Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Benefit Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances Community Benefit Fund to support local climate and economic projects
Summary
The Appropriations & Finance Committee voted to give Senate Bill 48, which would create a Community Benefit Fund for community-driven climate adaptation and clean-energy projects, a do-pass recommendation after extended testimony from lawmakers, local officials and advocacy groups.
The Appropriations & Finance Committee voted to give a do-pass recommendation on Senate Bill 48, a proposal to create a Community Benefit Fund to pay for community-driven climate adaptation, renewable energy projects and workforce development.
Pro Tem Mimi Stewart, the bill's sponsor, told the committee the measure would let communities apply for funds to pay for projects including public building renovation, methane leak reduction, greenhouse gas reduction strategies, grid upgrades, electric-vehicle charging and workforce training. "Our communities are really struggling," Stewart said, describing recent floods and fires and a statewide need for climate resilience projects.
The bill would pool money into a single overview structure and distribute funds through existing state agencies and grant programs. Stewart said the proposal began at about $340 million in requests and was reduced in committee work to about $210 million. Julia Barnes and other witnesses described the funding as broadly intended and flexible; several agencies named in the bill already manage related programs.
Dozens of public commenters and advocacy groups urged support. Victoria Lacomacias, an advocacy fellow with the Simeia Project and Simeia Action, said the fund would create jobs and workforce training. "This bill is more than just a climate initiative. It is a blueprint for future proofing our state's economy," she said. Travis Kellerman, senior climate adviser to the governor, said the fund is meant to spur both mitigation and economic diversification.
Committee members asked how eligibility, reporting and evaluation would work. Stewart said projects and agencies would be required to produce annual reports, and that the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) and administering agencies would provide oversight. Questions about overlap with existing funds and measurable outcomes were frequent; Stewart said many of the constituent programs already have performance measures and that this bill is intended mainly to supplement existing programs and provide coordination.
The committee recorded a roll call and after debate gave the bill a do-pass recommendation. The tally recorded in committee was nine yes, six no. Several members who opposed said the fund was too diffuse and preferred a narrower set of investments.
If enacted as written, the Department of Finance and Administration would house the fund and distribute appropriations to the named administering agencies; each administering agency would report annually to the Legislature on amounts distributed and project results.
Supporters asked the committee to continue technical work on definitions in the bill, including the definition of "renewable energy resources" and how the bill treats grid modernization and workforce training.
