Transcript Highlights:

• There will be no limit on school suspensions, but placements will be reviewed every 15 days.
• I believe I'm speaking from limited conversations with Leach, but that's what makes sense.
• This student is very dangerous, and I'm limited in what options I have at my disposal.
• It's important for senators to recognize that this provision is actually fairly limited; it is limited
• Yes, what we might call zero tolerance, we might also refer to as limited disruption.

Bills: HB1022, HB2856, HB3114, HJR5, HB6, HB120, HB210, HB1458, HB1188, HB3126

Keywords: HB 1022, Sul Ross State University, Rio Grande College, Texas State University System, Education Code, higher education, course levels, upper-level college, lower-division courses, community college-style courses, Del Rio, Eagle Pass, Uvalde, Board of Regents, academic programs, university expansion, HB 2856, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, clinical training placements, clinical rotations

Transcript Highlights:

• While the bill codifies TCHAT, limited telemedicine visits can only go so far.
• This led to increased frustration, continued issues with behavior, and limited academic success.
• Uplift prioritizes its limited budget dollars on where we see our greatest return on college and career
• These restrictions limit the potential development of the UT Austin Academic Medical Center site and

Bills: HB1022, HB2856, HB3114, HJR5, HB6, HB120, HB210, HB1458, HB1188, HB3126

Keywords: HB 1022, Sul Ross State University, Rio Grande College, Texas State University System, Education Code, higher education, course levels, upper-level college, lower-division courses, community college-style courses, Del Rio, Eagle Pass, Uvalde, Board of Regents, academic programs, university expansion, HB 2856, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, clinical training placements, clinical rotations

Transcript Highlights:

• It would create a further strain on limited resources at governing agencies, resulting in further delays
• It's 87.24 acres in Montgomery County, located partially within the incorporated limits and partially
• Cities already have the authority to purchase, establish, and manage cemeteries within their limits if
• Today, we're now bringing the cemeteries inside the city's city limits for what purpose?
• For hundreds of years, it's been outside the city limits where cemeteries could start.

Bills: HB447, HB897, HB993, HB2673, HB3671, HB3680, HB3897, HB4506, HB4753, HB4812, HB4894, HB5148, HB5437, HB5650, HB5652, HB5654, HB5656, HB5661, HB5665

Keywords: traffic impact studies, municipal utility district, bonds, road projects, eminent domain, HB 897, Texas land sale, state property, Austin real estate, Travis County, General Land Office, Texas State Library and Archives Commission, HHSC, Health and Human Services Commission, state records facility, archives building, library funding, capital improvements, lease of state land, public land disposition

Summary: The committee heard testimony and took action on several land use, housing, municipal utility district, and cemetery-related bills. House Bill 447, dealing with transportation impact analysis requirements tied to MUD bond issuance, drew opposition from a witness who argued it would duplicate work, strain agency resources, and delay development; after the sponsor’s closing remarks, the committee substitute was withdrawn and the bill was left pending. Senate Bill 1202, on third-party review of home backup power installations, was substituted and reported favorably to the full House by a unanimous roll call. House Bill 2494, on disannexation for failure to provide municipal services, and House Bill 1835, removing barriers to HUD-code manufactured homes, were also substituted and reported favorably; HB 1835 passed on a 5-1 vote. Senate Bill 15, limiting lot size and density requirements in certain large municipalities, was substituted and reported favorably unanimously. The committee also heard House Bill 897, which would authorize the sale or long-term lease of two state-owned Austin properties used by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission and HHSC. The sponsor said the properties are in poor condition and that proceeds would benefit the state; after questions, the committee substitute was withdrawn and the bill was left pending. Several template MUD bills were then laid out, including HB 5652, HB 5654, HB 5661, and HB 5656, each creating or authorizing municipal utility districts in Montgomery or Fort Bend counties for water, wastewater, drainage, road, and recreational improvements. These bills drew limited testimony in support and were left pending without objection. A major portion of the meeting focused on House Bill 2673, which would repeal last session’s change allowing new cemeteries within certain distances of municipalities and restore the prior rule limiting cemetery placement near growing urban areas. The sponsor and supporters argued the 2023 change created unintended consequences, removed valuable taxable land from future use, and complicated city planning; opponents, including a funeral service industry representative, argued the current law gives communities local control and helps address cemetery land shortages. After extensive testimony, the bill was left pending. The committee also heard HB 4753, a bill allowing a property owner to use a municipal record showing a certificate of occupancy was issued when the original document is lost; it was left pending. Finally, HB 3680, a Cameron County-specific bill modifying subdivision/model rule procedures to reduce replatting burdens while preserving colonia protections, and HB 4812, clarifying that condominiums follow Chapter 82 of the Property Code rather than full subdivision platting, both received supportive testimony and were left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• Today, we're now bringing the cemeteries inside the city's city limits for what purpose?
• The city limits, the city grew to the... Fort Sam Houston did as well at the time.
• The city limits, the city grew to the cemetery.
• For hundreds of years, it's been outside the city limits where cemeteries could start.
• For hundreds of years, it's been outside the city limits where cemeteries could start.

Bills: HB447, HB897, HB993, HB2673, HB3671, HB3680, HB3897, HB4506, HB4753, HB4812, HB4894, HB5148, HB5437, HB5650, HB5652, HB5654, HB5656, HB5661, HB5665

Keywords: traffic impact studies, municipal utility district, bonds, road projects, eminent domain, HB 897, Texas land sale, state property, Austin real estate, Travis County, General Land Office, Texas State Library and Archives Commission, HHSC, Health and Human Services Commission, state records facility, archives building, library funding, capital improvements, lease of state land, public land disposition

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a series of land use, housing, and local government bills. House Bill 447, relating to TIA requirements for certain MUD bond issuances, drew opposition from a witness who argued it would duplicate work already done, strain agency resources, and delay development; after the author’s closing, the committee substitute was withdrawn and the bill was left pending. The committee then voted out Senate Bill 1202 (third-party review of home backup power installations), House Bill 2494 (disannexation for failure to provide services), House Bill 1835 (removing barriers to HUD co-manufactured homes), and Senate Bill 15 (lot size and density limits in certain municipalities), with House Bill 1835 receiving one no vote and the others passing unanimously. House Bill 897, authorizing sale or lease of two state-owned Austin properties, was laid out and left pending after brief questions and no public testimony. The committee also heard and left pending several MUD creation bills for Montgomery and Fort Bend counties, including House Bills 5652, 5654, 5661, and 5656, each presented as template district bills with local support and no opposition recorded at the table. A major portion of the meeting focused on House Bill 2673, which would restore prior restrictions on new cemeteries near growing urban areas by repealing changes made last session. Representative Lujan and supporters argued the current law created unintended consequences, including loss of developable land, tax-exempt property in urban cores, and conflicts with infrastructure planning; they said cities already have authority to establish their own cemeteries if needed. Opponents, including a funeral services industry representative, argued the 2023 change was intended to let communities decide and that the bill would take local decision-making backward. After extensive testimony from both sides, the bill was left pending. The committee also heard House Bill 3680, which would create a Cameron County-specific process allowing local discretion under the model subdivision rules. Supporters said the bill would preserve colonia protections while reducing costly platting and replatting burdens on families trying to sell or pass down land; county officials and realtors testified in favor. The bill was left pending after closing. House Bill 4812, a clarification to the Texas Uniform Condominium Act to prevent counties from imposing subdivision platting requirements on condominiums, received support from builders and a condominium attorney who said current county practices create duplicative hurdles and higher costs; it too was left pending. Finally, House Bill 5148, which would allow certain single-stair apartment buildings up to six stories, generated the most detailed policy debate. Supporters, including housing advocates and architects, said the bill would lower costs, improve unit design, and expand affordable, family-friendly housing while maintaining safety through sprinklers and other safeguards. Fire officials from Corpus Christi opposed the bill, warning that a single stairwell could hinder firefighting and occupant evacuation, especially if sprinklers fail or smoke spreads. The author said the bill was aimed at new construction only and was part of a broader effort to reduce outdated housing regulations; the committee substitute was withdrawn and the bill was left pending at adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Today, we're now bringing the cemeteries inside the city limits for what purpose?
• Start within the city limits.
• City limits. The city grew to the... Fort Sam Houston did as well at the time.
• City limits, the city grew to the cemetery.
• For hundreds of years, it's been outside the city limits where cemeteries could start.

Bills: HB447, HB897, HB993, HB2673, HB3671, HB3680, HB3897, HB4506, HB4753, HB4812, HB4894, HB5148, HB5437, HB5650, HB5652, HB5654, HB5656, HB5661, HB5665

Keywords: traffic impact studies, municipal utility district, bonds, road projects, eminent domain, HB 897, Texas land sale, state property, Austin real estate, Travis County, General Land Office, Texas State Library and Archives Commission, HHSC, Health and Human Services Commission, state records facility, archives building, library funding, capital improvements, lease of state land, public land disposition

Transcript Highlights:

• Public testimony will be limited to two minutes. Yeah, 15, HB3897.
• I have limited benefits compared to municipality employees who do get benefits.
• District Utility District that is or will be within the corporate limits of both the city of Mustang
• The district is located in Austin County and is within the corporate limits of the city of Sealy.
• The committee substitute limits the scope to counties adjacent to high population areas and allows commissioners

Bills: HB447, HB897, HB993, HB2673, HB3671, HB3680, HB3897, HB4506, HB4753, HB4812, HB4894, HB5148, HB5437, HB5650, HB5652, HB5654, HB5656, HB5661, HB5665

Keywords: traffic impact studies, municipal utility district, bonds, road projects, eminent domain, HB 897, Texas land sale, state property, Austin real estate, Travis County, General Land Office, Texas State Library and Archives Commission, HHSC, Health and Human Services Commission, state records facility, archives building, library funding, capital improvements, lease of state land, public land disposition

Transcript Highlights:

• cross commercial traffic or you also regular traffic, we do cross regular traffic, but it's very limited
• Now with all these commercial trucks and the limited number of regular vehicles that also cross from
• private, so, the private bridges are allowed to bring a tandem, a tandem trailer over, and, and so the limit
• This bill addresses the maximum weight limits for vehicles traveling on public highways near the Farr
• Enforcing weight limits is crucial for preserving the integrity of the bridge and surrounding infrastructure

Bills: HB 767, HB 1242, HB 1373, HB 1404, HB 1708, HB 1936, HB 2041, HB 2198, HB 2270, HB 2315, HB 2415, HB 2427, HB 2455, HB 2457, HB 2522, HB 2523, HB 2686, HB 2763, HB 2775, HB 2944, HB 3034, HB 1683, HB 1695

Keywords: highway designation, memorial, Montgomery County, Paul P. Mendes, transportation, HB 1242, Texas Transportation Code, U.S. Highway 281, Brooks County, Ernesto Soliz Cantu, memorial highway, road naming, TxDOT, road signage, commemorative resolution, memorial markers, county road 304, Huppergate Road, Los Robles Trail, Farm-to-Market Road

Transcript Highlights:

• No, no, we do cross regular traffic, but it's very limited.
• Now, with all these commercial trucks and the limited number of regular vehicles that also cross, as
• So the private bridges are allowed to bring a tandem trailer over, and the limit on the weight is 120,000
• This bill addresses the maximum weight limits for vehicles traveling on public highways near the Pharr
• Enforcing weight limits is crucial for preserving the integrity of the bridge and ensuring safe travel

Bills: HB767, HB 1242, HB1373, HB1404, HB1708, HB1936, HB2041, HB2198, HB2270, HB2315, HB2415, HB2427, HB2455, HB2457, HB2522, HB2523, HB2686, HB2763, HB2775, HB2944, HB3034, HB1683, HB1695

Keywords: highway designation, memorial, Montgomery County, Paul P. Mendes, transportation, HB 1242, Texas Transportation Code, U.S. Highway 281, Brooks County, Ernesto Soliz Cantu, memorial highway, road naming, TxDOT, road signage, commemorative resolution, memorial markers, county road 304, Huppergate Road, Los Robles Trail, Farm-to-Market Road

Transcript Highlights:

• that decision: well, I'm going to go jam on my brakes to try and get 20 miles an hour under the speed limit

Bills: HB767, HB 1242, HB1373, HB1404, HB1708, HB1936, HB2041, HB2198, HB2270, HB2315, HB2415, HB2427, HB2455, HB2457, HB2522, HB2523, HB2686, HB2763, HB2775, HB2944, HB3034, HB1683, HB1695

Keywords: highway designation, memorial, Montgomery County, Paul P. Mendes, transportation, HB 1242, Texas Transportation Code, U.S. Highway 281, Brooks County, Ernesto Soliz Cantu, memorial highway, road naming, TxDOT, road signage, commemorative resolution, memorial markers, county road 304, Huppergate Road, Los Robles Trail, Farm-to-Market Road

Transcript Highlights:

• emissions intensity standards.
• First, the statewide greenhouse gas emission limits that are identified in this bill are consistent with
• Emissions.
• So by limiting these emissions, do we limit economic prosperity with that course of action?
• gas emissions.

Transcript Highlights:

• What strategies could projects implement to limit the co-pollutant emissions?
• One is just the emission reductions.
• One is just the emission reductions.
• One is just the emission reductions.
• Is 100% zero-emission sales by 2035.

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:

• This has been a challenge from a resource limitation standpoint.
• So, what strategies could projects implement to limit the co-pollutant emissions?
• On a two-year limited term basis rather than an ongoing basis.
• Often, there's pushback about, "Oh, limited term positions."
• Poet has long championed E15 for its ability to reduce emissions.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There is limited resources, limited expertise, but through managing resources, we’re going to…” “…and
• There is limited resources, limited expertise, but through managing resources, kind of surgically managing
• There is limited resources, limited expertise, but through managing resources, kind of surgically managing
• So there's definitely range limitations.
• Lime Scooter, who was our first zero-emission customer, came to us because we were zero emission, so

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. The chair opened by emphasizing California’s progress on EV adoption and charging reliability, but also noted ongoing challenges with affordability, access, interoperability, heavy-duty electrification, and federal headwinds. She highlighted interest in technologies such as inductive charging and thanked host organizations and staff before moving to the first panel. State agency witnesses from Go-Biz, CARB, and the California Energy Commission described current programs and priorities. Go-Biz outlined its role in coordinating agencies, supporting permitting, and advancing the state’s ZEV market development strategy and equity action plan. CARB discussed federal attacks on its clean vehicle regulations, litigation to defend waiver authority, and the importance of incentives and regulatory programs such as Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean Fleets, Clean Truck Check, HVIP, and Clean Cars for All. The CEC detailed its funding and regulatory work on charging and fueling infrastructure, charger reliability, payment methods, roaming, and statewide planning, while stressing the need for more charging in multifamily housing and more public DC fast charging. All three agencies said federal rollbacks and permitting delays are major obstacles, but that California remains committed to expanding ZEV adoption. The second panel featured advocates, local government, utility, and research perspectives. CalETC urged continuous state funding through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and emphasized the low-carbon fuel standard, multifamily charging, and managed charging. An EV advocacy group proposed a conquest-style state incentive for new and used EV buyers and argued that multifamily housing is a major untapped market, while also favoring Level 2 charging over Level 1 for most home and apartment settings. Los Angeles County and LADWP described large-scale local deployment of chargers, fleet electrification, workforce training, and the need for sustained funding, agency coordination, and streamlined permitting and grid interconnection. UCS recommended prioritizing replacement of older high-emitting vehicles, using fuel policy revenues to support cleaner cars, and expanding bidirectional charging. The chair closed by asking for more discussion on Level 1 versus Level 2 charging and noted the importance of education, affordability, and practical deployment strategies.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the Cap-and-Invest program sets a limit, or a cap, on emissions, which goes down over time.
• So the Cap-and-Invest program sets a limit, or a cap, on emissions, which goes down over time.
• This graph shows the reduction in the cap to align with Washington's emissions limits and net-zero emissions
• That would be emissions leakage because those emissions would still be happening.
• This means that they will be required to reduce emissions over time to help achieve our emission limits

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

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 3535, an act relative to the sale of zero-emission vehicles.
• It would require the state to incorporate those goals into emission limits and some limits and future
• limits and with the new... ...reasonable pathway to compliance with our emission limits and with the
• We're required by state law to reduce emissions 50 percent by 2030.
• And by 2040, all MBTA buses must be zero-emission vehicles.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy heard testimony on several transportation and clean-fuel bills. Supporters of H. 3535 argued for delaying or pausing enforcement of Massachusetts’ zero-emission vehicle sales mandate, saying the current ACC2 timeline is unrealistic given low ZEV sales, limited charging infrastructure, dealer inventory concerns, and potential economic impacts on dealerships, consumers, and tax revenue. Opponents of that approach, including automakers and clean transportation advocates, said the state should stay on course with electrification and that the mandate is necessary to meet climate goals. The committee also heard support for H. 3570/S. 2326 to update vehicle emission standards for municipal and utility fleets, with municipal utility representatives saying current electric truck technology, charging access, and costs make the rules impractical for critical public services. A major portion of the hearing focused on S. 2246, the Freedom to Move Act, which would require MassDOT and regional planning agencies to set vehicle miles traveled reduction goals and align transportation spending with climate targets. Supporters said the bill would better coordinate transportation planning, encourage transit, biking, and walking, and help Massachusetts meet emissions goals while saving money and improving public health. Some committee members raised concerns that the bill could duplicate existing transportation climate mandates and could disadvantage rural residents who must drive long distances; witnesses responded that the bill is meant to add coordination and flexibility, not impose a one-size-fits-all solution. The committee also heard testimony on H. 3448, which would set deadlines to electrify school buses and public fleets and create programs for private fleet electrification. Advocates said fleet electrification is a practical way to cut emissions, improve air quality, and save money over time, especially for schoolchildren exposed to diesel exhaust. Several witnesses also supported low-carbon fuel standard bills H. 3576 and S. 2251, arguing they would reduce fuel carbon intensity and generate revenue for charging and clean-fuel investments. Others, including a coalition opposed to private jet expansion, objected to the bills’ treatment of sustainable aviation fuel, saying it is not scalable, is expensive, and could create land-use and food-supply tradeoffs. No votes or formal committee actions were taken in the hearing excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• SAF is more expensive to produce, but has similar emissions.
• Choosing expensive policies to reduce emissions means that we are choosing to reduce emissions less than
• a 175-ton-per-day increase in NOx emissions by 2037.
• We need to continue investing in zero-emission transportation.
• Funds to support zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles.

Summary: The meeting began with a budget subcommittee hearing on a proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit trailer bill. Assembly Members Ávila Farías and another member spoke in support, emphasizing union jobs, refinery investments, and the need to decarbonize aviation. The Department of Finance said the Governor’s proposal would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold in California from 2026 to 2036. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the proposal, arguing it is a relatively expensive way to reduce emissions, has uncertain environmental benefits, could significantly reduce transportation revenues, and conflicts with the spirit of voter restrictions on transportation taxes. Committee members questioned whether the credit would mainly benefit out-of-state producers, whether firms would have diesel tax liability to use the credit, and whether the proposal would shift production away from renewable diesel and raise fuel prices. Administration and CARB staff said the credit is intended to support aviation decarbonization, preserve jobs, and help keep California on track toward its 2045 climate goals. LAO and UC Berkeley testimony countered that the policy could mostly subsidize existing technologies, that feedstock supply is limited, and that the net emissions benefit may be small relative to the cost. Members also asked about the effect on local streets and roads, SHOP, and trade corridor funding; Finance estimated a $165 million annual revenue impact would reduce those programs, while LAO said the reductions would mean fewer projects over time. No vote was taken, and the chair said the issue would remain open for further discussion. The committee then moved to a zero-emission vehicle incentive trailer bill proposing a one-time $200 million appropriation to CARB for a new point-of-sale incentive program focused on first-time buyers and leases of new and used light-duty ZEVs. Supporters said the program would help offset the loss of the federal EV tax credit, maintain momentum in California’s ZEV transition, and use a one-to-one match with participating automakers to double the state’s investment. LAO recommended rejection, saying the proposal does not meet the high budget bar this year, lacks enough program detail to evaluate, is unlikely to move sales significantly given the size of the appropriation, and could duplicate existing state and utility programs. Members asked about current incentives across light-, medium-, and heavy-duty sectors, the recent decline in ZEV sales, and whether the program would help lower-income buyers rather than subsidize purchases that would have happened anyway. CARB said the proposal is meant to fill a gap in the light-duty market, where sales fell sharply after the federal credit expired, and noted existing programs for other vehicle classes. The Department of Finance also addressed a separate question about the Motor Vehicle Account, saying a previously planned GGRF transfer was no longer needed because updated forecasts showed the fund had sufficient balances, though LAO said the account still has a structural long-term imbalance. The discussion ended before any vote or action on the ZEV proposal.

Transcript Highlights:

• Do you have a limit cap, limit cap, say it now. One minute or three?
• We're going to put a 30-second limit on. We're going to put a 30-second limit. I know.
• Using allowance value to reduce emissions from industry, Using allowance value to reduce emissions from
• It establishes a declining limit on roughly 80% of the sources of GHG emissions throughout California
• Number one, it establishes a declining limit on roughly 80% of the sources of GHG emissions throughout

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee and Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 held a joint hearing on CARB’s proposed amendments to the cap-and-invest regulations. Opening remarks from senators emphasized the 2025 reauthorization of the program through AB 1207 and SB 840, and focused on whether CARB’s April revisions faithfully implement legislative intent while balancing climate ambition, affordability, leakage prevention, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). Several senators raised concerns that the proposal could reduce GGRF revenues, weaken funding for transit, affordable housing, wildfire prevention, drinking water, and other community programs, and shift too much support toward industry. Others stressed the need to protect businesses and consumers from higher costs and to avoid leakage and refinery closures. Senator Cortese’s statement, read into the record, warned that the proposal could jeopardize transportation funding commitments. CARB Chair Lauren Sanchez said the amendments respond to legislative direction and public comment, and described four main changes: increased electric bill credits, a larger manufacturing decarbonization incentive (MDI), additional compliance support for industry, and removal of post-2030 allowance allocations from the current rulemaking. She said the proposal keeps the cap aligned with 2030 and 2045 targets, maintains affordability protections, and is intended to reduce emissions while minimizing leakage and supporting in-state jobs. CARB staff also said the MDI would have guardrails, require applications and reporting, and be tied to emissions-reducing facility upgrades. The Department of Finance explained that GGRF revenue estimates are highly uncertain and are updated periodically based on auction data. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the amendments are significant and could materially affect environmental ambition, industry support, utility credits, and GGRF revenues. LAO highlighted that the MDI could add allowances above the cap, potentially reducing certainty that 2030 targets will be met, and noted that the proposal appears to shift more allowances to industry and fewer to GGRF than current regulations. LAO also said the proposed GGRF estimate of about $8 billion through the decade could be insufficient to fully fund lower-priority tiers of programs. In questioning, senators pressed CARB on whether the proposal would raise consumer costs, whether free allowances or MDI funds would actually lower prices at the pump, how leakage is measured, and whether the Legislature’s budget assumptions would need to be revised before final action. No votes were taken during the hearing; the discussion was informational and focused on questioning CARB and fiscal staff ahead of the board’s planned May 28 consideration of the amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• emissions.
• emissions.
• your emissions, you don't pay as much.
• your emissions, you don't pay as much.
• your emissions, you don't pay as much.

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

• We are in a real era of limits in California.
• Now, our primary focus is trying to decrease emissions.
• Increase or decrease GHG emissions?
• And so in our last update to the scoping plan, we did include wildfire emissions and emissions from all
• Emission allowances are a valuable public asset.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee heard the Department of Finance’s May Revision overview and the LAO’s budget assessment, then questioned administration officials on several natural resources and transportation proposals. Finance described the state’s improved near-term fiscal picture, but also highlighted continued budget balancing measures, including use of the temporary surplus holding account, climate bond spending, transportation and DMV/CHP augmentations, and changes affecting CEQA filing systems, water programs, CalRecycle, and food and agriculture. The LAO argued the budget still relies heavily on reserves and borrowing, recommended rejecting or delaying many new discretionary proposals, and urged caution about ongoing costs and future-year impacts, especially for the General Fund, Motor Vehicle Account, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A major portion of the hearing focused on the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal for Bay-Delta water quality implementation. Secretary Wade Crowfoot and Finance officials said the $25 million request would support early implementation of an enforceable program combining environmental flows, habitat restoration, and scientific monitoring, with the State Water Board retaining regulatory authority. The LAO said the proposal was premature because the updated Bay-Delta plan had not yet been adopted and asked for more clarity on the state’s existing commitments and future funding expectations. Several members expressed support for the program as a way to reduce long-running conflict over water policy, while others echoed concerns about timing and fiscal exposure. The committee also examined the proposed $125 million Proposition 4 contribution toward acquisition of the Golden Gate Fields property for a shoreline park and habitat restoration. State agencies said the project had a completed appraisal, was moving through a rolling grant process, and would leverage philanthropic and local funding, while members questioned why it was being elevated ahead of other park and conservation requests and whether it was the best use of limited bond dollars. The hearing then turned to transportation items, including $40 million for Clean California litter abatement, $6.2 million for Caltrans homeless coordinators, $73.4 million in DMV/Motor Vehicle Account requests, and funding for the 2028 Games route network. The LAO generally recommended rejecting or delaying the Clean California and homeless coordinator proposals pending more information, while members debated the need to preserve essential CHP and DMV operations despite the Motor Vehicle Account’s structural imbalance.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, our primary focus is trying to decrease emissions.
• Increase or decrease GHG emissions?
• And so in our last update to the scoping plan, we did include wildfire emissions and emissions from all
• And so in our last update to the scoping plan, we did include wildfire emissions and emissions from all
• Emission allowances are a valuable public asset.

Summary: The hearing focused on the governor’s May Revision proposals for transportation, natural resources, climate, and related programs, with the Department of Finance and the LAO presenting competing views on the state’s fiscal condition. Finance said the budget remains balanced over two years, with major climate-bond, water, parks, transportation, DMV, and agriculture proposals, while the LAO argued the state still has a structural deficit and should reject or defer many new discretionary spending items, preserve reserves, and be cautious about ongoing commitments. The LAO specifically questioned the timing and scale of new spending for programs such as Clean California, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, and the Golden Gate Fields acquisition, and urged more clarity on future obligations and revenue scenarios, including for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal for Bay-Delta water quality implementation. Secretary Wade Crowfoot and Finance described it as an enforceable, science-based alternative to a more traditional regulatory approach, with the state’s $25 million request intended to support early implementation, monitoring, habitat restoration, and environmental flows. The LAO countered that the Water Board has not yet adopted the updated Bay-Delta plan, that the proposal may be premature, and that the Legislature should wait for more information on the state’s total funding commitment and the program’s long-term costs. Several members expressed support for the program as a way to reduce conflict and protect water reliability, while others echoed concerns about timing and fiscal exposure. The committee also examined the proposed $125 million Proposition 4 contribution toward acquiring the Golden Gate Fields property for a shoreline park and habitat project. State officials said the acquisition is a time-sensitive, once-in-a-generation opportunity, with an appraised value of $175 million and additional philanthropic and local funding expected to close the gap. Members questioned whether the project had gone through the usual competitive process, whether the site is the best use of scarce park bond dollars, and how public access, habitat, and disadvantaged-community priorities would be protected. The discussion ended without a vote, and the committee moved on to transportation items including Clean California litter abatement, the Games Route Network, homeless encampment coordinators, and DMV modernization and field office proposals, with LAO recommending rejection or delay on several of those requests as well.