The California Constitution establishes the Public Utilities Commission and authorizes the commission to exercise ratemaking and rulemaking authority over all public utilities, as defined, subject to control by the Legislature. The Public Utilities Act authorizes the commission to supervise and regulate every public utility, including electrical corporations, and to do all things that are necessary and convenient in the exercise of such power and jurisdiction. Existing law authorizes the commission to fix the rates and charges for every public utility and requires that those rates and charges be just and reasonable. Existing law authorizes the commission, in a proceeding on an application by an electrical corporation to recover costs and expenses arising from a catastrophic wildfire occurring on or after January 1, 2019, to allow cost recovery if the costs and expenses are just and reasonable, after consideration of the conduct of the utility, including consideration of specified factors. This bill would establish the California Wildfire Safety Advisory Board consisting of 7 members appointed by the Governor, Speaker of the Assembly, and Senate Committee on Rules, as provided, who would serve 4-year staggered terms. The bill would require the board, among other actions, to advise and make recommendations related to wildfire safety to the Wildfire Safety Division or, on and after July 1, 2021, the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety, as established pursuant to AB 111 or SB 111 of the 2019–20 Regular Session. This bill would require the commission and the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the commission to cooperatively develop consistent approaches and share data related to electric infrastructure safety, and to share results from various safety activities, including relevant inspections and regulatory development. This bill would require the commission, when determining an application by an electrical corporation to recover costs and expenses arising from a covered wildfire, as defined, to allow cost recovery if the costs and expenses are determined just and reasonable based on reasonable conduct by the electrical corporation. The bill would require the commission to find that an electrical corporation's conduct was reasonable if that conduct, related to the ignition, was consistent with actions that a reasonable utility would have undertaken in good faith under similar circumstances, at the relevant point in time, and based on the information available to the electrical corporation at the time, as provided. The bill would provide that an electrical corporation bears the burden to demonstrate, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that its conduct was reasonable, unless it has a valid safety certification for the time period in which the covered wildfire that is the subject of the application ignited. If the electrical corporation has that valid safety certification, the bill would provide that the electrical corporation's conduct would be deemed reasonable unless a party to the proceeding creates a serious doubt as to the reasonableness of the electrical corporation's conduct. Once serious doubt has been raised, the electrical corporation would have the burden of dispelling the doubt and proving the conduct to have been reasonable. If the commission finds that an electrical corporation has requested recovery of costs for which the commission had previously authorized cost recovery, the bill would authorize the commission to assess a penalty in an amount up to 3 times the penalty authorized by law for certain utility-related violations. Existing law authorizes an electrical corporation to file an application requesting the commission to issue a financing order to authorize the recovery of costs and expenses related to a catastrophic wildfire through the issuance of bonds by the electrical corporation that are secured by a rate component, as provided. This bill would additionally authorize an electrical corporation to file an application requesting the commission to issue a financing order to authorize the recovery of costs and expenses related to catastrophic wildfires under specified conditions through the issuance of bonds by the electrical corporation that are secured by a rate component. This bill would establish the Wildfire Fund to pay eligible claims arising from a covered wildfire, as provided. The bill would continuously appropriate moneys in the fund to the Wildfire Fund Administrator for that purpose, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would require the commission to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider using its existing authority to require certain electrical corporations to collect a nonbypassable charge from its ratepayers to support the Wildfire Fund, and would require the commission to direct each electrical corporation to collect that charge if the commission determines that the imposition of the charge is just and reasonable and that it is an appropriate exercise of its authority, as specified. The bill would specify the funding sources for the fund, which include, among other sources, contributions from electrical corporations and revenues generated from the charge. The Public Utilities Act contains procedural requirements that are applicable to all commission hearings, investigations, and proceedings and provides that the technical rules of evidence are not applicable to those hearings, investigations, and proceedings, which are governed by the rules of practice and procedure adopted by the commission. This bill would require the commission to determine whether a proceeding is a catastrophic wildfire proceeding, defined as a proceeding to determine whether an electrical corporation's costs and expenses relating to a covered wildfire, as defined, are just and reasonable, as specified, and would establish procedures and standards applicable to catastrophic wildfire proceedings, as specified. Existing law requires each electrical corporation to annually prepare and submit a wildfire mitigation plan to the commission for review and approval. Existing law requires the commission to consider whether the cost of implementing an electrical corporation's plan is just and reasonable in the electrical corporation's general rate case. This bill would require the plan, in calendar year 2020 and thereafter, to cover at least a 3-year period. The bill would authorize the division to allow the annual submissions to be updates to the plan but would require the submission of a comprehensive wildfire mitigation plan at least once every 3 years. The bill would authorize the electrical corporation to recover the cost of implementing the plan in its general rate case, or to elect to recover the cost of implementation as accounted in a memorandum account at the conclusion of the time period covered by the plan, subject to a specified limit for a large electrical corporation. The bill would require the chief executive officer of an electrical corporation, in the electrical corporation's general rate case application, to certify that the electrical corporation has not received authorization from the commission to recover those costs in a previous proceeding. The bill would require the executive director of the commission to issue a safety certification to an electrical corporation if it meets certain requirements. Existing law requires each local publicly owned electric utility and electrical cooperative, by January 1, 2020, and annually thereafter, to prepare a wildfire mitigation plan. This bill would require, after January 1, 2020, that each local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative submit, by July 1 of each year, its plan to the California Wildfire Safety Advisory Board for review and commission. The bill would require the California Wildfire Safety Advisory Board to provide comments and an advisory opinion to each local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative regarding the content and sufficiency of its plan and to make recommendations on how to mitigate wildfire risks. The bill would require each local publicly owned electric utility to comprehensively revise its plan at least once every 3 years. Existing law prohibits a person or corporation from merging, acquiring, or controlling, either directly or indirectly, any public utility organized and doing business in this state without first securing authorization to do so from the Public Utilities Commission. Existing law, in the context of a change of control of an electrical corporation or gas corporation, requires a successor employer to retain all covered employees, as defined, for at least 180 days immediately following the effective date of a change of control. Existing law prohibits the successor employer from reducing the total compensation of a covered employee during that period. Existing law prohibits, for 2 years after the 180-day period, a successor employer from reducing the total number of employees who would have been covered employees for succession purposes below the total number of those employees who were protected during that 180-day period, unless approved by the commission. Existing law prohibits the commission from authorizing a successor employer to reduce the number of those employees unless the successor employer makes a specified showing. This bill would add to the definition of "change of control" for purposes of the bill: (1) the sale of all or a material portion of the assets of the electrical corporation or gas corporation, its parent company, or its holding company, or any merger, consolidation, or acquisition of the electrical corporation or gas corporation, its parent company, or its holding company with, by, or into another corporation, entity, or person, (2) the voluntary or involuntary change in ownership in assets of an electrical or gas corporation to ownership by a public entity, or (3) in the case of a combined electrical and gas corporation, the change in ownership of all or a substantial portion of either the gas or electric line of business of the combined corporation. The bill would require the posting of the required notice in a conspicuous place in a manner that is readily viewed by covered employees. The bill would require the successor employer, for 3 years after the 180-days covered employee retention period, to provide to employees who would have qualified as covered employees during the 90-day period immediately before a change of control no less than the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment provided before the change of control, including any previously negotiated increase in wages, and to maintain no less than the total number of employees who would have qualified as covered employees during that 90-day period, except with commission approval based on proof of certain criteria. The bill would prohibit a person or corporation from merging, acquiring, or controlling, including a change in control as revised by this bill, either directly or indirectly, any public utility organized and doing business in this state without first securing authorization from the commission. Existing law, until January 1, 2003, authorizes the Department of Water Resources to enter into contracts for the purchase of electric power. Existing law authorizes the department to sell power to retail end use customers and local publicly owned electric utilities under certain circumstances. Existing law authorizes the department to issue revenue bonds and entitles the department to recover, as a revenue requirement, amounts necessary to enable it to finance the bonds and purchase electric power pursuant to these provisions. This bill would authorize the department to issue revenue bonds, on and after either the date on which the department legally defeases all of its remaining bonds under the provisions described above or the date on which it pays those obligations in full at maturity, whichever is earlier. The bill would entitle the department to recover, as a revenue requirement, amounts necessary to enable it to finance those bonds. The bill would require the bond proceeds and revenues received by the department to be deposited in the Department of Water Resources Charge Fund, which the bill would establish. The bill would continuously appropriate the moneys in the Department of Water Resources Charge Fund to the department for specified purposes, including transfers to the Wildfire Fund and repayment of the bonds. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act, or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because certain of the above provisions would be codified in the act and would require action by the commission, a violation of which would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. The bill would transfer $9,000,000 from the General Fund to the Department of Water Resources Charge Fund, thereby making an appropriation. This bill would become operative only if Assembly Bill 111 or Senate Bill 111 is enacted during the 2019–20 Regular Session and becomes effective before January 1, 2020. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Sponsored bills
(1) Existing law requires a person engaged in a trade or business who negotiates primarily in Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, or Korean, before entering into specified contracts or agreements, to deliver to the other party a translation of the contract or agreement in the language in which the contract or agreement was negotiated, including a loan or extension of credit secured other than by real property, or unsecured, for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. This bill would specify that "loan or extension of credit" includes a contract or agreement to finance or secure a bail bond or immigration bond for the release of a detained individual. (2) Existing law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, makes unlawful certain acts identified as unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by a person in a transaction for the sale or lease of goods or services to a consumer, and defines "services" and "consumer" for purposes of those provisions. This bill would include within the definition of "services" the securing or financing of a bail bond or immigration bond for the release of an individual from detention and would define "consumer" to include an individual who, for the purpose of their release or another person's release from detention, seeks or acquires services to finance or secure a bail bond or immigration bond. (3) Existing law, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, prohibits debt collectors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the collection of consumer debts and defines "consumer debt" and "consumer credit" for purposes of that act. This bill would include within the definition of "consumer debt" money owing from a transaction for services to finance or secure a bail bond or immigration bond for the release of a detained individual. (4) Existing law requires a creditor to deliver to a person a specified notice before the person is obligated on a consumer credit contract, and defines "consumer credit contract" for those purposes to include loans or extensions of credit secured by other than real property, or unsecured, for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. This bill would specify that "loans or extensions of credit" includes an agreement or contract between an individual and another party to finance or secure a bail bond or immigration bond for the release of an individual from detention. (5) The bill would state that all of the changes specified above are declaratory of existing law, would make a legislative finding and declaration to this effect, and would also make other legislative findings and declarations relating to bail bonds and immigration bonds.
Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to, as specified, immediately suspend a person's driver's license if the person is administratively found to have been operating a motor vehicle with a specified quantity of alcohol in their blood. Existing law authorizes a person who has had their driver's license suspended by the department to be issued a restricted driver's license if they meet specified criteria, including the installation and maintenance of an ignition interlock device (IID) . Existing law, until January 1, 2026, requires a person, upon a criminal conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol with a prior conviction for driving under the influence or for driving under the influence and causing injury, to install and maintain an IID for a specified period of time. Existing law also authorizes a court, upon the first criminal conviction of a person for driving under the influence, to order the person to install and maintain an IID for a specified period of time, or, if the court does not order the installation of such a device, authorizes the person to apply for a restricted license. Existing law requires the department to credit any time that a person maintained a functioning IID during the period of that person's restricted licensure, but prior to the criminal conviction, toward any mandatory term of maintaining such a device, required upon conviction. This bill would require a person, upon the person's first criminal conviction for driving under the influence, to install and maintain an IID for a specified period of time. The bill would delete those provisions authorizing a restricted license in lieu of an IID for first offenders. The bill would require the department to credit any time that a person maintained a functioning IID during the period of that person's restricted licensure, but prior to the criminal conviction, toward any term of maintaining such a device, required by law upon conviction pursuant to the above-described statute. The bill would place certain recordkeeping requirements upon manufacturers of ignition interlock devices. The bill would also extend the operation of the law requiring IIDs until January 1, 2027, and make conforming changes to related reporting requirements.
Existing law states the policy of the State of California to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other specified characteristic, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state, and states that the purpose of related existing law is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies therefor. Existing law defines race or ethnicity for these purposes. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, it is unlawful to engage in specified discriminatory employment practices, including hiring, promotion, and termination based on certain protected characteristics, including race, unless based on a bona fide occupational qualification or applicable security regulations. The act also prohibits housing discrimination based on specified personal characteristics, including race. The act also prohibits discrimination because of a perception that a person has one of those protected characteristics or is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics. Existing law defines terms such as race, religious beliefs, and sex, among others, for purposes of the act. This bill would provide that the definition of race for these purposes also include traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles, and would define protective hairstyles for purposes of these provisions.
(1) Existing federal law, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, regulates, among other things, the quality and packaging of foods introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce and generally prohibits the misbranding of food. Existing federal law, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, governs state and local labeling requirements, including those that characterize the relationship of any nutrient specified in the labeling of food to a disease or health-related condition. Existing state law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, generally regulates misbranded food and provides that any food is misbranded if its labeling does not conform with the requirements for nutrient content or health claims as set forth in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the regulations adopted pursuant to that federal act. Existing law requires that a food facility, as defined, make prescribed disclosures and warnings to consumers. Existing law makes a violation of these requirements a crime. Existing state law, the Pupil Nutrition, Health, and Achievement Act of 2001, prohibits the sale of specified beverages to pupils at schools, except for vegetable-based drinks, drinking water with no added sweetener, milk, and in high schools, an electrolyte replacement beverage if those beverages meet certain nutritional requirements. This bill would establish the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Act, which would prohibit a person from distributing, selling, or offering for sale a sugar-sweetened beverage in a sealed beverage container, a multipack of sugar-sweetened beverages, or a concentrate, as those terms are defined, in this state unless the sealed beverage container, multipack, or packaging of the concentrate bears a safety warning. The bill also would require every person who owns, leases, or otherwise legally controls the premises where a vending machine or beverage dispensing machine is located, or where a sugar-sweetened beverage is sold in an unsealed container, to place a specified safety warning in certain locations, including on the exterior of any vending machine that includes a sugar-sweetened beverage for sale. (2) Under existing law, the State Department of Public Health, upon the request of a health officer, as defined, may authorize the local health department of a city, county, city and county, or local health district to enforce the provisions of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law. Existing law authorizes the State Department of Public Health to assess a civil penalty against any person for a violation of that law in an amount not to exceed $1,000 per day, except as specified. Existing law authorizes the Attorney General or any district attorney, on behalf of the State Department of Public Health, to bring an action in a superior court to grant a temporary or permanent injunction restraining a person from violating the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law. This bill, commencing July 1, 2021, would make the first violation of that law or regulations adopted pursuant to that law result in a notice of violation that would inform the recipient that they have an opportunity to remedy the violation without penalty, and a second or subsequent violation punishable by a civil penalty of not less than $50, but no greater than $500. This bill would also create the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Fund for the receipt of all moneys collected for violations of those requirements, and would allocate moneys in this fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the department for the purpose of enforcing those provisions. The bill would make legislative findings and declarations relating to the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, obesity, and dental disease.
This measure would recognize June 6, 2019, as the 75th anniversary of the invasion of Normandy, also known as D-Day. This measure would express the gratitude and appreciation of the Legislature to the members of the United States Armed Forces who participated in D-Day, and would call upon the people of California to observe the anniversary with appropriate reflections and recognition.
(1) The Horse Racing Law, vests the California Horse Racing Board with jurisdiction and supervision over horse racing meetings in this state on which wagering is held or conducted, and over all persons or things having to do with the operation of those meetings. Existing law authorizes the board to issue a license to conduct a racing meeting at the racetrack specified in the license, subject to certain conditions, including that the board has inspected and approved the racetrack as conforming to the safety standards established by the board. Existing law requires all proceedings to revoke a license to be conducted in accordance with the procedures for a formal hearing set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act. A violation of the Horse Racing Law is generally a misdemeanor. The Horse Racing Law authorizes the board to allocate racing weeks to an applicant and to specify racing days, dates, and hours for racing meetings. That law provides that the decision of the board as to racing days, dates, and hours is subject to change, limitation, or restriction only by the board. Existing regulations of the board provide that, upon a finding by the board that the allocation of racing weeks and dates for any racing year is completed, the racing weeks and dates are only subject to reconsideration or amendment by the board for conditions unforeseen at the time of the allocations. Existing law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, generally requires that all meetings of a state body be open and public. The act requires that notice, including a specific agenda for the meeting, be given and made available on the internet at least 10 days in advance of the meeting, or, in the case of special meetings, 48 hours in advance of the meetings. The act prohibits an item from being added to the agenda subsequent to the notice, except as provided. This bill would authorize the board, at any time, upon a vote of at least 4 members of the board, to immediately suspend a license to conduct a racing meeting, as provided, when necessary to protect the health and safety of the horses or riders that are present at the racing meeting. The bill would authorize the board, as a condition of lifting the suspension, to require a licensee to comply with additional safety standards or other requirements as it deems necessary or desirable for the best interests of horse racing and the purposes of the Horse Racing Law. The bill would make it unlawful to conduct a horse racing meeting under a license that is suspended pursuant to these provisions or, if the suspension is lifted, without meeting a condition imposed pursuant to these provisions. Because a violation of those prohibitions would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also authorize the board to call an emergency meeting to consider suspending a license pursuant to these provisions under specified circumstances. The bill would require, for purposes of ordering a suspension, a vote of at least 4 members of the board. The bill would exempt the emergency meeting from the above-described notice requirements of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act and would impose modified notice requirements. The bill would require the board to review any action taken under the above-referenced provisions within 10 calendar days. The bill would authorize the board, at any time, to change, limit, restrict, or reallocate racing weeks, days, or dates that are allocated pursuant to the above-described provisions regardless of whether a condition giving rise to that action is foreseen at the time of allocation or whether a license is issued to conduct a racing meeting during an allocated week, day, or date. (2) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. (4) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
This measure would designate Monday, May 6, 2019, as California Peace Officers' Memorial Day, urge all Californians to use that day to honor California peace officers, and recognize specified California peace officers who were killed in defense of their communities.
This measure would proclaim April 29, 2019, as California Holocaust Memorial Day, and would urge all Californians to observe this day of remembrance for the victims of the Holocaust in an appropriate manner.
This measure would proclaim April 29, 2019, as California Holocaust Memorial Day and would urge all Californians to observe this day of remembrance for the victims of the Holocaust in an appropriate manner.