Transcript Highlights:

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

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

Keywords: 919, house, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• So, what strategies could projects implement to limit the co-pollutant emissions?
• reductions and continue the state's momentum towards zero-emission (ZE) trucks.
• . qualify for the Governor's 2035 zero-emission vehicle mandate, is that correct?
• We believe that **CCUS** is a critical tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• Poet has long championed E15 for its ability to reduce emissions.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The Air Resources Board is charged by AB 32 to reduce CO2 emissions, greenhouse gas emissions.
• Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles are completely zero-emission.
• They're both EVs; they're both zero-emission.
• NOx emissions.
• Tell us more about this zero-emission vehicle axle weight problem.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Select Committee on Hydrogen Energy held an informational hearing on California’s hydrogen leadership, with Chair Bob Archuleta framing hydrogen as a complementary clean-energy pathway for hard-to-electrify sectors and emphasizing the need for balanced policy, community benefits, and strategic use of public funds. The first panel of private-sector witnesses from the California Hydrogen Business Council, Bosch, Hyundai, and Sierra Northern Railway described existing deployments in buses, trucks, rail, ports, and industrial uses, and argued that the technology is commercially ready but needs stable policy, faster permitting, stronger demand signals, and more infrastructure. They highlighted projects such as Hyundai’s NorCal Zero freight trucks, Bosch’s hydrogen components and refueling technology, and Sierra’s hydrogen switcher locomotive, while also noting major cost barriers, especially for fuel and equipment, and the need for continued state incentives and coordinated infrastructure planning. Committee members focused on labor standards, community engagement, and the current scale of hydrogen vehicles and fueling infrastructure. Witnesses said they work with labor groups, building trades, and safety organizations, and that early community involvement and first-responder training are important. In response to questions, panelists estimated roughly 15,000 to 16,000 light-duty fuel cell vehicles in California, around 100 hydrogen trucks, and growing bus deployment, with South Korea cited as having much larger fleets. They also discussed hydrogen fuel costs, with one rail operator saying delivered fuel had fallen from more than $60 per kilogram to about $35 per kilogram but would need to drop below $10 per kilogram for broad commercial viability. CARB’s incentive and regulatory programs, including heavy-duty vehicle subsidies and low-carbon fuel standards, were described as important supports, though federal tax credit changes and uncertainty were said to be slowing progress. The second panel addressed hydrogen’s public-health, air-quality, and climate role. CAPCOA, the Coalition for Clean Air, the building trades, and a UC Berkeley researcher argued that hydrogen should be used selectively in the most polluted, diesel-heavy settings such as ports, freight corridors, rail yards, transit depots, and backup power for data centers. They stressed that fuel cell applications provide zero tailpipe emissions, but cautioned that hydrogen produced from fossil fuels or used in combustion rather than fuel cells reduces the environmental benefit. The UC Berkeley witness presented modeling suggesting large reductions in NOx and particulate exposure, with significant avoided premature deaths and health savings if hydrogen displaces diesel in heavy-duty sectors. Panelists also urged that hydrogen not delay direct electrification, that environmental justice be central to deployment, and that infrastructure and safety planning include community engagement and measurable local benefits. The final panel featured public-sector updates from SamTrans, the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, the Port of Long Beach, and the First Public Hydrogen Authority. SamTrans described its transition of more than 300 buses to battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell buses, including a large order of 108 hydrogen buses, but said the loss of expected ARCHES funding created a major gap for fueling infrastructure and that state support is needed for grants, tax exemptions, and axle-weight rule changes. GoBiz said the federal cancellation of ARCHES funding disrupted the market, but that private capital remains available if demand and cost-reduction signals are strong; it pointed to permitting streamlining and targeted state action as key next steps. The Port of Long Beach reported 106 hydrogen fuel cell trucks in port drayage, a $10 million hydrogen truck grant program, and a request for proposals for a public fueling station, while warning that high costs, fuel shortages, and the Colton incident have slowed momentum. First Public Hydrogen Authority described efforts to aggregate municipal demand, support green hydrogen production projects, and create long-term market certainty for suppliers and off-takers. Committee members repeatedly pressed witnesses on where state funding should go next, with several suggesting that near-term support for transit fleets, fueling infrastructure, and targeted high-impact corridors would be the most effective way to keep hydrogen deployment moving.

Transcript Highlights:

• And again, on the issue of the carbon and NOx emissions, it is true that older cars had higher NOx emissions
• NOx emissions.
• The emission reductions over the past 20 years?
• We are seeing a reduction of emissions.
• emission reductions.

Summary: The committee first took up SB 712, which would expand California’s smog-check exemption for classic vehicles by adding model years 1976 through 1986 in phases, with a sunset in 2032. The author and supporters, including lowrider advocates and the Specialty Equipment Market Association, argued the bill would preserve car culture, support a small class of rarely driven collector vehicles, and reduce burdens on owners who struggle to find equipment for older smog tests. Opponents, including air district officials, the American Lung Association, and other environmental groups, warned the bill would weaken an important emissions-control program and increase pollution. After discussion, the committee adopted the motion to do pass as amended to Appropriations on a roll call vote of 10-0, with the roll held open for additional votes. The committee then heard SB 800, which requires Caltrans, working with local governments, to assess mitigation measures for suicide prevention on locally owned overpasses crossing state highways. The bill was presented as a response to recent tragedies in Rancho Cucamonga and was supported by local officials, health organizations, and suicide-prevention advocates, who said the measure would help identify high-risk locations and lead to life-saving interventions. There was no registered opposition. The committee members expressed support, and SB 800 was passed to Appropriations on a unanimous roll call vote, with the roll held open. Next, the committee considered SB 30, which would prohibit California public entities from selling, donating, or transferring decommissioned diesel locomotives and railroad equipment with Tier 1 or older engines unless the engine is removed, while allowing Tier 2 and newer transfers under certain conditions. The author and supporters framed the bill as a climate and public-health measure to prevent older, dirtier locomotives from continuing to pollute elsewhere, while transit agencies opposed it, arguing it could limit useful transfers of equipment that still supports passenger service and could be better handled through case-by-case air-quality review. After debate, the committee voted 6-4 to pass SB 30 as amended to Appropriations, with the roll held open for later additions. The committee also heard SB 791, which replaces the flat dealer document processing charge cap with a 1% fee capped at $350, along with new disclosure requirements. Dealers and industry groups supported the bill as a way to recover costs and improve transparency, while consumer advocates opposed it as an unjustified increase that would burden buyers. The committee approved SB 791 on a 8-? roll call vote and held the roll open. The meeting then moved on to SB 34, a port-air-quality bill presented by Senator Richardson, but the transcript ends during testimony and debate on that measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• This graph shows the reduction in the cap to align with Washington's emissions limits and net-zero emissions
• So that's the emissions-intensive part.
• That would be emissions leakage because those emissions would still be happening.
• But we also don't see emissions, and that Here in Washington, but we also don't see emissions and that
• This means that they will be required to reduce emissions over time to help achieve our emission limits

Summary: The committee held a work session covering PFAS regulation and impacts, no-cost allowance allocation for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries (EITEs), and regional resource adequacy and data center load growth. Senator Victoria Hunt was welcomed as a new member. The Department of Ecology reviewed Washington’s Safer Products for Washington PFAS work, including completed restrictions on PFAS in outdoor furniture, carpets, rugs, stain/water-resistant treatments, and newer rules adopted in November restricting PFAS in most apparel, cleaning products, and automotive washes, with reporting requirements for some other products such as cookware and firefighting gear. Ecology also described Cycle 2 PFAS reviews now underway, including artificial turf and paints, and answered questions about compliance, online sales, sell-through periods, and how Washington’s approach differs from broader bans in states like Maine and Minnesota. The Department of Ecology also presented on PFAS in biosolids, describing a 2024 sampling study, limitations in testing methods, and a 2025 statutory amendment requiring additional sampling between 2027 and 2028 and a report to the legislature in 2029. The Department of Health then updated the committee on PFAS in drinking water, reporting that most Group A public water systems have completed sampling, that 317 sources and 188 systems are expected to exceed new contaminant levels, and that treatment costs for public systems are estimated at about $970 million, leaving a large funding gap; members also asked about private wells, health effects, bathing exposure, and home filters. The Board of Health’s new state action levels are being aligned with federal MCLs, and the department said it expects to continue monitoring and notification under state rules. Ecology also briefed the committee on no-cost allowance allocations to EITEs under the Climate Commitment Act, explaining the leakage-mitigation rationale, the current allocation schedule through 2034, and a forthcoming report on policy options for 2035-2050; members asked about industry barriers, competitiveness, and whether facilities might leave the state. Finally, E3 presented a regional resource adequacy study showing rising load, retirements outpacing additions, limited winter reliability value from wind, solar, and batteries, and a projected shortfall beginning in 2026 that could grow to about 9,000 MW by 2030 if planned projects are not built. The presentation emphasized winter cold-weather events, hydro variability, the importance of permitting and transmission, and longer-term options including nuclear, geothermal, hydrogen, carbon capture, and long-duration storage. EPRI then introduced its DC Flex initiative, which is studying how data centers can provide flexible load through workload shifting, cooling optimization, and on-site backup or bridging resources to reduce grid stress and protect ratepayers.

Transcript Highlights:

• When we think of the Commonwealth's path to net zero emissions by 2050, we often think of hard infrastructure
• about the residual emissions that are the hardest to get from other sectors.
• We've got a situation where 85% of our emissions reductions supposedly are to come from emissions reduction
• has been halved to something like 7 or 8% of total projected emissions.
• Well, nobody's going to have reduced their emissions by 45% by 2030.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a hearing on natural and working lands, carbon sequestration, and related provisions in Governor Healey’s $3 billion Mass Ready Act. EEA officials described the bill’s investments in flooding, land protection, tree planting, wetlands restoration, biodiversity, dams, seawalls, and coastal resilience, along with permitting reforms intended to speed ecological restoration projects. They also outlined current programs on resilient lands, healthy soils, forest climate solutions, forest reserves, and urban tree planting, and said the administration expects natural and working lands to offset up to 7 million metric tons of residual emissions by 2050, while acknowledging that additional strategies will be needed to close the gap to the state’s 10-million-ton offset target. Committee members pressed EEA on the cost of reaching the 30% conservation-by-2030 goal, the loss of a federal USDA grant of about $22 million, the adequacy of current sequestration estimates, and whether the state should consider regional approaches or statutory changes. EEA said current state conservation spending has been about $35 million to $40 million annually, that the Mass Ready Act is intended to help double the pace of conservation, and that federal funding remains uncertain. Senators also raised concerns about PILOT payments for state-owned land, the management of state forests, and the proposed Chapter 91 general license for restoration projects. EEA said the bill’s forest reserve language is meant to create a more durable designation process while still allowing limited active management. Advocates from The Nature Conservancy and Mass Audubon supported stronger investment in land conservation and restoration, saying natural and working lands are a cost-effective climate strategy that also provides biodiversity, water quality, and public health benefits. They urged passage of legislation to increase funding, improve PILOT equity, and strengthen land-use planning and mitigation requirements. They also backed removing Chapter 91 licensing requirements for ecological restoration, arguing that the current process adds cost and delay. In a later panel, a forest scientist and an urban forestry advocate emphasized the carbon and cooling benefits of mature trees, called for greater protection of older forests, and supported bills to expand municipal reforestation and modernize public shade tree law. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are you talking, referring to the low-emissions and the zero-emissions as part of the rulemaking?
• Yeah, emissions are an issue.
• Yeah, emissions are an issue.
• Yeah, emissions are an issue.
• Yeah, emissions are an issue.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• For example, according to the latest annual emissions inventory, the total San Pedro Bay complex emissions
• According to the latest annual emissions inventory, the total San Pedro Bay complex emissions of diesel
• by 2030 and zero emissions by 2035.
• So we look at the GHG emissions as a function of NOx emissions as well.
• You want to be able to stop NOx emissions.

Summary: The committee first heard SB 14, which would direct state agencies to reduce single-use plastics and improve waste diversion at state facilities by updating integrated waste management plans, increasing reusable foodware use, reducing paper purchasing, and requiring better employee education and recycling/composting practices. Supporters from the California Compost Coalition, Republic Services, Waste Management, and others said the bill would help build composting and recycling markets and let the state lead by example. Several groups that had opposed earlier versions said they were now neutral after amendments, including the removal of a 90% requirement. The bill was moved out on a due pass as amended recommendation. The committee then took up SB 326 on wildfire mitigation. The bill would create a framework for Cal Fire to evaluate the risk-reduction benefits of fuels management and landscape resilience investments, and it would accelerate implementation of Zone Zero defensible-space standards, including grants for local enforcement and broader application to rental and sale properties and post-fire reconstruction. Support came from Stanford climate researcher Michael Mastrandrea and several local government, insurance, and climate groups. With no opposition, the bill passed as amended to Appropriations. Next, SB 34 on port emissions and the South Coast Air Quality Management District drew extensive testimony. The author said the bill was narrowed by committee amendments to preserve the ports’ ability to reduce emissions while preventing cargo throughput caps and addressing concerns about automation, local control, and the timeline for port clean-air planning. Supporters included ILWU, business groups, and port-related stakeholders, while the South Coast AQMD and many environmental and community organizations opposed it, arguing it would weaken public-health protections and set a bad precedent. After lengthy debate, the committee approved the bill on a due pass as amended vote to Transportation, with some members voting no and others abstaining. The committee also heard SB 279, which would expand composting options for farmers and small community composters by allowing limited on-farm composting after large biomass events and increasing the amount small operations may process and sell. Supporters said the bill would help address agricultural waste, expand composting capacity, and reduce landfill disposal. Commercial composting representatives opposed it, warning that the bill could create regulatory inequities, strand recent investments in permitted facilities, and allow too much unregulated food waste. Despite those concerns, the bill passed to Appropriations on a due pass vote. The transcript also briefly referenced SB 613 on upstream methane emissions data, described as having no opposition and intended to improve tracking of imported oil and gas emissions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our residents are experiencing these emissions.
• , wouldn't reduce GHG emissions further.
• It would just change where those emissions come from.
• or near-zero-emission, where we have the capability.
• These are durable emission reduction benefits achieved on farm.

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee No. 4 hearing focused on the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and cap-and-trade reauthorization, with members and panelists discussing how to balance climate goals, affordability, and legislative oversight. The chair emphasized the hearing as a broad review of past GGRF spending and future options, while the LAO outlined how GGRF revenues are generated, how variable they have been, and the tradeoffs between continuous appropriations and annual budget control. Two academic panelists, Dr. Kyle Meng and Danny Cullen Ward, argued that cap-and-trade remains an effective climate policy, but stressed that future revenue will depend heavily on market design, allowance allocation, and price levels. They also raised the idea that GGRF could be used more directly for affordability, especially by lowering electricity costs, and for targeted investments in technologies that the market would not otherwise support. Committee members pressed the panelists on where revenues come from, how much has actually been spent, and whether continuous appropriations reduce oversight. CARB staff said more than $33 billion has been generated to date and a little over $11–12 billion has been spent, with the rest committed or in process, and noted that project timelines can be lengthy. Members also asked about ways to lower electricity rates, reduce wildfire-related utility liabilities, and support electrification. The panelists said transportation fuels are the largest source of GGRF revenue, that industrial emitters receive a smaller share of free allowances, and that reducing wildfire liability and investing in grid-scale batteries could help lower costs and speed decarbonization. Public commenters largely urged the Legislature to preserve or expand continuous appropriations for specific climate programs. Speakers supported funding for nature-based solutions, natural and working lands, urban greening, agricultural climate solutions, waste and composting programs, clean transportation, AB 617 community air protection, clean cars, transit, affordable housing near transit, and dairy digesters. Several groups argued these programs are cost-effective, provide public health and affordability benefits, and should receive dedicated shares of GGRF. Others urged reducing free allowances and using more GGRF revenue to directly lower energy costs for households. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• emissions from agriculture.
• emissions from agriculture.
• air emissions from landfills. air emissions from landfills.
• emissions, and then we have emissions emissions, and then we have emissions from<02:18:24.120>
• And then we would look at the emissions. We would also look at the emissions.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• emissions of Paraguay.
• Shein has tripled its greenhouse gas emissions, now matching the annual emissions of Paraguay.
• That is a total emissions cut, not just carbon emissions intensity.
• This isn't just report your GHG emissions one, two, and three.
• We all recognize California's significant progress in reducing emissions, and more emission reductions

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

Transcript Highlights:

• jet fuel and may also reduce particulate matter emissions.
• jet fuel and may also reduce particulate matter emissions.
• So the cars that qualify for these emissions kits already meet the emission standards that we would want
• The emissions crisis.
• As long as it reduces emissions, it gets certified by U.S. emissions and holds up in durability, yes,

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The emissions from plastics and sharps and the things that defy the fun...
• We're not trying to put in a percentage of this emission versus that emission or whatever.
• So it's ...or present emissions that are going to cause public harm.
• It creates emissions: plastics, metal, sharps, infectious waste, that kind of thing.
• Because it goes into the air as emissions. So there are air quality emissions...

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Wouldn't reduce GHG emissions further, it would just change where those emissions come from.
• Where you would want to spend GGRF funding to reduce emissions directly.
• Global temperatures are rising and so are global emissions. Thank you very much.
• emissions.
• or near. emission where we have the capability.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Are you talking, referring to the low emissions and the zero emissions as part of the rulemaking?
• talking referring to the low emissions talking referring to the low emissions and<00:12:49.160><
• emission standard.
• Yeah, emissions are an issue.
• Um, do you believe that emissions cause greenhouse gas emissions, which harm our environment and cause

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Sulfur dioxide air emissions in 2023 were 94% lower than they were in 1980.
• NOx emissions were 75% lower.
• emissions from fossil fuel combustion.
• Or to the globe's emissions.
• , and as well as their traditional air pollution emissions over the years.

Transcript Highlights:

• If all we're doing here in California is reducing our emissions, which are like 1% of global emissions
• But for Chair Randolph, in terms of carbon emissions, how far away do we count carbon emissions that
• Count carbon emissions that are produced?
• We also track emissions for other purposes, including emissions in the low-carbon fuel standard context
• the emissions at the source.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held its annual oversight hearing on the transportation fuels sector, focused on California’s fuel transition, the announced refinery closures by Phillips 66 and Valero, and the potential effects on supply, prices, and the broader fuel system. Committee leadership said the state needs a system-wide transition plan rather than a piecemeal approach, and state witnesses from CARB, the CEC, and DPMO described the fuel market as a complex, interconnected ecosystem involving crude production, refining, storage, imports, and delivery. They emphasized that declining gasoline demand from EV adoption is occurring alongside shrinking in-state refining capacity, which could increase volatility and price spikes if not managed carefully. CARB Chair Liane Randolph reviewed the state’s climate and air-quality programs, including AB 32, SB 32, the 2022 scoping plan, the low-carbon fuel standard, and vehicle emissions rules. She said these policies have reduced emissions substantially but that California still faces major ozone and PM2.5 problems, especially in disadvantaged communities. Randolph also said federal actions challenging California waivers could complicate the state’s clean-air efforts, and she noted that while liquid fuels will still be needed in some sectors, the state must continue reducing fossil fuel dependence while protecting public health. CEC Vice Chair Siva Gunda and DPMO Director Ty Milder presented data on gasoline demand, refinery throughput, crude imports, and price differentials. Gunda said the Legislature’s special-session laws gave the agencies transparency and planning tools, and that the CEC is developing a fuels transition plan while evaluating whether any regulatory tools should be used. Milder previewed DPMO findings that Californians have paid a long-running “mystery gasoline surcharge” averaging 41 cents per gallon since 2015, with higher margins concentrated in branded gasoline and among vertically integrated firms. He said the data show a concentrated market with some refiners doing well and others struggling, and that DPMO will continue investigating price behavior, competition, and supply risks. Members pressed the witnesses on whether state regulations contributed to refinery exits or higher prices, and on whether the agencies had adequately analyzed consumer costs. Witnesses said they had not yet implemented the new permissive tools from SB X1-2 and AB X2-1 because they were still assessing risks and benefits, and they stressed that refinery closures and capital decisions are driven by broader market conditions as well as regulation. No vote was taken; the hearing was informational, with the committee seeking updates and urging the agencies to develop a practical transition strategy that balances affordability, reliability, climate goals, and worker/community protections.

Transcript Highlights:

• 800, which required the Department of Transportation to establish an advanced air mobility, zero-emission
• Since eVTOLs are electric vehicles, they will contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the
• The issue is it has to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• The issue is it has to reduce GHG emissions.
• by 2035 and all school buses to be zero-emission by 2045, which I supported.

Summary: The committee heard and advanced several transportation-related bills, beginning with AB 431 on advanced air mobility. The author and supporters from AUVSI, Joby Aviation, United Airlines, Wisk Aero, the City of Long Beach, and Archer said the bill would create a statewide plan and technical framework for eVTOL/advanced air mobility infrastructure, public outreach, and local implementation. No opposition testified, and the bill passed the committee as amended to Appropriations on a unanimous roll call. Members then took up AB 630 on abandoned or hazardous RVs. The author and supporters, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass’s office, argued the bill would curb a cycle in which inoperable RVs are towed, auctioned cheaply, and returned to the streets by predatory buyers, while adding notice, recovery, and reporting requirements. Opponents from Western Center on Law and Poverty and ACLU California Action warned the bill would destroy RVs that serve as shelter for unhoused residents and could worsen homelessness. After discussion about the bill’s focus on dismantling rather than towing, the committee passed AB 630 as amended to Appropriations. The committee also approved AB 314, which would support transit-oriented development around planned and existing high-speed rail stations; AB 1223, which gives Sacramento County communities more flexibility to use local transportation revenues for related infrastructure supporting infill development; AB 1111, which adds flexibility to the zero-emission school bus transition for rural and disadvantaged districts; AB 1190, which caps fees charged by DMV business partners and requires clearer disclosure of the official DMV site; AB 987, which limits unreasonable towing fees and related charges; and AB 911, which creates a narrow exemption from Advanced Clean Fleets rules for telecommunications bucket trucks and sail-on-wheels used in emergencies. Most bills drew support from local governments, industry, or consumer groups, while AB 1111 and AB 911 drew opposition from clean transportation and environmental advocates concerned about weakening emissions goals. All of the bills were reported out as amended to the Committee on Appropriations, with recorded roll-call votes and several members adding their names as co-authors or supporters.