Transcript Highlights:

• President, I would ask: Is this budget proposal based on a consensus revenue estimate?
• So-called consensus revenue, that begins being developed last December.
• And we try to arrive at a consensus of what revenue will be in the following fiscal year.
• Is it general revenue? Is it coming from another account? And, Mr.
• Use the available revenues that we have today and a projected consensus revenue figure to balance that

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate opened with the Pledge of Allegiance, adopted two commendatory resolutions honoring the Plimpton Historical Society’s Deborah Sampson Day recognition and Megan’s Light’s Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month observance, and suspended Joint Rule 12 to refer several House petitions to committee. The chamber also briefly recognized Diane Talk of the South Shore Regional Emergency Communication Center on her retirement after 30 years of dispatch service. Later, the Senate passed two local bills to enactment: House No. 4006, authorizing Dartmouth to grant an additional all-alcoholic beverages license, and House No. 473, relating to the charter of Westwood. The main business was the Senate Ways and Means presentation of the fiscal year 2027 budget, totaling about $63.3 billion. The chair described the budget as balanced, with no new taxes or tax cuts, based on a consensus revenue estimate of $986 million in growth over FY26 (2.4%), and including about $15.8 billion in federal financial participation and roughly $2.7 billion from the Fair Share surtax. The budget emphasized record local aid, including $1.376 billion in unrestricted general government aid, $7.66 billion for Chapter 70 education aid, increased minimum school aid, higher regional school transportation reimbursement, rural aid, and the revival of the Foundation Budget Review Commission. It also highlighted major investments in MassEducate free community college, food security, housing, and support for vulnerable residents. Members then engaged in extended colloquy on the budget’s major cost drivers and policy choices. Questions focused on debt service, pension and OPEB liabilities, MassHealth caseload and rising per-enrollee costs, child care funding, and program integrity in DTA and other benefit programs. The chair said debt service would be about $2.67 billion, pension payments would be $5.1 billion, OPEB would receive a $150 million payment, and MassHealth enrollment was projected at about 2 million with costs driven by acuity and medical inflation. He also said the budget includes no collective bargaining agreements and no state tax changes. Senators supporting the budget praised its investments in education, local aid, homelessness prevention, public health, libraries, and housing, while minority leaders and others stressed the need for fiscal discipline, transparency, and further work on affordability and municipal support. The Senate also received a House message on House No. 5316, which the House had nonconcurred in, and a conference committee was appointed on the disagreement.

Transcript Highlights:

• revenue from this now.
• is increased revenue from this now.
• the revenue comes from a tax on private insurance.
• For example, there's a revenue limit, and they've been considering reducing that revenue limit.
• We are committed.

Summary: The committee heard a budget oversight hearing on the Department of Health Care Services, focusing first on the overall Medi-Cal budget and a March General Fund loan to cover a current-year shortfall. DHCS said the 2025-26 budget proposal totals $193.4 billion, with Medi-Cal projected at $188.1 billion total funds and $42.1 billion General Fund, driven by higher enrollment, pharmacy costs, managed care growth, and costs tied to eligibility expansions and the COVID-era redetermination unwinding. The department said the $3.44 billion loan was needed to manage cash flow and ensure timely payments to providers and plans, while the LAO noted Medi-Cal’s cash-basis budgeting creates volatility and that more detailed estimates would come with the May Revision. Members discussed federal Medicaid threats, the need for transparency on cost drivers, and the impact of pharmacy spending, long-term care, and immigration-related coverage expansions. The second major topic was family health programs, including California Children’s Services, the continuous coverage unwinding, and opioid settlement fund spending. DHCS described CCS funding methodology changes, ongoing county stakeholder work, and a delayed rollout of CCS monitoring and oversight until July 1, 2025, while county representatives and advocates argued the program is underfunded and asked for more technical assistance and a delay in implementation. On the unwinding, the department explained that federal redetermination flexibilities helped maintain coverage after the pandemic, but the Governor’s budget proposes ending them at the end of June 2025; advocates urged making the flexibilities permanent to avoid coverage losses. For opioid settlement funds, DHCS and Finance said the budget increases funding for naloxone distribution while reducing other harm-reduction spending based on updated settlement revenues, prompting criticism from members and public commenters who argued the change would weaken effective harm-reduction programs. The hearing also included an update on Proposition 35 implementation. DHCS said the voter-approved measure continuously appropriates MCO tax revenues beginning in 2025, with up to $4.6 billion annually available for specified Medi-Cal and provider investments in 2025 and 2026, but implementation depends on consultation with the required stakeholder advisory committee. The department and LAO noted uncertainty about future federal rules affecting the MCO tax after 2026. Public testimony largely supported maintaining Medi-Cal expansions, protecting immigrant coverage, preserving harm-reduction funding, and increasing support for community health workers, pediatric dental care, and CCS county administration. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Recommendations maintain 2425 general revenue.
• Item 4 provides an overview of all non-formula general revenue funding.
• The institution has requested general revenue to continue the program.
• Page 25 through 27 shows the changes in strategy for general revenue funds.
• So our commitment remains focused on transforming lives.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We face revenue volatility.
• Thank you. costs if revenues fall short.
• So, a 4% swing in revenue is worth about $9 billion.
• So a 4% swing in revenue is worth about $9 billion.
• So we're looking at how those commitments are made and want to make sure that those commitments get honored

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held its first hearing of the year on Proposition 98, focusing on the Governor’s budget estimates for the three-year budget window, the Public School System Stabilization Account (PSSA), and repayment of education deferrals. The Department of Finance said the minimum guarantee would rise by about $21.7 billion over the 2025 Budget Act, with increases in each year, full repayment of the existing settle-up obligation in 2024-25, a new $5.6 billion settle-up obligation proposed for 2025-26, and a higher guarantee in 2026-27. Finance also noted revised downward estimates for transitional kindergarten attendance and Los Angeles County property tax reimbursements, and said community colleges would be funded above the split because of enrollment growth. The Legislative Analyst’s Office emphasized fiscal risk and volatility, warning that recent revenue gains are tied heavily to the stock market and tech sector and could reverse quickly. The LAO argued the Governor’s proposed $5.6 billion delay shifts risk into future years and recommended instead fully funding the current estimate, making a larger reserve deposit, considering advance payments or pension-related uses, and finding additional non-Prop 98 solutions to reduce the state’s structural deficit. On the reserve and deferral items, Finance described revised PSSA deposits and withdrawals that would leave about $4.1 billion in the reserve by 2026-27, and both Finance and the LAO supported paying off the remaining LCFF and SCFF deferrals as good fiscal practice. Committee members questioned the size of the settle-up amount, the degree of revenue volatility, the use of the reserve, and the ongoing K-12/community college split. Finance said the proposal is meant to avoid overappropriation if revenues fall, while the LAO said a buffer of roughly $3.5 billion would address typical forecasting risk. Public commenters, including school boards, county offices of education, teachers, and advocacy groups, largely opposed the $5.6 billion withholding or settle-up delay, calling it a manipulation of Prop. 98 and urging full funding and more stable revenue solutions. Several speakers also urged dedicated funding for students experiencing homelessness. The hearing ended with no vote, and the chair announced that broader program discussions would occur in later hearings.

Transcript Highlights:

• Or the revenues?
• UL revenue component. Yes. UL revenue component. Yes.
• >> Or the revenues?
• loss of revenues and such? loss of revenues and such?
• uh in in the revenue figures that I see. uh in in the revenue figures that I see.

Keywords: 0:00:02 Call to Order and Roll Call 0:00:30 Approval of Minutes 0:00:49 Information Items 0:01:54 Louisville Arena Authority 0:24:50 Project Rpt from Postsecondary Institutions - MSU 0:26:35 Project Rpt from Finance and Admin. Cabinet 0:37:52 Lease Rpt from Finance and Admin. Cabinet 0:40:13 Rpt from OFM – KIA 0:56:00 Rpt from OFM – EDF Grants 0:58:45 Rpt from OFM – OFM 1:01:46 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The committee first handled routine business, including a roll call, approval of the prior meeting minutes, and a set of informational reports. Those reports covered University of Louisville research equipment purchases, a Kent County school district debt issue for elementary school renovations, the University of Kentucky’s planned use of construction management risk for a new engineering building, APA certification reports for underwriter and bond counsel selection committees, and a KCNA status report on infrastructure upgrades and purchases. The main presentation was an informational update from the Louisville Arena Authority. Board representatives said the arena was created to drive economic development and reported about $1.4 billion in economic impact from 2010 to 2013. They explained the authority’s financial structure, including arena operating revenues, TIF revenues, debt service, and a long-term capital plan for major repairs and replacements. Members questioned the low net revenue figures, the long timeline before TIF revenues are projected to exceed debt service, the size of capital expenditure spikes, and the University of Louisville revenue-sharing arrangement. The authority said the $2.42 million annual UL payment is fixed under a 2017 refinancing agreement, while other amounts vary with ticket sales and related revenues. They also said the COVID-era state and Metro funds, combined with authority cash, were used to prepay debt and reduce interest, lowering the debt service schedule. The committee then considered and approved a new capital project for a new HVAC system for the student wellness center pool area. The project, presented by university staff, was approved by the board and required committee action. The committee took a roll call vote, and the project passed unanimously. Finally, Janice Thomas of the state budget office presented two tourism, arts, and heritage cabinet grid resilience projects at Kincaid Lake State Resort Park and Kentucky Down Village State Resort Park. Each project costs $7,834,600 and is funded mostly by a federal grid resilience grant, with the remainder from state utility infrastructure replacement funds and energy policy funds. Staff explained that the projects will move park electrical service ownership and maintenance to regional utilities, allowing the state to exit the infrastructure-management role while continuing to pay utility bills through normal metering. The committee approved the action item by voice vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're also committed to making permanent the proven tax policy of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
• No taxes at all when they were making billions of dollars in revenue.
• Individual taxpayers are the backbone of our federal revenue base.
• As I pointed out earlier, total revenues in 2024 were $4.9 trillion.
• That it's $122 billion per year in lost earnings and productivity and revenue.

Keywords: Commerce, International Trade, Tax Policy, Nominees, Inflation, Middle-class, Trade Practices, Economic Concerns

Summary: The committee convened to discuss various bills and nominees, including the critical nominations of William Kimmett for Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade and Ken Keyes for Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at the Treasury Department. Discussions highlighted the nominees' roles in managing critical trade and tax policies amidst rising economic concerns, particularly focusing on inflation and its impact on American families. Members expressed both support and skepticism, emphasizing the significance of fostering fair trade practices and ensuring tax policies that benefit the middle-class amidst claims of an agenda favoring affluent individuals and corporations.

Transcript Highlights:

• into its component parts: compensatory revenue and English learner revenue.
• <00:01:57.680> Uh revenue and the compensatory aid. Uh revenue and the compensatory aid.
• rather than the entire district revenue rather than the site<00:02:46.000> revenue.
• This language um revenue.
• out compensatory revenue modifications. out compensatory revenue modifications.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• > with<00:26:10.640> less lost significant revenue with less lost significant revenue with
• Council with the Department of Revenue Council with the Department of Revenue Administration.<00
• <00:57:12.400> in unreasonably deprived of revenue in unreasonably deprived of revenue in
• raise some local property tax revenue raise some local property tax revenue for<01:01:20.079>
• Um, the company has also committed to continue that commitment during a period where this legislature

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• On this slide, you see the committed and proposed funding.
• For traffic and revenue, for the purposes of tolling, we focus on annual traffic and revenue projections
• In getting to what we're paying to get to net revenues out of gross revenues, I just want to acknowledge
• net revenues actually follow very closely.
• at a potential revenue level.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• revenue bonds and they will begin to repay those revenue bonds.
• You would argue that we pay our property tax revenues. our income tax revenues, so that we can have fire
• We are projecting the revenue slight amount of revenue could come in as early as 27, increasing in 27
• The revenues are committed to sustaining transit on operations and delivering two major BART capital
• , LCTOP, and SP 125 commitments.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And by committing to sustainable forestry, extending their rotations, committing, you know, more lands
• credit, it does represent a commitment credit, it does represent a commitment to<00:32:10.480>
• And that has a 100-year commitment.
• that revenue.
• . revenue. revenue.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The meeting began with introductions, approval of the March 6 minutes as amended to add an attendee list, and a brief overview of the day’s agenda. The committee heard two presentations from carbon project developers, with the first from Dylan Jenkins of Finite Carbon. He described Finite Carbon’s work in improved forest management projects, its role in developing carbon methodologies and protocols, and its experience with projects in New England, Appalachia, Alaska, and Canada. He also outlined the difference between compliance and voluntary carbon markets, the role of registries and intermediaries, and the types of buyers in the market, including large corporate buyers and long-term off-take partners. A major focus of the presentation was how forest carbon projects are structured and how credits are monetized. Jenkins distinguished between removals and reductions, explaining that removals come from new forest growth while reductions are tied more closely to baseline assumptions and standing stock. He said improved forest management projects can generate both types of credits, and that removals generally command higher prices because they are easier for buyers to understand and verify. He also emphasized that carbon project commercialization can occur before, during, or after credit issuance, and that landowners may be paid through a variety of structures, including leases, advance fees, per-unit payments, or off-take agreements. Jenkins then addressed the committee’s tax-related questions, saying House Bill 123 appeared intended to treat carbon credit sales similarly to timber sales for local tax purposes. He argued that carbon credits are a forest product and that taxing them can be reasonable in principle, but he stressed that lawmakers should distinguish between commoditization and commercialization when deciding what event to tax. He noted that credits may be created but never sold, and that in some programs landowners retain timber and carbon rights while in others the developer has deeper control over those rights. In response to questions, he said the industry uses protocols, verification, and third-party oversight to address baseline and quality concerns, but acknowledged that baseline setting remains a major point of debate in the market.

Transcript Highlights:

• Fund revenue estimates, growth in local property tax revenue, and an adjustment for transitional kindergarten
• The LAO explained to us today that for every dollar of revenue, either above our expected revenue...
• Revenue estimate for 2024-25 until May of 2026.
• ...that we committed to, but the revenue isn't there and the Proposition 98 requirement is lower.
• , not even an increase in revenue.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This account has experienced a revenue shortfall.
• This chart shows account revenue and beginning balances.
• The agency is not asking for any general revenue.
• The agency is not asking for any general revenue.
• **Chair**: Thank you for your commitment once again.

Bills: SB 1

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:21:49.840> sales Minnesota Department of Revenue sales Minnesota Department of Revenue
• Mumm on the revenue estimate. Mr.
• discussion with the Department of Revenue, not with this committee.
• The commissioner of Revenue.
• You can see that the revenue estimate is a large one.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We need revenue creation.
• We need revenue creations.
• revenue creation.
• Health Services Fund revenues.
• We are committed to ensure...

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee first heard May Revision items for child support, child care, and related human services. The Department of Child Support Services described two technical adjustments, which the LAO said raised no concerns. The Department of Social Services then walked through child care proposals, including a shift in how federal and Proposition 64 funding reductions would be absorbed, a 2.01% COLA, disaster-related child care infrastructure grants, an increase in in-contract administrative support costs for alternative payment agencies, reversion of prospective-pay implementation funding after a federal rule change, a one-time allocation to cover the first quarter of Cost of Care Plus payments in the next fiscal year, reappropriation for existing infrastructure grant closeout work, and estimates of unspent child care funds. The department also outlined trailer bill language on a single rate structure, site safety and emergency procedures, CalWORKs child care data sharing, and child care oversight. The LAO recommended that the Legislature seek more justification for shifting reductions from General Child Care to the Alternative Payment Program, noting that CAP reductions affect more slots and that General Child Care has had significant unspent funds. It supported removing prospective-pay funding, but recommended rejecting the administrative cost shift to a percentage-based rate because it could create future General Fund pressure. It also suggested the Legislature review alignment between the disaster grants and the child care infrastructure program. Senators and members pressed the administration on why the budget would reduce child care slots and COLA percentages while the state still has waitlists and unspent funds, and questioned the need for early funding of Cost of Care Plus payments and the move from a flat administrative amount to a percentage. Public commenters, including providers, advocates, county offices, and infrastructure partners, urged full COLA funding, preservation of child care slots, support for prospective pay, and continued investment in child care access and facilities. After a short recess, the committee moved to Part B on health and heard the Department of State Hospitals. DSH presented a May Revision budget of $3.2 billion and described proposals for a central utility plant replacement at Metropolitan State Hospital, an electronic health record implementation, reduced county bed billing authority due to phased-in LPS bed capacity, limited contract exemption authority for online clinical subscriptions, reversion of prior-year unspent operating funds, and a workforce development proposal shifting some costs to Behavioral Health Services Act funds, including support for an additional psychiatric training cohort at Napa. The department also outlined IST-related savings and a trailer bill to remove the sunset on the independent placement panel program.

Transcript Highlights:

• That commitment Is real.
• That's a huge commitment to ask for.
• Alvarez, for your thoughtful, committed leadership in this area.
• Growth rate of our revenues.
• We're committed to working with you to increase provider rates.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They're counting on us coming through on our commitment.
• These funds have been committed. They are not unspent and demand exceeds supply.
• Then we have ERAF, the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund.
• So it's It's shrinking the amount of revenues that we're collecting.
• And our fees are capped at 17% of those revenues.

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 so the money was then free to use in the general revenue fund.
• commitments that you had previously made.
• commitments that you had previously made.
• We usually look at that as a percentage of the general revenue.
• Into general revenue, like from the dock stamps this year and from the Indian gaming revenue share this

Summary: The committee met to receive Amy Baker’s presentation on Florida’s long-range financial outlook for fiscal years 2026-27 through 2028-29. Baker said the forecast assumes continued but moderating economic growth, with Florida GDP slowing from recent highs, personal income remaining above average, wages continuing to rise faster than job growth, and population growth eventually slowing as the state approaches 2030 and the baby-boomer cohort fully ages into retirement. She also highlighted weakening housing and real-estate-related revenue, especially documentary stamp collections, along with low consumer sentiment as signs of caution in the outlook. Baker explained that the state’s near-term general revenue picture improved largely because of legislative actions taken in the prior session, including contingency releases, reversions, and other budget adjustments, rather than from major new revenue growth. She said reserves remain strong at nearly $15 billion, or just under 30% of general revenue, with the budget stabilization fund at its constitutional maximum. The main spending pressures identified were critical needs and other high-priority needs, led by a new recurring transfer to the emergency preparedness and response fund and by Medicaid, where rising service costs and medical inflation—especially behavioral analysis costs in managed care—are driving higher expenditures despite lower caseloads and a slightly better federal match. Members questioned the accuracy of the forecast, the Medicaid cost drivers, the treatment of the governor’s emergency fund, federal funding assumptions, and whether recent federal legislation was reflected in the numbers. Baker said the outlook assumes current federal funding paths continue, that the new federal tax/revenue law had not yet been fully incorporated because agencies were still reviewing it, and that the emergency fund line was calculated from recent appropriations without distinguishing specific uses. She also said the vetoed $750 million did not affect the budget stabilization fund because it reverted to unallocated general revenue. No bills were heard, no votes were taken, and the committee adjourned after the presentation and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• So basically, this is a credit against diesel excise tax revenues.
• Did some new revenue source show up?
• You should not tie an ongoing expense with not an ongoing revenue source.
• You should not tie an ongoing expense with not an ongoing revenue source.
• GGRF revenues are always oversubscribed with various climate program demands.

Summary: The meeting began with a budget subcommittee hearing on a proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit trailer bill. Assembly Members Ávila Farías and another member spoke in support, emphasizing union jobs, refinery investments, and the need to decarbonize aviation. The Department of Finance said the Governor’s proposal would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold in California from 2026 to 2036. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the proposal, arguing it is a relatively expensive way to reduce emissions, has uncertain environmental benefits, could significantly reduce transportation revenues, and conflicts with the spirit of voter restrictions on transportation taxes. Committee members questioned whether the credit would mainly benefit out-of-state producers, whether firms would have diesel tax liability to use the credit, and whether the proposal would shift production away from renewable diesel and raise fuel prices. Administration and CARB staff said the credit is intended to support aviation decarbonization, preserve jobs, and help keep California on track toward its 2045 climate goals. LAO and UC Berkeley testimony countered that the policy could mostly subsidize existing technologies, that feedstock supply is limited, and that the net emissions benefit may be small relative to the cost. Members also asked about the effect on local streets and roads, SHOP, and trade corridor funding; Finance estimated a $165 million annual revenue impact would reduce those programs, while LAO said the reductions would mean fewer projects over time. No vote was taken, and the chair said the issue would remain open for further discussion. The committee then moved to a zero-emission vehicle incentive trailer bill proposing a one-time $200 million appropriation to CARB for a new point-of-sale incentive program focused on first-time buyers and leases of new and used light-duty ZEVs. Supporters said the program would help offset the loss of the federal EV tax credit, maintain momentum in California’s ZEV transition, and use a one-to-one match with participating automakers to double the state’s investment. LAO recommended rejection, saying the proposal does not meet the high budget bar this year, lacks enough program detail to evaluate, is unlikely to move sales significantly given the size of the appropriation, and could duplicate existing state and utility programs. Members asked about current incentives across light-, medium-, and heavy-duty sectors, the recent decline in ZEV sales, and whether the program would help lower-income buyers rather than subsidize purchases that would have happened anyway. CARB said the proposal is meant to fill a gap in the light-duty market, where sales fell sharply after the federal credit expired, and noted existing programs for other vehicle classes. The Department of Finance also addressed a separate question about the Motor Vehicle Account, saying a previously planned GGRF transfer was no longer needed because updated forecasts showed the fund had sufficient balances, though LAO said the account still has a structural long-term imbalance. The discussion ended before any vote or action on the ZEV proposal.

Transcript Highlights:

• GGRF revenues vary quite a bit.
• Most of those revenues have been... The revenues have historically been allocated by statute.
• Today's focus is on the permit revenue, GGRF.
• Revenue source. Right.
• There's two bases: it's the farebox revenue, or the revenue generated by the transit agency, as well

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee No. 4 hearing focused on the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and cap-and-trade reauthorization, with members and panelists discussing how to balance climate goals, affordability, and legislative oversight. The chair emphasized the hearing as a broad review of past GGRF spending and future options, while the LAO outlined how GGRF revenues are generated, how variable they have been, and the tradeoffs between continuous appropriations and annual budget control. Two academic panelists, Dr. Kyle Meng and Danny Cullen Ward, argued that cap-and-trade remains an effective climate policy, but stressed that future revenue will depend heavily on market design, allowance allocation, and price levels. They also raised the idea that GGRF could be used more directly for affordability, especially by lowering electricity costs, and for targeted investments in technologies that the market would not otherwise support. Committee members pressed the panelists on where revenues come from, how much has actually been spent, and whether continuous appropriations reduce oversight. CARB staff said more than $33 billion has been generated to date and a little over $11–12 billion has been spent, with the rest committed or in process, and noted that project timelines can be lengthy. Members also asked about ways to lower electricity rates, reduce wildfire-related utility liabilities, and support electrification. The panelists said transportation fuels are the largest source of GGRF revenue, that industrial emitters receive a smaller share of free allowances, and that reducing wildfire liability and investing in grid-scale batteries could help lower costs and speed decarbonization. Public commenters largely urged the Legislature to preserve or expand continuous appropriations for specific climate programs. Speakers supported funding for nature-based solutions, natural and working lands, urban greening, agricultural climate solutions, waste and composting programs, clean transportation, AB 617 community air protection, clean cars, transit, affordable housing near transit, and dairy digesters. Several groups argued these programs are cost-effective, provide public health and affordability benefits, and should receive dedicated shares of GGRF. Others urged reducing free allowances and using more GGRF revenue to directly lower energy costs for households. No votes were taken during the hearing.