A Must-Read Comparison of AB 1642 and AB 1795 for California Legislators

The Palisadian-Post examines the key differences between AB 1642 and AB 1795 and the larger question of who should determine when a wildfire-contaminated home is safe to occupy. It highlights CA’s lack of health-based standards for families returning to standing homes, even though workers already have enforceable protections for lead and asbestos exposure. The article describes AB 1642 as the broader, public-health-focused approach, establishing independent health-based testing and clearance standards and protections extending beyond insurance claims to schools. It contrasts that with AB 1795’s insurance-focused framework, noting concerns that its reliance on future rulemaking and “accepted trade and industry standards” could preserve many of the disputes survivors are already facing over testing, causation and what insurers must cover.

The article also cites EFRU data showing 96% of tested homes still had detectable lead and 36% had asbestos after remediation, arguing that the absence of clear statewide safety standards leaves families without an authoritative answer about whether their homes are safe to return to. Since the article was published, AB 1642 and AB 1795 have advanced from Appropriations to the Senate Floor.

Action: Send the Palisadian-Post article in an email to legislators so they understand the difference between the bills — and which supports science-based recovery. Share your story and explain that, as currently written, AB 1795 would limit access to science-based testing until CalEPA standards take effect, potentially years from now. Heighten the pressure to get AB 1642 passed.
Find your state representative here. | Find your County Supervisor here. | Find your federal representative here.