State Responsibility Area Fee

SBX1 7 (Budget Committee) – Oppose
As Amended September 1, 2011

SBX1 7, introduced yesterday by the Budget Committee, would completely overhaul the State Responsibility Area Fee regulations enacted by ABX1 29 – the measure that established the State Responsibility Area (SRA) Fee for fire “prevention” activities. 

As you recall, the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Board) adopted emergency regulations that implement ABX1 29 last week establishing a general cap of $90 per year. This bill would completely recast the emergency regulations just adopted and instead require the Board to start again with the new fire “protection” fee structure. Specifically, the bill would require a fee on landowners within the SRA of $1 per acre owned for the first 100 contiguous acres, and lesser amounts per acre for land over 100 contiguous acres, but a total amount not to exceed $3,000 for 10,000 or more acres owned. In addition, the bill would require a fee of not less than $175 for one building or structure in the SRA and $25 for each subsequent building or structure, with a $25 credit for those property owners who are located in an established fire protection district. SBX1 7 also changes the appeal process for land owners within the SRA. The bill removes the current appeal process through the State Board of Equalization, and instead give the Board the authority to make the determination if a property is or is not located within the SRA. Monies accrued from the fire protection fee will go towards administrative costs, including the mapping of SRA boundaries and related hazard and risk; the portion of CAL FIRE’s fire protection costs that benefit owners of property in SRAs; and local assistance grants.

CSAC is strongly opposed to this bill. Not only is the fee increase grossly out of proportion with the ‘service’ provided, many within the SRA already pay for fire protection through their local fire districts or other means. CSAC feels strongly that this bill will do little to provide better fire protection within the SRA and it not based on sound policy merits, but rather it is being used as a funding mechanism to fill a budget hole. CSAC strongly encourages counties that are opposed to this measure to send their letters of opposition to both Budget Committees and cc their respective legislative delegation and the Governor. This bill is expected to be heard as early as Tuesday by the Assembly Budget Committee. In addition, the Assembly has introduced the same version of the bill in ABX1 24, which is expected to be heard by the Senate Budget Committee on Tuesday as well. To read a copy of the bill, click here.

Energy

AB 724 (Bradford) – Request for Comments
As amended August 30, 2011

AB 724, by Assembly Member Steven Bradford, was substantially amended this week to include overhauling changes to Public Goods Charge (PGC) funded programs. Enacted in 1998, the PGC is a surcharge all ratepayers within an Investor Owned Utility’s service territory pay that goes towards funding renewable energy and public interest research. Currently, the public goods charge raises $62.5 million for the Public interest research program (PIER), $65.5 million for renewable energy programs, and $228 million for energy efficiency.

This bill reauthorizes the PGC until 2020 and requires collection of $250 million for energy efficiency, $75 million for renewable energy, and $75 million for clean energy innovation. In addition, it requires increased reporting, public disclosure, and transparency of publicly owned utilities’ investments in energy efficiency and energy research conducted with PGC funds. More specifically, AB 724 would do the following:

• Requires the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), in coordination with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, to develop and authorize funding mechanisms to finance comprehensive energy efficiency programs for residential, commercial, industrial, and public building sectors;
• Establishes criteria by which the PUC would evaluate the state’s energy efficiency investments;
• Requires the PUC to administer funds generated by the collection of the public good charge that is allocated for energy efficiency;
• Enacts the Clean Energy Jobs and Investment Act;
• And, establishes the Clean Energy Investment Council consisting of specified individuals to provide strategic policy guidance for the implementation of the Act.

AB 724 includes a number of changes to PGC programs that will impact local governments. The bill directs the Energy Commission, in coordination with the Office of Planning and Research and the Natural Resources Agency, to provide financial and technical assistance to local and regional governments for the planning, sititing and permitting of renewable energy facilities. The bill includes language that supports renewable energy sources, such as biomass and directs these agencies to develop and adopt sustainability guidelines governing the production of forest biomass. In addition, AB 724 provides financing mechanisms energy retrofits of public buildings, among other things. This bill includes an appropriation and would thus require a 2/3 vote of the legislature. AB 724 is currently in the Senate on the Third Reading File. 

SBX1 29 (Steinberg, Pavley) – Request for Comments
As Introduced August 29, 2011

SBX1 29, by Senator Darrell Steinberg, includes the energy efficiency language addressed in AB 724. Specifically, this bill would expand the Public Goods Charge funded opportunities for energy efficiency programs, providing financial assistance to a variety of parties, including local governments, for the purposes of comprehensive energy efficiency retrofits. In addition, this bill seeks to improve coordination amongst energy efficiency programs; convene a stakeholder advisory committee to provide technical and strategic guidance for the development and administration of energy efficiency financing programs; and, ensure that the state’s investments in these programs are accountable and transparent. This bill has been referred to the Senate Energy, Utilities and Commerce Committee. 

SB 136 (Yee) – Oppose
As Amended August 22, 2011

SB 136, by Senator Leland Yee, passed out of the Labor and Industrial Relations Committee this week. This bill would expand the definition of ‘public works’ to include work done under private contract in connection with the construction or maintenance of renewable energy generating capacity or energy efficiency improvements for the purposes of prevailing wage requirements. This bill would mandate private companies to pay prevailing wage for their renewable energy generation and efficiency work performed on state or local property. CSAC, along with other local government groups, is opposed to this bill because we are concerned that it would set a new precedent, opening up prevailing wage requirements to a host of new services by stating in section 1720.6 (a) “work performed in connection with construction or maintenance of renewable energy…” Local governments across the state are conducting energy audits, attempting to identify cost-saving and greenhouse gas reduction measures in their respective jurisdictions. By opening up these types of activities to prevailing wage requirements many of the cost savings generated by these programs would be consumed by these new requirements. This bill has been referred to the Rules Committee. 

Solid Waste

SB 833 (Vargas) – To Enrollment
As Amended April 25, 2011

SB 833, by Assembly Member Juan Vargas, passed off the floor and is awaiting consideration by the Governor. This bill would place specific restrictions on the construction of solid waste facilities in San Diego County. Specifically, SB 833 prohibits a person from constructing a solid waste facility in San Diego County if it is within 1,000 feet of the San Luis Rey River, or within 1,000 feet of a site that is considered to be sacred land to a Native American tribe. CSAC is opposed to this bill because it would establish a dangerous precedent when dealing with the siting and permitting of solid waste facilities. CSAC believes that the existing permitting process is the appropriate channel for this debate to occur. Overriding existing laws and regulations related to the siting and construction of a solid waste facility would jeopardize the process the Legislature created exactly for this purpose. If your county is opposing SB 833, send your veto request to the Governor.

Medical Marijuana

AB 1300 (Blumenfield) – Chaptered
Chapters 196, 2011

AB 1300, by Assembly Member Bob Blumenfield, was signed by the Governor this week. This bill would clarify the Medical Marijuana Program to provide that the law shall not prevent a city or other local governing body from adopting local ordinances that regulate the location, operation, or establishment of medical marijuana cooperative or collective, or from the civil or criminal enforcement of those local ordinances.