Bills: SB2901 , SB2902 , SB2903 , SB2904 , SB2905 , SB2906 , SB2907 , SB2908 , SB2909 , SB2910 , SB2911 , SB2912 , SB2913 , SB2914 , SB2915 , SB2916 , SB2917 , SB2918 , SB2919 , SB2920 , SB2921 , SB2922 , SB2923 , SB2924 , SB2925 , SB2926 , SB2927 , SB2928 , SB2929 , SB2930 , SB2931 , SB2932 , SB2933 , SB2934 , SB2935 , SB2936 , SB2937 , SB2938 , SB2939 , SB2940 , SB2941 , SB2942 , SB2943 , SB2944 , SB2945 , SB2946 , SB2947 , SB2948 , SB2949 , SB2950 , SB2951 , SB2952 , SB2953 , SB2954 , SB2955 , SB2956 , SB2957 , SB2958 , SB2959 , SB2960 , SB2961 , SB2962 , SB2963 , SB2964 , SB2965 , SB2966 , SB2967 , SB2968 , SB2969 , SB2970 , SB2971 , SB2972 , SB2973 , SB2974 , SB2975 , SB2976 , SB2977 , SB2978 , SB2979 , SB2980 , SB2981 , SB2982 , SB2983 , SB2984 , SB2985 , SB2986 , SB2987 , SB2988 , SB2989 , SB2990 , SB2991 , SB2992 , SB2993 , SB2994 , SB2995 , SB2996 , SB2997 , SB2998 , SB2999 , SB3000

Keywords: geological subsurface characterization, groundwater, geothermal resources, environmental review, Hawaii groundwater and geothermal resources center, scientific research, non-extractive, public trust doctrine, clean energy, greenhouse gas, carbon sequestration, climate change, energy policy, Hawaii state energy office, emissions reduction, sustainable development, fare-free transportation, greenhouse gas emissions, public transit, tax on petroleum

Transcript Highlights:

• The recently adapted NP rule does not identify a failed resource objective; therefore, adaptive management
• Adaptive management came part of that particular agreement.
• They participate in the adaptive management program.
• I'll talk about the adaptive management program as well.
• DNR also administers an adaptive management program.

Summary: The committee held a work session on the history, implementation, and current challenges of Washington’s Forest and Fish law and related Habitat Conservation Plan. Testimony from tribal representatives Jim Peters and David Herrera, former Rep. Jim Buck, and mediator Tim Thompson described the original timber, fish, and wildlife negotiations as a broad, collaborative effort intended to balance salmon and habitat protection with a viable timber industry. DNR’s Sabur Jawad outlined the program’s statutory framework, the roles of DNR, Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, tribes, local governments, landowners, and the Forest Practices Board, and explained that changes to aquatic-resource rules can come through adaptive management, legislative direction, or court orders. He also described the permitting and enforcement system, the programmatic HCP, road maintenance and abandonment work, and the adaptive management process, including the long-running NP stream-buffer studies and resulting rulemaking timeline. Agency and stakeholder testimony emphasized accomplishments such as decades of HCP coverage, annual compliance monitoring, road and fish-barrier improvements, small forest landowner assistance programs, and the completion of numerous adaptive management studies. DNR’s Katie Allen said the program has strong successes but also faces resource-intensive implementation, rising costs, and watershed-wide pressures beyond forestry, and she pointed to a State Auditor review that produced 13 recommendations now being addressed through an action plan and a structured decision-making model. Washington Farm Forestry Association executive director Elaine O’Neill said small forest landowners supported the agreement expecting assistance and flexibility, but argued the balance has shifted toward more protection and less practical consideration of rural vitality and property rights. Washington Forest Protection Association executive director Jason Spadero said the agreement has produced measurable environmental gains and regulatory predictability, but criticized the recent NP rule and urged continued science-based, economically balanced management. In the final discussion, tribal representatives said the collaborative, consensus-based process still works in some areas, but that the principals need to be re-engaged more directly and periodically to restore accountability and trust. They said the adaptive management process and funding remain important, but expressed concern that consensus has broken down in some recent rulemaking and that side negotiations or outside pressure can undermine the original agreement. Members asked how to restore the collaborative model; Peters suggested renewed commitment from the principal parties and more regular high-level meetings, while Herrera echoed the need to implement the auditor’s recommendations. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• The recently adapted NP rule does not identify a failed resource objective; therefore, adaptive management
• They participate in the adaptive management program.
• They participate in the adaptive management program as well.
• I'll talk about the adaptive management program as well.
• DNR also administers an adaptive management program.

Committee: House Agriculture & Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• Adaptation is, "Okay, everyone start retreating. Start moving your buildings back. You adapt."
• Uh you adapt." Like, it's more back. Uh you adapt."
• </c> we I prefer the term adaptation. we I prefer the term adaptation.
• . adaptation. adaptation.
• </c> definition of mitigation or adaptation? definition of mitigation or adaptation?

Bills: SB3253 , SB2401 , SB3169 , SB17 , SB3014 , SB3032 , SB1432 , SB2002 , SB2972 , SB3247

Committee: House Water & Land

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land heard testimony on SB 5253 SD2 relating to conservation and SB 2401 relating to regional shoreline mitigation district, with the chair emphasizing short testimony limits and the need to finish before session. On SB 5253, DLNR said it stood on its written testimony and answered questions about the bill’s proposed nonprofit endangered species sanctuary. Members asked whether existing entities or agreements, such as land trusts, private landowners, and DLNR safe harbor agreements, could accomplish similar conservation goals without creating a new entity. DLNR said similar work already exists, but it was not aware of a comparable sanctuary model in the state. A member also questioned language suggesting for-profit businesses in the sanctuary, and DLNR said the intent appeared to be sales of outreach or similar materials, though it agreed that such activities could be handled by a nonprofit. The bulk of the hearing focused on SB 2401, which would create a regional shoreline adaptation/mitigation framework. The Department of the Attorney General said it had concerns about inconsistent use of the terms “mitigation” and “adaptation,” warning of possible title-subject issues. DLNR said it was neutral on the terminology and more concerned with the substance, and noted that the bill would not waive permits; any plan would still require environmental review and applicable state and county permits. DLNR also supported OHA’s recommendation to consider impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during regional planning, and said the bill’s language on temporary shoreline protection measures could help address the gap between emergency permits and longer-term planning while avoiding a hardening-only approach. The Office of Planning supported the regional planning concept but noted it is not a regulatory agency and would need to work with DLNR and the Land Board. OHA supported the bill’s planning-based approach but recommended amendments to require assessment of impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during plan development and to clarify that environmental review would still apply at the project level. Testifiers from the Ka‘anapali Steering Committee strongly supported the bill, saying it would provide a regional framework for ongoing erosion problems while preserving full regulatory authority and normal permitting, and they proposed amendments to standardize terminology, create a limited pathway for temporary shoreline protection, and address ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Members discussed the meaning of “mitigation” versus “adaptation,” the scope of shoreline hardening, and whether the bill would help the legislature take a broader, more holistic view of shoreline decisions. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Housing, especially in our older housing stock, is really not accessible or adaptable.
• But adaptable so that you have things like handrails and the doorways are wide enough.
• Why not have units in them that are adaptable so that people can age in place?
• If Jorge had an adaptable unit, he could properly use his own bathroom.
• An adaptable unit would give them both...

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security

Summary: The Public Safety and Homeland Security Joint Committee heard testimony on several bills focused on accessibility, fire safety, and transportation safety. House 2569, expanding adaptable housing for people with disabilities and seniors, drew broad support from Rep. Christine Barber, disability advocates, and members of the Massachusetts Developmental Disabilities Council. Witnesses said the bill would close gaps in the Architectural Access Board’s authority, require more adaptable housing in rehabs and older conversions, and extend accessibility requirements to employee-only work areas. They emphasized the shortage and cost of accessible housing, the benefits for aging in place, and the risk of institutionalization when accessible units are unavailable. The committee also heard strong support for House 2577, which would allow local fire departments to inspect and enforce fire code compliance in state-owned buildings. Rep. Robert Cataldo and Boston Fire Chief Pat Ellis described this as closing a long-standing loophole that leaves state properties outside local fire-code enforcement, despite the hazards posed by aging state buildings and life-safety systems. Fire service representatives also supported bills to create a statewide technical rescue system under the Department of Fire Services, standardizing training, equipment, funding, and coordination across regional rescue teams, and they backed related fire-safety measures including sprinkler-related legislation and professionalism measures. Rep. James O’Day testified for House 2676, which would require window screens to prevent child falls, arguing it is a common-sense safety measure and noting recent fatal incidents. Ann Shuey and John Kalura testified for House 2601, which would require motor coach passengers to wear seat belts, citing a family tragedy, low seat-belt use, and research showing signage can improve compliance. Steven Poglisi of NAGE supported House 2568, requiring carbon monoxide alarms in public buildings, describing a past CO exposure incident involving a union member. The committee took no votes on the bills during the hearing and adjourned after testimony concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, we do believe that adaptation of new infrastructure that is built is no less important.
• There are five steps to adapting infrastructure to changing climate conditions.
• The third step is how to adapt the infrastructure to better protect it from its vulnerabilities.
• And that guidance falls short of recommending monitoring and adapting over time.
• But we were... ...recommending monitoring and adapting over time.

Committee: Joint JLARC I-900 Subcommittee for SAO Performance Audits

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee I-900 Subcommittee heard JLARC’s annual update on the status of legislative implementation of State Auditor recommendations, followed by two State Auditor performance audits. JLARC staff reported that for the 2024 review period there were three new legislative recommendations and three unresolved older recommendations. They said the legislature did not convene a work group on civil asset forfeiture, and no formal action was taken on two water-use-efficiency recommendations. Two recommendations related to concurrent Medicaid enrollments were addressed in a bill introduced this session, but that bill was not adopted. The first audit examined how Washington can ensure climate-resilient electricity infrastructure. The State Auditor found the state has opportunities to better adapt new energy infrastructure by using more site-specific climate information, broader collaboration, and vulnerability assessments. The report recommended expanding climate analyses through the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group if funding is available, using forecasted information in DNR wildfire maps, designating a non-regulatory office to coordinate siting and conflict resolution, and expanding vulnerability assessments in Ecology and Commerce processes. Agency witnesses generally agreed resilience is important but emphasized existing efforts, the need to avoid duplicative requirements, the importance of affordability and efficiency, and the role of current forums such as the Clean Energy Siting Council and SEPA processes. The second audit reviewed fines for human trafficking and related sexual exploitation crimes. Auditors found courts assessed fines inconsistently, collection rates varied, some revenues were sent to the wrong local government, and some jurisdictions did not use the money as required for enforcement, prevention, or survivor services. The audit recommended courts work with prosecutors to improve awareness of mandatory fines, and that King and Pierce County improve coding, templates, and tracking so revenues are routed and used correctly. King County testified that it appreciated the audit and described its existing prevention and survivor-support work. The committee took no votes or formal actions and adjourned after the presentations and testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• My research focuses on adapting urban coastal areas to climate change.
• level resulting from implementing any given adaptation activity.
• Our climate adaptation strategies cannot treat Black and brown communities as an afterthought.
• Our climate adaptation strategies cannot treat black and brown communities as an afterthought.
• Most of us don’t have the resources to adapt our homes or repair damage.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources

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:

• , and the state has an opportunity now to adapt new infrastructure as it's being planned and built.
• There are five steps to adapting infrastructure to changing climate conditions.
• The third step is how to adapt the infrastructure to better protect it from its vulnerabilities.
• And that guidance falls short of recommending monitoring and adapting over time.
• But we were... ...recommending monitoring and adapting over time.

Committee: Joint JLARC I-900 Subcommittee for SAO Performance Audits

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee I-900 Subcommittee heard JLARC’s annual update on the status of State Auditor recommendations. JLARC staff said that for the 2024 review period there were three new legislative recommendations and three previously unresolved recommendations from earlier years. They reported that the legislature did not convene the civil asset forfeiture work group recommended by the auditor, and took no formal action on two water-use-efficiency recommendations. Two recommendations related to concurrent Medicaid enrollments were addressed in a bill introduced this session, but that bill was not adopted. The committee then heard a State Auditor’s Office performance audit on ensuring climate-resilient electricity infrastructure. The audit concluded Washington has opportunities to better adapt new energy infrastructure to climate change by using more site-specific climate information, broader collaboration, and stronger use of vulnerability assessments. The auditors recommended expanding the Climate Impacts Group’s analyses if funding is available, using forecasted information in DNR wildfire maps, designating a non-regulatory coordination office, and expanding vulnerability assessments in Ecology and Commerce processes. Agency witnesses generally agreed with the importance of resilience but emphasized existing efforts, the need to avoid duplicating current planning and SEPA processes, and concerns about funding, staffing, affordability, and preserving regulatory roles. The final audit examined fines for human trafficking and related sexual exploitation crimes. Auditors found courts assessed these mandatory fines inconsistently, collection rates varied widely, some revenues were sent to the wrong local government, and some jurisdictions did not clearly use the money for enforcement, prevention, or survivor services as required. The audit recommended better coordination with prosecutors, improved court coding and templates, and stronger local processes for tracking and spending fine revenue. King County provided testimony thanking the auditors and describing its anti-trafficking work. The meeting ended with no votes taken and the next meeting announced for September 17.

Transcript Highlights:

• The council developed this under the facilitation of Fire Adapted Colorado over the last year, and the
• The council developed this under the facilitation of Fire Adapted Colorado over the last year, and the
• The council developed this under the facilitation of Fire Adapted Colorado over the last year, and the
• The council developed this under the facilitation of Fire Adapted Colorado over the last year, and the
• Colorado over the last year fire adapted Colorado over the last year and<00:47:34.640><c> the</c><00

Transcript Highlights:

• But in terms of adaptation, did you change your funding priorities for adaptation projects following
• And don't you think that, I mean, what is your approach to handling adaptation for flood?
• To manage adaptation linked to flooding. Then we moved on and had more thinking about that.
• So in the last... uh... to manage adaptation linked to the flooding.
• The adaptation.

Summary: The committee began with member and staff introductions, then held a work session on emissions-intensive trade-exposed facilities (EITEs) under Washington’s Climate Commitment Act. Ecology staff reviewed how cap-and-invest works, explained EITE no-cost allowance allocations, and summarized a new report to the Legislature on policy options for 2035-2050. Ecology recommended continuing no-cost allocations but adjusting them to fit the cap, considering a consignment approach that would require EITEs to invest part of the value of free allowances in decarbonization, and studying additional benchmarking and leakage-mitigation refinements. Quebec officials described their cap-and-trade system, including a consignment model that withholds part of free allocations, holds the value in trust for facilities, and requires technical studies and investment in mitigation projects; they said it has encouraged industrial investment and no business closures. Members asked about facility closures, compliance costs, eligible uses of consigned funds, and adaptation spending. The work session then closed. The committee then heard House Bill 2296, which would expand distributed energy resources by allowing portable plug-in solar devices and meter-mounted devices. The prime sponsor said the bill is intended to lower barriers and startup costs for renters and homeowners who want to electrify or add solar. Supporters, including a nonprofit promoting plug-in solar and a physician group, said the devices could broaden access to clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas and health harms. Utilities, labor, and industry groups opposed the bill as written, citing safety concerns, lack of national electrical code standards, possible backfeeding and fire risks, utility-worker hazards, unclear interconnection rules, and concerns about multifamily housing and small-utility review burdens. Some witnesses said they were open to continued work on the proposal. Next, the committee heard House Bill 2285, which would allow natural gas generation paired with carbon capture, utilization, storage, or mineralization to count toward Clean Energy Transformation Act compliance. The sponsor and supporters argued the bill would provide a “bridge” for firm power, help address reliability and transmission constraints, and support jobs while reducing emissions compared with conventional gas. Opponents said the bill would weaken CETA’s 100% clean electricity target by allowing resources that still emit carbon to qualify, and they questioned whether 75% capture is sufficient. Other testimony raised cost concerns and warned that carbon capture could increase ratepayer costs. The hearing on HB 2285 was later suspended and reopened briefly for additional testimony from Ecology, which said the bill would permanently weaken CETA standards and likely reduce emissions reductions. The committee also briefly received a staff briefing on House Bill 2272, a ski-area terminology bill, and then suspended that hearing to take it up later.

Transcript Highlights:

• , real quickly, the bill would just allow an expanded use of HIBs that we heard earlier today for adapted
• The bill would just allow an expanded use of HIBs that we heard earlier today for adapted reuse or building
• House File 1340 would expand the use of housing infrastructure bonds for the adaptive reuse of buildings
• reuse of buildings that are Adaptive reuse of buildings that are converted<00:02:49.159><c> to</c><00
• conversion adaptic reuse so that<00:03:52.519><c> if</c><00:03:52.599><c> there's</c><00:03:52.760><

Summary: The committee heard House File 1340, authored by Chair Lee, which would expand the use of housing infrastructure bonds to support the adaptive reuse or conversion of buildings into affordable housing. The author described the bill as a way to help nonprofit and other affordable housing developers compete for surplus buildings, especially when school districts are selling unused properties on the open market. Tom Parent of Minneapolis Public Schools testified in support, explaining that school districts manage facilities through separate capital budgets and that selling surplus property at fair market value helps offset future property tax burdens. He said districts often face tension between maximizing sale proceeds and meeting community needs, and pointed to Minneapolis examples where former school buildings are being converted to housing, including projects serving youth experiencing homelessness. He argued the bill could better align reuse of school properties with community housing needs while protecting local taxpayers. In response to a question from Representative Scraba, the author confirmed the bill does not allocate new dollars but instead expands eligible uses under the statute for housing infrastructure bonds. No vote or formal action was taken during the exchange, and the bill was presented as part of a broader bipartisan discussion about reuse of vacant buildings for housing and other community purposes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Work spaces to be adapted to be accessible.
• While the Commonwealth does not track the number of accessible or adaptable units to understand how big
• Secondly, buildings from before 1991 that are converted into housing are not required to have adaptable
• Secondly, buildings from before 1991 that are converted into housing are not required to have adaptable
• With the state of today's housing crisis, ...not required to have adaptable units.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security heard testimony on several bills affecting correctional facilities, disability access, public health, youth education, parole, and vehicle noise. Early testimony focused on H. 2736/S. 1762, “Matt’s Law,” which would permanently ban free weights in medium- and maximum-security correctional facilities and require exercise equipment to be secured. The bill was supported by the Tidman family, Rep. Wells, and the Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union, who described the assault on Corrections Officer Matthew Tidman and argued the measure would prevent similar attacks. Committee members expressed sympathy and asked whether the Department of Correction could make the change administratively; witnesses said free weights had already been removed but that codifying the policy in law was needed. The committee also heard S. 1753 on synthetic drugs in correctional facilities, which would make possession, distribution, and use of Class C synthetic substances in prisons and jails a felony with a mandatory minimum sentence. Senator O’Connor and MCOFU said synthetic drugs like K2 are being smuggled in through mail and are causing violence and medical emergencies among inmates and staff. H. 4123, filed by Rep. Donahue and Chair Vargas, would require correctional facilities to offer two doses of naloxone to people upon direct release; Donahue cited overdose risk after incarceration and her personal loss of a son to overdose. Sheriff Donna Buckley also testified in support of a commission to study sentencing jurisdiction and whether more people should be sentenced to county houses of correction rather than DOC facilities. A large portion of the hearing was devoted to S. 1733, “An Act Building a More Accessible Massachusetts,” which would expand the Architectural Access Board’s authority over older buildings, workplace areas, and adaptable housing units. Chris Ho, disability advocates, and people with disabilities testified that the bill would help close gaps in accessibility for employment and housing, reduce long waits for accessible units, and support aging in place and independent living. The committee also heard S. 1721 on educational rights for incarcerated youth, with Avery Farmer arguing that 18- to 21-year-olds in DOC and houses of correction should receive the same educational services and disability supports as youth in DYS custody. Additional testimony supported S. 1716 regulating illegal exhaust systems, with one witness citing public health harms from vehicle noise and another opposing the bill as overbroad and harmful to classic car owners. Finally, Claire Massington testified for H. 2694 on equitable access to parole, calling for a more transparent, best-practices-based parole system with a revised board composition and a presumption of parole unless the board shows otherwise. The hearing ended with the chair adjourning the meeting due to a roll call in the House and Senate.

Transcript Highlights:

• would require the largest historical greenhouse gas polluters to contribute to a fund for climate adaptation
• The fund is designed to pay for strengthening, repairing, and adapting infrastructure in response to
• They are usually the most exposed to environmental hazards and have the least resources to adapt.
• </c> climate adaptation. climate adaptation.
• </c> that supports animal species adaptation that supports animal species adaptation using<00:18:14.680

Summary: Rep. Athena Hollins and Sen. Ann Johnson Stewart introduced Minnesota’s proposed climate superfund bill, describing it as a way to make major historical greenhouse gas polluters help pay for climate adaptation and infrastructure repair. They said the bill would target large fossil fuel corporations with significant emissions and use the revenue for projects such as stormwater upgrades, bridge and roof protection, erosion control, drinking water protection, cooling cities, and other resilience work. Both lawmakers framed the proposal as a matter of accountability and fairness, arguing that Minnesotans should not keep paying for damage caused by companies that profited from fossil fuel pollution. Several supporters testified in favor of the bill, including St. Paul City Council Vice President Nyang Kheimey, former legislator and medical student Hunter Cantrell, Unidos Minnesota volunteer Bonnie Becol, and 100% Minnesota’s Aurora Vautrin. They emphasized local climate impacts such as flooding, wildfire smoke, extreme heat, emerald ash borer damage, asthma, and infrastructure failures, and said the costs are increasingly falling on taxpayers, local governments, and vulnerable communities. Kheimey highlighted municipal needs and St. Paul’s own climate investments, while Cantrell focused on environmental racism and health harms, and Becol and Vautrin stressed species loss, community recovery costs, and the burden on residents. In the question-and-answer portion, Hollins and Johnson Stewart explained that the bill would apply to fossil fuel corporations with at least 1 billion metric tons of carbon emissions and a nexus to Minnesota, not local utilities. They said the State Auditor’s office would determine the assessments owed by companies, while the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency would hold the fund and administer grants. They also said they were looking to models in Vermont and New York and hoped the proposal could attract bipartisan support because it is tied to affordability and shifting costs away from taxpayers and onto polluters. No vote or formal committee action was taken in the transcript, and the event ended with the sponsors opening the bill to questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'd like to ask about the automotive adaptive equipment for veterans.
• I'd like to ask about the automotive adaptive equipment for veterans.
• equipment, must be partially reimbursed by this federal automobile adaptive equipment grant.
• did find that there were Disabled veteran adapted housing grants, where we did find that there were adapted
• Need for adaptive equipment for veterans who are not eligible for the federal grant.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee met on September 17, 2025, in hybrid format. After roll call, the committee initially lacked a quorum and deferred approval of the July 15 minutes until Representative Berg arrived; the minutes were then adopted. Members also discussed the proposed 2026 JLARC meeting schedule, including possible changes to address crowded July meetings and the annual tax exemption review workload. Staff presented the annual lodging tax expenditures report, noting that 213 municipalities received distributions in 2024, with 91% reporting compliance, $114 million awarded for more than 1,700 activities, and no independent verification of the self-reported data. Several members questioned the value and usefulness of the report, and the executive committee indicated it may recommend removing the statutory reporting requirement. The committee then heard the preliminary performance audit of the Office of Privacy and Data Protection, which found the office meets its statutory responsibilities and has high user satisfaction, but recommended updating the statute to better match the office’s current capacity and focus and improving performance measures to reflect long-term privacy outcomes rather than outputs. Members asked about FERPA and other federal privacy laws, and OPDP staff said they provide general privacy training and consultation but not law-specific training unless requested. The committee adopted the final report on Washington State recreational boating programs without recommendation, after staff reported that boating revenues support both general government and boating activities and that no participating agencies submitted formal comments. Members asked about boater safety education and possible overlap among the six agencies involved; Parks staff said education has reached more than 500,000 boaters and that fatalities and incidents have declined. The committee also reviewed planned study questions for a JLARC review of Labor and Industries’ enforcement of farm worker laws, with members raising scope questions about the term “farm worker” versus “agricultural worker,” and for DNR’s Eastern Washington sustainable harvest calculation, which JLARC will review as DNR completes its recalculation. Finally, staff outlined the 2026 tax preference performance reviews covering seven preferences, and members asked about racial equity, environmental impacts, disclosure of beneficiary savings, and how the reviews will measure effectiveness; the meeting adjourned before noon.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'm curious about what— is there a list of what home adaptations qualify?
• You know, what are those adaptations?
• You know, what are those adaptations?
• You know, what are those adaptations?
• Those grants are used to adapt housing.

Summary: The meeting began with JLARC’s biennial executive committee elections. Members elected Representative Pollitt as chair, Senator Wagner as vice chair, Representative Orcutt as secretary, and Senator Solomon as assistant secretary, all by roll call vote. The committee then approved the May 14 meeting minutes unanimously, and Chair Pollitt noted plans to strengthen bipartisan input and coordination on future audit scopes and agendas. Staff then presented a preliminary report on Washington State recreational boating programs. They said six agencies collect or spend boating-related funds, that the state collected $108 million in boating-related revenue during the 2021-23 biennium, and that $86 million was spent on boating-related activities. Most spending went to infrastructure and water access, with additional amounts for environmental protection, boater safety, and marine law enforcement. Staff also summarized a survey of other states showing Washington’s boating laws are broadly similar to those elsewhere. The committee spent most of the meeting on preliminary tax preference reviews. JLARC staff reviewed preferences for natural gas used for transportation, travel agents and tour operators, nonprofit low-income housing development, multipurpose senior citizen centers, disabled veteran adapted housing, trade convention attendance, agricultural fertilizer and seed wholesaling, hazardous substance tax treatment for certain pesticides, and energy sold to silicon smelters. Recommendations ranged from continuing preferences, modifying reporting or performance metrics, and in some cases allowing preferences to expire. Members raised questions about emissions benefits, missing employment data, low utilization by veterans, housing reporting gaps, and whether some preferences still fit current policy goals. The committee also adopted the proposed final cannabis market study. Staff reported that Washington businesses produced two to three times more cannabis than retailers sold in 2023, and that the Liquor and Cannabis Board’s reporting system is incomplete and unreliable. LCB said it is working toward a new system and concurred with JLARC’s recommendations, though it said the timeline may extend beyond 2026. The committee then began the proposed final report on Department of Health oversight of hospital data reporting, inspections, and complaints, with staff saying DOH was late on most acute care hospital inspections and does not consistently verify third-party inspections or fully review complaint and reporting issues; DOH concurred with the recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> climate change mitigation and adaptation climate change mitigation and adaptation commission<00:
• </c><00:30:30.559><c> commission</c> change mitigation adaptation commission change mitigation adaptation
• and the adaptation pathways, outlining that not every place is the same.
• This has to be done on a regional basis, which identifies that different adaptation Different adaptation
• So over time you may go from adapting through flood May go from adapting through flood proofing or elevation

Transcript Highlights:

• Navy, have long had a climate change and adaptation plan.
• Then there are the adaptation costs. Case in point, a sewer line failure.
• The adaptation has to be durable as well as affordable and adaptive.
• And that's why we're requiring the climate change adaptation plans.
• Climate adaptation is preparing for the impacts of climate change.

Summary: The hearing of the Select Committee on Sea Level Rise and the California Economy focused on the impacts of rising seas on coastal infrastructure, pollution, public health, access, and local economies, with an emphasis on San Diego and broader statewide examples. Chair Tasha Boerner opened by describing sea level rise, flooding, bluff collapse, and the state’s sea level rise action planning, and noted her prior bills that helped launch a Scripps bluff-collapse early warning pilot. Panel one featured Dr. Mark Merrifield of Scripps and Dave Gibson of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, who described accelerating sea level rise, groundwater rise, flooding, erosion, and risks to sewage, transportation, ports, and contaminated sites. Gibson stressed that agencies are already adapting through permits, climate resolutions, stormwater updates, and infrastructure planning, but said the work will require major funding, better mapping, and streamlined permitting. Members then discussed early warning systems, groundwater inundation, federal funding uncertainty, and how state authority might fill gaps left by changing federal clean water rules. Boerner and Assembly Members David Alvarez and Jessica Caloza highlighted that sea level rise affects inland communities too, and asked about local mapping, long-term planning, and the cost of protecting or relocating vulnerable infrastructure. Former Imperial Beach Mayor Serge Dedina said the city had the maps and plans but needed money, and urged faster permitting and more investment in protective projects. The panel also discussed the tension between environmental mitigation and urgent adaptation, with Gibson suggesting expanded mitigation banks and state revolving fund support, while Boerner and others noted the need to prioritize projects that protect communities and public health over bureaucratic delay. Panel two shifted to public health, equitable access, and local economies. Ramon Chiras of Un Mar de Colores described outdoor equity work that introduces children and families, especially from historically excluded communities, to the ocean and teaches water safety and stewardship. He said sea level rise, pollution, and access restrictions threaten cultural continuity and free community programs, especially in places like Imperial Beach and the Tijuana River Valley. Jessica Fane of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission described how sea level rise threatens Bay Area tourism, airports, roads, ports, and neighborhoods built on fill, estimating roughly $96 billion in adaptation costs versus $230 billion in potential losses if no action is taken. She said BCDC is working under SB 272 on regional shoreline adaptation plans, local government coordination, and regulatory innovation, while emphasizing the need for sustained funding and science. In the final panel, the Port of San Diego’s Philip Gibbons began describing the port’s climate adaptation work, including vulnerabilities to king tides, storm drain backflow, and long-term inundation that could affect roads, buildings, terminals, and parks. He said the port is using climate planning to assess risks and prepare for sea level rise while maintaining maritime commerce, recreation, and environmental stewardship. The hearing ended with a shared call for more funding, better data, streamlined permitting, and coordinated state, local, and federal action to protect coastal communities and infrastructure.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'd like to ask about the automotive adaptive equipment for veterans.
• equipment, must be partially reimbursed by this federal automobile adaptive equipment grant.
• To give you a parallel from 2025, we evaluated the disabled veteran adapted housing grants, where we
• did find that there were adapted housing grants made at the federal level to Washington veterans, but
• Need for adaptive equipment for veterans who are not eligible for the federal grant.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee met on September 17, 2025, welcomed new members, and initially lacked a quorum until Representative Berg arrived. The committee adopted the July 15/16 meeting minutes and discussed a proposed 2026 meeting schedule, including possible changes to address the heavy July workload from tax exemption reviews. Staff then presented the annual lodging tax expenditures report, which showed 213 municipalities received distributions in 2024, 91% reporting compliance, about $114 million awarded for more than 1,700 activities, and over 115 million attendees reported. Several members questioned the self-reported nature of the data and whether the report had enough value; the executive committee indicated it may recommend removing the lodging tax reporting requirement from statute because it is not a compliance tool and consumes significant staff time. The committee next heard the preliminary performance audit of the Office of Privacy and Data Protection. Staff said OPDP generally meets its statutory responsibilities and is well regarded by users, but its statute should be updated to match its current capacity and focus. The audit found OPDP’s work is largely centered on state agencies, with limited public outreach and some overlap with other entities on broadband and privacy education. Two recommendations were presented: review and update OPDP’s statutory duties, including broadband reporting and public outreach, and develop performance measures that better assess long-term privacy outcomes rather than just outputs. Committee members asked about FERPA and other federal privacy laws, and OPDP staff said they can provide broader privacy training and would be willing to offer more specific training if requested. The committee adopted the final report on Washington State recreational boating programs without opposition. Staff reported that boating-related revenues in 2021–23 totaled $108 million, with 53% directed to general government and transportation accounts and 47% to boating programs or projects; no recommendations were made. Members asked about boater education outcomes and agency overlap, and staff and agency representatives said education appears to have reduced fatalities and that the six involved agencies have distinct roles coordinated through a quarterly work group. Finally, staff presented planned study questions for upcoming reviews of L&I’s enforcement of farm worker labor laws, DNR’s Eastern Washington sustainable harvest calculation, and seven 2026 tax preference performance reviews. Members raised scope questions about the farm worker study and whether it should be framed around agricultural workers, and staff said they would follow the legislative mandate and could consider any future clarification. For the DNR review, staff said they are tracking DNR’s ongoing harvest calculation and will assess whether its data and methods align with best practices, while noting that future wildfire or other disturbances are outside the study’s scope. The tax preference review discussion covered the seven preferences to be studied in 2026, including data centers, Main Street credits, equitable access to credit, private airplane sales, landfill gas equipment, adaptive equipment for disabled veterans, and a real estate excise tax exemption for supported living transfers; members asked about equity, environmental impacts, and how staff would evaluate eligibility and savings. The meeting adjourned before noon.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center, or NECASC, focuses... ...how climate change interacts
• The Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center, or NECASC, focuses on developing science to support
• We've overseen more than 170 climate adaptation research projects.
• UMass Amherst and co-director of the now unfunded Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center.
• My position is fully funded by the Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center, or NICASC.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies

Summary: The committee on Economic Development held a hearing on the DRIVE Act, a proposal to invest $400 million in Massachusetts research and innovation without new taxes. Governor Healey and administration officials said the bill would direct $200 million to public higher education research and regional partnerships and $200 million to a research funding pool for hospitals, universities, and other institutions, with the goal of retaining talent, leveraging private and philanthropic dollars, and offsetting major federal R&D cuts. They argued that research is a core economic engine for the state, supporting jobs across labs, construction, services, and surrounding businesses, and said the bill would help protect the Commonwealth’s tax base and competitiveness during a period of federal uncertainty and cuts to SNAP, Medicaid, and other programs. Committee members raised concerns about whether Fair Share surtax dollars should instead be used for K-12 and other community needs, whether the proposal is enough given the scale of lost federal grants, and how the money would be allocated. The governor responded that the funds are one-time surplus dollars, that most surtax revenue already supports education, and that the bill is meant as a bridge to stabilize public higher education and research. She also said the legislation includes a review board and could support a revolving or matched-fund approach in some cases. Several members pressed for more detail on selection criteria, future funding, and whether private companies and large endowments should contribute more. University of Massachusetts leaders and researchers testified that federal grant cancellations and delays are already causing layoffs, furloughs, rescinded admissions, and lost research capacity. UMass officials said the bill would help preserve faculty, postdocs, graduate students, and research programs in medicine, climate science, marine science, Braille instruction, and AI decision-making. They emphasized that the funding should be merit-based and that the state needs to act quickly to prevent talent from leaving Massachusetts. Business, labor, and industry groups, including MassBio, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, AIM, the AFL-CIO, and Building Trades, supported the bill, saying it would protect jobs, sustain the innovation ecosystem, and reinforce Massachusetts’ national leadership in research and life sciences. No vote was taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Navy, have long had a climate change and adaptation plan.
• Then there are the adaptation costs. Case in point, a sewer line failure.
• The adaptation has to be durable as well as affordable and adaptive.
• And that's why we're requiring the climate change adaptation plans.
• Climate adaptation is preparing for the impacts of climate change.

Summary: The hearing of the Select Committee on Sea Level Rise and the California Economy focused on infrastructure, pollution, climate resilience, public health, access, and economic impacts of sea level rise in California, with an emphasis on San Diego and the Bay Area. Chair Tasha Boerner Horvath opened by describing the committee’s purpose, the state’s sea level rise action planning, and the need for better monitoring and early warning systems. She also referenced her prior bills AB 66 and AB 72, which supported Scripps research on coastal bluff collapse warning capabilities. Assembly Members David Alvarez and Jessica Caloza later joined and emphasized that sea level rise affects not only coastal communities but inland areas as well, and that the issue should inform future legislative and budget decisions. In the first panel, Dr. Mark Merrifield of Scripps Institution of Oceanography described observed sea level rise of roughly 0.8 to 0.9 feet since the early 1900s, with acceleration expected by mid-century and potentially much greater rise by 2100 depending on emissions. He highlighted flooding, groundwater rise, beach and cliff erosion, salinization, and risks to transportation, sewage, ports, and national security. Dave Gibson of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board discussed how sea level rise affects wastewater systems, stormwater, contaminated sites, wetlands, and coastal groundwater basins, and said the board is requiring climate adaptation planning, updating stormwater permits, and seeking more flexible state permitting and mitigation tools. Members and witnesses also discussed the need for better mapping, more monitoring, and more state funding, especially if federal support from NOAA and other agencies declines. The second panel addressed public health, equitable access, and local economies. Ramon Chiras of Un Mar de Colores described how sea level rise, pollution, and access barriers threaten the Tijuana River Valley and Imperial Beach, especially for underserved communities and youth programs that rely on safe, welcoming access to the ocean. He stressed the cultural and spiritual importance of coastal access and the need for water safety and environmental education. Jessica Fane of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission explained that the Bay Area faces major economic exposure from sea level rise, citing a regional estimate of $96 billion in adaptation costs versus $230 billion in potential losses from inaction, and said BCDC is working with local governments under SB 272 on shoreline adaptation planning, funding, and regulatory innovation. Members discussed the tension between environmental permitting and the need to move projects faster, including the possibility of planned retreat in some areas and the use of simultaneous permitting and longer-term state authority to streamline adaptation work. In the final panel, Philip Gibbons of the Port of San Diego described the port’s climate adaptation efforts and its vulnerability assessments under AB 691. He said the port manages state tidelands, supports maritime commerce and recreation, and is already seeing flooding at king tides and during El Niño events, including storm-drain backflow and damage to bikeways and parks. He explained that future sea level rise could inundate major port areas and disrupt operations, underscoring the need for continued planning, mitigation, and infrastructure investment. The hearing did not take formal votes, but it concluded with a clear call for more science, funding, coordination, and regulatory streamlining to prepare California’s coast and nearby communities for worsening sea level rise impacts.