What is the current legislative session in California?

After eight months, California’s legislative session came to a close on Sept. 1 with a final flurry of frantic activity. Lawmakers rushed to pass hundreds of remaining bills before the clock struck midnight on Aug. 31. For a select few measures, with urgency clauses that allow them to take effect immediately upon the governor’s signature, the votes stretched into the wee hours the next day.

High-profile measures headed to Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom aim to establish California as a progressive leader on abortion access, on measures to counter climate change and on transgender health care for minors. These votes took place as campaigns ramp up for 100 of the 120 seats in the Legislature. On several bills, the governor not only signaled his support, but lobbied lawmakers to approve them.

Not every contentious proposal made it through the gantlet: Bills to restrict bail costs, to allow legislative staff to unionize, and to preserve California’s concealed-carry gun limits all went down to defeat in the final hours. And a bill that would have allowed teenagers to get vaccines without parental permission was pulled Wednesday without a vote.

Now Newsom has until the end of September to either sign or veto the bills that did pass — and his choices will likely be more closely watched than ever as speculation builds about whether he is positioning himself to run for president.

Here are some of the interesting and consequential bills that CalMatters is tracking — bookmark this page and keep checking back as we update the fate of each:

By Sameea Kamal

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

After failed attempts in 2020 and 2021, a bill to legalize “natural organic reduction,” or turning bodies into soil as an after-death option was resurrected this year. AB 351, authored by Assemblymember Cristina Garcia, a Democrat from Downey, establishes licensing and regulation processes for human composting. It would also require the state’s public health department to regulate the “reduction chambers” where it’s done to prevent the spread of disease. The regulation would be funded by a maximum fee of $8.50 per reduction — or per body — paid by licensed facilities to the Department of Consumer Affairs’ Cemetery and Funeral Bureau.  

WHO SUPPORTS IT

The bill was supported by the environmental group Californians Against Waste and by two companies who offer sustainable burial services, Better Place Forests and Recompose. 

WHO IS OPPOSED 

The California Catholic Conference opposes the bill, saying that scattering the remains of multiple people in the same area is “tantamount to a mass grave.” 

WHY IT MATTERS

Garcia said the state needs more environmentally friendly burial options, since traditional methods put chemicals into the ground, or release carbon into the atmosphere. The National Funeral Directors Association estimates that about 67% of people were cremated in 2021 – and that number is expected to rise. Cremating one corpse can release almost 600 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Supporters of the bill say if each Californian opted to be composted after death, the carbon saved would be enough to power 225,000 homes for a year. It would take effect in 2027.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

Newsom signed the bill into law Sept. 18

By Nadia Lopez

WHAT THE BILL DOES

AB 1279, authored by Democratic Assemblymembers Al Muratsuchi of Torrance and Cristina Garcia of Bell Gardens, codifies California’s commitment to reach carbon neutrality by 2045. To achieve this target, the state needs to reduce its fossil fuel use by 91% – a target that the California Air Resources Board has prioritized in this year’s climate change blueprint. Carbon neutrality means balancing the volume of greenhouse gases that are emitted with the amount removed from the atmosphere. 

It was part of the climate action plan that Gov. Gavin Newsom pushed legislators in mid-August to help meet the state’s carbon-neutral goals. One ambitious bill for tackling climate change, however, was shot down by the Assembly: AB 2133 – which would have ramped up goals for reducing greenhouse gases — failed at the last minute.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

Newsom and environmental groups are top supporters. Supporters say the world could exceed the 1.5 degree celsius threshold of dangerous warming as early as 2030, and that California must do its part to avoid the dire effects of climate change. 

WHO IS OPPOSED 

The Western States Petroleum Association and the California Chamber of Commerce were two of the most outspoken opponents, as were farmers and grower associations. They labeled it a “job killer,” insisting there is no clear plan to achieve the goals and that the rapid transition to a carbon-free economy would cause many workers to lose their jobs. Instead, the groups are advocating for more market-based approaches that trade credits and capture and store carbon while still allowing continued use of fossil fuels. 

WHY IT MATTERS

California has long been a global leader in tackling climate change, enacting bold policies to reduce its carbon footprint. Though the state is responsible for less than 1% of greenhouse gases emitted globally, it has the fifth largest economy and helps drive global policy changes. California enacted AB 32 in 2006, which required the state to set strict emission limits, including a target that greenhouse gas emission levels must reach 1990 levels by 2020. The state achieved that target four years early, but it’s not on pace to meet its current 2030 goal of a 40% cut — much less a larger one.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

Newsom signed this and other climate bills on Sept. 16. “This month has been a wake-up call for all of us that later is too late to act on climate change. California isn’t waiting any more,” he said in a statement. “Together with the Legislature, California is taking the most aggressive action on climate our nation has ever seen. We’re cleaning the air we breathe, holding the big polluters accountable, and ushering in a new era for clean energy.” 

By Nadia Lopez

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO 

SB 846, authored by Republican Assemblymember Jordan Cunningham of San Luis Obispo and Democratic state Sen. Bill Dodd of Napa, would keep the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant open until 2030 and give its operator, Pacific Gas & Electric, a $1.4 billion loan to do so. The plant is currently scheduled to shut down in 2025. The contentious measure mirrors draft legislation Newsom proposed on Aug. 12, with a few key differences: Newsom wanted to extend the life of the plant for ten years, which received widespread opposition from legislators. The bill also includes stronger protections for ratepayers, and the loan would be allocated in increments. Lawmakers will have to approve spending of state funds in excess of $600 million. The state has a Sept. 6 deadline to apply for federal funding. 

WHO SUPPORTS IT 

Newsom, ​​U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein and the California Independent System Operator, which operates the state’s power grid were supporters. They say the plant is critical to California’s efforts to provide a steady power supply as it builds its renewable energy sources, cuts greenhouse gases and reduces reliance on fossil fuels. 

WHO IS OPPOSED

Some energy experts and environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists, were opposed. They raised concerns about spent nuclear waste and safety issues due to the plant’s proximity to seismic fault lines. They also say the plant’s extension could delay much-needed investments in renewable energy. 

WHY IT MATTERS

Facing extreme heat, prolonged drought and wildfires, California has increasingly faced challenges in providing reliable electricity. Diablo Canyon provides about 10% of the state’s power. So far the state’s investments in solar and wind have lagged behind its goals.

GOVERNOR’S CALL ✅

As expected, Newsom announced on Sept. 2 that he was signing the bill. “Climate change is causing unprecedented stress on California’s energy system and I appreciate the Legislature’s action to maintain energy reliability as the State accelerates the transition to clean energy,” he said in a signing statement. “Senate Bill 846 facilitates the actions necessary to keep the option of (Diablo Canyon) as a statewide reliability asset beyond the current 2024-2025 retirement dates of the plant’s two units.”