Cal Chamber – CalWatchdog.com

Cal Chamber scorecard

Joel Fox — Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:52:23 +0000

The California Chamber of Commerce released its tally of legislators’ floor votes on 15 bills that the chamber determined were crucial to the business community. Checking the scorecard, a telltale story from the chamber’s perspective is not who was for or against the chamber all the time, but which Democrats took the business side of the argument much of the time.

Since Democrats have a grip on power in Sacramento, business interests are looking for ways to convince some members of the majority to side with them on major legislation.

The chamber was looking for legislators’ positions on private enterprise, fiscal responsibility and the business climate. The priority bills involved education, environmental regulation, health care costs, labor costs, legal costs and workers’ compensation.

Every member of the senate and assembly who voted with the chamber’s position 80-percent of the time or more were Republicans. Every member of the senate and assembly who voted against the chamber less than 40-percent of the time were Democrats. Even those in the assembly who voted with the chamber position 40 to 59-percent of the time were Democrats.

But the telling category listed those who sided with the chamber position 60 to 79-percent of the time. In the Senate there were three — all Democrats: Steve Glazer, Richard Roth, and Cathleen Galgiani.

The chamber listed nine members of the assembly who fell into that category, seven Democrats and two Republicans. The Democrats were Ken Cooley, Tom Daly, Jim Frazier, Henry Perea, Bill Dodd, Adam Gray, and Jacqui Irwin. Republicans Eric Linder and Marc Steinorth also were in this category.

The chamber’s effort to find sympathetic Democrats has borne fruit. Helped by the top-two primary, the chamber’s JobsPAC supported Democratic candidates who give business concerns a hearing.

This was dramatically on display with the result of the race for the special election in Senate District 7 last May. The chamber lined up behind Steve Glazer who won the seat over assembly member Susan Bonilla. Glazer ended up supporting the chamber position 77 percent of the time. Bonilla, in the Assembly, was tied for the lowest support of chamber positions at 16 percent.

For the chamber, the effort to gain support for business positions from Democratic candidates will continue right through next year’s election campaigns.

A full report on the bills and the legislators’ votes can be found here.

CalChamber plans another successful year of defeating “job killer” bills

John — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:58:47 +0000

Sacramento’s been taking care of business.

Last week, the California Chamber of Commerce, known simply as CalChamber, announced a preliminary draft of its “job killer” bills, an annual list of proposed legislation that will hurt the state’s business community and economic competitiveness.

This year’s list includes 16 bills that, the chamber says, will make it harder to do business in California by increasing labor costs, litigation costs, health care costs and taxes. Notably excluded from the chamber’s list is a $10 billion sales tax on services that is being proposed by State Senator Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys.

“Although we will be opposing a number of bills throughout this year, the ‘job killer’ list represents the worst of the worst,” said Allan Zaremberg, president and CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce. “These proposals will unnecessarily increase costs on California employers that will likely lead to a loss of jobs.”

“Job Killer” Bills: 93 percent defeated since 1997

Although organized labor and environmental groups provide major financial and grassroots support to legislative Democrats, they’ve largely been unsuccessful in passing bills branded “job killers” by CalChamber.

Since 1997, the not-for-profit business advocacy group has identified 631 bills as “job killers,” of which only 46 have made their way into becoming state law. That’s a 93 percent success rate for the organization that represents 13,000 members, including Fortune 500 companies such as Microsoft and Walt Disney.

The chamber’s success has remained constant under both Republican and Democratic governors. During the past decade, 357 bills have been dubbed job killers with just 14 becoming law. It’s also scored major legislative victories while Democrats maintained a super-majority in both houses of the legislature.

Gov. Jerry Brown delivers for CalChamber

And the chamber’s best years have come with Jerry Brown in the governor’s mansion.

“Over the past four years, the Chamber has marked 129 bills as job killers. Only 8 of these measures have been signed into law,” points out Joel Fox, publisher of Fox and Hounds Daily, the state’s leading business blog.

Fox also credits the chamber’s success at defeating “job killer” bills with the state’s improving economic climate. California’s unemployment rate has dropped from 8 percent in February 2014 to 6.7 percent in February 2015. According to the state’s Employment Development Department, California added nearly a half-million jobs, a year-over-year increase of 3.1 percent.

Although California’s unemployment rate is higher than the national average of 5.5 percent, the state has been the country’s most improved economy. In February, the Golden State added 29,400 jobs, the nation’s best over-the-month increase, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“If many of the defeated bills passed,” Fox asks, “would California’s job creation number be so strong?”

“Part of the credit for this success goes to the California Chamber of Commerce’s effort to rally against bills that would hinder job creation and hurt the economy,” he said.

So, what’s included in this year’s list of “job killer” bills?

2015 “Job Killer” Bills

AB357 (David Chiu, D-San Francisco): Requires retailers and restaurants to give employees at least two-weeks’ notice for their work schedule.

SB3 (Mark Leno, D-San Francisco): Increases the minimum wage by $3.00 over the next two and a half years and imposes future automatic increases tied to inflation.

SB406 (Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara): Eliminates the small business exemption from the state’s family and medical leave law.

SB350 (Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles): Forces the state by 2030 to reduce petroleum use by 50 percent, increase the current Renewable Portfolio Standard to 50 percent and increase energy efficiency in buildings by 50 percent.

SB684 (Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley): Raises taxes on publicly-held corporations and financial institutions.

ACA 4 (Jim Frazier, D-Oakley): Lowers the vote threshold from two-thirds to 55 percent for new local tax measures.

SCA 5 (Hancock): Lowers the vote threshold from two-thirds to 55 percent for new local tax measures.

AB356 (Das Williams, D-Santa Barbara): Imposes new regulations and water monitoring restrictions on oil and gas drilling projects.

AB1490 (Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood): Imposes a de facto ban on oil fracking and oil well stimulation activities by halting any activity after a nearby earthquake of a magnitude 2.0 or higher.

SB32 (Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills): Raises California’s greenhouse gas emissions limits to 80 percent below the 1990 level by 2050 and gives the State Air Resources Board authority to set interim standards for 2030 and 2040.

SB546 (Leno): Requires health insurance companies to comply with new regulations before increasing their premiums.

AB359 (Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego): Bans grocery stores from laying off workers during a transfer in store ownership.

SB576 (Leno): Prevents mobile applications from collecting or sharing a user’s location data without consent.

AB244 (Susan Talamantes Eggman, D-Stockton): Makes changes to the state’s foreclosure rules with respect to successor in interest.

AB465 (Roger Hernández, D-Baldwin Park): Prevents workers and employers from reaching agreements that include any waiver of labor protections as a condition of employment.

SB203 (Bill Monning, D-Carmel): Singles out sodas and some sugar-added drinks for health warning labels, but excludes other unhealthy beverages.

Secrecy pollutes first CA cap and trade auction

CalWatchdog Staff — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:05:11 +0000

Nov. 20 2012

By Katy Grimes

Ignoring a lawsuit filed by the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Air Resources Board went ahead with its first auction of greenhouse gas allowances last Wednesday, Nov. 14. The results of the auction were announced Monday.

Despite trying to sound as if the auction was a resounding success in a media conference call on Monday, it appears that CARB’s first auction lacked a little luster.

But the overshadowing issue was the secrecy in which the auction was conducted by the state agency, and its refusal to publish any information about the bidders or the amounts they purchased.

The big secret

Several emissions trading and auction processes have taken place in other parts of the country, and most disclose more auction information, including bidder information, to improve price discovery, technology innovation and other market features.

A 2009 lawsuit was filed against the New Jersey Environmental Protection Agency over its secrecy methods in carbon auctions in the Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Previous requests for the identity of bidders, the price of bids and quantity and type of allowances sold to successful bidders had not been disclosed.

Experts from the University of Virginia, Resources for the Future and the California Institute of Technology were hired to assist in designing the Northeast regional greenhouse gas program, RGGI. They were concerned with avoiding collusion and recommended the identity of winning bidders be revealed, along with the market clearing price in the auction, the New Jersey Watchdog reported. The New Jersey Watchdog filed a Freedom of Information Act request, and the lead reporter was the plaintiff in the case.

The California Air Resources Board has ignored requests for transparency, and instead went ahead with the closed auction. “It was designed to withstand legal challenges,” CARB Chairwoman Mary Nichols said.

The big sale

The Air Resources Board offered 23.1 million carbon allowances for 2013 trading, and 39.5 million for trading in 2015. Each credit or permit purchased allows the release of one metric ton of carbon. But the carbon credits only sold for nine cents above the reserve price of $10 per share, and far below the market price.

During the conference call, Nichols said the auction wasn’t about raising revenue, but about the cap. “Our goal is to reduce carbon at a reasonable price,” Nichols added.

According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, “Permits for the first compliance period were expected to clear between $12 and $15 a ton” in the auction..

According to CARB:

* Total 2013 Allowances Available for Sale: 23,126,110;

* Total 2013 Allowances Sold at Auction: 23,126,110;

* Auction Reserve Price: $10.00

* Settlement Price Per Allowance: $10.09

Of the 39,450,000 allowances for sale for 2015, only 5,576,000 sold.

The big lie

“Without a large reduction in the carbon dioxide emissions from both China and India—not just a commitment but an actual reduction—there will be nothing climatologically gained from any restrictions on U.S. emissions, regardless whether they come about from the Waxman-Markey bill [in the U.S. Congress] (or other cap-and-trade proposals), from a direct carbon tax, or through some EPA regulationsm,” a new research paper by Chip Knappenberger found. “This is something that should be common knowledge. But it is kept carefully guarded.”

Zero carbon emissions from the United States will have no impact on future temperatures, which also applies equally to CARB’s cap and trade, and AB 32.

Cash for carbon

Instead of reducing carbon emissions, a business can merely purchase get-out-of-jail credits.

This flies in the face of AB 32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, the 2006 legislation signed into law to supposedly lower the state’s carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The state will accomplish this by “capping” the carbon emissions of oil refineries, utilities and power generators, and other manufacturing and industrial businesses. The amount of carbon emissions capped will decline each year.

The targeted industries must purchase carbon permits to cover their emissions over the cap. Companies which lower carbon emissions below their cap can sell extra allowances to other businesses.

Is cap and trade illegal?

The California Chamber of Commerce filed suit Nov. 13 against CARB to “invalidate California’s cap and trade auction, arguing that the California Air Resources Board exceeded the authority granted to it under AB 32 in establishing the revenue raising program.”

The Cal Chamber called the carbon allowances “an unconstitutional fee,” and accused the Legislature of creating a tax out of “thin air.”

AB 32 originally only granted authority to CARB to enforce fees to recover its regulatory and administrative costs.

Part of the reason CARB was in such a hurry to get the first auction off the ground is for money. The cap and trade program won’t actually start enforcing emissions reductions until 2015.

But the Legislative Analyst’s Office projected that CARB will collect nearly $3 billion in 2013. “For 2012-13, CARB’s auctions are estimated to generate roughly $660 million to upwards of $3 billion,” the LAO reported. “The Governor’s budget for 2012–13 assumes that the state will receive $1 billion from such auctions.”

The state effectively said: Forget carbon emissions, we need the money. This was a short-term, immediate need, and financially motivated.

Black velvet

A friend made an analogy of the state’s cap and trade program and Thursday’s auction with hideous black velvet paintings. “It’s like CARB has said that everyone must purchase a black velvet painting and hang it above their fireplaces. The businesses which participated in the auction are not willing buyers.”