Transcript Highlights:

• emissions that occurred before 2026.
• those emissions.
• So the emissions are known, but not.
• The emissions are known, but the company is not required to purchase allowances to cover those emissions
• We support reducing emissions and protecting air and water quality.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on three main bills. House Bill 2284 on reducing litter would remove a scheduled increase in plastic bag thickness, preserve the existing penalty on thicker bags, and create a litter solutions task force to use existing data and recommend further actions. Supporters from business, retail, agriculture, food industry, and the Department of Ecology said the bill takes a data-driven approach and could help reduce litter without imposing a full bag ban, while Ecology noted it already has a statewide litter study underway and raised cost and membership concerns. Opponents and other commenters generally favored the bill’s direction but emphasized the need for more study and careful implementation. No vote was taken. House Bill 1652 would require certain ocean-going vessels in Washington waters to use fuel with no more than 0.1% sulfur, with recordkeeping, Ecology oversight, penalties, and a substitute clarifying vessel coverage and exemptions. The prime sponsor and environmental and public health advocates said the bill would reduce air and water pollution from scrubbers and protect the Salish Sea, orcas, salmon, and nearby communities. Ports, shipping interests, and industry groups raised concerns that the bill could effectively discourage scrubbers, create burdens for irregular callers and cargo traffic, and affect port competitiveness, while some said the bill should be narrowed or further stakeholdered. The hearing also included discussion of a proposed substitute and possible impacts on vessels and port operations. House Bill 2367 would end special coal-related exemptions by limiting the cap-and-invest exemption to pre-2026 emissions, removing limits on additional greenhouse gas regulation for the coal plant, and repealing coal sales and use tax exemptions. Supporters said the bill would align state law with the planned closure of the Centralia coal plant, reinforce Washington’s climate policies, and remove outdated carve-outs. Business and petroleum representatives warned that if the plant were brought back into the cap-and-invest program, the allowance market could be affected and Ecology might need flexibility to adjust the program. The committee heard extensive testimony on all three bills but took no recorded votes or final action in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Emissions are probably obvious.
• </c> terms. emissions are probably obvious. terms. emissions are probably obvious.
• </c><00:45:46.240><c> So,</c> including reducing emissions. So, including reducing emissions.
• </c> those emissions at the source, right? those emissions at the source, right?
• </c><00:53:56.880><c> Again,</c> emissions. Two kinds of markets. Again, emissions.

Summary: The meeting was called to order, the Pledge of Allegiance was led, and the clerk called the roll, establishing a quorum. The committee approved the prior minutes after correcting the date and changing a reference so that a draft-legislation note attributed to Representative Wlette was corrected. After that, the chair introduced a carbon presentation by Mr. Charlie Lebec and invited members and guests to move closer to view the slides. Mr. Lebec’s presentation focused on forest carbon science and forest carbon offset markets, with emphasis on how forests store, sequester, and emit carbon. He explained greenhouse gases and the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, then defined key terms such as carbon storage, sequestration, flux, sinks, and sources. He also described forest carbon pools, noting that soils contain a large share of forest carbon, and discussed how forest age affects storage and sequestration, arguing that younger forests often sequester carbon faster while older forests store more carbon overall. He also addressed how harvested wood products can continue to store carbon, responding to a question from a member about mass timber and carbon sinks. The presentation included regional comparisons showing New Hampshire’s forest density, carbon storage, and sequestration relative to other New England states, and noted that New Hampshire forests offset more than 30% of the state’s annual greenhouse gas emissions from nonforest sources, while Maine and Vermont offset even larger shares. Mr. Lebec said eastern forests are generally carbon sinks, unlike some western forests affected by wildfire, and stressed that forest management, soil protection, and forest age all influence carbon outcomes. No votes or substantive policy actions were taken beyond approving the minutes; the meeting was primarily informational.

Transcript Highlights:

• , saying that rather than... ...the Climate Commitment Act's overall allowance budgets and state emission
• that would be required to stamp the assessments due to Ecology every four years on greenhouse gas emission
• Separately, under existing law, facilities have to report their greenhouse gas emissions to Ecology.
• And there are separate verification certification requirements that apply to greenhouse gas emission
• The report that's due to be completed in 2028 addressing EITE emissions leakage is Ecology is required

Summary: The Environment and Energy committee met to executive three bills. SB 6291 would extend from two to four years the period a non-certified person may review designs and inspect on-site wastewater treatment systems under supervision of a certified individual; the committee adopted a striking amendment making a technical correction to the definition of an on-site wastewater treatment system and then passed the bill 18-0 with three excused. ESB 6246 concerns no-cost allowance allocations for emissions-intensive, trade-exposed facilities under the Climate Commitment Act; the striking amendment added an Ecology-contracted independent third-party report due in 2028 on emissions and job leakage, revised reporting and disclosure provisions, required unaffiliated licensed professional engineers for certain assessments, and clarified penalty language. Members discussed leakage, third-party review, and costs to industry, and the bill passed 11-7 with three excused after the amendment was adopted. The committee also took up ESSB 5975, which sets lead standards for certain cookware and adjusts the Safer Products for Washington process. Members described the bill as the result of multiple years of negotiation balancing public health concerns about lead exposure with industry concerns, and noted the striking amendment set specific 2030 and 2034 standards for pots and pans. After brief supportive discussion, the committee adopted the striker and passed the bill 18-0 with three excused.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those emissions reductions primarily come from zero-emission cars, trucks, and clean fuels.
• Tanker emission reduction requirements will extend statewide January 1, 2027.
• Emissions reduction strategies and the number of emissions capture systems on the market to address the
• Rather, it requires the companies to reduce emissions.
• And the air districts take those funds and use other emissions strategies to reduce the overall emissions

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on California’s transportation fuels sector, especially the risk of refinery closures, fuel supply stability, and how the state should manage a long transition to cleaner transportation. Committee chairs and agency leaders said California’s fuel market is becoming more fragile as demand declines, refinery capacity shrinks faster than demand, and the state relies more on imports and a smaller number of critical pipelines. Professor Emily Grubert framed the issue as a managed transition problem in which the public already bears much of the risk and should also capture benefits from any state intervention. CARB Chair Leanne Randolph reviewed California’s climate and air-quality framework, including AB 32, the low-carbon fuel standard, clean vehicle rules, and the state’s at-berth regulation for port vessels. She said these programs are intended to reduce fossil fuel demand while protecting public health, and she noted that California remains in litigation over federal attempts to block some waivers. CEC Vice Chair Sivagunda described the administration’s market-stabilization work, saying the state is trying to preserve fuel supply and investor confidence during a “mid-transition” period. He said the CEC’s recommendations fall into three broad areas: stabilizing the existing fuel system, aligning regulatory tools such as a possible pause on the CEC’s margin cap, and planning for worker and community impacts. Department of Conservation Director Jennifer Lucasey outlined the administration’s petroleum market stabilization proposal, centered on returning California crude production to a 125 million-barrel annual stabilization target to support pipeline throughput and domestic supply. The proposal would codify the ban on hydraulic fracturing, validate Kern County’s oil and gas permitting ordinance, create a temporary CEQA exemption for new wells in existing fields paired with a two-for-one plug-and-abandon requirement, and strengthen spill prevention and pipeline safety rules. Several members questioned the CEQA exemption, tribal consultation, environmental review, and whether the proposal would adequately protect communities and workers. Mayor Steve Young of Benicia testified that a Valero refinery closure would sharply reduce city revenue and jobs, while also creating redevelopment and remediation challenges; he said the city wants a cleaner future but needs time and support to manage the economic loss. No formal vote was taken at the hearing, though CEC officials said a vote on a margin-cap pause was expected at an upcoming business meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• But on the downside, we just don't have a solution to reduce those carbon emissions at this time.
• However, we do want to meet those emission reductions.
• Our emissions are measured and controlled and well within clean air regulations.
• I wouldn't say it's an automatic out from being a reportable emission.
• So that's only going to make the material more toxic in terms of emissions.

Bills: HB2426 , HB2373 , HB2416

Committee: House Environment & Energy

Keywords: pollution control, efficiency, appeals process, environmental regulation, hearing board, electric utility, energy assistance, low-income households, monthly bill assistance, energy equity, waste management, energy, climate action, environmental regulations, fair treatment, renewable energy, sustainability

Transcript Highlights:

• Those emissions reductions primarily come from zero-emission cars, trucks, and clean fuels.
• Tanker emission reduction requirements will extend statewide January 1, 2027.
• Technology providers are expanding treatment capacity to control more emissions.
• Rather, it requires the companies to reduce emissions.
• And the air districts take those funds and use other emissions strategies to reduce the overall emissions

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Assembly Committees on Utilities and Energy, Transportation, and Natural Resources focused on California’s transportation fuels sector, especially the state’s response to refinery closures and the broader transition away from fossil fuels. Opening remarks emphasized the tension between climate and air-quality goals, fuel affordability, refinery jobs and local tax bases, and the need to avoid crisis-driven responses as Phillips 66 and Valero consider shutting refineries in Wilmington and Benicia. Professor Emily Grubert framed the issue as a long-term managed transition in which the public already bears much of the risk and should also capture benefits from a well-planned shift. CARB Chair Leanne Randolph reviewed the state’s emissions and fuel policies, including AB 32, the low-carbon fuel standard, clean vehicle programs, and the at-berth regulation for ocean-going vessels. She said California’s transportation sector remains the largest source of greenhouse gases and a major source of smog-forming pollution, but that the state has made substantial progress and still needs to reduce demand for fossil fuels while maintaining compliance with federal air-quality standards. Randolph also said CARB’s recent LCFS amendments had not caused the predicted spike in gas prices and explained that compliance pathways for the at-berth rule include emissions-reduction technologies or payments into a remediation fund. CEC Vice Chair Gunda described declining gasoline demand, shrinking in-state refining capacity, and growing dependence on imports, arguing that the state is in a “mid-transition” period that requires both support for legacy infrastructure and continued investment in cleaner alternatives. He outlined the administration’s petroleum market stabilization proposal, which aims to return California crude production to 125 million barrels a year through four components: codifying the ban on fracking, validating the Kern County oil-and-gas permitting ordinance, creating a temporary CEQA exemption paired with a two-for-one plug-and-drill framework, and strengthening pipeline and spill-safety requirements. Department of Conservation Director Jennifer Lucasey said the proposal is intended to stabilize crude supply and pipeline throughput while preserving health and environmental protections, and noted that CalGEM would still review permits and enforce other requirements. Mayor Steve Young of Benicia testified that a Valero closure would significantly reduce city revenue and leave the community facing years of cleanup and redevelopment challenges. He said the city supports environmental protection but is worried about the economic hit, the possibility that Benicia becomes a fuel-import terminal, and the lack of local influence over refinery decisions. Members pressed the panel on the CEQA exemption, tribal and habitat review, disclosure of closure liabilities, fuel-demand projections, and whether the proposal should include more demand-side measures. No formal votes were taken; the hearing was informational, and officials said some proposals, including a margin-cap pause and further transition planning, would be taken up later in the process.

Transcript Highlights:

• gas emissions and Pao Pacific<00:12:04.079><c> is</c><00:12:04.200><c> working</c><00:12:04.480><c>
• We could also make a meaningful decrease in GHG emissions on Maui and Hawaii Island as well.
• We could also make a meaningful decrease in GHG emissions on Maui and Hawaii Island as well.
• and a long-term plan to reach zero emissions in the transportation sector.
• </c> reach our greenhouse gas emission reach our greenhouse gas emission reduction<00:29:19.480><c> uh

Committee: House Economic Development & Technology

Summary: The Committee on Economic Development and Technology heard testimony on HB 976, a measure related to incentives for renewable fuels, including renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel. Supporters said the bill would help close the cost gap between renewable and conventional fuels, strengthen Hawaii’s energy security, support climate goals, and encourage local economic development. Testifiers from Pono Pacific, PAR Hawaii, Hawaiian Electric, Hawaiian Airlines/Alaska Airlines, the Hawaii Department of Transportation, Pacific Biodiesel, Aloha Carbon, and others described ongoing or planned projects, local feedstock development, and potential benefits for agriculture, waste diversion, and emissions reductions. Several testifiers also discussed proposed amendments. The Hawaii Renewable Fuels Coalition said it wanted to remove the import tax credit, eliminate the aggregate cap increase to avoid additional state funding, and revise local-production language to rely on a carbon-intensity threshold rather than location-based preferences. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii raised technical concerns about the bill’s administration, including prorating credits if the cap is exceeded and the feasibility of a 30-day filing window. Some supporters urged keeping solid waste, including construction and demolition debris, as eligible feedstock, while Energy Justice Network opposed that approach and also urged removing GMO-related language and waste-based feedstocks because of environmental and toxic emissions concerns. Opposition testimony focused on the bill’s cost and feasibility. Energy Justice Network and Ted Metros argued the measure could become a large subsidy for a refinery and questioned whether Hawaii has enough land and water to produce meaningful quantities of biofuel locally. Metros also criticized the refundable credit structure and said the state should not bear the cost for what he described as a benefit largely tied to tourism and imported fuel. No vote was taken during the portion of the hearing provided; the chair later noted the committee had received 13 testimonies in support, 18 in opposition, and seven comments, and then invited further discussion on cost allocation and lowering caps to broaden participation.

Transcript Highlights:

• In the United States, 30% of our greenhouse gas emissions are resulted from the industrial sector.
• So these three programs together dramatically reduce emissions.
• And, just as a reminder, this is the largest sort of growing sector of greenhouse gas emissions globally
• And so if we want to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions, that's our low hanging fruit.
• But they have The broad requirements to utilize greatest greenhouse gas emissions best Return.

Committee: Senate Senate Conservation

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:16:46.000><c> by</c> greenhouse gas emissions by greenhouse gas emissions by 2045<00:16:47.920
• our total emissions than virtually anywhere else.
• So in order to reach net zero by 2045, we absolutely have to address aviation emissions.
• our total emissions than virtually anywhere else.
• Mahalo, thank you. have to address Aviation emissions lifel have to address Aviation emissions lifel

Summary: The House Committee on Transportation met on April 1 and first took up HR 63 HD1 and HCR 70 HD1, which urge the Department of Transportation to facilitate and accelerate adoption of sustainable aviation fuels to help decarbonize Hawaii’s transportation sector and meet climate goals. Testimony was mixed: supporters included representatives of Island Energy Services, Par Hawaii, Alaska/Hawaiian Airlines, Life of the Land, and the Hawaii Renewable Fuels Coalition, who said aviation emissions are a major challenge for Hawaii and that further research and development of renewable fuels is needed. Opponents, including the Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaiʻi and Energy Justice Network, argued the resolutions would undermine the state’s greenhouse-gas reduction commitments, rely on non-carbon-free fuels, and could create land, water, and biosecurity concerns. One member, Rep. Moroka, said his concern was the word “accelerate” because of potential damage from improperly stored biofuels. The committee voted to pass HR 63 HD1 and HCR 70 HD1, with Rep. Moroka voting no and the remaining voting members in favor. The committee then heard HR 136 and HCR 142, which urge the Hawaii Tourism Authority and the Department of Transportation to expand the airport greetings program to display kākau art in all neighbor island airports. The only noted testimony was written comments from the Hawaii Tourism Authority, and there was no additional oral testimony or discussion. The committee voted to move the measures out as is, and the recommendation was adopted without opposition. The meeting adjourned after both sets of measures were approved.

Transcript Highlights:

• Or any vehicle that doesn't have emissions. So, it applies to any zero-emissions vehicle.
• So, it's it doesn't have emissions.
• </c> applies to any zero emissions vehicle. applies to any zero emissions vehicle.
• . >> Or any zero-emissions vehicle.
• </c> require by 2045 to have zero emissions require by 2045 to have zero emissions fuels.<00:53:49.920

Summary: The Committee on Transportation heard several bills, beginning with SB 2010, which would authorize impoundment of motor vehicles for certain alleged or committed traffic violations. The Department of Transportation supported the bill, while the Department of the Attorney General asked for clarification in section 4 on who could seek remedies and what remedies would be available. The Office of the Public Defender opposed the measure, citing unclear officer-initiated impound criteria, potential strain on judicial or administrative resources, and concerns about hardship for families and indigent owners; the Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office supported the bill with amendments, saying it should be limited to traffic offenses and could serve as an alternative to fines or imprisonment. The chair then recessed before moving to the next items. The committee next heard SB 2527 on commercial driver licensing, which would require state and county firefighters exempt from CDL requirements to be subject to an alcohol and substance abuse policy equivalent to or stronger than federal DOT standards. DOT, the Department of Human Resources Development, county officials, and the Hawaiʻi Firefighters Association all indicated support. SB 2697, which would prohibit driving on roadway shoulders except in limited circumstances, also drew DOT support, with the Attorney General, judiciary, and others submitting comments. SB 2812, requiring driver license applicants to be tested on the dangers larger vehicles pose to pedestrians and bicyclists, was supported by DOT but opposed by the Public Defender, who argued the excessive-speeding portion was too broad for first offenses and that the DUI-related language was unnecessary because DUI relicensing already requires re-examination. SB 291, clarifying that drivers whose licenses were revoked for certain alcohol-related offenses must undergo re-examination before relicensing, received DOT support. The committee then took up SB 3044, which would remove references to pedestrian countdown timers and the requirement that pedestrians begin crossing before the timer starts. DOT opposed the bill, but Hawaiʻi Appleseed supported it, arguing the current rule is confusing and can lead to citations even when pedestrians can safely cross. The Department of Health submitted late comments emphasizing the importance of pedestrian-friendly infrastructure and physical activity, and the chair noted the split in testimony. Finally, SB 2995 proposed a zero-emissions rideshare rebate program funded by a rideshare fee and administered by DOT. Earthjustice strongly supported the bill, describing it as a fee-and-rebate structure to help rideshare drivers transition to zero-emissions vehicles. A witness for Tom Yamachika suggested that if the state wants to tax ridesharing, it should amend existing tax law instead of creating a new chapter, but the bill’s supporters said DOT was better suited to administer the rebate program and that similar models exist in California and Washington. The committee also heard SB 3153, which would authorize DOT to designate airport special district zones at airports statewide to improve security and enforcement; DOT’s airports deputy director supported the measure, saying it would clarify jurisdiction and help address trespassing and hazards, and senators asked about boundaries, mapping, and coordination with the Attorney General. No votes were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Emissions exempt from coverage in the program include, in part, emissions from the combustion of aviation
• Emissions exempt from coverage in the program include, in part, emissions from the combustion of aviation
• Emissions exempt from coverage in the program include, in part, emissions from the combustion of aviation
• These fuel suppliers are also required to report their emissions to Ecology.
• The bill also exempts from covered emissions in the program emissions associated with lubricants, as

Bills: HB2426 , HB2606

Committee: Senate Environment, Energy & Technology

Keywords: pollution control, efficiency, appeals process, environmental regulation, hearing board, data protection, privacy, performance measures, reporting requirements, office of privacy

Transcript Highlights:

• And again, because the current greenhouse gas emission reporting threshold is 10,000 tons, I think the
• universe of... ...greenhouse gas emission reporting threshold is 10,000 tons.
• That language ...to require greenhouse gas emissions reporting from fossil fuels such as natural gas.
• And additionally, we do have some questions about what are the impact of bringing these new emissions
• It requires emissions tracking. It requires third-party verification.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills. House Bill 2272 would update state park inspection language for ski lifts and related equipment to better match current equipment and federal standards; the sponsor and State Parks said it was a simple modernization bill, and there was no opposition. House Bill 2245 would expand Clean Energy Transformation Act coverage to port districts that distribute electricity, utilities with a single customer, and certain affected market customers such as data centers; supporters said it closes loopholes and applies clean-energy rules more fairly, while ports, business groups, and some utilities warned of unintended consequences, added reporting burdens, and impacts on cogeneration and rural economic development. Ecology and Commerce supported the goal but raised concerns about allowance allocation, fiscal impacts, and possible double counting, and WAPUDA asked that existing single-customer PUDs be grandfathered. House Bill 2215 would lower Climate Commitment Act thresholds for gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, and propane suppliers and extend coverage to some purchasers; supporters said it would prevent entities from gaming the system and cover significant emissions now below the threshold, while Ecology, fuel distributors, propane suppliers, grocers, and business groups warned of compliance costs, supply-chain impacts, possible linkage issues, and the need to preserve existing reporting authority for natural gas. Ecology estimated about 50 additional covered entities could be brought in, and several opponents argued the bill would sweep in small family-owned businesses not intended to be regulated. House Bill 2090 would direct Commerce to develop a nuclear strategic framework for inclusion in the state energy strategy, contingent on outside funding. The sponsor and supporters argued the bill is only a planning measure to ensure Washington considers advanced nuclear as a firm, low-carbon, small-footprint resource amid rising demand, grid constraints, and land-use concerns; supporters included Energy Northwest, local governments, labor/environmental Democrats, and pro-nuclear groups. Opponents, including the Sierra Club, Columbia Riverkeeper, tribal representatives from the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and several environmental advocates, said the bill gives nuclear special treatment, relies on private funding that could bias the study, and risks advancing projects at Hanford without early, meaningful tribal consultation. Tribes requested explicit consultation, independent and publicly funded analysis, and attention to treaty rights and historic nuclear impacts. Testimony also sharply divided over cost, waste, and land use, with supporters emphasizing reliability and footprint and opponents citing high costs, unresolved waste disposal, and the immaturity of small modular reactors. No votes or final actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• biomass from the alternative energy supply definition and woody biomass from the greenhouse gas emission
• But due to a dangerous loophole, woody biomass, despite its well-documented emissions, was included in
• As others have stated, reducing carbon emissions.
• Of course, it will reduce litter and make our communities cleaner and safer, reduce carbon emissions
• If those systems lack an emission control device, they can have PM2.5 emission rates an order of magnitude

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy

Summary: The hearing focused mainly on two subjects: expansion of the Massachusetts bottle bill and bills to remove woody biomass from state clean-energy and greenhouse-gas programs. On the bottle bill, supporters from municipal, environmental, public health, and local government groups argued that the 5-cent deposit is outdated, redemption rates have fallen, and expanding coverage to more beverage containers—especially water, sports drinks, and small alcohol bottles—would reduce litter, cut plastic waste and microplastics, and save cities and towns money. Several speakers also backed raising handling fees for retailers and redemption centers, and some supported restoring a Clean Environment Fund so unclaimed deposits would support recycling-related purposes. Opponents, including the Massachusetts Beverage Association and the National Waste and Recycling Association, argued that curbside recycling and transfer-station systems are more convenient, that the targeted containers are valuable to local recycling programs, and that the proposal would shift costs onto consumers and municipalities. Committee members questioned witnesses about redemption rates, handling fees, the 2014 ballot question, and whether the bill had changed from prior sessions. The biomass portion drew strong support from Springfield officials, state legislators, environmental advocates, and public health groups. They said woody biomass should not count as clean energy because burning wood produces particulate pollution and carbon emissions, and they warned that current law contains a loophole that could help finance the proposed Palmer Renewable Energy biomass plant in Springfield. Witnesses emphasized Springfield’s air-quality and asthma burdens, the public health impacts of PM2.5, and the need to close the loophole before a January 1, 2026 deadline. One forest-industry witness supported a separate bill promoting modern wood heat with pollution controls, arguing it is cleaner than older wood systems and has minimal ratepayer cost, while noting that those credits would be affected if the governor’s broader energy affordability bill repeals the alternative energy portfolio standard. No votes were taken during the hearing. The chairs managed testimony by alternating between the bottle bill and biomass topics, asking speakers to keep remarks brief and to note when they agreed with prior testimony. Several legislators also testified in support of the bills, and committee members asked follow-up questions on deposit levels, retailer handling fees, recycling economics, and the public-health rationale for the biomass restrictions.

Transcript Highlights:

• That is approximately 6% of our state's total emissions.
• It targets concentrated emission sources where we can achieve measurable results.
• There are ways to reduce the emissions on any of those materials.
• There are ways to reduce the emissions on any of those materials.
• It will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as the energy crisis.

Summary: The House Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee met on February 3 and first took up House Bill 153, the Low Carbon Construction Material Rebate Act, with a committee substitute that added an Environmental Product Declaration program and shifted administration to the Environment Department. Sponsor Representative Dixon said the bill would create rebates for buyers of lower-carbon construction materials, support local manufacturers, and reduce industrial emissions. Support came from the New Mexico Home Builders Association, Sierra Club, and the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce. Some members questioned whether the bill would actually lower housing costs or instead create future price pressure once subsidies expire, and raised concerns about rulemaking and whether some materials would be incentivized even without state help. The committee voted 7-4 to do pass the committee substitute and do not pass the original bill. The committee then heard House Bill 154, which would broaden and decouple New Mexico’s advanced energy tax credit definitions from federal law and add fusion energy and related components as eligible advanced energy products. Representative Dixon said the change would give the state more flexibility to include emerging technologies while keeping the existing credit structure and cap intact. The Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, a Santa Fe fusion company, a Los Lunas economic development official, and an online fusion company all testified in support, arguing the bill would provide certainty, attract investment, and help build a local supply chain. One member suggested future consideration of nuclear fission, while another questioned whether some renewable technologies were still appropriate, but the committee ultimately voted 9-2 to do pass HB 154. House Bill 184, a technical fix to the Land of Enchantment Legacy Fund, was then presented by Representative Small. The amendment adopted by the committee delayed the three-year moving average for distributions by one year and extended the time to use funds from two years to three years, with the sponsor saying this would better reflect the fund’s growth and give projects more time to complete. Witnesses from Western Resource Advocates, conservation districts, and Conservation Voters New Mexico supported the measure, saying it would strengthen successful outdoor, watershed, and conservation programs. The committee adopted the amendment and then passed the bill unanimously. Finally, the committee heard House Memorial 20, which would create a study group to examine barriers to renewable energy transmission and project development. The sponsor said the goal was to bring agencies, stakeholders, and possibly courts together to identify ways to speed up renewable infrastructure while preserving environmental review and public input. Sierra Club, Western Resource Advocates, Defenders of Wildlife, and the League of Women Voters supported the memorial, but several members said it should be broadened to include all energy infrastructure or more clearly address transmission, permitting, tribal, federal, and military coordination. In response to those concerns, the sponsor asked to roll the memorial for further discussion and possible revisions rather than advancing it that day.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:32:04.960><c> reductions</c> complements other emissions reductions complements other emissions
• ><c> in</c><00:32:29.840><c> all</c> It addresses carbon emissions in all It addresses carbon emissions
• </c> does not uh cut carbon emissions. does not uh cut carbon emissions.
• </c> of how they've reduced carbon emissions of how they've reduced carbon emissions by<00:38:16.320>
• </c><01:11:06.560><c> tax</c> establishing the carbon emissions tax establishing the carbon emissions

Bills: SB2309 , SB2317 , SB2318 , SB2319 , SB2321 , SB2323 , SB2332 , SB2405 , SB2485

Committee: Senate Agriculture and Environment

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several agriculture-related measures, beginning with SB 2309, which would require the agricultural loan division to sell portions of its loan portfolio and use the proceeds to expand the agriculture loan revolving fund. The Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity and the Hawaii Farm Bureau supported the bill, along with several other organizations and individuals. A committee question focused on the risk of not finding a qualified buyer for the loan portfolio; DAB said a mandatory sale of the full amount could force a less favorable rate, while flexibility to sell different amounts could produce a more equitable return. The measure drew eight supporters and no opposition. The committee then took up SB 2317, which directs DAB to study insurance coverage for small producers and report back to the Legislature. DAB and multiple farm groups supported the bill. In response to a question about cost, DAB estimated about $250,000 would be needed, with the study likely covering crop, health, and liability insurance. The next measure, SB 2318, would establish an agriculture statistics program in statute. DAB said it strongly supported the bill and could ramp up quickly if positions were provided; the committee discussed whether a first report could be completed by year’s end if the bill became law midyear, and DAB said yes. SB 2319, which would fund and make permanent a full-time grant writer position at DAB, also drew strong support from DAB, the Hawaii Farm Bureau, Ulupono Initiative, the Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council, the local food coalition, and others, with testifiers emphasizing the position’s return on investment and success in bringing in federal funds. The committee also heard SB 2321, establishing a two-year pilot program to respond to the twoline spittlebug. DAB, ranching groups, and many others supported the bill, citing the pest’s spread and the need to act before it becomes unmanageable. A DAB pest control manager said he would need to research past response details and provide them later. Members emphasized the importance of early intervention. For SB 2323, which creates a farmland transition commission to study barriers to farmland access and recommend solutions, DAB offered comments and support for the intent, while farm groups generally supported the concept but raised concerns about the proposed age range and whether a separate commission was necessary. DAB said the Board of Agriculture likely would not have the capacity to perform the commission’s duties and estimated there would be costs to establish it, though no figure was available at the hearing. Finally, the committee heard SB 2332, which reestablishes the agriculture and food security special fund, creates a carbon emissions tax and dividend fund, gradually raises carbon-related tax rates, and provides a refundable carbon cashback credit. DAB supported the measure and deferred to Taxation on details; the Department of Taxation said it would stand on its comments, and the Attorney General’s office offered comments and recommendations. Carbon Cashback Hawaii and the County of Hawaii Department of Research and Development supported the bill, arguing it would reduce emissions, protect lower-income households, and be relatively simple to administer.

Transcript Highlights:

• Moore: commission to reduce emissions today while working toward the zero-emissions future.
• Moore: commission to reduce emissions today while working toward the zero-emissions future.
• have created further uncertainty around one of the Commonwealth's intended pathways for reducing emissions
• , not to Groups together to discuss what we can do today to reduce emissions, not just what we can do
• It's quieter, smaller-footprint, certainly fewer household-based emissions, and cheaper.

Summary: The Senate continued debate on House 5175, An Act Relative to Energy Affordability, Clean Power, and Economic Competitiveness, taking up a series of amendments focused on clean energy procurement, oversight, gas infrastructure, housing impacts, and ratepayer costs. Amendment 22, offered by Senator Rogers, was rejected 5-34 after he argued the underlying bill already improves clean energy procurement and reduces utility middlemen. Senator Tarr then offered Amendment 34 to expand reporting, oversight boards, and consumer representation, and to strike provisions on consumer choice, gas program frameworks, and municipal procurement authority; it was also rejected 5-34 after supporters of the bill said the legislation already strengthens oversight through the EEAC, a new review board, and DPU audits. The chamber also considered Amendment 77 by Senator Eldridge to end ratepayer-funded gas line extension subsidies for new construction. Supporters said the subsidy unfairly shifts costs to all ratepayers, favors gas over cleaner alternatives, and could save about $1.6 billion over ten years; opponents argued it could raise housing construction costs, especially for gateway cities and large projects. After extended debate, the amendment failed 19-20. Senator Moore withdrew Amendment 65, which would have created a commission on reducing emissions from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles while preserving long-term zero-emissions goals. Several other amendments were adopted, including measures on low-income discount charges, environmental justice protections, data and tax printing, and increased access to plug-in solar. The Senate also adopted the Ways and Means amendment, ordered the bill to a third reading, and then passed it to be engrossed by a roll call vote of 32-8. Separately, the Senate adopted a Judiciary extension order after removing two bills from it, and agreed to adjourn in memory of Robert G. Najarian.

Transcript Highlights:

• It will decrease the potential for carbon emissions coming out of our forests.
• Diesel emissions and their health impacts are not evenly distributed around the state.
• through cost-effective, technologically achievable mobile and stationary source emission standards,
• , technologically achievable mobile and stationary source emission standards, and instead grant CARB
• Each region is distinct in geography, economy, emission sources, and air quality attainment status.

Committee: House Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• ; damages caused by emissions are still allowed.
• This is solely focused on future claims for greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
• And they exceed those emissions.
• The only thing this pertains to is a climate change case based off of greenhouse gas emissions.
• The only thing this pertains to is a climate change case based off of greenhouse gas emissions.

Bills: SB480 , HB621 , HB637 , HB804 , HB841 , HB1056

Committee: Senate Natural Resources

Summary: The Senate Committee on Natural Resources met on May 14 and approved the April 29 minutes. The committee first heard HB 1056, which authorizes transfer of certain state property in Natchitoches Parish tied to a former school building now considered dilapidated and a nuisance; it was reported favorably. HB 841, described as a landman code of conduct bill and expropriation-related measure, was voluntarily deferred so the sponsor could work on additional changes over the interim. The committee then took up HB 804, the Louisiana Energy Protection Act, which would bar future lawsuits seeking climate-change damages against fossil fuel companies and other entities. Supporters said it would prevent speculative climate litigation while preserving legitimate claims for permit violations and other existing statutory causes of action. Opponents from coastal litigation and the Sierra Club argued the bill was drafted too broadly and could affect legacy cases, property rights, and regulatory enforcement; the committee adopted Amendment 3875 to grandfather existing filed cases and make the bill effective upon gubernatorial signature, then reported the bill favorably as amended. HB 621, requiring recycling of decommissioned renewable energy infrastructure and updating the state’s waste framework for modern energy components, was reported favorably. HB 637, which revises oil field site restoration fees and lowers rates for marginal, stripper, low-pressure, and incapable wells, was also reported favorably. Finally, SB 480, as amended, allowed boats to anchor in Oyster Bayou so long as they are not within an oyster lease and someone remains on board; the committee adopted the amendment and reported the bill favorably before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• ; damage is caused by emissions.
• This is solely focused on future claims for greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
• And they exceed those emissions.
• The only thing this pertains to is a climate change case based off of greenhouse gas emissions.
• The only thing this pertains to is a climate change case based off of greenhouse gas emissions.

Bills: SB480 , HB621 , HB637 , HB804 , HB841 , HB1056

Committee: Senate Natural Resources

Keywords: fishing gear, Oyster Bayou, shrimping, regulation, marine resources, HB621, Act 658, renewable energy, recycling, decommissioning, wind energy, solar power, solar facilities, wind turbines, energy infrastructure, end-of-life disposal, universal waste, recyclable materials, waste reduction, Department of Environmental Quality

Transcript Highlights:

• Employee insurance companies are like the auto clubs, online companies like GEICO, captive agent companies
• California has established ambitious climate goals, including reaching 100% zero-emission vehicle sales
• by 2035 and having 5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2030.
• Giovanni Rosel, here with NDLON and as a member of Group Auto-Defense at the Pasadena Rapid Response

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on artificial intelligence, child safety, mental health, and privacy. SB 574 by Senator Umberg would require transparency and human oversight when attorneys, judges, and court neutrals use AI; it drew support from privacy advocates and committee members, with no opposition. SB 1276, the End Child Exploitation Act, would update child sexual exploitation laws to cover live-streamed and AI-generated abuse material and clarify that viewing such content can be criminally punishable; prosecutors, child advocacy groups, and others supported it, while no one appeared in opposition despite opposition on file. SB 813 would create a California AI standards and safety commission and a voluntary two-tier certification framework for AI safety standards; supporters said it would create scalable, independent oversight, while TechNet and CalChamber opposed it as duplicative, under-defined, and likely to create a de facto mandate. The committee discussed market pressure, federal preemption concerns, and the role of voluntary standards, but no final vote was taken in the excerpt. Senator Padilla also presented SB 300, which would strengthen protections for minors from sexually explicit chatbot content by moving from a reasonableness standard to an affirmative duty to prevent such exposure and to prohibit facilitation. Supporters said new evidence showed greater risks and that companies can and should build stronger safeguards; opponents, including TechNet and CCIA, argued the bill was premature because SB 243 had only recently taken effect and warned it could create strict-liability-like exposure. Padilla then presented SB 903, which would bar AI chatbots from being advertised as therapists, require licensed clinician oversight and informed consent for AI use in psychotherapy, and protect patient confidentiality; it received broad support from mental health professionals and labor groups, while industry and health associations were opposed unless amended over triage and crisis-detection language. The committee members emphasized the need for human judgment in mental health care and noted ongoing negotiations on amendments. The committee also heard SB 1119, a companion to AB 2020, which would require annual risk assessments, crisis-response protocols, default child settings, parental controls, limits on data use, public incident reporting, and third-party audits for chatbots used by children. Supporters argued the bill would address documented harms and improve transparency, while industry groups objected to ambiguous standards, liability exposure, and the private right of action. A roll call vote was taken on SB 1119 after quorum was established; the motion to pass to Appropriations succeeded on a 5-1 vote, with one no vote and the measure left on call for absent members. Finally, SB 354, a privacy bill for insurance consumers, would modernize outdated insurance privacy rules, bar sale of personal information, and expand consumer rights to know, correct, and delete data. Supporters said it would implement Proposition 24’s privacy mandate, while a large coalition of insurers, agents, brokers, and related businesses opposed unless amended, mainly seeking a small-business exemption and narrower treatment of publicly available information; members and the author said negotiations were ongoing and the bill had already been substantially revised.