An act to amend Section 21000 of the Public Resources Code, relating to environmental quality. An act to add and repeal Article 3.7 (commencing with Section 25138) of Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to hazardous materials.
Summary
SB 819 makes two main changes. First, it requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature by July 1, 2026 on the policy and administrative issues that would arise if certain geothermal waste that is currently not exempt were made exempt from hazardous waste generation and handling fees. The study is temporary and would sunset in 2030, with repeal in 2031.
Second, the bill makes nonsubstantive updates to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings and declarations in the Public Resources Code. Those changes do not appear to alter CEQA’s substantive requirements; they mainly restate existing legislative intent about environmental protection and agency regulation of activities affecting the environment.
Impact
The bill would not immediately change fee exemptions or hazardous waste classifications, but it would direct DTSC to analyze the effects of potentially exempting additional geothermal waste from generation and handling fees. That could inform future legislation affecting geothermal energy operators, hazardous waste generators, and state fee administration. The CEQA portion amends statutory findings and declarations in Public Resources Code Section 21000, but the bill describes those edits as nonsubstantive, so the practical legal impact on CEQA procedures appears minimal.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was received favorably in committee, with unanimous or near-unanimous support in the votes provided and no recorded opposition in the supplied materials. The measure also appears relatively narrow and technical, focused on a study and conforming CEQA language rather than a major policy overhaul. Overall, the tone around the bill is neutral to positive, with legislators advancing it without evident controversy in the available record.
Contention
The main policy issue is whether geothermal waste should receive an exemption from generation and handling fees, which would affect state hazardous waste fee revenues and potentially reduce costs for geothermal energy producers. Any concern would likely come from balancing support for geothermal development against the fiscal and regulatory implications of expanding fee exemptions. The CEQA language change does not appear to be a major point of contention because it is characterized as nonsubstantive.