Transcript Highlights:

• There is limited resources, limited expertise, but through managing resources, we’re going to…” “…and
• There is limited resources, limited expertise, but through managing resources, kind of surgically managing
• There is limited resources, limited expertise, but through managing resources, kind of surgically managing
• So there's definitely range limitations.
• Lime Scooter, who was our first zero-emission customer, came to us because we were zero emission, so

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Select Committee on Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure focused on California’s EV market, charging infrastructure, and the effects of recent federal actions. The chair opened by emphasizing California’s progress on EV adoption and charging reliability, but also noted ongoing challenges with affordability, access, interoperability, heavy-duty electrification, and federal headwinds. She highlighted interest in technologies such as inductive charging and thanked host organizations and staff before moving to the first panel. State agency witnesses from Go-Biz, CARB, and the California Energy Commission described current programs and priorities. Go-Biz outlined its role in coordinating agencies, supporting permitting, and advancing the state’s ZEV market development strategy and equity action plan. CARB discussed federal attacks on its clean vehicle regulations, litigation to defend waiver authority, and the importance of incentives and regulatory programs such as Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean Fleets, Clean Truck Check, HVIP, and Clean Cars for All. The CEC detailed its funding and regulatory work on charging and fueling infrastructure, charger reliability, payment methods, roaming, and statewide planning, while stressing the need for more charging in multifamily housing and more public DC fast charging. All three agencies said federal rollbacks and permitting delays are major obstacles, but that California remains committed to expanding ZEV adoption. The second panel featured advocates, local government, utility, and research perspectives. CalETC urged continuous state funding through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and emphasized the low-carbon fuel standard, multifamily charging, and managed charging. An EV advocacy group proposed a conquest-style state incentive for new and used EV buyers and argued that multifamily housing is a major untapped market, while also favoring Level 2 charging over Level 1 for most home and apartment settings. Los Angeles County and LADWP described large-scale local deployment of chargers, fleet electrification, workforce training, and the need for sustained funding, agency coordination, and streamlined permitting and grid interconnection. UCS recommended prioritizing replacement of older high-emitting vehicles, using fuel policy revenues to support cleaner cars, and expanding bidirectional charging. The chair closed by asking for more discussion on Level 1 versus Level 2 charging and noted the importance of education, affordability, and practical deployment strategies.

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 3535, an act relative to the sale of zero-emission vehicles.
• It would require the state to incorporate those goals into emission limits and some limits and future
• limits and with the new... ...reasonable pathway to compliance with our emission limits and with the
• We're required by state law to reduce emissions 50 percent by 2030.
• And by 2040, all MBTA buses must be zero-emission vehicles.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy heard testimony on several transportation and clean-fuel bills. Supporters of H. 3535 argued for delaying or pausing enforcement of Massachusetts’ zero-emission vehicle sales mandate, saying the current ACC2 timeline is unrealistic given low ZEV sales, limited charging infrastructure, dealer inventory concerns, and potential economic impacts on dealerships, consumers, and tax revenue. Opponents of that approach, including automakers and clean transportation advocates, said the state should stay on course with electrification and that the mandate is necessary to meet climate goals. The committee also heard support for H. 3570/S. 2326 to update vehicle emission standards for municipal and utility fleets, with municipal utility representatives saying current electric truck technology, charging access, and costs make the rules impractical for critical public services. A major portion of the hearing focused on S. 2246, the Freedom to Move Act, which would require MassDOT and regional planning agencies to set vehicle miles traveled reduction goals and align transportation spending with climate targets. Supporters said the bill would better coordinate transportation planning, encourage transit, biking, and walking, and help Massachusetts meet emissions goals while saving money and improving public health. Some committee members raised concerns that the bill could duplicate existing transportation climate mandates and could disadvantage rural residents who must drive long distances; witnesses responded that the bill is meant to add coordination and flexibility, not impose a one-size-fits-all solution. The committee also heard testimony on H. 3448, which would set deadlines to electrify school buses and public fleets and create programs for private fleet electrification. Advocates said fleet electrification is a practical way to cut emissions, improve air quality, and save money over time, especially for schoolchildren exposed to diesel exhaust. Several witnesses also supported low-carbon fuel standard bills H. 3576 and S. 2251, arguing they would reduce fuel carbon intensity and generate revenue for charging and clean-fuel investments. Others, including a coalition opposed to private jet expansion, objected to the bills’ treatment of sustainable aviation fuel, saying it is not scalable, is expensive, and could create land-use and food-supply tradeoffs. No votes or formal committee actions were taken in the hearing excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the Cap-and-Invest program sets a limit, or a cap, on emissions, which goes down over time.
• So the Cap-and-Invest program sets a limit, or a cap, on emissions, which goes down over time.
• This graph shows the reduction in the cap to align with Washington's emissions limits and net-zero emissions
• That would be emissions leakage because those emissions would still be happening.
• This means that they will be required to reduce emissions over time to help achieve our emission limits

Summary: The committee held a work session covering PFAS regulation and impacts, no-cost allowance allocation for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries (EITEs), and regional resource adequacy and data center load growth. Senator Victoria Hunt was welcomed as a new member. The Department of Ecology reviewed Washington’s Safer Products for Washington PFAS work, including completed restrictions on PFAS in outdoor furniture, carpets, rugs, stain/water-resistant treatments, and newer rules adopted in November restricting PFAS in most apparel, cleaning products, and automotive washes, with reporting requirements for some other products such as cookware and firefighting gear. Ecology also described Cycle 2 PFAS reviews now underway, including artificial turf and paints, and answered questions about compliance, online sales, sell-through periods, and how Washington’s approach differs from broader bans in states like Maine and Minnesota. The Department of Ecology also presented on PFAS in biosolids, describing a 2024 sampling study, limitations in testing methods, and a 2025 statutory amendment requiring additional sampling between 2027 and 2028 and a report to the legislature in 2029. The Department of Health then updated the committee on PFAS in drinking water, reporting that most Group A public water systems have completed sampling, that 317 sources and 188 systems are expected to exceed new contaminant levels, and that treatment costs for public systems are estimated at about $970 million, leaving a large funding gap; members also asked about private wells, health effects, bathing exposure, and home filters. The Board of Health’s new state action levels are being aligned with federal MCLs, and the department said it expects to continue monitoring and notification under state rules. Ecology also briefed the committee on no-cost allowance allocations to EITEs under the Climate Commitment Act, explaining the leakage-mitigation rationale, the current allocation schedule through 2034, and a forthcoming report on policy options for 2035-2050; members asked about industry barriers, competitiveness, and whether facilities might leave the state. Finally, E3 presented a regional resource adequacy study showing rising load, retirements outpacing additions, limited winter reliability value from wind, solar, and batteries, and a projected shortfall beginning in 2026 that could grow to about 9,000 MW by 2030 if planned projects are not built. The presentation emphasized winter cold-weather events, hydro variability, the importance of permitting and transmission, and longer-term options including nuclear, geothermal, hydrogen, carbon capture, and long-duration storage. EPRI then introduced its DC Flex initiative, which is studying how data centers can provide flexible load through workload shifting, cooling optimization, and on-site backup or bridging resources to reduce grid stress and protect ratepayers.

Transcript Highlights:

• SAF is more expensive to produce, but has similar emissions.
• Choosing expensive policies to reduce emissions means that we are choosing to reduce emissions less than
• a 175-ton-per-day increase in NOx emissions by 2037.
• We need to continue investing in zero-emission transportation.
• Funds to support zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles.

Summary: The meeting began with a budget subcommittee hearing on a proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit trailer bill. Assembly Members Ávila Farías and another member spoke in support, emphasizing union jobs, refinery investments, and the need to decarbonize aviation. The Department of Finance said the Governor’s proposal would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold in California from 2026 to 2036. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the proposal, arguing it is a relatively expensive way to reduce emissions, has uncertain environmental benefits, could significantly reduce transportation revenues, and conflicts with the spirit of voter restrictions on transportation taxes. Committee members questioned whether the credit would mainly benefit out-of-state producers, whether firms would have diesel tax liability to use the credit, and whether the proposal would shift production away from renewable diesel and raise fuel prices. Administration and CARB staff said the credit is intended to support aviation decarbonization, preserve jobs, and help keep California on track toward its 2045 climate goals. LAO and UC Berkeley testimony countered that the policy could mostly subsidize existing technologies, that feedstock supply is limited, and that the net emissions benefit may be small relative to the cost. Members also asked about the effect on local streets and roads, SHOP, and trade corridor funding; Finance estimated a $165 million annual revenue impact would reduce those programs, while LAO said the reductions would mean fewer projects over time. No vote was taken, and the chair said the issue would remain open for further discussion. The committee then moved to a zero-emission vehicle incentive trailer bill proposing a one-time $200 million appropriation to CARB for a new point-of-sale incentive program focused on first-time buyers and leases of new and used light-duty ZEVs. Supporters said the program would help offset the loss of the federal EV tax credit, maintain momentum in California’s ZEV transition, and use a one-to-one match with participating automakers to double the state’s investment. LAO recommended rejection, saying the proposal does not meet the high budget bar this year, lacks enough program detail to evaluate, is unlikely to move sales significantly given the size of the appropriation, and could duplicate existing state and utility programs. Members asked about current incentives across light-, medium-, and heavy-duty sectors, the recent decline in ZEV sales, and whether the program would help lower-income buyers rather than subsidize purchases that would have happened anyway. CARB said the proposal is meant to fill a gap in the light-duty market, where sales fell sharply after the federal credit expired, and noted existing programs for other vehicle classes. The Department of Finance also addressed a separate question about the Motor Vehicle Account, saying a previously planned GGRF transfer was no longer needed because updated forecasts showed the fund had sufficient balances, though LAO said the account still has a structural long-term imbalance. The discussion ended before any vote or action on the ZEV proposal.

Transcript Highlights:

• emissions.
• emissions.
• your emissions, you don't pay as much.
• your emissions, you don't pay as much.
• your emissions, you don't pay as much.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:12 Introduction of Guests 01:09 HB 88 Discussion 01:46 HB 88 Roll Call Vote 03:24 HB 346 Discussion 04:20 HB 346 Roll Call Vote 21:58 Chair Comments 24:31, 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and first considered House Bill 88, which was described as a short bill to clarify procedures for Waste Management boards, including term limits, appointments, and making sure consolidated governments actively recruit community members and make openings easier to find. The sponsor said the bill was intended to resolve confusion about members staying on after terms expire. The bill received no opposition, passed the committee unanimously, and was reported favorably for the floor. The committee then took up House Bill 346, as amended by a committee substitute. The sponsor explained that the bill responds to a dispute over air emission fees, especially for emergency generators and backup generators used for worker safety and limited non-emergency testing. The bill would exempt emergency generators and backup generators operating 100 hours or less for maintenance/testing from fees, while also removing an existing 4,000-ton cap so the per-ton fee would drop for most permitted sources. Members discussed the possible impact on utilities and ratepayers, with concerns raised that costs could be passed through to consumers and affect coal-dependent areas. The sponsor and another member argued the change would generally reduce fees for most sources and incentivize emissions reductions; the cabinet was described as neutral, and the affected utilities were identified as TVA, LG&E, East Kentucky Power, and Big Rivers, with only TVA having raised comments. The committee substitute was adopted, and the bill passed the committee with a favorable recommendation, though one member voted no and several members explained yes votes while expressing ongoing concerns about future rate impacts. At the end of the meeting, members briefly discussed broader concerns about utility surcharges and the need to monitor the effects of legislation on ratepayers, but those comments were not part of the bill under consideration. The chair noted that future meetings may include more bills and could start earlier if needed, and the committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The third step is calculating Greenhouse gas emissions.
• Just based on its AADT multiplied ultimately times the emissions, there's going to be more emissions
• So we know that vehicles create emissions.
• Capacity expansions, we know, will increase emissions, but reducing emissions by capital investments
• down to minimize emissions and reduce traffic transport is the major source of costs and emissions associated

Bills: HF4807

Keywords: overweight vehicles, aggregate mining, local ordinance restrictions, legislative audit, transportation, resource inventory

Transcript Highlights:

• For example, according to the latest annual emissions inventory, the total San Pedro Bay complex emissions
• According to the latest annual emissions inventory, the total San Pedro Bay complex emissions of diesel
• by 2030 and zero emissions by 2035.
• So we look at the GHG emissions as a function of NOx emissions as well.
• times the current limit, to a more reasonable approach on balance of limiting it to 2,000 cubic yards

Summary: The committee first heard SB 14, which would direct state agencies to reduce single-use plastics and improve waste diversion at state facilities by updating integrated waste management plans, increasing reusable foodware use, reducing paper purchasing, and requiring better employee education and recycling/composting practices. Supporters from the California Compost Coalition, Republic Services, Waste Management, and others said the bill would help build composting and recycling markets and let the state lead by example. Several groups that had opposed earlier versions said they were now neutral after amendments, including the removal of a 90% requirement. The bill was moved out on a due pass as amended recommendation. The committee then took up SB 326 on wildfire mitigation. The bill would create a framework for Cal Fire to evaluate the risk-reduction benefits of fuels management and landscape resilience investments, and it would accelerate implementation of Zone Zero defensible-space standards, including grants for local enforcement and broader application to rental and sale properties and post-fire reconstruction. Support came from Stanford climate researcher Michael Mastrandrea and several local government, insurance, and climate groups. With no opposition, the bill passed as amended to Appropriations. Next, SB 34 on port emissions and the South Coast Air Quality Management District drew extensive testimony. The author said the bill was narrowed by committee amendments to preserve the ports’ ability to reduce emissions while preventing cargo throughput caps and addressing concerns about automation, local control, and the timeline for port clean-air planning. Supporters included ILWU, business groups, and port-related stakeholders, while the South Coast AQMD and many environmental and community organizations opposed it, arguing it would weaken public-health protections and set a bad precedent. After lengthy debate, the committee approved the bill on a due pass as amended vote to Transportation, with some members voting no and others abstaining. The committee also heard SB 279, which would expand composting options for farmers and small community composters by allowing limited on-farm composting after large biomass events and increasing the amount small operations may process and sell. Supporters said the bill would help address agricultural waste, expand composting capacity, and reduce landfill disposal. Commercial composting representatives opposed it, warning that the bill could create regulatory inequities, strand recent investments in permitted facilities, and allow too much unregulated food waste. Despite those concerns, the bill passed to Appropriations on a due pass vote. The transcript also briefly referenced SB 613 on upstream methane emissions data, described as having no opposition and intended to improve tracking of imported oil and gas emissions.

Transcript Highlights:

• And starting with light-duty vehicles, the zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and zero-emission vehicles
• So we put a time limit on the vouchers.
• And we also put a limit of 10 vouchers per purchaser.
• Pierce Transit has a zero-emissions project.
• On emissions, we don't have verified reductions yet.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The House Transportation Committee held a work session focused heavily on Climate Commitment Act transportation spending and electrification programs. Staff first reviewed roughly $2.2 billion in CCA transportation allocations over three biennia, noting that the largest shares went to public transportation, active transportation, ferry electrification, ZEV programs, rail freight/ports, and planning, with about half of the electrification and fuel-conversion spending tied to state ferries. Members asked for more detail comparing CCA dollars with the broader transportation budget and for total project costs, not just CCA contributions. The Department of Ecology presented on the zero-emission school bus program. Ecology said the legislature codified the program in 2024 and requires electric buses once diesel and electric costs are equivalent, with exemptions available when electric buses cannot meet district needs. Ecology reported $38.3 million in CCA funding for 2025-27, with $21.4 million already obligated or spent to replace 91 diesel buses in 28 districts, plus additional federal EPA funding leveraged for 13 more buses. Members asked about health impacts, parity timing, rural route exemptions, charging and training costs, and whether the program includes infrastructure; Ecology said the grants cover buses, charging, and sometimes training, and that the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction is developing the cost-equivalency formula. The Department of Commerce described its clean transportation role, including EV rebates, charging infrastructure, tribal electric boats, and the EV Coordinating Council. Commerce said its rebate program was designed to lower monthly payments for low-income households, that 89% of recipients said the rebate was essential to their purchase, and that lease incentives helped draw additional federal dollars. Members asked about tribal boat details, utility interconnection and curtailment, range anxiety, and vandalism at charging stations; Commerce said battery storage and managed charging are being used in some projects, some utilities are more responsive than others, and vandalism remains a challenge. The Department of Enterprise Services reported 567 Level 2 and 46 Level 3 charging ports installed at 82 state sites, with 19 more sites in progress and over $100 million in additional candidate projects. DES said most funding is for new infrastructure, though some VW settlement money is used for replacements, and members asked about charger replacement needs, mobile charging, and EV fleet purchasing data. WSDOT then outlined its EV infrastructure and transit programs. It said the Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Partnership program has funded 23 new charging sites this biennium, including overburdened communities and tribal locations, and has supported 264 DC fast-charging ports statewide. WSDOT also described the new Washington Zero Emission Incentive Program, a point-of-sale voucher program for zero-emission commercial vehicles and equipment with $112 million available this biennium; it reported strong early demand, especially for off-road equipment and heavy trucks, and said technical assistance is being provided to help businesses participate. In public transportation, WSDOT said CCA funds support bus and bus facility grants, commute trip reduction, green transportation capital projects, paratransit, tribal transit, zero-emissions access car share, and other mobility projects, with most awards benefiting overburdened communities. Finally, WSDOT’s rail freight and ports division said port electrification projects are underway but spending is still low because of long design, permitting, utility, and supply-chain timelines; it estimated the $89.8 million program could reduce more than 140,000 metric tons of emissions over 10 years. Members questioned the pace of spending, the Northwest Seaport drayage project, and how state funds can leverage additional federal or port resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• And starting with light-duty vehicles, the zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and zero-emission vehicles
• So we put a time limit on the vouchers.
• And we also put a limit of 10 vouchers per purchaser.
• Next program is what we call ZAP, Zero Emissions Access.
• On emissions, we don't have verified reductions yet.

Summary: The House Transportation Committee held a work session focused on Climate Commitment Act transportation spending and electrification programs. Staff first reviewed overall CCA transportation allocations, saying about $2.2 billion has been allocated over three biennia, with major categories including public transportation, active transportation, ferry electrification, zero-emission vehicle programs, rail/ports, and planning. Members asked for additional breakdowns comparing CCA dollars with total program costs across categories. The Department of Ecology presented on the zero-emission school bus grant program. Ecology said the program was codified in 2024 and supports the transition from diesel to electric school buses, including buses, charging infrastructure, and training. For 2025-27, Ecology received $38.3 million in CCA funding; $21.4 million is already obligated or spent, replacing 91 diesel buses in 28 districts, with the rest to be awarded by the end of the biennium. Members asked about cost parity, exemptions for rural and extracurricular routes, health data, and whether the funding covers chargers as well as buses. Ecology said OSPI is developing the parity formula and exemptions are available when electric buses cannot meet district needs. The Department of Commerce described its clean transportation role, including EV rebates, tribal charging and electric boat projects, and the EV Coordinating Council. Commerce said its rebate program was designed to lower monthly costs and prioritize low-income households, with 89% of recipients saying the rebate was essential to their purchase. It also reported strong demand for charging grants, progress on tribal projects, and concerns about utility interconnection timelines, vandalism, and range anxiety. The Department of Enterprise Services reported on state agency EVSE projects, saying it has completed 82 sites with 567 Level 2 ports and 46 DC fast chargers, and that current projects will add 152 more Level 2 ports; members asked about replacing aging chargers and the state’s EV fleet purchasing mix. WSDOT closed with updates on charging, transit, and port electrification. It said its corridor charging program has awarded 23 sites this biennium, with 13 in overburdened communities and five tribal sites, and that the Washington Zero Emission Incentive Program opened with $112 million for vouchers for zero-emission commercial vehicles and equipment. WSDOT also described transit grants, including bus and bus facility funding, commute trip reduction, paratransit, tribal transit, and zero-emissions access car-share projects. The rail freight and ports division reported $89.8 million for port electrification projects, including shore power and drayage trucks, but noted only about 10% has been spent so far because projects are still in design and permitting. Members raised concerns about funding gaps, supply-chain delays, utility capacity, and whether the programs are sufficient to meet broader electrification needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• mean<01:47:47.440> that's those limits, and the limits mean that's those limits, and the limits
• air emissions from landfills. air emissions from landfills.
• , specific emission limits for air pollutants such as metals, dioxins and furans, hydrochloric acid,
• emissions, and then we have emissions emissions, and then we have emissions from<02:18:24.120>
• And then we would look at the emissions. We would also look at the emissions.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we are concerned that that language is too limiting.
• We're getting an inordinate amount of falsified vehicle, emissions, pardon me, falsified emissions vehicle
• inspection report. emissions, pardon me, falsified emissions vehicle inspection reports from the Dallas
• vehicle inspection report. emissions, a little, pardon me, falsified emissions vehicle inspection reports
• And so we're kind of estimating that half of the emissions tests currently have, were either in, Emissions

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 1904, which would classify intentionally released helium balloons as litter and create criminal penalties for balloon releases. The author and supportive witnesses argued that balloon releases harm wildlife, livestock, waterways, and infrastructure, and that the bill would close a loophole in current litter law. Several members questioned whether criminal penalties were appropriate, and the author said he was willing to work toward civil penalties and fines instead. No vote was taken, and HB 1904 was left pending. The committee then took up several pending bills and reported them favorably to the full House, including HB 3249, HB 3866, HB 4112, HB 1768, HB 1499, HB 573, and HB 464. These measures dealt with topics such as TCEQ contested-case procedures, outdoor storage containers, high-level radioactive waste, concrete plant permitting and grants, unannounced concrete batch plant inspections, and a scrap tire grant program. Most were adopted with substitutes and passed on recorded votes, generally with unanimous or near-unanimous support. A major portion of the meeting focused on HB 3997, which would create expedited permitting timelines for LNG facilities and related wastewater permits. Industry witnesses said the bill would provide certainty for multibillion-dollar projects without eliminating public participation, while environmental groups opposed parts of the bill that they said could limit contested-case participation and be unrealistic for SOAH timelines. TCEQ staff described the current wastewater permitting process and said some of the bill’s timing provisions could be workable, especially with an expedited fee. The bill was left pending after the author said he would continue working on committee substitute language. The committee also heard HB 1237 on extending the renewal window for expired TCEQ occupational water licenses, and HB 4519, a TERP consolidation bill that would combine several clean transportation grant programs into fewer programs. HB 1237 was left pending without testimony, while HB 4519 drew broad support from environmental and industry witnesses who favored simplifying the program, though some asked for stronger emphasis on particulate matter and hydrogen funding. The committee withdrew the substitute on HB 4519 and left it pending. Finally, HB 5033, which would eliminate the motor vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program if federal authority changes, drew opposition from environmental and inspection-industry witnesses who warned it would weaken air-quality protections and could remove an important enforcement tool. The author said the bill was intended as a trigger mechanism and would be refined, and HB 5033 was left pending. The committee also heard HB 1227 on municipal solid-waste franchise fees and private-provider access; the author said he would bring a substitute after hearing concerns from cities, and the bill was left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• SAF production in California remains limited.
• We haven't been limited in our growth. We haven't been limited in our innovation.
• So the cars that qualify for these emissions kits already meet the emission standards that we would want
• The emissions crisis.
• As long as it reduces emissions, it gets certified by U.S. emissions and holds up in durability, yes,

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But, as the Chair and others have pointed out, the whole value chain of emissions is not emission-free
• So this would attack the end-use emissions.
• Scope 1 emissions are those direct emissions from the gas distribution system, such as methane leaks
• And scope 3 emissions are the indirect emissions incidental to the gas distribution system, and this
• And we gave the DPU the legal right to consider the implications for Chapter 21N and our emission limits

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on two related issues: gas utilities’ climate compliance plans filed with the Department of Public Utilities and the recent DPU orders reforming the Gas System Enhancement Program (GSEP). Chair Creem and other senators emphasized that Massachusetts must reduce gas use, shrink the gas distribution footprint, and move customers to alternatives such as heat pumps, network geothermal, and non-gas pipeline alternatives (NPAs). DPU Chair Jamie Van Nostrand said the new GSEP orders lower the annual revenue cap from 3.0% to 2.5%, phase it down toward 1.5%, eliminate carrying charges, require more rigorous risk prioritization, and push utilities to consider advanced leak technology, relining, repairs, and NPAs. He also described the climate compliance plans as the start of a longer process covering decommissioning, stranded costs, line extension allowances, integrated energy planning, and targeted electrification demonstrations. Senators pressed the DPU and utility witnesses on the lack of specificity in the climate compliance plans, especially the absence of numeric goals for gas usage reduction, customer conversions, and near-term deployment of NPAs. Utility representatives from Eversource and National Grid said their plans include NPA frameworks, integrated energy planning, targeted electrification pilots, network geothermal, and workforce transition efforts, but argued that implementation takes time, requires customer participation, and depends on coordination with electric utilities and communities. They said some NPA and electrification projects are being evaluated now, while larger-scale deployment is expected later in the decade. Senators also raised concerns about line extension allowances, with utilities explaining that new customers may be charged based on whether existing ratepayers would otherwise be harmed, while National Grid said it has begun increasing customer contributions to send stronger price signals. Attorney General Mary Gardner supported the DPU’s GSEP reforms and said the office favors eventually stepping the GSEP cap down to zero by 2030, with repair and replacement costs recovered in base rate cases instead. She argued that the utilities’ plans still rely too heavily on business-as-usual approaches, do not adequately quantify scope 3 emissions, and leave unresolved questions about the obligation to serve and the future of line extension allowances. Advocacy witnesses from the Conservation Law Foundation and Acadia Center were more critical, saying the plans lack the detailed modeling, targets, and transparency needed to show how the utilities will help meet the Commonwealth’s heating and cooling sublimits and broader climate goals. No votes were taken; the hearing consisted of testimony and questioning.

Transcript Highlights:

• In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we
• In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we
• The issue is it has to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• The issue is it has to reduce GHG emissions.
• by 2035 and all school buses to be zero-emission by 2045, which I supported.

Summary: The committee heard and advanced several transportation-related bills, beginning with AB 431 on advanced air mobility. The author and supporters from AUVSI, Joby Aviation, United Airlines, Wisk Aero, the City of Long Beach, and Archer said the bill would create a statewide plan and technical framework for eVTOL/advanced air mobility infrastructure, public outreach, and local implementation. No opposition testified, and the bill passed the committee as amended to Appropriations on a unanimous roll call. Members then took up AB 630 on abandoned or hazardous RVs. The author and supporters, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass’s office, argued the bill would curb a cycle in which inoperable RVs are towed, auctioned cheaply, and returned to the streets by predatory buyers, while adding notice, recovery, and reporting requirements. Opponents from Western Center on Law and Poverty and ACLU California Action warned the bill would destroy RVs that serve as shelter for unhoused residents and could worsen homelessness. After discussion about the bill’s focus on dismantling rather than towing, the committee passed AB 630 as amended to Appropriations. The committee also approved AB 314, which would support transit-oriented development around planned and existing high-speed rail stations; AB 1223, which gives Sacramento County communities more flexibility to use local transportation revenues for related infrastructure supporting infill development; AB 1111, which adds flexibility to the zero-emission school bus transition for rural and disadvantaged districts; AB 1190, which caps fees charged by DMV business partners and requires clearer disclosure of the official DMV site; AB 987, which limits unreasonable towing fees and related charges; and AB 911, which creates a narrow exemption from Advanced Clean Fleets rules for telecommunications bucket trucks and sail-on-wheels used in emergencies. Most bills drew support from local governments, industry, or consumer groups, while AB 1111 and AB 911 drew opposition from clean transportation and environmental advocates concerned about weakening emissions goals. All of the bills were reported out as amended to the Committee on Appropriations, with recorded roll-call votes and several members adding their names as co-authors or supporters.

Transcript Highlights:

• The emissions and fuel use reductions in the scoping plan primarily come from zero-emission cars, trucks
• Low-carbon fuel standards fund zero-emission infrastructure, fund zero-emission vehicles,... ...fuel
• standards fund zero-emission infrastructure, fund zero-emission vehicles, and fund the fuels that we
• phase out these avoided-emissions credits because now it’s a regulated source of emissions, and we think
• phase out these avoided emissions credits because now it's a regulated source of emissions, and we think

Summary: The hearing was a select committee discussion on the transportation costs and impacts of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with opening remarks from the co-chairs and members emphasizing affordability, climate goals, and the need to explain the program’s benefits to the public. The first panel from CARB and the California Energy Commission described how LCFS works as a market-based, declining carbon-intensity program that rewards lower-carbon fuels, supports zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and is intended to reduce greenhouse gases and local air pollution. They argued the program has driven billions in private investment, increased alternative fuel use, and that LCFS credit prices are not the main driver of retail gasoline prices, which they said are dominated by crude oil, refining, and distribution costs. Members questioned the panel on the gap between the regulatory target and actual carbon-intensity performance, the role of credit banking, which fuels are generating the most credits, how the 2025 amendments affected the program, and whether LCFS credits are truly additional. CARB explained that banking helps cost-effectiveness and investment certainty, that ethanol, renewable diesel, and biodiesel currently provide the largest volumes while electricity is expected to grow, and that the updated targets were informed by the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goals and the 2030 scoping plan. The Energy Commission said its data show environmental programs add some cost to gasoline but do not drive price volatility, which is mainly tied to crude oil and refinery margins. The second panel, featuring academic and research experts, focused on program design, out-of-state credit generation, and broader economic effects. Speakers said LCFS is successful because it ties incentives to emissions benefit, uses life-cycle analysis, and allows flexible compliance that lowers costs compared with more direct regulation. They also said the program’s benefits generally outweigh costs, that it can reduce air pollution disparities and support equity, but that some issues—especially indirect land use change, additionality, and older program assumptions—need more research and may warrant future rulemaking. One researcher noted that while LCFS likely raises gasoline prices somewhat, the effect is uncertain by design and usually smaller than normal market fluctuations, and another warned that limiting credit generation too narrowly could create legal and efficiency problems.

Transcript Highlights:

• ensure Minnesota reduces our emissions ensure Minnesota reduces our emissions that<00:46:24.400>
• and store more carbon reduce emissions and store more carbon reduce emissions and<01:08:42.080><
• pathways uh it has significant emissions pathways uh it has significant emissions reductions<01:
• look at how they would impact emissions look at how they would impact emissions in<01:20:08.880>
• in these areas to reduce emissions. in these areas to reduce emissions.

Bills: HF3556

Keywords: community solar, energy, solar power, renewable energy, Melissa Hortman, 1183, house

Summary: The committee approved the February 26, 2026 minutes and then took up House File 3556, which would rename Minnesota’s community solar garden program the Melissa Hortman Community Solar Garden Program. The bill’s author described the measure as a tribute to Hortman’s leadership and her role in creating the program, noting its importance to Minnesota’s solar industry and the broader clean energy transition. The author moved HF 3556 to the general register, and the committee proceeded to testimony. Testifiers from the Public Utilities Commission, Department of Commerce, solar industry groups, clean energy organizations, and community solar advocates all supported the bill. They credited Hortman with authoring and advancing the 2013 legislation that created Minnesota’s community solar program and said it became a national model that expanded access to solar for renters, lower-income households, and others who could not install rooftop systems. Several witnesses highlighted the program’s growth, including more than 1 gigawatt of approved projects, strong participation by low- and moderate-income subscribers, and job creation and private investment in Minnesota. Witnesses also emphasized Hortman’s personal leadership style, describing her as prepared, persuasive, collaborative, and deeply committed to clean energy and public service. Some recounted personal interactions with her and said the name change would preserve her legacy and ensure future Minnesotans remember her impact. No vote on the bill itself was taken during the testimony shown, beyond the motion to send HF 3556 to the general register.

Transcript Highlights:

• The fee is based on their past emissions, and it's only the percentage of their global emissions that
• , and they're putting out emissions into the atmosphere.
• It's addressed at in-state emissions rather than this broad extraterritorial reach of global emissions
• From 2000 to 2022, emissions fell by 20 percent, and much of the reduction in emissions came from the
• emission goals.

Summary: The committee hearing centered first on AB 1243, the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025, which would direct CalEPA to identify major fossil fuel companies, study California’s climate damages, and assess fees on the largest polluters to fund resilience, recovery, and related projects. The author and supporters argued the bill would make polluters help pay for climate harms, protect taxpayers, create jobs in construction and clean energy, and dedicate at least 40% of funds to disadvantaged communities. Support testimony came from environmental justice groups, labor, youth advocates, health organizations, and many individual witnesses, while opponents from the building trades, chambers of commerce, petroleum, and business groups warned it would raise fuel and consumer costs, threaten refinery jobs, and create legal and economic uncertainty. Committee members debated the bill’s impact on affordability, jobs, refinery closures, and whether cap-and-trade already addresses climate funding needs. The committee ultimately voted to give AB 1243 a due pass recommendation to the Judiciary Committee, with the roll left open. After AB 1243, the committee moved to another bill on wildfire mitigation and related resilience work. The author said the measure addresses a long-running wildfire problem and accepted committee amendments, describing the bill as a response to increasingly severe wildfire seasons and the need to help communities stay safe and rebuild after disasters. The transcript cuts off as that presentation begins, so no final action on the second bill is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's crucial to reducing climate emissions.
• Uber is still deeply committed to a zero-emission future.
• while our state agency revisits the emission targets.
• So emissions is first and foremost in what we do.
• Hold these 1976 vehicles to the emission standards of 1976.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And again, on the issue of the carbon and NOx emissions, it is true that older cars had higher NOx emissions
• NOx emissions.
• The emission reductions over the past 20 years?
• We are seeing a reduction of emissions.
• emission reductions.

Summary: The committee first took up SB 712, which would expand California’s smog-check exemption for classic vehicles by adding model years 1976 through 1986 in phases, with a sunset in 2032. The author and supporters, including lowrider advocates and the Specialty Equipment Market Association, argued the bill would preserve car culture, support a small class of rarely driven collector vehicles, and reduce burdens on owners who struggle to find equipment for older smog tests. Opponents, including air district officials, the American Lung Association, and other environmental groups, warned the bill would weaken an important emissions-control program and increase pollution. After discussion, the committee adopted the motion to do pass as amended to Appropriations on a roll call vote of 10-0, with the roll held open for additional votes. The committee then heard SB 800, which requires Caltrans, working with local governments, to assess mitigation measures for suicide prevention on locally owned overpasses crossing state highways. The bill was presented as a response to recent tragedies in Rancho Cucamonga and was supported by local officials, health organizations, and suicide-prevention advocates, who said the measure would help identify high-risk locations and lead to life-saving interventions. There was no registered opposition. The committee members expressed support, and SB 800 was passed to Appropriations on a unanimous roll call vote, with the roll held open. Next, the committee considered SB 30, which would prohibit California public entities from selling, donating, or transferring decommissioned diesel locomotives and railroad equipment with Tier 1 or older engines unless the engine is removed, while allowing Tier 2 and newer transfers under certain conditions. The author and supporters framed the bill as a climate and public-health measure to prevent older, dirtier locomotives from continuing to pollute elsewhere, while transit agencies opposed it, arguing it could limit useful transfers of equipment that still supports passenger service and could be better handled through case-by-case air-quality review. After debate, the committee voted 6-4 to pass SB 30 as amended to Appropriations, with the roll held open for later additions. The committee also heard SB 791, which replaces the flat dealer document processing charge cap with a 1% fee capped at $350, along with new disclosure requirements. Dealers and industry groups supported the bill as a way to recover costs and improve transparency, while consumer advocates opposed it as an unjustified increase that would burden buyers. The committee approved SB 791 on a 8-? roll call vote and held the roll open. The meeting then moved on to SB 34, a port-air-quality bill presented by Senator Richardson, but the transcript ends during testimony and debate on that measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's crucial to reducing climate emissions.
• That's crucial to reducing climate emissions.
• Uber is still deeply committed to a zero-emission future.
• while our state agency revisits the emission targets.
• Emissions is first and foremost in what we do.

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee heard several bills focused on active transportation, transit, road safety, and local enforcement. SB 569 would restrict removal or downgrading of bikeways built with state General Fund dollars for at least 20 years, require public hearings before major changes, and was supported by bicycle advocates and some local and environmental groups. The City of Encinitas opposed the bill, arguing it could limit needed safety fixes and should apply only to future projects; committee members discussed whether the bill still allowed safety-based modifications. The bill passed on a due pass vote to Appropriations. SB 741 would streamline the Low-Carbon Transit Operations Program by reducing administrative burden and giving transit agencies more flexibility to use funds for service improvements, fare programs, and other transit needs while maintaining oversight and disadvantaged community requirements. Transit agencies and advocacy groups supported the measure, saying it would help agencies respond to post-pandemic ridership and financial challenges. The committee approved the bill on a due pass as amended vote to Appropriations. The committee also heard SB 1167, which would tighten consumer protections by clarifying that high-powered e-motos and similar motor vehicles are not e-bikes, requiring clearer disclosures and labels, and improving crash reporting. Supporters said the bill would reduce confusion and improve safety for riders, pedestrians, and parents; the Motorcycle Industry Council opposed unless amended, arguing the term “e-bike” is used broadly and the bill could affect existing businesses. The bill passed to Appropriations. Later, SB 953, dealing with vehicular manslaughter cases dismissed through misdemeanor diversion, would add DMV points so fatal conduct remains reflected on driving records; the bill was supported by the victim’s family and safety advocates and passed to Appropriations. The committee then heard SB 1218, which would let local agencies boot vehicles tied to repeated unpaid illegal dumping citations instead of using DMV enforcement. Oakland officials and community groups supported the bill as a needed deterrent, while the ACLU opposed it as punitive debt collection without a sufficient nexus to the vehicle. The bill passed to Appropriations. Finally, SB 739 would revise the Clean Miles Standard for rideshare companies by allowing CARB and CPUC to adjust electric vehicle mileage targets in light of current market conditions; Uber and Lyft supported the flexibility, while clean air advocates began raising concerns about weakening climate goals as the transcript cut off.