Transcript Highlights:

• savings and then also misuse of it. ...in the General Fund savings, and then also misuse of intended
• And it's a total savings of $1.7 million within the special fund. $1.7 million within the special fund
• If positions are eliminated, $1.7 million is saved in a special fund.
• And these funds, these positions won't really result in general cost savings. Thank you so much.
• And these funds, these positions won't really result in general cost savings. Thank you so much.

Summary: The subcommittee met to discuss budget issues related to vacant positions across several natural resources and environmental departments, with no votes taken and all items held open for a future hearing. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance explained the administration’s proposal to eliminate about 6,000 vacant positions statewide, including roughly 293 positions in the departments before the committee, as a way to capture salary savings and reduce flexible funding tied up in vacancies. The LAO recommended retaining special-funded positions, while noting that eliminating General Fund positions would reduce savings. Finance argued that vacancy levels have remained steady statewide, that departments need flexibility to manage operations and hard-to-fill jobs, and that some vacant positions can be reclassified to higher-priority work. Members raised concerns that many of the proposed eliminations would affect core public-safety, permitting, and environmental-protection functions. The Department of Fish and Wildlife said the cuts would affect permitting, environmental protection, and law enforcement, while State Parks said its proposed ranger reductions were chosen from historically vacant, hard-to-fill positions and would still leave many vacancies to fill through the academy. The Coastal Commission said its positions supported sea-level rise planning under SB 272. The Department of Pesticide Regulation and DTSC said the reductions would affect multiple program areas, though Finance said the special funds involved were not in structural deficit and the cuts could help avoid future fee increases. The State Water Resources Control Board said its proposed reductions were spread across programs, with public-health functions protected as much as possible. The committee then heard an overview from the State Water Resources Control Board on its responsibilities for water quality, water rights, drinking water, and funding for water infrastructure. Chair Joaquin Esquivel described ongoing work on the Bay-Delta Plan update, the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes voluntary agreements, and the need to actively administer water rights. Members also discussed the board’s response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Sackett decision, which narrowed federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction. The board requested $2.6 million and 12 permanent positions to address resulting permitting and enforcement gaps; the LAO said the request met its high bar for new proposals and was supported by the board’s data and reporting.

Transcript Highlights:

• There is no General Fund impact and $19,000 total funds.
• fund source.
• There is no general fund impact and $19,000 total funds.
• in total funds.
• The four-year impact is a savings of $1.282 million, General Fund-State.

Bills: SB5998

Committee: Senate Ways & Means

Keywords: fiscal appropriations, budget, state funding, financial management, operating expenses

Transcript Highlights:

• We've seen that funding can be a barrier.
• We've seen that funding can be a barrier.
• Here are some what-ifs that I will propose to you: What if this bill is passed and funded and saves even
• And possibly save a life learning how to administer naloxone.
• This leaves substantial federal funds unclaimed.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Education

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a public hearing on a large slate of bills, with the chairs emphasizing time limits, written testimony, and grouping similar measures together. Early testimony focused on opioid use disorder education in schools (S.382), with Senator Keenan arguing that students should be taught about the risks of substance use disorder and naloxone use as part of health curricula. Representative DeCost also briefly introduced H.551, a narrow bill concerning parent rights for children in third grade and younger. Several bills were then closed without testimony, including measures on type 1 diabetes informational materials and other diabetes-related proposals. A major portion of the hearing centered on school health and emergency response bills. Supporters of H.652/S.342 on diabetes management in schools described inconsistent district practices and urged clearer standards so students can receive care in classrooms rather than being sent out of instruction. Bills on epinephrine access and seizure disorders drew extensive testimony: advocates for stock epinephrine in schools argued that unassigned epinephrine can save lives and should be funded in a cost-neutral way, while a pediatrician opposed one version as an unfunded mandate. For seizure-safe schools (S.422/H.635), students, parents, educators, and advocates described missed or delayed responses to seizures, stigma, and the need for staff training, seizure action plans, and emergency medication protocols. A separate bill, H.645, allowing anti-seizure medication on school buses, was supported by a parent and student who said current law forces costly and restrictive transportation arrangements. The committee also heard testimony on youth skin health bills (S.334/H.600/H.619), which would let students carry and apply sunscreen at school and camp without a physician’s note. Supporters from melanoma prevention, dermatology, and industry groups said the bills would remove unnecessary barriers and promote sun-safe habits, while one witness cautioned about drafting details and unintended consequences. The hearing then moved to CPR/AED education for graduation (S.456), where Senator Tarr, a student advocate, and the Red Cross all supported requiring hands-on CPR certification for high school students. Finally, the committee took testimony on healthy school lunches (H.539/S.401): supporters from the Healthy School Lunch Coalition and school food directors backed stronger nutrition standards and a standing advisory council, while Consumer Brands Association witnesses opposed the bill as too vague and potentially disruptive. A nutrition scientist also warned about unintended restrictions on medically necessary or innovative foods. The chairs closed the hearing on the healthy lunch bills and then opened testimony on universal school meals for virtual schools (H.700), with Superintendent Patrick Latuka supporting access for students in Commonwealth virtual schools who currently receive no meal support.

Transcript Highlights:

• Cost savings? But they're not really being asked to achieve cost savings.
• And those savings will vary by function.
• For the $5 million in funds, how is that used? Well, how are those funds utilized?
• And for the $5 million in funds, would that use for outreach? Well, how is those funds utilized?
• Number two, cost-saving measures.

Summary: The joint Assembly Higher Education and Budget Subcommittee hearing focused on the California State University system’s enrollment trends, fiscal pressures, and how state funding should be allocated across campuses. Chairs and members emphasized CSU’s importance to California’s workforce and economy, but also raised concerns about declining enrollment at some campuses, unmet enrollment targets, and whether funding is aligned with student demand. The hearing was framed as preparation for the 2026 budget, with particular attention to campuses such as Humboldt, Sonoma, San Francisco, Channel Islands, and others that have received significant state support or are below target enrollment. In the first panel, CSU Academic Senate Chair Dr. Elizabeth Boyd urged the Legislature to protect academic freedom, strengthen faculty governance, provide stable ongoing funding, end unfunded mandates, support student food and housing security, expand flexible scheduling, improve transfer systems, and maintain regional access rather than over-centralizing programs. Cal State Student Association Vice President Katie Karam said students are feeling the effects of budget shortfalls through fewer course sections, reduced advising and services, longer time to degree, and rising tuition, and she called for transparency, meaningful student involvement in budget decisions, and sustained state investment rather than one-time fixes. In the enrollment panel, CSU Chancellor’s Office and campus administrators described a systemwide strategic enrollment plan under CSU Forward, with efforts to expand access, improve recruitment, and better align programs with workforce needs. Dr. Delcy Perez said systemwide resident enrollment and applications are up, and highlighted direct admissions and outreach partnerships. Campus representatives from Chico State, Cal State L.A., and San Diego State described local recruitment, transfer partnerships, and retention strategies. Members pressed CSU officials on discrepancies between reported enrollment growth and public data, the per-student funding formula, and the use of reserves and reallocation to shift money from lower-enrollment campuses to high-demand campuses. CSU officials said they are reviewing all campuses’ fiscal health, developing turnaround plans, and expect to provide reports to the Legislature in the spring, while also acknowledging the need for longer-term changes to enrollment management and academic program alignment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Like, at this chart, we would save, I mean, arguably, maybe would save the capex stuff if you think you
• save it from more competition.
• And then you'd save the cost of the debt. Would you save anything else?
• How much does that save? So unlike on a billion-dollar project, how much would that save?
• I don't remember the savings on the lease one. 57%. So I think we could approach 57% of savings?

Summary: The committee first heard AB 13, which would restructure the CPUC to increase legislative oversight, add legislative liaisons, require more detailed and timely reporting on rate-setting decisions, and add a public advocate member. The author and supporters argued the bill would improve transparency, accountability, and geographic diversity in CPUC decision-making amid rising utility rates. Witnesses from TURN, San Joaquin County, SDG&E, and former CPUC Commissioner Loretta Lynch offered support or support-in-principle, while no opposition testimony was presented. Members generally praised the bill’s transparency goals, and AB 13 passed 10-0 to Appropriations, with the roll left open for absent members. The committee then adopted the 2025-2026 committee rules and approved three consent items: AB 61, AB 365, and AB 406. The next bill, AB 99, would cap investor-owned utility rate increases above inflation except for specified costs such as safety, modernization, and fuel/commodity costs. The author and supporters, including a representative of the California Senior Legislature, said the bill was needed to protect ratepayers, especially seniors and low-income customers, from repeated rate hikes. Opposition came from utility labor, utilities, the Chamber of Commerce, and others, who argued the bill was too simplistic, could suppress labor costs, and did not account for major cost drivers such as wildfire mitigation, mandates, and net metering. Several members supported moving the bill forward as a starting point on affordability, while others criticized it as overly blunt. AB 99 passed 11-0 to Appropriations, with the roll left open. The hearing then shifted to an informational panel on strategies to reduce California transmission costs. A Public Advocates Office staffer described a growing backlog of approved-but-unbuilt transmission projects, rising transmission access charges, and long project timelines driven largely by utility pre-application and construction periods. Panelists from Net Zero California and consulting firms presented research suggesting that public financing or public-private partnership lease models could reduce transmission costs by lowering financing, tax, and capital costs, with estimated savings of up to 57% and as much as $123 billion over 40 years. PG&E’s representative said the utility is already pursuing federal loan guarantees, grants, and a public-private partnership with Citizens Energy, but warned that state ownership could create tax, wildfire-liability, and governance risks. Members asked about the CPUC’s role, the causes of delays, and whether public financing could complement existing competitive solicitation processes.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are not saving money.
• You mentioned who's gonna save money. You know who's gonna save money?
• care access fund is.
• You know, we were asked how do we save money? We save the system.
• There is additional spending from the general fund and the dedicated environmental funds.

Transcript Highlights:

• The program benefits are wholly funded by the discount program through drug manufacturers and not funded
• Yet retail pharmacies and PBMs are aggressively moving to capture 340B savings for themselves, savings
• One of the most impactful pharmacy services we fund with our savings is our medication adherence program
• To combat this, our adherence program funded by our 340B savings provides coordinated care and specialty
• Particularly larger entities to continue to receive 340B funding and divest those funds to areas that

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Financial Services

Summary: The committee held a lengthy hearing on a large docket of pharmacy and drug-pricing bills, with most testimony focused on PBM reform, 340B drug discount program protections, specialty medication access, and medication adherence. Chair James Murphy and Senator Paul Feeney opened the hearing and took testimony from legislators, patient advocates, pharmacists, health center leaders, industry representatives, and policy groups. Several speakers described delays, denials, high out-of-pocket costs, and pharmacy closures tied to PBM practices, while others emphasized the importance of community health centers and independent pharmacies in serving patients. On the 340B program, supporters including Senator Eldridge, Senator Payano, Community Care Cooperative, Fenway Health, the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers, and several community health center leaders argued that bills such as H. 1107 and S. 819 would stop discriminatory PBM and manufacturer practices, preserve contract pharmacy access, and protect safety-net providers that say they reinvest savings into care, pharmacy expansion, interpreter services, behavioral health, and other services. Opponents including PhRMA, the Community Liver Alliance, and a public policy analyst argued the program lacks transparency and accountability, has grown beyond its original purpose, and may benefit large hospitals and for-profit entities more than low-income patients. They urged more reporting and oversight rather than expanding protections. On PBM reform, testimony supported bills including H. 1157, H. 1234, S. 724, S. 831, and related measures that would require rebate pass-through, ban spread pricing, limit steering to PBM-owned pharmacies, and improve reimbursement for community pharmacies. Independent pharmacists and patients said current PBM practices raise costs, create administrative burdens, and threaten access to local pharmacies. PCMA, representing PBMs, opposed the reforms, arguing PBMs lower costs, that plan sponsors choose to contract with them, and that the Health Policy Commission and CHIA should complete their ongoing study before new mandates are adopted. The committee also heard support for H. 1322 and S. 734 on specialty medications, and for H. 781 and H. 1305 on medication synchronization to improve adherence. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The assessment was based on productivity savings and then some actual hard dollar savings.
• Request the funding based on a very rough order of magnitude plan for funding.
• And then once that funding is appropriated, that's when we people... ...for funding.
• Secure the sustainable funding.
• Your funding for... Hey, Ms.

Summary: The committee received several informational reports from NDIT and DPI. Justin Data reviewed the quarterly major IT project portfolio, noting the portfolio was slightly under budget and behind schedule overall, with three red schedule items: Bed Management System and Vital Records were essentially complete and being closed out, and the Roadway Capital Planning Project was delayed by vendor bug fixes after testing. He also summarized recent project startups and closeouts, including the Victim Notification System, Medicaid data exchange, Highway Patrol’s motor carrier permit system, and several completed HHS and RIMS projects. Members asked for follow-up on ADA compliance work, the public-facing RIO website, and the state’s mainframe retirement timeline, and staff agreed to provide updates later. Craig Falkley reported on coordination of services with political subdivisions and higher education, including StageNet, cybersecurity, radio/911 services, and PeopleSoft coordination. He also explained distributed ledger technology as a tool for transparency and fraud prevention, but said it is not widely used in state government and suggested the report be modernized to focus more broadly on emerging technologies such as AI and cybersecurity. The committee generally agreed that the topic should be updated. Chris Gurgan presented the mandatory cybersecurity incident reporting program created by HB 1314, explaining how agencies and political subdivisions report incidents through NDIT’s website or service desk. He said 77 incidents had been reported since 2021, 47 met the statutory definition, and most were phishing-related; most reported incidents were resolved, with one recent ransomware matter still open. He also reviewed notable incidents since the last report, including the PowerSchool compromise, a SimpleHelp intrusion at a school district, a court intrusion, a WSUS vulnerability, a business email compromise, and a recent ransomware incident involving a non-state critical infrastructure entity. Members asked about recovery of stolen funds, early warning signs, smishing, training, MFA, conditional access, and cybersecurity maturity assessments; Gurgan said the state uses MFA and conditional access, provides awareness training to state employees, and would return with more information on maturity assessments. Tony Ambrose then updated the committee on the K-12 student information system bridge project. He said district implementation of Infinite Campus had begun statewide, but the data migration vendor originally selected was terminated for poor performance and replaced by Aurora Educational Technology, which had experience with similar statewide migrations. He also said DPI is migrating special education data from Tynet into Infinite Campus, and that some SLDS-based tools such as e-transcripts and Choice Ready may not function exactly as they do now at July 1, requiring interim or alternative solutions. Members raised concerns about summer school disruptions, the timing of the cutover, and whether the new system would support existing reporting and transcript functions; DPI said it was working on identity, authentication, data-sharing agreements, and post-go-live integrations, and would continue to refine the plan beyond June 30.

Transcript Highlights:

• And what this does is it shifts funding from our under-enrolled campuses and shifts that funding to those
• So 85% of the CSU's operating budget, or operating fund, is a combination of state General Fund and tuition
• The Law Library has historically been funded through a mix of General Fund support and special fund support
• fixing this technical detail would allow some funding to continue flowing to fund the State Library
• You saved a portion of those funds. We're very, very grateful.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance met to review CSU and State Library budget issues, enrollment trends, the Capital Fellows program, and a Title IX update. Chair David Alvarez opened by stressing that CSU faces serious financial pressure, including a systemwide deficit and proposed cuts that he and several members said were too large and likely to harm access, course offerings, and student services. Public comment focused heavily on the Braille Institute Library, with patrons, staff, veterans, and advocates urging restoration of funding and warning that the proposed cut would severely affect blind and visually impaired Californians across Southern California. Several CSU faculty, staff, and union representatives also opposed the proposed reductions and warned of larger class sizes, fewer sections, and layoffs. On the CSU core operations item, the Department of Finance explained the Governor’s proposal to reduce ongoing General Fund support by about $375 million and defer a 5% base increase, while the LAO said CSU core funding would be roughly flat once tuition and targeted augmentations were considered, but warned that rising costs and prior shortfalls would still force campuses to cut spending. CSU’s Chancellor’s Office said the proposed cut would deepen existing problems, citing prior-year budget gaps, job losses, reduced course sections, and student-service reductions. Members pressed Finance and the LAO on whether cuts could be made more surgically, especially at the Chancellor’s Office or in institutional support rather than in instruction, and the LAO said the Legislature has flexibility to target cuts more specifically. CSU also described ongoing consolidation efforts, including shared services among campuses and the planned Cal Maritime/Cal Poly San Luis Obispo integration, while cautioning that savings are not yet fully known. The committee then discussed CSU enrollment. The LAO recommended holding enrollment targets flat because the budget does not add new funding, while CSU reported strong recent growth, including more California residents, record first-year enrollment, and expanded direct admissions and transfer pathways. Members questioned why some campuses with high demand turn away many applicants while others continue to lose enrollment, and CSU said it is shifting resources from campuses with sustained declines to those with demand, using a 10% below-target threshold. The committee also discussed whether enrollment declines mirror local population trends, how to improve marketing and program alignment, and whether lessons from Cal Poly Humboldt’s conversion could inform other campuses such as Sonoma State. The Capital Fellows item drew a Finance proposal for a salary increase and an LAO counterproposal for a smaller raise plus future COLA language; the committee kept the item open. Finally, CSU reported progress on Title IX compliance, saying it has completed most State Auditor recommendations, expanded civil rights staffing, and increased training, prevention, and case-management efforts, though members asked how proposed budget cuts might affect those services.

Transcript Highlights:

• Issues arise in our Petro Fund.
• The Petro Fund is currently funded with a sort of on-off fee per unit of about $0.02 per gallon paid
• The Petro Fund is currently funded with a sort of on-off fee per unit of about $0.02 per gallon paid
• The Petro Fund is currently funded with a sort of on-off fee per unit of about $0.02 per gallon paid
• , commonly known as the Petro Fund.

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities, Environment, and Climate

Transcript Highlights:

• Of that total savings, it saves the state an estimated $30 million in State General Fund alone in House
• Trust Fund.
• Direct and increases funding out of the OMV driver's license escrow dedicated fund account to fund personnel
• outlay savings.
• There are no state general fund dollars in the funds bill.

Bills: HR159 , HR160 , HR161 , HR162 , HR163 , HR164 , HCR60 , HCR61 , HCR62 , HCR63 , HCR64 , HR153 , HR154 , HR155 , HR156 , HR157 , HR158 , HCR57 , HCR58 , HCR59 , SB124 , SB399 , SB441 , SB447 , SB460 , HCR4 , HCR47 , HB59 , HB74 , HB159 , HB175 , HB330 , HB364 , HB414 , HB458 , HB525 , HB568 , HB628 , HB786 , HB909 , HB1008 , HB1033 , HB1034 , HB1041 , HB1052 , HB1062 , HB1070 , HB1079 , HB1112 , HB1118 , HB1139 , HB1151 , HB1154 , HB1176 , HB1182 , HB1196 , HB1214 , HB1231 , HB1241 , SB244 , HB1 , HB2 , HB3 , HB312 , HB313 , HB383 , HB314 , HCR3 , HB983 , HB1126 , HR1 , HR17 , HCR5 , HB27 , HB71 , HB214 , HB225 , HB241 , HB244 , HB306 , HB345 , HB366 , HB446 , HB511 , HB514 , HB655 , HB730 , HB743 , HB1027 , HB1037 , HB1043 , HB1082 , HB1091 , HB1096 , HB1103 , HB1167 , HB1174 , HB1175 , HB1230 , HB1237 , HB1238 , HB55 , HB385 , HB394 , HB396 , HB406 , HB608 , HB622 , HB676 , HB772 , HB897 , HB1030 , HB1035 , HB1038 , HB1045 , HB1049 , HB1056 , HB1058 , HB1059 , HB1092 , HB1100 , HB1117 , HB1160 , HB1161 , HB1162 , HB1177 , HB1180 , HB1189 , HB1216 , HB1239 , HB1240 , SB162 , SB349 , SB350 , SB382 , SB383 , SB127 , HB51 , HB58 , HB140 , HB750 , HB911 , HB982 , HB1010 , HB151 , HB180 , HB192 , HB193 , HB310 , HB635 , HB690 , HB961 , HB1003 , HB1146 , HB864 , HB977 , HB181 , HB31 , HB664 , HB615 , HB901 , HR20 , HR74 , HB9 , HB284 , HB393 , HB459 , HB577 , HB582 , HB605 , HB614 , HB682 , HB733 , HB773 , HB996 , HB1113 , HB1234 , HB1236

Summary: The House convened with a quorum, opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, and received Senate messages, including several Senate bills and resolutions that were referred or laid over. The chamber also adopted a series of House resolutions honoring local organizations, commemorations, and community events, and referred one resolution on climate action to Natural Resources. Several Senate bills were read and referred to the appropriate committees, including measures on peer review confidentiality, higher education research security, pre-K program standards, police civil service, and a memorial highway designation. The main floor business was the budget. The House considered House Bill 1, the general appropriations bill, in Committee of the Whole and reviewed major funding levels and committee changes across state government. The bill included significant funding for early childhood education, higher education, TOPS, health care, corrections, public safety, transportation, and other agencies, along with adjustments tied to LASERS debt payoff, Medicaid, MFP, and various one-time or recurring items. Members heard brief questions on higher education funding and DOTD road needs, but no amendments were offered on the floor during the schedule-by-schedule review. HB 1 was reported from Committee of the Whole with amendments and then finally passed by a vote of 104 yeas. The House then took up House Bills 2 and 3, the capital outlay bill and the omnibus bond authorization act, both of which were explained as the financing measures for the capital program. HB 2 emphasized limited member project funding, reallocation of dormant projects, and bundling of projects to move them forward more efficiently; HB 3 authorized the bond sales needed to fund HB 2. Both bills passed unanimously or near-unanimously. The chamber also passed supplemental and fiscal bills including HB 312, HB 313, HB 383, HB 314, HCR 3, HB 983, and HB 1126, covering supplemental appropriations, treasury fund transfers, ancillary funds, hospital assessments, judiciary funding, and legislative expenses. The meeting ended with personal privileges, staff recognition, announcements, and adjournment to Monday at 1:00 p.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• This doesn't save us money, but it saves other agencies money that have to use genetic testing.
• And adequately funded and supported.
• Not only is it less invasive, but it saves huge money. I can't tell you exactly how much it saves.
• We are asking for funding for that.
• So, the building that we're looking at now, which is the funds that we would use out of our own funds

Transcript Highlights:

• In the supplementary fund when you funded that HHSN. Thank you.
• Thank you. in the supplementary fund when you funded the HHSN.
• for critical economic activities, building buffers of savings against economic misfortune, saving for
• It's not that they don't know how to save or don't have the incentives to save.
• And, but even there, if the scholarships were funded, are funded by private entities, the university

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Racial Equity, Civil Rights, and Inclusion

Transcript Highlights:

• Some studies have estimated the savings at as much as 40% of project costs.
• We are saving trees. Yes. I think it's just loading.
• We are, we're saving trees. Yes. We have one. We're saving trees. Wonderful.
• This fund is financed through Prop 4 and some of the cap-and-trade proceeds.
• CAISO has helped fund some of the transmission work that's being done there.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 710, which would expand dynamic pricing and time-of-use electricity rates and require utilities to develop plans for advanced metering infrastructure so more customers can participate. The author and supporters said the bill would encourage load shifting to times when electricity is cheaper and cleaner, reduce curtailment of renewable energy, and help address affordability. PG&E and SDG&E opposed the bill as drafted, arguing the deadlines were premature, could disrupt ongoing CPUC rate proceedings and pilot programs, and might force costly changes before results are known; Golden State Power Cooperative was neutral and flagged a technical issue. After questions and discussion about timing and scope, the committee passed AB 710 on an 11-0 vote and also approved the consent calendar 15-0. The committee then held its first 2026 oversight hearing on implementation of the California Transmission Accelerator created by SB 254. GoBiz, IBank, CAISO, and the Department of Finance outlined the new program’s structure: GoBiz’s energy unit will coordinate the accelerator, IBank will evaluate and finance eligible projects, CAISO’s transmission planning and competitive solicitation process will identify projects, and the tax credit will provide an additional incentive for developers. Administration witnesses said trailer bill language and about 10 limited-term positions are being proposed to clarify roles, protect confidential information, and support the revolving fund, with roughly $26 million in administrative costs over five years. Committee members focused on coordination among agencies, supply-chain risks, regional market planning, and whether the accelerator has enough authority to move projects quickly. CAISO said its planning and competitive procurement processes already align closely with the accelerator and that no tariff changes are expected, while GoBiz and IBank said they are still developing financing strategies and learning from other states. Public commenters supported faster transmission but urged the committee to preserve the role of competitive developers, clarify ownership and risk allocation, and ensure wildfire safety and accountability. The hearing ended with no formal action beyond receiving testimony and committing to continued oversight.

Transcript Highlights:

• in FY28 after these funds were temporarily going straight to the general fund.
• week to announce their savings on state general fund, which is what I wanted to clarify with you guys
• of general fund to fully fund that program.
• You know, as a rule of thumb, 25% of our state general funds should be what's in our savings account.
• And that's where that billion dollars in federal fund savings originated from.

Summary: The committee first took up the fiscal status statement, certification of the state surplus, and the five-year baseline budget. Officials from the Office of Planning and Budget and the Division of Administration said the January fiscal status statement had no changes, and the commissioner certified a surplus of $577,073,871. They also reviewed the baseline outlook, noting projected imbalances in later years driven by declining revenue, including the redirection of motor vehicle sales tax, and rising costs such as inflation and Medicaid-related expenses. The fiscal status statement was approved without objection. The governor’s executive budget was then presented as a third consecutive standstill budget, with administration officials emphasizing efficiency savings, no reduction in services, and no reduction in state workforce. They said the budget relies on prior savings efforts and incorporates agency-level cuts and reorganization, while also addressing higher costs in corrections, DCFS, and health care. Major items highlighted included funding for LA GATOR, the high-impact jobs program, DCFS modernization, corrections population and overtime needs, nursing home and managed care adjustments at LDH, and additional support for the MJ Foster Scholarship Program. Members asked about the impact of inflation, the use of federal versus state funds, the future of voucher and GATOR funding, and whether more support should go to DCFS and the Hero Fund. The committee also received the calculation of the FY27 expenditure limit, set at $20.1 billion, and the annual comprehensive financial report for FY2025, which received a clean audit opinion. Members approved a BA-7 increasing federal funds for an executive office transportation grant, approved additions to the Act 751 higher education deferred maintenance project list and a Baton Rouge Community College project combination, and approved contract amendments for CPRA with Coastal Estuary Services and Access Sciences. The committee also corrected a legislative intent item naming the New Orleans Recreational Development Foundation. Finally, the judiciary presented a weighted caseload study for district and appellate courts, explaining it as an updated tool to assess judicial workload and potential judgeship needs; members discussed its limits, the role of specialty courts and commissioners, and the need for further legislative-judicial collaboration before any changes are made.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I would note that as federal funds are potentially jeopardized, the existing funding structure for
• And I would note that as federal funds are potentially jeopardized, the existing funding structure for
• Wouldn't we save money?
• I am looking to save money.
• lives, save money, save hospitals, and even create a healthier economy.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Health Care Financing

Summary: The Joint Committee on Health Care Financing held a public hearing on 16 bills, with the chairs noting a busy legislative day and asking speakers to keep testimony brief. The committee first heard testimony on Senate 860/House 1405, the Medicare for All bill, with Sen. Jamie Eldridge and many advocates, clinicians, municipal officials, and patients arguing that a single-payer system would make care a right, reduce administrative waste, lower costs, and protect residents from rising premiums, medical debt, and hospital closures. Several speakers cited the Steward hospital crisis, affordability problems, and polling or ballot questions showing public support for single-payer coverage. No vote was taken during the hearing. The committee then took testimony on S. 863, a bill on non-opioid options for chronic pain. Pain specialists, patients, and advocates said the bill would improve care coordination for MassHealth members, expand access to non-opioid medications, require provider education, and collect data on chronic pain. Testifiers described long delays in diagnosis and treatment, stigma toward pain patients, and the need for multidisciplinary care and transportation support. Again, the committee heard testimony only and took no action. A large portion of the hearing focused on H. 1360/S. 869, which would prevent discrimination against people with disabilities in health care. Disability advocates, clinicians, and patients described being denied or delayed care, pressured into DNR orders, or treated based on assumptions about quality of life rather than medical facts. Speakers referenced COVID-era crisis standards of care, discriminatory metrics, and personal stories involving canceled procedures, inadequate accommodations, and poor treatment in hospitals. Committee members thanked speakers for their testimony and said they would review the bill and its implications, but no vote was announced. The committee also heard testimony on H. 1399, an individual Medicare marketplace option for municipal retirees, where supporters said it would give cities and towns a lower-cost alternative for retiree health benefits through HRAs and individual Medicare plans. The hearing then returned to Medicare for All testimony, with additional supporters repeating arguments about cost, access, municipal budget pressure, and the need for global budgeting and universal coverage. The transcript ends with continued testimony and no recorded committee vote or final action on any bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill creates a successor insurance fund to the current wildfire fund called the continuation account
• The bill creates a successor insurance fund to the current wildfire fund called the continuation account
• Strengthening the wildfire fund will ultimately save ratepayers money and protect fire victims at the
• fund.
• fund.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy first heard SB 254, a major utility affordability and wildfire-liability package authored by Senator Becker and coauthored by Assembly Member Petrie-Norris. The bill combines wildfire mitigation oversight, $6 billion in securitized financing for future fire-mitigation capital work, a public ownership/transmission accelerator program, tighter scrutiny of utility profits, clean energy permitting streamlining, and a successor wildfire fund to replace the current fund after the January Southern California fires. Supporters, including the Governor’s office, TURN, labor, clean energy groups, utilities, and fire victim advocates, said the measure would lower bills, stabilize utilities, protect victims, and speed grid upgrades. Opponents from large energy users and agricultural interests argued the bill did not go far enough on affordability and that the wildfire fund’s volumetric charge would disproportionately burden business customers; counties also raised local-control concerns about permitting provisions. Committee members focused heavily on the wildfire fund structure, the role of ratepayers versus shareholders, and whether the bill creates enough incentive for utilities to reduce future wildfire risk. Authors and supporters said California’s inverse condemnation framework leaves ratepayers exposed without a fund, that the new continuation account would be split roughly 50/50 between ratepayers and shareholders, and that the bill includes a report on long-term sustainability. Members also discussed the clean energy permitting provisions and local consultation, with authors emphasizing that local land-use review and consultation remain in place. The committee then voted 16-0 to pass SB 254 to the floor. The hearing then shifted to an informational hearing on AB 825, which would enable California to participate in a West-wide electricity market. The authors and supporters said the regional market could save ratepayers up to $1 billion annually, improve reliability by widening access to wind and solar across the West, reduce curtailment, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Support came from environmental groups, labor, utilities, community choice aggregators, large energy users, and business groups. TURN opposed the measure, warning that last-minute changes removed safeguards against California ratepayers subsidizing out-of-state coal plants and other costly fossil generation. Committee discussion on AB 825 centered on governance, exit rights, and legislative oversight. The authors described safeguards including market rules protecting California policies, consumer advocacy and market monitoring requirements, annual reporting to the Legislature, a delayed 2028 start date, and the ability for California or other members to exit without penalties. Members also raised concerns about the CPUC’s constitutional independence and local consultation, but the authors said the bill preserves local input and gives the Legislature ongoing oversight. No vote was taken because the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• Federal funding on the next page. Page, we have no federal funds, so I'm gonna go past that.
• Do you guys give us that funding?
• And then funding sources, obviously, as I said, we generate $13 million in general fund.
• And we think it's going to save us.
• And saves $75,000 dollars.

Committee: House Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• through Prop. 47 savings, and there's a little debate... ...being funded through Prop. 47 savings, and
• The funding that is required, sorry, the state savings under Prop. 47... ...that is required, sorry,
• “Savings” would we potentially have access to, to help fund even a fraction of these programs contemplated
• Fund.
• special funds.

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on Proposition 36 and its implementation, with judicial and budget officials describing it as a major shift from misdemeanor to felony processing for repeat drug possession and certain theft offenses. Witnesses explained that the law creates a treatment-mandated felony process that can lead to dismissal if a defendant completes treatment, but also requires evaluations, court monitoring, and potentially long, open-ended supervision. Judicial representatives said the new law is already generating large numbers of filings, creating workload, staffing, courtroom, and facility pressures, and that access to treatment beds, housing, and evaluation capacity is limiting participation. Several speakers emphasized that collaborative courts are effective but are not a perfect fit for Prop. 36 because those programs are typically probation-based and serve different risk/need populations. Court officials from San Bernardino and Orange counties said the impacts vary by county but are severe, with some counties seeing hundreds or more filings in a short period and others moving more slowly to build treatment infrastructure first. They argued that Prop. 36 is effectively an unfunded mandate unless the state provides more resources for judges, staff, facilities, treatment, housing, and supervision. The Legislative Analyst’s Office noted that Prop. 36 will reduce the Proposition 47 savings that fund mental health and substance use treatment grants, but said the near-term reduction is relatively modest and that the full effect will take time to appear because of the way those savings are calculated. Members of the committee repeatedly raised concerns that the state is underfunding the courts and counties needed to carry out the new law. The committee also reviewed the Governor’s proposed trial court operations budget, including a partial restoration of a prior $97 million cut and additional ongoing funding. Judicial branch officials said the restoration helped avoid furloughs, hiring freezes, and service reductions, and supported cybersecurity, technology, staffing, and records management. The LAO recommended that the Legislature seek more detail on how midyear restorations are handled and consider clarifying language for transferring unspent trial court trust fund monies to the General Fund. Finance said the flexibility in the ongoing funding was intentional and would be taken back for consideration. In a separate item, the committee heard testimony on a $6.3 million increase for Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal appointed counsel programs. Judicial officials and appellate project representatives said the system is facing a crisis because indigent appeals have risen sharply while the number of panel attorneys has fallen, leaving many cases waiting months for counsel. They argued the proposed increase would help but is still below what is needed to recruit and retain attorneys and prevent delays that affect criminal, juvenile, and child welfare cases. The committee also discussed the Tracy courthouse project in San Joaquin County, where local officials said reopening a courthouse closed since 2011 is necessary to serve a growing population and relieve overcrowding elsewhere. The LAO and Finance both noted the project is next in line under the facilities plan, though LAO suggested the Legislature could consider whether other facility priorities should come first.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is on cost-saving measures.
• Just on their own cost savings? But they're not really being asked to achieve cost savings.
• Just on their own cost savings? But they're not really being asked to achieve cost savings.
• This was a cost savings measure.
• For the $5 million in funds, would that be used for outreach? How are those funds utilized?

Summary: The joint Assembly Higher Education and Budget Subcommittee hearing focused on the future of the California State University system, with opening remarks emphasizing CSU’s major role in California’s economy, workforce, and degree production. Chairs and members said the hearing was intended to inform 2026 budget decisions and to examine three main issues: declining enrollment at some campuses, cost controls and possible consolidation, and oversight of recent state investments at campuses such as Humboldt and Sonoma. The meeting was briefly delayed by microphone and sound problems before reconvening. The first panel featured CSU Academic Senate Chair Dr. Elizabeth Boyd and Cal State Student Association Vice President Katie Karam. Boyd urged the Legislature to protect academic freedom, strengthen faculty governance, provide stable ongoing funding, end unfunded mandates, support student food and housing security, fund flexible course schedules, improve transfer systems such as ASSIST, avoid over-centralizing academic programs, protect immigrant students, and expand intersegmental collaboration. Karam said students are feeling the effects of budget shortfalls through fewer course sections, reduced advising and services, longer time to degree, and tuition pressure, and she called for transparency, meaningful student involvement in budget decisions, and sustained state investment rather than cuts that harm the student experience. The second panel covered enrollment management and included CSU Chancellor’s Office and campus administrators from Chico State, Cal State L.A., and San Diego State. Dr. Delcy Perez said CSU Forward and the new systemwide enrollment plan are aimed at expanding access, aligning programs with workforce needs, and increasing resident enrollment; she reported systemwide enrollment gains and strong application numbers, including a direct-admissions pilot that expanded from Riverside to more campuses. Campus representatives described local recruitment and retention strategies, including early outreach to high school students, community college partnerships, guaranteed admission programs, and expanded advising and student support. San Diego State highlighted record enrollment and high demand, while Cal State L.A. described efforts to recover from impaction and rebuild enrollment. Members pressed CSU officials on the accuracy of enrollment data, the gap between funded targets and actual enrollment, and the system’s reallocation formula. CSU staff explained that campuses below target will see a 5% ongoing reallocation beginning in 2026-27, with one-time reserve funding also being directed to campuses that can grow, and that fiscal health reviews have been completed for 21 of 22 campuses. Legislators also asked about turnaround plans required by the budget act; CSU said those plans are being developed and will be shared in the spring after campus consultation. No formal votes were taken.