Senate Environmental Quality advances package of bills on landfill safety, composting, geothermal, solar recycling, CO2 pipelines and school policy

The Senate Committee on Environmental Quality voted to advance a group of environment and energy bills after multi‑hour testimony and negotiation among authors, local officials, industry groups and environmental and labor advocates. The hearing ranged from extended public testimony about the burning Chiquita Canyon landfill and local health impacts to technical debates about permitting, worker training, and waste recycling.

The most prominent public testimony focused on AB 28 (Assemblymember Schiavo), a bill prompted by the Chiquita Canyon landfill fire and community pleas for faster state coordination and corrective action. Residents and environmental justice groups described multi‑year health and nuisance impacts near the landfill; industry representatives and local government witnesses pressed for careful rulemaking rather than immediate, prescriptive statutory mandates. The committee adopted amendments and advanced the bill to appropriations as amended.

Other bills advanced as amended included: AB 411 (authorizes limited on‑farm composting of livestock mortalities under specified safeguards), AB 531 (allow geothermal projects to use an existing one‑stop permitting pathway), AB 864 (exempting nonhazardous PV modules transferred to qualified recyclers and directing DTSC to set standards), AB 881 (direct the State Fire Marshal to adopt pipeline safety rules so California may lift its temporary CO2 pipeline moratorium under specified guardrails), AB 1111 (temporarily allow districts receiving EV bus incentives to transfer serviceable decommissioned buses to districts in need), AB 1207 (direct CARB to consider the U.S. EPA 2023 social cost of carbon in setting market ceilings), AB 1264 (phase‑out of specifically identified “particularly harmful” ultra‑processed foods from school meals by an implementation date after a science review), and AB 1156 (updates the solar‑use easement process for water‑constrained Williamson Act lands). Committee votes were recorded and the bills were placed on Appropriations or otherwise advanced as shown in the committee record.

Why this matters: The package reflects the committee's effort to juggle immediate public health and environmental justice crises (the Chiquita landfill fire), agricultural and rural economic realities (farm land, rendering and composting), the state's climate and grid‑reliability goals (geothermal, utility‑scale solar, carbon removal), and growing waste‑stream issues (PV recycling). Committee members and stakeholders repeatedly urged regulators to use technical rulemaking to refine standards rather than rely solely on statutory direction; in several cases the committee adopted amendments that push detailed standards or trigger thresholds to agencies such as CalRecycle, CARB, DTSC or the State Fire Marshal.

Votes at a glance (committee action) - AB 28 (Schiavo) — landfill elevated‑temperature/response: Passed as amended to Appropriations; committee adopted multiple amendments to add multi‑agency coordination, thresholds and enforcement language and to place some implementation details into CalRecycle and local enforcement agency processes. Outcome recorded in the committee as advanced (motion carried; bill kept on call at the committee).

- AB 411 (Pappan) — on‑farm composting of livestock mortalities: Passed as amended to Appropriations after extensive testimony from ranchers, environmental health officials and rendering industry representatives. Amendments narrowed volume and added oversight/imported recommended best practices; bill sponsor and several public‑health bodies support it; unionized renderers requested additional amendments.

- AB 531 (Rogers) — add geothermal to one‑stop permitting program: Passed as amended to Appropriations after testimony from Sonoma Clean Power, building trades and rural counties. Opposition from some counties asked for stronger local control safeguards; bill sponsors said the measure is intended to bring more development to California and compete with other states.

- AB 864 (Ward) — PV module recycling / DTSC standards: Passed as amended to Appropriations. Sponsors asked DTSC to develop clear standards and to adopt the federal approach for universal waste/nonhazardous exemptions in practice for qualified recyclers. Industry groups and recyclers supported the bill; no primary opposition witnesses in committee.

- AB 881 (Petrie‑Norris) — CO2 pipeline rules / lift moratorium when State Fire Marshal adopts standards: Passed as amended to Appropriations after substantial public comment. Supporters (community utilities, unions, municipalities) said the measure is needed so California projects can access federal incentives; opponents — environmental justice groups and conservation organizations — urged stricter siting limits, mandatory odorants, and opposed abbreviated emergency rulemaking. The bill directs the State Fire Marshal to adopt safety regulations and retains CEQA and local lead‑agency roles.

- AB 1111 (Soria) — transfer of serviceable decommissioned buses to rural districts: Passed as amended to Appropriations; author and school‑district groups said the measure provides stopgap bus capacity to rural districts while they prepare for the state’s zero‑emission timeline. Some clean‑transport advocates sought clarifying amendments; several groups signaled they would move to neutral once the committee amendments were posted.

- AB 1207 (Erwin) — cap‑and‑trade: Passed as amended to Appropriations. The bill would require CARB to consider the U.S. EPA 2023 social cost of carbon as a factor when setting the price ceiling. Witnesses urged reauthorization be combined with stronger legislative direction on allowance allocation, offsets and investments; environmental justice groups demanded larger program reforms.

- AB 1264 (Gabriel) — phase‑out of particularly harmful ultra‑processed foods in school meals: Passed as amended to Appropriations after long debate. Supporters (medical associations, child‑health advocates and school nutrition groups) urged stronger limits on additives and foods engineered for hyper‑palatability; industry and agricultural groups warned the statutory definition risked catching minimally processed staples and asked for narrower definitions and school‑focused application; author accepted committee and stakeholder amendments to narrow scope and to require a scientific review before final product lists are set.

- AB 1156 (Wicks) — solar easements on water‑constrained Williamson Act lands: Passed as amended to Appropriations. Sponsor and supporters characterized the bill as a voluntary option for landowners and counties in regions losing irrigated acreage under SGMA; opponents (farmland conservation groups and agricultural organizations) asked for tighter geographic, soil‑class and acreage safeguards and clearer siting guidance to avoid converting prime farmland or intact habitat. Committee amendments added community‑benefit and public‑notice requirements and preserved suspension rather than cancellation of Williamson Act contracts.

Key themes and decisions from the hearing - Agency rulemaking vs. statute: In several cases (landfill emergency thresholds, geothermal methane rules, CO2 pipeline safety, PV recycling standards) the committee and witnesses urged moving technical thresholds to agency rulemaking (CalRecycle, CARB, State Fire Marshal, DTSC) while using statute to set objectives and agency responsibilities.

- Public health and environmental justice: The Chiquita Canyon testimony framed the committee’s early work on AB 28. Residents and health advocates described chronic symptoms, elevated complaint counts and long‑term fire projections; the committee majority prioritized adding a state lead (CalRecycle) and multi‑agency coordination while industry asked for rulemaking flexibility.

- Local control vs. state leadership: Several bills prompted tension between local government control (permitting and land‑use decisions) and the state’s interest in streamlining projects (geothermal, solar easements, CO2 pipelines). Multiple sponsors accepted amendments that kept CEQA and local lead‑agency roles but clarified statewide safety or permitting standards where the state will develop minimums or lead coordination.

- Workers and transition: Labor witnesses repeatedly framed energy and waste bills through a jobs lens — urging workforce standards, training pipelines and protections for existing employees (renderers, waste workers, oil & gas workers transitioning to geothermal or CCUS jobs).

- Implementation timelines and scientific review: On technical topics (ultra‑processed foods, landfill temperature thresholds, compost practices), the committee favored multi‑step approaches that require agency or scientific review before full implementation, and the committee adopted amendments that lengthen or stage compliance timelines in multiple bills.

Speakers (selected, first mention with roles): - Assemblymember Blanca Schiavo — author (AB 28) representing North Los Angeles County (author/testimony). - Elizabeth Jeffords — community member and Castaic resident (public comment on AB 28). - Jane Williams — Executive Director, California Communities Against Toxics (public comment on AB 28). - Mark Aprea — Capital Advocacy, representing Republic Services (opposition witness on AB 28). - Erica Parker — Californians Against Waste (support witness on AB 28/other bills). - Assemblymember Pappan — author (AB 411). - Matthew Marsom — Roots of Change (support for AB 411). - Kirk Wilbur — California Cattlemen's Association (support for AB 411). - Luis Vega and Michael Kohler — Sacramento Rendering / Teamsters (opposition to AB 411, asked for oversight/training requirements). - Assemblymember Rogers — author (AB 531 geothermal). - Myles Horton — Sonoma Clean Power (support for AB 531). - Chris Snyder — Operating Engineers Local 3 (labor support for AB 531). - Assemblymember Ward — author (AB 864 PV recycling) and Evelyn Butler (SEIA witness supporting AB 864). - Assemblymember Petrie‑Norris — author (AB 881 CO2 pipeline rules); Laura Lewis (SMUD) and labor witnesses (support; asked for safety guardrails). - Assemblymember Soria — author (AB 1111 school bus transfers); California School Boards Association supported the measure. - Assemblymember Erwin — author (AB 1207 cap & trade social cost of carbon). - Environmental, business and EJ witnesses — numerous, covering support/concerns across the package.

Authorities and source references mentioned in committee testimony - Federal Clean Air Act (reference to imminent and substantial endangerment orders, section 303) — cited in AB 28 testimony regarding Chiquita Canyon orders. - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) — cited for hazardous‑waste context in AB 28 testimony. - California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) — repeatedly referenced as the process that will apply for siting and local lead‑agency review. - CalRecycle, CARB, DTSC, State Fire Marshal — agency roles referenced repeatedly in testimony and in committee amendments on multiple bills.

Clarifying details captured from testimony (as stated in the hearing): - Chiquita Canyon landfill burn: witnesses said the fire has been burning for roughly 3 years; surface and subsurface elevated temperatures were reported (testimony referenced discrete high temperatures exceeding EPA danger guidance and claimed localized temperatures above 200°F at parts of the site). Witnesses described the burning footprint increasing from an initial ~30 acres to roughly 90 acres. - Complaints, notices, orders: proponents cited more than 27,000 air‑quality complaints associated with the facility and hundreds of notices of violation; the site has been subject to imminent and substantial endangerment (ISE) orders under federal and state authorities, per testimony. - On‑farm carcass composting (AB 411): sponsors described small‑scale, on‑site composting volume limits in the bill (100 cubic yards or less; examples given of 6–12 cattle at a time), target temperature ranges for effective pathogen reduction (examples cited: 130–150°F), and the rendering process described by renderers (cooking at ~260°F for 45 minutes under industrial controls). - PV recycling (AB 864): bill would align California practice with federal nonhazardous universal‑waste/qualified recycler approaches and direct DTSC to issue implementation standards and alternative management standards. - Carbon‑capture pipeline standards (AB 881): bill directs the State Fire Marshal to use the then‑existing draft federal safety standards as a starting point, but the committee deliberations emphasized the need for additional state guardrails (emergency shutoffs, fixed vapor detection, responder equipment and training) and reiterated that CEQA and local lead‑agency authority remain in place. - Geothermal (AB 531): sponsors argued geothermal is an important source of “clean firm” electricity to meet 24/7 demand and reduce reliance on gas; bill would allow geothermal projects to opt into an AB205 one‑stop permitting pathway; counties urged stronger local‑control protections.

Meeting context and engagement - Items discussed: ~12 substantive policy items were debated during the hearing; multiple bills drew both robust public comment and formal opposition from trade groups, labor unions and local governments. - Witness engagement: dozens of public speakers and organized witness panels across environmental health, industry, labor and local government sectors participated, including extended public comment on the Chiquita Canyon situation. - Implementation risk: Many proposals require agency rulemaking (medium implementation complexity) and depend on interagency coordination or federal funding in some cases (moderate to high implementation risk).

What to watch next - Appropriations committee review: the package was advanced to Appropriations (many bills as “passed as amended to Appropriations”) so funding and fiscal considerations will be the next gating issues. - CalRecycle, CARB, DTSC and the State Fire Marshal rule processes: committee members repeatedly signaled that they expect these agencies to complete rulemaking with public input where the bills push technical thresholds or monitoring standards to agencies. - Local permitting and siting: counties and local governments will press for clear siting safeguards — especially for large‑scale solar on land that previously produced crops but is being retired due to groundwater reductions.

Ending: The committee hearing reflected competing state priorities — from urgent community health complaints at a burning landfill to statewide needs for grid reliability and recycling infrastructure. In most cases the committee favored staged implementation, agency‑led technical rulemaking, and added procedural requirements (public notice, community benefits) to balance statewide goals with local control and community safety concerns. The bills will return to full fiscal review and floor action after the Appropriations process.