Summary: The Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement and the Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement held a joint hearing required by law to receive an independent report from the California Actuarial Advisory Panel on CalPERS. Opening remarks emphasized CalPERS’ role in providing retirement security for about two million members and the importance of pension funding to the state budget, especially amid economic uncertainty, market volatility, federal policy changes, and concerns about future fiscal pressure. Scott Tarando, CalPERS chief actuary and a CAP member, presented on the statutory disclosure requirements in Government Code Section 2029. He explained that CalPERS’ current discount rate is 6.8%, that lower investment returns increase contribution rates and unfunded liabilities, and that the plan uses a 20-year amortization period for new unfunded liabilities. He said CAP has recommended a reasonable amortization range of 15 to 20 years and that CalPERS’ longer smoothing period helps reduce volatility in employer contributions. He also explained the timing of actuarial data: the valuation used for current contribution rates is based on the prior fiscal year’s audited data, with the next year’s rates developed later in the annual cycle. Members asked about the relationship between average employee service life and amortization, whether current market and AI-related changes could justify using more current data, whether pension benefits change when valuations are updated, and how CalPERS’ funded status has changed over time. Tarando said retiree benefits do not change based on annual valuations, that the system’s funded status has improved from roughly the mid-60% range about a decade ago to around 80% or higher more recently, and that CalPERS is monitoring possible long-term workforce effects from AI but sees no immediate need to change assumptions. Michael Cohen of CalPERS said the system complies with information requests and is independently audited annually, but there has been no formal federal review released. In public comment, a representative of county governments praised the improved funded status and PEPRA reforms. The hearing concluded with remarks reaffirming fiduciary responsibility and the importance of protecting CalPERS beneficiaries.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement and the Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement held a joint hearing required by law to receive an independent report from the California Actuarial Advisory Panel on CalPERS. Chair McKinnor and Senator Smallwood-Cuevas opened by emphasizing CalPERS’ importance to retirement security for public employees and to the state budget. Scott Tarando, CalPERS Chief Actuary and a CAP member, presented on the statutory disclosure requirements in Government Code Section 2029, including the use of CalPERS’ 6.8% discount rate and the need to show how changes in investment return assumptions and amortization periods affect liabilities, contribution rates, and budgets. Tarando explained that lower investment returns increase contribution rates and unfunded liabilities, while higher returns reduce them. He also described CalPERS’ 20-year amortization period for new unfunded liabilities, comparing it to a mortgage and noting that shorter periods raise near-term costs but reduce long-term interest costs. He said the CAP has recommended a 15- to 20-year range and that CalPERS’ current approach is intended to smooth volatility for a large, ongoing plan. Members asked about the meaning of average service lifetime, the timing of valuation data, whether more current data could be used, the effect of AI and workforce changes on assumptions, and whether contribution changes affect retiree benefits. Tarando said retiree benefits do not change with annual valuations, that CalPERS uses audited year-end data because it is the most reliable basis for rates, and that AI impacts are being monitored but are too early to quantify. Committee members also discussed CalPERS’ funded status, with Tarando saying it had improved from the mid-60% range about 10 years ago to around 79% at fiscal year-end and over 80% more recently, reducing pressure on employers and the state budget. Michael Cohen, CalPERS’ investment operations chief, said CalPERS had complied with federal information requests and that its annual audits are publicly available, but no formal federal review had been released. In public comment, a representative of the California State Association of Counties praised the improved funded status and the role of PEPRA reforms. The chairs closed by reaffirming CalPERS’ fiduciary duty and the goal of protecting retirement security for public workers; no votes were taken.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement and the Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement held a joint hearing required by law to receive an independent report from the California Actuarial Advisory Panel on CalPERS. Opening remarks emphasized CalPERS’ role in providing retirement security for roughly two million members and the importance of actuarial assumptions to state budgeting and long-term pension health. Scott Tarando, CalPERS chief actuary and a CAP member, presented the report with Michael Cohen of CalPERS’ investment office available for questions. Tarando explained the statutory disclosure requirements under Government Code Section 2029, including sensitivity analysis around CalPERS’ 6.8% discount rate, and discussed how investment return assumptions and the 20-year amortization period affect contribution rates, unfunded liabilities, and budget volatility. He said shorter amortization periods would raise near-term costs but reduce long-term interest costs, and noted that CalPERS’ current approach is intended to smooth contribution changes over time. He also described the timing of the annual valuation process, explaining that contribution rates for a given fiscal year are based on the most recently audited year-end data and are approved by the board before being used in the budget process. Members asked about the relationship between average employee service life and amortization, whether more current data could be used, the effect of AI and labor-market changes on future assumptions, whether retirees’ benefits change with annual valuations, and CalPERS’ funded status. Tarando said the average expected working lifetime is about 11 to 12 years, while CalPERS uses a 20-year amortization period; he also said retiree benefits are set at retirement and do not change based on later valuations. He estimated CalPERS’ funded status had risen from the mid-60% range about 10 years ago to around 79% at June 30 and above 80% more recently. Cohen said CalPERS had complied with federal information requests and that no formal federal review had been released. During public comment, a county association representative praised the improved funded status and PEPRA reforms. The chairs closed by reiterating fiduciary responsibility and the need to protect CalPERS’ long-term stability, and the meeting adjourned.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Climate, Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation opened its first hearing on the governor’s natural resources budget with Secretary Wade Crowfoot of the Natural Resources Agency. Crowfoot reviewed California’s recent climate and environmental challenges—drought, wildfire, heat, sea level rise, and federal uncertainty—and highlighted progress on clean energy, zero-emission vehicles, wildfire resilience, water management, coastal planning, conservation, tribal land return, and streamlined project delivery. Members praised his engagement and the administration’s work with tribes, and Crowfoot emphasized that the administration is focused on finishing major projects, improving nature-based solutions, and considering whether some temporary streamlining measures should be codified. He also discussed the Mediterranean Climate Action Partnership and said the state is working with other Mediterranean-climate governments on wildfire, drought, and heat response. Members and the LAO then focused on budget conditions and priorities. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state budget remains precarious despite strong revenues, with the governor’s proposal relying on borrowing and reserves and leaving large out-year deficits unresolved. The LAO urged a high bar for new spending, especially in a deficit environment, and recommended prioritizing immediate health and safety needs, avoiding new ongoing commitments, and thinking carefully about special funds. On Proposition 4, the LAO said the administration’s approach generally appeared reasonable and consistent with the bond, but noted implementation has been slow and that the Legislature may want to use appropriations language to shape broad programs such as home hardening, outdoor recreation, and climate education. The chair stressed that climate and environmental funds should be used for their intended purposes and that wildfire spending should shift more toward community hardening and home protection. The hearing then turned to water resilience and Proposition 4 spending. Department of Finance and department staff outlined the bond’s water-related funding for safe drinking water, drought, flood, water recycling, stormwater, groundwater management, dam safety, and the State Water Project. Members pressed for details on how funds would be prioritized, how grants would reach disadvantaged communities, and how the state would track the bond’s 40% target for vulnerable communities. Staff said new tools and reporting systems are being used to monitor allocations, and that AB 107 and related changes should speed up grant implementation by reducing redundant regulatory steps. The committee also discussed dam safety needs, State Water Project repairs, groundwater implementation grants, and the risk of relying on uncertain future revenues from the Salton Sea lithium tax. No votes were taken, and the hearing was informational only.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on State Administration heard several budget proposals from CDTFA, the Board of Equalization, and the Franchise Tax Board. The first panel focused on cannabis, hemp, flavored tobacco, and related enforcement. CDTFA requested ongoing funding to implement cannabis tax changes, enforce the new intoxicating hemp restrictions and flavored tobacco seizure authority, and continue compliance work. The department said it is targeting illicit product, protecting licensed businesses, and using referrals from the public and lawmakers to focus inspections. The LAO supported some of the proposals but urged the Legislature to treat them as part of a longer-term enforcement strategy and raised concerns about the use of General Fund support for cannabis enforcement. Public testimony on the cannabis item largely supported stronger enforcement and funding for the legal market. The committee also heard CDTFA’s request to reappropriate funds for an upgrade to the CROS tax collection system, which would improve taxpayer services, security, and software maintenance without adding new money. A separate CDTFA proposal would make all delivery network companies, such as DoorDash and Uber Eats, marketplace facilitators for sales tax purposes. CDTFA said the change would reduce confusion for restaurants and improve compliance, while the LAO questioned whether the proposal functioned more like a tax increase because it would also capture service fees. Members raised affordability concerns, but the proposal was framed by the administration as a parity and compliance measure. The subcommittee then considered a governor’s proposal for a sustainable aviation fuel tax credit. Finance argued the credit would help decarbonize aviation and support in-state production, while the LAO recommended rejection, citing cost, uncertainty about environmental benefits, possible diversion of diesel excise tax revenues from transportation programs, and concerns about consistency with voter-approved transportation funding rules. Testimony from airlines, labor unions, airports, and refinery workers strongly supported the credit, emphasizing union jobs, refinery conversions, and emissions reductions, while fuel retailers and some others warned about fiscal risk and higher fuel prices. The chair and some members expressed support for the proposal despite the funding concerns. Finally, the BOE presented an IT modernization project for state-assessed property administration, saying the current system is outdated and manual and that a new system is needed to improve accuracy, cybersecurity, and workflow efficiency, especially with a likely increase in workload from new VoIP assessments. The LAO asked for more justification for the timing, but BOE said the urgency stems from aging systems and growing workload. BOE also requested modest funding to implement SB 293 changes to intergenerational property transfers and wildfire relief guidance, which the LAO did not oppose. The Franchise Tax Board began its presentation on the final phase of its Enterprise Data to Revenue modernization effort, describing the project’s rollout across audit, collections, legal, and filing enforcement workloads and noting it is now in a warranty period.

Summary: The subcommittee on Education Finance heard an overview of the governor’s budget proposals and higher education financial aid trends, with a major focus on the Middle Class Scholarship (MCS), Cal Grant spending, and the effects of recent federal student aid changes. The Department of Finance said the budget would fully fund Cal Grant at projected levels and reduce MCS coverage from 35% to 17.5% of unmet need in 2026-27, while the Legislative Analyst’s Office supported considering the reduction as a cost-saving measure given out-year deficits. UC and CSU representatives opposed the cut, saying MCS is important to affordability and debt-free degree goals; they estimated average awards would fall substantially and that campuses do not have funds to backfill the loss. The Student Aid Commission said the proposal would reduce aid but simplify administration, and members questioned how lower awards would affect students, borrowing, and work-study options. No vote was taken, and the issue was held open for possible future action. The committee then discussed federal changes to student loans and Pell Grant policy under H.R. 1, including caps on Parent PLUS loans, elimination of Grad PLUS loans, and new proration rules for federal direct loans based on enrollment intensity. The LAO said these changes would likely push some borrowers into the private market, especially graduate and professional students and some parents of students at private institutions. CSU said the changes would affect thousands of graduate and part-time students and could reduce access by about $97 million in loan availability for part-time borrowers, while UC said the new definitions of professional degrees were too restrictive and would reduce access for nursing, teaching, law, dentistry, and other programs. Community colleges said they use relatively little federal loan aid but are monitoring Workforce Pell. Members raised concerns about workforce impacts, social mobility, and whether the state should consider alternative loan programs or other ways to reduce student costs. This issue was also held open. In the segment financial aid update, the LAO reported Cal Grant spending is projected to rise to about $3.2 billion in 2026-27, driven by more recipients and higher awards tied to UC and CSU tuition increases, while CSAC said FAFSA and CADAA applications are up significantly year over year. CSU, community colleges, and UC described their aid packaging and rising aid totals, with CSU reporting over $5.5 billion in aid to 381,000 students, community colleges reporting over $4.3 billion to more than 920,000 students, and UC reporting $3.17 billion in grant aid to undergraduates. Members asked about Cal Grant reform, application trends, and long-term outcomes; UC and community colleges pointed to alumni and wage dashboards, and the LAO noted the state’s Cradle to Career data effort. The committee then took public comment, including testimony on library funding and other education-related priorities, and concluded by holding the issues open without formal action.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications held an oversight hearing focused on electric rates, utility regulation, affordability, reliability, and wildfire-related costs. The chair framed the discussion around the challenge of transitioning to a cleaner grid while keeping bills affordable and the system reliable, and noted the hearing also served as the annual update from the CPUC and Public Advocates Office. Professor Severin Borenstein gave a primer on utility regulation, explaining the split between deregulated generation and regulated transmission/distribution, the basics of cost-of-service regulation, and the role of return on equity. He argued that high allowed returns can encourage capital-intensive spending and that many public policy costs now embedded in rates would be better funded through the state budget, while warning that price caps or performance-based regulation are not silver bullets. CPUC President-designate Alice Reynolds described the commission’s role as economic regulator of investor-owned utilities and said affordability is being addressed through rate case scrutiny, reasonableness reviews, and legislative direction. She said wildfire mitigation and insurance costs have been major drivers of rate increases, but some wildfire-related costs are time-limited and will roll off rates over time. She also highlighted progress on clean energy procurement, battery storage growth, and integrated resource planning to meet climate goals while maintaining reliability. Reynolds said the CPUC is reviewing utility spending, disallowing imprudent costs where appropriate, and litigating at FERC to challenge transmission costs. Members pressed both witnesses on several issues, including whether rates are being inflated by legislative mandates and balancing accounts, whether utility returns are too high, and whether the state should shift more public-policy costs off electric bills and into the General Fund. Senators also raised concerns about load growth from data centers and ports, gas-system stranded assets as electrification advances, and whether the CPUC is over-regulating or discouraging innovation. Reynolds said the CPUC is working with the Energy Commission, CAISO, and the Air Resources Board on a holistic planning process, and pointed to tools such as interconnection reforms and demand flexibility. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with several follow-up requests for reports and data.

Summary: The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee held an informational hearing on California privacy in the age of mass surveillance, with members framing the issue as urgent in light of AI, data brokers, workplace monitoring, and government access to commercially collected data. Opening remarks emphasized California’s long-standing privacy tradition and concern for impacts on Latino, immigrant, LGBTQ+, and other vulnerable communities. The committee heard from experts from UC Law San Francisco, UC Berkeley, UC Irvine, UC Davis, and a worker-organizer from Amazon, followed by a journalist from 404 Media. Nicole Ozer reviewed the history of California’s constitutional right to privacy, tracing it to the 1972 ballot measure and arguing that lawmakers should use that right more fully to operationalize stronger protections against surveillance. Deirdre Mulligan described how surveillance capitalism has expanded through physical-world instrumentation, biometrics, connected devices, and AI, and argued that notice-and-consent models are inadequate because people cannot meaningfully understand or control how data is collected, inferred, shared, and used. Ari Waldman focused on disparate harms to marginalized communities, including queer people, survivors of domestic violence, and people seeking reproductive care, and called for stronger regulation, limits on data collection and sharing, and greater accountability for companies and government access to data. Josh Black testified about Amazon’s workplace surveillance, including handheld devices, time-off-task monitoring, hidden cameras, and driver-facing AI cameras, saying the system pressures workers to skip breaks, rush safety training, and discourages organizing. He said the surveillance is used to increase productivity and suppress union activity. Committee members asked about data retention, injury reporting, cash as a privacy-protective payment option, and whether workers truly consent to surveillance as a condition of employment. Jason Kebler described how police departments adopt commercial surveillance tools through pilot programs and vendor relationships, often without public debate, citing license plate readers and networked camera systems that can spread data across jurisdictions. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with discussion of the need for clearer definitions, stronger enforcement, and continued legislative action.

Summary: The committee heard several public safety bills, with extensive testimony and debate. AB 1535 would add political affiliation as a sentencing aggravator when a felony is motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived political affiliation. The author said the bill is intended to deter political violence while preserving judicial discretion; supporters framed it as a response to rising threats and attacks tied to politics. Opponents, including ACLU Cal Action, Initiate Justice, and public defender groups, argued the term is vague, could sweep in protected speech and association, and would expand punishment without addressing crime prevention. The bill was later moved on a due-pass recommendation and passed on roll call. AB 1656 would add human trafficking to the list of offenses that qualify for good-cause continuances so a vertical prosecutor can stay with a case. The author and a San Diego DA representative said the change would support trauma-informed prosecution and improve continuity for survivors. Most support testimony came from prosecutors, victim advocates, and civil liberties groups, while some public defender and justice organizations remained in opposition or pending review of amendments. The committee ultimately approved the bill on a due-pass-as-amended vote. AB 1589 would allow Level 1 reserve peace officers to use firearm suppressors while on duty, matching the exemption already available to full-time officers. The author and reserve officer witnesses said the bill is a narrow safety measure tied to hearing protection and parity in training and equipment. Opponents, including Brady and ACLU Cal Action, said suppressors are unnecessary, could endanger the public and other officers, and further militarize policing. After discussion about safety, fiscal concerns, and community trust, the committee passed the bill on a due-pass vote. The committee also took up AB 1566, which would align the statutory definition of severe neglect with the structured decision-making tool used by county child welfare agencies. Supporters said the bill would reduce overreporting, racial disparities, and unnecessary family trauma while keeping mandated reporting in place. Opponents, including school resource officer groups, warned it would lower reporting thresholds and risk missing serious abuse. Members debated the impact on child safety versus unnecessary investigations, and the bill was held on call after a split vote. In addition, the committee approved several consent items, including bills on human trafficking data, criminal procedure jurisdiction, firearms/unsafe handguns, and the Hugs Act of 2026.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications held an oversight hearing focused on electric rates, utility regulation, affordability, wildfire costs, and the California Public Utilities Commission’s role. Chair and members framed the discussion around the challenge of transitioning to a cleaner grid while maintaining reliability and keeping bills affordable. The hearing also served as the annual update from the CPUC and the Public Advocates Office, with testimony from Professor Severin Borenstein and CPUC President-designate Alice Reynolds. Borenstein gave a primer on utility regulation, explaining that generation is largely deregulated while transmission and distribution remain regulated, and that most rate-setting follows cost-of-service regulation. He emphasized that the hardest issue is setting the allowed return on equity: too high can raise bills and encourage capital-heavy spending, while too low can deter investment and harm reliability. He argued there is no silver bullet, said performance-based regulation and price caps have limits, and suggested some costs now charged through electric bills—such as climate programs, low-income subsidies, and wildfire-related public policy costs—might more appropriately be paid through the state budget. Reynolds described the CPUC’s oversight role, saying the commission reviews utility spending through general rate cases, balancing accounts, and other proceedings, and that affordability is addressed through front-end scrutiny, post-spend accountability, and legislative direction. She highlighted wildfire mitigation as a major driver of rate increases, noted recent progress on clean energy procurement and battery storage, and said the CPUC is working on return-on-equity decisions, FERC advocacy on transmission costs, and implementation of SB 254 and other statutes. Members pressed on a range of issues, including wildfire securitization, load growth from EVs and data centers, gas-system stranded assets, balancing accounts, and a water-service dispute in Keene involving Union Pacific. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with several follow-up commitments from the CPUC to provide data and updates.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Keywords: 988, house, all