Transcript Highlights:

• Data. Morning. Okay. Okay, Mr.
• But do we have that data?
• So we do have the data.
• Data migration and Tynet migration. So the core data migration is pretty much done.
• Data migration and Tynet migration. So the core data migration is pretty much done.

Committee: Joint Information Technology Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Data. Morning. Okay. Okay, Mr.
• But do we have that data?
• But do we have that data?
• So we do have the data.
• Data migration and Tynet migration. So the core data migration is pretty much done.

Summary: The committee approved the March 26 minutes and then received a quarterly update on major IT projects from NDIT. Staff reported the portfolio included 116 major projects totaling about $546 million, with the overall portfolio under budget but slightly behind schedule. They reviewed projects over the 20% variance threshold, including an Industrial Commission grants management system and DOT’s roadway pre-construction replacement, and then heard startup and closeout reports from HHS, OMB, DPI, and DOT. Several previously troubled projects were closed, including HHS bed management, vital records modernization, and DOT roadway capital planning; some projects finished under budget and ahead of schedule, while others were significantly behind schedule or over budget but were now closed or being remediated. The committee also reviewed NDIT’s annual report, including service-fund financials, peer-state rate comparisons, records management, and customer satisfaction efforts. Members asked about how service-fund revenue and grant administrative charges are accounted for, how chargebacks work, and whether NDIT tracks customer satisfaction scores. NDIT said it does track CSAT-type measures in some service areas and has survey data, but it is not planning another customer survey this summer. Members encouraged more regular reporting of customer satisfaction, service-level metrics, and performance data to help guide future improvements. A major portion of the meeting focused on the state’s mainframe modernization effort. NDIT said the overall effort is still targeting about 2030, with multiple HHS and DOT projects underway and a $15 million tech-debt appropriation already removing some components. Staff described the main obstacles as data cleanup, complex integrations, limited staff capacity, retirements, and vendor constraints, and said they are seeking a vendor with modernization support in the next contract cycle. Members pressed for clearer accountability and faster progress, and NDIT and HHS emphasized that they are working jointly but need continued support and better tools. The committee then heard a cybersecurity update on NDIT’s statewide services and maturity assessments. NDIT explained that it provides vulnerability scanning, endpoint protection, security awareness training, threat briefings, and penetration testing, and that these services are tied to a cybersecurity maturity assessment based on CIS controls. Members questioned the sharp drop in participation since 2020 and whether the self-assessment should be mandatory or tied more strongly to StageNet access or insurance incentives. NDIT said participation is voluntary, but Enderf is now requiring annual assessments to keep a 4% insurance discount, and members discussed whether stronger requirements or audit authority may be needed. The meeting ended as the committee began a follow-up discussion on BEAD broadband connection costs and why some locations are much more expensive to connect than others.

Transcript Highlights:

• Right now, local governments approving data centers have no site-specific use data or peak demand information
• A 2024 report out of the largest data center market in Virginia shows that 83% of data centers in the
• If they can't feed the beast that is a data center, the data centers aren't going to win either.
• Do you want to do your other data center? The other data center, which is yes, Item 23, AB 2619?
• Data center cooling is not a... Data center cooling is not a one-size-fits-all solution.

Committee: House Local Government

Transcript Highlights:

• This is the bill on data centers.
• The bill on data centers seeks to create a framework for responsible regulatory data center construction
• Second, prohibiting the non-disclosure agreement on data center projects creates disparity between data
• So we’ll probably have a couple of data center bills...”
• It does not ban data centers.

Committee: House Commerce Committee

Summary: The committee first considered CS/HB 1263 on the Office of Insurance Regulation. The sponsor said the bill would strengthen OIR’s tools to oversee property insurance, including market conduct and solvency exams, claims handling oversight, mandatory discounts for certain mitigation measures, storage of mitigation inspection forms, and clearer authority over pharmacy benefit managers. An amendment narrowing fingerprinting requirements was adopted, and the bill passed favorably after supportive testimony from OIR and others. Members then heard CS/HB 527, which would require a human review before an insurance claim can be denied or reduced when artificial intelligence or automated systems are used. After an amendment removing the term “algorithm” was adopted, the bill drew opposition from several insurance industry groups, while consumer and labor witnesses supported it. The sponsor argued the measure was needed after reports of AI-driven claim denials, and the bill passed favorably. The committee also approved CS/HB 637 on farm equipment “lemon law” protections, with an amendment clarifying who qualifies as a consumer, refund rights, repair timelines, and an effective date. The committee next took up CS/HB 1007 on data centers, which would create a regulatory framework for siting and operating large data centers, limit NDAs in some circumstances, set PSC tariff requirements, and restrict certain locations near homes and schools. After an amendment narrowing the five-mile buffer to data centers over 50 megawatts and adding noise-study requirements, the bill drew mixed testimony from business, consumer, and local-government groups, with supporters emphasizing guardrails and opponents warning about competitiveness and site restrictions. The bill passed favorably despite several no votes. Later, the committee approved CS/HB 1291 on the NICA birth-related neurological injury compensation program after a strike-all amendment revised reimbursement and assessment provisions; testimony included support from NICA and concerns from the Florida Justice Association and a family affected by the program. The committee also passed CS/HB 185 on a sales tax exemption for home-hardening products, CS/HB 425 on a historic African-American cemetery preservation program, CS/CS/CS/HB 1177 on Space Florida and spaceport operations, CS/CS/CS/HB 657 on community associations and HOA/condo reforms, and CS/CS/HB 1221, the DFS agency package. The final bill discussed was CS/HB 1001, which would restrict county and municipal DEI-related actions and contracting; the sponsor explained the strike-all, and members began questioning its definitions and exceptions, but the transcript cuts off before the bill’s final disposition.

Transcript Highlights:

• at the millions of records, do data reconciliation, and prepare the data, and then do our analysis.
• I just have a question, and this just goes back to the comment about the 2024 data versus the 2025 data
• So is there a way that we could use more current data?
• Let me start with the participant data or the member data.
• The participant data or the member data generally, that information doesn't dramatically change from

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement and the Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement held a joint hearing required by law to receive an independent report from the California Actuarial Advisory Panel on CalPERS. Opening remarks emphasized CalPERS’ role in providing retirement security for about two million members and the importance of pension funding to the state budget, especially amid economic uncertainty, market volatility, federal policy changes, and concerns about future fiscal pressure. Scott Tarando, CalPERS chief actuary and a CAP member, presented on the statutory disclosure requirements in Government Code Section 2029. He explained that CalPERS’ current discount rate is 6.8%, that lower investment returns increase contribution rates and unfunded liabilities, and that the plan uses a 20-year amortization period for new unfunded liabilities. He said CAP has recommended a reasonable amortization range of 15 to 20 years and that CalPERS’ longer smoothing period helps reduce volatility in employer contributions. He also explained the timing of actuarial data: the valuation used for current contribution rates is based on the prior fiscal year’s audited data, with the next year’s rates developed later in the annual cycle. Members asked about the relationship between average employee service life and amortization, whether current market and AI-related changes could justify using more current data, whether pension benefits change when valuations are updated, and how CalPERS’ funded status has changed over time. Tarando said retiree benefits do not change based on annual valuations, that the system’s funded status has improved from roughly the mid-60% range about a decade ago to around 80% or higher more recently, and that CalPERS is monitoring possible long-term workforce effects from AI but sees no immediate need to change assumptions. Michael Cohen of CalPERS said the system complies with information requests and is independently audited annually, but there has been no formal federal review released. In public comment, a representative of county governments praised the improved funded status and PEPRA reforms. The hearing concluded with remarks reaffirming fiduciary responsibility and the importance of protecting CalPERS beneficiaries.

Transcript Highlights:

• the data.
• I just have a question, and this just goes back to the comment about the 2024 data versus the 2025 data
• So is there a way that we could use more current data?
• Let me start with the participant data or the member data.
• The participant data or the member data generally, that information doesn't dramatically change from

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement and the Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement held a joint hearing required by law to receive an independent report from the California Actuarial Advisory Panel on CalPERS. Opening remarks emphasized CalPERS’ role in providing retirement security for roughly two million members and the importance of actuarial assumptions to state budgeting and long-term pension health. Scott Tarando, CalPERS chief actuary and a CAP member, presented the report with Michael Cohen of CalPERS’ investment office available for questions. Tarando explained the statutory disclosure requirements under Government Code Section 2029, including sensitivity analysis around CalPERS’ 6.8% discount rate, and discussed how investment return assumptions and the 20-year amortization period affect contribution rates, unfunded liabilities, and budget volatility. He said shorter amortization periods would raise near-term costs but reduce long-term interest costs, and noted that CalPERS’ current approach is intended to smooth contribution changes over time. He also described the timing of the annual valuation process, explaining that contribution rates for a given fiscal year are based on the most recently audited year-end data and are approved by the board before being used in the budget process. Members asked about the relationship between average employee service life and amortization, whether more current data could be used, the effect of AI and labor-market changes on future assumptions, whether retirees’ benefits change with annual valuations, and CalPERS’ funded status. Tarando said the average expected working lifetime is about 11 to 12 years, while CalPERS uses a 20-year amortization period; he also said retiree benefits are set at retirement and do not change based on later valuations. He estimated CalPERS’ funded status had risen from the mid-60% range about 10 years ago to around 79% at June 30 and above 80% more recently. Cohen said CalPERS had complied with federal information requests and that no formal federal review had been released. During public comment, a county association representative praised the improved funded status and PEPRA reforms. The chairs closed by reiterating fiduciary responsibility and the need to protect CalPERS’ long-term stability, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're open to all of that data and that dialogue.
• We're open to all of that data and that dialogue.
• under old data to what they're going to be receiving under the new data.
• We want to make sure it's based in data. Got it.
• It should be based on data, like you said.

Committee: House Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies

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:

• In 2012, 2013, this body passed the computer data center program, a tax incentive program, to allow data
• In 2012, 2013, this body passed the computer data center program, a tax incentive program, to allow data
• We don't have great data on this.
• We know that modern data centers don't.
• So going back to the data centers, data centers that are under contract now, would it have any impact

Summary: The committee met to review the governor’s fiscal 2027 budget presentation, with the chair repeatedly asking members to keep questions brief and avoid speeches. The discussion focused first on the overall revenue and spending outlook, including concerns from members that the executive forecast was more optimistic than the JLBC baseline and that the budget appeared to front-load revenue and expenditure growth. The governor’s budget team said the forecast was close to JLBC’s, that the budget was structurally balanced, and that differences were roughly $100 million per year on ongoing revenue. Members asked for follow-up calculations in writing, including the total multi-year gap and the amount of revenue enhancements above base revenues. A major portion of the meeting centered on tax and fee proposals tied to data centers, water use, and sports betting. The governor’s team defended eliminating the existing data center tax incentive as the removal of a loophole rather than a new tax, arguing the incentive had already succeeded in attracting major investment. They also described a proposed Department of Water Resources fee-setting authority for data centers to support a new Colorado River Protection Fund, and said the proposal would apply to existing and future facilities without a grandfather clause. Members raised concerns about fairness, competitiveness, and whether the changes would require a supermajority vote. The team also discussed increased sports betting fees, saying the revenue forecast did not include dynamic behavioral effects. The committee then moved through major spending areas, including corrections, public safety, border security, cybersecurity, K-12 education, Medicaid, and developmental disabilities. The governor’s budget includes ongoing funding to prevent correctional officer pay cuts, money to comply with prison health care court orders, probation funding, body-worn cameras, law enforcement staffing, fentanyl task forces, and cyber readiness grants. Members questioned the lack of funding for a prison oversight committee and asked for corrections spending totals over the administration. On border security, the executive said it was seeking about $759.7 million in federal reimbursement for border-related costs and that the governor had met with federal officials, including Secretary Noem and Tom Homan, about the request. In education, the budget proposes renewing Prop. 123, adding K-12 base funding, and issuing $1.5 billion in school facilities bonds over three years; members debated whether the proposal was appropriate and whether Prop. 123 revenues could support the debt service. The meeting also covered AHCCCS cost growth and federal HR1 impacts, with the executive warning of major coverage losses and hospital funding reductions, and DDD funding, where the governor’s team said the budget fully funds services and includes about $120 million in supplemental needs. No votes were taken; the meeting was a presentation and question-and-answer session only.

Transcript Highlights:

• the</c><00:08:59.040><c> preschool</c> In compiling data for the preschool In compiling data for the
• </c><00:09:16.000><c> that</c> data and classified staffing data that data and classified staffing data
• The first is the district data profiles for the 2025 school year data.
• As we review the data every year, we notice issues that affect the comparability of data.
• As we review the data every year, we notice issues that affect the comparability of data.

Summary: The subcommittee heard an Office of Education Accountability report on Kentucky’s early childhood regional training centers (RTCs). OEA said the centers provide valuable training, consultation, technical assistance, and materials for preschool personnel, especially for children with disabilities and at-risk students, and that the services align with state and federal requirements. However, the report found uneven student and teacher populations across regions, wide variation in per-student funding, some staffing data inaccuracies, and several fiscal oversight concerns, including inconsistent indirect cost rates, a building rental charge that may have been duplicative, and host districts recording RTC expenditures in a way that could blur them with district finances. OEA also said some documentation of progress toward goals was incomplete and that the technology lending library appeared underused. The report recommended stronger KDE oversight, uniform coding and accounting practices, review of budgets and expenditures, and an evaluation of whether the current five-center model remains the most efficient structure; OEA also suggested the General Assembly may wish to revisit KRS 157.318. Members asked about KDE’s response, whether the centers are required by federal law, how the centers operate, and whether changing the model would affect federal funding. OEA said KDE had only discussed the findings informally and had not issued a formal response, the centers are required by state law but not federal law, and changing the model would not jeopardize IDEA preschool funds. The committee accepted the report by motion. The subcommittee then approved the minutes from its July 14, 2025 meeting after initially delaying action because quorum was not yet present. After that, members turned to the Office of Education Accountability’s proposed 2026 study agenda. OEA said the three proposed topics are the annual district data profiles, facilities funding, and implementation of early literacy statutes. The district profiles would add an appendix showing the number and percentage of students moving to private school or homeschool by district and another appendix noting data-quality issues that affect comparability. OEA explained that district staffing data can undercount contract staff because those employees are not always entered into the system, and members expressed interest in tracking whether prior recommendations were implemented. One senator also raised a separate interest in reviewing whether KDE created and implemented regulations related to KFIX. The discussion remained informational, with no final vote on the study agenda shown in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> other proposals to build additional data other proposals to build additional data centers<00:02:
• Is it being data-mined?
• So if the government is going to handle digital data, personal data, they have to do so with the same
• Those are some of the ways we input data and then we get data out.
• </c><00:23:23.120><c> and</c> are some of the ways we input data and are some of the ways we input data

Transcript Highlights:

• sets such as data from the U.S.
• And also the LBO relies on data from the UR, so summary data and tax data from the UR.
• And also the LBO relies on data from the UR, so summary data and tax data from the UR.
• and tax data the UR so and summary data and tax data from<00:12:12.240><c> the</c><00:12:12.320><c>
• </c> summary and tax data from from the UR. summary and tax data from from the UR.

Transcript Highlights:

• in the data.
• and the CCOC data.
• have robust, high-quality data.
• And I think the data differences or data challenges can come from a number of sources.
• How that's captured in the data?

Summary: The committee first heard an update from the Florida Department of Corrections on the proposed Lake Correctional Institution mental health project in Clermont. Tim Fitzgerald explained the project’s history, including the 2016 Disability Rights Florida litigation, the 2018 consent decree, and the original plan for a 550-bed inpatient mental health facility. He said inflation and design changes pushed the project above the bond amount, leading the department to shift to a “continuum of care” alternative with 572 beds total: 92 inpatient beds and 480 residential treatment beds in three special housing units. Fitzgerald said the project is currently paused pending House concurrence, while the Senate has already agreed to the alternate plan, and noted the bond balance, prior expenditures, and the need to spend down the tax-exempt bond by August 2026. Members questioned how the new plan differs from the original facility, whether it satisfies the consent decree, and what caused the cost increases. Fitzgerald said the department believes it has already met the consent decree through systemwide improvements to housing, staffing, programming, and out-of-cell time, though he said he would confirm the court documentation. He also said the original scope grew from 275,000 to 350,000 square feet as treatment, nursing, security, and programming needs were refined, and that inflation, fees, permitting, and contingencies contributed to the higher cost. Several members asked for follow-up information on Senate approval, consent decree documentation, and the project’s impact on crisis-stabilization capacity. The committee then received a joint court-system presentation from State Courts Administrator Eric McClure and Clerks Corporation Executive Director Jason Welty on caseload trends, case tracking, and staffing. McClure described statewide filing trends, the use of weighted caseload studies to certify judicial need, and recent Supreme Court rule changes aimed at active civil case management, including differentiated case tracks, stricter deadlines, and proportional discovery. He said the latest workload study led the Supreme Court to certify a need for 23 circuit judges and 25 county judges. Welty reviewed clerk workload trends, the statewide case maintenance and CCIS systems, and declining clerk FTE despite rising case volumes, and said clerks are seeking additional funding for injunctions, Baker Act/Marchman Act/sexually violent predator work, and juror management. In questions, members pressed both presenters on data quality, case-weight calculations, filing fees, and whether current resources are enough to reduce delays. McClure clarified that the workload weights are based on judge time studies and that a capital murder case averaged 3,177 minutes, while other examples such as auto negligence and dissolution cases were much lower. Welty said the Legislature could help by increasing funding or potentially revisiting filing fees, and noted that many clerk services are unfunded or underfunded, especially indigent and protective filings. The chair and members also raised concerns about backlog, inconsistent case reporting across circuits, and enforcement of judicial time standards; McClure said there is no direct sanction in the rules, and compliance is largely managed through chief judges and the Supreme Court. The meeting ended with no votes taken and adjournment by motion.

Transcript Highlights:

• the student data and the protection of that data.
• Is that data—what are the feds doing with that data? Do we know?
• ><c> data?
• about the student data and the protection of that data.
• ><c> data.

Committee: House Higher Education Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• We're talking about a data warehouse or data clearinghouse.
• So the data that we're getting now is actually real data and it's usable data.
• So the data that we're getting now is actually real data and it's usable data.
• data.
• Yeah, has data where? How's data where? So the actual GIS data is housed at MU.

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• That's based on the actual claims and cost data.
• And there's been representation about data that exists.
• A report summarizing data isn't the actual data. So I think that's one question.
• On page 28 of that report there is a complete page summary on how the data was aggregated, the data that
• An example of some data shared with CAOC and the author.

Committee: House Communications and Conveyance

Transcript Highlights:

• the data.
• We look at the millions of records, do data reconciliation, and prepare the data.
• I just have a question, and this just goes back to the comment about the 2024 data versus the 2025 data
• So is there a way that we could use more current data?
• Let me start with the participant data or the member data.

Transcript Highlights:

• The other really massive challenge was the use of PM 3 data.
• So that's the end of the year data to determine who's data.
• It makes a lot of sense to use the most recent data to make these decisions.
• So it's just, you know, wondering about what the data says.
• Yes, so >> we would based off last year's PM 3 data, right?

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> doesn't change the data classification. doesn't change the data classification.
• </c> or civil proceeding against the data or civil proceeding against the data subject.<00:26:29.120>
• </c> data downloaded. um for the DVS system. data downloaded. um for the DVS system.
• Act, and the 13.085 remedies just pertain to data access violations of the Data Practices Act.
• Um our data of oddnumbered years.

Committee: Senate Judiciary and Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and we keep that data.
• So, we're just data should be kept.
• But then are you taking this data?
• Align the data, empower clear.
• </c> data. Thank you for your time. data. Thank you for your time.

Committee: House Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• Here's the thing: I'm looking at some of this data, and I do have questions about this data because how
• gotten that data back.
• requests for LFC so that we can ensure that there's seamless data. data.
• About the secret shopper data.
• data sharing?

Committee: House Legislative Health & Human Services Committee