You are here:
Home 
Legislative Updates Legislative Report January 2010
San Mateo County
Chamber of Commerce Alliance
Legislative Report:
AB 68 (Brownley) Solid Waste: Single-Use Carryout Bags
AB 87 (Davis) Single Use Carryout Bags
AB 903 (Chesbro) Compostable Plastic Bags
Issues Report:
2010 Ballot Measures
Updates:
AB 25 (Gilmore) Water Quality: Minimum Civil Penalties
AB 1107 (Blakeslee) Environmental Protection Agency: Rules: Analysis
January 5, 2010
Legislative Report #1
Prepared by:
Shaun Lumachi
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
562.843.0947
Legislative Report
AB 68 (Brownley) Solid Waste: Single-Use Carryout Bags
AB 87 (Davis) Single Use Carryout Bags
Summary
AB 68 and AB 87 establishes a statewide fee of 25 cents for single-use carryout bags (bags), of all types and restricts grocery and convenience stores from providing single-use carry out bags to their customers.
Background
Current law requires supermarkets and stores over 10,000 square feet that include a pharmacy to establish an in-store plastic carryout bag recycling program.
This current program must include:
Plastic bags provided by the store to include a label encouraging customers to return the bag to the store for recycling;
Easily accessible recycling bins for plastic bags;
All plastic bags collected must be recycled in a manner consistent with the local jurisdiction's recycling plan;
The store must maintain records relating to the program for at least three years and must make the records available to the local jurisdiction or California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) upon request; and
The operator of the store must make reusable bags available to customers.
This current law is set to sunset on January 1, 2013.
On and after July 1, 2010, AB 68 and AB 87 prohibits a store from providing a bag unless the store charges a Bag Pollution Cleanup Fee (fee) of at least 25 cents per bag and requires that all bags distributed meet the above definitions, including limiting distribution of reusable bags to machine washable fabric bags.
Exempts from the fee individuals using the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Woman, Infants, and Children and individuals using the State Department of Social Services Food Stamp Program.
Allows stores charging the fee to retain a portion of the amount generated by the fee to pay for implementation of the proposed legislation, including educational programs and donation of reusable bags to community groups, nonprofits, and similar entities.
The remainder of the fee is to be transmitted to the State Board of Equalization (BOE) to be deposited into the Bag Pollution Fund (Fund).
The Fund is to be spent, upon appropriation by the Legislature, as follows:
80% of the Fund, by CIWMB for grants to local governments, which have not enacted a ban on bags and participate in the collection of the fee, on a per capita basis to establish litter control programs and to conduct reusable bag giveaways.
3% by BOE to cover the costs of administering the fee collection and an additional 3% by CIWMB to cover administrative costs.
14% shall be allocated equally to CIWMB, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the Ocean Protection Council to develop and implement programs for pollution prevention, abatement, cleanup, enforcement, "green chemistry" and product redesign, water quality protection and cleanup, and environmental and public education and outreach related to the use of bags; and, for CIWMB to report to the Legislature before January 1, 2012 regarding the effectiveness of the bill and to make recommendations to further encourage the use of reusable bags (as defined).
Authorizes BOE to adopt rules and regulations related to this bill, including provisions relating to fee collection, reporting, refunds, and appeals.
Status
AB 68 is currently in ASSEMBLY Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: To Suspense File and AB 87 is currently in ASSEMBLY Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: To Suspense File and is similar to AB 903. Dates may be amended at a later date.
Arguments in Support
Supporters contend the volume of plastic bags distributed to customers by grocery and convenience stores and pharmacies needs to be reduced significantly to reduce the volume of plastic bags that enter landfills and are disposed of illegally as litter or marine debris.
Supporters also note that California uses over 19 billion plastic bags a year but recycles less than five percent of those bags and cites significant costs associated with disposing of plastic bags in landfills and cleaning up litter.
Arguments in Opposition
Opponents claim that the fee imposed by this bill is actually a tax because the burden will be disproportionably borne by one group of individuals-customers of certain retail stores-rather than proportionally by all individuals who contribute to plastic bag litter.
Supporting
Heal the Bay (sponsor)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
Ballona Creek Renaissance
Breathe California
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California State Association of Counties
Californians Against Waste
Center for Oceanic Awareness, Research, and Education
ChicoBag
City of Los Angeles
City of Oakland
Clean Water Action Defenders of Wildlife
Earth Resource Foundation
Environment California
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water
Faith2Green
Friends of the LA River
Global Green USA
Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council
Heal the Ocean
Malibu Surfing Association
Marin Sanitary Service
Natural Resources Defense Council
One Bag At a Time
Orange County Coastkeeper
Planning and Conservation League
ReuseThisBag.com
Ross Mirkarimi, Member, San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Saatchi & Saatchi
San Diego Coastkeeper
Santa Barbara Channelkeeper
Santa Monica Baykeeper
Save the Bay
Sierra Club California Southern California
Watershed Alliance
Surfrider Foundation
The River Project
TreePeople
Urban Environmental Policy Institute
Urban Semillas
WiLDCOAST
1 Bag at a Time
Approximately 160 individuals
Opposing
American Forest and Paper Association
Cal-Tax
AB 903 (Chesbro) Compostable Plastic Bags
Summary
AB 903 requires manufacturers of compostable plastic bags to ensure that bags are readily identifiable by consumers.
Background
AB 903 requires manufacturers to submit reports to the state showing that their bags meet specified certifications.
The bill gives the Integrated Waste Management Board the authority to audit manufacturers to ensure compliance with reporting requirements.
Under current law, plastic bags labeled "compostable" may not be sold in the state unless they meet specified standards.
The bill requires manufacturers of compostable plastic bags to report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board annually demonstrating that their bags comply with specified standards.
The bill requires the Waste Board to refer manufacturers that supply false information to the Attorney General for prosecution for fraud.
The Waste Board estimates that it will cost about $650,000 per year in staffing costs to compile and review reports from manufacturers, verify compliance, conduct audits, and review cases for potential referral for prosecution.
AB 903 is identical to SB 228 (DeSaulnier).
Status
In SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: Not heard. As proposed to be amended by author, the Waste Board would be authorized but not required to audit manufacturers and would not be required to refer manufacturers that supply false information to the Attorney General.
Arguments in Support
According to the author, AB 903 addresses shortcomings brought to the attention of the Legislature in November 2008 by the State Auditor regarding the way state agencies were handling their electronic waste. It implements one of the recommendations concerning the lack of reporting by state agencies.
Arguments in Opposition
None at this time.
Supporting
Californians Against Waste
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
Opposing
None on file as of 01/05/2009
Issues Report
The following are proposed initiatives for the June and November 2010 ballots. All proposed initiatives are pending final approval by the California Secretary of State, except where noted. A future report will include a full analysis of each qualified initiative as approved by the California Secretary of State.
Repeal Corporate Tax Loopholes Act
This measure would repeal recently-enacted tax benefits, the elective single sales factor, net operating loss (NOL) carryback, and tax credit sharing. It would additionally repeal the recently-enacted expansion of the net operating loss carryover from 10 to 20 years.
The Local Voter Control and Government Accountability Act
Removes Proposition 13 protections from property owners and imposes a "split roll" tax treatment for commercial properties. If enacted, this measure would remove the one percent cap for property taxes for the purpose of raising funds to serve and repay General Obligation bonds for public infrastructure. Additionally, the measure would reduce the two-thirds vote requirement for all special taxes to 55 percent, including parcel taxes (based upon per parcel rather than based upon value).
Protect Homeowners and Close Corporate Tax Loopholes Act
Imposes a split roll tax treatment for commercial property and requires all non-residential commercial properties to be immediately reassessed according to "full cash value," without regard to whether change of ownership has occurred. It also requires reassessment at current fair market value at least every three years.
Education and Taxpayer Fairness Act
Imposes a split roll tax treatment and increases taxes on commercial properties. The measure would increase the one percent tax rate for "non-residential" properties to 1.55 percent in order to fund education.
"Corporate Taxes" Initiative
The "Corporate Taxes" initiative proposes to repeal several changes in the law that were adopted as part of the two most recent budget packages enacted by the state, in fall 2008 and February 2009: 1) net operating loss carry back; 2) tax credit sharing; and 3) elective single sales factor.
Sinclair Fix Initiative
Reduces burdensome tax-like fees on businesses by reversing the overly-broad, vague definition of "fee" set forth in the landmark California Supreme court case Sinclair Paint v. State Board of Equalization.
The Safe, Clean, and Reliable Water Supply Act of 2010
Qualified for the November 2010
The bond authorization appears in SBX7 2 (Cogdill; D-Modesto). Bond funding includes $3 billion for new water storage (including reservoirs), $2.25 billion for Delta restoration, $1.785 billion for conservation and watershed protection projects throughout the state, $1.4 billion for water supply reliability, $1.25 billion for water recycling and conservation, $1 billion for groundwater protection and water quality projects, and $455 million for drought relief.
California Fair Elections Act of 2008
Qualified for the June 2010
This initiative was placed on the ballot by legislation (AB 583/Hancock). AB 583 was signed by the Governor and became effective on January 1, 2009. It requires the California Secretary of State to place a ballot measure on the June 8, 2010 statewide primary election ballot which, if passed, would institute a pilot program of publicly-financed elections for the office of California Secretary of State. The publically-financed election would be funded by taxing lobbyists, lobbying firms and lobbyist employers. The measure is currently the subject of litigation. A similar measure in Vermont was ruled to violate the U.S. Constitution. An Arizona court has also struck down lobbyist "fees" used to fund a public campaign financing program.
California Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act
Qualified for the June 2010
This proposed measure mirrors the development of the successful "open primary" election system that is in place in Washington State. This system allows the top two vote getters, regardless of party, to compete in the general election and has been validated by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Voters FIRST Act for Congress
This proposed Act would extend the successful Prop 11 provisions from 2008 to give the Citizens Redistricting Commission the additional authority to draw new boundaries for U.S. congressional districts in 2011. It is anticipated that the Voters FIRST Act for Congress will be in circulation in early January to gather voter signatures in order to qualify for the November 2010 general election.
Corporate Political Accountability Act
This measure would restrict publicly traded and privately held corporations with stockholders from making political contributions for candidates, ballot measures and issue advocacy unless the stockholders authorize the contributions through a written resolution. Contributions would be proportionately reduced to an amount equal to the percentage of stockholders voting yes on whether the contributions should be authorized.
Prohibition on Corporate Campaign Contributions and Expenditures
This measure would restrict corporations from making political contributions unless shareholders adopt a resolution authorizing the contributions.
Continuous Coverage Auto Insurance Discount Act
This measure amends Proposition 103, passed by the voters in 1988, to authorize the use of an additional discount on premiums for automobile insurance policies. In particular, the act would allow an insurer to offer a "continuous coverage" discount to new customers who have maintained their coverage while they previously were customers of another insurer. Continuous coverage is defined to also include applicants who experienced up to a 90-day lapse in coverage in the past five years for any reason other than nonpayment of their insurance premiums. The continuous coverage discount would be based on the length of time the applicant or insured has been continuously covered. Children residing with a parent may qualify for the discount based on their parent's eligibility.
Taxpayers Right to Vote Act
The act requires two-thirds voter approval before local governments may use public funds, bonds or other indebtedness to start up electric delivery service, expand electric delivery service into a new territory or implement a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program. Californians generally receive their electric delivery service from one of three types of providers: investor-owned utilities (IOUs), local publically owned electric utilities (LPOUs), and eclectic service providers (ESPs). These providers provide 68 percent, 24 percent and 8 percent, respectively, of retail electricity service in the state. Various statutes specify whether voter approval is required in connection with the start-up of electricity service by authorized local government entities. However, no vote of the public is generally required in such cases within the existing service territory of the local government entity that is proposing the expansion.
Property tax: New Construction Exclusion: Seismic Retrofitting
Qualified for the June 2010
The California Constitution generally limits ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property. For purposes of this limitation, "full cash value" is defined as the assessor's valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-76 tax bill under "full cash value" or, thereafter, the appraised value of that real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change of ownership has occurred. This measure would instead exclude from the definition of "newly constructed" the portion of an existing structure that consists of the construction or reconstruction of seismic retrofitting components. This measure would delete the existing exclusion for structures constructed of unreinforced masonry bearing wall construction, and the existing grant of authority to the Legislature to exclude certain seismic retrofitting improvements or improvements utilizing earthquake hazard mitigation technologies.
Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Act
This measure would prohibit the State from taking, borrowing or redirecting local taxpayer funds dedicated to public safety, emergency response and other vital local government services. Furthermore, the act would protect vital, dedicated transportation and public transit funds from state raids.
Updates
Following pieces of legislation were sent as part of the monthly 2009 Legislative Reports from Chamber Advocacy. Each bill includes an updated status and the most recent vote record.
AB 25 Gilmore (R) Water Quality: Minimum Civil Penalties
Status
Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee Hearing on 01/12/2010 at 1:30pm.
Summary
Prohibits the State Water Resources Control Board or a regional board from imposing a mandatory minimum penalty for a violation of the federal Clean Water Act or the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act for which an action to impose liability is not requested or imposed by those boards within a certain time from notice of the violation. Authorizes those boards, in lieu of assessing penalties on a small publicly owned treatment works (POTW), to require the POTW to spend that amount on compliance.
Vote Record
State Senator Leland Yee: N/A
State Senator Joseph Simitian: N/A
Assembly Member Fiona Ma: N/A
Assembly Member Jerry Hill: N/A
Assembly Member Ira Ruskin: N/A
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger: N/A
AB 1107 Blakeslee (R) Environmental Protection Agency: Rules: Analysis
Status
Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee Hearing on 01/12/2010 at 1:30pm.
Summary
Relates to a requirement that the Environmental Protection Agency enter into an agreement with a scientific institution of higher learning to conduct an external peer review of the scientific basis for any rule proposed by any board, department, or office within the agency. Requires the agency to complete and place into the rulemaking record an economic analysis of the rule. Requires the agency to solicit public comment on the analysis. Allows any interested person to request a peer review of the analysis.
Note: CalChamber 2009 Job-Creator
Vote Record
State Senator Leland Yee: N/A
State Senator Joseph Simitian: N/A
Assembly Member Fiona Ma: N/A
Assembly Member Jerry Hill: N/A
Assembly Member Ira Ruskin: N/A
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger: N/A
