Existing sales and use tax laws impose taxes on retailers measured by the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property sold at retail in this state, or on the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer for storage, use, or other consumption in this state. The California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority Act establishes the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority. The act authorizes, until January 1, 2026, the authority to provide financial assistance to a participating party by authorizing exclusions from sales and use tax for certain projects, including those that promote California-based manufacturing, California-based jobs, advanced manufacturing, the reduction of greenhouse gases, or a reduction in air and water pollution or energy consumption. The Sales and Use Tax Law, for the purposes of the taxes imposed pursuant to that law, until January 1, 2026, excludes the lease or transfer of title of tangible personal property constituting one of those projects to any contractor for use in the performance of a construction contract for a participating party that will use that property as an integral part of the approved project. This bill would extend to January 1, 2028, the authorization to provide financial assistance in the form of a sales and use tax exclusion for projects approved by the authority. The bill would add electrical generation facilities using nuclear fusion technology to the types of projects qualifying for this sales and use tax exclusion. The bill would, on and after January 1, 2026, for an applicant that, together with its parent corporation and subsidiaries, employs 500 or more employees, prohibit the authority from approving a project unless the applicant certifies that the applicant and its subcontractors will comply with certain labor requirements. The bill would make other conforming changes. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Sponsored bills
Existing law establishes the Independent Living Program (ILP) , that, among its purposes, provides training in daily living skills, budgeting, locating and maintaining housing, and career planning for foster youth up to 21 years of age. Existing federal law authorizes a state, under certain circumstances, to expand eligibility for the ILP to former foster youth who have not attained 23 years of age. Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services, with the approval of the federal government, to amend the foster care state plan to permit all eligible children to be served by the ILP up to 21 years of age. The Personal Income Tax Law allows a refundable foster youth tax credit for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, to a qualified taxpayer in a specified amount multiplied by the earned income tax credit adjustment factor, as provided. This bill, the Foster Outreach and Support for Tax Education Readiness (FOSTER) Act, would require, by no later than July 30, 2026, the department to issue guidance to county welfare departments and juvenile probation departments with information to support best practices for nonminor dependents to file state and federal income tax returns and to access the foster youth tax credit. The bill would require the guidance to be updated as needed and reissued no less than every 2 years. The bill would specify the information to be included in the guidance issued, including, but not limited to, the eligibility requirements for the foster youth tax credit and the maximum credit available, outreach strategies to increase awareness among nonminor dependents and former foster youth about the foster youth tax credit, and resources from the Internal Revenue Service website for identifying local Volunteer Income Tax Assistance providers. The bill would require county welfare departments and juvenile probation departments to annually send by mail to every nonminor dependent information about filing state and federal income tax returns and, among other things, the foster youth tax credit and information about local Volunteer Income Tax Assistance sites, as specified. By increasing the duties of county welfare departments and juvenile probation departments, 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.
(1) Under existing law, each school district and county office of education is responsible for the overall development, as specified, of a comprehensive school safety plan for each of its schools operating kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive. Existing law requires a comprehensive school safety plan to, among other things, identify appropriate strategies and programs that will provide or maintain a high level of school safety and address the school's procedures for complying with existing laws related to school safety. This bill would additionally require, until January 1, 2031, when a comprehensive school safety plan is next reviewed and updated, or by no later than March 1, 2026, those plans to include procedures specifically designed to notify parents and guardians of pupils, teachers, administrators, and school personnel when the school confirms the presence of immigration enforcement, as defined, on the schoolsite. Existing law prohibits a chartering authority from denying a petition for the establishment of a charter school unless it makes written factual findings supporting at least one of specified bases for denial. One of those bases for denying a petition is if the petition does not contain a reasonably comprehensive description of the development of a school safety plan that includes the same safety topics required in the comprehensive school safety plan of a school district or county office of education. This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2031, a chartering authority to deny a charter school petition that does not include in its proposed development of a school safety plan the same provisions on procedures and policies relating to notifying parents and guardians of pupils, teachers, administrators, and charter school personnel when the charter school confirms the presence of immigration enforcement, as defined, on the schoolsite as are required by the bill in a school district or county office of education comprehensive school safety plan. The bill also would make conforming changes. To the extent that this bill would impose new duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law establishes the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, and independent institutions of higher education as 4 segments of postsecondary education in the state. Existing law requires the Trustees of the California State University, the governing boards of community college districts, and independent institutions of higher education that are qualifying institutions for purposes of the Cal Grant Program, and requests the Regents of the University of California, to the fullest extent consistent with state and federal law, to implement various precautionary measures when federal immigration enforcement activities are undertaken on campuses of those segments, as specified, including, among others, that those postsecondary entities advise all students, faculty, and staff to notify the office of the chancellor or president, or their designee, as soon as possible, if they are advised that an immigration officer is expected to enter, will enter, or has entered the campus to execute a federal immigration order. This bill would require, until January 1, 2031, those postsecondary educational entities, and each campus of those postsecondary educational entities, to notify, as specified, all students, faculty, staff, and other campus community members who work on campus when the presence of immigration enforcement, as defined, is confirmed on campus. To the extent that the bill would impose new duties on community college districts, 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, 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) The Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) prohibits a provider of health care, a health care service plan, a contractor, or a corporation and its subsidiaries and affiliates from intentionally sharing, selling, using for marketing, or otherwise using any medical information, as defined, for any purpose not necessary to provide health care services to a patient, except as provided. The CMIA prohibits a provider of health care, health care service plan, or contractor from disclosing medical information regarding a patient of the provider of health care or an enrollee or subscriber of a health care service plan without first obtaining authorization from the patient, except if the disclosure is compelled by, among other things, a search warrant lawfully issued to a governmental law enforcement agency or a court order. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions that results in economic loss or personal injury to a patient punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would revise the definition of "medical information" to include immigration status, including current and prior immigration status, and place of birth, if that information is known or collected, as specified, and would define "immigration enforcement" to mean any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law, and also includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a person's presence in, entry or reentry to, or employment in, the United States. The bill would specify that a provider of health care, health care service plan, or contractor shall disclose medical information regarding a patient of the provider of health care or an enrollee or subscriber or a health care service plan pursuant to a valid search warrant issued by a judicial officer, including a magistrate, to a governmental law enforcement agency, or pursuant to a state or federal court order issued by a court of this state or a federal court. The bill would also prohibit, except to the extent expressly authorized by a patient, enrollee, or subscriber, or as otherwise permitted or required, a provider of health care, health care service plan, contractor, or corporation and its subsidiaries and affiliates from disclosing medical information for immigration enforcement. Because the bill would expand the scope of a crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Under existing law, the State Department of Public Health is responsible for the licensing and regulation of various facilities and settings that provide health care services, as specified. Existing law makes a willful violation of these provisions a crime. This bill would require health care provider entities, as defined, to establish or amend procedures for monitoring, documenting, and receiving visitors to health care provider entities to the extent possible. The bill would require health care provider entity personnel to immediately notify health care provider entity management, administration, or legal counsel of any request for access to a health care provider entity site or patient for immigration enforcement, and to provide any requests for review of health care provider entity documents, as prescribed. The bill would prohibit, unless required by state or federal law, a health care provider entity and its personnel from allowing any person access to nonpublic areas of the provider's facilities for immigration enforcement purposes, except as specified. The bill would require health care provider entities to inform staff and relevant volunteers on how to respond to requests relating to immigration enforcement that grants access to health care provider entity sites or to patients. The bill would require that health care provider entities comply with these provisions within 45 days from their effective date. By expanding the scope of a crime and increasing duties on local health officials, 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 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. 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 an urgency statute.
Existing law prohibits credibly impersonating a peace officer, firefighter, or employee of a public utility, state or local government agency, or search and rescue team, as specified. Existing law also prohibits willfully and credibly impersonating a peace officer, firefighter, or employee of a public utility, state or local government agency, or search and rescue team through or on an internet website, or by other electronic means, for the purposes of defrauding another. A violation of these prohibitions is punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would revise and recast these provisions to prohibit impersonating a law enforcement officer, and would clarify that a law enforcement officer, for these purposes, includes a federal law enforcement officer. The bill would extend these offenses to include willfully and credibly impersonating any of those entities through any means for the purpose of defrauding another. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would, on and after January 1, 2026, require a law enforcement officer operating in California that is not uniformed to visibly display identification that includes their agency and either a name or badge number to the public when performing their enforcement duties, except as specified. The bill would make a violation of these provisions a misdemeanor. The bill would define personnel of a law enforcement agency as any peace officer under California law and any federal law enforcement officer. By creating a new crime and imposing duties on local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require any law enforcement agency operating in California to, by January 1, 2026, maintain and publicly post a written policy on the visible identification of sworn personnel, including a purpose statement affirming the agency's commitment to specified principles including transparency, accountability, and public trust, and a requirement for sworn personnel to visibly display identification and for specified exceptions. The bill would exempt personnel of any agency from the crime for not displaying identification if an agency maintains a policy pursuant to these provisions. The bill would deem a policy consistent with that exception unless a member of the public, an oversight body, or a local governing authority challenges it. The bill would, if the agency does not address deficiencies within 90 days, authorize the complaining party to proceed to a court of competent jurisdiction for a judicial determination of the exemption, as specified. The bill would also authorize a peace officer, as defined, to request an alleged law enforcement officer to present identification when there is probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe the alleged law enforcement officer has committed crime, including, but not limited to, impersonating a peace officer. Existing law, the Bail Fugitive Recovery Persons Act, regulates bail fugitive recovery agents, defined as a person given written authorization by the bail or depositor of bail and contracted to investigate, surveil, locate, and arrest a bail fugitive and any person employed to assist the bail or depositor of bail to investigate, surveil, locate, and arrest a bail fugitive. This bill would prohibit a person authorized to apprehend a bail fugitive from using that position for the purposes of immigration enforcement and would prohibit a person authorized to apprehend a bail fugitive from disclosing personally identifiable information of any bail fugitive that is requested for purposes of immigration enforcement, except as specified. This bill would declare these provisions are severable. 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to wear a mask, false whiskers, or any personal disguise, as specified, with the purpose of evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification while committing a public offense, or for concealment, flight, evasion, or escape from arrest or conviction for any public offense. This bill would make it a crime for a law enforcement officer to wear a facial covering in the performance of their duties, except as specified. The bill would define law enforcement officer as anyone designated by California law as a peace officer who is employed by a city, county, or other local agency, and any officer or agent of a federal law enforcement agency or law enforcement agency of another state, or any person acting on behalf of a federal law enforcement agency or agency of another state. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable as an infraction or a misdemeanor, as specified. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require any law enforcement agency operating in California to, by July 1, 2026, maintain and publicly post a written policy limiting the use of facial coverings, as specified. The bill would exempt personnel of any agency from the crime of wearing a facial covering if an agency maintains a policy pursuant to this section no later than July 1, 2026. The bill would deem a policy consistent with these provisions for the purposes of that exception unless a member of the public, an oversight body, or a local governing authority challenges it. The bill would also impose a specified civil penalty against certain officers for tortious conduct, including, but not limited to, false imprisonment or false arrest of an individual while wearing a facial covering. The bill would, if the agency does not address deficiencies within 90 days, authorize the complaining party to proceed to a court of competent jurisdiction for a judicial determination of the exemption, as specified. The bill would define a law enforcement agency for these purposes as any entity of a city, county, or other local agency, that employs anyone designated by California law as a peace officer, any federal law enforcement agency, or any law enforcement agency of another state. By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement agencies, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. This bill would declare its provisions to be severable. This bill would make related findings and declarations. 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.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 requires the State Air Resources Board to adopt regulations for greenhouse gas emissions limits and emissions reduction measures to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in furtherance of achieving the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit, as defined. The act authorizes the state board to revise regulations or adopt additional regulations to further the act. The act authorizes that state board to include in those regulations the use of a market-based compliance mechanism to comply with those regulations. Existing law requires the state board, in regulations implementing the market-based compliance mechanism to, among other things, establish limits on the use of offset credits as a means for a covered entity to meet its compliance obligations. Existing law requires moneys collected by the state board from the auction or sale of allowances as part of a market-based compliance mechanism to be deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and continuously appropriates a portion of the moneys in the fund for various purposes. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to direct specific percentages of the revenues deposited into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to individual funds dedicated to funding clean transportation, housing and community investment, clean air and water, wildfire prevention and resilience, agriculture, clean energy, and climate-focused innovation. The bill would make the continuous appropriations from the fund inoperative on July 1, 2026. The bill would, beginning with the 2026–27 fiscal year, allocate moneys in the fund in a specified priority and would continuously appropriate a certain amount of moneys in the fund for certain purposes. This bill would require the state board, no later than December 31, 2026, to conduct a study and report to the Legislature evaluating and making recommendations on the use of offsets. The bill would require the state board, no later than January 1, 2029, to update all existing compliance offset protocols to reflect the best available science. The bill would require the state board, no later than January 1, 2034, and every 5 years thereafter, to evaluate all compliance offset protocols and to consider whether updates are necessary to ensure the protocols reflect the best available science. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) The Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act generally requires the administrator for oil spill response, acting at the direction of the Governor, to implement activities relating to oil spill response, including emergency drills and preparedness, and oil spill containment and cleanup, and to represent the state in any coordinated response efforts with the federal government. Existing law requires the Governor to establish a California oil spill contingency plan that provides for an integrated and effective state procedure to combat the results of major oil spills within the state and that specifies state agencies to implement the plan. Existing law requires the administrator to adopt and implement regulations governing the adequacy of oil spill contingency plans to be prepared and implemented and requires the regulations to provide for the best achievable protection of coastal and marine waters. Existing law requires these regulations to permit the development, application, and use of an oil spill contingency plan for similar vessels, pipelines, terminals, and facilities within a single company or organization, and across companies and organizations. Existing law requires these regulations to ensure, among other things, standards for determining a reasonable worst case oil spill. Under the act, the owner or operator of a facility where a spill could impact waters of the state is required apply for and obtain a certificate of financial responsibility issued by the administrator for the facility or the oil to be handled, stored, or transported by the facility. This bill would require the administrator to publicly post a list of all applications for certificates of financial responsibility submitted by facility owners and operators on the internet website of the Office of Spill Prevention and Response and would require the posting to include specified information about applicants, including reasonable worst case spill volume of the facility to be covered by the certificate and the amount of financial responsibility demonstrated, as provided. This bill would, commencing January 15, 2027, and at least once every 10 years thereafter, require the administrator to solicit public input regarding both (A) the appropriateness of the reasonable worst case spill volumes for facilities and (B) the appropriateness of the financial responsibility requirements for facilities. The bill would require the supervisor, based on this feedback, to review and, as appropriate, revise the criteria and formulas for (A) calculating reasonable worst case spill volume and (B) calculating the financial assurances and setting the maximum amount of a certificate of financial responsibility necessary to respond to an oil spill, as provided. (2) The Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981 requires the State Fire Marshal to administer provisions regulating the inspection of intrastate pipelines used for the transportation of hazardous liquid. A violation of the act is a crime. This bill would prohibit the restarting of an existing oil pipeline that is 6 inches or larger that has been idle, inactive, or out of service for 5 years or more without passing a spike hydrostatic testing program that meets the requirements established by the State Fire Marshal, as provided. By expanding the scope of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require these tests to be performed by a qualified testing company, as provided. The bill would require the Office of the State Fire Marshal to promulgate regulations as necessary to implement these provisions. The bill would require the State Fire Marshal to post on its public internet website information fully characterizing the parameters and results of each hydrostatic spike test performed, subject to any information deemed confidential and proprietary, no less than 30 calendar days after each hydrostatic spike test is conducted. (3) Existing law authorizes the State Air Resources Board (state board) to adopt and implement motor vehicle fuel specifications for the control of air contaminants and sources of air pollution. Existing law requires the state board to establish, by regulation, maximum standards for the volatility of gasoline, as provided. Pursuant to these authorizations, the state board has adopted the California Reformulated Gasoline regulations establishing California-specific gasoline specifications for various regions of the state at specified time periods. Existing regulations also prohibit a person from selling, offering for sale, supplying, offering for supply, or transporting California gasoline that exceeds the applicable cap limit for Reid vapor pressure within each of specified air basins during various defined regulatory periods throughout the year. This bill would require the Governor to suspend those regulatory control periods on which gasoline exceeding the Reid vapor pressure may be sold or supplied for use in the state, if the Governor, in consultation with the state board and the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, determines the average retail gasoline price increased substantially or is projected to increase substantially within any 30-day period and a suspension is necessary to protect consumers in the state from extraordinary gasoline price increases and determines, in the Governor's discretion, that suspension is prudent and unlikely to yield unintended consequences. The bill would require the Governor, in considering whether to suspend the regulatory control periods, to consider the air quality effects and options to mitigate those effects, if necessary and subject to available resources. (4) Existing law requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (energy commission) , on or before January 1, 2024, and every 3 years thereafter, to submit an assessment to the Governor and the Legislature that, among other things, identifies methods to ensure a reliable supply of affordable and safe transportation fuels in California and evaluates the price of transportation fuels, including branded and unbranded retail prices, alternate formulations of gasoline with lower carbon impact, and other products suitable for production from refineries in California, as provided. This bill would require the next version of the above-described transportation fuels assessment to evaluate the cost and supply impacts of allowing the sale of gasoline with alternative specifications from the state board's gasoline specifications, as provided. The bill would require the energy commission to recommend a strategy to facilitate the sale of gasoline with those alternative specifications that, at a minimum, considers a trigger mechanism for when the gasoline with those alternative specifications may be sold, the existing variance process, and the use of a fee associated with the sale of the gasoline with those alternative specifications, as provided. The bill would additionally require the next version of this assessment to evaluate the development of westwide gasoline specification that could be used in a western region to include California and areas outside of California as an alternative to the California-specific specification in order to stabilize the petroleum market and petroleum prices in the western region, as provided. The bill would additionally require the energy commission, on or before March 31, 2026, to submit an assessment to the Governor and the Legislature that evaluates recommendations and strategies identified by the vice chair of the energy commission in a specified letter, and offers recommendations to the Legislature on potential changes to working group authorities or structures to support the state's reliable, equitable, safe, and affordable transition away from petroleum fuels. (5) 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 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 prohibits a lead agency or a responsible agency from requiring the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR unless one or more of 3 specified events occurs. 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 in the state and the operation, maintenance, and removal or abandonment of tanks and facilities related to oil and gas production within an oil and gas field so as to prevent damage to life, health, property, and natural resources. Existing law requires the operator of a well to file a written notice of intention to commence drilling with, and prohibits any drilling until approval is given by, the supervisor or district deputy. Existing law prohibits the division from approving any notice of intention within a health protection zone, defined as the area within 3,200 feet of certain residential, educational, health care, detention, or business facilities, except approvals necessary for specified purposes. Existing law requires oil or gas production facilities or wells with a wellhead within a health protection zone to comply with specified health, safety, and environmental requirements, as provided. This bill would, among other things, deem a specified County of Kern environmental impact report sufficient for full compliance with the requirements of CEQA for purposes of consideration and adoption of amended revisions to a specified County of Kern zoning ordinance, and would establish that this determination of full compliance shall be final and conclusive for purposes of reliance on that environmental impact report by any responsible agency, as provided. The bill would establish that projects that satisfy the requirements of that zoning ordinance and that are approved by the County of Kern under that ordinance are deemed sufficient for full compliance with CEQA and no further environmental review shall be required pursuant to CEQA. This bill would prospectively apply these provisions concerning CEQA compliance to any approvals by the County of Kern with respect to the permitting of oil and gas production operations under any adopted local ordinance and associated development. The bill would also apply these provisions prospectively and retroactively to any pending causes of action and claims for which no final nonappealable judgment has been entered, as provided. The bill would prohibit the granting of approvals by the County of Kern or the Geologic Energy Management Division in reliance on that environmental impact report for any operation located in a health protection zone, regardless of whether the above-described prohibitions on health protection zones are enforceable. The bill would require the division to be the lead agency for projects in Kern County that include approval of a notice of intention to drill or rework an oil or gas well within 3,200 feet of specified types of buildings, to the extent such projects may be authorized by law. The bill would prohibit the division from approving more than 2,000 notices of intention to drill new wells in reliance on that environmental impact report as a responsible agency, unless the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission makes a formal finding that additional permit issuance is necessary for in-state crude oil production to supply 25% of in-state refinery feedstock demand, and that such production would likely help reduce costs for retail consumers of gasoline in the state. The bill would repeal all of the above-described provisions concerning CEQA in the County of Kern on January 1, 2036. To the extent a lead agency would be required to determine the applicability of some of the above-described exemptions and determinations of full compliance with CEQA, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (6) The California Coastal Act of 1976 requires a person wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone to obtain a coastal development permit. The act encourages coastal-dependent industrial facilities to locate or expand within existing sites and requires that facilities be permitted reasonable long-term growth, as provided. The act specifies that new or expanded oil and gas development is not to be considered a coastal-dependent industrial facility and is to be permitted only if it is consistent with the act and meets certain requirements, including a requirement that oil produced offshore is to be transported onshore by pipeline using the best achievable technology, as defined, and onshore transport of the oil to processing and refining facilities by pipeline. The act applies the pipeline requirements on new or expanded oil extraction operations, and defines terms for these purposes, including the term "expanded oil extraction." The act authorizes the transport of the oil by other modes of transportation if certain conditions are met. This bill would require the onshore transportation of the oil to processing and refining facilities to use the best available technology, as provided. The bill would repeal authorization for the use of alternative modes of transportation. The bill would revise the definition of "expanded oil extraction" to include reactivation of a facility idled, inactive, or out of service for more than 5 years, or an increase in oil extraction from the use of hydraulic fracturing, extended reach drilling, acidization, or other unconventional technologies. The act authorizes the repair and maintenance of an existing oil and gas facility to be permitted as a coastal-dependent industrial facility if certain requirements are met. The bill would require a person to obtain a new coastal development permit for the repair, reactivation, and maintenance of an oil and gas facility, including an oil pipeline, that has been idled, inactive, or out of service for 5 years or more. Because the bill would impose additional duties on a local government with a certified local coastal program in processing and reviewing an application for a coastal development permit, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (7) 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. (8) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Kern. (9) 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.
Maddy summarySCR 85 designates September 20, 2025, as Latino Veterans Day. This ceremonial resolution directly recognizes Latino veterans for their military service. The bill does not create new benefits or policies; it simply formally designates a date for commemoration. The measure is purely symbolic, aiming to honor this group's contributions through official recognition.
This measure would declare October 28, 2025, as First Responders' Day and would urge all Californians to observe and promote the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities that promote awareness of the contributions of first responders in California.