Asm. Greg Wallis

The Budget Act of 2024 made appropriations for the support of state government for the 2024–25 fiscal year. This bill would amend the Budget Act of 2024 to exempt wildfire prevention projects from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a Budget Bill.

The Personal Income Tax Law allows various credits against the taxes imposed by that law. This bill would allow a credit against those taxes for each taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2025, and before January 1, 2030, to a qualified taxpayer, as defined, in an amount equal to 40% of the taxpayer's qualified expenses, as defined, not to exceed $400 per taxable year, or $2,000 cumulatively. Existing law requires any bill authorizing a new tax credit to contain, among other things, specific goals, purposes, and objectives that the tax credit will achieve, detailed performance indicators, and data collection requirements. The bill would also include additional information required for any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.

The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases. The state board is required to adopt rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions to ensure that the statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40% below the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit, as defined, no later than December 31, 2030. The act requires the state board to prepare and approve a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and to update the scoping plan at least once every 5 years. This bill would require the state board to include greenhouse gas emissions from wildlands and forest fires in the scoping plan.

The Budget Act of 2024 made appropriations for the support of state government for the 2024–25 fiscal year. This bill would amend the Budget Act of 2024 to require the State Air Resources Board to designate public fire protection agencies or other equivalent agencies to oversee controlled burning activities and to exempt wildland vegetation management burning, as defined, from permitting requirements if conducted by or under the supervision of a public fire protection agency or other equivalent agency designated by the state board. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a Budget Bill.

Maddy summaryThis bill is a House Resolution that formally recognizes the work of school board members across California by designating January 2025 as School Board Recognition Month. It directly affects local school districts and county offices of education by honoring the nearly 5,000 elected school board members who serve in these roles. The resolution expresses appreciation for their dedication to public education and encourages community members to support these local officials in their efforts to serve students. This is a commemorative measure rather than a policy change, as it does not alter laws or regulations but instead highlights the importance of school governance.

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. CEQA authorizes the Governor to certify certain projects, including energy infrastructure projects, as defined, that meet specified requirements, including a requirement that the applicant agrees to pay the costs of preparing the record of proceedings for the project concurrent with review and consideration of the project, as specified, for streamlining benefits related to CEQA, such as the requirement that judicial actions challenging the certification of an EIR and the granting of approval by a lead agency for certified projects, including any potential appeals to the court of appeal or the Supreme Court, be resolved, to the extent feasible, within 270 days after the filing of the certified record of proceedings with the court. CEQA provides that the certification is no longer valid if the lead agency fails to approve the certified project before January 1, 2033. This bill would revise the definition of "energy infrastructure projects" to include projects that increase the storage of petroleum products at a refinery meeting certain requirements. Because the bill would impose additional duties on lead agencies in conducting the environmental review of petroleum storage projects that are certified by the Governor, including the concurrent preparation of the record of proceedings, 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.

The Petroleum Industry Information Reporting Act of 1980 requires operators of refineries in the state that produce gasoline meeting California specifications, within 30 days of the end of each calendar month, to submit a report to the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission that contains certain information regarding its refining activities related to the production of gasoline that month. Existing law requires the commission to post, among other things, the reported data, in aggregate, on its internet website within 45 calendar days of the end of each calendar month. This bill would additionally require the commission to post, and regularly update, a dashboard on its internet website that includes the difference in average gasoline prices in California compared to national average gasoline prices, California-specific taxes, fees, regulations, and policies that directly or indirectly contribute to higher gasoline prices within the state and their individual contribution to the difference in average gasoline prices, and any substantiated evidence of price gouging or other anticompetitive behavior within the petroleum industry and its contribution to the difference in average gasoline prices, as specified.

(1) Existing law requires, no later than January 1, 2030, owners of all acute care inpatient hospitals to either demolish, replace, or change to nonacute care use all hospital buildings not in substantial compliance with specified seismic safety standards or to seismically retrofit all acute care inpatient hospital buildings so that they are in substantial compliance with those seismic safety standards. Existing law requires the Department of Health Care Access and Information to issue a written notice upon compliance with those requirements. This bill would authorize a Distressed Hospital Loan Program recipient, a small hospital, a rural hospital, a critical access hospital, or a health care district hospital, as defined, and except as specified, to seek approval from the Department of Health Care Access and Information for a delay to the January 1, 2030, compliance deadline described above by up to 3 years. The bill would require hospitals seeking a delay to submit a seismic compliance plan, as specified, and, if necessary, a Nonstructural Performance Category-5 evaluation report. The bill would also require the hospital and department to identify least 2 major milestones relating to the seismic compliance plan that will be used as the basis for determining whether a hospital is making adequate progress toward meeting the subject hospital's seismic compliance deadline. The bill would subject the submitted seismic compliance plans to departmental review for reasonableness and require the hospital seeking the delay to submit any documentation requested by the department to assist its review. The bill would require the department to approve or deny a seismic compliance plan and any delay to the seismic compliance deadline within 120 days. The bill would also authorize the department to additionally delay the deadline for compliance by 2 years, up to a maximum of January 1, 2035, as necessary, for hospitals that continue to experience financial distress or that need to deal with contractor, labor, or material delays, acts of God, governmental entitlements, or other circumstances beyond the hospital's control. The bill would require hospitals eligible to delay compliance under these provisions to comply with the seismic safety standards described above by no later than January 1, 2035. The bill would impose a fine of $5,000 per calendar day for a hospital's failure to comply with a revised construction schedule or to meet any major milestone established by the department until the requirements or milestones, respectively, are met. The bill would also prohibit these hospitals from being issued a building permit for any building in the facility except those required for seismic compliance, maintenance, and emergency repairs until the milestone is met and the hospital is adequately progressing toward meeting the subject hospitals seismic compliance, as determined by the department. The bill would require the department to implement the above-described provisions by regulation, as specified. The bill would require the department to support a hospital requesting a delay under the above-described provisions to explore the opportunities under the Small and Rural Hospital Relief Program to assist with seismic compliance and to annually post a list of hospitals that have been granted a delay on its internet website, as specified. (2) Existing law establishes the Small and Rural Hospital Relief Program for the purpose of funding seismic safety compliance with respect to small hospitals, rural hospitals, and critical access hospitals in the state. Existing law requires the department to provide grants to small, rural, and critical access hospital applicants that meet certain criteria, including that seismic safety compliance, as defined, imposes a financial burden on the applicant that may result in hospital closure. Existing law also creates the Small and Rural Hospital Relief Fund and continuously appropriates the moneys in the fund for purposes of administering and funding the grant program. This bill would require the department to expand eligibility for grants for single- and 2-story general acute care hospitals located in remote or rural areas with fewer than 80 general acute care beds and general acute care hospital revenue of $75 million or less. The bill would require grants under the program to provide general acute care hospitals with funds to secure an SPC-4D assessment for purposes of planning for, and estimating the costs of, compliance with certain seismic safety standards, as specified. The bill would authorize specified general acute care hospitals to apply for a grant for purposes of complying with those seismic safety standards. If state funds are appropriated to the Small and Rural Hospital Relief Fund in the future for the purpose of complying with the seismic safety standards described in paragraph (1) , the bill would require a hospital that qualifies for assessment grants under the program to submit specified financial information relating to, among other things, the accuracy of the hospital's SPC-4D cost estimates to the department before being awarded state funds.

Existing law classifies certain criminal offenses as a "violent felony" for the purposes of various provisions of the Penal Code, including sentencing enhancements for prior convictions, as well as numerous other provisions. Existing law includes among the list of violent felonies rape accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear, or rape accomplished against the victim's will by threat of violent retaliation, but does not include rape of a person unable to give consent due to disability, intoxication, or unconsciousness, rape under false pretenses, or rape accomplished by threat of incarceration, arrest, or deportation. This bill would also include the rape of an intoxicated person wherein the defendant drugged the victim, as specified, in the list of violent felonies. By expanding the scope of an enhancement, 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.

The existing federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 provides for the negotiation and execution of tribal-state gaming compacts for the purpose of authorizing certain types of gaming on Indian lands within a state. The California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from authorizing casinos of the type operating in Nevada and New Jersey and authorizes the Governor to negotiate and conclude tribal-state gaming compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature. Existing law expressly ratifies a number of tribal-state gaming compacts between the State of California and specified Indian tribes. Existing law, the Gambling Control Act, provides for the regulation, oversight, and licensure of gambling establishments by the California Gambling Control Commission. Existing law prohibits a list of specified gambling games or any banking or percentage game played with cards, dice, or any device, for money, checks, credit, or any representative of value, and provides that any person who offers for play or participates in these games is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable as specified. Existing law authorizes gambling establishments to operate controlled games utilizing a player-dealer position, as defined, and to contract with a third party for the provision of proposition player services subject to specified conditions and regulatory requirements. Existing law generally specifies the persons or entities that may bring a civil action as prescribed for relief. Existing law authorizes a court to grant a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order at any time prior to judgment, if the verified complaint or affidavits provide sufficient grounds to do so and the opposing party has been given notice. This bill would authorize a California Indian tribe, under certain conditions, to bring an action solely against licensed California card clubs and third-party proposition player services providers to seek a declaration as to whether a controlled game operated by a licensed California card club and banked by a third-party proposition player services provider constitutes a banking card game that violates state law, including tribal gaming rights under the constitutional provisions described above, and to request injunctive relief. The bill would require that any review of such a challenge be conducted de novo. The bill would prohibit a claim for money damages, penalties, or attorney's fees and would require that actions be filed no later than April 1, 2025, as specified. The bill would clarify that it does not intend to authorize an action, or otherwise impose any liability, against the state and would prohibit a court from issuing a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order under certain circumstances. This bill would provide that its provisions are severable.