Assembly committee advances bill to establish state policy on safe indoor temperatures

SB 655, authored in the Senate and heard today by the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee, would establish a state policy that state agencies consider the goal that residential dwelling units be able to maintain a safe maximum indoor temperature.

Supporters said the bill addresses an identified public-health gap: existing California law sets minimum indoor temperature protections for cold weather but contains no complementary statewide policy to protect residents from extreme indoor heat. Senator Stern, the bill’s author, told the committee the measure "will establish a state policy that all residential dwelling units shall be able to maintain a safe maximum indoor temperature." She said the bill is a policy-setting first step and not intended as an immediate numeric mandate tied to enforcement.

The bill directs relevant state agencies to factor an objective of safe indoor temperatures into program rules, grant criteria and other policies where appropriate. Giovanna Morales Tillgren, housing and land use policy manager for Leadership Council Action, said many low‑income residents live in older or substandard housing without reliable cooling and often avoid using air conditioning because of energy costs. Natalie Delgado, policy associate with the Central California Environmental Justice Network, said swamp coolers used by some rural residents lose effectiveness above about 95 degrees and can pull pollution into homes.

Members of the committee raised implementation questions, especially about whether the bill should specify a numeric temperature threshold. Chair and other members said they understood the desire for guardrails — the bill’s prior Senate version had proposed a specific temperature — but committee amendments removed a numeric ceiling to preserve flexibility for agencies and to allow regional variation. Senator Patterson asked whether omitting a number risks creating an expectation that a single statewide setpoint (for example, 78 degrees) would be required; Senator Stern and witnesses replied that the intent is to give agencies flexibility to rely on evolving science and regional differences while promoting safety.

Committee discussion also touched on the state’s electric grid and whether expanded cooling use could exacerbate peak demand during prolonged heat waves. Stern noted work by the California Energy Commission and other agencies on integrated planning and suggested the committee could further refine parameters to avoid unintended strain on the grid.

The committee passed SB 655 as amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The motion was made by Assemblymember Quirk Silva and seconded by Assemblymember Lee. Recorded votes in committee included: Haney (aye); Harrison (aye); Avila Farias (aye); Colosa (aye); Garcia (aye); Cholera (aye); Lee (aye); Corky SIlva (aye); Wicks (aye); Wilson (aye). Taft was recorded as not voting. The bill was advanced as a policy-setting measure, and committee members asked the author to continue work on numeric guardrails or implementation guidance in later stages.

Supporters asked staff and agencies to prioritize financing and landlord‑tenant interventions so that improvements to dwelling units are affordable and accessible, and Senators and witnesses noted the work that led to the bill (including AB 209 and prior HCD recommendations). Senator Stern closed by describing SB 655 as a "first chapter" to elevate heat safety in state climate, public‑health and housing programs and asked for an aye vote.

The committee record includes written testimony and a list of organizations that registered support, including county and environmental justice groups; no witnesses appeared in opposition at the hearing.