Transcript Highlights:

• Page 129 is core reduction for the line items within MTC's core.
• Page 148 is core reduction for semiconductors.
• Page 148 is core reduction for semiconductors.
• Okay, this is a core reduction of one-time funding.
• Again, that was a probe authority only on that reduction.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The House Budget Committee heard the Department of Economic Development’s FY 2027 budget presentation, beginning with regional engagement, international trade, business recruitment, Delta Regional Authority dues, and the Missouri Partnership. Members praised the regional engagement teams and asked about foreign direct investment, overseas offices, and the Hawthorne Foundation’s public-private funding model. The department said Missouri Partnership is funded through the Economic Development Advancement Fund and private support, and that the Delta Regional Authority funds have helped generate millions for projects in southeast Missouri. Members also questioned lapses and spending authority in several lines, including regional engagement and TIF-related items, and the department explained that some lapses reflect federal timing and project-based reimbursement schedules. The committee then reviewed Business and Community Solutions items, including the Youth Apprenticeship Program, the Prospect Business Association, the Police Bill of Rights, tourism infrastructure, the Missouri downtown economic stimulus program (Modessa), and downtown revitalization preservation. Witnesses said several items were one-time appropriations now being reduced or removed, while others remain ongoing performance-based programs. Members pressed for updates on the Prospect Corridor and youth apprenticeship reimbursements, and the department said both are still in progress. The committee also discussed TIF funding, with members questioning the repeated appropriation amount and the department explaining that payments are tied to projected performance under certificates of approval. Community Solutions testimony covered CDBG, disaster recovery, federal stimulus funds, Missouri Main Street, and the Missouri Community Service Commission/AmeriCorps. The department said CDBG is used for infrastructure, demolition, and economic development in non-entitlement communities, while disaster recovery funds address unmet housing and infrastructure needs after storms and flooding. Members asked about federal lapse, eligible zip codes, overlap with housing tax credits, and whether federal funds can be used to match other federal funds; the department said CDBG is gap funding and that some federal matching is allowed depending on the program. The committee also heard that Missouri Main Street supports both new and existing Main Street efforts, including county-based models, and that AmeriCorps funds volunteerism projects in education, public safety, and disaster relief. Later testimony covered federal initiatives, Missouri Technology Corporation, semiconductor and pharmaceutical reshoring, SSBCI, and Missouri One Start. Members asked about the Highway MM corridor, Kenlock demolition, MTC’s reduced funding last year, and the active pharmaceutical ingredient reshoring item, which the department said supports the Advanced Pharmaceutical Innovation Center and existing Missouri companies. The committee also discussed the SSBCI program’s ARPA-based tranches and deadlines, with the department saying Missouri has already drawn down a second tranche and must meet an 80% expenditure threshold by December 2027 to access the third. Missouri One Start testimony emphasized customized training, community college partnerships, and a request to align the budget with statute; members praised the program’s effectiveness and asked for data on training demand and outcomes. The hearing ended in recess with the committee planning to resume later and then take public testimony on House Bill 2007.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, with imminent cuts in Medicaid and reduction in SNAP, we anticipate fewer patients will seek care
• Already, we have seen a reduction in expected funds from FEMA and federal appropriations to the tune
• Already, we have seen a reduction in expected funds from FEMA and federal appropriations to the tune
• They're at risk due to federal pass-through reductions and reimbursement delays.
• My name is Heather Lusk, and I'm with the Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: This joint informational briefing focused on Act 310 grants and aid, with committee members hearing one-minute testimony from organizations first in person and then by Zoom. At the outset, the chairs explained there would be no Q&A during the briefing and asked testifiers to focus on how federal cuts were affecting their work. The meeting was organized by registration number and included both neighbor island and Oʻahu applicants. Testimony centered on organizations seeking state support to offset federal funding losses or anticipated reductions. Health and social service providers described impacts from Medicaid, SNAP, ACA subsidy, Title X, and other federal changes, including Aloha Care, Community Clinic of Maui, Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies, West Hawaiʻi Community Health Center, Hawaiʻi Disability Rights Center, Hawaiʻi Youth Services Network, Alcoholic Rehabilitation Services of Hawaiʻi, and Kokua Kalihi Valley. Other groups highlighted losses affecting food security, housing, disaster preparedness, and climate resilience, including the Kohala Center, Feeding Hawaiʻi Together, Hawaiian Lending and Investments, Dynamic Community Solutions, and the Pacific Tsunami Museum. Several arts, youth, and education organizations also testified, including Hawaiʻi Literacy, Hawaiʻi Youth Symphony, Honolulu Theatre for the Youth, Sounding Joy Music Therapy, Big Brothers Big Sisters Hawaiʻi, Girl Scouts of Hawaiʻi, Kids Hurt Too Hawaiʻi, and US Vets, each requesting funding to preserve programs and staffing. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the briefing. The only action was procedural: the chairs moved through the applicant list, limited testimony time, and then transitioned from neighbor island in-person testimony to Oʻahu and later Zoom participants.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> good definition of what harm reduction good definition of what harm reduction meant<01:32:10.239
• It changes the words, um, harm reduction, which was in the past, to including reduction of societal and
• </c><01:39:15.440><c> and</c> reduction to reduction of societal and reduction to reduction of societal
• </c> changes the words um um harm reduction changes the words um um harm reduction which<01:39:37.840
• </c> are are legitimate harm reduction are are legitimate harm reduction policies<02:01:17.040><c> they

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , personnel services reductions.
• Personnel services reductions. This last year complicated the situation.
• Those ongoing resources were included as part of statewide efficiency vacancy reductions.
• There has been the recent temporary reduction that we did, and so what you're seeing here now is that
• CDPH describes the harm reduction initiative and the harm reduction programs as the backbone of the state's

Summary: The hearing began with an overview of the California Health and Human Services Agency, which described its 2026-27 budget, major departments, and strategic priorities, including behavioral health, housing and human services integration, children and youth, and aging/disability services. The agency also explained a technical CalHHS/CalHires budget adjustment tied to HR1 compliance and eligibility system work. No LAO concerns were raised on that item. The committee then heard from the Office of Youth and Community Restoration on its budget, its SB 823 realignment report, and related issues. OYCR said county-based realignment has generally succeeded but outcomes and readiness vary widely, and it recommended more climate surveys, youth advisory councils, stronger behavioral management, better programming, improved transition planning, and integrated longitudinal data systems. Members pressed OYCR on “net widening,” county-by-county trends, and the gap between the detailed recommendations discussed in hearing and the more general recommendations in the public report. OYCR also described problems with federal Title II grant timing and a pending $14 million administrative funding adjustment, and discussed implementation of the juvenile justice realignment block grant formula. The Ombudsperson division separately requested two new positions due to rising complaints, site visits, and records-access disputes with counties; LAO noted the proposal would create ongoing General Fund costs. Several other departments presented budget change proposals. The State Council on Developmental Disabilities requested $730,000 General Fund ongoing to cover an interagency administrative support gap with DSS; LAO had no concerns. EMSA presented its department overview, said its AB 716 ambulance-rate report has been delayed after resources were reduced, and requested funding for disaster-response vehicle replacement, IT security assessment work, and additional HR/legal staff; members questioned delays, compliance, and the ongoing General Fund impact. The Department of Community Services and Development sought reappropriation of LIWIP funds and explained a new Proposition 4 process for continuing the farmworker housing component. The Department of Rehabilitation requested authority for $60 million in additional federal funds and 54 positions to meet growing vocational rehabilitation demand, with no General Fund impact. The Department of Child Support Services presented its budget and a supplemental report on full pass-through of child support collections. Members questioned why local agency funding was being restored despite declining caseloads, and staff explained that staffing costs have risen faster than caseload declines and that additional funding is needed to maintain service levels. The supplemental report estimated full pass-through would cost about $150 million General Fund annually, or about $80 million for a state-and-county portion, with $3 million to $5 million in automation costs. Finally, the Department of Public Health gave a broad overview of its $5.1 billion budget and its State of Public Health report, highlighting improved mortality and life expectancy, declining overdose deaths and STI rates, persistent racial and regional disparities, and increasing public health emergency demands. CDPH also warned that federal funding threats and policy changes are creating major uncertainty for state and local public health systems.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the third is an industrial carbon reduction act.
• In the certification for the Industrial Carbon Reduction Act...
• They start with greatest emissions reductions relative to the emissions baseline.
• You can count emissions reductions, but 0.4 and 5.
• You can count emissions reductions, but 0.4 and 5.

Bills: HB145, HR1, HB80, SB29, SB37, HB206, SB193, SB58, SB64, HB153, HB195, HB234, HB248, HB255, HB279, HB287, HB292, HB303, HB309, HB371, SB30, SB35, SB40, SB43, SB48, SB96, SB143, HJM1, HM7, HM17, HM4, HM22, HM23, HM24, HM26, HM2, HM16, HM32, HM13, HM47, HM20, HM51, HM1, HM31, HM35, HM36, HM46, HM53, HM54, HM39, HM29, HM43, HM59, HM11, HM14, HM21, HM34, HM50

Keywords: high-wage jobs, tax credit, job creation, New Mexico, economic development, House Resolution 1, HR1, House investigatory subcommittee, special committee, legislative investigation, subpoena power, public corruption, criminal activity, Zorro ranch, Santa Fe County, public accountability, government oversight, impeachment power, children and vulnerable persons, public funds

Summary: The meeting opened with prayers, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a series of announcements and personal remarks. Members then spent a large portion of the session honoring Representative Joanne Ferrary, who announced she will not seek re-election. Speakers from both parties praised her persistence, mentorship, and work on public safety, environmental protection, health care, women’s rights, and advocacy for workers and families. Ferrary thanked colleagues and said she hoped to continue supporting initiatives in the interim and beyond. The House also recognized Representative Matthew McQueen, who is running for commissioner of public lands and will leave the legislature after this term. Members highlighted his work on conservation, land grants, wildlife protection, legislative drafting, and his reputation for principled, detailed review of bills. McQueen thanked colleagues and said he hoped to remain involved in the building in another capacity. The House then moved to third reading and passed House Bill 371, the House Appropriations and Finance Committee substitute creating a temporary funding source for land grants and acequias from remaining sponge bond revenues. Supporters said it would provide a more stable, long-term funding mechanism for acequia and land grant infrastructure while preserving existing funding streams and requiring legislative appropriation and annual reporting. Some members raised concerns about oversight and the lack of a sunset or review clause, but the bill passed 63-2. The chamber also passed House Bill 248, authorizing $392 million in general obligation bond capacity, by a vote of 65-0. The House then debated House Bill 153, a committee substitute creating a market-based framework for carbon reduction and economic development. The bill includes an environmental product declaration act, a low-carbon materials rebate, and an industrial carbon reduction grant program. Supporters said it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions while encouraging economic development and new technology at industrial facilities. Members questioned the timing of the grants, anti-donation concerns, and whether companies would receive funding only after making investments, and sponsors explained that entities must pre-certify and then apply after beginning production or retrofits. Debate was ongoing at the end of the excerpt, with no final vote shown on HB 153.

Transcript Highlights:

• It has novel components that don't exist in any other EPR bill, including source reduction, including
• It has novel components that don't exist in any other EPR bill, including source reduction, including
• So we are on track on almost all of those requirements, including delivering on the source reduction
• The reduction was partially offset by funding from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, so now the CBCI
• So we... ...and how many are you now able to do given the reductions that you've had?

Summary: The subcommittee heard presentations on the administration’s Proposition 4 spending plans for extreme heat mitigation and outdoor access, then took up SB 54 implementation, SB 707 textile producer responsibility, and recovery needs related to the Los Angeles fires at state parks. For the extreme heat chapter, agencies described funding for the Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program, urban greening, urban forestry, fairground upgrades, and technical assistance for community-based climate programs. Witnesses emphasized that these are existing programs with strong demand, that technical assistance is important for reaching disadvantaged and tribal communities, and that the proposed funding would expand outreach and implementation capacity. Members asked for more detail on where funds have gone geographically, examples of successful projects, tree-planting totals, and how fairgrounds could better support fire staging and emergency preparedness. The LAO said the timing of the administration’s proposed funding generally made sense because the programs are already established, and no votes were taken. For outdoor access, State Parks, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources described funding for new parks in underserved communities, deferred maintenance, state lands access, and several new or pending programs. State Parks said the park development program would fund roughly 48 projects and that deferred maintenance funding would address high-priority health, safety, and access needs. Fish and Wildlife said its lands program would improve visitor amenities and access on properties that often lack basic facilities. The Natural Resources Agency also outlined three newer outdoor-access proposals: expanding recreation in disadvantaged communities, enhancing natural resource values and trail access, and a nature/climate/education facilities grant program. The LAO distinguished between existing programs, which are ready to move forward, and the newer proposals, where the Legislature may want more input before funds are allocated. Members also raised concerns about park police vacancies, the need to track outcomes for accessibility investments, and whether Prop. 4 could help with wildfire-related recovery at state parks. CalRecycle then presented on SB 54, the plastics and packaging producer responsibility law, and members pressed hard on the delay in regulations. CalRecycle said it has held workshops, formed an advisory committee, selected the producer responsibility organization, and completed required baseline and covered-material reports, but needs more time to address complex comments and novel features such as source reduction and eco-modulated fees. Members expressed frustration that a statutory deadline was missed and asked for a concrete timeline; CalRecycle said it expects regulations in place by 2026, ahead of the PRO’s January 1, 2027 plan deadline. Finance said the Beverage Container Recycling Fund is currently healthy enough to support short-term loans for implementation. The committee also reviewed SB 707, the textile EPR law, which would create the nation’s first textile producer responsibility program; staff said the proposal would add positions and loan authority, and members noted the statutory deadlines for PRO approval, needs assessment, and later regulations. The hearing ended with discussion of the January Los Angeles fires’ damage to Topanga State Park and Will Rogers State Historic Park, where State Parks described extensive losses, emergency response work, and ongoing damage assessment. Members asked about FEMA eligibility, state funding sources, and community engagement in rebuilding, and the department said it is still assessing costs and will work with the public on reimagining the parks.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> particular item and then a reduction particular item and then a reduction correspondently<00:07:
• ><c> appropriation</c><00:09:42.560><c> of</c> reduction to a previous appropriation of reduction to
• The Senate is carrying a reduction of negative $500,000 in 26-27 and a reduction of negative $500,000
• Line 37 is the dairy reduction. This is another reduction to a previous appropriation.
• </c> reduction to a previous appropriation. reduction to a previous appropriation.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Agriculture Conference Committee met for an initial organizational and comparison session on House File 2446, the agriculture broadband and rural development bill. Members introduced themselves, noted that no conference target had yet been set, and agreed to begin with a side-by-side review of House and Senate positions. No oral testimony was taken; instead, the chair listed written testimony submitted by a wide range of agricultural, environmental, local government, food bank, and industry groups. Nonpartisan fiscal staff walked through the major funding differences. Both bills included some shared items such as operating adjustments, wolf and elk damage compensation, and certain technical changes, but they differed on several major appropriations. The House generally proposed larger increases for meat inspection, local food purchasing, and the Board of Animal Health, and added items such as county inspector grants, biofertilizer innovation, a biosolids/PFAS-related study, a soil health study, broadband installation study funding, an Agri Works program, an Agri Support program, a milk grant program, and several House-only transfers and grants. The Senate included items such as a climate coordinator position, biofuel-related reductions and policy changes, livestock processing funding, farm-to-school and urban agriculture changes, MARL funding, cottage foods licensing updates, and several Senate-only pass-through grants and transfers. Staff also noted differences in the agriculture emergency account transfer approach and in how the two bodies handled the Second Harvest Heartland and related food distribution provisions. House Research then reviewed the policy language differences in the bill. The House language included provisions allowing more flexible use of grant administration funds, unpaid prior-year claims, county inspector grants, and updates tied to its own policy article, while the Senate language included the climate coordinator, PFAS-related commercialization language, cooperative development grant permissive language, and other Senate policy changes. The committee did not take any votes or final actions at this meeting; the session was informational and focused on identifying differences for later negotiation.

Transcript Highlights:

• MIFA was created in 2023 to stimulate the development of clean energy and greenhouse gas emission reduction
• projects by using Innovative reduction projects by using Innovative financing<00:06:04.759><c> tools
• while centering reduction projects while centering equity<00:19:22.840><c> and</c><00:19:23.000><c>
• </c> Statewide greenhouse gas uh reduction Statewide greenhouse gas uh reduction targets<00:19:49.640
• act did was it the inflation reduction act did was it expanded<00:25:06.880><c> this</c><00:25:07.039

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The recommended LAO comments on in our agenda on the reduction of base increase, is there any response
• There was a comment made, and I totally appreciate it from UC about any potential reductions.
• This is where my commentary from my colleagues comes in, would be reductions on ongoing expenditures.
• reductions look like.
• Our third recommendation is to pause the non-resident reduction plan.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• state's climate goals, it is regarded internationally as one of the most successful cost-emissions-reductions
• One of the most successful cost-emissions-reductions programs ever created.
• And now is not the time to slow-walk our emission reduction efforts.
• Further reductions require access to reliable hydrogen.
• near-term reductions.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policy heard an overview from CARB on proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, which was reauthorized through 2045 by AB 1207 and SB 840. CARB said the draft rules are intended to preserve affordability, market certainty, and progress toward the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets. The agency described the program’s main features, including the declining emissions cap, utility and industrial allowance allocations, offset changes, the allowance price containment reserve, and new reporting and oversight requirements. CARB also said the rulemaking is on a public comment timeline, with board consideration planned for late May and an effective date targeted for September 1, 2026. Committee members focused heavily on electricity affordability, the planned shift of free allowances from natural gas utilities to electric utilities, and whether the proposal would raise rates for investor-owned and publicly owned utilities. CARB said the proposal is meant to protect ratepayers from compliance costs and that the utility allocation is based on updated data showing utilities are greener than before, but members and utility representatives argued the transition should happen faster and that the current draft could reduce expected revenues and disrupt long-term planning. Members also pressed CARB on carbon capture and sequestration, asking that the regulations clearly recognize it as a compliance pathway, and on whether the SB 905 rulemaking for carbon capture should move forward on schedule. A second major topic was industrial allocations, especially for refiners and other sectors at risk of leakage. CARB said it is keeping all industries at high leakage risk through 2030, maintaining the current cap-adjustment approach, and leaving room for additional comments and data on whether refiners need more allowances to avoid economic leakage and preserve in-state refining. Members also questioned how imported gasoline is treated, and CARB explained that transportation fuel is regulated at the rack and through the low-carbon fuel standard, while cap-and-invest covers in-state tailpipe and smokestack emissions rather than full life-cycle emissions. CARB said it is open to using additional data, including SB 253 reporting, to improve fuel carbon-intensity estimates. The panel of outside experts largely agreed that the program must balance affordability, ambition, and leakage concerns, but they differed on how much allowance value should go to utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The Legislative Analyst’s Office emphasized that the Legislature should scrutinize CARB’s allocation choices now because they will be hard to change later. An IEMAC representative said the proposal appears to shift more allowance value to industry and utilities, which could reduce GGRF revenues, while EDF argued the cap could be tightened further in the near term without triggering price containment. SCAPA, representing publicly owned utilities, warned that the proposal would reduce utility allowances and could raise costs for ratepayers and undermine early decarbonization investments. No votes were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• state's climate goals, it is regarded internationally as one of the most successful cost emissions reductions
• One of the most successful cost emissions reductions programs ever created.
• And now is not the time to slow-walk our emissions reduction efforts.
• Further reductions require access to reliable hydrogen.
• near-term reductions.

Summary: The committee heard an overview and discussion of CARB’s proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, implemented under AB 1207 and SB 840. Chairs and members emphasized the program’s role in meeting climate targets while balancing affordability, and CARB described the proposal as intended to preserve market certainty, strengthen cost containment, address utility affordability, and support the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goal. CARB also noted the public comment period, the planned board hearing, and the goal of an effective date of September 1, 2026. Members questioned CARB on several implementation issues, including whether the rulemaking would be completed on time, the treatment of carbon capture and sequestration, the timing of the transfer of allowances from natural gas utilities to electric utilities, and the impact on ratepayers. CARB said it was on track to meet the May deadline, that CCUS/CDR could be further refined in the proposal and would also be addressed in a separate SB 905 rulemaking later in the year, and that it was seeking to protect ratepayers while inviting more utility data during the comment period. The committee also discussed refining-sector leakage risk, gasoline imports, and how imported fuel is accounted for under cap-and-invest versus the low-carbon fuel standard. A second panel of outside experts and stakeholders then testified. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and IEMAC representatives explained the major statutory changes, including putting offsets under the cap, shifting allowances from natural gas to electric utilities over time, and changing how allowance value is divided among utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. They stressed that CARB has significant discretion in setting the allowance “pie,” and that more free allocations to utilities or industry reduce GGRF revenues. EDF’s representative argued the proposal should be adopted this spring, said the utility transition should happen faster, and urged a tighter near-term emissions cap. SCAPA, representing publicly owned utilities, opposed the proposed utility allocation changes, saying they would reduce expected allowances, undermine long-term planning, and could force higher rates or reduced decarbonization investments.

Transcript Highlights:

• This year, we are receiving a 20% reduction in that funding.
• This reduction will limit our ability to provide much of that outreach.
• So, in terms of SNAP, you referenced the state backfilling those reductions.
• Are we looking at any reductions there next year?
• So the 39% reduction will definitely impact our program.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I I think burden reduction.
• in the reduction of them?
• in the reduction of them?
• So you uh presented reductions.
• So you uh presented presented presented reductions. reductions. reductions.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• reduction reduction in<01:24:59.199><c> that</c><01:24:59.600><c> and</c><01:24:59.840><c> also</c><
• So big the 25% reduction going away.
• </c> reduction removed from their property. reduction removed from their property.
• ,</c><02:30:49.280><c> but</c> don't get any of those reductions, but don't get any of those reductions
• But admittedly, it is... reduction. reduction.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There was a comment made, and I totally appreciate it from UC about any potential reductions.
• This is where my commentary from my colleagues comes in, would be reductions on ongoing expenditures.
• But I... ...want us to start thinking a little bit more delicately about what do reductions, what can
• , what might reductions look like.
• Our third recommendation is to pause the nonresident reduction plan.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance, chaired by Assemblymember Alvarez, held a hearing focused on University of California budget issues. The committee reviewed UC core operations funding, enrollment trends, federal funding threats, Title IX implementation, and basic needs support. Major themes included the end of the Governor’s multi-year UC compact, the state’s fiscal outlook, UC’s enrollment growth, and the potential impacts of federal policy changes on research, health care, and student aid. On core funding, the Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to continue compact-related support, defer some payments, and authorize a cash-flow loan. The LAO recommended a smaller or no base increase, earmarking some funds for capital renewal, retiring deferrals when possible, avoiding new compact commitments, and funding UC annually rather than through compacts. UC argued that the compact has supported enrollment growth, student services, and operating costs, but said campuses face rising expenses, structural deficits, and limited reserves. Members questioned the effects of deferrals on students and discussed the need to prioritize less harmful reductions if cuts become necessary. The enrollment panel focused on UC’s growth in California resident enrollment and the nonresident replacement plan at Berkeley, UCLA, and UC San Diego. The LAO recommended maintaining the current enrollment target, funding enrollment separately from base increases, pausing the nonresident replacement plan, and holding enrollment flat in 2027-28. UC said it has already met compact enrollment goals, grown California undergraduate enrollment by about 18,800 students, and that further growth depends on ongoing state support. The committee also discussed the cost of enrollment growth, possible differential nonresident tuition, and a reporting request for UC to analyze the nonresident replacement approach; the motion to adopt supplemental reporting language passed. The hearing also covered federal funding risks, with the LAO and UC warning that federal changes could affect research grants, medical center reimbursement, and student financial aid. UC said research cancellations and suspensions are disrupting labs and graduate student support, while federal health policy changes could increase uncompensated care at UC hospitals. In the Title IX update, UC described its systemwide civil rights structure, annual student training, and campus support offices, and members praised the work while asking about ongoing concerns and intersegmental collaboration. The final basic-needs item began with Finance stating the Governor’s budget does not change ongoing support, but the transcript cuts off before further discussion or action.

Transcript Highlights:

• A bill to be entitled an act relating to sales tax rate reductions.
• But, for example, the historic reduction sales tax is gone.
• But, for example, the historic reduction in sales tax is gone.
• But, for example, the historic reduction in sales tax is gone.
• It is a tremendous reduction from our House budget.

Summary: The House met on the final day of session, swore in Representatives Boyles and Hodgers, and observed a moment of silence for the Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, as well as for Representative Rosenwald’s father. The chamber then moved into final budget work, with leaders outlining the plan to take up H.J.R. 5019, HB 7031, HB 5017, HB 5015, and then the general appropriations act once the Senate transmitted it. H.J.R. 5019, a proposed constitutional amendment to expand the budget stabilization fund, was explained and amended to raise the rainy day fund cap, require annual deposits, and allow withdrawals for critical state needs by a two-thirds vote; it passed 100-1. The House then adopted the conference report on HB 7031, the tax package. The bill repeals the business rent tax and aviation fuel tax, delays the natural gas fuel tax, creates or expands several sales tax holidays and exemptions, including permanent exemptions for disaster-preparedness items, hunting/fishing/camping items, and ammunition and firearms-related purchases, and makes changes to property, corporate income, local tax, and economic development provisions. Members debated the removal of recurring housing trust fund and transit-related revenue streams, the new ammunition exemption, and the data center tax changes; supporters argued the package reduces taxes and preserves annual budget flexibility, while opponents raised concerns about housing, transportation, and gun violence. The conference report passed 93-7. HB 5017, creating a debt reduction program funded by a recurring transfer to retire state bonds early, passed unanimously. HB 5015, the state group insurance conforming bill, which directs DMS to develop a formulary management plan and codifies the administrative health insurance assessment, also passed. The House then began explanation and questions on the fiscal year 2025-26 general appropriations act, described as a $115.1 billion budget that is down $3.8 billion from the current year and includes more than $12 billion in reserves. Subcommittee chairs summarized major spending areas, including pre-K-12 funding increases, health care funding for Medicaid, KidCare, nursing homes, opioid treatment, and mental health, transportation and economic development funding, environmental and water projects, higher education, state administration, justice, and information technology. Questions focused on school vouchers, inflationary pressures on school districts, and the adequacy of funding for housing, transportation, and other priorities.

Transcript Highlights:

• Fuel reduction projects.
• Wildfire risk reduction is of paramount importance for our communities and the wildland-urban interface
• , roadside fuel reduction, forest thinning, and a handful of other types of projects.
• , roadside fuel reduction, forest thinning, and a handful of other types of projects.
• The Legislature has also provided many CEQA exemptions for fuel reduction programs, including those in

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• use during the summers of 2027 and 2028 to reduce ratepayer costs and support the emergency load reduction
• There's a second piece, which is the emergency load reduction piece and the CalSHAPE piece.
• The emergency load reduction piece and the CalSHAPE piece, and I believe that's the piece perhaps my
• of your question about how DSGS or ELRP, the Demand-Side Grid Support Program or Emergency Load Reduction
• And so the Emergency Load Reduction Program or Demand-Side Grid Support Program will not function as

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the Demand-Side Grid Support Program, or DSGS Program, to support any emergency-triggered demand reductions
• There's a second piece, which is the emergency load reduction piece and the CalSHAPE piece.
• The emergency load reduction piece and the CalSHAPE piece.
• The Emergency Load Reduction Program or Demand-Side Grid Support Program will not function as part of
• The Emergency Load Reduction Program or Demand-Side Grid Support Program will not function as part of

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:

• But what I learned over the last several years is that it seems like through the reduction in police
• It requires a public information campaign, and it requires an evaluation of the impacts of the reduction
• The reduction does not change civil liability.
• The reduction does not change civil liability.
• Across localities that have adopted a 0.05 standard, research consistently finds meaningful reductions

Summary: The House Committee on Community Safety held public hearings on House Bill 2220, which would change Criminal Justice Training Commission (CJTC) certification hearings for peace and corrections officers. The bill would raise the standard of proof for suspension or revocation from a preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence, expand the hearing panel from five to six members by adding another law enforcement representative, and require biennial reporting by law enforcement agencies and the CJTC on officer certification, training completion, and decertifications. Sponsor Rep. Mari Leavitt and supporters argued the bill would improve fairness, transparency, training compliance, and recruitment/retention, while CJTC staff said they support objective hearings but opposed the burden-of-proof change and parts of the definitions, especially probation. Opponents, including police accountability advocates and several CJTC commissioners, argued the current system is working, there is no demonstrated problem, and the bill would weaken civilian oversight and make decertification harder. No vote was taken on the bill during the hearing. The committee then heard House Bill 2362, which would lower Washington’s per se blood alcohol concentration threshold for impaired driving from 0.08 to 0.05, require a public information campaign, and direct an evaluation of the policy’s impacts by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Rep. Brandy Donaghy said the bill is intended to reduce traffic deaths and improve public safety. Supporters, including several prosecutors and victims’ family members, said lower BAC limits can deter impaired driving and save lives, and argued the change would educate the public and reduce crashes. Opponents from the hospitality, brewing, and wine industries said the bill would not address the main causes of fatal crashes, would burden businesses and responsible consumers, and pointed to Utah’s experience as evidence the policy may not reduce fatalities. Prosecutors also raised concerns about the toxicology lab backlog, though some said the bill could eventually reduce cases and improve safety. The hearing on HB 2362 ended with public testimony; no committee action or vote was taken in the transcript provided.