Transcript Highlights:

• We have other demand response programs, base interruptible program, air conditioning cycling program,
• Programs.
• , take the best of both of the programs, create a new program.
• of the program.
• program costs.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard a budget item on demand-side grid support and emergency load flexibility funding. The Department of Finance proposed redirecting General Fund money for summer 2026 to the CEC’s Demand-Side Grid Support program and using accumulated CalCHAP interest to support a successor ratepayer-funded demand response program for summers 2027 and 2028. The CEC and CPUC said they are working on a transition from DSGS to ELRP or an equivalent program, while the LAO said the proposal mainly presents a choice between keeping the money in General Fund savings or using it for DSGS. Members pressed the administration on why DSGS should be sunset when it has higher enrollment and lower administrative costs than ELRP, and on whether the state should continue funding demand response at all. The CPUC argued ELRP and DSGS are not directly comparable, said it is pursuing a broader demand flexibility rulemaking, and noted a decision on a successor program is expected in Q3 2026. No vote was taken in the excerpt, but members signaled interest in keeping DSGS funding at the CEC. The second item concerned trailer bill language for the transmission accelerator program under SB 254 and Proposition 4. GoBiz and IBank described a new financing structure for major transmission projects selected through CAISO’s competitive planning process, with about $26 million in administrative resources over five years. The LAO raised no specific concerns but emphasized that this is the Legislature’s first appropriation for a new program and that the final language should clearly reflect legislative intent. Members asked about state liability, ownership, and how the financing would lower ratepayer costs; staff explained that state financing would cover only a portion of large projects and could reduce the amount included in utility rate base, with estimated lifetime savings varying widely. Members also discussed offshore wind transmission needs and asked for an update on related Proposition 4 funding. The final item covered CEC and DPMO budget requests related to petroleum market oversight and supply stabilization. The CEC requested funding for additional positions to implement AB X2-1 and related fuel market monitoring work, while DPMO sought to make a data specialist position permanent. The LAO said it found the staffing requests justified. Members questioned why the work is funded through the Energy Resources Programs Account, whether staff from paused price-gouging work could be reassigned, and what evidence had been found of price gouging or market manipulation. CEC and DPMO said their work on reporting, analysis, and supply stabilization continues, that some staff are still working on related analyses, and that they are preparing further workshops and recommendations. The discussion also touched on refinery closures, gasoline imports, and the state’s changing fuel supply conditions, but no formal action was taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Program.
• And then I want to touch on the last program, which is a newer program.
• there is one program.
• Do not touch school meal programs. Do not touch the CalFresh program.
• Like other programs, The CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT program, like other programs you've heard about

Summary: The joint oversight hearing focused on food insecurity in California and how state and federal nutrition programs, agricultural production, and food distribution systems intersect. Assemblymembers emphasized that many Californians, including farmworkers, seniors, children, and communities of color, remain food insecure despite California’s agricultural abundance. Panelists and members discussed CalFresh, WIC, school meals, Sun Bucks, food banks, and the impact of federal policy changes, including possible nutrition cuts, tariffs, and immigration enforcement, on access to food and the agricultural workforce. Secretary Karen Ross described CDFA programs aimed at improving access to fresh food and supporting local agriculture, including the senior farmers’ market program, California Nutrition Incentive Program, Healthy Refrigeration Grant Program, Community Food Hubs, Farm to School, urban agriculture, and a proposed tribal food sovereignty program. She said these efforts help connect local producers to consumers, expand healthy food access, and build infrastructure such as refrigeration, mobile markets, and aggregation hubs. Department of Social Services Deputy Director Alexis Fernandez Garcia outlined CalFresh, CFAP, Sun Bucks, CACFP, emergency food programs, and tribal nutrition assistance, noting that CalFresh and related programs significantly reduce poverty and food insecurity, but participation gaps remain for non-English speakers, some Asian American communities, and undocumented households. PPIC researcher Tess Thorman presented data showing that 13% of California households experienced food insecurity in 2023, with higher rates among households with children and Latino, Black, and other households. She said nutrition programs reduce poverty and food hardship, but federal rules, income thresholds, immigration restrictions, and high living costs limit their reach. Members asked about simplifying applications, improving call center access, increasing outreach in multiple languages, and adjusting benefits for inflation. Officials said the state has used available federal options to streamline enrollment, improve customer service, and target outreach, but many core rules and benefit levels are set federally. The second panel shifted to food production and market access. A farmer, a UC food systems leader, and a produce distributor described efforts to connect small and medium farms with food banks, schools, universities, and Medi-Cal food-as-medicine programs. They highlighted programs such as Farms Together, the USDA Southwest Regional Food Business Center, Farm to School, food hubs, and climate-smart infrastructure grants as ways to create stable markets for local growers while improving food access. Speakers also raised concerns about land tenure, consolidation, regulatory burdens, labor constraints, and the loss of federal funding, and members discussed whether state investments and Prop. 4 funds could help sustain and expand these efforts.

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:

• 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:

• 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:

• Health programs.
• the program.
• These programs.
• From those programs.
• Program, which includes SNAP and TANF and other programs.

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:

• 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.

Transcript Highlights:

• Save program.
• are running the program.
• But the PAs run the program.
• programs.
• power plant program.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a hearing on the value of Mass Save, with opening remarks emphasizing that despite past criticisms the program has delivered major energy, cost, climate, and equity benefits. The chair cited large avoided system costs, strong benefit-cost ratios, and recent legislative changes that set emissions goals, restricted fossil-fuel equipment incentives, and increased focus on low- and moderate-income households. Department of Energy Resources Commissioner Elizabeth Mahoney testified that Mass Save has weatherized hundreds of thousands of homes, reduced bills, avoided emissions, and that the current plan includes budget controls after the DPU ordered $500 million removed from the approved budget. She said the governor’s proposal to have only electric utilities administer the program was intended to reduce administrative costs and align with current implementation trends. Members questioned Mahoney about what counts as marketing and administration, and she said the category includes traditional advertising as well as community-based outreach, customer resource centers, and other customer engagement work, much of it in low- and moderate-income communities. She said administrative and marketing costs are under 5% of the budget, while more than 80% goes to incentives and direct program delivery. Several witnesses then focused on workforce and contractor impacts. Dave Betcher of Abode Energy Management and Rick Taglienti of Rogers Insulation said Mass Save sustains small businesses, creates careers, and supports thousands of jobs; both warned that budget cuts would reduce hiring, training, and work in homes and businesses. They also described a broad ecosystem of suppliers, trainers, and service providers that depends on stable program funding. Other witnesses addressed cost-effectiveness, affordability, and emissions. Anna Johnson of ACEEE said Massachusetts remains a national leader, with Mass Save returning about $2.80 per dollar invested, reducing peak demand, and lowering bills for participants, especially through weatherization and heat pumps. Kyle Murray of Acadia Center said the program is statutorily required to be cost-effective and has avoided billions in supply and infrastructure costs for all ratepayers, including nonparticipants, by lowering overall demand and peak prices. Amy Boyd-Rabin of the Environmental League of Massachusetts argued that efficiency is the cheapest way to meet climate targets and that cutting the budget would force more expensive power generation. The hearing also featured testimony on equity and housing: Mary Wampo described historic under-service to renter-heavy and lower-income communities and said recent reforms, including designated equity communities and performance incentives tied to equity, are helping correct that imbalance; Brian Biot and James Collins of LEAN/ABCD described low-income delivery systems and wraparound services; Barney Heath and John Nannari said Mass Save incentives are essential to affordable housing, passive house construction, and keeping projects on time and on budget. The final witnesses highlighted Connected Solutions and electrification: Sunrun’s Bronte Payne said the virtual power plant program saved more than it cost and helps avoid peaker plants and grid upgrades, and Highland Electric Fleets’ Ben Sondaga said electric school buses can provide similar grid benefits while lowering transportation costs for districts.

Transcript Highlights:

• in these programs.
• This is a pilot program.
• 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.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The House Transportation Committee held a work session focused heavily on Climate Commitment Act transportation spending and electrification programs. Staff first reviewed roughly $2.2 billion in CCA transportation allocations over three biennia, noting that the largest shares went to public transportation, active transportation, ferry electrification, ZEV programs, rail freight/ports, and planning, with about half of the electrification and fuel-conversion spending tied to state ferries. Members asked for more detail comparing CCA dollars with the broader transportation budget and for total project costs, not just CCA contributions. The Department of Ecology presented on the zero-emission school bus program. Ecology said the legislature codified the program in 2024 and requires electric buses once diesel and electric costs are equivalent, with exemptions available when electric buses cannot meet district needs. Ecology reported $38.3 million in CCA funding for 2025-27, with $21.4 million already obligated or spent to replace 91 diesel buses in 28 districts, plus additional federal EPA funding leveraged for 13 more buses. Members asked about health impacts, parity timing, rural route exemptions, charging and training costs, and whether the program includes infrastructure; Ecology said the grants cover buses, charging, and sometimes training, and that the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction is developing the cost-equivalency formula. The Department of Commerce described its clean transportation role, including EV rebates, charging infrastructure, tribal electric boats, and the EV Coordinating Council. Commerce said its rebate program was designed to lower monthly payments for low-income households, that 89% of recipients said the rebate was essential to their purchase, and that lease incentives helped draw additional federal dollars. Members asked about tribal boat details, utility interconnection and curtailment, range anxiety, and vandalism at charging stations; Commerce said battery storage and managed charging are being used in some projects, some utilities are more responsive than others, and vandalism remains a challenge. The Department of Enterprise Services reported 567 Level 2 and 46 Level 3 charging ports installed at 82 state sites, with 19 more sites in progress and over $100 million in additional candidate projects. DES said most funding is for new infrastructure, though some VW settlement money is used for replacements, and members asked about charger replacement needs, mobile charging, and EV fleet purchasing data. WSDOT then outlined its EV infrastructure and transit programs. It said the Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Partnership program has funded 23 new charging sites this biennium, including overburdened communities and tribal locations, and has supported 264 DC fast-charging ports statewide. WSDOT also described the new Washington Zero Emission Incentive Program, a point-of-sale voucher program for zero-emission commercial vehicles and equipment with $112 million available this biennium; it reported strong early demand, especially for off-road equipment and heavy trucks, and said technical assistance is being provided to help businesses participate. In public transportation, WSDOT said CCA funds support bus and bus facility grants, commute trip reduction, green transportation capital projects, paratransit, tribal transit, zero-emissions access car share, and other mobility projects, with most awards benefiting overburdened communities. Finally, WSDOT’s rail freight and ports division said port electrification projects are underway but spending is still low because of long design, permitting, utility, and supply-chain timelines; it estimated the $89.8 million program could reduce more than 140,000 metric tons of emissions over 10 years. Members questioned the pace of spending, the Northwest Seaport drayage project, and how state funds can leverage additional federal or port resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• Support Program.
• particular program.
• the program up and running for the two remaining programs in the series of programs that we will operate
• : the Loan Participation Program and the Capital Access Program.
• SSBCI program.

Transcript Highlights:

• CFP program.
• credit program.
• those two programs.
• ...that particular program, the Partnership Challenge Loan Program?
• Uh, the state trade and export program is Uh, the state trade and export program is a program by the

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:21:46.720> federal program the chip program the federal program the chip program the federal
• program.
• program forensic mental health program program forensic mental health program um<00:48:45.640>
• County administered County administered programs<01:00:25.799> um programs um programs um this
• > shelter<01:04:55.039> programs emergency shelter programs emergency shelter programs

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee met for an introductory overview of its jurisdiction and staff roles. Nonpartisan House Research and House Fiscal staff explained that they draft bills and amendments, prepare bill summaries and background research, answer legal and fiscal questions, and help track revenue and budget effects. They also distributed a Budget Overview Brief intended to condense the larger budget materials into a more usable format for members. Staff then walked through the Human Services budget and the committee’s areas of responsibility. They described the department structure, noting that DHS oversees administration, compliance, rulemaking, and county support, and that the overall Human Services budget is large, with medical assistance as the dominant program. They also explained recent and upcoming reorganizations: many children and family-related functions are moving to the new Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Direct Care and Treatment is becoming its own agency, and some homelessness-related functions remain at DHS. Staff reviewed how the budget is organized by program and budget activity, the difference between direct appropriations and standing appropriations, and how forecasted programs and “tails” work in the budget process. The presentation also covered Medicaid financing and long-term care. Staff explained the federal-state FMAP match, including Minnesota’s current 51.16% federal match for most Medicaid spending, the CHIP match, and the 90% federal share for the expansion population. For long-term care, they outlined Medical Assistance services for elderly and disabled people, state-funded long-term care supports, and Board on Aging programs. They highlighted the personal care assistance program’s phaseout and replacement by Community First Services and Supports, and reviewed the five home- and community-based waivers. Members asked one question about refugee resettlement funding, specifically whether it covers flights; staff said they would need to follow up on the exact use of the federal funds. No bills were heard, and no formal votes or other committee actions were taken during this meeting.