Transcript Highlights:

• In 2024, the legislature made the program portable, meaning that if workers pay into the program for
• Hence, the legislature fixed this by shifting to a grandfathered opt-out approach, the grandfathered
• Like, what is it the legislature really needs to look at?
• But the legislature has been looking at this, and we realize there's more work to be done.
• So, as those of us in the legislature know, that's super important for us.

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative Executive Committee on Planning for Aging and Disability Issues

Summary: The committee met for what was described as its final meeting, with members and staff reflecting on the work of the Joint Legislative Executive Committee on Aging and Long-Term Care and noting that future work would likely shift to standing health and wellness committees. The meeting began with introductions and then moved into updates on major initiatives that originated from the committee, including Washington Cares, the Dementia Action Collaborative, and Medicaid long-term care programs. Presenters emphasized that these efforts were developed through long-term legislative-executive collaboration and were intended to help Washington prepare for the state’s aging population. On Washington Cares, DSHS described the program’s development from a 2014 research effort to its 2019 enactment, premium collection beginning in 2023, portability improvements in 2024, and 2025 changes including a grandfathered opt-out fix and a framework for supplemental private long-term care insurance. The agency said benefits are expected to go fully live next summer, with a pilot of up to 400 applicants planned for next January. On dementia policy, the Dementia Action Collaborative reported on the state dementia plan, Project ECHO training for providers, and pilot dementia-capable community programs at area agencies on aging, citing preliminary results that about 85% of family caregivers said services helped people remain at home. DSHS also reviewed Medicaid Transformation Project initiatives, including Medicaid Alternative Care, Tailored Supports for Older Adults, presumptive eligibility, and health-related social needs benefits such as rental assistance, nutrition support, and home modifications. The committee then heard an emerging issues panel from ombuds and disability advocates. Patricia Hunter of the long-term care ombuds program raised concerns about staffing shortages, resident rights, surveillance technology, private equity ownership of facilities, and illegal discharges or evictions. Betty Sweeterman of the Developmental Disabilities Ombuds discussed people stuck in hospitals without medical need, gaps in behavioral health services for people with developmental disabilities, and the need for better workforce training. Todd Carlyle of Disability Rights Washington urged expansion and bundling of community supports such as PACT, GOSH, and peer bridgers to reduce repeated institutionalization and support discharge from inpatient psychiatric settings. Provider and labor panels followed, with nursing home, assisted living, supported living, and union representatives all emphasizing workforce shortages, low wages, Medicaid rate inadequacy, case management bottlenecks, behavioral health complexity, and the need for more flexible care models and stronger accountability for rate increases. No formal votes were taken; the meeting ended with public comment on manufactured housing and closing remarks thanking staff and participants for the committee’s work.

Transcript Highlights:

• We’re the legislature. When we’re setting the budget, we can do that.
• We’re the legislature. When we’re setting the budget, we can do that.
• We’re the legislature. When we’re setting the budget, we can do that.
• We’re the legislature. When we’re setting the budget, we can do that.
• , legislature, legislature, but<00:29:21.120><c> we</c><00:29:21.360><c> can</c><00:29:21.600><c> make

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, let this legislature, through the LFC, I mean, through the...
• From what I understand, the ETA also has off-ramps or abilities to come back to the legislature.
• And I remember now you were not in the legislature when the ETA passed.
• I mean, the legislature once got involved in the process. When we created the ETA, we mandated.
• So I think the legislature ought to stay out of the way.

Bills: SM20 , SM9 , SJR6 , HB124 , SM20 , SM9 , SJR6 , HB124

Committees: Senate Senate Rules , Senate House Rules & Order Of Business

Keywords: youth violence, violence prevention, violence intervention, community violence intervention, credible messengers, peer support, restorative justice, violence interrupters, juvenile justice, at-risk youth, high-risk youth, public safety, Department of Health, New Mexico, statewide summit, data collection, reporting, interagency coordination, community-based organizations, law enforcement

Transcript Highlights:

• Since **SB 131** passed the legislature, there's been ongoing discussion around cleanup language meant
• We then worked with the legislature over the summer on other priorities.
• But I don't know how many people in the legislature actually have lived next to a manufacturing plant
• We look forward to working with the administration and legislature to... Advance health for all.
• We'd like to thank the legislature... The governor for including AB 617 program funding.

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate of the 89th Legislature, Regular Session, I ask the advice, consent, and confirmation of the
• By the legislature, with no such limitation on how many zones a municipality could implement.
• Today, we are currently in the legislature working on a PFZ for a hotel convention. Package.
• This is due to the loophole and omission that the legislature created in 2013.
• That the legislature and LBB did not contemplate in 2013.

Bills: SCR46 , SB31 , SB39 , SB227 , SB330 , SB401 , SB407 , SB467 , SB482 , SB500 , SB506 , SB512 , SB527 , SB584 , SB619 , SB636 , SB646 , SB647 , SB648 , SB659 , SB663 , SB715 , SB732 , SB758 , SB801 , SB816 , SB847 , SB870 , SB884 , SB1020 , SB1055 , SB1065 , SB1137 , SB1169 , SB1181 , SB1283 , SB1383 , SB1395 , SB1410 , SB1433 , SB1490 , SB1558 , SB1574 , SB1626 , SB1666 , SB1718 , SB1727 , SB1756 , SB1757 , SB1845 , SB1924 , SB1964 , SB1972 , SB2018 , SB2031 , SB2075 , SB2076 , SB2080 , SB2111 , SB2117 , SB2154 , SB2161 , SB2173 , SB2206 , SB2225 , SB2253 , SB2268 , SB2314 , SB2322 , SB2351 , SB2371 , SB2476 , SB2533 , SB2540 , SB2570 , SB2589 , SB2623 , SB2658 , SB2660 , SB2692 , SB2693 , SB2717 , SB2722 , SB2753 , SB2779 , SB2877 , SB2880 , SB2900 , SB2920 , SB3031 , HJR4 , SB5 , SB260 , SB1786 , SJR3 , SJR18 , SB1 , SJR36 , SJR50 , SJR63 , SJR84 , SJR59 , SCR12 , SCR39 , SCR46 , SCR48 , SCR19 , SB2023 , SB62 , SB666 , SB847 , SB284 , SB854 , SB1073 , SB810 , SB1505 , SB583 , SB1502 , SB507 , SB1026 , SB1433 , SB1434 , SB1376 , SB1585 , SB1772 , SB2016 , SB1163 , SB619 , SB1122 , SB732 , SB731 , SB397 , SB508 , SB1436 , SB287 , SB261 , SB1882 , SB393 , SB1791 , SB529 , SB209 , SB2429 , SB1999 , SB511 , SB2309 , SB510 , SB1924 , SB2253 , SB2018 , SB2206 , SB584 , SB1085 , SB1490 , SB2314 , SB2046 , SB1975 , SB2717 , SB1262 , SB1524 , SB1137 , SB636 , SB2056 , SB1558 , SB884 , SB227 , SB517 , SB1200 , SB1410 , SB1626 , SB1845 , SB1863 , SB2681 , SB2200 , SB2199 , SB1757 , SB2050 , SB2458 , SB2201 , SB1055 , SB2660 , SB2662 , SB1065 , SB801 , SB2533 , SB3014 , SB3013 , SB758 , SB648 , SB647 , SB512 , SB1721 , SB2268 , SB2366 , SB1013 , SB2692 , SB2570 , SB2797 , SB2111 , SB2371 , SB2383 , SB646 , SB1169 , SB1754 , SB1718 , SB2779 , SB2004 , SB1756 , SB2119 , SB527 , SB2322 , SB2448 , SB1777 , SB1283 , SB407 , SB2392 , SB2076 , SB2786 , SB3031 , SB2877 , SB2876 , SB2284 , SB2225 , SB1540 , SB2920 , SB2929 , SB1395 , SB1972 , SB2540 , SB2742 , SB2595 , SB2217 , SB2117 , SB715 , SB2330 , SB1964 , SB1383 , SB500 , SB1640 , SB2001 , SB2080 , SB2722 , SB506 , SB2514 , SB2623 , SB2658 , SB1574 , SB2900 , SB2753 , SB2398 , SB401 , SB1241 , SB2927 , SB2173 , SB2538 , SB898 , SB467 , SB1449 , SB2529 , SB1531 , SB2846 , SB2476 , SB2031 , SB986 , SB1181 , SB2075 , SB2154 , SB2864 , SB31 , SB2880 , SB1359 , SB2386 , SB771 , SB2844 , SB2550 , SB1351 , SB1423 , SB1931 , SB2245 , SB2589 , SB2707 , SB2807 , SB2351 , SB410 , SB659 , SB816 , SB2776 , SB2693 , SB2580 , SB1980 , SB1886 , SB1234 , SB739 , SB482 , SB456 , SB127 , SB1666 , SB2843 , SB2801 , SB800 , SB2055 , SB784 , SB2986 , SB735 , SB1012 , SB324 , SB2926 , SB2938 , SB2007 , SB2138 , SB1242 , HJR4 , HB135 , HB 1109 , SCR30 , SCR3 , SB2615 , SB1049 , SB2310 , SB1224 , SB2972 , SB1568 , SB2841 , SB2885 , SB3016 , SB2858 , SB2610 , SB2139 , SB1856 , SB2035 , SB2308 , SB2306 , SB2041 , SB1528 , SB1681 , SB1141 , SB2401 , SB2530 , SB2375 , SB547 , SB1266 , SB1373 , SB1467 , SB2069 , SB2269 , SB2480 , SB2544 , SB672 , SB904 , SB2695 , SB2891 , SB2422 , SB2543 , SB1854 , SB317 , SB2539 , SB2532 , SB2925 , SB1250 , SB2082 , SB2203 , SB457 , SB2357 , HCR35 , HCR64

Transcript Highlights:

• as to the seriousness of the legislature as to the seriousness of the agency<00:14:38.440><c> or</c>
• </c> services it says that the legislature services it says that the legislature should<00:30:42.279>
• I mean, at least in the Legislature, we do have people from a variety of professions.
• </c> information before the legislature information before the legislature because<00:40:40.359><c> we
• </c> report like this to the legislature report like this to the legislature every every every year<00

Committee: House State Government Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• And these are decisions that we've made, that we in the Legislature have made.
• When we come before the Legislature, we propose a fund source, and the Legislature can choose to deny
• So I know that's sometimes a concern for the Legislature.
• We asked the Legislature to fully fund AB 617.
• Along with funding, we urge the Legislature to reform the program.

Summary: The subcommittee heard extensive 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 proposal would help decarbonize aviation, support a long-term transition in the fuel sector, and encourage in-state investment and jobs. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and several outside witnesses recommended rejecting the proposal, saying it is a relatively expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases, could have uncertain or limited net climate benefits, and may shift limited feedstocks away from renewable diesel rather than create additional fuel supply. A major point of debate was whether the credit would mainly benefit California refineries and workers or instead subsidize out-of-state producers while reducing revenue for transportation programs. Supporters, including union members, refinery workers, airlines, Boeing, and airport representatives, said SAF is one of the few viable near-term options for aviation, that California should keep fuel production and jobs in-state, and that the credit would help maintain refinery operations and support the industry’s transition. Opponents, including the LAO, trucking and fuels groups, environmental organizations, and county/road advocates, warned that the proposal could raise gasoline and diesel prices, reduce diesel excise tax revenue for highways and local streets and roads, and provide limited climate benefit compared with other uses of state funds. Some members also raised concerns about feedstock availability, food-system impacts, and whether the policy should be more narrowly targeted if the goal is to support a specific refinery. No vote was taken. The chair stated at the outset that all items on the agenda were being held open for a future hearing, and public comment was taken after the first item because of the level of interest. The hearing then continued with public testimony, which was split between strong support from labor and industry and strong opposition from environmental, transportation, and local government groups.

Transcript Highlights:

• THE LEGISLATURE DEALT WITH CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE THROUGH BY ADDRESSING SPECIFIC POPULATIONS AND STORMS.
• IN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS THE LEGISLATURE IS PLACED IN THE STATUTE. CATASTROPHIC REFUND PROGRAM.
• ALSO, THE LEGISLATURE APPROPRIATED 35 KNOW THE DOLLARS TO REIMBURSE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
• STORM BASES OR INDIVIDUAL YEAR THE LEGISLATURE CHOOSES TO REIMBURSE TAXING AUTHORITIES.
• WE WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO THAT AGAIN IF THE LEGISLATURE REQUESTS.

Transcript Highlights:

• In 2020, the legislature created the social equity and cannabis program.
• By way of background, the 2022 legislature directed Jaylark to review DOH programs.
• In 2003, the Legislature created a new exemption to protect certain data of at-risk employees.
• The Legislature asked JLARC to recommend whether the exemption should be maintained or modified.
• The legislative auditor recommends that the Legislature keep the survivor's exemption in place.

Summary: At the May 14, 2025 JLARC meeting, members approved the January 9 minutes and adopted the 2025–27 biennial work plan with a minor typo correction. Staff reviewed two new work plan studies: a drug takeback program fee-setting and expenditures review due in December 2025, and a state energy performance standard compliance review due in June 2027. Staff also summarized recent JLARC session activity, noting six committee presentations and five bills enacted related to JLARC work or recommendations. The committee then heard a preliminary cannabis market study. JLARC staff reported that Washington businesses likely produced two to three times more cannabis than retailers sold in 2023, but that incomplete and unreliable Liquor and Cannabis Board data limits regulation, tax verification, and diversion tracking. Staff recommended that LCB submit a plan by the end of 2025 describing what resources and funding would be needed to collect accurate data by the end of 2026. Members and agency representatives discussed the 2031 timeline for a new tracking system, data quality problems, and the social equity program; LCB said it is evaluating vendor options and will provide more information on its plan. JLARC also presented a preliminary report on Department of Health oversight of hospital data reporting, inspections, and complaints. Staff concluded DOH is late on many hospital inspections, does not verify third-party inspection standards, does not review adverse health event correction plans, and could make hospital data more accessible. The report included five recommendations to DOH and one to the Legislature. DOH said it would work with JLARC on a strategic management plan and acknowledged the need for improvements. The committee next reviewed a preliminary report on the public records survivor exemption, concluding the exemption is being used but needs clearer guidance. JLARC recommended keeping the exemption and having the Attorney General provide additional implementation guidance. Members then approved a proposed final report on Developmental Disabilities Administration processes and staffing; DDA concurred with the recommendations and described steps it has already taken on metrics, data quality, and workforce planning. Finally, JLARC introduced proposed study questions for its upcoming review of DCYF juvenile rehabilitation programs, focusing on safety and security, access to services, staffing, education, and comparisons to best practices. No votes were taken on the preliminary reports, and the meeting adjourned after the study question presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the members at that time, the Legislature at that time, had the foresight to create the lottery as
• We have children have benefited, students have benefited, so it would be helpful for the legislature
• We have children have benefited, students have benefited, so it would be helpful for the legislature
• Or I came back to the legislature and said, I learned this. This is what we need.
• This bill protects the parking spaces allocated to the legislature as of January 1, 2025.

Summary: The State Administration Budget Subcommittee met for budget day, heard agency follow-up questions, and then presented its recommended budget for fiscal year 2025-2026. Chair Lopez opened with remarks about reducing spending, emphasizing vacancy reductions and recurring savings across agencies. The recommendation eliminated 452.5 vacant positions and produced recurring savings of $57.2 million overall, while still funding selected priorities. Notable funded items included $500,000 for a new DBPR website for condominium complaints and document filing, $481.3 million for the MICEF Florida Home Program in DFS, funding for Florida PALM implementation, $330,000 for a Tampa office in the Office of Insurance Regulation, $835,000 for warehouse space for confiscated gambling machines, $821,000 for the Lottery gaming system contract, and major DMS capital and facilities funding. Lopez also criticized DMS leadership and said the secretary’s salary would be held in reserve pending answers on fleet management, remote workers, SUNCOM billing, and other issues. The committee then questioned DBPR Secretary Griffin about condominium records, structural integrity reserve studies, and milestone-inspection compliance. Members focused on how the division tracks condominiums, whether it can identify buildings with three habitable stories, and whether the current filing system can be improved to better capture building height and story count. Griffin said the division relies heavily on self-reporting and complaint-driven checks, but has updated forms to capture whether a condominium has buildings three stories or higher and has received additional submissions. Members also asked about staffing and the Miami-area office; Griffin said DBPR now has two Fort Lauderdale offices and a Doral office, with about 82% of new positions filled. Secretary Davis of the Florida Lottery also testified, defending travel to Paris and other conferences as part of industry engagement, technology research, and best-practice sharing. He said the travel was reimbursed through lottery-related organizations, described the Lottery as an enterprise fund that receives no general tax revenue, and said the agency has remained a top revenue generator nationally. Members questioned Orlando travel reimbursements and dues to the Multi-State Lottery Association, and asked for more information on how increased revenue translates into more Bright Futures scholarships. Davis said he would provide additional details. The subcommittee then unanimously passed two conforming bills. PCB SAB 25-01 removed statutory references to the legacy FLAIR accounting system in preparation for Florida PALM and was reported favorably. PCB SAB 25-02 addressed Capitol Center space after the planned House lease cancellation, declaring the governor, cabinet, and legislature permanent tenants, protecting existing space and parking allocations, giving the legislature first right of refusal on vacant space, and giving legislative leaders control over utilities in their space; it also passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned after the bills were reported favorably.

Transcript Highlights:

• But the reality is, over the last 36 years, the way that the legislature is funding Western, they have
• But the reality is, over the last 36 years, the way that the legislature is funding Western, they have
• At times, the legislature has decided to include additional... ...years for each institution.
• We're going to fund it here from the legislature. Thank you very much.
• We're going to fund it here from the legislature. Thank you very much.

Summary: The committee heard public testimony on House Bill 2070, which would create state funding parity for Western Washington University by tying appropriations to a per-student funding ratio. The prime sponsor and Western officials said Western has long been the lowest-funded public four-year institution on a per-student basis, leading to budget cuts, reduced student services, and delayed graduation. Students, faculty, and university leaders testified in support, while some members questioned whether the bill should instead address a broader higher-education funding formula for all institutions. Central Washington University also supported the bill but suggested a broader approach. No vote was taken on HB 2070. The committee then heard House Bill 2671, which would expand eligibility for state financial aid to certain nonprofit out-of-state branch campuses operating in Washington if they meet specified accreditation, duration, and authorization requirements. Rep. Timmons said the bill is intended to help students in an accelerated nursing program at Northeastern University in Seattle access aid and support workforce needs. Northeastern’s dean testified in support, saying the bill would align financial aid law with prior changes to degree-granting statutes and would not increase state spending. The hearing on HB 2671 was then closed. House Bill 2617, dealing with the higher-education “fund split,” drew extensive testimony. The bill would gradually shift more of employee compensation increases and central services costs to state funding, and would require a study of essential student services. The sponsor and many university, faculty, staff, and student witnesses argued that the current funding practice shifts costs to tuition, contributes to layoffs, program cuts, larger classes, and reduced student support, and creates instability across public higher education. Community and technical college representatives also said underfunding COLAs harms operations and students. The committee then moved to executive session on Senate Bill 6258, which would authorize the Washington Medical Commission to create a non-disciplinary pathway for voluntary license relinquishment; the committee approved it 14-0 with a due-pass recommendation, with three members excused.

Transcript Highlights:

• And it requires a report to the Governor and the Legislature that evaluates... investments or as much
• And it requires a report to the governor and the legislature that evaluates.
• And I understand why the legislature did what they did at the time.
• But if we see them going off track, there's nothing that the legislature can do.
• The concern is if the CPUC is going in a direction that we, as the legislature or a future legislature

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy convened with a quorum and first heard SB 254, a major utility affordability and wildfire package authored by Senator Becker and coauthored by Assemblymember Petrie-Norris. The bill was described as combining wildfire mitigation reforms, $6 billion in securitized financing for future fire-mitigation capital spending, a public ownership/transmission financing program, tighter scrutiny of utility profits, clean energy permitting streamlining, stronger customer connection timelines, and a successor wildfire fund/continuation account to replace the current fund. Supporters, including the Governor’s office, TURN, labor, clean energy groups, utilities, and public advocates, said the measure would lower bills, stabilize utilities, protect fire victims, and reduce wildfire-related bankruptcy risk. Opponents and some local government groups raised concerns about affordability impacts, the volumetric wildfire fee, strict liability, and provisions they said could affect local control. After discussion, the committee approved SB 254 on a 16-0 vote and sent it to the floor. The committee then held an informational hearing on AB 825, which would enable California to participate in a West-wide electricity market. The authors said the proposal could save ratepayers up to $1 billion annually, improve reliability by allowing California to draw on a larger regional supply, reduce curtailment of renewable power, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Support came from environmental organizations, labor, utilities, community choice aggregators, large energy users, and the Public Advocates Office, all emphasizing cost savings, reliability, and cleaner energy integration. TURN opposed the measure, warning that last-minute amendments removed safeguards against subsidizing out-of-state fossil generation and could expose California ratepayers to unwanted costs. Members questioned governance, exit rights, CPUC oversight, and local control, and the authors responded that the bill includes multiple safeguards, legislative reporting, the ability to exit without penalty, and continued local consultation. No vote was taken because the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have analogous to the Legislature structure. We have internal governing committees.
• We have any number of information requests from the Legislature.
• And the legislature has provided a special category of funding.
• That's where we might a lot of data that we include in that report to the legislature.
• The Legislature committed another 8 and a half million safe.

Transcript Highlights:

• This legislature had an emergency session and gave us a loan program.
• And so what I would urge the legislature to do is to fund that building fully.
• And so what I would urge the legislature to do is to fund that building fully.
• So the legislature has provided a lot of resources to help our forestry recover.
• So thank you to the legislature.

Summary: The Agriculture and Natural Resources Budget Committee met to organize for the session, confirm a quorum, and hear introductory remarks from members about their districts and interests. Chair Esposito outlined the committee’s jurisdiction and budget overview, noting a total budget of about $7.2 billion, with major funding tied to the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Fish and Wildlife, and the Department of Citrus. She also described major cost drivers such as Everglades restoration, water quality, resiliency, land acquisition, and rural family lands, and asked members to review agency requests in small groups later in the process. Agency leaders then presented budget and program updates. Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson emphasized department efficiency efforts, including IT modernization, staff reorganization, rural and family lands conservation, best management practices, Fresh From Florida marketing, hurricane recovery loans for farmers, and completion of the Connor Complex headquarters. DEP Secretary Alexis Lambert highlighted record investments in Everglades restoration, water quality projects, resilience grants, land acquisition, state parks, and enforcement. FWC Executive Director Roger Young discussed conservation research, fisheries and wildlife management, law enforcement, disaster response, and pressures from growth, boating, invasive species, and derelict vessels. Department of Citrus Executive Director Shannon Shep reviewed the industry’s decline due to hurricanes and citrus greening, current research and marketing efforts, and e-commerce campaigns to support Florida citrus sales. Members asked questions about citrus production declines, future replanting and therapies, rural family lands, PFOS cleanup, mangrove restoration, flooding and pump infrastructure, agricultural theft, and derelict vessel removal. Officials generally responded with updates, emphasized science-based management and enforcement, and in several cases said they would follow up with more detailed information later. No formal votes were taken; the meeting ended with the chair directing members to provide feedback on agencies for further budget review and then adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• The legislature—I mean, the administration's intent was that we provided resources.
• We know the Legislature has provided some guidance.
• I'll start with the Legislature has been very supportive of our requests.
• I'll start with the Legislature has been very supportive of our requests.
• I'll start with the Legislature has been very supportive of our requests.

Summary: The committee first heard Issue 1 on trailer bill language to redirect funding for emergency demand-response programs. The Department of Finance proposed using about $26.9 million in General Fund originally set aside for the Distributed Energy Backup Assets program to bolster the Demand-Side Grid Support Program for summer 2026, and using about $70 million in CalCHAP interest to support ratepayer-funded demand response in summers 2027 and 2028. The CEC and CPUC said they are working on a transition from DSGS to ELRP or a successor program, while the LAO noted the General Fund money would otherwise revert to savings. Members pressed the administration on whether demand response remains important, whether DSGS has been successful, and whether the state should keep funding it through the CEC rather than shifting to a ratepayer-funded CPUC program. The CEC and CPUC said the programs are not directly comparable, emphasized different cost structures and enrollment metrics, and said a CPUC rulemaking is underway with a proposed decision expected in Q3 2026. No vote was taken in the transcript. The committee then took up Issue 2, a budget proposal tied to SB 254 and the new transmission accelerator. GoBiz and the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank described a five-year, roughly $26 million request to staff and administer the accelerator and manage Proposition 4 and AB 1207 funds for transmission financing. Members asked about state liability, ownership of financed lines, FERC revenue requirements, and whether the program would help underserved regions and offshore wind development. Staff explained that the accelerator would only consider projects already identified through CAISO’s competitive transmission planning process, and that state financing would be a small portion of large projects intended to lower overall costs to ratepayers. The LAO said it had no specific concerns but urged the Legislature to ensure the final language matches its intent. The committee also heard Issue 3 on petroleum market oversight. The CEC and its Division of Petroleum Market Oversight requested additional positions and funding to implement ABX2-1 and continue work on supply stabilization, refinery monitoring, and transportation fuels analysis. Members questioned why the work was funded through the Energy Resources Programs Account, whether existing staff from the paused price-gouging work could be reassigned, and whether the program had produced evidence of price gouging or improved supply conditions. CEC and Finance said the new positions are needed because the workload has expanded, while some existing staff remain on related analysis and reporting duties. The discussion ended without a vote in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so the legislature, of course, plays a key role in oversight.
• And these are all areas the legislature could explore.
• And so what are you anticipating that the Legislature should be doing?
• What do you think the Legislature should focus on right now?
• Given this situation, the Legislature must explore options. Newly uninsured.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee held an informational hearing on the impact of federal H.R. 1 and related state budget actions on California’s health care system. Opening remarks framed the federal changes as a major threat to Medi-Cal, Covered California, hospitals, clinics, and the broader safety net, with warnings that millions could lose coverage and that costs would shift to providers, counties, and consumers. Testimony from the California Health Care Foundation and the Legislative Analyst’s Office focused on implementation challenges, the administrative burden of work requirements and more frequent renewals, the loss of federal funding, and the need for California to consider long-term structural changes to Medi-Cal, county safety-net programs, and cost containment. A Covered California enrollee, Chas Franklin, described sharply rising premiums for his family after losing subsidies, illustrating the personal impact of federal policy changes. Committee members raised concerns about whether premium increases were driven by H.R. 1 or insurer pricing, the cost of rebuilding county-based indigent care systems, and the need to account for the cost of inaction. Dr. Hernandez pointed to pre-ACA models such as Healthy San Francisco as examples of coordinated local safety-net care, while also emphasizing the importance of primary care, data interoperability, and the Office of Health Care Affordability in reducing waste and improving access. Department of Health Care Services officials then outlined the state’s implementation plan for H.R. 1, including work requirements, six-month redeterminations, reduced retroactive coverage, cost-sharing, and immigration-related eligibility changes. They said the department would try to automate eligibility checks, expand outreach, and train counties and partners, but estimated up to 2 million Californians could lose coverage over time. Covered California reported that the expiration of enhanced federal premium tax credits and new federal marketplace rules are already raising costs and reducing enrollment, with an estimated 400,000 enrollees at risk of dropping coverage. County, hospital, and safety-net representatives warned that coverage losses will increase uncompensated care and strain local systems, while one coalition proposed a temporary state-funded coverage option as a bridge if full-scope Medi-Cal cannot be maintained. The hearing concluded with a policy analyst urging stakeholder engagement, immigrant protections, and new state revenue options to preserve coverage and offset federal cuts.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Legislature could instead make a funding decision as part of next year's process, or the Legislature
• We've been in partnership with the Legislature for the last six years.
• The Legislature recognized this when the exemption was granted.
• The Legislature is in a little bit of a tough position, receiving this request now.
• was in the January budget, and if the Legislature does approve this proposed language, And if the Legislature

Summary: The subcommittee first heard an informational presentation on the May Revision’s proposed reorganization of the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency into separate housing-focused and consumer/business-focused entities. Administration officials said the split would improve oversight, streamline decision-making, and create a dedicated California Housing and Homelessness Agency with a new housing development and finance committee. The Department of Finance said funding was needed in 2025-26 to begin implementation, while the LAO recommended rejecting the proposal without prejudice because the Little Hoover Commission review was still pending and the plan would require ongoing General Fund costs. Members raised concerns about the timing, the lack of alignment with the budget process, and whether the reorganization would improve accountability for homelessness spending; several public witnesses supported the concept but stressed it could not substitute for new housing and homelessness dollars. The committee then took up the Department of Veterans Affairs. CalVet requested funding for phase three of its electronic health care record project and a trailer bill to preserve authority for federal background checks, but the May Revision withdrew requests for deferred maintenance and additional administrative support. The LAO noted deferred maintenance can prevent larger future costs, and the chair criticized the withdrawal of less than $1 million for veterans’ homes as short-sighted given existing repair needs. No vote was taken. Next, the Department of Housing and Community Development presented its budget. HCD said the May Revision provides no new affordable housing or homelessness funding, but does retain existing rounds of funding and proposes a $31.7 million reversion from undersubscribed housing programs. Members from both parties expressed concern about zeroing out ongoing housing and homelessness investments, especially for LIHTC, the Multifamily Housing Program, and HAP. HCD also defended its homelessness accountability and compliance work, saying the unit includes about 30 program staff and six attorneys, with three additional attorneys requested mainly to handle public records and litigation workload. Public commenters largely opposed the lack of new funding and urged continued support for housing and homelessness programs, while some supported the reorganization and accountability efforts. Finally, the committee heard Go-Biz proposals. The administration requested authority to increase funding for a federal trade program match if needed, plus reappropriations for administrative funds tied to the Containerized Ports Interoperability Grant Program, zero-emission vehicle operations, and the Women’s Business Center Enhancement Program. It also proposed withdrawing the Cal Competes grant request and reverting remaining funds from the Performing Arts Equitable Payroll Fund. The LAO said Cal Competes is generally effective but could be cut as a budget solution, while warning that the performing arts fund was close to awards and should be considered carefully. Members objected to pulling back committed funds for performing arts organizations and questioned why the state would withdraw support after applications had already been submitted.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we wrote the analysis in anticipation that the Legislature would receive the master plan in late
• So we're recommending that the Legislature work with the administration.
• The Legislature requested a report in 2016 and 2019.
• of report so that the Legislature has... ...of all the providers across the state.
• I think the legislature needs to have a very big role in that.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held a hearing on developmental services, rehabilitation, and related supports, with no votes taken. The first major topic was the Master Plan for Developmental Services. Administration officials described a year-long, community-driven process that included a steering committee, work groups, and statewide engagement sessions, and said the final draft would be released that Friday with about 170 recommendations. The Department of Developmental Services said the plan would inform future work, but did not offer a detailed implementation roadmap. The LAO said the plan contains significant policy and budget implications, may require statutory changes, and needs further analysis to turn recommendations into actionable proposals. Advocates and regional center representatives urged the Legislature and administration to avoid letting the plan sit on a shelf, called for prioritization and ongoing stakeholder oversight, and emphasized the need to address equity, workforce, service coordination, and cross-system collaboration. The chair said he wanted to work with the LAO on trailer bill language and future reporting to create a clearer path forward. The second topic was the Office of Employment First and competitive integrated employment. Administration witnesses said California has ended subminimum wage under SB 639, but that moving people into competitive integrated employment remains a major priority. They described existing efforts such as DDS’s coordinated career pathways pilot, paid internships, job development services, benefits counseling, and DOR’s career counseling and referral services, along with pilot projects in San Diego and Orange County. The State Council on Developmental Disabilities and advocates argued that employment outcomes have remained stuck at roughly 15% and that a dedicated Employment First Office is needed to coordinate across agencies, align goals, and improve outcomes. The LAO recommended regular legislative oversight on people transitioning out of subminimum wage and asked for technical assistance on coordinated career pathways. The chair criticized the administration’s decision to effectively eliminate funding for the office, requested a detailed implementation timeline and quarterly transition reports, and said the committee would continue pressing for the office to be implemented. The final issue was respite services, utilization trends, and access. DDS reported that in-home respite use and spending have risen sharply over several years, with about 150,000 people using respite in 2023-24 and expenditures reaching about $1 billion. Officials said access depends on families knowing the service exists, service coordinators identifying need, and having enough providers, especially in rural and linguistically diverse communities. The San Diego Regional Center said utilization generally mirrors statewide trends, but access is stronger in some areas, such as Imperial County, where families often prefer family-directed or agency-supported models that allow them to hire trusted workers. Committee members emphasized the importance of respite for family health and caregiver well-being, asked whether service coordinators are asking practical questions about sleep and stress, and discussed the need for better identification of complex behavioral and medical needs. DDS said a standardized family support tool and updated IPP process are intended to improve consistency, transparency, and person-centered assessment for respite and related services.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> limit we get the legislature involved. limit we get the legislature involved.
• The power of the of the legislature.
• </c><00:21:17.840><c> legislative</c> legislature rests with the legislative legislature rests with the
• </c> when the legislature is not in session. when the legislature is not in session.
• </c><00:25:46.799><c> is</c> interim years when the legislature is interim years when the legislature

Committee: Joint Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• We urge the Legislature to move swiftly in three key areas.
• And then in 1991, the state Legislature realigned programs and created...
• We echo the call for the Legislature to pursue progressive revenue solutions.
• We urge the legislature to protect Medi-Cal for all.
• We urge the legislature to protect Medi-Cal for all.

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services heard an overview of the expected California budget and program impacts from H.R. 1, including changes to Medi-Cal and CalFresh eligibility, redeterminations, work requirements, immigration-related coverage rules, retroactive coverage limits, and reductions in federal matching for certain services and provider financing mechanisms. DHCS and CDSS described implementation plans focused on automation, data matching, clearer communications, county training, and outreach, while noting that many federal details are still pending. The Legislative Analyst’s Office also reviewed how H.R. 1 could increase pressure on county indigent care systems, explaining the history of county responsibility under Section 17000, 1991 realignment, and AB 85, and warning that counties may face large increases in uninsured residents seeking care without corresponding funding flexibility. An independent policy expert urged consideration of a more standardized statewide approach to indigent care and raised questions about governance, benefits, and financing. Department witnesses estimated substantial coverage losses and fiscal effects: DHCS projected major Medi-Cal disenrollment tied to work requirements, six-month renewals, narrowed immigrant eligibility, and reduced retroactive coverage, while CDSS estimated large CalFresh benefit losses and a significant increase in administrative workload and payment accuracy pressure. Members questioned how exemptions would work for older adults, people experiencing homelessness, undocumented residents, and cash workers, and asked about the effect on the CalFresh Minimum Nutrition Benefit Pilot and on county administrative funding. Officials said they would use available data and self-attestation where possible, but acknowledged that many cases would require manual screening and that the county workload estimates remain in dispute. They also said the state is still evaluating the impact of H.R. 1 on provider taxes and state-directed payments, which could create additional budget pressure. County representatives from Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Tulare, and San Bernardino described major local consequences if H.R. 1 is implemented as written. They warned of higher uninsured rates, more strain on emergency rooms and public hospitals, increased homelessness and food insecurity, and a likely need to rebuild or expand county indigent care programs that were largely scaled back after the ACA. Counties said they are already freezing hiring, cutting positions, reducing overtime, deferring spending, and launching outreach and coordination efforts with managed care plans and community partners, but argued that these steps are not enough without additional state support. Several counties backed the California County Welfare Directors Association’s request for $373 million in General Fund support for eligibility work and asked for a CalFresh match waiver to soften the new county share of administrative costs; Los Angeles and Santa Clara also emphasized that their local revenue measures would not close the projected gaps. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.