Transcript Highlights:

• We are here for an informational hearing to discuss electric vehicles, or EV charging, and vehicles as
• We'll discuss opportunities including prime use cases from innovative technologies discussed in previous
• We'll discuss opportunities including prime use cases from innovative technologies discussed in previous
• The CARB programs that I just discussed were included in Michelle's SLIPP.
• And so I want to touch upon something that's been lightly discussed today. ...at LACEY.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Select Committee on Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure focused on California’s EV market, charging infrastructure, and the effects of recent federal actions. The chair opened by emphasizing California’s progress on EV adoption and charging reliability, but also noted ongoing challenges with affordability, access, interoperability, heavy-duty electrification, and federal headwinds. She highlighted interest in technologies such as inductive charging and thanked host organizations and staff before moving to the first panel. State agency witnesses from Go-Biz, CARB, and the California Energy Commission described current programs and priorities. Go-Biz outlined its role in coordinating agencies, supporting permitting, and advancing the state’s ZEV market development strategy and equity action plan. CARB discussed federal attacks on its clean vehicle regulations, litigation to defend waiver authority, and the importance of incentives and regulatory programs such as Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean Fleets, Clean Truck Check, HVIP, and Clean Cars for All. The CEC detailed its funding and regulatory work on charging and fueling infrastructure, charger reliability, payment methods, roaming, and statewide planning, while stressing the need for more charging in multifamily housing and more public DC fast charging. All three agencies said federal rollbacks and permitting delays are major obstacles, but that California remains committed to expanding ZEV adoption. The second panel featured advocates, local government, utility, and research perspectives. CalETC urged continuous state funding through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and emphasized the low-carbon fuel standard, multifamily charging, and managed charging. An EV advocacy group proposed a conquest-style state incentive for new and used EV buyers and argued that multifamily housing is a major untapped market, while also favoring Level 2 charging over Level 1 for most home and apartment settings. Los Angeles County and LADWP described large-scale local deployment of chargers, fleet electrification, workforce training, and the need for sustained funding, agency coordination, and streamlined permitting and grid interconnection. UCS recommended prioritizing replacement of older high-emitting vehicles, using fuel policy revenues to support cleaner cars, and expanding bidirectional charging. The chair closed by asking for more discussion on Level 1 versus Level 2 charging and noted the importance of education, affordability, and practical deployment strategies.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> some</c> Here's Here it discusses some Here's Here it discusses some different<00:11:14.080><c>
• The next item on the agenda is a discussion of conservation opportunities in Kentucky.
• The next item on the agenda is a discussion of conservation opportunities in Kentucky.
• The next item on the agenda is a discussion of conservation opportunities in Kentucky.
• The next item on the agenda is a discussion of conservation opportunities in Kentucky.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:00:26 Approval of Minutes 00:02:27 LIHEAP Presentation and Public Hearing 00:02:42 Conservation Opportunities in Kentucky 00:29:52, 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up a public hearing and presentation on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Shannon Hall of the Department for Community Based Services and Rick Baker of Community Action Kentucky explained that LIHEAP is a 100% federally funded block grant that helps low-income households pay heating and cooling bills, avoid utility disconnects, and support weatherization. They outlined the program’s components, eligibility limits, seasonal application periods, and recent participation figures, including tens of thousands of households served through the summer cooling, fall subsidy, winter crisis, and spring subsidy components. They also described weatherization priorities, the partnership with Kentucky Housing Corporation, and the role of Community Action agencies in administering the program statewide. Members asked about Assurance 16, the balance between need and available funding, summer cooling assistance, weatherization measurement, renter versus homeowner participation, and whether federal changes could affect LIHEAP. Hall and Baker said Assurance 16 supports energy-burden reduction through education, case management, and conservation strategies; that funding has generally been sufficient in recent years but crisis funds have sometimes been exhausted quickly in the past; and that summer assistance is primarily electric utility support. They also said weatherization uses return-on-investment testing and that Kentucky still has a large backlog of homes needing service. On federal funding, they said the recently passed federal bill did not directly cut LIHEAP, but future appropriations could still affect it, and any major reduction could leave a gap the state might need to consider filling. The committee approved the minutes and later approved the LIHEAP finding of fact; no members of the public signed up to testify. After concluding LIHEAP, the committee heard a presentation from Heather Jeff of The Nature Conservancy on conservation opportunities in Kentucky. She described the organization’s voluntary land-protection work and highlighted the Cumberland Forest project, a conservation easement on about 55,000 acres in Bell, Knox, and Leslie counties supported in part by a $3.875 million state appropriation. She also reported on mine-land reforestation, elk habitat work, and the rapid allocation of a $2 million appropriation for the Kentucky Heritage Land Conservation Fund. Jeff emphasized the economic value of conservation for tourism, hunting and fishing, agriculture, forestry, bourbon, and flood protection, and said the group is finalizing a Kentucky conservation needs assessment and related feasibility research.

Transcript Highlights:

• of what we had discussed last year.
• I'm happy to further discuss some of the points that are raised here.
• that those discussions... voted to oppose AB441 and urge your no vote.
• that those discussions.
• The discussions are continuing, and I will be voting for it again today, knowing that those discussions

Summary: The Assembly Local Government Committee heard a long agenda of housing, water, and local finance bills, with the chair repeatedly reminding attendees about hearing rules and noting that several measures were being heard without a quorum at first. Early items included AB 407, which would broaden eligibility for state-run loan and financing programs to help small businesses fund environmental, seismic, and ADA upgrades, and AB 93, which would require data centers to estimate and report water use and follow state best practices. AB 93 drew support from water advocates and local government groups, while the Data Center Coalition opposed it, arguing the bill could be overly restrictive, difficult to retrofit, and raise trade secret or security concerns. The committee also heard AB 650 on housing element review, AB 1044 on creating a new Tulare County groundwater sustainability agency, and AB 523 on allowing proxy voting for single-representative member agencies on the Metropolitan Water District board; all drew broad support from local agencies and related stakeholders and no recorded opposition in the room. Several housing bills were presented as part of a broader fast-track housing package. AB 507 would streamline adaptive reuse of office buildings into housing, especially in downtowns with high vacancy; supporters said it would revive urban cores and help meet housing and climate goals, while the League of California Cities and a few cities opposed it unless amended, citing concerns about one-size-fits-all by-right approval and fee limitations. AB 1294 would create a universal housing application and limit early application requirements; it drew strong support from housing and business groups, with the American Planning Association and League of California Cities seeking more flexibility and input. AB 610 would require local governments to disclose housing constraints in their housing elements and limit new constraints after certification for three years unless disclosed; supporters said it would improve transparency and certainty, while opponents warned it could chill legitimate local policy choices and inclusionary housing requirements. Both AB 610 and AB 698, which would require analysis of the housing and property tax impacts of proposed transfer taxes, were moved out of committee on 7-0 votes after discussion and amendments. The committee also heard AB 1112, which would repeal an outdated Riverside County property tax provision affecting Rancho Mirage; the city argued it was the only qualifying no-low property tax city not receiving the standard minimum and sought equal treatment. After quorum was established, the bill was passed 6-0 with amendments and sent to Appropriations. AB 1021, heard later, would make it easier for school districts and other local education agencies to build employee housing, with the author citing teacher recruitment and retention problems and support from education stakeholders. Throughout the hearing, members and witnesses repeatedly emphasized the need to balance housing production, local fiscal tools, and infrastructure needs, and several authors accepted committee amendments and committed to continued negotiations with opponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have not discussed that. OK. Thank you. Any more questions, members? All right.
• We have not discussed it. I would be happy to, but I've not considered that.
• Again, we've not discussed that specifically. If the state wishes to address...
• Discussed earlier, but we'd be happy to share that.
• As has been discussed earlier, those rules may or may not recognize particular...

Bills: HB48 , HB49 , HB 1169 , HB1971 , HB2584 , HB2663 , HB2890 , HB48 , HB49

Committee: House Energy Resources

Keywords: HB 48, oilfield theft, organized theft, petroleum products, oil and gas equipment, DPS, Department of Public Safety, Texas, Railroad Commission, criminal justice, energy resources, theft prevention, organized crime, border region, El Paso, law enforcement task force, asset recovery, pipeline theft, drilling equipment, equipment theft

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:10:40.600><c> uh</c> much uh two member discussion uh much uh two member discussion uh representative
• I—if there are no further questions or, yeah, we'll wrap up member discussion with Lead Clor.
• That's an ongoing discussion with the Senate.
• That's an ongoing discussion with the Senate.
• That's an ongoing discussion with the Senate.

Bills: HF1 , HF1754 , HF1809 , HF1478

Committee: House State Government Finance and Policy

Keywords: Office of Inspector General, inspector general, legislative audit, fraud prevention, waste and abuse, public funds, grant oversight, state grants, grant management, whistleblower protection, retaliation, subpoena power, data practices, government transparency, accountability, law enforcement referrals, sanctions, debarment, payment withholding, public assistance fraud

Transcript Highlights:

• Aquifer limitations and PFAS discussions have been widely discussed, particularly in areas like White
• ><c> widely</c><00:38:03.200><c> discussed,</c> discussions have been widely discussed, discussions have
• </c> Members,<00:59:12.640><c> discussion?</c> Members, discussion? Members, discussion?
• Any discussions? discussions? discussions?
• Any discussion?

Committee: House Capital Investment

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I think we we we're working discussing.
• on that section when when we discussion on that section when when we when<00:59:54.480><c> we</c><00
• once we have a have a public discussion once we have a proposal<01:00:36.720><c> that</c><01:00:37.040
• So I think this will be for discussion.
• and to be able to present to discussion and to be able to present to uh<01:04:52.400><c> the</c><01:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Moving forward to ensure we have the most comprehensive discussions possible.
• I appreciate everyone's participation and look forward to a productive discussion. Okay.
• I understand. the ideas of discussion, the things you just discussed, when did that start?
• So this was not discussed before getting rid of Eric?
• You cannot even engage. in that discussion.

Bills: HB10 , HB 12 , HB675 , HB10 , HB12

Committee: House Delivery of Government Efficiency

Keywords: regulatory reform, government efficiency, administrative law, rulemaking, agency deference, judicial review, de novo review, Texas Government Code, Administrative Procedure Act, state agencies, plain language, regulatory burden, regulatory reduction, cost-benefit analysis, fiscal note, public benefits and costs, contested case, rule challenge, Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office, advisory panel

Transcript Highlights:

• See no further discussion.
• See, no discussion.
• Is there any further discussion?
• Is there any further discussion?
• Any further discussion?

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I wish we had more time to discuss it with them.
• I wish we had more time to discuss it with them.
• Seeing &gt;&gt; Is there any further discussion?
• Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1026?
• Is there any further discussion on Rep. Gilchrist?

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't believe we had any real discussion on it.
• Members, is there any specific place you'd like us to discuss?
• We discuss with them during the planning phase about our audit.
• Someone has given you advice that you're not to discuss it.
• This summer, so I don't think I should be discussing it today here.

Bills: HB149 , HB252 , HB643 , HB1442 , HB1500 , HB1672 , HB1851 , HB1893 , HB2028 , HB2768 , HB2818 , HB149 , HB252

Committee: House Delivery of Government Efficiency

Keywords: artificial intelligence, regulation, biometric data, ethical AI, consumer protection, AI governance, employment compensation, state agencies, salary payments, general appropriations, government efficiency, public works, contractors, payment bonds, government contracts, construction law, transparency, open meetings, government accountability, public access

Transcript Highlights:

• Right, I'm not seeing anybody else, so we can move on to member discussion.
• <00:13:49.880><c> representative</c> discussion representative discussion representative Hudson<00:13
• And now the underlying A1 amendment, as amended—any discussion to that?
• And now the underlying A1 amendment, as amended—any discussion to that?
• All right, that is it for member discussion.

Committee: House Public Safety Finance and Policy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• sent to committee, and there'll be ample opportunities to share of that committee to have more discussion
• So if we can, we're going to cut the discussion off for that one today. So we appreciate it.
• sent to committee, and there'll be ample opportunities to share of that committee to have more discussion
• So if we can, we're going to cut the discussion off for that on that one today.
• Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, say aye. Opposed? Passes.

Committee: All JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So that discussion was had, and I think it's a good discussion because with this bill, do we want to
• So that discussion was had, and I think it's a good discussion because with this bill, do we want to
• So that discussion was had, and I think it's a good discussion because with this bill, do we want to
• So that discussion was had, and I think it's a good discussion because with this bill, do we want to
• So that discussion was had, and I think it's a good discussion because with this bill, do we want to

Committee: Senate Human Services

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion on the bill? All right. Any discussion on the bill?
• </c> other discussion on the bill? Okay. other discussion on the bill? Okay.
• Discussion on the &gt;&gt; Okay. All right. Discussion on the amendment. amendment. amendment.
• I was going to bring discussion prior.
• Okay, any other discussion?

Bills: SF0035 , SF0090 , SF0072

Committee: Senate Education

Keywords: education, cell phones, smart devices, school policy, student conduct, school property, rental fees, youth activities, education policy, Wyoming legislature, teacher licensure, teacher mobility, interstate compact, education compact, licensure reciprocity, reciprocal certification, teacher certification, professional teaching standards board, out-of-state teachers, military spouse

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm going to highlight four that are commonly discussed.
• Um, years ago, um, there was discussion, argument...
• </c> it's always been since then a discussion it's always been since then a discussion about<00:55:39.720
• A fascinating discussion.
• </c> we are going to stop this discussion we are going to stop this discussion right<01:09:03.920><c>

Committee: Senate Taxes

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're also discussing that at MMB.
• We're also discussing that at MMB.
• We're also discussing that at MMB.
• We're also discussing that at MMB.
• And I appreciate the robust discussion we’ve had. ...discussion we've had.

Committee: Senate Finance

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any further discussion?
• Is there any other discussion?
• Is there any discussion?
• discuss so we'll we'll discuss with I'll discuss with<03:49:33.600><c> you</c><03:49:33.840><c> Senator
• </c> further discussion on the bill? further discussion on the bill?

Committee: House Executive Departments and Administration

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, we can have member discussion if desired, but we had it last week.
• We can have member discussion if desired, but we had it last week.
• </c><00:19:53.559><c> question</c> is no um no to the discussion question is no um no to the discussion
• to Senator rasmus's Point discussion to Senator rasmus's Point discussion<00:24:07.679><c> that</c><
• </c> this was a source of a lot of discussion this was a source of a lot of discussion when<00:51:59.599

Committee: Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So after lengthy discussions with health care providers, with doctors, hospitals, clinics, and patients
• and that debate was that, leading up to that discussion, Was that, leading up to that discussion, we
• I thought it was personal discussions that we don't have on the debate floor, so people understand each
• But I sat there because of the discussions that we had leading up to that debate.
• We didn't have any of those discussions with this legislation.

Summary: The House first took up several local and committee-reported bills, including a Ways and Means amendment to House No. 2370, an act prioritizing patient access to care, and a Senate bill authorizing the Town of Dighton to use a portion of conservation land for public way purposes. The House suspended rules to advance both measures, adopted the Ways and Means amendment to House No. 2370, and ordered that bill to a third reading. It also passed to be enacted a group of local bills concerning Leominster police civil service exemptions, additional liquor licenses in Milton and Southborough, Carlisle town administrator powers, and Watertown tax classification, and passed to be engrossed bills involving Petersham police employment and land transfers in Weston and Marion. The House then approved Senate No. 2735, dissolving the North Carver Water District, by roll call, and House No. 5388, a Marion land transfer bill, also by roll call. The major debate centered on House No. 5595, an act prioritizing patient access to care, which would revise Massachusetts abortion law for pregnancies after 24 weeks by replacing specific statutory exceptions with reliance on the treating physician’s professional medical judgment, and clarifying that outside review boards could not override that judgment. Supporters, including the bill’s sponsors and public health leaders, argued the measure was needed to remove legal barriers, reduce trauma, and ensure patients can receive care in Massachusetts without being forced to travel out of state. They cited testimony from patients, physicians, hospitals, and advocacy groups such as Reproductive Equity Now, Planned Parenthood, the Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association, and the Massachusetts Medical Society. Opposition came from Representative Sotomayor of Bellingham, who said he supported abortion rights generally but objected to removing what he viewed as safeguards, especially reporting and parental-rights concerns, and argued the bill went too far by relying solely on physician judgment. Representative Svara of Northampton responded that the bill still leaves reporting requirements in statute and is intended to prevent patients from being forced to leave the Commonwealth for care. A proposed amendment by Representative McKenna of Sutton was ruled out of order as beyond the scope of the bill. The House then passed House No. 5595 to be engrossed by roll call, 119-33, and later adopted an order to adjourn until the next day at 11 a.m.