Transcript Highlights:

• I'm here to talk about the Clean Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements.
• I'm here to talk about the Clean Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements.
• Most environmental reviews are done by cities and counties.
• A programmatic environmental impact statement, or PEIS, is a type of environmental review done under
• And I'm going to be offering the environmental perspective today.

Summary: The committee held a work session on state environmental policy act (SEPA) implementation and carryout bags. Ecology staff Diane Buterak described the Clean Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements (PEISs) completed for utility-scale solar, onshore wind, and green hydrogen, plus a new PEIS underway for sustainable aviation fuel. She explained that PEISs provide broad planning-level analysis to help developers and agencies avoid or mitigate impacts, but do not replace project-level review. Members asked about permitting timelines, greenhouse gas emissions from different hydrogen production methods, water use, agricultural land conversion, battery fire risk, and tribal consultation. Buterak said the PEISs identify potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures, including fire response planning, early tribal outreach, and agrovoltaics as an option for solar projects. EFSEC’s Amy Hofkimer then presented the transmission-facility programmatic EIS required by SB 5165 for 230 kV and higher transmission projects. She said the statewide review covers new lines and certain upgrades/modifications, analyzes impacts to water, cultural and tribal resources, habitat, and other areas, and uses general measures, design considerations, avoidance criteria, and sensitivity maps to guide siting and corridor planning. She said the final document would be issued in early October. Questions focused on reconductoring, tribal lands, scenic areas, and whether the review could affect existing lines crossing tribal lands. A Grant County planning director, Jim Anderson Cook, said Ecology’s PEIS would help with cumulative impacts for clustered solar projects, but noted tight local review timelines and the need for strong pre-application coordination, especially on cultural resource studies and decommissioning plans. Yakama Nation attorney Shona Leverett argued SEPA is only an assessment tool and said tribes face barriers from short comment periods, limited confidential tribal input, weak cumulative impact analysis, and challenges in the FSEC process; she urged better upfront developer diligence and more effective tribal coordination. Puget Sound Energy’s Sarah Leverett said the utility needs efficient and predictable permitting to meet clean energy mandates while maintaining reliable service and aging infrastructure. She described the scale of needed clean energy and transmission buildout, including a 10-year process for the Energize Eastside transmission rebuild, and said more consistent SEPA and PEIS processes could help. Members asked about future generation sources, reliability, and hydropower as a firming resource; she said PSE is pursuing an “all of the above” approach and would welcome more firm, dispatchable clean energy options. The committee then shifted to carryout bags. Staff Jacob Lipson and Tracy Taylor reviewed Washington’s bag law, its preemption of local ordinances, the current 8-cent charge, the scheduled increase to 12 cents, and the 2025 change delaying the 4-mil thickness requirement until 2028 while adding a temporary 4-cent penalty for thicker bags. Ecology’s Peter Lyon said the agency emphasizes education and complaint-based enforcement, has received 872 reports, and has not yet imposed any fines. Commerce’s Kirk Esmond summarized a WSU study finding fewer plastic bags distributed but more plastic by weight, and said Commerce and Ecology support keeping the 2.25-mil standard and not allowing thinner single-use bags again. Retail industry testimony from Brandon Housekeeper said grocers comply with the law but oppose the added 4-cent penalty and thicker-bag requirement, citing higher costs and confusion in the policy changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Marie Lou on behalf of CCE at the Central California Environmental Justice Network.
• For Oz Reservi with APEN, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network.
• Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters, respectfully opposed.
• Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters, here in support of SB 352.
• Hi, Rickal Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance.

Committee: House Natural Resources

Summary: The Assembly Natural Resources Committee heard three major bills focused on California’s energy transition, fuel supply, and climate investments. SB 237 by Sen. Grayson proposed short-term measures to stabilize gasoline supply and prices, including validating the Kern County EIR for new oil and gas permitting with setbacks, a well cap, offshore/pipeline provisions, possible suspension of summer fuel blend requirements, and a study of regional fuel blends. Supporters argued it would help keep refineries operating, protect jobs, and reduce price spikes during a “mid-transition” away from fossil fuels, while opponents said it was a fossil-fuel giveaway that would worsen pollution in Kern County and fail to address refinery-community protections or broader transition planning. The committee approved SB 237 on a due-pass vote, with some members voting no or not voting. The committee also heard SB 352 by Sen. Reyes, which would strengthen implementation of AB 617 by codifying the Environmental Justice Bureau in the Attorney General’s office, requiring at least five years of monitoring in AB 617 communities, and mandating annual reporting by CARB and air districts on program implementation. Supporters said the bill would add accountability and ensure the new continuous funding for AB 617 leads to real emissions reductions, while opponents criticized the process and argued the bill was an end run around separate negotiations and imposed rigid requirements on limited resources. The bill advanced on a due-pass vote after extensive testimony from environmental justice groups, business organizations, and local air districts. Finally, SB 840 by Sen. Limon was presented as the cap-and-invest package, maintaining California’s climate leadership while directing revenues to state and community priorities. Supporters highlighted stronger offset integrity, more frequent protocol updates, continued funding for programs such as AB 617, transit, housing, and other climate investments, and broad labor and local government support. Some witnesses and members noted the bill did not include dedicated funding for zero-emission vehicles or climate-smart agriculture and urged future work on those priorities. The committee passed SB 840 on a due-pass vote as well, and all three bills were later confirmed out of committee on the floor call.

Transcript Highlights:

• Meeting of the Environmental Resources Finance and Policy Committee meeting to order.
• Environmental risk of battery fires that we've seen.
• So what other permits, particularly in environmental...
• between business, communities, government, and non-profits to tackle environmental challenges.
• protection and environmental health, responding to the needs of communities statewide.

Bills: HF1587 , HF2293 , HF2218 , HF1208 , HF1482

Committee: House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• Materials and the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.
• Science is driving environmental protections. These are good.
• Science is driving environmental protections.
• We have invested in our environmental chemistry lab.
• supporting environmental justice or EJAC for much longer.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Conservation.
• Conservation, after consultation with the Environmental Facilities Corporation and the Department of
• Conservation, after consultation with the Environmental Facilities Corporation and the Department of
• The next bill, 1733, Senator Harckham: an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law in relation
• Our third bill, 1833A by Senator May: an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law and the State

Committee: Senate Environmental Conservation

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Conservation met with a quorum via voting sheets and considered a 12-bill agenda focused on water quality, stormwater reporting, algal bloom prevention, safe drinking water infrastructure, coastal and marine protection, housing and land-use, animal welfare, and solar access. Chair Pete Harckham noted several members were delayed by weather and other committee meetings, and welcomed participating senators and staff. Most bills were described as measures the committee had seen before, with little debate beyond motions and seconds. Bills approved included Harckham’s stormwater expenditure report bill (S.1609), a municipal water-quality assistance bill for lake associations (S.1733), the harmful algal bloom monitoring and prevention act (S.1833A), the safe water and infrastructure action program (S.1850A), the Whale Awareness Act (S.2292B), inland waterways additions for waterfront revitalization (S.2646), the Sustainable Affordable Housing and Sprawl Prevention Act (S.3492A), a bill on traveling animal acts (S.3629A), the Big Five African Trophies Act (S.5014), marine and coastal debris prevention (S.6307), and whale strike protection policies for large vessels (S.7718A). The solar bill (S.6570A), the Solar for Affordable Power Act, was also approved by the committee but was referred to the Energy Committee rather than advanced on the environmental conservation calendar. Several measures were referred to the Finance Committee, including the stormwater report bill, the lake association water-quality bill, the harmful algal bloom bill, and the safe water and infrastructure bill. Other bills were advanced to the calendar, and the meeting concluded without recorded opposition on most items, aside from a few members voting without recommendation on some bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• For environmental reasons, we've had a number of environmental issues as a result of accidents.
• We stand allied with our environmental justice and environmental protection colleagues, calling on you
• It does provide critical environmental review.
• It does provide critical environmental review.
• And I want to first just echo the comments of the other environmental and environmental justice speakers

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

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> office and other environmental office and other environmental stakeholders<00:29:52.360><c> for<
• </c> these days to bash environmental these days to bash environmental standards standards standards
• </c> moving these facilities environmental moving these facilities environmental review<00:47:40.800>
• review from the environmental impact review from the environmental impact statements<00:47:42.640><c>
• </c> the A5 Amendment on the environmental the A5 Amendment on the environmental review<01:10:21.440>

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities, Environment, and Climate

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality. Good morning, everyone. Welcome.
• The Senate Committee on Environmental Quality is now in order.
• Good morning, Scott Sadler, on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund.
• Many were built long before modern environmental laws existed.
• Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance in strong support.

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on environmental, climate, transparency, water affordability, recycling, and refinery transition issues. SB 1087 would modernize SB 375 regional climate and transportation planning by extending planning cycles, clarifying target-setting and review processes, and reducing time spent on modeling and CEQA-related work; it drew strong support from MPOs and environmental groups with some opposition from clean air, housing, and industry advocates concerned about VMT, housing impacts, and agency authority. SB 1239 would require CARB to update its standardized regulatory impact assessment when major regulations are materially changed; manufacturers and business groups supported the transparency measure, while the chair opposed it as adding delay and inefficiency to rulemaking. SB 1125 would create the framework for a statewide low-income water rate assistance program; it received broad support from utilities, environmental justice groups, local governments, and community members, and the committee advanced it on a 3-1 vote. SB 1180 would set rules for spending from the plastic pollution mitigation fund created by SB 54, with broad support from environmental justice and conservation groups and opposed-unless-amended positions from industry groups seeking tighter limits and more oversight; it advanced on a 3-0 vote. SB 1161 would require CARB to present household-level cost impacts of regulations in plain language, and it advanced on a 4-0 vote despite late opposition from environmental groups. SB 955, updating beverage container recycling and redemption requirements, passed 5-0, and SB 1259, requiring refineries to disclose cleanup liabilities and decommissioning information to aid long-term planning, drew strong support from environmental and local government witnesses but firm opposition from petroleum, labor, and business groups; the committee began discussion but the transcript cuts off before a final vote on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm from Environmental Working Group.
• , Central California, Environmental Justice Network.
• I specialize in children's environmental health at Children Now.
• Alex Lumer, on behalf of the Environmental Protection Information Center, the Environmental Law Foundation
• and environmental justice groups.

Summary: The committee heard AB 1795, which would create statewide standards for testing, inspection, remediation, and insurance handling of wildfire smoke damage in homes. The author and Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said the bill is needed because survivors face inconsistent claims practices and no enforceable standards for determining when homes are safe. Supporters included the City of Los Angeles and a wildfire survivor who described health problems and disputed remediation results; opponents from the insurance industry said the bill could create broad new exposure and worsen affordability, though they continued to negotiate amendments. The committee recommended the bill do pass with urgency, and it passed on a 4-0 vote, with the roll held open for additional votes. The committee also heard AB 1612, which would create a centralized process for law enforcement to transfer seized controlled substances such as fentanyl, methamphetamine, and heroin to the Department of Justice for disposal after the state’s last in-state incineration facility closed. The author said the bill would address unsafe storage and inconsistent disposal pathways. There was no opposition in the room, and the committee sent the bill to the Assembly Public Safety Committee on a do pass vote. AB 2322 would standardize the definition of commercial, industrial, or institutional sites for municipal stormwater permits by tying it to assessor land-use codes and excluding residential parcels. Supporters said the bill would reduce patchwork enforcement and improve consistency, while stormwater and city representatives asked to keep working on regional flexibility concerns. The committee approved the bill 4-1 and sent it to Appropriations. The committee then heard AB 2245, a producer responsibility bill for vehicle lubricant products and their containers, intended to expand collection and recycling using existing household hazardous waste and used oil infrastructure. Supporters said it would reduce landfill disposal and align with existing EPR frameworks, while retailers and industry groups raised concerns about overlapping obligations, unclear definitions, and compliance costs. The author said negotiations would continue, and the committee sent the bill to Natural Resources on a do pass vote. The committee also heard AB 1603, which would phase out PFAS-containing pesticides over time and require disclosure and permitting for their use. Supporters argued PFAS pesticides contaminate food and water and pose health risks; agricultural and chemical industry opponents said the bill could remove many products from the market and lead to harmful substitutions. The chair expressed support for reducing PFAS but raised concerns about replacement chemicals, and the bill was sent to Appropriations on a do pass vote. Finally, AB 2034 was introduced to increase transparency around food additives and GRAS ingredients by creating a state database of chemicals that bypass FDA premarket review; supporters said it would close a federal loophole, while consumer brands opposed a duplicative state system and warned of costs and confusion.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> environmental fund. environmental fund.
• </c> the general fund to the environmental the general fund to the environmental fund<00:25:25.080><c
• </c> application uh before environmental application uh before environmental review<00:36:53.240><c>
• </c> produce a scoping environmental produce a scoping environmental assessment<00:37:06.720><c> worksheet
• </c> environmental impact statement. environmental impact statement.

Transcript Highlights:

• Protection Information Center, and the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin.
• And advocate for California Environmental Voters. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Thank you.
• Grushino-Mohabir, regulatory advocate with California Environmental Voters.
• Environmental Voters champions solving the climate crisis with a lens of climate justice.
• Grishina Mojabir, California Environmental Voters, in support.

Summary: The committee considered several coastal, climate, and air quality measures. Senator Laird presented SCR 136 marking the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act and Coastal Conservancy Act, and SJR 12 opposing the federal offshore oil and gas leasing program; both drew broad support from environmental groups, local governments, and other advocates, with no opposition heard. Senator Padilla presented SB 10, requiring state climate plans to include gender impact assessments, with supporters arguing climate harms fall disproportionately on women and LGBTQ+ people; the bill also drew no opposition in the hearing. Senator Padilla also presented SB 675 to restructure the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District board and expand public transparency, while supporters cited severe air quality problems and opponents raised concerns about unfunded mandates, consultation, and impacts on local permitting and economic development. Senator Allen presented SB 1229 to limit disaster-rebuild coastal permit exemptions when replacement structures would newly impede coastal access or sensitive protections, with supporters saying it would prevent investor abuse of post-disaster rebuilding rules. After testimony, the committee took up the measures and recorded votes. SCR 136, SJR 12, SB 10, SB 675, and SB 1229 all advanced on party-line or near-party-line votes, with some members voting no on the more regulatory measures. The consent calendar was also approved, including ACR 157, SB 899, SB 949, SB 963, SB 1008, SB 1207, SB 1428, and SJR 5. All of the listed measures were sent onward, generally to Appropriations, and the committee concluded its hearing after the roll calls.

Transcript Highlights:

• Fernandez, Overcoming Coastal and Environmental Acidification and Nutrient Pollution.
• In that legislation, we created protections for environmental justice communities.
• Protections for environmental justice communities.
• One from the Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner or designee.
• There's environmental impacts breaking down into microplastics and all the Thank you.

Summary: The Senate took up a major environmental bond bill with amendments covering climate resilience, housing health, plastics reduction, coastal protection, fisheries, and related regulatory issues. Early debate included Senator Keenan’s withdrawn amendment to fund the Massachusetts Healthy Homes Program with $50 million, followed by his adopted amendment banning hotels from providing plastic toiletry packages. Senator Tarr’s amendment to remove the paper bag charge was defeated after extended debate over whether the 10-cent bag assessment functioned as a tax; a related floor speech from Senator Duner argued the fee would burden working families. The chamber also adopted Senator Fernandez’s ocean acidification amendment, which would aggregate ocean monitoring data to support shellfish, water quality, and coastal management, with support from Senators Sear and Driscoll. Other adopted measures included Driscoll’s Houghton’s Pond multi-use trail, Montigny’s New Bedford State Pier redevelopment and harbor oil-recovery provisions, Collins’s Commonwealth Conservation Commission later withdrawn, and several coastal resilience and housing-related amendments. The Senate also approved a series of environmental and public health measures. Senator Moore’s rodenticide restriction amendment was adopted after testimony from animal welfare and conservation groups, with the sponsor describing harms to wildlife, pets, and livestock and noting local municipal support. Senator Lewis’s amendment directing DEP to study the feasibility of banning polystyrene was adopted, as was Senator Mark’s Massachusetts Climate Bank amendment and Senator Edwards’s carbon sequestration amendment expanding attention to salt marshes, seagrasses, and waterways. The chamber adopted amendments on equitable representation, improving indoor air quality, and a Douglas State Forest trust fund that would raise the entry fee from $1 to $2 for maintenance. Several amendments were withdrawn, including Collins’s urban coastal resilience commission and Tarr’s proposed Commonwealth Conservation Commission. Housing and permitting issues were another major theme. Senator Driscoll’s amendment requiring local confirmation before a project is designated a priority housing project was defeated, but his related amendments clarifying the process and requiring consultation with the Housing and Livable Communities Secretary were adopted. The Senate also adopted Crichton’s amendments streamlining permitting for coastal resiliency projects in urban areas and creating a five-year pilot for nature-based solutions, as well as Tarr’s amendment adding dredging and sand placement to general coastal permits. Tarr’s amendment to revise the Salisbury Beach Preservation Trust Fund was adopted, while his later constitutional challenge to a landform-migration provision was withdrawn after he argued it could amount to an uncompensated taking. The session ended with the Senate noting only two amendments remained and then adjourning in memory of Quincy’s former mayor James A. Sheets.

Transcript Highlights:

• As AB 2051 puts California law on all of our environmental regulations.
• the environmental community to slow things— ...be weaponized by the environmental community to slow
• I am proud to have the support of the environmental and environmental justice communities, clean tech
• Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in strong support.
• Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in strong support.

Committee: House Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• 343, the environmental impact statement law, and it states that the Environmental Advisory Council's
• , the environmental impact statement law, and it states that the Environmental Advisory Council's mission
• and environmental quality by discussion between members that represent education, business, and environmental
• The Environmental Advisory Council that can ensure that our environmental disclosure law protects our
• <00:49:30.720><c> Advisory</c> Environmental Advisory Environmental Advisory Council<00:49:33.440><c>

Committee: Senate Agriculture and Environment

Summary: The committee heard multiple gubernatorial confirmation nominations, beginning with GM509 for Jay Stone to the Environmental Advisory Council. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development and other supporters praised Stone’s more than 30 years of engineering experience and said he would help balance environmental protection with economic development. Stone said he wanted to contribute to environmental health and sustainability, and identified sea level rise and PFAS in drinking water as key concerns. The committee then moved to GM531 and GM532, nominations of Judson Leair and Nicholas Ta to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. The Department of Agriculture and Hawaii Farm Bureau supported both nominees. Leair emphasized his farming background and said pesticide policy should be more comprehensive, selective, and threshold-based rather than relying on broad-spectrum use; Ta said he would focus on integrated pest management, label compliance, education, and using the least amount of pesticide necessary, including non-chemical alternatives such as exclusion and behavior changes. The committee next considered GM533, Janet Ashman’s nomination to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. The Department of Agriculture, the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species, and the Hawaii Farm Bureau all supported her, citing her experience, responsiveness, and prior service. Ashman said she wanted to help make pesticide regulations more understandable and stressed targeted pest control, scouting, and more precise products. Members asked about the complexity of pesticide regulations and the shift away from broad-based pesticide use; Ashman explained that regulations are complicated for both farmers and homeowners and that newer, more targeted products are needed as pests develop resistance. The committee then heard GM57 for Don Hegger Nordl to the Environmental Advisory Council. Supporters said she has environmental planning experience and knowledge of Chapter 343 and related rules. Nordl said she could bring state, county, and federal experience to the council and identified the need for more volunteers and broader professional representation as the council’s biggest challenge. Finally, the committee took up GM697, Dean Matsukawa’s nomination as deputy director of the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture, the Hawaii Farm Bureau, and several other testifiers strongly supported him, highlighting his 30 years with the department, his family farming background, and his understanding of farmers’ needs, especially access to capital and biosecurity challenges. Testifiers said he is calm, logical, experienced, and already familiar with the department’s work. Matsukawa was described as a reluctant nominee who was sought out for the role. The transcript does not show any final votes or committee action on the nominations during the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now I know that in the context of this environmental bond bill, that's a pretty substantial amount of
• Fernandes, overcoming coastal and environmental acidification and nutrient pollution.
• In that legislation, we created protections for environmental justice communities.
• Protections for environmental justice communities.
• There's environmental impacts breaking down into microplastics and all the Thank you.

Transcript Highlights:

• :26.040><c> is</c><01:02:26.200><c> not</c> An environmental impact statement is not An environmental
• ,</c> understand their environmental, understand their environmental, economic,<01:02:32.640><c> and<
• any</c> environmental review process, any environmental review process, any environmental<01:18:59.800
• </c> um sort of the type of the environmental um sort of the type of the environmental effects,<01:19
• :02.440><c> for</c> And environmental groups looking for And environmental groups looking for more<01

Bills: HF4740 , HF3940

Committee: House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• are in terms of our efforts to deal with the environmental justice issues.
• They diminish... ...environmental issue that can disrupt landfill operations.
• Are we creating another environmental problem?
• Roughly 350 of those are essentially environmental positions.
• The Environmental Justice and Equity Office also supports the EJAC.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation heard an informational hearing with Secretary Garcia and CalEPA-related departments on the administration’s budget proposals and related environmental programs. Secretary Garcia highlighted CalEPA’s work on methane reduction, community air protection, water infrastructure, Exide cleanup, safer pesticide alternatives, Prop 4 implementation, and Bay-Delta water quality, while emphasizing the impact of federal rollbacks and the need for flexible state response. Members raised broader policy concerns about the polluter-pays principle, special fund vacancies, and whether the state is maintaining sufficient staffing and enforcement capacity, especially after recent fee increases. A major portion of the hearing focused on landfill support, response, and enforcement, particularly subsurface elevated temperature events at Chiquita Canyon and El Sobrante. CalEPA requested $5.1 million and 12 positions to improve monitoring, technical response, coordination, and enforcement across CalRecycle, CARB, DTSC, the Water Board, and OEHHA. Assembly Member Schiavo described severe community impacts from Chiquita Canyon and pressed for stronger state action, more transparency, and accountability from landfill operators; Assembly Member Rogers emphasized that accountability must mean forcing operators to take preventive measures and bear the costs. Agency staff said the proposal would help augment current response efforts, support local enforcement agencies, and improve early detection, while acknowledging that the causes of set events are not fully understood and may involve factors such as lithium-ion batteries, oxygen intrusion, and gas extraction practices. The committee then heard an update on the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water program and the effects of the new cap-and-invest structure. State Water Board Chair Joaquin Esquivel reported that the program has reduced the number of Californians without safe drinking water from 1.6 million to about 600,000 since 2019, while also bringing 320 systems back into compliance and distributing $1.8 billion in drinking water grants. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained that under SB 840, SAFER is now in a lower funding tier, which could reduce annual proceeds from the prior $130 million level to a projected $92 million in 2026-27 and delay funding until later in the year. Members expressed concern that this deprioritizes rural drinking water needs, while the board said it would continue using SAFER’s flexible funds for emergency water, technical assistance, and construction, and would keep pushing consolidations and other long-term solutions for the remaining failing systems.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> folders describing um the environmental folders describing um the environmental response<00:22:52.000
• </c><00:24:22.080><c> response</c> and now the, uh, environmental response and now the, uh, environmental
• </c><00:30:58.559><c> helped</c> environmental response fund grant helped environmental response fund
• fund</c> Countyy's environmental response fund Countyy's environmental response fund frequently<00:31
• Thank you so much for the time. the Environmental Response Fund also the Environmental Response Fund

Committee: Senate Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• And we'll begin with the topic of environmental justice communities.
• So MEPA, environmental review under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, is only invoked by agency
• Department of Environmental Protection, and it's a very...
• Here in environmental justice community, part of the designation is the income.
• You're in an environmental justice community. You pass the hat to hire a lawyer?

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight

Summary: The Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight held an oversight hearing on draft regulations implementing Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution under Chapter 274 of the Acts of 2022, the Open Space Act. Chairs Cabral and Collins framed the hearing as a review of how the new process for dispositions or changes in use of Article 97 land would work, including public notice, environmental justice protections, replacement land, appraisals, and the role of the legislature. Under Secretary Stephanie Cooper and Commissioner Adam Bakke testified for EEA/DCAM, followed later by Deputy Inspector General O’Neill and Deputy Inspector General Giles on appraisal review. Much of the discussion focused on how the draft regulations would operate in practice. EEA said the regulations would require advance public notice, define “comparable location” for replacement land, and allow the Secretary to make findings on whether an action would adversely affect environmental justice communities. Members pressed for longer public comment periods, clearer notice to local officials, more frequent updates to the site evaluation tool, and a clearer definition of terms such as “limited duration” for permits and licenses. EEA said the regulations are intended to standardize a process that has been handled through policy and case-by-case review, and that the legislature still retains the final authority to approve any Article 97 disposition. Committee members also questioned whether the draft rules shift too much discretion to the Secretary and whether the proposed “proponent” process could allow private entities to drive Article 97 actions. EEA responded that non-public proponents would still need municipal support and legislative sponsorship, and that the regulations do not create a new avenue to bypass the existing home rule and legislative process. Members raised concerns about the current policy’s unanimous-vote requirements for municipal commissions, the proposed waiver provisions, whether MEPA applies, and the lack of explicit enforcement or penalty language in the act or regulations. EEA and DCAM said the act does not provide an enforcement mechanism and that disputes would generally be handled through the courts or the Attorney General. The Inspector General’s office explained its role in reviewing appraisals for special legislation, including Article 97 matters, to ensure compliance with USPAP standards and to forward its review to DCAM. The hearing did not include any votes or formal committee action; members indicated that the committee may later issue recommendations to the executive agencies based on the testimony and questions raised.

Transcript Highlights:

• Bill 99 by Senator Foil, Title 30, electronic communication notification to the Department of Environmental
• Bill 99 by Senator Foil, Title 30, electronic communication notification to the Department of Environmental
• Bill 99 by Senator Foil, Title 30, electronic communication notification to the Department of Environmental
• Senate Bill 280 by Senator Abraham, State Licensing Board for Contractors, water well drilling, environmental
• Environmental Protection Agency-related product labels, House Bill 1158.

Bills: HR84 , HR85 , HR86 , HR87 , HR88 , HR89 , HR90 , HCR42 , HCR43 , HB1087 , HB1088 , HB1089 , HB1090 , HB1091 , HB1092 , HB1093 , HB1094 , HB1095 , HB1096 , HB1097 , HB1098 , HB1099 , HB1100 , HB1101 , HB1102 , HB1103 , HB1104 , HB1105 , HB1106 , HB1107 , HB1108 , HB1109 , HB1110 , HB1111 , HB1112 , HB1113 , HB1114 , HB1115 , HB1116 , HB1117 , HB1118 , HB1119 , HB1120 , HB1121 , HB1122 , HB1123 , HB1124 , HB1125 , HB1126 , HB1127 , HB1128 , HB1129 , HB1130 , HB1131 , HB1132 , HB1133 , HB1134 , HB1135 , HB1136 , HB1137 , HB1138 , HB1139 , HB1140 , HB1141 , HB1142 , HB1143 , HB1144 , HB1145 , HB1146 , HB1147 , HB1148 , HB1149 , HB1150 , HB1151 , HB1153 , HB1154 , HB1155 , HB1156 , HB1157 , HB1158 , HB1159 , HB1160 , HB1161 , HB1162 , HB1163 , HB1164 , HB1165 , HB1166 , HB1167 , HB1169 , HB1170 , HB1171 , HB1172 , HB1173 , HB1174 , HB1175 , HB1176 , HB1177 , HB1178 , HB1179 , HB1180 , HB1181 , HB1182 , HB1183 , HB1184 , HB1185 , HB1186 , HB1187 , HB1188 , HB1189 , HB1190 , HB1192 , HB1193 , HB1194 , HB1195 , HB1196 , HB1197 , HB1198 , HB1199 , HB1200 , HB1201 , HB1202 , HB1203 , HB1204 , HB1205 , HB1206 , HB1207 , HB1208 , HB1209 , HB1210 , HB1211 , HB1212 , HB1213 , HB1214 , HB1215 , HB1216 , HB1217 , HB1218 , HB1219 , HB1220 , HB1221 , HB1222 , HB1223 , HB1224 , HB1225 , HB1226 , HB1227 , HB1228 , HB1229 , HB1230 , HB1231 , HR73 , HR74 , HR75 , HR77 , HR78 , HR79 , HR80 , HR81 , HR83 , HCR36 , HCR37 , HCR38 , HCR39 , HCR40 , HCR41 , HB368 , HB433 , HB1017 , HB1018 , HB1019 , HB1020 , HB1021 , HB1022 , HB1023 , HB1024 , HB1025 , HB1026 , HB1027 , HB1028 , HB1029 , HB1030 , HB1031 , HB1032 , HB1033 , HB1034 , HB1035 , HB1036 , HB1037 , HB1038 , HB1039 , HB1040 , HB1041 , HB1042 , HB1043 , HB1044 , HB1045 , HB1046 , HB1047 , HB1048 , HB1049 , HB1050 , HB1051 , HB1052 , HB1053 , HB1054 , HB1055 , HB1056 , HB1057 , HB1058 , HB1059 , HB1060 , HB1061 , HB1062 , HB1063 , HB1064 , HB1065 , HB1066 , HB1067 , HB1068 , HB1069 , HB1070 , HB1071 , HB1072 , HB1073 , HB1074 , HB1075 , HB1076 , HB1077 , HB1078 , HB1079 , HB1080 , HB1081 , HB1082 , HB1083 , HB1084 , SB111 , SB122 , SB195 , SB221 , SB404 , HR1 , HCR6 , HCR19 , HB27 , HB81 , HB134 , HB154 , HB163 , HB170 , HB194 , HB214 , HB217 , HB220 , HB254 , HB259 , HB290 , HB308 , HB311 , HB360 , HB382 , HB401 , HB410 , HB417 , HB463 , HB514 , HB575 , HB592 , HB718 , HB723 , HB750 , HB755 , HB776 , HB812 , HB830 , HB838 , HB844 , HB882 , HB885 , HB888 , HB950 , HB961 , HB966 , HB980 , HR15 , HR20 , HCR14 , HB58 , HB69 , HB93 , HB166 , HB199 , HB201 , HB202 , HB218 , HB223 , HB224 , HB231 , HB235 , HB246 , HB338 , HB349 , HB352 , HB379 , HB405 , HB429 , HB535 , HB547 , HB577 , HB588 , HB626 , HB636 , HB652 , HB653 , HB669 , HB688 , HB691 , HB721 , HB738 , HB806 , HB851 , HB857 , HB861 , HB889 , HB904 , HB907 , HB908 , HB929 , HB1009 , HB13 , HB23 , HB25 , HB32 , HB41 , HB90 , HB120 , HB121 , HB122 , HB127 , HB138 , HB139 , HB141 , HB179 , HB187 , HB213 , HB247 , HB286 , HB332 , HB344 , HB357

Keywords: physical therapy, healthcare, prevention, wellness, education, Louisiana, landscape architecture, environment, public health, economic development, infrastructure, condolences, memorial resolution, tribute, Roger D. Boudreaux, Church Point, mayor, Louisiana House of Representatives, community service, local government