Click on the
bill numbers below for more information.
Costly Workplace Mandates
AB
482 (Mendoza; D-Norwalk) Expanded Employer Liability
Increases potential liability exposure for hiring decisions by unduly
restricting the ability of businesses to use consumer credit reports as
part of the background check process.
AB
1994 (Skinner; D-Berkeley) Increased Workers’ Compensation
Costs
Inappropriately increases costs to employers by
expanding workers’ compensation presumptions into the private sector
for the first time by allowing hospital workers to be eligible for
various presumptions, including H1N1, MRSA, and other diseases and
injuries.
AB
2187 (Arambula; I-Fresno) Expanded Employer Liability
Creates a significant disincentive to locate jobs and operations in
California by potentially criminalizing almost any legitimate wage
dispute with a terminated employee that takes longer than 90 days to
resolve.
AB
2727 (Bradford; D-Gardena) New Liability for Hiring
Decisions
Increases potential liability exposure for hiring decisions by
restricting the ability of employers to make their decision based on a
job applicant’s criminal conviction.
SB
810 (Leno; D-San Francisco) Government-Run Health Care
Creates a new government-run, multibillion-dollar
socialized health care system based on a yet-to-be specified ‘premium
structure’ — in essence, a tax on all employers.
SB
1121 (Florez; D-Shafter) Harms California Farms and Farm
Workers
Places farms at a competitive disadvantage, increases cost of doing
business for California farmers, and reduces available resources to
invest in workers and farms by removing overtime exemption for
agricultural employees.
SB
1474 (Steinberg; D-Sacramento) Increased Agricultural Costs
Undermines the process that now guarantees through secret-ballot
elections, a fair vote and the expression of agricultural employees’
true sentiments on the selection of a collective bargaining
representative. This act will hurt California’s businesses by driving
up costs, making employers less competitive in a global market.
Economic Development Barriers
AB
656 (Torrico; D-Fremont)/AB
1604 (Nava; D-Santa Barbara)/ABX6
1 (Nava; D-Santa Barbara) Gas Price Increase
Increases gas prices and dependence on foreign oil by targeting the oil
industry for a tax on only oil extracted in California, in addition to
other taxes not levied in other states.
AB
846
(Torrico; D-Fremont) Anti-Business Cost Increases
Significantly increases the cost of doing business in California by
placing an automatic increase on fines and penalties without
legislative review and encourages state agencies to levy the highest
fine and penalty allowed.
AB
1405 (De León; D-Los Angeles) Climate Change Tax Increase
Increases costs and discourages job growth by granting the Air
Resources Board broad authority to implement unlimited fees and taxes
with little or no oversight.
BILL NUMBER: AB 1405
AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE SEPTEMBER 1, 2009
AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 23, 2009
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 23, 2009
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 1, 2009
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 28, 2009
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 14, 2009
INTRODUCED
BY Assembly Members De Leon and V. Manuel Perez
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Arambula, Caballero, Carter, Coto,
Fuentes, Hernandez, Mendoza, Salas, Saldana, and Solorio) (
Coauthor: Senator Romero
Coauthors: Senators Pavley,
Price, and Romero )
FEBRUARY 27, 2009
An act to add Section 38597.4 to the Health and Safety
Code, relating to air pollution.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1405, as amended, De Leon. California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006: Community Benefits Fund.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
requires the State Air Resources Board to adopt regulations to
require the reporting and verification of emissions of greenhouse
gases and to monitor and enforce compliance with the reporting
and verification program, and requires the state board to adopt a
statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the
statewide greenhouse gas emissions level in 1990 to be achieved
by 2020. The act requires the state board to adopt rules and
regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum
technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas
emission reductions. The act authorizes the state board to
include the use of market-based compliance mechanisms. The act
authorizes the state board to adopt a schedule of fees to be paid
by the sources of greenhouse gas emissions regulated pursuant to
the act, and requires the revenues collected pursuant to that fee
to be deposited into the Air Pollution Control Fund and be
available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for purposes of
carrying out the act.
This bill would establish the Community Benefits Fund, and
would
require a minimum of 30% of revenues generated pursuant to the
act, including the fee discussed above, other than revenues
collected for administrative purposes, to be deposited into
that fund. The moneys in the fund would be used, upon
appropriation by the Legislature, in the most impacted and
disadvantaged communities in California to accelerate greenhouse
gas emission reductions or mitigate direct health impacts of
climate change in those communities. The state board would be
required to develop a methodology to identify the most impacted
and disadvantaged communities. The state board , the State
Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, and the
State Department of Public Health would be required
to prepare a report by June 30, 2011, that describes how this
bill will be implemented. The bill would require the report to
provide for the formation of an independent panel to review,
evaluate, and recommend approval of projects and programs
solicited for funding. The state board would
also be required to jointly develop and adopt
biennial plans for the use of funds.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee:
yes. State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. It is the intent of the
Legislature that investments made pursuant to this act shall
include, to the greatest extent possible, green collar employment
opportunities for low-income residents of the targeted
communities.
SECTION 1. SEC. 2. Section
38597.4 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
38597.4. (a) There is hereby established in the
State Treasury the Community Benefits Fund. A minimum of 30
percent of the total remaining revenues
generated each year pursuant to this division, including, but not
limited to, Section 38597, other than revenues collected
for administrative purposes, shall be deposited by the
state board into the Community Benefits Fund. The moneys in the
fund shall be used, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for
the purposes described in subdivision (b).
(b) (1) Funds appropriated by the Legislature from the
Community Benefits Fund shall be used solely in the most impacted
and disadvantaged communities in California to accelerate
greenhouse gas emission reductions or mitigate direct health
impacts of climate change in those communities. Funds
appropriated shall be used to provide competitive grants for
projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions ,
including, but not limited to, any projects that do any of the
following:
(A) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while achieving
cobenefits such as reductions in other air pollutants,
diversification of clean energy sources, and improving energy
efficiency.
(B) Minimize health impacts caused by climate change.
(C) Assist small businesses to reduce their greenhouse
gas emissions.
(D) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the installation
or replacement of equipment.
(E) Improvements to mass transit that reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, including, but not limited to, subsidies to
commuters.
(F) Clean distributed electricity generation systems that
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
(G) Energy efficiency upgrades for schools, senior
centers, or low-income housing that reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
(H) Emergency preparedness for extreme weather events
caused by climate change.
(A) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while achieving
cobenefits such as reductions in air pollution.
(B) Increase water and energy efficiency and conservation
through retrofitting, replacing, or weatherizing
activities.
(C) Install clean distributed generation systems that
utilize locally available renewable energy sources such as solar,
wind, and geothermal energy.
(D) Initiate or enhance public mass transit, including
fare subsidies to commuters.
(E) Incentive low-income, public mass transit-oriented
housing development.
(F) Minimize the direct health impacts of climate change
and prepare for emergencies from extreme weather events by taking
actions such as the operation of air-conditioned cooling centers
that are open to the public.
(G) Provide community-based greening, forestry, or
water-related projects, such as stormwater capture, tree
planting, and water conservation and efficiency measures that
have been recognized to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
produce cobenefits.
(2) The state board shall, before June 30, 2010, adopt
a methodology to identify the most impacted and
disadvantaged communities, meeting all of the following
requirements:
(A) The methodology shall identify, through a peer review
and public process, the most impacted and disadvantaged
communities as those areas within each air basin with the highest
10 percent of air pollution impacts, taking into account air
pollution exposure and socioeconomic indicators.
(B) The state board shall limit its analysis to a
consideration of only socioeconomic indicators for any air basin
where variations of air pollution exposure within the air basin
cannot be determined.
(C) The air pollution exposure indicators to be considered
shall include, but not be limited to, criteria and toxic
pollutant levels, proximity to sources, and land use, to the
extent data is readily available.
(D) The socioeconomic indicators to be considered shall
include, but not be limited to, income and poverty level,
educational attainment, linguistic isolation, and vulnerability
to air pollution impacts, to the extent data is readily available.
(E) The methodology shall be reviewed and updated as
necessary through a peer review and public process along with the
update of the scoping plan required by subdivision (h) of Section
38561.
(3) (A) The state board, the State Energy Resources
Conservation and Development Commission, and the State Department
of Public Health shall jointly develop and adopt biennial plans
for the use of funds under this section.
(3) (A) Before June 30, 2011, the state board, in an open
public process, shall develop and adopt a report that describes
the support structure and framework for the implementation of
this section, the types of projects and programs to be funded
under this section, the selection and oversight process for the
projects and programs to be funded under this section, and the
eligibility criteria for the projects and programs to be funded
under this section. The state board, in its discretion, may
consult with other agencies in developing the report. The report
shall also provide for the formation and structure of an
independent panel to review, evaluate, and recommend approval of
the programs and projects solicited for funding and the biennial
plans required by subparagraph (B).
(B) Before December 30, 2011, and every two years
thereafter, the state board, in an open public process, shall
develop and adopt biennial plans describing the specific type of
programs and projects to be solicited for funding during the
two-year period.
(C) The environmental justice advisory
committee convened pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 38591
shall be consulted in developing the biennial plans pursuant to
subparagraph (A) (B) , including in the
development of draft plans. Draft plans shall be submitted to the
environmental justice advisory committee, and the committee shall
make recommendations on those draft plans, that shall be
considered prior to the adoption of the biennial plans pursuant
to subparagraph (A) (B) .
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
projects shall only be funded if the state board determines,
based on the facts available to it, that the use of moneys for
that project would be consistent with Article XIII A of the
California Constitution and case law construing that provision.
The state board shall ensure in this regard that no feepayer pays
for a disproportionate share of the climate change harm addressed
by this section.
(c) Costs incurred to implement the requirements of this
section may be recovered under the fee authority described in
Section 38597.
|
AB
1639 (Nava; D-Santa Barbara) Delays Residential
Construction Industry Recovery
Hinders the recovery in the residential construction industry by
reducing the availability of credit due to delays in resolving
delinquent loans by imposing a mandatory mediation program on
delinquent residential mortgages.
AB
1836 (Furutani; D-South Los Angeles County) Increased Tax
Burden
Harms small businesses, many of whom pay taxes under the personal
income tax system, by imposing another temporary personal income tax
increase on top of the existing personal income tax increase that was
passed in last year’s budget.
AB
1935 (De León; D-Los Angeles)/ SBX6
18 (Steinberg; D-Sacramento) Discourages Business Growth in
California
Raises taxes for many companies with significant investments of
property and payroll in California by making the single sales factor
apportionment method mandatory.
AB
1936 (De León; D-Los Angeles) Creates Inequity in the Tax
Structure
Harms struggling small businesses and start-ups by repealing the Net
Operating Loss (NOL) carry back deduction, a lifeline that helps
employers stay afloat, retain employees, and continue investing in
their businesses in an economic downturn.
AB
2100 (Coto; D-San Jose)/ SB
1210 (Florez; D-Shafter) Targeted Tax Increase/Flawed Budget
Philosophy
Threatens jobs in beverage, retail and restaurant industries by
arbitrarily and unfairly targeting certain beverages for a new tax in
order to fund obesity-prevention programs and services.
AB
2171 (C. Calderon; D-Montebello) Discourages Investments
Creates substantial uncertainty for employers and discourages future
investment in the state by effectively creating an annual sunset for
all investment incentives, including tax credits, deductions and
exemptions, and caps how much can be claimed each year.
AB
2492 (Ammiano; D-San Francisco) Higher Employer Property
Taxes
Undermines Proposition 13 protections and could result in higher
property taxes for small businesses by creating an arbitrary and unfair
standard for determining that a business property has changed ownership
and needs to be reassessed.
AB
2641 (Arambula; I-Fresno) Discourages Investments
Creates uncertainty for California employers making long-term
investment decisions by requiring all future-enacted investment
incentives to sunset after five years, and eliminating existing
incentives that provide no “measurable benefit” without defining how
that benefit would be measured.
ACA
6 (C. Calderon; D-Montebello) Discourages Investments
Discourages investments in jobs and operations by imposing an automatic
sunset of seven years on any new or extended tax credit, exemption or
deduction.
ACA
22 (Torlakson; D-Contra Costa) Targeted Tax
Increase/Flawed Budget Philosophy
Exacerbates state budget problems and harms tobacco industry by
unfairly targeting it for a new cigarette tax, a declining revenue
source, to fund new government spending programs.
SB
967 (Correa; D-Santa Ana) Restricts Business Options
Limits choice and drives up prices for consumers
and for state and local government by providing a preference to bidders
who commit that 90 percent of the work will be performed by California
employees.
SB
974 (Steinberg; D-Sacramento) Undermines Economic
Development
Threatens California’s economy and economic recovery by effectively
gutting the California Enterprise Zone (EZ) program hiring tax credit
and in turn increasing employer taxes in order to fund a new education
tax credit.
SB
1113 (Wolk; D-Davis) Undermines Taxpayer Rights
Makes it more costly and difficult for taxpayers
to fight meritorious disputes and gives the Franchise Tax Board (FTB)
the upper hand by allowing FTB to request a new court trial of tax
cases it loses at the administrative level.
SB
1272 (Wolk; D-Davis) Discourages Investment
Creates uncertainty for California employers
making long-term investment decisions by requiring all future-enacted
investment incentives to sunset after seven years.
SB
1275 (Leno; D-San Francisco) Delays Residential
Construction Industry Recovery
Hinders the recovery in the residential
construction industry by reducing the availability of credit due to
delays in resolving delinquent loans by requiring lenders to determine
a borrower’s eligibility for a loan modification prior to the filing of
a notice of default.
SB
1316 (Romero; D-East Los Angeles) Employer Tax Increase
Places California out of step with federal law and creates a
disincentive for multi-state companies to invest in California by
making it the only state to impose a tax liability when a company needs
flexibility to exchange a California property with one owned in another
state.
SB
1391 (Yee; D-San Francisco) Creates Employer Tax Credit
Uncertainty
Eliminates the incentive effect of future-enacted tax credits by
requiring employers to repay the state for credits claimed in years
where their businesses experience a net loss of employees, whether or
not the reduction of employees was connected to the effectiveness of
the credit.
Expensive, Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens
AB
479/AB
737 (Chesbro; D-North Coast) Expanded Waste Bureaucracy
Exposes employers to new requirements that are not cost effective or
are unworkable by giving government broad new authority to impose
programs that achieve a statewide solid waste diversion rate of 75
percent by 2020.
AB
2138 (Chesbro; D-North Coast) Unworkable Mandate
Imposes new and costly mandates on California’s
food service industry by imposing an unworkable framework aimed at
reducing marine debris.
AB
2578 (Jones; D-Sacramento) Inappropriate Price Control
Reduces health care choices, access and quality by creating additional
bureaucracy to impose price controls on health insurance policies while
failing to address the major cost drivers of rising medical costs.
Inflated Liability Costs
AB
1680 (Saldaña; D-San Diego) Interferes with
Contractual Agreements
Burdens businesses with unnecessary litigation costs and slows
resolution of disputes by prohibiting enforcement of voluntary
arbitration agreements if someone is being sued for a hate crime.
AB
2773 (Swanson; D-Alameda) Undermines Judicial
Discretion
Unreasonably increases business litigation costs by removing judicial
discretion to reduce or eliminate exorbitant legal fees in fair
employment and housing cases.
KILLCARB.ORG
