Legislative Compromise leads environmentalists to call for moratorium

by Brian Leubitz

I’ve already discussed the compromises made on the fracking legislation, SB 4, and the fact that environmental groups are now calling for a moratorium. Here’s an NRDC letter requesting the moratorium.

“Governor Brown let a good bill go bad,” said Annie Notthoff, NRDC director of California advocacy. “Our leaders should put Californians’ health and safety first.  But these last-minute amendments to the fracking bill undercut critical safety measures. Governor Brown needs to right this wrong by heeding the call of a majority of Californians – impose a moratorium on fracking now until the risks are fully evaluated.”

With all that being said, an unusual alliance between environmentalists and powerful ag interests is growing to oppose fracking. Fracking presents a whole raft of concerns to agriculture, big and small. Besides the obvious sheer amount of water required, the risks of chemical pollution to groundwater could be disastrous to farmers. Back in June, the New York Times took a look at that relationship

By all accounts, oilmen and farmers – often shortened to “oil and ag” here – have coexisted peacefully for decades in this conservative, business friendly part of California about 110 miles northwest of Los Angeles. But oil’s push into new areas and its increasing reliance on fracking, which uses vast amounts of water and chemicals that critics say could contaminate groundwater, are testing that relationship and complicating the continuing debate over how to regulate fracking in California.

“As farmers, we’re very aware of the first 1,000 feet beneath us and the groundwater that is our lifeblood,” said Tom Frantz, a fourth-generation farmer here and a retired high school math teacher who now cultivates almonds. “We look to the future, and we really do want to keep our land and soil and water in good condition.”(NYT)

So, where does the Governor go from here. In the past, he has sounded optimistic about fracking for economic reasons, but always given a caveat of environmental safety.  As of yet, it would be hard to say that the caveat can really be answered yet. So, will he issue a temporary moratorium, or will he trust that the regulations under the weakened SB 4 will be enough?  I’m afraid I don’t have that answer, but a lot rides on the governor’s response.

by Kenneth Winer, DC

Assembly Bill 1000, authored by Assemblymembers Bob Wieckowski and Brian Maienschein, currently awaits action by Governor Brown after its passage on Thursday. The bill would specify that patients may directly access physical therapy treatment without a referral for the lesser of a period of 45 days or 12 visits.

Don’t be mistaken. AB 1000 is bad policy for California consumers, and will create fraud in the system. The bill allows physical therapists to illegally bill insurance companies for diagnostic codes despite the fact that physical therapists are not legally allowed to diagnose in California.

The bill is very misleading to consumers. If the bill were to become law, patients will assume that “direct access” to a physical therapist will be a “covered benefit” under their health care plan — but then they will get the bill in the mail for their 12 visits.

Beyond that, AB 1000 creates additional barriers for patients in the system by limiting their access to qualified providers when seeking to get a diagnosis after they have been treated for up to 12 visits or 45 days.  This provision could lead to more serious unnecessary illnesses that could have been treated appropriately had the patient seen the appropriate providers and been properly diagnosed before the 12 physical therapist visits.

Beginning next year, millions of Californians who currently are uninsured will be covered under the new Affordable Care Act.  We know that in order for expanded coverage to succeed, patients must have convenient, timely access to healthcare services and primary care providers who can diagnose, treat and manage patients’ health needs. Yet AB 1000 limits certain providers’ scope of practice at the very time when the state is seeking to expand the scope of practice for providers to ensure proper access to the health care that consumers have been promised.

AB 1000 deserves to be vetoed.

The future of solar energy in the state of California just got a little brighter.  Thanks to the recent passage of Assembly Bill 327 — a piece of legislation supported by solar advocacy groups and big investor owned utilities alike — rooftop solar will be accessible to more California residents.

The future of solar energy in the state of California just got a little brighter.  Thanks to the recent passage of Assembly Bill 327 — a piece of legislation supported by solar advocacy groups and big investor owned utilities alike — rooftop solar will be accessible to more California residents.

When it comes to energy legislation, investor owned utilities (IOUs) such as PG&E and Southern California Edison are not very often on the same side of the fence as solar advocacy groups like The Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC) and the Vote Solar Initiative (VSI).  However, thanks to the leadership and successful collaborative efforts of California Gov. Jerry Brown, AB 327 has brought the IOUs and solar advocates together.

Since AB 327 lifts the ceiling on percentage of California’s energy generation that must come from renewable sources and brings stability and certainty to state’s solar net metering program, it supports the objectives of solar advocacy groups.  Net metering gives solar customers full retail credit for the excess energy they put back on the grid.  AB 327 removes the suspension on net metering that would have gone into effect at the end of this year and paves the way for completely uncapped net metering.  

The fact that the bill also includes provisions that give the California Public Utilities Commission new considerations for rate reform makes it attractive to IOUs.

Before the passage of AB 327, the future of net metering was uncertain.   This uncertainty threatened continued growth, especially the notable growth that the industry has seen in lower and middle income communities in recent years.  According to John Stanton, co-Chair of TASC and VP of Policy and Electricity Markets for Solar City, “Passage of this legislation means more Californians will now have access to cleaner, cheaper and better energy.”  Greater stability that the continuation of the program provides in the solar market also equates to more jobs in the state.

Next stop for AB 327: the Governor’s desk.

Ten years after Gov. Davis signed the bill for the first time, we may get them for real

by Brian Leubitz

Asm. Alejo’s AB 60 to provide drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants was presumed to be in a holding pattern for next year. However, at the last minute yesterday, the logjam cleared, and the Legislature sent the bill to the Governor.

The governor, for his part, says that he will sign it.

“This bill will enable millions of people to get to work safely and legally,” Brown, a Democrat, said in an email sent to reporters shortly after midnight. “Hopefully it will send a message to Washington that immigration reform is long past due.”

California will not be the first state to have such a license, Utah has one that says “temporary visitor’s drivers license” in big letters on the front.  California will attempt to be somewhat more discreet, but it still must be clearly labeled to comply with federal law.

After the change was made, the bill even got a handful of Republican votes. It seems a few GOP legislators understand that the risks of inaction were higher than the risks of action. Sen. Canella (R-Ceres) even led a group of Republicans calling on the federal government to take action on immigration reform.

by Jennifer Kim & Zachary Norris

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights



In a compromise that places politics before progress, Governor Jerry Brown and the legislature have punted yet again. Rather than seizing a historic opportunity to safely reduce the prison population and save critical resources to restore programs that have faced devastating cuts in previous years, the state has chosen a strategy to increase prison beds and private prison contracts.  

Other states have invested in sensible reforms.  Texas diverted funding away from prison expansion to fund their Nurse-Family Partnerships Program, a national model that reduces crime and helps low-income families.  Meanwhile, California’s posse of fear mongering Republicans and weak willed Democrats (with the exception of Senators Loni Hancock and Noreen Evans) warn us of an imaginary crime wave that will result if a single elderly prison is medically paroled.  These “leaders” have asked for yet another timeout to figure out how to reduce the prison population.  This may be a reasonable request if not for the fact that we’ve been wrestling with this same issue since 2006.  

In recent budget hearings, I witnessed our legislators patting themselves on their backs for the progress they have made since 2006 in reducing the state prison population.  The first punt went to our 58 counties, resulting in a geographical shift of our problems, rather than a solution.  For good measure, the state punted yet again, shifting prisoners over to states like Oklahoma and Mississippi, consequently enriching the pockets of private prison profiteers.  And now, with a court deadline less than four months away, the state’s hemming and hawing has resulted in a compromise that reeks of a regurgitation of failed policies.  

We cannot spend or build our way out of this mess.  For years, advocates have pushed simple, cost effective measures to safely reduce the prison population including increasing good time credits and expanding elderly and medical parole.  These reforms can be implemented immediately. A case in Los Angeles County of a man serving a 42-year sentence for a non-serious, non-sexual, non-violent crime in county jail demonstrates the urgency for comprehensive sentencing reform.  Instead of investing in robust rehabilitative and reentry supports, we continue to cut rehabilitation programs, ensuring that less than 5% of the $10 billion annual corrections budget goes to reducing recidivism.  

The state’s handling of its overcrowded prisons speaks to a greater and disheartening truth; that schools, parks, and libraries will continue to fall prey to a insatiable corrections budget; that the need for teachers, nurses, and firefighters are outweighed by special interests who benefit from the status quo and who continue to fill the pockets of politicians; and that simply, we would rather lock a man up rather than give him an education.  Our reliance on prisons will continue the downward spiral into financial and moral bankruptcy unless our leaders muster the courage to address the most costly and devastating issue facing our communities today.

In addition to sensible criminal justice reforms, the state needs to implement broader justice reinvestment-moving resources away from prisons to innovative programs and ideas, proven to enhance public safety by lifting up communities.  This year, Alameda County created an Innovations in Reentry Fund, an initiative that has solicited ideas and programs from the community to reduce recidivism and enhance reentry supports.  These are the kinds of strategies we need to pull the state out of crisis and focus on what we truly care about: education, jobs, health and human services, and a clean environment.