SB 600 amends the statutory list of powers for the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) by adding an explicit authorization to study “the impact on public employees of net‑zero carbon emissions initiatives.” The change sits inside the board’s discretionary research authority and sits alongside existing powers to collect and publish data on wages and employment practices, recommend legislation, contract for research and training, and deliver an annual report to the Legislature by October 15.
This is a focused but consequential textual insertion: it puts labor‑market effects of decarbonization squarely within PERB’s remit. Practically, that can mean new data requests, targeted studies, training programs, and research contracts that inform collective bargaining, workforce transition plans, and legislative fixes — while also raising questions about scope, duplication with other state agencies, confidentiality, and resources needed to do the work well.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill expands PERB’s discretionary study topics to include the workforce impacts of net‑zero carbon emissions initiatives and preserves its authority to collect data, recommend legislation, contract for research/training, and deliver an annual activity report to the Legislature.
Who It Affects
State and local public employers that are implementing decarbonization plans, employee organizations representing affected public workers, labor counsel and HR teams, and agencies that design climate and workforce policy (e.g., transit, utilities, state environmental offices).
Why It Matters
It formally connects labor‑relations oversight to climate transition planning: PERB’s studies and reports could shape bargaining priorities, inform legislation, and compel employers to produce data or appear at hearings — shifting the administrative terrain for public‑sector decarbonization.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 600 makes a surgical addition inside the enumerated powers of the Public Employment Relations Board: when PERB conducts discretionary studies about wages, benefits, and employment practices it may now explicitly examine how net‑zero carbon emissions initiatives affect public employees. That single phrase brings workforce impacts from decarbonization into PERB’s research universe, authorizing the board to collect, analyze, and publish relevant data and to use contracts for research and training to assist employers and unions.
Alongside that research authority the statutory text reiterates PERB’s broader toolkit: it can run representation elections, decide unit and scope disputes, maintain rosters of mediators/arbitrators, adopt regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act, hold hearings, subpoena records and witnesses, investigate unfair practices, and bring enforcement actions to court. Practically, those enforcement and investigatory powers mean PERB can demand documentary evidence about how an agency plans and implements net‑zero measures when a labor dispute implicates workforce changes.The bill also preserves specific constraints and processes that matter in practice.
PERB must report its activities annually to the Legislature by October 15, it may contract for studies and training, and it is limited in damages it can award related to unlawful strikes (it cannot award strike‑preparation expenses or certain consequential losses). The board may delegate many functions, but decisions on the merits and refusal to issue complaints require at least two board members’ approval — a procedural safeguard for contested outcomes.Taken together the law reframes PERB as a potential hub for analysis at the intersection of labor and climate policy: its research could influence bargaining and legislative proposals, its subpoenas and hearings could produce firm‑level data about transition plans, and its training programs could shape how employers and unions negotiate workforce changes tied to net‑zero goals.
That influence depends on how PERB defines “net‑zero initiatives,” how aggressively it uses subpoenas and reports, and whether it secures funding or relies on contracted research capacity.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts “the impact on public employees of net‑zero carbon emissions initiatives” into PERB’s discretionary research authority (Section 3541.3(f)).
PERB must report to the Legislature each year by October 15 on its activities during the immediately preceding fiscal year.
The board’s investigatory powers include holding hearings, issuing subpoenas duces tecum for employer and union records, and taking testimony; Chapter 4.5 procedures generally do not apply to PERB hearings except for unfair practice hearings.
No fewer than two board members must participate in any merits decision, and a decision to refuse to issue a complaint requires approval of two members, though most powers may be delegated for performance.
PERB may investigate and remedy unfair practices but cannot award strike‑preparation expenses or damages for costs or revenue losses incurred as a consequence of an unlawful strike.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Representation units, elections, and unit‑change procedures
These provisions charge PERB with determining appropriate bargaining units, resolving disputes about whether particular items fall within representation scope, arranging and certifying secret‑ballot elections, and establishing procedures to review proposals to change unit determinations. For employers and unions this is the procedural spine for who can bargain about what: changes here change the starting line for negotiations and eligibility for representation. Practically, additions to PERB’s research role (elsewhere in the statute) can feed back into unit and scope disputes by supplying data about job classifications and workplace impacts that inform those determinations.
Scope rulings, recognition and organizational transitions
PERB retains explicit authority to rule on whether specific duties fall within representation and to resolve contested questions about recognition, certification, decertification, and the rights of organizations during mergers or transfers of jurisdiction. These mechanics govern organizational continuity when unions merge or when employers reorganize under decarbonization plans; the board’s determinations affect continuity of representation and bargaining obligations during structural change.
Research, reporting, and mediator/arbitrator rosters (where the bill inserts net‑zero)
Section (f) is the operative place where SB 600 lands: it authorizes PERB to conduct studies and collect data about wages, benefits, employment practices and — now explicitly — the impact of net‑zero carbon emissions initiatives on public employees. The provision also authorizes PERB to recommend legislation and to contract for research and training programs. Separately, section (d) authorizes PERB to maintain rosters of qualified mediators, arbitrators, and fact‑finders. Together these powers enable the board to produce evidence, train parties, and supply neutrals who may be asked to resolve disputes arising from workforce transitions tied to climate policy.
Rulemaking, delegation, and residual authority
PERB may adopt regulations under California’s APA to implement the chapter, and it may delegate powers to board members or appointed persons for performance of functions. The statute constrains delegation by requiring at least two members for merits decisions and refusals to issue complaints. Section (n) gives PERB a residuary catch‑all to take any other necessary action to effectuate chapter purposes. These provisions shape how flexibly PERB can operationalize its new research mandate and how much of the work can be carried out by staff or contracted experts.
Investigations, hearings, subpoenas, and enforcement limits
The board’s authority to hold hearings, subpoena witnesses and documents (including duces tecum for employer and union records), administer oaths, and investigate alleged violations is central to enforcement. PERB can petition courts for temporary relief and bring actions to enforce its orders. The statute also limits damage awards: in recovery actions for unlawful strikes PERB cannot award strike‑preparation expenses or damages for costs or revenue losses caused by the strike. Those limitations and subpoena powers will determine how PERB balances investigatory reach against evidentiary burdens in disputes tied to decarbonization plans.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment 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
- Public employees and their unions — The board’s research can provide evidence on job loss risk, retraining needs, and benefit impacts tied to decarbonization, strengthening bargaining positions and informing transition protections.
- Labor negotiators and HR teams — Access to PERB data, training programs, and mediator rosters can help design workforce transition plans, negotiate reclassification or redeployment, and reduce litigation through better‑informed bargaining.
- Legislators and policy shops — PERB’s annual reports and possible legislative recommendations create a data stream policymakers can use to craft statutes addressing workforce impacts of climate policy.
- Neutrals and labor arbitrators — PERB’s maintained lists and training contracts can expand the pool of arbitrators and mediators with subject‑matter familiarity in labor/climate intersection disputes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Public employers (state agencies, transit districts, local governments) — They may face increased data requests, subpoenas, and obligations to participate in studies; responding can divert staff time and require new recordkeeping.
- PERB (agency operations) — Implementing meaningful net‑zero workforce studies and training programs will require staff capacity or contracting funds; without dedicated appropriations this could strain resources or rely on external contractors.
- Unions subject to scrutiny — While unions benefit from research, they may also be required to provide data or face investigations that examine their positions on transition measures, adding compliance tasks and potential political exposure.
- Taxpayers or contracting budgets — If PERB uses expensive external research or training contracts, costs will be borne by the state budget unless offset, and contract management will be necessary to ensure methodological rigor.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is protecting public employees during an urgent climate transition without allowing labor‑market scrutiny to become a tool that slows or fragments decarbonization. PERB’s intervention can secure retraining, redeployment, and bargaining leverage for workers, but the same investigatory and reporting powers can be deployed to extract concessions, delay projects, or produce contradictory policy prescriptions in a crowded regulatory landscape.
The statutory insertion is narrow in wording but broad in possible effect. “Net‑zero carbon emissions initiatives” is an elastic phrase: does it cover municipal fleet electrification, building retrofits, transit electrification, utility decarbonization, or procurement standards? The lack of definitional detail leaves it to PERB to set methodological boundaries, which raises implementation questions about scope, data standards, and timelines for studies.
There is a real risk of duplication and jurisdictional overlap. California already has agencies (CARB, the Energy Commission, CPUC, and various labor and workforce boards) that study and regulate aspects of decarbonization and workforce transition.
PERB’s new role could either fill a gap by focusing on collective‑bargaining impacts or create parallel studies that generate inconsistent recommendations. Subpoena power over employer records also raises confidentiality concerns: agencies and private contractors may claim trade‑secret or security exemptions, forcing litigation over scope.
Finally, the statute does not supply dedicated funding; meaningful, rigorous studies and training programs will require resources — or they will be shallow and politically contested.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.