California Leaders Move to Support Energy Storage
Our previous post[1] covered the introduction of A.B. 303 (Addis), the “Battery Energy Safety and Accountability Act”, following a catastrophic fire at one of the world’s largest battery energy storage facilities located in Moss Landing, California, starting on January 16, 2025. As we explained, that bill, proposed as an urgency statute, would significantly curtail the authority of both local agencies and the California Energy Commission (CEC) to site new energy storage facilities and would likely result in significant adverse consequences for meeting California’s clean energy goals.
At the time A.B. 303 was introduced, several clean energy media outlets and industry groups including the California Energy Storage Alliance (CESA), expressed concerns with the bill as proposed, especially its failure to distinguish between the older technology and safety standards in place at the time the Moss Landing facility was developed in 2019 and those applicable to battery facilities currently under development, which use newer and safer technology and are also subject to State law requirements to prepare an Emergency Response Plan under Senate Bill (S.B.) 38 (Laird), adopted in 2023. To date, A.B. 303 has not yet received a hearing or a vote.
In the immediate aftermath of the Moss Landing fire, Governor Newsom called for an investigation into the incident, which the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Safety and Enforcement Division (SED) subsequently initiated.[2] The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and several other agencies, including the Monterey County Health Department’s Environmental Health Bureau and the UC Cooperative Extension all conducted testing for water and soils contamination and found no significant impacts.[3] Meanwhile, the CPUC continued its effort to update General Order 167 to include standards for the maintenance and operation of storage facilities in accordance with S.B. 1383 (Hueso), adopted in 2022. These changes were adopted on March 13, 2025.
While these efforts were ongoing, little was said by the Governor or his Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz), which has a dedicated Energy and Climate Unit, about the future of energy storage development in the state. Now, two months after the fire and over the course of just days, both Governor Newsom and Senator John Laird, author of SB 38 and a prominent member of the Senate and former California Secretary for Natural Resources, have made moves demonstrating their continued support for battery storage development in California.
First, on March 19, the Governor certified the first hybrid solar generation and storage facility, the Cornucopia Hybrid Project, as an Environmental Leadership Development Project (ELDP) subject to judicial streamlining pursuant to the “Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act”, A.B. 900 (2011).[4] The Act was amended in 2023 by the adoption of S.B. 149 to expand the scope of projects eligible for certification to include wind, solar and battery energy storage projects as well as other transmission, water and transportation infrastructure projects.
In his certification order,[5] Governor Newsom found that the project would “invest in the California economy, create living wage jobs and help achieve California’s renewable energy generation goals.” The certification (not to be confused with certification under the CEC’s Opt-In Certification Program pursuant to A.B. 205 (2022)) affords the project streamlined judicial review by requiring state courts to resolve any CEQA challenge (including appeals) within 270 days after filing of the certified administrative record, to the extent feasible. Since the Act’s adoption in 2011, only 24 projects have received ELDP certification,[6] yet there are indications that the program works to streamline judicial review. Last year, the Yolo County Superior Court issued its order rejecting a CEQA challenge to the Sites Reservoir project, a certified ELDP, within just 148 days.[7]
In his press release announcing the certification, the Governor reconfirmed his commitment to clean energy development as well as grid reliability, stating: “In California, we’re in the ‘how’ business – we’re moving fast to achieve our world-leading clean energy goals. By fast-tracking critical projects like this one in Fresno, we’re creating good-paying jobs, cutting pollution, and building a cleaner, more reliable energy grid to serve Californians for generations.”[8]
Two days later, on March 21, Senator Laird issued his proposed battery energy storage safety bill, S.B. 283. Intended to ensure “future BESS facilities adhere to the highest fire safety standards, protecting first responders, local communities, and the integrity of our renewable energy transition”, S.B. 283 would require that National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards for energy storage systems (NFPA 855[9]) apply to any facility certified by the CEC pursuant to its Opt-In Certification Program, and that the state Building Codes Standards Commission and the State Fire Marshall review and consider the most recently published edition of NFPA 855 for incorporation into the state Fire Code in the next update adopted after July 1, 2026. The bill also requires that energy storage developers consult with local fire authorities to address facility design, assess potential risks and integrate emergency response plans, and that safety inspections be conducted by local fire officials or the State Fire Marshal, at the developer’s cost, after construction and prior to operation of a storage facility. In his press release, Senator Laird also stated that “As the bill moves forward, SB 283 will be amended to prohibit the development of BESS in indoor combustible buildings.”
Meanwhile, continuing the State’s theme of progressing BESS development post-Moss Landing, on March 26, GO-Biz plans to hold a webinar to “discuss challenges and best practices in permitting BESS project” and to develop a “toolkit of resources for local jurisdictions to use when permitting renewable energy projects across the State.”[10]
While battery storage is likely to continue to remain controversial in the near term, these actions demonstrate State leadership’s commitment to continued progress towards clean energy transition goals, including battery storage. With prudent legislative action to ensure projects are designed to meet (and actually do meet) the highest safety standards available, California can continue to move towards a safer and cleaner future.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Understanding AB 303: Potential Impacts for California BESS Project Development | Real Estate, Land Use & Environmental Law Blog.
[2] California investigating Moss Landing fire; proposes more battery plant safety
[3] As reported by the California Certified Organic Farmers Moss Landing Update – CCOF.org.
[4] Now codified at Public Resources Code section 21178 et seq.
[5] https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Fresno-Cornucopia-certification.pdf.
[6] Judicial Streamlining – Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation.
[7] Sites Reservoir project clears hurdle thanks to streamlining law | Governor of California.
[8] Governor Newsom cuts red tape to accelerate Fresno clean energy project | Governor of California.
[9] NFPA 855 is the second edition (2023) of the Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems.
[10] Join the GO-Biz Energy Unit for a webinar on March 26th, bringing together… | California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz)
Listen to this post
PFAS Bans Go into Effect; Manufacturers Attempt to Push Back on Regulations
Many states have enacted or plan to enact new regulations regarding the manufacturing of products containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), also known as “forever chemicals,” because they do not easily break down in the environment and human body. For example, on January 1, 2025, both New York[1] and California[2] banned the sale of any new, not previously used, apparel and certain other products containing added PFAS, while Minnesota[3] banned broad categories of products containing PFAS. More specifically, the Minnesota statute, titled Amara’s Law, prohibits the sale or distribution of the following products if the product contains intentionally added PFAS: (1) carpets or rugs; (2) cleaning products; (3) cookware; (4) cosmetics; (5) dental floss; (6) fabric treatments; (7) juvenile products; (8) menstruation products; (9) textile furnishings; (10) ski wax; and (11) upholstered furniture. The law makes no exceptions for products in these categories, provides no extensions, even if no PFAS alternatives are available, and allows expansion to include additional products if the products contain intentionally added PFAS that are likely to harm Minnesota’s environment and natural resources. Violations of the statute can result in fines, civil penalties, or criminal prosecution. Other states have similar bans set to take effect over the next several years.[4]
Like many similar regulations, Amara’s Law is currently being challenged. The Cookware Sustainability Alliance (“CSA”), a national conglomerate of members who manufacture, offer, and sell cookware containing PFAS, recently filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.[5] CSA alleges that Amara’s Law violates the Constitution’s commerce clause and dormant commerce clause, imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce, and that its disclosure requirement (which goes into effect in 2026 and requires reporting PFAS products to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) violates the First Amendment in addition to being preempted by federal trade secret law. CSA filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of Amara’s Law, which was denied February 26, 2025. CSA has until March 28, 2025, to appeal the Judgment.
Thousands of lawsuits have already been filed across the country focused on the alleged harm caused by PFAS exposure, while state regulators, such as those noted above, attempt to limit their use. Some have called the proliferation of PFAS litigation the “next asbestos,” with significant potential liability to insurers and their corporate policyholders. With similar PFAS bans set to take effect in other states in the coming years, mounting litigation surrounding the use of PFAS, and an insurance landscape that is seeing a spike in PFAS-related claims leading to new PFAS-specific exclusions in policies, all eyes will surely be tracking these hot-button topics in 2025 and beyond.
[1] NY ECL §§ 37-0121, 71-3703.
[2] CA HLTH & S §§ 108970, 108971.
[3] Minn. Stat. § 116.943.
[4] See, e.g., Colo Rev Stat §§ 25-15-601 to 25-15-605, Me Rev Stat T. 38 § 1614, RI Gen Laws § 23-18.18-1, et seq.
[5] Cookware Sustainability Alliance v. Kessler, Civ. No. 0:25-cv-41, ECF No. 1.
Potential Rollback of Biden’s Climate Policies Targets Billions in Clean Energy Projects
According to media reports, Energy Department officials are compiling a list of clean energy projects, awarded billions of dollars, that could be overturned by the Trump administration in what may become the most significant rollback of the Biden administration’s climate policies to date.
The list, requested by Trump administration officials and expected to be completed any day, includes projects funded through the Inflation Reduction Act, bipartisan infrastructure law, and regular appropriations, according to the Politico report. Projects or programs that have spent less than 45 percent of their allocated or awarded funding reportedly are subject to review.
According to the published report, the initial list of projects recommended for elimination includes:
$8 billion for hydrogen hubs;
$7 billion for carbon capture hubs;
$6.3 billion for industrial demonstrations;
$500 million for long-duration energy storage;
$133 million for the Liftoff program for accelerating new technology development; and $50 million for distributed energy programs.
While we are watching the situation closely, the Trump Administration has yet to comment on the Politico report or the specifics of such a list of targeted projects. However, the administration and Congressional Republicans already have targeted Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grants and funding allocated by the Biden Administration. Days ago, a Congressional committee asked interim EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin for a briefing on grants and funding awarded by the agency under the Biden Administration.
If you are a private company, nonprofit or university that has received a guaranteed loan, grant, or contract that has been identified for elimination:
FIRST – Look to the four corners of the agreement with the Federal government to understand the terms that define available remedies.
SECOND – Take administrative action as directed by the agreement or other legal provisions (the Code of Federal Regulations, Federal Acquisition Regulations).
THIRD – Consider challenging it in court, while weighing the political considerations against business realities.
FOURTH – Maintain detailed documentation of the cost and time impacts associated with any modifications or terminations of agreements.
FIFTH – Communicate with your subcontractors and suppliers about potential impacts.
Additionally, it may be prudent to consider direct advocacy before Congress and the Administration, leveraging memberships in trade associations or directly engaging with elected officials.
CTA 2.0 – FinCEN Limits CTA’s Reporting Requirements to Certain Non-U.S. Entities and Non-U.S. Individuals
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued an interim final rule on March 21, 2025, that eliminates the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) reporting requirements for U.S. entities and U.S. individuals. The rule is effective upon its publication in the federal register; however, the interim final rule may be updated following a sixty-day comment period.
FinCEN’s press release provided the following summary of the impact of the interim final rule:
“Thus, through this interim final rule, all entities created in the United States — including those previously known as “domestic reporting companies” — and their beneficial owners will be exempt from the requirement to report BOI to FinCEN. Foreign entities that meet the new definition of a “reporting company” and do not qualify for an exemption from the reporting requirements must report their BOI to FinCEN under new deadlines, detailed below. These foreign entities, however, will not be required to report any U.S. persons as beneficial owners and U.S. persons will not be required to report BOI with respect to any such entity for which they are a beneficial owner.”
Non-U.S. entities that meet the definition of “reporting company” are generally (1) formed in a non-U.S. jurisdiction and (2) registered with a U.S. jurisdiction to do business in such jurisdiction. These non-U.S. entities will have thirty days from the later of (i) the date of publication of the interim final rule in the federal register and (ii) the date of becoming registered to do business in a U.S. jurisdiction.
Removing the reporting obligations of U.S. entities and U.S. individuals substantially limits the number of required filings. By FinCEN’s own estimate in the interim final rule, it anticipates roughly 12,000 filings annually (over each of the first three years). In the final reporting rule in effect prior to the interim final rule, FinCEN estimated roughly 10,510,000 filings annually (over each of the first five years).
EU CSDDD Under US Pressure: Some Insights on the PROTECT USA Act
The European Commission’s (EC) recent announcement of the Omnibus Simplification Proposals signals that it has heard the challenges and objections raised by companies affected by the new requirements of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). But in the US, Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, has introduced legislation that could impose substantial challenges to CSDDD compliance for US companies.
As a reminder, the EC proposed amendments for the implementation and transposition deadlines of the CSRD and CSDDD, as well as amending the scope and requirements of the CSRD and CSDDD. But the Prevent Regulatory Overreach from Turning Essential Companies into Targets Act of 2025 (PROTECT USA Act)[1] proposed by Senator Hagerty targets “foreign sustainability due diligence regulation” such as the CSDDD, and would prohibit US companies from being forced to comply with the CSDDD. If enacted as currently drafted, US companies will be faced with a significant conflict in complying with the PROTECT USA Act and the CSDDD.
Further, the PROTECT USA Act intends to protect US companies from any enforcement action by the EU or its member states for non-compliance with the CSDDD. Section 5(a) of the PROTECT USA Act states: “No person may take any adverse action towards an entity integral to the national interests of the United States for action or inaction related to a foreign sustainability due diligence regulation.”[2] And § 5(b) prevents U.S. federal or state courts from enforcing any judgment by a foreign court relating to any foreign sustainability due diligence regulation “unless otherwise provided by an Act of Congress.”[3]
The PROTECT USA Act could apply to a significant number of US companies, defining “an entity integral to the national interest of the United States” as “any partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other business entity that does business with any part of the Federal Government, including Federal contract awards or leases.”[4] It also includes entities:
[O]rganized under the laws of any State or territory within the United States, or of the District of Columbia, or under any Act of Congress or a foreign subsidiary of any such entity that—
(i) derives not less than 25 percent of its revenue from activities related to the extraction or production of raw materials from the earth, including—
(I) cultivating biomass (whether or not for human consumption);
(II) exploring or producing fossil fuels;
(III) mining; and
(IV) processing any material de-rived from an activity described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) for human use or benefit;
(ii) has a primary North American Industry Classification System code or foreign equivalent associated with the manufacturing sector; or
(iii) derives not less than 25 percent of its revenue from activities related to the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products;
(iv) is engaged in—
(I) the production of arms or other products integral to the national defense of the United States; or
(II) the production, mining, or processing of any critical mineral.[4]
And the PROTECT USA Act has a catch-all that will apply to any entity “the President otherwise identifies as integral to the national interests of the United States.”[5]
The PROTECT USA Act builds on opposition to the CSDDD raised during the Biden Administration and, given the Republican majorities in both the US House and Senate, advances the argument that the CSDDD challenges US sovereignty. In a February 26, 2025 bicameral letter to Scott Bessent, the Secretary of the US Department of the Treasury and Kevin Hassett, the Director of the White House National Economic Council, legislators described the CSDDD as “a serious and unwarranted regulatory overreach, imposing significant economic and legal burdens on U.S. companies.”[6] Thus, the PROTECT USA Act may serve as an incentive to further limit the scope of the CSDDD.
We recently reviewed how companies should address CSRD requirements while the EC works through the Omnibus Simplification Proposals.[7] The PROTECT USA Act adds an additional layer of complexity for US companies in navigating the uncertainty of the EC’s legislative process along with the significant limits the PROTECT USA Act might present. SPB’s policy experts in the US and EU can support companies in making prudent business decisions in a rapidly changing legislative environment.
[1] https://www.hagerty.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/HLA25119.pdf
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/csddd_letter_to_treasury-nec_draft_22525_zg.pdf.pdf
[7] https://natlawreview.com/article/what-should-companies-do-csrd-while-they-wait-eu-make-its-mind
EEOC Enforcement Activities Take Shape Under Second Trump Administration
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been a regular topic of the flurry of executive orders issued by President Trump since his inauguration. Even before his return to the Oval Office, there was speculation about how the EEOC’s enforcement activities and priorities might change during a second Trump administration, as well as how the composition of the EEOC’s leadership would likely transform. In the weeks following the inauguration, the EEOC’s goals began to take shape, with its leadership seeing significant rearrangement. Manufacturers should stay current on these modifications as they signal substantial changes in the agency’s policies and anticipated future enforcement priorities and initiatives.
On January 24, 2025, President Trump dismissed two of the EEOC’s Democratic Commissioners and appointed Andrea Lucas as Acting Chair, leaving one Democratic Commissioner and one vacancy. The EEOC’s current leadership composition means it lacks a quorum and cannot issue regulations or guidance, or rescind or replace regulations or guidance issued by the previous administration. Importantly, these changes do not affect the EEOC’s ability to engage in enforcement activities.
Prior to President Trump’s second term, it was anticipated that the EEOC was preparing to scale back protections for LGBTQ+ workers. This shift came to fruition beginning in February, when the EEOC moved to voluntarily dismiss six lawsuits that it had filed during the Biden administration on behalf of aggrieved plaintiffs, alleging discrimination based on transgender status in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In withdrawing from its representation, the EEOC noted in filings that continued litigation is untenable “in light of recent [a]dministration policy changes.” The EEOC’s voluntary dismissal of the lawsuits represents a major departure from its prior interpretation of the protections afforded under Title VII and its guidance issued during the Biden administration, in which the EEOC took the position that the intentional misuse of an employee’s preferred pronouns constituted discrimination and harassment.
Although the EEOC has chosen to step back from its representation of the plaintiffs in these lawsuits, the same federal law that authorizes the EEOC to sue on their behalf also provides the plaintiffs with a right to intervene in and pursue the litigation on their own behalf.
In light of these developments, manufacturers should remain aware of the following when making decisions related to the recruitment, hiring, and termination, as well as other terms and conditions of employment:
Although the EEOC may change its enforcement priorities, an executive order cannot override federal laws and constitutional rights. This includes the federal law authorizing individuals to intervene in litigation brought by the EEOC and pursue litigation on their own behalf as well as the Supreme Court’s holding in Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity constitutes “sex discrimination” in violation of Title VII.
The federal government’s labor and employment law enforcement activities and policies are separate from those of state and local governments, which may continue or even increase their efforts in reaction to changes at the federal level.
It is possible that the EEOC’s enforcement activities will continue to change, so it is crucial for manufacturers to stay current on executive orders, guidance, and enforcement initiatives at the federal level.
Manufacturers should consult competent employment counsel for assistance with regard to the EEOC’s enforcement initiatives, guidance, and other communications.
Trump Executive Order Affects Federal Contractor Minimum Wage
On March 14, 2025, the President issued a new executive order (EO) entitled, “Additional Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions.” This new executive order revokes EO 14026, issued by President Biden, which raised the minimum wage to $17.75 (effective January 1, 2025) for government contracts entered into after January 30, 2022 (including all renewals, extensions, and options). Some older contracts still operate under an Obama-issued executive order, EO 13658, which implemented a federal minimum wage that adjusts annually (currently it is $13.30, effective January 1, 2025).
In light of the revocation of EO 14026, we expect the Department of Labor (DOL) to issue a rule formally revoking EO 14026. The DOL also is not likely to enforce the higher federal minimum wage requirements of EO 14026. Practically, the revocation of EO 13658 means that EO 13838 (issued by President Trump during his first term) now becomes effective again. This means that the minimum wage requirements of EO 13658 are reinstated, and federal contractors with contracts entered into before January 30, 2022, and contracts entered into after January 30, 2022, will now be required to pay $13.30 as a federal minimum wage.
Contractors with contracts that include the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause imposing EO 14026 presumably are contractually obligated to pay at least $17.75 per hour, but this higher minimum wage will likely not be enforced by DOL, now that EO 14026 has been revoked. Also, state minimum wage laws could still apply.
New Trump EO Aims to Eliminate Department of Education
On March 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO), “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities,” directing the secretary of education “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education ….”
The EO’s stated primary goal is to return the “authority” over education to the states. The EO does not provide a plan for “closure.” It reiterates that the use of Department of Education funds for any program or activity aimed at promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion or “promoting gender ideology” will be terminated.
The White House also issued a fact sheet providing more insight into the administration’s motivation and goals with respect to K-12 education. The fact sheet emphasizes the administration’s advocacy for school choice programs, also known as vouchers, that allow families to use public funds to send their children to faith-based and other private schools.
Notably, the Department and many of its functions were created by statute and cannot be eliminated without an act of Congress. Termination of half the Department’s staff in recent weeks has raised questions about its capacity to continue mandated functions.
It is not immediately clear what additional steps the administration intends to take or how that will impact individual educational institutions.
The Year Ahead 2025: California PAGA Amendments + Other Legislative Highlights
The Golden State had lost some of its luster among California employers due to its Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), with some calling it “one of the least just and fair laws that employers are dealing with today in California.” Yet two recent PAGA amendments may help restore the state’s business shine in 2025 and beyond.
Takeaways
PAGA amendments have some positive aspects for employers.
2025 will hopefully bring more clarity on how the trial courts will handle the revisions to PAGA.
California employers should review policies, be aware of requirements for posting if undertaking a voluntary audit and be cautious with mandatory meetings given recent legislative changes.
PAGA Amendments
Senate Bill 92
Effective immediately except for certain cure provisions that took effect 11.01.24.
Applies to civil actions filed on or after 06.19.24.
Expands the right to cure Labor Code violations for businesses with fewer than one hundred employees and offers businesses with more than one hundred employees the ability to seek an early resolution of Labor Code claims pending in court.
Assembly Bill 2288
Effective immediately.
Applies to civil actions brought on or after 06.19.24.
Focuses on revisions to penalties, including penalty caps for good faith compliance; reduced penalties for wage statement violations, derivative violations, cured violations and isolated violations; relief for employers with weekly pay periods; limited aggravated penalties; increased employee share of penalties; and injunctive relief.
Revised Definition of “Aggrieved Employee”
Plaintiffs must have personally suffered each of the violations and suffered the violations during the period prescribed by the statute of limitations.
The revised definition provides exceptions for individuals represented by a nonprofit legal aid organization that has acted as PAGA counsel for at least five years prior to 01.01.25.
PAGA in Practice
Trial court judges are still figuring out how new amendments work.
The results have varied.
Plaintiff’s bar not slowing down: 3,827 PAGA notices filed after the amendments took effect.
Other California Legislative Highlights
AB 2499
Amends the provisions for time off related to jury duty, court appearances and victim-related activities.
SB 399
Enacts the California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act to curtail employers’ ability to require employees to attend employer-sponsored meetings that convey the employer’s opinions on religious or political matters.
SB 1137
Clarifies that the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Unruh Civil Rights Act and the provisions of the Education Code prohibit discrimination not just on the basis of individual protected traits, but also on the basis of the intersectionality of two or more protected traits.
AB 3234
Requires employers to make certain disclosures if they voluntarily audit their operations for the involvement of child labor.
California Legislature Introduces Several Employment Law Bills for 2025
California lawmakers introduced numerous bills early in the 2025 legislative session that could affect California employment law in significant ways. Although it is too soon to predict which bills, if any, will advance, the proposed bills could substantially affect California employers.
Quick Hits
California legislators have proposed bills in the 2025 legislative session that address pay transparency, automated decision systems, workplace surveillance, paid family leave, and employee training.
The legislative session in California will end on September 12, 2025.
The governor will have until October 12, 2025, to sign or veto bills passed by the state legislature.
California legislators have introduced the following employment law-related bills this session:
SB 642 would require pay scales provided in job ads to be no more than 10 percent above or below the mean pay rate within the salary or hourly wage range. The bill revises language to make clear that employers cannot pay an employee less than they pay employees of “another” sex, rather than “the opposite” sex, for substantially similar work.
AB 1018 would regulate the development and deployment of automated decision systems to make employment-related decisions, including hiring, promotion, performance evaluation, discipline, termination, and setting pay and benefits. The bill applies to machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, and artificial intelligence. It would require that employers allow workers to opt out of the automated decision system.
AB 1331 would place limits on workplace surveillance, including devices used for video or audio recording, electronic work pace tracking, location monitoring, electromagnetic tracking, and photoelectronic tracking. The bill would prohibit employers from using surveillance tools during off-duty hours or in private, off-duty areas, such as bathrooms, locker rooms, changing areas, breakrooms, and lactation spaces. The bill also would prohibit employers from monitoring a worker’s residence or personal vehicle.
SB 590 would expand eligibility for benefits under the state’s paid family leave program to include individuals who take time off work to care for a seriously ill designated person, meaning any individual whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship. State law already permits paid leave to care for a seriously ill child, stepchild, foster child, spouse, parent, sibling, grandparent, or grandchild.
AB 1371 would permit employees to refuse to perform a task assigned by an employer if the assigned task would violate safety standards, or if the employee has a reasonable fear that the assigned task would result in injury or illness to the employee or others. The bill would prohibit employers from disciplining or retaliating against an employee for refusing to perform the assigned task.
AB 1234 would revise the process for the state labor commissioner to investigate and hear wage theft complaints. The bill would require the labor commissioner to set a hearing date and establish procedures for the hearing within ninety days after issuing a formal complaint. It would require the labor commissioner to issue an order, decision, or award within fifteen days of the hearing, known as a Berman hearing.
AB 1015 would authorize employers to satisfy the state’s workplace discrimination and harassment training requirements by demonstrating that the employee possesses a certificate of completion within the past two years.
SB 261 would establish a civil penalty for employers that fail to pay a court judgment awarded for nonpayment of work performed.
Next Steps
Most of these bills are in the committee review stages and have not yet passed either the California Senate or Assembly. To advance, the bills must pass both legislative bodies. The last day for the legislature to pass bills is September 12, 2025. The governor will have until October 12, 2025, to sign or veto bills passed by the legislature.
California employers may wish to stay abreast of legislative action on state bills related to pay transparency, workplace surveillance, paid family leave, automated decision systems, employee training, and other employment law topics.
President Trump Ends $15-Per-Hour Contractor Minimum Wage Rate After Filing a Brief Defending Power to Set the Minimum Wage
On March 14, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14236—“Additional Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions”—revoking eighteen executive orders and actions issued by former president Joe Biden.
In particular, this new EO has revoked EO 14026 of April 27, 2021, which had established a $15-per-hour minimum wage rate for workers on certain federal contracts. The revocation followed the U.S. Department of Labor’s filing of a brief on March 13, 2025, stating that EO 14026 was a valid exercise of presidential authority.
Quick Hits
On March 14, 2025, President Trump issued EO 14236, “Additional Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions,” revoking EO 14026, which had set a $15-per-hour minimum wage rate for federal contractors.
The EO 13658 minimum wage rate (currently $13.30 per hour) is still in effect for certain covered contracts.
EO 14026 and its implementing regulations are still subject to ongoing litigation.
Federal contractors and subcontractors must continue to follow other federally mandated compensation requirements, including minimum wage rates and applicable wage determinations.
The $15-Per-Hour Minimum Wage Rate for Federal Contractors
EO 14026 generally required minimum wages for workers performing work on or in connection with contracts covered under the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act; contracts covered under the Davis-Bacon Act; contracts in connection with federal property or lands and related to offering services for federal employees, their dependents, or the general public; and concession contracts. Because of yearly adjustments, in 2025, the applicable wage rate under EO 14026 was $17.75 per hour.
Since its issuance on April 27, 2021, EO 14026 has been under legal attack, primarily concerning whether its promulgation was within presidential authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (also known as the Procurement Act). The Fifth Circuit (within presidential authority), Ninth Circuit (not within presidential authority), and Tenth Circuit (within presidential authority) have split over whether the order was within President Biden’s procurement authority.
In January 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to address the split. In February 2025, in the Fifth Circuit case, Republican attorneys general in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas called on the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the three-judge panel’s unanimous decision. On March 13, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) opposed rehearing on the basis that EO 14026 fell, as the panel of judges held, “directly within the President’s purview.” On March 17, 2025, the Texas Office of the Attorney General notified the Fifth Circuit of the revocation of EO 14026 and asked the Fifth Circuit to withhold issuance of the panel’s mandate and vacate the panel’s opinion.
EO 14236 of March 14, 2025, does not purport to address the existing regulatory or procurement basis for EO 14026. Specifically, to implement EO 14026, the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) published regulations on November 24, 2021, entitled, “Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors.” In addition, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) amended Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.222-55, a provision that remains in many federal contracts.
Consequently, we expect further action from the WHD, procuring agencies, and/or the FAR Council to address this existing regulatory framework. We also expect that, even if EO 14236 ends the Fifth Circuit appeal, litigation over the scope of a president’s authority to issue executive orders related to procurement will continue unabated.
Other Minimum Wage and Compensation Obligations for Federal Contractors
Importantly, EO 14026 was not the first EO specifying a general minimum wage for federal contractors. Former president Barack Obama issued EO 13658 on February 12, 2014 (“Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors”). EO 14026 superseded EO 13658 as of January 30, 2022, to the extent inconsistent with EO 14026. Thus, the EO 13658 minimum wage ($13.30 per hour as of January 1, 2025) has remained applicable only to covered contracts that were entered into on or between January 1, 2015, and January 29, 2022, and which were not renewed or extended on or after January 30, 2022.
In addition, the Davis-Bacon Act and the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act, for example, continue to require prevailing wages by certain federal contractors and subcontractors that perform services or construction work. However, 2023 changes—which, in particular, expanded the scope of Davis-Bacon coverage and changed the development of wage rates and their incorporation into contracts—to the Davis-Bacon regulations are also subject to pending legal challenges.
Key Takeaways
Federal contractors and grant recipients may want to consider taking the following steps:
Identifying any contracts subject to federally specified minimum wages and watching for notices from the FAR Council or the contracting agency implementing the revocation of EO 14026
Monitoring Davis-Bacon-related litigation if performing under Davis-Bacon-covered contracts
Monitoring executive order challenges to presidential authority under the Procurement Act
West Virginia Set to Ban Certain Food Additives and Colors
On March 19, 2025, the West Virginia Senate and House sent HB 2354 to the governor for final approval, which proposes banning various food additives and synthetic dyes.
The bill would prohibit the sale of any food product in the state that contains butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), propylparaben, Red No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2, or Green No. 3. If enacted, the legislation would apply to food products in school nutrition programs beginning August 1, 2025, then extend to all food products in the state on January 1, 2028.
While there was some push back arguing that the state should wait for changes to come top down from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and that the ban will cause food prices to go up or limit the competitiveness of the state, the voting pattern shows that the opposition was minimal. This article by West Virginia Watch stated that Senator Barrett, who spearheaded the effort, feels confident that the Governor will sign HB 2354.
The West Virginia bill is the latest state legislative effort to regulate food dyes, following California, Utah, Florida, and Virginia.