Bills: HF9

Keywords: energy policy, renewable energy standard, carbon-free standard, solar standard, hydroelectric, hydropower, electric utility, Public Utilities Commission, PUC, renewable portfolio standard, carbon capture and sequestration, CCS, greenhouse gas emissions, climate policy, nuclear power plant, certificate of need, fossil fuel plant demolition, utility compliance delay, beneficial electrification, sales tax exemption

Bills: SB266, SB287, SB266, SB287

Keywords: contract review, legislative oversight, state agencies, funding transparency, professional services, Sheriff, Barbour County, law enforcement, qualifications, training, executive education, Covington County, Alabama constitutional amendment, local amendment, carbon dioxide sequestration, carbon capture and storage, CCS, Class VI well, underground injection well, Underground Injection Control Program

Bills: HB179, HB354, SB57, SB137, HB431, HB179, HB354, SB57, SB137, HB431

Keywords: campus chaplain, chaplain, school chaplain, volunteer chaplain, public schools, public K-12 education, public charter schools, local control, teacher support, student support services, religious volunteer, faith-based support, church-state separation, background check, sex offender registry, school volunteer, education policy, district attorney, compensation, constitutional amendment

Bills: HB37, HB51, HB173, HB180, HB192, HB306, HB366, HB393, HB485, HB516, HB521, HB526, HB638, HB752, HB817, HB976, HB1006, HB1044

Keywords: HB37, expropriation, eminent domain, property rights, foreign entity, foreign corporation, limited liability company, LLC, reciprocal expropriation agreement, Louisiana property law, land acquisition, utility infrastructure, public utilities, railroad, waterworks, sewerage, natural gas pipeline, electric utility, telecommunications, carbon dioxide pipeline

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, I went back last night and... ...on all things CCS.
• A lot of the CCS is going to... ...situation in Allen Parish. A lot of the CCS is going to our WMA.
• So quality-of-life benefit for our residents is an important component to sell CCS.
• And trust me, I just had to fight a campaign where I had to face the music on CCS.
• First, I want to say I am a supporter of CCS, so I don't want...

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 480, which would allow anchoring in certain waterways, specifically Oyster Bayou, with restrictions to protect oyster leases and require a person to remain on board. After brief explanation from the sponsor, Representative DeWitt moved favorable and the bill was reported favorable without objection. House Bill 510, which would have prohibited importation of captured carbon dioxide into Louisiana for sequestration, was discussed briefly. The sponsor said the proposal appeared to conflict with federal law and interstate commerce concerns, and he asked to voluntarily defer the bill. The committee agreed, and HB 510 was deferred. The committee also heard House Resolution 279, urging the state to study geothermal energy policy; after questions about geothermal technology and possible overlap with CCS infrastructure, the resolution was adopted on a 10-3 roll call vote and reported favorable. The bulk of the meeting focused on House Bill 1152, as amended, dealing with the Carbon Dioxide Geologic Storage Trust Fund and a proposed injection fee for carbon sequestration projects. The amendment would set the fee at 19 cents per ton, with 12 cents going to the state trust fund and 7 cents going directly to affected parishes, while retaining existing fund caps and adding evacuation routes as an eligible local expenditure. Industry groups and local government representatives both testified: industry warned the proposal was rushed, could create uncertainty, and might hurt Louisiana’s competitiveness; parish officials argued locals need a meaningful revenue share, transparency, and bargaining power because they will bear emergency-response burdens. Members raised questions about the fee structure, exemptions for state lands and parish agreements, and whether the local share would continue for the life of a project. The bill remained under discussion at the end of the transcript, with talk of creating an off-session task force or working group to continue negotiations for next year.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that going to change any pressures for oil enhanced recovery or the CCS?
• You know, I went back last night and... ...on all things CCS.
• A lot of the CCS is going to our WMA.
• And I continue to work with them, CCS. They honestly couldn't answer that question.
• And trust me, I just had to fight a campaign where I had to face the music on CCS.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any CCS-related projects, or revenue that comes from CCS-related projects, there are a lot of CCS-related
• And, yeah, if there's no CCS, if there's no CCS in the parish, then the parish made that determination
• Again, only CCS related, but then how many operations are going to call themselves CCS related becomes
• Any CCS-related projects, or revenue that comes from CCS-related projects, there are a lot of CCS-related
• And, yeah, if there's no CCS, if there's no CCS in the parish, then the parish made that determination

Keywords: 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So CCS is playing a very, very big role today.
• And if CCS is such a governments demand this CCS operation.
• Any CCS-related projects, or revenue that comes from CCS-related projects, there are a lot of CCS-related
• And, yeah, if there's no CCS, if there's no CCS in the parish, then the parish made that determination
• Again, only CCS-related, but then how many operations are going to call themselves CCS-related becomes

Summary: The committee took up public comment on a package of similar local-option bills related to carbon capture and sequestration, including House Bills 5, 6, 497, 498, 501, and 504. The bills would let parishes, or in some cases specific parishes such as Rapides and Livingston, decide by local vote whether Class VI wells, CO2 sequestration, and related pipeline infrastructure could be permitted. The chair grouped the bills together for testimony, adopted a three-minute public comment rule, and noted that the bills were not yet under consideration for a vote during the public-comment portion. Supporters, including Speaker Pro Tem Mike Johnson, parish officials, local activists, and residents, argued that communities affected by carbon capture projects should have a direct voice through local option elections. They said the bills were about self-determination, local control, and allowing residents to decide whether the risks are worth the benefits. Several speakers said their parishes had passed resolutions opposing carbon capture or asking for local choice, while others emphasized concerns about eminent domain, aquifer protection, lack of public understanding, and the need for more information about project impacts and financial benefits. Some supporters also said a local vote would force industry to engage more directly with communities and could improve transparency. Opponents, including representatives of the Department of Conservation and Energy, the Louisiana Chemistry Association, the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, and the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, warned that the bills would create uncertainty, undermine Louisiana’s primacy over Class VI permitting, and invite litigation under federal preemption and the Supremacy Clause. They said the state already has a strict permitting process with public input and technical review, and that allowing parish-by-parish approval could delay or block billions of dollars in investment, jobs, and export-related projects. The department testified that if the state adopted a local-option referendum system, EPA could determine Louisiana was not implementing the program consistently and could move to remove primacy. No committee vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Today, there are over 270 CCS projects in the United States.
• It's important to note that there is no single cost for CCS. CCS costs vary dramatically by source.
• Total CCS cost, though, is not just about capture.
• And CCS is an essential toolkit to cut industrial emissions from steel, pulp and paper...
• emissions are only possible to cut through CCS.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The committee’s interim work session focused first on carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS), with presenters from industry, nonprofits, and state agencies describing Washington’s geologic potential, the role of basalt formations, and the difference between point-source capture, direct air capture, utilization, and permanent storage. Industry and project developers emphasized that Washington has major opportunities to reduce industrial emissions, create jobs, and support hard-to-electrify sectors, while state agencies explained current policy touchpoints in the Cap and Invest Program, emissions exemptions for permanently stored CO2, and the Clean Energy Transformation Act. Several presenters urged clearer statutory and regulatory pathways, including rules for pore space, subsurface rights, pipeline siting, and long-term liability; others cautioned that CCUS should be limited to real emissions reductions and not treated as a substitute for broader clean energy measures. Committee members asked about public comment opportunities, whether mineralized carbon would qualify for exemption under the Climate Commitment Act, the energy intensity of capture systems, aquifer protection, and liability if storage later proves problematic. Ecology said it is developing guidance through a public engagement process running through late June and that mineralized or otherwise permanently stored CO2 would likely qualify if it meets the 1,000-year permanence standard. DNR and outside experts also discussed trust lands, water rights, and the need for additional geophysical surveys and test wells. The panel did not take any votes or formal actions. The second half of the meeting turned to hazardous waste and extended producer responsibility. Ecology reviewed existing product stewardship programs for electronics, paint, batteries, and mercury lights, and described how moderate risk waste and household hazardous waste are currently collected through county facilities and events. Ecology said the electronics program is its best model, while the mercury lamp program is currently in transition after the prior stewardship organization exited and a new organization is seeking approval. Ecology recommended that future EPR programs have clear producer and product definitions, full producer funding, convenience standards, annual reporting, and strong enforcement authority. Local government witnesses from King County and Douglas County described rising costs, access barriers in rural areas, and the need for stable funding and flexible local delivery models. King County said it collected over 3 million pounds of hazardous products in 2025 and argued that EPR could reduce costs for ratepayers and improve equity. Douglas County stressed that rural residents are willing to participate when services are available, but travel distance and operating costs make access difficult. An industry representative supported narrowly scoped stewardship programs like PaintCare but warned that broad household hazardous waste EPR systems can become difficult to administer and may require legislative revisions if responsibilities are not clearly defined. No votes were taken on the hazardous waste topic either.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's important to note that there is no single cost for CCS. CCS costs vary dramatically by source.
• Total CCS cost, though, is not just about capture.
• So CCS does have a cost and it does need policy.
• And CCS is an essential toolkit to cut industrial emissions from steel, pulp and paper...
• also has much of its emissions are only possible to cut through CCS.

Summary: The committee held an interim work session focused first on carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS), then on hazardous waste and extended producer responsibility (EPR). On the CCUS topic, industry and nonprofit presenters described point-source capture, direct air capture, mineralization, and geologic sequestration, emphasizing Washington’s basalt formations and state trust lands as strong candidates for storage. They argued that CCUS can help hard-to-abate industrial sectors, support jobs and investment, and provide a pathway for compliance, while also noting the need for clearer permitting, subsurface rights, pipeline authority, and storage infrastructure. Ecology and Commerce staff explained current state policy touchpoints, including Cap-and-Invest offsets and exemptions for permanently stored CO2, the public comment process underway to define “thousand-year” permanence, and how CCUS might fit within the Clean Energy Transformation Act without counting emitting generation as non-emitting. Some presenters supported more state action and primacy over federal permitting, while others warned about costs, energy use, uncertain capture performance, and the need to ensure real net greenhouse gas reductions and long-term liability protections. Members asked about public meetings, whether mineralized carbon would qualify as exempt under the Climate Commitment Act, the timeline for Ecology guidance, aquifer and water-quality concerns, energy intensity of capture systems, and liability if storage later proves problematic. Responses said Ecology’s guidance process is already underway, public meetings will be virtual, mineralized carbon would likely qualify if it meets the permanence standard, and EPA rules require storage in deep saline formations below drinking water aquifers. Industry speakers said capture energy use varies by source and concentration, and one presenter noted that some states use trust funds funded by injectors to address long-term liability. The second half of the session shifted to hazardous waste and EPR. Ecology staff reviewed existing product stewardship programs for electronics, paint, batteries, and mercury lights, and described moderate risk waste and household hazardous waste management in Washington. They highlighted that E-Cycle and PaintCare are producer-funded, that the battery stewardship program will begin in 2027, and that the mercury lamp program is in transition after its prior stewardship organization exited, prompting enforcement notices and a pending replacement plan. Ecology recommended best practices for future EPR programs, including clear producer and product definitions, full producer funding, convenience standards, annual reporting, and strong agency enforcement and plan approval authority. Local government speakers from King County and Douglas County described rising collection costs, equity and access barriers, rural travel distances, and the need for stable funding and flexible local implementation. King County said it collected over 3 million pounds of hazardous products in 2025 and supports EPR as a way to shift costs from ratepayers to producers, while Douglas County emphasized that rural residents will participate when services are accessible and that future systems should account for geography and local infrastructure.

Transcript Highlights:

• In 2019, the Legislature enacted AB 670 to prevent CC&Rs from prohibiting or unreasonably restricting
• This bill also clarifies the existing ADU exemption from CC&Rs, ensuring that single-family homeowners
• Bush was president the last time their CC&Rs were amended.
• Despite all these efforts, they still have been unable to update their severely out-of-date CC&Rs.
• They've tried multiple times to amend the CC&Rs.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Housing met without a quorum at first and operated as a subcommittee, then later established a quorum and took up several housing-related bills. Early presentations focused on AB 2390, a cleanup measure to clarify streamlined housing approvals and how modifications are reviewed; AB 1890, which would increase state matching funds for Napa County farmworker housing centers; and AB 956, which would clarify accessory dwelling unit law by allowing more flexibility in how ADUs are built and by clarifying application of ADU protections in common interest developments. Supporters for these bills emphasized predictability, farmworker housing stability, and expanded housing options for multigenerational families, while opponents of AB 956 raised concerns about neighborhood density, infrastructure, and local control. AB 956 drew the most extensive debate. Committee members discussed whether it was a clarification or expansion of ADU law, the potential for triggering density bonus rules, and possible local government costs. The author accepted committee amendments to avoid allowing a third ADU/JADU combination that could trigger density bonus implications. The committee then voted to do pass AB 956 as amended to the Senate Committee on Local Government, with one no vote recorded and the bill held on call for absent members. The committee also took votes on the consent calendar and on AB 2390 and AB 1890, but those measures were likewise held on call for absent members after favorable motions. The committee also heard AB 939, which would let developers transfer income-restricted ownership units to qualified nonprofit affordable housing organizations without waiting 180 days after certificate of occupancy. Supporters, including Habitat for Humanity and California YIMBY, said the bill would reduce vacancy, carrying costs, and help preserve long-term affordability. The California Association of Realtors opposed the bill unless amended, arguing it could limit buyer choice, codify first-right-of-refusal practices, and reduce wealth-building opportunities for families. After discussion, the bill was moved to the Senate Appropriations Committee on a do pass motion and held on call. Later bills included AB 1165, which would require state housing agencies to create a fiscal analysis and financial plan for ending homelessness; AB 1184, which would add transparency and open-meeting style requirements for homeowners associations; and AB 2035, a narrowly tailored measure to help Laguna Woods Village update outdated CC&Rs by lowering the vote threshold needed to seek court approval. AB 1165 and AB 2035 both received broad support and were moved forward on do pass motions, while AB 1184 also advanced despite late opposition from the California Association of Realtors. The committee then began hearing AB 1573, which would add survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking to local housing element target populations, but the transcript cuts off before that bill’s testimony or any vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• CCS is administered in partnership with county health departments and DHCS.
• Just briefly about CCS monitoring and oversight. Program.
• have timely access to quality care under the CCS program.
• I have a question first just on the oversight issues related to CCS.
• Second, I'm here on the CCS item on behalf of Santa Cruz and Ventura counties.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• CCS is administered in partnership with county health departments and DHCS.
• CCS administered in partnership with county health departments and DHS.
• Just briefly about the CCS monitoring and oversight program: CCS monitoring and oversight was established
• have timely access to quality care under the CCS program.
• I have a question first just on the oversight issues related to CCS.

Summary: The committee heard a budget oversight hearing on the Department of Health Care Services, focusing first on the overall Medi-Cal budget and a March General Fund loan to cover a current-year shortfall. DHCS said the 2025-26 budget proposal totals $193.4 billion, with Medi-Cal projected at $188.1 billion total funds and $42.1 billion General Fund, driven by higher enrollment, pharmacy costs, managed care growth, and costs tied to eligibility expansions and the COVID-era redetermination unwinding. The department said the $3.44 billion loan was needed to manage cash flow and ensure timely payments to providers and plans, while the LAO noted Medi-Cal’s cash-basis budgeting creates volatility and that more detailed estimates would come with the May Revision. Members discussed federal Medicaid threats, the need for transparency on cost drivers, and the impact of pharmacy spending, long-term care, and immigration-related coverage expansions. The second major topic was family health programs, including California Children’s Services, the continuous coverage unwinding, and opioid settlement fund spending. DHCS described CCS funding methodology changes, ongoing county stakeholder work, and a delayed rollout of CCS monitoring and oversight until July 1, 2025, while county representatives and advocates argued the program is underfunded and asked for more technical assistance and a delay in implementation. On the unwinding, the department explained that federal redetermination flexibilities helped maintain coverage after the pandemic, but the Governor’s budget proposes ending them at the end of June 2025; advocates urged making the flexibilities permanent to avoid coverage losses. For opioid settlement funds, DHCS and Finance said the budget increases funding for naloxone distribution while reducing other harm-reduction spending based on updated settlement revenues, prompting criticism from members and public commenters who argued the change would weaken effective harm-reduction programs. The hearing also included an update on Proposition 35 implementation. DHCS said the voter-approved measure continuously appropriates MCO tax revenues beginning in 2025, with up to $4.6 billion annually available for specified Medi-Cal and provider investments in 2025 and 2026, but implementation depends on consultation with the required stakeholder advisory committee. The department and LAO noted uncertainty about future federal rules affecting the MCO tax after 2026. Public testimony largely supported maintaining Medi-Cal expansions, protecting immigrant coverage, preserving harm-reduction funding, and increasing support for community health workers, pediatric dental care, and CCS county administration. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Let me capture and sequestration or CCS.
• provide some quick background on CCS. provide some quick background on CCS.
• projects that involve CCS so far.
• projects that involve CCS so far.
• projects that involve CCS so far.

Bills: HB61, HB176, SB12

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• To anyone who hasn't been in the Central Counting Station before, I'll just call it CCS.
• My best analogy for CCS to most people is that's where the election sausage is made.
• It prepares those who will be involved on the CCS team to know more about what their responsibilities
• It offers transparency to candidates and voters who aren't in the CCS, and it also provides CCS poll
• watchers with the information they need to know when the CCS will be meeting.

Bills: HB376, HB817, HB 1297, HB1478, HB1661, HB1783

Keywords: HB 817, Texas Election Code, majority vote, majority threshold, ranked-choice voting, preferential voting, instant runoff voting, vote reassignment, ballot ranking, election administration, public office election, Election Code Section 2.0215, runoff elections, plurality vs majority, voting systems, education reform, budget allocation, teacher retention, student performance, accountability measures

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll just call it CCS.
• My best explanation for CCS to most people is that's where the election sausage is made.
• It prepares those who will be involved on the CCS team to know more about what their responsibilities
• It offers transparency to candidates and voters who aren't in the CCS, and it also provides CCS poll
• watchers the information they will need to know. so that they know when the CCS will be meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• The renewals are CC and Lichfield and Thompson Engineering.
• One of those, I think, CC is just in time... Of those, I think a CC is just in time.
• The first amendment is with CC and Lichfield; it's a multisite for...
• CC and Lichfield; it's a multisite for architecture engineering across AHC sites with an increase in

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) does have theoretical value for reducing climate change, and we
• I want to emphasize the dangers of false solutions like CCS.
• In New Mexico, CCS projects would be disastrous for our communities because they extend the life of the
• If all coal plants used CCS to mitigate their emissions, it would be as if they were burning 39% of the
• We are opposed to many of these measures that deal with CCS.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've believed very strongly in CCS donation what they're trying to do, and we tried to support them
• But I do think the CCS&H, as they do come forward with this, is, this is what we're looking to do with
• But I do think the CCS&H, as they do come forward with this, is, this is what we're looking to do with
• But I do think the CCS&H, as they do come forward with this, is, this is what we're looking to do with
• Things, but it was CCS&H that came to us and said this is what these are the specific kinds of things

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• House committee operations for more than a decade, and for several of those years he was the clerk of CC
• House committee operations for more than a decade, and for several of those years he was the clerk of CC
• The now Secretary of the Commonwealth and formerly the formidable chair of CC&T, Candi King, also asked
• subsequently reported by Appropriations, and Delegate Helmer has three floor amendments drawn to the CC
• subsequently reported by Appropriations, and Delegate Helmer has three floor amendments drawn to the CC

Keywords: March 09, 2026 - Regular Session, 976, house, all