Video & Transcript Research : 'cost analysis'

Page 29 of 500
HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

RM 411 Conference AM - Fri May 1, 2026

Hawaii House Floor Meeting

HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

RM 325 Conference PM - Thu Apr 30, 2026

Hawaii House Floor Meeting

HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

RM 325 Conference AM - Thu Apr 30, 2026

Hawaii House Floor Meeting

HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

RM 329 Conference PM - Thu Apr 30, 2026

Hawaii House Floor Meeting

HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

RM 309 Conference PM - Thu Apr 30, 2026

Hawaii House Floor Meeting

HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

Room 224 Conference AM - 04-30-2026

Hawaii Senate Floor Meeting

NM

New Mexico 2026 Regular Session

House - Chamber Meeting Feb 11th, 2026 at 11:17 am

New Mexico House Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • The costs associated with these trainings for some districts are going to be overwhelming. Mr.
  • Speaker, gentlelady, do you know how much it costs to get certified as a PBIS school? Mr.
  • Speaker, General Lady, and that, again, goes back to the cost, right?
  • So when we talk about the cost, and we talk about the ongoing cost of initial training and the yearly
  • And they're, according to the fiscal implications on the fiscal analysis, Mr. Speaker. Mr.
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

Cost-benefit analysis requirement 3/24/26

Minnesota House Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • Uh, but in this bill, we are trying to make it so that there is a cost-benefit analysis process that
  • But the way that I talk about cost-benefit analysis is when you were in school and you're taking a math
  • He asked whether, if this cost-benefit analysis is done and it does not show benefits exceeding costs
  • He said it gives the cart blanche that if an analysis comes out cost-benefit negative, or if the analysis
  • The cost-benefit analysis would say is bad.
Keywords: 919, house, all
Summary: The committee took up House File 936, an author’s bill requiring cost-benefit analysis before agencies move forward with major rulemaking. Chair Nash moved the bill, the A2 author’s amendment was adopted, and the bill was then discussed as amended. The sponsor said the goal was not to eliminate rulemaking, but to require agencies to “show their work” by analyzing costs, benefits, and assumptions before rules are adopted. Supporters, including representatives from Americans for Prosperity and the Pacific Legal Foundation, argued the bill would improve transparency, uniformity, and accountability in rulemaking. They cited federal and other state models, especially Virginia, and said similar requirements already exist in several states. They also pointed to public support for requiring cost-benefit analysis and said the bill could help agencies avoid costly or poorly thought-out regulations, reduce litigation risk, and improve legislative oversight through notice to committees and publication of preliminary and final analyses. Several members raised concerns. Representative Luger Nikolai said cost-benefit analysis is already part of existing law through SONARs and that the legislature, not agencies, should be the first line of review; she also worried the bill would force dollar valuations on qualitative factors such as accessibility. Representative Craft said the bill could allow unelected officials to negate policy choices already made by the legislature if benefits do not exceed costs. Representative Fryberg said the bill appears to require full analysis even for minor housekeeping rules and may overemphasize dollar-based benefits. Chair Nash and supporters responded that the bill is meant to impose a uniform check on agencies and that many current rules already operate without sufficient legislative oversight. The discussion ended with members expressing both support and opposition, and a roll call was requested, though no final vote was included in the excerpt.
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

Legislative Budget Office Oversight Commission 1/22/26

Minnesota House Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • declined to to have that, um, analysis declined to to have that, um, analysis done.<00:12:46.160
  • Um but there this type of analysis.
  • <00:20:13.360> Um to conduct this type of analysis. Um to conduct this type of analysis.
  • accuracy I think of dynamic analysis. accuracy I think of dynamic analysis.
  • um want to use this type of analysis um want to use this type of analysis for?
Keywords: 919, house, all
Summary: The Legislative Budget Office Oversight Commission met on January 22, 2026, with a quorum present and approved the minutes from the December 17, 2025 meeting. The main presentation was by Erikica McKeler of the National Conference of State Legislatures on dynamic fiscal notes, dynamic scoring, and how they differ from static fiscal notes. She explained that dynamic analysis tries to capture broader economic and behavioral effects of policy changes, but that most states have experimented with it only briefly, often for tax bills, and many have later scaled back or abandoned the practice because it is staff-intensive, expensive, and difficult to validate. McKeler highlighted examples from Texas, Utah, and Arkansas. Texas requires dynamic fiscal impact statements for certain large tax or fee measures and for the biennial appropriations bill; Utah has done such analyses on request during the interim but only when staff time allows; and Arkansas recently began producing dynamic fiscal notes with thresholds and request limits. She noted that these states generally use REMI software, though Utah switched to IMPLAN for cost reasons. She also outlined common challenges, including the need for strong staff expertise, the sensitivity of results to assumptions, the expense of software licenses, and the difficulty of measuring accuracy over time. Members then discussed whether dynamic scoring could be useful for health and human services programs where a policy may shift costs between settings rather than create a simple new expense. Senator Marty raised a Medicaid example involving home-based blue light therapy for newborns, arguing that dynamic analysis might better capture potential savings from avoiding longer hospital stays. Legislative Budget Office and Minnesota Management and Budget staff responded that such effects may be better understood as direct program substitutions rather than true dynamic effects, and emphasized the need for reliable data and caution because savings estimates could reduce appropriations if they do not materialize. The discussion also touched on whether dynamic models would capture local government impacts, but no formal action was taken beyond the approval of minutes and receipt of the presentation.
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

Legislative Budget Office Oversight Commission 12/17/25

Minnesota House Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • <00:10:56.480> to saying they can't include the cost to saying they can't include the cost
  • And we'll provide some analysis.
  • accomplished in this type of analysis? accomplished in this type of analysis?
  • There's really uh a few analysis.
  • So the cost amount of cost to us.
Keywords: 919, house, all
Summary: The Legislative Budget Caucus Public Commission met with a quorum present, approved the September 3, 2025 minutes, and then heard a presentation from Legislative Budget Office Director Christian Larson on proposed updates to the fiscal note uniform standards and procedures. The main changes clarified that agencies must still complete a fiscal note when a bill or section cannot be implemented because of federal law, with the note explaining the implementation issue and costing only the portions that can be implemented. A second change said technical comments about possible future litigation may be included in the narrative but not in the cost tables. Members discussed how these rules would apply when only part of a bill is unimplementable versus when an entire bill is, and whether requiring a note in those cases is the best use of agency time. The commission also approved a new procedure on funding-source assumptions for expanded programs, including assuming the current funding source unless the bill says otherwise and defaulting to the general fund if no source is identified. The updated standards and procedures were adopted by a 7-0 roll call vote, with Senator Wickland excused. The commission then received a second presentation from Director Larson on a possible analysis of the accuracy of fiscal estimates and budget items after enactment. He described this as a variance analysis comparing fiscal note estimates to actual fiscal impacts, intended to improve future estimates, inform the legislature, and increase accountability. He summarized practices in other states, noting that most variance reviews are ad hoc, while Utah and Tennessee have more formalized legislative reports; he also referenced an LBO pilot review done in 2022 based largely on Tennessee’s model. The presentation outlined possible report formats, including a single annual report, standalone briefs, or topic-specific reviews, and raised implementation questions such as who would select items for review, whether the analysis should be limited to fiscal notes, what statutory authority or data access would be needed, and what resources would be required from both agencies and the LBO. Members did not take action on the second presentation. Representative Anderson and Vice Chair Pratt commented that the proposal is complicated but potentially useful for improving future fiscal notes and transparency, and the chair indicated the discussion was for future consideration rather than an immediate decision.
ND

North Dakota 2026 1st Special Session

Employee Benefits Programs Committee May 7th, 2026

Employee Benefits Programs Committee

Transcript Highlights:
  • I cannot vote on it unless I have that cost-benefit analysis. Let this bill out of my committee.
  • I cannot vote on it unless I have that cost-benefit analysis.
  • And like that’s work. ...is scrambling to try and get a cost-benefit analysis to us, and like that’s
  • I knew that I needed a cost-benefit analysis, but I also had a deadline that I had to meet to get it
  • Used to be the insurance department had to pay for each one of these cost-benefit analysis and things
Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave policies, labor market conditions, and prevailing wage issues, then later took up committee rules and bill-draft jurisdiction. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the state has paid the full family premium since 1979, described cost-control and benefit-enhancement changes over time, and explained current plan options, wellness incentives, employer wellness discounts, and the upcoming bid process for the 2027-29 contract. HRMS then presented compensation comparisons showing state classified pay generally trails private and regional markets, with larger gaps at higher-level jobs, and reviewed benefits and leave policies, including the new enhanced annual leave and new-hire leave, the state’s unpaid family leave structure, and varying tuition reimbursement practices. Job Service reported on labor force trends, low unemployment, high labor force participation, job openings, and wage growth, and OMB said there are no state prevailing-wage requirements beyond federal Davis-Bacon rules for federally funded projects. The committee then considered a proposed amendment to Joint Rule 211 to better align the health insurance mandate review process with recent statutory changes. Members discussed how the rule should reference both the committee’s required actuarial reports and the Legislative Council cost-benefit analysis, and the amendment was adopted on a roll call vote. The committee also discussed how its jurisdiction decisions affect whether a bill draft receives actuarial analysis, with staff explaining that a decision not to take jurisdiction means the bill is not treated as impacting the relevant retirement or health plans for purposes of that analysis. After that, the committee began reviewing bill drafts for jurisdiction. The first draft, bill draft 33, would automatically renew pre-tax elections for dental and vision coverage during open enrollment instead of requiring annual re-election. Members debated whether it had any actuarial impact, noting the state does not pay those premiums directly, and the discussion was still underway when the transcript ended.
LA

Louisiana 2026 Regular Session

House of Representatives May 26th, 2026

Louisiana House Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • And there's no telling how much this could ultimately cost the state and investigations, delays, and
  • Senator Presley, provides relative to professions, occupations limiting recovery of attorney fees, costs
  • It provides relative to professions and occupations, limiting recovery of attorney fees and costs, and
  • and the actual award is less than what you offered, you don't have to pay attorney's fees or court costs
  • This is really an investment policy for the bank, which they use as a hedge to offset costs for other
Bills: HR320, HR321, SCR55, SCR69, SCR75, SCR77, SCR78, SCR79, SB259, SB295, SB312, SB348, SB444, SB485, HR73, HR118, HR144, HR196, HR237, HR249, HR260, HR267, HR272, HR278, HCR85, HCR100, HCR105, HCR107, HCR114, HR245, SCR5, SCR29, SCR33, SCR37, SCR63, SCR30, SCR40, HB62, HB193, HB210, HB220, HB246, HB364, HB420, HB475, HB584, HB622, HB772, HB784, HB949, HB953, HB1043, HB1070, HB1092, HB1134, HB1162, HB1176, HB1196, HB1214, HB119, HB129, HB233, HB283, HB538, HB789, HB850, HB870, HB1236, HB1241, HB54, HB137, HB321, HB368, HB386, HB414, HB431, HB552, HB555, HB578, HB590, HB593, HB618, HB638, HB670, HB692, HB707, HB708, HB715, HB718, HB732, HB741, HB748, HB776, HB796, HB807, HB822, HB848, HB856, HB887, HB888, HB917, HB921, HB1082, HB1243, HB1246, HB378, HB509, HB1090, HB1259, SB80, SB131, SB143, SB251, SB254, SB279, SB367, SB384, SB388, SB389, SB398, SB408, SB431, SB468, SB469, SB496, SB4, SB52, SB57, SB83, SB145, SB152, SB194, SB276, SB319, SB333, SB448, SB450, SB465, SB484, SB501, SB509, SB149, HR168, HB463, HB998, SB123, SB353, SB479, SB495, SB82, SB97, SB283, SB326, SB518, SB197, SB268, HB901, HR20, HR74, HCR65, HCR71, HCR98, HB284, HB306, HB341, HB366, HB393, HB458, HB577, HB603, HB605, HB614, HB625, HB646, HB733, HB752, HB773, HB798, HB911, HB955, HB996, HB1035, HB1069, HB1113, HB1140, HB1180, HB1191, HB1240, HB1255, SB89, HB74, HB134, HB258, HB359, HB468, HB956, HB1117, SB29, SB42, SB43, SB78, SB208, SB217, SB274, SB300, SB341, SB379, SB382, SB387, SB401, SB441, SB449, SB487
LA

Louisiana 2026 Regular Session

House of Representatives May 26th, 2026

Louisiana House Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • House Bill 1070 by Representative Broussard, relative to court costs assessed against the defendant and
  • Pressly, provides relative to professions and occupations, limiting recovery of attorney fees and costs
  • It provides relative to professions and occupations, limiting recovery of attorney fees and costs, and
  • This is really an investment policy for the bank, which they use as a hedge to offset cost for other
  • to be able to modernize the exchange in order to, you know, for investment purposes, for managing costs
Bills: HR320, HR321, SCR55, SCR69, SCR75, SCR77, SCR78, SCR79, SB259, SB295, SB312, SB348, SB444, SB485, HR73, HR118, HR144, HR196, HR237, HR249, HR260, HR267, HR272, HR278, HCR85, HCR100, HCR105, HCR107, HCR114, HR245, SCR5, SCR29, SCR33, SCR37, SCR63, SCR30, SCR40, HB62, HB193, HB210, HB220, HB246, HB364, HB420, HB475, HB584, HB622, HB772, HB784, HB949, HB953, HB1043, HB1070, HB1092, HB1134, HB1162, HB1176, HB1196, HB1214, HB119, HB129, HB233, HB283, HB538, HB789, HB850, HB870, HB1236, HB1241, HB54, HB137, HB321, HB368, HB386, HB414, HB431, HB552, HB555, HB578, HB590, HB593, HB618, HB638, HB670, HB692, HB707, HB708, HB715, HB718, HB732, HB741, HB748, HB776, HB796, HB807, HB822, HB848, HB856, HB887, HB888, HB917, HB921, HB1082, HB1243, HB1246, HB378, HB509, HB1090, HB1259, SB80, SB131, SB143, SB251, SB254, SB279, SB367, SB384, SB388, SB389, SB398, SB408, SB431, SB468, SB469, SB496, SB4, SB52, SB57, SB83, SB145, SB152, SB194, SB276, SB319, SB333, SB448, SB450, SB465, SB484, SB501, SB509, SB149, HR168, HB463, HB998, SB123, SB353, SB479, SB495, SB82, SB97, SB283, SB326, SB518, SB197, SB268, HB901, HR20, HR74, HCR65, HCR71, HCR98, HB284, HB306, HB341, HB366, HB393, HB458, HB577, HB603, HB605, HB614, HB625, HB646, HB733, HB752, HB773, HB798, HB911, HB955, HB996, HB1035, HB1069, HB1113, HB1140, HB1180, HB1191, HB1240, HB1255, SB89, HB74, HB134, HB258, HB359, HB468, HB956, HB1117, SB29, SB42, SB43, SB78, SB208, SB217, SB274, SB300, SB341, SB379, SB382, SB387, SB401, SB441, SB449, SB487
Summary: The House was called to order, a quorum was established, and the meeting opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance. Members also observed several personal privileges and recognitions, including International Preeclampsia Awareness Month, the Hudson Cup award presentation to Rep. John Illg Jr., recognition of the Delcambre Shrimp Festival Queen, and a visit from U.S. Sen. John Kennedy. The chamber also received Senate messages, conference committee appointments, enrolled reports, and a conference report on SB 483 dealing with psychedelic-assisted therapy, which was laid over. The House then moved through a long series of concurrence and rejection votes on Senate amendments to House bills. Among the measures concurred in were bills affecting the Louisiana Women’s Policy Research Commission, the Louisiana Sickle Cell Commission, child exploitation reporting on covered platforms, the Children’s Cabinet Advisory Board, DCFS background checks, AI disclosure in health care, foster care placement and related terminology, criminal history record confidentiality, parish court jurisdiction, court costs, developmental disability office renaming, insurance claims and contractor licensing, Medicare Advantage coverage, colorectal cancer screening, health facilities, highway memorial designations, jury compensation, school employee protections, juvenile court fees, off-road vehicle seizure, residential property insurance cancellation, child support enforcement, and several others. The House rejected Senate amendments on bills including ethics retroactivity, sex offender registration notification, plumbers licensing, and health insurance formulary placement, sending some to conference. Several bills were finally passed, including measures on obstructing public passages with motorized vehicles, class six injection well hearings, arson of religious buildings, wearing masks while committing felonies, professional board attorney fees, bulletproof vests for peace officers, critical infrastructure protection from foreign adversaries, debit card surcharges, electronic stock certificates, watershed restoration funding, and innovation economic development pilot hubs. The innovation hub bill drew extensive debate over no-bid contracting, transparency, and the role of elected versus unelected bodies; an amendment to limit contracting authority to parish governing authorities was withdrawn, and the bill later proceeded to final passage after extended floor discussion. The House also took up and passed or concurred in multiple other bills and resolutions, with recorded votes ranging from unanimous to divided on a few measures.
LA

Louisiana 2026 Regular Session

House of Representatives May 25th, 2026

Louisiana House Floor Meeting

LA

Louisiana 2026 Regular Session

House of Representatives May 25th, 2026

Louisiana House Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • legislative auditor, in consultation with actuaries for two retirement systems, to provide relative to the cost
  • legislative auditor, in consultation with actuaries for two retirement systems, to provide relative to the cost
Summary: The House met with a quorum, opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, and then received a series of Senate messages, conference committee appointments, and enrolled bill reports. The chamber also noted Senate concurrence in several House concurrent resolutions and the adoption of conference reports, while multiple Senate bills and resolutions were signed by the Senate President. Senate Bill 480, dealing with butterfly bottom nets and vessel use/anchorage, was referred to the Natural Resources Committee without objection. Members introduced several House resolutions, including measures to commend Arsenal Football Club, recognize Pope Leo XIV and 4-H honoree Margaret Mimi Stoker, study forensic medical exam protocols for domestic violence survivors, create a task force on second-degree murder sentencing, review miscarriage and pregnancy-loss terminology, commemorate the 250th anniversary of New Orleans, and support the National Guard Youth Challenge Program. Committee reports also moved forward bills on child welfare, water quality, scenic rivers, orphan wells, gravel mining reclamation, groundwater conservation, agricultural production, railroad hazards, and retirement system merger feasibility, along with resolutions on Pope Leo XIV and the LaMelle family. The House took up numerous Senate bills returned from the Legislative Bureau, adopting amendments and advancing many to third reading, including bills on health and welfare, education, insurance, and criminal justice. The chamber also reported favorably on resolutions condemning political violence and honoring public figures and organizations, and it scheduled several committee meetings for the following day, including Health and Welfare, Appropriations, Natural Resources, Civil Law, Transportation, and Ways and Means. The session ended with announcements about upcoming committee agendas and delegation meetings, and the House adjourned on motion to reconvene at 1:00 p.m. the next day.
ND

North Dakota 2026 1st Special Session

Employee Benefits Programs Committee May 7th, 2026 at 10:00 am

Employee Benefits Programs Committee

Transcript Highlights:
  • Additionally, Joint Rule 211 currently recognizes that Section 540328 requires a cost-benefit analysis
  • I cannot vote on it unless I have that cost-benefit analysis. Let this bill out of my committee.
  • I cannot vote on it unless I have that cost-benefit analysis.
  • I knew that I needed a cost-benefit analysis, but I also had a deadline that I had to meet to get it
  • insurance department would pay for the cost-benefit analysis services through their budget.
Keywords: 908, all
ND

North Dakota 2025-2026 Regular Session

Employee Benefits Programs Committee May 7th, 2026

Transcript Highlights:
  • I cannot vote on it unless I have that cost-benefit analysis. Let this bill out of my committee.
  • I cannot vote on it unless I have that cost-benefit analysis.
  • And like, that's work. ...is scrambling to try and get a cost-benefit analysis to us, and like, that's
  • I knew that I needed a cost-benefit analysis, but I also had a deadline that I had to meet to get it
  • insurance department would pay for the cost-benefit analysis services through their budget.
Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to approve prior minutes, hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave, and related policy issues, and then recess for lunch. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the long-standing state-paid family coverage, cost-control measures, wellness incentives, the current grandfathered PPO and high-deductible options, and the effects of recent benefit mandates such as insulin caps, prosthetic coverage, medication management, prescription copay changes, and ambulance balance-billing limits. Committee members questioned the fiscal impact of adding benefits and the possible cost of moving to a non-grandfathered plan, while PERS and HRMS emphasized that health insurance remains the top-ranked employee benefit and that any major plan changes should be considered carefully. HRMS also presented compensation comparisons showing state pay generally below private-market benchmarks, discussed targeted market equity adjustments, identified ongoing recruitment and retention concerns in fields like nursing, IT, engineering, and attorneys, and reviewed leave policies, tuition reimbursement, and family leave comparisons with neighboring states. Job Service provided labor market data showing low unemployment, high labor force participation, and wage growth that still trails some neighboring markets, and OMB explained that prevailing wage requirements apply to federally funded projects under Davis-Bacon, not to ordinary state contracts. After lunch, the committee took up the required process for health insurance mandate bills and adopted an amendment to Joint Rule 211. The amendment clarified that the deadline for submitting mandate measures is intended to allow time for all required reports, including both the cost-benefit analysis and any Employee Benefits Committee actuarial report, while leaving the existing deadline unchanged. The amendment was adopted on a roll call vote, with several members voting yes and a few no votes recorded. The committee then moved into its jurisdiction review of bill drafts, beginning with a bill that would automatically renew pre-tax dental and vision elections; members debated whether it had any actuarial or administrative impact on PERS or the state, and the chair explained that the committee’s role was only to decide whether further analysis was needed before later testimony and recommendations.
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Commerce Finance and Policy Committee 2/27/25

Commerce Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:
  • The speaker explained that the first cost category is the defrayal cost.
  • are direct costs to the state.
  • PMPM costs.
  • The defrayal costs are not costs to health plans.
  • costs to health plans they're um a cost costs to health plans they're um a cost uh<00:26:43.840>
Keywords: 1183, house
AR
Transcript Highlights:
  • of care, versus a cost analysis, which does give you an actual cost of care?
  • The cost analysis study, though, will actually look at the cost, the true costs that it would take to
  • The cost analysis study, though, will actually look at the cost, the true costs that it would take to
  • The cost analysis study, though, will actually look at the cost, the true costs that it would take to
  • study looks at modeled programs using actual cost drivers. ...as opposed to a cost analysis study looking
Summary: The Early Childhood Committee met to receive an update from the Office of Early Childhood on Arkansas child care and early learning programs. Committee members discussed the state’s child care crisis, including reported economic losses from lack of access, the need to track access, affordability, workforce shortages, rural and infant/toddler care gaps, and the role of local leads in identifying needs across the state. The committee also approved the February 17 minutes. Office of Early Childhood staff explained their responsibilities under the LEARNS Act, including kindergarten readiness, provider quality, and access to affordable seats. They reviewed licensing, quality efforts, and the two main funding streams: School Readiness Assistance (SRA), a federally funded voucher program serving about 14,600 children with a wait list of more than 3,000, and Arkansas Better Chance (ABC), a state-funded program serving about 23,000 children, with approval to increase to 24,000 slots. Members asked about the difference between market rate surveys and cost analyses, and staff said the office is procuring both, with results expected by the end of the year. Several members raised concerns about funding levels, especially that ABC reimbursement has not kept pace with K-12 funding increases and that child care reimbursement remains below the true cost of care. Staff said ABC requires certified teachers and lower ratios than SRA, but pays less, and that some federal pre-K slots were moved into ABC to preserve continuity of care. They also explained that SRA eligibility changes, including a higher work requirement and ending a child care worker eligibility category, were made to reduce spending and serve families on the wait list. The committee discussed communication with providers and parents, technical assistance for centers, and possible future legislative action to stabilize providers and expand access, but no votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the minutes and adjournment.
CA

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

Assembly Appropriations Committee Apr 29th, 2026

Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:
  • The financial analysis of the bill finds minimal cost.
  • As the staff analysis notes, there are no state costs to this bill.
  • According to the analysis, this bill would have minor and absorbable costs.
  • As the analysis notes, there are no state costs.
  • As the analysis notes, there are no state costs.
Keywords: 988, house, all
Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee heard a large regular-order agenda and took up several bills with mostly brief presentations and no major debate. AB 2215 by Calderon would extend the time for the Department of Water Resources to fully develop State Water Project water rights to 2046; supporters said it would protect water reliability and affordability for 27 million Californians, while opponents argued it would bypass the Water Board process, set a precedent for other water-rights holders, and potentially enable costly projects like Delta Conveyance. The committee also approved a set of unanimous-support bills for consent and suspense-file measures, then moved through a series of policy bills with generally favorable testimony from sponsors and allied organizations. Among the bills discussed, AB 2038 would extend insurance protections for wildfire victims facing nonrenewal or cancellation of home insurance; AB 2322 would standardize the definition of commercial, industrial, or institutional sites for municipal stormwater permitting; AB 1794 would allow enteral nutrition formulas to be shipped directly to patients’ homes; AB 1696 would clarify that nurse midwives do not need physician supervision within their licensed scope; AB 1860 would let county offices of education use design-build and progressive design-build; AB 1876 would codify nondiscrimination protections in health care coverage; AB 2281 would direct the Office of Election Cybersecurity to consult with researchers and assess resources; AB 2448 would require technology to protect sensitive medical records, including reproductive health data; AB 1994 would require local law enforcement to provide victims information on federal immigration relief options; and AB 1829 would expand allowable uses of CalWORKs student-parent support funds for basic needs and related services. Testimony was largely in support, with a few targeted concerns raised on AB 1696 and AB 2281. The committee took roll-call votes on the bills presented and advanced them, with some members recorded as not voting or voting no on selected measures. It also approved the suspense calendar as read and then opened public comment on bills not presented that day; no members of the public came forward, and the meeting adjourned.