For Clients & Friends of The Gualco Group, Inc.

IN THIS ISSUE – “Some Of It Was Unfortunate and, Frankly, Unnecessary”

LEGISLATIVE SESSION ENDS WITH A BANG…AND A BUCK

NOVEMBER

FIRE, POWER & FIRED

CALIFORNIA SETS ANOTHER RECORD

FOR THE WEEK ENDING SEPT. 4, 2020

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.

READ ALL ABOUT IT!!

 

Legislators’ Rancorous Final Hours: “This is Bull—-!”

Politico & Sacramento Bee

Arguments between Republicans and Democrats in the California Senate ate up critical time in the last moments of a legislative session already interrupted three times by the coronavirus outbreak, ensuring several high profile bills on housing and police reform failed to get votes by the year’s deadline.

At one point, debate halted for 90 minutes in the Senate during a dispute over a Democratic attempt to limit the number of speakers on each bill.

Tensions boiled over, with fuming Republicans protesting the move remotely, quarantined after being exposed to a lawmaker who tested positive for the coronavirus.“So you’re just going to shut Republicans out of debate?” said Sen. Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore. “This is bull—-.”

The casualties of the flap turned out to be a mix of proposals that died without votes.

They included policing bills to decertify officers with misconduct allegations and ban tear gas as crowd control. A major housing production bill that would have eased barriers to construction of duplexes, two proposals to ban single-use plastic products and several budget-related measures also didn’t come up.

The delays on the last night capped off a frustrating legislative session punctuated twice by weeks-long recesses forced by the pandemic and once more last week when a senator tested positive for the virus, leaving limited time for hearings to vet new policy proposals.

“Some of what happened today was unavoidable, and some of it was unfortunate and, frankly, unnecessary,” Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, during a press call after session.

The sparring didn’t end at midnight, either.

After the deadline passed, Republicans and Democrats spent nearly 40 minutes arguing over whether the final vote of the night — on a prison informant bill — was valid.

The fallout from the dramatic close of the legislative session remains to be seen.

Republicans are threatening legal challenges over the prison informant bill, which they argue shouldn’t count after they stalled debate and raised objections as votes were tallied. Although Democrats began the vote seconds before midnight, Republicans argued it was invalid because the roll call didn’t finish until several minutes after the deadline.

The biggest flash point of the evening came earlier when Senate Democrats voted to restrict debate on bills, a rare move in the Senate where lawmakers frequently give long-winded speeches.

Democrats imposed a two-minute limit per speaker and a maximum of two speakers per side. The plan backfired.

Republicans cried foul and said Democrats were stifling their freedom of speech.

Melendez and Senate Republican leader Shannon Grove of Bakersfield tried to shout objections over Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, the Santa Barbara Democrat leading the floor session.

Unable to control the chaos as Republican after Republican objected, Democrats halted proceedings.

An hour and a half later, Atkins and Grove said they had a deal to scrap the time limits as long as everyone agreed to be polite and keep their comments brief.

But even with that agreement, Republicans repeatedly raised objections about the process, halting debate and votes.

The drama compounded time delays inherent in the remote voting procedure, which Atkins implemented after Sen. Brian Jones, R-Santee, announced he tested positive for the coronavirus last week.

All but one Senate Republican — Jim Nielsen of Gerber — were forced to quarantine under public health guidelines followed by the Legislature because they had been in close contact with Jones.

Atkins canceled Senate votes for one day last week to work out the logistics of remote voting, cutting one of the few remaining days to consider bills.

Once in place, the process was plagued by technical issues, as Republicans complained they had difficulty muting and unmuting themselves in the video call.

Proceedings were delayed further Monday as Republicans attempted several times to introduce amendments on bills, even though the deadline for amending bills had passed Friday.

In the Assembly, Republicans and Democrats alike raised objections about the truncated process, arguing they did not have adequate time to review major policy proposals, including one to completely revamp the state’s juvenile justice program.

That proposal, which would shift responsibility for juvenile offenders from the state to counties, passed in the final hours of the night over local government objections and now awaits Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature.

“The lack of transparency that we are showing the people of California here should be truly alarming to everyone in this chamber,” said Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, R-Big Bear Lake.

Obernolte was objecting to a bill that would have expanded how much of a homeowner’s equity is protected from debt collectors. It passed the Assembly late Monday. Another last minute budget-related proposal that would have expanded the California Attorney General’s power to negotiate a settlement with opioid companies, also was not brought up for votes in time.

“Some of what happened today was unavoidable but some of it frankly was really unfortunate and unnecessary,” Atkins added. She also faulted “Republican colleagues in this house who tried to run out that clock” after they had to quarantine after “not following the policies of the Senate nor the public guidelines of the public health department” — a reference to their in-person gathering with covid-positive Sen. Brian Jones. Atkins was also blunt about the attempt to limit debate, which led to a time-burning partisan standoff: “Clearly,” the pro tem said, “it backfired.”

Democrats in both houses also expressed frustration with members in the opposite house on Monday and Tuesday. Atkins said she was disappointed her housing production proposal, Senate Bill 1120, was “delineated” in the Assembly by waiting until the last hour to vote on the measure before sending it back over to her house for final approval.

“To send over SB 1120 at 11:57, that was impossible and those votes were there days ago,” a weary Atkins told reporters some time after 2 a.m.Tuesday morning, channeling widespread frustration in the Senate about how the Assembly managed the clock.

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood, instead said SB 1120 was a “very tough vote.”

“We certainly didn’t run out the clock,” Rendon said. “That’s nonsense.”

Similarly, Rendon told us on Tuesday that the big police de-certification bill, fiercely contested by law enforcement, never appeared on the floor because the votes were not there. “We had a lot of members who were not willing to go up,” Rendon said.

That’s undoubtedly true, but if remote voting intensified animosity between Senate Democrats and Republicans, it also widened a gulf between Rendon and Atkins. The Speaker has long held remote votes are constitutionally suspect, and he told us yesterday he is “quite worried” about an “inevitable” legal challenge. But we’ve heard anger all year from those who felt Rendon wasn’t doing enough to protect the health of legislators, staff and lobbyists.

Earlier this year, people were concerned about what in-person voting would mean for people like 74-year-old Bill Quirk, who disappeared for a while and resurfaced armored with a gas mask. On Tuesday, viral outrage followed the image of Buffy Wicks bringing her newborn daughter Elly to the Assembly floor after she was denied access to a never-used proxy vote system. Rendon ended up apologizing, saying in a statement Tuesday evening that “My intention was never to be inconsiderate toward [Wicks], her role as a legislator, or her role as a mother.”

Time off may repair bruised egos — but we’re watching for a hangover. And while Atkins told her caucus last night that she would see them in December, Newsom could still call a special session before then. If that happens, just remember politics is always personal.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article245413130.html#storylink=cpy

 

Legislature Increases Budget Deficit to End 2020 Session

Sacramento Bee

Despite a looming budget deficit, lawmakers on the final day of their legislative session sent Gov. Gavin Newsom proposals to add more than $600 million in spending and reduce some revenue with tax breaks.

Bills to expand tax credits for immigrants, add money for COVID-19 outreach and give tax breaks to businesses that hire more people are among those lawmakers passed Monday.

The proposals build on the $202 billion budget lawmakers and Newsom enacted in June, for which they had to cut spending to make up for a $54 billion shortfall triggered by the coronavirus pandemic and economic downturn.

Since the initial budget passed, the state has collected more in taxes than expected, although budget experts caution that the strong returns reflect pre-recession economic activity in 2019 taxes. Tax revenue for the 2019-20 fiscal year, which ended in June, came in more than $1 billion higher than projected, according to the California Department of Finance. Revenue from July came in $2.5 billion higher than forecast.

The Department of Finance still projects the state faces an $8.7 billion deficit next year.

Here’s a look at some of the costly proposals awaiting Newsom’s action:

One of the bills passed Monday would extend access to the state’s earned income tax credit for low-income working families to more immigrants, including many living in the country illegally. It allows people to file for the credit using Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers, which are given to people who do not qualify for Social Security Numbers.

It would build on an expansion passed through the budget in June, which allows immigrant filers with children under 6 to claim the credit regardless of immigration status.

Lawmakers estimate that the bill would allow about 200,000 more people to get the credit, said Assemblyman Phil Ting, the San Francisco Democrat who chairs the Assembly’s Budget Committee.

“These are working individuals here in California who, if they are unemployed or have been laid off, cannot access our federal unemployment insurance program,” Ting said Monday on the Assembly floor during debate on the bill. “During this very challenging time of COVID, we wanted to make sure those who are working and adding to the California economy have every right and ability to access one of the most important programs in our state.”

Assemblyman Jay Obernolte of Big Bear Lake, who serves as Ting’s Republican counterpart on the Budget Committee, opposed the expansion because he said it’s harder to verify the identity of people without Social Security Numbers.

The proposal, Assembly Bill 1876, would cost an estimated $60 million annually, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Another proposal would authorize up to $100 million in tax credits for small businesses that hire or rehire employees in the next three months.

Companies with fewer than 100 employees that lost at least half their typical revenue between April and June would be eligible under the proposal, Senate Bill 1447. They’d get $1,000 in credits for each worker hired.

Lawmakers also sent Newsom a bill that includes a $6 million bailout for Cal Expo fairgrounds in Sacramento, which have taken a financial hit during COVID-19 even as it is used as a coronavirus testing site.

The funding would help pay for emergency operations at the fairgrounds. In addition to the testing site, the site is also used to house homeless people in trailers during the pandemic and could be used for evacuees as fire season ramps up.

The state would loan Cal Expo half the money and provide the other half in a one-time payment. The bill also includes an option to add $3 million more if needed.

Senate Bill 115 would allocate money for COVID-19 education outreach. About $32 million would fund pandemic education outreach aimed at slowing spread of the virus in workplaces, and another $30 million would fund outreach to communities disproportionately affected by the coronavirus.

“Long-standing systemic health and social inequities have put our immigrant and communities of color at an increased risk of getting sick and dying of COVID-19,” Assemblyman Joaquin Arambula, D-Fresno, said. “SB 115 allocates funds to invest in community outreach efforts and help protect our essential workers who are the backbone of our state.”

Under another proposal, people paid through state programs to care for their spouse or child with disabilities would be eligible to collect unemployment benefits if the family members they care for die.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the proposal would cost $28 million annually.

Another proposal would repeal administrative court fees that Ting argued during floor debate would harm low-income people and people of color.

Obernolte opposed the measure, arguing that many of the fees that would be repealed are already means tested, meaning low-income people already do not pay them.

“I think we can all agree that poverty should not be criminalized,” he said. “However… what we are actually doing is preventing county courts from collecting these fees from people who can pay them.”

The bill would appropriate $50,000 in the current budget year and then $65 million in subsequent years to compensate courts for the lost revenue.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article245426340.html?#storylink=cpy

 

State’s Cash Outlook Still Green

Legislative Analyst

In this post, we give an update on the General Fund’s current cash situation. In particular, although there was a great deal of concern about cash in the spring of 2020, we explain why the situation did not significantly deteriorate as expected. We also discuss the General Fund’s “cash outlook” for the rest of the fiscal year, including major developments that are likely to affect the state’s cash situation for better or worse.

https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4266?utm_source=laowww&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4266

 

Significant Pending Bill Tracker

CalMatters

Gov. Newsom now has until Sept. 30 to take action on pending bills.

https://calmatters.org/explainers/california-final-bill-tracker-2020-legislature/?utm_source=CalMatters+Newsletters&utm_campaign=f66329c6a1-WHATMATTERS_NEWSLETTER&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_faa7be558d-f66329c6a1-150181777&mc_cid=f66329c6a1&mc_eid=2833f18cca

 

237 Local Tax & Bond Measures on the Ballot

CalMatters commentary

Does the trauma enveloping California this year — pandemic, recession, heat waves, blackouts and disastrous wildfires — make voters more or less likely to vote for tax increases?

Sponsors of a $12 billion a year hike in taxes on warehouses, office buildings, factories and other commercial property hope it’s more.

Proposition 15 would raise that money for schools and local governments by changing Proposition 13, the iconic 1978 ballot measure that imposed tight restrictions on property taxes. If it’s passed, taxable values of commercial property would be increased to current market levels.

Public employee unions and other advocates of government spending have long yearned to crack Proposition 13 via what’s called a “split roll” and after many starts and stops, finally decided that 2020’s presidential election, with a high voter turnout, would be the best time to give it a try.

Even before California and its economy were hammered by COVID-19 and recession, polling indicated that the measure had no better than a 50-50 chance of passage. The iffy climate for new taxes was also signaled in last March’s primary election, just before the pandemic hit home, when more than half of hundreds of local tax and bond measures were shot down.

Nevertheless, split-roll advocates forged ahead with what became Proposition 15, setting up what promises to be a titanic political war with commercial property owners and other business groups. Pandemic and recession are likely talking points for both sides.

Some local authorities have pulled back long-planned tax increase proposals, believing that chances of passage even in a high-turnout presidential election have faded.

One of those instances occurred in July, as a deadline for placing measures on the ballot approached. The Sacramento Transportation Authority, which had decided to ask local voters for a half-cent sales tax increase, abruptly reversed course when polling indicated it would likely fail.

“We understand the public sentiment at this time given the pandemic and social unrest, people are focused on other things,” transportation authority board chairman Darren Suen, a member of the Elk Grove City Council, said.

However, it appears that most local government proposals to raise taxes, including bonds that would be repaid from increased property levies, will remain on the ballot.

The California Taxpayers Association counts 237 local tax and bond measures to be decided in November, including 176 direct tax increases totaling roughly $1.5 billion. Voters also will face $13.1 billion in local school construction bonds and $1.9 billion in other local bonds, Cal-Tax says.

Most are traditional increases in sales taxes or parcel taxes on property, but they also include local levies on legal marijuana sales, property transfer documents, utility services and hotel rates.

A semi-new taxation wrinkle is being tried in several San Francisco Bay Area communities — direct taxes on business. San Francisco itself has two business tax measures on the ballot, including a gross receipts tax based on the difference in pay between corporate executives and their employees. Richmond proposes a new tax on telecommunication services and video streaming.

There’s also a new wrinkle in the long-running conflict over spending taxpayer money to persuade voters to endorse new taxes and bonds. Such advocacy is illegal, although almost never prosecuted. But California’s Fair Political Practices Commission recently fined Los Angeles County’s government for waging a million-dollar campaign for a 2017 tax measure under the guise of “information.”

Watchdog organizations will be monitoring local governments this year to see if the FPPC fine has an effect on how local governments spend public funds to present their tax increase pitches to voters.

https://calmatters.org/commentary/dan-walters/2020/08/california-tax-increase-ballot-proposition-15/

 

More Voters, More Partisan

Public Policy Institute of California

More Californians have registered to vote this year than in any other presidential election year for the last 20 years. In 2016, about 73% of eligible adults were registered to vote. This year, more than 83% were registered as of July, according to California’s secretary of state. That’s an increase of 2.8 million registered voters, and represents a significant jump in registration numbers since 2000.

Today’s share of registered voters who are Democrats (46.3%) has increased since 2016 (45.1%), while the share of Republicans (24%) has declined (27.1% in 2016). At the same time, the share of independent voters (also known as “decline to state” or “no party preference”) is now 24%, up from 23.3% in 2016.

While the share of voters registering as Republican has declined, the party actually has 120,000 more voters now than at this point in 2016. Notably, in the lead up to the previous three presidential elections the total number of Republicans had declined even as the state’s population increased.

Meanwhile, in the last four years the Democratic party has gained 1.5 million registered voters and independent registered voters have grown by more than 800,0000.

The distribution of registered voters has shifted significantly by party over the last twenty years. The share of Republican registered voters has declined 11 points and the share of independent registered voters has increased 10 points. The Democratic share of registered voters has stayed about the same since 2000.

But trends in party registration tell just part of the story of California’s voters.  Surprisingly, we have found that the ideological composition of the electorate has changed little over the last twenty years. Since 2000, we have asked Californians where they place themselves on the ideological spectrum, ranging from very liberal to very conservative. In general, Californians fall evenly across this spectrum, from liberal (34%) to moderate (33%) to conservative (33%). One change: in 2000, Californians were slightly more likely to identify as conservative (36%) than liberal (31%).

Across registration groups, independents—despite a sharp increase in registration numbers—have most consistently identified as moderate since 2000. About four in ten identify as moderate each year, compared to about three in ten saying they are liberal or conservative.

However, partisans have become much more polarized. Since 2000, we have seen double-digit increases in the share of Democrats who consider themselves liberal and the share of Republicans who consider themselves conservative. Notably, since 2016 there has been a 7-point increase in conservatism among Republicans, while liberalism among Democrats has remained unchanged.

The sharp increase in the share of Californians who are registered to vote could have a profound impact on the election in November. Further, California has a considerable share of registered voters who prefer not to align themselves with either party in terms of registration or ideology.

https://www.ppic.org/blog/voter-registration-is-up-sharply-as-is-partisanship/

 

Historic Wildfire Year & “We’re Just Now Approaching the Peak”

San Jose Mercury

California has already had a historic year for wildfires.

So far, 1.66 million acres have burned — an area five times the size of the city of Los Angeles. Almost no part of the state is untouched. From the Santa Cruz Mountains to Riverside County, the slopes of Mount Hamilton to Napa Valley and the northern Sierra, 15,800 firefighters from as far away as Florida and New Jersey are battling two dozen major fires, many sparked by rare lightning storms two weeks ago.

And although fire crews are finally gaining the upper hand on many, fire experts have a stark message: This year is particularly dry, and the worst could still be to come.

“We’re just now approaching the peak of fire season,” said Daniel Berlant, a spokesman for Cal Fire, the state’s primary firefighting agency.

There are at least two, and potentially three more months left where the risk of huge new fires will continue to grow until the fall rains arrive. And 2020 has already seen the second-most acres burned of any year in modern history, behind only 2018, when 1.97 million acres burned.

“It is so important that we get the public’s help,” Berlant said. “We have been incredibly busy these last two weeks. These have been Mother Nature-sparked fires. We need people to reduce the risk of human-sparked fires.”

An analysis of fall rainfall patterns over the last decade tells the tale.

Using San Francisco as a proxy for Northern California, in seven of the past 10 years, the first significant rainstorm of half an inch or more didn’t occur until after Nov. 15. That’s 11 weeks from now. In the other three years, the earliest it arrived was Oct. 16. That’s seven weeks away.

“We are sort of holding our breath until we get into the rainy season right now,” said Jan Null, a meteorologist with Golden Gate Weather Services in Half Moon Bay, who combed through the data.

“Just because the current events are starting to wind down doesn’t mean we aren’t going to see more fires,” he said. “We are heading into what is normally the most dangerous part of fire season.”

The past explains the future.

Eight of California’s 10 deadliest fires of all time have occurred in October or November, from the Camp Fire that killed 85 people in the town of Paradise in 2018 to the Wine Country Fires in Napa and Sonoma counties in 2017, to the Oakland Hills Fire in 1991.

Similarly, seven of the 10 most destructive fires in California history, measured by the number of homes burned, occurred in October or November.

There are two primary reasons, experts say: lack of rain and strong, dry winds.

Unlike in most other states, it almost never rains in the summer in California. As part of California’s Mediterranean climate, most rain ends in April every year, and apart from a few light sprinkles, doesn’t begin again in earnest until November. That means by the time October arrives, nearly six months have passed without rain.

As a result, grass, shrubs and trees are usually at their driest condition of the year in October.

Records show that most of California’s worst fire seasons, ranked by acres burned, come after the state has had a drier-than-normal winter. Why? More snow falls in the Sierra Nevada in wet winters. The longer it lasts into the summer, the less area there is to burn. And more rain means more moisture in the vegetation.

Unfortunately, this year was a dry winter.

On April 1, the statewide Sierra snowpack was just 54% of its historical average. Last year it was 161%, and California ended up with a below-average fire year, where just 259,148 acres burned statewide.

The same story is true with rainfall. Since Oct. 1, San Francisco has received just 50% of its historic average rainfall, San Jose 49%, Oakland 42% and Sacramento 53%. Los Angeles and San Diego, by contrast, have had a normal rainfall year, getting 101% and 133% of their historic averages.

Simply put, conditions are drier than normal in Northern California, which contributed to the explosive spread of this month’s CZU, SCU and LNU fires.

Craig Clements, director of the Fire Weather Research Laboratory at San Jose State University, called the mid-August lightning storms, which caused 12,000 lightning strikes and sparked roughly 700 new fires, a rare event. California hasn’t seen anything like it since 2008. People shouldn’t read too much into it as a predictor of the rest of the year, he said. Instead, they should look at the broader rainfall patterns, combined with a heatwave much of the state endured just before the fires, and daily measurements, like overnight humidity.

“It’s crazy we had so many ignitions all at once,” Clements said. “It’s apocalyptic for a lot of people. But it was a freak weather event. Let’s hope this was the big event for the year.”

Huge amounts of dead brush, trees and other vegetation, some killed during the state’s five-year drought and some piled up due to decades of fire suppression, are also making fires burn hotter and bigger.

Clements and his students regularly sample the amount of water in chamise, a common flowering shrub, to determine fuel moisture levels.

At Quail Hollow Ranch County Park in the Santa Cruz Mountains near Ben Lomond, they found the moisture level of chamise on Aug. 16 was 67%. That’s where it was last year in mid-September. In other words, brush and other vegetation in the Santa Cruz Mountains, which are still burning, are as dry now as they were a month later in the year last year.

“We’re seeing fuel moisture levels that are equivalent to our drought years,” he said. “Because we probably won’t get rain in the next few weeks, these fuels are going to continue to be dry. And they are already critical.”

Climate change is also playing a role. The 10 hottest years globally back to 1880 when modern temperature records began all have occurred since 1998, according to NASA and NOAA, the parent agency of the National Weather Service. Hotter weather dries out vegetation earlier in the year, leading to a longer fire season.

Add to that strong “Santa Ana” winds in Southern California and “Diablo” winds in Northern California, which blow hot inland air across the state, increase fire risk and typically peak in October.

“We have a lot of fire season ahead of us. We’re calling it the fire year,” said Robert Baird, director of fire and aviation management for the U.S. Forest Service’s Pacific Southwest Region in Vallejo. “People shouldn’t let their guard down.”

Baird, whose own family was evacuated two weeks ago for a night from their house near Vacaville due to the LNU Complex Fire, said people all over the state should clear vegetation from around their homes, and draw up an evacuation plan and a list of items they would take if they had to leave suddenly due to an encroaching blaze.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/30/california-fires-what-to-expect-in-the-coming-months/

  

State Water Board Extends Coastal Power Plants After Blackouts

Sacramento Bee

Two weeks after California was hit with rolling blackouts, state regulators extended the lifespan of a fleet of gas-fired power plants Tuesday, saying the facilities are needed to maintain reliability of the electricity grid.

The State Water Resources Control Board voted 4-0 to allow nine generating units to operate up to three more years before they’re mothballed, overriding objections from environmentalists and some local officials complaining about air and water pollution.

The fate of the generators, housed at four plants on the Southern California oceanfront, have become a closely-watched issue in the debate over the environment and California’s energy future.

Two weeks after California was hit with rolling blackouts, state regulators extended the lifespan of a fleet of gas-fired power plants Tuesday, saying the facilities are needed to maintain reliability of the electricity grid.

The State Water Resources Control Board voted 4-0 to allow nine generating units to operate up to three more years before they’re mothballed, overriding objections from environmentalists and some local officials complaining about air and water pollution.

The fate of the generators, housed at four plants on the Southern California oceanfront, have become a closely-watched issue in the debate over the environment and California’s energy future.

During a monstrous heat wave in mid-August, California endured two nights of rolling blackouts in part because of shortages of wind and solar power.

Critics said the blackouts showed California has over-reached in its efforts to create a green energy grid. In the past decade the state has mothballed scores of natural-gas plants and has come to rely heavily on solar, wind and other renewable energy sources. State law says the electricity grid must be 100% renewable by 2045.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and other state leaders have said California, a leader in the fight against climate change, won’t retreat from its green-energy targets.

But Newsom has acknowledged the state must do a better job of planning for the transition to an all-renewable grid. Officials with California’s energy agencies began urging the water board a year ago to postpone closure of the Southern California plants to help bridge the expected gaps in supplies over the next few years. The recent rolling blackouts has added new urgency to those pleas.

During peak-demand days, “all of these plants in combination are needed,” Ed Randolph, deputy executive director of the Public Utilities Commission, told the board Tuesday. “These planning margins are tight.”

Water board members went along with the postponements grudgingly — and said they are leery about granting any additional extensions.

“We don’t want to be here again,” said board Chairman E. Joaquin Esquivel. “This decision doesn’t come lightly.”

Assemblyman Patrick O’Donnell, D-Long Beach, whose district includes two of the plants, said the postponements are necessary to prevent future blackouts — and maintain public support for a green energy grid. “If we go too fast … it’s going to blow up in our face,” he said.

But representatives of some Southern California cities opposed any delay in closure, saying the facilities generate too much air and water pollution.

“What’s coming out of those stacks is not good for you,” said Bill Brand, the mayor of Redondo Beach, home to three of the generating units. “Extension of old fossil fuel power plants is not the answer.” A lawyer for the city, Nick Garelli, threatened to sue the water board for delaying the Redondo Beach shutdown.

Environmentalists said the plants, some of which are a half-century old, are also notorious sources of air pollution, contribute heavily to climate change — and should be retired in December. “All of the facilities have had more than adequate time to comply” with environmental regulations, said Shelley Luce of Heal the Bay, a Santa Monica nonprofit.

The nine facilities are capable of powering 2.8 million households. They were scheduled to close in December as part of a decade-long effort by the water board to eliminate “once-through cooling” power facilities. The facilities draw billions of gallons of water from the sea to cool themselves down, a process that the state says has killed sea lions, fish and other marine life.

The water board has decreed that once-through cooling plants must cut their water usage by 93% or shut down. So far most of the plants have closed rather than spend the money needed to overhaul their systems. The last nine units were due to be mothballed at year’s end.

With Tuesday’s decision, the three generating units in Redondo Beach will be allowed to run through December 2021. The other six will run through December 2023.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article245406990.html?#storylink=cpy

 

Public Utilities Commission Fires Executive Director for “False Statements”

San Diego Tribune

Following a meeting filled with charges and counter-charges, the California Public Utilities Commission fired its executive director, Alice Stebbins, on a 5-0 vote Monday. The dismissal goes into effect Friday.

Commission President Marybel Batjer announced the decision after a virtual meeting in which Batjer outlined complaints about Stebbins’ hiring practices, followed by a 45-minute response from Stebbins and her attorneys.

Batjer did not elaborate on the decision that came after commissioners went into a three-hour closed session but in her opening remarks, Batjer accused Stebbins of making “false statements” during an investigation surrounding the hiring of one employee and called her conduct “appalling and disgraceful.”

But Stebbins said she was let go because she and some members of her staff were looking into $200 million in uncollected fees and fines from companies the commission regulates and accused Batjer of impeding Stebbins’ attempts to rectify a “lack of fiscal responsibility and integrity” at the commission.

Stebbins, her attorneys and supporters who called in during the meeting’s public comment period also pointed to a cache of text messages from Batjer and other commissioners discussing the Stebbins case as violations of the state’s Bagley-Keene Open Meeting law.

“I have been told by the commissioners, and it is clear from the text messages between themselves, the outcome of this hearing,” Stebbins said. “President Batjer, commissioner (Clifford) Rechtschaffen and commissioner (Liane) Randolph have told me they made up their minds to fire me before there was even a notice of hearing or meeting.”

Batjer, in her 15-minute presentation before Stebbins spoke, denied there was any vendetta against Stebbins and said the $200 million figure is incorrect. Batjer said there is $49.9 million in outstanding funds but that “large portions” have not been collected so far because utilities have appealed them so the money cannot be pocketed until each case is resolved.

Batjer’s remarks did not address the text messages but a CPUC spokeswoman recently told a Union-Tribune Watchdog reporter there was no violation of the open meeting law and that personnel matters “were discussed by the commissioners in legal, properly noticed closed sessions.”

Karl Olson, one of Stebbin’s attorneys, said Bagley-Keene forbids “serial meetings like this to arrive at a collective consensus and that’s exactly what you all have done … The commission has scoffed at that law and scoffed at Article I, Section 3 of the California constitution, which was adopted by an 83 percent vote of the people and requires open meetings.”

The heart of the case against Stebbins concerned some hirings she made in her two years as executive director — essentially, the chief of staff — of the commission that oversees privately owned electric, natural gas, telecommunications, water, and transportation companies.

A State Personnel Board, or SPB, investigation concluded Stebbins appeared to favor hiring colleagues who used to work with her at the California Air Resources Board and the State Water Resources Control Board.

The report said in one instance, a manager who previously worked with Stebbins was hired even though the candidate had “inferior qualifications in comparison to some of the other applicants” and that “the scores of more qualified candidates were lowered to mirror” the rankings Stebbins wanted.

“You also failed to take any responsibility for your conduct,” Batjer said. “You expressed no concern for the affected candidates who participated in the hiring processes at issue or for the morale of current CPUC employees. Instead, you repeatedly suggested that the commissioners should use our political influence to— in your words — make the SPB report go away.”

Stebbins called the report “flawed and inaccurate” and said she alerted Batjer of the uncollected money at the start of this year but said the CPUC president was “dismissive.” Stebbins accused Batjer, who was appointed in August 2019 by Gov. Gavin Newsom, of excluding her from meetings.

One of Stebbins’ attorneys, Therese Cannata, said five of the people highlighted in the SPB report that were hired by Stebbins were each “objectively qualified by any standard” and were hired as part of an effort by Stebbins to “make the CPUC more accountable.”

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/energy-green/story/2020-08-31/california-utilities-commission-fires-its-executive-director

 

California Files 100th Lawsuit v. Trump

Office of the California Attorney General

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, leading a coalition of 23 attorneys general, today filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful final rule curtailing requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that federal agencies review and assess the impact of their actions on the environment. The final rule also limits public participation in the review process, robbing vulnerable communities of the opportunity to make their voices heard on actions that are likely to have adverse environmental and health impacts. In the lawsuit, the coalition argues that the final rule abandons informed decision making, public participation, and environmental and public health protections in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and NEPA.

“The Trump Administration has spent the better part of four years trying to roll back critical protections and undo hard-fought progress, particularly when it comes to our environment, public lands, and natural resources,” said Attorney General Becerra. “But we haven’t let this unlawful conduct go unchecked. We’ve fought back – and won. Today, we’re filing our 100th lawsuit against the Trump Administration. With today’s challenge, our goal is simple: preserve the public’s voice in government decision-making as federal projects threaten to harm the health of our families in our own backyards.”

Enacted in 1969, NEPA is one of the nation’s foremost environmental statutes. NEPA requires that before any federal agency undertakes “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment,” it must consider the environmental impacts of the proposed actions, alternatives to the actions, and any available mitigation measures. Numerous federal actions, from the approval of significant energy and infrastructure projects to key decisions concerning the management of federal public lands, require compliance with NEPA. For example, many of California’s state agencies have engaged with the Trump Administration through NEPA in regards to its proposal to raise the level of the Shasta Reservoir.

On July 15, 2020, the Trump Administration’s Council on Environmental Quality announced a final rule upending the requirement that federal agencies comprehensively evaluate the impacts of their actions on the environment and public health. This will result in agencies taking actions without fully understanding the impacts of those actions on climate change, overburdened and underserved communities, water and air quality, and sensitive, threatened, and endangered wildlife. In addition, the final rule so severely limits NEPA’s public participation process that it threatens to render it a meaningless paperwork exercise.

In the lawsuit, the coalition argues that the final rule violates NEPA and APA because it:

  • Is contrary to NEPA’s language and purpose and exceeds the Council on Environmental Quality’s statutory authority;
  • Is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law; and
  • Was promulgated without preparing an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement evaluating the rule’s environmental and public health impacts.

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorneys-general-becerra-and-ferguson-lead-lawsuit-challenging-trump?utm_source=CalMatters+Newsletters&utm_campaign=f66329c6a1-WHATMATTERS_NEWSLETTER&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_faa7be558d-f66329c6a1-150181777&mc_cid=f66329c6a1&mc_eid=2833f18cca