Democratic lawmakers are harshly criticizing the Trump administration’s attempt to defy the intent of a new state law banning privately run prisons and detention centers.

On Oct. 11, when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 32, liberal activists rejoiced. Private prisons are considered far more likely to be inhumane and generally use non-union workers. Private detention centers holding unauthorized immigrants are seen as a symbol of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the federal agency that has become a target for the left since President Donald Trump’s election.

But while the law takes effect Jan. 1, it allows existing contracts to be honored. Five days after Newsom’s signing of AB32, ICE put out a solicitation on the Federal Business Opportunities website for contractors to run detention centers in the general areas of Northern California, Los Angeles and San Diego that had a total of 5,000 beds.

A month later, California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris and 19 fellow Democrats in the Golden State’s House of Representatives delegation are crying foul. They say ICE is flouting normal procedures in an attempt to ensure three existing facilities keep operating.

“Given the timing and terms of this solicitation – particularly in light of ICE’s history of suspect contract activities and insufficient oversight – we are understandably concerned that the solicitation is intended to favor incumbent contractors,” the 21 Democrats wrote in a letter to several federal agencies. “If so, these efforts would be in direct contradiction with the spirit of full and open competition required by federal procurement law.”

The solicitation asked for interested parties to respond within two weeks instead of the usual 30 days. It also specified that bidders had to have “turnkey ready” facilities with specific ranges of available beds. The contracts are for five years, with the option for two five-year extensions.

Democrats say bidding process is rigged

Democrats said this ensured that the only applicants would be the three companies that are already running federal immigration detention centers in California: GEO Group, which has centers in Adelanto in the Inland Empire and Bakersfield; CoreCivic, which runs a center in San Diego; and the Management and Training Corp., which has one in Calexico in Imperial County, east of San Diego.

ICE signed a $62 million contract with GEO for the Adelanto facility in March in which GEO was the only bidder. Democrats didn’t object to the contract at the time but now say it also was awarded in a way that violated the spirit of federal procurement laws by essentially ensuring only one company had a chance to win.

But an ICE official told the Palm Springs Desert Sun that the agency “remains compliant with federal contract and acquisitions regulations, as we advertise opportunity notices and subsequently implement the decision process.”

AB32’s author – Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland – blasted ICE in comments to the Desert Sun, saying the agency was attempting to “circumvent the will of the people of California.”

ICE’s parent agency – the Department of Homeland Security – has a history of claiming more flexibility under federal rules than its critics say it has. The same goes for the Trump administration, most notably in its use of $6.1 billion in defense funding to build sections of a border wall without congressional authorization.

In their letter to DHS and other agencies, the California Democratic lawmakers asked for information on how ICE crafted its solicitation for detention center bids.

Their chances of getting a quick response are unclear. ICE has long faced criticism over its handling of public record requests, which it is supposed to respond to in 20 days or less. The agency was sued earlier this month by the Project on Government Oversight for allegedly withholding information over how it used facial recognition and other technology in surveillance and data collection programs.

The California Legislature’s adoption of Senate Bill 100 – committing the state to have an electricity grid powered by 100 percent renewable energy in 2045 – was billed by Sen. Kevin De León, D-Los Angeles, (pictured) as another landmark triumph for the environmental movement in the Golden State.

But the measure’s relatively narrow adoption in the Assembly – on a 44-33 vote – carries loud hints from Democrats who represent poor communities that they see environmental policies that add to the cost of living as increasingly problematic in the state with the nation’s highest level of poverty.

A Los Angeles Times interview with Assemblyman Adam Gray, D-Merced, hammered home this point:

“This is yet another in a laundry list of bills that are discriminatory to the people I represent,” Gray said. He was paraphrased as “saying that supporters were motivated to impress national progressives rather than poor residents in rural communities who would face higher electric bills as a result of the legislation.”

The Assembly Democrats who opposed SB100 besides Gray: Anna Caballero of Salinas, Jim Cooper of Elk Grove, Tom Daly of Anaheim, Jim Frazier of Oakley, Mike Gipson of south Los Angeles, Sharon Quirk-Silva of Fullerton, Blanca Rubio of the San Gabriel Valley and Rudy Salas of Bakersfield.

The issue of how poor people would be affected was very much part of the debate in the run-up to the 2006 adoption by the Legislature of the landmark anti-global warming Assembly Bill 32, which mandated the use of costlier but cleaner energy sources. As a result, a portion of cap-and-trade fees on pollution permits are designated to go to “disadvantaged” communities.

A 2017 report by the California Climate Investments state website said that $614 million in cap-and-trade fees had been spent on these communities, including helping nearly 30,000 homeowners with solar panels and other energy-efficient projects, as well as funding more than 2,600 affordable-housing units.

Energy costs contribute to state’s high poverty rate

But most of the 20 percent-plus of state residents who are impoverished get relatively little direct help in dealing with overall energy costs that aren’t just higher on average than any other state with a relatively temperate climate; they’re also higher than states with harsh winters like Montana and Colorado. And because of unique state rules and fees, gasoline costs more in California than any state but Hawaii.

California’s emergence as the nation’s most impoverished state only became evident in 2011, when the U.S. Census Bureau began issuing state-by-state poverty statistics that included the cost of living. This has helped create an appreciation in the Legislature of the need to add housing stock to try to slow the sharp increase in rent and home prices over the past quarter-century.

But a recent study by Chapman University’s Center for Demographics and Policy found that state energy policies were also a major contributor to high poverty rates.

The study faulted state agencies, starting with the California Air Resources Board, for their impact studies which have consistently minimized the effects of laws like AB32 on the less affluent.

“Notably absent [in the air board’s ‘scoping plan’ for AB32] is any discussion of how the state’s existing costs, let alone additional burdens, severely harm lower-income and historically disadvantaged communities and households,” the study noted.

Gov. Jerry Brown has so far declined direct comment on SB100, but most Capitol watchers expect him to sign the bill. The governor has called climate change the state’s and nation’s most pressing problem.

Environmentalists get big win

Good morning. Happy hump day. 

Speaking of getting over the hump, California environmentalists notched a major victory yesterday, as an extension and expansion of one of the state’s landmark environmental laws cleared the Assembly on Tuesday — all but guaranteeing the bill’s ultimate passage. 

Senate Bill 32 would require the Air Resources Board to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions in the state are reduced at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Essentially, the bill builds on its predecessor, AB32, which required the ARB to achieve 1990 levels by 2020. 

To achieve these goals, the measure would continue to give the ARB the authority to create and implement regulations with blanket legislative approval, which has been one of the main critiques of the current program.

CalWatchdog has more. 

And if we needed yet another reminder that we’re in an election year, more than a dozen members of the Assembly switched their votes from last year to support the measure, reports the Los Angeles Times.

In other news:

• “The cap-and-trade market had another bad day Tuesday, with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of unsold carbon credits left over following the latest state-run auction. … It was the second straight quarterly auction in which scores of carbon credits failed to attract buyers, although there was higher demand this time around,” The Sacramento Bee has more. 
• “For the second straight year, California lawmakers have failed to pass any major legislation regulating police body cameras after a bill that would have allowed families of fallen police officers to block the release of body camera footage showing the officers’ deaths stalled in a legislative committee Tuesday,” reports the Los Angeles Times.
• A San Jose legislator’s efforts to abandon Daylight Saving Time ended Tuesday when the state Senate rejected a measure that would have allowed California voters to end the twice-annual ritual at the ballot boxes,” reports The San Jose Mercury News.
• “If Californians legalize marijuana under Proposition 64 in November, legal cannabis sales in the state likely will climb by $1.6 billion within the first year of implementation, according to a report released Tuesday.” The Orange County Register has more.  

Assembly:

• In at 10 a.m.

Senate:

• In at 10 a.m.

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New followers: @AMJ_AlexJohnson

According to a Public Policy Institute of California poll released Wednesday, a majority of Californians support government efforts to improve the environment, despite possible rises in energy costs and ongoing debates about the legality and effectiveness of the state’s environmental policies.

The study, which surveyed around 1,700 California residents about various environmental concerns, found that the majority of Californians supported existing plans to combat global warming, and were willing to expand these laws, even if that means paying more for gasoline and electricity.

“We find strong support today for the state’s greenhouse gas emissions targets set 10 years ago,” PPIC president Mark Baldassare said. “The commitment to help reduce global warming includes a surprising willingness on the part of majorities of Californians to pay higher prices.”

Big dreams for a cleaner California

Sixty-nine percent of Californians approved of plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, as laid out in AB32, one of the state’s landmark environmental laws.

But government plans to reduce emissions have been met with mixed results. The cap-and-trade program, created by the Air Resources Board in response to AB32, places carbon emission limits on businesses and allows them to purchase credits for exceeding those limits. But at May’s quarterly auction, businesses purchased only 2 percent of the anticipated revenues.

The program faces legal challenges as well. A lawsuit by the California Chamber of Commerce claims the program is actually an illegal tax on businesses, requiring a two-thirds vote to become law.

Critics have complained about how the cap-and-trade revenue is spent – that the money doesn’t often fund projects that meet the required emission reduction goals. Assemblyman Adam Gray, D-Merced, said he is concerned about how the revenues are spent, calling the program “a feeding frenzy for a multitude of pet projects,” according to The Sacramento Bee.

And though there has been a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, some say the lower levels may reflect outside factors like business scale-backs during the Great Recession.

“The jury’s really out on whether we’ve seen a lot of reductions caused by cap-and-trade,” James Bushnell, an energy economist at UC Davis, told the Los Angeles Times. 

Despite varied expert opinions, 54 percent of respondents in the PPIC survey approve of the cap-and-trade program – after the surveyors gave a brief explanation to the 55 percent who had never heard of the program before.

Respondents also support a proposed new law that would ramp up AB32’s plans to control emissions, which would exceed AB32’s reduction goals and extend the program to the year 2030.

And 58 percent of those surveyed believe local and state governments should devote more resources to other environmental issues, as well – electric cars, solar power and drought management.

A big paycheck for California residents

Californians know that reducing greenhouse gas emissions could raise energy costs – and they are ready to foot the bill.

The majority of respondents said they would be willing to pay more for gas (63 percent) and solar- or wind-generated electricity (56 percent). The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that gas prices would rise 11 cents as a result of the cap-and-trade program.

But this widespread support of energy reforms comes alongside equally widespread opposition by those who prioritize economic concerns over the environment.

How it’s playing in 2016

Alternative energy plans come with a cost – and according to Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown, the Inland Empire may not be able to afford it. In 2015, the San Bernardino Democrat opposed a petroleum-reduction provision of Senate Bill 350, another key piece of California’s environmental policy, citing concerns that potential rising energy costs could harm lower-income families.

However, some voters said Brown’s opposition amounted to a rejection of the entire clean energy campaign and retribution was swift. Protests, rallies and criticisms from other officials have threatened Brown’s re-election, while the campaign has become a proxy war between Big Oil and Big Environment. 

“Do you ever feel that something is not going quite right?” Brown asked the Los Angeles Times in March. “They are after me, and I still don’t know why. I don’t know who ‘they’ are. But I will find out soon.”

Concerns about the impracticality of California energy reforms are reflected in the PPIC survey, as well. The majority of respondents supported clean energy programs like electric cars and charging carports, with 68 percent in favor of tax credits for purchasing electric cars, and 77 percent supportive of infrastructure for charging the vehicles.

But less than half (47 percent) are actually considering purchasing an electric car themselves, suggesting that good intentions may not match up with environmentally conscious decisions.

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

As fast as California drivers will spend an extra $2 billion at the pump this year to fund the controversial cap-and-trade program, state lawmakers are finding ways to use it, according to two reports released Thursday.

Cap and trade was implemented by a state regulatory board to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as required by law.

One of several additional costs tacked on an estimated 11 cents to each gallon of gas and 13 cents per gallon of diesel, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, driving average prices to some of the highest in the nation.

“Most drivers have no idea that this is costing them $2 billion per year because it has been largely hidden from them,” said Asm. Tom Lackey, R-Palmdale. “It’s clear that we need to improve transparency for consumers about cap and trade’s costs.”

Where does the money go?

Cap-and-trade money is currently appropriated as follows: 40 percent is unallocated, 25 percent is for high-speed rail, 20 percent is for affordable housing and sustainable communities grants, 10 percent is for intercity rail capital projects and 5 percent is for low-carbon transit projects.

Waiting to spend the money are 36 pending proposals in the Legislature totaling $7.5 billion, which is more than double what was proposed in Gov. Jerry Brown’s draft budget, according to a study by the California Tax Foundation.

The most expensive proposal is SBX1 2, sponsored by Sen. Bob Huff, R-San Dimas. This bill would divert $1.9 billion annually to street and highway construction projects and block further cap-and-trade funds from going to high-speed rail.

In addition to barring further funds from going to high-speed rail (a recurring theme for Huff), the Huff bill is too vague to show whether it will reduce GHGs or not and may “leave itself open to litigation,” according to the legislative analysis.

Another bill, sponsored by Asm. Jimmy Gomez, D-Los Angeles, would fund nearly $1 billion worth of projects, including up to $100 million on new toilets. According to the report, many of the initiatives would likely reduce GHG emissions, while other parts of the bill might not.

Other bills include synchronizing traffic lights, implementing a car buyback program, promoting recycled glass and preventing forest fires. And while its unclear what effect most of the proposals would have on GHG emissions, the report was issued to help voters and legislators make that determination.

“This report identifies the auction revenue spending proposals that are active in the Legislature, so they can be given proper scrutiny,” California Tax Foundation Director Robert Gutierrez said in a statement.

Legality

Opponents of the program argue that by collecting revenue from drivers and businesses (those with large GHG emissions) it amounts to an illegal tax, which would have needed to be approved by a two-thirds legislative majority to be legal. A previous court ruling — which is now being challenged — found that the revenue is OK as a regulatory fee and thereby not subject to a two-third’s vote.

In 2006, the Legislature passed AB32, which tasked the state ARB to implement the GHG reduction. Proponents say this mandate gave the ARB the legal authority to auction off emission allowances (there’s a “cap” on emissions and business can “trade” them at auction).

In January, the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended lawmakers either narrowly tailor their proposals to unquestionably reduce GHGs or approve the program with a two-thirds majority to avoid legal complications.

Assembly Bill 464: Transaction and use taxes: maximum combined rate. Authored by Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, D-San Mateo, this bill would:

• Raise the local sales and use tax limit from 2 percent to 3 percent

Senate Bill 3: Minimum Wage: adjustment. Authored by state Senator Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, this bill would:

• Increase the minimum wage to $13 per hour by July 1, 2017
• Require annual increases beginning July 1, 2019

Senate Bill 32: California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: emissions limit. Authored by state Senator Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, this bill would:

• Extend the provisions of Assembly Bill 32 (2006) until 2050
• Increases the GHG (Green House Gas) reduction to 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050

Senate Bill 350: Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015. Authored by state Senator Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, this bill would implement Governor Brown’s green energy plan (50-50-50) by mandating:

• 50 percent of all energy must come from select renewable sources by 2030
• 50 percent reduction in oil usage by vehicles by 2030
• 50 percent more energy efficiency in buildings by 2030

In the matters of public relations and legislative maneuvering, Mary Nichols is a very smart woman. She has been the chairman of the California Air Resources Board (CARB, or sometimes just ARB) under both Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown.

She knows exactly how to get her way. This was exemplified more than a year ago.

Testifying before the state Assembly Natural Resources Committee, Nichols explained the necessity of AB 32, the sweeping and controversial cap-and-trade bill that would revolutionize California’s approach to greenhouse gas emissions.

“We are at a critical juncture in our history of energy development in California and the U.S.,” she told the committee on Dec. 8, 2009. “With or without climate policy, our economy will eventually rebound. However, we face a serious choice about that growth. We can choose to continue our dependency on increasingly scarce — and expensive — non-renewable resources. Or we can follow a new arc of economic growth, one that promotes clean energy and increased efficiency, diversification of transportation fuels and electrical energy sources — making our economy more resilient and our job market more robust. I hope we follow the latter path.”

By painting the need for cap-and-trade — a market-based approach to lessening greenhouse gas emissions by selling carbon credits to polluters — as a stark choice between cleaning the environment and letting everything go to hell, Nichols was showing her political genius. But she was also setting herself up for legal failure of a deliciously ironic sort.

Six months before Nichols appeared before the Natural Resources Committee, a coalition of environmental organizations sued CARB in San Francisco Superior Court. They alleged that the board had not properly considered other alternatives to cap-and-trade, which they insisted would result in dramatically increased pollution in “low income communities of color.”

See, in spite of CARB’s long insistence that environmentalists supported its cap-and-trade plans, there was a small but very determined group of activists who felt CARB’s plans were very, very bad. Not because they sided with Texas oil companies or dismissed climate change, but because they felt cap-and-trade didn’t go far enough to clean the environment.

They complained to CARB and told the board of their concerns. But when CARB went ahead anyway with cap-and-trade as though no one had uttered a complaint, the activists went to the courts.

What?! CARB acted in a high-handed, devil-may-care manner? Say it ain’t so!

Then again, CARB is the same agency that slapped a $150 million bail on a couple who were being prosecuted for selling engines that didn’t comply with state air pollution regulations. It’s also the agency that fined a motorcycle company $90,000 for mistakes made by the Department of Motor Vehicles. And it imposed a $30,000 fine on a company that failed to file a diesel emissions report.

Clearly, CARB has long enjoyed getting its own way. As the ultimate implementer of AB 32 — the law that brings forth cap-and-trade — CARB was to become one of the most powerful agencies in state history.

Well, not so fast.

Court Decision

Last week, Superior Court Judge Ernest Goldsmith agreed with the activists against CARB. “ARB seeks to create a fait accompli by premature establishment of a cap-and-trade program before alternatives can be exposed to public comment and properly evaluated by ARB itself,” Goldsmith ruled. He then ordered CARB to stop its plans to implement cap-and-trade until it studied alternative ways to cut greenhouse gases.

Plaintiffs in the suit were ecstatic. “Allowing the most entrenched polluters to increase pollution violates our environmental rights and is not the way to sop poisoning our air and slow catastrophic climate change,” Bill Gallegos, executive director of the Oakland-based Communities for a Better Environment, said in a March 21 statement. “ARB was dogmatic in its focus on cap-and-trade even though it is not effective in reducing greenhouse gases, increases pollution in heavily polluted low-income communities and communities of color, and misses the opportunity to create jobs in California. Now the ARB has a chance to do it right and consider real alternatives to pollution trading.”

As for CARB’s response to Goldsmith’s ruling, let’s just say it’s completely in character.

“We disagree with the court’s decision and intend to appeal,” said Stanley Young, CARB’s Director of Communications, in a statement. “The court did not rule in favor of any of the plaintiffs’ arguments against cap and trade. The record of the cap and trade rulemaking (not challenged in this case), including findings of the Health Impact Analysis, demonstrates that claims of environmental harm from a program of tradable allowances for greenhouse gases are unfounded.”

Of course, Young also wrote that last year CARB “completed a robust and comprehensive examination of alternatives to cap and trade with a 500 page environmental analysis.”

Anyone care to guess what the study found in regards to the feasibility of cap-and-trade?

–Anthony Pignataro

My prediction is that Prop. 23 will fail, something like 52-48. Its failure then will crash the economy. The next governor, either Brown or Whitman, then will suspend it for a year. But that won’t be good enough. As Whitman should know, businesses plan years ahead. They will plan to leave AB32ifornia.

Consider AB32 itself. Just try to read it. It’s 32 pages of legalese gibberish. Here’s the key section on suspending AB 32:

38599. (a) In the event of extraordinary circumstances, catastrophic events, or threat of significant economic harm, the Governor may adjust the applicable deadlines for individual regulations, or for the state in the aggregate, to the earliest feasible date after the deadline.

(b) The adjustment period may not exceed one year unless the Governor makes an additional adjustment pursuant to subdivision (a).

(c) Nothing in this section affects the powers and duties established in the California Emergency Services Act (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code).

(d) The Governor shall, within 10 days of invoking subdivision (a), provide written notification to the Legislature of the action undertaken.

So, can the governor suspend AB32 for more than one year? Who knows?

If you’re a business, especially a small one without high-powered environmental lawyers, such uncertainty is intolerable. So, to AB32ifornia it’s Hasta la vista, baby — to use one of the movie lines some screenwriter stuffed in Arnold’s mouth.

This time next year, California employment will be 15 percent or higher, worst in the nation. Whole industries, like the cement industry, will be leaving. It won’t just be “dirty energy” companies like Tesoro and Valoro calling for repeal. An initiative will be placed on the Feb. 7, 2012 primary, this time totally repealing AB 32, not just delaying it.

Meanwhile, the evidence against he “global warming” hoax will continue to mount.

Democrats, having lost the House and maybe the Senate in November 2012, will be panicking. They’ll be running away from the global-warming, AB 32 issue.

Big businesses, such as those Katy described, will still fund the campaign to keep AB 32. They want their subsidized profits, no matter how many real jobs are killed. Arnold will be long gone, skiing in Gstaad.

Meg Whitman, if she’s elected governor, will be eager to get the vice-presidential nod. So, unlike this time, she’ll back repealing AB 32 to appease conservatives around America.

On Feb. 7, 2012, voters will repeal AB 32.