Transcript Highlights:

• We operate on federal public land. We operate under federal permits.
• The projects in the gray box are projects that are happening across the state.
• The projects in the gray box are projects that are happening across the state.
• Beyond that, the other two projects that I'm highlighting here are from our faculty-funded projects.
• funded projects.

Committee: House Resources and Conservation

Transcript Highlights:

• funds for capital projects.
• funds for capital projects.
• funds for capital accept federal funds for capital projects.<01:39:02.560><c> Um</c><01:39:03.119><c>
• project that those federal<01:40:18.400><c> dollars</c><01:40:18.800><c> will</c><01:40:19.280><c> reduce
• the federal dollars that impacts a capital project, and that the treasurer is made aware so that she

Committee: Senate Capital Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• Because there's so much that has been banked, given what we projected, where we projected to be.
• Because there's so much that has been banked, given what we projected, where we projected to be.
• It's beneficial: the federal renewable fuel standards and the federal tax incentives.
• We have 225 projects... ...of RNG projects in the state, or sorry, of any state.
• , there’d be no new projects.

Summary: The hearing focused on California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), its role in reducing transportation emissions, and whether its costs at the pump are justified by its climate, air quality, and investment benefits. The co-chairs and several members framed the discussion around affordability and asked whether the program’s benefits, including cleaner fuels, zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and public health gains, outweigh any added fuel costs. Members also raised concerns about how the program is understood by the public and whether its benefits are being communicated clearly. CARB and CEC officials explained how LCFS works as a market-based program that sets declining carbon-intensity targets, generates credits for lower-carbon fuels, and requires deficit holders to buy credits or otherwise comply. They said the program has driven billions in annual private investment, expanded alternative fuels, supported EV charging and hydrogen stations, and helped reduce emissions and local pollution. They also argued that LCFS credit prices are not the main driver of gasoline prices, that the recent amendments added only about seven cents per gallon, and that crude oil, refining, and distribution costs account for most pump price variation. Committee members pressed witnesses on credit banking, market effects, the recent rule updates, additionality, and whether the program’s benefits are concentrated in-state or out-of-state. CARB said banking helps keep the program cost-effective and provides investment certainty, while the Energy Commission said LCFS-related costs are relatively stable and separate from the broader gasoline market. The panel also discussed how the 2025 amendments were shaped by the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate goals and by uncertainty over federal actions. No votes or formal actions were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• projects.
• The federal law, one of the federal laws, substantial pandemic funding that came from the federal government
• If those ARPA projects don't come to fruition, those federal funds can or cannot be used in the foundation
• Of the $1.4 billion in federal...
• If those ARPA projects don't come to fruition, those federal funds can or cannot be used in the foundation

Transcript Highlights:

• , project readiness, and how expensive those projects are likely to be.
• them: local government project fund, transportation project fund.
• projects, etc.
• A nation tribal Pueblo is securing federal funding for a project, and that federal funding is flowing
• We all kind of agreed that that was a project that Needed to happen in federal funding, and so you have

Bills: SB2 , SB2

Committees: Senate Senate Finance , Senate House Appropriations & Finance

Keywords: SB 2, State Highway Project Bonds, highway funding, transportation bonds, state road fund, motor vehicle fees, vehicle registration fees, electric vehicle fee, EV surcharge, plug-in hybrid fee, weight distance tax, road construction, infrastructure financing, Department of Transportation, State Transportation Commission, bonding authority, county road funds, municipal road funds, transportation improvement program, state highways

Transcript Highlights:

• Though SB 1087 states that only GHG-reducing projects may be...
• And we're in violation of both federal and state air quality standards.
• The Diridon Station Modernization Project in San Jose is a leading example of the type of public project
• It's a project with great long-term environmental benefits.
• at least will start to trust these projects.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee heard several transportation, climate, and vehicle-related bills. SB 1087 by Senator Cabaldon proposed modernizing SB 375 regional planning by moving plans from a four-year to an eight-year cycle, clarifying agency roles, aligning funding programs with regional climate plans, and reducing duplicative process costs. Supporters from MPOs and environmental groups said it would improve efficiency and implementation; opponents warned it could weaken climate accountability, expand vehicle miles traveled concerns, and reduce public participation. SB 1315, also by Senator Cabaldon, would require manufacturers to report software updates for semi-autonomous vehicle features to the Insurance Commissioner to build data for future policy; it drew no opposition. SB 1275 by Senator McNerney would replace the state sales tax on motor vehicles with a higher vehicle license fee to preserve a federal tax deduction and reduce money sent to Washington, with LAO providing technical testimony on the tax structure. The committee also heard SB 1287 by Senator Hurtado, which would create a tax credit to spur private investment in short-line railroad infrastructure. Supporters said it would improve freight efficiency, safety, emissions, and rural economic development; there was no opposition. SB 1064 by Senator Daly would reduce the frequency of clean truck checks for very low-mileage heavy-duty and off-road diesel vehicles, with supporters saying it would save time and costs and opponents asking for CARB analysis before taking a position. SB 1375 by Senator Cortese would streamline environmental review for certain transit and rail projects that have already undergone extensive prior review, while preserving other environmental laws; it received broad support and no opposition. SB 1392, also by Senator Cortese, would expand the smog exemption for certain collector vehicles used mainly for shows, parades, and historic display; classic car and lowrider supporters backed it, while air quality groups opposed it as likely to increase emissions and weaken smog-check accountability. After testimony, the committee took up motions and later completed roll calls once a quorum was established. SB 1213 was placed on the consent calendar and approved. SB 1087, SB 1315, SB 1275, SB 1287, SB 1423, SB 1064, SB 1375, and SB 1392 were all reported out of committee, generally to the Senate Appropriations Committee, with SB 1392 receiving the closest vote and some opposition from members. The committee also briefly discussed another bill on active transportation funding tied to SB 79 areas, and that measure was approved after amendments and a roll call vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it's not working, it's not contributing to the—all these projects will have, the individual projects
• So that's a $500 savings on their federal income taxes for those filers.
• The Deerodon Station Modernization Project in San Jose is a leading example of the type of public project
• It's a project with great long-term environmental benefits.
• at least will start to trust these projects. ...transportation projects in those zones so that the communities

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• State projects would go in here. right? State projects would go in here.
• </c> uh especially for federal programs. uh especially for federal programs.
• </c> uh following the US federal regulation. uh following the US federal regulation.
• projects? projects?
• But I think we can take your projects<05:46:08.320><c> in.</c> projects in. projects in.

Transcript Highlights:

• out which programs that federal funding is for.
• This depends on what the federal grant award is.
• Grants were awarded to 23 projects across the state.
• So federal funding... This is a national problem.
• So federal funding for more than 40 workforce programs is scattered across federal agencies, which funnels

Summary: The Budget Section’s Commerce and Legal Services division met to review the Department of Commerce base budget and current program activities for the 2027-29 biennium. Legislative Council staff first walked through a new “blue sheet” summary explaining what is included in Commerce’s base budget, with emphasis on salaries, operating costs, and especially grant authority funded largely by federal dollars. Members asked about how grant funding is coordinated across agencies, and staff noted that some programs, such as LIHEAP and UAS-related work, involve interagency collaboration and federal budget authority that may not match exact cash received. Commerce Commissioner Chris Schilke then presented on grant administration, the department’s transparency page, and several grant programs, including Destination Development and Automate ND. Members questioned how many entities apply for grants, what criteria are used, whether return on investment is tracked, and how long grant awards take to reach recipients. A lengthy exchange followed over whether Commerce must follow state procurement law or instead administer grants using its own “best practices” process; the commissioner said the department’s approach was based on legal guidance and competitive grantmaking, while some legislators argued the process should more closely reflect legislative intent. The department also highlighted the North Dakota Development Fund, child care loans, and workforce initiatives. Commerce described Development Fund investments, including examples of successful projects and a child care loan program that has supported 43 active businesses serving 3,754 children. Staff also outlined a new non-primary-sector lending framework and said a workforce and housing sub-cabinet are working on more coordinated statewide strategies. Workforce Director Katie Ralston Howell presented a broad workforce-system assessment, a new shared vision, and task forces focused on simplifying entry, improving warm handoffs, and building a public dashboard of shared metrics; members discussed higher education alignment, career pathways, and the need for better handoffs from schools to employers. No formal votes were taken, and the meeting ended with plans to continue these budget discussions in June, including the Attorney General budget.

Transcript Highlights:

• How is CalGSS working with the Trevor Project to address the federal loss of LGBTQ+ support options?
• We continue to seek partnership with the Trevor Project during these federal uncertain times.
• Sorry, I meant, given that the funding was taken away by the federal government on the Trevor Project
• These are going to be launch-ready projects. These are going to be launch-ready projects.
• Federal fiscal year 2026, we do also project that we will exceed the federal target again.

Summary: The committee heard opening budget remarks from the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst’s Office on the May Revision for Health and Human Services. Finance said the proposal significantly reduces projected out-year operating deficits through a mix of revenue increases and program cost reductions, while the LAO warned that even with booming revenues the state still faces a structural deficit and should prioritize reserves and avoid new ongoing commitments. The chair and members echoed concern about cuts to vulnerable populations, but also noted the need to maintain the overall level of budget solutions and add to reserves. The hearing then moved through a series of CalHHS and HCAI proposals, mostly held open after presentation. CalHHS requested additional legal support to respond to federal H.R. 1-related issues and a net-zero transfer of positions for a shared eligibility/data-sharing platform. Other items included ongoing funding for the 988 Behavioral Health Crisis Service Fund and a request for EMSA to fund maintenance of its enterprise data management system. HCAI presented proposals for hospital fair pricing implementation, the data exchange framework, the all-payer claims database, CalRx insulin development, the diaper access initiative, distressed hospital grants, opioid settlement fund reversion, and the Rural Health Transformation Program. Members questioned funding sources, special fund use, contracting exemptions, timelines, and whether some proposals should be more targeted or supported by alternative funding. A major discussion centered on HCAI’s diaper access initiative and the use of a Public Contract Code exemption to continue contracting for free diapers distributed through hospitals. The chair and some members criticized the optics of the selected vendor and questioned the lack of an income threshold, while HCAI said the program was designed to be universal and administratively simple, with future phase-two direct-to-consumer purchasing to be handled by a different vendor. Another extended exchange focused on distressed hospital funding, where HCAI said the May Revision would provide up to $50 million for hospitals at immediate risk of closure, but members argued the repeated annual need shows a structural problem and asked for broader reforms to hospital payment and care transitions. The final major topic was the Behavioral Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission’s budget. The Commission opposed the May Revision’s reduction of the Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and a $6.7 million cut to community advocacy contracts, arguing both are core Proposition 1 tools for statewide innovation and community engagement. Finance responded that the proposal is within Proposition 1’s allowable maximums and that prior unspent appropriations could be redirected if the Legislature wanted to restore the full amount. No votes were taken; items were generally held open for later action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Capital projects are funds that are appropriated by the state Legislature for capital projects, along
• Capital projects are funds that are appropriated by the state legislature, Capital projects are funds
• many projects are outstanding?
• Universities are starting on those projects, and those 88 projects total about $1.2 billion.
• That totals a total project cost of $1.4 billion for those 18 projects.

Summary: The Higher Education Budget Subcommittee met to hear an overview of State University System finances from the Board of Governors and detailed budget presentations from Florida State University, the University of Central Florida, and the University of North Florida. The witnesses explained how university budgets are organized into fund categories such as education and general, contracts and grants, auxiliaries, local/designated funds, capital projects, and component units such as direct support organizations. They also described carry forward funds, the statutory reserve and spending-plan requirements, the PICO/HECO capital outlay process, and how universities use investment accounts, audits, and board oversight to manage restricted and unspent funds. The universities emphasized that most operating dollars are restricted to specific uses and that state support helps keep tuition low. Members asked about differences in funding levels among institutions, especially why FSU receives more funding than UCF despite lower enrollment. Officials said preeminence funding, performance funding, and special legislative appropriations explain much of the difference, and the Board of Governors noted that Florida now has four preeminent universities, with UCF nearing that status. Questions also focused on what happens to unspent carry forward money, how it is invested, and whether the Board of Governors or Legislature can require funds to be returned; officials said the money is invested conservatively, subject to board and audit oversight, and can roll forward under a detailed spending plan, though the Legislature can change funding levels. The committee also discussed capital projects, with members asking about delays, inflation, and whether more projects should be phased or funded faster; witnesses said PICO funds remain with the state until needed and are reimbursed as construction proceeds. A substantial portion of the discussion covered athletics, research, student fees, and endowments. The universities said athletics is generally expected to be self-supporting, though limited use of auxiliary or carry forward funds may be allowed for projects benefiting the broader student body. They also described the financial pressures from name, image, and likeness changes and new NCAA-related costs, and said institutions are planning for those changes now. On research, the universities explained sponsored research funding, indirect cost recovery, compliance obligations, and tech transfer, but did not provide specific commercialization revenue figures and said they would follow up. Members also asked about student fee increases, student input, counseling and wellness funding, and how housing costs affect affordability; the universities said student committees and boards review fees, and aid packaging is intended to keep student debt low. Endowments were described as being held in separate foundations/DSOs with independent investment committees and used mainly for scholarships, faculty support, and research.

Transcript Highlights:

• There will be some adjustments made to federal authority for various programs to reflect updated federal
• mechanisms and project protections.
• funding for major capital projects?
• There are billions of dollars a year that come to the state from the federal government through the Federal
• It shouldn't have to just be project by project in the trailer bills.

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard two measures: AB 107, a budget bill junior making largely technical changes to the 2023, 2024, and 2025 budget acts, and AB 117, a trailer bill authorizing a $590 million loan structure to support four Bay Area transit agencies through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission using unallocated Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program funds. Finance explained AB 107 included technical fixes such as extending encumbrance periods, updating federal authority, correcting fiscal language, moving $20 million for California travel promotion from Visit California to GoBiz, and adding an APA exemption for implementation of already-approved climate bond programs. AB 117 was described as a cost-neutral regional solution with a 12-year loan term, two years interest-only, and repayment secured through existing state transit funding streams, with oversight by CalSTA, CTC, and MTC to limit impacts on other projects. Members raised concerns about transparency, competitive bidding, and whether APA exemptions and no-bid or emergency processes could reduce oversight, while supporters argued the exemptions were needed to get voter-approved climate and wildfire-related funds out the door. On AB 117, senators questioned whether the loan could become a de facto bailout if a Bay Area sales tax measure fails, whether post-pandemic ridership declines and safety/fare-evasion issues are temporary or structural, and whether the loan could jeopardize TIRCP-funded capital projects such as BART Phase 2. Transit agencies and local representatives testified in support, saying ridership is recovering, the loan is critical to avoid service cuts, and the Bay Area economy depends on transit stability. The committee first passed AB 107 on a 9-4 vote and AB 117 on a 9-4 vote, then held both bills on call. After recess, absent members returned and both measures were lifted from call and passed with 11 votes each. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• very major projects.
• These projects do save lives.
• The federal funds are apportioned to the states through multi-year federal legislation.
• The federal funds are apportioned to the states through multi-year federal legislation.
• The chart does not show the portion of federal aid that's passed through to locals or projects for the

Committee: House Transportation and Defense

Transcript Highlights:

• with their projects.
• Then we get the planning dollars out the door, and if it's a project-ready project, then we can go to
• be drawn down from those project funds to pay for whatever the project is.
• In addition to those efforts, we take on habitat projects and species restoration projects across the
• We also have eleven federal properties, which is important given our current situation with federal interfaces

Committee: House House Rural Development, Land Grants And Cultural Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• It's for integrity management projects that are mandated by federal, state, or local jurisdictions on
• ><c> mandated</c><00:13:51.520><c> by</c><00:13:51.680><c> federal,</c> projects that are mandated by
• federal, projects that are mandated by federal, state,<00:13:53.200><c> or</c><00:13:53.360><c> local
• the project.
• the project.

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities, Environment, and Climate

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> project</c><00:04:51.560><c> is</c><00:04:51.680><c> awarded</c> project when the project is awarded
• . projects. projects.
• </c> you you put together a project. you you put together a project.
• </c> what we're doing with this project. what we're doing with this project.
• that have, uh, refinancing projects that have, uh, federal<00:32:25.520><c> subsidies</c><00:32:26.160

Committee: Senate Housing and Homelessness Prevention

Transcript Highlights:

• , project readiness, and how expensive those projects are likely to be.
• Sale on the project.
• match the federal money.
• Did you, are you asking if a Nation, Tribe, or Pueblo is securing federal funding for a project, and
• that federal funding is flowing to that Nation, Tribe, or Pueblo, and it was for a project that is also

Bills: SB2

Committee: Senate Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• This is going to support our DSH infrastructure projects and an additional seven projects for 625 beds
• and assist with IT project approval lifecycle.
• An analysis of claims settlement IT project and assist with IT project approval lifecycle and development
• This augmentation will expand eligibility from 165% of the federal poverty level to 200% of the federal
• This is not impacted by this new federal policy.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held a May Revision hearing covering several health-related budget proposals and broader concerns about the state’s budget structure. The Chair opened by praising some May Revision changes, such as added health IT funding, county administration support tied to Medi-Cal changes, a delay in Medi-Cal cuts for some lawfully present immigrants, and additional support for Covered California subsidies, while criticizing proposed increases in Medi-Cal premiums, changes to senior eligibility, the lack of a Medi-Cal dental solution, and other reductions affecting counties, mobile crisis units, workforce incentives, and physician shortages. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state’s budget condition remains weak despite progress on the structural deficit, and the Department of Finance said the May Revision uses a mix of reductions, reforms, revenue proposals, and fund shifts to cut out-year deficits. The committee first heard Department of State Hospitals proposals, including adjustments to county bed billing authority, contract exemption language for online clinical/pharmacy subscriptions, reversion of unspent funds, a revised Metro Central Utility Plant replacement project, electronic health record implementation, and workforce development funded partly through Behavioral Health Services Act resources. DSH also described savings and realignments in incompetent-to-stand-trial and conditional release programs, including extending the independent placement panel program and shifting funds to support additional bed capacity and a mental health rehab center. Members asked about the use of BHSA funds for workforce programs, and the department said the proposal would replace General Fund support with BHSA reimbursements. The Emergency Medical Services Authority proposed funding for statewide behavioral health crisis response guidance and for enterprise system development, and the Department of Managed Health Care proposed modernization of its complaint system and claims-settlement data system to improve oversight and comply with AB 3275. The largest discussion centered on the administration’s BHSA spending plan under Proposition 1, including state-directed prevention, workforce, and other uses, plus General Fund offsets for existing programs. The LAO questioned whether some proposed offsets fit Proposition 1’s non-supplant and eligible-use requirements, while the administration argued the uses were consistent with the measure and that the state-directed share can be adjusted annually. The Commission for Behavioral Health’s proposals drew the most public and member concern. The administration proposed cutting the commission’s Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and reducing the Community Advocacy Program by $6.7 million, while redirecting BHSA dollars to other state purposes and direct services. Commissioners, advocates, and several members argued the cuts would weaken community voice, reduce support for underserved populations, and disrupt grants already in process; they also objected to using BHSA funds to backfill General Fund commitments. Public commenters, including youth, disability, behavioral health, LGBTQ, tribal, veteran, immigrant, and community-based organization representatives, overwhelmingly opposed the cuts and urged preservation of prevention, advocacy, mobile crisis, and innovation funding. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And thank you as well for the updates on the federal, you know, the potential federal cuts here is very
• We're able to do it in that project.
• We're using a lot of the federal ARPA and some of the federal money, but we are continuing to make funds
• the federal fund uncertainty and lead remediation.
• She knows how difficult it is to develop any project in a community, whether it's a municipal project

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Housing

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing opened its second hearing of the session with remarks from Chairs Haggerty and Cyr emphasizing that the hearing was a broad look at Massachusetts’ housing crisis rather than a single bill. They highlighted topics including zoning, permitting, rental assistance, public housing, homelessness prevention, and housing production. The first witness, Housing and Livable Communities Secretary Augustus, reviewed implementation of the Affordable Homes Act and the state’s new housing plan, citing a 1.6% vacancy rate, a projected need for 222,000 new homes over 10 years, and ongoing efforts such as ADUs by right, fair housing enforcement, eviction record sealing, seasonal communities planning, and new funding for affordable housing, public housing, and the Momentum Fund. He also discussed infrastructure support for municipalities, technical assistance for ADUs, and concerns about possible federal funding cuts. Committee members questioned the secretary about ADU financing and technical assistance, the likely unit yield from the Affordable Homes Act, infrastructure barriers in suburban and rural communities, public housing waitlist management, supportive housing, and federal budget risks. MassNAHRO then testified that public housing authorities are facing rising operating and capital costs, a statewide waitlist nearing 300,000, and uncertainty over federal Section 8 and HUD funding. Witnesses described recent state support for operating subsidies, capital improvements, vacancy turnover teams, and resident service coordinators, while warning that proposed federal cuts could sharply affect voucher issuance and agency operations. CDAC’s executive director Roger Herzog described the agency’s role as a quasi-public source of early-stage financing and technical assistance for nonprofit housing developers, noting its loan capital, supportive housing bond programs, home modification loans, and preservation work under Chapter 40T. He said CDAC has helped produce or preserve more than 55,000 units and stressed the importance of patient capital and preservation tools. CHAPA CEO Rachel Heller urged the committee to focus on production, preservation, planning, and political will, supporting goals for affordability, supportive housing, and homeownership, and endorsing policy changes such as YIGBY, clearer site plan review rules, stronger fair housing funding, and more support for vouchers and public housing. MassHousing then outlined its financing role, including mortgage lending, down payment assistance, the Community Climate Bank, and the Momentum Fund, while noting that permitting delays, capital gaps, and possible federal changes could affect production. Members also asked about transparency, prevailing wage compliance, and a recent internal restructuring related to diversity and business engagement.

Transcript Highlights:

• projects may be funded, our own analysis shows that highway expansion projects are often flagged as
• It's not contributing to the— all these projects will have, the individual projects, the general plans
• The Deerodon Station Modernization Project in San Jose is a leading example of the type of public project
• It's a project with great long-term environmental benefits.
• at least will start to trust these projects. ...transportation projects in those zones so that the communities

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee heard several bills focused on transportation planning, freight, emissions, and vehicle regulations. SB 1087 by Senator Cabaldon would modernize SB 375 by extending regional plan cycles from four to eight years, improving coordination with CARB and other state agencies, and aligning funding and guidelines more closely with climate and mobility goals. Supporters, including SCAG, MTC/ABAG, other MPOs, cities, and environmental groups, said the current process is costly and inefficient; opponents from clean air and housing groups warned it could weaken accountability for climate targets and shift focus away from vehicle miles traveled reductions. The committee also heard SB 1315, which would require manufacturers to report software updates for semi-autonomous vehicle features to the Insurance Commissioner so the state can better track safety and policy impacts; there was no opposition testimony. The committee also considered SB 1275 by Senator McNerney, a tax proposal to replace the state sales tax on motor vehicles with a deductible vehicle license fee to reduce Californians’ federal tax burden. A Legislative Analyst’s Office witness explained the tax-policy mechanics and estimated savings, and the bill drew support from the author and no formal opposition. SB 1287 by Senator Hurtado would create a targeted tax credit for short-line railroad infrastructure investment; supporters said it would improve freight efficiency, reduce truck traffic and emissions, and help rural and agricultural economies, with no opposition testimony. SB 1064 by Senator Daly would reduce the frequency of clean truck checks for very low-mileage heavy-duty and off-road vehicles; supporters called it a practical affordability measure, while clean air advocates said they wanted to see the amended text and CARB analysis before taking a final position. The committee also heard SB 1375 by Senator Cortese, which would limit duplicative environmental review for certain transit and rail projects that have already undergone extensive prior review; supporters said it would save time and money while preserving other environmental protections, and there was no opposition. SB 1392, also by Senator Cortese, would expand the smog-check exemption for certain older collector vehicles used mainly for shows, parades, and historic display; classic-car and lowrider supporters said the bill protects automotive heritage and reflects limited actual use, while air-quality groups argued it would increase emissions and weaken smog-check accountability. After testimony and committee discussion, the committee took roll-call votes and advanced all measures, including consent item SB 1213, to the Senate Appropriations Committee, with SB 1392 receiving the most divided vote.