Transcript Highlights:

• The polluter pays for carbon emissions is gaining traction nationwide.
• And about the many, many good-paying jobs that it will create.
• resources to address globally and corporately scaled harms.
• Who should pay for the costs of pollution?
• Who should pay?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee hearing focused on a broad set of climate, energy, and environmental justice proposals. Early testimony strongly supported the Climate Change Superfund or “Polluter Pays” bill (H.1014/S.58), which would assess the largest fossil fuel emitters for a one-time fee based on historic emissions to fund climate adaptation. Sponsors argued the bill is modeled on Superfund cleanup principles, would target only the largest multinational polluters, would not be passed on to consumers, and would direct a significant share of funds to environmental justice communities. Committee members asked about the number of companies covered, consumer impacts, and whether the bill would address other forms of environmental destruction; sponsors said it was limited to major fossil fuel companies with a Massachusetts footprint and did not cover other pollution sources. The committee also heard testimony on a fusion energy compact proposal (S.673) that would direct the administration to develop a framework for a New England regional compact to accelerate fusion research, workforce development, and supply-chain growth. Supporters from MIT and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities said fusion could become a major clean-energy and economic opportunity, but acknowledged the technology is not yet commercially viable and still has unresolved technical, cost, and waste-management questions. Members pressed on environmental impacts, siting, waste, costs, and whether the bill would create a compact or only a framework; sponsors said it would only create the framework and that the administration would need to negotiate with other states. Another major topic was a pilot program for nature-based climate solutions (H.971/S.??), backed by legislators, Boston Harbor Now, and UMass Boston’s Stone Living Lab. Witnesses said the bill would help speed permits for research and demonstration projects such as living shorelines, marsh restoration, and hybrid “green-to-gray” flood protections, while maintaining safeguards and protecting Indigenous and historic resources. Committee members asked how the proposal would interact with other permitting reforms and whether it could conflict with housing or wetland-related streamlining; supporters said it was complementary and aimed at making projects faster, more affordable, and more data-driven. The hearing also covered climate-safe buildings and climate adaptation funding bills. Supporters of H.1004/S.583 said current building codes do not adequately account for future flooding, heat, and wind, and the bill would add climate expertise to the building board, allow stretch resilience codes, expand floodplain standards, and create a retrofit program. Related testimony backed H.938/S.572, which would create a dedicated climate and community resilience fund financed by a small fee on property insurance premiums; advocates said it would provide stable long-term revenue for adaptation, especially in environmental justice communities, and help replace unreliable federal funding. One witness from CLF supported the climate-safe buildings and funding bills but opposed S.560/H.939 as too broad. The committee also heard testimony on airport air-quality legislation (H.997) calling for more monitoring and mitigation of ultra-fine particulate pollution around Logan Airport and Massport communities. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now three have been completed on time in June 2025 and include utility-scale solar energy facilities,
• utility-scale onshore wind energy facilities, and green hydrogen production and storage facilities.
• So currently, Grant County has 10 large-scale solar projects in varying states of either approval.
• So the bags that are currently you're paying for are 2.5, I have there, there.
• with it, they willingly pay that fee.

Summary: The committee held a work session on state environmental policy act (SEPA) implementation and carryout bags. Ecology staff Diane Buterak described the Clean Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements (PEISs) completed for utility-scale solar, onshore wind, and green hydrogen, plus a new PEIS underway for sustainable aviation fuel. She explained that PEISs provide broad planning-level analysis to help developers and agencies avoid or mitigate impacts, but do not replace project-level review. Members asked about permitting timelines, greenhouse gas emissions from different hydrogen production methods, water use, agricultural land conversion, battery fire risk, and tribal consultation. Buterak said the PEISs identify potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures, including fire response planning, early tribal outreach, and agrovoltaics as an option for solar projects. EFSEC’s Amy Hofkimer then presented the transmission-facility programmatic EIS required by SB 5165 for 230 kV and higher transmission projects. She said the statewide review covers new lines and certain upgrades/modifications, analyzes impacts to water, cultural and tribal resources, habitat, and other areas, and uses general measures, design considerations, avoidance criteria, and sensitivity maps to guide siting and corridor planning. She said the final document would be issued in early October. Questions focused on reconductoring, tribal lands, scenic areas, and whether the review could affect existing lines crossing tribal lands. A Grant County planning director, Jim Anderson Cook, said Ecology’s PEIS would help with cumulative impacts for clustered solar projects, but noted tight local review timelines and the need for strong pre-application coordination, especially on cultural resource studies and decommissioning plans. Yakama Nation attorney Shona Leverett argued SEPA is only an assessment tool and said tribes face barriers from short comment periods, limited confidential tribal input, weak cumulative impact analysis, and challenges in the FSEC process; she urged better upfront developer diligence and more effective tribal coordination. Puget Sound Energy’s Sarah Leverett said the utility needs efficient and predictable permitting to meet clean energy mandates while maintaining reliable service and aging infrastructure. She described the scale of needed clean energy and transmission buildout, including a 10-year process for the Energize Eastside transmission rebuild, and said more consistent SEPA and PEIS processes could help. Members asked about future generation sources, reliability, and hydropower as a firming resource; she said PSE is pursuing an “all of the above” approach and would welcome more firm, dispatchable clean energy options. The committee then shifted to carryout bags. Staff Jacob Lipson and Tracy Taylor reviewed Washington’s bag law, its preemption of local ordinances, the current 8-cent charge, the scheduled increase to 12 cents, and the 2025 change delaying the 4-mil thickness requirement until 2028 while adding a temporary 4-cent penalty for thicker bags. Ecology’s Peter Lyon said the agency emphasizes education and complaint-based enforcement, has received 872 reports, and has not yet imposed any fines. Commerce’s Kirk Esmond summarized a WSU study finding fewer plastic bags distributed but more plastic by weight, and said Commerce and Ecology support keeping the 2.25-mil standard and not allowing thinner single-use bags again. Retail industry testimony from Brandon Housekeeper said grocers comply with the law but oppose the added 4-cent penalty and thicker-bag requirement, citing higher costs and confusion in the policy changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• To do this, how to do it well, and we're ready to scale.
• Gives our residents here awesome, high-paying, high-value jobs.
• I'll pay a little... I'm going to go.
• It was proven at what we call bench scale.
• So the science was proven, but it hadn't been done at scale or piloted.

Transcript Highlights:

• The provider pays 10%, or the owner pays 10%, and then the scholar pays 10%.
• their co-pay, but not much more.
• If we could look at that on a broader scale, and...
• It's a very graduated scale.
• It's a seven-point scale. We would consider 5.0 quality. It's a seven-point scale.

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee met with a quorum and focused on School Readiness, specifically the new provider reimbursement rates and the School Readiness Plus program. The chair gave an overview of how School Readiness is funded and administered, noting that the Legislature now sets county-based reimbursement rates using market and cost data, and that School Readiness Plus was created to help families who would otherwise fall off the subsidy “cliff” at 85% of state median income by extending assistance up to 100% of state median income. Panelists from the Children’s Forum, the Association of Early Learning Coalitions, and the Division of Early Learning described the programs as major workforce and family-support tools that help parents stay employed and help providers recruit and retain qualified staff. Testimony emphasized that higher reimbursement rates increase parental choice, help providers cover rising child care costs, and support better staffing and lower turnover. The panel also said School Readiness Plus is easing the pressure on families to turn down raises or promotions for fear of losing child care assistance, though uptake is still early because the program only began in late 2024 and is only available to current School Readiness families at redetermination. The Division of Early Learning reported about 275 children enrolled in School Readiness Plus as of March 10, with expenditures of about $161,420 through January 2025, and said participation is increasing. Members asked about the federal-state funding split, wait lists, reverted funds, coalition accountability, county-based rate differences, and whether the entrance eligibility threshold should be raised or shifted to state median income. The panel said roughly 70% of School Readiness funding is federal, about 4% has typically reverted in recent years, and the wait list is around 12,000 children, with reasons including income ineligibility, lack of available seats, and funding limits. They argued that raising the entrance threshold would expand access but would require additional funding, and they also discussed the need to reduce workforce barriers such as in-person testing and training requirements. The meeting ended with no formal action beyond the presentation and member discussion, and the subcommittee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• When times are rough, that is not the time to scale back; that is a time to invest.
• So the red block you see on the left is utility-scale solar; utility-scale wind can still apply for those
• Elective pay is still untouched.
• Elective pay is a way for entities who don't normally pay taxes to be eligible for these federal taxes
• This was figuring out who pays and how to distribute any costs correctly or fairly.

Transcript Highlights:

• What's the scale? Is it just a smaller building? Is it a large campus?
• So we're in the progression to get to that next stage, one more scale-up step.
• The scale is absolutely enormous.
• And that's half the things that it could pay for.
• So that's certainly on that commercialization end of the scale.

Summary: The committee met in Grand Forks, approved the February 26 minutes by voice vote, and recessed for a tour of Minnkota Power Cooperative before hearing presentations on large energy consumers and related infrastructure issues. The first presentation, from the North Dakota Transmission Authority, focused on the need for better local decision-making tools for counties, townships, and planning and zoning boards facing major projects such as transmission lines, pipelines, data centers, wind, solar, and large-scale agriculture. The speaker urged more objective, data-driven analysis, noted that local officials often have limited time and resources, and said the state should support training and tools through groups like the League of Cities and the Association of Counties. Members asked about proactive outreach, data center ordinances, and how to avoid subsidizing large loads or causing reliability problems. The Division of Air Quality then discussed environmental oversight of data centers, emphasizing that North Dakota’s air remains among the cleanest in the country and that the agency’s role is limited to air, water discharge, stormwater, and waste—not zoning or water use. The presentation explained that data centers generally have low direct emissions but may rely on diesel backup generators when the grid is unavailable, which creates air-quality concerns; the department said it is requiring air monitors at some projects to collect real-world data and guide future decisions. Members asked about generator emissions, misinformation, monitoring costs, and staffing succession, and the agency said permit applicants pay for the monitors while the state handles some QA work. The Department of Water Resources followed with an overview of North Dakota water law and data center water use. The director explained the state’s prior-appropriation system, the public-interest review for permits, and the large overall water supply available from groundwater and the Missouri River. He said most proposed data centers use closed-loop cooling systems and generally request relatively small amounts of water compared with other uses such as power plants, irrigation, and oilfield operations, and that even a worst-case data center scenario would use only a tiny fraction of Missouri River flow. Questions focused on downstream impacts and comparisons to fracking water use, and the director said the state’s use is too small to materially affect downstream users. Later, McLean County State’s Attorney Ladd-Erickson testified online about data center zoning and permitting. He asked the committee to have Legislative Council gather information on how other states handle data center permitting and to keep the topic on the interim agenda. He argued that local zoning should remain local, but said counties lack the technical and legal resources to manage complex reclamation or bonding requirements and that state-level enabling legislation may be more appropriate. He also recommended eliminating tax incentives for data centers. The committee chair said staff would prepare a document on other states’ zoning and permitting approaches. After a lunch recess, the committee reconvened at the EERC, where CEO Charles Gorecki gave an overview of the center’s 75 years of work and its role in oil and gas, carbon management, and other energy technologies, highlighting enhanced oil recovery and carbon dioxide utilization as major opportunities for future production and tax revenue.

Transcript Highlights:

• pay property taxes through their rents. pay property taxes through their rents.
• I found that out last had to pay in.
• says, "I don't know how I'm going to pay says, "I don't know how I'm going to pay my<00:25:28.120
• Everybody pays property taxes.
• <00:27:59.160> uh folks at the Legends of Blaine pay uh folks at the Legends of Blaine pay

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee took up House File 4906, adopted the H4906A1 amendment, and heard a staff explanation that the bill would create a one-time property tax refund in calendar year 2026 for residential homesteads and the house/garage/1-acre portion of agricultural homesteads. As amended, the bill would appropriate $4 billion in fiscal year 2027, distribute payments based on 2026 property tax due, include a clawback for delinquent taxpayers, and coordinate with existing property tax refund programs so recipients would not receive more than they paid in taxes. House Research also discussed a disagreement with the Department of Revenue over whether the refund would be taxable federally, with House Research suggesting it would likely be treated as a non-taxable recovery of prior taxes. Public testimony was largely opposed. Eric Bernstein of We Make Minnesota argued the proposal was too large, would create a deficit and force future service cuts, and would disproportionately benefit higher-income homeowners. Nan Madden of the Minnesota Budget Project said the bill would create a major budget hole, threaten funding for health care, food support, schools, and other services, and exclude renters and lower-income Minnesotans. Members echoed those concerns, citing impacts on public safety, rural EMS, hospitals, education funding, and equity, while noting that renters and many seniors would receive nothing. Representative Howard questioned whether the bill was a cautious use of state resources, and Representative Norris said it missed the mark for struggling renters. Chair Davids defended the concept as a way to put money back in people’s pockets and said the proposal was scalable and intended to start a discussion. Representative Wiener strongly supported the bill, saying many homeowners and farmers in his district are not wealthy and need relief from property taxes; he said the bill should be even bigger. No vote on final passage was taken in the portion of the meeting provided, and the committee moved on after testimony and member discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Step two: we want to make SAF at scale in Minnesota.
• Step two: we want to make SAF at scale in Minnesota.
• <00:52:41.720> a uh in those systems so we are paying a uh in those systems so we are paying
• capturing used cooking oil to the scale capturing used cooking oil to the scale that<00:56:12.039
• With the size and scale of that plant, the initial scale-back would be roughly a 50% reduction in manufacturing

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Agriculture Finance and Policy Committee held an introductory meeting that began with housekeeping, a correction to the committee rules (the room number should be G3, not G35), and member and staff introductions. Members described their districts, agricultural ties, and priorities for the session, including consumer food costs, urban agriculture, farm economics, livestock disease preparedness, and support for Minnesota’s agricultural sectors. No votes were taken during the introductory portion. The committee then turned to sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Deputy Commissioner Andrea Veble of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture said the Walz administration strongly supports SAF because of its potential for agriculture, forestry, and clean energy, and reviewed Minnesota’s 2023 SAF tax credit and related sales tax exemption. She said the state has feedstocks and should continue investing so Minnesota can attract SAF production and support rural jobs. Jeff Davidman of Delta Airlines testified that aviation is difficult to decarbonize and that SAF is the airline industry’s main path to net zero by 2050; he cited current use of SAF, the need to scale production, and Minnesota’s role in supplying feedstocks and hosting future production. Peter Frost of Greater MSP described the Minnesota SAF Hub as a public-private partnership aimed at building the full SAF value chain in Minnesota. He emphasized that Greater MSP is coordinating investors and partners to grow the regional economy and said the SAF effort is intended to create jobs and economic development. Committee members did not ask questions during the portion captured, and no formal action or vote was recorded on the SAF presentations in this transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Timber isn't scaled until it gets to the mill. It's not scaled in the woods.
• It's scaled at the mill. So there are log slips and stuff, but they're not scaled.
• for that wood concentration yard pays for that wood and<04:44:33.680> they<04:44:33.840> scale
• scale slip where's the wood coming from. scale slip where's the wood coming from.
• You're going to pay an initial fee of $60. Then you're going to pay a $30 fee every year.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• What's the scale? Is it just a smaller building? Is it a large campus?
• The scale is absolutely enormous.
• And that's half the things that it could pay for. $1.3 million instead.
• And that's half the things that it could pay for.
• So that's certainly on that commercialization end of the scale.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Then, in addition, what is defined by competitive—there could be different scales.
• uh there could be a different scales. uh there could be a different scales.
• inherently a >> Um economies of scale are inherently a problem<00:49:57.040> because<00
• Hiko still is in junk bond pay for.
• you have no idea how you're going to pay you have no idea how you're going to pay your<00:57:03.520

Bills: SB3326, SB2911

Keywords: renewable energy, energy storage, cost reduction, public utilities commission, Hawaii energy policies, intoxicating liquor, direct shipment, breweries, distilleries, Hawaii, 912, senate, all

Summary: The committees heard SB 3001 on artificial intelligence in a joint Commerce and Consumer Protection/Labor and Technology hearing. Testimony included support from the Department of Education and Google, comments from the Office of Consumer Protection and the Attorney General’s office, and late opposition from Agentic LLC. The Attorney General raised constitutional and vagueness concerns and suggested clarifying amendments, while Google said the bill’s risk-based approach and proposed amendments could help establish industry-wide safety standards for minors. The committees recessed and then voted to pass SB 3001 with amendments, adopting DCCA/OCP recommendations on data minimization for minors and UDAP clarity, the Attorney General’s proposed clarifications and deletions, and Google’s nonconflicting amendments; the effective date was deferred to July 1, 2050. The vote passed unanimously among members present, with some members excused. The Commerce and Consumer Protection committee then took up several previously heard measures in decision-making. SB 2045 on combat sports passed with amendments reflecting DCCA and boxing commission recommendations, including clarifying the on-site medical professional requirement, reporting duties, promoter payment, removal of the combat sports registry and ambulance requirement, and other technical changes; the effective date was deferred to July 1, 2050. SP 2347 on the residential landlord-tenant code passed with amendments striking landlord requirements so OCP could work on a multilingual tenant-rights notice, and SP 2495 on consumer protection passed with amendments requiring OCP to publish an annual report on potential code violations. SB 2777 on insurance was deferred to February 17, 2026 for further decision-making. At a later CPN decision-making agenda, SB 2471 and SB 2829, both relating to the powers of artificial persons, passed with amendments clarifying the preamble, removing language about foreign artificial persons, and making other consistency and non-substantive changes; both effective dates were moved to January 1, 2027. SP 2033 on renewable energy also passed with amendments clarifying the definition of grid-ready homes, cost-sharing provisions, applicability to interconnecting customers, and safety/certification compliance, with the effective date deferred to July 1, 2050. In each case, the committee voted to adopt the recommendations without objections from members present. The committees also heard SB 3000 on insurance, which would authorize the Attorney General to bring civil actions to recover costs and losses tied to climate-attributable harm and future climate risk, including costs incurred by state insurance-related entities. The Insurance Division and Attorney General’s office offered comments seeking clarification and warning about redundancy, implementation issues, possible representation of private insurers, and concurrent litigation concerns. Supporters, including the Center for Climate Integrity, a resident testifier, Sierra Club, and Green America, argued the bill would help shift insurance costs to fossil fuel companies responsible for climate harms and address rising premiums and nonrenewals in Hawaii. Opponents, including the American Petroleum Institute, argued the bill singled out one industry, raised constitutional concerns, and should be deferred because related climate litigation is already pending. The transcript ends with the committee continuing testimony and discussion on SB 3000 and then moving into SB 3326 on energy, where the consumer advocate and Hawaiian Electric opposed the bill’s proposed separation of generation from transmission and distribution, while the PUC stood on written testimony, Retail Merchants of Hawaii supported it, and Life of the Land raised concerns about assumptions and the need for more substance.

Transcript Highlights:

• They either pay for it going in or they pay for it going out.
• pay ad valorem taxes, they pay the...
• Industry pays to plug wells.
• As Chairman Darby just said, our industry pays for it in the front, they pay for it in the back, they
• pay for it in the front.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So today, these scale our people need.
• We are actions are finally paying off.
• <00:28:27.200> We've scale not seen in decades. We've scale not seen in decades.
• She pays her own rent. And of our kuna. She pays her own rent.
• <00:58:57.359> Don't opportunity to pay it forward. Don't opportunity to pay it forward.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Won't be deployed at any scale until next decade.
• They think forward 50 years, since a pipe installed today can take that long to pay off.
• So here's a calculation I did showing the total cost for ratepayers of paying back GSEP.
• standard sort of scale.
• So we've got to electrify at scale.

Keywords: 995, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• I guess, uh, I have a question regarding, uh, economics of scale.
• They will not be able to pay that water bill.
• Are met with the interests of the rate-paying public.
• And there's no sliding scale for quality or pressure.
• That we're paying or the amount we're paying for water and wastewater our constituents are, but anyway

Bills: HB 29, HB 685, HB 1633, HB 1689, HB 1690, HB 1918, HB 2010, HB 2500, HB 2608, HB 2626

Keywords: water audit, water loss, water loss mitigation plan, municipally owned utility, municipal utility, water conservation, Texas Water Development Board, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water leakage, leak detection, billing data accuracy, utility validation, water audit validation, water scarcity, water management, infrastructure, public utility, conservation plan, administrative penalty

Transcript Highlights:

• So I don't see like the scales are different. I think the scales are very different.
• So I don't see like the scales are different. I think the scales are very different.
• So I don't see like the scales are different. I think the scales are very different.
• So I don't see like the scales are different. I think the scales are very different.
• So I don't see like the scales are different. I think the scales are very different.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Scaling the future inside the alternative protein industry.
• So to scale alternative...
• This is very expensive to do at large scale.
• And I should note that this is still small scale.
• And while some technologies are ready to scale, the majority lack funding to allow for such scaling.

Summary: The Select Committee on Alternative Protein Innovation held its first informational hearing to examine the state of alternative protein research, industry growth, and policy needs in California. The chair opened by noting California’s $5 million public investment in UC research in 2022 and framed the hearing around three panels: the climate, environmental, and security potential of alternative proteins; industry scaling and commercialization; and university-led research and workforce development. Members emphasized that the committee will continue with site visits and additional hearings across the state. The first panel focused on the case for alternative proteins as a climate, land, water, biodiversity, and food-security solution. Shana Fertig of the Good Food Institute argued that plant-based, fermentation-derived, and cultivated proteins can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and water use while helping California meet its climate and conservation goals. Zane Swanson of CSIS added that alternative proteins could reduce risks tied to zoonotic disease, antimicrobial resistance, supply-chain disruption, and broader national security concerns. In questions, members discussed the role of pharmaceuticals in animal agriculture and how alternative proteins might complement, rather than replace, traditional farming by creating new markets for California crops and helping farmers diversify. The second panel featured industry leaders Ethan Brown of Beyond Meat, Myra Passick of Upside Foods, and Arye Elfenbein of Wildtype. Brown highlighted plant-based meat’s health and climate benefits, criticized misinformation campaigns against the sector, and urged better labeling, reduced subsidies for factory farming, and more plant-based food in public institutions. Passick described cultivated meat as a scalable food-production technology, said Upside Foods has already produced millions of pounds annually at its Emeryville facility, and asked for grants, low-interest loans, and possible participation in cap-and-trade or similar revenue programs. Elfenbein described cultivated seafood as a way to address overfishing, contamination, traceability problems, and the heavy import dependence of the U.S. seafood supply, while also noting conservation benefits and the need for California to remain a hub for the industry. The final panel centered on research and workforce development. UCLA’s Amy Rowat described state-funded work on technical bottlenecks such as growing fat cells and creating edible scaffolds, along with a Future Food Fellows program that trains students across science, engineering, law, and policy. UC Santa Cruz economist Galina Hale argued that alternative proteins are necessary to meet future protein demand while reducing food-system emissions, and said California must support the sector through grants, loans, procurement, and research centers to avoid losing leadership to other states and countries. The hearing ended with the chair thanking the witnesses, noting that all materials would be posted online, and saying the committee would continue building policy and budget proposals to support the sector.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we're just scaling up quick.
• With that, we go from, again, bench scale to pilot scale to full at-scale industrial systems and can
• With that, we go from, again, bench scale to pilot scale, to go full at-scale industrial systems and
• The process moves from bench scale on the left-hand side to prototypes and then the large-scale pilot
• So now this is to take it from lab scale to pilot scale.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And this is to recognize the economies of scale that exist on the campuses.
• The economies of scale, well, they'll finish the economies of scale.
• So if it's $100 million, it scales it back to $80 million. That would apply.
• Of course, the economies of scale only apply to the non-R-1s.
• We pay based on multipliers now.

Summary: The committee met to discuss higher education funding and capital building policy. Members first heard an update from NDUS Deputy Commissioner Lisa Johnson on low-producing academic programs. She described a proposed board policy using a five-year rolling window and thresholds of fewer than 10 undergraduate graduates or fewer than 5 graduate graduates, with programs flagged for three consecutive review periods going to the board. Possible outcomes would include continuation, continuation with modifications, inactivation, or termination. Members asked about how the review would account for program costs, service to other students, workforce demand, and the difference between inactivation and termination. Johnson said the board would consider broader factors and that campuses already do detailed program analysis. Several members also asked about cost savings and staffing impacts from program terminations, and Johnson said the board would try to provide more information later. The committee then received a report on the Capital Building Fund from Jamie Wilkie. He reviewed the program’s history, matching requirements, and recent uses, noting that about $334 million in state and matching dollars has been invested overall, with most going to deferred maintenance and extraordinary repairs. Members discussed whether the program is reducing deferred maintenance and requested updated systemwide data on deferred maintenance and campus space utilization. Wilkie said the board is considering a new study to update deferred maintenance figures, which are based on information more than 12 years old. He also reported that several institutions have used current biennium funds for projects such as residence hall renovations, health sciences housing, generators, and building repairs. Later, the committee began a detailed walkthrough of a draft bill that would replace the current higher education funding formula with an FTE-based model and also revise the capital building fund structure. The draft would use fall enrollment FTEs, add completion incentives for degrees in in-demand fields, and create a separate research funding component for UND and NDSU tied to doctoral completions and external research expenditures. Members raised concerns about the use of older data in the formula, the treatment of waivers, the weighting of professional and health sciences programs, and the use of CIP codes to define CTE and education incentives. The bill draft would also combine capital building fund tiers, broaden eligible uses for deferred maintenance and legislatively authorized projects, change matching requirements, repeal the old formula chapter and the capital pool, and transfer funds from the Strategic Investment and Improvements Fund into the capital building fund. No final votes were taken during the portion provided; the meeting was primarily discussion and review.

Transcript Highlights:

• The large-scale illegal trafficking of fighting birds in our state.
• That's if they can afford to pay the fine.
• That's if they can afford to pay the fine.
• That is what is happening digitally at scale every single day.
• That is what is happening digitally at scale every single day.

Keywords: 987, senate, all