For Clients & Friends of The Gualco Group, Inc.

IN THIS ISSUE – “It’s natural over time, as a governor becomes more familiar with the process, to assert a broader vision,”

Daniel Zingale, former senior advisor to governors Newsom, Brown & Schwarzenegger

Capital News & Notes (CN&N) harvests California policy, legislative and regulatory insights from dozens of media and official sources for the past week. Please feel free to forward this unique client service.

FOR THE WEEK ENDING SEPT. 2, 2022

 

Legislature Adjourns Amid Frenzy of Action on Climate Change & Other Controversial Bills

Politico’s California Playbook & CalMatters

Gov. Gavin Newsom staked some serious political capital on a capstone climate push — and in the end, his vision largely prevailed.

Lawmakers were encouraged but skeptical when Newsom launched a late-in-session environmental play in early August, making a rare appearance at both Democratic caucuses to push for an ambitious green package.

Wary legislators noted some of the policies Newsom wanted were political challenges that had already failed with the governor on the sidelines.

Frustration simmered over Newsom’s push for a backup electricity supply that could extend both Diablo Canyon nuclear plant and fossil fuel plants.

Now Newsom can tout victories. 

Lawmakers spent the final days of the legislative session sending Newsom a flurry of bills he’d championed. New oil wells will need to be separated from homes and schools as an environmental justice policy that’s faltered twice in recent years, succumbing to oil industry and labor opposition, succeeded under Newsom’s aegis.

Also heading to Newsom’s desk: a requirement that the state achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, which stalled a year earlier; new targets on the road to 100 percent renewable electricity; and frameworks for carbon capture technology and carbon sequestration.

It wasn’t a clean sweep: a mandate to cut emissions more deeply by 2030 fell four votes short on the Assembly floor.

 But Newsom and lawmakers overcame fierce oil industry opposition on the successful legislation, with administration officials stressing that the governor’s plan would slash California’s oil consumption by more than 90 percent (which could cut into the political budget that funded anti-Newsom spots). That transition creates some vulnerability to insufficient energy supplies. Which gets us to Diablo Canyon.

The debate over California’s last nuclear plant was quite contentious, so it was appropriate that the session culminated in a post-midnight Diablo decision. Leading up to the vote, Assembly Democrats — unhappy that Newsom had reneged on a promise to shutter the plant — had floated an alternate plan to channel extension funds to renewable energy.

A Newsom official derided the plan as “fairy dust” and negotiations with Assembly leadership fell apart, leaving top Newsom staffers to work individual Assembly members.

It passed overwhelmingly. With Republican Jordan Cunningham jockeying and members of both parties warning about the catastrophic consequences of not keeping the lights on — recalled former Gov. Gray Davis was repeatedly invoked — the measure cleared the floor on a bipartisan vote. There was heavy Republican support, allowing numerous Democrats to not vote in favor. The Senate vote was more party-line.

Electricity reliability — and the role of older plants like Diablo — shadowed the debate as a heat wave threatened to stress California’s grid.

With soaring temperatures prompting an energy conservation flex alert, Newsom yesterday declared a state of emergency and delivered an address calling Diablo’s continued operation essential for short-term reliability.

This followed California’s grid operator warning not to retire Diablo before new clean sources are online and exhorting Californians to not charge the electric vehicles that must comprise most new sales by 2035.

But the real test — translating that ambitious climate vision into reality — starts now.

And things haven’t necessarily gotten off to the most auspicious start: Newsom acknowledged the emergency order he signed Wednesday would actually increase emissions by temporarily allowing power plants to generate more energy, expanding the use of backup generators, permitting ships in California ports to burn more fuel and waiving certain air quality requirements. (The order also directs state air regulators to “mitigate emissions” resulting from the emergency measures.)

But the devil — or, dare I say, the Diablo — is in the details. (“It probably doesn’t help the fact that the freaking plant’s name is Diablo, to add insult to injury here,” said Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia, a Coachella Democrat.)

Indeed, not all lawmakers were convinced the state actually has a game plan to achieve the ramped-up goals. Republican state Sen. Andreas Borgeas of Fresno: “We’re creating policies, but we’re disregarding the realities that we’re still in.”

Yet, while Republicans saw the severity of California’s climate conditions as evidence that its current environmental strategy is flawed, Democrats saw it as evidence the state needs to do more faster.

State Sen. Henry Stern, a Calabasas Democrat: “We can wait, and let others race ahead in the innovation game. China can beat us to the punch and electrify and push hydrogen. We can wait on the rest of this country to act, or we can be Californians, and we can lead. I think this is that moment. I think we take that leadership mantle.”

Let’s take a look at the fate of some other high-profile bills. A rundown of what some key proposals would do:

Bills killed: 

  • Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco’s highly controversial proposal to allow youth 15 and older to get vaccinated without parental consent.(An earlier version of the bill would have applied to kids 12 and older.) Wiener said Wednesday that he was tabling the bill because he didn’t “see a viable path for those final few votes” necessary to ensure its passage.

“Sadly, months of harassment and misinformation — including death threats against me and teen advocates — by a small but highly vocal and organized minority of anti-vaxxers have taken their toll,” Wiener said in a statement, adding that the bill “did nothing more than empower young people to protect their own health, even if their parents have been brain-washed by anti-vax propaganda or are abusive or neglectful.”

  • Legislative staff unionization failed for the third time since 2019after a confusing back-and-forth that saw Democratic Assemblymember Jim Cooper of Elk Grove pull the proposal off a committee agenda, only to change his mind after staff in attendance vocalized their dismay and some walked out of the room,

Although lawmakers seemed to agree that staff deserve better working conditions, Cooper cited concerns with the bill process — a last-minute gut-and-amend that hadn’t been properly vetted. Others said they were concerned with logistics and suggested the Legislature conduct management training instead. Assemblymember Mark Stone, the Santa Cruz Democrat who authored the bill, said lawmakers voting it down while their staff worked long days was “a slap in their faces.” Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, an Inglewood Democrat who voted for the bill, vowed to reintroduce it next year.

  • Reform bail by requiring bail companies to return at least 90% of the money paid by defendants if the legal action against them is dismissed or no charges are filed within two months.
  • Block local law enforcement from notifying federal immigration authoritieswhen they’re about to release inmates convicted of violent felonies or other serious crimes.
  • Firearm excise tax to fund gun violence prevention programs, education and research.
  • Reduce catalytic converter theftby blocking car dealers and retailers from selling vehicles with catalytic converters not permanently marked with the corresponding vehicle identification number. 
  • A bill to require U.S. companies doing business in California with more than $1 billion in gross annual revenueto disclose all of their greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Keep track of bills signed and vetoed here:

https://calmatters.org/explainers/california-legislature-bills-passed-2022/?utm_source=CalMatters%20Newsletters&utm_campaign=a67840f16d-WHATMATTERS&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_faa7be558d-a67840f16d-150181777&mc_cid=a67840f16d&mc_eid=2833f18cca

 

“A Combination of Necessity & Opportunity”: Newsom Gets Physical With Legislature

CalMatters

As California’s legislative session concluded, the priorities and focus of the closing days were heavily shaped by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who in the final year of his first term has taken significant steps to execute his agenda through legislation like never before.

His first three years in office saw Newsom frequently pursue policy through executive orders or in the state budget process, a negotiation with the Legislature that provided him with greater leverage.

But the governor’s biggest priority this year has arguably been the passage of a sweeping proposal, known as CARE Court, to compel people with serious mental health issues into treatment and housing. And in recent weeks, he asked lawmakers to take up ambitious new climate and energy measures, including one that would delay the closure of California’s last nuclear power plant.

A half dozen bills Newsom has sought were sent to his desk this week. They include some of the most complex and contentious issues that remain.

The shift in the governor’s approach, according to lawmakers and others who have worked with Newsom, is likely due to some combination of necessity and opportunity — a desire to establish a stronger legal foundation and longer-lasting impact for his policies, deeper relationships with the Legislature after years at the Capitol, a chance to return to campaign promises sidelined by an all-consuming coronavirus pandemic. There is also his reelection campaign — he will face voters again in November — plus the growing national speculation over Newsom’s potential presidential aspirations, which would benefit from bulking up his record of accomplishments.

“The governor has, as we hope any governor would have, a real passion to get results and to try to solve the problems that are at the forefront of Californians’ minds. And they’re not issues that anybody in the Legislature disagrees with,” said state Sen. Susan Talamentes Eggman, a Stockton Democrat helped shepherd the CARE Court bill.

The governor’s office declined to make anyone available to discuss Newsom’s legislative strategy. Spokesperson Erin Mellon, in a text, said “no one here sees this year as being particularly different.” She did not respond to follow-up questions about what efforts from previous legislative sessions Newsom’s team regards as comparable to their current slate of sponsored bills.

Before this session, perhaps the most directly Newsom set the legislative agenda came in 2019, when during his first State of the State address, he told lawmakers to “get me a good package on rent stability this year and I will sign it.” Rather than proposing his own measure, Newsom left the details to the Legislature, though he did step in at the end to help close the final deal, which included a cap on rent increases and new eviction protections.

Otherwise, the governor has left his imprint more through the state budget, where spending decisions can be tied to major policy changes, such as expanding health coverage for undocumented immigrants and creating universal preschool access.

Newsom has shown a preference for taking his biggest, boldest actions with the stroke of his pen. On his first day in office, he ordered state agencies to work together to negotiate prescription drug prices.

Some of the most audacious — and controversial — policies of his first term also came through executive authority: a moratorium on executions, a deal with four of the world’s largest automakers to build cars with a higher tailpipe emissions standard than the federal government wanted, an order to phase out sales of new gas-powered vehicles in California.

In fall 2020, under intense pressure from environmentalists, Newsom urged the Legislature to pass a law to stop new fracking permits, arguing that he did not have legal authority to do it himself.

But when a group of lawmakers introduced a bill the following session to ban the oil extraction method entirely, it swiftly died in committee, without much apparent intervention from Newsom.

A week later, the governor announced that he would direct his administration to stop issuing fracking permits by 2024 and develop plans to end all fossil-fuel drilling in California by 2045, without explaining why he no longer believed legislative approval was necessary.

Daniel Zingale, who worked on strategy and communications in Newsom’s first year, said the governor’s prior experience was primarily in executive roles, including lieutenant governor and mayor of San Francisco, so he felt comfortable taking that approach.

“He has a certain humility about the legislative process,” Zingale said.

Now with a few years at the Capitol under his belt and electoral success trouncing a recall campaign against him last September, Zingale added, Newsom can go bigger.

The governor signed a bill last month allowing California residents to sue manufacturers and distributors of illegal guns, which Newsom called for in December after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed a similar bounty scheme against abortion providers to take effect in Texas. Anticipating the court’s June ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, he convened a working group last fall to explore how to make the state a “sanctuary” for abortion; their recommendations formed the basis for a legislative package of more than a dozen measures this year.

“It’s natural over time, as a governor becomes more familiar with the process, for a governor to assert a broader vision for all the people of California,” said Zingale, who also worked for Democratic Gov. Gray Davis and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Newsom, he said, has “grown into that.”

Even for those governors who get big things done through legislation, it tends to be the exception rather than the norm, because of how much more complicated it makes the job. Lawmakers have their own ideas about what issues they want to take up and don’t like to be told what to do, so developing the relationships and deploying the political capital needed to pass the most consequential measures is a delicate balance.

Early in his first term in 1999, Davis famously said the Legislature’s “job is to implement my vision,” a remark that followed him for years after and earned him derision from lawmakers who quipped that he didn’t have a vision to implement.

Exposure to the Legislature’s whims also puts a governor at risk of defeats that can define their legacy as much as their successes. Schwarzenegger advocated for a market-based plan to establish universal health care coverage in California for more than a year before it was finally killed by a Senate committee in early 2008.

“No governor likes to do that,” said state Sen. Steve Glazer, an Orinda Democrat who served as a political adviser to Gov. Jerry Brown before he was elected to the Senate in 2015. “Governors generally are pretty selective because that gives the Legislature leverage.”

Brown nevertheless regularly pushed major policy through the Legislature during his final two terms as governor, which immediately preceded Newsom — even, on occasion, appearing at a crucial committee hearing to testify for his own bill.

“Each one of them, from his point of view, was imperative,” Glazer said.

Shortly after taking office again in 2011, Brown advanced a plan to comply with a federal court ruling to reduce the population of California’s overcrowded prisons by shifting nonviolent offenders to county jails. He was unable that year to convince the Legislature to place a temporary tax measure on the ballot to deal with a budget shortfall, turning instead to voters to qualify it. But he secured an initial authorization of funding for the high-speed rail project in 2012, the creation of a new rainy-day budget fund in 2014 and, in 2017, an increase of the state gas tax to pay for road repairs.

Brown’s hardest-fought victories came on the signature climate proposals that were the centerpiece of his last term. He got a bill through in 2015 to increase renewable electricity sources and energy efficiency in buildings, even after lobbying by the oil industry forced him to strip a provision to cut petroleum use in half. And he maneuvered to win a decade-long extension for California’s cap-and-trade program in 2017, telling a Senate panel at one point, “This isn’t for me. I’m going to be dead. It’s for you and it’s damn real.”

“He struck me as someone who was so steeped in experience in the building, all the way from childhood,” Zingale said. “He approached it with a level of confidence that’s uniquely his.”

Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, a San Diego Democrat, said the Legislature’s relationship with Newsom continues to evolve in its fourth year.

“It’s an ongoing process of trying to decide how to work together,” she told CalMatters. “He leaves the legislation to us to do, and he sort of is trying to decide when to step back, when to step in.”

Atkins pointed to housing as an example; it’s an area of focus for Newsom where he has allowed the Legislature to lead on policy, while putting billions of dollars toward expanding construction incentives. But she added that the governor may see the need now to adjust tactics because the solutions he’s looking for to solve California’s biggest problems are not reaching his desk.

“When something rises to the level of, ‘This is really important to me,’ they figure out how to get it done,” she said. “His forcing the hand gives us an opportunity that maybe we haven’t had.”

Behind the scenes, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon said this session has not seemed different than past years. The Lakewood Democrat said he meets nearly every week with Newsom and Atkins to discuss priorities, and the governor, like his predecessor Brown, often weighs in on bills in progress.

“With this governor, and the last governor, they talk more sort of in broad strokes rather than the specifics in terms of what they want to see,” Rendon said in an interview. “They’ll talk about a bill, rather than amendments to a bill, modifications.”

But the receding COVID pandemic has allowed Newsom to refocus publicly on other crises urgent to Californians, such as the boiling anger over homelessness, and be seen taking charge with his own plans.

“Every year we’re here, we learn, we grow, and so we’re going to adjust, we’re going to pivot some,” said Assemblymember Cristina Garcia, a Bells Garden Democrat. “We get more experience, so then you will lean in a little bit more.”

The governor began pushing the Legislature for more aggressive climate action last month as long-running negotiations on a federal funding package appeared to falter again. (It has since passed Congress and been signed into law.) In a letter to President Biden, Newsom reiterated his commitment to “finding new ways to work around those Senators who chose to keep their head in the sand.”

His agenda includes some measures that have previously failed in the Legislature and that he did not forcefully support when they faced significant resistance from the fossil fuel industry and other business groups. Those include proposals to achieve statewide carbon neutrality by 2045 and to establish 3,200-foot buffer zones around oil wells near homes, schools and parks.

The governor had already launched separate regulatory efforts to pursue those goals, suggesting that Newsom, in asking the Legislature to try again, may be seeking to give them more legal weight and certainty than his executive authority can provide.

“I certainly welcome the governor’s engagement on these issues which we’ve been working on for years,” said Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, a Torrance Democrat who carried the unsuccessful bills on carbon neutrality and oil well setbacks in past sessions. “We’re hoping that with his calling members, especially senators, and twisting arms that we can get the bills that he’s called for out of the Legislature and to his desk.”

https://calmatters.org/politics/2022/08/gavin-newsom-legislative-agenda/?utm_source=CalMatters+Newsletters&utm_campaign=0f331ce4a5-WHATMATTERS&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_faa7be558d-0f331ce4a5-150181777&mc_cid=0f331ce4a5&mc_eid=2833f18cca

 

Heat Wave is a Shock to California’s “Extremely Vulnerable” Power Grid

Sacramento Bee

Two years after the last rolling blackouts, with an intense heat wave starting to blanket the West, California’s electricity grid remains extremely vulnerable to power outages. The potential shortfall in power supplies is the result of climate-driven heat waves, drought-induced strains on hydro power and global supply-chain problems that are hindering the flow of new energy sources.

Temperatures were expected to hit the high 90s Wednesday and soar to as high as 115 degrees Monday in parts of the Sacramento Valley, sending state officials scrambling to avoid a repeat of the rolling blackouts of 2020.

The Independent System Operator, which runs the power grid, issued an “energy emergency alert watch notice” for Wednesday evening, a means of urging power generators to ramp up additional supplies. The grid operator “is forecasting an energy deficiency,” it said.

The ISO also issued Flex Alerts for Wednesday and Thursday afternoon and evening — a voluntary call for conservation. Additional alerts were almost certain to follow over the next several days. Residents were urged to turn thermostats up to 78, postpone charging their electric cars and delay using heavy appliances.

“We voluntarily ask you to do a little bit more to help us get through the next week or so,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said Wednesday afternoon. The heat wave “puts us in a position where we have some vulnerabilities.”

After California was hit with two nights of rolling blackouts in August 2020, Newsom demanded that the state line up enough backup power to ensure grid reliability.

Further blackouts were narrowly avoided during a heat wave last summer, and earlier this year Newsom persuaded the Legislature to appropriate billions on a “strategic electricity reliability reserve,” including investments to encourage the development of battery storage facilities and more power plants. Some progress has been made already.

The Independent System Operator says California has added 8,039 megawatts of capacity since January 2021 — enough juice for about 6 million households. But the state is still struggling to keep up, and the emergence of mammoth heat waves driven by climate change is making the problem worse.

“All of us are observing the worsening patterns of heat and drought and wildfire around the world,” said Karen Douglas, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s energy advisor, during a legislative hearing last week. Supply chain woes aren’t helping, either.

Rick Brown of Terra Verde Energy LLC, a power-storage consulting firm, said demand for large storage batteries has soared because of the popularity of electric vehicles — meaning there are fewer batteries available for schools and other institutions that want to install them.

“Our company was supposed to have a bunch of batteries delivered in the first quarter,” Brown said. “We think we’re close to getting them delivered in the fourth quarter.”

Part of the problem is drought — the one afflicting parts of China. Hydro power supplies have been depleted, forcing the world’s major storage battery manufacturers to scale back production.

Storage is considered a crucial piece of California’s transition to an all-renewable energy grid by 2045, as mandated by the Legislature. The grid is particularly vulnerable in late afternoons and early evenings, when solar power fades but it’s still hot enough that people have their air conditioners humming.

Storage batteries, using leftover power generated during the day, could help bridge the gap during those critical hours. But the state isn’t getting as much storage — or other additions to the grid — as it was expecting.

Newsom’s advisor Douglas told a legislative committee last week that the state was counting on getting another 4,000 megawatts worth of capacity this summer, from storage and other sources.

“Based on that outlook, we had a lot of optimism that … we would have plenty of resources going into the summer,” she told the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee. Instead, only 2,500 megawatts of new capacity has arrived, she said, putting unforeseen stress on the grid.

Another big factor is California’s own drought, which is curtailing the state’s hydro production. In a good year, hydro power can generate 15% of California’s electricity. Last year it fell below 10% and one of the state’s largest hydro plants, at Oroville Dam, had to temporarily shut down for the first time since it opened in 1968.

The heat wave arrived as the Legislature was expected to begin deliberating Newsom’s most controversial energy plan of all — his proposal to loan PG&E Corp. up to $1.4 billion to postpone the scheduled 2025 retirement of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant. Environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth have blasted Newsom over his plan, saying the state’s last nuclear plant must be mothballed.

But Newsom’s administration said the plant provides reliable carbon-free power — and losing it will make the state even more susceptible to blackouts. On Tuesday the head of the Independent System Operator, Elliot Mainzer, endorsed SB 846, which would provide the loan money to PG&E, saying the plant “plays such an instrumental role” in keeping the lights on. “That energy does not produce greenhouse gases,” Newsom said Wednesday.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article265148611.html#storylink=cpy