Assembly Natural Resources Committee advances bills on bioenergy, E15 gasoline, wildfire egress, blue carbon, composting and river protections

The California Assembly Natural Resources Committee advanced multiple measures on Thursday that would affect organic-waste energy projects, retail sale of E15 gasoline, exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act for emergency evacuation routes, state coastal mitigation for "blue carbon," siting and permitting of composting facilities, and state protections for federally designated wild and scenic rivers.

The committee voted to advance AB70, AB30, AB66, AB399, AB436 and AB43 to the next committee of jurisdiction or appropriations, with committee members saying they will continue negotiations on amendments where concerns remain. The measures were discussed at length by authors, agency representatives and industry and environmental stakeholders before the committee recorded its actions.

Why it matters: The packages touch energy and climate policy, wildfire safety and infrastructure siting — areas with immediate operational implications for local governments, industrial operators and coastal and conservation agencies. Together the bills would shape how California handles organic waste and renewable gas procurement, whether higher ethanol blends may be sold at pumps, how quickly local agencies can build emergency evacuation routes, and how coastal and river protections are implemented and enforced.

AB70 — organic waste to pipeline biomethane

AB70, presented by the bill’s author, would codify a definition of "pyrolysis" in state law and allow communities to claim procurement credit for projects that generate pipeline-quality biomethane exclusively from organic waste. The author emphasized the measure is intended to give certainty to projects and communities, not to change permitting requirements: "This bill does not — let me repeat it — does not change how pyrolysis is permitted or regulated. It simply helps communities and companies know what projects count as pyrolysis projects," the author said.

Julia Levin, executive director of the Bioenergy Association of California, testified in support. She told the committee that methane from decomposing organic waste accounts for a large share of the state's short-lived climate pollutant emissions and that pipeline biomethane can help cities meet diversion goals under SB 1383 and increase local energy reliability. Levin noted the Public Utilities Commission already has programs requiring gas utilities to procure renewable gas and said AB70 would expand in‑state sources.

AB30 — E15 gasoline

AB30 would allow the sale and use of E15 (gasoline blended with 15% ethanol) in California. Assemblymember Alvarez, the author, and Neil Koehler of the Renewable Fuels Association said the blend is legal in 49 other states and that regulatory approval at the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has been under way for years. Alvarez described the bill as preserving CARB's formal rulemaking while allowing immediate use and said it contains an urgency clause to take effect upon the governor's signature.

Supporters said E15 can lower pump prices and reduce greenhouse gases, citing studies and a 20‑cent‑per‑gallon estimate from an industry-backed analysis. Opponents representing recreational boaters and marine manufacturers warned that E15 is prohibited for many small and marine engines under federal law and urged mandatory pump labeling and consumer protections to avoid misfueling. Committee members questioned assumptions about price effects and infrastructure costs; the author and witnesses said many modern dispensers are already compatible with E15 and that CARB's multimedia risk assessment has not shown adverse impacts to date. The committee recorded a vote to advance the bill while members said they expected continued engagement with stakeholders on labeling, infrastructure and CARB’s pending rulemaking.

AB66 — CEQA exemption for emergency egress routes

AB66 would create a narrowly targeted CEQA exemption to speed construction of secondary emergency evacuation routes in high wildfire‑risk areas identified by the Board of Forestry. The author said the bill responds to communities with only a single way in and out — a situation that can become deadly during fast-moving wildfires.

Supporters including the Rural County Representatives of California argued the measure reduces delay and litigation risk while including safeguards for species, wetlands and cultural resources and requiring adherence to environmental laws. Several environmental and conservation groups registered opposition, saying the exemption is too broad without clearer guardrails, definitions of "secondary egress," limits on road length and upfront environmental analysis. Committee members asked about public participation, how local agencies would make exemption determinations without a CEQA review, and whether the bill gives sufficient limits on size, scope and location. The author and proponents said the bill focuses the exemption on secondary egress in high fire‑risk areas and that determinations about wetlands and protected species would be made when assessing whether the exemption applies. The committee advanced the bill and members asked for follow‑up refinements.

AB399 — blue carbon authority for Coastal Commission

AB399 would authorize the California Coastal Commission to consider carbon sequestration potential of coastal wetlands and marine ecosystems ("blue carbon") when approving mitigation for coastal development and would authorize blue carbon demonstration projects. The author and environmental witnesses described coastal wetlands and seagrass beds as potent long‑term carbon sinks and argued the Coastal Act currently lacks tools equivalent to inland land‑bank mitigation for wetland carbon sequestration.

Opponents including the California Business Properties Association and the Chamber of Commerce cautioned that the bill could impose new, costly mitigation requirements on developers without clear fee schedules or accountability; the author and supporters said the measure targets projects that already require coastal permits under the Coastal Act and can be refined to clarify nexus and scope. The committee advanced the bill with amendments and sponsors said they would continue negotiations.

AB436 — siting and permitting of composting facilities

AB436 would provide model zoning language and other tools to streamline local siting and permitting for composting facilities, including facilities that accept food waste. Sponsors and local government representatives said California needs dozens of new or expanded composting operations to meet organic‑waste diversion mandates under SB 1383, but that inconsistent local zoning and protracted permitting delay projects.

Industry witnesses and rural counties described permitting challenges — for example, an account of a project that required 12 years of zone text amendments — and urged the committee to advance tools to standardize local approaches while preserving environmental protections. The committee voted to move AB436 and proponents said it would help local governments plan and permit necessary infrastructure.

AB43 — state protections for federally designated wild and scenic rivers

AB43 would make permanent an existing statutory authority (currently set to sunset) that allows the state Natural Resources Agency to add to the state Wild and Scenic Rivers system any river segment in California that the federal government removes from federal protection or otherwise weakens at the federal level. Supporters said the change ensures continuity of protection in the event of federal rollback; witnesses emphasized the bill would not add rivers that are not already federally protected and that the measure responds to potential federal action that could reduce protections.

Votes and procedural outcomes

The committee recorded votes to advance the listed bills (AB70, AB30, AB66, AB399, AB436 and AB43) to appropriations or the next committee of jurisdiction as appropriate. Committee members indicated several bills will continue to be negotiated with stakeholders before later hearings. The committee chair and authors asked members to work with authors and staff to resolve outstanding concerns.

What’s next

Each bill advanced by the committee will proceed according to Assembly procedure — typically to appropriations for fiscal review or to another policy committee depending on the measure. Authors and witnesses said they expect additional amendments and stakeholder conversations prior to floor votes or subsequent hearings.

Reporting note: Quotes and attributions in this report come from committee testimony and public witness testimony recorded in the meeting transcript.