Transcript Highlights:

• that you'll see February 1st to establish a new light-duty ZEV incentive program in order to keep ZEVs
• The incentives for the new ZEV incentives are for new car purchases as the priority this year, and I
• The ZEV incentive appropriation proposal is kind of in response to the rescission of the federal tax
• credit in the fall for ZEV passenger vehicles.
• One is the ZEV incentive that is proposed.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee opened its hearing on the Governor’s 2026-27 budget with remarks emphasizing the start of a months-long process, the need for fiscal responsibility, and concerns about structural deficits, federal funding losses, housing and homelessness, and oversight. The vice chair echoed those concerns, warning against budgets built on short-term fixes and urging accountability. The Department of Finance presented a balanced budget year proposal of about $349 billion in total expenditures, including $248 billion General Fund, while acknowledging a structural imbalance in the out years and proposing a workload budget with limited new spending or cuts. Finance said the budget relies on stronger-than-expected revenues, but also on constitutional obligations such as Proposition 98 and Proposition 2, and on suspending a rainy-day fund true-up deposit to cover a projected $2.9 billion budget-year deficit. The administration highlighted higher education funding, climate and wildfire resilience investments, a new ZEV incentive, added Health and Human Services costs tied to H.R. 1, child care funding, and three tax proposals: third-party delivery tax compliance, a sustainable aviation fuel tax credit, and an extension of the California Competes tax credit. The LAO, by contrast, warned that the budget is “precariously balanced,” cited downside risk from stock market-driven revenues, and urged the Legislature to use reserves, avoid suspending rainy-day deposits, and begin shrinking multi-year deficits sooner rather than later. Member questions focused on wildfire mitigation and insurance, transit and GGRF funding, federal cuts affecting CalFresh and Medi-Cal, the proposed tax credits, homelessness accountability language, and education funding. Several members pressed for earlier partnership on deficit solutions and for more scrutiny of budget choices. The committee also discussed declining enrollment in K-12, community colleges, and CSU, with concerns about whether funding formulas are aligned with actual student demand. No formal votes or final actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1213, Medium and Heavy Duty ZEV and Near ZEV Incentives.
• SB 1213, Medium and Heavy Duty ZEV and Near ZEV Incentives.

Summary: The Senate Appropriations Committee met for a suspense-file hearing and voted only on measures already heard previously, with no public testimony. The chair explained that bills were taken up quickly in author order, with amended bills to be followed by addendum analyses. The committee considered a very large slate of Senate bills and two Assembly measures covering wildfire resilience, housing, insurance, energy, transportation, public safety, elections, health care, labor, environmental regulation, and various administrative and tax issues. Most measures were approved, many on unanimous or near-unanimous votes, while a substantial number passed on 5-2 or 5-1 party-line votes with Republicans generally voting no. Several bills were amended before passage, including changes to funding contingencies, timelines, reporting requirements, definitions, and removal of certain enforcement or private-right-of-action provisions. A few members noted concerns on specific bills, including Senator Richardson on SB 1203 (private security training), though he said he would vote for it at this stage. Among the notable actions, the committee advanced bills on wildfire smoke, wildfire recovery, mobile home parks, insurance nonrenewals, AI transparency, data center energy issues, Medi-Cal and health coverage, criminal justice, election administration, housing, and labor/workforce standards. The committee also approved AB 46 and AB 736. No bills were held for testimony because the hearing was vote-only, and the meeting adjourned after all items on the agenda were disposed of.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1213, Medium and Heavy Duty ZEV and Near ZEV Incentives.
• SB 1213, Medium and Heavy Duty ZEV and Near ZEV Incentives.

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• We know the threats now from the federal government, namely that ZEV incentives are going away in 19
• And we also know it's more important than ever to invest in our clean vehicle strategies and ZEV infrastructure
• So I guess I would just put it out there: would there be opportunities in the future to implement ZEV
• And when we talked about ZEVs and clean vehicles, not funding one of the most successful programs CARB

Summary: The Assembly Natural Resources Committee heard three major bills. SB 237, by Senator Grayson, proposed a package of fuel-supply and permitting changes aimed at stabilizing gasoline prices during California’s energy transition. Supporters, including state officials, Kern County representatives, labor groups, and industry groups, said it would help retain in-state refining and drilling capacity, reduce price spikes, and protect jobs. Opponents, including environmental justice and conservation groups, argued it would expand oil drilling without enough community protections and would not meaningfully address climate goals. After extensive testimony and questions about emissions, sunsets, and long-term strategy, the committee passed SB 237 on a due pass vote, with some members voting no or not voting. SB 352, by Senator Reyes, sought to strengthen implementation of AB 617, the community air protection program, by codifying the Environmental Justice Bureau in the Department of Justice, extending monitoring requirements, and requiring annual legislative reporting. Supporters said the bill would improve accountability and ensure that funding for impacted communities actually produces emissions reductions. Some environmental justice advocates were neutral or not fully supportive because they wanted stronger language, while business and industry groups opposed the bill, arguing it was added late and duplicated existing processes. The committee approved SB 352 on a due pass vote. SB 840, by Senator Limon, was the cap-and-invest reauthorization package. It would update offset protocols, adjust how revenues are spent, and continue funding for key climate, housing, transit, and community programs, including AB 617. Support came from environmental groups, labor, local governments, housing advocates, and clean transportation organizations, while some agricultural interests objected that the package did not sufficiently prioritize climate-smart agriculture and methane reduction programs. The committee passed SB 840 on a due pass vote as well. All three measures were later confirmed out of committee after calls were lifted.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the second chart on there is the second black line, the ZEV penetration in California, as most of
• For new sales, we are almost approaching 30% of new sales being ZEVs in California.
• ZEVs in California.
• So what that does is there is an inflection point of overall penetration of ZEVs.
• vehicles and infrastructure to support the EV market expansion and looking at other options to increase ZEV

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

Transcript Highlights:

• So the second chart on there is the second black line, the ZEV penetration in California, as most of
• For new sales, we are almost approaching 30% of new sales being ZEVs in California.
• ZEVs in California.
• So what that does is there is an inflection point of overall penetration of ZEVs.
• vehicles and infrastructure to support the EV market expansion and looking at other options to increase ZEV

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Transcript Highlights:

• Rogers: in our rural districts, we don't have charging stations, our constituents can't afford a ZEV,
• we have to drive... ...can't afford a ZEV.
• I will offer this: with ZEV, we got ourselves to what I feel like we started to plateau at about 25%
• We had CARB and we did a lot of things about all of the ZEV program and stuff last year.
• Did a lot of things about all of the ZEV program and stuff last year.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation heard an informational hearing with Secretary Garcia and CalEPA-related departments on the administration’s budget proposals and related environmental programs. Secretary Garcia highlighted CalEPA’s work on methane reduction, community air protection, water infrastructure, Exide cleanup, safer pesticide alternatives, Prop 4 implementation, and Bay-Delta water quality, while emphasizing the impact of federal rollbacks and the need for flexible state response. Members raised broader policy concerns about the polluter-pays principle, special fund vacancies, and whether the state is maintaining sufficient staffing and enforcement capacity, especially after recent fee increases. A major portion of the hearing focused on landfill support, response, and enforcement, particularly subsurface elevated temperature events at Chiquita Canyon and El Sobrante. CalEPA requested $5.1 million and 12 positions to improve monitoring, technical response, coordination, and enforcement across CalRecycle, CARB, DTSC, the Water Board, and OEHHA. Assembly Member Schiavo described severe community impacts from Chiquita Canyon and pressed for stronger state action, more transparency, and accountability from landfill operators; Assembly Member Rogers emphasized that accountability must mean forcing operators to take preventive measures and bear the costs. Agency staff said the proposal would help augment current response efforts, support local enforcement agencies, and improve early detection, while acknowledging that the causes of set events are not fully understood and may involve factors such as lithium-ion batteries, oxygen intrusion, and gas extraction practices. The committee then heard an update on the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water program and the effects of the new cap-and-invest structure. State Water Board Chair Joaquin Esquivel reported that the program has reduced the number of Californians without safe drinking water from 1.6 million to about 600,000 since 2019, while also bringing 320 systems back into compliance and distributing $1.8 billion in drinking water grants. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained that under SB 840, SAFER is now in a lower funding tier, which could reduce annual proceeds from the prior $130 million level to a projected $92 million in 2026-27 and delay funding until later in the year. Members expressed concern that this deprioritizes rural drinking water needs, while the board said it would continue using SAFER’s flexible funds for emergency water, technical assistance, and construction, and would keep pushing consolidations and other long-term solutions for the remaining failing systems.

Transcript Highlights:

• The ZEV fuel tax, the dollar-per-kilowatt-hour charge, was mentioned.
• So you have the same issue with the ZEV fuel tax as you do with a gas tax.
• And the ZEV fuel tax is going to be about the same as gasoline.
• Eighty-one percent of these ZEV owners are homeowners, not renters.
• This is why programs that we are hearing about today in other states focus mostly exclusively on ZEV

Committee: House Transportation

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee first took up three highway memorial naming resolutions on its consent calendar: ACR 109, SCR 78, and SCR 90. The committee approved the consent calendar on an 11-0 vote, with the roll not held open. The chair also recognized committee science fellow AJ Mendeola for his service before adjourning the bill-hearing portion and moving to an informational hearing. The informational hearing focused on alternatives to the gas tax and how other states are responding to declining fuel-tax revenue. A first panel of researchers and policy experts described the erosion of gas-tax receipts due to inflation, improved fuel efficiency, and growth in electric vehicles, and compared options such as EV registration fees, kilowatt-hour charging fees, delivery fees, transportation network company fees, managed lanes, and road usage charges. Witnesses generally said road usage charges best preserve the user-pays principle, but they also emphasized that implementation costs, privacy concerns, and public understanding remain major obstacles. Committee members raised concerns about fairness for commuters, low-income drivers, and EV adoption, while some members argued a mileage-based system could amount to a new tax unless the gas tax is actually repealed. The second panel featured state officials from Hawaii, Utah, Oregon, and Virginia describing their programs. Hawaii said it launched its road usage charge program on July 1, 2025, using existing safety-check and registration systems, with EV owners initially choosing between a per-mile charge and a flat annual fee before mandatory EV participation begins in 2028 and a broader transition plan is due by 2026. Utah described its voluntary EV road usage charge program, annual flat fee option, quarterly reporting, privacy protections, and recent cost reductions as enrollment grows. Oregon began outlining its structural funding challenges and constitutional cost-responsibility framework, while the hearing overall underscored that states are experimenting with different approaches but have not settled on a single replacement for the gas tax.

Transcript Highlights:

• Rogers: in our rural districts, we don't have charging stations, our constituents can't afford a ZEV,
• We can't afford a ZEV.
• I'll give you just a classic example: the question about ZEVs is really a CARB question, but it also,
• distance, whatever CARB would come up with, should be something that counts temporarily toward our ZEV
• We had CARB and we did a lot of things about all of the ZEV program and stuff last year.

Transcript Highlights:

• But as you know, as you've led on ZEV things, especially with hydrogen, the market and industry, especially
• on ZEV with either EVs or hydrogen, was very different in the 2015-22 market than it is today.

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee heard several measures, with most of the agenda taken up by AB 1944, AB 2453, and SJR 16 after a consent calendar of eight items was approved. AB 1944 by Assembly Member Alex Lee would delay the schedule for reducing the allowable axle weight limits for zero-emission buses while keeping the final cap in place, to give transit agencies and manufacturers more time to develop lighter buses with sufficient range. Supporters, including the California Transit Association and several transit districts, said the bill would help agencies comply with zero-emission bus mandates. Opponents, led by the League of California Cities, argued heavier buses would accelerate pavement damage and increase local maintenance costs. Senators raised concerns about infrastructure impacts and environmental tradeoffs, while others supported the bill as a practical adjustment to technology timelines. The bill passed on a 10-3 vote, with the roll left open and later completed. AB 2453 by Assembly Member Michelle Rodriguez would clarify authority for first responders and peace officers to use off-highway vehicles in official duties, including limited travel on public roads to reach remote areas. The author and supporters, including the Carlsbad Fire Department and the City of Ontario, said the bill would improve response times for beaches, trails, deserts, and special events and reduce burdensome workarounds. No opposition testimony was offered. The committee approved the bill unanimously and sent it to the Committee on Natural Resources and Water. SJR 16 by Senator Caballero urged Congress to act on federal actions affecting California commercial truck drivers after a fatal crash and subsequent federal scrutiny of California’s commercial licensing practices, including English-language proficiency standards and rescinded credentials. The author and Teamsters California said the federal response had unfairly harmed experienced drivers and the supply chain. No opposition was presented. The resolution passed on a 9-3 vote, with the roll also left open and later completed. The consent calendar items were adopted 13-0.

Transcript Highlights:

• But as you know, as you've led on ZEV things, especially with hydrogen, the market and industry—especially
• on ZEVs with either EVs or hydrogen—was very different in the 2015–22 market than it is today.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, next we're going to move to Zev Colson. Zev Colson, are you on with us?
• Okay, Zev, we see you online. If you can hear us, it's okay. Go ahead and unmute.
• Yeah, I'm Zev Colson. I'm a certified professional midwife.
• Thank you, Zev. Appreciate your testimony. Welcome back to Massachusetts.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Financial Services

Summary: The committee held a public hearing with testimony on several health care bills, with most of the discussion focused on primary care access, community health center reimbursement, midwifery and birth centers, telehealth, hospital-at-home, direct primary care, and trans-inclusive health care access. Chair Feeney and Chair Murphy opened by noting the large number of signups and asking testifiers to keep remarks brief because of time constraints. Legislators and witnesses repeatedly emphasized that Massachusetts’ primary care system is under strain and that federal policy changes and reimbursement gaps are worsening financial pressure on providers. On community health centers, Representative Blay, Senator Lovely, Michael Curry, Bethany Keeley, Jag Deep Trevetti, Sean Cahill, and Christina Severin all supported H. 1096/S. 711, which would require commercial insurers to pay federally qualified health centers at least the MassHealth prospective payment system rate. They argued that commercial plans currently reimburse health centers below Medicaid rates, threatening sustainability, staffing, and access, especially as federal cuts and coverage losses could increase uncompensated care. Testifiers said the bill would stabilize health centers, protect primary care access, and not cost the state money. A second major topic was H. 1117/S. 784 on sustaining birth centers and the midwifery workforce. Senator Lovely, Senator Miranda, Emily Anesta, Rebecca Orden, Catherine Rushworth, Nishira Burrill, Joel Sutherland, Rachel Blessington, Joelle Ward, and others described the 2024 maternal health omnibus as an important first step, but said birth centers and midwives still face low reimbursement, workforce shortages, and financial instability. They urged reimbursement parity, a workforce development fund, and support for freestanding birth centers, citing improved outcomes, lower C-section rates, better patient experience, and racial equity in maternal health. Several speakers shared personal birth stories and said the bill would help preserve and expand birth options in communities like Roxbury, Worcester, and the North Shore. The committee also heard support for H. 1343 on direct primary care from Dr. Garofalo, Dr. Altman, Dr. Nair, Stephanie Cameron, Dr. Haley Moke-Blessed, and others, who said current insurance rules force patients to use a separate in-network primary care doctor for referrals and sometimes prevent physicians from dispensing medications. They argued the bill would reduce delays, administrative burden, and costs while improving continuity of care. In addition, Dr. Miklides and Sue Stempeck supported H. 1141 on hospital-at-home parity, saying the model has strong outcomes and should be reimbursed at the same rate as brick-and-mortar hospital care. Heather Myers and Katrina Cook testified on telehealth and digital health equity, urging broader coverage for asynchronous care, remote monitoring, interpreter services, and digital literacy supports. SEIU Local 509 supported H. 1188/S. 681 on trans-inclusive health care access, saying it would remove arbitrary insurance barriers to gender-affirming care. No votes or committee actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And lastly, for climate, we are introducing a new ZEV incentive, about $200 million one-time.
• And these are special funds to keep ZEVs affordable and accessible for all with a new light-duty ZEV
• Before I respond to that question, I just wanted to make a note that the ZEV proposal is special funds
• Before I respond to that question, I just wanted to make a note that the ZEV proposal is special funds

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard opening remarks on the Governor’s 2026-27 budget and presentations from the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Chair Laird described the proposal as roughly balanced with $23 billion in reserves, while Vice Chair Niello argued the revenue estimates were overly optimistic and warned of a structural deficit, calling for a deeper review of programs and concern over the state’s $20 billion unemployment insurance debt. Finance said the budget is balanced in the budget year but still leaves a roughly $2.9 billion deficit, with out-year gaps above $20 billion, and characterized the plan as largely a workload budget with limited new spending or cuts. The LAO said its office sees substantial downside risk to the revenue forecast, emphasized the volatility of stock-market-driven revenues, and urged the Legislature to begin addressing the structural deficit now rather than waiting until May. Members focused on the implications of federal policy changes, Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and the MCO tax, as well as the state’s reserve strategy. Senators Menjivar and Richardson raised concerns about health coverage reductions, county costs, hospital finances, and the lack of a broader revenue solution, while Finance said the state cannot fully backfill federal cuts and is still assessing the impacts. The LAO recommended rejecting the proposal to suspend the rainy day fund deposit and setting aside the proposed Proposition 98 settle-up rather than using it for spending. Finance defended both proposals as necessary to balance the budget year and said it plans to begin discussions with legislative leaders before the May Revision. The committee also discussed climate and transportation funding, including cap-and-trade/GGRF allocations for Cal Fire, interest earnings from the fund, zero-emission vehicle incentives, and AB 617 air quality investments. Senator Reyes questioned the focus on light-duty ZEV incentives instead of heavy-duty vehicles, and Finance said the proposal is intended to partially replace the federal consumer tax credit and that some heavy-duty funding remains from prior years. Senator Richardson also raised concerns about Olympics-related infrastructure, courthouse repairs, and displaced workers, while other members stressed homelessness funding and the need for more immediate action on out-year budget problems. No formal votes or actions were taken during the portion provided; the hearing was informational and moved into member questions after the presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• AB 911 seeks a permanent exemption from ACF where advances in ZEV technology or daily usage are not considered
• order to find solutions to the issues public entities and private businesses face when transitioning to ZEV
• Public entities and private businesses face challenges when transitioning to ZEV fleets.
• However, as the policy landscape and truly the political landscape around the ZEV transition changes

Committee: House Transportation

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee heard a series of bills, beginning with AB 431, which would create a statewide framework for advanced air mobility infrastructure and planning. The author and supporters from AUVSI, Joby Aviation, United Airlines, Wisk Aero, the City of Long Beach, and Archer argued the bill would help California lead in eVTOL technology, support jobs, reduce congestion, and improve sustainability. The committee accepted amendments, and AB 431 passed on a do-pass-as-amended vote to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The committee then considered AB 630, dealing with abandoned and hazardous RVs. The author and supporters, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass’s office, said the bill would help local governments address unsafe RVs, curb “van-lording,” and improve notice and reporting requirements before dismantling certain unclaimed vehicles. Opponents from the Western Center on Law and Poverty and ACLU California Action argued the bill would destroy needed shelter for unhoused people and that the notice and valuation process could harm vulnerable residents. Members discussed the bill’s focus on dismantling rather than towing, and AB 630 passed as amended. Other measures taken up included AB 314 on transit-oriented development around high-speed rail stations, AB 1223 on Sacramento County transportation funding flexibility, AB 1111 on flexibility for zero-emission school bus mandates, AB 1190 on limiting fees charged by DMV online business partners, AB 987 on predatory towing fees, and AB 911 on a narrow exemption from zero-emission fleet rules for telecommunications bucket trucks and sail-on wheels. Testimony generally split between supporters emphasizing affordability, local flexibility, consumer protection, or emergency readiness, and opponents raising concerns about implementation, mandates, or unintended consequences. Several bills were advanced by committee vote, with some members recording no votes or abstentions on measures they said needed further work.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the second chart on there is the second black line, the ZEV penetration in California, as most of
• For new sales, we are almost approaching 30% of new sales being ZEVs in California.
• So what that does is there is an inflection point of overall penetration of ZEVs.
• vehicles and infrastructure to support the EV market expansion and looking at other options to increase ZEV
• And if you also look at that slide, the ZEVs, it just doesn't seem that it has taken off, which is something

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Lombardo of Billerica continues: the gradual transition to zero-emission vehicles, or ZEV, is a notable
• no way ready to meet this mandate, as only 8% of vehicles being sold in Massachusetts right now are ZEV

Summary: The House met in a session centered on the FY26 budget, especially the Energy and Environmental Affairs and Labor/Economic Development sections, while also taking time to recognize several championship teams and other guests. Early in the day, the chamber adopted a set of commemorative resolutions, including observances for Apraxia Awareness Day, International Celiac Awareness Day, and Jewish American Heritage Month. Members also welcomed Franklin High’s cheerleading and boys basketball champions, Winthrop boys hockey champions, St. Mary’s of Lynn girls basketball champions, Holy Trinity School students, and later Boston Celtics guard Drew Holiday and Lauren Holiday. The most contentious debate involved amendments related to Massachusetts’ climate and clean-car policies. Representative Lombardo offered amendments to delay or repeal ACC2/zero-emission vehicle requirements and to convert climate mandates into goals rather than requirements, arguing the rules were unrealistic, costly, and harmful to dealers, consumers, and the economy. Opponents said the House had already addressed the issue, and that climate and energy policy should remain under review through a public process. The House rejected Lombardo’s ACC2-related amendments, including after a ruling of the Chair was upheld by roll call, and later adopted a consolidated Energy and Environmental Affairs amendment by a wide margin. The House then adopted a consolidated Labor and Economic Development amendment and ultimately passed the FY26 budget to be engrossed. Supporters highlighted major funding for environmental protection, parks, fish and game, clean energy, food insecurity programs, agricultural support, economic development, tourism, and an immigration legal assistance fund. The chamber also observed a moment of silence for Molly McGovern, and at the end of the session adopted an order to meet the next day at 11 a.m. before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that includes enhanced ZEV access.
• We just talked about how do we make sure ZEVs are a part of everyone's life, not just those who could
• afford it at the top of the pyramid, so really making sure ZEVs become ubiquitous in access.
• That includes enhanced ZEV access.
• afford it at the top of the pyramid, so really making sure ZEVs become ubiquitous in access.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• So you have the same issue with the ZEV fuel tax as you do with a gas tax.
• And the ZEV fuel tax is going to be about the same as gasoline.
• Eighty-one percent of these ZEV owners are homeowners and not renters.
• This is why programs that we are hearing about today and other states focus mostly exclusively on ZEV

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee first took up three highway naming resolutions on its consent calendar: ACR 109, SCR 78, and SCR 90. The committee approved the consent calendar with 11 aye votes and no no votes, then adjourned the bill-hearing portion. Members also recognized committee science fellow AJ Mendeola for his service, noting his contributions to bill analysis and staff support. The committee then held an informational hearing on alternatives to the gas tax, focused on the projected decline in fuel-tax revenue and the need for a more sustainable transportation funding model. The chair and invited experts described how inflation, improved fuel efficiency, and growth in electric and other alternative-fuel vehicles are eroding gas-tax revenues. Presenters from the National Conference of State Legislatures and the University of California discussed state options such as higher or indexed gas taxes, EV registration fees, road usage charges, delivery fees, public EV charging fees, transportation network company fees, and managed lanes, emphasizing tradeoffs among revenue adequacy, fairness, administrative cost, and public acceptance. Committee members raised concerns that mileage-based fees or EV fees could function as new taxes on commuters and lower-income drivers, especially if the gas tax is not repealed. Presenters responded that road usage charges are generally intended as replacements for the gas tax, not additions, and argued that mileage-based systems better preserve the user-pays principle while being less tied to vehicle fuel efficiency. They also noted that flat EV registration fees are easy to administer but can be less equitable because they are not linked to actual road use. Officials from Hawaii, Utah, and Oregon described their state programs and policy choices. Hawaii said its new road usage charge began July 1, 2025, for EVs, offers a choice between a per-mile charge and a flat annual fee through 2028, and will transition to mandatory EV participation before expanding to all light-duty vehicles by 2033. Utah described its voluntary EV road usage charge program, quarterly reporting, privacy protections, and legislative scenarios for removing the cap or making participation mandatory. Oregon outlined its constitutional cost-responsibility framework and broader transportation funding challenges, including reliance on user fees and limited use of general-fund support.

Transcript Highlights:

• Programs as to which agency or agencies are appropriate and optimal to administer the ZEV investment.
• The purpose again of our meeting today is to provide you with an update on our progress on the ZEV and
• One reason for this could be the delayed benefits of ZEV and energy transition.
• One reason for this could be the delayed benefits of ZEV and energy transition.

Committees: Joint Transportation , Joint Joint Transportation Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• And lastly, for climate, we are introducing a new ZEV incentive, about $200 million one-time.
• And these are special funds to keep ZEVs affordable and accessible for all with a new light-duty ZEV
• Before I respond to that question, I just wanted to make a note that the ZEV proposal is special funds

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard opening remarks on the Governor’s 2026-27 budget, which the chair described as roughly balanced in the budget year but still facing large out-year structural deficits. The vice chair criticized the revenue assumptions as overly optimistic and stressed the need to review recent program expansions and address the state’s $20 billion federal unemployment insurance debt. The Department of Finance said the budget is a “workload” plan with about $350 billion in total spending, $23 billion in reserves, a projected $2.9 billion budget-year deficit, and out-year gaps above $20 billion, while the LAO warned of downside revenue risk tied to stock market volatility and urged earlier action on the structural deficit rather than waiting for May. Finance and the LAO discussed major budget components, including Proposition 98 funding, higher education base increases for UC and CSU, climate and wildfire spending, a new ZEV incentive, child care COLAs, and tax proposals involving marketplace facilitators, renewable aviation fuel, and an extension of the California Competes tax credit. Members raised concerns about proposed Medi-Cal and CalFresh changes tied to federal HR1 impacts, the MCO tax extension, hospital finances, county costs, and the decision not to backfill all federal funding losses. Finance said the administration is not in a position to replace all lost federal funds, but wants to work with the Legislature on priorities and timing before the May Revision. Several senators used the hearing to preview subcommittee priorities and request more detail on spending growth, reserves, and program cuts. Topics included homelessness funding, Care Court throughput, wildfire and climate investments, AB 617, data centers, the judicial branch’s facilities backlog, displaced workers, transit funding, and preparations for the 2028 Olympics and Paralympics. No budget action or vote was taken at this hearing; the committee mainly received presentations and member questions, with public comment scheduled later.