Summary: The joint Sunset Review Oversight Hearing focused on the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) and its reauthorization, operations, enforcement, fiscal condition, and student protections. Committee leaders and DCA officials praised the Bureau’s recent improvements in data systems, licensing, inspections, and enforcement, while noting the Bureau’s role has become more important as federal higher education oversight weakens. Bureau Chief Deborah Cochran said the agency has met its inspection mandate for the first time since the law was enacted, increased citations and disciplinary actions, reduced pending complaints, and used data tools to identify risk and monitor institutions more effectively. A major portion of the hearing centered on student harm, especially school closures, transcript access, predatory recruiting, and the Student Tuition Recovery Fund (STRF). Members asked how the Bureau protects students when schools close, whether bad actors can reopen under new entities, and whether enforcement tools are strong enough. Cochran said the Bureau can cite, fine, place schools on probation, revoke licenses, and order refunds, but it is seeking new authority to deny approval to operators who previously closed schools improperly or failed to refund students. She also said the Bureau is tracking ownership data and is concerned about institutions targeting immigrant and visa students. On STRF, Cochran explained that the fund is currently healthy, assessments are at zero because the balance is above the statutory target, and the Bureau paid about 1,100 claims totaling roughly $17 million over the last four years. Several members questioned the fairness of the assessment structure and discussed alternatives such as surety bonds, but the Bureau said STRF is working well and no change is needed at this time. Fee increases and the Bureau’s structural deficit were another major topic. Cochran said the Bureau reduced costs by eliminating positions, streamlining inspections, improving data analysis, and shifting some student-relief costs to STRF, but that legislative action is still needed to address the deficit. She said the proposed fees were based on workload analyses and that application fees generally match service costs, while annual fees are designed to cover most of the Bureau’s revenue needs. Some members and stakeholders criticized the proposed increases as too high, especially for out-of-state registration and campus fees, while others argued the Bureau needs sufficient resources to regulate effectively. Public commenters from private schools, Northeastern University, San Joaquin Valley College/Carrington College, and TICAS generally supported the Bureau’s mission and reauthorization, but urged changes such as risk-based oversight, better transcript protections, stronger limits on repeated provisional approvals, and more targeted fee and STRF reforms. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended with no formal action beyond discussion and receipt of testimony.

Summary: The committee first heard SB 1091, which would create the Community Anti-Displacement and Preservation Program within HCD to help nonprofit developers, community organizations, and local governments acquire unsubsidized rental housing and preserve it as affordable housing or homeownership opportunities. The author and supporters from Enterprise Community Partners, the Unity Council, and several housing and tenant groups argued that acquisition-preservation is a proven, cost-effective way to prevent displacement and homelessness. There was no opposition testimony. Members discussed funding, with the author and chair noting the bill is intended to be supported through the housing bond or other appropriations. The committee voted the bill do pass to Judiciary, with broad support and no recorded opposition. The committee then took up SB 904, which would codify and expand the wildfire rebuilding coordination and permitting streamlining used after the Los Angeles-area fires, including HCD-led review of permitting and code barriers and reporting on recovery lessons. The author said the bill is meant to speed rebuilding after future wildfire disasters and avoid repeated delays seen in places like the Camp Fire. Members raised concerns about the cost and repetition of requiring multiple agencies to produce reports after each disaster, and about e-permitting mandates for smaller jurisdictions. The author responded that the bill is meant to capture lessons from different fire contexts and that some concerns could be addressed with amendments. The bill was moved do pass to Emergency Management and was reported out with sufficient votes, though kept on call. Finally, the committee heard SB 1007, which would change HOA assessment rules by tying annual increases to inflation rather than allowing up to 20% increases, and would require clearer annual budget disclosures and evidence for fines. The author and supporters said the bill would improve transparency and protect homeowners from steep fee hikes, while opponents from community manager and HOA industry groups warned it could underfund reserves, force larger special assessments, and add duplicative paperwork. Several senators expressed support for the bill’s goals but raised concerns about the inflation cap, the need for flexibility for insurance and maintenance costs, and the visual-aid disclosure requirement. The author said amendments are forthcoming and that the bill will look different in the next committee; no final vote is reflected in the excerpt provided.

Summary: The Emergency Management Committee held an oversight hearing on California’s Next Generation 911 rollout, focusing on Cal OES’s decision to move away from the original regional vendor model toward a statewide provider model. Cal OES said the regional architecture created complexity at the boundaries between regions, leading to misrouted calls, transfer problems, and degraded audio, and that a statewide model would better align with national standards and provide a more reliable, secure system. The Legislative Analyst’s Office urged the Legislature to pause further implementation until it has more information on the problems, tradeoffs, costs, and oversight needs, and recommended stronger reporting and possibly independent technical review before proceeding. Committee members pressed Cal OES on accountability, cost, testing, vendor selection, and whether the current system is safe. Cal OES said the project has cost about $456 million so far, most of it recurring service fees, and that 23 PSAPs had transitioned voice traffic while more than 440 total PSAPs remain in the state. Officials said the current system is operating, that a pause would not put the public at risk, and that the statewide conversion could be completed by summer 2030. Members and the LAO raised concerns about whether Cal OES has enough technical oversight and whether contract language alone is sufficient to prevent repeat problems. The vendor panel largely defended the regional model and argued that the existing system is already built, tested, and ready to expand. NGA 911, Synergem, Lumen, and Atos said the regional architecture provides redundancy and resilience, that early problems were often tied to legacy-system integration, carrier issues, or training rather than the regional design itself, and that a statewide redesign would add cost and delay. Atos said it serves as the statewide backbone and backup and has already carried live traffic, while vendors emphasized that they support continued modernization but believe California should build on the current regional investment rather than replace it.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee met on March 17 and first approved a consent calendar of several bills, then heard AB 1540 by Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez, which would restore the 988 “Press 3” LGBTQ youth crisis line. Supporters, including suicide prevention advocates, behavioral health groups, and local governments, argued the service is a vital, identity-affirming suicide prevention tool for LGBTQ youth. Opponents, including detransitioners and conservative advocacy groups, argued it would steer vulnerable youth toward organizations they viewed as harmful. The committee approved the bill on a due-pass-as-amended motion to the Communications and Conveyance Committee, with several no votes; the bill was later held on call and then advanced. The committee next heard AB 1671 by Assemblymember Tangipa, creating a Rural Medical Provider Grant Program to help providers serving rural communities with operational costs, equipment, workforce needs, and related expenses. Supporters said the bill would help retain providers and improve access in areas where patients travel long distances for care; committee members also discussed telehealth as an important rural access tool. The bill passed on a due-pass-as-amended motion to Appropriations. The committee then took up AB 1876 by Assemblymember Addis, the Fair Care for All Act, which would codify federal health care nondiscrimination protections into California law, including protections related to race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, and gender identity. Supporters said the bill is needed because federal protections are vulnerable to rollback and because patients, especially transgender and intersex Californians, face coverage denials and care disruptions. Opponents argued the bill would force coverage of gender-affirming care and raised concerns about detransitioning. The committee approved the bill on a due-pass motion to Judiciary, with some no votes, and later held it on call before it advanced. Finally, the committee heard AB 1629 by Assemblymember Haney, which would require dental plans to honor assignment-of-benefits requests and improve reporting on network adequacy. Supporters said the bill would reduce upfront costs for patients and improve transparency, while opponents, including Delta Dental and dental plan groups, warned it could weaken networks and increase out-of-pocket costs. After discussion about network participation and patient access, the committee passed the bill on a due-pass motion to Appropriations. The committee then completed the remaining votes, including the consent items, and adjourned.

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee met for a policy hearing on several higher education bills. AB 1534 (Irwin) would create a California approval process for short-term workforce Pell Grant programs; supporters said it would expand access to job training with consumer protections, while a neutral witness urged more work on implementation. Members raised concerns about the bill’s $4,000 tuition cap, but the measure passed 5-1 with an urgency clause and was sent to Labor and Employment. AB 1831 (Irwin) would cap compensation for certain CSU administrators, bar raises in years when tuition rises, and repeal a 2025 executive pay resolution; the author said she would amend the bill to remove retroactive repeal, narrow the scope, and clarify that it applies to base salary and non-represented managers. CFA, students, and labor groups supported the bill as an accountability measure, while CSU opposed it, arguing the cap would hurt recruitment and retention. The committee approved the bill 4-1-3 and sent it to Appropriations. The committee also advanced AB 1555 (Hadwick), which would allow up to 200 students to qualify for in-state tuition at College of the Siskiyous under a cross-border regional arrangement; it passed unanimously to Appropriations. AB 1552 (Jackson), requiring the community colleges and CSU and requesting UC to report recommendations on civic engagement and democracy education, also passed to Appropriations after some members objected that such programs could be used for partisan activity. AB 1829, which expands CalWORKs student-parent support by allowing more direct aid and waiving a 25% work-study employer match at the colleges’ discretion, passed 8-1 and was re-referred to Human Services. The committee later added on consent items and adjourned after announcing its next hearing date.

Summary: The committee heard two education-related bills. AB 1572, by Assembly Member Alanis, would require the California Interscholastic Federation to conduct annual reviews of sports officials’ safety training and qualifications and create an online system for schools to verify certification status. The author and CIF support argued it would improve transparency, accountability, and student-athlete safety; one late witness opposed the bill, criticizing CIF policies more broadly. The bill was moved forward on a due-pass motion and ultimately passed the committee 9-0. AB 1665, by Assembly Member Pacheco, would require school coaches to complete a California Department of Education-approved mental health training course. The author and supporters, including a former athlete and representatives from hospitals, professional sports teams, and psychiatrists, said coaches are often the first adults to notice mental health struggles and should be better equipped to respond. Opponents argued the bill could be used to advance gender-identity policies and questioned the need for additional training. Committee members in support said the bill was important for student mental health and that coaches already receive other safety training. The bill was amended and passed the committee 9-0. The chair also noted committee procedures at the start, including limits on witnesses and testimony time, and welcomed the new committee secretary. After both items were taken up and roll calls completed, the committee adjourned for the day.

Summary: The Assembly Judiciary Committee heard several bills, with AB 1827 by Assemblymember Chen proposing to raise the small claims court limit for small businesses from $6,250 to $15,000 and allow up to three filings per year. The author and supporters from the California Association of Collectors said the change would help small businesses recover unpaid invoices and minor contract disputes without costly civil litigation, while preserving the informal small claims process. The committee noted some Judicial Council concerns, but there was no opposition testimony, and the bill later passed out of committee to Appropriations. The committee also heard AB 1916 by Assemblymember Lee, which would include American Sign Language interpreters in the Trial Court Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act so they can participate in collective bargaining like other certified court interpreters. Supporters, including the California Federation of Interpreters and court interpreters, described recruitment and retention problems, limited representation, and a shortage of ASL interpreters in the courts. Members expressed support for improving representation and access for deaf and hard-of-hearing court users, and the bill passed to Appropriations. AB 1977 by Assemblymember Irwin, presented by Assemblymember Pacheco, was described as a technical cleanup bill for California’s remote online notarization law, correcting ambiguities and conforming provisions to help the Secretary of State implement the program. The Secretary of State’s office supported the measure and said it would clarify procedures and digital seal authentication, while members raised questions about platform and renewal fees and one concern about a fee for terminated sessions; the sponsor indicated that provision could be removed. The bill was approved and sent to Appropriations. The committee also adopted a consent calendar containing several other bills and later established quorum to take recorded votes before adjourning.

Summary: The hearing focused on online safety controls and whether parental controls are sufficient to protect children on social media and other digital platforms. The chair and several members framed the issue as a child safety and public health problem, not just a technology issue, and said the goal was to understand what parental controls do, where they fail, and what policy solutions might be needed. Opening remarks also emphasized that California should lead on safer online spaces for children. Victoria and Paul Hinks gave emotional testimony about the death of their daughter, Alexandra, saying that despite using screen time limits, content filters, app restrictions, and other parental controls, their daughter was still exposed to harmful content and found ways around the settings. Researchers and advocates from Stanford, Children Now, and other organizations said parents face major challenges because digital parenting is complicated, platforms and apps change constantly, children can bypass controls, and many tools are costly or inaccessible. They argued that parental controls are often incomplete, hard to use, and not enough on their own to prevent harms such as cyberbullying, self-harm content, eating disorder content, and exploitation. Witnesses also discussed broader risks in digital spaces, including mental health harms, addiction, fentanyl-related contact through social media, and concerns about AI chatbots. Several speakers said safety should be built into products from the start, with stronger age assurance, clearer reporting systems, independent standards, and corporate accountability. Members asked about what “safe” means, whether other countries’ restrictions are effective, and which features are most harmful. There was broad agreement that no single tool is enough and that multiple layers of protection are needed. The final panel featured representatives from Meta, Google, OpenAI, and Roblox, who described their companies’ teen safety features and parental tools. They pointed to default protections for minors, content limits, bedtime and screen-time tools, age assurance efforts, and new parent notifications for certain self-harm searches. They also supported legislation on age assurance and app-store parental approval. Members pressed the companies on whether their tools are truly effective, and several witnesses acknowledged that current systems still have gaps and that more work is needed.

Summary: The committee heard several public safety and privacy bills, with extensive testimony on each. AB 1872 by Assembly Member Ta would make repeat swatting a wobbler and require offenders to compensate victims for property damage. Supporters, including civil liberties, sheriff, and district attorney representatives, said swatting is a serious and growing threat to first responders, schools, and public officials. Opponents argued existing law already covers false emergency reports and warned the bill could worsen penalties for people with mental illness. The committee approved the bill on a do pass motion to Appropriations. AB 1727, also by Assembly Member Ta, would make it a misdemeanor to transfer or sell a person’s genetic data without consent. Supporters framed the bill as a needed privacy protection in light of advances in genetic technology and AI, citing examples such as HeLa cells and concerns about unauthorized DNA collection. Opponents, including ACLU Cal Action, said civil penalties already exist under current law and objected to creating a new carceral offense for nonviolent conduct. The committee accepted amendments and moved the bill forward as amended to the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. The committee then took up AB 1782 by Assembly Member DeMaio, which would lower the threshold for retaining certain offenders with mental health disorders in state hospital custody and broaden the conduct considered in dangerousness determinations. Supporters said the bill responds to a recent release case and would help prevent dangerous releases; opponents, including disability rights and public defender groups, said it would weaken due process and expand involuntary confinement. The chair recommended a no vote, and the bill remained on call after a split roll. AB 1632 by Assembly Member Johnson, which removes the notarization requirement for trespass authorization letters, passed as amended despite opposition from homelessness advocates and public defenders who said it could increase arrests of unhoused people; supporters said it would reduce bureaucracy and help property owners and police respond to trespassing. The committee also heard AB 1968 by Assembly Member Gallagher, which would add conspiracy to commit murder to the list of offenses eligible for heightened juvenile court handling; supporters cited a foiled school attack in Tehama County, while opponents warned of overbroad punishment and racial disparities. The bill was discussed but not yet voted on in the portion provided.

Summary: The committee heard presentations on several bills and one resolution, with testimony largely focused on public safety, criminal justice, and victim/survivor protections. SB 936 by Senator Blakespear would restrict retail sale of larger nitrous oxide canisters to curb youth misuse and impaired driving; supporters included prosecutors, local officials, cities, counties, and environmental groups, while the ACLU opposed the bill unless amended to rely on regulation rather than criminal penalties. Members raised concerns about overbreadth and possible amendments, but the author said the bill would be narrowed and emphasized it would not create jail time, only escalating fines. SB 941 by Senator Padilla would cap commissary markups in private federal immigration detention facilities, mirroring a prior prison commissary law; it drew strong support from immigrant justice advocates and civil rights groups, with no opposition heard, and members expressed support for the measure. SCR 118 by Senator Gonzalez urged release of unclassified Jeffrey Epstein investigation files and greater transparency for survivors. The author and CAST testified in support, emphasizing survivor trauma and accountability; one committee member voiced concern that the resolution could imply facts not yet established and said he would likely abstain, while others supported the resolution as part of broader anti-trafficking efforts. SB 1009 by Senator Becker would require clear and convincing evidence before detaining youth in juvenile hall and would favor less restrictive alternatives; supporters included youth defenders, former system-involved youth, and many advocacy organizations, while probation and district attorneys opposed it, arguing it would limit judicial discretion, strain resources, and could jeopardize public safety. Members were split, with some emphasizing the harms of detention and others warning about home-environment risks and implementation challenges. AB 46 by Assembly Member Nguyen would revise mental health diversion law to give judges clearer authority to deny diversion when public safety is at risk. Support came from prosecutors, probation, and crime survivors who described cases where diverted defendants later committed serious violence; opposition from public defenders and civil rights groups argued that judges already have discretion, diversion is rarely granted, and the bill would reduce access to treatment and worsen outcomes. The author said the bill was a balanced compromise developed with stakeholders. Finally, SB 948 by Senator Aegean would require more comprehensive firearm safety training for firearm safety certificates and require new California residents to register firearms and obtain a certificate within 60 days; supporters from Brady and youth gun-violence prevention groups cited accidental shootings and child deaths, and the author noted possible future amendments on timing for new residents. Throughout the hearing, the chair repeatedly noted the committee lacked a quorum, so no votes were taken during the transcript.

Summary: The joint informational hearing examined how California agricultural programs have used cap-and-invest funding and what role agriculture should play in future climate investments. Committee chairs framed the issue as balancing climate goals, food production, rural economic vitality, and the fact that agriculture was not specifically funded in the recent cap-and-invest reauthorization. The first panel from CDFA and the Legislative Analyst’s Office described the state’s climate-smart agriculture portfolio, including Healthy Soils, SWEEP, the Dairy Methane Reduction Program, and Alternative Manure Management, and explained that GGRF revenues are now more constrained and may not fully support all tiered programs. LAO emphasized that agriculture is about 8% of California’s emissions, that most ag emissions are outside the cap, and that the Legislature should consider program effectiveness, the role of incentives, and GGRF priorities. CDFA testified that roughly $727 million has been invested in its flagship climate-smart ag programs, producing estimated reductions of 31 million metric tons of CO2e, 1.6 million acre-feet of water savings, and about 4,000 projects. The department said technical assistance is essential because farmers face risk when adopting new practices, and noted new Proposition 4 funding for Healthy Soils, SWEEP, and a regional farm equipment sharing program. University researchers then presented economic and methane-reduction analyses: UC Berkeley’s Dr. Hill described working landscapes as a major economic driver, while UC Davis’ Dr. Kibreab outlined dairy methane reduction pathways, including herd efficiency, digesters, alternative manure management, and emerging feed additives such as 3-NOP and seaweed, arguing that incentive-based programs have helped California move toward its methane goals. A later panel featured sharply different views on dairy digesters. Phoebe Seton argued that digesters worsen air and water quality, encourage manure liquefaction, and are an inefficient use of public funds, while CalCAN’s Brian Schobey and agricultural representatives said programs like AMP, SWEEP, Healthy Soils, FPIP, and the Farmer Program deliver measurable emissions reductions plus co-benefits such as water savings, lower energy costs, and improved air quality. Farm and industry witnesses stressed that stable, incentive-based funding helps family farms remain viable, supports co-investment, and should be treated as a partnership rather than a regulatory stick. No votes or formal actions were taken; the hearing ended with public comment and a continued call for future funding and policy discussion.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Public Safety met on March 17, 2026, with no quorum at the start and throughout much of the hearing, so bills were presented and discussed but no final votes were taken. The committee heard SB 936 on nitrous oxide sales, SB 941 on commissary price caps in private immigration detention facilities, SCR 118 urging release of Jeffrey Epstein-related files, SB 1009 on juvenile detention standards, AB 46 on mental health diversion, and SB 948 on firearm safety training and registration for new residents. The chair explained public comment procedures and noted that SB 891 was on consent, but the transcript focused on the other measures. SB 936 drew strong support from the author, prosecutors, local officials, and public health/environmental groups, who described rising misuse of flavored large nitrous oxide canisters, youth targeting, impaired driving crashes, deaths, and waste disposal costs. Opposition from the ACLU argued the bill was too broad and should use a regulatory rather than criminal approach, warning about overreach into ordinary household items. Members generally expressed support, though some asked for narrowing amendments to avoid unintended coverage. SB 941 was presented as a cap on markups for commissary goods sold to detainees in privately run federal immigration detention facilities, modeled on prior prison commissary limits. Supporters described severe price inflation for basic necessities and the burden on families, while no opposition testified. SCR 118, calling for full release of unclassified Epstein investigation files, was supported by the author, a survivor statement, and anti-trafficking advocates; one member objected that the resolution could implicate people without full facts, while others emphasized transparency and survivor accountability. SB 1009 and AB 46 both centered on criminal justice discretion: SB 1009 would require clear and convincing evidence before detaining youth and was supported by defenders and youth advocates but opposed by probation and district attorneys who warned about public safety and resource constraints; AB 46 would narrow mental health diversion by allowing judges to deny diversion when public safety is at risk, with prosecutors and victims’ families supporting it and public defenders, ACLU, and behavioral health groups opposing it as an unnecessary restriction on treatment. SB 948 would expand firearm safety certificate requirements to include live-fire training and require new California residents to register firearms within 60 days; the author and gun-safety advocates supported it as a common-sense safety measure, and the hearing moved into support testimony as the transcript ended.

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on SB 868, the Plug and Play Solar Act, which would streamline approvals for portable plug-in solar devices while setting safety standards. The author and supporters argued the bill would help renters and homeowners with high electricity bills by allowing low-cost balcony solar systems to reduce monthly costs, and they emphasized that the devices would not feed power back to the grid. Supporters included environmental and consumer groups, solar advocates, and many members of the public. Opponents, including electrical workers, firefighters, utilities, and PG&E, raised concerns about shock, fire, overloading, and the need for California-specific building standards. After discussion, the author agreed to committee amendments and later to add compliance with the California Electrical Code in addition to the National Electrical Code; several opponents said that change would move them to neutral. The committee then voted to pass SB 868 out as amended to Senate Judiciary, with some members expressing support while reserving concerns about safety as the bill moves forward. The committee then took up SB 886, dealing with data center electricity use and ratepayer protections. The author said the bill is intended to prevent large data centers from shifting grid and infrastructure costs onto other customers, citing rapid growth in data center demand and examples from other states. Supporters, including TURN and climate groups, said the bill would require data centers to pay for their own grid impacts, pre-fund long-term clean energy resources, participate in demand response, and cover related costs. Opponents from the data center industry, tech and business groups, utilities, and some energy users argued the bill was unnecessary, could duplicate CPUC processes, and could create discriminatory rate treatment or operational problems, especially around mandatory demand response and limits on backup generation. Committee staff described amendments narrowing the bill to large data centers, clarifying tariff and cost-allocation provisions, replacing a storage requirement with a long-term zero-carbon procurement mechanism, and exempting certain public and utility facilities. Members discussed the balance between affordability, reliability, and clean energy, with the bill framed as a way to protect ratepayers while allowing data center growth.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Keywords: 988, house, all