Existing law provides for the establishment of an Independent System Operator (ISO) as a nonprofit public benefit corporation and requires the ISO to make certain filings with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and to seek authority from the FERC as needed to give the ISO the ability to secure generating and transmission resources necessary to guarantee achievement of planning and operating reserve criteria no less stringent than those established by the Western Electricity Coordinating Council and the North American Electric Reliability Council. This bill would require the ISO, on or before December 31, 2019, to complete a process for the procurement of long duration energy storage projects that in aggregate have at least 1,000 megawatts capacity, but not more than 2,000 megawatts, except as provided. The bill would require the ISO to develop a methodology for allocating the cost of that procurement to all load-serving entities within the ISO-controlled electrical grid, as provided. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act is a crime. Because the provisions of this bill would be a part of the act, a violation of which would be a crime, the 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Sponsored bills
Existing law provides for the procedure of approving and accepting bail, and issuing an order for the appearance and release of an arrested person. Existing law requires that bail be set in a fixed amount and requires, in setting, reducing, or denying bail, a judge or magistrate to take into consideration the protection of the public, the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of his or her appearing at trial or at a hearing of the case. Under existing law, the magistrate or commissioner to whom the application is made is authorized to set bail in an amount that he or she deems sufficient to ensure the defendant's appearance or to ensure the protection of a victim, or family member of a victim, of domestic violence, and to set bail on the terms and conditions that he or she, in his or her discretion, deems appropriate, or he or she may authorize the defendant's release on his or her own recognizance. Existing law provides that a defendant being held for a misdemeanor offense is entitled to be released on his or her own recognizance, unless the court makes a finding on the record that an own recognizance release would compromise public safety or would not reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant as required. This bill would, as of October 1, 2019, repeal existing laws regarding bail and require that any remaining references to bail refer to the procedures specified in the bill. This bill would require, commencing October 1, 2019, persons arrested and detained to be subject to a pretrial risk assessment conducted by Pretrial Assessment Services, which the bill would define as an entity, division, or program that is assigned the responsibility to assess the risk level of persons charged with the commission of a crime, report the results of the risk determination to the court, and make recommendations for conditions of release of individuals pending adjudication of their criminal case. The bill would require the courts to establish pretrial assessment services, and would authorize the services to be performed by court employees or through a contract with a local public agency, as specified. The bill would require, if no local agency will agree to perform the pretrial assessments, and if the court elects not to perform the assessments, that the court may contract with a new local pretrial assessment services agency established specifically to perform the role. The bill would require a person arrested or detained for a misdemeanor, except as specified, to be booked and released without being required to submit to a risk assessment by Pretrial Assessment Services. The bill would authorize Pretrial Assessment Services to release a person assessed as being a low risk, as defined, on his or her own recognizance, as specified. The bill would additionally require a superior court to adopt a rule authorizing Pretrial Assessment Services to release persons assessed as being a medium risk, as defined, on his or her own recognizance. The bill would prohibit Pretrial Assessment Services from releasing persons who meet specified conditions. If a person is not released, the bill would authorize the court to conduct a prearraignment review and release the person. The bill would allow the court to detain the person pending arraignment if there is a substantial likelihood that no condition or combination of conditions of pretrial supervision will reasonably assure public safety or the appearance of the person in court. The bill would require the victim of the crime to be given notice of the arraignment by the prosecution and a chance to be heard on the matter of the defendant's custody status. By imposing additional duties on local prosecutors, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would create a presumption that the court will release the defendant on his or her own recognizance at arraignment with the least restrictive nonmonetary conditions that will reasonably assure public safety and the defendant's return to court. The bill would allow the prosecutor to file a motion seeking detention of the defendant pending trial under specified circumstances. If the court determines that there is a substantial likelihood that no conditions of pretrial supervision will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant in court or reasonably assure public safety, the bill would authorize the court to detain the defendant pending a preventive detention hearing and require the court to state the reasons for the detention on the record. The bill would prohibit the court from imposing a financial condition. In cases in which the defendant is detained in custody, the bill would require a preventive detention hearing to be held no later than 3 court days after the motion for preventive detention is filed. The bill would grant the defendant the right to be represented by counsel at the preventive detention hearing and would require the court to appoint counsel if the defendant is financially unable to obtain representation. By imposing additional duties on county public defenders, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the prosecutor to give the victim notice of the preventive detention hearing. By imposing new duties on local prosecutors, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would create a rebuttable presumption that no condition of pretrial supervision will reasonably assure public safety if, among other things, the crime was a violent felony or the defendant was convicted of a violent felony within the past 5 years. The bill would allow the court to order preventive detention of the defendant pending trial if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of pretrial supervision will reasonably assure public safety or the appearance of the defendant in court. If the court determines there is not a sufficient basis for detaining the defendant, the bill would require the court to release the defendant on his or her own recognizance or supervised own recognizance and impose the least restrictive nonmonetary conditions of pretrial release to reasonably assure public safety and the appearance of the defendant. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt Rules of Court and forms to implement these provisions as specified, and to identify specified data to be reported by each court. The bill would require the Judicial Council to, on or before January 1, 2021, and every other year thereafter, to submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature. The bill would provide that upon appropriation by the Legislature, the Judicial Council would allocate funds to local courts for pretrial assessment services and the Department of Finance would allocate funds to local probation departments for pretrial supervision services, as specified. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law authorizes a peace officer to make an arrest pursuant to a warrant or based upon probable cause, as specified. Under existing law, an arrest is made by the actual restraint of the person or by submission to the custody of the arresting officer. Existing law authorizes a peace officer to use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance. Existing law does not require an officer to retreat or desist from an attempt to make an arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested. This bill would, as of January 1, 2020, require peace officers to attempt to control an incident by using time, distance, communications, and available resources in an effort to deescalate a situation whenever it is safe, feasible, and reasonable to do so. Under existing law, the use of deadly force resulting in the death of a person is justified when it was necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to an arrest, when it was necessarily committed in apprehending a felon who had escaped from custody, or when it was necessarily committed in arresting a person charged with a felony and who was fleeing from justice or resisting arrest. Existing case law prohibits the use of deadly force by a peace officer unless, among other criteria, there is a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or another. This bill would limit the use of deadly force, as defined, by a peace officer to those situations where it is necessary, as defined, to defend against a threat of imminent and serious bodily injury or death to the officer or to another person, as specified. The bill would prohibit the use of deadly force by a peace officer in a situation where an individual poses a risk only to himself or herself. The bill would also limit the use of deadly force by a peace officer against a person fleeing from arrest or imprisonment to only those situations in which the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed, or intends to commit, a felony involving serious bodily injury or death, and there is a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person if the subject is not immediately apprehended. The bill would make these provisions operative as of January 1, 2020.
This measure would urge all citizens to congratulate the California Manufacturers & Technology Association on 100 years of exemplary representation of manufacturing and technology companies throughout the state and to embrace California's rich manufacturing history and future excellence.
(1) Existing law, the Financial Institutions Law, regulates the activities of various financial entities, including commercial banks, industrial banks, trust companies, credit unions, and savings and loan associations. The Banking Law defines and regulates state banks and commits the enforcement of banking laws to the Commissioner of Business Oversight. The California Credit Union Law provides for the licensure and regulation of credit unions by the Commissioner of Business Oversight and makes a willful violation of that law a crime. The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act of 2016, an initiative measure approved as Proposition 64 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, authorizes a person who obtains a state license under the act to engage in commercial adult-use cannabis activity pursuant to that license and applicable local ordinances. The Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, among other things, consolidates the licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis activities. This bill would create the Cannabis Limited Charter Banking and Credit Union Law, to be administered by the Commissioner of Business Oversight and the Department of Business Oversight. The bill would create the Cannabis Limited Charter Bank and Credit Union Advisory Board and specify its composition, to include the Treasurer, the Controller, and the Chief of the Bureau of Cannabis Control, and commit to it the general responsibility for ensuring that this law functions in a safe and efficient way. The bill would prescribe the powers and duties of the board, including reviewing department enforcement reports, holding meetings that would be open to public comment, and issuing its own recommendations, which would be submitted to the Legislature and the Governor. The board would also be required to provide guidance on specified investment activities. The bill would provide for the licensure and regulation of cannabis limited charter banks and credit unions for the purpose of providing limited banking services, as defined, to cannabis businesses. The bill would require a person who desires to be licensed as a cannabis limited charter bank or credit union to submit an application to the department, and would require that person to elect to form under either the Banking Law or the California Credit Union Law. The bill would authorize the department to charge an applicant for a cannabis limited charter bank or credit union license a reasonable fee. The bill would require a licensee to comply with all requirements in the Financial Institutions Law, and either the Banking Law or the California Credit Union Law, as applicable, except to the extent that any requirement of those laws are inconsistent with a provision of the Cannabis Limited Charter Banking and Union Law. By expanding the application of the California Credit Union Law, a willful violation of which is a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would authorize a cannabis limited charter bank or credit union to issue to an account holder special purpose checks that would be valid for only specified purposes. The bill would authorize a cannabis limited charter bank or credit union to cash the checks it has issued, including those presented by parties that are not account holders, as specified. The bill would permit these checks to be used for the payment of state and local fees and taxes, payment of rent on property leased by, or on behalf of, the account holder's cannabis business, payment of vendors physically located in California, as specified, and the purchase of state and local bonds, as specified. The bill would provide that a person or entity is not required to accept these checks. The bill would require a cannabis limited charter bank or credit union to obtain and maintain insurance at all times that it is engaged in business, subject to certain requirements including that the insurance be in an amount acceptable to the commissioner. The bill would authorize a cannabis limited charter bank or credit union to charge fees for its banking services, and would authorize the commissioner, if requested by any person or whenever the commissioner deems appropriate, to review any fee charged. The bill would require a cannabis limited charter bank and credit union to provide the commissioner with a specified fee schedule, which information the department would be required to compile and post information on its Internet Web site. The bill would authorize a cannabis limited charter bank or credit union to enter into an agreement with another licensee to form a banking network, subject to the approval of the commissioner, to facilitate the provision of cannabis banking services. The bill would require the department to adopt emergency regulations and would prohibit the department from issuing a license for these purposes prior to July 1, 2019, except as specified. The bill would require the department to provide a specified report to the Senate Committee on Banking and Financial Institutions and the Senate Committee on Governance and Finance. The bill would require a cannabis limited charter bank or credit union to adopt policies and practices to achieve the principles and goals outlined in the federal Bank Secrecy Act and cooperate with the federal Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The bill would prohibit a cannabis limited charter bank or credit union from engaging in banking activity with any other financial institution that lacks a limited purpose charter issued under these provisions. The bill would prescribe a framework for the administration of its provisions. The bill would also make a statement of legislative findings. (2) 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.
Under existing law, a judgment that a person convicted of an infraction be punished by a fine may also provide for the payment to be made within a specified time or in specified installments. Existing law requires a court, in any case when a person appears before a traffic referee or judge of the superior court for adjudication of a violation of the Vehicle Code, upon request of the defendant, to consider the defendant's ability to pay, as specified. This bill would require the court, in any case involving an infraction filed with the court, to determine whether the defendant is indigent for purposes of determining what portion of the statutory amount of any associated fine, fee, assessment, or other financial penalties the person can afford to pay. The bill would provide that the defendant can demonstrate that he or she is indigent by providing specified information, including attesting to his or her indigent status under penalty of perjury. Because a violation thereof would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the court to reduce the base fine and associated fees by 80% if the court establishes that the defendant is indigent, and to provide alternatives to immediate payment of the sentence, including a payment plan option. The bill would require the court to determine the amount a defendant can afford to pay per month by using a payment calculator developed by the Judicial Council, as specified. For persons not found to be indigent, the bill would require that the monthly payment not exceed 5% of the defendant's family monthly income, as provided. For defendants found to be indigent, the bill would require that monthly payments be $0 until the defendant's financial circumstances change, and would require the remaining amount owed to be discharged after 48 months in the interest of justice. Existing law authorizes any county or court to implement a "comprehensive collection program" as a separate revenue collection activity, and requires the program to meet certain criteria, one of which is that the program engages in specified activities in collecting fines or penalties. One of those activities is initiating suspensions or holds for driver's licenses, as specified. This bill would delete initiating suspensions or holds for driver's licenses from the list of activities the program may engage in. The bill would require the program to provide a payment plan option based on the debtor's ability to pay and requires the program to notify the defendant of his or her right to an indigency determination for infractions. Existing law requires, whenever a person is arrested for any nonfelony violation of the Vehicle Code, or for a violation of an ordinance of a city or county relating to traffic offenses and he or she is not immediately taken before a magistrate, the arresting officer to prepare in triplicate a written notice to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail, as specified. Existing law further requires the officer to deliver one copy of the notice to appear to the arrested person, and the arrested person in order to secure release must give his or her written promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail. This bill would require the court to send the defendant a reminder notice of his or her promise to appear in court and would require the reminder notice to include specified information, including an appearance date and location and the right to an indigency determination. Existing law authorizes the court to notify the Department of Motor Vehicles when a person has failed to appear or failed to pay a fine or bail, with respect to various violations relating to vehicles. Existing law requires the department to suspend, and prohibits the department from issuing or renewing, a person's driver's license upon receipt of one of those notices, as specified. This bill would repeal the provisions authorizing the court to notify the department of a failure to pay a fine or bail. The bill would repeal certain provisions prohibiting the department from issuing or renewing a person's driver's license upon receipt of a notice of a defendant's failure to pay, with respect to designated violations. Existing law provides that a person willfully violating his or her written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail, or willfully failing to pay bail in installments or a certain lawfully imposed fine, as specified, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The bill would instead provide that a person willfully violating his or her written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail is guilty of an infraction. By changing the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would repeal the misdemeanor for willfully failing to pay bail in installments or a lawfully imposed fine. This bill would declare that its provisions do not alter existing law related to suspension of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle in connection with violations relating to reckless driving or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, as specified. 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.
Existing law requires every person 16 years of age or older who takes any fish, reptile, or amphibian for any purpose other than profit to first obtain a sport fishing license for that purpose, with specified exceptions, and to have that license on his or her person or in his or her immediate possession when engaged in carrying out any activity authorized by the license. Existing law requires a resident or a nonresident, 16 years of age or older, upon payment of a specified fee, to be issued a sport fishing license for the period of a calendar year, or, if issued after the beginning of the year, for the remainder thereof. Existing law also requires the issuance of shorter term licenses upon payment of a specified lesser fee. Existing law requires the Fish and Game Commission to adjust the amount of the fees, as prescribed, to fully recover, but not exceed, all reasonable administrative and implementation costs of the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the commission relating to those licenses. This bill, in addition to sport fishing licenses for the periods specified above, would require a sport fishing license to be issued to a resident or nonresident for the period of 12 consecutive months, upon payment of a fee that is equal to 130% of the fees for issuance of resident or nonresident calendar-year licenses, as applicable. The bill would require the commission to adjust the amount of the fees as necessary to fully recover, but not exceed, all reasonableimplementation and administrative costs of the department and the commission relating to these licenses, including all costs related to their establishment and enforcement. The bill would require the department to submit to the Legislature a written report on the implementation of these provisions, as provided. The bill would make these provisions operative beginning January 1, 2020, until January 1, 2023. Under existing law, a hunting license grants the privilege to take birds and mammals. Existing law requires the department to issue a hunting license for specified periods of time, including for a term of one year, as provided, upon payment of a fee, to eligible residents and nonresidents. Existing law requires the department to issue a sport fishing license for specified periods of time, including for the period of a calendar year, as provided, upon payment of a fee, to eligible residents and nonresidents. Existing law requires the department to issue lifetime hunting licenses and lifetime sport fishing licenses, and grants certain lifetime privileges to holders of those licenses, upon the one-time payment of specified fees. This bill would require the department to reduce the fee required to obtain the above-described licenses and the 12 consecutive month licenses created by this bill by 25% for a person who is a veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States, was honorably discharged, and is a resident of California. Under existing law, the department issues, upon payment of specified fees, various types of sport fishing report cards and validations that are required, in addition to a sport fishing license, to engage in various activities relating to the taking and possession of amphibians, reptiles, and fish for purposes other than profit. This bill would require the department to reduce the fee required to obtain a sport fishing report card, validation, or other entitlement by 25% for a person who is a veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States, was honorably discharged, and is a resident of California and by 50% for a person who meets those requirements and who also has a 50% or greater service-connected disability.
Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation by the State Department of Health Care Services of adult alcoholism and drug abuse recovery and treatment facilities, and authorizes the department to enforce those provisions. The department also requires that an individual providing counseling services working within an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery and treatment program be registered with or certified by a certifying organization approved by the department to register and certify counselors. Existing law also requires the department to develop standards and regulations for alcohol and other drug treatment recovery services describing the minimal level of service quality required of the service providers to qualify for and obtain state certification. This bill would prohibit certain persons, programs, or entities, including an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery and treatment facility and persons employed by, or working for, that facility, from giving or receiving remuneration or anything of value for the referral of a person who is seeking alcoholism or drug abuse recovery and treatment services. A violation of these provisions would be a misdemeanor and would also be punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,500 per violation. The bill would authorize the department to investigate and take specified disciplinary action against those persons or programs for violating those prohibitions. Because a violation of the above-described provisions would be a crime, the 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.
Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. The federal Medicaid program provisions prohibit payment to a state for medical assistance furnished to an alien who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence or otherwise permanently residing in the United States under color of law. Existing law requires individuals under 19 years of age enrolled in restricted-scope Medi-Cal at the time the Director of Health Care Services makes a determination that systems have been programmed for implementation of these provisions, be enrolled in the full scope of Medi-Cal benefits, if otherwise eligible, pursuant to an eligibility and enrollment plan, as specified. Existing law makes the effective date of enrollment for those individuals the same day that systems are operational to begin processing new applications pursuant to the director's determination. This bill would additionally extend eligibility for full-scope Medi-Cal benefits to individuals 65 years of age or older, if otherwise eligible for those benefits, but for their immigration status, subject to an appropriation. The bill would also delete provisions delaying implementation until the director makes the determination described above. Because counties are required to make Medi-Cal eligibility determinations and this bill would expand Medi-Cal eligibility, the 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
The Personal Income Tax Law authorizes various credits against the taxes imposed by that law, including a credit for qualified renters in the amount of $120 for spouses filing joint returns, heads of household, and surviving spouses if adjusted gross income is $50,000, as adjusted, or less, and in the amount of $60 for other individuals if adjusted gross income is $25,000, as adjusted, or less. Existing law requires the Franchise Tax Board to annually adjust for inflation these adjusted gross income amounts. For 2017, the adjusted gross income limit is $80,156 and $40,078, respectively. This bill, for each taxable year beginning on and after January 1, 2018, would increase the credit amount for a qualified renter, as specified, and would require the Franchise Tax Board to annually adjust for inflation the credit amount for taxable years on and after January 1, 2023. The bill would authorize the Governor to suspend the increased credit amount by proclamation if the Governor finds and declares that an economic emergency exists in this state and it is necessary that the increased credit amount be suspended, in which case the credit amount would be the credit amount for the taxable year immediately preceding the taxable year in which the suspension of the credit applies. The bill would also provide that the increased credit amount is $0 for each taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2019, unless otherwise specified in a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill. In the event the increased credit amount is $0, the existing credit amounts of $60 and $120, respectively, would be the credit amounts for that taxable year. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.