Transcript Highlights:

• There are some states that have rules about certain types of antimortem testing and whatnot, live testing
• So you have no way to know without testing.
• Do we have those tests? Say that again. Do we have those tests?
• So there was a test of 539 and, uh, there was a test of 539 and when the House author asked the Department
• They were tested.

Bills: HB3270 , HB3145 , HB3056

Committee: Senate Agriculture and Wildlife

Summary: The committee heard a lengthy presentation from Texas A&M professor Chris Seaberry on chronic wasting disease (CWD) genetics in deer and elk. He argued that susceptibility to CWD is polygenic, that genomic prediction can identify more resistant animals with high accuracy, and that selecting for resistant breeding values plus the PRNP codon 96 S allele could reduce disease prevalence. He said his work has been used in USDA/APHIS programs, that some facilities have been cleaned up using these methods, and that concerns about inbreeding, increased shedding, or harm to hunting quality are overstated. Committee members questioned the science, the risk of releasing potentially infected animals, the financial incentives for breeders, and whether wildlife agencies were resisting the program for philosophical or institutional reasons. The witness and senators also discussed the Department of Wildlife’s role, the Attorney General’s opinion, and whether the state should act more quickly or wait for more data. The committee then took up House Bill 3270, which would shift rulemaking authority for the deer-release/CWD program from the Department of Wildlife to the Department of Agriculture after members said Wildlife had failed to promulgate rules for two years. The Department of Wildlife testified that it believed it had complied by collecting native deer samples and that it had been operating under a different understanding until the Attorney General’s March 5 opinion clarified the original law. After debate over agency inaction, the adequacy of the science, and the impact on deer breeders and hunters, the committee voted 3-9 against the bill, and HB 3270 failed. The committee also confirmed Jessica Wilcox to an executive nomination by a 12-0 vote. It then advanced House Bill 3145, which clarifies tagging rules for commercial hunts by making $10 tags apply only to male native wildlife and $0 tags apply to female, feral swine, and exotic wildlife; the bill passed 12-0. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 3056, which would allow unpasteurized cow, goat, and sheep milk to be sold at feed stores and farmers markets with labeling; members questioned gallon limits and whether the bill included adequate warning language, but no final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• They're just supposed to run the tests. They would just be able to run a test like a monitor.
• So some colleagues of mine put together a test of this.
• We've heard a little bit about the tests.
• If you're above the threshold, now you have to run these tests.
• And maybe the test says it's okay. Maybe they say there's a problem.

Committee: House Privacy and Consumer Protection

Summary: The hearing was an informational session of the Consumer Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee on AI risks and mitigation, with the chair framing the discussion around two areas: automated decision systems used in high-stakes settings and frontier models with broader capabilities. The chair emphasized that California has already passed some targeted AI measures, but broader regulation has stalled, and criticized a proposed federal moratorium on state AI laws as a threat to public safety and state innovation. The hearing was organized into two panels, and members repeatedly returned to the balance between innovation, trust, and guardrails. The first panel focused on automated decision systems and algorithmic discrimination. Princeton professor Arvin Narayanan described predictive AI as often only modestly accurate and prone to reproducing historical bias, citing examples such as welfare fraud, criminal risk tools, hospital discharge predictions, and opaque hiring systems. Alondra Nelson, former White House OSTP official, outlined a spectrum of algorithmic discrimination—allocative harms, surveillance and privacy harms, targeting and profiling, and misrepresentation—using examples from IRS audits, Life360 data sharing, facial recognition misidentification, ad targeting, and health care. Cathy O’Neil described her auditing work as building a “cockpit” for AI systems to identify who could be harmed, measure disparities, and set thresholds; she argued that audits, impact assessments, and transparency can improve systems and reward better actors. Members asked about costs, whether AI is more biased than humans, the availability of auditors, and whether state regulation would drive business away; witnesses responded that compliance costs can be managed, that many harms are already occurring, and that companies often need outside pressure and access for meaningful audits. The second panel turned to frontier models. Joshua Bengio warned that frontier AI capabilities are improving rapidly, with planning and reasoning benchmarks advancing at an exponential pace, while alignment and honesty problems remain unresolved. He cited recent research showing models that appear to deceive trainers, preserve their own goals, or even blackmail in simulated settings, and said these behaviors are especially concerning as systems become more agentic and able to act over time without human oversight. The overall discussion ended with bipartisan remarks from members about the need for California to lead on AI safety, protect consumers, and support innovation in lower-risk uses such as agriculture while imposing stronger oversight in consequential domains like employment, housing, health care, and elections.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> first be tested and certified by a test first be tested and certified by a test lab<00:25:39.000
• during preliminary testing.
• during preliminary testing.
• during preliminary testing.
• during preliminary testing.

Committee: House Elections Finance and Government Operations

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 646 fills the gap by requiring manufacturers to test each lot of the bulk prenatal vitamin product
• It simply ensures that they are tested and transparent about their contents.
• It aligns with federal testing definitions and complements existing GMP protocols.
• Just the information is not there, and the testing is not adequately there either.
• This data exchange across the health sector will eliminate redundant and costly test appointments.

Committee: House Health

Summary: The committee heard several health-related bills, with extensive testimony on maternal health, prenatal safety, valley fever, Medi-Cal care coordination, anti-discrimination protections in health care, and health data sharing. SB 32 would require time-and-distance standards for labor and delivery units in health plans; supporters said it addresses maternity care deserts and dangerous delays, while one opposition witness raised concerns. SB 646 would require testing and public disclosure of toxic elements in prenatal vitamins; supporters emphasized fetal and maternal safety and transparency, while opponents warned the bill could discourage use of prenatal vitamins or lead to products with fewer nutrients. Both bills were moved out of committee on due-pass motions as amended, with recorded roll-call support. The committee also advanced SB 313, which moves a parent’s birthplace from the public portion of a birth certificate to a confidential section to protect privacy; it passed with little opposition. SB 297 would require CDPH to annually identify high-incidence valley fever regions and publish them to improve screening and awareness; supporters cited the disease’s spread beyond the Central Valley and the need for earlier diagnosis, while county health officials were opposed unless amended. SB 324 would steer Medi-Cal enhanced care management and community supports contracting toward local community-based organizations and clarify related guidance; supporters said local nonprofits and promotoras are more effective, while children’s hospitals and health plans sought amendments. SB 418 would codify ACA nondiscrimination protections in state law and allow up to a 12-month supply of medically necessary hormone therapy; supporters framed it as protecting access and continuity of care, while opponents argued it could conflict with federal law and expand coverage for gender-affirming care. SB 660 would strengthen the California health data exchange framework by creating governance and accountability for data sharing across providers and social services; supporters said it would reduce duplication and improve coordinated care, and the bill passed to the next committee. The consent calendar and the other measures were also approved, with some items held on call for absent members before final passage.

Transcript Highlights:

• We did talk to a provider that was participating in the testing.
• They reference challenges in testing and not having a test environment that they could use for testing
• So there's an element where some IT folks at APD tested in our dev environment.
• Have they tested it? Have they tested it? Accepted, and more importantly, tested.
• Have they tested it? Have they spent that time to test it?

Summary: The subcommittee heard a lengthy presentation on the Agency for Persons with Disabilities’ I-Connect system, based on an ILAB assessment of the platform’s performance and requirements. ILAB said the system provides useful centralized records, reporting, compliance support, and audit trails, but users described it as cumbersome, outdated, and inefficient, with excessive manual entry, weak navigation, limited notifications, no mobile app, poor printing/export options, and performance issues. ILAB also said the original 2013-era requirements were too high-level and that only a portion of the requirements could be verified, with some features de-scoped or never implemented. Their recommendations included better integration with electronic health record systems, improved performance monitoring, electronic signatures, OCR, and more modern export and verification tools. Public testimony from providers and advocates echoed those concerns. A support coordination provider said the system is nicknamed “I Disconnect,” described problems with EVV/GPS sign-ins, lengthy support plans, lack of a phone app, and possible HIPAA concerns. Another advocate said the system should have preserved family access to records and criticized the need for providers to use workarounds and additional software. APD staff said the agency has spent about $19.7 million through FY 2023-24, has regular build updates under the current contract with WellSky, and uses an internal help desk and vendor ticketing process to triage bugs versus enhancement requests. They said some issues are handled case-by-case, critical tickets have SLAs, and the agency is working on interoperability and other requested improvements. Members questioned whether the system should be fixed or replaced, whether the original contract and SaaS arrangement were sufficient, and whether the state received value for the money spent. APD said the system went live in phases and that all functionality was in place by June 2024, while ILAB and members noted significant technical debt and unresolved gaps. The committee also discussed record retention, provider access to records after a consumer changes providers, and whether federal funding or compliance could be affected. The meeting ended with broader budget remarks emphasizing completion over expansion, stronger upfront planning for technology projects, and more accountability before funding new systems or major enhancements.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so there'll be a plan that's devised that will be tested or that will be a plan for testing and implementing
• So the test piece— Witness: The test piece is really not how it's executed.
• The test is of that tool, the model platform. Is that what the test is?
• It's not really a test of how it works in real life with an institution.
• It's more the testing of that tool. Does it work?

Committee: House Higher Education and Workforce Development

Summary: The Committee on Higher Education and Workforce Development met in executive session and first took up House Bill 123, a higher education funding reform bill. Representative Black, the bill sponsor, explained a committee substitute that lowered the proposed scholarship benefit from full tuition to $5,000 per semester or the lesser of tuition, tied the scholarships to qualified higher education funding, and clarified that institutions must continue existing scholarship programs for top ACT/SAT students. He also said the substitute revised the performance-funding model to better reflect workforce needs, institutional outcomes, and higher education community feedback, while lowering the fiscal note. Committee members asked about how the model would treat two-year versus four-year institutions, whether funding would be assigned individually or through a block approach, and whether the bill would prevent future funding reductions. The sponsor said the model uses different factors for two-year and four-year schools, would generally operate more like the current two-year funding approach, and would initially guarantee institutions at least the prior year’s funding unless all institutions are reduced proportionally. Some members expressed concern that this could limit legislative appropriations flexibility, while others said the proportional-reduction language preserved that power. The substitute was adopted, and House Committee Substitute for House Bill 123 was voted do pass by a roll call of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 present. The committee then voted House Bill 1627 do pass without discussion, passing it by a roll call of 12 ayes and 0 noes. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• tests.
• So, I know this requirement started just for the testing. Was it this?
• So, the test hasn't been required. Actually, the curriculum's been required.
• You Basically, testing is happening.
• out there for them, all students would be required to or have available to them this testing.

Bills: SB1696 , SB1670 , SB1687 , SB1975

Keywords: SB1696, Oklahoma Talent Attraction and Relocation Program, Oklahoma Talent Attraction and Relocation Revolving Fund, Department of Commerce, economic development, workforce development, community development, relocation incentives, talent recruitment, in-migration, population growth, household relocation, grant program, revolving fund, local government grants, municipalities, counties, nonprofit organizations, economic incentives, residency

Transcript Highlights:

• Our public roads have become Tesla's test track.
• currently administers three AV permit types: testing with a safety driver, driverless testing, and deployment
• Today, 28 manufacturers hold testing permits, six hold driverless testing permits, and three are authorized
• with a safety driver, driverless testing, and deployment.
• Today, 28 manufacturers hold testing permits, six hold driverless testing permits, and three are authorized

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• So the test itself is the thing. The test itself is the thing. The kid has a bad testing date.
• And then we have test fairness.
• Significance of the test scores.
• And we are already field testing. And it is basically like our test was too difficult.
• We had a very high-end test.

Committees: Joint Education , Joint Education Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Issue number 4 is laboratory testing.
• The definitive test for CWD is a postmortem test where you have to take the, the brain stem out to test
• There's a lot of AI testing, avian influenza testing that goes on.
• The name of that is the National Milk Testing surveillance strategy.
• In response to the virus, cleaning, virus elimination, and testing phases.

Committee: House Appropriations - S/C on Articles VI, VII, & VIII

Summary: The committee met with a quorum present to hear Article VI Natural Resources agency budget recommendations, beginning with the Railroad Commission. LBB staff summarized the commission’s 2026-27 base recommendation at $458.7 million, down from the prior biennium, with an increased FTE cap. The presentation highlighted reduced federal IIJA funding, volatility in oil and gas regulation account 5155, continued support for IT modernization, and rider changes. The commission’s major exceptional items were then presented, including requests for produced water and injection data reporting, an authorized pit registration system, regulatory filing/permitting upgrades, an underground injection well investigation team, site remediation support, and especially $100 million for orphan well plugging. Members asked about biennium-to-biennium comparisons, salary biennialization, the scale of orphan well risks, federal funding delays, bonding, and whether the state should rely more on industry or general revenue for plugging costs. Commission leadership explained that orphan wells can threaten water and public safety, that plugging costs have risen sharply, and that current funding is insufficient to keep up with emergency wells and the backlog; they also said the agency is moving to cloud-based systems with cybersecurity protections and that the proposed performance measure may need adjustment if funding does not increase. The Railroad Commission testimony was followed by LBB and agency testimony for the Texas Animal Health Commission. LBB described a $42 million recommendation for 2026-27, an increase overall, but with a reduced FTE cap due to turnover and salary reallocation. The recommendation maintained funding for cattle fever tick work, chronic wasting disease, lab testing through an MOU with Texas A&M’s veterinary diagnostic lab, and a new $5 million spay-and-neuter pilot program, while deleting a capital budget rider and adjusting riders tied to entry point inspection stations and clinical trials. Agency leadership then outlined the commission’s mission to protect livestock health and the state’s $22 billion animal industry, and described major disease threats including highly pathogenic avian influenza, cattle fever ticks, New World screwworm, and chronic wasting disease. Their exceptional items focused on recruiting and retaining veterinarians, replacing fleet vehicles, creating an ectoparasite identification lab, adding field staff and IT support, improving records and epidemiology reporting, strengthening central administration, supporting secure food supply planning, expanding chronic wasting disease work, and staffing the new spay-and-neuter program. Members asked about field identification of ticks, the use of disinfectants and PPE, fleet management, the scale of cattle fever tick risk, and chronic wasting disease; the agency explained its current inspection and lab-confirmation process, its reliance on field disinfecting and biosecurity, and the need for more staff and better data systems to keep pace with growing workloads and disease threats.

Transcript Highlights:

• The total resource cost test is a long-standing test used in many contexts, and cost-effectiveness tests
• First, change the total resource cost test.
• Sixteen states use TRC as the primary metric, but 17 use other tests, such as the PAC and other tests
• Denominator of the TRC test.
• that could be the primary test instead of the TRC test.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on how California Public Utilities Commission energy efficiency programs are budgeted, evaluated, and measured for cost-effectiveness. The chair framed the issue as not whether energy efficiency works, but how to ensure ratepayer-funded programs continue to deliver value as the portfolio has shifted from simple measures like lighting to more complex retrofits, electrification, workforce, and equity programs. CPUC staff outlined the statutory framework, the four-year budget cycle, recent spending of about $795 million in 2025, and the use of total system benefit (TSB) and the total resource cost (TRC) test, noting that some programs are exempt from cost-effectiveness requirements at the individual program level but not at the resource acquisition portfolio level. Utility, regional network, implementer, and advocacy witnesses offered differing views on the current metrics. PG&E described its portfolio as cost-effective overall and argued that cost-effectiveness should remain at the portfolio level to allow innovation and multi-year program flexibility. SoCalREN and the Energy Coalition emphasized the value of local government delivery, equity-focused programs, and the need to credit programs for broader benefits such as workforce development, market transformation, and electrification. The Public Advocates Office argued that ratepayer-funded programs should produce benefits greater than costs and raised concerns about the growing share of budgets going to programs that have not met cost-effectiveness thresholds. Several witnesses said the current math is too complicated and that different program types may need different metrics. Committee members repeatedly pressed witnesses on the complexity of the TRC and TSB calculations, the treatment of participant costs, and whether the state should use a simpler or more transparent framework. CPUC staff said the relevant issues are already being addressed in two open proceedings, with one budget application proceeding expected to conclude in roughly the second or third quarter of next year and a broader policy rulemaking ongoing. No votes were taken and no formal action was reported; the hearing functioned as an informational discussion and policy review.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've done countless tests, separate tests, frac-rate pressure tests, everything they ask us to do.
• to do sufficient testing.
• There are tests out there that they've tested as long as 16 years.
• , lab testing, everything.
• , lab testing, everything.

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 706 by Representative Riser, which would set a more detailed process for commercial saltwater disposal wells, including site-specific modeling and pressure review. Riser and industry witnesses argued the bill would provide clearer, more predictable rules for operators who have faced long delays and changing requirements, while Department of Conservation and Energy officials said they are already developing guidance and that any pressure standard must remain site-specific to avoid fracturing confining layers, protecting drinking water, and staying within EPA primacy requirements. The department emphasized that geology varies widely across Louisiana and that a fixed pressure number in statute could be unsafe in some locations. Members also discussed the fiscal note, the need for additional staff, and whether the bill would tie the department’s hands or force approvals; witnesses said the bill’s modeling requirements were conservative, but opponents warned the statutory pressure ranges could conflict with site-specific safety determinations. After a technical amendment was adopted, the committee voted on the bill and it failed on a 6-6 tie. The committee then took up House Concurrent Resolution 4 by Representative McCormick, which would suspend Louisiana’s deer baiting ban for 18 months in areas affected by chronic wasting disease (CWD). McCormick and Hunter Nation representatives argued that baiting bans have not stopped CWD in other states, that deer feeders and food plots are part of hunting culture, and that Louisiana should rely on science and a more flexible approach. They cited Wisconsin as an example where CWD spread despite long-standing feed bans and said there has been no proven human transmission. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries officials said bait bans are one of the few tools available to reduce artificial congregation of deer and help limit disease spread, and they explained that the department is also working with a CWD task force and another proposal that would tie restrictions to a 1.5% prevalence threshold rather than an across-the-board suspension. The discussion ended with the department providing information on the impacts of both measures, but no final action on HCR 4 was recorded in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've done countless tests, separate tests, frac-rate pressure tests, everything we try to introduce
• There are tests out there that they've tested as long as 16 years.
• , lab testing, everything.
• , lab testing, everything.
• We utilize them for diagnostic testing costs. We utilize them for diagnostic testing costs.

Committee: House Natural Resources & Environment

Transcript Highlights:

• Pen testing is the next level.
• So we are now, again, testing. The test starts here next Friday.
• There's a specific test called the pulmonary arterial pressure test that you usually take at a 6,000.
• ... a test done on three of their investor-owned utilities, and the test was conducted by Tesla and Sunrun
• There are other, much smaller tests that have occurred in other parts of the country—not just tests.

Committee: House Science, Technology & Telecommunications Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Jones, I was just confused on the word testing. I mean it refers to students. testing.
• So I mean is it school test or medical test? Yes.
• Everywhere you went was tested for COVID. There were some for COVID.
• There were some testing on site. Oh yeah, for COVID.
• Some of those were rapid tests, but your bill is not specific.

Bills: HB491 , SB85

Committee: House Health

Keywords: HB491, public schools, K-12, school nutrition, school lunch, cafeteria, artificial dyes, food additives, food coloring, synthetic dyes, Red Dye No. 3, Red Dye No. 40, Yellow Dye No. 5, Yellow Dye No. 6, Blue Dye No. 1, Blue Dye No. 2, Green Dye No. 3, school fundraising, vending, snacks

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> anyone need approval to take the test anyone need approval to take the test that's that's that's
• </c> not only to take the ex exam test not only to take the ex exam test preparation<03:08:22.960><c>
• So this test—this is a national test? Yes, it is.
• </c> and no test and no test correct<03:10:46.760><c> so</c><03:10:47.399><c> how</c><03:10:47.560><c
• The witness said they do not need to test; there is no test with that 30-hour training.

Summary: The meeting was an orientation-style overview from the Office of Professional Licensure and Certification (OPLC), led by Executive Director Deana Jurus and staff. They described the office’s mission to protect public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and the public trust, and outlined the agency structure: enforcement, licensing and board administration, operations, legal counsel, board counsel, and the hearings bureau. OPLC said it currently supports 57 boards, including seven advisory boards, and has about 104 filled positions out of 120 authorized. They also noted new voluntary certifications for doulas, lactation consultants, and community health workers that are in rulemaking. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on how boards and staff divide responsibilities under RSA 310:4. Staff explained that the office handles application processing, complaint intake and initial review, records retention, 91-A requests, and rule drafting, while boards make final decisions on licensure criteria, complaint dismissals or investigations, disciplinary actions, and some hearing matters. They also described the rule structure by chapter number ranges and the distinction between full licensing boards and advisory boards. The committee asked about complaint notifications, and OPLC said it is tightening policies so complainants are told whether a matter is closed or moving forward. The licensing process was discussed in detail, especially for nursing. Bethany Katrell explained that applicants apply through an online portal, may receive approval to sit for exams, can work under provisional authority in some cases, and then receive full licensure after exam results and criminal background checks are complete. OPLC said the portal now reduces back-and-forth paperwork and that, as of the latest biweekly report, 87% of applications were decided within the statutory 90-day period and 57% within 14 days. Members also raised questions about why some professions require board approval before taking an exam, and OPLC said that requirement varies by statute or board rule. No votes or formal actions were taken during the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• they're testing their they're they're testing their environmental<00:47:04.560><c> package</c><00:47
• </c> get the pass the practice test. get the pass the practice test.
• Now the test comes in look at the test.
• </c> um us as a recipient for the test um us as a recipient for the test scores,<01:52:10.960><c> we<
• Was that their to test scores?

Transcript Highlights:

• For example, people may be concerned about the cost of testing raw ingredients.
• test to make sure that the clinical test was done?
• They're not going to know to look for a clinical test trial.
• They're not going to look to see what exactly— —testing.
• So testing there, is it too costly to test to ensure the impurities? It's not too costly.

Bills: HB2746 , HB2750 , HB2765 , HB4036

Committees: House International Trade , House House International Trade Committee of Reference

Keywords: trade offices, committee, Arizona commerce authority, stakeholder input, efficiency, Arizona-Sonora, Sonora, Mexico, trade commission, cross-border trade, bilateral trade, international trade, economic development, foreign relations, border economy, investment, infrastructure, business exchange, academic exchange, legislative commission

Transcript Highlights:

• Because California has no statewide standards for testing or remediation of smoke damage.
• The task force identified significant gaps in science, testing protocols, and claims practices.
• It does not mandate testing for every claim.
• Thirty-six percent of homes tested positive for asbestos.
• However, many of these services are Destinations, tests, and treatments like physical therapy.

Committee: House Insurance

Transcript Highlights:

• You may need to go get it tested. And there's really no help.
• Water tests done on the water cost as much as $2,000 a piece.
• Calf Canyon fire and you start testing for arsenic and... ...and you start testing for arsenic, and
• So this testing will be for private wells as well as community water?
• For all of us, really, testing drinking water is important.

Committee: House House Agriculture, Acequias And Water Resources