Bills: SSB1101 , SF114

Committee: Joint Natural Resources and Environment

Keywords: air quality, greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions inventory, carbon emissions, climate reporting, Department of Natural Resources, DNR, Environmental Protection Commission, EPA, Clean Air Act, major source, operating permit, emission fees, solid waste incinerator, operator certification, voluntary registry, administrative code cleanup, regulatory conformity, environmental reporting

Transcript Highlights:

• the emissions that are currently regulated under the Climate Commitment Act only represent 20% of our GHG

Bills: SB6172 , SB6246 , SB5932

Committee: Senate Environment, Energy & Technology

Keywords: Washington climate policy, greenhouse gas, GHG emissions, cap-and-invest, carbon market, emissions trading, allowances, covered entity, coal-fired power plant, coal plant, electric utility, electric generating facility, fossil fuels, natural gas, imported electricity, emissions leakage, air pollution, renewable energy transition, industrial emissions, railroad emissions

Bills: SB6124 , SB6171 , SB6284 , SB5609 , SB6172 , SB6246 , SB5932 , SB6269 , SB6223 , SB5975

Committee: Senate Environment, Energy & Technology

Keywords: appliance affordability, cost index, energy efficiency, consumer protection, Washington state, energy facilities, large energy consumers, regulation, environment, sustainability, artificial intelligence, data privacy, technological impacts, cultural resources, land use, environmental policy, exemptions, state laws, Washington climate policy, greenhouse gas

Transcript Highlights:

• Though SB 1087 states that only GHG-reducing projects may be...
• The issue with VMT is that it's layered on top of GHG, right?
• We want them to focus on GHG.
• And I appreciate the author's comment that this ought to be focused on GHG.
• VMT instead of GHG instead of VMT.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee heard several transportation, climate, and vehicle-related bills. SB 1087 by Senator Cabaldon proposed modernizing SB 375 regional planning by moving plans from a four-year to an eight-year cycle, clarifying agency roles, aligning funding programs with regional climate plans, and reducing duplicative process costs. Supporters from MPOs and environmental groups said it would improve efficiency and implementation; opponents warned it could weaken climate accountability, expand vehicle miles traveled concerns, and reduce public participation. SB 1315, also by Senator Cabaldon, would require manufacturers to report software updates for semi-autonomous vehicle features to the Insurance Commissioner to build data for future policy; it drew no opposition. SB 1275 by Senator McNerney would replace the state sales tax on motor vehicles with a higher vehicle license fee to preserve a federal tax deduction and reduce money sent to Washington, with LAO providing technical testimony on the tax structure. The committee also heard SB 1287 by Senator Hurtado, which would create a tax credit to spur private investment in short-line railroad infrastructure. Supporters said it would improve freight efficiency, safety, emissions, and rural economic development; there was no opposition. SB 1064 by Senator Daly would reduce the frequency of clean truck checks for very low-mileage heavy-duty and off-road diesel vehicles, with supporters saying it would save time and costs and opponents asking for CARB analysis before taking a position. SB 1375 by Senator Cortese would streamline environmental review for certain transit and rail projects that have already undergone extensive prior review, while preserving other environmental laws; it received broad support and no opposition. SB 1392, also by Senator Cortese, would expand the smog exemption for certain collector vehicles used mainly for shows, parades, and historic display; classic car and lowrider supporters backed it, while air quality groups opposed it as likely to increase emissions and weaken smog-check accountability. After testimony, the committee took up motions and later completed roll calls once a quorum was established. SB 1213 was placed on the consent calendar and approved. SB 1087, SB 1315, SB 1275, SB 1287, SB 1423, SB 1064, SB 1375, and SB 1392 were all reported out of committee, generally to the Senate Appropriations Committee, with SB 1392 receiving the closest vote and some opposition from members. The committee also briefly discussed another bill on active transportation funding tied to SB 79 areas, and that measure was approved after amendments and a roll call vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• GHG reductions is appropriately the statutory mandate here.
• The issue with VMT is that it's layered on top of GHG, right?
• So in the context here, COGs are given a target by CARB to reduce their GHG.
• We want them to focus on GHG.
• And I appreciate the author's comment that this ought to be focused on GHG.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• emissions, wouldn't reduce GHG emissions further.
• And then the next point is the role of GGRF in funding GHG reductions.
• Transportation contributes to almost half of California's GHG emissions.
• tons of GHG emissions over its lifetime.
• tons of GHG emissions over its lifetime, and reducing VMT by 512 million miles.

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee No. 4 hearing focused on the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and cap-and-trade reauthorization, with members and panelists discussing how to balance climate goals, affordability, and legislative oversight. The chair emphasized the hearing as a broad review of past GGRF spending and future options, while the LAO outlined how GGRF revenues are generated, how variable they have been, and the tradeoffs between continuous appropriations and annual budget control. Two academic panelists, Dr. Kyle Meng and Danny Cullen Ward, argued that cap-and-trade remains an effective climate policy, but stressed that future revenue will depend heavily on market design, allowance allocation, and price levels. They also raised the idea that GGRF could be used more directly for affordability, especially by lowering electricity costs, and for targeted investments in technologies that the market would not otherwise support. Committee members pressed the panelists on where revenues come from, how much has actually been spent, and whether continuous appropriations reduce oversight. CARB staff said more than $33 billion has been generated to date and a little over $11–12 billion has been spent, with the rest committed or in process, and noted that project timelines can be lengthy. Members also asked about ways to lower electricity rates, reduce wildfire-related utility liabilities, and support electrification. The panelists said transportation fuels are the largest source of GGRF revenue, that industrial emitters receive a smaller share of free allowances, and that reducing wildfire liability and investing in grid-scale batteries could help lower costs and speed decarbonization. Public commenters largely urged the Legislature to preserve or expand continuous appropriations for specific climate programs. Speakers supported funding for nature-based solutions, natural and working lands, urban greening, agricultural climate solutions, waste and composting programs, clean transportation, AB 617 community air protection, clean cars, transit, affordable housing near transit, and dairy digesters. Several groups argued these programs are cost-effective, provide public health and affordability benefits, and should receive dedicated shares of GGRF. Others urged reducing free allowances and using more GGRF revenue to directly lower energy costs for households. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Though SB 1087 states that only GHG-reducing projects may be...
• GHG reductions is appropriately the statutory mandate here.
• The issue with VMT is that it's layered on top of GHG, right?
• We want them to focus on GHG.
• And I appreciate the author's comment that this ought to be focused on GHG.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee heard a series of bills focused on transportation planning, emissions, freight, and vehicle regulation. SB 1087 by Senator Cabaldon would modernize SB 375 regional climate and transportation planning by moving regional plan updates from every four years to every eight years, clarifying roles for CARB and the California Transportation Commission, and better aligning funding and guidelines. Supporters, including SCAG, MTC/ABAG, MPOs, local governments, and some environmental groups, said the bill would reduce duplicative planning costs and improve implementation. Opponents, including Coalition for Clean Air and the California Building Industry Association, warned it could weaken climate accountability, expand VMT-related burdens, and create housing and CEQA concerns. The bill passed 9-1 and was sent to Appropriations. The committee also heard SB 1315, which would require manufacturers to report software updates for semi-autonomous vehicle features to the Insurance Commissioner so the state can build data for future policy. There was no opposition testimony, and the bill passed 12-0. SB 1275 by Senator McNerney would replace the general fund portion of the state sales tax on motor vehicles with a one-time vehicle license fee so buyers could potentially claim a federal tax deduction; the LAO testified as a technical witness, and the bill passed 9-1. SB 1287 by Senator Hurtado would create a tax credit to spur private investment in short-line railroad infrastructure; supporters said it would improve safety, freight efficiency, and emissions, and it passed 12-0. The committee also approved SB 1423 by Senator Stern, which would streamline review for certain transit and rail projects that have already undergone extensive environmental review; it passed 8-1. SB 1064 by Senator Daly would reduce the frequency of clean truck checks for very low-mileage heavy-duty and off-road vehicles, and passed 12-0 after supporters said it would reduce unnecessary trips and costs while opponents awaited CARB analysis. SB 1375 by Senator Cortese would similarly reduce duplicative environmental review for qualifying major transit and rail projects, and passed 12-0. SB 1392, also by Senator Cortese, would expand the smog-check exemption for certain historic collector vehicles used mainly for shows, parades, and charitable events; classic car and lowrider advocates supported it, while air quality groups opposed it as increasing emissions. It passed 10-2. The committee also adopted the consent calendar, including SB 1213, by a 12-0 vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Though SB 1087 states that only GHG-reducing projects may be Though SB 1087 states that only GHG-reducing
• GHG reductions is appropriately the statutory mandate here.
• The issue with VMT is that it's layered on top of GHG, right?
• We want them to focus on GHG.
• And I appreciate the author's comment that this ought to be focused on GHG.

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee heard several bills focused on transportation planning, freight, emissions, and vehicle regulations. SB 1087 by Senator Cabaldon would modernize SB 375 by extending regional plan cycles from four to eight years, improving coordination with CARB and other state agencies, and aligning funding and guidelines more closely with climate and mobility goals. Supporters, including SCAG, MTC/ABAG, other MPOs, cities, and environmental groups, said the current process is costly and inefficient; opponents from clean air and housing groups warned it could weaken accountability for climate targets and shift focus away from vehicle miles traveled reductions. The committee also heard SB 1315, which would require manufacturers to report software updates for semi-autonomous vehicle features to the Insurance Commissioner so the state can better track safety and policy impacts; there was no opposition testimony. The committee also considered SB 1275 by Senator McNerney, a tax proposal to replace the state sales tax on motor vehicles with a deductible vehicle license fee to reduce Californians’ federal tax burden. A Legislative Analyst’s Office witness explained the tax-policy mechanics and estimated savings, and the bill drew support from the author and no formal opposition. SB 1287 by Senator Hurtado would create a targeted tax credit for short-line railroad infrastructure investment; supporters said it would improve freight efficiency, reduce truck traffic and emissions, and help rural and agricultural economies, with no opposition testimony. SB 1064 by Senator Daly would reduce the frequency of clean truck checks for very low-mileage heavy-duty and off-road vehicles; supporters called it a practical affordability measure, while clean air advocates said they wanted to see the amended text and CARB analysis before taking a final position. The committee also heard SB 1375 by Senator Cortese, which would limit duplicative environmental review for certain transit and rail projects that have already undergone extensive prior review; supporters said it would save time and money while preserving other environmental protections, and there was no opposition. SB 1392, also by Senator Cortese, would expand the smog-check exemption for certain older collector vehicles used mainly for shows, parades, and historic display; classic-car and lowrider supporters said the bill protects automotive heritage and reflects limited actual use, while air-quality groups argued it would increase emissions and weaken smog-check accountability. After testimony and committee discussion, the committee took roll-call votes and advanced all measures, including consent item SB 1213, to the Senate Appropriations Committee, with SB 1392 receiving the most divided vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Of course, cap and trade is really intended to reduce GHG.
• Wouldn't reduce GHG emissions further, it would just change where those emissions come from.
• And then the next point is the role of GGRF in funding GHG reductions.
• What do we know about the interactions of GHGs?
• tons of GHG emissions.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have had extra priority put on GHG reduction, looking at housing production and affordability that
• Though SB 1087 states that only GHG-reducing projects may be...
• Though SB 1087 states that only GHG reducing projects may be Though SB 1087 states that only GHG-reducing
• may be funded, our own analysis shows the highway expansion projects are often flagged as reducing GHG
• shouldn't move forward and further codify VMT in statute in a way that can distort the objective of GHG

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on environmental quality, climate planning, transparency, water affordability, plastics, recycling, and refinery transition planning. SB 1087, by Senator Cabaldon, would modernize SB 375 regional climate and transportation planning by extending planning cycles, clarifying target-setting and review processes, and reducing time and cost burdens; metropolitan planning organizations strongly supported it, while environmental groups and industry raised concerns about VMT, GHG metrics, CEQA, and implementation details. Committee members generally agreed the process is too costly and complex, but urged the author to keep the bill focused on simpler, less expensive planning and better progress reporting. The bill was moved as amended to Senate Transportation and kept on call. SB 1239, by Senator Jones, would require CARB to update its standardized regulatory impact assessment when a major regulation is materially changed; supporters framed it as a transparency and affordability measure, while the chair argued it could slow rulemaking and discourage agencies from incorporating public feedback. The bill failed on the committee vote and was kept on call. SB 1125, by Senator Menjivar, would create a statewide low-income water rate assistance program, contingent on funding, to help households facing rising water bills; public water agencies, environmental justice groups, local governments, and community members from rural areas testified in support, emphasizing affordability and the lack of statewide assistance. The chair and members expressed support for the need for such a program, and the bill passed 3-1 and was kept on call. SB 1180, by Senator Allen, would establish implementation rules for the plastic pollution mitigation fund created by SB 54, including eligibility, reporting, transparency, and technical assistance for smaller organizations and tribes; environmental justice, conservation, and local government groups supported it, while producer and industry groups opposed unless amended, seeking tighter links to measurable mitigation outcomes and the covered products under SB 54. The bill passed 3-0 and was kept on call. SB 1161, by Senator Valadares, would require CARB to provide clearer, plain-language economic analysis of regulations and their impacts on households; supporters described it as a transparency and affordability measure, while some environmental groups offered respectful or qualified opposition. The chair said she could support it as amended, and the bill passed 4-0 and was kept on call. The committee also heard SB 955, by Senator Blakespear, to update California’s beverage container recycling program so major sellers participate and consumers have convenient return options; supporters said it would improve redemption access and program effectiveness, and the bill passed 5-0 and was kept on call. Finally, SB 1259, also by Senator Blakespear, would require refineries to provide earlier disclosure of cleanup liabilities and closure planning information so the state and communities can plan for refinery site remediation and reuse; the author framed it as a transparency and transition-planning measure, and testimony began in support as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are increasing divisions around GHG, greenhouse, ...increasing divisions around GHG, greenhouse
• We have had extra priority put on GHG reduction, looking at housing production and affordability that
• Though SB 1087 states that only GHG reducing projects may be Though SB 1087 states that only GHG-reducing
• may be funded, our own analysis shows the highway expansion projects are often flagged as reducing GHG
• shouldn't move forward and further codify VMT in statute in a way that can distort the objective of GHG

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Transcript Highlights:

• Agriculture and GHGs aren't something we talk about a lot in EQ, truthfully.
• Agriculture and GHGs aren't something we talk about a lot in EQ, truthfully.
• Overall, we found that the programs have significant potential to reduce GHG emissions.
• The first is really how effective are these programs at reducing GHGs?
• And so that's how we come up with the GHG reductions. So that's in conjunction with CARB. Yes.

Summary: The joint informational hearing examined how California agricultural programs have used cap-and-invest funding and what role agriculture should play in future climate investments. Committee chairs framed the issue as balancing climate goals, food production, rural economic vitality, and the fact that agriculture was not specifically funded in the recent cap-and-invest reauthorization. The first panel from CDFA and the Legislative Analyst’s Office described the state’s climate-smart agriculture portfolio, including Healthy Soils, SWEEP, the Dairy Methane Reduction Program, and Alternative Manure Management, and explained that GGRF revenues are now more constrained and may not fully support all tiered programs. LAO emphasized that agriculture is about 8% of California’s emissions, that most ag emissions are outside the cap, and that the Legislature should consider program effectiveness, the role of incentives, and GGRF priorities. CDFA testified that roughly $727 million has been invested in its flagship climate-smart ag programs, producing estimated reductions of 31 million metric tons of CO2e, 1.6 million acre-feet of water savings, and about 4,000 projects. The department said technical assistance is essential because farmers face risk when adopting new practices, and noted new Proposition 4 funding for Healthy Soils, SWEEP, and a regional farm equipment sharing program. University researchers then presented economic and methane-reduction analyses: UC Berkeley’s Dr. Hill described working landscapes as a major economic driver, while UC Davis’ Dr. Kibreab outlined dairy methane reduction pathways, including herd efficiency, digesters, alternative manure management, and emerging feed additives such as 3-NOP and seaweed, arguing that incentive-based programs have helped California move toward its methane goals. A later panel featured sharply different views on dairy digesters. Phoebe Seton argued that digesters worsen air and water quality, encourage manure liquefaction, and are an inefficient use of public funds, while CalCAN’s Brian Schobey and agricultural representatives said programs like AMP, SWEEP, Healthy Soils, FPIP, and the Farmer Program deliver measurable emissions reductions plus co-benefits such as water savings, lower energy costs, and improved air quality. Farm and industry witnesses stressed that stable, incentive-based funding helps family farms remain viable, supports co-investment, and should be treated as a partnership rather than a regulatory stick. No votes or formal actions were taken; the hearing ended with public comment and a continued call for future funding and policy discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Agriculture and GHGs aren't something we talk about a lot in EQ, truthfully.
• Agriculture and GHGs aren't something we talk about a lot in EQ, truthfully.
• Overall, we found that the programs have significant potential to reduce GHG emissions.
• The first is really how effective are these programs at reducing GHGs?
• And so that's how we come up with the GHG reductions. So that's in conjunction with CARB. Yes.

Summary: The joint informational hearing examined how agricultural programs have used cap-and-invest funding and what role agriculture should play in future climate investments. The chairs opened by noting that agriculture had been largely left out of the cap-and-invest reauthorization, despite prior support through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and framed the hearing around climate-smart agriculture, food security, rural vitality, and the need for measurable co-benefits such as water savings, soil health, and air quality improvements. The first panel included CDFA Deputy Secretary Virginia Jamison and LAO analyst Helen Kirsten. Jamison described CDFA’s climate-smart portfolio, including the Healthy Soils Program, SWEEP, the Alternative Manure Management Program, and dairy methane reduction efforts, saying roughly $727 million has supported these programs and produced estimated reductions of 31 million metric tons of CO2e, 1.6 million acre-feet of water savings, and about 4,000 projects. She emphasized technical assistance, oversubscription of the programs, and the need for continued investment and better measurement/verification. Kirsten outlined the cap-and-invest structure, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and the state’s emissions inventory, noting agriculture is about 8% of California’s GHG emissions and that funding for tier-three programs may remain constrained. She also said prior LAO work found the programs have significant reduction potential but that some estimated benefits may be overstated, recommending further evaluation. The second panel featured UC researchers Alexandra Hill and Ermi Kibreab, who presented on the economic importance of California’s working landscapes and on dairy methane reduction pathways. Hill said working landscapes are a major part of the state and national economy, with agriculture driving most of the sector’s sales and jobs. Kibreab explained that dairy is central to methane reduction because it accounts for a large share of agricultural methane emissions, and described herd efficiency, digesters, alternative manure management, and emerging feed additives as complementary strategies. He said digesters and other incentive-supported measures are helping California move toward its methane goals, while noting feed additives such as 3-NOP and seaweed-based approaches could offer additional reductions in the future. The third panel brought contrasting views from environmental advocates, farmers, and industry representatives. Phoebe Seaton argued that further state funding for dairy digesters is not environmentally or economically justified, citing concerns about methane, nitrous oxide, groundwater impacts, odors, and high cost per ton reduced. Brian Shobe of CalCAN supported continued funding for programs like AMP, SWEEP, and Healthy Soils, saying they provide multiple co-benefits and that farmers need stable, incentive-based support to comply with climate and water regulations. Cannon Michael of Bowles Farming Company described his farm’s investments in organic and regenerative practices, composting, drip irrigation, solar, habitat management, and workforce programs, and said consistent funding helps farms plan and remain viable. Tricia Gerringer of the Agricultural Council of California urged funding for FPIP, the Farmer Program, methane reduction programs, and sustainable ag waste management, arguing they deliver immediate, measurable reductions and co-benefits. Members and witnesses debated the relative merits of digesters versus alternative manure management, the role of regenerative agriculture, and whether agriculture should be treated as a distinct policy category. No votes were taken; the hearing concluded with public comment supporting agricultural climate funding and a request to include agriculture in broader cap-and-invest discussions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Agriculture and GHGs aren't something we talk about a lot in EQ, truthfully.
• I know that by the tons of GHGs, agriculture is not as big a contributor as, say, transportation or energy
• Overall, we found that the programs have significant potential to reduce GHG emissions.
• The first is really how effective are these programs at reducing GHGs?
• And so that's how we come up with the GHG reductions. So that's in conjunction with CARB. Yes.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are increasing divisions around GHG, greenhouse gas emission reductions versus vehicle miles traveled
• We have had extra priority put on GHG reduction, looking at housing production and affordability that
• Though SB 1087 states that only GHG-reducing projects may be Though SB 1087 states that only GHG-reducing
• may be funded, our own analysis shows that highway expansion projects are often flagged as reducing GHG
• shouldn't move forward and further codify VMT in statute in a way that can distort the objective of GHG

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on environmental, climate, transparency, water affordability, recycling, and refinery transition issues. SB 1087 would modernize SB 375 regional climate and transportation planning by extending planning cycles, clarifying target-setting and review processes, and reducing time spent on modeling and CEQA-related work; it drew strong support from MPOs and environmental groups with some opposition from clean air, housing, and industry advocates concerned about VMT, housing impacts, and agency authority. SB 1239 would require CARB to update its standardized regulatory impact assessment when major regulations are materially changed; manufacturers and business groups supported the transparency measure, while the chair opposed it as adding delay and inefficiency to rulemaking. SB 1125 would create the framework for a statewide low-income water rate assistance program; it received broad support from utilities, environmental justice groups, local governments, and community members, and the committee advanced it on a 3-1 vote. SB 1180 would set rules for spending from the plastic pollution mitigation fund created by SB 54, with broad support from environmental justice and conservation groups and opposed-unless-amended positions from industry groups seeking tighter limits and more oversight; it advanced on a 3-0 vote. SB 1161 would require CARB to present household-level cost impacts of regulations in plain language, and it advanced on a 4-0 vote despite late opposition from environmental groups. SB 955, updating beverage container recycling and redemption requirements, passed 5-0, and SB 1259, requiring refineries to disclose cleanup liabilities and decommissioning information to aid long-term planning, drew strong support from environmental and local government witnesses but firm opposition from petroleum, labor, and business groups; the committee began discussion but the transcript cuts off before a final vote on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• that, according to our analysis, this is a relatively expensive way to decarbonize, so the cost per GHG
• Just the statistics about, which, you know, 1% of GHG coming from aviation.
• But our understanding is that nationwide aviation is about 3% of GHG emissions.
• Our understanding is that nationwide aviation is about 3% of GHG emissions.
• But at this point, it's not the driver of GHGs in the state. Right.

Summary: The subcommittee heard testimony on the governor’s proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit, which would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold for use in California from 2026 to 2036. The Department of Finance and CARB argued the credit would help decarbonize aviation, support refinery transitions, and keep fuel production and jobs in California. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the proposal, saying it is a relatively expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases, could have uncertain or limited climate benefits, and would reduce diesel excise tax revenue that supports highways, local streets and roads, and other transportation programs. A major point of debate was whether the credit would simply shift limited feedstocks from renewable diesel to SAF rather than create new low-carbon fuel supply. Professor Aaron Smith and the LAO said that because feedstocks such as used cooking oil, tallow, and vegetable oils are limited and already used in other fuel markets, the policy could increase SAF at the expense of renewable diesel, with possible increases in fuel prices and little net emissions benefit. Administration and CARB staff disputed that outcome, saying additional waste-based feedstocks are available and that the policy would not meaningfully raise gasoline or diesel prices. Senators focused on feedstock availability, impacts on road funding, fairness to consumers, and whether the proposal was really aimed at preserving specific refineries such as Phillips 66. Public comment was sharply divided. Labor representatives, refinery workers, airlines, Boeing, airports, and some local residents supported the proposal, emphasizing jobs, refinery investment, and aviation’s need for a liquid-fuel decarbonization pathway. Environmental and transportation groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, World Resources Institute, Earthjustice, California Environmental Voters, counties, cities, and trucking and asphalt associations, opposed it, citing weak net climate benefits, possible fuel-price impacts, and losses to transportation funding. No vote was taken; the chair announced all items would be held open for a future hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's still going to account for the goals of GHG reductions.
• It's still going to account for the goals of GHG reductions.
• How is accountability toward the GHG goals advanced?
• cause an affordable housing developer to say, you know, we're going to— we're proposing to make our GHG
• I don't think that's what we're trying to communicate, that absolutely you can put GHG as a priority

Transcript Highlights:

• So the cost per GHG reduced is relatively high.
• And we think, in general, the state should focus on the more cost-effective approaches to GHG reduction
• Just the statistics about, which, you know, 1% of GHG coming from aviation.
• But our understanding is that nationwide aviation is about 3% of GHG emissions.
• But at this point, it's not the driver of GHGs in the state. Right.

Transcript Highlights:

• that, according to our analysis, this is a relatively expensive way to decarbonize, so the cost per GHG
• But our understanding is that nationwide aviation is about 3% of GHG emissions.
• But this isn't the bulk of GHGs, right? It's still a relatively small contributor.
• But at this point, it's not the driver of GHGs in the state. Right.
• But at this point, it's not the driver of GHGs in the state. Right.

Summary: The subcommittee heard extensive testimony on the governor’s proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit, which would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold for use in California from 2026 to 2036. The Department of Finance and CARB argued the proposal would help decarbonize aviation, support a long-term transition in the fuel sector, and encourage in-state investment and jobs. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and several outside witnesses recommended rejecting the proposal, saying it is a relatively expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases, could have uncertain or limited net climate benefits, and may shift limited feedstocks away from renewable diesel rather than create additional fuel supply. A major point of debate was whether the credit would mainly benefit California refineries and workers or instead subsidize out-of-state producers while reducing revenue for transportation programs. Supporters, including union members, refinery workers, airlines, Boeing, and airport representatives, said SAF is one of the few viable near-term options for aviation, that California should keep fuel production and jobs in-state, and that the credit would help maintain refinery operations and support the industry’s transition. Opponents, including the LAO, trucking and fuels groups, environmental organizations, and county/road advocates, warned that the proposal could raise gasoline and diesel prices, reduce diesel excise tax revenue for highways and local streets and roads, and provide limited climate benefit compared with other uses of state funds. Some members also raised concerns about feedstock availability, food-system impacts, and whether the policy should be more narrowly targeted if the goal is to support a specific refinery. No vote was taken. The chair stated at the outset that all items on the agenda were being held open for a future hearing, and public comment was taken after the first item because of the level of interest. The hearing then continued with public testimony, which was split between strong support from labor and industry and strong opposition from environmental, transportation, and local government groups.

Transcript Highlights:

• The goal is to meet our 2030 GHG emissions by 40%.
• But I think we need an 11% annual reduction in GHG emissions between now and 2030.
• They threaten the ability to reach the required 2030 and 2045 GHG reduction goals, and they undermine
• These programs not only contribute GHG reductions and build a California that can maintain a low-GHG
• These programs not only contribute GHG reductions and build a California that can maintain a low-GHG