Transcript Highlights:

• plan companies have told us, and they'll probably tell you today, that they've notified all county case
• In the case of Health Partners, the limits we have in our coverage, we have had in our policies since
• <00:18:59.520> In<00:18:59.679> the<00:18:59.840> case<00:19:00.000> of
• In the case of Health commercial plans.
• um uh relate to those but in the case um uh relate to those but in the case generally<00:21:57.039

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, in both those cases, there were obvious failures.
• It's still an open case. Okay. Mm-hmm. And who's prosecuting that case?
• PFAS are, in many cases, ending up in these biosolids.
• So, in this case, it will be some really helpful guidance for us.
• Not on this particular case.

Bills: HB1341, HB1674, HB4028, SB2321

Keywords: hydrogen sulfide, public health, environmental regulation, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, ground level concentrations, emissions limit, emissions limits, ground-level concentrations, air quality, PFAS, agriculture, environmental protection, health risks, criminal offense, chemical regulation, preproduction plastic, water quality, pollution control, industrial waste, emissions

Transcript Highlights:

• And the defendant in that case, as you may recall, was set for trial.
• When a trial data set, the court, 100% of the cases, at arraignment during the proceeding of a case,
• But that is not the case.
• We do that in drug trafficking cases, but not the status of the individual. ...cases, but not the status
• You're trying to make your case. Prove the theory.

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, the pledge, and a moment of silence honoring former Senator and Judge Thomas Gallen. The chamber then moved to special order items focused on immigration and related enforcement measures. Senate Memorial 6C, urging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to provide guidance and training for 287(g) agreements, passed by voice vote. The Senate then took up Senate Bill 4C, an immigration measure that would impose a mandatory death penalty for unauthorized aliens convicted of capital felonies and create state crimes for illegal entry and re-entry. Senators Pizzo, Polsky, and Sharief raised concerns about constitutional issues, plea bargaining, trial and penalty-phase procedures, prosecutorial discretion, and the effect on victims’ families. Supporters, including Senators Fine and Gruters, argued the bill was a strong deterrent and a response to serious crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. The bill passed 25-11. The chamber next debated Senate Bill 2C, a broader immigration enforcement package. The bill would create a State Board of Immigration Enforcement, expand local-federal cooperation, fund detention and enforcement efforts, strengthen pretrial detention rules for unauthorized aliens, and end in-state tuition waivers for undocumented students. Senators Davis and Pizzo questioned enforcement mechanics, jurisdiction, bond procedures, and whether local agencies were actually mandated to participate; supporters said the bill was designed to maximize cooperation with federal authorities and the Trump administration. A late-filed amendment by Senator Pizzo to preserve tuition waivers for current students failed 14-22, and a second amendment was withdrawn after discussion. Debate then continued on the bill, with opponents arguing it was costly, federal in nature, and harmful to Dreamers and other students, while supporters said it was necessary to crack down on illegal immigration and align state policy with federal enforcement priorities.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:29:35.600> in now building out use cases in now building out use cases in cross-border
• use cases. use cases.
• use case. Let's say I'm ConocoPhillips. use case. Let's say I'm ConocoPhillips.
• use<00:55:47.520> cases.
• So, from an institutional use<00:55:51.640> case use case use case one<00:55:52.880> can

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The meeting opened with roll call, confirmation of a quorum, and approval of the April 6 and May 4 minutes, with minor corrections noted to the May minutes. The main presentation came from JD of Link Network, introduced by Dan Cohen, who described Link’s work with crypto.com and other market participants on tokenized money market funds and real-time settlement for institutional clients. JD gave a detailed history of his earlier work developing the Arca U.S. Treasury Fund and ArCoin, emphasizing that the project was built within existing SEC and 1940 Act frameworks and was intended to use blockchain technology for a traditional asset rather than create a crypto product. He said the effort involved years of discussions with the SEC, multiple custodians, and partners such as U.S. Bank, T-Zero Securities, and Tassat, and that the model eventually led to Link’s settlement system. He highlighted concerns that shaped the design, including regulatory compliance, privacy for institutional users, and the need to bridge traditional banking hours with 24/7 digital asset markets. The presentation also described Link’s features, including segregated and bankruptcy-remote fund structures, tokenized deposit and treasury fund settlement, and “yield in transit,” which allows interest to accrue and be distributed daily down to a two-second block. JD said the platform is being expanded for use cases such as exchange liquidity, cross-border capital movement, off-exchange collateral, stablecoin bridging, treasury management, and peer-to-peer settlement. He closed by posing policy questions for the commission about the use cases for stablecoins versus tokenized money market funds in New Hampshire and whether the state could issue or administer a security-based program with appropriate compliance controls.

Transcript Highlights:

• I know this isn't an admissions case, but the language in this case would apply in situations like that
• I know this isn't an admissions case, but the language in this case would apply in situations like that
• I know this isn't an admissions case, but the language in this case would apply in situations like that
• I know this isn't an admissions case, but the language in this case would apply in situations like that
• in this CA in that case would language in this CA in that case would apply<01:21:16.840> in<01

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then we still have a trigger in case of the human resources bill... ...a trigger in case of the human
• I looked at several case laws. I can go back and have my legal team do a one-page legal analysis.
• Well, yes, there's a long case law because...
• So in that case, if a child is in daycare and the... ...case, if a child is in daycare and the allegations
• Know that that'd be helpful for just clarification that's going to cover you in case of danger.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, in particular, we had a case within the past two years of a 78-year-old woman that it all started
• Um<00:07:13.680> these<00:07:14.400> cases<00:07:14.800> for<00:07:15.039> us
• Um, of the few dozen cases that data.
• . cases. cases.
• So a famous the main um main use cases.

Bills: HF3642, HF2700, HF3615

Keywords: virtual currency, kiosks, prohibition, customer payouts, cryptocurrency regulation, consumer privacy, data privacy, health data, sensitive data, Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act, personal data, data broker, targeted advertising, geofencing, location tracking, health care privacy, patient privacy, consent, minor privacy, children's privacy

Summary: The Commerce Finance and Policy Committee met on House File 3642, which would prohibit virtual currency kiosks in Minnesota. The bill was laid over, and the committee adopted a DE1 author’s amendment. Chair Kaggel and Representative Perryman described the measure as a response to widespread scams using crypto kiosks, especially against older adults and other vulnerable people, and said they would continue working with the Department of Commerce and other stakeholders. Testimony from law enforcement and advocates strongly supported the ban. A St. Cloud police sergeant and a Woodbury detective described cases in which victims lost large sums, said the current safeguards and refund rules are being bypassed, and argued that the kiosks are difficult to investigate because funds move quickly and often overseas. An AARP Minnesota volunteer also supported the bill, saying kiosks are a preferred tool for scammers and that existing protections have not kept pace with the problem. The Department of Commerce said it strongly supports the bill and reported that it has received 120 complaints over three years involving nearly $1 million in reported losses, with 2025 the worst year so far. The main opposition came from CoinFlip’s general counsel, who argued that the problem is fraud generally, not kiosks themselves, and said Minnesota already has consumer protections, including refunds for eligible victims. He urged stronger regulation rather than a ban, citing blockchain analytics, hold periods, and 24-hour customer service as alternatives. Committee members then asked questions about how long kiosks have operated in Minnesota, how many there are, who owns them, and the scale of losses; Commerce said there are hundreds statewide, operated by a variety of companies, and that reported losses are likely undercounts.

Transcript Highlights:

• That is not the case.
• That is not the case.
• That is not the case.
• That is not the case.
• That is not the case.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 749, which would require high schools to provide at least one hour of instruction on the nature and history of communism. The prime sponsor said the bill was prompted by concerns that students lack basic historical knowledge about communism and its effects, and argued that a short, flexible requirement could be embedded in an existing course without creating a new full class. He described communism as a totalitarian ideology and cited historical examples including the Soviet Union, Cambodia, Vietnam, the Cold War, and current events involving Russia, Ukraine, and Taiwan as reasons students should understand the topic. Members asked whether the subject is already covered in current social studies standards, whether one hour is enough, and whether the bill would apply to public, private, parochial, and charter schools. The sponsor said he did not believe communism is specifically required in current standards, that he would prefer a full course but was proposing a minimal requirement, and that he intended the bill to apply broadly to schools under the Department of Education’s umbrella, though he acknowledged the wording may need clarification for charter schools. He also said the proposal was both reactive and proactive, based on anecdotal concerns and his teaching experience. A second supporter testified that he was born in the Soviet Union and favored the bill, but suggested the instruction should emphasize critical thinking and explain both why communism can appeal to some people and why it can have harmful consequences. No vote or final committee action was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• They cannot be a victim in those cases.
• As the Supreme Court said in the landmark case Padilla v.
• Clients about the immigration consequences of the criminal case.
• And I feel like that is the case for some people in sex work, and in some cases folks love doing it,
• However, as we saw with the passage of the ADA, that is simply not the case.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a lengthy public hearing on a wide range of civil rights, immigration, hate crimes, and reparations bills. Chair Edwards and Chair Day opened with strict testimony rules, including two-minute limits, written testimony options, and decorum requirements. Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell testified in strong support of S. 1126/H. 1920, the Combating Hate in the Commonwealth bill, saying Massachusetts needs stronger tools to address rising hate and bias incidents. Her Civil Rights Division chief explained that the bill would give the division civil investigative demand/subpoena power, expand civil rights enforcement, close loopholes in the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, add protected classes to the hate crimes law, and require better hate-crime data reporting. The committee also heard support for H. 1954 on access to counsel in immigration proceedings, H. 4684 on law enforcement identification and public trust, and H. 1927 to exonerate individuals accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts. Several bills focused on discrimination and civil rights enforcement. Supporters of S. 1248 on organizational standing said fair housing nonprofits need explicit authority to bring discrimination complaints in their own names, especially as federal protections are under attack. On H. 1246, advocates urged adding sex and gender as protected classes in the hate crimes statute, arguing women are not protected under current state law. H. 1820 drew testimony for protections against height and weight discrimination. H. 1995 would regularize sentencing for hate crimes by requiring diversity awareness training for both convictions and continuances without a finding, and H. 1056/H. 1589 would broaden hate-crime victim standing and require restitution to be used to repair harm. H. 1886 would clarify that defense-based social service staff are exempt from mandated reporter obligations when working under attorney-client privilege. The committee also heard testimony on H. 1889/S. 1064, a bill to eliminate disparate impact. Environmental justice advocates, fair housing attorneys, and community members argued that neutral policies can still produce discriminatory outcomes and that Massachusetts should allow state-court claims and a private right of action to address them. Committee members raised concerns about litigation floodgates, punitive damages, and the scope of protected classes, while supporters said the bill would mainly target systemic harms and injunctive relief. Additional testimony supported H. 1922/S. 119, the Fair Investment Act, which would create civil rights protections in venture capital and other investment settings for founders and investors, especially women and minority entrepreneurs. The hearing also included testimony on H. 1683, the Sex Trade Survivor Act, which would expand vacatur and expungement relief for trafficking survivors, remove archaic offenses from the code, and create an interagency commission; supporters emphasized reducing barriers to housing, employment, and reentry. Finally, the committee heard extensive support for H. 1753/S. 1181, establishing a commission to study reparations in Massachusetts. Testifiers described the state’s history of slavery, redlining, and ongoing racial disparities, and urged the committee to report the bill favorably. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• all the cases that we're reviewing.
• They completed 252 cases and issued 42 referrals.
• The motion is setting that out in this case.
• In other cases, In other cases, we're just adopting one budget recommendation or another.
• Cases come our way whether we want them to or not.

Bills: HB1

Keywords: feed bill, legislative appropriations, legislative branch, New Mexico Legislature, general fund, legislative council service, legislative finance committee, legislative education study committee, house chief clerk, senate chief clerk, per diem, mileage, session expenses, interim committees, district staff, capitol complex, capital outlay data system, legislative processing system, redistricting, census redistricting

Transcript Highlights:

• That is the case.
• Um, in the case of a person who's self-employed, they would need to provide that.
• Um, in the case of a person who's self-employed, they would need to provide that.
• c><01:17:26.400> person<01:17:26.560> who's in the case of a person who's in the case of
• In the case of somebody who is um that.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, in the case of the Milani High School project, as Mr.
• How many cases do you get a year? About 400 cases a year.
• So they each have about 25 to 30 cases.
• 400<01:04:44.319> cases<01:04:44.799> a year about 400 cases a year about 400 cases
• sentence repeats in the department case sentence repeats in the department case they<01:20:49.080

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• >> used in either sense in that case. >> used in either sense in that case.
• And just uh in case introduced it.
• of that case. That's the bottom line. of that case. That's the bottom line.
• be thinking about every day in any case. be thinking about every day in any case.
• And we had a bill, some of some cases.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is not a case Or refusals to take specific actions.
• I'm talking based on an SJC statement on a decisive case.
• And that same case says it, at least the NBTA case. We'd like citation.
• I believe I have it. 430 Mass. 791, I believe, is the case.
• So, 780,000 cases. Okay. Honestly, that's helpful. And then, prior senators, we're...

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The subcommittee hearing focused on whether the Office of the State Auditor may constitutionally audit the Massachusetts Legislature under Chapter 250 of the Acts of 2024 and what such an audit could include under generally accepted government auditing standards. Chair Cindy Friedman opened by explaining the background: voters approved Ballot Question 1 in November 2024, the law took effect in January 2025, and the Auditor then initiated audits of both chambers. The chair said the subcommittee was seeking expert testimony because the proposed audit scope, constitutionality, and possible bias concerns remained unresolved. Public testimony was invited, but no members of the public pre-registered; written testimony remained open for a short period after the hearing. The hearing then proceeded with invited experts on constitutional law/state government and auditing-related issues. Professor Lawrence Friedman testified that the ballot initiative’s approval by the Attorney General and by voters did not resolve constitutional questions, and he argued Chapter 250 violates the Massachusetts Constitution. He said the Legislature has constitutional authority to set its own rules and manage its proceedings, and that an executive-branch audit would intrude on legislative deliberation, speech and debate protections, and separation of powers. He also warned that even audits of supposedly administrative matters could become a vehicle for repeated document demands and litigation that would indirectly burden legislative functioning. In questioning, senators pressed him on the line between administrative and deliberative functions, the role of the Attorney General versus the courts, the possibility of retroactive audit scope, and whether prior legislative consent to audits mattered; he said prior consent would not bind future legislatures and that constitutionality is ultimately for the courts. Professor Ray La Raja also opposed the audit, framing it as a threat to institutional independence and representative democracy. He argued that allowing an executive-branch official to audit the Legislature without consent would upset separation of powers, chill internal debate, and create a precedent for broader executive intrusion. He said voters often support “transparency” reforms without fully appreciating institutional consequences, and that legislatures should defend their autonomy, especially amid what he described as broader executive overreach nationally. Senators asked about chilling effects, the practical distinction between administrative and core legislative functions, and whether the courts or the Legislature should resolve the issue; he said the courts would ultimately adjudicate disputes, but the Legislature should not waive its constitutional authority lightly. Jean Kempthorne took the opposite view, arguing the audit is permissible and should proceed. She said the state auditor is a constitutional officer accountable directly to the people, that the audit power can be expanded by statute, and that separation of powers does not require watertight compartments. She contended the audit would not displace core legislative powers because the auditor can only evaluate operations, report findings, and make recommendations. She also argued the Legislature itself already conducts audits of other branches, so it is inconsistent to claim an audit of the Legislature is unconstitutional. In response to senators’ questions, she said there are guardrails against truly intrusive requests, but that the administrative-versus-legislative distinction is not a workable bright line; she suggested disputes should be handled case by case, with objections, negotiation, or litigation if specific requests go too far. No votes or formal actions were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The OSBI cold case team The OSBI cold case team consists of a small number of talented, dedicated, and
• There are approximately 446 cold case homicides on this team's radar and 56 cases involving missing and
• This team has helped resolve and bring closure to 98 cases since its, since its...
• Helped resolve and bring closure to 98 cases since its existence.
• When I went back to what I said earlier with farmers, that is the case.

Bills: SJR50, SJR51, SJR52, SJR53, SJR54, SJR39, SB1290, HB4028, HB4029, HB4073, HB4074, HB4075, HB4076, HB4077, HB4078, HB1250, HB2951, HB2961, HB3151, HB3581, HB3705, HB3970, HB3972, HB3980, HB3981

Keywords: Medicaid, federal funding, state law, healthcare, low-income adults, Oklahoma Constitution, healthcare regulations, Oklahoma Health Care Authority, permanent rules, joint resolution, OHCA, health care rules, administrative rules, major rule, Title 75, Title 317, Oklahoma Administrative Code, OAC 317:30, health policy, state health programs

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, prayer, pledges, and several floor recognitions, including the Doctor of the Day, Psychologist of the Day, and Nurse of the Day. Members also honored the OSBI Cold Case Team for its work on unsolved cases, recognized the 75th anniversary of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and welcomed guests for the Prague-Kolache Festival. The chamber then moved into floor action on multiple measures and conference motions. The most significant item was Senate Joint Resolution 39, a property tax constitutional amendment. After extensive debate over the impact on homeowners, seniors, farmers, schools, local governments, and future revenue, the Senate adopted House amendments by a 27-19 roll call and then passed the resolution 40-8. However, the motion to order a special election failed 26-20, so the measure did not advance to a special election call. Senators also rejected House amendments to Senate Bill 2 and Senate Bill 215 and requested conference on both. The Senate passed Senate Bill 1290 unanimously as an emergency measure, and advanced or passed several House bills dealing with ARPA and funding reallocations: HB 4028, HB 4029, HB 4073, HB 4074, HB 4075, HB 4076, HB 4077, and HB 4078. Other approved measures included HB 1250 creating a Public Safety Technology Revolving Fund for local law enforcement grants, HB 2951 renaming Red Rock Prison as the Chief James Smith Correctional Center, HB 2961 creating a Gold Star Survivor tuition benefit, HB 3151 extending the school year to 173 days, and HB 3581 increasing penalties for riot-related offenses. The Senate also took up HB 3705, which would raise the Parental Choice tax credit cap from $250 million to $275 million, but the transcript cuts off during questioning on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• cases that have previously<00:03:02.959> gone<00:03:03.200> unprosecuted.
• It establishes a post- disaster cases.
• is that by the time enough reports case is that by the time enough reports got<00:05:03.440> to
• , what we've seen in a lot of these cases, what we've seen in a lot of these cases, particularly<
• So what it does moving these cases in.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00 Call to Order and Roll Call 00:29 Discussion SB 153 01:25 Vote SB 153 10:35 Discussion SB 118 11:36 Vote SB 118 12:48 Discussion HB 380 13:40 Vote HB 380 40:12, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Banking and Insurance met with a quorum and took up three bills. Senate Bill 153, sponsored by Sen. Greg Elkins, aimed to combat insurance fraud tied to post-disaster contractor scams. Testimony from the Attorney General’s Office and committee members described problems involving roofing, siding, and debris-removal scams, including vandalism used to create claims and companies that disappear before victims can recover losses. The bill would expand enforcement tools by making certain vandalism-related conduct criminal, giving the Attorney General concurrent jurisdiction with local prosecutors, creating a post-disaster contractor registry, and banning door-to-door solicitation during declared emergencies. The committee approved the bill by roll call and sent it forward with a favorable recommendation. Senate Bill 118, sponsored by Sen. Brandon Storm, addressed credit property insurance offered by consumer loan companies. The sponsor and a representative of the Kentucky Consumer Finance Association explained that the product has been offered for years and that the bill would provide statutory authority for its continued use. The committee raised no substantive objections, and the bill passed on a roll call vote with a favorable recommendation. House Bill 380, sponsored by Rep. Tom Smith, focused on regulating cryptocurrency kiosks in convenience stores to curb fraud against seniors. The committee heard emotional testimony from a sheriff and a fraud victim describing scams that led victims to deposit cash into crypto kiosks, often under pressure from callers posing as authorities or relatives. AARP Kentucky supported the bill, citing widespread losses to older adults and the need for guardrails. A committee substitute was adopted that would cap daily transactions at $2,000, require fee disclosure and customer consent, impose licensing and compliance requirements, mandate identification for transactions, and add criminal penalties and Attorney General enforcement. Members discussed the bill’s scope, including that it would not address gift card scams, and noted the delayed effective date was requested so regulators could write rules. The committee adopted the substitute and then passed the bill favorably on roll call.

Transcript Highlights:

• I know of no cases of a Bigfoot being found in the state of Texas.
• In this case... So there are all these...
• But this safety is an... ...always the case.
• But that's not the case. It was a bathroom bill over and over again.
• Media reports indicated that in most or all cases...

Bills: HB7, SB 8, HB7, SB 8

Keywords: abortion, healthcare, jurisdiction, civil action, qui tam, prohibition, state law, sex designation, restroom access, civil penalties, private civil right of action, women's privacy, 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They make a really good case that there's fraud. Great presentation.
• They already send cases there today.
• They already send those cases that they find to the Office of Elections and Crimes.
• They will be so inundated with election fraud cases that are simply... ...with election fraud cases that
• My mom now actually falls into this category, but that wasn't the case a few years ago.

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a series of member introductions recognizing interns, pages, volunteers, and the retirement of Pastor Gary Austin from the sergeant’s office. Leadership also announced that budget talks with the House were continuing and that senators would not need to plan on being in next week, suggesting progress toward a budget framework. After routine floor business, the chamber took up a major third-reading measure on citizen initiatives and several education bills, followed later by returning messages from the House on health and school-safety measures. The most extensive debate centered on the citizen initiative bill, which sponsors said was intended to protect the constitutional amendment process from fraud and abuse based on election-crime investigations and a large state report on petition fraud. Supporters argued the bill would add reasonable guardrails, prevent misuse of public funds, and preserve integrity while still allowing grassroots participation. Opponents from both parties argued it would make citizen-led amendments much harder by adding costs, deadlines, criminal penalties, and administrative burdens that would chill participation and favor wealthy or corporate interests. After lengthy debate, the Senate voted 28-10 to pass the bill. The chamber then passed several education measures with little or no opposition, including bills tied to Bright Futures, dual enrollment, Florida ABLE, teacher preparation, and other education policy updates, all by 38-0. Later, the Senate concurred in House amendments on a stem cell therapy bill, an EKG requirement for student athletes, and a cardiac emergency bill, each passing 37-0. The House also sent back a school safety bill with amendments affecting child care facility partnerships with law enforcement, temporary door locks during active assailant incidents, supervision windows, and funding for panic alarm systems; the transcript ends as that bill is being explained.

Transcript Highlights:

• Unfortunately, that is not the case here in California.
• Years, it ramped up to around $4 billion a year, in some cases five.
• It's something you have to come back in many cases every five or seven years to redo.
• I’d love to be convinced differently if that’s the case.
• In some cases, we're pretty far along, have done the planning.

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee No. 4 hearing focused on the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and cap-and-trade reauthorization, with members and panelists discussing how to balance climate goals, affordability, and legislative oversight. The chair emphasized the hearing as a broad review of past GGRF spending and future options, while the LAO outlined how GGRF revenues are generated, how variable they have been, and the tradeoffs between continuous appropriations and annual budget control. Two academic panelists, Dr. Kyle Meng and Danny Cullen Ward, argued that cap-and-trade remains an effective climate policy, but stressed that future revenue will depend heavily on market design, allowance allocation, and price levels. They also raised the idea that GGRF could be used more directly for affordability, especially by lowering electricity costs, and for targeted investments in technologies that the market would not otherwise support. Committee members pressed the panelists on where revenues come from, how much has actually been spent, and whether continuous appropriations reduce oversight. CARB staff said more than $33 billion has been generated to date and a little over $11–12 billion has been spent, with the rest committed or in process, and noted that project timelines can be lengthy. Members also asked about ways to lower electricity rates, reduce wildfire-related utility liabilities, and support electrification. The panelists said transportation fuels are the largest source of GGRF revenue, that industrial emitters receive a smaller share of free allowances, and that reducing wildfire liability and investing in grid-scale batteries could help lower costs and speed decarbonization. Public commenters largely urged the Legislature to preserve or expand continuous appropriations for specific climate programs. Speakers supported funding for nature-based solutions, natural and working lands, urban greening, agricultural climate solutions, waste and composting programs, clean transportation, AB 617 community air protection, clean cars, transit, affordable housing near transit, and dairy digesters. Several groups argued these programs are cost-effective, provide public health and affordability benefits, and should receive dedicated shares of GGRF. Others urged reducing free allowances and using more GGRF revenue to directly lower energy costs for households. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think it depends on a on a case by case situation.
• I am here just to be as a resource in case you have any questions.
• Let's survey the type of cases this bill would shield from liability.
• And in this case we're putting gun owners. I myself as a father, as a gun owner.
• The jurors in this case are completely hamstrung by the current statute and how it's written.