Transcript Highlights:

• The bill specifies that an electric utility To the facility's marginal load.
• Yes, all electric utilities that have a large energy use facility in their service area.
• The growth of data centers will put tremendous strain on the electric power system.
• This bill would ensure that new electricity demand is met by clean, affordable, and reliable electricity
• going up, electricity rates going up around the country.

Summary: The committee first met in executive session on Senate Bill 5941, which would exempt certain school districts from a Washington State Energy Code requirement for onsite renewable energy systems on large new commercial buildings or additions. The committee adopted Senator Short’s amendment narrowing the eligible school district definition from 1,000 or fewer students to 500 or fewer students, then approved the bill as amended and sent it to the Rules Committee with a do pass recommendation. The committee then held a public hearing on Senate Bill 6171, a proposed substitute addressing emerging large energy use facilities, primarily data centers. Staff explained that the bill would require utilities serving such facilities to adopt tariffs or policies to protect other ratepayers, require long-term contracts and full cost recovery, allow curtailment during emergencies, add reporting and sustainability requirements, create a fee to fund energy assistance, weatherization, and higher education programs, and impose new clean energy and labor-related requirements. The prime sponsor said the bill is intended to protect affordability, reliability, transparency, and the public interest as data center demand grows. Testimony was mixed. Supporters, including community action groups, environmental organizations, some utilities, Ecology, and student representatives, argued the bill would prevent cost shifting, improve transparency, support low-income energy assistance, and help manage grid and climate impacts. Opponents, including data center representatives, public utility district and business groups, and some local government and port officials, said the bill was too prescriptive, could raise costs, threaten competitiveness, duplicate existing utility practices, and interfere with existing CCA/CETA provisions and local flexibility. No vote was taken on SB 6171 during the hearing, and the meeting adjourned after public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> speed limiting device from an electric speed limiting device from an electric bicycle<00:35:21.240
• bicycle in place of low-speed electric bicycle; defines electric micromobility device; and requires
• </c> measures that are targeting electric measures that are targeting electric bicycles<00:40:56.280>
• bike I regularly commute an electric bike I regularly commute an electric<01:04:17.839><c> bike</c><
• </c><01:05:04.359><c> bicycles</c> sorry HB 435 Rel to electric bicycles sorry HB 435 Rel to electric

Summary: The House Committee on Transportation heard a 10 a.m. agenda covering a range of transportation, liability, harbor, and bicycle-related bills. Testimony was mixed on several measures: HB 263, which would exempt full-time college students from vehicle weight tax, drew opposition from the Department of Transportation and others; HB 135, authorizing general obligation bonds to purchase property on the North Shore of Oʻahu, had support; HB 860, granting immunity to the state or county for repairs on roads with disputed jurisdiction, drew support from DOT, DLNR, and the City and County of Honolulu but opposition from the Hawaii Association for Justice; and HB 996, which would abolish joint and several liability for government entities in highway-related civil actions, also drew strong opposition from the Hawaii Association for Justice and support from the Attorney General’s office and DOT. The committee also heard HB 1167, an emergency appropriation for motor carrier enforcement, and HB 1259, which would remove the need for an engineering study before reducing speed limits within 10 mph of the current limit; both had support from DOT and related groups. HB 1156 and HB 960, both related to harbor financing and capital advancement contracts, were supported by DOT, with DOT explaining that higher bond and contract ceilings were needed because project costs have increased since the limits were set decades ago. HB 142, exempting certain nonprofit community-based transportation providers from motor carrier regulation, and HB 914, creating a water carrier inflationary cost index mechanism and allowing PUC exemptions, also received support from multiple stakeholders, with the Consumer Advocacy Division noting that the inflationary adjustment issue was already active in a rate case. The committee also took testimony on several electric bicycle and micromobility bills. HB 486 would restrict where electric bicycles may operate, prohibit unsafe operation and removal of speed-limiting devices, and fund a safety education campaign; it drew opposition from the Hawaii Bicycling League and several individuals, with one supporter. HB 435 would redefine and classify electric bicycles, raise the minimum operating age, and add registration and use rules; it was supported by DOT and the Hawaii Bicycling League, with one individual opposing. HB 958 would regulate motorized bicycles and electric micromobility devices, require helmets for minors, and fund a coordinated education campaign; it drew support from the City and County of Honolulu, Council Member Tyler Dos Santos-Tam, and the Hawaii Bicycling League, but opposition from Moped Doctors and others, who argued the bill could harm the moped industry and that more study was needed. After testimony, the committee recessed and then reconvened for decision-making. In decision-making, the committee deferred HB 263 and HB 996. It passed HB 135, HB 860, HB 1167, HB 1259, HB 1156, and HB 960 with amendments, generally adopting HD1 versions, making technical changes, and setting effective dates to July 1, 3000 for the amended measures. The chair explained that HB 263 was deferred because a blanket tax exemption for one class could create inequities and a tax credit might be a better approach. HB 996 was deferred because the chair said the state’s long-standing policy of ensuring safe roads and maintaining accountability for highway design and maintenance remained important. For HB 960, the chair said the current contract caps were too low for modern harbor projects and that higher limits would improve flexibility and efficiency. The committee also noted Representative Cochran was excused for the remaining votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• We also know that two of the biggest drivers of electricity, electric utility rate increases are investments
• the electric grid and incentivize electrification by lowering the rate charged for each unit of electricity
• their electric vehicle that's coming into the electric system.
• grid without supplying electricity on-site.
• Grid without supplying electricity on-site.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• consumption, meets the most recent National Electric Code standards, is not combined with any other
• consumption, meets the most recent National Electric Code standards, is not combined with any other
• It authorizes an electric utility to recover the costs of service charge to include both installation
• and removal within the first year of installation, and it authorizes an electric utility to remove a
• As well as electric customers.

Committee: Senate Environment, Energy & Technology

Transcript Highlights:

• rates lower or driving electric rates down.
• cars, electric vehicles.
• But there were credits taken out of the electric sector.
• If electricity looks artificially...
• , it's to protect the cost of electricity.

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Summary: The committee heard an overview and discussion of CARB’s proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, implemented under AB 1207 and SB 840. Chairs and members emphasized the program’s role in meeting climate targets while balancing affordability, and CARB described the proposal as intended to preserve market certainty, strengthen cost containment, address utility affordability, and support the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goal. CARB also noted the public comment period, the planned board hearing, and the goal of an effective date of September 1, 2026. Members questioned CARB on several implementation issues, including whether the rulemaking would be completed on time, the treatment of carbon capture and sequestration, the timing of the transfer of allowances from natural gas utilities to electric utilities, and the impact on ratepayers. CARB said it was on track to meet the May deadline, that CCUS/CDR could be further refined in the proposal and would also be addressed in a separate SB 905 rulemaking later in the year, and that it was seeking to protect ratepayers while inviting more utility data during the comment period. The committee also discussed refining-sector leakage risk, gasoline imports, and how imported fuel is accounted for under cap-and-invest versus the low-carbon fuel standard. A second panel of outside experts and stakeholders then testified. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and IEMAC representatives explained the major statutory changes, including putting offsets under the cap, shifting allowances from natural gas to electric utilities over time, and changing how allowance value is divided among utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. They stressed that CARB has significant discretion in setting the allowance “pie,” and that more free allocations to utilities or industry reduce GGRF revenues. EDF’s representative argued the proposal should be adopted this spring, said the utility transition should happen faster, and urged a tighter near-term emissions cap. SCAPA, representing publicly owned utilities, opposed the proposed utility allocation changes, saying they would reduce expected allowances, undermine long-term planning, and could force higher rates or reduced decarbonization investments.

Transcript Highlights:

• This change is functionally lowering the cost of this type of electrical permit by $3.
• This change is functionally lowering the cost of this type of electrical permit by $3.
• This change is functionally lowering the cost of this type of electrical permit by $3.
• This change is functionally lowering the cost of this type of electrical permit by $3.
• This change is functionally lowering the cost of this type of electrical permit by $3.

Committee: Senate Labor

Transcript Highlights:

• When utilities expect peak electricity consumption to approach the amount of electricity they're able
• We want those electric cars and heat pumps that will use more electricity instead of gasoline and natural
• AB 1975 will help reduce electricity rates by requiring utilities to make better use of the electric
• of their energy costs by deploying small-scale solar to offset their electricity use without major electrical
• Or that we need for electricity reliability.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• Particularly electrical cooperatives, is that there was no electricity in rural areas.
• Where do you get your electricity?
• They get their power from Associated Electric, but Associated Electric gets power from...
• Electricity in areas where there was no electricity.
• They want cheap electricity, which I understand everybody wants cheap electricity.

Committee: House Special Committee on Rural Issues

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 3114, which would require operating railroads in Missouri to provide digital copies of valuation and station maps to the state land surveyor for inclusion in a public repository. The sponsor said the bill is intended to help surveyors locate abandoned railroad rights-of-way and determine center lines for adjoining landowners’ reversionary rights. Committee members asked about whether the bill would apply to active versus abandoned lines, whether records still exist for older railroads, and whether a deadline should be added for compliance. Railroad testimony raised concerns about the breadth of the request, potential security and proprietary issues, and the burden of compiling historical records, while indicating a willingness to continue discussions and possibly work with surveyors on a more targeted process. The committee then heard House Bill 2298, which would remove the current exemption for electric cooperatives from the requirement that condemning entities pay 150% of appraised value in eminent domain cases. The sponsor argued that co-ops should be treated the same as regulated utilities because landowners face the same burden when transmission lines cross their property, and he cited examples where co-op offers were far below what he believed comparable utility projects would pay. Landowners and a lawyer testifying in favor described alleged unfair treatment, uneven compensation, and the impact of transmission lines on farm operations and property value, while emphasizing that the bill would simply put co-ops on the same footing as other utilities. Opposition testimony from Associated Industries of Missouri and the Missouri Electric Cooperatives argued that the bill would interfere with the cooperative model, which is member-owned and governed by elected boards, and would reduce flexibility in negotiating easements. The co-op representative said the organizations are not partnered with Grain Belt Express, that any interconnection compensation is separate from the project itself, and that most easement acquisitions are settled by negotiation rather than condemnation. Committee members questioned whether co-ops already pay comparable amounts in practice, whether the bill would affect transmission projects tied to Grain Belt Express, and how co-op governance and member oversight should factor into eminent domain policy.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> no standards for electricity. no standards for electricity.
• However, why only electrical?
• Uh in the case of the electrical<00:43:25.440><c> standard,</c> electrical standard, electrical standard
• </c> electrical issues? electrical issues?
• </c> partially based on National Electrical partially based on National Electrical Code?

Committee: House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services

Transcript Highlights:

• the electric grid and incentivize electrification by lowering the rate charged for each unit of electricity
• But there's a bunch of other things driving electric demand up.
• their electric vehicle that's coming into the electric system.
• I'm also an electrical worker with Local Union 1245.
• grid without supplying electricity on-site.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held an oversight hearing with leaders from the CPUC, Public Advocates Office, CAISO, the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety, and the Energy Commission. Chair Petrie-Norris framed the hearing around high utility bills, wildfire risk, grid reliability, clean energy buildout, and the state’s long-term decarbonization goals, and also noted it was CPUC President Alice Reynolds’ final week at the commission. Each agency gave an update on its role: the CPUC described efforts to reduce rate increases while maintaining reliability and clean energy procurement; the Public Advocates Office focused on affordability and the need to control underlying utility costs; CAISO discussed transmission planning, market operations, and the upcoming extended day-ahead market; Energy Safety reviewed wildfire mitigation oversight and inspections; and the Energy Commission highlighted clean energy growth, EV adoption, storage, efficiency, and gasoline price monitoring. A major theme was affordability versus the costs of the clean energy transition. Reynolds said the CPUC has lowered utility revenue requests, reduced utility returns, adopted a base services charge, and reworked net metering, while also continuing to manage wildfire-related costs and support resource adequacy and demand flexibility. Sarazawa argued that recent rate decreases may not be durable because billions of dollars in wildfire and other utility costs are still pending or unbilled, and she urged tighter use of general rate cases, lower-cost financing, program reform, and more equitable rate design. Members pressed the agencies on whether state policy is sufficiently accounting for labor, local economic development, and the cost impacts of transmission and procurement decisions, especially where out-of-state resources are being considered. CAISO and the Energy Commission emphasized that the state’s planning and market reforms are helping lower costs and improve reliability. CAISO said the Western Energy Imbalance Market has produced billions in benefits, the extended day-ahead market is on track to launch, and transmission planning is being aligned with long-term resource needs while reducing queue delays. The Energy Commission said California is now getting roughly two-thirds of its power from clean sources, has added massive amounts of storage and renewables, and is seeing strong EV and charger growth that can help spread fixed grid costs. Energy Safety reported thousands of inspections, hundreds of notices of non-performance, and a decline in reportable ignitions, while noting that major fires show more work is needed. Members also raised concerns about the SB 100 report delay, memo and balancing accounts, the future of battery storage, and whether decarbonization zone pilots will affect residential and commercial customers.

Transcript Highlights:

• rates lower or driving electric rates down.
• cars, electric vehicles.
• But there were credits taken out of the electric sector.
• If electricity looks artificially...
• , it's to protect the cost of electricity.

Committee: Senate Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Minnesota average electricity price Minnesota average electricity price across<00:44:55.440><c>
• Yes, we all pay monthly electric bills. I pay a monthly electric bill.
• And when you take that usage out of your electric bill, you end up with a much smaller electric bill.
• </c> household, not just the electric bill. household, not just the electric bill.
• And it is about electricity.

Bills: HF3298

Committee: House Energy Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• Particularly electrical cooperatives, is that there was no electricity in rural areas.
• They get their power from Associated Electric, but Associated Electric gets power from...
• They get their power from Associated Electric, but Associated Electric gets power from...
• Electricity in areas where there was no electricity.
• They want cheap electricity, which I understand everybody wants cheap electricity.

Committee: House Special Committee on Rural Issues

Transcript Highlights:

• c> and marked as reserved for electric and marked as reserved for electric vehicles<00:25:16.679><c>
• </c><00:27:48.919><c> in</c> Mahalo thank you Hawaiian Electric in Mahalo thank you Hawaiian Electric
• It renames the electric bicycle and electric moped rebate program to the Electric Mobility Rebate Program
• It renames the electric bicycle and electric moped rebate program to the Electric Mobility Rebate Program
• mot an electric operating an electric mot an electric motorcycle<00:41:12.720><c> or</c><00:41:12.839

Summary: The House Committee on Transportation heard several bills on March 11, including measures on harbor vessel requirements, transportation funding, clean fuels, water carriers, parking enforcement, and electric mobility. For SB 1402 SD1 on vessels in state commercial harbors, testimony was split: the General Contractors Association of Hawaii and the Longline Association supported it, while Hol Holo Charters and one individual opposed it, saying the bill should be more specific about tourboat operators. For SB 1473 on central services assessments, SB 321 on privately owned roads, and SB 419 on insurance coverage for child passenger restraint systems, the committee heard brief testimony with no noted objections or actions beyond moving through the agenda. For SB 1009 SD2 on parking, the bill would create fines for misuse of disability and EV parking spaces and direct the revenue to the Safe Routes to School special fund. Support came from Ulupono Initiative, Climate Protectors Hawaii, the Disability Communication Access Board, and others, while the Retail Merchants of Hawaii supported the bill’s intent but questioned using the fines for Safe Routes to School, and Hawaiian Electric suggested directing EV-related fines to the EV charging system subaccount instead. Hawaii Appleseed supported the measure but raised concerns about the size of the fines and possible impacts on low-income residents. The committee asked questions about enforcement when EV chargers are inoperable; DAGS indicated the stalls could be used and would not be enforced in that situation. For SB 1120 on a clean fuel standard, the Department of Transportation supported the measure but asked for the implementation date to be delayed by one year and requested an independent Hawaii-specific economic impact study due before the next session. Support also came from several transportation, airline, and industry groups, while Tim Rhymer and Frank Schultz opposed it. The committee then heard SB 21 on water carriers, which would authorize a PUC inflationary cost index adjustment mechanism and exemptions; DOT, the Chamber of Commerce Hawaii, Young Brothers, and the Hawaii Harbors Users Group supported it, while Frank Schultz opposed. Finally, the committee heard SB 117 on electric mobility, which would expand and rename the rebate program, set age limits and operating rules for e-bikes and electric motorcycles, require insurance for electric motorcycle operators, and make conforming changes. Testimony was largely supportive, including from DOT, the Hawaii Bicycling League, the Queen’s pediatric trauma center, and Ulupono Initiative, though one testifier warned that the bill’s wattage definition could unintentionally capture some pedal-assist e-bikes. No votes were taken on the individual bills in the portions shown, and the transcript ended with the committee continuing its hearing agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:45:23.000><c> That</c> for our electrical system. Perfect. That for our electrical system.
• </c> electricity bill. electricity bill.
• I'm not an electrical engineer.
• I'm not an electrical engineer.
• uh</c> electric vehicle but uh electric vehicle but uh No.

Bills: SF0095 , SF0107 , SF0112

Committee: House Transportation, Highways & Military Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• system forecast, electricity demand forecast.
• That's almost unprecedented in the electric utility world.
• Electrical Rule 30. We propose Electric Rule 30. It...
• Electrical Rule 30. We propose Electric World 30. It System-wide, Electric Rule 30.
• We propose Electric Rule 30.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Assembly Committees on Utilities and Energy and Privacy and Consumer Protection focused on the energy impacts of AI and the rapid growth of data centers in California. Chairs and members emphasized that the state wants to support innovation and data center development, but only under terms that protect ratepayers, preserve reliability, and avoid stranded grid costs. Testimony from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the California Energy Commission, the CPUC, CAISO, PG&E, Silicon Valley Power, and the Data Center Coalition described the scale of projected load growth, the uncertainty in forecasting, and the need for coordinated planning across agencies. Dr. Nate Gleason of Lawrence Livermore said data centers are a major and fast-growing share of electricity demand, with planning challenges driven by short construction timelines for data centers versus long lead times for transmission and generation. He urged stochastic planning, co-optimization of generation, storage, and transmission, and greater use of flexible load and demand response. CEC Director Alicia Gutierrez described the CEC’s bottom-up forecasting approach, based on utility energization requests and load profiles, and said California has over 23,000 megawatts of data center capacity requests in the CAISO footprint. CPUC Deputy Executive Director Luan Tesfai outlined recent actions on energization timelines, flexible service connections, PG&E’s Rule 30 tariff, and the commission’s resource planning and transmission permitting work. CAISO’s Neil Miller stressed that large loads affect transmission planning, interconnection, and reliability standards, and said the agency is preparing additional stakeholder work on technical issues. Utility and industry witnesses said California is already seeing substantial data center interest and is building out infrastructure accordingly. PG&E’s Mike Medeiros said the utility has more than 10 gigawatts of data center interest in its territory, has shifted to cluster studies, and is using flexible interconnection tools such as FlexConnect to speed service while protecting reliability. Silicon Valley Power’s Nico Prokos said data centers account for about 55% of its power use and that the city is investing heavily in transmission and local system upgrades to support projected load growth. He also warned that AI loads may be more variable than traditional cloud loads and that backup generation and air quality constraints complicate curtailment strategies. The Data Center Coalition’s Karabonder argued that data centers are also driving efficiency gains and support critical digital services, while urging better forecasting methods, more transparency, and regular backcasting. Members asked about statutory authority, data availability, flexible load, and whether current forecasts are sufficient for long-lead infrastructure planning. Witnesses said California already has authority to pursue flexible service and rate design, and that the CEC and CPUC have access to utility data, though out-year demand remains highly uncertain. CPUC representatives noted an advanced rate design rulemaking and said the commission is opening additional work on ratepayer impacts. No votes were taken during the informational hearing, and the discussion ended with continued questions about how California should structure planning, pricing, and reliability rules as AI-related load grows.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> 20,000 gwatt hours of electricity 20,000 gwatt hours of electricity annually<00:04:04.560><c> much
• </c> achieving 100% carbon free electricity achieving 100% carbon free electricity way<00:21:07.240><
• Dakota generates electricity.
• </c><00:31:11.000><c> and</c> uses coal to generate electricity and uses coal to generate electricity
• 12.840><c> from</c><00:31:13.039><c> North</c> that we import electricity from North that we import electricity

Transcript Highlights:

• When utilities expect the peak amount of electricity consumption to approach the amount of electricity
• We want those electric cars and heat pumps that will use more electricity instead of gasoline and natural
• AB 1975 will help reduce electricity rates by requiring utilities to make better use of the electric
• of their energy costs by deploying small-scale solar to offset their electricity use without major electrical
• Or that we need for electricity reliability.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy heard several bills focused on clean energy, electrification, and grid planning. AB 1813 (Ward) would revise California’s community renewable energy program to better support community solar and storage, especially for renters and low-income customers, by tying credits to avoided costs and requiring at least 51% low-income participation. Supporters said the current CPUC program is unworkable and has stalled development; utilities raised concerns about cost shifts, CCA impacts, and the bill’s late substantive amendments. The bill was discussed but no vote was recorded in the excerpt. AB 2313 (Berman) would create a gas service line replacement alternative program allowing customers facing planned gas line replacement to instead choose electrification and receive an incentive. Supporters argued it would reduce long-term gas infrastructure costs and give customers more choice, while opponents warned it could divert money from safety-related gas replacement work, create affordability issues, and conflict with the recently approved SB 1221 pilot. Committee members pressed the author on safety, funding sources, and renter impacts; the author said the bill includes emergency replacement exemptions and is intended to lower costs for remaining ratepayers. AB 1975 (Schultz) would require the CPUC to develop a grid utilization metric and consider expanded grid management programs to better use existing distribution infrastructure and reduce the need for costly upgrades. Supporters said better utilization could save ratepayers billions and help integrate batteries and flexible load; utilities generally opposed rigid utilization targets but were open to further discussion. The committee passed AB 1975 on a 7-0 vote to Appropriations. AB 2612, on plug-in photovoltaic systems, passed 9-0 to Appropriations after supporters said it would expand access to low-cost solar and utilities requested clarification that they would participate in the standards process. AB 1849 (Pappin) would direct CARB to study the need for decarbonized gaseous fuels in hard-to-electrify sectors and for grid reliability. Supporters framed it as a technology-neutral assessment for sectors like industrial heat and backup power; opponents argued it was biased toward a preferred fuel pathway and duplicated existing state studies. After a lengthy exchange over the lack of a statutory definition for “decarbonized gaseous fuels,” the bill passed 10-0 to Appropriations. AB 2088 (Pappin) would authorize investor-owned utilities to own and operate thermal energy networks, with safeguards for safety, workforce, and ratepayers. Supporters described TENs as efficient, low-emission heating and cooling systems that can use geothermal energy or waste heat; the bill passed 9-0 to Appropriations.

Transcript Highlights:

• rates lower or driving electric rates down.
• cars, electric vehicles.
• But there were credits taken out of the electric sector.
• If electricity looks artificially...
• , it's to protect the cost of electricity.

Committee: Senate Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Summary: The committee heard an overview of CARB’s proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, implemented under AB 1207 and SB 840 after last year’s reauthorization through 2045. CARB said the draft rule changes are intended to support affordability, market certainty, and the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets, while also addressing offsets, utility allowance transfers, leakage protections for industry, and post-2030 allowance budgets. Members emphasized the importance of completing the rulemaking on schedule this spring so the changes can take effect by September 1, 2026. A major focus was how allowances are allocated among electric utilities, natural gas utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. CARB explained that the proposal transfers natural gas utility allowances to electric utilities over time to support electrification and ratepayer protection, while maintaining free allowances for industry to reduce leakage risk and preserve in-state manufacturing and refining. Several members and panelists questioned whether the proposed utility changes could raise rates, whether the transition from gas to electric credits should happen faster, and whether the industrial allocation changes reduce climate credit and GGRF revenues more than necessary. CARB and panelists said they were open to additional data and comments, and noted that the proposal is still in public comment. The committee also discussed carbon capture, carbon removal, and refining. Members asked CARB to ensure that CCUS and CDR are clearly recognized as viable compliance pathways and to keep SB 905 rulemaking on track. On refining, members raised concerns about imported gasoline, leakage, and the need for better data on the carbon intensity of imported fuels; CARB said cap-and-invest applies to fuel suppliers at the rack, while life-cycle accounting issues are handled more through the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and related modeling. CARB said it is continuing technical work on those data tools. In the second panel, the LAO, IEMAC, EDF, and SCAPA representatives generally agreed that the program faces real tradeoffs between affordability, ambition, and leakage protection. The LAO and IEMAC stressed that the Legislature should scrutinize how CARB divides the allowance “pie,” since more free allocations to utilities or industry mean less revenue for GGRF. EDF argued the program could be somewhat more ambitious in the near term without harming affordability, while SCAPA said the proposal would reduce allowances for publicly owned utilities and could undermine early decarbonization investments and ratepayer benefits. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:02:54.959><c> sales</c> exemption from counting electric sales exemption from counting electric
• That's how much electricity it saves.
• </c> because we face the growing electricity because we face the growing electricity demand<00:09:41.440
• </c> 90 watts of electricity. 90 watts of electricity.
• <00:20:17.919><c> 24/7</c> electricity 24/7 electricity 24/7 all<00:20:19.840><c> the</c><00:20:20.000