The California Senate and Assembly Appropriations committees took final action last week on hundreds of bills as part of the Legislature’s biannual clearing of the suspense file, a key fiscal hurdle for proposals designated as having a significant impact on state spending.
Among the bills considered were several identified as Cost Cutters or Cost Drivers on CalChamber’s 2026 Affordability Agenda, which tracks legislation that could increase or reduce costs for consumers, employers, and the state’s economy.
Cost Cutter Moves Forward
One CalChamber priority that advanced out of the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 13 was AB 2124 (Pacheco; D-Downey).
The Cost Cutter bill would address factors contributing to rising electricity costs by requiring a third-party review of any proposed legislation that would have a financial impact on utility ratepayers. It would help promote greater transparency and accountability while still allowing lawmakers to advance the state’s climate change goals.
Mixed Results for Cost Drivers
This legislative session, CalChamber identified 31 bills as Cost Drivers due to the fact they would increase costs for businesses and consumers in California. Only six of those bills remained active and reached the suspense file hearing last week. While significant work remains on several priority bills, the fact that most Cost Driver bills are no longer advancing reflects the impact of months of advocacy and growing recognition among lawmakers of the state’s ongoing affordability crisis.
One Cost Driver bill failed to advance last week thanks in part to CalChamber opposition. SB 1075 (Reyes; D-San Bernardino) would have created additional permitting barriers for job-creating projects in diverse communities. The bill would have replaced clear, predictable standards with project-by-project uncertainty, while also creating a new litigation risk in the permitting process. The bill was held in committee and will not move forward this year.
Another CalChamber-opposed bill, AB 1776 (Aguiar-Curry; D-Winters), did manage to advance out of committee. The Cost Driver would significantly overhaul California’s antitrust law. Lawmakers removed the bill’s private right of action provision before the vote, but CalChamber remains opposed to the bill. AB 1776 upends decades of well-tested practices, includes an untested standard for when a single company might violate the law, and remains fundamentally flawed.
Legislation regulating the use of artificial intelligence tools in healthcare also advanced despite CalChamber opposition. AB 2575 (Ortega; D-San Leandro) moved forward with amendments adopted ahead of last week’s vote, though CalChamber continues to have concerns regarding its impact on existing AI tools and liability provisions that would place significant burdens on healthcare entities and developers of AI-enabled tools.
Several labor and employment measures identified as Cost Drivers also advanced last week.
• AB 2646 (Krell; D-Sacramento), which would drive up agricultural labor costs and threaten the H-2A program by imposing a new minimum wage mandate, passed the Senate Appropriations Committee.
• SB 947 (McNerney; D-Pleasanton) would restrict the use of automated decision systems by imposing impractical requirements on businesses of all sizes and SB 951 (Reyes; D-San Bernardino) would create broad AI layoff mandates with enforcement provisions that create new avenues for legal liability. Both Senate bills passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee. CalChamber has raised concerns the measures could increase costs and compliance burdens for employers.
The Path Forward
Bills that cleared the appropriations committees now move to the floors of their respective houses for consideration. State lawmakers have until August 31 to act on legislation, after which Governor Newsom has until September 30 to take final action.
