Transcript Highlights:

• An infrastructure master plan for this area.
• What's happened is because the country is now short of this infrastructure, any place where infrastructure
• We need roads and other infrastructure.
• You have old infrastructure out there.
• So we're building infrastructure in Ohio.

Transcript Highlights:

• The division has allocated 4.5% for the Tribal Infrastructure Fund and 4.5% for the Colonias Infrastructure
• The Infrastructure Fund, the acequia Infrastructure Project Fund, would be managed by the Interstate
• One of the bigger infrastructure projects are— One of the bigger infrastructure projects our land grant
• The infrastructure buildout is going to be humongous.
• that went to the Tribal Infrastructure Fund.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• infrastructure in the state. infrastructure in the state.
• in new infrastructure. in new infrastructure.
• package delivery and infrastructure package delivery and infrastructure inspection.
• that infrastructure at the lower levels. that infrastructure at the lower levels.
• strategy and infrastructure right now. strategy and infrastructure right now.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The task force approved the October 14, 2025 meeting minutes and then heard a presentation from Austin Kaylor of WSP on alternative aviation fuels. Kaylor described an ongoing feasibility study focused on Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport and the other four commercial airports in Kentucky, with an eye toward both near-term use of alternative aviation fuel in existing supply chains and longer-term in-state production using local feedstocks. He said Kentucky’s current jet fuel use at the five airports is about 609 million gallons annually and could approach 1 billion gallons by 2050, and he outlined potential feedstocks such as soybeans, corn, and waste oils, along with existing logistics assets like river terminals, trucking, rail, and some pipelines. He also discussed federal and state policy support, including renewable fuel credits and the recent 45Z tax credit extension, and said the study suggests significant economic-development potential if Kentucky can leverage existing infrastructure and incentives. Members asked about the cost of sustainable aviation fuel, whether taxpayers would be subsidizing it, and whether food crops would be diverted from food use. Kaylor responded that the market is increasingly using second-generation and waste-based feedstocks, that federal incentives can cover much of the price differential, and that SAF is a direct substitute for conventional jet fuel with some efficiency benefits. He said demand comes from both U.S. and foreign carriers, including major U.S. airlines that have made emissions-reduction commitments. Members also raised the possibility of locating production in Appalachia to create jobs closer to feedstock sources; Kaylor said that approach has worked in other states and could fit Kentucky’s logistics network. The committee then heard from Leif Elder of the Utah Department of Transportation, who introduced himself and said he would discuss advanced air mobility legislation in Utah. The transcript cuts off before his substantive presentation, and no further votes or actions were recorded after the question-and-answer discussion on alternative aviation fuels.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm here today, uh, to present an overview of the governor's 2026 infrastructure plan.
• <00:09:33.040> bonds million in housing infrastructure bonds million in housing infrastructure
• housing infrastructure bonds. housing infrastructure bonds.
• access to safe, functioning water infrastructure.
• And with that, I uh infrastructure plan.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• There's a real benefit to just improve the infrastructure of the city.
• In fact, that's kind of a trend with infrastructure projects.
• And again, levies, it's kind of a niche area of infrastructure.
• This is an infrastructure financing program.
• All the infrastructure, right? Building, et cetera, all of the above.

Summary: The task force met to focus on funding systems and incentive structures for a proposed regional waste infrastructure effort, including how a future WIPA framework might support solid waste planning in the Willamette Valley. Staff and members heard presentations from DEQ on the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, from Business Oregon on the Special Public Works Fund, and from Oregon State Treasury on state bonding capacity and the bond issuance process. Presenters explained how their programs are structured, how projects are scored or approved, what kinds of public entities and projects are eligible, and how interagency coordination and co-funding can work. DEQ emphasized that its revolving loan fund is driven by water-quality benefits and public-health criteria, while Business Oregon described a broader infrastructure loan program for public entities with no scoring system, and Treasury outlined the state’s debt-capacity process and the differences between general obligation and lottery bonds. Members used the presentations to discuss whether similar funding tools could support solid waste infrastructure, especially for transfer stations, regional hubs, and related facilities that may need to be built before Coffin Butte reaches the end of its lifespan. Several questions centered on whether public-private partnerships could qualify, whether equipment inside facilities could be financed, how repayment would work, and whether planning costs could be covered. DEQ and Business Oregon both said they could potentially collaborate on scoring or co-funding, but noted eligibility limits and the need for public ownership in many cases. Treasury said bond capacity is limited and competitive, especially for lottery bonds, and that project authorization generally runs on a two-year cycle, though unused authority can sometimes be reauthorized. In task force discussion, members debated whether the group should pursue a dedicated funding lane for the seven-county region rather than having local governments compete with other statewide needs. Some members stressed the importance of criteria to avoid stranded assets and to ensure funding is available when projects are ready, while others raised concerns about how cities and counties would generate revenue to repay debt during construction and early operations. The group also discussed flow control, system fees, and the need for regional collaboration among counties, cities, and haulers to create enough waste volume to support new infrastructure. Staff noted that pre-session filing materials for the legislature are due September 11, and the chair said the August meeting will focus on organizational structure and identifying partners. During public comment, Representative Kevin Mannix submitted written testimony supporting the WIPA concept and urging the task force to endorse it. Commissioner Bubba King of Yamhill County urged the task force to compare alternatives objectively and warned against adding bureaucracy before evaluating existing infrastructure and costs. Commissioners Kevin Cameron and Roger Nyquist of Marion and Linn counties described regional hub-and-spoke concepts, transfer stations, and intermodal options, emphasizing the need for planning, strategic siting, and collaboration with haulers and local governments.

Transcript Highlights:

• age in the country. ...infrastructure age in the country, and so repairing that infrastructure has been
• So we have the oldest infrastructure in the country. We must choose it.
• We know that there are a lot of infrastructure needs.
• And if you're not... ...and improved infrastructure.
• Thank you for your dedication to the infrastructure needs of our cities and towns.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets held a public hearing on H. 5279, a bill financing long-term improvements to municipal roads and bridges. MassDOT and A&F testified in support, describing the bill as a more than $5 billion transportation bond package centered on a four-year, $1.2 billion Chapter 90 authorization, plus funding for MBTA rail reliability and modernization, housing-related transportation improvements, a new DCR/MassDOT PRISM program for parkways and other DCR assets, and reauthorizations of the Municipal Pavement Program, Shared Streets and Spaces, and highway programs. They said the bill would support safety, resilience, housing production, and multimodal transportation, and noted that some bonds could be issued as special obligation bonds backed by the Commonwealth Transportation Fund and Fair Share revenues. Committee members asked about the size and structure of the authorizations, the federal match for highway projects, the source of MBTA vehicle procurement, bridge repair needs, and whether the housing-related funds could be used flexibly for items like sidewalks, bike lanes, bus stops, and other local transportation improvements. Administration witnesses said the bill is intended as a temporary refill of existing programs until a larger transportation bond bill is filed next session, that the federal-aid line includes the full spending authority while the state only borrows the 20% match, and that the housing-related program is deliberately broad and not limited to MBTA communities. They also said Chapter 90 includes a road-mile component that especially helps rural communities and that preservation and safety are built into the programs. The Massachusetts Municipal Association also testified in strong support, emphasizing that Chapter 90 is the most important tool municipalities have to maintain the roughly 30,000 miles of local roads and bridges they are responsible for. MMA urged timely passage before construction season and praised the continued $300 million Chapter 90 level, especially the $100 million road-mile distribution that helps communities with large road networks and smaller populations. No votes were taken on the bill, and the hearing concluded with adjournment after testimony ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• be 50 in 2028, but our infrastructure be 50 in 2028, but our infrastructure was<00:02:33.120>
• ><00:51:19.200> uh housing infrastructure appropriation uh housing infrastructure appropriation
• 4.3 million in housing infrastructure. 4.3 million in housing infrastructure.
• transportation hydraulic infrastructure transportation hydraulic infrastructure and<01:22:03.520
• infrastructure in poor condition. infrastructure in poor condition.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• :14:00.399> state's infrastructure bonds are the state's infrastructure bonds are the state's
• c> housing housing infrastructure resources housing housing infrastructure resources housing infrastructure
• I would infrastructure improvements.
• also note that housing infrastructure also note that housing infrastructure bonds<00:24:44.240><
• tools like the housing infrastructure tools like the housing infrastructure bonds<00:25:41.760><

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Sustainable long-term funding for airport and UAS infrastructure.
• , aerospace education, or our UAS and AM infrastructure investment.
• Infrastructure management system, a new electronic infrastructure management system that will be up in
• We're just going to start replacing the oldest infrastructure as we can, the worst infrastructure as
• And then also, where you've said supporting infrastructure, will that infrastructure also be beneficial

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• With our existing infrastructure, we cannot.
• And it's significant infrastructure. As Mr.
• Bryant mentioned, the city already has that infrastructure in place.
• To help build out or expand their existing water infrastructure.
• It's huge infrastructure costs. Whoever provides it, it's a huge infrastructure cost.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It has an infrastructure element. And it has a capital improvements element.
• I spend a lot of that on infrastructure as well as everything else, right?
• And most of us apply that to some type of infrastructure.
• infrastructure that may support growth.
• , new infrastructure related to growth.

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee met for its first meeting of the 2026 session and took up impact fees, with an opening overview from Eric Poole of the Florida Association of Counties. Poole explained that impact fees are one-time charges on new development used only for new infrastructure capacity, not existing deficiencies or maintenance, and must satisfy the dual rational nexus test. He traced their history in Florida and described how comprehensive plans, concurrency, and later mobility fees relate to local infrastructure funding. He argued that impact fees are restricted, tied to capital improvements, and are one tool for paying for growth. Panelists representing counties, cities, builders, and community developers largely agreed that growth creates real infrastructure costs but differed on how those costs should be allocated. County and city representatives said impact fees are a necessary, targeted way to fund roads, water, sewer, fire, schools, and parks without spreading costs across all taxpayers. They pointed to long periods without fee updates, rising construction costs, and examples of large increases justified by studies. Builder and developer representatives argued that fees are often unpredictable, can be doubled or tripled, and contribute to housing affordability problems; they also said the system can be inconsistent across jurisdictions and may encourage sprawl. Several witnesses emphasized that fees must be transparent, proportional, and tied to actual benefits, and some suggested a statewide framework or mobility-fee model with more consistency and peer review. Members asked about how long local governments can hold fee revenue, whether fees can generate profit, what they can be spent on, and whether they can pay for police stations, fire stations, or other public safety facilities. Witnesses said the funds must be used for capital projects and cannot be used for salaries or unrelated purchases, and that refunds may be required if money is not spent within the local ordinance’s timeframe. The discussion also covered examples of local fee increases, the use of impact fees versus direct construction or “pipelining” of infrastructure, and concerns about level-of-service changes and extraordinary-circumstance increases. No votes were taken; the meeting ended after the panel discussion and member questions, with the chair noting the conversation would continue.

Transcript Highlights:

• and just the pace of utility buildout of that infrastructure.
• So this funding is primarily being utilized for new infrastructure.
• We provide grants to enable the charging infrastructure.
• There's also charging infrastructure being installed there for that project.
• So there are port infrastructure development programs.

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:

• The projected infrastructure cost exceed $5 million, with the state grant of $2 million and the city
• <00:02:55.360> grant development public infrastructure grant development public infrastructure
• <00:03:11.159> on development of public infrastructure on development of public infrastructure
• <00:04:20.959> cost jobs the projected infrastructure cost jobs the projected infrastructure
• We've been able to update our electric and natural gas utility infrastructure.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• and just the pace of utility buildout of that infrastructure.
• So this funding is primarily being utilized for new infrastructure.
• We provide grants to enable the charging infrastructure.
• There's also charging infrastructure being installed there for that project.
• So there are port infrastructure development programs.

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:

• It's pretty simple: competition and sustained infrastructure investment.
• Competition and sustained infrastructure investment.
• We are paying and investing $8 billion in infrastructure.
• We are paying and investing $8 billion in infrastructure.
• We are paying and investing $8 billion in infrastructure.

Summary: The Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee held an informational hearing on the state of broadband affordability in California. Chair Tasha Berner said the committee was examining how broadband prices, access, and affordability are affecting households, especially after the end of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program and amid concerns about federal resistance to state broadband regulation. She noted the committee’s continued interest in policy options for 2026 and referenced prior legislation, including AB 353, that would have required affordable home internet as a condition of doing business in California. Industry witnesses from U.S. Telecom and CTIA argued that broadband and wireless prices have generally fallen in real terms even as inflation and other household costs have risen, citing competition, infrastructure investment, and faster speeds as the main drivers. They said California’s higher costs are tied to permitting delays, taxes, copper theft, and legacy obligations such as COLR requirements, and they urged the Legislature to preserve market incentives, reduce fees and regulatory burdens, and support infrastructure deployment. They also discussed fixed wireless access, federal BEAD funding, and Universal Service Fund reform, arguing that more entities benefiting from networks, including tech platforms, should contribute to support programs. Consumer and public-interest witnesses presented a different view, saying California still has a serious affordability and adoption problem, especially for low-income households. Sunny McPhee of the California Emerging Technology Fund said broadband adoption has improved dramatically over time, but about 500,000 households remain offline or underconnected and many low-income households still pay above the FCC affordability benchmark. Ernesto Falcon of the CPUC Public Advocates Office said California’s market is losing its competitive edge, with prices higher than in other states and meaningful price pressure coming mainly from fiber competition at the gigabit tier. He said roughly 4.8 million Californians are limited to one gigabit option and estimated that more competition could save consumers more than $1 billion annually. Both witnesses emphasized the need for stronger transparency, targeted subsidies, and a permanent affordability solution, including extending and refining the CPUC broadband Lifeline pilot and advancing SB 716. Public commenters, including representatives from cable providers, nonprofits, and digital equity organizations, largely supported SB 716 and a permanent broadband affordability program. Several urged the committee to remove a cap on the Lifeline program, expand the CPUC pilot, and invest in digital navigators, outreach, and enrollment assistance. The hearing ended without a vote or formal action, after the chair thanked the witnesses and public commenters for their testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• New gas infrastructure leads to new gas.
• We will invest in the infrastructure.
• Will limit exposure to new gas infrastructure.
• And number two: high utility capital expenditures on infrastructure.
• Investments into outdated gas infrastructure.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a wide range of late-file energy bills, with much of the discussion focused on battery storage siting, gas system expansion, propane consumer protections, gas workforce safety, and a Taunton home-rule petition on water rates for manufactured housing communities. Representative Sweeney urged support for H. 4689 and H. 4690, which would impose a moratorium and setback requirements for lithium battery storage facilities, citing fire risk, proximity to homes, and environmental concerns. Several local officials and residents from Oakham, Tewksbury, and other communities described proposed battery projects near homes, schools, wetlands, and conservation land, while industry and clean-energy advocates argued the bills would effectively block storage development and conflict with state energy goals and existing fire-safety standards. The committee also heard strong support for S. 2290/H. 3547, a bill to prevent gas expansion near environmental justice communities, from environmental justice advocates, municipal officials, and clean-energy groups. Testimony emphasized rising gas bills, the cost of new pipelines, methane and health impacts, and the need to avoid locking in long-term gas infrastructure costs. Witnesses also discussed related bills on gas workforce safety, gas shut-off valves, and gas meter replacement plans, with labor representatives supporting safety-focused measures and opposing changes they said would weaken inspections, while consumer and environmental advocates argued that some utility replacement practices are unnecessarily expensive and should be reined in to reduce ratepayer costs. Other testimony included support for H. 3518 on propane gas ratepayer protections, with the witness arguing for clearer contract terms and website price disclosure, and support for S. 2652, which would authorize Taunton to create a separate water billing rate for manufactured housing communities because residents there are effectively paying higher water costs through rent due to a single master meter. No committee votes or final actions were taken during the hearing, and members mostly asked brief clarifying questions or made no comment after testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• And while a notable and extensive portion of the infrastructure has been built, the site will need to
• This legislation would allow for some of the remaining public infrastructure to be delayed, allowing
• And while a notable and extensive portion of the infrastructure has been built, the site will need to
• This legislation would allow for some of the remaining public infrastructure to be delayed, allowing
• Infrastructure Infrastructure Project.<00:43:48.960> Electric<00:43:49.359> meter,<00:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• infrastructure categories.
• And so that investment of infrastructure, a typical company in a competitive market would invest in infrastructure
• Investing in the infrastructure is what they get the profit margin on.
• So all of those pieces of infrastructure... ...of infrastructure have a 20, 25, 30, 30, 40 year lifespan
• Delmarva Power's electric infrastructure dates back over 100 years.

Bills: SB287

Keywords: solid waste, recycling, universal recycling, single-stream recycling, multifamily housing, apartment recycling, commercial recycling, waste diversion, recycling grants, low-interest loans, Delaware Recycling Fund, Delaware Solid Waste Authority, DNREC, waste hauler, curbside recycling, yard waste, source-separated recycling, pay-as-you-throw, extended producer responsibility, waste bans

Summary: The House Natural Resources and Energy Committee met and considered three Senate bills. SB 287 with Senate Amendment 2, a DNREC cleanup bill on recycling, would tighten recycling collection rules for haulers and commercial generators, require multifamily recycling education, repurpose the Delaware Recycling Fund, and add annual reporting; after brief questions and no public comment, the committee motion to release did not initially receive enough votes, so the bill was circulated for signatures. SB 346, which would speed Environmental Appeals Board hearing and decision timelines so DNREC secretary decisions become final if deadlines are missed, drew support from the Nature Conservancy and also failed to get enough votes at the meeting, so it too was circulated for signatures. The committee then took up SB 326, a major utility-regulation bill sponsored by Senator Hanson and Representative Heffernan that would cap certain non-mandatory utility spending, limit interim rates, increase oversight and transparency, and streamline rate-setting. SB 326 generated extensive testimony and debate. Supporters, including the Public Advocate, Sierra Club, PSC staff, and some legislators, argued that Delmarva Power’s spending on non-mandatory infrastructure has risen far faster than inflation, that the company is a regulated monopoly, and that the bill would help restrain future delivery-rate increases without harming reliability because mandatory reliability, storm response, and vegetation management spending would remain allowed. Opponents, including Delmarva Power, business groups, contractors, labor representatives, and the Delaware Contractors Association, argued the cap would delay needed reliability and capacity projects, hurt economic development, reduce jobs, and interfere with utility planning; they also said supply costs, not distribution spending, are the main driver of recent bill increases. After public comment and additional questioning, the committee voted to release SB 326 on a split roll call, but because several members were absent the bill was also walked for additional signatures. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• What are we doing to make sure that we can have the proper infrastructure?
• With outdated infrastructure, I do understand that it makes it hard.
• Their infrastructure, the way that they still get water, is a wood flume.
• That is the type of infrastructure that I have in my district.
• That is the type of infrastructure that I have in my district.

Summary: The Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee heard several housing-related bills. SB 457 would direct HCD to develop statistical formulas based on historical development data to help cities complete housing element site inventories, with the author and supporters arguing it would make RHNA compliance more realistic and less costly; the California Building Industry Association opposed, and the bill was later approved on a 7-1 vote. SB 904 would codify and expand wildfire-rebuilding coordination and reporting practices used after recent fires, with supporters saying it would speed recovery and opponents questioning the need for additional reporting; it passed 11-1. The committee also took up SB 1091, which would create a state acquisition-and-preservation program for unsubsidized affordable housing to prevent displacement; it drew broad support from housing and tenant groups and passed 9-1, with members emphasizing preservation as a key housing strategy. Members also considered SB 1267, which would require EV charger installers in common-interest developments to indemnify associations during installation and make homeowners responsible for costs arising from use of privately owned chargers. The bill was presented as a follow-up to prior HOA-related EV charging legislation, with support from HOA, EV, and climate groups and opposition from the California Association of Realtors pending amendments; it passed 10-0. SB 1117 would clarify that ADU impact fees above the 750-square-foot exemption are charged only on the portion above that threshold, not the entire unit, and supporters said it would remove a fee cliff that discourages slightly larger ADUs. Cities, special districts, and fire agencies opposed or opposed unless amended, citing infrastructure funding concerns, but the bill passed 10-0 after extensive debate. The committee also heard SB 1361, which would prevent local governments from taking actions to avoid SB 79 transit-oriented housing requirements at existing or planned transit stops. Supporters from L.A. Metro, labor, and housing groups said it would protect transit investments and jobs, while the City of Burbank opposed; the bill passed 9-0. Two consent items, SB 722 and SB 1426, were approved without discussion. Throughout the hearing, members repeatedly stressed the goals of streamlining housing production, preserving existing affordable homes, and reducing barriers to rebuilding and transit-oriented development.

Transcript Highlights:

• Why can't they take care of their own infrastructure? Why didn't they see this coming?
• It allows them to go ahead and save up to replace these large pieces of infrastructure and allows them
• Why can't they take care of their own infrastructure? Why didn't they see this coming?
• And similar districts throughout the state have issues with this aging irrigation infrastructure, and
• Why can't they take care of their own infrastructure? Why didn't they see this coming?

Bills: SF0050, SF0068, SF0084, HB0087, HB0029, HB0061, HB0090

Keywords: groundwater, water resource management, state engineer, aquifer study, corrective controls, monitoring wells, public reporting, irrigation, water management, funding, maintenance projects, tax assessments, state law, water conservation, Colorado River, drought, water rights, voluntary program, interstate agreements, water development