For Clients & Friends of The Gualco Group, Inc.
IN THIS ISSUE – “A Big Tax is a Stumbling Block”
BUDGET & BILLS
- Legislature’s Annual “Fast-and-Furious” Week Ends Hundreds of Bills
- Senate Sinks Governor’s Water Tax
- Newsom Takes Healthcare Reform on the Road
- Solving the Housing Crisis: “All of the Above”…
- …But Not With Residential Zoning Remodel
- Cannabis Stores – Coming Soon to a Neighborhood Near You?
- Assemblymember Innocent in Child Abuse Trial
AIR & WATER
- California Air Quality Leader Threatens “Extreme” Pollution Rules
- Includes End to Internal Combustion Engine
- State Carbon-Free Energy Plan Ignores Storage
- “Monster Battery” Will Power LA Shift to Carbon-Free Energy
- Coming Soon to Your Restaurant Tab: 1% Carbon Charge?
- Attorney General Sues to Stop Largest Reservoir Expansion
Capital News & Notes (CN&N) harvests California legislative and regulatory insights from dozens of media and official sources for the past week, tailored to your business and advocacy interests. Please feel free to forward.
Stay current daily! For our focused updates via Twitter: @jrgualco / @robertjgore / @gualcogroup
READ ALL ABOUT IT!!
FOR THE WEEK ENDING MAY 17, 2019
Legislature’s Annual “Fast-and-Furious” Week Ends Hundreds of Bills
Some of the most contentious ideas California lawmakers were considering this year—to expand internet privacy protections and require denser housing development—were jettisoned Thursday as the Legislature culled hundreds of bills in a fast-and-furious annual procedural ritual.
Decisions on the “suspense file,” as it’s known, mark a do-or-die moment in the lawmaking process. Reeled off at auctioneer-like speed, the pass-or-hold calls are traditionally made with little or no public discussion or explanation.
Officially, the practice lets beancounters in each house weigh costly proposals against each other and prioritize how the Legislature should spend taxpayer dollars. Unofficially, it’s a way for powerful lawmakers to quietly kill bills before they get to the floor of a chamber—without debate or even a public vote.
The Assembly appropriations committee considered 721 bills Thursday, a bigger load than at any time in the last decade. Lawmakers—aware of swelling tax revenues and a new governor who campaigned on an agenda to expand government services like health care and child care—have been pitching plenty of ideas for spending money. The Senate, which has half as many members as the Assembly, considered 355 bills in its appropriations lightning round.
Despite Democrats holding roughly three-quarters of the seats—the largest majority since the 19th century—the influence of big business was evident in many of their decisions, revealing the Legislature’s varying shades of blue. Tech, oil, insurance companies and other moneyed interests succeeded in killing some measures backed by advocates for privacy, the environment and mental health.
Here’s where things landed when the sorting was done.
Data privacy
The Legislature appears unlikely to pass any major bills this year to expand consumer protection under a landmark data privacy measure they passed in 2018. The Senate appropriations committee killed a bill that would have given Californians the ability to sue internet companies that breach the privacy law, after businesses argued it would lead to a “class action bonanza.”
Last month, one Assembly bill stalled that would have stopped companies from charging consumers more if they opt out of data collection, as did another that would have required social media companies to permanently delete data when people delete their account.
The privacy law the Legislature rushed to pass last year was the result of a compromise between tech companies and privacy advocates, spurred by the threat of a ballot measure that would have amounted to a costly fight. Because they reached a deal hastily, the law was written to take effect in 2020, giving both sides an extra year to lobby for changes.
A few bills still remain in play, including one that would prohibit companies from saving the voice commands people give smart speakers such as Amazon’s Alexa (unless consumers give written permission), and another that privacy advocates are trying to stop because it would allow businesses to give consumer data to government agencies.
Taxes
Legislative leaders sought to minimize new taxes amid a $21 billion-plus surplus.
Sen. Pro Tem Toni Atkins threw her support behind a safe drinking water fund to clean up contaminated water in the Central Valley only after removing a 95-cent monthly water fee that had been backed by the governor. The bill, bill by Sen. Bill Monning of Carmel, instead relies on about $150 million a year from the general fund.
“California’s drinking water challenges are too urgent to ignore,” Atkins said in a statement. “This proposal creates a sustainable funding source to bring desperately needed relief to the communities in need.”
In January, Newsom had incorporated Monning’s proposal in his budget by calling for a 95-cent monthly water meter fee as well as taxing fertilizer and dairy production, both contributors of unsafe drinking water in the region. Atkins’ move gives supporters the clean water fund without having to raise taxes.
Decisions were put off for other tax proposals. For example, a proposed $25 firearms tax by Assemblyman Marc Levine was turned into a two-year bill. It aimed to raise $13 million a year to fund violence intervention programs.
And it’s not clear if women will get to stop paying taxes on tampons and other feminine products. Newsom embraced the tampon tax exemption in his budget update, but AB 31 by Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia was turned into a two-year bill. The bill would cost the state an estimated $8.8 million in sales tax each year so the issue may be resolved through the budget bill.
Other tax proposals, including a soda tax, a tire change fee and an oil severance tax, all died before even making it to the appropriations committee. Assemblyman Richard Bloom announced last month that his AB 138 was being held in another committee. He had proposed a 2 cent per fluid ounce tax on sugary drinks, and the soda industry was prepared to mount intense lobbying.
Mental health
Another casualty of the day was SB 11, which would have stiffened the requirements for health insurers to make annual reports to the state about their compliance with laws requiring them to provide equivalent levels of care for physical and mental illness, including substance abuse. It also would have made that information available to the public.
A majority of Californians—and two-thirds of those who’ve sought treatment for mental illness—say people with mental health conditions are not able to get the treatment they need, according to a 2018 poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation and California Health Care Foundation.
The bill had the backing of mental health advocacy groups, but faced opposition from the health insurance industry, health plans and the California Chamber of Commerce.
It marks yet another failed attempt by state Sen. Jim Beall, Democrat from San Jose, to strengthen parity provisions. He vowed to keep pushing “to remove barriers to treatment for people who are suffering.”
Environment
A few environmental bills were killed in today’s legislative haircut—including SB 332 that aimed to increase reuse of treated wastewater by restricting how much can be released into the ocean. A controversial proposal to prohibit new oil and gas operations within 2,500 feet of homes, schools, playgrounds, and healthcare facilities also stalled, though environmentalists who support it vowed to keep trying next year. The delay marks a win for the oil and gas industry, which opposed the measure.
But other bills to increase regulation of the oil and gas industry will make it to a floor vote, including a proposal to block the state from leasing public lands for construction of new infrastructure intended to transport oil from federally protected land. A bill to improve planning for spills of particularly difficult-to-clean types of oil that sink rather than slick across the surface of a body of water survived, as did a proposal to require that wells being plugged and abandoned get tested for leaks.
Trash will make it to a floor vote, as well, with a new proposal to increase recycling of single-use products and packaging. And the state’s stand against federal deregulation continues with SB 1’s survival. The bill—a second go, after a similar measure died last year—proposes that if federal standards for occupational safety, air and water quality, and endangered species protections drop below where they were set before President Donald Trump took office, the state can stick to those pre-Trump standards instead.
Health care
Lawmakers nixed two bills to help caregivers—one that would have given family caregivers a tax credit to offset expenses and another that sought to create a California Care Corps to get young people to care for seniors for a year or two.
Residents in a part of Los Angeles lost out as a bill seeking $100 million to expedite the clean-up of lead at the now-shuttered Exide Technologies Battery Plan failed. (The Legislature has previously approved funding for the clean-up, but the state agency overseeing the project has been criticized for how slow it’s going.)
A Senate proposal to provide Medi-Cal coverage to undocumented immigrants was also approved but it was narrowed to mirror the governor’s budget proposal—covering only those between 19 and 26 years old, instead of all undocumented immigrants.
And health care bills pitched in response the federal attack on the Affordable Care Act are moving forward, including one to pay for subsidies for middle-income families and another requiring that all Californians have insurance.
Higher education
The Legislature is poised to make some big decisions on college affordability, with bills that would double the state’s financial aid investment, help community college students cover their living expenses, and waive tuition for two years of community college all advancing to a floor vote.
Consumer advocates cheered the survival of measures that would create stricter oversight of for-profit colleges and student loan servicers. Proposals to tighten UC admissions rules in the wake of the Operation Varsity Blues scandal and provide more on-campus mental health counselors will also move forward.
In a Legislature dominated by Democrats, however, Republicans pushing their own ideas to address college costs failed to convince their colleagues across the aisle: Bills that would have allowed students to promise public colleges a percentage of their future income instead of paying tuition and to borrow against their financial aid to buy textbooks both died in the Assembly appropriations committee.
Senate Sinks Governor’s Water Tax
A Senate budget subcommittee rejected Gov. Gavin Newsom’s water tax plan on, instead recommending finding $150 million elsewhere to finance a safe and affordable drinking water fund.
Newsom proposed the tax in his January budget to help communities clean contaminated water systems. His May budget revise also included a fee to address the statewide problem that affects one million Californians.
“The governor has made his proposal in the budget, and he is encouraged by the conversations with the Legislature,” Newsom’s spokesperson Nathan Click said. “His objective remains providing a permanent and sustained funding source for safe drinking water.”
Instead of a tax, the newest proposal is contingent on the passage of Carmel Democrat Bill Monning’s Senate Bill 200, which establishes a fund that the $150 million would finance.
The subcommittee’s decision to lock in funds for future budget cycles could eliminate the challenge of securing votes to pass another tax. A water fee proposal died in budget compromise talks last year as Democrats worried about asking constituents to pay more..
“It’s been a big stumbling block when it’s called a tax,” said Steve Maviglio, a Democratic strategist who worked with water tax backers. “That’s the beauty of this. It’ll be in every budget.”
The money would come from the state’s general fund, but lawmakers did not clarify what other programs might be cut to obtain the money or whether they’d dip into a state surplus to pay for it.
“We have a $22 billion surplus and dealing with this onetime infrastructure problem by all accounts is going to be about $150 million,” said David Wolfe, legislative director for Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “Once these projects are done, this isn’t something we have to revisit. We’re way more in favor of that than a precedent-setting tax.”
Newsom Takes Healthcare Reform on the Road
As the mid-June deadline to strike a budget deal approaches, Gov. Gavin Newsom is launching a statewide tour to promote his plans to shore up Obamacare and expand state health coverage to young undocumented adults.
The tour underscores the emphasis Newsom is placing on the health care elements of his budget. It also highlights the potential challenge the Democratic governor faces in getting the Legislature to back his proposals.
“No state has more at stake on the issue of health care,” Newsom plans to say at his first stop on the tour, a health care nonprofit in Sacramento. “While the Trump administration seeks to destroy the Affordable Care Act, California is leading the nation in expanding access to health care and tackling affordability.”
Newsom will also visit San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego during the five-day tour.
Newsom’s proposal to reinstate the individual mandate, which the federal government rolled back after President Donald Trump took office, is perhaps his most direct attempt to prop up the Affordable Care Act. But it will require lawmakers to vote to penalize constituents who don’t have insurance, one of several taxes and fees Newsom wants to enact to support his budget proposal.
But without a way to maintain a large pool of people who pay for insurance, Newsom says insurance prices will go up for everyone.
“Without a mandate, you will see an increase in your premiums,” he said during his revised budget announcement last week.
Newsom wants to use money generated by the individual mandate to increase subsidies for people making up to 600 percent of the federal poverty level – about $150,000 for a family of four.
Throughout the week, Newsom will also promote his plans to consolidate the state’s drug price negotiations and spend $100 million on reproductive and sexual health care.
He and lawmakers have a June deadline to pass a spending plan for the 2019-20 fiscal year.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article230366014.html?#storylink=cpy
Solving the Housing Crisis: “All of the Above”…
Gov. Gavin Newsom says California’s housing affordability crisis is so severe that he wants a bit of everything to solve it.
That means seeding construction for millions of new residences, opening the door to a new rent control law and finding ways to protect low-income families from eviction.
Three months ago Newsom challenged lawmakers to get him housing proposals that he could sign into law. He’s put his office to work, too, setting aside $1.75 billion in his budget to spur home construction, and threatening to sue cities that fail to create plans for affordable housing.
“No one can disagree that we have a housing crisis in the state of California, highlighted by the fact that we only built 77,000 housing units last year. Which is deplorable,” Newsom said when heunveiled his updated budget during a May 9 press conference.
Democrats in the Legislature responded with a wave of housing bills this year. Here’s a look at the ones that could still reach Newsom’s desk.
Newsom applauded an Assembly committee in late April, after members passed a bill that imposes a rent increase cap of no more than 5 percent above the Consumer Price Index.
“The California Dream is in peril if our state doesn’t act to address the housing affordability crisis,” Newsom said after Assembly Bill 1482 earned approval from the committee.
The proposal tries to protect tenants against “egregious rent increases,” the bill’s author, Democratic Assemblyman David Chiu of San Francisco, said.
But AB 1482 faces additional challenges in future hearings and floor votes. Voters rejected Proposition 10, a rent control ballot initiative, last year. Critics argue the legislation could disrupt market stability, discourage development and hurt property owners.
Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Alameda, is sponsoring a just-cause eviction measure that cracks down on throwing tenants out for “no reason.”
Through Bonta’s legislation, Assembly Bill 1481, a landlord would have to provide tenants with an explanation for why they must leave their homes. AB 1481 would also allow renters the chance to contest the rationale.
The bill analysis states the measure would stymie homelessness, prevent mental health concerns that follow evictions, decrease racial segregation and stop discrimination of renters by landlords.
But the California Apartment Association has argued against the bill, saying that just-cause eviction would harm “owners (who) struggle to remove tenants who have no regard for their neighbors, tenants who destroy the property, and tenants who are involved in – and – invite gang activity.”
Pulling $2 billion from property tax revenue, Senate Bill 5 would create a special fund that would help fund local projects to accelerate construction of affordable housing and infill projects.
The League of California cities is backing the bill, also authored by McGuire and co-sponsored by state Sen. Jim Beall of San Jose.
“(SB 5) brings back a state and local partnership to fund affordable housing, to fund infrastructure, to revitalize neighborhoods,” said Jason Rhine, assistant legislative director with the League of Cities. “That bill, to the tune of $2 billion after 10 years, would go a very long way to spur housing construction.”
Newsom said California must prioritize housing preservation if the state wants to see a big increase in units.
That means ensuring developers don’t knock down multi-family homes to replace them with fewer residents.
Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, wrote Senate Bill 330 to ban the demolition of low-income and Section 8 housing. The sweeping proposal also places a “moratorium” on downsizing neighborhoods. Skinner uses the example of prohibiting a city that already authorizes four-unit buildings to reduce new development to three units or less.
Skinner said the housing crisis demands “bold action” and that California “can’t afford to wait,” which is why the bill includes a provision to streamline housing approval in cities that severely lack units.
A number of proposals in the Assembly would offer more tax credits to developers for affordable housing projects.
They are:
- A proposed budget amendment that makes an extra $500 million available for affordable housing tax credits over the next five years.
- Assembly Bill 10, which would set aside $24.5 million in additional tax credits for farmworker housing, up from today’s $500,000.
- Assembly Bill 791, which would provide $100 million in new tax credits to keep affordable homes in low-income areas and would create an additional $200 million in credits to build units in the same communities.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article230095264.html#storylink=cpy
…But Not With Residential Zoning Remodel
A high-profile bill that would have increased home building near mass transit and in single-family home neighborhoods across California has been killed for the year, ending a major battle over how to address the state’s housing affordability crisis that has attracted attention nationwide.
Senate Bill 50 by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) would have required cities to allow four- to five-story apartment complexes near rail stations and four or more homes on land zoned only for single-family homes across Los Angeles, San Francisco, Silicon Valley and much of the rest of California.
The measure would have radically altered the state’s growth patterns to direct significant new development toward urban areas, something the bill’s backers said was necessary to make housing more affordable and to meet the state’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
But opponents of the legislation argued that changes under SB 50 would have unalterably diminished the quality of life in many California neighborhoods dominated by single-family home development. Others against the bill worried that its efforts to spur building would displace low-income residents already threatened by the state’s high housing costs.
Disputes over SB 50 revealed deep divisions among Democrats who dominate the Legislature over solutions to California’s longstanding housing affordability problems.
Median home prices in the state have reached $548,000, nearly 2½ times the national average, according to real estate website Zillow. Nine and a half million renters — more than half of California’s tenant population — are burdened by high rents, spending at least 30% of their income on housing costs, according to a recent analysis by UC Berkeley’s Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society.
Lawmakers representing the state’s urban centers — predominantly from the Bay Area — were SB 50’s chief supporters, while legislators from suburban areas worked to narrow the bill and ultimately blocked it.
Sen. Anthony Portantino, a Democrat from La Canada Flintridge and chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said he was against SB 50 because it would have trumped zoning rules that are almost exclusively under the control of cities and counties. Portantino announced that the bill had been shelved until 2020 at the beginning of the committee’s hearing Thursday morning.
Portantino said in an interview that he was especially concerned by provisions in the bill that would have increased density around busy bus routes, saying doing so would be out of scale with existing communities.
“A lot of them go through residential neighborhoods,” he said.
The demise of SB 50 marks the second time in two years that an effort from Wiener to increase home building near transit has been shelved without a vote on the floor in either house of the Legislature. But while the fate of Wiener’s bill last year was expected because of substantial opposition from labor unions, many low-income housing advocates and local governments, Thursday’s action was a surprise.
Though cities and counties remained opposed to Wiener’s efforts this year, the legislator secured backing from the powerful State Building & Construction Trades Council of California, the labor group representing construction workers. He was also in negotiations with tenant organizations over potential changes to the bill, and found additional new supporters including environmental and other labor groups that hadn’t weighed in last year.
Gov. Gavin Newsom also made addressing the state’s housing affordability crisis one of the centerpieces of his 2018 gubernatorial campaign, adding momentum to Wiener’s efforts. Newsom called for a building boom in the state, including the construction of 3.5 million new homes by 2025, a pace that would more than quadruple California’s current output.
Though Newsom did not take a position on SB 50, he said in a statement after the decision that he was “disappointed” the bill was blocked.
“Developing housing around transit must also be part of the solution, and today’s developments can’t end or stall that critical conversation,” Newsom said.
The governor’s office did not respond to questions about whether he attempted to intervene to keep the bill alive, and Portantino declined comment on whether he had spoken with the governor about it.
There was no public vote blocking SB 50 on Thursday. Though lawmakers can shelve bills in appropriations committees without explaining how or why action was taken, making it unclear who killed the legislation, committee and legislative leaders are principal decision makers.
When asked if he made the decision to block the bill, Portantino responded: “I’m the chair of the committee.”
Despite the action Thursday, Wiener said he has not given up on the bill advancing this year, but conceded that moving it forward would be very difficult.
“We’re not giving up trying to move it forward this year,” Wiener said. “This is not over.”
The Legislature has complicated procedures that allow bills to be revived, but it would take extraordinary levels of support that would probably involve strong-arming by legislative leaders. Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) released a statement after the decision Thursday complimenting Wiener for his effort, and said the legislation would not be heard again until 2020. Atkins’ office did not respond to an interview request.
Even with the increased support that Wiener won this year, the bill faced a steep climb. Last month, he changed the legislation to reduce its impact in smaller counties, amendments made as concessions to Sen. Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg), who represents Marin, Sonoma and other suburban and rural Northern California communities. McGuire said that smaller communities should not have to accommodate as much density as their larger counterparts.
Those changes turned McGuire into a supporter of SB 50, but many local government and neighborhood groups remained opposed, including city councils in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Los Angeles City Councilman Paul Koretz, who represents part of the Westside, applauded the bill’s demise.
“This bill is intended to destroy single-family home neighborhoods in the state,” he said in a statement. “I believe a majority of Californians do not share in that goal. We will be vigilant to fight SB 50 when it rears its ugly head again in 2020.”
Cannabis Stores…Coming Soon to a Neighborhood Near You?
Escalating a feud with cities over marijuana, state lawmakers are pushing to require municipalities to lift bans on cannabis stores if voters there supported Proposition 64, the 2016 initiative that legalized sale of the drug for recreational use in California.
A bill moving through the Legislature would require those cities to permit at least one cannabis retailer for every four liquor stores or one for every 10,000 residents, whichever is fewer. Assembly Bill 1356 would mandate 2,200 new cannabis stores throughout the state, more than three times the 631 shops legally operating now, state officials estimate.
The legislation opens a second front in an ongoing battle between state officials and cities and counties over cannabis sales, a month after local governments sued the Newsom administration to challenge the legality of a rule allowing the home delivery of pot in cities that have banned marijuana shops.
Democrats behind the new proposal note that while Proposition 64 was approved by voters in 388 out of California’s 540 cities and counties, two-thirds of local governments have outlawed cannabis shops.
“It’s unfortunate that the cities and the counties really haven’t fulfilled the will of the voters to provide legal access under Proposition 64,” said Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), author of the measure.
The bill received a significant boost recently when 12 Democratic Assembly members voted in favor of it in a key policy committee. A panel that weighs the fiscal effect of bills is set to act on the measure on Thursday. Ting is hopeful it will get to the Assembly floor and eventually the governor’s desk.
But a large coalition of cities and counties is fighting the legislation, calling it a power play by the state that tramples on the rights of local governments to determine what businesses operate in their cities.
“I think it’s ridiculous and I think it’s an overreach,” Burbank Mayor Emily Gabel-Luddy said of the proposal. “The bill is an example of Sacramento deciding what should happen at the local level, and it’s just wrong.”
Burbank officials have made their city off-limits to cannabis stores, though 61% of Burbank voters supported Proposition 64.
Cities that have banned cannabis stores say they have public safety concerns about bringing businesses that sell a drug still illegal under federal law into their neighborhoods.
“One of the problems is the handling of the cash involved in cannabis sales,” said Gabel-Luddy, a former L.A. city planner. “It is a concern for us when there are large amounts of cash lying around.”
The decision of most cities and counties to ban pot shops has stunted the growth of the legal cannabis market in California.
Proposition 64, which was supported by Gov. Gavin Newsom, was approved by 57% of voters statewide and set up a system in which the state licenses pot shops, but only if a business is also given a permit by the city in which it plans to operate. The number of shops licensed so far is only about 10% of what state officials originally expected.
On Thursday, Newsom said he expects the state to bring in $359 million from cannabis taxes next year, down $156 million from earlier estimates as the newly legalized market struggles to gain footing.
The governor has not taken a public position on Ting’s bill. He said Thursday that the refusal of many cities to approve pot shops was anticipated when he and other supporters of Proposition 64 agreed to give cities the final say on where pot shops are located, a concession so they would not oppose the initiative.
“Because of the commitment we had to make to cities and counties we knew they would be stubborn on providing access and providing retail locations, and that would take longer than some other states,” Newsom said at a news conference on his state budget.
He said his office is working on increasing the number of cannabis retailers.
“I’m committed to getting this back on track,” he said.
Ting says his proposal reflects the will of voters, who approved Proposition 64 in 342 of the state’s 482 cities, and 46 of California’s 58 counties.
“What this bill does is insure that the voters who voted for Proposition 64 have access to cannabis especially in jurisdictions that approved it,” Ting told colleagues during a recent legislative hearing. “If you live in a jurisdiction that didn’t approve it, this doesn’t affect you at all.”
Cannabis businesses that have been shut out of most cities are frustrated with the status quo.
Hilary Bricken, a Los Angeles attorney who represents cannabis firms, said she welcomes Ting’s proposal.
“I think it’s a positive undertaking because without decent access to regulated products, many cities and counties are stifling the democratic experiment that is legalization,” Bricken said. Unless things change, she warned, “the black market will continue to rage on.”
Supporters of the legislation say it is necessary in order to address shortcomings in the state’s efforts to provide access to cannabis throughout California.
The state must ensure people who are ill, including those with cancer, have access to medical marijuana, said Florence C. Crowson, who provides in-home care for the disabled and is an activist with United Domestic Workers of America. She said there are no marijuana dispensaries to serve ill people in Placer County, where she works.
“No one should be burdened by the lack of access,” she testified at the legislative hearing.
Ting’s bill would also exempt cities whose voters have approved local initiatives barring cannabis stores. City councils that don’t want to allow marijuana retailers could also put the question to voters, and new shops would not be required if they are rejected in an election.
And the bill makes allowances for smaller cities, requiring no more than one cannabis store for every 10,000 people, rather than one for every four liquor stores.
The legislation is not as far-reaching as some supporters might have hoped. To help the bill advance, Ting amended it by giving cities the option to limit new cannabis stores to selling medical marijuana, preserving local bans on recreational sales. But critics of the bill say people have been able to game the system, getting access to medical cannabis by lying about ailments.
Burbank would have to permit at least 10 cannabis stores based on its population of about 104,000, less than half the number of shops that otherwise would be required if the number was instead based on the city’s 92 liquor stores.
The proposed law would also affect Anaheim, where 51% of voters supported Proposition 64. Up to 35 cannabis shops could be required in Anaheim if the population formula is used, a lower number than if retailers were approved based on the city’s 176 liquor stores.
The fight against the legislation in Sacramento is being led by the League of California Cities, which represents the state’s 482 municipalities.
“The bill is very troubling,” League lobbyist Charles Harvey said during the legislative hearing. “It would completely erode the local control of cities and counties to regulate brick-and-mortar retail cannabis shops.”
The legislation drew a lively debate when it was approved by the Assembly Business and Professions Committee last month. The measure was opposed by five Republicans and two Democrats on the committee, including Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Fullerton), who worried about the state usurping local control.
Legalization advocates who backed Proposition 64 said action is needed because the initiative’s promise has been thwarted by city councils throughout California.
“We remain concerned that there remain a number of large, mainly rural counties where severely ill medical patients have no legal access at all,” said Dale Gieringer, director of California NORML, a pro-legalization group that supported Proposition 64. “Some patients there have to drive over 100 miles to find legal stores.”
Assemblymember Innocent in Child Abuse Trial
California Assemblyman Joaquin Arambula, the Fresno Democrat, was found not guilty Thursday in his misdemeanor child abuse trial.
The jury spent less than a day deliberating after the nine-day trial. Arambula’s wife, Elizabeth, burst into tears as the verdict was read. Family and friends let out several cheers.
After the case was adjourned, the assemblyman left the courtroom, unaccompanied, and walked alone several blocks to the office of his attorney, Michael Aed, where he held a brief news conference as reporters and family members caught up with him.
“It is time for me to do what I do best as a father: To sit and to play with my girls on the ground, to tuck them into bed tonight, to read them a story and to let them know that their family loves them and will always love them,” Arambula said.
Arambula was arrested in December on a misdemeanor child abuse charge after police were called out to his 7-year-old daughter’s elementary school. The Fresno County District Attorney’s office filed the charge in March. Arambula took a leave-of-absence from the Assembly shortly after.
During his news conference, Arambula thanked his wife and three daughters for sticking with him throughout the difficult trial. He apologized to them for the ordeal, and said even though they know that he loves them, he wanted to proclaim it publicly.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article230475269.html?#storylink=cpy
California Air Quality Leader Threatens “Extreme” Pollution Rules;
Includes End to Internal Combustion Engine
A top California environmental regulator is threatening to enact tough, new pollution rules — including an unprecedented ban on cars burning petroleum-based fuels — in response to a Trump administration plan to relax vehicle emission standards.
California Air Resources Board Chairman Mary Nichols said the state would be forced to pursue “extreme” requirements to offset the uptick in pollution that would be unleashed if federal vehicle emission and fuel economy standards are weakened.
“If we lose the state vehicle standards, we have to fill up the gap with other measures,” Nichols said at a forum on the issue Thursday. “We will be faced with dramatic alternatives in terms of tighter, stricter controls on everything else, including movement of vehicles and potentially looking at things like fees and taxes and bans on certain types of vehicles and products.”
Nichols did not explicitly outline possible changes at Thursday’s event, which was held to discuss the consequences of the Trump proposals and potential California countermeasures. But in remarks prepared for the meeting, she raised the specter of outlawing conventional vehicles with combustion engines, as well as tougher anti-pollution requirements on everything from fuel to the refineries producing it.
“CARB will be exploring ways to ensure communities get the reductions of air pollution they so desperately need to keep the air clean and breathable — and continue to fight climate change,” Nichols said in the drafted remarks, which she did not deliver exactly as prepared. “That might mean, for example, tougher requirements for low-carbon fuels, looking at tighter health-protective regulations on California refineries, doubling down on our enforcement efforts on mobile and stationary sources — and might lead to an outright ban on internal combustion engines.”
The move marks an escalation in the car standards clash between Washington and Sacramento that would increase uncertainty for automakers in their biggest U.S. market. California has already gone to court to challenge the Trump administration’s determination that the vehicle standards are too stringent. In Thursday’s meeting with air quality and transportation agencies, California officials stressed they won’t stop there.
Relaxing tailpipe standards could mean higher-than-expected emissions of smog-forming nitrogen oxide, further straining California’s ability to satisfy national ambient air quality standards, said Jennifer Gress, chief of the Air Resource Board’s Sustainable Transportation and Communities Division.
Without strict vehicle emissions requirements, “we will need to get deep reductions, and we will look to the transportation sector as well as other sectors” to achieve them, Gress said.
Representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency did not immediately respond to an emailed request seeking comment.
President Donald Trump’s administration is developing a final plan for easing tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions standards and fuel economy requirements, after proposing to cap the mandates at 37 miles per gallon after 2020. Under existing Obama administration rules, fuel economy requirements are set to rise to 47 mpg.
The administration in February terminated months of talks between federal regulators and California officials to maintain a common standard. Automakers had urged the two sides to reach an agreement to avert a prolonged legal battle with California, which has unique authority to establish its own emissions rules.
The fight has already caused uncertainty for the auto industry, threatening to undermine business plans heavily reliant on predictability. A prolonged court battle over mileage mandates could upend technology development and investment plans for the U.S., even as European countries press on with tougher requirements.
But Nichols’ comments show increasing peril for other industries too, particularly oil refineries. California already encourages zero-emission vehicles, and legislation proposed in the state last year would effectively mandate them by 2040.
Britain, China, India and other nations have announced their own plans to phase out conventional vehicles with internal combustion engines. Yet an outright ban on new vehicles powered by liquid, oil-based fuels would be unprecedented in the U.S.
Critics said California was making a last-ditch effort to revive the Obama vehicle requirements, even as the Trump administration finalizes its changes.
“With the release of the final rule just around the corner, Mary Nichols is ratcheting up her rhetoric in the hopes that the auto companies will put increased pressure on President Trump to back down,” said Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, a free-market advocacy group. “He shouldn’t be deterred by it. California is clearly worried about how they will fare in a lawsuit against the Trump administration.”
Nichols said at the meeting California wasn’t “defying the federal government” and signaled she was loath to use “language that’s too colorful.” But “the consequences are dire” and “the alternatives we face are extreme,” she said. “We’re going to keep on fighting but also keep on doing everything we can to be part of a worldwide movement toward cleaner transportation, which is where we need to go.”
Carbon-Free Energy Unplugs Storage
Commentary from CalMatters
California’s law mandating 100% carbon-free electricity has a big hole in it. It fails to address energy storage.
Batteries as well as other longer-duration energy storage solutions are absolutely essential for a reliable supply of electricity that relies largely on energy resources such as solar and wind, which are available only some of the time.
Ordinarily, one might assume the state’s utilities would invest in large storage projects such as pumped storage, an efficient technology allowing the capture and storage of excess renewable energy so we don’t have to waste it.
When the sun is shining or the wind is blowing during the day, it pumps water uphill. That water is then run downhill to power turbines when renewable energy isn’t available. Voila. Energy for use when we need it.
But with Pacific Gas & Electric Co. in bankruptcy and the issue of wildfire liability hanging over all utilities, it is up to the state to move forward the new long-duration bulk energy storage facilities needed to bring more renewable electricity into the power grid.
I have been in the energy business a long time. I have advised three presidents, served as chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority and spent three decades as general manager of numerous public utilities, including the Sacramento Municipal Utility District and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.
I was overseeing the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power during the 2001 California energy crisis. In Los Angeles, we maintained reserve capacity and avoided blackouts that hit parts of the rest of the state.
Anyone who was in California during that time remembers those rolling blackouts and can appreciate the importance of a reliable electricity grid.
Put simply, we can’t keep the lights on if we don’t have enough power available to meet demand at its peak, like in the evening when folks get home from work.
California has nowhere near enough storage to handle the thousands of megawatts of new renewable energy that will be coming down the pike. We’re already leaving renewable energy wasted and unused because we can’t effectively store it.
But these bulk energy storage projects don’t happen overnight. They are major infrastructure projects with construction timelines of up to 10 years, sometimes more. To meet future demand, we should be breaking ground now.
So what’s the hold up?
Counter-intuitively, the same environmental groups that have championed the state’s climate goals want to kill all pumped storage instead of evaluating each project on its own merits.
All storage technologies have some environmental impact. Think lithium mining for batteries. And pumped storage uses water. But we need to be thinking about the greater good here.
Come hell or high water, there is no way that we can get to 100% renewable resources, which, by nature, are intermittent and unreliable, without adequate storage.
Thankfully, Sen. Steven Bradford of Gardena and some others get it. He and some fellow lawmakers are working on Senate Bill 772. That bill would allow the California Independent System Operator, which oversees the grid, to complete a competitive bid process to procure between 2,000 and 4,000 megawatts of long-duration bulk storage from multiple projects over the next several years to help the state meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals.
Bradford’s legislation does nothing to change California’s strict environmental protection laws. All energy storage projects are still subject to the same stringent environmental reviews that exist today before they can break ground. But it does provide a critical solution.
California has mandated a future that is renewable. That dream will turn bad without adequate storage. State lawmakers have it in their reach to make that vision a reliable reality.
David Freeman is an engineer, attorney and author and a former utility executive, greencowboysdf@gmail.com.
“Monster Battery” Will Power LA Shift to Carbon-Free Energy
If L.A. is going to stop burning fossil fuels by 2045 — a key goal of Mayor Eric Garcetti’s proposed Green New Deal — it must store a lot more of the excess solar and wind energy it produces during the day so it doesn’t have to rely on gas and coal energy to power the city when the sun sets and the wind dies.
There’s a growing focus on building big batteries — for example, the kind that use lithium ions. But L.A. needs energy storage that is far bigger than any traditional battery.
And it’s found one.
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has turned two big lakes into a monster battery capable of storing enough energy to power tens of thousands of homes.
It involves using the excess wind and solar power L.A.’s renewable energy sites produce during the day to pump water from Castaic Lake uphill 7.5 miles to Pyramid Lake. Then, late in the day, when the sun goes down and the city’s energy demand spikes, the water gets run downhill through hydroelectric generators at Castaic Lake.
The next day, the cycle starts over again. The same 10,000 acre-feet of water can recirculate over and over, getting pumped uphill during the day and coming downhill at night to power the city.
It’s called pumped storage, and the plant at Castaic is one of the largest such plants in the western United States, but maybe not for long.
LADWP is looking at building an even larger plant at Hoover Dam, so this form of energy storage, if replicated, could be a key to L.A. weaning itself off of fossil fuels.
Once you’re inside the gates, the first thing you notice are six gargantuan pipes that flow water from Pyramid Lake 7.5 miles down to Castaic Lake. Water is pumped back uphill in the same 30-foot-diameter pipes.
The pressure is 25 times the force of the water coming out of your home faucet.
Take the tour:
https://laist.com/2019/05/13/how_ladwp_got_two_lakes_to_store_energy_like_a_giant_battery.php
Coming Soon to Your Restaurant Tab: 1% Carbon Charge?
A new statewide environmental program may soon mean an extra charge for customers at some Sacramento restaurants.
That’s if the restaurants buy in. Launched earlier this month, Restore California Renewable Restaurants asks participating eateries to add a 1 percent increase at the end of customers’ bills. Sacramento restaurant owners like the sound of the program but nobody has committed to the 1 percent charge. The money would go to farms participating in the Healthy Soils Program, which supports sustainable farming practices in California.
The voluntary program has attracted national media attention and caught the eye of several restaurateurs in Sacramento, including Mulvaney’s B&L co-owner Patrick Mulvaney. He is intrigued by the idea but not yet convinced.
Too many extra charges and restaurant bills begins to resemble those customers might receive at a hotel, Mulvaney said. Diners might contribute 1 percent toward the Healthy Soils Program, but they won’t feel as welcome and might not come back to Mulvaney’s B&L anytime soon, he worries.
Mulvaney and his wife/co-owner Bobbin have commissioned a study to analyze the restaurant’s carbon footprint, he said. They’ll determine whether to take part after seeing the results.
“We’re on board with the concept, we’re on board with moving forward. We’re not at a place where we’re going to (commit),” Mulvaney said. “It’s hard for me to see myself putting another surcharge on the bill. It’s easy for me to see the value of contributing to the zero-footprint campaign, and in between those two spaces lands the middle, where I say ‘What’s our responsibility?’”
Restore California is a joint effort by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the California Air Resources Board and San Francisco nonprofit Perennial Farming Initiative. The money raised will be distributed to farms participating in the Department of Food and Agriculture’s Healthy Soils Program, which have been screened to show they practice methods that sequester carbon, reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases and improve soil health. Customers can opt out of the 1 percent fee, but as with back-of-house surcharges, it’s expected nearly all will pay.
Other Sacramento restaurateurs are similarly conflicted. Mother and Empress Tavern’s ownership team will decide over the next few weeks whether to implement the 1 percent increase, co-owner Ryan Donahue said.
An in-house shift toward those practices might be easier to absorb than a surcharge, Mulvaney said. He compared Restore California’s 1 percent surcharge to a tithe given to a church: Pay this amount and you’re absolved for the sin of environmental gluttony, regardless of whether your practices change.
“Their goal is noble and their attempts are good, but the question exists: Are there other ways to approach the issue and … make (it) better? Perhaps,” Mulvaney said.
A rare one-star review popped up on Localis’ Yelp page after Barnum-Dann talked about Restore California to CBS13, even though the chef/owner never said his restaurant would participate.
“You want to add a 1% global warming fee to the bill?” Steven M. from Orangevale wrote. “I will NEVER eat in a restaurant that does this and I will never eat at Localis again.”
About 25 of the state’s 76,000 restaurants have signed up for Restore California, Myint said. He’s hoping for 200 by year’s end. The first restaurants will begin charging customers the extra percent this fall.
https://www.sacbee.com/food-drink/restaurants/article229820899.html#storylink=cpy
Attorney General Sues to Stop Largest Reservoir Expansion
The battle over Shasta Dam is escalating.
This week, California’s attorney general and several fishing and conservation groups filed separate lawsuits to stop a controversial project to elevate the dam and expand the state’s largest reservoir, near Redding.
“This project is unlawful,” wrote Attorney General Xavier Becerra in a statement announcing the state’s lawsuit. “It would create significant environmental and cultural impacts for the communities and habitats surrounding the Shasta Dam.”
But the plaintiffs’ primary leverage point might be the McCloud River, the most legendary trout stream in California, and protected under California’s Wild & Scenic Rivers Act.
It’s also one of several rivers feeding Shasta Lake, the shoreline of which would expand if the federal Bureau of Reclamation proceeds with its plan to add 18 feet to the top of Shasta Dam. The Bureau estimates the expansion would add 630,000 acre-feet of water to the capacity of the reservoir.
The companion suit to the state’s was filed by a coalition of Friends of the River, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club and the Golden Gate Salmon Association.
Unlike multiple environmental lawsuits filed by California since Donald Trump took office, this one doesn’t target the administration. Instead, both suits are aimed at Westlands Water District, a Fresno-based irrigation district and a major player in Central Valley water politics. Westlands wants the additional water that a bigger Shasta Lake might provide, and it’s willing to put up tens of millions in project funding to get it. But the state and other plaintiffs argue that the whole project is illegal.
“It’s been illegal for 30 years,” says Ron Stork, with the conservation group Friends of the River, in Sacramento. ” ‘It’ being raising Shasta Dam and Westlands cooperating with the federal goverment to do that.”
Stork says state law prohibits any expansion of Shasta, because it would flood a stretch of the lower McCloud, disrupting the river’s natural flow. It would also inundate most remaining sacred sites of the Winnemem Wintu tribe.
“There are some kind of sacred trusts that we’ve made as California citizens that we’re going to protect some of our rivers,” adds Stork, “and Westlands’ actions and Reclamation’s expected actions really can’t stand.”
Becerra agrees that as a state-sanctioned agency, Westlands is barred from any participation in the project, financial or otherwise.
On Tuesday evening, Westlands issued a statement saying it’s merely exploring its options with Shasta and not violating any law.
“Contrary to the allegations by the Attorney General, the District is not violating the law,” Westlands said. The district asserted it was “merely conducting environmental review” to determine whether it can move forward as a federal cost-sharing partner.
It’s been widely anticipated that Westlands would provide critical funding for the expansion. The district has even bought up property surrounding Shasta Lake, presumably in anticipation of its enlargement.
Stork says no hearing date has been set for his group’s case, but the battle is far from over.
The Bureau of Reclamation falls under the U.S. Department of the Interior, now headed by David Bernhardt, a former lobbyist for Westlands Water District.