(1) Existing law establishes the California Clean Truck, Bus, and Off-Road Vehicle and Equipment Technology Program, to be administered by the State Air Resources Board in conjunction with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) . The program funds eligible projects, including, among others, projects for technology development, demonstration, precommercial pilots, and early commercial deployments of zero- and near-zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty truck technology, including projects that help to facilitate clean goods movement corridors. Existing law establishes the Clean Transportation Program, administered by the Energy Commission, to provide, among other things, competitive grants and revolving loans to specified entities for those entities to develop and deploy innovative technologies that transform California's fuel and vehicle types to help attain the state's climate change policies. This bill would require, within the California Clean Truck, Bus, and Off-Road Vehicle and Equipment Technology Program, the state board and the Energy Commission, beginning January 1, 2027, to condition the inclusion of any medium- or heavy-duty vehicle model in specified incentive programs, including the Clean Transportation Program, on the receipt of the pricing data specified below. (2) Existing law establishes the state board as the state agency responsible for monitoring and regulating sources emitting greenhouse gases. The state board, in this capacity, administers the California Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (project) under which the agency issues a limited number of vouchers to incentivize the purchase and use of zero-emission commercial vehicles. This bill would require the state board, in order to support the deployment of zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles through the project, to annually reevaluate the cap on the purchase of unredeemed state vouchers issued through the project, as specified. The bill would also require the state board to periodically reevaluate whether or not taxes should be included when determining the maximum share of vehicle cost incentivized through the project. This bill, beginning January 1, 2027, would require a state agency administering any medium- or heavy-duty vehicle incentive program that receives funding from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, including, but not limited to, the project, and any program that receives funding through the California Clean Fuel Reward through the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard regulations, or through the Clean Transportation Program, to condition the inclusion of any medium- or heavy-duty vehicle model in that program upon certain transparency requirements. The bill would require these transparency requirements to include, among other things, the original equipment manufacturer providing the manufacturer suggested retail price for all zero-emission vehicle models offered for sale in California that may be funded by the above-described incentive programs and receipt by the administering agency of a final itemized purchase order, as provided. This bill would require the state board, in coordination with the Energy Commission, to compile and make publicly available on its internet website in an aggregated format that anonymizes and protects the confidentiality of specified information, the data provided pursuant to these requirements. The bill would also authorize the state board to recover previously dispersed incentive funds that are found to have been dispersed based on data that was knowingly and intentionally misrepresented. The bill would require suspension of a vehicle model's eligibility for the above-described incentive programs for failure to comply with the reporting requirements, following a notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure the failure to comply. (3) Existing law establishes the Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Fleet Purchasing Assistance Program within the Air Quality Improvement Program to make financing tools and nonfinancial supports available to operators of medium- and heavy-duty vehicle fleets to enable those operators to transition their fleets to zero-emission vehicles. The bill would require the state board, on or before January 1, 2028, and in coordination with the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development and the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank, to explore alternative financing opportunities to encourage the deployment of zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and report its findings regarding these alternative financing opportunities to the Legislature. The bill would require this report to include, but not be limited to, incentives with a specific focus on encouraging new entries into the market, spurring market competition, and prioritizing manufacturing within the state, an evaluation of ways to de-risk and scale up the participation of private investors in the market for affordable zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, including used vehicles, and an exploration of increasing deployment and decreasing costs by retrofitting internal combustion medium- and heavy-duty vehicles to zero-emission.
Sponsored bills
Existing law requires the Department of Technology to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems (ADS) that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency. Existing law establishes the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which is composed of various departments responsible for protecting and promoting the rights and interests of workers in California, including the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, led by the Labor Commissioner, within the Department of Industrial Relations. This bill, beginning on July 1, 2027, would prohibit an employer, as defined, from using an ADS to perform certain functions and would limit the purposes for and way in which an ADS may be used. The bill would, when an employer primarily uses an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision, authorize an employee to request, and require an employer to provide, a description of the employee's own data primarily used by an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision, as specified. The bill would require an employer that primarily relied upon an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision to provide the affected employee with a written postuse notice, as specified. This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, threatening to discharge, demoting, suspending, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against any employee for taking certain actions asserting their rights under the bill. The bill would authorize the Labor Commissioner to enforce the bill's provisions and also authorize a public prosecutor to bring a civil enforcement action, as specified. The bill would set forth specified types of relief that a plaintiff may seek and specified penalties that an employer that violates these provisions is subject to, including a $500 civil penalty per violation. This bill would also provide that an employer who complies with the requirements related to notice in this bill is not required to comply with any substantially similar provisions under any other state law, except as specified. The bill would not apply to parties covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement contains specified information, including an explicit waiver of the bill's provisions. The bill would provide that it does not prohibit the use of an automated decision system relating to the development of aircraft for use in the national airspace or the development of products or services for national security, military, space, or defense purposes, if the use of an automated decision system is reasonably necessary to comply with the federal statute, the federal regulation, or the binding federal contract, as specified. The bill would include a statement that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. This bill would declare that its provisions are severable.
Existing law, subject to an appropriation, requires the Department of Justice, on a monthly basis, to review the records in the statewide criminal justice databases and identify persons who are eligible for arrest record relief and automatic conviction record relief. Commencing on October 1, 2024, existing law makes arrest record relief available to an eligible person if the arrest occurred on or after January 1, 1973. Under existing law, a person is eligible for arrest record relief under these provisions if, among other things, the arrest was for a misdemeanor offense and the charge was dismissed. This bill, on and after October 1, 2029, additionally makes a person eligible for that relief if the arrest was for a felony offense, all charges arising from the arrest were dismissed, one year has elapsed since the date on which the most recent charge arising from the arrest was dismissed, and no charge arising from the arrest was refiled or is pending during that period. Under existing law, a person is eligible for automatic conviction record relief if the person meets certain requirements, including that it does not appear, based upon information available in the Department of Justice's record, that the person is currently serving a sentence of an offense and there is no indication of pending criminal charges. This bill would, on and after October 1, 2029, require, in determining whether there is a pending criminal charge based on the department's records, the department to conclude that there is no indication of pending criminal charges if at least 3 years have elapsed with no new activity related to that record. The bill would require, in determining whether a person is currently serving a sentence for an offense, the department to conclude that the person is no longer serving a sentence if the department is unable to determine whether a sentence is complete and at least 7 years have passed since the date of conviction. Existing law, subject to an appropriation, on a monthly basis, requires the department to electronically submit a notice to the superior court having jurisdiction over the criminal case and inform the court of all cases for which a complaint was filed and for which relief was granted pursuant to the provisions above. Existing law, for any certain record retained by the court, prohibits the court from disclosing information concerning a conviction granted relief pursuant to specified provisions, including the above provisions, to any person or entity, in any format, except to the person whose conviction was granted relief or a criminal justice agency. This bill would, on and after October 1, 2029, expand the above-described prohibition to include other provisions that authorize relief from a conviction. By placing additional duties on court staff, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. This bill would, on and after October 1, 2029, also require a court, upon the request of the subject of a record granted relief, to furnish a register of action confirming the court's receipt of notification and compliance with a grant of relief for a specified record granted relief under the above provisions. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1203.425 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1395 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1395 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law prohibits the intentional use of an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record a confidential communication, as specified, without the consent of all parties to the communication. Existing law additionally prohibits tapping a communication wire or intercepting or recording a telephone communication, as specified, without the consent of all parties, and prohibits trespassing on property for the purpose of committing, or attempting to commit, a violation of those prohibitions. A violation of those provisions is punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,500, by imprisonment as either a misdemeanor or a felony, or by both the fine and imprisonment, unless otherwise exempted. If that person has previously been convicted of a violation of any of the above-described laws, except for the prohibition on trespassing, a violation of any of those provisions is punishable by a fine not exceeding $10,000, by imprisonment as either a misdemeanor or a felony, or by both the fine and imprisonment. This bill would additionally prohibit a person from operating a wearable recording device, as defined, to capture sound or video of any other person in any area within a place of business, as defined, where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy unless the person operating the device has the explicit consent of that person to capture sound or video of that person. The bill would prohibit a person from disabling any light, sound, or other indicator on a wearable recording device that indicates that the device is capturing sound or video. The bill would exempt from these provisions the use of hearing aids, augmentative and alternative communication devices, and similar devices by persons with impaired hearing or communication disorders when used for the purpose of overcoming the impairment or disorder to permit the hearing of sounds ordinarily audible to the human ear or to support communication with the person or by persons with a disability if the device or technology is used for the purpose of enabling a person's access to, or participation in, activities of daily living or to support a person's functional needs related to the disability or condition. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,500, by imprisonment as a misdemeanor, or by both that fine and imprisonment. The bill would make the exemptions from the provisions described above applicable to violations of these prohibitions. By creating new crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would, commencing on January 1, 2028, prohibit a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce a wearable recording device without a light, sound, or other indicator that is sufficiently prominent so that a reasonable person in the vicinity would be alerted to the capturing activity. The bill would prohibit a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce any technology that is designed for the primary purpose of, primarily marketed for, or likely primarily used for enabling a person to disable any light, sound, or other indicator on a wearable recording device that indicates that the device is capturing sound or video and would prohibit a person from purchasing, trading for, otherwise acquiring, or using that technology, as specified. The bill would make a knowing violation of these provisions punishable by a civil penalty not exceeding $2,500 per violation. 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 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.
(1) Existing law requires a state or local initiative, referendum, or recall petition that is required to be signed by voters to contain specified notices, including a notice that the petition may be circulated by a paid signature gatherer or volunteer. This bill would additionally require the paid signature gatherer to orally disclose to each person, before providing the petition for the person's signature, that they are being paid to circulate the petition. (2) Existing law requires a recall petition for a local officer to be submitted to the elections official within a specified number of days after the clerk notifies the proponents that the form and wording of the petition comply with certain requirements. The number of days depends upon the number of registered voters in the electoral jurisdiction. For the recall of a superior court judge, this bill would instead require the petition to be submitted within 120 days if the electoral jurisdiction has 50,000 registered voters or more.
Existing law provides that every executive or ministerial officer, employee, or appointee of the State of California, or any county or city therein, or any political subdivision thereof, who knowingly asks, receives, or agrees to receive any emolument, gratuity, or reward, or any promise thereof excepting such as may be authorized by law for doing an official act, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law exempts from that offense certain employment by a peace officer while off duty, as specified. Existing law also provides that a peace officer shall not be prohibited from engaging in other employment while off duty, as specified. This bill would, notwithstanding those provisions, prohibit certain peace officers from engaging in any form of secondary employment, including contract based or as an individual contractor, that involves engaging in arresting, detaining, transporting, or deporting individuals pursuant to federal or out-of-state immigration laws. The bill would provide that failure to comply with this provision may constitute, for certain purposes, an act of serious misconduct and that it is grounds for decertification as a peace officer. The bill would require certain peace officers to report to their employing law enforcement agency any conditional offer of secondary employment relating to immigration enforcement. The bill would require the law enforcement agency to maintain specified records related to secondary employment. By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also explicitly state that these records related to secondary employment of certain peace officers are public records for the purposes of the California Public Records Act. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law defines "disadvantaged communities" and requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to identify disadvantaged communities for investment opportunities from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and for other purposes. This bill would require the agency to do specified things regarding farmworker communities for purposes of identifying disadvantaged communities including, among other things, assessing whether designating farmworker communities as disadvantaged communities would increase those communities' access to investment opportunities and identifying potential barriers faced by low-income farmworker communities in accessing investment opportunities, as specified. The bill would require the agency to make its findings publicly available on its internet website and consider those findings when identifying disadvantaged communities. The bill would require the agency and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to develop and implement a strategy for engaging with farmworker communities on environmental, health, and socioeconomic burdens, as provided.
(1) Existing law requires a seller of a real property that is located in a high or very high fire hazard severity zone to provide to the buyer documentation stating that the property is in compliance with specified fire safety requirements or local vegetation management ordinances. If the seller of a real property as described above has not obtained that documentation of compliance, existing law requires the seller and the buyer to enter into a written agreement pursuant to which the buyer agrees to obtain documentation of compliance with those specified fire safety requirements or local vegetation management ordinances. In a local jurisdiction that has not enacted an ordinance requiring an owner or buyer to obtain documentation of compliance, and if a state or local agency, or other government entity, or other qualified nonprofit entity, provides an inspection with documentation for the jurisdiction in which the property is located, existing law requires the buyer to obtain documentation of compliance within one year of the date of the close of escrow. This bill would require the local fire department, or the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, as applicable, to conduct a compliance inspection at the property, as specified, if it has not received documentation of compliance from a qualified entity or otherwise certified compliance within one year of the date of the close of escrow. The bill would authorize the local fire department and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to prioritize compliance inspections and reinspections based on certain factors. This bill would provide that a local fire department is authorized to recover the costs of compliance inspections and reinspections, as specified. The bill would also provide that the above-described provisions do not modify the immunities granted to a local fire department under any provision of law, as specified. The bill would state that these 2 provisions do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory of, existing law. (2) The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. (3) By increasing the duties of local entities, this 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 requires the Governor to proclaim various days as days of remembrance or recognition. This bill would require the Governor to annually proclaim September 25 as Dolly Parton Day. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.