Transcript Highlights:

• The bills require the director of ADEQ to maintain vehicle emission fees in Area A so that fees collected
• in the emissions fees as of June 30, 2025, and the bill limits the amount of appropriated money transferred

Bills: HB4138, HB4139, HB4140, HB4141, HB4142, HB4143, HB4144, HB4145, HB4146, HB4147, HB4148, HB4149, HB4150, HB4151, HB4152, HB4153, SB1831, SB1832, SB1833, SB1834, SB1835, SB1836, SB1837, SB1838, SB1839, SB1840, SB1841, SB1842, SB1843, SB1844, SB1845, SB1846

Keywords: appropriations, education funding, health care, general fund, state budget, local funding, gaming, pari-mutuel, horse racing, regulatory assessment, first-time starters, budget implementation, federal funds, government services, budget stabilization, financial reporting, capital outlay, infrastructure, veterans services, highway construction

Summary: The committee met in a special joint appropriations session to review the FY 2027 budget package, including House Bill 4138 and Senate Bill 1831, the general appropriations or “feed” bills. Staff described the budget as including a one-time transfer of state funds, a 5% lump-sum reduction to most agencies’ discretionary general-fund budgets, continued funding for the state health insurance plan and school facilities, and various one-time restorations or reversions of prior appropriations. Members spent much of the meeting clarifying how the 5% reductions would work, noting that formula and mandatory funding such as K-12 basic aid are excluded, while the governor’s executive branch would decide how to implement the cuts within agencies. The chair repeatedly emphasized that the committee was not specifying line-item cuts and that agencies would have discretion over implementation. A large portion of the discussion focused on the practical effects of the budget on universities, public safety, health care, rural programs, and fund sweeps. Arizona Board of Regents and university representatives said the proposed reductions would amount to more than $85 million statewide and could affect programs such as the Arizona Promise Program, Teachers Academy, and tuition freezes, though no specific program cuts were written into the bill. Other testimony raised concerns about fund sweeps from encumbered balances, including university research funds, housing trust funds, utility regulation funds, and ADOT-related accounts, with some members warning about possible impacts on rural infrastructure and federal matching dollars. The committee also discussed the state employee health plan, including a $228 million general-fund infusion and proposed employee premium increases over three years, as well as questions about corrections, forestry and fire management, and rural critical access hospitals. Public testimony was largely opposed to the budget. Speakers from Opportunity Arizona, the Arizona Board of Regents, health care, and local government argued that the package would reduce support for education, housing, SNAP, health care access, and rural communities while preserving tax benefits for data centers and wealthy taxpayers. A mayor from Globe described severe flood damage and asked for state help for a flood relief fund, while a motorcycle safety advocate questioned a proposed transfer from the motorcycle safety fund. Committee members debated whether the budget’s effects should be described as speculative or as likely consequences of the broad cuts, and several exchanges became contentious over comparisons to the Great Recession and references to federal tax policy. The meeting ended with continued public testimony and no final vote taken in the portion provided, though leadership had earlier said the committee planned a mass roll-call vote on all the bills at the end.

Bills: HB1739, HB1741, HB2606, HB2362, HB2608, HB2294, HB2431, HB2375, HB2582, HB2585, HB2231, HB1601, HB2424, HB1956

Keywords: transit-oriented development, zoning, land use, urban planning, density, local governance, housing, inclusionary zoning, inclusionary mandate, affordable housing, below-market-rate housing, inclusionary housing, development exaction, impact fee, housing affordability impact fee, needs assessment study, financial feasibility, rough proportionality, essential nexus, county ordinance

Summary: The committee on Water and Land met on February 19, 2026, and the chair opened by emphasizing strict time limits and that all bills would be deferred if the agenda was not completed before the noon session. The first major measure discussed was HB 1739 HD1, which would preempt county land-use authority in transit-oriented development areas. The Department of Planning supported the bill, saying it could promote state-funded TOD and infrastructure, while the city and county’s position was raised in questioning. Unite Here Local 5 opposed the bill, arguing it would strip counties of self-determination, disrupt state-county policy collaboration, and remove a check on unrestrained development. Committee members pressed the supporters on whether the bill was really about higher density and whether it would override local zoning and sustainability concerns. The committee then heard testimony on HB 1741 HD1, a housing bill described by supporters as reducing inclusionary housing mandates and increasing supply. Grassroots Institute of Hawaii argued affordability mandates reduce overall housing production and raise market-rate prices, while a Zoom testifier said the bill would improve housing stability, health, and community outcomes for working families, kupuna, and young residents. Members asked about the bill’s needs assessment and who would conduct it, with a witness saying the counties would likely contract it out but that the bill did not clearly specify the reviewer. HB 2668 HD1, dealing with water heating systems, drew testimony from the Hawaii State Energy Office and industry representatives. Supporters generally backed adding heat pumps to the law, but one solar-water-heater industry witness asked for amendments to remove or extend the current 15-year statutory life limit for solar water heaters and to update outdated standards and variance rules. A Kauaʻi Climate Action Coalition witness opposed the existing solar-only structure, arguing heat pump water heaters are cheaper, align with climate goals, and should be allowed without a variance. The Energy Office said the current law already allows variances in some cases, suggested adding high-efficiency heat pump water heaters to the exemption, and said the 15-year figure may be too short, with 18 years mentioned as a possible alternative. The committee also briefly moved through several other bills, including HB 2606 HD1 on off-site construction and HB 2362 HD1 on housing, with no notable testimony or action recorded in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• emissions intensity standards.
• As far as emissions reduction goes, the oil and gas sector continues to reduce emissions substantially
• Emissions.
• These are the areas—the sectors in the state—that have emissions, greenhouse gas emissions.
• gas emissions.

Transcript Highlights:

• SAF is more expensive to produce, but has similar emissions.
• Choosing expensive policies to reduce emissions means that we are choosing to reduce emissions less than
• a 175-ton-per-day increase in NOx emissions by 2037.
• We need to continue investing in zero-emission transportation.
• Funds to support zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles.

Summary: The meeting began with a budget subcommittee hearing on a proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit trailer bill. Assembly Members Ávila Farías and another member spoke in support, emphasizing union jobs, refinery investments, and the need to decarbonize aviation. The Department of Finance said the Governor’s proposal would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold in California from 2026 to 2036. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the proposal, arguing it is a relatively expensive way to reduce emissions, has uncertain environmental benefits, could significantly reduce transportation revenues, and conflicts with the spirit of voter restrictions on transportation taxes. Committee members questioned whether the credit would mainly benefit out-of-state producers, whether firms would have diesel tax liability to use the credit, and whether the proposal would shift production away from renewable diesel and raise fuel prices. Administration and CARB staff said the credit is intended to support aviation decarbonization, preserve jobs, and help keep California on track toward its 2045 climate goals. LAO and UC Berkeley testimony countered that the policy could mostly subsidize existing technologies, that feedstock supply is limited, and that the net emissions benefit may be small relative to the cost. Members also asked about the effect on local streets and roads, SHOP, and trade corridor funding; Finance estimated a $165 million annual revenue impact would reduce those programs, while LAO said the reductions would mean fewer projects over time. No vote was taken, and the chair said the issue would remain open for further discussion. The committee then moved to a zero-emission vehicle incentive trailer bill proposing a one-time $200 million appropriation to CARB for a new point-of-sale incentive program focused on first-time buyers and leases of new and used light-duty ZEVs. Supporters said the program would help offset the loss of the federal EV tax credit, maintain momentum in California’s ZEV transition, and use a one-to-one match with participating automakers to double the state’s investment. LAO recommended rejection, saying the proposal does not meet the high budget bar this year, lacks enough program detail to evaluate, is unlikely to move sales significantly given the size of the appropriation, and could duplicate existing state and utility programs. Members asked about current incentives across light-, medium-, and heavy-duty sectors, the recent decline in ZEV sales, and whether the program would help lower-income buyers rather than subsidize purchases that would have happened anyway. CARB said the proposal is meant to fill a gap in the light-duty market, where sales fell sharply after the federal credit expired, and noted existing programs for other vehicle classes. The Department of Finance also addressed a separate question about the Motor Vehicle Account, saying a previously planned GGRF transfer was no longer needed because updated forecasts showed the fund had sufficient balances, though LAO said the account still has a structural long-term imbalance. The discussion ended before any vote or action on the ZEV proposal.

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 3535, an act relative to the sale of zero-emission vehicles.
• Zero-emission vehicles are a laudable goal, but we must be realistic, too.
• We're required by state law to reduce emissions 50 percent by 2030.
• And by 2040, all MBTA buses must be zero-emission vehicles.
• Mode shift and VMT reduction are the most effective ways to reduce these emissions.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy heard testimony on several transportation and clean-fuel bills. Supporters of H. 3535 argued for delaying or pausing enforcement of Massachusetts’ zero-emission vehicle sales mandate, saying the current ACC2 timeline is unrealistic given low ZEV sales, limited charging infrastructure, dealer inventory concerns, and potential economic impacts on dealerships, consumers, and tax revenue. Opponents of that approach, including automakers and clean transportation advocates, said the state should stay on course with electrification and that the mandate is necessary to meet climate goals. The committee also heard support for H. 3570/S. 2326 to update vehicle emission standards for municipal and utility fleets, with municipal utility representatives saying current electric truck technology, charging access, and costs make the rules impractical for critical public services. A major portion of the hearing focused on S. 2246, the Freedom to Move Act, which would require MassDOT and regional planning agencies to set vehicle miles traveled reduction goals and align transportation spending with climate targets. Supporters said the bill would better coordinate transportation planning, encourage transit, biking, and walking, and help Massachusetts meet emissions goals while saving money and improving public health. Some committee members raised concerns that the bill could duplicate existing transportation climate mandates and could disadvantage rural residents who must drive long distances; witnesses responded that the bill is meant to add coordination and flexibility, not impose a one-size-fits-all solution. The committee also heard testimony on H. 3448, which would set deadlines to electrify school buses and public fleets and create programs for private fleet electrification. Advocates said fleet electrification is a practical way to cut emissions, improve air quality, and save money over time, especially for schoolchildren exposed to diesel exhaust. Several witnesses also supported low-carbon fuel standard bills H. 3576 and S. 2251, arguing they would reduce fuel carbon intensity and generate revenue for charging and clean-fuel investments. Others, including a coalition opposed to private jet expansion, objected to the bills’ treatment of sustainable aviation fuel, saying it is not scalable, is expensive, and could create land-use and food-supply tradeoffs. No votes or formal committee actions were taken in the hearing excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The emissions and fuel use reductions in the scoping plan primarily come from zero-emission cars, trucks
• Low-carbon fuel standards fund zero-emission infrastructure, fund zero-emission vehicles,... ...fuel
• standards fund zero-emission infrastructure, fund zero-emission vehicles, and fund the fuels that we
• phase out these avoided-emissions credits because now it’s a regulated source of emissions, and we think
• phase out these avoided emissions credits because now it's a regulated source of emissions, and we think

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:

• The third step is calculating Greenhouse gas emissions.
• Just based on its AADT multiplied ultimately times the emissions, there's going to be more emissions
• So we know that vehicles create emissions.
• Capacity expansions, we know, will increase emissions, but reducing emissions by capital investments
• down to minimize emissions and reduce traffic transport is the major source of costs and emissions associated

Bills: HF4807

Keywords: overweight vehicles, aggregate mining, local ordinance restrictions, legislative audit, transportation, resource inventory

Transcript Highlights:

• ensure Minnesota reduces our emissions ensure Minnesota reduces our emissions that<00:46:24.400>
• and store more carbon reduce emissions and store more carbon reduce emissions and<01:08:42.080><
• pathways uh it has significant emissions pathways uh it has significant emissions reductions<01:
• look at how they would impact emissions look at how they would impact emissions in<01:20:08.880>
• in these areas to reduce emissions. in these areas to reduce emissions.

Bills: HF3556

Keywords: community solar, energy, solar power, renewable energy, Melissa Hortman, 1183, house

Summary: The committee approved the February 26, 2026 minutes and then took up House File 3556, which would rename Minnesota’s community solar garden program the Melissa Hortman Community Solar Garden Program. The bill’s author described the measure as a tribute to Hortman’s leadership and her role in creating the program, noting its importance to Minnesota’s solar industry and the broader clean energy transition. The author moved HF 3556 to the general register, and the committee proceeded to testimony. Testifiers from the Public Utilities Commission, Department of Commerce, solar industry groups, clean energy organizations, and community solar advocates all supported the bill. They credited Hortman with authoring and advancing the 2013 legislation that created Minnesota’s community solar program and said it became a national model that expanded access to solar for renters, lower-income households, and others who could not install rooftop systems. Several witnesses highlighted the program’s growth, including more than 1 gigawatt of approved projects, strong participation by low- and moderate-income subscribers, and job creation and private investment in Minnesota. Witnesses also emphasized Hortman’s personal leadership style, describing her as prepared, persuasive, collaborative, and deeply committed to clean energy and public service. Some recounted personal interactions with her and said the name change would preserve her legacy and ensure future Minnesotans remember her impact. No vote on the bill itself was taken during the testimony shown, beyond the motion to send HF 3556 to the general register.

Transcript Highlights:

• vehicle infrastructure and zero-emission vehicles in the state.
• And starting with light-duty vehicles, the zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and zero-emission vehicles
• Pierce Transit has a zero-emissions project.
• , but they are choosing to use it to move toward zero emissions.
• On emissions, we don't have verified reductions yet.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The House Transportation Committee held a work session focused heavily on Climate Commitment Act transportation spending and electrification programs. Staff first reviewed roughly $2.2 billion in CCA transportation allocations over three biennia, noting that the largest shares went to public transportation, active transportation, ferry electrification, ZEV programs, rail freight/ports, and planning, with about half of the electrification and fuel-conversion spending tied to state ferries. Members asked for more detail comparing CCA dollars with the broader transportation budget and for total project costs, not just CCA contributions. The Department of Ecology presented on the zero-emission school bus program. Ecology said the legislature codified the program in 2024 and requires electric buses once diesel and electric costs are equivalent, with exemptions available when electric buses cannot meet district needs. Ecology reported $38.3 million in CCA funding for 2025-27, with $21.4 million already obligated or spent to replace 91 diesel buses in 28 districts, plus additional federal EPA funding leveraged for 13 more buses. Members asked about health impacts, parity timing, rural route exemptions, charging and training costs, and whether the program includes infrastructure; Ecology said the grants cover buses, charging, and sometimes training, and that the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction is developing the cost-equivalency formula. The Department of Commerce described its clean transportation role, including EV rebates, charging infrastructure, tribal electric boats, and the EV Coordinating Council. Commerce said its rebate program was designed to lower monthly payments for low-income households, that 89% of recipients said the rebate was essential to their purchase, and that lease incentives helped draw additional federal dollars. Members asked about tribal boat details, utility interconnection and curtailment, range anxiety, and vandalism at charging stations; Commerce said battery storage and managed charging are being used in some projects, some utilities are more responsive than others, and vandalism remains a challenge. The Department of Enterprise Services reported 567 Level 2 and 46 Level 3 charging ports installed at 82 state sites, with 19 more sites in progress and over $100 million in additional candidate projects. DES said most funding is for new infrastructure, though some VW settlement money is used for replacements, and members asked about charger replacement needs, mobile charging, and EV fleet purchasing data. WSDOT then outlined its EV infrastructure and transit programs. It said the Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Partnership program has funded 23 new charging sites this biennium, including overburdened communities and tribal locations, and has supported 264 DC fast-charging ports statewide. WSDOT also described the new Washington Zero Emission Incentive Program, a point-of-sale voucher program for zero-emission commercial vehicles and equipment with $112 million available this biennium; it reported strong early demand, especially for off-road equipment and heavy trucks, and said technical assistance is being provided to help businesses participate. In public transportation, WSDOT said CCA funds support bus and bus facility grants, commute trip reduction, green transportation capital projects, paratransit, tribal transit, zero-emissions access car share, and other mobility projects, with most awards benefiting overburdened communities. Finally, WSDOT’s rail freight and ports division said port electrification projects are underway but spending is still low because of long design, permitting, utility, and supply-chain timelines; it estimated the $89.8 million program could reduce more than 140,000 metric tons of emissions over 10 years. Members questioned the pace of spending, the Northwest Seaport drayage project, and how state funds can leverage additional federal or port resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• So far, we've gone 600 miles of zero-emission miles.
• We've definitely had a brand reputation gain by going zero emission.
• Lime Scooter, who was our first zero-emission customer, came to us because we were zero emission, so
• It stands for zero-emission truck and bus infrastructure financing.
• It stands for zero emission truck and bus infrastructure financing.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• But, as the Chair and others have pointed out, the whole value chain of emissions is not emission-free
• So this would attack the end-use emissions.
• Scope 1 emissions are those direct emissions from the gas distribution system, such as methane leaks
• And scope 3 emissions are the indirect emissions incidental to the gas distribution system, and this
• And this is also known as building sector emissions.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on two related issues: gas utilities’ climate compliance plans filed with the Department of Public Utilities and the recent DPU orders reforming the Gas System Enhancement Program (GSEP). Chair Creem and other senators emphasized that Massachusetts must reduce gas use, shrink the gas distribution footprint, and move customers to alternatives such as heat pumps, network geothermal, and non-gas pipeline alternatives (NPAs). DPU Chair Jamie Van Nostrand said the new GSEP orders lower the annual revenue cap from 3.0% to 2.5%, phase it down toward 1.5%, eliminate carrying charges, require more rigorous risk prioritization, and push utilities to consider advanced leak technology, relining, repairs, and NPAs. He also described the climate compliance plans as the start of a longer process covering decommissioning, stranded costs, line extension allowances, integrated energy planning, and targeted electrification demonstrations. Senators pressed the DPU and utility witnesses on the lack of specificity in the climate compliance plans, especially the absence of numeric goals for gas usage reduction, customer conversions, and near-term deployment of NPAs. Utility representatives from Eversource and National Grid said their plans include NPA frameworks, integrated energy planning, targeted electrification pilots, network geothermal, and workforce transition efforts, but argued that implementation takes time, requires customer participation, and depends on coordination with electric utilities and communities. They said some NPA and electrification projects are being evaluated now, while larger-scale deployment is expected later in the decade. Senators also raised concerns about line extension allowances, with utilities explaining that new customers may be charged based on whether existing ratepayers would otherwise be harmed, while National Grid said it has begun increasing customer contributions to send stronger price signals. Attorney General Mary Gardner supported the DPU’s GSEP reforms and said the office favors eventually stepping the GSEP cap down to zero by 2030, with repair and replacement costs recovered in base rate cases instead. She argued that the utilities’ plans still rely too heavily on business-as-usual approaches, do not adequately quantify scope 3 emissions, and leave unresolved questions about the obligation to serve and the future of line extension allowances. Advocacy witnesses from the Conservation Law Foundation and Acadia Center were more critical, saying the plans lack the detailed modeling, targets, and transparency needed to show how the utilities will help meet the Commonwealth’s heating and cooling sublimits and broader climate goals. No votes were taken; the hearing consisted of testimony and questioning.

Transcript Highlights:

• One is just the emission reductions.
• One is just the emission reductions.
• One is just the emission reductions.
• the second is for the zero-emission forklift rule.
• Is 100% zero-emission sales by 2035.

Summary: The committee hearing focused heavily on CARB’s broad trailer bill request for regulatory fee authority. Finance and CARB argued the proposal would let CARB develop fees to recover reasonable costs for implementing and enforcing regulations, while the LAO recommended rejection because the authority was too broad, could apply to an entire division of code, and would delegate core legislative taxing/fee-setting power without enough guardrails. Members from both parties raised concerns about the breadth of the authority, accountability, affordability impacts, and whether the Legislature would be put in an up-or-down position after CARB had already developed regulations. CARB responded that fees would still go through a budget change proposal and legislative approval before collection, and cited existing examples such as transport refrigeration units and commercial harborcraft fees. The committee then reviewed CARB’s request for permanent resources to implement SB 905 on carbon capture, utilization, storage, and carbon dioxide removal. CARB said the Legislature had previously authorized limited-term positions and funding, but it had struggled to recruit and retain staff with specialized regulatory and technical expertise, and that the work had included pre-rulemaking contracts, technology review, and permit-related preparation. Members questioned the pace of work, the use of limited-term positions, and whether additional permitting authority would be needed. CARB said it hoped to begin rulemaking later in the year if permanent resources were approved. Members also discussed the cap-and-trade spending plan, noting lower-than-expected auction revenues but higher interest earnings, and the need to monitor the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and possible May Revision changes. The committee then heard overviews of the zero-emission vehicle package, the Community Air Protection Program, demand-side grid support, and e-bike incentives. CARB described ongoing investments in community-based transportation equity, drayage trucks, harbor craft, and other clean technology demonstrations, while members pressed on affordability, program duplication, and whether enough funding was being directed to incentive programs. No formal votes were taken during the portion provided, and the chair repeatedly indicated that the hearing was intended to surface concerns for later budget negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• vehicle infrastructure and zero-emission vehicles in the state.
• And starting with light-duty vehicles, the zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and zero-emission vehicles
• Next program is what we call ZAP, Zero Emissions Access.
• Next program is what we call ZAP, zero emissions access.
• On emissions, we don't have verified reductions yet.

Summary: The House Transportation Committee held a work session focused on Climate Commitment Act transportation spending and electrification programs. Staff first reviewed overall CCA transportation allocations, saying about $2.2 billion has been allocated over three biennia, with major categories including public transportation, active transportation, ferry electrification, zero-emission vehicle programs, rail/ports, and planning. Members asked for additional breakdowns comparing CCA dollars with total program costs across categories. The Department of Ecology presented on the zero-emission school bus grant program. Ecology said the program was codified in 2024 and supports the transition from diesel to electric school buses, including buses, charging infrastructure, and training. For 2025-27, Ecology received $38.3 million in CCA funding; $21.4 million is already obligated or spent, replacing 91 diesel buses in 28 districts, with the rest to be awarded by the end of the biennium. Members asked about cost parity, exemptions for rural and extracurricular routes, health data, and whether the funding covers chargers as well as buses. Ecology said OSPI is developing the parity formula and exemptions are available when electric buses cannot meet district needs. The Department of Commerce described its clean transportation role, including EV rebates, tribal charging and electric boat projects, and the EV Coordinating Council. Commerce said its rebate program was designed to lower monthly costs and prioritize low-income households, with 89% of recipients saying the rebate was essential to their purchase. It also reported strong demand for charging grants, progress on tribal projects, and concerns about utility interconnection timelines, vandalism, and range anxiety. The Department of Enterprise Services reported on state agency EVSE projects, saying it has completed 82 sites with 567 Level 2 ports and 46 DC fast chargers, and that current projects will add 152 more Level 2 ports; members asked about replacing aging chargers and the state’s EV fleet purchasing mix. WSDOT closed with updates on charging, transit, and port electrification. It said its corridor charging program has awarded 23 sites this biennium, with 13 in overburdened communities and five tribal sites, and that the Washington Zero Emission Incentive Program opened with $112 million for vouchers for zero-emission commercial vehicles and equipment. WSDOT also described transit grants, including bus and bus facility funding, commute trip reduction, paratransit, tribal transit, and zero-emissions access car-share projects. The rail freight and ports division reported $89.8 million for port electrification projects, including shore power and drayage trucks, but noted only about 10% has been spent so far because projects are still in design and permitting. Members raised concerns about funding gaps, supply-chain delays, utility capacity, and whether the programs are sufficient to meet broader electrification needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we can capture virtually any amount of those emissions up to 100%.
• It's not an emissions standard.
• It's not an emission standard.
• Which Joel just talked about is an emission standard.
• life cycle to determine the overall emissions picture.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The committee’s interim work session focused first on carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS), with presenters from industry, nonprofits, and state agencies describing Washington’s geologic potential, the role of basalt formations, and the difference between point-source capture, direct air capture, utilization, and permanent storage. Industry and project developers emphasized that Washington has major opportunities to reduce industrial emissions, create jobs, and support hard-to-electrify sectors, while state agencies explained current policy touchpoints in the Cap and Invest Program, emissions exemptions for permanently stored CO2, and the Clean Energy Transformation Act. Several presenters urged clearer statutory and regulatory pathways, including rules for pore space, subsurface rights, pipeline siting, and long-term liability; others cautioned that CCUS should be limited to real emissions reductions and not treated as a substitute for broader clean energy measures. Committee members asked about public comment opportunities, whether mineralized carbon would qualify for exemption under the Climate Commitment Act, the energy intensity of capture systems, aquifer protection, and liability if storage later proves problematic. Ecology said it is developing guidance through a public engagement process running through late June and that mineralized or otherwise permanently stored CO2 would likely qualify if it meets the 1,000-year permanence standard. DNR and outside experts also discussed trust lands, water rights, and the need for additional geophysical surveys and test wells. The panel did not take any votes or formal actions. The second half of the meeting turned to hazardous waste and extended producer responsibility. Ecology reviewed existing product stewardship programs for electronics, paint, batteries, and mercury lights, and described how moderate risk waste and household hazardous waste are currently collected through county facilities and events. Ecology said the electronics program is its best model, while the mercury lamp program is currently in transition after the prior stewardship organization exited and a new organization is seeking approval. Ecology recommended that future EPR programs have clear producer and product definitions, full producer funding, convenience standards, annual reporting, and strong enforcement authority. Local government witnesses from King County and Douglas County described rising costs, access barriers in rural areas, and the need for stable funding and flexible local delivery models. King County said it collected over 3 million pounds of hazardous products in 2025 and argued that EPR could reduce costs for ratepayers and improve equity. Douglas County stressed that rural residents are willing to participate when services are available, but travel distance and operating costs make access difficult. An industry representative supported narrowly scoped stewardship programs like PaintCare but warned that broad household hazardous waste EPR systems can become difficult to administer and may require legislative revisions if responsibilities are not clearly defined. No votes were taken on the hazardous waste topic either.

Transcript Highlights:

• should be that start date for emission should be that start date for emission for<00:16:29.399><
• why we're reducing carbon emissions why we're reducing carbon emissions already<00:32:18.519>
• changes in what those future emissions changes in what those future emissions would<00:38:24.640
• happening within the emissions analysis happening within the emissions analysis space<00:41:05.599>
• regarding the greenhouse gas emissions regarding the greenhouse gas emissions and<01:24:33.360><

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, our primary focus is trying to decrease emissions.
• Increase or decrease GHG emissions?
• we could probably admit, are less than 1% of the world's emissions.
• And so in our last update to the scoping plan, we did include wildfire emissions and emissions from all
• Emission allowances are a valuable public asset.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee heard the Department of Finance’s May Revision overview and the LAO’s budget assessment, then questioned administration officials on several natural resources and transportation proposals. Finance described the state’s improved near-term fiscal picture, but also highlighted continued budget balancing measures, including use of the temporary surplus holding account, climate bond spending, transportation and DMV/CHP augmentations, and changes affecting CEQA filing systems, water programs, CalRecycle, and food and agriculture. The LAO argued the budget still relies heavily on reserves and borrowing, recommended rejecting or delaying many new discretionary proposals, and urged caution about ongoing costs and future-year impacts, especially for the General Fund, Motor Vehicle Account, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A major portion of the hearing focused on the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal for Bay-Delta water quality implementation. Secretary Wade Crowfoot and Finance officials said the $25 million request would support early implementation of an enforceable program combining environmental flows, habitat restoration, and scientific monitoring, with the State Water Board retaining regulatory authority. The LAO said the proposal was premature because the updated Bay-Delta plan had not yet been adopted and asked for more clarity on the state’s existing commitments and future funding expectations. Several members expressed support for the program as a way to reduce long-running conflict over water policy, while others echoed concerns about timing and fiscal exposure. The committee also examined the proposed $125 million Proposition 4 contribution toward acquisition of the Golden Gate Fields property for a shoreline park and habitat restoration. State agencies said the project had a completed appraisal, was moving through a rolling grant process, and would leverage philanthropic and local funding, while members questioned why it was being elevated ahead of other park and conservation requests and whether it was the best use of limited bond dollars. The hearing then turned to transportation items, including $40 million for Clean California litter abatement, $6.2 million for Caltrans homeless coordinators, $73.4 million in DMV/Motor Vehicle Account requests, and funding for the 2028 Games route network. The LAO generally recommended rejecting or delaying the Clean California and homeless coordinator proposals pending more information, while members debated the need to preserve essential CHP and DMV operations despite the Motor Vehicle Account’s structural imbalance.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, our primary focus is trying to decrease emissions.
• Increase or decrease GHG emissions?
• And so in our last update to the scoping plan, we did include wildfire emissions and emissions from all
• And so in our last update to the scoping plan, we did include wildfire emissions and emissions from all
• Emission allowances are a valuable public asset.

Summary: The hearing focused on the governor’s May Revision proposals for transportation, natural resources, climate, and related programs, with the Department of Finance and the LAO presenting competing views on the state’s fiscal condition. Finance said the budget remains balanced over two years, with major climate-bond, water, parks, transportation, DMV, and agriculture proposals, while the LAO argued the state still has a structural deficit and should reject or defer many new discretionary spending items, preserve reserves, and be cautious about ongoing commitments. The LAO specifically questioned the timing and scale of new spending for programs such as Clean California, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, and the Golden Gate Fields acquisition, and urged more clarity on future obligations and revenue scenarios, including for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal for Bay-Delta water quality implementation. Secretary Wade Crowfoot and Finance described it as an enforceable, science-based alternative to a more traditional regulatory approach, with the state’s $25 million request intended to support early implementation, monitoring, habitat restoration, and environmental flows. The LAO countered that the Water Board has not yet adopted the updated Bay-Delta plan, that the proposal may be premature, and that the Legislature should wait for more information on the state’s total funding commitment and the program’s long-term costs. Several members expressed support for the program as a way to reduce conflict and protect water reliability, while others echoed concerns about timing and fiscal exposure. The committee also examined the proposed $125 million Proposition 4 contribution toward acquiring the Golden Gate Fields property for a shoreline park and habitat project. State officials said the acquisition is a time-sensitive, once-in-a-generation opportunity, with an appraised value of $175 million and additional philanthropic and local funding expected to close the gap. Members questioned whether the project had gone through the usual competitive process, whether the site is the best use of scarce park bond dollars, and how public access, habitat, and disadvantaged-community priorities would be protected. The discussion ended without a vote, and the committee moved on to transportation items including Clean California litter abatement, the Games Route Network, homeless encampment coordinators, and DMV modernization and field office proposals, with LAO recommending rejection or delay on several of those requests as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• your emissions, you don't pay as much.
• your emissions, you don't pay as much.
• your emissions, you don't pay as much.
• your emissions, you don't pay as much.
• You don't have to pay emissions fees on them.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:12 Introduction of Guests 01:09 HB 88 Discussion 01:46 HB 88 Roll Call Vote 03:24 HB 346 Discussion 04:20 HB 346 Roll Call Vote 21:58 Chair Comments 24:31, 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and first considered House Bill 88, which was described as a short bill to clarify procedures for Waste Management boards, including term limits, appointments, and making sure consolidated governments actively recruit community members and make openings easier to find. The sponsor said the bill was intended to resolve confusion about members staying on after terms expire. The bill received no opposition, passed the committee unanimously, and was reported favorably for the floor. The committee then took up House Bill 346, as amended by a committee substitute. The sponsor explained that the bill responds to a dispute over air emission fees, especially for emergency generators and backup generators used for worker safety and limited non-emergency testing. The bill would exempt emergency generators and backup generators operating 100 hours or less for maintenance/testing from fees, while also removing an existing 4,000-ton cap so the per-ton fee would drop for most permitted sources. Members discussed the possible impact on utilities and ratepayers, with concerns raised that costs could be passed through to consumers and affect coal-dependent areas. The sponsor and another member argued the change would generally reduce fees for most sources and incentivize emissions reductions; the cabinet was described as neutral, and the affected utilities were identified as TVA, LG&E, East Kentucky Power, and Big Rivers, with only TVA having raised comments. The committee substitute was adopted, and the bill passed the committee with a favorable recommendation, though one member voted no and several members explained yes votes while expressing ongoing concerns about future rate impacts. At the end of the meeting, members briefly discussed broader concerns about utility surcharges and the need to monitor the effects of legislation on ratepayers, but those comments were not part of the bill under consideration. The chair noted that future meetings may include more bills and could start earlier if needed, and the committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• And there are some cases where it's difficult to go after 100% of the emissions.
• It's not an emissions standard.
• that carbon to those products instead of to emissions to the sky.
• And they can have an enormous impact on net GHG emissions calculations.
• life cycle to determine the overall emissions picture.

Summary: The committee held an interim work session focused first on carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS), then on hazardous waste and extended producer responsibility (EPR). On the CCUS topic, industry and nonprofit presenters described point-source capture, direct air capture, mineralization, and geologic sequestration, emphasizing Washington’s basalt formations and state trust lands as strong candidates for storage. They argued that CCUS can help hard-to-abate industrial sectors, support jobs and investment, and provide a pathway for compliance, while also noting the need for clearer permitting, subsurface rights, pipeline authority, and storage infrastructure. Ecology and Commerce staff explained current state policy touchpoints, including Cap-and-Invest offsets and exemptions for permanently stored CO2, the public comment process underway to define “thousand-year” permanence, and how CCUS might fit within the Clean Energy Transformation Act without counting emitting generation as non-emitting. Some presenters supported more state action and primacy over federal permitting, while others warned about costs, energy use, uncertain capture performance, and the need to ensure real net greenhouse gas reductions and long-term liability protections. Members asked about public meetings, whether mineralized carbon would qualify as exempt under the Climate Commitment Act, the timeline for Ecology guidance, aquifer and water-quality concerns, energy intensity of capture systems, and liability if storage later proves problematic. Responses said Ecology’s guidance process is already underway, public meetings will be virtual, mineralized carbon would likely qualify if it meets the permanence standard, and EPA rules require storage in deep saline formations below drinking water aquifers. Industry speakers said capture energy use varies by source and concentration, and one presenter noted that some states use trust funds funded by injectors to address long-term liability. The second half of the session shifted to hazardous waste and EPR. Ecology staff reviewed existing product stewardship programs for electronics, paint, batteries, and mercury lights, and described moderate risk waste and household hazardous waste management in Washington. They highlighted that E-Cycle and PaintCare are producer-funded, that the battery stewardship program will begin in 2027, and that the mercury lamp program is in transition after its prior stewardship organization exited, prompting enforcement notices and a pending replacement plan. Ecology recommended best practices for future EPR programs, including clear producer and product definitions, full producer funding, convenience standards, annual reporting, and strong agency enforcement and plan approval authority. Local government speakers from King County and Douglas County described rising collection costs, equity and access barriers, rural travel distances, and the need for stable funding and flexible local implementation. King County said it collected over 3 million pounds of hazardous products in 2025 and supports EPR as a way to shift costs from ratepayers to producers, while Douglas County emphasized that rural residents will participate when services are accessible and that future systems should account for geography and local infrastructure.

Transcript Highlights:

• put the burden on the state's roads and bridge systems to bear the... ...cost of reducing those emissions
• But the model shows a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions over the existing congested conditions
• By doing these projects, we allow more movement, less emissions.
• It's similar with the carbon emission factors. Thank you.
• It's similar with the carbon emission factors. Thank you.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 748, a bill revising Minnesota’s transportation greenhouse gas and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact assessment requirements for trunk highway projects. The chair first moved and adopted the A2 author’s amendment and then the A3 amendment, which was described as adding implementation time and project exemptions when federal dollars are available. The bill author explained that the measure responds to concerns from stakeholders that the current law can force costly mitigation, delay or stop safety and capacity projects, and create uncertainty because key implementation details are still being developed by a technical advisory committee. Testimony was split. County and city engineers, county commissioners, the Minnesota Transportation Alliance, and the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities generally supported the bill, arguing that the current requirements can add 20% to 40% or more to project costs, are difficult to administer, and could jeopardize critical safety improvements, congestion relief, and federal funding. They cited examples such as Scott County and Trunk Highway 65, and said VMT mitigation is especially hard to quantify and fund. Opponents, including Move Minnesota and Sierra Club, argued that safety and climate goals are not in conflict, that reducing driving can save lives and reduce pollution, and that the bill would weaken an important tool for cutting transportation emissions. Members also asked about how GHG and VMT are measured, whether the required assessment was ready, and who would be responsible for mitigation assets and costs. After discussion, the committee held a roll call vote. The bill, as amended, passed 8-7 and was moved to the General Register.