Michael Miller — Michael Miller, speaking for the California Association of Winegrape Growers and the People, Food, and Land Foundation, stated that both organizations are co-sponsors of the bill and expressed their support.
Mark Fenstermaker — Spoke in support on behalf of the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts.
Peter Ansel — Spoke in support on behalf of the California Farm Bureau.
Allison Hilliard — Identified herself with the Climate Center and said it is a proud co-sponsor of SB 279.
Keisha Ernst — Spoke in support on behalf of Soil Matters.
Casey Ernst — Spoke in support on behalf of Catalyst Bio Amendments and identified it as Nevada County's only permitted composting facility.
Noel Kramer — Spoke in support on behalf of the Wine Institute.
John Haywood — Spoke in support on behalf of the People, Food, and Land Foundation.
Neil Eidegger — Neil Eidegger, speaking for the California Compost Coalition and the commercial composting industry, introduced himself and explained that although he has spent decades advocating for composting and sensible regulations, he still opposes the bill because his concerns were not addressed.
SB613 — The bill was introduced as a measure to improve data on upstream methane and greenhouse gas emissions tied to imported gas and oil.
SB613 — SB 613 is taken up in the vote sequence, with a motion made for the bill to receive a due pass and be referred to the Utilities and Energy Committee.
Faith Conley — Faith Conley, with Whiteman Group on behalf of Pure West Energy, testified in support of SB 613.
Faith Conley — Testified in support on behalf of Whiteman Group and Tetrapak.
Karen — A witness identified only as Karen stated that Climate Action California strongly supports the bill.
SB674 — SB 674 is introduced as a bill to promote recycling of Tetrapak-style containers by revising the CRV to make these products more competitive and provide parity with similar containers. The discussion explains that the bill would reduce the CRV from 25 cents to 10 cents, while also addressing implementation questions about how consumers would recoup the full CRV during the transition. Testimony then shifts into debate, with supporters arguing the bill creates market equity and parity for the covered products, and opponents saying reducing the CRV to 10 cents is premature, especially given questions about whether recycling rates have improved since the 2022 law.
SB674 — SB 674 (Cabaldon) is moved on a due pass motion to the Appropriations Committee.
Kirk Kimmelchew — Appeared on behalf of BeatBox Beverages in support of SB 674 and explained the bill seeks parity for similar containers under 24 ounces.
SB1013 — SB 1013 is referenced as the earlier bill that brought wine and spirits into the bottle bill and established the current CRV structure, serving as context for the discussion of packaging and deposit levels.
Noelle Kramer — Noelle Kramer testified in support on behalf of the Wine Institute.
Kevin Lucky — Testified in support on behalf of California Family Beer Distributors.
Mike Robson — Testified in opposition on behalf of the Glass Packaging Institute and argued the container type lacks a recycling history.
Grazie La Castillo Cranks — Testified in opposition on behalf of Allen Company and aligned remarks with the Glass Packaging Institute.
SB514 — Listed on the consent calendar.
SB856 — Listed on the consent calendar.
SB2 — A brief correction or confusion occurs, with SB 2 mentioned at the end of the section.
SB542 — SB 542 is introduced and discussed as a bill aimed at reducing the risk of oil spills by setting requirements for restarting idle oil pipelines in California. The discussion explains that it would require updated spill and financial assurance formulas, notice and comment before OSPR issues certificates of financial responsibility, and additional testing before pipelines that have been idle for years can be restarted. Supporters frame it as a practical measure to protect coastal jobs, resources, and polluter-pays accountability, while opponents object to the added costs and hydrotesting requirements. In response, proponents argue the bill addresses a new circumstance involving long-idle infrastructure and justifies rigorous testing before restart. The discussion concludes with a motion for SB 542 to pass to the Emergency Management Committee and the subsequent roll call vote.
SB676 — Mentioned as the alternate bill available for presentation.
SB676 — SB 676 is introduced on behalf of Senator Limon and then described in detail as amended. The bill would help wildfire-recovery communities rebuild by streamlining CEQA and environmental review procedures for projects in areas damaged by fire under an active state of emergency, including requiring related legal actions to be resolved within 270 days. Witnesses emphasize that the measure provides certainty, preserves local control through consistency with zoning and general plans, and supports timely, equitable rebuilding in fire-damaged communities. The discussion concludes with a motion for due pass as amended to the Judiciary Committee.
David Derek — Attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, speaking in strong support of SB 542.
David Derek — Testified in opposition on behalf of multiple organizations.
Grace Bachman — Expresses support on behalf of multiple organizations.
Melissa Sparks — Introduced as a witness in support on behalf of the League of California Cities and begins testimony supporting SB 676.
Elizabeth Espinoza — Elizabeth Espinoza is identified as a witness connected with Ventura County, with a later mention again referencing her in that same county-related context.
Jean-Hersity — Introduces testimony on behalf of Ventura County and supports SB 676.
Sean Ballack — Legislative advocate for the California Association of Realtors, speaking in support of SB 676.
SB643 — SB 643 is presented as a CARB-administered carbon dioxide removal purchase pilot program that would provide up to $50 million in competitive grants, require California-based projects with safeguards such as additionality, durability, verification, community benefit plans, and limits on eligible feedstocks, and aim to jumpstart high-integrity carbon removal in California. Supporters argue it aligns with the state’s 2045 net-zero goal, can attract and scale the existing CDR market, and positions California as a leader. Opponents, however, argue the bill mandates harmful or unverified engineered CDR, commits taxpayer funds before adequate research, and lacks sufficient guardrails and community/environmental protections.
Dr. Bob Epstein — Described the Tracy pilot facility and said the state has not developed pathways since then.
Dr. Bob Epstein — Introduced as a supporter of SB 643 and co-founder of Project 2030.
Haley Leslie Boyle — Haley Leslie Boyle was introduced as a witness from the World Resources Institute and then identified herself as leading work on nature-based carbon removal and safeguards on biomass carbon removal at the institute.
Haley Leslie Boyle — Haley Leslie Boyle takes over the explanation and says her organization shares concerns about bioenergy and first-generation biofuels, clarifying how the bill differs from those models.
Bob Epstein — Said Project 2030 is a sponsor of SB 643 and described his background in California climate policy.
Bob Epstein — Referenced as having already explained the feedstock distinction.
Matt Klovenstein — Matt Klovenstein testified in support on behalf of the Bioenergy Association of California, reiterating the association’s support.
Diane Ducet — Testified in support on behalf of Restore the Delta from Stockton.
Deepakana Gbushin — Testified in support on behalf of Partnerships for Tribal Carbon Solutions and the Indigenous GHG Removal Commission.
Martin Vindiole — Testified in support on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council.
Christina Scorange — Testified in opposition on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and said 11 other groups also oppose SB 643.
SB514 — Listed as a consent item.
SB856 — Listed as a consent item.
SB14 — Motion made for due pass as amended to the Governmental Organization Committee.