Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:26:17.039><c> And</c> championship in program history. And championship in program history.
• </c><00:40:34.960><c> in</c> shall administer the damn program in shall administer the damn program in
• </c> for this program. for this program.
• </c> &gt;&gt; but you're right the athletic programs &gt;&gt; but you're right the athletic programs
• So the athletic programs that.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• My mother was a nurse at Tripler.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard SB 1231, which would repeal the Parentage Uniform Act of 1973 and update Hawaii’s parentage laws, including parts of the Uniform Parentage Act of 2017. Supporters said the current statutes are outdated and do not adequately address assisted reproduction, surrogacy, and modern family formation. The Attorney General’s office supported the bill with technical amendments, including conforming changes to the Probate Code and child support provisions, and several testifiers urged passage as a needed modernization of the law. A major point of disagreement was Part 10, which concerns donor anonymity. Some supporters, including members of the task force, the Uniform Law Commission, fertility and family law practitioners, and LGBTQ+ advocates, backed the bill as written or said it should move forward even if Part 10 is removed. Others, including donor-conceived adults, parents, and advocacy groups, opposed Part 10 and urged the committee to adopt the 2024 version of Article 9 or delete Part 10 entirely, arguing that anonymous donation harms donor-conceived people’s access to genetic, medical, and identity information and that anonymity is not realistic in the DNA-testing era. One task force member and attorney said she supported the bill but preferred removing Part 10 if necessary to pass the rest. The hearing included extensive public testimony both in support and opposition, with many individuals describing personal experiences with adoption, IVF, surrogacy, and donor conception. No committee vote or final action on the bill was taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Nurses is a huge number of our licenses. Nearly everyone graduates in May.

Committee: House Executive Departments and Administration

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• He added that DEES has a Safe Tank Program for residential low-income eligible owners of tank systems
• for residential to to assist program for residential to to assist low-income<02:20:06.399><c> eligible
• I think that the program, in a sense, is in its infancy, and I think it needs some time so we can get
• Um, and from there her breeding program started, and it’s varied from that time frame.
• program started and it's varied from that<04:37:58.480><c> time</c><04:37:58.719><c> frame.

Committee: House Environment and Agriculture

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee held an open work session on HB 1766-FN, a bill addressing cruelty to livestock, and focused on proposed language changes from the Department of Agriculture. Assistant State Veterinarian Nathan Harvey, speaking for the commissioner, explained concerns about the term “imminent danger,” arguing that the bill should allow seizure based on probable cause when an animal is starving or has a life-threatening condition, rather than tying action too closely to whether the owner is arrested. The department also proposed language on “extreme suffering” that would require euthanasia if the cost of treatment would exceed the allowable reimbursement amount under AGR rules, though members immediately raised concerns about using a dollar limit to require euthanasia. The department further suggested clarifying who may participate in investigations by allowing the state veterinarian or a designate, and noted that the current draft could be read too narrowly. Members discussed the $5,000 emergency care cap in the rules, with Josh Marshall confirming it is an aggregate emergency veterinary care limit. Several legislators said they were uncomfortable changing the bill from “may” to “shall” euthanize, arguing that treatment costs vary widely by species and condition and that a fixed monetary threshold could be too rigid. Representative Bixby also raised a separate concern that the bill’s language may be broader than intended and could apply to all animals rather than livestock only. The department agreed the bill should be limited to livestock and suggested using existing statutory definitions or adding a new section to make that clear. The discussion also turned to humane societies and other organizations that might investigate complaints or board seized animals. A representative from a humane organization said the groups with expertise in care often also have expertise useful to investigations, and that removing them entirely could be impractical because only a few facilities in the state can provide boarding. Members and witnesses explored alternative language that would allow for-profit and nonprofit organizations to participate in either the investigation or the care of livestock, but not both, to avoid conflicts of interest while preserving needed expertise. No votes were taken; the work session ended with agreement to consult the Office of Legislative Services and the department to refine the bill before the next meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• You want to make sure that the schools that do choose that, that you've got this program here, but jamming
• here,</c><01:42:25.280><c> but</c><01:42:25.440><c> but</c><01:42:25.920><c> jamming</c> got this program
• here, but but jamming got this program here, but but jamming this<01:42:26.480><c> down</c><01:42:26.639
• campus received approximately $200,000 in one-time funding to cover the costs of implementing the program
• or when they were um doing a program or when they were um doing other<03:49:58.720><c> things</c><03

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Just programs that are deemed to provide cost-effective energy savings are programs that also provide
• The program administrators then design their programs to reach the goals over a four-year period.
• Program overlap can occur when a third-party program is offered by multiple PAs or a program offering
• We need these programs.
• So it's not program by program, but it's across that portfolio.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• These four programs are first, $37.6 million for the State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program,
• These programs are the year-round certified farmers' market program for grants to support year-round
• , and these are established programs; they're existing programs with a good track record.
• 20 in the GGRF programs.
• 20 in the GGRF programs.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee heard the administration’s spending plan for Proposition 4’s climate smart agriculture and biodiversity chapters, along with related trailer bill language. CDFA outlined proposed funding for existing programs such as SWEEP, Healthy Soils, Urban Agriculture, and invasive species work, plus new or phased-in programs including year-round and mobile farmers’ markets, tribal food sovereignty, and regional farm equipment sharing. The Department of Conservation described funding for the California Farmland Conservancy Program and Working Lands and Riparian Corridors Program, while the Department of Finance and LAO discussed pending allocations and generally found the overall approach reasonable, though LAO suggested the Legislature may want more statutory guidance and reporting, especially for new programs. Members focused on implementation details, equity, and accountability. Questions covered how programs would serve vulnerable and disadvantaged communities, whether new solicitations would be reopened for previously oversubscribed grants, how outcomes are tracked, and how to structure guidance for new programs such as farm equipment sharing. The chair emphasized that the Legislature wants clearer direction on program design and noted that AB 2313 should guide implementation of the regional farm equipment sharing allocation. The committee also discussed the administration’s request to directly appropriate bond funds to departments and to exempt bond program guidelines from the Administrative Procedures Act; LAO supported the APA exemption with possible legislative guardrails for public notice and comment. The committee then heard on the farm-to-school proposal, with CDFA requesting $24.9 million General Fund for incubator grants, technical assistance, and network support. CDFA said the program has reached nearly half of California schoolchildren and has shown strong demand and positive evaluation results. LAO supported the core program but recommended rejecting the $3 million technical assistance component as too broad and suggested the Legislature consider using Proposition 98 for some of the funding. Members debated that point, with some expressing concern about using General Fund dollars for a new discretionary request during a tight budget year. The biodiversity and nature-based solutions chapter included funding for the Wildlife Conservation Board, state conservancies, and tribal nature-based solutions. WCB described major recent investments and proposed projects tied to 30 by 30, habitat restoration, tribal partnerships, and public access. Members raised concerns about long-term stewardship, the size of the WCB allocation, and whether the Legislature should receive more detail on how funds will be distributed. The committee also heard requests for Bolsa Chica wetlands maintenance and Rincon Island decommissioning funding from the State Lands Commission, with members questioning long-term liability, remediation costs, and the role of private oil operators. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended with public comment from stakeholders largely supporting the APA exemption, farm-to-school funding, biodiversity investments, and related conservation programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is budgeted by program administrators and spent across a portfolio of programs, ranging from appliance
• The program administrators then design their programs to reach the goals over a four-year period.
• Program overlap can occur when a third-party program is offered by multiple PAs or a program offering
• We need these programs.
• So it's not program by program, but it's across that portfolio.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Those programs are the Tribal Food Sovereignty Program.
• Conservation programs, including the California Farmland Conservancy Program, which is one of the programs
• Of the CDA program, you know, the existing school nutrition funding programs.
• Programs, but those federal programs are distinct from these funds.
• 20 in the GDRF programs.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have other demand response programs, base interruptible program, air conditioning cycling program,
• Programs.
• , take the best of both of the programs, create a new program.
• of the program.
• program costs.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Program.
• And then I want to touch on the last program, which is a newer program.
• there is one program.
• Do not touch school meal programs. Do not touch the CalFresh program.
• Like other programs, The CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT program, like other programs you've heard about

Summary: The joint oversight hearing focused on food insecurity in California and how state and federal nutrition programs, agricultural production, and food distribution systems intersect. Assemblymembers emphasized that many Californians, including farmworkers, seniors, children, and communities of color, remain food insecure despite California’s agricultural abundance. Panelists and members discussed CalFresh, WIC, school meals, Sun Bucks, food banks, and the impact of federal policy changes, including possible nutrition cuts, tariffs, and immigration enforcement, on access to food and the agricultural workforce. Secretary Karen Ross described CDFA programs aimed at improving access to fresh food and supporting local agriculture, including the senior farmers’ market program, California Nutrition Incentive Program, Healthy Refrigeration Grant Program, Community Food Hubs, Farm to School, urban agriculture, and a proposed tribal food sovereignty program. She said these efforts help connect local producers to consumers, expand healthy food access, and build infrastructure such as refrigeration, mobile markets, and aggregation hubs. Department of Social Services Deputy Director Alexis Fernandez Garcia outlined CalFresh, CFAP, Sun Bucks, CACFP, emergency food programs, and tribal nutrition assistance, noting that CalFresh and related programs significantly reduce poverty and food insecurity, but participation gaps remain for non-English speakers, some Asian American communities, and undocumented households. PPIC researcher Tess Thorman presented data showing that 13% of California households experienced food insecurity in 2023, with higher rates among households with children and Latino, Black, and other households. She said nutrition programs reduce poverty and food hardship, but federal rules, income thresholds, immigration restrictions, and high living costs limit their reach. Members asked about simplifying applications, improving call center access, increasing outreach in multiple languages, and adjusting benefits for inflation. Officials said the state has used available federal options to streamline enrollment, improve customer service, and target outreach, but many core rules and benefit levels are set federally. The second panel shifted to food production and market access. A farmer, a UC food systems leader, and a produce distributor described efforts to connect small and medium farms with food banks, schools, universities, and Medi-Cal food-as-medicine programs. They highlighted programs such as Farms Together, the USDA Southwest Regional Food Business Center, Farm to School, food hubs, and climate-smart infrastructure grants as ways to create stable markets for local growers while improving food access. Speakers also raised concerns about land tenure, consolidation, regulatory burdens, labor constraints, and the loss of federal funding, and members discussed whether state investments and Prop. 4 funds could help sustain and expand these efforts.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have other demand response programs: base interruptible program, air conditioning cycling program,
• of both of the programs, create a new program.
• But does that mean all of those programs are mandatory programs?
• We’re here on a subject of solar programs. This is a solar program.
• of the program.

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:

• It's a beloved program. It's a beloved program in my district.
• And the AgSTEP program is a remarkable program.
• Program.
• I ask you to prioritize and invest in the program, the CNIP program.
• I ask you to prioritize and invest in the program, the CNIP program.

Summary: The meeting began with a lengthy opening discussion with Secretary Karen Ross of the Department of Food and Agriculture, who reviewed the department’s proposed budget, emphasized California agriculture’s record output, and highlighted major priorities including climate-smart agriculture, groundwater management, local food systems, farm-to-school, food hubs, invasive pest prevention, bird flu response, and food safety. She also warned about federal budget cuts, especially at USDA and FDA, and discussed market access challenges abroad, rising input costs, labor shortages, and the need for automation and workforce training. Members raised questions about the future of Farm to School, the California Nutrition Incentive Program/Market Match, local food procurement, and how to better connect farmers to schools, food banks, and food hubs; Ross said the department had strong evidence the program benefits small farms and Title I schools and noted continued interest in building out local food infrastructure. The committee then took up item one on eliminating vacant positions at the Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Parks and Recreation, and Food and Agriculture. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained that the Governor proposed eliminating 6,000 vacant positions statewide, with the Joint Legislative Budget Committee previously rejecting 650 of them, including 174 in these three departments. LAO and Finance said the vacancies represented a source of budget flexibility, but warned that eliminating them could create program impacts; LAO recommended retaining the special-funded positions at Fish and Wildlife and Food and Agriculture, while weighing the General Fund positions against other priorities. Finance argued the reductions were part of a broader budget-resiliency exercise and that departments could reclassify or shift vacancies to higher priorities. Members focused heavily on the practical impacts of the cuts. Assemblymember Petrie-Norris argued that Fish and Wildlife staffing shortages were already slowing permits needed for housing, clean energy, water, and transportation projects, and questioned the value of saving relatively small amounts of money. Fish and Wildlife officials said the department had prioritized mission-critical work and could still meet permitting obligations, but acknowledged limited-term staffing constraints. State Parks said the proposed ranger and maintenance cuts would not have immediate effects but could slow maintenance and eventually worsen deferred maintenance. Food and Agriculture said some of the eliminated positions supported early pest detection and eradication, but that the department believed it could still meet its mandate and reclassify positions if needed. The chair and several members signaled concern about the Fish and Wildlife and Parks cuts, while also noting the broader need for budget reductions. The committee then moved to item six, hearing an overview from the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. Staff described the office’s role in CEQA implementation and said the budget requests were baseline funding to maintain existing functions, including IT services and administrative/legislative support, rather than new programs. The chair asked the presenters to move quickly through background material so the committee could get to questions, and the item began with no votes taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• and our vpk Summer Bridge program.
• Both of these programs are new programs that were implemented for the first time in fiscal year. 24 25
• our S our vpk program first and foremost is our school readiness plus program.
• So what is the average co pay increase from the SR program to the SR plus program?
• program.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the next program we'll talk about is the North Star Promise program.
• year of the program.
• program.
• The next program I'd like to talk about is a pilot program, a temporary funded program, and that's the
• </c><01:26:27.960><c> program</c> our direct admissions programs program our direct admissions programs

Committee: Senate Higher Education

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The first program I'll talk about is the MFIP program.
• The first program I'll talk about is the MFIP program.
• The first program I'll talk about is the MFIP program.
• </c><00:32:34.399><c> that</c> program is a federal program that program is a federal program that distributes
• /c> sovereignty program is a program to sovereignty program is a program to improve<00:32:54.039><c>

Committee: House Children and Families Finance and Policy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• or in a woodworking program or a cosmetology program.
• the welding program as a cohort together, at Angola go through that ASC program and the welding program
• or in a woodworking program or a cosmetology program.
• program.
• a program.

Committee: House Administration of Criminal Justice

Keywords: 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a beloved program. It's a beloved program in my district.
• And the AgSTEP program is a remarkable program.
• Program.
• So the fact that the program is an existing program, if we were to...
• programs.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , or DEPA Program, to be used for the Demand-Side Grid Support Program, or DSGS Program, to support any
• , the intention of the CalSHAPE program wasn't for it to be like an indefinite program.
• The CalSHAPE program is a program that utilized the ratepayer funds from the IOUs.
• You know, what are our lessons learned from that program? It's a new program.
• key programs, probably not every program, but key programs, if you really do want to be able to assess

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy heard presentations on six budget-related issues and took no votes; all items were held open for a future hearing. The first item concerned funding for the California Transmission Accelerator Revolving Fund under SB 254 and Proposition 4. GoBiz and IBank requested nearly $26 million over five years and 10 limited-term positions to evaluate and finance eligible transmission projects. The LAO said the proposal was broadly consistent with Prop. 4 but noted many implementation details remain unresolved. Senators questioned how the program would lower ratepayer costs, how funds would be protected, and whether the full requested amount was necessary; the administration said the financing strategy is still being developed and that consultants are needed. The committee then discussed trailer bill language to redirect $22 million in General Fund money from the DEPA program to DSGS for summer 2026, and to use roughly $70 million in CalSHAPE interest for ratepayer relief through ELRP or an equivalent program in 2027-28. CEC and CPUC staff said DSGS and ELRP are reliability tools, not PSPS programs, and explained that DSGS had enrolled over 1,000 MW and was expected to have about $52 million available for 2026. Senators and the LAO raised concerns about ending a successful DSGS program, the complexity of transitioning customers to ELRP, and whether CalSHAPE funds should instead continue school HVAC and plumbing projects. Public commenters largely supported extending CalSHAPE and continuing or expanding DSGS rather than shifting funds to ELRP. The subcommittee also heard on petroleum market oversight under SBX1-2 and ABX2-1. The CEC and its Division of Petroleum Market Oversight requested about $1.67 million and a small permanent staffing increase to implement new inventory, resupply, and market analysis duties. Senators pressed the agencies on gasoline price spikes, refinery maintenance, price gouging, and the status of the transportation fuels transition plan, which staff said would be released in draft form soon. Public testimony supported DPMO’s work and called for continued oversight of gasoline pricing. Finally, the CPUC presented three additional budget proposals: resources to implement AB 1207’s changes to the California climate credit, funding for a study of large electrical loads such as data centers under SB 57, and staffing for AB 825’s regional market participation requirements. The LAO said the AB 1207 request may go beyond the statute and urged the Legislature to decide whether it wants a simpler or more complex climate credit redesign. Senators questioned the cost of the work, the need for ongoing staffing, and how ratepayer interests would be protected. The CPUC said the work is needed to adapt to changing load patterns, electrification, data center growth, and potential regional market participation. Public commenters also supported DPMO funding, CalSHAPE, and DSGS, and some urged the Legislature to keep DSGS at the CEC rather than shift funds to ELRP.

Transcript Highlights:

• That program was established as a statewide program in September of 2021.
• Program, a different program built on that program that you did last year. This is long overdue.
• programs moving forward?
• programs.
• food shelter program.

Keywords: 988, house, all