Newsom, Democrats reach $321 billion California budget deal
California leaders reached a tentative agreement Tuesday night on the state budget, which hinges on Gov. Gavin Newsom's demand that the Legislature pass a housing reform proposal.
The eleventh-hour negotiations about the spending plan, which takes effect July 1, speak to the political challenge of overhauling longstanding environmental regulations to speed up housing construction in a state controlled by Democrats.
The party has been loathe to do more than tweak the California Environmental Quality Act, or approve one-off exemptions, despite pressure from the governor and national criticism of a law that reform advocates say has hamstrung California's ability to build.
The proposal is among a series of policies Newsom and Democratic lawmakers are expected to advance in the coming days as part of the $321.1 billion budget. The deal reflects the Legislature's resistance to the governor's proposed cuts to reduce a $12 billion budget deficit expected in the year ahead, citing uncertainty about the scope of the state's financial problems.
'We appreciate the strong partnership with the Legislature in reaching this budget agreement,' said Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom. 'The governor's signature is contingent on finalizing legislation to cut red tape and unleash housing and infrastructure development across the state — to build more, faster.'
The consensus comes after weeks of conversations about how to offset the deficit, caused by overspending in California, and start to address even larger financial problems anticipated in the future, including from potential federal policy changes.
The tentative deal largely relies on borrowing money, tapping into state reserves, and shifting funding around to close the shortfall. By reducing and delaying many of the governor's proposed cuts, the budget continues a practice at the state Capitol of sparing state programs from immediate pain while avoiding taking on California's long term budget woes.
Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) said the budget deal papers over the state's financial problems.
'We're in this situation because of overspending,' Gallagher said. 'We've made long term commitments to programs that Democrats have championed, and now, just like everybody warned, the money is not there to support them all, and they don't want to cut back their program that they helped expand.'
The cuts lawmakers and the governor ultimately agreed to will reduce the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare to undocumented immigrants and reinstate asset limit tests for Medi-Cal enrollees. The final deal, however, achieves less savings for the state than Newsom originally proposed.
The plan restores cost-of-living adjustments for childcare workers, which the governor wanted to nix, and rejects his call to cap overtime hours for in-home caregivers.
Democrats in the Legislature successfully pushed to provide another $500 million in funding for Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention grants. The governor originally resisted giving more money to counties, which he has chastised for being unable to show results for the billions of dollars in state funding they have received to reduce homelessness.
Assembly Budget Chair Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) pushed back on the notion that the Legislature hasn't done 'real belt-tightening.' Lawmakers are trying to balance compassion and fiscal responsibility before making drastic cuts to safety net programs that Californians rely on, he said.
'That is the balance that we are trying to strike here with this budget of being responsible, of focusing on the work that we need to do regardless, but also understanding that there is a pretty high delta of uncertainty for a lot of reasons,' Gabriel said.
The budget also preserves Newsom's plan to provide $750 million to expand the California Film and Television Tax Credit, a proposal supported by Hollywood film studios and unions representing workers in the industry.
The tentative agreement is expected to serve as a precursor to more challenging financial discussions about additional reductions in the months ahead.
California expects to lose federal funding from the Trump administration and state officials predict a potentially greater funding dilemma in 2026-27.
Here are few key elements of the budget deal, detailed in summaries of the agreement and legislation:
Described colloquially as a 'poison pill' inserted into the budget bill, the agreement between the Legislature and Newsom will only become law if legislators send the governor a version of a proposal initially introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco).
Wiener's bill is expected to lessen the number of building projects that would require a full environmental review under CEQA and make the process of developing environmental impact reports more efficient.
Paired with another proposal that could exempt more urban housing developments from CEQA, the legislation could mark a significant change in state policy that makes it easier to build.
Newsom is effectively forcing the Wiener proposal through by refusing to sign a budget deal without the CEQA exemptions. The proposal was still being drafted as of Tuesday evening.
The governor declared lofty goals to build more housing on the 2018 gubernatorial campaign trail, but he has failed to spur enough construction to meet housing demand and make homes more affordable.
New York Times columnist Ezra Klein effectively called out the inaction in California caused by the state's marquee environmental law and a lack of political will in his recent book ,'Abundance,' which increased pressure on the governor and other Democrats to reconsider their approach and push for more substantial fixes this year.
The CEQA reform bill must be passed by Monday under the budget agreement, which omits a separate Newsom call to streamline the Delta tunnels project.
Medi-Cal cost overruns are causing major problems for the California budget. The challenges stem from a higher-than-expected price tag for the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare to all income-eligible undocumented immigrants and medical care for other enrollees.
Newsom's budget proposal in May suggested substantial trims to the health care program for people who are undocumented. His plan included freezing new enrollment as of Jan. 1, requiring all adults to pay $100 monthly premiums, eliminating long-term care benefits and cutting full dental coverage. The changes offered minor savings in the year ahead but could save billions of dollars in future years.
Lawmakers ultimately agreed to require undocumented immigrant adults ages 19 to 59 to pay $30 monthly premiums beginning July 2027. They plan to adopt Newsom's enrollment cap but give people three months to reapply if their coverage lapses instead of immediately cutting off their eligibility.
Democrats agreed to cut full dental coverage for adult immigrants who are undocumented, but delayed the change until July 1, 2026.
State leaders agreed to reinstate much higher limits than the governor originally proposed on the assets Medi-Cal beneficiaries may possess and still get coverage. The new limits would be $130,000 for individuals and $195,00 for couples, compared to prior limits of a few thousand dollars.
They also adopted Newsom's proposal to withdraw Medi-Cal benefits for specialty weight loss drugs.
The negotiations resulted in less general fund spending than the Legislature proposed in a counter to Newsom's budget revision in May, dropping from $232 billion to an estimated $228 billion for 2025-26.
Officials are using more money from California's cap-and-trade program, which sets limits on companies' greenhouse gas emissions and allows them to buy pollution credits from the state, including $1 billion next year. They are also using $300 million from climate change bonds instead of the general fund to pay for environmental programs.
Lawmakers and the governor agreed to delay a $3.4 billion payment on a loan to cover Medi-Cal cost overruns and increase the loan by another $1 billion next year.
The plan continues an agreement to take $7.1 billion from the state's rainy day fund to help cover the deficit and taps into another $6.5 billion from other cash reserves to balance the budget.
California leaders for months have warned about the so-called Trump effect on the state budget.
Financial analysts at UCLA predict that the state economy is expected to slow in the months ahead due to the effects of Trump's tariff policy and immigration raids on construction, hospitality, agriculture and other key sectors.
Meanwhile, the state is warning that federal funding reductions to California could require lawmakers to adopt additional budget cuts in August or September, during a special session in the fall or early next year.
State officials expect future deficit estimates to range from $17 to $24 billion annually, according to an Assembly summary of the budget deal.
The final budget agreement is being publicly released in bits and pieces this week through a series of trailer bills that appear online at random hours.
Lawmakers are expected to pass a main budget bill on Friday and approve additional legislation by Monday, before the July 1 deadline for the budget to go into effect. Some legislation, such as the CEQA housing exemptions, will not appear in print until the end of the week.
Other decisions, such as reauthorizing California's cap-and-trade program, will be considered later in the year outside of the budget process.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
McIver heads to court as watchdog group files complaint against Alina Habba
Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) is expected to appear in federal court for the first time Wednesday morning on a trio of charges following a May scuffle outside a federal immigration facility. At her arraignment in Newark, McIver will plead not guilty, spokesperson Hanna Rumsey said. McIver is accused in a three-count indictment of slamming a federal agent with her forearm, 'forcibly' grabbing him and using her forearms to strike another agent. Allegations of physical violence by a sitting member of Congress are rare, with a handful of incidents including the pre-Civil War caning of a senator by a member of the House. McIver's allies, including two other Democrats who were with her during the incident, have decried the charges as political and have said she was roughed up by federal agents. Her allies are also trying to turn the tables on the federal prosecutor bringing the case, the interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, Alina Habba. The Campaign for Accountability, a liberal watchdog group, filed a complaint this week against Habba with the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics. The complaint alleges Habba has acted improperly since becoming a prosecutor and cites her actions in the McIver case, along with comments about turning 'New Jersey red' and announcing investigations into its Democratic governor and attorney general over immigration. A spokesperson for Habba did not respond to a request for comment. 'In an atmosphere where other oversight bodies are caving to political influence, the bar's duty to independently enforce these rules is ever more important,' the group's executive director, Michelle Kuppersmith, said. Habba, who represented Donald Trump in court between his presidencies, is already facing a lawsuit brought against her by Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who was arrested for trespassing at the detention facility before the charges were dropped and a judge questioned Habba's judgment. When she first announced charges against McIver, Habba said she had 'made efforts to address these issues without bringing criminal charges and have given Rep. McIver every opportunity to come to a resolution, but she has unfortunately declined.' The watchdog group's complaint alleges it was improper to say the charges were contingent on McIver taking actions ordered and approved by Habba. Campaign for Accountability filed a similar complaint in New York against another federal prosecutor, Emil Bove, after he moved to drop charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. The New York attorney grievance committee declined to act and instead transferred the complaint to the Department of Justice. The charges against McIver are an extraordinary stress-test for the separation of powers at a time in which Trump is seeking to maximize executive branch dominance. In recent weeks, New York City mayoral candidate Brad Lander was handcuffed and arrested by federal agents while escorting migrants from immigration hearings and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was forcibly removed from a Department of Homeland Security press conference. Neither Lender nor Padilla have been charged with anything. The two Democrats who were with McIver outside the immigration facility — Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez — have also not been charged. The three New Jersey Democrats have said they were at the immigration detention facility exercising their oversight duties and were roughed up by federal agents. Since their oversight visit, several detainees escaped and there were reports of poor conditions inside the facility, which the private company that runs the facility has denied. McIver appeared virtually at a previous hearing in May, after charges were filed but before a grand jury returned an indictment. She was allowed to appear remotely from Washington because Congress was in session. Since then, the indictment has put her case in front of U.S. District Court Judge Jamel Semper.
Indianapolis Star
25 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Hoosier evangelicals slowly going solar,\u00a0but they're not talking about climate change
The Rev. Robert Whitaker is part of growing movement across Indiana encouraging evangelical congregations to pursue clean energy, but his talking points don't start with climate change. He said the focus is on fresh air, clean water, a biblical mandate, and the kicker: Lower utility bills leave churches more money to spend on their missions. The movement is slowly picking up steam statewide, but it hasn't been easy to get evangelicals on board, said Whitaker, who is senior pastor at Christ Community Church, an evangelical congregation in Bloomington. At least some of that reluctance is because climate change is a political minefield in some religious circles. Evangelicals make up the largest group of Christians in Indiana, and they're also the least likely religious group to view climate change as a serious problem, according to the Pew Research Center. But the wedge between evangelicals and environmentalism has less to do with theology and more to do with politics, according to Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist who studies the intersection of faith and climate change. "The problem itself is the result of decades and even centuries of politicization of faith in America," she told IndyStar. The Pew Research Center also reported 85 percent of White evangelicals identify with or lean toward the GOP, and Republicans are far less likely than Democrats to say dealing with climate change should be a top priority for the federal government. So despite spreading the news of a Creation Care Partners grant program that can help evangelical churches cover the costs of going green, Whitaker has only seen a handful of congregations apply. 'I have to be honest, I've been a little disappointed that more evangelical churches haven't taken it on,' he said. 'But it's been successful for us.' Whitaker hasn't always been a vocal supporter of solar energy. For much of his life, it wasn't a priority. 'It was just one of those back burner issues for me, theologically, and could easily be stereotyped as radical, left wing, tree hugger,' said Whitaker, who grew up in a religious tradition during the 1970s that didn't put much emphasis on environmentalism. But his son slowly helped him expand his worldview. Hours of road-trip chats about film, philosophy and theology evolved into conversations about climate change and clean energy. After that, Whitaker said it didn't take long for him to see the truth about the condition of the earth. Whitaker approached his church board and then members with news of a grant to go green, making it explicit the project costs wouldn't come from the church budget. Most people were on board. Within a matter of weeks, the congregation raised an additional $24,000 dollars. But some people grumbled, and others probably left the church, Whitaker said. Still, "what happened in the end is most people caught on," he added. The church installed solar panels during the summer of 2022 and is finishing up an overhaul of the HVAC system to increase energy conservation. Not all evangelicals have made the same pivot, even after years-long efforts to engage religious groups in Indiana with energy conservation. Fifteen years ago, Madeline Hirschland cofounded Hoosier Interfaith Power and Light, which was an multi-faith network across the state, to help congregations reduce their energy usage and install solar panels. Fossil fuels account for over 75 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, which linger in the earth's atmosphere and trap the sun's heat. The world is warming faster now than ever in recorded history, and the globe is starting to feel the effects: heatwaves, wildfires and and floods are all increasing in intensity and frequency, according to NASA. Plus, research has shown air pollution from fossil fuel plants can lead to lung cancer, asthma, and heart disease. Clean energy is one way to reduce the amount of carbon heading into the atmosphere, and for Hirschland, encouraging faith communities to practice energy conservation was an easy connection to make. "It was a natural fit for me," she said. "It feels like a matter of faith." Hirschland, who is Jewish, said 18 different faith traditions were represented among the churches that committed to energy conservation and received funding for solar panels. There were mainline protestants, Catholics, Muslims, and Jews involved — but only a handful of evangelicals. 'There was a sense that actually the missing piece was the largest faith group,' Hirschland said. Evangelicals operate between four and six thousand churches across the state, according to her estimates, but 'evangelicals tend to want to work with evangelicals.' Whitaker, who is an evangelical himself, explained the reaction he heard most often from others was a hesitancy to be involved with interfaith groups, so as not to be grouped in under one faith, theology or agenda. Another reason, he explained, is the politics of going green make solarization a hard sell. 'I think one of the reasons evangelical churches have been reticent to be involved is because the whole project up until now — I think it's changing — became politicized,' Whitaker said. Fewer conservative Republicans believe the climate is warming due to human activity compared to Democrats, according to the Pew Research Center, and less than a third of Republicans say that reducing carbon emissions will make a big difference as world confronts climate change. Hoosier Interfaith Power and Light has since merged with a different network, Faith in Place, but Whitaker, Hirschland and others are still urging evangelical Hoosiers to untangle their theology from their ideology. 'You don't have to be a Democrat or Republican; we don't want to talk about that,' Whitaker said. 'What we want to talk about is a creation mandate that we believe was given to us by God.' Long before Hirschland helped start Creation Care Partners, the organization issuing energy conservation and solar grants to evangelical congregations, she worked in poverty alleviation in rural Kenya. She met parents whose children had died of malaria and learned about changing rainfall patterns and rising heat that helps mosquitos proliferate. She quickly came to believe that climate change was threatening people's livelihoods and lives. When she realized the emissions raising global temperatures were highest in places like the United States, she turned her focus back toward Indiana, where she's become an advocate for faith groups to practice energy conservation across the state. 'It's an issue of faith, it's an issue of caring for the garden,' Hirschland said. 'It's an issue of caring for the least among us, for those who are impacted by what we do but don't have any power over it.' The Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN), a non-profit that encourages churches to pursue creation care, boils down the biblical basis for creation care into four parts: Christ died to reconcile creation to God; all creation belongs to Jesus; to love what God loves fulfills the ten commandments; and Christians are called to care for the poor — who are disproportionally impacted by environmental hazards. 'If there's pollution that's harming someone, do I care about that?' asked Jeremy Summers, the director of church and community engagement at EEN. 'Do I care about the asthma rates increasing in areas where there's high pollution rates? It's a matter of life.' Evangelicals involved in creation care work also point to the mandate given by God in the first book of the bible. 'It starts with a garden, and the human beings are given the charge to be stewards of that beautiful place,' said Whitaker. 'Before all this, I was a consumer, and now I see myself as a caretaker.' Despite what he feels is a moral and spiritual call to care for creation, Whitaker says rhetoric isn't how he cinches the deal with churches. That's where savings come in. 'Quite honestly, the most important thing to me is that we saved energy and didn't pollute the environment,' Whitaker said. 'The savings, in my opinion, are not as important. But you use that as a line to get people going.' Solar installation can be expensive, costing tens of thousands of dollars depending on how many kilowatts a church might install. And a tax credit that helped churches and non-profits save 30 to 40 percent on solarization is on the chopping block in the current text of the Republican megabill. But, luckily for churches, there's still a lot of help out there to go green. For one, Hirschland and Whitaker are helping distribute $500,000 in grants to evangelical churches through Creation Care Partners. The money was obtained through a settlement with American Electric Power. The Creation Care Partners' grant helps congregations reduce their energy use by 25 to 40 percent. Evangelical congregations can receive up to $29,000 to install solar panels or work on energy conservation — which Hirschland says is usually a more cost-effective way to save — through upgrades to LED lights and sealing and insulating their buildings. And once they do, Hirschland said, they'll see their utility bills drop. The money moved away from utility bills can be used to advance mission work the church is supporting. 'It's both a way to care for God's creation, and it's also a way to do more of what they want to be doing,' said Hirschland. St. John's United Church of Christ in Collinsville, Illinois, dropped its electric bills from $2,000 a month to $200 since they installed solar in January, according to Wade Halva, who works with Faith in Place in southern Illinois. Over the next 25 years, the church could save close to half a million dollars. Halva said that when he's working with churches, one of the pivot points is when they discuss how a church has had to adjust its budget to cut costs. 'How many programs have you stopped in the last 10 years because you didn't have this amount of money in your budget? Did you have to let a staffer go? Did you stop a summer food program?' he said he asks different pastors and church leaders. 'Then I ask them to imagine what they could do within an additional this amount of money in their budget every year for the next 20 years.' IndyStar's environmental reporting project is made possible through the generous support of the nonprofit Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust.
USA Today
33 minutes ago
- USA Today
Bill could bring NC energy affordability, but at what cost to the environment?
Legislation that would give Duke Energy more flexibility in how it meets the state's growing demand for electricity is drawing the ire of clean energy advocates. Legislators in Raleigh have passed a bill that would dramatically water down the signature environmental legislation from Gov. Roy Cooper's "green" legacy. Senate Bill 266, which is now before Gov. Josh Stein, would eliminate an interim goal that mandates Duke Energy reach a 70% reduction in carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 2030, while keeping in place a longer-term goal of being carbon neutral by 2050. Carbon emissions from the state's energy sector are the second largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in North Carolina, after the transportation sector. Environmentalists and clean energy advocates say the move, which mirrors some of the climate change rollbacks implemented by the Trump administration, is short-sighted and will slow down the state's transition to sources of clean energy, like wind and solar. Supporters say the bill will save customers money by keeping utility bills from rising too quickly and offer Duke flexibility in meeting rising electricity demand from a growing population and power-hungry businesses, like data centers. What's in the bill? The legislation would get rid of the requirement that Duke has to reduce carbon emissions by 2030, although the utility giant has already been pushing to move that deadline back to 2035. The 2030 goal had been hashed out in a bipartisan 2021 bill negotiated by Cooper, Duke and the GOP-controlled General Assembly. The longer-term goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2050 would remain. The bill also includes language that would change how Duke can set rates and recover costs from power plants, including nuclear and natural gas-fired facilities, that have yet to be constructed. POWER PLAY: New NC carbon plan includes more wind and solar, but delays 70% emission reduction goal What do supporters like about it? Supporters say the policy change could save North Carolinians up to $15 billion in future utility costs. It also would refocus the state's energy network on reliability and affordability, a concern recently raised by the N.C. Utilities Commission, and away from meeting haphazard carbon reduction goals and adopting power sources that might not work under certain conditions, like solar when the sun isn't shining, they state. The bill, which drew strong GOP support and even garnered votes from a few Democrats, was championed by the N.C. Chamber and other pro-business and manufacturing interest groups. "Our residents shouldn't be saddled with higher power bills to satisfy arbitrary targets," Senate Leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, said in a statement. "Senate Bill 266 ensures that North Carolina will have reliable energy at competitive prices to serve our citizens and businesses." Duke also supported the bill, saying the proposals offers the utility affordable flexibility in meeting the state's growing power needs. "We appreciate bipartisan efforts by policymakers to keep costs as low as possible for customers and enable the always-on energy resources our communities need," a Duke spokesperson said in a statement. ENERGY DEBATE: Proposed bill would undo NC climate goals, change rules for Duke Energy raising rates A 'bail out' Clean energy advocates say the bill moves the risk of Duke betting on expensive or unproven power sources, such as small modular nuclear reactors and hydrogen power, from the company's shareholders to its customers − especially residential ones. They also say the bill would allow Duke to invest in more greenhouse gas-spewing natural gas plants instead of cleaner renewable power sources, like wind and solar. 'Lawmakers who support this bill are voting to bail out Duke shareholders, while locking us into higher prices and more dirty energy," said Dan Crawford, director of governmental relations for the N.C. League of Conservation Voters. David Kelly, state director for Environmental Defense Fund, said the legislation punishes both the environment, by allowing more greenhouse gases to warm the planet and accelerate climate change, and the state's residential customers. 'Homegrown North Carolina clean energy is the most affordable and quickly scalable energy solution available," he said in a statement. "North Carolinians need relief. By gutting clean energy incentives, doubling down on expensive fossil fuels, and pushing extra fuel costs onto working families, this legislation promises to drive household energy bills even higher." GREEN AND RELIABLE? NC faces challenge of creating a clean, reliable and affordable energy future What happens now? The bill is now on the governor's desk, where he has until roughly the end of June to sign the bill, veto it, or let it become law without his signature. While Stein, a Democrat, has historically been a strong supporter of environmental measures and steps to battle climate change, the support of several Democrats for the legislation could play a role in whether he vetoes the bill. That's because Democrats can only lose a single vote in the 120-member House to avoid a veto override by legislators, which requires three-fifths (49) of the members to support, assuming all other Democrats and Republicans vote along party lines. A message left with the governor's office asking what Stein intended to do wasn't immediately returned. Reporter Gareth McGrath can be reached at GMcGrath@ or @GarethMcGrathSN on X/Twitter. This story was produced with financial support from the Green South Foundation and the Prentice Foundation. The USA TODAY Network maintains full editorial control of the work.
