ReportWire

Tag: assembly bill

  • California Republicans oppose mileage-based fee proposal

    [ad_1]

    INTERVIEW WITH MEHAN RIGHT NOW@KCRA.COM. AND THE KCRA 3 APP. REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS AT THE STATE CAPITOL WANT TO PUT THE BRAKES ON EFFORTS TO REPLACE CALIFORNIA’S GAS TAX WITH A MILEAGE BASED FEE SYSTEM. AB 1421 PROPOSES TO EXTEND THE ROAD USAGE CHARGE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE UNTIL JANUARY OF 2035. NOW, THE MAIN GOAL OF THAT COMMITTEE IS TO REPLACE THE CURRENT GAS TAX SYSTEM WITH A PER MILE USAGE FEE. YOU DRIVE MORE, YOU PAY MORE. THAT ROAD CHARGE WOULD THEN PAY FOR TRANSPORTATION, INFRASTRUCTURE AND REPAIRS. AS VEHICLES BECOME MORE FUEL EFFICIENT AND MORE EVS HIT THE ROAD, LESS GAS IS SOLD AND REVENUE DROPS. LAWMAKERS ARE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO PROTECT TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AS THEY SEE IT. WELL, TODAY, ASSEMBLY MEMBER FROM THE REPUBLICANS HEATH FLORA, RELEASED A STATEMENT SAYING, QUOTE, WE ALREADY PAY THE HIGHEST GAS TAXES IN THE NATION. NOW, SACRAMENTO IS TALKING ABOUT ADDING A NEW TAX FOR EVERY MILE PEOPLE DRIVE. PILING ON ANOTHER TAX RIGHT NOW SHOWS JUS

    Republican lawmakers at the California State Capitol are opposing a study weighing whether to replace the state’s gas tax with a mileage-based fee system, as proposed in Assembly Bill 1421.The bill aims to extend the “Road Usage Charge Technical Advisory Committee” until January 2035, with the goal of replacing the current gas tax system with a per-mile usage fee to fund transportation infrastructure and repairs. As vehicles become more fuel-efficient and more electric cars hit the road, less gas is sold, leading to a drop in revenue, prompting lawmakers to seek ways to protect transportation funding.”We already pay the highest gas taxes in the nation,” Assembly Republican Leader Heath Flora said in a statement. “Now Sacramento is talking about adding a new tax for every mile people drive. Piling on another tax right now shows just how out of touch politicians in Sacramento are with the reality working families face.” The study is due on Jan. 1, 2027. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. —

    Republican lawmakers at the California State Capitol are opposing a study weighing whether to replace the state’s gas tax with a mileage-based fee system, as proposed in Assembly Bill 1421.

    The bill aims to extend the “Road Usage Charge Technical Advisory Committee” until January 2035, with the goal of replacing the current gas tax system with a per-mile usage fee to fund transportation infrastructure and repairs.

    As vehicles become more fuel-efficient and more electric cars hit the road, less gas is sold, leading to a drop in revenue, prompting lawmakers to seek ways to protect transportation funding.

    “We already pay the highest gas taxes in the nation,” Assembly Republican Leader Heath Flora said in a statement. “Now Sacramento is talking about adding a new tax for every mile people drive. Piling on another tax right now shows just how out of touch politicians in Sacramento are with the reality working families face.”

    The study is due on Jan. 1, 2027.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Here’s how the 2025 legislative session closed: The lowdown on the environment

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom wrapped up the 2025 legislative session with the usual flurry of activity, signing several important environmental, energy and climate bills and vetoing others ahead of Monday’s deadline.

    Among the newest laws in California are efforts to accelerate clean energy projects and advance the state’s position as a climate leader — but also decisions to ramp up oil drilling and reject the phase-out of forever chemicals.

    Here’s a look at what happened this year:

    In September, Newsom signed a blockbuster suite of bills including the reauthorization of California’s signature cap-and-trade program, which sets limits on greenhouse gas emissions and lets large polluters buy and sell emissions allowances at quarterly auctions. The Legislature extended the program by 15 years to 2045, rebranded it as “cap-and-invest” and specified how its revenues will be allocated for wildfire prevention efforts, high-speed rail and other projects.

    The greenhouse gas trading program is seen as essential for the state to meet its climate targets, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

    “California really needed to act this year to decisively try to put in policies to meet our climate goals [and support] the economy and different sectors,” said Susan Nedell, senior western advocate with the nonpartisan policy group E2. She called state legislative efforts especially important as the Trump administration aims to erode California’s authority on tailpipe emission standards, electric vehicle initiatives and renewable energy projects, among others.

    “This is the time for California to lead, and I really feel like they came through on it as a state,” Nedell said.

    WHAT ELSE BECAME LAW

    • One of the more controversial bills of the year was Senate Bill 237, which makes it easier to drill up to 2,000 new oil wells in Kern County. It’s a tradeoff that also makes it more difficult to drill new oil or gas wells offshore. Legislators said it will help address the volatility of gasoline prices following announcements from oil companies Phillips 66 and Valero that they are shutting down two big refineries in the state. Environmental groups were quick to condemn the bill.
    • Also controversial was Assembly Bill 825, which will expand California’s participation in a regional power market — enabling the state to buy and sell more clean power with other Western states. Opponents feared that it will cede some control of California’s power grid to out-of-state authorities, including the federal government. Supporters said it will improve grid reliability and save money for ratepayers.
    • January’s firestorm in L.A. led to a renewed focus on the state’s approach to fires, including Senate Bill 254, which contains various policies to address California’s aging electric infrastructure and wildfire prevention goals. It will secure about $18 billion to replenish the state’s wildfire fund — a state insurance policy for utilities — which officials say will help protect ratepayers from excessive utility liability costs. It also will establish a program to speed up the construction of power lines needed for clean energy projects.
    • Assembly Bill 39 requires cities and counties with at least 75,000 residents to plan for more electrification infrastructure by 2030, including electric vehicle charging and building upgrades. The measures must address the needs of low-income households and disadvantaged communities.
    • Senate Bill 80 will create a $5-million fund to accelerate research and development for fusion energy. Fusion creates energy by slamming two atoms together. The state hopes to launch the world’s first fusion energy pilot project by the 2040s. “Fusion energy has the immense potential to provide consistent, clean baseload power on demand that will help us meet our clean energy goals,” said Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Merced), the bill’s author, in a statement.
    • Assembly Bill 888 creates a grant program to help low-income homeowners clear defensible space around their houses and install fire-safe roofs. It is “exactly the kind of proactive, people-first policy California needs,” said Eric Horne, California director for the nonprofit Megafire Action, which is geared to ending large wildfires.
    • Senate Bill 653 means that state agencies have to pay more attention to using native species in their fire prevention work and use science-based standards to avoid introducing invasive, fire-prone species.
    • Senate Bill 429 establishes the Wildfire Safety and Risk Mitigation Program at the California Department of Insurance, which will fund research into developing and deploying a public wildfire catastrophe model — a computer simulation that estimates property damage from large wildfires and helps communities better assess and prepare for risk.
    • Assembly Bill 462 streamlines approvals for accessory dwelling units on properties affected by the 2025 wildfires in the California Coastal Zone, requiring decisions on coastal permits within 60 days and eliminating some appeals.
    • Assembly Bill 818 accelerates local permitting for rebuilding homes and allows residents to place temporary homes, such as manufactured homes or ADUs, on private lots during reconstruction.
    • Assembly Bill 245 gives residents additional time to rebuild their homes or businesses in the wake of the 2025 wildfires without experiencing a property tax increase.
    • Senate Bill 614 will establish new regulations for the safe transport of carbon dioxide captured from large polluters or removed from the atmosphere. The legislation will authorize the development of dedicated pipelines to move CO2 to underground geological formations for permanent storage, and was described by Newsom as a vital next step for the state’s burgeoning carbon capture, removal and sequestration market.
    • Assembly Bill 14 expands the “Protecting Blue Whales and Blue Skies Program” statewide. The program encourages large vessels to voluntarily reduce their speed in designated areas in order to reduce air pollution and reduce the risk of fatal vessel strikes and harmful underwater acoustic impacts on whales.

    WHAT WAS VETOED

    • The governor vetoed Senate Bill 34, which would have required the South Coast Air Quality Management District to consider certain factors before implementing regulations at the region’s ports. Opponents, including health and environmental groups, said it would have ultimately weakened its authority and ability to meet clean air standards. In its place, the air district and the ports are pursuing a voluntary cooperative agreement that will include obligations for zero-emissions infrastructure and other clean-air efforts. “With the current federal administration directly undermining our state and local air and climate pollution reduction strategies, it is imperative that we maintain the tools we have,” Newsom wrote in his veto.
    • Assembly Bill 740 would have directed the state’s energy agencies to create an implementation plan for “virtual power plants” — networks of small energy resources such as smart thermostats, home batteries and rooftop solar panels that can help reduce strain on the grid. Newsom vetoed it earlier this month, stating that it would result in additional costs for the California Energy Commission’s already depleted operating fund. But Edson Perez, California lead at the nonprofit Advanced Energy United, called its veto a “costly mistake” and said the bill would have saved ratepayers more than $13 billion.
    • Newsom this week also vetoed Senate Bill 682, which would have phased out the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” in consumer products such as nonstick cookwear and products for infants and children. The governor cited concerns about affordability in his veto.

    Earlier this year, the governor also signed the most significant reforms to the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, since it originally became law in 1970. Signed in June, Assembly Bill 130 and Senate Bill 131 exempt a broad array of housing development and infrastructure projects from CEQA in an effort to ease new construction in the state. Supporters said it will help address the state’s housing crisis, while many environmental groups were outraged by the move.

    “While California was able to advance on grid regionalization, strengthen energy affordability, uphold local air quality protection, and protect endangered species, we’re frustrated by the Governor’s vetoes of measures that would have banned forever chemicals, prioritized cost effective energy consumption, expanded virtual power plants to lower electricity bills, and banned microplastics,” said Melissa Romero, policy advocacy director with the nonprofit California Environmental Voters.

    [ad_2]

    Hayley Smith

    Source link

  • Newsom signs formal apology for California’s role in slavery

    Newsom signs formal apology for California’s role in slavery

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a formal apology for California’s role in slavery and legacy of racism against Black people as part of a series of reparations bills he approved Thursday.

    “The State of California accepts responsibility for the role we played in promoting, facilitating, and permitting the institution of slavery, as well as its enduring legacy of persistent racial disparities,” Newsom said in a statement. “Building on decades of work, California is now taking another important step forward in recognizing the grave injustices of the past — and making amends for the harms caused.”

    Though California banned slavery in its 1849 Constitution, the state had no laws that made it a crime to keep someone enslaved or require that they be freed, which allowed slavery to continue. A disproportionate representation of white Southerners with pro-slavery views also held office in the Legislature, state court system and in its congressional delegation.

    Assembly Bill 3089, which requires the state to issue a formal apology, also mandates that the California install a plaque memorializing the apology in the state Capitol. Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles), who introduced the bill, called it a “monumental achievement.”

    “Healing can only begin with an apology,” Jones-Sawyer said in a statement. “The State of California acknowledges its past actions and is taking this bold step to correct them, recognizing its role in hindering the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness for Black individuals through racially motivated punitive laws.”

    Despite the bill signings, advocates for reparations have criticized the governor and Democratic lawmakers for making meager progress on its “first in the nation” effort to study, propose and adopt remedies to atone for slavery that began in 2020.

    After a state task force spent two years developing recommendations for the Legislature, the California Legislative Black Caucus announced a package of priority bills in January focused largely on enacting policy changes in education, healthcare and criminal justice, while omitting cash payments in light of the state’s financial troubles.

    Advocates for reparations have criticized Newsom and Democratic lawmakers for making meager progress on the issue.

    (Laurel Rosenhall / Los Angeles Times)

    Newsom also signed bills to provide new oversight of book bans in California prisons, require that grocery stores and pharmacies give written notice at least 45 days before closing, expand a state law prohibiting discrimination based on hairstyle to include youth sports and to try to increase and track participation in career training education among Black and low-income students, among other legislation.

    But the governor took heat when the Legislature refused to take up other bills for a vote that would have created a California American Freedmen Affairs Agency and established a Fund for Reparations and Reparative Justice to pay for and carry out reparations policies approved by lawmakers.

    A day before signing the legislation issuing a formal apology, Newsom vetoed two other reparations bills. One sought to begin the process of reversing racially motivated land and property seizures under the Freedman Affairs agency that lawmakers declined to approve. The other would have expanded Medi-Cal coverage, pending federal approval, to include benefits for medically supported food and nutrition.

    “This bill would result in significant and ongoing general fund costs for the Medi-Cal program that are not included in the budget,” Newsom wrote in his veto statement.

    [ad_2]

    Taryn Luna

    Source link

  • Californians won’t pay more than one month’s rent for security deposits under new law

    Californians won’t pay more than one month’s rent for security deposits under new law

    [ad_1]

    The days of needing to save two to three months’ worth of rent for a security deposit are largely over in California.

    Legislation took effect Monday that limits a security deposit on a rental property to no more than one month’s rent for all but the smallest landlords. The law, passed as Assembly Bill 12, was authored by Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco).

    “Massive security deposits can create insurmountable barriers to housing affordability and accessibility for millions of Californians,” said Haney, who chairs the California Legislature’s Renters Caucus, in a statement.

    Previously, owners could charge two months of rent for unfurnished property and three months for furnished.

    The median rent in Los Angeles is $2,795, according to Zillow, an online real estate marketplace.

    An exception in the bill was carved out for landlords who own two or fewer properties that collectively have no more than four rental units.

    The bill was written in December 2022, passed by the Assembly and Senate last fall and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October.

    Along the way, it earned support from the Los Angeles County Board of Trustees.

    Supervisor Lindsey Horvath noted in May 2023 that she was unable to move into a rental a couple of years earlier because she was asked to pay “nearly a half a year’s rent upfront.”

    “As someone with a well-paying job, making more than the median income of the county, it was difficult for me to rent a new apartment because of the substantial deposits that were required,” she said.

    But the legislation raises concerns among some in the real estate industry.

    Sharon Oh-Kubisch, a partner at Irvine-based Kahana Feld, which practices real estate law, noted two potential drawbacks to the legislation.

    While she supports the bill’s aim of alleviating high costs of renting, financial burdens are being flipped to landlords, she said.

    She noted that security deposits are intended to cover damages when a tenant moves out. Lower deposits mean landlords are more likely to have to sue clients who cause considerable damage.

    “A landlord can demand damages at the back end, but then they’re more than likely going to have to sue and hire counsel to get that money,” Oh-Kubisch said.

    Additionally, she said that reducing security deposits may work against tenants who have less than perfect credit or lack a strong history of renting.

    Higher security deposits allowed landlords to be more flexible, Oh-Kubisch said. With those “safeguards” gone, she expects landlords to be “more precise and heighten scrutiny for tenants.”

    Still, others say the legislation will benefit those who have the most trouble finding housing.

    Masih Fouladi, executive director of the California Immigrant Policy Center, said in a statement that the law will help vulnerable communities.

    “In California’s high-cost rental market, expensive security deposits are often imposed on immigrants and people of color, effectively limiting access to safe and affordable housing,” he said. “By capping high security deposits, AB-12 advances a measure of equity.”

    Catherine A. Rodman, director and supervising attorney of San Diego-based Affordable Housing Advocates, a tenants rights legal group, said the news received mixed reviews among her mainly working-class clients.

    “I know that it’s been a big relief to many throughout the state, but at least here in the San Diego area, it’s not a big issue,” Rodman said.

    Zillow lists the median rent in San Diego at $3,095.

    She said “soaring rents” have already led most area landlords to require no more than one month’s rent as a security deposit.

    “I’ve been here for 40 years, and I’ve only encountered security deposit gouging on a few occasions,” Rodman said. “Our issue is rent.”

    Rodman said she didn’t want to “pooh-pooh” the legislation but hoped it was part of a broader vision to make housing affordable for larger swaths of the state.

    “I’m sure it helps, but we need to address the cost to rent, because that’s really the big roadblock,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Andrew J. Campa

    Source link

  • Undocumented immigrants in California could have a new path to homeownership

    Undocumented immigrants in California could have a new path to homeownership

    [ad_1]

    Undocumented immigrants could have a new pathway to the American dream of owning a home.

    Assemblymember Joaquin Arambula (D-Fresno) introduced Assembly Bill 1840 last month to expand the eligibility requirement for a state loan program to clarify that loans for first-time buyers are available to undocumented immigrants.

    The California Dream for All Shared Appreciation Loans program that launched last March by the California Housing Finance Agency offered qualified first-time home buyers with a loan worth up to 20% of the purchase price of a house or condominium. The loans don’t accrue interest or require monthly payments. Instead, when the mortgage is refinanced or the house is sold again, the borrower pays back the original amount of the loan plus 20% of the increase in the home’s value.

    The original program was established in an effort to help low- and middle-income individuals buy a home, but the program doesn’t address eligibility based on immigration status, Arambula said.

    “It’s that ambiguity for undocumented individuals, despite the fact that they’ve qualified under existing criteria, such as having a qualified mortgage,” he said in an interview. “Underscores the pressing need for us to introduce legislation.”

    If Assembly Bill 1840 is passed, it would broaden the definition of “first-time home buyer” to include undocumented immigrants.

    Without the explicit status, undocumented individuals may be discouraged or left out of the opportunity to participate, Arambula said.

    “Homeownership has historically been the primary means of accumulating generational wealth in the United States,” he said. “The social and economic benefits of homeownership should be available to everyone.”

    The California Dream for All Shared Appreciation Loans program hit its applications limit of about 2,300 applicants in 11 days last year and the program was halted.

    This year, the program will replace its first-come, first-serve basis with a lottery. Interested people can submit their application now, with the lottery taking place in April.

    Another change to the program is its income eligibility threshold, which was 150% of a county’s median area and has been dropped to 120%. That means applicants must earn less than the threshold annually to be eligible. In Los Angeles County, the income threshold is $155,000.

    [ad_2]

    Karen Garcia

    Source link

  • New law will ban rat poison that was harmful to wildlife

    New law will ban rat poison that was harmful to wildlife

    [ad_1]

    Wildlife advocates are hailing the passage of Assembly Bill 1322, which expands a moratorium on rat poison, as a win for mountain lions, coyotes and other animals that live in and around urban areas across California.

    The new law, also known as the California Ecosystems Protections Act of 2023, will place a moratorium on diphacinone, a first-generation anticoagulant rat poison, developed before 1970. The law will take effect Jan. 1.

    Mountain lions, coyotes and other animals are often the unintended victims of the poison when they eat smaller animals, like squirrels, possum or raccoons that have consumed the rat poison. Diphacinone is often used to kill rats, squirrels and other rodents.

    The new legislation is an expansion of a similar bill passed in 2020, which placed a moratorium on second-generation rodenticides, those developed after 1970.

    The rat poison suppresses an animal’s immune system and can be a factor in general population decline, according to Laurel Serieys, postdoctoral scholar in environmental studies at the University of Santa Cruz who expressed her concerns to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation in 2018.

    Los Angeles’ beloved mountain lion P-22, which was euthanized last year after suffering a number of health issues and injuries after the animal was hit by a car, was exposed to rat poison in 2014 and was suffering from mange, a parasitic infection. The mountain lion’s illness spurred action in the California Legislature that led to the first moratorium on rat poison in 2020.

    Despite the 2020 legislation, the Center for Biological Diversity said that “wildlife continues to be exposed to rodenticide and suffer from illnesses and death due to unintended poisoning.”

    Diphacinone has been prevalent for so long because “it kills, not just rodents, but larger animals up the food chain,” said Tony Tucci co-founder of Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit that works to restore the habitat of wildlife.

    “This bill not only had strong support in the state Legislature, it also had support from local municipalities like Los Angeles County, and we are thrilled that policymakers are understanding that poisoning the predators of rodents through secondary exposure is counterproductive, killing nature’s predators in the wild will ultimately result in more rodents,” Tucci said.

    Los Angeles County approved a motion earlier this year asking the state of California to ban first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides.

    Rat poisoning products are readily available on the consumer market as ready-to-bait stations that contain that contain rodenticides, including diphacinone, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    Poison Free Malibu, a wildlife-protection activist group, was pleased by the passage of Assembly Bill 1322 but said there is still work to be done on other pesticides.

    “We are still concerned about other poisons, which are coming to the fore now that the anticoagulants are being restricted,” said Kian and Joel Schulman, founding members of the group.

    They suggest using alternative solutions to rid pests, such as trash control, sanitation and making sure buildings are properly sealed to prevent rodents from entering.

    [ad_2]

    Karen Garcia

    Source link