Transcript Highlights:

• Interest or vendor interest with any of the agencies that there's oversight.
• on them as members of the public or as members of the public. of the regulated community.
• interest.
• We value public service. He's been a public servant. his entire adult life.
• We value public service.

Committee: House Delivery of Government Efficiency

Transcript Highlights:

• With governmental power are serving the public interest.
• The core concept of the conflict of interest law is that public officials serve the public interest.
• The core concept of the conflict of interest law is that public officials serve the public interest,
• The conflict of interest law compels public officials to act in the public interest, fosters confidence
• Massachusetts public employees continue to act with integrity in the public interest.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Ways and Means

Summary: The hearing was held in Clinton Town Hall as part of the Joint Committee on Ways and Means’ budget review, with local officials welcoming legislators and noting the long agenda of many panels. The main presentation was from Secretary Terrence Reedy of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, who outlined the Healey-Driscoll administration’s FY26 proposal for the secretariat, including a $1.7 billion budget and a 7% increase over FY25. He described investments in emergency preparedness, hate-crime prevention, reentry programming, technology modernization, internships, and public safety training, while also noting some reductions driven by resource constraints, including cuts to certain grant programs and administrative costs. Committee members also raised concerns about federal uncertainty and how it could affect state budgets and public safety planning. A major portion of the questioning focused on the Department of Correction. Secretary Reedy and Commissioner Sean Jenkins said the biggest challenges are staffing, officer wellness, facility safety, and contraband—especially K2. They described steps taken at MCI Souza and other facilities, including reducing population at the maximum-security unit, changing management, removing metal products and free weights, improving screening and roll calls, adding a rapid response team, and increasing investigative and technological efforts to combat K2. They also discussed the closure of MCI Concord, saying it was driven by high maintenance costs and staffing needs, and explained that savings are being used to improve staffing patterns and address deferred maintenance over time rather than producing immediate large budget reductions. Members also questioned the budget’s impact on police training and community policing. The administration defended the increase in police academy tuition from $3,200 to $6,000 as reflecting true training costs and said it would still be subsidized by the state, while acknowledging the burden on small municipalities. They said the MPTC is expanding regional training and considering proposals such as Greenfield Community College’s. On community policing, officials emphasized uniform statewide training, de-escalation, and communication skills. The State Police also announced an outside review of the academy by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and said the next class will be split into two smaller groups to improve oversight and allow quicker implementation of recommendations. Other topics included ICE and federal immigration enforcement, with Reedy saying state law prohibits Massachusetts law enforcement from acting in a civil immigration capacity and that no state dollars were used in the Tufts-related ICE operation mentioned by a member. Senators and representatives also raised the upcoming FIFA World Cup, warning that it will require significant public safety resources and likely federal funding. Additional discussion covered restorative justice and juvenile diversion, health care costs in DOC, electronic health records, and the need for more diverse and culturally competent public safety staffing. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> in</c> higher public interest standard uh in higher public interest standard uh in the<00:35:56.079
• public interest and all aspects associated with that.
• </c><01:13:11.760><c> It's</c><01:13:12.000><c> a</c> broader public interest.
• It's a broader public interest.
• public interest designed to benefit I'm public interest designed to benefit I'm quoting<02:34:58.479>

Committee: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• It's interesting... Interesting, interesting.
• He said the public can see in real time when a permit has been done and evaluate it, because they are
• can see in real time when a the public can see in real time when a permit<00:07:25.800><c> has</c><00
• Michigan's process so I'm I'm interested Michigan's process so I'm I'm interested in<00:10:26.120><c>
• It's not just because I'm personally interested; I am interested on behalf of the people of Minnesota

Committee: House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• hearings we had so that the And the number of public hearings we had so that the public could give adequate
• The whole notion of communities of interest is an interesting topic. Senator Gates: Thank you, Mr.
• The whole notion of communities of interest is an interesting topic.
• That's an interesting question.
• But we continue to have public policy at the public policy decisions that are made that stops to At the

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D / House Bill 1D, which would establish Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Sen. Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a redistricting plan two days earlier and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based districting is unconstitutional. Much of the floor time was spent in extended questioning about the process, the lack of public hearings compared with prior redistricting cycles, the use of population estimates from the Census/EDR/ACS, compactness scores, and whether the Governor’s office used partisan data or outside consultants. Gates repeatedly said he was relaying the Governor’s proposal and legal theory rather than offering his own legal opinion, and he said any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. A major portion of the debate focused on the U.S. Supreme Court’s newly issued Calais decision and its implications for the Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators questioned whether the decision struck down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, whether it affected Florida’s constitutional ban on partisan gerrymandering, and whether the Legislature should postpone action to review the ruling. A motion to temporarily postpone the bill failed by voice vote and then by recorded vote, 12 yeas to 23 nays. Senators also raised concerns that the proposed map cracked minority communities, including Latino and Black populations in Central Florida and Tampa Bay, and that it would produce a heavily Republican-leaning map despite the state’s voter registration mix. After debate on the Senate bill, the chamber substituted the identical House companion bill, read it a third time, and proceeded to final debate. Opponents argued the map was an illegal partisan gerrymander, was based on assumptions rather than verified data, and would likely lead to litigation. Supporters maintained that the Governor had authority to propose a congressional map, that the plan was race-neutral, and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The transcript ends during continued debate on House Bill 1D, with no final vote shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a really interesting situation we find ourselves in.
• And in HB 1917, in my read of HB 1917, there would be a public hearing, and that would provide the public
• So it's been very public since 2022, very public.
• They don’t have that interest cost.
• They don’t have that interest cost.

Committee: House Utilities

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> public education system, they are public public education system, they are public schools.<00:04
• I am a retired public school teacher, but I have no personal interest because I have my pension and nothing
• We have public education that includes public charter schools and public schools in We have public education
• <00:39:30.320><c> public</c> public education that includes public public education that includes public
• Or to public<02:16:20.760><c> schools.</c> public schools. public schools.

Committee: Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• Brian Augusta, on behalf of Public Counsel, Public Interest Law Project, and the California Rural Legal
• Anya Loller, on behalf of the Public Interest Law Project and Public Counsel, in support.
• Anya Laller, on behalf of Public Counsel, the Public Interest Law Project, and the California Rural Legal
• Anya Laller, on behalf of Public Council, the Public Interest Law Project, and the California Rural Legal
• Anya Lawler, again, on behalf of Public Counsel, a nonprofit public interest law firm that provides free

Committee: House Housing and Community Development

Summary: The committee heard several housing-related bills, with the longest discussion on SB 79, which would allow more housing near major transit stops and on transit agency land. The author and supporters argued it would address California’s housing shortage, support transit ridership, and reduce vehicle miles traveled, while opponents from cities, housing advocates, and legal aid groups raised concerns about affordability requirements, demolition and displacement protections, and local control. After extensive debate and amendments, the committee approved SB 79 on a roll call vote of 8-1, with one member not voting, and sent it to the Assembly Local Government Committee. The committee also heard SB 21, which would allow limited reductions in unit count when converting deed-restricted SRO buildings into larger, more livable affordable units with kitchens, bathrooms, and supportive services. Supporters said the bill would preserve aging nonprofit-owned SRO housing and prevent building failures like the Skid Row Housing Trust portfolio, while no opposition witnesses testified. The bill was moved on a unanimous 8-0 vote to Local Government. SB 92 was heard next and would close a density bonus loophole by limiting how much commercial floor area can be increased through the law. The author said the bill responds to a proposed Pacific Beach project that would have used a small number of affordable units to justify a very large hotel tower; the City of San Diego and labor groups supported the fix, and some housing groups withdrew opposition after amendments. The committee passed SB 92 on a 7-0 vote, with the roll left open. Later, the committee took up SB 522, which would extend just-cause eviction protections to rebuilt units that were previously covered by the Tenant Protection Act after a disaster. The author and Los Angeles City Attorney Heidi Feldstein Soto said the bill would preserve tenant protections in rebuilt communities like Pacific Palisades, while apartment, realtor, and property owner groups opposed it, arguing it would add burdens and discourage rebuilding. Members questioned whether the bill was necessary given existing Housing Crisis Act right-of-return protections, and the discussion was still ongoing when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> their homes uh as you know interest their homes uh as you know interest rates<00:03:58.799><c> have
• </c><00:04:35.840><c> rates</c> home today at 7% or 8% interest rates home today at 7% or 8% interest
• </c><00:16:18.519><c> um</c><00:16:18.680><c> I</c> public seeing no one in the public um I public seeing
• </c> you on what are common interest you on what are common interest communities<00:21:05.039><c> how
• to be interested in.

Bills: HF1865 , HF2014 , HF2028

Committee: House Commerce Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• And then the interest rate buy-down... ...would have an impact on the interest rate charged.
• Anyone interested in that?
• Anyone interested in that?
• That's in our interest.
• Thoughtful public comments.

Summary: The subcommittee heard several May Revision proposals related to the state’s housing and homelessness reorganization. On the first item, administration and Finance staff described technical adjustments to move administrative positions and resources between the California Housing and Homelessness Agency, HCD, and Cal ICH, plus authority for a chief deputy director at the new Housing Development Finance Committee. The LAO recommended approval but asked for clarification on funding for the chief deputy position. Several senators questioned whether the staffing shifts would reduce Cal ICH’s capacity and whether adding communications support and a new executive position was appropriate absent new housing funding; the item was held open. The second item proposed a new $100 million CalHFA Disaster Rebuilding Fund, with $56 million General Fund and $44 million in existing National Mortgage Settlement funds, to help disaster-impacted homeowners access construction financing through tools such as a loan loss guarantee and interest rate buy-downs. CalHFA said the fund would help close the gap between insurance proceeds and rebuilding costs and would work through approved lenders. The LAO raised concerns about the lack of alternatives analysis, the broad delegation in the trailer bill, and the General Fund cost. Senators pressed for more detail on the estimated number of homeowners served, lender and homeowner eligibility, equity safeguards, and the role of the Legislature in program design; the item was held open. The third item was trailer bill language for HAP Round 7, including accountability metrics, pro-housing designation requirements for certain large cities and counties, local match requirements, and a mechanism to recapture unspent funds. HCD said the proposal would streamline reporting by using one consistent set of system performance measures and would phase in the new requirements. The LAO questioned the timing, the burden of pro-housing designation, the size and source of the local match, and whether the proposal conflicted with the Legislature’s prior goal of getting funds out quickly. Several senators criticized the added requirements and the lack of new funding, while others said the proposal could improve accountability and reduce administrative burden by reusing existing plans. The item was also held open. The fourth item began a proposal to reduce local development impact fees on state-funded affordable housing projects, framed as a condition on competitive multifamily funding rather than a statewide mandate. The presentation started but the transcript cuts off before questions or action on that item.

Transcript Highlights:

• own interest.
• And there are philanthropic interests that are interested in doing that, but they want to ensure that
• It's transparent and public-facing.
• , our families, to you as the legislature, and to the public.
• Those are the interest-free. They are for the period. Interfund loans. Those are the interest-free.

Summary: The committee held public hearings on several education bills. SB 6078 would provide pre-licensing supports for prospective child care providers through DCYF, fire protection consultations, and a licensing resource guide; the sponsor, DCYF, and a community nonprofit all supported it, emphasizing that it would reduce fragmented permitting barriers and help expand child care access, while a senator raised the possibility of overlap with existing early learning facilities support. SB 6089 would create a public-private partnership account to support coordination across the P-20W system and fund a public-facing data dashboard; the sponsor and many advocates supported it as a way to align early learning through workforce systems and improve transparency, while some testifiers urged stronger public oversight, caution about private influence, and explicit inclusion of early learning. SB 5859 would expand competency-based assessments as graduation pathway options; supporters said it would better reflect how students learn and provide flexibility, while the State Board of Education and school principals urged caution and suggested waiting for the board’s broader Future Ready graduation review. SB 5861 would require more school board directors to be elected from director districts in larger districts; supporters said it would improve community representation, while some districts and WSSDA warned about local control, added costs, and governance disruption. SB 6065 would allow districts in binding conditions or under enhanced financial oversight to use transportation vehicle funds for temporary loans or transfers with OSPI approval; supporters said it could help districts recover financially without harming transportation needs. After the hearings, the committee moved into executive session and acted on two bills. It adopted a proposed substitute to SB 5956, which restricts certain automated decision systems, surveillance technologies, biometric data, and facial recognition uses in student discipline and school safety decisions, and then advanced the bill with a do-pass recommendation to Rules. It also adopted a proposed substitute to SB 5901, which concerns state funding for on-base school construction, and advanced that bill with a do-pass recommendation to Ways and Means. Both measures were reported out subject to signatures.

Transcript Highlights:

• So if you're interested in tabulating how many zones are mixed use or multifamily, ...interested in tabulating
• agencies, public utility companies, civic, education, and community groups, all through public hearings
• and informed public.
• They're less interested— not everyone, but they're less interested in the big picture.
• With that, we're going to open it to public comment, if any members of the public...

Summary: The committee first heard AB 253, by Assembly Member Ward and presented by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva, which would allow licensed third-party professionals to review certain post-entitlement permits if a local building department would take more than 30 days. Supporters, including California YIMBY, the California Chamber of Commerce, the Housing Action Coalition, the Bay Area Council, SPUR, and Abundant Housing LA, said the bill would reduce permitting delays and help housing production. League of Cities and the California State Association of Counties expressed concerns but were not formally opposed. Members voiced strong support, and the bill passed the committee 10-0 to Appropriations. The committee then held an informational hearing on California’s general plan. The first panel, led by UC Davis professor Catherine Brinkley, gave an overview of the general plan structure, required elements, update cycles, and the new PlanSearch database that makes adopted plans searchable statewide. She emphasized that general plans are long-term, locally tailored documents that integrate housing, transportation, safety, environmental justice, and other policy areas, and noted that many plans and elements are outdated. Members asked about update timelines, public participation, and whether AI tools could help with drafting and analysis. A second panel of local government representatives described the practical challenges of preparing and updating general plans, especially in rural and small jurisdictions. Speakers from Calaveras County, Sacramento, San Joaquin County, and Fountain Valley cited staffing shortages, consultant availability, funding constraints, CEQA and outreach costs, changing state mandates, and the difficulty of keeping plans aligned with local conditions and board turnover. They asked for more funding, more time, clearer prioritization, and more flexibility. A third panel from the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation explained its role in issuing general plan guidelines, technical advisories, and annual planning surveys, and said it is updating its guidance through 2027 to reflect recent housing, climate, safety, environmental justice, and open space laws. No public comment was offered, and the informational hearing was adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• And it's not in the best interest.
• And then, of course, we have the formal public comment period.
• health, for public safety.
• Seeing none, I'm going to now move to public testimony.
• There are also several public comments from a number of folks.

Committee: House Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

Summary: The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules met to review Missouri marijuana microbusiness rule amendments, especially 19 CSR 100-1.060 and 19 CSR 100-1.190. The Department of Cannabis Regulation explained that the changes were intended to clarify what it means for a microbusiness to be “owned and operated” by eligible individuals, move compliance review earlier in the application process, and address repeated instances where licenses were later found to be controlled by ineligible or noncompliant parties. The department said it had used stakeholder outreach, town halls, listening sessions, and public comments in drafting the rules, and noted that 25 standalone comments were received during formal rulemaking. Committee members focused heavily on whether the rules were too broad, whether they effectively punished applicants for past agency revocations, and whether the department had clear authority to impose a lifetime ban on people denied or revoked under the ownership-and-operation provisions. Several members argued the language should be narrowed to intentional or egregious violations and better tied to specific conduct rather than prior agency action. Witnesses from the public, including applicants and attorneys, testified that the department’s guidance on “predatory practices” and acceptable ownership structures had been unclear, that some applicants relied on consultant arrangements later deemed problematic, and that similar agreements were treated inconsistently. Others supported stronger enforcement, saying the rules were needed to prevent manipulation of social equity applicants and preserve the constitutional requirements of the program. The committee also discussed training and technical assistance requirements, the five-day document deadline, and whether the department should provide more concrete guidance or model forms. Members raised concerns that the proposed definitions could burden small or first-time business owners and that some applicants might be unfairly penalized despite acting in good faith. No substantive vote on the rule package was taken; instead, the committee voted to adjourn and return on Thursday after working with the department on possible corrections, clarifications, or amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• Since then, I've engaged in public meetings with interest groups within our community and our county,
• ><c> interest</c><00:23:40.800><c> special</c> public meetings with interest special public meetings
• interest</c><00:23:42.160><c> groups</c> interest groups and interest groups interest groups and interest
• </c> public comment periods. public comment periods.
• </c><02:08:05.680><c> of</c><02:08:05.760><c> the</c> interest as well as the interest of the interest

Committee: Senate Environment, Climate, and Legacy

Transcript Highlights:

• This money comes from interest.
• interest.
• We have public institutions who are in need.
• How do you come to us legitimately saying, I've grown by interest by $2.5 billion, just my interest?
• To provide public goods, our universities need public investment.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies

Summary: The committee on Economic Development held a hearing on the DRIVE Act, a proposal to invest $400 million in Massachusetts research and innovation without new taxes. Governor Healey and administration officials said the bill would direct $200 million to public higher education research and regional partnerships and $200 million to a research funding pool for hospitals, universities, and other institutions, with the goal of retaining talent, leveraging private and philanthropic dollars, and offsetting major federal R&D cuts. They argued that research is a core economic engine for the state, supporting jobs across labs, construction, services, and surrounding businesses, and said the bill would help protect the Commonwealth’s tax base and competitiveness during a period of federal uncertainty and cuts to SNAP, Medicaid, and other programs. Committee members raised concerns about whether Fair Share surtax dollars should instead be used for K-12 and other community needs, whether the proposal is enough given the scale of lost federal grants, and how the money would be allocated. The governor responded that the funds are one-time surplus dollars, that most surtax revenue already supports education, and that the bill is meant as a bridge to stabilize public higher education and research. She also said the legislation includes a review board and could support a revolving or matched-fund approach in some cases. Several members pressed for more detail on selection criteria, future funding, and whether private companies and large endowments should contribute more. University of Massachusetts leaders and researchers testified that federal grant cancellations and delays are already causing layoffs, furloughs, rescinded admissions, and lost research capacity. UMass officials said the bill would help preserve faculty, postdocs, graduate students, and research programs in medicine, climate science, marine science, Braille instruction, and AI decision-making. They emphasized that the funding should be merit-based and that the state needs to act quickly to prevent talent from leaving Massachusetts. Business, labor, and industry groups, including MassBio, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, AIM, the AFL-CIO, and Building Trades, supported the bill, saying it would protect jobs, sustain the innovation ecosystem, and reinforce Massachusetts’ national leadership in research and life sciences. No vote was taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:01:28.000><c> this</c> trend continues then this interest this trend continues then this interest
• </c> Uh abandoned property and the interest Uh abandoned property and the interest right<00:02:51.840
• </c> electricity are not a public utility. electricity are not a public utility.
• </c> I will next come up with a public I will next come up with a public hearing<00:53:30.400><c> on<
• </c> equity interest in it. equity interest in it.

Committee: Senate Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:

• I think it serves the public well.
• </c> interest from the federal government. interest from the federal government.
• I thought it was interesting.
• The public finds out about it.
• </c><02:04:12.719><c> Obama</c> for the public. That's what Mr. Obama for the public.

Transcript Highlights:

• So all of the models require ongoing public support for this program to continue, or there will be public
• They also require public equity. They require soft loans.
• public support for this program. and those are in the form of things like or there will be public support
• They also require public equity. They require soft loans.
• Because that is the public infrastructure.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several housing-related proposals and policy ideas. One speaker urged changes to the welfare property tax exemption for affordable housing, arguing that annual income recertifications are outdated and burdensome, and proposing a one-time qualification at move-in, streamlined monitoring through TCAC or HCD, and continued exemption protection for projects that remain in compliance. The witness said rising insurance costs and administrative burdens are hurting cash flow and threatening the viability of affordable housing operations. A major portion of the meeting focused on social housing and the SB 555 study. HCD described its ongoing study process, including public engagement with residents, practitioners, and experts, and noted that California already has many building blocks for social housing, such as public land tools, long-term affordability mechanisms, community land trusts, and tenant protections. Community land trust and housing policy witnesses argued that social housing will require legislative action, expanded public subsidy, tax abatements, public land, and simplified financing, and they emphasized the need to reframe the concept for the “missing middle” and middle-class households to build broader political support. Committee members discussed stigma around “social housing,” the need for a rebrand, and the possibility of a pilot program, especially on excess public land. The committee also heard a proposal for a certified professional plan-check system modeled on Vancouver, Canada. The presenter said California’s permitting delays, inconsistent reviews, and staffing shortages add cost and uncertainty even for streamlined projects, and proposed allowing state-certified private professionals to perform plan checks and inspections under state oversight while local governments retain zoning and enforcement authority. Members discussed local control concerns, infrastructure costs, and the need to reduce delays and uncertainty in the entitlement process. Finally, the committee heard testimony supporting changes to HCD loan disbursement so funds can be used during construction rather than only after completion. Witnesses said this would reduce interest costs, improve feasibility, and could produce additional affordable homes with existing funding. The discussion also referenced AB 1053 as the vehicle for implementing that approach.

Transcript Highlights:

• We appreciate your attendance and interest in our agenda this morning.
• , and I gave it to the public.
• parties, but regular Idahoans who also have an equal stake in public land.
• This constitutional amendment, fittingly, is for the benefit of the public, because the public land is
• I'm also interested.

Committee: Senate State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's really interesting to me.
• Interesting. Interesting. And so how much money would that raise? Have you done an analysis?
• Interesting.
• Interesting.
• So it's interesting.

Summary: The committee first heard a presentation from the Environment Department on PFAS contamination in private wells in La Cienega, Santa Fe County. Staff said the plume likely came from historic use of firefighting foam associated with airport and National Guard fire-training activities, with possible additional contribution from septic systems and consumer products. They described the contamination as affecting about 200 private wells, the short-term response of providing residential filters through a $2 million legislative appropriation, and ongoing work to define the plume’s full extent, identify responsible parties, and consider longer-term regional water solutions. Members asked about filter costs, replacement schedules, disposal of used cartridges, follow-up testing, health studies, and whether cleanup or containment had begun; the department said cleanup would follow once the plume is fully mapped and that DOH is soliciting interest in a blood study. The committee also discussed the need to track disposal of PFAS filters and the possibility of broader statewide capacity for similar work. The committee then took up abandoned uranium mine cleanup. NMED and EMNRD staff reviewed the new uranium mine reclamation program created by HB 164, the state dashboard tracking sites, and the FY26 appropriation of $20 million for neglected contaminated sites, of which $12 million is being used for neglected uranium mines and the remainder for other contaminated sites. They said six contractors were hired, three priority sites in Grant County are moving forward quickly, and additional sites are being prepared for possible FY27 work. Members pressed for details on how funds are spent, why the revolving fund remains unfunded, how federal, state, tribal, and landowner requirements are coordinated, where contaminated material will be moved, and whether cleanup could also address homes built with contaminated materials. Staff said the work is governed by multiple regulatory layers, that the state is seeking an additional $25 million for FY27-FY28 plus a time extension, and that partnerships with tribes would require longer-term agreements. The committee also discussed federal cleanup efforts and the new Good Samaritan law, with members urging stronger advocacy for New Mexico sites, including tribal lands, and asking whether the Attorney General should pursue legal action against federal parties responsible for legacy contamination. Staff explained that some sites are already covered by settlement funds tied to responsible parties, while neglected sites are those with no responsible party and no other cleanup program. The committee then heard from EMNRD on Class VI carbon sequestration primacy. Staff said New Mexico currently has no operating Class VI wells, about 27 Class II acid-gas injection wells are operating, and only a small number might be candidates for conversion. They explained that the state’s primacy application would require more public outreach than federal rules alone, and that cost estimates for post-injection site care are based on long planning horizons, with some costs borne by operators and some by the state after closure. No votes were taken on the substantive items discussed; the committee approved the prior meeting minutes and took a brief recess between presentations.