Transcript Highlights:

• And there's, I've seen cases where a finished metal plant, a metal finishing plant, they use a surfactant
• , usable assets, clean electricity, clean fuel, clean biochar and hydrochar, and most importantly, water
• , clean fuel, clean and some of the best biochar and hydrochar, but you will also find a leadership A
• It stays in the bottom of that plant.
• , clean fuel, that's clean diesel, light gasoline, RFO, and SA, biochar and hydrochar, which are organic

Summary: The committee hearing focused on biosolids, sewage sludge, and PFAS contamination, with the opening remarks and first three presenters arguing that land application of municipal sludge poses serious risks to soil, water, livestock, and human health. Representative Shaw cited EPA and state data on detected pollutants and PFAS in biosolids, while Denise Travick Poyer described her background in chemical engineering and PFAS work and said the EPA’s draft sewage sludge risk assessment shows unacceptable risk at very low PFOS/PFOA levels. She urged source reduction, more testing, and consideration of total organic fluorine, and noted examples from Michigan where industrial pretreatment and source reduction reduced PFAS in biosolids. Johnson County, Texas Commissioner Larry Woolley and Investigator Dana Ames presented a case study of alleged runoff from land-applied biosolids affecting a ranch, with high PFAS readings in soil, water, fish, cattle tissue, and a stillborn calf, and said the county and state had pursued investigations, lawsuits, and legislative responses. Sandra Trawick of Save Oklahoma Farms and Ranches argued that Oklahoma’s biosolids program relies heavily on Class B sludge, that current rules are outdated, and that land application exposes farms and rural communities to pathogens, chemicals, odors, flies, and runoff; she cited examples from Maine, Texas, Georgia, Michigan, and Oklahoma to support calls for stronger regulation or a ban. After the testimony, members asked about sampling methods, lab testing, EPA limits, and whether the cited PFAS blood levels were comparable to the soil and sludge measurements. Witnesses said the Johnson County samples were collected by a Texas A&M PhD contractor and tested at a single lab, and they explained that the EPA’s 4 parts per trillion figure applied to municipal drinking water standards. Questions also addressed whether sludge is incorporated into soil; Trawick said it had often been left on the surface, though she had seen better disking after public scrutiny. Members asked how biosolids compare with manure and feedlot waste, and witnesses responded that municipal sludge is more contaminated because it includes industrial, hospital, and household waste streams, unlike animal manure. The committee then moved to alternative solutions, hearing from Doug McKinney of Advanced Microbial Solutions, who promoted biological sludge removal using bacteria to reduce sludge volumes and avoid land application, citing cost savings for wastewater plants and correctional facilities. Jason Jepsen of Eden Energy followed with a pitch for an eight-stage waste-to-energy system that converts mixed waste into clean energy, biochar, and reusable products, framing waste as an asset and presenting his company’s technology as a no-land-application alternative.

Transcript Highlights:

• have a senior C citizen discount program have a senior C citizen discount program uh<00:09:40.600
• today after the enaction of the Clean today after the enaction of the Clean Water<00:22:00.120><
• We like to say there's only thing clean is wind and solar, and it's a clean energy, and it's a great
• Big Sandy plant, the demolition for that plant was put on the ratepayer.
• the cold fire plant the Big Sandy plant the cold fire plant the Big Sandy plant the<00:37:29.800

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:04 HB 387 Discussion 01:06 HB 387 Roll Call Vote 28:30 HCR 22 Discussion 29:26 HCR 22 Roll Call Vote 31:09 HB 519 Discussion 35:36 HB 519 Roll Call Vote 38:37, 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 387, which would amend MSD governance and spending rules in Louisville. The sponsor said the bill was intended to add oversight and accountability in response to large MSD rate increases, though the original rate-approval provision had been removed because of concerns about contracts and bond ratings in Oldham and Bullitt counties. MSD Executive Director Tony Parrott testified that MSD is a public utility serving more than 800,000 people through wastewater, stormwater, and flood protection services, and argued that most rate pressure comes from federal and state mandates tied to a consent decree and other orders. He said MSD already provides annual notice and bond approvals through Metro Council, offers customer assistance programs, and needs flexibility for advertising, public notices, recruitment, and compliance. Members discussed stormwater funding, aging infrastructure, flood control, and the bill’s limits on advertising and other expenditures. The committee substitute was adopted and the bill passed on a roll call vote. The committee then considered House Concurrent Resolution 22, as substituted, which expressed support for exploring nuclear energy and included language noting Kentucky’s ability to use nuclear waste, uranium tailings, and spent fuel in ways described by the sponsor as cleaner. Supporters said Kentucky faces an energy shortage and that nuclear, including small modular reactors, should be part of the state’s future energy mix. Some members said they would support the resolution but wanted a feasibility study or noted that it does not carry the force of law. The resolution passed. Finally, the committee began House Bill 519, sponsored by Representative Fugate, which would prevent utility companies from passing demolition costs for retired coal-fired or fossil-fuel plants on to ratepayers. The sponsor cited sharply rising electricity bills in eastern Kentucky, the decline in coal employment, and the burden of demolition costs from the Big Sandy plant being placed on customers. He argued that utilities should absorb those costs rather than shifting them to ratepayers. The bill was introduced with a motion and second, and the committee was preparing to hear further questions and testimony when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, to help us grow those programs.
• So the further we can get into the school programs, we do a lot of educational programs, a lot of the
• We have programs in each program.
• Upgrade plants.
• Uh, we also have a large dow plant, Firestone. Multiple other plants. We have 2 large power plants.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then the third program is an Appalachian grant program.
• In fact, these data were so stark in Worcester that the state developed an ambitious tree-planting program
• Nationally, Massachusetts has taken a lead in supporting urban tree-planting programs across the Commonwealth
• Nationally, Massachusetts has taken a lead in supporting urban tree planting programs across the Commonwealth
• The Mass Ready Act proposes $30 million in urban forestry and tree planting programs, and these funds

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a hearing on natural and working lands, carbon sequestration, and related provisions in Governor Healey’s $3 billion Mass Ready Act. EEA officials described the bill’s investments in flooding, land protection, tree planting, wetlands restoration, biodiversity, dams, seawalls, and coastal resilience, along with permitting reforms intended to speed ecological restoration projects. They also outlined current programs on resilient lands, healthy soils, forest climate solutions, forest reserves, and urban tree planting, and said the administration expects natural and working lands to offset up to 7 million metric tons of residual emissions by 2050, while acknowledging that additional strategies will be needed to close the gap to the state’s 10-million-ton offset target. Committee members pressed EEA on the cost of reaching the 30% conservation-by-2030 goal, the loss of a federal USDA grant of about $22 million, the adequacy of current sequestration estimates, and whether the state should consider regional approaches or statutory changes. EEA said current state conservation spending has been about $35 million to $40 million annually, that the Mass Ready Act is intended to help double the pace of conservation, and that federal funding remains uncertain. Senators also raised concerns about PILOT payments for state-owned land, the management of state forests, and the proposed Chapter 91 general license for restoration projects. EEA said the bill’s forest reserve language is meant to create a more durable designation process while still allowing limited active management. Advocates from The Nature Conservancy and Mass Audubon supported stronger investment in land conservation and restoration, saying natural and working lands are a cost-effective climate strategy that also provides biodiversity, water quality, and public health benefits. They urged passage of legislation to increase funding, improve PILOT equity, and strengthen land-use planning and mitigation requirements. They also backed removing Chapter 91 licensing requirements for ecological restoration, arguing that the current process adds cost and delay. In a later panel, a forest scientist and an urban forestry advocate emphasized the carbon and cooling benefits of mature trees, called for greater protection of older forests, and supported bills to expand municipal reforestation and modernize public shade tree law. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The city's first desalination plant.
• So the further we can get into the school programs, we do a lot of educational programs, a lot of the
• STEM programs.
• We also have a large Dow plant, Firestone. multiple other plants.
• technical assistance programs. programs have already been benefiting role systems.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:10:58.160> The<00:10:58.399> clean<00:10:58.640> energy The clean energy
• all said this coal plant is expensive. all said this coal plant is expensive.
• That's not about clean energy, clean electricity. That's just about electricity.
• That's not about clean energy,<00:37:07.119> clean<00:37:07.440> electricity.
• pushed so hard on moving to clean. pushed so hard on moving to clean.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Were you with the program then? Have you been with the program since its inception?
• Okay, I have been with the program before it was even a program, a pilot, and that was 1985.
• We have a program. This is one of several programs, but probably...
• 80 growers who've been part of this program, and the program is growing.
• and the program is growing.

Bills: HF3692

Keywords: Farmer-Lender Mediation Act, mediation, agriculture finance, debt relief, civil law, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So along with that, we have programs such as DSGS, ELRP, and some of the non-ratepayer-funded programs
• A number of these programs at the CPUC include air conditioning cycling programs, capacity bidding programs
• That includes some potential ratepayer programs, but non-emergency programs such as the non-emergency
• Taxpayers have paid approximately $13 million per month to keep the plant available, despite the plant
• So hoping that we can find some additional dollars to extend that program and allow that successful program

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy heard SB 1259, which would require refineries to provide advance closure and remediation planning information, and SB 1425, which would authorize the High-Speed Rail Authority to create a permit process for encroachments in its right of way. The committee also held an informational hearing on California electricity reliability and the future of the Strategic Reliability Reserve. The chair opened by noting the hearing room change, testimony limits, and that the committee would proceed without a quorum at first, then later established quorum for votes. On SB 1259, Senator Blake Spear argued the bill would give communities and state agencies needed information to plan for refinery closures, cleanup, and land reuse, comparing the requirement to estate planning. Supporters, including Benicia City Councilmember Carrie Birdseye and UC Santa Barbara professor Ranjit Schmook, said the bill would help communities facing refinery closures avoid being left without information and better prepare for redevelopment and remediation. Opponents, including the Western States Petroleum Association, the State Building and Construction Trades Council, and business groups, argued the bill could send negative market signals, create conflicts with federal reporting, and potentially accelerate refinery closures. The committee passed SB 1259 on a 7-3 vote, later reopening the roll and recording additional votes before moving it out as amended to Appropriations. On SB 1425, Senator Cortese and sponsor Robert Pearsall said the bill would help the High-Speed Rail Authority manage utility, broadband, drainage, and vegetation encroachments along the project corridor and reduce delays. Labor and construction groups supported the measure as a way to add certainty and speed project delivery. Utilities and local agencies, including LADWP, Southern California Gas, Southern California Edison, PG&E, and others, opposed unless amended, saying the bill needed clearer language on emergencies, existing agreements, and potential impacts on their own rights of way and service obligations. After discussion about emergency language and utility coordination, the committee passed SB 1425 as amended to Appropriations on a 10-3 vote. In the oversight hearing, CEC, CPUC, CAISO, and DWR officials reported that California’s summer reliability outlook is better than in prior years, with substantial new procurement, storage, and demand-response resources added since 2020. They said the state is projected to meet its summer reliability standard and has not needed a flex alert for three straight years, but cautioned that extreme heat, fire, hydro conditions, and federal policy uncertainty still pose risks. Officials emphasized that the current Strategic Reliability Reserve remains important as a backstop, while longer-term planning must address rising demand from electrification and data centers and the eventual retirement of emergency resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• So there are really a variety of programs that are supporting, as well as tree plant...
• Sure, so this is for the Chapter 61 program, the current use program.
• To begin, I want to emphasize the importance of the $20 million for DCR tree planting programs and the
• $10 million for the EEA tree planting grant programs.
• In addition, we started a native plant program that is converting lawns into meadows that support wildlife

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on the Healey-Driscoll administration’s Mass Ready Act, a $3 billion environmental bond bill. Administration officials said the bill would fund climate resilience, clean water, land conservation, parks, PFAS remediation, food security infrastructure, and coastal and inland flood protection, while also streamlining permitting for housing, restoration, and other resilience projects. They emphasized that the bond authorizes spending but does not itself obligate it, and said the proposal includes deauthorizations as housekeeping. Committee members asked about the new Resilience Revolving Fund, flood and drought management, MVP funding, land acquisition, Chapter 61 right-of-first-refusal changes, salt marsh carbon sequestration, and how the bill would help smaller municipalities and offset expected federal funding losses. Officials said the revolving fund would be managed through EEA and the Clean Water Trust, with criteria aimed at directing aid to communities most in need, and noted that drought issues would continue to be handled through existing DEP and drought commission tools. Several committee members and witnesses discussed specific policy provisions, including flood disclosure requirements for homebuyers and renters, expanded authority for regional planning and small-town access to grants, and permitting reforms that would exempt or expedite certain environmental restoration and priority housing projects from more time-consuming review processes. Administration witnesses defended the reforms as a way to achieve the same environmental outcomes faster and with more certainty, while some advocates argued the bill should go further, especially on Chapter 91 and restoration permitting. The administration also described investments in DCR facilities, water and wastewater systems, open space, agricultural easements, and a new focus on blue carbon and salt marsh restoration. Public testimony largely supported the bill. Mass Audubon, the Trustees of Reservations, the Environmental League of Massachusetts, The Nature Conservancy, MAPC, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, municipal officials, and others praised the bill’s resilience, conservation, and water infrastructure investments. Some witnesses urged additional funding for land protection, coastal resilience, buyouts, and restoration, and several called for stronger or simpler permitting reforms. Municipal witnesses from Boston, Beckett, Beverly, Conway, and regional planning organizations stressed the need for flexible financing, especially for small and rural communities facing costly infrastructure and climate adaptation projects. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided; the committee heard testimony and asked questions before moving on to additional panels.

Transcript Highlights:

• professions programs and schools. professions programs and schools.
• this this program. this this program.
• . programs. programs.
• , expanding that program.
• programs.

Bills: HB20, HB276, HB644, HB812, HB816, HB916, HB1131, HB1247, HB1518, HB1525, HB1537, HB1541, HB1546, HB1553, HB1562, HB1565, HB1566, HB1576, HB1577, HB1591, HB1605, HB1612, HB1613, HB1614, HB1618, HB1620, HB1650, HB1656, HB1658, HB1661, HB1664, HB1668, HB1676, HB1707, HB1711, HB1713, HB1715, HB1718, HB1727, HB1749, HB1756, HB1774, HB1776, HB1801, HB1802, HB1805, HB1813, HB1815, HB1831, HB1838, HB1853, HB1854, HB1859, HB1863, HB1871, HB1872, HB1918, HB1920, HB1952, HB1965, HB1966, HB1967, HB1969, HB1972, HB1973, HB1974, HB1975, HB1980, HB1985, HB2005, HB2023, HB2031, HB2033, HB2062, HB2113, HB2114, HB2116, HB2138, HB2139, HB2156, HB2158, HB2159, HB2171, HB2208, HB2268, HB2270, HB2272, HB2273, HB2276, HB2289, HB2310, HB2315, HB2335, HB2338, HB2339, HB2340, HB2343, HB2361, HB2384, HB2387, SB2338, SB2431, SB2438, SB2593, SB2907, SB2671, SB2321, SB3084, SB2401, SB3033, SB2972, SB3032, SB2806, SB3014, SB2108, SB2981, SB2973, SB2423, SB2078, SB2322, SB2397, SB2896, SB2088, SB2347, SB2408, SB2970, SB2851, SB2713, SB2697, SB2312, SB2192, SB2363, SB2530, SB3028, SB2024, SB3007, SB2599, SB2596, SB2662, SB2930, SB3334, SB2378, SB3019, SB3231, SB2240, SB2372, SB2175, SB2046, SB2298, SB2922, SB2835, SB3263, SB2174, SB2128, SB2006, SB2489, SB3134, SB2982, SB2425, SB2849, SB2797, SB2795, SB2575, SB2521, SB2765, SB2386, SB2852, SB2022, SB2117, SB2277, SB2387, SB2688, SB2885, SB3132, SB3219, SB2169, SB2591, SB2090, SB2983, SB888, SB3249, SB2611, SB2429, SB2463, SB3154, SB3131, SB3152, SB3315, SB2448, SB2054, SB2140, SB2520, SB2377, SB2986, SB2010, SB2189, SB2026, SB3010, SB2818, SB2002

Keywords: lava insurance, homeowners, insurance market, subsidy, Hawaii, condominiums, annual report, filing fee, real estate, developer, residency, property regime, PFAS, single-use plastics, environmental health, food ware, pollution reduction, local produce, agriculture, Hawaii Revised Statutes

Transcript Highlights:

• Speed cameras were sold to the public as a safety program.
• Speed cameras were sold to the public as a safety program.
• public as Speed cameras were sold to the public as a<00:11:04.400> safety<00:11:04.880> program
• the<00:11:06.120> state<00:11:06.480> sent<00:11:06.760> it a safety program
• Then the state sent it a safety program.

Bills: HB20, HB276, HB644, HB812, HB816, HB916, HB1131, HB1247, HB1518, HB1525, HB1537, HB1541, HB1546, HB1553, HB1562, HB1565, HB1566, HB1576, HB1577, HB1591, HB1605, HB1612, HB1613, HB1614, HB1618, HB1620, HB1650, HB1656, HB1658, HB1661, HB1664, HB1668, HB1676, HB1707, HB1711, HB1713, HB1715, HB1718, HB1727, HB1749, HB1756, HB1774, HB1776, HB1801, HB1802, HB1805, HB1813, HB1815, HB1831, HB1838, HB1853, HB1854, HB1859, HB1863, HB1871, HB1872, HB1918, HB1920, HB1952, HB1965, HB1966, HB1967, HB1969, HB1972, HB1973, HB1974, HB1975, HB1980, HB1985, HB2005, HB2023, HB2031, HB2033, HB2062, HB2113, HB2114, HB2116, HB2138, HB2139, HB2156, HB2158, HB2159, HB2171, HB2208, HB2268, HB2270, HB2272, HB2273, HB2276, HB2289, HB2310, HB2315, HB2335, HB2338, HB2339, HB2340, HB2343, HB2361, HB2384, HB2387, SB2338, SB2431, SB2438, SB2593, SB2907, SB2671, SB2321, SB3084, SB2401, SB3033, SB2972, SB3032, SB2806, SB3014, SB2108, SB2981, SB2973, SB2423, SB2078, SB2322, SB2397, SB2896, SB2088, SB2347, SB2408, SB2970, SB2851, SB2713, SB2697, SB2312, SB2192, SB2363, SB2530, SB3028, SB2024, SB3007, SB2599, SB2596, SB2662, SB2930, SB3334, SB2378, SB3019, SB3231, SB2240, SB2372, SB2175, SB2046, SB2298, SB2922, SB2835, SB3263, SB2174, SB2128, SB2006, SB2489, SB3134, SB2982, SB2425, SB2849, SB2797, SB2795, SB2575, SB2521, SB2765, SB2386, SB2852, SB2022, SB2117, SB2277, SB2387, SB2688, SB2885, SB3132, SB3219, SB2169, SB2591, SB2090, SB2983, SB888, SB3249, SB2611, SB2429, SB2463, SB3154, SB3131, SB3152, SB3315, SB2448, SB2054, SB2140, SB2520, SB2377, SB2986, SB2010, SB2189, SB2026, SB3010, SB2818, SB2002

Keywords: lava insurance, homeowners, insurance market, subsidy, Hawaii, condominiums, annual report, filing fee, real estate, developer, residency, property regime, PFAS, single-use plastics, environmental health, food ware, pollution reduction, local produce, agriculture, Hawaii Revised Statutes

Transcript Highlights:

• Others visiting here this week in Hawaii through a program hosted by the University of West Oahu, where
• they are participating in English language cultural learning programs along with educational tours across
• <00:05:11.040> a here this week in Hawaii through a here this week in Hawaii through a program
• hosted by the University of West program hosted by the University of West Oahu,<00:05:13.840> where
• along with educational tours programs along with educational tours across<00:05:19.640> Oahu.

Bills: HB20, HB276, HB644, HB812, HB816, HB916, HB1131, HB1247, HB1518, HB1525, HB1537, HB1541, HB1546, HB1553, HB1562, HB1565, HB1566, HB1576, HB1577, HB1591, HB1605, HB1612, HB1613, HB1614, HB1618, HB1620, HB1650, HB1656, HB1658, HB1661, HB1664, HB1668, HB1676, HB1707, HB1711, HB1713, HB1715, HB1718, HB1727, HB1749, HB1756, HB1774, HB1776, HB1801, HB1802, HB1805, HB1813, HB1815, HB1831, HB1838, HB1853, HB1854, HB1859, HB1863, HB1871, HB1872, HB1918, HB1920, HB1952, HB1965, HB1966, HB1967, HB1969, HB1972, HB1973, HB1974, HB1975, HB1980, HB1985, HB2005, HB2023, HB2031, HB2033, HB2062, HB2113, HB2114, HB2116, HB2138, HB2139, HB2156, HB2158, HB2159, HB2171, HB2208, HB2268, HB2270, HB2272, HB2273, HB2276, HB2289, HB2310, HB2315, HB2335, HB2338, HB2339, HB2340, HB2343, HB2361, HB2384, HB2387, SB2338, SB2431, SB2438, SB2593, SB2907, SB2671, SB2321, SB3084, SB2401, SB3033, SB2972, SB3032, SB2806, SB3014, SB2108, SB2981, SB2973, SB2423, SB2078, SB2322, SB2397, SB2896, SB2088, SB2347, SB2408, SB2970, SB2851, SB2713, SB2697, SB2312, SB2192, SB2363, SB2530, SB3028, SB2024, SB3007, SB2599, SB2596, SB2662, SB2930, SB3334, SB2378, SB3019, SB3231, SB2240, SB2372, SB2175, SB2046, SB2298, SB2922, SB2835, SB3263, SB2174, SB2128, SB2006, SB2489, SB3134, SB2982, SB2425, SB2849, SB2797, SB2795, SB2575, SB2521, SB2765, SB2386, SB2852, SB2022, SB2117, SB2277, SB2387, SB2688, SB2885, SB3132, SB3219, SB2169, SB2591, SB2090, SB2983, SB888, SB3249, SB2611, SB2429, SB2463, SB3154, SB3131, SB3152, SB3315, SB2448, SB2054, SB2140, SB2520, SB2377, SB2986, SB2010, SB2189, SB2026, SB3010, SB2818, SB2002

Keywords: lava insurance, homeowners, insurance market, subsidy, Hawaii, condominiums, annual report, filing fee, real estate, developer, residency, property regime, PFAS, single-use plastics, environmental health, food ware, pollution reduction, local produce, agriculture, Hawaii Revised Statutes

Transcript Highlights:

• So along with that, we have programs such as DSGS, ELRP, and some of the non-ratepayer-paid programs
• A number of these programs at the CPUC include air conditioning cycling programs, capacity bidding programs
• We have ELRP programs.
• That includes some potential ratepayer programs, but non-emergency programs such as the balancing area
• program to continue.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• flood Hazard mitigation grant program flood Hazard mitigation grant program this<00:09:27.680>
• :29.000> grants this program provides cost share grants this program provides cost share grants
• success of our asset management program success of our asset management program and<00:10:44.240
• units of government that had planted units of government that had planted trees<00:26:12.679>
• this is a statutorily mandated program this is a statutorily mandated program that<00:39:38.440>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• are provided for the construction of clean distributed energy resources and for power plant efficiency
• There's still some non-clean resources, but we're trying to do that with every program.
• It is a clean energy program, and it would be for a state water facility.
• The Demand-Side Grid Support program seeks to pilot program mechanisms to grow clean demand flexibility
• That virtual power plant program started in 2023 and grew dramatically.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The municipal reforestation program bills ask for $100 million to fund tree planting and preservation
• This is why we at Speak for the Trees, through our numerous neighborhood planting programs, focus on
• The program builds on the success of the Greening the Gateway Cities program, which has planted more
• This bill would codify tree-planting programs as a permanent part of state government and give them a
• It'll take at least 10 years for the newly planted trees to begin delivering shade, clean air, and their

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing covered several environment and natural resources bills focused on natural and working lands, forest protection, municipal reforestation, trail accessibility, and a park naming bill. Representative Moschino and Senator Comerford described the natural and working lands bill as part of the state’s climate roadmap, arguing that protecting these lands supports carbon sequestration, resilience, biodiversity, and helps prevent development pressure on the least expensive land. Senator Comerford also testified on a separate bill to expand access to trails for people of all abilities, saying it would build on the administration’s Trails for All initiative and create a permanent advisory structure and trust fund. Representative Consolvo and family members testified in support of H. 4259 to name the tennis courts at Wether Park in Roslindale after Kim O’Connell, describing her long community service and activism. A large portion of the hearing focused on H. 952 and H. 953, bills to protect watershed and state forest lands as parks or reserves. Supporters, including environmental advocates, scientists, and organizations such as Standing Trees, Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, and the Massachusetts Forest Alliance’s opponents, debated whether state forests and watershed lands should be permanently reserved from logging and other active management. Supporters said the bills would improve carbon storage, water quality, biodiversity, flood and drought resilience, and would protect large acreages of public land at no cost. Opponents, including the Massachusetts Forest Alliance, argued that sustainable forest management and a mix of reserves and managed forests are needed for climate, water quality, wildfire prevention, rural jobs, and carbon outcomes, and urged the committee to allow the administration’s existing reserve process to continue. The committee also heard extensive testimony on the municipal reforestation bill, H. 1013/S. 553, which would create a statewide program, advisory council, and trust fund to support urban tree planting and maintenance. Municipal officials and advocates from Wellesley, Cambridge, Boston, the Mystic River watershed, and other communities said urban trees are critical for cooling, stormwater control, air quality, public health, and equity, especially in environmental justice neighborhoods with low canopy cover and high heat. Several witnesses emphasized that consistent funding is needed because trees take years to mature and many municipalities lack staff or watering capacity. Some witnesses asked that the bill be funded at $100 million and tied to the Mass Ready Act or environmental bond funding. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Sparks relating to a rural community-based care pilot program.
• HB 1831 by Johnson relating to the eligibility to participate in certain programs.
• HB 1831 relates to drug court programs.
• To the use of funds awarded under the Jobs and Education for Texans grant program.
• Maintenance costs to support career and technical education programs. I move passage.

Bills: HJR98, HJR8, HJR133, HB23, HB33, HB144, HB 109, HB 103, HB148, HB3809, HB1686, HB2217, HB2156, HB220, HB2421, HB2363, HB3773, HB421, HB2584, HB2615, HB2455, HB3711, HB2559, HB3747, HB2775, HB2886, HB3126, HB3666, HB3595, HB3260, HB3506, HB1638, HB3376, HB3826, HB3628, HB1349, HB3770, HB1831, HB1762, HB2614, HB3113, HB267, HB322, HB431, HB869, HB 1203, HB 1201, HB 1244, HB1875, HB1950, HB2152, HB2290, HB2341, HB2436, HB2809, HB2856, HB3012, HB2954, HCR56, HCR102, HB 107, HB1587, HB3684, HB658, HJR99, HB1399, HJR5, HJR2, HJR6, HJR31, HB1971, SJR3, HB1775, HJR72, HB502, HB3109, HJR98, HJR8, HJR133, HB 118, HB388, HB 114, HB205, HB2789, HB2791, HB499, HB2960, HB3163, HB3135, HB2427, HB1618, HB1672, HB1722, HB1338, HB787, HB2618, HB879, HB 1126, HB4134, HB3513, HB718, HB1536, HB1445, HB1640, HB1893, HB1734, HB3229, HB3306, HB 1276, HB3272, HB3276, HB3516, HB4145, HB1585, HB4810, HB2989, HB2558, HB3014, HB2742, HB1695, HB23, HB33, HB144, HB 109, HB 103, HB148, HB3809, HB1686, HB2217, HB2156, HB220, HB2421, HB2363, HB3773, HB421, HB2584, HB2615, HB2455, HB3711, HB2559, HB3747, HB2775, HB2886, HB3126, HB3666, HB3595, HB3260, HB3506, HB1638, HB3376, HB3826, HB3628, HB1349, HB3770, HB1831, HB1762, HB2614, HB3113, HB267, HB322, HB431, HB869, HB 1203, HB 1201, HB 1244, HB1875, HB1950, HB2152, HB2290, HB2341, HB2436, HB2809, HB2856, HB3012, HB2954, HCR56, HCR102

Keywords: Article V, federal government, fiscal restraints, constitutional amendment, term limits, nuclear energy, electric generation, funding, Texas nuclear development fund, advanced reactors, HJR 133, Texas constitutional amendment, ad valorem tax, property tax exemption, homestead exemption, surviving spouse, veteran, veterans benefits, service-connected death, presumed service-connected condition

Transcript Highlights:

• But we can work on cleaning up contaminated water for reuse.
• for managing carbon and producing clean energy.
• Nutrient reduction: the Clean Water Act does not require wastewater treatment plants to remove nutrients
• So a lot of treatment plants, they look at doing that sort of title So a lot of treatment plants, they
• So we can make some clean water while recovering energy.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Biotechnology and Medical Technology held an informational hearing on the role of biotechnology industries in wastewater treatment, hosted at Bakar Labs on the UC Berkeley campus. Opening remarks emphasized California’s water scarcity, the rising cost of wastewater infrastructure, and the need to reuse and clean contaminated water. Committee members framed the hearing as a look at both current treatment challenges and emerging technologies that could improve water quality, affordability, and resilience over time. The first panel focused on statewide wastewater challenges. BACWA Executive Director Laurie Fono described wastewater plants as part of a broader circular economy, noting their roles in recycled water, environmental enhancement, biosolids management, carbon sequestration, and renewable energy generation. She highlighted major challenges including aging 1970s-era infrastructure, nutrient reduction mandates, sea level rise, evolving regulations, and PFAS source control. She said Bay Area agencies face about $11 billion in nutrient reduction costs, with rate increases, state revolving funds, WIFIA loans, and bonds as the main financing tools. Members asked about regional differences, energy revenue opportunities, smaller decentralized plants, and agricultural collaboration. The second panel featured researchers and lab experts discussing biotechnology solutions. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab’s Dr. Romine Chakarvati described using microbial communities and machine learning to help break down PFAS and treat produced water. CEL Analytical’s Dr. Yigi Dearborn explained pathogen testing for direct potable reuse, wastewater monitoring, and the need for larger sample volumes and more funding to validate methods for viruses and protozoa. Stanford’s Dr. Chunhung-Shin presented an anaerobic membrane system that turns domestic wastewater into clean water and energy with less biosolids and lower operating costs. Committee members asked about AI, assay development, scaling technologies, and funding priorities. Public comment from the California Association of Sanitation Agencies stressed the need to balance scalability, reliability, and affordability, and the hearing adjourned without any formal vote or action.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's a pretty important program.
• That's a pretty important program.
• That's a pretty important program.
• operator training program. operator training program.
• That's our active water treatment plant. When I walked inside that plant, I was taken back.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The meeting began with roll call, adoption of the minutes, and brief remarks, including birthday recognition for Representative Maseroni and a moment of reflection for a soldier who died during training at Fort Knox. The committee then heard a presentation from Tony Hatton, commissioner of the Department for Environmental Protection and acting director of the Kentucky Division of Water, with Amanda Lefer, deputy commissioner, on the state’s water and wastewater programs and planning. Hatton described Kentucky’s water resources and the Division of Water’s responsibilities, including watershed and nonpoint source work, KPDES discharge permitting, PFAS response, engineering review of water infrastructure, inspections, public outreach, and sampling. He said Kentucky has 428 public water systems, 263 water treatment plants, about 1.9 million service connections, and nearly 97% of the population has access to municipally treated water. He also noted that the state has 43 systems receiving awards for EPA areawide optimization and emphasized operator training, regionalization, and use of GIS mapping and Kentucky Infrastructure Authority data to support planning and funding decisions. Members raised concerns about aging infrastructure, water loss, staffing shortages, and wastewater problems in local systems. Representative Blandon described severe failures in a city system, including major water loss and sewer backups, and asked whether the state could intervene; Hatton said the division inspects treatment facilities and provides compliance assistance but is not authorized to manage delivery systems, though third-party help and emergency funding can be used in some cases. Senator Smith and others shared similar experiences with line loss and system failures, while Hatton pointed to regionalization and funding support as the main tools available. The discussion also highlighted PFAS as an emerging issue, with Hatton saying the department is working with systems to meet anticipated federal requirements by 2029.

Transcript Highlights:

• You were talking about states doing pilot programs. We do pilot programs. We do pilot programs.
• of these plants.
• of these plants.
• And lastly, program evaluation.
• plant, anything like that.

Summary: The Advanced Nuclear Energy Committee met to review prior minutes and hear a series of presentations on advanced nuclear technology and state readiness. The committee approved the April 21, 2022 minutes. Nucleon’s William Bridge outlined the advanced nuclear landscape, distinguishing near-term light-water SMRs from more advanced Gen 4 reactors and microreactors, and emphasized that fuel supply, especially HALEU, remains a developing supply chain. He said light-water designs are the most deployable in the near term, while advanced reactors may be better suited for industrial heat applications and could face a 2- to 3-year delay from fuel availability. Representatives from NASEO described how other states are supporting advanced nuclear through task forces, roadmaps, pilot programs, financing tools, workforce and supply-chain efforts, and regional coordination. They highlighted the Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative and stressed that states are focusing early on emergency preparedness, community engagement, waste management, affordability, and consumer protections. They also noted that some states are creating nuclear-ready community programs and cost-recovery guardrails, while public utility commissions are examining long-term lifecycle costs and rate impacts. North Dakota agencies then outlined their potential roles. The Public Service Commission said it would likely be involved in public-interest review, siting, and rate regulation, but noted current statutes may not fully address long-term nuclear projects, co-location, or decommissioning. The Department of Environmental Quality said it would continue to regulate radioactive materials and likely support emergency planning, while fission reactor oversight remains federal. The Department of Emergency Services said it would serve as the lead off-site preparedness agency, needing a radiological emergency program, training, exercises, equipment, and possibly industry funding. The Department of Water Resources said North Dakota has sufficient surface water, especially from the Missouri River, but that water planning would be important; it did not recommend statutory or budget changes at this time. The committee recessed for lunch after these presentations, with no additional votes or actions taken.