Transcript Highlights:

• California's rate of food insecurity is near the national rate of almost 14 percent, and across states
• The annual rate of food insecurity in California has varied over time.
• That's nearly five times the rate of the general U.S. population.
• Approval rates do vary slightly, but on average, we see about a 52% approval rate for the applications
• , contributing to the error rate, rather.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on CalFresh enrollment, food insecurity in California, the recent federal shutdown’s disruption of SNAP benefits, and the long-term effects of H.R. 1 on eligibility, benefits, and state and county costs. Opening remarks emphasized that millions of Californians rely on CalFresh, that the shutdown briefly delayed benefits for the first time in the program’s history, and that state and local governments, including Alameda County, stepped in with emergency food aid and funding. Members also framed the issue as both a hunger and affordability problem, with several noting that California’s agricultural abundance contrasts sharply with persistent food insecurity. The first panel presented research and advocacy perspectives on food hardship. PPIC’s Tess Thorman described food insecurity rates, disparities affecting households with children and Black and Latino households, and the role of nutrition programs in reducing poverty. Nourish California’s Betzabel Estudio argued that hunger is a policy choice and highlighted campaigns to expand state-funded food assistance for immigrants, support reentry populations, and continue the CalFresh fruit-and-vegetable incentive program. The California Association of Food Banks’ Josh Wright said food banks are seeing sustained high demand, lower federal food supplies, and cannot replace CalFresh, while urging more state support for food purchasing, school meals, and SunBucks. The second panel reviewed CalFresh operations and participation. The California Department of Social Services reported that CalFresh participation has risen over the past decade, with the state closing much of the participation gap through outreach, simplified applications, and demonstration projects such as the Elderly Simplified Application Project and a minimum nutrition benefit pilot. Alameda County Social Services described local caseloads, application trends, and emergency food distributions during the shutdown, while also warning that H.R. 1’s work requirements, immigrant eligibility restrictions, and possible cost-sharing could reduce enrollment. A student CalFresh ambassador testified about the burdensome application and recertification process and urged more funding for campus basic-needs centers and outreach to reduce stigma and administrative friction. In the final panel, county, food bank, and policy witnesses described the shutdown response and the expected impact of H.R. 1. Alameda County Community Food Bank and the County Welfare Directors Association said counties, food banks, and community partners mobilized emergency funds, pop-up pantries, and food purchasing to bridge the shutdown gap, but warned that hundreds of thousands of Californians could lose benefits under the new federal rules. The California Budget and Policy Center began outlining the scale of federal cuts, noting that H.R. 1 will significantly reduce SNAP funding and shift costs to states. No votes or formal committee actions were taken; the hearing was informational and concluded with discussion of possible state responses, including backfilling benefits, preserving outreach funding, and improving administrative systems to protect enrollment.

Transcript Highlights:

• So when I talk about a rate framework and an input to the rate framework, that's kind of the context
• Aligning residential billing rates, so essentially within the rate framework for residential services
• Aligning residential billing rates, so essentially within the rate framework for residential services
• Aligning residential billing rates, so essentially within the rate framework for residential services
• :47:42.119> flat rates rates themselves were always flat rates rates themselves were always flat

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, but local data shows rising exemption rates and dropping vaccine rates.
• High immunization rates in Southborough won't help Northborough families if our school rates are low.
• Religious exemption rates have had no impact on overall vaccination rates, which remain historically
• Massachusetts already has high vaccination rates and a low religious exemption rate.
• rates within the community.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Health held a hearing on several vaccination-related bills, including proposals to eliminate non-medical or religious exemptions for school immunizations (notably H. 2554 and S. 1557), a bill to require or improve reporting and administration of immunization data and exemptions (described as the Community Immunity Act, S. 1618), and H. 2431, which would prohibit COVID-19, mRNA, or gene-altering vaccine requirements. The committee also heard testimony on H. 2463, which would classify funeral directors as public health workers for vaccine-priority purposes during emergencies. The chair reviewed testimony rules and repeatedly asked speakers to keep comments orderly and brief so the committee could hear as many people as possible. No votes were taken during the hearing. Testimony on H. 2554 and S. 1557 was sharply divided. Pediatricians, infectious disease specialists, public health advocates, and groups such as the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Massachusetts Medical Society, March of Dimes, Massachusetts Families for Vaccines, and several parents supported eliminating religious exemptions, arguing that vaccination protects medically vulnerable children and adults, improves herd immunity, and helps prevent outbreaks of measles, pertussis, and other diseases. They cited local school data showing pockets of lower coverage and incomplete reporting, and several speakers referenced outbreaks in other states and the need for stronger, more consistent reporting and exemption management. Opponents argued the bills would infringe on religious freedom and parental rights, force families to choose between faith and education, and unfairly target a small number of families; some also said Massachusetts already has high vaccination rates and that the real issue is incomplete data or the gap population rather than religious exemptions. H. 2431 drew testimony from supporters who said COVID-era mandates caused job losses, privacy concerns, and harm, and that the bill would prevent future requirements for COVID, mRNA, or gene-altering vaccines in schools, workplaces, and public settings. Supporters described personal experiences with alleged vaccine injury or mandate-related hardship. H. 2463 was supported by the Massachusetts Funeral Directors Association, which argued funeral directors work in infection-facing settings and should be eligible for vaccine priority during public health emergencies. The hearing featured extensive public testimony but no committee action beyond hearing the bills and taking questions from members.

Transcript Highlights:

• For the sponsor, does he want the rate to be lower or higher, because the bill makes the rate higher?
• My quibble clearly is with the interest rate.
• rates?
• What is the need for increased interest rates?
• So with this plan, it's one rate for your first $3,000, another rate for your next up to $10,000, another

Bills: SB1165, SB1206, SB1212, SB1291, SB1347, SB1516, SB1554, SB1649, SB1689, SB1812

Keywords: breast cancer, screening services, health insurance, cost sharing, preventive care, storm damage, catastrophic storm, hail damage, wind damage, roof repair, roof replacement, post-storm repairs, insurance claim, property and casualty insurance, adjuster, public adjuster, contractor licensing, homeowner protections, deductible waiver, insurance fraud prevention

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee approved committee amendments and then heard a series of bills covering consumer lending, health insurance, chiropractic practice, breast cancer screening, insurance claim practices, digital assets, vaccination-based reimbursement, agricultural property inspections, and aviation tax exemptions. Testimony generally split between sponsors and industry or advocacy supporters emphasizing modernization, consumer access, or fairness, and opponents raising concerns about higher costs, tax breaks for wealthy interests, or unclear policy changes. Several bills drew detailed debate over whether they would help consumers or shift costs, and multiple witnesses described personal or industry experiences in support of the health-related measures. SB 1689, which would raise consumer loan thresholds and change interest-rate tiers, was amended but failed on a tied vote after Senator Epstein opposed it as shifting costs to smaller borrowers. SB 1347, requiring coverage for fertility preservation for cancer patients, was amended and passed 4-2 after testimony from the sponsor, a nonprofit representative, and two cancer survivors. SB 1165, eliminating cost-sharing for diagnostic and supplemental breast exams, was amended and passed 5-1. SB 1206, updating rules for public adjusters and contractors after loss events, was amended and passed 5-1. SB 1649, creating a digital assets strategic reserve fund, passed 4-2 despite criticism that it was unnecessary and pro-crypto. SB 1212, barring different reimbursement rates based on vaccination status, passed 4-2. SB 1291, limiting county assessors’ ability to reclassify or inspect agricultural property for four years after a successful appeal, was amended to allow inspections if taxable improvements are made and passed 5-1 over assessor opposition. SB 1516, expanding aviation-related tax exemptions to more aircraft maintenance and repair property, passed 4-1 after supporters framed it as economic development and opponents called it a tax break for private jets. SB 1554, updating chiropractic language from “x-ray” to “diagnostic imaging,” initially failed, was reconsidered after additional questioning, and then passed 3-2 after members said the change mainly codified current practice and reduced liability concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><00:12:41.600> insurance<00:12:42.079> for rate increase in health insurance for rate
• were the rates were submitted fairly. were the rates were submitted fairly.
• >> It all depends on other rating factors. >> It all depends on other rating factors.
• You know there's rating factors of age. You know there's rating factors of age.
• rates of apartments. rates of apartments. Tomato<01:28:34.719> tomato.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Call to Order and Roll Call 00:00:15 Department of Insurance Update 00:01:39 Department of Financial Institutions Update 00:37:07 Insurance Industry Update 00:54:50 Credit Union Industry Update 01:10:53, 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the September 16 minutes, and then received an update from Insurance Commissioner Sharon Clark and staff on the Department of Insurance. Clark reviewed department activity, including growth in premium volume and licensing, consumer complaints and recoveries, and a rise in fraud referrals. She said the department has 66 open fraud cases and described common schemes such as staged auto accidents, inflated repair or cleanup charges, and roofing scams. She also said the department’s investigators often prepare strong cases but face reluctance from local prosecutors, especially in Fayette and Jefferson counties, to pursue them. Clark reported favorable workers’ compensation news, saying rates will decrease 9.7% next year for the 20th straight year. She contrasted that with a difficult property insurance market driven by storms, reinsurance costs, inflation, labor shortages, and litigation, but said Kentucky’s market remains relatively stable, citing the Kentucky Fair Plan’s small number of policies. She then warned of significant 2026 health insurance premium increases on the exchange: 16.1% for Molina, 23% for Anthem, and 37% for WCare, after CareSource withdrew. She said the rates were reviewed by actuaries and found fair, but that the biggest pressure point is the scheduled expiration of enhanced premium tax credits, which she said could leave about 90% of exchange enrollees facing a compounded increase. Members questioned Clark about fraud prosecution, the number of people in commercial versus public coverage, and the impact of expiring subsidies. Clark said the prosecution issue is mainly with Commonwealth attorneys and that rural counties are more cooperative than urban ones. She also said the health market is individually rated and that older enrollees would be hit harder, while the loss of tax credits could push some people out of the marketplace. One member asked about the attorney general’s recent opinion on SB 188, the PBM bill; staff said attorneys were still reviewing it. Clark closed by noting that Kentucky’s fraud and towing/storage legislation has become a model for other states.

Transcript Highlights:

• rate cuts on January 1. rate cuts on January 1.
• <00:25:46.720> of higher federal match and the rate of higher federal match and the rate of
• <00:28:46.320> to support the nursing facility rates to support the nursing facility rates
• <00:34:36.159> is long-term care Medicaid PDM rate is long-term care Medicaid PDM rate is
• /c> the legislature change the rates unlike the legislature change the rates unlike towns<00:45:08.960

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the whole issue of error rate. Sure. the whole issue of error rate. Sure.
• all of us the future of the error rate? all of us the future of the error rate?
• If the error rate is between 8 and 9.99% If the error rate is between 8 and 9.99% we<00:42:05.200>
• the error rate is officially 7.57%. the error rate is officially 7.57%.
• paying a lot more if those error rates paying a lot more if those error rates go<00:48:14.960>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The work session was limited to House Bill 1750, a supplemental appropriation for the Department of Health and Human Services’ SNAP administration. Before testimony, Representative Terski distributed a written statement from Representative Priest for the record. Department officials Karen Heert and Nathan White then walked the committee through a chart showing SNAP participation, federal benefit dollars, and state administrative costs, emphasizing that the benefits themselves do not flow through the state budget. They explained that the reported administrative cost includes overhead and cost-allocation methods used to maximize federal reimbursement, and that the current participant count is about 75,000 with the trend steady in recent years. Members questioned whether the reported costs were stable, how much of the administrative expense was directly tied to SNAP, and whether reducing overhead would lower the need for the appropriation. The department said the cost per participant and per dollar distributed would be lower if SNAP were isolated, but that the broader allocation system also supports federal claiming across multiple programs. Officials said SNAP eligibility is redetermined every six months, that the department processes nearly 50 eligibility programs with about 250 field staff, roughly 70 unfunded positions, and a vacancy rate around 25%. They also said most errors in the program are unintentional and can come from either staff or participant mistakes, and that the department reviews errors to identify systemic fixes. The committee discussed the fiscal impact of the bill and related budget issues. DHHS said the current adjusted authorization for 2026 is about $31 million, but actual spending is expected to be closer to $25–26 million because of vacancies and unfilled positions. Members asked whether the $4.4 million shortfall identified in the fiscal note would come from the rainy day fund; staff said it would not be taken directly from that fund, but would reduce the amount available to flow into it at the end of the biennium. The committee also reviewed Senate Bill 603 FN, which was described as an alternative approach that would require DHHS to transfer funds within its existing budget rather than provide new money; officials said it would simply codify an option the department already has. No vote or final action on House Bill 1750 was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• rates for your constituents.
• and rates of return.
• and rates of return.
• and rates of return.
• , the rate-case work?

Bills: HF3298

Keywords: underground storage tanks, petroleum, reimbursement program, environmental regulation, pollution control, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• rate.
• That drives up our bond rating.
• That drives up our bond rating.
• <02:36:07.760> help<02:36:08.000> us rating that Bond rating will help us rating that
• These are ratings.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee meeting began with an overview from the Legislative Budget Assistant Office on how Ways and Means will work with agencies and leadership during the budget and revenue-estimating process. Staff explained that the governor’s budget is still being developed, agencies are cautious about going on record early, and the committee will use worksheets and updated fiscal reports to track estimates. The presentation emphasized that the fiscal year 2025 budget status is a point-in-time snapshot and remains fluid because the annual comprehensive financial report has been delayed, which could change the beginning balances for both the general fund and education trust fund. The budget update highlighted that the general fund is currently stronger than originally assumed, while the education trust fund is weaker. The speaker said the general fund began FY25 with a much larger balance than expected, while the education trust fund came in lower due to higher-than-budgeted adequacy spending and weaker business tax performance. Revenue trends showed the general fund slightly ahead year to date, but the education trust fund down significantly. The committee also discussed unbudgeted appropriations, including attorney general litigation, legal settlements, abandoned property claims, adequacy true-ups, and education freedom accounts, as well as the role of lapses and off-budget items in the final balance. Members asked about the delayed liquor commission audit and whether it could affect revenue forecasts. Staff said the delay was mainly caused by the commission’s switch in point-of-sale systems and staffing losses, but did not expect major ongoing reporting issues. They also noted that liquor fund variances are more likely tied to Medicaid expansion costs than to commission operations. The governor’s office was said to be working on possible budget reductions, but no January request to the fiscal committee was expected. Commissioner Lindsay Stepp of the Department of Revenue Administration then presented an overview of state revenue sources, focusing first on the meals and rentals tax. She explained that DRA administers 14 taxes that account for most state revenue, and that meals and rentals tax growth has slowed after strong post-pandemic gains. She described factors affecting the tax, including employment, inflation, fuel and food prices, wages, and weather, and noted that online platforms like Airbnb have improved compliance by collecting and remitting tax on behalf of hosts. Members asked about short-term rental compliance and how DRA identifies unlicensed rentals; Stepp said referrals, anonymous tips, and platform data help enforcement.

Transcript Highlights:

• Error rate. How does this affect the error rate?
• error rate. Correct. error rate. Correct.
• that error rate. that error rate.
• around the error rate. Yeah. around the error rate. Yeah.
• even payment rate error rate down even payment rate error rate down even further.<00:54:08.400>

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's the key to lower rates.”
• That's the key to lower rates.”
• That's the key to lower rates.”
• That's the key to lower rates.”
• <02:15:33.880> minus rate rather than the earned rate minus rate rather than the earned rate

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• by 10% each year until they reach Medicare rates.
• Where do we think we're landing in the error rate space?
• Who determines the error rate?
• The federal government determines our error rate.
• So the payment error rate is the rate that impacts this consideration, and it looks at did we issue the

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held a work session to review how H.R. 1 (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) could affect Washington’s Medicaid, long-term care, developmental disabilities, and food assistance programs, with a focus on implementation challenges, fiscal impacts, and likely coverage losses. Staff and agency officials explained Washington’s Medicaid financing structure, eligibility categories, caseload trends, and the role of the Health Care Authority and DSHS in administering Apple Health and related services. They also described how Medicaid expansion increased access to behavioral health services and how H.R. 1’s provisions are expected to affect the expansion population most directly. Health Care Authority and DSHS officials outlined several major H.R. 1 changes: new work and community engagement requirements for the Medicaid expansion population, six-month redeterminations instead of annual renewals, changes to immigrant eligibility, limits on provider taxes and state-directed payments, new cost-sharing requirements, reduced retroactive coverage, and changes affecting long-term care eligibility. They said Washington is still awaiting federal guidance on many details, but estimated that about 620,000 Apple Health expansion enrollees could be subject to work requirements, that roughly 30,000 immigrants could lose Medicaid eligibility under the new definition of qualified alien, and that some long-term care and developmental disability clients could be indirectly affected. Officials also said the state is working with other agencies to build shared verification systems and may seek a delay waiver, though they do not expect broad federal flexibility. The committee also heard that H.R. 1 immediately blocks Medicaid reimbursement for Planned Parenthood services for one year, with the state planning to backfill about $11 million to preserve access. In addition, officials warned that the law could reduce federal Medicaid revenue by billions over time and strain hospitals and emergency rooms as more people become uninsured. They noted that Washington’s rural health transformation grant application is due November 5 and could bring some funding, but not to offset coverage losses. No votes were taken; the session was informational only. The committee then heard a separate presentation on food assistance, where staff and DSHS described H.R. 1’s SNAP changes, including expanded work requirements, immigrant eligibility restrictions, higher state administrative costs, and a possible future state share of benefit costs tied to payment error rates. DSHS estimated a four-year fiscal impact of about $750 million for food assistance changes and said the state is working on system and policy changes across agencies before the new requirements take effect.

Transcript Highlights:

• rate increases, and then it is our role and our analysts to recommend the actual rate change.
• c> are rate cases uh we are rate cases uh we are responding<00:27:10.240> to<00:27:10.640>
• So, uh double-digit rate increases.
• And we've lost that rate increases.
• that um electric rates and gas rates<01:21:17.120> are<01:21:17.360> effectively<01:21

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• that it's not shifted onto other rate that it's not shifted onto other rate payers<00:11:17.639>
• There's no time-of-day rates.
• <01:01:07.520> uh time of use rates time of day rates uh time of use rates time of day rates
• stability, and rate reduction.
• rate stability and rate load reduction rate stability and rate reduction<02:41:05.439> to<02:

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, and when you look at the comparison to other rates... i.e., TWIA's rates, are you saying that
• Is it true that TWIA's rates haven't increased at the same rate as the private market has in the same
• Any rate needs to be actuarially sound.
• And once the rate is filed, the rate is the rate.
• Quite a bit on the rates.

Bills: HB778, HB 1266, HB1576, HB2213, HB2517, HB2518, HB2841, HB3306, HB3320, HB3388, HB3508, HB3520, HB3689

Keywords: credentialing, healthcare, physician assistants, advanced practice nurses, managed care, hurricane, windstorm, loss mitigation, grants, insurance discounts, property retrofitting, insurance, Texas Windstorm Insurance Association, board composition, coastal counties, property insurance, taxation, Texas FAIR Plan Association, premium taxes, maintenance taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• rate of their contract amount.
• at the infant rate.
• Is the rate paid the same for whether it’s the CHW?” “We don’t dictate the rates for ECM.
• , and a high bound rate.
• So why is the rate different?

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee first heard May Revision items for child support, child care, and related human services. The Department of Child Support Services described two technical adjustments, which the LAO said raised no concerns. The Department of Social Services then walked through child care proposals, including a shift in how federal and Proposition 64 funding reductions would be absorbed, a 2.01% COLA, disaster-related child care infrastructure grants, an increase in in-contract administrative support costs for alternative payment agencies, reversion of prospective-pay implementation funding after a federal rule change, a one-time allocation to cover the first quarter of Cost of Care Plus payments in the next fiscal year, reappropriation for existing infrastructure grant closeout work, and estimates of unspent child care funds. The department also outlined trailer bill language on a single rate structure, site safety and emergency procedures, CalWORKs child care data sharing, and child care oversight. The LAO recommended that the Legislature seek more justification for shifting reductions from General Child Care to the Alternative Payment Program, noting that CAP reductions affect more slots and that General Child Care has had significant unspent funds. It supported removing prospective-pay funding, but recommended rejecting the administrative cost shift to a percentage-based rate because it could create future General Fund pressure. It also suggested the Legislature review alignment between the disaster grants and the child care infrastructure program. Senators and members pressed the administration on why the budget would reduce child care slots and COLA percentages while the state still has waitlists and unspent funds, and questioned the need for early funding of Cost of Care Plus payments and the move from a flat administrative amount to a percentage. Public commenters, including providers, advocates, county offices, and infrastructure partners, urged full COLA funding, preservation of child care slots, support for prospective pay, and continued investment in child care access and facilities. After a short recess, the committee moved to Part B on health and heard the Department of State Hospitals. DSH presented a May Revision budget of $3.2 billion and described proposals for a central utility plant replacement at Metropolitan State Hospital, an electronic health record implementation, reduced county bed billing authority due to phased-in LPS bed capacity, limited contract exemption authority for online clinical subscriptions, reversion of prior-year unspent operating funds, and a workforce development proposal shifting some costs to Behavioral Health Services Act funds, including support for an additional psychiatric training cohort at Napa. The department also outlined IST-related savings and a trailer bill to remove the sunset on the independent placement panel program.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we have increased rates.
• So that data has now all come in, and when we set the rate, the capitation rates for calendar year 2026
• So there was a rate study. We did increase the rates in FY25.
• We do expect the rate study, the final rate study, to be completed by the end of this month.
• The rate study will, through this rate study, will there be identifiers to help with?

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• payer Bill roughly was about $2 per rate payer Bill roughly interest<00:54:10.440> rate<00:54
• numbers across different rate numbers across different rate schedules<00:54:41.079> and<00
• can get with your current credit rating can get with your current credit rating it<00:55:55.960>
• another rate another rate case<01:36:52.679> okay case okay case okay got<01:36:54.960>
• Our last rate increase was in 2020, so it's been five years since our last rate increase.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures, beginning with SB 48 SD2 HD1 relating to combat sports. The Attorney General offered a technical comment on the bill’s effective date, and several testifiers from the combat sports community strongly supported the measure with amendments. They argued that boxing and MMA should be treated separately, that the current regulatory structure has made events too costly and reduced opportunities, and that more local oversight would help revive the sport and give youth a constructive outlet. Committee members questioned whether the bill’s medical staffing requirements would apply to boxing, MMA, or both, and whether the added requirements would increase costs and reduce access. The witness from the combat sports community said amateur boxing is already regulated through USA Boxing, that the DCCA should focus on professional boxing, and that for safety he would support two physicians and one ambulance for boxing and MMA events. The committee then took up SB 117 SD2 HD1 relating to transportation. The Department of Transportation and the Ulon Initiative testified in support, and the bicycling community was listed as supporting as well. Members focused on the bill’s rebate program for electric transportation devices, asking how successful it had been and whether removing the rebate would affect use. DOT said the program began in February 2023 and had issued about 500 rebates totaling roughly $166,000, aimed at helping people without vehicles access transportation options. The department explained that the bill would broaden access and increase the rebate amount, including additional assistance for low-income applicants. Finally, the committee heard SB 897 SD3 HD1 relating to energy and wildfire liability. The Division of Consumer Advocacy, the Public Utilities Commission, the Attorney General, Clearway Energy Group, Ulon Initiative, Kawai K, IBEW Local 1260, and Hawaiian Electric all testified in support, while the Hawaii Association for Justice was listed as opposed but not present. Supporters said the bill would help finance wildfire mitigation and infrastructure improvements through securitization, reduce wildfire risk, and address utility cost and credit concerns. Hawaiian Electric emphasized that the bill is forward-looking, would help protect customers from future wildfire-related cost increases, and requested amendments including a study on a future wildfire recovery fund. In questioning, members pressed Hawaiian Electric on the liability cap, asking whether it would have applied to the Maui wildfires and whether it would cover personal injury or wrongful death; the witness and company counsel clarified that the aggregate cap applies only to qualifying property damage, not personal injury or wrongful death, and said they would follow up on how the cap would calculate in a Maui-type event. Hawaiian Electric also said it would seek financing under the bill if enacted and updated members on settlement funding efforts, including raising the first $550 million in equity and divesting assets to help meet its obligations.

Transcript Highlights:

• reasonable rates? reasonable rates?
• will result in just in reasonable rates? will result in just in reasonable rates?
• FK the rates roll projects.
• , rate, promise consumers a rate, rate, promise consumers a rate, and<04:05:14.239> then<04
• <04:29:39.359> return service, rate base and rate of return service, rate base and rate of

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But the modern bottleneck we see with the finance, finance rates, interest rates, and everything in the
• rates for that project.
• So for Rates for that project. Next slide.
• We are a market-rate housing developer.
• For market-rate infill projects and most market-rate builders, CEQA still remains the single largest

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Housing Finance and Affordability held its first hearing of 2025 to examine California’s housing finance system, with opening remarks emphasizing the state’s severe housing shortage, high costs, and the need for practical recommendations to the Legislature and Governor. Co-chairs described the committee as an educational and problem-solving forum focused on financing housing production, first-time homeownership, mixed-income developments, and affordability across the income spectrum. Witnesses from state agencies and the development sector were invited to explain how housing is financed and where the system is breaking down. Panelists from the California Housing Partnership, the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee/State Treasurer’s Office, CalHFA, and Related outlined the “capital stack” used to finance affordable housing, stressing that projects typically rely on multiple public and private sources, including federal and state low-income housing tax credits, tax-exempt bonds, state subsidies, local funds, and rental income. Speakers noted that affordable housing rents generally cannot support full project costs without public subsidy, and that recent federal changes—especially the expansion of the 4% and 9% tax credit programs and the reduction of the bond financing threshold for 4% credits—should allow California to finance substantially more units. CalHFA also described its homeownership programs, including My Home, Dream For All, and disaster-related mortgage assistance, as well as its multifamily lending and bond issuance programs. Several witnesses and committee members emphasized that the system remains too complex, too slow, and underfunded. They pointed to the need for more state funding, a housing bond, a permanent funding source, and better coordination among agencies, while also citing recent streamlining efforts such as AB 434’s SuperNOFA, AB 519’s one-stop-shop working group, and the planned California Housing and Homeless Agency reorganization. Members raised concerns about equity, access, missing-middle housing, gender and racial disparities, and whether current programs adequately serve extremely low-income households and those at risk of homelessness. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing; the discussion ended with committee members and witnesses agreeing that both funding and administrative reform are needed to increase production and improve affordability.