The Brief

After three years of trying to give Californians the right to know when AI is making a consequential decision about their lives and to appeal when things go wrong, Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan said she and her supporters will have to wait again, until next year.

The San Ramon Democrat announced Friday that Assembly Bill 1018, which cleared the Assembly and two Senate committees, has been designated a two-year bill, meaning it can return as part of the legislative session next year. That move will allow more time for conversations with Gov. Gavin Newsom and more than 70 opponents. The decision came in the final hours of the California Legislative session.

Her bill would require businesses and government agencies to alert individuals when automated systems are used to make important decisions about them, including for apartment leases, school admissions, and, in the workplace, hiring, firing, promotions, and disciplinary actions. The bill also covers decisions made in education, health care, criminal justice, government benefits, financial services, and insurance.

Automated systems that assign people scores or make recommendations can stop Californians from receiving unemployment benefits they’re entitled to, declare job applicants less qualified for arbitrary reasons that have nothing to do with job performance, or deny people health care or a mortgage because of their race.

“This pause reflects our commitment to getting this critical legislation right, not a retreat from our responsibility to protect Californians," Bauer-Kahan said in a statement shared with CalMatters.

Bauer-Kahan adopted the principles enshrined in the legislation from the Biden administration’s AI Bill of Rights. California has passed more AI regulation than any other state, but has yet to adopt a law like Bauer-Kahan’s or like other laws requiring disclosure of consequential AI decisions like the Colorado AI Act or European Union’s AI Act.

The pause comes at a time when politicians in Washington D.C. continue to oppose AI regulation that they say could stand in the way of progress. President Donald Trump in July released an "AI Action Plan" calling for deregulation of the technology at the federal and state level. Earlier this year, Congress tried and failed to pass a moratorium on AI regulation by state governments.

When an automated system makes an error, AB 1018 gives people the right to have that mistake rectified within 30 days. It also reiterates that algorithms must give “full and equal” accommodations to everyone, and cannot discriminate against people based on characteristics like age, race, gender, disability, or immigration status. Developers must carry out impact assessments to, among other things, test for bias embedded in their systems. If an impact assessment is not conducted on an AI system, and that system is used to make consequential decisions about people’s lives, the developer faces fines of up to $25,000 per violation, or legal action by the attorney general, public prosecutors, or the Civil Rights Department.

Amendments made to the bill in recent weeks exempted generative AI models from coverage under the bill, which could prevent it from impacting major AI companies or ongoing generative AI pilot projects carried out by state agencies. The bill was also amended to delay a developer auditing requirement to 2030, and to clarify that the bill intends to address evaluating a person and making predictions or recommendations about them.

An intense legislative fight

Samantha Gordon, a chief program officer at TechEquity, a sponsor of the bill, said she’s seen more lobbyists attempt to kill AB 1018 this week in the California Senate than for any other AI bill ever. She said she thinks AB 1018 had a pathway to passage but the decision was made to pause in order to work with the governor, who ends his second and final term next year.

“There's a fundamental disagreement about whether or not these tools should face basic scrutiny of testing and informing the public that they're being used,” Gordon said.

Gordon thinks it’s possible tech companies will use their “unlimited amount of money” to fight the bill next year.

“But it’s clear,” she added, “that Americans want these protections — poll after poll shows Americans want strong laws on AI and that voluntary protections are insufficient.”

AB 1018 faced opposition from industry groups, big tech companies, the state’s largest health care provider, venture capital firms, and the Judicial Council of California, a policymaking body for state courts.

A coalition of hospitals, Kaiser Permanente, and health care software and AI company Epic Systems urged lawmakers to vote no on 1018 because they argued the bill would negatively influence patient care, increase costs, and require developers to contract with third-party auditors to assess compliance by 2030.

A coalition of business groups opposed the bill because of generalizing language and concern that compliance could be expensive for businesses and taxpayers. The group Technet, which seeks to shape policy nationwide and whose members include companies like Apple, Google, Nvidia, and OpenIAI, argued that AB 1018 would stifle job growth, raise costs, and punish the fastest growing industries in the state in a video ad campaign.

Venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, whose founder Marc Andreessen supported the re-election of President Trump, opposes the bill in part because it imposes costs "well beyond [California's] borders."

A policy leader in the state judiciary said in an alert sent to lawmakers urging a no vote this week that the burden of compliance with the bill is so great that the judicial branch is at risk of losing the ability to use pretrial risk assessment tools like the kind that assign recidivism scores to sex offenders and violent felons. The Judicial Council estimates that AB 1018 passage will cost the state up to $300 million a year. Similar points were made in a letter to lawmakers last month.

Why backers keep fighting

Exactly how much AB 1018 could cost taxpayers is still a big unknown, due to contradictory information from state government agencies. An analysis by California legislative staff found that if the bill passes it could cost local agencies, state agencies, and the state judicial branch hundreds of millions of dollars. But a California Department of Technology report covered exclusively by CalMatters concluded in May that no state agencies use high risk automated systems, despite historical evidence to the contrary. Bauer-Kahan said last month that she was surprised by the financial impact estimates because CalMatters reporting found that automated decisionmaking system use was not widespread at the state level.

Support for the bill has come from unions who pledged to discuss AI in bargaining agreements, including the California Nurses Association and the Service Employees International Union, and from groups like the Citizen’s Privacy Coalition, Consumer Reports, and the Consumer Federation of California.

Coauthors of AB 1018 include major Democratic proponents of AI regulation in the California Legislature, including Assembly majority leader Cecilia Aguilar-Curry of Davis, author of a bill passed and on the governor’s desk that seeks to stop algorithms from raising prices on consumer goods; Chula Vista Senator Steve Padilla, whose bill to protect kids from companion chatbots awaits the governor’s decision; and San Diego Assemblymember Chris Ward, who previously helped pass a law requiring state agencies to disclose use of high-risk automated systems and this year sought to pass a bill to prevent pricing based on your personal information.

The anti-discrimination language in AB 1018 is important because tech companies and their customers often see themselves as exempt from discrimination law if the discrimination is done by automated systems, said Inioluwa Deborah Raji, an AI researcher at UC Berkeley who has audited algorithms for discrimination and advised government officials in Sacramento and Washington D.C. about how AI can harm people. She questions whether state agencies have the resources to enforce AB 1018, but also likes the disclosure requirement in the bill because “I think people deserve to know, and there's no way that they can appeal or contest without it.”

“I need to know that an AI system was the reason I wasn't able to rent this house. Then I can at an individual level appeal and contest. There's something very valuable about that.”

Raji said she witnessed corporate influence and pushback when she helped shape a report about how California can balance guardrails and innovation for generative AI development, and she sees similar forces at play in the delay of AB 1018.

“It’s disappointing this [AB 1018] isn’t the priority for AI policy folks at this time,” she told CalMatters. “I truly hope the fourth time is the charm.”

A number of other bills with union backing were also considered by lawmakers this session that sought to protect workers from artificial intelligence. For the third year in a row, a bill to require a human driver in commercial delivery trucks in autonomous vehicles failed to become law. Assembly Bill 1331, which sought to prevent surveillance of workers with AI-powered tools in private spaces like locker or lactation rooms and placed limitations on surveillance in breakrooms, also failed to pass.

But another measure, Senate Bill 7 passed the legislature and is headed to the governor. It requires employers to disclose plans to use an automated system 30 days prior to doing so and make annual requests data used by an employer for discipline or firing. In recent days, author Senator Jerry McNerney amended the law to remove the right to appeal decisions made by AI and eliminate a prohibition against employers making predictions about a worker's political beliefs, emotional state, or neural data. The California Labor Federation supported similar bills in Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, and Washington.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

As Los Angeles homeowners grapple with the expense of rebuilding after last year’s devastating fires, an L.A. City Councilmember is putting forward an idea that could lower some costs.

Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Pacific Palisades, has introduced a motion to explore waiving part of the city’s portion of the local sales tax for fire victims who purchase rebuilding materials in the city.

The 1% of the local 9.75% sales tax that goes into the city’s general fund would be given back to consumers under the proposal. The waiver could apply to lumber, appliances and other rebuilding goods purchased within the city.

The motion, introduced Friday by Park and seconded by Councilmember John Lee, says: “The City should do everything within its power to alleviate the financial burden for these residents and businesses in order to facilitate their return and stabilize the Pacific Palisades community.”

Would it make much of a difference? 

Economists told LAist the proposal could help many homeowners mitigate the high cost of rebuilding, but likely wouldn’t tip the scales for under-insured, under-resourced property owners.

“It wouldn't hurt if it's very well designed and easy to use,” said Alexander Meeks, a director at the Santa Monica-based Milken Institute. “But I'm not sure if it's really going to tackle the scale of the financial challenge that survivors are facing.”

Meeks noted that the tax waiver wouldn’t lower up-front costs such as environmental testing, architectural design and permitting. And it may not help homeowners sourcing raw materials from outside the city.

Zhiyun Li, a UCLA Anderson School of Management economist, said the waiver could help some homeowners justify the additional cost of rebuilding more fire-safe structures.

“Homeowners must typically pay out of pocket to upgrade to IBHS+ standards, which are more stringent,” Li said. “The tax waiver could encourage upgrading to IBHS+ standards or investing more in mitigation, thereby reducing future risk and improving the likelihood of maintaining insurance coverage.”

What’s next for the proposal? 

The proposed tax relief would not be available to properties that have been sold since the fires started in January 2025.

The motion has been sent to the City Council’s budget and fire recovery committees. If approved by the full council, it would require the city administrative officer, the Office of Finance and the city attorney to report back to the council within 60 days on options for crafting a tax relief plan.

The motion calls for the report to consider factors such as how to minimize the burden of administering the tax relief, what documentation homeowners would have to submit and what it would cost the city to oversee the program.

Senate and House Republican leadership have resurrected a stalled plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security after a record 47-day funding lapse.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a joint statement on Wednesday that the House will take up a measure passed by the Senate last week to fund most of DHS except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol through the end of September.

Republicans would then attempt to fund ICE and Border Patrol for three years using a party-line budget reconciliation bill that would not require support from Democrats.

"In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited," Thune and Johnson wrote.

The agreement comes nearly a week after House Republicans dismissed an identical plan, refusing to take up the Senate-passed measure and instead passing a 60-day short term funding bill for all of DHS that had little chance of overcoming Democratic opposition in the Senate.

Johnson called the agreement a "joke" and President Donald Trump declined to publicly endorse the deal. Trump had previously resisted any package that did not include his push to overhaul federal elections known as the Save America Act.

"I think any deal they make, I'm pretty much not happy with it," Trump told reporters last week.

Democrats welcomed the agreement as in line with their pledge not to give ICE any more money without reforms after immigration enforcement agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. But the deal does not include any of the policy demands Democrats are pressing for, such as a ban on masks for immigration enforcement officers and requiring warrants issued by a judge, not just the agency, to enter homes.

"For days, Republican divisions derailed a bipartisan agreement, making American families pay the price for their dysfunction," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote in a statement Wednesday. "Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered."

Trump seemed to bless the revived plan earlier Wednesday, writing on social media that he wants a party-line bill to fund immigration enforcement on his desk by June 1.

"We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won't be able to stop us," Trump wrote.

Despite the shutdown, ICE has been minimally impacted because Republican lawmakers approved $75 billion for ICE through another party-line budget reconciliation bill last year.

Congress is on a two-week recess, but the Senate and House could move to fund all of DHS except ICE and CBP as early as Thursday using a procedure known as unanimous consent that allows the chambers to circumvent formal voting as long as no member objects.

Even during a recess when most members are not in Washington, this could be unpredictable, especially in the House, where many hard-line conservatives oppose a deal that does not fully fund DHS.

"Let's make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again," Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, wrote on X. "If that's the vote, I'm a NO."

If a member does object, that could require waiting for another vote when all members are back from recess.

Claudia Grisales contributed reporting.
Copyright 2026 NPR

California clocked its second-worst snowpack on record Wednesday, a potentially troubling signal ahead for fire season.

It’s an alarming end to a winter that saw abnormally dry conditions briefly wiped from California’s drought map in January, for the first time in a quarter-century.

Though precipitation to date has been near average, much of it fell as rain rather than snow. Then March’s record-breaking heat melted most of the snow that remains. The state’s major reservoirs are nevertheless brimming above historic averages and are flirting with capacity, and a smattering of snow, rain and thunderstorms are dousing last month’s heat wave.

But experts now warn that California’s case of the missing snowpack could herald an early fire season in the mountains.

On Wednesday, state engineers conducting the symbolic April 1 snowpack measurement at Phillips Station south of Lake Tahoe found no measurable snow in patches of white dotting the grassy field.

“I want to welcome you call to probably one of the quickest snow surveys we’ve had — maybe one where people could actually use an umbrella,” joked Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources. “We’re getting a lot of questions about are we heading into a hydrologic drought? The answer is, I don’t know.”

State data reports that California’s snowpack is closing out the season at an alarming 18% of average statewide, and an even more abysmal 6% of average in the northern mountains that feed California’s major reservoirs.

Only the extreme drought year of 2015 beat this year’s snowpack for the worst on record, measuring in at just 5% of average on April 1st, when the snow historically is at its deepest.

“I think everyone's anticipating that it will be a long, busy fire season,” said Lenya Quinn-Davidson, director of the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Fire Network.

“Without a snowpack, and with an early spring, it just means that there’s much more time for something like that to happen.”

‘It’s pretty bizarre up here’ 

In the city of South Lake Tahoe, which survived the massive Caldor Fire in the fall of 2021 without losing any structures, fire chief Jim Drennan said his department is already ramping up prevention efforts.

“It's pretty bizarre up here right now. It really seems like June conditions more than March,” Drennan said. “People are already turning the sprinklers on for their lawns.”

Without more precipitation, an early spring may complicate prescribed burning efforts. But Drennan said fire agencies in the Tahoe basin can start mechanically clearing fuels from forest areas earlier than usual.

“That means we can get more work done,” he said.

It also means homeowners need to start hardening their homes now, said Martin Goldberg, battalion chief and fuels management officer for the Lake Valley Fire Protection District, which protects unincorporated communities in the Lake Tahoe Basin’s south shore.

Goldberg urges residents to scour their yards for burnable materials, create defensible space and reach out to local fire departments with questions. The risks are widespread — from firewood, wooden fences, gas cans, plants, pine needles — even lawn furniture stacked against a house.

“In years past, I wouldn't even think of raking and clearing until May,” Goldberg said. “But my yard's completely cleared of snowpack, and it has been for a couple weeks now.”

‘A haystack fire’

Battalion chief David Acuña, a spokesperson for Cal Fire, said fire season is shaped by more than just one year’s snowpack.

Climate change has been remaking California’s fire seasons into fire years. And California’s recent average to abundant water years have fueled what Acuña called “bumper crops of vegetation and brush.”

“Most of California is like a haystack. And if you’ve ever seen a haystack fire, they burn very intensely because there's layers of fuel,” Acuña said.

Like Quinn-Davidson, Acuña wasn’t ready to make specific predictions about fires to come.

But John Abatzoglou, a professor of climatology at UC Merced, said the temperatures and snowpack conditions this year offer a glimpse of California in the latter decades of this century, as fossil fuel use continues to drive global temperatures higher.

How this year’s fires will play out will depend on when, where and how wind, heat, fuel and ignitions combine. But it foreshadows the consequences of a warmer California for water and fire under climate change.

“This,” Abatzoglou said, “is yet another stress test for the future in the state.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.