Transcript Highlights:

• Who's depicted, and then also requiring that the reports be reviewed by a national person and empowering
• And then, as initially drafted, the changes requiring human review of all reported material would have
• Yet this bill could allow SAF made from these types of oils to enjoy expedited judicial review.
• Yet this bill could allow SAF made from these types of oils to enjoy expedited judicial review.
• We appreciate the recent amendments and need to review them.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills related to reproductive access, child safety online, immigration enforcement in schools, health privacy, location data, digital provenance, reparations, and age assurance. AB 54 would protect the medication abortion supply chain and shield providers and others from liability; AB 1137 would strengthen reporting and enforcement tools for child sexual abuse material on social media; AB 49 would limit ICE activity at California public schools; AB 82 would expand privacy and safety protections for gender-affirming care patients and providers; AB 1355 would restrict the collection, use, and sale of precise location data; AB 853 would expand provenance requirements for AI-generated and authentic content; AB 62 would create a pathway for restitution for racially biased eminent domain takings; and AB 1043 would create a device-based age assurance framework for online services. Supporters generally framed the bills as necessary responses to current harms: reproductive rights advocates emphasized California’s role as a safe haven; child safety witnesses described the persistence and re-victimization caused by CSAM online; immigrant rights and education advocates said schools should remain safe from immigration enforcement; health and LGBTQ+ advocates stressed privacy and safety risks tied to tracking and harassment; privacy and consumer groups backed limits on location data and stronger provenance tools; and reparations advocates said AB 62 would help address historic injustices. Opposition came from family policy, tech, business, law enforcement, and industry groups, who raised concerns about safety claims, constitutional issues, implementation burdens, transparency, law enforcement access, and the need to preserve existing privacy frameworks and voluntary standards. The committee members largely expressed support for the policy goals while noting implementation concerns on some measures. Several members asked for or were offered coauthor status on bills. AB 1137, AB 54, AB 49, AB 82, AB 1355, AB 853, and AB 62 all received do-pass votes to Appropriations, with some members voting no or not voting on certain bills. AB 1355 and AB 853 were advanced with amendments or ongoing work promised with opponents, and AB 1043 was presented with discussion of possible amendments on parental consent and age assurance details, though the transcript cuts off before final action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Allen, have you reviewed the minutes and would you move their approval?
• as part of the budgeting reviewed as part of the budgeting process<00:38:56.839><c> today</c><00:38:
• Ultimately, we end up with a budget recommendation that goes to the board for review and action.
• </c><01:29:38.719><c> and</c> have a robust budget review and have a robust budget review and development
• </c> through an annual audit plan reviewing through an annual audit plan reviewing transactions<01:30

Committee: House Higher Education Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• The point of today's informational hearing is to review the California High-Speed Rail Authority's 2026
• They have submitted their proposals, and we are reviewing that. And there are two parts.
• They have submitted their proposals, and we are reviewing that.
• One of my office's responsibilities is to review the authority's reports.
• This is the fourth annual report of the authority I reviewed.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee held an informational hearing on the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s 2026 draft business plan and next steps for the project. Chair Cortese opened by noting major changes since the 2024 plan, including new leadership, a bottoms-up review, scope changes in the Central Valley, loss of federal funds, and renewed interest in private investment and value capture. The Authority’s CEO, Ian Chaudhary, presented the project as moving into a construction and track-laying phase, citing progress on Central Valley structures, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocations, and a new procurement for track and systems. He said the plan reflects a more disciplined, optimized approach, with the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment targeted for revenue service around 2033 and the broader Phase 1 corridor envisioned as commercially viable through ancillary revenues, public-private partnerships, and future private financing. Committee members questioned the Authority about station relocations, single-tracking, tax increment financing, utility relocation authority, transparency, and the feasibility of private financing. Chaudhary said the Merced and Bakersfield station locations were still under discussion with local governments and that no contracts had been finalized. He defended the reduced scope and single-track approach as a just-in-time strategy to avoid overbuilding, while maintaining high-speed standards. He also said the Authority was exploring land value capture, broadband, energy, and other corridor-based revenue sources, but acknowledged that some tools would require legislative action and that private financing options were still being evaluated. Several senators expressed support for the project but raised concerns about permitting delays, local opposition, constitutional and statutory limits, and the need for stronger accountability. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the High-Speed Rail Inspector General then gave critical assessments of the draft plan. LAO staff said the plan assumes major statutory changes, understates risk, lacks transparency about scope changes, and may not fully fund even the smaller Merced-to-Bakersfield segment once borrowing costs and other uncertainties are considered. Inspector General Ben Belknap said the draft plan does not comply with newer statutory requirements in SB 198 and AB 377, citing three main deficiencies: unauthorized scope changes to the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment, an inadequate funding plan that omits financing costs, and missing procurement milestone dates. He said the Authority’s presentation obscures the true cost and schedule impacts of the project changes, and that incomplete reporting limits legislative oversight. The Authority responded that it would address the OIG’s findings in the final business plan, and committee members indicated they expected a written response on compliance issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• We reviewed the video. We took a look at that incident. We reviewed the video footage.
• Part of that investigation is reviewing all the audio, the video, any information, interviews...
• We review and we meet and we discuss, and we make sure that we have followed policy or procedures, and
• Staff and the assaults on staff, and we constantly are reviewing the stuff even at my level with the
• Reviewed.

Summary: The committee first handled routine actions, including quorum, governor’s appointments not required to appear, references to bills, and floor acknowledgments, with those items approved on 3-1 or 4-0 votes and left open for add-ons where noted. It then heard testimony on several CDCR appointments: Kathleen Ratliff and Joseph Tuggle as associate directors for adult institutions, and later Jason Johnson as Undersecretary of Operations. All three nominees emphasized long careers in corrections, support from family and colleagues, and a commitment to public safety, rehabilitation, and improving staff and institutional culture. Much of the questioning focused on the California model, staff safety, sexual abuse prevention, use-of-force incidents, visitation, and rehabilitation. Ratliff and Tuggle said the California model was poorly communicated at rollout but is intended to improve both staff wellness and rehabilitation, not weaken security. They described training, root-cause reviews, statewide calls, and direct engagement with staff and incarcerated people. On a widely criticized pepper-spray incident at Central California Women’s Facility, Ratliff said staff were disciplined, some terminated, and the facility received additional training on de-escalation, communication, use of force, and report writing. On sexual abuse and retaliation concerns, both nominees pointed to PREA training, multiple reporting channels, anti-retaliation monitoring, and a zero-tolerance policy. Members also pressed the nominees on visitation consistency, family reunification, contraband, and the San Quentin transition program. CDCR leaders said visitation is essential to rehabilitation and that the department is working toward more consistent statewide rules and a more family-friendly visiting environment. They also said contraband interdiction is being strengthened through K-9 searches, drone interdiction, and information sharing. Johnson, whose confirmation drew late opposition letters and a lawsuit alleging retaliation and workplace culture problems, said he was driving culture change, had improved reentry and community partnerships, and viewed rehabilitation as central to CDCR’s mission. After public support from former incarcerated people, advocates, and nonprofit leaders, the committee voted 4-0 to advance the appointments to the Senate floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• President, the Committee on Enrollment and Review has reviewed and examined Legislative Bills 958, 762
• The bill drafters need to review each bill. And the layover day will be day 58.
• While the body may add a bill in a matter of minutes, it is adding a lot more time to the review process
• morning, the bill drafters' office spent the long weekend working to complete the enrollment and review
• I actually was just reviewing the amendment that we had just adopted, AM 3082 from Senator Hallstrom,

Bills: LB815A , LB838A , LB912A , LB972A , LB1126A , LB962A , LB1114 , LB921 , LB937 , LB803 , LB803A , LB1032 , LB1032A , LB1075 , LB1075A , LB889 , LB878 , LB933 , LB304 , LB304A , LB1096 , LB1096A , LB1165 , LB1165A , LB958 , LB958A , LB762 , LB1187 , LB966 , LB929 , LB962 , LB753 , LB788 , LB913 , LB1055 , LB1195 , LB429 , LB721 , LB722 , LB727 , LB743 , LB745 , LB749 , LB778 , LB787

Transcript Highlights:

• They are screened by staff, and then a faculty committee reviews the applications.
• the Association of American Law Schools, including a review on the use of adjunct faculty.
• With 174 member law schools, we received a thorough review on all matters related to the school.
• Have reviewed the use of adjunct professors, and you have received accreditation.
• Have reviewed the use of adjunct professors, and you have received accreditation.

Bills: SB1 , SB3

Committee: House House Judiciary

Keywords: interstate medical licensure compact, physician licensure, medical license reciprocity, expedited licensure, medical practice act, New Mexico medical board, compact commission, physician mobility, telemedicine, license portability, background check, disciplinary action, joint investigation, reproductive health care, gender-affirming care, scope of practice, medical board transparency, multistate compact, licensure renewal, health care workforce

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:35:22.640><c> committee</c> where we would have a review committee where we would have a review
• committee go<00:35:23.280><c> through</c><00:35:23.440><c> and</c><00:35:23.680><c> review</c><00:35
• :24.079><c> all</c><00:35:24.400><c> of</c><00:35:24.560><c> the</c> go through and review all of the
• go through and review all of the documents<00:35:25.200><c> and</c><00:35:25.440><c> then</c><00:35:
• and comment on, and then it review and comment on, and then it currently<00:41:28.800><c> under</c><

Transcript Highlights:

• As a reminder, when we are reviewing our bills, primary witnesses in support must be those...
• As we are reviewing our bills, primary witnesses in support must be those accompanying the author or
• For context, IOUs review documents, and it's often necessary for a project to proceed, and that's not
• SCE understands the importance of timely review of permits and the need to energize housing projects.
• Number one, to review the progress that California has made in recent years.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Summary: The committee first heard AB 1026 by Assembly Member Wilson, a bill aimed at reducing delays in utility energization applications that can hold up approved housing projects. Supporters, including the Housing Action Coalition, Mission Housing, and several housing and local government groups, said investor-owned utilities should follow clearer timelines and disclosure requirements so projects can move forward predictably. Opponents from PG&E and Southern California Edison argued the bill was unnecessary, could conflict with CPUC efforts already underway, and should wait for the ongoing energization rulemaking to conclude. After discussion of the bill’s amendments and timelines, the committee passed AB 1026 on a 15-0 vote, and also dispensed with the consent calendar on a 15-0 vote. The hearing then shifted to the committee’s annual oversight hearing on electric reliability. Representatives from the CPUC, CEC, CAISO, and DWR reviewed lessons from the 2020 rolling outages and 2022 heat events, emphasizing improved planning, better coordination, and the role of strategic reserves. They reported that California enters summer 2025 in a stronger position, with no expected shortfalls under traditional planning conditions and a surplus under standard reliability analysis, though they cautioned that wildfire and extreme heat could still create risk. They also highlighted major additions of battery storage, new procurement, and transmission and market reforms that have improved reliability and flexibility. Members asked about data center load growth, the future of Diablo Canyon, the strategic reliability reserve, wildfire costs, regional market expansion, and the balance between affordability and reliability. Witnesses said data center demand remains a major variable, Diablo Canyon should be planned for as if it may retire on schedule unless policy changes are made, and demand response and energy efficiency remain important tools. CAISO described the Western Energy Imbalance Market and the upcoming extended day-ahead market as major sources of savings and reliability benefits. The panel also said the new slice-of-day resource adequacy framework is working so far, with high compliance and ongoing monitoring.

Transcript Highlights:

• Today, we will review the administration's spending plan for extreme heat mitigation and outdoor access
• In our review of the proposal, we thought there was pretty good substantiation for that approach.
• And that was through improved recruitment and review methods for accepting new applicants.
• Cow recycle may establish review or adjust covered products to the department.
• Cow recycle may establish review or adjust performance standards by March 1, 2032.

Summary: The subcommittee heard presentations on the administration’s Proposition 4 spending plans for extreme heat mitigation and outdoor access, then took up SB 54 implementation, SB 707 textile producer responsibility, and recovery needs related to the Los Angeles fires at state parks. For the extreme heat chapter, agencies described funding for the Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program, urban greening, urban forestry, fairground upgrades, and technical assistance for community-based climate programs. Witnesses emphasized that these are existing programs with strong demand, that technical assistance is important for reaching disadvantaged and tribal communities, and that the proposed funding would expand outreach and implementation capacity. Members asked for more detail on where funds have gone geographically, examples of successful projects, tree-planting totals, and how fairgrounds could better support fire staging and emergency preparedness. The LAO said the timing of the administration’s proposed funding generally made sense because the programs are already established, and no votes were taken. For outdoor access, State Parks, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources described funding for new parks in underserved communities, deferred maintenance, state lands access, and several new or pending programs. State Parks said the park development program would fund roughly 48 projects and that deferred maintenance funding would address high-priority health, safety, and access needs. Fish and Wildlife said its lands program would improve visitor amenities and access on properties that often lack basic facilities. The Natural Resources Agency also outlined three newer outdoor-access proposals: expanding recreation in disadvantaged communities, enhancing natural resource values and trail access, and a nature/climate/education facilities grant program. The LAO distinguished between existing programs, which are ready to move forward, and the newer proposals, where the Legislature may want more input before funds are allocated. Members also raised concerns about park police vacancies, the need to track outcomes for accessibility investments, and whether Prop. 4 could help with wildfire-related recovery at state parks. CalRecycle then presented on SB 54, the plastics and packaging producer responsibility law, and members pressed hard on the delay in regulations. CalRecycle said it has held workshops, formed an advisory committee, selected the producer responsibility organization, and completed required baseline and covered-material reports, but needs more time to address complex comments and novel features such as source reduction and eco-modulated fees. Members expressed frustration that a statutory deadline was missed and asked for a concrete timeline; CalRecycle said it expects regulations in place by 2026, ahead of the PRO’s January 1, 2027 plan deadline. Finance said the Beverage Container Recycling Fund is currently healthy enough to support short-term loans for implementation. The committee also reviewed SB 707, the textile EPR law, which would create the nation’s first textile producer responsibility program; staff said the proposal would add positions and loan authority, and members noted the statutory deadlines for PRO approval, needs assessment, and later regulations. The hearing ended with discussion of the January Los Angeles fires’ damage to Topanga State Park and Will Rogers State Historic Park, where State Parks described extensive losses, emergency response work, and ongoing damage assessment. Members asked about FEMA eligibility, state funding sources, and community engagement in rebuilding, and the department said it is still assessing costs and will work with the public on reimagining the parks.

Transcript Highlights:

• Consultation, auditing population, and construction plan review and assistance with 28 FTEs.
• This was following the Sunset Review that recommended that we move to this program.
• We are able to collect documentation through a secure server and review that without having to go on
• We do review these medical- medical records, and we do review the medical administration logs to ensure
• Complaining they are not receiving medications as ordered by the physician and we review the medical

Committee: House Intergovernmental Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• an appropriation during the 88th session, the legislature included a rider that ensured an annual review
• Today, I'm here to request your support for the proposed education reimbursement rate review.
• This review, submitted in a proposed rider, will ensure the sustainability of our facility by requiring
• HHSC to review our rate.

Transcript Highlights:

• The positions were identified for elimination through review of current processes and identification
• The analysis reviewed purchasing across the entire department and identified targeted areas that were
• The consultant completed a detailed analysis and specification review of these items from other vendors
• Part of that will be review and analysis of contracts that we currently have.
• Advance review from some sort of check and balance created by the Legislature, such as an independent

Summary: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 heard the Governor’s May Revision proposals for the judicial branch, the Board of State and Community Corrections, the Department of Justice, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The Legislative Analyst’s Office opened with a warning that the state budget remains structurally imbalanced and urged the Legislature to avoid new ongoing spending unless offset by reductions elsewhere. In the judicial branch discussion, the Judicial Council highlighted language access funding, appellate court security, a backfill for the state court facilities construction fund, and an extension of the lactation room mandate; Finance supported most items but suggested reporting language on interpreter costs and reducing the General Fund backfill. Members raised concerns about judicial vacancies, long-term salary freezes, remote hearings, and the lack of progress on court staffing in some counties. For the Board of State and Community Corrections, the administration proposed $10 million one-time each for the Missing and Murdered Indigenous People grant program and a human trafficking vertical prosecution grant program. The LAO said both should be weighed against other priorities and suggested the Legislature consider whether the Tribal Nations Grant Fund could support MMIP work, while Finance said it preferred General Fund support and wanted more review before any fund swap. Members strongly supported MMIP funding and asked whether ongoing support would be considered. On the human trafficking grant, Finance said BSC was a good fit because of its grant administration experience and prior vertical prosecution work, while legislators asked why the program was not placed with the Office of Emergency Services as originally contemplated in prior legislation. The Department of Justice presented antitrust litigation funding, Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse staffing, completion of organized retail criminal enterprise cases, and trailer bill language for a continuous appropriation from the Victims of Consumer Fraud Restitution Fund. The LAO supported the antitrust account use but questioned the Unfair Competition Law Fund’s ability to cover the full request without General Fund repayment, and recommended against a continuous appropriation for the restitution fund in favor of a more limited mechanism with legislative oversight. Finance said the fund would remain solvent and defended the continuous appropriation as necessary to pay victims promptly. In the CDCR portion, the largest discussion centered on the Boston Consulting Group efficiency review and sharply reduced savings estimates; LAO said the department had not fully explained the proposed position eliminations or future $100 million savings target, while Finance said the work reflected deeper analysis and ongoing efforts to find savings. Members repeatedly pressed CDCR and Finance on the gap between earlier promised savings and the revised figures. CDCR also outlined population projections showing continued declines in prison and parole populations, while LAO again urged the state to close an additional prison to save ongoing costs. The department then walked through several May Revision items, including workers’ compensation funding, a Corcoran honor housing dorm, incarcerated firefighter pay implementation, an incarcerated menopause program, mental health receiver staffing, mental health resource teams and crisis intervention teams, medical classification staffing changes, and AI note-taking for the electronic health record. LAO generally recommended limiting-term funding and more reporting for many of these proposals, while Finance defended them as necessary ongoing investments or court-ordered obligations. Members questioned the cost of workers’ compensation, the need for more prison closures, the lack of funding for women’s facility violence prevention, and the timing and transparency of the BCG savings process. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Speaker, your Committee on Fiscal Review, to us for... Mr.
• The fiscal review chairman, inquire the amendment. Thank you.
• The fiscal review chairman, inquire the amendment maker. Does the gentleman from McDonald yield?
• It also updates the Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review Board to include the study and review of maternity
• The Fiscal Review Chairman. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the auditing, is there any... ...receive federal program monitoring reviews.
• Sir, if I may quickly review the artificial intelligence and the other proposals in your agenda with
• Based on the existing process for articulation review, CCN templates within phase one were reviewed last
• CCN faculty work groups then reviewed and, when needed, upgraded the phase three templates.
• mechanism that builds upon existing processes and ensures that CORs serve as the default for review

Transcript Highlights:

• Some insurers reviewing these proposed changes Insurer obligations and contract language.
• They're still reviewing the proposed amendment to the bill, and while appreciative of the direction,
• However, we need time to review the proposed language.
• We'll be reviewing the amendments and be in touch with the author's office. Thank you.
• We're also reviewing the amendments.

Committee: House Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

Transcript Highlights:

• ,</c><00:15:15.600><c> they</c><00:15:15.839><c> shall</c> planning review, they shall planning review
• The speaker continued that if they kept giving longer times for review, it would keep going back and
• The primary function is to direct the Building Code Review Board to amend the existing code.
• </c><01:39:12.639><c> We</c> to the building code review board.
• We to the building code review board.

Committee: House Housing

Transcript Highlights:

• VB, have you had a chance to review the minutes? Yes, Mr. Chair. All right.
• 00:40.039><c> to</c> March 10th VB have you had a chance to March 10th VB have you had a chance to review
• Proposals are reviewed and evaluated by our members, including through presentations from applicants.
• Eventually, research proposals undergo additional external scientific peer review."
• </c><00:44:00.000><c> the</c> down that list if you like to review the down that list if you like to

Committee: House Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:

• Ourlinear performance products and operations results are eligible for review.
• If interested you will be in the district items to review this and make你的 recommendations to the full
• In our readiness review, we make sure that...
• So this proposal would be to perform to have a statewide unit that reviews, right now a caseworker reviews
• Without having had much time to be able to review all of it, so.

Committee: House Appropriations - S/C on Article II

Transcript Highlights:

• From whom there is no review of their decisions.
• The Conduct Commission's decision was subject to review by this court of special review from which there
• is no further review.
• The Conduct Commission's decision is subject to review by this Court of Special Review, from which there
• That conduct, or I'm sorry, that Court of Special Review is a matter that I think could be under review

Bills: SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• end, you can see there's a comprehensive list from the prior meetings of the things that you have reviewed
• Those have to be reviewed by our office.
• These tax incentives are reviewed on a rotating schedule.
• These tax incentives are reviewed on a rotating schedule.
• The tax incentive review process focuses on the fiscal impact and any potential changes.

Committee: Joint Tax Reform and Relief Advisory Committee

Summary: The Tax Reform and Relief Advisory Committee met with a quorum and approved the prior minutes. Staff reviewed the interim work schedule, noting that most assigned studies were complete and that the final meeting would be September 29, with remaining work focused on economic development tax incentives, the stripper well exemption, and property tax reform items such as the primary residence credit. The committee then took up a referral on political subdivision compliance with state law, especially reserve limits and levy calculations. State Auditor Josh Gallion explained the audit standards used for local governments, the state auditor’s limited authority to force compliance, and the practical challenges created by a shortage of auditors. He used Stark County and Mountrail County examples to show how reserve balances affect levy calculations, including Stark County’s 2023 general fund levy issue and Mountrail County’s zero-levy approach. Stark County Commission Chair Neil Messer defended his county’s decision to keep reserves for major projects and volatility in oil-related revenues, while acknowledging the county remained out of compliance with the 75% reserve rule. Committee members and staff discussed possible enforcement mechanisms, the role of county auditors, and whether the law should be changed to better fit current fiscal conditions. Linda from the Association of Counties and Matt Gardner from the League of Cities said both organizations have been heavily training local officials on the new tax cap and reserve rules. Linda said counties and cities are using standardized worksheets for the 3% cap and levy limitations, and suggested that an affidavit certifying compliance could be attached to levy submissions. She also clarified that the primary residence credit does not reduce mill levies; it only reduces the taxpayer’s bill. Gardner said city auditors receive required finance training and that his organization was unaware of current city reserve noncompliance. The committee did not take action on the issue and planned to revisit it at the September 29 meeting. The final portion of the meeting moved into a subcommittee report on the property tax statement, where Representative Headland introduced a bill draft to remove the legislative property tax relief line from the statement for further committee discussion.