Sacramento, CA – The California Environmental Justice Alliance Action (CEJA Action), a project of Beyond Impact, is excited to announce our 2026 Legislative Agenda!
Determining priority bills is held by our 501(c)(3) affiliate organization, the California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA). CEJA utilizes a process that centers the grassroots community members represented by our alliance member organizations.
First, three Issue Area Committees nominated multiple bills for consideration. Then, a Legislative Committee reviews all the proposed bills and makes a recommendation to prioritize specific bills. Finally, a Program Advisory Council reviews and discusses the recommendations before voting. Each Committee consists of staff from different combinations of CEJA’s member organizations, based on their specific priorities. The Program Advisory Council includes at least one delegate from each member organization to make the final determination of the legislative agenda.
The three Issue Area Committees include Equitable Land Use, Climate Justice, and Energy Justice. Each has a campaign that their work centers around, including coordination with member organizations, organizing community members, public education, engaging with state regulatory agencies, and narrative shifting. Although CEJA does dedicate a small fraction of its work toward lobbying, CEJA Action is the primary implementer of this body of work.
Equitable Land Use: Healing the Land, Healing the People Campaign
Support: AB 2170 (Boerner) – The Families and Neighborhood Safety Act
This common-sense bill would require highly polluting industrial development projects planned within a half mile of an overburdened community to have an environmental review. The projects would be required to share the review findings and other project information with the community, if needed, translated into the appropriate languages of the respective communities where the projects are being proposed. This will allow communities to participate in public processes to express their concerns or share their support of these projects before permits are approved.
Why We Support It:
Community participation, particularly those already overburdened with environmental hazards, in the permitting process is a key component of environmental justice. The environmental review process creates an avenue for this participation, as well as provides community members with information about the impacts of the project.
Support: SB 954 (Blakespear)
This bill addresses the environmental and public health rollbacks enacted under Senate Bill 131 (2025), and takes critical steps toward fulfilling the commitments made last year by legislative leadership to scale back the most harmful of these provisions. SB 954 would address these impacts by restoring necessary protections for communities, workers, and the environment, and by establishing state oversight over the use of the “advanced manufacturing” CEQA exemption.
Why We Support It:
We reject the false narrative that Californians must choose between a strong economy and a clean environment. In reality, the state has developed the largest manufacturing sector in the country, and the fourth largest economy in the world, while upholding robust protections for workers and communities. Economic growth must support the well-being of all Californians and must not compromise the health of our workers and residents, nor the quality of our air, water, and natural ecosystems.
Support: AB 736 (Wicks) / SB 417 (Calbadon)
This bill is in support of issuing $10 billion in bonds to support affordable rental housing and home ownership programs.
Why We Support It:
There is no environmental justice without housing justice. Safe, affordable housing is a basic human right. It is impossible to have an environmentally just community where people cannot afford to live safely.
Support: AB 1543 (Quirk-Silva)
Current law has placed rent cap protections for mobile home parks that are in and governed by multiple jurisdictions, such as two or more cities. This bill would extend rent cap protections to all mobile home parks.
Why We Support It:
There is no environmental justice without housing justice, and that includes justice for those living in mobile homes. Rent protections for mobile homes are just as critical to the fight for housing justice as ensuring there are adequate safe, affordable homes in cities, suburbs, rural areas, and everywhere in between.
Support: SB 1091 (Caballero) – The Community Anti-Displacement and Preservation Program (CAPP)
This bill will allow community organizations, nonprofit affordable housing developers, and local jurisdictions to access resources to acquire unsubsidized rental housing from the private market where tenants are at risk of displacement and preserve its affordable rental housing status. Not only will this help maintain the availability of affordable housing, but it will also prevent community members from being displaced if the private market plans to move to market rate housing.
Why We Support It:
Even with initiatives to build affordable housing, many affordable homes are lost each year to the transfer to market rates, slowing progress to address the housing crisis in the state. This bill will create a pathway to reduce the loss of affordable housing, while keeping community members in their homes.
Climate Justice: Managed Decline Campaign
Support: SB 1259 (Blakespear) – Transparency for Refinery Asset Retirement Obligations
This bill would require oil refineries to assess and report the cost and timelines of environmental clean-up for when they eventually close, even if their retirement date is unknown. This is a step towards meeting the more stringent requirements as other energy sectors (wind, solar, and nuclear), which are all also required to set aside funds to pay for the cleanup. The reports will allow communities time to plan and prepare for the transition phase when the refinery closes and the following clean-up period. It also provides a foundation for future bills to expand upon how refineries should prepare to fund the clean-up.
Why We Support It:
A critical step in having a managed decline from fossil fuels is knowing what the clean-up will look like and how long it will take so communities can plan accordingly. Lacking this information delays site remediation and development planning for the next use of the land, elongating public health and economic impacts.
Support: AB 1661 (Bryan) – Oil and gas: low-production wells: Baldwin Hills Conservancy: Equitable Community Repair and Reinvestment Account
Existing law (through AB 2716) states that oil wells in certain regions (LA County, near state parks and within Baldwin Hills Conservancy) cannot remain “low-producing” for more than 12 months without incurring a $10,000/month penalty until the well is plugged and abandoned. The penalty fees go into the Equitable Community Repair and Reinvestment Account, which funds community benefit projects in the same region. AB 1661 (Bryan) proposes to amend this law to require that the first $5 million brought into the account must be used for direct cash assistance to families and children with respiratory health conditions living within 2.5 miles of the Inglewood Oil Field.
Why We Support It:
This bill will ensure that impacted residents truly benefit from this program and create a model for environmental reparations within a historically Black community.
Support: AB 2157 (Connolly) – Displaced Oil and Gas Worker Fund (DOGWF)
This bill would make the existing Displaced Oil and Gas Worker Fund (DOGWF) a permanent program in California law under the Employment Development Department (EDD). The program helps ensure that workers affected by refinery closures and the state’s transition away from fossil fuels receive support while helping maintain safe refinery shutdown and remediation operations.
Why We Support It:
Environmental justice includes stable, gainful employment for everyone. Making the DOGWF program permanent will allow California to responsibly manage workforce impacts as refinery closures continue across the state. DOGWF supports refinery closures and industry shifts to occur safely, predictably, and with minimal environmental and economic risk.
Support: AB 2461 (Hart)
Although current law requires oil and gas operators to pay to plug and remediate their wells, many fail to meet this obligation and leave taxpayers covering the cost. This bill reduces that risk by requiring operators that acquire idle and marginally producing oil wells to post a bond or other financial assurances for the full cost of plugging and environmental clean-up.
Why We Support It:
This bill supports protecting the communities already bearing the health and environmental burdens of the fossil fuel industry from also having to pay for its cleanup. It is also a step toward polluter accountability.
Support: SB 1075 (Reyes)
This bill will require that land use decisions made on all government levels must be made in alignment with the applicable local community emission reduction plans (CERPs). It also allows for community members to request additional review of projects by the Attorney General’s office to ensure compliance.
Why We Support It:
Ensuring that land development is accountable to the community’s emission reduction plans helps ensure that community priorities for air quality are considered in the decision-making process. The additional accountability process creates another avenue for community members to ensure land development decisions are not made without them and against their best interests.
Support: SB 1180 (Allen) – Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act: California Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund
In 2022, California legislators passed SB 54 (Allen), which established the Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund (PPMF), requiring plastic producers to pay $500 million annually to the fund for 10 years, starting in 2027. Money from this fund will be used to address the impacts of plastics, prioritizing disadvantaged communities facing environmental justice and health impacts of plastics. SB 1180 proposes that the fund’s allocation prioritize programs and projects that benefit communities most affected by the impacts of plastic pollution, align with or implement community-driven solutions, provide multiple benefits, and demonstrate engagement with communities and Tribes in planning, development, and implementation.
Why We Support It:
Plastics are made from fossil fuels, and their environmental and health impacts are becoming better understood over time. Environmental justice communities often face multiple hazards simultaneously, such as poor air quality from refineries and plastic pollution. This bill is another approach to help our communities recover from the impacts of the fossil fuel industry.
Support: AB 1777 (Garcia) – Air Pollution: Indirect Sources
This bill clarifies existing law allowing the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to respond at a state level to regulate indirect pollution sources, in addition to regional air district regulations.
Why We Support It:
Environmental justice communities are often deeply impacted by indirect pollution sources, such as freight truck emissions. Allowing for the development of a state level Indirect Source Regulation will help protect communities that may not have regulations in place through their regional air district.
Energy Justice: Retire and Replace Campaign
Support: AB 1813 (Ward)
Requires the California Public Utilities Commission to evaluate current renewable energy subscription programs as a steppingstone to establishing a meaningful community solar program in CA. If the current programs are deemed ineffective, a new one would be established. Criteria for the effectiveness of current programs includes:
- Complement building energy efficiency standards (Title 24 of CA Building Code),
- Construction workers and apprentices are paid fairly at their respective prevailing wages/rates
- 51% or more of program capacity serves low-income customers
- Programs are aimed to not pass program costs to non-participating customers, by utilizing the avoided cost calculator as a way to better value distributed resources
Why We Support It:
Improving the effectiveness and scalability of renewable energy subscription programs will help them become or be replaced with programs that are more accessible to low-income and working families. The revamp subscription program is aimed to reduce energy bill costs and ensure the cost of the program is not at the expense of others ( i.e. nonparticipating households). Equitable, local-scale clean energy resources should be accessible to everyone, including those who have been harmed by the fossil fuel industry. The State must invest in a community solar + storage program that secures proper workforce development standards where clean energy workers are paid at a prevailing wage.
Oppose: SB 1350 (McNerney)
This bill would count a facility with combustion turbines as a renewable energy facility for the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) if those turbines burn a fuel already included in the RPS. In other words, this bill would allow gas plants to get RPS credit while using “green hydrogen” to power their turbines.
Why We Oppose It:
This is a deeply concerning bill that would negatively impact environmental justice communities by prolonging the life of gas plants and incentivizing hydrogen combustion. There is a risk that transitioning a power plant to run on hydrogen will increase NOx emissions because hydrogen burns at a higher flame temperature than methane. Furthermore, the bill as written does not define green hydrogen, leaving it open for hydrogen producers to interpret it in ways that may increase GHG emissions, ultimately undermining the purpose of having an RPS.
Support: SB 327 (McNerney)
SB 327 would explicitly ban the use of ratepayer funds on lobbying or other political activities against efforts by cities and counties to create their own municipal utilities. This bill would also clarify the Public Advocate’s Office’s role in investigating the IOUs’ activities to protect consumers from utilities’ abuses.
Why We Support It:
With energy rates becoming less affordable, seemingly by the minute, we cannot allow investor-owned utility (IOUs) companies to utilize ratepayer monies for advancing misaligned political positions. For example, Californians are looking to municipalize their energy system, reflective of an energy democracy movement. However, IOUs currently can use our money to lobby against such proposals. Not only is this practice extremely undemocratic, but it also hurts the wallets of everyday residents. As the ones who benefit, shareholders should pay for political positioning activities, not ratepayers.
Support: AB 2313 (Berman)
Requires that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) mandate that gas corporations offer a program to provide a financial incentive for households to choose electric alternative appliances instead of replacing their gas service lines when scheduled. The financial incentive will be the equivalent of 85% of the average lifetime cost of replacing the gas service line.
Why We Support It:
There are two primary reasons why AB 2313 is a progressive bill, moving us to a just transition. Firstly, the cost of replacing gas service lines is passed on to all customers. As the demand for gas decreases, it will become more expensive for each ratepayer to pay for an aging system. Low-income households are most likely to be impacted by rising costs of the gas system, and the least likely to be able to switch to electric appliances without assistance.
Secondly, the proposed program will give households the choice to move away from gas and electrify their homes. Instead of using these funds to update a polluting pipeline, the money would be used to transition households to electrification. AB 2313 benefits particularly low-income households that have been intentionally left out of adopting clean technologies.
Support: SB 913 (Becker)
This bill will mandate that applicable government agencies – California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Independent System Operator (CAISO), and the California Energy Commission (CEC) – enhance pathways, update processes, and simplify enrollment for households to participate in the Resource Adequacy program. The Resource Adequacy program will be required to pay households at the same rate at utility-scale producers for energy that they export into the grid for their full capacity. This means that a home with a solar panel array that exceeds its energy use would be fairly compensated for the additional energy that it passes back into the electrical grid.
Why We Support It:
Distributed Energy Resources (DERs), such as rooftop solar, strengthen electrical grids, support the transition to clean energy, and lower costs for ratepayers. This bill will make changes to existing law to incentivize additional solar installations and make energy more affordable for all ratepayers.
Support if Amended: SB 978 (Pérez)
This bill adds ratepayer protections from paying higher electricity costs by requiring data center companies to pay for their own infrastructure costs. These infrastructure costs are socialized amongst residential ratepayers, burdening everyday ratepayers instead of for-profit corporations. New data centers must ensure they can cover their fair share, while supporting good paying jobs for workers, and establishing strong rules about clean energy back-up generators.
What We Like:
We need to ensure that transmission and distribution costs do not get passed onto residential ratepayers. It is an unaffordable time for many everyday Californians so we must pass policies to add protections and prevent further rate increases. SB 978, protects ratepayers ensuring those costs are burdening companies owned by billionaires.
Proposed Amendments:
- Lower the MW requirement from 75 MW to 20 MW. This would mean more data centers would be included on the list and the safeguards would apply to most data centers in California.
- Apply the requirements for onsite solar, wind, and battery to be applied for POU territory, too. As of now, IOUs would be required to adopt these measures, and the request is that a POU customer should also benefit from these protections too.
- Data centers must use 100% carbon-free energy resources for its operation by the hour. This is an opportunity for companies proposing these data centers to procure zero-emission electric generation resources for its operations, instead of fossil-fuel resources
Support if Amended: SB 886 (Padilla) California Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act
This bill creates a framework for protecting customers of investor-owned utilities from subsidizing the largest data centers and other large-load customers by passing the costs of interconnection to ratepayers, requiring the data center to pay these expenses instead. It also requires the facility to have on-site clean energy generation and storage without creating new carbon-intensive energy infrastructure.
What We Like:
Protecting ratepayers from subsidizing the costs of large energy users, such as data centers, is critical for combating the rising costs of energy in our communities. Prohibiting more infrastructure investment into carbon-intensive systems for on-site energy production and storage supports California’s goals of carbon neutrality.
Proposed Amendments:
- On-site power generation must be limited to zero-emission technologies.
- Since data centers will add additional strain to the power grid, they should be required to fund the development of new zero-emission electric generation sufficient to meet their energy needs each hour, including delivery infrastructure.
- Instead of including all large-load customers (over 75 MW), the threshold should be reduced to 20MW, but make it specific to data centers rather than all large-load customers. This will also need clarification that a project cannot avoid thresholds by being split between multiple utility interconnections.
- The protections provided to electricity ratepayers should be extended to gas bills to prevent rate spikes by subsidizing data center interconnections.
- The minimum energy storage requirement should be increased from 50% of forecasted peak demand for four hours of use to 100% or higher than peak demand. The data centers would be compensated for their excess energy production, benefitting all customers and grid reliability.
Oppose: AB 2057 (DeMaio)
Prohibits local governments or state agencies from adopting or enforcing policies that limit the use of gas appliances in buildings.
Why We Oppose It:
This bill is attempting to take away power from local government and its communities by banning or limiting gas appliances in buildings. It also is an attack on the state’s climate goals and would prevent a proper, just transition to clean electricity, particularly in low-income communities already experiencing disproportionate amounts of pollution.
Solidarity Bills
Solidarity bills include proposed legislation related to social or environmental justice issues that CEJA and CEJA Action have a stance on, and they are as follows:
Support: SB 982 (Weiner) – Gives the Attorney General the authority to hold polluters accountable for climate disasters and recoup costs to the California Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) plan and home insurance policy holders
Support: AB 1790 (Connolly) – Would eliminate the Water’s Edge election, closing a major tax loophole used by multinational corporations doing business in CA
Support: AB 2227 (Connolly) – This bill would increase the bonding used to pay out wage theft claims for farmworkers.
Support: SB 1243 (Durazo) – This bill creates eviction protections for tenants impacted by immigrant detention and enforcement actions
Support: SB 1125 (Menjivar) – This bill creates a low-income water rate assistance program
Support: SB 1422 (Durazo) – This bill allows undocumented adults to once again have access to Medi-Cal benefits
Support: SB 994 (Cabaldon) – This bill would prevent local officials from entering into non-disclosure agreements (NDAs)
Support: AB 2635 (C. Rodriguez) – The bill aims to support a more equitable transition to zero-emission landscaping equipment statewide and builds on AB 1346 (Berman), which was enacted in 2021