Transcript Highlights:

• I'm part of the California that I am, and the part of California that I'm from.
• I'm part of the California that I am, and the part of California that I'm from.
• Don't ask us to do our part.
• Taxpayers have done their part. Consumers are more than doing their part.
• Taxpayers have done their part. Consumers are more than doing their part.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Senate and Assembly Health Committees focused on the cost of federal instability for California health coverage, access, and affordability. Opening remarks from members of both houses emphasized that California’s coverage gains under the Affordable Care Act are now threatened by federal policy changes, including the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits, H.R. 1, and new federal regulatory actions. Members repeatedly cited rising premiums, skipped care, medical debt, and the risk that low-income, immigrant, and working Californians could lose coverage or be pushed into less comprehensive plans. The first panel reviewed the federal landscape and state response. Don Joyce described the ACA’s coverage expansions and warned that H.R. 1, regulatory changes, and broader federal retrenchment could reduce coverage and weaken meaningful benefits. Covered California Executive Director Jessica Altman said the loss of enhanced premium tax credits is driving major affordability problems, with average monthly premiums projected to rise sharply and enrollment already down, especially among middle-income consumers. HCAI’s Elizabeth Lansberg explained the Office of Health Care Affordability’s role in slowing spending growth, monitoring consolidation, and setting spending targets, including lower targets for high-cost hospitals and new primary care investment goals. Members asked about bronze plans, high-cost hospitals, administrative burdens, provider taxes, and whether federal advisory changes could affect required benefits such as immunizations. The second panel examined population impacts and cost drivers. UC Berkeley Labor Center’s Miranda Dietz said most Californians get coverage through employers, Medi-Cal, or Covered California, and that affordability problems are widespread across all groups. She projected that California could have up to 2 million more uninsured residents by 2030, largely from Medi-Cal losses, and said higher premiums reduce wages and increase medical debt. Christoph Stremakis of the California Health Care Foundation highlighted survey data showing widespread concern about medical bills, skipped care, and medical debt, and argued that a large share of spending is wasted through administrative complexity, inflated prices, and underinvestment in prevention. Committee members pressed the panel on whether California can sustain coverage without new revenue, how cost-growth targets affect workers and families, how medical debt relief programs like Los Angeles County’s could be expanded, and how OCA can address uncompensated care, consolidation, and prior authorization burdens.

Transcript Highlights:

• One of the big parts of that is the nuclear moratorium.
• </c><00:05:11.840><c> of</c> going to be a big important uh part of going to be a big important uh part
• </c><00:47:53.400><c> of</c> we make large Hydro a better part of we make large Hydro a better part of
• </c> Prairie Island community is is all part Prairie Island community is is all part of<00:48:06.760>
• Affordable power is a huge part of affordable housing.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Farmers have done their part; it's time for the state to do its part by closing the gap on property taxes
• Farmers have done their part; it's time for the state to do its part by closing the gap on property taxes
• it's time for the state to do their part it's time for the state to do its<00:16:07.680><c> part</c>
• </c><00:16:46.279><c> of</c> done uh I also believe part of done uh I also believe part of government's
• Landowners in water-rich parts of the state may be treated more fairly than those in other parts of the

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I am part of the Paralyzed Veterans of America.
• I am part of the Paralyzed Veterans of America.
• that's part of our mission.
• So Senate File 1966 has four parts.
• </c><01:04:02.960><c> of</c> dad worked in the my dad was a part of dad worked in the my dad was a part

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But I am concerned about Part 10. Part 10 is not something that will help donor-conceived people.
• four and part five and part nine.
• /c><01:21:02.080><c> mean</c> applicable in part four and part I mean applicable in part four and part
• I mean part<01:21:02.760><c> five</c><01:21:03.040><c> and</c><01:21:03.280><c> part</c><01:21:04.040
• part nine um this will part five and part nine um this will make<01:21:06.719><c> it</c><01:21:07.159

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard SB 1231, which would repeal the Parentage Uniform Act of 1973 and update Hawaii’s parentage laws, including parts of the Uniform Parentage Act of 2017. Supporters said the current statutes are outdated and do not adequately address assisted reproduction, surrogacy, and modern family formation. The Attorney General’s office supported the bill with technical amendments, including conforming changes to the Probate Code and child support provisions, and several testifiers urged passage as a needed modernization of the law. A major point of disagreement was Part 10, which concerns donor anonymity. Some supporters, including members of the task force, the Uniform Law Commission, fertility and family law practitioners, and LGBTQ+ advocates, backed the bill as written or said it should move forward even if Part 10 is removed. Others, including donor-conceived adults, parents, and advocacy groups, opposed Part 10 and urged the committee to adopt the 2024 version of Article 9 or delete Part 10 entirely, arguing that anonymous donation harms donor-conceived people’s access to genetic, medical, and identity information and that anonymity is not realistic in the DNA-testing era. One task force member and attorney said she supported the bill but preferred removing Part 10 if necessary to pass the rest. The hearing included extensive public testimony both in support and opposition, with many individuals describing personal experiences with adoption, IVF, surrogacy, and donor conception. No committee vote or final action on the bill was taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:34:55.159><c> that</c> and the regional planning part that and the regional planning part that
• </c> after parts two and three take effect. after parts two and three take effect.
• </c> shall be repealed two years after part shall be repealed two years after part two<01:55:18.960><
• </c> Two and part three take effect.
• Well, they part of the voting group.

Bills: SB3253, SB2401, SB3169, SB17, SB3014, SB3032, SB1432, SB2002, SB2972, SB3247

Keywords: conservation, endangered species, wildlife preservation, native birds, biodiversity, sanctuary, nonprofit, DLNR, agricultural district, land use, chapter 195D, chapter 205, chapter 42F, state funding, public purpose, habitat restoration, predator-free sanctuary, ecosystem restoration, Zealandia, wildlife refuge

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land heard testimony on SB 5253 SD2 relating to conservation and SB 2401 relating to regional shoreline mitigation district, with the chair emphasizing short testimony limits and the need to finish before session. On SB 5253, DLNR said it stood on its written testimony and answered questions about the bill’s proposed nonprofit endangered species sanctuary. Members asked whether existing entities or agreements, such as land trusts, private landowners, and DLNR safe harbor agreements, could accomplish similar conservation goals without creating a new entity. DLNR said similar work already exists, but it was not aware of a comparable sanctuary model in the state. A member also questioned language suggesting for-profit businesses in the sanctuary, and DLNR said the intent appeared to be sales of outreach or similar materials, though it agreed that such activities could be handled by a nonprofit. The bulk of the hearing focused on SB 2401, which would create a regional shoreline adaptation/mitigation framework. The Department of the Attorney General said it had concerns about inconsistent use of the terms “mitigation” and “adaptation,” warning of possible title-subject issues. DLNR said it was neutral on the terminology and more concerned with the substance, and noted that the bill would not waive permits; any plan would still require environmental review and applicable state and county permits. DLNR also supported OHA’s recommendation to consider impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during regional planning, and said the bill’s language on temporary shoreline protection measures could help address the gap between emergency permits and longer-term planning while avoiding a hardening-only approach. The Office of Planning supported the regional planning concept but noted it is not a regulatory agency and would need to work with DLNR and the Land Board. OHA supported the bill’s planning-based approach but recommended amendments to require assessment of impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during plan development and to clarify that environmental review would still apply at the project level. Testifiers from the Ka‘anapali Steering Committee strongly supported the bill, saying it would provide a regional framework for ongoing erosion problems while preserving full regulatory authority and normal permitting, and they proposed amendments to standardize terminology, create a limited pathway for temporary shoreline protection, and address ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Members discussed the meaning of “mitigation” versus “adaptation,” the scope of shoreline hardening, and whether the bill would help the legislature take a broader, more holistic view of shoreline decisions. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's part science, part planning.
• </c><01:34:55.199><c> of</c><01:34:55.400><c> the</c> part the community outreach part of the part the
• </c><01:35:41.320><c> science</c><01:35:41.719><c> part</c> water nice so it's uh part science part water
• And so I do—do you have the breakdown somewhere of what the parts per million, parts per billion, parts
• And so I do—do you have the breakdown somewhere of what the parts per million, parts per billion, parts

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And part of their story about sexual violence would be absolutely privileged, and the other part of their
• What's that going to put the shift to the other part?
• What's that going to put the shift to the other part?
• What's that going to put the shift to the other part?
• What's that going to put the shift to the other part?

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• It's part of the National Forensic League.
• I heard the main part of the question.
• So it's a two-part question. Senator Yarbrough. So it's a two-part question.
• It took a lot of patience on your part.
• It took a lot of patience on your part.

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and several introductions and moments of silence, including tributes to fallen service members. The chamber then moved through a special order calendar focused on a series of bills, with most measures receiving unanimous or near-unanimous support after brief explanations and floor debate. Several bills were temporarily postponed, but the body took up and passed multiple others, often substituting identical House companions before final passage. The first major measure, SB 1062 on speech and debate education, drew extensive supportive debate from senators who described debate as a civic skill that builds confidence, critical thinking, and conflict resolution, especially for students in public schools and underserved communities. An amendment creating a Speech and Debate Hall of Fame, expanding access through public-private partnerships, and establishing coach training was adopted, and the bill ultimately passed 37-0. The Senate also passed SB 1072 creating an Anti-Semitism Task Force, with a late-filed amendment clarifying that the bill does not restrict criticism of Israel and is not intended to infringe First Amendment rights; that bill also passed 37-0. Other measures passed included a PFAS bill phasing out firefighting foam containing forever chemicals and setting testing, reporting, and enforcement requirements; an expansion of the My Safe Florida Condominium Pilot Program; student health and safety legislation expanding seizure-response training in schools; updates to funeral and cemetery regulation; protected cell captive insurance company legislation aimed at increasing insurance market capacity; nonprofit corporation updates; child welfare reforms streamlining foster-care medication approvals and related procedures; salvage title/e-signature changes; and forensic client services changes allowing certain APD clients to be housed with other secure forensic residents. Most of these bills were passed after substituting House companions and received unanimous votes. The most contentious debate came on SB 1134 regarding official actions of local governments and DEI-related activities. Senator Yarborough argued the bill would stop counties and cities from funding or promoting DEI practices he described as discriminatory or ideological, while several amendments sought to narrow the bill to spending only, add an intent requirement for penalties, and preserve local proclamations and observances such as LGBTQ Pride Month. Those amendments were rejected, and debate continued on the bill’s scope and exemptions, but the transcript ends before final disposition of SB 1134 is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• I guess um to the first part that way.
• second part of your question?
• And but and as part of the as<00:57:04.960><c> part</c><00:57:05.119><c> of</c><00:57:05.280><c> this
• </c><01:39:02.320><c> I</c> providers as part of this program. I providers as part of this program.
• </c> first you know to the to the first part. first you know to the to the first part.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Part of it is just this whole section is lengthy, and part of it is that this is all about courtroom
• of the penalty part of the crime.
• And that's the efficiency part.
• </c> and um so that's the efficiency part and um so that's the efficiency part right<00:51:15.400><c>
• on the Civil part if you see continue on the Civil part if you see what<01:03:42.599><c> I</c><01:03

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard CACR 6, a proposed constitutional amendment by Representative Keith Ammon to recognize a fundamental right to use computation resources. Ammon argued that computing is now essential to daily life, speech, education, and economic opportunity, and said the amendment was intended to push back against government or corporate restrictions, citing a 2023 federal executive order on AI registration and reporting as an example of the kind of precedent he wanted to oppose. He said the proposal should be simple and clear because it would go to voters, and he compared the right to compute to other constitutional rights that do not require the government to provide the underlying tools. Committee members raised concerns about the breadth of the language, including whether it could affect encryption, authentication, network security, energy use, and other regulatory issues. Representative McFarland questioned whether the amendment could interfere with security measures, while others asked whether it would prevent ordinary network management such as throttling or require the state to provide internet access or hardware. Ammon responded that the right would not entitle someone to other people’s resources and said encryption and similar issues would sort themselves out. Several members also raised concerns about child safety, public safety, and whether existing laws could still regulate misuse of computing; Ammon said reasonable limits would still apply, similar to other constitutional rights. Sarah Scott of Americans for Prosperity testified in support, saying the amendment would protect innovation, individual autonomy, and economic competitiveness by preventing overregulation. After questions concluded, the chair closed the hearing on CACR 6. The committee then opened House Bill 615, sponsored by Representative Dan Maguire, which would substantially rewrite the state’s drug-forfeiture law. Maguire said the bill is intended to improve fairness and efficiency in cases where property such as cars or cash is seized in connection with drug offenses, noting that the criminal case and the civil forfeiture case are currently handled separately, with the property case prosecuted by the Attorney General’s office. He explained that the bill addresses courtroom procedure for these forfeiture actions and is meant to make the process more specific and orderly.

Transcript Highlights:

• And they are in completely different parts of the state.
• And I think that's part of the problem that we're hearing in the discussion.
• Is that part of your process? Are you guys even discussing that?
• So it's part of an ongoing conversation.
• It's, again, part of the process, part of the deliberative process.

Summary: The committee heard AB 108, a budget bill junior that would amend the 2025 Budget Act to create a one-time $25 million General Fund grant program at HCAI for hospitals in immediate and significant financial distress. The bill also included a technical change related to property tax deferments for eligible low-income seniors. Finance explained that eligible hospitals would have to be not-for-profit, have less than 10 days cash on hand, show best efforts to exhaust other financing, and have a payer mix of more than 50% government payers and uninsured patients; the bill also gives HCAI expedited contracting and rulemaking authority. Members and the LAO noted the proposal is intended as a short-term bridge until July 1, while broader hospital support is expected in the May Revision and next year’s budget. Much of the discussion focused on whether $25 million is enough, how many hospitals would qualify, and whether the 10-day cash threshold is too narrow. Several senators argued the administration had not provided enough data or a clear methodology, and raised concerns about fairness compared with the earlier Distressed Hospital Loan Program, which used broader criteria and provided loans rather than grants. Members also raised broader policy issues affecting hospital finances, including Medi-Cal reimbursement rates, seismic retrofit costs, federal funding changes, and the need for better data and more immediate assessment of hospital distress. The LAO said the current proposal is narrower than the prior loan program and emphasized the need for better reporting and analysis going forward. Public commenters, including the California Hospital Association, district hospital representatives, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, and county officials, supported the bill and urged additional longer-term funding for distressed hospitals. The chair and several members said the bill is a short-term emergency measure for a small number of hospitals at risk of imminent closure, while broader solutions will be addressed later in the budget process. AB 108 was then moved and passed out of committee on an 18-0 vote, with the roll held open briefly to secure remaining votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the current law addresses lead in aluminum or brass cookware at 90 parts per million beginning in
• 2026, and then drops that allowable level to 10 parts per million beginning in 2028.
• per million to 10 parts per million.
• We're going to be at 50 parts per million in 2033 or 2032. I'm good with that.
• They test everything and use a max lead level of 50 parts per million and they purchase.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So the current law addresses lead in aluminum or brass cookware to 90 parts per million beginning in
• 2026, and then drops that allowable level to 10 parts per million beginning in 2028.
• per million to 10 parts per million.
• We're going to be at 50 parts per million in 2033 or 2032. I'm good with that.
• They test everything and use a max lead level of 50 parts per million and they purchase.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on two main bills. ESSB 5975 dealt with lead limits in cookware and a proposed striker that would shift more of the standard-setting and testing process to the Department of Ecology under Safer Products for Washington. Supporters, including industry groups, Ecology, the Department of Health, and environmental advocates, said the striker would provide clearer, science-based, and more workable standards while still reducing lead exposure. Some witnesses, including environmental groups, argued the bill should remain stronger, while others said the striker was an acceptable compromise. No vote was taken on the bill during the hearing. The committee also heard extensive testimony on ESSB 5360, which would create tiered criminal penalties for violations of the Water Pollution Control Act, Clean Air Act, and Hazardous Waste Management Act, including felony penalties for knowing or negligent conduct in certain circumstances. The prime sponsor and Attorney General’s Office said the bill targets egregious polluters, adds whistleblower and worker protections, and responds to serious environmental harm cases. Tribal, environmental, and advocacy witnesses supported the bill as a way to hold repeat polluters accountable. Labor, business, industry, county, utility, and forestry representatives opposed it, warning that the language could expose workers and permit holders to criminal liability for mistakes or routine operations and that the bill needed more stakeholder work. At the end of the meeting, the committee took executive action on Substitute Senate Bill 6269, which updates the Motor Fuel Quality Act by modernizing the definition of motor fuel and folding alternative fuels into that definition. The bill passed the committee on a 19-0 vote, with two members excused, and was reported out with a do-pass recommendation.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then sometimes it becomes a mainstay as part of your supply.
• I know there's a mobile van in Boston and other parts of the state.
• In part, it's not, in theory, supposed to be within the human body.
• use, and this is part of their routine.
• But outreach is also part of professional training. So.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on xylazine held its first meeting, with House Chair Mindy Domb and Senate Co-Chair John Keenan outlining the commission’s charge and a proposed work plan. The commission is tasked with studying the public health and safety impacts of xylazine in the illicit drug supply, including whether it should be scheduled as a controlled substance, how to regulate its production and distribution, and how to improve outreach and treatment for people exposed to it. Members were told the report deadline had been extended to March 30, 2026, and staff proposed a series of public hearings and working groups leading to a final report. The meeting also included attendance, packet materials, and procedural planning. The first major testimony came from BSAS Director Deirdre Calvert, who described xylazine’s appearance in Massachusetts drug supply data, the state’s public health alerts, and DPH’s partnership with Brandeis, CDC, and harm reduction organizations. She emphasized four priorities: reducing stigma and discrimination in health care, expanding self-directed wound care support and coverage for supplies, expanding access to drug checking and test strips, and supporting low-barrier services such as mobile vans and drop-in centers. Commission members asked about first responder awareness, medical education, and whether harm reduction services might face federal restrictions; Calvert said misinformation remains a problem and noted ongoing training efforts, including collaboration with public safety agencies. Several other speakers reinforced the need for low-barrier care and drug checking. Dr. Raghini Jala, an infectious disease and addiction medicine physician, said xylazine has become a common component of the unregulated opioid supply and urged support for rapid-response education teams, community-based drug checking, and better hospital and detox protocols for xylazine withdrawal and wounds. Recovery coach Alan Young testified from lived experience, describing severe wounds, fear of inadequate withdrawal treatment in emergency settings, and the value of mobile care vans that can provide methadone, buprenorphine, and wound care in the community. Dr. Sarah Wakeman echoed the need for naloxone, rescue breathing, low-threshold treatment, and non-stigmatizing health care settings, while Sarah Macon of the Boston Public Health Commission described Boston’s harm reduction and drug checking work, including on-site testing, wound care, and a decline in opioid mortality. Tracy Green of the Massachusetts Drug Supply Data Stream explained that xylazine has declined in recent samples while metatomidine is rising, said drug checking is increasingly used but still not enough, and argued for more funding, staffing, and statewide access to real-time drug checking and harm reduction services.

Transcript Highlights:

• The other part of that is we, of course, provided health care…” Ms.
• And that is paramount, as part of the California model, as part of what we do every single day, and holding
• It's part of the training. But there is a perception out there.
• And rehabilitation then becomes a very, very important part of that.
• So I want to thank them officially as part of this hearing.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Rules first established quorum and took up several routine items, including two governor’s appointments to the Court Reporters Board, references of bills to committees, and floor acknowledgments. Heather Lynn Gonzalez’s appointment was approved 3-1, Allison Salton-Sall’s appointment was approved 4-0, and the other routine items were approved 4-0. The committee then heard testimony on two Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation appointments, Kathleen Ratliff and Joseph Tuggle, both associate directors in the Division of Adult Institutions. Senators focused heavily on the California model, staff safety, prison violence, sexual abuse prevention, retaliation concerns, and visitation. Ratliff and Tuggle said the California model is meant to balance rehabilitation with safety, that CDCR has improved communication and training, and that incidents such as the pepper-spray event at Central California Women’s Facility led to discipline, investigations, retraining, and policy review. They also described PREA reporting systems, anti-retaliation protections, statewide visiting meetings, and efforts to make visiting more family-centered and consistent. Public commenters largely supported both nominees, citing their work on rehabilitation, reentry, and sexual abuse response. The committee unanimously voted 4-0 to send both Ratliff and Tuggle to the Senate floor for confirmation. It then heard from Jason Johnson, nominated as CDCR Undersecretary of Operations. Senators questioned him about parole supervision, public safety, contraband, prison rape prevention, workplace culture, whistleblower retaliation, and repeated allegations in late-filed opposition letters. Johnson said parole risk is assessed through established scoring and supervision levels, that sex offenders are subject to GPS monitoring and treatment, and that operations use investigations, training, and collaboration with law enforcement to address contraband and misconduct. He emphasized rehabilitation, culture change, accountability, and his commitment to staff and public safety, while acknowledging criticism and the difficulty of leading a large institution. No vote on Johnson was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that is paramount, as part of the California model, as part of what we do every single day, and holding
• A part of that is making sure that we have our training, which we do.
• It's a part of the training. But there is a perception out there.
• Ratliff is a major part of what has helped me grow from an inmate pictured here... ...is a major part
• So I want to thank them officially as part of this hearing.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Rules first handled several routine items, including governor’s appointments not required to appear, references to bills, and floor acknowledgments. The committee approved the appointments of Heather Lynn Gonzalez and Allison Salton-Sall to the Court Reporters Board, and then moved on to appointments required to appear from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Kathleen Ratliff and Joseph Tuggle, both proposed associate directors in CDCR’s Division of Adult Institutions, testified about their backgrounds and emphasized staff safety, rehabilitation, trauma-informed practices, and the California model. Senators focused heavily on the rollout of the California model, the August 2024 use-of-force incident at Central California Women’s Facility, sexual abuse prevention, retaliation concerns, and prison visitation. Both nominees said the department had improved communication and training, had disciplined or removed staff in response to misconduct, and was working to strengthen PREA reporting, investigations, and family visiting consistency. Public testimony was strongly supportive, and the committee voted 4-0 to send both nominations to the Senate floor. The committee then heard from Jason Johnson, nominated as CDCR Undersecretary of Operations. Johnson framed his work around rehabilitation, public safety, and culture change, and addressed concerns raised in late opposition letters and a lawsuit alleging retaliation, hostile work environment, discrimination, and whistleblower issues. He said he could not discuss pending litigation in detail, but described his leadership as focused on accountability, professional standards, and improving relationships with staff and community partners. Senators questioned him about parole supervision, risk assessment, contraband interdiction, and the Prison Rape Elimination Act response; Johnson said adult parole uses risk-based supervision and GPS for registered sex offenders, operations is working with correctional safety and law enforcement on contraband and drone interdiction, and CDCR continues to expand reporting channels and training. The committee also discussed the importance of rehabilitation and reentry programs, with Johnson saying most people return to the community and that CDCR must prepare them for successful reintegration.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hope is part of the Housing Stability Coalition.
• I'm happy to consider this a really critical part, I hope, of our bill moving forward.
• I'm happy to consider this a really critical part, I hope, of our bill moving forward.
• I'm happy to consider this a really critical part, I hope, of our bill moving forward.
• I'm happy to consider this a really critical part, I hope, of our bill moving forward.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I didn't understand that part either, but the first part of it did say zero. This is 3280, right?
• I didn't understand that part either, but the first part of it did say zero. This is 3280, right?
• No, that's correct, and I think part of the important part of the process, to be clear, and I don't want
• So part of that is a service record review.
• You got part of the answer for me for part of it.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And noticeably missing from the funding was a focus on agriculture, which had been part of the cap-and-trade
• I also want to note that CDFA's programs are only part of the picture.
• And I appreciate the last part of it, the multi-benefits.
• California, in my district, I know that farmers are willing to be part of the solution.
• It's happened because the state has smartly implemented a four-part strategy.

Summary: The joint informational hearing examined how agricultural programs have used cap-and-invest funding and what role agriculture should play in future climate investments. The chairs opened by noting that agriculture had been largely left out of the cap-and-invest reauthorization, despite prior support through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and framed the hearing around climate-smart agriculture, food security, rural vitality, and the need for measurable co-benefits such as water savings, soil health, and air quality improvements. The first panel included CDFA Deputy Secretary Virginia Jamison and LAO analyst Helen Kirsten. Jamison described CDFA’s climate-smart portfolio, including the Healthy Soils Program, SWEEP, the Alternative Manure Management Program, and dairy methane reduction efforts, saying roughly $727 million has supported these programs and produced estimated reductions of 31 million metric tons of CO2e, 1.6 million acre-feet of water savings, and about 4,000 projects. She emphasized technical assistance, oversubscription of the programs, and the need for continued investment and better measurement/verification. Kirsten outlined the cap-and-invest structure, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and the state’s emissions inventory, noting agriculture is about 8% of California’s GHG emissions and that funding for tier-three programs may remain constrained. She also said prior LAO work found the programs have significant reduction potential but that some estimated benefits may be overstated, recommending further evaluation. The second panel featured UC researchers Alexandra Hill and Ermi Kibreab, who presented on the economic importance of California’s working landscapes and on dairy methane reduction pathways. Hill said working landscapes are a major part of the state and national economy, with agriculture driving most of the sector’s sales and jobs. Kibreab explained that dairy is central to methane reduction because it accounts for a large share of agricultural methane emissions, and described herd efficiency, digesters, alternative manure management, and emerging feed additives as complementary strategies. He said digesters and other incentive-supported measures are helping California move toward its methane goals, while noting feed additives such as 3-NOP and seaweed-based approaches could offer additional reductions in the future. The third panel brought contrasting views from environmental advocates, farmers, and industry representatives. Phoebe Seaton argued that further state funding for dairy digesters is not environmentally or economically justified, citing concerns about methane, nitrous oxide, groundwater impacts, odors, and high cost per ton reduced. Brian Shobe of CalCAN supported continued funding for programs like AMP, SWEEP, and Healthy Soils, saying they provide multiple co-benefits and that farmers need stable, incentive-based support to comply with climate and water regulations. Cannon Michael of Bowles Farming Company described his farm’s investments in organic and regenerative practices, composting, drip irrigation, solar, habitat management, and workforce programs, and said consistent funding helps farms plan and remain viable. Tricia Gerringer of the Agricultural Council of California urged funding for FPIP, the Farmer Program, methane reduction programs, and sustainable ag waste management, arguing they deliver immediate, measurable reductions and co-benefits. Members and witnesses debated the relative merits of digesters versus alternative manure management, the role of regenerative agriculture, and whether agriculture should be treated as a distinct policy category. No votes were taken; the hearing concluded with public comment supporting agricultural climate funding and a request to include agriculture in broader cap-and-invest discussions.