Steve Johnson / flickr

Businesses will gain new incentives to comply under the American Disabilities Act, thanks to a bill authored by state Sen. Richard Roth, D-Riverside.

SB251 would reform compliance rules with the ADA, by extending requirements for attorneys to report ADA-related violations, as well as giving small businesses a 15 day grace period for certain “technical violations,” a 120 day period for businesses to identify and correct violations and up to 6 months to make corrections on a building permit.

The bill also mandates city and county building departments to provide materials that will educate businesses regarding ADA regulations. In addition, those departments are required to expedite the permit process for businesses looking to correct ADA violations.

Under current law, ADA noncompliance is considered a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, “which guarantees damages of at least $4,000 for any violation of any anti-discrimination law.” As noted in a Riverside Press-Enterprise editorial, these provisions mean that any violation – “small, trivial or hardly perceptible” – could be claimed as discrimination and “thus lead to settlements that can be painful to small businesses.”

Incentives for businesses to comply with ADA rules

During a Tuesday Assembly Judiciary Committee hearing, consumer rights attorney Brian Kabateck said the bill would help small businesses by eliminating “drive-by shakedown lawsuits” and addresses both the “access problem” and “bad lawyer problem.”

“This bill creates an incentive for business and property owners to fix and to remedy the problems in their business by going out and hiring a certified inspector, getting what’s commonly called a ‘CASp report’ and getting that work done in 120 days,” he said. “And it should represent to business owners and property owners in the state … a huge incentive [for] them to do the right thing.”

Jennifer Barrera, a policy advocate with CalChamber, echoed that SB251 would be an incentive for businesses to comply with ADA regulations. “Businesses in California want to encourage more customers to their business,” she stated, “and so we believe this is a huge incentive, again, to make sure that businesses are becoming compliant and are going to have access for all.”

CalChamber previously came out in support of this bill, calling it a “job creator.”

SB251 passed unopposed in the Senate and received a 10-0 vote in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, signaling positive reception from the rest of the Legislature.

“I thank my colleagues for supporting this common-sense, balanced measure to protect the disabled community and small businesses,” Sen. Roth said in a prepared statement.  “Senate Bill 251 is a critical step in guaranteeing access for disabled Californians by providing small businesses with the tools and resources necessary to comply with state and federal disability access laws.”

The bill now goes to the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation for consideration.

On Friday

According to the Stockton Record, Judge Chang “granted a temporary restraining order preventing the State Water Resources Control Board from ‘taking any action’ against the West Side Irrigation District.” She wrote in her ruling that the curtailment letters “including the requirement that recipients sign a compliance certification confirming cessation of diversion, result in a taking of petitioners’ property rights without a pre-deprivation hearing.”

In addition, the 2015 curtailment letters were found to be “coercive in nature and go beyond the ‘informational’ purpose” that the board claimed.

The Associated press previously reported that the SWRCB “issued the curtailment notice on June 12 to 114 water users who hold rights dating back to 1903 and have nearly ironclad rights to take water from rivers and streams.” The last time senior water rights holders were told to stop pumping and irrigating from rivers was during a drought in the 1970s.

Stockton attorney Steve Herum, who represents a number of other water districts that also received water curtailment notices, said of the ruling, “It’s a complete victory.”

But the SWRCB issued a response to the ruling, alleging that the order “is limited to the parties in this case.”

“While the order finds fault with the language of the notice, the order states: ‘To be clear, [the Water Board and its staff] are free to exercise their statutory authority to enforce the Water Code as to any water user, including these Petitioners, if it deems them to be in violation of any provisions of the Water Code, so long as the bases for said action are not the Curtailment Letters.’

 

“Pursuant to section 1052 of the Water Code, unauthorized diversions during the drought emergency are subject to enhanced penalties of up to $1,000 per day and $2,500 per acre-foot of water diverted. Diversion of water when no water is available pursuant to a diverter’s water right constitutes an unauthorized diversion and a trespass under Water Code section 1052.  Any such enforcement action would occur only after notice and an opportunity for hearing pursuant to the Water Code.  This has been the consistent position of the State Water Board staff, and was specifically identified in the curtailment notices sent in May and June.”

Herum, however, told the Stockton Record that all water curtailment notices sent to water users are now “equally unconstitutional” under the ruling.

CPUC changes tier system, implements minimum charge

Last week, the California Public Utilities Commission unanimously approved changes that would move electricity rates from four to two tiers.

“Most residential customers in California will see their electricity bills increase under a new rate structure passed … by state regulators,” reported ABC 7 News. The new plan essentially “raises rates on more efficient users while giving a break to big energy users.”

The tier overhaul was prompted by utility companies and regulators looking to charge based on the actual cost of providing power. According to the San Jose Mercury News, proponents of this new plan argued, “Low-usage customers have essentially been subsidized by high-usage ratepayers under the current system, which has been in place since the electricity crisis 15 years ago, when there was a push to encourage conservation.”

PUC President Michael Picker said in a prepared statement, “Rate reform is necessary to move us into a future where consumers have the tools they need to manage their own energy use, and can install new, clean technologies such as storage and renewables.

“Our decision helps align rates with the actual cost of service. It also builds a more nimble rate structure to allow us to add more and more renewables to the grid, and to encourage customers to use energy when we have excess renewables and to cut back during peak periods.”

The changes would also introduce the following items:

1. Time of use rates: By January 1, 2019, “residential customers will default to time of use rate … but can opt to remain on the tiered rate structure. Time of use rates reflect predictable daily changes in the cost of electricity service, and enable customers to reduce usage during peak hours when electricity prices are higher.”
2. Tier flattening glidepath and new rate structure: “The rate structure moves from four to two tiers with a 25 percent differential by January 1, 2019, and with a Super User Electric (SUE) surcharge introduced in 2017. … Some high usage customers currently paying above the cost of service will experience bill reductions, while some lower usage customers paying below the cost of service will experience bill increases.”
3. Fixed charges/Minimum bill: “The utilities must implement a minimum bill beginning in 2015 of $10 for non- 3 CARE customers and $5 for CARE customers.”

LADWP floats rate hike proposal

In addition, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power on Wednesday also proposed rate hikes over the next five years.

According to CBS Los Angeles, the proposal would “raise more than a billion dollars for infrastructure repairs, including broken underground pipes and power poles.” The $1.3 billion in new funds would be split, with $230 million going to water projects and $900 million for power projects.

Rates would be increased across all spectrums of energy and water users. “If approved, low water and power users would see an increase of 2.4 percent or about $2 more a month, while average users would see a 3.4 percent increase equating to about $5 more per month. High users, though, would see a 5.4 percent raise, which comes out to about $18 a month.”

The DWP board will not vote on the increase until October; even after approval from the board, it must also be approved by the L.A. City Council and Mayor Eric Garcetti.

In the meantime, the DWP has planned four months of public outreach at business groups, neighborhood councils and other areas. Southern California Public Radio notes that the DWP “must overcome bad publicity from its poor oversight of $40 million given to two trusts run by its employee union, a recently-discovered embezzlement of several million dollars by an employee, and the botched rollout of its new customer billing system.”

On Wednesday, legislation that would classify e-cigarettes as tobacco products was amended and held in the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee.

Senate Bill 140 author Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, dropped his support for the bill after committee amendments struck out portions of the legislation that would have redefined tobacco products and smoking to include electronic devices and vapors emitted from those devices.

Sen. Leno said during the hearing that, by federal definition, products that contain nicotine are technically derived from tobacco. Assemblyman Eduardo Garcia, D-Coachella, also mentioned during the hearing that the FDA “is moving in the direction of classifying” e-cigarettes and similar products as tobacco products.

‘Tobacco products’

Existing law, under the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement Act, prohibits selling or furnishing tobacco products to minors, as well as selling without a state license. California’s Smoke Free Act also prohibits smoking in any “enclosed space at a place of employment” – which includes schools, offices, daycares, bars, restaurants and many other venues.

Since the definition of tobacco products and smoking, under SB140’s original text, would expand to include electronic devices and vapors emitted from those devices, the bill would subject e-cigarettes to the same regulations under California’s STAKE Act and Smoke Free Act.

“A growing number of Californians are becoming increasingly concerned about the public’s exposure to e-cigarettes, as is evidenced by the fact that nearly 180 cities and counties have already passed ordinances that restrict e-cigarette smoking,” Sen. Leno said in a prepared statement. “These tobacco products are addicting a new generation of smokers to toxic nicotine, which we already know is highly addictive and contains harmful chemicals. SB140 puts common sense regulations into place statewide in order to protect young people, non-smokers and smokers alike.”

“Recent studies show that e-cigarettes pose potentially serious health risks to users and those who inhale their secondhand emissions. In 2009, the Food and Drug Administration found cancer-causing chemicals, including an ingredient used in antifreeze, in two leading brands of e-cigarettes. The same study also discovered that e-cigarettes labeled as “nicotine-free” had traceable levels of nicotine. In addition, a 2015 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found high levels of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, in e-cigarette emissions.”

Opposition to the bill

But Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, says these measures are mere “hype and conjecture designed to scare” people away from “switching to a potentially lifesaving product.”

“Vapor products are not tobacco products and it makes no sense to regulate them as such. These products do not create harmful secondhand smoke and have been repeatedly shown to be effective in helping smokers kick the habit. California’s 3.6 million adult smokers deserve truthful information about the risks of these smoke-free products. …

 

“The vapor industry does not oppose sensible regulations designed to prevent youth access to these adult products, including beefing up California’s existing ban on sales to minors. However, SB140 goes far beyond what is necessary to achieve this goal. If this bill is passed, over 1,400 California businesses will be left to deal with the unintended consequences of this rushed regulatory plan.”

Los Angeles, Long Beach and San Francisco have already enacted bans on e-cigarette use in public places. “The e-cigarette industry is almost completely unregulated, and statewide laws are essential to providing uniform protections for the health and wellbeing of all California children and our communities,” said San Francisco Supervisor Eric Mar.

But proponents of the electronic smoking devices say that this kind of fear-mongering propaganda ultimately protects cigarettes and threatens the lives of vapers and smokers. Bill Goodshall, executive director of Smokefree Pennsylvania, said of a similar Pennsylvania bill to ban e-cigs, “Public health benefits every time a smoker vapes instead of smoking a cigarette. The proposed vaping ban … would deceive the public to inaccurately believe that vaping is just as hazardous as cigarette smoking.”

In the Senate, the legislation passed on a 25-12 vote. But once the Assembly Governance Committee approved amendments that would no longer classify e-cigarettes as tobacco products, Sen. Leno immediately dropped his support of the bill, stating it would be “dead on arrival in the Senate” and that he could no longer “associate [himself] with it.”

Assemblyman Ken Cooley, D-Rancho Cordova, also said he would “not support the bill in this form.” He addressed the “rising cost of health care” and how it was the task of policymakers to “cut down discrete sources of costs” — such as potential health problems acquired through vaping. “To deal with costs in the health-care system,” he said, “we have to look at where the cost drivers are and chase them down.”

After passage of the amendments, the bill was held in committee.

Photo credit: www.vaping360.com

California placed 44^th among U.S. states for fiscal health, which is two places higher than the year before. During FY 2012-13, California placed 46^th and had a -2.01 score on the Mercatus Center’s fiscal condition index, which is the sum of the cash, budget, long-run and service-level solvency indices. This year, the center added an additional trust fund solvency index to the formula, and ultimately scored California at -1.41 on the overall fiscal condition index.

In terms of cash solvency, California remains near the bottom of the group in 46^th place. According to the report, states have, on average, two times the amount of cash as short-term liabilities. But California is one of 14 states with a cash ratio of less than one – which means we have less cash on hand than short-term liabilities. In fact, Mercatus reports, “The state can only cover 59 percent of its short-term expenses with the most liquid forms of cash.” And when less liquid forms of cash were included in the mix, California had “1.29 times cash relative to short-term bills, nearly three times less than the national average.”

Long-run solvency also dealt a blow to California’s fiscal health index. Unfunded pension obligations, state debt and OPEB liabilities indicated that the state does not have enough assets to cover its long-term liabilities. California carries a staggering primary government debt of $123.46 billion; the market value of unfunded pension liabilities totaled $636.22 billion, and the total unfunded OPEB liability reached $65.97 billion. Those liabilities represented nearly 80 percent of the California’s assets, which is double the national average. That amounts to $4,320 per capita, and a net asset ratio of -0.43.

However, California’s budget solvency and service-level solvency saw higher rankings, at 23^rd and 27^th place, respectively. Budget solvency deals with fiscal year spending in relation to current revenues. During fiscal year 2013-14, California was “able to meet its fiscal year spending with revenues about equal to expenses,” with a slight surplus of $260 per capita. Service-level solvency determines whether a state is in a good position to increase taxes without harming the economy and whether spending is too high relative to its tax base. According to the report, “California’s total taxes made up 6 percent of state income, about average for the nation,” while revenues made up “13 percent of total personal income.”

Read the full report here.

sushiesque / flickr

With Friedrichs v. CTA pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, stakeholders and spectators alike are curious to see not only the outcome of the court case, but also the greater implications tied to union membership and influence in legislative bodies throughout the country.

The Center for Individual Rights, the organization representing the 10 California teachers that filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, has listed two potential outcomes for the Friedrichs case, if the court sides with the plaintiffs:

“Friedrichs v. CTA raises the fundamental question whether a state can require public employees to join a union as a condition of employment. If the Court rules that this practice violates the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and free association, it would be binding on all fifty states.  Effectively, such a decision would convert the twenty-six states that now require union membership into open-shop states.

 

“If the Supreme Court does not accept our argument that compulsory dues violates the First Amendment, then, as a fallback position … [w]e urge the Court to rule that the First Amendment requires the unions to employ an “opt-in” system.  Instead of requiring teachers to apply for a refund, an “opt-in” system would require the unions to secure the affirmative decision of a teacher to support union political activities before withholding dues for that purpose.”

Right-to-work effects in other states

Right-to-work movements have gained momentum across the nation. In March, Wisconsin became the 25th open-shop state, passing a law that would disallow workers from being forced to join labor unions or pay union dues in order to keep a job. “Wisconsin now has the freedom to work,” said Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. “That is one more powerful tool as we help create not just jobs but career opportunities for many years to come.”

Such laws impacted union membership significantly. AFSCME, the Wisconsin government employee union based in Madison, saw membership drop from 32,000 in 2011 to 13,000 in 2014. Union revenue was slashed nearly in half, from $10 million annually to $5.5 million.

In Michigan, where a right-to-work law passed in 2012, union membership fell sharply in 2014, the first full year after the law took effect in 2013. According to the Bureau Labor of Statistics, overall union membership of wage and salary workers declined from 16.3 percent of the population in 2013 to 14.5 percent in 2014. Michigan-based media group MLive reported in January, “Union membership dropped from approximately 633,000 Michigan workers in 2013 to 585,000 in 2014 even as the total state employment numbers grew.”

Union leaders say they have yet to see the promised economic benefits as a result of right-to-work laws. “Michigan has not been this great success story,” Amy Davis-Comstock of the SEIU in Michigan told ThinkProgress. “If businesses are doing so well, why do we have this huge budget deficit now? We don’t have new industries coming in. We don’t have employers vying for the unemployed workers we have here. We’ve been waiting to see what jobs have even been created, and a lot of them are in sectors like hospitality and retail, which are not living wage jobs, and usually have no benefits.”

But Forbes contributor Mark Hendrickson says protests about right-to-work laws are only coming from union leaders, “whose lucrative monopoly privileges are being revoked,” and Democratic politicians, “who have long benefited from the massive flow of forced-union dues into their campaign coffers.”

Union influence on a steady decline

Business leaders and academics in Michigan admit not much has changed, though they acknowledge that the influence of organized labor in the state had already been in a steady decline over the past five decades. Patrick Anderson, CEO of Anderson economic group, told Michigan Radio the law ultimately sends a message “that Michigan has become a much friendlier state for employers.” But Charles Ballard, an economics professor at Michigan State University, said there has not been evidence that “the passage of the right-to-work law has led to an increase in job creation within the state.” This is because, right-to-work was not a sudden shift, but “merely a ratification of what had been going on for a long time.”

Perhaps that is why, last year, the CTA distributed a memo highlighting plans to prepare for a future where union dues were no longer compulsory.

According to California Policy Center, California’s public sector unions collect and spend more than $1.1 billion per year, with at least $250 million of those funds going straight to political expenditures including, lobbying, campaign contributions and independent expenditures. If current law is overturned, and California union membership and revenue follow trends in other right-to-work states, union influence in Sacramento would be greatly diminished.

According to CIR, the briefing and oral argument for the Friedrichs case will be scheduled for the fall of 2015, with a decision likely delivered by June 2016.

CAFNR / flickr

Legislators seek to establish a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which would be funded by the cap and trade program adopted by the California Air Resources Board under AB32, and appropriate those dollars to the California Energy Commission to subsidize biomass power generation in the state.

Assembly Bill 590, authored by Assemblymembers Brian Dahle, R-Bieber, and Rudy Salas, D-Bakersfield, passed the Assembly unanimously last month with bipartisan support. The bill aims to add incentives so that agriculture and forest waste can be used to create energy through biomass facilities.

“Biomass” describes multiple sources of fuel, such as trees, waste from construction, wood and agriculture (corn husks, rice hulls, peanut shells, etc.), fuel crops and even sewage sludge and manure. According to the EPA, since biomass deals with energy sources that would otherwise be considered waste, but will “continue to be produced by society,” it is considered a renewable resource.

California is home to some 132 biomass facilities with a total gross capacity of 985 MW. The California Energy Commission reported that, in 2014, “6,572 gigawatt hours of electricity in homes and businesses was produced from biomass” – that translates to 3.33 percent of the total electricity production in California.

In addition to energy conversion, biomass production helps prevent wildfires by removing forest waste and disposing it in a controlled facility.

During a Senate committee hearing on Wednesday, Assemblyman Dahle pointed to “catastrophic wildfires” that are “burning up and destroying our watersheds, our wildlife and emitting carbon.” Decayed forests also emit methane, another greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change.

But biomass plants are struggling to stay operative in California. The bill, according to Dahle, “sets a policy in place that biomass is very important to California and the energy industry” and brings state funding to help offset facility and treatment costs. He emphasized that AB590 is not about “opening up new plants” but “trying to keep the ones that we have available, running.”

Julie Malinowski-Ball, a spokeswoman for the California Biomass Energy Alliance, a sponsor of the bill, said it was vital to “ensure these facilities can operate long into the future.” She warned that without the biomass power, Californians “will see an increase in air quality degradation across the areas where these facilities are located.”

Sierra County Supervisor Lee Adams said during the hearing, “Not only is biomass energy a clean form of energy to reduce greenhouse gas, it’s also vital to the completion of forest management projects in California. …Without someone to address the biomass issue, forest management projects cannot move forward.”

Under current law, biomass is not subsidized like other forms of renewable energy. According to the bill’s supporters, the cost of removing woody material from the forest is often too expensive to keep up with the fuel treatment needed, and results in contributing to the recent influx of catastrophic wildfires. Biomass processing is also needed to dispose of uprooted almond and orange trees, often the target of blame in California’s record-setting drought.

But opponents allege that biomass incineration generally “increases rather than decreases GHG emissions when looked at from a life cycle approach.” Ingrid Bostrum, an attorney with the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, said during the hearing, “Using GHG reduction funds is especially inappropriate here,” based on the belief that the biomass industry “actually generally increases GHG emissions.

She also brought up the point that biomass incineration also increases the emissions of copollutants, particulate matter and smog, and exacerbates asthma and other ailments. “Many biomass facilities are located in the Central Valley,” she noted, “which is already incredibly over burdened with its air quality problems, high rates of asthma and high rates of vulnerable populations.”

Further opposition said that the “state should not subsidizing financially unsustainable industries, especially ones that are already receiving federal subsidies.”

But Assemblyman Salas pointed out that without biomass facilities, agricultural waste “would otherwise be burned in an open field that would cause more pollutants” would have a greater “detrimental effect on public health.”

“This is a measure that would help offset some of those air pollution risks, diverting waste to create renewable energy, which is what the state/Leg wants to incentivize,” he stated during the hearing.

Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego, the chair of the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications, said after public comment that without these facilities, Central Valley residents “would drive around and witness open fires and billowing smoke.” He said it was “unfortunate,” but incineration “goes hand-in-hand with agricultural development.”

In order to appease opposition concerns, an amendment was proposed to award funds only to specific projects that demonstrate a net reduction in greenhouse gases.

AB590 passed the committee unopposed and has since been referred to the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality.

David Prasad / flickr

Last week, House Republicans introduced legislation to revise water policies in California and the rest of the West Coast, improving water reliability and making environmental laws more flexible.

H.R. 2898, authored by California Congressman David Valadao, is backed by the entire California Republican delegation. Titled the “Western Water and American Food Security Act of 2015,” the bill, according to Rep. Valadao’s website, “aims to make more water available to families, farmers, and communities in California and bordering Western states.” The legislation also makes it easier for federal regulators to authorize projects that will increase water capture during periods of greater precipitation, and begin projects that have already been authorized for more than a decade.

“California’s drought has devastated communities throughout the Central Valley and now the consequences are extending throughout the country. Inaction will result in the collapse of our domestic food supply,” Rep. Valadao said in a prepared statement. “Congress cannot make it rain but we can enact policies that expand our water infrastructure, allow for more water conveyance, and utilize legitimate science to ensure a reliable water supply for farmers and families.”

Water agencies throughout the Central Valley also voiced their support for H.R. 2898. Michael Stearns, chairman at the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority, said he was “heartened by the introduction” of the bill, as it would “provide much needed relief for the people, businesses, and communities” serviced by water agencies.

“Our people are desperate,” said Eric Borba, chair at the Friant Water Authority. “We need solutions that will provide real water for our area, and we need them now.” Many of the Central Valley water agencies considered the bill to be a vital first step in finding solutions and enacting legislation to aid impacted communities in California.

Despite widespread support for the bill, House Republicans are still expecting much backlash from both the Senate and Obama Administration.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in a release that, for years, he had offered and supported many solutions that passed the House but were not enacted into law. “This action is unacceptable,” he said, and deemed it imperative to sign into law a water bill “that rebalances the priorities between fish and people and delivers water that our communities have contracted and paid for.”

Text in the bill authorizes “operational flexibility in times of drought” as well as “flexibility for export/inflow ratio.” The legislation also includes mandates for “new science” to be used in the management of endangered fish, such as the Delta smelt.

But these very allocations are drawing resistance from House Democrats and their Senate colleagues. San Rafael Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman summed up the proposal as a “blame the fish” initiative backed by agri-business. According to the Press Democrat, H.R. 2898 would weaken environmental protection by diverting more water from the Delta into Central Valley aqueducts and scrap restoration plans for the San Joaquin River.

Rep. Huffman has drafted an alternative to Valadao’s legislation, which includes $1.4 billion in emergency funding to deploy efficient irrigation technology, drill new wells and build new pipelines. The plan also allocated money for “water recycling, reclamation and storm water capture projects, cleanup of contaminated groundwater, watershed protection, efforts to limit evaporation from reservoirs and canals, a Justice Department crackdown on water theft for marijuana cultivation and an expanded X-prize to promote development of new desalination technologies.”

The proposal has not yet been introduced in the House. H.R. 2898 has since been referred to the committees on Natural Resources and Agriculture.

On Wednesday

Bill author Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, crafted this legislation due to a surge in smartphone theft in recent years, where such thefts account for one-third of all robberies in the county. According to data reported by San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón, “smartphone theft accounted for 60 percent of all robberies in San Francisco and up to 75 percent of all robberies in Oakland.” Los Angeles also “experienced a 26 percent increase in smartphone thefts since 2011.”

Gascón blamed the wireless industry for failing “to safeguard its products,” resulting in victimized consumers.

Both Gascón and Sen. Leno contended that the industry’s previously voluntary measures placed “too great a burden on individual consumers to take action,” whereas mandated adoption of anti-theft solutions could “undercut the black market” since potential thieves would know that most stolen phones could be “bricked” and thus “far less valuable.”

SB962 was opposed by the business community, particularly the high-tech industry. The San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce wrote in opposition that “private sector solutions should be sought whenever possible to address public concerns.” SB962, they said, has a well-intentioned goal to decrease theft and increase privacy, but “would not achieve that ultimate outcome.” The chamber also pointed to the fact that most smartphone operating systems developed in Silicon Valley, including Apple’s iOS and Microsoft’s Windows Phone, “already possess the capability to remotely lock, erase or disable … mobile devices.”

The Wireless Association, joined by smartphone manufacturers such as Motorola, Nokia and Huawei, as well as major carriers like AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon, also wrote a letter in opposition warning of “negative consequences to consumer security and public safety.” According to the letter, the risks posed by SB962 included:

• Impractical state laws: “State regulation will never keep pace with innovation in the wireless ecosystem. What state lawmakers mandate as a solution today may not be the solution consumers demand or need tomorrow.”
• Limiting consumer choice: “Any mandated technology standard will quickly become outdated in the fast-moving wireless application world. Requiring a particular technology is also counter to the policies that have made the wireless industry one of the most important and vibrant sectors of our economy.”
• Hacking drawbacks: “If consumers can turn mobile devices into ‘bricks,’ so can hackers. As the L.A. Times has suggested, any technology that is mandated widely across the nation may be at a greater risk of security breaches and attacks.”

The association also addressed specific steps the wireless industry has taken in working with the FCC and law enforcement to actively address the issue.

Sen. Leno said in a prepared statement that smartphone theft is “already on the decline as more new phones come equipped with kill switches.” The release highlighted a Consumer Reports study from June showing that, in 2014, 2.1 million Americans had their phones stolen, down from 3.1 million in 2013. This 30 percent decrease could be attributed to the passage of SB962, but also the natural progression of technology and the industry’s cooperation with the FCC to protect consumers.

Since the passage of the bill, smartphone manufacturers indicated most phones sold in the U.S. would meet the California standard for kill switches, rather than creating a California-specific phone.

On Monday

The premise of Michigan v. EPA was whether the agency could refuse to consider costs to business in its decision to regulate, based on the appropriateness and necessity after studying public health hazards as a result of power-plant emissions.

According to the EPA website, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards – “the first ever national limits on mercury and other toxic emissions from power plants” – would have required power plants to use “widely available, proven pollution control technologies to protect families from pollutants.” The EPA estimated MATS would prevent up to 14 premature deaths in California, “while creating up to $120 million in health benefits in 2016.”

Roughly 70 percent of California’s total electricity production comes from power plants located within the state, as well as outside the state but owned by California utilities. Most of our electricity is generated by natural gas and hydroelectric power stations, both of which produce negligible amounts of mercury compounds.

As written in the majority opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the actual quantifiable benefits of the new mercury standards, as initially estimated by the EPA, would only be $4 to $6 million per year throughout the U.S. Compared to the $9.6 billion per year costs that power plants would be forced to carry under the EPA’s regulations, the benefits of imposing such standards were questionable, and petitioners, including 32 states, brought the case to the court. “It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’” Scalia wrote, “to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.”

“When agencies come up with these costly and fickle regulations, they need to consider who will inevitably pay the bill,” Karen Harned said in a prepared statement; she’s the executive director at the Small Business Legal Center for the National Federation of Independent Business. “The EPA does not have the authority to implement hugely expensive new rules without performing the mandatory economic analyses.”

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., also criticized the EPA’s actions in a press release:

“The mere fact that the EPA wished to ignore the costs of its rules demonstrates how little the agency is concerned about the effects it has on the American people. From its ozone to greenhouse gas to navigable waters rules, the EPA continues to burden the public with more and more costs even as so many are still struggling to get by and improve their lives in this economy.”

The EPA later argued that the range Scalia cited was a low-ball estimate strictly for the mercury-related benefits, not the other ancillary benefits that would have come from reductions in other pollutants, such as particulate matter.

Despite these accusations that the EPA did not consider costs at all during the process of creating the regulation, Justice Kagan argues otherwise in her dissent.

Kagan wrote that the EPA did, in fact, take “costs into account at multiple stages and through multiple means as it set emissions limits for power plants.” Though the EPA declined to analyze costs at the onset of the regulatory process, since the agency “could not have measured costs at the process’s initial stage with any accuracy,” the EPA eventually conducted a cost-benefit study which found quantifiable benefits exceeding the costs up to nine times over – “as much as $80 billion each year.”

The Michigan ruling might also have greater implications on the Obama administration’s overall environmental agenda, which would have included the EPA’s first-ever regulations on greenhouse gases emitted by power plants – expected to roll out later this summer. Politico notes, “Monday’s decision indicates a court skeptical of EPA’s aggressive regulatory agenda, throwing into question how the court will react to the virtually unprecedented climate plan.”