Transcript Highlights:

• Security risks for service members and veterans.
• hazardous waste landfills because they have the most stringent environmental controls.
• I think we need to be environmentally conscious; I'm all for that.
• With that being said, I think we can still be environmentally conscious.
• Our state is very environmentally conscious.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, up next we have Melan Adduha from the Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaiʻi in
• in favor of these bills because they know genetically modified enzymes and crops will be involved, risking
• caucus of the from the environmental caucus of the democratic<00:15:45.519><c> party</c><00:15:45.720
• caucus of Democratic party environmental caucus of Democratic party of<00:16:00.959><c> a</c><00:16:
• biocurity if grown or processed risking biocurity if grown or processed in<00:17:19.240><c> state</c

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:

• This would be one set of continued environmental improvements.
• This would be one set of continued environmental improvements.
• And it would also elevate the account's future insolvency risk.
• Specifically, on cap-and-invest, we submitted a letter earlier this month with 45 environmental, environmental
• Dan Seaman on behalf of California Environmental Voters.

Summary: The hearing focused on the governor’s May Revision proposals for transportation, natural resources, climate, and related programs, with the Department of Finance and the LAO presenting competing views on the state’s fiscal condition. Finance said the budget remains balanced over two years, with major climate-bond, water, parks, transportation, DMV, and agriculture proposals, while the LAO argued the state still has a structural deficit and should reject or defer many new discretionary spending items, preserve reserves, and be cautious about ongoing commitments. The LAO specifically questioned the timing and scale of new spending for programs such as Clean California, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, and the Golden Gate Fields acquisition, and urged more clarity on future obligations and revenue scenarios, including for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal for Bay-Delta water quality implementation. Secretary Wade Crowfoot and Finance described it as an enforceable, science-based alternative to a more traditional regulatory approach, with the state’s $25 million request intended to support early implementation, monitoring, habitat restoration, and environmental flows. The LAO countered that the Water Board has not yet adopted the updated Bay-Delta plan, that the proposal may be premature, and that the Legislature should wait for more information on the state’s total funding commitment and the program’s long-term costs. Several members expressed support for the program as a way to reduce conflict and protect water reliability, while others echoed concerns about timing and fiscal exposure. The committee also examined the proposed $125 million Proposition 4 contribution toward acquiring the Golden Gate Fields property for a shoreline park and habitat project. State officials said the acquisition is a time-sensitive, once-in-a-generation opportunity, with an appraised value of $175 million and additional philanthropic and local funding expected to close the gap. Members questioned whether the project had gone through the usual competitive process, whether the site is the best use of scarce park bond dollars, and how public access, habitat, and disadvantaged-community priorities would be protected. The discussion ended without a vote, and the committee moved on to transportation items including Clean California litter abatement, the Games Route Network, homeless encampment coordinators, and DMV modernization and field office proposals, with LAO recommending rejection or delay on several of those requests as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• Many of us are human resources professionals who went out and took a risk. We were recruiters.
• Quality Committee and the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee.
• Quality Committee and the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee.
• What are the future health risks for long-term exposure?
• We're funded through CalEPA's Environmental Justice Grants program to update our risk management practices

Committee: Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

Summary: The committee heard several labor-related bills focused on workplace technology, data centers, staffing agencies, and environmental health. SB 947, the “No Robo Bosses Act,” would require human review before automated systems can be used in discipline, termination, or deactivation decisions and would ban predictive behavior analysis; labor groups and worker advocates supported it, while business and industry groups opposed it as overbroad and litigation-prone. After extended discussion about due process, human oversight, and private rights of action, the bill passed 3-1 and was sent to the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee. SB 978, the Data Center Community Accountability Act, would require data centers to pay for new infrastructure costs, create a separate rate structure to protect other ratepayers, and impose skilled-and-trained labor standards for construction. Supporters said it would prevent cost shifts to households and ensure good jobs, while opponents argued the CPUC already has ongoing proceedings and that the bill unfairly singles out one industry. The committee discussed balancing economic growth with labor and ratepayer protections, and the bill passed 3-1 to Senate Appropriations. SB 951, the California Worker Technological Displacement Act, would expand WARN-style notice requirements for AI-related layoffs and require reporting on displaced jobs and first consideration for openings; supporters said it would improve transparency and help policymakers respond to AI-driven job loss, while opponents warned it was too broad and conflicted with existing WARN law. It passed 3-1 to Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection. The committee also considered SB 1032, which would create a licensing and registration framework for temporary staffing agencies. Supporters said it would curb fraud and protect workers from illicit staffing operators, while opponents—many from the staffing industry—said the bill was vague, burdensome, and could hinder small and minority-owned businesses. The bill passed 3-1 to Senate Judiciary. Finally, SB 1046, dealing with protections for lifeguards and park rangers exposed to transboundary pollution in the Tijuana River Valley, would direct Cal/OSHA to develop standards for exposure, PPE, training, and incident reporting. With support from park workers and community groups and no opposition, it passed unanimously 4-0 to Senate Appropriations. The committee also approved a consent calendar item and adjourned after completing the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• If I really think it's just a transfer of a risk from a landlord to a municipality. >> Yeah.
• It's a risk. I don't think my municipality can afford that. I understand.
• </c><00:14:55.360><c> It's</c><00:14:55.600><c> a</c><00:14:55.640><c> risk.
• It's a risk. I I I don't think &gt;&gt; It Yeah. It's a risk.
• </c> placed there if it's environmentally placed there if it's environmentally sound sound sound because

Committee: Senate Commerce

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm senior vice president with Environmental Working Group, California.
• So the risks that are identified in UL 3700 and that are mitigated recognize the risks that would be
• However, SB 886, as drafted, risks duplicating, complicating, and potentially destabilizing ...risk duplicating
• Data centers pose a significant risk to ratepayers if left unchecked.
• Data centers pose a significant risk to ratepayers if left unchecked.

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications

Transcript Highlights:

• It risks confusion, incomplete information, and reduces access to experienced advisors.
• or at risk of hurting someone.
• That opens up the state to long-term fiscal risk, because CEQA is not just an environmental review process
• Justice Alliance, Central California Environmental Justice Network, and the Asian Pacific Environmental
• In addition, on behalf of Asian Pacific Environmental Network and California Environmental Justice Association

Committee: House Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• Febby Bodhiarto, California Environmental Justice Alliance Action, in support.
• My name is Marquis King Mason with California Environmental Voters.
• I think there’s the other potential risk. I think that’s important.
• Altadena, in my district, for instance, was not classified as high risk.
• Obviously, that creates a fire risk for them as well.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Summary: The committee heard a series of energy and utility bills, with most measures moving forward on party-line or near-party-line votes after extensive testimony. Early items included SB 613, which would direct state agencies to prioritize reducing methane emissions from imported fossil fuels, and SB 614, which would allow California to move ahead with safety rules for carbon dioxide pipelines and lift the current moratorium on new CO2 pipelines. Both bills drew support from industry and clean-energy advocates and no opposition testimony was offered at the hearing. A major portion of the hearing focused on SB 332, which would require a study of whether California should continue using investor-owned utilities, tie executive compensation to affordability metrics, and improve transparency around utility disconnections. Supporters argued the bill would put ratepayers first and examine safer, more affordable utility models, while opponents, including the Chamber of Commerce and major utilities, warned it would send a destabilizing signal to investors and was not a neutral study. Members raised concerns about the bill’s tone and market impacts, but the author said the study was intended to be even-handed; the bill later advanced on a 10-5 vote. The committee also approved SB 57, which creates a tariff framework for large energy users such as data centers to prevent cost shifts to other customers and to address stranded grid costs. Supporters said the bill would protect ratepayers and encourage clean energy use, while utilities and large energy users argued existing CPUC processes already address many of the issues and warned against overly rigid rules. SB 256, dealing with wildfire mitigation, emergency response coordination, undergrounding, and removal of abandoned lines, drew strong support from an Altadena community witness affected by the Eaton Fire, while utilities raised concerns about duplicative mandates and public disclosure of sensitive infrastructure information. SB 647, aimed at improving low-income energy program access and performance metrics, and SB 787, which would coordinate state clean-energy supply chain development for EVs, building decarbonization, and offshore wind, also advanced after supportive testimony from labor, environmental, and community groups. The committee later approved a consent calendar of additional bills and left several measures on call for absent members to add votes."}

Transcript Highlights:

• And are we at risk of denigrating ourselves just a tad more than is deserved?
• market prices, which Could risk a significant increase to consumer costs.
• Smart program, less than 2% in Gateway Cities and environmental justice communities.
• Smart program, less than 2% in Gateway Cities and environmental justice communities.
• And then how about the environmental attributes?

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy

Summary: The committee heard testimony on H. 4144, the Governor’s Energy Affordability, Independence, and Innovation Act, with the administration arguing the bill would lower bills in the short and long term while expanding clean energy supply and innovation. The Governor and Secretary said the bill would reduce or restructure charges on customer bills, reform Mass Save, expand securitization as a financing tool, speed interconnection, create energy-ready zones, strengthen consumer protections in competitive supply, and allow broader state procurement of energy resources. They said the package could save consumers billions over time and would help address high energy costs, especially during extreme heat and winter spikes. Committee members pressed the administration on several provisions, especially securitization, asking whether the bill requires an apples-to-apples comparison of total costs over time, including interest and lost tax revenue, versus paying through rates. Administration witnesses said DPU review and public comment would be required and said they would work to clarify the language if needed. Members also questioned the bill’s solar and procurement provisions, including reduced net metering compensation for some large facilities, the scope of all-resource procurements, and whether hydro, solar, and nuclear would be included; the administration said those resources were contemplated and that procurement would still be reviewed by DPU. Other questions focused on the short-term relief from bill changes, the treatment of low- and moderate-income discounts, and whether the bill’s heat pump and Mass Save reforms would help customers who cannot afford upfront costs. Several witnesses and committee members discussed Mass Save reforms, including securitization of program costs, on-bill financing, pre-approval of rebates, and shifting program administration away from gas utilities. Administration witnesses said the changes were intended to reduce volatility, lower administrative costs, and better align costs with long-term savings. Questions also touched on geothermal permitting, municipal participation in offshore wind procurement, and the proposed repeal of the ballot requirement for nuclear power, which the administration defended as preserving future options under heavy review. No votes were taken during the hearing portion described. Supportive testimony came from labor, environmental, business, planning, and development groups. The AFL-CIO, NECA, and the Environmental League of Massachusetts backed the bill, emphasizing lower bills, job creation, labor standards, just transition protections, and cleaner energy. NAIOP, the Massachusetts Business Roundtable, and MAPC supported provisions on energy-ready zones, interconnection reform, microgrids, extreme-heat shutoff protections, and Mass Save improvements. A HEET representative praised the bill’s use of securitization, geothermal, and utility financing tools but urged guardrails and workforce protections. Overall, testimony was broadly favorable, with most witnesses calling for refinements rather than opposing the bill outright.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:02:35.800><c> cabinet</c><00:02:36.519><c> I</c><00:02:36.640><c> knew</c> energy environmental
• cabinet I knew energy environmental cabinet I knew something<00:02:37.239><c> had</c><00:02:37.360><
• </c><00:09:30.480><c> engineer</c> Steward I am an environmental engineer Steward I am an environmental
• report um that contains uh environmental report um that contains uh you<00:09:58.040><c> know</c><00
• </c> at their disposal um environmental at their disposal um environmental remediation<00:15:21.519><

Summary: The committee met in a special called session, confirmed a quorum, and took up Senate Bill 89. The sponsor, Scott Maiden, said the bill was intended to address permitting issues affecting coal and other industries, and he described it as supported by a broad coalition of business, agriculture, and industry groups. He said the bill would align Kentucky’s definition of “waters of the Commonwealth” with federal definitions and would codify the existing definition and calculation method for long-term treatment bond requirements at mine sites. He also emphasized that the bill would not eliminate groundwater protections, drinking water protections, or prohibitions on hazardous substance dumping. A committee amendment was discussed and adopted to add and clarify definitions, including navigable waters, sinkholes with open drains, certain springs, and wellhead protection areas. The sponsor said the amendment was intended to address concerns that the bill was too broad and noted that it was worked on with Louisville Water and other stakeholders. Testimony in opposition came from Rebecca Shelton of Appalachian Citizens Law Center, who argued the bill would leave private wells and groundwater vulnerable and cited groundwater contamination data. Nick Hart of Kentucky Waterways Alliance urged the committee to preserve the current definition and requested a statutory review and economic impact analysis. Audrey Ernsberger of Kentucky Resources Council said the bill would strip protections from most groundwater, ephemeral streams, karst aquifers, and many private wells, and warned of higher water-treatment costs and pollution risks. Members asked questions about the meaning of “carcinogenic” and the difficulty of cleaning up contamination in private wells. During roll call, several members explained their votes, with supporters saying the amendment protected water while preserving needed flexibility for industry, and opponents saying they could not risk weakening water protections or harming private wells and agriculture. The committee voted to pass SB 89 as amended with a favorable recommendation to the Senate, and then moved to roll the committee amendment into a committee substitute.

Transcript Highlights:

• One is risk is increasing.
• And remember when I use the word risk, I'm talking principally about economic risk.
• So that's what I talk about risk. I'm referring to economic risk. It's rising.
• That's for today's risk, not the future risk. Right, and it will all take money.
• that risk.

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on flood risk and flood management in California, with opening remarks emphasizing that flooding is a statewide and growing threat due to climate change, including the possibility of extreme losses in a worst-case event. Members noted recent flooding in places such as San Diego, the Tulare Basin, and Pajaro, and framed the hearing as a way to better understand prevention, response, and how to capture excess water for later use. Jeffrey Mount of PPIC gave the main overview, describing California’s high flood exposure, the different flood types the state faces, and the mix of structural and non-structural tools used to manage them. He stressed that levees, dams, bypasses, land-use planning, flood insurance, and emergency response all matter, but that risk is rising because current standards are based on past hydrology rather than future climate conditions. He also warned that flood management is underfunded, that the National Flood Insurance Program is weak, and that federal support is increasingly uncertain. Members asked about groundwater recharge, permitting, NOAA and federal cuts, and which communities are most at risk; Mount said recharge can help but does not eliminate flood risk, and that small Central Valley communities and heavily developed floodplains are especially concerning. State officials Laura Hollander of the Department of Water Resources and Jane Dolan of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board described the state’s role in forecasting, emergency response, grants, planning, and the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan. They highlighted aging infrastructure, the need for better coordination, and the state’s special liability in the Central Valley after the Paterno decision. Dolan reviewed the history of major floods and said the plan calls for about $1 billion per year over 30 years to meet current needs, while Hollander said the state works with local and federal partners on preparedness, response, and subventions projects. Both emphasized that floodplain planning, regional coordination, and faster permitting are important, but that more consistent funding is needed. A later panel from local flood agencies and districts reinforced those points, arguing that the state’s annual flood funding is below identified needs and that a proposed statewide flood and dam safety bond was reduced substantially in the broader climate bond package. Witnesses urged more routine maintenance funding, support for regional flood planning, and continued federal-state-local partnerships to reduce risk and maintain eligibility for federal assistance. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the informational hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Johns, the Department of Environmental Protection, and a number of utilities over in the St.
• John's Department of Environmental Protection and a number of utilities over in the St.
• Lastly, I mentioned a little bit more about our environmental resource permitting program.
• That's what it means by risk-based.
• Each project is scored by the appropriate scientist, engineer, or environmental scientist.

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government

Transcript Highlights:

• Disruptive trade relations, corporate layoffs, and deep federal cuts put us at risk.
• And these investments had some risk, but only that of losing a modest amount of money.
• Two of my clients are at risk of losing hours due to budget cuts.
• Washington should be doing everything it can to welcome environmental innovators to our state.
• Washington should be doing everything it can to welcome environmental innovators to our state.

Summary: House Finance held a public hearing on Gross Substitute Senate Bill 6346, a proposal to impose a 9.9% tax beginning in 2028 on Washington taxable income over $1 million for individuals, with related rules for residents, nonresidents, pass-through entities, estimated payments, penalties, credits, and revenue distribution. Staff explained that the bill would also fund several tax changes, including an expanded Working Families Tax Credit, sales tax exemptions for grooming and hygiene products, higher small business B&O credits, an early end to the B&O surcharge on very large businesses, and repeal of most retail services sales tax changes from last session. The fiscal note projected about $2.53 billion in additional state revenue in FY 2029 and $3.21 billion in FY 2030, with local revenue losses and significant Department of Revenue implementation costs. The chair also announced concerns about apparent fraud and duplicate records in the public sign-in system and set testimony rules limiting questions and shortening testimony time as the hearing progressed. The prime sponsor, Senator Jamie Peterson, said the bill was intended to make Washington’s tax system less regressive and to raise revenue for schools, health care, higher education, and other public needs while reducing the burden on lower- and middle-income residents. Supporters from labor, education, health care, child care, housing, poverty-reduction, and social service organizations argued that the bill would help fund essential services, expand the Working Families Tax Credit, and improve fairness by asking the wealthiest households to contribute more. Several individual supporters, including business owners and workers, said they were willing to pay more and described the need for better-funded schools, health care, child care, and public defense. Opponents, including former Attorney General Rob McKenna, business groups, construction and real estate representatives, and taxpayer advocates, argued the measure would function as an unconstitutional income tax, would be unstable and likely expanded over time, and would harm small businesses organized as pass-through entities. They said the bill would reduce investment, discourage entrepreneurship, and could drive businesses and high earners out of Washington. Some local government representatives supported the public defense funding but asked for more dedicated revenue and protection against local revenue losses from the bill’s sales tax exemptions. No committee vote or final action was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• and the people gathered here, our political leaders, and more than 440 people who are here for Environmental
• to participate in this Environmental Day.
• If you're here for Environmental Day, we would love to see you and say hi.
• Department of Environmental Quality, and I request a roll call vote. Thank you.
• Karen Lee Peters, Director, Department of Environmental Quality. The system is now open.

Transcript Highlights:

• These toxic elements are well-documented environmental contaminants.
• Given these risks, both patients... ...developmental disorders and developmental delays.
• I'll let Susan Little answer that from the Environmental Working Group. Of course.
• The motion is due pass as amended to the Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee.
• The motion is due pass as amended to the Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee.

Committee: House Health

Summary: The committee heard several health-related bills, with extensive testimony on maternal health, prenatal safety, valley fever, Medi-Cal care coordination, anti-discrimination protections in health care, and health data sharing. SB 32 would require time-and-distance standards for labor and delivery units in health plans; supporters said it addresses maternity care deserts and dangerous delays, while one opposition witness raised concerns. SB 646 would require testing and public disclosure of toxic elements in prenatal vitamins; supporters emphasized fetal and maternal safety and transparency, while opponents warned the bill could discourage use of prenatal vitamins or lead to products with fewer nutrients. Both bills were moved out of committee on due-pass motions as amended, with recorded roll-call support. The committee also advanced SB 313, which moves a parent’s birthplace from the public portion of a birth certificate to a confidential section to protect privacy; it passed with little opposition. SB 297 would require CDPH to annually identify high-incidence valley fever regions and publish them to improve screening and awareness; supporters cited the disease’s spread beyond the Central Valley and the need for earlier diagnosis, while county health officials were opposed unless amended. SB 324 would steer Medi-Cal enhanced care management and community supports contracting toward local community-based organizations and clarify related guidance; supporters said local nonprofits and promotoras are more effective, while children’s hospitals and health plans sought amendments. SB 418 would codify ACA nondiscrimination protections in state law and allow up to a 12-month supply of medically necessary hormone therapy; supporters framed it as protecting access and continuity of care, while opponents argued it could conflict with federal law and expand coverage for gender-affirming care. SB 660 would strengthen the California health data exchange framework by creating governance and accountability for data sharing across providers and social services; supporters said it would reduce duplication and improve coordinated care, and the bill passed to the next committee. The consent calendar and the other measures were also approved, with some items held on call for absent members before final passage.

Transcript Highlights:

• we have a greater risk, and did I misunderstand that in your discussion about the risk for building
• Well, there's risk in any construction project. Yes, I know that.
• , how have we actually accounted for the risk in this contract?
• The $150 million that gets us to $405 contains the risk.
• , and then we'll roll right into our NEPA, National Environmental Policy Act, and State Environmental

Summary: The committee met to hear an update from Washington State Ferries on capital projects and workforce issues, beginning with a briefing on the agency’s long-term fleet and terminal needs. WSF officials described the history of underinvestment after the late 1990s, the current fleet reduction from 25 to 21 vessels, and the need to keep older boats in service while moving toward a 26-vessel long-range fleet and hybrid-electric operations. They said the agency is transitioning to a new vessel procurement strategy, with Eastern Shipbuilding selected to build up to three 160-car hybrid-electric ferries, and outlined a schedule that includes contract execution, about a year of design work, steel cutting in fall 2026, and several years of construction. Members raised concerns about the higher cost of electrified vessels, the length of the schedule, the adequacy of liquidated damages and incentives, the risks of building in Florida and transporting vessels to Washington, and whether the contract sufficiently protects the state from cost overruns and design problems. The committee also received an update on the Wenatchee conversion, which officials said is days away from entering service as the first large hybrid-electric ferry conversion. WSF explained that the conversion combined required midlife preservation work with propulsion upgrades and battery installation, and that the project took longer and cost more than originally expected because it was a prototype with significant lessons learned. Officials said the Tacoma and Puyallup conversions would follow later, but those decisions were being delayed until after the World Cup to avoid service disruptions. Members asked about the cost-effectiveness of the conversion, the expected fuel and emissions reductions, and what happens to engine crews during long conversion periods; WSF said crews were embedded in the project and that the conversions should reduce diesel use substantially once terminal charging is available. The meeting then shifted to workforce development, with Siegel consultants reviewing their 2021 and 2024 studies of ferry staffing, overtime, recruitment, and workplace culture. They said the earlier problems stemmed from seasonal staffing practices, low winter hours, limited career progression, a narrow maritime recruiting pipeline, and a culture that made retention difficult. Since then, they reported major improvements: staffing has increased from about 1,500 to 1,900, turnover has fallen, captain and engineer shortages have eased, and recruitment has broadened beyond the traditional maritime pool, including more women and other underrepresented workers. They credited new programs such as guaranteed hours, paid pilotage, AB-to-mate pathways, and the “Turning of the Tide” culture campaign, while noting remaining issues with communication, HR access, accountability, and quality of life. Members generally acknowledged the progress but asked whether staffing levels are now sufficient and how interchangeable crews are across vessels and routes. Finally, terminal engineering staff began a presentation on capital terminal work, starting with the Fauntleroy Ferry Terminal. They described the terminal’s age, low elevation, vulnerability to sea level rise and earthquakes, and the need for replacement piles, beams, and improved vehicle circulation. The agency said it has completed a planning and environmental linkage study, is moving into NEPA/state environmental review, and has been working with the community to balance the needs of Southworth and Vashon riders with neighborhood concerns in Fauntleroy. The preferred alternative is a larger offshore dock footprint that would improve capacity and reliability while reducing impacts to eelgrass habitat. The meeting ended before the terminal discussion was complete.

Transcript Highlights:

• Without intentional design, programs risk reinforcing existing inequities.
• But California is at risk of losing the fusion ecosystem.
• Economic stability, and environmental sustainability.
• Environmental Quality Committee 15-0. At Chobog, aye. Chobog, aye. Reyes.
• Do pass to Environmental Quality, 12-0. A Choboog. Do pass to Environmental Quality, 12-0.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications heard a long agenda of energy, water, housing, and technology bills. SB 952 (Laird, presented by Perez) would give the Department of Water Resources more flexibility to meet the State Water Project’s 100% clean energy procurement goal by 2035 while managing costs; it drew support from the State Water Contractors and California Municipal Utilities Association and no opposition. The committee also heard SB 1417, which would extend transparency, notice, and public meeting requirements to mutual water companies’ rate increases; Senator Perez and supporters tied the bill to post-Eaton Fire recovery in Altadena, while the California Association of Mutual Water Companies opposed it, citing conflicts with tenant billing laws, privacy concerns, and burdensome meeting requirements. SB 1417 was approved on a split vote and the roll was left open. Members then considered SB 924, a low-income utility assistance/weatherization bill by Hurtado, which would require measurable affordability outcomes and better tenant-focused benefits; it passed to Appropriations with broad support from clean energy and community groups and no opposition. SB 925 (McNerney) would direct the California Energy Commission to develop a statewide roadmap for fusion energy; supporters from General Atomics, Clean Air Task Force, and TAE Technologies argued it would help keep fusion investment in California, and it passed unanimously to Environmental Quality. SB 1011 (McNerney) would require CPUC standards for human review and labor consultation before utilities deploy AI in operations; labor and utility engineer witnesses supported guardrails, while business and utility groups opposed or sought more review, warning of overregulation and overlap with other laws. The bill passed to Privacy, Digital Technology and Consumer Protection on a divided vote. The committee also advanced SB 1168 (McNerney), a study bill directing the CPUC to examine how data centers can pay their fair share of grid costs; data center and utility groups were opposed or neutral pending amendments, while climate advocates supported it, and it moved to Revenue and Taxation. SB 1196 (McNerney) would speed utility hookups for ADUs and JADUs by allowing earlier applications and setting timelines and penalties; housing advocates supported it and it passed to Local Government. SB 1350 (McNerney) would allow renewable portfolio standard credits for power plants using green hydrogen, drawing strong support from hydrogen, labor, utility, and local government interests, but opposition from TURN over greenwashing and tracking concerns; it passed to Environmental Quality. Finally, SB 1158 (Stern) would expand quarterly reliability reporting by the CEC and CPUC to include transmission and grid upgrade status; it was presented as a common-sense reliability measure and moved forward with support.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, members, House Bill 2013 requires the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality... Mr.
• Chair, members, House Bill 2013 requires the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to submit an
• Mitigation and Risk Reduction Authority and the Wildfire Mitigation and Risk Reduction Authority Fund
• Wildfire risk is part of daily life.
• Wildfire risk is part of daily life.

Committee: House House Land, Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee heard three measures. HB 2013 would require the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to submit an exceptional event demonstration to the EPA when wildfire smoke from federally managed land affects the state. The sponsor said it would help Arizona avoid penalties tied to uncontrollable wildfire events and could ease pressure on air-quality compliance; Sierra Club opposed it, arguing the bill could create unnecessary filings and burdens, while ADEQ was neutral. The committee voted 5-1 to give HB 2013 a due pass recommendation. HB 2292, as amended, would create the Wildfire Mitigation and Risk Reduction Authority and fund under the Arizona Department of Forestry and Fire Management, with the amendment renaming the authority, capping administrative costs at 8%, and prioritizing funding for single-family and multifamily dwellings. Supporters from Coconino County and the County Supervisors Association said the program would help reduce wildfire risk, support community hardening, and address rising homeowners insurance costs by redirecting $20 million from existing insurance premium tax revenues; members clarified it was not a new tax. The committee adopted the amendment and then approved the bill 8-0. HCM 2011 urges Congress to pass federal legislation to delist the Mexican wolf, defund the reintroduction program, and transfer management to local authorities. Supporters said ranchers have been harmed by wolf predation and that delisting is overdue, while Sierra Club opposed the memorial, saying the species remains under-recovered and decisions should be based on science. The committee approved the memorial 5-2 and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• risk.
• This is not abstract risk.
• Failure to curb known environmental risks of Parkinson's will only allow for further exposure and an
• That's what the research shows. 78% environmental.
• Environmental exposures and eliminating preventable risk is a way to do that, and we know that with paraquat

Committee: House General Laws

Summary: The Committee on General Laws met with a quorum and first went into executive session on House Bill 3088, where members discussed concerns raised by hospitals about proposed language changes. The bill sponsor said he was still working with hospitals and would continue to refine the measure, but several members objected to voting before seeing the revised language. HB 3088 was nevertheless voted do pass by an 8-4 vote. The committee then approved House Bill 2749 by an 8-4-1 vote, after which it moved into public hearing. The committee heard House Bill 2844, which would prohibit paraquat use in Missouri and require reporting related to its use. Representative Gallick said the bill was intended to be narrow and focused on paraquat’s toxicity and possible links to Parkinson’s disease. Supporters, including the Michael J. Fox Foundation, Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Sierra Club, and others, argued that paraquat is highly toxic, that research links exposure to increased Parkinson’s risk, and that many countries have banned it. Opponents from the Missouri Soybean Association, Missouri AgriBusiness Association, Missouri Farm Bureau, Missouri Corn Growers, and Missouri Pork Association said paraquat is a restricted-use pesticide already regulated under federal law, is important for weed control and crop production, and that a state ban would set a dangerous precedent and harm farmers. The committee took no final action on HB 2844 during the hearing. The committee also heard House Bill 1880, which would bar school districts and charter schools from selling beverages with more than 100 milligrams of caffeine per container to students. Representative Reuter said the bill was inspired by students from Seckman High School and cited concerns about adolescent caffeine consumption. Student witnesses described energy drink use at school, health effects such as anxiety, heart racing, dehydration, and sleep disruption, and said the bill would help reduce harmful habits. Several members supported the goal but suggested the threshold might be too high, that private schools receiving state scholarship funds should be included, and that school boards might be a better place to address the issue; others noted the bill lacked an enforcement provision. No vote was taken on HB 1880.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think what I've always said to our department is we need to chase the risk.
• I think many people would say there's no acceptable risk level for PFAS.
• But I think we have to go where's the Risk: Where are people getting exposed?
• Environmentally, things corrode.
• Preterm birth is another health risk.

Committee: House Radioactive & Hazardous Materials Committee