Transcript Highlights:

• </c> the number of landowner permits the number of landowner permits available<00:08:06.560><c> in</c
• </c> Senate File 25, the landowner permit Senate File 25, the landowner permit bill?
• </c> going to issue any landowner permits. going to issue any landowner permits.
• includes a shoot-from-vehicle permit in addition to a season extension permit.
• in addition to a season vehicle permit in addition to a season extension<01:19:25.040><c> permit.

Bills: SF0025 , SF0027 , SF0043 , SF0066

Committee: Senate Travel, Recreation, Wildlife & Cultural Resources

Keywords: landowner licenses, hunting, wildlife management, quota hunt areas, game and fish commission, game management, hunting regulations, black bear, tracking dogs, wildlife conservation, conservation, contracting, supervisor, funding, districts, hunting licenses, donated licenses, life-threatening illness, vision impairment, nonprofit organizations

Transcript Highlights:

• applicants before the issuance of operating or construction permits. sources owned or operated by permit
• any new or modified permits can be issued.
• For construction and operating permits.
• Or you're not going to get any permits issued or anything else.
• Chair, takes enhancing our permitting processes.

Committee: House House Energy, Environment & Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• Even after projects receive full approval, post-entitlement permits, such as building permits, can take
• You know, we had a select committee on permitting reform.
• Well, we in San Joaquin County do collect a fee with each building permit.
• It's 5% of the building, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical permit.
• The permitting, the amount of permits that come in, controls that fee, and then also just the ever-increasing

Summary: The committee first heard AB 253, by Assembly Member Ward and presented by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva, which would allow licensed third-party professionals to review certain post-entitlement permits if a local building department would take more than 30 days. Supporters, including California YIMBY, the California Chamber of Commerce, the Housing Action Coalition, the Bay Area Council, SPUR, and Abundant Housing LA, said the bill would reduce permitting delays and help housing production. League of Cities and the California State Association of Counties expressed concerns but were not formally opposed. Members voiced strong support, and the bill passed the committee 10-0 to Appropriations. The committee then held an informational hearing on California’s general plan. The first panel, led by UC Davis professor Catherine Brinkley, gave an overview of the general plan structure, required elements, update cycles, and the new PlanSearch database that makes adopted plans searchable statewide. She emphasized that general plans are long-term, locally tailored documents that integrate housing, transportation, safety, environmental justice, and other policy areas, and noted that many plans and elements are outdated. Members asked about update timelines, public participation, and whether AI tools could help with drafting and analysis. A second panel of local government representatives described the practical challenges of preparing and updating general plans, especially in rural and small jurisdictions. Speakers from Calaveras County, Sacramento, San Joaquin County, and Fountain Valley cited staffing shortages, consultant availability, funding constraints, CEQA and outreach costs, changing state mandates, and the difficulty of keeping plans aligned with local conditions and board turnover. They asked for more funding, more time, clearer prioritization, and more flexibility. A third panel from the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation explained its role in issuing general plan guidelines, technical advisories, and annual planning surveys, and said it is updating its guidance through 2027 to reflect recent housing, climate, safety, environmental justice, and open space laws. No public comment was offered, and the informational hearing was adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> would not allow the permitting at all. would not allow the permitting at all.
• </c> you for permitting. Is that accurate? you for permitting. Is that accurate?
• </c> then it's too scarce to permit hydrogen. then it's too scarce to permit hydrogen.
• permit it.
• </c> just view the the permit at that point. just view the the permit at that point.

Bills: HB0116 , HB0056

Committee: Senate Minerals, Business & Economic Development

Keywords: water rights, beneficial use, industrial production, hydrogen, applications, public welfare, carbon capture, energy standards, public utilities, environmental regulation, state law, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So the first proposal is for hydrogen and helium permitting.
• This will fund permitting positions.
• will increase DNR's permitting responsiveness and the ability to evaluate complex permitting projects
• Eighty-five percent of agricultural irrigation permits fall under this category.
• To increase the daily permit fees from $7 to $10 and the annual permit fee from $35 to $45.

Committee: House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• The building permit is a local permit, right?
• The building permit is a local permit, right?
• The building permit is a local permit, right?
• we</c> about one permit the one permit that we about one permit the one permit that we need<05:33:11.040
• </c> building permit. building permit.

Committee: House Environment and Agriculture

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have, just to give you a quick update, Allendale Phase 1 was permitted.
• The buildout is, the permit is going out soon.
• And then Fargo, we're in the midst of issuing a permit for that as well.
• When we issue these permits, we use a term called acre-feet.
• We would never issue a permit for a new facility if it's going to impact someone who already has a permit

Committee: Joint Energy Development and Transmission Committee

Summary: The committee met in Grand Forks, approved the February 26 minutes by voice vote, and recessed for a tour of the Mincota Power Cooperative headquarters before returning for presentations on large energy consumers, especially data centers. The first presentations focused on how North Dakota should respond to rapid growth in energy-intensive projects, with speakers emphasizing the need for reliable transmission, local decision-making tools, and factual information for county and township officials who are being asked to weigh major projects with limited staff and technical support. The North Dakota Transmission Authority director said local governments are being asked to make high-impact decisions on pipelines, transmission lines, large agriculture, wind, solar, carbon dioxide pipelines, direct-air capture, and data centers, and urged development of simple statewide decision tools and support from the League of Cities and Association of Counties. The Department of Environmental Quality’s air division director said North Dakota’s air remains among the cleanest in the nation, but large data centers can create air-quality concerns because of diesel backup generation; he said the department is requiring air monitors at some facilities and expects grid power and, potentially, cleaner natural gas backup to reduce emissions. Members asked about emissions standards, misinformation, monitoring costs, and staffing succession at DEQ. The Department of Water Resources director said North Dakota’s water law is based on common ownership and prior appropriation, and that data centers generally use relatively small amounts of water, often in closed-loop systems. He said the Missouri River and groundwater supplies are ample for projected needs, that the department’s permitting process protects senior water rights, and that even a worst-case data center scenario would use a very small share of Missouri River flow. Members asked about downstream impacts and compared data center water use with fracking. Later, McLean County State’s Attorney Ladd Erickson urged the committee to study how other states regulate data centers, warned against litigation-driven delays and overly broad local ordinances, argued reclamation bonding should be handled at the state level if at all, and said data centers can bring jobs and tax base but should remain subject to local zoning. The committee ended the morning session for lunch and later heard an EERC update from CEO Charles Gorecki on the center’s 75 years of work in energy and environmental technologies, especially oil and gas development and related research.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the time frame to get a permit?
• We would expect to be able to have that permit in a much more rapid timeline.
• And y'all, a member, it was supposed to be permitting.
• That's if everything goes right for the operating, for the construction permit, then the operating permit
• We have recently filed our construction permit applications, yes.

Bills: HB132 , HB 11 , HB14 , HB132 , HB1584 , HB1606 , HB5061 , HB 1041 , HB2286

Committee: Senate Business & Commerce

Keywords: nuclear energy, Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, energy policy, regulation repeal, state energy strategy, licensing, reciprocity, regulation, Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, interstate agreements, advanced reactors, energy security, grant programs, HB 132, Texas Government Code Chapter 418, Public Information Act, confidential records, homeland security, foreign adversary, terrorism

Summary: The committee first took up pending business and quickly reported several measures favorably, including HB 12, SB 1361, SB 1705, SB 1749, SB 1897, SB 2344, SB 2566, HB 3809, and HB 4215, with most sent to the Local and Uncontested Calendar. HB 12’s substitute clarified a limited midterm review of regulatory agencies tied to Sunset Commission recommendations. SB 2696’s substitute changed med spa regulation from a license to a certificate, with training instead of an exam, plus background checks, continuing education, and two-year renewals. HB 3809 dealt with battery energy storage decommissioning and recycling, and HB 4215 was reported without a substitute. SB 1978, concerning interconnection of electric facilities in ERCOT and federal jurisdiction concerns, was reported out on a 5-3 vote after debate, but then the chair later announced the bill was withdrawn and left pending subject to the call of the chair. HB 1899 was also reported favorably, with one nay. A major portion of the meeting focused on HB 14, the advanced nuclear energy bill. Senator Schwertner described it as creating a Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, a nuclear permitting coordinator, a development fund, a completion grant program, and a workforce development program. Testimony was sharply divided. Supporters, including representatives from Fermi America, Dow/X-energy, CPS Energy, Paragon Energy Solutions, Bridge to Nuclear, Aalo Atomics, and the Texas Association of Business, argued that Texas should lead in advanced nuclear, citing future baseload demand, data centers, industrial power needs, supply-chain development, and long-term energy diversification. Opponents, including Public Citizen, Texas Nuclear Watchdogs, Sierra Club, and individual citizens, argued the bill would subsidize unproven, expensive technology, create grants rather than loans, and expose taxpayers to major risk while doing little to meet near-term energy needs. Several members questioned whether the state should fund projects that may not produce grid power for years, and whether the bill’s grant structure and new office were justified. The committee also heard HB 5061, which Senator Schwertner said would prohibit unethical surveillance and misuse of confidential information by state contractors, create a confidential reporting system through the State Auditor’s Office, authorize Texas Rangers investigations, protect whistleblowers, and impose penalties including contract termination, fines, and contracting bans. No public testimony was offered, and the bill was left pending. HB 132, sponsored by Senator Hughes, would extend confidentiality protections for sensitive information to hostile acts by foreign adversaries; it was also left pending after no testimony. HB 1584 was then laid out, with Senator Schwertner explaining it would require utilities to maintain and update priority restoration lists for critical facilities after Hurricane Beryl exposed communication failures, but the transcript cuts off before any action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Mining or blasting permits within 800 feet of protected structures...
• , Tulsa, denied a permit for that expansion of the mine.
• And now it's all held up in a lawsuit as far as this permit thing is concerned, right?
• Is it a periodic renewal, or is it once you've got the permit you never have to re-permit?
• I just found in my notes there's 763 permits through the Department of Mines.

Bills: SB1246 , SB1510 , SB1979 , SB1929 , SB1930 , SB1976

Committee: Senate Energy

Keywords: environmental permitting, Oklahoma, Department of Environmental Quality, public participation, regulatory framework, administered applications, energy, wind energy, financial assurance, property restoration, environmental regulation, mining, blasting, residential protection, buffer zone, Department of Mines, public utilities, electric transmission lines, landowner rights, payment regulations

Summary: The committee heard several energy, mining, and environmental bills. Senate Bill 1246, a DEQ request bill, was described as a permitting reform measure intended to reduce delays, increase transparency, and improve public notice; members discussed newspaper publication and digital alerts, and the bill passed 11-0. Senate Bill 1929 proposed a new framework for transmission lines that would compensate landowners with recurring payments for lines crossing their property; members raised concerns about eminent domain, ratepayer impacts, existing easements, and whether payments would transfer with land sales, but the bill passed 6-5 after the author said it was an idea to start a broader conversation. Senate Bill 1510 addressed bonding requirements and reclamation standards, with the author saying the goal was to make bonds meaningful and ensure funds are available for cleanup if operators fail to reclaim sites. Members discussed bond levels, acceptable financial instruments, and the need to balance industry viability with land restoration; the bill passed 11-0. Senate Bill 1979, the Mining and Blasting Residential Protection Act, would create an 800-foot buffer around residences and sensitive facilities near mining and blasting operations and require notifications/signage; the author said it was a constituent-driven good-neighbor bill, but members worried it could affect existing mines, raise costs, and potentially be read to restrict current operations. After title was struck, the bill failed 2-8. The committee also passed Senate Bill 1930, which creates a framework for compensating surface owners when iodine is recovered from produced water for commercial use, and Senate Bill 1976, which phases in surety requirements for small oil and gas producers to soften the impact of prior regulatory changes. Both bills passed unanimously or near-unanimously after brief discussion about balancing regulation with economic impacts. The meeting ended with adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• destroyed by wildfire on August 8, 2023, from the requirements of a special management area minor permit
• or special management area use permit.
• or special management area use permit.
• or special management area use permit.
• </c><00:09:48.920><c> and</c><00:09:49.040><c> in</c> that were existing or permitted and in that were

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee met in decision-making only session and took up a series of bills, mostly approving them with amendments. SB 1032 on campaign finance passed with amendments to change the certification process for business entities, add a severability-type provision if foreign-influence conditions are struck down, and note a related Minnesota federal case. SB 401 on firearms passed with amendments to exclude shotguns, grandfather legally registered devices in place as of the effective date, and add committee report findings; SB 382 on procurement confidentiality passed as is; SB 598 extending deadlines for administrative driver’s license revocation review decisions passed as is; SB 771 on HHFDC board leadership passed as is; and SB 1318 clarifying water pollution enforcement jurisdiction passed as is. The committee also approved SB 1657 with an amendment removing authority to condemn public property, SB 1102 with an amendment making the Fire Council the source of nominees for the aircraft rescue fire fighting chief, and SB 100 with amendments replacing the original substance with a prohibition on fingerprinting nonprofit liquor-license board members during background checks and limiting the bill to counties under 500,000 population. SB 170 and SB 1296, both related to special management area exemptions for affordable housing and disaster-related reconstruction, passed with amendments incorporating Office of Planning, Sustainable Development, and Attorney General changes to narrow and clarify the exemptions. Finally, SB 363, a cleanup bill related to firearm parts and ghost gun laws, was considered with amendments that deleted a proposed new penalty section, revised existing firearms statutes, removed an unnecessary definition, and expanded penalties to include indeterminate imprisonment terms. Despite the amendments, the measure was not adopted because the Vice Chair voted no. The committee then adjourned and announced a later joint hearing with Ways and Means.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill would allow that valid parimutuel permit holders to lease their facilities to highlight permit
• Yes, there are 12 currently 12 active permits.
• permitted facilities to any other holder of a same class valid or to any highlight permit holder.
• Said to be clear, a permit would not be required or not requiring any kind of permit for these residential
• There's there's no permit required there.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• to reopen a permit and add requirements to control.
• The permit is issued to...” “Neighbor and utilizes that.
• The permit is issued to the data center, for example, but does that impact the discharge permit that
• Number two, they're ineligible to obtain permits, amendments, or renewals of permits.
• No new permits.

Committee: House Natural Resources

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Permitting, cost, and timing.
• Permitting, cost, and timing.
• the cost of permitting and the associated monitoring that's required as part of that permitting process
• We're a year into the permitting process, and we finally secured enough permits.
• This permitting is redundant.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing covered a broad set of environmental and water-related bills, with much of the testimony focused on blue economy and circular economy proposals, drought management, drinking water safety, flood resilience, and water infrastructure funding. Supporters of bills such as H. 987 and H. 988 described grant programs for blue economy workforce development, research, small businesses, and public education about a circular economy. Other speakers backed measures on coastal erosion research, recreational boating dredging, cranberry water-right transfers, sand mining oversight, and a voucher program for home water filtration in PFAS-impacted communities. Several elected officials and advocates also urged passage of bills to require private well testing, improve school drinking water safety, and address sand mining pollution and PFAS contamination. Water supply and drought issues drew extensive testimony. Senator Eldridge and others supported legislation to let the state, through DEP and the drought management task force, impose regional water-use restrictions during droughts and make the task force permanent in statute. Advocates from watershed groups, farms, and environmental organizations said the current town-by-town approach is inconsistent and ineffective, and they described drought impacts on rivers, farms, private wells, and wildfire risk. A related bill on private wells was supported as a way to help homeowners test and remediate contaminated wells, especially in rural areas without public water. The committee also heard testimony on a bill to allow the Lynnfield Water District to join the MWRA, with local officials saying the move would help address PFAS and other contamination and improve supply reliability. Another major panel supported a water infrastructure funding bill, arguing that aging drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater systems need major new investment, including support for PFAS treatment, sewer rate relief, biosolids research, and regional interconnections. Members asked about costs, funding sources, and the relationship to existing revolving loan funds; witnesses said the bill would need to be paired with future bond funding and new revenue ideas. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chairs repeatedly invited written testimony and noted the large number of speakers.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> obviously any state statutes permitting obviously any state statutes permitting Etc<00:37:56.960
• The permitted capacity life in the permit for GSL is 2.5 times what NCS is currently permitted to accept
• is currently permitted to times what NCS is currently permitted to accept<00:58:46.559><c> 600,000</
• </c><04:39:48.200><c> also</c> uh is that uh Dees is permitting also uh is that uh Dees is permitting
• would not keep that permit?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Environment and Agriculture Committee held a hearing on HB 566, which would require permit applications for new landfills to include a detailed leachate management plan. The bill sponsor said the measure was prompted by recent reporting on leachate problems at New Hampshire landfills, including alleged violations at a Bethlehem facility and deficiencies at other sites, and argued the bill is meant to improve public health protections without dictating specific treatment methods or hindering innovation. The sponsor also said the proposal was developed with input from the Department of Environmental Services (DES) and industry representatives, and that a forthcoming amendment would revise the bill’s language to better fit the permitting process. The sponsor explained that the amendment would move several requirements out of the contract section and into the planning section, change references such as “permit for construction” to “operating approval,” include landfill expansions, and remove language that could be read as requiring long-term contracts. Questions from members focused on whether the bill would create enforceable consequences if a plan is not followed, whether it would limit operators’ flexibility, and whether existing DES rules already cover the subject. The sponsor said enforcement details should be addressed by DES and emphasized that the bill would not lock operators into any particular contract or technology. The Business and Industry Association testified in opposition to the bill as introduced, saying it appeared unnecessary because DES already regulates leachate through existing rules, including Env 806.53, and has authority to update those rules as technology changes. The witness argued that putting the requirements into statute could freeze the regulatory framework, create conflicts with future rulemaking, and make it harder for DES to respond quickly to new treatment methods or operational issues. No vote or final action was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Council and CAFO Permit Working Groups. Council and CAFO Permit Working Groups.
• </c><00:26:41.040><c> the</c> cannabis regulation fund to permit the cannabis regulation fund to permit
• </c> Um I will now speak to the CAFO permit Um I will now speak to the CAFO permit working<00:29:43.360
• </c> So, that brings us today's permit So, that brings us today's permit working<00:30:44.560><c> group
• </c> CAFO permit in process. CAFO permit in process.

Keywords: 926, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's
• Despite prior reforms, permitting delays remain a major driver of California's housing crisis.
• Now, the challenge with the two-permit review process is we would have the ability to deny the project
• You know, I led this select committee on permitting reform last year.
• AB 2118 refines the streamlined pathway created by AB 2011 in 2022 by clarifying that all permits and

Summary: The Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee heard several housing-related bills, with most of the discussion focused on streamlining approvals, clarifying housing law, and expanding planning resources. AB 2005 would expand SB 9 urban lot split eligibility to homeowners using living trusts or LLCs and allow partnerships with small builders; supporters said it would help owner-occupants create more homeownership opportunities, while members raised concerns about enforceability and possible loopholes for corporate investors. AB 2676 would clarify the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 to make clear that referendums or initiatives cannot be used as de facto moratoriums on approved housing projects in affected cities and counties; the author said it codifies existing intent and court rulings, and members discussed retroactivity and pending actions before moving it forward. AB 1621 sought to tighten timelines and accountability for post-entitlement permits by limiting repeated plan checks and preventing local agencies from requiring changes that deviate from already approved plans, with supporters from the building industry and apartment sector saying delays add major costs. Cities and counties opposed unless amended, arguing the bill could limit their ability to ensure compliance with local and state standards and create unintended loopholes. The committee also heard AB 2002, which would codify and expand the REAP 1.0 regional planning grant program to support RHNA-related planning, housing elements, technical assistance, and some housing trust fund activities; supporters emphasized its value for under-resourced jurisdictions, while the building industry sought guardrails against grant conditions that exceed state standards. AB 2118 would refine the AB 2011 streamlined pathway for mixed-income housing by clarifying that state permits are ministerial when objective standards are met and limiting local standards that block mixed-use projects; it drew broad support from housing and planning groups and no opposition. AB 2074 proposed a ministerial pathway for high-rise mixed-income housing in major transit-rich downtowns, paired with labor standards and a state-backed revolving loan fund; supporters said it could revitalize downtowns and leverage private capital, while housing advocates and some members questioned whether public financing should prioritize mostly market-rate high-rise projects and raised budget concerns. The committee took roll-call votes and advanced the bills, with AB 2676, AB 1621, AB 2002, AB 2118, and AB 2074 all moving out on majority or unanimous votes, and consent items AB 1899 and AB 2390 also approved.

Transcript Highlights:

• the goal of hearing as much as possible from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit
• Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place and as permitted by the chair.
• Despite prior reforms, permitting delays remain a major driver of California's housing crisis.
• With me today to testify on the importance of this legislation, Entitlement permits.
• , Timelines for local agencies when processing post-entitlement permits, serious barriers remain that

Summary: The Local Government Committee met on March 25, 2026, hearing eight bills, with several measures focused on housing, water, and local government administration. AB 1621 by Assemblymember Wilson sought to speed post-entitlement housing permits by setting clearer timelines, limiting repeated plan checks, and restricting field changes that conflict with approved plans. Supporters from the building, apartment, business, and housing sectors said the bill would reduce delays and costs, while county and city representatives opposed it unless amended, warning it could limit local enforcement of building and environmental codes and create problems for incomplete applications. The bill passed after a roll call vote, with the committee noting it would continue working with local government groups on amendments. The committee also heard AB 1712, which would help Santa Fe Springs sell its small, financially strained water system to a larger regulated provider without requiring a municipal election, using a protest process instead. The author and city officials said the system faces contamination, major deferred maintenance, and rate increases that could otherwise triple; water industry representatives supported the bill and no opposition was heard. AB 2080, sponsored by county treasurers, would make county delegations of investment authority to treasurers ongoing until revoked rather than requiring annual renewal, with supporters saying it would reduce administrative burden and avoid technical lapses. AB 2640 would allow local governments to offset reductions in reimbursement for disallowed state mandate claims against other unpaid mandate reimbursements; Shasta County testified in support, describing a large audit disallowance and long-delayed state payments. Both bills passed. The committee also approved consent items AB 1622 and AB 1834. AB 2180, which would codify a framework for proportional water rates under Proposition 218 based on the Dreher decision, drew broad support from water agencies and local government groups, but opposition from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Association of Realtors, who argued the bill was premature while the Supreme Court reviews related case law. Despite that opposition, the bill passed on a 6-2 vote, and the remaining bills were advanced with roll calls left open for additional votes before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• the goal of hearing as much as possible from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit
• Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place and as permitted by the chair.
• Despite prior reforms, permitting delays remain a major driver of California's housing crisis.
• With me today to testify on the importance of this legislation, Entitlement permits.
• As highlighted in the final report from the Assembly Select Committee on Permitting Reform last year,

Committee: House Local Government

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You don't have to go through the permitting process, but now you can go ahead and get water.
• If no timely objection is filed, the reviewer's finding is binding, and a permit must be issued.
• Once resolved, the permit proceeds without delay.
• It's very difficult to predict the timeline of when you're going to get your permits.
• So I think third-party review is a great way to increase the efficiency of housing permitting.

Committee: House Land & Resource Management

Transcript Highlights:

• I know Dallas had some real issues on the building permitting side and I know they've tried to get a
• from that jurisdiction if it's in the city, a building permit.
• So when you go and you hand to the city your permits or your plans to say build 10 houses on a lot.
• And when you submit the plans or ask for a building permit, you're going to have an engineering stamp
• There's a 45-day shot clock for building permits.

Committee: House Land & Resource Management