AB 137 repackages how California handles penalties and settlements under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) by splitting the Consumer Privacy Fund into three subfunds: (1) a Consumer Privacy Subfund to support the California Privacy Protection Agency’s (CPPA) operations, (2) an Attorney General Consumer Privacy Enforcement Subfund to underwrite the Attorney General’s enforcement work, and (3) a Consumer Privacy Grant Subfund to fund privacy-promoting grants. The bill prescribes exact deposit percentages, creates a grant distribution formula, and directs a one-time transfer of remaining fund balances not appropriated in the 2025 Budget Act into the three subfunds.
The measure also makes a bundle of state-government changes: it authorizes the Department of General Services (DGS) to dispose of state real property under the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) (with limits and uses for proceeds), clarifies when state agencies must obtain the Attorney General’s written consent to employ in‑house or outside counsel (and adds specific discovery-related exceptions and an exemption for the Governor’s office), extends and revises the Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank’s Climate Catalyst program and related confidentiality windows, adjusts numerous Financial Code fees and examination cost rules, modernizes legislative reporting to electronic filings, and expands eligibility for the HOPE trust accounts to certain young adults who lost caregivers to COVID-19.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill splits the Consumer Privacy Fund into three subfunds and mandates that 95% of agency/AG penalties go to the enforcing entity’s subfund and 5% go to a grant subfund; it sets a grant allocation formula and a $300,000 activation threshold. It authorizes DGS to dispose of CDCR surplus property (with proceeds routed to state revolving funds for redevelopment), revises AG/in-house counsel consent rules and discovery exceptions, extends Climate Catalyst program deadlines and limited confidentiality protections, and updates many licensing and exam fee authorities.
Who It Affects
The CPPA and the Attorney General (funding and enforcement), businesses subject to the CCPA (enforcement funding shifts), the Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I-Bank) and prospective Climate Catalyst borrowers, CDCR/DGS and local governments that may buy or redevelop surplus prison land, and licensed financial services entities that pay new or recalculated fees and examination charges.
Why It Matters
The bill changes how enforcement revenue is used and creates a steady, earmarked funding path for enforcement and a small grant program—altering budget incentives. It accelerates mechanisms to put surplus prison land into private or local hands and extends a state climate financing tool through 2031, both of which reshape redevelopment and project finance possibilities. Finally, it shifts operational practice across many state agencies — from how reports are filed to how legal representation decisions are made — with practical compliance and budget consequences.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 137 is a package bill touching privacy funding, state asset disposition, agency legal representation rules, climate finance, administrative reporting, and multiple financial regulatory fees. Its privacy provisions carve the Consumer Privacy Fund into three dedicated subfunds.
The CPPA’s administrative fines and settlements are largely routed back to the CPPA (95%) with a small slice (5%) reserved for a grant subfund to support privacy advocacy, child online‑safety education, and cross‑border law enforcement cooperation. The Attorney General’s civil penalties follow the same 95/5 split between an AG enforcement subfund and the grant subfund.
The grant program requires the CPPA to divide grant dollars equally among three recipient groups and only becomes operational once the grant subfund exceeds $300,000.
On state real property, the bill directs the Secretary of CDCR, with Department of Finance sign‑off, to notify DGS and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee about any CDCR land declared excess. With legislative authorization, DGS may dispose of those parcels by sale, lease, exchange, or transfer to local government; DGS may execute leases and may accept discounted prices where it decides a discount serves state interests.
Except for proceeds earmarked to specified debt or special funds and for DGS reimbursement, net revenues go to the Property Acquisition Law Money Account and can move into the Architectural Revolving Fund to pay predevelopment, abatement, infrastructure, and other activities intended to make redevelopment feasible. The statute prohibits future carceral uses of sold parcels and creates limited exemptions from CEQA for “as-is” transactions or disposition agreements structured around local entitlements.The bill clarifies and narrows the Attorney General consent regime for state counsel: agencies still generally need AG written consent before hiring in‑house counsel to represent them in adjudicative proceedings or contracting with outside counsel, but AB 137 expands several exemptions (including adding the Governor’s office to the statutory exemption list) and explicitly exempts representation related to civil discovery in AG-initiated actions brought in the AG’s independent capacity.
It also recasts that agencies may request representation from the AG for any purpose and states that the AG does not have possession, custody, or control of a state agency’s documents or ESI by virtue of providing representation.The bill amends the I‑Bank’s Climate Catalyst program in several ways: it requires separate climate catalyst financing plans by project category developed with specific consulting agencies, extends the deadline for approving projects eligible for Climate Catalyst assistance through December 31, 2031, and lengthens related confidentiality protections on bank‑provided financial information to January 1, 2032. It also tightens rules for plan adoption and timing of revisions, requires more detailed annual reporting (including federal funds used per project), and obligates the I‑Bank to notify the Joint Legislative Budget Committee when federal funds have been fully recycled back into state dollars before new commitments.
Finally, AB 137 makes numerous technical and substantive changes across the Financial and Corporations Codes—chiefly granting commissioners authority to charge examination and licensing fees based on estimated hourly costs and overhead, and updating many fixed fees and assessment mechanics—and modernizes legislative report submission to require electronic filing and a one‑page summary for each report.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill mandates that 95% of CPPA administrative fines and AG civil penalties go to the enforcing entity’s subfund and 5% go to a Consumer Privacy Grant Subfund.
The CPPA must distribute grant subfund dollars in thirds to (1) nonprofit privacy organizations, (2) nonprofits and public agencies (including school districts) for children’s online privacy education, and (3) state/local law enforcement for cooperative international data‑breach programs; the grant program only starts once the subfund exceeds $300,000.
Any remaining Consumer Privacy Fund dollars not included in the 2025 Budget Act are reallocated one time in 2025–26 as: 45% to the Consumer Privacy Subfund, 45% to the Attorney General enforcement subfund, and 10% to the grant subfund.
DGS, with legislative authorization, may sell, lease, exchange, or transfer surplus CDCR property (but not for carceral uses); most net proceeds (outside designated debt funds and DGS reimbursements) deposit into the Property Acquisition Law Money Account and may transfer to the Architectural Revolving Fund to support redevelopment activities.
The I‑Bank’s Climate Catalyst program eligibility and confidentiality windows extend: projects approved before December 31, 2031 are eligible for assistance and certain bank financial records remain exempt from public disclosure through January 1, 2032.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Recast Consumer Privacy Fund into three subfunds and split penalty proceeds
These sections create the Consumer Privacy Subfund (for CPPA operations), the Attorney General Consumer Privacy Enforcement Subfund, and the Consumer Privacy Grant Subfund. They require 95%/5% deposit splits for administrative fines assessed by the CPPA and civil penalties recovered by the Attorney General, specify that fund moneys are available only upon legislative appropriation, and limit uses of each subfund to defined purposes. The grant subfund contains a statutory distribution rule that allocates one-third of grant dollars to each of three recipient categories and a $300,000 activation threshold before grants may be made.
Process and limits for disposing CDCR surplus land and use of proceeds
This new section requires the CDCR Secretary to notify DGS and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee when property is declared excess and asks the Legislature to authorize disposition. Upon authorization, DGS may sell, lease, exchange, or transfer the land to local governments and execute leases. The statute permits DGS to accept discounted sales prices if it finds a discount serves state interests, requires DGS reimbursement from transaction proceeds, and directs most other revenues into the Property Acquisition Law Money Account for potential transfer to the Architectural Revolving Fund to fund studies, abatement, infrastructure, or entitlements to support redevelopment. The provision also prohibits carceral reuse and creates narrow CEQA exemptions for "as‑is" transactions or disposition agreements tied to local entitlement processes.
Attorney General consent, discovery exceptions, and agency document control
AB 137 revises the AG consent regime: agencies generally still need written AG consent before hiring in‑house counsel to represent them in adjudicative proceedings or contracting outside counsel, but the bill (1) clarifies that agencies may request AG representation for any purpose, (2) adds the Governor’s office to statutory exemptions, and (3) carves out an explicit exemption allowing agency representation related to civil discovery in actions the AG brings in its independent capacity. The bill also declares that the AG does not, by virtue of representation, possess or control other agencies’ documents or ESI—an important operational rule for discovery and records management.
Climate Catalyst program: category plans, extended eligibility, confidentiality, and reporting
The measure recasts the Climate Catalyst Revolving Fund program to require distinct climate catalyst financing plans for each project category (for example, forest biomass, climate‑smart agriculture, clean energy transmission, a state energy financing institution, and projects tied to the federal Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund). It expands planning and consultation requirements with designated consulting agencies, extends the deadline for projects to be board‑approved (previously July 1, 2025) to December 31, 2031, and extends the narrow public‑records confidentiality window for bank‑provided financial materials to January 1, 2032. The bank must report annually on Climate Catalyst activity (including federal funds applied per project) and notify the Joint Legislative Budget Committee when federal funds are fully recycled before new commitments.
Fee adjustments and examination cost authority across financial regulators
AB 137 adjusts many numerical fees and codifies the commissioner’s recurring authority to set examination and related fees using estimated hourly cost formulas and overhead. The changes affect corporations filings (e.g., franchise registration fees), broker‑dealer and investment adviser assessments, bank and credit union branch fees, escrow and mortgage license assessments, and more. Several provisions allow summary suspension for nonpayment and authorize special assessments to cover enforcement shortfalls—mechanics that can materially affect regulated entities' budgets and cashflow timing.
Modernize legislative reporting to electronic submissions and public list
The bill requires state and local agency reports to the Legislature to be submitted electronically to the Secretary of the Senate, the Chief Clerk of the Assembly, and Legislative Counsel, and requires a one‑page summary be included. Legislative Counsel must maintain and publish an electronic list of required reports and accept electronic report files or hyperlinks; agencies must post reports on their websites and provide download links and ordering phone numbers. The change both reduces printed submissions and centralizes discoverability of mandated reports.
Temporary modifications to California Small Business Technical Assistance Program eligibility
For applicants whose federal contract was canceled, frozen, or rescinded in 2024–25, AB 137 temporarily relaxes certain eligibility requirements for grants awarded in fiscal years 2025–26 through 2027–28 (operative through June 30, 2029). The office may accept 2023–24 federal contracts to meet the active contract requirement, waive some performance history rules for historically funded centers that meet specified criteria, and requires the office to verify continued program quality and report findings to the Legislature.
HOPE trust account eligibility expanded to certain adults who lost caregivers to COVID‑19
AB 137 expands the definition of an "eligible child" to include California residents who are now 18 or older but who, before turning 18, lost a parent, Indian custodian, or legal guardian to COVID‑19 (including medically recognized long‑term COVID consequences) and who met the income eligibility threshold prior to the death. The Treasurer will verify cause of death and prior household income; the change expands access to HOPE trust accounts and is treated as an appropriation because the HOPE fund is continuously appropriated.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- California Privacy Protection Agency — Receives a dedicated Consumer Privacy Subfund (95% of CPPA fines) to support ongoing enforcement and agency operations, improving predictable operating funding tied directly to enforcement recoveries.
- Attorney General’s Office — Gains a dedicated enforcement subfund receiving 95% of AG civil penalties to reimburse investigative and enforcement costs, lowering the need to rely on general fund appropriations for CCPA enforcement.
- Nonprofits, schools, and law enforcement partnerships — Become structured recipients of the Consumer Privacy Grant Subfund, with guaranteed allocation bands (one‑third shares) for privacy advocacy, child online‑privacy education, and international cooperative programs.
- I‑Bank borrowers and climate projects — Benefit from an extended application window (projects approved through Dec. 31, 2031) and clearer category‑based financing plans, which preserve an avenue for low‑cost climate financing and potential technical assistance.
- Local governments and developers near surplus CDCR property — Gain earlier access to redevelopment opportunities because DGS may dispose of excess prison land and provide predevelopment funding from transferred proceeds to improve project feasibility.
Who Bears the Cost
- Businesses subject to the CCPA — Face greater certainty that enforcement capacity is funded; dedicated enforcement subfunds may sustain or increase enforcement activity and the agency/AG’s budget independence.
- Financial services licensees (banks, broker‑dealers, escrow agents, mortgage lenders, credit unions) — Could face higher or more variable fees and pro rata assessments as the commissioner is authorized to recover examination and administration costs based on estimated hourly rates and overhead.
- Department of General Services — Must manage disposition processes and may front or incur costs for remediation, abatement, or other predevelopment activities (though reimbursable from proceeds); DGS also carries execution risk and political accountability for sales and discount decisions.
- State agencies' legal operations — Agencies that used to rely on unilateral in‑house representation may now need to navigate the AG consent framework and discovery exceptions; some agencies (including the Governor’s office) gain explicit exemption, shifting where counsel and cost responsibility sit.
- Local communities — While many will benefit from redevelopment, some may bear accelerated entitlement and development pressure with constrained CEQA review for certain transactions, and may need to absorb infrastructure or service impacts tied to repurposed sites.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate goals—building stable, dedicated funding for privacy enforcement and rapidly repurposing state assets to support redevelopment and climate projects—against the risks that funding tied to penalties can skew enforcement incentives, that accelerated property disposition and CEQA carve‑outs reduce local control and transparency, and that expanded confidentiality and fee‑setting discretion reduce public visibility and predictability for regulated stakeholders.
AB 137 ties enforcement revenue directly to enforcement capacity and grantmaking. That creates predictable revenue streams for agencies but also raises incentive questions: when a regulator’s budget is bolstered by fines, the regulator’s enforcement posture and settlement strategies can change relative to a program funded through general appropriations.
The bill reduces that risk by directing only 5% to grants and by requiring legislative appropriation, but the operational incentives remain.
The CDCR land disposition path streamlines reuse and provides funding for predevelopment, yet it compresses the traditional sequence of environmental review and public planning in some dispositions (via narrow CEQA exemptions and "as‑is" sale language). Although the statute bars carceral reuse, it leaves open other contentious reuses and relies on DGS judgment and legislative authorization—creating community and political friction points at each disposal.
Implementation will demand tight interagency coordination, clear valuation guidance for discounts, and transparent accounting of proceeds.
On the Climate Catalyst side, extending program eligibility and confidentiality windows preserves a financing tool for complex transmission and clean energy projects, but also extends a period during which certain bank‑provided records remain nondisclosable. That tradeoff favors project sponsors' commercial confidentiality but limits public scrutiny of bank decisionmaking and credit terms.
Finally, the broad grant allocation formula (1/3 each) is administratively simple but inflexible: it could underfund the highest‑priority need in a given year and produce grant awards that are administratively burdensome for a relatively small pool of resources (5% of penalties and settlements) until the one‑time transfer materializes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.