Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:01:34.680><c> solar</c> be on line 1.6 after solar solar be on line 1.6 after solar solar photovoltaic
• </c> in the Solar in the Solar Arena<00:03:34.080><c> uh</c><00:03:34.239><c> met</c><00:03:34.640><c
• </c><00:05:06.520><c> components</c> efforts on making sure solar components efforts on making sure solar
• </c> npca to put together report on solar npca to put together report on solar Recycling<00:05:22.479
• </c><00:14:10.720><c> panel</c> can effectively address solar panel can effectively address solar panel

Committee: House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So solar is already illegal to use eminent domain.
• Why is it just wind and solar? Because in Missouri right now... ...wind and solar?
• Because in Missouri right now, mainly solar, more than wind.
• Solar seems to be the fad right now in rural Missouri.
• , that they don't want solar around their property.

Committee: House Special Committee on Rural Issues

Summary: The Special Committee on Rural Issues met with a quorum and heard testimony on several measures focused on agriculture, broadband, public health administration, and utility eminent domain. Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1383, sponsored by Senator Barbara Washington, would expand a DESE agricultural education pilot program from 20 schools to allow voluntary K-12 agriculture curriculum statewide. Washington said the bill builds on a successful pilot and is intended to help students understand agriculture as a STEM field and broader community issue. Missouri Farm Bureau, Missouri N.A., Missouri Corn Growers Association, Missouri Soybean Association, Missouri Cattlemen’s Association, and Missouri Pork Association all testified in support; there was no opposition, and the hearing closed without a vote. The committee also heard House Concurrent Resolution 38 from Representative Louis Riggs, which urges that Missouri’s broadband funding remain in the state and be used for deployment. Riggs said Missouri received $1.7 billion in broadband funding but that more than half had been cut or left uncertain, and he argued the money should stay in Missouri to bridge the digital divide. Missouri Farm Bureau and Missouri Electric Cooperatives supported the resolution, and there was no opposition testimony. The committee then heard House Bill 1699 from Representative Maisie Christensen, a constituent-driven bill to clarify when county health officers/directors’ authority ends if they are not reappointed. Christensen explained the bill addresses ambiguity in older statutes governing different county public health structures; no witnesses testified for or against the bill. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 2169 from Representative Brad Pollitt, which would bar electrical corporations from using eminent domain for wind or solar generation facilities while still allowing grid connection. Pollitt and Farm Bureau argued the bill closes a loophole and protects landowners from having property taken for large renewable projects; Missouri Soybean Association and Missouri Corn Growers Association also supported the measure. Ameren testified for informational purposes only, saying it has no plans to use eminent domain for wind or solar and appreciates the grid-connection language. Several members debated whether the bill should also address nuclear energy or broader utility siting concerns, and one witness noted transmission and battery-storage limitations as reasons renewable projects are not built everywhere. The hearing on HB 2169 closed with no vote taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• The cut in bills is driven by the solar panels.
• panels on your roof or using community solar, where somebody else puts the solar panels on their land
• The bills don’t mention community solar for people for whom rooftop solar is not the right option.
• I just tried to look at putting solar in.
• With respect to community solar, Rep.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee hearing focused on a broad set of energy efficiency, building decarbonization, school modernization, and lighting bills. Testimony generally came from municipal leaders, labor unions, environmental groups, and advocates who supported measures such as H. 3529/S. 2294 on building energy and decarbonization, H. 3577/S. 2286 on a zero-carbon renovation fund, H. 3476/S. 2275 on healthy and sustainable schools, H. 3565 on Mass Save zero-carbon assessments, H. 3477 on clean lighting and appliance efficiency standards, and the Dark Sky bills on outdoor lighting. Supporters argued these bills would cut emissions, lower utility bills, improve indoor air quality and school conditions, and direct resources to environmental justice, gateway, and low-income communities. Witnesses emphasized that Massachusetts’ older building stock and school facilities need major upgrades, and that state funding and financing tools are needed to close gaps left by declining federal support. Mayors, labor leaders, and environmental advocates said the proposals would create local jobs, expand apprenticeships, and help municipalities and schools undertake retrofits, ventilation improvements, heat pump installations, and other decarbonization work. Several speakers also defended Mass Save as highly cost-effective while urging new funding sources beyond ratepayer bills for larger-scale building upgrades. One representative asked about the difference between current Mass Save audits and proposed zero-carbon assessments, and the sponsor explained the new assessments would include heat pumps, solar, storage, wiring upgrades, and rate-structure guidance. There was also testimony on the Dark Sky bill, with astronomers and museum representatives arguing that better-shielded, downward-facing lighting would reduce energy waste, protect wildlife and human health, and preserve night skies without compromising safety. Committee members raised concerns about pedestrian safety and whether education might be enough instead of legislation; supporters responded that the bill follows established lighting standards and targets only unnecessary glare and skyward light. On the school bill, an open-shop contractor group opposed the measure, arguing its PLA and apprenticeship requirements would restrict bidding and reduce competition, while labor organizations strongly supported the workforce standards and prevailing wage provisions. No votes were taken during the hearing. The committee heard extensive testimony and several members asked clarifying questions, but the transcript does not show any final action or disposition on the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• A new solar property tax would actually discourage people from doing solar and storage right when we
• A new property tax on solar and batteries doesn't make sense because home solar doesn't increase costs
• I've also been asked to register the support of Altadena Energy and Solar, Brighton Solar, White Pine
• Register the support of Altadena Energy and Solar, Brighton Solar, White Pine Renewables, JKB Energy,
• I'm a solar homeowner that wouldn't have solar unless PG&E smart meters had burned down half my house

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation met as a subcommittee and announced that all bills on the agenda had revenue impacts placing them on the suspense file, so none were eligible for immediate vote. The chair also reviewed procedural rules, including the deadline for position letters and the suspense-file threshold, and later established a quorum before proceeding through the agenda. Most measures were presented, heard, and then referred to suspense without committee votes. Several bills focused on tax credits or exclusions tied to housing and property. AB 1606 proposed a five-year tax credit for small businesses facing cleanup costs from illegal dumping and encampments; AB 1971 would clarify that home-hardening retrofits are not assessable for property tax purposes; AB 2394 would create a capital gains exclusion to encourage long-term homeowners to sell and downsize; AB 1714 would offer a credit for sellers who complete required repairs for CalHFA-assisted first-time buyers; and AB 2389 would extend the property tax exclusion for newly installed solar systems. Supporters generally framed these bills as targeted relief or affordability measures, while opponents raised concerns about revenue loss, policy effectiveness, or implementation. The committee also heard a series of agriculture-related bills. AB 2427 proposed a tax credit for qualified agricultural producers to offset labor, equipment, infrastructure, and production costs, and AB 2192 would extend the state’s farm equipment sales tax exemption to local sales taxes with a General Fund backfill for local governments. Supporters argued both measures would help preserve California agriculture, jobs, and food security amid rising costs and regulatory burdens; opponents questioned the need for the subsidies and the size of the fiscal impact. Both bills were referred to suspense. Other measures included AB 1611, which would end a tax break on capital gains from single-family home sales for large corporate investors to discourage investor competition with homebuyers; AB 2522, which would exempt over-the-counter medications from sales tax; AB 2444, which would add a state deduction for ScholarShare 529 contributions and align California law with federal Roth IRA rollover rules; and AB 1550, which would allow deductions for tips and overtime. Each drew support from sponsors and allied groups, while tax reform and local government representatives opposed several bills over revenue and policy concerns. All of these measures were also sent to the suspense file, and the committee adjourned after completing its agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• device excludes balcony solar.
• </c> energy device uh excludes balcony solar. energy device uh excludes balcony solar.
• Portable solar is not that.
• Are you balcony solar uh in this.
• </c> unlicensed or unscrupulous solar unlicensed or unscrupulous solar contractors?

Committee: Senate Labor and Technology

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint hearing covered SB 2120, which would allow certain state and county employees rehired within one year to transfer accrued vacation and sick leave and extend the break-in-service period for health benefits. Testimony was split: the Department of Human Resources explained current leave payout and pension credit rules and raised concerns about the long transfer window, while labor representatives supported the measure. During decision-making, both committees recommended passage with amendments. The amendments narrowed the bill by changing the break-in-service period to 180 days for leave beginning on or after July 1, 2026, making the benefit transfer voluntary with a 90-day notice deadline, and changing the effective date to January 1, 2077. The recommendations were adopted by vote. The committees also heard SB 2523, an appropriation for the City and County of Honolulu Department of Information Technology to modernize the driver’s license and motor vehicle system. DIT described the current COBOL-based mainframe as decades old, said the project would use a code-share arrangement with Arizona, and estimated a $10 million, two-year conversion and rollout. Members questioned the cost, the city-state funding arrangement, and the feasibility of the project, including whether it would move to a cloud-based system. After testimony, both committees deferred the measure. In the Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs portion, SB 2032 on consumer protection for solar sales drew broad support from the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, the Office of Consumer Protection, the Hawaii Solar Energy Association, and others. Testifiers said the bill was needed in response to misleading solar door-to-door sales and urged amendments to clarify “contractual affiliation,” exclude balcony/portable solar devices, and require disclosure of cash and financed prices. The committee then moved on to SB 2079 on vehicle titles, which had one supporter and one opponent but no testimony in person or online, and SB 2241 on zero-emission vehicles, for which the Hawaii State Energy Office submitted written support. The hearing also began discussion of SB 2579 on water-related grants, where agencies said any program would need clearer statutory standards and likely a feasibility study before implementation.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have some issues with our solar industry.
• So, Glenn Felty, the owner and founder of a small solar company, Sunstate Solar, here in Albuquerque.
• We employ about 100 employees in the solar industry.
• This is where all the action takes place, and our local solar industry provides solar energy storage
• I'm the owner of Ogotillo Solar Electric. another solar installation company in Albuquerque.

Committee: House House Taxation & Revenue

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's called Protecting the Future of Solar Power in California. The solar industry is ready to pay.
• from solar property tax.
• for solar developers in California.
• Some may argue against what they call unique treatment for solar, yet solar is unique.
• solar, yet solar is unique.

Committee: Senate Revenue and Taxation

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• if they're a co-locator and, you know, they're courting a customer on the other side who wants to lease
• So we represent leading owners and operators of data centers in addition to those who lease large amounts
• whether that be for an individual company or, as mentioned earlier, the co-location facilities that lease
• .those customers, they want a commitment that you're going to provide nameplate before they sign a lease
• We have a very robust portfolio of solar, wind, geothermal, some hydro.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Assembly Committees on Utilities and Energy and Privacy and Consumer Protection focused on the energy impacts of AI and the rapid growth of data centers in California. Chairs and members emphasized that the state wants to support innovation and data center development, but only under terms that protect ratepayers, preserve reliability, and avoid stranded grid costs. Testimony from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the California Energy Commission, the CPUC, CAISO, PG&E, Silicon Valley Power, and the Data Center Coalition described the scale of projected load growth, the uncertainty in forecasting, and the need for coordinated planning across agencies. Dr. Nate Gleason of Lawrence Livermore said data centers are a major and fast-growing share of electricity demand, with planning challenges driven by short construction timelines for data centers versus long lead times for transmission and generation. He urged stochastic planning, co-optimization of generation, storage, and transmission, and greater use of flexible load and demand response. CEC Director Alicia Gutierrez described the CEC’s bottom-up forecasting approach, based on utility energization requests and load profiles, and said California has over 23,000 megawatts of data center capacity requests in the CAISO footprint. CPUC Deputy Executive Director Luan Tesfai outlined recent actions on energization timelines, flexible service connections, PG&E’s Rule 30 tariff, and the commission’s resource planning and transmission permitting work. CAISO’s Neil Miller stressed that large loads affect transmission planning, interconnection, and reliability standards, and said the agency is preparing additional stakeholder work on technical issues. Utility and industry witnesses said California is already seeing substantial data center interest and is building out infrastructure accordingly. PG&E’s Mike Medeiros said the utility has more than 10 gigawatts of data center interest in its territory, has shifted to cluster studies, and is using flexible interconnection tools such as FlexConnect to speed service while protecting reliability. Silicon Valley Power’s Nico Prokos said data centers account for about 55% of its power use and that the city is investing heavily in transmission and local system upgrades to support projected load growth. He also warned that AI loads may be more variable than traditional cloud loads and that backup generation and air quality constraints complicate curtailment strategies. The Data Center Coalition’s Karabonder argued that data centers are also driving efficiency gains and support critical digital services, while urging better forecasting methods, more transparency, and regular backcasting. Members asked about statutory authority, data availability, flexible load, and whether current forecasts are sufficient for long-lead infrastructure planning. Witnesses said California already has authority to pursue flexible service and rate design, and that the CEC and CPUC have access to utility data, though out-year demand remains highly uncertain. CPUC representatives noted an advanced rate design rulemaking and said the commission is opening additional work on ratepayer impacts. No votes were taken during the informational hearing, and the discussion ended with continued questions about how California should structure planning, pricing, and reliability rules as AI-related load grows.

Transcript Highlights:

• Or if they're a co-locator and they're courting a customer on the other side who wants to lease space
• We represent leading owners and operators of data centers, in addition to those who lease large amounts
• whether that be for an individual company or, as mentioned earlier, the co-location facilities that lease
• .those customers, they want a commitment that you're going to provide nameplate before they sign a lease
• We have a very robust portfolio of solar, wind, geothermal, and some hydro.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Our solar panels were covered.
• So is there anything in this bill that would ban PFAS for floating solar?
• So if it's distributed solar, then the locality may have some say.
• And who pays the grants to the solar developers? NYSERDA. Thank you.
• And therefore, ORES would not have unilateral power to create solar, floating solar projects, or any

Committee: Senate Energy And Telecommunications

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Energy and Telecommunications considered a large agenda focused mainly on energy affordability, the CLCPA, utility rates, and renewable energy siting. Senator Mattera and other Republican members argued that the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act has driven up utility bills, harmed reliability, and imposed costs on ratepayers, while Democratic members pushed back that rising costs are also driven by natural gas markets, infrastructure costs, and broader economic factors. Several bills sought to repeal or pause CLCPA-related policies, create a CLCPA task force, impose studies or moratoriums on new energy taxes and fees, and increase transparency around utility surcharges and state energy spending. Supporters framed these measures as ratepayer relief and accountability; opponents said some proposals would undermine clean-energy policy and existing consumer-benefit programs. The committee defeated S.1167, which would have repealed the All Electric Building Act, and S.1173, which would have created a CLCPA task force. It also failed S.5250, a bill to study CLCPA costs and impose a moratorium on new energy taxes, fees, or regulations, and S.7075, which would have prohibited the system benefits charge on utility bills. Several other bills advanced, including S.1236A on virtual access and electronic filing for Public Service Commission proceedings, S.1552 establishing reduced residential rates for low-income electric and natural gas customers, S.2484 directing a study of replacement timeframes for battery storage and renewable facilities, S.2638 on carbon allowance auction proceeds, S.3247 on electric vehicle charging stations, S.3553 requiring utilities to post promotional and educational materials on their websites, S.4571A creating a floating solar incentive education program, S.5518 shifting Public Service Commission funding to legislative appropriation, and S.6412A requiring itemized ratepayer disclosure of surcharges. S.9251, on labor-related legal costs, was referred to the Labor Committee. S.7710, which would have restricted energy storage systems near schools and homes in New York City, failed after concerns and support were debated. The committee adjourned after completing the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• I have a 12-kilowatt solar system on my house, a solar electric system.
• The portable solar generation, or balcony solar, limit in the bill is 1,200 watts.
• The balcony can generate some solar energy.
• Washington would be joining a national plug-in solar movement.
• Washington would be joining a national plug-in solar movement.

Summary: The committee heard public hearings on four bills. SB 5982 would expand Clean Energy Transformation Act coverage to include port districts and certain single-customer utilities, and would revise definitions for market customers and affected market customers. Supporters, including environmental groups, Commerce, Ecology, and some port and utility representatives, said it would close loopholes and ensure large loads such as data centers and port-based generation are subject to CETA. Opponents from ports, PUDs, business groups, and industrial consumers argued the bill could sweep in existing single-customer utilities and burden smaller ports or industrial projects. No vote was taken; the chair closed the hearing after noting substantial pro, con, and other testimony. SB 6008 would create a statewide residential battery incentive and flexible demand program administered through Commerce, with higher incentives for low- and moderate-income customers and requirements tied to utility flexible demand programs. Supporters said it would improve grid resilience, lower bills, and help deploy virtual power plants and distributed storage. Utilities and some advocates supported the concept but asked for changes on funding, low-income verification, compensation, deadlines, and program design. No action was taken beyond the public hearing. SB 6050 would allow portable plug-in solar devices and one meter-mounted device per premises, while restricting utilities, landlords, and HOAs from blocking them and setting safety and certification conditions. Supporters called it a low-cost way to expand distributed solar access, especially for renters and lower-income households. Opponents, including labor, utilities, and safety-focused witnesses, raised concerns about fire risk, backfeeding, lack of existing electrical code standards, utility worker safety, and the need for interconnection review. The committee then heard SB 6056, which would direct Ecology to exempt utility service vehicles from certain clean vehicle emissions standards; Ecology said it was already pursuing a similar rule and flagged the bill’s broad definition and potential policy implications, while utility associations supported the exemption for emergency response vehicles and environmental advocates opposed the statutory approach. No votes were taken on any of the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• A new solar property tax would actually discourage people from doing solar and storage right when we
• A new property tax on solar and batteries doesn't make sense because home solar doesn't increase costs
• I've also been asked to register the support of Altadena Energy and Solar, Brighton Solar, White Pine
• Renewables, JKB Energy, Citadel Roofing and Solar, Altadena Energy, Solar Technologies, CalCom Energy
• I'm a solar homeowner that wouldn't have solar unless PG&E smart meters had burned down half my house

Committee: House Revenue and Taxation

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• On solar, solar again generates clean electricity, but solar requires very energy-intensive mining.
• I'll talk about solar panels.
• To maintain what we are needing today, we need to build 125,000 acres of solar panels. ...of solar panels
• Madam Chair, I have not put solar panels on my home yet, but I would assume that if you have solar panels
• But if he said 125,000 acres of solar panels would be necessary, He said 125,000 acres of solar panels

Bills: SB78 , SB235 , SB22 , SB310

Committee: Senate Senate Conservation

Keywords: nuclear energy, renewable energy, sustainability, carbon emissions, energy regulation, microgrid, zero carbon resources, Public Regulation Commission, energy generation, electric utilities, motor vehicle manufacturers, licensing, dealers, franchise agreements, consumer protection, water supply, sewage improvements, environment, funding, Mora County

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 78, which would classify nuclear energy as renewable energy. Senator Thornton and supporters argued that New Mexico needs dispatchable, baseload power and that nuclear should be added to the state’s renewable portfolio standard because wind and solar are intermittent and require extensive land, mining, and battery storage. Supporters also emphasized nuclear’s zero-carbon profile, the safety record of U.S. Navy reactors, the possibility of small modular reactors, and the fact that New Mexico already uses nuclear-generated electricity from out of state. Opponents, including Senator O’Malley and Senator Charlie, argued nuclear is not renewable because it relies on finite uranium and creates long-lived radioactive waste, and they raised concerns about uranium mining impacts, waste storage, and the bill’s lack of a limiting principle. The committee voted 5-4 to do not pass the bill, with Senators Cervantes, Hamblen, O’Malley, Lopez, and Charlie voting yes on the do-not-pass motion and Senators Ezell, Scott, and Thornton voting no; the chair then explained that the vote reflected disagreement over whether nuclear should be labeled renewable, not opposition to nuclear power itself. The committee then heard Senate Bill 235, the Microgrid Oversight Act, with a committee substitute. Sponsor Senator Steinborn said the substitute would restore existing renewable benchmarks for microgrids, require large microgrids to meet zero-carbon targets by 2045, add reporting and PRC oversight, and close a loophole that could let utilities buy microgrid power and shift costs to ratepayers. Supporters, including environmental groups and community advocates, said the bill was needed to regulate large data-center microgrids such as Project Jupiter in Doña Ana County, which they said could drive major emissions, ozone, and nitrogen oxide pollution, strain water supplies, and undermine state climate goals. They also argued the bill would protect ratepayers and ensure transparency and community benefits. Opponents, including Americans for Prosperity, the Chamber of Commerce, oil and gas associations, Xcel Energy, PNM, Consumer Energy Alliance, and economic development groups, argued the bill would impose unnecessary regulation on private microgrids, slow investment, raise costs, and reduce flexibility for reliability projects and industrial development. They said microgrids are already regulated for safety and interconnection, and that the bill could discourage projects in New Mexico. In response, Steinborn said the bill was necessary because current law leaves a loophole for large polluting microgrids and because several major projects are already planned or underway. The committee heard extensive public testimony on both sides, but the transcript ends before a final vote on SB 235 is taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• On solar: solar again generates clean electricity and source, but solar requires very energy-intensive
• Solar panels.
• I'll talk about solar panels.
• Madam Chair, I have not put solar panels on my home yet, but I would assume that if you have solar panels
• We're going to have solar panels everywhere.

Bills: SB78 , SB235 , SB22 , SB310

Committee: Senate Senate Conservation

Keywords: nuclear energy, renewable energy, sustainability, carbon emissions, energy regulation, microgrid, zero carbon resources, Public Regulation Commission, energy generation, electric utilities, motor vehicle manufacturers, licensing, dealers, franchise agreements, consumer protection, water supply, sewage improvements, environment, funding, Mora County

Transcript Highlights:

• So, um, if I'm leasing something or lending something, it's not a retail sale.
• So, um, if I'm leasing something or lending something, it's not a retail sale.
• So, um, if I'm uh if<00:09:48.800><c> I'm</c><00:09:49.040><c> leasing</c><00:09:49.519><c> something
• </c><00:09:49.920><c> or</c><00:09:50.240><c> lending</c> if I'm leasing something or lending if I'm
• leasing something or lending something,<00:09:51.279><c> it's</c><00:09:51.519><c> not</c><00:09:51.680

Bills: SF0052 , SF0024

Committee: House Travel, Recreation, Wildlife & Cultural Resources

Keywords: wildlife management, environmental restoration, funding, invasive species, aquatic ecosystems, native fish, habitat conservation, lottery, debit card payments, gambling regulations, state revenue, financial transactions, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We affectionately refer to that bill as the community solar bill.
• solar project, you receive two monthly bills.
• I am Vice President of Policy for ECA Power, formerly ECA Solar.
• We are a community solar developer with over 1.3 gigawatts of community solar projects nationwide, and
• But the bill is the cornerstone of community solar.

Bills: SB9

Committee: House Natural Resources & Energy

Keywords: wetlands protection, nontidal wetlands, Delaware, environmental sustainability, climate change, carbon sink, permitting process

Summary: The House Natural Resources and Energy Committee met and first considered SB 321 with Senate Amendment 1, the community solar utility billing bill. The sponsor explained that it would consolidate the two-bill system for community solar subscribers into one utility bill, with the utility forwarding the subscriber fee to the solar facility through an escrow mechanism so costs are not shifted to other ratepayers. Testimony from the solar industry, the Public Advocate, and environmental advocates supported the measure, emphasizing easier enrollment, fewer barriers for low-income customers, and guaranteed savings. The committee initially lacked enough members present to release the bill, but after a roll call vote it was released from committee. The committee then heard SB 9 with Senate Amendment 1, a wetlands protection bill creating a state non-tidal freshwater wetlands permitting program. The sponsor and DNREC described a framework of exemptions, general permits, and individual permits based on wetland type and value, with an advisory committee to develop regulations. Witnesses explained that “exceptional value” wetlands would include unique wetland communities and high-functioning wetlands, and that the bill was intended to preserve important habitat while allowing farming, drainage, and other exempt activities to continue. Some members raised concerns about flooding, land classification, and the balance of the advisory committee, while supporters said the bill was the product of broad stakeholder consensus and would protect wetlands without unduly harming agriculture or development. Public comment on SB 9 was strongly supportive from environmental groups, the Delaware Native Species Commission, the Home Builders Association, the Farm Bureau, The Nature Conservancy, and affordable housing advocates, who said the bill balanced conservation with practical land use concerns. After remote testimony, the committee took a roll call vote and SB 9 was released from committee. The meeting concluded with remarks thanking the chair for her service and instructions for members to sign the backers before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> and to a lesser degree solar systems. and to a lesser degree solar systems.
• . um solar is wind systems than solar. um solar is more<01:07:35.599><c> affordable</c><01:07:36.000>
• </c><01:08:06.400><c> energy</c> foregone revenue for the solar energy foregone revenue for the solar
• </c><01:13:55.520><c> and</c> are about $77 million for solar and are about $77 million for solar and
• </c> estimates include the Minnesota solar estimates include the Minnesota solar energy<01:14:01.040>

Committee: House Taxes

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• It's called Protecting the Future of Solar Power in California. The solar industry is ready to pay.
• from solar property tax.
• for solar developers in California.
• Some may argue against what they call unique treatment for solar, yet solar is unique.
• Oftentimes, if you have the solar system that you've already invested in, having that solar battery allows

Summary: The committee heard and advanced several tax and revenue measures, beginning with SB 1329 on solar property tax assessment. The author and solar industry witnesses argued the bill would create a uniform statewide method, provide certainty for developers, and exclude tax credits and other intangibles from valuation; county assessors and several counties opposed it, saying it would reduce assessed value and depart from market-based appraisal. The bill was moved to Appropriations on a 2-0 vote and placed on call. The committee also heard SB 1406 to close the “Montana tax loophole” used to avoid California vehicle taxes, with support from the California Teachers Association and no registered opposition; it passed 2-0 and was placed on call. SB 984, conforming California law to the federal tipped-income deduction, drew support from the restaurant industry, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and enrolled agents, and passed 3-0 to Appropriations, on call. Later, the committee considered wildfire- and energy-related tax credits. SB 1084 would create a fire-safe home tax credit for home hardening and defensible space improvements; supporters said it would reduce wildfire losses and insurance costs, and it passed 3-0 on call. SB 1118 would provide credits for backup generators and solar battery systems in high fire-threat areas; the author framed it as a resilience measure for households and small businesses, but members raised concerns about cost, diesel use, and whether the credit would reach lower-income households. The bill was moved 1-0 and placed on call, with the chair and other members noting unresolved budget and policy concerns. SB 1424, expanding a partial sales tax exemption to zero-emission vehicle refueling equipment, received support from hydrogen and electric transportation groups and passed 4-0 on call. The committee also advanced SB 1249, a senior tax deduction for taxpayers ages 86 to 90, with support from LeadingAge California and senior advocates; members noted it was narrowly targeted and passed 4-0 on call. SB 1113, conforming California tax law to the federal tonnage tax regime for U.S.-flag international shipping companies, drew support from maritime industry groups and opposition from ILWU over the fiscal impact; it passed 4-0 on call. SB 1137, the Medical Expense Deduction Act, would allow a targeted deduction for medical expenses for lower-income taxpayers; supporters said it would help families facing high out-of-pocket costs, and it passed 4-0 on call. Finally, SB 1415 would extend a partial welfare property tax exemption to mixed-income housing that includes moderate-income units; supporters said it would help finance “missing middle” housing, while assessors and housing stakeholders requested amendments and guardrails. The bill was also moved forward on a committee vote and placed on call.

Transcript Highlights:

• energy, creating more solar industry jobs.
• Recent energy policies like AB 2143, NEM 3.0, and other solar-killing bills have devastated the solar
• Our solar data scientist actually found that 98% of all commercial solar is under one megawatt.
• Solar transactions and solar technologies have advanced significantly.
• I do believe the solar industry...

Summary: The committee heard several labor-related bills, with AB 1424, AB 1340, AB 288, and AB 746 all advancing on due-pass motions to Appropriations after testimony and roll calls. AB 1424 would require climate resiliency and extreme-heat protections in CDCR facilities; supporters described dangerous heat conditions for incarcerated workers and staff, while no opposition testified. AB 1340 would allow rideshare drivers to unionize and collectively bargain; drivers, labor groups, and researchers testified that app-based work is low-paid and unstable, while TechNet, Uber, Lyft, and other business groups argued the bill conflicts with Proposition 22 and could raise costs. AB 288 would let PERB step in when federal labor remedies are unavailable; supporters said it is needed because of NLRB dysfunction, while the Chamber of Commerce raised preemption and enforcement concerns. AB 746 would create an inmate cooperative program and a green reentry reserve; supporters framed it as a recidivism-reduction and reentry strategy, and there was no opposition testimony. The committee also heard AB 858, which would extend hotel and hospitality worker recall rights after declared emergencies and extend existing COVID-era protections. Hospitality workers and unions supported the bill as a way to protect jobs after pandemics, wildfires, and other disasters, while hotel, chamber, retail, restaurant, trucking, travel, and attractions groups opposed it, saying the current recall rules were meant to sunset and that the bill would create broad liabilities and hiring complications. The bill was moved to Appropriations but remained on call after the roll. AB 291, creating a credentialed educator apprenticeship program to address teacher shortages and improve diversity, drew support from education groups and stakeholders who said apprenticeships could lower preparation costs and provide better support; it was also moved to Appropriations and placed on call. Later, the committee took up AB 1104, a solar-energy bill intended to clarify that private solar customers are not “awarding bodies” and to ease certain business-to-business solar transactions while preserving prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements for contractors. Supporters said the current interpretation has chilled commercial solar adoption and harmed jobs, while opponents from electrical workers, PG&E, and others warned about expanded “over-the-fence” power sales and the need for clearer limits. Members questioned the lack of a definition of “small,” and the bill was held without a second. The committee also heard AB 338, which seeks $50 million for Los Angeles and Ventura wildfire workforce recovery; the author and county officials described major job loss and business destruction and said the funds would support displaced workers and rebuilding, with the testimony continuing beyond the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So today if you're a subscriber to a community solar project, If you're a subscriber to a community solar
• I am Vice President of Policy for ECA Power, formerly ECA Solar.
• We are a community solar developer with over 1.3 gigawatts of community solar projects nationwide, and
• But the bill is the cornerstone of community solar.
• community solar capacity across 1,000 projects in 16 states.

Bills: SB9

Committee: House Natural Resources & Energy

Keywords: wetlands protection, nontidal wetlands, Delaware, environmental sustainability, climate change, carbon sink, permitting process

Summary: The House Natural Resources and Energy Committee met to consider two Senate bills. SB 321, with Senate Amendment 1, would change community solar billing so subscribers receive one consolidated utility bill instead of separate bills from the utility and the solar provider. Supporters said the bill would simplify enrollment and payment, improve customer retention—especially for low-income customers—and include safeguards such as guaranteed savings and an escrow mechanism to prevent cost shifts to other ratepayers. After public testimony from solar developers, the Public Advocate, the Sierra Club, and others, the committee initially lacked enough members present to release the bill, so the vote was circulated to absent members and the bill was later reported out for floor action. The committee then heard SB 9, with Senate Amendment 1, a long-negotiated wetlands protection bill. The sponsor and DNREC explained that it would create a state non-tidal wetlands program with exemptions for certain agricultural, conservation, and routine activities, general permits for some lower-impact projects, and individual permits for higher-value wetlands. Witnesses described the bill as a compromise among environmental, agricultural, development, and local government stakeholders, while some members raised questions about flooding, landowner impacts, wetland delineation, and the role of the regulatory advisory committee. Public testimony was broadly supportive from environmental groups, the Farm Bureau, builders, engineers, and affordable housing advocates. The committee then voted to release SB 9 from committee. At the end of the meeting, members offered thanks and remarks recognizing the chair’s service and leadership on environmental and energy issues. Both bills were ultimately released from committee and reported out.