Bills: HJR88 , HJR78

Keywords: HJR88, H.J.Res. 88, Congressional Review Act, CRA, EPA waiver, California waiver, Advanced Clean Cars II, clean cars, vehicle emissions, auto emissions, motor vehicle pollution, engine pollution, California Air Resources Board, CARB, zero-emission vehicles, ZEV, electric vehicles, EV mandate, preemption, federal disapproval

Transcript Highlights:

• Carb sits down there in mandates.
• </c><05:05:33.520><c> in</c> are never satisfied at carb in are never satisfied at carb in Sacramento
• So, CARB had to relent on that 2000 goal.
• So, CARB had to relent on that 2000 goal.
• ,</c> back to 1990 in California when CARB, back to 1990 in California when CARB, California<06:10:14.878

Bills: HJR89 , HJR87 , HJR88

Keywords: EPA, pollution control, California emissions standards, NOX regulation, congressional disapproval, HJR87, H.J.Res. 87, Congressional Review Act, CRA, EPA waiver, California waiver, preemption, vehicle emissions, heavy-duty trucks, engine emissions, Advanced Clean Trucks, zero-emission vehicles, ZEV, zero-emission airport shuttle, powertrain certification

Transcript Highlights:

• We think that there could be need for additional resources for CARB, but in that case, CARB should come
• Oh, CARB would never do that until the BCP gets approved. but that's different than saying CARB would
• What does CARB believe?
• CARB. Thank you." "We'll kick it over to... Good. CARB. Thanks, Chair Bennett.
• Carb. Thanks, Chair Bennett.

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:

• We think that there could be a need for additional resources for CARB, but in that case, CARB should
• CARB just...
• What's **CARB**'s timeline?
• What does **CARB** believe?
• How much does CARB still have as?

Transcript Highlights:

• As was mentioned, last month, CARB staff released As was mentioned, last month, CARB staff released proposed
• Yes, I think it's easier to do when CARB is here to ask the questions of CARB now, so why don't we start
• So what CARB is required to design these regulations to train So what CARB is required to design these
• But AB 1207 rightly directed CARB to go back and set those based on, you know, rightly directed CARB
• In the last update that CARB did to the then cap-and-trade program, CARB gave utilities a 10-year projection

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Summary: The committee heard an overview and discussion of CARB’s proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, implemented under AB 1207 and SB 840. Chairs and members emphasized the program’s role in meeting climate targets while balancing affordability, and CARB described the proposal as intended to preserve market certainty, strengthen cost containment, address utility affordability, and support the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goal. CARB also noted the public comment period, the planned board hearing, and the goal of an effective date of September 1, 2026. Members questioned CARB on several implementation issues, including whether the rulemaking would be completed on time, the treatment of carbon capture and sequestration, the timing of the transfer of allowances from natural gas utilities to electric utilities, and the impact on ratepayers. CARB said it was on track to meet the May deadline, that CCUS/CDR could be further refined in the proposal and would also be addressed in a separate SB 905 rulemaking later in the year, and that it was seeking to protect ratepayers while inviting more utility data during the comment period. The committee also discussed refining-sector leakage risk, gasoline imports, and how imported fuel is accounted for under cap-and-invest versus the low-carbon fuel standard. A second panel of outside experts and stakeholders then testified. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and IEMAC representatives explained the major statutory changes, including putting offsets under the cap, shifting allowances from natural gas to electric utilities over time, and changing how allowance value is divided among utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. They stressed that CARB has significant discretion in setting the allowance “pie,” and that more free allocations to utilities or industry reduce GGRF revenues. EDF’s representative argued the proposal should be adopted this spring, said the utility transition should happen faster, and urged a tighter near-term emissions cap. SCAPA, representing publicly owned utilities, opposed the proposed utility allocation changes, saying they would reduce expected allowances, undermine long-term planning, and could force higher rates or reduced decarbonization investments.

Transcript Highlights:

• As was mentioned, last month, CARB staff released As was mentioned, last month, CARB staff released proposed
• I think it's easier to do when CARB is here to ask the questions of CARB now, so why don't we start with
• So what CARB is required to design these regulations to train So what CARB is required to design these
• In the last update that CARB did to the then cap-and-trade program, CARB gave utilities a 10-year projection
• In the last update that CARB did to the then cap and trade program, CARB gave utilities a 10-year projection

Committee: Senate Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Transcript Highlights:

• CARB released their initial proposal in January to mixed reviews.
• In January, did it include the proposal from CARB?
• I'll start with CARB. So CARB is removing 118 million allowances from the market through 2030.
• So my first question is, how can CARB ensure— So my first question is, how can CARB ensure that investments
• We appreciate the work that CARB has done.

Transcript Highlights:

• CARB released their initial proposal in January to mixed reviews.
• In January, did it include the proposal from CARB?
• And I'll start with CARB. So CARB is removing 118 million allowances from the market through 2030.
• So my first question is, how can CARB ensure...
• We appreciate the work that CARB has done.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on CARB’s proposed April amendments to California’s cap-and-invest regulations, adopted under AB 1207 and SB 840. Committee members repeatedly framed the issue as a balance between climate ambition, affordability, leakage prevention, and the Legislature’s budget priorities. Several senators argued the proposal would weaken the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), reduce funding for transit, affordable housing, drinking water, wildfire prevention, and other programs, and potentially undermine the Legislature’s intent in last year’s reauthorization. Others emphasized that the program’s core purpose is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that any changes should preserve the cap’s integrity and the state’s climate targets. CARB Chair Lauren Sanchez said the amendments were designed to implement legislative direction while responding to public comment and economic uncertainty. She described four main changes: increasing electric bill credits, expanding the manufacturing decarbonization incentive (MDI) to $4 billion, adding about $800 million in additional compliance support for industry, and removing post-2030 allowance allocations from the current rulemaking. CARB said the proposal would still maintain declining caps aligned with 2030 and 2045 targets, provide near-term affordability relief, and support businesses and jobs while reducing emissions. In response to questions, CARB said the MDI has guardrails, is limited to emissions-reducing projects, and would require reporting and repayment if projects do not materialize. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the amendments are significant and could affect several legislative priorities. LAO highlighted that the MDI would add allowances above the cap, creating uncertainty about environmental ambition and 2030 compliance, while also shifting more allowances to industry and fewer to the GGRF. LAO said the proposal could significantly reduce GGRF revenues and noted that, if revenues fall to CARB’s estimated level, some tiered programs could go unfunded. The Department of Finance explained that GGRF revenue estimates are updated three times a year and are difficult to predict because they depend on auction outcomes and market conditions. Senators pressed both agencies on whether the proposal would raise consumer costs, whether industry savings would be passed through, and whether the Legislature should receive updated revenue estimates before voting on the budget.

Transcript Highlights:

• As was mentioned, last month, CARB staff released As was mentioned, last month, CARB staff released proposed
• I think it's easier to do when CARB is here to ask the questions of CARB now, so why don't we start with
• So what CARB is required to design these regulations to train So what CARB is required to design these
• But AB 1207 rightly directed CARB to go back and set those based on, you know, rightly directed CARB
• In the last update that CARB did to the then cap-and-trade program, CARB gave utilities a 10-year projection

Committee: House Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Summary: The Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policy heard an overview from CARB on proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, which was reauthorized through 2045 by AB 1207 and SB 840. CARB said the draft rules are intended to preserve affordability, market certainty, and progress toward the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets. The agency described the program’s main features, including the declining emissions cap, utility and industrial allowance allocations, offset changes, the allowance price containment reserve, and new reporting and oversight requirements. CARB also said the rulemaking is on a public comment timeline, with board consideration planned for late May and an effective date targeted for September 1, 2026. Committee members focused heavily on electricity affordability, the planned shift of free allowances from natural gas utilities to electric utilities, and whether the proposal would raise rates for investor-owned and publicly owned utilities. CARB said the proposal is meant to protect ratepayers from compliance costs and that the utility allocation is based on updated data showing utilities are greener than before, but members and utility representatives argued the transition should happen faster and that the current draft could reduce expected revenues and disrupt long-term planning. Members also pressed CARB on carbon capture and sequestration, asking that the regulations clearly recognize it as a compliance pathway, and on whether the SB 905 rulemaking for carbon capture should move forward on schedule. A second major topic was industrial allocations, especially for refiners and other sectors at risk of leakage. CARB said it is keeping all industries at high leakage risk through 2030, maintaining the current cap-adjustment approach, and leaving room for additional comments and data on whether refiners need more allowances to avoid economic leakage and preserve in-state refining. Members also questioned how imported gasoline is treated, and CARB explained that transportation fuel is regulated at the rack and through the low-carbon fuel standard, while cap-and-invest covers in-state tailpipe and smokestack emissions rather than full life-cycle emissions. CARB said it is open to using additional data, including SB 253 reporting, to improve fuel carbon-intensity estimates. The panel of outside experts largely agreed that the program must balance affordability, ambition, and leakage concerns, but they differed on how much allowance value should go to utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The Legislative Analyst’s Office emphasized that the Legislature should scrutinize CARB’s allocation choices now because they will be hard to change later. An IEMAC representative said the proposal appears to shift more allowance value to industry and utilities, which could reduce GGRF revenues, while EDF argued the cap could be tightened further in the near term without triggering price containment. SCAPA, representing publicly owned utilities, warned that the proposal would reduce utility allowances and could raise costs for ratepayers and undermine early decarbonization investments. No votes were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• As was mentioned, last month, CARB staff released As was mentioned, last month, CARB staff released proposed
• Yes, I think it's easier to do when CARB is here to ask the questions of CARB now, so why don't we start
• And so that is work that continues at CARB.
• But AB 1207 rightly directed CARB to go back and set those based on, you know, rightly directed CARB
• In the last update that CARB did to the then cap-and-trade program, CARB gave utilities a 10-year projection

Committee: Senate Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

Summary: The committee heard an overview of CARB’s proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, implemented under AB 1207 and SB 840 after last year’s reauthorization through 2045. CARB said the draft rule changes are intended to support affordability, market certainty, and the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets, while also addressing offsets, utility allowance transfers, leakage protections for industry, and post-2030 allowance budgets. Members emphasized the importance of completing the rulemaking on schedule this spring so the changes can take effect by September 1, 2026. A major focus was how allowances are allocated among electric utilities, natural gas utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. CARB explained that the proposal transfers natural gas utility allowances to electric utilities over time to support electrification and ratepayer protection, while maintaining free allowances for industry to reduce leakage risk and preserve in-state manufacturing and refining. Several members and panelists questioned whether the proposed utility changes could raise rates, whether the transition from gas to electric credits should happen faster, and whether the industrial allocation changes reduce climate credit and GGRF revenues more than necessary. CARB and panelists said they were open to additional data and comments, and noted that the proposal is still in public comment. The committee also discussed carbon capture, carbon removal, and refining. Members asked CARB to ensure that CCUS and CDR are clearly recognized as viable compliance pathways and to keep SB 905 rulemaking on track. On refining, members raised concerns about imported gasoline, leakage, and the need for better data on the carbon intensity of imported fuels; CARB said cap-and-invest applies to fuel suppliers at the rack, while life-cycle accounting issues are handled more through the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and related modeling. CARB said it is continuing technical work on those data tools. In the second panel, the LAO, IEMAC, EDF, and SCAPA representatives generally agreed that the program faces real tradeoffs between affordability, ambition, and leakage protection. The LAO and IEMAC stressed that the Legislature should scrutinize how CARB divides the allowance “pie,” since more free allocations to utilities or industry mean less revenue for GGRF. EDF argued the program could be somewhat more ambitious in the near term without harming affordability, while SCAPA said the proposal would reduce allowances for publicly owned utilities and could undermine early decarbonization investments and ratepayer benefits. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I know CARB has a wide range of purview on this.
• And so that's in the CARB realm.
• But I think it's coming to CARB later this year.
• should be, what CARB is doing.
• “Be what CARB is doing.

Summary: The committee first established quorum and then approved several governor’s appointments and procedural items, including appointments to the Civil Rights Council, Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, UC College of the Law, San Francisco Board of Directors, bill referrals, and floor acknowledgments. Most of these items passed unanimously, while the Civil Rights Council appointment of Indira Cameron Banks passed 3-2. The bulk of the meeting focused on confirmations to the California Air Resources Board. Supervisor Linda Hopkins and Mayor Patricia Locke Dawson, both nominated to CARB, described their backgrounds and emphasized balancing climate and air-quality goals with economic impacts, community engagement, and practical implementation. Senators raised concerns about cap-and-trade costs, leakage, warehouse and truck traffic impacts, agricultural burdens, emergency vehicle and fleet electrification challenges, natural gas appliance rules, hydrogen, nuclear energy, and the need for socioeconomic analysis. Both nominees said they favored open-door engagement, listening to affected communities, and using data and technology-neutral approaches. Public commenters largely supported both nominees, and the committee voted to advance Hopkins 4-0 and Locke Dawson 5-0 to the full Senate. The committee also heard the appointment of Andrew Rakestraw as chair of the Board of Environmental Safety. Rakestraw, who previously worked in U.S. climate and legal roles, said he would focus on transparency, accountability, fiscal stability, and community responsiveness at DTSC. Senators questioned him about DTSC reform, community engagement in places like the Hinkley/Herupah Valley and Exide cleanup areas, fee-setting and fiscal stability, the hazardous waste management plan, and coordination with the Environmental Justice Advisory Council. He said the board should go beyond brief public comment periods, engage communities directly, and ensure community concerns are reflected in outcomes. Supporters from environmental justice and waste-management groups testified in favor, no opposition was offered, and the committee moved his nomination forward to the Senate floor, with one member abstaining.

Transcript Highlights:

• I know CARB has a wide range of purview on this.
• And so that's in the CARB realm.
• timing on that, but only two CARB members Only two CARB members raised concerns about the low-carbon
• But I think it's coming to CARB later this year.
• should be, what CARB is doing.

Committee: Senate Rules

Transcript Highlights:

• I know CARB has a wide range of purview on this.
• And so that's in the CARB realm.
• I don't remember exact timing on that, but only two CARB members... ...CARB members raised concerns about
• But I think it's coming to CARB later this year.
• should be, what CARB is doing.

Committee: Senate Rules

Summary: The committee first established quorum and then approved several governor’s appointments not required to appear, including Indira Cameron Banks to the Civil Rights Council, Sonar Loma Lee to the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, and two University of California College of the Law, San Francisco Board of Directors appointees, along with reference of bills to two committees and floor acknowledgments. All of those items passed by voice or roll-call votes, mostly unanimously, with the Civil Rights Council appointment approved 3-2. The main portion of the meeting focused on the Air Resources Board appointments of Linda Hopkins and Patricia Lock Dawson. Both nominees emphasized climate action, public engagement, and balancing environmental protection with economic realities. Members questioned them extensively about cap-and-trade/cap-and-invest, leakage and job losses, agricultural impacts, warehouse and truck traffic burdens, emergency vehicle and wildfire evacuation needs, low-carbon fuel standards, gas appliance rules, hydrogen, nuclear energy, and the need for socioeconomic analysis and better communication with affected communities. Public commenters from labor, environmental, local government, and industry groups spoke in support of both nominees. The committee approved Hopkins 4-0 with one member not voting, and Lock Dawson 5-0, sending both nominations to the full Senate. The committee then heard Andrew Rakestraw’s appointment as chair of the Board of Environmental Safety/DTSC oversight board. He described his background in climate and regulatory negotiations and said he would focus on transparency, accountability, fiscal stability, and listening to both regulated entities and disproportionately burdened communities. Senators asked about DTSC reform, the Moss Landing battery fire, community engagement in places like Hinkley/Herupah Valley, fee-setting and the generation-and-handling fee, the Environmental Justice Advisory Council, the Exide cleanup, and the hazardous waste management plan. After supportive public testimony, the committee approved his appointment 3-0, with one member not voting, and sent it to the full Senate for confirmation before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• I know CARB has a wide range of purview on this.
• And so that's in the CARB realm.
• But I think it’s coming to CARB later this year.”
• should be, what CARB is doing.
• This is a general frustration with CARB overall.

Committee: Senate Rules

Summary: The committee first established quorum and then approved several Governor’s appointments not required to appear, including Indira Cameron Banks to the Civil Rights Council, Sonar Loma Lee to the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, and C. Don Clay and Joshua Pertula to the UC College of the Law, San Francisco Board of Directors. It also approved references to bills in two committees and floor acknowledgments, all by unanimous or near-unanimous votes. The main substantive hearing was on the appointments of Linda Hopkins and Patricia Locke Dawson to the Air Resources Board. Both nominees emphasized climate action, public engagement, and balancing environmental protection with economic impacts. Senators pressed them on cap-and-trade, leakage and job loss, agricultural costs, warehouse and truck traffic impacts, emergency vehicle and school bus electrification, hydrogen, nuclear energy, and the need for socioeconomic analysis and better communication with affected communities. Public commenters largely supported both nominees. The committee advanced Hopkins 4-0 and Lock Dawson 5-0 to the full Senate. The committee then heard Andrew Rakestra’s appointment as chair of the Board of Environmental Safety. He described his background in climate diplomacy and regulatory work and said he would focus on transparency, accountability, fiscal stability, and responsiveness to both regulated entities and disproportionately burdened communities. Senators questioned him about DTSC reform, community engagement in places like Moss Landing and the Exide cleanup, the hazardous waste management plan, fee-setting, and the Environmental Justice Advisory Council. After supportive public testimony, the committee approved his nomination to the Senate floor on a 3-0 vote, with two members not voting or abstaining. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• CARB to take action when needed to slash this dangerous pollution.
• That this is giving CARB broad new authority.
• So is the goal to have CARB do a broad statewide...
• And the current law, it implies that CARB has that authority.
• CARB also has that authority.

Summary: The committee heard several bills, beginning with AB 1938, which would create a voluntary process for local governments to designate California surf reserves through the Ocean Protection Council. The author and supporters, including Save the Waves Coalition, the League of California Cities, and the California State Association of Counties, argued the bill would recognize surf breaks as important natural and economic assets. The bill received a due pass recommendation to Appropriations and passed on a roll call vote, with the measure left on call. The committee also approved the consent calendar, which included AB 1699, AB 1780, AB 1891, AB 1893, and AB 2566. The committee then took up AB 2051, which would convene a coastal resilience permitting working group to develop a roadmap for streamlining permits for coastal resilience projects. The author and supporters from the Bay Area Council, Port of San Francisco, and others said the bill would reduce duplicative permitting delays while preserving environmental protections. One member raised concerns about giving too much authority to the Coastal Commission, but the bill still received a due pass recommendation to Water, Parks and Wildlife and passed on a roll call vote. AB 2494, dealing with the management of demonstration state forests, drew substantial debate. The author said the bill would update outdated 1947-era management goals to emphasize biodiversity, carbon sequestration, wildfire resilience, recreation, research, and tribal co-governance, with strong support from Mendocino County, tribal representatives, and environmental groups. Opponents from the Farm Bureau, California Forestry Association, and others argued it would shift the forests away from sustainable timber production, create funding instability, and invite litigation. After extensive questioning about forest science, old growth, funding, and tribal co-management, the bill received a due pass recommendation to Appropriations and passed on a roll call vote. The committee also approved AB 2483, which would create a permanent certification pathway for formerly incarcerated firefighters who served on Cal Fire hand crews. Supporters said the bill would recognize their training and improve job prospects after release, and it passed unanimously to Public Safety. Finally, AB 1777, the California Clean Skies Act, was heard; it would affirm CARB’s authority to adopt indirect source rules to address pollution from vehicle-heavy facilities such as warehouses and ports. Environmental, health, and labor supporters backed the bill as a tool to protect public health, while trucking, business, port, and industry groups opposed it as costly and overly broad. The bill remained under discussion at the end of the transcript, with members debating whether it clarified existing authority or created new regulatory power.

Transcript Highlights:

• And affirming this authority would allow CARB to take action, ...communities.
• That this is giving CARB broad new authority.
• So is the goal to have CARB do a broad statewide...
• And the current law, it implies that CARB has that authority.
• CARB also has that authority.

Committee: House Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• Earlier this year, CARB announced that HVIP had...
• So we look forward to working with CARB and sponsors as we move forward.
• Or does CARB have to require us to do that?
• Or CARB. So it's only adopted. They have to be adopted by the Air Resources Board or by CARB.
• What specifically does this bill do that CARB doesn't already do?

Summary: The committee heard a series of Senate bills on environmental, climate, recycling, wildfire, outdoor access, and clean transportation policy. SB 958 would clarify CEQA treatment of impacts tied solely to increased building height, and SB 1230 would increase penalties and create CalRecycle support tools for repeat commercial illegal dumping. SB 1341 would revise how processing fees are calculated for bag-in-a-box wine under California’s recycling program. All three measures received due-pass recommendations to Appropriations, with roll calls showing majority support and the bills left open for absent members. Members then took up SB 1300, which would create a more permanent legislative role in California’s international climate cooperation and establish a climate secretariat at UC; SB 1370, which would codify and streamline wildfire fuel-reduction permitting with added safeguards, geographic and size limits, and pesticide-related amendments; and SB 1260/1268, which would codify the Outdoors for All initiative and the Deputy Secretary for Access position at the Natural Resources Agency. Each drew support from environmental, utility, business, and local-government witnesses, while SB 1370 also drew opposition from environmental and advocacy groups concerned about reduced CEQA review and herbicide use. The committee discussed amendments at length, especially on SB 1370, and all three measures advanced with due-pass recommendations. The committee also heard SB 1213, the Clean Truck Transparency Act, requiring baseline pricing disclosure for medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission trucks tied to state incentives and directing agencies to explore alternative financing. Support came from clean-air, business, and environmental groups, and the trucking/manufacturing opposition moved to neutral after amendments; the bill advanced on a due-pass vote. Finally, SB 1075, the Clean Air Promise, sought to strengthen AB 617 implementation and clarify community emission reduction planning, but it generated substantial opposition from air districts, business groups, and others over enforceability, funding, and the distinction between formal SERPs and community L-SERPs. The author described additional pending amendments to narrow L-SERP provisions, and the bill also received a due-pass recommendation to Appropriations.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I am objecting to that and think CARB should think twice about that before the CARB board actually
• But with CARB's, the way CARB allocated resources, CARB actually took that away from the legislature.
• CARB answers to us. I'm not going to ask you kindly, CARB, what to do.
• Anybody here from CARB that can answer those questions? I'm Courtney Smith. I'm from CARB.
• I'm going to give CARB.

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• But with CARB's, the way CARB allocated resources, CARB actually took that away from the Legislature.
• And I am objecting to that and think CARB should think twice about that before the CARB board actually
• CARB answers to us. I'm not going to ask you kindly, CARB, what to do.
• I'm from CARB.
• I'm going to give CARB...

Transcript Highlights:

• in past years, but particularly more bills this year about CARB.
• in past years, but particularly more bills this year about CARB.
• CARB has the purview of so many other different things.
• CARB has the purview of so many other different things.
• So is it a burden on CARB to do this analysis? Yes, it is.

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Summary: The committee first heard SB 872 by Senator McNerney, which would dedicate $150 million annually each for Central Valley subsidence repairs and Delta levee improvements. The author and supporters, including Restore the Delta and State Water Contractors, described the bill as an urgent, bipartisan effort to protect State Water Project conveyance serving 27 million people, prevent levee failure, and safeguard billions in state assets. Support came from a broad coalition of water agencies, labor, environmental groups, and local governments; there was no opposition testimony. Because the committee was operating without a quorum at the time, the bill was heard as a subcommittee item and no final vote was taken then. The committee then took up SB 981 by Senator Niello, which would require CARB to include cost-of-living impacts in its existing economic analysis for major regulations. The author argued the bill would improve transparency by showing effects on gasoline, electricity, food, housing, and business costs, while supporters from agriculture, manufacturing, business, propane, and restaurant interests said it would help lawmakers understand affordability impacts. Opponents, including the Coalition for Clean Air and the Union of Concerned Scientists, argued it would add red tape, delay rulemaking, and require CARB to make speculative predictions. The chair and other members expressed concern that the bill was redundant, burdensome, and too narrow because it singled out CARB rather than addressing affordability across state government; no vote was taken in the excerpt. SB 887 by Senator Padilla would require large data center projects to undergo CEQA review, but offer streamlined treatment for projects meeting strong environmental, labor, and community-benefit standards. Supporters, including TURN, IBEW Local 569, and several environmental and local-government groups, said the bill would protect communities from high energy and water use, cost shifting, and pollution while still allowing responsible development. Opponents from the Data Center Coalition, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Bay Area Council, and others argued the standards were overly prescriptive, potentially unattainable, and would drive investment out of California. After a quorum was established, the committee voted 3-1 to pass SB 887 as amended to the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, with the bill kept on call. Finally, SB 1008 by Senator Ochoa Bog would renew the CEQA exemption for California Public Utilities Commission-ordered closure of at-grade rail crossings, which had expired at the start of 2025. Union Pacific and other supporters said the measure would restore a long-standing safety tool and help eliminate redundant crossings more quickly. With no opposition testimony, the committee approved the bill unanimously, 4-0, and kept it on call.