Transcript Highlights:

• This is the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, and we have a very large agenda today.
• Fund, the Environmental Law Foundation, the Environmental Protection Information Center, the Natural
• , the Environmental Law Foundation, the Environmental Protection Information Center, the Natural Resources
• I'm the Director of Environmental Compliance for Tyker Construction.
• Chloe Shea, on behalf of California environmental voters.

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on AB 2218, which would declare state policy to recognize and address water-related inequities affecting California Native American tribes and require several state agencies to incorporate that policy into water-related decisions. The author and tribal witnesses said the bill would codify a seat at the table for tribes and build on existing consultation and equity commitments, while supporters from environmental and tribal organizations backed the measure. Opponents from municipal utilities, water agencies, cities, counties, agriculture, and business groups argued the bill was too vague, could create uncertainty for water supply and project approvals, and might invite litigation. The chair signaled support, and the author said the bill was intended as a consultation measure rather than one that would usurp agency authority. The committee then took up AB 1795, a wildfire smoke-damage bill that would establish statewide standards for inspecting, testing, and remediating smoke-damaged homes and create clearer insurance claim handling rules. The Department of Insurance supported the bill, saying it would bring consistency and accountability after major urban-interface fires, while wildfire survivors and advocates said current insurer practices leave families unable to safely return home. Insurance and local government groups opposed unless amended, warning about cost, implementation uncertainty, and the bill’s scope. Members discussed unresolved issues, including how the bill would interact with a separate wildfire health-and-safety bill, whether it would apply to existing policies, and how presumptions and testing standards should work. The committee voted AB 1795 out on a due pass as amended motion to Appropriations. AB 1642, another wildfire-related bill, was also heard and focused on setting science-based testing and clearance standards for homes, schools, and businesses after urban and wildland-urban interface fires. The author and a Caltech scientist described contamination from lead and other heavy metals in fire-affected homes and argued for a presumption that certain contaminants found after a fire came from the wildfire, to reduce costly disputes. Survivors and many advocacy groups supported the bill, while insurers and other industry groups opposed, saying the testing regime was too broad, the geographic scope was unclear, and the presumptions could function like strict liability and raise insurance costs. Senators pressed both sides on how AB 1642 would overlap with the CDI smoke-claims task force and with AB 1795, and the author said the two bills were intended to be complementary and would continue to be reconciled. The committee also briefly heard AB 1976, which would create a CEQA exemption for pedestrian malls and limit certain local procedural delays for pedestrian and traffic-calming projects. Supporters said it would make it easier to create safer, more walkable, and more livable streets, and there was no opposition testimony. The chair described it as a narrow CEQA exemption for active transportation-related projects and indicated support. The committee then moved on to AB 2026, a groundwater recharge permitting bill, with the author explaining that it would streamline permitting so more recharge projects can capture floodwater and store it for drought years; testimony on that bill began as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are now calling to order the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality.
• Let me be clear, SVLG supports environmental stewardship.
• Our scale, processes, and environmental footprint are dramatically different.
• Marie Lou representing the Central California Environmental Justice Network and the Asian Pacific Environmental
• The Senate Committee on Environmental Quality is now adjourned.

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Summary: The committee first heard SB 872 by Senator McNerney, which would dedicate $150 million annually each for Central Valley subsidence repairs and Delta levee improvements. The author and supporters, including Restore the Delta and State Water Contractors, described the bill as an urgent, bipartisan effort to protect State Water Project conveyance serving 27 million people, prevent levee failure, and safeguard billions in state assets. Support came from a broad coalition of water agencies, labor, environmental groups, and local governments; there was no opposition testimony. Because the committee was operating without a quorum at the time, the bill was heard as a subcommittee item and no final vote was taken then. The committee then took up SB 981 by Senator Niello, which would require CARB to include cost-of-living impacts in its existing economic analysis for major regulations. The author argued the bill would improve transparency by showing effects on gasoline, electricity, food, housing, and business costs, while supporters from agriculture, manufacturing, business, propane, and restaurant interests said it would help lawmakers understand affordability impacts. Opponents, including the Coalition for Clean Air and the Union of Concerned Scientists, argued it would add red tape, delay rulemaking, and require CARB to make speculative predictions. The chair and other members expressed concern that the bill was redundant, burdensome, and too narrow because it singled out CARB rather than addressing affordability across state government; no vote was taken in the excerpt. SB 887 by Senator Padilla would require large data center projects to undergo CEQA review, but offer streamlined treatment for projects meeting strong environmental, labor, and community-benefit standards. Supporters, including TURN, IBEW Local 569, and several environmental and local-government groups, said the bill would protect communities from high energy and water use, cost shifting, and pollution while still allowing responsible development. Opponents from the Data Center Coalition, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Bay Area Council, and others argued the standards were overly prescriptive, potentially unattainable, and would drive investment out of California. After a quorum was established, the committee voted 3-1 to pass SB 887 as amended to the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, with the bill kept on call. Finally, SB 1008 by Senator Ochoa Bog would renew the CEQA exemption for California Public Utilities Commission-ordered closure of at-grade rail crossings, which had expired at the start of 2025. Union Pacific and other supporters said the measure would restore a long-standing safety tool and help eliminate redundant crossings more quickly. With no opposition testimony, the committee approved the bill unanimously, 4-0, and kept it on call.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy will come to order
• And so that's what our focus is at the Environmental Protection Agency.
• And environmental protection.
• One of the biggest policy levers to reverse environmental injustices.
• And last but not least, we have our Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy heard budget overviews and several budget change proposals from CalRecycle, CalEPA, and DTSC. CalRecycle outlined its proposed 2026-27 budget of 987 positions and $1.9 billion, and members focused on edible food recovery funding under SB 1383, beverage container recycling fees and infrastructure under SB 1013, plastic packaging reduction under SB 54, and composting implementation under SB 279. CalRecycle said edible food recovery has recovered more than 300 million meals but lacks ongoing funding, explained that beverage container processing fees are set by statute and reflect higher recycling costs for difficult-to-recycle materials, and noted that SB 54 implementation will include a pollution prevention mitigation fund for legacy plastic cleanup. The committee also discussed the need for more composting capacity and the role of volunteer cleanup groups, while public commenters urged continued funding for food recovery, composting, and landfill response. CalEPA presented its department overview and a proposal to strengthen landfill response and enforcement, emphasizing climate, air quality, water, and cleanup priorities. Secretary Garcia described the agency’s work on methane monitoring, toxics reduction, drinking water compliance, Exide cleanup, pesticide alternatives, and implementation of AB 617, while also noting the agency’s response to federal rollbacks. Members pressed CalEPA on landfill fires and subsurface elevated temperature events, especially at Chiquita Canyon, asking about authority, scientific resources, and when intervention should occur. CalEPA said it has authority to respond but needs more coordinated technical and enforcement capacity, and later presented a $5.1 million, 12-position multi-agency proposal involving CalEPA, CalRecycle, DTSC, and the Water Board to address current landfill events and improve future prevention and response. DTSC and the Board of Environmental Safety presented several proposals tied to reform implementation, hazardous waste oversight, and emerging waste streams. DTSC reported progress in clearing its permit backlog, advancing safer consumer products regulations, and continuing Exide cleanup, while seeking additional resources for cost recovery and enforcement, PFAS work, recycling infrastructure for solar panels and lithium batteries, and a new statewide planning division to implement the hazardous waste management plan and consolidate reporting systems. The Board of Environmental Safety described its oversight role, public meetings, permit appeals process, and fee-setting authority, and said its priorities include permit appeals, hazardous waste plan oversight, and performance metrics. Members questioned whether DTSC was creating too many new subdivisions, but the department said the new structure is needed to handle growing workload and modernize regulation. Public testimony generally supported the landfill proposal, DTSC consumer product enforcement, water board staffing, and continued funding for food recovery and composting programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy will come to order
• And so that's what our focus is at the Environmental Protection Agency.
• So at DTSC, we address the past, ...and environmental protection.
• So our Board of Environmental Safety, because our Board of Environmental Safety, My name is Andrew Rakestra
• Last but not least, we have our Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy heard department budget overviews and several budget change proposals from CalRecycle, CalEPA, and DTSC. CalRecycle presented its 2026-27 budget and discussed priorities including edible food recovery, composting, beverage container recycling, and landfill response. Members asked about funding for food recovery grants, processing fees for wine and spirits containers under SB 1013, plastic packaging generation under SB 54, restaurant food waste requirements under SB 1383, and litter cleanup efforts. CalRecycle said edible food recovery has helped recover more than 300 million meals, but there is no sustained funding source; it also explained that beverage container processing fees are set by statute and that new producer responsibility and infrastructure investments are intended to improve recycling rates over time. The committee then heard CalEPA’s overview, including the agency’s response to climate, air quality, water, toxics, and enforcement challenges. Secretary Garcia emphasized federal rollbacks, methane monitoring, AB 617 implementation, safe drinking water progress, Exide cleanup, and pesticide reduction efforts. Members questioned the agency about regional gasoline blends, authority and technical thresholds for landfill intervention, and the growth in the Secretary’s office staffing and budget. CalEPA said the budget increase reflects expanded coordination, technology modernization, hazardous materials response, and legal capacity. The committee also discussed a proposed landfill support, response, and enforcement package for subsurface elevated temperature events, with CalEPA describing a coordinated multi-agency approach and the need for stronger early response tools. DTSC presented its department overview and several BCPs. Director Butler highlighted progress on permit backlog reduction, safer consumer products rulemaking, Exide cleanup, PFAS work, and planning for emerging waste streams such as solar panels and lithium batteries. The Board of Environmental Safety described its oversight role, public meetings, permit appeals, and fee-setting authority, and identified community concerns about cumulative impacts, hazardous waste planning, accessible data, and engagement. The committee also heard a proposal to expand DTSC’s Office of Policy into a statewide planning division to implement hazardous waste management plan recommendations and improve reporting systems. Members raised concerns about whether the new division duplicated existing work, but DTSC said it would fill identified gaps and improve coordination. Public testimony largely supported the proposals, especially ongoing funding for edible food recovery, composting, safer consumer products enforcement, and the coordinated landfill response package. Witnesses from StopWaste, California Against Waste, Waste Management, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, and water advocacy groups urged continued or increased funding for these programs. No votes were taken; the chair held all items open and adjourned the hearing after public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Forrest Rezavi with APEN, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network.
• Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters, respectfully opposed.
• By codifying the Environmental Justice Bureau, for instance, By codifying the Environmental Justice Bureau
• Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters, here in support of SB 352.
• Hi, Rickal Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance.

Summary: The Assembly Natural Resources Committee heard three major bills. SB 237, by Senator Grayson, proposed a package of fuel-supply and permitting changes aimed at stabilizing gasoline prices during California’s energy transition. Supporters, including state officials, Kern County representatives, labor groups, and industry groups, said it would help retain in-state refining and drilling capacity, reduce price spikes, and protect jobs. Opponents, including environmental justice and conservation groups, argued it would expand oil drilling without enough community protections and would not meaningfully address climate goals. After extensive testimony and questions about emissions, sunsets, and long-term strategy, the committee passed SB 237 on a due pass vote, with some members voting no or not voting. SB 352, by Senator Reyes, sought to strengthen implementation of AB 617, the community air protection program, by codifying the Environmental Justice Bureau in the Department of Justice, extending monitoring requirements, and requiring annual legislative reporting. Supporters said the bill would improve accountability and ensure that funding for impacted communities actually produces emissions reductions. Some environmental justice advocates were neutral or not fully supportive because they wanted stronger language, while business and industry groups opposed the bill, arguing it was added late and duplicated existing processes. The committee approved SB 352 on a due pass vote. SB 840, by Senator Limon, was the cap-and-invest reauthorization package. It would update offset protocols, adjust how revenues are spent, and continue funding for key climate, housing, transit, and community programs, including AB 617. Support came from environmental groups, labor, local governments, housing advocates, and clean transportation organizations, while some agricultural interests objected that the package did not sufficiently prioritize climate-smart agriculture and methane reduction programs. The committee passed SB 840 on a due pass vote as well. All three measures were later confirmed out of committee after calls were lifted.

Transcript Highlights:

• So next we'll move on to environmental justice.
• This requirement could mean a standalone environmental justice element, or environmental justice can
• The California Environmental Protection Agency, CalEPA, uses the California Communities Environmental
• burdens. ...those spatial environmental burdens.
• environmental impacts, and the goal of CEQA review is to inform the public about these environmental

Summary: The committee first heard AB 253, by Assembly Member Ward and presented by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva, which would allow licensed third-party professionals to review certain post-entitlement permits if a local building department would take more than 30 days. Supporters, including California YIMBY, the California Chamber of Commerce, the Housing Action Coalition, the Bay Area Council, SPUR, and Abundant Housing LA, said the bill would reduce permitting delays and help housing production. League of Cities and the California State Association of Counties expressed concerns but were not formally opposed. Members voiced strong support, and the bill passed the committee 10-0 to Appropriations. The committee then held an informational hearing on California’s general plan. The first panel, led by UC Davis professor Catherine Brinkley, gave an overview of the general plan structure, required elements, update cycles, and the new PlanSearch database that makes adopted plans searchable statewide. She emphasized that general plans are long-term, locally tailored documents that integrate housing, transportation, safety, environmental justice, and other policy areas, and noted that many plans and elements are outdated. Members asked about update timelines, public participation, and whether AI tools could help with drafting and analysis. A second panel of local government representatives described the practical challenges of preparing and updating general plans, especially in rural and small jurisdictions. Speakers from Calaveras County, Sacramento, San Joaquin County, and Fountain Valley cited staffing shortages, consultant availability, funding constraints, CEQA and outreach costs, changing state mandates, and the difficulty of keeping plans aligned with local conditions and board turnover. They asked for more funding, more time, clearer prioritization, and more flexibility. A third panel from the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation explained its role in issuing general plan guidelines, technical advisories, and annual planning surveys, and said it is updating its guidance through 2027 to reflect recent housing, climate, safety, environmental justice, and open space laws. No public comment was offered, and the informational hearing was adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality. Good morning, everyone. Welcome.
• The Senate Committee on Environmental Quality is now in order.
• Good morning, Scott Sadler on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund.
• Many were built long before modern environmental laws existed.
• Many were built long before modern environmental laws existed.

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on environmental quality, climate planning, transparency, water affordability, plastics, recycling, and refinery transition planning. SB 1087, by Senator Cabaldon, would modernize SB 375 regional climate and transportation planning by extending planning cycles, clarifying target-setting and review processes, and reducing time and cost burdens; metropolitan planning organizations strongly supported it, while environmental groups and industry raised concerns about VMT, GHG metrics, CEQA, and implementation details. Committee members generally agreed the process is too costly and complex, but urged the author to keep the bill focused on simpler, less expensive planning and better progress reporting. The bill was moved as amended to Senate Transportation and kept on call. SB 1239, by Senator Jones, would require CARB to update its standardized regulatory impact assessment when a major regulation is materially changed; supporters framed it as a transparency and affordability measure, while the chair argued it could slow rulemaking and discourage agencies from incorporating public feedback. The bill failed on the committee vote and was kept on call. SB 1125, by Senator Menjivar, would create a statewide low-income water rate assistance program, contingent on funding, to help households facing rising water bills; public water agencies, environmental justice groups, local governments, and community members from rural areas testified in support, emphasizing affordability and the lack of statewide assistance. The chair and members expressed support for the need for such a program, and the bill passed 3-1 and was kept on call. SB 1180, by Senator Allen, would establish implementation rules for the plastic pollution mitigation fund created by SB 54, including eligibility, reporting, transparency, and technical assistance for smaller organizations and tribes; environmental justice, conservation, and local government groups supported it, while producer and industry groups opposed unless amended, seeking tighter links to measurable mitigation outcomes and the covered products under SB 54. The bill passed 3-0 and was kept on call. SB 1161, by Senator Valadares, would require CARB to provide clearer, plain-language economic analysis of regulations and their impacts on households; supporters described it as a transparency and affordability measure, while some environmental groups offered respectful or qualified opposition. The chair said she could support it as amended, and the bill passed 4-0 and was kept on call. The committee also heard SB 955, by Senator Blakespear, to update California’s beverage container recycling program so major sellers participate and consumers have convenient return options; supporters said it would improve redemption access and program effectiveness, and the bill passed 5-0 and was kept on call. Finally, SB 1259, also by Senator Blakespear, would require refineries to provide earlier disclosure of cleanup liabilities and closure planning information so the state and communities can plan for refinery site remediation and reuse; the author framed it as a transparency and transition-planning measure, and testimony began in support as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm from Environmental Working Group.
• , Central California, Environmental Justice Network.
• I specialize in children's environmental health at Children Now.
• Alex Lumer, on behalf of the Environmental Protection Information Center, the Environmental Law Foundation
• and environmental justice groups.

Committee: House Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• protection and thorough environmental review.
• Illegal dumping poses a serious environmental, public health, and Illegal dumping poses a serious environmental
• To work with the environmental opposition.
• And there's an environmental protection plan.
• Environmental justice is not achieved by completing a plan.

Committee: House Natural Resources

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality is now coming to order. Good morning, everyone.
• Our coalition of environmental and environmental justice organizations oppose this bill because it undermines
• Our coalition of environmental and environmental justice organization, respectful opposition to AB-839
• Our coalition of environmental and environmental justice organizations oppose this bill because it undermines
• So we support the environmental goal.

Summary: The committee heard AB 839, which would allow up to three sustainable aviation fuel projects to qualify for expedited CEQA judicial review. The author and airline and airport supporters argued SAF is a key emissions-reduction strategy for aviation and that California needs to signal investment certainty after prior project litigation. Environmental Justice and Earthjustice opposed, saying the bill weakens the public’s ability to challenge polluting projects and that SAF facilities can harm already overburdened communities. The committee later took a roll call on the bill and it was held on call after a 3-0 vote, with the motion being due pass to Judiciary. Members then took up AB 762, which would ban the sale of disposable nicotine vapes in California. The author and a broad coalition of waste, public health, local government, and environmental groups said the devices create fire hazards, add lithium batteries to the waste stream, and burden local recycling and hazardous waste systems. Opponents, including retailers and business groups, argued the bill would mainly affect a small legal market while the illicit market would continue to supply most disposable vapes, and warned of unintended consequences. After discussion about illicit sales, EPR ideas, and reuse alternatives, the committee voted 2-2 on the motion to pass as amended to Revenue and Taxation, so the bill was kept on call. The committee also heard AB 907, which would compensate the six local air district representatives who serve on the California Air Resources Board the same as other board members. The author and supporters said the change would improve equity and help ensure local representation on CARB, and no opposition was presented. The chair expressed support, noting similar legislation had passed the committee previously, and the bill was held for a later vote once quorum issues were resolved.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our coalition of environmental and environmental justice organizations oppose this bill because it undermines
• Our coalition of environmental and environmental justice organization, respectful opposition to AB-839
• Our coalition of environmental and environmental justice organizations oppose this bill because it undermines
• So we support the environmental goal.
• Susan Little on behalf of the Environmental Working Group, in support.

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Materials and the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.
• Science is driving environmental protections.
• We have invested in our environmental chemistry lab.
• Also bear a lot of similar environmental concerns.
• supporting environmental justice or EJAC for much longer.

Summary: The joint oversight hearing focused on the Board of Environmental Safety (BES), created by SB 158 in 2021, and on broader DTSC reform efforts, including permitting, community engagement, fee setting, and the hazardous waste management plan. Chair Connolly opened by noting the board’s original goals of improving transparency, accountability, and fiscal stability, and raised concerns about a recent board appointee later becoming a lobbyist with DTSC-regulated clients. Witnesses and members also discussed the long-delayed SB 673 regulations on facility permitting and community vulnerability protections, as well as the board’s role in approving the hazardous waste management plan and reviewing permit appeals. Community and environmental justice witnesses argued that the board has improved access by creating a public forum, ombudsperson, and appeal process, but said it remains too passive and lacks authority over budgets, staffing, and implementation. They urged more statutory direction, stronger community participation, better transparency on how comments are used, and more meaningful authority in permit and plan decisions. One witness suggested the Legislature consider a separate oversight body or stronger legislative engagement, while another called for youth representation and paid fellowships on advisory bodies. Business and regulated-community testimony was more supportive of the board’s structure, emphasizing that SB 158 was a negotiated compromise that improved transparency and accountability while avoiding politicization, and calling for faster fee analysis and clearer budget information. Board Chair Andrew Rakestra and DTSC Director Barbara Butler reported that reform has produced measurable gains: more public engagement, stronger enforcement, fewer continued permits, improved compliance, increased revenues from the generation-and-handling fee, and progress on Exide cleanup, safer consumer products, and community revitalization grants. They acknowledged, however, that the board’s authority is limited, permit appeals can be slow, SB 673 regulations remain unfinished, and public trust still needs work. Both said the board is most effective when involved early and when DTSC shares information proactively. Members asked about fee stability, the hazardous waste management plan, and whether the Legislature should give the board a more formal role in budget change proposals, regulatory processes, and implementation oversight. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate Committee on Environmental Quality... Good morning, everyone. Welcome.
• The Senate Committee on Environmental Quality is now in order.
• Scott Sadler, on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund.
• Good morning, Scott Sadler, on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund.
• Many were built long before modern environmental laws existed.

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm here to talk about the Clean Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements.
• I'm here to talk about the Clean Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements.
• Most environmental reviews are done by cities and counties.
• A programmatic environmental impact statement, or PEIS, is a type of environmental review done under
• And I'm going to be offering the environmental perspective today.

Summary: The committee held a work session on state environmental policy act (SEPA) implementation and carryout bags. Ecology staff Diane Buterak described the Clean Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements (PEISs) completed for utility-scale solar, onshore wind, and green hydrogen, plus a new PEIS underway for sustainable aviation fuel. She explained that PEISs provide broad planning-level analysis to help developers and agencies avoid or mitigate impacts, but do not replace project-level review. Members asked about permitting timelines, greenhouse gas emissions from different hydrogen production methods, water use, agricultural land conversion, battery fire risk, and tribal consultation. Buterak said the PEISs identify potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures, including fire response planning, early tribal outreach, and agrovoltaics as an option for solar projects. EFSEC’s Amy Hofkimer then presented the transmission-facility programmatic EIS required by SB 5165 for 230 kV and higher transmission projects. She said the statewide review covers new lines and certain upgrades/modifications, analyzes impacts to water, cultural and tribal resources, habitat, and other areas, and uses general measures, design considerations, avoidance criteria, and sensitivity maps to guide siting and corridor planning. She said the final document would be issued in early October. Questions focused on reconductoring, tribal lands, scenic areas, and whether the review could affect existing lines crossing tribal lands. A Grant County planning director, Jim Anderson Cook, said Ecology’s PEIS would help with cumulative impacts for clustered solar projects, but noted tight local review timelines and the need for strong pre-application coordination, especially on cultural resource studies and decommissioning plans. Yakama Nation attorney Shona Leverett argued SEPA is only an assessment tool and said tribes face barriers from short comment periods, limited confidential tribal input, weak cumulative impact analysis, and challenges in the FSEC process; she urged better upfront developer diligence and more effective tribal coordination. Puget Sound Energy’s Sarah Leverett said the utility needs efficient and predictable permitting to meet clean energy mandates while maintaining reliable service and aging infrastructure. She described the scale of needed clean energy and transmission buildout, including a 10-year process for the Energize Eastside transmission rebuild, and said more consistent SEPA and PEIS processes could help. Members asked about future generation sources, reliability, and hydropower as a firming resource; she said PSE is pursuing an “all of the above” approach and would welcome more firm, dispatchable clean energy options. The committee then shifted to carryout bags. Staff Jacob Lipson and Tracy Taylor reviewed Washington’s bag law, its preemption of local ordinances, the current 8-cent charge, the scheduled increase to 12 cents, and the 2025 change delaying the 4-mil thickness requirement until 2028 while adding a temporary 4-cent penalty for thicker bags. Ecology’s Peter Lyon said the agency emphasizes education and complaint-based enforcement, has received 872 reports, and has not yet imposed any fines. Commerce’s Kirk Esmond summarized a WSU study finding fewer plastic bags distributed but more plastic by weight, and said Commerce and Ecology support keeping the 2.25-mil standard and not allowing thinner single-use bags again. Retail industry testimony from Brandon Housekeeper said grocers comply with the law but oppose the added 4-cent penalty and thicker-bag requirement, citing higher costs and confusion in the policy changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Materials and the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.
• Science is driving environmental protections. These are good.
• Science is driving environmental protections.
• We have invested in our environmental chemistry lab.
• supporting environmental justice or EJAC for much longer.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're convening as the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee.
• Facilities must also undergo the California Environmental Quality Act review process.
• With the state's environmental policies and goals.
• Joseph of Orange, Central California Environmental Justice Network, and Environmental Defense Fund, in
• Environmental Justice Network and Environmental Defense Fund in support. Thank you. Good afternoon.

Summary: The committee heard SB 404 on metal shredding facilities, SB 601 on water quality protections after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Sackett decision, SB 682 on phasing out PFOS in certain consumer products, and later SB 646 on prenatal vitamins and toxic metal contamination. SB 561 had been pulled from the hearing. In each of the measures, the authors and supporters emphasized environmental and public health protections, while opponents raised concerns about overregulation, implementation, and unintended economic impacts. The committee also spent time on the policy details of each bill, including how smaller operators would be treated under SB 404, how “nexus waters” would be defined under SB 601, and whether alternatives and testing standards were adequate under SB 682 and SB 646. For SB 404, Senator Caballero said the bill would create a permitting and enforcement framework for metal shredding facilities, with operational standards for fire prevention, stormwater, and releases of shredder residue, while supporters argued it would bring needed certainty to a critical recycling industry. Opponents, including small recyclers and community/environmental advocates, said the bill was either too broad or not strong enough, with some warning it would burden smaller facilities and others arguing it would fail to protect overburdened communities. The committee approved SB 404 on a due-pass-as-amended motion to Appropriations, with recorded support from the chair and some members and opposition from others. SB 601 sought to restore state-level protections for waters that lost federal Clean Water Act coverage after Sackett, using a “nexus waters” framework and revised enforcement provisions after amendments removed the private right of action. Supporters said California needed to preserve protections for seasonal streams and wetlands and avoid backsliding, while opponents from business, agriculture, water districts, and local governments argued the definition remained too broad and could create uncertainty, costs, and unintended consequences. The committee also approved SB 601 on a due-pass motion to Appropriations, again with split votes. SB 682, which the committee also advanced, would phase out intentionally added PFOS in six product categories, including cleaning products, cookware, dental floss, ski wax, food packaging, and juvenile products, with an amendment delaying cookware implementation until 2030. Supporters framed it as a source-control measure to reduce PFAS contamination and lower long-term water treatment costs, while manufacturers and cookware interests argued the bill was overbroad, lacked workable testing standards, and could push consumers and businesses toward uncertain alternatives. The committee chair recommended an aye vote, and the measure passed to Appropriations. SB 646 was then introduced on prenatal vitamins, with supporters saying it would require testing and disclosure of heavy metals like lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury, while the opposition said disclosure must be handled carefully so as not to confuse consumers or undermine confidence in prenatal supplements.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Conservation.
• Conservation, after consultation with the Environmental Facilities Corporation and the Department of
• Conservation, after consultation with the Environmental Facilities Corporation and the Department of
• The next bill, 1733, Senator Harckham: an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law in relation
• Our third bill, 1833A by Senator May: an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law and the State

Committee: Senate Environmental Conservation

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Conservation met with a quorum via voting sheets and considered a 12-bill agenda focused on water quality, stormwater reporting, algal bloom prevention, safe drinking water infrastructure, coastal and marine protection, housing and land-use, animal welfare, and solar access. Chair Pete Harckham noted several members were delayed by weather and other committee meetings, and welcomed participating senators and staff. Most bills were described as measures the committee had seen before, with little debate beyond motions and seconds. Bills approved included Harckham’s stormwater expenditure report bill (S.1609), a municipal water-quality assistance bill for lake associations (S.1733), the harmful algal bloom monitoring and prevention act (S.1833A), the safe water and infrastructure action program (S.1850A), the Whale Awareness Act (S.2292B), inland waterways additions for waterfront revitalization (S.2646), the Sustainable Affordable Housing and Sprawl Prevention Act (S.3492A), a bill on traveling animal acts (S.3629A), the Big Five African Trophies Act (S.5014), marine and coastal debris prevention (S.6307), and whale strike protection policies for large vessels (S.7718A). The solar bill (S.6570A), the Solar for Affordable Power Act, was also approved by the committee but was referred to the Energy Committee rather than advanced on the environmental conservation calendar. Several measures were referred to the Finance Committee, including the stormwater report bill, the lake association water-quality bill, the harmful algal bloom bill, and the safe water and infrastructure bill. Other bills were advanced to the calendar, and the meeting concluded without recorded opposition on most items, aside from a few members voting without recommendation on some bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> office and other environmental office and other environmental stakeholders<00:29:52.360><c> for<
• </c> these days to bash environmental these days to bash environmental standards standards standards
• </c> moving these facilities environmental moving these facilities environmental review<00:47:40.800>
• review from the environmental impact review from the environmental impact statements<00:47:42.640><c>
• </c> the A5 Amendment on the environmental the A5 Amendment on the environmental review<01:10:21.440>

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities, Environment, and Climate

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality. Good morning, everyone. Welcome.
• The Senate Committee on Environmental Quality is now in order.
• Good morning, Scott Sadler, on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund.
• Many were built long before modern environmental laws existed.
• Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance in strong support.

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on environmental, climate, transparency, water affordability, recycling, and refinery transition issues. SB 1087 would modernize SB 375 regional climate and transportation planning by extending planning cycles, clarifying target-setting and review processes, and reducing time spent on modeling and CEQA-related work; it drew strong support from MPOs and environmental groups with some opposition from clean air, housing, and industry advocates concerned about VMT, housing impacts, and agency authority. SB 1239 would require CARB to update its standardized regulatory impact assessment when major regulations are materially changed; manufacturers and business groups supported the transparency measure, while the chair opposed it as adding delay and inefficiency to rulemaking. SB 1125 would create the framework for a statewide low-income water rate assistance program; it received broad support from utilities, environmental justice groups, local governments, and community members, and the committee advanced it on a 3-1 vote. SB 1180 would set rules for spending from the plastic pollution mitigation fund created by SB 54, with broad support from environmental justice and conservation groups and opposed-unless-amended positions from industry groups seeking tighter limits and more oversight; it advanced on a 3-0 vote. SB 1161 would require CARB to present household-level cost impacts of regulations in plain language, and it advanced on a 4-0 vote despite late opposition from environmental groups. SB 955, updating beverage container recycling and redemption requirements, passed 5-0, and SB 1259, requiring refineries to disclose cleanup liabilities and decommissioning information to aid long-term planning, drew strong support from environmental and local government witnesses but firm opposition from petroleum, labor, and business groups; the committee began discussion but the transcript cuts off before a final vote on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm from Environmental Working Group.
• , Central California, Environmental Justice Network.
• I specialize in children's environmental health at Children Now.
• Alex Lumer, on behalf of the Environmental Protection Information Center, the Environmental Law Foundation
• and environmental justice groups.

Summary: The committee heard AB 1795, which would create statewide standards for testing, inspection, remediation, and insurance handling of wildfire smoke damage in homes. The author and Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said the bill is needed because survivors face inconsistent claims practices and no enforceable standards for determining when homes are safe. Supporters included the City of Los Angeles and a wildfire survivor who described health problems and disputed remediation results; opponents from the insurance industry said the bill could create broad new exposure and worsen affordability, though they continued to negotiate amendments. The committee recommended the bill do pass with urgency, and it passed on a 4-0 vote, with the roll held open for additional votes. The committee also heard AB 1612, which would create a centralized process for law enforcement to transfer seized controlled substances such as fentanyl, methamphetamine, and heroin to the Department of Justice for disposal after the state’s last in-state incineration facility closed. The author said the bill would address unsafe storage and inconsistent disposal pathways. There was no opposition in the room, and the committee sent the bill to the Assembly Public Safety Committee on a do pass vote. AB 2322 would standardize the definition of commercial, industrial, or institutional sites for municipal stormwater permits by tying it to assessor land-use codes and excluding residential parcels. Supporters said the bill would reduce patchwork enforcement and improve consistency, while stormwater and city representatives asked to keep working on regional flexibility concerns. The committee approved the bill 4-1 and sent it to Appropriations. The committee then heard AB 2245, a producer responsibility bill for vehicle lubricant products and their containers, intended to expand collection and recycling using existing household hazardous waste and used oil infrastructure. Supporters said it would reduce landfill disposal and align with existing EPR frameworks, while retailers and industry groups raised concerns about overlapping obligations, unclear definitions, and compliance costs. The author said negotiations would continue, and the committee sent the bill to Natural Resources on a do pass vote. The committee also heard AB 1603, which would phase out PFAS-containing pesticides over time and require disclosure and permitting for their use. Supporters argued PFAS pesticides contaminate food and water and pose health risks; agricultural and chemical industry opponents said the bill could remove many products from the market and lead to harmful substitutions. The chair expressed support for reducing PFAS but raised concerns about replacement chemicals, and the bill was sent to Appropriations on a do pass vote. Finally, AB 2034 was introduced to increase transparency around food additives and GRAS ingredients by creating a state database of chemicals that bypass FDA premarket review; supporters said it would close a federal loophole, while consumer brands opposed a duplicative state system and warned of costs and confusion.