Senate Environmental Quality committee advances a slate of bills on carbon removal, recycling, PFAS and more; votes move multiple measures to next committees

SACRAMENTO — The Senate Environmental Quality Committee on April 2 took up more than a dozen measures spanning climate policy, waste management, toxics and emergency-response exemptions. Lawmakers heard extended testimony from authors, industry, environmental groups and local governments, and advanced a bundle of bills to the next committee stops.

Amid the steady stream of witnesses the committee focused on six broad subjects: standards for carbon dioxide removal; a new regulatory program for metal shredding facilities; caps and timelines for hazardous-waste fees tied to housing projects; a proposed “polluter pays” climate damages study and fee; phasing out intentionally added PFAS; and new producer / stewardship rules for hard-to-manage products including expired marine flares and end-of-life electric vehicle batteries.

Key takeaways - SB 285 (Becker) would set statewide standards for carbon dioxide removal (CDR), establishing durability and community-protection requirements and a pathway for nature-based and engineered removals to be credited in state accounting. Witnesses for and against expressed support for high-quality standards while urging further technical detail. The bill advanced to the next committee.

- SB 404 (Caballero) would create a DTSC permitting program for metal shredding facilities. The hearing included long testimony from industry groups supporting regulatory certainty and from environmental justice and small-shredder witnesses urging stronger enforcement, notice and cost protections for small businesses. The measure advanced from committee.

- SB 328 (Grayson) would cap DTSC’s hazardous-waste generator fee for specified housing, nonprofit, park and master development projects (three-tier cap structure) and add timing requirements for certain DTSC authorizations. Affordable housing and university witnesses said the fee increases have blocked projects; the bill advanced.

- SB 684 (Menjivar) — termed a “polluters pay climate superfund” proposal — would commission a statewide study of climate damages attributable to very large historical emitters and authorize a proportional compensatory fee to fund resilience, mitigation and community investments. Supporters framed it as a revenue and accountability measure; business and labor witnesses warned of legal and economic risks. The bill was advanced on a recorded vote and will proceed to the judiciary committee for legal review.

- SB 682 (Allen) would phase out many intentionally added PFAS uses and create a process for limited unavoidable-use exemptions; the bill attracted lengthy debate. Environmental and water-sector groups urged class-based action; manufacturers and trade groups urged carve-outs for fluoropolymers and other essential industrial uses and warned about agency workload. The committee moved the bill forward for further review.

- SB 561 (Blake Spear) would create a producer-funded collection program for expired pyrotechnic marine flares and similar emergency visual distress signals and assign program oversight to DTSC. Sponsors said safe disposal options are effectively nonexistent for many boaters and local governments; industry witnesses asked for a more narrowly tailored, cost-effective approach. The committee approved the measure.

Votes at a glance (selected items) — committee outcomes - SB 285 (Becker) — Establish CDR standards, durability and community protections; advanced to Appropriations. - SB 404 (Caballero) — DTSC permitting program for metal shredders; advanced to Judiciary. - SB 328 (Grayson) — Caps on DTSC generator fees for housing/nonprofit/parks; advanced to Revenue & Taxation. - SB 684 (Menjivar) — Polluters-pay climate damages study / compensatory fee; advanced to Judiciary for legal review. - SB 682 (Allen) — Class-based PFAS phase out with unavoidable-use process; advanced to Health for further drafting. - SB 615 (Allen) — EV battery stewardship, tracking and third-party certification; advanced to Transportation. - SB 613 (Stern) — “Low leakage” certification and reporting for imported and in-state oil and gas; advanced to Energy/Utilities. - SB 676 (Limon) — Expedited CEQA pathways and judicial timeline for projects in fire-damaged areas; advanced to Rules. - SB 496 (Hurtado) — Advisory committee and emergency-vehicle exemptions under CARB Advanced Clean Fleets; advanced to Transportation. - SB 561 (Blake Spear) — Producer-funded collection for expired marine flares; advanced (roll call approved). - SB 633 (Blake Spear) — Third-party verification and reporting for recycled plastic content; advanced to Appropriations.

What members pressed and what to watch - Durability, accounting and community safeguards for carbon removal. Several members and witnesses pressed for explicit durability timeframes and clarity on how nature-based and engineered removals would be treated. Authors said the legislation purposefully sets standards to be pathway-neutral but asked for continued stakeholder work.

- Worker safety, permitting cost and community notice for metal shredders. Local elected officials and labor groups backed regulatory certainty; environmental justice and community groups urged stronger notice, enforcement and limits on outdoor stockpiles. Small shredders urged a two-path approach to avoid duplicative regulation and steep new fees.

- Housing affordability vs. hazardous-waste fees. Affordable-housing advocates and universities described projects made infeasible by the per-ton DTSC fee structure; the author’s cap approach drew broad support but committee members flagged the need to reconcile state revenue needs with local affordability and redevelopment incentives.

- PFAS: scope, agency workload and essential uses. The hearing showed wide agreement that PFAS is a public-health problem; disagreement centered on whether a class-based ban should be paired with a tightly defined unavoidable-use exemption, and on whether certain fluoropolymers used in aviation, semiconductor and medical equipment should be excluded.

- Implementation capacity and cost allocations. Multiple witnesses asked authors to work with DTSC, CARB and local agencies on timelines and reporting expectations, especially where third‑party certifications, chain‑of‑custody tracing, or cross-border imports are involved.

Who spoke (selected witnesses) - Senators and authors: Senator Scott Wiener (not present), Senator Robert Becker (SB 285 author), Senator Susan Caballero (SB 404), Senator Josh Grayson (SB 328), Senator María Menjivar (SB 684), Senator Richard Allen (multiple bills: SB 682, SB 615), Senator Roger Stern (SB 613), Senator Monique Limon (SB 676), Senator Lena Hurtado (SB 496), Senator Mike Blake Spear (SB 561, SB 633), Senator Mike Padilla (SB 594). - Expert witnesses and advocates: Aidan Preston (climate scientist, MilkyWire/DOE advisor), Maya Golden Krasner (Center for Biological Diversity), Aidan Preston (DOE carbon-removal advisor), Heidi Sanborn (National Stewardship Action Council), John Kennedy (RCRC), Daniel Broad (Union of Concerned Scientists) and dozens of local officials and industry representatives.

Bottom line The committee moved dozens of measures forward while flagging heavy technical issues that will now be resolved in follow‑on committees or in statutory cleanup. Several high-profile debates — especially PFAS restrictions, carbon removal accounting, and metal shredding permits — will require additional rule-writing, legal review or negotiated amendments before either the floor or final enactment could occur. Members signaled willingness to advance reforms but asked authors and agencies to tighten definitions, workload planning, cost allocations, and community-notice provisions before later hearings or implementation.

Ending note Committee-level approval is an important step that sets the outlines for future negotiation. Several bills — notably those involving new statewide standards, third-party verification and new producer obligations — will require detailed regulatory design to ensure the programs are implementable without unintended consequences. Reporters and stakeholders should watch the bills that moved to judiciary and appropriations because they will face legal, fiscal and technical scrutiny next.