Transcript Highlights:

• </c> development and deployment of carbon development and deployment of carbon capture<00:07:33.479><
• State's policy to support carbon capture State's policy to support carbon capture uh<00:08:02.960><c>
• s bill includes lifting the nuclear moratorium and includes any level of carbon capture.
• </c><00:11:56.720><c> the</c><00:11:56.880><c> only</c> carbon capture uh nuclear is the only carbon
• meet</c><00:43:04.520><c> our</c> and carbon capture to help meet our and carbon capture to help meet

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:04:21.680><c> look</c> much set aside for carbon capture. look much set aside for carbon capture
• I know, and if we talk broadly about carbon capture, this new administration has shifted a little bit
• I know, and if we talk broadly about carbon capture, this new administration has shifted a little bit
• I know, and if we talk broadly about carbon capture, this new administration has shifted a little bit
• I know, and if we talk broadly about carbon capture, this new administration has shifted a little bit

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• A study of 12 counties in Texas estimated that carbon capture and sequestration projects could have a
• That said, there are still issues addressing the carbon capture industry and questions about what we
• We know carbon management, including carbon capture and storage, is going to play a significant role
• Many believe carbon capture and storage holds great promise for reducing carbon emissions.
• There were 5 bills that related to carbon capture and all were, were defeated.

Transcript Highlights:

• AB 881 will enable carbon capture and sequestration technologies to help advance California's climate
• Carbon capture technologies either capture carbon directly from the air or from industrial emissions.
• Recognizing the importance of carbon capture technologies for California, a couple of things happened
• California also passed legislation to establish a regulatory framework for carbon capture here in our
• At best, this will be delayed, and our carbon capture goals and our climate goals will be delayed.

Summary: The committee heard several climate, environmental, and housing bills. AB 1425, dealing with pit dewatering near the San Joaquin River Parkway, drew extensive testimony. The author and supporters argued the bill was needed to protect the river, groundwater, floodplain conditions, tribal and cultural resources, and public access from a proposed mining project near the river. Opponents, including Cemex, labor representatives, and industry groups, said the bill would bypass the CEQA process before it was complete, threaten jobs, and create uncertainty for an existing operation. Members questioned both sides about hydrology, blasting, dewatering, and the adequacy of the ongoing environmental review. The bill was moved, but several members expressed concern about preempting CEQA and some did not vote or voted no. AB 881, which would allow California to move forward with carbon capture and sequestration pipelines, was presented as a way to advance state climate goals and capture federal funding. Supporters, including SMUD, labor, and industry groups, said the bill would help deploy carbon capture safely and preserve jobs. Environmental justice opponents supported stronger safety direction and warned that CO2 pipelines pose serious risks and that the state should not move ahead without clearer standards. The bill received a due-pass recommendation to Appropriations. AB 1207, on the cap-and-trade allowance price ceiling and the social cost of carbon, was presented as a science-based update to California’s climate policy. The author and EDF said the bill would keep the program aligned with current economic and climate data and protect it from federal political interference. It received broad support and a due-pass recommendation. AB 1106, creating a coordinated network of air quality incident response centers, was also approved after testimony about wildfire smoke, toxic emissions, and the need for better real-time monitoring during disasters. AB 28, the Landfill Fire Safety Act, focused on the Chiquita Canyon landfill fire and related health impacts in Castaic and Val Verde; residents described serious illnesses and contamination concerns, while landfill and county representatives warned about costs and asked for more study. The committee nonetheless advanced the bill with a due-pass recommendation. The committee also heard AB 357, which would speed Coastal Commission review of student and faculty housing projects, with supporters citing student homelessness and opponents urging caution but acknowledging the need for more housing; the bill was presented and discussed, with the committee emphasizing the need to balance housing production and coastal oversight.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so I guess I'm helping carbon capture projects in the same way.
• It's not a bill about carbon capture. It's not about shielding bad actors.
• The headline is “Carbon Dioxide Leak in Decatur, Illinois, Demonstrates Dangerous Failure of Carbon Capture
• It reads, in part, that the injection of carbon dioxide at a carbon capture and storage facility in Decatur
• The injection of carbon dioxide at a carbon capture and storage facility in Decatur, Illinois, has been

Summary: The committee first took up HB 804, the Louisiana Energy Protection Act, which was presented as a narrowly focused ban on climate-change damages lawsuits rather than a measure affecting emissions claims, pollution claims, or private property rights. The author and supporters said the bill was intended to stop speculative suits targeting energy producers, farmers, truckers, manufacturers, and other businesses for global climate impacts, while preserving claims for actual legal violations under state or federal environmental and safety laws. After a substitute amendment was adopted to clarify and streamline the bill, the committee heard extensive support from oil and gas, chemical, business, port, and legal reform groups, along with a few opposition speakers who argued the bill could still be read to shield industry too broadly or weaken climate accountability. HB 804 was reported favorably as amended. The committee then considered HB 802, as amended, which creates a watershed conservation fund tied to the Amite River Basin. The author explained that the bill was narrowed from a statewide proposal to a basin-specific program to reduce flood risk and restore watershed areas using existing severance revenue from sand mining, modeled in part on coastal restoration funding. Supporters from the concrete industry, landowners, levee boards, and conservation groups described it as a practical, low-cost, non-government solution to help remediate old sand and gravel pits and improve flood control. With no opposition cards and no objections, HB 802 was reported favorably as amended. Finally, the committee heard HB 934, as substituted, which would allow licensed wildlife rehabilitators to possess white-tailed deer fawns under specific conditions, including disease monitoring, release only within the same management zone, and other handling requirements. The author said the bill was meant to prevent the euthanizing of orphaned fawns that could be rehabilitated and to create a lawful pathway for licensed care. A supporter described her experience rescuing an orphaned fawn that was later confiscated and killed, while the Louisiana Wildlife Federation opposed the measure, warning it could effectively create a captive deer program, undermine wildlife conservation principles, and lead to dangerous or inhumane facilities. The transcript ends during testimony on HB 934, before final committee action is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Moreover, North Dakota is at the forefront of carbon capture and storage innovation, investing over $268
• This bill prevents unintended consequences that could hinder carbon capture efforts or disrupt interstate
• </c><00:04:34.280><c> capture</c> is at the Forefront of carbon capture is at the Forefront of carbon
• </c><00:05:18.800><c> capture</c><00:05:19.199><c> efforts</c><00:05:19.520><c> or</c> could hinder carbon
• capture efforts or could hinder carbon capture efforts or disrupt<00:05:20.440><c> Interstate</c><00

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• They're capturing the carbon out of the stack. They are.
• And I guess my point is there, you know, there's lots of ways to capture carbon besides CCUS.
• And I guess my point is there, you know, there's lots of ways to capture carbon besides CCUS.
• Yes, it's, you know, you can... to capture carbon besides CCUS.
• Which is bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration in the U.S., correct.

Summary: The House Committee on Commerce met on March 17, 2026, adopted its rules again because they had not been properly posted, and voluntarily deferred several bills before taking up the day’s agenda. The committee then moved through a series of commerce and financial services measures, with members repeatedly noting the bills had been worked on jointly by authors and stakeholders. HB 489, on transfer-on-death securities, was amended to make the transfer requirements mandatory and to remove a liability limitation for registering entities, then reported favorable. HB 545, which narrowed a consumer-loan bill to origination fees only, was amended and reported favorable. HB 555, expanding protections for eligible adults from financial exploitation, was amended with technical changes and an amendment from Rep. Boyd, then reported favorable after testimony from bankers and advocates describing scams targeting seniors and the need for delayed transactions, trusted contacts, and training. HB 797, creating the Bayou Gold Program, was amended to clarify electronic payment platforms and reported favorable after questions about state involvement, insurance, and consumer protections. HB 952, modernizing the consumer loan framework, was amended to a three-tier rate structure and to add ability-to-repay and disaster-relief provisions, then reported favorable. The committee also considered two economic development bills from Rep. Owen. HB 672 would encourage brick manufacturing in Louisiana; after an amendment changed LED’s role from directing a priority industry to allowing support through existing programs and guidance, the bill was reported favorable. Testimony emphasized Louisiana’s clay deposits, limited in-state brick production, and potential benefits for housing costs and jobs. HB 670, on wood pellet manufacturing, received a similar amendment limiting LED to support and guidance rather than mandates, and was also reported favorable. A consultant testified that a proposed North Louisiana pellet facility could generate significant payroll, local spending, and revenue from timber that is currently underused, while LED described the sector as part of the state’s agribusiness and energy strategy and discussed global demand, carbon footprint requirements, and the role of CCUS in attracting large projects. The discussion on HB 670 continued at the end of the transcript, with members probing how the industry works and how Louisiana could benefit from it.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I guess my point is there, you know, there's lots of ways to capture carbon besides CCUS.
• And I guess my point is there, you know, there's lots of ways to capture carbon besides CCUS.
• And I guess my point is there, you know, there's lots of ways to capture carbon besides CCUS.
• Yes, it's, you know, you can... to capture carbon besides CCUS.
• Which is bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration in the U.S., correct?

Bills: HB489, HB545, HB555, HB583, HB670, HB672, HB797, HB814, HB913, HB952

Keywords: transfer on death, TOD, beneficiary designation, investment accounts, brokerage accounts, securities, nonprobate transfer, estate planning, succession, probate, community property, forced heirship, financial advisor, broker-dealer, custodian, transfer agent, banking, wealth transfer, inheritance, Louisiana Revised Statutes

Summary: The House Committee on Commerce met on March 17, 2026, adopted its rules again because they had not been properly posted on the agenda, and then voluntarily deferred several bills, including HB 580, HB 583, HB 814, and HB 913. The committee then took up a series of bills, with members frequently adopting technical amendments and, in several cases, combining related proposals from different authors into one measure. Several bills were reported favorably after brief debate and no recorded objections. HB 489 by Rep. Gadbury, concerning the Louisiana Uniform Transfer on Death Security Registration Act, was amended to make transfer-on-death registration mandatory rather than permissive and to remove liability-delay language, then reported favorably. HB 545 by Rep. Riser, on consumer loan charges, was narrowed by amendment to focus on origination fees and was reported favorably with support from banking, credit union, business, AARP, and other groups. HB 555 by Rep. Carver, expanding protections against financial exploitation of eligible adults, incorporated language from Rep. Boyd’s similar bill and was reported favorably after testimony from Carver, Boyd, and bankers describing scams, trusted contacts, and temporary transaction delays as safeguards. The committee also advanced HB 797 by Rep. Cruz, creating a Bayou Gold certification program for gold depositories and electronic payment platforms. Members questioned whether the bill created a state-backed bank; Cruz emphasized that it did not, and the bill was amended to clarify terminology and consumer-facing structure before being reported favorably. HB 952 by Rep. Jordan, modernizing consumer loan law, was amended to a three-tier rate structure, add ability-to-repay language, and include disaster-relief and financial literacy provisions; it was then reported favorably. Finally, HB 672 and HB 670 by Rep. Owen, promoting brick manufacturing and wood pellet manufacturing, were both amended to shift LED’s role from setting priorities to supporting recruitment, retention, and expansion within existing authority and available funds, and both bills were reported favorably after testimony about local resources, logistics, jobs, and export potential.

Transcript Highlights:

• carbon in soil while maintaining successful operations. ...methane emissions and captured carbon in
• fuel standard and carbon and ongoing revenue streams from programs like the low-carbon fuel standard
• Secure land tenure for family farmers is essential for carbon capture and reduction of greenhouse gas
• emissions, long-term reliable land, For carbon capture and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
• It is important to remember that water follows carbon.

Summary: The joint informational hearing examined how agricultural programs have used cap-and-invest funding and what role agriculture should play in future climate investments. The chairs opened by noting that agriculture had been largely left out of the cap-and-invest reauthorization, despite prior support through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and framed the hearing around climate-smart agriculture, food security, rural vitality, and the need for measurable co-benefits such as water savings, soil health, and air quality improvements. The first panel included CDFA Deputy Secretary Virginia Jamison and LAO analyst Helen Kirsten. Jamison described CDFA’s climate-smart portfolio, including the Healthy Soils Program, SWEEP, the Alternative Manure Management Program, and dairy methane reduction efforts, saying roughly $727 million has supported these programs and produced estimated reductions of 31 million metric tons of CO2e, 1.6 million acre-feet of water savings, and about 4,000 projects. She emphasized technical assistance, oversubscription of the programs, and the need for continued investment and better measurement/verification. Kirsten outlined the cap-and-invest structure, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and the state’s emissions inventory, noting agriculture is about 8% of California’s GHG emissions and that funding for tier-three programs may remain constrained. She also said prior LAO work found the programs have significant reduction potential but that some estimated benefits may be overstated, recommending further evaluation. The second panel featured UC researchers Alexandra Hill and Ermi Kibreab, who presented on the economic importance of California’s working landscapes and on dairy methane reduction pathways. Hill said working landscapes are a major part of the state and national economy, with agriculture driving most of the sector’s sales and jobs. Kibreab explained that dairy is central to methane reduction because it accounts for a large share of agricultural methane emissions, and described herd efficiency, digesters, alternative manure management, and emerging feed additives as complementary strategies. He said digesters and other incentive-supported measures are helping California move toward its methane goals, while noting feed additives such as 3-NOP and seaweed-based approaches could offer additional reductions in the future. The third panel brought contrasting views from environmental advocates, farmers, and industry representatives. Phoebe Seaton argued that further state funding for dairy digesters is not environmentally or economically justified, citing concerns about methane, nitrous oxide, groundwater impacts, odors, and high cost per ton reduced. Brian Shobe of CalCAN supported continued funding for programs like AMP, SWEEP, and Healthy Soils, saying they provide multiple co-benefits and that farmers need stable, incentive-based support to comply with climate and water regulations. Cannon Michael of Bowles Farming Company described his farm’s investments in organic and regenerative practices, composting, drip irrigation, solar, habitat management, and workforce programs, and said consistent funding helps farms plan and remain viable. Tricia Gerringer of the Agricultural Council of California urged funding for FPIP, the Farmer Program, methane reduction programs, and sustainable ag waste management, arguing they deliver immediate, measurable reductions and co-benefits. Members and witnesses debated the relative merits of digesters versus alternative manure management, the role of regenerative agriculture, and whether agriculture should be treated as a distinct policy category. No votes were taken; the hearing concluded with public comment supporting agricultural climate funding and a request to include agriculture in broader cap-and-invest discussions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Carbon capture technologies are a necessary and important part of California's strategy to...
• Scott Wetch, joining us on behalf of the Carbon Capture Coalition. Mr.
• The money that the Biden administration set aside for carbon capture is evaporating quickly.
• Scott Wetch, joining us on behalf of the Carbon Capture Coalition. Mr.
• The money that the Biden administration set aside for carbon capture is evaporating quickly.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy heard several bills focused on utility rates, wildfire safety, carbon capture, methane reduction, large energy users, low-income energy programs, and clean energy supply chains. Early items included SB 613, which would direct state agencies to prioritize reducing methane emissions from imported fossil fuels, and SB 614, which would allow California to move forward with carbon dioxide pipeline safety rules and potentially lift the state’s moratorium on new CO2 pipelines. Both bills drew support from advocates and industry-related witnesses, with no opposition registered at the time they were presented, and the committee indicated it would vote once quorum was established. After quorum was called, the committee took up SB 57, which would require the Public Utilities Commission to establish tariffs for large energy users such as data centers to prevent cost shifts to other ratepayers and address stranded infrastructure costs. Supporters argued the bill would protect affordability and encourage clean energy use, while opponents, including utilities and business groups, warned it could create uncertainty and interfere with existing regulatory processes. The committee also heard SB 256 on wildfire mitigation and emergency response, including undergrounding, PSPS communication, and removal of abandoned lines; supporters emphasized the need for stronger action after recent fires, while utilities raised concerns about duplicative requirements and public disclosure of sensitive infrastructure information. Both SB 57 and SB 256 were approved on roll calls. The committee then heard SB 647, which would expand and standardize oversight of low-income energy savings programs and performance metrics, with strong support from community advocates and some neutral or “tweener” positions from utilities that sought further work on data collection and implementation. SB 787 followed, proposing a state strategy to coordinate supply chains and workforce development for clean energy industries including EVs, building decarbonization, and offshore wind; it received broad support and no opposition. The committee also considered SB 332, a study bill on utility ownership models and affordability reforms, which drew strong support from consumer and climate advocates but opposition from utilities and business groups concerned about bias, investor signals, and executive compensation provisions. The consent calendar was later approved, and several bills were reported out with votes or held open for absent members to add on.

Transcript Highlights:

• The low-carbon fuel standard, more carbon. With that, we will begin our hearing.
• High-carbon fuels, such as fossil gasoline and fossil diesel, have carbon intensities that are higher
• So what we're doing is we're balancing high-carbon fuels against low-carbon fuels.
• There's a lot of carbon in the biomass. There's a lot of carbon in the peat.
• soil, that carbon decomposes.

Summary: The hearing was a select committee discussion on the transportation costs and impacts of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with opening remarks from the co-chairs and members emphasizing affordability, climate goals, and the need to explain the program’s benefits to the public. The first panel from CARB and the California Energy Commission described how LCFS works as a market-based, declining carbon-intensity program that rewards lower-carbon fuels, supports zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and is intended to reduce greenhouse gases and local air pollution. They argued the program has driven billions in private investment, increased alternative fuel use, and that LCFS credit prices are not the main driver of retail gasoline prices, which they said are dominated by crude oil, refining, and distribution costs. Members questioned the panel on the gap between the regulatory target and actual carbon-intensity performance, the role of credit banking, which fuels are generating the most credits, how the 2025 amendments affected the program, and whether LCFS credits are truly additional. CARB explained that banking helps cost-effectiveness and investment certainty, that ethanol, renewable diesel, and biodiesel currently provide the largest volumes while electricity is expected to grow, and that the updated targets were informed by the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goals and the 2030 scoping plan. The Energy Commission said its data show environmental programs add some cost to gasoline but do not drive price volatility, which is mainly tied to crude oil and refinery margins. The second panel, featuring academic and research experts, focused on program design, out-of-state credit generation, and broader economic effects. Speakers said LCFS is successful because it ties incentives to emissions benefit, uses life-cycle analysis, and allows flexible compliance that lowers costs compared with more direct regulation. They also said the program’s benefits generally outweigh costs, that it can reduce air pollution disparities and support equity, but that some issues—especially indirect land use change, additionality, and older program assumptions—need more research and may warrant future rulemaking. One researcher noted that while LCFS likely raises gasoline prices somewhat, the effect is uncertain by design and usually smaller than normal market fluctuations, and another warned that limiting credit generation too narrowly could create legal and efficiency problems.

Transcript Highlights:

• carbon in soil while maintaining successful operations. ...methane emissions and captured carbon in
• In that strategy, we have sought to capture the breadth of the work the state has already begun, and
• Secure land tenure for family farmers is essential for carbon capture and reduction of greenhouse gas
• It is important to remember that water follows carbon.
• When carbon leaves the soil, water follows, and when water returns with it.

Summary: The joint informational hearing examined how California agricultural programs have used cap-and-invest funding and what role agriculture should play in future climate investments. Committee chairs framed the issue as balancing climate goals, food production, rural economic vitality, and the fact that agriculture was not specifically funded in the recent cap-and-invest reauthorization. The first panel from CDFA and the Legislative Analyst’s Office described the state’s climate-smart agriculture portfolio, including Healthy Soils, SWEEP, the Dairy Methane Reduction Program, and Alternative Manure Management, and explained that GGRF revenues are now more constrained and may not fully support all tiered programs. LAO emphasized that agriculture is about 8% of California’s emissions, that most ag emissions are outside the cap, and that the Legislature should consider program effectiveness, the role of incentives, and GGRF priorities. CDFA testified that roughly $727 million has been invested in its flagship climate-smart ag programs, producing estimated reductions of 31 million metric tons of CO2e, 1.6 million acre-feet of water savings, and about 4,000 projects. The department said technical assistance is essential because farmers face risk when adopting new practices, and noted new Proposition 4 funding for Healthy Soils, SWEEP, and a regional farm equipment sharing program. University researchers then presented economic and methane-reduction analyses: UC Berkeley’s Dr. Hill described working landscapes as a major economic driver, while UC Davis’ Dr. Kibreab outlined dairy methane reduction pathways, including herd efficiency, digesters, alternative manure management, and emerging feed additives such as 3-NOP and seaweed, arguing that incentive-based programs have helped California move toward its methane goals. A later panel featured sharply different views on dairy digesters. Phoebe Seton argued that digesters worsen air and water quality, encourage manure liquefaction, and are an inefficient use of public funds, while CalCAN’s Brian Schobey and agricultural representatives said programs like AMP, SWEEP, Healthy Soils, FPIP, and the Farmer Program deliver measurable emissions reductions plus co-benefits such as water savings, lower energy costs, and improved air quality. Farm and industry witnesses stressed that stable, incentive-based funding helps family farms remain viable, supports co-investment, and should be treated as a partnership rather than a regulatory stick. No votes or formal actions were taken; the hearing ended with public comment and a continued call for future funding and policy discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• carbon in soil while maintaining success. ...methane emissions and captured carbon in soil while maintaining
• In that strategy, we have sought to capture the breadth of the work the state has already begun, and
• Secure land tenure for family farmers is essential for carbon capture and reduction of greenhouse gas
• It is important to remember that water follows carbon.
• When carbon leaves the soil, water follows, and when water returns, it returns with it.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, To the role of carbon capture and sequestration.
• Carbon capture Yeah, thank you for that question, Assembly Member.
• Carbon capture and carbon removal, we know, are going to play an incredibly important role in meeting
• Years ahead, we're thinking about how carbon capture gets integrated into the program.
• We're very heartened to see the positive comments made by the board relative to carbon capture.

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:

• Obviously, here in North Dakota, we've been working on carbon capture policy since 1993.
• We fully embraced where we think carbon capture can go, not only to increase the life of the plant, to
• And then lastly, there was the 45Q, so that's the federal tax credit for capturing carbon dioxide.
• And then lastly, there was the 45 Q, so that's the federal tax credit for capturing carbon dioxide.
• Um, completely different technology for carbon capture, but also has a much more, um, emphasis on EOR

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Carbon capture. Yeah, thank you for that question, Assembly Member.
• Carbon capture and carbon removal.
• Years ahead, we're thinking about how carbon capture gets integrated into the program.
• Years ahead, we're thinking about how carbon capture gets integrated into the program. design details
• We're very heartened to see the positive comments made by the Air Board relative to carbon capture.

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, House Bill 510 by Representative Schamhorn prohibits the importation of captured carbon dioxide
• Quintmore, about four years ago at a parish president's meeting where we heard of carbon capture sequestration
• Quintmore, about four years ago at a parish president's meeting where we heard of carbon capture sequestration
• capture.
• And two, that local governments can respond to an emergency created by carbon capture.

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 480, which would allow anchoring in certain waterways, specifically Oyster Bayou, with restrictions to protect oyster leases and require a person to remain on board. After brief explanation from the sponsor, Representative DeWitt moved favorable and the bill was reported favorable without objection. House Bill 510, which would have prohibited importation of captured carbon dioxide into Louisiana for sequestration, was discussed briefly. The sponsor said the proposal appeared to conflict with federal law and interstate commerce concerns, and he asked to voluntarily defer the bill. The committee agreed, and HB 510 was deferred. The committee also heard House Resolution 279, urging the state to study geothermal energy policy; after questions about geothermal technology and possible overlap with CCS infrastructure, the resolution was adopted on a 10-3 roll call vote and reported favorable. The bulk of the meeting focused on House Bill 1152, as amended, dealing with the Carbon Dioxide Geologic Storage Trust Fund and a proposed injection fee for carbon sequestration projects. The amendment would set the fee at 19 cents per ton, with 12 cents going to the state trust fund and 7 cents going directly to affected parishes, while retaining existing fund caps and adding evacuation routes as an eligible local expenditure. Industry groups and local government representatives both testified: industry warned the proposal was rushed, could create uncertainty, and might hurt Louisiana’s competitiveness; parish officials argued locals need a meaningful revenue share, transparency, and bargaining power because they will bear emergency-response burdens. Members raised questions about the fee structure, exemptions for state lands and parish agreements, and whether the local share would continue for the life of a project. The bill remained under discussion at the end of the transcript, with talk of creating an off-session task force or working group to continue negotiations for next year.

Transcript Highlights:

• Geologic sequestration, and it is an important element of carbon capture and storage technologies that
• Deputy Secretary, are there any actually functioning carbon capture on coal-fired power plants. Mr.
• Owning carbon capture facilities.
• Massive shifting of liability from an oil company or a carbon capture facility to the state of New Mexico
• We know that with carbon capture facility, there's leaking, there's other things, but there's corrosion

Transcript Highlights:

• Moreover, North Dakota is at the forefront of carbon capture and storage. federal power Act and the the
• is at the forefront of carbon capture and storage, investing over $268 million in clean energy research
• This bill prevents unintended consequences that could hinder carbon capture efforts or disrupt interstate
• This bill prevents unintended consequences that could hinder carbon capture efforts or disrupt interstate
• </c><00:28:18.760><c> capture</c> realize its potential in carbon capture realize its potential in carbon

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• at the forest level or going in and doing management to address both captured carbon in the form of
• So this table, that bench, your home is captured carbon.
• So that will be captured... ...captured carbon.
• So this table, that bench, your home is captured carbon.
• So that will be captured. and create new products out of it. So that will be captured carbon.

Summary: The committee heard several bills, beginning with AB 1938, which would create a voluntary process for local governments to designate California surf reserves through the Ocean Protection Council. The author and supporters, including Save the Waves Coalition, the League of California Cities, and the California State Association of Counties, argued the bill would recognize surf breaks as important natural and economic assets. The bill received a due pass recommendation to Appropriations and passed on a roll call vote, with the measure left on call. The committee also approved the consent calendar, which included AB 1699, AB 1780, AB 1891, AB 1893, and AB 2566. The committee then took up AB 2051, which would convene a coastal resilience permitting working group to develop a roadmap for streamlining permits for coastal resilience projects. The author and supporters from the Bay Area Council, Port of San Francisco, and others said the bill would reduce duplicative permitting delays while preserving environmental protections. One member raised concerns about giving too much authority to the Coastal Commission, but the bill still received a due pass recommendation to Water, Parks and Wildlife and passed on a roll call vote. AB 2494, dealing with the management of demonstration state forests, drew substantial debate. The author said the bill would update outdated 1947-era management goals to emphasize biodiversity, carbon sequestration, wildfire resilience, recreation, research, and tribal co-governance, with strong support from Mendocino County, tribal representatives, and environmental groups. Opponents from the Farm Bureau, California Forestry Association, and others argued it would shift the forests away from sustainable timber production, create funding instability, and invite litigation. After extensive questioning about forest science, old growth, funding, and tribal co-management, the bill received a due pass recommendation to Appropriations and passed on a roll call vote. The committee also approved AB 2483, which would create a permanent certification pathway for formerly incarcerated firefighters who served on Cal Fire hand crews. Supporters said the bill would recognize their training and improve job prospects after release, and it passed unanimously to Public Safety. Finally, AB 1777, the California Clean Skies Act, was heard; it would affirm CARB’s authority to adopt indirect source rules to address pollution from vehicle-heavy facilities such as warehouses and ports. Environmental, health, and labor supporters backed the bill as a tool to protect public health, while trucking, business, port, and industry groups opposed it as costly and overly broad. The bill remained under discussion at the end of the transcript, with members debating whether it clarified existing authority or created new regulatory power.