\u2022\tAB 109 by Assemblymember Philip Y. Ting (D-San Francisco) \u2013 Budget Act of 2017.
\n\u2022\tAB 129 by the Committee on Budget \u2013 Education finance.
\n\u2022\tAB 130 by the Committee on Budget \u2013 Health and human services.
\n\u2022\tAB 131 by the Committee on Budget \u2013 Taxation.
\n\u2022\tAB 133 by the Committee on Budget \u2013 Cannabis Regulation.
\n\u2022\tAB 134 by the Committee on Budget \u2013 Budget Act of 2017.
\n\u2022\tAB 135 by the Committee on Budget \u2013 Transportation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Budget Acts do basically what you would expect of budget bills: appropriating money to one expense or another. But one part of AB 134<\/a> seems to be getting a lot of attention:<\/p>\n Up to $140,000,000 shall be used for the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project. Two things here: First, it takes cap and trade money and ships it off to help make electric and plug-in hybrid cars cheaper. I suppose I should issue some sort of trigger warning, as the cap and trade extension bill was controversial to put it mildly. The second point to that, and probably more interesting, was the labor provision put into that extension. (See my added emphasis in the quote above.)<\/p>\n
\n(1)\tThe State Air Resources Board shall work with the Labor and Workforce Development Agency to develop procedures for certifying manufacturers of vehicles included in the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project as being fair and responsible in the treatment of their workers. It is the intent of the Legislature that beginning in 2018\u201319 fiscal year, the Labor Secretary shall first certify manufacturers as fair and responsible in the treatment of their workers<\/em> before their vehicles are included in any rebate program funded with state funds.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
![\"Tesla\"](\"https:\/\/farm9.staticflickr.com\/8264\/8633482886_63f717c0ed_n.jpg\")
<\/a>