Transcript Highlights:

• In order to hear as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that
• to business owners to help them start, grow, and invest in California, including site selection, permit
• to business owners to help them start, grow, and invest in California, including site selection, permit
• And so certainly some of our services such as like permit assistance and support will certainly some
• of our services such as like permit assistance and support, we have an ability to leverage our other

Summary: The committee first heard AB 710, which would expand dynamic pricing and time-of-use electricity rates and require utilities to develop plans for advanced metering infrastructure so more customers can participate. The author and supporters said the bill would encourage load shifting to times when electricity is cheaper and cleaner, reduce curtailment of renewable energy, and help address affordability. PG&E and SDG&E opposed the bill as drafted, arguing the deadlines were premature, could disrupt ongoing CPUC rate proceedings and pilot programs, and might force costly changes before results are known; Golden State Power Cooperative was neutral and flagged a technical issue. After questions and discussion about timing and scope, the committee passed AB 710 on an 11-0 vote and also approved the consent calendar 15-0. The committee then held its first 2026 oversight hearing on implementation of the California Transmission Accelerator created by SB 254. GoBiz, IBank, CAISO, and the Department of Finance outlined the new program’s structure: GoBiz’s energy unit will coordinate the accelerator, IBank will evaluate and finance eligible projects, CAISO’s transmission planning and competitive solicitation process will identify projects, and the tax credit will provide an additional incentive for developers. Administration witnesses said trailer bill language and about 10 limited-term positions are being proposed to clarify roles, protect confidential information, and support the revolving fund, with roughly $26 million in administrative costs over five years. Committee members focused on coordination among agencies, supply-chain risks, regional market planning, and whether the accelerator has enough authority to move projects quickly. CAISO said its planning and competitive procurement processes already align closely with the accelerator and that no tariff changes are expected, while GoBiz and IBank said they are still developing financing strategies and learning from other states. Public commenters supported faster transmission but urged the committee to preserve the role of competitive developers, clarify ownership and risk allocation, and ensure wildfire safety and accountability. The hearing ended with no formal action beyond receiving testimony and committing to continued oversight.

Transcript Highlights:

• Let me start with permitting reform.
• One major barrier to this is the slow and costly permitting process.
• Bim, I have long supported permitting reform, as long as it is done in the right way.
• And talk specifically about permitting, how it's really going to work.
• How are you going to get permitting improved so it really works and is timely?

Bills: HB471

Committee: Senate Conservation, Climate, Forestry, and Natural Resources Subcommittee

Keywords: forest management, wildfire prevention, public lands, Tribal jurisdiction, Fix Our Forests Act, wildfire, forest health, hazardous fuels reduction, fuels treatment, prescribed burning, mechanical thinning, mastication, fuel breaks, fire breaks, wildland-urban interface, WUI, fireshed, fireshed management area, fireshed registry, Fireshed Center

Summary: The meeting primarily focused on H.R. 471, the Fix Our Forests Act, which aims to address the ongoing crisis of wildfires exacerbated by climate change and the need for updated forest management practices. Various committee members voiced concerns about past federal management failures and emphasized the necessity for collaborative approaches involving local communities and stakeholders in forest management. As discussions unfolded, there were varying perspectives on the implications of certain provisions in the bill, particularly around regulatory changes and their likely impacts on public participation and environmental reviews.

Transcript Highlights:

• and permitting, and I'll let others discuss the actual permit.
• But with that permit, we better have our soil test.
• That doesn't mean that those permits are going to be followed.
• That doesn't mean that those permits are going to be followed.
• Permitting Oklahoma Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program.

Committee: House Agriculture

Summary: The meeting focused on the use of biosolids on farm and ranch land, with testimony from Oklahoma State University experts, a conservation official, and an engineering representative about the benefits, risks, and regulatory implications. Dr. Lusk described OSU’s long history of soil fertility research and said biosolids can provide nutrients and organic matter, but also may carry contaminants such as PFAS, heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, microplastics, and pathogens. He emphasized that many questions remain unanswered, especially about contaminant uptake into soil, crops, livestock, and humans, and said existing EPA and Oklahoma DEQ regulations address some treatment and application standards but may not fully cover PFAS. Dr. Arnell expanded on nutrient management, explaining that biosolids can function similarly to manure as a fertilizer source, especially for nitrogen and phosphorus, but should be tested, incorporated into soil, and applied under permit conditions to reduce runoff and other losses. He said PFAS testing methods are not yet standardized and that more research is needed to determine sampling protocols, movement in soil, and long-term effects. Committee members asked whether farmers and ranchers should be notified of risks, whether PFAS is currently tested, how many counties use biosolids, and what research would be needed for a dissertation-level study. The witnesses generally agreed that landowners should be informed of known risks and uncertainties, but said the science is still developing. Dr. Arnell said a unified testing method is needed before reliable PFAS monitoring can be done, and suggested that a multi-year study would be required to understand soil movement, crop uptake, and livestock impacts. Greg Scott of the Oklahoma Conservation Commission framed the issue as a waste-management problem, noting that human waste streams contain contaminants and that soil type affects how pollutants move; he said sandy soils pose greater movement risks than clay soils and that current best practice is incorporation, careful timing, and avoiding steep or sensitive sites. He also said PFAS are widespread and not naturally occurring in the way some other compounds are, and that liability and cleanup costs are major concerns. Mary Elizabeth Mock of Garver Engineering focused on the practical and financial consequences of a possible moratorium on land application, saying most of Oklahoma’s biosolids are currently land applied and would otherwise have to go to landfills. She warned that many landfills are nearing capacity, tipping fees could rise sharply, and cities such as Tulsa and Norman could face large increases in disposal costs, which would ultimately be borne by ratepayers and taxpayers. She also said septic system maintenance costs could rise if land application options shrink, potentially leading to deferred maintenance and system failures. Mock urged a tiered, data-driven approach to PFAS regulation and said advanced treatment technologies may help in the future, but they are still emerging and expensive. No votes were taken; the session consisted of presentations and member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• As you know, I spent all of last year chairing the Select Committee on Permitting Reform.
• That committee looked at how our permitting process year chairing the Select Committee on Permitting
• , those who issue permits, and academic experts who study this issue.
• And you won't be shocked at the conclusion: We're really bad at issuing permits in California.
• We're really bad at issuing permits in California.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development heard a long agenda focused mainly on housing production, higher education facilities, homelessness, and permitting reform. Early items included AB 6, which would direct HCD to convene a working group on allowing three- to ten-unit “missing middle” housing to be built under the Residential Code rather than the Building Code; AB 48, a higher education bond proposal that would fund campus repairs, modernization, disaster recovery, and student/employee housing; and AB 76, which would clarify a Chula Vista university innovation district exemption so the project can include academic buildings and housing without conflicting with surplus land rules. Supporters emphasized affordability, cost savings, student housing needs, and access to education, while members raised questions about implementation, affordability requirements, and project scope. The committee later took votes on these items, with AB 6, AB 48, and AB 76 all moving forward on unanimous or near-unanimous votes to Appropriations. Members also heard AB 595, which would create a state homeownership tax credit pilot to support affordable for-sale housing. The author and supporters argued that California’s homeownership rate is at historic lows and that the bill would help close racial wealth gaps by financing homes working families can buy. The committee approved AB 595 and sent it to Appropriations. The consent calendar, including several other housing-related bills, was also approved unanimously. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to AB 1165, the California Housing Justice Act of 2025, which would require ongoing state investment and a financing plan to address homelessness and housing affordability. The author and witnesses described the scale of homelessness, the limits of one-time funding, and the need for sustained, accountable funding streams. After testimony from housing advocates and people with lived experience, the committee passed AB 1165 on a 10-0 vote to Appropriations. Finally, the committee heard AB 609, a CEQA reform bill that would create a simplified exemption for qualifying infill housing projects in already developed areas. Supporters framed it as a targeted way to reduce delays and costs for housing near jobs and transit, while opponents from environmental justice, labor, and tribal groups warned it could reduce public participation, weaken protections for disadvantaged communities, and create consultation concerns for tribal cultural resources. The author said the bill would not change zoning or affordability tools and would continue to work with opponents on amendments. The bill was moved forward after extensive discussion, with members noting ongoing negotiations on tribal consultation and labor concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• We went from approximately 200 permits in the city in 2014. Now we have 1,550 approved permits.
• So there's a lot of demand for permits. So how does the city regulate that?
• So we as a city and city council were For permits. So how does the city regulate that?
• not want to create the space literally on their form, the online registration form, to put a city permit
• We had to debate and argue for a year to make them modify their software to put a city permit number

Summary: The Assembly convened with a quorum call, prayer, and Pledge of Allegiance, then moved through a largely procedural floor session. Members also heard guest introductions recognizing the 20th anniversary of UC Merced and visiting interns and local officials. The Speaker reminded members about floor managers for Senate bills and noted several items were passed and retained on file or deferred during the day’s business. On the Daily File, the Assembly concurred in Senate amendments to AB 385 on park property and AB 1119 on teacher credentialing, both by unanimous 57-0 votes. The house also passed SB 351, a health practices measure presented as strengthening enforcement of California’s corporate practice of medicine rules and protecting the doctor-patient relationship, by a 61-0 vote. SB 697, relating to water rights adjudication and allowing the State Water Board to use technology such as drones for investigations, passed 55-0. The Assembly then took up SB 346 on local government and short-term rentals. Supporters said it would help cities collect transient occupancy taxes, enforce local ordinances, and identify unpermitted rentals; Assembly Members Bauer-Kahan, Papin, and Dixon spoke in favor, with Dixon describing local regulatory challenges from her time in Newport Beach. The bill passed 50-0. The second-day consent calendar was then approved. The remainder of the session was devoted to adjournment in memory remarks honoring Miguel Antonio Cano, Officer of the California Highway Patrol; Vincent Dino, a longtime Palmdale water district and civic leader; Andrew Meredith, a labor and building trades leader and former Galt mayor; and Erica Hoffman, a California School Boards Association advocate for public education. The Assembly then adjourned until Tuesday, September 2 at 1 p.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• and allow the million for the permitting and allow the peer<00:40:50.119><c> to</c><00:40:50.240><c>
• </c><00:42:07.480><c> and</c> million to uh allow the permitting and million to uh allow the permitting
• So let me just start on a last point: if it's $2 million for permitting...
• you seek permitting?
• design would need to be in place to be able to move those permitting processes forward.

Committee: Senate Finance

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and issue the permit, or say, no, it's not adequate for a permit and give the applicant what they need
• and issue the is adequate for a permit and issue the permit<03:32:56.560><c> or</c><03:32:56.800><c>
• or say no, it's not adequate for permit or say no, it's not adequate for a<03:32:58.319><c> permit</
• </c> permit geothermal energy projects. permit geothermal energy projects.
• So permitting to be able to do that.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Thursday, March 27, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Also raise the threshold for cost, so this is to be combined and can streamline as a permit.
• or SMA major permits, is six months mostly.
• or SMA major permits, is six months mostly.
• their permit through their monitoring<01:11:56.199><c> through</c><01:11:56.400><c> their</c><01:11:
• The counties just basically would have to add these requirements to their permitting process, which I

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The hearing opened with committee procedures and then took up SB 1, relating to vegetation management near utility lines. DLNR opposed the bill, saying it would shift rights, responsibilities, and liability onto the state and private landowners. Hawaiian Electric supported the measure with amendments, describing it as a first step to address wildfire risk and improve public safety and system reliability. The Hawaii Farm Bureau and Command Schools both raised concerns that the bill could impose significant costs, liability, and access burdens on farmers, ranchers, and other landowners, especially where easements are old or unclear. Life of the Land argued the issue belongs before the Public Utilities Commission, and PUC staff explained that the commission is already reviewing Hawaiian Electric’s wildfire mitigation plan and vegetation management in a docket, with a decision expected by September and public meetings scheduled for April 23 and 24. Committee members questioned the need for legislation versus negotiated solutions, and witnesses said private parties could potentially renegotiate easements without statute. The committee then heard HB 1296, relating to disaster recovery. DLNR and OPSD supported the bill, saying it would ease regulatory burdens in post-disaster rebuilding and help speed permit review. Testimony and member questions focused on the bill’s five-year rebuilding timeline, the role of the coastal zone/SMA process, and how long permit reviews typically take; OPSD said SMA major/use permits generally take about six months, while minor permits are faster. Members also discussed whether the bill would apply to existing structures damaged in disasters and whether the amendments from the Attorney General’s office and OPSD were acceptable; no objections were raised. Finally, the committee heard SB 1170, relating to the expeditious redevelopment and development of affordable rental housing. HHFDC supported the bill, and testimony from a Maui affordable housing project said the measure is needed to rebuild the Weinberg Court Apartments, a 63-unit affordable project in Lahaina, using insurance funds rather than government money. Members asked whether the bill would help existing affordable rental projects damaged before the enactment of related coastal rules, and the response was that the bill is aimed at existing structures damaged during events and intended to speed rebuilding of affordable housing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Signs are not permitted in the hearing room or at the testifiers' table.
• And that is just the Capitol building entrances, with 548 verification of permits.
• And that is just the Capitol building entrances, with 548 verification of permits.
• verification of permits. verification of permits.
• Of that, there were 196 concealed carry permits.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Advisory Committee on Capitol Area Security met on April 20, 2026, with a quorum present and adopted the January 13, 2026 minutes. The chair thanked the State Patrol, sergeants-at-arms, and capital security officers for their work during the session, and noted that the committee’s earlier recommendations were reflected in Governor’s Executive Order 2602, including weapon screening at the State Capitol. The chair also said the committee’s annual report included recommendations for bonding, policy, and budget changes, and expressed hope the legislature would act on them. Department of Public Safety and State Patrol officials reported that implementation of weapon screening had gone well overall and said they were continuing to gather feedback for improvements. Colonel Bogayevich said that since the start of session, 121,598 people had been screened at the Capitol’s entrances, 548 permits were verified, and 52 prohibited items were turned away. Examples of prohibited items included knives, a camping/marshmallow skewer, and a screwdriver; no firearms were found in the Capitol building. She also said the busiest day produced a wait of about 15 to 17 minutes, and that staffing was adjusted to handle larger groups such as school tours. The Senate Sergeant-at-Arms reported that 49,277 people had come through Senate screening as of the previous Friday, including 196 concealed carry permits, and that 2,359 people had entered the West Gallery to observe Senate proceedings. He also said some Senate building access doors had been reduced to direct traffic and that an audit of key card access had begun. The House Deputy Chief Sergeant-at-Arms reported about 1,400 people had been screened for the House gallery, and noted that an NCSL visitor from Oregon would shadow House security staff to learn from Minnesota’s approach. Members from both bodies praised the professionalism of security staff and said the added trooper presence made members and the public feel safer. No members of the public signed up to testify, so the public comment period closed without testimony. The meeting adjourned after the chair reiterated that the goal of the security measures was to allow visitors, members, and public servants to participate safely.

Transcript Highlights:

• We do not permit any conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's
• HCD oversees the inspection; it oversees permitting for the state. They do a great job.
• at the state level, you then have to do duplicative inspection and permitting processes at the local
• And then, secondly, the big thing is it reduces the permit and the local permitting and inspection fees
• You can get a four-week permit, actually, for the factory-built portion, which is great because it's

Summary: The Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee heard a long agenda of housing-related bills, beginning with AB 1892 on HOA/Davis-Stirling Act cleanup provisions. The author and sponsor said the bill would clarify HOA responsibilities for utility service repairs in common areas, align election notice timelines, and require electronic voting ballots to be sent at least 30 days before an election. No opposition was presented, and the bill was set aside to be taken up later when a quorum was available. The committee then heard AB 1708, which would revise the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) program to give smaller cities a clearer role in regional homelessness planning and access to funding. Mayors and city representatives from Bellflower, Paramount, and other cities testified that smaller jurisdictions are spending significant local funds on shelters and services but lack direct access to HHAP dollars. Some larger-city and housing advocates opposed or were opposed unless amended, arguing the bill could add administrative burden, but committee members broadly supported the goal of including smaller cities in regional responses. Members also heard AB 2058 on factory-built housing, AB 2576 on historic-resource protections under SB 79, AB 1751 on missing-middle townhomes, AB 1924 on homelessness prevention, AB 2626 on waiving certain monitoring fees for at-risk affordable housing developments, and AB 2089 on welfare-exemption and recertification procedures for affordable housing. Testimony generally emphasized reducing duplicative local permitting for factory-built housing, protecting state and national historic resources while still allowing housing near transit, expanding ministerial approval for townhomes, creating a statewide homelessness-prevention strategy with accountability measures, giving HCD flexibility to waive fees to preserve financially stressed affordable housing, and streamlining property-tax exemption recertification. Several bills were voted out of committee, including AB 1751 and AB 2626, both passing on 8-0 and 7-0 votes respectively, while other measures were discussed with motions pending or held open for absent members.

Transcript Highlights:

• If time permits, decision-making will occur after we hear from all those offering testimony.
• If time permits, decision-making will occur after we hear from all those offering testimony.
• Is it permitting?
• Is it permitting? for you guys? Is it permitting?
• </c> the state have their own permitting the state have their own permitting department<00:38:46.880>

Committee: Senate Public Safety and Military Affairs

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint committees heard HCR 66, which asks the State Building Code Council to update the state building code to allow point access block construction for residential buildings up to six stories. Testimony was generally in support, including from Housing Hawaii’s Future, the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, and OPSD, with one registered opponent. No questions were raised, and the joint committee later adopted a recommendation to pass the resolution as is. Because the housing committee lacked quorum at that time, final action on the resolution was deferred to the housing-only agenda. On the housing-only agenda, the committee first heard HTR 78, which states the intent that housing projects qualifying for credits under Act 31 remain eligible for those credits after the act’s repeal. Testimony was in support from HHFTC and the DIY chapter, and there were no questions or opposition noted. The committee then took up Governor’s Message 592, confirming Lisa Darcy to the HPHA board. Support came from HPHA board members and several individuals, and Darcy said she accepted the nomination and emphasized her experience and interest in HPHA’s work. Members questioned her about the HPHA board’s oversight role, the 10,000-unit RFQ, and media coverage of Kuhio Park Terrace relocations; she said she supports the project, values transparency, and would push for better context and accountability, though some members felt she had not directly answered concerns about on-the-ground oversight. The committee also heard Governor’s Message 736, confirming Grant Chun to the HHFDC board. Support testimony highlighted his experience in nonprofit housing, real estate, and leadership roles, and Chun said he was pleased to serve the state. Members asked about his residence and his perspective on senior care at Hali Makua, where he said his family found the care compassionate and thorough, while noting staffing shortages. The transcript ends before any final vote on the housing-only items is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:41:30.239><c> under</c> no greater than what's permitted under no greater than what's permitted
• </c> uh was was made known and uh a permit uh was was made known and uh a permit was<02:04:22.400><c>
• </c><02:04:47.199><c> Subsequently,</c> deny that that permit. Subsequently, deny that that permit.
• </c><02:14:29.679><c> The</c> as long as the permit is valid. The as long as the permit is valid.
• </c><02:16:10.400><c> an</c><02:16:10.800><c> error</c> that was permitted an error that was permitted

Committee: House Public Works and Highways

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to just know, and you talked about the permitting issues.
• I want to just know, and you talked about the permitting issues.
• First of all, on permitting.
• Yes, I spoke with you last year about the permitting issue.
• So much has to do with the permitting and everything else and the cost.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee held an informational hearing on the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s 2026 draft business plan and next steps for the project. Chair Cortese opened by noting major changes since the 2024 plan, including new leadership, a bottoms-up review, scope changes in the Central Valley, loss of federal funds, and renewed interest in private investment and value capture. The Authority’s CEO, Ian Chaudhary, presented the project as moving into a construction and track-laying phase, citing progress on Central Valley structures, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocations, and a new procurement for track and systems. He said the plan reflects a more disciplined, optimized approach, with the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment targeted for revenue service around 2033 and the broader Phase 1 corridor envisioned as commercially viable through ancillary revenues, public-private partnerships, and future private financing. Committee members questioned the Authority about station relocations, single-tracking, tax increment financing, utility relocation authority, transparency, and the feasibility of private financing. Chaudhary said the Merced and Bakersfield station locations were still under discussion with local governments and that no contracts had been finalized. He defended the reduced scope and single-track approach as a just-in-time strategy to avoid overbuilding, while maintaining high-speed standards. He also said the Authority was exploring land value capture, broadband, energy, and other corridor-based revenue sources, but acknowledged that some tools would require legislative action and that private financing options were still being evaluated. Several senators expressed support for the project but raised concerns about permitting delays, local opposition, constitutional and statutory limits, and the need for stronger accountability. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the High-Speed Rail Inspector General then gave critical assessments of the draft plan. LAO staff said the plan assumes major statutory changes, understates risk, lacks transparency about scope changes, and may not fully fund even the smaller Merced-to-Bakersfield segment once borrowing costs and other uncertainties are considered. Inspector General Ben Belknap said the draft plan does not comply with newer statutory requirements in SB 198 and AB 377, citing three main deficiencies: unauthorized scope changes to the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment, an inadequate funding plan that omits financing costs, and missing procurement milestone dates. He said the Authority’s presentation obscures the true cost and schedule impacts of the project changes, and that incomplete reporting limits legislative oversight. The Authority responded that it would address the OIG’s findings in the final business plan, and committee members indicated they expected a written response on compliance issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• In order to hear as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit disruptions
• Additionally, there has been progress on permitting. We think that is one of the top issues.
• Yes, there's permitting delays.
• The one-year shot clock to submit a permit is another concern.
• We don't want to file incorrect and unsuccessful permit applications. Thank you very much.

Summary: The committee hearing covered a long agenda of energy, utility, and data-center bills, with members hearing extensive testimony on affordability, ratepayer protections, wildfire liability, and grid planning. Several measures were presented by Assembly Member Irwin and others, including AB 2182 on industrial energy efficiency incentives, AB 2396 on allowing community choice aggregators to develop transmission projects, AB 2589 on returning federal tax savings to ratepayers, AB 2508 on shifting public purpose program costs off utility bills, AB 1577 on data center reporting, and AB 2383 on large energy-use facility rate design. The chair noted the hearing began without a quorum and later proceeded once quorum was established for the data-center and AB 2383 votes. AB 2182 and AB 2589 were discussed but not acted on during the portion shown, while AB 2396 drew substantial debate over wildfire liability, financing, and whether CCAs should be allowed to own transmission lines. AB 2508 generated the most divided policy discussion, with supporters arguing that public purpose programs and energy efficiency costs should not be borne by ratepayers and should instead be funded through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund or other public sources. Opponents warned that moving those programs to GGRF would threaten funding stability, undermine cost-effective efficiency programs, and jeopardize important safety-net and wildfire-related spending; wildfire survivor advocates asked for amendments to ensure victims are paid first before any reallocation. Committee members raised concerns about whether GGRF is an appropriate and stable funding source, and several said they could not support the bill as drafted. AB 1577, requiring data centers to report energy, water, and noise information, passed on a 10-1 vote after supporters said the bill would help local and state planners manage rapid load growth, while opponents argued it was burdensome, duplicative, and could expose proprietary or security-sensitive information. AB 2383, which would direct the CPUC to create a new rate structure for large energy-use facilities and require long-term contracts to prevent cost shifts and stranded assets, also drew strong support and opposition. The Little Hoover Commission and NRDC backed the bill as a way to protect ratepayers from data-center-related costs, while CCAs, the Chamber of Commerce, manufacturers, and petroleum interests objected to the bill’s scope and to CPUC oversight, especially as it could affect CCAs and other large users beyond data centers. After discussion about preserving local authority and avoiding stranded costs, the committee approved AB 2383 on a 13-0 vote and left the roll open for absent members. The hearing then moved to AB 1774, a wildfire accountability bill by Assembly Member Berman, which was introduced with testimony from fire survivors and consumer advocates emphasizing the need to verify that utility wildfire mitigation spending is actually performed before ratepayers are charged.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, if we were to get, let's say, Exxon into one of our sovereign zones using this fast-track permit,
• , we get them in here to build a permit, we get them in here to build a $4<00:21:44.799><c> billion</
• DEQ will develop a process to issue all permits and licenses required for these designated industrial
• and licenses required for these permits and licenses required for these designated<00:29:19.279><c>
• and applications uh these permits and applications uh these entities<00:29:27.279><c> within</c><00:

Bills: SF0102 , SF0123 , SF0021 , SF0099

Committee: Senate Minerals, Business & Economic Development

Keywords: energy transmission, load growth, Wyoming energy authority, transmission planning study, public utilities, regional cooperation, energy, funding, grants, loans, coal, natural gas, mineral processing, economic development, stable token, liquidity, trust account, Wyoming, fund distribution, financial regulation

Transcript Highlights:

• or building permit for any accessory or secondary use.
• </c><00:15:35.160><c> or</c> issuance of any land use permit or issuance of any land use permit or building
• </c><00:15:37.079><c> or</c> building permit for any accessory or building permit for any accessory or
• , and we are actually applying for this special use permit right now.
• We actually need a building permit for that farm stand.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint House Agriculture and Food Systems and Tourism hearing focused on HB 189 and HB 966, both dealing with agricultural tourism. HB 189 would require counties to adopt ordinances governing review and permitting of agricultural tourism as secondary uses on working farms, require the principal agricultural use to pre-exist any tourism-related permit, and limit ag tourism to land where productive agriculture is occurring. HB 966 would create statewide uniform standards for agricultural tourism, require county registration of activities, require ag tourism to coexist with agricultural activity on a farming operation, and end the tourism use when agricultural activity ceases. Testimony on HB 189 was mixed. The Department of Agriculture and Kualoa Ranch opposed the bill, arguing that the proposed restrictions and income-based limits could burden bona fide farms and ranches, reduce flexibility for counties, and harm food production, jobs, and diversification efforts. Kualoa Ranch said ag tourism supports its food sales and community market and warned the bill could cost more than 350 jobs. The Hawaiʻi Cattlemen’s Council also opposed the measure for similar reasons. The Hawaiʻi Farmers Union supported the bill with suggested amendments, including clearer language around agricultural dedication. The Hawaiʻi Farm Bureau supported the intent of the bill but urged caution, saying ag tourism should remain tied to actual agricultural production and that counties need flexibility to address abuses without imposing overly rigid standards. Members discussed how to define a bona fide agricultural operation and whether property tax agricultural dedication could serve as a clearer qualifier. They also raised concerns about how counties would enforce revenue thresholds or separate accounting for tourism and farm income, and whether state law should better target clearly non-agricultural uses such as gondolas or other abusive developments. The Department of Agriculture and Farm Bureau said counties already have authority to regulate ag tourism through ordinances, but that any new standards should avoid unintended burdens on true farmers and ranchers. HB 966 was then introduced, and initial testimony again reflected support for the bill’s intent from some agricultural groups and opposition or caution from others. Kualoa Ranch said ag tourism can help educate visitors and support agriculture, the Hawaiʻi Farmers Union supported county flexibility, and the Hawaiʻi Farm Bureau reiterated concerns about the bill’s income comparison provisions and the need to distinguish legitimate agricultural tourism from misuse. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:02:59.839><c> the</c> in the zoning districts that permit the in the zoning districts that permit
• </c> the footprint was already permitted. the footprint was already permitted.
• </c> $50,000 of licensing fees, and permits $50,000 of licensing fees, and permits every<01:57:50.080
• And I ability to permit these.
• ,</c> in order to get your building permit, in order to get your building permit, you're<05:05:45.680

Committee: House Housing

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, this provision will now open up D to go to the land use commission with a special permit review.
• So, this provision will now open up D to go to the land use commission with a special permit review.
• So, this provision will now open up D to go to the land use commission with a special permit review.
• So, this provision will now open up D to go to the land use commission with a special permit review.
• </c> permit review. permit review. &gt;&gt; Okay. &gt;&gt; Okay. &gt;&gt; Okay.

Bills: SB2706 , SB2320

Committee: Senate Agriculture and Environment

Keywords: workforce development, agriculture, biosecurity, pilot program, Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, University of Hawaii, Leeward Community College, DHRD, training, apprenticeship, career pathways, credentialing, job training, internship, hands-on experience, state employment, workforce pipeline, agricultural jobs, biosecurity jobs, general fund appropriation

Summary: The committees first heard SB 2371, which would prioritize lease offers on agrivoltaics parcels for beginning farmers, require annual compliance reports to DAB, authorize penalties for noncompliance, and allow solar facilities on certain agricultural lands. DAB, the State Energy Office, PUC, and Hawaii Farm Bureau generally supported the intent, while OPPSD recommended amendments to preserve agricultural lease affordability and strengthen food-production language. Members questioned whether the bill would meaningfully encourage solar on ag lands, whether beginning farmers would have enough information to use such parcels, and how the bill would interact with Land Use Commission review. The Farm Bureau said agrivoltaics remains challenging and largely in pilot form, and noted the Mililani project as a promising example of dual use. The committees voted to pass SB 2371 with amendments, with one member expressing a preference that it be opened to all farmers rather than only beginning farmers. The next measure, SB 2800, appropriates funds to DAB, DLNR, and ADC for acquisition, repair, and maintenance of irrigation systems. All testifying agencies and the Farm Bureau supported the bill, and members pressed them for estimates of needed funding and the condition of existing systems. DAB cited major repair needs, including Waimea, Molokai, Kahuku, and Kawailoa, and said its backlog could total roughly $65 million; ADC estimated about $35 million for several systems; and DLNR said its current needs for three systems were about $35 million, with the largest cost tied to piping in Kekaha. The committees amended the bill to defer its effective date to July 1, 2050 and to blank out the appropriation amounts in the bill text, with the agencies’ requested amounts to be included in the committee report for consideration. SB 2800 then passed in AEN, Water and Land, and EIG. The final measure discussed was SB 2718, a food hub pilot program beginning in 2028 that would require state departments and UH to source 30% of certain food purchases from local agricultural products, create a nutrition- and ʻāina-based school program, and have DAT partner with a regional aggregator for Native Hawaiian staple crops. DAT, DOH, the Farm Bureau, Food Plus Policy Group, HAPA, and others supported the bill’s intent, while the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation opposed it, saying it is already struggling to meet the current local procurement percentage and faces procurement and quantity barriers, especially for staple items used daily. The testimony focused on whether agencies could realistically meet the higher local purchasing target and whether smaller farms could supply the needed volumes.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it permits different levels of increases upon vacancy based on how long a tenant has been in that
• In reality, 2021 permit numbers were greater than they were every year between 2008 and 2019.
• Permitting data shows that the drop in construction began in March 2021.
• And like I said, the permits are the same. Well, a permit is not a shovel in the ground.
• People get permits. I know, being in this industry, people sit on permits 10 years.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-21, House Bill 508, an act to protect tenants by limiting rent increases. Committee leaders explained the Article 48 initiative process and said the hearing was intended to gather testimony for a report to the legislature. The measure would replace current state law that prohibits rent control, cap annual rent increases at the lower of CPI or 5%, exempt certain properties including owner-occupied buildings of four or fewer units, subsidized, university, nonprofit, and short-term rental housing, and exempt new construction for 10 years. It would also eliminate vacancy decontrol, so limits would continue when units turn over, and enforcement would rely largely on tenants and the Attorney General through the courts. The hearing began with expert testimony from Whitney Airgood-Obrien of Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, who described Massachusetts’ severe rental affordability problems and reviewed research on rent regulation, noting mixed evidence on supply and quality effects but clearer evidence that rent regulation can slow rent growth and improve tenant stability. Supporters of the petition, led by Carolyn Chow of Homes for All Massachusetts, argued that rent stabilization is needed now to curb displacement and runaway rent increases, especially for low- and moderate-income renters. Laura Frost described her Arlington building being bought by a large firm that sought steep rent hikes, and said rent control would help prevent “tenant flipping” and community displacement. Dave Foley of SEIU Local 509 said the issue affects workers’ ability to live near their jobs, while Dr. Mark Paul and Tram Huang argued that the evidence supports well-designed rent stabilization, that vacancy decontrol encourages displacement, and that the policy should be seen as a complement to new housing production rather than a substitute. Committee members questioned supporters about the 10-year new construction exemption, the lack of vacancy decontrol, and whether rent stabilization could discourage development; supporters responded that the measure targets corporate rent gouging, that small landlords are protected by exemptions, and that production and rent stabilization can coexist. Opponents, including representatives of small property owners, chambers of commerce, and labor/building trades, argued the proposal would hurt small landlords, reduce investment, and slow housing production. They said operating costs such as taxes, insurance, and maintenance are rising faster than the proposed cap, and warned that the measure would reduce property values and tax revenue and could push investment to other states. Several opponents emphasized that many Massachusetts housing providers are mom-and-pop owners rather than large corporations, and said the policy would make it harder to maintain and improve housing. Committee members pressed both sides on the need for a middle ground between affordability and preserving development incentives, but no vote was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you have an existing permit, you have an existing permit. It already exists.
• Not an expansion, not a new permit; you have an existing permit.
• The thoroughbreds are going to have the ability to have their own permit. Their own permit.
• We are going to permit the thoroughbred permit holder to take their permit, which is now required to
• It's not a new permit. They have a permit.

Bills: HB 118 , HB 388 , HB 114 , HB 205 , HB 2789 , HB 2791 , HB 499 , HB 2960 , HB 3163 , HB 3135 , HB 2427 , HB 1618 , HB 1672 , HB 1722 , HB 1338 , HB 787 , HB 2618 , HB 879 , HB 1126 , HB 4134 , HB 3513 , HB 718 , HB 1536 , HB 1445 , HB 1640 , HB 1893 , HB 1734 , HB 3229 , HB 3306 , HB 1276 , HB 3272 , HB 3276 , HB 3516 , HB 4145 , HB 1585 , HB 4810 , HB 2989 , HB 2558 , HB 3014 , HB 2742 , HB 1695 , HB 29 , HB 125 , HB 145 , HB 171 , HB 255 , HB 50 , HB 363 , HB 116 , HB 491 , HB 1495 , HB 368 , HB 1285 , HB 1905 , HB 2002 , HB 917 , HB 2723 , HB 2067 , HB 1238 , HB 745 , HB 1188 , HB 1606 , HB 2003 , HB 2147 , HB 2355 , HB 2546 , HB 2495 , HB 2818 , HB 2249 , HB 3228 , HB 3240 , HB 1507 , HB 658 , HB 1748 , HB 1851 , HB 1922 , HB 2798 , HB 107 , HB 1587 , HB 3684 , HB 118 , HB 388 , HB 114 , HB 205 , HB 2789 , HB 2791 , HB 499 , HB 2960 , HB 3163 , HB 3135 , HB 2427 , HB 1618 , HB 1672 , HB 1722 , HB 1338 , HB 787 , HB 2618 , HB 879 , HB 1126 , HB 4134 , HB 3513 , HB 718 , HB 1536 , HB 1445 , HB 1640 , HB 1893 , HB 1734 , HB 3229 , HB 3306 , HB 1276 , HB 3272 , HB 3276 , HB 3516 , HB 4145 , HB 1585 , HB 4810 , HB 2989 , HB 2558 , HB 3014 , HB 2742 , HB 1695 , HB 609 , HB 630 , HB 420 , HB 767 , HB 1708 , HB 1404 , HB 2457 , HB 140 , HB 227 , HB 913 , HB 2198 , HB 2763 , HB 1261 , HB 1135 , HB 1318 , HB 2358 , HB 2765 , HB 2735 , HB 3307 , HB 1242 , HB 2842 , HB 333 , HB 201 , HB 694 , HB 2415 , HB 155 , HB 272 , HB 405 , HB 519 , HB 1136 , HB 1275 , HB 1437 , HB 1532 , HB 1675 , HB 1868 , HB 1888 , HB 1990 , HB 2286 , HB 2523 , HB 3129 , HB 3251 , HB 3354 , HB 3479 , HB 3803 , HB 3804 , HB 3805 , HB 3806 , HB 3887 , HB 4163 , HB 4238 , HB 1240 , HB 1842 , HB 2029 , HB 2622 , HB 3255 , HB 654 , HB 4643 , HB 4945 , HB 3611 , HB 3724 , HB 3623 , HB 3810 , HB 4127 , HCR 78 , HCR 12 , SB 767

Keywords: HB 388, HB388, coordination of benefits, COB questionnaire, health benefit plan, health insurance, insurance commissioner, Texas Department of Insurance, uniform form, primary payer, secondary payer, multiple coverage, dual coverage, Medicaid, CHIP, managed care, HMO, small employer health plan, school district health coverage, self-funded plan