Transcript Highlights:

• So when that rolls around, if the surplus is there, the fund will be replenished to 50 million, and the
• So when that rolls around if the<00:04:43.520><c> if</c><00:04:43.680><c> the</c><00:04:43.919><c> surplus
• > is</c><00:04:44.720><c> there</c><00:04:45.360><c> the</c><00:04:45.520><c> fund</c> the if the surplus
• is there the fund the if the surplus is there the fund will<00:04:46.000><c> be</c><00:04:46.160><c>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• insurance isn't available through those admitted carriers, the consumer can go to one of the 132-plus surplus
• And then if they are unable to find insurance with a surplus lines carrier, they can come to the Fair
• E&S, access and surplus lines carriers can get access to it.
• E&S, access and surplus lines carriers can get access to it.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so at the end of the 2021–23 biennium, we had a surplus of, I want to say, over $100 million or so
• And as our story of the account continues, you can see that surplus is no longer there.
• And then specifically thinking about the surplus available in the account...
• And then specifically thinking about the surplus available in the account, the 2024 supplemental budget

Summary: The Joint Higher Education Committee met for a work session on higher education accounting practices and financial transparency. OFM Deputy Director Sarah Rupp explained how state accounting rules and higher education reporting differ, including what data is captured in AFRS today and what will move into Workday, with universities generally reporting summary-level fund data, mandatory codes, and most balance sheet and income statement activity, but not transaction-level detail or vendor payment information. Representatives from the University of Washington and Washington State University described the complexity of their own accounting systems, the many entities and business lines they must track for audits and compliance, and the need to reconcile university-level accrual accounting with state reporting requirements. The committee also heard from the Education Research and Data Center on the public four-year finance dashboard created under Senate Bill 5512; ERDC said the dashboard is based on publicly available data, is best used to examine institutions individually rather than compare them directly, and will be updated with additional metrics in 2025 and 2026. The committee then received a presentation from the Washington Student Achievement Council on the Workforce Education Investment Account (WIA). Joel Anderson reviewed WIA’s creation under House Bill 2158, its revenue sources, and its intended uses for higher education, financial aid, and workforce development. He said recent legislation significantly increased WIA revenues and that, in the 2025–27 budget, the account is being used in new ways, including to replace general fund support for University of Washington operations and to fund a larger share of the Washington College Grant and some faculty compensation costs. Anderson said roughly 98% of current WIA appropriations go to higher education, but the share used to supplant other higher education funding has grown, and he estimated about 60% to 70% of current spending still aligns with the account’s original intent. He also described a new effort to track WIA appropriations across biennia in more detail and noted the WIA Oversight Board’s role in recommending uses of the account and monitoring outcomes. No votes were taken; the committee ended by moving into executive session for staffing issues and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'd have a surplus after this year. The wave won't crash this year, but it will crash.
• We'd have a surplus<00:36:38.000><c> after</c><00:36:38.320><c> this</c><00:36:38.560><c> year.
• </c><00:36:39.440><c> The</c><00:36:39.599><c> wave</c><00:36:39.920><c> won't</c> surplus after this
• The wave won't surplus after this year.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's to ensure a surplus because sometimes there are people that can't work. ...that are in that
• And that's to ensure a surplus, because sometimes there are people that can't work or won't work or turn

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• be used for, how much of them can be used for child care, and in particular, when you use the TANF surplus
• When you use that surplus, does that add to the 30% that you could use on child care or not?
• </c><00:52:35.760><c> which</c> When you use the tin of surplus which When you use the tin of surplus
• c> you</c><00:52:57.760><c> use</c><00:52:58.160><c> that</c> When you use that When you use that surplus
• does that add to the 30% surplus does that add to the 30% that<00:53:05.359><c> you</c><00:53:05.680

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Legislative Performance Audit and Oversight Committee met to accept prior minutes and receive updates on ongoing audits. Audit staff reported progress on three education-related reviews: special education (34 of 71 observations completed, draft expected in the second quarter and final in the summer), education freedom accounts (22 of 41 observations completed, draft expected in the second quarter and final in the summer), and the doorway program (5 of 13 observations completed, draft expected by the end of February and final by April or May). No committee questions were raised on the audit status update. The committee then discussed possible future oversight topics, beginning with SNAP and concerns about fraud and work requirements. Members suggested inviting DHS officials and contract administrators to explain program operations and compliance, and also discussed whether the Department of Justice Medicaid fraud unit or other experienced officials could provide useful context. Members noted New Hampshire’s existing oversight layers, including the Executive Council and the joint HHS oversight committee, while also expressing interest in hearing more directly from department staff about staffing and contract management capacity. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on whether to pursue an audit of special education at the local school level. Members debated whether to wait for the ongoing statewide special education review and a legislative study commission report, or to begin scoping a local audit now so work could start sooner. Supporters argued that local-level spending, identification rates, and effectiveness vary widely by district and that an audit should examine both costs and outcomes; others cautioned that the scope would need to be manageable given limited audit staff and that the statewide report may help narrow the focus. The committee also briefly discussed a potential audit of the Bureau of Elderly and Adult Services, but no decision was made on that item.

Transcript Highlights:

• All I know is that we have a $24 billion surplus in sales tax revenue, and I think more of it needs to
• Is try our best to use our surplus from our thriving economy and sales taxes to buy down those property
• But the bottom line is, members, we have a $24 billion surplus. Mr. Speaker, Mr.
• We have a $24 billion surplus.
• We started this session with a $24 billion surplus, but instead of using that to put us on a path to

Bills: SB4, SB23, SB3, SJR2, SJR85, SB34, SB60, SB75, SB706, SB1814, SB1220, SB523, SB565, SB1253, SB840, SB764, SB2383, SB2155, SB1535, SB1405, SB1423, SB1566, SB1804, SB1728, SB1816, SB1952, SB1948, SB2037, SB2068, SB1455, SB213, SB243, SB627, SB646, SB670, SB896, SB917, SB1184, SB971, SB1255, SB1261, SB1283, SB1358, SB991, SB1733, SB21, SB231, SB739, SB1252, SB1371, SB664, SB40, SB9, SJR1, SB687, SB1332, SB458, SB482, SB927, SB984, SB651, SB1620, SB2124, SB2448, SB841, SB843, SB402, SB2662, SB2053, SB2332, SB2112, SB745, SB1247, SB1789, SB27, SB207, SB2938, SB1901, SB1227, SB1248, SB912, SB1321, SB2143, SB2145, SB1497, SB1239, SB2180, SB1388, SB1662, SB1951, SB1537, SB493, SB378, SB1020, SB1018, SB992, SB958, SB920, SB1350, SB1762, SB552, HCR109, SB2185, SB4, SB23, SB3, SJR2, SJR85, SB34, SB60, SB75, SB706, SB1814, SB1220, SB523, SB565, SB1253, SB840, SB764, SB2383, SB2155, SB1535, SB1405, SB1423, SB1566, SB1804, SB1728, SB1816, SB1952, SB1948, SB2037, SB2068, SB1455, SB213, SB243, SB627, SB646, SB670, SB896, SB917, SB1184, SB971, SB1255, SB1261, SB1283, SB1358, SB991, SB1733, SB21, SB231, SB739, SB1252, SB1371, HB2970, HB 109, SB2308

Keywords: property tax, homestead exemption, school funding, state aid, constitutional amendment, elderly, disabled, ad valorem taxation, school district funding, SJR 2, Senate Joint Resolution 2, property tax relief, school property tax, ad valorem tax, residence homestead, school district taxes, Texas Constitution Article VIII, public school finance, homeowner exemption, elderly exemption

Transcript Highlights:

• There was a $900 million surplus that was put into a special fund.
• I believe it’s around $900 million surplus, so I feel like it’s a little disingenuous to say that there
• that was put into a million surplus that was put into a special<01:05:12.480><c> fund</c><01:05:13.240
• fund I believe it's around $900 special fund I believe it's around $900 million<01:05:14.880><c> surplus
• so I feel like it's a million surplus so I feel like it's a little<01:05:16.839><c> disingenuous</c>

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Education met on January 30 and heard testimony on several bills, beginning with an announcement asking testifiers and members to keep remarks brief because of weather. The vice chair also explained that HB 440, relating to immigration issues in schools and state hospitals, was removed from the agenda because the proposal would not create meaningful legal protections and immigration policy is governed by federal law. The committee then moved through a series of education-related measures, with testimony largely from the Department of Education, the School Facilities Authority, the Attorney General’s office, unions, advocacy groups, and individual testifiers. On HB 330, concerning school impact fees, the School Facilities Authority supported the bill as aligning policy with implementation, while the Tax Foundation of Hawaii said the fee accounts have accumulated large balances, including more than $20 million in impact fee funds and nearly $9 million from predecessor fair-share contributions, and urged that collected money be used rather than left idle. DOE said it would follow up on the balance and why it was not being used. On HB 1188, dealing with workforce housing, DOE and the Charter School Commission offered comments or support, the Attorney General suggested clarifying the phrase “within commuting distance” by using a mileage standard and adding repayment language, and HSTA, HGEA, and others supported the bill, with HSTA saying teachers need housing to be able to live and work in Hawaii. On HB 624 and HB 625, both related to school psychologists, DOE said it would participate in a work group on the pathway bill and supported the incentive program bill; school psychologists and related groups supported the measures, while one testifier said DOE should not lead the work group alone because school psychologists may work in many education settings beyond DOE schools. The committee also heard HB 1314 on youth mental health in schools. DOE described its student support process, universal screening tools, and behavioral health services, saying schools already identify and respond to concerns and that staff are trained to report issues, while the Attorney General warned the bill could expose schools to liability and recommended a broad liability waiver. Testimony was mixed, with several supporters and one opponent. On HB 616, concerning school safety and harassment protections for educational workers, the Attorney General sought clarifying amendments on harassment definitions, temporary restraining order costs, and paid leave, while HSTA, HGEA, and individual teachers strongly supported the bill, describing harassment incidents and arguing for a standardized statewide response. DOE said it already has reporting pathways, visitor codes of conduct, trespass notices, and an ethics hotline, but acknowledged implementation varies by school and that staff can escalate concerns if needed. The committee also began hearing HB 88 on a three-year pilot program for athletic travel, but the transcript cuts off before that bill’s testimony is completed or any votes are taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Depending on the settlement agreement, if we destroy the evidence, we're currently getting ready to surplus
• We're getting ready to surplus a lot of alcohol, I think 12 pallets. We're trying to get rid of it.
• We might say we're not going to surplus it. We're selling it.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We are in this situation because we overspent and overtaxed when we had an $18 billion surplus, so I'm
• We are in this situation because we overspent and overtaxed when we had an $18 billion surplus, so I'm
• We are in this situation because we overspent and overtaxed when we had an $18 billion surplus, so I'm
• We are in this situation because we overspent and overtaxed when we had an $18 billion surplus, so I'm
• We are in this situation because we overspent and overtaxed when we had an $18 billion surplus, so I'm

Bills: HF1698, HF632, HF1352, HF2197, HF618, HF1248, HF1697

Keywords: property tax, exemption, leased land, public use, commercial property, HF632, Minnesota property tax, conservation easement, conservation restriction, assessed value, property valuation, tax assessment, real property, land conservation, farmland preservation, natural areas, riparian buffer, water quality, water quantity, county assessor

Transcript Highlights:

• We now project to end fiscal years 26-27 with a surplus of $3.7 billion, which is $1.3 billion more than
• Left unspent, that surplus carries over into fiscal years '28 and '29.
• up here, but, you know, I am concerned with the positioning of our $3.7 billion in the bank as a surplus
• the</c><00:46:22.040><c> bank</c><00:46:22.320><c> as</c><00:46:22.440><c> a</c><00:46:22.520><c> surplus
• </c> in the bank as a surplus. in the bank as a surplus.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In the purple line, you can see what was called at the time the year-end enacted surplus or deficit,
• The name of the new account is the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account — long name.
• , if you turn to page 3 and you see that kind of massive spike in what we would call the year-end surplus
• s pointing out the obscene surplus that led to, that was a significant contributor to Prop 13.
• We have a separate issue of what to do with revenue surges to the surplus holding account.

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee held an informational hearing on California’s Budget Stabilization Account, or Rainy Day Fund, with presentations from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Department of Finance, Practical Idealism Economics, and the California Budget and Policy Center. The LAO explained that California’s revenue volatility is driven largely by the personal income tax and high-income capital gains, and described how Proposition 2 deposits work, the 10% cap on the BSA, and the LAO’s evaluation that the current policy would cover only about 30% of funding shortfalls over 50 years in an unfavorable benchmark scenario. The LAO recommended raising the cap to 50% over time and either adopting broader deposit rules or depositing all excess capital gains. Finance said the administration had proposed raising the cap to 20% and excluding reserve deposits and withdrawals from the state appropriations limit. The Budget Center supported reserve reform but stressed balancing savings with current service needs and noted other tools such as revenue changes, borrowing from special funds, and the new Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account. Committee members debated the purpose and adequacy of reserves, the role of the state appropriations limit, and whether reserves should be paired with broader fiscal reforms. Several senators argued that reserves are needed to preserve core services during downturns and that the current system is too complicated and too small, while others emphasized the need to protect spending on health care, child care, and other services for working Californians. There was also discussion of infrastructure spending as a possible countercyclical tool and whether deposits for infrastructure should be treated differently under reserve and SAL rules. The LAO said the Legislature has flexibility in defining infrastructure spending and suggested an infrastructure fund could function as a separate reserve-like mechanism. A significant portion of the hearing turned to broader tax and budget policy, including repeated references to Proposition 13, the state’s revenue structure, business departures, unemployment insurance financing, and the impact of inequality on California’s fiscal resilience. Some members argued Prop. 13 was driven by affordability concerns for homeowners, while others said it created loopholes that benefit corporations and constrain local revenue. The hearing did not take any vote or formal action; it remained informational, with the chair indicating the committee would continue questions and public comment after the panel discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• And does the Governor have restrictions on how that money in the surplus account can be used relative
• One note that I would make is the temporary surplus holding account is not a new account.
• That's why it's called the temporary surplus holding account.
• So we're draining all the surplus out of... ...and going to be a problem.
• So we're draining all the surplus out of the MBA account to backfill the efficiency cuts.

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:

• A $30 billion surplus over that time, is that correct? Yeah, close.
• It's about a $24 billion in the surplus. I'm sorry. No, it's okay.
• We have one surplus; it's about $24 billion. That's what we call the surplus.
• But then we also have another surplus that we...
• The surplus comes largely from the influx of cash from record high inflation, and then unfortunately

Bills: HJR138, HB42, HB 104, HB 129, HB677, HB426, HB668, HB1699, HB2017, HB2128, HB2038, HB3783, HB3717, HB2316, HB3686, HB2563, HB3883, HB4021, HB2788, HB2663, HB3305, HB3173, HB3474, HB 1105, HB3531, HB3490, HB3597, HB 1295, HB3512, HB3010, HB3112, HB4215, HB3223, HB3464, HB3120, HB4214, HB4511, HB3704, HB4081, HB4783, HB4063, HB2783, HB4937, HB5085, HB2510, HB3426, HB4361, HB 1169, HB2516, HB2347, HB4034, HB4700, HB3560, HB5150, HB3860, HB3146, HB3924, HCR98, HCR92, HB1520, HB1545, HB5265, HB1887, HB1914, HB2402, HB2306, HB2350, HB3000, HB3237, HB3326, HB3211, HB 1056, HB2081, HB2187, HB3092, HB3308, HB3526, HB3750, HB4219, HB4230, HB4290, HB5238, HB4804, HB4749, HB245, HB1465, HB294, HB793, HB809, HB3928, HB334, HB2037, HB1973, HB285, HB4341, HB 1043, HB 1234, HB 1193, HB1729, HB2498, HB1314, HB1353, HB3960, HB3923, HB2221, HB2517, HB2518, HB2213, HB5092, HB3748, HB5246, HB4344, HB1482, HB4044, HB2702, HB4264, HB2807, HB2898, HB3181, HB3250, HB2091, HB2115, HB2542, HB2768, HB3349, HB4406, HB1593, HB1899, HB3133, HB3133, HB4960, HB3214, HB2145, HB 1201, HB5061, SB29, SB879, SB65, SB1745, SB412, SB412, SB1746, SB1238, SB1341, SB522, SB1532, SB1378, SB1062, SB2066, SB1963, SB2204, SB1366, SB2077, SB1967, SB1151, HB1618, HB2156, HB2615, HB2615, HB2349, HB1926, HB569, HB1762, HB38, HJR138, HB42, HB 104, HB 104, HB 129, HB677, HB426, HB668, HB1699, HB2017, HB2128, HB2038, HB3783, HB3717, HB2316, HB3686, HB2563, HB3883, HB4021, HB2788, HB2663, HB2663, HB3305, HB3173, HB3474, HB 1105, HB3531, HB3531, HB3490, HB3490, HB3597, HB 1295, HB3512, HB3010, HB3112, HB4215, HB3223, HB3223, HB3464, HB3120, HB4214, HB4511, HB3704, HB4081, HB4783, HB4063, HB2783, HB4937, HB5085, HB2510, HB3426, HB4361, HB 1169, HB2516, HB2347, HB4034, HB4700, HB3560, HB5150, HB3860, HB3146, HB3924, HCR98, HCR92

Keywords: carbon tax, carbon emissions, greenhouse gas, climate policy, fuel tax, emissions tax, Texas Constitution, Article VIII, tax limitation, environmental tax, fossil fuels, energy policy, legislative taxing authority, ballot proposition, constitutional amendment, higher education, funding, financial allocation, state budget, Texas A&M University

Transcript Highlights:

• We had a surplus of $18 billion.
• We had a surplus of $18 billion.
• We had a surplus of $18 billion.
• We had a surplus of $18 billion.
• We had a surplus of $18 billion.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• we've imposed on families here in the state in the past three years, on top of the $18.5 billion surplus
• we've imposed on families here in the state in the past three years, on top of the $18.5 billion surplus
• we've imposed on families here in the state in the past three years, on top of the $18.5 billion surplus
• we've imposed on families here in the state in the past three years, on top of the $18.5 billion surplus

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• rental housing revolving fund monies to be either organizations that are required to use all financial surplus
• 57.199><c> financial</c> that are required to use all financial that are required to use all financial surplus
• <c> excluding</c><00:07:58.560><c> fees,</c><00:07:59.120><c> to</c><00:07:59.280><c> develop</c> surplus
• , excluding fees, to develop surplus, excluding fees, to develop additional<00:08:00.000><c> housing<

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Housing heard and then took action on a series of housing-related bills concerning HHFDC, HPHA, inclusionary zoning, nonprofit housing trusts, housing project exemptions, the rental housing revolving fund, and a new for-sale housing program. Testimony was generally supportive from HHFDC and HPHA, with additional support from groups such as Hawaii YIMBY, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Hawaii Appleseed, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Holo Collaborative, the Kobayashi Group, and others. On SB 2424, the Kobayashi Group argued the bill would help open housing to a broader pool of local households, including buyers slightly above income limits who still cannot afford market-rate housing. On SB 2342, the chair asked HHFDC for final figures on rental housing revolving fund appropriations since 2016 and was told the amount was about $1.1 billion, including conveyance tax revenue. In decision-making, the committee recommended passage of SB 2189 with amendments, noting concerns about transparency and accountability in HHFDC’s loan-award process; SB 2190 with amendments; SB 2234 with amendments; SB 2177 with amendments; SB 2194 unamended; SB 2342 with amendments; SB 2060 with amendments; and SB 2070 with amendments. The committee deferred SB 2195 and SB 2196 after testimony comments, and deferred SB 2063 because the chair said SB 2060 would be used instead as the vehicle for mixed-income subaccount changes. SB 2424 was discussed in hearing but then deferred in decision-making pending legal advice on issues including owner-occupancy, county income restrictions, buyback rules, and county council approval. The committee also heard testimony on SB 2062 and its proposed SD1, but deferred that measure because the relevant changes had already been incorporated into SB 2060 SD1.

Transcript Highlights:

• insurance isn't available through those admitted carriers, the consumer can go to one of the 132-plus surplus
• And then if they are unable to find insurance with a surplus lines carrier, they can come to the Fair
• E&S, access and surplus lines carriers can get access to it.
• E&S, access and surplus lines carriers can get access to it.

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee held an oversight hearing on the California Fair Plan, focusing on its rapid growth, financial stability, rate adequacy, and role in the homeowners insurance market. Committee members described the Fair Plan as increasingly functioning as a “safety net” rather than a true insurer of last resort, while Fair Plan representatives said the plan was created by statute, is privately funded by member insurers, and is now taking on more business because of non-renewals and limited availability in the admitted market. They emphasized that the plan offers residential and commercial coverage, but not a full HO-3 homeowners policy, and said expanding into that product would require major new staffing, vendor, and claims infrastructure. A major topic was pricing and assessments. Fair Plan officials said their rates have historically lagged their projected costs, especially because reinsurance costs were not fully recoverable in rates until recently. They reviewed recent filings, including a 2023 filing that was reduced from an estimated 80% need to a 35.8% request after working with the Department of Insurance. They also discussed the plan’s reinsurance tower, a new catastrophe bond, and the $1 billion assessment triggered by the 2025 Los Angeles fires after losses exceeded available capital. They said AB 226 helped secure a $600 million line of credit to reduce assessment risk, and they thanked lawmakers for supporting that measure. Members raised constituent concerns about coverage limits, underinsurance, and misinformation from agents. Fair Plan officials said they do not deny applicants because their homes exceed the plan’s $3.3 million limit; instead, policyholders can combine Fair Plan coverage with excess insurance. They said broker training and webinars are being expanded to address misunderstandings, and they noted that raising the cap would depend on achieving actuarially sound rates and sufficient financial capacity. Members also asked about smoke claims from the 2025 fires; the Fair Plan said it has paid covered smoke claims under California law, reviewed closed claims, and removed the “sight and smell” language from its policy form after litigation and CDI action. Public commenters from the insurance industry, builders, agriculture, and nonprofit service providers largely urged faster depopulation of the Fair Plan, more adequate rates, and reforms to the clearinghouse process. Some warned that the Fair Plan is now competing with the admitted market because it can be cheaper in some areas, while others said the plan is still essential because the private market is not serving high-risk or specialized properties. The hearing ended without a vote or formal action, but committee members and Fair Plan representatives agreed to continue working on rate, transparency, and depopulation issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• They have a healthy surplus in active members compared to the amount of retirees that we pay out.
• Value is at $88 million, so they actually have a surplus of $36.8 million.
• If we were to do that, it would almost wipe out the entire surplus, going from 170% funded to 108% funded
• Chair, in the first year, it would take effect if it essentially reduces the surplus from 172 to whatever

Transcript Highlights:

• If they can't find insurance there, then they can move to the E&S lines, a surplus lines.
• There's about 132 surplus lines carriers in the state.
• We are not, when we went into these fires, I believe we had about $400 million in surplus.
• of Insurance on, we are not, when we went into these fires, I believe we had about $400 million in surplus

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee held an oversight hearing on the California Fair Plan, focused on the plan’s rapid growth, its financial stability after the January Southern California wildfires, and its role as the insurer of last resort. Fair Plan officials explained that the plan was created in 1968, is a not-for-profit involuntary association of licensed property insurers, and is intended to be a temporary safety net until policyholders can return to the admitted market. They emphasized that the plan is not a state agency or taxpayer-funded, but is regulated by the Department of Insurance and supported by member-company assessments if claims exceed available funds. Victoria Roach and Armand Feliciano said the Fair Plan has grown sharply since 2018 and especially after market pullbacks by major insurers, reaching about 575,000 policies and roughly $600 billion in exposure by spring 2025. They noted that growth is increasingly occurring in lower wildfire-risk areas, where the plan can sometimes be cheaper than the voluntary market, and said this undermines depopulation back into the private market. They also discussed recent policy expansions, including coverage for farms, higher residential and commercial limits, and pending or proposed changes such as AB 290, SB 525, and AB 226, which would add tools like a line of credit and bond access. A major portion of the hearing addressed the January wildfire losses and the plan’s financial response. Fair Plan officials said they assessed member insurers for $1 billion after determining claims and cash flow would exceed available resources, and that the process was approved quickly and paid smoothly, with more than 80% of the assessment collected within 10 days. They also described the reinsurance tower, the plan’s limited surplus, and the need for actuarially sound rates to reduce future reliance on assessments. On claims handling, they said the plan has received over 5,500 claims from the fires, has paid more than $2.9 billion so far, expects total payments near $4 billion, and has focused on advancing payments quickly for total losses and other urgent needs. Members questioned the plan’s solvency, the growth in non-wildfire areas, claim denials, smoke-loss coverage, and how depopulation works. Roach said most closed claims without payment were duplicates rather than denials, and that smoke claims require direct physical loss under the policy, with coverage determined case by case. Public commenters from the California Building Industry Association and the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of California said the Fair Plan’s growth reflects a weak voluntary market, inadequate rates, and insurer fear of future assessments, and urged support for rate increases and AB 226. The hearing concluded with no vote, but with a commitment from Fair Plan officials to follow up on unanswered questions and continue providing more transparency through public data and website disclosures.