Transcript Highlights:

• So greenhouse emission difference between the...
• It won't reduce net emissions for the reasons that Dr. Smith explained.
• We produce renewable fuels from Rodeo, which are reducing emissions today.
• So that's almost one in three cars coming off the lot, zero-emission.
• The $200 million for the light-duty zero-emission vehicle rebate.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, what strategies could projects implement to limit the co-pollutant emissions?
• reductions and continue the state's momentum towards zero-emission (ZE) trucks.
• . qualify for the Governor's 2035 zero-emission vehicle mandate, is that correct?
• We believe that **CCUS** is a critical tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• Poet has long championed E15 for its ability to reduce emissions.

Transcript Highlights:

• California represents only a sliver of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.
• We can measure these emissions with scientific instruments.
• So those emissions would not be going into the atmosphere.
• for offsets in our cumulative emissions limits?
• Cement is a great example because cement is extremely emissions intensive.

Committee: Senate Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Summary: The hearing focused on California’s cap-and-trade program, its role in meeting state climate targets, and how to balance emissions reductions with affordability. Committee members and CARB officials discussed the state’s 2030 and 2045 greenhouse gas goals, the need to defend California climate policy amid federal rollbacks, and the importance of making the program durable, cost-effective, and understandable to the public. CARB also outlined its broader climate portfolio, including updates to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, methane rules, landfill regulations, implementation of recent climate bills, and work on community air protection and other sector-specific strategies. CARB’s presentation emphasized that cap-and-trade covers about 80% of California emissions, has had near-full compliance, and has generated more than $31 billion for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, along with billions more in utility bill credits and free allowances intended to protect jobs and limit leakage. Officials described the program’s core design features—banking, trading, multi-year compliance periods, offsets, free allocation, and a price containment reserve—as essential to keeping costs down while still driving emissions reductions. Members pressed CARB on the cost impacts of proposed changes to align the program with the state’s stronger 2030 target, the treatment of offsets, leakage risks for industries like cement, and the need for more technical analysis and stakeholder input before legislative action. The second panel, including the Legislative Analyst’s Office, an IMAC chair, and a Stanford scholar, offered a more analytical discussion of affordability. They said cap-and-trade likely has limited direct impact on electricity and natural gas bills because of utility allocations and climate credits, but it does add roughly 25 to 26 cents per gallon of gasoline. They identified several policy levers for the Legislature: setting the cap, adjusting allowance allocation, using auction revenues for rebates or bill relief, and deciding how much authority to delegate to CARB. Witnesses also argued that carbon pricing remains one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, but that the program’s political sustainability will depend on making benefits more visible, targeting relief to households facing high bills, and using revenues to help lower the cost of electrification and grid investments.

Transcript Highlights:

• The greenhouse gas emissions, and then there's a process for Ecology to review and approve the report
• Back to the emissions reduction standard, I just wanted to specify the proposed substitute... ...the
• So the emission reduction opportunities, there's a long list there.
• rather than its direct greenhouse gas emissions.
• rather than direct gas emissions.

Summary: The Environment and Energy committee met for executive session on four bills. Staff briefed House Bill 2416, which would replace Climate Commitment Act no-cost allowances for the Spokane waste-to-energy facility with a separate regulatory scheme requiring emissions reductions, reporting to Ecology and Commerce, and enforcement provisions; members discussed whether emissions accounting included biogenic emissions and confirmed the reduction measures would need to occur on-site. House Bill 2537 would direct Ecology to recommend a future allowance schedule for emissions-intensive, trade-exposed facilities and require biennial reporting and periodic plans, while House Bill 2575 would reduce several Energy Independence Act and state energy strategy reporting requirements for utilities and Commerce. House Bill 2322, as amended in a proposed substitute, would delay alternative jet fuel tax incentives until July 1, 2031, remove capacity thresholds, tie eligibility to life-cycle rather than direct emissions, and drop a Clean Fuels Program carbon-intensity change. During executive action, the committee debated the policy impacts of the waste-to-energy bill, with supporters saying the Spokane facility is unique and needs a separate framework, and opponents arguing it would create costly disincentives and raise ratepayer costs. The EITE bill drew support from members who said it would help identify facility-specific decarbonization options, while opponents warned about competitiveness, job losses, and industry leaving the state. The reporting-reduction bill was described as a streamlining measure that would save utilities money and remove duplicative or outdated reports. The alternative jet fuel substitute was presented as a clarification and simplification of the incentive structure, and members praised the changes. All four measures were reported out of committee with due pass recommendations. House Bill 2416 and House Bill 2537 each passed on 12-9 votes, House Bill 2575 passed unanimously by voice vote, and the proposed substitute for House Bill 2322 also passed unanimously by voice vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• So greenhouse emission difference between the...
• It won't reduce net emissions for the reasons that Dr. Smith explained.
• We produce renewable fuels from Rodeo, which are reducing emissions today.
• So that's almost one in three cars coming off the lot, zero emission.
• The $200 million for the light-duty zero-emission vehicle rebate.

Summary: The subcommittee heard extensive testimony on the governor’s proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit, which would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold for use in California from 2026 to 2036. The Department of Finance and CARB argued the proposal would help decarbonize aviation, support a long-term transition in the fuel sector, and encourage in-state investment and jobs. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and several outside witnesses recommended rejecting the proposal, saying it is a relatively expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases, could have uncertain or limited net climate benefits, and may shift limited feedstocks away from renewable diesel rather than create additional fuel supply. A major point of debate was whether the credit would mainly benefit California refineries and workers or instead subsidize out-of-state producers while reducing revenue for transportation programs. Supporters, including union members, refinery workers, airlines, Boeing, and airport representatives, said SAF is one of the few viable near-term options for aviation, that California should keep fuel production and jobs in-state, and that the credit would help maintain refinery operations and support the industry’s transition. Opponents, including the LAO, trucking and fuels groups, environmental organizations, and county/road advocates, warned that the proposal could raise gasoline and diesel prices, reduce diesel excise tax revenue for highways and local streets and roads, and provide limited climate benefit compared with other uses of state funds. Some members also raised concerns about feedstock availability, food-system impacts, and whether the policy should be more narrowly targeted if the goal is to support a specific refinery. No vote was taken. The chair stated at the outset that all items on the agenda were being held open for a future hearing, and public comment was taken after the first item because of the level of interest. The hearing then continued with public testimony, which was split between strong support from labor and industry and strong opposition from environmental, transportation, and local government groups.

Transcript Highlights:

• This graph shows the reduction in the cap to align with Washington's emissions limits and net-zero emissions
• So that's the emissions-intensive part.
• That would be emissions leakage because those emissions would still be happening.
• But we also don't see emissions, and that Here in Washington, but we also don't see emissions and that
• This means that they will be required to reduce emissions over time to help achieve our emission limits

Summary: The committee held a work session covering PFAS regulation and impacts, no-cost allowance allocation for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries (EITEs), and regional resource adequacy and data center load growth. Senator Victoria Hunt was welcomed as a new member. The Department of Ecology reviewed Washington’s Safer Products for Washington PFAS work, including completed restrictions on PFAS in outdoor furniture, carpets, rugs, stain/water-resistant treatments, and newer rules adopted in November restricting PFAS in most apparel, cleaning products, and automotive washes, with reporting requirements for some other products such as cookware and firefighting gear. Ecology also described Cycle 2 PFAS reviews now underway, including artificial turf and paints, and answered questions about compliance, online sales, sell-through periods, and how Washington’s approach differs from broader bans in states like Maine and Minnesota. The Department of Ecology also presented on PFAS in biosolids, describing a 2024 sampling study, limitations in testing methods, and a 2025 statutory amendment requiring additional sampling between 2027 and 2028 and a report to the legislature in 2029. The Department of Health then updated the committee on PFAS in drinking water, reporting that most Group A public water systems have completed sampling, that 317 sources and 188 systems are expected to exceed new contaminant levels, and that treatment costs for public systems are estimated at about $970 million, leaving a large funding gap; members also asked about private wells, health effects, bathing exposure, and home filters. The Board of Health’s new state action levels are being aligned with federal MCLs, and the department said it expects to continue monitoring and notification under state rules. Ecology also briefed the committee on no-cost allowance allocations to EITEs under the Climate Commitment Act, explaining the leakage-mitigation rationale, the current allocation schedule through 2034, and a forthcoming report on policy options for 2035-2050; members asked about industry barriers, competitiveness, and whether facilities might leave the state. Finally, E3 presented a regional resource adequacy study showing rising load, retirements outpacing additions, limited winter reliability value from wind, solar, and batteries, and a projected shortfall beginning in 2026 that could grow to about 9,000 MW by 2030 if planned projects are not built. The presentation emphasized winter cold-weather events, hydro variability, the importance of permitting and transmission, and longer-term options including nuclear, geothermal, hydrogen, carbon capture, and long-duration storage. EPRI then introduced its DC Flex initiative, which is studying how data centers can provide flexible load through workload shifting, cooling optimization, and on-site backup or bridging resources to reduce grid stress and protect ratepayers.

Transcript Highlights:

• When we think of the Commonwealth's path to net zero emissions by 2050, we often think of hard infrastructure
• about the residual emissions that are the hardest to get from other sectors.
• We've got a situation where 85% of our emissions reductions supposedly are to come from emissions reduction
• has been halved to something like 7 or 8% of total projected emissions.
• Well, nobody's going to have reduced their emissions by 45% by 2030.

Committee: Senate Senate Committee on Climate Change and Global Warming

Summary: The committee held a hearing on natural and working lands, carbon sequestration, and related provisions in Governor Healey’s $3 billion Mass Ready Act. EEA officials described the bill’s investments in flooding, land protection, tree planting, wetlands restoration, biodiversity, dams, seawalls, and coastal resilience, along with permitting reforms intended to speed ecological restoration projects. They also outlined current programs on resilient lands, healthy soils, forest climate solutions, forest reserves, and urban tree planting, and said the administration expects natural and working lands to offset up to 7 million metric tons of residual emissions by 2050, while acknowledging that additional strategies will be needed to close the gap to the state’s 10-million-ton offset target. Committee members pressed EEA on the cost of reaching the 30% conservation-by-2030 goal, the loss of a federal USDA grant of about $22 million, the adequacy of current sequestration estimates, and whether the state should consider regional approaches or statutory changes. EEA said current state conservation spending has been about $35 million to $40 million annually, that the Mass Ready Act is intended to help double the pace of conservation, and that federal funding remains uncertain. Senators also raised concerns about PILOT payments for state-owned land, the management of state forests, and the proposed Chapter 91 general license for restoration projects. EEA said the bill’s forest reserve language is meant to create a more durable designation process while still allowing limited active management. Advocates from The Nature Conservancy and Mass Audubon supported stronger investment in land conservation and restoration, saying natural and working lands are a cost-effective climate strategy that also provides biodiversity, water quality, and public health benefits. They urged passage of legislation to increase funding, improve PILOT equity, and strengthen land-use planning and mitigation requirements. They also backed removing Chapter 91 licensing requirements for ecological restoration, arguing that the current process adds cost and delay. In a later panel, a forest scientist and an urban forestry advocate emphasized the carbon and cooling benefits of mature trees, called for greater protection of older forests, and supported bills to expand municipal reforestation and modernize public shade tree law. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've had an increase in zero-emission vehicle deployment: over one in four new vehicles are zero-emission
• percentage of our emissions relative to the global emissions does decline.
• reduce emissions.
• our emissions here.
• Are we accounting for imported emissions?

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee held an informational hearing on the environmental impacts and planning considerations associated with refinery closures. In opening remarks, the chair framed refinery shutdowns as a complex part of California’s decarbonization transition and said the committee would focus on environmental and land-use issues, while Vice Chair Gunda argued closures reflect years of policy-driven disinvestment and warned that supply disruptions and higher prices could harm working families. State agency witnesses from the Energy Commission, CARB, and the Water Boards described the state as being in a “mid-transition,” with declining gasoline demand, growing zero-emission vehicle adoption, and increasing conversion of some refinery assets to renewable fuels, but also with abrupt capacity losses that can force greater reliance on imports and storage. They emphasized the need for proactive planning, transparency, and coordination across agencies, and noted that refinery closures can stress pipelines, terminals, and other linked infrastructure, with potential liabilities falling to the state if those assets are not financially supported. The Water Boards explained their cleanup authorities and tools for refinery decommissioning, including investigation, monitoring, remediation, and enforcement under the Water Code, and said site-specific cleanup plans depend on contamination, groundwater conditions, and future land use. They noted that decommissioning can reveal previously inaccessible areas and require additional sampling or wells, and that cleanup costs can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Committee members pressed the witnesses on whether the state has enough information to plan for land transitions, whether current tools are adequate, and whether more standardized procedures or financial assurances are needed. The witnesses generally said existing tools are useful but that more transparency and better data sharing would help communities and policymakers understand liabilities and long-term redevelopment opportunities. Members also questioned the relationship between California policy, refinery closures, imports, and global emissions. CARB said its programs apply to transportation fuel suppliers whether fuel is refined in-state or imported, and that its climate and air-quality rules are designed to reduce emissions and avoid leakage. Some senators argued that California’s policies have accelerated closures and that demand has not fallen fast enough to offset lost refining capacity, while agency witnesses responded that closures are also driven by global market forces, aging infrastructure, crude quality, and changing fuel demand. The committee then heard from outside experts, including a Notre Dame professor who said closure costs are often underestimated and that stronger financial assurance requirements can shift company behavior, a Stanford/SLAC researcher who outlined five drivers of refinery closures, and an environmental attorney who discussed community impacts and lessons from the Phillips 66 Los Angeles refinery closure. No votes or formal actions were taken; the hearing was informational and focused on testimony and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've had an increase in zero-emission vehicle deployment: over one in four new vehicles are zero-emission
• , that percentage of our emissions relative to the global emissions does decline.
• reduce emissions.
• our emissions here.
• result of pushing emissions outside of California... leakage, which is the result of pushing emissions

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee held an informational hearing on the environmental impacts and policy considerations surrounding refinery closures. Chair Blakespear framed the hearing as part of California’s broader transition away from fossil fuels, emphasizing the need for proactive planning so communities, workers, and local governments are not caught off guard. Vice Chair Gunda argued that the state has long signaled a future away from oil, while also warning that closures can create supply instability, higher prices, and infrastructure stress if not managed carefully. Senators also raised concerns about consumer costs, supply reliability, the role of imports, and whether California’s climate policies are contributing to refinery disinvestment. The first panel included the California Energy Commission, CARB, and the State Water Resources Control Board. Gunda described California as being in a “mid-transition,” with gasoline demand gradually declining, zero-emission vehicle adoption rising, and refinery capacity shrinking through both conversions to renewable fuels and outright closures. He said the state needs a coordinated strategy that balances near-term supply stability with long-term decarbonization, and noted that refinery closures can shift liabilities onto pipelines, terminals, and potentially the state. CARB’s Matthew Boutill said the agency’s focus is reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases, and that state policies are already driving billions in annual investment in alternative fuels, EV infrastructure, and refinery conversions. Water Board representative Annalisa Kihara explained the cleanup authorities used at refinery sites, including investigation, remediation, and enforcement tools, and said decommissioning often reveals previously inaccessible contamination and may require new monitoring wells and additional site assessment. Committee members pressed the panel on whether the state has enough information to plan for land reuse and cleanup costs, whether current tools are adequate, and whether more legislative direction is needed. Gunda said there are still gaps in information and transparency, especially around liability and long-term community planning. Kihara said the Water Boards can require more data, cleanup, and timelines, but that refinery remediation is highly site-specific and can take tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Senators Menjivar, Stern, and Hurtado questioned demand trends, the pace of refinery closures versus demand decline, the role of imports and the Jones Act, and whether California should consider options such as state ownership or broader ecosystem planning. The panel generally agreed that closures are likely to continue and that the state should plan proactively rather than reactively. A second panel presented recent research on refinery closures. Emily Grubert said closure costs and remediation obligations are often underestimated and that California should better define end-of-life obligations and financial assurance requirements. Tham Herschbach outlined five drivers of refinery closures: declining California crude production, falling in-state gasoline demand, the shift toward renewable diesel and other alternative fuels, global refinery consolidation, and the growing availability of imported gasoline. Anne Alexander focused on community impacts, using the Phillips 66 Los Angeles refinery closure as a case study, and said refinery sites are often heavily contaminated, cleanup can take a decade or more, and communities are often left without clear information because refineries have little end-of-life planning or financial assurance requirements. No votes or formal actions were taken at the informational hearing.

Bills: SR28 , SB201 , SB1379 , SB1525 , SB1966 , SB2112 , SB2170 , HB2749 , HB3262 , HB3265 , HB3673 , HB3781 , HB3040 , HB3076 , HB3369 , HB3982 , HB3462 , HB3465 , HB3521 , HB3796 , HB3800 , HB4095 , HB4298 , HB4316 , HB4338 , HB4408 , HB4454

Keywords: alpha-gal syndrome, alpha gal, tick-borne illness, tick bite allergy, red meat allergy, meat allergy, dairy allergy, anaphylaxis, Lyme disease, public health, tick prevention, vector-borne disease, allergy awareness, May awareness month, Oklahoma Department of Health, outdoor safety, health education, research funding, minimum salary, education funding

Transcript Highlights:

• It provides statutory clarification that auto dealers can exhibit at an auto show and outlines what auto
• allowing auto dealers to participate<00:13:32.639><c> in</c><00:13:32.839><c> Auto</c> participate in
• Auto participate in Auto shows<00:13:34.920><c> I</c><00:13:35.079><c> recognize</c><00:13:35.639><c
• </c><00:13:57.880><c> show</c> auto dealers can exhibit at an auto show auto dealers can exhibit at an
• auto show and<00:13:59.120><c> outlines</c><00:13:59.800><c> what</c><00:14:00.040><c> Auto</c><00:14

Transcript Highlights:

• emissions by 2050.
• So that's the emissions-intensive part.
• That would be emissions leakage because those emissions would still be happening.
• But we also don't see emissions, and that Here in Washington, but we also don't see emissions and that
• This means that they will be required to reduce emissions over time to help achieve our emission limits

Committee: Senate Environment, Energy & Technology

Summary: The committee held a work session focused on PFAS, no-cost allowance allocation for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries (EITEs), and regional resource adequacy. Department of Ecology staff outlined Washington’s Safer Products for Washington PFAS program, including completed restrictions on intentionally added PFAS in outdoor furniture, carpets, stain/water-resistant treatments, and newer rules adopted in November restricting PFAS in most apparel, cleaners, and automotive washes, with reporting required for some remaining products such as cookware and firefighting gear. Ecology also reviewed a 2024 biosolids PFAS sampling study showing PFOS and PFOA levels in Washington biosolids were comparable to other states, and the Department of Health reported that PFAS monitoring of Group A public water systems is nearly complete, with 317 sources and 188 systems expected to exceed contaminant levels under the new federal-aligned state standards. Members asked about consumer sales, compliance, private wells, health impacts, and the cost of treatment, which DOH estimated at roughly $970 million for public water system treatment alone, with a remaining funding gap after state and federal support. Ecology then presented its analysis of no-cost allowance allocation to EITEs under the Climate Commitment Act. Staff explained that EITEs receive allowances to reduce emissions leakage and protect competitiveness, with allocations based on 2015–2019 production and emissions data and phased reductions from 100% in the first compliance period to 94% in 2031–2034. Ecology said it is preparing a report due by the end of 2025 on policy options for 2035–2050, after extensive engagement with industry, labor, environmental, utility, port, and tribal stakeholders. Senators asked about leakage, comparisons with California and Quebec, whether specific industries such as Boeing or semiconductor manufacturers are included, and whether EITEs are banking or selling allowances; Ecology said the report will address benchmarking, leakage mitigation, decarbonization barriers, and economic and environmental justice impacts. E3 then presented a regional resource adequacy study for the Pacific Northwest, warning that electricity demand is rising faster than in years past, retirements are outpacing replacements, and the region could face supply shortfalls beginning in 2026, especially during extended winter cold events. The study found that wind, solar, and batteries provide limited reliability value in the Northwest’s winter-peaking, hydro-dependent system, while firm gas and emerging technologies such as geothermal, nuclear, hydrogen, carbon capture, and long-duration storage may play larger roles. E3 estimated a near-term gap of about 9,000 megawatts by 2030, with roughly 3,000 megawatts of advanced-development resources and a remaining gap of about 6,000 megawatts if planned projects do not materialize. Members asked about Energy Northwest, hydro, data centers, battery storage, transmission, and whether neighboring states’ coal use affects Washington; E3 emphasized the need to accelerate permitting, interconnection, and project development. Finally, EPRI briefed the committee on its DC Flex initiative, which is studying how data centers can operate more flexibly to reduce strain on the grid and protect ratepayers. The presentation described work streams on flexible data center design, utility programs and tariffs, operational forecasting and interconnection, and on-site energy supply options, along with demonstrations in the U.S. and abroad. The speaker said the goal is to make data centers more responsive to grid conditions without compromising uptime, and noted that the initiative has a public forum and website for broader participation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Auto Theft Prevention Grant: $377,343; I; C16. 2.0 FTE.

Transcript Highlights:

• Because emissions isn't what drives me. Emissions doesn't drive me.
• Emissions doesn't drive me to my house every day. Emissions doesn't power my television.
• But if the goal is zero emissions, then a gas-powered plant that does zero emissions would be acceptable
• And that is intended to be an offset, a carbon emission offset equivalent to the carbon emissions being
• So that's not causing more emissions anywhere else. That is subtracting emissions everywhere.

Bills: SB78 , SB235 , SB22 , SB310

Committee: Senate Senate Conservation

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 78, which would classify nuclear energy as renewable energy. Senator Thornton and supporters argued that New Mexico needs dispatchable, baseload power and that nuclear should be added to the state’s renewable portfolio standard because wind and solar are intermittent and require extensive land, mining, and battery storage. Supporters also emphasized nuclear’s zero-carbon profile, the safety record of U.S. Navy reactors, the possibility of small modular reactors, and the fact that New Mexico already uses nuclear-generated electricity from out of state. Opponents, including Senator O’Malley and Senator Charlie, argued nuclear is not renewable because it relies on finite uranium and creates long-lived radioactive waste, and they raised concerns about uranium mining impacts, waste storage, and the bill’s lack of a limiting principle. The committee voted 5-4 to do not pass the bill, with Senators Cervantes, Hamblen, O’Malley, Lopez, and Charlie voting yes on the do-not-pass motion and Senators Ezell, Scott, and Thornton voting no; the chair then explained that the vote reflected disagreement over whether nuclear should be labeled renewable, not opposition to nuclear power itself. The committee then heard Senate Bill 235, the Microgrid Oversight Act, with a committee substitute. Sponsor Senator Steinborn said the substitute would restore existing renewable benchmarks for microgrids, require large microgrids to meet zero-carbon targets by 2045, add reporting and PRC oversight, and close a loophole that could let utilities buy microgrid power and shift costs to ratepayers. Supporters, including environmental groups and community advocates, said the bill was needed to regulate large data-center microgrids such as Project Jupiter in Doña Ana County, which they said could drive major emissions, ozone, and nitrogen oxide pollution, strain water supplies, and undermine state climate goals. They also argued the bill would protect ratepayers and ensure transparency and community benefits. Opponents, including Americans for Prosperity, the Chamber of Commerce, oil and gas associations, Xcel Energy, PNM, Consumer Energy Alliance, and economic development groups, argued the bill would impose unnecessary regulation on private microgrids, slow investment, raise costs, and reduce flexibility for reliability projects and industrial development. They said microgrids are already regulated for safety and interconnection, and that the bill could discourage projects in New Mexico. In response, Steinborn said the bill was necessary because current law leaves a loophole for large polluting microgrids and because several major projects are already planned or underway. The committee heard extensive public testimony on both sides, but the transcript ends before a final vote on SB 235 is taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Paul, and I'm here today to advocate for House File 2215, which is a state-run, low-cost auto insurance
• First and foremost, a state-run program would ensure that all residents have access to affordable auto
• A state-run program would ensure that all residents have access to affordable auto insurance.
• c> decide between her auto insurance and decide between her auto insurance and paying<00:19:25.120><c
• </c> card to be able to pay her Auto card to be able to pay her Auto Insurance<00:19:28.720><c> insur

Transcript Highlights:

• For example, according to the latest annual emissions inventory, the total San Pedro Bay complex emissions
• According to the latest annual emissions inventory, the total San Pedro Bay complex emissions of diesel
• by 2030 and zero emissions by 2035.
• So we look at the GHG emissions as a function of NOx emissions as well.
• You want to be able to stop NOx emissions.

Summary: The committee first heard SB 14, which would direct state agencies to reduce single-use plastics and improve waste diversion at state facilities by updating integrated waste management plans, increasing reusable foodware use, reducing paper purchasing, and requiring better employee education and recycling/composting practices. Supporters from the California Compost Coalition, Republic Services, Waste Management, and others said the bill would help build composting and recycling markets and let the state lead by example. Several groups that had opposed earlier versions said they were now neutral after amendments, including the removal of a 90% requirement. The bill was moved out on a due pass as amended recommendation. The committee then took up SB 326 on wildfire mitigation. The bill would create a framework for Cal Fire to evaluate the risk-reduction benefits of fuels management and landscape resilience investments, and it would accelerate implementation of Zone Zero defensible-space standards, including grants for local enforcement and broader application to rental and sale properties and post-fire reconstruction. Support came from Stanford climate researcher Michael Mastrandrea and several local government, insurance, and climate groups. With no opposition, the bill passed as amended to Appropriations. Next, SB 34 on port emissions and the South Coast Air Quality Management District drew extensive testimony. The author said the bill was narrowed by committee amendments to preserve the ports’ ability to reduce emissions while preventing cargo throughput caps and addressing concerns about automation, local control, and the timeline for port clean-air planning. Supporters included ILWU, business groups, and port-related stakeholders, while the South Coast AQMD and many environmental and community organizations opposed it, arguing it would weaken public-health protections and set a bad precedent. After lengthy debate, the committee approved the bill on a due pass as amended vote to Transportation, with some members voting no and others abstaining. The committee also heard SB 279, which would expand composting options for farmers and small community composters by allowing limited on-farm composting after large biomass events and increasing the amount small operations may process and sell. Supporters said the bill would help address agricultural waste, expand composting capacity, and reduce landfill disposal. Commercial composting representatives opposed it, warning that the bill could create regulatory inequities, strand recent investments in permitted facilities, and allow too much unregulated food waste. Despite those concerns, the bill passed to Appropriations on a due pass vote. The transcript also briefly referenced SB 613 on upstream methane emissions data, described as having no opposition and intended to improve tracking of imported oil and gas emissions.

Transcript Highlights:

• The emissions from plastics and sharps and the things that defy the fun...
• We're not trying to put in a percentage of this emission versus that emission or whatever.
• So it's ...or present emissions that are going to cause public harm.
• It creates emissions: plastics, metal, sharps, infectious waste, that kind of thing.
• Because it goes into the air as emissions. So there are air quality emissions...

Committee: House A&B Natural Resources Subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• Our residents are experiencing these emissions.
• , wouldn't reduce GHG emissions further.
• It would just change where those emissions come from.
• or near-zero-emission, where we have the capability.
• These are durable emission reduction benefits achieved on farm.

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee No. 4 hearing focused on the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and cap-and-trade reauthorization, with members and panelists discussing how to balance climate goals, affordability, and legislative oversight. The chair emphasized the hearing as a broad review of past GGRF spending and future options, while the LAO outlined how GGRF revenues are generated, how variable they have been, and the tradeoffs between continuous appropriations and annual budget control. Two academic panelists, Dr. Kyle Meng and Danny Cullen Ward, argued that cap-and-trade remains an effective climate policy, but stressed that future revenue will depend heavily on market design, allowance allocation, and price levels. They also raised the idea that GGRF could be used more directly for affordability, especially by lowering electricity costs, and for targeted investments in technologies that the market would not otherwise support. Committee members pressed the panelists on where revenues come from, how much has actually been spent, and whether continuous appropriations reduce oversight. CARB staff said more than $33 billion has been generated to date and a little over $11–12 billion has been spent, with the rest committed or in process, and noted that project timelines can be lengthy. Members also asked about ways to lower electricity rates, reduce wildfire-related utility liabilities, and support electrification. The panelists said transportation fuels are the largest source of GGRF revenue, that industrial emitters receive a smaller share of free allowances, and that reducing wildfire liability and investing in grid-scale batteries could help lower costs and speed decarbonization. Public commenters largely urged the Legislature to preserve or expand continuous appropriations for specific climate programs. Speakers supported funding for nature-based solutions, natural and working lands, urban greening, agricultural climate solutions, waste and composting programs, clean transportation, AB 617 community air protection, clean cars, transit, affordable housing near transit, and dairy digesters. Several groups argued these programs are cost-effective, provide public health and affordability benefits, and should receive dedicated shares of GGRF. Others urged reducing free allowances and using more GGRF revenue to directly lower energy costs for households. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• For example, according to the latest annual emissions inventory, the total San Pedro Bay complex emissions
• According to the latest annual emissions inventory, the total San Pedro Bay complex emissions of diesel
• by 2030 and zero emission by 2035.
• So we look at the GHG emissions as a function of NOx emissions as well.
• You want to be able to stop NOx emissions.

Committee: House Natural Resources

Summary: The committee first heard SB 14, which would direct state agencies to reduce single-use plastics and improve recycling and composting practices in state facilities. The author described the bill as a way for California to lead on waste reduction, with goals such as more reusable foodware, less paper purchasing, better employee education on sorting waste, and stronger recycled-content requirements for state purchases of plastic bottles. Support came from composting and waste-management representatives, while manufacturers and bottled-water interests removed their opposition after amendments narrowed the bill; the measure received a due pass recommendation to Governmental Organization on a unanimous roll call of members voting. The committee then took up SB 326, a wildfire-risk bill that would create a framework for Cal Fire to evaluate wildfire mitigation investments and accelerate implementation of Zone Zero building standards in very high fire hazard areas. The author and a Stanford wildfire policy expert argued the bill would help prioritize the most effective fuels-management and defensible-space actions, while local government and insurance representatives voiced support. With no opposition, the bill was passed as amended to Appropriations on a unanimous vote. Next, the committee considered SB 34, dealing with the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The author said the bill was narrowed by amendments to preserve port competitiveness while requiring the district to account for factors outside the ports’ control, avoid cargo-throughput caps, and focus on stakeholder collaboration and electrification planning. Supporters included labor, business, and port-related groups, while environmental organizations, community advocates, and the AQMD opposed it, arguing it would weaken local air-quality efforts and set a bad precedent. After extensive debate over precedent, automation, cargo limits, and federal preemption, the bill passed as amended to Transportation on a roll call with some members voting no and others not voting. The committee also heard SB 279, which would expand composting flexibility for agricultural operations and small community composters. The author and supporters said the bill would help farmers manage orchard and vineyard removals after the agricultural burning ban, increase local composting capacity, and keep more organic material out of landfills. Commercial composting interests opposed the measure, warning it could create permitting inequities, undercut existing facilities, and allow too much food waste at small sites. Despite those concerns, the bill passed to Appropriations on a roll call vote. The transcript ended as the committee began discussion of SB 613 on upstream methane emissions and data collection for imported oil and gas, with the author noting there was no opposition to that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• emissions from agriculture.
• emissions from agriculture.
• </c> air emissions from landfills. air emissions from landfills.
• </c> emissions, and then we have emissions emissions, and then we have emissions from<02:18:24.120><c
• And then we would look at the emissions. We would also look at the emissions.

Committee: Senate Environment, Climate, and Legacy