Except for one bill sponsored by the Assembly Committee on Budget, every bill was Democrat-sponsored. The list is meant to sound “the alarm when a bill will hurt employers and the economy.”

The bills run the gamut from Assembly Bill 1761 –  which, inspired by #MeToo revelations, would require hotels to decline service to patrons who harass employees and issue panic buttons to employees working alone in guestrooms – and ACA22, which would add a 10 percent tax on net earnings of more than $1 million, with the revenue being funneled toward programs such as the earned income tax credit and health care.

While CalChamber is traditionally one of the biggest spenders when it comes to lobbying in Sacramento, spending $2.8 million lobbying last year alone, it figures to face an uphill battle. Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee passed Senate Bill 1284 (mandates publishing pay data for certain companies) and SB1300 (makes certain litigation easier) Friday, while the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee will considered AB2351 (increases personal income tax by 1 percent) Monday.

However, CalChamber will find more success with longshot bills, such as AB1745, which would ban sales of combustion engine vehicles in 2040. Similarly, AB1745, which would create a single-payer government health care system, has been in legislative purgatory since last year and is likely dead.

For a full list of “job killer bills,” see CalChamber’s website.

Millennials matter in elections

Happy Cinco de Mayo. It’s also Thursday.

Are California millennials a political bellwether?

“With Donald Trump riding high in statewide polls and Bernie Sanders committed to seeing through his youth-fueled campaign all the way to the convention, California has become a large and unlikely test case for how millennials might vote in the general election — both in terms of ideology and simple turnout.”

“Although anecdotal evidence has shaped a popular view of millennials as a dejected and politically disconnected generation, some data analysis has complicated that picture,” writes CalWatchdog.

In other news:

• It’s official: Starting June 9, you need to be at least 21 years old to smoke and vape in California. LA Weekly has more.
• The state Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday on Gov. Jerry Brown’s  sentencing-reform ballot initiative. The Los Angeles Times has more. 
• A new analysis of education statistics shows California ranking 45th in 2015 in  reading and math assessments for Grades 4 and 8. Less than 30 percent of California 4th and 8th graders were at or above proficient levels in math or reading. The San Jose Mercury News has more. 
• Progressive groups say CalChamber’s annual ‘job killer’ list killing good legislation and has too much influence over state lawmakers, reports the Los Angeles Times. Some of the groups complaining are SEIU, Planned Parenthood and Sierra Club. 

Assembly:

• In at 9 a.m. 

Senate: 

• In at 9 a.m.. Full day of budget hearings. 

Gov. Brown:

• No public events scheduled.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New followers: @clarklee @judibeecher

The annual “job-creator” and “job-killer” lists are out — 31 top priorities of the California Chamber of Commerce.

The pro-business group, which spent nearly $4.3 million in 2015 on lobbying in the Capitol, is primarily focused on reducing “meritless” litigation for job creation. And there are a range of bills spanning oil production barriers, increased labor costs and barriers to affordable housing considered “job killers.”

CalChamber announced the 13th “job-creator” bill on Monday, having introduced the other 12 earlier this month. SB 1228 would help small businesses comply with state-mandated regulations and give a little relief from fines for failure to comply.

“The growth of small businesses in California is a key component to maintaining a strong economy,” Jennifer Barrera, a policy advocate for CalChamber, wrote in a letter of support for the measure. “SB 1228 will help ensure such growth by providing small businesses with the tools and resources needed to comply with California’s regulations.”

Track record

CalChamber didn’t fare very well with its job-creator list in 2015, going 2-12 with one more bill still bouncing around the legislature. Three bills suffered death by veto.

The “job-killer” list has not gotten off to a good start. It was introduced late last month and already one of the bills, an increase in the minimum wage, has been signed into law.

The 2015 “job-killer” list fared much better, as only one of the bills was signed into law. The “job-killer” tag was removed from one bill, but CalChamber remained opposed.

Partisan divide

While all of the 2016 “job killers” are sponsored by Democrats, four “job creator” bills are sponsored by Democrats.

Secure Choice, if implemented, would require employers of five or more people to automatically enroll employees into portable retirement accounts, with an opt-out clause for the individual.

While everyone has the ability to go check-in-hand to invest in a retirement account at any time, proponents of the measure point to the fact that many are not. The theory behind the bill is that the approximately 7 million people in the state who don’t have employer-based retirement accounts need to be nudged into planning for the future.

The program would be administered by a nine-member California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Investment Board, which is chaired by the state treasurer.

On Monday, the board accepted recommendations based on a market analysis and feasibility study prepared by an outside vendor. The study was paid for with $1 million in private funds raised by Senate pro Tem Kevin de León of Los Angeles, the bill’s sponsor.

The study’s recommendations will be added to an amended version of the 2012 bill, which is to be heard in the Senate Public Employment and Retirement Committee by April 22.

Details

The plan is for the state to provide the opportunity for saving. There is no state contribution to the fund, so proponents say there is little to no risk to the state.

The state would incur administrative costs, but those would be covered by participant fees, according to Grant Boykin, deputy treasurer for retirement security and health care.

Businesses will not be required to offer financial advice about the plans, said Boykin. Instead, they will pass on information determined by the board and then set up payroll deductions.

“Education will be hugely important, but that will fall on the board,” Boykin said.

Behavioral economists contacted by de León advised that people are 15 times more likely to save once the account has been opened than if left to open an account on their own, according to Boykin.

De León conceded that there was an element of risk to the employees when investing in retirement funds, but he said that the types of investments would be relatively low-risk.

Opposition

When the initial measure passed in 2012, it was over the opposition of groups like Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which opposed on the grounds that the private sector was already performing this service, and business groups, like the California Chamber of Commerce, which opposed largely on concerns of the impact on employers.

Key findings of the study

• “About 6.8 million workers are potentially eligible for the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program.”
• “Likely participation rates (70-90 percent) are sufficiently high to enable the program to achieve broad coverage well above the minimum threshold for financial sustainability.”
• “Eligible participants in California are equally comfortable with a 3 percent or 5 percent contribution rate. The vast majority of likely participants are also comfortable with auto-escalation in 1 percent increments up to 10 percent.”
• “To start, the program should offer a default investment option consisting of a diversified portfolio with long-term growth potential and the choice to opt into a low-risk investment.”

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 4 would place on the ballot the question of whether taxes for transportation projects should be approved with just 55 percent of the vote instead of the current two-thirds approval requirement. An affirmative answer to that question would likely result in billions of dollars being transferred from California taxpayers to county transportation agencies in coming years.

Nineteen of California’s 58 counties – known as “self-help” counties – have passed the two-thirds threshold to tax themselves for transportation projects, costing their residents more than $3 billion annually. Many other counties have tried repeatedly to pass tax hikes, but failed to reach 66.67 percent approval.

“These self-help counties have consistently provided reliable and stable funding for transportation – funding that far outstrips state and federal funding on an annual basis,” said the bill’s author, Assemblyman Jim Frazier, D-Oakley, at the Assembly Transportation Committee hearing in April. “Despite the success of these self-help counties, a two-thirds voter approval threshold is a near impossible hurdle for other counties that are aspiring to be self-help counties. As a result, these counties are deprived of much-needed funding for transportation infrastructure, maintenance and operations.”

Frazier also argued that every billion dollars in transportation taxes produces 21,000 jobs. “ACA4 is a common sense measure that will help rebuild our roads while providing a significant economic benefit to our economy,” he said.

He was backed by county transportation officials who have been frustrated at not being able to raise taxes to provide what they consider much-needed improvements.

“We are the only county in the Bay Area that currently does not have its own transportation sales tax at the local level,” said Matt Robinson, representing the Solano Transportation Authority.  “We’ve been out three times to get one of these passed in our county. We’ve come really close. Twice we got more than 60 percent of voter approval in the county, one time as much as 64 percent. So we barely missed it.

“We are looking at going next go-around for a five-year measure. Hopefully, a scaled-back version of that will incentivize the voters in our county to come in. This bill will be a significant step in helping us achieve that goal. We have approximately a $744 million funding gap as projected in the latest Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment. This bill would help move us closer to finding a local solution to meeting our county’s transportation needs.”

The statewide funding shortfall is $78.3 billion over 10 years, according to the report.

Delaney Hunter, representing the Ventura County Transportation Commission, echoed Robinson.

“We have tried multiple times in Ventura County and can’t get close enough,” she said. “If you’ve been to Ventura, we have lots of needs, we don’t have the money. We are struggling in matching state funds and federal funds. We think it’s the fair question to ask voters: Is 55 [percent] the right number? If voters don’t think it’s the right number, we’ll keep trying it at two-thirds.”

David Wolfe, representing the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and speaking on behalf of the California Taxpayers Association and National Federation of Independent Business, is concerned about weakening Prop. 13’s two-thirds threshold for raising taxes.

“This does represent a direct attack on Proposition 13,” Wolfe said. “We are talking obviously about sales taxes. We are talking about personal taxes as well. As regards personal taxes, these are very regressive. These taxes are included on property tax bills separate from Prop. 13’s one percent cap. And explains why we are fourteenth in combined state and local per capita property taxes in California.

“But it also applies to [California] sales taxes, which are the highest in the nation. Some municipalities have rates at or near 10 percent in the state. And we just fear that, especially with the expansive list of projects listed here in ACA4, that taxes are going to increase by billions of dollars annually – again in a very regressive way.”

Jeremy Merz, representing the California Chamber of Commerce, began on a conciliatory note, commending Frazier for attempting to find funding mechanisms to improve state transportation.

“We understand how critical California’s transportation infrastructure is to the economy, both for moving goods and moving people, employees, students,” he said. “We understand that the current funding methods are insufficient at this time.

“Our issue with this particular constitutional amendment is that it contains few parameters of how it can be set up at the local level aside from where the funding must go. In particular we worry that it will allow for discriminatory taxes on certain industries, certain businesses, certain products for the purposes of political expediency. We think the two-thirds threshold serves as a bulwark against the majority taxing the minority.

“We respect the point about money for transportation creating projects and potentially jobs. We just don’t think those jobs should come at the expense of an industry or employer that would be a victim of a targeted tax and would have to lay off workers or not hire. We have acknowledged that taxes should be broad-based, such as a broad-based sales tax. If that were the case we would definitely reevaluate any constitutional amendment reducing the threshold. We just don’t think this particular mechanism is the way.”

Frazier responded by pointing out that his bill does not lower the approval threshold to 55 percent, but simply places a measure on the ballot asking voters to decide whether they want to do so.

“They still have the opportunity to turn this down,” he said. “But by telling people that they can’t have that right to be able to make a decision, we are treating them like children. And that shouldn’t be. This is an opportunity. As a transportation commissioner, I have seen the benefits in leveraging state dollars and bond dollars to [close] a [funding] gap that the state cannot fulfill.”

ACA4 is similar to Proposition 39, which was approved in 2000. It allows school facility bond measures to pass with 55 percent approval instead of two-thirds. After the proposition’s passage, three-quarters of school bond measures passed compared to about 60 percent previously, according to Ballotpedia. That resulted in a $2.3 billion increase in bonded indebtedness in California school districts in 2008 over what would have occurred had Prop. 39 not been in effect.

In the June 2014 election, only about half of the tax hike measures requiring two-thirds approval passed, according to a legislative analysis of the bill. But about two out of three measures with a 55 percent threshold for passage were approved.

ACA4 passed along party lines in the Assembly Transportation Committee in April and in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee on July 13. It will next be considered by the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Assembly Bill 357 affects California food and retail businesses with at least 10 stores and 500 employees that change or cancel a worker’s scheduled shift or require an employee to be “on call” to work. Those businesses must provide the following extra compensation for changed schedules:

• One hour of pay at the employee’s regular hourly rate if less than seven days’ notice but at least 24 hours’ notice is given to the employee.
• Two hours of pay for each shift of four hours or less if less than 24 hours’ notice is given.
• Four hours of pay for each shift of more than four hours if less than 24 hours’ notice is given.

When those businesses require an employee to be available to work but the employee is not called in to work, it must provide two hours of pay for a shift of four hours or less and four hours of pay for shifts of more than four hours.

In addition, AB357 prohibits these businesses from firing or discriminating against employees because they receive CalFresh food assistance or either receive CalWORKS cash aid or are a parent, guardian or grandparent of children who receive CalWORKs cash aid. The bill also allows employees to leave work for eight hours twice a year without pay to attend appointments at a county human services agency.

The Chamber of Commerce argues that the bill “dramatically increases the cost of doing business for a broadly defined ‘food and general retail establishment’ in California by exposing employers to significant penalties and litigation for accommodating employee and business scheduling demands, creating a new protected classification for employees, and a new leave of absence for employees.”

The Chamber has labeled it a job killer because it:

• “Creates significant penalties against employers for schedule changes, which will limit flexibility.
• “Discourages employers from offering additional work to part-time employees.
• “Creates new leave of absence for employees.
• “Creates a new, protected classification of employees.
• “Subjects employers to multiple threats of extensive litigation.”

CalChamber Policy Advocate Jennifer Barrera told the committee on April 22 that a similar ordinance is due to go into effect in San Francisco in July. “Why don’t we let that work out first in San Francisco before we impose this on a statewide mandate in California and to counties and cities that are not reflective of San Francisco?” she said.

Also speaking against the bill was Angie Manetti, representing the California Retailers’ Association.

“We believe this bill seeks to mandate a rigid, one-size-fits-all scheduling model for food and retail establishments,” she said. “Retail by nature is dynamic and highly competitive. As such, retailers are constantly undertaking the challenge of balancing the needs of employees, responding to customer demands, all while enhancing our customer experiences.

“AB357 fails to contemplate these unique needs. The bill instead creates a significant administrative burden for retail employers and doesn’t take into consideration the rapidly changing business environment of retail establishments.

“The reality is that retailers and employers need a predictive schedule in place just as much as our employees do. We do this to the best of our ability and provide as much flexibility that we can. Stores must consider, number one, employee scheduling requests. There’s also sales forecasts that are considered, store productivity, workload, in-store events, merchandise deliveries and customer traffic patterns. Additionally, at any given time those factors can change due to unexpected scenarios.”

Manetti agreed with Barrera that the state should wait to see how San Francisco’s scheduling regulations work out. But the bill’s author, Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, who also authored the San Francisco legislation, responded that there has been significant interest from legislators around the state in implementing it statewide.

“We are not talking about a job killer policy,” Chiu said. “In fact, we know the minimum wage, health care, sick leave – those were also called job killer policies. I would suggest there’s a lot about this policy that helps people to maintain and to take on second jobs or third jobs, to actually be job creating.

“Major employers like Costco, like Starbucks, like Wal-Mart … understand it’s good for business. When you are an employee and you have a predictability in scheduling, you are a more productive employee, you’re a happier employee, and you do better and you want to work hard.”

Chiu said there more than three million low-wage food and retail workers in California. Eighty percent of them have unstable schedules, he said, and 40 percent receive a week or less notice on their upcoming schedule.

A co-author of the bill, Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, said that one out of five California children live in poverty, and their mothers have to work two or three part-time jobs to make ends meet.

“We see [reliable scheduling] as being critical in how we reverse California poverty levels,” she said. “California has the highest poverty rate in the nation. They need security to say ‘this is when you work.’ It’s not unreasonable to ask employers to give some sense of predictability on how their schedule is going to be and how they manage their lives.”

Two grocery workers, one of whom has two college degrees, also testified in support of the bill. They said not having a predictable schedule makes it difficult to attend college on off days.

Unlike most so-called “job killer” bills, AB357 did not break down strictly along party lines. One Democrat, Assemblyman Evan Low, D-Campbell, voted against it. Although he agrees with Chiu that it’s not a job killer, he said he’s concerned that it will have an impact on businesses in his Silicon Valley district.

The committee approved the bill, 4-3. It will next be considered by the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Senate Bill 350 mandates that the state meet three clean-energy goals by 2030:

• Fifty percent reduction in gasoline and diesel fuel used in vehicles.
• Fifty percent of electricity generated from renewable resources (an increase from the current 33 percent mandate by 2020).
• Doubling of the energy efficiency of existing buildings.

The bill does not specify how those mandates will be achieved. It leaves the details and the authority to implement and enforce them to the California Air Resources Board, the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission.

Jobs created and economy boosted?

The bill’s author, Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, told the Senate Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee at an April 7 hearing that the legislation will “make sure California keeps leading and building the new economy of tomorrow. SB350 puts in place standards that will spur innovation and power and a sustainable future for the Golden State.

“Clean energy jobs are growing across California. Our state leads the nation in solar employment with nearly 55,000 solar jobs and counting. The world’s largest solar array is under construction right now in Antelope Valley down in Kern County. We are second only to Texas in wind energy capacity, and have the nation’s largest wind energy facility at the Alta Wind Energy Center at the Tehachapi Pass.

“We need to pursue policies that build on this economic growth by strengthening incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy technologies. These standards send a strong market signal to California businesses and leave no doubt the direction we are heading in. These policies will drive innovation here, bring investments here, bring jobs here and bring revenue here to this state of California.”

De León said that experience with implementation of AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, shows that increased energy regulation can help the economy.

“Skeptics said back in the day it would destroy our economy, it would slow down economic growth, that it was naïve and in fact unrealistic to set such targets,” he said. “Well, yet here we are today well on our way to meeting those targets with an economy that is stronger than ever.

“In just 10 years we’ve increased our electricity generation from renewable sources nearly 25 percent, put almost 150,000 electric vehicles on the road and reduced the smog-forming emissions of our cars and trucks by 90 percent. This is not just sound energy and climate policy, it is a smart economic policy.  Let’s continue to lead the world, colleagues. Let’s continue to take the bold action, despite the fear of failure.”

Steyer backs de Leon

De León was backed by Tom Steyer, an environmental activist who donated $2.5 million to the campaign that defeated Proposition 23 in 2010. That proposition sought to suspend AB32’s regulations until California’s unemployment rate dropped below 5.5 percent. Although the national unemployment rate has dipped to that level, California has lagged behind. The state’s rate was 6.8 percent in February.

Tom Steyer

“SB350 focuses on several of the most important and fossil-fuel-intensive areas of our economy: transportation, electricity generation and energy used in buildings,” Steyer told the committee. “By directly engaging with our biggest emission sources, we can get the best bang for our buck in reductions.

“For too long the oil companies that make billions in profits from California consumers have claimed that sustainability is not compatible with a strong economy. Far from being a job killer, California’s climate policy has put thousands of people into good-paying jobs. According to a recent report from Advanced Energy Economy, there were 430,000 clean energy jobs in California during 2014, a figure that’s projected to increase by 17 percent this year to 500,000 clean energy jobs.

“We have led the nation in solar capacity and electric vehicle sales. We have gained billions of dollars of investment in wind and solar power and created hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs. Energy efficiency upgrades have created hundreds of thousands more.

“We don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy. California, as the seventh largest economy in the world, can be more than part of the solution – we can lead. But to do so we have to be on a completely different cost curve. One that is inevitably going down, thanks to innovation research, rather than one that is driven inevitably up due to issues of scarcity around fossil fuels. SB350 is a critical step in this direction and a clean aspect of maintaining our global leadership.”

Steyer said that much of the $60 billion that Californians spent on gasoline and diesel fuel in 2014 can be replaced with low-carbon alternatives such as electricity, renewable natural gas and biofuels. Californians have purchased more than 100,000 electric vehicles, he said, and touted that 18 pumps in the Central Valley are selling renewable diesel fuel made from waste oil.

A win-win

He also discussed the requirement to double the energy efficiency of existing buildings. “The cheapest and most environmentally friendly way to cut energy costs is, of course, to use less energy,” said Steyer. “Our state’s commitment to energy efficiency has led to the third lowest per capita energy consumption rate in the nation. Electricity use per person in California has remained flat for 40 years, while consumption in the rest of the country has increased by 50 percent.”

Steyer is confident that the clean-energy goals will be a win-win for both the state’s environment and its economy.

“I have spent most of my life as an investor,” he said. “And I can say for certain that investors look for consistent long-term signals to know that their capital will yield returns. SB350 demonstrates our firm commitment to clean technology, and sends a clear signal to markets that long-term investment in sustainability will be rewarded. California can unlock the potential of our businesses by committing to long-term goals and by building a market that rewards innovation.

“In conclusion, I know these goals are challenging, but we have to do it. Overcoming these kinds of challenges is what leadership is all about. California is at a crossroads yet again. We can choose to continue moving forward and leading the world on creating a cleaner, more sustainable future for our children, or we can give up our leadership role. I’m confident that we will make the right choice.”

Business leaders see devastating economic impact

But business leaders are just as confident that the energy mandates will hurt the state’s economy. The Western States Petroleum Association is particularly concerned about the requirement to cut in half gasoline and diesel use by 2030.

“In the absence of available and affordable alternatives, we believe such a step would have a drastic and devastating impact on California’s economy, businesses, and families statewide,” said WSPA President Catherine Reheis-Boyd in a press release. “SB 350 would give the California Air Resources Board vast new authority to develop those mandates with providing clear policy or regulatory direction.”

The California Chamber of Commerce has dubbed the bill a “job killer.” It issued a statement urging legislators to oppose the legislation, saying that it sets an “arbitrary and unrealistic reduction of petroleum use, increase in the current Renewables Portfolio Standard and increase in building energy efficiency without regard to the impact on individuals, jobs and the economy.

“SB 350 provides a blank check delegation of authority to CARB, and in doing so, gives no consideration to the cost or job loss associated with this yet-to-be-determined regulation.

“Most of California’s businesses and families rely on petroleum for day-to-day transportation needs. SB350 could compromise the availability of transportation fuels. The California Energy Commission reported in its 2014 Integrated Energy Policy Report that 92 percent of all transportation fuels in California are made up of petroleum.

“Businesses rely on petroleum to transport goods and people, and it is unclear how the arbitrary goal in SB350 will be met. Will there be a 50 percent straight reduction in the production of petroleum in the state? Will we have to ration petroleum to achieve the 50 percent reduction? At what cost?

“In addition to the 50 percent reduction in petroleum use, SB350 seeks to increase the current Renewable Portfolio Standard from 33 percent to 50 percent as well as increase energy efficiency in buildings to 50 percent. Both these policies will significantly increase costs to ratepayers.

“California’s energy price per kilowatt hour is among the highest in the nation and the state’s energy efficiency standards are among the strongest. Mandating upgrades to meet increased energy efficiency standards while increasing the cost of energy will make California businesses less competitive.”

Legislators voice concerns

The three Republicans on the committee voted against the bill, which passed 8-3 with all of the Democrats supporting it.

Sen. Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres, said he’s concerned that California will actually have a surplus of energy, nearly 14,000 megawatts of over-generation, by 2024. He cited a recent op-ed coauthored by CPUC President Michael Picker that warned that “when there is more electricity being generated than places to store or export it, it must be turned off or it threatens reliability of the grid.”

Cannella, who said his district has a very high poverty rate, is also skeptical that the promise of electric vehicles will be fulfilled.

“Look, I would like to drive an electric car,” he said. “I can’t afford it; most of the people in my district can’t afford it. But regardless of that, I’m concerned about the ag industry, the trucking industry and rural communities that have to drive. And, really, I just don’t think electric vehicles will be sufficient for tractors or trucks. And so, setting a 50 percent reduction without excluding those industries, I think you’re going to create a lot of problems.”

Sen. Mike Morrell, R-Inland Empire, questioned Steyer’s optimism about the economic benefits of increased energy regulation.

“You made positive comments about creating jobs in the future,” said Morrell. “But we have the Chamber of Commerce, the Manufacturers Association, the National Federation of Independent Business, among many others who have had decades of a proven track record of creating jobs, millions of jobs. These organizations with millions employed under them, with proven decades of a track record, say this is a job killer.”

Green jobs vs. oil and gas jobs

Steyer responded that the clean-energy sector of the California economy is “growing at a very large clip… . This kind of policy is the kind of thing that will make that growth much faster and more important. We’ll be the first down the cost curve in this industry worldwide. And the rest of the world has to follow us. We will build gigantic business out of this. So I strongly believe this is good for California employment.”

Sen. Jean Fuller, R-Bakersfield, isn’t buying that argument. She said that one of the counties in her district produces most of the gas, oil, solar and wind energy in the state. “It’s been very hard for us to put ourselves in that position,” she said. “As you can imagine, that’s not an easy marriage among all of those groups. But we are very pleased with that.

“But the worry that I have is that as we ramp up one – the solar and wind – we gain a few jobs, but it’s mostly like one person per solar field. And you know how large solar fields are. And usually it’s a very low-level job; it really doesn’t require a lot of expertise. The oil and gas industry is very, very much more labor intensive. There’s a lot more jobs. They are much higher expertise. Most of our small families have been there for many, many years.

“And when we ramp down that industry, you really hurt our county. You really displace workers. And you really don’t leave us a way to replace that kind of infrastructure. So the inland area, who have willingly served as the energy production for the rest of the state, will be hurt massively. And I doubt that we will ever recover.”

Helping or hurting minorities?

One Democrat on the committee, Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, also expressed concern that the state’s poorest residents, particularly Hispanics, are not enjoying the benefits of the clean-energy economy.

“Because what we see, and what we have continued to see, is that the people that are making themselves rich out of these technologies don’t look like you and I,” Lara said to de León. “And don’t come from the economic experiences and backgrounds that we share. And so, if we want to make this as successful as possible, we have to ensure that everybody reaps the benefits. Not only in terms of job creation. Because you know us people of color, all we want is a job.

“But now it’s time for us to ensure that if we’re going to create this and mainstream this, that we not only get a job out of this, that we also get economic prosperity. And that the folks are going to be able to make money off this, it’s diversified and enjoyed throughout the entire economic strata of our state. And that we don’t continue to widen the gap between the rich and the poor.”

De León responded that minorities – or as he termed them, “individuals who look like California” – will be prime beneficiaries of the building retrofit jobs spawned by his bill. “I appreciate and understand your concerns,” he said. “I know as a person, as a legislator who represents the 24^th Senate District and as a pro tem and as a person of color, I know that I’m doing my part to proactively make sure that this is an inclusive economy.”

De León applauded the bill’s approval in a press release: “The committee was presented with a clear choice: help usher California into a new era of cleaner air and a cleaner economy or stay stuck in a poisonous fossil fuel economy. I’m grateful the committee made the right choice.”

SB350 will next be heard by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee later this month.

While surveys of business executives still rank California as one of the worst places to do business, the record on job creation has been bright in the Golden State over the last year.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported California led the nation over a 12-month period ending Jan. 31, creating 498,000 jobs. Part of the credit for this, according to the California Chamber of Commerce, is the Chamber’s annual effort to rally against bills that would hinder job creation and hurt the economy.

The effort is called the “job killer” campaign. It alerts legislators, the governor and citizens about bills that increase taxes and regulation on businesses, hindering jobs creation.

For example, from the current list, Assembly Bill 357 is by Assemblyman David Chiu of San Francisco. According to the bill, it’s needed because, “Unpredictable scheduling practices and last-minute work schedule changes cause workers who are already struggling with low wages to live in a constant state of insecurity about when they will work or how much they will earn on any given day.”

But according to the Chamber, among other things, AB357 “imposes an unfair, one-size fits all, two-week notice scheduling mandate on any entity that performs retail sales activity, and penalizes the employer with ‘additional pay’ for making changes to the schedule with less than two weeks notice.”

It is worth considering how the positive job creation news would have fared without the CalChamber’s annual job-killer campaign. Over the past four years, the Chamber marked 129 bills as job killers. Only 8 of these measures have been signed into law. If many of the defeated bills passed, would California’s job-creation number be so strong?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, California created 100,000 more jobs than the runner-up job creator, Texas, to which California is often compared as an economic rival. However, as Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters pointed out, the job gain in Texas was a 3.5 percent increase. In more populous California, the job increase represents a 3.2 percent gain. “A tie,” Walters declared.

High unemployment

California’s unemployment at 6.7 percent is still one of the highest in the nation. The national rate is 5.5 percent. More jobs are needed to help get many Californians out of poverty, with California leading the nation in that category.

Job creation in California has been uneven. Twenty counties still have double-digit unemployment, while the hot job creation Bay Area counties have unemployment as low as 4 percent.

The Chamber’s goal is to keep business costs low to improve the economy statewide.

“Jobs in California’s high tech and health care sectors and along the coast are fueling our economy and this is good news, however, when one third of Californians are on Medi-Cal we need to enhance our efforts to improve the overall job picture,” said California Chamber of Commerce president Allan Zaremberg.

Critics contend the bills are needed to help the work environment. Steve Smith, a spokesman for the California Labor Federation, charged of CalChamber’s 2014 list, “By placing measures to give workers earned sick days and combat wage theft on their hit list, the Chamber, once again, has shown how tone-deaf it is to the needs of most California families.”

Katy Grimes: Hear Ye! Hear Ye! The California Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit today to halt and “invalidate” the California Air Resources Board’s cap and trade auction scheduled for tomorrow.

The Chamber is arguing that the California Air Resources Board has exceeded its authority, granted under AB 32, in establishing the revenue raising program. AB 32,  California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, was passed in 2006, and mandates that California reduce its carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

The state carbon emission levels are already reduced to 1992 levels, according to several environmental experts. But the CARB forges ahead anyway…

The complaint, filed in Sacramento Superior Court today, asserts that AB 32 does not authorize CARB to impose fees other than those needed to cover ordinary administrative costs of implementing a state emissions regulatory program, the Chamber reported on it’s website. “What was not authorized by AB 32 is the Board’s decision to withhold for itself a percentage of the annual statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions allowances and to auction them off to the highest bidders, thus raising from taxpayers up to $70 billion or more of revenue for the state to use,” according to the complaint.

The complaint seeks “to enjoin, and declare invalid, regulations adopted by the California Air Resources Board (alternatively “Board” or “ARB”), purportedly pursuant to Assembly Bill 32, Statutes 2006, chapter 488 (“AB 32”), that permit the Board to allocate to itself greenhouse gas emission allowances that would otherwise be allocable to private and public emitters and sell the allowances through an auction process or reserve sales to the highest bidder for the purpose of raising state revenues.”

In other words, the state is interfering with the free market, and planning on taxing businesses for something they could and should manage between themselves.

“The auction is not a “fee schedule” authorized by AB 32 nor are the auction’s revenues designated for the purpose of regulating GHG emissions,” the complaint says. “Nothing in AB 32, nor its legislative history, confers on the ARB the authority to allocate to itself emission allowances and become an active participant in the cap and trade program for the purpose of generating revenues to the state of up to $7o+ billion over the period 20 13-2020.”

Things will be getting very interesting.