Newsom Keeps California's Factory CEQA Exemption and Vetoes a One-Year Prior Authorization Rule; Florida's $15 Wage Arrives Sept. 30

The bottom line today

Gov. Newsom vetoed SB 954 on September 18 and kept California’s environmental review exemption for advanced manufacturing as it was written last year [1, 2]. That is the right call, and he deserves the credit for it. Two days later he vetoed AB 539, a prior authorization bill that physicians and hospitals wanted and that health plans and the California Chamber of Commerce opposed [5, 6, 7]. In Florida, nobody has to sign anything: the minimum wage reaches $15 on September 30 under a schedule voters wrote into the constitution in 2020 [9].

CA California SB 954: the CEQA exemption for advanced manufacturing survives

What it does. SB 954, by Sen. Catherine Blakespear, would have rewritten the CEQA exemption for advanced manufacturing facilities that lawmakers passed in 2025 as part of SB 131 [3]. As CalMatters described the bill that reached the governor, it limited the exemption to “final-tier” manufacturing, the last step of production; blocked it near disadvantaged communities and places where people live and work; excluded data centers; cut the zero-emission backup power requirement from 100% to 50%; and required full environmental review when a plant’s pollution exceeded 50% of local air quality standards [3]. Some changes loosened the 2025 terms: facilities could sit on industrially zoned land generally, not only heavy-industrial zones, and needed to be LEED-eligible rather than LEED-certified [3].

Where it stands. It passed both houses and was vetoed on September 18 [1, 3]. The governor’s message says the bill “does not merely clarify or refine the existing exemption. It repeals the CEQA exemption for advanced manufacturing facilities,” and that the replacement’s siting, operational and emissions conditions “would make the narrower exemption impractical for many of the projects it was intended to support” [2].

Pratt’s read. The supporters’ case is concrete. In May, a chemical tank overheated at the GKN Aerospace plant in Garden Grove and about 50,000 residents were placed under evacuation orders; under SB 954, a plant in that location would have needed review if built today [3]. Blakespear says she will bring the issue back next year [4].

The business case is just as concrete. A CEQA exemption is worth something only if a project can count on it before it buys land. SB 954 added conditions that turn on a site’s neighbors, its air basin and its backup power, which is the kind of test a developer cannot fully answer until the plans are drawn. Matt Regan of the Bay Area Council told CalMatters that “manufacturing is all but impossible to do here anymore,” and pointed to Anthro Energy building its first plant in Kentucky instead [3]. The governor put it in one line: the exemption “should be given a meaningful opportunity to work” [2]. One year is not much of a test. Give it more.

CA California AB 539: prior authorizations would have lasted a year

What it does. AB 539, by Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo, would have required an approved prior authorization for a service requested by an in-network provider to stay valid for at least one year from approval, or for the shorter period the treating provider asked for [7]. It amended the Health and Safety Code for health care service plans and the Insurance Code for insurers [7]. The year would end if the patient’s coverage under that plan ended, and a prescription drug authorization could not run longer than state or federal law allows [7].

Where it stands. The Senate passed it 32-1 on August 25 and the Assembly concurred 64-4 the next day [7]. Newsom vetoed it on September 20 [5, 6].

Pratt’s read. This bill put business on both sides of the table. The sponsor was the California Medical Association, and the California Hospital Association signed on; opponents included the California Association of Health Plans, the Association of California Health and Life Insurance Companies and the California Chamber of Commerce [7]. The providers’ complaint is a real cost: every reauthorization is staff time at a practice that is itself a small business. The governor credited “the author’s intent to reduce administrative burdens” [6].

The employer’s chair still favors the veto. Employers that buy fully insured coverage pay for utilization through premiums, and a one-year lock removes the plan’s chance to look again when a patient’s condition changes. The veto message warns of “overutilization, inappropriate continuation of services, and unnecessary costs” [6]. No fiscal analysis in the record this release draws on puts a number on either side. The better fix for paperwork is a faster review, which this bill did not attempt.

CA California AB 605: no refinery staffing task force

What it does. AB 605, by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, would have created a Refinery Safe Staffing Task Force of employer and employee organization representatives, reporting to the Legislature by June 1, 2029 on strategies for keeping employees before refinery closures [5, 8].

Where it stands. Vetoed September 20 [5, 8]. The governor said he supports the goal and that “the state needs a real, long-term plan,” but the bill would have drawn staff from Cal/OSHA’s Process Safety Management Unit, which inspects refineries and chemical plants, without identified resources [8].

Pratt’s read. A task force is about the cheapest thing a Legislature can do, and the energy industry had little to fear from a report due in 2029. The veto turns on inspectors, and that reasoning holds: pulling the unit that checks refinery safety onto committee work helps no one who works at a refinery or buys its fuel [8]. The open point is the governor’s own sentence. A long-term plan for refinery closures would touch fuel supply and prices for every California business that runs a truck, and it has not been written.

FL Florida: the $15 minimum wage takes effect September 30

What it does. Article X, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution, as amended by the 2020 initiative, raised the state minimum wage by $1 each September 30 starting in 2021 until it reaches $15.00 on September 30, 2026 [9]. Employers may still credit tips up to the federal tip credit in effect in 2003, which Lowndes puts at $3.02, leaving a cash wage of $11.98 for tipped workers [9, 10]. Lowndes advises updating payroll and the minimum wage poster and giving tipped employees the federal tip credit notice on or before September 30 [10].

Where it stands. In force on September 30, with no legislative action needed [9]. After that, the rate is adjusted for inflation: the state calculates a CPI-W adjustment on September 30, 2027, and it takes effect January 1, 2028 [9, 10].

Pratt’s read. The amendment states its case in its own text: a wage “sufficient to provide a decent and healthy life” that “protects their employers from unfair low-wage competition” [9]. Florida voters adopted it, and employers comply.

What deserves attention in the payroll office is the enforcement section. A worker who wins gets back wages plus the same amount again as liquidated damages, along with attorney’s fees, and claims can be brought as class actions within four years, or five for willful violations [9]. A willful violation adds a $1,000 fine per violation [9]. The text lets the Legislature raise the wage or reduce the tip credit by statute, and says nothing about lowering either [9]. For a restaurant running thin margins, the September 30 cash wage for servers is the number to check twice.

On the calendar

Florida’s $15 rate and the tip credit notice deadline arrive September 30 [9, 10]. The same day is the governor’s last day to act on the bills still on his desk in Sacramento [11]. Blakespear has said SB 954’s subject returns next year [4]. Florida’s first inflation-adjusted rate is calculated September 30, 2027 and takes effect January 1, 2028 [9, 10].