Support our nonprofit, community-funded journalism and donate today.

California Air Board thumbs nose at Trump administration, vows to stay the course on car emissions

Saying ‘a deal is a deal” the California Air Resources Board voted today to endorse the stringent automobile emissions standards hammered out with federal agencies five years ago, vowing to go to court if the Environmental Protection Agency follows through on a threat to undo the regulations—and then blocks the state from setting its own standards.

In a unanimous vote in a public meeting at Riverside, the board used strong language to send a message to Washington that California will resist any effort to rollback fuel economy and emissions standards. The move does not change the status quo, but affirms once again that the Golden State is not prepared to accept backsliding on emissions agreements and will, if necessary, pursue a waiver to go its own way.

The hours-long meeting was civil but pointed, with air board commissioners flatly telling the representatives of the auto industry that they made a big mistake in lobbying the Trump administration to revisit an agreement reached in 2011 that set nationwide emissions standards and raised the average fuel efficiency of cars to more than 50 miles per gallon by 2025.

“What were you thinking when you threw yourselves upon the mercy of the Trump administration to try to solve your problems?” chided Mary Nichols, board chair.

Another board member grew animated, wondering aloud why a midterm review of the deal was necessary, saying nothing had changed.

“To me a midterm review is an off ramp opportunity,” said Hector De La Torre. “It’s turned out pretty damn well. There is no damn off ramp. Why would we take the off ramp? This is the right way to go, to stay on track here.”

He then echoed what numerous California officials had said regarding the state’s willingness to fight the Trump Administration in court to preserve air quality targets.

“If a divorce is going to happen at some point, we are going to litigate that divorce strongly,” De La Torre said. “When your parents are fighting, you can see which one has their act together and which one doesn’t. A deal is a deal. There were three parties at that table back in 2012, we are going to continue to exercise our authority under that deal until WE decide that deal is no longer valid.”

At issue are the 2022-2025 vehicle miles-per-gallon requirements set last summer by the outgoing Obama administration. The rules raise the fleet average fuel efficiency to more than 50 miles per gallon by 2025, up from 27.5 mpg in 2010.

The Trump administration says it will re-evaluate the standards over the next year. The president has maintained that environmental regulations are hampering U.S. automakers and costing American jobs. John Bozzella, who represents an industry trade group, has urged California to stay in line with federal standards. “There is more effective way forward than regulatory systems that are different,” he said.

But the strict guidelines are a critical part of California’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, thus worth fighting for.

“If Washington continues down this road,” Gov Brown wrote to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, “California will take the necessary actions to preserve current standards and protect the health of our people and the stability of our climate.”

 

 

California Air Board thumbs nose at Trump administration, vows to stay the course on car emissions

Dec. 18, 2018

CALmatters Has a New CEO

June 1, 2018

GOP now at number 3

Feb. 7, 2017

In this corner: Health

Saying ‘a deal is a deal” the California Air Resources Board voted today to endorse the stringent automobile emissions standards hammered out with federal agencies five years ago, vowing to go to court if the Environmental Protection Agency follows through on a threat to undo the regulations—and then blocks the state from setting its own standards.

In a unanimous vote in a public meeting at Riverside, the board used strong language to send a message to Washington that California will resist any effort to rollback fuel economy and emissions standards. The move does not change the status quo, but affirms once again that the Golden State is not prepared to accept backsliding on emissions agreements and will, if necessary, pursue a waiver to go its own way.

The hours-long meeting was civil but pointed, with air board commissioners flatly telling the representatives of the auto industry that they made a big mistake in lobbying the Trump administration to revisit an agreement reached in 2011 that set nationwide emissions standards and raised the average fuel efficiency of cars to more than 50 miles per gallon by 2025.

“What were you thinking when you threw yourselves upon the mercy of the Trump administration to try to solve your problems?” chided Mary Nichols, board chair.

Another board member grew animated, wondering aloud why a midterm review of the deal was necessary, saying nothing had changed.

“To me a midterm review is an off ramp opportunity,” said Hector De La Torre. “It’s turned out pretty damn well. There is no damn off ramp. Why would we take the off ramp? This is the right way to go, to stay on track here.”

He then echoed what numerous California officials had said regarding the state’s willingness to fight the Trump Administration in court to preserve air quality targets.

“If a divorce is going to happen at some point, we are going to litigate that divorce strongly,” De La Torre said. “When your parents are fighting, you can see which one has their act together and which one doesn’t. A deal is a deal. There were three parties at that table back in 2012, we are going to continue to exercise our authority under that deal until WE decide that deal is no longer valid.”

At issue are the 2022-2025 vehicle miles-per-gallon requirements set last summer by the outgoing Obama administration. The rules raise the fleet average fuel efficiency to more than 50 miles per gallon by 2025, up from 27.5 mpg in 2010.

The Trump administration says it will re-evaluate the standards over the next year. The president has maintained that environmental regulations are hampering U.S. automakers and costing American jobs. John Bozzella, who represents an industry trade group, has urged California to stay in line with federal standards. “There is more effective way forward than regulatory systems that are different,” he said.

But the strict guidelines are a critical part of California’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, thus worth fighting for.

“If Washington continues down this road,” Gov Brown wrote to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, “California will take the necessary actions to preserve current standards and protect the health of our people and the stability of our climate.”

 

 

Want to submit a reader reaction? You can find our submission guidelines here. Please contact Dan Morain with any questions, [email protected], (916) 201.6281.

Read More

March 18, 2019 8:31 pm

Connected Bay Area recruiter gets no bid contract as online community college staffs up

Senior Editor
Bay Area executive recruiter Carolyn Carpeneti has been awarded a $500,000 no bid contract to help staff up the California online community college. Carpeneti has a daughter with former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown.

California’s new online community college director, hoping to quickly establish her executive team, pushed Monday to grant a no-bid contract of up to $500,000 to an executive recruiter who is a friend and long has been a part of San Francisco’s political scene.

Heather Hiles, president of the nascent online college, has a goal of starting classes this fall. The community college board approved Hiles’ choice of executive recruiter Carolyn Carpeneti, even though some community college board members abstained, contending the contract should have been put out to competitive bid.

“I felt like she was far and away the best qualified,” Hiles said. Citing her goal of starting classes in a matter months, she added: “If I don’t get it staffed up, I can’t get it built.”

Before becoming an executive recruiter, Carpeneti was a political fundraiser whose clients included then-San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. Brown and Carpeneti became romantically involved and had a daughter in 2001In 2003, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that “nonprofit groups and political committees controlled by the mayor and his allies” paid Carpeneti $2.33 million over a five-year period.

In the early 2000s, Carpeneti did consulting work for former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, then-Gov. Gray Davis, and former Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, among others.

“That’s not my concern,” Hiles said of Carpeneti’s relationships. “My concern is who is best qualified.”

In an interview with CALmatters, Carpeneti said she shifted to executive recruiting more than a decade ago, and has focused on recruiting in the tech and educational fields. She called Brown a good friend and father, but said he has had no role in her executive recruiting business. 

Over dinner with Brown on Saturday, she said, she mentioned the potential of her online community college gig. He had never heard of the online college, or the contract.

Carpeneti did, however, say that her relationship with Hiles was key to her hiring.

“I highly admire her,” Carpeneti said. “She is the reason why I even took on this contract. I really believe in the mission. If the right people are in place, … this can be a beacon for the rest of the nation.”

Hiles came to the community college system from a venture capital fund. She is a Yale graduate, founder of digital portfolio platform Pathbrite and a former official at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Hiles also is connected to San Francisco politics, having overseen communications for Gov. Gavin Newsom while he was running to succeed Brown as mayor of San Francisco in 2003. Newsom subsequently appointed Hiles to a seat on the San Francisco Unified School District board.

Gov. Jerry Brown pushed for creation of the online college, viewing it as key to helping train 8 million-plus underemployed and unemployed Californians who are not able to gain new skills by attending traditional brick and mortar campuses. Many of the students likely will be women, Hiles said.

Carpeneti and her firm, The Leadership Group, are supposed to recruit six top executives, including ones who will oversee product and marketing, and finance and administration; plus others identified as “chief learning officer,” “chief of workforce programs,” “chief success officer” and “chief people officer.”

Carpeneti’s goal is to have the people in place by May. Her pay would be capped at $92,000 for each person she recruits. The contract says she will conduct a new search for free if the recruits leave before serving in their positions for one year.

“We’re moving fast and trying not to break things,” Tom Epstein, president of the community college board, said at Monday’s hearing.

Want to submit a reader reaction? You can find our submission guidelines here. Please contact Dan Morain with any questions, [email protected], (916) 201.6281.

Read More

March 13, 2019 6:42 pm

Utilities pushed toward fire prevention as Edison is blamed for Thomas Fire

Economy Reporter
Firefighters battle the Thomas Fire on Dec. 4, 2017, in Ventura County. Photo by Gene Blevins for the Los Angeles Daily News/SCNG

Pressure mounted on California utilities Wednesday to shift priorities to fire prevention, as investigators determined that Southern California Edison power lines sparked a major 2017 blaze that later resulted in a deadly mudflow.

A joint investigation of federal, state and local authorities found the Thomas Fire—like megafires last year and the year before in Northern California areas served by Pacific Gas & Electric Co.—was sparked by utility equipment.

In the Edison case, a so-called “line slap” brought power lines into contact with each other, creating an electrical arc that caused molten metal from the lines to ignite surrounding vegetation. The fire, which started Dec. 4, 2017, and raged for 40 days in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, destroyed more than 1,000 structures, killed two people and led to a massive mudslide that claimed 20 more lives.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the finding puts Edison on the hook for more than $1.3 billion in insurance claims from fire victims and for $400 million in claims from the mudslides. Edison will have to work with insurance companies to handle thousands of claims.

Heightened fire risks in the era of climate change are already battering utilities in the market, as rating services, concerned about soaring liability, have lowered their bond ratings and increased their borrowing costs.

PG&E has filed for bankruptcy, admitting last month that its transmission line likely triggered the 2018 Camp Fire, the deadliest blaze in state history. That utility, the state’s largest, recorded a $10.5 billion charge in anticipation of damage claims for that Butte County fire.

Edison can take advantage of a state law passed last year that makes it easier for utility companies to absorb the cost of fire damages by borrowing from the state and charging customers to pay back the bonds over many years, a procedure called securitization.

Under SB 901, the state can take into account the financial health of the company; a five-member Commission on Catastrophic Wildfire Cost and Recovery would help regulators decide whether utilities can pass costs onto customers. In January, PG&E opted to file for Chapter 11 reorganization rather than wait for the state to establish that regulatory approval process, contending that bankruptcy was its only option as access to capital dwindled.

But on Wednesday, the Southern California utility argued that SB 901 isn’t enough, arguing in a statement that utilities need more liability relief “to address the critical issues of fire prevention, enhanced suppression efforts and fair cost allocation rules.”

Meanwhile, legislators representing the communities impacted by the Thomas Fire said they’d like to see utilities do more on their own to address their historic failure to invest in fire safety.

“The Thomas Fire and the January 9th Debris Flow have left serious scars in our community,” said Assemblywoman Monique Limόn in a statement to CALmatters. “I am hopeful the full report will include concrete steps on how we can prevent this in the future.”

“Best practices, best available technologies, they are out there,” added Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson. “It’s just that, frankly, PG&E in particular but Edison to some extent have failed to commit to these more protective kinds of infrastructure and I think now they will be required to do so. It’s my hope they will because to protect the safety and security of life and property and our economy, it’s going to be critical they do so.”

Jackson noted that after San Diego Gas & Electric was unable to pass costs from a 2007 blaze onto customers, it invested heavily to protect its equipment and hasn’t experienced a major wildfire since.

“Clearly,” she said, “we need to hold Southern California Edison responsible and make the victims whole and ensure that they take all the preventative steps possible to ensure this doesn’t happen again.”

Want to submit a reader reaction? You can find our submission guidelines here. Please contact Dan Morain with any questions, [email protected], (916) 201.6281.

Read More

March 12, 2019 7:51 am

Saying death penalty no longer “an abstract question,” Gov. Newsom halts executions in California

Political Reporter
Gov. Gavin Newsom says he wants “to give the voters a chance to reconsider” their endorsement of California’s death penalty.

Updated Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order today putting a moratorium on the death penalty in California and shuttering the execution chamber at San Quentin, a move that overrides a decision the state’s voters made in 2016 to maintain capital punishment.

While campaigning for governor last year, Newsom said he was fervently opposed to the death penalty but didn’t “want to get ahead of the will of the voters” and wanted to “give the voters a chance to reconsider.”

This morning, he said he changed his mind because his decision whether to permit executions had become more urgent. The state’s  lethal injection protocol was getting closer to being finalized and two dozen death row inmates had exhausted their appeals.

“I’ve had to process this in a way that I didn’t frankly anticipate a few months ago. It was an abstract question. (It became) a very real question,” Newsom said at a press conference in the Capitol.

“I cannot sign off on executing hundreds and hundreds of human beings.”

Under the governor’s reprieve, all 737 people on death row will remain in prison and, on paper, sentenced to death. But executions will be halted as long as Newsom remains governor. A future governor would have the power to change their fate.

Newsom’s executive order argues that the death penalty is unfair, applied disproportionately to people of color and people with mental disabilities. It says innocent people have been sentenced to die, including five Californians since 1973 who were found to have been wrongfully convicted. 


His move is part of a larger swing in California away from tough-on-crime policies. In the last decade, Democrats who control state government and the state’s largely liberal voters have embraced policies to eliminate the use of money bail, reduce some non-violent felonies to misdemeanors and legalize marijuana.

But the death penalty so far has been politically untouchable—repeatedly favored by voters despite their progressive tendencies on other issues. In 2016, California voters passed a ballot measure to expedite executions and defeated a measure to end the death penalty. Voters also defeated a 2012 measure to end the death penalty.

A leading supporter of the death penalty said Newsom’s action is legal but “contrary to basic democratic principles.”

“The decision of whether we will have the death penalty or not is one the people have made over and over again through the initiative process,” said Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which advocates for capital punishment.

“It’s improper for an executive to use the reprieve power to frustrate the people’s position.”

GOP Assemblyman Tom Lackey said Republicans were looking for a way to reverse Newsom’s action but hadn’t yet figured out how. He criticized Newsom for changing his position from the campaign but ruled out an effort to launch a recall.

“He’s said conflicting statements. That’s how you lose trust,” said Lackey, of Palmdale.

It appears Californians may yet have another chance to weigh in.

Democratic Assemblyman Marc Levine has introduced a measure that would, if approved by two-thirds of the Legislature, put the question on the ballot in 2020. He said having a governor campaign against the death penalty could make the difference in convincing voters to repeal it.

“We’ve never before had that type of leadership on one of these initiatives,” said Levine, of San Rafael. “We are going to learn from those failures….How do we do this right? How do we administer justice properly?”

Death penalty opponents urged Jerry Brown to grant a reprieve when he was governor, but he never did, despite his personal opposition to capital punishment. They have been lobbying Newsom to do the same since he was sworn-in in January.

Now they have their sights set on the next goal, said longtime anti-death penalty advocate Natasha Minsker: “The next step would be to go further and convert death sentences to life without parole.”

Watch Newsom’s comments on the death penalty here:

Want to submit a reader reaction? You can find our submission guidelines here. Please contact Dan Morain with any questions, [email protected], (916) 201.6281.

Read More

March 6, 2019 7:17 pm

Meet California’s new environment czar, who walked the state to ‘reset’

Environment Reporter
Jared Blumenfeld at a recycling event. Photo via U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jared Blumenfeld at a recycling event. Photo via U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

What better way to decompress from a stressful federal government job than by trekking 2,600 miles on foot from Mexico to Canada?

That’s what Jared Blumenfeld, the new head of the California Environmental Protection Agency, did three years ago, setting out on the arduous and beloved Pacific Crest Trail that traces California’s searing deserts, rugged mountains and sparkling coastline. Turns out the dust on his boots afforded him just the perspective he needed to take on the job Gov. Gavin Newsom gave him in January.

“I had a healthy reset,” Blumenfeld said recently about his four months on the trail. “What you realize is the complexity of the environmental issues. We have so many people talking about environmental issues, but we say it in a way that most people don’t understand.” People want to be part of the solution to environmental problems, he said.  “What I got from a distance was (the importance of) bringing these messages home in a way that’s digestible and actionable.”

Blumenfeld’s work perspective also shifted, from his job as the regional administrator for the federal EPA during the Obama administration to its mirror agency in Sacramento.

Blumenfeld, who has law degrees from the University of London and UC Berkeley, left his federal job in May 2016, a few months before his appointment was set to expire.

The agency he now manages oversees a half-dozen departments that regulate matters including air and water quality, which are among the state’s most contentious issues. Those issues have put California on a collision course with the Trump administration, which is undoing dozens of federal environmental protections, including some that originated in the Golden State.

Perhaps the most consequential battle is over Obama-era rules tightening future car emissions and gas-mileage standards to reduce greenhouse gases and other pollutants; the regulations were crafted by California but adopted nationwide. The federal government announced it would roll back those rules and revoke California’s right, first granted by Washington decades ago, to set its own air-pollution standards. Such a move would significantly affect the state’s ambitious climate policies.

Blumenfeld, 49, said the state needs the federal government as a partner on these issues, but when it came to hammering out a compromise on the auto standards, it was a one-way conversation. The feds announced last week that they had broken off negotiations with the state.

“They did not negotiate,” he said. “It was a little spurious to say they ended negotiations. They never began. The rule that was passed by the Obama administration has been rewritten based on very spurious and kind of junky science by the Trump administration.” (Federal officials produced research that they said showed the regulations as set would make cars less safe and be difficult for automakers to meet.)

In a wide-ranging conversation, Blumenfeld also said:

  • The state will vigorously defend its right to waive some federal emissions regulations and set its own, stricter standards. He expects the fight to be resolved in court. “We do have law and precedent on our side,” Blumenfeld said. “But we do live in bizarre political times, and that does have an influence on how the highest court may look at this issue.”
  • He brought together the state agencies he oversees and provided marching orders to step up enforcement of California’s environmental laws and impose fines when called for. “The regulated community is frustrated that in some cases the enforcement is happening in some parts of the state, but it isn’t in happening in others,” he said. “Consistency, clarity and prioritizing enforcement are important.” He had criticized California for lax enforcement of water laws in an opinion piece published in the San Francisco Chronicle last year.
  • Blumenfeld worked for Newsom in San Francisco as environmental director for the city. Then-mayor Newsom took him and other key aides to Hunters Point, a highly polluted former Navy shipyard, and into the community to talk to residents affected by residual problems. Newsom told the aides, “I don’t want you sitting in your offices. I want you to get out and help people.” The nexus of environmental damage and public health will be a focus of the new governor, Blumenfeld said.

The enviro-czar didn’t just spend his time hiking while on hiatus from government service. He founded a green-tech consulting company and started a podcast, Podship Earth. The native of Cambridge, England, who retains a trace of his British accent, said it’s now time to get back to work.

“Previous governors came up with great laws and targets, and the Legislature does the same,” he said. “Our job is to implement those. Let’s not just jump to the next shiny-cool environmental thing that we could do. Our first order of business is to look at what we’re doing and make sure we’re doing it according to the plans that are already there.

“We have politicians in every level of government who care deeply about the environment,” Blumenfeld said. “California offers hope and inspiration on how to solve problems, from an innovation perspective but also politically. It’s exciting to be in California right now.”

Want to submit a reader reaction? You can find our submission guidelines here. Please contact Dan Morain with any questions, [email protected], (916) 201.6281.

Read More

New Way California has a message for all California Republicans: You don’t have to be like President Trump. You don’t even have to like him.

“The California Republican Party must not be a carbon copy of the national GOP,” Kevin Faulconer, the Republican mayor of San Diego, said to the modest crowd of political centrists who had flocked to the Crest Theatre in downtown Sacramento this morning for the group’s second annual summit.

“California Republicans need to create a party tailored to the people of California,” he continued, pointing to his own example as a center-right politician who has authored a local climate change action plan and recently announced a five-year campaign to make the city more welcoming to immigrants.

“Let’s take him out of the equation,” former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said of President Trump. “It’s a mistake for a state party to mold themselves after the national party.”

New Way is the product of Republican Assemblyman Chad Mayes. As an organization it is eager to show after the 2016 election that California Republicans need not doubt the science of climate change, cater only to business or consistently stand by the president. Schwarzenegger sits on the board.

The morning’s event offered a notable contrast with the California Republican Party’s convention, held two weeks ago just a few blocks away, where headliners included Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson and President Trump’s former press secretary Sean Spicer.

At this morning’s event, there wasn’t a single “Make America Great Again” hat. It was also considerably smaller—some 80 to 100 attendees sat spaced out across the theater auditorium.

But crafting a more centrist GOP brand separate from the national party is likely a hard sell to both sides of the political spectrum. According to a recent poll, 77 percent of self-identified Republicans said they support President Trump’s job performance. Mayes, the former Republican leader in the Assembly, was tossed from that top job by the caucus for supporting a renewal of the state cap-and-trade program. Meanwhile, many Democratic and independent voters may be unable or unwilling to distinguish state and local Republicans from the policies and persona of Trump.

The day’s program offered a series of panels and guest speakers who touched on such indisputable but nebulous themes as inclusivity, economic mobility, and “bridging the partisan divide.”

As telling as what was said was who said it.

The early morning workforce development panel was composed entirely of people of color. That was followed by a short speech from Samuel Rodriguez, a Latino evangelical pastor from Sacramento who argued that “the future of the California Republican Party lies embedded in names like Sanchez, Miranda, Rivera and Rodriguez.”

Two moderate Republicans—former Assemblywomen Kristin Olsen and Catharine Baker—then spoke of bipartisanship with Sen. Steve Glazer, a centrist Democrat from Orinda.

The event also included a speech by Bill Kristol, the neoconservative political commentator and fierce Trump critic, and a short discussion between Olsen and Schwarzenegger about political reform.

“It’s important for the country to have healthy political parties if possible,” said Kristol. “Maybe we’ll have to go beyond the two-party system. I’m open to that.”

None of the other Republicans at today’s event went quite so far as to entertain abandoning the GOP altogether. But expectations about the future of successes of the party were tempered.

“A vibrant, competitive two-party system is essential for our state,” said Faulconer.

Want to submit a reader reaction? You can find our submission guidelines here. Please contact Dan Morain with any questions, [email protected], (916) 201.6281.

Read More

March 5, 2019 11:59 am

With a whopping 2,628 bills pending, here’s the one most popular among California legislators

Political Reporter
Which California bills are the most popular for coauthors, and which have attracting the most bipartisan coauthors? An illustration of a blue face and a red face with a lightbulb between them
By the numbers: Which California bills are the most popular for coauthors, and which have attracting the most bipartisan coauthors?

Nobody can say California lawmakers haven’t kept busy. Between their December swearing-in and a late-February cutoff, they introduced an average of more than 32 bills a day. Now they face a June deadline to decide which of those 2,628 ideas will advance out of either the Assembly or state Senate.

Many are mere placeholders. In the coming months they will be fleshed out, amended, and/or gutted. New authors will hitch themselves to clear political winners, while more controversial bills may see their backers back down.

But the policymaking—and political pandering—priorities of Sacramento are beginning to take shape. A by-the-numbers overview:

The most popular bills

Tax-free tampons, tax-free text messages, tougher police accountability measures, and a host of proposed remedies for California’s housing crisis—you can tell a lot about lawmakers’ goals by the bills they’re most eager to slap their names on.

Excluding procedural measures and symbolic resolutions, the single most popular bill in the Legislature—at least the one that more elected members opted to co-author than any other—would eliminate the sales tax on tampons and other menstrual products.

Nearly a third of all state lawmakers are co-authoring Assembly Bill 31, introduced by Bell Gardens Democrat Cristina Garcia. But only four of those 36 coauthors are Republicans. That includes Sen. Ling Ling Chang from Diamond Bar, who co-authored the same proposal with Garcia in 2016—a bill Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed. Now lawmakers hope Gov. Gavin Newsom is more open to the idea.

But just because a bill is popular doesn’t mean it’s destined to become law.

Assembly Bill 162, which would ban state fees on text message services, was introduced by Assemblyman Kevin Kiley, a Republican from Roseville. That’s a response to the California Public Utilities Commission, which floated the possibility late last year of slapping a monthly surcharge on phone plans with text message services to fund subsidized service to low-income and rural areas. The commission rescinded the proposal after federal regulators raised questions about its legality, but state Republicans quickly rallied against the Sacramento “text tax.”

The bill is backed by every GOP senator and all but four GOP members of the Assembly. That all-red support bloc doesn’t carry much weight in a legislative body where Democrats outnumber Republicans three-to-one. But sometimes bills are less about making policy than sending a message.

The most bipartisan bills

It’s easy to forget, but Republicans and Democrats don’t disagree on everything. Specifically, tax credits for renters, empowering nurse practitioners and boosting college aid for foster youth have all attracted bipartisan support this year.

Looking at popular bills (those with at least 10 coauthors), Orinda Democratic Sen. Steve Glazer’s proposal to boost the state tax credit for renters attracted a group of coauthors who most closely resemble the partisan breakdown of the Legislature itself. With 24 Democratic and 6 Republican coauthors, it is, in short, the most bipartisan bill of the year.

Other bills that had similarly representative cross-party appeal:

  • AB-890: A bill that would allow all qualified nurse practitioners to practice medicine without a physician’s supervision
  • SB-150: A bill that would allow the state program that awards college aid to current and former foster youth to reduce payment delays. It would also allow students who are not meeting academic qualifications to keep receiving aid for two years, rather than one, before being cut off.
  • ACA-11: A bill to put a state constitutional amendment on the 2020 ballot that, if approved, would allow state lawmakers to provide more funding to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the nonpartisan agency tasked with assessing the fiscal impact of legislation and ballot measures.
  • AB-9: A bill that would give workers alleging employment discrimination three years to file a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. The current statute of limitations is one year.
  • SB-12: A bill that would allow money dedicated for mental health services to be used to create drop-in mental health centers for kids and teenagers.
  • SB-50: A bill that would ban cities from blocking the construction of new apartment buildings within a half-mile of public transit. This is a controversial one. Read more here.
  • AB-31: A bill that would exempt menstrual products from the state sales tax.
  • AB 298: A bill that would study the creation of a state low-interest home loan program for first responders.
  • AB 614: A bill that would allow more California farmers to receive a tax credit if they donate food to food pantries.

The most bipartisan lawmakers:

Bipartisan bills require legislators inclined to occasionally venture across the partisan aisle. Some are more so than others.

Glazer is not only the author of the bill with the most bipartisan appeal, he has also been more willing than any other Democrat to coauthor legislation with a Republican. Of the 42 bills he has put his name to this winter, 17 have also been authored by a member of the opposite party.

On the Republican side, Sen. Scott Wilk from Santa Clarita has been the most bipartisan- curious, co-authoring bills with Democrats 55 percent of the time.

As a group, Republicans have led the pack in bipartisanship. That isn’t necessarily because the GOP is uniquely inclined towards legislative comity—there just aren’t very many Republicans in Sacramento these days. That helps explain why 80 percent of the bills introduced this winter were authored by Democrats. GOP lawmakers who want to actually make a law typically have to enlist some Democratic coauthors.

It’s not always clear why a legislator would be more or less inclined to work with their colleagues in the opposing party. But among GOP lawmakers, one possible reason sticks out in the data: the competitiveness of their districts.

Republican lawmakers who won their last election by less than 5 percent were much more likely to join hands with the other side: on average roughly 40 percent of the bills they co-authored shared credit with at least one Democrat. Meanwhile, Republicans in the safest districts who won their seats with margins over 20 percent in the last election, coauthored bills with Democrats nearly half as often—or only one-fourth of the time.

That relationship wasn’t as clear on the Democratic side. Case in point: Tom Umberg. In one of many Orange County upsets last November, he won his Senate seat by a mere 1.2 percentage points—the narrowest margin of a Democrat in the Legislature. Since coming to Sacramento, he has put his name on 24 bills. All but four of them were introduced in the final two days before last week’s filing deadline and none had Republican coauthors.

Editor’s note: This story was updated to correct the number and co-author circumstances of Tom Umberg’s bills.

Want to submit a reader reaction? You can find our submission guidelines here. Please contact Dan Morain with any questions, [email protected], (916) 201.6281.

Read More

Feb. 24, 2019 2:27 pm

With new Latina chair, party insiders say GOP “dodged a bullet.” Now what?

Political Reporter
California Republican Party chair, Jessica Patterson, shakes hands with a delegate.

That hissing emanating from Sacramento is the sound of the entire California Republican Party establishment breathing a sigh of relief.

At the party’s weekend  convention, state GOP delegates selected Jessica Patterson, a millennial Latina with a lengthy resume as a behind-the-scenes party operator, as their new chair.

Depending on whom you ask, Patterson’s election offers a ray of hope for a struggling party, marks the continuation of a failed strategy, or is bound to make absolutely no difference for a party tethered to an unpopular president.

Travis Allen, the Trump-supporting firebrand from Huntington Beach and former candidate for governor who had vowed to take on a party establishment came up short. So did longtime Republican activist Steve Frank. They both lost despite entering into a political alliance to “resist” Patterson.

“I think we did dodge a bullet,” said Assemblyman Chad Mayes from Yucca Valley, a regular critic of the party’s fervent Trump-leaning base. Prior to the chair’s race, he had warned that an Allen election would lead elected Republicans to leave the GOP.

“This will make a huge difference,” said Luis Alvarado, a consultant, adding that the election of Patterson gave him “hope” for the future of the party.

George Andrews, a party delegate and chief of staff to Assemblyman Tom Lackey, went even further, saying Patterson’s “saved the party.”

Allen’s singular appeal to Trump-supporting diehards had little draw outside of California’s few remaining red districts, he argued. “She can do the math,” Andrews said. “If you can’t do math you probably shouldn’t be chair of the party.”

Patterson is hardly a moderate. She is unequivocally opposed to abortion, is backed by the House minority leader and noted Trump whisperer, Kevin McCarthy, and spent the convention referring to Democratic legislators as the “enemy.”

After winning, the president’s eldest son congratulated Patterson on Twitter:

“She’s not anti-Trump,” Andrews said of Patterson, “But she knows how to campaign.”

Unlike Allen, her closest competitor in the race, Patterson did not make her political views or her loyalty to the president the centerpiece of her campaign. That’s a continuation of the approach adopted by Jim Brulte, her immediate predecessor, who viewed the chair position as an operations and logistics manager, not a spokesperson.

“There are too few of us to continue to push people out of the party,” Patterson said the day before the vote. “We are not going to shout people out. We are going to be inclusive.”

But as Allen and Frank spent the entire weekend pointing out, that hands-off approach has not been working.

“We face an existential decision,” Allen said during a moderated discussion on Saturday. “Will we change to fight to win again or will we continue the failing status quo?”

Republicans now make up 24 percent of the California electorate. In last year’s election, they lost half of their congressional delegation and saw their minorities in the state assembly and senate reduced to near political irrelevance.

Both Allen and Frank argued that the party’s core problem was not its association with President Trump, whose approval numbers hover around one-third, but its failure to adequately fund voter registration efforts.

After winning, Patterson invited Allen and Frank to lead a newly created “voter registration task force.”

“We can only hope that the Republican Party starts fighting again for the good of all Californians,” Allen said after the results of the vote were broadcast to the convention center auditorium.

Patterson’s victory represents a break from that status quo in one very obvious way. She is the first woman to hold the position of chair and the first Latina. That may be a notable achievement in and of itself. The Republican Party has struggled with white, educated women and Latino voters in the Trump era.

The party delegates also elected Peter Kuo, a Taiwanese-born Silicon Valley businessman, as its vice chairman. Greg Gandrud, an openly gay man from the Santa Barbara area, was elected party treasurer.

Lest anyone accuse the new leadership team of championing multicultural diversity for its own sake, Gandrud recently formed a nonprofit to sue the Santa Barbara public school district for, according to his website, a “curriculum that is racist against white people and teaches students that white male Christian capitalists are oppressors.”

Contrary to the party’s national image, Patterson joins a long list of women in leadership positions within the California GOP, including Sens. Pat Bates and Shannon Grove, the current and incoming minority leaders in the Senate, and Assemblywoman Marie Waldron, the top Republican in the Assembly.

“In the legislative bodies that have supported me, I am so incredibly grateful for the leaders—having three women on the legislative side,” Patterson said at the convention hall. “Senator Grove, Senator Bates and Assemblywoman Waldron: let’s go out there and do this.”

“This” presumably refers to new efforts to expand the allure of the state GOP. But that broader ideological appeal was not reflected in the line up of speakers at this weekend’s convention. They included former White House press secretary Sean Spicer, Wyoming congresswoman Liz Cheney and Housing and Urban Development secretary Ben Carson.

It’s unclear whether the events of the convention—including the election of Patterson—will resonate with California voters outside the most fervent Republican activists. But according to Mayes, Patterson’s election is a good step in the right direction.

“We still have an incredible amount of work to do,” he said. “Having a new chair is not going to solve our problems. We have to be inclusive, we have to start reaching Californians where they’re at…they’re not going to come to us, we’ve got to go to them. I think Jessica knows that and understands that.”

Editors’ note: An earlier version of this story failed to correctly note that this will be Gandrud’s first stint as party treasurer.

Want to submit a reader reaction? You can find our submission guidelines here. Please contact Dan Morain with any questions, [email protected], (916) 201.6281.

Read More

Carl DeMaio endorses Jessica Patterson for CAGOP chair, vociferously anti-endorses Travis Allen.

There’s only room enough for one “anti-establishment” bomb thrower in the California GOP.

Or so some might conclude after San Diego Republican activist Carl DeMaio held a press conference this morning at the party convention in downtown Sacramento denouncing former Assemblyman Travis Allen, who is running to be the next state GOP chair. His election, DeMaio said, would be the “final nails in the coffin” for the party.

The bad blood between the two rabble-rousers dates back at least a year. During the Prop. 6 campaign, Allen spent over $300,000 raised to push for the ballot measure on ads that prominently featured himself. At the time, Allen was running for governor.

“Travis Allen was never interested in qualifying a gas tax repeal for the ballot,” said DeMaio. “Travis Allen was interested in one thing: promoting Travis Allen. In fact, it’s the only thing he seems to be good at.”

DeMaio instead endorsed Jessica Patterson for the chair’s job. Patterson, a Latina millennial with a lengthy resume as a behind-the-scenes party organizer, has been endorsed by an overwhelming majority of elected Republicans in state government—many of them Allen’s former colleagues. Steve Frank, a Republican activist from Simi Valley, is also running for chair. Last week, Frank and Allen formed a coalition of “resistance” to Patterson, vowing to back whoever gets more votes after the first round vote on Sunday.

This is the latest development in a feud between DeMaio and Allen, two conservatives who otherwise have plenty in common.

Both cast themselves as representatives of the party’s grassroots, ready to make trouble with an out of touch party “establishment.” Both were prominent supporters of the failed effort to repeal an increase in the state gas tax last November. Both are firebrands with a talent for stirring up convention crowds and gathering fervent support on social media.

DeMaio warned that if Allen wins funding resources for the party would “dry up.”

“With Travis Allen you’ll have a vanity party centered around one individual who is an egomaniac who will turn off most of the donors,” he said. “Travis Allen shouldn’t be entrusted to run a rotary club, let alone the California Republican Party.”

Asked about the press conference, Allen hit back at DeMaio.

“Unfortunately, after failing Californians with a badly managed campaign to Repeal the Gas Tax, he now is looking for excuses and issues to distra(ct) from his failure,” he said via text message.

Asked to respond in turn, DeMaio said: “Travis, just go away.”

Want to submit a reader reaction? You can find our submission guidelines here. Please contact Dan Morain with any questions, [email protected], (916) 201.6281.

Read More

Feb. 21, 2019 4:19 pm

Preparing to draw lines for Election 2022

Senior Editor
Charles Munger Jr, a Republican, funded the initiatives that created California’s Independent Redistricting Commission. Photo for CALmatters by Laurel Rosenhall

One election is a fading memory and another is year away. What better time to prepare for the vote in 2022?

That’s what California State Auditor Elaine Howle is doing.

Howle’s office must do the spade work necessary to create a new California Citizens Redistricting Commission to draw district lines for legislative, congressional and Board of Equalization seats. And she wants your help.

“We’re going to do this as publicly and with as much transparency as we can,” Howell said Thursday.

The State Auditor is responsible for ensuring the commission is as independent and reflective of California as possible. The process begins with an introductory town hall at the auditor’s office next Friday at 10 a.m. For details, click here

You can start submitting applications to serve on the commission on June 10.

To qualify, you must have been a registered voter for the past five years, and registered in your party of choice—or have been a no-party preference voter—for five years. You must have voted in at least two of the last three state elections, and you can’t have been a campaign donor in recent years.

You are ineligible to serve if:

  • You or an immediate family members have served in or been a candidate for congressional or state office.
  • You’ve been an officer, employee or paid consultant for a California political party.
  • You’ve been a paid consultant for a candidate for California congressional or elective state office.
  • You’ve been a registered lobbyist.

Auditors will winnow down the applications and pick eight commissioners by July 5, 2020. Those eight will pick the final six members. 

The commission will set about drawing lines for the coming decade, completing the task by Aug. 15, 2021.

Campaign Vote Buttons

California voters in 2008 and in 2010 approved initiatives stripping politicians of the power to draw their own district boundaries, and placed it in the hands of the independent commission.

Republican donor Charles Munger Jr. took the lead in funding the initiatives, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, also a Republican, promoted them. Schwarzenegger continues to campaign against gerrymandering nationally, touting California’s model.

In California, district lines are not drawn in ways that protect incumbents, unlike in most states where the party in power tweaks district lines to ensure they retain control.

In recent years, several California legislative and congressional seats have become competitive. As it happens, Democrats are winning most of the swing seats, but that’s because Republicans are losing registration.

Want to submit a reader reaction? You can find our submission guidelines here. Please contact Dan Morain with any questions, [email protected], (916) 201.6281.

Read More

Feb. 14, 2019 3:29 pm

Should California buy disaster insurance?

Economy Reporter
Sacramento Metropolitan firefighters battle the Camp Fire. Photo by Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group
Firefighters battle the Camp Fire in Butte County. Photo by Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group

Hoping to save California taxpayers some money after spending nearly $1 billion to fight wildfires last year, three officials say it’s time to look at purchasing disaster insurance for the state.

Napa Democratic Sen. Bill Dodd, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and Treasurer Fiona Ma announced Senate Bill 290, which would authorize the state to explore purchasing a policy to cover wildfires, earthquakes, floods and other disasters.

“It works just like your home insurance but for our state,” Lara said at a Capitol press conference Thursday. “You pay a premium each year and we are protected. If a disaster strikes, once you cover the deductible, the plan pays you back for your losses.”

Other states and even the federal government have used reinsurance policies to manage costs associated with natural disasters. Notably the Federal Emergency Management Agency purchases protection on their flood response to hurricanes. And Oregon has saved millions by paying premiums to cover their wildfire costs.

Dodd and Lara say the state needs to get creative in confronting climate change-driven disasters, which have transformed California into “a tinderbox” during fire season.

Last year, more than 6,000 wildfires burned 876,000 acres, leveled thousands of homes and killed 104 people.

The state recorded $24 billion in insured losses in the two most destructive wildfires—the Tubbs Fire in 2017 and the Camp Fire in 2018. As a result, the state has exceeded fire suppression costs in seven of the last 10 years.

In 2018, California spent $947 million on fire suppression and emergency response, far exceeding the budgeted $450 million.

“This is a smart approach to one of the biggest challenges ever faced by the state of California and that is, how to keep the public safe without breaking the bank,” Dodd said.

Want to submit a reader reaction? You can find our submission guidelines here. Please contact Dan Morain with any questions, [email protected], (916) 201.6281.

Read More

Pin It on Pinterest