Transcript Highlights:

• the court to award our attorney's fees to pay us back that $12,000.
• It's going to produce far fewer emissions.
• So emissions and NOx emissions, you're talking about like how does it translate to monetary value?
• It is a filter that is meant to filter. other emissions from the- So DEF stands for Diesel Emission Fluid
• The fees that go into the trust, there's one that's the title fee, so anytime you purchase a vehicle

Bills: HB512 , HB2248 , HB2679 , HB2832 , HB3112 , HB3368 , HB3490 , HB3512 , HB3623 , HB3666 , HB3700 , HB3711 , HB3770 , HB3963

Committee: House Delivery of Government Efficiency

Keywords: grievance procedures, state agency, employee rights, workplace regulations, employment law, employees, employment actions, appeal, state employees, workplace rights, disciplinary actions, employment conditions, employment disputes, job protections, public information, transparency, government accountability, information access, notification requirements, federal funding

Transcript Highlights:

• I think it's based on the fee per barrel. Mr.
• Why this obsession with methane emissions?
• The EIB could grant a fee increase. However, Mr.
• gas emissions that we can't reduce in other ways.
• This 10 cent fee is consistent with other states' fees, including Texas.

Committee: House House Energy, Environment & Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• We hear of some cultural preservation fees.
• and with the taxation on the service fee currently “With the taxation on the service fee currently,
• So now I pay the same delivery fee, but I’m not taxed on the delivery fee.
• You know, they may offer membership fees where you pay a membership fee a month instead of paying a per-transaction
• Particulate emissions down 50%, sulfur down 100%. These are quantifiable emissions.

Summary: The subcommittee first received an informational update on the Governor’s Office of Service and Community Engagement (GoServe), including California Volunteers, the Office of Community Partnerships and Strategic Communications, and the Youth Empowerment Commission. GoServe reported strong participation in College Corps, Youth Service Corps, and Climate Action Corps, along with outreach results from OCPSC and the Trusted Messenger Network. The Department of Finance said the programs remain a priority but noted prior budget reductions, while the LAO said it had no new recommendations. Committee members raised questions about program diversity, geographic reach, administrative costs, and whether the programs duplicate existing volunteer opportunities; one member criticized the programs as costly and duplicative, while another emphasized the value of volunteerism and asked about the men’s service challenge. The item was informational only. The committee then heard an overview of the Board of Equalization’s property tax responsibilities and its first budget proposals since the 2017 reorganization. BOE described its role in county assessment oversight, state-assessed property valuation, and related tax administration. Members asked about BOE’s interaction with counties, property tax reassessments, and local tax notices; BOE explained it mainly works with county assessors and handles technical property tax questions, while local special district charges are generally outside its scope. The committee also considered a BOE proposal to implement SB 293, which would give additional time for certain intergenerational property tax transfer claims after the 2025 wildfires. BOE requested $154,000 for guidance, public materials, and inquiry response work, saying the change is urgent for wildfire-affected families, especially in Altadena. The LAO had no concerns, and the item was held open. BOE also presented an information technology modernization proposal for its state-assessed property program, seeking $3.2 million in 2026-27 and $3.1 million in 2027-28 to replace a 30-year-old mainframe system. BOE said the current system relies heavily on manual data entry and paper processes, creating inefficiencies, cybersecurity risks, and delays, while modernization would free staff for more audits and valuation studies. The LAO supported the need but urged a high bar for new IT projects; Finance said the project met the threshold of necessity. Members generally supported the upgrade but asked about audit gains, revenue impacts, and implementation risks, and the item was held open. Finally, CDTFA gave its department overview and then discussed a proposal to require all delivery network companies, such as Uber Eats and DoorDash, to be treated as marketplace facilitators for sales tax purposes. CDTFA said the current carve-out creates confusion for restaurants and small businesses because some DNCs collect and remit tax while others do not, and the change would improve compliance and shift reporting to larger platforms. Members debated whether the proposal amounts to a tax increase for consumers, with CDTFA and Finance arguing it is a consistency and compliance measure rather than a new tax, while others said it would likely raise consumer costs. The committee also discussed broader CDTFA issues, including local sales tax districts, revenue-sharing agreements, and the growth of special taxing jurisdictions. No votes were taken, and the agenda items were informational or held open.

Transcript Highlights:

• Members of the JCR 4032 is the industry agreed to language to assess themselves for some fees.
• What it does is it increases the caps on fees that the Ethics Commission fund may retain each year from

Bills: HB3257 , HB3176 , HB3544 , HB3619 , HB3546 , HB1782 , HB2293 , HB4358 , HB3081 , HB3983 , HB3790 , HJR1023 , HB4139 , HB3297 , HB3041 , HB3673 , HB4105 , HB3338 , HB3048 , SR33 , SCR21 , SCR20 , HB4030 , HB4031 , HB4032 , HB4034 , HB4036 , HB4037 , HB4038 , HB4040 , HB4041 , HB4042 , HB4043 , HB4045 , HB4046 , HB4047 , HB4048 , HB4044 , HB4050 , HB4051 , HB4052 , HB4053 , HB4054 , HB4056 , HB4057 , HB4071 , HB4065 , HB4067 , HB4072 , HB2992 , HB4338 , HB4170

Keywords: veterans, disability benefits, federal law, Oklahoma Statutes, military service, Oklahoma, Gas Hub, artificial intelligence, national laboratory, public-private partnerships, aerospace, high-performance computing, economic development, social AI companions, minors, emotional attachment, safety protocols, civil penalties, parental controls, geographic information

Transcript Highlights:

• The fees would be proportional to emissions, with choice in the payment structure to allow flexibility
• The fee is based on their past emissions, and it's only the percentage of their global emissions that
• on past global emissions.
• It's addressed at in-state emissions rather than this broad extraterritorial reach of global emissions
• emission goals.

Summary: The committee hearing centered first on AB 1243, the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025, which would direct CalEPA to identify major fossil fuel companies, study California’s climate damages, and assess fees on the largest polluters to fund resilience, recovery, and related projects. The author and supporters argued the bill would make polluters help pay for climate harms, protect taxpayers, create jobs in construction and clean energy, and dedicate at least 40% of funds to disadvantaged communities. Support testimony came from environmental justice groups, labor, youth advocates, health organizations, and many individual witnesses, while opponents from the building trades, chambers of commerce, petroleum, and business groups warned it would raise fuel and consumer costs, threaten refinery jobs, and create legal and economic uncertainty. Committee members debated the bill’s impact on affordability, jobs, refinery closures, and whether cap-and-trade already addresses climate funding needs. The committee ultimately voted to give AB 1243 a due pass recommendation to the Judiciary Committee, with the roll left open. After AB 1243, the committee moved to another bill on wildfire mitigation and related resilience work. The author said the measure addresses a long-running wildfire problem and accepted committee amendments, describing the bill as a response to increasingly severe wildfire seasons and the need to help communities stay safe and rebuild after disasters. The transcript cuts off as that presentation begins, so no final action on the second bill is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• have high transportation impact fees.
• rather than actually reducing the at-birth emission.
• emissions.
• OGV at-berth emissions.
• Ivy, real quick, on the emissions, I like that slide because it shows, I guess, an improvement of emissions

Committees: Joint Transportation , Joint Joint Transportation Committee

Summary: The committee first heard from WSDOT on capital program estimating, risk management, and cash flow. WSDOT explained the differences between design-bid-build and design-build delivery, how estimates are built from base cost, risk, inflation, and unknowns, and how risk reviews scale up by project size. Staff said design-bid-build estimates are generally accurate within about 1% across the program, while design-build projects have much wider uncertainty and are better communicated as ranges; WSDOT cited a P85 budget approach for legislative funding and a lower P45 management target. Members asked about the large cost growth on the I-5 Columbia River Bridge project and about value engineering; WSDOT said the project is unusually complex and that cost containment is limited by project requirements and policy mandates. Troy Swing also discussed the idea of a risk pool, saying it would not reduce overall program risk and would still require appropriation, while emphasizing the need for more realistic early budgeting and cash flow assumptions. The committee then received the final presentation in the WSDOT Project Delivery and Innovative Practices study from HKA Global. The consultant said WSDOT already uses a robust estimating process, but recommended improving transparency by presenting budget authorizations as ranges or estimate classes, better tracking award growth and cost growth over time, and monitoring market conditions and letting schedules to improve competition. The report also discussed surety bonding, recommending that the legislature consider restoring authority for reduced bonding on select large design-build projects or allowing phased or alternative securities, and reviewed indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracting, including job order contracts and multiple-award task order contracts. The consultant said these tools could help with smaller work packages and competition, but current Washington law is restrictive and would need changes for broader use. Next, the committee heard a follow-up report on transit-oriented development policy from the Urban Institute. The consultant said Washington’s HB 1491 is nationally notable, but warned that housing construction has slowed sharply, especially in the Puget Sound, due to high construction costs, financing costs, and other market pressures. The report recommended filling the infrastructure-funding gap created by reduced impact fees, revisiting MFTE affordability requirements so they better match local market conditions, considering minimum rather than averaged density requirements near transit, expanding public land and public development options, and creating a state system to track TOD outcomes such as affordability, gentrification, and transit access. Members questioned the study’s developer interviews, the role of rent stabilization, property tax assumptions, and parking needs; the consultant said only five private developers were interviewed and offered to provide the question framework and additional follow-up materials. Finally, the committee began a study on regulating emissions from ocean-going vessels at berth. Staff and consultants explained how shore power lets ships plug into the electrical grid and shut off auxiliary diesel engines, reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, reactive organic compounds, and greenhouse gases near ports. The presentation reviewed California’s at-berth regulation, which Washington could only mirror if it acts under federal preemption limits, and outlined the study’s phases on vessel traffic, emissions reductions, implementation costs, and competitiveness impacts. No votes were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• trading programs, including establishing emission caps, allocating or trading emissions allowances or
• We've seen how Europe has increased its taxes on emissions.
• It's not an additional fee or surcharge.
• When it comes to global emissions, it's global emissions, meaning, I mean, a lot of that cannot be the
• They've committed to real zero emissions by 2045.

Bills: S0558 , S1294 , S1468 , S1474 , S1682 , S1628

Committee: Senate Environment and Natural Resources

Keywords: stormwater systems, environmental standards, municipal infrastructure, engineering certifications, local compliance, Florida Department of Transportation, biosolids, agronomic rate, land application, environmental protection, Florida statutes, nutrient management, recordkeeping, farming, compost products, wastewater treatment, environment, sewage disposal, pollution control, reporting requirements

Transcript Highlights:

• emissions of Paraguay.
• Shein has tripled its greenhouse gas emissions, now matching the annual emissions of Paraguay.
• That is a total emissions cut, not just carbon emissions intensity.
• , or visits from zero-emission trucks.
• We all recognize California's significant progress in reducing emissions, and more emission reductions

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Because greenhouse gas emissions are global in nature, assigning responsibility for worldwide emissions
• Have global emissions gone up or down?
• So this bill is not, like I said, about emissions or lowering emissions, as explicitly stated in the
• , including any type of court fees or attorney fees, could go back to the tenant, and that's if the case
• This fee, and that... ...of correctional services is subject to a fee.

Transcript Highlights:

• And assess fees on the largest fossil fuel polluters proportional to their emissions, with choice in
• The fee is based on their past emissions, and it's only the percentage of their global emissions that
• on past global emissions.
• Net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
• emission goals.

Committee: House Natural Resources

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on AB 1243, the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025, which would direct CalEPA to identify major fossil fuel companies, study California’s climate damages, and assess fees on large polluters to fund resilience, recovery, and related projects. The author and supporters argued the bill would shift costs from taxpayers to the companies most responsible for climate harm, while dedicating funding to disadvantaged communities, home hardening, school resilience, clean energy, and jobs. Supporters included environmental justice groups, health advocates, youth activists, labor-aligned climate groups, and many individual witnesses who described climate impacts in their communities and urged polluters to pay. Opposition came primarily from the building trades, business groups, and petroleum-related organizations, who argued the bill would raise fuel and consumer costs, create uncertainty for business, and accelerate refinery closures and job losses. They said California already has cap-and-trade, which they described as a better tool for funding climate action and reducing emissions, and warned that retroactive liability for past emissions was legally and economically problematic. Committee members questioned both sides on consumer impacts, job effects, and whether cap-and-trade already addresses the problem. After discussion, the committee voted 6-1 to pass AB 1243 to the Judiciary Committee, with Assembly Member Ellis voting no and Assembly Member Muratsuchi not voting. The chair and members noted the bill would continue to be discussed, and the author closed by emphasizing the need to fund climate resilience while holding polluters accountable. The transcript then began a separate presentation on a wildfire mitigation bill, with the author introducing committee amendments and describing wildfire prevention and recovery needs, but that item was not completed in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Can you tell me how much the increased fees on a regular vehicle will raise?
• One is a 25% increase in vehicle registration fees.
• Whether you call it a tax, a fee, or a surcharge, it comes out of a tax.
• When will these tax and fee increases begin to take effect? Mr.
• We need to give you a little bit more fees.

Bills: HM3 , HM11 , HM14 , HM15 , HM21 , HM25 , HB9 , SB2 , SB19

Keywords: nurses, health care workers, healthcare workers, frontline workers, hospital staff, clinicians, allied health professionals, support staff, public health, workforce shortage, nursing shortage, safe staffing, patient safety, rural health care, frontier communities, behavioral health, mental health, substance use disorder, substance abuse, health care memorial

Transcript Highlights:

• when those fees are incurred.
• In order for fees to be incurred, the client must owe the fees to their attorney, meaning that the attorneys
• who work on a pro bono basis under the TCPA are unable to recover any fees.
• Why would you need to award them fees if they're taking this on pro bono?
• In a case where the attorney is actually doing this for a fee, they still have to prove up their fees

Bills: HB5621 , HB4904 , HB5067 , HB5076 , HB5081 , HB5354 , HB4862 , HB3847 , HB4088 , HB4157 , HB2966 , HB2287 , HB4203 , HB4803 , HB4737 , HB5093 , HB783 , HB5411 , HB4281

Committee: House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence

Keywords: HB 5621, consumer protection, Deceptive Trade Practices Act, DTPA, Business & Commerce Code, attorney general, consumer protection division, district attorney, county attorney, local prosecutor, civil investigative demand, CID, voluntary compliance, financial institution records, bank records, privacy, protective order, in camera review, trade secrets, insurer

Bills: SB393 , SB414 , SB472 , SB578 , SB617 , SB710 , SB785 , SB973 , SB1059 , SB1062 , SB1352 , SB1450 , SB1502 , SB1547 , SB1566 , SB1567

Committee: Senate Local Government

Keywords: SB 393, Sparks, Middleton, local government, political subdivision, public securities, government debt, municipal bonds, general obligation bonds, certificates of obligation, anticipation notes, debt maturity, weighted average maturity, economic life, useful life, tangible personal property, real property improvements, public finance, Texas Government Code, Chapter 1253

Transcript Highlights:

• That fee would only ever reduce gas prices because no one's ever going to pay a fee to sell gas during
• So far, we've gone 600 miles of zero-emission miles.
• We've definitely had a brand reputation gain by going zero-emission.
• Lime Scooter, who was our first zero-emission customer, came to us because we were zero-emission, so
• It stands for zero-emission truck and bus infrastructure financing.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Select Committee on Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure focused on California’s EV market, charging infrastructure, and the effects of recent federal actions on state clean-transportation programs. The chair emphasized California’s progress on EV adoption and charging reliability, but also noted ongoing problems with affordability, charger access, interoperability, and the need to support light-duty, heavy-duty, and fleet electrification. She also highlighted interest in inductive charging, bidirectional charging, and the transition to NACS, and said the hearing would help shape future legislative action. State agency witnesses from Go-Biz, CARB, and the California Energy Commission described their roles in market development, emissions regulation, incentives, and charging deployment. Go-Biz outlined its ZEV market strategy, equity action plan, and permitting streamlining work, while CARB detailed federal challenges to its clean vehicle rules, the need to defend waiver authority in court, and the importance of incentives and regulatory stability. The CEC discussed charger reliability rules, statewide inventory and planning, funding for public and multifamily charging, and efforts to expand fast charging and improve access in charging deserts. All three agencies stressed that federal rollbacks and the expiration of federal tax credits make state policies and funding more important. Testimony from industry, local government, and advocacy groups largely supported continued state investment. Cal ETC urged a continuous Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund appropriation, more support for multifamily charging, and managed charging programs. The American EV Jobs Alliance proposed a state “conquest” incentive for new and used EV buyers and argued that multifamily charging is the biggest untapped market. Los Angeles County and LADWP described large-scale fleet and charger deployments, public housing and multifamily projects, and the need for sustained funding, agency coordination, and utility/grid interconnection support. The Union of Concerned Scientists recommended prioritizing Clean Cars for All, using fees on non-CARBOB gasoline to fund cleaner vehicle replacement, and expanding authority for bidirectional EV deployment. Members and witnesses also discussed Level 1 versus Level 2 charging for multifamily housing and other use cases. The chair noted that Level 2 is essential for many drivers but asked whether Level 1 could be a cheaper, faster option in some settings. Witnesses agreed that Level 1 can work in certain contexts, especially airports or some multifamily installations, but emphasized that consumer confidence, overnight range, dealer education, and reliable access to charging remain central to broader EV adoption. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We hear of some cultural preservation fees.
• So now I pay the same delivery fee, but I'm not taxed on the delivery fee.
• You know, they may offer membership fees where you pay a membership fee a month instead of paying a per-transaction
• fee for $6.40, and that brought it to $49.”
• Particulate emissions down 50%, sulfur down 100%. These are quantifiable emissions.

Transcript Highlights:

• That fee would only ever reduce gas prices because no one's ever going to pay a fee to sell gas during
• So far, we've gone 600 miles of zero-emission miles.
• Lime Scooter, who was our first zero-emission customer, came to us because we were zero emission, so
• It stands for zero-emission truck and bus infrastructure financing.
• It stands for zero emission truck and bus infrastructure financing.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Select Committee on Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure focused on California’s EV market, charging infrastructure, and the effects of recent federal actions. The chair opened by emphasizing California’s progress on EV adoption and charging reliability, but also noted ongoing challenges with affordability, access, interoperability, heavy-duty electrification, and federal headwinds. She highlighted interest in technologies such as inductive charging and thanked host organizations and staff before moving to the first panel. State agency witnesses from Go-Biz, CARB, and the California Energy Commission described current programs and priorities. Go-Biz outlined its role in coordinating agencies, supporting permitting, and advancing the state’s ZEV market development strategy and equity action plan. CARB discussed federal attacks on its clean vehicle regulations, litigation to defend waiver authority, and the importance of incentives and regulatory programs such as Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean Fleets, Clean Truck Check, HVIP, and Clean Cars for All. The CEC detailed its funding and regulatory work on charging and fueling infrastructure, charger reliability, payment methods, roaming, and statewide planning, while stressing the need for more charging in multifamily housing and more public DC fast charging. All three agencies said federal rollbacks and permitting delays are major obstacles, but that California remains committed to expanding ZEV adoption. The second panel featured advocates, local government, utility, and research perspectives. CalETC urged continuous state funding through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and emphasized the low-carbon fuel standard, multifamily charging, and managed charging. An EV advocacy group proposed a conquest-style state incentive for new and used EV buyers and argued that multifamily housing is a major untapped market, while also favoring Level 2 charging over Level 1 for most home and apartment settings. Los Angeles County and LADWP described large-scale local deployment of chargers, fleet electrification, workforce training, and the need for sustained funding, agency coordination, and streamlined permitting and grid interconnection. UCS recommended prioritizing replacement of older high-emitting vehicles, using fuel policy revenues to support cleaner cars, and expanding bidirectional charging. The chair closed by asking for more discussion on Level 1 versus Level 2 charging and noted the importance of education, affordability, and practical deployment strategies.

Transcript Highlights:

• Mallet, the CFO of the Department of Tax and Fees.
• So under this proposal, the delivery fees will still...
• retailers of tangible goods charge tax on service fees.
• emissions near airports.
• SAF is our most meaningful way to reduce emissions.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that is a fee for service.
• Fee and then we always go above it and then we invoice accordingly. So it's fee for service.
• , timber harvest fees, et cetera.
• , timber harvest fees, et cetera.
• a statutory cap or a fee schedule.

Summary: The hearing opened with budget framing from the chair and the LAO, who said the May Revision addresses roughly a $14 billion budget problem and that the environment and transportation subcommittee’s proposals account for about $1.9 billion of the solution. The LAO urged members to focus on solutions that do not worsen out-year deficits, to preserve reserves, and to defer major policy changes that are not necessary to pass the budget, including the newly introduced water-related trailer bills. Members also raised concern about a late-dropped Olympic-related trailer bill, which the LAO likewise suggested should be deferred for fuller review. The first major item was the Delta Conveyance Project and related water quality control plan trailer bills. The administration argued the proposals would streamline permitting, water rights proceedings, judicial review, and land acquisition, and would clarify DWR’s bond authority for the project. DWR said the project is needed to protect water supply reliability against drought, earthquakes, sea level rise, and other climate-related disruptions, and that the tunnel would help move water when conditions are wet and safer for the environment. Committee members from both parties questioned the timing, the use of budget trailer bills for major policy changes, the scope of the CEQA and water-rights changes, the lack of a bond cap, cost growth, and eminent domain protections. The LAO recommended deferring both water trailer bills without prejudice. Public comment was sharply divided, with labor, water agencies, and some business groups supporting the project as climate adaptation and reliability infrastructure, while environmental, tribal, fishing, county, and community groups opposed it as an attempt to bypass public process and weaken protections. The committee then briefly heard the DMV’s Digital Experience Platform fee trailer bill, which would reinstate a $1 system improvement fee to help fund the vehicle-registration phase of the project. DMV said the fee would raise about $7 million annually and offset roughly $59 million to $60 million of project costs, while the LAO noted it would help but would not solve the Motor Vehicle Account’s broader structural gap. The hearing then moved to California High-Speed Rail, where the new CEO presented an updated plan and said the project remains a major climate and infrastructure investment. He reported a revised Merced-to-Bakersfield cost range of $34.9 billion to $38.5 billion, said the agency is trying to reduce risk through direct procurement of materials, and argued that stable annual funding is needed to avoid higher costs from delays.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hawaii Energy Now present in support. emissions in Hawaii and this is one emissions in Hawaii and this
• </c><01:33:03.679><c> from</c> with greenhouse gas emissions from with greenhouse gas emissions from
• and greenhouse gas emissions.
• and greenhouse gas carbon emissions and greenhouse gas emissions<01:50:14.880><c> um</c><01:50:15.440
• </c> I also do not support any carbon fee I also do not support any carbon fee revenues<02:31:07.319>

Committee: House Energy & Environmental Protection

Summary: The House Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection opened its first hearing of the session and heard testimony on several energy and environmental bills. On HB 470, relating to noise and leaf blowers, the Department of Health supported the bill’s intent to reduce noise pollution but raised concerns about using decibel limits alone and suggested using dBA measurements; testimony also noted the bill would regulate future sales rather than current use, and there were three additional testimonies, two in support and one in opposition. No questions were raised before the committee moved on. The committee then heard HB 742 on transit-oriented development, which would require HCDA to prepare a programmatic EIS for Ewa, Kapalama, and West Oahu improvements. UH supported the bill, HHFDC said it was already preparing a master plan and programmatic EIS for the Ewa area, and HCDA explained that the projects are already underway or completed, including infrastructure work funded by prior appropriations. Supporters said the bill would streamline environmental review and potentially reduce costs for future housing, while HCDA emphasized the work is already in progress. On HB 340, concerning a streamlined grid-ready home interconnection process and related cost recovery, DCCA provided comments, the Attorney General suggested changing a deadline to a specific date, and the PUC said it wanted to study the matter further while still meeting the 180-day reporting requirement. Solar and clean energy groups strongly supported the bill as a way to speed interconnection and advance grid-interactive technologies, while Hawaiian Electric supported the goal of more DERs but opposed the process, saying its interconnection performance has improved and that collaboration would be preferable to legislation. Members asked about newer technologies, UL 1741, and ratepayer impacts, and the Consumer Advocate said removing the cost-recovery section would alleviate its concerns. The committee also heard HB 243, requiring PV- and EV-ready new residential construction, which the Hawaii State Energy Office described as a cost-saving no-brainer because installing these features during construction is much cheaper than retrofitting later. The hearing then shifted to HB 350, expanding the water-heater systems that can satisfy building-permit requirements to include heat pump water heaters alongside solar hot water systems. The Energy Office supported the bill, Solar Ray supported the concept but asked for amendments to align efficiency standards and noted the bill’s removal of a 15-year lifespan limit for solar thermal systems, and Hawaii Solar Energy Association raised questions about how heat pump performance should be measured and whether PV-plus-heat-pump combinations should qualify. Committee members asked about impacts on smaller homes and ADUs, and the discussion remained focused on technical standards and possible amendments; no votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The emissions reductions in the scoping plan primarily come from zero-emission cars, trucks, and clean
• If all we're doing here in California is reducing our emissions, which are like 1% of global emissions
• But for Chair Randolph, in terms of carbon emissions, how far away do we count carbon emissions that
• We also track emissions for other purposes, including emissions in the Low Carbon Fuel Standard context
• and the emissions at the source.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held its annual oversight hearing on the transportation fuels sector, focused on refinery closures, gasoline supply and prices, in-state oil production, and implementation of SBX1-2 and ABX2-1. The chair emphasized that California needs a system-wide transition plan to manage the decline in fossil fuel demand while avoiding supply shocks and consumer harm, especially in light of Phillips 66’s planned refinery changes and Valero’s announced intent to close its Benicia refinery. CEC Vice Chair Siva Gunda and CARB Chair Liane Randolph described the broader fuel transition: EV adoption is rising, gasoline demand is declining, and California’s refining system is increasingly tight and interconnected with imports, storage, pipelines, and marine terminals. Randolph reviewed CARB’s climate and air-quality programs, including the low-carbon fuel standard, and said California still has major ozone and particulate pollution problems even as emissions have fallen. Both agencies stressed that the state must balance climate goals, air quality, consumer protection, and investor confidence, and that additional refinery closures could increase price volatility and strain supply. DPMO Director Ty Milder presented new data on gasoline pricing, saying Californians have paid a “mystery gasoline surcharge” of about 41 cents per gallon since 2015, with higher branded gasoline markups and elevated industry margins concentrated among vertically integrated firms. He said the data show some refiners do well while others struggle, and that the market is highly concentrated. Committee members questioned whether the data proved manipulation or whether state regulations and declining supply were contributing to refinery exits and higher prices. Witnesses said no specific consumer-cost threshold is used in CARB’s economic analysis, and CEC officials said they have not yet implemented the new permissive tools because they are still evaluating whether the benefits outweigh the risks. No votes were taken.