Transcript Highlights:

• But House Bill 803 does more than streamline processes.
• Members, this bill speeds up the permitting process by mandating a list of private, licensed, conflict-free
• It used to be maybe two months going through the entire process and getting your permit approvals, and
• Local governments have added so many regulations to get through the permitting process that a lot of
• We have a process for these things, and this attempts to really truncate that process and expedite these

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm Chair member process.
• What is the time permitted between the request of the permit and the approval of the permit?
• Administrative efficiencies in this context refer to strategies that streamline processes such as permitting
• I would also add that Some of the improvements we made to our permitting process include adopting an
• process.

Transcript Highlights:

• It includes clarifying language to the recall process.
• So it would—the current process would still apply.
• orders and administrative approval processes.
• I would like to have our development process move quickly.
• So many of their provisions are intended to try to make sure the permit approval process and the zoning

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and considered a series of bills, many focused on local government authority, land use, housing, and public notice requirements. Several measures were reported favorably, including SB 984 on firefighter cancer benefits and prevention, SB 1612 requiring local governments to accept electronic payments, SB 936 on temporary door locking devices, SB 962 on affordable housing protections for farms, SB 218 on land use regulations in hurricane-affected counties, SB 1020 on regulation of chickee huts, and SB 1434 on infill redevelopment of environmentally challenged properties. SB 1180 on community development district recall elections was amended to narrow and clarify the recall process and to add provisions on synthetic turf and compact urban mixed-use districts before being reported favorably. SB 380 on legal notices was also amended and reported favorably despite significant opposition from the Florida Press Association, Common Cause, and others who argued it would further fragment public notice access; supporters said it would modernize publication options and save money. Testimony on the bills was mixed. Supporters of the housing and redevelopment measures argued they would increase attainable housing, streamline approvals, and make better use of underutilized or contaminated land, while local government groups and advocacy organizations warned about overdevelopment, reduced public input, infrastructure strain, and conflicts with comprehensive planning. On SB 1444, which combined preemptions related to religious gatherings, private clubs, and certain permitting requirements, supporters framed it as protecting religious freedom and limiting local micromanagement, while the League of Cities and the Florida Association of Counties opposed it as overly broad and unclear; the bill nevertheless passed favorably after debate. SB 218 was presented as restoring normal land-use authority in counties unaffected by hurricanes while preserving protections in damaged areas, and SB 984 was described as clarifying firefighter cancer benefits and health coverage rules; both passed without controversy. The committee also heard extensive testimony on SB 948, a strike-all on local government land development regulations and orders that would create a statewide framework for starter homes and lot-split rules within urban growth areas. Supporters said it would expand housing supply and reduce regulatory delays, while opponents said it would override local zoning, weaken infrastructure and environmental protections, and apply too broadly. The bill drew support from housing advocates and some local officials, but opposition from the Florida League of Cities, Florida Association of Counties, and others. The transcript ends with SB 948 still under consideration, with testimony continuing and no final vote shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, I've just kind of been a study of the process for the last 40 years or so, there's no guarantee
• They have to pick and choose because it takes time to go through those processes.
• It might be a process of the labor commission.
• It might be a process of the small business administration.
• Districts will face more due process hearings, so that's a lot of money too for parents to fight for

Bills: HB4028, HB4075, HB4077, HB4074, HB4076, SB1221, SB1921, SB2118, SB1932, SB2134, HCR1025, SB1432, HCR1024, HCR1022, SB1122, HB4029, HB4063, HB4073, HB4078, SB1936, SB44, SB237, SB248, SB1360, SB985, SB1204, SB1239, SB1307, SB2143, SB1428, SB1390, SB1400, SB1405, SB1732, SB1832, SB1859, SB1989, SB2018, SB1427

Keywords: tax deduction, venture capital, economic development, Oklahoma, investment, water resources, appropriations, funding, state treasury, infrastructure projects, emergency act, emergency management, disaster relief, pandemic response, state appropriations, HB4074, Health Care Workforce Training Commission, Health Care Workforce Revolving Fund, health workforce, health care workforce

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a variety of clubs that are here to attend today and to see how we process legislation here in
• That's a very trite response because of where we are in the legislative process. My hands are tied.

Bills: HB4028, HB4075, HB4077, HB4074, HB4076, SB1221, SB1921, SB2118, SB1932, SB2134, HCR1025, SB1432, HCR1024, HCR1022, SB1122, HB4029, HB4063, HB4073, HB4078, SB1936, SB44, SB237, SB248, SB1360, SB985, SB1204, SB1239, SB1307, SB2143, SB1428, SB1390, SB1400, SB1405, SB1732, SB1832, SB1859, SB1989, SB2018, SB1427

Keywords: tax deduction, venture capital, economic development, Oklahoma, investment, water resources, appropriations, funding, state treasury, infrastructure projects, emergency act, emergency management, disaster relief, pandemic response, state appropriations, HB4074, Health Care Workforce Training Commission, Health Care Workforce Revolving Fund, health workforce, health care workforce

Transcript Highlights:

• process any Overview of the water quality permitting process: Any entity that proposes to discharge
• The permitting process begins when an entity submits its application to TCEQ.
• We don't, at least not in the water quality permitting process.
• But they’ve all been working through the permitting process.
• The permitting process for the nuclear option is lengthy.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• activity to renew the appropriate permits while under the review process.
• <00:13:00.000> when the environmental review process when the environmental review process
• :13:09.120> process.
• Um, permits under HRS 200. That would be the voting permits.
• Northwestern Hawaiian Islands permits. Northwestern Hawaiian Islands permits.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint hearing covered three measures. SB 1602 would appropriate funds to DLNR for monitoring wells for the Koho aquifer system; DLNR and HHFDC supported it, and written testimony from several organizations and individuals was also in support. Members asked whether monitoring wells are a statewide function rather than a county function, and staff confirmed they are done statewide. The second bill was an administration measure clarifying that criminal water pollution enforcement remains with the Department of Health rather than DLNR. The Attorney General’s office said it was a cleanup clarification and that DOH has stronger enforcement powers and better testing capability; DOH and DLNR supported it, and there was no opposition noted. The final and most heavily debated measure was SB 1074 on environmental impact statements. The bill would let previously authorized or permitted commercial activities continue for up to one year while an agency determines whether environmental review applies after a challenge, and would allow permit renewals during that review. DLNR said it stood on written comments and suggested aligning the bill with similar House language. Supporters, including several ocean tourism and Maui business representatives, argued the bill would provide certainty and keep families and small operators working while environmental review is completed, especially in the wake of the Lahaina fires and ongoing business losses. Some supporters said the measure should be narrowed with a sunset or limited to recently renewed permits. Opponents, including the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, Earthjustice, the Sierra Club, and other environmental advocates, argued the bill was overly broad and could weaken HEPA/NEPA-style environmental review, especially for fisheries and other commercial activities. They said the bill could be used as a “Trojan horse” to avoid review and that DLNR could resolve the underlying disputes more quickly through settlement or existing exemption processes. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• so On average, before this lean process, our permits for these minor air quality permits took about 311
• And then lastly, we've started up a expedited permitting process.
• of this expedited review process.
• or a new site permit.
• So, it's kind of a dynamic process.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It invites state and local permitting agencies to also pay attention and be involved in the process that
• What's the process for that? It doesn't really exist.
• So the question is: would your process that you developed work to get their permits sooner rather than
• So I appreciate learning more about the process for this line.
• So I appreciate learning more about the process for this line.

Summary: The Joint Committee on Energy Supply, Energy Conservation, and Energy Resilience opened by electing Senator Shoemake as chair and Representative Alex Ibarra as vice chair. Members then moved into a series of work sessions focused on data centers, transmission, and workforce needs tied to Washington’s clean energy and grid planning challenges. Kate Bruns and Glenn Blackman presented preliminary findings from the governor’s Data Center work group, created under Executive Order 25-05. They said the group met for six months, received more than 1,000 public comments, and included representatives from agencies, industry, tribes, labor, utilities, environmental groups, and research institutions. The presenters emphasized that data centers are expected to be the largest source of load growth over the next five to ten years, creating concerns about grid capacity, ratepayer impacts, forecasting, water use, backup generation, and compatibility with Washington’s energy and climate laws. They described nine recommendations, including protecting existing energy and climate policy, improving forecasting, seeking more clean power and transmission, and encouraging flexible data center operations. A proposed tax incentive change that would have expanded eligibility while tying the exemption to new clean electricity sources narrowly failed in the work group. Members asked about tribal consultation, cooling technologies, and local benefits from data centers; the presenters said tribal consultation was ongoing and a final report would follow. Keegan Moyer of West Tech then outlined a regional transmission study showing major strain on the Western grid from load growth, electrification, resiliency needs, and limited transmission capacity. He said the 10-year study identified about 12,000 line miles of needed projects across the West, with roughly $56 billion in estimated costs, including planned projects, reliability upgrades, and new interregional transfer projects. He stressed that many projects are upgrades within existing rights-of-way, but new corridors are still needed, and he previewed recommendations on permitting, equipment procurement, cost allocation, and project sponsorship. In response to questions, he discussed the difficulty of crossing jurisdictional “seams,” the role of federal coordination, landowner compensation, eminent domain as a last resort, and the limited role of public financing beyond a federal GRIP grant. Stephanie Scott of Commerce presented the transmission workforce study, which focuses on substation technicians, line workers, and line clearance tree trimmers. She said current workforce levels are far below what will be needed under a clean energy expansion scenario, and that active projects are essential because apprenticeship training depends on thousands of hours of hands-on work. She highlighted barriers such as high upfront CDL and pre-apprenticeship costs, the need for wraparound supports, and the importance of expanding access for women, people of color, and tribal communities. Members asked about tribal utility apprenticeship programs, utility-run training pipelines, and whether the study included funding sources; Scott said the report would include an inventory of apprenticeship programs and tribal considerations, but revenue ideas were outside the study scope. Finally, Brant Johnson of Grid United described the North Plains Connector as a case study in large transmission development. He said the project, a 420-mile, 3,000-megawatt HVDC line connecting Montana and North Dakota, has relied on early stakeholder engagement, route changes, tribal consultation, and coordinated federal and state permitting to reduce risk and shorten timelines. He said the project aims for permits by the end of 2026 and construction beginning in 2028, with an earliest commercial operation date of 2032. In response to questions, he discussed the challenges of crossing regional seams, interconnection queues, land acquisition and compensation, eminent domain, and financing, noting that the project is primarily privately financed with a $700 million federal grant covering a portion of costs.

Transcript Highlights:

• We can uphold our democratic process.
• We can uphold our democratic process. We can uphold our democratic process.
• <00:04:16.880> to Complex without a Minnesota permit to Complex without a Minnesota permit
• :31.760> among Permit holders are statistically among Permit holders are statistically among the
• allowed to be a permitted person. allowed to be a permitted person.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee took up House File 3357, a bill to prohibit weapons on Minnesota State Capitol grounds, with exceptions for official protective personnel. The bill’s author and co-author argued it was needed to create a safer environment for legislators, staff, and the public in light of recent threats and violence, including the killing of Speaker Emerita Hortman and other threats directed at members. Supporters said the Capitol should be a place for discussion, not guns, and emphasized the emotional and safety concerns faced by lawmakers, especially women. Opposition testimony came from the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, which argued the bill would burden peaceable permit holders rather than violent criminals. Opponents said permit holders are highly vetted, commit crimes at very low rates, and should not be forced to choose between First and Second Amendment rights at the Capitol. Several Republican members echoed those concerns, saying the bill would create a confusing patchwork, fail to address threats outside the building, and infringe on lawful self-defense rights. One member also raised concerns about threats against legislators and questioned whether the bill’s assumptions about permit holders were supported by verifiable data. The discussion became contentious at points over procedure and interruptions, with the chair reminding members about decorum and allowing a roll call vote after repeated requests. The committee then voted 6-7, with one excused, against the motion to re-refer the bill to Public Safety. As a result, the motion did not prevail and House File 3357 was laid over.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill requires permits to be issued by applicable permitting agencies within 60 days of a complete
• It automatically deems approved a permit that is either not otherwise approved by the applicable permitting
• The bill requires permits to be issued by applicable permitting agencies within 60 days of a complete
• by requires permits to be issued by applicable<00:11:18.560> permitting<00:11:19.040> agencies
• ,<00:13:40.399> the period, in the rulemaking process, the period, in the rulemaking process

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, there's at times a lengthy and costly permitting process.
• I know I'll use example in your hometown, Fort Worth, their permitting process takes Several days and
• Others have put in place a Maybe it's from a financial standpoint, a more robust permitting process or
• That means Texans aren't. stuck waiting weeks or months to process permits, leaving them vulnerable to
• Right now, many municipalities impose lengthy, costly permitting processes that delay or discourage homeowners

Bills: SB213, SB378, SB610, SB681, SB918, SB1172, SB1252, SB1343, SCR8

Keywords: SB 213, Texas insurance, Insurance Code, Chapter 551, Chapter 541, bundling, tying arrangement, cross-selling, homeowners insurance, residential property insurance, auto insurance, personal automobile insurance, consumer protection, unfair trade practice, deceptive insurance practice, property and casualty insurer, Lloyd's plan, county mutual, reciprocal exchange, farm mutual

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:40:33.600> process accomplish the mining permitting process accomplish the mining permitting
• process and deals with alteration of terrain and other permits having to do with land use.
• a painful and very expensive process in order to obtain a permit.
• terrain permit already gives a permit terrain permit already gives a permit for<01:47:30.080>
• , but the alteration of terrain permit does not have a public hearing process because these projects

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• process.
• , and to have a permit effectively cancelled after you had gone through that entire process, the concern
• process and I joined with Senator Brasso and other Senator Manchin. on permitting reform.
• It relates to finding ways to streamline the permitting processes.
• That's where you did see this last week where there was a new permitting process that was rolled out

Transcript Highlights:

• We support a strong permitting process and tight regulations related to data centers.
• Having a streamlined, clear process for permitting these backup facilities will be important for attracting
• Having a streamlined, clear process for permitting these backup facilities will be important for attracting
• Having a streamlined, clear process for permitting these backup facilities will be important for attracting
• I'm against creating permitting loopholes that allow them to skirt the process that we've established

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• through that process before.
• Then that would just happen through the permitting process, and then you'd have to learn about it through
• the permitting process?
• process.
• popping up that wouldn't be caught in the permit process.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on the Census held a hearing on September 22, 2025 focused on preparations for the 2030 census, with an emphasis on Massachusetts’ role in building a complete address list and improving local participation in census-related address review programs. Chair Brownsberger and witnesses from the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office, the UMass Donahue Institute, Watertown, and MassGIS described the importance of accurate address data for congressional apportionment, federal funding, and state and local planning. They also discussed the first major upcoming step, the Block Boundary Suggestion Project, and the later Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) process, both of which rely on municipalities reviewing and correcting census geography and address files. John Rosenberry of the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office said outreach to cities and towns is beginning now, with a likely December start for the block boundary process based on the 2020 cycle. He stressed that local officials, clerks, building inspectors, housing authorities, and GIS staff should be engaged early, especially to capture new development and conversions created under the state’s housing policies. Susan Strait of UMass Donahue explained that LUCA allows local governments to compare their address lists with the Census Bureau’s master address file, and that Massachusetts had very high participation in 2020; she cited examples where local review added hidden or newly built housing units and noted that Boston later corrected a group-quarters undercount of about 6,000 students through a post-census review program. In response to questions, she clarified that those corrections affected annual estimates and funding formulas, but not the 2020 apportionment count. Watertown City Manager George Proakis described how local address review is complicated by accessory dwelling units, single-family to two-family conversions, and large multifamily projects, and urged continued state support for local governments doing this work. Dan Marrier of MassGIS then outlined the Massachusetts Master Address Database, explaining that it combines multiple sources, including E911, assessor, voter, and municipal data, to create a standardized residential address repository used for census preparation and other state functions. He said the database has helped improve census accuracy, including by updating more than one million Census Bureau address-point locations before 2020, and noted that local municipalities remain the final authority on addresses even as MassGIS standardizes and reconciles variants across the Commonwealth.

Transcript Highlights:

• They are tasked with processing license applications.
• application form to streamline the process for licensees.
• I'm grateful for the process through getting rulemaking done quickly.
• Yesterday, we sat in a process.
• So it's encompassing both of the permit holders, my understanding.

Summary: The subcommittee first heard presentations on protecting minors from age-restricted products from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation and the Attorney General’s office. DBPR described its Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco division’s licensing and enforcement work on alcohol, tobacco, nicotine, and hemp sales, including inspections, undercover underage-purchase operations, arrests, and coordination with the Attorney General on hemp and nicotine enforcement. Members asked about trends in youth use, retailer training, use of underage decoys in investigations, and whether additional education or penalties could help reduce sales to minors. The Attorney General’s office then outlined the new nicotine dispensing device directory created under last year’s law, explaining the criteria for listing devices attractive to minors, the notice process for manufacturers and retailers, and enforcement consequences once listed devices become contraband. Members discussed online sales, product descriptions, notice to industry, and whether more outreach to parents, schools, and local partners could help. The committee then took up House Bill 105, which would decouple thoroughbred pari-mutuel permit holders from the requirement to conduct live racing in order to operate card rooms/slot gaming. The bill sponsor said the measure would align thoroughbred permits with other live-event permits and argued the industry is already declining and heavily subsidized, so the Legislature should not force a private business to keep an unprofitable line of business. An amendment by Rep. Yeager was adopted to remove live-racing requirements for thoroughbred permit holders who are card room licensees, broadening the bill’s effect to include Tampa Bay Downs as well as Gulfstream Park. Public testimony was sharply divided: supporters said decoupling would give tracks flexibility and not end racing, while opponents from the thoroughbred breeding and racing industry warned it would undermine live racing, breeding, jobs, farmland, and the broader equine economy. After debate, several members spoke in favor of the bill, emphasizing business flexibility, declining foal counts, and the view that the state should not require a private industry to maintain racing to keep gaming rights. Opponents argued the bill could damage a signature Florida industry and its economic impact. The committee then voted 10-6 to report HB 105 favorably, with several members voting no and some excused. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• can also often lead to a confused process, confusing site plan review with the process of providing
• a special permit.
• There's still a permitting process, and there'll still be engagement with the community.
• As we've heard, the typical permitting process can take 8 to 12 months and in some cases is even longer
• Last year, we permitted just 14,338 new housing units, one of the lowest per capita rates of permitting

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing held a hybrid hearing on zoning, Chapter 40B, and related housing bills. Much of the testimony focused on the “Yes in My Backyard” bill (H. 1572/S. 962), which would expand by-right development of missing middle housing, reduce barriers such as minimum lot sizes and parking mandates, and support duplexes, triplexes, and other small-scale housing. Supporters included housing advocates, developers, local officials, and municipal leaders from places like Cambridge, Salem, and Braintree, who argued that state action is needed because local zoning often blocks needed housing and that the bill would help create more affordable, neighborhood-compatible homes. Several witnesses also backed a companion “Yes in God’s Backyard” bill (H. 2347), which would allow faith-based institutions to build housing on their property by right, with testimony emphasizing the potential for new units, added municipal tax revenue, and partnerships between religious organizations and housing developers. The committee also heard testimony on Senate Bill 1021 to modernize Chapter 40R incentives. Senator Pavel Payano and others said the program’s payments have not kept pace with inflation since 2004 and should be increased to better encourage smart-growth zoning near transit and town centers. Another major topic was H. 2298 on site plan review, which would codify and standardize the process in state law. Rep. Kristin Kassner and witnesses from MAPC and NAIOP said current site plan review practices vary widely across the state, creating confusion, delays, and litigation, while a uniform framework would give municipalities clearer tools to review by-right projects without undermining local oversight. The hearing also included testimony on Chapter 40B reform, including S. 1005 and H. 1537. One witness supported further review of 40B and stronger regional planning, while another backed a proposal to allow certain pre-2010 40B condominium owners to sell at market value under a framework that would recapture some of the subsidy benefits. Committee members asked several questions about local zoning changes, housing goals by county, and how the proposed bills would affect communities. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chairs indicated that written testimony would be welcomed for technical details and additional comments.

Transcript Highlights:

• California is in the middle of a housing crisis, and delays in the residential building permitting process
• processes.
• To the planning process.
• a conditional use permit.
• time on current planning activities, like processing permits, entitlements, and CEQA reviews for development

Summary: The committee first heard AB 253, by Assembly Member Ward and presented by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva, which would allow licensed third-party professionals to review certain post-entitlement permits if a local building department would take more than 30 days. Supporters, including California YIMBY, the California Chamber of Commerce, the Housing Action Coalition, the Bay Area Council, SPUR, and Abundant Housing LA, said the bill would reduce permitting delays and help housing production. League of Cities and the California State Association of Counties expressed concerns but were not formally opposed. Members voiced strong support, and the bill passed the committee 10-0 to Appropriations. The committee then held an informational hearing on California’s general plan. The first panel, led by UC Davis professor Catherine Brinkley, gave an overview of the general plan structure, required elements, update cycles, and the new PlanSearch database that makes adopted plans searchable statewide. She emphasized that general plans are long-term, locally tailored documents that integrate housing, transportation, safety, environmental justice, and other policy areas, and noted that many plans and elements are outdated. Members asked about update timelines, public participation, and whether AI tools could help with drafting and analysis. A second panel of local government representatives described the practical challenges of preparing and updating general plans, especially in rural and small jurisdictions. Speakers from Calaveras County, Sacramento, San Joaquin County, and Fountain Valley cited staffing shortages, consultant availability, funding constraints, CEQA and outreach costs, changing state mandates, and the difficulty of keeping plans aligned with local conditions and board turnover. They asked for more funding, more time, clearer prioritization, and more flexibility. A third panel from the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation explained its role in issuing general plan guidelines, technical advisories, and annual planning surveys, and said it is updating its guidance through 2027 to reflect recent housing, climate, safety, environmental justice, and open space laws. No public comment was offered, and the informational hearing was adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The New Mexico Mining Act has a permitting process that is stringent, and those requirements need to
• through the Environment Department through their discharge permitting process.
• So the Class VI permitting process doesn't speak to sourcing really at all.
• They'd go through a new Class VI permit application process.
• And, you know, they're in that permitting process. And it was something to do with...

Summary: The committee first heard a presentation from the Environment Department on PFAS contamination in private wells in La Cienega, Santa Fe County. Staff said the plume likely came from historic use of firefighting foam associated with airport and National Guard fire-training activities, with possible additional contribution from septic systems and consumer products. They described the contamination as affecting about 200 private wells, the short-term response of providing residential filters through a $2 million legislative appropriation, and ongoing work to define the plume’s full extent, identify responsible parties, and consider longer-term regional water solutions. Members asked about filter costs, replacement schedules, disposal of used cartridges, follow-up testing, health studies, and whether cleanup or containment had begun; the department said cleanup would follow once the plume is fully mapped and that DOH is soliciting interest in a blood study. The committee also discussed the need to track disposal of PFAS filters and the possibility of broader statewide capacity for similar work. The committee then took up abandoned uranium mine cleanup. NMED and EMNRD staff reviewed the new uranium mine reclamation program created by HB 164, the state dashboard tracking sites, and the FY26 appropriation of $20 million for neglected contaminated sites, of which $12 million is being used for neglected uranium mines and the remainder for other contaminated sites. They said six contractors were hired, three priority sites in Grant County are moving forward quickly, and additional sites are being prepared for possible FY27 work. Members pressed for details on how funds are spent, why the revolving fund remains unfunded, how federal, state, tribal, and landowner requirements are coordinated, where contaminated material will be moved, and whether cleanup could also address homes built with contaminated materials. Staff said the work is governed by multiple regulatory layers, that the state is seeking an additional $25 million for FY27-FY28 plus a time extension, and that partnerships with tribes would require longer-term agreements. The committee also discussed federal cleanup efforts and the new Good Samaritan law, with members urging stronger advocacy for New Mexico sites, including tribal lands, and asking whether the Attorney General should pursue legal action against federal parties responsible for legacy contamination. Staff explained that some sites are already covered by settlement funds tied to responsible parties, while neglected sites are those with no responsible party and no other cleanup program. The committee then heard from EMNRD on Class VI carbon sequestration primacy. Staff said New Mexico currently has no operating Class VI wells, about 27 Class II acid-gas injection wells are operating, and only a small number might be candidates for conversion. They explained that the state’s primacy application would require more public outreach than federal rules alone, and that cost estimates for post-injection site care are based on long planning horizons, with some costs borne by operators and some by the state after closure. No votes were taken on the substantive items discussed; the committee approved the prior meeting minutes and took a brief recess between presentations.