Newsom Signs Workplace Surveillance Limits and Vetoes a Community Solar Mandate; Florida's Trucking and Rental Fraud Laws Start Oct. 1

The bottom line today

$1.5 billion a year. That is what the Public Advocates Office estimates AB 1813 would have added to California electric bills, by the governor’s account in his veto message [6]. Gov. Newsom vetoed it on September 30, his last day to act, and that is the day’s best news for anyone who pays a utility bill [1, 6]. The same day he signed two workplace surveillance bills, AB 1331 and AB 1883, and told the Legislature in his own message that both need fixing [3]. Signing a bill and asking for its repair in the same letter is a California habit. In Florida, two laws with real business content start today [9, 11].

CA California AB 1883 and AB 1331: limits on workplace surveillance tools

What they do. AB 1883, by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, prohibits an employer from using a workplace surveillance tool that uses AI on employees to recognize or make inferences about an individual’s emotional state, or to collect neural data, according to the Senate’s final floor analysis [4]. A “workplace surveillance tool” is broad: any system or device that collects employee data, activities, communications, biometrics or behaviors by means other than direct observation by a person, including video, audio, time-tracking and geolocation [4]. The Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors enforce it; the Senate amendments removed a private right of action that earlier drafts carried [4].

AB 1331, by Assemblymember Sade Elhawary, was narrowed in the Senate to a ban on using surveillance tools to monitor employees in a bathroom, with enforcement by the Labor Commissioner or a public prosecutor [5].

Where they stand. The Assembly concurred in AB 1883 by 56-8 on August 30 after a 29-9 Senate vote [4]. AB 1331 passed the Senate 29-5 and cleared concurrence 61-7 on August 31 [5]. Both were signed September 30 as Chapters 853 and 851 [1, 4, 5].

Pratt’s read. The sponsors, led by the California Federation of Labor Unions, argued that “AI enabled surveillance differs from traditional video and audio monitoring in several ways” [4]. Neural data and emotion inference are fair places to draw a line, and very few employers will miss them.

The trouble is in the drafting, and the governor said so. His message warns that AB 1331 “may interfere with systems used by employees to access locked facilities” and that AB 1883 “lacks key definitions, which may create confusion about which tools are covered” [3]. Fifty-five organizations opposed AB 1883 in the Senate, including the California Chamber of Commerce and Western Growers, and a public employer coalition led by the California State Association of Counties wrote that “we do not believe it is appropriate to regulate tools used for security and basic operations” [4]. Senate appropriations staff put the Labor Commissioner’s enforcement cost at $2.6 million in the first year [4]. A grocer, a hospital or a packing shed that buys an off-the-shelf camera system now has to ask the vendor what the software infers. The narrowing helped. The definitions still need the cleanup the governor asked for.

The same AI package included SB 947, the human-review rule for AI-driven firings that this release covered in September, now signed [2].

CA California AB 1813: community solar mandate vetoed

What it does. AB 1813, by Assemblymember Ward, would have required the Public Utilities Commission to adopt or modify a customer renewable energy subscription program crediting participants for power from community solar and storage projects [6, 7]. As the Senate analyzed it, projects were capped at 5 megawatts of generation and 5 megawatts of storage, with a 4-gigawatt program limit, and bill credits based on avoided costs once a project was classified as load-modifying [7].

Where it stands. Vetoed September 30 [1, 6]. The Assembly had passed it 51-8 in May [7].

Pratt’s read. The sponsor, Californians for Local Affordable Solar and Storage, said the bill “would seek to rectify the failures of existing programs designed by the CPUC,” and the support list ran from the Solar Energy Industries Association to The Utility Reform Network [7]. The opposition was PG&E, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric and the Public Advocates Office, which warned it could add “an extra $12 per month on non-participating customers’ bills” [7].

The governor sided with the ratepayer. He wrote that the bill “would effectively require an administratively set price for the generation of power that exceeds the value that generation provides to the grid” and would “shift costs” [6]. A credit priced above grid value is a subsidy paid by whoever doesn’t subscribe. Credit to the governor.

CA California AB 2575: AI overrides in clinical settings vetoed

What it does. AB 2575, by Assemblymember Ortega, would have let a worker providing direct patient care override a clinical decision support system when, in the worker’s judgment within their scope of practice, the override is necessary to meet the standard of care, and barred retaliation solely for relying on or overriding the system [8].

Where it stands. Returned without signature on the deadline day [1, 8].

Pratt’s read. The goal, in the governor’s words, is to preserve “the ability of healthcare workers to exercise their professional judgment,” and nobody in a hospital argues with that [8]. His objection is practical: tying retaliation claims to a scope-of-practice finding “puts the Labor Commissioner in the position of adjudicating the standard of care for patients” [8]. For hospitals and clinics, that would have meant a wage-and-hour agency second-guessing clinical calls. The veto is right.

FL Florida SB 488: trucking fuel tax rewrite and a dealer sales cap

What it does. SB 488, by Sen. Massullo, rewrites Florida’s motor fuel use tax law as the “Florida Motor Fuel Use Tax Act,” revising due dates, electronic filing, penalties, interest and recordkeeping for motor carriers to conform to the International Fuel Tax Agreement [9, 10]. A House amendment added a cap: a manufacturer, distributor or importer selling 1,000 or more vehicles of a line-make to Florida dealers in 12 months may not sell more than 33.33 percent of them to a single dealer or commonly owned group [10]. Licensees that had a franchised Florida dealer on January 1, 2026, or that are not barred from owning their own dealerships, are exempt [10]. The amendment also limits the conditions local governments can attach to right-of-way permits for communications facilities [10].

Where it stands. Passed the House 108-1, with final Senate concurrence 36-0; signed April 21 as Chapter 2026-39 and effective today [9].

Pratt’s read. The fuel tax and right-of-way pieces are good housekeeping, and carriers hauling Florida produce across state lines benefit from rules that match the agreement every other state uses. The dealer cap is different. It tells a new car brand how to divide its Florida sales among buyers, which protects established dealer groups from a single competitor scaling up. Business sits on both sides of that one, and no analysis in the record put a cost on it.

FL Florida HB 1293: rental application fraud becomes grounds for quick termination

What it does. HB 1293, sponsored by Rep. Greco, makes it a third degree felony to take possession of a residential unit by knowingly giving a false written statement about identity on a rental application, presenting forged documents such as a pay stub, or impersonating another applicant [11]. The act counts as noncompliance with no opportunity to cure, so a landlord may terminate the lease and the tenant has 7 days to vacate after notice [11].

Where it stands. Passed the House 110-0; signed June 12 as Chapter 2026-143; effective today [11, 12].

Pratt’s read. Property managers have a faster, clearer remedy against a tenant who got in with fake papers, without waiting on a criminal case [11]. That cuts the cost of fraud for landlords and is a law worth having.

On the calendar

Florida SB 488 and HB 1293 take effect October 1 [9, 11]. The governor has asked the Legislature to refine AB 1331 and AB 1883 to address ambiguities, including the locked-facility conflict and AB 1883’s missing definitions [3]. AB 1813 and AB 2575 stand vetoed [1].