[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6557088,"mediaKeyId","3326293-4505fcf37ca737161ef1dd300c200a15","parentId",3326293,"title","Assembly hearing hears concerns about cap-and-invest extension, $1.5 billion GGRF shift to Cal Fire and transit funding cuts","audioSeconds",1861,"startMs",2203000,"endMs",4064000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3326293-4505fcf37ca737161ef1dd300c200a15&start=2203&end=4064","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3326293-4505fcf37ca737161ef1dd300c200a15/thumbnail_2203000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6557088/California/Assembly-hearing-hears-concerns-about-cap-and-invest-extension-15-billion-GGRF-shift-to-Cal-Fire-and-transit-funding-cuts","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6557088-c361c49e1822bf765692268e2630e57d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770658334&Signature=N12Lm--70WJtKbXOwXhFlWkrPrAVd9~fTEGJ~Zp2OZxJVjFffD2ZPIyBBpyH~peHHqq5TCIQ3SGlPrMC-i~iwypi18Hu8SReo3mUDOjBfcukk5PW30j-DWjN~rIjM9TENMjBYFByl63PFBVfuXNxFhsqzzu19F7cEn70Om5QS791mw12gkgqV~6VKR8jaBHdkSfVWNpTwCEJXDUmsneItl~M-N2vb17Z1jfa~yWlOEJLRTR0N0dove3v5~mFkEe8pj8BVqBoLrecUZqLU-Xq5QAVFdXELd28IDlqYqchGJCLbqb0dnSa6phkwREr2GWhqWVIvIqe6H1IfDiJh4bqAg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House","date","2025-05-15T00:00:00Z","article","The Assembly Budget Subcommittee heard sharp questions and public opposition on the administration’s May Revision proposal to extend California’s cap-and-trade program (relabelled “cap and invest”) and to shift $1.5 billion in Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) proceeds to Cal Fire in 2025–26, growing to $1.9 billion by 2029–30.

The proposal to extend cap-and-trade to 2045 and to relabel it “cap and invest” was presented by Andrew Arch with the Department of Finance. Arch told the subcommittee the May Revision “proposes a simple extension of the program to 02/1945 which aligns with California's carbon neutrality” goal. Assembly members and outside groups pressed the administration on how the extension and the proposed transfers would affect already-committed GGRF programs, continuous appropriations, and transit capital projects.

The subcommittee’s chair and several members said they were alarmed that GGRF funds previously committed to transit, affordable housing and community programs could be reduced or delayed. Assemblymember Conley said the shift of GGRF resources to Cal Fire raises “philosophical” and practical concerns because Cal Fire provides ongoing, essential services that some members argued should be funded in the general fund rather than by a market-based, time-limited fund. The administration’s proposal includes provisional language to allow Finance to reduce the GGRF appropriation and increase the general fund appropriation if auction proceeds are projected to be low.

Transit advocates warned of immediate effects. Michael Pimentel of the California Transit Association told the committee that “we are talking about a reduction of up to $3,000,000,000 between now and fiscal year ’28–’29.” He said roughly $2 billion of that total had already been committed to capital projects and that projects funded through recent competitive cycles would be at risk.

Multiple stakeholders — including environmental justice groups, regional air districts and housing advocates — urged that programs with continuous appropriations such as the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, AB 617 community air protection funding, and other long-planned discretionary GGRF investments remain funded. Rachel Ehlers of the Legislative Analyst’s Office said her office will publish formal comments in the coming days and noted options for reconciling the administration’s proposal with the previously developed discretionary plan.

Members also pressed for details about the administration’s fiscal arithmetic. The administration said the May Revision’s baseline only proposes the Cal Fire shift and related items; it does not include a final discretionary GGRF spending plan and intends to work with the legislature on the remaining allocations. The LAO explained that one option would be to substitute the previously agreed discretionary plan with the Cal Fire allocation, leaving continuous appropriations unchanged.

Lawmakers requested the administration return with specific, itemized impacts on projects and programs that were previously awarded or committed; a clear description of which continuous appropriations — if any — the administration seeks to change; and a detailed explanation of the Cal Fire backstop and how it would operate if auction proceeds fall below projections.

Members signaled they expect more detailed numbers and a project-level accounting at a follow-up hearing next week.

Ending: The subcommittee concluded without votes on the proposals and scheduled a follow-up hearing focused on detailed departmental answers and the LAO’s analysis.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4 on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation","oneSentenceSummary","The Assembly Budget Subcommittee heard sharp questions and public opposition on the administration’s May Revision proposal to extend California’s cap-and-trade program (relabelled “cap and invest”) and to shift $1.5 billion in Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) proceeds to Cal Fire in 2025–26, growing to $1.9 billion by 2029–30.","taxTitle","California State Assembly, House, Legislative, California","taxId",17099,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6557078,"May Revision trims some environmental allocations, reverts Exide funds and adjusts water board and cleanup proposals",138,1902000,2040000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3326293-4505fcf37ca737161ef1dd300c200a15&start=1902&end=2040","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3326293-4505fcf37ca737161ef1dd300c200a15/thumbnail_1902000.jpg","/articles/6557078/California/May-Revision-trims-some-environmental-allocations-reverts-Exide-funds-and-adjusts-water-board-and-cleanup-proposals","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6557078-38a970c39f0028046b9dd4564ecccad1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770658334&Signature=WVQNCYRpfjIUwdqgVdh2wBF4op9RsRCyasUJbjKYKrX1X2hNlvNh-ZyOft7j9Z4zBSHzrvs4Y2-6mfi2UBnzj5MVKa9kZW4axSRdEzc-WM13jhlecBORKlEVtzvNKkuNTsgqo5srgzgOdRATdHpUpMStTUD1fDHHQdQjDNGgyC8r8CYFeiTXJHH3qRoLfUgeYNqcLv11Fp8nYfoq-VZ~O0zyn3bjWidc2xdseyiPxCKZCMcjPEVnwsyu5MbGdLjIr7-aL3NjWuUJvpELQ8IageMB529QO5ffACtCXnMTAVYRDFLKLu4V8pIIYlVzwr7qRqzg1gyam6Au4L0ELpehGg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Department of Finance outlined a set of environmental and water-related adjustments in the May Revision that drew questions from Assembly members and stakeholders.

Andrew Arch, a Department of Finance witness, said the May Revision includes a proposed reversion of $75 million of the $132 million in general fund appropriations originally provided in the 2021 Budget Act for cleanup at the former Exide battery recycling facility in Vernon. Arch noted the state has provided roughly $573 million in general fund support overall for cleanup of more than 3,000 residential properties within 1.7 miles of the former facility.

Arch and other finance staff also described a proposal to change the frequency of the Department of Water Resources’ required groundwater bulletin postings from every 10 years to every five years, which the administration projects would produce about $750,000 in General Fund annual savings. The May Revision includes multiple smaller special fund and position requests across CalEPA, the State Water Resources Control Board and the Department of Toxic Substances Control for activities such as legal defense against federal challenges, technical assistance for the California Climate Investments program, small water system regulation in Monterey County, underground storage tank financing, and litigation support for the Santa Susana Field Laboratory.

CalRecycle would receive one-time special fund infusions to continue an integrated information technology project, using funds from the used oil recycling fund, the beverage container recycling fund and the electronic waste recovery and recycling account.

The Natural Resources Agency and the Department of Water Resources would receive multi-year federal trust fund authority and general fund allocations for Salton Sea projects and urban flood risk reduction. Steven Benson of the Department of Finance summarized adjustments to the climate bond implementation timeline and the inclusion of 79.5 permanent positions across departments to support bond administration and project delivery.

Stakeholders did not oppose the broad contours of the Exide cleanup history described at the hearing but asked for more detail on which specific capital and program cuts were temporary versus permanent and how fee and special‑fund savings relieve general‑fund pressure.

Ending: The committee asked the administration to provide department-level details and to clarify which items are one‑time, temporary delays, or permanent reductions when the departments return at the next hearing.

","The Department of Finance outlined environmental and water-related adjustments in the May Revision, including a proposed $75 million reversion of prior Exide cleanup appropriations and statutory and funding changes affecting the Water Resources Control Board, CalEPA and CalRecycle.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6557083,"Delta conveyance trailer bills draw strong opposition; lawmakers seek clearer cost and legal details",2499,1840000,4339000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3326293-4505fcf37ca737161ef1dd300c200a15&start=1840&end=4339","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3326293-4505fcf37ca737161ef1dd300c200a15/thumbnail_1840000.jpg","/articles/6557083/California/Delta-conveyance-trailer-bills-draw-strong-opposition-lawmakers-seek-clearer-cost-and-legal-details","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6557083-b123c23d21dbbefcd130ae92bc2c11be/orig.mp4?Expires=1770658334&Signature=RJF3Lw65j6MB~gyheZHXPOxseItx-dUll4Ei9EH-B9lk6BCSxQc20fO4Ijqm37Jdn85GHv38STpkWYWeH0XMiweNPNvxTvtCul3BuRBQ9ufFClIgz6rHVVc5blj4PEcQNU0sykmEMxkFLJiQCynUy0I4nNsHqrGJmUuCOPcpcRC3UV0Re8FSwA2HsOv9WfU6uv9UNHz4GuJ~afQHZ18RjA2pEZb2OCUK5l8pEQEpk3dOBkBpbnzVgrqYiHbUVgWPNoEFdfKvj4KBcB9uGGdEXnNNmjs6h1u-GlL6MBfcTw3Ssplh2HMm5s-nE3l8rfdZZQony81FNVAsRYSBX8r61Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Assembly Budget Subcommittee heard substantive objections to trailer-bill language in the May Revision that would affect the Delta Conveyance Project and related state water planning.

Andrew Arch of the Department of Finance told the committee the May Revision contains “trailer bill language for the Delta Conveyance Project” intended to streamline administrative processes for what the administration described as a high-priority water infrastructure effort. Multiple Assembly members pushed back, saying the Legislature had previously rejected a fast-track approach and that including large project authority in the budget bypasses the committee review the members said such a project would normally receive.

One Assembly member told the administration that placing broad bonding and expedited implementation language in the budget would amount to a “blank check,” citing public concern and the potential multi‑billion-dollar cost of the project. The member said prior litigation had limited DWR’s ability to issue debt for tunnel-related work and asked the administration for details on any court rulings and how the trailer language would interact with those rulings.

Local government and environmental groups urged rejection or extensive revision of the proposal. Karen Lang of the Delta Counties Coalition told the committee the coalition is “in adamant opposition to the proposal before you related to the tunnel.” She warned that typical revenue-bond repayment structures do not begin until after project completion and urged caution on the budget track.

Cynthia Cortez, policy program manager with Restore the Delta, told the committee she was in “strong opposition of the May revision trailer bill proposal that seeks to fast track the Delta conveyance project and sabotage the Bay Delta water quality control plan through the state budget process.” Mariah Larson of the Golden State Salmon Association also spoke in opposition.

Stakeholders raised several practical concerns at the hearing: the potential scale of borrowing (witnesses and members cited estimates ranging from tens of billions to as high as $100 billion), the projected multi‑year construction timeline (a commenter referenced a 15‑year horizon), and the ecological impacts on the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta and its fisheries. Members asked the administration to provide a written set of questions about Delta Conveyance and to respond at the follow-up hearing.

Ending: No vote was taken; the subcommittee requested written responses and a detailed accounting of legal constraints, estimated costs and timelines before any budgetary or trailer-bill action.

","The May Revision’s trailer-bill language for the Delta Conveyance Project prompted objections from multiple Assembly members and dozens of public commenters, who described the proposal as a fast-tracking of the project and raised questions about bonding authority, cost estimates and impacts on the Bay-Delta ecosystem.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Assembly hearing hears concerns about cap-and-invest extension, $1.5 billion GGRF shift to Cal Fire and transit funding cuts

May Revision trims some environmental allocations, reverts Exide funds and adjusts water board and cleanup proposals

Delta conveyance trailer bills draw strong opposition; lawmakers seek clearer cost and legal details