Transcript Highlights:

• THOSE ARE SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT OF RENTAL HOUSING.
• TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST AND THOSE DEVELOPERS ARE GETTING PRIVATE INVESTMENT AS WELL AND THERE ARE FEDERAL
• DEVELOPMENTS OF SIGNIFICANT REGIONAL IMPACT.
• EVERY DEVELOPMENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE MIXED INCOME.
• >> WE DID LAST YEAR OVERALL 106 DEVELOPMENTS.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In fact, we were here to talk about the structure for developing or for regulating development in urban
• Some want to attract development. Some want to limit development.
• Some want to attract development. Some want to limit development.
• This works well short term because developers get to develop. Services are provided.
• Because developers get to develop, services are provided, water's installed, sewers installed, but counties

Summary: The committee held a work session on local government issues, beginning with an update from the State Building Code Council on four legislatively mandated code amendments now in CR-102 rulemaking: temporary emergency shelters, reduced minimum dwelling unit size, multiplex housing up to three stories and six units, and single-exit apartment buildings up to six stories. Council staff also described a separate embodied-carbon appendix proposal that remains under public review, with testimony both supporting and opposing it. Members asked about the rationale for some of the code limits, including the restriction on connecting multiplex buildings. The committee then heard a panel on annexations from MRSC, Pierce County, and the Association of Washington Cities. Witnesses reviewed annexation methods, including petition, election, and interlocal agreement approaches, and said larger annexations are increasingly using interlocal agreements because they can address infrastructure, revenue sharing, and public process concerns. They described barriers such as inconsistent local standards, the cost of infrastructure, referendum risk, census requirements, and the difficulty of persuading residents and local officials to support annexation. Members asked about the five-year restriction on residential zoning changes in one annexation method and whether a hearing examiner could reduce political pressure on local decision-makers. A second panel discussed subdivision reform. The Master Builders Association urged raising the short-plat threshold within urban growth areas to 30 lots as a simpler first step, citing permitting delays and added housing costs. The City of Spokane described implementation problems with recent housing laws, including uncertainty about how to review plats under HB 1110, lot-splitting administration, and added notice requirements for unit lot subdivisions. AWC said there was broad agreement that subdivision decisions should be more administrative, but public hearings remained a point of disagreement. The committee also heard from FutureWise, the Washington State Association of Counties, and Lewis County on county development regulation and enforcement, with witnesses emphasizing underfunded code enforcement, inconsistent standards between counties and cities, and the need for better coordination, incentives, and possibly stronger enforcement tools. No votes were taken; the chair said the committee would continue working on possible solutions in future sessions.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have land out there might sell it to a developer, but the way it's being developed is so fast, so
• Everybody in the county pays for that development.
• Development should pay for development. That does not happen in these entities.
• The developer has to come in.
• It is still the developers doing all the private, uh, development.

Bills: HB23

Keywords: property tax exemption, ad valorem tax, Texas Tax Code, nonprofit corporation, charitable organization, educational nonprofit, scientific nonprofit, agriculture support, youth programs, community education, county population threshold, large county, local government revenue, leasehold interest, possessory interest, county property tax, nonprofit-owned property

Transcript Highlights:

• Corporation would act as a land bank and be able to develop plans and RFPs and RFQs for development
• developers?
• accept those properties and then work with a nonprofit developer or a for-profit developer to do affordable
• and also mixed-income development.
• I lead cooperative housing development for the Northwest Cooperative Development Center.

Summary: The committee met for work sessions on land banking/shared homeownership and on maximizing existing housing stock. Members first heard an overview from Commerce on alternative homeownership models, including community land trusts, limited equity cooperatives, condominiums, accessory dwelling units, middle housing, church land for housing, and public land transfers. The discussion focused on how these models can help households build equity while keeping housing permanently affordable. Committee members asked about statewide counts of co-ops and land trusts, and Commerce said it does not track all of those entities directly. Pierce County staff then described the Pierce County Community Development Corporation’s rapid acquisition fund and its role in acquiring, holding, and transferring public land for affordable housing. They said the county used general fund and affordable housing sales tax dollars to buy properties, preserve a manufactured home park through resident ownership, and create a pipeline of sites for future development. Members asked about the advantages of a public development authority, funding sources, the use of surplus and underutilized public property, and how the model works with housing authorities. Spokane land bank staff followed with testimony that land banks can reduce blight, preserve affordability, and help nonprofits acquire land quickly, but that holding costs and taxes can make the work harder without state support. They also described brownfield assessments, donated properties, and work on Black homeownership and public surplus properties. The committee then heard from the Northwest Cooperative Development Center on limited equity cooperatives, especially in manufactured housing communities. The witness said Washington now has about 43 limited equity co-ops and that recent subsidy funding and legislation have accelerated resident purchases of manufactured home communities. Members asked how residents benefit from capped equity, how values are affected, and whether the model improves access to lending; the witness said the model stabilizes costs, allows modest equity gains, and that a recent law allowing manufactured homes in co-ops to be titled as real property should improve access to traditional financing. The committee also discussed House Bill 1974 from the prior session and possible updates to land banking legislation. In the second work session on maximizing existing housing stock, Commerce reviewed recent housing laws and implementation timelines, including ADUs, middle housing, condo liability reform, SEPA changes, tiny homes, and co-living. Members raised concerns about the long implementation horizon, vacancy data, corporate ownership of homes, and the need for better support for small landlords and first-time ADU owners. Sightline then testified on mobile dwelling units, arguing that RVs, tiny houses on wheels, and similar units are a low-cost, quick-to-install housing option that is often blocked by zoning; the witness said many Washington residents already live in these units, often informally. Finally, AARP discussed housing options for older adults, including ADUs, missing middle, manufactured home communities, co-living, universal design, and village-style support models, emphasizing aging in place and the need for more accessible, affordable housing choices.

Transcript Highlights:

• fund affordable housing developments.
• to fund affordable housing developments.
• We are a market-rate housing developer.
• This is the reality developers face.
• As a developer, that sounds scary.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Housing Finance and Affordability held its first hearing of 2025 to examine California’s housing finance system, with opening remarks emphasizing the state’s severe housing shortage, high costs, and the need for practical recommendations to the Legislature and Governor. Co-chairs described the committee as an educational and problem-solving forum focused on financing housing production, first-time homeownership, mixed-income developments, and affordability across the income spectrum. Witnesses from state agencies and the development sector were invited to explain how housing is financed and where the system is breaking down. Panelists from the California Housing Partnership, the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee/State Treasurer’s Office, CalHFA, and Related outlined the “capital stack” used to finance affordable housing, stressing that projects typically rely on multiple public and private sources, including federal and state low-income housing tax credits, tax-exempt bonds, state subsidies, local funds, and rental income. Speakers noted that affordable housing rents generally cannot support full project costs without public subsidy, and that recent federal changes—especially the expansion of the 4% and 9% tax credit programs and the reduction of the bond financing threshold for 4% credits—should allow California to finance substantially more units. CalHFA also described its homeownership programs, including My Home, Dream For All, and disaster-related mortgage assistance, as well as its multifamily lending and bond issuance programs. Several witnesses and committee members emphasized that the system remains too complex, too slow, and underfunded. They pointed to the need for more state funding, a housing bond, a permanent funding source, and better coordination among agencies, while also citing recent streamlining efforts such as AB 434’s SuperNOFA, AB 519’s one-stop-shop working group, and the planned California Housing and Homeless Agency reorganization. Members raised concerns about equity, access, missing-middle housing, gender and racial disparities, and whether current programs adequately serve extremely low-income households and those at risk of homelessness. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing; the discussion ended with committee members and witnesses agreeing that both funding and administrative reform are needed to increase production and improve affordability.

Transcript Highlights:

• with the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
• as to timelines once a developer has engaged, so that way the developer is aware of the timelines or
• developers when they...
• Our commitment to developing and utilizing general orders so that individual developers, when they have
• No developer is the same.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Regulatory Authority held its first hearing to examine how California’s regulatory framework affects housing production, affordability, and timelines. Chair Pacheco and Assemblymember Haney framed the discussion around the state’s housing shortage and the need to reduce costs while maintaining environmental, safety, and community protections. The first panel featured housing experts and industry representatives who argued that state regulations, code complexity, utility constraints, and agency review processes add substantial cost and delay to development. Bill Fulton described overlapping state and local land-use authorities and the tension among housing, coastal protection, climate, and wildfire goals. CBIA’s Chris Ochoa and California Apartment Association representative Bob Raymer said building codes, energy mandates, and agency processes have materially increased per-home costs, and they urged more centralized affordability analysis and greater scrutiny of regulatory impacts. The Bay Area Council’s Louis Marante called for a statewide cost target for housing and stronger timelines and accountability for state agency reviews. The second panel brought in state agencies to explain their roles. HCD said its housing element enforcement, streamlining laws, and technical assistance have helped increase production, shorten entitlement timelines, and improve compliance by local governments. CARB said SB 375 is a planning law that does not directly regulate land use, and argued that regional housing assumptions in sustainable communities strategies are not being fully implemented on the ground. The Coastal Commission said it works with local governments to balance coastal protection, sea-level-rise risk, and housing, and noted recent guidance and pilot efforts to streamline housing approvals in the coastal zone. The Energy Commission said its building energy standards are designed to be cost-effective and save consumers money over time, though they can add some design and documentation complexity. Fish and Wildlife and DTSC both emphasized early engagement and collaboration to reduce delays while protecting natural resources and public health; DTSC said it is refining vapor intrusion guidance and using brownfield grants to support redevelopment. The State Water Resources Control Board said it uses general orders and basin planning to provide predictable permitting while balancing water quality, water rights, and housing needs, and noted billions in grants and loans for water infrastructure and site remediation that can support housing affordability. In response to questions from Assemblymember Haney, several agencies described ongoing coordination across departments, including regular meetings among HCD, CARB, the Coastal Commission, and transportation agencies, as well as broader interagency efforts to reduce redundancies and identify pinch points in project delivery. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing; the main outcome was informational testimony and discussion of possible future reforms to improve coordination, predictability, and affordability in state regulatory processes.

Transcript Highlights:

• a mini-developer.
• Single-family developers get a privileged role in the process while multifamily developers do not.
• Overall, single-family developers have won much easier rules than developers who build apartments in
• So this would establish a development fund to assist in the development of so-called starter homes.
• A development fund to assist in the development of so-called starter homes.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing opened a hybrid hearing focused on housing production bills, with Chairs Julian Cyr and Rich Haggerty emphasizing Massachusetts’ housing shortage and the need to produce more than 200,000 units over the next decade. The committee then heard testimony on a wide range of proposals, including social housing, starter homes and the “missing middle,” accessory dwelling units (ADUs), single-stair residential buildings, permanent affordability homeownership, and housing for people with disabilities. Several witnesses framed the bills as tools to expand supply, lower costs, and address racial and generational wealth gaps. Representative Connolly testified for H. 1478 on the Massachusetts Social Housing Program, describing publicly owned, mixed-income housing financed through a revolving loan fund. Senator Feeney testified for S. 989 on missing middle starter homes, arguing for zoning changes, incentives, and affordability tools to support smaller starter homes and duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. Multiple witnesses, including housing advocates, real estate representatives, and local officials, supported the ADU trust fund bill and the single-stair study bill, saying they would reduce barriers, support homeowners, and enable more family-sized and infill housing. Some witnesses opposed bills they said would weaken ADU reforms or add new restrictions, while others urged broader deregulation to speed production. A major portion of the hearing focused on H. 1576/S. 1010, the Homes for Lasting Affordability bill, which would create a permanent affordability homeownership program for low- and moderate-income buyers and support small developments with long-term affordability restrictions. Testimony from community land trust leaders, legislators, and housing advocates emphasized that permanent affordability can preserve public investment, stabilize neighborhoods, and help families build wealth over generations. Senator Miranda and Representative Worrell tied the bill to closing the racial wealth gap and expanding access to homeownership for Black and Latino residents. The committee also heard testimony on S. 971, which would reform the Housing Development and Incentive Program to require more affordability in Gateway City projects. The committee additionally heard from Senator Kennedy and disability advocates on S. 1004, which would strengthen the Alternative Housing Voucher Program for people with disabilities by codifying project-based vouchers and aligning the program more closely with other voucher systems. Witnesses described long waitlists and the lack of accessible, affordable units as major barriers that can lead to homelessness or unnecessary institutionalization. No votes were taken during the hearing; the session was devoted to testimony and questions from committee members.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Office of Economic Development...
• Economic Development Strategic Plan.
• development, which is critical to our state.
• Associate Development Organizations.
• Associate Development Organizations.

Bills: SB5871, SB5919

Keywords: motor vehicle, glass repair, insurance claims, consumer protection, regulations, fire safety, insurance incentives, best practices, community protection, voluntary measures, 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So it is a developer tool.
• It's unlike some other tools in economic development, shifted to the developer because if those revenues
• So plans are developed.
• for economic development.
• is not fully developed, and it takes a while to develop their capital stack.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:12:42.239><c> our</c><01:12:42.520><c> developers</c> market rate developments our developers
• won't develop there.
• won't develop there.
• won't develop there.
• won't develop there.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The word development gets a negative connotation, but there's a lot around development.
• The word development gets a negative condentation, but there's a lot around development.
• , not a land developer.
• , not a land developer.
• , not a land developer.

Summary: The Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee first considered the appointment of Joshua Kellam to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Kellam described his background with Garcia Companies, emphasized his conservation interests and land stewardship work, and addressed concerns about his development ties, the commission’s composition, the recent black bear hunt vote, and a prior Yes on 2 campaign supported by the Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Supporters said he is a conservation-minded landowner and good steward of large acreage, while opponents argued the commission is already overrepresented by developers and lacks scientific or conservation expertise. After debate, the committee voted to recommend his confirmation, with Senators Smith and Arrington voting no and the rest of the members present voting yes. The committee then received an FWC implementation update on recently enacted boating and waterways legislation. FWC staff reviewed five laws: the Boater Freedom Act (SB 1388), Vessel Accountability (SB 164), Lucy’s Law/Boating Safety (HB 289), Disposition of Migrant Vessels (SB 830), and Water Access Facilities (HB 735). The presentation covered new rules on vessel stops, safety decals, Springs Protection Zones, derelict and at-risk vessel enforcement, long-term anchoring permits, tougher boating penalties, removal of migrant vessels, and grants for boating access infrastructure. Staff said rulemaking and officer training were underway, with some provisions already effective and others scheduled to take effect later in 2025 or January 2026. Members asked follow-up questions about derelict vessel cost recovery and the new Springs Protection Zone standard. FWC explained that responsible owners must reimburse removal costs and can lose vessel registration privileges if they do not pay. On Springs Protection Zones, staff said the new law raises the threshold from any harm to significant harm and requires vessel activity to be the predominant cause, with subject matter experts and partner agencies helping make that determination. Senator Smith questioned whether the higher standard makes protections harder to establish and asked about Silver Glen Springs; FWC said that proposal was paused and would be revisited under the new criteria. The committee took no further action and adjourned after the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• development under certain specified conditions.
• Developers do.
• AvalonBay is a national owner and developer of multifamily housing, and I manage our Northwest development
• AvalonBay is a national owner and developer of multifamily housing, and I manage our Northwest development
• How would the development community, real estate community, feel like in the bill, How would the development

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on engrossed second substitute Senate Bill 6026, which would prohibit certain GMA-planning cities and counties from excluding residential development in commercial and mixed-use zones and would limit local requirements for ground-floor commercial or mixed-use space, subject to numerous exemptions and a possible study-based off-ramp. The bill sponsor and supporters, including the Lieutenant Governor, the governor’s housing policy advisor, Commerce staff, developers, labor/employer groups, and housing advocates, argued it would reduce barriers, reuse underutilized commercial land, and help address the state’s housing shortage. Cities including Bellevue, Kirkland, Bellingham, Redmond, Kent, Lacey, and Lakewood testified in opposition or with concerns, emphasizing local control, impacts on walkable neighborhoods and small businesses, implementation costs, and the need for more flexibility or clearer compliance options. Committee members asked about exemptions, the study process, and how the bill would affect existing local plans and incentives. The committee then moved to executive session on several bills. It rejected Representative Griffey’s amendment to Senate Bill 5820, which would have restored Clark County’s freight rail dependent overlay authority and added findings about greenhouse gas reductions from short line rail, and then passed SB 5820 out with a do pass recommendation. The committee also passed SB 5995, extending authorization for port districts to purchase zero- and near-zero-emission cargo handling equipment; SB 5552, directing rulemaking for kit home building codes; SB 5467, raising thresholds for water-sewer district surplus property sales; and SB 6189, removing the deadline for forming a public facilities district for regional aquatics and sports facilities. Each of those bills received a do pass recommendation, with some members noting support for housing, workforce, efficiency, or local flexibility and others expressing concerns about contracts, automation, or competitiveness. After executive session, the committee resumed testimony on SB 6026. Additional supporters, including the Lieutenant Governor, Commerce, developers, the Washington Roundtable, Microsoft, and housing organizations, reiterated that the bill would unlock housing on vacant commercial land and preserve some local flexibility through exemptions and height incentives. Opponents and concerned cities continued to argue that the bill would weaken local planning, reduce commercial space needed for complete communities, and impose costs and implementation burdens. The hearing concluded without final action on SB 6026, with the chair noting more testimony and work remained.

Transcript Highlights:

• them to be beautiful developments.
• them to be beautiful developments.
• </c> unless requested by the developer. unless requested by the developer.
• or development they're in?
• or development they're in?

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• That is great because it doesn't actually cost money to the developer as the developer is trying to develop
• So number one, partially because of the reasons I just described, developers feel... ...developers.
• So we hear that from developers over and over that even if they want to do the development, land costs
• to attract development.
• lead development themselves.

Summary: The meeting began with introductions from members of the Joint Transportation Committee and a presentation from the Association of Washington Cities and the public works directors of Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, and West Richland. The cities described the Quad Cities region as one of the fastest-growing in the state and outlined shared transportation priorities that align with the committee’s focus on safety, multimodal access, climate resilience, and economic development. They emphasized Vision Zero efforts, complete streets, ADA accessibility, regional trail and bike/pedestrian planning, and coordinated long-range transportation and land-use planning to manage growth. The city officials also discussed major funding and delivery challenges, including rising construction costs, project phasing, pavement preservation, right-of-way acquisition, and delays caused by state and federal permitting and review processes. They highlighted regional cooperation through the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, Good Roads, and local funding tools such as impact fees, transportation benefit districts, REET, tax increment financing, and state and federal grants. Specific projects discussed included Richland’s SR 240/Aaron Drive complete streets project and downtown connectivity work, Kennewick’s Columbia Center Boulevard improvements and rail study, Pasco’s Court/Road 68, Sylvester Street corridor, I-182 bridge/interchange work, and a new north-south bridge study, and West Richland’s SR 224 Red Mountain corridor project, which officials said was awarded under budget and is scheduled to begin construction. Committee members asked questions about sidewalk connections to schools, state-agency right-of-way timelines, apprenticeship utilization, contractor selection, and whether complete streets requirements add burdens to pavement preservation projects. The city officials said new development is generally meeting sidewalk standards, but older infill areas remain a gap; that state right-of-way transactions can take much longer than expected; that apprenticeship requirements are common but harder for smaller contractors and local labor markets; and that low-bid contracting leaves little room to screen for performance history. They also said complete streets requirements are usually manageable on major projects but can be difficult to absorb in smaller preservation work. The committee then shifted to a JTC-funded study on transit-oriented development, presented by Urban Institute researcher Yona Freemark. The study examined TOD conditions in 33 cities in Snohomish, King, Pierce, Clark, and Spokane counties near rail and bus rapid transit stations. Freemark said Washington’s housing affordability crisis is severe, especially near transit, and found that high-cost cities have seen more development near stations but also signs of gentrification and loss of affordable housing, while lower-cost cities have had less development and worsening affordability relative to income. He identified barriers including high debt costs, land costs, infrastructure costs, zoning and parking rules, and limited subsidies for affordable housing. He recommended more neighborhood infrastructure funding near stations, stronger affordable housing investment, and better use of public land, noting that HB 1491 and related legislation are already changing some local requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• Eligible organizations include nonprofit developers, for-profit developers, public housing authorities
• for-profit developers public housing authorities public development authorities and other applicants
• , to produce and develop housing.
• We're a member organization representing nonprofit developers, market-rate developers, credit unions,
• encounter in our Some of the barriers affordable housing developers encounter.

Summary: House Finance heard testimony on two affordable housing bills. House Bill 1859 would expand an existing density bonus for housing on religious organization property by lowering the affordability threshold from 100% to at least 50% affordable units, requiring local policies to implement the bonus upon request, and creating a new state and local sales and use tax exemption for qualifying projects with at least 50% affordable units maintained for 10 years. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would help projects on church-owned land pencil out amid high construction and financing costs, while a county association raised concern that the bill would create an unfunded mandate for local planning departments. Several witnesses also asked that homeownership projects be explicitly included, and staff confirmed the exemption would be administered through an exemption certificate. The committee then moved to House Bill 1717, which would authorize cities and counties to create a local sales and use tax remittance program for affordable housing developments. Staff said the remittance would cover 100% of local taxes paid after project completion, with a 50% affordable housing threshold and 40-year affordability requirement, and the sponsor and local government and housing advocates supported it as a flexible tool to reduce development costs. Testifiers generally backed both bills, with some asking for more flexibility on income targeting and clarification on county-city interactions under HB 1717. No votes were taken; both public hearings were closed and the committee adjourned after a separate work session on the Working Families Tax Credit, where advocates urged broader eligibility, higher benefit amounts, and easier access, and a California researcher described data-linking methods used to improve tax credit take-up.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we forced the developer to do the sewage piping from that development to, you know, $10,000, you
• But to that small developer, that was a big deal, right?
• It's not off the backs of the developers. They just build the housing.
• of development rather than after.
• Stronger and the financial viability of these developments as well.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill would also provide that development agreements, or I'm sorry, development regulations, agency
• Those are pieces that should be able to develop and be developed quickly.
• So we're the economic development agent.
• It takes time to develop the resource.
• The development of these resources...

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several local government bills. HB 2006 would extend the deadline for certain rural counties that collect a sales and use tax for economic development to designate industrial land banks under the Growth Management Act. Supporters, including the sponsor and Kittitas County representatives, said the bill would help counties identify industrial land for job growth and economic development; Futurewise opposed it, citing concerns about large industrial land banks and impacts to agricultural lands. HB 2244 would let a city that forms a fire protection district after July 1, 2026, keep its levy rate without reducing it by the district’s levy, and would also allow online notice and interlocal contracting for fire services. City and fire officials supported it as a practical tool to fund fire service, while one witness opposed the broader trend of appointed taxing authorities. The committee also heard extensive testimony on HB 2316, which would limit shrub-step vegetation inside urban growth areas from being treated as wildlife habitat, critical area, or conservation area, and would bar related mitigation or replacement requirements. Tri-Cities officials, builders, housing advocates, and the sponsor argued the bill would reduce delays and costs for housing and development on already designated urban land, while conservation groups, tribal representatives, and some individuals opposed it as a broad rollback of habitat protections and a harmful precedent for ecosystems and wildlife. No vote was taken on the bills during the hearing. HB 2103 would expand public utility contracting authority so cities, utilities, and joint operating agencies could enter “capability” contracts for renewable or non-emitting generation projects, including nuclear, renewable hydrogen, and fusion, and repeal certain price-limit restrictions. Supporters said it would align older contracting law with the Clean Energy Transformation Act and help utilities plan for future power needs; opponents warned it would shift risk to ratepayers and revive concerns tied to the WPPSS nuclear debacle. The committee also heard HB 2388, which would classify pivot-corner solar and agrovoltaic facilities on agricultural land as distributed energy resources and accessory uses; the sponsor and supporters said it would help meet energy needs without harming productive farmland, while Futurewise asked for clarification to avoid unintended loss of agricultural land. The hearing then returned to HB 2103 for additional testimony, with the same basic split between utility and clean-energy supporters and ratepayer or anti-nuclear opponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• They participate in the Tracking Energy Development Task Force.
• Of those, 15 were awarded to independent developers.
• The people that are interested in developing these transmission facilities are aware.
• We have a large portfolio of guarantees on economic development loans.
• We're very interested in the development of this program.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 710, which would expand dynamic pricing and time-of-use electricity rates and require utilities to develop plans for advanced metering infrastructure so more customers can participate. The author and supporters said the bill would encourage load shifting to times when electricity is cheaper and cleaner, reduce curtailment of renewable energy, and help address affordability. PG&E and SDG&E opposed the bill as drafted, arguing the deadlines were premature, could disrupt ongoing CPUC rate proceedings and pilot programs, and might force costly changes before results are known; Golden State Power Cooperative was neutral and flagged a technical issue. After questions and discussion about timing and scope, the committee passed AB 710 on an 11-0 vote and also approved the consent calendar 15-0. The committee then held its first 2026 oversight hearing on implementation of the California Transmission Accelerator created by SB 254. GoBiz, IBank, CAISO, and the Department of Finance outlined the new program’s structure: GoBiz’s energy unit will coordinate the accelerator, IBank will evaluate and finance eligible projects, CAISO’s transmission planning and competitive solicitation process will identify projects, and the tax credit will provide an additional incentive for developers. Administration witnesses said trailer bill language and about 10 limited-term positions are being proposed to clarify roles, protect confidential information, and support the revolving fund, with roughly $26 million in administrative costs over five years. Committee members focused on coordination among agencies, supply-chain risks, regional market planning, and whether the accelerator has enough authority to move projects quickly. CAISO said its planning and competitive procurement processes already align closely with the accelerator and that no tariff changes are expected, while GoBiz and IBank said they are still developing financing strategies and learning from other states. Public commenters supported faster transmission but urged the committee to preserve the role of competitive developers, clarify ownership and risk allocation, and ensure wildfire safety and accountability. The hearing ended with no formal action beyond receiving testimony and committing to continued oversight.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, it's three separate developments. Okay. Three separate developments.
• So, for development. Correct. There is one of development. Correct.
• </c> smart choice for a developer. smart choice for a developer.
• ><c> development</c><02:06:08.639><c> in</c> safe, responsible development in safe, responsible development
• developers will honor commitment to developing affordable housing.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• is... ...mitigation or impact based on whatever the development is, varying by developer, what the project
• So it would be impact fees for new development or for a single development or anything else.
• Ampeer is a global renewable energy development company, developing primarily solar and wind projects
• “So as our workforce development agencies see the needs for certain workforce development jobs in the
• Developers are sitting on land that they’re currently not developing because it’s not the right market

Keywords: 909, all