Transcript Highlights:

• These projects are the competition-eligible projects from CAISO's 20-year outlook.
• If it's not general obligation, it's associated with project income. Projects have to be working.
• He said those projects could affect generation projects coming online.
• and the TPP projects.
• many projects cross federal land.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 13, which would restructure the CPUC to increase legislative oversight, add legislative liaisons, require more detailed and timely reporting on rate-setting decisions, and add a public advocate member. The author and supporters argued the bill would improve transparency, accountability, and geographic diversity in CPUC decision-making amid rising utility rates. Witnesses from TURN, San Joaquin County, SDG&E, and former CPUC Commissioner Loretta Lynch offered support or support-in-principle, while no opposition testimony was presented. Members generally praised the bill’s transparency goals, and AB 13 passed 10-0 to Appropriations, with the roll left open for absent members. The committee then adopted the 2025-2026 committee rules and approved three consent items: AB 61, AB 365, and AB 406. The next bill, AB 99, would cap investor-owned utility rate increases above inflation except for specified costs such as safety, modernization, and fuel/commodity costs. The author and supporters, including a representative of the California Senior Legislature, said the bill was needed to protect ratepayers, especially seniors and low-income customers, from repeated rate hikes. Opposition came from utility labor, utilities, the Chamber of Commerce, and others, who argued the bill was too simplistic, could suppress labor costs, and did not account for major cost drivers such as wildfire mitigation, mandates, and net metering. Several members supported moving the bill forward as a starting point on affordability, while others criticized it as overly blunt. AB 99 passed 11-0 to Appropriations, with the roll left open. The hearing then shifted to an informational panel on strategies to reduce California transmission costs. A Public Advocates Office staffer described a growing backlog of approved-but-unbuilt transmission projects, rising transmission access charges, and long project timelines driven largely by utility pre-application and construction periods. Panelists from Net Zero California and consulting firms presented research suggesting that public financing or public-private partnership lease models could reduce transmission costs by lowering financing, tax, and capital costs, with estimated savings of up to 57% and as much as $123 billion over 40 years. PG&E’s representative said the utility is already pursuing federal loan guarantees, grants, and a public-private partnership with Citizens Energy, but warned that state ownership could create tax, wildfire-liability, and governance risks. Members asked about the CPUC’s role, the causes of delays, and whether public financing could complement existing competitive solicitation processes.

Transcript Highlights:

• projects.
• We really need to know what projects are lingering, what projects are in trouble...
• So this project.
• Project.
• On this project.

Committee: House Public School Capital Outlay Oversight Task Force

Transcript Highlights:

• Our projects here are performing arts, art museums, and cultural organization capital projects.
• So, beautiful project, like on the last slide, this is a library project in Stevens County, Rural Library
• So, beautiful project, like on the last slide, this is a lot of So beautiful project, like on the last
• It's a really cool project.
• Some projects are already underway.

Bills: HB2330 , HB2338

Committee: House Capital Budget

Keywords: energy systems, capital funding, state campus, school infrastructure, sustainability, weatherization, energy efficiency, community projects, environment

Transcript Highlights:

• projects.
• the next project.
• It'll be a paving project.
• It's a project map that includes all the projects across the state.
• I'm... ...projects. We are both a landowner next to a project.

Summary: The Energy Development and Transmission Committee met in interim session and approved the November 6 minutes. Chair Novak outlined the committee’s study agenda, including large energy users such as data centers, geothermal, landowner relations, wind and solar, and other energy topics across the state. The meeting was framed as informational only, with no bills or formal legislative action taken beyond the minutes approval. Testimony focused first on landowner relations. Oliver County Commissioner Dave Berger described the county’s energy history and local support for coal and related development. North Dakota Farmers Union President Matt Perdue emphasized proactive, face-to-face communication with landowners, respect for property rights, and the need for developers to be transparent about tradeoffs; he also discussed insurance and liability concerns tied to easements. Committee members asked about eminent domain, local versus state authority, and how communities can better understand the revenue and infrastructure implications of energy development. Department of Agriculture Deputy Commissioner Tom Bodine then described the department’s ombudsman programs for pipeline restoration and reclamation, wind restoration, and royalty oversight. He said the programs provide confidential, third-party assistance on reclamation and royalty disputes, but do not provide legal advice. Senators raised concerns about post-production deductions in royalty leases and whether the ombudsman can explain them; Bodine said the program can clarify statements and deductions but cannot resolve legal disputes. He also said the department has not received requests related to fiber lines. Representatives from Grid United and One Oak described their project development and landowner engagement practices. Grid United’s Brent Johnson discussed the North Plains Connector transmission project, its route selection process, voluntary acquisition approach, and efforts to avoid eminent domain by working closely with regulators, counties, townships, and landowners. One Oak’s Danette Welsh and Tom Giltner described the company’s midstream operations, extensive North Dakota footprint, and emphasis on direct landowner communication, consistent local regulation, careful construction practices, and post-construction reclamation. Members asked about setbacks, zoning consistency, invasive species prevention, outside advocacy groups, and eminent domain use; One Oak said it has not used eminent domain on its North Dakota projects, largely because most gathering lines are negotiated easements.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and our water supply projects.
• So we're excited about that project.
• And then, if you'd mentioned one of your other projects, but is there any particular project, either
• Improvement Project.
• Those projects are chosen.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government heard budget presentations from the Northwest Florida, Suwannee River, St. Johns River, Southwest Florida, and South Florida water management districts for FY 2026-2027. Each district described its preliminary budget, major funding sources, staffing levels, and priorities within the four core missions of water supply, water quality, natural systems, and flood protection. Common themes included reduced budgets from the prior year due to completion of major projects, continued reliance on state appropriations and ad valorem revenue, rising construction and maintenance costs, and the need to maintain aging infrastructure while advancing alternative water supply, springs restoration, flood control, and land management projects. Committee members repeatedly asked how much of each district’s budget and personnel were devoted to the core missions, how maintenance and operating projections were developed, and how projects were selected. The districts generally said most spending was tied to core responsibilities, with administrative overhead relatively small, and explained that budgets are built through a mix of staff analysis, governing board direction, strategic basin planning, and cooperative funding with local, state, and federal partners. Several districts highlighted specific projects, including Water First North Florida, Black Creek, Taylor Creek Reservoir improvements, Crane Creek, Everglades restoration, and various springs and watershed projects. The districts also noted challenges from hurricanes, inflation, cybersecurity, and aging water control structures. South Florida Water Management District’s presentation focused on Everglades restoration and the large-scale infrastructure needed to move, store, and clean water in South Florida. The director said the district’s $1.05 billion preliminary budget is largely for flood control, water supply, ecosystem restoration, and maintenance of extensive canals, levees, pumps, and reservoirs, and emphasized that recent restoration investments are producing measurable water quality and salinity improvements. No votes were taken on the district budgets, and the committee adjourned after the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Existing affordable housing projects.
• Communities like Linden rely on it to fund large utility projects without the cost of those utility projects
• Thanks to the work that we’ve done here at Habitat and funding projects like the Highland Terrace project
• But we'd like to recommend one more project for you to consider this year, and that's the project at
• They found the project to be worthy.

Summary: The House Capital Budget Committee opened its first hearing of the session on HB 2295 and briefly heard a presentation from OFM Senior Budget Advisor Jen Masterson on Governor Ferguson’s proposed supplemental capital budget. She said the proposal uses about $396 million in new appropriations, leaving roughly $5.4 million in remaining bond authority, and includes major investments in housing, urgent state facility needs, climate-related projects, K-12 school safety and modernization, and higher education minor works. The housing package was the largest share, with $225 million for the Housing Trust Fund, plus funding for homeownership, preservation, manufactured housing communities, and flood-impacted home repair. Committee members asked follow-up questions about Rainier School and juvenile rehabilitation projects, and staff said Rainier School was on the plan and that juvenile rehabilitation funding included flexible capacity funding and facility improvements. Public testimony was largely supportive of the governor’s housing, education, climate, and natural resources proposals, while several speakers urged changes. Housing advocates, Habitat for Humanity, community land trusts, and service providers backed the Housing Trust Fund and homeownership funding, including support for manufactured housing preservation and transit-oriented affordable housing. School and college representatives supported small district modernization, seismic safety, lead remediation, and minor works funding, while some asked for additional support for specific projects such as Cascadia College’s new building, Central Washington University’s feeder line replacement, and WSU Spokane health education renovations. Natural resource and tribal witnesses supported salmon recovery and community forest investments, but asked for more funding for RCO community forest and estuary programs. A major recurring concern was the proposed $75 million transfer from the Public Works Assistance Account, which cities, counties, sewer and water districts, and the Public Works Board said would jeopardize low-interest loans already awarded for local infrastructure projects and shift costs onto distressed communities. Other testimony opposed the budget’s omission of certain projects, including the University of Washington’s power plant decarbonization work and a Spokane cultural hub, while some local governments requested funding for wastewater and flood-control projects. No votes were taken; the chair closed the public hearing after testimony concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> the project. the project.
• , or explained it as a joint project, but we bid them in two separate projects.
• Thank you. project. Um but the language needs to be project.
• . project.
• </c> construction projects. construction projects. Um,<00:42:35.119><c> okay.

Committee: Senate Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• Our projects here are performing arts, art museums, and cultural organization capital projects.
• So, beautiful project, like on the last slide, this is a library project in Stevens County, a rural library
• So, beautiful project, like on the last slide, this is a lot of So beautiful project, like on the last
• It's a really cool project.
• Some projects are already underway.

Summary: The committee first received a Commerce overview of capital budget grant programs, including behavioral health facilities, Building for the Arts, Building Communities Fund, early learning facilities, library capital improvements, and youth recreational facilities. Commerce described program eligibility, match requirements, funding cycles, and project examples such as an early learning center in Spokane, a rural library in Stevens County, and a youth clubhouse in Prosser. Members asked about behavioral health capital projects, including how many facilities have been opened and how capital planning aligns with operating funding; Commerce said it could provide more data later and noted it focuses on capital while HCA, DSHS, and DOH handle operating requests. Members also raised concerns about nonprofit financial stability, project licensure, siting, and the burden of non-state match, while Commerce emphasized shovel-ready projects, community match, and efforts to reduce application burden. The committee then heard an update on the Clean Buildings Performance Standard from Commerce. Staff reviewed Washington’s building emissions laws, compliance tiers, exemptions, incentives, and district energy system decarbonization planning under House Bills 1543, 1976, and 1390. Commerce reported nearly 5,000 inquiries in 2025, a fellowship program that has helped more than 250 buildings in 16 counties, and review of nearly 30 district energy plans. The presentation highlighted that over half of Tier 1 buildings are already meeting targets, that Tier 2 incentive applications suggest the 30-cent-per-square-foot incentive often covers compliance costs, and that district decarbonization plans face common challenges such as aging infrastructure, grid readiness, workforce, and inconsistent cost reporting. Members asked what additional legislative action might help, and Commerce said it was still learning from the new rulemaking and implementation changes. Western Washington University and Corex then presented on WWU’s campus heating conversion project and a possible off-campus thermal energy partnership with the Port of Bellingham. WWU described its aging steam system, high emissions, maintenance costs, and the $51 million in Climate Commitment Account funding it has received to transition toward an electric hot-water system using technologies such as geo-exchange, heat recovery chillers, and air-source heat pumps. Corex explained its existing district energy system at the Port of Bellingham, which uses industrial waste heat and is operating at very high efficiency, and said it is exploring a heat transmission line to WWU and possibly sewer-heat recovery. Testimony from WSU and UW supported the broader decarbonization effort but raised concerns about the scale of costs, deferred maintenance, and the need for predictable state funding. A contractor witness urged the state to think bigger about public-private partnerships and other financing tools rather than forcing campuses to compete for limited funds. The committee then held a public hearing on House Bill 2330, which would create a prioritization process for capital funding for state campus district energy system decarbonization projects. Staff said the bill would establish a Commerce committee to score and rank projects, issue a preliminary framework report by December 30 of this year, and provide biennial recommended project lists beginning in 2028, while also studying barriers to energy-as-a-service contracts and public-private partnerships. The prime sponsor said the bill is intended to create a thoughtful, predictable process for deciding which projects to fund, emphasizing energy savings, emissions reductions, operating cost reductions, shovel-readiness, and the value of public-private partnerships. Testimony was mixed but generally supportive: WSU and UW backed the bill as a way to advance compliance and predictability, though WSU warned that compliance costs could be very large and that the university would likely seek state help if fines were imposed. A contractor witness supported the concept but argued the bill should help build a larger funding “pie” through partnerships and financing tools rather than simply dividing scarce resources. The committee then opened and heard testimony on House Bill 2338, which would authorize community-scaled weatherization projects. Commerce staff said the bill would allow weatherization funds and matching funds to be used for neighborhood-scale projects affecting multiple dwelling units, while still prioritizing low-income households; the fiscal note estimated about $273,000 in FY 2027 and about $237,000 per biennium ongoing for administration. Supporters from community action agencies and Spark Northwest said the bill would improve health, safety, affordability, and contractor participation by allowing weatherization to be done at a community scale, especially in mobile home parks and low-income neighborhoods. No votes were taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• And in some areas, you know, we'll do as many projects or suite of projects and we'll see that reduction
• But as I said, with the type of projects and the time that it takes once even a project is completed
• And the chart is showing the completion rate of projects.
• They can see where all the projects are located. You can click on a specific project.
• It will tell you in detail what the project is, what the projected nutrient reduction is, how far along

Committee: Senate Environment and Natural Resources

Summary: The Committee on Environment and Natural Resources convened with a quorum present, heard opening remarks from Chair Rodriguez and member introductions, and discussed broad priorities including water quality, climate change, budget oversight, and accountability for environmental investments. Members emphasized concerns about nutrient pollution, springs, Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades, and the need for better data and measurable results. The committee then received a presentation from DEP Deputy Secretary Adam Blaylock on the state’s water quality restoration framework. He explained how water quality standards, total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs), and reasonable assurance plans work together to address impaired waters, and noted that BMAPs are updated every five years with annual reviews in between. He also described recent statutory changes requiring five-year milestones, restrictions on new septic systems in certain areas, and public-facing data tools to track projects and water quality trends. Members questioned whether BMAPs are producing enough improvement and whether the five-year update cycle is too slow. Blaylock said results can take years because of project lag and environmental variability, but that the department can adjust plans if data show they are not working. He also highlighted $2.9 billion in statewide water quality funding since 2019, nearly 1,100 funded projects, and a $1.1 billion water quality improvement grant program that now covers impaired waters beyond BMAP areas. The committee discussed agricultural projects, DEP and FDACS funding roles, and a new dashboard and centralized monitoring platform under development. No formal votes or other actions were taken, and the meeting ended with adjournment moved by the vice chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• critical water projects.
• projects with gaps.
• projects with gaps.
• Already granted project, it's not for a new project. Any additional questions?
• to Projects with excess funds, which will be reallocated to other obligated projects.

Summary: The Joint Committee on Pandemic Relief Funding met for what leaders described as likely its final meeting, with a quorum present from both chambers. Chairs reviewed the ARPA/SLFRF process, noting the large volume of requests received, the need to meet Treasury’s December 31, 2026 paperwork deadline, and the committee’s role in reallocating excess or at-risk funds to projects that can be completed in time. Working groups reported on progress across education/economic development, transportation/rural development, government transformation, and health and human services, with most projects on track but some funds needing to be reclassified or redirected. The committee approved a series of motions, generally by unanimous or near-unanimous votes, to reclassify excess funds and appropriate interest earnings to existing obligated projects. Actions included reallocations from the Department of Commerce and the Office of Emergency Management, and interest-fund appropriations for wastewater and water infrastructure, Boys & Girls Clubs, the YWCA, the Office of Juvenile Affairs, and the Department of Human Services. Members also authorized the Oklahoma Water Resources Board and the Healthcare Workforce Training Commission to reallocate remaining funds to existing projects. In the health and human services portion, the committee approved funding for the Oklahoma Healthcare Workforce Training Commission, the OSU Medical Authority’s Human Performance Project and Pharmaceutical Expansion Program, the University Hospitals Trust Authority’s Child Behavioral Health Project, the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services for Griffin Memorial bed replacement, and the State Department of Health for the Rural Hospital Rebuild Program. Members asked questions about whether funds were going to new or existing projects and about broadband progress, and staff explained that the reallocations were intended to fill gaps in already obligated projects. The meeting ended with closing remarks thanking members and staff for their work and noting the measures would continue through the appropriations process before final action by the full chambers.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this was the one project.
• These are some of the longest-running projects. These are projects that we've talked about.
• We have about half of their projects done. So the hanger projects are complete.
• So it was our first project.
• That is our projects in 25 projects in 19 counties.

Committee: House A&B Transportation Subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• Communities like Linden rely on it to fund large utility projects without the cost of those utility projects
• Thanks to the work that we've done here at Habitat and funding projects like the Highland Terrace project
• request, the Cascadia CC5 project.
• But we'd like to recommend one more project for you to consider this year, and that's the project at
• They found the project to be worthy.

Bills: HB2295

Committee: House Capital Budget

Keywords: Washington capital budget, supplemental capital budget, capital appropriations, state building construction account, taxable building construction account, climate commitment account, natural climate solutions, housing trust fund, affordable housing, supportive housing, homelessness, manufactured home communities, mobile home parks, school construction, school modernization, school seismic safety, healthy schools, school electrification, SCAP, behavioral health facilities

Transcript Highlights:

• The very first project to begin construction was the I-10 Gila River Bridges project.
• But this is not a city project, then; it's an interstate project? No, no.
• So this is a city project. The project cost is about $10.5 million.
• HB 2285 is a solar streetlight project. It's a phase project.
• This is a project that was unanimously voted as one of the top projects by an ACOG.

Summary: The committee heard a lengthy Arizona Department of Transportation presentation on major corridor projects, beginning with Interstate 11. ADOT Director Jennifer Toth said the entire 280-mile I-11 corridor from Nogales to the Nevada line is covered by a federal lawsuit, which has paused Tier 2 work pending a Tier 1 reevaluation and public comment period expected later this year and into early 2027. Members asked whether the northern segment could move forward separately; ADOT said the lawsuit covers the full corridor and that segmentation would likely add time and cost. The committee also heard updates on SR 347 and the I-10 Wild Horse Pass corridor, including widening, interchange reconstructions, grade separations, and traffic-management improvements, with members raising concerns about congestion, signal timing, construction hours, signage, and safety. ADOT also presented the West Kingman I-40/US 93 project, a $106.5 million free-flow ramp project that is about 60% complete and expected to finish in early 2027; members discussed temporary traffic controls near Beale Street and the need for better access and safety in the area. The committee then moved to a mass hearing on the Regional Transportation Advocacy Council (RTAC) bill, House Bill 2304, which appropriates about $473 million for a list of rural and small-metro highway projects. Testimony came from regional planning organizations, county officials, mayors, and city staff supporting projects in Apache Junction, Show Low, Chino Valley, Sedona, Eloy, Coolidge, Casa Grande, Lake Havasu City, Clarkdale, San Luis, and Yavapai County. Speakers described projects such as road widenings, bypasses, bridge and interchange improvements, flood and evacuation routes, freight access, and safety upgrades, often emphasizing local matching funds, shovel-ready status, and economic development benefits. Committee members frequently asked about traffic flow, emergency access, and project design details, while the chair reminded witnesses that support in the budget would still depend on members advocating for the projects during budget negotiations. No final vote on the RTAC bill or the individual project bills was taken in the portion provided, but the chair announced a mass-motion approach: members and witnesses would be allowed to speak briefly on each project, after which the committee would vote on the package together. The meeting also included brief staff explanations of several individual appropriation bills, including funding for Apache Junction, the Wolford Road extension in Show Low, Ray Lane in Graham County, SR 89 widening in Chino Valley, and Sedona roadway and roundabout-related improvements.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the athletics projects that are authorized are major projects.
• apply for instructional projects because it looks like the For instructional projects, because it looks
• Most of these projects are not single-year projects. Thank you very much, Mr.
• Chair, on page two under Student Life Projects, the definition of student life projects...
• it excludes them from student life projects. ...excludes them from student life projects because I think

Bills: SB234 , SB210 , SB243 , SB244 , SM16 , HB8

Committee: Senate House Education

Summary: The Senate Education Committee began by announcing that SB 210 would be rolled over to Friday and would not be heard. The committee then returned to SB 234, which would provide foster child school transportation funding statewide rather than only for Albuquerque Public Schools. Members adopted an amendment striking the APS-only language and making the bill statewide after testimony from the sponsor, PED, and others that foster youth transportation is a growing issue and should have its own funding stream. The committee discussed how the money might be distributed and whether the $1.2 million appropriation would be sufficient, then voted do pass on SB 234 as amended. The committee next heard HB 8, which creates a Higher Education Major Projects Fund for large capital projects that are difficult to fund through existing capital outlay processes. Testimony from the sponsor, LFC, HED, and university representatives explained that the bill would support projects such as the UNM School of Medicine, an NMSU multidisciplinary building, student housing, student life projects, and certain Division I athletic facilities, while requiring design readiness, institutional matches, and legislative oversight. Several senators raised concerns about the clarity of the prioritization process, the Division I-only athletics language, the recurring nature of future funding, and the relationship to other capital funding streams, but the committee ultimately voted do pass on HB 8. The committee then considered SB 243 and SB 244, nearly identical bills for UNM and NMSU that would each appropriate $5 million for student health, student support, nutrition, travel, scholarships, and other athletic department needs. Athletic directors testified that conference realignment, higher travel costs, nutrition demands, and new revenue-sharing/NIL obligations have increased expenses, and sponsors said the bills were intended as one-time appropriations. Some senators questioned whether the requests should be recurring or funded through university revenue rather than the state, but both bills received do pass recommendations. Finally, the committee heard SM 16, as amended, which asks HED to convene a task force to study parenting students in higher education and recommend ways to collect data and improve support. Supporters said better data is needed to understand barriers such as child care and transportation, and the memorial passed with a do pass recommendation. The committee then adjourned until Friday morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• I feel like there's some leeway in here between projects before '23, projects from '23 to now, and projects
• So, projects right now.
• to table projects.
• We've got 10 projects that are 22 years old and older, and we've got 20 projects.
• So, there's only two 22-year-old projects, 321 projects for 20 projects, and 119 projects.

Transcript Highlights:

• It encompasses projects from 2021.
• There are a lot of interstate projects there and, of course, some state route projects.
• It’s a local project.
• The project is looking great.
• Just to put it in perspective, that project is a Bernalillo County LEED project.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> only state projects. only state projects.
• State projects only. >> That they would work on state projects only. >> Only. >> State projects only.
• State projects only. >> That they would work on state projects only. >> Only. >> State projects only.
• State projects only. >> That they would work on state projects only. >> Only. >> State projects only.
• State projects only. >> That they would work on state projects only. >> Only. >> State projects only.

Bills: SB2066

Committee: Senate Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs

Summary: The joint committees on Energy, Intergovernmental Affairs, and Government Operations heard Senate Bill 2066 on county permitting and inspection. Testimony focused on whether the bill should exempt state projects from county permitting requirements. One testifier opposed the measure, arguing it would bypass established permitting processes, weaken good government, and put the public at risk. A DOE representative said the intent was to speed up state projects, but suggested a different approach: funding county positions dedicated solely to state permits, possibly as a pilot program, rather than removing county review entirely. Committee members discussed the difficulty of moving state projects through county systems, the lack of special treatment, and whether a more systematic or standardized process could be created for repetitive projects. After the discussion, the chairs announced a substantive rewrite of SB 2066. The amended version would delete the county-permitting exemptions for state projects and instead create a cooperative working group to address the intersection of state projects and county permitting needs. The revised measure would also include a blank appropriation for counties to fund personnel to expedite permitting for state projects only. Members clarified that any funded staff would be dedicated solely to state projects. The committee then took votes on the revised measure. The committees adopted the amended bill. The Government Operations Committee recommended the Senate draft one version, and members present voted yes, with Senator Awa excused. The measure was adopted with the revised approach and an effective date set for April 19, 2042.

Transcript Highlights:

• The project.
• For a lot of housing projects, that will get the project approved.
• Force housing project.
• Lastly, the most recent project we approved from Round 2 was a project.
• Work with districts on a standards project or a systems project, project pre-K teacher housing.

Committee: House Public School Capital Outlay Oversight Task Force

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:03:27.879><c> we</c> philanthropic sources the projects we philanthropic sources the projects
• project that decarbonizes existing industrial processes or a project that supports the development of
• </c> unique position to catalyze projects unique position to catalyze projects that<00:20:27.400><c>
• Uh, what were those projects again, out of those three projects? There were three projects.
• So does it loan for hydro projects? Executive Director, we have done hydrothermal projects.

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities, Environment, and Climate

Transcript Highlights:

• Priority projects in our 2025-2026 plan include four seismic retrofit projects, ten projects to support
• . college bond projects.
• of the remaining funds for modernization projects and 35% for growth projects.
• Modernization projects: eight were growth, and four were life safety projects.
• Another project for another day.