Transcript Highlights:

• We oppose this project. Thank you. Killing of this project.
• How does CEQA hurt these projects?
• I'm particularly talking about housing projects. install countless good projects as well.
• How does CEQA hurt these projects?
• Can I lend on this project?

Summary: The committee hearing centered first on AB 1243, the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025, which would direct CalEPA to identify major fossil fuel companies, study California’s climate damages, and assess fees on the largest polluters to fund resilience, recovery, and related projects. The author and supporters argued the bill would make polluters help pay for climate harms, protect taxpayers, create jobs in construction and clean energy, and dedicate at least 40% of funds to disadvantaged communities. Support testimony came from environmental justice groups, labor, youth advocates, health organizations, and many individual witnesses, while opponents from the building trades, chambers of commerce, petroleum, and business groups warned it would raise fuel and consumer costs, threaten refinery jobs, and create legal and economic uncertainty. Committee members debated the bill’s impact on affordability, jobs, refinery closures, and whether cap-and-trade already addresses climate funding needs. The committee ultimately voted to give AB 1243 a due pass recommendation to the Judiciary Committee, with the roll left open. After AB 1243, the committee moved to another bill on wildfire mitigation and related resilience work. The author said the measure addresses a long-running wildfire problem and accepted committee amendments, describing the bill as a response to increasingly severe wildfire seasons and the need to help communities stay safe and rebuild after disasters. The transcript cuts off as that presentation begins, so no final action on the second bill is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• with the particular project.
• with the particular project.
• with the particular project.
• that project. that project. >> Yes,<00:42:52.160> sir.
• Um that's a larger project. Uh the two. Um that's a larger project.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Protection, Energy and Environment, and Tourism met for its fourth meeting and approved the February 10 minutes. The committee then heard a presentation from the Cabinet for Economic Development, led by Secretary Jeff Noel, with staff from the cabinet and Kentucky Innovation. The presentation focused on the cabinet’s strategy, including workforce, entrepreneurship, innovation, infrastructure, and placemaking, and emphasized a goal of supporting higher-wage jobs while tailoring programs to urban, non-urban, and rural “heritage communities.” The cabinet reviewed several funding tools and programs, including economic development bond funds, EDF funds, KBI, the Kentucky Innovation Pool, KSTC-related startup and commercialization programs, veteran workforce programs, and Bluegrass State Skills Corporation training funds. Officials said many projects take years to close and that funds are often committed before they are actually disbursed because reimbursements occur after project completion. They also said Kentucky is less competitive than before because of changes in tax policy and that EDF funds are increasingly important to remain competitive with other states. Members asked about whether previously allocated money remained available, whether some funds could be clawed back, and the status of the Blue Oval project. The cabinet said it is oversubscribed, with some committed dollars likely to go unused and be reoffered to other projects. On Blue Oval, officials said progress had been made and described negotiations tied to repayment and job creation requirements. They also discussed the Ford/SK loan structure, saying the companies may assume the full $250 million obligation and that repayments would be required if job targets are not met. The presentation closed with discussion of workforce coordination and the need to connect economic development projects with training and support systems, including possible ripple effects for rural suppliers and related businesses.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I think we have to look at each project, um, and that project was donor-driven at that time.
• So I think we have to look at each project, um, and that project was donor-driven at that time.
• <00:35:19.440> was at each project um and that project was at each project um and that project
• "Millionaire who wants a bonding project, millionaire who wants a bonding project."
• project uh first phase of this project project uh first phase of this project would<01:32:12.400

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• the<00:08:08.080> construction Our second project is the construction Our second project
• for the project and financing costs. for the project and financing costs.
• project.
• Um, I also want project. And then subdivision 4 of project.
• the project and the business district. the project and the business district.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• She said that is a good project and that they have done a number of projects there specifically with
• <00:42:28.280> right do small small projects right do small small projects right or<00:42:
• and then whenever we receive a project and then whenever we receive a project for<00:53:09.760><
• modifies projects.
• So I know what the project is.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land met on March 13, 2025, and first announced that SB 1456 would be deferred to the end of the agenda and ultimately worked on later, with the chair indicating the bill would be deferred and revisited in a future measure. The committee then heard SB 841 on marine life conservation districts. DLNR supported the bill, saying it would fund carrying capacity studies to inform rules and policies. Testimony noted a pilot study already underway at the Puka Marine Life Conservation District and another nearing completion at the old Kona Airport MLCD. Members discussed costs, with DLNR estimating about $300,000 per year for one user-experience study, potentially more for ecological analysis, and also discussed possible funding from the Mālama Kai special fund. DLNR said it had no objection to consulting current operators and other users, and explained the program would be a new, ongoing adaptive-management tool. The committee next heard SB 411 on capital improvement projects at small boat harbors. DLNR supported the intent, saying the bill would help expedite use of special funds for CIP work, while the Department of Budget and Finance opposed it, arguing the draft could conflict with constitutional limits on appropriations. Public testimony from an industry representative supported the bill and urged more collaboration with commercial operators, while committee discussion focused on whether DLNR could already use special funds for repairs, how much engineering and bidding work is required before projects go out to bid, and whether the current process creates bottlenecks when bids exceed initial estimates. DLNR said it can do some repairs and maintenance within existing authority and funding ceilings, but that the bill as drafted could be too broad. The committee also heard SB 5 on historic preservation, where DLNR supported the measure and NAOP Hawaii opposed it, saying the bill’s broader definition could expand the scope beyond the stated goal of narrowing reviews and reducing backlog. The committee then took up SB 1462 on the state historic preservation income tax credit. The Department of Taxation said the revenue estimate assumes the cap would be reached each year the credit is available, and DLNR supported the bill. SHPD said the prior credit had sunset, outreach had previously been done in targeted communities such as Chinatown, and owners of eligible historic properties are notified during review. Finally, the committee heard SB 268 on island burial councils. DLNR supported the bill, and OHA strongly supported it, saying the councils have struggled with quorum and expertise and that the measure would restore the original intent of having lineal descendants and cultural practitioners as decision makers, while still allowing landowners and developers to testify and participate. OHA also said it would help provide technical support and urged continued involvement from SHPD and the Attorney General’s office.

Transcript Highlights:

• The income account is the projects.
• project in 2026.
• needed projects and not wanted projects. needed projects and not wanted projects.
• The first section is for our Water Development Account One projects, and these are new projects.
• <00:52:00.880> are<00:52:01.040> 15 projects which are projects that are 15 projects

Bills: HB0078, SF0012, SF0013, SF0052, SF0069, SF0070

Keywords: forest health, grant program, state forester, wildfire prevention, environmental conservation, habitat improvement, military, national guard, reenlistment, extension bonus, funding, Wyoming, Wyoming National Guard, recruitment, referral bonus, military service, eligibility expansion, incentive program, wildlife management, environmental restoration

Transcript Highlights:

• So for a major project in his 30 million Dollar hypothetical, that is a multi-year project.
• So it projects can be a challenge.
• But at the I'm gonna bring a project. But we don't talk about the project.
• And so I've certainly seen on other not somewhere projects, but let's say like projects where there is
• If it's a large enough project, we require project management professional pmp to be involved in that

Transcript Highlights:

• They're our owner project representative on the project, and going to start with having Eric walk through
• 2027 uh uh Target date for project 2027 uh uh Target date for project completion<00:08:38.399>
• the from the beginning of the project the from the beginning of the project it's<00:08:55.800>
• manager in uh con uh GMP project manager in uh con uh GMP project delivery<00:09:24.560> is
• > management for all the design uh project management for all the design uh project management

Keywords: 919, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• > project<00:04:51.560> is<00:04:51.680> awarded project when the project is awarded
• . projects. projects.
• the projections on these projects<00:14:20.800> assume >> But what would you say?
• you you put together a project. you you put together a project.
• what we're doing with this project. what we're doing with this project.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And now very high, with huge-impact projects. And now very high, with huge-impact projects.
• But I would say that all the big projects we work on, whether it's Project Tundra, which we permitted
• And he says to me, Jim, he says, you know, every project is replaced with another project.
• And so that one project turned into some follow-on projects, and we continue to develop that...
• So it started with a relatively small CERC project. That project was successful.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And he says to me, Jim, he says, you know, every project is replaced with another project.
• safety when zoning new projects.
• when zoning new projects in.
• So it started with a relatively small CERC project. That project was successful.
• So it started with a relatively small CERC project. That project was successful.

Summary: The committee met in Grand Forks, approved the February 26 minutes by voice vote, and recessed for a tour of Minnkota Power Cooperative before hearing presentations on large energy consumers and related infrastructure issues. The first presentation, from the North Dakota Transmission Authority, focused on the need for better local decision-making tools for counties, townships, and planning and zoning boards facing major projects such as transmission lines, pipelines, data centers, wind, solar, and large-scale agriculture. The speaker urged more objective, data-driven analysis, noted that local officials often have limited time and resources, and said the state should support training and tools through groups like the League of Cities and the Association of Counties. Members asked about proactive outreach, data center ordinances, and how to avoid subsidizing large loads or causing reliability problems. The Division of Air Quality then discussed environmental oversight of data centers, emphasizing that North Dakota’s air remains among the cleanest in the country and that the agency’s role is limited to air, water discharge, stormwater, and waste—not zoning or water use. The presentation explained that data centers generally have low direct emissions but may rely on diesel backup generators when the grid is unavailable, which creates air-quality concerns; the department said it is requiring air monitors at some projects to collect real-world data and guide future decisions. Members asked about generator emissions, misinformation, monitoring costs, and staffing succession, and the agency said permit applicants pay for the monitors while the state handles some QA work. The Department of Water Resources followed with an overview of North Dakota water law and data center water use. The director explained the state’s prior-appropriation system, the public-interest review for permits, and the large overall water supply available from groundwater and the Missouri River. He said most proposed data centers use closed-loop cooling systems and generally request relatively small amounts of water compared with other uses such as power plants, irrigation, and oilfield operations, and that even a worst-case data center scenario would use only a tiny fraction of Missouri River flow. Questions focused on downstream impacts and comparisons to fracking water use, and the director said the state’s use is too small to materially affect downstream users. Later, McLean County State’s Attorney Ladd-Erickson testified online about data center zoning and permitting. He asked the committee to have Legislative Council gather information on how other states handle data center permitting and to keep the topic on the interim agenda. He argued that local zoning should remain local, but said counties lack the technical and legal resources to manage complex reclamation or bonding requirements and that state-level enabling legislation may be more appropriate. He also recommended eliminating tax incentives for data centers. The committee chair said staff would prepare a document on other states’ zoning and permitting approaches. After a lunch recess, the committee reconvened at the EERC, where CEO Charles Gorecki gave an overview of the center’s 75 years of work and its role in oil and gas, carbon management, and other energy technologies, highlighting enhanced oil recovery and carbon dioxide utilization as major opportunities for future production and tax revenue.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's really on a project-by-project basis.
• I'm sure there's other projects that are retrofit type projects.
• Cloud Green Hydrogen Project.
• This project reminds me a lot of green fertilizer projects.
• But they are projecting it.

Transcript Highlights:

• And what do those projections look like? What are those projections like for those companies?
• What percentage of the project is materials, and then what percentage of the project is actually already
• The project extent between the two models is the same. The project begins...
• So I'd like to see any kind of a plan or project projection on this, or pro forma, to see how the O&M
• Project is transparent.

Summary: The Joint Oregon-Washington Legislative Action Committee met for a work session and public hearing on the Interstate 5 bridge replacement program. Program staff outlined major milestones, including the recent biological opinion, the Coast Guard’s opening of a public comment period on the Navigation Impact Report, expected decisions in early 2026 on navigational clearance and the final supplemental environmental impact statement, and a possible amended record of decision in 2026. They also discussed the Bridge Investment Program grant amendment deadline, the need for an initial finance plan, and ongoing community outreach and contractor engagement. Greg Johnson announced he was stepping down as program administrator, and Carly Francis introduced herself as interim administrator. A large portion of the meeting focused on design and cost questions. Staff said the program is studying fixed and movable spans, single- and double-deck configurations, and one versus two auxiliary lanes, with final recommendations to be made through the federal environmental process. They said the Coast Guard’s decision is central to what bridge configuration is permittable and to the timing of the updated cost estimate, which has not yet been released. Members pressed for more detail on cost drivers, potential impacts to businesses upriver, and whether the states would need to seek additional funding. Staff said they had reached agreements with four impacted river users, but the underlying evaluation materials are protected and not publicly releasable. The committee also reviewed transit-related questions. Staff explained that light rail remains part of the modified locally preferred alternative and that ridership and operations estimates are being updated using federal modeling methods. They said projected opening-day transit operations and maintenance costs have dropped from an earlier estimate of $21.8 million to about $10.3 million annually because the current model assumes lower frequency, with Oregon and Washington shares split by geography and fare recovery. Members raised concerns about TriMet’s financial stability and the need for a funding plan by fall 2027, ahead of a planned federal transit funding application in fall 2028. During public testimony, several speakers criticized the delay in releasing a new cost estimate and argued the project scope should be reduced if costs continue to rise. Testifiers from City Observatory and the Just Crossing Alliance said the project appears to be avoiding bad news, urged the committee to consider scope reductions, and questioned whether the active transportation and freeway components align with the project’s core purpose. The meeting ended with thanks to Johnson for his service and a transition to public hearing testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• of those projects.
• There are two projections: one is the December 2024 projection, and then the most recent information
• Funding first, projects after, or projects first, funding after, are two different timelines for the
• We proposed that program as a project line under Pedbike and a project line under Safe Routes and you
• for projects.

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee met on October 16, 2025, for a budget and revenue overview, a traffic safety presentation, and a discussion of potential transit and active transportation grant programs. Committee staff reviewed the adopted 2025-27 transportation budget, noting $15.5 billion in expenditures, the large share for WSDOT, and the mix of revenue sources including fuel tax, vehicle-related fees, federal funds, Climate Commitment Act revenue, and new 2025 revenues from SB 5801 and SB 5802. Staff said the 2025 session produced a balanced four-year plan, preserved major project schedules, maintained highway preservation funding, and added money for culverts, local preservation, and other priorities. They also described a September forecast showing lower motor fuel consumption than previously expected, but still enough revenue growth to keep the transportation plan balanced. For the 2026 supplemental, staff said agency requests were relatively modest overall, with most capital requests reflecting reappropriations and timing shifts rather than new projects, while WSDOT’s addendum identified much larger future needs for maintenance, preservation, paving, culverts, and safety work. Senators asked for more detail on how revenues are distributed by fund type and geography, how much of the maintenance and preservation request is actual maintenance versus equipment, whether paving needs could be supported through bonding, and how electric vehicle sales trends might affect forecasts. The committee then heard a remote presentation from Dr. Jessica Chikino of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety on traffic safety trends and countermeasures. She said U.S. traffic fatalities have risen sharply over the past decade, with especially large increases for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists, and argued that the U.S. lags other high-income countries in roadway safety. Her presentation highlighted IIHS’s “30 by 30” goal to reduce fatalities 30% by 2030 through safer speeds, stronger impaired-driving countermeasures, better pedestrian protection, and safer commercial vehicles. She discussed research linking higher speed limits to higher fatality risk, the benefits of lower urban speed limits, speed safety cameras, traffic calming, lighting, pedestrian beacons, and safer intersection design. She also described ongoing work with Bellevue on smart signal technology and pedestrian safety pilots. Committee members thanked her for the presentation and said they would share the materials with others. In the final work session, the committee revisited transit and active transportation grant concepts that had been included in the Senate budget proposal but did not advance in 2025. Barb Chamberlain of WSDOT’s Active Transportation Division explained how grant programs need runway, staff capacity, applicant readiness, and clear criteria, and compared program design to getting a plane off the ground. She discussed the proposed Senior Transportation Emphasis Program and regional trails/cycle highways concepts, noting that some projects could be structured as funding-first programs while others would work better as project-line or project-first models. She said regional trail projects are already eligible under existing programs but often score lower because current criteria emphasize safety and population served. Justin Leighton of the Washington State Transit Association then reviewed transit grant programs and argued that transit safety and security needs remain underfunded, including operator barriers, lighting, shelters, behavioral health coordination, and non-uniformed security staff. He said many transit capital programs are oversubscribed, that operator barrier retrofits alone could cost $20 million to $30 million, and that agencies face uncertainty about how recent sales tax changes apply to security-related contracts. No votes were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:04:12.040> revenues legislative banum uh projected revenues legislative banum uh projected
• that exceed 105% of projected that exceed 105% of projected expenditures<00:04:15.920> would<
• director of the Minnesota budget project director of the Minnesota budget project uh<00:08:48.560
• Project project project—Mr. Templin or Mr. Clayman. Mr.
• ... it says funded by the amount of projected revenues that exceed 105% of projected expenditures.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House File 4, as amended, was heard in committee. The bill proposes a constitutional amendment to create a Minnesota tax relief account that would capture projected general fund revenues exceeding 105% of projected expenditures and return those funds to taxpayers, primarily through property tax relief or income tax relief. The committee adopted an amendment to put the bill in the author’s preferred shape, and later adopted a technical amendment from Representative Smith to insert the word “projected” before “expenditures” on line 2.2. Representative Johnson presented the bill as an affordability measure meant to return surplus money to the people rather than create new spending, arguing it would help homeowners and taxpayers if a surplus occurs. Ranna Lee of Americans for Prosperity supported the concept of returning surplus funds to taxpayers but also urged broader tax and budget reforms, including triggers for rate reductions and changes to budgeting practices. Nan Madden of the Minnesota Budget Project and Eric Bernstein of We Make Minnesota opposed the proposal, warning that embedding budget and tax rules in the Constitution would reduce legislative flexibility, weaken public investment, shift costs to local governments, and make it harder to respond to recessions or emergencies. Members raised questions about how the formula would work, who would qualify for refunds, whether corporations with property tax liability could benefit, and how the proposal would handle forecast-based calculations and unexpected events such as pandemics or federal policy changes. House research and committee staff clarified that the bill would need to go to Ways and Means and then Rules to satisfy House requirements for constitutional amendments, and that a fiscal note had been requested and was in process. The committee did not take final action on the bill in the portion of the transcript provided, but the motion before it was to recommend passage and send House File 4 to Ways and Means.

Transcript Highlights:

• projects when they need m road projects projects when they need m road projects when<00:24:50.880
• million or 0.4% to the total project million or 0.4% to the total project cost<00:47:14.240>
• we can UPS scope some of these projects we can UPS scope some of these projects um<00:57:08.760>
• projects.
• for all the road construction projects for all the road construction projects out<01:02:19.599><

Bills: HF198, HF269, HF185, HF303, HF305, HF189

Keywords: HF198, shared time pupils, shared-time enrollment, nonpublic school, private school, public school, career and technical education, CTE, secondary credit, school funding, state aid, education finance, Minnesota Statutes 126C.01, compulsory attendance, school district, education policy, HF269, Spicer, Minnesota bonding bill, capital investment

Transcript Highlights:

• implementation of the project. implementation of the project.
• The project has specific project, right?
• <02:08:13.520> It's project, that's a separate project.
• projects with the state. That's fine. projects with the state. That's fine.
• proposed project.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land met on February 3, 2026, and heard testimony on several bills, with the chair emphasizing a two-minute limit and noting that bills would die if the hearing ran past noon. For HB 1848, the Commission on Water Resource Management and the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development both supported the measure with technical, non-substantive amendments. Testimony focused on requiring early consultation about water availability in district boundary amendment petitions, with water officials explaining that the petitioner should submit a written statement reflecting consultation and that the goal was to identify water constraints earlier in the development process. The Land Use Commission’s representative opposed the bill, arguing that water availability is already addressed through existing environmental review and agency consultation, that the issue had been raised and rejected before, and that the proposal could create unnecessary delay or litigation. The committee then heard HB 1728 on rainwater catchment systems. The Commission on Water Resource Management said it acknowledged the bill’s intent but deferred to counties and other regulatory agencies, including the Department of Health, on regulatory implications. Hawaii Realtors testified in support. No vote was taken during the portion of the hearing shown. For HB 1652 on storm water management systems, the Hawaiian Lifeguard Association opposed the bill, arguing it would weaken protections created by Act 281 (“Sharkey’s Law”) and increase drowning risk for children by exempting certain water features from safety requirements. The American Council of Engineering Companies of Hawaii supported the bill, saying the language clarifies and better balances child safety with practical green stormwater infrastructure, including depth-based limits and exemptions for certain agricultural ponds. The Hawaii Farm Bureau also supported the agricultural pond exemption, saying such ponds are used for irrigation, livestock, and fire control and are generally away from the public. A private testifier, Allison Schaers, opposed the bill and described her daughter’s drowning in a detention basin, arguing that poor maintenance can turn stormwater features into dangerous hazards. The hearing ended without any recorded committee action or vote in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• This project and projects like that are not eligible under Senate Bill 7.
• projects, produced water treatment projects and aquifer storage and recovery projects or ASR in this
• , and three reservoir projects.
• such large projects.
• Henderson County project.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:30:05.600> The projects that are shovel ready. The projects that are shovel ready.
• <00:34:58.240> These 150 projects awaiting funding. These 150 projects awaiting funding.
• our water and sewer project in St. our water and sewer project in St.
• Um, and and projects in the metro.
• Uh and primarily projects today.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• advance the redevelopment project advance the redevelopment project opportunity.<00:14:58.920>
• So, it's just kind of a cool project.
• <00:31:12.440> to That's why we had a pilot project to That's why we had a pilot project to
• You can go to a really cool project.
• in getting this project off the ground. in getting this project off the ground.

Keywords: 1183, house