An act to add Article 24 (commencing with Section 8669.9) to Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code, relating to emergency response. fire safety.
AB 275 would direct the Office of Emergency Services, in consultation with Cal Fire, to create a working group by December 31, 2026 to study and develop recommendations for a year-round wildfire aerial response program. The bill is framed around the SoCal Edison-funded Quick Reaction Force helitanker program and states legislative intent to make that program permanent, but the operative provision is a feasibility and planning process rather than immediate program creation.
The working group would examine what a statewide aerial suppression program could look like, including a fleet of firefighting aircraft for day and night operations, a reconnaissance aircraft with night vision and infrared technology, a mobile retardant base, and the staffing needed to keep the program ready. It would also evaluate operational issues such as cost-sharing, deployment protocols, resource staging, and whether the concept should proceed as a pilot program, a full statewide initiative, or not at all. A report with findings, cost projections, and deployment recommendations would be due to the Assembly Committee on Emergency Management and the Senate Committee on Governmental Organization by December 31, 2027.
The bill would not itself create a permanent aerial firefighting program or appropriate funding for one. Instead, it would add a new article to the Government Code establishing a study and recommendation process within the Office of Emergency Services, with participation from county fire departments, Cal Fire, and OES personnel familiar with wildfire aviation response. It also includes a sunset on the reporting requirement in 2031.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of expanding aerial wildfire suppression capacity. The findings emphasize that the Quick Reaction Force has protected lives, property, and infrastructure since 2020 and that fire agencies in the 15 counties served by SoCal Edison have come to rely on it. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no additional evidence of opposition or support beyond the bill’s pro-program framing.
The main point of contention is likely to be whether California should move from a privately funded regional helitanker program to a permanent, potentially statewide state-managed aerial response system, and if so, how it should be funded and operated. The bill anticipates those questions by directing the working group to analyze cost-sharing, standby costs, operational control, resource placement, and equitable access, suggesting that fiscal and governance concerns are central to the policy debate.
AB 275 would amend the Government Code by adding a new article governing wildfire aerial response planning within the Office of Emergency Services. It would require OES and Cal Fire to convene a working group, study the feasibility of a permanent aerial suppression program, and report recommendations to legislative committees. The bill does not directly change electrical utility obligations, fire suppression authority, or emergency response funding formulas, but it could influence future state wildfire policy by creating the framework for a permanent or pilot aerial firefighting program.
The bill is generally positive toward the SoCal Edison-funded Quick Reaction Force and toward expanding aerial wildfire suppression capabilities. Its findings describe the program as effective and relied upon by local fire agencies, indicating a strong supportive posture. Because no committee transcript or vote details are provided, there is no record here of formal opposition, amendments in response to debate, or divided committee sentiment.
The likely areas of contention are fiscal exposure, operational control, and whether the state should institutionalize a program that began as utility-funded and regional. The bill specifically asks the working group to examine cost-sharing, standby costs, deployment authority, and whether the program should be a pilot, a statewide initiative, or not recommended, which suggests those issues are unresolved. Stakeholders most likely to care include local fire agencies, Cal Fire, OES, and potentially electrical ratepayers or utility interests given the Edison-funded origin of the program.