One bill out of the California High-Speed Rail Authority's full 2026 legislative agenda became law, leaving the 171-mile Merced–Bakersfield line without most of the statutory changes Chief Executive Ian Choudri said were needed to hold its schedule.

Senate Bill 1425, authored by Senate Transportation Committee Chair Dave Cortese, a San Jose Democrat, allows the authority to grant permits to outside entities — utilities, local governments and private developers — that want to build on authority-controlled land. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it into law Sunday.

Everything else on the authority's list stalled or never materialized. In August 2025, Choudri had urged state leaders to commit stable funding and cut red tape he said had long stalled the project, pitching ideas to tap local tax revenues and fast-track court disputes, environmental reviews and negotiations with utility companies in the rail line's path.

"State action is critically needed to maintain the cost & timelines of the program," Choudri wrote in a January presentation to authority board members.

What died — and what never started?

Most of Choudri's pitches remained "concept-level ideas" that the authority never developed into written proposals, spokesperson Micah Flores said. He noted the agency is not tasked with writing laws. "Legislators who learn about the concepts may choose or author legislation independently to help the project," Flores said.

One idea, vaguely outlined in Choudri's August 2025 report, would have let the authority collect sales and property tax revenues within a half-mile of the rail line. Eleven mayors in the Central Valley and Southern California attacked it in a June opposition letter.

"This proposal … is fiscally reckless, legally vulnerable, and fundamentally unfair to the communities expected to host High-Speed Rail facilities," the mayors wrote. "Simply put: the state cannot solve a state funding problem by raiding local tax bases."

The only other high-speed rail bill this year, Senate Bill 1411 by Sen. Henry Stern, a Sherman Oaks Democrat, died in May in the "suspense file" — the process by which lawmakers kill or advance proposals without explanation. The bipartisan measure would have lifted the $500 million cap on spending the authority's share of the state climate fund outside the Merced–Bakersfield segment, freeing money for early designs, engineering and land acquisition from the Bay Area to Southern California.

Stern said the flexibility would help build "bookend" projects and attract private investors. "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," he said.

Legislative staffers warned in a May analysis that the bill would divert dollars from the Central Valley segment and contradict lawmakers' intent from four years earlier.

What does the shortfall mean for the 2033 deadline?

The authority's business plan targets completion of the Merced–Bakersfield segment by 2033. But that timeline rests largely on the "overly optimistic" assumption that lawmakers will approve the agency's legislative priorities "almost immediately," according to a July review by the Office of Inspector General that oversees the authority. The authority declined requests for interviews with Choudri or board chair Steve Kawa; Flores said the agency will pursue similar concepts next year and issue cost and schedule updates in March.

Costs have already far outpaced the original voter-approved plan. In 2008, Californians backed a $33 billion San Francisco–Los Angeles line due by 2020. The authority's latest business plan puts the full buildout at $126 billion to $231 billion, completed by 2040.

Annual funding of $1 billion from the state's carbon market auction proceeds — secured until 2045 under a deal Newsom championed — could also be at risk. New climate rules from the Newsom administration threaten to cut carbon market revenue by half, according to a legislative analyst's document.

Why utility relocation remains unsolved

A top priority this year was speeding up relocation of overhead power lines, water pipes and other infrastructure blocking construction. Choudri told the August board meeting that utilities have no incentive to move their lines and the agency lacks authority to compel them or bind them to deadlines.

"We are talking about utilities that were identified in 2017 that are still there in the way," Choudri said. "Minus the legislative action, I just don't know how else we can solve this."

Sen. Scott Wiener's Senate Bill 445, intended to address the issue, underwent last-minute overhauls amid opposition from local governments and utilities and also died in the suspense file.

Cortese, a high-speed rail supporter, said the authority itself bears part of the blame. "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."

He also criticized the process that let Stern's and Wiener's bills vanish without debate.

What comes next?

The political outlook is uncertain beyond the legislature. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra said in May he would "scrap the current configuration" of the project, offering few details, while Republican Steve Hilton has pledged to cancel it entirely. The authority says it will return to lawmakers with similar proposals next session, with cost and schedule updates due in March.