Transcript Highlights:

• , and some need 11 sources.
• The state of California could be two or three of those funding sources.
• We haven't seen any major impact so far.
• We haven't seen any major impact so far.
• years, because a lot of us will not be using those two sources we do have.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on Governor Newsom’s 2025 reorganization plan to split the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency into two new agencies: a Business and Consumer Services Agency and a California Housing and Homelessness Agency. Secretary Tamika Moss and department leaders from Consumer Affairs, Cannabis Control, DFPI, and Alcoholic Beverage Control said the business-side reorganization would sharpen consumer protection and regulatory oversight without increasing licensee fees or office-space needs. Members generally supported the concept, but several raised concerns about the timing relative to the budget process, the May Revision, and whether the new structure would add costs or disrupt legal and regulatory work. Public commenters from industry groups largely supported the business-side proposal. The second half of the hearing examined the proposed Housing and Homelessness Agency and a new Housing Development and Finance Committee intended to streamline affordable housing funding. Moss, HCD Director Gustavo Velasquez, and CalHFA’s Rebecca Franklin argued the reorganization would reduce fragmentation, speed approvals, improve compliance and asset management, and better coordinate housing, homelessness, and civil rights functions. They said CalHFA’s statutory and financial independence would remain intact, that the proposal would not affect existing homelessness programs administered by HCD, and that the plan would be phased in over several years, with the new agencies and committee expected to become operational by July 2026. Members pressed on whether the plan would truly create a one-stop shop, how it would interact with tax credits and bonds outside the Governor’s control, whether it would include a single application and unified inspections, and how it would address Los Angeles homelessness oversight and federal uncertainties such as tariffs and Section 8 changes. Developer witnesses strongly backed the housing proposal, describing the current system as slow, opaque, and costly. Margaret Miller of the John Stewart Company and Jeffrey Morgan of CHISPA gave examples of projects delayed or lost because multiple funding sources required separate applications, awards, and closings; both said a cabinet-level housing secretary and a consolidated funding process could save time and money and produce more units. Public advocates including Housing California, the California Housing Partnership, and the California Housing Consortium supported the concept but stressed that success would depend on implementation, adequate funding, transparency, and broader coordination with tax credit and bond programs. No formal votes were taken; the hearing was informational, and the committees heard testimony and questions on the proposal.

Transcript Highlights:

• A major profit center for dealers.
• And that's because so much of the emission sources, the sources of pollution that we're now facing, are
• ...the warehouse indirect source rule.
• Those are the majority, the majority of these kinds of traffic enforcements.
• Those are the majority, the majority of these kind of traffic enforcements.

Summary: The committee first took up SB 712, which would expand California’s smog-check exemption for classic vehicles by adding model years 1976 through 1986 in phases, with a sunset in 2032. The author and supporters, including lowrider advocates and the Specialty Equipment Market Association, argued the bill would preserve car culture, support a small class of rarely driven collector vehicles, and reduce burdens on owners who struggle to find equipment for older smog tests. Opponents, including air district officials, the American Lung Association, and other environmental groups, warned the bill would weaken an important emissions-control program and increase pollution. After discussion, the committee adopted the motion to do pass as amended to Appropriations on a roll call vote of 10-0, with the roll held open for additional votes. The committee then heard SB 800, which requires Caltrans, working with local governments, to assess mitigation measures for suicide prevention on locally owned overpasses crossing state highways. The bill was presented as a response to recent tragedies in Rancho Cucamonga and was supported by local officials, health organizations, and suicide-prevention advocates, who said the measure would help identify high-risk locations and lead to life-saving interventions. There was no registered opposition. The committee members expressed support, and SB 800 was passed to Appropriations on a unanimous roll call vote, with the roll held open. Next, the committee considered SB 30, which would prohibit California public entities from selling, donating, or transferring decommissioned diesel locomotives and railroad equipment with Tier 1 or older engines unless the engine is removed, while allowing Tier 2 and newer transfers under certain conditions. The author and supporters framed the bill as a climate and public-health measure to prevent older, dirtier locomotives from continuing to pollute elsewhere, while transit agencies opposed it, arguing it could limit useful transfers of equipment that still supports passenger service and could be better handled through case-by-case air-quality review. After debate, the committee voted 6-4 to pass SB 30 as amended to Appropriations, with the roll held open for later additions. The committee also heard SB 791, which replaces the flat dealer document processing charge cap with a 1% fee capped at $350, along with new disclosure requirements. Dealers and industry groups supported the bill as a way to recover costs and improve transparency, while consumer advocates opposed it as an unjustified increase that would burden buyers. The committee approved SB 791 on a 8-? roll call vote and held the roll open. The meeting then moved on to SB 34, a port-air-quality bill presented by Senator Richardson, but the transcript ends during testimony and debate on that measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll just say that you won't hear a lot about the compensating tax, and it's not a major revenue source
• Personal income tax is another huge major source of revenue. behind the GRT.
• This is a major challenge that...
• and other state sources.
• This is just revenue sources.

Committee: House Revenue Stabilization & Tax Policy Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> from other sources. from other sources.
• They can go to outside sources. I mean, I personally consider a teacher an outside source.
• They can go to outside sources. options. They can go to outside sources.
• . source. source.
• </c> majority of educators already do this. majority of educators already do this.

Transcript Highlights:

• So one is outline the major themes.
• So, it's not a real major source of infrastructure funding.
• They have a funding source.
• So, it's not a real major source<01:31:56.320><c> of</c><01:31:56.560><c> infrastructure</c><01:31:57.440
• They have a funding source. with OHA. They have a funding source.

Summary: The Act 279 working group met for an informational briefing with DHHL on its use of the $600 million appropriation and progress on the department’s implementation plan. The chair reviewed the working group’s oversight role, noting that it was created to monitor expenditures, project development, and progress toward reducing the Hawaiian Homes waitlist, and that the group must submit a progress report before the 2026 session and a final report before the 2027 session. DHHL said it had provided an updated booklet reflecting the Hawaiian Homes Commission’s February 2024 recommendations and a detailed accounting of encumbrances and project progress across the islands. DHHL highlighted several implementation themes: innovative financing and construction methods, land acquisitions and exchanges, technology, beneficiary services, and partnerships with counties and private entities. The department described a “project lease” model that gives beneficiaries access to a project rather than a specific lot, with options such as turnkey homes, owner-builder, self-help, or rent-to-purchase arrangements depending on financial qualification. Officials said this approach is intended to serve lower-income beneficiaries, expand access for people on the waitlist, and allow beneficiaries to receive support services such as financial literacy and down payment assistance. The department reported that roughly $511 million had been encumbered for infrastructure, about $152.8 million for acquisitions, financing, and beneficiary services, and about $36 million in other covered costs, with about $588.9 million encumbered as of December 31 and about $120 million expected to be spent by that date. Officials said the original implementation plan covered about 2,722 units, while the updated plan projects roughly 6,000 to 7,000 leases and 2,472 lots to be occupied. They also described phase-two needs for additional funding, including projects on Hawaiʻi, Maui, Kauaʻi, and Oʻahu, and said they would need continued legislative support, including possible bonding and private activity bond set-asides, to complete remaining projects. Members discussed the distinction between encumbered and spent funds, and DHHL explained that encumbrances reserve money for specific contracts while construction spending occurs over time through progress payments. The department also showcased examples of innovative projects, including a high-rise project in urban Honolulu financed through a mix of private activity bonds, tax credits, and state funds, and an acquisition-based project in Kapaʻa, Kauaʻi using multiple funding sources. DHHL emphasized partnerships with the City and County of Honolulu and Maui County, and said it is still assessing future projects to keep infrastructure costs manageable and ensure homes are safe and affordable for beneficiaries.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those are the major highlights that I'd like to hit.
• Those are the major things I wanted to highlight today, and, you know, very excited.
• And so that would be a major piece of, I don't know.
• But, you know, I, you know, I'd To find alternative sources.
• “Is the major module, Mr. Chair?

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Health and Human Services

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Health and Human Services heard presentations on the governor’s proposed fiscal year 2026-2027 budget for the health and human services agencies. Kendall Kelly outlined the overall HHS budget at $48.5 billion, with AHCA accounting for the largest share, and agency heads then highlighted major proposals for Medicaid behavioral health redesign, APD waiver enrollment and facility needs, DCF child welfare, opioid, and mental health investments, DOEA funding for Alzheimer’s, home care, and community services, DOH funding for cancer research, public health initiatives, and lab capacity, and VA funding for facility improvements, cybersecurity, and medication management. Several members praised specific proposals, including increased reimbursement for private duty nursing, Alzheimer’s supports, and the Florida FIRST blood-in-ambulance initiative. Senators also questioned the proposed changes to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), with the Surgeon General explaining that the department expects a reduction in covered patients from about 30,000 to about 20,000 because of funding pressures tied to rebates, federal changes, and premium tax credit issues. Public testimony strongly criticized the ADAP changes, citing lack of transparency and warning that many patients could lose access to medications. Other questions focused on the Office of Minority Health and Health Equity, DCF’s substance abuse and mental health data dashboard, Kids Care/CHIP expansion implementation, APD bed and facility planning, and the FX Medicaid technology project. DCF said about $7 million is set aside for the dashboard system, and AHCA said the governor’s budget includes $124.4 million for FX maintenance and continued module development, with $13.5 million to begin claims processing work. The committee did not take a substantive vote on the budget presentations and adjourned after questions and public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and what kind of questions you ask from the sources.
• Um, and then, of course, we've got other sources of data.
• , I mean, there were major, major fights in, in this body.
• of statistics from uh a peer-reviewed accepted um source and add statistics from another source such
• , our source of truth.

Committee: House Legislative Health & Human Services Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Currently, there are three major sources of revenue into this fund: the gas tax, the motor vehicle sales
• Thank you. three major sources of revenue into this three major sources of revenue into this fund.<00
• </c> current transportation funding sources current transportation funding sources without<00:04:08.640
• </c><00:21:30.080><c> to</c> bill, but changes the funding source to bill, but changes the funding source
• We can have a discussion about the source of the funding without questioning people's motives.

Bills: HF2438

Committee: House Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• for all investments regardless of funding source.
• But affordability is a major, major issue. We want all our campuses to be nationally ranked.
• Each of our campuses got a major project.
• Each of our campuses got a major project.
• Each of our campuses got a major project.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets

Summary: The committee heard testimony on the BRIGHT Act, a higher education capital bill that would use Fair Share surtax revenue to fund major repairs, modernization, and decarbonization projects across UMass, state universities, and community colleges. UMass leadership described a $4.8 billion deferred maintenance backlog, aging buildings, and the need to modernize facilities, improve accessibility, and reduce emissions. Administration officials said the bill would authorize $2.5 billion in capital funding, split roughly 50-50 between UMass and the rest of public higher education, plus additional targeted funding for housing planning, smaller modernization projects, campus master plans, and workforce skills grants. They emphasized that the financing structure is modeled on the Commonwealth Transportation Fund and would not raise student costs, while also supporting affordability through financial aid and free community college. Members raised questions about regional equity, the distribution of funds among the five UMass campuses and the 24 state university/community college campuses, project labor agreements, whether the bill would unlock private or federal matching funds, and how the system is preparing for AI and changing workforce needs. UMass officials said project selection is data-driven, based on deferred maintenance, safety, accessibility, sustainability, and programmatic needs, and that the flagship campus in Western Massachusetts would likely receive a large share because of its size and needs. They also said UMass Boston would receive its own share and would not be shortchanged by the Bayside project. On labor, they said PLAs are commonly used and they would follow existing board and building authority policies. On affordability, they said the university has shifted hundreds of millions into need-based aid and that the state’s recent support has helped keep tuition low for many students. DCAMM and higher education officials said the state’s public campuses account for a large share of state-owned building space and a disproportionate share of operational carbon emissions, making decarbonization a major driver of the bill. They said the legislation would allow larger, more comprehensive projects that can address deferred maintenance, energy efficiency, and program needs at the same time, while also making some projects shovel-ready through the Fair Share supplemental funding already appropriated. A later panel from the State Universities Council of Presidents argued the bill’s authorization is still too small to meet long-term needs and urged the committee to increase the bond cap and ensure a more equitable distribution among segments. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, there's a major shift since Prop 6 joined us.
• They're not anything like a major refinery. They're a small facility.
• They produce the majority now of all the asphalt that will be used.
• They produce the majority now of all the asphalt that will be used.
• Specific sources in mind to allow this flexibility.

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Transcript Highlights:

• A particularly well-suited source to borrow against.
• It identifies, I think, those major points. And you've made a number of those major points.
• It identifies, I think, those major points. And you've made a number of those major points.
• What is the revenue source that is matched up with that?
• So there's a major timing problem with that revenue.

Committee: House Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• It is just an excellent source of green energy.
• We know that indirect source rules work.
• major culprits.
• Indirect source... Thank you.
• Indirect source rules are not the proper way to get there.

Summary: The committee heard several climate, environmental, and housing bills. AB 1425, dealing with pit dewatering near the San Joaquin River Parkway, drew extensive testimony. The author and supporters argued the bill was needed to protect the river, groundwater, floodplain conditions, tribal and cultural resources, and public access from a proposed mining project near the river. Opponents, including Cemex, labor representatives, and industry groups, said the bill would bypass the CEQA process before it was complete, threaten jobs, and create uncertainty for an existing operation. Members questioned both sides about hydrology, blasting, dewatering, and the adequacy of the ongoing environmental review. The bill was moved, but several members expressed concern about preempting CEQA and some did not vote or voted no. AB 881, which would allow California to move forward with carbon capture and sequestration pipelines, was presented as a way to advance state climate goals and capture federal funding. Supporters, including SMUD, labor, and industry groups, said the bill would help deploy carbon capture safely and preserve jobs. Environmental justice opponents supported stronger safety direction and warned that CO2 pipelines pose serious risks and that the state should not move ahead without clearer standards. The bill received a due-pass recommendation to Appropriations. AB 1207, on the cap-and-trade allowance price ceiling and the social cost of carbon, was presented as a science-based update to California’s climate policy. The author and EDF said the bill would keep the program aligned with current economic and climate data and protect it from federal political interference. It received broad support and a due-pass recommendation. AB 1106, creating a coordinated network of air quality incident response centers, was also approved after testimony about wildfire smoke, toxic emissions, and the need for better real-time monitoring during disasters. AB 28, the Landfill Fire Safety Act, focused on the Chiquita Canyon landfill fire and related health impacts in Castaic and Val Verde; residents described serious illnesses and contamination concerns, while landfill and county representatives warned about costs and asked for more study. The committee nonetheless advanced the bill with a due-pass recommendation. The committee also heard AB 357, which would speed Coastal Commission review of student and faculty housing projects, with supporters citing student homelessness and opponents urging caution but acknowledging the need for more housing; the bill was presented and discussed, with the committee emphasizing the need to balance housing production and coastal oversight.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a major planning process, which is our third major. second major responsibility, and then finance
• In 2023 and 2024, we issued water rights for two major water supply reservoirs, three reuse permits,
• the source?
• or perhaps their wastewater source I'm sorry, Mr.
• into two kinds of grants operation and maintenance as well as major repair activities.

Committee: House Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• What is the source of primary resistance out in the communities?
• These are major players here, so we want to— I don't know about major players, but we're in session right
• We will submit written testimony as well with the sources provided.
• Biomass is a dangerous and unwelcome energy source.
• Biomass is a dangerous and unwelcome energy source.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy

Summary: The hearing focused mainly on two subjects: expansion of the Massachusetts bottle bill and bills to remove woody biomass from state clean-energy and greenhouse-gas programs. On the bottle bill, supporters from municipal, environmental, public health, and local government groups argued that the 5-cent deposit is outdated, redemption rates have fallen, and expanding coverage to more beverage containers—especially water, sports drinks, and small alcohol bottles—would reduce litter, cut plastic waste and microplastics, and save cities and towns money. Several speakers also backed raising handling fees for retailers and redemption centers, and some supported restoring a Clean Environment Fund so unclaimed deposits would support recycling-related purposes. Opponents, including the Massachusetts Beverage Association and the National Waste and Recycling Association, argued that curbside recycling and transfer-station systems are more convenient, that the targeted containers are valuable to local recycling programs, and that the proposal would shift costs onto consumers and municipalities. Committee members questioned witnesses about redemption rates, handling fees, the 2014 ballot question, and whether the bill had changed from prior sessions. The biomass portion drew strong support from Springfield officials, state legislators, environmental advocates, and public health groups. They said woody biomass should not count as clean energy because burning wood produces particulate pollution and carbon emissions, and they warned that current law contains a loophole that could help finance the proposed Palmer Renewable Energy biomass plant in Springfield. Witnesses emphasized Springfield’s air-quality and asthma burdens, the public health impacts of PM2.5, and the need to close the loophole before a January 1, 2026 deadline. One forest-industry witness supported a separate bill promoting modern wood heat with pollution controls, arguing it is cleaner than older wood systems and has minimal ratepayer cost, while noting that those credits would be affected if the governor’s broader energy affordability bill repeals the alternative energy portfolio standard. No votes were taken during the hearing. The chairs managed testimony by alternating between the bottle bill and biomass topics, asking speakers to keep remarks brief and to note when they agreed with prior testimony. Several legislators also testified in support of the bills, and committee members asked follow-up questions on deposit levels, retailer handling fees, recycling economics, and the public-health rationale for the biomass restrictions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Many major cities across the country already do this, like New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Chicago
• system... ...tolling authority to all major interstate entry points into Massachusetts would create
• And to be clear, under this bill the construction unions would be the only source of labor for all of
• In particular, this impacts minority contractors and workers, the majority of whom are non-union.
• Term limits would be a major step in the right direction.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Transportation

Summary: The Joint Committee on Transportation heard testimony on a range of bills focused on transportation funding, governance, and equity. Supporters backed proposals to create a North Central Massachusetts intercity passenger rail fund tied to a possible new gaming license (H. 3680/S. 2363), local parking assessments (H. 3756), third-party delivery fees (S. 2356/H. 3774), broader roadway pricing and congestion management measures (S. 2353/S. 2354), tolling equity and regional transit authority advisory boards (S. 2400/S. 2401), and Steamship Authority oversight reforms including board term limits (S. 2395). Testimony in favor emphasized new dedicated revenue sources, commuter rail expansion, regional equity, improved oversight, and better transit access for riders and communities that rely on public transportation. There was also testimony in opposition to the third-party delivery fee bills from Chamber of Progress, which argued the fee would raise costs for consumers, small businesses, and delivery workers, could reduce demand and jobs, and might not achieve the intended environmental benefits. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts opposed H. 3633, a transit expansion, electrification, and resiliency bill, specifically objecting to its mandatory project labor agreement requirement and saying it would limit competition and disadvantage non-union contractors and workers. Several witnesses spoke in favor of the Steamship Authority bill, saying term limits would improve transparency, accountability, and board turnover. The committee also heard detailed support for the North Central rail proposal from a legislator, the North Central Massachusetts Chamber of Commerce, and a transportation advocate, who described the bill as a way to generate long-term bonded revenue for rail infrastructure. After testimony concluded and no questions remained, the chairs entertained and received a motion to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• I guess I need to go visit with my sources and check, so I'll review it.
• Member: I think you might have to check with those sources.

Bills: HB 118 , HB388 , HB 114 , HB205 , HB2789 , HB2791 , HB499 , HB2960 , HB3163 , HB3135 , HB2427 , HB1618 , HB1672 , HB1722 , HB1338 , HB787 , HB2618 , HB879 , HB 1126 , HB4134 , HB3513 , HB718 , HB1536 , HB1445 , HB1640 , HB1893 , HB1734 , HB3229 , HB3306 , HB 1276 , HB3272 , HB3276 , HB3516 , HB4145 , HB1585 , HB4810 , HB2989 , HB2558 , HB3014 , HB2742 , HB1695 , HB29 , HB 125 , HB145 , HB171 , HB255 , HB50 , HB363 , HB 116 , HB491 , HB1495 , HB368 , HB 1285 , HB1905 , HB2002 , HB917 , HB2723 , HB2067 , HB 1238 , HB745 , HB 1188 , HB1606 , HB2003 , HB2147 , HB2355 , HB2546 , HB2495 , HB2818 , HB2249 , HB3228 , HB3240 , HB1507 , HB658 , HB1748 , HB1851 , HB1922 , HB2798 , HB 107 , HB1587 , HB3684 , HB 118 , HB388 , HB 114 , HB205 , HB2789 , HB2791 , HB499 , HB2960 , HB3163 , HB3135 , HB2427 , HB1618 , HB1672 , HB1722 , HB1338 , HB787 , HB2618 , HB879 , HB 1126 , HB4134 , HB3513 , HB718 , HB1536 , HB1445 , HB1640 , HB1893 , HB1734 , HB3229 , HB3306 , HB 1276 , HB3272 , HB3276 , HB3516 , HB4145 , HB1585 , HB4810 , HB2989 , HB2558 , HB3014 , HB2742 , HB1695 , HB609 , HB630 , HB420 , HB767 , HB1708 , HB1404 , HB2457 , HB140 , HB227 , HB913 , HB2198 , HB2763 , HB 1261 , HB 1135 , HB1318 , HB2358 , HB2765 , HB2735 , HB3307 , HB 1242 , HB2842 , HB333 , HB201 , HB694 , HB2415 , HB155 , HB272 , HB405 , HB519 , HB 1136 , HB 1275 , HB1437 , HB1532 , HB1675 , HB1868 , HB1888 , HB1990 , HB2286 , HB2523 , HB3129 , HB3251 , HB3354 , HB3479 , HB3803 , HB3804 , HB3805 , HB3806 , HB3887 , HB4163 , HB4238 , HB 1240 , HB1842 , HB2029 , HB2622 , HB3255 , HB654 , HB4643 , HB4945 , HB3611 , HB3724 , HB3623 , HB3810 , HB4127 , HCR78 , HCR12 , SB767

Keywords: HB 388, HB388, coordination of benefits, COB questionnaire, health benefit plan, health insurance, insurance commissioner, Texas Department of Insurance, uniform form, primary payer, secondary payer, multiple coverage, dual coverage, Medicaid, CHIP, managed care, HMO, small employer health plan, school district health coverage, self-funded plan

Transcript Highlights:

• , and some need 11 sources, and each new funding source can add over $20,000 to the cost of each affordable
• , and some need 11 sources, and each new funding source can add over $20,000 to the cost of each affordable
• When funding sources require separate processes, When funding sources require separate processes with
• We haven't seen any major impact so far.
• We haven't seen any major impact so far.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on the Governor’s 2025 reorganization plan to split the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency into two new agencies: a Business and Consumer Services Agency and a California Housing and Homelessness Agency. Administration officials said the change would give each side more focused leadership, improve consumer protection and regulatory oversight, and better align housing and homelessness policy with the state’s broader housing goals. Leaders from the Department of Consumer Affairs, Cannabis Control, Alcoholic Beverage Control, and Financial Protection and Innovation all voiced support for the business-side reorganization, while housing officials emphasized that the new housing agency would help streamline funding, compliance, and coordination across programs. Members raised concerns about timing, budget impacts, office space, and whether the split would actually reduce bureaucracy. The administration said the plan would be included in the May Revision, was intended to be cost-neutral, and would not require fee increases for licensees or additional office space. On the housing side, officials said the new Housing Development and Finance Committee would work toward a single application and more coordinated award process for affordable housing funding, while preserving CalHFA’s statutory and financial independence. They also said the reorganization would improve compliance monitoring, data collection, and coordination with local governments, including Los Angeles homelessness programs. Public testimony was largely supportive. Industry groups representing beverage distributors, craft brewers, wine, mortgage lenders, and housing organizations backed the business-side split, and housing advocates such as Housing California, the California Housing Partnership, and the California Housing Consortium supported the housing agency concept and the proposed one-stop-shop approach. Several witnesses urged that tax credits, bonds, and other funding sources be better coordinated, and some said the plan should be paired with additional state investment and implementation resources. No formal vote was taken; the hearing was informational.

Transcript Highlights:

• the project, but it's still a tough revenue source to borrow against.
• It identifies, I think, those major points. And you've made a number of those major points.
• What is the revenue source that is matched up with that?
• So there's a major timing problem with that revenue.
• Maybe there'll be other sources, but it's hard to count on those.

Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee held an oversight hearing on California High-Speed Rail, focusing on the authority’s supplemental project update report and the newly released 2026 draft business plan. Committee leaders emphasized transparency, the project’s funding challenges, and the need for clear answers on costs, schedule, and scope. The High-Speed Rail Authority said the project has made major progress in the Central Valley, including substantial construction completion, right-of-way acquisition, and railhead development, and highlighted over $14 billion in savings from a rebased project plan, plus an additional $2 billion in savings in the draft business plan. The authority also said it expects to begin laying track by the end of the year and continues to pursue private-sector partnerships and clean-energy opportunities. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Inspector General both raised concerns about whether the current funding plan is sufficient and whether the authority has clearly identified the timing of future expenditures versus revenues. The LAO said the project likely still faces a funding gap for Merced-to-Bakersfield once financing costs and the loss of $4 billion in federal funds are considered, and warned that cap-and-invest revenues are volatile and may not be well suited for borrowing without additional safeguards. The Inspector General said the authority still has not provided a precise funding plan, estimated the project is about two years away from lacking funds on hand to stay on schedule, and urged lawmakers to focus on financing costs, procurement timing, schedule risks, and distinguishing true cost cuts from scope changes. Members questioned the authority about proposed statutory changes, including CEQA and permitting streamlining, court resources, third-party process changes, sales tax exemptions on materials, and expanded land-use/value-capture tools. They also pressed the authority on the loss of federal funds, the withdrawal of litigation over those funds, and whether the project’s revised savings depend on moving station locations away from downtown Merced and Bakersfield and on other scope changes such as more single-tracking and blended operations south of Palmdale. The authority said it is still committed to Merced-to-Bakersfield, believes the business plan shows a path to completion with sufficient funding, and will work with the Legislature on any needed changes before the final plan is submitted.

Transcript Highlights:

• Overall, our findings touch on a couple of major themes. First, regarding universal access.
• On the topic of local sourcing of school food, the statute that you, the legislature, passed directs
• Local food may be fresher than food sourced from further away, and it could help students understand
• Neither the statute nor PED rules require schools to source local food, but schools can receive grant
• Additional space or other major renovations may need to take place.

Transcript Highlights:

• Highway bonds only requires a simple majority, unlike the supermajority required to authorize GO bonds
• </c><01:15:12.880><c> of</c><01:15:13.600><c> climate</c> the number one source of climate the number
• It moves people more efficiently and connects major destinations while feeding other transit modes.
• It moves people more efficiently and connects major destinations while feeding other transit modes.
• </c> developments are going to be sourced developments are going to be sourced from<01:24:45.960><c>

Committee: House Transportation Finance and Policy