Transcript Highlights:

• 2 recommended payment structure.
• 2, it's only applied to tier 2 tier.
• So there is a a 2% threshold here.
• There were no there was no place for children at mental health situations were disastrous.
• Blending that in the Tier 2.

Transcript Highlights:

• :47.840><c> really</c><00:23:48.080><c> little</c> no there's really there's really little no there's
• </c> &gt;&gt; there are no admission. &gt;&gt; there are no admission.
• </c> &gt;&gt; There are no remission requirements. &gt;&gt; There are no remission requirements.
• We had a 100 associate 2 graduated.
• There being no Representative Bant.

Summary: The meeting focused on Kentucky school choice and innovation, with discussion of the state constitution’s “common schools” requirement and how that has been interpreted alongside newer education models. Chairman Tipton described model laboratory schools, Gatton and Craft Academies, magnet and virtual programs, and said these options show that Kentucky has long expanded opportunity through innovation. He then turned the discussion to Senate Bill 207, which he said was designed to support schools of innovation. Senator Steve West reviewed the history of Kentucky charter schools and explained that SB 207 was modeled on a South Carolina approach. He said the bill allows a local school board to contract with a third-party entity to manage an existing school, seek waivers from certain state rules, and receive SEEK funding while also allowing outside private investment. He emphasized that the district initiates the process, that the school remains public, and that the bill includes accountability through a time-limited contract that can be ended if the school is not performing. Members asked about the difference between SB 207 and the earlier charter school law, whether schools could cherry-pick students, and whether teachers would remain district employees. West and Tipton said the new model is tied to an existing school rather than a new charter, cannot cherry-pick students, and keeps teachers as district employees. Representative Brown raised concerns that charters and exceptions could leave some children out, especially lower-income students, while West responded that the proposal is intended to expand choice for families who may not otherwise have it and cited examples from other states where similar models improved low-performing schools. No vote or formal action was taken during the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are moving to the no penalty phase.
• There's no shortage of challenges for the agency.
• No, ma'am. Right. Well, thanks. Much appreciated.
• light blue section that was our revolving fund.
• Again, we have no employees, so nothing to report there.

Committee: House A&B Health Subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• Oh, no, that's a lot.
• So because there is no written ruling yet, there is no ability to appeal.
• No, a therapist can't prescribe anyway. Psychiatrists would have to, but no.
• No, I wouldn't support that. Okay. Even if... No, I wouldn't support that. Okay.
• No.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on access to gender-affirming care in California, with members of the Senate and Assembly budget subcommittees hearing first from the Department of Justice, Department of Managed Health Care, and Department of Health Care Services. State officials described California’s legal protections against discrimination, privacy protections, shield laws, and Medi-Cal and commercial plan coverage requirements for medically necessary gender-affirming care. They also outlined ongoing litigation and advocacy against federal actions and proposed rules that could restrict care, including challenges to executive orders, HHS declarations, and federal reimbursement rules, as well as a temporary restraining order protecting care at Rady Children’s Hospital. Committee members pressed the agencies on why some hospitals that had stopped providing care had not been sued, how the state measures network adequacy and equitable access, whether the $15 million previously allocated for gender-affirming care had been used, and what additional statutory changes might be needed. DMHC and DHCS said they regulate health plans rather than providers directly, rely on complaints and independent medical review to address denials or delays, and do not track utilization or have a specific provider category for gender-affirming care. DOJ said it is focused on the federal government as the source of pressure on hospitals and providers, while members discussed possible shield-law expansions and, if federal rules are finalized, the possibility of state-only funding to preserve access. The second panel featured a physician, clinic leaders, parents, and a transgender teen describing how families navigate care and the effects of hospital closures and insurance barriers. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy gave a history of transgender health care, described puberty blockers and hormones as established treatments, and said minors need parental consent for medical interventions. J.M. Jaffe of Lyon Martin Community Health Services said community clinics are absorbing patients after hospital programs closed and asked for $26 million in state funding to expand capacity. Parents and youth testified about delays, out-of-network referrals, lost coverage, and the emotional strain of uncertainty, while also urging the Legislature to stabilize access and protect continuity of care.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh moving then to other Article 2.
• </c> in House Article 2, Senate Article 3. in House Article 2, Senate Article 3.
• traffic safety or are no other testimony traffic safety or are no other testimony there?
• </c> again at 2:00. Correct. Huh? I'm sorry. again at 2:00. Correct. Huh? I'm sorry.
• </c> One, excuse me, today was 2 o'clock. One, excuse me, today was 2 o'clock.

Transcript Highlights:

• Oh, no, that's a lot. Assembly member.
• So because there is no written ruling yet, there is no ability to appeal.
• No, a therapist can't prescribe anyway. Psychiatrists would have to, but no.
• No, I wouldn't support that. Okay. Even if... No, I wouldn't support that. Okay.
• No.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on access to gender-affirming care in California, with opening remarks from the subcommittee chairs emphasizing the importance of protecting transgender, gender-diverse, and intersex Californians and asking for decorum during public comment. The first panel from the Department of Justice, Department of Managed Health Care, and Department of Health Care Services described existing state protections, including nondiscrimination rules, privacy protections, shield laws, and Medi-Cal and commercial coverage requirements for medically necessary gender-affirming care. State officials also outlined ongoing litigation against federal actions and against hospital decisions to end or restrict care, including the Rady Children’s case and challenges to federal proposed rules and declarations affecting Medicaid, Medicare, and provider participation. Members questioned state agencies about why some hospitals that had stopped providing care had not been sued, how network adequacy is measured, whether the state can track actual access to gender-affirming care, and what legislative changes might strengthen protections. DMHC said it monitors complaints and independent medical reviews but does not track gender-affirming care as a separate provider category or collect utilization data, while DHCS said Medi-Cal continues to cover medically necessary care and that the state is preparing for possible federal rule changes. Finance staff said the previously approved $15 million for gender-affirming care was still being implemented through Covered California. The second panel featured a physician, clinic leaders, a parent, and a transgender teen describing how care is delivered and the effects of hospital closures and federal pressure. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy described the history and medical basis for gender-affirming care, said minors need parental consent for medical interventions, and argued that care should be individualized and supported by families. Providers and families testified that hospital closures and insurance barriers have disrupted continuity of care, forced patients to travel farther, and shifted demand to community clinics that lack sufficient funding and contracting support. Several witnesses asked the Legislature to provide new funding, strengthen insurance enforcement, and stabilize access to care for transgender youth and families.

Transcript Highlights:

• I am a no.
• No. Okay.
• Five ayes, two no. No. Aye.
• No. Senator Warder? Aye. Senator Gallo? No. Senator Warder? Aye.
• No. Senator Warder. Aye. Senator Gallup. No. Senator Warder? Aye.

Committee: Senate Senate Health and Human Services COR

Summary: The committee first approved the February 4 minutes, then heard Senate Bill 1086, which would require AHCCCS contractors to reimburse non-contracting providers for certain lab services when a member was referred by a contracting provider and would bar prior authorization for diagnostic services. The sponsor said the bill was intended to address unpaid claims and improve access, while Access testified neutral but warned the prior-authorization ban could increase utilization and create a fiscal impact. The committee adopted the Warner amendment limiting non-contracting reimbursement rates to no more than contracting rates, then passed SB 1086 as amended on a 4-2 vote. The committee then took up Senate Bill 1611, an emergency measure to require Access to contract with an administrative services organization for the American Indian Health Plan, while keeping Access ultimately responsible for administration. The chair’s amendment expanded ASO duties to include provider support, quality improvement, and data analytics, removed Access claims-payment authority, added tribal observers to the selection committee, and exempted IHS and tribal-facility services. The sponsor and tribal witnesses described the bill as a response to fraud, provider nonpayment, and harm to Native communities, while Access raised concerns about the fast timeline, tribal consultation requirements, possible duplication of program-integrity functions, and fiscal uncertainty. After debate over the emergency clause and tribal consultation, the committee adopted the amendment and passed SB 1611 as amended on a 5-2 vote. The committee also heard Senate Bill 1630, which would direct Access to seek federal approval for a Medicaid home- and community-based services program for adults with serious mental illness. Supporters said the bill would create a long-term community-care option for the sickest SMI members, reduce cycling through hospitals, jails, and homelessness, and potentially save state general fund dollars; family members and advocates testified in support. Access was neutral and said it was finalizing a fiscal estimate. The Angus amendment narrowed eligibility to long-term SMI, reduced the enrollment cap from 500 to 250, changed reporting to semiannual, and removed priority-order language; the committee adopted the amendment and passed SB 1630 as amended unanimously. Later, the committee passed Senate Bill 1193, which protects emergency medical care technicians’ personal identifying information from sale or disclosure by the Department of Health Services, after adopting a clarifying amendment expanding the protected information and addressing commercial requests. It then heard Senate Bill 1318, which repeals the state’s separate dense-breast notification requirement so Arizona law aligns with the FDA’s newer mammography notice standard; the sponsor and DHS said the change would reduce confusion from duplicate, slightly different notices, and the bill was moving forward with discussion of possible future amendment language.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, due to Assembly floor session, we will need to adjourn this hearing no later than 9 a.m.
• It also authorizes the Department of Finance to approve expenditures up to $2 million from the Foster
• There's no manner in which we would get an additional loan.
• There's no manner in which we would get an additional loan.
• No, it's going to be the state that repays itself.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing on SB 100/AB 100, the early action budget bills, with a focus on Medi-Cal funding, wildfire recovery, and several smaller budget adjustments. The Department of Finance explained that the bill would add $2.8 billion General Fund and $8.3 billion federal funds for Medi-Cal, along with other items including wildfire-related local assistance for Los Angeles County, property tax backfills for fire-damaged local agencies, Cal OES wildfire monitoring authority, nonprofit security grants, the Property Tax Postponement Fund, FARMER and Clean Cars for All funding, foster family home insurance claims, Proposition 98 technical assistance for LA wildfire-impacted schools, teacher credentialing authority, and Proposition 4 climate bond appropriations for wildfire and forest resilience projects. Much of the member discussion centered on rising Medi-Cal costs, the recent $3.4 billion cash-flow loan, and whether the new appropriation would cover payments through June. Finance said the new funds were for program costs and cash flow, not repayment of the loan, and that no additional loan authority remained. Members also debated the causes of higher Medi-Cal spending, including expanded eligibility, higher enrollment, pharmacy costs, and federal policy changes. The LAO noted that forecasting errors are not unusual but that current revisions are somewhat higher than typical, though not unprecedented. Several members emphasized that Medi-Cal supports access to care and hospital stability, while others raised concerns about sustainability and future federal cuts. Public commenters largely supported the bill, especially the Medi-Cal funding and wildfire-related provisions. Health and labor advocates argued that the program is functioning as intended by covering more low-income Californians and preventing uncompensated care. Representatives of special districts and the Altadena Library District supported the property tax backfill provisions tied to the Eaton fire. The hearing ended without a vote, with the chair noting that the committee would adjourn for floor session and that the Assembly would vote on one of the early action bills later that morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• No, I’d just like to thank some of you. I recall reference leadership in this area.
• But no, thank you.
• I've been a vegan for 20 years, so no offense.
• Well, no, let's just talk about plant protein.
• So the little blue dots that you're seeing are the DNA inside of the nuclei of the cells.

Summary: The Select Committee on Alternative Protein Innovation held its second informational hearing at UCLA, focusing on California’s alternative protein sector and the role of public institutions in expanding plant-based, fermentation, and cultivated protein options. Chair Ash Kalra opened by highlighting prior state investments in UC research centers, the importance of student engagement, and the hearing’s three panels: reducing the carbon footprint of institutional meals, addressing market challenges to scaling alternative proteins, and advancing future food research and workforce development. Assemblymember Isaac Bryan also briefly praised the committee’s work and its relevance to climate and health goals. The first panel featured Friends of the Earth, UCLA Dining, and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. Megan Jones described California school food efforts, including technical assistance and microgrants that helped districts expand plant-based meals, reduce water and carbon footprints, and improve student satisfaction. Pete Angelese explained how UCLA Dining uses concept-driven venues, sustainable purchasing, and marketing nudges to increase plant-forward choices, while Dr. Michelle Wood outlined Los Angeles County’s 2024–2025 board motions to expand plant-based options in county food venues and programs, including joining the World Resources Institute’s Cool Food Pledge. Committee members asked about costs, procurement, and how student and consumer behavior can be influenced. The second panel addressed market barriers to scaling alternative proteins. Zach Weston and Daniel Gertner emphasized that the sector faces a cost-and-scale trap, high capital needs, and financing gaps, and they recommended grants, tax credits, loan guarantees, procurement commitments, and workforce development. T.K. Pillen of Beyond Meat argued that the category has faced a recent downturn due to consumer skepticism, industry attacks on “fake meat,” and pricing pressures, and said the key to renewed growth is increasing demand through better taste, health, pricing, and messaging around “plant protein.” Panelists also discussed hidden subsidies and structural advantages for conventional animal agriculture, and committee members raised questions about iBank loan guarantees and supply chain challenges. The final panel highlighted UCLA’s research and training efforts. Dr. Amy Roet described the Future Food Fellows program, which trains students across disciplines in science, communication, leadership, and community-building, and supports research on scalable, safe, and nutritious alternative proteins. Corinne Smith shared her cultivated meat research and student leadership in the Alternative Proteins Project at UCLA. Dr. Janet Tomiyama presented consumer psychology findings showing that disgust, gender norms, and terminology strongly affect acceptance, with “plant protein” and “complementary proteins” testing better than “fake meat.” The hearing concluded with support for continued public investment, clearer messaging, and expanded education and workforce pipelines to help California remain a leader in alternative protein innovation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Most of the time, almost all those people will mention there's no kitchen.
• No, I'd just like to thank some of you recall reference leadership in this area.
• I've been a vegan for 20 years, so no offense.
• Well, no, let's just talk about plant protein.
• The chair reassured them, “No, you’re doing great.

Summary: The Select Committee on Alternative Protein Innovation held its second informational hearing at UCLA, focused on how California can expand alternative proteins through institutional food programs, market support, and research. Chair Ash Kalra said the committee’s purpose was to inform future legislation and budget actions, noting prior state investments in UC research centers and the committee’s interest in consumer education, sustainability, and student workforce development. The first panel highlighted efforts to increase plant-based options in schools, UCLA dining, and Los Angeles County food services, with witnesses describing menu changes, technical assistance, and procurement policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving access to healthier meals. Megan Jones of Friends of the Earth described California school food efforts, including technical assistance and microgrants that helped districts add plant-based meals, reduce water use and food costs, and increase student participation. Pete Angelese of UCLA Dining said the university serves more than 30,000 meals a day and has built a plant-forward dining model using alternative proteins, marketing nudges, and waste-tracking tools; he said sustainability goals raise costs but can be managed through scale and efficiency. Dr. Michelle Wood of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health outlined county board motions in 2024 and 2025 to expand plant-based food options in county venues and food assistance programs and to join the Cool Food Pledge, with early adoption in the sheriff’s jail food service. The second panel addressed barriers to scaling the industry. Zach Weston and Daniel Gertner said alternative proteins face a financing gap because companies need expensive facilities before demand is proven, and they urged grants, tax credits, loan guarantees, procurement commitments, and shared pilot infrastructure. T.K. Pillen of Beyond Meat said the category has faced a market downturn driven by overhyped expectations, negative messaging from the meat industry, and consumer confusion, and argued for reframing the category around “plant protein” and using public procurement to build demand. Members asked about subsidies for animal agriculture, supply-chain challenges, and the state’s loan guarantee cap, with witnesses saying current support structures favor conventional meat and that California could do more to keep manufacturing in-state. The final panel focused on research and workforce development at UCLA. Dr. Amy Rohat described a state-funded Future Food Fellows program and broader UC collaboration that now includes more than 50 faculty and trainees across multiple departments, with work spanning cell biology, engineering, food safety, and consumer communication. Corinne Smith, a UCLA PhD student, discussed her cultivated meat research and student outreach through the Alternative Proteins Project. Dr. Janet Tomiyama presented consumer psychology findings showing that disgust, gender norms, and language strongly affect acceptance, and said terms like “plant protein” and “cultivated meat” tested better than “fake meat.” Chair Kalra closed by emphasizing that language, policy, and public education will all be important to advancing alternative protein innovation in California.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Dibble votes no. Senator Port votes no. And Senator Xiong votes no. votes no.
• Senator Port votes no. And votes no. Senator Port votes no.
• Senator Howe votes no. Senator Howe votes no. Senator Utke votes no. Senator Utke votes no.
• Senator Murphy votes no. Port votes no. Senator Murphy votes no.
• Senator Dibble votes no. Senator Dibble votes no. Senator Port votes no. Senator Port votes no.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> repurpose these lands but make no repurpose these lands but make no mistake<00:58:20.640><c> that
• </c> hcda when they're already saying no hcda when they're already saying no may<01:43:24.480><c> not
• </c><02:03:31.440><c> I</c> one was ever no no and the reason I one was ever no no and the reason I voted
• :03:33.800><c> I</c> voted no was and the reason I voted no I voted no was and the reason I voted no
• </c> then we should there should be no then we should there should be no problem<02:44:28.760><c> to<

Summary: The joint hearing of the Water and Land, Hawaiian Affairs, and Housing committees on January 29, 2025 focused on SB 534, with the chairs outlining hearing procedures, public testimony limits, and plans to allow extended presentations from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and the Hawaii Community Development Authority (HCDA) before moving to other testifiers. The hearing was presented as a public, transparent discussion of OHA’s plans for Kakaʻako Makai, with committee members noting that decision-making would follow if time permitted. OHA testified in strong support of SB 534. The chair of OHA’s Board of Trustees said the bill was a novel proposal for the legislature and emphasized that OHA was bringing together a broad coalition of partners and stakeholders, including representatives from construction, hospitality, education, law enforcement, civil service, and schools, as well as longtime community advocates who have opposed development in Kakaʻako Makai. OHA’s presentation reviewed the history of the area, the creation and role of HCDA, prior master plans, the 2012 land conveyance to OHA, and the argument that OHA has not been able to realize the full economic value of the lands because desired entitlements were not secured. OHA linked the bill to its constitutional mission to improve conditions for Native Hawaiians and argued that the state’s housing crisis makes additional development, including residential use, especially important. A major theme of the testimony was housing. OHA argued that Hawaiʻi faces severe affordability pressures, out-migration, and workforce shortages, and said that residential development in Kakaʻako Makai would help address those needs while also supporting the value of the trust lands. The presentation described HCDA’s authority over zoning and development in Kakaʻako, the existing reserved housing requirements, and the need for a master plan that could move forward if SB 534 becomes law. No votes or final committee action were taken in the portion of the hearing provided; the discussion remained in the presentation and testimony phase.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I think it would be helpful, similar to the SBX-1-2 and ABX-1-2.
• So I think it would be helpful similar to the SBX-1-2 and ABX-1-2. with everybody.
• **Witness:** No, not that I know of.
• So the first takeaway, no surprise...
• So the first takeaway, no surprise... Particular.

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee held an informational hearing on the environmental impacts and planning considerations associated with refinery closures. In opening remarks, the chair framed refinery shutdowns as a complex part of California’s decarbonization transition and said the committee would focus on environmental and land-use issues, while Vice Chair Gunda argued closures reflect years of policy-driven disinvestment and warned that supply disruptions and higher prices could harm working families. State agency witnesses from the Energy Commission, CARB, and the Water Boards described the state as being in a “mid-transition,” with declining gasoline demand, growing zero-emission vehicle adoption, and increasing conversion of some refinery assets to renewable fuels, but also with abrupt capacity losses that can force greater reliance on imports and storage. They emphasized the need for proactive planning, transparency, and coordination across agencies, and noted that refinery closures can stress pipelines, terminals, and other linked infrastructure, with potential liabilities falling to the state if those assets are not financially supported. The Water Boards explained their cleanup authorities and tools for refinery decommissioning, including investigation, monitoring, remediation, and enforcement under the Water Code, and said site-specific cleanup plans depend on contamination, groundwater conditions, and future land use. They noted that decommissioning can reveal previously inaccessible areas and require additional sampling or wells, and that cleanup costs can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Committee members pressed the witnesses on whether the state has enough information to plan for land transitions, whether current tools are adequate, and whether more standardized procedures or financial assurances are needed. The witnesses generally said existing tools are useful but that more transparency and better data sharing would help communities and policymakers understand liabilities and long-term redevelopment opportunities. Members also questioned the relationship between California policy, refinery closures, imports, and global emissions. CARB said its programs apply to transportation fuel suppliers whether fuel is refined in-state or imported, and that its climate and air-quality rules are designed to reduce emissions and avoid leakage. Some senators argued that California’s policies have accelerated closures and that demand has not fallen fast enough to offset lost refining capacity, while agency witnesses responded that closures are also driven by global market forces, aging infrastructure, crude quality, and changing fuel demand. The committee then heard from outside experts, including a Notre Dame professor who said closure costs are often underestimated and that stronger financial assurance requirements can shift company behavior, a Stanford/SLAC researcher who outlined five drivers of refinery closures, and an environmental attorney who discussed community impacts and lessons from the Phillips 66 Los Angeles refinery closure. No votes or formal actions were taken; the hearing was informational and focused on testimony and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• By your vote of nine ayes and one no, you voted House Bill 1960 do pass.
• No, go ahead. Keep on.
• The legislature appropriated $2 million to the division to promote the World Cup.
• Seeing none, that will conclude the public hearing with no further business.
• Seeing none, that will conclude the public hearing with no further business.

Committee: House Special Committee on Tourism

Summary: The Special Committee on Tourism met in executive session and approved three House bills: HB 2307, designating Missouri Military Academy as the official military academy of Missouri, passed 10-0; HB 3264, designating Kansas City as the barbecue capital of Missouri, passed 10-0; HB 1960, naming the smooth chanterelle the official state mushroom, passed 9-1; and HB 3074, establishing William Lacey Clay Senior Day in Missouri, passed 10-0. After the executive session, the committee opened a public hearing on HCR 36, which would designate June 3 as Josephine Baker Day in Missouri. The sponsor and a witness described Baker’s St. Louis roots, international entertainment career, service in the French Resistance, civil rights work, and her significance to Missouri heritage and tourism. Committee members voiced strong support and asked questions about her legacy, including her adopted children and her role as a model for Black women and civil rights advocacy. The committee then heard a presentation from Stephen Fouts, director of the Missouri Division of Tourism, on the state’s tourism marketing efforts and economic impact. He said tourism generated more than $21 billion in economic impact, over $18 billion in direct spending, and supported more than 307,000 jobs, with more than 43 million visitors in the last fiscal year. He outlined the division’s marketing strategy, including the Mo character campaign, cooperative marketing grants for local DMOs, the Meet in Missouri Fund, film incentives, and major event promotion tied to the World Cup, Route 66 Centennial, and America 250. He also reported strong returns on marketing investment and discussed sports tourism, youth sports, and the importance of the cooperative marketing program to local communities. A major topic of discussion was the possibility of significant budget cuts to tourism. The chair and several members argued that tourism is a major economic driver and said they would oppose deep reductions, with multiple members offering to sign a committee letter or otherwise advocate against cuts. Members asked how reductions would affect marketing, sports tourism, and the cooperative marketing program; Fouts said large cuts would likely reduce co-op funding proportionally and could harm local partners. No final action was taken on HCR 36 during the hearing, and the meeting adjourned after testimony and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've worked collaboratively with Blue Cross Blue Shield to establish this, where the main changes were
• They can receive that without violating the no more than two or no more than three device language.
• And so all of this language has been approved by both OSI as well as Blue Cross Blue Shield and other
• No, no. Okay, sorry. I have so many subs here. It's 23387.1. Oh, okay. Yes, I have that here too.
• Madam Chair and Representative, no, that is not tied to the Medicaid rules.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and first took up the committee substitute for HB 38, a complex insurance bill concerning coverage for prosthetics, orthotics, and complex rehab technology. The sponsor and expert witness explained that the substitute made technical clarifications across multiple sections of law, including explicit coverage language, restoration of services and supplies, and replacement timing rules to avoid overuse while preserving access when a patient’s medical needs change. They said the changes had been reviewed and supported by the Office of Superintendent of Insurance and insurers, and there was no opposition from the public. Members asked about the need to return the bill to committee because of the number of statutory changes, and the sponsor said the Speaker wanted a clean committee substitute before floor action. The committee adopted the substitute and then approved a do pass recommendation on the committee substitute for HB 38, with no opposition. The committee then heard House Memorial 59, which requests a study of fair compensation for foster parents, including consideration of a cost-of-living allowance, with findings due to the Legislative Health and Human Services Committee by November 30. CYFD testified that the study would likely use a contractor and that the department already has related recruitment, retention, and placement work underway. Members asked about foster parent numbers, foster care plus stipends, Social Security benefits for children in care, and clothing allowances; CYFD explained current payment structures, including a $50 monthly clothing amount built into the rate and separate vouchers in some cases. The committee heard supportive testimony from the New Mexico Child First Network and then voted do pass on HM 59 without opposition. The chair announced there would be no meeting the next day and adjourned the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we have no time to lose.
• Refineries are no different.
• No, I always appreciate it. Seeing no other comments, would you like to close?
• Ellis: No. Thank you. And Energy Committee. Connolly: Aye. Ellis: No.
• Colleen: No. Ellis: No. Barakahan, Castillo, Lee, McKinner, Papin: Aye.

Summary: The Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee heard three main bills after initially lacking a quorum and deferring the consent calendar. SB 501 by Senator Allen would expand California’s battery extended producer responsibility program to include medium-format batteries, such as those used in e-bikes, lawn equipment, and portable power systems. Supporters from local governments, recycling groups, environmental organizations, and battery stewardship interests said the bill would reduce fire risks, improve collection and recycling, and close a gap in existing law. One industry witness sought clarification about off-highway vehicles and a battery association requested guardrails for mixed battery formats; the California Retailers Association moved from opposition to neutral after discussions with the author. SB 1125 by Senator Menjivar would create a statewide, state-funded low-income drinking water rate assistance program administered by the State Water Resources Control Board, contingent on funding. The author and supporters said many Californians face water debt and that the bill would help address affordability while working around Proposition 218 limits on local ratepayer-funded assistance. Water districts, local governments, environmental justice groups, and conservation organizations testified in support, and there was no opposition. SB 1259 by Senator Blakespear, as amended, would require refineries to provide advance information on closure, cleanup costs, and timelines to help communities plan for refinery transitions and remediation. Supporters, including the City of Benicia, environmental justice groups, and advocacy organizations, argued that communities need transparency before closures occur and that other energy sectors already provide similar planning information. Opponents from labor, petroleum, and business groups argued the bill was unnecessary, burdensome, and could discourage refinery investment or signal premature decline of the industry. After extensive debate, the committee voted to pass SB 1259 as amended to the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee, and also approved SB 501 and SB 1125; the consent calendar items SB 1253 and SJR 13 were adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing no discussion, all those in favor will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no.
• Seeing no discussion, all those in favor will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no.
• Seeing no discussion, all those in favor will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no.
• Seeing no discussion, all those in favor will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no.
• Seeing no discussion, all those in favor will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's no way to account...
• It can't be, you know, there's no way to account—let's talk shore erosion—there's no way to account prior
• There's no, If it's not in 252, okay, you're not in compliance.
• There's no reason for me to go. No, there is cost.
• Because in the worst-case scenario, there are no utilities, there's no power, there's no water.

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development

Summary: The committee received a program review from the Florida Division of Emergency Management on the 2024 hurricane season and FEMA reimbursement process. Deputy Director Keith Pruitt described the impacts of Hurricanes Debby, Helene, and Milton, including major storm surge, flooding, tornadoes, debris removal, power restoration, flood-control deployments, sheltering, and logistics missions. He emphasized that Florida’s approach is “federally funded, state managed, locally executed,” and said the division has already obligated large amounts of public assistance funding and mitigation dollars while continuing to work on remaining missions and reimbursements. A major focus of the discussion was how local governments can better document and vet debris-removal and other disaster costs so they are eligible for FEMA reimbursement. Chair DiCeglie and other senators raised concerns about local planning, commercial debris collection, and whether counties and municipalities that spend money up front will be reimbursed. Pruitt explained that eligibility depends on documentation, scope of work, insurance, and FEMA rules, and that the state’s FROC process is intended to help counties identify eligible work before costs are incurred. He also said commercial debris may be eligible in some cases but is not guaranteed, and that counties should coordinate early with FDEM and FEMA. Senators also asked about possible FEMA reforms, the age of outstanding reimbursement claims, and a proposed state fund to advance money to fiscally constrained counties while they wait for FEMA payments. Pruitt said Florida’s system is a national best practice, but that more county-level training and clearer coordination would help reduce de-obligations and audit problems. He said the reimbursement-advance idea is still being developed, and that the state continues to look at ways to streamline mitigation through programs like Elevate Florida. The committee took no formal action beyond hearing the presentation, and the meeting adjourned after closing comments from senators praising FDEM’s work.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's no record, there's no written agreement.
• The chair then said there were no other pink cards and requested the blue sheet from Representative Miner
• no no endpoint<03:39:15.399><c> no</c><03:39:15.520><c> there's</c><03:39:15.680><c> an</c><03:39:15.800
• No?
• It makes no sense.

Summary: The Environment and Agriculture Committee held a hearing on HB 566, which would require permit applications for new landfills to include a detailed leachate management plan. Representative German introduced the bill and explained that it was prompted by recent reporting on leachate management problems at New Hampshire landfills, including alleged violations and deficiency letters from DES. He said the bill was intended to address public health concerns, PFAS contamination, and increased leachate volumes tied to more severe rainstorms, while still allowing innovation in treatment and transportation methods. He also described a set of proposed amendments developed after discussions with DES and a landfill operator, including changing “permit for construction” to “operating approval,” applying the bill to landfill expansions, moving contract-related language into the planning section, and removing a proposed new subparagraph. Committee members asked whether the bill would limit operator flexibility or duplicate existing DES rules. Representative German said the bill would not dictate specific treatment methods or lock operators into long-term contracts, but would require a plan showing how leachate will be managed, transported, and disposed of, with later contract changes reported to DES. Several members and the BIA representative questioned whether the bill was necessary given existing Env 806 rules and DES enforcement authority. The Business and Industry Association opposed the bill as introduced, arguing that DES already has rules and technical expertise, that the issue is better handled through rulemaking, and that moving requirements into statute could freeze the framework and make future adjustments harder. Supporters countered that a statute would provide a stronger, more durable policy commitment in response to ongoing problems. No vote or final committee action was taken during the hearing. The discussion ended with the bill still under consideration and with the sponsor indicating that a revised amendment would likely be brought forward for later work session or executive session review.

Transcript Highlights:

• Winneger, says no. No, they don't get that constitutional right.
• And I vote no. Thank you. Senator Gonzalez votes no.
• So with that, I vote no. Senator Diaz votes no.
• So I vote no, and I urge a no from all of you. Senator Sundareshan votes no. Senator Epstein, Mr.
• I vote no. No. No. Systems closed. I vote no. No. The system is closed.