Oppose - SB 1359 raises significant concerns around safety, reliability, and economic impact by restricting investment in essential gas infrastructure needed to maintain and modernize existing systems. By tying critical upgrades to policy thresholds, the bill could delay necessary improvements and increase the risk of service disruptions. It also poses challenges for businesses that depend on natural gas—including restaurants, manufacturers, hospitals, and small enterprises—by enabling infrastructure retirement and potential loss of service, which could drive up costs, limit operations, and put jobs at risk where electric alternatives are not viable.
Support – The Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (F/ETCA) is seeking supplemental tolling authority for the 241/91 Express Connector Project, a new tolled link between the 241 Toll Road and the 91 Express Lanes developed with OCTA, RCTC, and Caltrans. This project will relieve severe congestion along one of Southern California’s busiest corridors by shortening queues, reducing weaving on SR-91, improving travel times, and lowering emissions. With regional population, employment, and housing growth driving additional demand, approving F/ETCA’s toll facility application is essential to providing commuters a reliable alternative route and improving long-term mobility across Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties.
12/4/25
Support - The bill would allow a carrier (i.e., AT&T) to relinquish its carrier of last resort (COLR) designation for an eligible area, which fundamentally refers to requirements for the carrier to provide basic service to all customers in a designated area. The main opposition to this bill is California State Association of Counties and rural communities, as there is concern they could be left without service. But it seems there are safeguards in place and there is still a process with the California Public Utilities Commission for a carrier to be relinquished of the carrier of last resort designation.
7/9/25
Abstain - California's new Fast Food Council may consider higher wages (following last year's $20.00 per hour mandate for fast food worker minimum wages - AB 1228), as well as other regulations. Local governments may consider "Know Your Rights" ordinances that impose costs on employers.
6/12/25
Oppose - SB310 (Wiener) expands Private Right of Action for Penalties. Creates a new private right of action for wage and hour penalties that will be manipulated by trial attorneys, undermining the 2024 Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) reform, which sought to reduce avenues for litigation abuse.
6/3/25
Oppose - Assembly Bill 353 (Boerner) would require every California internet service provider to offer for purchase to eligible households, as defined, within their California service territory, affordable home internet service that meets minimum speed requirements.
5/28/25
Support - AB 514 (Petrie-Norris) aims to establish a state policy that recognizes and encourages the development of emergency water supplies to enhance water supply reliability during times of shortage.
4/17/25
Abstain - Senate Bill 634 prohibits local and state authorities from imposing penalties—including jail time or fines—on unhoused individuals for acts related to their basic survival, and protects those providing assistance to homeless individuals.
4/11/25
Support - SB 7 regulates employer use of automated decision systems in employment decisions, imposing extensive notice, access, correction, and appeal requirements—regardless of business size or risk level.
4/2/25
Abstain - SB 555 mandates automatic annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for all permanent disability (PD) benefits under workers' compensation, a shift from the current system that only applies COLAs to the most severe cases (70%+).
4/2/25
Oppose - AB 1331 (Elhawary) restricts workplace safety and security tools. If passed, the bill would undermine workplace safety in every California workplace by effectively prohibiting the use of any surveillance technology, including security cameras, cybersecurity systems, and anti-theft devices.
3/28/25
- Coalition Concerns:
Overly broad definitions can restrict the effectiveness of standard tools like security cameras, GPS, and cybersecurity systems. - An impractical requirement to disable surveillance during breaks or off-duty hours.
Undermines workplace safety, violence prevention, and Cal/OSHA compliance. - Includes independent contractors, increasing security risks, and administrative burden.
Exposes employers to lawsuits despite no clear path to compliance.
Greater Irvine Chamber Alignment:
The Greater Irvine Chamber supports workplace safety, operational flexibility in the business sector, and clarity in regulatory compliance. AB 1331 conflicts with these priorities by limiting the use of reasonable safety and security tools, introducing legal risks, and imposing impractical compliance burdens on businesses across various sectors.
Support - SB 84 (Niello) balances the rights of people with disabilities and those of business owners. Prevents predatory lawsuits targeting small businesses for minor or technical violations. Encourages timely remediation rather than costly settlements. Provides clarity and fairness, benefiting both businesses and the disability community.
3/28/25
Greater Irvine Chamber Alignment:
SB84 aligns closely with the Chamber’s principles supporting regulatory reform, litigation protection, and small business support. It also promotes pragmatic compliance approaches that expand access while reducing abuse of legal frameworks.
Support - AB 1234 (Ortega) imposes a 30% administrative fee on any Labor Commissioner decision in favor of a worker and introduces stricter procedural requirements for employers.
3/26/25
Coalition Concern:
- The fee acts as an automatic penalty regardless of intent.
- Unfairly penalizes employers who seek a hearing in good faith.
- Introduces procedural burdens and due process concerns.
Greater Irvine Chamber Alignment
The Chamber’s handbook emphasizes fairness in enforcement, due process, and the need to avoid one-size-fits-all penalties that discourage business growth and resolution of disputes. This bill conflicts with those principles.
Support - AB 858 (Lee) expands recall rights for displaced hospitality workers due to natural disasters, mandating rehire by seniority and requiring repeated notifications to eligible workers.
3/26/25
Coalition Concern:
- Overly burdensome regulation on employers, especially in hospitality.
- Reintroduces elements of a vetoed bill (AB 3216) and undermines the more limited SB 93.
- Limits employer flexibility, imposes administrative delays, and raises legal/constitutional concerns.
Greater Irvine Chamber Alignment:
The Chamber supports policies that promote employer flexibility, reduce regulatory burdens, and foster economic recovery in impacted industries, such as hospitality and tourism. AB 858’s mandates conflict with these priorities.
Support - SB 464 (Aguiar-Curry) mandates public disclosure of employer pay data, potentially identifying disparities by race and gender.
3/26/25
Coalition Concern:
- Data is broad and not designed to reflect true pay equity.
- Increases litigation risk using misinterpreted public data.
- Prior similar proposals were vetoed or amended to avoid these issues.
Greater Irvine Chamber Alignment:
The Chamber values transparency but opposes measures that expose employers to unwarranted legal risk or regulatory overreach, especially when based on incomplete or misleading data. This bill creates liabilities without offering meaningful or actionable insights to advance policy goals.
Oppose - SB 261 (Wahab) would require all orders issued by the Labor Commissioner’s office to be made public, inappropriately putting all employers on a list akin to that reserved for employers with outstanding judgments.
3/26/25
(Moved to neutral after May 23, 2025, amendments.)
Abstain - SB 346 (Durazo) attempts to facilitate collection of transient occupancy taxes by local governments by creating new obligations for short-term rental facilitators - but oversteps some Fourth Amendment concerns.
3/17/25
Support - Amicus Brief to protect chambers’ advocacy rights.
12/18/24
The case arises from a challenge to the drug negotiation program in the Inflation Reduction Act, which we argue is a price control program for certain drugs sold under Medicare.
The district court ruled that only the U.S. Chamber could sue on behalf of drug company members, excluding Dayton, Ohio, and Michigan Chambers unless the companies were headquartered in their regions.
Chambers should have the ability to challenge nationwide policies that impact their members, regardless of where those members are headquartered.
Support - The projects achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and expand accessibility for persons with disabilities throughout the Terminal restrooms, curbside areas, and access roadways. The projects also replace aging Terminal infrastructure, including the 34-year-old escalators that have passed their end of useful life and restrooms that were last refurbished in 2002.
7/12/24
Support - This bi-partisan measure provides commonsense, targeted reforms to Prop 47 that legislative proposals alone are unable to deliver. Addresses organized and serial retail theft, confronts the fentanyl crisis in our communities, and prioritizes mental health and drug treatment.
6/20/24
Oppose - Prop 33: Rent Control Initiative
6/20/24
Support - The Greater Irvine Chamber encourages Irvine City leaders to approach the Irvine Climate Action Plan mindfully, taking the appropriate time to gather and weigh the business community's needs before advancing it.
6.11.24
Support - (Davies) This resolution calls on Congress to prioritize the federal government's legal and contractual obligation to provide a home for the spent fuel within California and 33 other states across the nation. It also urges Congress and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to take action on recommendations in the Blue Ribbon Commission’s final report on America's Nuclear Future.
6.17.24
Support - (McKinnor) AB 2797 creates a roadmap for consumers, confirms their rights, and supports the equitable transition from legacy telephone service to modern services. The bill authorizes the initiation of the transition planning process, requiring an equity plan , strong consumer safeguards, engagement with vulnerable communities, and investments in digital literacy.
6.13.24
Oppose - (Ortega) AB 2557 is a de facto ban on local government contracting with outside providers. The bill mandates completely new semi-annual reports from all contractors, including reporting progress made on goals set forth in the contracts, along with personal information from sub-contractors and employees, including names, total compensation, race, gender, and more. AB 2557 also requires annual audits for contracts longer than 2 years — paid for by the contractor.
6.12.24
Support - This bill will set a statewide standard for the use of clean hydrogen in transportation and intends to improve the permitting process for applicable hydrogen production projects.
Support - Loopholes in current law allow federal regulators to misrepresent costs of new mandates on small business. The Prove It Act is a bipartisan bill that will close these loopholes and require federal agencies to consider the costs of regulations on small businesses.
Oppose - This bill is aimed a discriminatory 7.25% tax on the revenue generated from the sale of digital advertising of taxpayers with gross annual revenue exceeding $2.5 billion. A tax on digital advertising will increase costs for California advertisers and consumers, will be met with legal challenges, and will negatively impact California’s business climate.
Support - A letter to the CPPA from Alliance to Protect CA's Technology & Innovation Economy, with three key asks to ensure that the stakeholder sessions are effective forums for CA businesses, associations, and others to share how they currently use AI and how rules around risk assessments, automated decision making, and AI may impact their livelihoods. These asks include:
1) Ensure all meetings are available with online access
2) They are located across the state with at least seven meetings
3) There are at least two CPPA board members present at each.
Support - The TPA does three fundamental things:
• Gives Voters the Final Say on All New & Higher Taxes
• Eliminates all "Hidden Taxes"
• Requires Truthful Descriptions of New Tax Proposals
Abstain - This bill would require platforms to disclose to customers the exact amount of fees that restaurants pay platforms for each order, resulting in the disclosure of highly confidential business information that many restaurants in California want to protect. The Legislature addressed this very same issue several years ago, arriving at a compromise that provides transparency for customers while protecting restaurants’ confidential business information. Under that compromise, restaurants currently have a choice to opt-in to having their commission to be disclosed.
Oppose - SB 938 restricts the ability of corporations to recover expenses that are related to policy engagement by defining those activities as “political influence activity” and prohibiting utilities from considering them among “above the line” costs. As an initial matter, these are expenses that often are necessary for these organizations to engage in policy discussions, support policies that would benefit the consumer, or advocate updates to outdated regulatory provisions. Prime examples of areas of critical engagement and policy discussion include demand response, energy efficiency, or California’s CARE and FERA programs. Instead, SB 938 will ultimately impose that burden onto shareholders, who may not be customers or even the beneficiaries of an advocacy effort.
Oppose - The California Chamber of Commerce and the undersigned are OPPOSED to AB 2200 (Kalra) as introduced on February 7, 2024 as a JOB KILLER, since it would create a new and exorbitantly expensive government bureaucracy, which would control and finance a state-run health care system (CalCare), ultimately resulting in significant economic disruption, uncertainty, and job loss in California. The Healthy California for All Commission recently estimated that total health care costs annually exceed $500 billion in California. This amounts to one-seventh of our gross state product and would more than double our state’s budget.
Support - This bill is aimed at modernizing fire safety regulations to embrace the advancements in battery technology. Internet service providers have worked to comply with the California Public Utilities (PUC) requirement to maintain 72hrs of backup power in high fire-threat areas. The PUC's decision allows for various backup power methodologies, including diesel and natural gas generators, while encouraging wireline providers to transition towards renewable energy sources. Advancements in lithium based battery technology present a cleaner and more sustainable alternative for backup power, aligning with the broader goals of environmental stewardship and disaster preparedness.
Oppose - This bill would impose a discriminatory 5% tax on the digital advertising services of taxpayers with gross annual revenue exceeding $100 million. This tax on digital advertising will be met with numerous legal challenges and would create a chilling effect on California’s tech industry.
Support - This bill would strengthen Silicon Valley’s competitiveness and help safeguard the resiliency of California’s critical infrastructure. The bill would do so by allowing California to permit bigger data centers, of up to 200 MW in size. Larger data centers than are currently allowed would support essential services such as 9-1-1 call centers, medical operations, and GPS navigation systems - as well as apps and other services - to operate with increased capacity and without interruption.
Support—This would allow California to take a crucial first step forward in fostering an AI-literate population and future workforce by teaching Artificial Intelligence (AI) literacy in our schools. This means teaching students the skillsets necessary to understand and use this technology, as well as its limitations, implications, and ethical considerations.
Support - The General Rate Case funds SCE’s day-to-day operations, including maintenance and grid upgrades. Every four years, the California Public Utilities Commission reviews a request from SCE for the next four-year spending cycle. The GRC makes up about half of customer rates. Another one-third comes from the cost of energy sources for power, which are passed through to customers without markup or profit for SCE. The remaining costs incurred are from a variety of other factors, such as large transmission projects regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and programs for energy efficiency and low-income customer assistance.
Oppose - SB 1345 would eliminate employers’ ability to run a background check or consider conviction history unless they meet one of the narrow exceptions, even if that conviction history is voluntarily disclosed to them or widely publicized. While we appreciate the intent behind SB 1345, the potential unintended consequences could have a significant impact on employees and customers.
Oppose - The bill will effectively subject all employees to a rigid working schedule and prohibit communication between employers and employees absent an emergency. This blanket rule is a step backwards for workplace flexibility. It fails to consider California’s longstanding laws regarding hours worked, exempt employees, and fails to account for the uniqueness of different industries and professions.
Oppose - While ACA 6 was stopped, this year ACA 14 (D- Ortega) has been introduced containing identical provisions. This constitutional amendment would potentially curtail contracting opportunities for small businesses and reduce flexibility in labor relations on UC Campuses.
Support - The Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), established in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, provides a monthly voucher for lower-income Americans to buy internet service.
Oppose - The most recent amendments to AB 1000 fail to address the list of concerns raised by this coalition and by some members of the Local Government Committee last year in the committee hearing. AB 1000 is still far too prescriptive and will lead to the elimination of high paying jobs, quash critically needed housing associated with mixed use developments in the region, increase vehicle miles traveled for heavy duty vehicles coming from California ports, incentivize frivolous litigation with a new private right of action in California law, and exacerbate supply chain issues that will increase the costs to move goods, thereby increasing the cost of living on all Californians.
