Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on March 19, 2025, adopted its committee rules unanimously, and then heard a series of housing, insurance, and disaster-recovery bills. Early bills focused on wildfire relief and insurance issues, including AB 238 on mortgage forbearance for Los Angeles County wildfire survivors, AB 493 on insurance payout interest for homeowners, AB 597 on consumer protections after disasters, and AB 226 on strengthening the California FAIR Plan’s liquidity tools. Supporters generally framed these measures as necessary protections for disaster survivors and market stability, while opponents and concerned witnesses raised issues such as investor guidelines, compliance conflicts, and market disruption. Several members also noted equity concerns and the need to balance relief with consistency across the state. The committee also heard a cluster of housing-production bills. AB 306 proposed a six-year pause on new state building code updates affecting residential construction and limits on local code modifications, drawing strong support from housing and building industry groups who argued it would reduce costs and improve predictability. It also drew opposition from code, environmental, and clean-energy advocates, who warned about safety, local control, and the loss of important code updates. AB 253 would allow licensed third-party professionals to perform plan checks if local review takes 30 days or more, and AB 301 would impose state-agency permitting timelines similar to those already applied to local governments; both were presented as ways to reduce delays and speed housing development. AB 462 would exempt ADU construction from coastal development permit requirements in Los Angeles County, especially to aid fire recovery and expand housing supply. After hearing testimony and brief member discussion on each measure, the committee placed the bills on suspense or advanced them as appropriate. In the suspense hearing at the end of the meeting, the committee took up the suspense-file bills and reported AB 226, AB 238, AB 301, and AB 306 out with due pass recommendations on roll call votes. The meeting then adjourned.

Summary: The Assembly Labor and Employment Committee met on March 19, 2025, adopted its rules, and approved the consent calendar before hearing several bills. AB 538, by Assemblymember Berman, would require awarding bodies on public works projects to make a timely attempt to obtain certified payroll records from contractors when the public requests them, rather than simply saying they do not have the records. Supporters said it would clarify existing prevailing wage enforcement; county, city, special district, and housing groups opposed it over workload, privacy, and potential funding risks. The bill passed the committee on a do-pass recommendation to Appropriations. The committee then heard AB 485, authored by Chair Ortega, which would direct state agencies to deny or renew business licenses for employers with outstanding wage theft judgments unless the judgments are satisfied or bonded. Supporters, including labor groups and a caregiver who described delayed recovery of unpaid wages, said the bill would give workers meaningful leverage to collect judgments. The California Hospital Association opposed it, warning that license action could threaten patient access to care. The bill passed on a do-pass recommendation to Appropriations. AB 596, by Assemblymember McKinnor, would codify workers’ right to wear a face covering or respirator at work unless it creates a direct safety hazard. Supporters said the measure would protect workers from illness, wildfire smoke, and employer restrictions after prior Cal/OSHA protections expired; the Chamber of Commerce opposed it narrowly, asking for an exception where masks are infeasible for certain tasks. The committee supported the bill and sent it to Appropriations. The hearing concluded with the roll kept open for absent members and the committee adjourned.

Summary: The Assembly Governmental Organization Committee met with a quorum present and first took up routine business. Members adopted the committee rules and approved three measures on the consent calendar: AB 77 (Aguiar-Curry), AB 233 (Gibson), and AB 720 (Rogers). The committee then heard AB 344 by Assemblymember Valencia, which would update and clarify the definition of “successor beer manufacturer” in California alcohol law to address a recent court ruling that supporters said created a loophole affecting wholesalers’ fair market compensation when breweries are sold. The California Family Beer Distributors supported the bill, while the California Craft Brewers Association said it was neutral based on ongoing negotiations and sponsor commitments. AB 344 passed the committee on a due pass to Appropriations vote, with the roll left open for additional members. The committee also heard AB 509 by Assemblymember Flora, which concerned alcohol service training and verification procedures. The California Restaurant Association supported the bill, saying it would recognize good-faith use of technology in entry and verification processes and help restaurants meet their obligations. There was no opposition testimony. The author accepted committee amendments, and the bill was moved on a due pass as amended to Appropriations. Additional members later added votes to the consent items, committee rules, AB 344, and AB 509 before the committee adjourned at 2:07 p.m.

Summary: The subcommittee heard presentations on the administration’s Proposition 4 spending plans for extreme heat mitigation and outdoor access, then took up SB 54 implementation, SB 707 textile producer responsibility, and recovery needs related to the Los Angeles fires at state parks. For the extreme heat chapter, agencies described funding for the Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program, urban greening, urban forestry, fairground upgrades, and technical assistance for community-based climate programs. Witnesses emphasized that these are existing programs with strong demand, that technical assistance is important for reaching disadvantaged and tribal communities, and that the proposed funding would expand outreach and implementation capacity. Members asked for more detail on where funds have gone geographically, examples of successful projects, tree-planting totals, and how fairgrounds could better support fire staging and emergency preparedness. The LAO said the timing of the administration’s proposed funding generally made sense because the programs are already established, and no votes were taken. For outdoor access, State Parks, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources described funding for new parks in underserved communities, deferred maintenance, state lands access, and several new or pending programs. State Parks said the park development program would fund roughly 48 projects and that deferred maintenance funding would address high-priority health, safety, and access needs. Fish and Wildlife said its lands program would improve visitor amenities and access on properties that often lack basic facilities. The Natural Resources Agency also outlined three newer outdoor-access proposals: expanding recreation in disadvantaged communities, enhancing natural resource values and trail access, and a nature/climate/education facilities grant program. The LAO distinguished between existing programs, which are ready to move forward, and the newer proposals, where the Legislature may want more input before funds are allocated. Members also raised concerns about park police vacancies, the need to track outcomes for accessibility investments, and whether Prop. 4 could help with wildfire-related recovery at state parks. CalRecycle then presented on SB 54, the plastics and packaging producer responsibility law, and members pressed hard on the delay in regulations. CalRecycle said it has held workshops, formed an advisory committee, selected the producer responsibility organization, and completed required baseline and covered-material reports, but needs more time to address complex comments and novel features such as source reduction and eco-modulated fees. Members expressed frustration that a statutory deadline was missed and asked for a concrete timeline; CalRecycle said it expects regulations in place by 2026, ahead of the PRO’s January 1, 2027 plan deadline. Finance said the Beverage Container Recycling Fund is currently healthy enough to support short-term loans for implementation. The committee also reviewed SB 707, the textile EPR law, which would create the nation’s first textile producer responsibility program; staff said the proposal would add positions and loan authority, and members noted the statutory deadlines for PRO approval, needs assessment, and later regulations. The hearing ended with discussion of the January Los Angeles fires’ damage to Topanga State Park and Will Rogers State Historic Park, where State Parks described extensive losses, emergency response work, and ongoing damage assessment. Members asked about FEMA eligibility, state funding sources, and community engagement in rebuilding, and the department said it is still assessing costs and will work with the public on reimagining the parks.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held a hearing focused on California Community College budget proposals. Chair Alvarez opened by emphasizing the system’s role in access, transfer, workforce training, and serving more than 2 million students, while also noting persistent challenges in enrollment, persistence, transfer, and graduation. Public commenters and system representatives broadly supported COLA, enrollment growth funding, deferred maintenance, student support block grants, and additional flexibility for districts facing uncertainty. The first major panel covered the student-centered funding formula, COLA, and enrollment growth. The Department of Finance said the Governor proposes a 2.43% COLA ($230.4 million) and 0.5% enrollment growth funding ($30.4 million). The LAO said the COLA was reasonable and recommended funding at least the proposed growth amount, citing uneven enrollment recovery and regional differences. The Chancellor’s Office supported both proposals and asked for additional changes, including using the greater of current-year or three-year average for apportionments and lifting the 10% local enrollment cap, arguing these would better fund growing districts. Members questioned how the formula works, whether SCFF is improving outcomes, and how much additional funding would be needed under different growth scenarios. The committee then reviewed categorical program COLAs, Rising Scholars, career education proposals, IT proposals, and student housing. The Governor proposed a 2.43% COLA for selected categorical programs ($31.9 million). For Rising Scholars, the Governor proposed $30 million ongoing and removal of the cap on participating colleges; the LAO urged waiting for outcome data before doubling funding, while the Chancellor’s Office said the program is serving more students and supports equity for justice-impacted students. On career education, the Governor proposed $50 million for credit for prior learning and $50 million for a career passport; the LAO supported more reporting on credit for prior learning but recommended rejecting the career passport as too undefined, while the Chancellor’s Office supported both. On technology, the Governor proposed $162.5 million for a common cloud data platform and $168 million for a common ERP system; the LAO said both were premature or lacked sufficient planning and recommended rejection, while the Chancellor’s Office argued they would improve real-time data, security, and systemwide efficiency. The committee also heard an update on student housing: the administration said the 2024 shift to a lease-revenue bond model remains in progress for 13 approved projects, with 11 still active, and members asked about withdrawn projects and possible use of any returned funds. No votes were taken, and several items were held open for further discussion and May Revision updates.

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) to examine its history, current operation, and possible future changes in California. Chair Tasha Berner said the hearing was prompted in part by AT&T’s 2023 request for relief from COLR obligations and by broader concerns about public safety, affordability, universal service, and access to modern broadband and telecommunications. The first panel featured a telecommunications expert who traced COLR back to universal service principles and explained how states have handled COLR differently, including full deregulation, limited rural obligations, or transition pathways tied to competition and customer protections. Members asked about affordability, federal and state processes for service withdrawal, and whether COLR remains necessary given modern competition. CPUC staff then described California’s COLR framework, explaining that universal service rests on access, reliability/quality, and affordability, and that COLR requires carriers to provide basic service, including voice-grade calling, 911 access, relay services, and Lifeline. Staff said AT&T’s application sought relief in nearly all of its territory, but no replacement COLR came forward during the proceeding, and public participation hearings drew thousands of comments and strong concern from rural and vulnerable customers. The CPUC outlined its ongoing rulemaking to reconsider whether the 1996 COLR rules and 2012 basic-service definition still fit current conditions, with workshops and public hearings scheduled and a proposed decision expected later in the year or into 2026. Members pressed staff on geographic outreach, wireless coverage, whether broadband can be part of basic service, public safety during wildfires, and what reporting and complaint processes currently exist. In the final panel, industry and public-interest witnesses sharply disagreed. A U.S. Telecom representative argued COLR is outdated, costly, and copper-focused, and said reform should allow technology-neutral alternatives such as wireless, fiber, and satellite while preserving reliable voice and emergency access. The CPUC Public Advocates Office countered that COLR remains a necessary public safeguard, especially for rural and low-income customers, and argued that any transition should maintain or improve service, with public benefits such as broadband investment and continued protections for 911, disability access, and affordability. Committee members focused on the difference between an obligation to serve everyone and a mere option to serve, and on whether the Legislature should provide clearer guidance as the CPUC’s rulemaking moves forward.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement met for its first hearing of the session, adopted committee rules, and heard several labor-related bills. The chair reviewed hearing procedures, including limits on testimony and expectations for orderly conduct. Members then took up measures affecting public employee bargaining, contracting, confidentiality, school employee benefits, pay stub information, and state correctional health staffing. AB 672 would require public employers to notify PERB when filing court actions involving statutes PERB administers and allow PERB to intervene; it drew support from SEIU, AFSCME, school employees, labor groups, and no opposition, and was passed out of committee. AB 283 would move IHSS bargaining from the county to the state level; providers and recipients testified about low wages, long delays in bargaining, and care access concerns, while counties and public authorities raised cost, scope, and implementation issues. The bill passed 7-0 after members discussed family care worker concerns and the author said he would continue working on the issue. AB 339 would require local governments to give unions 120 days’ notice before contracting out bargaining-unit work. Labor supporters said the bill would make existing meet-and-confer rights meaningful and protect jobs, while counties, cities, special districts, chambers of commerce, and staffing groups argued it would burden local agencies and interfere with existing MMBA procedures. The committee also heard AB 340, which would make communications between employees and union representatives confidential for PERB purposes; supporters said it codified existing case law, while school administrators, special districts, counties, and business groups warned it could hinder investigations. AB 378 would extend the classified school employees summer assistance program to JPA employees, and AB 374 would require more detailed pay stubs for classified school employees; both had labor support and some education-sector opposition over implementation and cost concerns, and both advanced. AB 393 would require cost analyses before contracting out physician work at CDCR and the Department of State Hospitals; supporters argued the state was overpaying contractors amid high vacancy rates, and the bill also advanced. At the end of the hearing, the committee recorded final votes showing AB 283, AB 340, AB 374, AB 378, AB 393, and AB 672 all passing out of committee, while AB 339 remained on hold with a 4-0 vote and some members not voting.

Summary: The California Legislature met in joint convention for the annual State of the Judiciary address, with judges and justices from across the state in attendance along with Governor Newsom and other statewide officials. The opening included prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by the formal introduction of Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero and the California Supreme Court justices. Speakers emphasized the importance of judicial independence, the courts’ role in protecting rights and democracy, and the value of collaboration between the legislative and judicial branches. Chief Justice Guerrero focused on the state of the judicial branch, beginning with budget pressures from prior cuts and noting partial restoration in the governor’s proposed budget, while urging continued stable funding for courts, court-appointed counsel, and judgeships in high-need counties. She highlighted the expansion and benefits of remote proceedings, ongoing judicial vacancies, workload growth, and efforts to improve data collection and case-weighting. She also discussed implementation of the CARE Act, the court interpreter workforce pilot, CASA and kin-first child welfare efforts, courthouse security and facilities projects, and the judiciary’s work on generative AI guardrails. A major portion of the address addressed the recent problems with the California bar exam and broader State Bar oversight. Guerrero said the court would pursue remedies for examinees harmed by the failures and would strengthen admissions oversight, including the role of the Committee of Bar Examiners. She also reiterated support for pro bono legal services and discussed immigration-related courthouse access, citing state laws limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement in courthouses. The convention concluded after remarks thanking the judiciary and Legislature, and the joint session adjourned without any recorded votes or formal legislative action.

Summary: The Assembly Arts, Entertainment, Sports, and Tourism Committee met as a subcommittee and heard three youth-sports safety bills. AB 310 would require youth sports organizations to have written emergency response plans for cardiac emergencies, maintain and test AEDs, and ensure coaches have training in AED use and CPR. The author and supporters, including the Eric Paredes Save a Life Foundation and the California chapter of the American College of Cardiology, argued the bill would save lives and build on last year’s AED requirement. Youth soccer organizations opposed the bill’s broader AED mandate on cost grounds, saying compliance could total millions statewide and could force higher dues, while asking for grants, liability protections, and public-field AED installation. The committee discussed costs and funding options, then passed AB 310 on a 9-0 vote. The committee then considered AB 437, which would add sports-related injuries, including head injuries, to the health and safety information the CIF must report to the Legislature and Governor. Support came from the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, and there was no opposition. Members said the measure would improve reporting on athlete safety and accepted technical amendments. AB 437 was approved 9-0 as amended. Finally, AB 708 would allow parents to choose soft-shelled helmet add-ons for youth football to reduce concussion risk. The author described the bill as a parental-choice and safety measure, noting studies showing reduced concussion risk. Members praised the bill as a common-sense alternative to banning the sport and emphasized that it would let families choose additional protection. There was no opposition, and the committee passed AB 708 9-0. The committee also adopted a consent calendar item with amendments before adjourning.

Summary: The Assembly Banking and Finance Committee met to hear its only agenda item, AB 493 by Assemblymember Harabedian, which would require lenders to pay interest to homeowners on post-loss insurance payouts held in escrow. The author said current law already pays interest on some escrowed funds, but excludes insurance proceeds after a loss; he argued the bill would help wildfire survivors and other homeowners rebuilding after major property damage. He noted amendments clarifying that the bill applies only to loans and only to insurance payouts still held in escrow on or after the bill’s effective date. Support came from the Consumer Federation of California, whose representative said the measure closes a loophole and would provide modest but meaningful help to homeowners facing long rebuild timelines. The California Bankers Association did not oppose the bill but raised concerns about aligning it with existing mortgage servicing law and the treatment of hazard insurance proceeds, saying it wanted to work with the author on technical issues. Committee members expressed support, emphasizing the need to help displaced homeowners access funds more quickly. The committee voted unanimously to pass AB 493 and refer it to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. The roll call showed the bill receiving eight votes, and the committee then adjourned.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee held an informational hearing on the health impacts of wildfires and the effects on health care systems and access to care. The first panel focused on public health consequences, with testimony from UCLA and UCSF physicians, a community organizer, and an Altadena recovery leader. Witnesses described acute and long-term physical harms from wildfire smoke and ash, including asthma and COPD exacerbations, cardiovascular and stroke risks, pregnancy impacts, infection risk, and possible added hazards from lithium-ion battery fires. They also emphasized mental health effects such as anxiety, depression, PTSD, “firebrain,” and the need for psychological first aid, trauma-informed community networks, and youth-focused resilience programs. Community advocates stressed that Latine, Indigenous, undocumented, and Black communities face disproportionate harm because of language barriers, unsafe work conditions, lack of insurance, and exclusion from disaster aid, and they called for stronger language access, worker protections, permanent disaster relief, and better outreach. Committee members asked about air monitoring, masks, wind events, lithium-ion batteries, and how to reach communities with translation and emergency information. Panelists said AQI is useful but incomplete, that N95s help for smoke but P100 masks are needed for ash/asbestos exposure, and that communities should be warned to stay indoors and avoid windy dust-ups after fires. They also discussed the importance of building relationships during non-emergency periods, using text alerts and trusted community organizations, and providing culturally and linguistically appropriate information. Several members and witnesses highlighted the need for more research on long-term health effects, especially for people with chronic lung disease, workers who cannot stay indoors, and residents exposed to repeated disasters. The second panel addressed health care system response and access to care. DHCS and DMHC described emergency flexibilities used during the Southern California fires, including federal waivers, extended Medi-Cal renewal deadlines, reinstated coverage for some disenrolled members, suspension of prior authorization and prescription refill barriers, out-of-network access at in-network cost-sharing, and communication through websites, toll-free numbers, and social media. Hospital and community health center leaders described major operational strain: emergency room surges, canceled surgeries, dialysis disruptions, staff displacement, temporary housing needs, and financial losses. Huntington Health and AltaMed reported using incident command systems, temporary care spaces, bilingual and culturally tailored services, mobile clinics, infection control measures, and community health workers to keep care going. Members and witnesses also discussed the need for better disaster staffing pools, more flexible facility rules, stronger mental health coverage, child care planning, and statewide coordination for future emergencies; no formal votes were taken.