Environment and Natural Resources — Closed Captions

>> The Committee on Environment and Natural Resources will now come to order. Kim, please call the roll. >> Chair Rodriguez here, Vice Chair Mayfield, Senator, Arrington Senator Avila, Senator Deciglie Senator Harrell Senator Polsky Senator Smith Quorum present. Madam Chair, thank you. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance led by our Vice chairman. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Please silence all electronic devices. Anyone wishing to speak before the committee should complete an appearance form and hand it to a member of the sergeants office. Should you select to waive your speaking time? Your position will be included in the committee meeting records. We're going to go ahead and start with tab number 5 today, Senate Bill 1682, on the local administration of vessel restrictions by Senator Trumbull. Senator Trumbull. You're recognized to explain your Bill. >> Thank you so very much. Madam chair and senators senators this bill addresses abandoned and problem vessels across Florida give cities and counties practical tools to manage these vessels. It authorizes counties and municipalities to adopt ordinances. Addressing at-risk derelict and long-term anchored vessels requires compliance with state standards for notice, documentation, storage and environmental protection and directs the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to provide guidance and adopt rules. The goal is to provide safer waterways, environmental protection and Richards reduce strain on law enforcement. That's the bill. Are there any questions on the bill? >> Okay. Seeing none. Are there any appearance forms for the bill? We have one here from Peter. A big deal with the Florida Association of counties waiving in support. Thank you for being here. Is there any debate on the bill? So yes, vice-chair Mayfield, you're recognized in debate. >> Thank you. And I want to I want to thank Senator Trumbull for bringing this forward. We have a derelict vessel issue around the state and especially so a lot in Brevard County and I know they pull they pull 3 out 6 more show up if that's just how bad it is. And I know our fish and Wildlife Services, they do a good job of trying to keep them out. But I think this bill also goes a long way of helping reinforce the locals in order to also help assist in getting those out more so getting him off the water before they sink once they think it's more difficult to get them off if they just can pull into a boat ramp and trailer off. So I want to thank you for this and the work that you did on it. Thank you. And yes, Senator Harrell, you're recognized in debate. >> Thank you very much. And I want to pile on and say thank you as well. And also thank you for empowering the city's its League of Cities Day. And I know they're all here. And I know in the city of Stuart, we have a significant problem with their elect vessels and to give them some flexibility and ability to to handle these problems is very important. So thank you. I'm sure the league of Cities would would say like wise, but we appreciate all your hard work. It's it's a considerable problem in Florida. People realize that. But I've had them out in front of my house. It's thank you. >> Thank you. And I'm going to just pile on as well because I represent the Keys and Miami Dade and we do have a derelict vessel issue as well. So I'm very grateful for you filing this bill. Senator Trumbull, you're recognized to close on your bill. >> I'm surprised Senator Smith Polsky inoculated want to pile on. But that's okay that they thank you very much. You know, after living through Hurricane Michael and seeing all of the derelict vessels that, you know, we're left and the waterways post storm is was was really difficult to get them off because to the Senator Harrell's or Senator Mayfield point once they get yeah on to the bottom of the the they force, you know, it's much more expensive, too, to remove that that vessel. So I'm excited about this opportunity and hope that we can continue to work with FWC to identify the cleanest language to make sure that we're able to bolster their processes and get as many derelict vessels out as quickly as possible. Across statement would appreciate your support. Thank you, Kim. Please call the role on SB 1682. >> Senator Arrington, Senator Avila, Senator Deciglie Senator Harrell. Yes, senator polsky Senator Smith. Yes. Vice chair Mayfield. Yes. Chair of AG. Yes. And by your Vote SB 1682. Is reported favorably. Thank you. Okay. We're gonna jump now to tab number 3. And this is a bill Senate Bill. 1468 on advanced Wastewater treatment by Senator Berman to be presented by Senator Polsky. You are recognized to present the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Thanks for agreeing to this important bill, which I'm honored to present today on behalf of the sponsor. Lieberman, this bill provides that the Legislature and the executive branch with the information to make more strategic decisions about curbing water pollution and how to wisely invest 8 resources to protect our water, quality and our economy. This bill will require the Department for Environmental Protection to submit a comprehensive report detailing key information about the wastewater treatment plants around the state. The report must include information on each facility's year of construction in any maintenance or upgrades permit an actual wastewater treatment volumes. Current treatment levels and concentrations of specify contaminants pollutant load estimates disposal methods and volumes discharged to receiving water bodies spill history, elevation and location relative to flood Plains and coastal hazards. The report must also include additional information regarding the impairments status receiving water bodies and the implementation of total maximum daily loads and basin management action plans, including a side load reductions and we still allegations for pollutants of concern through this great bill. We can improve the legislature and executives understanding of the status of our state's wastewater and aging sewage disposal facilities, improving efficiency and allowing us to make optimal infrastructure investments and decisions moving forward. That is the bill. Thank you for your support. Thank you. Are there any questions on the bill? >> Are there any appearance forms for the bill? We have one here from Alicia Keys Chur and she will be speaking for informational purposes. She's with Fr W A T you could tell us what for you is. Thank you. >> Starr, thank you. Good afternoon, Alicia Cater Florida, Rural Water Association. Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to be here on the behalf of floral water. We represent over 2900 water and wastewater systems around the state of Florida, predominantly our rural communities. However, we do work closely with all utilities around the state, including those that are one in G D and and greater on their discharge. One of the things I wanted to bring up about the bill and some language that I did see in there and just for educational purposes on requiring all waterway and wastewater plants over one that produced one mgd or greater to be advanced wastewater treatment will create a financial challenge to those systems. Because we do have utilities around the state that to increase to an advanced wastewater treatment plant will be a significant financial challenge for them. We just saw that city of new very just received their plant bids this last week. And they went from 66 million to about 79 million in just one year of their challenges. So I would ask that if we do consider something of this nature, that we make sure that we have the funding capabilities there for the utilities to access, not just year public municipalities, but your private nonprofits as well as that will impact a great amount of those utilities around the state. So I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. Thank you. Is there any debate on the bill, Senator Polsky you're recognized to close on the bill. >> Thank you all. Be sure to pass along those comments to Senator Berman and and thank you for your support of this Bill. >> Thank you, Kim. Please call the role on SB 1468. Senator Arrington Senator Avila, Senator Deciglie Senator Harrell. Yes, senator Polsky Senator Smith, vice chair Mayfield. Yes. Chair Rodriguez. Yes. By your vote. Sb 1468, is reported favorably. Next. We'll take a number 2 Senate bill, 1294 on Biosolids management by Senator Bradley. Senator Bradley, you're recognized to explain your Bill. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And there is a strike. All amendment if thank you and let's go ahead and take up Barcode 1, 4, 5, 9, 8, 6, Senator Bradley, you're recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you. Madam Chair and senators. This amendment aims to protect the integrity of Florida's fertilizer and compost markets for both class double a bio solid products while preserving real beneficial reuse. The bill addresses situations where class double a bio solids are labeled as fertilizer but are not actually sold when the material is given away or when someone is paid to take it, the risk increases that it's being disposed of rather than applied based on crop needs. This bill closes that gap. The bill safeguards legitimate fertilizer and compost markets by clues in closing loopholes that allow disposal driven practices to compete unfairly with bona fide products. Ultimately, the bill encourages innovation and the continued development of more valuable products while protecting Florida's water resources. The legislation as amended requires that full class double a bio solids. Fertilizer and compost products are land applied only at Agra comic greats. The legislation closes loopholes that allows bio solids to be given away or transferred under the label fertilizer by requiring that class double a bio solids be applied without a permit only if it only of transferred through a bona fide sale. If a class double a bio solids are not transferred through a bona fide sale. They may still be land applied, but only in a permitted land application site approved by DP to ensure applications balance agricultural benefits with the protection of water resources. The strike all amendment cleans up federal resources. References clarifies an existing compost exemption and provides additional transportation citian time until July one. 2028 for industry to comply with the requirements and that is the bill. Madam Chair, thank you. Are there any questions on the amendment? >> Are there any appearance forms for the amendment? Is there any debate on the amendment? Senator Bradley, you're recognized to close on the amendment. Waive close all in favor of the amendment say yea, yea, all opposed say Nay. The amendment is adopted back on the bill as amended. Are there any questions on the bill as amended? Are there any appearance forms for the bill? We have several first a man. First one is to day on behalf of Escambia County speaking for us. Would you like to waive in support? Okay. See the person next person is John November and you are speaking for with and RT Public Trust Law. >> That's it's okay to go in November. I represent the public trust for Conservation. Thank you guys so much for taking up this bill. It's very important for Florida's clean water future. And I think importantly, with that increase enhance timeline to get ready to for these regulations to come into effect, there can be an opportunity for great planning for local governments to do what they need to do in the next coming years to be ready for this effective date. It's going to protect markets. It's gonna protect bona fide producers of compost and fertilizer products where if there's a sale that we continue to be able to apply as they do today when not valuable, the risk for disposal goes up and so by allowing permitting safeguards to be in place that can ensure that we're balancing economic needs with environmental protection in closing, I'd like to thank Senator Bradley for amazing work on the bill. That's more. I appreciate your time. Thank you. >> Thank you for being here. And lastly, we have Alicia cuter speaking for informational purposes. You're recognized. >> Thank you very much, Lisa. Cater floral water. First, I want to say thank you, Senator Bradley, for the opportunity to speak about this bill this past week and communicate in support of the details that go along with this as part of the Senate bill, 1294 process. We would strongly ask that funding be applied to the bio solids. Grant 403-0674, that would allow for funding to be allocated to utilities and 2 systems that would upgrade to the class. Double a bio solid and also too meet the concerns of land application for this process to include some of the forestry applications, a regionalization approach for our utilities, for those smaller that cannot meet the class Double-A, but do want to be producers of good sludge for land application. So we make sure that we're meeting those needs for the future because this is not a short-term process. It takes one to 2 years to be able to plant to permit and upgrade. And then it takes 2 to 3 years to be able to build those upgrades. So this is a long-term process. And I know the bio solids Grant program has not been funded in several years. So we would ask that those dollars be appropriated to that so that we could meet this bill that Senator Bradley has presented. >> Thank you very much. Thank you again for being here. Is there any debate on the bill as amended? Okay, Senator Bradley, you're recognized to close on the bill as amended. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to all of the individuals who have come to us who have come to see me on this bill and shared concerns. One of the things that's in this strike, all amendment that wasn't in the original bill that reflects those conversations is moving that effective date out to 2028 so that the utilities have a chance to to a glide path to compliance. But Florida spends billions of dollars on water quality. And and that is what our makes our state special and beautiful and wonderful. But we can't maintain that if we have a loophole in our bio solids bill, our bio solids regulation that doesn't address really disposal base tactics instead of an actual bona fide sale. If you're going to sell it, it has a beneficial use. The end user is going. It has value to the end user. If you're just giving it away to the end user for nominal charge, I think that risks that really it's not a beneficial. And you said it really is sort of a disguise dumping of this product and we have to preserve our waterways. And I think this pope goes a long way to closing that gap and making sure that we have a more well-balanced system side. Appreciate your support. >> Thank you, Kim. Please call the Roll on CS for SB 1294 Senator. Arrington. Yes, Senator Avila, senator Deciglie Senator Harrell. Yes, senator polsky Senator Smith. Yes. Vice chair Mayfield. Yes. Chair Rodriguez. Yes. And by your Vote CS for SB 1294 is reported favorably. Thank you. Next, we're going to jump to tab number 6 SB 1690 16. 28 on net 0 policies by governmental entities by Senator Obama. Senator Obama, you are recognized to explain your Bill. >> Thank you, Madam Chair and the thank you. Senators senators over the last 30 years, the state of Florida has taken tremendous strides. 3 Biden lies ing in protecting our environment, which includes record funding in projects for the Everglades Indian River Lagoon. This came bay was born re and numerous initiatives for marine species that call Florida's coast their home. The bill I'm about to present is in no way a step backwards in our commitment to our unique habitat, but rather a layer of protection for our residents from potential additional unnecessary taxation. The bill prohibits governmental entities from adopting that 0 policies, including through comprehensive plans, land development regulations, transportation plans and any other government policy or procedure. The bill defines net 0 policy to include any Target Threshold Action initiative, framework requirement or policy related to reducing the use of carbon intensive products or activities including policies related to achieving goals. Under the Paris Agreement, the bill prohibits governmental entities from expending funds to implement support or advance net-zero policies. The bill further prohibits the imposition of taxes, fees, penalties, charges offsets or assessments to advance a net-zero policy. Governmental entities are also prohibited from implementing administering or enforcing Cap'n trade or carbon emissions. Trading programs, including establishing emission caps, allocating are trading emissions, allowances or credits or requiring participation in such programs. That is the bill. Madam Chair, thank you. Are there any questions on the bill? We're going to go ahead and take Senator Arrington, OK? Yes, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And good afternoon, Senator. If the intention of your bill is to encourage businesses to stay, how do we think that this will impact businesses that engage in climate mitigation and support green technology and innovation? You're recognized, Senator Avila. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So I would say to your question, Senator Arrington, let the market develop. Let the market determine what what courses businesses take. It should not be up to the government to impose a fee as a charger or attacks in order to essentially social engineer what a business needs to be doing. You can go back and forth. Madam Chair. >> And thank you, senator, for that answer. It's been predicted that labor productivity per agriculture worker will go down as temperatures continue to rise. Do we think or how does banning regulation on agriculture emissions? How is that going to help the industry with this prediction? >> Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the questions that aren't. And so the bill speaks to governmental entities and really that right now. And this is a globally 80% of the energy that is currently consumed on a global scale. It's either oil. It is a natural gas or coal. That's 80% of the global consumption in the United States right now in the United States. Certainly we've seen what's happened throughout numerous states with the with the winter storm. A lot of the heating that right now is keeping those folks warm is natural gas and oil. So really what is what is meant to prevent what is what the bill is intended to do is essentially to prevent local entities, local government entities from essentially imposing again, whether it's a tax, a fee, a surcharge on any business or any individual in order to certainly meet whatever whatever kept they may set or whatever goal they may set in order to get to net-zero. >> Okay. We're gonna go ahead and take up. You have a question. Senator Smith, you're recognized to ask questions. Yeah. I think we should do this to the amendment and then we'll go back to questions. Okay. So we're going to take up amendment Barcode. 8, 8, 6, 5, 5, 0, Senator Avila, you're recognized to explain your amendment. >> Thank you, Madam Chair and senators this amendment. This clarifies the definition of carbon dioxide to include it's coming up its chemical composition. That is the amendment. Thank you. Are there any questions on the amendment? >> Are there any appearance forms for the amendment seeing none. Is there any debate on the amendment? Senator Avila, you're recognized to close on the amendment with clothes all in favor of the amendment say yea, yea, all opposed say Nay. The amendment is adopted back on the bill as amended. Are there any questions on the bill as amended? Senator Smith, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator. The left for that explanation summary of the bill. There's a lot in here to try to digest and and respond to first of all, ask about the definition of net 0 policy. So reading from the staff analysis as a net 0 policy is any Target Threshold initiative, action framework requirement or policy related to reducing the use of carbon intensive product or activity. >> So >> a target. So the city just sets a goal, not that they want to eliminate carbon emissions, but they want to just reduce carbon emissions. Is that policy prohibited under your bill? You may go back and forth. >> Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you for that. Yes, as it's currently written, it is. And I mean, you laid out the definition as it is in the staff analysis. And the reason for that is usually when you settle goal, that goal requires resources in order to meet that goal. Just like from a personal standpoint, we set goals for ourselves, right? It requires an effort. It requires something to back up what you're going to do in order to reach that goal. So that's the that's the emphasis and the intent behind having that language in the bill. >> Thank you. A follow-up to that. So just just acknowledging that the idea that a simple call even a modest goal of reducing some carbon emissions, a local government establishing that go through an ordinance would be illegal and prohibited under your bill. That's dramatic. So my question is, how how is it that this bill is is protecting businesses like who's who's business? Is that protecting by creating this new policy for the state of Florida? So with that question? >> I think that the actual the key word there is solely solely based on on net-zero or some sort of carbon emission reduction, right? It is solely based on that. If you have 2 options, one of them is let's say an all-electric, whatever it may be. And you know your your your regular, let's a vehicle. >> And the EV. >> Certainly more expensive than your regular vehicle. The intent of the governmental entity is to based their decision not on what's best for the resident in terms of the cost that is associated with those 2, if it is solely based on. >> We're you know, we're going to let's go for goal that we set for ourselves either in 2045 or 2050 and let's pay whatever that extra amount is to the detriment of the resident so that we can meet our goal and select, you know, this EV or whatever this may be. >> They thank you for their response. All I'll use an example if it if a city, if a city decided by the elected commissioners on the city council, if they want to start to replace, let's just say buses in the city that our city buses, part of our transportation program with cleaner energy alternatives may be electric, maybe hybrid buses that don't burn so so much carbon in fossil fuels and and let these carbon emissions at which, but which, by the way, reduces the quality of life in that city, those emissions that smoke, they would not be allowed to to make a decision to move their buses to a cleaner energy alternative. They would be prohibited from doing that under your bill. >> So since since you brought up buses, I'm going to I'm going to pick on my own county so that no one gets offended here to no surprise if anyone either on the panel or in the audience. Miami Dade County, this was in February of 2025. And there's a Miami Herald article on it. They purchase of fleet that cost them 126 million dollars. And that was for 117 electric buses right out of those 117 buses. According to this article, only 5 to 7 of them are in service for one. I can tell you they they went with those buses that were more expensive than the alternative. And then you obviously then now, according to this article, only have a select few that are operating because the supplier, the builder, the manufacture of these of these in these buses easy, the buses has gone out of business. So it further compounds the problem and all in a sense to get to a goal, really to the detriment of the resident. >> Thank you, Senator Avila at I'm glad you said example. I'm not familiar with that example because, you know, I represent Orlando in the Florida Senate. You represent Miami. I don't know any of the details around that. Did you introduce this bill because this decision, local governments made around a bus and now you want the state to micromanage every city and county and tell them that they can't even have a goal of reducing emissions on anything, whether be buses, whether it be their own utility provider and any anything, anything that the municipality has jurisdiction on, they will all lose that local control entirely because of is that this bus issue. >> I can confirm it is not. This was just a question that I thought you would have probably asked. So I was a bit trying to be prepared for it. I will say, you know, the Florida Legislature, one thing that sets it apart from the rest of legislatures in throughout the states is we always take a proactive approach. And especially when it comes to tax policy, we try to really set forward a a very steady, foreseeable, predictable tax code for our residents. And this is this makes a part of that, right? This is basically setting setting setting forward the parameters by which, you know, local municipalities to meet some goal. That is it for all intensive purposes, would require them to essentially triple to quadruple their tax base in order to even get anywhere near it again, would be detrimental to the residents and that community or in other communities throughout our state. So we've seen certainly examples in California. We've seen examples in New York where they've embarked on these types of policies and set forward tax code revisions centered around these policies. It is obviously no wonder to anyone why we have so many of their residents moving to the state of Florida. >> Thank you, Senator Avila, I want to ask about the impact on business as well. I know that recently in the last few years the legislature passed a law that became Florida statute. One, 25 6.75 and it allows businesses to be able to sewer challenge a local government, sue a municipality for ordinances that they believe are arbitrary or unreasonable. I tend to think that the statute really just is about businesses like being mad, that maybe they didn't get a government contract that they wanted to get. But how does why is your bill necessary when businesses already have tools to sue local governments if they believe, let's just say a preference for clean energy versus faap fossil fuels and carbon emission activities. Well, they already have the opportunity to hold the government accountable for that through litigation through the statute we created. Why do we need your bill to make it even harder for cities and counties, too, have contracts with clean energy companies and and renewable energy alternative? >> I think it goes back to predictability. Certainly one thing that makes the state of Florida very different is our business environment. And we pride ourself on certainly providing one of the best, if not the best business environment in the entire, not just throughout the United States, but in the world. I mean, certainly with an economy that's over a trillion dollars in GDP with an economy that is 14th in the entire country. If it were in the entire globe, if it were a nation, I think that it's something that speaks to we need to make sure that we provide visibility and predictability for a lot of businesses that want to move to the state of Florida and certainly protect, you know, the businesses and the residents that are in our in our state from any additional or unforeseen taxation that may occur from from any policy. So that's what the bill is is really intense it to do. It's it's meant to provide that predictability provide that visibility from a tax code perspective. We want to make sure that when companies are looking at their balance sheet, they're not all of a sudden they're not seeing, you know, an expenditure that was not there in the previous quarter. We want to make sure that they are operating as as as good as possible, certainly making the best decisions possible based on the environment that they are in and providing jobs to our residents. >> Thank you, Senator Avila. And I'm going to try to land the plane at Madam Chair. I'm sorry. There's that a lot of parts of this bill that I have good questions on that promise. You're good. So first, when I first, but who is benefiting from this bill? So we'll we'll carbon intensive and fossil fuel based companies benefit from the complete ban and elimination of net-zero policies in the state of Florida. >> So let me let me give you an example. And and the bill references the Paris agreement. So we've seen how Europe has increased their taxes on the missions. We've seen how they've increased their taxes in particular on gas and what has happened. And the reason why they did so is obviously to discourage the usage of any sort of fossil fuel in the hopes of reaching their their goal. What has happened is that they're middle class and lower class have been significantly impacted from a financial standpoint. Their entire cost of living is upside down in part because of taxes on on emissions in order for a lot of these governments to try to reach some goal that they're never going to reach as it relates to business. Again, this is this is really meant to make sure that we we put in place a lot of predictability and a lot of visibility before businesses before a business does anything the one thing that they look for in any jurisdiction, any state any city is predictability. They want to make sure that where they are going. They know what they're getting. >> Senator is cost the main driver here because there's an assumption that it sounds like from, you know, some of the things that you're saying in response to my questions and assumption that of all of the fossil fuel based activity, all of the carbon intensive activity is always going to be cheaper. I mean, it's definitely going to be dirtier. And that's going to be more consequential in a negative way for future generations. But that is always going to be cheaper. That's always the case with clean energy alternatives, depending on, you know, what type of clean energy alternative or renewable energy alternative, where we are talking about, especially when you talk about making an investment up front and then seen the savings from that over time and actually having that, the the planning insight to know that these investments are actually going to be worthwhile not only for the environment, but also cost wise over time is is cost. The only thing that is driving year want to eliminate any goals related to reducing renewable and reducing emissions. >> Let me let me let me let me give you up. >> Sort of where we are, right. And in terms of globally where we are, where does the United States fall in general? Right? So if and I'm not going to go by size because obviously we're a very large country. So it's would be disproportionately unfair to put it into those terms. So I'm going to put it in terms of per capita. So right now per capita, the United States in terms of global emissions is 8th in the entire world. You have just before the United States, you have Australia. And just after the United States, you have Canada, both countries that I mean have literally changed their entire economies in order to try to get to these goals that has an impact. And that has a massive impact on the predictability for business. It has an impact on the residents in general because if businesses have to cut back on employment costs because of this cost, that obviously has a trickle down effect with the residents. Right. And that's something that, again, we just need to make sure that if we are going to continue to be a leader in business, not just in our country, but in in in the globe, we need to make sure that we're providing that visibility and that predictability to our businesses and especially to our residents that live here. >> Thank you, Senator. But is it is it being driven by prices? Still that that was my main question is, is your is your cold to just re reduce costs and burdens on taxpayers by eliminating that 0 policies? >> Well, I don't want additional costs on our residents know. And that's right. No one does right. But as we've seen, whether it's with the EU or whether we've seen with California or what we've seen with the York, there have been additional costs, its been absolutely detrimental to their economies. It's been detrimental to their residents because look at the migration, right? The migration isn't staying in California. It's not saying in New York where they have these policies, the migration is coming to the state of Florida. So for every U haul that goes to California, it's 500 bucks. But for every u haul that goes from California to Florida, it's 5,000 and there's a reason for that. And that's because of cost like these that get passed down to the to those residents. >> My final question, Senator Avila, thank you is. >> Is is that >> basis for this bill? Is this a model legislation? For example, I know that there's national organizations like Alec that, you know, put together model legislation and asked people to put them forward. I'm not disparaging model legislation. You know, I've used model legislation for progressive legislation like to look for because when I see our other states and neighbors are doing good things, I want to not reinvent the wheel and replicate it. Is this model legislation or did you off of this bill are on your own. Thank you. Senator Smith saw tell you, you know, one thing that certainly a lot of our senators always try to do is to be a leader. >> Right. And that's what this legislation is. I didn't model this after anything other than what we've seen in Europe. What we've seen in California, what we've seen in New York, this is legislation that is leading the way in terms of trying to prevent additional costs on our residents and our businesses. >> Polsky, you're recognized in questions. Thank you. And thank you for coming to see me and talking about this bill. A couple questions since the discussion is started. We're sitting here in the environment committee were all on it and we talk about all the programs that we put money towards. And you mentioned that near opening. So isn't all that money that we spend on environmental programs attacks on our citizens. >> Thank you for that question. Senator Polsky and appreciate the time that you carved out for me. And it's been a busy busy week for every single senator. We certainly had a lot of folks come through the halls of the Senate, certainly not just this week, but in all the weeks since session started. So appreciate taking that time. I will tell you the the initiatives that we've taken into place again, and I mentioned in my earlier comments with regards to the Everglades to the Indian River Lagoon, Biscayne Bay. I was born Reef and numerous other initiatives. Those initiatives are not they're not attacks and they're not a surcharge on on the residents. In fact, the Florida legislature on a yearly basis. What we take in, we're usually giving back to residents a good portion of that money, whether it's through the the tax package, whether its through sales tax holidays, whether it's through a bunch of initiatives. So that's that's the big difference here. This is those the funding that's going to those initiatives is not an additional costs. It's not an additional tax. It's not an additional fear surcharge. That is money that has been entrusted to the Florida legislature to make sure that we're maintaining these unique habitats and unique environments within our state. I can certainly tell you just being in Miami-Dade County were, I think the only the only county probably in the entire U.S. where we're flanked by 2 national parks and we take great pride in that. And the Florida Legislature, again, has taken numerous strides through the past 3 decades to make sure that our environment and those investments are going to these initiatives. But again, I I would say to your question, those are investments with moneys that have been entrusted to the Florida Legislature and again on annual basis, we are being good stewards of the taxpayers money and giving back a good portion of that money. In fact, our state budget is 114 billion dollars, right? We're ranked 3rd in population. The state of New York, which has a lot of these policies in place is 4th in population. But their budget is over 270 Billion. So clearly there's there's a there's there's a big disconnect in terms of good governance and good tax policy. >> I come back and forth. Money is fungible and money is limited. If we invest from the state legislature in an environmental project, we could have used that money to give you a discount on a tax or some other economic development. If everything we're talking about is just getting more business here and helping business owners and then it's still essentially a surcharge surtax on our citizens. If we are spending the money elsewhere, where that money could have been spent, saving money for them, so aren't all environmental projects or even if a city decide to do an environmental project, isn't that attacks on U.S. citizens and they're making a decision that they want to invest in the environment for a lot of the reasons that you sent. So isn't a net-zero policy, also an investment in the environment of that particular city. >> So with with your question, again, this is based on what I've seen, whether it's with a lot of the countries in Europe, and they're obviously they're they're trying to meet whatever goals they've set for themselves under the Paris agreement. Obviously looking at California, I'm looking at New York looking a lot of the states where those jurisdictions. >> Our >> setting these goals for themselves that they're just not going to me, right. They would literally have to turn their entire economy, not just within their jurisdiction but surrounding their jurisdiction. They would have to turn it upside down in order to do that. You know, again, the consumption rate in terms of energy is 80% globally, meaning that 80% of the global population is either using coal oil or natural gas. So, again, they would have to just completely upend their entire system. And again, to meet these goals, you need the resources and where local governments get the resources is through taxation. >> So what do you think the state is doing to help climate change with animal talking about funding the Everglades and all the think projects that you mentioned. So if this is not going to be the state's hands because you don't cities to have net-zero policies, what is the state doing to lower emissions to lower pollution to lower our our carbon footprint? >> Thank you for that. So I would tell you, you know, the market, one thing that we've certainly done that's different from a lot of from a lot of states is we've let the market determine best practices when it comes to what appeals to consumers and what, what's what's in the best interest for them in order to sell their products. So again, that has to be a market decision. We've certainly from a state perspective, we've made a ton of investments in a lot of things that other states simply have not done and large part because potentially they've missed mismanaged where they're going to. But this or they haven't prioritized, you know, investments into their, you know, clean water initiatives, or they haven't made investments into revitalizing their unique habitats or they have made investments into the marine life. You know, the state of Florida has really done an excellent job in prioritizing the environment when it comes to global emissions, its global emissions meeting. A lot of that cannot be, you know, the United States completely pending. It's it's entire economy in the state of Florida, a pending its tire economy in order to reach a goal. That is it's just not attainable. >> My last question is we talked about the environment is a biz good environment to be good for business. If you have a outdoor driven city, let's say Miami Beach and they need a lot of tourism in order for people to come and keep of the economy. And if they wanted to do something to help pollution of their buses, that were that we're making a lot of pollution and noise and smells and discoloring the, you know, the beautiful sky and they could not go through and that utilize a kind of a net-zero policy in order to keep the tourism dollars coming in. If you look at it purely from an economic standpoint, wouldn't for example, buses or taxis or something of that regard help with the business of Miami Beach if they want to do that. >> When we're looking at a global emissions and that focus on the night when we're looking at global emissions, I'm going to focus on the United States and to your example with Miami Beach. So California has instituted a lot of these initiatives, right? Would it surprise you that 3 cities from California out of the top 5, 3 of them have the worst air quality in the entire United States with all of these initiatives in place long before, you know, this discussion even occurred. >> Yes, yeah, Senator Arrington, you're recognized in questions. And thank you, Madam Chair. Just one more question that came up for me. I have a school, my district and the city academy. And I believe. >> It's the only or at least the first net-zero school in Florida. We generate more energy than it consumed its $115,000. Annual energy savings. If your bill was passed with that, prevent local governments from from building these type of schools are encouraging these types of schools to be built. >> So I think and that's a great question. I don't know the specifics of that that project. I don't know what the costs associated with that project is. So let's say, you know, if it building that project, right, if you had 2 options and one of them was to be completing that 0 or, you know your standard, your standard school, the decision was made based solely on. We want to be net 0. Let's go with a net 0 option that right at that point. No, right. Because it solely based on on on on attaining the school of becoming or being that 0. Now, if and again, I don't know what the costs associated with the project are right. But if the cost for building your your regular school, obviously, I'm sure it would be beautiful, right? Brand new beautiful, right, and and very similar to to this school. But obviously, you know, this one's net 0, right. You're trying to get to whatever goal that they're trying to get to. At that point. It would not be certainly would not be allowed because it it was the decision to build that school net-zero was solely based on attaining this school or that threshold. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one more question then on that what it is we're talking about then the overall energy costs each year and so forth to the taxpayers, if they would have built a non 0 school and have an energy bill of, you know, $180,000 a year if they do a net-zero school and has an energy cost of $20,000 a year, that would be a savings. And I'd love to talk a little more often about the school specific, but just something that came up were talking about it. >> None and would definitely want to have that conversation with you. I would just be very interested in knowing what the costs associated with. That would be right in terms of building that school, right? Because you're going to need a whole host of infrastructure, particularly on the battery life and memory and everything that goes along with, you know, generating that electricity. There's a there's a substantial amount of costs that's associated with doing that. So I I would be very just very curious and I would love to get with you to get the specifics. But I would just be curious to know what those what those costs are on the front end, because this is just my assumption without knowing there's just a lot of infrastructure that would be required in order to make that happen. And there's there's a cost that's associated with that infrastructure. >> It wasn't a specific this one came in under. >> Seeing no other questions. The are there appearance forms for the bill. We have several. We'll start with Matthew Charles ski. Matthew, you are recognized and you will be speaking against the bill followed by Kim Ross of you could be on deck and then followed by Jennifer Webb. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Matthew Kerr whole ski. And as a young Floridian, I dream and the spire for Florida to not be another concrete junger jungle, where we don't actually have green space or our environment actually at a sustainable level. This bill, unfortunately, actually helps a problem that we do see as young Floridians, the problem of actual affordability. When we talk about climate emissions, we're neglectful of the fact that our climate is actually changing. And the fact of the matter is we're trekkie helping the hurricanes that are hurting our homeowners insurance rates. People like the actually cannot afford property in the state of Florida because of these exact problems. This bill unfortunately hurts again, our climate in the Sunshine State. And that should not be a thing that this legislature is even considering. So please continue to actually uphold our conservation, something that this legislative session we've been seeing happen and not take some significant steps back on home girl and guidance. Thank you. >> Thank you so much for being here. Kim Ross, you are recognized. >> Good afternoon chair and senators can hear me. Okay. I'm here today is the vice president of Rethink Energy Action Fund to ask you to vote no on Senate Bill 1628. Unfortunately the bill as written doesn't just prevent fees and taxes its citizens. One of the many flaws of this overreaching bill as I would have a chilling effect on policies that are cost-effective but reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some examples of that are purchasing preference policies where say the total cost of ownership of an electric vehicle might actually be less than a gas car along the life of the lifetime of the vehicle and also policies that strive to reduce carbon emissions by helping people and businesses make their buildings more energy efficient. Some of these type policies can actually attract funding into the state in the form of grants and incentives. And if local governments had to get rid of them, the people in their jurisdictions would be harmed. And the locality of south may have to turn down or give back a funding. My point is how is it in the economic interests of the state or any entity and it to turn down funds because of a blanket law. In addition, the bill analysis describes the present situation of Florida as this greenhouse gas greenhouse gases traps heat in the atmosphere and warms the warm the surface of the earth. There is broad scientific consensus that if the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues, the risk of more severe climate impacts will increase, including biodiversity, loss threats to human health, reduced food and water security and more frequent and extreme weather events. Every additional degree of warming will intensify and multiply concurrent hazards. That's not my language. That's the bill analysis. And I would actually argue that every 10th of a degree matters in terms of hazards and all of those climate hazards add up to real costs that our state and our residents have to bear. Affordability is a key word for this legislative slate of session as it should be. Floridians are paying far too much for housing for insurance and for energy. Azuree and friend just said this bill and the name of what I perceived of as a false political division will only serve to increase costs for your everyday Floridians. And I want to mention, I say false because it's important for you all to know, according to a recent signal, pulling 63% of Republican voters support alternative energy sources. Voters in Florida don't want states government's thumbs on the scale. They're concerned that they be able to continue to afford to live here. Regardless of the intent of the sponsor. This bill does nothing to address affordability and instead ties the hands of the local governments from being able to use all of the tools in their tool boxes to make their homes more resilient and energy more affordable. Please vote no. Thank you again for being here. Former Representative Jennifer left. >> Thank you for being here here. >> Good evening, everyone. I'm here on behalf of Sierra Club, Florida to speak against Senate Bill 1628. Legislation that isn't just bad for environmental policy. It's bad for Florida's economy, bad for cities, counties. And it too is this is an Florida's families. Before we turn to the number, let's look at the facts on the ground. Florida leads the nation and property risk for at risk from climate change. Our communities are already experiencing the consequences of king tides, flooding seaside streets, coastal erosion, threatening property values and salt water intrusion, compromising fresh water supplies. These are not projections. They are Jackie amended realities that local governments are working to address right now. Using policies such as these and this policy are not only and and these policies are not only working they are generating in and tiger additional sector. So let's start with the numbers. Florida's clean and energy sector employs nearly 160,000 workers in 2023 alone. Clean energy job growth in our state. Outpaced overall job growth by nearly 2 and a half times. Solar energy, for example, has brought 27 billion in investment to Florida. This is a thriving sector. And as the 16 28 would knee cap it, the bill defines governmental entity to include every county municipality district, an authority, even homeowners associations then prevent prohibits all of these entities from adopting any net-zero policy that bans climate goals from comp comp plan's land development, regulation and transportation plans. Your city as was mentioned earlier, couldn't even prioritize buying an electric bus. The quieter less noxious option for public transit. This doesn't just harm the environment. It sends a clear signal to business. Florida is closed for clean energy investment. All other states compete for jobs and capital flowing into renewable energy. We would be telling investors to look elsewhere and consider largest utility, which is also the world's largest generator of renewable energy headquartered right here in Florida. They've committed to real 0 emissions by 2045. Major corporations across the country are making similar commitments and they want to do business with partners who share these goals SB 1628. Would make Florida's local governments legally prohibited from participating in that economy. The believe in bars, government funds from paying dues and there's the enforcement mechanism. Every governmental entity must submit an annual affidavit under penalty of perjury, swearing compliance. We everyone knows that we don't need additional bureaucratic burden while achieving nothing productive. Meanwhile, climate action is not a left right issue. It's an economic competitiveness issue. The Sierra Club has long advocated for local governments freedoms to keep their communities safe and prosperous SB 1628. Strips away that freedom. And on behalf of the 35,000 voters across Florida, who are a dues paying Sierra Club members urge you to oppose this Bill. Florida's economic and environmental future depends on it. Thank you. >> Thank you for being here this Web. Appreciate you being here. Okay. We're going to go ahead. And the Joshua Fredrick you're waiving in support. Intesa Niemeyer is waiving in support. Daniel Martinez with Americans for Prosperity is waiving in support. Thank you, Zain. Mann and is waiving against Jenna REM bomb is waiving against Sean Cream. Packer is waiving against Meta. Meta Calder is waiving against us. Patrick Love is waiving against Karim Golden from that from the nature Conservancy's waiving against Thomas Lynch is waiving speaking speaking, OK? Yes, please speak. Come. Please come to the podium. You are recognized, Mr. Event. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. >> My name is to Thomas Lynch noticed him and for us about 30 years ago I was appointed by Bill Nelson is the chair of the the staff director of the academic task force for Hurricane Insurance and who had just come in prioritized the power of local government as institutions of creative diversity solving the problem. What we had not done up to that point, which is to invest in sufficiently and protection against hurricanes. We both we all know that Florida still the subject to tremendous numbers of hurricanes been blessed this year, but last year. But the reality is, is that these local engines of creativity solve problems more than they than they conflict with problems. The senator pointed out appropriately that more than 20% to 24% of energy produced in this country today comes from renewable. Guess what percentage? It was back in 1990, less than half that. What do you suppose? What do you suppose Sen? It's because innovation has created, by the way, a professor of economics retired 30 years ago, almost to the day. And that's why I got the Bill Nelson a point to be back in those days, head up a task force of about 7 different presidents of universities to become independent of political sources, to recommend to the legislature recommendations of what to do. 43% to 48% reduction in costs over that period of time has led to an innovation where Florida is one of the leaders. We have 3 almost a 3rd of a million people, including myself that have installed solar energy on their homes. We are independent. And by the way, senator, do you don't need batteries for having of solar energy can connect directly to the grid. And that's one of the sources of great strength of this country and this particular state because we all the sunshine state, the rest of the state, Snowden, guess what? Kids? We've got sunshine galore. And so as a result, I think this is a terrible idea. Not about it. It's a terrible idea to stifle innovation and several speakers have already referred to. We are the leader behind Texas, I think in solar installed solar energy which we should be and we should we should be continuing to do that. And local government if it has the opportunity to to encourage developments of the sort are engines of creation, not just individually, but collectively can bring to the marketplace. Lots and lots of innovation and entrepreneurs from across the world, not just the country to stimulate this economy and stimulate our thinking and our diversity of of access to to solutions row then create throwing more barriers and problems. I rest my the rest of my time. Thank you. Have any questions will be happening soon. Thank you for being here again this tournament. >> And last but not least I mean spending is the speed and weaving against Florida for all the organization. Okay. Is there debate on the bill as amended? Senator Smith, you're recognized in debate. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> I think I'm going to be a no on this one. Senator Obama, this is this is really I can't I can't support this bill. This bill will tie the hands of local governments and local communities that bands them from even trying to reduce emissions from even trying trying to cut costs and plan responsibly for the future. Because, yeah, actually trying to find renewable energy alternatives over the long term can cut costs as well, but financially and human costs. So this goes way beyond just eliminating net 0 policies. It means that they they are blocked. Our cities and counties are municipalities are blocked from clean purchasing policies, transportation planning. That's based done the fuel source. And it's not it's not just limited to government that will that will trickle down its state micromanagement, municipalities in our communities. And who does it benefit? This part needs to be understood very well. Bills like this benefit fossil fuel companies, big oil, big guy S they love this bill. Why wouldn't they left us bill? This helps their business. Who does it hurt? It hurts all of us. It hurts future generations. It hurts the planet. Sea levels are rising. Hurricanes are more intense. As a result, we're seeing more because of rising temperatures. More heat related deaths projected to increase by over 1000 a year through 2035. agriculture. Productivity is expected to drop dramatically. Tourism in property values are at risk. And these are the ordinances we already have. We have local leaders in Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Monroe, Orlando, Tampa, all across the state. They've adopted climate resilient plans because they are already dealing with flooding. They're dealing with extreme heat, salt water intrusion, storm damage. This bill will wipe all of those plans out entirely. And the idea that it is protecting businesses, well, they already have authority and a cause of action to sue cities and counties. If they think that their organ ordinances burdensome, I think a lot of clean energy companies will probably think that this bill is burdensome, be there for a start suing cities and counties. Under this law, we should be empowering local governments to reduce risk on the issue of cost. We elect our local community leaders to represent us locally. If there's a cost involved that is factored in. When Florida voters said that they wanted to change the Constitution to have a class size amendment. They knew that that was going to cost the state more money and taxpayers more money and then we had to hire more teachers. They knew that they wanted a class size amendment less students in the classroom, more teachers when they elect our local leaders to campaign on renewable energy and clean energy. And we're going to have electric buses and we're going to try to reduce our emissions. They're electing them to implement these policies, knowing that there's an investment that needs to be made here. They understand that and bills like this, just just take it all away. We can't ban our way out of climate change. This bill will literally trap Florida and lock us into fossil fuels in perpetuity so I can support the bill. Thank you. Any other debate, Senator Avila, you're recognized to close on the bill as amended. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just want to touch on a couple of points that I know some of the speakers made, you know, someone referenced a sentence or 2 and the staff analysis, which was essentially a quote from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is it's a body of the u N, you know, when Somalia is your the president of the Security Council, you kinda discredit yourself, right? So with regards to anybody or anything that deals with the u N that kind of needs to be put to the side, the other thing I would I would mention is we've made again historic investments in the environment. Historic investments, right? And I mention and throughout my opening remarks and certainly throughout the questions from the senators on this panel, enormous investments. What we are trying to prevent with this legislation is giving taxing authority to a local government that decides that they want to essentially follow whatever the Paris agreement has has put out and then go from there in in the hopes that you get to some goal that you're never going to meet while in the process, putting an undue burden, undue financial burden on companies and businesses that operate in that jurisdiction. You know, one of the themes of this of this session is affordability, right? And it's been mentioned. How affordable is it going to be for our residents? If you