Transcript Highlights:

• Our programs funded by GGRF have helped reduce transportation-related GHG emissions by roughly 12% since
• These successes have helped to reduce transportation-related GHG emissions by roughly 14% since 2017,

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Select Committee on Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure focused on California’s EV market, charging infrastructure, and the effects of recent federal actions on state clean-transportation programs. The chair emphasized California’s progress on EV adoption and charging reliability, but also noted ongoing problems with affordability, charger access, interoperability, and the need to support light-duty, heavy-duty, and fleet electrification. She also highlighted interest in inductive charging, bidirectional charging, and the transition to NACS, and said the hearing would help shape future legislative action. State agency witnesses from Go-Biz, CARB, and the California Energy Commission described their roles in market development, emissions regulation, incentives, and charging deployment. Go-Biz outlined its ZEV market strategy, equity action plan, and permitting streamlining work, while CARB detailed federal challenges to its clean vehicle rules, the need to defend waiver authority in court, and the importance of incentives and regulatory stability. The CEC discussed charger reliability rules, statewide inventory and planning, funding for public and multifamily charging, and efforts to expand fast charging and improve access in charging deserts. All three agencies stressed that federal rollbacks and the expiration of federal tax credits make state policies and funding more important. Testimony from industry, local government, and advocacy groups largely supported continued state investment. Cal ETC urged a continuous Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund appropriation, more support for multifamily charging, and managed charging programs. The American EV Jobs Alliance proposed a state “conquest” incentive for new and used EV buyers and argued that multifamily charging is the biggest untapped market. Los Angeles County and LADWP described large-scale fleet and charger deployments, public housing and multifamily projects, and the need for sustained funding, agency coordination, and utility/grid interconnection support. The Union of Concerned Scientists recommended prioritizing Clean Cars for All, using fees on non-CARBOB gasoline to fund cleaner vehicle replacement, and expanding authority for bidirectional EV deployment. Members and witnesses also discussed Level 1 versus Level 2 charging for multifamily housing and other use cases. The chair noted that Level 2 is essential for many drivers but asked whether Level 1 could be a cheaper, faster option in some settings. Witnesses agreed that Level 1 can work in certain contexts, especially airports or some multifamily installations, but emphasized that consumer confidence, overnight range, dealer education, and reliable access to charging remain central to broader EV adoption. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• That wider market also helps the entire West reduce its GHG emissions.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy convened with a quorum and first heard SB 254, a major utility affordability and wildfire package authored by Senator Becker and coauthored by Assemblymember Petrie-Norris. The bill was described as combining wildfire mitigation reforms, $6 billion in securitized financing for future fire-mitigation capital spending, a public ownership/transmission financing program, tighter scrutiny of utility profits, clean energy permitting streamlining, stronger customer connection timelines, and a successor wildfire fund/continuation account to replace the current fund. Supporters, including the Governor’s office, TURN, labor, clean energy groups, utilities, and public advocates, said the measure would lower bills, stabilize utilities, protect fire victims, and reduce wildfire-related bankruptcy risk. Opponents and some local government groups raised concerns about affordability impacts, the volumetric wildfire fee, strict liability, and provisions they said could affect local control. After discussion, the committee approved SB 254 on a 16-0 vote and sent it to the floor. The committee then held an informational hearing on AB 825, which would enable California to participate in a West-wide electricity market. The authors said the proposal could save ratepayers up to $1 billion annually, improve reliability by allowing California to draw on a larger regional supply, reduce curtailment of renewable power, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Support came from environmental organizations, labor, utilities, community choice aggregators, large energy users, and the Public Advocates Office, all emphasizing cost savings, reliability, and cleaner energy integration. TURN opposed the measure, warning that last-minute amendments removed safeguards against subsidizing out-of-state fossil generation and could expose California ratepayers to unwanted costs. Members questioned governance, exit rights, CPUC oversight, and local control, and the authors responded that the bill includes multiple safeguards, legislative reporting, the ability to exit without penalty, and continued local consultation. No vote was taken because the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• That wider market also helps the entire West reduce its GHG emissions.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy first heard SB 254, a major utility affordability and wildfire-liability package authored by Senator Becker and coauthored by Assembly Member Petrie-Norris. The bill combines wildfire mitigation oversight, $6 billion in securitized financing for future fire-mitigation capital work, a public ownership/transmission accelerator program, tighter scrutiny of utility profits, clean energy permitting streamlining, and a successor wildfire fund to replace the current fund after the January Southern California fires. Supporters, including the Governor’s office, TURN, labor, clean energy groups, utilities, and fire victim advocates, said the measure would lower bills, stabilize utilities, protect victims, and speed grid upgrades. Opponents from large energy users and agricultural interests argued the bill did not go far enough on affordability and that the wildfire fund’s volumetric charge would disproportionately burden business customers; counties also raised local-control concerns about permitting provisions. Committee members focused heavily on the wildfire fund structure, the role of ratepayers versus shareholders, and whether the bill creates enough incentive for utilities to reduce future wildfire risk. Authors and supporters said California’s inverse condemnation framework leaves ratepayers exposed without a fund, that the new continuation account would be split roughly 50/50 between ratepayers and shareholders, and that the bill includes a report on long-term sustainability. Members also discussed the clean energy permitting provisions and local consultation, with authors emphasizing that local land-use review and consultation remain in place. The committee then voted 16-0 to pass SB 254 to the floor. The hearing then shifted to an informational hearing on AB 825, which would enable California to participate in a West-wide electricity market. The authors and supporters said the regional market could save ratepayers up to $1 billion annually, improve reliability by widening access to wind and solar across the West, reduce curtailment, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Support came from environmental groups, labor, utilities, community choice aggregators, large energy users, and business groups. TURN opposed the measure, warning that last-minute changes removed safeguards against California ratepayers subsidizing out-of-state coal plants and other costly fossil generation. Committee discussion on AB 825 centered on governance, exit rights, and legislative oversight. The authors described safeguards including market rules protecting California policies, consumer advocacy and market monitoring requirements, annual reporting to the Legislature, a delayed 2028 start date, and the ability for California or other members to exit without penalties. Members also raised concerns about the CPUC’s constitutional independence and local consultation, but the authors said the bill preserves local input and gives the Legislature ongoing oversight. No vote was taken because the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• the emissions that are currently regulated under the Climate Commitment Act only represent 20% of our GHG

Summary: The Senate Environment, Energy & Technology Committee heard three bills. SB 6246 would direct Ecology to develop recommendations for how no-cost allowances for emissions-intensive trade-exposed facilities (EITEs) should work from 2035 to 2050, and would require EITEs to submit facility-specific emissions data and periodic decarbonization plans as a condition of receiving allowances. Supporters said the bill preserves the Climate Commitment Act’s goals while giving the Legislature and Ecology better information to prevent emissions and job leakage and to plan for industrial decarbonization. Opponents argued the bill adds costly reporting and planning burdens, could threaten competitiveness, and in some cases could lead to allowance withholding; Ecology said it generally supports the approach but wants some streamlining and noted implementation costs are not in the governor’s budget. SB 5932 would provide certainty for sustainable aviation fuel development by changing how Ecology applies electricity carbon intensity in the Clean Fuels Program and by setting an earlier trigger for aviation fuel tax incentives. The sponsor and 12, a Moses Lake SAF developer, said the bill would give investors and producers needed certainty for expansion and help Washington remain competitive. Ecology and Climate Solutions opposed parts of the bill, saying it would weaken incentives for new renewable electricity generation, limit Ecology’s technical discretion, and reduce the Clean Fuels Program’s effectiveness, though Ecology said it supports decarbonizing aviation and is willing to work on the issue through rulemaking. Some testimony also supported the tax certainty portion while objecting to the Clean Fuels Program changes, and one witness asked for clarification on local participation in the incentive. SB 6172 would end remaining state tax and regulatory exemptions for the coal-fired TransAlta plant after its scheduled closure date. The sponsor said Washington should remove special treatment now that the state has phased out coal, while supporters said the bill reinforces the state’s clean energy transition and protects public health and climate goals. A few witnesses raised concerns about possible costs to utilities and ratepayers if the plant were ever required to run in an emergency, and asked for language to protect against that. The hearing concluded with the committee closing public testimony on all three bills; no votes were taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Too many programs are not delivering real GHG reductions, and proven cost-effective programs should be

Transcript Highlights:

• Just going from 10 to 15 percent would be a 2 million-plus metric ton benefit on GHGs, as well as reducing

Committee: House Natural Resources

Summary: The committee heard several natural resources bills focused on climate, water, wildfire safety, and coastal policy. AB 70 would codify a definition of pyrolysis and allow procurement credit for projects using organic waste to produce pipeline biomethane; AB 30 would authorize E15 gasoline sales in California; AB 66 would create a CEQA exemption for emergency evacuation routes in high-fire-risk areas; AB 399 would let the Coastal Commission consider carbon sequestration and blue carbon demonstration projects; AB 491 would codify state nature-based climate targets; AB 436 would streamline siting and permitting for composting facilities; AB 43 would make permanent state authority to protect federally designated wild and scenic rivers; and AB 580 would extend Metropolitan Water District authority related to the Colorado River Aqueduct. The committee also took up AB 439, which would streamline certain Coastal Commission de minimis plan changes and reporting requirements, and AB 404 was pulled at the author’s request. Testimony was generally supportive on the organic waste, composting, wildfire egress, blue carbon, nature-based solutions, wild and scenic rivers, and water infrastructure bills, with supporters emphasizing emissions reductions, landfill diversion, climate resilience, and local government flexibility. AB 30 drew the most debate: supporters said E15 would lower fuel costs and emissions, while opponents from boating and marine groups warned about engine damage, misfueling, and the need for clearer labeling and continued E10 availability. AB 66 also drew concerns from environmental groups and some members about the breadth of the CEQA exemption and lack of guardrails, though supporters argued it was narrowly targeted to high-risk communities with safeguards. Most measures received due-pass recommendations and advanced on recorded votes, often with broad support. AB 70, AB 30, AB 66, AB 399, AB 436, AB 43, AB 439, and AB 580 all passed out of committee, with AB 491 also moving forward after some opposition from the Farm Bureau and questions about codifying targets in statute. The consent calendar items were approved as well, and the committee adopted its rules before concluding the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• it on air quality impacts... ...fee, you're really going to have to nail it on air quality impacts, GHG
• The bill retains the requirement to establish a demand response program to address GHG reduction.

Summary: The committee first heard SB 804, the Hydrogen Pipeline Safety Act, from Senator Arreguín. He said the bill would designate the State Fire Marshal as the safety regulator for intrastate hydrogen pipelines and require hydrogen-specific standards, while not mandating any pipeline construction or bypassing environmental review. Supporters included labor groups, utility employees, and the City of Burbank, while Air Products opposed unless amended, citing concerns about the bill’s specificity, fee structure, and the need for a hydrogen-specific rulemaking process. The committee discussed safety, fees, and regulatory certainty, and later passed SB 804 on a 9-0 vote to Emergency Management with commitment to take amendments. The committee then took up SB 905 by Senator Becker, aimed at reducing electricity rates by changing utility incentives. The bill would tie part of executive compensation to keeping rates below inflation, require more performance metrics, and allow the CPUC to consider lower returns on equity for certain lower-risk investments and alternative financing options. Support came from consumer, environmental, agricultural, and large energy user groups, while Southern California Edison, CalChamber, PG&E, and utility labor groups raised concerns that the bill could reduce investment, create regulatory uncertainty, and raise borrowing costs. After extensive discussion about utility affordability, wildfire costs, and capital markets, the committee passed SB 905 on a 7-1 vote to Appropriations. SB 913, also by Senator Becker, would create a clearer pathway for distributed energy resources such as batteries and smart thermostats to participate in the resource adequacy market and compete with utility-scale resources. Supporters said the bill would better use existing grid capacity, lower costs, and build on the state’s Demand Side Grid Support Program; PG&E opposed unless amended, saying the use case was not yet proven and was already being addressed in other rulemakings. After the committee accepted amendments, one opposition group moved to neutral and another said it might do so after reviewing the changes. The bill passed 8-0 to Appropriations and was placed on call. Several other measures were heard and advanced, including SB 1196 on faster utility hookups for small energization projects such as ADUs and EV chargers, SB 931 reauthorizing the Diablo Canyon Essential Services Mitigation Fund through 2028, SB 1158 reducing the frequency of joint reliability assessments from quarterly to twice yearly, and SB 1245 directing further study of California’s gasoline market and potential use of non-CARBOB fuel during supply disruptions. SB 1196 and SB 931 both passed with broad support and no opposition after amendments, SB 1158 passed without testimony, and SB 1245 drew strong support from consumer and environmental advocates but opposition from fuel industry and business groups concerned about costs, confidentiality, and fuel standards.

Transcript Highlights:

• "You're really going to have to nail it on air quality impacts, GHG impacts.
• The bill retains the requirement to establish a demand response program to address GHG reduction.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• from this transfer, but these Tier 0 engines will continue emitting hazardous particulate matter and GHGs
• From the project's inception, Caltrain has been highlighting the GHG reductions from getting rid of the

Committee: House Transportation

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee heard several bills, beginning with SB 712 by Senator Grove, which would expand the smog-check exemption for classic vehicles from model years 1976 to 1986, phased in over five years and sunset in 2032. Supporters, including lowrider and classic car advocates and the Specialty Equipment Market Association, said the bill would preserve car culture, reduce burdens on owners of rarely driven vehicles, and support related businesses. Opponents, including air district representatives, the American Lung Association, and environmental groups, argued the bill would increase pollution and weaken an important clean-air program. The committee ultimately passed SB 712 on a due-pass-as-amended vote to Appropriations after adopting amendments and holding the roll open for additional votes. The committee then took up SB 800 by Senator Reyes, presented by Assemblymember Richardson, which would direct Caltrans and local governments to assess mitigation measures for suicides on locally owned overpasses crossing state highways. Support came from local officials, health organizations, and community groups, who described the measure as a needed suicide-prevention step and a way to identify high-risk locations for safety improvements. There was no organized opposition, and members spoke in favor of the bill before it was moved on a due-pass vote to Appropriations. Next, the committee considered SB 30 by Senator Cortese, as amended, to restrict 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 some Tier 2 and newer transfers with approval. Supporters said the bill would prevent older diesel engines from continuing to pollute elsewhere and would reduce health and climate harms. Transit agencies opposed the measure, arguing it could limit useful transfers of locomotives and should instead allow case-by-case air-quality review. The bill passed out of committee on a 6-4 vote, with the roll held open. The committee also heard SB 791 by Senator Cortese, which would replace the flat $85 dealer document processing charge 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 modernize a fee that has lagged behind inflation, while consumer advocates opposed it as too high and burdensome for buyers. After extensive questioning about transparency, negotiability, and affordability, the committee passed SB 791 to Appropriations. The meeting also included the start of testimony on SB 34, a port-related air quality and anti-automation measure from Senator Richardson, with support from ILWU and allied groups and opposition from some transit and business interests, but the transcript cuts off before final action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• An offset enables a polluting entity to reduce GHG emissions elsewhere.

Committee: House Natural Resources

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Just going from 10 to 15 percent would be a 2 million-plus metric ton benefit on GHGs, as well as reducing

Summary: The committee heard and advanced a series of natural resources and climate-related bills. AB 70 would codify a definition of pyrolysis and allow procurement credit for projects using organic waste to generate pipeline biomethane; supporters said it would help divert organic waste from landfills, reduce methane, and support energy reliability. AB 30 would authorize E15 fuel sales in California, with supporters arguing it could lower consumer fuel costs and emissions, while opponents from boating and marine groups raised concerns about engine damage and the need for clear labeling and continued E10 availability. AB 66 would create a CEQA exemption for emergency evacuation routes in high fire-risk areas; supporters emphasized wildfire evacuation safety, while some members worried the bill lacked sufficient guardrails and environmental review. AB 399 would let the Coastal Commission consider blue carbon sequestration in coastal permitting and authorize blue carbon demonstration projects; environmental groups supported it, while business groups objected to new costs and regulatory uncertainty. AB 491 would codify California’s nature-based solutions climate targets for lands and wetlands, with supporters citing climate and adaptation benefits and the Farm Bureau opposing statutory targets. AB 580 would extend Metropolitan Water District authority related to the Colorado River Aqueduct, and AB 43 would make permanent state authority to protect federally designated wild and scenic rivers if federal protections are weakened. The committee also considered AB 436 to streamline siting and permitting of composting facilities and AB 539 to streamline certain Coastal Act procedures and reporting. Most measures received due-pass recommendations and were reported out on roll calls, with several bills also moving on consent; AB 404 was pulled at the author’s request.

Transcript Highlights:

• mentioned the 2025 forest carbon report, which says that our forests are currently removing 11% of annual GHG

Committee: Senate Senate Committee on Climate Change and Global Warming

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:

• hundreds of millions, thousands per household, and remove hundreds of thousands of metric tons of GHGs

Committee: House Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• So we think that what we're proposing requires some equity with other emitters of GHG and some fairness

Bills: HB2338 , HB2367 , HB2426 , HB2606

Committee: Senate Environment, Energy & Technology

Keywords: weatherization, energy efficiency, community projects, sustainability, environment, coal-fired plant, preferential treatment, energy policy, electric generation, regulatory reform, pollution control, efficiency, appeals process, environmental regulation, hearing board, data protection, privacy, performance measures, reporting requirements, office of privacy

Transcript Highlights:

• So we think that what we're proposing requires some equity with other emitters of GHG and some fairness

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 2515, which addresses emerging large energy use facilities, especially data centers. Staff explained that the bill requires utilities to adopt tariffs or policies for data centers, adds reporting and sustainability requirements, sets renewable energy targets, and creates a sales tax exemption for certain eligible data center equipment in eastern Washington. The House sponsor said the bill is intended to protect ratepayers, grid reliability, water resources, and Washington’s climate goals as data center growth accelerates. Tribal representatives and several environmental and labor witnesses urged restoring provisions removed from the House version, especially authority to curtail data center load during energy emergencies and to refuse service if reliability or affordability would be harmed; they also asked for stronger water reporting and protections for salmon. Utility, business, and data center industry witnesses supported the bill’s general framework but raised concerns about implementation, costs, and some of the added requirements, while some opposed the tax exemption and the loss of earlier protections. No final action on 2515 was taken during the hearing portion shown. The committee then heard and acted on several bills in executive session. It passed Substitute House Bill 1302, which allows municipal utilities to waive connection charges for industrial symbiosis projects. It also passed House Bill 2338 on community-scaled weatherization projects after rejecting an amendment, and House Bill 2367 on eliminating preferential treatment for a coal-fired plant after rejecting an amendment. Substitute House Bill 2496 on tribal consultation by the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council was amended and then passed, while amendments to change public meeting and tribal summary provisions were rejected. Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2225 on AI companion chatbots, House Bill 2426 on PCHB efficiency and appeals, House Bill 2606 on the Office of Privacy and Data Protection, Engrossed House Bill 2575 on reducing reporting obligations, and Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2215 on Climate Commitment Act compliance for fuels were also advanced, with some amendments adopted and others rejected. The committee then reopened public hearing on House Bill 2416, which would treat a Spokane waste-to-energy facility differently under the Climate Commitment Act by allocating no-cost allowances in the second compliance period and requiring a decarbonization and waste-reduction plan. Spokane city officials, labor, environmental groups, and Ecology generally supported the bill as a balanced approach that protects ratepayers while allowing the facility to decarbonize, though Avista raised a concern about language implying a utility compliance obligation. After that, the committee resumed testimony on House Bill 1170, which requires large AI providers to offer provenance tools and disclosures for AI-generated or altered images, video, and audio. Supporters said the bill would help workers and consumers identify synthetic media and prevent impersonation and misinformation, while industry and civil liberties witnesses argued the bill is technically difficult, uses new definitions, and may be unworkable or premature compared with California’s evolving approach.

Transcript Highlights:

• Change said, and I quote, 'The deployment of carbon dioxide removal is unavoidable if net zero CO2 or GHG

Bills: HB2272 , HB2285 , HB2296

Committee: House Environment & Energy

Keywords: ski areas, winter sports, terminology update, recreation, regulatory changes, carbon capture, clean energy, environmental regulation, sustainability, green technology, distributed energy, renewable energy, energy resources, energy policy

Transcript Highlights:

• Change said, and I quote, “The deployment of carbon dioxide removal is unavoidable if net zero CO2 or GHG

Summary: The committee began with member and staff introductions, then held a work session on emissions-intensive trade-exposed facilities (EITEs) under Washington’s Climate Commitment Act. Ecology staff reviewed how cap-and-invest works, explained EITE no-cost allowance allocations, and summarized a new report to the Legislature on policy options for 2035-2050. Ecology recommended continuing no-cost allocations but adjusting them to fit the cap, considering a consignment approach that would require EITEs to invest part of the value of free allowances in decarbonization, and studying additional benchmarking and leakage-mitigation refinements. Quebec officials described their cap-and-trade system, including a consignment model that withholds part of free allocations, holds the value in trust for facilities, and requires technical studies and investment in mitigation projects; they said it has encouraged industrial investment and no business closures. Members asked about facility closures, compliance costs, eligible uses of consigned funds, and adaptation spending. The work session then closed. The committee then heard House Bill 2296, which would expand distributed energy resources by allowing portable plug-in solar devices and meter-mounted devices. The prime sponsor said the bill is intended to lower barriers and startup costs for renters and homeowners who want to electrify or add solar. Supporters, including a nonprofit promoting plug-in solar and a physician group, said the devices could broaden access to clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas and health harms. Utilities, labor, and industry groups opposed the bill as written, citing safety concerns, lack of national electrical code standards, possible backfeeding and fire risks, utility-worker hazards, unclear interconnection rules, and concerns about multifamily housing and small-utility review burdens. Some witnesses said they were open to continued work on the proposal. Next, the committee heard House Bill 2285, which would allow natural gas generation paired with carbon capture, utilization, storage, or mineralization to count toward Clean Energy Transformation Act compliance. The sponsor and supporters argued the bill would provide a “bridge” for firm power, help address reliability and transmission constraints, and support jobs while reducing emissions compared with conventional gas. Opponents said the bill would weaken CETA’s 100% clean electricity target by allowing resources that still emit carbon to qualify, and they questioned whether 75% capture is sufficient. Other testimony raised cost concerns and warned that carbon capture could increase ratepayer costs. The hearing on HB 2285 was later suspended and reopened briefly for additional testimony from Ecology, which said the bill would permanently weaken CETA standards and likely reduce emissions reductions. The committee also briefly received a staff briefing on House Bill 2272, a ski-area terminology bill, and then suspended that hearing to take it up later.

Transcript Highlights:

• From its very inception, the LCFS is designed to achieve cost-effective GHG reductions from the transportation
• So the benefits to California from reducing a ton of GHGs is essentially independent of where that reduction

Summary: The hearing was a select committee discussion on the transportation costs and impacts of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with opening remarks from the co-chairs and members emphasizing affordability, climate goals, and the need to explain the program’s benefits to the public. The first panel from CARB and the California Energy Commission described how LCFS works as a market-based, declining carbon-intensity program that rewards lower-carbon fuels, supports zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and is intended to reduce greenhouse gases and local air pollution. They argued the program has driven billions in private investment, increased alternative fuel use, and that LCFS credit prices are not the main driver of retail gasoline prices, which they said are dominated by crude oil, refining, and distribution costs. Members questioned the panel on the gap between the regulatory target and actual carbon-intensity performance, the role of credit banking, which fuels are generating the most credits, how the 2025 amendments affected the program, and whether LCFS credits are truly additional. CARB explained that banking helps cost-effectiveness and investment certainty, that ethanol, renewable diesel, and biodiesel currently provide the largest volumes while electricity is expected to grow, and that the updated targets were informed by the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goals and the 2030 scoping plan. The Energy Commission said its data show environmental programs add some cost to gasoline but do not drive price volatility, which is mainly tied to crude oil and refinery margins. The second panel, featuring academic and research experts, focused on program design, out-of-state credit generation, and broader economic effects. Speakers said LCFS is successful because it ties incentives to emissions benefit, uses life-cycle analysis, and allows flexible compliance that lowers costs compared with more direct regulation. They also said the program’s benefits generally outweigh costs, that it can reduce air pollution disparities and support equity, but that some issues—especially indirect land use change, additionality, and older program assumptions—need more research and may warrant future rulemaking. One researcher noted that while LCFS likely raises gasoline prices somewhat, the effect is uncertain by design and usually smaller than normal market fluctuations, and another warned that limiting credit generation too narrowly could create legal and efficiency problems.

Transcript Highlights:

• From its very inception, the LCFS is designed to achieve cost-effective GHG reductions from the transportation
• So the benefits to California from reducing a ton of GHGs is essentially independent of where that reduction

Summary: The hearing focused on California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), its role in reducing transportation emissions, and whether its costs at the pump are justified by its climate, air quality, and investment benefits. The co-chairs and several members framed the discussion around affordability and asked whether the program’s benefits, including cleaner fuels, zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and public health gains, outweigh any added fuel costs. Members also raised concerns about how the program is understood by the public and whether its benefits are being communicated clearly. CARB and CEC officials explained how LCFS works as a market-based program that sets declining carbon-intensity targets, generates credits for lower-carbon fuels, and requires deficit holders to buy credits or otherwise comply. They said the program has driven billions in annual private investment, expanded alternative fuels, supported EV charging and hydrogen stations, and helped reduce emissions and local pollution. They also argued that LCFS credit prices are not the main driver of gasoline prices, that the recent amendments added only about seven cents per gallon, and that crude oil, refining, and distribution costs account for most pump price variation. Committee members pressed witnesses on credit banking, market effects, the recent rule updates, additionality, and whether the program’s benefits are concentrated in-state or out-of-state. CARB said banking helps keep the program cost-effective and provides investment certainty, while the Energy Commission said LCFS-related costs are relatively stable and separate from the broader gasoline market. The panel also discussed how the 2025 amendments were shaped by the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate goals and by uncertainty over federal actions. No votes or formal actions were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• California crude oil has about the life-cycle GHGs of Canadian Albertan tar sands, and it's because we
• California crude oil has about the life cycle GHGs of Canadian Albertan tar sands, and it's because we

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on California’s transportation fuels sector, especially the risk of refinery closures, fuel supply stability, and how the state should manage a long transition to cleaner transportation. Committee chairs and agency leaders said California’s fuel market is becoming more fragile as demand declines, refinery capacity shrinks faster than demand, and the state relies more on imports and a smaller number of critical pipelines. Professor Emily Grubert framed the issue as a managed transition problem in which the public already bears much of the risk and should also capture benefits from any state intervention. CARB Chair Leanne Randolph reviewed California’s climate and air-quality framework, including AB 32, the low-carbon fuel standard, clean vehicle rules, and the state’s at-berth regulation for port vessels. She said these programs are intended to reduce fossil fuel demand while protecting public health, and she noted that California remains in litigation over federal attempts to block some waivers. CEC Vice Chair Sivagunda described the administration’s market-stabilization work, saying the state is trying to preserve fuel supply and investor confidence during a “mid-transition” period. He said the CEC’s recommendations fall into three broad areas: stabilizing the existing fuel system, aligning regulatory tools such as a possible pause on the CEC’s margin cap, and planning for worker and community impacts. Department of Conservation Director Jennifer Lucasey outlined the administration’s petroleum market stabilization proposal, centered on returning California crude production to a 125 million-barrel annual stabilization target to support pipeline throughput and domestic supply. The proposal would codify the ban on hydraulic fracturing, validate Kern County’s oil and gas permitting ordinance, create a temporary CEQA exemption for new wells in existing fields paired with a two-for-one plug-and-abandon requirement, and strengthen spill prevention and pipeline safety rules. Several members questioned the CEQA exemption, tribal consultation, environmental review, and whether the proposal would adequately protect communities and workers. Mayor Steve Young of Benicia testified that a Valero refinery closure would sharply reduce city revenue and jobs, while also creating redevelopment and remediation challenges; he said the city wants a cleaner future but needs time and support to manage the economic loss. No formal vote was taken at the hearing, though CEC officials said a vote on a margin-cap pause was expected at an upcoming business meeting.