Transcript Highlights:

• I'd like to welcome everyone to the hearing of the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials
• They certainly have some real risks associated with them when they're not properly managed.
• regards to certain e-bike batteries because of the risk of ignition and explosion.
• And working in these refineries as an environmental engineer, there's two phases here.
• And, you know, they all have full environmental groups.

Committee: House Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

Transcript Highlights:

• Refiners, and also in terms of pegging them at high risk for leakage.
• It feels like the leakage risk is getting worse.
• It's important because it affects environmental ambition.
• It's an effective way to mitigate leakage risk.
• So low risk on the manipulation side, but not necessarily.

Committee: House Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Summary: The Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policy heard an overview from CARB on proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, which was reauthorized through 2045 by AB 1207 and SB 840. CARB said the draft rules are intended to preserve affordability, market certainty, and progress toward the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets. The agency described the program’s main features, including the declining emissions cap, utility and industrial allowance allocations, offset changes, the allowance price containment reserve, and new reporting and oversight requirements. CARB also said the rulemaking is on a public comment timeline, with board consideration planned for late May and an effective date targeted for September 1, 2026. Committee members focused heavily on electricity affordability, the planned shift of free allowances from natural gas utilities to electric utilities, and whether the proposal would raise rates for investor-owned and publicly owned utilities. CARB said the proposal is meant to protect ratepayers from compliance costs and that the utility allocation is based on updated data showing utilities are greener than before, but members and utility representatives argued the transition should happen faster and that the current draft could reduce expected revenues and disrupt long-term planning. Members also pressed CARB on carbon capture and sequestration, asking that the regulations clearly recognize it as a compliance pathway, and on whether the SB 905 rulemaking for carbon capture should move forward on schedule. A second major topic was industrial allocations, especially for refiners and other sectors at risk of leakage. CARB said it is keeping all industries at high leakage risk through 2030, maintaining the current cap-adjustment approach, and leaving room for additional comments and data on whether refiners need more allowances to avoid economic leakage and preserve in-state refining. Members also questioned how imported gasoline is treated, and CARB explained that transportation fuel is regulated at the rack and through the low-carbon fuel standard, while cap-and-invest covers in-state tailpipe and smokestack emissions rather than full life-cycle emissions. CARB said it is open to using additional data, including SB 253 reporting, to improve fuel carbon-intensity estimates. The panel of outside experts largely agreed that the program must balance affordability, ambition, and leakage concerns, but they differed on how much allowance value should go to utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The Legislative Analyst’s Office emphasized that the Legislature should scrutinize CARB’s allocation choices now because they will be hard to change later. An IEMAC representative said the proposal appears to shift more allowance value to industry and utilities, which could reduce GGRF revenues, while EDF argued the cap could be tightened further in the near term without triggering price containment. SCAPA, representing publicly owned utilities, warned that the proposal would reduce utility allowances and could raise costs for ratepayers and undermine early decarbonization investments. No votes were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:39:25.040><c> risks</c><00:39:25.359><c> and</c> to mitigate the environmental risks and to mitigate
• the environmental risks and safety<00:39:25.839><c> risks.
• </c> safety risks. safety risks.
• . environmental. environmental.
• </c> environmental risks? environmental risks?

Summary: The House Special Committee on Red Hill held an informational briefing at the State Capitol focused on updates from the Navy Closure Task Force Red Hill and NAVFAC Hawaii. Members and Navy officials opened by noting the meeting format, providing public links to tank closure supplement 4 and environmental remediation resources, and thanking Admiral Barnett for attending before his transition. The Navy emphasized that the Red Hill closure effort and the PFAS/PAS environmental remediation effort are separate but coordinated, and that both are long-term undertakings. For the closure effort, Navy officials reported progress on tank cleaning, ventilation, sludge removal, groundwater monitoring, and preparation for pipeline removal. They said supplement 4 to the tank closure plan was submitted in May and outlines the overall closure strategy, post-closure monitoring, and the decision to proceed with closure rather than wait for beneficial reuse decisions. They described completed ventilation of tanks 3 through 8, the start of tank 2 ventilation, removal of 283 gallons of sludge from the first six tanks, and plans to begin pipeline pigging and removal later this year. Officials also said all sludge samples tested so far were non-hazardous and that air monitoring has not shown elevated volatile organic readings during operations. NAVFAC Hawaii then outlined the PFAS/PAS remedial investigation under CERCLA, explaining the cleanup process, the nature of PFAS, and the role of aqueous film-forming foam as a source. The presentation said the Navy began investigating PFAS releases in 2014-2015, that the 2021 Red Hill fuel release led directly into remedial investigation work, and that current activities include quarterly groundwater sampling at 42 monitoring wells, installation of new shallow and deep wells, soil sampling where exceedances were found, fate-and-transport modeling, and human health risk assessments. Officials said data are publicly available on the Red Hill environmental website and that the next restoration advisory board meeting is scheduled for August 27. The Navy also gave a water resiliency update, saying it is upgrading the joint base drinking water system with pump, tank, and cybersecurity improvements and is installing treatment systems for the inactive Navy Aiea and Red Hill shafts ahead of EPA drinking water standards taking effect in 2029. No votes or formal committee actions were taken, as the meeting was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate Committee on Environmental Quality is now in order.
• SB 1375 keeps all other environmental laws, permits, and community commitments Keeps all other environmental
• This turns permitting into a high-risk process.
• That also poses a huge fire risk today, so we’re reducing our fire risk when we do reconductoring.
• Alex Lumer, on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund, the Pacific Forest Trust, the Environmental

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> with much weaker environmental with much weaker environmental standards,<04:36:29.119><c> which<
• </c> without sacrificing environmental without sacrificing environmental protections.<04:41:05.840><c
• </c> pressure off of state environmental pressure off of state environmental regulators.<04:45:21.440
• As a lung about real health risks.
• </c> relating to review by the Environmental relating to review by the Environmental Protection<05:09

Transcript Highlights:

• So next we'll move on to environmental justice.
• This requirement could mean a standalone environmental justice element, or environmental justice can
• The California Environmental Protection Agency, CalEPA, uses the California Communities Environmental
• burdens. ...those spatial environmental burdens.
• environmental impacts, and the goal of CEQA review is to inform the public about these environmental

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

Transcript Highlights:

• It feels like the leakage risk is getting worse.
• It's important because it affects environmental ambition.
• It's an effective way to mitigate leakage risk.
• I'm the California Senior Director for Environmental Defense Fund.
• So low risk on the manipulation side, but not necessarily.

Committee: Senate Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Summary: The committee heard an overview of CARB’s proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, implemented under AB 1207 and SB 840 after last year’s reauthorization through 2045. CARB said the draft rule changes are intended to support affordability, market certainty, and the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets, while also addressing offsets, utility allowance transfers, leakage protections for industry, and post-2030 allowance budgets. Members emphasized the importance of completing the rulemaking on schedule this spring so the changes can take effect by September 1, 2026. A major focus was how allowances are allocated among electric utilities, natural gas utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. CARB explained that the proposal transfers natural gas utility allowances to electric utilities over time to support electrification and ratepayer protection, while maintaining free allowances for industry to reduce leakage risk and preserve in-state manufacturing and refining. Several members and panelists questioned whether the proposed utility changes could raise rates, whether the transition from gas to electric credits should happen faster, and whether the industrial allocation changes reduce climate credit and GGRF revenues more than necessary. CARB and panelists said they were open to additional data and comments, and noted that the proposal is still in public comment. The committee also discussed carbon capture, carbon removal, and refining. Members asked CARB to ensure that CCUS and CDR are clearly recognized as viable compliance pathways and to keep SB 905 rulemaking on track. On refining, members raised concerns about imported gasoline, leakage, and the need for better data on the carbon intensity of imported fuels; CARB said cap-and-invest applies to fuel suppliers at the rack, while life-cycle accounting issues are handled more through the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and related modeling. CARB said it is continuing technical work on those data tools. In the second panel, the LAO, IEMAC, EDF, and SCAPA representatives generally agreed that the program faces real tradeoffs between affordability, ambition, and leakage protection. The LAO and IEMAC stressed that the Legislature should scrutinize how CARB divides the allowance “pie,” since more free allocations to utilities or industry mean less revenue for GGRF. EDF argued the program could be somewhat more ambitious in the near term without harming affordability, while SCAPA said the proposal would reduce allowances for publicly owned utilities and could undermine early decarbonization investments and ratepayer benefits. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The risk assessment...
• The risk assessment...
• The risk assessment...
• The risk assessment...
• The risk assessment...

Committee: House Agriculture

Summary: The meeting focused on the use of biosolids on farm and ranch land, with testimony from Oklahoma State University experts, a conservation official, and an engineering representative about the benefits, risks, and regulatory implications. Dr. Lusk described OSU’s long history of soil fertility research and said biosolids can provide nutrients and organic matter, but also may carry contaminants such as PFAS, heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, microplastics, and pathogens. He emphasized that many questions remain unanswered, especially about contaminant uptake into soil, crops, livestock, and humans, and said existing EPA and Oklahoma DEQ regulations address some treatment and application standards but may not fully cover PFAS. Dr. Arnell expanded on nutrient management, explaining that biosolids can function similarly to manure as a fertilizer source, especially for nitrogen and phosphorus, but should be tested, incorporated into soil, and applied under permit conditions to reduce runoff and other losses. He said PFAS testing methods are not yet standardized and that more research is needed to determine sampling protocols, movement in soil, and long-term effects. Committee members asked whether farmers and ranchers should be notified of risks, whether PFAS is currently tested, how many counties use biosolids, and what research would be needed for a dissertation-level study. The witnesses generally agreed that landowners should be informed of known risks and uncertainties, but said the science is still developing. Dr. Arnell said a unified testing method is needed before reliable PFAS monitoring can be done, and suggested that a multi-year study would be required to understand soil movement, crop uptake, and livestock impacts. Greg Scott of the Oklahoma Conservation Commission framed the issue as a waste-management problem, noting that human waste streams contain contaminants and that soil type affects how pollutants move; he said sandy soils pose greater movement risks than clay soils and that current best practice is incorporation, careful timing, and avoiding steep or sensitive sites. He also said PFAS are widespread and not naturally occurring in the way some other compounds are, and that liability and cleanup costs are major concerns. Mary Elizabeth Mock of Garver Engineering focused on the practical and financial consequences of a possible moratorium on land application, saying most of Oklahoma’s biosolids are currently land applied and would otherwise have to go to landfills. She warned that many landfills are nearing capacity, tipping fees could rise sharply, and cities such as Tulsa and Norman could face large increases in disposal costs, which would ultimately be borne by ratepayers and taxpayers. She also said septic system maintenance costs could rise if land application options shrink, potentially leading to deferred maintenance and system failures. Mock urged a tiered, data-driven approach to PFAS regulation and said advanced treatment technologies may help in the future, but they are still emerging and expensive. No votes were taken; the session consisted of presentations and member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• It feels like the leakage risk is getting worse.
• How has leakage risk changed for them in particular?
• factor... ...has 100% leakage risk.
• It's an effective way to mitigate leakage risk.
• So low risk on the manipulation side, but not necessarily... ...low risk on the manipulation side, but

Committee: Senate Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Transcript Highlights:

• The other is environmental impact.
• Christopher Gabbledg, Metropolitan's principal environmental specialist. Mr.
• Projects must comply with all of the environmental laws that are out there.
• I believe it's still designated as a very high-fire-risk hazard zone.
• Marquis King Mason, California Environmental Voters, in support.

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:

• Um, and it won't change the risk.
• Um, and it won't change the risk.
• Um, and it won't change the risk.
• Um, and it won't change the risk.
• Um, and it won't change the risk.

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 94, which would prohibit municipal amendments to the state building code and move New Hampshire toward a more uniform statewide code. Senator McConi and several supporters, including the Josiah Barlo Center for Public Policy, the State Fire Marshal, the Associated General Contractors of New Hampshire, and the New Hampshire Homebuilders Association, argued that local variations create confusion, raise housing costs, and make compliance harder for builders operating in multiple towns. The Fire Marshal said the goal is a single state building and fire code with only limited administrative amendments at the local level, not technical changes, and noted that municipalities could still seek exceptions through the Building Code Review Board if needed. The chair explained that a similar House bill was already moving forward with fire code and administrative amendment language, and members agreed that retaining SB 94 would avoid conflicting bills. The committee then voted to retain SB 94 by roll call, 13-0, with no minority report. The committee then took up Senate Bill 30, which would designate the Virginia opossum as New Hampshire’s state marsupial. Senator Fenton presented the bill as a light-hearted measure inspired by Chesterfield School fourth graders, who had submitted written testimony and supported the idea. Members discussed the bill in a humorous but mostly supportive way, with one member objecting that it trivialized the legislature, while others said it could help engage students in the legislative process. The committee voted ought to pass on SB 30, 11-2, and agreed to place it on consent with no minority report. Later, the committee opened a hearing on Senate Bill 95, concerning youth camp cabins and state fire/building codes. Senator McConi said the bill would exempt new residential cabins in youth recreation camps from sprinkler requirements and allow them to omit electrical, mechanical, or plumbing systems, while requiring any such systems that are present to comply with state code. He said the measure was intended to resolve recurring interpretation problems that have caused expense and uncertainty for camp owners, and he praised work with the Fire Marshal’s office to reach a workable compromise. Representative Schmidt asked about cabin sizes and whether larger cabins with multiple occupants would still be safe; the senator explained that camps typically use counselors, drills, and supervision, and that the people behind him could answer more detailed questions. The transcript cuts off before the hearing concludes or any vote is taken on SB 95.

Transcript Highlights:

• Health, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Environmental Defense Center
• These extremely low population numbers put Western monarchs at serious risk.
• Without action, we risk losing more than habitat.
• The result is a misalignment between risk and resources.
• This is environmental reparations.

Summary: The committee heard several bills and one resolution focused on recycling, housing affordability, air quality, coastal protection, wildfire resilience, and nuclear policy. AB 2559, by Assembly Member Ward, would require local governments to return refundable construction and demolition permit deposits if compliance documentation is submitted within three years of final inspection; supporters said it would prevent homeowners and developers from losing deposits due to mismatched local deadlines, and it passed unanimously as amended to Appropriations. AB 1704, by Assembly Member Gonzalez, would require CARB to assess the cost of lower-embodied-carbon building materials and pause the embodied-carbon program if cost parity is not reached; supporters framed it as a housing affordability safeguard, while environmental groups argued it would delay implementation of a key climate law. The bill passed on a party-line vote to Appropriations. AB 2349, by Assembly Member Solache, would create regional air quality incident response centers for emergency monitoring and coordination; it drew strong support from air district and local government representatives and passed unanimously to Appropriations. ACR 149, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the California Coastal Act and Coastal Conservancy, highlighted coastal access, habitat protection, and climate adaptation; it passed the committee, though some members voted no. AB 1960, by Assembly Member Bennett, would let Cal Fire fund community-level wildfire hardening projects through the Wildfire Prevention Grants Fund; members raised questions about funding and implementation, but it passed to Appropriations. AB 2254, the Coastal Monarchs Protection Act, would require coastal local governments to add monarch overwintering protections when updating local coastal plans; supporters cited steep monarch declines and economic benefits, while local government groups opposed the mandate as duplicative and burdensome, and it passed to Water, Parks and Wildlife. AB 2253 would restrict deceptive recycled-content claims and mass-balance accounting practices; supporters said it would protect consumers and real recyclers, while business groups argued it would conflict with recognized accounting systems and EPR programs. The transcript also included AB 1757, which would create a limited carve-out from California’s nuclear moratorium for microreactors; supporters said it could provide clean, local power and support data centers, while opponents warned of cost, waste, and safety risks. The committee ultimately rejected AB 1757 on a divided vote, then granted reconsideration, and the discussion continued without a final action shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> NEPA, the most litigated environmental NEPA, the most litigated environmental law<00:54:29.040><
• </c> for inadequate environmental review. for inadequate environmental review.
• </c><01:26:57.120><c> and</c> course countless environmental and course countless environmental and environmental
• </c> the environmental analysis should go. the environmental analysis should go.
• And those risks come from nation.

Transcript Highlights:

• right now for utilities: bankruptcy risk.
• , and Environmental Defense Fund.
• , and Environmental Defense Fund.
• , where the environmental delta is, as I understand it, very narrow.
• We'd like to highlight that it creates some risks.

Summary: The committee first heard SB 804, the Hydrogen Pipeline Safety Act, from Senator Arreguín. He said the bill would designate the State Fire Marshal as the safety regulator for intrastate hydrogen pipelines and require hydrogen-specific standards, while not mandating any pipeline construction or bypassing environmental review. Supporters included labor groups, utility employees, and the City of Burbank, while Air Products opposed unless amended, citing concerns about the bill’s specificity, fee structure, and the need for a hydrogen-specific rulemaking process. The committee discussed safety, fees, and regulatory certainty, and later passed SB 804 on a 9-0 vote to Emergency Management with commitment to take amendments. The committee then took up SB 905 by Senator Becker, aimed at reducing electricity rates by changing utility incentives. The bill would tie part of executive compensation to keeping rates below inflation, require more performance metrics, and allow the CPUC to consider lower returns on equity for certain lower-risk investments and alternative financing options. Support came from consumer, environmental, agricultural, and large energy user groups, while Southern California Edison, CalChamber, PG&E, and utility labor groups raised concerns that the bill could reduce investment, create regulatory uncertainty, and raise borrowing costs. After extensive discussion about utility affordability, wildfire costs, and capital markets, the committee passed SB 905 on a 7-1 vote to Appropriations. SB 913, also by Senator Becker, would create a clearer pathway for distributed energy resources such as batteries and smart thermostats to participate in the resource adequacy market and compete with utility-scale resources. Supporters said the bill would better use existing grid capacity, lower costs, and build on the state’s Demand Side Grid Support Program; PG&E opposed unless amended, saying the use case was not yet proven and was already being addressed in other rulemakings. After the committee accepted amendments, one opposition group moved to neutral and another said it might do so after reviewing the changes. The bill passed 8-0 to Appropriations and was placed on call. Several other measures were heard and advanced, including SB 1196 on faster utility hookups for small energization projects such as ADUs and EV chargers, SB 931 reauthorizing the Diablo Canyon Essential Services Mitigation Fund through 2028, SB 1158 reducing the frequency of joint reliability assessments from quarterly to twice yearly, and SB 1245 directing further study of California’s gasoline market and potential use of non-CARBOB fuel during supply disruptions. SB 1196 and SB 931 both passed with broad support and no opposition after amendments, SB 1158 passed without testimony, and SB 1245 drew strong support from consumer and environmental advocates but opposition from fuel industry and business groups concerned about costs, confidentiality, and fuel standards.

Transcript Highlights:

• Fund, the Environmental Law Foundation, the Environmental Protection Information Center, the Natural
• , the Environmental Law Foundation, the Environmental Protection Information Center, the Natural Resources
• Last, streamlining permitting and environmental review for recharge runs the potential risk of contributing
• Permitting and environmental review for recharge runs the potential risk of contributing to further groundwater
• AB 1436 needlessly puts this momentum at risk.

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on AB 2218, which would declare state policy to recognize and address water-related inequities affecting California Native American tribes and require several state agencies to incorporate that policy into water-related decisions. The author and tribal witnesses said the bill would codify a seat at the table for tribes and build on existing consultation and equity commitments, while supporters from environmental and tribal organizations backed the measure. Opponents from municipal utilities, water agencies, cities, counties, agriculture, and business groups argued the bill was too vague, could create uncertainty for water supply and project approvals, and might invite litigation. The chair signaled support, and the author said the bill was intended as a consultation measure rather than one that would usurp agency authority. The committee then took up AB 1795, a wildfire smoke-damage bill that would establish statewide standards for inspecting, testing, and remediating smoke-damaged homes and create clearer insurance claim handling rules. The Department of Insurance supported the bill, saying it would bring consistency and accountability after major urban-interface fires, while wildfire survivors and advocates said current insurer practices leave families unable to safely return home. Insurance and local government groups opposed unless amended, warning about cost, implementation uncertainty, and the bill’s scope. Members discussed unresolved issues, including how the bill would interact with a separate wildfire health-and-safety bill, whether it would apply to existing policies, and how presumptions and testing standards should work. The committee voted AB 1795 out on a due pass as amended motion to Appropriations. AB 1642, another wildfire-related bill, was also heard and focused on setting science-based testing and clearance standards for homes, schools, and businesses after urban and wildland-urban interface fires. The author and a Caltech scientist described contamination from lead and other heavy metals in fire-affected homes and argued for a presumption that certain contaminants found after a fire came from the wildfire, to reduce costly disputes. Survivors and many advocacy groups supported the bill, while insurers and other industry groups opposed, saying the testing regime was too broad, the geographic scope was unclear, and the presumptions could function like strict liability and raise insurance costs. Senators pressed both sides on how AB 1642 would overlap with the CDI smoke-claims task force and with AB 1795, and the author said the two bills were intended to be complementary and would continue to be reconciled. The committee also briefly heard AB 1976, which would create a CEQA exemption for pedestrian malls and limit certain local procedural delays for pedestrian and traffic-calming projects. Supporters said it would make it easier to create safer, more walkable, and more livable streets, and there was no opposition testimony. The chair described it as a narrow CEQA exemption for active transportation-related projects and indicated support. The committee then moved on to AB 2026, a groundwater recharge permitting bill, with the author explaining that it would streamline permitting so more recharge projects can capture floodwater and store it for drought years; testimony on that bill began as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so that's what our focus is at the Environmental Protection Agency.
• risks.
• So at DTSC, we address the past... ...and environmental protection.
• So our Board of Environmental Safety, because our Board of Environmental Safety,... proposals, and I'm
• So our Board of Environmental Safety, because our Board of Environmental Safety, And they have the honor

Transcript Highlights:

• We're trying to solve an the implied risk.
• I think there's an implied risk that we're trying to protect people from. What is that risk?
• >> Yes, you may come as a Chair Department of Environmental Protection takes in the complaints.
• I will ask the Department of Environmental Protection how they are going to. >> Yes.
• What our potential public health risks around that.

Transcript Highlights:

• A lot of what we've done in the past has created environmental harms.
• The AI risk assessment piece is really to be focused on high-risk projects that would include those that
• , especially high-risk generative AI processes.
• We are an environmental justice coalition helping advance this policy.
• We have a master's... benefits beyond just the direct environmental benefits as well.

Summary: The committee first waived the five-day notice rule for several House bills, then took up public hearings on HB 2426, HB 1742, HB 2215, HB 2575, HB 1903, and HB 2606. HB 2426 would allow the Pollution Control Hearings Board, with party consent and board approval, to hear permit appeals in alternative smaller compositions to improve efficiency; the sponsor and supporters from Greater Grays Harbor and FutureWise said it would speed up reviews without harming environmental protections, while the bill was described as cost-neutral. HB 1742 would create a Center for Environmentally Sustainable Urban Design at Ecology to promote sustainable building and design competitions; the sponsor emphasized regenerative, biophilic design and a proposed showcase project, and the bill was presented as budget-neutral through outside funding, though the fiscal note was still pending. HB 2215 would tighten Climate Commitment Act compliance for certain newer fuel suppliers by lowering the emissions threshold for post-2023 suppliers, exempt lubricants, and add procurement and transparency requirements. The sponsor said the bill targets “paper distributors” and loopholes used to avoid coverage; Ecology supported closing the loophole but raised concerns about reporting thresholds, implementation, staffing, and rulemaking. Testimony was mixed: the propane association and Washington Oil Marketers Association were concerned about the two-tier threshold and urged stronger upstream enforcement instead, while Climate Solutions and Washington Conservation Action supported the bill as a way to prevent gaming and strengthen climate policy. HB 2575 would reduce several environmental and energy reporting obligations, including less frequent utility reporting under the Energy Independence Act and state energy strategy updates; Commerce and the sponsor said the changes would reduce duplicative reporting and save money, while preserving core protections and oversight. HB 1903 would establish a statewide low-income energy assistance program in the Department of Commerce, phased in by 2027, to supplement existing utility programs and target households with the greatest energy burden. The sponsor and many advocates described the bill as an affordability measure to address a large unmet need, while community action agencies, utilities, and rural representatives supported the goal but asked for clearer language on voluntary utility participation, funding sources, allocation formulas, and how the program would interact with existing utility and weatherization efforts. Several speakers stressed that the program should not replace local assistance and should be designed to avoid shifting costs onto ratepayers. HB 2606 would update the Office of Privacy and Data Protection’s duties and reporting requirements, including adding review of agency AI projects and aligning the office’s work with JLARC recommendations; the chief privacy officer testified in support, explaining that the bill would formalize AI risk review, human oversight, and existing privacy/security review processes, with no fiscal impact. No votes were taken on the bills during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters, in strong support.
• So they're insuring future risk.
• It's supported by environmental leaders, including EDF, NRDC, Cal Environmental Voters, and the Sierra
• Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters, in strong support.
• I think there's a lot of risk with this.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy first heard SB 254, a major utility affordability and wildfire-liability package authored by Senator Becker and coauthored by Assembly Member Petrie-Norris. The bill combines wildfire mitigation oversight, $6 billion in securitized financing for future fire-mitigation capital work, a public ownership/transmission accelerator program, tighter scrutiny of utility profits, clean energy permitting streamlining, and a successor wildfire fund to replace the current fund after the January Southern California fires. Supporters, including the Governor’s office, TURN, labor, clean energy groups, utilities, and fire victim advocates, said the measure would lower bills, stabilize utilities, protect victims, and speed grid upgrades. Opponents from large energy users and agricultural interests argued the bill did not go far enough on affordability and that the wildfire fund’s volumetric charge would disproportionately burden business customers; counties also raised local-control concerns about permitting provisions. Committee members focused heavily on the wildfire fund structure, the role of ratepayers versus shareholders, and whether the bill creates enough incentive for utilities to reduce future wildfire risk. Authors and supporters said California’s inverse condemnation framework leaves ratepayers exposed without a fund, that the new continuation account would be split roughly 50/50 between ratepayers and shareholders, and that the bill includes a report on long-term sustainability. Members also discussed the clean energy permitting provisions and local consultation, with authors emphasizing that local land-use review and consultation remain in place. The committee then voted 16-0 to pass SB 254 to the floor. The hearing then shifted to an informational hearing on AB 825, which would enable California to participate in a West-wide electricity market. The authors and supporters said the regional market could save ratepayers up to $1 billion annually, improve reliability by widening access to wind and solar across the West, reduce curtailment, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Support came from environmental groups, labor, utilities, community choice aggregators, large energy users, and business groups. TURN opposed the measure, warning that last-minute changes removed safeguards against California ratepayers subsidizing out-of-state coal plants and other costly fossil generation. Committee discussion on AB 825 centered on governance, exit rights, and legislative oversight. The authors described safeguards including market rules protecting California policies, consumer advocacy and market monitoring requirements, annual reporting to the Legislature, a delayed 2028 start date, and the ability for California or other members to exit without penalties. Members also raised concerns about the CPUC’s constitutional independence and local consultation, but the authors said the bill preserves local input and gives the Legislature ongoing oversight. No vote was taken because the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy will come to order
• And so that's what our focus is at the Environmental Protection Agency.
• risks.
• And environmental protection.
• One of the biggest policy levers to reverse environmental injustices.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy heard budget overviews and several budget change proposals from CalRecycle, CalEPA, and DTSC. CalRecycle outlined its proposed 2026-27 budget of 987 positions and $1.9 billion, and members focused on edible food recovery funding under SB 1383, beverage container recycling fees and infrastructure under SB 1013, plastic packaging reduction under SB 54, and composting implementation under SB 279. CalRecycle said edible food recovery has recovered more than 300 million meals but lacks ongoing funding, explained that beverage container processing fees are set by statute and reflect higher recycling costs for difficult-to-recycle materials, and noted that SB 54 implementation will include a pollution prevention mitigation fund for legacy plastic cleanup. The committee also discussed the need for more composting capacity and the role of volunteer cleanup groups, while public commenters urged continued funding for food recovery, composting, and landfill response. CalEPA presented its department overview and a proposal to strengthen landfill response and enforcement, emphasizing climate, air quality, water, and cleanup priorities. Secretary Garcia described the agency’s work on methane monitoring, toxics reduction, drinking water compliance, Exide cleanup, pesticide alternatives, and implementation of AB 617, while also noting the agency’s response to federal rollbacks. Members pressed CalEPA on landfill fires and subsurface elevated temperature events, especially at Chiquita Canyon, asking about authority, scientific resources, and when intervention should occur. CalEPA said it has authority to respond but needs more coordinated technical and enforcement capacity, and later presented a $5.1 million, 12-position multi-agency proposal involving CalEPA, CalRecycle, DTSC, and the Water Board to address current landfill events and improve future prevention and response. DTSC and the Board of Environmental Safety presented several proposals tied to reform implementation, hazardous waste oversight, and emerging waste streams. DTSC reported progress in clearing its permit backlog, advancing safer consumer products regulations, and continuing Exide cleanup, while seeking additional resources for cost recovery and enforcement, PFAS work, recycling infrastructure for solar panels and lithium batteries, and a new statewide planning division to implement the hazardous waste management plan and consolidate reporting systems. The Board of Environmental Safety described its oversight role, public meetings, permit appeals process, and fee-setting authority, and said its priorities include permit appeals, hazardous waste plan oversight, and performance metrics. Members questioned whether DTSC was creating too many new subdivisions, but the department said the new structure is needed to handle growing workload and modernize regulation. Public testimony generally supported the landfill proposal, DTSC consumer product enforcement, water board staffing, and continued funding for food recovery and composting programs.