Transcript Highlights:

• The Air Resources Board is charged by AB 32 to reduce CO2 emissions and greenhouse gas emissions.
• Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles are completely zero emission.
• They're both EVs; they're both zero emission.
• Tell us more about this zero-emission vehicle axle weight problem.
• Tell us more about this zero-emission vehicle axle weight problem.

Summary: The Senate Select Committee on Hydrogen Energy held an informational hearing on California’s hydrogen leadership, with the chair framing hydrogen as a complementary clean-energy pathway for hard-to-electrify sectors such as heavy-duty trucking, transit, rail, ports, industrial uses, and backup power. The first panel of private-sector witnesses from the California Hydrogen Business Council, Bosch, Hyundai, and Sierra Northern Railway described existing deployments in California, including hydrogen buses, trucks, fueling infrastructure, and the nation’s first hydrogen fuel cell switcher locomotive. They emphasized that the technology is commercially ready but scaling is constrained by permitting delays, high fuel and equipment costs, infrastructure gaps, and uncertainty around federal support and incentives. Witnesses urged stable state policy, targeted investment, and concentrated deployment in high-impact corridors such as ports and freight hubs. Committee members also asked about labor standards, community engagement, and the current size of the hydrogen vehicle fleet in California and abroad. The second panel focused on air quality, climate, safety, and public health. Testimony from CAPCOA, the Coalition for Clean Air, the California State Building and Construction Trades Council, and a UC Berkeley researcher argued that hydrogen fuel cells can reduce diesel-related pollution and health harms when used in the right applications, especially in ports, rail yards, warehouse corridors, transit depots, and backup power for facilities like data centers. Witnesses cautioned that hydrogen should be used selectively, produced as cleanly as possible, and paired with early community engagement, safety planning, and environmental justice protections. The researcher cited projected reductions in NOx, particulate exposure, premature deaths, and health costs under broader hydrogen adoption. Committee members discussed workforce training, apprenticeship programs, and how to balance near-term costs with long-term infrastructure value. The final panel provided public-sector updates from SamTrans, the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, the Port of Long Beach, and First Public Hydrogen Authority. SamTrans described its transition to a large hydrogen bus fleet and said the loss of expected ARCHES funding created a major infrastructure gap; it asked the state to protect transit funding, restore a sales tax exemption for zero-emission buses, and address axle-weight rules. GoBiz said the state should focus on creating demand, reducing costs, and streamlining permitting, while acknowledging the disruption caused by the federal cancellation of ARCHES funding. The Port of Long Beach reported hydrogen truck deployments, port incentives, and a planned public fueling station, but said high costs, fuel shortages, and uncertainty have slowed momentum. First Public Hydrogen Authority described efforts to aggregate municipal demand and support new green hydrogen production projects, stressing the need for long-term market signals and financing. Committee members repeatedly emphasized the need for state support, infrastructure investment, and a diversified fuel strategy to keep hydrogen deployment moving forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• common example are waste management units on refinery properties... ...waste, and a common example are
• waste management units on refinery properties that have hazardous waste discharges in them.
• percentage of our emissions relative to the global emissions does decline.
• reduce emissions.
• our emissions here.

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee held an informational hearing on the environmental impacts and planning considerations associated with refinery closures. In opening remarks, the chair framed refinery shutdowns as a complex part of California’s decarbonization transition and said the committee would focus on environmental and land-use issues, while Vice Chair Gunda argued closures reflect years of policy-driven disinvestment and warned that supply disruptions and higher prices could harm working families. State agency witnesses from the Energy Commission, CARB, and the Water Boards described the state as being in a “mid-transition,” with declining gasoline demand, growing zero-emission vehicle adoption, and increasing conversion of some refinery assets to renewable fuels, but also with abrupt capacity losses that can force greater reliance on imports and storage. They emphasized the need for proactive planning, transparency, and coordination across agencies, and noted that refinery closures can stress pipelines, terminals, and other linked infrastructure, with potential liabilities falling to the state if those assets are not financially supported. The Water Boards explained their cleanup authorities and tools for refinery decommissioning, including investigation, monitoring, remediation, and enforcement under the Water Code, and said site-specific cleanup plans depend on contamination, groundwater conditions, and future land use. They noted that decommissioning can reveal previously inaccessible areas and require additional sampling or wells, and that cleanup costs can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Committee members pressed the witnesses on whether the state has enough information to plan for land transitions, whether current tools are adequate, and whether more standardized procedures or financial assurances are needed. The witnesses generally said existing tools are useful but that more transparency and better data sharing would help communities and policymakers understand liabilities and long-term redevelopment opportunities. Members also questioned the relationship between California policy, refinery closures, imports, and global emissions. CARB said its programs apply to transportation fuel suppliers whether fuel is refined in-state or imported, and that its climate and air-quality rules are designed to reduce emissions and avoid leakage. Some senators argued that California’s policies have accelerated closures and that demand has not fallen fast enough to offset lost refining capacity, while agency witnesses responded that closures are also driven by global market forces, aging infrastructure, crude quality, and changing fuel demand. The committee then heard from outside experts, including a Notre Dame professor who said closure costs are often underestimated and that stronger financial assurance requirements can shift company behavior, a Stanford/SLAC researcher who outlined five drivers of refinery closures, and an environmental attorney who discussed community impacts and lessons from the Phillips 66 Los Angeles refinery closure. No votes or formal actions were taken; the hearing was informational and focused on testimony and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's crucial to reducing climate emissions.
• Involving hundreds of pounds of waste.
• It's people, Mostly businesses, that consistently dump waste, large quantities of waste in our neighborhoods
• while our state agency revisits the emission targets.
• So emissions is first and foremost in what we do.

Committee: House Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• The fee is based on their past emissions, and it's only the percentage of their global emissions that
• It's addressed at in-state emissions rather than this broad extraterritorial reach of global emissions
• It seems like a waste of government resources, a waste of government funds.
• emission goals.
• Our technology is really a circular fuel where we're taking waste emissions in the form of CO2, making

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.
• That's crucial to reducing climate emissions.
• Mostly businesses that consistently dump waste, large quantities of waste, in our neighborhoods and on
• 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.

Transcript Highlights:

• But we need to put that waste to beneficial, climate-friendly use. Waste from landfills.
• sense for energy reliability too, not just emissions reduction and waste reduction.
• This bill will help reduce future emissions by helping divert organic waste from landfills, and it will
• emissions come from decomposing organic waste.
• Organic waste contributes about 20% of methane emissions, and to fight this, California set very ambitious

Summary: The committee heard and advanced a series of natural resources and climate-related bills. AB 70 would codify a definition of pyrolysis and allow procurement credit for projects using organic waste to generate pipeline biomethane; supporters said it would help divert organic waste from landfills, reduce methane, and support energy reliability. AB 30 would authorize E15 fuel sales in California, with supporters arguing it could lower consumer fuel costs and emissions, while opponents from boating and marine groups raised concerns about engine damage and the need for clear labeling and continued E10 availability. AB 66 would create a CEQA exemption for emergency evacuation routes in high fire-risk areas; supporters emphasized wildfire evacuation safety, while some members worried the bill lacked sufficient guardrails and environmental review. AB 399 would let the Coastal Commission consider blue carbon sequestration in coastal permitting and authorize blue carbon demonstration projects; environmental groups supported it, while business groups objected to new costs and regulatory uncertainty. AB 491 would codify California’s nature-based solutions climate targets for lands and wetlands, with supporters citing climate and adaptation benefits and the Farm Bureau opposing statutory targets. AB 580 would extend Metropolitan Water District authority related to the Colorado River Aqueduct, and AB 43 would make permanent state authority to protect federally designated wild and scenic rivers if federal protections are weakened. The committee also considered AB 436 to streamline siting and permitting of composting facilities and AB 539 to streamline certain Coastal Act procedures and reporting. Most measures received due-pass recommendations and were reported out on roll calls, with several bills also moving on consent; AB 404 was pulled at the author’s request.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Air Resources Board is charged by AB 32 to reduce CO2 emissions, greenhouse gas emissions.
• Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles are completely zero-emission.
• They're both EVs; they're both zero-emission.
• NOx emissions.
• And the reason I asked about the waste is that their waste is in a different fund, and it may be that

Transcript Highlights:

• Texas will be prepared to decide how to address emissions. Mr.
• storage, so long as that waste originates at that site.
• storage, so long as that waste originates, on high-level radioactive waste storage so long as that waste
• I'm Charlie Fritz, Deputy Director of the Waste Permits Division in TCEQ.
• Our composting program was set up very similar to our solid waste permitting.

Bills: SB3074 , HB49 , HB2440 , HB3556 , HB3619 , HB3866 , HB4042 , HB4112 , HB4271 , HB4413 , HB4426 , HB5033 , HB49

Committee: Senate Natural Resources

Summary: The committee heard and laid out several natural resources and environmental bills, with testimony focused on balancing development, public health, wildlife protection, and regulatory authority. SB 3074 would allow the governor, lieutenant governor, and legislators to communicate in writing with TCEQ about matters before the commission, with safeguards requiring the communication to be part of the record and allowing other parties to respond; a committee substitute narrowed it to written communications about permits only, limited legislator communications to facilities in their districts, and adjusted conflict-of-interest rules. HB 3556, as substituted, would require notice to Texas Parks and Wildlife for certain very tall structures in specified coastal counties and give TPWD a limited right to seek injunctive relief if mitigation is insufficient to prevent material harm to migratory birds; supporters said it would address ignored wildlife recommendations and protect key flyways, while opponents argued the bill was too broad, singled out wind energy, and gave one agency unusually strong enforcement power. HB 49 would expand liability protections for produced-water recycling and beneficial use; supporters said it would encourage reuse of a large wastewater stream and reduce disposal pressures, while opponents warned it could shield operators from responsibility before the science and standards are mature. HB 4413 would authorize mass-balance accounting for renewable biomass feedstocks, and HB 3866 would regulate intermediate bulk container recycling facilities near homes, with a committee substitute adding a grandfather clause and making implementation contingent on funding. The committee also heard bills affecting air and energy regulation. HB 5033 would create a trigger to end vehicle emissions inspections if federal law changes to allow it; the substitute removed a Supreme Court-related trigger, and the lone public witness opposed the bill, warning it would worsen air quality and harm nonattainment areas. HB 4112 would clarify that on-site storage of high-level radioactive waste is allowed at current and future nuclear reactors and university research reactors only for waste generated at that site; the substitute clarified the language and removed an inoperative permit condition, and witnesses from environmental and nuclear groups said the clarification was needed to prevent unintended restrictions while avoiding off-site storage. HB 2440 would prohibit state agencies from using air-quality rules to ban or restrict vehicles based on energy source, including internal combustion vehicles, and no public testimony was offered. HB 4271 would require TCEQ to hold public meetings on request for composting facility authorizations; the substitute limited the requirement to future applications and was presented as a transparency measure after a denied local request and extensive public comments. Additional bills addressed landowner protections and Railroad Commission oversight. HB 3619 would require the Railroad Commission to restore surface land after plugging or replugging operations and indemnify landowners from damages tied to authorized entry; a witness supported the bill but urged fixing a separate statutory loophole that he said allowed operators to enter unrelated tracts without notice. HB 4042 would extend Railroad Commission pipeline safety and fee provisions to propane distribution systems by removing the word “natural” from the relevant definitions. HB 4426 would set a 10-year permit term for commercial surface disposal facilities, allow renewal based on compliance history, and require renewal applications 120 days before expiration. The committee took no votes because a quorum was not initially present, and each bill was left pending after testimony and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• The department oversees many activities that do address organic waste, including food waste prevention
• So I understand that ag waste streams are often cleaner than urban and suburban waste streams.
• For present-day hazardous waste operations, we oversee inspections and permits for hazardous waste operations
• they're generating, the types of waste.
• Kayla Robinson with California Against Waste.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy heard department budget overviews and several budget change proposals from CalRecycle, CalEPA, and DTSC. CalRecycle presented its 2026-27 budget and discussed priorities including edible food recovery, composting, beverage container recycling, and landfill response. Members asked about funding for food recovery grants, processing fees for wine and spirits containers under SB 1013, plastic packaging generation under SB 54, restaurant food waste requirements under SB 1383, and litter cleanup efforts. CalRecycle said edible food recovery has helped recover more than 300 million meals, but there is no sustained funding source; it also explained that beverage container processing fees are set by statute and that new producer responsibility and infrastructure investments are intended to improve recycling rates over time. The committee then heard CalEPA’s overview, including the agency’s response to climate, air quality, water, toxics, and enforcement challenges. Secretary Garcia emphasized federal rollbacks, methane monitoring, AB 617 implementation, safe drinking water progress, Exide cleanup, and pesticide reduction efforts. Members questioned the agency about regional gasoline blends, authority and technical thresholds for landfill intervention, and the growth in the Secretary’s office staffing and budget. CalEPA said the budget increase reflects expanded coordination, technology modernization, hazardous materials response, and legal capacity. The committee also discussed a proposed landfill support, response, and enforcement package for subsurface elevated temperature events, with CalEPA describing a coordinated multi-agency approach and the need for stronger early response tools. DTSC presented its department overview and several BCPs. Director Butler highlighted progress on permit backlog reduction, safer consumer products rulemaking, Exide cleanup, PFAS work, and planning for emerging waste streams such as solar panels and lithium batteries. The Board of Environmental Safety described its oversight role, public meetings, permit appeals, and fee-setting authority, and identified community concerns about cumulative impacts, hazardous waste planning, accessible data, and engagement. The committee also heard a proposal to expand DTSC’s Office of Policy into a statewide planning division to implement hazardous waste management plan recommendations and improve reporting systems. Members raised concerns about whether the new division duplicated existing work, but DTSC said it would fill identified gaps and improve coordination. Public testimony largely supported the proposals, especially ongoing funding for edible food recovery, composting, safer consumer products enforcement, and the coordinated landfill response package. Witnesses from StopWaste, California Against Waste, Waste Management, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, and water advocacy groups urged continued or increased funding for these programs. No votes were taken; the chair held all items open and adjourned the hearing after public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, nuclear waste is kind of weird. There's two parts to it.
• So again, there's two different types of waste.
• And everyone keeps saying the same is the waste for 100,000 years.
• It was only narrowed politically in the '80s to take only transuranic waste, some of the bomb waste that
• repository for this type of waste.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills. House Bill 2272 would update state park inspection language for ski lifts and related equipment to better match current equipment and federal standards; the sponsor and State Parks said it was a simple modernization bill, and there was no opposition. House Bill 2245 would expand Clean Energy Transformation Act coverage to port districts that distribute electricity, utilities with a single customer, and certain affected market customers such as data centers; supporters said it closes loopholes and applies clean-energy rules more fairly, while ports, business groups, and some utilities warned of unintended consequences, added reporting burdens, and impacts on cogeneration and rural economic development. Ecology and Commerce supported the goal but raised concerns about allowance allocation, fiscal impacts, and possible double counting, and WAPUDA asked that existing single-customer PUDs be grandfathered. House Bill 2215 would lower Climate Commitment Act thresholds for gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, and propane suppliers and extend coverage to some purchasers; supporters said it would prevent entities from gaming the system and cover significant emissions now below the threshold, while Ecology, fuel distributors, propane suppliers, grocers, and business groups warned of compliance costs, supply-chain impacts, possible linkage issues, and the need to preserve existing reporting authority for natural gas. Ecology estimated about 50 additional covered entities could be brought in, and several opponents argued the bill would sweep in small family-owned businesses not intended to be regulated. House Bill 2090 would direct Commerce to develop a nuclear strategic framework for inclusion in the state energy strategy, contingent on outside funding. The sponsor and supporters argued the bill is only a planning measure to ensure Washington considers advanced nuclear as a firm, low-carbon, small-footprint resource amid rising demand, grid constraints, and land-use concerns; supporters included Energy Northwest, local governments, labor/environmental Democrats, and pro-nuclear groups. Opponents, including the Sierra Club, Columbia Riverkeeper, tribal representatives from the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and several environmental advocates, said the bill gives nuclear special treatment, relies on private funding that could bias the study, and risks advancing projects at Hanford without early, meaningful tribal consultation. Tribes requested explicit consultation, independent and publicly funded analysis, and attention to treaty rights and historic nuclear impacts. Testimony also sharply divided over cost, waste, and land use, with supporters emphasizing reliability and footprint and opponents citing high costs, unresolved waste disposal, and the immaturity of small modular reactors. No votes or final actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• emissions of Paraguay.
• emissions of Paraguay. tripled its greenhouse gas emissions, now matching the annual emissions of Paraguay
• our ocean, zero waste, San Diego, zero waste, U.S.
• That is a total emissions cut, not just carbon emissions intensity.
• That is a total emissions cut, not just carbon emissions intensity.

Committee: House Natural Resources

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on environmental protection, climate policy, public health, and housing. AB 1425 would prohibit pit dewatering near the San Joaquin River Parkway where groundwater is shallow, with the author and supporters arguing it is needed to protect the river, groundwater, flood safety, tribal and cultural resources, and a nearby restoration area. Supporters included environmental groups, local residents, and Indigenous speakers, while CEMEX, labor representatives, and industry groups opposed the bill as an improper circumvention of the CEQA process that could threaten an existing mine and about 100 jobs. After extensive questioning about hydrology, blasting, and the CEQA record, the committee voted the bill out on a due pass as amended recommendation, with some members not voting and the roll left open for absent members. AB 881 would lift California’s moratorium on carbon dioxide pipeline regulation and direct the State Fire Marshal to develop safety standards for carbon capture and sequestration pipelines. The author and supporters, including SMUD, Calpine, utilities, labor, and industry groups, said the bill is needed to advance carbon removal goals, preserve federal funding, and support clean energy and jobs. Environmental justice and conservation groups opposed or opposed unless amended, warning that CO2 pipelines pose serious safety risks and that state authority and standards need to be stronger. The bill received a due pass as amended recommendation to Appropriations. AB 1207 would tie California’s cap-and-trade price ceiling to the federal social cost of carbon. The author and EDF said the measure would keep the program science-based and protect it from federal political interference, while no opposition was heard in the room. The committee approved the bill on a due pass recommendation. AB 1106, sponsored by air quality agencies, would create a network of regional air quality incident response centers to improve monitoring and public health response during wildfires and other disasters; it also received a due pass recommendation after testimony on mobile monitoring, VOCs, metals, PM, and asbestos sampling. The committee also heard AB 28, the Landfill Fire Safety Act, prompted by the long-running Chiquita Canyon landfill subsurface fire. The author and residents described serious health impacts and argued the bill would require monitoring, reporting, corrective action, and stronger enforcement when landfill temperatures rise. Waste and county representatives opposed the bill as drafted, saying the cause of the event is still unclear and the proposal could impose broad costs on landfills statewide, though they said amendments improved the framework. Members discussed the scale of the fire, possible medical impacts, and whether the bill would punish compliant operators; the bill was sent out on a due pass as amended recommendation. The committee also heard AB 357, which would require the Coastal Commission to act within 90 days on student and faculty housing projects in the coastal zone; supporters said it would help address student homelessness and housing costs, while coastal and planning advocates raised concerns about the amendment and the role of coastal review.

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,... ...fund
• zero-emission infrastructure, fund zero-emission vehicles, and fund the fuels that we need to continue
• phase out these avoided emissions credits because now it's a regulated source of emissions, and we think
• We are one of the pioneers in organic waste diversion, and we take that organic waste and, instead of

Summary: The hearing focused on California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), its role in reducing transportation emissions, and whether its costs at the pump are justified by its climate, air quality, and investment benefits. The co-chairs and several members framed the discussion around affordability and asked whether the program’s benefits, including cleaner fuels, zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and public health gains, outweigh any added fuel costs. Members also raised concerns about how the program is understood by the public and whether its benefits are being communicated clearly. CARB and CEC officials explained how LCFS works as a market-based program that sets declining carbon-intensity targets, generates credits for lower-carbon fuels, and requires deficit holders to buy credits or otherwise comply. They said the program has driven billions in annual private investment, expanded alternative fuels, supported EV charging and hydrogen stations, and helped reduce emissions and local pollution. They also argued that LCFS credit prices are not the main driver of gasoline prices, that the recent amendments added only about seven cents per gallon, and that crude oil, refining, and distribution costs account for most pump price variation. Committee members pressed witnesses on credit banking, market effects, the recent rule updates, additionality, and whether the program’s benefits are concentrated in-state or out-of-state. CARB said banking helps keep the program cost-effective and provides investment certainty, while the Energy Commission said LCFS-related costs are relatively stable and separate from the broader gasoline market. The panel also discussed how the 2025 amendments were shaped by the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate goals and by uncertainty over federal actions. No votes or formal actions were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• under waste discharge requirements for discharges of waste to land pursuant to Title 27. ...and that's
• , that percentage of our emissions relative to the global emissions does decline.
• reduce emissions.
• our emissions here.
• result of pushing emissions outside of California... leakage, which is the result of pushing emissions

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee held an informational hearing on the environmental impacts and policy considerations surrounding refinery closures. Chair Blakespear framed the hearing as part of California’s broader transition away from fossil fuels, emphasizing the need for proactive planning so communities, workers, and local governments are not caught off guard. Vice Chair Gunda argued that the state has long signaled a future away from oil, while also warning that closures can create supply instability, higher prices, and infrastructure stress if not managed carefully. Senators also raised concerns about consumer costs, supply reliability, the role of imports, and whether California’s climate policies are contributing to refinery disinvestment. The first panel included the California Energy Commission, CARB, and the State Water Resources Control Board. Gunda described California as being in a “mid-transition,” with gasoline demand gradually declining, zero-emission vehicle adoption rising, and refinery capacity shrinking through both conversions to renewable fuels and outright closures. He said the state needs a coordinated strategy that balances near-term supply stability with long-term decarbonization, and noted that refinery closures can shift liabilities onto pipelines, terminals, and potentially the state. CARB’s Matthew Boutill said the agency’s focus is reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases, and that state policies are already driving billions in annual investment in alternative fuels, EV infrastructure, and refinery conversions. Water Board representative Annalisa Kihara explained the cleanup authorities used at refinery sites, including investigation, remediation, and enforcement tools, and said decommissioning often reveals previously inaccessible contamination and may require new monitoring wells and additional site assessment. Committee members pressed the panel on whether the state has enough information to plan for land reuse and cleanup costs, whether current tools are adequate, and whether more legislative direction is needed. Gunda said there are still gaps in information and transparency, especially around liability and long-term community planning. Kihara said the Water Boards can require more data, cleanup, and timelines, but that refinery remediation is highly site-specific and can take tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Senators Menjivar, Stern, and Hurtado questioned demand trends, the pace of refinery closures versus demand decline, the role of imports and the Jones Act, and whether California should consider options such as state ownership or broader ecosystem planning. The panel generally agreed that closures are likely to continue and that the state should plan proactively rather than reactively. A second panel presented recent research on refinery closures. Emily Grubert said closure costs and remediation obligations are often underestimated and that California should better define end-of-life obligations and financial assurance requirements. Tham Herschbach outlined five drivers of refinery closures: declining California crude production, falling in-state gasoline demand, the shift toward renewable diesel and other alternative fuels, global refinery consolidation, and the growing availability of imported gasoline. Anne Alexander focused on community impacts, using the Phillips 66 Los Angeles refinery closure as a case study, and said refinery sites are often heavily contaminated, cleanup can take a decade or more, and communities are often left without clear information because refineries have little end-of-life planning or financial assurance requirements. No votes or formal actions were taken at the informational hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• As I mentioned, many emissions are about 80% of the state's emissions.
• emissions.
• So it can reduce methane emissions by providing those additives that would then reduce the emissions.
• This is the emissions chart I think you were looking for.
• For sustainable ag waste, we very much also support the sustainable ag waste management efforts, which

Summary: The joint informational hearing examined how agricultural programs have used cap-and-invest funding and what role agriculture should play in future climate investments. The chairs opened by noting that agriculture had been largely left out of the cap-and-invest reauthorization, despite prior support through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and framed the hearing around climate-smart agriculture, food security, rural vitality, and the need for measurable co-benefits such as water savings, soil health, and air quality improvements. The first panel included CDFA Deputy Secretary Virginia Jamison and LAO analyst Helen Kirsten. Jamison described CDFA’s climate-smart portfolio, including the Healthy Soils Program, SWEEP, the Alternative Manure Management Program, and dairy methane reduction efforts, saying roughly $727 million has supported these programs and produced estimated reductions of 31 million metric tons of CO2e, 1.6 million acre-feet of water savings, and about 4,000 projects. She emphasized technical assistance, oversubscription of the programs, and the need for continued investment and better measurement/verification. Kirsten outlined the cap-and-invest structure, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and the state’s emissions inventory, noting agriculture is about 8% of California’s GHG emissions and that funding for tier-three programs may remain constrained. She also said prior LAO work found the programs have significant reduction potential but that some estimated benefits may be overstated, recommending further evaluation. The second panel featured UC researchers Alexandra Hill and Ermi Kibreab, who presented on the economic importance of California’s working landscapes and on dairy methane reduction pathways. Hill said working landscapes are a major part of the state and national economy, with agriculture driving most of the sector’s sales and jobs. Kibreab explained that dairy is central to methane reduction because it accounts for a large share of agricultural methane emissions, and described herd efficiency, digesters, alternative manure management, and emerging feed additives as complementary strategies. He said digesters and other incentive-supported measures are helping California move toward its methane goals, while noting feed additives such as 3-NOP and seaweed-based approaches could offer additional reductions in the future. The third panel brought contrasting views from environmental advocates, farmers, and industry representatives. Phoebe Seaton argued that further state funding for dairy digesters is not environmentally or economically justified, citing concerns about methane, nitrous oxide, groundwater impacts, odors, and high cost per ton reduced. Brian Shobe of CalCAN supported continued funding for programs like AMP, SWEEP, and Healthy Soils, saying they provide multiple co-benefits and that farmers need stable, incentive-based support to comply with climate and water regulations. Cannon Michael of Bowles Farming Company described his farm’s investments in organic and regenerative practices, composting, drip irrigation, solar, habitat management, and workforce programs, and said consistent funding helps farms plan and remain viable. Tricia Gerringer of the Agricultural Council of California urged funding for FPIP, the Farmer Program, methane reduction programs, and sustainable ag waste management, arguing they deliver immediate, measurable reductions and co-benefits. Members and witnesses debated the relative merits of digesters versus alternative manure management, the role of regenerative agriculture, and whether agriculture should be treated as a distinct policy category. No votes were taken; the hearing concluded with public comment supporting agricultural climate funding and a request to include agriculture in broader cap-and-invest discussions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Waste management units on refinery properties can have hazardous waste discharges in them.
• We also regulate waste management units at a refinery under waste discharge requirements for discharges
• , that percentage of our emissions relative to the global emissions does decline.
• reduce emissions.
• our emissions here.

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Transcript Highlights:

• emissions of Paraguay.
• Shein has tripled its greenhouse gas emissions, now matching the annual emissions of Paraguay.
• , Airs to Our Ocean, Zero Waste San Diego, Zero Waste U.S., Unspun, UCLA, The Last Plastic Straw, Surfrider
• That is a total emissions cut, not just carbon emissions intensity.
• We all recognize California's significant progress in reducing emissions, and more emission reductions

Summary: The committee heard several climate, environmental, and housing bills. AB 1425, dealing with pit dewatering near the San Joaquin River Parkway, drew extensive testimony. The author and supporters argued the bill was needed to protect the river, groundwater, floodplain conditions, tribal and cultural resources, and public access from a proposed mining project near the river. Opponents, including Cemex, labor representatives, and industry groups, said the bill would bypass the CEQA process before it was complete, threaten jobs, and create uncertainty for an existing operation. Members questioned both sides about hydrology, blasting, dewatering, and the adequacy of the ongoing environmental review. The bill was moved, but several members expressed concern about preempting CEQA and some did not vote or voted no. AB 881, which would allow California to move forward with carbon capture and sequestration pipelines, was presented as a way to advance state climate goals and capture federal funding. Supporters, including SMUD, labor, and industry groups, said the bill would help deploy carbon capture safely and preserve jobs. Environmental justice opponents supported stronger safety direction and warned that CO2 pipelines pose serious risks and that the state should not move ahead without clearer standards. The bill received a due-pass recommendation to Appropriations. AB 1207, on the cap-and-trade allowance price ceiling and the social cost of carbon, was presented as a science-based update to California’s climate policy. The author and EDF said the bill would keep the program aligned with current economic and climate data and protect it from federal political interference. It received broad support and a due-pass recommendation. AB 1106, creating a coordinated network of air quality incident response centers, was also approved after testimony about wildfire smoke, toxic emissions, and the need for better real-time monitoring during disasters. AB 28, the Landfill Fire Safety Act, focused on the Chiquita Canyon landfill fire and related health impacts in Castaic and Val Verde; residents described serious illnesses and contamination concerns, while landfill and county representatives warned about costs and asked for more study. The committee nonetheless advanced the bill with a due-pass recommendation. The committee also heard AB 357, which would speed Coastal Commission review of student and faculty housing projects, with supporters citing student homelessness and opponents urging caution but acknowledging the need for more housing; the bill was presented and discussed, with the committee emphasizing the need to balance housing production and coastal oversight.

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
• We are one of the pioneers in organic waste diversion, and we take that organic waste and, instead of

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:

• emissions intensity standards.
• As far as emissions reduction goes, the oil and gas sector continues to reduce emissions substantially
• Emissions.
• These are the areas—the sectors in the state—that have emissions, greenhouse gas emissions.
• gas emissions.

Committee: Senate Senate Conservation

Transcript Highlights:

• And so I mean I'm pretty well I think that most of them know who I am if not I've wasted a lot of money
• 2,000 tons of oyster shells from nearly 40 partners. in the Houston and Galveston area. not go to waste
• Increased production and royalty. payments, generate new severance and local tax revenue, reduce waste
• Well at the time it was municipal reuse on on waste water, we were hoping that we could incentivize that
• Water, solid waste, police and fire services. have to have those.

Bills: HB19 , HB30 , HB851 , HB1663 , HB1681 , HB1769 , HB1937 , HB1979 , HB2428 , HB2433 , HB2825 , HB3159 , HB3424 , HB3486 , HB3487 , HB3504 , HB3605 , HB3879 , HB3994 , HB4382 , HB4752 , HB5444 , HB5446 , HB5447 , HB3199 , HB4847 , HB19

Committee: House Ways & Means

Keywords: local government debt, property tax, ad valorem tax, bond election, certificate of obligation, anticipation note, school district tax rate, voter-approval rate, debt service cap, municipal finance, county bonds, flood control district, hospital district, public works, tax transparency, property tax notice, November uniform election date, general obligation bonds, local debt reform, taxpayer notice

Transcript Highlights:

• So notably, most agricultural emissions are not under the state's cap.
• As I mentioned, many emissions are about 80% of the state's emissions.
• emissions.
• So it can reduce methane emissions by providing those additives that would then reduce the emissions.
• For sustainable ag waste, we very much also support the sustainable ag waste management efforts, which

Summary: The joint informational hearing examined how California agricultural programs have used cap-and-invest funding and what role agriculture should play in future climate investments. Committee chairs framed the issue as balancing climate goals, food production, rural economic vitality, and the fact that agriculture was not specifically funded in the recent cap-and-invest reauthorization. The first panel from CDFA and the Legislative Analyst’s Office described the state’s climate-smart agriculture portfolio, including Healthy Soils, SWEEP, the Dairy Methane Reduction Program, and Alternative Manure Management, and explained that GGRF revenues are now more constrained and may not fully support all tiered programs. LAO emphasized that agriculture is about 8% of California’s emissions, that most ag emissions are outside the cap, and that the Legislature should consider program effectiveness, the role of incentives, and GGRF priorities. CDFA testified that roughly $727 million has been invested in its flagship climate-smart ag programs, producing estimated reductions of 31 million metric tons of CO2e, 1.6 million acre-feet of water savings, and about 4,000 projects. The department said technical assistance is essential because farmers face risk when adopting new practices, and noted new Proposition 4 funding for Healthy Soils, SWEEP, and a regional farm equipment sharing program. University researchers then presented economic and methane-reduction analyses: UC Berkeley’s Dr. Hill described working landscapes as a major economic driver, while UC Davis’ Dr. Kibreab outlined dairy methane reduction pathways, including herd efficiency, digesters, alternative manure management, and emerging feed additives such as 3-NOP and seaweed, arguing that incentive-based programs have helped California move toward its methane goals. A later panel featured sharply different views on dairy digesters. Phoebe Seton argued that digesters worsen air and water quality, encourage manure liquefaction, and are an inefficient use of public funds, while CalCAN’s Brian Schobey and agricultural representatives said programs like AMP, SWEEP, Healthy Soils, FPIP, and the Farmer Program deliver measurable emissions reductions plus co-benefits such as water savings, lower energy costs, and improved air quality. Farm and industry witnesses stressed that stable, incentive-based funding helps family farms remain viable, supports co-investment, and should be treated as a partnership rather than a regulatory stick. No votes or formal actions were taken; the hearing ended with public comment and a continued call for future funding and policy discussion.