Transcript Highlights:

• And that is our climate goals, our goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• You had to be promoting Standards built into it. So you had to be a good player.
• And our fuel mix, our efficiency standards, and our emissions controls mean that goods manufactured here
• emissions than in Texas, and 70% fewer emissions than in Utah.
• It's the same high standards.

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on California’s industrial policy and manufacturing, with opening remarks emphasizing the state’s large manufacturing base, the need to retain and scale advanced manufacturing in California, and the tension between economic growth, climate goals, labor standards, permitting, and energy reliability. Senators and witnesses repeatedly noted that California has strong innovation assets, but companies often face uncertainty around regulation, power availability, and the cost of expanding here, leading some to locate manufacturing elsewhere. Senator Wahab highlighted Fremont as a major manufacturing hub and stressed apprenticeship pathways, community college partnerships, and good-paying jobs for both college-educated and non-college workers. California Forward’s Agon Turplin and Jake Higden argued for a durable statewide regional economic development system with ongoing funding, regional strategic plans, and sector-specific roadmaps. They said California Jobs First and related regional planning efforts created useful infrastructure, but the system remains fragmented and one-time funded. Higden focused on “green industrial policy,” especially batteries, bioeconomy, and other clean manufacturing sectors, arguing California often funds R&D but loses the manufacturing scale-up phase to other states. Priyanka Mohanti of the Center for Manufacturing a Green Economy said climate policy must be paired with industrial policy so Californians can actually benefit from the transition through affordable clean products, good jobs, and domestic supply chains. She pointed to international examples such as India, Brazil, and China, and urged tools like public investment, procurement, loan guarantees, and supply-chain planning. Industry witness Josh Richmond, drawing on experience at Bloom Energy and Cy Quantum, said energy and economic development are inseparable and that “time to power” is often decisive in site selection. He argued California needs better coordination among the state, utilities, universities, national labs, and economic development agencies, and that the state should be more proactive and creative in helping strategic industries scale. Committee members discussed the role of high energy costs, regulatory burdens, K-12 education, and cap-and-trade, with Senator Niello raising concerns about business climate, education outcomes, and the cost impacts of climate regulations. Witnesses responded that California should balance regulation with benefits, and that regional coordination and state partnership can help companies navigate red tape and stay in-state. The second panel, from labor, supported a worker-led industrial policy. Sarah Flox of the California Labor Federation said manufacturing jobs can be good jobs only when paired with labor standards, apprenticeship pipelines, and public support tied to worker protections. Tom Hincey of UAW Region 6 said California should use public financing, procurement, off-take agreements, and, where appropriate, public ownership or equity stakes to localize supply chains and create union jobs in batteries, offshore wind, and heat pumps. The final panel featured Fremont economic development director Donovan Lazaro, who said Fremont has become California’s top manufacturing city by preserving industrial land, allowing by-right zoning, reducing permitting delays, and building in-house technical expertise to support advanced manufacturers. He said the city’s approach has helped double its manufacturing workforce and strengthen its tax base. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with committee members indicating they would continue working on follow-up legislation and coordination efforts.

Transcript Highlights:

• Particulate emissions down 50%, sulfur down 100%. These are quantifiable emissions.
• and fuel standards.
• SAF is critical for reducing emissions and works well with the low-carbon fuel standard.
• SAF is critical for reducing emissions and works well with the low-carbon fuel standard.
• in aviation and it works alongside the low carbon emission standard, a proven program that drives investment

Summary: The subcommittee first heard an informational overview from the Governor’s Office of Service and Community Engagement (GoServe), including California Volunteers, the Office of Community Partnerships and Strategic Communications, and the Youth Empowerment Commission. GoServe reported strong participation in programs such as California Service Corps, College Corps, Youth Service Corps, Climate Action Corps, and the new men’s service challenge. Testimony emphasized enrollment, retention, and completion outcomes, outreach results, and efforts to reduce administrative costs. The Department of Finance said the administration supports the programs but has already made reductions to help address the budget deficit, while the LAO said it had no new recommendations on the informational item. Committee members raised questions about program scale, demographics, and effectiveness, especially for Climate Action Corps and whether the programs are duplicative of existing volunteer opportunities. One member criticized the programs as too fragmented and costly, while others asked for more data on who is being served and whether the programs increase actual participation in state services. GoServe said it would follow up with demographic and regional impact information. The committee also discussed the men’s service challenge, which GoServe said has formed partnerships with organizations such as YMCAs and Big Brothers Big Sisters and has already attracted more than 2,000 participants. The item was informational only. The committee then heard a BOE overview and a budget request to implement SB 293, which gives wildfire-affected families additional time to claim intergenerational Prop. 13 property tax transfers. BOE requested $154,000 for guidance, public materials, and inquiry response, explaining that the work is urgent and tied to disaster relief in Los Angeles County, especially Altadena. The LAO had no concerns, and Finance had no comment. Members asked how many cases might be affected and whether more funding would be needed later; BOE said the full number is not yet known and that future requests are possible. The committee also heard BOE’s IT modernization proposal for the state-assessed property tax system, a 30-year-old mainframe replacement costing $3.2 million in 2026-27 and $3.1 million in 2027-28. BOE and Finance supported the project as necessary, while the LAO said it had no concerns but urged a high bar for new IT spending. Members generally supported modernization but cautioned about implementation risk. Finally, CDTFA presented an overview and two policy proposals. The department described administering 42 tax and fee programs, collecting $98 billion in FY 2024, and improving administrative efficiency. Members then discussed local sales tax tools and revenue-sharing agreements, with concerns raised about transparency, consultant-driven tax allocation disputes, and the impact on local communities. CDTFA and the LAO explained that local jurisdictions control how district sales tax revenues are spent and noted the Legislature could revisit the statutory cap on local add-on sales taxes. The committee then heard CDTFA’s proposal to treat all delivery network companies as marketplace facilitators so they must collect and remit sales tax on delivery-app orders. CDTFA said the change would resolve confusion, shift compliance from thousands of small restaurants to a few large platforms, and raise about $44 million annually. Several members questioned whether the proposal would effectively raise consumer costs and whether it would create a competitive advantage or disadvantage among delivery platforms. The item remained under discussion, with no vote taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it's been very effective so far in reducing emissions.
• , global emissions actually rise.
• They're going to allow for greater emissions above the cap.
• The goal is to meet our 2030 GHG emissions by 40%.
• Using allowance value to reduce emissions from industry, Using allowance value to reduce emissions from

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So the safety standards issued by the UL, which will be Safety standards.
• And so how, in terms of the integration of that standard, the UL 3700 standard, there's been a lot of
• We’re not here to speak on the installation standard, only the product standard.
• The product certification standards have to align with the installation standards.
• Commission do building standards.

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on SB 868, the Plug and Play Solar Act, which would streamline approvals for portable plug-in solar devices while setting safety standards. The author and supporters argued the bill would help renters and homeowners with high electricity bills by allowing low-cost balcony solar systems to reduce monthly costs, and they emphasized that the devices would not feed power back to the grid. Supporters included environmental and consumer groups, solar advocates, and many members of the public. Opponents, including electrical workers, firefighters, utilities, and PG&E, raised concerns about shock, fire, overloading, and the need for California-specific building standards. After discussion, the author agreed to committee amendments and later to add compliance with the California Electrical Code in addition to the National Electrical Code; several opponents said that change would move them to neutral. The committee then voted to pass SB 868 out as amended to Senate Judiciary, with some members expressing support while reserving concerns about safety as the bill moves forward. The committee then took up SB 886, dealing with data center electricity use and ratepayer protections. The author said the bill is intended to prevent large data centers from shifting grid and infrastructure costs onto other customers, citing rapid growth in data center demand and examples from other states. Supporters, including TURN and climate groups, said the bill would require data centers to pay for their own grid impacts, pre-fund long-term clean energy resources, participate in demand response, and cover related costs. Opponents from the data center industry, tech and business groups, utilities, and some energy users argued the bill was unnecessary, could duplicate CPUC processes, and could create discriminatory rate treatment or operational problems, especially around mandatory demand response and limits on backup generation. Committee staff described amendments narrowing the bill to large data centers, clarifying tariff and cost-allocation provisions, replacing a storage requirement with a long-term zero-carbon procurement mechanism, and exempting certain public and utility facilities. Members discussed the balance between affordability, reliability, and clean energy, with the bill framed as a way to protect ratepayers while allowing data center growth.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it's been very effective so far in reducing emissions.
• They're going to allow for greater emissions above the cap.
• The goal is to meet our 2030 greenhouse gas emissions by 40%.
• Cap and invest's goal is to reduce greenhouse emissions. It's to reduce greenhouse emissions.
• Using allowance value to reduce emissions from industry, Using allowance value to reduce emissions from

Summary: The joint hearing focused on CARB’s proposed April amendments to California’s cap-and-invest regulations, adopted under AB 1207 and SB 840. Committee members repeatedly framed the issue as a balance between climate ambition, affordability, leakage prevention, and the Legislature’s budget priorities. Several senators argued the proposal would weaken the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), reduce funding for transit, affordable housing, drinking water, wildfire prevention, and other programs, and potentially undermine the Legislature’s intent in last year’s reauthorization. Others emphasized that the program’s core purpose is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that any changes should preserve the cap’s integrity and the state’s climate targets. CARB Chair Lauren Sanchez said the amendments were designed to implement legislative direction while responding to public comment and economic uncertainty. She described four main changes: increasing electric bill credits, expanding the manufacturing decarbonization incentive (MDI) to $4 billion, adding about $800 million in additional compliance support for industry, and removing post-2030 allowance allocations from the current rulemaking. CARB said the proposal would still maintain declining caps aligned with 2030 and 2045 targets, provide near-term affordability relief, and support businesses and jobs while reducing emissions. In response to questions, CARB said the MDI has guardrails, is limited to emissions-reducing projects, and would require reporting and repayment if projects do not materialize. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the amendments are significant and could affect several legislative priorities. LAO highlighted that the MDI would add allowances above the cap, creating uncertainty about environmental ambition and 2030 compliance, while also shifting more allowances to industry and fewer to the GGRF. LAO said the proposal could significantly reduce GGRF revenues and noted that, if revenues fall to CARB’s estimated level, some tiered programs could go unfunded. The Department of Finance explained that GGRF revenue estimates are updated three times a year and are difficult to predict because they depend on auction outcomes and market conditions. Senators pressed both agencies on whether the proposal would raise consumer costs, whether industry savings would be passed through, and whether the Legislature should receive updated revenue estimates before voting on the budget.

Transcript Highlights:

• Army Corps of Engineers standard.
• California's greenhouse gas emissions On the atmosphere, California's greenhouse gas emissions account
• for less than 1% of global emissions, and yet global emissions have actually increased since AB 32 was
• It's to meet air quality standards. It's to meet climate goals.
• So there's no air emissions. It's like really close in the supply chain.

Summary: The committee first heard SB 872 by Senator McNerney, which would dedicate $150 million annually each for Central Valley subsidence repairs and Delta levee improvements. The author and supporters, including Restore the Delta and State Water Contractors, described the bill as an urgent, bipartisan effort to protect State Water Project conveyance serving 27 million people, prevent levee failure, and safeguard billions in state assets. Support came from a broad coalition of water agencies, labor, environmental groups, and local governments; there was no opposition testimony. Because the committee was operating without a quorum at the time, the bill was heard as a subcommittee item and no final vote was taken then. The committee then took up SB 981 by Senator Niello, which would require CARB to include cost-of-living impacts in its existing economic analysis for major regulations. The author argued the bill would improve transparency by showing effects on gasoline, electricity, food, housing, and business costs, while supporters from agriculture, manufacturing, business, propane, and restaurant interests said it would help lawmakers understand affordability impacts. Opponents, including the Coalition for Clean Air and the Union of Concerned Scientists, argued it would add red tape, delay rulemaking, and require CARB to make speculative predictions. The chair and other members expressed concern that the bill was redundant, burdensome, and too narrow because it singled out CARB rather than addressing affordability across state government; no vote was taken in the excerpt. SB 887 by Senator Padilla would require large data center projects to undergo CEQA review, but offer streamlined treatment for projects meeting strong environmental, labor, and community-benefit standards. Supporters, including TURN, IBEW Local 569, and several environmental and local-government groups, said the bill would protect communities from high energy and water use, cost shifting, and pollution while still allowing responsible development. Opponents from the Data Center Coalition, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Bay Area Council, and others argued the standards were overly prescriptive, potentially unattainable, and would drive investment out of California. After a quorum was established, the committee voted 3-1 to pass SB 887 as amended to the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, with the bill kept on call. Finally, SB 1008 by Senator Ochoa Bog would renew the CEQA exemption for California Public Utilities Commission-ordered closure of at-grade rail crossings, which had expired at the start of 2025. Union Pacific and other supporters said the measure would restore a long-standing safety tool and help eliminate redundant crossings more quickly. With no opposition testimony, the committee approved the bill unanimously, 4-0, and kept it on call.

Transcript Highlights:

• the Legislature passed AB 1250, which set a maximum curb weight of 25,000 pounds per axle for zero-emission
• the Legislature passed AB 1250, which set a maximum curb weight of 25,000 pounds per axle for zero-emission
• ZEBS with each procurement, with the ultimate requirement that transit agencies have a 100% zero-emission
• This bill aims to address the conflict between the state's ICT regulation for zero-emission fleets and
• Obviously, we all know that we've got to do everything we can from zero emissions, hydrogen fuel cell

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:

• And the idea that the polluter pays for carbon emissions is gaining traction nationwide.
• The polluter pays for carbon emissions is gaining traction nationwide.
• Most of these buildings are existing, to bring them up to safer standards.
• standards.
• The bills deal with non-localized transient emissions.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee hearing focused on a broad set of climate, energy, and environmental justice proposals. Early testimony strongly supported the Climate Change Superfund or “Polluter Pays” bill (H.1014/S.58), which would assess the largest fossil fuel emitters for a one-time fee based on historic emissions to fund climate adaptation. Sponsors argued the bill is modeled on Superfund cleanup principles, would target only the largest multinational polluters, would not be passed on to consumers, and would direct a significant share of funds to environmental justice communities. Committee members asked about the number of companies covered, consumer impacts, and whether the bill would address other forms of environmental destruction; sponsors said it was limited to major fossil fuel companies with a Massachusetts footprint and did not cover other pollution sources. The committee also heard testimony on a fusion energy compact proposal (S.673) that would direct the administration to develop a framework for a New England regional compact to accelerate fusion research, workforce development, and supply-chain growth. Supporters from MIT and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities said fusion could become a major clean-energy and economic opportunity, but acknowledged the technology is not yet commercially viable and still has unresolved technical, cost, and waste-management questions. Members pressed on environmental impacts, siting, waste, costs, and whether the bill would create a compact or only a framework; sponsors said it would only create the framework and that the administration would need to negotiate with other states. Another major topic was a pilot program for nature-based climate solutions (H.971/S.??), backed by legislators, Boston Harbor Now, and UMass Boston’s Stone Living Lab. Witnesses said the bill would help speed permits for research and demonstration projects such as living shorelines, marsh restoration, and hybrid “green-to-gray” flood protections, while maintaining safeguards and protecting Indigenous and historic resources. Committee members asked how the proposal would interact with other permitting reforms and whether it could conflict with housing or wetland-related streamlining; supporters said it was complementary and aimed at making projects faster, more affordable, and more data-driven. The hearing also covered climate-safe buildings and climate adaptation funding bills. Supporters of H.1004/S.583 said current building codes do not adequately account for future flooding, heat, and wind, and the bill would add climate expertise to the building board, allow stretch resilience codes, expand floodplain standards, and create a retrofit program. Related testimony backed H.938/S.572, which would create a dedicated climate and community resilience fund financed by a small fee on property insurance premiums; advocates said it would provide stable long-term revenue for adaptation, especially in environmental justice communities, and help replace unreliable federal funding. One witness from CLF supported the climate-safe buildings and funding bills but opposed S.560/H.939 as too broad. The committee also heard testimony on airport air-quality legislation (H.997) calling for more monitoring and mitigation of ultra-fine particulate pollution around Logan Airport and Massport communities. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• EPA to reduce air pollution and meet our health-based air quality standards.
• Toxic emissions and exposure have also dropped by controlling these sources of emissions.
• The milestones that would get us towards that 85% reduction in GHG emissions.
• Now, you told me that means we would implement zero-emission vehicles.
• What would the emissions changes be if we were to change the fuel spec?

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:

• so it's no wonder that these emissions so it's no wonder that these efficiencies<00:24:28.440><c> standards
• widely support the standards.
• widely support the standards.
• widely support the standards.
• Support the standards.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Thursday, February 27, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Emissions testing due to federal mandates under the Clean Air Act.
• standards by default.
• Vehicle emissions inspection reports a week.
• emissions vehicle inspection reports from the Dallas and Harris County area.
• Well, there's, there is no emissions testing for commercial vehicles for, for medium duty.

Transcript Highlights:

• emissions.
• We were the first state in the nation to pass a statewide building performance standard.
• There are numerous ways in which we can reduce emissions from the built environment.
• We can reduce emissions from the built environment.
• Thank you. ...reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

Summary: The committee first received a Commerce overview of capital budget grant programs, including behavioral health facilities, Building for the Arts, Building Communities Fund, early learning facilities, library capital improvements, and youth recreational facilities. Commerce described program eligibility, match requirements, funding cycles, and project examples such as an early learning center in Spokane, a rural library in Stevens County, and a youth clubhouse in Prosser. Members asked about behavioral health capital projects, including how many facilities have been opened and how capital planning aligns with operating funding; Commerce said it could provide more data later and noted it focuses on capital while HCA, DSHS, and DOH handle operating requests. Members also raised concerns about nonprofit financial stability, project licensure, siting, and the burden of non-state match, while Commerce emphasized shovel-ready projects, community match, and efforts to reduce application burden. The committee then heard an update on the Clean Buildings Performance Standard from Commerce. Staff reviewed Washington’s building emissions laws, compliance tiers, exemptions, incentives, and district energy system decarbonization planning under House Bills 1543, 1976, and 1390. Commerce reported nearly 5,000 inquiries in 2025, a fellowship program that has helped more than 250 buildings in 16 counties, and review of nearly 30 district energy plans. The presentation highlighted that over half of Tier 1 buildings are already meeting targets, that Tier 2 incentive applications suggest the 30-cent-per-square-foot incentive often covers compliance costs, and that district decarbonization plans face common challenges such as aging infrastructure, grid readiness, workforce, and inconsistent cost reporting. Members asked what additional legislative action might help, and Commerce said it was still learning from the new rulemaking and implementation changes. Western Washington University and Corex then presented on WWU’s campus heating conversion project and a possible off-campus thermal energy partnership with the Port of Bellingham. WWU described its aging steam system, high emissions, maintenance costs, and the $51 million in Climate Commitment Account funding it has received to transition toward an electric hot-water system using technologies such as geo-exchange, heat recovery chillers, and air-source heat pumps. Corex explained its existing district energy system at the Port of Bellingham, which uses industrial waste heat and is operating at very high efficiency, and said it is exploring a heat transmission line to WWU and possibly sewer-heat recovery. Testimony from WSU and UW supported the broader decarbonization effort but raised concerns about the scale of costs, deferred maintenance, and the need for predictable state funding. A contractor witness urged the state to think bigger about public-private partnerships and other financing tools rather than forcing campuses to compete for limited funds. The committee then held a public hearing on House Bill 2330, which would create a prioritization process for capital funding for state campus district energy system decarbonization projects. Staff said the bill would establish a Commerce committee to score and rank projects, issue a preliminary framework report by December 30 of this year, and provide biennial recommended project lists beginning in 2028, while also studying barriers to energy-as-a-service contracts and public-private partnerships. The prime sponsor said the bill is intended to create a thoughtful, predictable process for deciding which projects to fund, emphasizing energy savings, emissions reductions, operating cost reductions, shovel-readiness, and the value of public-private partnerships. Testimony was mixed but generally supportive: WSU and UW backed the bill as a way to advance compliance and predictability, though WSU warned that compliance costs could be very large and that the university would likely seek state help if fines were imposed. A contractor witness supported the concept but argued the bill should help build a larger funding “pie” through partnerships and financing tools rather than simply dividing scarce resources. The committee then opened and heard testimony on House Bill 2338, which would authorize community-scaled weatherization projects. Commerce staff said the bill would allow weatherization funds and matching funds to be used for neighborhood-scale projects affecting multiple dwelling units, while still prioritizing low-income households; the fiscal note estimated about $273,000 in FY 2027 and about $237,000 per biennium ongoing for administration. Supporters from community action agencies and Spark Northwest said the bill would improve health, safety, affordability, and contractor participation by allowing weatherization to be done at a community scale, especially in mobile home parks and low-income neighborhoods. No votes were taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• portfolio standards.
• There's also another standard called the Clean Energy Standard.
• The Clean Energy Standard measures the outcome.
• Radiation is the emissions that come out of nuclear electricity, and the emissions are deadly to DNA
• standard, as Senator Thornton explained.

Bills: SB47, SB195, SB196, SB197, SB198, SB78

Keywords: food recovery, composting, waste management, solid waste surcharge, organic waste reduction, environment, grants, advisory group, soil conservation, water resources, training services, outreach programs, environmental protection, animal care, veterinary services, spay and neuter, Las Vegas, community funding, animal welfare, animal shelter

Transcript Highlights:

• We'd also be leaving cost-driven emission-reduction strategies on the table.
• We'd also be leaving cost-driven emission-reduction strategies on the table.
• This is zero-emission technology.
• I would also say it's not standard. I would agree with you on that. It's not at all standard.
• I would also say it's not standard. I would agree with you on that. It's not at all standard.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• standard for our largest buildings.
• The clean heat standard, which will reduce carbon emissions from the thermal heat sector far more effectively
• clean heat standard takes effect.
• standards, then they might have to.
• Jennifer Bosco. emission standards, then they might have to.

Keywords: 995, all

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:

• And so you personally want to get rid of emissions tests. Do you know why we have emissions tests?
• And so you personally want to get rid of emissions test. Do you know why we have emissions tests?
• Every time I've checked it, we've had lower emissions here.
• Number one, the EPA regulations continue to lower the standards.
• What do you mean by lowering standards?

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and approved the House Journal by a 125-0 roll call vote. Members then spent a large portion of the morning recognizing special guests, interns, students, and constituents, including school groups, interns, a Savannah Bananas player, and several birthday and personal privilege announcements. On legislation, the House agreed to conference on Senate Substitute for Senate Bill 1421. The chamber then took up Senate Substitute for Senate Bill 1000, a bipartisan measure to reauthorize the Missouri Tourism Supplemental Revenue Fund and continue support for the Division of Tourism and Missouri Film Office. Supporters from both parties emphasized tourism’s economic importance statewide; the bill passed 136-6. The House next debated House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1020, an omnibus Department of Revenue bill covering fee office contracting, vehicle registration penalties, Real ID document retention, and other DOR changes. The body adopted an amendment lowering late registration penalties, making document retention opt-in, and restoring a five-year plate option, followed by a second amendment removing cosmetic damage as a basis for rejecting rebuilt-vehicle inspections. The bill then passed 130-10. Later, the House began debate on a combined judiciary/civil legislation bill involving insurance assignment-of-benefits restrictions, anti-SLAPP protections, workers’ compensation and court administration changes, and expungement-related funding; members adopted a title change and several amendments, including one to make attorney-fee awards more even in anti-SLAPP motions, while also debating a proposed St. Louis police legal expense fund amendment and whether it had been properly vetted.

Transcript Highlights:

• So to put this in perspective, Mandatory statewide energy standards.
• California standards lead the nation, and we heard some discussion of that earlier.
• Building standards are among the cheapest ways to achieve savings for consumers.
• Commission, which then feeds into the larger building standards update.
• And the building standards process is a very solid one.

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:

• Level emissions, Mr.
• Emissions. Everything seems to be focused around emissions.
• And emissions—there are zero emissions from a nuclear power plant.
• Emissions have been represented as killing the planet. But what else do emissions do?
• But what else do emissions do?

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Pluton standards and with the EPA standards under the Clean Air Act and with the Oil and Conservation
• Division of venting and flaring standards.
• Why this obsession with methane emissions?
• The issue of scale, and so yes, if a McDonald's is out of compliance with the emission standards, air
• gas emissions that we can't reduce in other ways.

Transcript Highlights:

• It’s creating, you know, one standard for the delivery, for—” “You know, one standard for the delivery
• Particulate emissions down 50%, sulfur down 100%. These are quantifiable emissions.
• and fuel standards.
• SAF is critical for reducing emissions and works well with the low-carbon fuel standard.
• SAF is critical for reducing emissions and works well with the low-carbon fuel standard.

Summary: The subcommittee first received an informational update on the Governor’s Office of Service and Community Engagement (GoServe), including California Volunteers, the Office of Community Partnerships and Strategic Communications, and the Youth Empowerment Commission. GoServe reported strong participation in College Corps, Youth Service Corps, and Climate Action Corps, along with outreach results from OCPSC and the Trusted Messenger Network. The Department of Finance said the programs remain a priority but noted prior budget reductions, while the LAO said it had no new recommendations. Committee members raised questions about program diversity, geographic reach, administrative costs, and whether the programs duplicate existing volunteer opportunities; one member criticized the programs as costly and duplicative, while another emphasized the value of volunteerism and asked about the men’s service challenge. The item was informational only. The committee then heard an overview of the Board of Equalization’s property tax responsibilities and its first budget proposals since the 2017 reorganization. BOE described its role in county assessment oversight, state-assessed property valuation, and related tax administration. Members asked about BOE’s interaction with counties, property tax reassessments, and local tax notices; BOE explained it mainly works with county assessors and handles technical property tax questions, while local special district charges are generally outside its scope. The committee also considered a BOE proposal to implement SB 293, which would give additional time for certain intergenerational property tax transfer claims after the 2025 wildfires. BOE requested $154,000 for guidance, public materials, and inquiry response work, saying the change is urgent for wildfire-affected families, especially in Altadena. The LAO had no concerns, and the item was held open. BOE also presented an information technology modernization proposal for its state-assessed property program, seeking $3.2 million in 2026-27 and $3.1 million in 2027-28 to replace a 30-year-old mainframe system. BOE said the current system relies heavily on manual data entry and paper processes, creating inefficiencies, cybersecurity risks, and delays, while modernization would free staff for more audits and valuation studies. The LAO supported the need but urged a high bar for new IT projects; Finance said the project met the threshold of necessity. Members generally supported the upgrade but asked about audit gains, revenue impacts, and implementation risks, and the item was held open. Finally, CDTFA gave its department overview and then discussed a proposal to require all delivery network companies, such as Uber Eats and DoorDash, to be treated as marketplace facilitators for sales tax purposes. CDTFA said the current carve-out creates confusion for restaurants and small businesses because some DNCs collect and remit tax while others do not, and the change would improve compliance and shift reporting to larger platforms. Members debated whether the proposal amounts to a tax increase for consumers, with CDTFA and Finance arguing it is a consistency and compliance measure rather than a new tax, while others said it would likely raise consumer costs. The committee also discussed broader CDTFA issues, including local sales tax districts, revenue-sharing agreements, and the growth of special taxing jurisdictions. No votes were taken, and the agenda items were informational or held open.