Transcript Highlights:

• The difference is in taxes and environmental costs.
• That is probably partially due to environmental restrictions.
• We can have environmental quality. We can have labor protections and environmental standards.
• We can have environmental quality, we can have labor protections and environmental standards that protect
• Grishina Mohabir with California Environmental Voters.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• Grishina Mohabir with California Environmental Voters.
• Grishina Mohabir with California environmental voters.
• Grishina Mohabir, California Environmental Voters.
• Grishina Mohabir, California, environmental voters.
• I'm here with Sacramento Environmental Justice from Sacramento.

Summary: The subcommittee heard extensive testimony on the governor’s proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit, which would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold for use in California from 2026 to 2036. The Department of Finance and CARB argued the proposal would help decarbonize aviation, support a long-term transition in the fuel sector, and encourage in-state investment and jobs. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and several outside witnesses recommended rejecting the proposal, saying it is a relatively expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases, could have uncertain or limited net climate benefits, and may shift limited feedstocks away from renewable diesel rather than create additional fuel supply. A major point of debate was whether the credit would mainly benefit California refineries and workers or instead subsidize out-of-state producers while reducing revenue for transportation programs. Supporters, including union members, refinery workers, airlines, Boeing, and airport representatives, said SAF is one of the few viable near-term options for aviation, that California should keep fuel production and jobs in-state, and that the credit would help maintain refinery operations and support the industry’s transition. Opponents, including the LAO, trucking and fuels groups, environmental organizations, and county/road advocates, warned that the proposal could raise gasoline and diesel prices, reduce diesel excise tax revenue for highways and local streets and roads, and provide limited climate benefit compared with other uses of state funds. Some members also raised concerns about feedstock availability, food-system impacts, and whether the policy should be more narrowly targeted if the goal is to support a specific refinery. No vote was taken. The chair stated at the outset that all items on the agenda were being held open for a future hearing, and public comment was taken after the first item because of the level of interest. The hearing then continued with public testimony, which was split between strong support from labor and industry and strong opposition from environmental, transportation, and local government groups.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will have the crossbow report, the Environmental Trust Fund DNR, and the Minnesota Climate Action
• </c> will have the uh envir environmental will have the uh envir environmental trust<00:02:27.200><c>
• </c><00:37:44.480><c> and</c><00:37:44.720><c> natural</c> address environmental and natural address
• environmental and natural resources<00:37:45.599><c> issues</c><00:37:46.400><c> by</c><00:37:46.720>
• to environmental location relative to environmental justice<00:41:58.160><c> areas</c><00:41:59.040>

Committee: Senate Environment, Climate, and Legacy

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> national leader and environmental national leader and environmental stewardship<00:26:49.720><c>
• I represent the DFL Environmental Caucus.
• I represent the DFL Environmental Caucus.
• I represent the DFL Environmental Caucus.
• </c> from the Minnesota dfl environmental from the Minnesota dfl environmental caucus<00:28:47.679><c

Committee: House Energy Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• Anna Gonzalez, Executive Director at the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, also
• Good afternoon, Anna Gonzalez, Executive Director at the Center for Community Action and Environmental
• Before joining Ten Strands, I served as the Environmental Literacy and Sustainability Coordinator at
• are ready to support hands-on environmental climate action projects.
• On behalf of Ten Strands and the California Environmental Literacy Initiative, support.

Summary: The Assembly Education Committee heard a long slate of education bills, beginning with SB 685 on nonpublic schools for students with disabilities. Senator Cortese and the California Department of Education described the bill as a response to the Ninth Circuit’s Laughman decision, removing the obsolete “non-sectarian” requirement while preserving secular use of public funds, nondiscrimination protections, background checks, credentialing, and incident reporting. There was no opposition, and the bill later passed 7-0 to Appropriations. The committee also heard SB 1181, a pilot grant program for violence prevention, student wellness, and school safety in Central Valley and other schools. Supporters framed it as a prevention measure, while opponents from EFF, ACLU Cal Action, and community advocates warned it could increase law enforcement involvement, surveillance, and use of fusion centers; despite those concerns, it ultimately passed 5-0 to Appropriations. Members then considered SB 1067, which would create a statewide framework for annual K-2 math assessments starting in 2028-29 to identify students needing early intervention. The author and supporters argued California faces a serious math achievement crisis and that early assessment would help close gaps, while CTA and several educators and administrators sought additional clarity and amendments to ensure alignment with existing diagnostic practices and limits on high-stakes use. The bill drew broad support from educators, parents, and advocacy groups and passed 7-0 to Appropriations. SB 1107, a school shade-structure bill, would expand eligible shade projects and allow bundling through design-build to reduce costs; it received support from LAUSD, school boards, and climate-focused groups and passed 7-0. SB 1128, on take-home devices and screen time for kindergarteners, was presented as a modest first step to give families more flexibility and reduce early screen exposure, with support from early childhood advocates and no opposition, and it passed 7-0. The committee also approved SB 1048, creating a voluntary State Seal of Climate Literacy for students who complete climate coursework and hands-on projects. Supporters, including Ten Strands, students, teachers, and county offices, said it would recognize real-world climate learning and green career readiness; it passed 7-0. SB 1140, sponsored by CFT, would require LEA construction contractors to follow campus security provisions during school projects to reduce unauthorized access; it drew support from labor and gun violence prevention groups and passed 7-0. SB 930, requiring end-to-end encryption for proctoring companies handling K-12 exam data, was presented as a student privacy measure in response to cybersecurity risks and passed 6-0. Finally, SB 1083 was introduced by Senator Perez as a follow-up to last year’s Safe Learning Environments Act, with extensive committee amendments to refine the statewide misconduct data system, disclosure rules, contractor fingerprinting, and access requirements; the transcript cuts off before the bill’s full hearing and vote are shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Anna Gonzalez, Executive Director at the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, also
• Before joining Ten Strands, I served as the Environmental Literacy and Sustainability Coordinator at
• are ready to support hands-on environmental climate action projects.
• are ready to support hands-on environmental climate action projects.
• On behalf of Ten Strands and the California Environmental Literacy Initiative, support.

Committee: House Education

Transcript Highlights:

• However, 45Q is a tax credit, and it does not perform as an environmental regulation.
• An environmental handling charge is a charge placed on an item at the point of sale to cover the cost
• Household hazardous waste can be many everyday environmental products found around the home.
• Ecology has experienced challenges with programs using environmental handling charges.
• Yet protecting human and environmental health is equally critical for us.

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:

• </c><00:15:31.360><c> or</c><00:15:31.600><c> these</c> because of these environmental or these because
• of these environmental or these safety<00:15:32.240><c> concerns</c><00:15:32.720><c> that</c><00:15
• </c><00:17:47.440><c> nonprofit</c><00:17:47.919><c> in</c> Council, an environmental nonprofit in Council
• , an environmental nonprofit in Kentucky.<00:17:49.200><c> Um</c><00:17:49.520><c> I</c><00:17:49.760
• protection is involved if environmental protection is involved if there's<00:20:23.440><c> an</c><00

Committee: Senate Economic Development, Tourism, & Labor

Transcript Highlights:

• We set a section of the Environmental Improvement Act with the governor's targets for reduction by 2030
• Agriculture producers are the OG environmental stewards.
• Community banks support responsible environmental stewardship.
• Senate Bill 18 fails to balance environmental goals with affordability and reliability.
• Our B-Corp principles are dedicated to creating green jobs, housing, sustainability, and environmental

Summary: The committee first took up the proposed 2026 tax package, Senate Bill 151, and adopted a committee substitute after discussion of the package’s funding capacity and included measures. The substitute bundled five bills: a physician tax credit, a quantum facility infrastructure tax credit, a construction materials gross receipts deduction for affordable multifamily housing, a local journalist employment tax credit, and a health equipment gross receipts deduction. Members discussed amendments that raised the physician credit from $4,000 to $10,000, narrowed the housing deduction to project-based certification, and reduced the journalist credit threshold from four stories to three. Concerns were raised about the fiscal impact on municipalities, especially Albuquerque, and about the funding mechanism, but the committee voted 6-4 to give the substitute a do pass recommendation. Senator Sanchez explained his vote, saying he wished more could have been included in the package. The committee then heard Senate Bill 18, the Clear Horizons Act, which would codify statewide greenhouse gas reduction targets and direct the Environment Department and Environmental Improvement Board to develop plans and rules for emissions reductions. The sponsors said the bill builds on the governor’s 2019 executive order, includes a 10,000-metric-ton threshold for covered emitters, allows certified offsets, and is intended to protect public health, reduce climate-related costs, and provide regulatory certainty. Supporters argued the bill would help communities facing wildfire, drought, health harms, and rising insurance and utility costs, and that it would encourage clean-energy investment and long-term economic stability. Opposition testimony came from mining, oil and gas, rural electric cooperatives, construction, agriculture, auto dealers, chambers of commerce, banks, water recycling companies, and realtors. They argued the bill functions like a carbon tax or broad regulatory mandate, would raise energy and compliance costs, could reduce investment and jobs, and would disproportionately affect rural, tribal, agricultural, and low-income communities. Several witnesses warned of higher electricity and fuel bills, revenue losses for local governments, and uncertainty from delegating major policy decisions to rulemaking. Supporters included public health advocates, educators, local officials, clean-energy businesses, tribal and environmental advocates, and residents affected by wildfire and drought, who said the bill is necessary to address climate harms and protect public health and the economy. No final committee vote on SB 18 was reached in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• In 2012, I believe the environmental impact statement, In 2012, I believe the environmental impact statement
• All are proud of their environmental stewardship, and many have received state, regional, and national
• Over the past two decades, the Forest and Fish HCP has delivered substantial environmental benefits.
• As a signatory to the HCP, the state has an obligation to uphold not only environmental outcomes, but
• As a signatory to the HCP, the state has an obligation to uphold not only environmental outcomes, but

Summary: The committee held a work session on the history, implementation, and current challenges of Washington’s Forest and Fish law and related Habitat Conservation Plan. Testimony from tribal representatives Jim Peters and David Herrera, former Rep. Jim Buck, and mediator Tim Thompson described the original timber, fish, and wildlife negotiations as a broad, collaborative effort intended to balance salmon and habitat protection with a viable timber industry. DNR’s Sabur Jawad outlined the program’s statutory framework, the roles of DNR, Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, tribes, local governments, landowners, and the Forest Practices Board, and explained that changes to aquatic-resource rules can come through adaptive management, legislative direction, or court orders. He also described the permitting and enforcement system, the programmatic HCP, road maintenance and abandonment work, and the adaptive management process, including the long-running NP stream-buffer studies and resulting rulemaking timeline. Agency and stakeholder testimony emphasized accomplishments such as decades of HCP coverage, annual compliance monitoring, road and fish-barrier improvements, small forest landowner assistance programs, and the completion of numerous adaptive management studies. DNR’s Katie Allen said the program has strong successes but also faces resource-intensive implementation, rising costs, and watershed-wide pressures beyond forestry, and she pointed to a State Auditor review that produced 13 recommendations now being addressed through an action plan and a structured decision-making model. Washington Farm Forestry Association executive director Elaine O’Neill said small forest landowners supported the agreement expecting assistance and flexibility, but argued the balance has shifted toward more protection and less practical consideration of rural vitality and property rights. Washington Forest Protection Association executive director Jason Spadero said the agreement has produced measurable environmental gains and regulatory predictability, but criticized the recent NP rule and urged continued science-based, economically balanced management. In the final discussion, tribal representatives said the collaborative, consensus-based process still works in some areas, but that the principals need to be re-engaged more directly and periodically to restore accountability and trust. They said the adaptive management process and funding remain important, but expressed concern that consensus has broken down in some recent rulemaking and that side negotiations or outside pressure can undermine the original agreement. Members asked how to restore the collaborative model; Peters suggested renewed commitment from the principal parties and more regular high-level meetings, while Herrera echoed the need to implement the auditor’s recommendations. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• And plans for certain emission events or for the committee on environmental regulation It's before 483
• by Goodwin, ruling the quality standards for the sale of aggregates and. for the committee on environmental
• Active waste for the committee on environmental regulation, HB 4693 by Lopeza, came in with assistance
• She really in the program administered by Texas Commission environmental quality to connect clean vehicle
• H.B. 5044 by Reynolds, ruling to require the Texas Commission of Environmental Qualities to and report

Bills: HB9 , HB22 , HB908 , HB1392

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> $5 tax credit is not an environmental $5 tax credit is not an environmental interaction<00:14:10.839
• He concluded that the initiative is a practical approach to supporting agriculture and environmental
• </c><00:42:47.359><c> damage</c> water treatment and environmental damage water treatment and environmental
• <01:14:41.960><c> may</c><01:14:42.199><c> bring</c><01:14:42.600><c> environmental</c> environmental
• may bring environmental environmental may bring environmental benefits<01:14:43.719><c> it</c><01:14

Committee: House Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• The courts interpret environmental regulations that are already on the books.
• </c><00:08:02.000><c> caucus</c> eladia Dua from the environmental caucus eladia Dua from the environmental
• Can you provide an example of how this would complicate environmental enforcement efforts?
• </c><00:10:32.399><c> enforcement</c> complicate um environmental enforcement complicate um environmental
• Environmental Quality and that support Environmental Quality and that support continued<00:18:17.440>

Summary: The Agriculture and Environment hearing on January 27, 2025, took up multiple measures, beginning with a proposed constitutional amendment, HB 559, to recognize a right to clean water and air, a healthful environment, climate, native ecosystems, and beaches. The Attorney General’s Office testified with concerns that the amendment’s broad language could create challenges for future legislatures and environmental enforcement, while the Climate Commission and DLNR supported it. Environmental and advocacy groups, including Climate Protectors Hawaii, 350 Hawaii, Greenpeace Hawaii, and others, strongly supported the measure, arguing it would strengthen decision-making and protect Hawaii’s natural resources. Committee members raised questions about how the amendment would interact with existing constitutional protections and recent litigation, and the AG’s office said the proposal could lead to broad judicial interpretation and possible liability issues. The hearing then moved on without a recorded vote on this bill. The committee next heard SB 552, which would establish a healthy soils program in the Department of Agriculture and require annual reporting and funding. The Climate Change Commission supported the bill, and the Department of Agriculture said it stood on its submitted testimony but noted existing commissions and the greenhouse gas sequestration task force already address similar objectives, suggesting SB 552 may duplicate current efforts. Agricultural and environmental advocates, including the Hawaii Farmers Union, Hawaii Farm Bureau, and others, supported the concept of a consolidated healthy soils program, saying it would better organize existing efforts, improve access for producers, and support conservation practices. The Agribusiness Development Corporation said it would support either DOA or ADC administering the program, and committee discussion focused on implementation, program overlap, and whether the bill should better integrate existing compost reimbursement and related efforts. The final measure discussed in the excerpt was SB 678, which would create an Agricultural Development Food Security Special Fund, dedicate a portion of the environmental response, energy, and food security tax to it, and appropriate funds equal to 3% of the state budget for agriculture. The Department of Agriculture strongly supported the bill, saying the funding would align with its goals and help support farmers and ranchers. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii and the Department of Budget and Finance raised concerns that the proposed special fund may not meet statutory criteria. Farm and industry groups generally supported the measure but suggested changes, including adding uses related to local food sourcing, distribution, and biosecurity. Committee members questioned the scale of the appropriation, noting it could amount to roughly $250 million and a major increase in DOA’s budget, and discussed whether the department could realistically implement such a large program. The hearing ended with testimony counts noted for the measures heard, and the chair indicated the committee would reconvene later for any unfinished business.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Sub-Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy will come to order
• Thank you. ...miles, often without backup, and they don't just fight environmental crime.
• Please protect these positions and fully fund our environmental agencies.
• Please protect these positions and fully fund our environmental agencies.
• Please protect these positions and fully fund our environmental agencies.

Summary: The subcommittee met to discuss budget issues related to vacant positions across several natural resources and environmental departments, with no votes taken and all items held open for a future hearing. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance explained the administration’s proposal to eliminate about 6,000 vacant positions statewide, including roughly 293 positions in the departments before the committee, as a way to capture salary savings and reduce flexible funding tied up in vacancies. The LAO recommended retaining special-funded positions, while noting that eliminating General Fund positions would reduce savings. Finance argued that vacancy levels have remained steady statewide, that departments need flexibility to manage operations and hard-to-fill jobs, and that some vacant positions can be reclassified to higher-priority work. Members raised concerns that many of the proposed eliminations would affect core public-safety, permitting, and environmental-protection functions. The Department of Fish and Wildlife said the cuts would affect permitting, environmental protection, and law enforcement, while State Parks said its proposed ranger reductions were chosen from historically vacant, hard-to-fill positions and would still leave many vacancies to fill through the academy. The Coastal Commission said its positions supported sea-level rise planning under SB 272. The Department of Pesticide Regulation and DTSC said the reductions would affect multiple program areas, though Finance said the special funds involved were not in structural deficit and the cuts could help avoid future fee increases. The State Water Resources Control Board said its proposed reductions were spread across programs, with public-health functions protected as much as possible. The committee then heard an overview from the State Water Resources Control Board on its responsibilities for water quality, water rights, drinking water, and funding for water infrastructure. Chair Joaquin Esquivel described ongoing work on the Bay-Delta Plan update, the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes voluntary agreements, and the need to actively administer water rights. Members also discussed the board’s response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Sackett decision, which narrowed federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction. The board requested $2.6 million and 12 permanent positions to address resulting permitting and enforcement gaps; the LAO said the request met its high bar for new proposals and was supported by the board’s data and reporting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Nearly 27 million in new funding is included in the Texas
• Commission on Environmental Quality to authorize over a hundred FTEs to address issues involving air
• Senate Bill 2203 by Birdwell, relating to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in contested
• Senate Bill 2271 by Miles, relating to the authority of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
• Senate Bill 2274 by Miles, relating to the response by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Bills: SCR8 , SCR25 , SB1 , SB14 , SB24 , SB213 , SB251 , SB315 , SB371 , SB378 , SB379 , SB406 , SB413 , SB472 , SB487 , SB502 , SB502 , SB509 , SB513 , SB513 , SB565 , SB565 , SB583 , SB608 , SB621 , SB650 , SB686 , SB686 , SB707 , SB710 , SB710 , SB761 , SB761 , SB810 , SB815 , SB840 , SB856 , SB875 , SB875 , SB896 , SB896 , SB916 , SB925 , SB958 , SB958 , SB961 , SB965 , SB965 , SB973 , SB973 , SB987 , SB990 , SB995 , SB1018 , SB1019 , SB1146 , SB1146 , SB1198 , SB1252 , SB1252 , SB1253 , SB1253 , SB1330 , SB1343 , SB1362 , SB1499 , SB1499 , SB1532 , SB1532 , SB1547 , SB1547 , SB1555 , SB1596 , SB1596 , SJR36 , SJR12 , SJR57 , SCR25 , SCR22 , SCR12 , SCR8 , SB565 , SB765 , SB62 , SB666 , SB707 , SB888 , SB687 , SB847 , SB1248 , SB14 , SB1006 , SB504 , SB925 , SB995 , SB857 , SB305 , SB296 , SB284 , SB815 , SB1379 , SB1497 , SB1499 , SB1498 , SB241 , SB304 , SB621 , SB1023 , SB1024 , SB686 , SB112 , SB371 , SB204 , SB609 , SB670 , SB502 , SB850 , SB854 , SB413 , SB1555 , SB1362 , SB1346 , SB1033 , SB1220 , SB1073 , SB810 , SB987 , SB1539 , SB447 , SB875 , SB406 , SB985 , SB965 , SB1119 , SB1505 , SB24 , SB1194 , SB1253 , SB1215 , SB1532 , SB1302 , SB856 , SB650 , SB583 , SB673 , SB213 , SB681 , SB1172 , SB1252 , SB378 , SB1343 , SB608 , SB487 , SB955 , SB957 , SB988 , SB990 , SB1019 , SB1021 , SB1120 , SB251 , SB958 , SB761 , SB1 , SB541 , SB315 , SB379 , SB1018 , SB1737 , SB266 , SB1415 , SB1527 , SB125 , SB599 , SB1330 , SB53 , SB916 , SB896 , SB1352 , SB973 , SB785 , SB710 , SB472 , SB1450 , SB1502 , SB1566 , SB414 , SB1062 , SB1547 , SB961 , SB1038 , SB513 , SB578 , SB711 , SB746 , SB942 , SB1404 , SB1448 , SB1738 , SB108 , SB8 , SB318 , SB507 , SB533 , SB689 , SB1026 , SB1349 , SB1355 , SB1433 , SB1434 , SB1596 , SB1403 , SB1198 , SB1146 , SB763 , SB667 , SB1059 , SB617 , SB1567 , SB503 , SB1 , SB1555 , SR233 , SR307 , SR310 , SR318 , SR319 , SCR25 , SJR72 , SJR73 , SJR75 , SJR77 , SJR79 , SJR80 , SJR81 , SJR82 , SB2198 , SB2201 , SB2202 , SB2203 , SB2204 , SB2205 , SB2206 , SB2207 , SB2208 , SB2209 , SB2210 , SB2211 , SB2213 , SB2214 , SB2215 , SB2216 , SB2217 , SB2218 , SB2219 , SB2220 , SB2221 , SB2222 , SB2223 , SB2224 , SB2225 , SB2226 , SB2227 , SB2228 , SB2229 , SB2231 , SB2232 , SB2233 , SB2234 , SB2235 , SB2236 , SB2237 , SB2238 , SB2239 , SB2240 , SB2241 , SB2242 , SB2243 , SB2244 , SB2245 , SB2246 , SB2247 , SB2248 , SB2249 , SB2250 , SB2251 , SB2252 , SB2253 , SB2254 , SB2255 , SB2256 , SB2257 , SB2258 , SB2259 , SB2260 , SB2261 , SB2262 , SB2263 , SB2264 , SB2265 , SB2266 , SB2267 , SB2268 , SB2269 , SB2270 , SB2271 , SB2272 , SB2273 , SB2274 , SB2275 , SB2276 , SB2277 , SB2278 , SB2279 , SB2280 , SB2281 , SB2282 , SB2283 , SB2284 , SB2285 , SB2286 , SB2287 , SB2288 , SB2289 , SB2290 , SB2291 , SB2292 , SB2293 , SB2294 , SB2295 , SB2296 , SB2297 , SB2298 , SB2299 , SB2300 , SB2301 , SB2302 , SB2303 , SB2304 , SB2305 , SB2306 , SB2307 , SB2308 , SB2309 , SB2310 , SB2311 , SB2313 , SB2314 , SB2315 , SB2316 , SB2317 , SB2318 , SB2319 , SB2320 , SB2321 , SB2322 , SB2323 , SB2324 , SB2325 , SB2326 , SB2327 , SB2328 , SB2329 , SB2330 , SB2331 , SB2333 , SB2334 , SB2335 , SB2336 , SB2337 , SB2338 , SB2339 , SB2340 , SB2341 , SB2342 , SB2343 , SB2344 , SB2346 , SB2347 , SB2348 , SB2349 , SB2350 , SB2351 , SB2352 , SB2353 , SB2354 , SB2355 , SB2356 , SB2357 , SB2358 , SB2359 , SB2360 , SB2361 , SB2362 , SB2363 , SB2364 , SB2365 , SB2366 , SB2367 , SB2368 , SB2369 , SB2370 , SB2371 , SB2372 , SB2373 , SB2374 , SB2375 , SB2376 , SB2377 , SB2378 , SB2379 , SB2380 , SB2381 , SB2382 , SB2383 , SB2384 , SB2385 , SB2386 , SB2387 , SB2388 , SB2389 , SB2390 , SB2391 , SB2393 , SB2394 , SB2395 , SB2396 , SB2397 , SB2398 , SB2399 , SB2400 , SB2401 , SB2402 , SB2403 , SB2404 , SB2405 , SB2406 , SB2410 , SB2411 , SB2412 , SB2413 , SB2414 , SB2415 , SB2416 , SB2417 , SB2418 , SB2419 , SB2420 , SB2421 , SB2422 , SB2423 , SB2424 , SB2426 , SB2427 , SB2428 , SB2429 , SB2430 , SB2431 , SB2432 , SB2433 , SB2434 , SB2435 , SB2436 , SB2437 , SB2438 , SB2439 , SB2440 , SB2441 , SB2442 , SB2443 , SB2444 , SB2445 , SB2446 , SB2447 , SB2448 , SB2449 , SB2450 , SB2451 , SB2452 , SB2453 , SB2454 , SB2455 , SB2456 , SB2457 , SB2458 , SB2459 , SB2460 , SJR72 , SJR73 , SJR75 , SJR77 , SJR79 , SJR80 , SJR81 , SJR82 , SB2198 , SB2201 , SB2202 , SB2203 , SB2204 , SB2205 , SB2206 , SB2207 , SB2208 , SB2209 , SB2210 , SB2211 , SB2213 , SB2214 , SB2215 , SB2216 , SB2217 , SB2218 , SB2219 , SB2220 , SB2221 , SB2222 , SB2223 , SB2224 , SB2225 , SB2226 , SB2227 , SB2228 , SB2229 , SB2231 , SB2232 , SB2233 , SB2234 , SB2235 , SB2236 , SB2237 , SB2238 , SB2239 , SB2240 , SB2241 , SB2242 , SB2243 , SB2244 , SB2245 , SB2246 , SB2247 , SB2248 , SB2249 , SB2250 , SB2251 , SB2252 , SB2253 , SB2254 , SB2255 , SB2256 , SB2257 , SB2258 , SB2259 , SB2260 , SB2261 , SB2262 , SB2263 , SB2264 , SB2265 , SB2266 , SB2267 , SB2268 , SB2269 , SB2270 , SB2271 , SB2272 , SB2273 , SB2274 , SB2275 , SB2276 , SB2277 , SB2278 , SB2279 , SB2280 , SB2281 , SB2282 , SB2283 , SB2284 , SB2285 , SB2286 , SB2287 , SB2288 , SB2289 , SB2290 , SB2291 , SB2292 , SB2293 , SB2294 , SB2295 , SB2296 , SB2297 , SB2298 , SB2299 , SB2300 , SB2301 , SB2302 , SB2303 , SB2304 , SB2305 , SB2306 , SB2307 , SB2308 , SB2309 , SB2310 , SB2311 , SB2313 , SB2314 , SB2315 , SB2316 , SB2317 , SB2318 , SB2319 , SB2320 , SB2321 , SB2322 , SB2323 , SB2324 , SB2325 , SB2326 , SB2327 , SB2328 , SB2329 , SB2330 , SB2331 , SB2333 , SB2334 , SB2335 , SB2336 , SB2337 , SB2338 , SB2339 , SB2340 , SB2341 , SB2342 , SB2343 , SB2344 , SB2346 , SB2347 , SB2348 , SB2349 , SB2350 , SB2351 , SB2352 , SB2353 , SB2354 , SB2355 , SB2356 , SB2357 , SB2358 , SB2359 , SB2360 , SB2361 , SB2362 , SB2363 , SB2364 , SB2365 , SB2366 , SB2367 , SB2368 , SB2369 , SB2370 , SB2371 , SB2372 , SB2373 , SB2374 , SB2375 , SB2376 , SB2377 , SB2378 , SB2379 , SB2380 , SB2381 , SB2382 , SB2383 , SB2384 , SB2385 , SB2386 , SB2387 , SB2388 , SB2389 , SB2390 , SB2391 , SB2393 , SB2394 , SB2395 , SB2396 , SB2397 , SB2398 , SB2399 , SB2400 , SB2401 , SB2402 , SB2403 , SB2404 , SB2405 , SB2406 , SB2410 , SB2411 , SB2412 , SB2413 , SB2414 , SB2415 , SB2416 , SB2417 , SB2418 , SB2419 , SB2420 , SB2421 , SB2422 , SB2423 , SB2424 , SB2426 , SB2427 , SB2428 , SB2429 , SB2430 , SB2431 , SB2432 , SB2433 , SB2434 , SB2435 , SB2436 , SB2437 , SB2438 , SB2439 , SB2440 , SB2441 , SB2442 , SB2443 , SB2444 , SB2445 , SB2446 , SB2447 , SB2448 , SB2449 , SB2450 , SB2451 , SB2452 , SB2453 , SB2454 , SB2455 , SB2456 , SB2457 , SB2458 , SB2459 , SB2460

Transcript Highlights:

• are other tax items that are funded out of the Clean Water Fund or any other sort of dedicated environmental
• A $5 tax credit is not an environmental interaction, and no other state in the Union has the ag water
• </c><00:26:44.880><c> stewardship</c> commitment to environmental stewardship commitment to environmental
• </c><00:42:14.119><c> damage</c> water treatment and environmental damage water treatment and environmental
• goals so I think this bill environmental goals so I think this bill will<00:42:20.319><c> be</c><00:

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:07:38.400><c> and</c> program to advise on environmental and program to advise on environmental
• </c> 1979 HD1 related to environmental 1979 HD1 related to environmental review.<01:11:11.280><c> This
• <01:11:14.400><c> assessments</c><01:11:14.800><c> and</c> environmental assessments and environmental
• the environmental than waiting until the environmental documents<01:19:08.239><c> are</c><01:19:08.480
• </c><01:19:32.800><c> document</c> acceptance of an environmental document acceptance of an environmental

Bills: HB1604 , HB1713 , HB1722 , HB2270 , HB2401 , HB2515 , HB1979 , HB1593 , HB1743 , HB2122 , HB1756 , HB1837 , HB1729

Committee: House Housing

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 1604, which would create an agricultural workforce housing group within the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity to address shortages of farmworker housing. The department said it supported the bill’s intent but emphasized that the group’s early work should focus on gathering data and surveying farm operators to assess actual demand, to avoid “mission creep.” Testimony from the City and County of Honolulu Office of Economic Revitalization, Hawaii Farmers Union, Hawaii Farm Bureau, Housing Hawaii’s Future, and the Maui Chamber of Commerce was in support, with one witness suggesting a housing advocacy nonprofit be added to the working group for balance. The committee then discussed HB 1713 on school impact fees, which would clarify exemptions for certain affordable housing projects and exempt new residential developments of fewer than 100 units. The Attorney General’s office said the bill should define “low to moderate income households” because that term is not defined in chapter 302A. HHFDC, the School Facilities Authority, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, and others supported the measure, arguing it would reduce administrative burden and remove barriers to housing. Members questioned whether the bill should instead repeal the school impact fee entirely; supporters said they also favored full repeal but viewed this bill as a more feasible step. The School Facilities Authority also explained that about $28 million in school impact fees had been collected across four districts and none had yet been spent, and discussed how recent nexus requirements limit how the funds can be used. HB 1722, relating to residential condominiums, drew extensive testimony and questioning. HCDA supported the bill and explained that it amends the 99-year leasehold pilot program created by Act 97 of 2023 by reducing owner-occupancy restrictions from 100% of units to 60%, allowing some rental or subleasing flexibility for the owner-occupied units, and permitting up to 40% of units to be sold to qualified residents after being on the market for more than 60 days. HCDA said the original restrictions, combined with rising construction costs, higher interest rates, and competition from nearby projects, made the pilot project difficult to market and finance; it said the changes are needed to make the project feasible and competitive. Supporters including AP Hawaii, Kila LLC, and project representatives said the amendments would help make the demonstration project in Kakaʻako viable. Some members raised concerns that the changes could weaken long-term affordability and questioned why certain ownership language was being deleted if rentals would still be restricted. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:07:21.520><c> health</c> I um attended a environmental health I um attended a environmental health
• </c> environmental stuff. environmental stuff. &gt;&gt; Representative<01:45:28.000><c> N.
• </c> Environmental Services. Environmental Services.
• </c> administer and enforce environmental administer and enforce environmental standards<01:57:18.400
• </c><01:57:21.760><c> The</c> environmental protections. The environmental protections.

Committee: House Resources, Recreation and Development

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm a volunteer here today representing the DFL Environmental Caucus.
• review with an AUR rather than the more complete Minnesota Environmental Policy Act.
• We have over DFL Environmental Caucus.
• </c><01:09:23.759><c> review</c> minimizing their environmental review minimizing their environmental
• </c><01:09:28.480><c> policy</c> complete Minnesota environmental policy complete Minnesota environmental

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities, Environment, and Climate

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:30:02.960><c> agency</c> states to have an environmental agency states to have an environmental
• </c><00:31:04.840><c> fund</c> we're looking at the environmental fund we're looking at the environmental
• As well as our Environmental Education Program and some key pollution prevention work.
• Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division, or EAO.
• </c> standards and other environmental standards and other environmental standards<00:35:56.160><c> occurs

Bills: HF276 , HF413 , HF411

Committee: House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy