Transcript Highlights:

• accordingly, CARB’s regulations are designed to decrease demand for fossil fuel.
• of clean fuels.
• of cleaner fuels.
• fuel as well.
• types of fuels like hydrogen and renewable fuels.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Assembly Committees on Utilities and Energy, Transportation, and Natural Resources focused on California’s transportation fuels sector, especially the state’s response to refinery closures and the broader transition away from fossil fuels. Opening remarks emphasized the tension between climate and air-quality goals, fuel affordability, refinery jobs and local tax bases, and the need to avoid crisis-driven responses as Phillips 66 and Valero consider shutting refineries in Wilmington and Benicia. Professor Emily Grubert framed the issue as a long-term managed transition in which the public already bears much of the risk and should also capture benefits from a well-planned shift. CARB Chair Leanne Randolph reviewed the state’s emissions and fuel policies, including AB 32, the low-carbon fuel standard, clean vehicle programs, and the at-berth regulation for ocean-going vessels. She said California’s transportation sector remains the largest source of greenhouse gases and a major source of smog-forming pollution, but that the state has made substantial progress and still needs to reduce demand for fossil fuels while maintaining compliance with federal air-quality standards. Randolph also said CARB’s recent LCFS amendments had not caused the predicted spike in gas prices and explained that compliance pathways for the at-berth rule include emissions-reduction technologies or payments into a remediation fund. CEC Vice Chair Gunda described declining gasoline demand, shrinking in-state refining capacity, and growing dependence on imports, arguing that the state is in a “mid-transition” period that requires both support for legacy infrastructure and continued investment in cleaner alternatives. He outlined the administration’s petroleum market stabilization proposal, which aims to return California crude production to 125 million barrels a year through four components: codifying the ban on fracking, validating the Kern County oil-and-gas permitting ordinance, creating a temporary CEQA exemption paired with a two-for-one plug-and-drill framework, and strengthening pipeline and spill-safety requirements. Department of Conservation Director Jennifer Lucasey said the proposal is intended to stabilize crude supply and pipeline throughput while preserving health and environmental protections, and noted that CalGEM would still review permits and enforce other requirements. Mayor Steve Young of Benicia testified that a Valero closure would significantly reduce city revenue and leave the community facing years of cleanup and redevelopment challenges. He said the city supports environmental protection but is worried about the economic hit, the possibility that Benicia becomes a fuel-import terminal, and the lack of local influence over refinery decisions. Members pressed the panel on the CEQA exemption, tribal and habitat review, disclosure of closure liabilities, fuel-demand projections, and whether the proposal should include more demand-side measures. No formal votes were taken; the hearing was informational, and officials said some proposals, including a margin-cap pause and further transition planning, would be taken up later in the process.

Transcript Highlights:

• When it comes to fuel that's being exported, there's a, uh, federal tax exemption on exported fuel.
• With the exported fuel.
• I represent Titan Fuels.
• fuel.
• Not drive every fuel transfer facility along the border, but make sure that it's regulated, control that

Committee: House Energy Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• So as a result, CARB's regulations are designed to decrease demand for fossil fuels.
• , I believe I did in the special session as well, how much the regulations on the low-carbon fuel standard
• for those fuels.
• Fuels Transition Plan.
• Today's vehicles and fuels have changed quite a bit since these regulations were last substantially updated

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held its annual oversight hearing on the transportation fuels sector, focused on California’s fuel transition, the announced refinery closures by Phillips 66 and Valero, and the potential effects on supply, prices, and the broader fuel system. Committee leadership said the state needs a system-wide transition plan rather than a piecemeal approach, and state witnesses from CARB, the CEC, and DPMO described the fuel market as a complex, interconnected ecosystem involving crude production, refining, storage, imports, and delivery. They emphasized that declining gasoline demand from EV adoption is occurring alongside shrinking in-state refining capacity, which could increase volatility and price spikes if not managed carefully. CARB Chair Liane Randolph reviewed the state’s climate and air-quality programs, including AB 32, SB 32, the 2022 scoping plan, the low-carbon fuel standard, and vehicle emissions rules. She said these policies have reduced emissions substantially but that California still faces major ozone and PM2.5 problems, especially in disadvantaged communities. Randolph also said federal actions challenging California waivers could complicate the state’s clean-air efforts, and she noted that while liquid fuels will still be needed in some sectors, the state must continue reducing fossil fuel dependence while protecting public health. CEC Vice Chair Siva Gunda and DPMO Director Ty Milder presented data on gasoline demand, refinery throughput, crude imports, and price differentials. Gunda said the Legislature’s special-session laws gave the agencies transparency and planning tools, and that the CEC is developing a fuels transition plan while evaluating whether any regulatory tools should be used. Milder previewed DPMO findings that Californians have paid a long-running “mystery gasoline surcharge” averaging 41 cents per gallon since 2015, with higher margins concentrated in branded gasoline and among vertically integrated firms. He said the data show a concentrated market with some refiners doing well and others struggling, and that DPMO will continue investigating price behavior, competition, and supply risks. Members pressed the witnesses on whether state regulations contributed to refinery exits or higher prices, and on whether the agencies had adequately analyzed consumer costs. Witnesses said they had not yet implemented the new permissive tools from SB X1-2 and AB X2-1 because they were still assessing risks and benefits, and they stressed that refinery closures and capital decisions are driven by broader market conditions as well as regulation. No vote was taken; the hearing was informational, with the committee seeking updates and urging the agencies to develop a practical transition strategy that balances affordability, reliability, climate goals, and worker/community protections.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm going to focus on fuel regulations and air pollution, really, you know, looking at the chart that
• I'm going to be focusing on the ones related to fuel specifications and regulations in both the short
• But also, federal fuel regulations have gotten progressively more stringent, and now they nearly match
• California is no longer a fuel island, and so it needs to structure its markets and its regulations in
• California is no longer a fuel island, and so it needs to structure its markets and its regulations in

Summary: The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications held an oversight hearing on managing the transportation fuels transition, fuel pricing, and supply reliability. Chair Allen opened by discussing prior legislation, including SB 1322 and special session measures, that expanded reporting to the California Energy Commission (CEC) and gave the state tools to study gasoline costs, refinery margins, inventories, and potential supply disruptions. He framed the hearing around refinery closures, rising imports, global conflict affecting crude markets, and the need to balance affordability, reliability, and the state’s long-term clean-fuels transition. CEC Vice Chair Siva Gunda, CDTFA Chief Deputy Director Gentian Droboniku, and DPMO Director Ty Miller presented data showing California’s growing dependence on imported crude and refined products, declining in-state refining capacity, and stable-to-tight inventories that are being supported by higher imports. They said the new transparency laws have improved understanding of the market and pointed to the proposed Gateway Pipeline, marine imports, and distribution constraints as important supply issues. CDTFA and DPMO emphasized that retail margins, especially for branded gasoline, have widened significantly, with large price gaps between branded stations and hypermarts/unbranded stations, and that some of the recent price increases were tied to the Iran conflict while earlier spikes were more consistent with localized market behavior and possible price gouging. DPMO also said it is investigating high-priced branded stations, monitoring algorithmic pricing under AB 325, and continuing to analyze diesel spot-market transparency. The CEC and CARB also discussed the Transportation Fuels Transition Plan and the SB 237 assessment, describing them as efforts to plan for a managed decline in fossil fuel demand while protecting workers, communities, and consumers. They said California’s climate goals remain centered on an 85% greenhouse gas reduction by 2045, with continued use of liquid fuels expected but with lower-carbon alternatives, more efficient vehicles, and alternative fuels playing a larger role. Committee members focused heavily on workforce impacts, the need for concrete transition planning, and whether the agencies could provide a clearer picture of what California’s fuel system will look like under the state’s long-term goals. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now over a quarter of our transportation fuels come from alternative fuel sources.
• fossil fuels.
• There could be biofuels, renewable diesel, or aviation fuel, sustainable aviation fuel.
• refineries: the CalARP regulations and the Cal/OSHA regulations.
• The policy aspirations don't fuel the cars; the fuel does.

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee held an informational hearing on the environmental impacts and planning considerations associated with refinery closures. In opening remarks, the chair framed refinery shutdowns as a complex part of California’s decarbonization transition and said the committee would focus on environmental and land-use issues, while Vice Chair Gunda argued closures reflect years of policy-driven disinvestment and warned that supply disruptions and higher prices could harm working families. State agency witnesses from the Energy Commission, CARB, and the Water Boards described the state as being in a “mid-transition,” with declining gasoline demand, growing zero-emission vehicle adoption, and increasing conversion of some refinery assets to renewable fuels, but also with abrupt capacity losses that can force greater reliance on imports and storage. They emphasized the need for proactive planning, transparency, and coordination across agencies, and noted that refinery closures can stress pipelines, terminals, and other linked infrastructure, with potential liabilities falling to the state if those assets are not financially supported. The Water Boards explained their cleanup authorities and tools for refinery decommissioning, including investigation, monitoring, remediation, and enforcement under the Water Code, and said site-specific cleanup plans depend on contamination, groundwater conditions, and future land use. They noted that decommissioning can reveal previously inaccessible areas and require additional sampling or wells, and that cleanup costs can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Committee members pressed the witnesses on whether the state has enough information to plan for land transitions, whether current tools are adequate, and whether more standardized procedures or financial assurances are needed. The witnesses generally said existing tools are useful but that more transparency and better data sharing would help communities and policymakers understand liabilities and long-term redevelopment opportunities. Members also questioned the relationship between California policy, refinery closures, imports, and global emissions. CARB said its programs apply to transportation fuel suppliers whether fuel is refined in-state or imported, and that its climate and air-quality rules are designed to reduce emissions and avoid leakage. Some senators argued that California’s policies have accelerated closures and that demand has not fallen fast enough to offset lost refining capacity, while agency witnesses responded that closures are also driven by global market forces, aging infrastructure, crude quality, and changing fuel demand. The committee then heard from outside experts, including a Notre Dame professor who said closure costs are often underestimated and that stronger financial assurance requirements can shift company behavior, a Stanford/SLAC researcher who outlined five drivers of refinery closures, and an environmental attorney who discussed community impacts and lessons from the Phillips 66 Los Angeles refinery closure. No votes or formal actions were taken; the hearing was informational and focused on testimony and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• About California's fuel blend, and it's true that on the gasoline side, California has been regulating
• Our plans, or SIPs, which you're familiar with, rely on emission reductions from California's fuel regulations
• regulations.
• impact on the fuel...
• the jet fuel supply.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's really for the regulators. That's really for the regulators.
• California's fuel blend.
• regulations.
• That will also change the fuels that we're using and the fuels that we need.
• impact on the fuel...

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on the impact of the Iran conflict and global oil supply disruption on California fuel markets. Committee members and administration witnesses from the California Energy Commission and the Division of Petroleum Market Oversight described California’s heavy reliance on imported crude and refined products, the state’s shrinking refining base, current inventory levels, and how global supply tightness is affecting gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel prices. CEC officials said near-term supply looked adequate for roughly the next six weeks, but warned that continued disruption would likely raise prices further and increase competition for imports. DPMO said the conflict is a real supply shock, but also emphasized a separate, longstanding problem of unusually high California retail gasoline prices, especially among major branded stations. Witnesses and members debated the causes of high prices and the state’s longer-term fuel strategy. Professor Severin Borenstein argued that much of the price gap beyond taxes and environmental costs comes from a “mystery gasoline surcharge” downstream of refineries, while also noting that California’s shrinking number of refineries creates market-power and supply-resilience concerns. Western States Petroleum Association CEO Jody Mueller argued that state policies have weakened California’s refining system and made it more vulnerable to global shocks, urging the state to protect remaining refining capacity and improve infrastructure for imports. United Steelworkers Local 675 Vice President Norman Rogers stressed the need for safe, reliable refinery operations and adequate staffing. Several members pressed witnesses on whether California should rely more on imports, how to manage inventories and port/storage capacity, and whether the state needs clearer authority and better data collection to coordinate fuel policy. Discussion also covered branded versus unbranded gasoline pricing, the role of California fuel specifications, and whether a floating gas tax or other policy tools could buffer consumers from global price spikes. No formal votes or committee actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now over a quarter of our transportation fuels come from alternative fuel sources.
• fossil fuels.
• There could be biofuels, renewable diesel, or aviation fuel, sustainable aviation fuel.
• at refineries: the CalARP regulations and the Cal/OSHA regulations.
• The policy aspirations don't fuel the cars; the fuel does.

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee held an informational hearing on the environmental impacts and policy considerations surrounding refinery closures. Chair Blakespear framed the hearing as part of California’s broader transition away from fossil fuels, emphasizing the need for proactive planning so communities, workers, and local governments are not caught off guard. Vice Chair Gunda argued that the state has long signaled a future away from oil, while also warning that closures can create supply instability, higher prices, and infrastructure stress if not managed carefully. Senators also raised concerns about consumer costs, supply reliability, the role of imports, and whether California’s climate policies are contributing to refinery disinvestment. The first panel included the California Energy Commission, CARB, and the State Water Resources Control Board. Gunda described California as being in a “mid-transition,” with gasoline demand gradually declining, zero-emission vehicle adoption rising, and refinery capacity shrinking through both conversions to renewable fuels and outright closures. He said the state needs a coordinated strategy that balances near-term supply stability with long-term decarbonization, and noted that refinery closures can shift liabilities onto pipelines, terminals, and potentially the state. CARB’s Matthew Boutill said the agency’s focus is reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases, and that state policies are already driving billions in annual investment in alternative fuels, EV infrastructure, and refinery conversions. Water Board representative Annalisa Kihara explained the cleanup authorities used at refinery sites, including investigation, remediation, and enforcement tools, and said decommissioning often reveals previously inaccessible contamination and may require new monitoring wells and additional site assessment. Committee members pressed the panel on whether the state has enough information to plan for land reuse and cleanup costs, whether current tools are adequate, and whether more legislative direction is needed. Gunda said there are still gaps in information and transparency, especially around liability and long-term community planning. Kihara said the Water Boards can require more data, cleanup, and timelines, but that refinery remediation is highly site-specific and can take tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Senators Menjivar, Stern, and Hurtado questioned demand trends, the pace of refinery closures versus demand decline, the role of imports and the Jones Act, and whether California should consider options such as state ownership or broader ecosystem planning. The panel generally agreed that closures are likely to continue and that the state should plan proactively rather than reactively. A second panel presented recent research on refinery closures. Emily Grubert said closure costs and remediation obligations are often underestimated and that California should better define end-of-life obligations and financial assurance requirements. Tham Herschbach outlined five drivers of refinery closures: declining California crude production, falling in-state gasoline demand, the shift toward renewable diesel and other alternative fuels, global refinery consolidation, and the growing availability of imported gasoline. Anne Alexander focused on community impacts, using the Phillips 66 Los Angeles refinery closure as a case study, and said refinery sites are often heavily contaminated, cleanup can take a decade or more, and communities are often left without clear information because refineries have little end-of-life planning or financial assurance requirements. No votes or formal actions were taken at the informational hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• aviation fuel.
• So the point of regulation for transportation fuel, there's two points.
• provided fuel that's coming in by rail or ship or whatever, or whether it's fuel produced in-state and
• So then we calculate the volume of that fuel, the carbon associated with that fuel, and that is assessed
• So then we calculate the volume of that fuel, the carbon associated with that fuel, and that is assessed

Committee: Senate Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Now over a quarter of our transportation fuels come from alternative fuel sources.
• fossil fuels.
• There could be biofuels, renewable diesel, or aviation fuel, sustainable aviation fuel.
• safety at refineries: the CalARP regulations and the Cal/OSHA regulations.
• The policy aspirations don't fuel the cars; the fuel does.

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I regulate the entire site. However, I am regulated by the EPA.
• That’s July 4th, revised regulations, multiple applicants for fuel manufacturing.
• That's July 4th, revised regulations, multiple applicants for fuel manufacturing.
• The fuel has been fabricated. We should be receiving fuel... The fuel has been fabricated.
• as used fuel.

Committee: Joint Advanced Nuclear Energy Committee

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Natural gas is a fossil fuel.
• aviation fuel.
• So the point of regulation for transportation fuel, there's two points.
• provided fuel that's coming in by rail or ship or whatever, or whether it's fuel produced in-state and
• So then we calculate the volume of that fuel, the carbon associated with that fuel, and that is assessed

Committee: House Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Summary: The Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policy heard an overview from CARB on proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, which was reauthorized through 2045 by AB 1207 and SB 840. CARB said the draft rules are intended to preserve affordability, market certainty, and progress toward the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets. The agency described the program’s main features, including the declining emissions cap, utility and industrial allowance allocations, offset changes, the allowance price containment reserve, and new reporting and oversight requirements. CARB also said the rulemaking is on a public comment timeline, with board consideration planned for late May and an effective date targeted for September 1, 2026. Committee members focused heavily on electricity affordability, the planned shift of free allowances from natural gas utilities to electric utilities, and whether the proposal would raise rates for investor-owned and publicly owned utilities. CARB said the proposal is meant to protect ratepayers from compliance costs and that the utility allocation is based on updated data showing utilities are greener than before, but members and utility representatives argued the transition should happen faster and that the current draft could reduce expected revenues and disrupt long-term planning. Members also pressed CARB on carbon capture and sequestration, asking that the regulations clearly recognize it as a compliance pathway, and on whether the SB 905 rulemaking for carbon capture should move forward on schedule. A second major topic was industrial allocations, especially for refiners and other sectors at risk of leakage. CARB said it is keeping all industries at high leakage risk through 2030, maintaining the current cap-adjustment approach, and leaving room for additional comments and data on whether refiners need more allowances to avoid economic leakage and preserve in-state refining. Members also questioned how imported gasoline is treated, and CARB explained that transportation fuel is regulated at the rack and through the low-carbon fuel standard, while cap-and-invest covers in-state tailpipe and smokestack emissions rather than full life-cycle emissions. CARB said it is open to using additional data, including SB 253 reporting, to improve fuel carbon-intensity estimates. The panel of outside experts largely agreed that the program must balance affordability, ambition, and leakage concerns, but they differed on how much allowance value should go to utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The Legislative Analyst’s Office emphasized that the Legislature should scrutinize CARB’s allocation choices now because they will be hard to change later. An IEMAC representative said the proposal appears to shift more allowance value to industry and utilities, which could reduce GGRF revenues, while EDF argued the cap could be tightened further in the near term without triggering price containment. SCAPA, representing publicly owned utilities, warned that the proposal would reduce utility allowances and could raise costs for ratepayers and undermine early decarbonization investments. No votes were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• cycle makes nuclear fuel.
• That’s July 4th, revised regulations, multiple applicants for fuel manufacturing.
• The fuel has been fabricated. We should be receiving fuel... The fuel has been fabricated.
• And this is where we received the fuel. And this is where we received the fuel.
• Think of that fuel as used fuel, where we can repurpose that fuel for different applications.

Committee: Joint Advanced Nuclear Energy Committee

Summary: The meeting was a presentation and Q&A at Idaho National Laboratory focused on the state of nuclear energy, advanced reactors, and the lab’s role in testing, regulation, and commercialization. Speakers described INL’s broader mission beyond nuclear, including cybersecurity and critical infrastructure, but emphasized its major nuclear capabilities: the Advanced Test Reactor, TREAT, the Materials and Fuels Complex, and other test beds used to accelerate fuel and materials testing. They also highlighted the lab’s size, workforce, internship pipeline, and partnerships with DOE, DHS, DOD, and private companies. A major topic was the federal push to speed up nuclear deployment through executive orders and regulatory reform. Speakers said DOE and the NRC are reducing unnecessary bureaucracy, streamlining environmental reviews, and working toward a goal of having three new nuclear systems achieve criticality by July 4, 2026. They discussed the difference between microreactors, small modular reactors, and traditional gigawatt-scale plants, arguing that advanced reactors can be factory-built, safer, and better suited for data centers, military bases, remote communities, industrial heat, and other nontraditional uses. They also said the U.S. is rebuilding its nuclear supply chain, including enrichment and fuel fabrication, and that states willing to host parts of the fuel cycle could see major economic benefits. The speakers addressed questions about cost, safety, waste, and international competition. They said advanced reactors rely on passive safety features, TRISO fuel, and natural circulation, and that the industry’s challenge is often cost uncertainty rather than a precise fuel or materials limit. They argued used nuclear fuel should be viewed as a resource rather than waste if recycling becomes policy, and said microreactors should produce relatively small amounts of spent fuel. They also noted that China and Russia continue to build aggressively, with China on pace to surpass the U.S. in total nuclear generation, while U.S. projects such as Palisades, Crane Clean Energy Center, Duane Arnold, Oklo, Aalo, MARVEL, and Project Pele are moving forward under DOE and private-sector partnerships.

Transcript Highlights:

• Another job is to take the used nuclear fuel from the fleet... ...fuel from the fleets.
• That's July 4th, revised regulations, multiple applicants for fuel manufacturing.
• The fuel has been fabricated. We should be receiving fuel... The fuel has been fabricated.
• the fuel melt.
• And to John's point, think research, think of those fuel as used fuel.

Summary: The meeting was an extended briefing from Idaho National Laboratory officials on the lab’s mission, its role in nuclear energy research, and the federal push to accelerate advanced reactor deployment. Speakers described INL’s size and capabilities, including test reactors, fuel and materials facilities, cybersecurity and critical infrastructure work, and partnerships with DOE, the NRC, the Department of Defense, and private companies. They emphasized that the lab is supporting both commercial nuclear development and national security work, while also training a large intern workforce. A major theme was the current federal effort to streamline nuclear regulation and speed up licensing and demonstration. The speakers said recent executive orders and DOE/NRC coordination are reducing redundant requirements, shortening environmental review timelines, and aiming for three new nuclear systems to reach criticality by July 4, 2026. They argued that regulatory uncertainty has been a major driver of nuclear cost and that the administration’s actions, along with DOE’s pilot and demonstration programs, are intended to rebuild the domestic supply chain and industrial base. The discussion also focused on advanced reactor types, including small modular reactors, microreactors, molten salt concepts, and liquid-metal designs. Officials said these technologies are being developed for data centers, military bases, remote communities, industrial heat, hydrogen production, and other nontraditional uses. They highlighted several projects and companies, including Oklo, Aalo, Radiant, X-energy, TerraPower, Kairos, and DOE’s MARVEL and Project Pele efforts, and said some reactors are expected to reach criticality or operation in the next few years. Questions from attendees covered safety, public health impacts, materials and heat management, waste or used fuel handling, costs, and whether nuclear could remain competitive against other energy sources; the speakers responded that advanced reactors are designed with passive safety features, that used fuel should be viewed as a resource, and that cost remains highly design- and supply-chain-dependent.

Transcript Highlights:

• Natural gas is a fossil fuel.
• aviation fuel.
• So the point of regulation for transportation fuel, there's two points.
• provided fuel that's coming in by rail or ship or whatever, or whether it's fuel produced in-state and
• So then we calculate the volume of that fuel, the carbon associated with that fuel, and that is assessed

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Summary: The committee heard an overview and discussion of CARB’s proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, implemented under AB 1207 and SB 840. Chairs and members emphasized the program’s role in meeting climate targets while balancing affordability, and CARB described the proposal as intended to preserve market certainty, strengthen cost containment, address utility affordability, and support the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goal. CARB also noted the public comment period, the planned board hearing, and the goal of an effective date of September 1, 2026. Members questioned CARB on several implementation issues, including whether the rulemaking would be completed on time, the treatment of carbon capture and sequestration, the timing of the transfer of allowances from natural gas utilities to electric utilities, and the impact on ratepayers. CARB said it was on track to meet the May deadline, that CCUS/CDR could be further refined in the proposal and would also be addressed in a separate SB 905 rulemaking later in the year, and that it was seeking to protect ratepayers while inviting more utility data during the comment period. The committee also discussed refining-sector leakage risk, gasoline imports, and how imported fuel is accounted for under cap-and-invest versus the low-carbon fuel standard. A second panel of outside experts and stakeholders then testified. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and IEMAC representatives explained the major statutory changes, including putting offsets under the cap, shifting allowances from natural gas to electric utilities over time, and changing how allowance value is divided among utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. They stressed that CARB has significant discretion in setting the allowance “pie,” and that more free allocations to utilities or industry reduce GGRF revenues. EDF’s representative argued the proposal should be adopted this spring, said the utility transition should happen faster, and urged a tighter near-term emissions cap. SCAPA, representing publicly owned utilities, opposed the proposed utility allocation changes, saying they would reduce expected allowances, undermine long-term planning, and could force higher rates or reduced decarbonization investments.

Transcript Highlights:

• Sometimes, often, regulations and the impacts of those regulations aren't apparent until very later on
• programs that increase fuel cost.
• fuel producers.
• We need fuel.
• We are layering regulation on top of regulation. We're driving up costs.

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• turn it into a fuel.
• Who needs fuel? So, you know, I'm going back here. Who needs fuel right now to this. Fuel?
• fuel management.
• You're going to have used fuel in a spent fuel pool.
• Fuels and fuel cycle facilities, which contribute to... ...data, fuels and fuel cycle facilities, which

Committee: Joint Advanced Nuclear Energy Committee

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The gallons of fuel that were recovered so far are 2,630 gallons of fuel.
• I don't know if you know this, but all the fuels that we make are heavily regulated, heavily tested,
• the fuel.
• aviation fuel.
• aviation fuel.

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee met on January 20, 2006, for two work sessions focused first on aircraft fuel pipeline resiliency and then on flooding impacts to the state highway system. On the fuel topic, BP and Olympic Pipeline described the pipeline system serving Washington and Oregon, its regulatory oversight, inspection and leak-detection programs, and the November 11 Mile Post 78 release near Everett. Witnesses said the leak was initially too small for the system to detect, was found by a farm worker, and led to shutdowns, excavation, soil removal, and repairs while the site later faced flooding that complicated access but did not stop both lines from remaining operational. Committee members questioned why the leak was not detected sooner, how much fuel was released, and what safeguards exist for future environmental protection. BP also described emergency response and recovery efforts, including trucked fuel deliveries to Sea-Tac and coordination with refineries and Canadian partners. The Port of Seattle and Alaska Airlines explained the airport response, including expanded truck offloading capacity, fire and police support, communication with airlines and other airports, reduced fuel use, and the impact on flights. Tim Zenk of Earth Finance argued that Washington’s fuel system lacks redundancy and that regional renewable fuels production and storage, including sustainable aviation fuel, could improve resilience; he suggested a regional goal of producing at least 33% of fuels locally. The committee then heard from WSDOT on the December flooding and storm damage. Emergency manager John Hemel and Olympic Regional Administrator Steve Rourke described statewide emergency operations, use of WebEOC tracking, and efforts to secure FEMA and FHWA funding. They said the state EOC was activated for 10 days, four regional EOCs were activated, and more than 100 sites were impacted. WSDOT reported roughly 50 emergency work sites, about 16 emergency contracts, and a preliminary damage estimate of $40 million to $50 million. They reviewed major repairs on US 2, I-90, SR 12, SR 410, SR 542, and US 101, noting that some roads reopened quickly with temporary fixes while others would require later permanent work and environmental permitting. Members asked about the 30-working-day emergency contracting authority, federal reimbursement, and whether emergency response contracting methods could be used to speed ordinary projects. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The gallons of fuel that were recovered so far are 2,630 gallons of fuel.
• I don't know if you know this, but all the fuels that we make are heavily regulated, heavily tested,
• the fuel.
• aviation fuel.
• aviation fuel.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Natural gas is a fossil fuel.
• aviation fuel.
• So the point of regulation for transportation fuel, there's two points.
• provided fuel that's coming in by rail or ship or whatever, or whether it's fuel produced in-state and
• So then we calculate the volume of that fuel, the carbon associated with that fuel, and that is assessed

Committee: Senate Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Summary: The committee heard an overview of CARB’s proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, implemented under AB 1207 and SB 840 after last year’s reauthorization through 2045. CARB said the draft rule changes are intended to support affordability, market certainty, and the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets, while also addressing offsets, utility allowance transfers, leakage protections for industry, and post-2030 allowance budgets. Members emphasized the importance of completing the rulemaking on schedule this spring so the changes can take effect by September 1, 2026. A major focus was how allowances are allocated among electric utilities, natural gas utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. CARB explained that the proposal transfers natural gas utility allowances to electric utilities over time to support electrification and ratepayer protection, while maintaining free allowances for industry to reduce leakage risk and preserve in-state manufacturing and refining. Several members and panelists questioned whether the proposed utility changes could raise rates, whether the transition from gas to electric credits should happen faster, and whether the industrial allocation changes reduce climate credit and GGRF revenues more than necessary. CARB and panelists said they were open to additional data and comments, and noted that the proposal is still in public comment. The committee also discussed carbon capture, carbon removal, and refining. Members asked CARB to ensure that CCUS and CDR are clearly recognized as viable compliance pathways and to keep SB 905 rulemaking on track. On refining, members raised concerns about imported gasoline, leakage, and the need for better data on the carbon intensity of imported fuels; CARB said cap-and-invest applies to fuel suppliers at the rack, while life-cycle accounting issues are handled more through the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and related modeling. CARB said it is continuing technical work on those data tools. In the second panel, the LAO, IEMAC, EDF, and SCAPA representatives generally agreed that the program faces real tradeoffs between affordability, ambition, and leakage protection. The LAO and IEMAC stressed that the Legislature should scrutinize how CARB divides the allowance “pie,” since more free allocations to utilities or industry mean less revenue for GGRF. EDF argued the program could be somewhat more ambitious in the near term without harming affordability, while SCAPA said the proposal would reduce allowances for publicly owned utilities and could undermine early decarbonization investments and ratepayer benefits. No votes were taken during the hearing.