Existing law, commonly known as the Cartwright Act, identifies certain acts as unlawful restraints of trade and unlawful trusts and prescribes provisions for its enforcement. Chapter 338 of the Statutes of 2025 provides that in a complaint for any violation of the Cartwright Act, it is sufficient to contain factual allegations demonstrating that the existence of a contract, combination in the form of a trust, or conspiracy to restrain trade or commerce is plausible. Chapter 338 of the Statutes of 2025 also provides that a complaint for any violation of the Cartwright Act is not required to allege facts tending to exclude the possibility of independent action. Existing case law, In re Cipro Cases I & II (2015) 61 Cal.4th 116, establishes a rule of reason analysis for certain claims under the Cartwright Act, which, among other things, determines whether an act was made for the purpose of avoiding competition and whether the anticompetitive effects of the agreement outweigh any procompetitive justifications. This bill would prohibit any person from monopolizing or monopsonizing any part of trade or commerce, as provided. The bill would require courts to use the analytical framework and guidance provided in In re Cipro Cases I & II. The bill would require a plaintiff bringing an action under its provisions to allege, and prove at trial, substantial market power through either direct or indirect evidence. The bill would exempt a small business, as defined, from these provisions. The bill would provide that its provisions do not prevent, limit, or prohibit certain conduct and legal instruments, including exclusive franchises granted and supervised by a local, state, or federal governmental agency. This bill would require any action brought pursuant to these provisions to be initiated only by the Attorney General or a district attorney, and would, with certain exceptions, preclude an alleged violation under its provisions from serving as a predicate violation under the Unfair Competition Law. The bill would require an action brought pursuant to these provisions to be filed as a "complex case" pursuant to provisions of law requiring the assessment of additional court fees, as specified. The bill would also make related findings and declarations. The bill would require courts to liberally interpret California's antitrust laws to best promote free and fair competition, as provided. Because the bill would expand the scope of activities prohibited by the Cartwright Act, the violation of which is punishable as a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law imposes upon secondhand dealers and coin dealers a uniform, statewide, state-administered program of regulation of persons whose principal business is buying, selling, trading, auctioning, or taking in pawn tangible personal property, as defined, and requires a secondhand dealer or coin dealer to report secondhand tangible personal property that they acquire, except as specified, to the California Pawn and SecondhandDealer System (CAPSS) operated by the Department of Justice, as specified. Existing law defines "tangible personal property" for these purposes to include, among other things, all tangible personal property that the Attorney General statistically determines through the most recent Department of Justice crime data to constitute a significant class of stolen goods. Existing law further defines "significant class of stolen goods" to mean those items determined through the Department of Justice's most recent OpenJustice Web portal update to constitute more than 10% of property reported stolen in the calendar year preceding the annual posting of the list of significant classes of stolen goods. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions a misdemeanor, as specified. This bill would remove the term "principal" from the provisions that regulate secondhand dealers, making them applicable, instead, to persons whose business is buying, selling, trading, auctioning, or taking in pawn tangible personal property. By expanding the persons subject to the reporting requirement, the violation of which is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make the above-described provisions inapplicable to coin dealers and make other related and conforming changes. The bill would make the provisions that regulate secondhand dealers inapplicable to tangible personal property that has been acquired from a nonprofit organization or as a bulk purchase of donated items. The bill would also delete the definition of a "significant class of stolen goods," thereby potentially expanding the definition of "tangible personal property." By expanding the items subject to the reporting requirement, the violation of which is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires the chief of police, sheriff, or police commission to accept an application for licensure and to grant a license to a qualified applicant, as specified. Existing law requires the licensing authority to submit the application to the Department of Justice before granting the license. If the Department of Justice does not comment on the application within 30 days after the submission, existing law authorizes the licensing authority to grant the applicant a license. This bill would prohibit a city, county, city and county, or any other state agency from issuing a license or permit to allow any entity to conduct business as a secondhand dealer without the entity having a state secondhand dealer license issued pursuant to the provisions described above. The bill would reiterate that any person conducting business as a secondhand dealer is required to report secondhand tangible personal property that they acquire to the CAPSS operated by the Department of Justice, as specified. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law establishes the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, under the direction of the Labor Commissioner, within the Department of Industrial Relations, for the purpose of enforcing labor laws. Existing law requires the division to maintain minimum standards for the competency and training of electricians through a system of testing and certification. Existing law requires the division to issue certification cards to electricians who have been certified and paid a fee, in accordance with certain procedures. This bill would authorize an individual who fails the certification examination to immediately submit an application to retake the examination, as specified. The bill would transfer authority over the certification of electricians from the division to the Contractors State License Board, contingent upon an appropriation for these purposes by the Legislature and pursuant to certain timelines and procedures.
(1) Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations and gas corporations. Existing law requires electrical corporations and gas corporations to submit specified information to the commission, and requires the commission to annually report to the Legislature on, among other things, all sources and amounts of funding and actual and proposed expenditures, including any costs to ratepayers, related to entities or programs established by the commission, as specified. This bill would require each electrical corporation or gas corporation to include in a quarterly report certain information for any taxpayer funding, as defined, greater than or equal to $1,000,000 that the corporation has applied for or received, as specified. The bill would require the commission, for each application in which an electrical corporation or gas corporation is seeking ratepayer funding, to require the electrical corporation or gas corporation to report all relevant taxpayer funding greater than or equal to $1,000,000 that the electrical corporation or gas corporation is pursuing or has secured, and, if the commission determines that an electrical corporation or gas corporation is not in compliance with that reporting requirement, the bill would authorize the commission to impose a penalty against the electrical corporation or gas corporation, as specified. The bill would require the commission to require each electrical corporation or gas corporation to deliver to ratepayers the financial benefits of taxpayer funding received, as provided. The bill would require the commission, on or before January 1, 2028, and annually thereafter, to provide a report to the Legislature with a summary of the information on taxpayer funding reported by each electrical corporation or gas corporation, including the number of grants or loans, the source of those grants or loans, the total dollar amount received, the projects funded by the grants or loans, and the total demonstrated ratepayer savings, as specified. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2037. (2) Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because the provisions of this bill would be a part of the act and because a violation of a commission action implementing the bill's requirements would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law makes it a crime to, by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction that is a crime of violence, intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship. This bill would make it unlawful for a person to, within a radius of 100 feet from an entrance or exit of a place of religious worship, as defined, intentionally approach another person seeking to enter or exit a place of religious worship within 8 feet of that person to either pass a leaflet or handbill to, display a sign to, or engage in oral protest or education or to harass, obstruct, threaten, or intimidate the person or occupant. The bill would, for the purposes of determining that distance, measure from the body of the person seeking to enter or exit, or the exterior of a motor vehicle they occupy, to the body of, or any sign or object held by, the other person. The bill would prescribe specified fines, imprisonment, or fine and imprisonment for a violation of these provisions. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law establishes various protections for California Native American tribes, including prohibiting a public agency or private party using or occupying public property or operating on public property from interfering with the free expression or exercise of Native American religion as provided in the United States Constitution and the California Constitution. Existing law also requires a local government to provide formal notification to each California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site as an invitation to consult on the proposed project, as provided. Existing law requires the local government, during the consultation, to give deference to the tribal information, tribal knowledge and customs, and the significance of the resource to the California Native American tribe. Existing law prohibits any information, as described, that is submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process from being included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, as specified, without the prior consent of the tribe that provided the information. Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires each state and local agency, as defined, to make its records open to public inspection at all times during office hours, except as specifically exempted from disclosure by law. The act specifically exempts from disclosure records that are exempted or prohibited from disclosure by federal or state law and lists records subject to that exemption, specifying that the listed exemptions are not inclusive of all exemptions under the act. This bill, the California Indian Freedom Act of 2026, would, commencing January 1, 2028, prohibit a governmental agency from substantially burdening a California Indian or California Native American tribe's exercise of religious beliefs or spiritual practices on state lands, except as necessary to protect public safety and security, including their access to and use of sacred sites and objects, and their ability to perform religious ceremonies and rites, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental agency demonstrates that application of the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is in the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. The bill would provide that a California Native American tribe has exclusive standing to assert a violation of these provisions and would authorize a California Native American tribe to assert a violation of these provisions as a claim or defense in any judicial or administrative proceeding, as specified. The bill would require a governmental agency to allow California Indians access to sacred sites on state lands, as specified. The bill would require a governmental agency to seek and document free, prior, and informed consent from affected tribes before undertaking any physical change to a state land, as described, which the agency has actual knowledge is a sacred site where the action may pose a risk to sacred sites, as specified. The bill would require the affirmation of consent from the governing body of the affected tribe to be in writing, as described. This bill would require the Department of General Services, in coordination with the Capitol Protective Section and the Joint Rules Committee, to the greatest extent possible, to uphold the religious freedom, ceremonial practices, sacred sites, cultural patrimony, and cultural landscapes of tribes when accessing the State Capitol grounds. The bill would require the Joint Rules Committee, in coordination with the Capitol Protective Section and the State Senate Capitol Security Program, to the greatest extent possible, to uphold the religious freedom, ceremonial practices, sacred sites, cultural patrimony, and cultural landscapes of tribes when accessing the State Capitol Building, as specified. This bill would provide that the application of the act is strictly limited to a governmental agency's management actions that involve only state lands, as specified. The bill would declare that specified provisions of the bill do not apply to the authority of the State Water Resources Control Board to authorize, curtail, or otherwise regulate the diversion and use of water, or to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. This bill would require information identifying sacred sites, cultural landscapes, or religious practices obtained by a governmental agency for the purposes of the California Indian Freedom Act of 2026 to be confidential and would exempt this information from public record laws, including the California Public Records Act. The bill would revise the list of exempted records under the California Public Records Act to add the above-described exemption. The bill would prohibit the provisions of the act from being construed to limit or restrict the authority of the state or any state agency to enter into an agreement, memorandum of understanding, or other arrangement with any tribe to allow access to any state lands for the purpose of conducting religious, cultural, or ceremonial practices. The bill would define various terms for these purposes and would make related legislative findings. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Existing law authorizes the governing board of a community college district to enter into a College and Career Access Pathways (CCAP) partnership with the governing board of a school district, a county office of education, or the governing body of a charter school for the purpose of offering or expanding dual enrollment opportunities for pupils who may not already be college bound or who are underrepresented in higher education, as provided. Existing law requires the partnership agreement to outline the terms of the partnership, as specified, and to establish protocols for information sharing, joint facilities use, and parental consent for high school pupils to enroll in community college courses. Existing law requires the protocols to only require a high school pupil participating in a CCAP partnership to submit one parental consent form and principal recommendation for the duration of the pupil's participation in the CCAP partnership. This bill would revise the CCAP partnership provisions to eliminate the requirement that the protocols require principal recommendation. Existing law requires the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges to revise the special part-time student application process to allow a pupil to complete one application for the duration of the pupil's attendance at a community college as a special part-time student participating in a CCAP partnership agreement. This bill would require a CCAP partnership agreement to also establish protocols that authorize a pupil to complete one application for the duration of the pupil's attendance at a community college as a special part-time student participating in a CCAP partnership agreement. Existing law authorizes a community college district to allow a special part-time student participating in a CCAP partnership agreement to enroll in up to a maximum of 15 units per term in courses offered at the community college campus or the participating high school campus if certain circumstances are satisfied, including that the units constitute no more than 4 community college courses per term. This bill would eliminate the 4 community college courses per term limit for a special part-time student enrolling in up to 15 units under a CCAP partnership agreement. Existing law requires, for each CCAP partnership agreement, the affected community college district and school district, county office of education, or charter school to annually report specified information to the office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, including the total number of community college courses, by course category and type and by schoolsite, enrolled in by CCAP partnership participants. This bill instead would require the affected community college district and school district, county office of education, or charter school to annually report the total number of high school pupils who successfully completed 12 or more units of college coursework by graduation, completed a certificate, or completed the courses required for an associate degree or an associate degree for transfer.
The Budget Act of 2026 appropriates, for the 2026–27 fiscal year, $1,000,000,000 from the General Fund to the State Department of Education to administer the California Community Schools Partnership Program to distribute funding to local educational agencies, as defined, in accordance with a specified formula, to support a network of their eligible schoolsites to implement new, and provide ongoing support for existing, community schools, as provided. Existing law authorizes a local educational agency who receives funds under these provisions to retain up to 10% of the total funds awarded for its eligible schoolsites each fiscal year to be used for specified activities, including, among other things, administering community schools established at eligible schoolsites. This bill, to be known as the It Takes a Village Act of 2026, would (1) require any retained funds described above to be used consistent with a specified community schools framework, as provided, and (2) authorize a local educational agency that retains those funds to also use those funds to serve as a network lead for multiple schoolsites located in a Promise Neighborhood, as provided. By expanding the purposes for which previously appropriated moneys may be expended, the bill would make an appropriation. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 8903 of the Education Code proposed by AB 133 or SB 133 to be operative only if this bill and either AB 133 or SB 133 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law requires the PUC, on or before March 31, 2024, to evaluate each customer renewable energy subscription program to determine if the program meets specified goals and to determine whether it would be beneficial to ratepayers to establish a new tariff or program for an electrical corporation, or modify an existing tariff or program administered by an electrical corporation, to establish a community renewable energy program, as provided. If the PUC determines that it would be beneficial to ratepayers to establish the community renewable energy program, existing law requires the PUC, on or before July 1, 2024, to establish the program and require each electrical corporation to participate in the program. This bill would revise the requirements of the customer renewable energy subscription program, as provided, among other things, to promote participation by low-income customers at levels commensurate with the opportunity provided to certain customer-generators, to provide bill credits to subscribers based on the avoided costs of community renewable energy generators, as defined, participating in the program if the community renewable energy generator is determined to be a load-modifying resource, to require all community renewable energy generators participating in the program to have no more than 5 megawatts of generation capacity and no more than 5 megawatts of energy storage, and to limit the total program capacity to 4 gigawatts or end the enrollment of new community renewable energy generators in the program after 7 years, whichever occurs first. The bill would require the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) , in a public process that includes opportunity for public comment, to evaluate the load-modifying potential of community renewable energy generators, as specified, and, if the evaluation finds that community renewable energy generators have load-modifying potential, to, on or before December 1, 2027, in a public process with opportunity for public comment, identify attributes that the Energy Commission would expect a community renewable energy generator to meet in order to be classified by the PUC as a load-modifying resource, as provided. The bill would require the PUC, within 180 days following the identification of attributes by the Energy Commission, to adopt or modify a customer renewable energy subscription program consistent with the revisions to the program made by the bill, and would require the PUC to establish in the program a mechanism to determine whether community renewable energy generators are load-modifying resources, as provided. Existing law requires the PUC, within 24 months of establishing a community renewable energy program and annually thereafter for the duration of the program, to submit to the Legislature a report on the facilities deployed and customers subscribed, as provided. This bill would instead require the PUC, within 24 months of the adoption or modification of a customer renewable energy subscription program and annually thereafter for the duration of the program, to submit to the Legislature a report on the community renewable energy generators participating in the program and customers subscribed. The bill would repeal this requirement on January 1, 2034. Under existing law, a violation of an order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the PUC is a crime. Because a violation of a PUC action implementing this bill's requirements would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, commonly referred to as the Density Bonus Law, requires a city or county to provide a developer that proposes a housing development within the city or county with a density bonus, waivers or reductions of development standards, parking ratios, and other incentives or concessions, as specified, if the developer agrees to construct certain types of housing, including, among other types of housing, housing that will include specified percentages of units for rental or sale to lower income households or very low income households, as specified. Existing law requires a city or county to grant incentives or concessions requested by an applicant for a density bonus except under prescribed circumstances. Existing law defines "incentives or concessions" to include, among other things, a reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards, as specified, and regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city or county that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, as specified. This bill would exclude, for buildings over 85 feet in height above grade, a reduction in site development standards, a modification of zoning code or architectural design requirements, and other regulatory incentives or concessions that include or relate to a labor standard, as defined, that have been adopted by the local government entity from the definition of "incentives or concessions." The bill would provide that, for purposes of these provisions, the applicable labor standards are those that do not exceed certain statutory requirements, as specified, as those requirements existed on December 31, 2025. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65915 of the Government Code proposed by AB 2433, AB 2480, or both, to be operative only if this bill and AB 2433, AB 2480, or both, are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. Existing law authorizes the Governor to certify projects meeting certain requirements as infrastructure projects and provide those certified projects with certain streamlining benefits, including requiring the lead agency to prepare the record of proceedings concurrently with the environmental review process and requiring the resolution of an action or proceeding challenging the certification of an EIR for certified projects or the granting of any project approvals, to the extent feasible, within 270 days of the filing of the record of proceedings with the court, as specified. Existing law requires the lead agency, within 10 days of the certification of an infrastructure project, to provide a public notice of the certification, as provided. If a lead agency fails to approve a project certified as an infrastructure project before January 1, 2033, existing law specifies that the certification is no longer valid. Existing law requires the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation to make evidence and materials submitted for the certification of a project available to the public on its internet website at least 15 days before the certification of the project. This bill would also authorize the Governor to certify an essential local fire station project for streamlining as an infrastructure project if the Governor ensures that the project meets specified requirements, including, among others, that the applicant agrees to pay the costs of the trial court and the court of appeal in hearing and deciding any case challenging a lead agency's action on the project, and the applicant agrees to pay the costs of preparing the record of proceedings for the project, as specified. The bill would require a project to meet specified requirements to be eligible for certification as an essential local fire station project, including, among other things, (1) that the project is being undertaken by a city, county, city and county, or local fire agency, as provided, (2) that the project is not located on specified sensitive or hazardous sites, as described, and (3) that the project will employ best practices to avoid or mitigate significant environmental effects, as provided. The bill would require the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, for an essential local fire station project, to provide the Governor's office with evidence and materials to support consideration of the application no later than 45 days after the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation posts the evidence and materials submitted for certification on its internet website.
Existing law, the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, authorizes 2 or more public agencies, as defined, to jointly exercise any power common to the contracting parties, as provided. Among other things, that act also authorizes a mutual water company to enter into a joint powers agreement with any public agency for the purposes of risk pooling, as specified. Existing law, the Government Claims Act, among other things, authorizes public entities, mutual water companies, public agencies, water corporations, and mutual water companies to provide insurance under that act by a joint powers agreement, as specified. This bill would additionally authorize a nonprofit housing developer to enter into a joint powers agreement with any public agency for the purpose of risk pooling, and would expand the list of entities authorized to provide insurance by a joint powers agreement to include nonprofit housing developers. The bill would require that, if a nonprofit housing developer enters into a joint powers agreement with one or more public agencies, that the agreement ensure that no participating public agency becomes responsible for the underlying debts or liabilities of the joint powers agreement and that any participating public agency be indemnified against those debts and liabilities. The bill would require a joint powers agreement established pursuant to this authorization to solely utilize any revenues it generates to provide technical support, continuing education, safety engineering, and operational and managerial advisory assistance to its members for the purpose of reducing risk liabilities and furthering the technical managerial and financial capacity of those members. Existing law also authorizes 2 or more local public entities having the same governing board, a mutual water company and a public agency, or a water corporation, a mutual water company, and one or more public agencies, as specified, to be coinsured under a master policy and the total premium prorated among them. This bill would recast the provisions described above, provide that the affected entities are those authorized pursuant to specified provisions, and include among those entities nonprofit housing developers.
