Transcript Highlights:

• Big area.
• Big area.
• Big area.
• </c> within the United States so had a big within the United States so had a big part<00:03:37.920><c
• </c> A state program or a government program, um, it's kind of a cat of nine lives, really.

Committee: House Energy Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• First, give a big thank you to Jack and his wife.
• One are structural changes that Congress is working on enacting right now to big programs like Medicaid
• You can see education and workforce, like, like I said, again, student loan programs, uh, big changes
• big rate increases.
• , big thing, right?

Transcript Highlights:

• This, you know, it really reflects and aligns with the programming that we have at Big River Farm.
• This, you know, it really reflects and aligns with the programming that we have at Big River Farms.
• Well, they've had access to the program for three years and evidently haven't made big inroads in utilizing
• Well, they've had access to the program for three years and evidently haven't made big inroads in utilizing
• Chair Anderson: Well, they've had access to the program for three years and evidently haven't made big

Transcript Highlights:

• A big part of the reason for this hearing is to be able to tell the story of the success of the programs
• A big part of the reason for this hearing is to be able to tell the story of the success of the programs
• I think the other big thing is that our programs are always so oversubscribed, and so...
• I think the other big thing is that our programs are always so oversubscribed, and so we've started to
• So something like the farmer program has been very beneficial for both big and small operations.

Transcript Highlights:

• And it's a process that works well for the tax credit program, the HCD programs, and other local government
• funding programs.
• for this program.
• Support for this program.
• And so this is another big point.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several housing-related proposals and policy ideas. One speaker urged changes to the welfare property tax exemption for affordable housing, arguing that annual income recertifications are outdated and burdensome, and proposing a one-time qualification at move-in, streamlined monitoring through TCAC or HCD, and continued exemption protection for projects that remain in compliance. The witness said rising insurance costs and administrative burdens are hurting cash flow and threatening the viability of affordable housing operations. A major portion of the meeting focused on social housing and the SB 555 study. HCD described its ongoing study process, including public engagement with residents, practitioners, and experts, and noted that California already has many building blocks for social housing, such as public land tools, long-term affordability mechanisms, community land trusts, and tenant protections. Community land trust and housing policy witnesses argued that social housing will require legislative action, expanded public subsidy, tax abatements, public land, and simplified financing, and they emphasized the need to reframe the concept for the “missing middle” and middle-class households to build broader political support. Committee members discussed stigma around “social housing,” the need for a rebrand, and the possibility of a pilot program, especially on excess public land. The committee also heard a proposal for a certified professional plan-check system modeled on Vancouver, Canada. The presenter said California’s permitting delays, inconsistent reviews, and staffing shortages add cost and uncertainty even for streamlined projects, and proposed allowing state-certified private professionals to perform plan checks and inspections under state oversight while local governments retain zoning and enforcement authority. Members discussed local control concerns, infrastructure costs, and the need to reduce delays and uncertainty in the entitlement process. Finally, the committee heard testimony supporting changes to HCD loan disbursement so funds can be used during construction rather than only after completion. Witnesses said this would reduce interest costs, improve feasibility, and could produce additional affordable homes with existing funding. The discussion also referenced AB 1053 as the vehicle for implementing that approach.

Transcript Highlights:

• program.
• So that is a big tab.
• So that is a big tab.
• It was a pilot program.
• It was a pilot program.

Committee: Senate Senate Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs

Summary: The committee heard testimony from Doug Howe of the Mass Taxpayers Foundation and Evan Horowitz of Tufts on the fiscal effects of federal policy changes, especially the OB3 reconciliation law, federal shutdown risks, and Massachusetts budget planning. Howe outlined a framework of direct and indirect federal impacts on the state budget, capital program, and grant funding, emphasizing uncertainty around Medicaid, SNAP, LIHEAP, immigration, NIH funding, and federal tax changes. He said OB3 is expected to reduce federal health spending in Massachusetts by about $3 billion annually when fully implemented, with an estimated 250,000 to 300,000 people losing coverage, and could shift up to $400 million in annual SNAP costs to the state if Massachusetts’ error rate remains above the federal threshold. He also discussed the governor’s proposal to delay conformity with certain federal tax changes and to expand the pass-through entity tax to offset revenue losses. Members questioned the witnesses about SNAP error rates, unemployment insurance, the use of the stabilization fund, and whether the state should adopt a Maryland-style delay in implementing federal tax changes. Howe argued the stabilization fund should not be used to backfill permanent obligations, but could be used for temporary crises, and said the state should improve data-sharing and administrative systems so eligible residents do not lose MassHealth or other benefits because of paperwork barriers. He also said unemployment insurance remains a major problem and that a broader fix should include benefit, tax, and possibly state contributions. Horowitz took a more aggressive view on using reserves for urgent needs like SNAP, argued the state should harden its budget against volatility, and warned that Massachusetts is increasingly exposed to stock-market-driven revenue swings and to a possible income tax ballot question that could significantly reduce revenues. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, and the chair asked both witnesses for follow-up written recommendations, especially on system integration and accountability.

Transcript Highlights:

• education programs or only workforce programs.
• But a big thing is that we want to focus on a two-gen approach and connecting our in-school programs.
• That's not a program cost.
• Now, WIOA is not the Pell Grant program. WIOA is not the student loan program.
• So are you really, really... ...programs and also for our workforce programs.

Committee: All ALC-HOSPITAL, MEDICAID, & DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE

Summary: The committee heard testimony from Nick Moore, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Office of Career and Technical Education, on efforts to better align workforce, education, and human services programs. Moore argued that WIOA, Perkins, and ESSA were designed to function as an integrated talent system, but that federal and state bureaucracy has kept them siloed. He said the Department of Labor and OCTAE are working on more integrated state plan guidance, including a 2026 plan modification timeline, combined Perkins/WIOA plans, and greater use of labor market information to align training with in-demand jobs and Workforce Pell. Moore emphasized reducing overhead, cross-training staff, using common intake and integrated case management, and focusing on the “shadow labor force” of people facing benefit cliffs, child care barriers, or other obstacles to work. He repeatedly urged states to use waivers and flexibility where possible, to consolidate or streamline local workforce structures, and to hold programs accountable through measures such as labor force participation, training-related employment, retention, and cost per successful outcome. Members asked about the balance between flexibility and accountability, the role of employers versus postsecondary institutions, rural “training deserts,” state waivers, and data systems such as Mississippi Spark and Arkansas Launch. Moore said states should use technology and integrated intake to co-enroll eligible participants in multiple programs and better match people to jobs. In response to questions, Moore said some federal rules cannot be waived, but many reporting and administrative requirements can be streamlined, and he encouraged Arkansas to propose ideas for waivers or state-level integration. He also discussed the need for enhanced wage records and state longitudinal data systems to improve workforce planning and economic development. After Moore’s presentation, DHS Secretary Janet Mann and Director Jay Hill gave a brief update on reimbursement rates, saying the department had compiled more than 100 public comments, recommended holding the current rate, and was awaiting executive review; they estimated the process could take 30 to 60 days. The committee then adjourned, noting a later audit presentation scheduled for the afternoon.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's subsidy programs that the state offers, like ACD programs, the federal programs, as well as local
• There's a 9% program and the 4% program.
• and the 9% program.
• , the LIHTC program, which is a federal program.
• the My Access program.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Housing Finance and Affordability held its first hearing of 2025 to examine California’s housing finance system, with opening remarks emphasizing the state’s severe housing shortage, high costs, and the need for practical recommendations to the Legislature and Governor. Co-chairs described the committee as an educational and problem-solving forum focused on financing housing production, first-time homeownership, mixed-income developments, and affordability across the income spectrum. Witnesses from state agencies and the development sector were invited to explain how housing is financed and where the system is breaking down. Panelists from the California Housing Partnership, the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee/State Treasurer’s Office, CalHFA, and Related outlined the “capital stack” used to finance affordable housing, stressing that projects typically rely on multiple public and private sources, including federal and state low-income housing tax credits, tax-exempt bonds, state subsidies, local funds, and rental income. Speakers noted that affordable housing rents generally cannot support full project costs without public subsidy, and that recent federal changes—especially the expansion of the 4% and 9% tax credit programs and the reduction of the bond financing threshold for 4% credits—should allow California to finance substantially more units. CalHFA also described its homeownership programs, including My Home, Dream For All, and disaster-related mortgage assistance, as well as its multifamily lending and bond issuance programs. Several witnesses and committee members emphasized that the system remains too complex, too slow, and underfunded. They pointed to the need for more state funding, a housing bond, a permanent funding source, and better coordination among agencies, while also citing recent streamlining efforts such as AB 434’s SuperNOFA, AB 519’s one-stop-shop working group, and the planned California Housing and Homeless Agency reorganization. Members raised concerns about equity, access, missing-middle housing, gender and racial disparities, and whether current programs adequately serve extremely low-income households and those at risk of homelessness. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing; the discussion ended with committee members and witnesses agreeing that both funding and administrative reform are needed to increase production and improve affordability.

Transcript Highlights:

• In case you're unaware, the federal government has a program that they call the Continuum of Care program
• In case you're unaware, the federal government has a program that they call the continuum of care program
• So I'm a big advocate of pay for performance. I'm a big advocate of pay for performance.
• Big state, small population.
• That is a huge big deal.

Summary: The committee first approved a motion, then heard a lengthy presentation on homelessness policy and behavioral health. Testimony focused on the view that Arkansas should shift toward more data-driven, outcomes-based responses to homelessness, including stronger treatment options for serious mental illness and substance use disorder, better data collection, provider accountability, and possible statewide use of the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic (CCBHC) model. Speakers from Fort Smith, Restore Hope, Our House, and Western Arkansas Counseling described local work, the need for better coordination across providers, and the role of crisis services, ACT teams, and employment support. Members asked about sex offender tracking, the difference between sheltered and unsheltered homelessness, how to scale successful programs statewide, and whether Arkansas could apply for a statewide Continuum of Care or CCBHC planning grant. The discussion also touched on camping bans, civil commitment, and federal funding changes, with several speakers urging the state to pursue the CCBHC planning grant and more transparent reporting systems. After the homelessness discussion, the committee moved through a series of Department of Energy and Board of Nursing rule reviews. DEQ proposed updating the post-closure cleanup threshold for solid waste matters from $50,000 to $2 million to match Act 791 of 2025, and members asked about financial assurance and oversight; the rule was reviewed without objection. The Board of Nursing then presented multiple rule changes tied to recent acts, including adding fees for dialysis patient care technician registration, expanding contact-information requirements, implementing APRN delegation authority to unlicensed workers, clarifying APRN authority for death certificates and durable medical equipment prescriptions, updating certified medication assistant training and insulin-injection authority, and conforming independent-practice rules for clinical nurse specialists. Each rule was reviewed without objection. Near the end of the meeting, Senator Irvin announced that UAMS had completed its NCI designation submission for the Winthrop Rockefeller Cancer Institute, calling it an important milestone for the state. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• services, and research programs.
• Programs, and then one of the big challenges, which is a great challenge to have, I'm sure you're all
• It's been a big part of coming together with some of these you know, certified healthy programs that
• big one that we do.
• So that's a big deal.

Committee: House A&B Health Subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• It is now Big Brothers Big Sisters of New Mexico.
• It is now Big Brothers, Big Sisters of New Mexico.
• Direct them towards Big Brothers and Big Sisters.
• I did participate in the Big Brothers and Big Sisters program in Grant County, in Ohio, and a couple
• I did participate in the Big Brothers, Big Sisters program in Grant County, in Ohio, and a couple of

Transcript Highlights:

• The first is the Medicaid Administration and Management Program.
• That goes to the TECM program. That's a transportation, expansion, congestion mitigation program.
• So, really big swings.
• The Empowering Parents program was brought on there.
• So those are the really big decision-making things.

Committee: Senate Health and Welfare

Transcript Highlights:

• The mandatory programs continue to operate.
• Lines and those programs just aren't big enough once you shrink the pie to pay for the $340 billion in
• When you think about our big workforce and economic development programs, they touch like 5,000 and 6,000
• I mean, that's a big deal.
• Each major federal fund stream the state should assess: the magnitude, how big a program is it?

Committee: House Federal Funding Stabilization Subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• And those are some kind of big questions from a fiscal perspective, as well as a program outcome perspective
• Next, the MDI program—again, this is a potentially big program.
• The MDI program, again, is a potentially big program.
• It's a really big idea for us and provide an opportunity for over 1,700 families in our program.
• It's a really big idea for us and provide an opportunity for over 1,700 families in our program.

Summary: The hearing focused on the governor’s May Revision proposals for transportation, natural resources, climate, and related programs, with the Department of Finance and the LAO presenting competing views on the state’s fiscal condition. Finance said the budget remains balanced over two years, with major climate-bond, water, parks, transportation, DMV, and agriculture proposals, while the LAO argued the state still has a structural deficit and should reject or defer many new discretionary spending items, preserve reserves, and be cautious about ongoing commitments. The LAO specifically questioned the timing and scale of new spending for programs such as Clean California, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, and the Golden Gate Fields acquisition, and urged more clarity on future obligations and revenue scenarios, including for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal for Bay-Delta water quality implementation. Secretary Wade Crowfoot and Finance described it as an enforceable, science-based alternative to a more traditional regulatory approach, with the state’s $25 million request intended to support early implementation, monitoring, habitat restoration, and environmental flows. The LAO countered that the Water Board has not yet adopted the updated Bay-Delta plan, that the proposal may be premature, and that the Legislature should wait for more information on the state’s total funding commitment and the program’s long-term costs. Several members expressed support for the program as a way to reduce conflict and protect water reliability, while others echoed concerns about timing and fiscal exposure. The committee also examined the proposed $125 million Proposition 4 contribution toward acquiring the Golden Gate Fields property for a shoreline park and habitat project. State officials said the acquisition is a time-sensitive, once-in-a-generation opportunity, with an appraised value of $175 million and additional philanthropic and local funding expected to close the gap. Members questioned whether the project had gone through the usual competitive process, whether the site is the best use of scarce park bond dollars, and how public access, habitat, and disadvantaged-community priorities would be protected. The discussion ended without a vote, and the committee moved on to transportation items including Clean California litter abatement, the Games Route Network, homeless encampment coordinators, and DMV modernization and field office proposals, with LAO recommending rejection or delay on several of those requests as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• Tab one, quite a big document.
• It's been a big undertaking.
• But again, we've also funded other projects through our other grant programs, recognizing a big need,
• But again, we've also funded other projects through our other grant programs, recognizing a big need,
• Let's look at the big picture and see if we can't use some of these grant programs to help address some

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

Summary: The committee meeting began with quorum, member introductions, and an overview of the Agriculture, Environment, and General Government budget process. The chair emphasized using the committee resource book and performance metrics to review the base budget and invited members to identify areas of interest for later discussion. Members were also reminded about appearance forms and speaking procedures. Wes Gregory of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services presented on agricultural best management practices and water policy. He said the office had updated all nine commodity BMP manuals and added a manual for small farms and livestock, expanded enrollment by 742 producers covering 677,000 acres, and used GIS and data analysis to target areas such as the Indian River Lagoon. He also described cost-share projects, a new field application for enrollment and inspections, cross-training staff, and a request for $20 million for regional water quality projects. Members asked about BMP enrollment, compliance, and enforcement; Gregory said noncompliance is uncommon and cases can be referred to DEP. Adam Blaylock of DEP reviewed environmental grant programs, saying the state has appropriated $2.9 billion since 2018 for water quality projects, with about 1,100 projects reducing nitrogen and phosphorus statewide. He described the Water Quality Improvement Grant, Indian River Lagoon, Biscayne Bay, Springs, Alternative Water Supply, and Resilient Florida programs, including a planned public dashboard and a water-quality monitoring portal. Senators asked about the application window, award timing, and the high cost of septic-to-sewer conversions, with Blaylock estimating a blended average of about $35,000 per home. Chief Conservation Officer George Worthing of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission then presented on invasive animal control. He discussed prevention, risk screening, law enforcement at ports, public outreach programs such as the Python Challenge, Lionfish Challenge, and Exotic Pet Amnesty Program, and early detection tools like the Ive Got One reporting system. He also described control efforts for Burmese pythons, tegus, and lionfish, along with research and partner coordination. Members asked about the most harmful invasive species and whether iguanas may be taken; Worthing said iguanas are open for take, subject to other laws. The meeting ended after members briefly identified priorities such as water quality, recreation water quality, sustainability, sea level rise, and septic-to-sewer infrastructure, and the committee adjourned without any formal votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Fishing is a big deal in our organization. It's actually a really big deal in New Mexico.
• Fishing is a big deal in our organization. It's actually a really big deal in New Mexico.
• I don't have the answer to this one, but I know it's a big number or a big percentage.
• types of programs.
• Energy efficiency programs.

Committee: House House Energy, Environment & Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• To start us off today, we will be receiving program updates and conducting oversight regarding the programs
• A successful program since 2022.
• the big spike in application.
• , Pathways Program.
• rollout, program coordination.

Summary: The subcommittee heard an informational update from the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development on the state’s Jobs First economic development strategy and related budget requests. Go-Biz described its regional planning process, priority sectors such as ag-tech, space defense, life sciences, and semiconductors, and requests including an extension of the CalCompetes tax credit, support for export promotion, additional film commission staff, innovation and emerging technology capacity, and a California brand campaign. Members questioned the campaign’s purpose, with some supporting efforts to counter misinformation about California and others warning it should not obscure regulatory and business-climate concerns. Go-Biz said the campaign would be nationally focused, could include business attraction efforts, and was intended to complement—not replace—policy work on permitting and workforce development. The item was informational only. The committee then heard from the California Office of the Small Business Advocate on the California RISE program, the Performing Arts Equitable Payroll Fund, and the Technical Assistance Program/Capital Infusion Program. CalOSBA reported that California RISE’s first round awarded $16.9 million to 61 employment social enterprises, which collectively increased revenue, secured contracts, and employed thousands of people facing barriers to work; a second round is being launched with a new administrator and expanded services. For the performing arts payroll fund, the office said all 100 awardees had been paid, but demand far exceeded available funding, and the program was oversubscribed within days. California for the Arts testified that the sector remains fragile after COVID and urged statutory changes to simplify eligibility and stretch dollars further. SBDC representatives described TAP/SIP as a statewide network supporting small businesses, capital access, and disaster recovery, emphasizing their role in underserved communities and the leverage of federal matching funds. Committee members focused on whether these programs produce durable outcomes and reach smaller or disadvantaged businesses. Questions centered on long-term job retention in California RISE, outreach to ethnic and community media in the civic media program, and whether TAP/SIP are accessible to entrepreneurs with limited capital or capacity. CalOSBA and its partners said they rely heavily on local community organizations for outreach, provide one-on-one counseling and training, and are working to collect more longitudinal data. The committee also discussed the film and television tax credit program, for which Go-Biz requested funding for three permanent positions and ongoing program support. Film Commission staff said the expanded program is tracking demographic and career-pathway data, with most productions opting into new diversity provisions, and that a formal report to the Legislature is expected in 2027. The item concluded without a vote, as the hearing was for oversight and budget discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• , stay on the program, and those who aren't are removed.
• our program runs...
• our program runs smoothly.
• These programs exist for a reason.
• So this is a program integrity bill.

Committee: Senate Health and Welfare

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> professions programs and schools. professions programs and schools.
• </c> this this program. this this program.
• . programs. programs.
• , expanding that program.
• programs.

Bills: HB20 , HB276 , HB644 , HB812 , HB816 , HB916 , HB1131 , HB1247 , HB1518 , HB1525 , HB1537 , HB1541 , HB1546 , HB1553 , HB1562 , HB1565 , HB1566 , HB1576 , HB1577 , HB1591 , HB1605 , HB1612 , HB1613 , HB1614 , HB1618 , HB1620 , HB1650 , HB1656 , HB1658 , HB1661 , HB1664 , HB1668 , HB1676 , HB1707 , HB1711 , HB1713 , HB1715 , HB1718 , HB1727 , HB1749 , HB1756 , HB1774 , HB1776 , HB1801 , HB1802 , HB1805 , HB1813 , HB1815 , HB1831 , HB1838 , HB1853 , HB1854 , HB1859 , HB1863 , HB1871 , HB1872 , HB1918 , HB1920 , HB1952 , HB1965 , HB1966 , HB1967 , HB1969 , HB1972 , HB1973 , HB1974 , HB1975 , HB1980 , HB1985 , HB2005 , HB2023 , HB2031 , HB2033 , HB2062 , HB2113 , HB2114 , HB2116 , HB2138 , HB2139 , HB2156 , HB2158 , HB2159 , HB2171 , HB2208 , HB2268 , HB2270 , HB2272 , HB2273 , HB2276 , HB2289 , HB2310 , HB2315 , HB2335 , HB2338 , HB2339 , HB2340 , HB2343 , HB2361 , HB2384 , HB2387 , SB2338 , SB2431 , SB2438 , SB2593 , SB2907 , SB2671 , SB2321 , SB3084 , SB2401 , SB3033 , SB2972 , SB3032 , SB2806 , SB3014 , SB2108 , SB2981 , SB2973 , SB2423 , SB2078 , SB2322 , SB2397 , SB2896 , SB2088 , SB2347 , SB2408 , SB2970 , SB2851 , SB2713 , SB2697 , SB2312 , SB2192 , SB2363 , SB2530 , SB3028 , SB2024 , SB3007 , SB2599 , SB2596 , SB2662 , SB2930 , SB3334 , SB2378 , SB3019 , SB3231 , SB2240 , SB2372 , SB2175 , SB2046 , SB2298 , SB2922 , SB2835 , SB3263 , SB2174 , SB2128 , SB2006 , SB2489 , SB3134 , SB2982 , SB2425 , SB2849 , SB2797 , SB2795 , SB2575 , SB2521 , SB2765 , SB2386 , SB2852 , SB2022 , SB2117 , SB2277 , SB2387 , SB2688 , SB2885 , SB3132 , SB3219 , SB2169 , SB2591 , SB2090 , SB2983 , SB888 , SB3249 , SB2611 , SB2429 , SB2463 , SB3154 , SB3131 , SB3152 , SB3315 , SB2448 , SB2054 , SB2140 , SB2520 , SB2377 , SB2986 , SB2010 , SB2189 , SB2026 , SB3010 , SB2818 , SB2002

Transcript Highlights:

• Program, the Dairy Methane Reduction Program, and the Alternative Manure Management Program have delivered
• Habitat Program, our Organic Transition Program, and the Conservation Agriculture Planning Grant Program
• A big part of the reason for this hearing is to be able to tell the story of the success of the programs
• I think the other big thing is that our programs are always so oversubscribed, and so we've started to
• So something like the farmer program has been very beneficial for both big and small operations.

Summary: The joint informational hearing examined how California agricultural programs have used cap-and-invest funding and what role agriculture should play in future climate investments. Committee chairs framed the issue as balancing climate goals, food production, rural economic vitality, and the fact that agriculture was not specifically funded in the recent cap-and-invest reauthorization. The first panel from CDFA and the Legislative Analyst’s Office described the state’s climate-smart agriculture portfolio, including Healthy Soils, SWEEP, the Dairy Methane Reduction Program, and Alternative Manure Management, and explained that GGRF revenues are now more constrained and may not fully support all tiered programs. LAO emphasized that agriculture is about 8% of California’s emissions, that most ag emissions are outside the cap, and that the Legislature should consider program effectiveness, the role of incentives, and GGRF priorities. CDFA testified that roughly $727 million has been invested in its flagship climate-smart ag programs, producing estimated reductions of 31 million metric tons of CO2e, 1.6 million acre-feet of water savings, and about 4,000 projects. The department said technical assistance is essential because farmers face risk when adopting new practices, and noted new Proposition 4 funding for Healthy Soils, SWEEP, and a regional farm equipment sharing program. University researchers then presented economic and methane-reduction analyses: UC Berkeley’s Dr. Hill described working landscapes as a major economic driver, while UC Davis’ Dr. Kibreab outlined dairy methane reduction pathways, including herd efficiency, digesters, alternative manure management, and emerging feed additives such as 3-NOP and seaweed, arguing that incentive-based programs have helped California move toward its methane goals. A later panel featured sharply different views on dairy digesters. Phoebe Seton argued that digesters worsen air and water quality, encourage manure liquefaction, and are an inefficient use of public funds, while CalCAN’s Brian Schobey and agricultural representatives said programs like AMP, SWEEP, Healthy Soils, FPIP, and the Farmer Program deliver measurable emissions reductions plus co-benefits such as water savings, lower energy costs, and improved air quality. Farm and industry witnesses stressed that stable, incentive-based funding helps family farms remain viable, supports co-investment, and should be treated as a partnership rather than a regulatory stick. No votes or formal actions were taken; the hearing ended with public comment and a continued call for future funding and policy discussion.