Transcript Highlights:

• We have other demand response programs: base interruptible program, air conditioning cycling program,
• of both of the programs, create a new program.
• But does that mean all of those programs are mandatory programs?
• We’re here on a subject of solar programs. This is a solar program.
• of the program.

Summary: The committee first heard Issue 1 on trailer bill language to redirect funding for emergency demand-response programs. The Department of Finance proposed using about $26.9 million in General Fund originally set aside for the Distributed Energy Backup Assets program to bolster the Demand-Side Grid Support Program for summer 2026, and using about $70 million in CalCHAP interest to support ratepayer-funded demand response in summers 2027 and 2028. The CEC and CPUC said they are working on a transition from DSGS to ELRP or a successor program, while the LAO noted the General Fund money would otherwise revert to savings. Members pressed the administration on whether demand response remains important, whether DSGS has been successful, and whether the state should keep funding it through the CEC rather than shifting to a ratepayer-funded CPUC program. The CEC and CPUC said the programs are not directly comparable, emphasized different cost structures and enrollment metrics, and said a CPUC rulemaking is underway with a proposed decision expected in Q3 2026. No vote was taken in the transcript. The committee then took up Issue 2, a budget proposal tied to SB 254 and the new transmission accelerator. GoBiz and the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank described a five-year, roughly $26 million request to staff and administer the accelerator and manage Proposition 4 and AB 1207 funds for transmission financing. Members asked about state liability, ownership of financed lines, FERC revenue requirements, and whether the program would help underserved regions and offshore wind development. Staff explained that the accelerator would only consider projects already identified through CAISO’s competitive transmission planning process, and that state financing would be a small portion of large projects intended to lower overall costs to ratepayers. The LAO said it had no specific concerns but urged the Legislature to ensure the final language matches its intent. The committee also heard Issue 3 on petroleum market oversight. The CEC and its Division of Petroleum Market Oversight requested additional positions and funding to implement ABX2-1 and continue work on supply stabilization, refinery monitoring, and transportation fuels analysis. Members questioned why the work was funded through the Energy Resources Programs Account, whether existing staff from the paused price-gouging work could be reassigned, and whether the program had produced evidence of price gouging or improved supply conditions. CEC and Finance said the new positions are needed because the workload has expanded, while some existing staff remain on related analysis and reporting duties. The discussion ended without a vote in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those programs are the Tribal Food Sovereignty Program.
• Conservation programs, including the California Farmland Conservancy Program, which is one of the programs
• Of the CDA program, you know, the existing school nutrition funding programs.
• Programs, but those federal programs are distinct from these funds.
• 20 in the GDRF programs.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So the next program we'll talk about is the North Star Promise program.
• year of the program.
• program.
• The next program I'd like to talk about is a pilot program, a temporary funded program, and that's the
• <01:26:27.960> program our direct admissions programs program our direct admissions programs

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The first program I'll talk about is the MFIP program.
• The first program I'll talk about is the MFIP program.
• The first program I'll talk about is the MFIP program.
• <00:32:34.399> that program is a federal program that program is a federal program that distributes
• /c> sovereignty program is a program to sovereignty program is a program to improve<00:32:54.039>

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee met for an introductory overview of its jurisdiction and budget, with the chair emphasizing the committee’s role over a large portfolio of children, youth, and family programs and the new Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF). House Research and House Fiscal staff explained their roles and described the 2023-24 reorganization that transferred many programs from DHS, DPS, MDH, and MDE to DCYF, along with a statute recodification and a crosswalk resource for members. Doug Berg then walked through the committee’s budget structure, explaining the difference between all-funds and general fund views, the major funding sources, and how forecasted programs and grant bases roll forward. He highlighted that the committee’s general fund base is a little over $2.1 billion for the biennium, with large federal components such as SNAP and TANF, and noted smaller accounts including child protection-related opioid funds and federal reimbursement offsets (FFP) for administrative costs. Members asked several questions about federal financial participation, TANF, and the effect of the repeal of the Diversionary Work Program (DWP). Staff explained that FFP generally applies to administrative costs for federally related programs and usually does not change much unless program activity changes, while TANF is a block grant that has been stable for years. On DWP, staff said the program was sunsetted effective March 1, 2026, and that the associated funding and administrative costs were being reworked rather than simply removed. A member also asked about federal funding fluctuations; staff said no changes were currently factored in, though SNAP or other federal policy changes could alter future numbers. Danielle Penelli then presented on economic assistance and employment supports transferred to DCYF, focusing first on MFIP, Minnesota’s state-supervised, county-administered welfare program jointly funded by state and federal dollars. She explained that MFIP provides cash and food assistance, employment and training services, and related supports, with a 60-month time limit and certain exemptions for illness, incapacity, or other barriers to employment. She also described the program’s income and asset standards, including a $10,000 asset limit with exclusions for homesteads and one vehicle per assistance unit member age 16 or older. Members asked clarifying questions about how the time limit applies and what assets count, and staff responded that the limit applies to the caregiver and does not restart with additional children. Penelli also introduced support services grants, which fund employment services for MFIP, DWP, and SNAP participants through workforce centers, counties, tribes, and community agencies, and help cover some county and tribal administrative costs. She began outlining nutrition programs under DCYF, including SNAP, the Minnesota Food Assistance Program, the Minnesota Food Shelf Program, the Emergency Food Assistance Program, and the American Indian Food Sovereignty Program. No formal votes or bill actions were taken during this meeting; it was primarily an informational staff briefing and question-and-answer session.

Transcript Highlights:

• into the program.
• Many of the trades programs actually articulate with various programs, multiple programs.
• their programs.
• program.
• We have many programs, we have other programs within our RT suite, but just wanted to showcase this program

Summary: The work session focused first on Washington’s apprenticeship system, especially building trades programs and support services. Labor and Industries staff explained how registered apprenticeship works in the state, including the role of the Washington State Apprenticeship and Training Council, the requirements for paid on-the-job training and classroom instruction, and the difference between apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship. Panelists emphasized that apprenticeship is tied to actual jobs and training agents, and that many waitlists reflect a shortage of job openings and employer participation rather than a lack of interest. They also discussed youth apprenticeship, the growth of apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs, and the use of Career Bridge and L&I’s database to help people find programs. Representatives asked whether the state should expand apprenticeship programs and how people can find openings. Speakers said more programs alone would not solve the backlog without more employers signing on as training agents and more apprenticeship utilization on projects. The panel also highlighted the Constructed Career Initiative, a grant-funded navigation and support program that helps people enter and stay in building trades apprenticeships through outreach, case management, and wraparound aid such as transportation, tools, and work clothes. A related nonprofit, Build Up, described similar support services, including prison-based boot and PPE programs and assistance for reentry participants. The panel said these services are especially important because apprentices often face unstable income, housing, food, and transportation barriers. The panel also discussed House Bill 2084 and the new Construction Training Pathway Oversight Committee, which is examining construction training in correctional facilities and how to create clearer pathways from prison-based training to apprenticeship, college, or work. Speakers said the committee is still in its early stages and will report to the legislature. The session ended with committee members thanking the panel and noting the importance of support services and referral networks for apprentices. The meeting then resumed at Renton Technical College, where college leaders and faculty discussed serving non-traditional students. The college reported strong enrollment growth, a median student age of 30, a diverse student body, and high job placement rates, while also noting significant budget cuts and program reductions from the prior year. Health care and early childhood education programs were highlighted, including efforts to expand access through hybrid scheduling, evening and Saturday classes, Spanish-language offerings, and in-person wraparound support for admissions, financial aid, and registration. Faculty said these changes were driven by student data and were aimed at helping working parents, English learners, and other non-traditional students complete credentials and enter family-wage careers.

Transcript Highlights:

• That program was established as a statewide program in September of 2021.
• Program, a different program built on that program that you did last year. This is long overdue.
• programs moving forward?
• programs.
• food shelter program.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• About 80% of the TK programs are full-day programs; 20% are not.
• Title III program, which is a literacy program during the questions with Ms.
• similar program, and I'm... ...either the same program or a very similar program, and I'm just curious
• similar program. and I'm either the same program or a very similar program and I'm just curious what
• health program.

Summary: The committee heard the May Revision presentation for the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance, with public comment focused heavily on K-12 priorities such as universal school meals, kitchen infrastructure, food service and custodial support, youth leadership grants, Special Olympics funding, English learner support, universal pre-K, literacy investments, and concerns about community college funding shifts. Speakers also urged support for expanded learning, teacher recruitment and training, and maintaining or increasing funding for community colleges and student support programs. Finance and the LAO then reviewed the Proposition 98 outlook. Finance said the May Revision lowers the 2025-26 Prop. 98 guarantee to $114.6 billion, about $4.3 billion below January, due mainly to lower revenue estimates, with smaller effects from attendance and property tax changes. The administration also described rebenching for universal transitional kindergarten and a one-time rebench tied to Los Angeles fire-related property tax losses, along with changes to the Public School System Stabilization Account, deferrals, and updated COLA assumptions. The LAO said the budget relies too much on deferrals and one-time funds, creates a structural shortfall, and should instead align ongoing spending with the guarantee and preserve a reserve buffer. Members questioned the TK rebench and the shift of funding from community colleges to K-12, asking why it was being applied retroactively and how colleges would be held harmless. Finance said the changes align funding with where TK costs are being incurred and that reappropriation funding and other adjustments would offset impacts on community colleges. The LAO argued the historical split formula is outdated and should be abandoned in favor of budgeting around current priorities rather than fixed percentages. Members also raised concerns about draining the rainy day reserve and using deferrals, while the LAO said preserving reserves would better protect against future volatility. The committee then moved to specific K-12 and education proposals. Finance outlined May Revision changes including state operations adjustments for the Department of Education, technical trailer bill changes, a $100 million student teacher stipend program administered by Kern County, and updates to the charter school facility grant program. The LAO recommended rejecting the proposed increases for expanded learning, literacy coaches, and the student teacher stipend as currently structured, while supporting the minimum grant increase for expanded learning. Members expressed support for teacher recruitment efforts but questioned whether one-time funding can sustain ongoing programs and whether the student teacher stipend should be targeted to shortage areas or low-income communities.

Transcript Highlights:

• and our vpk Summer Bridge program.
• Both of these programs are new programs that were implemented for the first time in fiscal year. 24 25
• our S our vpk program first and foremost is our school readiness plus program.
• So what is the average co pay increase from the SR program to the SR plus program?
• program.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is not the primary goal for the program. It is not the primary goal for the program.
• Cap is half of this program, and if we go above the cap, we're failing 50% of the program.
• As far as the direct benefit, it depends on the program. There are a number of programs.
• Thank you. ...programs and the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program.
• Low Carbon Transit Operations Program, and the transit intercity capital program.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee and Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 held a joint hearing on CARB’s proposed amendments to the cap-and-invest regulations. Opening remarks from senators emphasized the 2025 reauthorization of the program through AB 1207 and SB 840, and focused on whether CARB’s April revisions faithfully implement legislative intent while balancing climate ambition, affordability, leakage prevention, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). Several senators raised concerns that the proposal could reduce GGRF revenues, weaken funding for transit, affordable housing, wildfire prevention, drinking water, and other community programs, and shift too much support toward industry. Others stressed the need to protect businesses and consumers from higher costs and to avoid leakage and refinery closures. Senator Cortese’s statement, read into the record, warned that the proposal could jeopardize transportation funding commitments. CARB Chair Lauren Sanchez said the amendments respond to legislative direction and public comment, and described four main changes: increased electric bill credits, a larger manufacturing decarbonization incentive (MDI), additional compliance support for industry, and removal of post-2030 allowance allocations from the current rulemaking. She said the proposal keeps the cap aligned with 2030 and 2045 targets, maintains affordability protections, and is intended to reduce emissions while minimizing leakage and supporting in-state jobs. CARB staff also said the MDI would have guardrails, require applications and reporting, and be tied to emissions-reducing facility upgrades. The Department of Finance explained that GGRF revenue estimates are highly uncertain and are updated periodically based on auction data. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the amendments are significant and could materially affect environmental ambition, industry support, utility credits, and GGRF revenues. LAO highlighted that the MDI could add allowances above the cap, potentially reducing certainty that 2030 targets will be met, and noted that the proposal appears to shift more allowances to industry and fewer to GGRF than current regulations. LAO also said the proposed GGRF estimate of about $8 billion through the decade could be insufficient to fully fund lower-priority tiers of programs. In questioning, senators pressed CARB on whether the proposal would raise consumer costs, whether free allowances or MDI funds would actually lower prices at the pump, how leakage is measured, and whether the Legislature’s budget assumptions would need to be revised before final action. No votes were taken during the hearing; the discussion was informational and focused on questioning CARB and fiscal staff ahead of the board’s planned May 28 consideration of the amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a mentoring program.
• the adult education program.
• The specific categorical programs include the adult education program, Extended Opportunity Programs
• . workforce Pell Grant Program.
• , and the program expands upon the federal Pell Grant program, but has some key differences.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education heard May Revision proposals covering higher education, including the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, the University of California, California Community Colleges, the California Student Aid Commission, UC College of the Law, San Francisco, and trailer bill reporting changes. For the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, the administration proposed a one-time $10 million General Fund backfill to repay a special fund loan taken to cover litigation costs, plus provisional language to adjust for a pending legal expense and to repay the loan without interest. The LAO opposed shifting costs to the General Fund and raised legal concerns about an interest-free loan under Proposition 26. Senators asked about whether the $10 million would cover the litigation and about the estimated $245,000 in interest savings. For UC, the May Revision maintained the Governor’s ongoing support and included budget language requiring campuses to grow by 2,968 California undergraduates in 2026-27. UC also sought $1.5 million in one-time General Fund support for the First Star foster youth program. UC described strong outcomes for the UCLA program, while the LAO recommended rejecting the new spending because UC already has overlapping outreach programs, including the Early Academic Outreach Program, and because the need for new state funding was not clear. Senators debated whether the proposal duplicated existing services and discussed the program’s reported college-going and completion rates. The committee also heard a request for $1 million ongoing General Fund for UC College of the Law, San Francisco, to maintain campus safety services; the college described its shared-campus model and public-interest mission, while the LAO noted the college was also raising tuition and that the proposal would maintain, rather than expand, current security spending. The committee then reviewed community college proposals. Finance outlined a larger May Revision package centered on a 4.31% SCFF COLA, enrollment growth funding, categorical COLAs, a one-time Adult Learner Demonstration Project allocation, deferred maintenance, and other ongoing and one-time items. The Chancellor’s Office supported the package but asked for more enrollment growth funding, a higher growth rate, and additional policy changes. The LAO recommended at least funding the statutory 2.87% COLA, then considering whether to redirect remaining funds to enrollment growth, categorical COLAs, or one-time priorities; it recommended rejecting the Adult Learner Demonstration Project. Senators questioned the use of the discretionary COLA to cover paid pregnancy disability leave, the impact on hold harmless and basic aid districts, and whether the state should instead create a separate categorical. The Chancellor’s Office and Finance said the COLA approach was intended to provide flexibility, though Finance said it was open to further discussion about districts that would not receive direct funding. For student aid, Finance described May Revision changes to Cal Grant and the Middle Class Scholarship, including a one-time reduction tied to lower estimated costs and a later true-up, as well as proposals for the Golden State Teacher Grant Program and implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. CSAC supported the financial aid investments but urged more time and clearer implementation planning for Workforce Pell, noting the need for state approval processes, data linkages, and likely ongoing administrative workload. The LAO recommended rejecting additional Golden State Teacher Grant funding and cautioned that the Workforce Pell trailer bill and one-time funding were premature given the new federal rules and unclear workload. Senators also raised concerns about the Middle Class Scholarship reduction, the need to support students facing higher living costs, and the decline in CADA/DREAM Act applications, with CSAC saying the drop did not reflect reduced need and that outreach should be strengthened. The final item was a set of technical trailer bill changes to shift some UC, CSU, and community college reporting from annual to biennial and consolidate reports; Finance said there were no programmatic changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• strong communities is a program created strong communities is a program created to<00:01:06.560>
• apprenticeship Readiness program apprenticeship Readiness program designed<00:02:50.200> to
• Additionally, each participant is assigned a program advocate at the beginning of the program and one
• But that program, I think there's a grant program, Women in Nontraditional Occupations, and other programs
• But that program, I think there's a grant program, Women in Nontraditional Occupations, and other programs

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• become available to support the programs become available to support the programs and<00:02:56.319
• sure that the JC would create a program sure that the JC would create a program Statewide<00:07:
• <00:08:22.840> I getting people through the program I getting people through the program I
• that registered apprenticeship program that registered apprenticeship program is<00:09:46.680>
• > with programs ensure program compliance with programs ensure program compliance with state<00

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• program.
• to the one-time program.
• About 80% of the TK programs are full day programs, 20% are not.
• to those specific program.
• health program.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And the two major programs funded in this budget entity are the Voluntary Pre-Kindergarten program, or
• VPK, and the School Readiness Program.
• Our largest program is our TEACH program, which is where we come in and walk alongside our workforce.
• The monitoring tool that the school readiness program and/or VPK program does relates specifically to
• And so when you're contracted for both programs, but you have differing requirements for that program

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee met with a quorum and focused on School Readiness, specifically the new provider reimbursement rates and the School Readiness Plus program. The chair gave an overview of how School Readiness is funded and administered, noting that the Legislature now sets county-based reimbursement rates using market and cost data, and that School Readiness Plus was created to help families who would otherwise fall off the subsidy “cliff” at 85% of state median income by extending assistance up to 100% of state median income. Panelists from the Children’s Forum, the Association of Early Learning Coalitions, and the Division of Early Learning described the programs as major workforce and family-support tools that help parents stay employed and help providers recruit and retain qualified staff. Testimony emphasized that higher reimbursement rates increase parental choice, help providers cover rising child care costs, and support better staffing and lower turnover. The panel also said School Readiness Plus is easing the pressure on families to turn down raises or promotions for fear of losing child care assistance, though uptake is still early because the program only began in late 2024 and is only available to current School Readiness families at redetermination. The Division of Early Learning reported about 275 children enrolled in School Readiness Plus as of March 10, with expenditures of about $161,420 through January 2025, and said participation is increasing. Members asked about the federal-state funding split, wait lists, reverted funds, coalition accountability, county-based rate differences, and whether the entrance eligibility threshold should be raised or shifted to state median income. The panel said roughly 70% of School Readiness funding is federal, about 4% has typically reverted in recent years, and the wait list is around 12,000 children, with reasons including income ineligibility, lack of available seats, and funding limits. They argued that raising the entrance threshold would expand access but would require additional funding, and they also discussed the need to reduce workforce barriers such as in-person testing and training requirements. The meeting ended with no formal action beyond the presentation and member discussion, and the subcommittee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:01:10.720> menure subsidized Healthcare programs menure subsidized Healthcare programs
• Medicaid program.
• MinnesotaCare is another program that is a federal-state program. It's not the Medicaid program.
• in the two programs in the two programs there<00:18:59.799> are<00:19:00.080> premiums
• <00:32:08.320> to program which is a set of programs to program which is a set of programs

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The meeting was an informational walkthrough for the Health Finance and Policy Working Group, focused on committee structure, budget basics, and major health-related accounts and programs. Staff explained the roles of House Research and House Fiscal, then reviewed key funds used by the committee, including the general fund, government special revenue fund, federal funds, the health care access fund, remediation account, and drinking water revolving fund. They also outlined the committee’s main budget areas, noting that medical assistance is the largest general fund item and that the Department of Health is a substantial agency funded by a mix of federal, general fund, and special revenue dollars. A major portion of the presentation covered subsidized health coverage programs. Staff described Medical Assistance (Minnesota’s Medicaid program) as an entitlement for eligible Minnesotans, with no premiums or cost sharing, and explained its managed care and fee-for-service delivery systems. MinnesotaCare was presented as a separate federal-state basic health program for people who are not eligible for MA, with income limits, premiums for adults age 21 and older, and cost-sharing requirements; staff noted that federal premium tax credit changes affect MinnesotaCare premium ranges. The presentation also summarized MNsure’s role in the individual market and in determining eligibility for premium tax credits, cost-sharing reductions, MinnesotaCare, and MA. The committee also received an overview of health-related licensing boards and occupational regulation. Staff said Minnesota has 16 health-related licensing boards, funded mainly through the state government special revenue fund and subject to legislative appropriation, and explained that health occupations may be regulated by the Department of Health, the Office of Emergency Medical Services, or the boards under chapter 214. Interstate licensure compacts were briefly noted as a way to ease practice across states. No bills were debated and no votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• We also have several additional programs in key for review.
• programs.
• The Open Door Grant Program is a financial aid program operated by the Office of Student Financial Assistance
• Some of the top programs utilizing funding our nursing Health science programs, welding technology, HVAC
• Workforce programs are required to provide at least 3 for this next year. 6 programs where a student

Transcript Highlights:

• addition information regarding programs addition information regarding programs um<00:09:03.440>
• Housing Development Program.
• Housing Development Program.
• , and the Bridges Program.
• , and the Bridges Program.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Housing Finance and Policy Committee met for an informational session with no bills taken up and no votes or formal actions. Members and staff introduced themselves, and Chair Speno said the committee would focus on understanding housing policy and barriers to building more homes, noting Minnesota’s housing shortage and the need to support both single-family and multifamily construction. House Research analyst Mary Davis and House Fiscal analyst Katrina Heimark gave an overview of the committee’s jurisdiction and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency’s programs and funding streams. Davis outlined areas the committee may hear about, including real estate law, landlord-tenant law, manufactured home parks, housing cooperatives, zoning, property taxes, and MHFA programs. Heimark described MHFA’s five main budget areas—development and redevelopment, housing stability, homeownership assistance, preservation, and resident/organization support—and reviewed recent appropriations, emphasizing that much of the large 2024–25 funding was one-time money and that ongoing base funding is lower in 2026–27. Members asked several questions about how prior appropriations were spent, whether unused funds return to the general fund, and whether funds can be repurposed. Heimark said transferred funds generally are not returned to the general fund if unspent, but are expected to be used for the purposes outlined in the appropriation; she also said she had requested more detailed expenditure information from the agency and would follow up. Questions also focused on who benefits from programs such as rental housing rehabilitation and the affordable rental investment fund, with the testifiers explaining that most MHFA programs are targeted to low- and moderate-income households and that income eligibility varies by program. The committee also discussed the new metro-area sales tax revenue dedicated to housing, with members requesting more detail on reporting, oversight, and allowable uses.

Transcript Highlights:

• or statewide food programs and schools like the New Mexico Grown Program, the Approved Supplier Program
• senior programs.
• The food bank program was basically a federal grant program.
• Then we put in programs like the CRP, the Conservation Reserve Program.
• Program, our ecological monitoring program, and our conservation science program.

Transcript Highlights:

• in these programs.
• The Paratransit Special Needs Program is primarily an access program.
• Next program is what we call ZAP, Zero Emissions Access Program.
• Next program is what we call ZAP, Zero Emissions Access Program.
• program.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• tax credit program.
• One other program there is, also with the same agency, is the WIN Program, Workforce Integration Program
• , the ROC Program.
• The other program here is a partner's program.
• Programs.