Senate Floor

Secretary will call the roll.

[Roll Call]

A quorum is present. Would the members and our guests beyond the rail and in the gallery please rise? We will be led in prayer this afternoon by Senator Caballero, after which please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Mr. President. Gracious and loving God, as we come to you in prayer on this day, may we be open and responsive to your spirit. As we go about the business of our lives, may we see your goodness in each person we serve. As we strive to be persons of peace in moments of conflict, we pray for an end to war, peace for all nations, and search for the guiding presence of your truth.

As we enjoy the successes of our collaborative efforts, may we know the value of patience and kindness.

And as we continue the work of this legislature, may our hearts be filled with goodness and thanksgiving. We ask them—this—in your name. Amen.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

[Reciting Pledge of Allegience]

Privileges of the floor, there are none. Messages from the Governor will be deemed read. Messages from the Assembly will be deemed read.

Reports of committees will be deemed read and amendments adopted under motions, resolutions, and notices. Without objection, the Senate journals for 05/18/2026 through 05/22/2026 will be approved as corrected by the Minute Clerk. Any member need to be recognized for motions, resolutions, and notices? Seeing none. Members, we are moving to consideration of the daily file.

Second reading file. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1181, 1130, 1075, 938, and Assembly Bill 1526.

Second reading file will be deemed dread. And members, just give us one moment.

Members, under Governor's appointments, we have several items. Item number six. Senator Grove, you are recognized for item number six.

Thank you, madam—or excuse me, thank you, Mr. President. File item number six is the confirmation of Doreen DiDiamo, for reappointment to the State Water Resources Control Board. She was first appointed in 2013 and currently serves as the Board's Vice Chair. Before joining the Board, she held various staff positions in the US House of Representatives and also for the California Air Resources Board.

She was approved by the Rules Committee on May 6th. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, senators. Senators, we are asking to have you be present at your desk. We are about to start voting on item number six. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 34; no's, one. The Governor's appointment is confirmed. Moving to item seven. Items—item seven, Senator Groove, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, file item seven is a confirmation of Dr. Anne Maria DeMars for appointment reappointment to the State Athletic Commission. She's the President and Cofounder of Seven Generation Games and the President and Founder of Julia Group. In 1984, she was the first United States athlete to win a gold medal in the world judo, judo champ—championships. She was approved by the Rules Committee on May 13th on a 5-0 vote. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Seeing no mics up for discussion or debate, secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes, 36; No's, zero. The appointment is confirmed. Moving to file item—file item number eight. Senator Grove, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, for our final item today, file item eight for confirmation of Ronald Fiore for appointment to the State Athletic Commission. He's the—he is the president of Fiore and Company and a founding partner in Guaranteed Mortgage. He's also the Director of Fiore Family Foundation, which supports youth and sports and underserved communities.

He was approved by the Rules Committee on May 13th on a unanimous vote. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Seeing no mics up for discussion or debate. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes, 36; no's, zero. The appointment is confirmed. Members, we have one item under unfinished business. Item number 21, secretary, please read.

Senate bill 73 by Senator Cervantes, inequity to elections and declare the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Senator Cervantes, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister speaker, members for the opportunity to present Senate bill 73 today on concurrence. California's election system is facing growing threats and attempts to undermine confidence in our democratic process. Last year, the legislature passed SB 851 to strengthen protections against election interference. SB 73 builds on those protections.

We continue to see efforts to challenge legitimate election processes, which have increased concerns about election security nationwide. Federal investigations and subpoenas targeting election records and other states, along with discussion about deploying law enforcement at voting locations, demonstrate the need for stronger safeguards.

Recent incidences involving the seizure of voted ballots raised serious concerns because breaking the chain of custody permanently comp compromises those ballots as evidence. Existing law requires voted ballots to remain in the custody of county registrars to preserve election integrity. SB 73 strengthens those protections by allowing the secretary of state and the attorney general with the ability to object to a county registrar authorizing, for instance, law enforcement, including federal officials, to be deployed at voting locations or election officers to intimidate voters.

It also protects the chain of custody of voted ballots. This bill would also make it a felony to violate existing state law and take those ballots from the custody of a county registrar.

It also allows the secretary of state and attorney general and the relevant county registrar to seek civil remedies for the same action. This bill will also prohibit any individual from allowing law enforcement agents from accessing, modifying, or taking possession of voting machines or voter rosters without a court order. California must act now to protect the integrity of our elections and maintain public trust in our democratic institutions. If we fail to defend our democracy, we risk losing the freedoms and constitutional protections that define our country.

We have the opportunity and responsibility to act now,

and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Senator. Senator Wiener, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, mister president. I rise in support of SB 73 as chair of the Senate elections and constitutional amendments committee and as a co author. Make no mistake, this bill is not about hypotheticals. This year, we saw a MAGA County sheriff with ties to the extremist three percenter militia group taken unprecedented step in our state's history by seizing hundreds of thousands of ballots in violation of existing state law. And in doing so, undermining the very fabric of our democracy.

Just had to really think about that. A sheriff in California just seizing ballots because of conspiracy theories. And let's be clear, he did it on the flimsiest of pretenses at the urging of other right wing conspiracy theorists who buy into President Trump's agenda to take away our right to vote by stealing elections. The analysis of both the press and the attorney general is clear. Sheriff Bianco's investigation into last year's special election on Prop 50 was a sham, a complete fraud.

And what is worse is that he has told the press that he has every intention of seizing ballots again as early as after the June primary election.

One moment point point of order point of order. Senator Seyarto, what is your point of order?

My point of order is that they need to stick to the merits of what this bill is. This bill does not mention the sheriff and this is not a trial for the sheriff of Riverside County. And I would appreciate if the speakers would maintain that quorum. Thank you.

Thank you Senator for your point of order, point well taken. Senator, simply remain with the context and

Absolutely. I Aye, of course, will obey the the the mister president's ruling. I I I disagree though. I think it's directly relevant. But regardless, we must protect the integrity of our election process, and we need to take steps before these problems arise and not wait to react after, they arise as there are people who want to, basically destroy our ability to vote and to have a democracy.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Choi, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president and the members. Excuse me. SB 73 sends a wrong message to Californians. Instead of increasing transparency and confidence in our elections, this bill restricts oversight and limits the ability of observers and the law enforcement to investigate potential wrongdoings. It even prevents observers from challenging questionable signatures on vote by mail ballots.

If a voter fraud is truly as rare as a a supporter's claim, then why is California so afraid of audits and the reviews of a voter data to ensure compliance with the federal law. This bill makes it look look like the state has something to hide, and I respectfully ask for your no vote.

Senator Umberg, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president colleagues. As a joint author of SB 73, I rise in strong support. When someone at the top says that we're going to, in essence, interfere with this election, when someone at the very top says that we should have seized voting machines in 2020, when someone at the top says we're gonna deploy ICE to polling places, I think we should believe them. And I think we have a duty as public policy makers here and as the guardians of this election to take action.

And that's what SB 73 does.

SB 73 takes that action and make sure that in California, we don't allow local officials on the flimndiest of circumstance. And I urge anyone here who's interested in the flimsiest of reasons to read the search warrant that was issued as a pretext to actually seize those ballots, we can't allow that to happen. And that's what SB 73 does. It protects California, it protects Californians, and it protects the integrity of our election urge and I vote.

Senator Strickland, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president, members. I rise in opposition to SB 73. Is it interference or an investigation? It's not interference when you just investigate to make sure that everything every vote is counted is counted properly. In fact, I would remind everybody on this floor, our democracy doesn't work if people don't have faith in the election outcome.

And so it's not interference when you wanna investigate to make sure everything has been done properly. And then also, I would point out that, this is a direct regulation of federal law enforcement, which violates the supremacy clause, and is likely to be ruled unconstitutional. In fact, there was a bill similar to this that was ruled unconstitutional in US vs Newsom, and the Ninth Circuit the Ninth Circuit ruled it unconstitutional.

So, again, I think this bill violates the supremacy clause on top of again, we're talking about investigation versus interference, what the other side wants to say. And my understanding is even the current California's secretary of State, who's not a Republican as opposed to this bill for those reasons, I ask for your no vote.

Thank thank you. Seems no other mics raised for discussion or debate. Senator Cervantes, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, mister president. As we know, our right to vote is sacred, and and SB 73 is a direct response to ongoing efforts to undermine undermine confidence in our democratic process, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call absent members.

[Roll call]

Ayes twenty-nine, nose eight on the urgency clause. Ayes 29, nose eight on the measure. The measure passes. Moving to item 29. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 929 by Senator Jones, inequity to energy.

Senator Jones, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. Colleagues, I rise to present SB 929, a straightforward oversight bill requiring the chair of the California Energy Commission to annually appear and report before the legislature. In recent years, the Energy Commission's authority and responsibilities have expanded significantly, but regular legislative review has not kept pace. SB 929 closes that gap by creating a consistent annual opportunity for accountability and public transparency. It has received no no votes in committee, and I ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you.

Sec seeing no mics up for discussion of debate, secretary, please call roll.

[Roll call]

Thank you, members. Members, this bill is a reflection of some of our work in the Senate, implementing the SB 254 report. However, we have not we're still in that process. So at this point, the bill merely requires, the authors of that report at the California Earthquake Authority to come testify before all the relevant committees. The legislature happy to report to you that all those committees are actually working together.

We've done some joint oversight hearings. So hopefully, this bill's need is obviated by our process and becomes unnecessary. But for now, we wanna keep this bill moving. So I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you, senators. Seeing no mics up for discussion or debate, secretary, please call roll.

[Roll call]

Secretary, please call absent members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 28, noes five. The measure passes. Item 33, SB 983. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 983 by Senator Weber Pierson, an act relating to public contracts.

Senator Dr. Weber Pierson, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. Senators, I rise today to present SB 983, a bill that authorizes the Port of San Diego to utilize job order contracting for their repair, remodel, and repetitive work. Currently, when maintenance is needed on the port's property, the port must go out for competitive bidding for each individual project. This can result in major delays and can interrupt port operations. Instead, job order contracting establishes long term contracts with prequalified contractors.

This reduces the time and resources spent on procurement activities and is particularly beneficial for addressing unplanned or emergency repairs effectively. SB 983 provides the Port of San Diego JOC authority until 01/01/2037, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 983.

Thank you, Senator. Seeing no mics raised for discussion or debate, secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes, 28. No's, eight. The measure passes. Members, we're moving forward to item 37, SB 1367. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1367 by Senator Cervantes, an act relating to land use.

Senator Cervantes, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President and members. SB 1367 prohibits cities and counties from approving new land use that would allow the construction of detention facilities or permit the conversion of existing buildings into such facilities. The goal of SB 1367 is to protect California residents from the rapid expansion of private detention facilities, particularly those not designed for long term human habitation. California has a responsibility to ensure that its land use policies do not enable human right abuses.

This is particularly important to—given my district's proximity to the Border and the number of empty warehouses in the Inland Empire.

The public knows very little about what is happening inside private detention facilities, except for the trickle horror stories that have about rancid food, medical neglect, and severe overcrowding, especially in ICE detention facilities, as immigrants are moved across the state lines, where at least 32 people have died in ICE custody in 2025, and 15, so far, in 2026.

The bill defines detention facilities to mean any structure, whether temporary or permanent, operated by a private entity on behalf of a government entity for the temporary holding of persons charged with a criminal offense or detained for civil or administrative purposes. This bill ensures that its land use policies are not used to facilitate human right abuses. It builds on the state's leadership in limiting detention expansion and moves us closer to a future rooted in dignity, safety, and accountability.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Senator Seyarto, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in opposition to SB 1367. It seems to me that we should be moving in the opposite direction if we are concerned about the conditions of current facilities, and we should be building and maintaining facilities that are adequate for the needs of law enforcement. And so, therefore, this bill goes in the opposite direction. It, it will maintain the current status quo, which apparently is unacceptable.

And, and if that is the case, then we should be resolving that problem. And that means probably building different facilities that are more adequately prepared to handle the detention needs of either local agencies, county agencies, state agencies, or federal agencies. The other issue here is that with federal, federal lands, that would mean that would be the only place for them to put any detention facilities and the state does not get to intervene in that process. And federal lands are generally out in the middle of nowhere.

And, so, that, even makes it further—a further need for us to be locating these where people—and the need is the most. And instead, we are using the federal part of this that we really don't have control over to make a case for not building any more detention facilities and thus, relying on the facilities we have now that apparently, like I said before, are, are not adequate and are dehumanizing. So, let's build some humanizing ones and be responsible about it.

So, with that, I respectfully ask for a no vote on SB 1367.

Seeing no further discussion or debate, Senator Cervantes, would you like to close?

Yes. No human being should be held in facilities meant for product supply for profit. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes, 28; no's, eight. The measure passes. Moving to item 70, SB 1257. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 1257 by Senator Arreguin and Archuleta Immigration Enforcement.

Senator Arreguin, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. I rise to present Senate Bill 1257, which requires the attorney general to publish annually a publicly available report that summarizes immigration enforcement incidents and activities that occur in the state of California, and to submit that report to the governor and legislature each year. Colleagues, last year, the legislature took action to pass several important bills to protect sensitive areas from immigration enforcement, including AB 49 by Assembly of Marisucci, SB 98 by Senator Perez, and SB 81 by myself.

Despite these laws, we have continued to see rates happen at schools, hospitals, and in communities throughout the state of California, which creates an environment of fear for all Californians to either go to school or access the care that they need. Attorney General to request information directly from designated state locations, like schools, hospitals, courthouses, and places of worship in order to prepare this report.

The Attorney General would also be empowered to take enforcement actions to ensure compliance with this bill. And in context, California is home to nearly 11,000,000 immigrants. And from January to October 2025 alone, there were over 1,800 arrests that record in our state. These enforcement actions have reduced the climate of fear across communities, causing people to miss medical care, avoid school, or withdraw from public life.

Transparent reporting restores trust and helps the state hold entities responsible to the laws that we have passed to ensure that all Californians can safely access medical care, go to school, go to a courthouse, and go about their daily lives in our state without fear of arrest or deportation.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 1257.

Seeing no mics raised for discussion or debate, secretary, please call the roll.

Allen, aye. Alvarado-Gil, no. Archuleta, aye.

Ashby, aye. Becker, aye.

Blakespear, aye. Cabaldon, aye. Caballero, aye. Cervantes, aye. Choi, no.

Cortese, aye. Dahle. Durazo, aye, Gonzalez. Grayson, aye. Grove. Hurtado, aye. Jones, no. Laird, aye. Limon. McGuire, aye. McNerney, aye. Menjivar, aye. Niello. Ochoa Bogh, no. Padilla. Perez, aye.

Reyes, aye. Richardson, aye.

Rubio, aye. Seyarto, no. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye.

Stern, aye. Strickland, no.

Umberg, aye. Valladares, no. Wahab, aye.

Weber Pierson, aye. Wiener, aye.

Secretary, please call absent members.

Dahle. Gonzalez. Grove, no. Limon. Niello. Padilla, aye.

Ayes, 28. Nos eight. The measure passes. Moving to item 106, SB 1103. Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 1103 by Senator Perez, in accolade related to civil law.

Senator Perez, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. Colleagues, I rise to present SB 1103, the repair act. SB 1103, the repair act requires large home improvement retailers doing business in California to publicly report immigration enforcement activity occurring on their premises and to provide the attorney general with copies of any documentation gathered in the normal course of business within seventy two hours of receipt of an administrative subpoena.

This bill will also require retailers to publicly disclose their policies on employee interactions with immigration authorities and whether they directly or indirectly share surveillance data with federal immigration agencies. Every morning across California, day laborers gather in the parking lots of large home improvement retailers which have long served as informal hiring sites for workers seeking jobs from homeowners and contractors in need of labor.

Recently, we have witnessed these same locations increasingly become targets for immigration enforcement activity. Authorities carrying out these raids have utilized deceptive and legally questionable tactics during raids, including showing up masked, driving unmarked vehicles, utilizing military style equipment, and otherwise racially profiling a predominantly Latino workforce. Recently, a lawsuit was filed in California alleging that Home Depot installed a LPR cameras at all its locations in our state without notifying shoppers raising serious privacy concerns.

While that behavior calls into question concerns and safety, SB 1103 is focused on providing timely information to the appropriate parties seeking to defend the rights and lives of some of our most vulnerable people. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Seeing no microphones seeing a microphone raised, Senator Seyarto, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. I oppose SB 1103, and that's why I rise today. Making retailers into police and immigration agents is absurd. And, while they did strike the Paga Require or the Paga section of this where they would have a private right of action, This is the last thing that our retailers need in this state is more laws like this. This is why it is so difficult.

These laws are why it's so difficult to do business in California, and it's becoming such a deterrent for new businesses to even consider doing business here in California. I urge you no vote.

Seeing no further mics raised for discussion or debate, secretary Senator Perez, you may close.

Thank you, mister president. I appreciate the senator's concerns. You know, unfortunately, we have seen a rise in immigration enforcement occurring at retail spaces all across California and the country. This has already created fear and concern for so many, cost customers, shoppers are ready as well as the workforce like day laborers that organize outside of these communities and seek out work and opportunity. This is about making sure that we are providing timely in information when it's requested should an administrative subpoena be submitted when it's requested.

Should an administrative subpoena be submitted on behalf of our attorney general, we need to ensure that these stores provide a timely response and notification. It plays a huge, huge role as these cases are being investigated, especially especially in cases where something goes horribly wrong. I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Secretary, please call roll.

Allen, aye. Alvarado-Gil, no. Archuleta, aye.

Arreguin, aye. Ashby, aye.

Becker. Blakespear. Cabaldon. Caballero. Cervantes, aye. Choi, no. Cortese, aye. Dahle. Durazo, aye. Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado. Jones, no.

No. Laird. Aye. Limon. McGuire.

Aye. McNearney. Aye. Benjamin. Aye.

Nilo. Ochoa Bog. No. Padilla. Aye, Perez.

Aye, Reyes. Aye, Richardson. Aye, Rubio. Sayardo. No.

Small work. Aye. Stern? Strickland? No.

No. Humbert? Aye. Balladares? No.

Wahab? Aye. Weber Pearson? Weiner? Aye.

Secretary, please call absent members.

Becker. Aye. Blake Spear. Cabaldon. Caballero.

Dali, Gonzales, Grayson, Grove. No. Hurtado, Aye. Limon, Nilo, Rubio Aye. Stern, Aye.

Weber Pearson.

Ayes 23. Nose eight. The measure passes. Moving to item one forty, SB 1399. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 1399 by Senator Durazo and according to state government.

Senator Durazo, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. Current law establishes the framework for the California Department of Justice Review of Immigration detention facilities, and mandates the department report on conditions of confinement, the standard of care, and how conditions affect due process rights. But that mandate is set to sunset on 07/01/2027. This bill removes the sunset provision to continue the reviews. Cal DOJ has issued five reports since 2019.

The most recent one issued just a few weeks ago found that many of the conditions had worsened as the federal administration's mass deportation campaign led to overcrowding at the seven facilities operating in California in 2025. There were six deaths of detained individuals between September 25 and March 26. Four men held at the Adelanto Ice Processing Center and two held at the Imperial Regional Detention Center. The highest number since CalDOJ state started conducting reviews.

These deaths raised concern about these facilities ability to safely house a growing population of individuals and highlight the need for accountability and oversight.

Instead of focusing on improving conditions and enforcing its own detentions standards at the inspected facilities, ICE opened an eighth facility. We have a responsibility to make transparent the treatment of detained individuals. This bill ensures that we do not lose one of the few tools we have to monitor the facilities and document the truth. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Seeing no microphones raised for discussion or debate, secretary, please call roll.

[Roll call]

Secretary, please call absent members.

Cabaldon? Aye. Dahle, Gonzales, Limon, Niello, Valladares?

Ayes 28. No seven. The measure passes. Moving to item one forty nine, SB 873. Secretary, please read.

Senator bill eight seventy three by Senator Reyes in Equilane to courts.

Senator Reyes, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. Members, I rise to present SB 873, ICE out of courts, which will protect the legal process for all in California by preventing indiscriminate arrests by ICE agents in and around the grounds of a courthouse. In 2025, ICE detained nearly 10,000 people in California, many of whom were arrested while appearing in court. This has created a climate of fear and negatively impacts public participation in courts.

California should not let the Federal Government make political targets out of people trying to be good stewards of the law.

California courts serve as an essential gateway to justice for millions of residents. Discouraging people from coming to court makes our community less safe. Several states including New York, Illinois, and Washington have enact enacted legislation to protect the sanctity of courts from ICE deportations by preventing arrests at or near court houses without a judicial warrant. California is joining those states by moving legislation to protect individuals participating in court proceedings. This bill does not prevent arrest with a judicial warrant.

I'm also proud to share that this bill is a Latino caucus priority. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, senators. Seeing no microphones raised for discussion or debates, secretary, please call roll.

Alan. Aye. Alvarado-Gil. No. Archuleta.

Aye. Arreguin. Aye. Ashby. Aye.

Becker. Aye. Cavallero. Aye. Cervantes.

Aye, Limon McGuire. Aye, McNerney. Aye, Menshevar. Aye, Nilo. No, Padilla.

Aye, Perez. Aye, Reyes. Aye, Richardson. Aye, Rubio. Aye, Ciardo.

No. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye, Stern. Aye, Strickland. Humbert.

Aye, Volodares. No. Wahab. Aye, Weber Pearson. Aye, Weiner.

Aye.

Secretary, please call absent members.

Dali, Gonzales, Limon, Nilo, Strickland.

Ayes 28, no seven, the measure passes. Item 36, SB 1292. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 1292 by Senator Richardson in Equidane's Vehicles.

Senator Richardson, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. I rise to present SB 1292, which deals with a crucial and important issue facing California cities, and they're all battling it now and before and going forward, and that is curb space. Parking curb space, particularly in urban communities, downtown, businesses, residential districts, are some of the most valuable and contested pieces of public right of way across California. As a result, double parking, blocked bike lanes, unsafe loading behaviors, and more have become common in many communities.

Under SB 1292, local governments would have the authority, if desired, not required, but if desired, to adopt an ordinance and or resolution authorizing the use of stationary cameras or sensors with clear public signage to manage parking curb activity at specific locations.

There are a few important note notes, however, that I wanted to make sure to bring to your attention. Number one, there is also a sunset on this system for 2032 after five years. Number two, that language through amendments were highlighted and discussed to make sure that the third party vendors cannot collect nor enforce, these notices that would go out. Number three, recipients of a parking notice have the exact same ability to contest that notice as if a notice was put on someone's windshield.

All citations are finally, all citations are to be reviewed by peace officers or persons authorized to enforce parking laws.

This also disqualifies third party companies to issue tickets themselves. By giving cities these important tools, local government can adequately manage modern curb activity effectively. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Senator Ochoa Bogh, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, although I appreciate the author's intent and that this is just a pilot program, I do have grave concerns regarding the proliferation of autonomous enforcement mechanisms paired with the expansion of AI capabilities, which offers an increasingly alarming level of exposure for people in their daily lives that can be used in all sorts of valid, but also nefarious, matters, and some that could be also problematic.

I don't think that we should be moving forward with a cheaper enforcement of parking fees. And we should also be incredibly alarmed at the fact that anything, anywhere, and anyone can be filmed at any time. The data retention on many of these, issues can be used for any variety of of of ways.

I'm actually really surprised that we would be considering such a bill, even as a pilot program. The privacy that this infringes upon, cameras everywhere, I think we should all be incredibly hesitant and reserved about moving forward in this manner. I respectfully ask for a no vote.

Senator Seyarto, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. I too arise in opposition to SB, 1292. And I'm gonna speak on behalf of all those great parking, Meter Folks out there, code enforcement that goes around great cities like Inglewood, like Santa Monica, like Culver City. They employ a lot of people to go out and make human based decision making regarding a person's legal or illegal use of a parking space.

This methodology takes that human making decision out of the equation, puts a bunch of people out of work for AI, which is something this body, I think, has told us over and over again that they want to make sure does not happen.

So, you know, it it when we do laws like this that put people out of business, and I realize a couple of them may be retained to be able to go over the thing. What it really means is that this is a way for cities, and that's why you don't have third party contractors do the work because they skim money off the top. Right?

So but when cities are doing it, they can collect full fare via the camera and, and the dispute, that they have to go through a process to dispute it as opposed to having that conversation with the soon to be, unemployed parking meter person. So, with that, I would urge a no vote.

This is something that is not needed for cities that are handling it just fine with their human, people that are employed at this time, and we're just reducing employment with that. And also it, helps, increase the cost of living for people, who get snagged in these, camera traps. So with that, I would urge a no vote. Thank you.

Senator Cabaldon, you are recognized.

Yeah. Thank you, mister president. This bill was reviewed by the privacy committee, and it meets all of the highest standards, and it is breaking new ground for local governments in how to assure the protection of that data.

It is, it's a little odd on this floor to hear the arguments from the other side of the aisle about concerns about job loss and contracting out of municipal services for the first time, but this bill keeps humans in the loop at the most important points to exercise that discretion. It simply gives the tools and the records that allow both both the enforcement officers and the parker to be able to dispute the ultimate result.

It isn't just somebody walks by and saw it, but there is an actual photographic record in in this case. Remember, this is not mainly about parking meters. This is about, vehicles that are taking up space in in otherwise prohibited zones, in red in red zones, in loading zones, in disabled parking zones, and those have real impacts.

When a small business cannot get its its eggs or its milk because someone has has been parking in the loading zone for the last two hours, It's not just that it's a cost on the driver who's parking illegally. It affects the entire downtown and that small business who there are this is not a victimless crime when folks do this.

This is a well designed narrow pilot program in order to make sure that our citizens get the same advantages of these technologies as the private sector does at the local level. Urge an aye vote.

Senator Arreguin, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. I also rise in support of SB 1292. I think the chair of the privacy committee talked about the privacy protections that were built in this bill. All of the, images of license plates, are reviewed by a police officer, bef a parking enforcement officer before a citation is issued first and foremost. So it still is including parking enforcement officers in the process of reviewing and issuing citations.

It includes civil liberties and privacy protections built into the process as well. And colleagues, many of you may have read a book by professor Donald Shupe calling it the cost of free parking, which looked at the issue of how we can better manage our curb space to turn over parking spaces to increase occupancy, and thereby in improve commercial activity in our cities.

This is dealing with an issue around curbs that are specifically restricted and need to ensure turnover, whether it's, bike lanes, no stopping zones, crosswalks, places where we don't want cars idling and obstructing, and stopping. So this will better manage our curb space, improve safety, improve the the effectiveness of our traffic laws, and this is a pilot. The results of the pilot will be presented to the respective committees.

We can effect assess the efficacy of the pilot and see whether this could be something to be adopted statewide. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Seeing no further discussion or debate, Senator Richardson, you may close.

Well, I was gonna spend time to respond, but the chairman of public safety and the chairman of privacy handled it. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. SB 1292.

Thank you, Senator. Secretary, please call the roll.

Alan. Aye. Alvarado-Gil. No. Archuleta.

Aye. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker.

Aye. Cobaldin. Aye, Caballero. Aye, Cervantes. Aye, Choi.

No, Cortesi. Aye, Dali. Durazo. Aye, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove. Aye, Jones, Noel Laird, Aye, Limon, Aye, McGuire, Aye, McNerney, Aye, Menjivar, Aye, Nilo, Ochoa Bogh, Aye, Padilla, Aye, Perez, Reyes.

Aye, Richardson. Rubio. Aye, Ciardo. No. Smallwood Cuevas.

Stern. Aye. Aye. Strickland. No.

Umberg. Aye. Aye. Volodares. No.

Wahab. Aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weiner. Aye.

Secretary, please call absent members.

Dali, Gonzales, Grayson? Aye. Grove? Nilo Perez? Richardson?

Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye.

Aye is 28 and no seven. The measure passes. Moving forward to item 46, SB 878. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 878 by Senator Perez and enacting to insurance.

Senator Perez, you are recognized for item 46, SB 878. When you're ready.

Thank you, mister president and members. SB 878 strengthens California's existing prompt payment insurance laws by imposing automatic interest penalties when insurers delay making coverage decisions or issuing payments. In the aftermath of a disaster, policyholders depend on these prompt payment protections enforced by the insurance commissioner which require insurers to respond to claims and issue payments within established timeframes. But despite these protections, survivors of the Eaton and Palisades fire have experienced a hard truth.

Insurance companies do not need to deny a claim to devastate a family.

They only have to delay it. This bill is based off of real stories that I've heard directly from my constituents. One of the biggest concerns that we've heard from hundreds of complaints across the Altadena area is that people are facing chronic delays and chronic denials with receiving payments from their insurance companies. This has impacted individuals' ability to be able to rebuild in a timely manner and it violates state law. And we've continued to see this over and over again.

We need enforcement here. This is about creating accountability so that insurance companies are following the law. We're ensuring survivors are able to rebuild in a timely manner and they are getting the payments that they so rightfully deserve. I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Seeing no mics raised for discussion or debate, secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call absent members.

Archuleta? Aye. Aye. Dahle, Gonzales, Neillo, Ochoa Bogh, Valadares.

Ayes 29, nose six. The measure passes. Item 40, SB 958. Secretary, please

read. Senate bill 958 by Senator Weber Pierson, enacting environmental quality.

Senator doctor Weber Pierson, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. Senators, I rise today to present SB 958, which ensures that housing development is not hindered by an unprecedented ruling while still upholding the state's environmental standards. SB 958 clarifies CEQA law so that certain impacts related to increased building height are properly accounted for within a project's environmental impact report. This bill simply provides perspective guidance to the courts.

SB 958 helps ensure that our environment our environmental review process remains focused, consistent, and predictable so that agencies, courts, and stakeholders are all operating with a shared understanding of the law.

This bill has received unanimous bipartisan support and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Seeing no mics raised for discussion or debate, members, this item is eligible for unanimous roll call without objection. Seeing and hearing no objection, ayes 37, no zero. The measure passes. Moving to item 49, SB 924.

Secretary, please read.

Senate Bill 924 by Senator Hurtado, an act relating to Energy.

Senator Hurtado, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to present Senate Bill 924, the Access to Energy Savings Act. It modernizes California's low-income energy assistance programs to ensure they deliver real relief for families who need it the most. It does this—it does this by expanding the types of services allowed under the Energy Savings Assistance Program to include innovative technologies and weatherization methods that can lower utility bills.

It also refocuses a program by considering the improvement of health and safety and overall quality of life for households.

SB 924 is about making sure our energy assistant programs work as intended, not just on paper but in the lives of the people that we all represent. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, senators. Seeing no mics raised for discussion or debate, secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

Ayes, 35; noes, one. The measure passes. Item 53, SB 1057. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 1057 by Senator Becker, in aggregate to health facilities.

Senator Becker, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. This bill represents a common sense shift towards restorative justice in the health care sector. Bill modernizes certificate certification process for certified nurse assistants and home health aids. By prioritizing current character and proven rehabilitation over past mistakes, California can build a stronger, equitable, and sustainable workforce. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. And seeing no mics raised for discussion or debate, secretary, please call roll.

[Roll call]

Secretary, please call absent members.

[Roll call]

Aye 29, nose eight. The measure passes. Moving to item 56, SB 1092. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 1092 by Senator Allen, enacting mobile home parks.

Senator Allen, you are recognized.

Thank you so much, mister president. Mobile home parks are the largest source of unsubsidized affordable housing in the country. They provide important homeownership opportunities for many of our fellow Californians. You've seen a lot of, these communities now going from mom and pop enterprises to ownership by some larger private equity firms and, large multi state corporations that seek to capitalize on a manufactured homeowner's unique situation.

Although they're called mobile homes, mobile homes are not typically able to be moved, and many mobile homeowners are older, disabled, or on fixed incomes that limit their ability to pick up and move.

And we started to see this new phenomenon driving up rents and increasing evictions. So this bill provides that if a mobile home park owner receives an offer for the sale, lease, or transfer that management intends to accept, they want to ought to give residents or their designated representative the opportunity to offer a competitive bid to purchase the park. This is about trying to create real pathways for residents to offer competitive bids to preserve their communities. I I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Singh. No mics raised for discussion or debate. Members, if we could take conversations off the floor into the back, that would be great. Secretary, please call roll.

Allen. Aye. Alvarado-Gil. No. Archuleta.

Aye. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Gonzales.

Grayson. Grove. No. Hurtado. Aye.

Jones. No. No. Laird. Aye.

Limon. Aye. McGuire. Aye. McNearney.

Aye. Menjivar. I see Arto. No small work. I Stern.

I Strickland. No. Umber. I Volodares. No.

What hub? Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weiner?

Aye.

Secretary, please call absent members.

Dali, Gonzales, Grayson, Nilo, Ochoa Bog, aye. Richardson. Aye. Aye.

Aye is 29. No seven. The measure passes. Moving to item sixty, eleven SB 1123. Secretary,

Senate bill 1123 by Senator Wiener, enacting to state government administration.

Senator Wiener, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. I rise today to present Senate Bill 1123, which, simply requires California to include economic and other direct and indirect benefits to consumers, and others in assessment in assessing pending regulations. Today, state agencies are that implement, laws that we pass are disincentivized from saving California businesses and consumers millions of dollars. In fact, the more money a regulation will save and benefit the public, the bigger the disincentives.

For example, if a proposed rule making action is anticipated to produce $50,000,000 in savings and $1 in costs, it would trigger an arduous bureaucratic process that on average consumes, almost two years and cost state agencies more than $1,000,000.

As a result, the implementation of the laws we enact is massively delayed, and cash strapped state agencies often purposely scale back their regulations. For example, in 2014, the legislature passed a law requiring an update to firefighter personal protection equipment standards. Due to this process. These regulations went into effect almost ten years later in 2023.

Our state agencies should not be discouraged from promulgating cost saving regulations, particularly when they are implementing laws enacted by this legislature, and the benefits of the laws we write should not be delayed for years just because state law treats benefits the same as costs.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Senators, we are, doing really well today. I know there's a lot of business to be done and a lot of conversations to be had. I just ask for respect to our members that are presenting their bills that we take conversations off the floor. It's getting a lot a little little loud on the floor.

Senator Strickland, you are recognized for your

Thank you, mister president, members. I rise in opposition to SB 1123. What this bill would effectively do is end the requirement that California agencies perform when they put in their regulations, a detailed economic analysis and see the real meaning and impact on hardworking families and also on our businesses. The reason why people are leaving the state of California for the first time in California history since the gold rush is because their jobs are leaving the state of California.

A big part of that is these regulations that come from unaccountable boards and agencies.

And I have been around a long time in this legislature. I've never seen more business of the business community be against the bill than this bill right here before us today. Again, it's one of the main reasons why people are leaving the state of California because their job is leaving the state of California. And if you wanna continue the flight of citizens of their jobs leaving and go to places like Texas, Montana, and Florida, then vote for this bill. I urge your no vote.

Seeing no other mics raised for discussion or debate, Senator Wiener, would you like to close?

Thank you very much, mister president. When this body passes a law and the governor signs it, that's the law of the land, and those laws should be expeditiously implemented by agencies. And when those laws are beneficial, and and sometimes in extraordinary ways, they should be quickly implemented. That's what this bill is about. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Secretary, please call roll.

Allen? Aye. Avarado Gill? No. Archuleta.

Aye. Aye. Ashby. Becker. Aye.

Blaise Spear. Aye. Cabaldon. Caballero. Cervantes.

Aye, Choi. No. Cortesi. Aye, Dali. Durazo.

Aye, Gonzales. Grayson. Grove. Hurtado. Jones.

Blair? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Maguire? Aye. McNerney? Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye, Perez. Aye, Reyes. Aye, Richardson. Rubio.

Aye, Seattle. No. Small. Aye, Stern. Aye, Strickland.

No. Umberg. Boladares? No. Wahab?

Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weiner? Aye.

Secretary, please call absent members.

Ashby? Aye. Cabaldin. Aye. Caballero.

Dally Gonzalez. Grayson. Grove. No. Hurtado.

Aye. Jones. No. Nilo, Ochoa Bog, no. Richardson, Amber.

Aye. Aye.

Ayes twenty-six, nose eight. The measure passes. Item 67, SB 1233. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 1233 by Senator Allen and in equity of public utilities.

Senator Allen, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. SB 1233 seeks to provide some additional transparency in utility rate making to ensure that electrical and gas rates are set with the necessary information to best protect rate payers. We know that so many of our constituents are falling behind on their utility bills, and a return on equity that's set too high can cost rate payers millions of dollars annually without actually being necessary for improvements to infrastructure and service.

One of the recent research from the Berkeley Energy Institute estimated the cost to consumers across the country from excess rates of return average $7,000,000,000 per year over the past thirty years. Lots of rate payer funds have gone toward wildfire mitigation projects aimed at decreasing risk of utility caused wildfire, but questions do remain as to whether these efforts are being appropriately reflected in the calculations of risk and associated authorized profit.

So there are a lot of bills on this subject. This bill is more narrow. It would require the electrical and gas corporations to disclose data regarding their cash on hand and overall capital structure as it relates to ROE to minimize the total revenue requirement. That's what the bill does. This will provide interveners and the PUC with more comprehensive financial information, so as to evaluate how utilities are financing projects and the appropriate ROE.

The bill also would require the PUC to consider and make findings related to electrical utility wildfire mitigation behavior to prompt a more targeted consideration of the impact these projects might have on overall risk. So this is about trying to add some additional transparency during rate making to ensure that the PUC and interveners and legislators are getting the full picture that they need to best protect rate payers. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Seeing no mics raised for discussion or debate, secretary, please call roll.

[Roll call]

Aye. Secretary, please call absent members.

[Roll call]

Ayes 29, nose eight. The measure passes. Item 68, SB 1237. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 1237 by Senator Blakespear in equaling to civil rights.

Senator Blakespear, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president and colleagues. I rise to present SB 1237, a priority measure for the Legislative Women's Caucus. This bill will strengthen enforcement of California's pay equity reporting law to ensure the civil rights department can effectively combat wage discrimination. California has led the nation on equal pay, but our laws are only as strong as their enforcement. Wage disparities persist.

For every dollar that a man earns, a woman earns 81¢with larger gaps for women of color. To better identify and address these inequities, California requires companies with a 100 or more employees to report annual pay data to CRD, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, sex, and job category. However, the department is missing pay data for at least 400,000 workers. SB 1237 will strengthen enforcement by increasing the penalty for repeat noncompliance from $200 to a thousand dollars per employee.

Increased penalties will will serve as a meaningful deterrent against noncompliance and generate additional resources for more proactive enforcement.

This bill ensures employers can't treat pay data reporting as optional and gives CRD the tools it needs to effectively combat wage discrimination. It is a critical step toward ending persistent wage disparities and delivering real pay equity. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Seeing no microphones raised for discussion or debate, secretary, please call roll.

[Roll call]

Secretary, just one moment. There was a microphone raised. My apologies. If we can't can we cancel? Senator Menjivar?

Without objection. Is there any objection to allowing the Senator, Senator Menjivar, to make comments? Okay. She's objecting to her own attempt to raise her mic. We needed that.

It was getting a little heavy in here. So everybody take a breath. It's all good. Secretary, you are we gonna start you know what? Let's just start with a clean slate.

We're gonna start all over again and give people an extra chance. Secretary, please call roll once again.

[Roll call]

Secretary, please call absent members.

[Roll call]

Ayes 28, no six. The measure passes. Moving forward to item 81, SB 886. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 886 by Senator Padilla in accolade to electricity.

Senator Padilla, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, mister president. Colleagues rise to present SB 886 to protect ordinary rate payers from having to pay for the energy infrastructure cost associated with the AI Revolution. A similar bill to this was introduced last year. Most legislatures had probably not focused yet on data centers, never mind hyper scale, large scale data centers. We were told that California real estate and power is too expensive for data centers wanting to locate here.

How we wish that were true to some extent. Since then, data center landscape has shifted significantly. Developers across this country are building data centers at breakneck speed at unprecedented size, many of them requiring the energy and water of mid-sized cities. In my district alone, a 700 acre, 330 megawatt project alongside a residential community and elementary school's broken ground with no public input. If ultimately built, the project will dwarf all existing projects in California, and this is just the beginning.

To support that development, utilities across the country are borrowing unprecedented amounts of money and passing the costs on to ordinary rate payers, small businesses, homeowners, and renters alike. Residents across the country have experienced significant cost increases as a result of hyper scale, data centers designed to support the big tech AI arms race, with utilities spending billions to build out infrastructure for these centers. A recent prominent example in our own country deals with the Eastern Seaboard and most of the Midwest.

PJM, one of the largest grid operators in the country, Internet interconnection proposed data centers that have driven consumer costs up 76%, with the market monitor states saying are irreversible. On top of that, the operator warns the region could run short of electricity as early as next year due to unchecked demand.

We cannot make the same mistakes we are seeing being made in other parts of the country. It must protect existing utility rate payers from being unfairly stuck with the increased demand not caused by them or consumed by them or stuck with stranded costs. This bill directs the PUC to establish tariffing that would consider those costs and allocate them to the new demand sources for interconnection, new demanded transmission infrastructure. Be sure that on demand consumers are not paying for cost they are not generating.

This is an important vote. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Becker, you are recognized.

Thank you. Thank my colleague for this bill. I rise as a coauthor, spent a lot of time working on this this issue with our friend from San Diego. If we get data center policy right, we have an opportunity to bring beneficial load on the grid. That's load that helps bring down the rates for everyone.

Data centers are gonna require very large increases in energy supply and we need to make sure that they pay for all the costs associated with energy needs and don't end up causing higher prices for for the rest of us. So there are states that have not done this right.

We have the opportunity to get this right here in California, make sure they pay upfront, and make sure that those few hours a year that our grid is constrained, that they can either take load off the grid or find other sources of load that are clean. And so this bill does get it right. Thank my colleague.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Seeing no additional mics raised, Senator Padilla, would you like to close?

Thank you. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you for that brief close. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Secretary, please call absent members.

[Roll call]

Ayes 27 and noes eight. The measure passes. Moving to item 85, SB 905. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 905 by Senator Becker and accolade to electricity.

We just Senator Becker, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. This bill is about fixing some of the structural problems that have led to unaffordable electricity bills. As much as utilities may say the right things about reducing rates, there's obviously a trust problem with the public. And at the end of the day, utilities earn bigger profits and utility executives earn bigger paydays for spending more money.

Given those incentives, it's hard for the public to trust him not to favor expensive investments like undergrounding 10,000 miles of of wire rather than funding more cost effective solutions that earn less profit.

So this bill makes several changes to improve those incentives. It'll focus utilities on spending money better, not spending more money. First, the bill aligns the personal incentives of utility executives with keeping rates affordable for our constituents. It requires 20% of their annual compensation for anyone VP or higher to be tied to keeping rates from rising below inflation from rising faster than inflation. If our bills keep going up faster than that, then they won't earn their bonuses.

This bill also has significant metrics and transparency. For example, requiring the PUC to establish clear performance metrics on things that we should know. Things like reliability, system utilization, speed of connecting new customers. This will make clear what our expectations are for good performance. Third, in particular, utilization metrics, How much of the grid is being utilized?

We'll push utilities to get more value out of the infrastructure that we've already paid for before proposing new spending. The bill also authorizes the PUC to give utilities a lower return on equity for certain categories of investments that have a lower risk or where the investors get other benefits besides a pure financial return. A good example of that is undergrounding power lines to prevent fires.

Investors like that spending because they earn a return on it and it lowers the risk of a huge fire bankrupting the utility. If they are given the same return on undergrounding as for any other investments, they'll want to overspend on that.

This bill corrects for that misaligned incentive by authorizing the PU PUC to say their underground investments, for example, earn a bit less profit than normal return on equity. As I've said many times, and we did some great work last year, but as I've said many times, there's no one silver bullet that can make electric electricity bills more affordable. This bill attempts to really chip away at some of the structural problems and especially the misaligned incentives that contribute to high rates.

The utilities have said a lot about how they're trying to keep rates down, and they are doing some of the right things. This bill just makes sure they are really incented to do that and that we can use metrics to hold them accountable for it.

We need them to spend more money we need them to spend money better, not spend more money. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Seeing no microphones raised for discussion or debate, secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Secretary, please call absent members.

[Roll call]

Ayes 28. Nose eight. The measure passes. Moving to item 86, SB 909. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 909 by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas and accolade to public works.

Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. Good afternoon, colleagues. I'm proud to present SB 909, which strengthens enforcement of public works laws to ensure workers are paid the wages they earn, protect responsible contractors, and safeguard taxpayer dollars. We took amendments in the Senate Appropriations Committee to address opposition concerns to remove automatic annual COLA increases in this bill for contractor registration fees and public work penalties. When the state spends public dollars on construction, workers should be paid fairly.

Responsible contractors should be able to compete on a level playing field, and taxpayers should know that their money is supporting lawful, high quality work. But that is not always what happens. Way wage theft and labor violations remain a serious problem on public works projects, and penalties have not been meaningful meaningfully updated in over a decade. Bad actors are too often able to treat violations as a cost of doing business. And for workers, this is not an abstract.

A construction worker can put in long hours on a public works project expecting a fair paycheck only to find out that they were underpaid or misclassified. That missing pay is rent, it's groceries, it's childcare, it's gas money, all of the things you need to get to the next job. SB 909 fixes this by directing penalties toward enforcement, and it ensures that bad actors can no longer out compete contractors who do follow the law.

This is about protecting workers, ensuring fair competition, and making sure taxpayer dollars support lawful work. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Seeing no microphones raised for discussion or debate, secretary, please call roll.

[Roll call]

Secretary go ahead.

Weiner, aye.

Secretary, please call absent members.

Dahle, Gonzalez, Limon, Niello,Valladares.

Ayes 28, no seven. The measure passes. Moving to item 88, SB 925. Secretary, please call. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 925 by Senator McNerney and Accolade to Fusion Energy.

I was anxious to go ahead and move to the vote, Senator, but you can present. You are recognized.

I I like your, I like your instincts there, mister president. Thank you. And distinguished colleagues, ISP nine twenty five tasks the California Energy Commission with developing a statewide road map for the development of fusion energy. Fusion energy is made by mimicking the power of the sun by bringing atoms together, and it does not produce long lived radioactive waste, nor is it prone to accidents that pose any risk to the population. Significant advances have been made in fusion energy development in recent years.

In particular, in 2022, Lawrence Livermore National Labs in my district achieved ignition. And that means getting more energy out of the reaction that was put into it. This is the first time in the world that that has happened and that they're advancing. Because of this and other types of advancement, massive investments are now flowing into fusion energy.

California, unfortunately, is at the risk of losing fusion ecosystem with several companies already opting to move to other states and even other countries, filling in the regulatory gaps, which is what 09/25 will do, and developing a statewide road map for fusion energy will help these jobs and investments stay in California.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Senator. Senator Valadares, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. I am just, rising in support. You know, the California Problem Solvers Caucus has been deeply digging into energy issues. We need we know we need an all hands on deck approach to energy. This is a common sense bill.

It's a priority bill, from our problem solvers caucus and we urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Grove, you are recognized.

Thank you. I'd like to echo my colleagues' comments and support this bill as well and request an aye vote. As I just got up to speak just briefly, I think that we need to have an all hands on deck approach for for energy and all of the above, and I think California has the innovation, ability to do it and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Senator McNerney, seeing no other mics raised, would you like to close?

Well, I wanna thank my two colleagues for speaking up on this issue. As you all know, this is extremely important to me. I'm very few passionate about fusion energy. I started working out when I was in college, and I put it aside because it didn't seem like it was ever gonna happen, but now it's really happening, folks. I ask for your aye vote.

Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll call]

Aye. Weiner. Aye.

Secretary, please call absent members.

Ghali. Gonzalez. Hurtado. Aye. Limon. Aye. Niello.

Aye is 37. No's zero. The measure passes. Moving to item 91, SB 954. Secretary, please read.

Senate bill 954 by Senator Blake Spear, enacting environmental quality.

Senator Blakespear, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. Colleagues, I rise to present SB 954, which provides thoughtful improvements to the CEQA exemptions passed through the budget act last year in SB 131. Last year, the legislature passed Senate bill 131 in the budget process, and it created many sensible CEQA exemptions and reforms. It also created an exemption for advanced manufacturing that is so broad that it covers strip mining and other activities known to be especially harmful to the environment.

As you will recall, many senators raised serious concerns about this policy when it was jammed through the legislature at the end of session, and the bill passed on the condition that further changes would be taken to revisit the definition of advanced manufacturing and add stronger protections for habitat for sensitive species and for tribal resources.

SB 954 follows through on that promise to clean up SB 131. Recent amendments to the bill keep a broad list of advanced manufacturing facilities that are eligible for a CEQA exemption while adding important guardrails to protect the environment, communities, workers, and tribal resources. These guardrails are extensive. They include a requirement that projects be set back from sensitive receptors, including homes and schools, and that they limit their air pollution to below significant thresholds.

Such guardrails are essential given the potential environmental hazards associated with advanced manufacturing.

We have all witnessed the potential danger with advanced manufacturing. We have all witnessed the potential danger and environmental risks of advanced manufacturing facilities, which was just illustrated over the last week with that chemical leak at an aerospace company that forced 50,000 residents of Garden Grove to evacuate. The incident reminds us of the risks of mixing industrial uses in neighborhoods. Public health and safety shouldn't have to be risked for economic development.

It's important to remember that the advanced manufacturing CEQA exemption created in SB 131 was unprecedented.

Before SB 131, there had been no explicit CEQA exemptions for industrial facilities or manufacturing facilities of any kind. And this is because CEQA exemptions are typically only granted for projects that do not have known harmful impacts on our environment, on our air, water, and soil.

SB 954 attempts to course correct the CEQA exemption in SB 131 by adding critical guardrails for advanced manufacturing, and it's important to recognize that we are in uncharted territory by granting CEQA exemptions for projects that do have known harmful impacts.

The guardrails in SB 954 set high standards for manufacturing industries if they want to get a sequel exemption, but all of those criteria are clear cut, meaning that there will not be litigation on whether or not the project met the criteria. That is a significant advantage for manufacturing facilities.

Moreover, SB 954 will incentivize manufacturing that meets the strong rail guardrails in the bill, including requiring that projects be LEED certified and meet high road labor standards. This will bring not just more but better manufacturing to California. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Valadares, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. Members, I rise in respectful opposition to SB 954. California claims that it wants to lead in advanced manufacturing, clean technology, and innovation. But every time we get a chance to actually build those industries here, we make it harder, we make it more expensive, and we make it more politically complicated. Last year, this legislature created a broad CEQA exemption so California could compete for jobs and for investments.

This bill walks that back and replaces certainty with a Sacramento approval process controlled by politics and bureaucracy. Under this bill, projects would face additional mandates, labor agreement requirements, and government approvals before they can even move forward. And let's be honest about what that means. Higher construction costs, longer delays, more legal and political risk. And ultimately, higher costs passed down to consumers, to my constituents.

California families are already struggling with affordability. They're not asking for more red tape. They're not asking Sacramento to make it harder to build manufacturing, energy, and infrastructure projects in this state. This bill creates winners and losers. The biggest corporations with the best lobbyists and political connections can survive the process, but smaller businesses, innovators, job creators are simply going to go somewhere else.

And when these projects leave, the jobs leave with them. The fiscal analysis does acknowledge new state costs and expanded bureaucracy. The costs don't disappear, they get passed directly on to hardworking Californians who are already paying too much for housing, for electricity, for fuel, and everyday life. SB 954 sends another message to California that it's becoming harder to invest in, harder to build in, and harder to afford. I respectfully urge a no vote.

Senator Wiener, you are recognized.

Thank you, very much, mister president. I rise in respectful opposition, to SB 954, because thiS Bill, we need to be very clear, does not just change what we passed last year around advanced manufacturing. It also makes changes to the housing aspects of SB 131. And as a result, I cannot support it. So going back to last year when we put together the budget bill, that took several different SQL reform bills and put them into the budget, everything moved very quickly.

And at the time, I acknowledged our former pro Pro Tem Emeritus acknowledged that the advanced manufacturing exemption needed refinement, and it needed more time. And we tried to do that at the end of session last year. We did not get a three party agreement on that, and so the work continued. I made a proposal, for I think a solid refinement to advanced manufacturing. There's a different approach in this bill.

If this bill were limited to refining the advanced manufacturing exemption, I would vote in favor of advancing it today, because although I think it does need more work, I have, confidence in the author and in others to work together in the assembly, to get it to where it needs to be so that we can actually not have a situation where the Chips app chips act almost entirely skipped over California because it was too hard for anyone to actually set up shop here doing any kind of advanced manufacturing.

Our goal is to actually have more advanced manufacturing in California, and, of course, to protect our environment. So I you know, and I'm optimistic that we will get there. But unfortunately, for reasons I still do not understand, the bill rolls back housing sequel reform that we enacted last year. And colleagues, you will, recall, there were we did significant important sequel reform around housing last year in both bills, AB 130 and SB 131.

The governor had a huge signing ceremony around our housing sequel reform in both bills, where we had a bipartisan representation at that signing ceremony. It was national news that California had enacted strong sequel reform around housing, and it was part of the big strides that we took on housing last year. That was national news, and it was well deserved national news for California because we need more housing. And and so this bill, unfortunately, rolls back that work. And as a result, I cannot support it.

And specifically in SB 131, we exempted, rezonings that implement approved housing elements from CEQA. That was a long overdue reform. And then we created a situation where if, housing development comes very close to meeting an a CEQA exemption but falls short by one factor, then the environmental impact report is limited to the factor that was that near miss.

Both of those are not being eliminated in this bill, but are being rolled back significantly so that they will be much, much, much harder to use. So as a result, I cannot support, this, this bill today.

I hope that when this comes back on concurrence, it is limited to advanced manufacturing, and it does not include any rollbacks of our housing sequel vote. Thank or housing sequel work. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Senator Choi, you are recognized.

Thank you. I rise in strong opposition to SB 954. We passed a CEQA reform last year because this legislature recognized California's permitting process was driving jobs and investments out of our state. SB 954 moves us, backwards. Instead of a real reform, this bill picks, winners and losers by deciding, who gets the sequel relief and who does not.

It adds new restrictions, new political approvals, and more uncertainty for manufacturers trying to invest in California. We should be making it easier to create good paying jobs here, not pushing businesses and innovations to other states. I respectively ask for your no vote.

Senator Reyes, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. I think this bill is such an important addition to what was already done. I think it's clear that what what the the bill that was passed last year, the the words that were used, it was it was rammed in at the very end, and there is clear the language is clear that it it is clear from the author that there were a number of attempts to try to fix it.

One of the things that needed to be fixed is the communities that were left behind, the most vulnerable communities. This particular bill and the way it is written takes important steps to try to figure out how we allow for advanced manufacturing, which is something I think the entire body wants.

We do want the businesses here. There's no question about it, but try to find those guardrails that are extremely important in such a large piece of legislation. The issues that were mentioned earlier are issues that the author will continue to work on. It was said before, and I would absolutely agree, I trust the author. That was said by the author of the prior legislation, and I too trust the author.

She has worked extremely hard in trying to find that balance, making sure that the communities and the organizations, those that were left behind are brought to the table so that they can be part of this solution. Not doing away with with what was done, but making sure that the guardrails are there. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Senator Smallwood Cuevas, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. I wanna align my comments with my good colleague, from the Inland Empire in support of, SB 954. I wanna thank the author for her hard work on this.

You know, colleagues, it's rare where we have environmental groups and labor on the same page, and I think it's important that this coalition is not just intact, but is deeply aligned and active in this in this piece of legislation because this is about setting up what will be the floor for the future of work in our state as we move toward a climate resilient economy, as we have incredible goals around building a California where our environmental values are reflected in our policy and in our investments.

We wanna make we all make sure we also have a workforce that's ready to step into this new era of investment and manufacturing and that these are good jobs.

I come from South LA, and I wanna tell you South LA was the manufacturing muscle of California. We have one of the largest, vibrant industrial corridors. You know, we're second behind Detroit in producing cars. Right now, those corridors are cold. They're empty.

Most of them are being underutilized because we don't have a robust manufacturing infrastructure that is providing good quality jobs that are unionized in our manufacturing sector. So my good colleague and I fought, for SB 150. This helps us continue to advance forward, by making sure that there is language to say that there will be good jobs in this space and that they will be accessible by all Californians by ensuring community benefit agreements that makes that possible.

So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote, and let's take a step forward, as we move toward good jobs and a strong environment in California.

Senator Laird, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, mister president. I wanted to talk briefly about the process, And I think that's an important thing in the discussion of this bill because last year, when this moved through very quickly, there was a commitment to clean it up. And when that commitment is made, then it bucks it to this session and you have people thinking, oh, this is a stand alone bill. This is abstract. And if you look at how this fits with the bill that passed last year, it fits.

It should have been part of the bill last year, and it causes me to question, when people say, oh, we'll come back with cleanup, whether we should be approving that bill without everything in that bill at that time because it creates this situation. And I don't think some of the inferences have been fair to the author because she has been left with having to clean it up and having to do the things that really should have been part of the bill last year.

This is a fit process wise to what the bill was last year. And I and that is why, I think that the author took on a thankless task, but she has been pulling ahead in a very good way so that this bill is in generally good condition. And yes, she may have to still work on it in the assembly, but I salute her for taking this on.

I salute her for getting to where she's gotten with this bill, and I'm sorry that it had default to that. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Durazo, you are recognized.

Thank you very much. Just to add to what my colleagues have said, I am very grateful to the author. She has taken this on in a way that was very, very difficult. She was persistent. And, you know, I was following it on the basis of working people have a right to both earn a good living, be able to raise their families with good paying jobs, and be in a safe community.

There's no reason why they should choose between one and one or the other. This bill requires exempt facilities to meet climate, environmental, and workforce goals. That's the right framework. If you want the streamlined path, you can earn it by committing to good paying jobs, not just by calling yourself, advanced manufacturing. If the price of keeping a company in California is poverty wages, no benefits, and unsafe working conditions, that's not economic development.

That's a subsidy for bad actors. So with, with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote and thank again the author.

Once again, Senator Wiener, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, mister president. I rarely rise twice, but there are a bunch of comments that have been made. I I just wanna remind, colleagues of the timetable last year. We had a policy bill moving forward. We had one from the assembly, and we have one in the Senate.

And the one in the Senate went through Senate environmental quality with a negotiation, with the chair, and we moved it out of committee. And I think it was a really solid policy bill. It then got pulled into the budget, which happens. We all all had bills over time that get pulled into the budget on very with very, very short notice. And we had to work and this is all discussed on the floor last year when we're passing it.

We had to work very, very quickly to turn a policy bill into a budget bill that looked very different. And we made clear at the time that we were committed on advanced manufacturing, which was really what was the topic of discussion. The housing pieces were not even really a focus of discussion, but the advanced manufacturing was, and we made that commitment.

And our pro tem emeritus and I, we actually put a budget bill in print at the end of session significantly narrowing advanced manufacturing, and we did that to show that this is what we want to do. And I've been very clear.

I've been committed to narrowing it. I think I think it was broader than had we had more time, it would have been more refined. So we significant proposed significantly narrowing it. I've been a supporter of labor standards in that exemption. I've been super clear, about that.

But at the end of session, we did not have a three party agreement to move it. And, of course, even though as a Senate, sometimes we wish we could move things on our own, that's not how this this institution works. We have to have agreement from the assembly and from the governor, and so it did not move.

And so, you know, we I think under the timetables and circumstances, we did the best commitment by putting a bill in print at the end of session that we were committing to narrowing it. I am grateful that the author is tackling this.

And as I mentioned at the beginning, I'd be voting for this bill if it were just about advanced manufacturing because I have confidence that this will all get worked out in the assembly. But the housing piece is just a a bridge too far, and we should not be rolling that back. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Seeing no other mics raised for discussion or debate, Senator Blakesberg, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. I have several things to say. So I I very much appreciate the dialogue that we've had on the floor today. This is one of the most important things we did at the end of last year was the CEQA exemption that was very broad.

I appreciate the members' engagement, the people who've spoken today, and the people who were associated with the non working group working group, where we did get together to discuss things and talk about what was important to people. It it is important to recognize a couple of things and to con contextualize this. So my good colleague from San Francisco has had multiple different sequence of streamlining bills and exemption bills over the years.

Many of them have passed, and the one that he's referring to was actually held in appropriations. So it did go through my environmental quality committee.

It was then held in appropriations for further discussion and became what was part of the budget trailer bill. But but it's also important to recognize that different bills have different pieces as they're moving through. So the one that we ended up with was different than what we talked about when it came through my committee.

It's also important to recognize that we did just have 50,000 people who had to be evacuated and not in their home over the weekend, the Memorial Day weekend which was an an important gathering for many people and people undoubtedly had plans and things that were tremendously disrupted because of the threat of an explosion from a chemical leak. And that chemical plant that was there would be included in advanced manufacturing.

And we recognize the importance of land uses. So CEQA of course is not a process that is looking at what if something catastrophic happens, but it is looking at different land use types that are next to each other or adjacent to one another and also what types of mitigation are required and what types of safety requirements are required. And so one of the things that, SB 954 does is it requires advanced manufacturing facilities.

These will have a sequel exemption, but they have to have a setback of 1,600 feet from what's called sensitive receptors. And that is daycare facilities, homes, schools, hospitals, and elderly care facilities.

So if something like the Garden Grove facility was set up again, we wouldn't want it to be so close to so many sensitive receptors. We would want to have those guardrails. But right now, the broad sequel exemption we passed does not provide for that. So there are some common sense, some realities around safety, some requirements around that that I think it's really important to remember.

The other thing I wanna just address the concerns about housing that my good colleague, a very accomplished Senator, we all recognize how effective he is, that it's important that we recognize that this question of habitat for protected species was not included last year, and this is the part that is included in this bill that implicates housing.

So the idea that there would be housing that would be built on habitat for protected species and and what is habitat for protected species and why do we care about it? It's not just that there's an endangered species that might live right there. It's that habitat for a protected species covers things that are endangered and we don't want to become actually endangered species. So they are at risk of being in that category.

You know, California is a big and diverse state and I'll just give the example from Southern California.

We have a lot of coastal sage scrub in Southern California, and this is a really important habitat for the following endangered and sensitive species. Peregrine falcons, Morro Bay kangaroo rat, San Diego horned lizard, black tailed jackrabbit, and the California gnatcatcher. And so what CEQA would do is it would say if there's a housing development that's built on that habitat, the developer would have to mitigate.

So that means that they would have to spend money to buy property in another place to protect that habitat so that we could still provide opportunities for those species to live, for us to have the biodiversity that's so important in the state of California. And so if we don't have CEQA then for those projects, then we don't have the ability to have mitigation.

And that I think is is a loss. And so what this bill has multiple different pieces to it. And I wanna recognize that this piece is important to me and to many environmentalists, but there are other pieces that are really critically important to other members of this coalition. So that's why this bill has been described as being so broad and in some ways hard to get your arms around. It has a a tribal piece.

It has the labor piece. It has different pieces of the environmental piece. It has sections that talk about what types of advanced manufacturing are included and excluded. 94% of the advanced manufacturing that has been eligible for the tax credit is still getting a CEQA exemption, 94%. So that means that if they get a CEQA exemption, they don't have to do the mitigation, they don't have to go through the CEQA process, then what then what happens?