Transcript Highlights:

• So we look forward to working with CARB and sponsors as we move forward.
• Or does CARB have to require us to do that?
• Or CARB. So it's only adopted. They have to be adopted by the Air Resources Board or by CARB.
• What specifically does this bill do that CARB doesn't already do?
• What specifically does this bill do that CARB doesn't already do?

Committee: House Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• in past years, but particularly more bills this year about CARB.
• CARB has the purview of so many other different things.
• CARB has the purview of so many other different things.
• So is it a burden on CARB to do this analysis? Yes, it is.
• And with regard to CARB only...” “We figure out how to accomplish things.

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Transcript Highlights:

• And why should these board members that serve on CARB, which again, separate the CARB work that they
• "It's incorrect that no kit has sought approval by CARB?"
• So if the problem is CARB, but no application has been submitted, how is the problem CARB?
• EPA has had a target on our CARB for the past year.
• But CARB can always reestablish authority.

Summary: The committee heard AB 839, which would allow up to three sustainable aviation fuel projects to qualify for expedited CEQA judicial review. The author and airline and airport supporters argued SAF is a key emissions-reduction strategy for aviation and that California needs to signal investment certainty after prior project litigation. Environmental Justice and Earthjustice opposed, saying the bill weakens the public’s ability to challenge polluting projects and that SAF facilities can harm already overburdened communities. The committee later took a roll call on the bill and it was held on call after a 3-0 vote, with the motion being due pass to Judiciary. Members then took up AB 762, which would ban the sale of disposable nicotine vapes in California. The author and a broad coalition of waste, public health, local government, and environmental groups said the devices create fire hazards, add lithium batteries to the waste stream, and burden local recycling and hazardous waste systems. Opponents, including retailers and business groups, argued the bill would mainly affect a small legal market while the illicit market would continue to supply most disposable vapes, and warned of unintended consequences. After discussion about illicit sales, EPR ideas, and reuse alternatives, the committee voted 2-2 on the motion to pass as amended to Revenue and Taxation, so the bill was kept on call. The committee also heard AB 907, which would compensate the six local air district representatives who serve on the California Air Resources Board the same as other board members. The author and supporters said the change would improve equity and help ensure local representation on CARB, and no opposition was presented. The chair expressed support, noting similar legislation had passed the committee previously, and the bill was held for a later vote once quorum issues were resolved.

Transcript Highlights:

• And CARB has amended the program multiple times since it was first adopted.
• We, CARB, through regulation,... The program works in this way.
• CARB staff also review the pathway for accuracy and completeness. The...
• CARB staff also review the pathway for accuracy and completeness.
• It required CARB to provide a pathway for dairy projects under the LCFS.

Summary: The hearing was a select committee discussion on the transportation costs and impacts of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with opening remarks from the co-chairs and members emphasizing affordability, climate goals, and the need to explain the program’s benefits to the public. The first panel from CARB and the California Energy Commission described how LCFS works as a market-based, declining carbon-intensity program that rewards lower-carbon fuels, supports zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and is intended to reduce greenhouse gases and local air pollution. They argued the program has driven billions in private investment, increased alternative fuel use, and that LCFS credit prices are not the main driver of retail gasoline prices, which they said are dominated by crude oil, refining, and distribution costs. Members questioned the panel on the gap between the regulatory target and actual carbon-intensity performance, the role of credit banking, which fuels are generating the most credits, how the 2025 amendments affected the program, and whether LCFS credits are truly additional. CARB explained that banking helps cost-effectiveness and investment certainty, that ethanol, renewable diesel, and biodiesel currently provide the largest volumes while electricity is expected to grow, and that the updated targets were informed by the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goals and the 2030 scoping plan. The Energy Commission said its data show environmental programs add some cost to gasoline but do not drive price volatility, which is mainly tied to crude oil and refinery margins. The second panel, featuring academic and research experts, focused on program design, out-of-state credit generation, and broader economic effects. Speakers said LCFS is successful because it ties incentives to emissions benefit, uses life-cycle analysis, and allows flexible compliance that lowers costs compared with more direct regulation. They also said the program’s benefits generally outweigh costs, that it can reduce air pollution disparities and support equity, but that some issues—especially indirect land use change, additionality, and older program assumptions—need more research and may warrant future rulemaking. One researcher noted that while LCFS likely raises gasoline prices somewhat, the effect is uncertain by design and usually smaller than normal market fluctuations, and another warned that limiting credit generation too narrowly could create legal and efficiency problems.

Transcript Highlights:

• Matt from CARB.
• Non-CARB imports.
• We've had a lot of conversations with her, just about the impact of CARB regulations, CARB goals, CARB
• You also run into the bigger picture: the state legislature and CARB directed us to do and make CARB
• Is it the refiner who has CARB gas and is making CARB gas? Or is it the importer?

Summary: The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications held an oversight hearing on managing the transportation fuels transition, fuel pricing, and supply reliability. Chair Allen opened by discussing prior legislation, including SB 1322 and special session measures, that expanded reporting to the California Energy Commission (CEC) and gave the state tools to study gasoline costs, refinery margins, inventories, and potential supply disruptions. He framed the hearing around refinery closures, rising imports, global conflict affecting crude markets, and the need to balance affordability, reliability, and the state’s long-term clean-fuels transition. CEC Vice Chair Siva Gunda, CDTFA Chief Deputy Director Gentian Droboniku, and DPMO Director Ty Miller presented data showing California’s growing dependence on imported crude and refined products, declining in-state refining capacity, and stable-to-tight inventories that are being supported by higher imports. They said the new transparency laws have improved understanding of the market and pointed to the proposed Gateway Pipeline, marine imports, and distribution constraints as important supply issues. CDTFA and DPMO emphasized that retail margins, especially for branded gasoline, have widened significantly, with large price gaps between branded stations and hypermarts/unbranded stations, and that some of the recent price increases were tied to the Iran conflict while earlier spikes were more consistent with localized market behavior and possible price gouging. DPMO also said it is investigating high-priced branded stations, monitoring algorithmic pricing under AB 325, and continuing to analyze diesel spot-market transparency. The CEC and CARB also discussed the Transportation Fuels Transition Plan and the SB 237 assessment, describing them as efforts to plan for a managed decline in fossil fuel demand while protecting workers, communities, and consumers. They said California’s climate goals remain centered on an 85% greenhouse gas reduction by 2045, with continued use of liquid fuels expected but with lower-carbon alternatives, more efficient vehicles, and alternative fuels playing a larger role. Committee members focused heavily on workforce impacts, the need for concrete transition planning, and whether the agencies could provide a clearer picture of what California’s fuel system will look like under the state’s long-term goals. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And why should these board members that serve on CARB, which again, separate the CARB work that they
• “It’s incorrect that no kit has sought approval by CARB?”
• So if the problem is CARB, but no application has been submitted, how is the problem CARB?
• EPA has had a target on our CARB for the past year.
• But CARB can always reestablish authority.

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Transcript Highlights:

• We spend a lot of time in rulemakings at CARB.
• in past years, but particularly more bills this year about CARB.
• CARB has the purview of so many other different things.
• So is it a burden on CARB to do this analysis? Yes, it is.
• And with regard to CARB only, We figure out how to accomplish things.

Summary: The committee heard SB 872, which would direct $150 million annually each for Central Valley subsidence repairs and Delta levee work. Senator McNerney and supporters from Restore the Delta, the State Water Contractors, and many water agencies, labor groups, environmental organizations, and local governments argued the bill is urgent to protect water delivery for 27 million Californians, safeguard levees and state assets, and address climate-related flood risks. There was no opposition testimony, and members asked about the bill’s focus on state-owned conveyance; the author said the distinction reflects the separate state and federal water projects. The bill was held while the committee lacked a quorum, with no vote taken at that point. The committee then heard SB 981, which would require CARB to include cost-of-living impacts in its existing regulatory analysis for major rules. Senator Niello and supporters from agriculture, manufacturing, business, propane, restaurants, and commercial property groups said the bill would improve transparency about how regulations affect gasoline, electricity, food, housing, and business costs. Opponents, including Coalition for Clean Air and the Union of Concerned Scientists, argued it would add delay, cost, and redundant analysis to CARB rulemaking and could not reliably measure the effects the bill seeks to capture. Committee members raised concerns that CARB already estimates costs, that the bill is burdensome and narrow, and that it does not fully account for benefits or the role of other agencies. No vote was recorded in the transcript. SB 887, by Senator Padilla, would require data center projects to undergo CEQA review while creating a streamlined path for projects meeting strong environmental, labor, and community-benefit criteria, including zero-carbon electricity, on-site storage, recycled water or water-efficient cooling, and full cost responsibility for grid upgrades. Supporters said data centers are rapidly expanding, can strain energy and water resources, and should be held to clear standards while still allowing beneficial development; labor and environmental groups backed the measure. Opponents from the Data Center Coalition, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, and business groups said the bill is overly prescriptive, discriminatory toward one industry, and could drive investment and jobs out of state. After discussion, the committee established a quorum and voted 3-1 to pass SB 887 as amended to the Senate Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee, with the bill kept on call. The committee also heard SB 1008, which would renew a CEQA exemption for the closure of at-grade rail crossings ordered by the California Public Utilities Commission. Senator Ochoa Bogh and Union Pacific testified that the measure would help the state act quickly on rail safety by removing redundant environmental review for crossing closures, while still requiring collaboration with local jurisdictions and the PUC. There was support from railroad and business representatives and no opposition. The committee voted 4-0 to pass SB 1008 to the Senate Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee, and the bill was kept on call.

Transcript Highlights:

• And CARB has amended the program multiple times since it was first adopted.
• We, CARB, through regulation,... The program works in this way.
• CARB staff also review the pathway for accuracy and completeness. The...
• CARB staff also review the pathway for accuracy and completeness.
• It required CARB to provide a pathway for dairy projects under the LCFS.

Summary: The hearing focused on California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), its role in reducing transportation emissions, and whether its costs at the pump are justified by its climate, air quality, and investment benefits. The co-chairs and several members framed the discussion around affordability and asked whether the program’s benefits, including cleaner fuels, zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and public health gains, outweigh any added fuel costs. Members also raised concerns about how the program is understood by the public and whether its benefits are being communicated clearly. CARB and CEC officials explained how LCFS works as a market-based program that sets declining carbon-intensity targets, generates credits for lower-carbon fuels, and requires deficit holders to buy credits or otherwise comply. They said the program has driven billions in annual private investment, expanded alternative fuels, supported EV charging and hydrogen stations, and helped reduce emissions and local pollution. They also argued that LCFS credit prices are not the main driver of gasoline prices, that the recent amendments added only about seven cents per gallon, and that crude oil, refining, and distribution costs account for most pump price variation. Committee members pressed witnesses on credit banking, market effects, the recent rule updates, additionality, and whether the program’s benefits are concentrated in-state or out-of-state. CARB said banking helps keep the program cost-effective and provides investment certainty, while the Energy Commission said LCFS-related costs are relatively stable and separate from the broader gasoline market. The panel also discussed how the 2025 amendments were shaped by the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate goals and by uncertainty over federal actions. No votes or formal actions were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Stephen Cliff, the executive officer at CARB, and Regend, Executive Officer at CARB, and Regan Sashahoda
• , Deputy Executive Officer for Climate Programs and Research at CARB.
• So you heard from CARB about those free allowances.
• I would add it's important that the legislature and CARB act swiftly...
• Specifically, the market is expecting CARB to release the ISOR.

Committee: Senate Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

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

Transcript Highlights:

• The document, this is, and again, the CARB, the most recent CARB scoping plan is the document driving
• CARB engages in a multi-year stakeholder process when developing regulations.
• The Legislature requires CARB to develop a scoping plan, updated every five years.
• The Legislature requires CARB to develop a scoping plan, updated every five years.
• So what is CARB going to do about it?

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

Transcript Highlights:

• The document, and again, the CARB, the most recent CARB scoping plan, is the document driving California's
• CARB engages in a multi-year stakeholder process when developing regulations.
• Also pursuant to the APA, CARB must respond to... ...and environmental benefits.
• The Legislature requires CARB to develop a scoping plan, updated every five years.
• The Legislature requires CARB to develop a scoping plan, updated every five years.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Regulatory Authority held its first hearing to examine how California’s regulatory framework affects housing availability and affordability. Chair Pacheco and Assembly Member Haney framed the discussion around the state’s housing shortage, rising costs, and the need to reduce unnecessary delays and burdens while still protecting public health, safety, and environmental goals. The first panel included housing policy experts and industry representatives, who argued that overlapping state and regional rules, complex code requirements, utility delays, and lengthy review processes add substantial cost to new housing. Bill Fulton described California’s land use system as a “big Rubik’s Cube” of competing goals, while CBIA’s Chris Ochoa and Bob Raymer urged more attention to affordability impacts in code adoption and state agency rulemaking. The Bay Area Council’s Louis Marante called for a statewide cost target for housing and stronger accountability for state agencies, citing project review delays, regulatory costs, and indirect impacts from water, stormwater, and transportation policies. State agency witnesses generally defended their roles as balancing housing with other statutory mandates. HCD said its enforcement of housing element law, streamlining statutes, and technical assistance has helped increase production, reduce entitlement times, and approve tens of thousands of homes that might otherwise have faced discretionary review. CARB said SB 375 does not regulate local land use or reduce housing supply, and that sustainable community strategies are planning tools that could support housing if fully implemented. The Coastal Commission said it has worked with local governments to streamline coastal housing approvals, approve density bonus and ADU ordinances, and support legislation to exempt some affordable housing from coastal permits, while still protecting coastal resources and sea-level-rise hazards. The Energy Commission said its building energy standards are required by statute to be cost-effective and save consumers money over time, though they can add some design complexity and upfront cost. Other agencies emphasized collaboration and early engagement as the best way to reduce delays. Fish and Wildlife said its mission is to protect California’s natural diversity and that better early coordination with developers can improve outcomes. DTSC said brownfield cleanup and vapor intrusion review are necessary to protect public health, but that early engagement, workshops, and site-specific approaches can help projects move forward; it also noted grant funding supporting affordable housing on contaminated sites. The Water Board said it uses general orders and basin planning to streamline permitting while meeting federal and state water-quality obligations, and that its infrastructure grants and loans support housing affordability. In response to Assembly Member Haney’s questions, several agencies said they already coordinate across departments, but he pressed for more cross-agency clarity and less siloed decision-making. No votes or formal actions were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• CARB Board Chair Lauren Sanchez, same thing.
• We've had a lot of conversations with her, just about the impact of CARB regulations, CARB goals, CARB
• You also run into the bigger picture: the state Legislature and CARB directed us to do and make CARB,
• And CARB directed us to do and make CARB gas, and we did that.
• Is it the refiner who has CARB gas and is making CARB gas? Or is it the importer?

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications

Transcript Highlights:

• As noted in the analysis, CARB initiated their regulatory approval process seven years ago in 2018.
• But if CARB in this latest stage...
• But CARB could have other findings, I guess, conceivably. CARB may never finish the work.
• I guess, conceivably, CARB could have other findings.
• Um, CARB may never finish the work, and we'll never know.

Committee: House Natural Resources

Summary: The committee heard several natural resources bills focused on climate, water, wildfire safety, and coastal policy. AB 70 would codify a definition of pyrolysis and allow procurement credit for projects using organic waste to produce pipeline biomethane; AB 30 would authorize E15 gasoline sales in California; AB 66 would create a CEQA exemption for emergency evacuation routes in high-fire-risk areas; AB 399 would let the Coastal Commission consider carbon sequestration and blue carbon demonstration projects; AB 491 would codify state nature-based climate targets; AB 436 would streamline siting and permitting for composting facilities; AB 43 would make permanent state authority to protect federally designated wild and scenic rivers; and AB 580 would extend Metropolitan Water District authority related to the Colorado River Aqueduct. The committee also took up AB 439, which would streamline certain Coastal Commission de minimis plan changes and reporting requirements, and AB 404 was pulled at the author’s request. Testimony was generally supportive on the organic waste, composting, wildfire egress, blue carbon, nature-based solutions, wild and scenic rivers, and water infrastructure bills, with supporters emphasizing emissions reductions, landfill diversion, climate resilience, and local government flexibility. AB 30 drew the most debate: supporters said E15 would lower fuel costs and emissions, while opponents from boating and marine groups warned about engine damage, misfueling, and the need for clearer labeling and continued E10 availability. AB 66 also drew concerns from environmental groups and some members about the breadth of the CEQA exemption and lack of guardrails, though supporters argued it was narrowly targeted to high-risk communities with safeguards. Most measures received due-pass recommendations and advanced on recorded votes, often with broad support. AB 70, AB 30, AB 66, AB 399, AB 436, AB 43, AB 439, and AB 580 all passed out of committee, with AB 491 also moving forward after some opposition from the Farm Bureau and questions about codifying targets in statute. The consent calendar items were approved as well, and the committee adopted its rules before concluding the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• As noted in the analysis, CARB initiated their regulatory approval process seven years ago in 2018.
• impacts, what would the process be and how long would it take for CARB to take E15 off the market?
• But there could be, I guess, conceivably, CARB could have other findings.
• CARB may never finish the work, and we'll never know.
• Um, CARB may never finish the work and we'll never know.

Summary: The committee heard and advanced a series of natural resources and climate-related bills. AB 70 would codify a definition of pyrolysis and allow procurement credit for projects using organic waste to generate pipeline biomethane; supporters said it would help divert organic waste from landfills, reduce methane, and support energy reliability. AB 30 would authorize E15 fuel sales in California, with supporters arguing it could lower consumer fuel costs and emissions, while opponents from boating and marine groups raised concerns about engine damage and the need for clear labeling and continued E10 availability. AB 66 would create a CEQA exemption for emergency evacuation routes in high fire-risk areas; supporters emphasized wildfire evacuation safety, while some members worried the bill lacked sufficient guardrails and environmental review. AB 399 would let the Coastal Commission consider blue carbon sequestration in coastal permitting and authorize blue carbon demonstration projects; environmental groups supported it, while business groups objected to new costs and regulatory uncertainty. AB 491 would codify California’s nature-based solutions climate targets for lands and wetlands, with supporters citing climate and adaptation benefits and the Farm Bureau opposing statutory targets. AB 580 would extend Metropolitan Water District authority related to the Colorado River Aqueduct, and AB 43 would make permanent state authority to protect federally designated wild and scenic rivers if federal protections are weakened. The committee also considered AB 436 to streamline siting and permitting of composting facilities and AB 539 to streamline certain Coastal Act procedures and reporting. Most measures received due-pass recommendations and were reported out on roll calls, with several bills also moving on consent; AB 404 was pulled at the author’s request.

Transcript Highlights:

• CARB sets a declining aggregate cap on emissions that are covered under the cap.
• So that's in conjunction with CARB. Yes. Okay.
• And the CARB analysis...
• They're not yet reflected in CARB data because CARB is always two or three years behind in terms of where
• They're not yet reflected in CARB data because CARB is always two or three years behind in terms of where

Transcript Highlights:

• opacity, and the regulatory pace, and particularly ...and the regulatory pace, particularly because CARB
• Much of that cost went toward back-and-forth meetings with CARB and technical methodology and modeling
• This shortcoming is particularly significant in the context of CARB.
• To draw the comparison to what is currently happening with CARB, they never update—CARB never updates
• CARB, the DTSC, and local governments go into gear and get the information at that point.

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Transcript Highlights:

• Much of that cost went toward back-and-forth meetings with CARB and technical methodology and modeling
• We haven't seen the language yet on the sort of CARB-CTC authority, but we feel that we'll be positive
• To draw the comparison to what is currently happening with CARB is they never update—CARB never updates
• It's not about taking away carbs authority. This bill doesn't touch it.
• It simply requires CARB to do what we should have been doing all along.

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on environmental quality, climate planning, transparency, water affordability, plastics, recycling, and refinery transition planning. SB 1087, by Senator Cabaldon, would modernize SB 375 regional climate and transportation planning by extending planning cycles, clarifying target-setting and review processes, and reducing time and cost burdens; metropolitan planning organizations strongly supported it, while environmental groups and industry raised concerns about VMT, GHG metrics, CEQA, and implementation details. Committee members generally agreed the process is too costly and complex, but urged the author to keep the bill focused on simpler, less expensive planning and better progress reporting. The bill was moved as amended to Senate Transportation and kept on call. SB 1239, by Senator Jones, would require CARB to update its standardized regulatory impact assessment when a major regulation is materially changed; supporters framed it as a transparency and affordability measure, while the chair argued it could slow rulemaking and discourage agencies from incorporating public feedback. The bill failed on the committee vote and was kept on call. SB 1125, by Senator Menjivar, would create a statewide low-income water rate assistance program, contingent on funding, to help households facing rising water bills; public water agencies, environmental justice groups, local governments, and community members from rural areas testified in support, emphasizing affordability and the lack of statewide assistance. The chair and members expressed support for the need for such a program, and the bill passed 3-1 and was kept on call. SB 1180, by Senator Allen, would establish implementation rules for the plastic pollution mitigation fund created by SB 54, including eligibility, reporting, transparency, and technical assistance for smaller organizations and tribes; environmental justice, conservation, and local government groups supported it, while producer and industry groups opposed unless amended, seeking tighter links to measurable mitigation outcomes and the covered products under SB 54. The bill passed 3-0 and was kept on call. SB 1161, by Senator Valadares, would require CARB to provide clearer, plain-language economic analysis of regulations and their impacts on households; supporters described it as a transparency and affordability measure, while some environmental groups offered respectful or qualified opposition. The chair said she could support it as amended, and the bill passed 4-0 and was kept on call. The committee also heard SB 955, by Senator Blakespear, to update California’s beverage container recycling program so major sellers participate and consumers have convenient return options; supporters said it would improve redemption access and program effectiveness, and the bill passed 5-0 and was kept on call. Finally, SB 1259, also by Senator Blakespear, would require refineries to provide earlier disclosure of cleanup liabilities and closure planning information so the state and communities can plan for refinery site remediation and reuse; the author framed it as a transparency and transition-planning measure, and testimony began in support as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• CARB is not sitting back.
• The CEC works very closely with both Go-Biz and CARB.
• We really appreciate CARB staff in developing that program.
• We really appreciate CARB staff in developing that program.
• CARB has been super helpful in providing funding as well.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Select Committee on Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure focused on California’s EV market, charging infrastructure, and the effects of recent federal actions. The chair opened by emphasizing California’s progress on EV adoption and charging reliability, but also noted ongoing challenges with affordability, access, interoperability, heavy-duty electrification, and federal headwinds. She highlighted interest in technologies such as inductive charging and thanked host organizations and staff before moving to the first panel. State agency witnesses from Go-Biz, CARB, and the California Energy Commission described current programs and priorities. Go-Biz outlined its role in coordinating agencies, supporting permitting, and advancing the state’s ZEV market development strategy and equity action plan. CARB discussed federal attacks on its clean vehicle regulations, litigation to defend waiver authority, and the importance of incentives and regulatory programs such as Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean Fleets, Clean Truck Check, HVIP, and Clean Cars for All. The CEC detailed its funding and regulatory work on charging and fueling infrastructure, charger reliability, payment methods, roaming, and statewide planning, while stressing the need for more charging in multifamily housing and more public DC fast charging. All three agencies said federal rollbacks and permitting delays are major obstacles, but that California remains committed to expanding ZEV adoption. The second panel featured advocates, local government, utility, and research perspectives. CalETC urged continuous state funding through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and emphasized the low-carbon fuel standard, multifamily charging, and managed charging. An EV advocacy group proposed a conquest-style state incentive for new and used EV buyers and argued that multifamily housing is a major untapped market, while also favoring Level 2 charging over Level 1 for most home and apartment settings. Los Angeles County and LADWP described large-scale local deployment of chargers, fleet electrification, workforce training, and the need for sustained funding, agency coordination, and streamlined permitting and grid interconnection. UCS recommended prioritizing replacement of older high-emitting vehicles, using fuel policy revenues to support cleaner cars, and expanding bidirectional charging. The chair closed by asking for more discussion on Level 1 versus Level 2 charging and noted the importance of education, affordability, and practical deployment strategies.

Transcript Highlights:

• CARB is not sitting back.
• The CEC works very closely with both Go-Biz and CARB.
• So I just wanted to thank CARB for so squarely laying that out.
• We really appreciate CARB staff in developing that program.
• CARB has been super helpful in providing funding as well.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Select Committee on Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure focused on California’s EV market, charging infrastructure, and the effects of recent federal actions on state clean-transportation programs. The chair emphasized California’s progress on EV adoption and charging reliability, but also noted ongoing problems with affordability, charger access, interoperability, and the need to support light-duty, heavy-duty, and fleet electrification. She also highlighted interest in inductive charging, bidirectional charging, and the transition to NACS, and said the hearing would help shape future legislative action. State agency witnesses from Go-Biz, CARB, and the California Energy Commission described their roles in market development, emissions regulation, incentives, and charging deployment. Go-Biz outlined its ZEV market strategy, equity action plan, and permitting streamlining work, while CARB detailed federal challenges to its clean vehicle rules, the need to defend waiver authority in court, and the importance of incentives and regulatory stability. The CEC discussed charger reliability rules, statewide inventory and planning, funding for public and multifamily charging, and efforts to expand fast charging and improve access in charging deserts. All three agencies stressed that federal rollbacks and the expiration of federal tax credits make state policies and funding more important. Testimony from industry, local government, and advocacy groups largely supported continued state investment. Cal ETC urged a continuous Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund appropriation, more support for multifamily charging, and managed charging programs. The American EV Jobs Alliance proposed a state “conquest” incentive for new and used EV buyers and argued that multifamily charging is the biggest untapped market. Los Angeles County and LADWP described large-scale fleet and charger deployments, public housing and multifamily projects, and the need for sustained funding, agency coordination, and utility/grid interconnection support. The Union of Concerned Scientists recommended prioritizing Clean Cars for All, using fees on non-CARBOB gasoline to fund cleaner vehicle replacement, and expanding authority for bidirectional EV deployment. Members and witnesses also discussed Level 1 versus Level 2 charging for multifamily housing and other use cases. The chair noted that Level 2 is essential for many drivers but asked whether Level 1 could be a cheaper, faster option in some settings. Witnesses agreed that Level 1 can work in certain contexts, especially airports or some multifamily installations, but emphasized that consumer confidence, overnight range, dealer education, and reliable access to charging remain central to broader EV adoption. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• CARB applied for a preemption waiver for the ACF in November 2023.
• But let me be clear: this concept was never presented to the CARB board.
• It was after adoption that we learned that CARB... ...longer subject to the rule.
• We all have our issues with CARB.
• is left in the ACF—that CARB can regulate.

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on AB 2218, which would declare state policy to recognize and address water-related inequities affecting California Native American tribes and require several state agencies to incorporate that policy into water-related decisions. The author and tribal witnesses said the bill would codify a seat at the table for tribes and build on existing consultation and equity commitments, while supporters from environmental and tribal organizations backed the measure. Opponents from municipal utilities, water agencies, cities, counties, agriculture, and business groups argued the bill was too vague, could create uncertainty for water supply and project approvals, and might invite litigation. The chair signaled support, and the author said the bill was intended as a consultation measure rather than one that would usurp agency authority. The committee then took up AB 1795, a wildfire smoke-damage bill that would establish statewide standards for inspecting, testing, and remediating smoke-damaged homes and create clearer insurance claim handling rules. The Department of Insurance supported the bill, saying it would bring consistency and accountability after major urban-interface fires, while wildfire survivors and advocates said current insurer practices leave families unable to safely return home. Insurance and local government groups opposed unless amended, warning about cost, implementation uncertainty, and the bill’s scope. Members discussed unresolved issues, including how the bill would interact with a separate wildfire health-and-safety bill, whether it would apply to existing policies, and how presumptions and testing standards should work. The committee voted AB 1795 out on a due pass as amended motion to Appropriations. AB 1642, another wildfire-related bill, was also heard and focused on setting science-based testing and clearance standards for homes, schools, and businesses after urban and wildland-urban interface fires. The author and a Caltech scientist described contamination from lead and other heavy metals in fire-affected homes and argued for a presumption that certain contaminants found after a fire came from the wildfire, to reduce costly disputes. Survivors and many advocacy groups supported the bill, while insurers and other industry groups opposed, saying the testing regime was too broad, the geographic scope was unclear, and the presumptions could function like strict liability and raise insurance costs. Senators pressed both sides on how AB 1642 would overlap with the CDI smoke-claims task force and with AB 1795, and the author said the two bills were intended to be complementary and would continue to be reconciled. The committee also briefly heard AB 1976, which would create a CEQA exemption for pedestrian malls and limit certain local procedural delays for pedestrian and traffic-calming projects. Supporters said it would make it easier to create safer, more walkable, and more livable streets, and there was no opposition testimony. The chair described it as a narrow CEQA exemption for active transportation-related projects and indicated support. The committee then moved on to AB 2026, a groundwater recharge permitting bill, with the author explaining that it would streamline permitting so more recharge projects can capture floodwater and store it for drought years; testimony on that bill began as the transcript ended.