Existing law establishes the Geologic Energy Management Division in the Department of Conservation, under the direction of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor, who is required to supervise the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of oil and gas wells, as provided. A person who violates or fails, neglects, or refuses to comply with any of the oil and gas laws is guilty of a crime. Existing law requires the operator of any idle well to either (1) no later than May 1 of each year, for each idle well that was an idle well at any time in the last calendar year, file with the supervisor an annual fee according to a specified schedule of fees based on the length of time a well has been idle, applicable to wells that have been idle wells for 3 years or longer, or (2) file a plan with the supervisor to provide for the management and elimination of all long-term idle wells, as provided. Existing law also establishes the Hazardous and Idle-Deserted Well Abatement Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, for the deposit of all fees received pursuant to these provisions. This bill would revise and recast these provisions. The bill would, among other things, increase the fees for idle wells, and additionally impose fees for each idle well that has been an idle well for less than 3 years, as provided. By increasing the fees collected from operators of idle wells that are deposited into a continuously appropriated fund, the bill would make an appropriation. The bill would also revise and recast the provisions of the idle well plan. The bill would, among other things, require operators who do not file the above-described idle well fees to, no later than May 1 of each year, file a plan with the supervisor to provide for the management and elimination of all idle wells, instead of all long-term idle wells. The bill would require the plan to require the operator to consider specified factors when prioritizing idle wells for plugging and abandonment. The bill would revise the provision requiring operators to eliminate a specified percentage of long-term idle wells by making it applicable to all idle wells and by increasing the minimum percentages of idle wells that operators would be required to eliminate each year, as provided. By expanding the scope of crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would exempt from its provisions an idle well (1) for which an operator has made a diligent effort to locate and access the well and has provided documentation demonstrating that it is infeasible to locate or physically access the wellbore, subject to the approval of the division, or (2) that is the subject of a court-approved settlement agreement entered into on or before December 31, 2024, between a local governmental entity and the operator of the idle well, if that settlement agreement imposes more stringent requirements relating to the management and elimination of idle wells than the requirements imposed by this bill. Existing law requires the supervisor to submit to the Legislature an annual comprehensive report, as specified, on the status of idle and long-term idle wells for the preceding calendar year. This bill would require that report to also include a list of wells that the division has approved as being inaccessible, as described above. 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.
Sponsored bills
Existing law, the Keene-Nejedly California Wetlands Preservation Act, requires the Natural Resources Agency to prepare a plan for the acquisition, protection, preservation, restoration, and enhancement of wetlands, including funding requirements and the priority status of specific proposed wetlands projects. By Executive Order No. W-59-93, former Governor Pete Wilson declared it to be the policy of the state that its Comprehensive Wetlands Policy rests on three primary objectives, including the objective of ensuring no overall net loss and long-term net gain in the quantity, quality, and permanence of wetlands acreage and values, as provided. This bill would declare that it is the policy of the state to ensure no net loss and long-term gain in the quantity, quality, and permanence of wetlands acreage and values in California. The bill would make related legislative findings and declarations.
Existing law makes it a crime for a person who, with the intent to place another person in reasonable fear for that other person's safety, or the safety of the other person's immediate family, by means of an electronic communication device, and without consent of the other person, and for the purpose of imminently causing that other person unwanted contact, injury, or harassment by a third party, distributes personal identifying information that would be likely to incite or produce that unlawful action. Existing law makes this a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in a county jail or by a fine of not more than $1,000. This bill would create a private cause of action against a person who doxes, as defined, another person. The bill would entitle a prevailing plaintiff who suffers harm as a result of being doxed to specified damages, and would authorize the court to order equitable relief, as specified, and injunctive relief maintaining the confidentiality of a plaintiff using a pseudonym instead of their true name. The bill would authorize a plaintiff to proceed using a pseudonym and would require the plaintiff to file a confidential information form, as prescribed. The bill would require the court to keep the plaintiff's name and excluded or redacted characteristics confidential, as specified, and, upon request of the plaintiff, limit access to court records filed under these provisions to specified individuals. The bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before January 1, 2026, to adopt or revise as appropriate rules and forms to implement specified provisions. Existing law requires a court or judge, on granting an injunction, to require an undertaking on the part of the applicant sufficient to cover certain damages the party enjoined may sustain by reason of the injunction, if the court finally decides that the applicant was not entitled to the injunction. Existing law exempts from the undertaking requirement certain persons seeking an injunction, as specified. This bill would additionally exempt from the undertaking requirement an applicant seeking an injunction ordering the defendant to cease doxing activities. 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 regulates the use of pesticides and authorizes the Director of Pesticide Regulation to adopt regulations to govern the possession, sale, or use of pesticides, as prescribed. Existing law prohibits the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide and diphacinone, as defined, in a wildlife habitat area, as defined. Existing law prohibits the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that, among other things, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions necessary to ensure a trend of statistically significant reductions to the detectable levels of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides or any of their metabolites, as provided. Existing law also prohibits the use of diphacinone in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that the Department of Pesticide Regulation has completed any pending reevaluation of diphacinone and, in consultation with, and with the concurrence of, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions that are necessary to ensure a trend of statistically significant reductions to the detectable levels of diphacinone or any of its metabolites, as provided. Existing law exempts the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or diphacinone from these prohibitions under certain circumstances, including for agricultural activities. Existing law requires the director, and each county agricultural commissioner under the direction and supervision of the director, to enforce the provisions regulating the use of pesticides. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor. This bill would additionally prohibit the use of a first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide, defined as a pesticide product containing the active ingredients diphacinone, chlorophacinone, or warfarin, in a wildlife habitat area, as specified. The bill would prohibit the use of chlorophacinone or warfarin in the state and would require chlorophacinone and warfarin to be considered restricted materials, unless that prohibition is suspended by the director, as specified. By imposing additional duties on county agricultural commissioners, and expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make a person who sells or uses a first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in violation of the above-described provisions liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation, in addition to any other penalty established by law. The bill would require recovered civil penalties to be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund, and would require those funds to be available for expenditure for specified purposes. 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires a hospital to maintain a written charity care policy and a discount payment policy for uninsured patients or patients with high medical costs who are at or below 400 percent of the federal poverty level. Existing law requires the written policy regarding discount payments to also include a statement that an emergency physician who provides emergency medical services in a hospital that provides emergency care is also required by law to provide discounts to uninsured patients or patients with high medical costs who are at or below 400 percent of the federal poverty level. Existing law authorizes an emergency physician to choose to grant eligibility for a discount payment policy to patients with incomes over 350% of the federal poverty level. Existing law defines "high medical costs" for these purposes to mean, among other things, specified annual out-of-pocket costs incurred by the individual at the hospital or a hospital that provided emergency care. This bill would authorize an emergency physician to choose to grant eligibility for a discount payment policy to patients with incomes over 400% of the federal poverty level. The bill would also clarify that out-of-pocket costs for the above-described definition of "high medical costs" means any expenses for medical care that are not reimbursed by insurance or a health coverage program, such as Medicare copays or Medi-Cal cost sharing. Existing law requires a hospital's discount payment policy to clearly state the eligibility criteria based upon income, and authorizes a hospital to consider the income and monetary assets of the patient or the patient's family, as defined, in determining eligibility under its charity care policy. This bill would prohibit a hospital from considering the monetary assets of the patient in determining eligibility for both the charity care and the discount payment policies, but would authorize the hospital to consider the availability of a patient's health savings account held by the patient or the patient's family, as specified. The bill would revise the definition of patient's family, as specified. The bill would instead require that the eligibility for charity care or discounted payments be determined at any time the hospital is in receipt of, among other things, recent pay stubs or income tax returns. The bill would prohibit a hospital or an emergency physician from imposing time limits for applying for charity care or discounted payments, and would prohibit a hospital or emergency physician from denying eligibility based on the timing of a patient's application. The bill would authorize a hospital or emergency physician to waive or reduce Medi-Cal and Medicare cost-sharing amounts as part of its charity care program or discount payment program, as specified. Existing law requires a hospital or an emergency physician to establish a written policy defining standards and practices for the collection of debt. Existing law authorizes a hospital or emergency physician to consider only income and monetary assets, as specified, in determining the amount of debt a hospital or emergency physician may seek to recover from patients who are eligible under the hospital's or emergency physician's charity care or discount payment policy. This bill would eliminate the authorization for a hospital or an emergency physician to consider monetary assets in determining the amount of debt the hospital or emergency physician may seek to recover from patients who are eligible under these policies. Existing law prohibits a hospital, in dealing with patients eligible under the hospital's charity care or discount payment policies, or emergency physician, in dealing with patients eligible under the emergency physician's discount payment policies, from using liens on primary residences as a means of collecting unpaid hospital or emergency physician bills. Existing law prohibits a collection agency, in dealing with a patient under a hospital's charity care or discount payment policies or in dealing with a patient under the emergency physician's discount payment policy, from conducting a sale of a patient's primary residence, as specified, as a means of collecting unpaid hospital or emergency physician bills. This bill would prohibit a hospital or emergency physician from using liens on any real property as a means of collecting unpaid hospital or emergency physician bills, and would prohibit a collection agency from conducting a sale of any real property owned, in part or completely, by a patient or placing a lien on any real property as a means of collecting unpaid hospital or emergency physician bills. The bill would define "charity care" and "discount payment" for the purposes described above. Existing law requires a hospital to reimburse a patient any amount actually paid in excess of the amount due, including interest. Under existing law, a hospital is not required to reimburse the patient or pay interest if the amount due is less than $5. This bill would authorize the hospital to reimburse the patient, but is not required to do so, if the hospital or the department determines that a patient qualified for financial assistance at the time the patient was first billed and it has been 5 years or more since the last payment to the hospital, hospital assignee, or debt buyer or the patient debt was sold to a debt buyer in accordance with state law in effect at the time the debt was sold, if sold before January 1, 2022. Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to be responsible for the enforcement of the hospital pricing policy provisions for violations occurring prior to January 1, 2024. Existing law requires the Department of Health Care Access and Information to be responsible for the enforcement of these provisions for violations occurring on or after January 1, 2024. This bill would require the Department of Health Care Access and Information to also have enforcement authority to assess penalties for violations that occurred on or after January 1, 2022, that arise out of the same investigation for investigations involving hospital actions occurring on or after January 1, 2024, as specified. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 127425 of the Health and Safety Code proposed by Senate Bill 1061, to be operative only if this bill and Senate Bill 1061 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
(1) Under existing law, the diversion or use of water other than as authorized by specified provisions of law is a trespass, subject to specified civil liability. This bill would require the State Water Resources Control Board to adjust for inflation, by January 1 of each year, beginning in 2026, the amounts of civil and administrative liabilities or penalties imposed by the board or in water right actions brought at the request of the board, as specified. (2) Existing law authorizes the board to issue an order to a person to cease and desist from violating, or threatening to violate, certain requirements relating to water use, including diverting or using water, other than as authorized. Upon the failure of any person to comply with a cease and desist order issued by the board, existing law authorizes the Attorney General, upon the request of the board, to petition the superior court for the issuance of prohibitory or mandatory injunctive relief as appropriate, and authorizes civil penalties for a violation of a cease and desist order, as specified. This bill would increase one of the specified civil penalties to $2,500 for each day in which a violation of a cease and desist order occurs. (3) Existing law authorizes a person or entity in violation of a term or condition of a permit, license, certificate, or registration issued by the board, an order or regulation adopted by the board, or a condition or reporting requirement for the diversion of floodwaters for groundwater recharge to be held civilly liable for an amount not to exceed $500 for each day in which the violation occurs. This bill would increase the amount of civil liability for the above-described violations to $1,000 for each day in which the violation occurs. The bill, if the violation is of a regulation or order adopted by the board that constitutes the diversion of water contrary to a curtailment order adopted by the board, would provide that a person or entity may be liable in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each day in which the violation occurs, and $2,500 for each acre-foot of water diverted in violation of the curtailment order, beginning on the first day on which the violation occurs.
Existing law authorizes a local authority, by ordinance or resolution, to prohibit or restrict the stopping, parking, or standing of vehicles on certain streets or highways during all or certain hours of the day. Existing law authorizes the ordinance or resolution to include a designation of certain streets upon which preferential parking privileges are given to residents and merchants adjacent to the streets for their use and the use of their guests, under which the residents and merchants may be issued permits that exempt them from the prohibition or restriction of the ordinance or resolution. Existing law prohibits a public agency from imposing any minimum automobile parking requirement on any residential, commercial, or other development project that is located within 12 mile of public transit, as defined, unless the public agency makes written findings that not imposing or enforcing minimum automobile parking requirements on the development would have a substantially negative impact on, among other things, the city's, county's, or city and county's ability to meet its share of the regional housing need for low- and very low income households. This bill would, for purposes of its provisions, define "development project" to mean a residential, commercial, or other development project exempt from minimum automobile parking requirements, or subject to parking minimum reductions based on any other applicable law, located within the boundaries of the City of Los Angeles. This bill, for a development project that is located within a preferential parking area, would require the development project to be excluded from the boundaries of the preferential parking area and would prohibit the local authority, as defined, from issuing any permit to the residents or visitors of the development project that grants preferential parking privileges. The bill would also provide that none of the above-described provisions prohibit local authorities from issuing permits to residents of developments projects that occupy deed-restricted units intended for specified households. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Los Angeles.
Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services, subject to an appropriation for this purpose in the annual Budget Act, to administer the California Guaranteed Income Pilot Program to provide grants to eligible entities for the purpose of administering pilot programs and projects that provide a guaranteed income to participants. Existing law requires the department to prioritize funding for pilot programs and projects that serve California residents who age out of the extended foster care program and pregnant individuals. Existing law requires the department, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, to determine the methodology for, and manner of, distributing those grants, subject to certain requirements. Existing law requires the department to review and evaluate the pilot programs and projects funded pursuant to these provisions, provide a report to the Legislature regarding that review and evaluation, and post a copy of the report on its internet website. This bill, the California Guaranteed Income Statewide Feasibility Study Act, would require the State Department of Social Services to contract with one or more entities, subject to specified requirements, for the provision of a Guaranteed Income Statewide Feasibility Study to provide recommendations on the feasibility of a statewide Guaranteed Income Program and achieve, among other things, the objective of examining the feasibility, benefits, and challenges of scaling up permanent guaranteed income programs to reach a larger proportion of California's socially and economically vulnerable populations, focusing on regions with a high cost of living, and informed by best practices and lessons learned from the Guaranteed Income Pilot Program. The bill would require specified state departments to disclose necessary data to the State Department of Social Services and require the study to include a steering committee composed of various stakeholders, as provided. The bill would require the department to, on or before July 1, 2027, publish on its internet website and provide a report to the Governor and the Legislature on the feasibility and benefits of expanding the Guaranteed Income Program statewide based on the outcomes of the study. This bill would authorize the State Department of Social Services to implement, interpret, or make specific the act without taking any regulatory action, as specified, and accept and, subject to an appropriation, expend funds to administer and implement the act.
Existing law prohibits a store, as defined, from providing a single-use carryout bag to a customer at the point of sale, with specified exceptions, including an exemption for bags used to contain unwrapped food. Existing law defines a "single-use carryout bag" as a bag made of plastic, paper, or other material that is provided by a store to a customer at the point of sale and that is not a recycled paper bag or a reusable grocery bag that meets specified requirements, including that the bag be made by a certified reusable grocery bag producer and meets specified requirements with regard to the bag's durability, material, labeling, heavy metal content, and, with regard to reusable grocery bags made from plastic film, recycled material content. Existing law prohibits a producer of reusable grocery bags made from plastic film from selling or distributing those bags unless the producer is certified by a third-party certification entity, and provides proof of that certification and a certification fee to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, as specified. Existing law also prohibits a store from selling or distributing a recycled paper bag at the point of sale unless the store makes that bag available for purchase for not less than $0.10. Existing law defines "recycled paper bag," in part, as a paper carryout bag that contains a minimum of 40% postconsumer recycled materials, except as provided, and meets other requirements. Existing law allows a retail establishment to voluntarily comply with these requirements, if the retail establishment provides the department with irrevocable notice. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2026, revise and recast those provisions to, among other things, recast the definition of a "single-use carryout bag" to a "carryout bag," and would revise the definition to mean a bag made of plastic, paper, or other material that is provided by a store to a customer at the point of sale for the purpose of carrying purchased goods and that is not a recycled paper bag. The bill would create a carryout bag exception to include a bag provided to a customer before the customer reaches the point of sale, that is designed to protect a purchased item from damaging or contaminating other purchased items in a checkout bag, or to contain an unwrapped food item, as specified. The bill would revise the definition of "recycled paper bag" to require it be made from a minimum of 50% postconsumer recycled materials on and after January 1, 2028, without exception. The bill would also prohibit a store from providing, distributing, or selling a carryout bag to a customer at the point of sale, except as provided. The bill would also repeal the provisions relating to standards for and the certification of reusable grocery bags, and would repeal a provision relating to certain obsolete at-store recycling program requirements. The bill would make related legislative findings and declarations and would make related conforming changes.
Existing law establishes the Clean Cars 4 All Program, which is administered by the State Air Resources Board, to focus on achieving reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases, improvements in air quality, and benefits to low-income state residents through the replacement of high-polluter motor vehicles with cleaner and more efficient motor vehicles or a mobility option. Existing law requires the implementing regulations to ensure that the program complies with certain requirements. This bill would require the implementing regulations for the Clean Cars 4 All Program to additionally ensure that, among other things, incentives provided under the program are available in all areas of the state and that, in those areas where a local air district has not elected to participate in the program, to manage the distribution of incentives within its jurisdiction, the state board manages the distribution of incentives to eligible residents of those areas. The bill would make certain conforming changes in that regard. The bill would require, as one of the program goals for replacement of passenger vehicles and trucks, the state board to prioritize vehicle retirement in areas of the state that meet specified criteria, including those areas with the highest percentage of people residing in disadvantaged and low-income communities. The bill would also require the state board to update the guidelines for the program no later than July 1, 2026, as specified. Existing law requires the state board to annually post on its internet website a performance analysis of the replacement and mobility options component of the Clean Cars 4 All Program that includes an evaluation of the funding for targeted outreach in low-income or disadvantaged communities, as specified. This bill would require that analysis to additionally include an evaluation of the funding for targeted outreach in low-income or disadvantaged communities with the highest number of vehicles manufactured before 2004 or that are at least 20 years old that are driven most and have the poorest fuel economy, as specified. Existing law requires the state board to consider certain metrics in allocating funding under the program to local air districts participating in the program, and to the statewide program, including the number of vouchers deployed and the population in eligible program ZIP Codes. This bill would require the state board, in allocating funding to local air districts participating in the program and to the portion of the program managed by the state board, to consider additional metrics, including the total value of vouchers deployed and certain metrics for retired vehicles, and would delete the requirement to consider the population in eligible ZIP Codes. The bill would also require the state board, in coordination with local air districts and specified organizations, to establish a means-based strategy to identify potential recipients of incentives under the Clean Cars 4 All Program that meet certain criteria and, as part of that strategy, require an increased incentive to be provided under the program to those individuals.