Bill
AB 9
CSU must set and publish goals and ratios for community college transfer representation (systemwide, campus, program) by Sept. 1, 2026.
Status: Died at Desk (Feb. 3, 2025)
Introduced: Dec. 2, 2024
Author(s) (per digest): Quirk‑Silva (transfer provisions) and Essayli (Budget Act/CEQA amendment)
Classification/Subject: Budget Act of 2024 / higher education transfer policy / undergrounding of electrical infrastructure
Summary
AB 9, as introduced, contained two distinct sets of provisions: (1) new Education Code requirements related to California State University (CSU) reporting and goals for community college transfer student representation (and a requested action for the University of California), and (2) an amendment to the Budget Act of 2024 clarifying that approval of a large electrical corporation’s distribution infrastructure undergrounding plan is not a “project” under CEQA in specified circumstances. The bill did not advance and died at desk on Feb. 3, 2025.
Key provisions — Higher education (Education Code §§ 66744.3 & 66744.4)
- California State University (mandatory, must act before Sept. 1, 2026):
- Establish specific goals for “adequate representation” of community college transfer students in each discipline, program, or major at the system level and, where feasible, at each campus.
- Create a formal, documented method to identify when individual campuses fall below one or more of these goals.
- Post on the CSU website three reporting ratios:
1. Systemwide ratio: enrolled community college transfer students ÷ total enrolled undergraduates (systemwide).
2. Campus ratio: enrolled community college transfer students ÷ total enrolled undergraduates (by campus).
3. Discipline/program/major ratio: enrolled community college transfer students ÷ total undergraduates in each discipline/program/major (systemwide).
- University of California (requested, not mandatory, to be done before Sept. 1, 2026):
- Establish a formal process to identify disciplines/programs/majors where increasing capacity for community college transfer students at individual UC campuses would be most valuable.
- Prioritize those identified areas for future capacity increases.
Key provisions — Budget Act / CEQA (adds Sec. 11.50 to Budget Act of 2024)
- States that approval of a distribution infrastructure undergrounding plan under Pub. Util. Code § 8388.5 by a large electrical corporation is not a “project” as defined in CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, Div. 13), provided that any environmental review otherwise required by CEQA occurs before any later project approval that would authorize physical changes to the environment.
- Declares the act a Budget Bill and that it takes effect immediately.
Who is affected
- Community college students and prospective transfer applicants (potentially increased transparency and targets for CSU transfer representation).
- CSU campuses, academic departments, and system planning offices (must set goals, monitor, and publish ratios).
- University of California campuses (requested to develop capacity‑planning processes).
- Large electrical corporations and agencies involved in undergrounding projects, as well as local regulators and environmental stakeholders (altered CEQA timing for plan approvals).
Timeline and procedural notes
- Education Code actions and UC request: required/requested to be completed before Sept. 1, 2026.
- Bill actions: introduced Dec. 2, 2024; printed and read; referred to Committee on Higher Education (Feb. 3, 2025); Died at Desk (Feb. 3, 2025).
- Fiscal: no direct appropriations in the bill; referred to fiscal committee in analysis.
Potential impacts and considerations
- CSU transparency and planning: could drive systemwide and campus‑level policy changes to increase or monitor transfer representation, potentially affecting admissions, enrollment management, and program capacity planning.
- UC request is nonbinding and thus may produce recommendations rather than mandated changes.
- CEQA clarification aims to narrow the point at which CEQA applies for undergrounding plans — potentially accelerating certain planning approvals while preserving environmental review prior to any authorization of physical work; the change could raise legal and policy debates about scope and timing of environmental review.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
