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:

• Consumers in these other 13 ZEV mandate states need to be talking to their governors, and CARB needs
• That requirement jumps to 68% by 2030 and 100% by 2035 for the ZEV mandate states.
• enforcement and consumers in these other enforcement and consumers in these other 13<06:04:15.520><c> Zev
• and 100% by 2030 and 100% by 2035<06:05:35.200><c> for</c><06:05:35.440><c> the</c><06:05:35.600><c> ZEV
• </c><06:05:37.440><c> For</c> 2035 for the ZEV mandate states. For 2035 for the ZEV mandate states.

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:

• 100% ZEV future.
• board for about one and a half years to develop the statewide ZEV equity definition and a ZEV Equity
• Just develop the statewide ZEV equity definition and a ZEV Equity Action Plan.
• ZEV infrastructure development.
• It has attracted over 60 ZEV and ZEV-related firms to invest in and base operations in California.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Select Committee on Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure focused on California’s EV market, charging infrastructure, and the effects of recent federal actions on state clean-transportation programs. The chair emphasized California’s progress on EV adoption and charging reliability, but also noted ongoing problems with affordability, charger access, interoperability, and the need to support light-duty, heavy-duty, and fleet electrification. She also highlighted interest in inductive charging, bidirectional charging, and the transition to NACS, and said the hearing would help shape future legislative action. State agency witnesses from Go-Biz, CARB, and the California Energy Commission described their roles in market development, emissions regulation, incentives, and charging deployment. Go-Biz outlined its ZEV market strategy, equity action plan, and permitting streamlining work, while CARB detailed federal challenges to its clean vehicle rules, the need to defend waiver authority in court, and the importance of incentives and regulatory stability. The CEC discussed charger reliability rules, statewide inventory and planning, funding for public and multifamily charging, and efforts to expand fast charging and improve access in charging deserts. All three agencies stressed that federal rollbacks and the expiration of federal tax credits make state policies and funding more important. Testimony from industry, local government, and advocacy groups largely supported continued state investment. Cal ETC urged a continuous Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund appropriation, more support for multifamily charging, and managed charging programs. The American EV Jobs Alliance proposed a state “conquest” incentive for new and used EV buyers and argued that multifamily charging is the biggest untapped market. Los Angeles County and LADWP described large-scale fleet and charger deployments, public housing and multifamily projects, and the need for sustained funding, agency coordination, and utility/grid interconnection support. The Union of Concerned Scientists recommended prioritizing Clean Cars for All, using fees on non-CARBOB gasoline to fund cleaner vehicle replacement, and expanding authority for bidirectional EV deployment. Members and witnesses also discussed Level 1 versus Level 2 charging for multifamily housing and other use cases. The chair noted that Level 2 is essential for many drivers but asked whether Level 1 could be a cheaper, faster option in some settings. Witnesses agreed that Level 1 can work in certain contexts, especially airports or some multifamily installations, but emphasized that consumer confidence, overnight range, dealer education, and reliable access to charging remain central to broader EV adoption. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• 100% ZEV future.
• board for about one and a half years to develop the statewide ZEV equity definition and a ZEV Equity
• Just develop the statewide ZEV equity definition and a ZEV Equity Action Plan.
• So, like the ZEV market development strategy, the ZEV Equity Action Plan is really centered around four
• It has attracted over 60 ZEV and ZEV-related firms to invest in operations in California.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• And this is because we know that once you go ZEV, you tend not to go back.
• And this is because we know that once you go ZEV, you tend not to go back.
• ZEV purchaser, do they sign under penalty of perjury?
• Somebody who can absolutely afford to purchase a ZEV is now going to get an incentive to purchase a ZEV
• ZEV user. Yeah.

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:

• And this is because we know that... ...used light-duty passenger ZEVs.
• You're to determine that somebody is a first-time ZEV purchaser.
• Somebody who can absolutely afford to purchase a ZEV is now going to get an incentive to purchase a ZEV
• ZEV user. Yeah.
• a ZEV into a ZEV, the best way to do that is to make sure that they have as many options as possible

Transcript Highlights:

• And this is because we know that, ...used light-duty passenger ZEVs.
• You're going to determine that somebody is a first-time ZEV purchaser.
• Somebody who can absolutely afford to purchase a ZEV is now going to get an incentive to purchase a ZEV
• ZEV user. Yeah.
• Interested in getting folks who wouldn't otherwise purchase a ZEV into a ZEV, the best way to do that

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:

• that need, ZEV, you know, infrastructure, all of those things.
• new ZEV program we just talked about.
• ZEVs reduce pollution for everyone. ZEVs also reduce pollution...
• ZEVs reduce pollution for everyone.
• ZEVs also reduce utility costs for everyone, whether or not you own a ZEV.

Transcript Highlights:

• that need ZEV infrastructure, all of those things.
• new ZEV program we just talked about.
• We also want to highlight the need for more investments in heavy-duty ZEVs as well.
• ZEVs reduce pollution for everyone. ZEVs also reduce pollution. ZEVs reduce pollution for everyone.
• ZEVs also reduce utility costs for everyone, whether or not you own a ZEV.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• And just to... ...our long-term ZEV ambitions.
• Less than 25% of our population can afford ZEV vehicles.
• ZEV vehicles also have range difficulties.
• The technologies behind ZEVs and behind EVs are advancing rapidly.
• Less than 25% of our population can afford ZEV vehicles.

Summary: The hearing focused on California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), its role in reducing transportation emissions, and whether its costs at the pump are justified by its climate, air quality, and investment benefits. The co-chairs and several members framed the discussion around affordability and asked whether the program’s benefits, including cleaner fuels, zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and public health gains, outweigh any added fuel costs. Members also raised concerns about how the program is understood by the public and whether its benefits are being communicated clearly. CARB and CEC officials explained how LCFS works as a market-based program that sets declining carbon-intensity targets, generates credits for lower-carbon fuels, and requires deficit holders to buy credits or otherwise comply. They said the program has driven billions in annual private investment, expanded alternative fuels, supported EV charging and hydrogen stations, and helped reduce emissions and local pollution. They also argued that LCFS credit prices are not the main driver of gasoline prices, that the recent amendments added only about seven cents per gallon, and that crude oil, refining, and distribution costs account for most pump price variation. Committee members pressed witnesses on credit banking, market effects, the recent rule updates, additionality, and whether the program’s benefits are concentrated in-state or out-of-state. CARB said banking helps keep the program cost-effective and provides investment certainty, while the Energy Commission said LCFS-related costs are relatively stable and separate from the broader gasoline market. The panel also discussed how the 2025 amendments were shaped by the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate goals and by uncertainty over federal actions. No votes or formal actions were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have CARB here regarding emerging opportunities for ZEVs. Oh, here we go: cap-and-trade.
• school bus funds, which started out in the ZEV 1.0 and 2.0 packages with $1.5 billion Prop 98 funds.
• The 2024 budget act eliminated the 24-25 Prop 98 ZEV school bus appropriation of $500 million.
• And I'm going to ask the ZEV representative to come back up also.
• We do urge for ZEV to provide more consistent ongoing funding. Thank you.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we have CARB here, emerging opportunities for ZEVs. Oh, here we go. Cap and Trades.
• My question is, after 2035, what’s the definition of ZEV? So we will get back to you on that.
• And on GGRF, we do urge for ZEV to provide more consistent ongoing funding. Thank you. Thank you.
• And on GGRF, we do urge for ZEV to provide more consistent ongoing funding. Thank you. Thank you.
• On issue number four, we support the ZEV investment package relative to GGRF.

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:

• And so that makes the LCFS even more important right now to support our long-term ZEV ambitions.
• Less than 25% of our population can afford ZEV vehicles.
• ZEV vehicles also have range difficulties.
• And overreliance on ZEVs, I think, is misguided. So I’m sorry to share that, but I needed to...
• The technologies behind ZEVs and behind EVs are advancing rapidly.

Summary: The hearing was a select committee discussion on the transportation costs and impacts of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with opening remarks from the co-chairs and members emphasizing affordability, climate goals, and the need to explain the program’s benefits to the public. The first panel from CARB and the California Energy Commission described how LCFS works as a market-based, declining carbon-intensity program that rewards lower-carbon fuels, supports zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and is intended to reduce greenhouse gases and local air pollution. They argued the program has driven billions in private investment, increased alternative fuel use, and that LCFS credit prices are not the main driver of retail gasoline prices, which they said are dominated by crude oil, refining, and distribution costs. Members questioned the panel on the gap between the regulatory target and actual carbon-intensity performance, the role of credit banking, which fuels are generating the most credits, how the 2025 amendments affected the program, and whether LCFS credits are truly additional. CARB explained that banking helps cost-effectiveness and investment certainty, that ethanol, renewable diesel, and biodiesel currently provide the largest volumes while electricity is expected to grow, and that the updated targets were informed by the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goals and the 2030 scoping plan. The Energy Commission said its data show environmental programs add some cost to gasoline but do not drive price volatility, which is mainly tied to crude oil and refinery margins. The second panel, featuring academic and research experts, focused on program design, out-of-state credit generation, and broader economic effects. Speakers said LCFS is successful because it ties incentives to emissions benefit, uses life-cycle analysis, and allows flexible compliance that lowers costs compared with more direct regulation. They also said the program’s benefits generally outweigh costs, that it can reduce air pollution disparities and support equity, but that some issues—especially indirect land use change, additionality, and older program assumptions—need more research and may warrant future rulemaking. One researcher noted that while LCFS likely raises gasoline prices somewhat, the effect is uncertain by design and usually smaller than normal market fluctuations, and another warned that limiting credit generation too narrowly could create legal and efficiency problems.

Transcript Highlights:

• The gradual transition to zero-emission vehicles, or ZEVs, is a noble one, but the reality is that a
• Only 8% of vehicles being sold in the Commonwealth right now are ZEVs.
• As has been previously mentioned by my colleagues in the ZEV Coalition, transportation is the largest
• And so our dealers are very impressive in making sure that if the consumer is looking for a ZEV, that
• Two of which the ZEV Coalition has given panels on: S. 2246 and H. 3448. I want to speak to those.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy

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

Transcript Highlights:

• adoption to meet the state's impending 2030 emissions goals. ...drive ZEV adoption to meet the state's
• And so it's no surprise that slow vehicle ZEV adoption is now the new normal that we're in, but that
• ... ...adoption of ZEVs and really focusing on infrastructure, you know, in order to help increase the
• purchasing and adoption of ZEVs.
• When we talk about ZEV sales for 2025, they were significantly below the 35% goal for 2026, making it

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee heard several bills focused on active transportation, transit, road safety, and local enforcement. SB 569 would restrict removal or downgrading of bikeways built with state General Fund dollars for at least 20 years, require public hearings before major changes, and was supported by bicycle advocates and some local and environmental groups. The City of Encinitas opposed the bill, arguing it could limit needed safety fixes and should apply only to future projects; committee members discussed whether the bill still allowed safety-based modifications. The bill passed on a due pass vote to Appropriations. SB 741 would streamline the Low-Carbon Transit Operations Program by reducing administrative burden and giving transit agencies more flexibility to use funds for service improvements, fare programs, and other transit needs while maintaining oversight and disadvantaged community requirements. Transit agencies and advocacy groups supported the measure, saying it would help agencies respond to post-pandemic ridership and financial challenges. The committee approved the bill on a due pass as amended vote to Appropriations. The committee also heard SB 1167, which would tighten consumer protections by clarifying that high-powered e-motos and similar motor vehicles are not e-bikes, requiring clearer disclosures and labels, and improving crash reporting. Supporters said the bill would reduce confusion and improve safety for riders, pedestrians, and parents; the Motorcycle Industry Council opposed unless amended, arguing the term “e-bike” is used broadly and the bill could affect existing businesses. The bill passed to Appropriations. Later, SB 953, dealing with vehicular manslaughter cases dismissed through misdemeanor diversion, would add DMV points so fatal conduct remains reflected on driving records; the bill was supported by the victim’s family and safety advocates and passed to Appropriations. The committee then heard SB 1218, which would let local agencies boot vehicles tied to repeated unpaid illegal dumping citations instead of using DMV enforcement. Oakland officials and community groups supported the bill as a needed deterrent, while the ACLU opposed it as punitive debt collection without a sufficient nexus to the vehicle. The bill passed to Appropriations. Finally, SB 739 would revise the Clean Miles Standard for rideshare companies by allowing CARB and CPUC to adjust electric vehicle mileage targets in light of current market conditions; Uber and Lyft supported the flexibility, while clean air advocates began raising concerns about weakening climate goals as the transcript cut off.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so it's no surprise that slow vehicle ZEV adoption is now the new normal that we're in, but that
• . ...adoption of ZEVs and really focusing on infrastructure, you know, in order to help increase the
• purchasing and adoption of ZEVs.
• I had research done into the challenges facing the state as we work to reach our ZEV goals.”
• When we talk about ZEV sales for 2025, they were significantly below the 35% goal for ’26, making it

Committee: House Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• that you'll see February 1st to establish a new light-duty ZEV incentive program in order to keep ZEVs
• The incentives for the new ZEV incentives are for new car purchases as the priority this year.
• credit in the fall for ZEV passenger vehicles.
• One is the ZEV incentive that is proposed.
• One is the ZEV incentive that is proposed.

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• Then there's ZEV programs and alternative fuels.
• Then there's ZEV programs and alternative fuels, and that's entirely electrification fuel conversion,
• today that are going to be presenting are going to be focused in the areas that are listed here, so the ZEV
• Department of Ecology on the Electric School Bus Program, Department of Commerce with some of those ZEV
• And the same with the ZEV and the other categories. Yeah, absolutely. I can provide that.

Committee: House Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• Then there's ZEV programs and alternative fuels, and that's entirely electrification, fuel conversion
• today that are going to be presenting are going to be focused in the areas that are listed here, so the ZEV
• today that are going to be presenting are going to be focused in the areas that are listed here so the ZEV
• Department of Ecology on the Electric School Bus Program, Department of Commerce with some of those ZEV
• And the same with the ZEV and the other categories. Yeah, absolutely. I can provide that.

Summary: The House Transportation Committee held a work session focused on Climate Commitment Act transportation spending and electrification programs. Staff first reviewed overall CCA transportation allocations, saying about $2.2 billion has been allocated over three biennia, with major categories including public transportation, active transportation, ferry electrification, zero-emission vehicle programs, rail/ports, and planning. Members asked for additional breakdowns comparing CCA dollars with total program costs across categories. The Department of Ecology presented on the zero-emission school bus grant program. Ecology said the program was codified in 2024 and supports the transition from diesel to electric school buses, including buses, charging infrastructure, and training. For 2025-27, Ecology received $38.3 million in CCA funding; $21.4 million is already obligated or spent, replacing 91 diesel buses in 28 districts, with the rest to be awarded by the end of the biennium. Members asked about cost parity, exemptions for rural and extracurricular routes, health data, and whether the funding covers chargers as well as buses. Ecology said OSPI is developing the parity formula and exemptions are available when electric buses cannot meet district needs. The Department of Commerce described its clean transportation role, including EV rebates, tribal charging and electric boat projects, and the EV Coordinating Council. Commerce said its rebate program was designed to lower monthly costs and prioritize low-income households, with 89% of recipients saying the rebate was essential to their purchase. It also reported strong demand for charging grants, progress on tribal projects, and concerns about utility interconnection timelines, vandalism, and range anxiety. The Department of Enterprise Services reported on state agency EVSE projects, saying it has completed 82 sites with 567 Level 2 ports and 46 DC fast chargers, and that current projects will add 152 more Level 2 ports; members asked about replacing aging chargers and the state’s EV fleet purchasing mix. WSDOT closed with updates on charging, transit, and port electrification. It said its corridor charging program has awarded 23 sites this biennium, with 13 in overburdened communities and five tribal sites, and that the Washington Zero Emission Incentive Program opened with $112 million for vouchers for zero-emission commercial vehicles and equipment. WSDOT also described transit grants, including bus and bus facility funding, commute trip reduction, paratransit, tribal transit, and zero-emissions access car-share projects. The rail freight and ports division reported $89.8 million for port electrification projects, including shore power and drayage trucks, but noted only about 10% has been spent so far because projects are still in design and permitting. Members raised concerns about funding gaps, supply-chain delays, utility capacity, and whether the programs are sufficient to meet broader electrification needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, in support, looking forward to prioritizing ZEVs
• We know the threats now from the federal government, namely that ZEV incentives are going away in 19
• So I guess I would just put it out there: would there be opportunities in the future to implement ZEV
• So I guess I would just put it out there: would there be opportunities in the future to implement ZEV
• And when we talked about ZEVs and clean vehicles, not funding one of the most successful programs CARB

Committee: House Natural Resources

Summary: The Assembly Natural Resources Committee heard three major bills focused on California’s energy transition, fuel supply, and climate investments. SB 237 by Sen. Grayson proposed short-term measures to stabilize gasoline supply and prices, including validating the Kern County EIR for new oil and gas permitting with setbacks, a well cap, offshore/pipeline provisions, possible suspension of summer fuel blend requirements, and a study of regional fuel blends. Supporters argued it would help keep refineries operating, protect jobs, and reduce price spikes during a “mid-transition” away from fossil fuels, while opponents said it was a fossil-fuel giveaway that would worsen pollution in Kern County and fail to address refinery-community protections or broader transition planning. The committee approved SB 237 on a due-pass vote, with some members voting no or not voting. The committee also heard SB 352 by Sen. Reyes, which would strengthen implementation of AB 617 by codifying the Environmental Justice Bureau in the Attorney General’s office, requiring at least five years of monitoring in AB 617 communities, and mandating annual reporting by CARB and air districts on program implementation. Supporters said the bill would add accountability and ensure the new continuous funding for AB 617 leads to real emissions reductions, while opponents criticized the process and argued the bill was an end run around separate negotiations and imposed rigid requirements on limited resources. The bill advanced on a due-pass vote after extensive testimony from environmental justice groups, business organizations, and local air districts. Finally, SB 840 by Sen. Limon was presented as the cap-and-invest package, maintaining California’s climate leadership while directing revenues to state and community priorities. Supporters highlighted stronger offset integrity, more frequent protocol updates, continued funding for programs such as AB 617, transit, housing, and other climate investments, and broad labor and local government support. Some witnesses and members noted the bill did not include dedicated funding for zero-emission vehicles or climate-smart agriculture and urged future work on those priorities. The committee passed SB 840 on a due-pass vote as well, and all three bills were later confirmed out of committee on the floor call.