In summary
California’s high-speed rail authority wanted state lawmakers to cut red tape and raise more revenue to keep the train project on track. Only one of the policies it advocated became law this year.
California’s High-Speed Rail Authority failed this year to push through most of the state legislation it deemed necessary to keep construction of the 171-mile rail line connecting Merced and Bakersfield on its current schedule.
In August 2025, authority Chief Executive Ian Choudri urged state leaders to commit stable state funding and cut red tape that he said had long stalled the project. He pitched several legislative ideas that would allow the agency to tap into local tax revenues and fast-track court disputes, environmental reviews and negotiations with utility companies in the rail line’s way.
“State action is critically needed to maintain the cost & timelines of the program,” he wrote in a January presentation to authority board members.
But only one of Choudri’s essential policy proposals became law. Senate Bill 1425 by Senate Transportation Committee Chair Dave Cortese, a San Jose Democrat, allows the authority to grant permits to outside entities such as utilities, local governments and private developers that want to build on authority-controlled land. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it into law Sunday.
Most of Choudri’s other pitches remained “concept-level ideas” that the high-speed rail authority never developed into written proposals, said authority spokesperson Micah Flores. When asked why, Flores told CalMatters that the agency is not tasked with writing laws.
“Legislators who learn about the concepts may choose or author legislation independently to help the project,” he said.
Many of those ideas faced fierce opposition from local governments. One proposal — vaguely mentioned in Choudri’s August 2025 report — would have allowed the authority to collect sales and property tax revenues within a half-mile of the rail line, alarming local officials who say it would divert essential funding local governments rely on for social services and road repairs.
“This proposal … is fiscally reckless, legally vulnerable, and fundamentally unfair to the communities expected to host High-Speed Rail facilities,” 11 mayors in the Central Valley and Southern California wrote in a June opposition letter. “Simply put: the state cannot solve a state funding problem by raiding local tax bases.”
The high-speed rail project is already long delayed: In 2008, voters approved a $33 billion plan to build a high-speed rail line from San Francisco to Los Angeles by 2020. The project is now estimated to cost between $126 billion and $231 billion, with a full buildout expected by 2040, according to the authority’s latest business plan. Current plans call for building a first leg linking Merced to Bakersfield.
The project is set to receive $1 billion each year from the state’s carbon market auction proceeds until 2045, a deal Newsom championed last year. But the funding could be in jeopardy under new climate rules from the Newsom administration, which threaten to cut carbon market revenue by half.
The authority’s legislative losses this year could further stall the project, but it’s unclear by how much.
The agency’s business plan calls for the authority to complete the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment by 2033. But that timeline largely relies on the “overly optimistic” assumption that state lawmakers will approve the agency’s legislative priorities into law “almost immediately,” according to a review of the plan issued in July by the Office of Inspector General that oversees the authority.
The authority declined CalMatters’ multiple requests for interviews with Choudri or the chair of its board of directors, Steve Kawa. In a statement, Flores said the agency plans to push for similar legislative concepts next year and provide project cost and schedule updates in March.
It’s unclear what the next governor makes of the high-speed rail project. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra said in May he would “scrap the current configuration” but provided few details, whereas Republican Steve Hilton would cancel the entire project.
Other proposals died
Sen. Henry Stern, a Sherman Oaks Democrat, authored the only other proposal related to high-speed rail this year. His Senate Bill 1411, which had bipartisan support, would have allowed the rail authority to spend more state funds outside the Central Valley segment of the rail line, but the legislation was shelved in May during a process known as the “suspense file” hearing, where lawmakers rapidly kill or approve proposals without explanation.
Under current law, the authority can only spend up to $500 million from its share of the state climate fund on high-speed rail projects outside the Merced-to-Bakersfield portion. Stern’s measure would have lifted that cap and allowed the authority to use the money for early designs, engineering and land acquisition elsewhere along the planned rail route from the Bay Area to Southern California.
Stern said the flexibility would help the authority build “bookend” rail line projects across the state and attract investors from private companies while still building in the Central Valley.
“If you are not unlocking private dollars in those demand centers … you are then leaving money on the table that could otherwise accelerate the entire project. It can lift those boats in the valley,” he said.
But doing so would divert dollars from the Merced-to-Bakersfield project and contradict state lawmakers’ intent just four years ago to keep the funds in the Central Valley, legislative staffers warned in a May analysis of the measure, shortly before it died.
A top priority for the authority this year was to speed up the relocation of overhead power lines, water pipes and other infrastructure that is in the rail line’s construction path, Choudri said at an August board meeting. Utility companies have no incentive to move their lines and the agency does not have authority to compel them or bind them to a deadline, Choudri said.
“We are talking about utilities that were identified in 2017 that are still there in the way,” he said at the meeting. “Minus the legislative action, I just don’t know how else we can solve this.”
Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat, authored Senate Bill 445 last year to address the issue. But the measure went through several last-minute overhauls amid opposition from local governments and utilities and also died in the suspense file.
Other priorities Choudri identified included:
- Expedite environmental review for facilities that will provide renewable energy for the rail line;
- Speed up resolution of court disputes over property acquisition, and
- Exempt the authority from paying sales tax on construction materials.
Cortese, a champion of high-speed rail, told CalMatters the rail authority is partly to blame for the legislative losses.
“The governor’s office and the high-speed rail (authority) haven’t asked us to write any bills,” he said. “Have they contributed to these bills not getting passed by simply not providing enough help? Sure, absolutely.”
Still, he said his fellow lawmakers also need to better advocate for the project.
“We can’t have bills like Stern’s bill and Sen. Wiener’s bill just completely stalled out,” he said. “That’s not on the authors as much as it’s on the legislative process that those bills can disappear without a debate.”
