Transcript Highlights:

• After five or six reactors have been deployed, the cost should come down the cost curve as there are
• as a proxy for anthofa kind capital costs.
• From an operational standpoint, From an operational standpoint, I think there's a couple points I'd like
• to operate.
• structural first-of-a-kind cost underestimation, not cost overrun, which makes future AP 1000s much more

Committee: Joint Advanced Nuclear Energy Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• This cost would likely be closer to the cost for one FTE, and the bill doesn't specify which path is
• And so I was very pleased that the Washington Trucking is... apply the cost this cost would likely be
• The airplane is essential to our operations.
• fill vacant hangar space, a challenge that has grown more acute as operating costs continue to rise.
• And that could perhaps be offset by longer-term operating cost savings because there are certain ways

Bills: HB2347 , HB2410

Committee: House Transportation

Keywords: luxury aircraft tax, tax reduction, economic impact, business aviation, state revenue, HB2410, commercial truck safety, commercial vehicle safety, trucking industry, truck driver training, driver education, highway safety, traffic safety commission, Washington State, commercial motor vehicles, vehicle registration fee, IRP fee, state patrol highway account, safety enforcement fee, public-private partnership

Transcript Highlights:

• operations.
• Our utility operates on a fundamental principle reflected in House Bill 2515: those who create costs
• bear those costs.
• Our utility operates on a fundamental principle reflected in House Bill 2515: those who create costs
• bear those costs.

Bills: HB2515 , HB2343 , HB2301 , HB2272 , HB2367

Committee: House Environment & Energy

Keywords: energy facilities, large energy use, regulation, state oversight, infrastructure, water quality, game farms, public health, environmental protection, regulatory oversight, extended producer responsibility, paint waste management, environmental regulations, sustainability, recycling, ski areas, winter sports, terminology update, recreation, regulatory changes

Transcript Highlights:

• So in some ways, that's at no cost to the state in terms of operations.
• But again, 75, three quarters of our operating costs But again, 75, three quarters of our operating costs
• We operate on an open system.
• We are trying to cut costs. I already talked about boosting ridership. We're trying to cut costs.
• funding, and the cost of services, and your... ...due to the gap in fare revenue, operations funding

Transcript Highlights:

• Next on cost share.
• It does not necessarily represent the full cost of operating the system.
• And I will provide some statistics on... ...represent the full cost of operating the system, and I will
• that cost per year to continue to operate that system.
• Project costs going forward: construction costs total about $30 million.

Committee: Joint Water Topics Overview Committee

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met to review several interim studies and receive updates from the Department of Water Resources. The committee approved the March 26, 2026 minutes, observed a moment of silence for the late Representative Conmy, and welcomed Representative Hansen to the committee. Staff then reported that the watershed management study and the stormwater/wastewater study had both satisfied the presentation requirements in their study directives, with no further required testimony unless members wanted additional information. The department’s main presentation focused on major water projects and agency operations. Reese Haas and staff updated members on the NAWS project, the Southwest Pipeline Project, Devils Lake outlet operations, low-head dam safety work, floodplain management repository implementation, data center water use, and the 2027 Water Development Plan. Members asked detailed questions about NAWS funding sources, remaining project costs, capacity concerns for All Seasons and other users, and whether current construction is being designed for future demand. The department said NAWS remains on track for substantial completion by October, that remaining NAWS funding will come from a mix of federal, state, and local sources, and that current construction is designed for ultimate capacity while some future components will be adjusted for increased demand. A large portion of the meeting was devoted to the department’s cash management, Resources Trust Fund revenues, carryover balances, and the State Water Commission’s cost-share program. The department reported $340.6 million in carryover remaining, explained that much of it is already obligated to long-term projects, and noted that oil price forecasts and stripper-well exemptions will affect future revenues. Members raised concerns about large carryovers, affordability for local sponsors, and whether the state should continue obligating money multiple bienniums ahead. The department said it is working with the commission on a revised prioritization framework, including high/moderate/low project categories and a two-tier pre-construction/construction approach, to better manage obligations and affordability. The committee also reviewed Deloitte’s finalized studies on regional governance/finance and cost-share policy. Deloitte presented options for Southwest, NAWS, and Red River governance, with stakeholders generally favoring keeping NAWS largely as is, using the current Southwest model with improvements, and pursuing a more structured governance option for Red River. On cost share, the department said Deloitte’s recommended package would cover projected needs through the 2030s, but would require policy changes such as lower percentages for some project types, a 25% replacement-project rate with a cap, and possible bonding or delayed reimbursement strategies. No votes were taken on these policy questions, and the chair indicated the committee would continue the discussion at future basin meetings and the September Water Topics meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Other operating costs like rent, lease, fuel, utilities, IT, and legal services also grow.
• Other operating costs like rent, lease, fuel, utilities, IT, and legal services also grow.
• Other operating costs like rent, lease, fuel, utilities, IT, and legal services also grow.
• Other operating costs like rent, lease, fuel, utilities, IT, and legal services also grow.
• Other operating costs like rent, lease, fuel, utilities, IT, and legal services also grow.

Bills: HF2783

Committee: House State Government Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• The program currently operates within four-year compliance periods.
• EITEs receive an annual allocation of no-cost allowances to cover most of their compliance costs.
• And for us, the scope two costs are the imputed cost increases from electricity purchases, increased
• These operational costs translate to about 60 cents per gallon in gasoline and 72 cents in diesel.
• And as such, if this old plant continues to operate, it is...

Bills: SB6172 , SB6246 , SB5932

Committee: Senate Environment, Energy & Technology

Keywords: Washington climate policy, greenhouse gas, GHG emissions, cap-and-invest, carbon market, emissions trading, allowances, covered entity, coal-fired power plant, coal plant, electric utility, electric generating facility, fossil fuels, natural gas, imported electricity, emissions leakage, air pollution, renewable energy transition, industrial emissions, railroad emissions

Transcript Highlights:

• and reduced transportation costs.
• It doesn't cost them as much, or is it they're just accepting that more energy is costing them to drill
• industry that's already operating at a competitive disadvantage, and those costs don't operate in a vacuum
• costs of our refineries.
• So that communities know what the impact is from these operations and what the cost and timeline for

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Summary: The Senate Environmental Quality Committee held an informational hearing on the environmental impacts and planning considerations associated with refinery closures. In opening remarks, the chair framed refinery shutdowns as a complex part of California’s decarbonization transition and said the committee would focus on environmental and land-use issues, while Vice Chair Gunda argued closures reflect years of policy-driven disinvestment and warned that supply disruptions and higher prices could harm working families. State agency witnesses from the Energy Commission, CARB, and the Water Boards described the state as being in a “mid-transition,” with declining gasoline demand, growing zero-emission vehicle adoption, and increasing conversion of some refinery assets to renewable fuels, but also with abrupt capacity losses that can force greater reliance on imports and storage. They emphasized the need for proactive planning, transparency, and coordination across agencies, and noted that refinery closures can stress pipelines, terminals, and other linked infrastructure, with potential liabilities falling to the state if those assets are not financially supported. The Water Boards explained their cleanup authorities and tools for refinery decommissioning, including investigation, monitoring, remediation, and enforcement under the Water Code, and said site-specific cleanup plans depend on contamination, groundwater conditions, and future land use. They noted that decommissioning can reveal previously inaccessible areas and require additional sampling or wells, and that cleanup costs can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Committee members pressed the witnesses on whether the state has enough information to plan for land transitions, whether current tools are adequate, and whether more standardized procedures or financial assurances are needed. The witnesses generally said existing tools are useful but that more transparency and better data sharing would help communities and policymakers understand liabilities and long-term redevelopment opportunities. Members also questioned the relationship between California policy, refinery closures, imports, and global emissions. CARB said its programs apply to transportation fuel suppliers whether fuel is refined in-state or imported, and that its climate and air-quality rules are designed to reduce emissions and avoid leakage. Some senators argued that California’s policies have accelerated closures and that demand has not fallen fast enough to offset lost refining capacity, while agency witnesses responded that closures are also driven by global market forces, aging infrastructure, crude quality, and changing fuel demand. The committee then heard from outside experts, including a Notre Dame professor who said closure costs are often underestimated and that stronger financial assurance requirements can shift company behavior, a Stanford/SLAC researcher who outlined five drivers of refinery closures, and an environmental attorney who discussed community impacts and lessons from the Phillips 66 Los Angeles refinery closure. No votes or formal actions were taken; the hearing was informational and focused on testimony and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• This table is another way of looking at the cost of operating prisons. Page 7.
• This table is another way of looking at the cost of operating prisons.
• In this case, we're looking at a breakdown of the current average cost per person of operating prisons
• These costs are not driven by operations.
• These costs are not driven by operations.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held a hearing on the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) budget, with a focus on prison population trends, spending, facility closures, and efforts to find savings. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) presented data showing the prison and parole populations have fallen sharply over the past 20 years while CDCR spending has remained high, driven largely by security, health care, litigation-related requirements, and aging infrastructure. The LAO also said the state is likely to have several thousand empty beds by 2030 and recommended closing another prison, identifying the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad as the strongest candidate, while also urging more transparency around facility deactivations and the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) efficiency contract. CDCR Secretary Jeff McCumber said the department faces structural budget pressures from retirement payouts, workers’ compensation, overtime, medical transport, aging facilities, and violence in prisons, but emphasized declining recidivism, expanding reentry beds, and the need for more single-celling and rehabilitation. Department of Finance representative Anthony Franzoa said the administration is not proposing another prison closure at this time, opposed new reporting requirements on deactivations, and said the BCG contract is intended to produce long-term savings even if near-term estimates are being revised downward. Amber Rose Howard of California United for Responsible Budget argued the state should close more prisons, redirect funds to community services, and stop spending on excess prison capacity. Members questioned why CDCR still relies on vacancy savings, why rehabilitation is only a small share of the budget, and whether the department should be more transparent about capacity reductions and legal liabilities. Several members criticized the $20 million BCG contract and the lack of competitive bidding, while others pressed CDCR on staffing levels, single-celling, suicide prevention, and health care costs for older incarcerated people. The hearing did not take a formal vote, but it ended with clear committee concern about CDCR’s budget transparency, the pace of prison closures, and the need to align spending more closely with the declining prison population and the department’s stated rehabilitation mission.

Transcript Highlights:

• and staff in order to pay for basic operating costs.
• and staff in order to pay for basic operating costs.
• and staff in order to pay for basic operating costs.
• and staff in order to pay for basic operating costs.
• and staff in order to pay for basic operating costs.

Bills: SB5998

Committee: Senate Ways & Means

Keywords: fiscal appropriations, budget, state funding, financial management, operating expenses

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> the cost. I'm sorry. the cost. I'm sorry.
• And how much would it cost<00:38:04.160><c> Eversource</c> cost Eversource cost Eversource to<00:38:05.880
• </c> much would that cost? much would that cost?
• So, costs.
• </c> proposed years of operation. proposed years of operation.

Committee: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• The Governor's budget maintains the 2025 Budget Act Agreement to support Cal Fire operation costs with
• The Governor's budget maintains the 2025 Budget Act Agreement to support Cal Fire operation costs with
• Another piece is they are clarifying how state operations costs are treated under this framework.
• But on tier one, on state operations, it includes a wide range of departments far beyond the cost of.
• It's a state operations cost required by legislation, and it fits and aligns with GGRF enabling statute

Summary: The subcommittee heard testimony on the governor’s proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit, which would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold for use in California from 2026 to 2036. The Department of Finance and CARB argued the credit would help decarbonize aviation, support refinery transitions, and keep fuel production and jobs in California. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the proposal, saying it is a relatively expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases, could have uncertain or limited climate benefits, and would reduce diesel excise tax revenue that supports highways, local streets and roads, and other transportation programs. A major point of debate was whether the credit would simply shift limited feedstocks from renewable diesel to SAF rather than create new low-carbon fuel supply. Professor Aaron Smith and the LAO said that because feedstocks such as used cooking oil, tallow, and vegetable oils are limited and already used in other fuel markets, the policy could increase SAF at the expense of renewable diesel, with possible increases in fuel prices and little net emissions benefit. Administration and CARB staff disputed that outcome, saying additional waste-based feedstocks are available and that the policy would not meaningfully raise gasoline or diesel prices. Senators focused on feedstock availability, impacts on road funding, fairness to consumers, and whether the proposal was really aimed at preserving specific refineries such as Phillips 66. Public comment was sharply divided. Labor representatives, refinery workers, airlines, Boeing, airports, and some local residents supported the proposal, emphasizing jobs, refinery investment, and aviation’s need for a liquid-fuel decarbonization pathway. Environmental and transportation groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, World Resources Institute, Earthjustice, California Environmental Voters, counties, cities, and trucking and asphalt associations, opposed it, citing weak net climate benefits, possible fuel-price impacts, and losses to transportation funding. No vote was taken; the chair announced all items would be held open for a future hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then our cost-share ag cost-share program, we've demonstrated success there over the years.
• When it comes to your projections on operation and maintenance costs, what do you all do internally to
• We'll also have operational costs to try and reestablish those timber stands in those areas as well.
• Same question: when you project the costs associated with maintenance and operational expenditures, what
• for operating and maintaining each year, and we use that to build out a budget monitor, cost and cost

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government heard budget presentations from all five water management districts for FY 2026-2027: Northwest Florida, Suwannee River, St. Johns River, Southwest Florida, and South Florida. Each district described its preliminary budget, major funding sources, staffing levels, and how most of its spending is tied to the four core missions of water supply, water quality, natural systems, and flood protection. Several directors noted budget reductions from the prior year largely because major projects were completed or because grant/appropriation funding is not yet fully reflected in preliminary budgets. Committee members repeatedly asked how districts project operations and maintenance costs, how projects are selected, and what share of staff and spending is devoted to core missions versus administration or regulatory work. Northwest Florida Water Management District said its preliminary budget is $93.4 million, down about 15%, with 97% of spending tied to core responsibilities and a request for additional regulatory services funding. Suwannee River Water Management District presented a $70.4 million budget, emphasized its rural/agricultural character and spring protection work, and highlighted the Water First North Florida reclaimed-water recharge project; members also discussed its need for an additional FTE to handle consumptive use permit reviews tied to a new lower Santa Fe rule. St. Johns River Water Management District presented a $181 million budget, highlighted major water supply, water quality, flood protection, and land management projects such as Taylor Creek Reservoir, Water First North Florida, Black Creek, Crane Creek, and Lake Jessup restoration, and said about 93% of its budget supports core missions. Southwest Florida Water Management District presented a $227.6 million budget, with major spending on alternative water supply, water control structure repairs, watershed projects, and land management; officials said 93.4% of the budget supports core missions and discussed rising construction costs for aging infrastructure. South Florida Water Management District presented the largest budget at $1.05 billion, focused on Everglades restoration, flood control, water supply, and ecosystem recovery; the director described major reservoirs and treatment projects, the EAA Reservoir, and ongoing efforts to improve water quality and restore flows to the Everglades and Florida Bay. The committee took no formal votes on the district budgets and adjourned after the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Plymouth, they cost $29.91 cents, and Metro Transit has a cost of $21 only.
• </c> at significantly less cost. at significantly less cost.
• </c> reports of the cost-effectiveness. reports of the cost-effectiveness.
• </c> disguised as a cost-saving measure. disguised as a cost-saving measure.
• </c> provided more cost-effectively? provided more cost-effectively?

Transcript Highlights:

• What is the total operational cost of the program right now?
• So we will be operational. We will...
• But we know we have these contracted operating costs in 2026-27 that have to be paid.
• This relates to investment operating cost of $38.1 million, which is largely driven by ongoing implementation
• incurred by the Cannabis Tax Fund: $21 million in personnel and operating costs, and $31 million in

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee 5 on State Administration held a May Revise hearing focused on state administration proposals, with the chair noting no actions would be taken and all items would remain open. The committee heard presentations on a range of budget proposals, including technical adjustments for the Governor’s Office of Service and Community Engagement and the California Workforce Development Board, security and election-related funding for the Secretary of State, modernization and loan-backfill requests for the Department of Consumer Affairs, and multiple Employment Development Department updates covering EDD Next, UI and DI/PFL benefit estimates, workforce funding, and an EMT training reappropriation. Several items drew discussion from the LAO and committee members. The LAO generally supported technical or modernization items such as PERB’s implementation requests, GoServe’s College Corps adjustment, the Secretary of State’s security and HAVA grant items, and the Board of Pharmacy modernization proposal, but raised concerns about the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education’s proposed $10 million General Fund backfill and interest-free loan language. For EDD, the LAO flagged the size of the DI/PFL benefit adjustment and the unusual structure of the document management system proposal within EDD Next, while EDD said the changes reflected higher participation and benefit levels after SB 951 and ongoing modernization needs. The Department of Industrial Relations drew the most extensive questioning. It proposed funding for legal unit reclassifications, EAMS and Cal/OSHA data modernization, a new Cal/OSHA emerging technologies unit, a COYA reappropriation, and trailer bill changes requiring electronic payment of employer assessments and adjusting the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board timeline. Members pressed DIR on high vacancy rates, long wage theft and workers’ compensation backlogs, low collection rates for fines, and the need for clearer workload and outcome measures. DIR said the requests were intended to improve efficiency, support audits and corrective action plans, and better address emerging workplace risks, while the LAO said the workload drivers behind delays remain unclear. The hearing also included support for CalHR’s employee assistance program consolidation and CDT’s proposal to expand “Poppy,” a statewide generative AI assistant for state employees.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, no specific instructions on daily operations of the agency, only to operate with integrity and
• I understand that when lumber costs go up, that increases the cost, but that increases the cost across
• It was costing our members $200,000 just in upfront cost to fill out an application, and therefore we
• It was costing our members 200,000, just an upfront cost to fill out an application.
• Ruby's not a political operative.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Director Nominations met to consider Ruby Dylan Williams for Director of the Arizona Department of Housing. Williams described her long career at the department, her work on operational improvements, housing development, manufactured housing, and efforts to expand supply, preserve existing housing, and improve transparency through data and technology. She also said she would work with the legislature, local governments, tribal nations, nonprofits, and private partners, and emphasized the department’s role in addressing housing affordability and homelessness across the housing continuum. Members questioned her about the department’s response to Auditor General findings, including fraud prevention, payment verification, site inspections, and oversight of grantees. Williams said the department had rewritten policies, retrained staff, added stronger controls, and implemented verbal verification steps for wire transfers after a fraud incident. Senators also pressed her on budget priorities, possible cuts, and her view of homelessness policy, with some members characterizing her approach as closer to shelter or transitional housing before permanent placement. Williams said interventions should be individualized and that the department works with local jurisdictions and service providers to match people with appropriate support. Public testimony was overwhelmingly supportive. Developers, housing industry representatives, and nonprofit partners praised Williams’ private-sector housing finance experience, her knowledge of LIHTC and the QAP process, and her leadership in making the agency more efficient and business-friendly. After debate, the committee voted 3-2 to recommend her confirmation to the full Senate. Two members voted no, citing concerns about her answers on fraud oversight, cost controls, and homelessness policy, while the majority supported advancing her nomination.

Transcript Highlights:

• These are operating costs.
• These operating costs have existed for decades, either in the unitary tax or with this mitigation program
• For those instances where costs truly cannot be forecast, it creates financial disincentives to operate
• For those instances where costs truly cannot be forecast, it creates financial disincentives to operate
• Thus, they must front all the costs. which are forced to operate on a reimbursement-only model.

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications

Summary: The committee heard several energy, water, and utility bills. SB 919 by Senator Grayson would extend the biomethane monetary incentive program through 2030 and authorize additional funding to support renewable natural gas projects by reducing interconnection costs. Supporters said high interconnection costs and the current tax treatment are major barriers to methane reduction projects; opponents, including TURN and environmental groups, raised ratepayer cost concerns and objected to rate-basing and additional public funding. The author said amended language would remove the rate-basing provisions and instead urge the CPUC to act quickly on its pending decision. SB 931 by Senator Laird would reauthorize the Community Impact Mitigation Program for the Diablo Canyon plant through 2030 to continue funding local emergency preparedness, fire protection, public safety, and school district costs. The County of San Luis Obispo and labor groups supported the bill, while TURN opposed it as a statewide ratepayer subsidy that could be funded from existing PG&E revenues instead of higher rates. Members discussed the bill in the context of the 2022 Diablo Canyon extension deal and the possibility of a future longer extension. SB 1215 by Senator Cortese would direct the CPUC to set deployment targets for EV charging in multifamily housing and evaluate progress, with amendments aimed at affordability and limiting system upgrade costs. Supporters said renters are largely locked out of home charging and that prior utility programs proved cost-effective; no opposition testified. SB 1359 by Senator Stern would require more deliberate CPUC review before major gas system investments, emphasizing electrification and non-pipeline alternatives. Gas utilities and several industry groups opposed it, arguing it could undermine the obligation to serve, create safety and reliability risks, and change the regulatory compact. The committee also heard SB 1125 by Senator Menjivar, presented by Senator Gonzalez, which would establish a statewide low-income water rate assistance program upon appropriation. Water agencies, environmental groups, and local governments supported the measure, while one member expressed concern that it lacked a funding source and could not overcome Proposition 218 limits; the bill was moved to Appropriations and the roll was left open. Finally, SB 1098 by Senator Perez would restrict the use of long-running memorandum and balancing accounts by investor-owned utilities, require exceptional circumstances for new accounts, and add sunset and cost-sharing requirements. Consumer advocates and large energy users supported tighter oversight, while the utilities and business groups opposed the bill as too rigid and potentially harmful to flexibility for wildfire, emergency, and safety-related costs.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's what puts a lot of our rural providers at risk is the Cost of trying to operate in an environment
• There's that 813,000 discussion on operations costs as we talked about, and then they established performance
• That's what we've been doing We've been doing day-to-day operational costs.
• And they are operate.
• We're operating at a net loss with them because some of those folks can't make the full cost of care

Committee: House A&B Health Subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• Cost efficiency of the service provided the proportion of operating expenses covered by passenger fares
• and delivered trips outside regular hours of operations.
• We mentioned a little bit about the cost of operators, hiring operators and the shortages.
• the man response operations.
• The staff is so small the costs can be prohibitive.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it's a cost of service.
• So that we can continue to operate.
• "What is the cost-benefit analysis?
• In terms of attributable cost and cost socialization, that's going to be a very different scenario than
• to fully repay all grid investments, including the cost of new generation if a facility ceases operations

Committee: House Utilities and Energy