Transcript Highlights:

• yet have these standards for WUI disasters.
• There were no testing standards, public health standards that actually defined when it is safe to go
• While there should be a standard, I agree, and I think industry wants a lot of standards and so forth
• In the commercial context, there are standards for how workforce exposure is, occupational exposure standards
• They use international standards like ISCC Plus.

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on AB 2218, which would declare state policy to recognize and address water-related inequities affecting California Native American tribes and require several state agencies to incorporate that policy into water-related decisions. The author and tribal witnesses said the bill would codify a seat at the table for tribes and build on existing consultation and equity commitments, while supporters from environmental and tribal organizations backed the measure. Opponents from municipal utilities, water agencies, cities, counties, agriculture, and business groups argued the bill was too vague, could create uncertainty for water supply and project approvals, and might invite litigation. The chair signaled support, and the author said the bill was intended as a consultation measure rather than one that would usurp agency authority. The committee then took up AB 1795, a wildfire smoke-damage bill that would establish statewide standards for inspecting, testing, and remediating smoke-damaged homes and create clearer insurance claim handling rules. The Department of Insurance supported the bill, saying it would bring consistency and accountability after major urban-interface fires, while wildfire survivors and advocates said current insurer practices leave families unable to safely return home. Insurance and local government groups opposed unless amended, warning about cost, implementation uncertainty, and the bill’s scope. Members discussed unresolved issues, including how the bill would interact with a separate wildfire health-and-safety bill, whether it would apply to existing policies, and how presumptions and testing standards should work. The committee voted AB 1795 out on a due pass as amended motion to Appropriations. AB 1642, another wildfire-related bill, was also heard and focused on setting science-based testing and clearance standards for homes, schools, and businesses after urban and wildland-urban interface fires. The author and a Caltech scientist described contamination from lead and other heavy metals in fire-affected homes and argued for a presumption that certain contaminants found after a fire came from the wildfire, to reduce costly disputes. Survivors and many advocacy groups supported the bill, while insurers and other industry groups opposed, saying the testing regime was too broad, the geographic scope was unclear, and the presumptions could function like strict liability and raise insurance costs. Senators pressed both sides on how AB 1642 would overlap with the CDI smoke-claims task force and with AB 1795, and the author said the two bills were intended to be complementary and would continue to be reconciled. The committee also briefly heard AB 1976, which would create a CEQA exemption for pedestrian malls and limit certain local procedural delays for pedestrian and traffic-calming projects. Supporters said it would make it easier to create safer, more walkable, and more livable streets, and there was no opposition testimony. The chair described it as a narrow CEQA exemption for active transportation-related projects and indicated support. The committee then moved on to AB 2026, a groundwater recharge permitting bill, with the author explaining that it would streamline permitting so more recharge projects can capture floodwater and store it for drought years; testimony on that bill began as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• And for that reason, it's been defined as non-standard amongst those association standards.
• And for that reason, it's been defined as non-standard amongst those association standards.
• ANSI standards.
• for the NENA standards?
• So the standards that you all have, do the plans meet the standards that you have?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionality standards, Chair Randolph discussed, there is no consistent additionality standard in the
• You see in multiple states now with low carbon fuel standards and proposed low carbon fuel standards.
• the standard.
• and low-carbon fuel standards.
• and low-carbon fuel standards.

Summary: The hearing was a select committee discussion on the transportation costs and impacts of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with opening remarks from the co-chairs and members emphasizing affordability, climate goals, and the need to explain the program’s benefits to the public. The first panel from CARB and the California Energy Commission described how LCFS works as a market-based, declining carbon-intensity program that rewards lower-carbon fuels, supports zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and is intended to reduce greenhouse gases and local air pollution. They argued the program has driven billions in private investment, increased alternative fuel use, and that LCFS credit prices are not the main driver of retail gasoline prices, which they said are dominated by crude oil, refining, and distribution costs. Members questioned the panel on the gap between the regulatory target and actual carbon-intensity performance, the role of credit banking, which fuels are generating the most credits, how the 2025 amendments affected the program, and whether LCFS credits are truly additional. CARB explained that banking helps cost-effectiveness and investment certainty, that ethanol, renewable diesel, and biodiesel currently provide the largest volumes while electricity is expected to grow, and that the updated targets were informed by the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goals and the 2030 scoping plan. The Energy Commission said its data show environmental programs add some cost to gasoline but do not drive price volatility, which is mainly tied to crude oil and refinery margins. The second panel, featuring academic and research experts, focused on program design, out-of-state credit generation, and broader economic effects. Speakers said LCFS is successful because it ties incentives to emissions benefit, uses life-cycle analysis, and allows flexible compliance that lowers costs compared with more direct regulation. They also said the program’s benefits generally outweigh costs, that it can reduce air pollution disparities and support equity, but that some issues—especially indirect land use change, additionality, and older program assumptions—need more research and may warrant future rulemaking. One researcher noted that while LCFS likely raises gasoline prices somewhat, the effect is uncertain by design and usually smaller than normal market fluctuations, and another warned that limiting credit generation too narrowly could create legal and efficiency problems.

Transcript Highlights:

• I believe the bill does mention the standard, and that standard had five guiding principles: it is secure
• was had uh standard and uh that standard was had uh five<00:07:35.400><c> guiding</c><00:07:35.840><
• I just did a quick search on that standard, the ISO standard, and it does exist.
• I just did a quick search on that standard, the ISO standard, and it does exist.
• </c><00:25:56.600><c> the</c> did a quick search on that standard the did a quick search on that standard

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• There is a standard evidentiary standard in place that also makes me question the necessity of this bill
• </c><00:08:39.360><c> also</c> evidentiary standard in place that also evidentiary standard in place
• </c> new evidentiary standard new evidentiary standard basically<00:21:45.559><c> um</c><00:21:45.840
• So does the EPA not abide by that standard, a legal standard, as opposed to a standard that's incorporated
• </c><00:24:45.720><c> in</c> EPA can agree to that standard in EPA can agree to that standard in various

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:44 Introduction of Guests 01:21 HB 137 Discussion 02:11 HB 137 Roll Call Vote 25:35 HB 346 Discussion 26:15 HB 346 Roll Call Vote 27:24, 958, all

Summary: The Natural Resources Committee met with prayer and the Pledge, approved the prior minutes, and recognized visiting guests, including representatives from Nucor Steel and students from Eastern Kentucky University. The main business was House Bill 137, which would require air-pollution enforcement actions by the Energy and Environment Cabinet and Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District to rely on EPA-approved monitoring methods or scientifically defensible, quality-assured data. The sponsor and industry supporters argued the bill would ensure reliable evidence and protect manufacturers from enforcement based on questionable data. Opponents, including the Kentucky Resources Council, the West Jefferson County Community Task Force, and a former cabinet employee, argued the bill would conflict with the Clean Air Act’s allowance for “any credible evidence,” could exclude community air-monitoring data and citizen complaints, and might weaken enforcement by limiting the use of lower-cost sensors, photos, video, and other nontraditional evidence. Committee members questioned how credible evidence and the Daubert standard would apply, and supporters and opponents debated whether the bill would simply set evidentiary rules or improperly narrow enforcement authority. One member also raised concerns that the bill’s title and scope could be read as affecting the broader air program. House Bill 137 was ultimately approved favorably by roll call vote, with Senator Webb’s aye vote later clarified for the record. The committee then took up House Bill 346, as amended by a subcommittee. The bill was described as helping about 708 companies and carving out emergency generators used for safety purposes in distilleries, with support from the Kentucky Chamber. The subcommittee amendment was adopted, and the bill passed the committee favorably by roll call vote. The meeting ended with an attempted adjournment and a brief record correction on the vote for House Bill 137.

Transcript Highlights:

• Some states, shockingly, have maybe lower standards.
• But I think with the current reciprocity law, the current standards, we have good standards in the state
• Law, the current standards, we have good standards in the state. And we should be proud of it.
• This section is that gold standard we talk about.
• with you, they are very good standards.

Summary: The Committee on Professional Registration and Licensing met in executive session and first approved House Bill 1963 by a 16-0 vote, then later revisited it and again voted do pass by consent, 19-0. The committee also approved a House Committee Substitute for House Bill 3129 by a 14-0 vote with two present, after discussion that the substitute clarified the use of the term “physician assistant” and required practice under Missouri statute. In public hearing, House Bill 2300 was presented as a workforce bill creating a temporary two-year Missouri licensing path for experienced out-of-state workers whose prior states did not license their occupation. Supporters said it would help workers in fields such as makeup artistry and interior design enter the Missouri workforce without starting over, while still requiring passage of Missouri exams and excluding applicants with disciplinary issues. Some members raised concerns about the bill’s broad reach into Chapter 324 professions and whether it should be narrowed to avoid affecting highly regulated fields. House Bill 1813 was then heard as a narrower “carve-out” for the Board of Architects, Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Landscape Architects. The sponsor and the Missouri Society of Professional Engineers said it would correct unintended consequences of a 2020 reciprocity law that had allowed some applicants who did not meet Missouri’s education or experience standards to be licensed; they cited data showing a significant number of reciprocity licenses issued since 2020. Opponents argued the bill would create barriers to work and give the board too much discretion, while supporters said it was needed to protect public safety and restore Missouri’s standards. Finally, House Bill 2649 was heard to extend reciprocity to licenses from the United Kingdom. The sponsor said it was intended to strengthen Missouri’s relationship with the U.K. and help workers with U.K. credentials, but members and witnesses quickly noted that because the bill used Chapter 324 language, it could affect many professions, including medical fields. The Missouri State Medical Association opposed the bill unless health care professions were carved out, and committee members expressed confusion about the scope before the hearing concluded with no further action on the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Definitions and testing standards.
• requirements with export standards.
• Thompson, so looking at the standards that Ms.
• Thompson about the seed standards not having a particular date, and then we have other standards that
• Thompson referenced is these seed standards.

Summary: The Senate Agricultural Committee approved the January 27, 2026 minutes and then reviewed several Idaho State Department of Agriculture rules. Andrea Thompson presented updates to seed production and distribution rules, explaining that the changes mainly clean up redundant language, incorporate national and international testing standards by reference, and remove outdated rapeseed/canola and bluegrass district requirements that industry said were no longer necessary. She also outlined updates to commercial feed, fertilizer, and soil/plant amendment licensing rules to reflect the 2026 editions of AAFCO and related publications, and described bean planting rule changes clarifying that edible bean seed planted in Idaho must have approved green tags. The committee also heard temporary and pending invasive species rules tied to Snake River quagga mussel response and the addition of golden mussel to Idaho’s emergency invasive species list; members asked about the temporary-rule process and whether the standards should have publication dates, and staff explained the need for rolling updates and immediate quarantine authority. The committee said it would vote on the rules later in the week. The committee then received a presentation from Deputy Director Lloyd Knight on Idaho’s authorities for dealing with pests and invasive species, prompted by recent discussion about rats. He explained that the Plant Pest Act and Invasive Species Act give the department broad authority over pests such as Japanese beetle, grasshoppers, Mormon crickets, quagga/zebra mussels, and other listed species, but that some problems may be better handled through county abatement districts or other local tools. Senators asked about Mormon cricket response in rural counties, coordination with federal land managers, and whether a GIS-based public reporting system could be used for rat sightings; Knight said the department could likely build a low-cost reporting tool and that response options depend on land ownership, funding, and statutory direction. Brett Wilder of the University of Idaho then briefed the committee on the financial condition of Idaho agriculture. He said agriculture and agribusiness account for a significant share of Idaho’s economy, with livestock performing relatively well while crop producers face heavy pressure from high input costs, low commodity prices, and weak credit conditions. He noted record or near-record cash receipts overall, but emphasized that sugar beets and other crops are under strain, that export markets remain important, and that government payments are unlikely to solve the structural problems. Senators asked about sugar beet imports, market distortions, demand trends, and the likely impact of federal bridge payments; Wilder said the payments would help cash flow but would mostly go to existing debts and would not resolve the broader oversupply and profitability issues. The meeting adjourned after the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a very good livestock standard board with standards. We were very proactive on that.
• We have a very good livestock standard board with standards. We were very proactive on that.
• "We have a very good livestock standard board with standards. We were very proactive on that.
• </c> standards that we follow nationally? standards that we follow nationally?
• </c><00:31:11.760><c> I've</c> our livestock standard of care. I've our livestock standard of care.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00 Attendance Roll Call: 00:32 SB 155 Discussion: 03:00 SB 155 Roll Call Vote: 07:50 SB 45 Discussion: 08:39 SB 45 Roll Call Vote: 36:00, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , my Red Book standards and the generally accepted government auditing standards, or the Yellow Book
• in the particular requirements of those standards.
• I won't go into the standards because the Yellow Book standards is, I think, several hundred pages long
• in the particular requirements of those standards. sets of standards and so there are a lot of differences
• in the particular requirements of those standards which I won't go into because the yellow book standards

Keywords: 907, all

Summary: The Joint Interim Committee on Legislative Audits met on June 17 for informational presentations. The Department of Administrative Services, through Chief Audit Executive Eli Ritchie, gave an overview of statewide internal audit requirements and the fiscal year 2025 report. He explained the difference between internal and external audit, described Oregon’s statutory and rule-based internal audit structure, and reported that 30 agencies had internal audit functions, with most meeting required standards. He said 73 audits and 49 advisory/consulting engagements were completed statewide, with strong compliance overall, though a few agencies were rebuilding audit committees after vacancies. No committee questions were raised after the presentation. The Secretary of State’s Audits Division then presented its Government Waste Hotline annual report. Director Steve Bergman and audit manager Olivia Rekhed described changes made to align the hotline with statute, including renaming it the Government Waste Hotline, creating a review panel, improving anonymity protections, removing fraud reporting from the hotline’s scope, and adjusting reporting timelines. They said hotline volume increased modestly in 2025, most reports were referred elsewhere or closed for insufficient evidence, and two reports were substantiated, including questioned costs of about $856 for personal use of a state vehicle and about $2.9 million tied to the Preschool Promise program. Committee members asked about hotline staffing, cost, anonymity, and follow-up on findings; staff said the hotline is lightly resourced, uses a contracted intake service, and referrals or recommendations are followed up through management letters and later reviews. The committee also heard an audit of the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department’s safety inspections and asset tracking. The Secretary of State’s office reported that OPRD had not consistently conducted or documented quarterly OSHA safety inspections and had incomplete asset records, including missing acquisition dates and costs for many assets. The audit made eight recommendations covering safety inspection policies, asset management guidance, tagging, reconciliations, disposition controls, training, and a new asset management system; OPRD agreed to all recommendations. OPRD officials said they had already begun training staff, improving inspection procedures, and working toward a replacement asset system, while noting operational challenges from a large, dispersed park system and manual processes. Committee members asked about what kinds of assets are tracked, how tagging works, whether items were actually being lost, and how much tracking is necessary for low-value tools; OPRD said the main issue was inconsistent classification and documentation rather than widespread loss. The meeting ended with no votes or formal actions taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• With the absence of these clear standards...
• standards are being finalized.
• Everyone agreed: California needs uniform, science-based standards.
• In fact, the absence of standards is what drives litigation today.
• In fact, the absence of standards is what drives litigation today.

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee met as a subcommittee at first because a quorum was not initially present, then later established a quorum and heard several bills. The main special-order item was AB 1795 (Gibson), which would create statewide standards for testing, inspection, and remediation of wildfire smoke damage in homes, with CalEPA and public health agencies developing science-based standards and insurers required to follow new claims-handling timelines. Supporters, including Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and wildfire survivors, said the bill would bring consistency and safety; insurers and consumer groups generally supported the concept but sought further amendments on scope, standards, and claim handling. The committee voted do pass as amended and refer AB 1795 to Appropriations, with the roll held open for later additions. The committee also considered AB 1576 (Ortega) on the Subsequent Injury Benefit Trust Fund, which would make changes intended to reduce litigation and employer assessments while preserving the program’s purpose of encouraging hiring of workers with prior disabilities. Labor-side witnesses supported the bill as a reform step, while business, public entity, and insurance groups opposed it, arguing it did not address the core structural problems and that a trailer bill was a better vehicle for broader reform. AB 1576 was voted do pass to Appropriations, with the roll held open. AB 1931 (Papan) would create an optional limited-lines license for utilities to offer home protection products for repairs to appliances and utility service lines. Support came from HomeServe, utilities, and industry groups, who said the bill would clarify current law and add consumer protections such as training, disclosures, and a free-look period; there was no opposition in the room. The committee passed AB 1931 to Appropriations. AB 2361 (Pacheco) would limit vicarious liability for peer-to-peer vehicle-sharing platforms like Turo while preserving insurance coverage requirements; supporters said it would align California with other states, while consumer attorneys opposed it as reducing accountability and consumer recovery. The committee passed AB 2361 as amended to Appropriations. AB 2098 (Kalra), heard later, would require employers to allow leave for workers to attend treatment for occupational injuries during work hours, subject to notice and business-necessity limits; labor groups supported it and business and insurance groups sought narrower standards. It was also voted do pass to Appropriations. The committee then completed roll-call add-ons and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• IEEE 1547 standards, the standards that support and coordinated with the National Electric Code, and
• Grid standards date back actually all the way to the 1890s.
• Another important standard is UL 1741. This is a certification standard.
• The 1547 standard is the requirements.
• The UL standards govern how they're tested and listed.

Summary: The Senate Environment, Energy, and Technology Committee held public hearings on two producer-responsibility bills and then a work session on consumer electrical equipment. On SB 6271, which would create an extended producer responsibility program for mattresses, staff explained the bill’s requirements for a producer responsibility organization, collection and recycling targets, reporting, and enforcement. Senator Hunt said the measure would reduce landfill burden and illegal dumping while creating recycling jobs. Local governments, a recycler, and environmental advocates testified in support, citing landfill capacity concerns, high disposal costs, and the potential to recover most mattress materials. Retail and industry groups said they support the goal but opposed the bill as drafted, arguing it differs from existing state models and could create unnecessary cost and administrative burden. The hearing closed with 459 signed in support and 172 opposed. The committee then heard SB 6174, a proposed substitute on textile producer responsibility that would first require a needs assessment and the creation of a coordinating organization. Supporters, including the sponsor, environmental advocates, Seattle Public Utilities, and a student testifier, described textiles as a fast-growing waste stream with major landfill, pollution, and global labor impacts, and said the needs assessment is an important first step. Opponents from retail, business, apparel, and hospitality groups said they support continued stakeholder work and the needs assessment concept, but raised concerns that the bill still presumes a future EPR program, could impose fees and penalties, and may sweep in retailers and company uniforms in ways that create burdens for small businesses. The hearing closed with 1,253 signed in support and 364 opposed. In the work session, Jeremiah Miller of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory briefed the committee on codes and standards for grid-connected and portable solar equipment. He explained how the National Electrical Code, UL certification standards, and IEEE interconnection standards work together, and described newer supplemental standards such as UL 3141 for power control systems and UL 3700 for portable or plug-in solar. Members asked about safety, certification timing, and how Washington could allow these products while ensuring proper installation and consumer protection. Miller said UL 3700 is very new and not yet widely certified in the market, but that the current code framework can accommodate certified products while standards continue to evolve. The committee took no votes and adjourned after the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• These are necessities, and they should be the standard.
• The first one being the evidentiary standard.
• The true gold standard for child welfare law is the best interest standard to specifically meet the needs
• doubt standard or active efforts?
• That has this all-encompassing standard for all.

Bills: HB18, HB37, HB116, HB388, HB879, HB913, HB1151, HB2216, HB2358, HB2809, SB577, SB1590, SB1782, SB1887, SB2744, HB18, HB37, HB116

Keywords: rural health, hospital funding, healthcare access, mental health services, financial stability, perinatal bereavement, healthcare, hospital training, bereavement support, maternal care, fetal demise, stillbirth, neonatal death, parent-child relationship, involuntary termination, family law, child welfare, child protection, HB 388, HB388

Transcript Highlights:

• It doesn't lower quality standards. State standards remain fully enforced.
• We're proud of California, proud of our labor standards, and we always fight to include labor standards
• We need to have standards.
• We can't let our standards, whether it's for labor standards or inspection standards, become the new
• lower standards.

Summary: The committee began without a quorum and first heard AB 748, which would create pre-approved housing plans for single-family homes and small multifamily projects under 10 units, with delayed implementation for smaller cities and counties. The author said the bill is modeled on the state’s ADU preapproval process and is intended to make housing approvals ministerial and faster. Support came from housing and business groups, while several cities opposed it. Senators raised concerns about local control and whether small or rural jurisdictions have the staff and infrastructure to implement the program, but the author emphasized that local agencies would still control the plans and land-use decisions. No vote was taken because there was no quorum. The committee then heard AB 1621, which would tighten timelines and accountability for post-entitlement permits, limit plan-check resubmittals, and restrict field changes unless needed for health and safety. The California Building Industry Association and many housing groups supported the bill, arguing that permitting delays raise costs and slow housing production. The League of California Cities, counties, and several local governments opposed it, saying the two-plan-check limit is too rigid and that the bill could create litigation risk and reduce local flexibility to ensure code compliance. Members debated the proper standard for additional review and whether the bill should allow exceptions for state mandates; the author said the bill was meant to stop endless back-and-forth while preserving health-and-safety exceptions. The bill was recommended for a due-pass motion to Appropriations when quorum is reached. AB 2748 was next, proposing a three-year delay in the new electric-vehicle readiness requirements for 100% affordable housing projects, keeping the older 40% standard during that period. The author and affordable housing advocates said the change would reduce costs and help scarce housing dollars go further, while opponents from environmental, transportation, and clean-energy groups argued the current code is already cost-effective and that the bill would create a double standard and reduce EV access for low-income residents. Senators discussed whether the bill should require additional EV-capable infrastructure if projects use the older standard, and several members said they supported the bill but urged continued work on amendments. The committee also heard AB 1732, which would expand CEQA streamlining to student housing projects at public universities and community colleges with long-range plans. The author and student housing advocates said campus housing shortages are driving student homelessness and that the bill would help projects move faster; some senators supported the concept but questioned the bill’s geographic limits and whether labor standards or rural-campus criteria might be too restrictive. The meeting also included AB 1738, which would require jurisdictions to offer virtual inspections for certain simple home inspections. Supporters said remote inspections save time and money and have been used safely in California, while one senator said she could not support virtual inspections for more complex items like roofs and solar work. No final votes were taken during the transcript, and several bills were held pending quorum or further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Definitions and testing standards.
• requirements with export standards.
• Thompson, so looking at the standards that... Ms.
• Thompson about the seed standards not having a particular date, and then we have other standards that
• Thompson referenced is these seed standards.

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> the note does technically meet standards the note does technically meet standards but<00:20:20.039
• The note is meeting standards.
• standard procedures and generally standard procedures and generally agencies<00:25:17.399><c> do</c><
• </c><00:25:50.279><c> and</c> there additional standards and there additional standards and procedures
• </c> say hey this this doesn't meet standards say hey this this doesn't meet standards we<00:31:54.200

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that kind of the standard, or does this seem a little hefty?
• We expect standard language related to authorization to start work, authorization to pay insurance, Standard
• And let's start by going over wildfire property mitigation standards.
• that made sense or if there would be a suite of standards to discuss.
• And what we had learned in the work group is the IBHS standard is that gold standard backed by the insurance

Bills: HB2428, HB2399, HB2087

Keywords: life insurance, policy lapse, policy cancellation, nonpayment of premium, premium grace period, lapse notice, termination notice, third-party notice, third-party designee, beneficiary protection, consumer protection, insurance regulation, insurer notice requirements, policyholder, beneficiary, Washington RCW, insurance code, unintentional lapse, coverage continuation, premium delinquency

Transcript Highlights:

• As you've heard, 11 states have already adopted state standards that are similar to the federal standard
• But by allowing for standards to be adopted that are more stringent than the federal standard, the bill
• The possibility that the federal standard could.
• So if this is already a federal standard, why do we need this bill?
• Keep the federal drinking water standard on PFAS in place.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's more the national standards.
• , the USP standards.
• And there's a lot of standards out there. So.
• That same concept also exists in those national standards that I was referencing.
• I just wanted to point out on issue number 12, the standard of care in the report.

Summary: The joint Assembly and Senate business committees held a sunset review hearing on the California State Board of Pharmacy, with board leadership describing the board’s consumer-protection role and its priorities around access, enforcement, and updating pharmacy law. The board emphasized a proposed shift toward a standard-of-care model for pharmacists, arguing it would reduce rigid protocol requirements and improve access to services such as HIV PrEP/PEP, contraception, and naloxone. Board representatives also discussed pharmacy deserts, possible fee waivers for pharmacies in underserved areas, concerns about payer practices contributing to closures, continuing education audits, and a request to restore more flexibility in licensure decisions and probationary monitoring for applicants with certain criminal histories. A major focus of the hearing was the board’s ongoing compounding regulations, especially the treatment of sterile versus nonsterile compounding and substances such as glutathione and methylcobalamin. The board said the proposal was not a ban on those substances and described the rulemaking as grounded in federal law, USP standards, and public comment, noting the process had gone through multiple modified texts and hearings. Testimony from stakeholders was sharply divided: pharmacists, veterinarians, firefighters, naturopathic doctors, and patient advocates warned the rules were restricting access to compounded medications and harming patients and first responders, while the California Medical Association, psychiatric physicians, and PhRMA raised concerns that the board’s proposals could expand pharmacist authority beyond training, affect physician practice, or create safety risks. Other public comments addressed pharmacy technician ratios, remote processing, flavoring medications, hospital-specific regulation, budget and enforcement transparency, and whether the board should add members with community compounding or pharmacy technician expertise. Committee members also asked about the board’s oversight priorities and the rationale for its standard-of-care proposal. Board staff explained that consumer protection includes education, licensing, policy, and enforcement, with the highest-priority enforcement cases being those posing imminent public harm. After public testimony concluded, the chairs thanked participants and adjourned the sunset review hearing, announcing an immediate transition to the joint informational hearing on the Department of Cannabis Control.

Transcript Highlights:

• and things in the NFPA standards, but there's a standard called NFPA 1141, which is...
• ><c> a</c> in the NFPA standards, but there's a in the NFPA standards, but there's a standard<00:07:31.200
• I do know a lot of local departments look at that standard as like their, you know, gold standard.
• I do know a lot of local departments look at that standard as like their gold standard.
• You want to be state fire code and NFPA Standard 1141 is what you want to write. All right.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Summary: The Committee of Conference on Senate Bill 564 reconvened to review a new amendment from Representative DuMont. The amendment cleaned up prior language, added a new section carving out wetland buffers and conservation areas for special exception or conditional use permit treatment, and included an effective-date delay. Senator Murphy noted that agreed-upon language was missing to prevent municipalities from imposing new building or lot-size restrictions before the bill’s effective date, and that language was restored using wording from amendment 2070. The committee then heard from State Fire Marshal Sean Toomey, who explained that fire-code concerns centered on road access and dead-end roads, and suggested tying road-length limits to NFPA 1141 so the bill would reference an established standard while preserving existing state fire code provisions on water supply, road widths, slopes, and turnarounds. Members discussed refining the language to say road-length caps must comply with the state fire code and NFPA 1141. Representative Alexander also explained that section 3 would expand by-right treatment for certain subdivision buffers and reduce development costs, while section 4 would require at least conditional use or special exception review for wetland buffers and conservation areas rather than allowing a flat denial. After a brief pause to resolve concerns, participants agreed to keep section 3 and section 4, with the understanding that the changes struck a balance between lowering housing-development costs and preserving local review and environmental protections. The committee then voted unanimously to support the agreement, seconded by Rainforth, and the chair said the revised amendment would be sent to OLS for final drafting.

Transcript Highlights:

• But I don't know that in developing our current elevator standards, that cost was considered.
• But I don't know that in developing our current elevator standards, that cost was considered.
• They said they supported the removal of explicit reference to global safety and related standards in
• To be clear, no jurisdiction in North America has adopted or recognized an international standard.
• No jurisdiction in North America has adopted or recognized an international standard.

Keywords: 904, all