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, you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support? Please come forward to the microphone. Okay.
Not seeing anybody. Anybody in opposition to this bill as a lead witness? Please come forward. Not seeing anybody. Anybody else in the room wanting to express opposition?
Okay. Well, that was easy. Any comments? Vice chair, would you like to make any comments?
Speaker 4
Thank you, madam chair. So I think it's pretty well known that I've been raising the alarm bells on our energy crisis right now. As we look in my district, we're seeing $7 a gallon for gasoline. And a lot of that is coming from our unrealistic climate goals. And I've always said that we cannot the scarcity model that we've been using to try and reach these climate goals is not working, and it's making power more expensive.
I've been saying we need an all hands on deck approach to our energy needs in California, whether it is hydrogen, whether it is nuclear, whether it is fuse fusion. I love this bill because in order to get anywhere close to our climate goals, this is an important factor. Can you just explain to me a little bit, or is it a request within the strategic plan to make sure that when we're pursuing fusion that it's not over regulated to the point where it doesn't make sense to develop it here?
Speaker 47
Sure. Yeah. This is the private sector speaking here. So so the goal, Senator, is to make sure that first we have to have a plan to figure out where we're going. We did this similar for offshore wind, and now we're at a point where offshore wind is beginning to take off, at least in California.
Speaker 3
So at some point, there will be some efforts to try and streamline regulations. We can't do that. We can't put the cart before the horse, so to speak. We've tried to do that, but we know that we have to take baby steps. So at some point, we will need to have some streamlined regulations to deal with it.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. I I want to commend the author for his leadership on fusion. This is one of several efforts that he has made in this space, I appreciate that commitment. California is a leader in fusion technology.
One third of all US based fusion companies are in the state and I was also aware of the one that moved to New Mexico. That was actually, as you may recall, we passed a large, CEQA exemption at the end of last year as part of the budget process. And there were two projects that used that CEQA exemption applied for it. One of them was the fusion project, but then it ended up leaving the state even though it got the exemption. So it is that is interesting to note- at SB nine twenty five tasks the energy commission with creating a strategic road map for the future of the industry.
Which is really important to start to start the process as- your principal witness said. And I am a coauthor on this bill and I'm proud to support it. And with that, I'll turn it back to you to close.
Speaker 2
Well, thank you. I see a tremendous potential for fusion. I think it's going to create the jobs both with the actual production of energy but with the supply chain, manufacturing parts. I think we can build up a tremendous economic sector with employment, good paying jobs, etcetera. So, with that, Osfer and I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. When we get a quorum, we will proceed to that step. Thank you. Thank you. I'm happy to see another author come in.
Excellent. Senator Cabaldon, that's you if you're ready.
Speaker 1
Oh, okay. Sorry. McNerney has a third one actually. Yeah. So so you can go next, Senator McNerney.
Oh, you're moving back? Okay. Yeah. Hello welcome. Okay so now we are on to item number seven which is SB thirteen fifty from senator McNerney and you're welcome to begin when ready.
Speaker 2
I think the the chair for allowing me to move on this bill this morning. SB thirteen ten expanding green hydrogen for someone to notice that I'm accepting the committee amendments and I thank the chair and the staff for working with my staff, with me. California is committed to reaching 100% clean energy by 2045 which will improve our air quality and public health. But the development of clean energy industry in California is under a threat. The federal government has canceled tax credits for solar and wind projects and canceled $1,200,000,000 in funding for California's proposed hydrogen hub.
Speaker 22
Clean hydrogen is made from renewable sources and a clean and safe fuel is a clean and safe fuel source that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Clean hydrogen can be used to transition existing power infrastructure into clean energy infrastructure. SB thirteen fifty will help California utilize clean hydrogen to decarbonize the power system. SB thirteen fifty stimulates investments in clean hydrogen projects by allowing power plants to get renewable portfolio standard credit when they use green hydrogen to power turbines. By incentivizing in state clean hydrogen projects, we also we are also creating thousands of jobs one hydrogen production project alone in Lancaster California the name of that company is element is creating 1,200 construction jobs.
Speaker 2
With us today is Janice Lynn from the Clean Hydrogen Coalition and Jeremy Smith from the State Building and Construction States Council. And I ask the, the chair to recognize my witnesses.
Speaker 6
Thank you, senator. I just wanted to point out that there's a letter going around. We had a third technical witness who couldn't be here in person, and these are his comments. And I'm happy to take questions on that separately. Chair Blakespeare and members, my name is Janice Lin, and I'm the founder of the Green Hydrogen Coalition.
We're an educational nonprofit focused on the thoughtful advancement of renewable hydrogen to achieve economy wide decarbonization. I'd like to start by thanking the chair and committee staff for working with the author's office and the GHC this week on amendments. Members, renewable hydrogen is a carbon free fuel that can be produced in large quantities and used to ensure reliability in our power sector. As you are all aware, energy reliability is the foundation of our economy. As we're now facing severe energy price volatility, there
Speaker 6
a need for fuel diversification. Renewable hydrogen can help with those emergency reserves when the choice is an outage or burning diesel. It's already informally defined in the guidebook and eligible when used with linear generators and fuel cells. So SB thirteen fifty is the logical extension that puts renewable hydrogen on the same footing as other renewables in the guidebook. To be clear, nothing about thirteen fifty mandates or requires its utilization.
Speaker 37
Instead, it provides another opportunity for load serving entities to meet their carbon goals using existing infrastructure. And that means we can achieve our clean energy goals affordably. Any use of renewable hydrogen and turbines will still be held to the same stringent standards that restrict emissions from power plants today. Our air quality management districts will not permit any power plant that doesn't meet its world class emission standards. And finally, thirteen fifty is so essential now because the power sector is one of the few sectors that can utilize a lot of hydrogen near term.
Speaker 6
And this level of demand will encourage the development of larger production facilities, driving down costs and enabling faster conversion in other hard to beat sectors such as long haul heavy duty trucking, shipping, aviation, and fertilizer. Producing renewable hydrogen from local resources will also diversify our energy supply and enhance our energy security. This is good for our economy, our environment, and our health. I respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Madam Chair. Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, proudly, supporting Bill today. First, I'd like to thank you, Madam Chair, your staff Heather. I'm sure other folks on the committee staff, in the committee staff also help in this space. We were negotiating on this for a long time, last week or so, and we appreciate the long hours and the discussions that went into that.
I'm not going to I can't hold a candle to the previous speaker in terms of technical conversations about hydrogen and molecules and what this means for that industry. I will say, though, that I'm here for the workers who are going to build these projects. It's important for this committee to understand as we run around this capital and are in different committees talking about our traditional jobs and the traditional oil and gas sector and the traditional energy sector, that we're building things like this too. Our members, are gonna help us and help help the state meet its goals, its stringent, greenhouse gas emission goals, over the next couple decades. So, we're pleased today that this bill is moving.
It's important to note that there's a federal tax credit that one of the projects envisioned by this bill will be able to utilize as this bill continues to move
Speaker 33
a faster way than other bills right now. So, it's important that we hold on to that. This is a very large project. The previous speaker talked about the over 1,000 construction jobs but there's also many more maintenance jobs when this facility breaks ground. So, we're pleased today, for the hard work that everybody, put on this bill.
Speaker 8
We're going to keep it moving forward, with your direction, Senator, and, and make sure that we can build this project. We hold on to those tax credits, and we put some people to work in an area of the state that desperately needs it. For those reasons, we're happy to support with your dry vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Jeremy. Anyone else in the room wishing to express support, please come forward to the microphone. State your name, the organization you represent, and your position on the bill.
Speaker 10
Good morning. Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association in support.
Speaker 11
Morning. Lizzie Guanzona here on behalf of the Western Propane Gas Association in support.
Speaker 12
Good morning. Kate Eager with Vitamin Group on behalf of Air Products in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 13
Good morning. Anthony Samson on behalf of the Southern California Public Power Authority in support.
Speaker 15
Good morning. Tim Cammer on behalf of GeoKilm, GHC, and Yosemite Clean Energy in support.
Speaker 1
Okay. Anybody else in support? No? Okay. Opposition witnesses are welcome to come forward.
Thank you for making room. You are recognized. To begin when ready, two minutes each.
Speaker 16
Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Matt Friedman here on behalf of the Utility Reform Network. We have an oppose unless amended position on SB thirteen fifty. The current bill, as amended by Senate Energy, does not address the concerns that we raised in our letter.
In recent years, the legislature has devoted significant effort into exploring a definition of renewable hydrogen and establishing best practices for renewable hydrogen production facilities located within the state. The version of this bill in print does not address the concerns that were raised in recent years, and it could allow a massive expansion of hydrogen under the state's renewable portfolio standard program that doesn't include adequate protections against green washing, resource shuffling, and increased emissions across the West. SB thirteen fifty would codify the existing definition of renewable hydrogen adopted by the California Energy Commission, but it would require the energy commission to allow gas turbines that burn hydrogen under this definition receive credit under the Renewable Portfolio Standard Program. The definition is not adequate from our perspective because it fails to address many of the critical issues relating to additionality of clean energy supply, hourly matching, prohibiting reliance on tradable attributes, and other topics that have come up before this legislature. So to ensure that renewable hydrogen produces incremental environmental benefits, we need to see a requirement that renewable hydrogen produced via electrolysis relies on newly developed renewable generating resources to prevent resource shuffling.
Now we know the committee amendments have a language that would prohibit or at least ask the agencies to explore the issue of resource shuffling. My understanding is that that amendment would direct the Air Resources Board to perform that analysis, while the Energy Commission would be in charge of the definition. Splitting that function between two agencies doesn't make sense from our perspective. We're honestly not confident that the Air Resources Board will take a hard look at this. We think the Energy Commission is the better home for this analysis.
Speaker 61
And it also doesn't really get at the core issue of requiring incremental renewable generation to be built to serve hydrogen production needs. Now the proposed facility in Lancaster for example would be building new renewable generation behind the meter. It would satisfy even the strictest definition that we could come up with. But we worry that there are many permutations under which facilities would, be able to generate electricity using reshuffled electricity from other parts of the West. For example, in Arizona state regulators just eliminated their renewable energy standards for their utilities.
Speaker 16
Those utilities would be motivated to simply resell their existing renewable energy supplies into California, perhaps for hydrogen production. They would backfill by buying coal and gas on the market. The net impact of that transaction is more coal and gas. We think that that needs to be addressed with specificity. We do appreciate the prohibition on the use of tradable attributes that is in the committee analysis.
We think that that is a significant improvement. And with that, we would hope to be able to work with the author and work with the committee as this bill moves forward. But we are not satisfied with the amendments in the analysis to the extent that we understand them correctly. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Thank you so much Madam Chair, Mark Fenstermaker for Earthjustice, we are here in opposition. First, I want to acknowledge to the author our tardiness with the position. Missed the energy hearing last week having this position. Also, I want to acknowledge that we met with the author staff, had a good conversation there, and can look forward to continuing those conversations. Earthjustice, we've been in this committee before, advocating for the three pillars for many of the reasons that Mr.
Friedman from Tern just laid out. We want to ensure that we get the climate and environmental benefits that the proponents of hydrogen often tout. What we often hear from the hydrogen proponents when it comes to transportation is that there are no emissions when when the transportation the fuel is used. But that's not the case here with this bill because we are talking about combustion. In a gas turbine.
And that creates a fundamental problem for us and that it will increase NOx emissions. And NOx emissions of course have severe human health impacts for many of our most disadvantaged communities. So what we find is that when you blend hydrogen with gas, we're gonna continue to have these facilities ongoing. We're gonna continue going to continue to have these NOx emissions. Even when you have a high blend, say a fifty fifty blend, studies are showing that NOx emissions may actually increase under those scenarios.
Speaker 54
So this is not necessarily going to realize and better air quality. We appreciate the proposed amendment coming out of this committee that would direct the bill to produce reduce NOx emissions across the electrical sector, but we're going to need to better understand how that is going to work. We really look forward to more conversations with the author in the author's office, but for these reasons we must stay opposed. We want to ensure that our power sector is moving towards a situation where we are reducing emissions across the board, improving human health. I think most importantly this isn't our renewable portfolio standard.
Speaker 1
Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to express opposition, please come forward, state your name, the organization you represent, and your position on the bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Okay. We'll bring it back to the committee now. I appreciate senator McNerney's willingness to work with the committee to put in more guardrails on how hydrogen could be produced and used for making clean electricity. Well it doesn't go far enough for the opposition it it is- it had it is a movement that's happened- in the negotiations over this bill.
And we know that this is a complex and evolving issue And I want to see good projects like the Lancaster Clean Energy Center succeed and take advantage of the substantial tax credits available. We also don't wanna open the flood gates to every gas power plant in the state, suddenly putting a little hydrogen into their product and then calling it clean. I think the amendments the author has agreed to in the energy committee and also in the EQ committee help prevent some of these worst outcomes. With the commitment to have no resource shuffling, no unbundled RECs, and no increased air pollutants or GHGs, I am comfortable supporting this bill today. That said, I encourage the author to continue working with the opposition moving forward to see if there's any room for future improvements.
Any other comments? Vice chair.
Speaker 4
First of all, again, wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward. In the Antelope Valley, we just don't talk about renewable energy, we built it. Evident of the city of Lancaster naming itself the first hydrogen city in the world. We've also learned though that the hard way that energy isn't enough if it's not reliable. And I think that this bill moves us closer to reality.
And if we're going to call something renewable, it should also help keep the lights on, not just check a box. And expanding this definition, done right, means more in state production, more jobs, and it also reduce it creates a more reliable energy grid and reduces the cost of energy, which every family in California is asking for right now. I would, one, love to be a co co author and wanna clarify that the amendments, I think, are pretty clear, this is my understanding, that the use of hydrogen shall result in a net decrease of air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions from the electrical sector. Pretty simple. Is that would you like to elaborate on that?
Speaker 2
Yes. We did accept that amendment. It will reduce emissions. First of all, hydrogen has no carbon emissions whatsoever. So when you add it to gas you're going to have fewer carbon, less carbon but the NOx question needs
Speaker 2
be answered and it's clear from the amendment that this application has to reduce emissions as well. So I think we're on the right path. It's not perfect at this point but and it'll also help transition the natural gas industry to clean as well. So, I think there's a lot of pluses here. Again, we're not perfect and we are committed to working with the opposition.
Speaker 4
Yeah. I think that this, you know, is is striking the balance that we need here in California. What we office often find in the energy sector is leakage. Right? So, we're trying to reduce emissions, but we're not actually reducing demand or making energy cheaper.
So, what happens is our jobs are outsourced and our energy is imported. So, I think this is a wonderful bill. Again, would be happy to be a co author if you'd have me.
Speaker 1
Okay, thank you. Well, with that we don't have anybody else here, so we will vote when we have the opportunity to have a quorum. Thank you, Senator McTurney, and thank you to the lead witnesses. Okay. Next.
I see senator Grayson here. He is item number nine, SB eleven forty five. And you're welcome to come to the podium with your witnesses. And you are recognized to begin when ready.
Speaker 21
Thank you, madam chair and committee members. I am pleased to present SB eleven forty five, which will provide specified streamlining procedures under the California Environmental Quality Act, we know as CEQA, and the federal base closure, and realignment disposition process for qualifying projects within the area of the Concord Reuse Project Area Plan. Before I begin and get in-depth in testimony, I do want to accept the committee amendments and express my deep, deep thanks to the chair, great leadership, and to committee staff consultant, extraordinary work. Thank you so very, very much for your help, on this incredibly important district bill. SB eleven forty five is a district bill that will support the implementation of a long planned transit oriented development on the site of the former Concord Naval Weapon Station with housing, job creating facilities, open space, and environmental improvements.
The Concord Reuse Project Area Plan anticipates no fewer than 10,000 housing units with 25% of units affordable to lower income households, up to 6,100,000 square feet of commercial building space, community facilities such as school sites, neighborhood parks, and sports facilities, as well as approximately 2,500 acres of open space. SB eleven forty five will help bring this long anticipated and much needed project, which also has the potential to create years worth of construction and construction related jobs closer to reality. Now I think it's important to provide some context, you will, for the bill. In 2005, the United States Navy identified approximately 4,972 acres of the former inland land, inland area of the Concord Naval Weapon Station as surplus to the needs of the federal government in accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990. To put the size of this project into perspective for committee, Capitol Park here in Sacramento is 40 acres in size.
This project will be the size of over 100 of these capital parks. The city of Concord is the local reuse authority for the base closure process. The LRA has executed legally binding agreements approved by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide four sites totaling 16 acres for primarily supportive housing and 10 acres for local food bank expansion within the former Concord Naval Weapon Station.
Speaker 62
The Navy intends to convey through an economic development conveyance approximately 2,350 acres of the former Naval Weapon Station to the city as the designated local reuse authority for disposition to developers for redevelopment for the purpose of short and long term generation job generation. In 2010, after a multi year process with substantial public input, the city certified the environmental impact report, the EIR, under CEQA and adopted the Concord Naval Weapon Station Reuse Plan. In 2012, the city adopted the addendum to the EIR and approved the area plan incorporating the reuse plans policies and goals into the city's general plan and establishing a land use plan that would transform former naval weapon station storage facilities into a mixed use transit oriented and sustainable community. The Navy completed National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA Environmental Review, for the disposal and reuse based on the area plan and issued a record of decision in 2017. Although redevelopment of the Concorde Neve Web Station has undergone nearly two decades of land use planning and substantial environmental review under both CEQA and NEPA as well as the federal base closure and realignment disposition process implementation of the area plan will require multiple future discretionary development approvals over many years.
Speaker 21
Without procedural streamlining, the risk of serial CEQA litigation and administrative record delays will create uncertainty and undermines the timely delivery of housing, jobs, infrastructure, and planned environmental and economic benefits to the city of Concord and for the East Bay Region. SB eleven forty five will facilitate implementation of the area plan by leveraging the federal base closure and realignment disposition process along with extensive CEQA and NEPA review already completed for the Concord Naval Web of Station for qualifying projects that, among other things, maintain 25% affordability and have labor agreements. This all falls within the primary development parameters already analyzed in those documents. To close, SB eleven forty five does not exempt qualifying Concord Naval Web Station projects from review or oversight. It leverages review and oversight already completed for Concord Naval Weapon Station.
So this bill is supported by the City Of Concord as well as Concord, Contra Costa County along with the Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council, the District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California and Vicinity, and the Sheet Metal Workers Local Union one zero four. So with me today through the chair, I do have a witness all allowed to self introduce.
Speaker 38
My name is Guy Bjerke, and I'm the director of economic development and base reuse for the city of Concord. And I'd like to thank the senator as well as the committee and staff for working hard on this piece of legislation. The senator was my former mayor. In 2010, I was mayor when we passed the reuse plan. I've been working on this project as staff for the last eleven years, trying to get the various parallel paths to line up and reach nirvana, which is entitlement in the creation of jobs and community benefits.
Speaker 22
It is a 5,000 acre project, the inland portion of the base. We have been working on it as a community for over twenty years, as the senator talks about. There are 12,000 housing units in area plan, 25% of which are slated to be affordable. We also, as was reported out, have four four acre parcels, 16 acres, for the provision of permanent supportive housing for the homeless community under legally binding agreements with the Navy and HUD. We also have planned, because the Navy wants our economic development conveyance, to demonstrate job attraction and job recreation based on the jobs lost when the base was closed.
We have roughly 6,000,000 square feet of commercial uses of all types to generate jobs. This project will generate jobs. It will generate tens of thousands of construction related jobs as well as tens of thousands of permanent jobs at completion, which is set over a thirty year course of time. The project master developer has a PLA with both the building trades and the carpenters in order to ensure that job training and the work that is done on the base, both horizontal and vertical, is set to high standards. The most important aspect of it perhaps for the environmental quality community committee, excuse me, is the 2,600 acres of the 5,000 acres that has been already transferred to the East Bay Regional Park District as a regional park and as a conservation area where we have and will be improving breeding and habitat for the California red legged frog and the California tiger salamander.
So that is already underway but needs the project to help fund its long term success. The other thing the project does is expand and widen, and improve and restore Mount Diablo Creek through the length of the project. So we will not only be improving the creek, improving storm water drainage, but also providing a pedestrian and bike path along that.
Speaker 1
Mayor, I appreciate your testimony. You're far over time, so we're gonna have to cut you off now. Thank you for your testimony. Do you have a second lead witness? No.
Okay. If there's anyone else anyone else in the room wishing to express support, please come forward. State your name, the organization you represent, and your position.
Speaker 13
Good morning. Greg Hayes here on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support of this great job investment bill. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Jeff Neal representing the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors also in support.
Speaker 3
How are you guys doing this morning? My name is Francisco. I'm with the Iron Workers Local three seventy eight and we're in full support.
Speaker 23
Hello. My name is Andres Yanes. I'm with the Ironworkers three seventy eight.
Speaker 3
Hello. My name is Christian. I'm with the Ironworkers three seventy eight. I support.
Speaker 20
Good morning. My name is Juan Luis Olivo. I'm from local three seventy eight. We're in full support.
Speaker 3
Good morning. My name is David Malai. I'm a journeyman of three seventy eight iron workers and I give my support.
Speaker 24
Good morning chair and committee. My name is Rachel Shoemake. I represent over 1,300 electricians in Contra Costa County and we're in big support. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Good morning. Derek Cole with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and we are in support. Thank you.
Speaker 13
Good morning, madam chair and members of the committee. My name is Aurelio Ochoa, and I'm here representing the heat and frost insulators local sixteen, and we're in a strong support. Thank you. Morning. Eric Haines representing Sheet Metal Workers local one zero four in support.
Speaker 3
Good morning. Nick Goodwin, business manager, Plumbers Team Fiddlers Local one five nine, I support.
Speaker 25
Good morning. Jason Lester, business agent, local one five nine Plover Steamfitters representing over 500 members. Strong support. Thanks.
Speaker 26
Good morning. Anthony Croce. I represent operating engineers and we're in full support. Thank you.
Speaker 3
Good morning. I'm Jaime Gonzalez. I I represent the operating engineers and we're in full support.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Thank you for taking your time to come and express your support. I appreciate the effort it takes to get here. Next, we will move to opposition witnesses. Do we have anybody in the room wishing to express opposition?
Okay. If you'd like to come forward and express opposition to the microphone, you're welcome to do so.
Speaker 32
Morning. JT Herichmak, the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California. We have concerns with the guarantees of affordable housing in the bill as it is, but as a housing organization we do support the CEQA exemption, to ensure the success of the project.
Speaker 1
Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to express opposition to this bill? Looks like no. Let's see. Raise your hand if you're coming in and you want to.
No. Okay. Alright. Well, we'll bring it back to the committee, which is me. I have no other members here, unfortunately.
Speaker 36
But I do appreciate, the tremendous effort that the two mayors, you and the mayor who testified, have put into this along with many other people. This bill seeks to streamline environmental review for a very important development near Concorde in Concorde that is taking areas that used to be a naval base and turning it into a whole new community. That will include more than 3,000 low income units, more than 800 acres of developed parks and trails as the author said. Acquiring this land and turning it into a community will also provide critical housing for East Bay residents and a whole new hub with commercial light industrial so people can live and work and play all together. Retaining environmental review in this process is important, but it's also important to acknowledge that this project has undergone environmental review already.
Speaker 1
So, we know what natural resources are in the area through existing EIRs. It's also important to realize that the current developer for the project is the third developer. The earlier to backed out because this is a significant investment and there's also significant risk. All also the timeline is very long. Ultimately I think with this bill we have threaded the needle with committee amendments to add environmental streamlining that can build in certainty for this project while also retaining important environmental review for any projects in the area that deviate from the existing planning documents that have under review.
Specifically the committee amendment say that if a project sticks to the initial planning documents then those future projects are CEQA exempt. Only if projects add new land use types or change where that land use is located. So, example, if a proposed housing development that was near a creek is now moved adjacent to a freeway, then sequel would be triggered. But if that doesn't happen, then it wouldn't be. I wanna thank the author for working so diligently with us on finding a middle ground for this proposal.
And I'm enthusiastic about supporting it. So with that, I'll turn it to, senator Allen if you wanted to make any comments on this bill. And if not, we'll turn it back to the author to close. Would you like to?
Speaker 7
I've been asked to go to to rev and tax, I I, but I supported and I moved the bill when appropriate.
Speaker 1
Okay. Great. We're on SB eleven forty five, and we'll turn it back to you, senator Grayson, for close.
Speaker 21
Thank you, madam chair, and just thank you for your leadership. Thank you to the committee staff for incredible work and, looking forward to this bill turning in coming to fruition and turning into reality for the East Bay Region. So thank you very much. I respectfully ask for an I vote at the appropriate time.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. Will do. And next, I see in the room senator Cabaldon. I appreciate the authors coming to the room and being ready.
This is item number 15, which is s b thirteen forty one. And you are recognized to begin when ready.
Speaker 28
Thank you, madam chair. I want to begin by accepting the committee amendments and comments three, four, and five. And thank the chair and the committee for working so, so hard to develop them. Look, the the SB thirteen forty one provides CalRecycle with the statutory authority to reduce the processing fees for wine or spirits bag in a box beverage containers when the department determines that the forecasted fee collections will substantially exceed the amount that is needed for the corresponding payments for recycling centers. This bill comes about because these container types were added to the recycling program two years ago.
We didn't have any data, and so an interim fee level was set up until January 1. In December, CalRecycle announced their new fee, it's about 5000% higher than the interim fee. So the timing is insufficient for the industry to respond. Obviously, it's a significant cost driver. And as the chair of the select committee on wine, I'm here to try to assure that that we don't that the market for for wine and for wine in a box doesn't take such an incredible hit.
At the same time, it's absolutely critical that we don't create perverse incentives in the recycling market. And the reason why the revenues from the fee are so much higher than they need to be is because there's not enough, nearly enough recycling happening to pay for. So we don't want to create a system either where you're where you have an incentive to not have the have the products recycled and therefore you don't need to have as high of a fee. So that's the the balance that we're trying to achieve here. The bill does not end does not attempt to the amendments, does not attempt to to resolve that balance, but simply to give CalRecycle the the discretion and the tools and the guidance it needs in order to to set that that that over time because we're absolutely committed to both affordability, but also to an effective recycling market for this product.
Again, that will not happen without sufficient revenues as well. So again, that's what the amendments are intended to do. We agree. I I I share every objection to the bill that the opposition had had, And I think the committee amendments, go a long way towards resolving those. And with that, I would ask for an aye vote and and like to introduce our witness in support, Tim from the wine Tim Schmelzer with the wine institute.
Speaker 39
Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, and ghost members, I guess. Yeah, December year was a tough day for me. When a notice comes out and you find out that your members are facing a 5000% increase with two weeks to prepare for. That was a difficult situation.
Speaker 29
Since that time, we immediately engaged the department and other stakeholders in a way to kind of resolve this problem of an incredibly high fee but also recognizing that work needs to be done to improve the recycling of these products. We've been happy to learn that the manufacturer of the bag and box products is coming out with a more recyclable. Pouch that's being tested in the market right now. So, there is real progress out there towards recyclability. We have been looking at, I've been learning more about how the processing fee is calculated than I'd ever hoped to, but that's the joy of having one of your products in the bottle bill.
So, we're also trying to find the most elegant solutions we can to strike a balance here. And also, not have to take on a huge, unnecessarily high fee. I want to really give a shout out to the committee staff who's been great to work with. We've met several times and just appreciate all that work. Also, and if you hear from any opposition, promise you these are people we are working with to find a soft landing for this issue.
Thanks. And I encourage your support.
Speaker 1
Okay. Well, thank you so much. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support? Now is the moment. Come forward.
Express your name, position on the bill.
Speaker 12
Hi. Kate Eager with Weidmann Group on behalf of Tetra Pak in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. Now opposition witness, you're welcome to come forward. He wishes he didn't have to do this, but he does.
Speaker 50
I I wasn't planning to, to be honest. Mike Robes in here on behalf of the Glass Packaging Institute. I I was I came over here this morning to just simply watch the bill, to be honest. But the and you know I saw the analysis this morning or when actually when I walked in the room. And so the suggested amendments are actually what we pose so and now they're in the bill.
Speaker 30
So we understand the shock the wine industry had when the processing fee went up, but that happened because there was an art, the processing fee set originally for bag in box was arbitrary and the amendments in the bill allow CalRecycle the discretion to go as low as the original arbitrary number that they set and so we don't support that. You know the processing fee has to have some relevance to the cost of recycling And I heard some words also you know just about discretion to CalRecycle and you know giving them the authority and based on some forecasting and I just wanted people to know that over the years of this program Power Cycle doesn't have a really good track record on forecasting revenues. And and and, you know, there were, you know, if you go back in time, you'll find that there was a state audit report about that and and, you know, that the fund, you know, was technically insolvent for a few years because of forecasting problems. So I just don't the the beauty of the bottle bill and and and I'm a defender of the bottle bill, the is is is that the legislature has their thumb on calorie cycle and and and and you should continue to keep your thumb on calorie cycle.
You not not give so much discretion to to a state agency to do things that affect people. You you guys are you guys are the better body for that. And then that's kind of a problem with a lot of the other environmental agencies is that you guys that over the years the legislature has given too much discretion to people. So I just, you know, I think the authors got a good intention and we've been talking to the wine institute and we were prepared to just, you know, watch this bill because we thought there's more discussions going on and so we hope those discussions are better than what showed up in the analysis today thanks.
Speaker 1
Okay thank you. Anybody else in the room wishing to express opposition please come forward state your name organization opposition.
Speaker 24
Morning chair, Kayla Robinson with Californians against ways respectfully opposed unless amended. We've had very productive conversations with the author and sponsor. We appreciate the intent of the bill and we want to keep working with you all. No objections with the bill moving forward today. We want to continue continue the dialogue with the intention of what they're trying to achieve.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? No? Not seeing anybody?
Well, I will say that I'm happy to hear from your lead witness that there are easier to recycle alternatives that are being studied. Because that is really where we're trying to go is that there will be innovation and there will be things that are easier to recycle and more successful, less contamination, that kind of thing. So I'm happy to hear that. I I am grateful for the work and I appreciate you trying to help and the industry in your district which is really important and was, hit with two weeks notice apparently. So when we have a quorum, I'll be supporting the bill.
And with that, I'll turn it back to you to close.
Speaker 58
Thank you so much, madam chair. And and also thanks to the California's Against Waste and your staff for both identifying, but but really working to try to figure out a solution. Because what we can't we really can't do is say to consumers, you know, the the the price as and and to the industry. Most of which this the bag of wine in a box is mostly not my district. It's other parts of it's other parts of the state, but that because Caliber Cycle is not great at forecasting or we haven't quite figured it out yet, 5000% increase in two weeks, that's we can't ask the folks to bear that while we figure it out at the state level.
Speaker 28
And so very much appreciate the the efforts here to try to figure out what the path should be, but where that where all paths must lead to to a viable recycling market that's both recyclable and recycled for real. And we're I'm a 100% committed to that. I appreciate the committee's work and your support and ask for an I vote at the appropriate time.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you very much. Next, I see senator Padilla. Thank you for coming. I very much appreciate authors being here in the room.
This is item
Speaker 31
Right thank you very much. Good morning madam chair and members S. G. R. Thirteen urges The United States to secure enforceable measurable commitments to eliminate transboundary sewage at the 2026 US Mexico Canada agreement joint review period.
As you know, for decades, along the California Mexico border have faced ongoing flows of untreated sewage, industrial waste, and storm water from Mexico into the Tijuana River Valley and the New River. These transboundary flows have resulted in beach closers, environmental degradation, economic loss, and serious public health risks for residents in San Diego and Imperial Counties. The rapid industrialization and population growth following the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was later modernized and replaced by USMCA, has placed enormous strain on wastewater infrastructure in Northern Mexico contributing to this crisis. Despite commitments made under USMCA, this agreement has failed to adequately address transboundary pollution with more than 100,000,000,000 gallons of untreated sewage entering The United States over the past five years. This ongoing contamination disproportionately impacts working class border communities and communities of color, raising significant environmental justice concerns.
Speaker 28
Federal efforts and by national agreements have not resolved the crisis or produced enforceable lasting solutions, leaving California border communities exposed to continued environmental and public health risks. The USMCA provides a six year joint review mechanism with the first review scheduled for 07/01/2026 and creates a crucial opportunity to address these long standing gaps in transboundary pollution. This review offers The United States a chance to secure measurable and enforceable commitments to eliminate sewage pollution in the Tijuana River and New River watersheds. Trade agreements must not ignore environmental harm and the USMCA can provide a framework for real enforceable progress on a crisis that has affected California border communities for decades. By leveraging this review period, the federal government can establish clear benchmarks, enforceable timelines, accountability measures that finally address a generations long environmental injustice at our international border.
Speaker 31
We need to use every tool available to help us find relief in a community that lives under constant environmental and public health harm. We need our federal government to hold our neighbor accountable to work in productive partnership to secure a resolution. Joining me today are Mercedes Macias with the Sierra Club and Alejandra Solis with La Corporativ Compecina.
Speaker 19
Thanks all for having me. Mercedes Mecias with Sierra Club. And with me in spirit is Charles Reilly with the San Diego chapter. The Tijuana River Valley Pollution Crisis represents one of the most egregious environmental justice failures on The US Mexico border. And California has a unique and urgent opportunity to leverage the USMCA's environmental provisions as a pressure mechanism to force accountability and remediation.
Sierra Club California, with its 13 chapters and over 500,000 members and supporters, call on California legislator to pass Senate Joint Resolution 13 and ensure that this renegotiation of the USMCA includes binding environmental obligations under Chapter 24, which explicit explicitly prohibit member nations from failing to enforce their own environmental laws and require effective domestic enforcement conditions that Mexico is arguably violating every day, that raw sewage, industrial effluent, and toxic runoff continue pouring across the border into San Diego County. Continued infrastructure failures have highlighted this crisis by allowing millions of gallons of untreated sewage to bypass wastewater infrastructure and get dumped straight into the Pacific Ocean, exposing hundreds of thousands of residents to environmental and public health harm. Researchers in the Tijuana River Valley have now confirmed that once these toxic pollutants are released into the air, these pollutants don't remain confined to the river corridor. They spread. Winds carry hydrogen sulfide, volatile organic compounds, aerosol pathogens, carcinogens, other industrial toxins miles beyond the source, impacting communities throughout San Diego County and far beyond.
Speaker 2
This is not an isolated problem. It is a region wide air quality crisis. By tying its advocacy and political capital to the USMCA framework, California can elevate what has long been treated as a local nuisance into a matter of international trade compliance, compelling federal engagement from Washington in a way that decades of regional complaints have failed to achieve. The matter this matters deeply for California because the pollution has shuttered beaches, sickened residents, devastated the ecosystems of the TJ River National Estuary And Research Reserve, and disproportionately harmed border communities. Using the m the USMCA as leverage also aligns California's environmental diplomacy with its broader identity as a climate and environmental leader, making the case that trade agreements must carry real environmental teeth and that no partner nation should be permitted to externalize its waste crisis across an international boundary while employing the economic benefits of continental free free trade.
Speaker 19
This renegotiation of the USMCA must have at minimum measurable sustained enforceable commitments.
Speaker 19
One more line. The residents of Southern California cannot wait any longer. This is a public health emergency, and we need USMCA to help push a solution for this crisis. Thank you, and this is my first testimony.
Speaker 1
Okay. Well, thank you very much. All right. Do you have a second witness to speak? You have two minutes.
Speaker 30
Good morning, madam chair. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Alejandro Sodiz here on behalf of La Coperativa Campesina in California in strong support of SJR thirteen. Farm worker communities along the California Mexico border are on the front lines of the transparent boundary pollution crisis. In Imperial County, many live and work in close proximity to the New River where they are continuously exposed to untreated sewage, industrial waste, and toxic pollutants.
Speaker 32
These conditions pose serious and ongoing health risks not only in the fields but in their homes and communities. Cross border trade has driven decades of economic growth, yet the necessary environmental infrastructure and enforcement to manage the resulting pollution have lagged behind. This disproportionately affects farm worker families who already experience significant economic and health inequities because their labor requires them to remain in these highly polluted hotspots. SCR 13 represents an important step toward accountability. It calls for enforceable commitments, measurable benchmarks, and clear timelines through the USMCA review process.
The pursuit of economic integration must take into account public health, environmental safeguards, and our workforce. Farm workers are essential to California's economy and food system. This essential workforce deserves clean air, clean water, and safe living and working conditions. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your rifle on SJR 13. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support? Please come forward. Any opposition witnesses?
Opposed? Anybody in the room wishing to express opposition? Okay. Not seeing any. That's, great.
And we'll bring it back to the committee, and I'll just, say a few words, which is I wanna thank the senator for bringing this resolution before the committee. I recognize that this pollution issue has significantly impacted the communities in your district, and you have spoken out and worked tirelessly for years on this along with so many other people in the district, and and basically throughout Southern California and particularly South San Diego. This EQ committee, Environmental Quality Committee held a hearing specifically about the pollution in the Tijuana River Valley and its effects in the district, last fall. And as part of that, I was able to do a tour and see it firsthand, and it was truly appalling. And one of the most important things to recognize is that it's not just running along the ground.
It's also aerosolizing, and people are inhaling it and becoming sick. And there's no way to avoid, of course, breathing in air. It's not like you can avoid going into the the ocean. And so when when it was perceived to just be an ocean problem, it was horrifying. But now when we realize the full scope of it, it really just becomes worse and worse.
So our ability to resolve this here in California we know this goes beyond our borders. Also I very much appreciate your efforts to hold the federal and Mexican governments accountable this request is quite ambitious but considering the severity of the issue and its relationship to trade. Understand why you're taking this approach and I'm very glad to support it today. So thank you again for your leadership working on this. And with that, will turn it back to you.
Speaker 31
Thank you very much, madam chair, and thank you for your leadership in this space. And I would just say, again, that we must take every opportunity, to leverage every tool, at every level to both, elevate this issue and push votes to reach a solution. And with that, I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for coming out from San Diego.
Thank you. Okay. Now we'll move on to the second item from senator Padilla, which is ten thirty three, which is number item three file item three.
Speaker 31
Thank you very much, madam chair. Pleased to present. SB 10, 33 requires manufacturers of protein products test their items for heavy metals and disclose those findings. Over the last few years, there have been an increased demand for protein fortified items has led manufacturers releasing, proliferation and abundance of products. This rapid market expansion has occurred however without regulatory oversight.
Last October, Consumer Reports conducted an independent investigation of multiple protein powders and protein beverages and their results were disturbing and found that several products contained levels of heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium, and lead. The federal level, the FDA does not review dietary supplements for safety or effectiveness and there are not federal limits on the amount of heavy metals and products which are sold to consumer. Without transparency and standards, consumers are left unaware of the potential toxic exposure from these contaminants in their consumable products. Protein supplements contaminated with heavy metals can contribute to serious health environmental outcomes including neurological issues, immune suppression, reproductive harm and other long term health impacts. In order to protect consumers, create transparency in these toxin levels and ensure people are purchasing what they know to be safe products.
This bill requires manufacturers to test those products for heavy metals and disclose those findings. It addresses a growing public health concern, protects Californians from preventable harm, and reinforces the state's commitments to transparency, safety, and responsible product regulation. The bill was amended in the Health Committee to narrow the definition of protein products. I'm happy to continue engaging with opposition and stakeholders to ensure that we have an operational bill. With me today are Ryan Spencer from Environmental Working Group and Caitlin Moore, Research Manager from the Center for Environmental Health.
Speaker 33
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Ryan Spencer on behalf of the Environmental Working Group sponsor of SB ten thirty three. Over the past decade, evidence has shown, evidence has grown showing protein products containing levels of heavy metals high enough to raise serious public health concerns, particularly for teens and frequent users. Protein powders, shakes, and bars are not occasional use products.
Many Californians, not just athletes, incorporate them into their daily routines, sometimes multiple times per day. The pattern of use matters from an environmental health perspective, because even low levels of toxic elements can accumulate over time and create real health risks, particularly for pregnant individuals, adolescents, and those with chronic exposure. It is particularly alarming when you consider even a single scoop of protein powder can push someone past recommended limits for lead, a problem that has grown over the years. A recent consumer reports that the center mentioned showed average lead concentrations higher than those identified in testing conducted fifteen years ago, and fewer products testing below detectable levels. These contaminants do not appear in isolation.
They reflect upstream environmental conditions, soil contamination, water quality, and manufacturing inputs. In that sense, this is not just a consumer issue, but an environmental one. What ends up in these products is, in many cases, a direct reflection of environmental contamination entering the food supply chain. But all is not lost. Safer outcomes are achievable.
Speaker 52
That same Consumer Reports study also identified products containing much lower levels of heavy metals than others, which tells us this is not an unavoidable problem, it's a solvable one. Yet consumers have no way to distinguish between these products and what is best for them. SB ten thirty three corrects that imbalance by introducing a simple but powerful concept, transparency backed by accountability. By requiring manufacturers to routinely test their products and make those results publicly available, the bill does two things. First, it gives consumers the ability to make informed choices based on real data.
Speaker 33
Second, it creates a strong market incentive for companies to improve sourcing and manufacturing practices to remain competitive. We've already seen this model in California work. When disclosure requirements are in place, contamination levels drop. Not because of mandates and formulation, but because transparency drives better behavior. SB ten thirty three is a straightforward, common sense consumer protection measure.
I thank the center for introducing this measure, and on behalf of EWG, I ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 24
the Center for Environmental Health. We are a proud cosponsor of SB ten thirty three and commend Senator Padilla for carrying this bill. When Consumer Reports tested protein powders and shakes, it discovered high levels of lead in more than two thirds of the products, and some products contained cadmium and arsenic. There is no safe level of lead exposure. Exposure to lead can cause cancer, reproductive and developmental issues, and neurological harm.
Speaker 49
Low levels of lead can cause cognitive impairment in children. According to the World Health Organization, long term exposure to arsenic in food can cause cancer and skin lesions. Arsenic has also been associated with cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The CDC says that metallic mercury most commonly affects the nervous system. Exposure can cause tremors and coordination and problems with vision, learning, hearing, memory, and mood.
Speaker 24
Mercury also hinders fetal and child development. Cadmium can cause developmental and reproductive harm. In addition, consuming just one serving a day of some protein products will cause a person to exceed the FDA's recommended daily limit for lead from food. Many people consume more than one serving of a protein product daily and could easily exceed this limit. Remember that heavy metals can accumulate in the body.
With more people increasing their consumption of protein, many are consuming protein products daily. SB ten thirty three will equip consumers with information they need to make informed decisions about their nutrition. I respectfully request your I vote.
Speaker 1
Okay, thank you. Anybody wishing to express support? Name, organization, and physician.
Speaker 11
Lizzie Guanzona, here on behalf of the Center for Science and the Public Interests, and the Harvard Strategic Training Initiative for the Prevention of Eating Disorders, in support.
Speaker 51
Hello, Susan Little here on behalf of Consumer Reports, who's also a co sponsor, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Unleaded Kids, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District 9. Thank you.
Speaker 36
Noel Melroy, on behalf of the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, in support. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Good morning, Madam Chair, members. Christopher Sanchez with the Consumer Federation of California, support.
Speaker 37
Good morning. April Robinson with the Voice for Choice Advocacy in support.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. Opposition witnesses, you're welcome to come forward. Thank you. Maybe we could just make room at the front table.
Yeah.
Speaker 11
Thank you. Madam Chair and members of the committee, I'm Erin Raiden here on behalf of Consumer Brands Association. We represent the consumer packaged goods industry, in California supports over 300,000 direct jobs, powers the economy with 22,000,000,000 in wages, and injects $48,000,000,000 into California's economy. From facts up front to digital disclosures like smart label, CPG companies lead the way in delivering consumers the information they need in a format they want, which is why we must respectfully oppose SB ten thirty three unless amended. We appreciate the author's goal of increased transparency on lead levels and protein supplements, but the current bill increases consumer confusion and creates unnecessary and expensive requirements for manufacturers of these products.
Speaker 9
Recommendations to address these concerns include allowing a QR code as an alternative to website URL for the on pack labeling requirement. Consumers have become accustomed to scanning a QR code to access additional product information and they can be easily programmed on the back end to include the information required by this bill. We also suggest an exemption for medical food so as not to unnecessarily alarm consumers who rely on them for their primary nutrition and limiting the scope to plant based proteins. As written, the bill requires the same warning whether the product has the smallest trace amount of lead or 100 times the prop 65 threshold. On pack labeling should only apply to products with lead levels over a certain threshold, ideally triggered by FDA setting an action level for lead for adults.
Speaker 11
In addition, manufacturers should be allowed to rely on upstream testing from their suppliers, if available, to streamline the process. Finally, transshipment and products manufactured for sale outside of California should be exempt from the bill's requirements to not disadvantage companies who manufacture in California for national and international markets. We look forward to continued conversations and work with the author's office and other stakeholders to develop a workable path forward to ensure that consumers have access to accurate, meaningful, and actionable information about the products they purchase. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.
Speaker 13
Good morning, Chair. Anthony Stamson, on behalf of the Council for Responsible Nutrition, which is trade association representing the dietary supplement, and functional food ingredient manufacturers. One of our fundamental concerns with the measure is that it mandates the disclosure of naturally occurring heavy metals contained in products regardless of the level and science based evidence of health impact. Many healthy products that the general product, that the general public is encouraged to consume, ranging from leafy greens, root vegetables, fruit crops, contain some degree of heavy metals, but that does not necessarily mean that disclosing the presence of those heavy metals at any level to consumers makes good public policy sense. In fact, doing so may also dissuade many from consuming products that are healthy or otherwise pose no adverse health impact at all.
Speaker 14
What does of course make sense is ensuring consumers are informed if the heavy metals in their products exceed certain health thresholds, and that is precisely why California's Prop 65, or exactly what California's Prop 65 does as it relates to all of the heavy metals specified in this bill. It's important to note that those thresholds for carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity set by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment are widely considered to be the most health protective in the world. So, while we have some fundamental concerns with the overall approach, and bills seeking to do the same for other products, CRM believes there are several changes that would make the bill more workable. For example, while manufacturers may claim that their products are a good source of protein if they contain five grams of protein, using this level as the threshold does not meaningfully contribute to daily protein and should not be within scope of the bill. Most mainstream protein supplements are formulated to provide significantly more protein, so we would propose increasing that threshold.
Speaker 13
We would also like to make sure that the disclosure specified in the bill more clearly states, that the, heavy metal exposure relates to naturally occurring heavy metals that are present in the environment. There are several more issues that we look forward to working with the author and his staff on resolving, and we appreciate the committee's consideration.
Speaker 1
Okay, thank you. Opposition, testimony, name, organization, and position.
Speaker 36
Madam chair and members, Trent Smith on behalf of the Consumer Healthcare Products Association in opposition.
Speaker 13
Madam chair and members, Anthony Molina on behalf of the Natural Products Association in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Margie Lee on behalf of the California League of Food Producers in respect of opposition.
Speaker 12
Katie Davey with the Dairy Institute of California. We are opposed unless amended. We've been having fruitful conversations with the author and sponsors. We have two remaining issues related to definitions and testing, which we are working to address, and we're appreciative of them addressing our concerns. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. Alright. We'll bring it back to the committee. Senator Mangevar.
Speaker 39
And I apologize, Senator, if you missed this if I missed this in your, opening. I just wanted to hear a little bit more. The analysis spoke about the ability of larger, manufacturers having the ability to do this versus the smaller ones. Can you share a little bit more about considerations for the smaller ones?
Speaker 31
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question. I think it's important when we're looking at the process that leads to the production of product that then sold to consumers and the content. Obviously, on the manufacturing end, any regardless of scale is really both best equipped, best positioned and required to have an accurate assessment of content. In other words, you can't require a testing of a representative sample and I would, I would just point out that, the bill as currently drafted requires them to do what is typically done in testing and analysis, take a representative sample of a particular portion of a bulk load of product to, make an assessment as to content and whether that's of concern and to pass that information on in collaboration with the brand owners at some point.
It's the only way we're going to get an accurate understanding of what's in the sample of the product. I'm not so sure that given that you're requiring a representative sample, that that necessarily means that the scale of your manufacturing or wholesale supplier is really relevant to your ability to test a representative sample. I think that when you balance the burden on manufacturers of any size to take a representative sample and make a determination and pass that data on is outweighed by capacity concerns. I having And said that, I would also say just broadly that we are as has been testified to, we're going to continue working on definition, scope and operational impacts with all stakeholders, on all ends, manufacturing side, branding side to make sure that we have a workable bill.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. I was not aware of this as a problem until this bill and I, because I had not read the consumer reports, from 2024. But it is really concerning because there's so much emphasis on getting more protein in your diet. It is it just comes up everywhere.
The idea that you should be adding protein to your diet really almost no matter your age. And it seems like it's, it's so current right now. And the idea that we might be getting a thousand times more than the recommended level of lead from a protein powder, that's really alarming. I mean, my hope would be that those products would not be on the market at all. Not that they would just be disclosed, but I I wanted to ask the author or maybe your sponsors if they're, if you're aware of studies that show not just the product being tested, but then the humans who are eating the product, are they showing Toxicity levels of these men Of of the lead and other much arsenic.
Do we know if have what is it gone to that next level.
Speaker 1
okay well if you if you knew it but it's okay- it seems like the opposition has some reason that very specific things so I just I assume you're gonna continue to work with them as it moves forward. Do you want to say any more about that. Mister author?
Speaker 31
I would. Thank you for the opportunity, madam chair, just to touch on some of that testimony so that it's clear. I think the mechanism of disclosure, obviously, is is a concern. I would just point out and and argue that, you know, being explicit, clear, and for lack of a more technical term upfront is as much part of the confusion that was testified to as a concern. I think with respect to the concentrations and context of this, some of these heavy metals in the product is really the problem and not having a good accurate clear assessment of what that combination looks like and they're proliferate in these products.
And I would just further note, with respect to the, the testimony about naturally occurring elements that, again, it's context and concentration that then creates a public health or environmental impact. And Prop 65 really was directly linked to, carcinogenic toxicity, and we are trying to address other neurological and health impact disorders here that are, that there is a large body of data available, generally speaking, about these particular heavy metals.
Speaker 1
Okay. Well, thanks very much. We don't have a quorum, but we will vote when we get one. Thank you.
Speaker 31
Yeah, thank you. Likewise. Appreciate your work, always. Thank you, madam chair.
Speaker 1
Hello, senator Ashby. Thank you for coming. This is item number eight, SB ten ten, and you are recognized to begin when ready.
Speaker 40
first time I get to be in front of you in this committee. So, hi. Alright. Thanks for having me. I am here to present SB ten ten, which addresses a critical gap in California's climate strategy by ensuring that refrigerants are discarded, properly.
Refrigerants are among the most potent greenhouse gases in use and are the fastest growing source of greenhouse emissions both in California and globally. While manufacturers have transitioned to some cleaner refrigerants, legacy appliances that are still in use and entering the waste stream will continue to pose a significant risk for many years to come. Proper recovery has a significant impact. This is a really big stat. For every 1,000 refrigerators responsibly recycled, emissions are reduced by the equivalent of removing 1,500 cars per year off the road.
Put another way, one refrigerator equals one car for a year and a half in terms of emissions put into our system. While appliance recycling occurs today, there is no consistent statewide system to ensure that refrigerants are recovered or to track and verify outcomes. This lack of accountability makes it difficult to identify gaps and leaves many communities without access to proper disposal options. And importantly, something we've all been focusing on, it shifts costs to local governments and taxpayers. SB ten ten creates a consistent statewide manufacturer funded system for the collection, tracking, and responsible end of life management of these appliances.
Speaker 11
By shifting responsibility to manufacturers, SB ten ten reduces costs for local governments and ratepayers, expands access to proper disposal, strengthens the recycling system statewide, and most importantly, works towards our climate goals. Proud to have the support of seventh generation advisors, Californians Against Waste, Center for Environmental Health, Circular Polymers, cleanerearthforkids.org, The Climate Center, The Watershed Project, Western Placer Waste Management Authority, and many others. Today with me as my witness is Jason Schmelzer, who's probably not his first time in this committee in front of all of you, on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council.
Speaker 41
Good morning and thank you, madam chair and members Jason Schmeltzer here on behalf of the California product stewardship council and strong support of SB ten ten. As you all know very well- at this point EPR is simply a policy construct that requires producers of products. With a significant end of life impact to design, fund, and operate a collection and recycling infrastructure designed to mitigate those impacts. Not all of those impacts, just some of them. We think it's generally a pretty fair construct.
The case for EPR for refrigerated appliances is pretty clear. Refrigerated appliances are ripe for a few different reasons. One, as the senator mentioned, there is no consistent free and convenient collection for refrigerated appliances. Consumer options vary widely by jurisdiction. Where collection is free and convenient, it's heavily subsidized by local governments.
Where it's not subsidized by local governments, can be quite expensive. In some cases, as high as $125 per item that you're dropping off at a facility. As a result, appliances continue to be one of the most frequently illegally dumped items. This burdens public agencies and also just diminishes the general quality of life. Third, hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants have significant global warming impact as the analysis mentions anywhere from 124 to 14,000 times that of carbon dioxide.
Speaker 40
An EPR program would centralize the proper management of this refrigerant And we feel that the current sort of federal state paradigm isn't enough. What you might hear from some of the opposition who we're going to work with very well, is that refrigerants are being replaced with less harmful options. This is true, but the transition is not complete, and manufacturers are still using, those refrigerants. There are many millions of appliances still in use that contain the hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants, and refrigerated appliances have other components that also need proper management. You might also hear that there are car certified recyclers who would be crazy, right, to allow any of this refrigerant to escape because it has value.
Speaker 41
I think we agree with that point generally speaking, but not everybody is always acting in their own interest and we have seen federal enforcement of California present car certified recyclers for failing to properly manage the refrigerant. So, for all of those reasons, we think this is a strong bill and we're in strong support. Happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 1
Okay, well thank you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support? Please come forward. State your name, position on the bill.
Speaker 24
Good morning, Keela Robinson with California Against Waste, supporting concept. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay, thank you. Opposition witnesses, you're welcome to come forward. Welcome you're recognized to begin when ready you each have two minutes.
Speaker 42
Great thank you madam chair members of the committee my name is Jacob Cassidy I'm the director of government relations the association of home appliance manufacturers. Our members manufacture major portable and floor care appliances. Many that include the use of refrigerants. For several reasons AHEM is opposed to SB ten ten as currently written. I'm just going to list off a few of the reasons I did submit a letter that goes into greater detail.
So as mentioned industry did transition to climate friendly refrigerants with minimal global warming impact or GWP. Those and as such, the legislation does not address a widespread environmental threat and is unwarranted. The evidence of a threat related to non HFC refrigerants, there is no evidence that justifies a threat related to non HFC refrigerants that would justify an EPR proposal such as this. This product is simply unwarranted in that regard as well. So the average lifespan of a refrigerator is about fifteen years considering this transition, began occurring ten to fifteen years ago.
Those refrigerators are already on the way out. So new manufacturers of new refrigerators would be required to participate and pay for this program. And as such, these products will decline yearly almost at an exponential rate you know within our lifetime will be out of service. So the current system currently recycles about 80% of appliances almost at no cost. There may be some off you know some places where there's a fee but be interested to see which are the places and what are these fees.
Speaker 18
There are as mentioned California federal law that regulates disposable and recycling refrigerants. The EPA responsible appliances has a standards of reclamation, the Clean Air Act specifically prohibits the venting of refrigerants and actually exempts the refrigerants that are current, many of the refrigerants that are in current use today. Existing California law as mentioned and CARB has a program, DTSC has guidance. So, ultimately this legislation is targeting manufacturers who products are already subject to federal and state laws and most if not all have nearly eliminated GWP of the refrigerants. They've invested millions of dollars and now they're being asked to create a program that's going to cost an additional million dollars with the cost going to consumers ultimately, as we know from EPR programs.
Speaker 42
It would be great to see the evidence that's referenced. I know we have all all of anecdotes about we've seen this we've seen that but we need to have actual evidence as we form public policy such as this. I welcome any questions and I really appreciate the time today.
Speaker 12
Thank you, chair and members. Ryan Flanagan here on behalf of the Recycled Materials Association and we are opposition to this bill. Though well intentioned, we feel this bill could potentially cripple the recycling market and drive up costs of appliances to many hardworking Californians who are already struggling with affordability in their everyday lives. Appliance refrigerant recovery is highly regulated by existing California and federal environmental law. The Federal Clean Air Act section six zero eight carbs refrigerant management program, California Integrated Waste Management Act, and DTSC certified appliance recycler program already mandate collection of refrigerant gases.
Speaker 43
If non compliance or illegal dumping are the issue, then targeted enforcement is what is needed, not costly wholesale changes to a widely effective recovery system. We've had productive conversations with the author and sponsor and would be happy to work on more targeted approaches. What makes the existing system work are economic incentives. Unlike mattresses or carpets, household cooling appliances have real scrap metal value that motivates thousands of independent collectors to deliver appliances to certified facilities where refrigerant recovery is mandatory at no cost to taxpayers or government. SB 10 ten's compliant costs will eat into the scrap metal value.
When the economics disappear, collectors stop collecting, fewer appliances reach certified facilities, and refrigerant recovery rates fall. This bill may create the very problem it claims to solve. We respectfully urge the committee to oppose this bill. Thank you. And I've got Jeff Ferrano with SA Recycling here if you have any technical questions.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thanks very much. Anybody wishing to express opposition, please come forward, state your name, organization, and position.
Speaker 1
Okay, thank you. We'll bring it back to the committee. Any comments from committee members on this bill? No? Okay.
Mentefar? No? Okay. Okay. Well, the there's substantial opposition, and I encourage you to continue working with them.
And I appreciate your commitment to try to do better. It is notable that 78% is appliances have a 78% recycling rate. Because if we could get that for plastics, we'd be really happy. So anyway, I'll turn it back to the author to close.
Speaker 40
Thank you so much and thank you for hearing us out. Yeah, we don't have any concerns about working with the opposition moving forward. I think we've already made some strides. We'll continue to work on that. It is, it is not our goal to punish anyone here.
In fact, you've, you heard here today from the opposition that what's unique about refrigerators, and partially why their recycle rate is better, is they do have value at the end of life, which should reduce the upfront cost on making sure that people who put refrigerators into the chain of commerce are responsible through the end of life. We think we can get that number down to a very small number. However, the difference between 25% of plastics and 25% of refrigerators is really a lot. And when we talk about evidence, I think we have all the evidence that we need in terms of climate, and looking at what's happening around us in our world. Unfortunately, a fifteen year lifespan on a refrigerator is not what the average family deals with.
We all know that. Think about your own families and how long your relatives and friends hold on to a refrigerator. Affordability doesn't allow people to replace a large appliance like that as often as we would hope they could, and as often as these guys are working really hard on the innovation. This idea, by the way, was brought to me by a constituent who works in this industry in Sacramento, and was worried not only about end of life on refrigerators, but on the impact on workers who work in places where this isn't happening appropriately. So there is a piece of this that is about enforcement as the opposition has rightfully outlined.
We will continue to work with them to strike the right balance but this is an important component to California achieving its climate goals in the long term and we appreciate at the support of committee. That's for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Well thank you very much. We do have a quorum, so we could actually establish it and vote on your bill. Yay. Alright. Let's call the roll.
Speaker 24
Blake's fear present. Valderas? Valderas here. Allen? Allen here.
Here. Dali? Gonzalez? Ortado? Menjivar?
Here. Menjivar here. Okay.
Speaker 1
We have a quorum. So if there's a motion on this bill, I would entertain a motion on this bill. Okay. Senator Allen moves the bill. So committee consultant, call the roll.
Speaker 24
Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Valderas? No.
Valderas, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Dali?
Gonzalez? Ortado? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye.
Speaker 1
thank you. So since we have a quorum let's go through the bills that we've presented. First we have item number. Okay, the consent calendar. That's good from the vice chair.
So the vice chair moves the consent calendar.
Speaker 24
On the consent calendar, have file item four SB eight ninety nine, file item six s b thirteen thirteen, file item 11 s b twelve fifty three, and file item 12 s b 1,300. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare? Aye.
Valderas? Aye. Valderas? Aye. Allen?
Aye. Menshevar? Aye. Menshevar, aye. Dali?
Gonzalez? Ortado?
Speaker 1
Okay. It's 40. We'll keep that on call. Next, have SJR 13, item number two from senator Padilla. I would entertain a motion.
Senator Allen moves, and the move is be adopted. That's what he's moving.
Speaker 24
Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Valderas? Aye.
Valderas, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Dally?
Gonzalez? Artado, Menjivar? I. Menjivar, I. It's four
Speaker 1
to zero. We'll keep that on call. Okay. Okay. The vice chair is moving file item number one, which is vote only.
This is s b nine eight one from senator Nilo.
Speaker 24
The motion is due passed to appropriations. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Valderas?
Aye. Valderas, aye. Allen? Dally? Gonzalez?
Ortado? Mengevar? I. Mengevar, I.
Speaker 1
Okay. That's four zero. We'll keep that on call. Now we're going to file item number three, which is s b ten thirty three from senator Padilla. The motion is due passed to appropriations.
Do we have a motion? Senator Allen moves.
Speaker 24
Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Valderas?
Aye. Allen? Aye. Dally? Gonzalez?
Artado? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, Aye. 30 on call.
Speaker 1
It's 30. That's on call. Next, have item number five, SB nine twenty five from Senator McNerney. And we have a motion from the vice chair which is due pass as amended to appropriations.
Speaker 24
Blake's fear I. Valderas. Valderas I. Allen. Aye.
Allen, Aye. Dally? Gonzalez? Artado? Menjivar?
Aye. Menjivar, Aye. Four zero.
Speaker 1
That's four zero. We'll keep it on call. Next, have item number seven, SB thirteen fifty from senator McNerney. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Do we have a motion?
So moved. The vice chair moves.
Speaker 24
Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Valderas?
Valderas, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Dally?
Gonzalez? Ortado? Mengevar? Aye. Mengevar, aye.
That's 40.
Speaker 1
0. We'll keep that on call. Next, have item number eight, s b ten ten. Senator Ashby, the motion is due pass to appropriations. Oh, we already voted on that.
Okay. Great. We're on under item number nine. S b eleven forty five from sen Senator Grayson do pass as amended to appropriations is the motion.
Speaker 24
Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Valderas?
Valderas? Aye. Allen? Allen? Aye.
Dally? Gonzalez? Artado? Menjivar? Menjivar, aye.
Speaker 1
Four to zero on call. That's four to zero on call. And then we have one more will vote on and then it's senator Caballero with her item number 10 will be up next SB eleven eighty three- so what we're our last vote right now is item number 15 SB thirteen forty one from senator Caballden the motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. The vice chair moves.
Speaker 24
Senators Blake's bear I like spare I. Valderas Valderas I Allen Allen. Dally. Gonzalez. Ortado.
Menjvar. Menjvar I.
Speaker 1
That's four to zero will keep that on call. Okay senator Caballero thank you for your patience. This is item number 10 SB eleven eighty three and your witnesses are welcome to come forward. And you are recognized to begin when ready.
Speaker 44
Good morning, madam chair and members. First, let me start off by saying that I'll be accepting the committee amendments, and thank you for, your work on this. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB eleven eighty three. In the face of growing climate change impacts, California has ambitious renewable energy goals, including a sixty percent zero carbon energy goal by 2030 and a one hundred percent zero carbon energy goal by 2045. The expansion of renewable energy, including solar, is a critical step to reach these goals.
As a result, large scale solar in California's Central Valley continues to grow and reshape the region's environment and the economy. According to the California Energy Commission, about half of the nearly one one hundred thousand acres of industrial solar developed in California is located in the San Joaquin Valley, often on water deprived farmland. As the presence of industrial solar in the Central Valley continues to increase, there is a need for careful planning by state and local government to ensure that industrial solar projects directly benefit the residents and the environment of the valley without causing generational damage to viable agricultural lands, small communities, and the health and welfare of the residents, and the personal assets of family that, families that call the Central Valley home. And I'm not talking just about farmland. I'm talking about whole communities that are agriculture dependent, like Mendota, Fireball, Huron, San Joaquin.
If you don't recognize those names, it's because you've never been through them. And you've never been through them because they're not on 90 nine or more importantly, they're not on I five. And so these are communities made up mostly of farm workers and and they're they have vibrant economies that are all related to and dependent on agriculture. SB eleven eighty three requires the California governor's office of land use and climate innovation to study the environmental, land use, and economic impacts of industrial solar in the Central Valley and make recommendations to ensure that the installation of industrial solar directly benefits its residents, businesses, and local government. With me to testify today is Peter Ansell from the California Farm Bureau.
Speaker 31
Morning chair members, Peter Ansell representing the California Farm Bureau, a statewide nonprofit organization of more than 25,000 ranching and farming families. SB eleven eighty three supports the state's progress as a renewable energy leader by ensuring that we make informed, balanced decisions so that communities undergoing change are justly treated. A just transition, which is a word that's been discussed often regarding a renewable transition. Solar development growth is accelerated by state policies designed to streamline project delivery, including AB pathways under AB two zero five and a myriad of other bills and regulations designed to expedite the transition to renewables. As deployment speeds up, the need to understand regional, cumulative impact becomes even more urgent.
Speaker 45
Today, projects are reviewed individually under laws like CEQA, but we lack a clear understanding of what development means across system levels in this in the Central Valley. Agriculture in the Valley supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and tens of billions of dollars in economic activity. SB eleven eighty three directs the state to develop recommendations to ensure the projects provide meaningful benefits. It's not anti solar, it's pro community. We commend committee staff for recommending that the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation lead the study as it's fundamentally about land use regional economic planning.
The bill does not change permitting or citing decisions and it does not stop solar development in the Central Valley. It simply directs the state to evaluate development impacts, the good and the bad comprehensively. California can meet its climate goals while ensuring the industrial scale of renewable energy development and rural community economic sustainability centered around agriculture can coexist. And because of that, we urge an I vote because SB eleven eighty three will deliver exactly that. Thank you.
Speaker 1
All right. Thank you very much. Anyone else in the room wishing to express support? Please come forward. State your name, organization, and position.
Speaker 10
Good morning. Chelsea Gazzillo on behalf of American Farmland Trust and I would like to express support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Okay. Any opposition witnesses wishing to come forward? Welcome. You can sit at the front table here.
You each have two minutes and you're welcome to begin when ready. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Good morning, chair Blake Spear and members of the committee. I'm Lillian Mervis with the Large Scale Solar Association or LSA. We are here today with an oppose unless amended position on the bill. LSA submitted a letter on this bill with the other clean energy trades and we apologize for the late submission. We appear today not to oppose solar development in the Central Valley.
Rather, we are here because we believe the Central Valley stands at a remarkable moment of opportunity and we want to make sure state policy reflects that. Two timelines are converging in the Central Valley right now. California's clean energy build out calls for a 134,000 megawatts of clean energy by 2045. More than half of that is coming from solar energy. And much of that needs to come online in the next five years alone by 2031.
Speaker 16
The second is a sustainable groundwater management act, which the senate fact sheet on this bill estimates will take at least 1,000,000 acres of irrigated farmland out of production by 2040. Solar is not displacing thriving agriculture. It's offering a productive, revenue generating second life for land that water scarcity has already claimed or will soon. California Energy Commission's 2023 land use screens report confirms this alignment. When sensitive lands, habitat, and other constraints are mapped and excluded, the lotus and lowest impact pathway for solar development runs directly through fallowed and water stress agriculture land in the Central Valley.
Speaker 10
Done well, this transition will bring real benefits to the region. Jobs, stable lease revenue for landowners, and millions of new property tax revenues for county governments. LSA welcomes rigorous evidence based inquiry into how to maximize these benefits for Central Valley communities. We simply ask that any such study reflect the full picture, including the significant body of analysis the CEC and other state agencies have already produced, and that it treats solar as the opportunity it is. Currently, our position is opposed unless amended to reflect the benefits of solar development in the valley and to build off the work that has already been done by the California Energy Commission.
We look forward to the opportunity to continue to work with the author on this important topic. Thank you.
Speaker 14
Good morning. Mckinley Thompson Worley here today on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association or SIA, the national trade association for all types of Solar and Storage Companies, we work to promote an equitable transition to clean energy and meet our state's landmark clean energy goals. Unfortunately, we're concerned that SB eleven eighty three is drafted, duplicates work across the state agencies and treats utility scale solar as a potential harm instead of a lifeline. We're facing a climate crisis and need to meet the moment by developing thousands of megawatts of utility scale solar in the near term to meet our state's 2,045 clean energy goals. We know that communities will benefit economically from utility scale solar from property taxes, jobs, and landowner revenues.
Speaker 17
Farmers whose land would otherwise be followed can benefit from the development of solar projects on their land. It provides a second economic life without precluding its future use for farming should water return. We urge the author to consider amendments shifting the study to the CEC and focusing it on identifying gaps in the current studies and including the forward facing benefits that utility scale solar provides. We welcome the opportunity to work with the author and really appreciate your consideration. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Thank you. We'll now move to anyone else in the hearing room. With that, would like to express their opposition, please state your name, your organization, and your position.
Speaker 19
Good morning. Delilah Clay on behalf of the Independent Energy Producers Association, also in an oppose unless amended position. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Thank you. Seeing no others, we will bring this back to the committee room. Any questions? Would you like to close?
Speaker 44
Yes. I thank you very much, madam vice chair. Let me just say that, the letter came two days ago. It's the first time we've heard from this group of organizations, and I look forward to the opportunity to have a conversation about where the the bill is going to. I think we both agree on the facts.
And the facts are that the Valley is a very productive area, agricultural wise, and that there are changes coming. And Sigma mandates those changes. And so part of what is happening right now is that there there every single organization that is developing energy resources is looking to the valley. The CCAs from the coastal region say we're gonna build solar in Fresno County or in Kern County or in Merced County. And it would be great if it had been mapped out ahead of time which lands were most at risk of losing water or not being able to use groundwater, but that hasn't been done.
Instead, farmers are looking for an alternative revenue site when they don't have when they know that sigma is coming and they they're not gonna have the water. And so it's made on a farm by farm basis and without any so so solar comes in and it's low wage jobs, low wage temporary jobs. So it's great for someone to have revenue from the property, but in the meantime, thousands of farm workers are out of work. And the mechanics and the the box makers and the welders, all of the people that live in small little communities are at risk because with the exception of maybe one or two projects, there have been no community benefits that have been provided to the people that live in the valley. So they have some of the highest energy costs on an average basis.
It's 5 to $700 a month during the summer to try to cool down houses that are were built many years ago that don't have good air conditioning or cooling systems. So that there's this repercussion in the valley that I'm really concerned about long term. Is that what we're trying to do here is to do a study. Not putting our thumbs on the scale, not foreclosing anything. There's nothing in this bill that says do the study and then here is the way we think we ought to change the rules.
That'll come later if it's necessary. But at least right now, and if I could, so far have not been presented with any studies that do exactly what this is suggesting. There are pieces of studies out there, but no one that looks at what the full impact would be. And one of the things that I worry about, and I'll close, is this area is very prone to a spore in the dirt. And that spore causes permanent lung damage for individuals that work outdoors, farm workers in particular, but also families.
Speaker 6
And as we move, if it's unchecked, if solar takes over the valley the way that I'm concerned it might, and I'm not anti solar, I think it makes a lot of sense, but I also think it makes more sense on the top of buildings and over parking lots and in areas where we're not permanently restricting the use of the land for other purposes. If left unchecked, we end up with a dust bowl in the valley, and the health impacts and the economic impact, the valley will never recover from. So it's the reason that that after talking to I mean, quite frankly, I was talking to all the counties to come together to look at how each county is affecting the county next to them by doing these kinds of huge projects, and that's way too much. It's it's have you ever tried working with the county board of supervisees? I'm just saying.
Speaker 44
It's not as easy as you think. It it it there every county's looking at their own their own county separate, and this is really an opportunity to take a snapshot view. If every company if every company came in and said, look, we'll we'll do community benefits and we'll do it according to benefits that really help the residents. That would be a different story, but that's not what's happening right now. So this study is critically important for us to really have a sense of in the in the area of the state that is the poorest, where we have the highest medical population, where people earn below the median income of the state significantly, I think we gotta do better.
And so there have to be a way for us to stimulate the economy and do do bring in solar, but also create opportunities for other forms of energy that create jobs. Respectfully ask for your arrival.
Speaker 4
Thank you do we have a motion. Senator Mangibar moves the bill thank you and the motion is a SB eleven eighty three do pass as amended to the committee on appropriations secretary please call the roll.
Speaker 24
Senators Blake's beer Valderas Valderas I Allen. Dali Gonzales. Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado? Mujvar?
Speaker 4
Three zero, that bill is on call. I'm gonna actually hand the gavel over. One, I'm gonna call for authors. If there are you an author? Then let's go.
So then let's move to file item 19, SB twelve ninety one. Senator Gonzalez, are recognized when you're ready.
Speaker 37
Okay. Waiting for my witnesses. Go. Alright. Alright.
I got that. That we are good to go. Thank you, madam chair. Alright. I'm here today.
Good morning. And members, to present senate bill twelve ninety one, the Shine Water Act, which will bring transparency and accountability to mutual water company board operations. Unlike private utilities regulated by the PUC or public public utilities subject to the Brown Act, mutual water companies or mutual water companies or MWCs are supposed to be accountable to the water end users that they serve. This bill makes that a reality by doing a few things. Eliminating the twenty four hour written notice requirement for board meetings, making MWC governance fully accessible to the rate payers they serve.
Speaker 55
Two, requiring that MWCs maintain a website with basic information including consumer confidence reports so end users know what is in their water. And lastly, requiring a comparative analysis report of mutual water companies serving disadvantaged communities against other forms of water governance to evaluate their efficacy in providing clean and reliable water and engaging the communities that they serve. The reason I brought this bill forward is, you might have the photo, is so important because my constituents in Walnut Park, which is unincorporated Los Angeles County, Cudahy, and Maywood in Southeast Los Angeles have been served brown water for decades with no understanding of who the Mutual Water Company is, what they are doing, and how to even get through to their office. In fact, the city manager of Cudahy has been to the Mutual Water Company office multiple times to no avail because no one answers the door. So our communities are left asking the questions, who are they?
Speaker 37
What are they doing? And why aren't we getting information on brown water? Water is not optional as we know here in the state. It is essential, and a s b twelve ninety one ensures the companies that provide it are held accountable. Testifying in support today, I have Michael Claiborne.
On behalf of Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, I respectfully ask for your I vote on this bill. Thank you, madam chair.
Speaker 18
Good morning. My name is Michael Claiborne. I'm the directing attorney at Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. We work alongside residents of the San Joaquin and East Coachella Valleys disadvantaged communities. Many of the communities that we work with lack access to safe and affordable drinking water.
Speaker 56
And many are served by small rural water systems some of which are mutual water companies. Mutual water companies as senator Gonzalez mentioned present a unique case in that they're not regulated by the California public utilities commission because they're small despite being private water companies. And even though they're not regulated by the CPUC they are not subject to the Brown Act, to the Public Records Act, to Proposition two eighteen, to these important measures that allow for transparency and accountability. The result is often that mutual water companies are less responsive to the residents they served than other forms of water system governance. And the residents I work with often struggle to access basic information like water quality reports, bylaws, annual budgets, etcetera.
Speaker 18
As one example, in January, a residence we work with in Kern County is served by Atholl Mutual, requested basic information about their water system, the sorts of things I just mentioned, annual budgets, bylaws, etcetera. They're still waiting to hear back and receive that information despite it being almost May. This is information that residents should just have access to rather than have to ask for and wait months and months to get. They did receive bylaws, but the rest of the information they requested they haven't received, and that was only after the water board kind of put some pressure on the system. And this is a water system that has TCP above drinking water standards so it's the sort of system where questions should be answered.
And this is especially important And critical to ensuring positive outcomes with respect to water quality safe drinking water act compliance and safeguarding public funds.
Speaker 18
Support that's why we're in support of SB twelve ninety one and- urgent I vote thank you.
Speaker 4
Thank you will now move to anyone else in the room with that would like to express their support please state your name your organization and your position only. Seeing that. There you are.
Speaker 4
Thank you will not move to any queue witnesses in opposition. Welcome please take a seat and you are both recognized for two minutes each.
Speaker 47
Okay. My name is Yvonne Green, and I am here today as an Eaton Fire victim because my home was incinerated. I am also a certified public accountant who's worked in the water industry, especially with mutual water companies for over two decades I moved to Al Tadena I had been LA D. W. P.
Customer and have horrible service issues and had to go through my city council member to get the result I moved to Altedina because my water company is X. Is accessible and helpful. I urge that s p twelve ninety one be amended to apply to all types of water systems on a tiered basis according to size. As an illustration, a customer of County Of Los Angeles struggling waterworks number forty in Lancaster has to drive to Alhambra almost 80 miles away to dispute a billing and a 100 miles away to Los Angeles to complain before the board of Sir supervisors during public comment and they only get two minutes. As a fire victim, I can't imagine anyone having to deal with that.
I love having a partner and a supporter as I try to rebuild my life. Nonprofit mutual water companies should really not be singled out. The state is in the process of consolidating the three Altadena Mutuals. Under SB twelve ninety one, we would not be entitled to the same level of transparency the bill pro proposes to apply only to Mutuals. If it were if the Mutuals were taken over by a for profit investor utility or by different rules would apply.
Speaker 60
Before the fire, our system was recognized as a high functioning water system and a reason I moved there. After the fire, that remains true. The staff is working incredibly hard and under incredibly difficult circumstances and always serves us with a smile. It is unfair that our company is being classified as failing because customers had to be served bottled water. Thank you.
Speaker 26
Good morning chair and members my name is David Armstrong and the general manager of South Mesa water company were a mutual water company proudly serving cities of the type in Calumetza. Our system serves a severely disadvantaged community in Riverside and San Bernardino County. I'm also the vice president of the California association of mutual water companies. We oppose SB twelve ninety one unless amended. We ask the author amend SB twelve ninety one to include all types of water systems to the scale requirements to tiers according to the size of the water systems.
In our region, it's very interesting. I am the only water agency in the whole Yucaipa Valley not failing or at risk. I have water districts next to me that have been failing. I'm the only one on the mutual water company I've even had to give them water in times of need. So I have supported a water district but no one ever came to me and said wow this water district is failing can you take them over or anything like that because we are operating at a very high level.
Speaker 57
So that this water can't a company- water district in you type of they've recently been. Sided for water quality violations again failing to- do their backflow prevention program correctly. I've done all these things correct I'm a mutual water company and I'm I'm very proud of that fact. So I say all this- I share that underscore a key point under the state safer program risk is not defined by governance structure but by a system's ability to consistently provide safe, affordable drinking water, which we're doing. For a mutual water company, success has been driven by targeted state investments, strong regional partnerships, and success to bridge financing from a nearby larger water system, which I have done with two state water contractors and Riverside County.
Speaker 26
I worked in hand with them. State funding and bridge financing by a state water contractor agency in our area has allowed us to address critical infrastructure and extend service to nearby mobile home park. With a long history of nitrate contamination bringing them into compliance. To all water quality standards
Speaker 26
Focusing on policy, type of system risks diverting attention and resources away from the communities most indeed and away from the strategies that are already proving successful. For those reasons, I respectfully urge a no vote on SB twelve ninety one and ask that the author work with us on amendments to help everyone.
Speaker 4
Thank you will now move to anyone else in the room that would like to express opposition please come forward state your name your organization. And your position only.
Speaker 46
Good morning madam chair and members of this committee. My name is Sandy McElhenny, and I am a shareholder at Christian Mutual Water Company, which is a small mutual water company in the mountains of Kern County. I drove here yesterday, five and a half hours in the pouring down rain, to share with you that SB twelve ninety one is one their idea of one bill fits all
Speaker 4
is Ma'am, is just your name, your position, and your organization. I'm sorry.
Speaker 46
Sandy McElhinney, president of Christian Mutual Water Company and shareholder in Kern County, California.
Speaker 8
Good morning. Carina Cervantes with the California Association of Mutual Water Companies and I just wanted to list off some of our members whose names were not included in the committee's analysis report. We do have El Dorado, Green Valley, Heart Creek Estates, Hartley, Lake Elizabeth, Lucerne Vista, Maywood Number Two, Oak Glen, Orangevale, Sleepy Valley, Starlight Pines, Stockdale Annex, Tierra Bonita, and Tract One Hundred Eighty, all in opposition unless amended to SB twelve ninety one. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Thank you. Seeing no others, we'll bring this back to the committee. And having no other one no other on the dais, I would like to give the author the opportunity to respond to some of the opposition's concerns and I know would love to hear about how you're working with them.
Speaker 37
Thank you madam chair and I appreciate that and I'm I'm grateful for the the opposition bringing light to the fact that we absolutely I think believe on the same thing which is transparency especially being an accountant And I think absolutely every water system should be transparent. That's what the intent of this bill is. The other water systems do have as been mentioned by my witness in the support column. They are subject to brown, the Brown Act, the Public Records Act. They're also obviously, there's oversight through the Public Utilities Commission, but multi but but the mutual water companies are not.
And so that's that's the problem. As you've been I think we've been sharing with you the picture of the brown water that my community has been dealing with for decades. For decades. We're not asking a lot. In fact, we're asking for very minimal, transparency opportunities.
You know, how, individuals would like to be communicated with. Is it an email, a text message? Where are they located? Where can we set some of them don't even know who exists on the board. And that's a real problem.
And I think that in the the fourth largest economy Our residents whether you are a homeowner or renter should know that. I don't know if there's anything else my Witness would like to add on that.
Speaker 18
I think the only thing that I'd add is that we work alongside small mutuals In many cases and in fact I even a small mutual in Tulare County. So we're also very interested in making sure that this measure is as easy to comply with as possible. So if there are good ideas to make it kind of more implementable and avoid issues in implementation. I think those are worth talking about. But the bottom line is that the information about water system operations, transparency, access to meetings, notice of meetings, things like that need to be provided to residents served by these systems.
So, urgent I vote, but I'm also interested in talking with the opposition. So thank you.
Speaker 4
And buttons flickering on and off. Well, so, I just wanna say that I do believe that this is a straightforward transparency and access bill. It simply makes it easier for residents to attend meetings, to get information about their water systems, and to stay informed about water quality without unnecessary barriers or fees. No new bureaucracy, just basic accountability and modern communication. I will be supporting the bill.
I think we are operating in a subcommittee, at this point. We do need authors. So would you like to close?
Speaker 37
Yes. And I thank you for that and your support, madam chair. And I believe in the same thing. I want to make this that you know very low barriers to entry for our residents most importantly so they can access clean water but also of course continuing to work with the opposition to make this is seamless as possible and with that respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 4
Thank you and we will come back to this bill we have another. There's no motion. Yeah thank so what I'm gonna switch the gavel with you are gonna move to file item number 20
Speaker 53
Because we're still working. Okay. We're actually going to be moving to file item Number fourteen, s b thirteen twenty six. Senator Wahhab, you are recognized when you're ready.
Speaker 49
Thank you. Alright. Good morning. I first want to thank all of you guys for being here. When conducting a California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA project, environmental review, lead agencies are required to consult with California native American tribes culturally affiliated with the project area to determine potential impacts and identify measures to avoid or mitigate significant impacts to tribal cultural resources.
Unfortunately, the current tribal consultation process in effect for over a decade potentially overlooks critical tribal cultural resource information and has failed to effectively prioritize the avoidance and preservation of native American culture. California native American tribes are best positioned to identify their own TCRs and how to best protect them. Entrusting a lead agency to define and determine a TCR significance without appropriate consideration of California Native American tribal knowledge and tribal records can be insensitive and may disregard culturally significant TCRs. Project lead agency CEQA review may not prioritize tribal input, the preservation of Native American culture, and continuous consultation with tribes during the process. To ensure tribes can better protect their TCRs, SB1326 updates the definition of a tribal cultural resource to include resources identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as a sacred place or on local tribal register.
This bill also reprioritized avoidance and protection of these TCRs by requiring lead agencies to document in detail when avoidance and protection is not feasible. It requires lead agencies to consider and incorporate avoidance and mitigation measures identified by consulting California native American tribes. As you all know in history class, we have all heard, read, and understood the complete devastation of the native American community, not only in The United States, but even here in California. This is an attempt to right the wrongs of the past in some small way to ensure that culture and sensitivity to this community and inclusion is prioritized in California. With me today, testifying in support of this bill is councilwoman Catalina Chacon and tribal preservation officer Buffy McQuillan.
Speaker 5
Thank you. Good morning, madam chair and members of the committee. My name is Catalina Chacon, and I'm a tribal councilwoman of the Pachonga Band of Indians. At its core, this bill is about our past and our future. It is intended to preserve, protect the sacred sites, cultural resources, and tribal heritage of native people.
As you know too well, so many of our tribal cultural resources and sacred sites have already been lost to development, gone forever. Never to be experienced by future generations of tribal people. This is why California tribes have fought so hard for stronger protections in historic legislation like SB 18 by the late senator John Burton and AB 52 by Mike Gottow. These were watershed policies in our ongoing struggle to protect what remains. Yet too often tribal voices are still marginalized.
SB thirteen twenty six builds on this foundation. When impacts to tribal cultural resources are at stake, it ensures that traditional tribal knowledge is placed at the forefront of evaluating project mitigation. Tribal knowledge is not abstract. It is rooted in generations of cultural continuity, lived experiences, and a deep spiritual connection to the land. The bill affirms that tribes are the experts on what is sacred, what is culturally significant, and how tribal cultural resources should be protected and treated.
Critically, SB thirteen twenty six expands the definition of tribal cultural resources to include tribal cemeteries and burial sites. This bill is not only for future generations, it is also for those who came before us. Our ancestors deserved deserved to have their remains and burial goods respected and protected. They should not be desecrated simply because their resting places don't have headstones marking their graves. Finally SB thirteen twenty six makes clear that avoidance and protection of tribal cultural resources is a policy priority, not an afterthought.
Thank you. We respectfully ask for your support of SB thirteen twenty six. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 38
Thank you so much. Good morning, chair and committee members. My name is Buffy McQuillan. I'm a tribal citizen of Round Valley Indian tribes. I'm here in my capacity as a tribal historic preservation officer for the Federated Indians of Great Manchuria.
The Federated Indians of Great Manchuria is a cosponsor of SB thirteen twenty six. SB thirteen twenty six is focused on two key sections that will support California Native American tribes' ability to identify TCRs, along with prioritizing proper avoidance and mitigation. More specifically, SB thirteen twenty six will add to the current CEQA Tribal Cultural Resource definition of those terms, those key terms, which are sanctified cemeteries and burial grounds. This will eliminate confusion by some lead agencies that these places are in fact TCRs and eligible for avoidance and protection measures. The bill also recognizes California Native American tribes local tribal registers.
Speaker 29
The addition of the local tribal register is consistent with existing law AB 168 which was authorized by assembly member Aguirre Curry in 2021 and more recently in AB 130 in 2025. SB thirteen twenty six ensures that California Native American tribes are the primary resource for identifying TCRs and protection measures. It upholds the intent of the 2014 AB 52 tribal consultation provisions by uplifting tribal knowledge and standards for the development of culturally appropriate avoidance and mitigation options. It does not require the use of specific measures, but lead agencies must consult in good faith with tribes to develop feasible mitigation. And, it provides options to avoid and protect TCRs and mitigate project impacts.
Speaker 38
Bills to streamline development have made protection of TCRs extremely difficult, to say the least. SB thirteen twenty six supports California Native American tribes by uplifting tribal knowledge and expertise to identify and avoid impacts to TCRs rather than eliminating and dismissing tribes from the entire CEQA process.
Speaker 4
Thank you. 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.
Morning. Rocky Rushing representing the Society for California Archaeology. On behalf of its 1,300 members, including those from federally recognized and non recognized tribes, The SCA is offering a supportive amended position. Uncertain why that position isn't listed in the analysis, but I'd like to say the SCA overwhelmingly endorses the bill's objectives. It does see elements, however, that could lend lead to unintended consequences.
Speaker 23
Thank you, senator Wahab, for the ongoing discussions. Greatly appreciate it.
Speaker 30
Good morning. Jerome Encinas on behalf of the United Auburn Indian Community, also a sponsor of the bill and strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 18
David Quintana on behalf of the Habematole Pomo of Upper Lake, Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians, both co sponsors, and the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians, all in support.
Speaker 50
Carolyn Ville Hunter on behalf of Yocha Dehe Winton Nation, also in support.
Speaker 4
Thank you. We'll now move to any key witnesses in opposition. If you could make well, there's one right here. Yeah. If the opposition oh, perfect.
Could I actually have you switch seats with the gentleman in the back? Thank you. And to the opposition, you're each recognized for two minutes.
Speaker 26
Good morning John Kennedy with the rural county representatives of California on behalf of 40 rural counties. We're here today in respectful opposition to SB thirteen twenty six. First want to thank the author and sponsors for the opportunity to have very long, very weedy discussions about tribal consultation, to understand the gaps in the existing process, and what they're trying to accomplish with the bill. We support many of the provisions in the bill today, but we have concerns with others. We think you've struck quite a nice balance, recognizing archaeologists may not always be best suited to identify tribal cultural resources, and also appreciate your prioritizing avoidance and preservation.
Speaker 52
So that being said, we understand there are amendments that you all are working on. We look forward to reviewing those amends, trying to mark up those amends. We hope they address some of our concerns, but look forward to continuing conversations with you about that. Having said that, we must respectfully oppose the bill unless amended. We're here today both as a project proponent and also a lead agency who's often caught in the middle between project developers and the tribes in resolving any disputes.
So we understand there may be some significant gaps in existing tribal consultation practices and support efforts to ensure that tribal consultation is a meaningful and mutually respectful process. As drafted, we do have concerns about the process for automatic inclusion of sites because of concerns about balancing confidentiality, precision, and substantial impacts on private property owners. And then we're also concerned about what we view may not be what's intended, but we review as mandatory requirements to adopt mitigation measures. We want to clarify what that means, ensure that we have flexibility as lead agencies in determining what mitigation measures are adopted, and I think importantly, explaining where we're declining to adopt recommended mitigation measures. So, one, appreciate the author bringing this measure forward to refresh travel consultation.
I think it's a discussion we really need to have. We're committed to working with the author and with the sponsors to address our concerns.
Speaker 15
Good morning Chair members of Ben Turner with action advisors on behalf of the California building industry association Just like the the representative rural county said We've been having Extensive conversations with us and sponsoring the author's office. And we appreciate those we also anticipate language forthcoming in the in the coming days that will hopefully address issues we've flagged and I'll just go through those really quickly here. The bill expands the definition of tribal cultural resources to include NAHC registered artifacts, especially and it's it had sanctified cemeteries and burial areas. It brought the definition to include local registers. And these resources may not be identified until after project application is submitted, so we want to clarify that process if possible.
Speaker 53
The bill also requires says that lead agencies consider mitigations. They mandate they shall adopt measures, and we just want to ensure that feasibility from CEQA remains a principle In that regard So again we look forward to Working with the sponsors to Hopefully Address our concerns At this point as C. B. I. Is opposed most amended.
Speaker 4
Thank you will now move to anyone else in the room that would like to express their opposition please state your name your organization and your position only.
Speaker 42
Hi good morning and for also with the association of California water agencies and with an opposed unless amended position thank you.
Speaker 36
Morning madam chair and members, Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties, opposed unless amended.
Speaker 4
Leila Romero, on behalf of League of California Cities, we are respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you. Thank you. We'll now move to the committee. Senator Allen.
Speaker 7
I want to thank the author and thank our friends from the tribes who are here. You know, I just, I think this has been an issue that's, I mean, it's come up a number of times, including in Energy Committee yesterday. You know, we've made major changes to CEQA over the years, is really important because trying to incorporate tribal perspectives. I just think it's been an important trajectory. So I'd love to get your thoughts, Senator, about how to bridge some of these challenges that we're having with the local government folks.
You know, I I certainly support the bill, and I wanna I wanna I I also really deeply support the spirit of the bill, and just wanna get your read on how the negotiations are going.
Speaker 49
So, I I think that, you know, for the first part, we all want to ensure that we're preserving the cultural significance of whatever is potentially found. Number one, we are not interested in delaying any project, and I think that there needs to be better communication between the administrative agency that is doing the project and the tribal consultation. That is the main effort of it. I think that the conversation, you know, we've been in engagement. I think that the tribes, their representatives have also been largely engaged.
We have an open door policy. We're very much interested in moving this bill along and continuing those conversations. So I I think that we all have the same goal. It's just a little bit about how we're threading the needle at this moment.
Speaker 7
Alright. Well, I, you know, encourage the the dialogue, and we'll move the bill when appropriate.
Speaker 4
Thank you. So, I'll be supporting your bill, because at that core, this is really about respect for tribal communities, their history, and places that hold deep cultural meaning. If we're going to require consultation, it should be real, it should be thoughtful, and actually lead to better outcomes. I do share some of the concerns that the opposition raised, and I am hoping that you will continue to work with the opposition to make sure that we get this as right as possible. Would you like to close?
Speaker 49
Definitely. So I I hear everything you guys are saying. I wanna be very specific that, by starting this off very early, it allows for projects to actually avoid delays. That is the ultimate goal of this bill, and it also gives the tribes an ability to tell them ahead of time, hey. What we understand that this was tribal land of one particular tribe years ago, and it may have a sacred site, whether it's a burial site or anything else.
Speaker 10
Right now, it's, you know, where a lot of people are digging, and then they hit something. They may destroy something. They, largely, pretty much, you know, decimate some of the cultural, historic sites or religious sites. And the tribes are just trying to preserve their their culture and the sacred tradition of even years ago by highlighting that this is incredibly important. We believe that we're gonna see either individuals buried here or a a ceremonial type of platform here, and we're gonna say that this part where you are going to dig needs to be a little bit more sensitive.
Speaker 49
If something is found, they place it somewhere else. And, you know, the tribes are also interested in building and developing and much more. So there is no interest in delaying any projects. There is no interest in in causing more bureaucratic red tape, if you will. The goal is to get ahead and help the projects move faster by also not decimating, the cultural sites.
So I think with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
Speaker 4
Thank you. We have a son we have a motion by senator Allen. The motion is due pass As a adsorption do pass to appropriations. Secretary please call the roll.
Speaker 24
Senators like spear. Valderas I. Valderas I. Allen. Allen I.
Dally Gonzalez? Ortado? Menjibar? Aye. Menjibar, aye.
Speaker 4
Three zero, that bill remains on call. We're now going to move to file item number 16, SB thirteen ninety eight, senator Rubio. And senator, you are recognized when you are ready.
Speaker 7
Morning, Madam Vice Chair. Thank you to the members of this committee for the work that you've done. I am proud to present SB thirteen ninety eight Green Globe Certification. SB thirteen ninety eight is a straightforward bill that will update California's green building requirements to reflect the reality of today's market. Under current law, state agencies are required to obtain green building certification for new constructions and major renovations starting in 2024.
Speaker 55
However, the statute effectively recognizes only one system, which is LEED, despite the existence of other nationally recognized widely used alternatives. This creates a practical problem. By limiting agencies to a single certification pathway, the state reduces flexibility, may increase project costs, and excludes comparable frameworks that deliver similar environmental and performance outcomes. In effect, it narrows options without a clear policy justification. S v thirteen ninety eight addresses this very this key issue by explicitly recognizing green globes developed by the green building initiative as an equivalent certification, this bill does not weaken the standards as we know how important environmentally friendly policies are to the state and our goals, but it simply allows state agencies to choose between certification systems that meet comparable benchmarks for sustainability and building performance.
With me, I have two witnesses, to help testify, Don Kecky and Jan Mason who will be, speaking on behalf of the bill through the chair.
Speaker 54
Great. Thank you, madam chair and members. Don Keppke, on behalf of the Green Building Initiative, a five zero one c three nonprofit and C standards developer focused on improving the built environments impact on climate and society. GBI appreciates the opportunity to work with senator Rubio to update government code section eighty three sixteen as provided for in Senate bill for 16 by senator Laird in 2023 to include an additional nationally recognized equivalent certification, green globes, to provide for greater flexibility, cost savings, and more tools in California state infrastructure toolbox. In 2023 the legislature passed in the governor signed us before 16 that required any new building or major renovation project undertaken by a state agency on or after 01/01/2024.
To obtain green building certification. However, as currently crafted, the law only explicitly recognizes one private sector building certification for state infrastructure projects, even though equivalent certifications exist and are you in use in California and across the nation. Explicitly including Green Globes and California statute as on par with the single currently recognized green building certification in statute will provide for greater competition, flexibility, cost effectiveness for state infrastructure projects required to meet green building certifications and standards for sustainability, energy efficiency, decarbonization, and more in line with FB416. Despite the opposition's assertions, the federal government, as well as many other states and municipalities, have long recognized and deemed Green Globes equivalent to the LEED certification for a variety of asset classes. While the approach between the two certifications has their differences as noted in the committee analysis, this is exactly what makes having multiple tools in the toolbox so beneficial.
Speaker 35
Green Globes is flexible without compromising the level of environmental, energy efficiency, decarbonization, overall rigorous standards required in California, and is tailored to the specific project recognizing that state infrastructure projects may be different from one to the next. So for these reasons, we're pleased Green Building Initiative is pleased out to be the sponsor of this bill and really urge your I vote and when the time is right thank you madam chair.
Speaker 56
Thank you, chair and members of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak. For the record, my name is Janice Mason. I am a California resident and associate principal and Sacramento lead for McKenzie, architecture and engineering firm delivering complex projects throughout California and Western United States. I'm here in support of Senate Bill thirteen ninety eight, and I will frame my comments around the principle Californians know well.
California doesn't follow the pack. It sets the pace. California has led the nation for decades by pairing ambition with accountability. We invest heavily in enforcement and continuous code updates. That leadership is structural, not symbolic, and Senate Bill thirteen ninety eight continues that tradition.
The bill does not relax performance expectations. It maintains them enabling flexibility while modernizing how they can be met by allowing three green globes as an alternative to gold and two Green Globes as an alternative to LEED silver. At the federal level, Green Globes was reaffirmed by the US General Services Administration in 2024 as equivalent to LEED for high performance public buildings. At the state and local level, jurisdictions are increasingly recognizing multiple certification systems side by side. Importantly, Senate Bill thirteen ninety eight operates within California's existing framework.
Speaker 45
The January 2026 compliance interpretation makes clear that projects using Green Globes must still comply with Title 24 and Cal Green, use CEC approved energy modeling, and default to the most stringent standard when requirements differ. From our project delivery perspective, Green Globes emphasizes early engagement with a third party assessor, supporting better coordination, fewer late stage conflicts, and more efficient use of taxpayer dollars. This is not hypothetical. Over 1,000,000,000 square feet has been certified nationwide, including major projects in California. California has always led by setting clear expectations and allowing multiple paths to meet them.
Speaker 56
Senate Bill thirteen ninety eight reflects that approach. I respectfully urge your I vote on Senate Bill thirteen ninety eight. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thanks very much. Anyone else wishing to express support, please come forward.
Speaker 15
Madam chair members, Silvio Ferrari here on behalf of California Building Industry Association as well as the California Business Properties Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Anybody here in opposition? Lead opposition witnesses? Okay seeing none anybody in the room wishing to express opposition. Seeing none we'll bring it back to the committee any committee comments.
I'll just thank the author for this really good bill it was. I didn't realize that this was even an option before so I appreciate you. Highlighting this. LEED is the oldest and most widely respected green building certification standard, but it's certainly not the only one. And I appreciate the author recognizing that there are other well respected certifying agencies for green building standards.
And I welcome this addition to the law with the hope that allowing green globes to be used for state level building could help it become more prevalent in California. So thank you for your bill, and I'm enthusiastic about supporting it. And you may go ahead and close when ready.
Speaker 55
Yeah thank you I just want to again reiterate how it does not weaken our high standards of our green building commitments especially because we know that we want to provide alternatives and this is a highly respected alternative. So with that I ask for an I vote thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay thank you we have a motion from senator manager of our which is this is SB thirteen ninety eight and the motion is due passed to appropriations.
Speaker 24
Blake's beer I. Valderas I. Valderas I. Allen. I.
Dally. Gonzalez. Artado. Menjivar. Menjivar I.
Speaker 1
Okay. It's four to zero. We'll keep that on call. We next, we have senator Archuleta who braved the rain to get over here. No.
It's just barely misting. But he did have an umbrella just in case. And do you have any lead witnesses that you'd like to invite to join you?
Speaker 57
Well, thank you, madam chair and committee members for allowing me to present my bill fourteen twenty four, dealing with partial tax exemption for zero emission vehicle refueling equipment. Let me say that again. It's tax exempted on zero emission vehicle refueling equipment. I would like to start by thanking the chair and her staff for working with me and my team. And I'm happy to accept the committee's suggested amendments.
Move over here a little bit so I could see you there, madam chair. There we go. And senate bill fourteen twenty four will allow zero emission vehicles fueling equipment, including charging and hydrogen stations to qualify for the state's existing partial sales and use tax program intended to support advanced manufacturing and power generation. This program is administered by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration and is scheduled to sunset on 07/01/2030. So assuming this bill is passed and signed, this bill will be term limit, three year partial state tax exemption.
Speaker 19
The California transportation sector accounts for roughly 50% of the state's greenhouse gas emissions and about 90% of the diesel participant matter pollution, making the transition to zero and near zero emission technologies essential to achieving the state's climate and air quality goals. To this end, California has established ambitious zero emission vehicle deployment targets through both legislation and executive action. Achieving these goals depends heavily on the availability of a robust refueling network, which senate bill fourteen twenty four is designed to support. By expanding the existing partial sales tax exemption to include a broader range of zero emission vehicle refueling equipment, California can help mitigate the significant impact stemming from reduced federal support for clean transportation. These challenges have been further compounded by federal actions under the Trump administration that have undermined key programs California has relied on, such as the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program and Arches, California's hydrogen hub, thereby setting back the state's transportation decarbonization efforts for years to come.
Speaker 57
Senate Bill fourteen twenty four seeks to support those actively investing in the decarbonization of California's transportation sector by providing a term limit exemption from the state's portion of the sales and use tax for zero emission vehicles refueling equipment. This target incentive will reduce upfront capital costs for infrastructure developers, help project pencil out, and accelerate the deployment of both charging and hydrogen refueling networks at the scale required to meet California's climate and clean air mandates. Without this support, California risks slower infrastructure expansion, higher costs for operators and consumers, and delays in achieving its emissions reductions targets, and a broader transportation decarbonization goals. This bill has received no opposition and is supported by both the charging and hydrogen community. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
And with me today, I have Theresa Cook with the California Hydrogen Coalition and Andrea Hartman representing the California Electric Transportation Coalition to testify in support and to help answer any technical questions you may have. Thank you, madam chair.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you very much. You're welcome to begin when ready. Two minutes each.
Speaker 58
Good morning, chair and members. Theresa Cook here on behalf of the California Hydrogen Association, cosponsor of SB fourteen twenty four. California's zero emission vehicle goals are only as strong as the fueling network available to support these vehicles. SB fourteen twenty four allows those actively investing in the fuels of the future future to take advantage of CDTFA's existing and partial sales and use tax credit for manufacturing. By leveraging these existing programs, we can continue California's clean transportation momentum in spite of current headwinds.
We respectfully request your I vote this morning and thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 59
Good morning. Audra Hartman on behalf of the California electric transportation coalition. I'm happy the Cali T. C. Is happy to be sitting here next to the hydrogen industry to support this bill.
It's a zero emission Vehicle proposal and We love the concept Without while California can't fully make up for the loss of support and incentives by the federal government. This measure is a meaningful incentive for the build out of the Z. Infrastructure the supports the Z. Of energy market Growing market excuse me and for that reason we ask for your support of the bill.
Speaker 1
Okay great thank you anybody else in the room wishing to express support please come forward. Okay opposition witnesses to the bill anybody. Anybody wishing to express opposition no okay well that was easy on your bill. No opposition? Okay.
Any comments from committee? All right. I would entertain a motion. So moved. Okay.
The vice chair moves. Wait. Okay. Sorry. Was premature.
Do you wanna withdraw?
Speaker 39
You just trying to get some some clarity manager appreciate your indulgence here. Well first I want to thank the committee for the amendments I do appreciate given the ink adding traditional EVs to this is a great inclusion. I am worried about something that the analysis pointed out to Senator. I'd like to get a little bit of input from you. You know, the analysis points to potentially you considering allowing or disallowing eligible hydrogen fueling stations from using hydrogen derived from fossil fuels.
Speaker 24
What I'm concerned about is expanding sales and use tax exemptions to fossil fuel. That's where my concern is, given that this is gonna decrease revenue for the three years that you've anticipated, given the budget situation we have. It does not sit well with me to decrease our revenue to give tax credit or elimination exemptions to fossil fuel. Wanted to hear a little bit more of your thoughts or to the to the sponsors. You could speak a little bit more on that.
Speaker 58
Thank you for the question, senator. I'm grateful that you raised this important point. I think everybody in the hydrogen community understands that we need to transition away from traditional fossil fuel produced hydrogen into renewable feedstocks. There's no question. We have thrice now introduced legislation seeking to do that, but have had some some issues coming to at a full agreement on what that might look like.
Speaker 46
But I do think you can take comfort in the rigor required of the hydrogen community via the low carbon fuel standard program. That really is the sort of primary mechanism that shapes what hydrogen looks like in transportation. We have a requirement today that renewable hydrogen dispense to be 40% renewable and come 2030, we are actually required to have 80% renewable hydrogen in order to take full advantage of what LCFS has to offer. So while we may not have a statutory glide path, we definitely have a programmatic glide path that again, I can say everybody in hydrogen is very, very dependent and active in. And I do wanna sort of point out that an 80% by 2030 is 20% more ambitious than what we are asking of the electricity sector.
Speaker 39
But in February, that we post this pilot sunsetting. So it won't kick in while this pilot is in in effect.
Speaker 58
Fair enough. You know, I would hope that there would be sort of an ability to allow there to be kind of transitionary period. I think that's kind of akin to saying that we can't build new transmission lines unless we're certain that every electron that gets put on them is renewable today. I think we have to build the infrastructure that supports where we want to go. And so, know, while I'm sorry that we still have a, you know, an amount of hydrogen that is produced from fossil gas that is not forever.
And and again, 2030 isn't too far away, and 80% is a heck of a
Speaker 39
I've come a long way since I've got in here four years ago, where the first year I don't think I voted on any hydrogen bills. Since then, voted on a lot of bills from the senator and other regarding and understanding that we need to move forward, and hydrogen is a step forward. I don't think I'm disagreeing with any of that. I think what doesn't sit well with me is providing the the tax exemption when it's still with fossil fuel. I think that's where it's for my concern is we should invest in in this.
Yes. But the tax exemption part for fossil fuel is what doesn't sit well with me. So I think any bill that considers streamlining and creating this, I'm all on board. It's just this last piece, senator, that I I doesn't get me to an I vote today. Thank you.
Speaker 57
Well, thank you. And I appreciate the comments and so on. But California is going to be part of the future of hydrogen. And hydrogen is going be part of California's future. But here we have both the electric and hydrogen coming together.
What a great opportunity. Because of the fact that we lost that $1,500,000,000 from the federal government, we've got to keep California in the move towards hydrogen and its participation in our clean environment. So I think it's a good way to start. And so with that, I do ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. And I think the Vice Chair Move okay great- so. We have SB fourteen twenty four the motion is due pass as amended to revenue and taxation- from the vice chair so please call the roll.
Speaker 24
Blake spear I. Valderas. Valderas I Allen. Dali. Dali I.
Gonzalez. Hurtado. Munchbar.
Speaker 1
and it does appear that we only have two more authors after the vice chairs presents So, I would like to encourage Senator Stern and Senator Hurtado to come to, the EQ committee and also any member of the committee to come here so that we can vote on all of the bills. So, we'll move next to the vice chair, Senator Valadez with SB twelve thirty.
Speaker 4
Well thank you madam chair- and good good afternoon are we at we're on no still good morning Good morning members I'm here this morning to present Senate bill twelve thirty. And let's be clear about what this is really about. Ealing old dumping is not happening in Beverly Hills it's not piling up in Brentwood. It's happening in communities that don't have the resources, the political clout, or the access to fight back. In places like my community in the Antelope Valley in High Desert, Lake Los Angeles, Phelan, Pinion Hills, families are living next to what are essentially open landfills.
Not by choice, but because bad actors know that there is no real consequence. This isn't just about how it looks. This is about public safety and quality of life. Illegal dumping contaminates soil and ground mount water, attracts vermin, increases wildfire risk, and every time it happens, taxpayers are stuck footing the bill. The problem is that our enforcement tools have not kept up.
The fines meant to deter this behavior haven't been haven't been meaningfully updated since 2004, over twenty years ago. While we took a step in 2022 to increase maximum penalties for large scale violators, the minimum fines and noncommercial penalties were left untouched. Those penalties are most often applied in the communities getting hit the hardest. And today, those fines are still far below the actual cost of cleanup. For repeat offenders, that's not a deterrent.
That's just the cost of doing business. In my district alone, residents have documented more than 100 unauthorized dump sites across the Antelope Valley. From Lake Los Angeles to the Antelope Valley Poppy Reserve, some stretches some stretch hundreds of acres and go dozens of feet deep. We've seen over 70 trash related fires responded to by Allett County Fire in just the past couple of years, costing taxpayers over $1,600,000. In 2024, the Apollo Fire sparked by illegally dumped material, burned 800 acres, destroyed a home, and killed several dogs.
I've talked to residents who have had to stay inside their homes because the smoke and the smell from these sites made it unsafe to go outside. SB twelve thirty is a targeted fix. It increases fines for second and subsequent violations only. We are not touching first time offenders, and it creates a centralized resource through Cal Recycle so local governments have the tools they need to actually enforce the law and clean this up. Here today to testify in support is John Kennedy from rural county representatives of California.
Speaker 52
Good morning again. John Kennedy with RCRC on behalf of 40 of the state's rural counties. We're pleased to be here today to support SB twelve thirty. SB twelve thirty seeks to increase coordination of local efforts to respond to and prevent illegal dumping. Illegal dumping is chronic and pervasive problem in our rural communities, but also in urban areas as well.
Importantly, the bill also increases the maximum penalty amounts, maximum penalty amounts for second or subsequent violations of illegal dumping laws. It doesn't touch the fines for first violations. And in our perspective, it really roughly adjusts those penalties for inflation since 02/2006 when they were last adjusted. SB twelve thirty also designates Cal Recycle as the state's lead agency to coordinate illegal dumping activities and tasks them with developing a website and additional resources. This is consistent with an existing Cal Recycle budget change proposal currently under consideration and helps formalize the state's role.
The state is currently involved in a less formal, more informal role on coordinating an illegal dumping task force. This helps to elevate that task force's efforts, provide us with tools and solutions that we can use as local agencies, and hopefully deter more illegal dumping across the state. So for these reasons, we're pleased to support SB twelve thirty and urge your I vote today.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you very much. Others in support please state your name organization and position.
Speaker 42
Chair members child and as on behalf of Alameda County in strong support.
Speaker 41
Cody boils in behalf of the California association highway patrolman support.
Speaker 1
Okay thank you anybody here in opposition. Okay any means to use an opposition no I will bring it back to the committee. Center but for Please add me as a co
Speaker 1
Absolutely. It is a great bill. And I'm wondering why why the penal why does it only kick in its second violation? It seems like anybody doing a first violation of dumping should have penalties.
Speaker 4
No. It was a compromise that we made with some of the opposition, the initial opposition.
Speaker 1
It is a really good bill and we I mean, just recognizing how illegal dumping is a scourge in every way. It's an environmental disaster. It really degrades our state. It looks terrible. It's terrible for the communities around it.
It's a it's a wildfire. It's a fire risk. It gets into the water. I mean, all of it is terrible. So I'm glad that we're doing more to address it.
So with that, would you like to close?
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. Would, I'd entertain a motion. Okay. Senator Dolly moves, and the motion is, due passed to appropriations.
This is s p twelve thirty. Senator Dolly moves, so we will take a vote.
Speaker 24
Senators Flakespeare? Aye. Flakespeare? Aye. Valderas?
Aye. Allen? Dali? Aye. Dali?
Aye. Gonzalez? Artado? Menjibar?
Speaker 1
Okay it's 30 we'll keep that on call- and so we're we'll go through the role- if senator Dolly would like us to- and then. Okay. And if we don't have the last two authors after we go through the role, then we are going to adjourn for lunch, and then we will come back after lunch. Okay. Well, where is he?
He's in Ed, Michigan. He is? Okay. Okay. Okay.
We'll wait for Stern. Alright. Alright. Let's, go through all of those that need Dolly's, vote.
Speaker 24
Okay. So file item one s b nine eight one with the motion is due pass through appropriations with chair and vice chair voting aye. Current vote four zero. Senators Dolly? Dolly, aye.
Gonzalez Hurtado?
Speaker 24
Moving on to file item two. Motion is be adopted for SJR 13 by senator Padilla current vote four zero senators Dali. Gonzalez or Tado.
Speaker 24
File item three SB ten thirty three motion is due passed to appropriations current vote three zero with chair voting aye. Senators Dali? No. Dali? No.
Valderas? Gonzalez? Ortado?
Speaker 24
Moving on to the consent calendar which has file item four SB eight nine nine. File item six SB thirteen thirteen. File item 11 SB twelve fifty three and file item 12 SB 1,300. Current vote is four zero. Senators Dolly.
Dally, I. Gonzales, Ortado? Five zero. The consent calendar is still on call.
Speaker 24
File item five SB nine two five the motion is due pass as amended to appropriation current vote four zero. Senators Dali. Dali I. Gonzalez or Tado.
Speaker 24
Okay moving on to file item seven SB thirteen fifty the motion is due pass as amended to appropriations and current vote is four zero. Senators Dali. Dali I Gonzalez or Tado. 01 call
Speaker 24
File item eight SB ten ten motion is due past appropriations current vote three to one with chair voting I and vice chair voting no. Senators Dali. Dali no Gonzalez for Tado.
Speaker 24
Okay SB eleven forty five file item nine motion is due pass as amended to appropriations current vote four to zero senators Dali dally I gonzales hurtado
Speaker 24
item 10 s b eleven eighty three motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote is three to zero with vice chair voting aye. Senators Blake Spear? I. Blake Spear, I.
Allen, Dali, I. Dali, I. Ortado?
Speaker 1
Five-zero, we'll keep that on call. Let's just keep going straight down. I think we're on. 14.
Speaker 24
File item 14, SB thirteen twenty six. Motion is due, pass your appropriations with vice chair voting aye. Current vote, three zero. Senators Blake Spear? Aye.
Lake Spear, aye. Dally I. Dally I. Gonzalez or Tado.
Speaker 24
SB thirteen forty one file item 15 motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote four zero senators Dali. I. Dali I. Gonzalez or Tado.
Speaker 24
Okay. File item 16 SB thirteen ninety eight. Motion is due past due appropriations. Current vote four zero. Sanders Dali.
Dali I. Gonzalez or Toto? Five zero.
Speaker 1
Actually so there was a motion from the vice chair on item number 19 s b twelve ninety one, which the motion is due pass to appropriations from senator Gonzalez.
Speaker 24
Okay. File item 19. Senators Blake Spear? Aye. Blake Spear, aye.
Valderas? Valderas? Aye. Allen? Dally?
Not knowing. Gonzalez? Ortado? Menjvar? Aye.
Menjvar aye.
Speaker 24
We already got Ali on number 20. Oh, sorry. File item 20 SB 1230. Motion is due passed to appropriations with chair and vice chair voting aye. Current vote three zero.
Senators Allen, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Okay. That's 40 on call.
Speaker 1
Okay. 40. We'll keep that on call. Okay. Great.
We're on item number 13, s b 1411. Senator Stern is the bill is being presented by senator Allen. And when he gets here, he can slide right in next to him.
Speaker 41
unprioritizing or causing any delays to the Merced to Bakersfield segment of the high speed rail project. It's about ensuring that the high speed rail authority has all the tools it needs to meet its long term goal of developing a statewide network that extends well beyond Merced to Bakersfield and that we start building concurrently. The bill makes a few but important changes to help the high speed rail authority succeed its mission by giving it more flexibility to leverage private capital that's currently sitting on the sidelines waiting to hop on board local transit feeder lines that will ultimately connect to the bookends bringing passengers in the North and the South to high speed rail stations. The bill removes the $500,000,000 project cap sending a big market signal and giving flexibility to the authority to attract that capital from those P3 partners to seriously discuss and potentially invest in and develop transit projects that create jobs and advance our high speed rail goals. The bill also clarifies that the high speed rail authority's ability to engage in additional activities that maximize the efficiency of delivering the project.
Speaker 7
The bill is supported by Associated General Contractors, California Conference of Carpenters, Streets for All Climate Action, the LA Metro, Metrolink Building Trades, it's a great group of folks. And here with me to speak in support, have Wendy Mitchell from LA Metro and Keith Dunn from State Building Trades.
Speaker 50
Hi. Wendy Mitchell on behalf of the LA Metro board of directors. Thank you, Senator Allen and Senator Stern for introducing this bill. Said LA Metro has long worked with the authority on the on supporting the initial operating system. For the high speed rail but in addition leveraging these funds for additional projects like for example our our the.
Our oh
Speaker 3
Rosecrans Marquardt facility that both will be needed when high speed rail comes to Los Angeles but is offering benefits that was a very dangerous intersection. And so we support this bill we will continue to work with the high speed rail authority. And to you know hopefully this will help leverage private funds. Moving forward and we ask for your I vote.
Speaker 20
Thank
you madam chair I would like to thank the author for always ensuring that my bills are always last. Thank you for that. I would like to thank our pitch hitter for our our pitch hitter for sitting in and giving me the opportunity to sit next to him in support of things. I appreciate that. I'm also pleased to say that this High Speed Rail bill in the however many years I've been doing this is a bipartisan bill enjoying support from both parties who recognize that investing in ridership is good for the state.
Speaker 60
This is a common sense approach that opens opportunities while keeping our commitment to the Central Valley. And let me restate that commits the keeps our commitment to the Central Valley which is critically important does not abandon that investment. This is on top of that investment. We can chew gum and walk most of the time here in the state of California providing the opportunity to jump start investments in Los Angeles in the Bay Area where those riderships exist. For existing opportunities partnering with our local agencies just makes sense I would like to thank the author all kidding aside this is an important measure and I'd ask your support.
Speaker 1
Thank you is there anybody else in the room wishing to express support please come forward state your name organization and position on the bill.
Speaker 14
Mckinley Thompson Worley on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority in support.
Speaker 6
He's a lot bravo with crew strategies on behalf of the city of San Jose and supporting.
Speaker 1
Okay great. Well now opposition witnesses do we have anybody in opposition. Not seeing any? We will Anybody else in the room wishing to express opposition? Okay.
We'll bring it back to the committee. Vice Chair.
Speaker 4
You. I had highly technical questions for Senator Allen. Since you're you're back. It's very rare that I can so easily support a high speed rail bill. Let's be real.
This is bipartisan. It's an important bill. Happy to move it when it's appropriate.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Senator Dolly, did you wanna say anything? Nope.
Okay. Anybody else on the committee? Okay, we'll turn it back to the author to close.
Speaker 48
Thank you to my co author here and our supporters. We do we do have to do a few things at the same time in our transportation infrastructure and you know when you look at Southern California and just. The power of rail from even above my district up in the Camarillo and all the way to Santa Barbara Down to San Diego there are lot of people want to get on the train Ridership will provide the financing this project so desperately needs. This is about saving taxpayers money we know we need to bring in private capital And the only way we're gonna retract that private capital is by allowing for advanced engineering, design, kind of site acquisition that we're talking about in this legislation getting those early works going now so that folks know that they're gonna get a payback on their investment and will lift all boats in the process. We know we have huge needs, for example, in the San Fernando Valley.
Speaker 20
We wanna get our, El Sepulveda Pass built. We wanna build out the fan I see valley line. We want to get the purple line finished in you know get all the way to I want to get that expo I'm gonna ride that expo line to and and I and I love my surf liner. And we want that to be sustained We've got to treat this high speed rail not so much as a burden on taxpayers anymore but hopefully the financial opportunity and by expanding the aperture and be more flexible about the funding I think we have a shot at it. So with that respectfully ask for I.
Speaker 1
Okay thank you I would entertain a motion on this bill senator Allen. The month that. Oh you already moved it it's true okay this the vice chair already moved it. Sorry it's true the motion is due passed to appropriations this is s b fourteen eleven please call the roll.
Speaker 24
Senators Blake's fear I Blake's fear I Valderas I Valderas I Alan Alan I Dali Aye. Dally, aye. Gonzales, Artado? Menjvar? Aye.
Menjvar, aye.
Speaker 1
Wait. Allen, are you sure you wanna leave? Because we could go through and get your votes on the things you're missing on. Okay. Good.
That was five zero. Okay. That's 50. We'll keep that on call. Oh, good.
Gonzales is here too. Yeah. Okay. So, we're as we wait for Senator Hurtado, we will go through the role one more time. So and we'll just start from the beginning.
Speaker 24
Okay. File item one SB981 motion is due pass through appropriations current vote five zero. Senators Gonzales. File item one SB nine eight one. Aye.
Gonzalez I. Ortado?
Speaker 24
File item two, SJR 13. Motion is be adopted. Current vote, four zero. Senators Dalley? Gonzalez?
Gonzalez, aye. Ortado?
Speaker 24
K. File item three, s b ten thirty three. Senator Valderas? Gonzalez? Aye.
Gonzalez, aye. Or Tado?
Speaker 24
Okay. Moving on to the consent calendar, which is file item four SB eight ninety nine, file item six SB thirteen thirteen, file item 11 SB twelve fifty three and file item 12 SB 1,300 current vote is five to zero senators Gonzalez. Gonzalez I. Or Tado. That's.
Speaker 24
File item five. SB nine two five. Motion is due pass as amended to appropriation. Current vote, five zero. Senators Gonzalez?
Speaker 1
Remember how he asked you to say, the chair voting aye. Yeah. He wants to indicate, like, where I am. Right. Yeah.
Speaker 24
Chair and vice chair voting aye. Senator Gonzalez? Gonzalez, aye. Ortado? Ortado, aye.
Speaker 1
Okay. That's seven zero. That's the first item that's now out. So we're we're going to, senator Allen, does it work for you if Hurtado starts?
Speaker 1
the Okay. Okay. Okay. Senator Hurtado, you are recognized. This is item SB twelve eighty nine, which is item 18.
And you are recognized. I think we need to get the microphone to go on.
Speaker 34
Okay. Thank you madam chair. I'm here to present on SB twelve eighty nine but I want to start by thanking the committee chair and her and your staff for the time and effort that they put into this bill. I know how much work it went into it and I want to acknowledge that. I took on this bill in part because of our Kings County and in large part because of the community of Kettleman City which has not been receiving its fair share of investments.
And I want to specifically thank Supervisor Avaya for being a partner with me on this matter and also the engagement that we've received from the community leader of Kettleman, Miguel Alatorre. Kettleman City, we're talking about a community that still lacks very much basic infrastructure, sidewalks, adequate public health resources, while at the same time it carries one of the heaviest burdens in a state. A community that has experienced health related clusters as well. Kettleman City is only one, is one of only two communities handling hazardous waste for the state of California. The in, the entire state benefits, but the burden is concentrated in two areas.
Those places are not being made whole and I also want to be clear about something else is that in no way I'm trying to throw the, you know, the facilities under the bus either. The facility has paid its required fees and has been part of the conversations with the community and local leadership and that's very important and I'm I'm thankful and grateful for that. And but I also again wanted to point the the the inequity here for the community of of Kettleman. But fees alone do not kinda they don't equal fairness, and they do not replace a kind of sustained investment that a community like Kettleman City deserves after decades of carrying this kind of responsibility. With the crisis looming, as landfill capacity tightens, my hope with this bill was simple, to give the community a real seat at the table in shaping its present and its future.
Not to have a plan rushed onto them later with no meaningful community benefit, no real input, and potential loss of revenue revenue for both local business and the broader community. Because historically that's what happens in the Central Valley. Decisions get made elsewhere, impacts get felt there. And I'll just be kind of frank about that is that I'm, you know, fed up with that kind of pattern for the Central Valley and that, you know, we carry often the burden while others get opt out entirely. We've seen it when, you know, what waste is generated elsewhere but sent there when projects are rejected in wealthier communities only to be redirected into place places like Kettleman City.
And that is not shared responsibility, it's displacement. So at its core, the bill was about to try and get ahead of that, to create space for a community, a county, any business to come together to find a path forward on their terms before the state tries to find a solution for them or anywhere else under pressure. Because if we don't do that, we already know how this ends. At least we know how it ends in the Central Valley. It ends with the same communities being asked again to carry even more or with even less say.
But I don't I I don't really like the I don't like the reality here that made this bill necessary, but a reality where communities like Kittleman City carry statewide burdens without receiving their fair share in return. At minimum, if California is going to continue relying on places in the Central Valley, then we owe those communities this. A fair process, a fair share of investment, and a real voice in what happens next. That was my goal with bringing this bill forward and that's the standard we should all be willing to stand behind. Thank you for hearing me today and for allowing me to bring all this to light.
But today I'm not seeking a motion on SB twelve eighty nine. At this moment, I just want to bring awareness and set the stage for how we should be moving forward.
Speaker 61
Thank you. Good afternoon, madam chair members. Dylan Elliott here today representing the king's county board of supervisors co sponsors of S. Twelve eighty nine. Want to begin by stating our appreciation to senator retado for her leadership and partnership on this issue it is not an easy topic and we remain grateful to the senator and her team for their willingness to have this conversation.
She is a staunch advocate for Kings County and its residents. At its core, Kings County's co sponsorship of twelve eighty nine was built on the critical effort to retain a long standing partner in waste management through the continued operation of their Kettleman Hills facility. The county is clear eyed about what the loss of that facility could mean for the Kettleman and broader Kings County community. At present, the facility brings in roughly $1,500,000 to the county, and those funds are used to provide critical services locally. While not related to this bill, counties are already bracing for even harder budget times as the most significant impacts of HR1 take shape.
Every dollar matters right now, especially in rural communities like Kings County. At the same time though, this is not just about dollars and cents. The county appreciates the importance of being responsive to the perspective of its constituents. The county has had ongoing good faith meetings with community members to hear those and should SB twelve eighty nine have moved out of this committee today, we would have committed to have continued to doing so and in fact, irrespective of this bill, that is our promise. We are grateful to the committee and their staff for the very hard work on this bill if evidenced by nothing else other than the 26 page analysis put forth on this measure.
We ask that the committee continue to see Kings County as a thoughtful partner in what we hope will be ongoing conversations to address this issue and those that concern keeping growth, commerce, and opportunity in our Central Valley communities. Doing so is of paramount importance. And I will just conclude again by thanking Senator Hurtado for her willingness to take this on for her district. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Thank you good morning madam. Good afternoon madam chair members of the committee John Moffitt on behalf of waste management. Because the bill is not going to move forward or be put to a vote today I just want to start off by stipulating. We told our technical folks to stay home. And so, if we get really technical on things, I might have to, write down questions and circle back with with the members of the committee later.
But, with respect to the policy, absolutely agree. This is a challenging policy issue. It's a it's a tough one. I think it's important to note that, you know, based on on what Senator Hurtado said, California is down to two hazardous waste management facilities serving the entire state. And it's important to note this isn't our stuff.
This is other people's stuff that we are giving a safe place for it to be disposed of. And, you know, in California, you know, federal law sets the minimum. We have chosen to go above that law for good reasons. And when we characterize waste in a certain way, it's because we want it handled and disposed of in a certain way. That policy is completely undermined when our disposal policies don't meet our waste characterization policies.
And so, we know that this issue, this conversation has economic impacts. This bill would have economic impacts. The fact that this bill is not moving forward will have economic impacts. At the end of the day waste management has some very very challenging decisions to make here in the coming months. On this facility.
Notwithstanding that we look forward to continue working with the legislature working with our regulators and also working with our local government or our local community partners and local government partners in trying to figure out a way to ensure that this facility is, is maintained here in the state, continuing to serve the state. And, again, we want to echo the county's comments that we appreciate Senator Hurtado's partnership and championship of this, and we look forward to the ongoing conversation on this issue. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. You're welcome to come to the microphone if you would like to express support.
Speaker 7
Madam chair and members, Chris Maurer, ex and advisers on behalf of, Clean Harbors in support of the measure.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. Anybody in the room wishing to express opposition?
Come on forward. Just well, just two of you. If we can maybe make room at the front table for them. Welcome to the committee you each have two minutes for your testimony. And you are welcome to begin when ready.
Thank you for your patience in waiting so long.
Speaker 62
Good afternoon chair members my name is Caroline Farrell I'm an attorney with the environmental law and justice clinic Golden Gate University and I also live in Bakersfield. I'm on here on behalf of the national diversity coalition. The California Environmental Justice Coalition, and Green Action for Health and Environmental Justice in opposition. We wanted to thank Senator Hurtado for not putting this bill up for a motion today. I think the issues that she raised about the disproportionate impacts Kettleman City and Buttonwillow have faced over the years is really important to a comprehensive solution.
SB twelve eighty nine is written would concentrate hazardous waste in just two communities, Kettleman City and Buttonwillow, predominantly low income Latino farm worker communities that have already borne decades of pollution. Both Buttonwillow and Kettleman City are in the top 10% of the most impacted communities per Cal EnviroScreen. That's not just bad policy. It's environmental racism. And to be honest about how we got here, the bill is widely understood to be sponsored by Waste Management, a corporation that owns one of only two federally permitted hazardous waste landfills California.
If enacted, this bill could increase cost to consumers by dramatically restricting disposal options and effectively steering waste volumes to facilities owned by just two companies. That's not public health driven policy or science. It's policy based on corporate interests. At the same time, these facilities are not models of compliance. They're operating on expired permits.
Speaker 5
DTSC has classified the Buttonwillow facility as a significant noncomplier. These sites were originally permitted through processes that included intimidation of residents and Spanish speaking farmworker communities. SB two ninety eight, as written, did not fix those failures. It entrenched them while violating the goals of SB six seventy three, a bill this committee supported to require cumulative impact criteria be adopted and considered in permitting decisions. These are serious legal and practical risks as well, including Commerce Clause implications that would alter or restrict interstate movement of hazardous waste.
Speaker 62
The bill risks slowing cleanup. Under CERCLA, the state must demonstrate sufficient disposal capacity to access federal funding for cleanup, creating bottlenecks by forcing waste to two facilities with limited capacity could delay cleanups and prolong exposure in communities across California.
Speaker 9
Good morning, madam chair and members. My name is Adeel. I'm Chief Legal Officer and Advocacy on behalf of National Diversity Coalition. Our members include various ethnic chambers and we serve low income community in regards to with a mission to empower and achieve financial equality. For many low income communities that we represent, there is no margin left.
Any modest increase on the cost, it just excavated their affordability and affordability crisis. That is why we are concerned about SB twelve eighty nine. The bill may sound technical, but the impacts are not. By limiting hazardous waste disposal to a very low number of facilities, it reduces competition and creates pricing pressure across sectors of economy. The industries at first, the most effective will be like utilities, fuel and construction, But what happens if the other cost does not stay there?
Speaker 43
We all know the cost always pass to the low income communities and marginal minority. And the small businesses that we represent, they don't have any marginal app. At this present, at this crucial juncture of affordability crisis across California, faced by many small business and low income communities, there is no cushion, there is no ability to absorb higher cost. SB two eighty nine also risk creating bottlenecks and that also impacts many communities that are focused on lowering cost and reducing burden and reducing the environmental burden that they affect. At this time, the California should be focused on lowering cost and reducing burdens and the bill moves in the opposite direction.
Speaker 9
We urge you to consider not just how this policy affects the system, how it affects people, especially the low income communities and marginal minority that are facing the affordability crisis at this point of time. For these reasons we respectfully urge your position thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay thank you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to come forward and express opposition. Can come to the microphone and just state your name, the organization you represent, if any, and your position on the bill.
Speaker 25
Hello senators. I was actually wondering if I could potentially comment. So I'm actually from Cattlemen City and I work directly in the community.
Speaker 1
I'm sorry. You can't. The way our system works is there are Just two state your name and your opposition to the bill so we have it for the record.
Speaker 63
So my name is Giovanni Solorio, and I directly represent the organization called El Pueblo Paraligre Yahua Olympio, the Kettleman City, and we oppose the senate bill.
Speaker 51
Chairman, my name is Matt Holmes. I'm with California Environmental Justice Coalition. I'm authorized to issue opposition on on behalf of the following waste impacted organizations. One thousand grandmothers for future generations, Avenal Cares, Bayview Hunters Point, mothers and fathers, citizens for Chiquita Canyon closure, Del Amo Action Committee, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Good Neighbor Steering Committee of Benicia, Jesse Miranda Center for Hispanic Leadership, New Beginnings CDC, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Valley Improvement Projects, West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs, and One Heart Cares of La Jolla San Diego.
Speaker 27
Christina Emphasis, in behalf of California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce, California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Coalition of Filipino American Chamber of Commerce, Filipino American Chamber of Commerce, Seritos, Filipino American Chamber of Commerce San Diego, Middle Eastern and North American Chamber of Commerce, South Asian Business Alliance Network, Apex DSL Repair, Blue Zone Health Solution, Fix Auto Poway, Robin Hilton Land and Tree Company, San Diego Business Solution, Sweet Waters B and M LLC and Maple View B and M LLC in opposition.
Speaker 36
Noel Melro, on behalf of CR environmental we apologize for not getting a letter in before the deadline, but in opposition thank you.
Speaker 25
Good afternoon chair Blake's fear members of the committee Michael Caprio with Republic Services here in opposition but I do wanna thank senator Hurtado for not seeking a motion today. We're very appreciative of the the thoughtful move. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Okay. Well, we'll bring it back to the committee, and I'll just make a few comments and maybe ask a couple questions. So senator Hurtado, I want to recognize that this is a really difficult situation within your district. And I want to you to know that there I recognize that there are various dynamics that are happening and it makes this a very difficult situation.
It's clear to me that you want to support the communities in your districts that have been under invested. And disenfranchised for so long. And you also want to ensure that Kings County gets the support that they need. And that we have systems in place within the state of California to manage the hazardous waste we generate. So these are all important goals.
Finding the right approach here is key and of course this is easier said than done. I do encourage the sponsors to see if there's another path forward that would not have such a profound impact on the state or the host communities. It seems like there are options out there, incentive based approaches that could be more balanced. And I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on incentive based approaches if there's anything that you've thought of or is this the proposal that was in this bill was really the only option in your mind or if there were are are there other options.
Speaker 15
Thank you for the question I think we're open to all options. We have a facility that is very challenged right now and I think we are open to any concept or idea out there that would help keep this facility open in the state. And so more than happy to consider alternative proposals, alternative ways of getting at this issue, should they be put before us. I know the committee analysis has a couple thoughts on things to try and strike some balance and we appreciate that suggestion and and we'll look to explore that.
Speaker 1
And can you just clearly express what the implications are for hazardous waste disposal facilities if this issue goes unaddressed?
Speaker 15
I would say for our facility at Kettleman, certainly I can't speak for the Clean Harbors facility at Button Willow, we have been very clear about the potential outcome if we are not able to, as part of our permit renewal process, address issues there, but then also address the continuing decline in volumes at this facility. We're operating right now well under our permitted level. And that, you know, it's that sort of balance that keeps this facility economically viable. And if we can't maintain any balance there, at some point the facility does become economically, you know, is not economically viable as a hazardous waste facility.
Speaker 1
Okay. Okay. Well, I appreciate, that that those answers. I'm gonna open it up to the other community community committee members, senator Menjivar.
Speaker 39
Yeah. Thank you so much, senator. I can imagine you know you're trying to fix a situation in your district- but I think it's very. I appreciate you taking a pause without any concerns but I'm wondering if you are the sponsors could speak about the expansion capacity and just the thought behind the impacts that was going to have to the communities. And how do you offset that?
Speaker 15
Yeah. Again, I'm not the technical expert, so happy to circle back with you. You know, the current permit renewal that we're going through right now is on the existing footprint, the existing cells in the facility. Any expansion would have to go through a whole new process, permitting process at DTSC.
Speaker 39
So you wouldn't have had to expand should the other six closed? Not closed if the other six would have not been an option and everything would have gone to the two facilities.
Speaker 15
Well, mean, I I I can't speak to the economics of all of those facilities that are closed.
Speaker 39
The intent was to redirect all the materials to the two in state sites. The capacity for those two in state to now absorb what six others were doing would have not required an expansion of
Speaker 15
It would have. It's a matter of timing. It's a matter of timing. Obviously, as we look at our facilities, we try and plan out into the future. You know, again, federal law sets a minimum even for out of state class C facilities.
California goes above that minimum. So, even compared to other hazardous waste disposal facilities in other states, we have higher standards here. Because of those standards, you don't just take a piece of land, dig a big hole, and say, Okay, we're going to put stuff in it. It's done in segments and in cells, and each one of those cells has to be permitted. And so we're in we're working in one cell now.
Speaker 1
Once we, you know, get to capacity, then we before we get to capacity in that cell, we would need to go back to DTSC and get permits to bring online a new cell. And, you know, I think the bill didn't require all California hazardous waste to just go to these two facilities. There is, you know, there are facilities out of state that this material could be disposed of that are not municipal solid waste facilities, which is where they're present, it's all presently going or at least 50% of the hazardous waste is is going to municipal solid waste facilities in Arizona and Utah. And so, this this material would, under the bill, either have to go to the two facilities in California or an out of state facility that also, again, doesn't meet California standards for these facilities, but at least meets federal standards for hazardous waste, is higher than the standards for municipal solid waste.
Speaker 21
Senator, if I may add, with permission of the chair and the author, from the perspective of the county, it would certainly defer to my colleague on what the expansion would look like. Those details are are for the facility. From the perspective of the county, the first and foremost issue that we wanted to make sure we would try to address to this bill was the continued operation of the facility at start. In the event that there was increased capacity and there was increased deliveries of hazardous waste to the facility, what would be most important in the county has maintained is what that looks like in an increased community benefits perspective for the impacted communities. Very open to what that could look like and there's an existing MOU in place between waste management and the county.
Speaker 61
There would be some appropriateness and revisiting that in the event there was increased delivery but of course with where we're at the bill process those conversations were still ongoing but we very much want to be partners in finding that path.
Speaker 37
Thanks to the author. I know this is a challenge in your district that's been mentioned, I know you'll continue to work. But, I think you hit it, Dylan, with the community benefits and really maximizing this opportunity for your community, which I know a lot of us share. It's just, you know, this is very unique in some cases. And so what you do here will be sort of representative of what could happen across the state and in some other areas.
So, know, look forward to working with you on that and just seeing what other legislative solutions there are. You know, having I had XSight in my backyard. You know, I'm no stranger to environmental justice concerns. And looking at, you know, figuring out how DTSC funding can be maximized here, which I'm sure you're doing. It's not very easy sometimes to get DTSC to listen and to be there, even though we try.
But I think it's something that more colleagues would be willing to help you with, to make sure we have a true solution all around. But I don't know if there's anything you'd like to add there.
Speaker 34
No. I really appreciate the comments, Senator. And, you know, I'll say that my district's a very unique place. And and this particular community, Kings County, you know, we the county engaged the community of Kettleman City, the members. They had, you know, they had a town hall.
They worked with, you know, the the company as well. They were all part of the conversation. I don't think that's necessarily something that you see perhaps occurring in other parts of the state. And it's very unique in that, and I think there's there's I think they want to be part of the conversation and be at the table when the decisions are being made. And I know that this bill, there was a lot of work that was put into it.
Speaker 44
Once again, thank you to the chair and her team for all the work and the analysis that was done and and working with us to incorporate, language on community benefits. But, of course, this was just, the first committee hearing that we're hoping to work on this bill, and, of course, there was an entire process that we were hoping to make, changes along the way to make it work. But, however, we couldn't we couldn't necessarily get there just yet. And I, you know, part of moving this bill forward for me was making sure that everyone had a seat at the table in my community, but also that everybody was in agreement of of what was gonna be moving forward because there's just no way moving forward without everybody being on the same team and on the same side. And so we weren't there yet and but I did, you know, wanted to I wanted to make sure that we brought attention to this issue because I think it does have consequences for everybody.
Speaker 34
I I think especially if we're expecting a big fire season, there's I mean, there's just there's gonna be these these questions are gonna be coming up and these concerns are gonna be, you know, brought forward. So, I wanted to raise the issue here and have a conversation about it and hopefully down the road we can all be on the same place and moving forward together.
Speaker 1
Okay, well thank you. Since there's no requested motion, you're still welcome to close if you wanted to say anything more.
Speaker 34
Thank you Madam Chair, you to your team as well and I we look forward to ongoing conversations.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thanks very much. Thank you. Alright. So now we'll go to the, role.
We'll start with the, votes that need senator Allen, then we'll go to the votes that need senator Gonzalez.
Speaker 24
Okay starting with file item 10 SP eleven eighty three motion is due passes a minute to appropriations current vote five zero with chair and vice chair voting aye Senators Allen?
Speaker 1
Seven zero. Pardon? Wait, that's seven zero, so that bills out. Is that what you were just?
Speaker 24
Okay. Next, file item 17, s p fourteen twenty four. Motion is due pass as amended to revenue and taxation with chair and vice chair voting aye current vote three zero senators Allen Allen aye Gonzales aye Gonzales aye Urtado Ortado, Aye.
Speaker 24
File item 19 SB twelve ninety one motion is due pass to appropriations current vote three zero with chair and vice chair voting aye Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Dali? Gonzalez?
Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Ortado? Aye. Ortado, aye.
Speaker 24
Okay. File item 20, SB twelve thirty. Motion is due pass to appropriations. Current vote is four zero with chair and vice chair voting aye. Senators Allen?
Aye. Allen, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye.
Ortado? Aye. Ortado, aye.
Speaker 24
File item seven, SB thirteen fifty. Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations with current vote five zero chair and vice chair voting aye senators Gonzalez aye Gonzalez aye or Toto aye or Toto aye seven
Speaker 24
File item eight, SB ten ten, motion is due passed to appropriations. Current vote, three to two, with chair voting aye and vice chair voting no. Senators Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye.
Ortado? Aye. Ortado, aye.
Speaker 24
File item nine, SB eleven forty five. Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote, five to zero, with chair and vice chair voting aye. Senators Gonzalez? Aye.
Gonzalez, aye. Ortado? Aye. Ortado, aye.
Speaker 24
File item 13, s b fourteen eleven. Motions due pass through appropriations with a current vote of five to zero, chair and vice chair voting, aye. Senators Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye.
Ortado? Aye. Ortado, aye.
Speaker 24
File item 14, s b thirteen twenty six. Motion is due passed to appropriations with a current vote of five to zero, chair and vice chair voting aye. Senators Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye.
Ortado? One. Ortado, aye.
Speaker 24
File item 15, SB thirteen forty one, motion is due pass as amended to appropriations with current vote five zero, chair and vice chair voting, aye. Senators Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Ortado?
Ortado, aye.
Speaker 24
File item 16 SB thirteen ninety eight due pass through appropriations current vote five zero chair and vice chair voting aye senators Gonzalez aye Gonzalez aye or Toto aye or Toto aye Seven zero. That
Speaker 24
one, SB nine eight one, motion is due, pass through appropriations with current vote six zero. Senators Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye.
Speaker 24
File item two, SJR 13, motion is be adopted. Current vote five zero chair and vice chair voting aye senators dally senators hortado. Sorry to by eleven two. Hortado I.
Speaker 24
File item three, s b ten thirty three, motion is due past your appropriations. Current vote four one with chair voting aye. Senators Valderas, Senators Hurtado? Okay. So that's still four one, but it's out.
Speaker 24
In the consent calendar, file items four, which is s b eight nine nine, file item six, s b thirteen thirteen, file item 11, s b twelve fifty three, file item 12, s b 1,300, current vote six zero. Senator Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.