|
Prepared by Precision Advocacy
Recent legislative hearings offer an early look at issues likely to receive attention in Sacramento next year. This report summarizes discussions on utility wildfire safety, artificial intelligence risks, and judicial staffing and courthouse needs. Lawmakers questioned whether existing oversight and funding are keeping pace with those challenges and identified several areas for possible legislation in 2027.
For Orange County, the discussions touched on emergency preparedness, protection of sensitive County data, and access to adequately staffed and maintained courts. The wildfire hearing examined utility accountability, rising costs, and power shutoff notifications. The AI hearing raised questions about security, privacy, and responsibility when automated systems cause harm. The courts hearing focused in part on improvements at the Central Justice Center, Orange County’s need for additional judges, and the division of courthouse costs between the state and counties.
These discussions remain preliminary. They nevertheless give the County an opportunity to bring local operational needs and funding concerns to legislators before proposals take shape.
California’s Utility Wildfire Safety Regime
The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy, chaired by Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), held an oversight hearing on October 20 examining California’s efforts to reduce utility-related wildfires, the costs of those efforts, and whether existing state oversight provides sufficient accountability when utilities fail to prevent catastrophic fires.
The hearing followed another period of dangerous Santa Ana winds in Southern California that prompted widespread precautionary power shutoffs. In Orange County, the October 16 Norte Fire burned approximately 570 acres near San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano, damaging or destroying at least six homes. The fire was fully contained on October 22, and incident reports said the cause remained under investigation. The fire provided a timely example of how quickly high winds and dry vegetation can threaten developed communities, regardless of the initial ignition source.
The Committee heard testimony from the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety, the California Public Advocates Office, Southern California Edison (SCE), Truckee Donner Public Utility District, and UC San Diego.
The discussion focused on whether the regulatory framework implemented following the devastating 2017 and 2018 wildfires is producing measurable safety improvements. Since 2019, utilities have invested billions of dollars in vegetation management, inspections, equipment upgrades, and undergrounding. Reported utility ignitions have declined, but power shutoffs are still necessary during severe weather, and wildfire mitigation costs continue to rise.
Committee members questioned whether utilities are tackling their highest-risk infrastructure first, especially transmission lines, and whether regulators can tell which safety measures are actually working. They also examined how utilities decide where to spend their money and whether the current system gives investor-owned utilities enough incentive to pursue less expensive options, such as inspections and vegetation management.
The hearing was the first in a series addressing utility wildfire threats, financial liability, and affordability, and identified several areas for possible changes to utility oversight in 2027.
Wildfire Mitigation and Safety Improvements. Forest Kaser, Director of the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety, reported that California's largest utilities have substantially expanded their wildfire prevention efforts. Reported utility ignitions in high fire threat districts fell to 90 in 2025, approximately 51% below the eight-year average of 183. Southern California Edison (SCE) reported a 42% reduction from its historical average. However, Energy Safety cautioned that annual figures are affected by weather conditions and do not necessarily confirm a consistent trend.
Jill Anderson, SCE's Chief Operating Officer, described the company's investments since 2018, including:
- More than 7,200 miles of covered conductor, protecting over 85% of its highest-risk circuits.
- Approximately 100 miles of targeted undergrounding.
- More than 2 million trees were trimmed or removed.
- Approximately 1.9 million equipment inspections.
- More than 2,000 weather stations and 200 high-definition cameras.
Even with this progress, regulators still cannot say with much certainty how much wildfire risk individual projects have reduced. As the Committee's background paper pointed out, state oversight tends to focus on work completed, such as miles of power lines upgraded and inspections conducted, without necessarily showing whether utilities are addressing their highest-risk equipment first.
Chair Petrie-Norris emphasized that the legislature needs better measures of actual safety improvements to determine whether ratepayer investments are justified.
Transmission Infrastructure and the Eaton Fire. One of the hearing's most significant discussions involved the relatively limited attention given to transmission infrastructure.
The Committee background materials found that SCE had spent approximately $5.14 billion on distribution system hardening since 2018, compared with $14.9 million on transmission hardening. Although transmission lines caused fewer ignitions overall, several of California's most destructive wildfires, including the Camp, Kincade, and Eaton fires, involved transmission infrastructure.
The Committee paid particular attention to the January 2025 Eaton Fire, which investigators determined was caused by electrical arcing involving an out-of-service SCE transmission tower.
The Committee noted that SCE has approximately 305 miles of de-energized transmission lines but has not completed a line-by-line risk assessment of that infrastructure. Energy Safety approved SCE's 2026-2028 wildfire mitigation plan despite the absence of a complete discussion of lessons learned from the Eaton Fire.
Chair Petrie-Norris questioned whether a mitigation plan should receive approval when major safety issues remain unresolved. Director Kaser explained that the current process limits the agency's ability to withhold approval and that fire investigations often take considerable time.
Anderson said SCE had already changed certain grounding and inspection practices following the Eaton Fire, without waiting for its next regulatory filing.
Assemblymember John Harabedian (D-Pasadena) pressed regulators on why transmission risks had received comparatively little attention. He also questioned whether the current regulatory framework focuses enough on preventing catastrophic events rather than completing scheduled mitigation work.
For Orange County, the discussion elicits questions about transmission infrastructure located near high-fire-risk communities, including whether utilities have adequately assessed older, inactive, or otherwise vulnerable equipment.
Public Safety Power Shutoffs and Customer Notification. The continued reliance on Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS) was another major concern. Although utilities have invested heavily in infrastructure improvements, extreme weather still requires temporary de-energization to prevent ignitions.
The Public Advocates Office raised concerns about SCE's customer notification practices. SCE recorded 383,152 PSPS notification failures in 2025, compared with 34,171 in 2022.
During the January 2025 wind event, approximately 31% of the customer accounts SCE de-energized did not receive the required 24-to-48-hour advance notification.
The Public Advocates Office also noted that SCE frequently warns substantially more customers than ultimately lose power. Repeated warnings that do not lead to actual outages may make customers less responsive to future notifications.
Anderson acknowledged the disruption caused by power shutoffs and said SCE is prioritizing infrastructure improvements on circuits that have experienced repeated outages.
Committee members stressed that PSPS decisions involve risks beyond wildfire prevention, particularly for medically vulnerable customers, emergency responders, and communities having limited evacuation routes.
Rising Utility Costs and Ratepayer Affordability. Nathaniel Skinner, Deputy Director of Energy for the Public Advocates Office, testified that wildfire-related costs included in utility rates increased from approximately $500 million in 2019 to $9 billion in 2024. These costs include mitigation projects, insurance, wildfire liability, and contributions to the Wildfire Fund.
His presentation provided the following estimates for a typical residential customer not enrolled in a discounted CARE rate, using year-end 2024 figures:
|
Utility
|
Monthly wildfire-related costs
|
Share of electric bill
|
|
Southern California Edison
|
$27
|
17%
|
|
San Diego Gas & Electric
|
$21
|
14%
|
|
Pacific Gas & Electric
|
$41
|
19%
|
The Public Advocates Office warned that utilities are expected to seek recovery of substantial additional wildfire mitigation costs over the next several years.
Skinner compared the costs and effectiveness of several mitigation measures:
|
Mitigation strategy
|
Approximate cost
|
Estimated ignition-risk reduction
|
|
Undergrounding
|
$3 million per mile
|
98%
|
|
Covered conductor with fast-trip protection
|
$1 million per mile
|
65%–95%
|
|
Public Safety Power Shutoffs
|
Relatively low direct cost
|
Prevents equipment ignitions when lines are de-energized, but interrupts service.
|
These are statewide estimates, and actual costs and effectiveness depend on local conditions.
The discussion reflected considerable interest in covered conductor and other less expensive measures that may achieve comparable safety improvements in appropriate locations.
Chair Petrie-Norris and Assemblymember Harabedian also questioned whether investor-owned utilities have sufficient financial incentives to pursue lower-cost measures, such as vegetation management and inspections, rather than capital-intensive projects that generate investor profits.
Anderson rejected the suggestion that shareholder returns drive SCE's wildfire spending decisions, arguing that keeping costs and liability down also serves the company's financial interests. Harabedian was not convinced. He argued that the Legislature needs to take another look at how utilities are compensated, particularly if the current system favors more expensive capital projects over less costly safety measures.
Utility Accountability and the Wildfire Fund. The Committee reviewed the framework created by AB 1054 (Holden, 2019), which created a $21 billion Wildfire Fund to help cover eligible claims arising from utility-caused fires. SB 254 (Becker, 2025) subsequently established an additional $18 billion Continuation Account for eligible fires occurring after 2025.
Under the present framework, utilities that obtain annual safety certifications receive certain liability protections, including a presumption that their conduct was reasonable and limits on potential reimbursement obligations to the Fund.
The background paper also raised questions about the value of the safety certifications. Although SCE received high scores in its 2024 employee safety survey, Energy Safety expressed concerns about how seriously the company was taking the assessment process.
The Committee also questioned whether executives should be rewarded for meeting project targets when it is unclear how much those projects have reduced wildfire risk. Several speakers argued that executive compensation and regulatory approvals should be tied more closely to actual safety improvements.
SCE and representatives of publicly owned utilities urged the legislature to address California's utility liability standards, arguing that growing liability exposure makes borrowing costlier and ultimately increases customer rates.
Greater Coordination and Use of Technology. Dr. İlkay Altıntaş of UC San Diego discussed opportunities to improve wildfire prevention using shared modeling, data, and technology. She proposed developing a coordinated system that would let utilities, researchers, and government agencies compare risk-reduction strategies and evaluate which investments provide the greatest safety benefits.
Steven Poncelet of Truckee Donner Public Utility District described how the district uses detailed weather forecasts to identify high-risk areas and decide where to upgrade equipment or clear vegetation. He also stressed the importance of working with local fire agencies and neighboring utilities. The broader point was that reducing wildfire damage takes more than improvements to power lines. Vegetation, nearby buildings, and evacuation routes all affect how a fire spreads and how much damage it causes.
Orange County Considerations. The hearing has several implications for Orange County, particularly given the County's responsibilities for emergency management and cooperation with local fire agencies.
Three electric utilities serve Orange County. SCE covers most of the County, while SDG&E serves San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Dana Point, and parts of several other South County communities. Anaheim has its own municipal utility. The CPUC regulates SCE and SDG&E, and both participate in the state Wildfire Fund, while Anaheim Public Utilities is locally governed and does not have access to the Fund. For the County, this means working with utilities that have different oversight requirements, particularly when coordinating power shutoff notices and emergency response plans.
PSPS notification and emergency preparedness warrant continued attention. The concerns about SCE's notification practices are particularly relevant to County emergency management operations. Although the hearing did not provide an Orange County-specific breakdown of notification failures, the statewide findings show the value of requesting more detailed information from SCE and SDG&E about outage forecasting and notification performance within their Orange County service areas. The County may also wish to review how power shutoffs affect emergency communications, traffic signals, water and wastewater facilities, medical services, and residents who depend on electrically powered medical equipment. The County should also determine whether its emergency management staff receive enough warning of potential power shutoffs to prepare and coordinate with affected cities and service providers.
The Norte Fire reminded everyone that wildfire prevention in Orange County extends well beyond utility infrastructure. Santa Ana winds and dry vegetation can quickly turn a fire into a threat to nearby neighborhoods, regardless of how it starts. Fuel reduction, defensible space, home hardening, and evacuation access remain important parts of the County's preparedness efforts. The hearing also highlighted the value of continued coordination among OCFA, OC Parks, OC Public Works, utilities, and local jurisdictions, particularly where vegetation management or infrastructure projects cross jurisdictional boundaries. The County could also consider whether state wildfire resilience programs provide sufficient flexibility and funding for prevention activities outside utility rights-of-way.
Utility infrastructure investments may affect County costs and operations. The projected increase in wildfire mitigation spending has implications beyond residential electric bills. Higher utility costs can affect County-owned facilities, public infrastructure, and contracted service providers. At the same time, undergrounding and other infrastructure improvements can require extensive coordination with local permitting authorities, public works departments, and transportation agencies. SCE identified permitting delays as an obstacle to completing certain mitigation projects. Legislation to speed up utility safety projects could also change the County's role in permitting and oversight. Orange County has an interest in seeing high-priority wildfire improvements completed sooner. Still, it should ensure local agencies retain a role in coordinating construction, traffic disruptions, and impacts on public facilities.
Orange County's role in future legislation. As Chair of the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee, Assemblymember Petrie-Norris will likely play a central role in any wildfire safety legislation that comes out of these hearings. Her questions focused heavily on whether utilities are spending money on the right safety improvements and whether the state is doing enough to hold them accountable when problems arise.
Looking Ahead. The Committee scheduled two additional hearings for October 28 and 29. The October 28 hearing will address utility investment needs, financing, and financial stability. A joint hearing with the Assembly Insurance Committee on October 29 will examine wildfire subrogation costs.
These hearings are expected to inform further discussions about wildfire liability, utility accountability, and potential legislative reforms in 2027.
For Orange County, the most immediate issues are the effectiveness of utility wildfire mitigation in high-risk communities, coordination during precautionary power shutoffs, and the potential cost and operational effects of future changes to utility oversight. The County has an interest in ensuring that utilities make measurable improvements in wildfire safety while maintaining reliable service, issuing timely emergency notifications, and coordinating infrastructure work with local agencies.
Hearing Materials
Senate Hearing on AI Threatscape
The Senate Committee on Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection held an informational hearing on October 21 titled “Understanding the Contours of the AI Threatscape.” The hearing detailed several potential threats for policymakers to consider as AI technology advances quickly. Overall, the discussion highlighted how much remains unknown about AI and how it functions, particularly as the most advanced systems develop largely behind closed doors, with limited access for outside auditors, government regulators, and academics.
Senator Christopher Cabaldon (D-Napa) chaired the hearing, and Senators Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) and Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) attended. Expert panelists included Joshua Achiam, former Chief Futurist at OpenAI; Rif A. Saurous of METR; Piotr Sankowski, a member of the United Nations Independent International Scientific Panel on AI; Andrew Doris, Policy Director at Secure AI Project; and Jennifer King, Privacy and Data Policy Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence.
Rapid Innovation. Legislators and panelists commented on the speed of AI advances. The committee’s background paper described the progression from models that struggled with basic arithmetic in 2022 to OpenAI’s reported release of thousands of pages of AI-generated solutions to 377 open mathematics questions in October 2026. It also described restrictions on access to Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 following cybersecurity concerns, noting that limited access was subsequently reinstated.
This progress could accelerate through recursive self-improvement, a process in which AI systems help develop more advanced successors. Panelists warned that this could create a cycle of increasingly rapid advances that outpaces human oversight. Doris said many in the industry expect AI to perform most AI development work by roughly spring 2027, although the timing and consequences remain uncertain.
Concerning Threats. Panelists detailed several incidents involving frontier AI models over the past year. In the Hugging Face incident, OpenAI agents formed a coordinated group while working on a cybersecurity training task. According to Saurous, the agents exploited an internal software tool to communicate with one another and found a way to obtain the answers to the assigned problems.
Their activity continued after they had found the answers. The agents accessed the internet and downloaded a paper describing the test, which led them to believe a grader would review their activity and detect their cheating. Much of their subsequent work, including the intrusion into Hugging Face, aimed to conceal their actions or obtain information to evade that review. The grader they were trying to fool had not actually been implemented.
The agents also found ways to disguise some of their actions in the logs used to monitor them. They did not fully succeed in rewriting earlier records, which allowed investigators to reconstruct what had happened. OpenAI publicly disclosed the incident and cooperated with the independent investigation.
These incidents, combined with the pace of technological change, raise difficult questions for policymakers. Legislators and panelists noted that controlling AI agents presents technical challenges, while outside knowledge of their capabilities and behavior remains limited.
In response to Saurous’ testimony about loss-of-control risks, Senator Umberg questioned whether effective guardrails are technologically feasible or whether AI agents could undermine those protections.
Saurous emphasized the need for internal assessments of frontier AI companies focused on alignment with human intentions, the ability to maintain control, and the acceleration of AI research and development. Effective assessments, he said, require access to company systems, interviews with relevant staff, and sufficient editorial independence to publish findings. METR’s work currently depends on voluntary cooperation, which creates pressure to maintain relationships with the companies being evaluated. Companies can also redact information. Saurous stressed that these assessments are not formal audits or safety guarantees.
Doris discussed shortcomings in California’s existing AI laws. He argued that SB 53, enacted in 2025, relies on computing and company revenue thresholds that can exclude developers and models posing significant risks. He recommended replacing the revenue threshold with one covering companies that spend more than $1 billion annually on AI research and development.
Doris also argued that the law’s definition of a critical safety incident is too narrow. He said the incidents discussed during the hearing had not triggered mandatory reporting to the state and recommended expanding those requirements so public officials do not have to rely on voluntary disclosures.
King testified that researchers have little visibility into how AI models work, making it difficult to evaluate their potential effects from outside the companies. She discussed research on manipulation and “dark patterns,” as well as concerns about harmful chatbot interactions and the loss of human agency. She also questioned the sources of training data, including information obtained through data brokers, and the potential for models to incorporate personal information and private conversations.
King raised additional concerns about accountability, the difficulty of identifying and tracking AI agents, and responsibility when those systems cause harm. She identified liability, fiduciary duties, and technical privacy standards as areas for policymakers to consider, particularly when agents operate in sensitive settings such as healthcare and banking.
Senator Umberg discussed the difficulty of regulating technology that operates across state and national borders. He noted California’s potential to lead in the absence of a stronger federal regulatory approach. Senator Becker emphasized the need for accountability.
Potential Solutions. Panelists discussed embedding independent risk evaluators within frontier AI companies on an ongoing basis, expanding incident reporting, making risk assessments public, and developing international standards through efforts such as the UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance. Doris argued that oversight should extend to models still under development, since serious incidents can occur before a system is released to the public.
Other proposals included minimum safety standards and limits on the computing power devoted to automated AI research and development. Supporters described these limits as a way to prevent recursive self-improvement from advancing faster than safety measures and human oversight.
There was also discussion of a “kill switch.” Doris clarified that his proposal would require a documented, independently verified procedure for shutting down systems within a company’s control, rather than a literal switch. He recommended giving the Office of Emergency Services authority to order a shutdown in an emergency, along with less disruptive corrective actions when appropriate.
Several recommendations reflected issues raised in Governor Newsom’s September executive order. The order calls for recommendations on AI safety measures from the Government Operations Agency and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services by November 16, 2026.
In an exchange with Senator Becker, Achiam said advances in AI capabilities are outpacing the ability to predict how models will behave or what developments they will produce. “At the moment, we have less understanding than we ought to,” he said. He also supported giving universities greater access to computing resources for independent safety research.
Next Steps. Senator Cabaldon said the hearing was intended to highlight both the uncertainty surrounding AI and the urgency of responding. He urged legislators to act thoughtfully despite imperfect information and said a substantial package of AI legislation is expected in the Senate at the beginning of the upcoming session. His closing remarks emphasized the need for an approach that can adapt as the technology changes.
For Orange County, the hearing raises security, privacy, and accountability concerns, both from outside threats and from AI tools used by County departments and contractors. Several incidents discussed involved unauthorized access to outside systems, including government websites. The County may wish to review what information AI tools can access, whether vendors can use County data to train their models, and how vendors must report security incidents. Clear responsibility for errors, human review of sensitive decisions, and the ability to suspend an AI tool would also be useful considerations as departments evaluate these technologies.
Hearing Materials
Senate Hearing: Judgeship and Facility Needs in California Courts
The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 5, chaired by Senator Laura Richardson (D-Long Beach), held an informational hearing on October 21 at the Compton Courthouse. Senator Eloise Reyes (D-Colton) also participated. The hearing covered the need for additional judges, judicial salaries, courthouse construction, and deferred maintenance, following the inclusion of funding for 13 new judgeships and substantial courthouse improvements in the 2026-27 State Budget.
Much of the discussion concerned whether the state is directing resources to the courts with the greatest needs, how long it takes to add judges and courtrooms, and whether existing funding is sufficient to maintain court facilities. Committee members questioned the Judicial Council's allocation practices and expressed interest in legislation to address judicial salaries, funding priorities, and the pace of courthouse construction.
For Orange County, the most significant issues were the nearly $80 million allocated for improvements at the Central Justice Center, the County's remaining need for additional judgeships, and questions about the state's responsibility for court facilities previously transferred from counties. Orange County Superior Court Judge Tania Vallejo also testified about judicial recruitment, compensation, and retention.
Central Justice Center Funding and County Responsibilities. The 2026-27 State Budget provides $78.1 million over two years for fire and life-safety improvements at Orange County's Central Justice Center in Santa Ana. The funding includes $71 million from the General Fund ($36 million in 2026-27 and $35 million in 2027-28) and $7.1 million in State Court Facilities Construction Fund reimbursement authority ($3.6 million in 2026-27 and $3.5 million in 2027-28).
Senator Reyes questioned why the Central Justice Center received nearly $80 million and how the project was prioritized over other courthouse needs. Judicial Council representatives explained that the project was already underway when contractors discovered that parts of the building did not match the original construction plans. The work includes installing fire alarms, fire suppression equipment, and evacuation systems. When contractors opened the ceilings, they found unexpected conditions, including building materials that differed from those shown in the plans, which increased the project cost.
These discoveries required additional work to bring the building into compliance with fire and life-safety requirements. Judicial Council representatives said the additional funding was necessary to complete the existing project, which otherwise would have been left unfinished. The first construction phase was nearing completion at the time of the hearing, with court operations expected to return to the affected area in December 2026. Work will then move into subsequent phases.
County Responsibility for Court Facilities. The discussion also raised questions about financial responsibility for deficiencies in buildings that counties previously owned. Senator Reyes questioned whether the County should bear responsibility for problems related to construction or building conditions that existed before the facility was transferred to the state. Senator Richardson followed up by asking whether the state should reconsider financial arrangements when transferred facilities require substantially more investment than anticipated.
Judicial Council representatives explained that the Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002 transferred responsibility for courthouse facilities from counties to the state. Under the transfer agreements, counties continue to contribute toward facility operations and maintenance, but those payments are generally fixed and have not been adjusted for inflation. The representatives emphasized that the state assumed responsibility for maintaining the facilities it received, even when it received buildings with significant deficiencies. They also noted that county financial responsibilities remain relevant where facilities are jointly occupied.
The discussion did not produce a specific proposal to recover Central Justice Center costs from Orange County; however, the questions suggest that legislators may take a closer look at the financial arrangements established when courthouse facilities were transferred to the state.
Judicial Shortages and Allocation of New Judgeships. The 2026-27 State Budget provides $100 million in the current year and $44 million annually beginning in 2027-28 to support 13 new judgeships over five years. The funding includes additional court staff, bailiffs, and facilities needed to accommodate the new judges.
The Judicial Council's updated 2026 Judicial Needs Assessment found a need for 159 additional judgeships across 18 counties. Of the 13 positions funded in the state budget, Riverside will receive four, San Bernardino two, and seven other counties one each. Orange County was not allocated any of the 13 new judgeships, despite having an identified need for additional judicial resources.
Jake Chatters, Chair of the Judicial Council's Data Analytics Advisory Committee, specifically referenced Orange County when discussing the allocation methodology. He explained that larger courts, including Orange County, may have many unfilled judicial needs even when their shortage represents a relatively small percentage of existing judgeships. The current formula considers both the number of judges needed and the size of that shortage relative to a court's existing judgeships. It also gives more weight to a court receiving its first additional judge, helping spread new positions among counties of different sizes.
Senator Richardson questioned whether this approach makes sense for counties with the greatest shortages. She noted that spreading a limited number of judgeships across the state can leave larger courts waiting years for the additional judges they need. She also asked whether shared judgeships, retired judges serving temporary assignments, and remote proceedings could help address shortages, particularly in smaller counties.
Judicial Council representatives said they plan to review the allocation formula over the next 12 to 24 months, ahead of the 2028 Judicial Needs Assessment. Richardson also pointed out that the legislature can specify where legislation assigns new judgeships. The review could be important for Orange County. Although the County's judicial shortage represents a relatively small percentage of its existing positions, it still needs many additional judges.
Judicial Compensation and Recruitment. The hearing also examined whether judicial salaries have kept pace with inflation and compensation available to experienced attorneys. The Legislative Analyst's Office reported that the base salary for California superior court judges is $244,727 in 2026. Although California ranks among the highest-paying states for judges, it falls to 28th nationally when adjusted for the cost of living. Judicial salaries increased 26% over the past decade, compared with a 33% increase in the California Consumer Price Index.
Orange County Superior Court Judge Tania Vallejo testified as Secretary/Treasurer of the California Judges Association. She discussed the difficulty of attracting qualified attorneys to the bench, particularly women, attorneys from underrepresented communities, and those balancing family obligations and student loan debt. Vallejo explained that she previously worked as a manager in a public defender's office and would now earn more had she remained in that position. She also noted that judicial officers lack the flexibility of hybrid work arrangements and may face substantial child care expenses.
Judge Laura Walton of Los Angeles Superior Court testified that senior attorneys in district attorney and public defender offices in several counties, including Orange County, can earn substantially more than judges. The California Judges Association argued that these compensation differences are contributing to difficulties recruiting and retaining experienced judges.
The committee also examined the statutory formula for calculating judicial salary increases. Under current law, raises are tied to average increases for state employees. However, the California Department of Human Resources generally excludes targeted salary adjustments and certain other forms of compensation from its calculations. That interpretation is the subject of ongoing litigation.
Senator Richardson asked witnesses to submit recommendations for changes to judicial salaries and benefits, including whether future increases should be tied to inflation or compensation for other public-sector attorneys. Senator Reyes expressed interest in working with Richardson on legislation in 2027. The discussion is relevant to Orange County because competition for experienced attorneys may affect recruitment and retention in its Superior Court. However, the hearing did not adopt a specific salary proposal.
Courthouse Construction and Deferred Maintenance. The 2026-27 State Budget includes approximately $1.8 billion for 13 courthouse construction projects statewide. The budget also anticipates up to $1.3 billion in additional funding in 2027-28, though the legislature would still need to approve it. Judicial Council officials said building a courthouse generally takes eight to 15 years. Finding and acquiring suitable property is often the most difficult part of the process, followed by environmental reviews, planning, and courthouse-specific construction requirements.
Much of the hearing focused on the condition of existing courthouses. The Judicial Council currently manages approximately 430 court facilities, encompassing roughly 22 million square feet of space. As of August 2026, the judicial branch had identified 22,356 deferred maintenance projects totaling approximately $6.1 billion. Of that amount, roughly $4.4 billion represents the state's responsibility, with the remainder generally attributable to counties occupying shared facilities.
The 2026-27 budget provides $151 million in one-time General Fund support for deferred maintenance. Orange County received $8,590,430 for six deferred maintenance projects under the allocation the Judicial Council approved. This funding is separate from the Central Justice Center's $78.1 million facility modification appropriation.
Judicial Council representatives said current funding falls well short of what is needed to maintain the state's courthouses. The state provides about $80 million annually for facility modifications, but it would need another $45 million just to cover the highest-priority requests. The state provides an additional $198 million each year for courthouse operations and maintenance. To address the existing backlog of repairs, the Judicial Council estimated it would need approximately $400 million annually for the next 10 to 12 years.
Court officials also discussed the costs of putting off repairs. Aging plumbing, electrical systems, and other equipment have caused courthouse closures and disrupted proceedings. In some cases, courts have had to use operating budget money to pay for emergency repairs, leaving less available for staff and public services.
Senator Richardson questioned whether the Judicial Council gives enough weight to population and caseloads when ranking courthouse projects. She asked officials to take a closer look at those factors as they consider future funding. The Judicial Council and the Department of Finance must also submit recommendations to accelerate courthouse construction by January 10, 2027.
Several issues from the hearing outlined below warrant continued attention as the legislature prepares for the 2027 session.
Central Justice Center Implementation. The Judicial Council expects to continue work on the Central Justice Center through multiple construction phases. Given the substantial additional funding and the questions raised during the hearing, Orange County may wish to coordinate with the Superior Court and Judicial Council regarding construction schedules, operational disruptions, and any remaining issues involving the County's financial responsibilities.
Judicial Allocation Methodology. The Judicial Council's planned review could affect Orange County's access to additional judgeships in future budgets. The County should consider whether the methodology adequately accounts for its total judicial workload and the practical consequences of shortages in a large court system.
Trial Court Security Funding. Funding for the 13 new judgeships includes resources for sheriff-provided bailiffs. However, the hearing did not resolve broader trial court security funding pressures. Orange County has previously identified court security costs as a concern, and additional state investments in judicial operations could provide an opportunity to revisit the adequacy of county sheriff reimbursements.
Deferred Maintenance and County Cost Sharing. The discussion about the Central Justice Center raised questions about how repair costs are divided between the state and counties. Orange County should watch for any proposals that could affect existing facility transfer agreements, county payments, or responsibility for major repairs.
2027 Budget Outlook. Senator Richardson said the committee plans to prepare recommendations for legislative leaders and the Senate Budget Committee. These could include changes to how judgeships are allocated, judicial salaries, courthouse construction, and maintenance funding. Whether additional funding is available will depend on the state's budget situation and the new administration's priorities.
The hearing ended with Richardson saying the committee would continue gathering information from the Judicial Council and court representatives, with legislation possible in 2027. Orange County's most immediate issue is completing the Central Justice Center improvements. Longer term, the County has an interest in ensuring that future courthouse investments and judicial allocations reflect its caseload, facility conditions, and ongoing court security costs.
Grant Opportunities
Below are selected active state grant opportunities of potential interest to local jurisdictions and community partners. All opportunities for local jurisdictions may be found here.
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
Application Deadline: January 14, 2027, 11:59 p.m.
State Agency/Department: Department of Parks and Recreation
Purpose: Newly opened October 23. Supports acquisition or development of public outdoor recreation areas, including parks and trails. Eligible cities, counties, districts, and qualifying JPAs may seek up to $6 million.
Match Funding? 50%
Estimated Total Funding: $27,500,000
Funding Method: Reimbursement(s)
Governor’s Press Releases
Below is a list of the governor’s press releases beginning October 21.
October 28: Governor, First Partner issue statement on the passing of Dolores Huerta; state to lower flags in her honor
October 28: HISTORIC TURNAROUND: California’s unsheltered homelessness drops for second consecutive year under Governor Newsom
October 27: Governor Newsom announces appointments 10.27.2026
- Nichole Morgan, appointed to the Advisory Commission on Special Education.
- Mawata Kamara, appointed to the California Board of Registered Nursing.
- Candy Stockton-Joreteg, appointed to the Tobacco Education and Research Oversight Committee.
- Kimberly Freeman, appointed to the Emergency Medical Services Commission.
- David Toston, appointed to the Behavioral Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission.
- Marcia Rayford, appointed to the Respiratory Care Board of California.
October 27: Governor Newsom doubles down on methane tracking as Trump moves to weaken pollution protections
October 27: Governor Newsom orders action to protect Highway 1 and coastal communities ahead of El Niño storms
October 26: Governor Newsom on federal court slapping down Trump DOJ’s despicable attacks on democracy
October 26: California is reducing homelessness, with voter approved Proposition 1 funding delivering more affordable homes
October 25: Governor Newsom proclaims Larry Itliong Day
October 23: Governor Newsom announces appointments 10.23.2026
- Stefanie Roumeliotes, appointed to the 1a District Agricultural Association – Cow Palace Fair Board.
- Tera Napier, appointed to the 21st District Agricultural Association – Madera County Fair Board.
- Sam Nejabat, reappointed to the 22nd District Agricultural Association – Del Mar Fair Board.
- Mark Arabo, reappointed to the 22nd District Agricultural Association – Del Mar Fair Board.
- Donna DeBerry, reappointed to the 22nd District Agricultural Association – Del Mar Fair Board.
- Venoma “Nomie” Bengel-Kautz, appointed to the 24A District Agricultural Association – Kings County Fair Board.
- Jonathan “John” Garcia, appointed to the 24A District Agricultural Association – Kings County Fair Board.
- Kelsi Williams-Karschner, appointed to the 26th District Agricultural Association – Amador County Fair Board.
- Don Dowell, appointed to the 26th District Agricultural Association – Amador County Fair Board.
- Stephanie Dietz, appointed to the 35th District Agricultural Association – Merced County Fair Board.
- Michael “Mike” Neilson, appointed to the 49th District Agricultural Association – Lake County Fair Board.
- Jennifer Hanson, appointed to the 49th District Agricultural Association – Lake County Fair Board.
October 23: Governor Newsom visits San Quentin as California’s public safety strategy delivers historic low crime rates and record-low recidivism
October 23: Governor Newsom on court’s final decision holding President Trump accountable for illegal federalization of the California National Guard
October 23: Governor Newsom announces $300,000 in rewards for unsolved murders in San Mateo, Sacramento, Fresno, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Ventura counties
October 22: Governor Newsom announces clemency actions
October 22: Governor Newsom announces appointments 10.22.2026
- Garry South, appointed to the California Water Commission.
- Kenneth Houston, appointed to the State Advisory Group on Youth Justice.
- Shane Harris, appointed to the State Advisory Group on Youth Justice.
- Edward “Jeff” Goldman, appointed to the State Advisory Group on Youth Justice.
- Kristian Latta, reappointed to the California Board of Accountancy.
- Nancy Corrigan, reappointed to the California Board of Accountancy.
- Beatriz Gonzalez, reappointed to the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board.
October 22: Governor Newsom welcomes first Cal State LA bachelor’s cohort at San Quentin as California crime rates reach historic lows
October 22: Governor Newsom announces interagency effort to coordinate California’s public safety strategy into the future
|
