf of the Planning and Conservation League in support, also expressing support on behalf of Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley. Thank you.
Speaker 16
Hello. My name is Carlos Lopez. I'm a junior in high school from San Diego, and I support this bill.
Speaker 52
Good morning. My name is Lisa Tanaka from South Coast Air Quality Management District. And here, while we don't have an official position, deeply appreciative of working with senator Reyes and will continue to do so to make sure that the bill both reduces air pollution and serves the communities to protect public health. Thank you.
Speaker 39
Good morning. My name is Gloria Alonso. I am the EJ advocacy coordinator with Little Vanilla Rising, and I served the CSC in Stockton for six years, and I support this bill.
Speaker 15
Hello. Jenna Roper with the Central California Asthma Collaborative in support.
Speaker 20
Hi good morning Ana Gonzalez executive director at the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice representing our San Bernardino Riverside County diesel dead zones communities. Thank you.
Speaker 38
Good morning. My name is Shazad, Stockton resident in support of this bill.
Speaker 10
Thank you. We will now invite our key witnesses in opposition. You're each recognized for two minutes.
Speaker 26
Well, good morning. Thank you, madam vice chair and, members of the committee. Kurt Kimmelshoe here this morning on behalf of the California Building Industry Association in opposition to SB ten seventy five, and this is a measure, obviously, as it's in print, that we have designated a housing killer. Very much appreciate the senator's willingness to adopt the committee amendments, but until we do have a chance to review the language and exactly how that's gonna line up with a number of our concerns with the bill, we do remain opposed. A few things I'd just like to highlight, given the dynamic of the amendments that are gonna be accepted is California housing projects are already subject to numerous robust layers of legal compliance on the very issues that this bill seeks to address air quality, public health impacts, and impacts on disadvantaged communities.
Speaker 39
CEQA already provides extensive review, public participation, and private enforcement for these exact concerns. Secondly, projects must independently comply with federal, state, and regional air district regs, including strict standards governing criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gas emissions. And finally, every project that our members build must be consistent with the general plan, zoning code, and broader land use laws, all of which already include strong public process and litigation backstops. The reality is, the new housing is cleaner than the existing built environment it replaces. SB ten seventy five, in its current form, challenges our existing housing shortage by layering on new standards and liabilities on top of an already comprehensive framework.
At a time when California faces a severe housing crisis, from our perspective, adding another barrier to housing production is simply not feasible at this time. And for these reasons, we do still urge the committee, to vote no on s b ten seventy five today. Thank you.
Speaker 35
Good morning chair committee members John Kendrick from the California chamber of commerce we oppose s b ten seventy five as a cost driver. We're worried and we appreciate the amendments that have been taken those were very problematic provisions but fundamentally, we look at what's left, and we feel that SB ten seventy five actually backfires on the communities that it seeks to help because it makes it significantly harder to invest, build, and create jobs in eighty six seventeen communities by introducing uncertainty into every stage of the development process. It undermines local government authority by requiring local land use decisions to align with SERPs and L SERPs developed by unelected community steering committees of elevating them above the general plan and zoning. Any ambiguity must be resolved toward the most health protective standard with no clear definition or limiting principle. The results are moving target that developers cannot know what standard they need to meet to get project approved and ultimately built.
This turns permitting into a high risk process that allows individuals to petition the AG for de novo review of local decisions for consistency with the SERP and L SERP. It empowers the AG to stay or invalidate those decisions. In doing so, it creates a parallel oversight structure that operates outside of traditional planning and judicial review processes. This framework introduces additional uncertainty into already complex permitting processes. Even compliant projects can be delayed, challenged, or stopped after a robust sequel process and receipt of local approvals.
This drives investment away. When developers cannot predict timelines, costs, outcomes, projects don't move forward. The capital for building the future that we want will go to other cities in California that do not have SERPs. They'll go to other jurisdictions. And that highlights the fundamental issue here.
The communities covered by the bills are the ones that most need sustained investment, jobs, infrastructure, economic activity that support long term improvement. You go back 75 thank you. SB ten seventy five makes that harder. It could impact local tax base. Again, we have tagged this as a cost driver, and we request a no vote.
Thank you.
Speaker 10
Thank you. We'll now move to anyone else here in the room. In opposition, please state your name, your organization, and your position.
Speaker 40
Thank you. Faith Conley with Whiteman Group on behalf of the Supply Chain Federation in strong opposition.
Speaker 7
Brendan Tueg on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in opposition.
Speaker 24
Judy E. State Building Trades. Just wanna thank the author for taking the amendments, but we remain opposed in committee today. Looking forward to seeing the amendments in print and looking forward to work with the author. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Madam chair, Dominic DeMeyer here on behalf of the Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District in opposition.
Speaker 13
Chris Chimoda on behalf of the California Trucking Association in opposition for the reasons outlined by the chamber. Thank you.
Speaker 41
What are you gonna tell us on behalf of California's business roundtable in opposition?
Speaker 19
Good morning. Mark Neuberger of the California State Association of Counties with a respectful oppose unless amended.
Speaker 40
Lawrence a Valencia representing the American Planning Association also respectfully opposed unless amended.
Speaker 43
Good morning. Skyler Wanakot on behalf of the California Business Properties Association in respectful opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 13
John Kennedy on behalf of the rural counties opposed unless amended. Thank you.
Speaker 33
Good morning. Daniela Garcia Hernandez on behalf of the western states petroleum association in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 14
Hi there. Don Kepke on behalf the California Manufacturers and Technology Association also opposed.
Speaker 11
Yeah. Obviously, there's a very wide range of opposition. I'm we've got some important business voices here, but I couldn't help but note the local government opposition and also the air board employees. Is that the the inspectors? Anyhow, I'd love to get if if someone who I'd love to get one of the local government voices, for example, to maybe come up and give us a little bit of a more nuance as to where they're thinking with regards to the amendments that the committee has offered.
Maybe the League of Cities or yeah. Okay. Sorry. I I I as I saw you walking into the row, I thought maybe I should stop her from disrupting. Anyway, no.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the where the amendments are and where and is the league still firmly opposed? Could you walk us through what you're thinking?
Speaker 42
Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for the question through through the chair vice chair. Thank you. We do have an opposed unless amended position on the bill.
We are concerned about some of the comments raised by chamber as well in the In terms of economic development and In of the connection of L SERPs and SERPs and tying that to compliance requiring the general plan to have compliance with those emission reduction plans. In particular, just want to know LCRPs are community consensus driven plans. They can have a variety of actions in those plans, and there's no local, regional, or state oversight or involvement or engagement in the development of those plans. So it's it's requiring compliance to to uphold those l SERPs and SERPs in in both cases, and tying land use decisions to those plans that don't have any other involvement from local governments or potentially have any land use information in them. We've we've talked with the proponents of the bill and and they've articulated that those L SERPs may have things like incentive bus programs to become EVs right there are other emissions reduction activities in those plans that the community wants to see those are great decisions for the community that that they should get funding for and in fact cap and invest has now authorized 250,000,000 for the six seventeen program as of last year right and so we want to see those SERPs and L SERPs funded implemented and those actions move forward I think our concern is the compliance and constraint around local land use decision making contingent on those plans.
Speaker 25
Right? That would potentially lead to invalidating land use decisions by citizen petition through the attorney general as structured in the bill. So that's where we can't move forward with land use decision and voiding land use decision based on plans that we're not engaged and involved with from the city perspective. That's that's tying our hands in terms of approving projects in our communities.
Speaker 11
Just maybe the author, do you wanna give us a sense of how you're thinking about this? I know you care a lot about functioning local government and love to hear your thoughts.
Speaker 16
With specifically with regard through its through its chair. Specifically with regard to the LCIRPs, we've made a commitment, and there was something also through the air air resources boards that they talked about the LCIRPs. And we've made a commitment to continue to work out the placement and role of local the LCIRPs within the bill. I think that's a valid a valid concern and something that we absolutely will be looking at. As to the the part regarding the attorney general, that was an amendment that was taken from from the committee.
So that that is no longer in
Speaker 11
Okay. Okay. I I certainly, you know, encourage that dialogue because we we, you know, we know how challenging it is for a lot of our local governments to address a wide variety of of these land use challenges, and and so I I appreciate your your engaging and dialogue with them. And wanted to just hear from the the the air board employees association. What's the name of the what's the group?
CAPCOA. Okay. Good. Excellent.
Speaker 7
Yeah. It's the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. That's the air pollution control officer. We call it CAPCOA. That's the air pollution control officers from all 35 local air districts.
Speaker 7
So, you know, certainly, we appreciate some of the amendments, there has been dialogue with the author's office. We are, you know, on record to the, in opposition to the bill in print.
Speaker 11
Give us the correct severe
Well, there's other there's other issue. Well, there was a number of the issues that we were concerned with with our our addressed in the amendments. However, there are concerns like with the LCIRPs as well like we don't have enforceability for that so how that's structured and and really I think there's a sense that more work needs to be done. We're happy to have more conversations with the author's office. There's other structural issues in the bill where you have like, you tie when you're in a community with the and and the SERPs are in a community and you're and and the operation of the steering committee and all that to the federal clean air standards.
Speaker 7
And so it says like if you meet the federal clean air standards then it sort of ends in the your work ends in the community. But the problem with that is you're you're you're kind of tying that to the wrong thing that has to do with regional air pollutants. A lot of what the work is being done locally is on air toxics, cancer causing air toxics, and you can't really set a standard to meet for that. With this federal administration they could pull back on on what what the thresholds are for the standards, what the standards are, and then all of a sudden you're just you you you end the program in a particular district. And that's a problem.
And so we're really here because we wanna make sure that functionally how you proceed is actually going to be beneficial for the community and actually get clean air. And so there's there's a number of issues just with the structure of the bill. I think there's some positives certainly with looking at, you know, when do you determine when a SERP when when you're finished. Right? What do you do after five years and you can look at it and say, okay, well how do we how do we wind this down?
And so there's there's some things you know we're willing to engage more and talk and we certainly appreciate appreciate the author's, the senator's work on all of this. But there there's a there's a host of issues that when you get down into it and you look at how it actually works, there's some real problems in our opinion. But of course, we wanna talk more.
Speaker 16
Not specifically, but with the air resources board, as was noted, the conversations have been very productive, and we're we're very pleased about that. In fact, in in my talking points, I talk about three specific things that came up in our discussions, and we've made a commitment to work on those three Okay. Very specifically. So I think what what's important is that we've made a promise to these communities that we're going to do something. We were going to reduce the the the pollution in the communities, put together the plans.
And if they aren't enforced, then those all that money that was invested by the state of California, Air Resources Board, car CARB, AQMD, they all went down to the communities that were selected and spent countless hours putting together these SERPs. But if the SERP is not followed, then we've wasted all of our money.
Speaker 16
But nonetheless, I am absolutely committed to working with with the opposition, and there have been very productive conversations with them. And I hope that once the the amendments have been reviewed, which I think were very good amendments, that's not the way I wanted to start my bill, but I I think to in order to to to look at all of the needs of of all of the industries, it was important to take those amendments, and and we did.
Speaker 11
Okay. Alright. Well, I I'm have I I know the author's, in in extraordinarily thoughtful and is, committed to getting this landed in a in a wise place. So I'd be happy to move the bill when appropriate. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Thank you. So senator, and to the bill sponsors, I can appreciate the intent behind this bill. I think we all want clean air and and healthier communities. But for me, this really does go far beyond that. This bill takes what's supposed to be a air quality planning tool and turns it into a new layer of enforceable land use regulation with state oversight and then even even the attorney general's intervention.
So at a time when Californians are already struggling with cost of housing, of energy, of basic needs, I don't think that more red tape, more uncertainty, and more risk to build anything is really good in in in as I, again, use this layer of affordability. And this reality is that the costs don't stay with government or with industry. They get passed down onto the very communities this bill is trying to help. So my concern is is is pretty simple, you know, from both the opposition and the bill's spun sponsors. How do we strike this balance, right, of not harming the communities we're intending to help?
Are there additional amendments that can be offered? You know, are you open to on ongoing conversations about how we we achieve our our goal here, but also not increase the the cost of everything? So if we can start with the sponsors and then go to the opposition.
Speaker 16
I I think when we talk about more layers, there should we shouldn't have to have more layers. But the fact that we had a layer that didn't have to become a layer as you're describing it, it was just something that was being proposed. And if land use decisions honored that, we wouldn't have to have a b or s b ten seventy five. But because there is that need to make sure that that promise that was made in a b six seventeen about about giving these communities a better opportunity and better air, that hasn't been achieved. If it hasn't been achieved, then something is still wrong.
And if if we still have the level of air pollution in these communities and we are still approving land making land use decisions that that negatively affect the community, then there's something wrong with this. It it now s b ten seventy five, I hope we're clear, only applies to communities in the a b six seventeen community air protection program. It doesn't apply to every single community. When we talk about housing, we talk about the the the fact that housing is going to be limited. I hope it's not limited.
I hope that the housing that is brought in is going to be reviewed, and it's not going to cause more air pollution. I can't imagine that it would. Housing is important. When we we hear that that that this may drive investments away. I hope it doesn't because these communities just because they're saying, give us clean air.
Sorry. We're not gonna invest there because it's gonna cost us too much. I I think that that there are so many so many businesses that do invest in our communities, and I'm grateful to them. That even with these layers, they know that they are doing something that is good for the community, and the community absolutely appreciates it.
Speaker 17
You know, the I think that point that you just raised of saying that businesses would say, well, clean air is too expensive, so we're not gonna invest here. That's not what we're saying. What we're saying is that this process that you have created that does not provide any sort of certainty for the developer of a project will make it harder to make the choice to invest in that community. So without that certainty, right, you can have gone through a full CEQUA process. You could have gotten your your local permit approvals and still find yourself and and, you know, again, it sounds like you've removed
Speaker 35
Yes. If if the AG portion has been fully removed, that could change the conversation a little bit in terms of moving forward. But, again, like, it's the uncertainty that the current structure creates that would drive people to choose not to invest in these communities. It's not clean air. Thank you.
Speaker 39
Madam vice chair, I appreciate the opportunity to respond. And I think specifically, you know, we really appreciate the senator's commitment to housing production in the state. I think she just highlighted, obviously, the dynamic that she seeks to, you know, can have our ability to produce additional housing units in the state to continue. The only thing I'd highlight is I think the legislature in the last twenty four months has taken numerous significant steps that everyone on the dais and the author has supported to really expedite housing production and try to drive down costs. From our perspective, the local land use determinations that are being made around new housing already work, and that there is an absolute opportunity for the community members to engage on housing production, frankly more than perhaps a lot of other development that takes place.
So, our perspective, we don't think the bill is appropriate to be applied to new housing production, and that those are the portions of the reasons that that were opposed. But, as I mentioned, we have a long standing relationship with the senator, and and she's done a lot of good work for our members, and so we're absolutely committed to continuing to work with her and the committee staff as if the bill moves to local government to have more further discussions about kind of the local land use policies and how the bill affects that.
Speaker 10
You. And so just to the author, you know, I appreciate the intent as I mentioned earlier, and there's a lot of different stakeholders from different industry who have concerns. And, again, I think I know we're all on the same page about wanting to address the affordability crisis and not add additional layers of policy that make it even less affordable to live in the state. So would appreciate if you could continue to work with stakeholders on this bill, because I think we do both share, a a passion for clean air for our communities. If you would like to close.
Speaker 16
You have my commitment to that I will continue to work with the stakeholders. I think the bill is too important to try to work in a silo. We have to be able to work with those who are with us and those who have, not that they're opposed to us, but they have concerns. And you have my commitment to continue working with that. And with that, would request really respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Speaker 10
We have a motion. Senator Allen move the bill. Secretary, would the motion is do pass. And actually, for clarification, you did accept all of the committee amendments that will be taken up in the next committee?
Speaker 16
So that we're clear, it is all the amendments listed on page 12 of the committee analysis regarding comments two, three, four, and five.
Speaker 10
Thank you. So the motion is do pass to local government. Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 4
Valadares? No. Valadares? No. Allen?
Aye. Allen? Aye. Dally? No.
Dally? No. Gonzales? Ortado? Menjivar?
Aye. Menjivar, aye.
Speaker 10
Two to two that remains on call. And we're now gonna move to file item number 7SB1064, senator Dolly. Senator Dolly, you're recognized when you're ready.
Speaker 20
Thank you, chair and members. First of all, I want to thank this committee staff for work with my office. I will take the committee amendments. SB ten seventy four bring common sense to a r b clean truck tax checks. A b no a sixty four ten sixty four affects the all used vehicles.
Speaker 44
These are vehicles driven less than 1,000 miles a year. This the bill applies to on road use on road heavy use of vehicles, off road diesel equipment, and the several equipment vehicles. This bill does not change emission standards. Under SB ten seventy four, these vehicles will not will be tested no more than once a year. These vehicles must till meet all clean air rules.
According to air ARB, less than 1% trucks fail the clean air tax. Low use exempt already exists the state regulations. This is the practical adjustment. Here with me, Cassie Muse and Dennis Albioni. Thank you.
Speaker 45
Is that better? Yeah. Let me start over? Yeah. Good morning, honorable chair and members.
Thank you for the opportunity to be a witness on S B 1064. I'm a proud owner of Muse Trucking, family owned and founded in 1993. We have more than thirty one years of experience in the trucking industry. Trucks move what our economy depends on. Cattle, livestock, logs from Siskiyou Forest to local mills, farm equipment across fields in Glynn County, gravel and aggregate for all of our rural roads, heavy equipment, and fire supplies for fire recovery and rebuilding.
These are work trucks. These are essential trucks. Many are low use limited to 1,000 miles a year. Many run limited miles each year. Muse Trucking operates one low use vehicle enrolled in the clean truck check program but the story is bigger than just one company.
As someone who has experience in trucking I know many ranchers and farmers they rely on these low use trucks and equipment. These trucks are not driven every day but they are critical when they are needed. Replacement cost is high. Warranties and repairs are very costly. Many cannot afford the new equipment.
They maintain what they have. They use it carefully, and they use it when the job calls for it. Current rules require frequent smog testing, even for low use trucks in rural areas that can mean very long trips just for the compliance testing. This costs time and money and pulls people away from what they should be doing at their work. SB ten sixty four makes a simple change.
Speaker 19
Smog check them once a year for low use heavy duty trucks, on road and off road, and including special equipment. This keeps the air strong air quality standards, no change to the emission standards. It's about balance, and it's about common sense when my industry is also facing many challenges. Less downtime, lower cost, same clean air. If we wanna keep California working, need to make this make sure the rules work too.
Speaker 45
I respectfully ask for your a vote and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 46
Dennis Albioni on behalf of the California Grain and Feed Association, the Pacific Egg and Poultry Associations. As agriculture well, first of all, she she said it all. It's a great witness. You may wanna change curves if you have to. So as agricultural interests and especially using the grain and feed as an example, we're really logistics folks.
We're moving animal nutrition ingredients all throughout the state, but not only on road, we're also moving them with yard carts and those things within the operations as Kathy mentioned. And so, the agricultural industry, we have lots of small vehicles that do low running. And then you'd have to take these, sometimes it's fifty, eighty, a 100 to the to the closest certification facility. So, and that's not only trying to get that equipment there and it's supposed to be low mile equipment. Then you're also taking, know, a professional has to leave work and doing that the job that they're supposed to wait for the certification and and drive it back.
Or if it's specialized equipment, load that onto a another lowboy truck, have that truck take it to the to the certification facility. So you can imagine that I think I would bet that this if you really do the calculations, this is actually a net gain in emissions when you look at all the different times you're going back and forth. Net gain in in emission reductions. Excuse me. And so I think we should look further at these.
I think the bill as originally, how can we do these? Think more practically about getting these certifications, but getting them at an appropriate time, place, and location. With that, we appreciate your support and encourage an I vote. Next,
Speaker 10
I will ask anyone in the room if you'd like come up in support of the bill. Please state your name, your organization, and your position. Seeing none, we'll move to any key witnesses here in opposition. Thank you, and you're recognized for two minutes.
Speaker 47
Thank you. My name is Will Barrett. I'm the assistant vice president for nationwide clean air advocacy with the American Lung Association. The Lung Association and our colleagues at the Coalition for Clean Air sponsored Senate Bill two ten to address a major gap in air pollution control in California. Over the course of several years, the legislature debated the development of the policy.
The air resources board held a multi year process with public engagement to develop the clean truck check program with the goal of eliminating excess emissions caused by trucks that had failing, tampered, or otherwise malfunctioning pollution controls. Similar to the smog check program for passenger vehicles, this is designed to identify and correct excess emissions to protect public health. Why is a frequent test important, and why is it different from the the smog check for cars? Californians breathe the most most difficult air pollution challenges in The United States. Trucks represent approximately 3% of all the vehicles on the road, but generate more than half of the smog and particle forming pollution.
Traffic pollution is deadly. It causes asthma attacks, new asthma cases, respiratory infections in children, and other health harms. The program is set to avoid seventy five hundred premature deaths by 2050. The health benefits are projected to top $75,000,000,000. The program is easily the most impactful program that I've worked on in seventeen years at the American Lung Association.
Speaker 8
It's cost effective and health protective. We're concerned that the committee amendments would expand the opportunity for vehicles that are the oldest, probably most dirty dirtiest vehicles to go longer periods of time, even though they are low use, they are very heavy polluting. And, we think that that needs to be understood before any decisions are made as far as the excess emissions and what that will mean to the erosion of that seventy five hundred premature deaths avoided. That's what's at stake here. The health benefits of this program being reduced, being weakened, and being eliminated.
Speaker 10
Thank you. I'll open it up to anyone else in the room here that would like to express their opposition. Please state your name, your organization, and your position.
Speaker 4
Good morning. Sofia Afikova with the coalition for clean air in opposition.
Speaker 11
Just trying to get some clarity about some of the amendments that were taken. Yeah. I mean, I well, I I I I'll I'll I'll support the bill with the amendments, but I I I do I wanna make sure we're not opening up I I get well, let me ask let me ask the the witness or the author, whoever wants to just to speak to some of the concerns that were raised by the opposition about I obviously, bell's narrowed, so I understand it's an expansion, within a narrowing. But if you've got some comments or response to the concerns raised.
Speaker 46
Thank you very much. I think so this has always been an interesting dynamic. Frankly, I did a lot of this in a former life and a former administration, for instance, that had The cars They book a certain amount of emission reductions. Doesn't necessarily mean they come when they when they, you know, develop the regulations. These vehicles are so low that it's a thousand miles.
And, frankly, you're So, that's the the total they can drive in a year. And, often, obviously, Dally's District. But, throughout there, you're, you know, if you're in the Central Valley on the West Side, you might be 30 miles away from a certification center. So, you're, you know, that's each way. And then, with some of this equipment you have to put actually on to a vehicle and bring it to the to the to the certification standard.
So, you're already making emissions to reduce emissions. And so, while that's good once a year, this requirement is my understanding was twice a year before. And so, you know, we're still making sure. You still have to meet the standards. You still have to have a a vehicle.
Speaker 6
Mentioned these are the lowest, highest splitting. They still have to meet their standards and requirements. It's just one less opportunity per year where they have to travel the the extended distance, put miles on, also have emissions while they're doing that, certified. And, again, when you look at the the benefit versus bargain here, the emission reductions I I think are are for these that have been booked for these ones just for a second test each year is is challenging. And I think this is to offset the emissions that you're having to for those vehicles that are very, again, low emission and very low traveling vehicles.
Speaker 10
No? Thank you. We have a motion to move the bill. I'll just, say before I ask the author to close. My uncle's a trucker, an independent trucker, and I get, you know, every call once a month with every new regulation or frustration with registration or sort of you name it.
And what I also know is our truckers are really hurting right now with the price of diesel just the highest, I think, we've seen it ever, if if not recently, and this is common sense. If any of us had to go get our cars smog checked every six months, there'd be a lot more people in this room supporting this bill. I think it's it's common sense. We're not we're actually, I believe, reducing emissions by not requiring that vehicle to travel. You know?
If if you've ever driven across California, you know how far it is, especially in the Central Valley, to get your vehicle from one one area to another. So it's common sense. I'd love to be a coauthor on this bill if you would have me. And, plea would you like to close?
Speaker 10
Thank you. I have a motion by senator Menjivar. The motion is due passed to transportation. Please call the roll.
Speaker 4
Amendments will be taken in the next committee. Senators Blakespeare? Valadares. Valadares. Allen.
I. Allen. Dally. I. Dally.
Gonzalez. Ortado. Menjivar. Menjivar. And say Dennis.
Speaker 10
That's four to zero and will remain on call. So we're gonna move to file item number five, s b twelve fifty eight. Senator Reiner, you are recognized when you're ready.
Speaker 30
Okay. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. I'm here to present SB twelve fifty eight. I accept the committee's amendments in the analysis. The committee amendments replaced the contents of the bill with a different approach around remediation of hazardous waste sites on the Cortezi list.
I do just want to say though that even though the committee did not agree with us on the approach to the bill, I think it is important to make sure that we are actually facilitating the remediation of these sites. And when we have systems in place where the remediation has to happen before you even get a permit, which is currently the law with s p four two three, that can mean that the project never happens, and so the site is unremediated. And so our goal when we introduced this bill was to say, how do we ensure the housing gets built, it gets remediated, and it's done in an efficient way so that developers can actually get financing to do it, so it can be integrated into the construction instead of viewed as a separate issue. They can be done together. And, I think it was a good approach.
Obviously, the committee disagreed, and that's life in a democracy. So, we are accepting the committee amendments, but I do wanna say that we, you know, we intend to just continue in general to to work on this issue because we wanna make sure we're remediating these sites, keeping people healthy, and building the housing that we so desperately need. So, I accept the committee amendments, I respectfully ask for an I vote. And, with me to testify is Mia Kang, the chair of the Council of Infill Builders, and David Grenette, the with Path Forward Partners, principal geologist.
Speaker 47
Good morning chair and members. My name is Mia Kong, Council of Infill Builders in support of 12 SB twelve fifty eight. I've been a practicing developer for more than twenty years developing more than 3,000 units of affordable housing all in infill areas and from a developer's perspective we often come across sites that require some level of environmental analysis and mitigation. The analysis and mitigation itself can be pretty straightforward however going through the process of the regulatory efforts make it very complicated and there are many proven mitigation methods like vapor barriers, sub slab depressurization systems, soils management and capping strategies that work and this work is typically done during construction and are accepted practices and signed off by regulatory agencies. However, under current law requiring site suitability before a project is entitled creates significant risk and uncertainty.
Speaker 48
Developers are not in a position to invest in remediation costs prior to securing land use approvals and financing. As a result, many Cortese sites don't move forward and they don't get cleaned up. Environmental mitigation and remediation of these sites is absolutely tied to redevelopment. If a new project can't move forward, the cleanup just doesn't happen and sites can sit idle for years if not decades. SB twelve fifty eight addresses this by aligning the timing of site cleanup and site suitability with how projects are actually financed and built, allowing projects to move forward while still requiring sites to be safe before occupancy.
From a developer standpoint, this alignment is essential. SB twelve fifty fifty eight strikes the right balance protecting public health by enabling cleanup and housing to move forward together. For these reasons, we are respectfully asking for the committee's I vote.
Speaker 30
Good morning. My name is David Gruenat. I'm a California licensed professional geologist and certified hydrogeologist with over twenty years of experience investigating and remediating contaminated properties for beneficial use. I'm the president and co founder of Path Forward Partners, an environmental consulting firm dedicated to providing practical, cost effective, and health protective solutions for contaminated properties while upholding scientific integrity and prioritizing community well-being. We regularly assist clients throughout the property redevelopment lifecycle from pre acquisition due diligence and entitlements to remediation, construction, and post construction maintenance.
Speaker 49
While we have helped advance critical housing projects, we've also seen many promising sites abandoned due to their inclusion on the Cortez list. Often, our clients are prepared to remediate these properties, but the uncertainty in qualifying for streamlining makes investment too risky. It's important to note that being listed on the Cortezi list does not necessarily reflect a site's current contamination status. In urban infill areas, many properties are listed even after remediation of regulatory case closure. Currently, is no practical process for removing sites from the Cortez list that aligns with the acquisition and entitlement timelines.
Even with approved mitigation approaches, regulatory agencies require implementation before the project is safe deemed safe for the intended use. Many of the mitigation measures are typically implemented during construction of the project. Moving the compliance point for streamlining from prior to entitlements to prior to occupancy is consistent with non streamlined projects which undergo full CEQA evaluation. Common practice under CEQA is to either have a mitigation plan for contamination before construction or demonstrate site safety before occupancy. Extending this approach to streamline projects ensures equal environmental scrutiny and safety.
Streamlining offers an opportunity to advance housing construction but without it, contaminate properties often remain undeveloped and remediated. California faces a housing deficit and our clients struggle to redevelop sites for much needed housing. SB twelve fifty eight provides a sensible pathway to safely move housing projects forward at urban infill locations by aligning compliance timing with established practices.
Speaker 10
Thank you. We'll now move to anyone else in the room here in support of the bill. Please state your name, your organization, and your position.
Speaker 42
Good morning, chair members. Catherine Charles on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition Spur, Abundant Housing LA, Circulate San Diego, and Prosperity Action all in support.
Speaker 10
Thank you. We'll now move to any key witnesses here in opposition of the bill. Thank you. You are recognized, and you'll have two minutes.
Speaker 14
Hi. My name is Jubilee Martinez Bramba, and I'm here on behalf of Communities for a Better Environment or CBE. Many of our residents relied on top of or next to contaminated sites. We oppose SB twelve fifty eight as published, would lead to the development of housing on hazardous waste sites without guaranteeing adequate cleanup. However, committee amendments proposed likely remove our opposition and move us to a neutral position.
We wanna really thank the author and the chair for their work to improve this bill, and we thank the committee.
Speaker 10
Thank you. Is anyone else in the room in opposition, please step forward, state your name, your organization, and your position.
Speaker 33
Good morning. Raquel Meissen with the California Environmental Justice Alliance. Align our comments with CBEs and are thankful for the author, the chair, and all the work on the committee amendments. Thank you.
Speaker 32
Asha Sharma, on behalf of leadership council for justice and accountability, echoing comments of communities for a better environment and thank the author and the chair for progress on this bill thank you.
Speaker 5
Gabriel Tolson with the planning conservation league like other groups we appreciate the work of the chair and the author to improve this bill we're currently reevaluating our position and are likely to move to neutral thank you
Speaker 7
thank you good to see a roscoe with the center on race poverty environment thanking the chair and the author for the work on this bill we would like to echo the sentiments by communities for a better environment thank you
Speaker 51
Benjamin Henderson with the western center on law and poverty we will likely evaluate our position on this bill
Speaker 4
hello michael ring one with Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles. We thank the chair and the author for the positive amendments on the bill, and we are going to reevaluate our position. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Thank you. Seeing no others in the room, is any we'll bring it back to the committee. Anyone in the committee have any questions? No. I just wanna, thank the author for bringing this forward.
In my district, we have a woodicorp bermite contamination site that was on the Cortese list for for decades. Our city worked very closely in, participating in that cleanup. And seven years later, we're still in the early development phases, which is a big economic, has a big economic impact on my community. So I appreciate your work on this issue. Do I have a motion to, or would you like to close?
Speaker 10
We have a motion to move the bill by senator Menjivar. The motion is due pass as amended to the committee on housing. Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 4
Senators Blakespeare? Valadares? Aye. Valadares, aye. Allen?
Aye. Allen, aye. Dally? Aye. Dally, aye.
Gonzalez? Hurtado? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye.
Speaker 10
4 to zero, that will remain on call. We're gonna move to the consent calendar, file item number three. We have a motion by senator Dolly. Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 4
Senators Blakespeare? Valadares? Aye. Valadares, aye. Allen?
Valadares. Allen, aye. Dali? Dali, aye. Gonzalez?
Artado? Menjivar? Menjivar,
Speaker 16
Four to zero, that bill is on call. We're gonna take a really short recess for about five minutes. Thank you. The committee on environmental quality is reconvened. We're gonna go ahead and open up the role here.
Speaker 10
We're gonna move to file item number one s B958, Weber Pearson. Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 4
Amends will be taken in the next committee, and the motion is due passed to local government. Senators Dali? Aye. Dali, aye. Gonzales, Hurtado?
Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye.
Speaker 10
Moving to file item number six, s B1375. Senator Cortese, please call the roll.
Speaker 4
The motion is due passed as amended to transportation. Senators Dalley? Aye. Dalley, aye. Gonzalez?
Speaker 10
Six zero. That bill is on call. Now move to file item number nine s b ten thirty one. Senator Blake Spear, please call the roll secretary.
Speaker 4
The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Senators Dally? Dally? No. Gonzales?
Ortado? Menjivar? Menjivar aye. Three
Speaker 10
we'll now move to file item number four, s B1097. Senator Weiner, you are recognized when you're ready. She's
Speaker 30
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm here to present Senate Bill ten ninety seven to move California more expeditiously towards a clean energy transition and towards our ability to electrify everything. In terms of fighting climate change, clean energy and electrification are essential. The number one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and nine, ten most significant threats to habitat are climate change. That's the goal of this bill.
The bill has two pieces. The first is shifting for clean energy generation, making the sequel process less rigged against actually moving those projects forward in terms of being able to use a negative declaration, which right now it's essentially impossible to defend a negative declaration in court if there is anyone who has the ability to hire an attorney. We wanted to shift that standard so that cities could actually expeditiously cite clean energy. I do wanna say that Texas and Texas and Florida generate more clean energy than California. That's that should be mortifying to all of us.
There have governments that do not believe in climate change, and they are smaller states. And yet they both generate more clean energy, and our permitting system is part of that problem. So we were attempting to start addressing that in this bill. The committee has indicated that it does not want that piece of the bill to proceed, and so that will not proceed. We're not going to give up working on this issue.
I am very sensitive to the need to protect habitat, and I am very respectful of those who fight very hard every day to protect habitat. But I also we need to remind ourselves that climate change is a much, much bigger threat to habitat than clean energy installations. And so, I do hope that we can continue to move towards very quick permitting of clean energy so that we can scale clean energy with the sense of urgency that is needed, given the climate crisis. So, we're accepting the amendment to remove that from the bill, and we will pursue different permitting issues separately. The other piece of the bill, is also very important, is creating a new CEQA exemption for advanced reconducting.
Speaker 42
Advanced reconducting is when we take our grid and we increase the capacity of the transmission line so they can carry more electricity and so that we can electrify more things. It's very important work, and this will help get that done more quickly. And so, I appreciate the chair and the committee working with us on this, and I'm very proud of this piece of the bill that will move forward. I also appreciate our ability to come up with an agreement on the form in which it will move, and I want to state my understanding of the, and if the chair can agree or tell me where I'm off, that projects in habitat, or projects like pieces of advanced reconducting that goes through habitat for protected species, conservation easements, or HCPs or NCCPs would be eligible to take advantage of this exemption as long as the infrastructure that touches the ground does not expand by more than 10% footprint. Up to that, in an existing right of way for the transmission, up to that 10% footprint expansion could still utilize the exemption.
Speaker 30
Projects in state and national parks, monuments, wilderness and recreation areas would be able to use the exemption if they expand the ground footprint by up to 10%, and if there was already CEQA was applied to it in some form or another at some point in time. Outside of these areas, it's a clean exemption, as already in print in the bill. All this said, Madam Chair, did I state that correctly? Okay. I got a thumbs up.
Speaker 30
Now the one thing I do just wanna say, because this all came together quickly at the end of the day yesterday, and we've been vetting it with our coalition partners, We, of course, want to make sure that everything technically works. What I would ask is that as we move forward, if we have technical changes that we would like to make, that we would be able to come to the committee to work with the committee on that.
Speaker 30
Thank you very much. Okay. So with that said, we accept the committee amendments as I have articulated, and we appreciate the committee working with us. And we're gonna keep working on this bill and other bills to make sure that we are expanding our clean energy generation profoundly and that we are moving towards broad efficient electrification of our energy system. I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 30
Testify is Lillian Mervis with the Large Scale Solar Association and John Kennedy with the Royal County Representatives of California.
Speaker 10
Thank you. Good morning, chair Blake Spear and members of the committee. I'm Lillian Mervis with the Large Scale Solar Association here in today for strong support for s p ten ninety seven. LSA's member companies are responsible for developing much of California's existing solar and storage capacity as well as the future projects that will be necessary to meet the state's climate goals. California needs to bring online an additional 134,000 megawatts of clean energy by 2045 to meet our state goals.
Speaker 54
And more specifically, the Public Utilities Commission is calling for an additional 61,000 megawatts in the next five years alone. That means that we need to bring six to 8,000 megawatts of clean energy online every year in the next five years. Be building that clean energy abundance is the environmental imperative. Every year of delay is a year that we burn more fossil fuels and risk our reliability targets. It's also an an affordability imperative.
Projects must come online by 2030 to capture the federal investment tax credit, a 30 to 50% credit for large scale clean energy. Missing that deadline means additional costs flow directly to ratepayers. SP ten ninety seven helps remove a specific concrete barrier to that build out, reconducting. Transmission constraints are the leading cause of renewable projects sitting stranded in California's interconnection queue. Advanced reconducting or replacing aging cables with high performance conductors within existing rights of ways can nearly double a transmission line's capacity at a fraction of the cost of building new infrastructure.
The barrier is not the technology. It is that routine reconducting work within existing easements is still subject to sequel review, adding delay and cost to upgrades that cause no new environmental disturbance. SB ten ninety seven removes that barrier. California has set the most ambitious clean energy goals in the nation. To meet them, we have to be willing to ask whether our systems are actually delivering the outcomes we want and fix them when they're not.
This bill does that. Respectfully ask for an I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 13
Good morning. John Kennedy with RCRC on behalf of 40 rural counties. We're happy to be here today as one of the joint sponsors on the bill. I will limit my testimony just to the aspects of the bill dealing with advanced reconducting in light of the committee amendments. So, as Lillian and and the author mentioned, California has really ambitious clean energy goals to derive a 100% of its energy from clean energy, electricity from clean energy, to electrify its vehicle fleets, and to shift buildings from natural gas to electricity.
To achieve these goals, we must significantly increase transmission and distribution capacity. Beyond that, California must already increase capacity to meet general economic development growth needs in our communities. In many areas, we struggle to get power in a timely manner to new homes, to vehicle charging stations, to hospitals, and so we think this bill will help in those respects. SB ten ninety seven will help achieve those goals by providing a CEQA exemption for advanced reconducting. To clarify, we support CEQA.
We support the information disclosure, the mitigation requirements, but it can sometimes pose a significant barrier for project delivery, which is why we supported the changes to the fair argument, which are no longer part of the bill. SP ten ninety seven's exemption isn't really anything new or wild. In some ways, it can be viewed as leveling the playing field and plugging holes in existing exemptions. Under existing law, the California Public Utilities Commission governs investor owned utilities and how they proceed with transmission and distribution projects. General order one thirty one e sets forth that framework.
Speaker 29
That framework says when a permit is required which triggers CEQA when a permit isn't required which would not trigger CEQA. There's already an existing exemption built into g o one thirty one e for IOUs for advanced reconductor and project. The challenge is municipal owned utilities, LEDWP, SMUD, others can't use that g o one thirty one process, And independent entities who are building projects and transmission lines can't use that process. So, this creates a similar process for those other entities that the IOUs can already enjoy in some capacities. Beyond that, this exemption is similar to existing exemptions for existing facilities or repair and replacement of existing power lines.
Speaker 13
The main challenge with those being that you can't increase capacity capacity of the facilities or power lines. So, we think advanced reconductor really is the sweet spot. We minimize environmental impact by replacing conductors in an existing right of way with full remediation on completion. We avoid the impact of building a new transmission line to serve that capacity. While this isn't the solution, it's an important part of the solution to get us where we need to get at lower cost, minimal environmental impact, and faster.
So, on balance, really helps California meet our environmental goals while reducing impacts to ratepayers. We hope we can continue to work with the committee on refining the amendments to make sure they're implementable and are pleased to support s b ten ninety seven. Thank you for the dialogue and discussion.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. Anybody else in the room wishing to come forward to express support? Please come to the microphone and state your name, organization, and position on the bill.
Speaker 51
Good morning, madam chair and members Delilah Clay on behalf of the Independent Energy Producers Association in support and also adding support for a colleague on behalf of the California Wind Energy Association. Thank you.
Speaker 48
Good morning, chair. Jason Eichert on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association. We have a supportive amended position on the bill in print, but we hope to see it move forward and appreciate the chance to work with the author and the committee going forward.
Speaker 14
Good morning, chair and members. McKinley Thompson Worley on behalf of CA. We are supportive of the bill in print and look forward to reviewing the changes with our member and members and continuing to work
Speaker 10
Good morning, madam chair and members. Graciela Garcia Cranes. Also in support of the bill in print here on behalf of the California Energy Storage Alliance and Prosperity Action. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Chair members of committee Brandon Garcia on behalf of Advanced Energy United similarly supportive of the bill on prayer and look forward to reviewing amendments. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And do we have lead opposition witnesses to this bill wishing to come forward? Okay. Please come forward. And you'll have two minutes each.
Welcome. You can begin when ready.
Speaker 18
Good morning, chair and members of the committee. Kim Delfino representing Defenders of Wildlife. First, I just wanna thank the committee and senator Weiner for the amendments that were offered and taken today. This bill is now much more focused on the issue of reconducting, but we do appreciate the elimination of the fair argument standard from the bill. Defenders, unfortunately, still has serious concerns about the amendments that are being authored.
Just to be clear, we're actually not talking about a lot let me just state state. We strongly believe in reconducting and climate change and the need to aggressively move forward with our clean energy economy. My understanding is California actually is a leader in terms of solar and geothermal development among all the other states. We have worked very hard to try to come up with solutions to supercharge getting projects on the ground by trying to direct them into the most appropriate places that they should go. So it's not easy to get up here and oppose a bill that I think has good intentions.
Speaker 36
However, the double is in the details. And to be clear, when you look at the number of CEQA projects or number of projects transmission projects subject to CEQA, it's actually quite a few projects that are actually subject to CEQA. The PUC did a study and found that of nearly 700 projects, 90% of them already get CEQA exemptions, and only 27 of them had to go through a full EIR. But when an EIR is necessary, it really is necessary. And for here, I think the concern we have is that while the transmission projects we're talking about are within existing right of ways, the bill as amended would allow CEQA exemptions on state park lands, wilderness lands, national monuments, habitat lands, lands that are conserved under NCCPs and HCPs, and lands that are under conservation easements.
Speaker 18
Even with the limit of a 10% footprint, it's still broader than any other CEQA exemption we've ever written in state law. And even with the caveat of requiring some kind of CEQA that has been done on that property, the problem is that that CEQA document could be for something completely different. It could be for it could be very old. It could have predated a b 52 consultation. So when we do these CEQA exemptions, we're basically saying we're not even gonna take a look if there's going to be any type of impact.
And, again, this has implications for sensitive resources and cultural resources. And we actually don't think what we're asking for really would slow down projects because, again, as the PUC looked at it, they didn't see that this was an issue. And, also, when somebody member Wickes did her permit streamlining report, was not identified CEQA exemptions were not identified as a way of of doing faster projects. So we believe the bill will need further amendments, and we really hope to work with author to try and this well I guess there's not sponsors but to work with the author and others to try to narrow the bill and make it a little more refined. Again we do appreciate the amendments that were offered and taken and all of the work that went into this bill We'll look forward to continuing to work as the bill moves through the process.
Speaker 33
Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Jacob Evans with Sierra California here on behalf for over half a million members and supporters in California. I want to begin with a strong thank you to the chair and the author for the direction the amendments taken today move the bill. The area of California was deeply concerned with the environmental harmful impacts that the fair argument piece in the bill would have had and we're glad to see it taken out. While the bill is in a much different state after these very recent changes, we need to review the amended language before reconsidering our opposition.
Speaker 56
We will likely have concerns about expanding existing rights of ways for transmission projects and leaving sensitive areas like habitat conservation plans and natural community conservation plans and other conservation lands with less protection. While narrowed, expanding the footprint of a right of way by up to 10% could still create significant impacts on sensitive lands depending on the size of the existing right of way. Furthermore, habitat conservation lands and natural community conservation plans typically identify areas for protection based on existing assumptions about development that will impact them. This exemption could upset those existing assumptions and expose protected species and habitats to harm. It could also upset conservation easements depending on how they were drafted since they would not have taken into account the impacts of this exemption could create.
We look forward to continuing conversations with to address this nuance with the author. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to express opposition? Please come forward. State your name, position, or your name, organization, and position on the bill.
Speaker 5
Thank you. Gabriel Tolson with the Planning and Conservation League. We thank the chair and author for the positive movement on this bill and look forward to working with the author on the provisions concerning, reconducting, and transmission projects. And we will reevaluate our position once final amendments are in print. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. So from here on name, organization you represent, and position on the bill only.
Speaker 51
Thank Thank you, chair. Peter Ansell, California Farm Bureau. Still opposed unless amended.
Speaker 46
Good afternoon, chair members. Martin Vindiola, on behalf of the coalition of California utility employees and the California State Association of Electrical Workers. Just really quick, we are opposed to the bill in print, but we are looking at the amendments. Thank you.
Speaker 34
Good morning. Christina Scrincher, the Center for Biological Diversity. We remain opposed but are in line with the statements by the oppose witnesses.
Speaker 25
Alex Loomer on behalf of the California Coast Protection Network, the California Native Plant Society, Resource Renewal Institute, Green Foothills, aligning our comments with the opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 33
Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance opposed to the bill in print for reviewing amendments. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Shannon Preciado Vargas from Communities for a Better Environment and we're currently opposed to the bill but we'll be looking at amendments. Thank you.
Speaker 40
Ada Welder with Earth Justice opposed to the bill in print and reviewing amendments. Thankful for the work.
Speaker 32
Asha Sharma on behalf of leadership council for justice and accountability also reviewing amendments were opposed to the bill in print but we really appreciate the direction that the bill is heading and would like to thank the author and the chair. Thank you.
Speaker 24
Judy Yee, State Building Trades. We oppose the bill in print but are looking at the amendments and appreciate the author for taking the amendments and the committee for all the work on it. Thank you.
Speaker 53
Hello. Randy Thomas, business manager, Boilermakers Local five forty nine Pittsburgh, California. Stand with the state building trades in opposition of this bill unless amended.
Speaker 57
Jimmy Holland, business agent local ninety two bullet makers, we are in opposition.
Speaker 50
Gracie Arrozco with the center on race poverty and environment opposed in print but reviewing amendments. Thank you.
Speaker 52
Michael Rincon with Physicians for Social Responsible Los Angeles. We oppose the bill is in print but we are looking at the amendments. Thank you very much.
Speaker 8
Timothy Jeffries, international brother of the bullet makers. We're standing in opposition on this bill as opposed. It's standing with state bill and trades.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. Well, we'll bring it back to the committee, and I'll just start with a few comments.
So I I very much appreciate the author, your patience, and waiting for for me to be here for this. As you could see, this was a a lot of late breaking information and decision making. And the author is a legislative heavyweight, and so I'm sure anybody who has been working with him for the last ten years knows this. And so we were still working on the details up until the last second. So it it was really important that I come back here, and I really apologize for the delay.
So thank you for waiting for me to come back for that. I I wanna recognize that I I think this bill has landed in a really good place. And I you know, to the opposition's concerns, you know, if you want something to be different, you have to do something different. And I guess getting at the point of let's make sure there's environmental review within these sensitive habitats, these various categories of things. But if they're outside of those, then we should be able to do this advanced reconducting without having to go through a burdensome process that is that will add delay and make there's just no question that we need if we are going to be electrifying a lot more in our society, we need to be able to get that electricity around.
So figuring out how to do that faster is something that this committee is focused on, and and I know that the author has been very focused on that and has is a strong believer in the abundance movement and is looking to operationalize that through the legislation that he's introducing. It you know, clean energy projects are just there it's enormously critical for us to transition away from fossil fuels. So we have to figure out how to get those built faster here in California in order to meet our climate and our clean energy goals. I appreciate the author for hearing me out on my concerns about the bill and the approach that would have overturned the fair argument standard for clean energy projects and agreeing to take that portion out of the bill. I think creating a new sequel exemption for advanced reconducting, which basically increases capacity of transmission lines for people who aren't weren't familiar with that term before.
This is a great approach to getting clean energy projects moving faster. There are a lot of benefits of reconducting transmission lines. The reconducted lines are lighter, which means they have less sag and are less likely to brush tree tree tops or other vegetation, and that it also poses a huge fire risk today. So we're reducing our fire risk when we do reconducting. And in addition, by increasing the amount of electricity that can flow through these reconducted lines, advanced reconducting existing transmission lines reduces the need to build new transmission lines.
So that's, of course, would be disturbing more habitat and and would also just be redundant when we don't need it to be. So this saves time, and it keeps more of our lands pristine. Committee amendments do ask for some of the protections for natural spaces, including state and national parks and habitat for protected species, specifying that CECO exemptions for reconducting transmission lines on those sensitive areas should not increase the footprint more than 10%. And I appreciate the suggestion of 10% because I think that's a a good idea and a reality to to this. And also just recognizing that, like, for example, if there was a if there is a transmission line that is a wood pole with with one little line going front to the next wood pole and it becomes a large metal tower, that it would need to go through some environment the environmental review of that.
But if it but if it's already a metal tower and it just is going to have lines that don't sag and are stronger, then it wouldn't have to go through that review. Committee amendments further provide protections for state and national parks, monuments, wilderness, and recreation areas by requiring that the exemption for transmission lines through these areas should only apply if there's been a previous environmental review for those rights of way. And in areas that are outside of that, as the author said, there would not be any requirements. So with these committee amendments, I am I am excited to support s p ten ninety seven. And I think that this bill, if it makes it all the all the way through the process, will be impactful and will be able to actually allow us to deliver more electricity more quickly across the state.
So with that, I'll turn to my committee members. Anybody wishing to make any comments? Senator Allen.
Speaker 43
I want to get a I I I very much very much believe in trying to advance our, Reconducting Agenda. As you were mentioned, it's it's important both from a grid reliability perspective, also fire risk. You know, obviously, we did a lot of this work already with a b two zero five, so I'm trying to get a sense of where this interacts. And I guess what I what I what I what I I agree with much what's in the bill, but I I guess I'm I'm coming down to this concern about what we're allowing to what we're greenlighting in terms of, you know, expansion in these very special places that we've set aside as parks and preserves. And while I understand that you've written in a way that says that we can't that there's a limitation on what is expanded in terms of the ground footprint, you could create a lot more above the air, you know, up in the air footprint, sky print, whatever it is, air print, that really could impact the experience of a visitor or the ecology of these special places.
Speaker 11
Again, I'm only talking about these places that we have set aside as very special parks and preserves. We already have lots of ribbons of highway, freeway running through the desert where we could run these lines. So I'm not trying to jam up the ability of us running these lines through, you know, through the desert. I'm just concerned about these parks and preserves. And so yeah.
Speaker 30
Just to I know you know this, but just to remind everyone, these are existing transmission lines that
Speaker 11
are Totally. But what you'll go and see if you go to the desert, they will show you there are lines that are very low key, that don't take away a lot of the viewscape. And again, I'm not talking about the 10 or the eight, but I'm talking about
Speaker 30
But a transmission line center doesn't We have transmission lines that run through all sorts of different areas, and it's not just like Of course there are transmission lines that probably just run along a highway and that's it. But there are transmission lines that go and if we're gonna say we're gonna make it impossible to use this for this part of the project, but you can use it for that, at some point it just becomes unusable. And so the 10% footprint increase we modeled on, and I know you know this because it's impacted your community so deeply, when your house burns down, you can make it easier for people to just quickly build back, and they can go up to 10% above the footprint. We do that because just the reality of the world. Would hate to have someone lose the ability to have a string length because they go a few inches beyond.
And so we do that in other contexts, and that's where that came here. And it's a very, very small increase just to acknowledge the reality of of how
Speaker 11
Well, me ask the opposition because I because if this is truly just about reconducting so we're not talking about expansion beyond reconducting. Is that right? The the reconducting You're you're not talking about about load capacity expansion beyond beyond the the specifics of the reconducting process. Sure.
Speaker 13
So I I think what we're talking about here, yes, the lines. There may be some ancillary facilities that already exist that may need some internal improvements for those, but those already exist as well too. Right? They may be within the footprint. It's the lines that's the the real challenge in terms of the capacity and capacity restrictions under existing exemptions.
Speaker 18
Go ahead. So I don't think we're concerned about the line replacement. Right? Now, certainly, if you're taking a poll and you're you know, I don't know how big the the right of way is or the project footprint. I mean, that's not terribly defined.
But these projects don't magically occur. There's roads and equipment and lay down facilities. I mean, there there there's actually quite a large footprint associated even with reconducting. And and I just wanna be clear and so when we're talking about doing this within a park or a wilderness area or a monument, you're not just affecting the the line, but there's a lot more that has to do with this. And to be quite honest, I'll be I you know, I have two concerns.
One is that the we for the most part, these reconducting projects probably will have very little impact. And so even if you subject to CEQA, they're probably gonna get a neg deck or or or a notice of exemption. But but to have a bill that now puts into place a CEQA exemption for projects just generally speaking in state parks, national monuments, conservation lands, it sets a precedent. And I think all of us realize that once something shows up in one bill, suddenly, we see it in five more bills the next year. So that is another concern of ours in terms of the precedent.
I you know, again, I we've offered to say that we will work with the author. We're not saying no to a CEQA exemption for reconducting. We're saying that we think it just needs some additional protections because the way it's currently written will have and very possibly have important impacts to parks, wilderness areas, conservation easement lands. And those lands have real value. And I appreciate the comment about climate change, but we wanna make sure these areas are still there when we finally solve climate change and we have habitat left and biodiversity.
So we're trying to balance this all out.
Speaker 20
Thank you. This came in a really perfect time because I finally got to see what these look like in person, not in our state, but in a different country. But I just wanna clarify. I know it's the lines, but sometimes the actual don't know what they're called. Actually, also have to expand to be able to add on the bigger kind of lines.
So to his question of the increase of 2010%. Sorry. You're right. 10%.
Speaker 20
Footprint. That can be expanded in the air because it has to be in the air because the attachments are where I'm not using the right terminology here, but the attachments to it do have to also increase for the thicker kind of transmission lines. So is there a limit on the 10% just on the on the ground, or is there also in in the air as well?
Speaker 30
It's it's about the the rate the physical, like, rate of way that is occupying right now can expand up to 10%.
Speaker 30
I don't have the language. Forget it. It's it's a footprint on the ground. Right. It's a that that's what that's what their foot their footprint on the ground because that's what touches the ground.
Speaker 20
Right. But the the expansions don't happen on the ground, if I'm not mistaken. They happen in the in the air a lot of the times.
Speaker 13
You you may need to increase the strength of your poll that's supporting it. I'm not sure how significantly you would have to increase the strength of the poll. I I'm, you know, maybe some of our friends in the clean energy sector know the weight differential between an existing conductor and an advanced conductor. So happy to continue discussions about that. Not really thinking it will be that significant of an increase, not going from a wood pole or a metal pole to a giant metal transmission facility.
That's not what I think any of us are envisioning.
Speaker 30
I I would never pass myself off as an as a engineer that does advanced reconducting. But as I what I've seen, it's not like all of sudden there are 30 more wires going on there. It's making generally, you may add some wires, but it's generally higher quality, higher capacity wires. So it's not like you're we're gonna now have a 100 wires instead of four wires. Mhmm.
That that's that's my understanding at least.
Speaker 20
And to the opposition, through the chair, if I can ask a a kinda similar question, you you mentioned that this was, like, the most ever given in terms of increased capacity. I think the 10% you said is the most you've ever seen. Or
Speaker 18
No. What I was what I sorry. What I was saying is is that we've done CEQA exemptions, you know, here in the legislature pretty regularly of late, but we have not yet done a CEQA exemption that would say that any type of project could go forward on a state park land, wilderness area, conservation land, etcetera. Those usually those types of lands are usually the the lands that will where you won't get the CEQA exemption. So this is setting a new precedent that is very concerning to me.
I appreciate the amendments that were taken. I appreciate the 10% limit, and I appreciate the preexisting EIR, but those are really not significant. And I appreciate the questions you were asking about the size. Yes. For the most part, most of these reconducting projects probably are not going to be beyond 10% of the footprint on the ground.
But the part that I'm talking about isn't just what's happening up in the air when they're having to put in, like, heavier equipment to hold those lines. It's all the roads and the equipment that has to be brought in and the lay down areas when you bring the equipment and you lay it down. If you're doing this in lands that have been set aside for habitat conservation lands or state parks, those are significant impacts. And it's not clear to me that the way this is written, that it's it appears that those would also be exempted. And so I'm all I'm trying to say is I think we just need to tighten up the CEQA exemption and to give better protections for lands that we have set aside because we believe that they're important for conservation, for public recreation, and for future generations.
Speaker 20
Thank you thank you for that clarification. Senator, I know this was an eleventh hour, negotiation, and I know a lot of work was was put into this on both sides. I'm still also reviewing the amendments as we're having this conversation. We'll be voting the bill out. I will put more we'll get into the details of it after, and we'll come back with you if I have any other questions outside of this committee after.
Speaker 10
Yeah. I would like I have a a question. The opposition mentioned that or I need some clarification. So this would only apply to projects with an existing EIR, meaning that if there's a new project so it it doesn't only apply?
Speaker 30
No. The in certain areas, there has to have been previous environmental review. It doesn't have to be an EIR. It could be a negative declaration.
Speaker 10
Okay. Okay. I'm gonna be supporting this bill. I don't think I talk about our energy crisis quite a bit, and it's not just oil and gas. It's our grid infrastructure.
It's, you know, we are home to AI and tech technology in Silicon Valley, and I don't think people truly understand at the the tipping point that we're we are at. I wish this bill actually did more, but I understand that it's a sensitive topic, And you're doing what you can for our needs now, so I will move the bill when we're ready.
Speaker 1
Yeah. Thank you. And I'll just say that, you know, the idea of completely exempting these categories of state parks and natural lands and habitat conservation areas. The the energy the grid goes across the whole state and it goes through the Anza Borrego Desert and it goes through Yosemite National Park. And so, you know, the to me, it seemed like the right balance to say that if it's been through environmental review in and it's in one of these sensitive areas, then it can have a sequel exemption.
And if it hasn't and it's in a sensitive area, it has to go through environmental review. But, you know, the reality of trying to do something and then exempting large parts of the state and thinking that it's not contiguous, but it's somehow gonna work, I I just think there's a reality to the fact that energy needs the energy grid is everywhere. So so that's why to me this did seem like it struck the right balance. It wasn't as far as the author wanted to go, which was a full exemption sequel exemption, but and it, of course, had a whole second part in the bill. So this is substantially different bill in many ways.
But it's still it's still important, and I think it still does move the needle. So so anyway, I just wanted to explain why it why it was that, to me, this seemed like it worked and that it would be too expansive if we just said that the all of these sensitive areas were just off limits and and that it wouldn't apply at all. I was trying to thread that needle. Did you wanna say something else, senator Allen?
Speaker 11
Just first of all, thank you, madam chair, for your work on this. I I think my my plan right now is to stay off. Though if you're struggling to get the votes, I'd be, you know, open to voting for it with the understanding that we're gonna work out some of these issues that have been raised for these special places. I understand the balance you're trying to strike. I also know it's coming to EUC next if it comes out of committee.
So that's where I am on this. But I'm certainly very interested in making sure we advance the reconducting process statewide.
Speaker 1
Great. Any other comments? Okay. So we have a motion from the vice chair. So please call the roll.
Oh, I'm so sorry. Yes. The author. I turn it to you for close.
Speaker 30
Thank you very thank you very much. I would definitely like the close manager. So, the chair is familiar with this because I have urged this book in our conversations many times, and I encourage people to read. The book Abundance got a lot of attention. At the same time, a book that got overshadowed was called Why Nothing Works.
Why Nothing Works is and I have no financial interest in the book, by the way, on the merits I think it's really important, particularly for our folks in the environmental movement to read this book. Because what this book explains is how progressives started about sixty years ago, strangling our ability to accomplish the progressive goal goals that we profess to want. And that means many things, but energy is one of them. And what we have done is used environmental protection laws to stop the clean energy transition. We have valued process over achieving the results like a rapid expansion of clean energy so that the world stops burning down and getting flooded.
A lot of the work that we do is about how do we the goals that we all want, not all of us, but many of us want, how do we actually get those done in a reasonable way? And that's what this bill is really about. I I understand the frustration with CEQA exemptions. I wanted to say for the record that the reason why this legislature does CEQA exemptions is because we have not actually reformed CEQA itself. Last year in this committee, I wanna profusely thank the chair for working with us last year on an underlying reform of CEQA so that CEQA actually can do what it needs to do without having to just exempt things.
And that bill, after it got out of this committee with the chair's support, thank you again, turned into a list of exemptions, which has caused some other frustrations. And so we do exemptions because this legislature has been incapacitated from actually reforming CEQA, and I hope that that changes at some point. The bill, I think the amendments we're taking, I think, are quite reasonable, and I appreciate the chair and committee staff for working with us. We're happy to of course, we'll work with senator Allen and with with opposition. What I will say, though, is I never pretend that any bill in print that I'm authoring is biblical, that, of course, work on things, improve things.
My concern is what I don't wanna do is is that this gets constricted, constricted, constricted to the point where no one's gonna be able to use it. We should not be producing an exemption that's unusable. And what what sometimes happens in the legislature is it gets so weighed down, so many restrictions, and especially patchwork restrictions, if that's what ends up happening, that it becomes unusable. And then why pass it and say we've done it when it doesn't actually do anything? And so I look forward to working, if it passes out today, with energy committee, with folks in the opposition, but I'm not going to put my name on a bill that just says we're going to make it easier to do advanced reconducting, and it creates an exemption that ends up being unusable.
Our grid is inadequate. The only way to make it adequate is to expand, upgrade it, and as the chair mentioned, advanced reconducting has so many environmental benefits in terms of allowing us to electrify more things and having lines that are that reduce the risk of wildfires. Huge environmental benefits to doing this, and I respectfully ask for your high vote.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. I appreciated what you said in your close. So we have a motion from the vice chair, which is let's see. It's do pass as amended or Do pass.
Do pass to energy utilities and communications. And the amendments will get taken at the next committee.
Speaker 4
Valderas, aye. Allen? Aye. Aye. Gonzalez?
Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado? Menjivar? Aye.
Menjivar, aye.
Speaker 1
Thank you. It's five to zero, and we will keep that on call. And now we're on our last bill in this committee, and that is my bill s b nine five four. And so I'll present it and hand this over to the vice chair.
Speaker 10
Thank you. Again, we're moving to file item number eight s b nine fifty four by senator Blake Spear. Senator, you are recognized when you are ready.
Speaker 1
Thank you. I'm here today to present SB954, which provides thoughtful improvements to the CEQA exemptions passed through the budget act last year in s b one thirty one. I would like to begin by thanking the committee staff for their work on this bill, and and I gladly accept the committee amendments. Last year, the legislature passed senate bill one thirty one through the budget process, and it created over a dozen new CEQA exemptions. Many of these CEQA exemptions are sensible and promote needed development that doesn't harm the environment or jeopardize human health.
However, s p one thirty one created an exemption for advanced manufacturing that is so broad that it covers strip mining, lithium mining, fertilizer manufacturing, and other activities that are known to be especially harmful to the environment. This undercuts California's long proud tradition of protecting the environment and the spirit of CEQUA. And it deserves and it does not build what we want, which is the clean abundant future that Californians deserve. That is why so many senators and assembly members raised concerns about this policy when it was jammed through the legislature at the end of session. In response, senate leadership and the senate budget chair committed to revisiting the definition for advanced manufacturing and adding stronger protections for habitats for sensitive species and tribal resources.
Senator Allen and I wrote a letter last year to senate leadership urging cleanup to move forward expeditiously, and it was signed by a dozen senators, including some of our committee members here today as well as 20 assembly members who all agreed that we need to get this fixed. SB nine fifty four follows through on the promise to clean up SB one thirty one. It starts the conversation that should have happened last year with stakeholders and legislators on where to draw the line with advanced manufacturing. Specifically, s p nine fifty four clarifies the intent of the legislature to refine what advanced manufacturing should be granted a sequel exemption, and it adds important environmental guardrails, including that advanced manufacturing within a thousand feet of a disadvantaged community must go through CEQUA. It provides protections for tribal resources and for workers, including those who work in these advanced manufacturing facilities.
SB nine fifty four also preserves habitat for protected species and closes other loopholes in SB one thirty one. There is still a lot of work to do on SB nine fifty four, particularly in identifying what facilities count as advanced manufacturing. And I look forward to further productive conversations with the opposition who I'm sure will come here today to testify and those who are beyond, not here in this room yet, as this bill continues its way through the legislative process. With me today in support of s b nine fifty four, I have Elmer Lazardi from the Labor Federation and Delia from Communities for a Better Environment.
Speaker 41
Thank you. Omar Lazarda with the California Federation of Labor Unions. First, we wanna thank chair Blake Spear for introducing s b nine five four, especially considering that a public debate on this issue has been deferred ever since the introduction of s b one thirty one from last year. We represent over 2,300,000 workers in the state, including thousands of skilled unionized workers who build, maintain, operate, and labor in the manufacturing facilities in California. Our unions fully support expanding California's manufacturing base, but we must ensure that industry growth is accompanied with protections for workers, communities, and the environment.
SB one thirty one, with its massive exemptions for broadly defined advanced manufacturing projects, eroded labor standards for workers, environmental safeguards, and public accountability in the process. Without any significant cleanup legislation, companies will continue to take advantage of the overly broad definition to skip over the public environmental and community review process to access building permits. The status quo allows companies to deprive workers, unions, and their communities the opportunity to provide necessary input into large industrial projects that are sited in their own yards. And as the chair mentioned, these facilities that we're talking about are, you know, incredibly toxic and dangerous project types. And our workers are the first line of exposure to the carcinogens that are found in these projects.
Speaker 13
Building any large scale industrial facilities without the safeguards traditionally required under CEQA increases exposure to unsafe conditions, accelerates timelines and compromises safety, and removes oversight mechanisms that ensure projects are built correctly the first time. With this in mind, we support SB nine five four as it is a great step towards establishing some state oversight over advanced manufacturing projects while also prioritizing the labor standards such as skilled and trained workforce requirements, prevailing wage standards, high road job standards, community benefits agreements in the bill. We look forward to working with the author and stakeholders on a definition of advanced manufacturing that allows for growth in the state's economy while also investing in safe middle class jobs for workers who are actually propelling that growth and, of course, protecting the communities in which they live. Thank you. Respectfully ask for NYFO.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Delia Ortega on behalf of Communities for a better environment and I am here in support of in concept of s p nine fifty four. For decades, our members have been fighting to reduce pollution and secure healthy livable neighborhoods. We need more investments in clean air and community health, not expanded pathways for new facilities without environmental review community processes or guardrails as someone that grew up in Southeast Delay where we are surrounded by goods movement metal recycling facilities and other industrial uses we are already overburdened by cumulative sources of pollution SB one thirty one created a sweeping exemption for advanced manufacturing which applies to nearly all types of industrial facilities.
Speaker 58
This exemption removes basic environmental and public health protections. In fact, the definition is so broad that it includes highly polluting process like waste incineration, metal processing, and chemical production among more than 70 other categories of heavy industrial uses. Our communities rely on CEQA as a tool for accountability and public participation. Without it, residents lose the ability to understand what is being proposed in their neighborhoods and to advocate for safer alternatives contrary to the narrative that sequel blocks progress we have seen it work I have been working for over ten years on the campaign to reduce the impacts from the proposed 710 Freeway widening sequel helped improve a harmful project that would have worsened air quality that process led to the current iteration which includes an investment plan with over 200 projects that address mobility and public health s b nine five four takes important steps to restore safeguards by limiting the advanced manufacturing exemption to projects that adhere to strong pollution limits, labor standards, and are located safe distances from sensitive communities for projects that use the exemption, and by creating oversight of these projects, These are necessary protections. At the same time, we need to ensure that the final definition of advanced manufacturing is narrowed to a clearly defined set of projects that truly align with state climate and equity goals and do not create significant harm.
We look forward to working with the author to strengthen this bill so that it fully restores the protections and ensures that no project moves forward without centering the people most impacted. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Perfect timing on that. Half a second to spare. We'll now move to the committee room. If anyone would like to express their opposition, please state Oh, support. Not there yet.
Not there yet. Your support. Please step forward, state your name, your organization, and your position.
Speaker 21
Will Breager from Climate Action California in support of the bill, and thank the author for her hard work on this.
Speaker 32
Asha Sharma on behalf of Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability and Physicians for Social Responsibility LA in support. Thanks.
Speaker 18
Kim Delfino on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, Sonoma Land Trust, California Native Plant Society, and Green Foothills in support.
Speaker 22
Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance, SEHA Action, also asked to register support for the Center for Biological Diversity. Thank you.
Speaker 57
Marquis King Mason with NRDC in strong support. Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. Conor Gustin on behalf of Unite here in support. Thank you.
Speaker 35
Michael Jarrod with the Nature Conservancy in support and to thank the author for the habitat provisions.
Speaker 50
Pressi Orozco with the Center on Race, Poverty, and Environment in support. Thank you.
Speaker 40
Ada Baldo with Earth Justice for supporting concept and deeply appreciative to the author.
Speaker 42
Marie Lu in support for Occidental Arts Center, Ecology Center, and Surfrider. Thank you.
Speaker 51
Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Property in support.
Speaker 5
Gabriel Tolson with the Planning Conservation League in support, also registering support on behalf of Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley, Enviva Voters, Save the Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility San Francisco Bay, Indivisible California State Strong. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Alex Lumer on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund, the Pacific Forest Trust, and the Environmental Protection Information Center, the California Coastal Protection Network, Resource Renewal Institute, Restore the Delta, baykeeper friends of the river, environmental action committee of west Marin, and the national parks conservation association all in support. Thank you.
Speaker 45
Judy state billing trains was also asked to register support for united auto workers, and we are supporting concept and align our comments with labor fed.
Speaker 10
We'll now move to any key witnesses in opposition of the bill. Please step forward. You are each recognized for two minutes when you're ready.
Speaker 38
Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. Adam Regley on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in strong opposition. Historically, California has been a bright line for manufacturing, but we're falling behind. Since 2000, California has shed about 600,000 manufacturing jobs, 82,000 since 2024, and these projections indicate losses that will continue. That's the trend line we've seen for the last, more than two decades.
Manufacturing was once a key economic driver for, the California economy, but it's no longer keeping pace. This decline is urgent both from an economic and also from a climate perspective. California has passed some of the most rigorous environmental laws and regulations in the country, and yet we set up an environment, frankly, a CEQA regime that is very litigious, in which year after year, whether it's housing or otherwise, we say CEQUA needs reform. If it's about transparency and getting more information and keeping a cleaner environment, that's one thing. But we are seeing litigation after litigation where projects get held up and manufacturing goes to other states, where they have less clean grids, less environmental regulations, certainly less labor laws and protections, and we shed those jobs and those climate emissions outside of our state, and yet we're a state that could be attracting those.
Speaker 40
And, I think that's really the heart of what SB one thirty one was trying to do is CEQA has been utilized as a weapon for years. And, if you don't get an exemption, there has been really no relief through this legislature to find that balance on how to keep CEQA to its original intent of protection and not being a really a frankly a NIMBY tool to block and otherwise push projects out of the state. And so, we constantly hear CEQA seems to be the end all be all for environment protection when my colleague will speak to, there's a whole environmental regime of laws and regulations at both the state and local level that really help guide land use decisions. And and frankly, I We think the ideas of strip your
Speaker 38
Well, we just Frankly, we respect the author, but we have a strong opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 53
Madam vice chair committee members, my name is Matt Regan. I'm here representing the Bay Area Council and about 400 of the largest employers in Northern California. Wanna begin my remarks by thanking the chair for her office's willingness to work with us and hear our concerns. California has the cleanest energy grid in the country. We have the highest energy efficiency standards.
Speaker 31
We have the cleanest fuel standards in the country. And if our objective here today is really to address the impacts of of climate change, then surely we should be trying to seek as many opportunities to encourage businesses and manufacturing to locate under the umbrella of California's higher standards instead of chasing it out of state. As an example, in December, a Bay Area company, Anthro Energy, that invented a cutting edge, new efficient battery aided by $5,000,000 of California tax payer, rate payer money investment from the energy commission, they announced their first large scale manufacturing facility in Louisville, Kentucky, where 78% of their energy comes from burning coal. That is environmental disaster by any standard in any way you want to measure it. This is just one of many examples of companies that have left California because of the extreme regulatory burden, much of it imposed by CEQA.
Speaker 53
And when they leave, their carbon footprint expands. And that that's on us. Out of state, out of mind, and off our books is not a winning strategy to address global climate change. I also wanna refute some of the erroneous claims that without CEQA, there is no environmental review or analysis of projects. If if Anthro Energy wanted to build their project here, I have seven pages of different permits and authorities they would have to go through and get in order to build their battery factory in California.
Three years at least of permitting. I'll hit the top line. So these are federal, state, regional, and local level permitting. So you're looking at air permits, ATC and PTO, title five, HRA dispersion modeling, storm water permits, construction and industrial, wastewater discharge permits, hazardous waste generator ID and remediation, HMBP, chemical inventory reporting
Speaker 53
I could go on for quite a while, madam vice chair, but you get the idea. Seven pages. Thank you. Urgent on a no vote. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Thank you. We'll now move to the committee room. If you are here in opposition, please come forward. State your name, your organization, and your position.
Speaker 43
Madam Chair, Skylar Wanakon, behalf of California Business Properties Association and NAOP California in regretful opposition.
Speaker 46
Eric Turner on behalf of the California Construction Industrial Materials Association in, respectful opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 57
Dylan Finley on behalf of the California Cement Manufacturers Environmental Coalition
Speaker 19
in opposition. Jacob Brent with the California Retailers Association in respectful opposition.
Speaker 49
Hi. I'm on a tweener position. My name is Ben O'Brien with California Life Sciences. We appreciate the bill. We're just concerned specifically with the bill's definition of advanced manufacturing as drafted.
Speaker 59
We feel like it's a little bit ambiguous and could be used to exempt or to exclude rather clean sustainable advanced manufacturing facilities in the life sciences sector. But we appreciate the opportunity to continue to work with the author and committee staff on this. Thank you.
Speaker 13
John Kennedy with our CRC. We don't have a formal position. We have some serious concerns with some of the provisions, but appreciate the author and committee's willingness to talk about those concerns and work through them. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Just wanna say thank you to the author, and I see my constituent, Delia, here who I'm very, very proud, to see that, you know, continues to fight for Southeast Los Angeles and our labor fed partners because this is what good policy, I believe, looks like, especially when two entities can coexist. You know, you have worker protections in here and uplifting community benefits agreements while also ensuring that, of course, the most pollution burden communities are are uplifted as well. We have Southeast LA, lots of pollution, but, you know, we have kids with asthma. It's a real deal. Health burdens like you wouldn't believe in.
Speaker 60
The the taxpayers are paying all of those for those burdens, those pollution burdens. I know you know this. But but, nonetheless, this is a commitment that we made, from the senate, and you're following through with this. I know you'll continue to work with the opposition on different projects and fine tuning this new CEQA era of advanced manufacturing and what that means and what the the vision looks like from new innovations that would fall into, these categories. So I look forward to working, with you on that, and I know you'll continue to do that work with the best partners, I think, with you.
Thank you.
Speaker 10
Thank you. I'll just wait in here for a second with one question. And I I I coming back to affordability. My constituents sent me here to represent my community because it's too expensive to live in California and because they want good paying jobs. And the reality of my district, which is a working class district, is a lot of those good paying jobs are manufacturing jobs.
And they're jobs that, you know, require a high school degree, not necessarily always a four year degree or an advanced degree. And these are good paying jobs. There's a there's a canning company in my district where an entry level position for somebody straight out of a high school is $70,000 a year. You know, I think I made $4.25 at my first job a few years ago. So I'm I'm coming back to this reality that we're chasing good paying jobs out of working class districts.
But this I understand this is an environmental quality committee. And so if the objective is to reduce emissions, I think we're it some of the policies that we're putting forward, including the spill, are a bit counterproductive, especially when I look at or I'd like rather like to ask, do California factories what do our emissions look like versus states like Nevada, like Utah, like Texas? If if both maybe the
Speaker 53
A recent report by the EPA found that a factory in California emits 33% fewer emissions than the same factory in Nevada, 56% fewer emissions than the same factory in Texas, and 70% fewer emissions than the same factory in Utah. As I said in my comments, we've got the cleanest portfolio, the highest energy efficiency standards. Our factories use less fuel, less energy, cleaner energy. So we should be trying to locate as many here as possible if environmental, you know, challenges are what we're seeking to address here.
Speaker 10
I think California does it better. We do it cleaner, and we need to strike a balance so that we keep those drops here. Because if we're gonna make it harder, more expensive, you know, we all go to from my area, we can drive to Vegas in two hours. Right? Those manufacturing factories are gonna be leaving.
So I just I understand and I appreciate the author's advocacy and all of in reaching California's climate goals and and and holding companies accountable, but I'm trying to balance this affordability crisis we're facing.
Speaker 1
we just also respond to that point Yeah. Absolutely. If you don't Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 41
Yes. Thank you so much, mister chair. Thank you for that question, vice chair. I think on the point about ensuring that we have good paying jobs, like I said, we're not opposed to the expanding of the manufacturing base. Right?
In fact, a lot of our unions are supporting and wanna see that growth because we know that a lot of these good paying jobs are in the manufacturing space. The key part of that, which I was trying to highlight in my testimony, is that a lot of these jobs also expose them to dangers. Right? We need to ensure that the workers are protected on the job, that they're trained to do these jobs, and that ultimately the the full impact of the work that they do is not born on their family because part of the affordability as well is the the health of the workers in these jobs. Right?
They're the ones who are gonna bear the consequences of their exposure to these chemicals. We just wanna ensure that the workers who are being exposed to this have some protections because they're the ones who are the ones who are most exposed to these things. And, of course, like I said, we wanna see these jobs here. We just wanna do it with a balanced approach that is not so broad as is in current with the status quo under currently the one thirty one exemption. So I appreciate it.
Speaker 1
I just wanted to make sure no one else wanted to make any comments. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Great.
Well, I appreciate the engagement on this and recognize that the work is still ongoing with this bill. We clearly, the biggest thing which is the definition of advanced manufacturing is is not yet worked out. But, know, we're trying to strike the right balance and recognize that the the sequel process, the reasons for delay of projects in the state of California isn't always only CEQA. There are all sorts of processes that lead to projects being delayed. And CEQA is unique in that it requires mitigation and it requires public disclosure and involvement of the public in ways that other permits don't.
So if you go get a wastewater permit from the city, you're not you're not involved you're not really involving the public. That's something that's happening at a ministerial at a ministerial level. So so the recognition that CEQUA is important because of these things that it adds, which is particularly mitigation and public disclosure, you know, those are values that we hold. So figuring out how do we how do we balance these values that are important to us while also focusing on getting projects built faster. That that is the art of this.
That that is the goal. And I'm hopeful that we'll be able to work with the opposition and figure out a way to make this as painless as possible. Thank you. And with that, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 10
Thank you. Do you have a motion? Senator Gonzalez moves. The motion is due pass as amended to labor, public employment, and retirement. Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 4
Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Valderas?
Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Dali? No.
Dali? Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Artado?
Aye. Artado, aye. Menjivar? I. Menjivar, I.
Valadares, no. Valadares, no.
Speaker 1
Okay, everybody. We're lifting call on all items. The only item that everybody has voted on is number eight, s b nine five four. But on all other items, we'll be lifting call. So if you have not voted, this is your time to vote.
So, committee consultant, please call the roll on s b nine five eight from senator Weber Pearson. And the motion is due pass to local government.
Speaker 1
is seven to zero, and that bill is out. Next, we have item number two, s b ten seventy five from senator Reyes, and the motion is due passed to local government.
Speaker 4
Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Gonzales?
Aye. Gonzales? Aye. Ortado? Aye.
Ortado? Aye.
Speaker 1
That is five to two and that bill is out. We'll we will skip to number four and go to the consent or actually, we'll do the consent calendar, which just has one item on it, which is s b twelve thirteen from senator Reyes.
Speaker 4
Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Gonzalez?
Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Hurtado? Aye.
Hurtado? Aye. Seven zero?
Speaker 1
It's seven zero, and the consent calendar is out. Next, we'll go to s b ten ninety seven from senator Weiner, and the motion is due passed to energy utilities and communications.
Speaker 1
That's five to zero. It is out. Next, we have SB twelve fifty eight from senator Weiner. The motion is due pass as amended to housing.
Speaker 4
Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Gonzalez?
Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Hurtado?
Speaker 1
That bill is six zero, and it is out. Next, we have item s b thirteen seventy five, item number six from senator Cortezi, and the motion is due pass as amended to transportation.
Speaker 1
That's seven zero. That item is out. Next, we have s b ten sixty four from senator Dow Dolly, and it's item number seven. And the motion is due passed to transportation.
Speaker 4
Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Gonzalez?
Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Ortado? Aye.
Ortado? Aye. Seven zero, and that
Speaker 1
bill is out. Item number eight, s B954 from senator Blakespeare? That one. Oh, okay. That one is finished.
The last one on our agenda today is SB1031 from Senator Blakespeare. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations.
Speaker 1
bill is five two, and that bill is out. Thank you very much, everybody. The Environmental Quality Committee is now adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.