Transcript Highlights:

• </c> first of its kind study examining carbon first of its kind study examining carbon storage<00:08:
• The young forest takes a while to get back to that same amount of storage, but we look at carbon on 100
• Hanson. amount of storage but it we look at amount of storage but it we look at Carbon<00:25:29.200><
• carbon dioxide.
• </c><00:29:43.039><c> storing</c><00:29:43.519><c> carbon</c> sequestering carbon storing carbon sequestering

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And so in energy storage, there's a lot of carbon materials that are used here.
• </c> yarn. um not only compared to a carbon yarn. um not only compared to a carbon fiber,<00:29:25.120
• The 787 is a carbon one.
• The 787 is a carbon one.
• All of our energy storage mineral.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00 Attendance Roll Call 01:58 Approval of Minutes 03:05 Member Comments 03:18 Nanotechnologies in Energy 06:20, 958, all

Summary: The committee met and approved the minutes, then heard announcements and introductions from members and guests, including an invitation to an East Kentucky trail ride opening and welcomes for new EPIC and Kentucky Coal Association representatives and several constituents. After the opening business, the committee turned to a presentation on nanotechnology and energy applications by Rodney Andrews of the University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research. Andrews explained how nanoscale materials behave differently because of their size and surface area, and described uses in consumer products, batteries, solar panels, catalysts, coatings, sensors, and energy storage. Members asked about the relationship between nanomaterials and coal, and Andrews said carbon nanotubes can be made from coal-derived hydrocarbons, which members noted as an opportunity for Kentucky’s coal and manufacturing sectors. He also discussed work on improved solar coatings, more stable perovskites, fuel-processing catalysts, hydrogen storage, renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel, electromagnetic shielding, and conductive yarns and fabrics. The presentation also covered more advanced applications such as thermoelectric textiles, power transmission materials, thermal transport composites for aerospace, nanofluids for cooling, and fusion reactor shielding. In the final discussion, members raised questions about electromagnetic pulse protection and quantum computing; Andrews said the materials discussed could absorb and spread energy and that shielding applications may help with EMPs, while quantum computing remains limited by extremely low operating temperatures. No formal votes were taken beyond approval of the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:04:21.680><c> hydr</c> 67 new proposed pumped storage hydr 67 new proposed pumped storage hydr
• </c> State Works to achieve the 100% carbon State Works to achieve the 100% carbon free<00:08:31.720>
• Energy storage coupled with wind and solar, carbon capture, hydrogen... moratorium would allow stakeholders
• There is still no permanent solution to nuclear waste. to meet the carbon free goals to meet the carbon
• </c><01:47:29.840><c> free</c> produce carbon free produce carbon free energy<01:47:32.000><c> to</c>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Carbon capture technologies either capture carbon directly from the air or from industrial emissions.
• capture and storage technology.
• But for that last 10%, we're going to need emerging technologies such as carbon capture and storage to
• capture and storage facility.
• AB 881 will ensure that carbon capture and storage projects can proceed in a manner that protects public

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

Transcript Highlights:

• So those are drill core storage.
• </c> familiar, we have a drill core storage familiar, we have a drill core storage library<00:04:13.519
• Temporary storage and trailer is improvised.
• ><c> is</c> Temporary storage and trailer is Temporary storage and trailer is improvised.<00:06:54.800
• </c> solution sort of of properly uh storage solution sort of of properly uh storage in<00:07:07.840>

Bills: HF1531, HF4017, HF3399, HF4146, HF4019, HF3677

Keywords: crossbow, crossbow hunting, archery season, deer hunting, bear hunting, turkey hunting, fishing, common carp, rough fish, game and fish, wildlife management, hunting license, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, DNR, sunset clause, expiration removal, archery equipment, outdoor recreation, infectious waste, pathological waste

Bills: HB3097, HB3691, SB108, SB827, SB1541, SB1862, SB2166, SB2216

Keywords: Texas elections, Election Code, uniform election date, November election, local elections, political subdivisions, general election date, election administration, municipal utility district, county elections, local government, ballot scheduling, candidate filing, voter turnout, election calendar, HB 3097, early voting, electronic application, mail-in ballot, voting accessibility

Transcript Highlights:

• For example, it does appear in the Rocky Mountain Power carbon capture, use, and storage technology.
• Um, they've currently finished phase two study at the um or they completed a carbon capture and storage
• Um, they've currently finished phase two study at the um or they completed a carbon capture and storage
• Um, they've currently finished phase two study at the um or they completed a carbon capture and storage
• capture and storage completed a carbon capture and storage studies<01:39:00.320><c> at</c><01:39:00.480

Bills: SJ0001, SF0017

Keywords: mineral leasing, federal lands, Wyoming, energy policy, local control, federalism, forestry management, good neighbor authority, state lands, employee funding, donations, revolving account, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• long-duration electricity storage.
• We already know how to capture carbon.
• We already know how to capture carbon.
• It's called reservoir storage.
• So we do have that experience with storage in the Northwest.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• The answer is battery storage.
• storage resources unable to participate in the upcoming 83E energy storage RFP that was put into law
• I will add the storage procurement, but there is a storage procurement already on the books from 2024
• storage, so there's a place for both.
• of money on pumped storage.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a wide range of energy bills, with much of the discussion focused on offshore wind, battery storage, solar, nuclear study proposals, and a bill to redefine clean energy. Several Barnstable-area legislators and witnesses raised concerns about offshore wind transmission infrastructure near neighborhoods, beaches, and drinking water supplies, and supported bills to create a special commission and increase local input and oversight. In contrast, environmental, consumer, labor, and clean energy groups strongly backed offshore wind expansion bills, arguing that offshore wind lowers long-term costs, improves winter reliability, reduces fossil fuel dependence, supports jobs and local supply chains, and should include wildlife protections, labor standards, and community benefits. Some witnesses and committee members noted that parts of the offshore wind legislation overlap with the Governor’s energy affordability bill, and asked for clarification on which provisions were new versus duplicative. The committee also heard testimony on battery storage and solar legislation. Two student witnesses and several industry representatives supported a bill to study grid battery storage, saying storage can reduce outages, lower peak prices, and improve grid resilience during extreme weather. Witnesses from solar and storage companies supported a broader clean energy transition bill that would expand storage procurement, create a retail-style storage program for distributed batteries, set a 10-gigawatt solar target by 2035, and streamline siting and interconnection. Committee members pressed witnesses on whether these provisions were already included in the Governor’s affordability bill and asked for a section-by-section breakdown of what was new. One witness also urged allowing developers to bond interconnection payments to reduce financing costs. Another major topic was a bill defining clean energy, especially whether existing pumped-storage hydropower should qualify for subsidies or be excluded. Supporters of the bill argued that existing pumped storage should not receive additional ratepayer subsidies because it is already built, can have environmental impacts on rivers and ecosystems, and could cost ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Opponents said pumped storage is an important reliability resource and should remain eligible. The committee also heard testimony on nuclear-energy study bills: some witnesses supported creating a commission to examine nuclear power as a reliable, carbon-free option, while others opposed nuclear study bills and argued that nuclear is costly, unsafe, and inconsistent with the state’s clean energy goals. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Then it goes to the terminal storage, two storage tanks, but also imports supporting that.
• neutrality and carbon dioxide removal.
• clean energy targets in SB 1020, establishing a carbon capture utilization and storage program in SB
• The low-carbon fuel standard establishes an annual declining carbon intensity target for transportation
• But for Chair Randolph, in terms of carbon emissions, how far away do we count carbon emissions that

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

Transcript Highlights:

• carbon life cycle of working forests.
• In reality, sustainable harvest is a key mechanism for long-term carbon storage.
• Explain to me what that means in the forest as far as storage for CO2 storage.
• So that will be captured carbon.
• the forest level and carbon that's been removed to decrease the risk of emitted carbon.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In their section, they have $12.2 million from the Climate Commitment Act carbon emissions reduction
• creating a 12.5-mile third mainline track between Longview Junction and Kalama; and 15, interstate yard storage
• , those three projects that my colleagues Mary and Layle just spoke about. $12.2 million of state carbon

Bills: SB6225, SB6005, SB6354

Keywords: transportation bonds, general obligation bonds, Washington State Department of Transportation, WSDOT, highway funding, road construction, infrastructure financing, motor fuel tax, gas tax, vehicle fees, bond authorization, state finance committee, highway bond retirement fund, corridor projects, interstate improvements, right-of-way acquisition, public-private partnerships, transportation capital projects, local matching funds, emergency clause

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee held public hearings on three bills. For SB 6225, the proposed substitute bond bill, staff explained it would authorize $1.1 billion in general obligation bonds for transportation funding, an additional $400 million for completion of selected Move Ahead Washington highway projects, a $500 million increase in SR 520 bond authority, and the sunset of some unused older bond authorizations. For SB 6005, the supplemental transportation budget, staff described a $17.5 billion six-year plan that adds $1.5 billion, including reappropriations, preservation and maintenance funding, adjustments tied to lower revenues and Climate Commitment Account forecasts, and assumptions about future ferry financing. For SB 6354, staff outlined a bill allowing limited direct sales by qualifying EV-only manufacturers, increasing the documentary service fee, and directing part of the new revenue to EV rebates and multimodal transportation funding. Testimony on SB 6005 and SB 6225 was broadly supportive from transit, biking, climate, labor, ports, cities, counties, and business groups, with repeated emphasis on preservation, safety, ferry reliability, freight mobility, and maintaining or expanding climate-related transportation investments. Several witnesses asked for specific project or program changes, including more funding for EV charging, rail electrification and rail capital projects, ferry investments, local bridge and road projects, Spokane TMC operations, county flood response, and freight corridor work in Kent and Lynnwood. Some witnesses also urged the committee to avoid House-proposed reductions to local programs and to preserve long-term bonding and six-year funding stability. Testimony on SB 6354 was split. Supporters, including Climate Solutions, the Washington State Auto Dealers Association, Rivian, Lucid, and some franchise dealers, called it a compromise that would expand EV access while preserving consumer protections and dealer licensing requirements. Opponents, including the Alliance for Automotive Innovation and Honda, argued the bill creates unequal rules by exempting certain manufacturers from the franchise model and said they had not been part of any real compromise. The committee took no votes during the hearing and announced that SB 6225 and SB 6005 would be in executive session Thursday at 8 a.m., with amendments due by noon the prior day; SB 6354 would be acted on later.

Transcript Highlights:

• AB 32, cap and trade, low-carbon fuel standards, petroleum reduction mandates, production restrictions
• Botel, I have... ...sort of looking at it in the carbon context.
• so low... ...Energy Institute, Bushnell, analyzing why our carbon prices are so low right now.
• So it seems like it's a little muddy and we don't actually know if we're reducing carbon...
• Storage, you heard those earlier.

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee held an informational hearing on the environmental impacts and policy considerations surrounding refinery closures. Chair Blakespear framed the hearing as part of California’s broader transition away from fossil fuels, emphasizing the need for proactive planning so communities, workers, and local governments are not caught off guard. Vice Chair Gunda argued that the state has long signaled a future away from oil, while also warning that closures can create supply instability, higher prices, and infrastructure stress if not managed carefully. Senators also raised concerns about consumer costs, supply reliability, the role of imports, and whether California’s climate policies are contributing to refinery disinvestment. The first panel included the California Energy Commission, CARB, and the State Water Resources Control Board. Gunda described California as being in a “mid-transition,” with gasoline demand gradually declining, zero-emission vehicle adoption rising, and refinery capacity shrinking through both conversions to renewable fuels and outright closures. He said the state needs a coordinated strategy that balances near-term supply stability with long-term decarbonization, and noted that refinery closures can shift liabilities onto pipelines, terminals, and potentially the state. CARB’s Matthew Boutill said the agency’s focus is reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases, and that state policies are already driving billions in annual investment in alternative fuels, EV infrastructure, and refinery conversions. Water Board representative Annalisa Kihara explained the cleanup authorities used at refinery sites, including investigation, remediation, and enforcement tools, and said decommissioning often reveals previously inaccessible contamination and may require new monitoring wells and additional site assessment. Committee members pressed the panel on whether the state has enough information to plan for land reuse and cleanup costs, whether current tools are adequate, and whether more legislative direction is needed. Gunda said there are still gaps in information and transparency, especially around liability and long-term community planning. Kihara said the Water Boards can require more data, cleanup, and timelines, but that refinery remediation is highly site-specific and can take tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Senators Menjivar, Stern, and Hurtado questioned demand trends, the pace of refinery closures versus demand decline, the role of imports and the Jones Act, and whether California should consider options such as state ownership or broader ecosystem planning. The panel generally agreed that closures are likely to continue and that the state should plan proactively rather than reactively. A second panel presented recent research on refinery closures. Emily Grubert said closure costs and remediation obligations are often underestimated and that California should better define end-of-life obligations and financial assurance requirements. Tham Herschbach outlined five drivers of refinery closures: declining California crude production, falling in-state gasoline demand, the shift toward renewable diesel and other alternative fuels, global refinery consolidation, and the growing availability of imported gasoline. Anne Alexander focused on community impacts, using the Phillips 66 Los Angeles refinery closure as a case study, and said refinery sites are often heavily contaminated, cleanup can take a decade or more, and communities are often left without clear information because refineries have little end-of-life planning or financial assurance requirements. No votes or formal actions were taken at the informational hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is carbon capture, utilization, and storage, and carbon dioxide removal technologies, develop monitoring
• capture, utilization, and storage and carbon dioxide removal approaches here in California because we
• In support of item 2, expanded resources for carbon capture removal utilization and storage program SB
• At Heirloom Carbon, we are deeply committed to the high-road carbon management.
• At airloom carbon, we are deeply committed to the high road carbon management.

Summary: The committee hearing focused heavily on CARB’s broad trailer bill request for regulatory fee authority. Finance and CARB argued the proposal would let CARB develop fees to recover reasonable costs for implementing and enforcing regulations, while the LAO recommended rejection because the authority was too broad, could apply to an entire division of code, and would delegate core legislative taxing/fee-setting power without enough guardrails. Members from both parties raised concerns about the breadth of the authority, accountability, affordability impacts, and whether the Legislature would be put in an up-or-down position after CARB had already developed regulations. CARB responded that fees would still go through a budget change proposal and legislative approval before collection, and cited existing examples such as transport refrigeration units and commercial harborcraft fees. The committee then reviewed CARB’s request for permanent resources to implement SB 905 on carbon capture, utilization, storage, and carbon dioxide removal. CARB said the Legislature had previously authorized limited-term positions and funding, but it had struggled to recruit and retain staff with specialized regulatory and technical expertise, and that the work had included pre-rulemaking contracts, technology review, and permit-related preparation. Members questioned the pace of work, the use of limited-term positions, and whether additional permitting authority would be needed. CARB said it hoped to begin rulemaking later in the year if permanent resources were approved. Members also discussed the cap-and-trade spending plan, noting lower-than-expected auction revenues but higher interest earnings, and the need to monitor the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and possible May Revision changes. The committee then heard overviews of the zero-emission vehicle package, the Community Air Protection Program, demand-side grid support, and e-bike incentives. CARB described ongoing investments in community-based transportation equity, drayage trucks, harbor craft, and other clean technology demonstrations, while members pressed on affordability, program duplication, and whether enough funding was being directed to incentive programs. No formal votes were taken during the portion provided, and the chair repeatedly indicated that the hearing was intended to surface concerns for later budget negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you're wanting low-carbon energy from coal, but you hate pipelines and you don't like carbon capture
• and storage, how does that work, right?
• Why are we talking about salt cavern storage?
• Also looking at NGL storage to facilitate petrochemical developments, propane storage, and then other
• No, I was just curious about, since we're talking about using the propane storage or the ethane storage

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• AB 32, cap and trade, low carbon fuel standards, petroleum reduction mandates, production restrictions
• Sort of looking at it in the carbon context.
• Energy Institute, Bushnell, analyzing why our carbon prices are so low right now.
• So it seems like it's a little muddy and we don't actually know if we're reducing carbon...
• First off, Carbon... There is reason for bigger-picture concern.

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee held an informational hearing on the environmental impacts and planning considerations associated with refinery closures. In opening remarks, the chair framed refinery shutdowns as a complex part of California’s decarbonization transition and said the committee would focus on environmental and land-use issues, while Vice Chair Gunda argued closures reflect years of policy-driven disinvestment and warned that supply disruptions and higher prices could harm working families. State agency witnesses from the Energy Commission, CARB, and the Water Boards described the state as being in a “mid-transition,” with declining gasoline demand, growing zero-emission vehicle adoption, and increasing conversion of some refinery assets to renewable fuels, but also with abrupt capacity losses that can force greater reliance on imports and storage. They emphasized the need for proactive planning, transparency, and coordination across agencies, and noted that refinery closures can stress pipelines, terminals, and other linked infrastructure, with potential liabilities falling to the state if those assets are not financially supported. The Water Boards explained their cleanup authorities and tools for refinery decommissioning, including investigation, monitoring, remediation, and enforcement under the Water Code, and said site-specific cleanup plans depend on contamination, groundwater conditions, and future land use. They noted that decommissioning can reveal previously inaccessible areas and require additional sampling or wells, and that cleanup costs can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Committee members pressed the witnesses on whether the state has enough information to plan for land transitions, whether current tools are adequate, and whether more standardized procedures or financial assurances are needed. The witnesses generally said existing tools are useful but that more transparency and better data sharing would help communities and policymakers understand liabilities and long-term redevelopment opportunities. Members also questioned the relationship between California policy, refinery closures, imports, and global emissions. CARB said its programs apply to transportation fuel suppliers whether fuel is refined in-state or imported, and that its climate and air-quality rules are designed to reduce emissions and avoid leakage. Some senators argued that California’s policies have accelerated closures and that demand has not fallen fast enough to offset lost refining capacity, while agency witnesses responded that closures are also driven by global market forces, aging infrastructure, crude quality, and changing fuel demand. The committee then heard from outside experts, including a Notre Dame professor who said closure costs are often underestimated and that stronger financial assurance requirements can shift company behavior, a Stanford/SLAC researcher who outlined five drivers of refinery closures, and an environmental attorney who discussed community impacts and lessons from the Phillips 66 Los Angeles refinery closure. No votes or formal actions were taken; the hearing was informational and focused on testimony and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:04:24.560><c> free</c> electricity comes is carbon-f free electricity comes is carbon-f free
• You know, it's it's carbon-f country.
• carbon-f carbon-f free<00:10:09.040><c> and</c><00:10:09.200><c> I</c><00:10:09.360><c> asked</c><00
• You storage as our state moves forward.
• But all we've done we're carbon-f free?

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:08:56.320><c> neutral</c> clean energy by 2040 and carbon neutral clean energy by 2040 and carbon
• If you don’t, you make carbon that is still remaining.
• <00:42:59.760><c> of</c><00:42:59.920><c> broadly</c> carbon credits are kind of broadly carbon credits
• natural gas storage facility.
• As we a natural gas storage facility.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• For reference, one single unit of these large battery storage is about 240 Teslas.
• These are about storage, shipping-container-sized batteries with cooling units.
• Storage provides essential reliability, Massachusetts must scale energy storage.
• These bills would effectively ban development of battery storage statewide.
• This facility has no less than 296 lithium battery storage containers.

Keywords: 995, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• management to carbon.
• If you're wanting low-carbon energy from coal, but you hate pipelines and you don't like carbon capture
• and storage, how does that work, right?
• Also looking at NGL storage to facilitate petrochemical developments, propane storage, and then other
• No, I was just curious about, since we're talking about using the propane storage or the ethane storage

Summary: The committee met in Grand Forks, approved the February 26 minutes by voice vote, and recessed for a tour of Minnkota Power Cooperative before hearing presentations on large energy consumers and related infrastructure issues. The first presentation, from the North Dakota Transmission Authority, focused on the need for better local decision-making tools for counties, townships, and planning and zoning boards facing major projects such as transmission lines, pipelines, data centers, wind, solar, and large-scale agriculture. The speaker urged more objective, data-driven analysis, noted that local officials often have limited time and resources, and said the state should support training and tools through groups like the League of Cities and the Association of Counties. Members asked about proactive outreach, data center ordinances, and how to avoid subsidizing large loads or causing reliability problems. The Division of Air Quality then discussed environmental oversight of data centers, emphasizing that North Dakota’s air remains among the cleanest in the country and that the agency’s role is limited to air, water discharge, stormwater, and waste—not zoning or water use. The presentation explained that data centers generally have low direct emissions but may rely on diesel backup generators when the grid is unavailable, which creates air-quality concerns; the department said it is requiring air monitors at some projects to collect real-world data and guide future decisions. Members asked about generator emissions, misinformation, monitoring costs, and staffing succession, and the agency said permit applicants pay for the monitors while the state handles some QA work. The Department of Water Resources followed with an overview of North Dakota water law and data center water use. The director explained the state’s prior-appropriation system, the public-interest review for permits, and the large overall water supply available from groundwater and the Missouri River. He said most proposed data centers use closed-loop cooling systems and generally request relatively small amounts of water compared with other uses such as power plants, irrigation, and oilfield operations, and that even a worst-case data center scenario would use only a tiny fraction of Missouri River flow. Questions focused on downstream impacts and comparisons to fracking water use, and the director said the state’s use is too small to materially affect downstream users. Later, McLean County State’s Attorney Ladd-Erickson testified online about data center zoning and permitting. He asked the committee to have Legislative Council gather information on how other states handle data center permitting and to keep the topic on the interim agenda. He argued that local zoning should remain local, but said counties lack the technical and legal resources to manage complex reclamation or bonding requirements and that state-level enabling legislation may be more appropriate. He also recommended eliminating tax incentives for data centers. The committee chair said staff would prepare a document on other states’ zoning and permitting approaches. After a lunch recess, the committee reconvened at the EERC, where CEO Charles Gorecki gave an overview of the center’s 75 years of work and its role in oil and gas, carbon management, and other energy technologies, highlighting enhanced oil recovery and carbon dioxide utilization as major opportunities for future production and tax revenue.