[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-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",[32,76,88,100],{"_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",6547307,"mediaKeyId","3759226-fc3d89ff3e580a8aa7c8cf2819f30157","parentId",3759226,"title","Business and conservation groups oppose exempting SB 253 and SB 261 rulemaking from SREA and CEQA","audioSeconds",401,"startMs",1267000,"endMs",1668000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3759226-fc3d89ff3e580a8aa7c8cf2819f30157&start=1267&end=1668","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3759226-fc3d89ff3e580a8aa7c8cf2819f30157/thumbnail_1267000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6547307/California/Business-and-conservation-groups-oppose-exempting-SB-253-and-SB-261-rulemaking-from-SREA-and-CEQA","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6547307-5312381d038e7fc4180b01011d19c03d/orig.mp4?Expires=1773587893&Signature=Nbb9n3gU45XPX87KnaS5HW4lBwF6fAvYmfZxZksHfSVaAbpNNI9JB3aSwz~i2MtmHjdSARNoeC-1YCdCKgc0bBa2yGAeFgu1c7aAmCbC6Yv9LqMkCTFf~ihfc2dl4s2iEH5vekbpKpTK7WlNAC7osE60qoZIX56dB55DxWeHQpIGlODAL1DwhmZo9ug6vAdqWXFp1Bc6nRSWhjPIR5HulnR-pZd9GQNrsM4qXvTNng1WSk0IYrdbXsz-rOxj03dZmUx-c82jlqZv382bqv-QMJ20q2DF3g6W85ohvhzLFVe-xbQnRce8FOFUUv0nHxg6KKJtu6nGJLylVuNyPHIMRg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Senate","date","2025-06-10T00:00:00Z","article","Business groups, building owner associations and environmental advocates told the committee that proposed trailer‑bill language exempting SB 253 and SB 261 rulemaking from the standardized regulatory impact analysis (SREA) and CEQA would remove important transparency and impact analysis protections.

John Kendrick, speaking for the California Chamber of Commerce, said: \"If you're gonna look at SB 253 and SB 261 as being about transparency and accountability, the rulemaking should be transparent and accountable as well.\" He read prior assessments concluding SREA increases the consistency and quality of agency analyses and surfaces confusion in proposed regulations.

Speakers representing the California Business Properties Association, Building Owners and Managers Association of California, and the California Retailers Association echoed that economic and environmental review are necessary for major regulations that impose costs on businesses and consumers. Several manufacturing and trade groups also voiced opposition.

Conservation groups and coastal and fisheries advocates supported returning water quality plan and Delta conveyance provisions to the policy process rather than embedding them as budget trailer bills.

Why it matters
Exempting major rulemaking from SREA or CEQA could reduce the structured financial and environmental analysis available to the public and regulated community, speakers warned, potentially obscuring compliance costs and secondary impacts on other state agencies.

What the record shows
- The California Chamber of Commerce, California Retailers Association, California Business Properties Association, and other trade groups urged rejection of the proposed SREA/CEQA exemptions.
- Property owners and logistics interests said the lack of economic analysis would affect major sectors of the state economy.
- Several environmental and coastal groups supported policy review rather than inclusion within the budget trailer language.

Next steps
The subcommittee rejected the trailer‑bill action on Delta Conveyance and moved other items forward; the fate of any SREA/CEQA exemption language depends on subsequent budget negotiations and policy committee review.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy","oneSentenceSummary","A coalition of business associations, property owners, and conservation groups urged the subcommittee to reject budget‑trailer language that would exempt SB 253 and SB 261 rulemaking from standardized regulatory impact analysis (SREA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).","taxTitle","California State Senate, Senate, Legislative, California","taxId",77650,"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},6547312,"Transit and clean‑energy groups press Legislature to restore demand‑side grid support, SGIP and other clean‑energy funding",771,95000,866000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3759226-fc3d89ff3e580a8aa7c8cf2819f30157&start=95&end=866","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3759226-fc3d89ff3e580a8aa7c8cf2819f30157/thumbnail_95000.jpg","/articles/6547312/California/Transit-and-cleanenergy-groups-press-Legislature-to-restore-demandside-grid-support-SGIP-and-other-cleanenergy-funding","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6547312-f07d225a6599e118d7a5f923880b1b08/orig.mp4?Expires=1773587893&Signature=fbcB0TTMP8YycSzZW1dVVWIFrqAqKAQ8Qg3mZufVMZ8KTu-ShHa4BVSi5crYE0vXvQ1RmIOtXY~Ao1U~ocKe9p8d-OQ1KzcwZ8D0oM-BjReWiHJjvJnHp9xZxsBsk2lkPmRaqF3hCgOogkjEpNIA72kyGVvXMfvWRLM9BnolsiDd3tvak61wQslh~mQwjNWc30HY10JDXXkgBoKGEzUNi2oWsPlVQwn23PwlHlMQ3N9qSjdZksnvczg7lzOz0Xm6w6ic0it7GVSnbsKnDCFkTJvPQgC0y4mcCZw3onkR4RmL2naAoywwJ5KaoNndqLxacS9-XW1Us5jvqqGWU3YAmg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Transit associations, community choice aggregators (CCAs) and clean‑energy industry groups gave testimony calling for preservation or restoration of several clean‑energy and transit programs in the budget package.

Michael Pimentel, representing the California Transit Association, thanked the subcommittee for rejecting proposed cuts and said the agreement \"fully fund[s] our grama,\" while noting continuing exposure tied to continuous appropriations and cap‑and‑trade negotiations.

Energy industry witnesses highlighted the demand‑side grid support (DSGS) and Distributed Electricity Backup Assets (DEBA) programs. Andrew Antwee said the DSGS program \"will run out of funds after the 2025 summer if we don't fund it this year,\" warning that private investment and newly contracted capacity could be wasted without additional appropriation.

Community choice aggregators and CCAs urged clarification that CCAs are eligible for the Self‑Generation Incentive Program (SGIP). Multiple speakers, including San Diego Community Power and Clean Power Alliance representatives, supported trailer bill language clarifying eligibility and urged swift adoption.

Several speakers also urged ongoing funding and implementation support for E15 fuel specification rulemaking at CARB and for continuing incentive funding for heavy‑vehicle programs and clean truck incentives.

Why it matters
Speakers said that programs such as DSGS, DEBA, SGIP and transit formula funding provide reliability, reduce reliance on fossil‑fuel peaker plants, and leverage private investment; loss of funding could reduce grid reliability, transit service and local clean‑transportation deployment.

What the record shows
- California Transit Association, LA Metro, Metrolink and BART expressed thanks for rejecting transit cuts and urged continued support during cap‑and‑trade negotiations.
- Clean‑energy coalitions and equipment manufacturers asked for restoration of DSGS/DEBA and for SGIP eligibility clarifications to ensure continued private sector participation.
- Growth Energy and the Renewable Fuels Association asked for ongoing rather than limited‑term funding for CARB staff and rulemaking work on E15 fuel specifications.

Next steps
Budget negotiators will consider these funding priorities in broader cap‑and‑trade and budget negotiations; stakeholders asked for multi‑year certainty to sustain ongoing contracts and private investment.

","Transit agencies and clean‑energy coalitions told the subcommittee that funding reductions threaten transit operations, demand‑side grid support, distributed electricity backup and incentives; some warned that DSGS will run out of funds after the 2025 summer without restoration.",{"_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},6547317,"Water agencies, environmental groups urge restoration of Healthy Rivers funding, back Prop. 4 dam‑safety allocations",64,316000,380000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3759226-fc3d89ff3e580a8aa7c8cf2819f30157&start=316&end=380","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3759226-fc3d89ff3e580a8aa7c8cf2819f30157/thumbnail_316000.jpg","/articles/6547317/California/Water-agencies-environmental-groups-urge-restoration-of-Healthy-Rivers-funding-back-Prop-4-damsafety-allocations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6547317-5cdac88696ec4913f62b30d1b8389877/orig.mp4?Expires=1773587893&Signature=PdrIk4tohGB6Ev3CnUUmXiQlSy5kjBp4Lctta4LXg6gm0eMsGxw--NoQeu2UnMiXfBAggq3bKgu7jpKki~gyRhFoRM4tn3xKsuuUny4geNQjFeYiZictQqB-PoEvoI6~zfrjhle0W8~8Txidloj3g02mPsPohT4dFDZb69vNN-1Y6pSwo9i3BY6MdrecoEfqLjqKSQX0BmTS7v0cBcaj9q~DzuPa3v8I6tiXTYNMZZAk1gBAlhSE2ZTwcV7a~Xzu~jeWIeZju1wsQ9ybdHlBpuY-kukaTcAADIARS~HIktY1iNoViNVSouVD958IREgMNOYseL56QSq~8c7XTO0Row__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Multiple water agencies, conservation groups and local utilities told the Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 2 that proposed budget reversions threaten ongoing habitat and dam‑safety work.

Jennifer Pierre of the State Water Contractors told the panel the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program “is ready for implementation. We’ve already implemented 40 habitat restoration projects,” and said funding is critical to move projects that protect both habitat and water‑supply reliability in the Central Valley and Delta watershed.

Speakers including representatives of the Yuba Water Agency, Irvine Ranch Water District and the Regional Water Authority asked the committee to appropriate at least the governor’s originally proposed $231,500,000 in Proposition 4 dam‑safety funding for the year. The Dam Safety Funding Coalition noted strong demand for that funding: an early $50,000,000 solicitation drew roughly $369,000,000 in requests for 72 projects, the coalition said.

Conservation groups applauded the committee’s rejection of trailer bills that would have moved the Delta Conveyance Project and Bay‑Delta water quality control plan out of the policy process into the budget. Speakers representing Defenders of Wildlife, the Golden State Salmon Association, Restore the Delta and several environmental coalitions said the budget is not the right vehicle for those policy changes and supported returning the matter to policy committees.

Why it matters
Funding choices will determine which habitat restoration and dam‑safety projects can proceed this year. Several local agencies reported existing contracts and invoiced work that depends on the funds under discussion; one water district reported a $55,000,000 contract with the Department of Water Resources with about $23.5 million invoiced and $10 million received to date.

What the record shows
- Testimony urging full or partial restoration of Healthy Rivers/voluntary agreements funding and Prop. 4 dam safety appropriations came from State Water Contractors, the Association of California Water Agencies, the Regional Water Authority, Citrus Heights Water District and other local water interests.
- Multiple environmental organizations supported deferring trailer‑bill action on Delta conveyance to the policy process and supported reversion or reallocation of general‑fund money tied to voluntary agreements.

Next steps
The items discussed will continue through the legislative budget process; appropriation and implementation depend on final legislative actions and any policy work required following the committee’s referral of Delta Conveyance to policy committees.

","Water districts, environmental organizations and fisheries groups urged the subcommittee to preserve or restore funding for voluntary agreements (Healthy Rivers and Landscapes) and to appropriate the governor’s proposed Proposition 4 dam‑safety funds for immediate projects.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6547322,"Senate budget subcommittee advances broad package of natural‑resources and energy items; Delta conveyance moved to policy",154,2887000,3041000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3759226-fc3d89ff3e580a8aa7c8cf2819f30157&start=2887&end=3041","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3759226-fc3d89ff3e580a8aa7c8cf2819f30157/thumbnail_2887000.jpg","/articles/6547322/California/Senate-budget-subcommittee-advances-broad-package-of-naturalresources-and-energy-items-Delta-conveyance-moved-to-policy","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6547322-bd0e9576b34b0393629d20a63412cf6d/orig.mp4?Expires=1773587893&Signature=oBc0CTuAm71t5D46wvm2zkLAstKgGjc3013y82MdeldZv0bJ4Itftp~EzAZ2YY~GScmBIIlUkBDzcYzsz721yArc1RAHoxCkRbaWGb7daOqNEo2t7kfGudpOJbw9x~F0wwL5IUtZ419hcI~pLYUOThaARjYYeeTOw5nBRcE~7CW6Leo-ixcdblxYPc5icBJLQArBD8-Yl2ogsKhGcqeKDWb0QVb7z2HrOtYlpNK5jKxC~qSCBXShZVxwkCjyBXEKAe7jpLSBjcutHqN2RvLcOFBw0yV6pkSsDjNfA8OqWC4sFdmTtTzujnS2n4ZNRQ7~efPOGglutHrqmgWkZSzhDg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The California State Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 2 advanced a broad set of natural‑resources and energy budget items at a public hearing, moving most measures forward while recording a handful of no votes and abstentions.

The subcommittee approved two large blocks of items by unanimous 4–0 votes and passed other packages with a 3–1 margin where Senator Choi voted no and with a series of items where Choi recorded abstentions. The chair opened the hearing noting members would take public comment before voting; public testimony ran across water, energy, transit and conservation interests.

The committee’s work reflected a larger fiscal constraint repeatedly referenced at the hearing. Senator Choi said, “With the $120,000,000,000 budget deficit, unfortunately, our state is facing, I wish we had plenty surplus so we can satisfy all the needs that we hear,” and added that the deficit requires prioritizing and some painful choices.

The panel moved the Delta Conveyance Project and related trailer‑bill language out of the budget process and back into policy committee review. Multiple water and environmental groups had urged that approach during public comment; the committee’s decision to treat the tunnel proposals as policy matters was noted repeatedly by witnesses and members.

Votes at a glance
- Part A (natural resources) — multiple items in a block (items 3, 6–9, 11–20, 23, 26–30, 32–33, 35–36, 38–40, 44–46, 49–55, 57–63, 65, 70–71, 76, 79–82, 84–88) passed 4–0. Motion moved and called by the secretary; tally: Allen Aye; Blake Spear Aye; Choi Aye; McNerney Aye.
- Part B (energy/air quality) — a block of items (1, 3, 12–16, 19, 21, 29, 31, 33, 35–42, 45, 48) passed 4–0. Tally: Allen Aye; Blake Spear Aye; Choi Aye; McNerney Aye.
- Select Part A items (10, 15, 21, 72, 83) passed 3–1 with Choi voting No. Tally: Allen Aye; Blake Spear Aye; Choi No; McNerney Aye.
- Select Part B items (2, 4–8, 10, 17–18, 20–28, 30, 32, 34, 46–47) passed 3–1 with Choi voting No.
- A third group of Part A items (1, 2, 4–5, 22, 24–25, 31, 34, 37, 41–43, 46–48, 51, 56, 64, 66–69, 73–75, 77–78) were approved with Choi recorded as abstaining; tally: Allen Aye; Blake Spear Aye; Choi Abstain; McNerney Aye.
- Final Part B group (9, 11, 43–44, 49) passed with Choi recorded as abstaining.

Why it matters
The subcommittee’s actions advance budget language affecting wildfire resiliency, water programs, transportation and clean‑energy investments into the next stage of legislative review. The decision to return the Delta Conveyance matter to policy committees preserves a separate, policy‑level review rather than resolving it through the budget process.

Public comment and member discussion
Witnesses representing transit agencies, water districts, environmental organizations and clean‑energy companies urged restoration of several proposed cuts, protection of continuous appropriations, and sustained funding for programs such as demand‑side grid support and the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes (voluntary agreements) program. Several water‑sector witnesses pressed for full appropriation of dam‑safety funds proposed under Proposition 4.

Committee members thanked staff and emphasized the need for a deliberate review of vacant positions across state agencies before permanent eliminations. The chair and members described the vacancy “sweep” approach as too blunt and supported a more targeted, one‑year review of open positions before cuts are finalized.

What’s next
Approved items will move forward through the legislative process. The committee did not set a specific follow‑up date in this hearing record.

","California Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 2 advanced a large set of natural‑resources and energy budget items after public comment, with several items passing unanimously, some passing over a lone no vote, and a group of items recorded as abstentions; the committee moved discussion of the Delta Conveyance Project back to policy committees.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Business and conservation groups oppose exempting SB 253 and SB 261 rulemaking from SREA and CEQA

Transit and clean‑energy groups press Legislature to restore demand‑side grid support, SGIP and other clean‑energy funding

Water agencies, environmental groups urge restoration of Healthy Rivers funding, back Prop. 4 dam‑safety allocations

Senate budget subcommittee advances broad package of natural‑resources and energy items; Delta conveyance moved to policy