Transcript Highlights:

• </c> EPA applies a fee for wasted methane EPA applies a fee for wasted methane that<02:31:41.520><c>
• </c> approach to reducing waste the methane approach to reducing waste the methane fee<02:47:34.600><
• </c> American policies to address methane American policies to address methane pollution<02:49:50.560
• </c> largest industrial source of methane largest industrial source of methane pollution<02:54:13.680
• </c><02:54:36.800><c> gas</c> the pollution that this methane gas the pollution that this methane gas

Bills: HJR35 , HR695 , HR469 , HR250

Keywords: environment, EPA, waste emissions, petroleum, natural gas, environmental protection, methane, regulatory disapproval, Charlie Kirk, political assassination, free speech, First Amendment, public safety, official photography, House of Representatives, session, government transparency, public engagement, payment system, Bureau of the Fiscal Service

Bills: SB1041 , SB1176 , SB1197 , SB1198 , SB1199 , SCM1004

Committees: Senate Natural Resources , Senate Senate Natural Resources Committee of Reference

Keywords: electronic monitoring, nursing care, assisted living, resident rights, privacy, consent, surveillance, stormwater, water storage, replenishment credits, groundwater, aquifer, Arizona Revised Statutes, irrigation rights, water duty, water allocation, management areas, Salt River horse herd, wild horses, feral horses

Bills: SB1137 , SB1200 , SB1419 , SB1447 , SB1560 , SCM1004

Committees: House Natural Resources, Energy & Water , House House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee of Reference

Keywords: underground utilities, utility locating, dig safe, call before you dig, excavation safety, damage prevention, one-call center, locate request, white lining, large project coordination, buried infrastructure, subsurface utilities, utility marking, locator wire, locator strip, interactive positive response system, landlord duties, apartment community, mobile home park, sewer line

Bills: HB 105 , HB982 , HB1483 , HB1508 , HB2575 , HB3646 , HB3993 , HB4083 , HB4580 , HB4725 , HB5169 , HB5511 , HJR73 , HJR102 , HJR174 , HB3746 , HB4240

Committee: House Ways & Means

Keywords: economic development, job creation, energy, tax incentives, technology investment, ad valorem taxes, elderly, disabled, low-income, tax limitation, homesteads, Texas Tax Code, property tax, ad valorem tax, tax exemption, residential real property, home improvement, energy efficiency, energy-efficient upgrades, HVAC

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1383 established specific goals related to overall methane and methane specifically related to dairy
• SB 1383 established specific goals related to overall methane and methane specifically related to dairy
• And finally, emerging enteric methane mitigation technologies such as feed additives reduce methane produced
• We are dramatically reducing methane.
• We are dramatically reducing methane.

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:

• SB 1383 established specific goals related to overall methane and methane specifically related to dairy
• And finally, emerging enteric methane mitigation technologies, such as feed additives, reduce methane
• To reduce methane emissions from cows.
• What manure is what actually produces methane?
• We are dramatically reducing methane.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1383 established specific goals related to overall methane and methane specifically related to dairy
• And finally, emerging enteric methane mitigation technologies, such as feed additives, reduce methane
• It inhibits the methane being formed within the animal.
• What manure is what actually produces methane?
• We are dramatically reducing methane.

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:

• Dry manure management does not create methane.
• No, we don't have any methane.
• We have very little methane to mitigate because the methane has never been created.
• wet manure management that is producing this methane.
• We have very little methane to mitigate because the methane has never been created.

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:

• So, reasonable regulation, strong methane reduction.
• methane captured and tax and royalty revenue.
• Methane Emissions Reduction Plan, as well as ExxonMobil's 2050 net-zero ambition.
• that suck the methane out of the wells.
• She's just so happy about the methane reduction. We want continued methane reduction.

Summary: The committee first took up the proposed 2026 tax package, Senate Bill 151, and adopted a committee substitute after discussion of the package’s funding capacity and included measures. The substitute bundled five bills: a physician tax credit, a quantum facility infrastructure tax credit, a construction materials gross receipts deduction for affordable multifamily housing, a local journalist employment tax credit, and a health equipment gross receipts deduction. Members discussed amendments that raised the physician credit from $4,000 to $10,000, narrowed the housing deduction to project-based certification, and reduced the journalist credit threshold from four stories to three. Concerns were raised about the fiscal impact on municipalities, especially Albuquerque, and about the funding mechanism, but the committee voted 6-4 to give the substitute a do pass recommendation. Senator Sanchez explained his vote, saying he wished more could have been included in the package. The committee then heard Senate Bill 18, the Clear Horizons Act, which would codify statewide greenhouse gas reduction targets and direct the Environment Department and Environmental Improvement Board to develop plans and rules for emissions reductions. The sponsors said the bill builds on the governor’s 2019 executive order, includes a 10,000-metric-ton threshold for covered emitters, allows certified offsets, and is intended to protect public health, reduce climate-related costs, and provide regulatory certainty. Supporters argued the bill would help communities facing wildfire, drought, health harms, and rising insurance and utility costs, and that it would encourage clean-energy investment and long-term economic stability. Opposition testimony came from mining, oil and gas, rural electric cooperatives, construction, agriculture, auto dealers, chambers of commerce, banks, water recycling companies, and realtors. They argued the bill functions like a carbon tax or broad regulatory mandate, would raise energy and compliance costs, could reduce investment and jobs, and would disproportionately affect rural, tribal, agricultural, and low-income communities. Several witnesses warned of higher electricity and fuel bills, revenue losses for local governments, and uncertainty from delegating major policy decisions to rulemaking. Supporters included public health advocates, educators, local officials, clean-energy businesses, tribal and environmental advocates, and residents affected by wildfire and drought, who said the bill is necessary to address climate harms and protect public health and the economy. No final committee vote on SB 18 was reached in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, reasonable regulation, strong methane reduction.
• that set the methane... ...they've done at their wellheads with their methane machines that suck the
• methane out of the well.
• We want continued methane reduction. We're not there yet.
• It's still a very high-emission methane in New Mexico.

Bills: SB12 , SB36 , SB92 , SB120 , SB133 , SB151 , SB18 , SB96

Committee: Senate Senate Tax, Business & Transportation

Keywords: tax credit, physician, healthcare, income tax, rural health, quantum technology, infrastructure, economic development, New Mexico, corporate tax, research and development, innovation, affordable housing, gross receipts tax, tax deduction, construction materials, multifamily housing, low income, journalism, local news

Transcript Highlights:

• It required the CPUC to establish and fund dairy methane biogas projects.
• Dry manure management does not create methane.
• No, we don’t have any methane.
• We have very little methane to mitigate because the methane has never been created.
• s wet manure management that is producing this methane.

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:

• , we see that agriculture is a huge contributor, contributing nearly 50% of all methane globally.
• And the largest component of this methane is enteric fermentation from livestock. So...
• The largest component of this methane is enteric fermentation from livestock.
• Of the big three—carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide—we know that methane and nitrous oxide are the most
• is key to the rapid reduction of methane concentrations in the atmosphere.

Summary: The Select Committee on Alternative Protein Innovation held its first informational hearing to examine the state of alternative protein research, industry growth, and policy needs in California. The chair opened by noting California’s $5 million public investment in UC research in 2022 and framed the hearing around three panels: the climate, environmental, and security potential of alternative proteins; industry scaling and commercialization; and university-led research and workforce development. Members emphasized that the committee will continue with site visits and additional hearings across the state. The first panel focused on the case for alternative proteins as a climate, land, water, biodiversity, and food-security solution. Shana Fertig of the Good Food Institute argued that plant-based, fermentation-derived, and cultivated proteins can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and water use while helping California meet its climate and conservation goals. Zane Swanson of CSIS added that alternative proteins could reduce risks tied to zoonotic disease, antimicrobial resistance, supply-chain disruption, and broader national security concerns. In questions, members discussed the role of pharmaceuticals in animal agriculture and how alternative proteins might complement, rather than replace, traditional farming by creating new markets for California crops and helping farmers diversify. The second panel featured industry leaders Ethan Brown of Beyond Meat, Myra Passick of Upside Foods, and Arye Elfenbein of Wildtype. Brown highlighted plant-based meat’s health and climate benefits, criticized misinformation campaigns against the sector, and urged better labeling, reduced subsidies for factory farming, and more plant-based food in public institutions. Passick described cultivated meat as a scalable food-production technology, said Upside Foods has already produced millions of pounds annually at its Emeryville facility, and asked for grants, low-interest loans, and possible participation in cap-and-trade or similar revenue programs. Elfenbein described cultivated seafood as a way to address overfishing, contamination, traceability problems, and the heavy import dependence of the U.S. seafood supply, while also noting conservation benefits and the need for California to remain a hub for the industry. The final panel centered on research and workforce development. UCLA’s Amy Rowat described state-funded work on technical bottlenecks such as growing fat cells and creating edible scaffolds, along with a Future Food Fellows program that trains students across science, engineering, law, and policy. UC Santa Cruz economist Galina Hale argued that alternative proteins are necessary to meet future protein demand while reducing food-system emissions, and said California must support the sector through grants, loans, procurement, and research centers to avoid losing leadership to other states and countries. The hearing ended with the chair thanking the witnesses, noting that all materials would be posted online, and saying the committee would continue building policy and budget proposals to support the sector.

Transcript Highlights:

• Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon, and in many cases it's the easiest one for
• And my particular concern is that we are deprioritizing controlling methane solely for the purpose of
• Jacob, could you remind us about the methane landfill bill that was passed to deal with methane from
• Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon, and in many cases it's the easiest one for
• And my particular concern is that we are deprioritizing, controlling methane solely for the purpose of

Bills: HB2426 , HB2373 , HB2416

Committee: House Environment & Energy

Keywords: pollution control, efficiency, appeals process, environmental regulation, hearing board, electric utility, energy assistance, low-income households, monthly bill assistance, energy equity, waste management, energy, climate action, environmental regulations, fair treatment, renewable energy, sustainability

Transcript Highlights:

• Methane absorbs 120…” “Methane absorbs 120 times as much energy as a comparable amount of carbon dioxide
• At year 20, methane is 86 times the impact of carbon dioxide. At year 100, it has 34 times.
• Because methane is short-acting, cleared from the atmosphere by natural processes in about a decade,
• Because over the last 15 years, the price of methane in Massachusetts has risen 20% when adjusted for
• The truth is that the era of cheap and reliably priced methane gas is over.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy

Summary: The hearing focused on several climate and utility-related bills, especially H. 3449/S. 2292 to expand the municipal fossil fuel-free building demonstration program from 10 to 20 communities and related home rule petitions for Somerville and other municipalities. Witnesses from Somerville, Salem, Worcester, Cambridge, Newton, Arlington, Wellesley, Watertown, and the Massachusetts Municipal Association argued that local governments should be allowed to opt into fossil fuel-free or net-zero building standards, citing climate goals, environmental justice concerns, housing production, and data showing all-electric construction can cost about the same as or less than mixed-fuel construction. Committee members repeatedly pressed witnesses for cost data and asked for written follow-up, while also discussing whether strong environmental standards affect housing supply; witnesses responded that the main housing constraints are financing and that they would provide more data from local projects and state studies. A second major topic was H. 3564, which would require gas companies to provide municipalities with detailed multi-year pipe replacement plans, allow local review and objections, and limit reimbursement for projects not previously disclosed except in emergencies. Municipal leaders and advocates said the bill would improve coordination of street work, reduce disruption and costs, and help cities plan for electrification, network geothermal, and non-pipeline alternatives. Testimony from Wellesley, Cambridge, Arlington, Newton, and others emphasized repeated problems with last-minute gas main work, the need for advance notice, and the value of municipal participation in planning gas system retirement and alternatives. The committee also heard testimony on the “tactical transition” bills, S. 2249/H. 3539, aimed at managing the gas-to-clean-energy transition. Supporters from Gas Transition Allies, Rewiring America, and 350 Mass said the bills would require joint gas-electric planning, create an advisory council, eliminate subsidies for new gas hookups, shift investment toward repairs and clean alternatives, protect workers through retraining, and make utility plans more transparent. They argued these changes would reduce ratepayer costs, avoid stranded gas assets, and support orderly decarbonization. In addition, HEET testified on H. 3541, which would update greenhouse gas accounting to better reflect methane’s short-term climate impact, and H. 3543, which would establish a framework for managing shared thermal resources and thermal energy networks; committee members asked several questions about the meaning, ownership, and consumer-cost implications of the proposed “thermal commons.” No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• , we see that agriculture is a huge contributor, contributing nearly 50% of all methane globally.
• And the largest component of this methane is enteric fermentation from livestock. So.
• The largest component of this methane is enteric fermentation from livestock.
• Of the big three — carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide — we know that methane and nitrous oxide are the
• is key to the rapid reduction of methane concentrations in the atmosphere.

Summary: The Select Committee on Alternative Protein Innovation held its first informational hearing to examine the state of alternative protein research, industry growth, and policy needs in California. The chair framed alternative proteins as meat, dairy, and eggs made from plants, fermentation, or cell cultivation, and emphasized California’s prior $5 million public investment in UC research, the state’s large concentration of alternative protein companies, and plans for future site visits and hearings around the state. The first panel focused on the climate, environmental, food security, and national security rationale for alternative proteins. Representatives from the Good Food Institute and CSIS argued that alternative proteins can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, land and water use, methane, antimicrobial resistance, and supply-chain vulnerabilities tied to conventional animal agriculture. Members asked about pharmaceutical and disease risks in livestock systems, and witnesses said intensification of animal agriculture increases antibiotic use and disease transmission risks. The chair also raised the relationship between alternative proteins and traditional farming, and witnesses described the sector as complementary, with opportunities for California farmers to supply inputs such as nuts, legumes, and commodity crop side streams. The second panel featured industry leaders from Beyond Meat, Upside Foods, and Wildtype. They described plant-based, cultivated meat, and cultivated seafood products, argued that the products can match conventional foods on taste while improving health and environmental outcomes, and said misinformation and labeling battles have hurt public perception. They also discussed scaling challenges, the need for grants, low-interest loans, manufacturing support, and possible participation in cap-and-trade or other revenue-generating programs. The chair highlighted tasting events and efforts to educate legislators and staff, and noted that schools, hospitals, and prisons are important markets for healthier food options. The final panel featured UCLA and UC Santa Cruz researchers who described university-led advances in cultivated fat, publicly available datasets, and workforce development programs supported by state funding. They said the UC system is well positioned to provide foundational research, open-access data, student training, and extension support for farmers. The hearing ended with the chair saying the committee will continue its work through additional hearings, tours, and possible budget or legislative proposals, while acknowledging that the current budget climate makes additional funding uncertain.

Transcript Highlights:

• The 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Oil and Natural Gas Methane Regulations.
• Is it not scientifically established that CO2 and methane are both greenhouse gases that trap heat in
• What effect does methane leakage from fossil fuel production and transport have in the atmosphere?
• Not specific to every single molecule of methane.
• of every single molecule of methane. methane may be in the atmosphere.

Committee: Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll call up Whitehouse 1, which repeals the effort to undo the proposed methane fee.
• The satellites show the methane.
• Sheldon, I think, as I read your amendment, it's more than just about methane.
• But what if we found a methane leak program that the Biden administration is funding?
• This is very clearly targeting one particular thing, which is the methane.

Committee: Senate Senate Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• As some of the background, methane is a short-lived climate pollutant that is 87 times more potent than
• California continues to be a leader on reducing methane emissions.
• Venting and leaking of methane. Former Senator Mark Leno authored Senate Bill 1371 in 2014.
• That has reduced methane leaks when moving natural gas within our state's gas pipeline system.
• The COP-28 Global Methane Pledge to reduce flaring, venting, and process emissions by 30 percent...

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy heard several bills focused on utility rates, wildfire safety, carbon capture, methane reduction, large energy users, low-income energy programs, and clean energy supply chains. Early items included SB 613, which would direct state agencies to prioritize reducing methane emissions from imported fossil fuels, and SB 614, which would allow California to move forward with carbon dioxide pipeline safety rules and potentially lift the state’s moratorium on new CO2 pipelines. Both bills drew support from advocates and industry-related witnesses, with no opposition registered at the time they were presented, and the committee indicated it would vote once quorum was established. After quorum was called, the committee took up SB 57, which would require the Public Utilities Commission to establish tariffs for large energy users such as data centers to prevent cost shifts to other ratepayers and address stranded infrastructure costs. Supporters argued the bill would protect affordability and encourage clean energy use, while opponents, including utilities and business groups, warned it could create uncertainty and interfere with existing regulatory processes. The committee also heard SB 256 on wildfire mitigation and emergency response, including undergrounding, PSPS communication, and removal of abandoned lines; supporters emphasized the need for stronger action after recent fires, while utilities raised concerns about duplicative requirements and public disclosure of sensitive infrastructure information. Both SB 57 and SB 256 were approved on roll calls. The committee then heard SB 647, which would expand and standardize oversight of low-income energy savings programs and performance metrics, with strong support from community advocates and some neutral or “tweener” positions from utilities that sought further work on data collection and implementation. SB 787 followed, proposing a state strategy to coordinate supply chains and workforce development for clean energy industries including EVs, building decarbonization, and offshore wind; it received broad support and no opposition. The committee also considered SB 332, a study bill on utility ownership models and affordability reforms, which drew strong support from consumer and climate advocates but opposition from utilities and business groups concerned about bias, investor signals, and executive compensation provisions. The consent calendar was later approved, and several bills were reported out with votes or held open for absent members to add on.

Transcript Highlights:

• California continues to be a leader on reducing methane emissions over the past year.
• California continues to be a leader on reducing methane emissions.
• Former Senator Mark Leno authored Senate Bill 1371 in 2014, which has reduced methane leaks when moving
• The Oil and Gas Methane Partnership, Biden-era standards, or state satellite tracking efforts in order
• This bill will show that California can continue to take steps to be a leader in methane reduction while

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Summary: The committee heard a series of energy and utility bills, with most measures moving forward on party-line or near-party-line votes after extensive testimony. Early items included SB 613, which would direct state agencies to prioritize reducing methane emissions from imported fossil fuels, and SB 614, which would allow California to move ahead with safety rules for carbon dioxide pipelines and lift the current moratorium on new CO2 pipelines. Both bills drew support from industry and clean-energy advocates and no opposition testimony was offered at the hearing. A major portion of the hearing focused on SB 332, which would require a study of whether California should continue using investor-owned utilities, tie executive compensation to affordability metrics, and improve transparency around utility disconnections. Supporters argued the bill would put ratepayers first and examine safer, more affordable utility models, while opponents, including the Chamber of Commerce and major utilities, warned it would send a destabilizing signal to investors and was not a neutral study. Members raised concerns about the bill’s tone and market impacts, but the author said the study was intended to be even-handed; the bill later advanced on a 10-5 vote. The committee also approved SB 57, which creates a tariff framework for large energy users such as data centers to prevent cost shifts to other customers and to address stranded grid costs. Supporters said the bill would protect ratepayers and encourage clean energy use, while utilities and large energy users argued existing CPUC processes already address many of the issues and warned against overly rigid rules. SB 256, dealing with wildfire mitigation, emergency response coordination, undergrounding, and removal of abandoned lines, drew strong support from an Altadena community witness affected by the Eaton Fire, while utilities raised concerns about duplicative mandates and public disclosure of sensitive infrastructure information. SB 647, aimed at improving low-income energy program access and performance metrics, and SB 787, which would coordinate state clean-energy supply chain development for EVs, building decarbonization, and offshore wind, also advanced after supportive testimony from labor, environmental, and community groups. The committee later approved a consent calendar of additional bills and left several measures on call for absent members to add votes."}

Transcript Highlights:

• We've had our methane rules that, if you read Missy Curry's op-ed, we are really doing well with that
• The New Mexico Environment Department, who has done just incredible work with our methane rules, with
• And address methane emissions for exploration and production from oil and gas using well-known methane
• We passed and are implementing nation-leading methane rules.
• gas emissions from sectors other than methane from oil and gas.

Committee: Senate Senate Conservation