California leads the nation in extreme heat policy but still faces key gaps in coordination, funding and protections, according to a new report by Duke University researchers.
The report from Duke’s Heat Policy Innovation Hub examines California’s legislative record on extreme heat from 2014 through 2025. California introduced 128 bills addressing extreme heat, with 57 enacted—a passage rate of about 45%. California has also committed far more funding than other states, treating heat as a comprehensive public investment rather than a narrow regulatory issue.
“California has shown a remarkable commitment to protecting its residents through extreme heat legislation,” said report coauthor Ashley Ward, director of the hub. “There is much to celebrate—and more to be done to mitigate the risks of extreme heat for all.”
The report is the second installment in a series analyzing heat-related state legislation across the country; the first examined heat legislation in 11 Southeastern states.
In California, extreme heat compounds with other climate risks to affect every region—from agricultural areas where migrant laborers are exposed to daily heat stress to densely populated coastal areas that are vulnerable to wildfire.
The analysis benchmarks California’s approach against the United Nations’ Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, which emphasizes coordinated, cross-sector action.
California’s strongest legislative achievements are in disaster preparedness, worker protections, correctional facilities, grid reliability and targeted tenant and child safety measures—areas where some policies are unmatched nationally.
Key findings include:
- California has built the most extensive state-level heat policy framework in the country. This includes the nation’s first state outdoor heat standard, which was also extended to indoor workers; the first statewide heat wave ranking system; a distributed energy asset framework for grid stress; structured interagency coordination through the Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program; and more than $750 million in committed heat resilience funding.
- California has the pieces of a coordinated heat governance system but has not fully connected them. Legislators have yet to connect passed funding and investment with the cross-agency authority and data systems that would allow agencies to measure outcomes, share operational data and report to a common platform.
- Current funding mechanisms limit investment in long-term infrastructure for heat protection. Existing investments rely on grants and direct appropriations, both of which are vulnerable to annual budget competition.
- Legislation tends to favor voluntary action, with bills that require compliance often failing.
- California’s legislative record has treated heat as an acute public health emergency rather than a chronic, multi-sectoral stressor. That framing produced strong disaster preparedness legislation and meaningful (though incomplete) cooling investment, but not a unified framework for long-term resilience.
Nearly 75% of passed bills concentrated on the infrastructure, health and education sectors. Overall, about 46% focused on disaster preparedness.
“Our research points to ways California leaders can build on heat policy progress to strengthen long-term heat resilience,” said lead author Julee Snyder, a policy associate at the Heat Policy Innovation Hub. “Breaking down the record by mechanism, sector, and theme allows for nuanced and specific next steps in the effort to reduce the effects of extreme heat for all Californians.”
The report recommends 10 evidence-based actions for California legislators, agencies and partners to prioritize:
- Strengthen California’s heat governance system with statutory cross-sector agency authority and an integrated data platform.
- Establish a dedicated heat resilience revolving fund—a loan structure that, once capitalized, recycles repayments into new loans without returning to the appropriations process.
- Establish enforceable temperature standards for school facilities, paired with dedicated financing. California does not currently have an evidence-based maximum indoor temperature for schools.
- Establish statutory utility shutoff protections during declared heat emergencies, paired with a utility resilience fund.
- Establish enforceable heat standards for elder care and correctional facilities, paired with dedicated financing.
- Resource the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health’s heat enforcement. Evidence shows the program saves lives and strengthens employer liability and training requirements.
- Legislate a compound peril planning framework for grid resilience.
- Commission a cross-sector economic impact assessment including agriculture, fisheries, tourism and small businesses.
- Frame heat-reduction infrastructure as multi-peril risk reduction and attach an insurance mechanism.
- Protect and extend California’s residential cooling policy to existing vulnerable housing.
The report was authored by Snyder and Ward, along with Camille Harley, a recent graduate of the master of public policy program at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy, and Adam Levin, a rising junior in Duke’s Trinity College of Arts & Sciences.
###
CITATION: Snyder, J., C. Harley, A. Levin, and A. Ward. 2026. Heat Legislation in California: Gaps, Innovations, and Opportunities. NI 26-11. Durham, NC: Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability, Duke University. https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/publications/heat-legislation-california-gaps-innovations-and-opportunities.
For media inquiries, contact the Nicholas Institute communications team at ni-comm@duke.edu.
