Transcript Highlights:

• And there are differences in who gets health insurance from their job across race and ethnicity.

Transcript Highlights:

• And there are differences in who gets health insurance from their job across race and ethnicity.

Summary: The subcommittee heard a lengthy Department of Health Care Services presentation on the governor’s Medi-Cal budget, including a $229.1 billion total-funds proposal, projected Medi-Cal enrollment declines as redeterminations continue, and several major cost drivers such as managed care growth, Medicare-related costs, pharmacy spending, and changes tied to federal policy. Members focused heavily on the elimination of Prop. 56 dental supplemental payments beginning July 1, 2026, questioning the likely impact on provider participation and utilization. DHCS said it is completing the required rate reduction/access analysis for CMS, has been holding stakeholder meetings and issuing provider bulletins, but could not yet quantify the real-world effect. The committee also discussed a $50 million savings proposal tied to new hospice utilization management authority and asked about possible effects on emergency dental care and provider participation. The hearing then moved through the November 2025 family health estimate and several county and program administration issues, including CCS, GHPP, and Every Woman Counts. DHCS said family health costs are rising despite slight caseload declines because of higher utilization and medical costs, and members raised concerns about CCS website accessibility, county administrative funding, and the transition of youth aging out of CCS. The department said most CCS beneficiaries are also on Medi-Cal, that counties have long raised funding concerns, and that it had clarified use of maintenance-and-operations dollars to address some county workload issues. Members also asked about Every Woman Counts potentially seeing higher demand as Medi-Cal changes take effect; DHCS said that is possible and that the program has multiple funding sources including General Fund. A major portion of the hearing focused on provider taxes and federal changes under H.R. 1, especially the Medi-Cal managed care organization tax and the hospital quality assurance fee. DHCS explained that H.R. 1 restricts new or increased health care-related taxes, phases down allowable tax levels over time, and tightens “generally redistributive” rules, which could sharply reduce the state’s ability to use the MCO tax for Medi-Cal financing. Members asked whether the Legislature could amend Prop. 35 or whether voters would need to act; DHCS said a three-fourths legislative amendment may be possible if it aligns with the measure’s purpose, but the department is still evaluating options. The committee also discussed hospital financing, with DHCS describing recent increases in state-directed payments and the effect of H.R. 1 in capping those payments at Medicare levels, and the LAO noting the tradeoff between preserving provider taxes and maintaining Medi-Cal funding. The subcommittee also reviewed a series of DHCS budget change proposals and trailer bill items, including managed care final-rule implementation, managed care operations, a hospital value strategy, a one-year extension of skilled nursing facility financing, long-term care payment transparency, and interoperability/prior authorization requirements. Members repeatedly questioned the use of limited-term versus permanent positions, the overlap among proposals, and the timing of new financing reforms. DHCS said the SNF extension would preserve current workforce standards, sanctions, growth limits, and the SNF quality assurance fee while the department develops a broader 2027-28 redesign. No votes were taken; items were repeatedly held open for later action. Covered California then presented on the expiration of the federal enhanced premium tax credit and the resulting affordability crisis. The agency said Californians will lose about $2.5 billion in premium assistance for 2026, average premiums could nearly double for many enrollees, and as many as 400,000 people could eventually leave marketplace coverage. Open enrollment ended with 1.9 million sign-ups, down 3% from the prior year, with especially steep declines among middle-income consumers and increased movement into bronze plans. Covered California said the state’s $190 million affordability subsidy is helping lower-income enrollees retain coverage, but cannot fully replace the lost federal assistance. Members also asked about the Health Care Affordability Reserve Fund, repayment of loans from that fund, the status of federal review of California’s essential health benefits benchmark, and implementation of the new gender-affirming care benefit under AB 144.

Transcript Highlights:

• And there are differences in who gets health insurance from their job across race and ethnicity.

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the Department of Health Care Services’ proposed budget, including a $229.1 billion total-funds budget and projected Medi-Cal enrollment decline as redeterminations continue. Members focused heavily on the fiscal and programmatic effects of prior budget solutions and federal changes, especially the elimination of General Fund-supported Prop. 56 dental supplemental payments beginning July 1, 2026, the hospice utilization-management change, and the impact of reduced caseloads alongside rising health care costs. DHCS said it is still completing required access and rate-reduction analyses for the dental cuts and has been engaging stakeholders, but could not yet quantify the real-world effect on utilization or provider participation. The committee also reviewed the November 2025 Medi-Cal local assistance estimate, which shows higher General Fund spending despite lower enrollment, driven by managed care rate growth, Medicare cost growth, state-only claiming, and federal policy changes. The hearing then turned to provider taxes and federal H.R. 1 constraints, with extensive discussion of the MCO tax, the hospital quality assurance fee, and other health care-related taxes. DHCS explained that H.R. 1 phases down allowable tax levels and tightens “generally redistributive” rules, making the current MCO tax structure and the proposed higher hospital fee levels difficult or impossible to renew as originally designed. Staff and the LAO described the tradeoff between preserving Medi-Cal funding and avoiding higher costs on private providers and consumers. Members asked about options for preserving revenue, including possible amendments to Prop. 35 or returning to voters, and were told the department is still evaluating approaches while federal guidance remains in flux. The committee also reviewed hospital payment increases already implemented through state-directed payments, with DHCS noting that H.R. 1 will force those payments down to Medicare levels over time. Several budget change proposals were discussed and left open, including requests tied to the managed care final rule, managed care operations, hospital value strategy, long-term care payment transparency, and interoperability requirements. The committee also heard about a one-year trailer bill extension for skilled nursing facility financing, including continuation of the SNF workforce standards program, the SNF quality assurance fee, and annual rate growth, while the department develops a longer-term financing redesign for 2027-28. Members expressed skepticism about repeated rate reform efforts and questioned whether a one-year extension of the eliminated workforce quality incentive program should be restored during the transition. Finally, Covered California presented its budget and enrollment update, reporting that the expiration of the federal enhanced premium tax credit is expected to reduce affordability significantly, with average premiums roughly doubling for many enrollees and as many as 400,000 Californians potentially losing marketplace coverage over time. The exchange said California’s $190 million subsidy program is helping lower-income enrollees, but not enough to offset the federal loss, and it is also implementing a new gender-affirming care benefit and awaiting federal action on benchmark plan changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• then center of 400, and you never know at what moment some other city will sign an agreement for a race

Transcript Highlights:

• then center of 400, and you never know at what moment some other city will sign an agreement for a race

Summary: The subcommittee first heard an informational overview from the Governor’s Office of Service and Community Engagement (GoServe), including California Volunteers, the Office of Community Partnerships and Strategic Communications, and the Youth Empowerment Commission. GoServe reported strong participation in programs such as California Service Corps, College Corps, Youth Service Corps, Climate Action Corps, and the new men’s service challenge. Testimony emphasized enrollment, retention, and completion outcomes, outreach results, and efforts to reduce administrative costs. The Department of Finance said the administration supports the programs but has already made reductions to help address the budget deficit, while the LAO said it had no new recommendations on the informational item. Committee members raised questions about program scale, demographics, and effectiveness, especially for Climate Action Corps and whether the programs are duplicative of existing volunteer opportunities. One member criticized the programs as too fragmented and costly, while others asked for more data on who is being served and whether the programs increase actual participation in state services. GoServe said it would follow up with demographic and regional impact information. The committee also discussed the men’s service challenge, which GoServe said has formed partnerships with organizations such as YMCAs and Big Brothers Big Sisters and has already attracted more than 2,000 participants. The item was informational only. The committee then heard a BOE overview and a budget request to implement SB 293, which gives wildfire-affected families additional time to claim intergenerational Prop. 13 property tax transfers. BOE requested $154,000 for guidance, public materials, and inquiry response, explaining that the work is urgent and tied to disaster relief in Los Angeles County, especially Altadena. The LAO had no concerns, and Finance had no comment. Members asked how many cases might be affected and whether more funding would be needed later; BOE said the full number is not yet known and that future requests are possible. The committee also heard BOE’s IT modernization proposal for the state-assessed property tax system, a 30-year-old mainframe replacement costing $3.2 million in 2026-27 and $3.1 million in 2027-28. BOE and Finance supported the project as necessary, while the LAO said it had no concerns but urged a high bar for new IT spending. Members generally supported modernization but cautioned about implementation risk. Finally, CDTFA presented an overview and two policy proposals. The department described administering 42 tax and fee programs, collecting $98 billion in FY 2024, and improving administrative efficiency. Members then discussed local sales tax tools and revenue-sharing agreements, with concerns raised about transparency, consultant-driven tax allocation disputes, and the impact on local communities. CDTFA and the LAO explained that local jurisdictions control how district sales tax revenues are spent and noted the Legislature could revisit the statutory cap on local add-on sales taxes. The committee then heard CDTFA’s proposal to treat all delivery network companies as marketplace facilitators so they must collect and remit sales tax on delivery-app orders. CDTFA said the change would resolve confusion, shift compliance from thousands of small restaurants to a few large platforms, and raise about $44 million annually. Several members questioned whether the proposal would effectively raise consumer costs and whether it would create a competitive advantage or disadvantage among delivery platforms. The item remained under discussion, with no vote taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• then a center of 400, and you never know at what moment some other city will sign an agreement for a race

Summary: The subcommittee first received an informational update on the Governor’s Office of Service and Community Engagement (GoServe), including California Volunteers, the Office of Community Partnerships and Strategic Communications, and the Youth Empowerment Commission. GoServe reported strong participation in College Corps, Youth Service Corps, and Climate Action Corps, along with outreach results from OCPSC and the Trusted Messenger Network. The Department of Finance said the programs remain a priority but noted prior budget reductions, while the LAO said it had no new recommendations. Committee members raised questions about program diversity, geographic reach, administrative costs, and whether the programs duplicate existing volunteer opportunities; one member criticized the programs as costly and duplicative, while another emphasized the value of volunteerism and asked about the men’s service challenge. The item was informational only. The committee then heard an overview of the Board of Equalization’s property tax responsibilities and its first budget proposals since the 2017 reorganization. BOE described its role in county assessment oversight, state-assessed property valuation, and related tax administration. Members asked about BOE’s interaction with counties, property tax reassessments, and local tax notices; BOE explained it mainly works with county assessors and handles technical property tax questions, while local special district charges are generally outside its scope. The committee also considered a BOE proposal to implement SB 293, which would give additional time for certain intergenerational property tax transfer claims after the 2025 wildfires. BOE requested $154,000 for guidance, public materials, and inquiry response work, saying the change is urgent for wildfire-affected families, especially in Altadena. The LAO had no concerns, and the item was held open. BOE also presented an information technology modernization proposal for its state-assessed property program, seeking $3.2 million in 2026-27 and $3.1 million in 2027-28 to replace a 30-year-old mainframe system. BOE said the current system relies heavily on manual data entry and paper processes, creating inefficiencies, cybersecurity risks, and delays, while modernization would free staff for more audits and valuation studies. The LAO supported the need but urged a high bar for new IT projects; Finance said the project met the threshold of necessity. Members generally supported the upgrade but asked about audit gains, revenue impacts, and implementation risks, and the item was held open. Finally, CDTFA gave its department overview and then discussed a proposal to require all delivery network companies, such as Uber Eats and DoorDash, to be treated as marketplace facilitators for sales tax purposes. CDTFA said the current carve-out creates confusion for restaurants and small businesses because some DNCs collect and remit tax while others do not, and the change would improve compliance and shift reporting to larger platforms. Members debated whether the proposal amounts to a tax increase for consumers, with CDTFA and Finance arguing it is a consistency and compliance measure rather than a new tax, while others said it would likely raise consumer costs. The committee also discussed broader CDTFA issues, including local sales tax districts, revenue-sharing agreements, and the growth of special taxing jurisdictions. No votes were taken, and the agenda items were informational or held open.

Transcript Highlights:

• And those crashes can involve a driver who is racing, who is driving too fast for conditions, or who

Transcript Highlights:

• And those crashes can involve a driver who is racing, who is driving too fast for conditions, or who

Summary: The joint Senate Public Safety and Transportation hearing focused on DUI, impaired driving, speeding, distracted driving, road design, and the broader traffic safety system in California. Chairs Jesse Arreguín and Dave Cortese said the purpose was to inform upcoming legislation and noted that no bills would be acted on at the hearing. They emphasized the scale of the problem, including thousands of fatal and serious injury crashes each year, and framed the discussion around a Safe System approach that combines infrastructure, enforcement, education, and technology. The first panel covered current DUI law and traffic safety research. Thomas Nozowitz of the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code outlined California’s DUI penalty structure, including escalating misdemeanor and felony penalties, license suspensions, ignition interlock devices, Watson advisories, and homicide-related offenses such as vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and Watson murder. Stephanie Doherty of the Office of Traffic Safety described statewide crash trends, the role of alcohol, drugs, and speeding in fatalities, and state efforts such as the Safe System approach, safety corridors, and grant funding for impaired-driving countermeasures. Dr. Julia Griswold of UC Berkeley SafeTREC presented research favoring systemic interventions like self-explaining roads, safer speed limits, speed safety cameras, intelligent speed assistance, ignition interlocks, sobriety checkpoints, and treatment for chronic offenders, while noting that first-time DUI offenders account for a large share of fatal crashes. Members pressed the panelists on first-offense DUI treatment, ignition interlocks, speed governors, diversion, and whether tougher sanctions or vehicle technology would better reduce recidivism. Several senators raised concerns about repeat offenders, alcohol-use disorder, and the need for earlier intervention, while others questioned the effectiveness and cost of in-car devices. The panel also discussed data gaps and the need for better reporting and coordination between courts and DMV. The second panel, with DMV Director Steve Gordon and Judge Lisa Rodriguez, explained how administrative and court processes work in parallel: DMV receives court abstracts and can impose administrative per se suspensions quickly, while courts handle criminal cases, probation, and sentencing on a slower timeline. Both witnesses said the system is complex and paper-heavy but improving, and they acknowledged the need for better integration, clearer statutes, faster reporting, and more timely license actions to keep impaired drivers off the road.

Transcript Highlights:

• And those crashes can involve a driver who is racing, who is driving too fast for conditions, or who

Summary: The joint Senate Public Safety and Transportation hearing focused on DUI, impaired driving, traffic violence, speed management, and how criminal and administrative systems interact. Chairs Jesse Arreguín and Dave Cortese said the hearing was intended to inform upcoming legislation and noted that no bills would be acted on that day. They emphasized the scale of roadway deaths and serious injuries, the need for a holistic Safe System approach, and the importance of hearing from law enforcement, researchers, victims’ advocates, judges, and DMV officials. The first panel reviewed current DUI law and research. Thomas Nozowitz of the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code outlined California’s DUI penalties, including escalating misdemeanor and felony consequences, ignition interlock device requirements, license suspensions, Watson advisories, and homicide-related offenses. Stephanie Doherty of the Office of Traffic Safety described statewide crash trends, the role of alcohol, drugs, speed, and vulnerable road users, and the state’s Safe System and safety corridor efforts. Dr. Julia Griswold of UC Berkeley presented research supporting systemic interventions such as self-explaining roads, safer speed limits, speed safety cameras, ignition interlocks, sobriety checkpoints, and treatment for chronic offenders; she also noted that many DUI fatalities involve first-time offenders and that punitive measures alone have limited effect on high-risk drivers. Members pressed witnesses on ignition interlocks, speed governors, DUI treatment, diversion, and whether current penalties are strong enough. Several senators, including Archuleta and Blakespear, argued for stronger immediate consequences and better use of in-car technology, while witnesses said chronic offenders often need treatment and that some existing programs may be underused or inconsistently effective. The discussion also touched on data gaps, the need to distinguish alcohol- from drug-involved crashes, and the possibility of allowing diversion for some first-time DUI cases while preserving consequences for repeat offenses. The second panel addressed DMV and court processes. DMV Director Steve Gordon said the department handles mandatory, court-ordered, and administrative actions, and that recent process changes have reduced DMV hearing delays from roughly 170 days to under 70 days in many cases. Judge Lisa Rodriguez explained that county-by-county court practices, case filing delays, sentencing timelines, and paper or mixed electronic systems can slow reporting to DMV, especially for misdemeanors and felonies. She said courts are reviewing reporting requirements, training, and case-management coding to improve transmission of DUI orders, while DMV said it is open to simplification and better coordination but is constrained by aging systems and the motor vehicle account’s financial limits. No votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• different options for the use of the $190 million to our board last year, we shared impact across race

Transcript Highlights:

• different options for the use of the $190 million to our board last year, we shared impact across race

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on the impacts of H.R. 1 and related federal actions on Covered California, Medi-Cal, and immigrant access to care. The chair framed the discussion around three main issues: expected losses in marketplace coverage as enhanced federal premium subsidies expire, new federal work and renewal requirements that would add administrative burden to Medi-Cal, and the loss of eligibility for certain lawfully present immigrants. Covered California testified that H.R. 1 and new federal rules, combined with the end of enhanced premium tax credits, are driving higher premiums, lower new enrollment, and more cancellations, especially among middle-income, Latino, and Black enrollees. The agency said California’s $190 million state subsidy program is helping lower-income enrollees but cannot replace the lost federal assistance, and it noted that roughly 120,000 lawfully present immigrants in Covered California will lose federal tax credits in 2027. On Medi-Cal, the Department of Health Care Services said H.R. 1 will require work and community engagement verification, six-month renewals for certain adults, and other changes that the department expects will reduce enrollment substantially. DHCS estimated 233,000 members could lose coverage by June 2027 from the work requirement and 289,000 from six-month renewals, with losses rising much higher by 2028; it also said it is using automation, outreach, clinic navigators, coverage ambassadors, community health workers, and street medicine providers to reduce procedural disenrollments. The department described a two-phase outreach plan and said it is working with counties on implementation, while the Department of Finance said the Governor’s budget maintains $190 million for the state subsidy program and does not propose additional changes at this time. The LAO said its independent forecast is somewhat higher than the administration’s, estimating about 2.1 million fewer Medi-Cal enrollees by June 2028, and urged the Legislature to review county administrative workload and readiness. Public testimony and member comments focused on the human and fiscal consequences of coverage losses. A representative from the Sacramento Native American Health Center warned that reduced reimbursement and coverage losses would destabilize community health centers, increase uncompensated care, and worsen outcomes by pushing patients into emergency care. Members raised concerns about paperwork burdens, county capacity, outreach effectiveness, and whether the state should do more to preserve coverage, including possible modeling of additional H-CARF spending and support for middle-income consumers and immigrant enrollees. The hearing did not take any votes or formal actions, but it ended with public comment and continued discussion of implementation and budget options.

Transcript Highlights:

• Each of us belong to a protected class, whether that be race, religion, or gender.

Committee: House Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• Justice is not a race against the clock. It is a commitment to accountability. So today, Mr.

Summary: The Senate convened, initially lacked a quorum, then established one and opened with prayer, pledges in English, Navajo, and Spanish, and the salute to the New Mexico flag. Members then moved through announcements and recognitions, including permission for cameras on the floor and gallery, and certificates honoring Santa Fe County Day and Soil and Water Conservation District Day. Senators spoke in support of both recognitions, emphasizing Santa Fe County’s history, cultural and economic contributions, and the conservation districts’ role in stewardship, agriculture, and conservation work across the state. The chamber also welcomed numerous guests, honorary lieutenant governors, student shadows, and seniors visiting the Capitol. The Senate confirmed two State Investment Council appointments. Mary Patricia Roman was confirmed 31-0 after debate highlighting her decades of global investment experience, leadership in private banking, and service on the SIC investment committee. John F. Bingaman was then confirmed 32-0 for reappointment, with senators citing his finance background, prior service as governor’s chief of staff, and role in state economic and early childhood policy. Members also discussed his leadership on the council and the importance of strong management of the state’s permanent funds. On legislation, Senate Memorial 3 passed 27-0. The memorial, developed with the Wild Friends civics and science program, invites state agencies to participate in an insect identification and education workshop with UNM’s Museum of Southwestern Biology and the Xerces Society. The Senate also received House messages and adopted several committee reports, including referrals and passage recommendations for multiple bills and memorials. Later, the chamber debated Senate Bill 145, which would consolidate certain federal audit reporting into a single submission and adjust audit requirements for smaller entities and acequias; supporters said it would streamline compliance without changing audit requirements, while opponents raised concerns about auditor business, oversight, and the risk of weakening scrutiny. The bill remained under debate in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we celebrated so hard when you won because that was a tough race, and you won.

Bills: HB111 , HB108 , HB145 , HB164 , HB291 , HJR6 , HR1 , HB63 , HB64 , HB165 , HB184 , HB200 , HB4 , HB7 , HB20 , HB65 , HB66 , HB80 , HB88 , HB96 , HB166 , HB285 , HB295 , HB306 , SB29 , SB37 , HJM2 , HJM3 , HJM1 , HM7 , HM17 , HM4 , HM22 , HM23 , HM24 , HM26 , HM2 , HM16 , HM32 , HM13 , HM47 , HM20 , HM51 , HM1 , HM31 , HM35 , HM36 , HM46 , HM53 , HM54 , HM11 , HM14 , HM21 , HM34 , HM50

Summary: The House spent much of the meeting on recognitions and tributes, including remarks supporting New Mexico’s dairy industry, honoring Gadsden Independent School District educators and students, recognizing Broadband Day at the Capitol, and celebrating the retirement of Representative Susan Herrera. Members from both parties praised Herrera’s long public-service career, especially her work on water, acequias, land grants, rural communities, modernization, early childhood, and predatory lending reform. Herrera thanked colleagues and said she was leaving to spend more time with family, grandchildren, and personal pursuits. The chamber also received a Senate message on House amendments to Senate Bill 3, with the Senate concurring in most items and asking the House to recede from two provisions. Committee reports were then adopted on a series of bills and resolutions, including House Bills 99, 206, 213, 250, 267, 270, 322, and 323; Senate Bills 17, 48, 55, 104, and 193; House Joint Resolution 5; and House Memorial 39. Most reports were adopted without objection, while some bills were advanced with committee substitutes or referrals to other committees. On third reading, the House passed several measures. House Bill 63, funding New Mexico Finance Authority water projects, passed 66-0; House Bill 64, appropriating about $13.25 million for PPRF-related funds, passed 67-0; House Bill 285, refining the disabled veteran property tax exemption, passed 67-0; House Bill 165, expanding C-PACE economic development uses, passed 67-0; House Bill 184, consolidating legacy fund investment accounts, passed 67-0; and House Bill 200, appropriating $10 million for the New Homes for New Mexico starter-home program, was debated at length and then passed. House Bill 291, the tax cleanup bill, drew a failed floor amendment that was tabled 41-24 before the bill passed 59-8. The debate on HB 200 focused on whether the program would help smaller builders and rural communities, while the HB 291 amendment debate centered on adding broader tax provisions and concerns about fiscal impact and policy scope.

Transcript Highlights:

• It doesn't matter your race, it doesn't matter who you are, Gallup and McKinley County is a family.

Transcript Highlights:

• Doesn't matter your race. Doesn't matter who you are. Gallup and McKinley County is a family.

Summary: The Senate met with a quorum, opened with an invocation, pledges, and a series of announcements recognizing West Side Day, School Board Appreciation Day, Sierra Club Climate Solutions Day, Gallup-McKinley County Day, and New Mexico Athlete Trainer Day. Members also agreed to allow cameras on the floor and a relaxed dress code for guests. Numerous student and community groups were introduced, including West Side Day students, ABC Prep basketball students, Bernalillo High School AP students, MANA del Norte Hermanitas, honorary lieutenant governors, Taos Municipal Schools leaders, Classical Conversations homeschool students, Bloomfield school board members, and others. A major portion of the session was devoted to honoring Bueno Foods with a Senate certificate recognizing February 5, 2026, as Bueno Foods Day in the Senate and celebrating the company’s 75th anniversary. Senators praised the Baca family’s multigenerational business, its role in New Mexico’s chile industry, its jobs and community support, and its national reach. Several members spoke in support, sharing personal stories about Bueno products and the company’s help during COVID and over decades of family and community life. The Senate also adopted a condolence certificate for Kayla Reagan Van Landingham, a 19-year-old bicyclist killed in Albuquerque, with remarks emphasizing her life, advocacy, and the need for stronger pedestrian and bicycle safety. Her mother and family were recognized, and members observed a moment of silence. Senators spoke about the importance of traffic safety reforms and the local ordinance changes already pursued in her memory. On legislation, the chamber received House and governor messages and adopted several committee reports. The main floor debate was on Senate Bill 38, concerning the spay and neuter program funding stream. Senator Block offered a floor substitute to restore a sunset clause for review and transparency; supporters argued the program should be periodically evaluated and that the funding functions like a tax rather than a fee. Opponents argued the program is important and should continue without a sunset. The floor substitute failed by roll call, 15 in favor and 22 against, and the Senate returned to the underlying bill for further debate.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then, again, I don't want things to mirror the Race to the Top challenges, especially with those

Committee: House Elementary and Secondary Education

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 2710, which would require the State Board of Education to create a simple A-through-F report card for every public school, charter school, and district, based on academic achievement, growth, and college/career readiness measures. Sponsor Rep. Dane Deal said the bill is intended to improve transparency for parents, keep the current testing system intact, and create a reward program for high-performing schools. Committee members raised concerns about the bill’s “moving target” provisions, the constitutionality and administration of performance bonuses, whether the grading system would oversimplify school quality, and how poverty, school size, and other demographics would be accounted for. Deal said he was open to revising timelines, bonus language, and other details with DESE and the committee. Supporters included a Louisiana education board member, who said Louisiana’s A-through-F system helped make school performance more understandable to families and was associated with major gains in NAEP rankings and reductions in the share of D/F schools. A researcher from the University of Missouri explained the state’s growth model and said growth measures are statistically designed to compare students to similar peers and are publicly available through DESE. Parent and advocacy witnesses from Missouri said families want a clear, digestible rating and that growth should be emphasized. They argued the bill would help parents make decisions and hold schools accountable. Some supporters also said the bill should be refined to ensure the letter grade is prominent and to better explain the underlying metrics. Opponents, including the Missouri State Teachers Association and other witnesses, argued that a single letter grade would oversimplify school performance, ignore factors such as poverty and staffing shortages, and create a punitive “moving target” by raising standards automatically as schools improve. They warned it could narrow curriculum, increase burnout, and lead to more administrative burden and possible litigation. Several witnesses said parents need a broader dashboard of information rather than one grade, and some questioned whether the system would fairly compare schools with very different student populations. No vote was taken on the bill during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Pinch points we can solve at the state level because the feds are checked out to the next presidential race

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Select Committee on Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure focused on California’s EV market, charging infrastructure, and the effects of recent federal actions. The chair opened by emphasizing California’s progress on EV adoption and charging reliability, but also noted ongoing challenges with affordability, access, interoperability, heavy-duty electrification, and federal headwinds. She highlighted interest in technologies such as inductive charging and thanked host organizations and staff before moving to the first panel. State agency witnesses from Go-Biz, CARB, and the California Energy Commission described current programs and priorities. Go-Biz outlined its role in coordinating agencies, supporting permitting, and advancing the state’s ZEV market development strategy and equity action plan. CARB discussed federal attacks on its clean vehicle regulations, litigation to defend waiver authority, and the importance of incentives and regulatory programs such as Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean Fleets, Clean Truck Check, HVIP, and Clean Cars for All. The CEC detailed its funding and regulatory work on charging and fueling infrastructure, charger reliability, payment methods, roaming, and statewide planning, while stressing the need for more charging in multifamily housing and more public DC fast charging. All three agencies said federal rollbacks and permitting delays are major obstacles, but that California remains committed to expanding ZEV adoption. The second panel featured advocates, local government, utility, and research perspectives. CalETC urged continuous state funding through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and emphasized the low-carbon fuel standard, multifamily charging, and managed charging. An EV advocacy group proposed a conquest-style state incentive for new and used EV buyers and argued that multifamily housing is a major untapped market, while also favoring Level 2 charging over Level 1 for most home and apartment settings. Los Angeles County and LADWP described large-scale local deployment of chargers, fleet electrification, workforce training, and the need for sustained funding, agency coordination, and streamlined permitting and grid interconnection. UCS recommended prioritizing replacement of older high-emitting vehicles, using fuel policy revenues to support cleaner cars, and expanding bidirectional charging. The chair closed by asking for more discussion on Level 1 versus Level 2 charging and noted the importance of education, affordability, and practical deployment strategies.

Transcript Highlights:

• Pinch points we can solve at the state level because the feds are checked out to the next presidential race

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Select Committee on Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure focused on California’s EV market, charging infrastructure, and the effects of recent federal actions on state clean-transportation programs. The chair emphasized California’s progress on EV adoption and charging reliability, but also noted ongoing problems with affordability, charger access, interoperability, and the need to support light-duty, heavy-duty, and fleet electrification. She also highlighted interest in inductive charging, bidirectional charging, and the transition to NACS, and said the hearing would help shape future legislative action. State agency witnesses from Go-Biz, CARB, and the California Energy Commission described their roles in market development, emissions regulation, incentives, and charging deployment. Go-Biz outlined its ZEV market strategy, equity action plan, and permitting streamlining work, while CARB detailed federal challenges to its clean vehicle rules, the need to defend waiver authority in court, and the importance of incentives and regulatory stability. The CEC discussed charger reliability rules, statewide inventory and planning, funding for public and multifamily charging, and efforts to expand fast charging and improve access in charging deserts. All three agencies stressed that federal rollbacks and the expiration of federal tax credits make state policies and funding more important. Testimony from industry, local government, and advocacy groups largely supported continued state investment. Cal ETC urged a continuous Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund appropriation, more support for multifamily charging, and managed charging programs. The American EV Jobs Alliance proposed a state “conquest” incentive for new and used EV buyers and argued that multifamily charging is the biggest untapped market. Los Angeles County and LADWP described large-scale fleet and charger deployments, public housing and multifamily projects, and the need for sustained funding, agency coordination, and utility/grid interconnection support. The Union of Concerned Scientists recommended prioritizing Clean Cars for All, using fees on non-CARBOB gasoline to fund cleaner vehicle replacement, and expanding authority for bidirectional EV deployment. Members and witnesses also discussed Level 1 versus Level 2 charging for multifamily housing and other use cases. The chair noted that Level 2 is essential for many drivers but asked whether Level 1 could be a cheaper, faster option in some settings. Witnesses agreed that Level 1 can work in certain contexts, especially airports or some multifamily installations, but emphasized that consumer confidence, overnight range, dealer education, and reliable access to charging remain central to broader EV adoption. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So they tend to push because everything's a race here, and there are bets usually once a week on who

Committee: House Courts, Corrections & Justice Committee